BRA
I have an exciting discovery to share … the term “Judeo-Christian” as it is used today to describe a shared Jewish/Christian culture comes from Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Antichrist.
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes
@George
Judeo-Liberal-BRAve New World elites only attack Christianity because White people practice it. Crosses are fine when the groids prostrate before them and thank Jeebus fo massah Abe Lincoln. If we were a majority Hindu race they’d ban statues of Vishnu.
@Dixiegirl
You are correct in what you say about Nietzshe and what he had to say about Christianity, about Pauline Christianity especially [ the type of christianity all the churches subscribe to ultimately]. I happen to agree with Nietzshe about that.
Nietzshe didn’t say Judaism is “slavish”, as you rightfully point out. I say that Judaism is slavish. ” Hanging onto their God after He turned out to no longer be working for them” is a type of slavish mentality, I think. That’s my interpretation of it.
What I was thinking when I said Judaism is “slavish” : The Jews allowed their Rabbinical leadership to twist and distort the Torah and morph the Torah into the Talmud : The Talmud being greatly influenced by ancient Babylonian and ancient Egyptian religious thought ; Both based on slavery for the great bulk of the population ; Slaves ruled over by priests [ rabbi being a type of priest] The Talmud being about slavery. Slavery for all Non-Jews [ according to the Talmud Rabbis], but also a type of slavery for the Jews as well. As per the Talmud Rabbis, the Jews are to submit to the Rabbis and submit to the Talmud’s rules and injunctions in all matters. The Talmudic Rabbis are very overbearing.
The Jews are also propagandized and indoctrinated that the whole world is out to get them and they must go on the offensive. This is in the Talmud. This is drummed into them from birth. The brainwashing is very intense. It’s a type of slavery of the spirit. Hatred, paranoia, an incessant and unending emphasis on legalisms at the expense of the spirit. Also, there is in the Talmud an aversion to the natural world, mother nature and the animal kingdom. The Talmud is all about self-obsession. It’s a bane to the spirit, designed to constrict the ebullition of the intellect and the ebullition of the spirit. Too much ebullience could possibly lead to a loss of power for the priests and rabbis of this world. The ones who insist they know more about the great mystery which is life, the great mystery of the Holy Creator, than anyone else.
In this sense, Judaism has a “slavish” quality. I’ve met plenty of Jews who do not care for their Talmudic Rabbinical leadership. Many Jews struggle with trying to break free from the slavish dynamic(s) in Judaism.
Nietzshe spoke of the negative aspects of Judaism. Very much so. Nietzshe did not by any means see Judaism as anything superior to Christianity. To Nietzshe, Judaism was another type of mind-lock. Ultimately, Nietzshe saw Judaism as being a bane to the human spirit. To suffer a bane is to be “slavish”. Nietzshe very much implied it. He didn’t actually use the word “slavish” to describe Judaism, but he did say Judaism is a bane to the spirit. It’s another way of saying “slavish”.
“I’ve always found Nietzsche to be a joke. Would a weak little bastard like him have survive in a world with the morality he advocated? Would the world be a better place for me if my morality was “unshackled” by Christ?”
Great point.
“One of the reasons I prefer the old philosophers is because they did more then flap their gums. Most were soldiers and statesmen and all man of things on top of philosophers vs the modern ones being a lot of effeminate men trying to explain away their womanish ways”
Most modern specialized “philosophers” are such because they can really not do much else. Robert Heinlein said it best:
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
Nietzshe never argued for “specialization”. Not at all. Never. Quite the opposite, Nietzshe argued that Pauline Christianity and Judaism — the general culture of the West— has the effect of hindering the human spirit, of being a bane on the intellect , as well as being a bane on the physical, athletic , warrior man as well. He saw both religions as resulting in physically weak and intellectually stunted men.
You @ Jim may want to spend some time actually reading Nietzshe than just going by what other people [ including myself ] have to say about Nietzshe. Nietzshe never once argued for “specialization”. Never. In fact, he said that the Western culture we live in leads to “specialization”, something Nietzshe detested : It’s one of the main themes of his body of work. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Please read Nietzshe before shooting off comments.
Joe, reread what I said. I never said Nietzsche argues for “specialization”, but rather that Nietzsche was himself a specialist, like oh so many of our modern day “academics”.
His sister started a colony. So his family were interested in implimentation.
nietzsche was in the prussian army jim, he climbed mountains, got syphillus from a german whore, he did sit and write books and read greek too. he was not a “specialist” anyhow, for us keybored warriors to call someone who traveled by horse a “specialist”, is like calling a nigger an equal.
I got myself a copy of the Jewish prayer book and it’s been quite instructive. Even in their prayers – the stick to their exclusive relationship with the Supreme. One gets the impression that only they (the chosen ones) and THE universal god exist. Every other thing is peripheral – and other peoples are just “them- the Nations”.
He appears to have contracted diptheria as soldier in the Franco Prussian war while serving as a medic. He’s got chops. His health was ruined and he had to retire at 34.
@ Jim
Yes. You very much implied Nietzshe was for “specialization”. Your whole post implied that. Yes, you say Nietzshe was a “specialized philosopher”. That means he himself was “specialized” ; Still, it also very much implies he was pushing for “specialization” as well : It means both ; It’s inherent in the way you phrased your thought. That’s the impression you wanted to leave the readers.Very much so.
I read your post fine the very first time. Your post, actually both your posts, are about dismissing Nietzshe out-of-hand because Nietzshe wasn’t a “Renaissance” man; Yet, he never claimed to be. You’re not a Renaissance man yourself. Neither am I. It’s not an issue.
Nietzshe was an observer and a philosopher. He never claimed to be anything else. In the meantime, there’s much one can learn by giving Nietzshe an objective and fair-minded reading. His works can be found online with a simple google search. Most his work in pdf format. One can read Nietzshe for oneself and not depend on other’s opinions. Not mine, and not yours.
In the meantime, Nietzshe never stopped anyone from being a “Renaissance” man, if any man so chooses. In fact, reading Nietzshe could only benefit any wanna be Renaissance man. Nietzshe was all for that. Just because he wasn’t one one himself doesn’t mean he had any disdain for it. He did not. In fact, he criticized Western culture Exactly because the culture tends to produce weak men. He envisioned a culture that produces Renaissance men, not inhibits them.
Please read Nietzshe before shooting off comments.
Neitschze never met Redvers Buller, Charles Napier, or ‘Chinese’ Gordon of course. The main trouble with the Germans of the time is their limited horizon. Quite a few ardently Christian types were racial warriors.
The anarchist use of the term JudeoChristian is exact. In anarchy we have square circles and double think and double mind / bind. Nietzche promoted this idea in his distinction between values and morals in The Birth of Tragedy and the Geneology of Morals.
From its inception, the Christian faith is distinguished from Judaism / Pharisaic Law. The New Testament clearly distinguishes between the Tradition of the Elders (Talmudic Law of the Pharisees, Judaism) and the Mosaic Law of the Covenants. The Former nullifies the Latter.
Likewise, Judaism and the New Covenant are mutually exclusive in the N.T., in the Church, in the history of the Church – until the Synagogue through its Freemasonic Lodge the Alta Vendita finally succeeds in its program of infiltration and captures the highest offices of the Church.
Then, of course, we have new faith, new morals, new brand: JudeoChristian.
The Freemasons in the Culture Wars will promote this term and it will ever more aptly describe the emerging Noachide Christianity.
No one who adheres to the Credo, however, will fall for it.
@John
You never met ” Redvers Buller, Charles Napier, or ‘Chinese’ Gordon”, of course ; Does that mean you want us readers to dismiss everything you have to say ? What a ridiculous thing to say, to imply. We should dismiss Nietzshe, and based on your own premise, dismiss anyone who never met ” Redvers Buller, Charles Napier, or ‘Chinese’ Gordon”.
It’s not Nietzshe’s fault the Germans had a “limited horizon”, as you word it. In many substantial ways, the horizon Nietzshe saw was very broad and sweeping ; Nietzshe is not as “limited” as you suggest. It’s not Nietzshe’s fault many people , including many Germans, tried to twist Nietzshe’s words and concepts around to fit their pet agendas. Nietzshe was not a Nazi, nor even a proto-type Nazi.
One — A Christian — can read Nietzshe without abandoning one’s faith. Nietzshe compared Christianity and Judiasm, he saw differences, and he saw similarities. Nietzshe thought the Judaic/Talmudic/Paulistic influences in Christianity was detrimental to Western culture. The Christian religion contains Judaic elements, some good, some negative. One only can learn more by reading Nietzshe. The sun will still come up in the morning.
Nietzshe didn’t do any harm to the Western world. The white race is in the negative position it’s in due to the internecine wars of the 19th and 20th century : TheWar of 1861, WW1, WW2. Not Nietzshe. The White Race indulged in 3 very destructive internecine wars. That’s why the West is in such dire straights, not because of Nietzshe.
“I’ve always found Nietzsche to be a joke. Would a weak little bastard like him have survive in a world with the morality he advocated?”
Nietzsche wasn’t a joke. He was a brilliant scholar. The Birth of Tragedy was the single most succinct summing up of Western Civilization I read at university. And he was a combat medic. As usual you don’t know WTF you are talking about.
He was mainly provocative. Deliberately so.
Philosophers are supposed to be provocative. That’s what thinking is ALL about. The English “to educate” is from the Latin, meaning “to draw out”. It’s takes provocation to “draw out” . All education is a type of provocation.
As it is, Nietzshe never put a gun to anyone’s head to force anyone to agree with him. He wasn’t trying to start a new religion, or a new form of government. He was a philosopher. His job was to provoke. He did his job well.
No. Analytical philosophy empirical work, like David Hume, Locke, Russell, Bentham isn’t there to court controversy. Herr Prof N did court trouble.
@John
All philosophers “court trouble” one way or another. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. That’s how we learn, by reading and studying various viewpoints.
Hobbes wasn’t interested in kicking up a fuss. He was the opposite. Lot’s of non continental philosophers were after a bit of peace and quiet.
“Analytical philosophy empirical work, like David Hume, Locke, Russell, Bentham isn’t there to court controversy.”
If those guys didn’t intend to court controversy then they sure as hell didn’t do a very good job of it. 🙂
Jealousy isn’t controversy.
“Jealousy isn’t controversy.”
Come now. All of those guys were at the center of some of the most intense philosophical, political, economic, and religious debates of their day. Hume didn’t dare have his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion published during his own lifetime.
@ John
It’s not a philosopher’s responsibility [ including Nietzshe] to give us a philosophy that makes us feel good about ourselves, necessarily ; To reiterate how special and chosen we are, to make us feel comfortable, to give us “peace and quiet”. How sterile, how uninteresting, how stagnating. You’ll never learn anything substantial from anyone who constantly pats you on the back.
“Hobbes wasn’t interested in kicking up a fuss. He was the opposite. Lot’s of non continental philosophers were after a bit of peace and quiet.”
LOL!!! He hardly succeeded but you can’t blame him as he lived and wrote about politics and religion during the English Civil War and the Commonwealth. He had to flee for his life from England for France at one point and then flee again from France to England at another. Later a Bill was introduced in Parliament which might have resulted in his being burned at the stake for heresy. He was forbidden to publish any more works in England and so his later work was published in Amsterdam.
Your idea that these Enlightenment philosophers didn’t court controversy is quite frankly all wet.
David Hume, Locke, Russell, Bentham – John, your a limey alright, LOCKE? LOL hahah that’s the son of whore who got us universal suffrage, LOCKE on a site that promotes confederate slave society, you still loath the teutonic man eh?
Locke wrote the constitution for Georgia and supported slavery.
alfred the great and william the confessor would have sodomized locke with a hot spear than gave him a blood eagle, LOCKE is antithical to traditionalist circles, Nietzsche was a curmugeon at times, but dopn’t loath the german
Hobbes was attempting to write out a plan that simmered down the strife of the civil war.
that does not matter, UNIVERSALISM as in “christianity” brought us free niggers, if there were no idiot proclaiming “natural rights” than there would be no shylock promoting zwontavious’s cibil rights.
UNVERSALISM, that is what the anti-christ was against, the preistly virtue. the london christian missionaries making kaffirs christians, making them “sons of god”, making them “brothers”.
“Quite a few ardently Christian types were racial warriors”, he was not a christian in any way shape or form, perhaps only in a jim morrisonesque way, when he raved about zarathustra and trancendence, like jesus and the ‘kingdom of god’ stuff.
I meant He wrote Carolina’s constitution. Locke actually was a slaver. Heavily invested in the trade.
the anglo-saxons were without a doubt the worlds best pirates and raiders, they conquered the entire globe, but unfortunately they went soft. the germans on the otherhand never had a chance to see beyond their limited horizons because the slavo-franco-saxon entente was determined to gang rape them like a pack of wild niggers.
We’re straying off topic : It’s supposed to be about Nietzshe. Go to :
http://www.nietzsche.com/
Go to bottom of opening page, click “hotlinks” to enter site.
If my link doesn’t work, google (www.) nietzsche (.com)
Conchcobar,
I’m talking about Charles Napier or Gordon of Khartoum. Two bible thumpers.
I don’t think he was attempting to kick up a fuss. And Django will just want to kill anyway.
Well, Prof N was still a rubbish continental philosopher. The entire course of German philosophy is error filled.
I include Karl Marx in that school or trend. Kant, Hegel, Marx, Neitszche, Heidiger, Adorno…
Contentsl philosophy. Bleeech.
Interesting. I did not know that about Nietzsche. Could have sworn he had health problems his whole life and from an early age. If true I’ll think a little better of him as a man but….
I read three of his books for college, and if by brilliant scholar you mean gibberish, then I agree
ps Jim
on specialization. I agree with your quote for our personal life. I think such an attitude helps a man live a happier and richer life. However specialization has been the key to my success in my professional life, and seems to be the case for most men
Jesus was born and raised in Galilee of the Nations. “The Land of the Gentiles.” It was part of Iturea, a pagan country composed of Arameans, Assyrians, Greeks, and Phoenicians that Aristobulos, the king of Judea, conquered and then converted to his national religion by force, much the way his father, John Hyrcanus, did Edom.
IMO, Jesus may not have only tried to get rid of the Oral Tradition or the Tradition of the Elders (Pharisses) in order to get back to strictly Torah worship, but I think he was also influenced by a lot of traditions that were completely alien to the Jews, but widely accepted among the Greeks and Phoenicians, like Xenos. I think His philosophy about the Golden Rule ran completely counter to their belief system which is a big part of why they rejected Him.
Clytemnestra, Jesus commandment about the Golden Rule is the summation of the Second Commandment of the Law of Moses. He defended the Mosaic Law against the Pharisees who nullified the teaching of Moses by their Tradition of the Elders.
There was nothing of the pagan traditions of the Empire in the N.T. accounts of our Lord except that he often praised the pagans – such as the Roman Centurion for their faith in him.
The Jews (who are their own messiah) and the Pharisees (who made the reverence of the Covenants of Israel to none effect) rejected him because he was the Messiah of Israel.
It would be good if you would read the New Testament.
The new testament reads like a critique of contemporary jewish practices. Almost as if from an outsider.
“Especially the christian ministers who love the Old Testament so much : like [+ Fr John+].”
Better to love it, and study it, than to ignore it, like Modernist Rome and her sister slut assemblies do, Joe. What did Jesus say, ‘I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it?’ [Matt. 5:17] Ever hear of Biblical Law as the foundation for all of Western Civ? Works like Justinian’s Laws, Magna Carta’s charter, Calvin’s Institutes, Blackstone’s Commentaries, the Great Awakening, Morris’ Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States?
No, of course you haven’t heard of them. You’re continally engaged in Talmudic pilpul. Or gorging on Spaghetti.
But then, you have neither love nor fear of Almighty God, do you? being a Jew and all…
jews do not follow the Old Testament, they follow the talmud
Folks on this blog are confusing
a) talmudism with O.T. Judaism;
Big mistake.
b) Roman Catholic filioquist universalism (albeit only under papal rule!) with Christianity;
c) Joe as a rational being, able to think in coherent terms.
As to a) Talmudism is the COUNTERFEIT to biblical religion, either of the O.T. or the N.T.
St. John notes this truth in his Gospel, esp. John, Chapter 8. Read it, and see that Christ is totally AGAINST the Pharisees, who were (by and large) Edomites- a half-breed ‘second cousin’ to Biblical Israel, who had been granted ‘Amnesty’ and ‘citizenship’ by the last Hebrew King, John Hyrcanus (who, by his Greeek name, clearly already was a compromiser with the Davidic Dynasty/Mosaic religion), just like Obummer is doing today.
Modern Jewry has said for over one hundred years that Phariseeism became Talmudism, and infects/influences what passes for [sic] Judaism, today.
As to b) Rome has not been a real Christian denomination/Church, since she self-apostatized her own organization, at Hagia Sophia in East Rome (Constantinople/Istanbul) in 1054. Since the 1100’s, she has made lawful the heresy of the filioque, and everything that has come about since then, is as a result of these two actions. She is a Cult, a Whore, and since Vatican II, clearly a pawn of the NWO. She is the Woman astride the Beast- and the Beast are the ‘seven headed-ten crowned horns’ of the EU, and the Jewish banking interest. (I am not a fan of this sort of stuff, but there you are….)
as to c) Well, y’all are on your own on this one!
Clytemnestra and Lynda- you are both correct. No disagreement in your last two statements, frankly.
E. Michael Jones has a great book on Nietzsche and Wagner, that points out the nihilism of Friedrich and the sensualism of Wagner, led inevitably (as in, ‘not a good thing’) to the hedonism of the Rock and Roll music of the 1960’s.
I believe the book is Degenerate Moderns.
Great book.
“We’re straying off topic : It’s supposed to be about Nietzshe. Go to :
http://www.nietzsche.com/”
So glad to know that Joe is now Hunter’s official ‘stay on topic’ guru.
Even if, in all his posts, and with a link to a URL, he STILL doesn’t spell Nietzsche’s name correctly.
Oh yeah. Great intellect, even accounting for the occasional spelling gaffe.