I think everyone should have strong religious and spiritual sympathies. However I do not debate the merits or demerits of any particular religion. For political purposes I tend to discourage debating religious details in the folk and prefer to keep political activism as secular as possible to avoid the whole issue except when highly relevant.
I wanted to elaborate on why I do this and discuss what kind of ramifications a religious community’s loyalty has in a nation.
It is my opinion that defaming the religious values of a person or group is not only considered socially unacceptable but can be ineffective in understanding the role that a religion plays in political conflicts.
For the purpose of this article I will define defaming an individual to include identifying an individual as a member of a particular faith, denomination, or tradition that is expressed with the intent to explain the negative connotations of an individual’s character or a person’s behavior. However, as religions have political and social ramifications for nationalities understanding who and where the loyalty of a particular religion is aimed at is essential to understanding that religion’s role in a society and by extension it’s religious adherents.
To explain what I mean is that by itself it is ineffective to label a person as a Luthern, Jew, or Muslim but it is valuable to conclude that a dual citizen of Israel and the United States would have a conflict of interest in a government role.
If a conflict erupts between religious and temporal interests everyone would expect most religious adherents to choose the side of their faith.
Islam itself has an explicit doctrine for this and the faithful are instructed to place their political loyalty with the ummah:
“Ummah is an Arabic word meaning “community” or “nation“. It is commonly used to mean either the collective nation of states, or (in the context of pan-Arabism) the whole Arab world. In the context of Islam, the word ummah is used to mean the diaspora or “Community of the Believers” (ummat al-mu’minin), and thus the whole Muslim world.”
Jews ostensibly have a loyalty to the government of Israel as the temporal homeland of their people but this loyalty is no where near monolithic and that it is a grave error to assume that all Jews have the same attitudes to the policies or existence of Israel.
This is important because there are vast political consequences for these loyalties. This is why the religion of the members of a nationality or tribe is so important.
Up until the late 20th century it was possible to be highly accurate about a person’s religion based on their nationality however in Western societies such an assumption can be wrong. This has correspondences in political and professional domains as well. I think it is clear without providing additional examples that a Nation that consists of multiple religions inevitably polarizes the loyalty of its citizens into incompatible agendas.
I think illustrates that loyalty is the key to a nationality’s existence. However this popular loyalty can be undermined from within. For example as a Nation, Americans have implicitly authorized a centralized entity to decide who is welcome to come into our nation and it operates based on laws made 45 years ago. There has not been a major interest in changing the policy that exists other than roll out the welcome mat to an estimated 20 million that are here illegally and do not make up a part of the Nation.
So let me ask you dear reader, if someone says they are an American and then stabs me in the back, what does that say about what it means to be American?
Do we just go through the motions of nationhood with no real responsibility to the consequences of those decisions? If the social contract between an institution and the trust of the people it depends on is betrayed, then that institution and it’s policies are illegitimate.
The bottom line is that we should not trust foreigners who often have the religious obligation to be disloyal to us, some of whom wish to do us great harm, and then further to provide them with the means to victimize our people.
To do this is insanity and I’m afraid it will continue to happen as long as the traitors in the power structure are allowed to do so. The power structures managers needs domestic instability and outbreaks of violence to justify their existence. What gives me hope is that an increasing number of Americans is judging this government as criminally insane and they may eventually force it to pay for its crimes of dispossessing, murdering, and victimizing the American people for profit.
I think ethnic loyalty should be highest. This is the problem with jews and muslims, is all or most of them come from other ethnicities, thus even if they do not have a loyalty to a foreign state, they don’t have the same concept of America as we do.
I think there should be freedom of religion insofar as the religion does not demand foreign loyalties. The constant 3-way battle within WN of pagans/heathens vs atheists/agnostics vs christians is tiresome and pointless.
Jews, and liberal self-hating whites, are the enemies of our White nations. Their project is genocide of Whites by massive foreign immigration and assimilation into every White nation on earth. Is it even possible to defame a people who have such a project against you?
Good point Godan, you might be right.
“I think there should be freedom of religion insofar as the religion does not demand foreign loyalties. The constant 3-way battle within WN of pagans/heathens vs atheists/agnostics vs christians is tiresome and pointless.”
It’s just stupid but it has created a lot of animosity over the years.
I’m not really clear on what this article is trying to say.
I don’t think there is any serious religious conflict between real white nationalists. Pagans, Christians, CI and others have worked together fine. If there is a problem, its with some mainstream Christians who can’t bring themselves to put race first.
In the long term, America is becoming less religious and more like Europe. Younger people are increasingly not claiming any religion and more people are openly atheist and agnostic than ever. That’s something to keep in mind if we’re looking to work with people younger than baby boomers.
I agree with ATBOTL. All three paragraphs. Saved me lots of time. Thanks. 🙂
Haha – good article and a great question. IMHO, there has not been an American nation since perhaps the Civil War era. Certainly there has not been an actual nation since the Great Wave and the Huddled Masses.
So what ties (tied?) Americans to this land, the remnant of the root stock, and to the federal government?
That’s easy: a common worship of the Almighty US Buck.
Now that Buck is on the verge of worthlessness. Will the thousands of incompatible tribes and miscegeni hold together in the face of terminal economic collapse?
If you’ll pardon the expression, No way Jose.
This will be the practical validation of Kevin Macdonald’s theory of resource competition which, I think obvious, is being validated even as we write.
ATBOTL writes about the atheism of the sub-Boomers. I certainly relate to this as a leading edge Xer – but now well into my fifth decade (meaning I’m in my mid forties). The Christian faith of my ancestors — which is the Christian faith that caused America to be created in the first place — became desperately important to me as I (1) got older and had existential questions that were beautifully answered by the contents of the Holy Bible and (2) I realized that those answers were sublime and transcendent in every way.
While it is common to see sophomoric disillusionment of religion (a term invented to describe Christianity, BTW) thanks to propaganda assaults on impressionable minds unaware they are under assault, further experience in life inexorably leads one to conclude the wisdom of the Bible. It is not a “Jewish” religion as many naive WNs think. It truly is universal insofar as we all share the same complement of emotions, experiences, hopes and dreams.
But more over, the Holy Bible is a highly “national” book in almost all regards — although I concede the so-called “Judeo-Christian” churches, abominations in almost all regards, have warped it into the exact opposite of its actual meaning. What would you expect, anyway, from the same people responsible for the rest of our present woes?!!!
Anyway, the institutions of the West and particularly America in our case, were built on Christian foundations even if that is not evident today.
It is important therefore to understand that without the institutions of the Founding Fathers to support it, the very concept of America is sterile and barren. In fact, rip the original piety from the US and what you would likely get is, to my imagination, not so different from what we have today which could be described as an imperium based on the Roman model. While in my prime I could hang with the best of them, that is not a prospect I relish for my young sons or myself in the future as I approach the dawn of retirement and old age!
A corollary: I find many young people — myself included at that time in my life — are highly interested in the Christian religion. What they do not seem to want is the half-baked Judeo-Christian impostor we’ve had for the better part of a century.
Here’s something to ponder, young WNs. This is from the ancient “Book of Common Prayer” of the Church of England, last used in the AD1662 (and still the only authorized BCP in UK) and as a prayer dates far back into church history. It is the second collect for Good Friday, the day of Christ’s crucifixion. (A “collect” – emphasis on the first syllable c-o-l – is a prayer that “collects” the petitions of the assembled congregation and offers them in supplication.) Tell me how this compares to your present view of Christianity — then consider how the rest of it was in the Before Time and how it must have inspired our forefathers to glory:
O MERCIFUL God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live; Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.
Obviously, the clerics and people that made this prayer on the second holiest day on the Christian calendar had very specific ideas on (1) who they were and (2) who was not. One more thing to understand is that, while Christians were exorted by Paul to consider “there is no Greek nor Jew” — that is in a spiritual sense alone; IT IS NOT AN EXORTATION TO COMINGLE OUTSIDE WORSHIP.
In fact, were the Jews and Moslems Christians instead, we would have the basis for a much better world for us and for them because the original (i.e., “Primitive”) Christian church was…
you guessed it …
NATIONAL and LOCAL.
Something to think about.
Joe of the Mountain
on the Philadelphia Main Line
Good to hear the old time religion brought to bear, Joe of the Mountain. God bless.
Religion is at its strongest when it corresponds with ethnicity. Examples: Judaism, Serbian Orthodox Christianity, Asatru, Celtic Paganism, etc.
From a chain email:
The widsespread discrimination against European Americans should be unsurprising.
All other racial groups have powers lobbying on their behalf. Blacks have the NAACP, mestizos have La Raza, Asians have the 80-20 Initiative, Indians have USINPAC, etc. What do European Americans have?
When groups E, D, C & B lobby on behalf of their ethnic interests, and group A does nothing, group A is bound to be shafted. And all the while this is taking place, many whites pursue the “ostrich strategy”. They stick their heads in the sand and wish it were otherwise.
Time to take your head out of the sand, white people.
“…although I concede the so-called “Judeo-Christian” churches, abominations in almost all regards, have warped it into the exact opposite of its actual meaning. ”
This wore out shit again?
Skate over all the problems with Christian doctrines and what its MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of adherents BELIEVE and act upon by this “Oh no, no! That’s not MY Christianity. That is only how it has been distorted. That is not real Christianity. My version is the real one.”
Why don’t you and all others who constantly use this dodge just do the same thing concerning what we discuss on these sites and pretend that the multiracial, Judeo modern world we all hate so much “is not really your world” and really it is a white ethnostate?
Seriously, if this easy dodge of simply claiming “Oh no, that’s not my…” works for you all in covering up what tens of millions ACTUALLY are doing in the name of Christianity, and have nearly always done, why don’t you just extend that excuse/convenience and cover the rest, too, and be done with it?
In the long term, America is becoming less religious and more like Europe. Younger people are increasingly not claiming any religion and more people are openly atheist and agnostic than ever.
And both Europe and America are devolving. This is not a coincidence.
Brutus: Keep applying your BS detector and you will eventually come to truth.
Joe of the Mountain: Two thumbs up.
luke 12:50-53
50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Yeah, no thanks.
Vlad: Your “yeah, no thanks”, shows you have no idea what that passage is talking about. As Jesus also said in another place, “My words are SPIRIT and they are life”. In order to understand his words or the Bible in general, you have to have the same Spirit. Of course you won’t understand that either, and will more than likely start throwing stones…..
ohhh so your interpretation of an english interpretation of a latin interpretation of a greek interpretation of an alleged aramaic interpretation of what a follower of a person who may or may not have existed in any factual sense said (or didn’t say) has more credence than mine because you think you have the same spirit as the alleged original speaker in this eschatological game of telephone? gimme a break.
sorry, I forgot the german interpretation in between the english and latin. warmest apologies.
Without taking any theological position, I will point out that Christianity has historically been compatible with nationalism, as well as “sexism” and “homophobia”. When someone says “That’s not MY Christianity, that’s only how it’s been distorted”, they are probably telling the truth, just as many of us might say, “That’s not MY America, that’s only how it’s been distorted”. The same sorts of people that have deliberately undermined the Republic have done the same to the churches. Female clergy, homosexual marriage, Brown invasion and Black Presidents were all equally unthinkable to most people 60 years ago.
Discard: it’s only compatibility with nationalism was by playing eyesies-closies with its central tenets (or by resorting back to the angry jealous OT god of the jews instead of the all-forgiving father of the NT).
It’s all just a repackaged pastiche of zoroastrianism, Re sun-cult, sumerian and babylonian mythology and chaldean astrological lore anyway. No matter how you slice it, it ain’t european in any sense.
Any posited monism, sooner or later, implies universality, and all of its attendant consequences.
I apologize for this descending down this road anyway, since I believe we’ve deviated from the intention of Yeoman’s original post, but once people start plugging their favourite zombie, I have a tendency to speak up. sorry.
“And both Europe and America are devolving. This is not a coincidence.”
I suppose through the lens of your religion, you take the connection between the two as a self-evident article of faith that requires no proof.
Revilo Oliver saw Christianity as one of the forces driving the the devolution. He was right, imo. Four problems I have with Christianity:
Its origins. Obviously not from our people or even people friendly us, to say the least. In fact, the people it came from are widely considered our principle enemies. If Paul were alive today in America, he’d have been the chief plantiff’s attorney for the illegal alien who was awarded the Texas rancher’s ranch.
It’s universalism. If I were designing a WN religion, it wouldn’t be anything like Christianity. I’d make it an exclusive and particularistic to us. As it is, you have white people’s plate donations going to fecund Haitians to feed them, proselytize to them and in some cases even import these newly-“saved” Christians into white lands. Even the spokesman for the Southern Baptists has come out for amnesty.
Its communistic/dysgenic values. Turning the other cheek, helping the meek, etc. are anti-Aryan values. It makes it easy to use White people’s natural but misplaced altruism against us.
I hit send before I could get to the fourth:
Most of Its current practitioners and and all of its leadership
The Catholic Church is one of the main support organisations for illegal aliens. Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists pretty much all preach “anti-racism”. Any white advocate or race realist preacher would be quickly drummed out of any major denomination.
On the topic of Christianity as it relates to WN issues, I recommend reading Revilo Oliver’s “By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them”.
John: Two thumbs up.
Except for Paul…..not so much.
John: Thanks for the heads up about Revillo’s piece. I’m reading it online now @ http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/By_Their_Fruits.html
A short summation of my feelings about Christianity can be found in Flannery O’Connor’s “Wise Blood”, where Hazel Motes, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ Without Christ informs his congregation that “Jesus is a trick on niggers”.
It’s all just a repackaged pastiche of zoroastrianism, Re sun-cult, sumerian and babylonian mythology and chaldean astrological lore anyway. No matter how you slice it, it ain’t european in any sense.
Weren’t all those white civilizations?
http://www.white-history.com/
The first, and really only consideration regarding Christianity and this assumption that if only everyone would return to it the world and our culture will be swell again, is an explanation of HOW you propose to put the genie back in the bottle. That genie being modern people and them being what they now are.
Do any of you really think you have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting modern people back to the prudish, no sex, no drinking, no skin showing mentality of what church goers were sometime in the past? Really?
The brutal truth is that even IF Christianity EVER did what many of you are under the impression it can do and once did, you are still chasing a chimera. Modern people are no more going to go back to that than they are likely to 86 their cell phones and flat screen tv’s for horsemen delivered messages and vacume tubed radio.
We are not going back to this romanticised past. Period. Even were I of the strong opinion that Christianity was the magic bullet, I full well know that people are not going to go down that road. Church going and religious adherance today is at best only a Sunday morning social club, and at its worst a custom made device for our racial destruction.
“Weren’t all those white civilizations?”
Myself, a few more cogent aspects are required of the civilization I want. An all white Authoritarion, Puritanical civilization populated by and run by the moral self righteous of the sort Hawthorne described is not what I have in mind, I don’t care if it is all white.
Brutus: Much of what is regarded by some as prudish is simply prudent. Screw like a Black, or screw Blacks, and you will get diseased, or get pregnant with something you don’t want. Drink like a fish, and you will get hurt, crippled, or dead. Eat like a pig, and you will be fat, unhealthy, and unable to do many things; that is, you will be crippled. Our national wealth has made it possible to limit the bad effects of bad habits, but our wealth is disappearing. That prudence, which was the previous generations’ way of limiting those bad effects, will come back. Those who continue to act like Negroes or rich Whites will suffer the consequences, without being able to demand that the prudent solve their problems for them.
Are you 12 or 13 years old, Discard?
And you must be one of those whose motivation for involvement in WN is as I described a few weeks ago in another thread: A disgruntled and isolated young man who can’t interact with other human beings or get a date and wants a movement to return the world to be like some point in the past believed to be more compatible to your idea of a more simple life.
Brutus and Vlad,
Honestly, I have no idea where you two are coming from. It is also obvious you have only a superficial understanding of history both ecclesiastical and secular. Your prejudices (and I mean that in the original sense, not the PC version) and hatreds are evident. What is missing is your explanation based on fact or evidence.
Mainly, I hear from you that “Puritanical” is bad. Does that mean licentiousness is good? Do you know what a “Puritan” was? I do not find any hint of deeper understanding in your replies. Rather, I recognize the rebellion of frustrated youngish people who, for whatever reason, want to do what they want to do everyone else be damned. Your recitation of charges against the Church reads like a New York Times hit-piece and is bereft of all perspective and knowledge of history prior to the 1990s. This hints at your ages, but is not definitive.
A point to consider: Do you honestly think persons with such uncharitable attitudes would live more than a few weeks in the (fantasaical) dechristianized world of Nietzsche and Der Volk (another fantasy less real than the Christian church ever could be fairly considered)? One need only look to the rest of the world to see living examples of such a world.
In the words of a one-time Army Ranger I know, “Joe, you DO NOT WANT to be the rest of the world. Outside our little Christian bubble the REST OF THE WORLD sits terrified, waiting for the 20-something drug-addicted goons of some war-lord with smack and pussy to pay them to TAKE WHAT THEY WANT FROM YOU, YOUR DAUGHTERS, YOUR WIFE and MAYBE KILL THEM AND YOU IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT. YOU HAD BETTER PRAY TO GOD WE DO NOT BECOME THEM BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NOWHERE TO HIDE.”
This guy, a professing Christian, ought to know. He’s the real deal and did what many here pretend they would do given the chance.
So the second point would be this: Consider what your world would look like. Learn actual history — not spin and fantasy ginned up in the minds of people with axes to grind — and see what happens under the conditions you advocate. There are hundreds of examples, starting with the Soviet Union and France under the Reign of Terror.
Compare these results. Compare those to the actual lives of your very Christian neighbors living in a land according to institutions invented by Christians. Read the many Internet news sites dedicated to fighting the Bolshevik subversion of all Western Christian denominations by the very people you profess to despise. Learn when the wholesale take-over of entire denominations began. Go to the Congressional Record (as did I) to read testimony of admitted Communist agents bragging at their infiltration of seminaries and colleges and pulpits in the period before, during and after WWII.
Then allow the evidence to lead you to an honest conclusion — not the knee-jerk Hollywood cliches you presently believe.
Really now. Given how you claim to be “aware” it is almost comical how many lies and distortions you’ve accepted hook, line and sinker from the very people you blame for your problems.
But it’s not funny: you fell for the lies and that’s one-less solider fit-for-duty in this culture war.
Joe of the Mountain
Been there, done that, got the Bible.
And your defense of Christianity reads like a typical canned response from the Church.
Some of us don’t want to be under puritanical control so we must want to screw niggers and do drugs all day long? Some of us don’t stand in awe of Christianity so we must be rading the New York Times? Since I and some others do not stand in awe of Christianity, then I am ignorant of history while you have a thourough knowledge of it? Let’s deal with some of your own vague assertions.
“A point to consider: Do you honestly think persons with such uncharitable attitudes would live more than a few weeks in the (fantasaical) dechristianized world of Nietzsche and Der Volk (another fantasy less real than the Christian church ever could be fairly considered)? One need only look to the rest of the world to see living examples of such a world. ”
Since you have not read Nietzsche and are only relying on second and third hand descriptions, I see no reason to address this. I will only point out that there is no place on this earth that is remotely a Nietzschien society, and that your “uncharitable attitudes” comment here shows you are relying exclusively on others interpretations of Nietzsche.
Let’s move on.
“In the words of a one-time Army Ranger I know, “Joe, you DO NOT WANT to be the rest of the world. Outside our little Christian bubble the REST OF THE WORLD sits terrified, waiting for the 20-something drug-addicted goons of some war-lord with smack and pussy to pay them to TAKE WHAT THEY WANT FROM YOU, YOUR DAUGHTERS, YOUR WIFE and MAYBE KILL THEM AND YOU IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT. YOU HAD BETTER PRAY TO GOD WE DO NOT BECOME THEM BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NOWHERE TO HIDE.””
You are the one engaging in projecting a fantastic view of the “protective” powers and virtues of Christianity here. Newsflash, Joe, INSIDE our “little Christian bubble” those things are all going on. And some are being committed by professing Christians. Also, I note that South Africa has and has always had a very large percent of their white population being strong Christians. What happened there, Joe?
We’d better move on.
“This guy, a professing Christian, ought to know. He’s the real deal and did what many here pretend they would do given the chance.”
Um, okay. If he’s “the real deal” and “ought to know.” Really, Joe, grow up. Was you not just asserting that I and another must not be doing enough of our homework, yet here you are getting tidbits of knowledge from some anonymous guy somewhere?
Yes, we had better move along here.
Your next point concerns a very old contention, Joe. Essentially, that religion prevents a lot of extreme crime and violence. But it just isn’t so, Joe. Sadly, the truth is no religion, including Christianity has ever prevented or even substantially lessened crime and violence. Speaking of the Soviet Union, after the regime was set up and stabilized, the crime rate was no worse than that here. Moreover, immorality and vice were as prevalent when Christianity and the power of the Church and the number of True Believers was at its peak. For example, Joseph McCabe wrote and documented extensively on this subject. And though religious people who have heard of him furriously denounce him the same way the media denounces racists, McCabe quotes too many primary sources from the times in question and not second, third and fourth hand sources from those living long after the events. We find during the golden age of Christiandom that women fought their daughters over who got to sleep with a passing knight and even common wayfarer. We find that prostitution was as very lucratrive business even then. We find good Christian people cutting off a guy’s nuts and even his penise for hitting on the wrong woman or not being married and having too many girlfriends. We find good Christians ready and willing to carry out the most barbaric of acts. And we find, BTW, that people were as nasty as they could be concerning hygiene. We find all the rest, too.
You want to talk about communism and Bolsheviks, very well. Tell us why the seminaries and churches were such fertile breeding and recruiting grounds for communists and Bolsheviks. Tell us. We won’t talk about how today they are good places to find white women infatuated with black men and white families eager to adopt or otherwise bring into their homes non white kids. We won’t talk about that, Joe.
I think you might not have been anywhere or done much, Joe. But I am sure that you have your Bible.
Much of this commentary is an example of exactly what I suggested not to do when discussing religions.
Brutus: I try never to be very specific about personal information online, but I am around 60 years old. I am married, to my first and only wife. I love her and I let her know. I participate in community events, visit my relatives, occasionally go to parties, and pick up trash that other people leave on my street. What, exactly, did I write that would cause you to misjudge me so?
Why do you think I am 13? Why do you think I can’t get a date? Why, may I ask, do you think 13 year olds should be getting dates?
To be serious again, what you call prudishness is what other critics have called “middle class morality”. This was the set of social rules that the middle classes of past times used to raise themselves, and to protect their families from downward mobility. In recent decades, the enormous wealth of this society has been used to protect people from their own mistakes. As that wealth dissipates, so will the government programs that feed the riffraff. Your babies, White or Mulatto, will be your problem, not your neighbors. If you spend all your money on alcohol or amphetamines, it will not be the shopkeepers duty to feed you. If you get artereosclerosis or what have you from eating 4000 calories a day without doing any physical work, the state will no longer require surgeons to clean you out. And if you have no skills because you spend your time playing video games or watching movies or listening to your ipod or chatting on your cellphone instead of learning something useful, you will simply be dirt poor.
Have I written anything that is not true? Where am I mistaken?
“I am around 60 years old. ”
Yep, those are even worse for wanting to return to an imaginary past than the young boys who can’t get a date. ( BTW, it did not work so well after all, did it, that “protecting from downward mobility?” The kids all went hog wild at the first chance of jumping at an alternative. AND THAT IS *THE* INDICTMENT against the prude movement. It rockets everybody straight into the camp of the extreme left.)
“Much of this commentary is an example of exactly what I suggested not to do when discussing religions.”
Which is why you should not have brought it up.
Christianity seems European to a lot of people because Western Civilization partly grew out of it, (though the partial paganization of Christianity is another factor).
But of course it was invented either by ancient Jews who would’ve been significantly less related to Europeans than the Ashkenazi Jews are today (given that the European admixture in Ashkenazi postdates the time period during which the Bible was written), or else by entities not even Human, much less of a particular Human Race.
It did lead to problems, but some these problems were actually innovations that the Jews seem to have little to do with.
For example the Catholic Church’s medieval campaign against consanguineous marriages, which had no basis in either the Bible or Jewish custom, proved to be a disaster over the long term given that it broke up the clans which were an essential gird against the development of excessive individualism.
What the Catholic Church did then was the beginning of what we see now with the Welfare State and School Systems taking the place of functions which used to be performed by the nuclear family.
First the Church undermined the extended family, leaving the nuclear family in a relatively exposed and easier to attack position.
Then finally the State moved in to finish the job.
I think the reason the Church wanted to undermine the clans was because they wanted men on their deathbeds to leave their money to the Church, and not to their relatives, as opposed to there being anything like an authentic religious motive.
Brutus, I hugely enjoyed your long negative comment about Christianity. In the not distant past I would have been negative to what you said, because Christianity is being unfairly attacked across the US. But then I moved to any area where churches are everywhere, and where I experience the reality close up.
You might find this interesting
http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/~harpend/readings/Genetic_Pacification_Frost.pdf
and search for “empire as a woman” and read the next about 20 lines. It’s about the end of Rome. What is interesting is the article as a whole builds a genetic explanation of submissiveness in political structures. Reginald Thomson you might also enjoy this.
Somewhere in another post in OD I suggested that maybe the model we need is that the pro-White fight consists of different segments of people. What I should have added is that these segments might in some cases have strong identities and strong differentiation of identities between themselves, and maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to talk too much with each other. Otherwise, they’ll distract from common goals, and they’ll lose the larger battle. Let them live in slightly different areas or whatever. Perhaps it is naive and destructive to insist reality is otherwise.
Brutus at 3:50AM: You accuse me, in detail, of being a juvenile with no experience, longing for an imaginary past. I tell you that I am around 60, and your story becomes that I am an old man, longing for an imaginary past. That is BS. What would your story have been if I’d said I was 40?
Since you have not answered any of my very direct questions, I will assume that you cannot. The fact remains, as lack of funding allows ever larger holes in the social safety net, people who continue to reject middle class morality will fall through. People who drink like Blacks and lay about like Blacks and screw like Blacks will end upon the bottom, like Blacks. Actions have consequences.
How is the fact that people’s behavior changed when the rules were relaxed an indictment of the rules? That only shows that the rules were effective in controlling behavior. Controlling behavior, particularly of young people, is what culture is all about. “Culture” is the opposite of “nature”. And controlling sexual behavior is the most important part of culture, because sexual behavior determines the forming of families. People who lack sexual self-control, like Blacks, do not often form solid families. What man wants to support children that may not be his? What woman wants to rely on a man who is making babies with other women? What children want to live with a succession of Mama’s boyfriends? Blacks, evolved in a warm climate with plentiful game, and now living in a welfare state, don’t need much culture to survive. Whites do.
I had to jump on the following quote:
For example as a Nation, Americans have implicitly authorized a centralized entity to decide who is welcome to come into our nation and it operates based on laws made 45 years ago. There has not been a major interest in changing the policy that exists other than roll out the welcome mat to an estimated 20 million that are here illegally and do not make up a part of the Nation.
My question is – will the USA military uphold civilization? If they uphold order, will it come at the cost of liberty?
Consider:
There is a young man, habitually drunk and prone to brawling, named Max, who is about to become an infantry officer.
My fear is that Max will either:
(a) shoot a bunch of Afghan civilians out of repressed rage; or
(b) side with an un-Constitutional usurper to shoot USA citizens.
I introduced Max at:
http://delightsome.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/the-lizards-and-the-jews
Since then, I happened across the following:
[quote]
A March, 1996 report by Eli Flyer found the following:
• Most DoD recruits who have criminal records escape detection.
• 40% of Navy recruits have criminal records.
• Recruits with criminal records have a much higher rate of attrition.
This brought the Navy’s moral screening policy under high-level scrutiny within the Navy Department. A working group was formed to investigate broad issues regarding Navy and Marine Corps policies in this area.
One area of concern was the Navy’s moral waiver policy. Currently, only recruits who reveal certain types of information about themselves are subject to background checks. One implication of the previous report was that a large number of recruits had police records, but did not receive a waiver.
[/quote]
Source:
http://www.ijoa.org/imta96/paper30.html
[quote]
The total number of moral waivers in the military reached 34,476 in 2006, or nearly 20% of all enlisted soldiers, according to the Palm centre at the University of California.
[/quote]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/21/usa1
[quote]
… the Ranger captain, who motioned me back to the interview room.
“The reason I wanted to talk to you is that I was you six years ago.”
Like me, he joined up later. Most guys are only 21 or 22, with no life experience and maybe someone pushing them into the decision. Like me, he couldn’t stand civilian life.
“Out there?” he said, pointing out the window. ”I was a Failure To Adapt.”
[/quote]
http://www.fkinonline.com/we-spread-thought-cancer/pollice-verso/
Clearly, some Americans who cannot adapt to civilian life can excel as aggressive, butt-kicking warfighters. The question is whether the USA needs to kick butts or to build stability. If the USA warfighters kick butts indiscriminately, they are going to produce more and more enemies.
When I read Max’s words about authority, I somehow doubt that Max will excel at building stability.
[quote]
Authority is derived from force. Obey the law or men with guns will come for you. Heed the Lord Thy God, or He’ll Smite your ass.
In a world that made sense, men with guns would not heed the authority of clerks.
[/quote]
http://www.fkinonline.com/we-spread-thought-cancer/a-world-that-makes-sense/
Joe:
Aside from personal allusions about my youth (wrong), and my lack of historical perspective (wrong), my prejudices (wrong), and something about Puritans…unless that was all directed at someone other than me, you are as wrong as wrong can be.
I’m somehow incapable of understanding the bibles I own? The academic and popular histories? oh if only i wasn’t so young and prejudiced, then I could read between the lines and get to the SPIRIT of ‘his’ writings (even though ‘he’ never wrote a single word).
THEN you say that what is lacking is fact and evidence?
I see from your posts that you put up a ‘prayer’ and an anecdote from a ranger…where is all of this evidence of yours?
people taking away daughters and wives? torture? murder? sounds like the VERDEN. or (here’s the windup)…THE INQUISITION.
You are attributing every good action in the world to xianity instead of western man. Xianity is the flea on the axle wheel of the Western chariot: ‘oh what a dust i raise’. Europe had shone brilliantly before, and will shine just as brightly when it’s gone. A world without homo priests, myth-presented-as-history, flat-earther convulsions, not-so-intelligent designs, boring sunday morning tv designed to bilk the gullible out of their savings, snake-kissers, glassy-eyed druggies and deathrow denizens turned glassy-eyed jesus addicts, or pamphleteers knocking at my door at 8am…huzzah! huzzah! hierosylema est perdita!!! amen.
The dilemma of subscribing to an absolutist doctrine (or at least, one of the thousands of variations of it) is, you wind up bending over backwards to defend the indefensible.
I’ll still stand up for you against the brownies, though.
Joe: “Do you know what a “Puritan” was?”
“If the South saw Brown as an arrogant lawbreaker, the North, once it overcame its initial doubts about him, heralded him as a freedom-fighter in the Puritan tradition. His uniqueness among nineteenth-century Americans is captured in many contemporary accounts of him as a throwback to an earlier era. Franklin Sanborn remarked, “He was, in truth, a calvinistic Puritan, born a century or two after the fashion had changed; but as ready as those of Bradford’s or Cromwell’s time had been to engage in any work of the Lord to which he felt himself called.” Another associate called him “a Puritan of the Puritans,” and another commented: “In religion and character Brown was the last of the Puritans.” The Abolitionist Richard J. Hinton, similarly, described him as “a puritan brought back from the days of Cromwell or a vision of the old Revolutionary times, to show the world that all the fearless energy and strong integrity that characterized these epochs, has not yet faded out.”
Both enemies and friends of John Brown, then, considered him a deep-dyed Puritan. They were right. He was a Calvinist who admired the works of Jonathan Edwards. He was proud of his family roots in New England Puritanism. He patterned himself after the Puritan warrior Cromwell, to whom he was often compared.”
Reynolds, David S. John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights. New York: Vintage Books, 2005
I couldn’t care less if I were the only pagan left in the world, I’d still have no great desire to spread any “good news” to the world, and particularly not to anyone other than my kinfolk. To me, for a Bantu to adopt my religion would be grotesque and ridiculous and I would never consider him a “brother in Odin”, nor would any other pagan I know. That’s a big part of it: exclusivity.
On a personal level, I don’t care what god you believe in. It’s none of my business. I am willing to agree to disagree about Christianity’s impact on European peoples and work for common goals with any other white person no matter his religion insofar as he reciprocates that attitude.
If you as a Christian want a Christian White nation, I have a problem with that. If you want a White nation where anyone who wishes to can be a Christian or whatever else, I don’t have a problem with it.
So far as I can tell, most pagans and atheist WNs have this attitude regarding religion: they put their race above their spiritual beliefs. So far as I can tell, unfortunately from my pov, it’s the converse with Christians. It has something to do, I think, with the Christian attitude that there is something wrong with people that only Jesus Christ can fix and a mistrust of anyone who refuses to be “fixed”.
it is a grave error to assume that all Jews have the same attitudes to the policies or existence of Israel.
Why?
You can pick and choose individuals, but you can’t pick and choose their children, relatives, and larger associations.
This is why I would keep ALL blacks out my neighborhood.
Same thing.
Do we just go through the motions of nationhood with no real responsibility to the consequences of those decisions?
Um. Yeah.
So let me ask you dear reader, if someone says they are an American and then stabs me in the back, what does that say about what it means to be American?
Americans and white Americans are the SAME THING.
Everybody else in the United States who calls themselves an American is an HONORARY American.
And they ALL know it.
John:
That Revilo Oliver piece is l-o-n-g, but the further I read, the better I like it.
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/By_Their_Fruits.html
Thanks for the recommendation.
“You accuse me, in detail, of being a juvenile with no experience, longing for an imaginary past. I tell you that I am around 60, and your story becomes that I am an old man, longing for an imaginary past. That is BS. What would your story have been if I’d said I was 40?”
Discard, I am merely carrying on a theme I started here some weeks ago, as most on here no doubt saw at once. My post here charging you with wanting a movement to return to an imaginary past was not custom made for, or fashioned, specifically for you.
In my original comment on another thread where I first stated this, it is plain I was not and am not exclusively speaking of young people, I was speaking of people in general, though a substantial number of the posters on these WN sites who fit my description are in fact young men.
As for “my story” being “BS,” your are demonstratebly wrong. All one has to do is peruse the many conservative sites and he will at once find a considerable number of older, and not so old, men who are now at a point where they simply want to remove themselves from society and live as though it were some past time. Many have even taken to submerging themselves in old black and white movies in order to exclude themselves from the present and “return” to an idealistic past. This is not speculation on my part, thyese people flat out say as much. Over on Chronicles for Culture, for example, especially in comments on articles by Thomas Fleming and Clyde Wilson, you will find plenty of such confessions.
The rest of your own theme is simply another example of what else I have recently been discussing and criticizing on this site: Namely, that apparently 95 percent of people have only “two speeds,” as they say. It is either one extreme or the other for these folks. Like a thermostat that only has absolute zero or the highest possible temperature, you and so many others automatically, whenever I criticize or bring up a Puritanical attitude, think that I must want an all out, anything goes, sex to the hilt, drug and drinking to the max, eat till your sick, total immoral society. There is no in between for you. It is either total Puritan, or total hog wild.
It should be obvious, and is to the 5 percent who have more than “two speeds,” that there is plenty in between and something that is NATURAL and quite normal. But you and so many others say, “no way! We must have a Puritan attitude and shun, discourage and make shameful any behavior that deviates from the Puritan Norm.” You can’t like looking at or wanting to have sex with beautiful women! That leads to a house full of illegitimate kids and a nigger’s attitude about sex! You can’t drink beer! You’ll die and be a bad role model for the community! We must shun any hint of these activities and keep sexual desire secret and behind closed doors for as long as it takes to have a few legitimate kids and then we must forever pretend that sex is evil and the path to hell! We cannot openly acknowledge that people like to smoe and drink! We must instead totally condemn any form or any amount of this! Any less condemnation will lead to hell and an out of control situation.
That is what you and others like you always end up being.
Now, I will answer your questions. The reason I thought you was 12 or 13 and couldn’t get a date is because you sound so much like the boys who can’t, Discard. That is why I said that. The 12 or 13 thing was also to make a point that you, and the others, sound like you are only 12 or 13 the way you seem to have no clue about people. I thus did not literally mean that 12 year olds should be worried about getting dates. It was more a figure of speech, Discard. You should have “got that.”
Your two or three other questions I in fact DID answer in my follow up posts. You just ignored them and went right on with your “two speed” only rebutal, and gave us another lecture on how we will all go to pot if some “big brother” is not telling us we can’t smoke a cigarette, drink a few beers, or want sex with a hot woman.
Brutus: I don’t follow your themes, but if you say that you are continuing a thread from elsewhere, so be it.
This is the only site I post at, and I usually only visit other sites through links on this site’s posts, so I don’t know what they’re saying elsewhere. The past I remember is not imaginary. I grew up in Southern California, Sin City to some, and certainly not the Bible Belt. When someone stole $11 dollars worth of groceries from my father’s unlocked car, TWO cops came to the house to take a report. They won’t even come for a car theft now. That’s a real, not imaginary difference. My high school class had about 800 and some kids, and I can’t recall a single girl who got pregnant. Abortion was illegal and birth control was illegal for minors. Most of the girls were keeping their knees together. There must have been some pregnancies, I suppose, but I never heard of them. Again, a real, not imaginary difference.
Where have I said there is no in between? Where did I say that people shouldn’t be allowed to smoke? Or to drink? Or to screw? I wrote that to “drink like a fish…eat like a pig…screw like a Black or screw Blacks” will bring bad results. Pointing out the ill consequences of drunkenness, gluttony, promiscuity and sex with Blacks is puritanism? You fail to distinguish between puritanism and simple prudence. You bring a sack of suppositions about people you don’t know and dump them out as if they were insights. You don’t read other’s posts clearly, otherwise you would have seen that I did catch your figure of speech. (Hint: Look for the word “serious”.) It seems that it is you, rather than I, who has only two speeds.
“The past I remember is not imaginary. I grew up in Southern California, Sin City to some, and certainly not the Bible Belt. When someone stole $11 dollars worth of groceries from my father’s unlocked car, TWO cops came to the house to take a report.” They won’t even come for a car theft now. That’s a real, not imaginary difference. My high school class had about 800 and some kids, and I can’t recall a single girl who got pregnant. Abortion was illegal and birth control was illegal for minors. Most of the girls were keeping their knees together. There must have been some pregnancies, I suppose, but I never heard of them. Again, a real, not imaginary difference.”
If atheist Scandinavians instead of Christian Mestizos had emigrated there in the intervening years do you think the crime rate and situation regarding public morality would have been worse or better?
I think what the media portrays has influenced the moral climate far more than decline in religious belief. There was no “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” on TV when you were growing up, for example. They’ve deliberately socially engineered most of it. Globalist/Communists hate strong families. They want a central authority to usurp that role. They are against religion to the extent that it’s is in the way of such complete control,
“I wrote that to “drink like a fish…eat like a pig…screw like a Black or screw Blacks” will bring bad results.”
Right. You wrote that again, and again, and yet again. And so do all others like you. There is not a hint of any in between. YOU fail to MENTION any differences. Nowhere is there the slightest trace of anything but a pure, unadulterated Puritanism in your several posts. You just keep coming back with doom and gloom a consequence of drinking, eating and sex. You say you didn’t say people “shouldn’t be allowed” to drink, eat or have sex?! No, you just keep preaching doom and gloom if they do.
You are like Liberals who coyly say,” I never said anything like that.”
They and you do not have to. Your actions and obvious implications speak far more loudly.
****************
Notice, these Puritan types NEVER deny or speak out against extreme fundamentalist Puritanism? They never defend that they are not aiming at a Puritan-like world. Instead, they make even more plain that I am right about them. When pressed, they do just like I said and act like Liberals concerning anti white bias. Nowhere do they give any hint, though, that their ideas of how we should act are anything less than the strictest rule.
This movement is loaded with these types, and they will repel white people like the plague.
Now, speaking about how “effective” Puritanism is concerning instilling “good values” and creating a “good” society and people. Almost everyone but Puritan types knows about “the preacher’s daughter” (and often his son, too). But I have never yet known of a Puritan type being able to recognize what happened. Instead they go right on advocating even more Puritanism.
I maintain these Puritan types are precisely what happened to our society concerning morals and sex. At the end of the 19th century and up through the mid 20th, the Puritan type was rigidly in control, and later, when revolution was in the air, people pretty much felt they had only two choices concerning how the future was going to be: The Puritan types and the Hollywood Jew type.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why they chose the way they did.
But of course, many of us simply went with what is natural and what we feel is normal and thus we neither are excesive nor Puritanical. And we would like to keep it that way. We want to scotch the Hollywood idea, but we also most certainly do not want a return to a Victorian era Puritan like society where sex and other forms of relaxation and pleasure are condemned as the ultimate degeneracy and not even to be mentioned. It is clear, hower, that a considerable number of people in the WN movement are aiming for a total Puritan like society.
John: Atheist Scandinavians would undoubtedly have done less to increase the crime rates that Catholic Mexicans. Given that Catholic Mexicans have a 50% bastardy rate, it’s unlikely that the Scandinavian atheists would have done worse with regard to public morality either.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/06/10/nashville-memories/comment-page-1/#comment-58483
Brutus said: “I’m not for sure I don’t dislike this Puritanical faction worse than the jewish multiracial hell we are currently experiencing.”
Brutus cares more about opposing the bogeyman of “Puritanism” than securing racial preservation.
Brutus keeps throwing around the words “Puritan,” “Puritanical,” and “Puritanism,” but he refuses to tell us what he considers “Puritanical.” On the thread above Brutus kept denouncing “Puritans,” and I asked him to state what he considered “Puritanical.” He refused to do so. To Brutus, “Puritanism” is nothing but a catch-all term of abuse for moral standards he dislikes.