A Response to Alex Linder
October 12, 2009 
147 Comments
Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network has responded to our previous post. He begins with a nice compliment:
This is certainly one of the top five blogs out there for pure quality of writing, humor, and all around editorial goodness. That said, SWB is Christian, and while it laments anti-White practices of most of the modern church, it also attacks good old-fashioned evidence-based WNism. It turns out, you see, everybody needs a savior.
Indeed, and throughout history almost no one has denied it, although there have been vast differences in how God is perceived. The Kinist God is the God of the Bible, not the god of William Pierce or any other charlatan who tries to play upon the universal need for spiritual validation by inventing unfalsifiable stories, and in the end, when he realizes that the god of his vain imagination is as lifeless as totems of wood and stone, turns to the only life he knows and makes a god of his race, which is just another way of saying that his god is his own self. Of all religions in the world, the ambassador of only one came as the Son of the Creator and Law-Giver, and He did what no other man could do or would do: He died in our place to satisfy the penalty of our sin. Therefore we live, not because of enlightenment or karma but because Christ first loved us. Miracles confirmed His authority, His Word, and the appointment of His prophets and apostles who gave us the Bible.
All we have sought to do as Kinists is teach that the Bible does not condone the destruction of the white race that is advocated by modern churches. Again and again, true to our ancestors, we have disproved Linder’s belief that “the Bible says nothing about race.” We have shown that the vast majority of Christendom has opposed the deracinating impulses of our time. This does not matter to Linder because he only cares about what the churches are doing currently. In his mind, this is sufficient confirmation for his belief that Christianity has always been useless. He has many misunderstandings about what we believe, and I doubt that any explanation we could offer would dissuade him from his presuppositions and presumptions, but what follows is a response to some of what he has written, in no particular order.
First, here are some quotes from Linder so you can get a feel for his ideas.
[O]ur most learned scholars agree that HE [Jesus] DIDN’T EVEN EXIST…
The Christians say it was faith that built the cathedrals, but the truth says anyone who figures out the engineering principles can do it…
Christianity did not begin as a kin religion, but precisely as the opposite – as an association of unhappy scum in the declining Roman empire. It began as a loser love cult. Family had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, which broke families apart. Or perhaps [Jesus] didn’t mean it when he told his dolts to abandon their mother and father if they balked at [following Him]…
Our “most learned scholars” have never explained away the evidence and eyewitness testimony presented in the Bible, which would hold up in any court of law. For instance, the Jewish leaders could have done one simple thing to end Christianity forever: produce the dead body of Jesus. The disciples were hiding in fear while Roman centurions guarded the tomb under penalty of death. The Bible tells us what happened next. No one believes that, if the disciples (who Linder calls “unhappy scum”) had conspired to overcome the guards and had somehow succeeded in convincing a mob to risk their lives in a grand lie, they would have sacrificed their own lives afterwards. If the disciples actually stole the body and if the guards managed to escape, the guards would have fled to the Roman army for reinforcements. They certainly would not have gone to the chief priests and elders of the Jews to accept a bribe. So much for our “most learned scholars.”
Neo-pagan white nationalists are vexed that the semi-deified white men of Europe accepted the Christian “superstition” unanimously. Therefore, it becomes necessary for Linder to develop an excuse for their temporary blindness. He says their “gullibility was merely transferred from an oak tree to a jew on a stick.” One wonders how such a gullible and backward people got anywhere in life. Then Linder returns to the script and assures us that their faith in Christ did not transform them. With their innate brilliance, all they needed was time to learn engineering, he says, but not as much time as it took for an amoeba to grow into Isaac Newton.
“Engineering principles” have never inspired anyone. Although the swastika is a beautiful symbol, Nazis did not create it. Nazi art and architecture were hideous, for the most part, as Leni Riefenstahl, a true artist, knew. The greatest art and science in the world have been the gifts of Christians, Germans among them. Excellence is driven by the desire to glimpse the divine. We don’t deny the genetic component at work, but we call this a gift from God as well. Again, if atheists want to prove that high civilization is simply a matter of cold “engineering principles,” nothing is preventing them from creating works of art that last for hundreds of years and inspire countless generations and actually advance our understanding. How much longer must we wait?
Linder writes:
The church, as I’ve said eighty times, ignored the jews until an apostate Donin pointed out what was in the jewbooks.
Donin exposed the anti-Christian bias of the Talmud in the time of Pope Gregory IX, but before the Talmud was even written, the Apostle Paul wrote this:
For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
A man without a good understanding of the Bible should never profess to understand the scope of Western history. Linder’s wild misconceptions of what the Bible actually teaches can be stunning, but his real hang-up is with the idea that Christianity is universal. Like Nietzsche, he believes that religion is fabricated to compensate for masculine inadequacies. But if forced to practice some kind of religion, he would insist that it be confined to the white race, because the white race is his true god. He writes:
Christianity is in fact and long practice UNIVERSAL rather than race specific, and this means it will never be anything but a blinder preventing men from applying Occam’s Razor to the multicultural world they see around them.
If there is no possibility of some degree of unity with those who are not like us then war will be our lot perpetually. We see that the pluriform God created a pluriform humanity that will thrive and know peace only when there is a proper balance to “the one and the many.” Without Christ, centralization and consolidation are unrestrained, not only in government but in everything. Mankind is not meant for a future in Oceania. There is no other route to a blissful future than through the cross, for only then do we realize God’s purpose in a spiritually unified but physically variegated humanity, just as He created us, in His own image. What other “holy” books teach this? What other “prophets” have spoken it? Where is it found in the science textbooks? How else could multiculturalism ever be challenged? Linder’s solution to the problem is to exterminate his enemies, but this solution denies the nature of God and the nature of man and puts Linder in the place of God to judge what is good and what is evil, just like Nietzsche’s “Superman.” In other words, it is the very oldest sin, the sin of pride.
From this throne of pride, Linder becomes what he hates. As “James Thornwell” commented at VNN, Linder is defending atheism in the same way that a Jew named Gordon Stein defended it. When Stein met Greg Bahnsen the “results were not pretty.” While not a Christian, even Hitler called atheism “the state of the animal.” He also considered neo-paganism to be senseless because “Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself.” Why did it cease to be viable? For one, because it has never entered into the mind of a pagan to feed and clothe strangers out of love, like the Good Samaritan.
For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:46-48)
Likewise, in 1 Timothy 5:8, we are told that even infidels care for their own, and Christians are rebuked as worse than infidels when they do not.
This brings us right back to the Christian pursuit of global unity versus the atheist pursuit of extermination. We grant that in the last 60 years Christians have often failed in this goal because they have pursued an absolute, Babelistic unity rather than a pluriform unity in spiritual communion. But consider the way forward. Christians today of a pre-modern stripe dominate secession movements. They seek to devolve power from a tyrannical central government and return it to their own localities, as the founders intended for a federal republic. Meanwhile, atheists and national socialists are working towards absolute unity to construct an iron hammer which will smite the enemies of the white race. We often ask neo-Babelist Christians how their ideology would ever allow for national borders between two Christian nations, and they are unable to answer because they view race and ethnicity as irrelevant. We ask the same question of the VNN crowd: How do your unitarian views allow for diversity within the race? When have national socialists ever allowed devolution of the megastate? What evidence do we have that they ever will?
Linder blames the carnage of the world wars on Christians rather than on those who embezzled the capital of Christendom for the benefit of anti-Christs and in pursuit of global domination.
There are many other groundless accusations against Kinists. We deny that ruthlessness is equal to self-defense. We deny that only Christians are heroic or fertile. We deny that “No one ever breathed until Christianity. No one ever invented anything. No one ever thought. No one ever cooked food. No one ever was nice to his neighbor, looked after his kids, fought to defend his community – no one ever did anything good until Christianity appeared.” I fail to see how anyone could accuse us of believing this. We have always praised the honor of the white race as it was created by God, even before it came to know Him.
Linder states that National Socialist Germany “placed more value on motherhood” for the 12 years it existed than Christian Germany did in 1,300 years. We are very glad that women in Nazi Germany had many children, but it’s silly to call them “NS German women.” The Nazis were around for a few years, but Germans have existed for thousands. An honest historian would give Martin Luther far more credit than Hitler for German distrust of Jews, and would give Christianity far more credit than Nazism for German integrity. But let’s try not to conflate too much. Germans were gifted with a very rich pre-Christian heritage by their Creator. The Christian faith did not radically change them, but it did complete them. It disposed of the idolatry that hindered them (Isaiah 57:5) and gave them the means to live more abundantly. It would be as foolish to identify the people of 1940s Germany with the party that ruled them as it would be for a historian 70 years from now to identify Americans in the present day as Jews. But we need to give credit where it’s due, and we are not the kind who dismiss Hitler as the spawn of Satan simply because Jews want us to believe it. He did many things that were good and many things that were bad.
Hitler is not the issue. The issue at hand is whether a philosophy of atheism has ever met our challenge of founding a society and causing it to thrive by encouraging childbirth, caring for the poor, improving education, building wealth, and doing all the other things that numerous Christian societies have done. Linder claims that Nazi Germany wins the challenge, but this is absurd, because even he admits that the Nazis were not atheists, at least not formally. Most Germans never rejected the Christian faith in the short time that Hitler was in power, and I doubt that Hitler himself would have dared to take credit for Germany’s greatness. There is no doubt that he helped Germany by removing obstacles such as debt slavery, but this is not the same thing. One of the proofs that atheism is not a creative force is that the people today who admire what they call the atheism of the Third Reich are not known for doing any of the creative acts that Christians do routinely.
If God is not real then sin is not real and neither is evil. Thus, Jews are merely “clever” in seeking their own advantage, Linder believes. But if this is true then whites are free to stoop to any level to seek their own advantage, including lying, cheating, stealing, and as Linder fantasizes frequently, killing. By no objective measure could the West have ever risen to its greatness if it had been founded upon such selfishness and vainglory.
Here again, we see that the “rational” approach of Darwinists is anything but rational; it is subjective on one face and fatalistic on the other. By either flip of the coin, it is standardless and seeks progress through barbarism.
Linder writes:
Instead of crying over your “sinning,” why not just change your behavior, if it hurts you so bad? That’s the Aryan way to approach it.
No, that is not the Aryan way, and if it ever was, you can see why even Hitler recognized that “it ceased to be viable.” This is the madness and dead tissue which the atheist-Darwinist-white nationalist seeks to reanimate.
Linder admires H.L. Mencken more than anyone, and I see the similarities. But for all of his polish, Mencken was an iconoclast, not a truth-teller. He translated Nietzsche’s book, The Antichrist, and it’s easy to see a common line drawn from Nietzsche to Mencken to Linder and other neo-pagans. The final page of their life story involves dying childless and alone. I don’t mean that in a condescending way; I only mean to point out that the actual history of the West has depended on the graciousness of the Lord of Life. He preserved us through the ages when we did not know Him, but neo-pagans think we saved ourselves, even though many other peoples down through history have utterly perished.
If Life was our genetic destiny regardless of Christ, why did Nietzsche, Mencken, Spengler, Oliver, Ludovici, Yockey, and on and on, not leave a legacy to prove that their atheism and skepticism could provide the West with a future that was at least comparable to Christianity? William Pierce had children, but they rejected him, and Kevin Strom became his “son” instead. Now, if a man doesn’t want to get married and have children, that’s his business, but one would expect that if saving the West is paramount, at least some of these men would practice what they preach. No, their lines have died off because their philosophy itself is dead. All who hate Christ love death, even if they don’t realize it (Proverbs 8:36).
If the highest good is to have white children and save the white race, and Christians are doing this times three but atheists are nowhere near replacement level, then on the face of it, even a Darwinist should conclude that Christianity = Life, and Atheism = Sterility. Which is more rational, life or death?
This BBC article is about some faithful Christians in central Illinois, pastored by James McDonald, who view children as a blessing. While some in the church have unfortunately “adopted children from around the world,” meaning, for the most part, black boys and Chinese girls, even a self-described “radical secularist” recognizes that they are doing far more than anyone else to prevent what he calls “race suicide.” Even when white Christians foolishly “adopt” strangers, any fool can see that they do it because they love children, and they love children because they love their Lord and are grateful for the blessings He has bestowed on them, including their kin. While atheists talk about saving the white race, Christians are doing it, in spite of their errors.
This, my friends, is why atheism is dead, why Christianity is alive, and why our European ancestors could do nothing but fall to their knees and repent. Like Isaiah (6:5), they exclaimed, “Woe is me, for I am undone!” Like Job (40:4), they could only say, “Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer You? I lay my hand over my mouth.”
It might be a strange coincidence, but Tom Fleming has written an article that appears to be a reflection on our previous post and Alex’s response:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/10/09/the-sin-of-humility/
But he makes the silly statement, on the authority of none other than Nietzsche, that Martin Luther was responsible for returning Germans “to their native swinishness.” Even so, he acknowledges the genetic component to German accomplishments.
A quote:
The Germans are a great nation, and they have made very important contributions to our common civilization. Some of their accomplishments must be due to their robust vigor and native talents, but they did not learn to put those talents to good use until they were civilized by the Roman Church and Roman civilization. Even crazy Nietzsche, a Lutheran pastor’s son whose hatred of Catholicism knew no bounds, confessed that Luther had unleashed the Germans from classical civilization and given them license to return to their native swinishness. This is much too harsh, both on Luther and on the Germans, but that was the opinion of the leading guru of neopaganism.
Alex Linder: Notorious Anti-Christ Mystic, Enemy Of White Culture And People
(Apollonian, 13 Oct 09)
SWB, I don’t know what rock u’ve been living under, but Alex Linder is NOTORIOUS anti-Christ–not merely NON-Christian, but ANTI. So how is it u dignify such creature (Linder) when u ban and censor the mighty Apollonian who is outstanding Christian soldier?
And there’s yet another extremely telling and important dimension u so conveniently overlook regarding ur hero, Linder/VNN: for Linder rejects reason itself as definitive means of human knowledge, Linder explicitly rather endorsing a Nietzschean-type mysticism.
And note Christianity thematically defends TRUTH against Jew lies and conspiracy, esp. as in definitive Gosp. JOHN 14:6 whence Christ is explicitly identified as truth itself. Thus note Christianity implicitly defends Aristotelian OBJECTIVITY, this the necessary criterion of truth. And finally, we note then human reason itself is necessarily founded upon such objectivity.
Thus observe the double-dealing of Linder who professes to reject Christianity as he falsely asserts Christianity rejects reason, the Jew-like Linder not revealing he also rejects reason itself.
So what gives, SWB?–how is it u implicitly endorse and dignify this amazing Jew-sponsored anti-Christ, Alex Linder, thus tending to giving him currency and legitimacy in white patriot circles?–Is it because u urself are a mystic who endorses a form of anti-reason which u pretend is “faith”? For faith, properly understood is merely, simply LOYALTY, nothing else, and certainly not anti-reason.
CONCLUSION: Thus SWB, it is ur own Christianity, loyalty thereto, and understanding thereof which is in question. For if u reject reason, u reject objectivity, Truth, and Christ. And if u defend Christianity and reason, then what are u doing puffing ur buddy, Linder, the Jew’s agent of dis-info? Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
i’m an ex-VNN poster & some-what of a believer in Klassen’s doctrine of “Creativity”!
you accuse Linder of “fantasising of killing” but isn’t that, in fact, what the enemies of the White Race (especially jews & blacks) do to us?
what about the “killing” that has been inflicted on the White Race by two jew-organised World Wars, the infamous jew-controlled “counter-cultural revolutions” of the 1960s & 1970s, contraception & the jew-run abortion holocaust?
how has the White Race gone from almost one third of the Earth’s population a century ago to, now, little more than 5%?
doesn’t every philosophy, religion and theistic belief system of the last millenia or more justify killing in self defence? (that is: when yr enemy is hell-bent on killing YOU?)
and……what about justice?
if justice were seen to be done, then most jews should be on capital murder charges as either pre-meditated murderers or accessories before & after the fact!
aren’t jews responsible for 9/11 and the ensuing horrors of Iraq & Afghanistan?
aren’t blacks responsible for mind-bogglingly hideous crimes against the White Race (like the Channon Christopher/Chris Newsome rape/torture/murders) in the US on an almost daily basis?
aren’t most US blacks “christians”?
did we hear any black Christian “leader” in the US speak out against the Christopher/Newsome murders or the almost equally hideous Wichita massacre some years before that horrible atrocity?
you fail to address one of Linder’s main points (you should listen to the Radio Istina archives, rather than a “one-off” comment ‘thread’ on the VNN Forum, to get a better “grasp” of what he is talking about….in particular, his “critique” of E Michael Jones!)…..and that is: genetics, NOT “religious belief” determine behaviour (try Rushton’s “Race, Evolution & Behaviour” on this too!)…..as Linder says: “you can’t turn a black (or a jew!) into a human being by tipping holy water on him/them!”
you also say imply that “Western Civilisation” couldn’t have achieved its current greatness without chistianity but didn’t our modern world really begin with the Renaissance which was, in fact, the re-discovery of the ancient Greek & Roman texts and their ensuing application(s)?
wasn’t ancient Greek civilisation at least as advanced, in philosophy, art & science, as any-thing that “Christendom” produced until the sixteenth century?
(for the record: i believe that Linder has two children…a boy & a girl….also: many other WNs on VNN have several children…..”Rounder” or Glenn Miller…..has six or seven, from my under-standing….and at least a dozen grand-children!)
*hope you see fit to post this, un-edited*
best regards for now!
(jimbo)
Outstanding statement of principles.
We have nothing to do with them, nor they with us. Did R.L. Dabney or Orestes Brownson care that their contemporary Nietzsche was a white man? Anyone who blasphemes Christ belongs to the “synagogue of Satan,” no matter what race he was born to.
Our goal is to rebuild Western European Christian civilization which was built upon the foundation of the white races and in which those white nations prospered and grew as no other people in history. That can only be accomplished when we follow Christ’s admonition to “reject the bread of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy” and accept only the bread of life. Our people are dying of spiritual hunger, and dancing around oak trees or crying “Heil Hitler” will not give new life to our nations which are facing extinction.
We have fallen into degradation and mixed ourselves with foreign peoples because we have been unfaithful. Those pastors who have led our people into this calamity have done so not because of their Christian faith, but because they are apostates in their hearts. Let us return to the Lord before it is too late. Let us repent of our traffic with idolators, both Jews to whom Christ is a stumbling block and Greeks to whom he is “irrational.” Let us fill our quivers with godly progeny, like the Christians in the BBC link.
BTW, great discussion going on over at the Tom Fleming link you provided.
Which reminds me that the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas — the crowning achievement of Western Civilization — is the best refutation of Linder’s argument. On almost every point Aquinas quotes from the wisdom of the pre-Christian pagans, most notably Aristotle of course, but also from a wide range of all the surviving Roman and Greek writers, thus proving that European Christian civilization incorporated all that was best from what went before it. (Although Cambria Will not Yield won’t like hearing that.)
Linder Appreciates Apollonian Critique–Check His Blog
(Apollonian, 13 Oct 09)
I want to note for u, SWB, and ur comrades, fans, and readers here: I posted my above entry over at Linder’s site, VanGuardNewsNetwork.com (also GoVnn.com), and interestingly, though I expected the satanistic punk to delete it, he rather has no less than 4 (four, presently) replies posted in response to my entry–ck them out, by all means.
For another notable tactic/practice of Linder is that he often, we observe, posts to his own blogs using multiple, different monikers, pretending thus, evidently, that he has lots and lots of fans–Linder is a “piece of work,” as he calls me, all his own–literally. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
The Duggars are going for Number 19, and their first grandchild is on the way too. That kind of fertility, is able to produce hundreds of millions of descendants over several generations. If the kids are half as fertile as the parents, the Duggars could easily end up with two hundred grandchildren. Do the math — while there are still people living who have met Mr. & Mrs. Duggar face-to-face, their descendants could already be numbering into the millions. Have lots of kids and train them in righteousness rather than sending them to the government schools, and in a few generations, things will turn around. If the Lord blesses us, it can happen.
http://www.duggarfamily.com/
I wonder if Searching for Whitopia Rich Benjamin (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929729,00.html) thinks we need to get a government stimulus grant to “racially integrate” the Duggar family. (Actually, the Duggars look pretty well racially integrated to me, don’t you agree?)
John, on your closing point in your post, Christians are called to be hunters, or, more precisely, fishermen — since the unconverted heathen are represented symbolically by the ocean and its creatures; Christianity goes out and captures whatever God gives to us and Christianizes it. What the unconverted heathen were able to enjoy through God’s common grace, God’s special saving grace in Christ takes and transforms into something worth occupying a permanent place in the temple. Look at all the pagan festival days that have been incorporated into the Christian calendar, as just one example of that.
We see some pretty disturbing syncretisms of Christianity and local religions in various cultures; that needs to be distinguished from what I’m describing above but we could also say that the Christianization of those places still needs to be carried through to its proper conclusion. And maybe that’s connected with the reason why in God’s providence the Christian faith captured the territories of the ancient Roman Empire first — to set the basic pattern for the Christianization of the entire world throughout subsequent history.
I would probably never have found my way to VNN except that Alex Linder’s statements were posted here. So I linked over.
Now where have we heard all this before? When the WJC declared war on Germany in 1933, didn’t Hitler receive Rothschild finance? Didn’t the Judaic imperiium build up a neo-pagan movement of white supremacy and race worship for apostate European nations prior to the last world war?
The idea (of course) was to machinate a world war with the International front of Jewry controlling all sides. American / British cartelized capitalism (true Communism) together with the Revolutionary Communism of the Soviet VS the national socialisms backed by race religions in preference to the Christian religion organized as reformed national churches, but especially the Catholic Church as established within all European nations.
The Men behind the Curtain of that war built up a neo pagan, Nordic race religion in Germany and N.W. Europe to challenge the power of Christian establishment and ensure that the cause of national unity and sovereignty could never arise – and especially national sovereignty as backed by the Church.
The Victor in this conflict was and was always intended to be Communism and Zionism.
So in our own time, when even the idea of national sovereignty is being contested in the lead up to the next world war, it is a foregone conclusion that this race religion stuff would revive. I mean, how could it not? It has been so servicable to the Judaic imperium in the past.
So when we start reading the rhetoric of neo pagan white racial supremacy, the obvious question is: where does this come from?
The burden of proof is on these ‘white nationalists’ to show from any artifact, any historical text that self worship and race worship was the basis of any European nation at any time in history. Come on – Show me one! John has referred to St Thomas of Aquin. Contra factum non est argumentum. Show us one expample of this pre-Christian pagan religion of race worship in Europe.
The ancient European nations might have worshiped Thor or Odin and had all manner of superstititions about sacred oaks, yews – whatever cloak was used in ancient history by the Powers seated in wickedness.
“…the whole world is in the power of the evil one.” 1 John 5:19
But they never sank to such a level of barbarism as self deification. They might have been justly proud of the achievements of their ancestors and as a people, but that is a far cry from the kosher shyte being argued for on VNN and a host of other Jewish weblogs. I mean it has a K stamped right on it.
There is abundant evidence on VNN of kashrut (kosher) supervision to apostate whites assisting them in the development and promotion of a religion of white supremacy. Kind of like the elder brothers in the faith bringing the little goyim along the path both tried and true – especially with all this ‘kike’ talk, diatribe and invective against the Jews.
Read Judaism Discovered. Those who attatck Judaism in this way strengthen the Judaic imperiium. I think the Hoffman maxim has “the rule of the rabbis”.
In truth, however, there is only one religion of self-worship, racial supremacy and global imperium. And that religion is Pharisaism or Judaism. Its law is the Talmud and it suffers no rivals, no slave flatteries contrived by the little goyim who just want to have race worship too.
For this bilge and death, the goyim who are following Jews like Linder would trade Christ the Redeemer of the world and their King. They talk about ‘Kinism’, but they would trade their own mothers for a six pack and nudie magazine. I am not Jewish, but if I put myself into that mindset and I read the goyishe kopfs writing on that website I could die laughing.
Writing in a very similar time and under very similar circumstances, that great Inkling J.R.R. Tolkien wrote to his son Michael in June of 1941. At that time, Michael was an officer Cadet at the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. (From the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. 1981. Unwin Paperbacks, p. 55-56)
“You have to understand the good in things to detect the real evil”…”Anyway, I have in this war a burning private grudge – which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22*: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying and making forever accursed that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere, incidentally , was it nobler than in England (Angle Lond) nor more early sanctified and Christianized.”
* (Tolkien was with the 11th Lancashire Fussilers at the Somme)
“It is by Divine permission that wicked men receive power to rule as punishment for sin.” St Thomas of Aquin.
AntiChrists and deluded goyim following the ravings of Alex Linder over at VNN – you remind me of the victorious English and Burgundians carrying on during the 100 Years War in France, busy with your plans and power trip. Until, St Michael the Archangel took command of the last defenses of the French forces – few in number, scattered and demoralized.
Omnia Instaurare in Christo is the cause of the hour. And this cause and no other will prevail against the Communist Revolution now everywhere advancing and Communist victory which in the natural course of events is certain.
Equally certain is a supernatural course of events proclaimed by saints throughout the centuries for precisely these times. A great standard will come onto the international scene. This will be the royal standard of the Fleur de Lys and that is for France and the Crown of the Lillies, but above it will be displayed the Sacred Heart of Christ the King. There is a true Desposyniac lineage of the House of David within the Church, the kings of France descended in direct line from the kindred of our Lord who were His closest disciples. This will herald the return of the Holy Father from exile and the restoration of the Western Patriarchate.
But the Ascendances Davidiques des Rois de France will precede. The prophet Amos states plainly that in the time of the great darkness (the Three Days) the tabernacle of David will be restored. Of the Three Days of Darkness, our Lord has spoken of this many times and in many centuries to his saints in statements published by the Church as worthy of credence. Of his foes who have contrived and worked for the ruin of all Christendom and the destruction of the Church, our Lord declares: “I will find them all.”
A great triumph has been promised to a mere remnant of those who would persevere in the faith of the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church. This will be the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary – for the glory of Christ. The time of restoration of all things announced at Pentecost will culminate in an era of peace when our Lord rules all nations by his Sacred Heart and again – entire nations will come into the Church. Then will come the Anti Christ and the close of this age of the world.
Even many totally irreligious WNs and pro-White activists despise Linder and consider him a loudmouthed loser:
http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11619&highlight=linder
You need not take his yakking too seriously. He’s just a lightweight shock jock, and besides in suspiciously good terms with ex-Fed informant Glenn Miller.
“There are no ordinary people. You have never met a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations, these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.” — C. S. Lewis
Thoughts?
Apollonian, it cracks me up that you write in “text” lingo (“u” for “you”) but sign and date your comments for posterity.
As usual, I have no idea what you’re talking about. How you could construe this post as an endorsement of Linder is a question that only your Ouija board or 8-Ball can answer. But I had to let this comment come through the spam filter because of my mirth at the phrase “the mighty Apollonian who is outstanding Christian soldier.” If you really believe that hallowed Reason is the “definitive means of human knowledge,” you’re in serious disagreement with what the Bible teaches, and you have no business criticizing Alex.
That which has been revealed to us by God is thoroughly reasonable (the supernatural is not anti-natural), and He tells us, “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18), but this does not mean that God and man approach the bar of reason together as peers, as though reason stands on its own, with or without God. We are told to “try the spirits,” but on the basis of the Word of God, not our own reason. This is why I reminded everyone earlier that we are finite and limited; we do not have the mind of God and are incapable of thinking His thoughts, except analogously, as Dr. Cornelius Van Til taught.
There are three verses in John 14 that teach this perfectly: “Where I go you know, and the way you know,” said Jesus. Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” He did the same thing when a man approached Him and tried to compliment Him, as a mere man, by greeting Him as “good teacher.” “Why do you call me good?” said Jesus. “There is none good but God.” In other words, “life” and “good” do not exist apart from Him, and if you think that He operates in their framework rather than vice versa, you have missed the point entirely. I get the impression that most people consider God to be a creature rather than the Creator. This is how “reasonable” pagans have always perceived the gods.
Through the creative Word we have received divine revelation and also natural revelation, which is sometimes called the 67th book of the Bible. The Rationalism that you advocate, which is that truth is determined through reason, is not biblical. Nor is Fideism, which is blind, unreasonable faith, or as you put it, mere “loyalty.” There are dogs who are loyal to abusive masters, but we would never call this loyalty “faith.”
One of the hypocrisies at work here is the idea that atheists and Darwinists and Nietzscheans are purely rational and do not rely on faith of some kind. They must have faith that electrons moving along neural paths in their brains amount to something sensible and reasonable. After all, what does an electron know of reason? They must believe in that which is unseen, namely that these neural patterns, which we call the five senses and memory, comport with what we call laws, including logic and mathematics.
Jimbo, thanks for writing. Yes, the enemies of the white race do have a strategy similar to “no jews, just right,” and this is why self-defense is always a viable option. I favor it, and justice too. But all Jews are not responsible for 9/11 and all Jews are not murderers. Therefore, killing all Jews, as Linder desires, would be unjust. Yes, many blacks are violent felons, and most blacks call themselves Christians. Let’s protect our own people! Yes, genes have a large effect on behavior, but this does not mean that religion has no effect at all, and it doesn’t prove that non-whites are not human beings. These are glaring non sequiturs.
We all rely very heavily, in many ways, on our genetic and cultural inheritance from Greeks, Romans, and all our European brethren. I would prefer to descend from no others. But with baptism into Christ, the white race became what it was meant to be. Anyone who denies it is simply not taking an honest look at history.
I realize that many of the atheists and neo-pagans in the WN movement are going to have children. My point is that they will never come close to doing what Christians have done to save our race. Raising families (as opposed to the very easy task of making babies) takes tremendous self-sacrifice, and the Darwinist fantasy of gene succession has never been sufficient motivation. I’ve never spoken to a gene or held one in my arms. If we all go to the worms, and that’s the end of our existence, I have better things to do. Fortunately, our Lord made the ultimate sacrifice for us, and eternal life is a free gift to His children, just as I give gifts to my own children. I will be with my friends and posterity in eternity, and this is all the motivation I need.
John, Fleming has always been odd. He writes some good things and then says “racists” are evil for trying to prevent miscegenation and secure the only world he knows and loves.
This is a good sentence from him that underscores what we have been saying: “Christianity takes for granted the pagan substratum – kinship, loyalty, patriotism, duty, marriage, the moral order – but then elevates the whole onto a higher plane.”
He correctly denies that humility is social equality. He also quotes Alphonsus that pride is “an inordinate [disproportionate] appetite for one’s own preeminence.” Pride does not lead to excellence.
Quite so, quite so.
Alex says he believes we just “go to the worms,” yet there is an urgent ethical mandate he preaches: “you OUGHT to become a WN, etc.” Yet he refuses to engage on what the metaphysical basis of that OUGHT is.
Likewise, he thinks we are just matter, yet cannot explain how matter could “know” something. It is a basic category mistake.
I have gained by listening to Alex — for example, discovered E. Michael Jones. He is willing to engage with people he thinks are crazy, but only to a point. He is not willing to drill down to the core issues. There needs to be a basic honesty. As far as I’m concerned, we can lay down the Bahnsen-Stein debate as the gauntlet. If Alex is willing to study that, understand it, then engage us on those specifics, here, there or anywhere, we will be happy to interact — provided he ceases the overt blasphemy.
But if not, he is either not a serious thinker, or is in fact in the employ of jews, as someone suggested.
re the Fleming post, two comments. First, he uses the “anti-semite” canard. That very term is classical judeo confusion/equivocation. No one that I know of that criticizes the jewish presence ties it to their alleged Semitic racial stock. He would probably say, “etymological fallacy.” No. The term was deliberately ambiguous from its very origin. The primal meaning is not opaque due to the passage of time — it never was clear. It has not become more clear with the passage of time. We must erase that term from our vocabulary, as it can only fuzz up one’s thinking. If he doesn’t cease and desist from it, I’m willing to write him off also. The second point is that all his threading of the Christian/pagan needle denies the key antithesis, as indeed it must from a Lutheran that converts to Rome. Explicating this further will have to wait however.
Best.
Post.
Ever.
Hey Tim, not that it’s been lost on anyone reading this, but the anti-semite slur is even sillier when one considers that some of the biggest “anti-semites” are (“self-hating”) Jews. And by the way, what is the flip side of the expression “self-hating Jew”? Doesn’t that reveal a lot about people who like to throw the term around? — About their view of what it means to be a Jew and what they are really worshipping. Funny thing is, I think there are more than a few WNs in exactly the same mind-set. You just replace “Jew” with “white” and there you go. I could never see the attraction of w@nking while looking at one’s self in the mirror, but apparently some people get off on that sort of thing, or at least they live as if they do. What a blessing it is to be able to focus on YHWH and His mighty works rather than obsessing with ourselves.
To answer my own question above, I wonder how C. S. Lewis would reconcile that statement (from this sermon: http://www.doxaweb.com/assets/doxa.pdf) with what is written in Revelation 21:24? If the life of nations, cultures, arts and civilizations is to ours as the life of a gnat, then what is the point of having the nations of them which are saved walking in the light of the Lamb, and the kings of the earth bringing their glory and honor into it? It seems that C. S. Lewis had forgotten that the Trinity’s work in history involves more than just the saving of souls.
And while I’m glad to be able to read an essay like the above, I hope I may never be subjected to such a sermon in any worship service.
SWB Confirms His Mysticism, Total Mis-Understanding Of TRUTH, Objectivity
(Apollonian, 14 Oct 09)
SWB, the entire pt. to Christ and TRUTH, as in Gosp. JOHN 14:6, is that truth is only meaningful in an OBJECTIVE (Aristotelian) reality. For truth requires objectivity as criterion–get a clue. Thus Christ would have no meaning or worth–without first, that objective, God-given reality in which we exist.
Objectivity then is where necessary REASON comes in. For human reason is only meaningful in an objective (God-given) reality. Reason has no use in anything other than objective reality, reason being thus what grasps and verifies truth.
For in a subjective reality (which Jews thematically and hysterically endorse and require) ANYTHING goes, obviously–everything and nothing is truth at same time, there being no possible distinction, as there’s no criterion, no objectivity–anything goes, again.
In subjectivism, “truth” has no meaning, and that’s why Jews always run a dictatorship, the excuse usually being “morality,” wherein “truth” is what Jews declare. What’s ur problem?–why can’t u grasp this simple idea regarding TRUTH?–it requires objectivity for any meaning. Thus note as Christ endorses such truth, he endorses Aristotelian objectivity, necessarily and implicitly–this is what u, like a stubborn child, fail to grasp.
This basic confusion and ignorance of urs for TRUTH is why/how u’re so pathetically and utterly incompetent for all ur ponderous babbling even as u cite the “Bible” so extensively. U don’t even understand what it is we’re talking about–TRUTH.
And if u were truly a real Christian, u’d understand ONLY New Testament (NT) is definitive–as Christ is ONLY way to God, as even u urself note within the rest of ur babbling text.
Hence REASON, a creature of such objectivity, is absolutely essential to grasping such truth and objectivity, hence proper appreciation of Christ.
Thus the fundamental metaphysical (philosophic) anti-theses are as follows:
(a) TRUTH vs. lies and conspiracy, in accord w. Gosp. JOHN, Jews being ultimate liars as they’re most organized and collectivistic.
(b) Christian vs. Jew
(c) Objective vs. subjective (criterion for truth)
(d) Reason vs. mysticism (though there is excuse for honest ignorance and mysticism borne thereof)
(e) determinism (God’s will, absolute cause-effect) vs. perfectly “free” will.
And it’s this last dichotomy regarding nature of human will which is most practical in separation of humans politically and culturally as the inferior races are prone to “good-evil” Pelagian heresy by which people are traduced and mis-led by false prophets and Pharisaics, “good-evil” obviously having no objective basis.
Indeed, that’s very definition of Pharisaic: one who is led by hubris of “moral virtue” and pretended “good”–like u, SWB, who imagines abortionists are deserving of murder, as we noted fm ur last ravings upon the murdered abortionist, Tiller.
So anyway, SWB, the pt. I made above is confirmed: u’re a mystic, like Linder/VNN, who denies the absolute and necessary validity of human REASON which is essential for proper appreciation of Christ.
CONCLUSION: SWB, u need to consider if u’re really a Christian urself, as u obviously rather prefer worshipping ur own corrupt imaginations and hubris for a reality all ur own, independent of the one given by God, affirmed by Christ–that OBJECTIVITY which gives MEANING and criterion, in first place, to TRUTH which u have greatest difficulty grasping. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
So I’ve learned that only the New Testament is definitive (because the OT was written by dirty Jews, right?), and only inferior races are prone to Pelagianism. This is funny stuff. You should take your show on the road.
Yes, all abortionists need to be dispatched forthwith, and the act deserves the praise of Phinehas. To those who think these murderers need to be caught in the act, I say we know for certain that when they leave their damned “churches” on Sunday morning they will be killing babies the following morning.
I view Alex Linder as being very similar to John Lennon: There is a whole lot of talent underneath the blasphemous crust. He would be a great asset for our side and for the kingdom of God (not that only the talented are).
I think we only glimpsed a brief moment of Lennon’s potential. He could have been the greatest, but he ruined himself by – oh, where to start? – having a messiah complex, abandoning his family, miscegenating, taking drugs, etc. His most famous song, Imagine, is completely anti-Christian.
SWB Should Fear God, Take Heed Of Reason, Individual Freedom
(Apollonian, 14 Oct 09)
SWB, u utterly fail to see abortion is EXTREMELY useful for extermination (in Christian fashion of course) of non-white, non-Christian races. Remember a fetus is not fully human, having no human will, incapable, for example, of committing a “mortal sin.”
Fetus has no rights, of necessity, no possible “social contract” protecting them, as such contract is only possible or conceivable for living humans of reason. Indeed, social contract protects definitively the female’s right to abortion. Think.
By removing the right of the female to abortion, u destroy the VERY PRINCIPLE of individual rights which is hallmark of humanity and civilization. Of course such right doesn’t mean abortion is “good”–and indeed, by means of reason, females might be persuaded to give birth thence to giving baby over to adoption, etc.
For note any white female who fails to abort her mixed-race fetus is guilty of TREASON, the penalty being death. SWB, this is serious issue which u must consider in accord w. all human reason.
CONCLUSION: Beware SWB: Reason is MOST DEADLY weapon God gives, and there will be no compromises with or mercy for deliberate anti-reason and treason–YOU ARE WARNED. Take heed for ur soul, comrade. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Good thoughts, Christopher. I don’t agree with the quote from Lewis either (although it is what most Christians believe nowadays). I had heard it before and it made me wonder how he could believe it and yet spend so much time writing great literature.
With regards to this post, after I read it I did some browsing through neo-pagan/Odinist webpages. I was trying to find at least one neo-pagan person who actually thought Thor and Odin were objectively real and other faiths were objectively false, and explained some epistemic process resulting in such a conclusion. But it’s always the same. The WN neo-pagans worship Thor because their distant ancestors did, or because Thor is a white god, or because they believe it’s a good motivation for our people. Most of them say that other peoples ought to have their own ethnic religions. The pagans have no apologists, no epistemology, just a goggle-eyed romanticizing of a Nordic guy in the sky with a hammer.
Linder talks alot about exterminating and killing. He reminds me of Hal Turner the FBI informant http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32189268/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts.
You are right Apollyon – abortion is an extremely effective means of genocide. You have made a big mistake to boast your advocacy for a sin crying to heaven here. The time must be getting shorter than I thought.
Communism always institutes abortion and Jewry (which is the political master of both revolutionary Communism -the hammer – and cartelized capitalism or NWO Communism – the sickle), runs the abortion industry for the goyim in all nations where they accede to power.
The white Christopherian nations do not, however, aspire to imitate the Jews.
No doubt if some Jew financed white supremacist revolution makes ‘Apollanarian’ a Head Honcho – all the thought criminals guilty of anti-reasoning will be frog marched off to extermination. You Destroyers never get any new ideas and your Babel is going to fall as nothing has fallen since Satan.
The Three Days of Darkness are soon coming to the world for the sins you advocate – for the murder of innocent blood, a sin crying to heaven. You think you are riding high, but for the sins of innocent blood and more, the Holy Angels will throw down the Ordo ab Chao abomination now in progress. They will throw it down in three days less one night in honour of our Lord’s Passion and death. And the dogs will piss on the ruins.
The Blessed Virgin Mother of God has declared that by the means of weakness despised by the world: the Holy Rosary and the Scapular – she will Triumph in her Immaculate Heart to the glory of Christ the King. And He will reign over the nations by His Sacred Heart in the restoration of all things at the close of the age.
You, on the other hand are going straight to hell. No one redeems your tragedy. You are an immortal spirit. You can not die. You can not grow and obtain more life. You can only decay in the consuming fire of your sins. Forever. You despised the Holy One to His face in the full light of the glory of Heaven and in full knowledge of the truth. Your doom is nothing if not certain.
But Apollonarian has a Redeemer. And you just can’t stand that – can you. The war you and the others began in heaven will be decided upon earth. You have no power here, Apollonarian could yet perceive you and your defeat, your utter ruin.
Apollonarian, don’t wait until the visible sign of our Lord’s Cross to appear in the heavens. “Now is the judgement of this world and now is the Prince of this world cast down.” It is certainly not too late for you to repent of all your sins, make a good confession, worthy reparation and convert your life to Christ.
St Joseph, terror of demons and shield against all works of darkness, pray for us and pray to our Lord that this man goes free. St Simon of Trent, murdered in your innocence, I beg your prayers. In your charity pray for this man to be returned to his right, God given reason and to receive the gift of faith.
Will respond at length next week.
“And all the reasoning powers divine,
to penetrate, resolve, combine;
And feelings keen and fancy’s glow -
They sleep with him who sleeps below:
And if thou mourned, they could not save
From error, him who owns this grave.”
Sir Walter Scott on “Nelson, Pitt and Fox”
And, if Sir Walter, will permit – Adolf Hitler, I might add.
But we can still rise now and be the nation again
Is faodiach sinn eirigh gu bhith nar Rioghach a-ris.
So what about us White nationalists who like Jesus and his anti-Jewish message but do not in any way consider him to be the ‘Messiah’ or the divine Son of God or anything like that? Where do we fit in? As stated, I like Jesus and his ideas a whole lot (even though he was supposedly a Jew), but despite that I am not a Bible-believing Christian.
JESUS THE PACIFIST? —> Matthew 10:34 – “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword”
PW, as C.S. Lewis once said, the option of simply “liking” Jesus is not open to you. He has left only three options available to us: he was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He was definitely not a “great moral teacher.” If all you need is a “great moral teacher,” Martin Scorsese will do.
Therefore, Jesus was correct in saying that those who are not with Him are against Him, and those who do not gather with Him scatter. Make your choice. The choice is not between Jews and no Jews, but between life and death.
PW, contra some of the common claims made by Christians about the “evidence”, there actually is a much better supported 4th option, as Linder noted, being that “Jesus” never had any concrete, historical existence, which neatly disposes of the “liar, lunatic or Lord” false-dilemma.
Supported by what, Dan, your sincere hopes?
Are you really, seriously arguing that the acts of Christ and the apostles, and the prophets before them, which transformed the world as we know it, and were not at all done in a corner, were a conspiracy by the followers of Jesus, because Jesus Himself never existed? And how, pray tell, do the apostles fit into your theory, who said and did the same things as Christ and followed Him to the same end? Were they also figments of our imagination? Was there another conspiracy after their conspiracy that made them so prominent? And what does this say about Europeans, so gullible were they to believe what ChopperDan assures us was an obvious fabrication, and to stake their very lives upon it?
Do you realize how much faith you expect us to have in order to believe this?
It’s quite hilarious that even Jews disagree with you. Imagine that. The world’s greatest enemies of Jesus Christ forgot to mention that He never existed.
The biggest hurdle for the White Nationalists is this: social order is not formed by people who have no beliefs apart from survival and ‘just let everybody believe what they want’. Also, race supremacism is not (nor was it ever) the basis of a European social order.
As pagans, white nations followed their kings. They were patriarchal, hierarchical and monarchical. And they followed their kings into baptism. It was because of this social order that the Apostolic Age of the Church witnessed the baptism of entire nations across Europe.
When Gambling states to Theoden in the film: The Two Towers: “You are our king, Sire, we will follow you to whatever end” – this is a direct quote, a formulaic response from many sagas.
Nations which are patriarchal and monoarchical can find the fulfillment of their social order in the Christian doctrine of Christ the King. They do not settle for Christian Zionism, some liberal version of JudeoChristianity or the barbarism of Talmudic race worship whittled down for goyim like the Noachiada.
White individuals who are modern, secular materialists believing in nothing and oriented to nothing except survival, their next fix, next lay or wealthier lifestyle with more gadgets – such as these are a cross for their fellow nationals who have the Christian faith and sign for their fellow travellers. Specifically they are a sign of demoralisation, not a strong or vibrant social / cultural life. To the Jewish hierarchy, they are a sign that a subverted nation is ready to fall.
Even on the level of fight for survival, this type of social aggregate in milieu is easily governed by a sociopathocracy. It can never successfully challenge, much less defeat in any conflict a nation that is monoarchical (there is a covert king of Jewry and hierarchy), unified in its ambitions and organised internationally in its political / ecnomic, cultural and social life.
We read in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion that liberalism is a principle created by the Masonic Agentur of Jewry at the time of the Enlightenment for the demoralisation of European nations. “We will inculcate principles known by us to be false.”
The credo of liberalism is an ideology that substitutes the Rights of Man for the Rights of God. It rests upon the error of rationalism:
“Human reason without any reference whatsoever to God is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood.” Condemmned, ex cathedra. Syllabus Errorum, Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX Dec 8, 1864. The Syllabus was written expressly against the Rights of Man. Liberalism is condemned in The Syllabus as an error that offends God and his Rights. And it will wreck a nation that subscribes to it. And this is precisely the point of the entire exercise. Liberalism is an ideological instrument formulated by the Masonic Agentur of the Zion Dynasts to achieve precisely this objective. It is the social equivalent of virus in pathology or a malware in IT.
The churches are now massively infected with liberalism and masonic, crypto Jewish clergy. Also massively infiltrated with liberalism is the Novus Ordo post conciliar church (which calls itself the Roman Catholic Church) and is currently in occupation of the traditional structures of the Catholic Church worldwide. The current antipope seated in Rome is a rabbi. Confusion is total.
To perceive and understand this disaster correctly, one must rely upon the ordinary, constant magisterium of Catholic dogma.
So we read in Pacem in Terris (April 11, 1963), a statement like “One of the most important acts accomplished by the UN was the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man. We consider this Declaration as a step toward the establishment of a juridico-political organization of the world community.” Fr Angelo Roncalli – antipope 1958-63. (Foresworn of Sacrorum Antistitum) Are we to think, then, that the Church has changed and become more up to date with the modern times of the world?
The U.N. Charter is point for point the Communist Platform of the Internationale. The Rights of Man is condemned by Roman Catholic dogma. It is contra Divini Redemptoris. Of Communism: it is “intrinsically evil”; and “a Roman Catholic may not collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.”
Or Joseph Ratzinger who currently resides in the Vatican and gets about in the pope suit. Publicly lauds the Vatican II document: Gaudium et Spes as a “counter syllabus of errors.” An attempt, he opines as “an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated 1789.”
What is this shyte?! For the Catholic loyal to the Church’s magisterium, there is no reconciliation with the Revolution. There is no Catholic ‘counter syllabus’. Rather, it is Catholic truth which reveals these men to be the heretics and imposters they are. And therefore, invalid.
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio 1559. Pope Paul IV, ex cathedra. Ratified by Pope St Pius V, ex cathedra. Anyone who has defected from the faith is ineligible for election to any ecclesiastical office. “If such a one is elected his authority is null and void”. Yet millions follow these masons and rabbis as ‘popes’. And they deny many who would know the truth, their time of grace – for they are recognized as leaders by entire denominations, synods and congregations who are following them into a one-world ecumenical church.
As our Lord speaking to Marie Julie Jahanney said of these antipopes: “Their hypocrisy does not deceive me.”
Admin, I should first issue a disclaimer that I’m in no way associated with Linder, and have only the barest familiarity with his name. Nor am I an atheist, as I assume he is. However, i do echo his compliments of this site and its generally excellent writing and content, even if I disagree on certain key points.
Alas, Linder shouldn’t have couched his statement about Jesus’ non-historicity in terms of a “scholars agree” appeal to authority, because some do while the majority, I readily grant, do not, though it is gaining more adherents every day, while the belief in Jesus’ historicity is steadily eroding. However, these things are common in debate and the initial post aimed at refuting Linder’s claims was not without sin, in that it assumed the very fact under dispute as a given and based a large part of the subsequent pro-Jesus/Christianity argument on that.
My sincere hopes? No, unlike most fundamentalists, I’m savvy enough to know I can’t make a false proposition true by wishing or believing otherwise hard enough. You ask in an incredulous tone if I really believe this or that, to which I respond that I believe just what I stated, namely that the mythicist case is much sounder than any liberal scholarly ideas about a mere man to whom a body of miracles and legends attached themselves till the whole story snowballed, and almost INFINITELY stronger than the familiar claims set forth by “orthodox” Christians about him being “God Incarnate/Savior of Mankind”, for which there is NO evidence.
The problem is that we only have one “book” to go on, the Bible, itself demonstrably non-divine, not inerrant or authoritative. This Bible contains certain extraordinary STORIES of a pseudo-historical nature with an inarguably mythic flavor to them. They are not, as Christians commonly claim, eyewitness testimonies of anything, being anonymously penned in Greek around the mid 2nd cent., not by unlettered Hebrew fishermen disciples of Jesus. Nor could they hold up as such for one minute in a court of law.
It’s a serious subject, and one would have to be very stupid indeed, or insane, to publicly state their skepticism, not because it’s absurd, but because it’s very controversial and elicits such strong reactions.”Christ Mythers” as we’re derisively called can expect about the same treatment usually reserved for those who voice doubts about racial equality or the Holocaust, only much of the scorn heaped on our heads comes, ironically, from these very people, who are regularly slandered and scorned by the unwashed crowds of Jewish Supremacists and their sycophantic gentile “antis”. You think it takes guts to be a Kinist, and it does, but try walking in our shoes for a fortnight and you may better understand why it’s a BIT difficult for some of us to find a compatible, attractive, intelligent, racially aware , non-Christian White woman to start a family. It’s a very tall order. But I digress.
Nevertheless, most racially aware/nationalist type Christians seem quite willing to apply critical analysis to certain currently fashionable attitudes and events alleged to have taken place 60 years ago, but will not even entertain the possibility that mistakes might have been made nor information garbled vis-a-vis other alleged events which occurred in the much dimmer, murkier past of 2,000 years ago.
So, then, it turns out that mythicists are usually well versed in the claims and arguments made for a literal Jesus Christ, Son of God, and are often former Christians themselves who allowed themselves to examine all the claims, both pro and con, and emerged as solidly convinced “deniers”, while it’s very rarely the case that apologists have made a careful, in-depth study of what they’re attempting to refute. It used to be hard to find, but now there’s gobs of materials available through the Internet, from sites to orderable books, explicating and defending the mythical Christ hypothesis.
I don’t claim to have all the answers or have them memorized so that I can rattle them off my head at any given moment (never memorize what is already written down in a book), but for the specific, detailed answers about the gnostic/astro-theological nature of the Christ story, the apostles, the Jews etc., I’ll be happy to provide a list of sources, and everyone who avails themselves of these will see that it takes no faith at all to believe, whereas the alternative requires far too much.
Lynda, I like that definition of liberalism: “Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, as the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood.” But there needs to be some word to describe the false clergy of the 21st century, who use Scripture to overturn Scripture and refer to God constantly even while working against His purpose in the world. They are essentially liberals but do not really qualify as rationalists. Any ideas on how best to describe them?
Dan, thanks for the extra details, but they don’t clarify. I’m curious to know what actual support you have for what you call the “much better supported” option of the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. You say it’s gaining popular acceptance, but this doesn’t help at all, because in the scope of history it had almost zero acceptance. You say the miracles credited to Christ could not have been performed by a “mere man.” This is called begging the question.
You are confident that “there is NO evidence” that Jesus is God. But we have the entire Bible for evidence. It is not merely one book, as you say, but rather was written by about 40 authors over a period of 1500 years, all of it testifying to the central event of history. You only doubt what is recorded there because you were not one of the eyewitnesses. And if you had been one of the eyewitnesses, your modern counterparts would not have believed you either.
And still, you have given not even an opinion, much less a fact, to show that Jesus the man did not exist.
Your claim that the New Testament was written in the second century is quite wrong, but it’s obvious why it is necessary for you to think so – to discredit the authors as frauds. The book of Acts ends with Paul in prison, awaiting trial. From start to finish, it is clear that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD has not yet occurred. Though you seem to know a lot about the literary skills of retired first century Hebrew fishermen, you are not thinking about the continuity required to maintain this alleged hoax. The fragmentary manuscript evidence is in agreement and was uncollaborated. Why would our highly intelligent European brethren fall for a story with gaping holes in it? Did their intelligence evolve only after the Enlightenment?
You ask us to have too much faith.
SWB, Like Jew, Ends Only Fooling Himself
(Apollonian, 20 Oct 09)
SWB, if u weren’t such a pathetic MYSTIC and general ignoramus, and if u actually knew something about logic, u’d be able to answer ur own questions.
(a) Lack of support/evidence for the historicity of Christ is all u need for lack of evidence, therefore the conclusion there is NO EVIDENCE. It doesn’t mean Christ did not, in fact, exist–it only means THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, that’s all.
(b) Note it is well-known tenet in basic, formal logic u CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE, i.e., that Christ did not exist (or that there is NO God).
(c) Thus reason proceeds in this fashion regarding TRUTH, reality, and “historicity” of Christ: though there is indeed no conclusive evidence Christ existed–or that there IS a “God,” yet there is equally NO PROOF in reason or logic that Christ DID NOT exist, or that there is NO God. Remember St. Martin Luther: “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.”
(d) What pathetic, ignorant creatures like urself, SWB, must learn to understand is that New Testament (NT) is simply the most SUBLIME Literature–and that’s all it has to be. Thus Jews worship a War-God which tells them to (1) lie to and kill and enslave gentiles–which then is the greatest problem for gentiles, which they needed leadership of Christ to overcome.
(2) But then, problem is Jews also have to LIE TO THEMSELVES too. And as gentiles die-out and -off due to Jew parasites, eventually Jew parasites must fall-out w. one another.
For though life truly sucks (Greek Tragedy), it isn’t all war. And the Christian God is the God, truly, of TRUTH, hence OBJECTIVITY (and Aristotle), thus REASON, hence determinism (absolute cause-effect) where there is NO “good-evil” (Pelagian heresy).
And it’s this lack of “good-evil” which really makes u most frustrated SWB, as u suffer fm most intensive, never-ending INFERIORITY-complex by which u have to lie to urself, like a Jew, pretending there is such hereticalist “good-evil,” and that golly gee, u’re soooooo “good,” aren’t u?–u poor, brainless fool.
CONCLUSION: So go ahead, SWB, u pathetic creature–keep censoring the mighty Apollonian–it doesn’t matter. For I get published anyway–I don’t worry about u, stupid Pharisaic punk. And censoring Apollonian doesn’t change the truth comrade. U stink. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Dear Admin,
I have thought a lot about that question. And at this point, my answer may be summed up in one word: rabbi.
Many ideologies were crafted in the masonic think tanks for demoralisation of entire populations – liberalism, rationalism, atheism etc. These are but mere essays in the Craft.
For the work of infiltrating the ecclesial structures, the seminaries and capturing presbyteries, chanceries and high ecclesial offices, they had to develop Higher Criticism, Theologie Nouvelle, etc. The true hermeneutic was always secret. And I think it is (as it always was) a living tradition. And it was / is passed from rabbi to rabbi.
And what is their hermeneutic? I would love to know the answer to that one too. One day while I was thinking about this a gentle breeze with the scent from the peach tree near my front porch blew in. And the pages of my open Bible blew over to Is 14 – and there it was.
The Five I Wills (Is 14: 13,14) When they refer to God, they refer to the one, whom our Lord told them plainly is their father. When they refer to Jesus, they try to refer to Joshua or his Hebrew name or to use one of the Latin forms: Jesu. As a pun because in Hebrew Jesu means ‘may his name be blotted out’. That is the name for the Saviour in the Talmud. But they also use Jesus – taking the name of the Lord in vain and blaspheming.
Within the Church this art has now reached such a refined state that an entire discourse could be written, filled with scripture and refs to the Church’s own magisterium and the most pious terms for Divinity; and its hermeneutic is so well concealed that it turns only on a few weasle words. Your saints and peasants and woodcutters would see through it; but your average pew sitter (who in his or her heart of hearts still wants to be a good Christian) is completely snowed.
It takes rabbinical training to learn how to use scripture against scripture – but always the living hermeneutic guides the exercise so it hangs together as a single corpus. The students generally do not know what is being done here. But the masters do and their masters before them. De Chardin, Lubac, Kung, Rahner, Ratzinger – of course they knew – the masters and periti of the Vatican Council II.
For those who are called to intellectualize the faith (and a few by God’s mercy are), the only writings that can be used against it is Patristics and the Scholastics – specifically St Thomas of Aquin. Not for nothing do they all hate as a single body the Angel of the Schools. I think everything we need to see and understand is in those debates.
But for those of us mercifully not called to be intellectualizers of the holy faith, it is good to meditate on the Gospel exchanges between our Lord and the Pharisees, because not only are those debates couched in the quotations of written scripture against scripture but more importantly Living Torah against living torah.
That was your most entertaining comment yet!
Admin, I feel there are several points worth noting. First, no, I’m not asking for ANY faith. Don’t take my word for anything, but at least be willing to evaluate things from a different perspective. Look, in all honesty we’ve got things completely turned around here. If I begin telling everyone I’ve got a ton of gold guarded by a genuine leprechaun hidden in a cave outside town, people may believe me, or not, but I cannot reasonably DEMAND that they take it on faith. If I can’t abide the thought of not being believed, it’s on ME to PROVE my claims to the skeptical. It ISN’T the skeptic’s job to give a justification for his skepticism. And it’s even more critical if I’m only repeating third, fourth or fifth-hand hearsay: “My buddy Ralph knows a guy who told him he has a ton of gold, etc.” Having a written copy of an original sworn statement doesn’t lend any more credibility, either.
Likewise, it’s not the mythicists and their views that require a defense, as they are not setting forth a positive claim that demands adherence or else. That’s what Christians do: “There was a god-man called Jesus Christ who died for Mankind’s sins, and if you don’t believe it, repent and have faith in him, you’re going to HELL!” I’m not threatening anyone. Y’all ARE. Mythicists ask, ON WHAT BASIS should we feel compelled to accept such outrageously fantastic claims as fact? The Bible, your side says. But if we don’t agree that the Bible is what you claim it to be, that leaves us nowehere. Why is your view about the nature of the Bible automatically correct and superior to someone else’s who, on the basis evaluating all the same available data, reaches a different conclusion? You’re either forced to say that they’re just too stupid to understand or that they really do know that you’re right but are too inherently wicked and dishonest to admit it. Now, is that what YOU REALLY believe? Put quite simply, the burden of proof is squarely on Christians, mythicists. If we can’t even agree on that, there’s not much point in going any further.
That said, the “support” is largely in the near total LACK of support for the claims advanced by Christians. They will cycle through all the well-worn appeals to scriptural inspiration, the NT as eyewitness documentary evidence, the extra-biblical references by secular historians demonstrating Jesus is better attested than any other figure in the ancient world, including Julius Caesar, on and on, all of which is complete rubbish, and after all these have been torpedoed, as a last resort they will tell us that absence of evidence isn’t of absence, but it most certainly is in this instance. Definitive proof? No, but strongly indicative that something’s rotten in the state of Denmark.
I’m perfectly aware that the Bible is a collection of books written by different authors over a span of centuries, which is why I called it a “book”. Whether we call it a book or a compilation matters not.
“You say it’s gaining popular acceptance, but this doesn’t help at all, because in the scope of history it had almost zero acceptance. You say the miracles credited to Christ could not have been performed by a “mere man.” This is called begging the question.”
While there have always been dissenters from the earliest times, usually among pagans and later on among the better educated, we actually have no idea how much acceptance the idea has had historically because for much of that time, in many places it could be much more hazardous to one’s life and livelihood to express one’s doubts, especially for commoners. Thus, there was great incentive for everyone to keep silent unless they were especially eager to borrow trouble.
But as you and I both know, it’s all irrelevant as truth is not determined by majority vote. If something is true, it doesn’t matter if five people believe it or no one does. My point was that it’s pretty clear that one of these ideas is growing, if not by leaps and bounds, then slowly but surely, while the other one is continuously losing ground and the ability to persuade enough new believers to replace the ones being lost. And I think the reason is simple. There’s no stopping the power of an idea whose time has finally come. You made a couple more statements I want to address, but this is already a bit lengthy so I’ll leave it for later.
Tonight was a season of relaxation. I was mired deep in my La-Z-Boy, watching “Dancing With The Stars” (with the sound turned down, so that I could listen to my Leo Sayer CD), nibbling on some braunschweiger drizzled with microwaved Velveeta.
And then the vibrations began.
My initial reaction was, “An earthquake? Here?” And then I thought that perhaps an airplane had crashed into a field nearby. And then I supposed that a Soviet-era helicopter was hovering over my house. But the passage of a few seconds served to clear my thinking, and I was able to identify the rumbling roar.
It was the mighty Apollonian, striding up and down across the earth, and going to and fro in it. I trembled…I quailed…I dry-heaved in religious terror.
And then I remembered the verified personal information on Apollonian some friends were kind enough to send me.
Whatever you do, Admin, don’t irritate the mighty Apollonian. He might consume you with a single fiery blast from his nostrils. He might sweep you from the face of the earth like a petulant teenager raking his forearm across his Risk board. He might summon hot wrath from the heavens to incinerate you before you can reach for your mouse.
But if he does, he’ll be accomplishing more than anyone would imagine he could. There aren’t many convicted felon pedophile Jews who like to pose for obscene photos in schoolgirl clothes who can, at will,bring cyber-Armageddon down on those who disagree with him.
Be very careful, Admin. Apollonian is a dangerous, scary, impressive, legendary defender of the faith. Crossing him has consequences.
Or so his boyfriends say.
“You are confident that “there is NO evidence” that Jesus is God. But we have the entire Bible for evidence. It is not merely one book, as you say, but rather was written by about 40 authors over a period of 1500 years, all of it testifying to the central event of history.”
I’m confident that he didn’t exist which, yes, would also preclude him being God. You can say that the Bible is evidence, but many of us feel that it is very flawed in both content and compilation, misunderstood by Christian literalists and cannot be considered reliable “evidence”. But for the sake of argument, let’s grant your claims. The Bible is evidence and the Crucifixion/Resurrection is the central event of history.
You yourself say these things were not done in a corner. Why, then, is there nothing recorded -outside of the Bible and a tiny handful of highly contested examples- of these events by secular sources? After all, we’re talking about the incarnate Son of God performing numerous signs and wonders, getting entangled in the Roman legal system, condemned, crucified, raising the dead, including himself, earthquakes and saints coming out of their graves, wandering around Jerusalem and then…who knows (boarded a plane to Miami?) and ascending to the heavens: “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” ~ John 21:25 To call this verse hyperbole would be the understatement of the century. All this occurred smack dab in the middle of an outpost of the Roman Empire. There should be, conservatively, dozens and dozens of first and early 2nd century extra-biblical references to both Jesus, his disciples and these momentous events, but there aren’t. In fact, there’s a roaring, deafening silence. It is quite simply not believable, and didn’t happen. It’s CLEARLY religious fiction, yet you guys try to make a case that it’s us non-believers who are being just preposterous for not accepting it as literal history. That such gifted thinkers and writers such as yourselves would take the time and effort to actually focus on other nationalist Whites who refuse to coddle such unalloyed silliness as being a problem cannot bode well for the nationalist movement as a whole.
“You only doubt what is recorded there because you were not one of the eyewitnesses. And if you had been one of the eyewitnesses, your modern counterparts would not have believed you either.”
I doubt in large part for the reasons cited above, but PARTIALLY because I wasn’t an eyewitness, of course. You make it sound so trivial! But it’s a perfectly valid reason that requires no apology. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and “The Bible says so” ain’t it. As Bart Ehrman says, and what I tried to demonstrate with my humble gold analogy, reports of miracles are not miracles. So, if I HAD been an eyewitness and my “modern counterparts” didn’t believe me, it’d be tough luck for me, not them. You cannot disagree with this without tacitly admitting you have virtually no basis for your skepticism about the Holocaust. At least they have pictures of stacks of dead bodies for that. Your man left no personal writings, was recorded by no one outside of the NT and no one has a clue what he looked like. In fact, the earliest known images from Christian catabombs depict him as a youthful, beadless Dionysus type figure. Again, we’re talking about supposed deity incarnate and the most important man ever to have walked the earth.
“Your claim that the New Testament was written in the second century is quite wrong, but it’s obvious why it is necessary for you to think so – to discredit the authors as frauds. The book of Acts ends with Paul in prison, awaiting trial. From start to finish, it is clear that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD has not yet occurred. Though you seem to know a lot about the literary skills of retired first century Hebrew fishermen, you are not thinking about the continuity required to maintain this alleged hoax. The fragmentary manuscript evidence is in agreement and was uncollaborated. Why would our highly intelligent European brethren fall for a story with gaping holes in it? Did their intelligence evolve only after the Enlightenment?”
It’s my understanding that no early Christian writer makes any reference to any of the canonical gospels until the mid to late 2nd century. Can you explain this if they were written before the close of the 1st century?
And why don’t we have even a shred of one autograph of a single NT writing? God didn’t think it would be greatly helpful to the preservation and transmission of his word to have them? Or did the churches in possession of them make a few copies, then put them through the shredder?
Why do our highly intelligent European brethren, for the most part, swallow the Holohoax? Why have they allowed Jews to permeate to the highest levels of every sector of society and bought into the program of genocide that’s been crafted for them? Because they’re only human and life is complex and confusing. It’s a huge Universe full of wonders. Strange and interesting things can and do happen.
Dan, you’re now stating opinions, which is a start, but still no facts to show that Jesus did not exist. We got started on this road because you said your view was well-supported. Instead, we see that it requires a great deal of faith.
Note that I’m not asking you to prove a negative. I’m asking you to contradict, with something real and substantive, the continuous testimony that Jesus did exist. By continuous testimony, I mean that if any of the events described in the Bible had not actually taken place, it would have been self-evident to any of the contemporaries and would have instantly discredited the authority of Christ and the apostles, and Europe would never have been transformed by the gospel.
Your Holohoax analogy doesn’t work at all, because you know as well as I that without rigorous laws to hold dissenters in check, Jewish fables would not convince more than a relative few. There is no way that such fables could take hold of diverse peoples in far-off places who had no immediate stake in them and still be cherished for thousands of years. It would be like Pakistanis, two thousand years from now, on pain of death from some future tyrants, refusing to let die the visions of Yankel Wiernik. When their Wiernik books are burned, they gather in the catacombs to recite the pages from memory. Don’t make me laugh. Also, unlike the cataclysmic events of a world war, our story revolves around 13 poor men in the wilderness who, by your way of thinking, should have passed unnoticed from the world.
The events of the Bible (which is to say, the events of actual history) were not based entirely on supernatural revelation, as the Book of Mormon is alleged to be, because this would discredit it. Nor were they based entirely on eyewitness testimony, because even a large gathering can be incredulous. Instead, it comes from both. From our perspective, there is no way for you to have faith in Christ unless the Holy Spirit grants you repentance. But from your perspective, you can at least recognize that you have constructed an unfalsifiable system of pseudo-faith. It is unfalsifiable because no matter what those who walked and talked with Jesus and the apostles actually witnessed and recorded for posterity, you’re not going to believe. You will always have an excuse not to believe. Yet it is pseudo-faith because you earnestly want to believe in things like heroism, good, and truth, and you have no standard of measure but your own feelings (appetite), which can’t be more important than anyone else’s, if there is no God. Since your faith allows for no antithesis, you have no real arguments either for love or against evil. If there is no God, how can your concept of “good” be any more meaningful than Stalin’s?
I don’t understand your complaint about documentary evidence regarding Christ. Scrolls don’t last for thousands of years. You need to think instead about the concerted effort to crush the apostles and all who followed Christ. The very fact that these efforts were fruitless proves that the Holy Spirit preserved the Word intact to the present day. Again, all you have shown is that you’re digging for excuses not to believe.
I would really like for you to ponder how superior and highly intelligent Europeans could have fallen for what you call nonsense. Consider the continuity that was necessary and how, at any point, a true hoax would have collapsed on itself. Perhaps a little story will illustrate my point. A friend of mine likes to tell of a student who routinely dismissed the great art of antiquity, preferring modern art instead, and let everyone know about it. One day his teacher took him aside and let him know that the works of art he shunned were not on trial. They had already stood the test of time. Instead, those who view them are the ones on trial.
“That such gifted thinkers and writers such as yourselves would take the time and effort to actually focus on other nationalist Whites who refuse to coddle such unalloyed silliness as being a problem cannot bode well for the nationalist movement as a whole.” No, the problem lies with atheist and neo-pagan nationalists who are operating under the illusion that they can turn the entirety of Western history on its ear and convince white folks to save their genes for another generation, but not for eternity. As I said earlier, if I were in a position to listen to such unalloyed silliness, I would tell you thanks for getting worked up about it, but I have better things to do. My advice would be to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die (Isaiah 22:13).
re: “ChopperDan” et al….to be fair, what reliable “documentary evidence” from 2000 yrs ago could exist any-way?
and, if any did, how reliable would it be?….the stuff we have from Græco-Roman commentators & historians of approx that time (Cicero, Livy, Plutarch, Pliny, Seneca &c) are them-selves, at best, only copies of copies; their provenance cannot be attested to beyond reasonable doubt;
many of the events/incidents that occurred during the very recent Iraq conflict are hotly debated!
certain events that occurred in the Vietnam War, a mere 40yrs ago, are, also, in dispute!
and…no need to add that there is absolutely massive, on-going dispute(s) concerning many of the events that occurred during WWII….although, most could be more accurately defined as: “suppression/censorship of genuine inquiry and actual evidence by a hostile minority intent on preserving numerous priveleges & perks obtained from a falsified view of that particular historical period”
it all depends who controls the flow of “information”;
as such: there can, it seems, be no such thing as “objective historical facts”;
i think it was Napoleon who said: “history” is a lie commonly agreed upon!
the best evidence for the historical existence of Jesus could well be the “hostile evidence” of the Jewish Talmud;
bearing that in mind, how-ever, and assuming He did actually exist, it would seem un-likely that he was a jew….other-wise: why such vituperative & psychopathic hostility to one of their own?
(i seem to recall a first century “document” called the Acti Pilati that describes him as having clearly, “fair”-European-type features….might have been at this link)!
it’s possible that Jesus did exist and was, in fact, a Gentile, quite possibly Caucasian, and that he upset the kikes-that-were by “preaching” some sort of neo-Platonic/Buddhist “gospel” that encouraged harmony & peace towards yr “neighbours”….two qualities that are, to this very day, anathema to the kikez!
Jimbo, it’s true that recorded history is an interpretation of events, but surely we can all agree that there is such a thing as what really occurred in history, even if we don’t understand it or have been told a lie about it.
You’ve touched on one of the things that Christ-deniers will find insurmountable, and that is the testimony of the Jews themselves, who were the #1 enemies of Jesus Christ. In the end, their only option was a massive cover-up, because they knew they had been beaten – and this was after the high priest acquiesced to the murder of an innocent man (the innocence attested by the Roman procurator himself), saying that Jesus must die in the stead of the Jewish nation (John 11:50). This is why they are called anti-Christs, but God turned their murder into redemption. Their nation did perish, and our holy nation will live forever.
I think that chapter in John answers your question about the hostility. Jesus had done nothing less than strip the clerical vestments from those who had actually come to believe that THEY WERE the nation. We live under similar tyranny today. Zealots thought the enemy was Rome, but Jesus condemned the “church” and what it had become. That’s where judgment always begins. Then the Roman army was used by God to destroy Jerusalem and bring an end to the old order.
The gospel, therefore, is not neo-Platonism or Buddhism. If you look at the big picture, you can see that Jesus meant what He said, that He came to bring not peace but a sword (Matthew 10:34). It was not a sword made by hands, and its cut was far more deadly.
Jesus descended from King David, just as His genealogy says. He said He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Very well argued, SWB Admin. You have some serious opposition here to Regnare Christum Nolumus. (We will not have this Christ to reign)
And Miami is a good place for ChopperDan to land the nonexistant Jesus in an argument(?) that is the modern version of Toledot Yeshu (may his name be blotted out) – only whittled down to suit the brainwashed goyim, who still require Kashrut supervision in their formation of any ideas about history.
So this meritless argument(?) for Jesus the nonexistant that rests upon agnosticism towards all historical record thus setting up the analogy:
Premise 1: The non existence of Jesus the Christ is to white nationalism
as
Premise 2: The Jewish holocaust narratives (all those pix!) is to superstitious goys who believe in Jesus existed, he performed miracles etc. And basically 2 millenia of the European Jesus hoax.
SWB – Don’t let the white nationalist movement fall for this shrek.
Going to respond in bits and pieces.
Indeed, and throughout history almost no one has denied it
No, normal people do not think about “eternity” and “salvation” for their “sins.” Those are Christian concerns. Normal people have self-respect, and part of that is respect for their ancestors and carrying on worthwhile traditions. And when circumstances change, or new demands arise, altering the traditions as needed. To a very large extent, Christianity is drama-queenism. Like lefties trying to sell communism as science, Christians try to sell their fictions as truth.
although there have been vast differences in how God is perceived. The Kinist God is the God of the Bible, not the god of William Pierce or any other charlatan who tries to play upon the universal need for spiritual validation by inventing unfalsifiable stories, and in the end, when he realizes that the god of his vain imagination is as lifeless as totems of wood and stone, turns to the only life he knows and makes a god of his race
One of the most irritating things about you Christians, admin, is your complete inability to take others on their own terms. You always impute to those who don’t share your false views the same essential mentality as yourselves. Not true. We don’t “worship” our race, or worship at the altar of our race, or make a god of our race – at least most of us don’t. Don’t try to interpret us in your terms, it doesn’t work. I have said many times our problem has more to do with garbage management than religion or spirit. There are pythons who can’t hatch viable eggs if the temperature is a degree too low. So it is with whites. We exist. We’re valid as a type, at least as valid as any other. We need the proper conditions to thrive. There doesn’t have to be any more to it than that – for me and most WN. We don’t have to justify ourselves at all, and we don’t. 99% of the species that ever existed are extinct, if those who study such things are correct. I don’t want to see my kind join them. I don’t need a spiritual reason for feeling that way. I don’t need any non-spiritual reason. I just prefer it, and that’s enough. I would say that my own personal preference is driven trebly by: 1) desire for my kids and kind to live in the environment best suited for their development; 2) aesthetic repulsion against jews and prefernce for white ways; 3) urge to make order out of disorder, whether its washing dirty spoons or washing the semitic-spewn scum off the streets. Not a bit of gawd everywhere in the picture. And there are more WN who feel the way I do than on your side. What you Christians always try to do that is not only irritating, it simply doesn’t fit, is imply that meaning is only found on your terms. And our feelings or drivers have no reality. We either fit your meaning-system or we “can’t” feel the way we do. Yet we do. And we are more numerous than you. And most of yours disagree with you. I urge you to go back to the standard and accepted and rational way of separating opinion from fact. Objective reality, in the crude sense of you do this and this happens, is a fact. Your Christ myths and claims are nothing but opinion. They are not on the same level as fact.
Oh no, admin, you are entirely wrong in your response to jimbo. The existence of the fictional character Jesus is exactly like the Holocaust – it seems plausible until you examine it, at which point it falls apart. Here’s what Revilo Oliver asserts. Keep in mind that he was no amateur liar/apologist like Clown S. Lewis, he was a renowned classic scholar more erudite than virtually anyone on earth, and he asserts, with his professional reputation on the line that Jesus is a composite figure.
Reflections on the Christ Myth
by Revilo P. Oliver
Professor of the Classics, Retired; University of Illinois, Urbana
[This booklet and its addendum were previously published, in part, in Liberty Bell magazine. -- K.A.S.]
CHAPTER ONE: THE CHRIST MYTH
CHRISTIANITY IS A FUSION of two myths. The Jesus myth requires no explication. It is clear that the stories collected in the “New Testament” are versions of a folk-tale formed, like the legend of Robin Hood, by the accretion around a central figure of episodes in the careers of a number of minor figures. The Jesus of that legend was a composite formed from tales about Jesus ben Ananias (1), Jesus ben Pandera (2), the agitator, whose name may have been Jesus, who led a party of his followers into Jerusalem during the celebration of the Passover and was well received by the populace, but soon suppressed, and Judas the Gaulanite (3). And it is possible, of course, that there was an otherwise forgotten Jesus who also tried to start a Jewish revolt against civilized rule and paid the penalty. The composite Jesus was, of course, a would-be christ and interested only in his own barbarous people. The stories in the “New Testament” have been embellished by Christians, and that is what is remarkable.
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Reflections.html
Your talk about eyewitnesses from 2,000 years ago – in every other part of your feed you would laugh at the writer saying something so foolish. The idea of “eyewitness” testimony…from 2009 years ago…written up by dozens of authors…all with axes to grind…70 to 150 years after the fact…filtered through how many languages…being court-acceptable is…past funny.
Christianity and its apologists are funny, if you think about it. They’re the definition of ‘can’t get laid in a whorehouse.’ Here they have a Savior, a real comeback kid, who backflips out of the grave, who raises his buddies up from the dead, who is the wisest and most compassionate man who ever lived, and half-god and of virgin birth, and he restores sight to the blind and pimp-rolling to the lame, and slurring to the halt, and turns a few fishes and breadstuffs into gorgeous loaves and giant vats of grapey goodness…and yet the only way these christians their World-Beater can get anyone to join them is to…cut off heads, buy politicians, browbeat babes snoozing in the cradle, and patrol the red-light district for druggies and drinkers.
If there was ever anything that sold itself, it would be Jeboo. No Billy Mays needed when you’ve got Jeboo the Amazing. Yet it took endless fiction, endless propagandizing, endless lying, to get the Jeboo fire to kindle.
Turn it around: the remarkable thing is that the entire world didn’t convert to Jebooism the minute it observed or heard from credible people of this comely personage’s David Blaine-supering performances. If I saw someone do one one-hundredth of the miraculous activity attributed to composite Jesus I would not be forced to acknowledge, I would immediately, quite willingly, even joyously acknowledge that my view of reality had changed in light of evidence. How could anyone who saw Jesus or heard of his doings from a credible source not become a Christian? He couldn’t. The only reasonable answer is that Jesus didn’t do the things the semitic-souled sauls who cobbled the Bible claim he did. But then, of course, we know from Oliver that it’s even deeper than that: the very Miracle-Worker himself was a fiction, just like his miracles. That’s the history of it, that’s the Occam’s razor of it, that’s the White of it.
Indeed, and throughout history almost no one has denied it, although there have been vast differences in how God is perceived. The Kinist God is the God of the Bible,
Have you confirmed with the pope? He leads a sect based out of some small city in Italy, I believe. I know that he claims the jew-Trotskyist-communist coinage ‘racism’ is a sin. I don’t know his position on kinism, if he’s ever heard of it.
not the god of William Pierce or any other charlatan who tries to play upon the universal need for spiritual validation
Ope, sorry buddy. I need air and water. I do not need spiritual validation. So it’s not universal. Need for universal spiritual validation – did you crib that from Oprah or Dr. Phil?
Of all religions in the world, the ambassador of only one came as the Son of the Creator and Law-Giver, and He did what no other man could do or would do: He died in our place to satisfy the penalty of our sin. Therefore we live, not because of enlightenment or karma but because Christ first loved us. Miracles confirmed His authority, His Word, and the appointment of His prophets and apostles who gave us the Bible.
This passage reminds me of that joke about pissing in blue serge suit. It feels good and warm, and no one notices. You can exalt and declaim all day long, but you make no impression on anyone who doesn’t already agree with you. You win souls for White when you stick to reality – real stories involving real people doing real things. Then you become funny and insightful. When you’re puffing about Jesus, we who know better just grin. It’s funny how people can be fully sane and effectual in one way, and wholly irrational in another. Didn’t your boy Boozus say the least of his could far outdo his works? When does that start happening? It reminds me of the Christian Science I grew up – they’re gonna restore the lost art of primitive Christian healing. They just can’t. If they could, they’d convert the entire world. Your trouble begins when you get away from reality and lost in papworld where sin and evil and demons cackle and ride. Don’t make things more complex than they have to be. The jews are a different species, and there is no room for them and us.
All we have sought to do as Kinists is teach that the Bible does not condone the destruction of the white race that is advocated by modern churches.
You teach – better put interpret – because you can’t quote, which would be much stronger. The Bible, in point of fact, never mentions the White race, let alone says anything about preserving it. The people who quote the bible on race are the liberals, because so many of its points fit their agenda with very little twisting, quite plausibly in the brains of the not very smart. Where do you think the endless judeo-christian-leftist bilge about Whites being haters and them driven by love originates – it all goes straight back to the Big Book o’ Jewish Bullshit – your beloved Bible. This leaves you, the tiny pro-White Christian minority, in position of always defending and never attacking, and attacking, according to the post- and non-Christian NS, is the only way to beat them. You’re in the strange and foolish position of defending a book written by your worst enemy as the proper means to defend the race that enemy does everything it can to destroy.
The Bible simply has nothing to do with the White race (beyond its use as a tool to undermine it) – it is a jew book. No book could possibly be meaner-spirited, more dishonest, or just plain jewier in spirit and feel than the Bible. As a young child reading its verses I could tell it was written by a people utterly foreign in nature and spirit to my own. No White men could have come up with the Bible. The only relation White men have to the bible is translating it into poetic English and falling for it.
Again and again, true to our ancestors, we have disproved Linder’s belief that “the Bible says nothing about race.”
You wouldn’t need to prove and prove again if you could come up with one simple quotation, such as, “The White race is distinct and valuable, and its members would be wise to preserve themselves as a group.” In a book of 1700 pages, a book with hundreds of thousands of passages, you can’t come up with any single statement within 1,000 miles of the most basic WN declaration. In the end what you really have, although you dress it with airs, is a tiny-minority interpretation of a hate book manufactured by White-hating foreigners.
We have shown that the vast majority of Christendom has opposed the deracinating impulses of our time.
So what happened? Where did the problem originate? You have all the people and, sez you, the right doctrine – how the hell did things fall apart? Is it not obvious that Christianity at the very least is chock full of holes? That it is the wrong doctrine for those who want to preserve the White race? History makes the answer clear – Christinity might not be the main problem our race faces, but it is one hell of a lot closer to the problem than the solution.
Using Christianity to defend the White race is flat goofy. It’s the definition of arguing from a weak point rather than the strong point. That’s why virtually all the traffic involving men who feel as you and I do about race is one way: Christians became German nationalists – German nationalists did not become Christians. You’re trying to put a gloss on a text cobbled by our worst enemies to prove that it ‘really’ is our book, and really defends our people. Not even Jesus could accomplish that trick.
If you can’t even win your position when you’re the 99% majority then your doctrine or your men have serious problems. If the problem is a bad interpretation of the Bible, then remember what Spengler said, which hangs your entire kinist position boots in the breeze: Christianity is the god-mother of bolshevism. The liberalism that admitted jews as equals and destroyed our society is Christian in origin. Who said “judge not lest ye be judged”? Bless my soul, I believe ’twas Jebooze. That’s like saying “think not lest thou be thoughtful.” If you don’t think the dumbing down of ZOG’s modern indoctrination camps called public school is the church built over the jesus cloaca of nescience and non-judgmentalism, you’re nuts. Equality in one area tends to promote equality in all. Spiritual equality leads naturally to political equality. Any equality not based in reality endangers every other rational discrimination.
This does not matter to Linder because he only cares about what the churches are doing currently. In his mind, this is sufficient confirmation for his belief that Christianity has always been useless.
It took Christianity at least decades, if not centuries, to talk White people out of their senses. But in the end, it seems to have triumphed – unless and until we depose it. You’re attributing to Christianity the qualities that Christianity did the most to drive out of white people. It was Christianity that talked about not judging, about converting natives and saving their souls, about loving all the little children of the world – each step pretty much follows from the earlier. Taking apart White societies one degree, one step at a time, is a proven jewish method of destroying them. You’re embracing the poison as the serum.
He has many misunderstandings about what we believe, and I doubt that any explanation we could offer would dissuade him from his presuppositions and presumptions, but what follows is a response to some of what he has written, in no particular order.
Nothing would make me believe what you do, but I am interested in the origins of kinism, and how it fits the rest Christianity – in a way parallel to my interest in E. Michael Jones and his interpretation of 2,000 years of Catholic history and doctrine in relation to the “revolutionary” jews. I think I’ve read most of your site, but what I would really appreciate from you, is posts that lay out the biggest context for kinism. That is,
- who originated this doctrine?
- who are its main proponents and preachers today?
As WN, what I have tried to do for the christians is extract and publicize those men and christians who at least see a good portion of the same problems we WN do. I’ve done this with Ted Pike and a couple other smaller-level prots, and EMJ and the Catholics – and of course these guys have done much for me by way of tutoring in Euro history, altho I certainly don’t share their interpretation. So where does kinism fit in this? What’s its origins, how does it relate to Catholic doctrine, how does it relate politically to the Southern movement these days and historically? Who are the main preachers and are there actual kinist churches, like there are traditional RC churches? What’s the institutionalization of the thing, or is it purely intellectual and online? I’m looking for context. I’m greedy for understanding. I will never agree with you, but I need your help to place you in the mental constellation, to see how it all fits together, where mutual interests lie.
Our “most learned scholars” have never explained away the evidence and eyewitness testimony presented in the Bible, which would hold up in any court of law. For instance, the Jewish leaders could have done one simple thing to end Christianity forever: produce the dead body of Jesus.
On the other hand, if Jesus never existed, as our greatest scholar alleges, then the absence of body makes a certain simple sense. Indeed, it’s unavoidable!
But seriously, admin, I ask in all modest seriousness:
- have you, personally, known anyone fathered by ‘gawd’? any virgins who gave birth?
- have you, personally, ever known anyone who died and then came back to life?
- have you, personally, ever seen anyone raise someone else from the dead?
- ever seen anyone turn water into wine?
- ever seen anyone walk on water? turn three fish into eight hundred thirty-three fish? multiply loaves to feed a multitude?
As for eyewitnesses, aren’t they notoriously unreliable – even when there’s no layer of thousands of years and hundreds of writers and editors and various and sundry agenda-driven bilgemeisters between us and these alleged ‘eyewitnesses’?
Wouldn’t the white assumption, in light of the complete and total – and against His word — irreproducibility of Jesus’ supposed accomplishments argue against his existence and doctrines? Do men not lie? Are jews not especially and historically noted as liars and the common enemy of all other races? Did jews not write the bible, and did contemporary Romans not call them the enemy of all mankind? Does Occam’s razor ever kick in for you…at some point? A thousand toilets flushing continually for a thousand years couldn’t gulp more bullshit than a christian has to swallow to go along withe the Big Lie that is Composite Jesus. And to top off the irony, you’re seeing the same goddam thing reenacted right in front of your nose in ‘the’ ‘holocaust’ – today, even with all the documentary media we have – and you still can’t draw the conclusion. I can find you 10,000 eyewitnesses to ”the’ ‘holocaust” for every one ancient ‘eyewitness’ to Jesus’ miracles – does that mean, therefore then, that the holocaust actually happened?
The greatest art and science in the world have been the gifts of Christians
A bigoted and inaccurate statement. Try harder to remember that most Christians are non-whites, and non-White christians have created not a single work of art or science of note. I exaggerate, but very little.
Not a single Greek was a Christian, yet every Greek was White – and Christians themselves proved incapable of supering a single Greek accomplishment in art, engineering, philosphy or anything else. You say it is ‘religious inspiration’ that gets a Caravaggio to paint an old jew on stick, but I say it is merely a commission. Caravaggio exhibits his technical talent equally in ‘Boy Bitten by a Green Lizard.’ Christian doesn’t inspire the great men, it inspires the insipid. The great men, the real achievers, are the ones like Edison and Watson – the atheists. Edison singlemindedly created more than 2,000 years of Christian civilization, and he did it without benefit of public schooling or Jebooism. The greatest literary artists are men like Mencken and Twain – atheists, not religious drones. They at best are talented scolds – moralizers, not artists.
Whites existed before Christianity, and if Christianity, working the jews, doesn’t destroy their race by filling it with genocidal delusions, they will outlast them – or at least their final transformation into fulltime jungleism.
Linder’s wild misconceptions of what the Bible actually teaches can be stunning, but his real hang-up is with the idea that Christianity is universal.
Oh really. The idea that Christianity is universal is my personal hang-up? Was it me sending all those missionaries off bushward armed with bushwa to convert the duskies and darklings? “One size fits all” is indeed Christian doctrine. The snake oil works from pole to pole. As efficacious for Eskimo as salubrious for pygmy. Not my doctrine, admin, that’s yours!
Like Nietzsche, he believes that religion is fabricated to compensate for masculine inadequacies.
I’m no particular fan of Nietzsche, if I were I’d quote him like I do Schopenhauer or Mencken. My observations about Christianity are taken from my own experience in real life. My observation, germane to our political discussion, is that Christians, tend to be weaklings, hypocrites, delusional fools, and purchasable tools. Now, all men are that way, but Christians are worse than average. Christian preachers were pro-discrimination and segregation until the feds threatened their churches’ tax status. Then they, virtually all of them, flipped their position overnight. That’s the measure of their commitment to principle.
Christianity, as it exists today, is basically sop for the left half of the bell curve, supplying a living for a fraction of sharpers on the right. “The worst shall be first” – yeah, that leads real naturally to protecting the white race from the inferior races. Square peg, meet round hole.
Again, if atheists want to prove that high civilization is simply a matter of cold “engineering principles,” nothing is preventing them from creating works of art
Try creating something like Chartres with nothing but inspiration, and see how far you get. The lowliest bush nigger shaman is filled to the oversized nosehole with inspiration, just look at it shimmy! – but it can’t turn that inspiration into anything lasting because it hasn’t the necessities, as Al Campanis said in different context. Neither have 99% of white Christians. So the delusional belief system aint the causative factor. Where are the great achievement of your stupid, animalistic nigger Christians? Even your high-IQ gook christians have produced nothing culturally impressive. Yet I can cite artist after artist after sculptor after (every single Greek) after scientist after scientist who is atheist and discovered new knowledge or made transcendent art. Christian writer better than atheist Mencken? Does not exist. Christian artist equl to Twain? Does not exist. Christian scientist/inventor equal to Edison? Does not exist. Christian who disocovered genetic code? Does not exist. Christianity distorted White genius, and very likely suppressed it even more than it channeled it. White genius survives and eventually shines through every cultural form, no matter how diseased – whether christianity, its sister communism, or even perverted mud noise like rap. White blood, born into a thousand different circumstances, will manifest itself in something impressive, whether good, bad or weird.
Achievement doesn’t track with Christianity, it tracks with Whiteness. Wherever Whiteness goes, its colors show, from pyramids to Celtic metalwork to Tocharian weaves. Religion has zip to do with it. The fact that queers like Michelangelo created Christian works on commission (a lot of them to pay off gambling debts) is converted by you into Christianity inspiring everything great. This is leaving alone the rather obvious argument that the fact that a society is deemed Christian by no means proves the individual creator actually shared the delusions himself, rather than a) never thinking about them, or b) just going along because it was safer and more profitable. True love and belief in Jesus creates a lot more schlock than quality, just listen to Christian radio – the quality of true-believer artwork is very low. Real artistry has nothing to do with religious belief in the vast majority of cases – a queer like the ceiling painter is not driven by love of Jesus, if he were, he’d take seriously the Bible’s admonitions against homosexuality.
No, the greatness is in the blood, not the belief. Take 200 white babies at random, throw them in the forest, watch them develop over time – you’re going to get all the same things their kind has produced wherever it has traveled, and jeboo has nothing to do with it.
If there is no possibility of some degree of unity with those who are not like us then war will be our lot perpetually.
You and Bono want unity with the niggers and jews who would destroy us. Why not try operating in the real world where there are conflicting and irreconcilable interests? At the very least, let’s not hear any bilge about christianity NOT being the spring of the illiberalism you all claim is destroying us. God or nature or whatever has decreed that subspecies cannot occupy the same space. Try to fight that law, it seems to be as solid as the law of gravity. The question is whether we survive or they do, not how some suppositious supreme being wants us to get along, that’s pregnant with its own asininity. God created peoples and races that were all in his image, yet could not get along. Does that make some kind of sense to anybody?
We see that the pluriform God created a pluriform humanity that will thrive and know peace only when there is a proper balance to “the one and the many.” Without Christ, centralization and consolidation are unrestrained, not only in government but in everything.
So then it would be the christians pushing closed borders, deporting third-world savages, and allowing free association so that the descendants of white men could protect their communities from loosed niggers? Or are the christians as one in pushing forced immigration, open borders, and anti-white-norms non-judgmentalism? Oh, they used to believe differently, yes, i hear that from you a lot. You notice how WN never have to make that argument – only christians. Which is a powerful indication that WN stands for something but christianity does not.
Mankind is not meant for a future in Oceania. There is no other route to a blissful future than through the cross, for only then do we realize God’s purpose in a spiritually unified but physically variegated humanity, just as He created us, in His own image. What other “holy” books teach this? What other “prophets” have spoken it? Where is it found in the science textbooks? How else could multiculturalism ever be challenged? Linder’s solution to the problem is to exterminate his enemies, but this solution denies the nature of God and the nature of man and puts Linder in the place of God to judge what is good and what is evil, just like Nietzsche’s “Superman.” In other words, it is the very oldest sin, the sin of pride.
Exceptionally weakly reasoned. What your pride and unreason won’t let you admit is that you and I both argue from preferences – I needn’t pretend otherwise, while you pretending you will is this ‘gawd’-thing’s will.
Let me explain something to you. When you posit a (nonexistent) all-powerful, all-knowing creature who created the world in his image, you can’t then turn around and let him escape, uh, credit for all recorded bloody violent history. If god created us, then he is responsible for our actions and every last tittle of the way things turn out. There is no getting around that, logically, altho you christians never have end trying. If you’re all powerful, then…you have no excuses. You want people to do what you want, then, make them do what you want. Only a passive agressive faggot god would try to weasel out with free will. Well, hey, I guess god doesn’t really want what you claim he wants – not if he has the means to prevent it, and he refrains. So stop blaming man rather than the creator for the way things turned out when you yourself claim we are created in his image and he is all-powerful. (How are we not all-powerful and omniscent if we’re created in his image? Another question you can’t answer.)
And again, taking our cue from the observed world of facts, people who study the matter say that 99% of species that ever existed on earth are extinct. If god created the world, he obviously has no problem with extinction. So, arguing the way you do, I can say that my position is obviously godlier than yours, since I’m following the indicated pattern. Extermination is god’s way, all the evidence, including plenty in that book you worship, says so. Your way of claiming what has never happened is possible does not reflect God’s created reality or his advice in many parts of the old testament. There is nothing Bible-Gawd supports more than slewing you enemies…and their babies…and their livestock…and their pet goldfish.
I say, not because of god, but because it is my reading of history, we should exterminate the main enemy, the jew, and let the remaining races stay on their patches. There will still be border friction, but war has always been with us, because god created us that way (that would be the other side of the “in his image” slicing fatally back into your peace-on-earth side), there might, i say might, be a little less of it than we have today. Which is probably the best we can do.
From this throne of pride, Linder becomes what he hates.
That’s the typically dishonest, illogical christian way of spinning the WN policy of bringing a gun to a gunfight. In a fight, your enemy sets the terms. The jews attempt to force us to live on terms that do not allow our kind to thrive, not even to survive. They do not discriminate between us stupid goyim, save that we whites collectively are more threatening than the other races they oppose. And of course, their high holidays are celebrations of the mass murders of their enemies.
You have two choices. You can acknowledge the truth about the jews’ aims against our race, or you can pretend that we can keep on with the failed christian policy of the last 2,000 years – treating jews as individuals rather than as a hostile tribe that hates us and means us ill down to our littlest babies.
I respond to the facts of history, and the facts of our current situation. The pride, the false and foolish pride, lies in your refusal to measure your false beliefs about jews and their aims against White men as recorded in the reality known as history; the attitude on tap and display in all jewish words and teachings and holidays – indeed, every record of their declared intentions, whether factual or fabled, as in your very own Bible’s Old Testament. They mean us genocide. We should beat them to the punch.
For one, because it has never entered into the mind of a pagan to feed and clothe strangers out of love, like the Good Samaritan.
For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:46-48)
Likewise, in 1 Timothy 5:8, we are told that even infidels care for their own, and Christians are rebuked as worse than infidels when they do not.
And what is the upshot of this Christian insanity? Open borders. Importing Somalis to Minnesota, lost boys to the middle of Tennessee.
Hating and killing your enemies – retro-cool, itz. Loving your enemies is a recipe for social destruction. Christianity removed love from its proper sphere, and, like a fire out of the hearth, it is burning down the world.
This brings us right back to the Christian pursuit of global unity versus the atheist pursuit of extermination. We grant that in the last 60 years Christians have often failed in this goal because they have pursued an absolute, Babelistic unity rather than a pluriform unity in spiritual communion.
This is as dumb as a newspaper writing about the education gap between nigger students and whites, and how to make it up.
Wake up, man: there is no spiritual communion. There is no unity. There is no equality. Why would races different in every other way be the same spiritually? Don’t you see that embracing the liberal dogma of X equality you would reject in every other context?
Niggers don’t look, smell or act like white people, let alone think or have ‘spiritual communion’ with them. I say you’re pitching equality, and I say to hell with it.
Even niggers branded with the christian c keep the nature, just like jew conversos and marranos. Did you see the article about all the Nigerian christians practicing their own grisly all-African brand of exorcism on kids and such? You can put a nigger in a chapel, but it doesn’t become a human. Christianity is alchemy, and alchemy is a pseudo-science. Nigger is nigger is nigger, and there ain’t no equating it to white any which you try to work it. Give it up.
We ask the same question of the VNN crowd: How do your unitarian views allow for diversity within the race? When have national socialists ever allowed devolution of the megastate? What evidence do we have that they ever will?
I’m not a national socialist, so I won’t speak for them. I will merely point out that Germany is as large as Washington + Oregon, so centralization isn’t quite the same there as here, and more important, NS were concerned with jewish mass murderers a few hundred miles away from their territory, and trying to perpetrate communist revolution followed by genocide in every country they could. So centralization was necessary to racial/national/communal/individual defense. NS were only in power for 12 years; had they won and extirpated communism from Europe, there is no telling for sure how they might have evolved domestically.
As for VNN views, I can only give my views, here for example:
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=1001470&posted=1#post1001470
In brief, I believe in a racial dictatorship in the form of a monofunctional overstate, concentrating wholly on racial defense, serving as an umbrella for a diversity of microstates underneath. I follow the principle of subsidiarity – power belongs at the level it is most reasonably exercised, mostly individual and local, sometimes state, only federal if related to racial defense.
I believe that combining the insights of the libertarians into economics law combined with “nazi” understanding of biological law is a new and unprecedented and potentially attractive way to lay out our cause. I believe giving White men their heads back – their thinking heads and their right to run their families as they see fit – is far more attrative to our kind than empty godism, whether Christ-insanity or empty “love your race” mantras.
What isn’t realized widely today, and what has virtually never, to date, been acted on, is the libertarian-proved reality that goverment is almost wholly outmoded. The tasks it performs today are demonstrably better performed, in virtually every single case, including possibly national defense, by private voluntary associations rather than through centralized force. But – the part the libertarians don’t grasp or won’t admit – this newly recognized but untested reality can only be implemented in a White context.
Just as love and hate have their proper spheres, so do race and the individual. The entire point of the white race is its remarkable individuation – which must be protected, at the national level, even as it is facilitated at the individual level. And those who want to exercise their individualism by mixing with muds can fuck off to the third world or we WN will kill them, because the race is worth killing over.
My entire aim and focus is a nation fit for a White man. The racial dictatorship takes care of the White, and the microstate liberty takes care of the man. So I’m really a white-man-tionalist, so to speak. True NS are more white-antionalists, because they see white society as something to be managed as an ant farm, with new Hitler taking all the adult decisions on every issue.
My thoughts on markets/capitalism here:
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=94912&page=9
I am not NS, but, people should investigate NS carefully because there are many things said about it that are not true. It’s too simple to say NS was totalitarian and think you’ve classed and dismissed it. Hitler did set up some cartels, but beneath that level, which did distort the market, he did not cashier private businessmen the way the Soviets did. He was not economically insane. And on the martial front, NS were famous for blitzing, which involved people in the fray using their heads to make decisions. Politically, the Fuehrer principle, while derided in the west, involved at least the taking of responsibility, and the giving of leadership to men who had proved their merit – as opposed to the Anglo-western concept of their merit being proved by their winning the vote. Again, it is very difficult to judge NS because most of what is written about it is lies published by its enemies; and also for the fact that it did not leave a long peacetime legacy to study.
What I find among the simpler WN who think of themselves as NS, is too high a degree of ignorance of economics, probably born of their youth and their lack of education and experience, their never having worked for a corporation in any substantial capacity, or never having run their own business. For these reasons, they give the market less respect than it deserves, while claiming, falsely, that I give it too much. All my argument is based on the need for a market racially and morally constrained. The market is neutral. It is the best way to produce and distribute, but what is allowed to be produced and distributed is up to the society. Even in an all-White society there will be people immoral enough to try to profit from racially destructive profiteering. That doesn’t mean they can’t be stopped. In a racial state, which I favor, nothing can be put ahead of race – that would be the very definition of a capital crime.
Alex Linder writes:
No, normal people do not think about “eternity” and “salvation” for their “sins.” Those are Christian concerns. Normal people have self-respect, and part of that is respect for their ancestors and carrying on worthwhile traditions. And when circumstances change, or new demands arise, altering the traditions as needed. To a very large extent, Christianity is drama-queenism. Like lefties trying to sell communism as science, Christians try to sell their fictions as truth.
This is Linder’s first statement upon which all of his other arguments are based, and it is nothing more than pure ignorance. Try reading Japanese literature written hundreds of years before they had any contact with white Christians. The “Tale of Genji” is obsessed with the same themes that have obsessed all thinking humans for as long as they have existed: “eternity,” “salvation” and atonement for “sins.” The same is true of every people that have ever existed. Ancient Jews and modern Muslims are no different from ancient Japanese and modern white Christians in this respect.
Every man who thinks about life beyond the exigencies of today’s necessities thinks about the only reality of which we can be certain: death. To think about death and to come to no higher conclusion than providing for offspring is to live at the level of animals. Animals seek offspring to live on after they are dead, but humans are capable of this and much more, and those who have no greater concept of death are not really human.
The other foundational statement of Linder’s response is to rely on the “scholarship” of Revilo P. Oliver, “The Jesus myth requires no explication. It is clear that … ”
Such a thing has never been clear to any of the great white minds that have lived over the past millennia. To state that such a claim is so obvious as to need no proof is to demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of one’s knowledge and understanding.
In these responses, in contrast to his postings on his own site, Linder at least demonstrates some effort towards rationality. But how can one take seriously a “philosophy” based on nothing more than denying the reality of all men’s lives in all times and places? It’s not a philosophy worth considering or debating. It would be a waste of time to argue about economic systems based on such a metaphysical foundation (or lack thereof).
Among all Linder’s lengthy postings, this is the only point that I think is worth considering:
Nothing would make me believe what you do, but I am interested in the origins of kinism, and how it fits the rest Christianity – in a way parallel to my interest in E. Michael Jones and his interpretation of 2,000 years of Catholic history and doctrine in relation to the “revolutionary” jews. I think I’ve read most of your site, but what I would really appreciate from you, is posts that lay out the biggest context for kinism. That is,
- who originated this doctrine?
- who are its main proponents and preachers today?
As WN, what I have tried to do for the christians is extract and publicize those men and christians who at least see a good portion of the same problems we WN do. I’ve done this with Ted Pike and a couple other smaller-level prots, and EMJ and the Catholics – and of course these guys have done much for me by way of tutoring in Euro history, altho I certainly don’t share their interpretation. So where does kinism fit in this? What’s its origins, how does it relate to Catholic doctrine, how does it relate politically to the Southern movement these days and historically? Who are the main preachers and are there actual kinist churches, like there are traditional RC churches? What’s the institutionalization of the thing, or is it purely intellectual and online? I’m looking for context. I’m greedy for understanding. I will never agree with you, but I need your help to place you in the mental constellation, to see how it all fits together, where mutual interests lie.
In terms of replying to Linder, one could easily make the rejoinder that there is much more concrete, tangible reality to traditional Catholicism and kinist Protestantism than there is to the risible White Nationalist “organizations” whose membership consists primarily of agent provocateurs of the federal government.
We shouldn’t deny, however, the necessity of doing what he suggests. We need a solid historical, philosophical and theological basis for our movement, and we need to be able to demonstrate a lived reality among Christians who reject the blandishments of the Jews and their New World Order. We don’t want to find ourselves in the same boat as the WN’s whose “movement” exists only the fevered minds of disaffected white men living in their parents’ basements.
Admin, well, good because for a minute there it seemed like you were asking me to prove a negative! Actually, I think you are.
You can call it my “opinion” if you like. I have mine and you’ve got yours. Fine. Of course, you may choose not to acknowledge that your side bears the burden of proof, but still it remains. How else is one supposed to “prove” a negative proposition other than to point out the lack of evidence and weakness of arguments advanced? I’ve already given a few examples, and much more can be found with a simple Google search. I’d recommend exploring the works of Earl Doherty, Freke and Gandy and Acharya S for starters.
What “facts” other than the fact that there are none, except for stories in a book, to substantiate Christian claims? Am I supposed to have access to some “anti-facts”? There are no facts, except that there ARE NO FACTS, because there’s no reality to the story, any more than there is to Cinderella or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.Can’t get blood from a stone. If someone insists to me that these stories are also true, I’d just be forced to tell them the same thing: prove it. Non-belief requires no justification. And that’s not just my “opinion”. It’s a fact, ha ha.
But seriously, you’ve done an admirable job of attempting to defend the indefensible. I’d expect nothing less, though like Linder I wish you’d keep the baby and throw out the bathwater of the “can’t live if livin’ is without Jesus” refrain, because it’s simply not true. Our people were “godless” pagans for far longer than they’ve been Christian, and were doing just fine. They certainly were in no danger of extinction. It’s only since the introduction of Christianity that we began the long, downhill march of blood-soaked, fratricidal wars of religion and the adoption of an egalitarian outlook that’s about to do us in. This has all happened on the Christ god’s watch.
“And Miami is a good place for ChopperDan to land the nonexistant Jesus in an argument(?) that is the modern version of Toledot Yeshu (may his name be blotted out) – only whittled down to suit the brainwashed goyim, who still require Kashrut supervision in their formation of any ideas about history.”
Lynda, I didn’t ask if Jesus had gone to Miami, (though that’s a good point: where IS Jesus, NOW?), I was wondering what is suppposed to have happened to the multitude of resurrected corpses that are alleged, immediately following the death of Jesus and a large earthquake, to have risen and walked through the city. Eh? There’s no mention of these sensational events anywhere else in the NT or in any known secular source. Seems a bit peculiar. So, Lynda, can you tell us where the resurrected folks got off to? They “appeared to many” and then…?
“So this meritless argument(?) for Jesus the nonexistant that rests upon agnosticism towards all historical record thus setting up the analogy:
Premise 1: The non existence of Jesus the Christ is to white nationalism
as
Premise 2: The Jewish holocaust narratives (all those pix!) is to superstitious goys who believe in Jesus existed, he performed miracles etc. And basically 2 millenia of the European Jesus hoax.”
Calling it “meritless” is fine as a debate tactic to attempt to obscure the paucity of evidence for your position, but doesn’t make it so. It’s full of merit. And I’m not “agnostic to all historical records”, I just have something of an ability to distinguish what is from what isn’t, and the gospel narratives aren’t historical just because some people “believe” they are. Gone With the Wind has real historical elements and has a real historical setting, but the rest of it is fiction. It’s called a historical novel, which is very similar to what the NT is, though the NT contains some real, allegorical spiritual insights when one understands that it’s not meant to be taken literally.
Dear John,
Christians have and have always had a solid, historical, philosophical and theological basis for national life and defense of one’s nation (ethne), culture, religion and national life. It is called natural law and common law and the hereditary prinicple. And the Church has always supported it as the basis of social order. And I agree that we should be laying it on the line, here.
As for Linder’s flame in 15 posts above – this is a strategic and tactical move by a true revolutionary thinker. The Jeboo stuff – you know where this comes from? This is a Homerism from the Simpsons, the infamous JooToon that presents White Americans as nuclear yellow (fruit)cakes. Homer and Marge are of course ‘Christians’ in Rev Lovejoy’s congregation. Homer the Doughnut can’t even get the name of the Saviour right. He calls him Jeebus or Jeboo – probably a take on the ruffians of Masonic fable.
The Grand Orient Lodge is the school for Revolution – its foundation stone laid by Rothschild at the Rue Cadet about 5 years before the ‘Great Revolution’ 1789 which inaugurated our own Revolutionary Era now culminating in the Communist Revolution (by definition global). In Dr Zhivago, Ebgrav (the Bolshevik) knows that the cataclysm of Pike’s a world war is coming.
http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike2.htm.
Naturally, the Bolsheviks embed their cadres in all the conservative Russian institutions to organize weakness,defeat, incompetence – which the Party organs then attack – cutting out the middle ground. That is what Linder is doing here.
Ebgrav puts it like this: “from defeat will spring the Revolution.”
The same principle applies on the eve of WW III being machinated by exactly the same powers. Revolution needs a catalyst (a shit hits the fan event) and to reap the whirlwind, you have to sow to the wind.
The Christian position then as now was to strengthen and defend the institution of Church and State – specifically its Christian foundations. And they named the Jews and published their activities. Fr Pranitis did this when he translated The Talmud, when the Church imprimatured The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, etc.
Actually we should also be seeking to discredit the show pony conserves who are mediatarts for the judeomasonic establishment. They are there to hoodwinkle the sheeple into thinking that the system is open to change based on democratic agenda, that impartial investigation and report of social issues is promoted and that substantive criticism is taken onboard by the Powers That Be. And of course this is bollox, but very powerful interests have a very high vested interest in this charade.
La millieure facon de controller l’opposiition est de l’organiser soi-meme. The best way to control the opposition is to organise it yourself. (Comrade Lenin)
Alex, thanks for responding here. I should have also posted to the VNN forum, but I see that you did already. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this because I think it’s a big help to everyone. If it hasn’t already been made clear, we have great respect for your opinions, even though we differ on the major points. On many minor points we are in agreement. I’ve chosen to respond selectively to what you’ve written above, and others can fill in the blanks if they wish. Some of the ground has already been covered and recovered.
Right off the bat, we have a point of contention:
Only animals are "fulfilled" by a full belly. Human beings, at the very least, look up to the heavens, which declare the glory of God (Psalms 19:1), and question the purpose of the world and their place in it. At the very least, they see the effects of evil and wonder what they can do to propitiate it. An animal knows nothing of purpose. As commenter John asked: "How can one take seriously a ‘philosophy’ based on nothing more than denying the reality of all men’s lives in all times and places? It’s not a philosophy worth considering or debating."
Respect for ancestors? Worthwhile traditions? It is impossible for atheist white nationalists to claim continuity and succession with the white race. Those who have preceded them are gone forever, vanished, never to be seen again (if what you say is true). Those who are yet to come also have no connection to them because when they arrive the current generation will be gone forever. Libertarian existentialism is the only honest religion of the atheist. And if the atheist believes that existentialism is going to inspire selflessness and heroism in anyone, so that the collective needs of our race are taken into account by more than a scant few, they are greatly to be pitied. Heroism is born of certainty, and atheism precludes the possibility of certainty. Just ask Christopher Hitchens. What such men call "reality" is by their own admission aimless.
There is a lot to unpack here. You are saying that history, given to us in the way that history is routinely given to us, is not fact, and you are basing this on opinion – specifically an appeal to greater numbers, an appeal you would quickly reject if it were used against you by Christians at any other time in history. But the key word in this statement is "meaning." If there is no God and no revealed law, "good" and "evil" are purely subjective. Sure, one man’s conscience might hurt him more than another’s, but there is no standard of justice above the passions of the mob (hence your appeal to superior numbers). We agree that the survival of the white race is good, but I submit that you must borrow disingenuously from the Christian worldview in order to make any sense of the difference between good and evil. You really should listen to the Bahnsen-Stein debate. In short, Christians have an explanation for reason and atheists do not, their endless drumming about rationality and objectivity notwithstanding. You have convinced yourself that Christianity contravenes Greek reason, but it does no such thing. Instead, it gives us the foundation for reason. Nor does it contravene Germanic fidelity. Instead, it confirms that Germans were created for a holy purpose. The faith takes all that is fundamental to life and raises it to the level of the eternal. What you need to ask yourself is why anyone should care about your pleas to save white genes for another generation rather than for another generation and for eternity. The former is your argument, the latter is ours.
I’m no expert on what R. Oliver has written, but anyone who writes "The Jesus myth requires no explication" is being neither erudite nor scholarly, and no help at all to the billions of Christians who have ever lived, or anyone else for that matter. In the excerpt you provided, he appears to be saying that the New Testament was a pastiche of Talmudic legends, which to be true would mean that the Talmud predated the NT. I’ll look into this further, but it fails to explain how Paul’s words precisely echo the words of Christ and the other apostles. We know that Paul died prior to 70 AD, and the destruction of Jerusalem in not mentioned by any of the authors. The famous archaeologist W.F. Albright wrote: "We can already say emphatically that there is no long any basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80." There are tens of thousands of scriptural citations from the church fathers of the late first century.
The real sticking point for you, I think, is the eyewitness testimony of the empty tomb and the resurrected Christ. Just as was true of Lazarus, Jesus Christ was certifiably dead and then certifiably alive, for in both cases there were witnesses. How else would the truth of it be communicated to us? No court of law would dismiss all eyewitnesses as incredulous. You have done this only because you would not accept the testimony under any circumstances. If the eyewitnesses had simply been Christ’s own followers, that would have been one thing, but the Jewish leaders witnessed it too. The empty tomb was there for all to see, and the Jewish alibi did not float. This is why the faith spread rapidly. Even Saul, whose only goal in life was to kill Christians, could do nothing other than join them once he was confronted by Christ, and it was he who introduced the gospel to Europe. I know you don’t believe it, but as everyone can see, you can’t explain it. Instead, you ask if I have personally witnessed a virgin birth or a resurrection. If that’s your Occam’s Razor, it can’t cut butter.
What was the motivation for the alleged hoax? Was King Herod also in on it, and what was his motivation? I know of many charlatans today, but their motivation is to get rich, and the apostles all went boldly and poorly to their deaths, after initially hiding in fear for their lives. If this was a suicide cult, what other suicide cults do you know that have spawned worldwide repentance and covenant oaths? You want to compare the Passion of Christ to the Holohoax, but what Jews have ever given their lives to maintain the latter ruse?
You don’t like the wars that Christians have waged. Fine, but in the worldview of the atheist, what makes one war worse than another? Why would this matter to a Darwinist? Do we get upset with lions for killing zebras? Christians derived the just war doctrine from Scripture. John Lennon derived pacifism from karma. One of these is clearly preferable to the other, but how would an atheist deduce it by the random movement of electrons between his ears? If atheists are correct, ethics are random and meaningless.
You contradict yourself, Alex. First you say Christians have waged war, then you say Christianity strips us of the will to defend ourselves. This is an interesting comment I saw at Auster’s blog:
I appreciate this statement of your principles:
The trouble is that you have proposed a balance of power that could never work, and has never worked. You say that libertarians have "proved" their theories but the theories have never "been acted on." Why would a person such as yourself, who wants to conserve our people and heritage, prescribe that which has never advanced beyond theory? I sense, underneath it all, an innate sense of the proper balance between the individual and the group (the one and the many), but your flawed ideology can’t get you there. Do you really believe that men will be able to exercise domestic government in their own families, and microstates will be able to govern their own affairs, with what you describe as a "dictatorship" over them? When has this ever happened in the history of mankind? It is not a product of true federalism, which Lincoln ended here. Your dictators will take control of the military and another Hitler (or Bush or Obama) will be unavoidable.
As is true in your case, there are atheists whose primary motivation is to wage war against their enemies. This is a reactionary existence, because if their enemies are ever vanquished they will discover that a) their temporary alliance with co-belligerents has evaporated, and b) a greater tyranny has rushed to fill the void. This is why Proverbs 21:4 tells us that even the plowing of the wicked is sin. The last thing that can ever come from the existentialism of skeptics is the positive growth and nurture that has characterized the West under Christianity. Atheist white nationalism is therefore a fool’s errand because it desires to inherit from its mother and then kill her.
The crucial missing ingredient in your theory of government is the Church. The root of your thinking is unitarian, as it must necessarily be if the triune God of the Bible does not exist. In hope of the greatest strength, you are focused on an absolute unity of the white race, which doesn’t exist and has never existed. Instead, the race has both general and particular unity since we, the cells of the organism, are created in the image of God. You also presume that orthodox Christianity must be unitarian, as the race-mixing Judeochristians teach. This is not true, but it is why you suppose that the Christian imperative is to occupy the same space despite "conflicting and irreconcilable interests." You wrote: "Spiritual equality leads naturally to political equality." Where is the evidence for this in history? Wherever it has been tried, the nation self-destructs. You wrote: "The liberalism that admitted jews as equals and destroyed our society is Christian in origin." You know better than this. Every Christian nation in Europe expelled Jews as hostile aliens at one time or another, and some of them more than once. The overarching point is that only Christianity offers the possibility of ethnic, national, and even ecclesiastic diversity under one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. It rests quite comfortably with ethnonationalism, historically speaking. It’s a mistake to view Christianity as another flavor of Islam or Judaism.
Your instinct for self-preservation, which is good, rejects the revelation that the faith is a free gift to all whom the Lord might choose out of all peoples on earth. This is not really the same as being universal; the elect and reprobate have been chosen from the foundation of the world. But I understand your disdain for the idea that racial mixture, which is always a curse, is allowable under Christianity, and that if our enemies repent and adopt the faith, they become our brothers and there is no longer a distinction between us, opening the door to miscegenation. This is what the modern churches are teaching, and it is a demonstrable lie. Our Christian forefathers and church fathers denied it. It is basically the theme of the book of Jonah, and in the case of that prophet, there was a spiritual communion that brought peace but not a physical amalgamation of Ninevites and Israelites.
You said atheist nationalism has not changed but Christianity has changed over time. I think neither is immune from expediency. No sooner does the Bible get started than we read about a prideful fall from paradise. Yes, Christians succumb to the lure of money, fame, and power, but so do all men. Christians are often inconsistent, but so are all men, especially atheists. It’s unfortunate, but there are very simple reasons for why whites of all kinds are committing suicide, Christian and atheist alike. Atheist nationalists are doing nothing to reverse this trend, and my point about childbirth proves it.
I never suggested that Chartres was built solely on inspiration. What I said is that atheists could not have done it, and I stand by that statement. Of course atheists are clever and industrious; so were Cainites. They can read blueprints too. But from the "abundance of the heart" the mouth speaks and the fingers move and the brain thinks. Atheists try to produce art, but it is ugly and often disgusting. Their architecture is designed for effficiency, not inspiration. The few exceptions, such as Jew Gehry, should be laughingstocks. Atheists have done no better in science. They build great telescopes, but for the purpose of searching for distant accidental life in the stars, not to give thanks to the Creator of the universe. Technological application has advanced (to the detriment of nature), but the principle scientific discoveries on which technology is based were the gifts of Christians and Christian culture. We inherited quite a lot from Greeks, Romans, Germans, and other pagan ancestors, but we did not become who we were meant to be until we were renewed by Christ. Everything we love in this world is a direct result of that legacy, but we’re certainly not trying to say that the covenant is everything and lineage is nothing. If that were true, God would have done better to create us as ghosts.
"How are we not all-powerful and omniscent if we’re created in his image? Another question you can’t answer." I think I have answered it. Men reflect "the one and the many" of the Trinity, having been created in God’s image, but sinful pride tries to dissolve one into the other. This is seen in the libertarian who respects no entity greater than himself, unless it’s the market, which is also driven by selfishness; it is seen in the neo-Babelist race-mixing Christian who believes that his sanctification is perfected with brown babies; and it is seen in the atheist nationalist for whom pluriformity does not compute because his every thought is vanity.
Now to your questions about Kinism. Kinism is just a short word for the historic, orthodox faith once delivered to the saints, with a special emphasis on one area where the churches of our time have gone astray, the matter of kinship. We are like voices crying in the wilderness, unwelcome in most churches today. Not surprisingly, churches have tracked the decline of the state and its associated institutions. Churches have also tracked the economy because they seek incorporation from the state and have become business ventures more than anything else. You will only find outspoken Kinist proponents today within churches, making their concerns known. This is because we don’t expect politics or philosophy to change anything. Change for the better will only come through the body of Christ, His Church on earth. This requires a lot of prayer, study, and debate, but also a great deal of bearing the burdens of others, and forgiving in the hope of being forgiven. By God’s grace, we have influenced many Christian laymen and are slowly forcing clergymen to deal with our arguments, though they avoid us like the plague. There are many Kinist arguments to be found in old books, however. One of our favorite authors is Rev. Dr. R.L. Dabney, though any Confederate will do.
Finally, some questions for you. Surely you agree that duty restrains us from evil. Who is more likely to be virtuous, the man who must give an account for his deeds in eternity or the man who has nothing to lose? Surely you realize that monks in medieval times and parsons in more recent times were considered the arbiters of justice for our people. They even purposely dressed like magistrates. Do you think this justice was as accidental as an amoeba evolving into Isaac Newton? Do you think atheists could have ensured more just weights and measures? I was hoping you would answer the question I posed earlier: Why did highly intelligent Europeans fall for such an inferior faith, as you reckon it? Were they just superstitious, like Negroes, in spite of their IQ? And how was the West able to turn this around, so that now, instead of parsons, we highly esteem "rational" and erudite professors? When will unrealized theories begin to reap a bountiful harvest in the form of a civilization that advances once again, as it did under Christendom? I know you want to exterminate the Jews as a first step, but what comes next?
I think this headline at VNN illustrates the disconnect on only one side of this debate:
“Can you be loyal to both your race and Jesus? One has to come first. Which is it gonna be?”
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=6283
Yes, one must be primary, but this doesn’t answer the first question. All down through history men have been loyal to both. Suppose I were to ask, “Can you be loyal to both your family and your country? One has to come first. Which is it gonna be?”
The irony is that the VNN folks talk so much about absolutes but have no epistemological basis for believing in absolutes. Here again, they construct a false either/or dichotomy where none exists. You can see their existentialism come out in the comments too. All they have to bank on is their own 80-year lifespans, and so Christianity is defined for them solely by what “Christians” are currently doing, not by what they have done.
This is like believing that our “federal” government is actually federal because it bears the name, or that this empire really consists of united states because it bears the name. No, the words “federal” and “state” have specific meanings.
Although you asked this of Alex Linder here are some responses from this once christian.
Finally, some questions for you. Surely you agree that duty restrains us from evil.
That would be to deny somebody their character, whatever you regard evil to be. You seem to be working on the assumption that everyone given a chance would be some kind of monster but are restrained by “duty”. Not really true. Bonds of affection and sympathy aid one to not only refrain from “evil” but to effect good for another even in spite of “duty”. If the only thing restraining you from evil is a sense of duty I would rather not know you personally in case evil one day got the upper-hand during your daily battle against your inner monstrosity.
Who is more likely to be virtuous, the man who must give an account for his deeds in eternity or the man who has nothing to lose?
Again this denies character. If the only reason a man does “good” or refrains from “evil” is to get a pass at the pearly gates then what is it but egoism? Certainly not virtue. If Satan held the keys to heaven would you work his will to gain admittance?
Surely you realize that monks in medieval times and parsons in more recent times were considered the arbiters of justice for our people. They even purposely dressed like magistrates.
Yes and not a few times they used the position to rape and rob only to be forgiven and placed elsewhere to continue their duty.
Do you think this justice was as accidental as an amoeba evolving into Isaac Newton?
You don’t have to be a theist to disagree with evolutionary theory as it currently stands.
Do you think atheists could have ensured more just weights and measures?
The term atheist is loaded. Buddhists for example don’t believe in a supreme deity and yet are hardly atheists. It is a loaded term based on a Judaic world outlook. Rejecting the jewish theist doctrine doesn’t make you automatically an atheist.
Why did highly intelligent Europeans fall for such an inferior faith, as you reckon it?
It was a move used to expand political influence along with the sword. As long as it didn’t tread on the character of the people, why not? The outward form of belief changed but the essence remained until the printing of the bible and interpretations into the vernacular. Then the jig was almost up as people tried to live by it and their essential spirit rebelled. Most remaining believers have to be talmadic in their interpretations not to be repelled by the jewish hate god Jehovah.
Were they just superstitious, like Negroes, in spite of their IQ?
There are many unexplained happenings in this world. Given the limits of human knowledge people often have to go with what they have.
And how was the West able to turn this around, so that now, instead of parsons, we highly esteem “rational” and erudite professors?
It wasn’t the West. It was jews. And it isn’t professors, it’s Oprah!
When will unrealized theories begin to reap a bountiful harvest in the form of a civilization that advances once again, as it did under Christendom?
That is a bogus question. Civilization advanced under the leadership of Whites. Jews are in charge now.
I know you want to exterminate the Jews as a first step, but what comes next?
This is like asking, “I know you want to exterminate murders and rapists, but what comes next?” Isn’t getting rid of murderers and rapists justification in itself regardless of anything else?
the WN “epistemological basis for believing in absolutes” is, quite simply, racial science & genetics….the former is, of course, now persona non grata in academic circles with many prominent texts dating back to the early nineteenth century being removed from university library shelves; the latter is “danced around” when it clearly points to racial inequalities as per the shameful treatment of Nobel Prize winner James Watson…..how much of the recent “human genome project” is being “covered up” for fear of telling the truth on racial matters?
you are, quite frankly, wrong to accuse WNs of being “devotees of Darwin”…..WN is a broad church encompassing many diverse groups all with the same goal….a separation of the White Race from non-whites (particularly from blacks & jews) & our own, exclusive “living space” as per “the 14 words”….that broad church includes such groups as NS, “Aryan Nations”, the “KKK” most “Odinists” and many “CI” sub-groups….as well as “atheistical groups” like WCOTC and, perhaps, “Blood & Honour”…..the Christian or pseudo-Christian sub-groups of WN would seem to out-number the atheistical ones……and none of those Christian groups or, for that matter, even the “Odinist” ones are necessarily “Darwinists”….which has, incidentally, always been more widely promulgated by the judæo-marxist left than the far right; a reading of “Mein Kampf”, Yockey’s “Imperium” or, even, William Gayley Simpson’s “Which Way Western Man?” (all major WN “texts”) would demonstrate that Darwinism is only paid “lip service” @ best!
but: while discussing Darwin, it could well be argued that his magnmum opus was NOT “Origin of the Species” (a tentative & hesitant thesis) but, rather, his two volume “Descent of Man” which is, of course, rarely, if ever, mentioned now-a-days and, because it has clear racial over-tones, may also be one of those “racial science” texts that have been “disappeared” from all but the most obscure libraries & book suppliers!
Jimbo, how can “racial science and genetics” be the epistemological basis for believing in *absolutes*? I can’t recall ever hearing a naturalist say that we can know anything for certain. Instead, they say science is about probability, or the pursuit of truth rather than the attainment of truth. If so, ethics and morals and justice are subjective, and if there is any consensus at all, it is determined by the mob. You have merely rejected faith in Christ for faith in your own mirror, or more specifically, faith in your own intelligence and that of your group. You have traded “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25) with “Shall we not put our heads together and think the same thoughts, which we will label ‘good’?” My only point is that this has nothing to do with absolutes, and therefore nothing to do with the actual history of the West. The West has undeniably been guided in the Christian era by a firm reliance on Providence.
Anthony, you didn’t even come close to answering most of those questions. The only thing I learned from you is that Europeans accepted the Christian faith for cynical political reasons. Spoken like a true cynic! But I think (maybe) you did confirm for me the belief among what I’ll call atheist nationalists, unless someone can propose a better term (WN is too broad), that once Jews are exterminated the desert shall rejoice and bloom as the rose, and the Caucasian haplotype shall cause manna to fall from heaven. God’s casket will finally be nailed shut, and then we can resume our eternal quest for “truth by committee” together, each libertarian philosophizing beneath his own vine and fig tree. Is that about right? We could also gather on Saturday evenings to sing “Give Peace a Chance.”
admin, thanks for refusing to address the nature of character in the scheme of things. Luther did better when he rejected the idea of freewill for that of election from eternity. Good works manifest as a sign of election.
You quoted from the book of Job which is an interesting work. The first thing to understand is that Satan in the jewish tradition is not the adversary of God but the prosecuting attorney for God. That is why Saul of Tarsus rebuked early Christians for cursing Satan saying they were talking about something they didn’t understand.
If we look at Job we see that his children are killed and yet the general feeling we get is that he lost property. They are lumped in there with his cattle. After abasing himself God gives him some more property in the form of children and he is satisfied. Is that moral? That Job suffers for himself not for those who went down to darkness for no good reason but to test his allegence to God. Is that moral or immoral?
The New Testament as far as it is Aryan contains some good stuff, but as far as it is contaminated by the jewish spirit it is repellent.
Now I don’t know where you got your impression of blooming deserts. Go back and read what I wrote and you will see you misread me. I suggested no such thing and I would suggest it is the jewish spirit that you assigned a value to me that does not apply.
You have traded “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25) with “Shall we not put our heads together and think the same thoughts, which we will label ‘good’?
the characteristics which the kikez like to ascribe to them-selves as God’s “chosen people” (or: should that be “self-chosen”) are, in fact, racial characteristics of the White Race…viz: moral decency, nobility, honesty, honour, altruism, “fair play” & family values…jews are the very anti-thesis of these qualities….whereas such “good things” spring ineluctably from the Aryan psyche;
except where Aryans have been corrupted & contaminated by contact with the kike, this has always been the case with White People…going back to earliest recorded history….as this particular site clearly demonstrates!
the Goths, for instance, called them-selves “the good ones”;
the very specificity of “Aryan” is “noble”!
“admin”….you accused me of non sequiturs in an earlier post….but don’t you, in fact, commit a variation of “the fallacy of composition”?….
as in: because some jews are not “all bad”, we don’t have a right to judge jews in toto?…
shouldn’t the dictum, in actuality, be….”the overwhelming majority of jews are psychopathic scum predators who exploit the weak & the helpless”, ergo, it is reasonable to assume ALL jews that one meets “fit this criteria” unless proven other-wise….
as in: since almost ALL known species of box-jelly-fish are highly dangerous to humans, it is correct to assume that, when swimming in the ocean, any particular box-jelly-fish will ALSO be thus and, as such, should be avoided, if possible, with extreme caution….if not killed out-right….again: if possible!
We shouldn’t deny, however, the necessity of doing what he suggests. We need a solid historical, philosophical and theological basis for our movement, and we need to be able to demonstrate a lived reality among Christians who reject the blandishments of the Jews and their New World Order. We don’t want to find ourselves in the same boat as the WN’s whose “movement” exists only the fevered minds of disaffected white men living in their parents’ basements.
An easy gibe, and one worthy of a cristian.
I wasn’t mocking or attacking in that instance, when I am you’ll know. I’m seriously asking whether there are real world kinist preachers and churches. I see you have put out at least one number of a Review, which I’ve read with profit.
Keep up the good work. Because what I have is better than what you have, I will trumpet you far and wide where we agree, and always put your claims on part with my own, as I know which way the neutral will incline.
Now what I want to know is, did Harry Seabrook or someone else, coin or invent kinism, as a term or concept? I appreciate there are philosophical forerunners whose tradition he and y’all are carrying on; I’m just trying to get the broadest context here, and my questions arise after having read this entire site multiple times.
In terms of replying to Linder, one could easily make the rejoinder that there is much more concrete, tangible reality to traditional Catholicism and kinist Protestantism than there is to the risible White Nationalist “organizations” whose membership consists primarily of agent provocateurs of the federal government.
Yes, John, you’re right. You have 2,000 years of tradition. Pond scum has two billion, but keep it up, you’ll beat ‘em.
What matters here is, between kinists and WN, whether you see the same problems we do, and if so, how your solution is different from or better than ours.
I see jews as the main threat to the world normal Whites want to live in. To that end I study all who have interacted with jews, and the various ways they’ve defined, analyzed and resisted them. My conclusion is the church failed to resist jews, and ultimately saw its institutions subverted by them, because of its dogma of spiritual equality, which called for jews to be converted, rather than exterminated, as the ultimate solution to the jewish question.
I also study NS, and how the German nationalists differed with the church in defining and resisting jews. The church failed to resist jews because of its false dogma preventing it from identifying jews as a foreign and hostile race – the biological truth of the matter. NS, although enjoying more success than virtually any white body fighting back against the jewish attacker, ultimately failed because it was too liberal. The residue of christian liberalism, in which the jew is seen as an indivdual more than as a member of genocidally-hostile tribe, altho largely drained from NS, remained in enough volume to see the Nazis content merely to discriminate against the jews legally and progressively, and encourage them to emigrate, which ultimately guaranteed the nazis downfall, as the jews spread the word and pulled their strings until they had the rest of the controlled white countries destroying the one place where Whites had actually retaken political control of their land.
From what I can tell, and put me straight, the kinists follow the Roman Catholic failure model: they are more concerned with the damage to their kinist souls of treating jews as a hostile tribe, rather than a people, however different in race, composed of redeemable individuals. They fear they will be punished in the afterlife if they do what seems to work here in the real world: treat jews as one would treat a shark in the ocean, a bear in the back country, or a rabid dog walking down main street.
As you say, Christianity has been around for 2,000 years, yet has never been able to solve the jewish question. Today the jews are more powerful than ever. They have access to better lie-spreading and money-creating technology than ever. How are they going to lose if they treat us as a hostile outgroup, as you know they do? How are we going to win if we treat them as individuals. You may want a fist fight, but if your opponent shows up with a gun, how can you possibly win? The jews show up with a gun. Are you really willing to sacrifice the life of your people because it offends your morality not to?
There is a lot of talk about character and morality here by men who can’t explain why theirs is any better than Stalin’s, except that theirs promotes survival for the white race. I counter that simply assuming survival to be the only standard for good opens the door to every manner of evil done in the name of that ultimate goal. We can lie, cheat, and steal our way to survival and call it morality! As I said, this is no standard at all.
But let me be clear – there is no argument against self-defense from Kinists. While your unitarian philosophy is also unitarian in reverse (refusing to recognize Jewish individual dissent and conversion and only seeing them as a monolithic mass of lechery), it is certainly true that individuals are held accountable for the actions of their race, and vice versa. This is done in subtle ways, such as distrust of all blacks because of the statistical probability that any particular black man is likely to be a felon. It is also seen in the Bible with judgment against entire nations for the actions of a few.
I know of no Kinists who object to taking legal, constitutional action against our oppressors to secure our survival. This is how our nation was founded and how our next nation will be founded. But again, use history as a guide. Even when white nations go to war against each other, the goal in view is not extermination. Even when there is ignoble purpose, the stated goal in view is peace. And whatever the motives may be, segregation of disparate elements secures the peace. Notice the Christian versus unitarian conception of the conflict: Rather than vermin to be exterminated, the Christian sees “the one and many” at work, i.e., misguided and sometimes hostile nations comprised of redeemable individuals and a culture and race worth saving.
Alex, Harry didn’t coin the term “Kinism” but he did run with it in 2004. It was coined by a very wise member of the League of the South in 2001 as an alternative race-conscious approach to that organization’s tunnel vision on Yankees, and its hopeless fantasy of thinking that anyone who lives in the South, of any race, should be trusted to defend the Southern people and culture. (Dennis Wheeler took the same fight to the LOS some five years earlier.) A declaration of Kinist principles was drafted five days before 9/11 and was signed by a small but visionary contingent. Immediately after 9/11, membership in the League plummeted because (as we all know) the era of Toby Keith and Larry the Cable Guy was dawning. White Southerners suddenly began to follow George W. Bush as a prophet and treated his conversations with God as divine revelation.
During the last nine years, the new mestizo “Southerners” have many things on their mind, but certainly not any of our traditions, just as we predicted. Talk of secession has swung back around, but the only people clamoring for it are whites, as always. And still, the LOS is more afraid of being called “racist” than in proudly identifying with the only people who have ever cared about the Old Republic. The SCV is even worse. Anyway, that’s how Kinism came about.
It could be true that the Church failed to resist Jews and was subverted by them, but this is not really the nub of the debate. The real debate here is over the validity of the Church itself. We would say that Jews are not the greatest villains in the picture. Whites can do a fine job on their own of polluting themselves with Equality because of sin, which you deny. Sin is the real problem, not the Jew. Take care of the sin and the JQ will be answered in the same way that true Christian nations have always answered it. Failure to repent of sin will cast white nations into chaos, with or without Jews present.
I disagree with you that Jews are more powerful than ever. They have money, but it grows more worthless by the minute. Without their money, they can’t buy off the feckless white governments that are guided by their own bellies, not Christ. They are now trying to balance on a razor, and one false move will be the end. Notice how the Iranians are confidently biding their time.
“Rather than vermin to be exterminated, the Christian sees “the one and many” at work, i.e., misguided and sometimes hostile nations comprised of redeemable individuals and a culture and race worth saving.”
Maybe but the jewish hate god Jawhe doesn’t see it that way. Read the psalms for promises of distruction and read the old testament where he demands of the Israelites the destruction of man, woman, child and even cattle in the land they were to occupy. Seems strange you should question the morality of extermination when your own god set the standard. Remember the Hittites!
The exact biblical passage that made me reject Christianity:
“Concerning the Gospel, they [jews] are enemies for your sake; but concerning the election, they [jews] are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” Romans 11:28
What it says is that for my own good, and your own good, jews attack you and your families, but are beloved of by God. Saul was a jewy jew and this passage could not be jewier if he tried. Any belief that tells me my god loves the people trying to pervert and murder my posterity and that it is for my OWN GOOD that they do so is not something I can accept. Perhaps you can.
the “real question” here is, apropos “spiritual equality”, do white people need “salvation” in the same sense that jews & most non-whites do?
it can be pretty well defined that most non-whites (with jews “topping the list”) are evil scum….whereas white people, if left to their own devices (i.e: separated from jews, in particular), are, basically, moral & decent….i notice that this question was conveniently avoided in the abv replies….so…..let me re-state it……
can ANY-one point out to me, where, in the historical record that currently exists, white people, sans jews, have, inherently, behaved badly?….i.e: have not behaved morally & decently except under the most extreme provocation(s)?
umm……yeh…..for that matter….didn’t pre-christian whites, generally, behave a lot more fairly & honourably than post-christian ones?….or, was that because the kike had infiltrated the Church from abt 1000CE on-wards?….Saxon England, for instance, prior to the Norman invasion, seems, prima facie, to have been a reasonably decent society….after 1066, it started going down-hill…(possibly because William the Conqueror brought a coupla boat-loads of jews with him?)…but……the question is….was pre-1066 England a FULLY xtian society…?….or: only ½-and-½ @ best…with the majority probably still being non-xtian…”pagan”?….(same goes for the Celtic nations of Ireland, Scotland & Wales…….)
sure: there’s lots of “off” white behaviour now….but…..my contention is that, apropos Prfssr Kevin MacDonald, most of that is caused by the “kike-is-ation” of society….it’s a direct relationship….as a society becomes more “jewish”, ergo, it also becomes uglier, nastier, more brutish, more un-just and more psychopathic!
show me one nog…..or one jew….whose behaviour has dramatically changed for the better because of being “dipped” in Holy Water…no…..hang on!…..one could just be a “fluke”……show me a hundred…then…and only then….might i believe that race & genetics is secondary to “spiritual equality”!
is morality/spirituality secondary to beauty?
the White Race is naturally beautiful & handsome….that’s why non-whites try to look like whites….with nogz purchasing a gazillion gallons of “hair straightener” annually and Asians “bleaching” their hair & lightening their skin….not even mud people want to look like mud people!
can a non-White, in particular: a very “muddy” one, EVER be “moral” or “decent”?….
just one look in the mirror in the morning would, surely, make them “dirty on the world”!
truth is beauty and beauty truth!….this is all ye know and all ye need to know!
We Kinists surmise that both racial and religious mixture lead to bloodshed because both race and religion are very important to survival. You atheists want to take the religious element away. You don’t seem to realize that this is a religion in itself, and you would clash with other religions just as easily.
It’s important that you see the religious aspect of your arguments, and how much faith is required to follow your god. Honest Darwinists would admit that any evidence of “altruism” noticed in nature is inherently selfish, which is the same thing that honest capitalists say about the economy. There is no room for grace and true altruism in the Darwinist scheme. Yet here you are, trying to convince everyone that love is the same thing as protecting the hive. It’s just not good enough, and it leaves no room for forgiveness. This is why Fyodor Dostoyevsky said, “If God is not, everything is permitted.” There is more wisdom in that single sentence than in everything the atheist “rationalists” have ever said. If God does not exist, any provocation against your person or family or clan or nation or race must escalate until your enemies are annihilated. And since they’re trying to do the same thing to you, before long either no flesh will survive or some tribe will come out on top, to be followed by intra-tribal warfare. This was the way of the pagan world, and it’s no surprise that it was sparsely populated. God had a purpose for us, and by His grace we thrived. Now you come along to tell us that we got by on our own good looks.
It’s interesting that Jews are co-racialists who claim only religious motivation, for convenience, and you atheists are co-religionists who claim only racial motivation, for convenience. We Christians are saying that we should be honest about the importance of both sides of our nature.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was in a position to know these things, and he also recognized the disastrous influence that Jews had upon his country. But what was at the root of it all? This is the question that consumed him.
His answer:
“Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’
Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’”
SWB Preaches False, Mystic, Anti-Rationalist “Christianity,” While Linder Continues With Satanism
(Apollonian, 28 Oct 09)
Gad SWB, but u stink, u lying, scummy, ignorant filth, I swear. Funny thing about u though, u can’t see Alex Linder/VNN, even after he’s indicated over and over–is not merely non-Christian–he’s absolutely dedicated, determined, ANTI-CHRIST SATANIST–don’t u get it?–u poor, brainless moron. Do u observe how Linder continues to not capitalize word, “Christian”?
Further, LINDER IS NOT, NOT, NOT A “RATIONALIST” as u continue to insist, u absolutely amazing fool. Truth, of course, is u don’t urself understand basics of reason in the first place–what a joke u really are–a true, utterly dis-connected mystic, in every sense of the word–and not a Christian at all.
But u see SWB, Linder continues to cultivate a brainless false-Christian dip-shit like u–WHY? (a) First Linder is mere agent, taking money and instructions fm some hidden source, surely Jew-connected. Pt. then is Linder attempts to split and divide the gentile resistance to Jews, directed esp. against Christians, Linder amazingly pretending he’s “rationalist”–he isn’t, which u refuse to see as u’re simply incompetent, such a dedicated (and utterly ignorant) mystic urself.
(b) Ur (SWB) purpose then, which Linder and his controllers want to cultivate, is to split the Christians pretending there’s significant anti-rationalist Christian faction. LINDER WANTS TO HOLD OUT U, SWB, A PUTRID MYSTIC, AS THE REAL CHRISTIAN, don’t u see?–thus dis-crediting Christianity for such anti-Christ mystic anti-rationalism. Both of u are anti-rationalists, but Linder wants to appear rationalistic by contrast w. u, u poor fool.
So continue SWB, as u do such brilliant job, babbling words (“epistemology,” “existential”) which u don’t even understand, reducing urself to absurd. U’re true mystic, without a doubt–not worshipping Christ, but rather ur mystic notion of moralism and the “moral order,” etc., like true Pharisaist u really are.
CONCLUSION: Thus u effectively work only for Jews, certainly not Christ or Christians, and Linder/VNN, et al., wants to be sure to cultivate u for ur mysticism by which to confuse gentiles, first btwn Christians and satanists like Linder himself, then among Christians btwn rationalists and mystics which mysticism u espouse and demonstrate so well. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Curses! My cover is blown. Yes, it’s true, I work for the Mossad, but only because I occasionally get to use the company helicopter. Alex may be working for other Israelis, I’m not sure. We try not to let the left hand know what the right is doing, if you follow me. It’s clear that we don’t really believe what we’re writing, so we should have known that a True Christian like Mr. Apollo would discern that we’re being paid to entrap gullible goyim.
I can’t believe I was so foolish to use big words that I don’t understand. Is this what gave me away?
But seriously, the figure of Nietzsche towers over one side of this discussion, and this is where the nihilistic side of existentialism comes into play. Nietzsche famously declared that God is dead. God had to “die” so that nihilism or apathy would set in. Then the “strong” and the fittest, who were able to overcome the guilt of their imagined sin, would reestablish the epistemological basis for absolutes in the absence of Christianity, which he considered to be a crutch for the weak. He did not want nihilism to lead to despair, but he knew that it was a necessary step in order to make man a free moral agent, and ultimately evolve him to the level of a Superman. But all this really does is replace God’s revealed Word with the subjective whims of a self-appointed elite. And this is the theme that reverberates throughout the discussion here. Atheist nationalists are professing to speak for the white race and know what is best for it without actually contributing to its life. They have no eternal connection to past generations, no eternal connection to future generations, and (for the vast majority) no children in the present.
They are driven, as Alex alluded, by the eternal quest for “meaning.” Nietzsche knew that meaning and morality must have a standard. Since nothing beyond his senses mattered to him, he determined that the standard must be aesthetics rather than the immutable Word of the Father. Atheist nationalists take up the same banner when they say that the white race must survive because white people are attractive, white people look alike, white people think alike, white people enjoy the same food and music, white people build big cities. The reason is never that the white race is a holy creation, intended to be “a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” We were created by God in His own image, and our highest purpose is to glorify Him with our gifts.
So what is Nietzscheanism really? It is just stale libertarianism and the replacement of theonomy with autonomy.
Nietzsche also believed that reality is impervious to change, and this is where some cross-pollination with empiricism comes into play. No allowance for miracles, in other words, but based on nothing more than an autonomous insistence that a miracle had never invaded his own five senses, and therefore miracles have never occurred at any time. As the chief Superman, he had the self-appointed authority to make these pronouncements of blind faith.
In short, he was inconsistent. By necessity, he became what he hated, namely rationalistic. Though he championed impulse over rationality, saying that a strong man does not rely on authority, he had to resort to conventions to define the very words. Morality? Purpose? Define them as you see fit. The authority for Christians is the law of God; the authority for Nietzschean atheists is the Mind, until it goes mad.
Nietzsche’s epistemology was pessimistic. He knew that men could be convinced that good and evil are merely relatively distant from each other, like the Force in Star Wars, rather than complete opposites, as the law of God tells us. Men would then get worked up about the relative distance between popular notions of “good” and “evil” without ever questioning the basis for the determination, or the standard. This is why scientists and philosophers have resigned themselves to the quest for truth, knowing that they will never actually find it; and they’re fine with this state of affairs because relative morality is better than no morality at all (anarchy). (This is a big change from Socrates, who taught that every problem can be solved if the thread of causality is known.) The problem is that Nietzschean pseudo-morality stands on shifting sands. One generation considers something to be good that the next generation considers to be bad. We see this in American constitutional jurisprudence, where even the will of our own fathers is no longer recognized after a century or two, and law is reduced to conventions and prejudice.
We have seen in history how a Christian elite can guide the populace to higher works. We have seen how an atheist elite (in the French Revolution, for instance) can destroy order and replace it with more destruction.
Only animals are “fulfilled” by a full belly. Human beings, at the very least, look up to the heavens, which declare the glory of God (Psalms 19:1), and question the purpose of the world and their place in it. At the very least, they see the effects of evil and wonder what they can do to propitiate it.
Some do, some don’t. What is ‘evil’? It has no objective meaning, simply means bad for me and my preferences. Which is enough. But you mean something more by it.
An animal knows nothing of purpose.
Plenty of animals use tools to get food, so they do know something of purpose. Men seem different from animals until you examine their behavior, at which point you are overwhelmed by the similarities.
As commenter John asked: “How can one take seriously a ‘philosophy’ based on nothing more than denying the reality of all men’s lives in all times and places?
Wow. I wish I had the talent to know the inner reality of “all men’s” lives in “all times and places.” I could get rich with that ability. I’ve told you what I feel myself, and I know there are plenty of others who see things the way I do. Either I’m lying or I don’t know my own feelings. That doesn’t make sense, and there’s no reason I can’t just as logically question your claims about your beliefs.
Respect for ancestors? Worthwhile traditions? It is impossible for atheist white nationalists to claim continuity and succession with the white race.
I do, so it is impossible. You can’t change reality by making assertions. Others don’t feel the way you do, and a man can decide which traditions are worth carrying on, and he needs no adventitious religious maundering to justify it. I understand and accept your claimed motives; you are not even at the point where you can acknowledge that people who don’t think like you really exist, or are motivated by the things they claim they are. Unlike Jesus’ existence, these things are not really settle-able, I suppose, so be troubled by them if you must, but you simply will never be able to incorporate people who don’t come out of your framework no matter how hard you try.
Those who have preceded them are gone forever, vanished, never to be seen again (if what you say is true).
Yes, correct. But they thought backwards and forwards too, I know that just as surely as I know they had my eye color and general look. I make a choice that I’m happy to be part of that chain, and to add links to it, and maybe try to shine it up as I can. And I don’t need to invent any god or “reason” to feel that way. Sheer aesthetics is enough.
Those who are yet to come also have no connection to them because when they arrive the current generation will be gone forever.
Who’s to say what makes a connection? When you look in your relatives’ eyes and see the same color and general appearance, you know that you are a related group. That’s one basis for feeling a connection. You wish to go beyond that and ascribe or discover some cosmic meaning, but it needn’t be there for others. That’s fine with me, altho I don’t understand it or feel it myself, apart from a ‘wouldn’t-it-be-nice’ inclination. But things aren’t true just because it would be nice if they were. I don’t begrudge you your in my view baseless beliefs about the only legitimate grounds for seeking familial or racial preservation, I only try to point out for you that the habit of conjuring imaginary motives and celestial presences kicks back on your cause like a fumbled chainsaw. I believe it is impossible to demonstrate the factuality of the religious motives you think are the only logical grounds for our racial preferences, but I can show you in one hundred places where your demand for the suspension of the laws of actuality undermines our joint-ish cause. Playing with reality is more dangerous than playing with matches. You break its laws to create this god fiction, which you say supports our cause, but once you’ve done that, you’ve opened the door to the liberal insanity that is killing us.
Libertarian existentialism is the only honest religion of the atheist. And if the atheist believes that existentialism is going to inspire selflessness and heroism in anyone, so that the collective needs of our race are taken into account by more than a scant few, they are greatly to be pitied. Heroism is born of certainty, and atheism precludes the possibility of certainty. Just ask Christopher Hitchens. What such men call “reality” is by their own admission aimless.
So where are you christian heroes, then, these men of certainty? I see not a one. Was there ever a Christian army as brave and competent as the German ‘atheist’ NS? Not by any standard of evidence.
Perhaps the fact you fear to face is that yours is nothing more than what you claim mine is – a choice and preference. But the “good news,” ha, for you is that, contrary to what you’ve been trained to think, it is none the less weaker for lacking an imaginary absolute grounding.
How many communist atheists did it take to defeat the teeming christian hero-millions in Russia? Twenty or thirty? How do you account for that by your math above?
admin Says:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Alex, thanks for responding here. I should have also posted to the VNN forum, but I see that you did already. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this because I think it’s a big help to everyone. If it hasn’t already been made clear, we have great respect for your opinions, even though we differ on the major points.
I don’t want any respect I don’t deserve, ha. I’m not a christian or a gentleman, and I will punch those who say otherwise, but I will generally go lo or hi as the arguist prefers! No, I like you and your blog, and I deeply appreciate your great help in attending and videoing the Knoxville rally and getting our cause out there to thousands of viewers, that’s the only way things can begin to change. What I hope can come of talking with (admin + respondents) is not just the enjoyment of reading your words and links, but of getting in my own head where your segment or brand of christianity fits in with the rest, so I can better explain it to VNN people. Egos are a huge problem in our cause, taken roughly. Of course that assumes we have a common cause, but that’s part of what’s worth figuring out. But if we do, then basically the entire set of people attacked by, say, the jew-commies at the SPLC have an interest in banding to destroy them. Right-wingers are naturally independent and prickly, certainly I am. We have to get over ourselves, at least enough to work on the common stuff. That’s not a call for humility, it is the simple facts of the matter. Everything I have done at VNN/F is to build a context that allows the quickest picking-up by the newcomer of the problems and the solutions.
Anyway, I will post here as I can, and I have much more to say on this thread alone, and I will always post the good clips at VNN, where you and any of the other posters are welcome to post as well – we don’t censor at VNN as we can outargue anyone and we have better offerings than anything christians can come up with. BTW, great work on the Dabney and the education stuff, I have more to say their later. It proves something I said many years – every ‘issue’ people debate today was hashed out and stated with insuperable eloquence in the 19th century. Dabney on conservatism is the best I’ve read, and I’ve personally come up with probably five dozen attempts to define it lapidarily or sobranically for all times. Getting off track, but much more to say here later.
Final thing, don’t take what I say the wrong way. I like personal attacks. i think they are the right way to go. Ad hominem is not illogical, least of all on the internet. Not ad homimem alone, but in addition to. So no matter what I say, or how nastily I ‘attack’ you or any poster, I’m open to same, and will consider any valid point or criticism you can make.
WWJD…if Apollonian were posting on his blog? Even an atheist can answer that one.
The Men behind the Curtain of that war built up a neo pagan, Nordic race religion in Germany and N.W. Europe to challenge the power of Christian establishment and ensure that the cause of national unity and sovereignty could never arise – and especially national sovereignty as backed by the Church.
This is utter garbage, Lynda. It never surprises me that people so focused on morals and God are the first to slur their betters. Hitler worked with the Zionists to get the jews out of Germany. That’s the part of the neocons don’t mention in between their blathering about his working with the Grand Mufti. To call Hitler a tool of the jews is untrue, unfair – nothing but a cheap shot from the cheap seats (the pews). Hitler was an honest and brave man who ultimately failed in his mission, although he came closer to achieving it than anyone in Western history. Hitler and his men have lessons to teach us about our enemy; Catholic children, with their pathetic little magic water bowls, do not.
Linder admires H.L. Mencken more than anyone, and I see the similarities. But for all of his polish, Mencken was an iconoclast, not a truth-teller.
As though those are necessarily opposed. They aren’t. Mencken’s words hold up, both analytically and aesthetically. Some smart guys but mostly dummies and dummy-mulcters quote Jesus; you very rarely see any but the intelligent quote Mencken.
He translated Nietzsche’s book, The Antichrist, and it’s easy to see a common line drawn from Nietzsche to Mencken to Linder and other neo-pagans. The final page of their life story involves dying childless and alone.
Twain had children. Supreme geniuses often refrain from forming families because they need the isolation to think and perform. Mencken fell in love and married, and I believe he would have had children, but his wife got sick and died within a couple years of their marriage. Unlike your average Christian, Mencken stuck with her, helping all he could, until she finally died, and he clearly loved her for the rest of his life. Yeah, yeah, I know. Only Christians love, only crissies help, only crisstians care, only cristians create art and brush their teeth etc etc.
I don’t mean that in a condescending way; I only mean to point out that the actual history of the West has depended on the graciousness of the Lord of Life.
Where do you get this stuff? Almost anyone who tries can reproduce. It’s really not that hard.
He preserved us through the ages when we did not know Him, but neo-pagans think we saved ourselves, even though many other peoples down through history have utterly perished.
This is unclear. Jesus was looking out for White tribesmen before he was born? Yet he allowed other peoples to perish? That seems awfully unjesuslike of him. I thought he was here for everybody, that he was the only gateway to eternal life? It is audacious and scripturally false for you to claim him for our race, no?
Like mid-April to an accountant, so is late October to Lynda.
It would be worthwhile to ponder your description of the “chain of being” with each person as a link, connected only to the link that came before and the link that comes after. It’s still not a perfect analogy, because if it were more like the atheist’s view of real life, one link at a time would be cut off, and there would be no real chain at all. The Christian really does believe in a chain, but more than a chain, with links going off in every dimension and remaining.
You asked about Russia. It’s true, it didn’t take many Jews to bring about the revolution, and that’s because of post-Christian cooperation by the Russians themselves. This is what A.Solz. meant when he said the main reason was a loss of faith.
As for common cause, I think we do have one, to a point, and maybe to a greater point than I guess. As I survey history, I see that external threats have often been the cause of very different people coming together, and when all is said and done, they come out more alike than before because they have been through the fire together. From my perspective, this could be the catalyst for a great revival among our people. I don’t mean “revival” as the holy-rollers mean it, with jigaboo dancing and snake charming and laughing like idiots, but real revival.
You’re right about ego, and this is where Christians fail the worst. For decades, they have hung racists out to dry only to score zeitgeist points. Now they’re being given the same treatment on other issues and they act surprised. Among the pro-white race groups it’s also a problem, and I’ve learned a lot from some elder statesmen who have acquired a talent for herding cats. I think the solution is to be forthright in what we believe, just as we’re doing here, but protect each other against mutual enemies. So you will never see us doing what most Christians do, for instance, trumpeting an SPLC article against VNN just because we disagree with both SPLC and VNN. We have friendship with one and rabid hatred for the other.
Keep reading Dabney! There is a real wealth of material there.
By the way, WWJD about Apollonian? I would love to know. I have to let one or two of his more oddball comments through just for entertainment value, but the spam filter is begging for mercy.
“Almost anyone who tries can reproduce. It’s really not that hard.” Agreed, but raising families, as opposed to the very easy task of making babies, is where the real work of saving the race is being performed.
“Jesus was looking out for White tribesmen before he was born? Yet he allowed other peoples to perish?” Yes, exactly. Read this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:14-30&version=NKJV
“I thought he was here for everybody, that he was the only gateway to eternal life? It is audacious and scripturally false for you to claim him for our race, no?” Not if our race believes as they once did. He did not sacrifice Himself for everyone. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement
Tim Harris Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Alex says he believes we just “go to the worms,” yet there is an urgent ethical mandate he preaches: “you OUGHT to become a WN, etc.” Yet he refuses to engage on what the metaphysical basis of that OUGHT is.
I defy you to quote a single example of my claiming WN is an “ethical mandate.” What I say is that IF you want to live in the society I do – Normal White America – then you’re going to have to come over to something like WN because conservatism or christianity won’t get the job done. Unlike christians, I don’t have to ground my preference in an imaginary absolute. The ethical mandate is your conceit and your weakness. You have Bible-courage, which is nothing but printed bottle courage.
Only christian fools, to be redundant, pretend their preferences are grounded in some absolute. It’s enough for normals that ZOG is creating conditions undermining our lives, and that we’re tired of living under the jewthumb.
Likewise, he thinks we are just matter, yet cannot explain how matter could “know” something. It is a basic category mistake.
I don’t claim to know anything about matter, or even to care. What matters to me is that we see what’s at the end of our nose. The stuff that affects our daily lives, the cause and effect that never change, and so, functionally, must be treated as effective laws – this is what knowing means from day to day. It’s not enough for you, so you conjure something you think is better or deeper, but it’s just a conceit. And it has only one real effect: it distracts your focus from the basic facts of existence, thereby removing you from the fight. You christians don’t know what you don’t know, and that ends up costing you what you could know if you had the character to keep your focus and pay attention.
If Life was our genetic destiny regardless of Christ, why did Nietzsche, Mencken, Spengler, Oliver, Ludovici, Yockey, and on and on, not leave a legacy to prove that their atheism and skepticism could provide the West with a future that was at least comparable to Christianity?
Why are the smartest Catholic sons supposed to become preachers and never reproduce?
Study history and you’ll see that altho plenty of top thinkers had wives and normal families, plenty needed isolation. There is no greater meaning to be drawn from the fact.
But consider the way forward. Christians today of a pre-modern stripe dominate secession movements. They seek to devolve power from a tyrannical central government and return it to their own localities, as the founders intended for a federal republic. Meanwhile, atheists and national socialists are working towards absolute unity to construct an iron hammer which will smite the enemies of the white race.
All those who dislike the way things are going, and are willing to do more than vote or whine, are more or less continually engaged in deciding, at every point along the cultural-political front, whether to engage or withdraw. Wouldn’t you agree? The tendencies you describe are real, but they are not opposed. WN see with fearful clarity what jews have done in other times and places, and that stimulates their desire to resist, and that means physical power. We, after all, have less faith than you in some god saving us, and we do not mean to get our heads cut off like you christians in Russia and Eastern Europe did. Your doctrine it is that suffering is good, that not resisting evil is a virtue. Yes, yes, I know that’s not what Jebus actually meant, funny he chose to word it that way, huh? But on a practical basis, you will find that virtually all WN support secession and home-schooling and culture-jamming/culture-preserving, just the way you do, at least in the non-religious particulars. We’re just more focused on ZOG’s tyranny. We at VNN have praised both christians and hippies for reviving homeschooling in the 60s, and the christians in particular for making it legal in the ’80s. I have many times pointed out that organized christians have done more for HS, giving WN a free rider, than anyone else. We give credit where it’s due, it’s the White thing to do. WN is not as organizationally formed, to say the least, as christian churches. But that cuts both ways in light of the terrible and anti-White policies the church as a whole pursues today, and in light of the quick rise and effective dejewing carried out by the brave and honorable German nationalists last century. So the story is mixed. We try to give credit and blame where due, and to realize that until someone actually defeats the jews, no one is a fully qualified expert to lecture the rest of us.
Linder blames the carnage of the world wars on Christians rather than on those who embezzled the capital of Christendom for the benefit of anti-Christs and in pursuit of global domination.
Hmm…I don’t take your meaning from this. My charges against your religion have a taproot, which is Christianity’s insistence, on pain of Hell, that reality’s laws suspend per its fanciful stories and attendant dogmas. It is my position and claim that this opens the pandora’s box of reality-denial, allowing every form of illiberal insanity hated by you and me to pour out and prosper among a population that has lost the ability to make out up from down. Simpler terms: if men can come back from the dead, as you not I claim, then all the less-likely claims of liberalism, such as racial equality, become that much more plausible in the minds of masses none to sharp to begin with. Do you suppose Spengler was hallucinating when he called your religion the grandparent of (everything you hate)? I think he was on the mark. If men can come back from the dead, how can we deny that anything truly is possible? If men can come back from the dead, making forced racial integration and open borders work is child’s play. But even that’s not deep enough. If, against everything we know as common sense and evidence, men can come back from the dead, then what the hell does anything really mean? Everything is crazy, wacky, possible and thrown for a loop, and we poor people are like drivers without lanes, roads or lights. You christians simply do not realize what you’re opening up with your story about Jesus, but basically it amounts to a portal back to the mire we escaped from solely through our genetic capacity for rational thought, connecting cause and effect.
Christians are basically like – imagine you’re shivering and freezing on the icy tundra, and finally, after 20,000 years you get a tiny flame going – the christian story about Jesus is equivalent to pissing directly on the flame. Man, Jesus is where we WERE. Believe in magical realism, ie, all-is-possible, cause-and-effect-do-not-exist – that’s what we’re trying to get away from! That’s what kills us.
There are many other groundless accusations against Kinists. We deny that ruthlessness is equal to self-defense.
Word play. My question to you, which you might have answered above if I haven’t gotten to it is…what if exterminating jews is the only way to defeat them? What is the cost of preserving the people and society you favor truly is the genocide of your enemy? Don’t tell me that’s not the case, because you see the demographic trends as well as I do, and you know the jew’s history in relation to hated goyim.
We deny that only Christians are heroic or fertile. We deny that “No one ever breathed until Christianity. No one ever invented anything. No one ever thought. No one ever cooked food. No one ever was nice to his neighbor, looked after his kids, fought to defend his community – no one ever did anything good until Christianity appeared.” I fail to see how anyone could accuse us of believing this. We have always praised the honor of the white race as it was created by God, even before it came to know Him.
Well, ok, fine, but this kind of comment comes out of irritation. Religious types always seem to attribute all the good stuff in a given society to Christianity but none of the bad stuff. Remember that people have been around for tens of thousands of years. You are the johnnies come lately, not us, and your record is not impressive.
Linder states that National Socialist Germany “placed more value on motherhood” for the 12 years it existed than Christian Germany did in 1,300 years. We are very glad that women in Nazi Germany had many children, but it’s silly to call them “NS German women.”
Perhaps so, but I was merely doing exactly what you christians do: NS controlled the country, so everything good is due to them. Right? No. But it cuts both ways. If NS aren’t responsible, then christians don’t get credit for all the actions of individuals in christian countries.
The Nazis were around for a few years, but Germans have existed for thousands. An honest historian would give Martin Luther far more credit than Hitler for German distrust of Jews, and would give Christianity far more credit than Nazism for German integrity.
Don’t agree. Hitler actually did something against jews. E. Michael Jones has a lot of proof that altho Luther did write with beauteous bluntness against the filthy kikes, Protestantism in general was very much in league with them. Jones gives evidence from Czech area, England, Holland – pretty much wherever Protestantism spread, jews were in a league with it, in politics and in publishing.
BTW, I can’t help chiding you for not observing that Luther says pretty much what I do: wherever jews are encountered they should be physically attacked and their synagogues burned down. Yes, physical destruction is what he called for. Of course the term genocide didn’t exist back then, but that was pretty much what we was saying: jews are stiff-necked rotters who need to be put down for the good of God and country.
But let’s try not to conflate too much. Germans were gifted with a very rich pre-Christian heritage by their Creator.
They had a creator? How do you know this? All we know is that everybody we know has parents. The rest isn’t knowledge it’s guesses.
The Christian faith did not radically change them, but it did complete them. It disposed of the idolatry that hindered them (Isaiah 57:5) and gave them the means to live more abundantly.
Well, I suppose that’s a matter of opinion. I haven’t noticed that christians are particularly interesting or civilized. They seem to me to exhibit precisely the gullibility and tractability of the Odin who transferred their allegiance to the Stuck-Up Jew.
It would be as foolish to identify the people of 1940s Germany with the party that ruled them as it would be for a historian 70 years from now to identify Americans in the present day as Jews. But we need to give credit where it’s due, and we are not the kind who dismiss Hitler as the spawn of Satan simply because Jews want us to believe it. He did many things that were good and many things that were bad.
Fair enough, although I think he did fewer bad things than mistaken things. My complaint against christians in this regard, which I have never gotten one to address, is that if your religion had any one thing where it could actually prove its mettle by its claimed higher merits it would lie precisely in eschewing the “of this world” view of the most hated and rejected people, in preference for the facts and the character-relatity. But what we see is that christians are the very first to use the terms of their worst enemy, the communists, to defame the German nationalists. Your own Lynda is a perfect case in point, as is E. Michael Jones. “In this world but not of it” – that’s what Christians say, it is not how most of them act. Are there any greater fawners, hypocrites or respecters of status and money than Christians? I don’t see them. Even jews will go out of their way to avoid making billions of dollars if they can score political points by, say, not producing “The Passion.” Christians, by contrast, will go out of their way to suck up to the very jews who hate them by bragging about how much they did to protect those jews from the evil nazis in wwii!
Hitler is not the issue. The issue at hand is whether a philosophy of atheism has ever met our challenge of founding a society and causing it to thrive by encouraging childbirth, caring for the poor, improving education, building wealth, and doing all the other things that numerous Christian societies have done.
The Japanese have done it all without Jesus, and they’re not even White. Wealth building is something jews specialize in, and they’re hardly religious. NS society, in its brief existence, saw achievements on all those fronts. I don’t think you’re wrong so much as you’re simply ascribing to religion what is a matter of race. What one believes, for most purposes, must bend to objective reality, whether one is an atheist or a believer. The jungles of Africa are full of true believers, and where did they ever get? Nowhere until white SCIENCE showed up. It was white science, not religion, that allowed black savages to pullulate like dark maggots.
Linder claims that Nazi Germany wins the challenge, but this is absurd, because even he admits that the Nazis were not atheists, at least not formally. Most Germans never rejected the Christian faith in the short time that Hitler was in power, and I doubt that Hitler himself would have dared to take credit for Germany’s greatness.
This stuff is not really a thing that can be argued profitably. Who knows what people really believe or what motivates them? The NS did what they could to change the context in which Germans lived and understood their world, and even in a short time, NS really did achieve this. They were defeated by purely mechanical means from the outside. You can’t fake the stuff in their photos and the fighting they put down in the field. Now, maybe a political faith rather than atheism drove them, but you can’t deny that something unusual and non-christian and pretty darn impressive and successful was at work – something we are going to need a good measure of if we are to defeat the jews, cuz gosh, i sure don’t see any of it coming from any Christian quarter. Do you?
There is no doubt that he helped Germany by removing obstacles such as debt slavery, but this is not the same thing. One of the proofs that atheism is not a creative force is that the people today who admire what they call the atheism of the Third Reich are not known for doing any of the creative acts that Christians do routinely.
I’m not getting into the mug’s game, the christian’s game, of treating atheism as a belief, rather than a smear for those who don’t share a certain opinion. What matters about NS was that they faced a situation similar to our own, and unlike any christians ever heard of, they developed a successful response. That’s what matters. How far does the mass man understand or believe anything? Not very far under any system. I highly doubt that one in ten christians could lay out christian doctrine beyond claiming that Jesus is his personal savior, in other words, just parroting something he’s heard and accepted, with absolutely zero internal criteria for making sense of it or judging it.
If God is not real then sin is not real and neither is evil.
Word games. Could just as easily say not absolute, or comparative and circumstantial rather than all-timey and Hell-portendy. I will agree that decisions and actions conventionally called morals produce predictable reactions, and that to speak of them as laws fits just as it does with economic and biological laws. Claiming metaphysical basis for this view isn’t necessary. If you desire to get to store B, then you have to turn right at X avenue, regardless of where you’d like to go. If you want to live in a certain sort of society, then you have to act in a certain way, if you wish to make its existence likelier than the reverse. You can claim there’s more to it than that, but you can’t prove it as that word is normally used, and your het-up lecturing to non-believers, well, you might as well be addressing a dog, all we hear is tone.
Thus, Jews are merely “clever” in seeking their own advantage, Linder believes.
Did I say clever? I would have thought I’d have said skilled or efficient. Jews are excellent amoral analysts, and they never stray from what is good for jews. Wouldn’t matter except it entails destroying our society. So we have to learn to fight back. Limiting ourselves by suppositious morality could be a death warrant. I ask again, if logic and historical evidence indicate that only by Christian-proclaimed immoral means can we defeat the genocidal jew, what, then, do we do? Just let ourselves be killed off, as the Amish would? I’m asking you Christians: I and WN know our answer.
But if this is true then whites are free to stoop to any level to seek their own advantage, including lying, cheating, stealing, and as Linder fantasizes frequently, killing.
Ok…just for my benefit, clarify your position. The jews do all these things, and they win. And you don’t like the hash they’ve made of your society. So you are determined to resist. But not by immoral means, because that would entail eternal judgment, which is worse than any temporal political defeat. Have I characterized your position accurately? If so, then how do you respond if plausible case be made, in light of history’s evidence, that only through the lowest and bloodiest physical means can jews be successfully resisted and defeated? Very serious question. I see no reason at all to assume there is a safe, effective, Christian-moral way out of the trap in which jews have placed us. I’m not willing to throw away the reality I live in for hope of another world I can see no reason to believe exists, not least because its champion is a member of the race doing mine in.
By no objective measure could the West have ever risen to its greatness if it had been founded upon such selfishness and vainglory.
It’s selfish to use effective means? That is exactly what you’re saying. But no, the selfishness lies in your unwillingnesss to, you think, blot your escutcheon by studying god’s real and existing world to find what works and then employing it. I guess you’re true Leeans – you care about honor more than your family or race. Your reward will be to have your plaque pissed on, grafittized and finally ripped off, your entire existence nothing more than a hate-filled joke in a textbook for simians. This is why I say I’m not a gentleman and not a Christian. I identify jews as the enemy, I identify their use of illegal, immoral, terrorist tactics as a threat that cannot be successfully fought without some use of same, and I advocate others draw the same conclusion: we can’t win fighting clean, and considerations of honor in relation to an Aryan-Jew fight are as ridiculous as talking about free trade with China when it’s producing products with slave labor. You are confused because your Christian dipping has learned you to swim in the intellectual gunnysack of distortionism. You can’t take a thing out of its context and make meaningful comparisons. jews don’t know from honor. honor is an aryan thing, a White thing. It is not a religious thing, it is a taste preference we often exhiting in our relations, even our martial relations, among ourselves. Pseudo-intellectually codifying it and making it universal – ugh – this is the white race at its worst. I won’t even blame christianity, that’s just the form it takes, because i truly believe it is partly racial – it is the flip side of our world-beating, world-creating intelligence and creativity – its perversion into nonsense that creates misery in the real world.
Here again, we see that the “rational” approach of Darwinists is anything but rational; it is subjective on one face and fatalistic on the other. By either flip of the coin, it is standardless and seeks progress through barbarism.
One can only smile wryly and twist Wilde: barbarism is a way to explain the curious success of reality-based approaches. Would you rather see you and your family and race die than get your immortal soul keyed by dipping to effective action? That’s the question that matters. If the enemy won’t fight on terms you consider moral, it kind of poses an existential dilemma, doesn’t it, if the enemy is bent on your culturicide leading to your genocide.
“There are no ordinary people. You have never met a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations, these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.” — C. S. Lewis
Thoughts?
Sure – who better to turn to for insight than a ‘man’ who says why is the devil’s question?
We have fallen into degradation and mixed ourselves with foreign peoples because we have been unfaithful. Those pastors who have led our people into this calamity have done so not because of their Christian faith, but because they are apostates in their hearts.
Perfect example of multiple things I’m saying. Christianity is only real when it supports this guy’s position, screw what the bulk of christians actually preach and do. Once you pull the reality net down with lies about eternal life and coming back from the grave, you soon lose every other standard. And why not? It stands to reason: if anything is possible, then christianity is whatever you say it is, not what we actually find in the world. Christianity is the very liberalism, the very abandonment of standards, it affects to abhor.
Moral relativism is oft denounced by John’s ilk, but verily I say unto you the real crime is factual relativism. If there’s a true original sin in the world, or at least the world of mentation, it’s thinking things are true because you want them to be. Damn you factual relativists, damn you all to hell!
[Tim]
re the Fleming post, two comments. First, he uses the “anti-semite” canard. That very term is classical judeo confusion/equivocation. No one that I know of that criticizes the jewish presence ties it to their alleged Semitic racial stock. He would probably say, “etymological fallacy.” No. The term was deliberately ambiguous from its very origin. The primal meaning is not opaque due to the passage of time — it never was clear. It has not become more clear with the passage of time. We must erase that term from our vocabulary, as it can only fuzz up one’s thinking. If he doesn’t cease and desist from it, I’m willing to write him off also. The second point is that all his threading of the Christian/pagan needle denies the key antithesis, as indeed it must from a Lutheran that converts to Rome. Explicating this further will have to wait however.
This is the point under contention – whether jews are jews, or merely part of a mass of not-yet-converteds. My argument is the former, your bulk-church’s the latter. I say the evidence of two millennia shows that very few jews truly can covert, while the vast majority are unable, because they are biologically different from Whites. I really don’t see where you Christians have any evidence on your side. All the evidence shows that jews only convert on pain of death or social sanction, and the conversion is for public purposes only for the vast majority of them. The reality is can no more change their nature and abandon their racial-seeking ways than a borer beetle can quit eating trees. It was this realization, finally finding its way into white skullls, that turned anti-jewism from a religious problem to a racial one, at least that is the conventional reading. It is no accident that the first substantial movement to treat jews as a racial rather than a relious problem ENDED THE PROBLEM INTERNALLY AT LEAST within two decades. That is, German nationalism did in less than two decades what Christianity could not do in 2,000 years. Unfortunately the jews were something more than a local problem, they were a global pestiferation.
For this bilge and death, the goyim who are following Jews like Linder would trade Christ the Redeemer of the world and their King.
I am not a jew, Lynda, but how casually and carefreely you establish yourself a liar. This is why nobody takes Christians seriously: you aren’t serious people. What Joplin said about drugs works better for religion: it’s for people can’t handle reality. It’s reality with the net down, as Frost said of free verse. _You_, Lynda, are the ones arguing your commandments are absolutes carrying eternal penalties, yet you break them on a whim, out of easy access of anger and pride. Everything you say you’re against you exhibit – and you little it takes to draw you. Jesus, this poor woman is a graybun grandmother, yet she throws away her eternal soul on a lie against some guy on the Internet, some poor slob trying to stick to the facts under his own name. I would hate to be you on Judgment Day, Liar Lynda. Hell, I’d hate to be you on any day. Except Halloween. I suspect that’s your funday.
As Samhain is to the pagans; so Guy Fawkes Night is to the revolutionaries – a psy-op, complete with patsies and succeeding anti-terrorist laws, including suspension of the Writ of habeus corpus.
Now that’s lining up the beans.
The trouble is that you have proposed a balance of power that could never work, and has never worked. You say that libertarians have “proved” their theories but the theories have never “been acted on.” Why would a person such as yourself, who wants to conserve our people and heritage, prescribe that which has never advanced beyond theory? I sense, underneath it all, an innate sense of the proper balance between the individual and the group (the one and the many), but your flawed ideology can’t get you there. Do you really believe that men will be able to exercise domestic government in their own families, and microstates will be able to govern their own affairs, with what you describe as a “dictatorship” over them? When has this ever happened in the history of mankind? It is not a product of true federalism, which Lincoln ended here. Your dictators will take control of the military and another Hitler (or Bush or Obama) will be unavoidable.
As is true in your case, there are atheists whose primary motivation is to wage war against their enemies. This is a reactionary existence, because if their enemies are ever vanquished they will discover that a) their temporary alliance with co-belligerents has evaporated, and b) a greater tyranny has rushed to fill the void. This is why Proverbs 21:4 tells us that even the plowing of the wicked is sin. The last thing that can ever come from the existentialism of skeptics is the positive growth and nurture that has characterized the West under Christianity. Atheist white nationalism is therefore a fool’s errand because it desires to inherit from its mother and then kill her.
The crucial missing ingredient in your theory of government is the Church. The root of your thinking is unitarian, as it must necessarily be if the triune God of the Bible does not exist. In hope of the greatest strength, you are focused on an absolute unity of the white race, which doesn’t exist and has never existed. Instead, the race has both general and particular unity since we, the cells of the organism, are created in the image of God. You also presume that orthodox Christianity must be unitarian, as the race-mixing Judeochristians teach. This is not true, but it is why you suppose that the Christian imperative is to occupy the same space despite “conflicting and irreconcilable interests.” You wrote: “Spiritual equality leads naturally to political equality.” Where is the evidence for this in history? Wherever it has been tried, the nation self-destructs. You wrote: “The liberalism that admitted jews as equals and destroyed our society is Christian in origin.” You know better than this. Every Christian nation in Europe expelled Jews as hostile aliens at one time or another, and some of them more than once. The overarching point is that only Christianity offers the possibility of ethnic, national, and even ecclesiastic diversity under one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. It rests quite comfortably with ethnonationalism, historically speaking. It’s a mistake to view Christianity as another flavor of Islam or Judaism.
Your instinct for self-preservation, which is good, rejects the revelation that the faith is a free gift to all whom the Lord might choose out of all peoples on earth. This is not really the same as being universal; the elect and reprobate have been chosen from the foundation of the world. But I understand your disdain for the idea that racial mixture, which is always a curse, is allowable under Christianity, and that if our enemies repent and adopt the faith, they become our brothers and there is no longer a distinction between us, opening the door to miscegenation. This is what the modern churches are teaching, and it is a demonstrable lie. Our Christian forefathers and church fathers denied it. It is basically the theme of the book of Jonah, and in the case of that prophet, there was a spiritual communion that brought peace but not a physical amalgamation of Ninevites and Israelites.
You said atheist nationalism has not changed but Christianity has changed over time. I think neither is immune from expediency. No sooner does the Bible get started than we read about a prideful fall from paradise. Yes, Christians succumb to the lure of money, fame, and power, but so do all men. Christians are often inconsistent, but so are all men, especially atheists. It’s unfortunate, but there are very simple reasons for why whites of all kinds are committing suicide, Christian and atheist alike. Atheist nationalists are doing nothing to reverse this trend, and my point about childbirth proves it.
I never suggested that Chartres was built solely on inspiration. What I said is that atheists could not have done it, and I stand by that statement. Of course atheists are clever and industrious; so were Cainites. They can read blueprints too. But from the “abundance of the heart” the mouth speaks and the fingers move and the brain thinks. Atheists try to produce art, but it is ugly and often disgusting. Their architecture is designed for effficiency, not inspiration. The few exceptions, such as Jew Gehry, should be laughingstocks. Atheists have done no better in science. They build great telescopes, but for the purpose of searching for distant accidental life in the stars, not to give thanks to the Creator of the universe. Technological application has advanced (to the detriment of nature), but the principle scientific discoveries on which technology is based were the gifts of Christians and Christian culture. We inherited quite a lot from Greeks, Romans, Germans, and other pagan ancestors, but we did not become who we were meant to be until we were renewed by Christ. Everything we love in this world is a direct result of that legacy, but we’re certainly not trying to say that the covenant is everything and lineage is nothing. If that were true, God would have done better to create us as ghosts.
“How are we not all-powerful and omniscent if we’re created in his image? Another question you can’t answer.” I think I have answered it. Men reflect “the one and the many” of the Trinity, having been created in God’s image, but sinful pride tries to dissolve one into the other. This is seen in the libertarian who respects no entity greater than himself, unless it’s the market, which is also driven by selfishness; it is seen in the neo-Babelist race-mixing Christian who believes that his sanctification is perfected with brown babies; and it is seen in the atheist nationalist for whom pluriformity does not compute because his every thought is vanity.
Now to your questions about Kinism. Kinism is just a short word for the historic, orthodox faith once delivered to the saints, with a special emphasis on one area where the churches of our time have gone astray, the matter of kinship. We are like voices crying in the wilderness, unwelcome in most churches today. Not surprisingly, churches have tracked the decline of the state and its associated institutions. Churches have also tracked the economy because they seek incorporation from the state and have become business ventures more than anything else. You will only find outspoken Kinist proponents today within churches, making their concerns known. This is because we don’t expect politics or philosophy to change anything. Change for the better will only come through the body of Christ, His Church on earth. This requires a lot of prayer, study, and debate, but also a great deal of bearing the burdens of others, and forgiving in the hope of being forgiven. By God’s grace, we have influenced many Christian laymen and are slowly forcing clergymen to deal with our arguments, though they avoid us like the plague. There are many Kinist arguments to be found in old books, however. One of our favorite authors is Rev. Dr. R.L. Dabney, though any Confederate will do.
Finally, some questions for you. Surely you agree that duty restrains us from evil. Who is more likely to be virtuous, the man who must give an account for his deeds in eternity or the man who has nothing to lose? Surely you realize that monks in medieval times and parsons in more recent times were considered the arbiters of justice for our people. They even purposely dressed like magistrates. Do you think this justice was as accidental as an amoeba evolving into Isaac Newton? Do you think atheists could have ensured more just weights and measures? I was hoping you would answer the question I posed earlier: Why did highly intelligent Europeans fall for such an inferior faith, as you reckon it? Were they just superstitious, like Negroes, in spite of their IQ? And how was the West able to turn this around, so that now, instead of parsons, we highly esteem “rational” and erudite professors? When will unrealized theories begin to reap a bountiful harvest in the form of a civilization that advances once again, as it did under Christendom? I know you want to exterminate the Jews as a first step, but what comes next?
Thanks for the comments, I feel like a I got a high-dollar-value critique from a top Christian consultant. I will consider your words and respond later this week, or next at latest.
if you accept the traditional New Testament “account” of Jesus’ origins…then, he couldn’t have been a hebe’, any-way!
why?
because Mary, who may or may not have been a jew her-self, was “impregnated” by the “Holy Spirit”…..i.e: a sort of IVF….so, just like a black woman could give birth to a white baby using the same technique(s), Jesus, assuming He existed as stated, need not have had any jewish genes @ ALL!
(neatly disposes of the “Jesus was a jew” riposte!)
*i refer again to the “Acti Pilati” which states that Jesus was of a distinctive European-type appearance with straight, light-coloured hair, long, narrow, cranium, thin nose and light-colured eyes/complexion…..
hmmm….interesting…..the early Church had Pontius Pilate listed amongst its canon of saints (along with Socrates & Plato!)…clearly exculpating him from any real involvement in Christ’s alleged execution…
perhaps Mel Gibson was correct with his original “Passion” script…where he had the jews wholly & solely responsible for Christ’s torture & subsequent cruxifixion….with no real involvement by the Romans @ all…
never-the-less, xtianity must “fall down” on the racial angle….white people can have no real “communion” with non-whites….particularly not with blacks, jews or any but the “almost white” non-whites*
“admin”…..i’m still waiting for you to answer my “challenge” to produce 100 non-whites (of the muddiest “hue” & “visage”) whose behaviour has been conclusively changed for the better by embracing Christianity
I think Alex essentially means that refusing to believe in what can’t be seen is a necessary precaution against the brainwashing that can lead one to believe in racial equality or anything else not clearly grounded in observable/measurable scientific evidence. Christians insist that we trust the stories of men who lived ~2000 years ago, of events that happened 50-70 years before they wrote it. Their testimony says that the laws of physics were broken by a man named Jesus. This from a time when the laws of physics were not understood by anyone, when science was still very primitive and the permanence of physical laws wasn’t known. Since then, these laws have not been verifiably broken by anyone else. Many other religions have stories of miracles (laws of nature being broken by an unseen force)… why choose Christianity over these others? Easy, because pure chance led you to be born in a nation/millennium/neighborhood/family in which it became the dominant religion. Who we choose to live around says more about the trueness of our beliefs. We find that race is far more “real” as a uniting force than religion, since only few religious folks move to a neighborhood based on religion. Christianity has no explanation for racial differences, or mental retardation or severe deformities. The strictly non-theist understanding is that genetic mutations, not god or his regretful creation, the devil.
Also, the non-theist will not waste valuable time in an emergency pondering whether or not god is going to alter the laws of physics in his favor, and how/if he should move or not. Non-theists have a higher survivalist mindset: that only one’s tools, higher knowledge capacity and physical ability can aid him. No force is granted any thoughtful consideration beyond what it has shown itself to deserve in real life. Men lie throughout history, just as they do today, just as Joseph Smith did. Non-theism is a necessary protection against brainwashing.
“I mean that if any of the events described in the Bible had not actually taken place, it would have been self-evident to any of the contemporaries and would have instantly discredited the authority of Christ and the apostles, and Europe would never have been transformed by the gospel.”
Well, first there was a lapse or gap of 40+ years between the time the first gnostic Christian sects appeared and the time that the gospels and epistles began to circulate widely AFTER the cataclysm of 70 CE. Not one of them can be conclusively demonstrated to have been written were likely written LONG after. But even then, pagan writers WERE crying foul accusing the GNOSTICS of having ripped off their ideas from the mystery religions.
This only increased as time went by and things got more confused with the literalist Christians claiming Jesus and the NT material as a record of actual events, which both the gnostics and pagans disputed. Of course, after Constantine’s cynical adoption of the false, literalist version of Christianity to unify the crumbling empire, persecution of heretics and pagan critics was rampant including the wanton destruction of many of their exposees, Who burned the Library at Alexandria and murdered Hypatia, and why? Christians.
“Your Holohoax analogy doesn’t work at all, because you know as well as I that without rigorous laws to hold dissenters in check, Jewish fables would not convince more than a relative few. There is no way that such fables could take hold of diverse peoples in far-off places who had no immediate stake in them and still be cherished for thousands of years. It would be like Pakistanis, two thousand years from now, on pain of death from some future tyrants, refusing to let die the visions of Yankel Wiernik. When their Wiernik books are burned, they gather in the catacombs to recite the pages from memory. Don’t make me laugh.”
Well, I’m not trying to make you laugh, but the Holohoax analogy is very apt and any halfway objective person recognizes that.
“Also, unlike the cataclysmic events of a world war, our story revolves around 13 poor men in the wilderness who, by your way of thinking, should have passed unnoticed from the world.”
They did pass along unnoticed by the world. There is no record of them outside of the NT. Their names were not even attached to the gospels attributed to them until much later. Again, you can thank Constantine and the Early Church Fraudsters for the celebrity “apostles”, and nothing else.
“The events of the Bible (which is to say, the events of actual history) were not based entirely on supernatural revelation, as the Book of Mormon is alleged to be, because this would discredit it. Nor were they based entirely on eyewitness testimony, because even a large gathering can be incredulous. Instead, it comes from both. From our perspective, there is no way for you to have faith in Christ unless the Holy Spirit grants you repentance.”
Right, and you say MY beliefs are unfalsifiable? Nope, Christian apologists have an answer for everything. That is, they can and will jump through the most outlandish hoops to rescue the historicity of clearly fictional “events” from revision. And if all else fails, they fire the magic bullet of…gnosticism! Which is what the claim of not being able to believe unless one is granted repentance boils down to. The bad news is that, regenerate or not, everyone has to evaluate the case for or against by passing the known facts through the filter of their own reason, and reason screams that when it comes to the Bible stories, the only way to believe in them as historical facts is a feet-first plunge into the chasm of irrationality.
“But from your perspective, you can at least recognize that you have constructed an unfalsifiable system of pseudo-faith.”
No. I utterly reject this notion. That’s y’all.
“It is unfalsifiable because no matter what those who walked and talked with Jesus and the apostles actually witnessed and recorded for posterity, you’re not going to believe. You will always have an excuse not to believe.”
No, it isn’t unfalsifiable and I’m not demanding any UNREASONABLE standard of evidence, but damn right, I have “reason” not to believe. You’re just assuming (against all common sense) all these things took place because of cultural familiarity and bias. I don’t need an “excuse” not to believe, any more than you need an “excuse” not to believe that Obama is actually a giant, talking grasshopper in disguise. Someone may sincerely believe he is. They may even write an elaborate story about it, swearing they and several of their buddies used to hang out with him and witnessed his true form. But you nor I are going to believe it without proof. Hearsay, even written, isn’t enough. Simply put, you have a huge double-standard in that when it comes to any other outstandingly ludicrous claim about WHATEVER other than Bible stories, you’re as skeptical as anyone else.
“Yet it is pseudo-faith because you earnestly want to believe in things like heroism, good, and truth, and you have no standard of measure but your own feelings (appetite), which can’t be more important than anyone else’s, if there is no God. Since your faith allows for no antithesis, you have no real arguments either for love or against evil. If there is no God, how can your concept of “good” be any more meaningful than Stalin’s?”
Several points. First, what is it with you guys? The minute anyone says they’re not a Christian, you guys hear, “Atheist,” which isn’t the case. But okay, I can argue quite easily from the atheist perspective. I don’t “want” to believe in truth. Truth is what is. Even if there is no God, there is what is, and that’s truth. Heroism is intangible and completely subjective. What is heroic to someone isn’t to another. There is no independent arbiter of who’s right. Good as defined by Christians issues from the nature and character of God. It’s whatever God says it is, according to his essential being. There’s no higher, Platonic source or standard of “good” out there somewhere that God himself must measure up to. Therefore, it’s a meaningless term.
God could just as easily be “evil” and “hateful” as opposed to “good” and “loving”. If he were and chose to create us with a moral nature and/or special revelation, we wouldn’t know the difference if he didn’t want us to. Anyway, the point is that these rarefied philosophical detours are interesting, but they don’t bolster Christian evidential claims one iota, which are embarrassingly, inexplicably scant.
Sorry, that should’ve read, “Not one of them can be conclusively demonstrated to have been written before 70 CE.” Also, I’m still waiting on an answer as to why, IF the canonical gospels were penned by the alleged apostles at an early date, there’s no reference to them by Christian writers before the mid to late 2nd century. Is it conceivable that, had they been extant, this could possibly be the case?
Alex, for some reason I have yet to fully grasp, the phenomenon (of which Lynda is a prime example) of Christians charging non-Christian nationalists with being Jews or in their employ is widespread. I guess they really believe it, I don’t know, but if so they’ve succumbed to paranoia. Not that there probably aren’t some Jews who pose as WN’s. I’m sure there are, but Christians need to realize that there actually are a lot of non-Christian WN’s who don’t believe Jesus existed and that Christianity isn’t good for Whites, etc. And they aren’t Jewish. Insisting they are, with no proof, is to lie as you noted.
You are not a slob Linder. And if you do not want me to address you as a Jew, then stop arguing like one.
“A rose by any other name…”
That you say you are writing here under your own name impresses me not at all. There is such a thing as immunity for those who are servicable to ZOG. Their role is to lay out the hate bait, provoke and call others out. There are thousands of blogs on the net that are set up to feed the international data bases for the prosecution of hate crimes.
The U.S. Hate Bill was signed into law on Oct 27, 2009. Do not miss the Rev Ted Pike’s “Zionist Puppet Obama to Sign Free Speech Killing Hate Bill” http://www.rense.com/general88/zpup.htm.
A convicted child rapist now has more legal protection in the JUSA than a white journalist reporting the black on white crimes suppressed by the Jewish media aka mainstream media, has more protection than a home school teaching the factual history of the Bolshevik Revolution; has more protection than Rev Ted Pike’s campaign to inform America about ZOG – etc.
Also of note on Rense this week is The Ten Commandments of the Holocaust Religion.
The reason why the Church was in the catacombs for 300 years was because of persecution.
The Jewish-invented religion Christianity is so outdated and boring, a very weak religion in modern times – The West is waiting for a suitable replacement for it.
Jesus was a cool guy, but he never met to invent a new religion, he just wanted to kick some Jew ass.
Very interesting discussion here.
My question to the Kinists would be, if the Bible condemns miscegenation, what is your explanation/apology for Numbers 12, where in verse one it reads:
“And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.”
Following that a debate about Moses’ sole authority as God’s spokesman erupts. If God’s most important prophet was married to an Ethiopian (or Cushite) woman, and was not condemned for it, that would seem to invalidate the entire Kinist position, at least as I see it.
Alex Linder states:
“So where are you christian heroes, then, these men of certainty? I see not a one. Was there ever a Christian army as brave and competent as the German ‘atheist’ NS? Not by any standard of evidence.”
I think this is a bit hyperbolic. The Knights of Malta in battling the Turk were exemplars of bravery against impossible odds and certainly competent enough to succeed; The Venetians, Spaniards etc. at Lepanto I would also consider equals of the Wehrmacht in those qualities.
Debate Over Christian Substance DELIBERATELY Confused Now By Ever-Greater Mass Of Text, Verbosity, And Plain Evasions
(Apollonian, 30 Oct 09)
Indeed, this discussion for this blog and topic, esp. regarding Christianity, is getting massive, esp. given the gross evasions esp. of the moderator here at SWB.
For both Linder/VNN and moderator/admin at SWB MIS-REPRESENT Christian aesthetic–which must be appreciated first and most as LITERATURE, I say again, no less than majestic Homeric epics, Illiad and Oddysey, which featured similar “miraculous”-styled events which Linder/VNN (or other pretended non-Christians) do not excoriate.
Linder/VNN wants to pretend Christ and Christianity is mostly about magic and miracles for children which is obvious lie and diversion–which SWB allows to pass. But Christianity is most about serious philosophy, Christian vs. Jew–which Linder wants to evade most of all. Reason for Linder is just a sham, excuse, and cover which he first pretends to use against Christianity, but then which reason he quickly drops for his own satanism.
Thus “rationalists” appreciate New Testament (NT) no less than Homer, discounting the childish mythical elements of NT no less than those of Homer–why can’t Linder/VNN?–and why hasn’t someone noticed this obvious psychotic prejudice of Linder/VNN against NT?–but not Homer?
And “Lynda” is right about Linder/VNN who speaks with Judaic double-mind, arguing against Christianity on basis of “reason”–but then, along w. SWB, insisting upon rightness and uniqueness of white people and gentiles on basis of Nietzshean-type mysticism, reason obviously not sufficing for Linder, Linder willing to reject reason as inadequate once he thinks he’s made sufficient use of reason to dispose of Christianity.
And SWB babbles and babbles about “morality”–even after it’s explained to him Christ defends TRUTH vs. Jew lies and conspiracy, this simply according to definitive Gosp. JOHN. Hence Christ defends HONESTY as foremost ethical virtue, obviously (which SWB DESPERATELY wants to evade and overlook).
Linder/VNN is thus decisively refuted–which he cannot admit as he continues to babble on in his own irrationalist, satanist, psychotic manner–which SWB promotes and encourages for his own mysticism.
CONCLUSION: And here’s the pt. about SWB: he doesn’t at all worship Christ; rather, he worships this utterly MYSTIC pretense of Kantian-style “moral order” above all and everything–which then he wants to insist is endorsed by Christ. SWB is a MYSTIC first and most–not a Christian, which Christianity he merely uses to prop his mysticism and Kantian-styled “moral order.” Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Phil, in fairness the Kinists have a decent explanation for the Moses/Ethiopian woman question. I’ve read it, long ago, but can’t recall the details.
What I have yet to hear is any compelling answers as to why there are no (to my understanding) early references to the four gospels or what became of the risen saints in Matt. 27(?), among other things.
The bottom line of why I reject most religions is that to avoid eternal damnation, they require you to believe in a God who requires you to believe in testimony that would not even be sufficient in our legal system to confirm or deny anything. It asks us to believe in biological events that we know to be impossible in any situation. Who can have faith in the absurd? Why should our eternal souls depend on believing what contradicts the absolute permanence of nature’s laws that we depend upon for everything we do to live our lives in a rational manner? It is bad fiction, nothing more. The Lord of Rings can be used to unite whites, but to take it literally is something quite different.
ChopperDan, you do not impress me as an impartial inquirer. You and Linder would be good jurors of Vanity Fair. If John Bunyan were reading this blog, he would immortalise you.
If you were at all interested in the question: ‘why are there no (to my understanding) early references to the four gospels?’ you would have gone to a university or college library and researched this question. The professors of the classics are the ones you want to study. As always, the experts are divided on many questions. But references in primary source, historical documents have certainly been studied with your question in mind. And there is multiple and congruent agreement on the relevant secular texts regarding prima facie refs to Jesus of Nazareth and to Christians and to the Church.
This matter can not be addressed in 25 words on less on a blog.
For starters, I commend to you the work of Professor E.M.Blaiklock. He held the Chair of Classics at the University of Auckland for 23 years. He was expert in the relevant languages and documents of the period you wish to scrutinize. I commend to you his writings on Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny.
One of Professor Blaiklock’s most intriguing refs is to the work of an Israeli scholar, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Professor Pines published a forgotten Arabic text of Josephus (many texts of the 1st century History of the Jews in Greek, Aramaic and Arabic). This Arabic text dates to the fourth century. It is preserved in a history of the church written by Agapius, an Arab bishop of Baghdad. Blaiklok quoting from the Arabic version in a monograph published by the Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities 1971:
“Similarly, Josephus the Hebrew: For he says: ‘At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his cricifixion and that he was alive. Accoridngly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”
This brief compendium from Josephus (a Jew) is virtually a summary of part of The Apostles Creed: ‘I believe … in Jesus Christ…suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried’
This is a historical statement by a historical writer whose Histories from the 1st century A.D. have come down to us in Greek, Arabic, Aramaic and Latin texts. You might not agree with what he says many from among the Jews and other nations believed. But he is writing about someone who did truly live.
Quoted at length in Blaiklock’s Archaeology of the New Testament and Jesus Christ: Man or Myth.
The Gospels were not written for the Greco-Roman world anymore than the Books of the Law and the Prophets, Psalms were written for the Persian empire or for modern skeptics. All of the above are books written within Covenants for Covenant peoples. The Gospels are written within the Church and for the Church as a testament. It is the living authority guaranteed to the Church through Apostolic Succession which discerns and chooses the texts that are Sacred Text.
For those not interested in these questions at all (the majority), within the Covenant, the life of our Lord is lived abundantly by his saints of every generation. Miracles reported throughout the Bible are evidences of new creation breaking in upon this passing age of the world. They happened then. They happen now.
The Church usually only investigates the miracles of those sanctified persons who have a Divine mission to the Church or who have given to the Church a new and clearer understanding of some aspect of the Sacred Deposit of faith as set down in Sacred Text. These doctrines are sealed to the Church and the world with miracles. And these events often find record in the secular histories and trials as well as the anals of the Church. For example, the transcripts of the trials of Jehann d’Arc are part of the national archives of France and they were opened for the investigations antecedant to her canonisation in the early twentieth century.
As for the saints of the Patriarchal, Israelite, Mosaic and Davidic Covenants whose bodies reposed around Jerusalem and who were reported by the Evangelist to rise after our Lord’s crucifixion – I have no difficulty with this at all. In the bodies of their resurrection they accompanied him to heaven where they are living and reigning with him in New Creation which is now a reality for many.
More to the point, it could be a reality for you.
Dan — let’s start with “what became of the risen saints in Matt. 27.”
Nothing came of them, except that they had the misfortune of having to die a second time. Why did they have to bear this burden? Doubtless as a sign for the people of God that the resurrection of Christ was not just an occurrence to establish some abstract point, but that he was the “first fruits of those that are asleep” (I Cor 15:20).
However, the Bible often records historical events without explaining what it “means.” I take it that this is meant so that we can ponder the significance of history as we live our own life. We are to ponder the history in terms of the norms that are also taught there, though not always in the same place.
Now let’s consider your view. You think someone just made up this story about people leaving their graves out of thin air. Think about the problems with that hypothesis, however. If this was some conspiracy by liars to invent a new religion, then turn your question back on yourself: why is this particular lie never picked up on in the other books, also forged by the conspirators? If it was thought that this story would fake out the credulous masses, why don’t the other gospel-forgers pick up on it? Why would one of the conspirators include an incident which is not important to the main story, yet so easy for nay-sayers to throw doubt upon along the same lines that you have done? Why waste apologetic capital on such a thing? Why don’t the theologians pick up on it at all?
The very incidentalness of the story is one evidence of its authenticity.
i’m absolutely in favour of obliterating every damn kike who draws breath!
why?
because: they mercilessly obliterated almost a billion white people…when you “take into account” the countless millions of white people killed during WWI, the Bolshevik mass-murders of the 1920s/1930s, WWII and, subsequently, in the kike-controlled abortion holocaust & the “chemical warfare” of contraception and, then, factor in the white children, white grand-children & white great-grand-children that will now never be born because of this hideous atrocity!
plus the additional countless millions of white lives that have been ruined by atrocities like the kike-controlled “counter-cultural revolution” of the 1960s/1970s!
the Jews continually hold White People responsible for their own mythical “ill-treatment”….wtf shouldn’t we hold those psychopaths responsible for our real, collective genocide….down to the last & the least of these grubs?
un-fortunately, even if you assume a world jew population of 100million, we would have to “off” every damn kike five or six times over to make up for wtf’s happened to us!
compared to the life of the average white person, the life of a kike is worth less than that of a garden slug!
DEATH! to them all!
“Why are the smartest Catholic sons supposed to become preachers and never reproduce?” Good question; I think it’s unfortunate. Christians are to be fellow laborers, but you’re preaching elitism. You’re saying that we need scholastics to guide us who are not like ordinary people.
“If men can come back from the dead, how can we deny that anything truly is possible?” The proof is in the pudding, and if the belief that there is a Law governing nature that is above nature really leads to the realization that “Everything is crazy, wacky, possible and thrown for a loop, and we poor people are like drivers without lanes, roads or lights,” it would be reflected in the civilizations that Christians have built.
It doesn’t matter how many evidences we list, you men will always find an excuse to deny them or say that it’s all in our imagination. We’ve seemed to hover around the eyewitness testimony, but the fulfilled prophecies are even more impossible for men to fake. No matter what is offered as proof, you still won’t believe unless the Holy Spirit grants you repentance.
Tim mentions those who rose from the grave along with Christ and Lazarus. If our skeptical commenters had seen it with their own eyes, they would have asked, “What does this have to do with science?” and would have walked away resolute in their unbelief. Notice their presupposition that nothing supernatural can occur only because they personally have never witnessed anything of the kind and have no control over it.
“What if exterminating jews is the only way to defeat them?” This happens, even to some tribes in the Bible itself (though in that case you ascribe the worst motives because it comes from a “Jew-book”). We have no debate over self-defense. But notice the self-righteousness of Jimbo’s last comment. Whites themselves are condemned for complicity and even initiation of the crimes he lists. Why is it not enough to protect our own people without trying to slaughter our enemies like Michael Corleone?
“Religious types always seem to attribute all the good stuff in a given society to Christianity but none of the bad stuff.” I hope not. It seems that all we ever do here is talk about the foolishness of Christians, and with good reason.
“If NS aren’t responsible, then christians don’t get credit for all the actions of individuals in christian countries.” True, but since we’re Kinists, we already recognize the fact that white people are indispensable to our civilization.
I wouldn’t use E.M. Jones as an authority on Luther (that would be like using John Piper as an authority on papal bulls), but it’s true that Christians are often in league with their enemies, especially today. In spite of it, the truth of what Luther said made its way through the German population. Likewise, imputed righteousness can be true and efficacious regardless of the fallibility of the recipients.
“The Japanese have done it all without Jesus, and they’re not even White.” No, they have not done it all, because wealth-building is a very small portion of what means the most in life. Capitalism has done a lot for them on paper, but they are enslaved to usury just as we are. Now Japanese men are so emasculated that they hump pillows in the shape of women. Some are even “married” to robots. And historically, when they’re not emasculated, they exhibit the characteristics of the hive. But they do have a degree of honor because of their religion of ancestor-worship, and honor of any kind, to those of us who are used to living among Negroes, is worthy of respect. Without this honor, they would have even less of what you say comes solely from race.
“Now, maybe a political faith rather than atheism drove [Nazis]…” Thank you for admitting that atheism has never inspired anyone to that kind of heroism. You still reject metaphysical reality, but what race of men has ever been united behind physics? It will never happen.
You’re talking about reality and effectiveness, and we’re talking about law and order, but the two sides are not exclusive.
“God could just as easily be ‘evil’ and ‘hateful’ as opposed to ‘good’ and ‘loving’. If he were and chose to create us with a moral nature and/or special revelation, we wouldn’t know the difference if he didn’t want us to.” Are you listening to yourself? If there is no God and God is not good, what makes you think that the antithesis would ever have occurred to you? It’s as C.S. Lewis said: “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
Okay, thanks, Eman. Let us know when you come up with something.
Phil, as far as I know, every one of the commentators and all the church fathers believed that Numbers 12 refers to Zipporah because there is nothing prior to this about her death. Admittedly, the race-mixers have done a good job of pushing this fiction on the 21st century Church. It amuses us that they must cut against the grain of what every other Christian prior to 1950 has ever believed in order to do it. (Good luck with that project.) They truly hope that it will “invalidate the entire Kinist position,” but they live in a dreamworld.
I also find it amusing that atheists think the span of time between the life of Jesus and when some books in the NT were written is a real argument to show that Scripture is not divinely inspired – as though they would be any more likely to believe if Jesus traveled with a stenographer.
“If the canonical gospels were penned by the alleged apostles at an early date, there’s no reference to them by Christian writers before the mid to late 2nd century.” Dan, you completely ignored the quote I posted from one of the world’s foremost archaeologists, so why would anyone go to the trouble of trying to convince you still? You’re simply wrong about there being no first century manuscript fragments. Fragments from Matthew are dated at 50-60 AD, and plenty more are from before 70 AD. There could very well have been others from much earlier. There were many copies that came afterwards, of course. I don’t think anyone feels the need to provide you with compelling proof for something so well-known.
Jimbo, this is a terrible statement. Yet, I approve that SWB has published it so we can see how you and many agree with you are thinking. But this is not the Way.
As Dr Seuss (undoubtedly Jewish) writes in Horton Hears a Who: ‘a person is a person no matter how small.’ Semites of Israelite and or Edomite descent, Arabs etc are persons; Caucasians of Khazarian descent are persons. They are created by the Eternal and Holy God. They have immortal souls. An infinite price was paid for all of them. Right now many of these are in thrall to an Imperium of racial supremacy and hate: Judaism and or Pharasaism.
It is the Lord Jesus Christ who reigns – the Saviour of men – putting all his enemies under his feet. He intends to reign over all nations by means of his Sacred Heart. And all history, world and time that unfolds in anno Domini is the process of those who are his enemies being placed under His feet.
Preferable to this inevitability would be for those who are building the world throne of Lucifer to convert and receive Life in His Name. But those who persist with their New World Order Babel – their wars and genocides will not succeed. Even if white nations did nothing at all – and I am certainly not advocating this – they would not succeed. The fact that they appear to be succeeding at this time means nothing.
White nations must take action against the New World Order – but advocating genoicides destroys everything that makes the culture (and above all the faith) of our European heritage worth defending, fighting for and advancing.
“Lynda,” The Mystic With Knowledge From Heaven
(Apollonian, 2 Nov 09)
Golly gee “Lynda,” where did u get all this about, “He intends to reign over all nations by means of his Sacred Heart”?–is that in New Testament?–what Gospel?
Tell me how u know a fetus has rights?–how do these rights proceed if not fm social contract?
I swear “Lynda,” psychos like u are what gives Christianity its poor reputation. Doesn’t it occur to such an intellect as urs that when Christ defends TRUTH, as Gosp. JOHN, he’s defending objective reality and hence reason–AGAINST mysticism? Tell us true. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
A man who writes in such total confusion of mind and spirit as you exhibit in every post should not be swearing, Apollonian.
New Testament. What New Testament? The Gospel According to St John the Evangelist is not a pro apologia for objective reality and therefore reason. The Evangelist bears witness to the Divine Word, the eternal Logos.
“In the beginning God created…” God (Elohim) is a plural noun that in the Hebrew Sacred Text always takes the singular verb. Genesis 1:1
“And God said..” Genesis 1:3. God creates all existences by the fiat of His Word.
Bearing this in mind, St John the Evangelist writes
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” John 1:1.
All things were made by Him (the Logos) and without Him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:3
And “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” John 1:14.
The Evangelist bears witness that the Eternal Word (the Divine Logos) by whom God spoke all created existences into being is above all – a Person. A Person who was in the beginning with God and is God and by whom He made the worlds.
That is: God “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed Heir of all things [which He Himself created] and by Whom He made the worlds: Who being the brightness of His [God, the Father's glory] and the express image [Eikon] of His Person [John 14:9] and upholding all things by the Word of his power, when He had by himself purged our sins…” Hebrews 1:2,3.
Our Lord does not defend ‘truth’ and ‘objective reality and hence reason’. He bears witness to Himself. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” John 14:6.
St John the Evangelist bears witness to the Lord (He is God), Jesus (He is man) Christ (the Annointed One) who said: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.”
Truth is not an abstraction. Truth is a Person. Reason is a faculty of a person, a cognitive faculty. And just as an artifact made by a person may exhibit rationality or reasonableness, so too the Creation of God exhibits the Divine rationality. The geometry of the universe exhibits the Divine reason. Creation also demonstrates many other qualities (and to my mind more important personal qualities) – such as poetry and imagination.
To deify a cognitive faculty, Apollonian, is simply crass. It is on a par with the Jacobins who took a Madame from the city, dressed her up as the goddess ‘Reason’ put a torch in her hand and entroned her on the high altar of Notre Dame during the French Revolution.
The Scripture testifies unequivocably that our Lord, as Heir of all things, is also King. C.f. Hebrews 10:13.
Until you are able to grasp what Sacred Text actually says, it is pointless to discuss with you what our Lord has revealed to his saints (and what the Church proclaims through the Petrine Office) about his desires, namely – the manner in which he desires to reign over all nations. Quas Primas proclaimed Dec 11th 1925 by Pope Pius XI.
Christ is the Lord of history. He is still speaking to His pilgrim Church in time. The problem is you are not able to listen because you have placed upon the throne of your heart the idol of Reason. Remove this idol and place the Saviour of men there and then will you be in a position to hear what the Sacred Heart is saying.
Doug Wilson has been on a book and video tour with Christopher Hitchens. It seems that they have made appearances on every radio and TV show out there in the last couple of weeks. This post of Wilson’s is quite good and relates to what we’ve been discussing:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=7055
“Christopher said somewhere that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is quite true, but Christopher misses the point of it. He thinks the resurrection is the extraordinary claim, when actually it is the extraordinary proof. You should not listen to a man who claims to be God (the extraordinary claim) unless He does something like come back from the dead. The resurrection is God’s declaration that Jesus is the Son of God (Rom. 1:4), and when we preach the resurrection, as we are charged to do, we are preaching the proof, not something that needs to be proven.”
Wilson uses the example of gravity, saying that it can described but not explained. The explanation must be taken on faith.
admin, can you not understand that it’s entirely possible that Jesus DID rise from the dead, or that Joseph Smith really DID talk to an angel who told him about golden plates buried in the ground, or any other miracle… but all that matters is that nobody alive *TODAY* has any *PERSONAL* evidence to believe one over the other. The success of the obviously false Mormon church is reason enough for me to believe Christianity to have been just an earlier successful scam. Why would a God allow such obviously false doctrines to become dominant in select areas of the world, and not step in and give them clear evidence of their falseness, as he supposedly did several millennia ago? For how personal the consequences are (eternal paradise or damnation), the circumstances that lead us to one religion over the other are far too impersonal and beyond our control (we choose from whatever religions are most dominant in our country/millennium/family/friends).
A logician could turn that comment into a textbook illustration.
Poster Doug is right, admin. DW should be embarrassed to have uttered such an absurd, fatuous statement and you should be embarrassed to quote it as if it were some profound insight. Even if one ignores all the ludicrously unbelievable elements of the story immediately preceding the crucifixion and resurrection, the only people for whom the resurrection could serve as “proof” would be, as PD noted, not merely those alive at the time, but those who had personally witnessed every event from the time of the crucifixion onward. And that was a very small number of people. And again, there’s no record of any of this occurring outside of the NT. So, contra DW, the ALLEGED resurrection is not proof of anything. Some people believe it, but solely because they wish to, not because reason compels them to. Ridiculous.
I thought the last few exchanges told me all I needed to know, that you guys are total dead-enders, hopped up on Jesus-Juice and determined to believe what you want, no matter what. But that tears it.
Religiously, y’all are completely delusional. As has been pointed out, you’re a tiny minority within the Christian religion, which isn’t and never has been this “one thing”, as you believe. It’s continually changing and evolving, and it’s left you behind.
Of course, you’re all so much more intelligent and clever than the average professing, egalitarian, darky-loving, MegaChurch attendee, but so what? They run the show now, and look on you (if they even take notice) with revulsion. Most don’t even consider you to be gehunine Christians, as you well know, and wouldn’t be caught dead “fellowshipping” with you. So, where does that leave you? In the Wilderness, talking amongst yourselves, reminiscing about the gone-forever “glory days”. In your more sober moments, you must realize that you’re witnessing, probably not even the beginning, but more like the middle of the end. So, what? You shift your focus toward trying to convince secular/heathen Nationalists to enter (or re-enter, as the case may be) the Christian fold? From the looks of it, I don’t foresee that producing any great results. Why don’t you guys give it up and join the 21st century?
If there’s still a Nationalist movement in 2 or 3 generations, it will be comprised almost entirely of secular and/or traditionalist heathen types. Kinists will probably not exist and their descendants will have either joined us or defected to the main body of racially unaware Christian cheerleaders for Jewish World Hegemony.
There seems to be three arguments mashed together in Doug’s post.
1. Let me alter the scenario slightly to make the first problem manifest. “admin, can you not understand that it’s entirely possible that Jesus DID rise from the dead, or that George Washington WAS the first president of the US, but all that matters is that nobody alive *TODAY* has any *PERSONAL* evidence to believe one over the other.” The problem here is replacing a legitimate discussion of how we can know any historical claim to be true, with a bare assertion of historical skepticism — while forgetting that such radical skepticism would apply to secular historical claims as well.
2. “Why would a God allow” etc. This presupposes a view of the world in which men are searching for the truth, and God has to reach out to “prove” himself to them. The Bible on the other hand says that all men already do apprehend God but reject him immediately, preferring to remain in their sins. If Christianity is true, then (a) all men apprehend God already and (b) all men hate the God they know exists, until their hearts are changed by sovereign grace. Now of course people do not like to hear this, but my point is that it is tilting at imaginary windmills to ask “why would God allow” etc. That is a presupposition that vanishes when dealing with Christianity. Perhaps it would be valid when arguing against a Muslim, I don’t know.
3. The problem that people just believe what is presented to them etc. 1. Well Doug, you managed to escape from it, right? So that can’t be a hard and fast rule. 2. The facts show that escape from heritage is possible. For example, there are many Christians from all the tribes in the Middle East, and one of the shameful aspect of US policy is how we have turned our back on them. (Saddam Hussein had a Christian in his cabinet. Today, Iraqi Christians flee for their lives.) 3. Epistemology seeks to establish rational grounds for knowing that transcend background. Imagine you were arguing with some eastern mystical dualist who denied the possibility of science, for example. Would you then conclude that “accepting science” is just a matter of one’s culture, and there is no basis for believing it? (4) At the end of the day, even if God left most of humanity to die in its sin, preserving the truth in only one small remnant, this would be his prerogative. Which takes us back to the second point.
Doug and Dan, meet the logician, Tim. I tried to warn you.
1. No biological laws are broken for George Washington to become President, so there’s no reason to be suspicious. A better comparison would be if some said that George Washington flew over the crowd during his inaugural address. THEN, just as with the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus, we would have GOOD reason to dismiss that testimony as unreliable due to contradiction with known physical laws.
2. Men don’t go around dismissing obvious evidence of new forces, despite what that old book says. Ask Faraday about that. Men don’t deny evidence of something extraordinary, we incorporate it into our worldview since a higher understanding of the facts of reality improve anyone’s ability to survive. The Bible simply fails that aspect of human psychology. We’re to believe that “pagans” would completely ignore evidence they actually WITNESSED, and instead worship things they carved with their own hands? I grew up in a very Christian family, went to church weekly and was very well versed on the arguments against evolution and for creation… and then I chose to take a look at the evolution argument. What clinched it is that evolution explains why the races are so different. Why would God create an ugly gorilla-like Nigerian when he could just create another Diane Kruger or Paulina Porizkova? Do Nigerians and Australian aborigines please his eye? It’s absurd. Natural selection created the different races, and there’s nothing holy about it.
Take a look at erectuswalksamongst.us an online book I’ve slowly been going through. It explains things from a racial viewpoint, the conclusion being that the African population had extensive intermixing with Homo Erectus, and that modern Homo Sapiens arose outside of Africa, then some went to Africa and mixed with Homo Erectus, which explains both why Africans have a much wider genetic diversity (probably between East and West mostly) versus any other racial population. There’s a big visual difference between, say, Michael Jordan and Jerry Stackhouse, for instance.
Once again Linder disperses the cristiana pecora, eternally leaden in spirit.
Same old pious posing. What you don’t understand is that there’s more “holy spirit” in Linder than any of you. Fortunately every generation has its scourge to drive the moneylenders from the temple.
I think the Genesis account is far more cogent than Darwinism and Social Darwinism – which is an ideology concocted by JudeoMasonry.
There was an original pair created imago Dei. Of their descendents, those who held to the Patriarchal monotheism,faith in a Saviour who married within the kinship group that kept this faith were at war with the descendents who turned to idolatry practiced fornication and married offspring these liasons. A group among these learned about demonic possession and certainly introduced this into their sexual practices as Satanists do today resulting in much greater degeneration but enhanced powers. Different tribes and nations formed as a result of beliefs and practices i.e. culture.
Even though all nations were diminished from the parents and originals Adam and Eve, some were much less so than others. I think they migrated out of the wars of Babel on the plains of Shinar very early – the people of Japeth.
When the Redeemer long anticipated by the most ancient faith of the Patriarchs came, all nations could then be regenerate in Him. The nations of the Aryan, Caucasian race converted to the Evangel virtually as nations. Thus, as a race, they communed in the Body and Blood of the God man for almost two millenia. Of course, the beauty of the race became enhanced; they became strong in virtues and so developed many powers and abilities. This is because grace perfects nature.
If you look at Aryan people today sunk in the most loathsome vices and superstitions, you notice how the winged brow of our people is beginning to level into that horizontal brow of the nations who have lived with low horizons for a lot longer than we have. The light of the countenance is extinguishing. They are becoming oafish and dumbed down.
If you look at people of colour, dark races who up until maybe the last two hundred years have as nations lived in the most barbaric paganism, been ruled by witchcraft and superstitution – but who thanks to the missionary efforts of the Christians converted themselves as tribes or clans to Christ. It is interesting how their appearance is becoming more refined. The winged brow is beginning to appear. They are becoming more able – intellectually, creatively and athletically. The light of the countenance shines.
tim, what you classify as “radical skepticism” is the same thing the jews say about historical revisionist critiques of the holohoax and what I suspect you consider to be “normal”, healthy skepticism when considering any proposition unrelated to bible stories. iow, you’re arguing in circles and applying a huge double standard.
doug hit the nail on the head. we’ve got to compare apples to apples. obviously, establishing jesus’ existence is little more important than, say, hadrian’s or pliny the elder’s or napoleon’s or henry ford’s. are there good, solid reasons for taking these men for granted? absolutely. does my immortal soul hang in the balance, either way? no. but with jesus, it does, therefore whether he did or didn’t exist is crucial and of the utmost interest, and the burden of proof is much higher.
Admin, okay, so maybe I was kinda strident up there. In all seriousness, tho, I’m sure Tim is a first-rate logician. It’s not my area of expertise, but I think these guys have pretty effectively countered his rebuttal.
Tim avers, “The Bible on the other hand says that all men already do apprehend God but reject him immediately, preferring to remain in their sins. If Christianity is true, then (a) all men apprehend God already and (b) all men hate the God they know exists, until their hearts are changed by sovereign grace. Now of course people do not like to hear this….”
Fair enough, but couldn’t the other side equally claim that Christian apologists understand that all the known facts totally undermine the credibility of their claims but they stubbornly refuse to concede because they’re afraid to admit they might’ve been wrong or of appearing foolish, etc.? That’s an honest question, as that was something I had to work through myself when I gave up religion.
After seeing Lynda’s responses, I realize any time spent here is pearls before swine. Her remarks are indistinguishable from Scientology voodoo: “light of the countenance” and “the winged brow of our people is beginning to level into that horizontal brow of the nations”.
This belongs in a new version of Lord of the Rings, not the discovery of truth. Anyone who values efficient, blunt analysis of facts wouldn’t use such language. For those who doubt evolution, look into Chromosome #2. Humans have 1 less pair of chromosomes than chimpanzees, and the reason is that our common ancestor had 48, as chimps do. Chimpanzees have 2 smaller chromosomes that, when combined, look like our chromosome #2, and this appears to have been what happened.
The bottom line is that whether you like it or not, natural selection takes place. Animals in the wilderness live by survival of the fittest. For humans this means most adaptable. The welfare state selects for numbers, not intelligence. Those who are smart enough to realize this must use their wealth to have large numbers of offspring, or their money will forcibly be taken from them and used to pay for someone else’s offspring. On this, I hope all pro-white groups can agree. Have as many children as you can reasonably afford, since you’re forced to pay for some kids even if you don’t have any, through taxation. Wealth and resource accumulation have no higher purpose than to increase reproductive success.
Doug, natural selection does take place within species but it is not the origin. And the human race, if it is fulfill a human identity in its nations should not make natural selection the basis of social order. I do not concede that you and the chimpanzee have a common ancestor – although reading so many of your posts and the chimp-outs on the VNN message board – it is indeed tempting.
I’ve read with interest Linder’s comments. He has trouble believing in God because, it’s pretty apparent, he’d rather believe in Linder. That’s the way of non-believers. I know because I used to be one.
Nevertheless, I can certainly see his point about the sickness of today’s effeminate equality-worshiping Christians. My reply, as with the rest of the kinists, is that this is not Christianity. The word equality doesn’t even appear in the Bible. It gives no sanction whatsoever to equalizing races and genders. These are God’s creations, and He made them distinct for his purposes. Neither does the Bible condone the Bolshevik notion of equalizing wealth. Socialism springs from envy, a sin according to the Scripture. Contrary to the often-heard claim, all mem are not equal before God. He loves whom he will, loving Jacob and hating Esau. The only way men are equal, in the biblical sense, is that all are sinners in need of grace.
Linder says he only considers facts. Well, consider this one. Christianity shaped the glory of our Western culture, in art, literature, architecture, philosophy, law, government, and indeed even science. We conceived laws of nature because we first conceived of a Law-Giver who created an orderly world. Science didn’t flourish outside the West because it didn’t have the God of the West.
Linder claims that Christianity has weakened the West. Really? If that’s so, why were we vital and strong where we were fervently Christian, and why did we weaken at precisely at the time when we began to lose the faith? He says Christianity breeds cowards. Can he honestly say that about Charles Martel, Don John of Austria, and so many of the other Christian warriors who drove back Muslim hordes with faith and steel?
Finally, I must take issue with Linder’s notion that Jews invented Christianity to destroy gentiles. If that were the case, we should see them supporting their invented faith. The truth, of course, is that they never cease to attack it.
“There is no Kwa but Kwa and Linder is its prophet.”
He says Christianity breeds cowards. Can he honestly say that about Charles Martel, Don John of Austria, and so many of the other Christian warriors who drove back Muslim hordes with faith and steel?
Germanic blood, not Christian faith, produced Martel and John. Christian faith was the mere expression of its will to defend the cultural realm.
As a Kinist, I differ from some of my Kin in that I believe the Bible, beginning with Adam and Genesis, is an instruction manual for the White Race. God gave Adam “dominion” over the world, which meant that Adam and his true descendants exercised God-given governance over all the earth. Christianity turns sour when white people fail to carry out God’s intructions; which includes holding an iron rod over all nations.
During the two decades prior to WW I, the European nations (Christendom) held dominion over the whole world. But pride led to a fall. The Sons of Satan, the Destroyers of Nations, who we call Jews, schemed to draw Russia into a war with a nonwhite nation: Japan. As we know, two wars catatrophic to the white race followed. So how can Christians be blamed for both World Wars? Who brought Communism to power? Who caused Germany’s defeat during WW I? Who sought to overthrow the Christian monarchs throughout Europe? Not White Christians!
Germany was a Christian nation during both World Wars. Christianity was taught in German schools and German soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with “Gott Mit Uns!” Where were the atheists in the foxholes? Fighting for Stalin!
Russia has turned back to Christianity, and is beginning to exercise the God-given dominion conferred on Adam. As a result, Russia is by far the most nationalistic White nation in Europe and the only such nation to encourage women to have White children. Christianity, indeed, seems essential to the survival of the White Race.
God Have Mercy on us.
I agree with almost everything my good friend Beauregarde has said here, except:
1) I don’t think we Christians have the right to determine who is and who is not allowed to hear the gospel and respond to the call of salvation. It should be an open invitation. But as we all know, there is only one race that has truly been transformed by the gospel, and with time and providence, we could very well discover that others fall away from the call of grace. I don’t desire this – I only deny that men have the authority to predetermine it.
2) I’m absolutely in favor of deportation, defensive war, and any other laws meant for our survival, but “holding an iron rod over all nations” sounds like empire-building to me, and I think that experiment has been a colossal failure. Ideally, I’d like to let the rest of the world go about its business, but I know that what looks good on paper doesn’t always work out in practice.
So there are caveats to my disagreements, but I couldn’t agree more that without Christianity we’re as good as dead. This is a truism, actually; it’s like saying that without life we’re as good as dead. We are in this predicament as a direct result of failing to heed God’s Word and obey the law of Life, that we may live. So Beauregarde is correct that if we ignore the instruction manual we will never be able to properly exercise dominion, and we will be decimated.
One of the greatest temporal benefits of Christianity, which our atheist friends never seem to realize, was that inter-tribal warfare greatly decreased and the race was able to thrive. Without Christian faith and proper biblical government, our genes would not prevent us from trying to kill each other at every turn. I don’t see how anyone can deny that the horrific fratricide of World War I is a case in point.
Here again, it’s easy to see that, with time and providence, the meek will inherit the earth. The future belongs to Christians.
In this discussion, 40th Level White Revolutionary, the SWB blogroll has been trying to drill down to the moral substrate of your white nationalism. What is its basis? Until you have this – you have no code. This latter is what impresses people in the mass (or not).
Natural and Common Law would be a start, but then the Church recognizes national expressions of these.
By Kwa, you are talking about what exactly – the Kwa of AmeriKwa? The vast kwanland of Americans with European national heritage floating in the melting pot? As dumbed down goyim Bob and Bobby Jean Six Pack are not that different from Juan and Juanita Taco or clueless jews like Joe and Judy Schmo in the daily focus and aspiritations of the American mass.
I agree with you that the life is in the blood, the blood of the nation – its consciouness is in the blood. But suppremely the regeneration of blood is in the blood of the God man, the second Adam and the Lord from Heaven.
The Germanic blood of Martel and the German nation was regenerate in this way – through the Christian faith and communion in the Corpus Christi from the 5th century A.D.
In our own time, blood is being degraded. Mercury – in vaccines, in the air (from cremations) from decades of placing amalgam dental fillings is poisoning white nations (among other things). Mercury vapor binds to heme and alters the holography of the blood.
When I see a hieratic glyph emerge from your movement that will focus consciousness, faith and trust (vital energy), I will start taking some of your statements about blood more seriously.
You probably have never realized that blood has holography. The focus of consciousness upon a logo or a glyph alters blood – for good or ill. That is why our public sphere is saturated with all these Luciferian corporate logos and glyphs.
Even so, as a hieratic glyph there is nothing that can replace the Crucifix. As with the image of the brazen serpent upon the staff which Moses lifted up in the wilderness, those who look upon the Crucifix with the focus of faith – live.
Christ the King uplifted on the Cross for us
O com let us adore Him.
Christum Regnum, pro nobis in Cruce exaltatum.
Venite adoremus.
From the Universal Calendar of the West, The Exaltation of the Holy Rood.
Christianity has both code and rite for the regeneration of life in the blood. White nationalism does not.
In this discussion, 40th Level White Revolutionary, the SWB blogroll has been trying to drill down to the moral substrate of your white nationalism.
I’m not WN. I’m Linderite.
The Germanic blood of Martel and the German nation was regenerate in this way – through the Christian faith and communion in the Corpus Christi from the 5