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

Old January 23rd, 2011 #41
procopius
Senior Member
 
procopius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,611
procopius
Default

[quote=Fred Streed;1227742][quote=procopius;1227688] 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.
Quote:

If one accepts the concept of evolution as probable then one must also accept that it didn't stop with the creation of modern man. That is why it is wrong to think of modern man as "perfection". Not to mention the evidence that modern man is actively devolving. The xtian tendency to believe we are unchanging leads them to feel they have no responsibility for the future. Their stated concern is with an afterlife. Pagans at least seemed to focus their efforts in this world, which is after all the only one we can ever know as long as we are alive.






Western man undoubtedly has historically seen himself as an end, and he tends to create gods as a reflection of himself, with that I have no disagreement. But that does not make that view correct. If scientific thought of the last couple centuries means anything at all, it means that we must understand evolution is an ongoing process. Things change, including us.

That is not vaguely evolutionary/Darwinist. It is bluntly and plainly evolutionist and Darwinian. And Buddhist Theory, whatever that is, has nothing to do with it.
I'm confused are you an atheist or a Pagan?

You seem to believe in evolution as an atheist does to explain the "Creation" of man. The Norse Pagans did not believe that, they believed that their Gods created them. I don't want to get into a discussion on evolution, I'm just pointing that out.
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #42
Fred Streed
Holy Order of Cosmonauts
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,050
Fred Streed
Default

Quote:
So, it is your belief that Pagan beliefs are "scientifically" based then? Are you really trying to argue that?
No, that is not my belief. What we know as science was not practiced then, or only in a very rudimentary fashion. For one thing we don't know a hell of a lot about Pagan religious beliefs beyond their mythology, which isn't necessarily the same thing. It IS my belief that some of the underlying principles expressed in Pagan mythology, their portrayal of their gods as fickle and not motivated by artificial moralities, for example, is much more in accord with reality than most of the non-sense expressed in xtianity. The world is a fickle place. Pagan mythology reflects that. That is not the same as saying it is based on science.

Quote:
Alex Linder made the accusation that Jesus tolerated Evil and therefore Christians tolerate Evil. Then he stated that the Norse Gods fought Evil unlike Jesus, and that Thor "slaughtered the enemies of his people."

Then he asked the following question...

"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 simply pointed out that the Norse Gods will fail to defeat Evil and that the Norse Gods know that they cannot win. (is this a good ethos?)
The Pagan mythologies reflect the fact that evil will ALWAYS exist and the only way to deal with it is to actively fight it. That is a far healthier approach than the turn the other cheek, it is in God's hands xtian approach. It is also more realistic. Evil cannot be eradicated. It is ongoing. And hard to even define. A hungry lion on the edge of starvation kills and eats a nigger. Is that evil? The coon would certainly think so. For the lion it was a fortunate occurrence, although he would undoubtedly prefer prey with a less offensive odor.

Quote:
Then you chimed in with an argument that Norse mythology is scientifically based or something like that. Which had nothing to do with what I was talking about. No scientist in their right mind would argue that the Norse Myths are based on "reality" or that the Norse people had a good understanding of how the universe worked. It makes no sense to me why you would take such a position.
"Or something like that"...

Ah yes, beat on that ol' stawman.

Well, certainly no scientist in their right mind would ever argue that any of the utter non-sense espoused by xtianity in any way reflects reality. I don't know what they would say about the various Pagan mythologies, that wasn't my argument. "I" said that Pagan mythology more closely reflects reality than the Christ-insanity. You brought up the bit about Yggdrasil and I simply pointed out that the death of the World Tree itself during end times is very similar to current scientific beliefs about the Universe itself. It takes a real Christ-insane twist to interpret that as scientists supporting Paganism.

Last edited by Fred Streed; January 23rd, 2011 at 09:52 PM.
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #43
Fred Streed
Holy Order of Cosmonauts
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,050
Fred Streed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by procopius View Post

I'm confused are you an atheist or a Pagan?

You seem to believe in evolution as an atheist does to explain the "Creation" of man. The Norse Pagans did not believe that, they believed that their Gods created them. I don't want to get into a discussion on evolution, I'm just pointing that out.
Yes you are confused. I am neither.

"Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste...

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game..."

Last edited by Fred Streed; January 24th, 2011 at 02:13 PM.
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #44
John Q. Ferguson
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by procopius View Post
Alex seems to be obsessed with this topic.
I think obsession is a little strong, but there certainly seems to be a desire on this forum to bitch-slap Christianity.

Part of the problem is that people are making outlandish claims that are, at best, historically imprecise, and at worst, total bullshit.

Just a few examples from Page One

Quote:
By the time the first Christian evangelists showed up in Greece, the Greek intellectuals already considered their tribal Gods to be myths. The Romans did the same.
Wrong. Greeks were no different than modern man. Some were devout believers, some not. In 300 A.D. (around when Christianity took hold) Greeks were still worshipping Zeus & Co. but had also added other gods.

That is the typical model. All religions (especially Christianity and Islam) begin with what is there and modify it. Almost everything in Christianity, for example, can be traced back to Persian/Hindu/Aryan? sun-worship.


Quote:
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.
Wrong. Christianity has been remarkably consistent in its core beliefs since the 4th Century. The formal mechanisms and rituals have changed - for example, Henry VIII changed Catholicism in England, the Protestant Reformation changed Catholicism in Germany and Europe, etc, but the only fog here is between the writer's ears.

What we are witnessing today is just another huge change in the mechanisms of Christianity - for example, activism, allowing faggot ministers, etc.


Quote:
culture by its very definition offers the very things you seek without the social engineering of ideologies. <snip> 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.
Wrong. I won't bore you with any one of the almost 200 definitions of culture, but you'll find that culture is ideology. This nonsense wouldn't survive five minutes in a freshman Cultural Anthropology class but it forms the basis for most of this writer's claims.


Quote:
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.
Wrong. Here is circular reasoning: Bad dogs bark. The fact that your dog is barking proves it. This writer simply doesn't want to concede a solid point - Christianity stopped Islam - so he babbles on about irrelevancies. This is called "deflection." (Well-known jew debate trick.) Here's another example of circular reasoning :

People who suffer a holocaust deserve a homeland. The fact that jews live in Israel proves it.


The bottom line is that this discussion rambles on like an overloaded garbage truck lurching down the street on three wheels. It goes nowhere and probably does little besides piss off WNs who also happen to be Christian.

Here's my question to the anti-Christians among you: SO WHAT?

I got that you don't like Christianity. So what is it you want to do about it? What do you propose to do with the millions of white Christians - many of whom are open to white nationalism?

That's where the discussion needs to be (imo).
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #45
John Q. Ferguson
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 312
Default

Quote:
I, for one, intend to do everything I can to drive a stake through Christianity's foul heart.
To be replaced by what? Your choices appear to be based on the following assumptions:


ASSUMPTION 1) "God" gives power to a monarch who is his agent on earth - such as either one of these characters:





Therefore: We must have an aristocracy.


ASSUMPTION 2) "God" gives his power to Man directly, such as stated here:

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Therefore: We must have a democracy or republic.


ASSUMPTION 3) Absolute humanism, which sets man at the summit of the cosmos: man is the supreme being. All power comes from man. Therefore: We must choose a man and develop a cult of personality around him.


ASSUMPTION 4) Absolute humanism, which sets man at the summit of the cosmos: man is the supreme being. All power comes from man. But, no one man can be trusted with absolute power because power corrupts (man is fallible). Therefore: Some group must exercise power.


You hate Christianity. I get that. So where do we go from here?
 
Old January 24th, 2011 #46
Armstrong
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,414
Default

These Christ hating anti Christian rants are unbecoming of a thinking person. They sound like something that would come from the mouth of a pharisee.

It truly makes me wonder about the whole 'movement', as it makes the movement seem a part of the whole Beast Anti Christ thing we're up against.

Yes, there are problems with the majority of the Christian Church now, but there are better ways of explaining it.

Here's someone who does a great job.

www.whtt.org
 
Old January 24th, 2011 #47
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Q. Ferguson View Post
I got that you don't like Christianity. So what is it you want to do about it? What do you propose to do with the millions of white Christians - many of whom are open to white nationalism?
This is what we do. We criticize Christianity just as we criticize all destructive jewish ideas. If that's a dealbreaker for the millions of white Christians who are supposedly open to white nationalism, it tells us something about their true motives.
 
Old January 24th, 2011 #48
John Q. Ferguson
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
This is what we do. We criticize Christianity just as we criticize all destructive jewish ideas. If that's a dealbreaker for the millions of white Christians who are supposedly open to white nationalism, it tells us something about their true motives.
< scratching my head >

So you can't be a Christian and a white nationalist simultaneously?

What are the rules? Can you like peanut butter and be a white nationalist? Or, can you drive a Honda and be a white nationalist? How about MMA - can you like MMA and be a white nationalist?

Maybe there should be a sign on the front of this forum: No dogs, jews, niggers or Christians welcome.

I don't mean this as a personal insult to you, Mr Parker, since I don't know you. But that level of ORTHODOXY is found in people like this:



I'm just not sure an anti-Christian bias is logical for white nationalism when Christianity has always been in the forefront of anti-Semitism. It seems we're just doing the hebe's job for him.

Wouldn't we be better off strategically if we recruited those Christians who are simultaneously white supremacists? There are plenty of them around. Not all Christians are created equally. I suspect that for every one who subscribes to the pussified, faggotized, socialized modern interpretation of scripture, there are three or more who don't see muds as the equal of the white man.
 
Old January 24th, 2011 #49
Fred Streed
Holy Order of Cosmonauts
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,050
Fred Streed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Q. Ferguson View Post
To be replaced by what? Your choices appear to be based on the following assumptions:


ASSUMPTION 1) "God" gives power to a monarch who is his agent on earth - such as either one of these characters:


Therefore: We must have an aristocracy.


ASSUMPTION 2) "God" gives his power to Man directly, such as stated here:



Therefore: We must have a democracy or republic.


ASSUMPTION 3) Absolute humanism, which sets man at the summit of the cosmos: man is the supreme being. All power comes from man. Therefore: We must choose a man and develop a cult of personality around him.


ASSUMPTION 4) Absolute humanism, which sets man at the summit of the cosmos: man is the supreme being. All power comes from man. But, no one man can be trusted with absolute power because power corrupts (man is fallible). Therefore: Some group must exercise power.


You hate Christianity. I get that. So where do we go from here?
John Q. that is a rather short list of possibilities. Christ-insanity seems to box in the thinking of it's adherents, seriously limiting their creative thinking ability.

How about we replace it, the christ insanity, with something that allows our outward professions to match our inward convictions, to borrow a line from the late Doctor Pierce? Xtianity does not do that. How about we replace it with something that does not require us to profess beliefs that directly contradict simple basic science? None of this Genesis fairy tale. Something that accommodates scientific discoveries instead of fighting them tooth and nail, and then when science wins pretending it was all revealed by the will of the Lawd?

Thing is, something WILL replace the hodge-podge of non-sense, goofiness, and outright insanity of xtianity. But we need to clear the weeds first, then something new will grow, something organic that comes from US, in line with our convictions and needs.

As others have pointed out, National Socialism came very close to doing this in Germany. One of the problems with xtians is that they really cannot even conceive of anything replacing their pet superstitions unless it is something just as goofy. It never occurs to them that we really don't need a transcendent Big Daddy Spook floating around the ether with a list of impossible demands and thou shalts and thou shalt nots. We really don't need the club of the heaven/hell superstition to beat us into submission to what is just basic morality and largely independent of religion anyway. We really do not need to degrade ourselves through prayer and basic ass kissing to some deity whom we are supposed to fear and imagining ourselves somehow morally improved by the experience.
 
Old January 24th, 2011 #50
Fred Streed
Holy Order of Cosmonauts
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,050
Fred Streed
Default

Quote:
I'm just not sure an anti-Christian bias is logical for white nationalism when Christianity has always been in the forefront of anti-Semitism. It seems we're just doing the hebe's job for him.
That is more of the usual xtian spin. I don't think you guys even realize when you are doing it. Xtianity has not been in the forefront of anti-Semitism. PEOPLE have been in the forefront of resistance to jew depredations, not some amorphous immaterial thing like xtianity. That some of these people claimed to be xtians does not alter the fact that people resist jews, not bibles passages or sermons.

Quote:
Wouldn't we be better off strategically if we recruited those Christians who are simultaneously white supremacists? There are plenty of them around. Not all Christians are created equally. I suspect that for every one who subscribes to the pussified, faggotized, socialized modern interpretation of scripture, there are three or more who don't see muds as the equal of the white man.
Wouldn't we be better off stategically if we removed the impediments to a clear understanding of just what is at stake and why? Wouldn't we be better off if we didn't have xtianity telling people that jews are somehow "the people of The Book" and somehow special? Wouldn't we be better off if people showed a concern for future generations of our people in THIS WORLD instead of a fictional afterlife and the imaginary judgment of some fictional deity who might get pissed off if we unduly pester his chosen parasites? It would sure make the job of kicking the kike's ass off our world much easier if we didn't have to battle superstition and insanity in our own people.
 
Old January 24th, 2011 #51
MikeTodd
Pussy BŁnd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Quote:
So you can't be a Christian and a white nationalist simultaneously?
No. you cannot serve two masters. and with x-tards whenever there is a conflict between jeebs vs peeps the 'boo always wins out.
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old January 24th, 2011 #52
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Q. Ferguson View Post
< scratching my head >

So you can't be a Christian and a white nationalist simultaneously?
No, you can't. You have to pick which matters more: race or religion. There's no getting around that.


Quote:
What are the rules? Can you like peanut butter and be a white nationalist?
Yeah, cuz peanut butter completely affects your worldview and daily life and how you see and interact with everybody else and the universe.

Quote:
Maybe there should be a sign on the front of this forum: No dogs, jews, niggers or Christians welcome.
Now you begin to approach sense.

Quote:
I'm just not sure an anti-Christian bias is logical for white nationalism when Christianity has always been in the forefront of anti-Semitism. It seems we're just doing the hebe's job for him.
Christians don't fight jews, they try to convert them. And they're not open to arguments about changing this policy, because their beliefs about jews spring from their most basic dogma: that they are the one true path, and all men need to hear and accept their truth. So right from the start, christ-insanity has precluded effective opposition to jewry. Yet we still have to put up with mounds of lackwits like yourself who just don't grasp what's going on. Jews are only still around to be a problem to us BECAUSE of the christ-lunacy you are defending. It's the same with niggers too. We aren't allowed to kill them off because that would be "immoral." Rather, we are supposed to bring them the good news of Jesus, which will turn them into human beings just like us. Because you see, god created nigger and jews with "immortal souls," "souls which must be saved." And it is the White man's burden to save them.

THIS TYPE OF INSANITY IS HOW WE GOT IN THIS MESS.

But fools like you refuse to acknowledge any link between christ-cult dogma and doctrine and the current racial mess.

The spiritual universalism that is dogma to the christ cult can never, repeat never, be reconciled with white nationalism.

Race or religion - you must choose.

Quote:
Wouldn't we be better off strategically if we recruited those Christians who are simultaneously white supremacists? There are plenty of them around. Not all Christians are created equally. I suspect that for every one who subscribes to the pussified, faggotized, socialized modern interpretation of scripture, there are three or more who don't see muds as the equal of the white man.
There are probably some people in loony bins who could make it on the outside, but why not let them show the initiative and break out and join us. We should worry about our own thing, spit hostility on the insanity and dangerous stupidity that is the christ cult, and let time take care of deciding who comes out on top.

Yet again, your entire shtik is based on the widely accepted faggotry that we need to "appeal" to people, and must be wary of "offending" this that or the other. In fact the only people you faggots don't worry about offending are open and unapologetic White nationalists.

Really, weaklings who need continually apologize, remonstrate, reach out, rub their hands and make mincing looks with their eyes - these people are useless. This sort of stupidity couched as real wisdom only makes sense to people who have never seen the enemy up close, and don't realize that only the type of people who can deal with an enemy that kills and cheats are worth having. The write-a-letter types susceptible to gelded appeals are worthless for the type of change we need.

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 25th, 2011 at 12:26 PM.
 
Old January 24th, 2011 #53
procopius
Senior Member
 
procopius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,611
procopius
Default

Quote:
Wrong. Greeks were no different than modern man. Some were devout believers, some not. In 300 A.D. (around when Christianity took hold) Greeks were still worshipping Zeus & Co. but had also added other gods.

That is the typical model. All religions (especially Christianity and Islam) begin with what is there and modify it. Almost everything in Christianity, for example, can be traced back to Persian/Hindu/Aryan? sun-worship.
By the time of 1 AD, the Greek critical mind had destroyed the national Hellenic religion as a true religion. The old religious myths were used for artistic motifs and allegories for sure, but only the uneducated gave the old Gods creedence.

The Greeks began looking to the east for inspiration (Where the original Greek Deities had come from the North), and Oriental cults had been moving into Greece since Alexander the Great created his empire. Then from Greece the Oriental Religions moved into Rome. Eventually the Oriental Mystery Religions became more popular then any hold outs to the old ways.
 
Old January 25th, 2011 #54
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
John in Woodbridge
Default

CNN) - Republican 2012 presidential hopeful Rick Santorum ramped up his criticism of President Barack Obama's stance on abortion writing Monday for the National Review.

This follows a controversy sparked Thursday when the former senator made comments to CNSnews.com comparing abortion with slavery and criticizing Obama's stance on abortion. In the article Santorum explains the merit of his comments, stating that the president has "wrapped himself in the history and legacy of civil rights."

But in the scathing rebuttal to critics posted on the National Review's "The Corner" Monday, the former senator from Pennsylvania also lashed out against the "condemnation" he says he received "mostly, but not exclusively, from the left." And to those who thought their words would silence him, Santorum said they "obviously haven't done a Google search."

"Over a million lives will be taken this year, and a disproportionate percentage of these children will be black. How is this any less a civil-rights issue than any other issue we tie to civil rights?" Santorum wrote.

He further blasts Obama for education choices made for the first family.

"When we point out that our president does not allow the educational choice for poor black children in Washington, D.C., that he provides to his own children, does that make headlines?" he writes, continuing that his support comes from both sides of the aisle.

Citing first, Rev. Jesse Jackson: "In 1977, the Rev. Jesse Jackson wrote, 'I believe that life is not private, but rather it is public and universal. If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery.'

He also sees support in President Reagan's writings: "In 1983 Pres. Ronald Reagan wrote: 'is is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives.The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade...'"

Santorum further compares Obama's response to the question of when life began as "above my pay grade" with Stephen Douglas, the Democratic presidential candidate who lost to Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and who, he wrote, had a "don't care" attitude toward the question of personhood for blacks.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...a-civil-right/
__________________
Itís time to stop being Americans. Itís time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Old January 25th, 2011 #55
Thad Charles
Master Race
 
Thad Charles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: neo-Weimar JewSA
Posts: 1,568
Thad Charles
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Q. Ferguson View Post
To be replaced by what?
Rosenberg might have been onto something with his Positive Christianity.

Who knows how far that may have gone if Nazi Germany had continued on is anybody's guess. I suppose it's a lot like Christian Identity though ("Jeebus was from Galilee, a Nordic enclave!").

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.co...red_rosenb.htm
__________________
"What are they? A religion, a race, a criminal conspiracy?" - Craig 'Chain' Cobb on the jews
 
Old January 25th, 2011 #56
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Q. Ferguson View Post
Maybe there should be a sign on the front of this forum: No dogs, jews, niggers or Christians welcome.
It's interesting that you equate criticism with exclusion.

Quote:
I'm just not sure an anti-Christian bias is logical for white nationalism when Christianity has always been in the forefront of anti-Semitism.
That's not my reading of Kevin MacDonald or of E. Michael Jones. Instances of alleged Christian anti-Semitism were generally due to secular "resource competition," not religion, and the Church was more often than not the protector of the jews. If the Church had dealt with the jews as it did the Cathars, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It couldn't. Christianity can live without heretical Christians. Christianity can't live without the jews.

Quote:
Wouldn't we be better off strategically if we recruited those Christians who are simultaneously white supremacists?
It's also interesting that you use a term few of us do, without even noticing the inherent contradiction in purported white supremacists worshipping a jew as the son of God. Then when an OTPTT tries to triangulate around that, he just amplifies the loony Christian mentality that we want no part of. I have far more regard for a Christian like Jones, who fights the "culture wars" within his own church and doesn't pretend to be something he's not or appeal to a nonexistent unity.
 
Old January 25th, 2011 #57
banjo_billy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Q. Ferguson View Post
< scratching my head >



So you can't be a Christian and a white nationalist simultaneously?
Yes, you can be a Christian and a White Nationalist simultaneously. Don't let these atheist fools convince you otherwise.

Some of these atheists and other assorted morons who have absolutely zero knowledge of God or of Spirituality or of religion, in general, think that religion is limited to the little box that they have put it in. They define religion; they define Christianity and they build the little box that contains what they say goes into that box; and then they claim that what is in the box is false. But they are like little boys who build a mud castle and imagine it to be a mighty fortress. They are fools and idiots. Intelligent fools and blind idiots? Is it possible? Yes, they prove that it is possible.

Christianity is much greater than the little boxes that foolish men construct to contain it. Why else are there so many sects of Christians? Why? Because none of the boxes ever built can hold all of Christianity's truth. The Roman Catholic container wasn't big enough for it. The Protestant container wasn't big enough for it. The Orthodox container wasn't big enough for it. And the list goes on from Marianism and the Gnostics to Mary Baker Eddie and the Mormons. None of these great movements could contain all that Christianity offers the world.

So, of what import do these pitiful little twerps who claim to be mighty atheists and godlessly wise "White Nationalists" have that is so great? Absolutely nothing. But the strange thing is, even though they have nothing to offer, they still can fill the void of their ignorance with wordy reams of nonsense and opinionated bullshit, all designed to mock what they can otherwise not, themselves, understand.

White Nationalism can go nowhere without a knowledge of Godly things. Perhaps this is why the atheists are such a drag on the Movement and such stumbling stones to any progress. They claim to want to promote WN, but they are deceiving themselves and lying to others. In fact, all that they want is to destroy Christianity as well as all other religions and to pull down God. And in their ignorance, they are willing to sacrifice their people and their country so that they can do the devil's work.

Don't concern yourself with the opinions of these atheist fools. They are only a temporary aberrition in White Nationalism.
 
Old January 25th, 2011 #58
banjo_billy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
It's interesting that you equate criticism with exclusion.

That's not my reading of Kevin MacDonald or of E. Michael Jones. If you could read better, you would understand. Instances of alleged Christian anti-Semitism were generally due to secular "resource competition," not religion, That's bullshit. You have no understanding of Christian history.and the Church was more often than not the protector of the jews.More BS. Protecting the Jews is a modern day phenomeon. If the Church had dealt with the jews as it did the Cathars, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It couldn't. Christianity can live without heretical Christians. Christianity can't live without the jews.More of your blatant lies.

It's also interesting that you use a term few of us do, without even noticing the inherent contradiction in purported white supremacists worshipping a jew as the son of God. Then when an OTPTT tries to triangulate around that, he just amplifies the loony Christian mentality that we want no part of. I have far more regard for a Christian like Jones, who fights the "culture wars" within his own church and doesn't pretend to be something he's not or appeal to a nonexistent unity.
You don't use the term White Supremist because you have lost the Way of White Nationalism. Although I have corrected you many times on this point, apparently you are too stupid to understand that Jesus was not a Jew. And for you to continue with this same lie only means that you are promoting the lies of the Jews.

The only point you try to triangulate around, is the fact that "White Separatism" is a synthetic, phoney Leftist ideology. But you accept it and promote it because you are a fake White Nationalist.

I use the term White Supremist because that is what I am. While you are a cowardly "White Separatist" because you are afraid of non-whites and you promote the failed idea that white people can only be safe by separating ourselves from the muds. However, White Supremists know that white people are the greatest people on earth. We can go anywhere and associate with any other people without losing our identity as white people because our whiteness is hard-wired. But a "White Separatist" is a ship without a rudder, unable to maintain an even keel without the outside help of his protected little enclaves and gated communities. A White Supremist is supreme wherever he is while a White Separatist is only supreme when he has the protection of the law and the protection of his hometown gang to keep him safe. White Separatists are white alright, but you are all wimps.

I prefer that all color people go back to wherever they came from. But that doesn't reduce the fact that I am a White Supremist and am a lot better than any other race and a whole lot better than you cowardly "Separatist" chickenshits. So, you White Separatists either join up with the winning side or get the hell out of the way.

Last edited by banjo_billy; January 25th, 2011 at 12:30 PM.
 
Old January 25th, 2011 #59
Fred Streed
Holy Order of Cosmonauts
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,050
Fred Streed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banjo_billy View Post

And in their ignorance, they are willing to sacrifice their people and their country so that they can do the devil's work.
LOL!

Gawd, Jesus P, and Ol' Scratch must all hang out in the same honky tonk, they all seem to have the same goal, destruction of the White race.

There are a lot of people who are willing to sacrifice their own people and countries, some of whom are doing Gawd's work, others who work for the jew carpenter, and now you claim some others are working for the devil.
 
Old January 25th, 2011 #60
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armstrong View Post
These Christ hating anti Christian rants are unbecoming of a thinking person. They sound like something that would come from the mouth of a pharisee.

It truly makes me wonder about the whole 'movement', as it makes the movement seem a part of the whole Beast Anti Christ thing we're up against.

Yes, there are problems with the majority of the Christian Church now, but there are better ways of explaining it.

Here's someone who does a great job.

www.whtt.org
He's no WN. Anyone who takes terms like 'Pharisees' and 'beast anti-Christ' seriously is useless to our cause.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, christianity

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 AM.
Page generated in 0.17037 seconds.