There are some people out there on the internet like Walter Yannis who never left the Middle Ages.

True, but Walter's knowledge of Russia and environs is peerless. I think Walter's a faithless person, but I don't think he should be booted out of the movement - just encouraged to attend the Church of his choice and not try to bend the ear of guys who are having problems in their life, trying to turn them against their own best interests.

He's like a twisted mentat. Have you ever read Dune? You'd have to get some means to guide his behavior into channels useful to the larger movement.

And not trust him.

I do still read OD for his Russia/ Chechyen updates. Their quality is not matched here, on VNN, or on Stormfront.

WM

WM,

There really is no way to boot anyone out of the movement, as unfortunately there is no commonly acknowledged source of authority within the wider like-minded community. Anarchy more or less prevails at the moment. America is also overwhelmingly Christian. In fact, it is one of the most religious countries on Earth (see Huntington for more on that). So if there ever is to be any successful movement for change here, then it will most likely have to compromise on this issue. But any compromise on religion will be far from the 'Christian Taliban' that WY is dreaming about.

We cannot allow religion to be elevated to equality with the rest of our concerns (or above them, as WY would have us do). We must focus upon restoring America to racial harmony and eliminating the Jewish threat. This should be made explicitly clear lest there be any confusion on this issue (as there recently has been on some forums). So what do we have to offer Christians:

1.) Christianity should be tolerated, but the traditional distinction between church and state should remain. So no theocracies.

2.) It should also be made publically clear that we do not believe in the elimination of the church. That is, we would not persecute Christians for their beliefs, as is currently more or less the case in some parts of the U.S. with the pedantic Jewish attacks on things like local Christmas celebrations.

3.) Christianity would have a higher profile in whatever new state emerges from the wreckage of the multicultural USA, as we should adandon liberalism's concept of religious neutrality. Acceptable religious opinion would fall across the following continuum: Atheist -- Agnostic -- Pagan/Heathen -- Christian. We have no need for Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hindus and so on. Such a religious policy might encourage the voluntary emigration of a good number of our Jews to Israel.

4.) And finally, most importantly, the media in our new state should be collectively owned by white gentiles and censored in accordance with standards of decency, as the circulation system of our culture must never again be allowed to fall into the hands of our enemies. This would eliminate in one blow the majority of the filth that has probably been the most potent threat to spirituality and artistic creativity in this country.

I am not that fond of Christianity myself, but I do not consider it to be a threat to us. It is better described as a burden we have inherited from the past. The situation in the U.S. and Europe differ profoundly on this one issue, which is why I am much more optimistic about the prospect of a general European recovery than an American. Europeans, having shedded for the most part the religiously addled mind, are more likely to experiment with a new way of life that is racially and spiritually healthy. So I do not expect Europeans and Americans to approach this issue in the same manner.

Given enough time, I believe Christianity will fade on its own accord in an American racialist state. As Hitler pointed out, it should be allowed to fight out its quarrel with science which it is slowly losing. There is really no need for us to intervene and make unnecessary enemies, as YHVH is losing ground.

What is your objection to Buddhism?

Ill reiterate Stribog's question.

What is your objection to Buddhism?
Its foreign to our culture.

I do still read OD for his Russia/ Chechyen updates. Their quality is not matched here, on VNN, or on Stormfront.
WM

Apply some good ol' scepticism, just as you do with respect to his "worse is better" and "Christian Taliban" creeds. He's a wishful thinker all around, not just in the sphere where you know he's full of sh1t.

We may have to reconsider this policy depending upon our circumstances. I refer here to the opposition I would expect from white Christians to the deportation of nonwhite Christians and Jews.

We may have to reconsider this policy depending upon our circumstances. I refer here to the opposition I would expect from white Christians to the deportation of nonwhite Christians and Jews.
Does it give you pause at all on purely practical grounds that you'll be getting rid of a lot of high IQ people and scientists if you get rid of jews.

Getting rid of jews cost Hitler the A Bomb.

:: Does it give you pause at all on purely practical grounds that you'll be getting rid of a lot of high IQ people and scientists if you get rid of jews.

No. It does not give me second thoughts at all. I would fully support the application of eugenics in the new racialist state in order to boost average general intelligence.

:: Getting rid of jews cost Hitler the A Bomb.

And taking in the Jews has put us on track to become a third world country within fifty years.

Its foreign to our culture.

So is Christianity. Buddhism is at least self-consistent.

And taking in the Jews has put us on track to become a third world country within fifty years.

While I know im banging my head against the wall.

Example: Sweden was a nordically pure practically jew free state. Ditto for Australia... they've all opened the floodgates.

Conclusion: Throwing up the floodgates is a worldwide trend seemingly independent of the presence of jews.

So is Christianity. Buddhism is at least self-consistent.
Yet Buddhism does not have anything remotely like the political sway of Christianity in the U.S.

:: While I know im banging my head against the wall.

Because you consistently deny Jewish culpability in changing our immigration laws, even when their involvement has been both meticulously documented and is not even denied by Jewish sources.

:: Example: Sweden was a nordically pure practically jew free state.

There were plenty of Jews in Sweden after World War 2. Many sought refuge there, actually.

:: Ditto for Australia... they've all opened the floodgates.

There was likewise a Jewish community in Australia. Jews did not compose more than 3% of the American population in the aftermath of WW2. Regardless, Jews played an enormous role in changing our immigration laws, as wealth and political power are not uniformly distributed in any country.

:: Conclusion: Throwing up the floodgates is a worldwide trend seemingly independent of the presence of jews.

Non Sequitur.

Because you consistently deny Jewish culpability in changing our immigration laws, even when their involvement has been both meticulously documented and is not even denied by Jewish sources.

Documenting their political positions is not the same as proving that they were the effective and decisive force, in whos absence the changes would not have occured. Thats where the Macdonald chapter on immigration falls short. Especially when immigration quotas in the US were struck down by a supreme court ruling.

:: Documenting their political positions is not the same as proving that they were the effective and decisive force, in whos absence the changes would not have occured.

There really is no point on arguing this issue with you anyway, as your own personal sentimental attachment to the Jews stiffles all rational discussion of this matter. I will let the gallery judge MacDonald's work which (cited from NUMEROUS Jewish sources) makes my case for me.

:: Thats where the Macdonald chapter on immigration falls short.

I didn't get that impression at all. Instead, I have seen MacDonald's findings confirmed from the Jewish literature I have read about the subject. Jewish organisations BRAG about their role in changing the immigration laws.

:: Especially when immigration quotas in the US were struck down by a supreme court ruling.

The Supreme Court does not operate in a neutral political vacuum.

Yet Buddhism does not have anything remotely like the political sway of Christianity in the U.S.

As long as you are just being pragmatic, that's fine. We may well have to accomodate certain styles of Christianity for the time being if we are to make progress. Christianity is still an alien religion from an alien race, though.

As long as you are just being pragmatic, that's fine. We may well have to accomodate certain styles of Christianity for the time being if we are to make progress. Christianity is still an alien religion from an alien race, though.
Yes. That is my position on the issue. From my perspective, Christianity is also undesirable, but it is too entrenched here to be eradicated by any action on our part. We should leave Christianity alone and let science kill it.

What is your objection to Buddhism?

I can't speak for him, but my objection to Bhuddism is that its not part of European civilization. I don't know a great deal about it, and I frankly don't care to; its a Chinaman's religion (although I do know enough to realize it began in India, not China), not one for our people. Hinduism (and Zoroastrianism) are somewhat more ambiguous cases when this civilizational test is applied, but I think a similar policy of racial exclusion should apply to those arguably nonWestern doctrines as well.

Apply some good ol' scepticism, just as you do with respect to his "worse is better" and "Christian Taliban" creeds. He's a wishful thinker all around, not just in the sphere where you know he's full of sh1t.

I think Walter may well be on to something with his "worse is better" theory. If we lose our national salami one thin slice at a time, it may well be all gone before anyone gets angry enough to do anything substantive about it. A re-elected Dumbya taking us into war with Iran and re-instituting the draft (I have little doubt those two items are on the agenda for a second Bush administration) would be disastrous for America in the immediate term, but may well be very beneficial in the medium term, as per Walter's "worse is better" concept. I mean, its bad that neo-"conservative" Jews in the Pentagon are handing all our secrets over to Ariel Sharon, but if the American people get to find out about it, its arguably worth it and more.

As long as you are just being pragmatic, that's fine. We may well have to accomodate certain styles of Christianity for the time being if we are to make progress. Christianity is still an alien religion from an alien race, though.

That's all true, but its also true that at various times, Christianity has been greatly modified and adapted by the mores of European civilization (the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are the best examples of the remaining vestiges of this trend, particularly the Russian Orthodox). It is theoretically possible that Christianity could be reshaped as a force for good, irrespective of it Judaic origins (keeping in mind the original Christians were Jews who rejected the Pharisees, the Talmud and essentially the essence of everything that makes the Jews the wicked beasts they behave as). Whether this will happen is another question entirely. The guys over at OD demonstrate there are a precious few who'd like to abandon Christian Zionist-style Christianity in favor of something a little more European in flavor. The fact that they have had very little success as yet does not mean they will continue to have very little success. As things rapidly deteriorate from bad to much, much worse, many conservative-minded Americans may well be swayed by a nationalist, anti-Semitic strain of Christianity. While my leanings have always tended towards a Cosmotheist/pagan direction, I think its important not to burn all the bridges with people like Walter. We may need them someday. Hopefully, it is they who will one day need us, however....

- "I think Walter's a faithless person, ..."


A MIGHTY presumptious statement. Faithless in what way? Are you implying he is only pretending to believe in Christianity?

Do you have a shred of evidence to support this idea?


Petr

- "Given enough time, I believe Christianity will fade on its own accord in an American racialist state. As Hitler pointed out, it should be allowed to fight out its quarrel with science which it is slowly losing. There is really no need for us to intervene and make unnecessary enemies, as YHVH is losing ground."


Keep dreaming. True Christianity and true Christians will never stop haunting you with the message about transcendental Creator God who intends to judge the whole world one day.


In Hitler's day, Christians had not yet woken up to fact that they had to seriously and intellectually struggle against the lie of "evolution". Hitler was only used to sleepy, drowsy Christians spoiled by the Biblical higher criticism.


And NO, you anti-Christians will NOT peacefully allow us Christians to "fight with science", or against philosophical materialism posing as empirical science.

The moment it might seem to you that we would be actually WINNING, and convincing people that we might be correct, you would clamp down on us, so great is your faith in "free competition".

Once again, the concept of inpartiality will be shown to be a theoretical and practical impossibility.


Petr

:: Keep dreaming. True Christianity and true Christians will never stop haunting you with the message about transcendental Creator God who intends to judge the whole world one day.

The decline of Christianity in Western Europe speaks for itself. Christianity is now largely seen in Western Europe as a relic of a bygone era. And this development pleases me, as I regard the decline of Christianity to be essential to my goal of Occidental rejuvenation. The moral superstitions of Christianity are one of the most powerful inhibiting forces holding us back from racial progress. It should be noted here that I do not reject spirituality, only Christianity and its dogmas.

:: In Hitler's day, Christians had not yet woken up to fact that they had to seriously and intellectually struggle against the lie of "evolution".

All men are equal in the eyes of YHVH now aren't they, Petr? So by all means, continue to fight evolution. You are losing.

:: Hitler was only used to sleepy, drowsy Christians spoiled by the Biblical higher criticism.

I don't see many fire-eating Christians in Germany these days either, to be honest.

:: And NO, you anti-Christians will NOT peacefully allow us Christians to "fight with science", or against philosophical materialism posing as empirical science.

Christianity is losing its fight with science, at least in Western Europe. Religious observance has also declined somewhat in America. Christianity via television is merely a halfway house on the way to atheism.

:: The moment it might seem to you that we would be actually WINNING, and convincing people that we might be correct, you would clamp down on us, so great is your faith in "free competition".

But you are not winning, Petr. Actually, I should qualify my position here. Christianity is losing in the Occident. On the other hand, it continues to make headway amongst Africans, gooks, and mestizos, or as they say, 'the next Christendom'. Christianity will only become more irrelevant to our future as it becomes browner.

:: Once again, the concept of inpartiality will be shown to be a theoretical and practical impossibility.

We don't have to fight Christianity, Petr. It is dying a natural death in Western Europe at the hands of science. It would be a pointless and futile waste of our time to engage in a quarrel with a dying religion. In such a situation, we would have nothing to gain.

- "We don't have to fight Christianity, Petr. It is dying a natural death in Western Europe at the hands of science."


And Western Europe is dying with it. I know what I'm talking about.


Petr

- "All men are equal in the eyes of YHVH now aren't they, Petr?"

They are equal as in the sense "equal before law". This by no means leads to the irrational concept of equality in performance, which Europeans (and Blacks!) used to understand quite well until very recently.


Petr

- "The moral superstitions of Christianity are one of the most powerful inhibiting forces holding us back from racial progress."


Yes, I know about your ideas of creating a new god-like race of men through eugenics. This luciferian dream will backfire on mankind in a way or another, like already it did in the Garden of Eden.


Petr

- "Christianity via television is merely a halfway house on the way to atheism."


I used to be an atheist until my teen years, having been raised in an atheist family, Fade. Been there, done that. You should never underestimate the pull of Christianity when it is preached without fear of political correctness.


Petr

- "I don't see many fire-eating Christians in Germany these days either, to be honest."


And I didn't said that there are "many fire-eating Christians in Germany these days". There are not many fire-eating racists in Germany nowadays either.

There are actually few fire-eating ANYTHING in Germany nowadays or in any other secular Western country for that matter. Even anti-racists are lacking the spirits they used to have. All have been zombiefied by the godless mass culture.


But, we both do not believe in the rule by the majority anyways, now do we?


Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.


Petr

We may have to reconsider this policy depending upon our circumstances. I refer here to the opposition I would expect from white Christians to the deportation of nonwhite Christians and Jews.

Thats not entirely a problem Fade.

Christianity is still an alien religion from an alien race, though.

Christianity has been a European faith for 2000 years. To make the argument it is not is to literally ignore 99% of its history. :rolleyes:

As for Fade's arguments concerning Christianity, I wont delve much into this, but they do resemble what Belloc wrote about the Jacobin attitudes towards Christianity.

:: And Western Europe is dying with it. I know what I'm talking about.

Because of Christianity's bastard offspring, liberalism.

:: They are equal as in the sense "equal before law".

That was the argument made originally here in the U.S. That argument degenerated into the belief that all people are equal, in fact.

:: This by no means leads to the irrational concept of equality in performance, which Europeans (and Blacks!) used to understand quite well until very recently.

But it did lead to the concept of equality in performance.

:: I used to be an atheist until my teen years, having been raised in an atheist family, Fade. Been there, done that. You should never underestimate the pull of Christianity when it is preached without fear of political correctness.

I am not seeing this pull. Christianity is dying in Western Europe. It is growing in Africa and Asia.

:: Yes, I know about your ideas of creating a new god-like race of men through eugenics. This luciferian dream will backfire on mankind in a way or another, like already it did in the Garden of Eden.

Humans can be bred like any other species. :222

:: And I didn't said that there are "many fire-eating Christians in Germany these days". There are not many fire-eating racists in Germany nowadays either.

Because, as we know, racism is 'immoral' because all people are 'equal'. I wonder where this idea came from.

:: There are actually few fire-eating ANYTHING in Germany nowadays or in any other secular Western country for that matter.

More Christian masochism, like the flagellators of the Middle Ages, albeit a secularised version of it.

:: Even anti-racists are lacking the spirits they used to have. All have been zombiefied by the godless mass culture.

Its not really godless at all. This culture of self-hatred and self-renunciation is solidly in the Christian tradition.

Tired stereotypes that I have debated and refuted many times already.

You can blame Renaissance humanism, Endarkenment cult of Reason and anti-Christian Freemasonry for the birth of modern liberalism.


Liberalism

Francis Parker Yockey

"Liberalism is a most important by-product of Rationalism, and its origins and ideology must be clearly shown.

The "Enlightenment" period of Western history which ... set in after the Counter-Reformation laid more and more stress on intellect, reason and logic as it developed. By the middle of the 18th century this tendency produced Rationalism. Rationalism regarded all spiritual values as its objects and proceeded to revalue them from the standpoint of "reason." Inorganic logic is the faculty men have always used for solving problems of mathematics, engineering, transportation, physics and in other non-valuing situations. Its insistence on identity and rejection of contradiction are practicable in material activity. They afford intellectual satisfaction also in matters of purely abstract thought, like mathematics and logic, but if pursued far enough they turn into mere techniques, simple assumptions whose only justification is empirical. The end of Rationalism is Pragmatism, the suicide of Reason.

...

Liberalism is Rationalism in politics. It rejects the State as an organism, and can only see it as the result of a contract between individuals. The purpose of Life has nothing to do with States, for they have no independent existence. Thus the "happiness" of "the individual" becomes the purpose of Life. Bentham made this as coarse as it could be made in collectivizing it into "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." If herding-animals could talk, they would use this slogan against the wolves. To most humans, who are the mere material of History, and not actors in it, "happiness" means economic well being. Reason is quantitative, not qualitative, and thus makes the average man into "Man." "Man" is a thing of food, clothing, shelter, social and family life, and leisure. Politics sometimes demands sacrifice of life for invisible things. This is against "happiness," and must not be. Economics, however, is not against "happiness," but is almost co-extensive with it. Religion and Church wish to interpret the whole of Life on the basis of invisible things, and so militate against "happiness." Social ethics, on the other hand, secure economic order, thus promote "happiness."

...

http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/liberalism.html


Petr

There are actually few fire-eating ANYTHING in Germany nowadays or in any other secular Western country for that matter.

- "More Christian masochism, like the flagellators of the Middle Ages, albeit a secularised version of it."


Whaaat!?

Are you seriously arguing that modern apathetic, deracinated couch potatoes exist because of Christian influences?

Flagellators were anything but apathetic!

You've got your tired stereotypes mixed up.


Petr

- "Because, as we know, racism is 'immoral' because all people are 'equal'."

Germans (and Westerners in general) are nowadays anything but moral. They are become spiritually and physically lazy, and in that stupored state accept almost anything that the establishment shoves down their throats. Self-complacent people always do.


Petr

- "I am not seeing this pull."

I am sorry, but solipsism in incorrect. You do NOT represent the entire universe.


- "Christianity is dying in Western Europe. It is growing in Africa and Asia."

All the more reason for Europeans to catch up if they want to survive.


Petr

- "Its not really godless at all."

Can we see some evidence for this soundbite?

And yes, every culture has some god whether it admits it or not. "The god of this world" is indirectly very worshipped in the West these days.


Petr

:: Tired stereotypes that I have debated and refuted many times already. You can blame Renaissance humanism, Endarkenment cult of Reason and anti-Christian Freemasonry for the birth of modern liberalism.

I don't really see the point that is in dispute here. Political scientists are virtually unanimous in attributing to Christianity the origins of liberalism.

:: Whaaat!?

This self-hatred and self-renunciation, this overwhelming feeling of guilt, is utterly Christian.

:: Are you seriously arguing that modern apathetic, deracinated couch potatoes exist because of Christian influences?

Absolutely.

:: Flagellators were anything but apathetic! You've got your tired stereotypes mixed up.

The self-hatred that is so pervasive in Germany these days is related to the concept of sin in German culture inherited from its Christian past.

:: All the more reason for Europeans to catch up if they want to survive.

I don't see any reason to imitate Negroes, to be honest.

:: I am sorry, but solipsism in incorrect. You do NOT represent the entire universe.

Do you dispute that Christianity is in decline in the West?

:: Can we see some evidence for this soundbite?

I have already demonstrated previously on this forum how individualism grew out of Christianity.

:: And yes, every culture has some god whether it admits it or not. "The god of this world" is indirectly very worshipped in the West these days.

LMAO

- “Political scientists are virtually unanimous in attributing to Christianity the origins of liberalism.”


Hrrmph. I’d like to see some documentation.

There sure were no liberal politics practised in the pre-endarkenment Europe.

And of course it depends on what you call “liberalism”, as an ethymologist quibbler like you should know – the word “liberal” used to mean a person that wanted to minimize the role of the state in the society - an anti-statist.



- “Do you dispute that Christianity is in decline in the West?”

Of course I do not. So what?

As they say, “when the going gets tough, the tough get going.”


I'm disappointed, Fade. You just keep on piling stereotypes and soundbites.


Petr

The decline of Christianity in Western Europe speaks for itself. Christianity is now largely seen in Western Europe as a relic of a bygone era.

Racialism is seem by the masses of Europeans as at least as much of a 'relic of a bygone era' as Christianity. The feelings of the majority hardly determine truth.

Europe saw its rise to greatness under Christianity. It did not begin to commit cultural and racial suicide until after its elites had repudiated Christianity. Christianity did not cause the collapse -- it was the only thing preventing it.

Racialism is seem by the masses of Europeans as at least as much of a 'relic of a bygone era' as Christianity. The feelings of the majority hardly determine truth.

Europe saw its rise to greatness under Christianity. It did not begin to commit cultural and racial suicide until after its elites had repudiated Christianity. Christianity did not cause the collapse -- it was the only thing preventing it.


I want to read some evidence of your theory, because I don't consider that the decadence of Europe is due to a recent secularisation that has not been complete (as long as many Europeans hold many beliefs and values of Christian origin, spite that they don't believe in the Christian mythology), I consider that the European decadence begins with the introduction of the biblical Christianity (or Judaism for Goyim) during the Reformation and Counterreformation, the Wars of Religion and with the secularisation of some of its ethical values (individualism, universalism, progresivism, dualism, anti-ethnic particularism, ascetism, anthropocentrism, anti-naturalism/desacralisation of nature, etc) during the Enlightenment.

I consider that the European decadence begins with the introduction of the biblical Christianity (or Judaism for Goyim) during the Reformation and Counterreformation, the Wars of Religion and with the secularisation of some of its ethical values (individualism, universalism, progresivism, dualism, anti-ethnic particularism, ascetism, anthropocentrism, anti-naturalism/desacralisation of nature, etc) during the Enlightenment.

Then we don't completely disagree. Since I am not a Protestant, I am of the opinion that the Reformation was a misstep. There were certainly real abuses in the Catholic Church, but the Reformation went beyond 'reforming', and began to change theology and, eventually, culture.

Then we don't completely disagree. Since I am not a Protestant, I am of the opinion that the Reformation was a misstep. There were certainly real abuses in the Catholic Church, but the Reformation went beyond 'reforming', and began to change theology and, eventually, culture.

I am not a Catholic neither (I am a pagan), but I value the strong communitarian ethics of Medieval Catholicism, I also sympathize with its emphasis on the tradition than on the biblical literalism and its destructive values (individualism, apocaliptic nihilism, asceticism, etc). Medieval Catholicism was an European intent of expurgating the biblical (Jewish) elements from the Christianity and of including European elements from the paganism. Sadly, this whole work of Europesation it was destroyed by the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, when Judea won the war against Rome and its values.

:: Racialism is seem by the masses of Europeans as at least as much of a 'relic of a bygone era' as Christianity.

And why is this the case? Answer: Because Europeans came to be convinced after the Second World War that 'racism' was 'immoral' and 'evil'. In short, racism was constructed as a 'sin'. Racism is felt by Europeans to be sinful, which is why they believe it to be wrong, yet they cannot really explain why as atheists. They are simply secularised Christians who have forgotten their religion.

:: The feelings of the majority hardly determine truth.

I agree, but the Christian culture of Europe facilitated the rise of antiracism.

:: Europe saw its rise to greatness under Christianity.

Europe's rise to greatness coincided with the decline of Christianity in Europe. This was made possible in the West because of the Christian distinction between church and state which had no parallel in the Islamic world.

:: It did not begin to commit cultural and racial suicide until after its elites had repudiated Christianity.

But Christianity was never repudiated in Europe. It was simply secularised into liberalism which is even more destructive.

:: Christianity did not cause the collapse -- it was the only thing preventing it.

I disagree. Christianity, specifically the concept of sin, had absolutely everything to do with the collapse of racial identity in Western Europe. This constant thinking in terms of good/evil is a legacy of Christianity in Europe. All the universalist fawning over humanity is another example. Equality comes from the notion that all humans were made in God's image. Individualism comes from the Abraham story.

:: Hrrmph. I’d like to see some documentation.

See Murray Jardine's The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society (2004).

:: There sure were no liberal politics practised in the pre-endarkenment Europe.

ROFL the Glorious Revolution was justified by Locke on the grounds of liberal political theory.

:: And of course it depends on what you call “liberalism”

There are various forms of liberalism, yes.

:: as an ethymologist quibbler like you should know – the word “liberal” used to mean a person that wanted to minimize the role of the state in the society - an anti-statist.

Umm Locke actually argued that Catholicism should be banned in England.

:: Of course I do not. So what?

Alright.

:: As they say, “when the going gets tough, the tough get going.” I'm disappointed, Fade. You just keep on piling stereotypes and soundbites.

Liberalism is a child of Christianity. Christianity is the offspring of Judaism.

More can be found here on the connection between Locke's political theory and Christianity.

It did not begin to commit cultural and racial suicide until after its elites had repudiated Christianity. Christianity did not cause the collapse -- it was the only thing preventing it.

Would you be kind enought to offer some examples of this repudiation by the elites?? Except for commies in the past I just don't see it.

To this very day Queen Elizabeth is the titular head of the Church of England. Lutheranism remains as the offical State religion in some Scandinavian nations (Norway in particluar). The Greek Orthodox Church is the offical State religion in Greece. There are many rumors that Czar Putin wishes to reinstitute the Russian Orthodox Church as the offical State church in Russia.

If anything the elites in Europe keep Christianity around to help justify themselves and their liberal moralizing whilst the masses having heard the arguements of Science leave the pews empty.

- "Would you be kind enought to offer some examples of this repudiation by the elites??"


Elites are always pro-establishment, pro-status-quo.

Likewise, in the decaying Roman Empire, emperors always paid full honors to traditional Greco-Roman religion and myths, although hardly anyone believed in them anymore.

They were PAGANS - like overwhelming majority of European elites are too, de facto - they didn't care if they didn't believe in their religion.

Don't be so bleeding naive.


Petr

Elites are always pro-establishment, pro-status-quo.

Revolutionary activity historically is always lead by some portion of the upper classes.

Tired stereotypes that I have debated and refuted many times already.

You can blame Renaissance humanism, Endarkenment cult of Reason and anti-Christian Freemasonry for the birth of modern liberalism.

Liberalism

Francis Parker Yockey

"Liberalism is a most important by-product of Rationalism, and its origins and ideology must be clearly shown.

The "Enlightenment" period of Western history which ... set in after the Counter-Reformation laid more and more stress on intellect, reason and logic as it developed. By the middle of the 18th century this tendency produced Rationalism. Rationalism regarded all spiritual values as its objects and proceeded to revalue them from the standpoint of "reason." Inorganic logic is the faculty men have always used for solving problems of mathematics, engineering, transportation, physics and in other non-valuing situations. Its insistence on identity and rejection of contradiction are practicable in material activity. They afford intellectual satisfaction also in matters of purely abstract thought, like mathematics and logic, but if pursued far enough they turn into mere techniques, simple assumptions whose only justification is empirical. The end of Rationalism is Pragmatism, the suicide of Reason.

...

Liberalism is Rationalism in politics. It rejects the State as an organism, and can only see it as the result of a contract between individuals. The purpose of Life has nothing to do with States, for they have no independent existence. Thus the "happiness" of "the individual" becomes the purpose of Life. Bentham made this as coarse as it could be made in collectivizing it into "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." If herding-animals could talk, they would use this slogan against the wolves. To most humans, who are the mere material of History, and not actors in it, "happiness" means economic well being. Reason is quantitative, not qualitative, and thus makes the average man into "Man." "Man" is a thing of food, clothing, shelter, social and family life, and leisure. Politics sometimes demands sacrifice of life for invisible things. This is against "happiness," and must not be. Economics, however, is not against "happiness," but is almost co-extensive with it. Religion and Church wish to interpret the whole of Life on the basis of invisible things, and so militate against "happiness." Social ethics, on the other hand, secure economic order, thus promote "happiness."
...

http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/liberalism.html

Petr

Much as I have admired and enjoyed Imperium, some of Yockey's perspectives yet require adjustment:

"Liberalism," as with Marxism (so-called "scientific socialism"), is, rather, the pseudo-scientific, quasi-rational product of the misapplication of "Rationalism".

The honestly logical and empirical evaluation of society leads to the conclusion (and this was Nietzsche's distinctive genius) that society cannot be rationalized. For the formula for the rightly-understood-interest of humanity as a whole cannot be devised. Thus "Progress" is an illusion whereby the deleterious consequences of the application of technology and "reform" in palliation of intractable social conflicts are deferred at the expense of their ultimate and catastrophic magnification.

Liberalism nevertheless insists upon a pretense as to the realizability of this rationalization of society, despite the irrationality of so doing, as it has inherited the messianic/utopianist/cargo-cultist impulse of Christianity/Judaism, with their fatuous and fanciful notions of the proto-utopian, righteous Kingdom of God to come - a Kingdom to come, somehow, some day, some way.

Point deducted from Brother Petr's meager score.

NN-
You state this:

"Liberalism," as with Marxism (so-called "scientific socialism"), is, rather, the pseudo-scientific, quasi-rational product of the misapplication of "Rationalism".


In other words, Liberalism is the spawn of Rationalism.

But then you go right on to state this:
Point deducted from Brother Petr's meager score.

However, you basically agreed with Petr against Fade who maintained that Liberalism was the spawn of Christianity. So which is it?

NN:"Liberalism," as with Marxism (so-called "scientific socialism"), is, rather, the pseudo-scientific, quasi-rational product of the misapplication of "Rationalism".


Quantrill:In other words, Liberalism is the spawn of Rationalism.

A bastard child perhaps.

However, you basically agreed with Petr against Fade who maintained that Liberalism was the spawn of Christianity. So which is it?

Liberalism is Christian eschatological expectations dishonestly slathered with Rationalistic pretenses. Fade is correct.

NN:"Liberalism," as with Marxism (so-called "scientific socialism"), is, rather, the pseudo-scientific, quasi-rational product of the misapplication of "Rationalism".


Quantrill:In other words, Liberalism is the spawn of Rationalism.

A bastard child perhaps.

It is, at best, no more than a bastard child of Christianity, as well, yet many of the posters on this thread are happy to lay all the horrors of Liberalism at Christianity's doorstep.

It is, at best, no more than a bastard child of Christianity, as well, yet many of the posters on this thread are happy to lay all the horrors of Liberalism at Christianity's doorstep.
The problem is the more loathsome egalitarian aspects of liberalims emerge from christianity, "turn the other cheek", "rich man and the eye of the needle" etc.

- "ROFL the Glorious Revolution was justified by Locke on the grounds of liberal political theory."


ROFL to yourself.

Locke was definitely one of harbingers of Endarkenment, worshipper of ability of man to use his autonomous reason to spontaneously form societies.


"In a strong reaction against such a view of Locke, Peter J. Stanlis claims that "despite his membership in the Church of England, Locke in his religious beliefs is practically indistinguishable from Voltaire." After noting the use deists made of Locke's works (but omitting the fact that this disgusted Locke) he levels his main charge:

In The Reasonableness of Christianity, Locke's most radical and polemical work, he wrote as a "minimalist" and pleaded in good conscience as a believing Christian, a rational defender of revelation, and a loyal Anglican that the Church of England should reform itself in order to attract members from the Dissenters. How? Locke advocated that it should reject its hierarchical structure and the authority of its bishops, abandon its cannon law and theology, its creed and sacraments, its liturgy, all belief in mysteries and miracles, all external discipline, the Thirty-nine Articles and Book of Common Prayer, all its religious customs and traditions - in short, its entire historical inheritance - as so many superstitions and "prejudices," in favor of one requirement for membership and salvation - to acknowledge that Christ is the Messiah. In the last section of his Essay, Locke stated the central principle of deism: "Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything."[30]

http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm01_origins.html#John


Petr

The problem is the more loathsome egalitarian aspects of liberalims emerge from christianity, "turn the other cheek", "rich man and the eye of the needle" etc.

They really stem from a misinterpretation of Christianity. "Turn the other cheek' is balanced out by a number of militaristic sayings, and the 'rich man through the eye of the needle' refers to materialism or idolization of wealth, not to wealth itself.

It is, at best, no more than a bastard child of Christianity, as well, yet many of the posters on this thread are happy to lay all the horrors of Liberalism at Christianity's doorstep.

Rationalism is a tool - a firearm, for example. It can be used or misused.

Christianity is thus the gunman, the responsible agency, which has misused Rationalism, the tool/weapon, to commit the felony of Liberalism.

Liberalism is Christian eschatological expectations dishonestly slathered with Rationalistic pretenses. Fade is correct.

Ah, whereas before you were saying it was Rationalistic pretenses slathered with Christian eschatological expectations.
At least you cleared that up.

Rationalism is a tool - a firearm, for example. It can be used or misused.

Christianity is thus the gunman, the responsible agency, which has misused Rationalism, the tool/weapon, to commit the felony of Liberalism.

So poor little Rationalism is the helpless victim, being misused by Christianity?
But to your way of thinking, Christianity can't be misused? It is simply bad, through and through.
I think your prejudices are showing through.

- "I think your prejudices are showing through."


NN is insanely prejudiced against Christianity. You have to quite literally squeeze him before you can make him say anything positive about it.


Petr

They really stem from a misinterpretation of Christianity. "Turn the other cheek' is balanced out by a number of militaristic sayings, and the 'rich man through the eye of the needle' refers to materialism or idolization of wealth, not to wealth itself.
Ive heard a better defense for the "eye of the needle comment" from a friend of mine, he simply said "consider how the economy of the ancient world worked"... which is true enough but the fact remains to the unsophisticated its pretty marxist in tone.

Sayings being counterbalanced just makes it sound convoluted and contradictory...

Ah, whereas before you were saying it was Rationalistic pretenses slathered with Christian eschatological expectations.
At least you cleared that up.

Interesting technique you have there, Q:

Repeatedly mis-state a putative re-statement of an interlocutor's position so as cheaply to gain a debater's point by thus making him appear to contradict himself.

You and Petr are a pair in your Christian apologists' dishonesty in argument.

- "You and Petr are a pair in your Christian apologists' dishonesty in argument."


Cry me a river, you big tough heathen.


Petr

Ive heard a better defense for the "eye of the needle comment" from a friend of mine, he simply said "consider how the economy of the ancient world worked"... which is true enough but the fact remains to the unsophisticated its pretty marxist in tone.

Sayings being counterbalanced just makes it sound convoluted and contradictory...


That defense of the statement which you mentioned is an after the fact attempt at making it mean something other than what it clearly means. There is no evidence that Jesus meant anything other than a condemnation of wealth, but after Christianity gained rich and powerful supporters , something had to be done to rationalize the statement.

- "You and Petr are a pair in your Christian apologists' dishonesty in argument."


Cry me a river, you big tough heathen.


Petr


My personal biggest issue with Christians is the vindictiveness they demonstrate while practicing a religion supposedly based in large measure on love and forgiveness.

Sayings being counterbalanced just makes it sound convoluted and contradictory...
Or perhaps it just means that different circumstances require different responses. Usually peace is preferred; sometimes war is necessary. Wealth is okay; obsession with wealth is not.

That defense of the statement which you mentioned is an after the fact attempt at making it mean something other than what it clearly means. There is no evidence that Jesus meant anything other than a condemnation of wealth, but after Christianity gained rich and powerful supporters , something had to be done to rationalize the statement.

Christianity had rich and powerful supporters from the beginning. Both Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus of the Sanhedrin were rich men.

My personal biggest issue with Christians is the vindictiveness they demonstrate while practicing a religion supposedly based in large measure on love and forgiveness.

That's certainly reasonable, although consider this:
Does failure to live up to a set of standards make the standards themselves wrong?

Christianity had rich and powerful supporters from the beginning. Both Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus of the Sanhedrin were rich men.


If that is true, that makes 2 people out of an indeterminate number, though for argument's sake, if we assume the bible is correct, Jesus had a large following of "multitudes". And based on Jesus's statement, their having riches was still wrong. And despite all of this, it is not externally verifiable that either of these people, or any rich people, supported Jesus.

So poor little Rationalism is the helpless victim, being misused by Christianity?
But to your way of thinking, Christianity can't be misused? It is simply bad, through and through.
I think your prejudices are showing through.

Again, you mis-state as you re-state.

Rationalism is a "tool," as stated, thus not an agent/victim - it is neutral and impersonal. Rationalism properly applied to the analysis of society finds the latter to be organic and non-rationalizable. The Judeo-Christian eschatological impulse rejects acknowledgement of this dolorous reality and so engages in the abusive pretense that Rationalism may nevertheless be applied to the realization of its relentless aspiration. Marxism and Liberalism are the product of this misapplication and pretense.

- "There is no evidence that Jesus meant anything other than a condemnation of wealth, but after Christianity gained rich and powerful supporters , something had to be done to rationalize the statement."


Robinder, do you know how many heresies have been born like this? When people pay too much attention to just one saying of Jesus, thinking it represents everything He had to say on the subject at hand, they become monomaniacs.

Jesus said:

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

but also:

"Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

When you think about it, these are not contradictory statements. They just make it clear emphatically that "impartiality" DOESN'T EXIST when dealing with Jesus Christ. Everyone is on some side, everyone is involved, whether they like it or not.


What do you think about this pro-enterprise, pro-wealth parable of Jesus?


Matthew 25:14-30:

25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

25:16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

25:17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

25:18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

25:20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

25:22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

25:23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Petr

That's certainly reasonable, although consider this:
Does failure to live up to a set of standards make the standards themselves wrong?


No, but I am not impressed when people cannot live up to their own standards and yet persist in their insistence that their believing in such standards gives them what we call the moral highground. Better to be an honest rogue, IMO.

He is telling a story to make a point, I fail to see how Yahweh's beloved little offspring is in actuality advocating the amassing of wealth.

If that is true, that makes 2 people out of an indeterminate number, though for argument's sake, if we assuem the bible is correct, Jesus had a large following of "multitudes". And based on Jesus's statement, their having riches was still wrong. And despite all of this, it is not externally verifiable that either of these people, or any rich people, supported Jesus.

The traditional interpretation of Jesus' statement for at least 1500 years was not that having riches was flat out wrong. If you object to how the Social Gospel types have interpreted the verse, that's fine; I do, too. But please don't assume that their interpretation is automatically the right one.

Robinder, temperamental people like me get a bit annoyed when people like NN and Winternute continuously accuse us of being "dishonest" and "deceptive".

I would never be intentionally deceitful. I am forbidden to give a false testimony about and to my fellow man.


Petr

Or perhaps it just means that different circumstances require different responses. Usually peace is preferred; sometimes war is necessary. Wealth is okay; obsession with wealth is not.

Why can't it be more clear about this... as is the Tao.

From the translation here (http://www.edepot.com/tao8.html)

"The superior man ordinarily considers the left hand the most
honourable place, but in time of war the right hand. Those sharp
weapons are instruments of evil omen, and not the instruments of the
superior man;--he uses them only on the compulsion of necessity. Calm
and repose are what he prizes; victory (by force of arms) is to him
undesirable. To consider this desirable would be to delight in the
slaughter of men; and he who delights in the slaughter of men cannot
get his will in the kingdom."

The traditional interpretation of Jesus' statement for at least 1500 years was not that having riches was flat out wrong. If you object to how the Social Gospel types have interpreted the verse, that's fine; I do, too. But please don't assume that their interpretation is automatically the right one.


The length of time that an interpretation of a statement is accepted as gospel, if you pardon the pun, has no bearing on the objective correctness of said interpretation.

Again, you mis-state as you re-state.

Rationalism is a "tool," as stated, thus not an agent/victim - it is neutral and impersonal. Rationalism properly applied to the analysis of society finds the latter to be organic and non-rationalizable. The Judeo-Christian eschatological impulse rejects acknowledgement of this dolorous reality and so engages in the abusive pretense that Rationalism may nevertheless be applied to the realization of its relentless aspiration. Marxism and Liberalism are the product of this misapplication and pretense.

I thought the standard critique of Christianity was that it caused people to not care about the here-and-now because they were caught up in raptures of the world to come. But now you say that it is the direct cause of Marxism, Progressivism, and Utopianism because of its relentless aspiration towards a better society.
Can I assume you reject the former critique, then, because of its direct contradiction of the latter?

- "You and Petr are a pair in your Christian apologists' dishonesty in argument."

Cry me a river, you big tough heathen.

Petr

No crying involved - just a question as to whether the Phora derives greater value from having foils such as yourself perpetually display your handicaps so that the gallery might be instructed by your continual correction - or whether we should wish for your exemplary progress toward rationality by virtue of the same process culminating in your redemption from darkness.

No, but I am not impressed when people cannot live up to their own standards and yet persist in their insistence that their believing in such standards gives them what we call the moral highground. Better to be an honest rogue, IMO.

Perhaps, but when those people claim the 'moral highground' that is simply further failure to live up to those standards, thereby not impugning the standards themselves.
I don't see how it is preferable to simply hold to no higher standards at all.

The length of time that an interpretation of a statement is accepted as gospel, if you pardon the pun, has no bearing on the objective correctness of said interpretation.

Correct. But if all of Christianity held to a certain opinion for the majority of its entire history, there seems to be a good case that that is the traditional opinion.

I don't know a great deal about it, and I frankly don't care to; its a Chinaman's religion (although I do know enough to realize it began in India, not China), not one for our people.

You know that Siddhartha Gautama may well have been a tall white man speaking an Indo-European language? As a prince of the warrior caste, in India, 500 BC, he was almost certainly an Aryan. IN it's roots, a case can be made that Buddhism is closer to our spirit than is Christianity.

Robinder, if you still think (in the cliched Nietszchean manner) that the early church sucked up to resentful and envious lower classes, then what do you think about this parable:


Matthew 20

1. "For the Kingdom of heaven resembles the man who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2. "He cut [a deal] with the laborers for the daily dinara, and he sent them to his farm.
3. "And he went out in three hours and saw others who were standing idle at the market place.
4. "And he said to them, 'Go to the farm you too and I will pay your due.'
5. "And they went, and he went out again at six and nine and did likewise.
6. "And for their sake, he went out at the eleventh hour and found others standing idle, and he said to them, 'Why are you standing all day idle?"
7. "And they told him, 'No one* is hiring.' He told them, 'Go to the vineyard you too and you will receive what is due.'
8. "As it was evening, the lord of the vineyard said to his house master, 'Call the laborers and give them their wages.' And he began from the last until the first.
9. "And there came those of the eleventh hour and received each one dinara.*
10. "And as the first ones came, they expected to get more, and they received each one dinara also.
11. "And as they took it, they complained against the owner of the house.
12. "And they said, 'These last ones served one hour and you have made them equal with us who bore the burden of the day and its heat.'
13. "He replied and said to one of them, 'My friend, I am not treating you unfairly.* Did you not cut [a deal] for a dinara with me?
14. " 'Accept yours and go. I wish to pay this last one then like you.
15. " 'Or is it not allowed me to do what I wish with what is mine? Or are you eyeing me disapprovingly since I am good?'*
16. "Thus, the last will be first and the first last, for many are called and few are chosen."


Petr

Correct. But if all of Christianity held to a certain opinion for the majority of its entire history, there seems to be a good case that that is the traditional opinion.


I cannot recall at the moment the logical term for a self affirming statement.

- "You know that Siddhartha Gautama may well have been a tall white man speaking an Indo-European language? As a prince of the warrior caste, in India, 500 BC, he was almost certainly an Aryan."


Hey Bardamu, sorry to disturb your fantasy, but those Indian "Aryans" probably looked more like Gypsies (Indo-Aryan people) than Germans.



- "IN it's roots, a case can be made that Buddhism is closer to our spirit than is Christianity."

Perhaps in the imagination of misogynist (closet homosexuals?) like Schopenhauer.

Oswald Spengler saw the emergence of Buddhistic cults in Europe after the WW I as a sign of cultural decay and nihilistic exhaustion.

And so do I.


Petr

I cannot recall at the moment the logical term for a self affirming statement.
Perhaps I didn't do a very good job of making my point. Christianity has always taught that wealth qua wealth is not sinful. After about 1750 years, some folks decide that no, Christianity really does teach that wealth is sinful, although the majority of Christians still hold that it does not.
Now, people go around saying, "You know the problem with Christianity is that it teaches that wealth is sinful."
Surely you can see how this is unfair?

I thought the standard critique of Christianity was that it caused people to not care about the here-and-now because they were caught up in raptures of the world to come. But now you say that it is the direct cause of Marxism, Progressivism, and Utopianism because of its relentless aspiration towards a better society.

Can I assume you reject the former critique, then, because of its direct contradiction of the latter?

Your characterizations require qualification. The Messianic Expectation was for relief in the "here-and-now" - thus there is not a "contradiction".

Christians/Liberals may differ in the details of how the Kingdom of God is to be realized - but the impulse is the same.

Perhaps I didn't do a very good job of making my point. Christianity has always taught that wealth qua wealth is not sinful. After about 1750 years, some folks decide that no, Christianity really does teach that wealth is sinful, although the majority of Christians still hold that it does not.
Now, people go around saying, "You know the problem with Christianity is that it teaches that wealth is sinful."
Surely you can see how this is unfair?


I got it, tautology is the word I which intended.

If you are saying that views and opinions tend to change over time is not fair, that might require a long discussion, but my initial reaction is that it is not unfair.

And as I have said already, it is not established that Christianity did intially approve of wealth.

- "Christians/Liberals may differ in the details of how the Kingdom of God is to be realized - but the impulse is the same."


You are one those types to whom no concessions should be ever made, because you immediately blow them out of their proportion.

All true Christians know that it is not within their own power to "bring on" the Kingdom of God - that is perfectionist heresy.

Anyhoo, I must reveal to you I much prefer advancing towards the Kingdom of God - only God knows how - to the pagan paradigm of "eternal return" or whatever - the eternal cycle of growth and decay with no purpose whatsoever.


Petr

- "And as I have said already, it is not established that Christianity did intially approve of wealth."

And moon might be actually made of cheese. You never can tell!


Petr

- "Christians/Liberals may differ in the details of how the Kingdom of God is to be realized - but the impulse is the same."

You are one those types to whom no concessions should be ever made, because you immediately blow them out of their proportion.

All true Christians know that it is not within their own power to "bring on" the Kingdom of God - that is perfectionist heresy.

Anyhoo, I must reveal to you I much prefer advancing towards the Kingdom of God - only God knows how - to the pagan paradigm of "eternal return" or whatever - the eternal cycle of growth and decay with no purpose whatsoever.

Petr

Thus, but for Christianity, there would be no "perfectionist heresy" and no un-true :222 Christianity.

And you betray the fatuous ("only God knows how") impulse as alleged. QED.

Thus, but for Christianity, there would be no "perfectionist heresy" and no un-true :222 Christianity.

So, because something undesirable eventually evolved from Christianity, Christianity is therefore bad? I guess a steak is therefore 'bad' because it will get maggots after being left outside for a week?
I am starting to think that for you, any stick is good enough to beat Christianity with.

If you are saying that views and opinions tend to change over time is not fair, that might require a long discussion, but my initial reaction is that it is not unfair.
Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the idea that Christianity denounces all wealth is a relatively modernist invention, which is actually a misinterpretation of the traditional view.
Suppose some vocal people decided to start interpreting 'Macbeth' as supporting witchcraft. In two hundred years time, perhaps it even becomes the majority view. It would still be incorrect for me to decide that I dislike Shakespeare because he was a rabid supporter of witchcraft. It would behoove me to look back at what he wrote, what he himself probably meant by it, what his contemporaries thought he meant by it, and what most of the succeeding generations thought he meant by it.
Then I could judge what the original intent most likely was.

So, because something undesirable eventually evolved from Christianity, Christianity is therefore bad? I guess a steak is therefore 'bad' because it will get maggots after being left outside for a week?

I am starting to think that for you, any stick is good enough to beat Christianity with.

You have a gift for mis-stating a re-statement, Q.

But I won't bother with a correction - you're evidently incorrigible - I'll just remember to pass on your advice, to all Christians encountered, to keep their Christianity on ice, for the sake of hygiene and humanity.

You have a gift for mis-stating a re-statement, Q.

Perhaps you are the one with the gift for expressing yourself unclearly.

But I won't bother with a correction - you're evidently incorrigible
Thank you for your magnanimity. Truly you are an example to us all.

- I'll just remember to pass on your advice, to all Christians encountered, to keep their Christianity on ice, for the sake of hygiene and humanity.

If by 'keep on ice' you mean 'keep fresh', then please do.

Christianity had rich and powerful supporters from the beginning. Both Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus of the Sanhedrin were rich men.

The Soviets had rich and powerful supporters as well.

And moon might be actually made of cheese. You never can tell!

This depends.

Is a cheese moon consistent with a young earth?

Creationist sites have nothing to say on the question, so we must turn to you - our local scientific 'expert'.

"Winnie"

I'm saying that the idea that Christianity denounces all wealth is a relatively modernist invention

Ummmm . . . .

Is the Sermon on the Mount a modernist text? Then you have a point, otherwise no.

Blessed are the poor . . .

Sell all that you have . . .

Lay up not your treasure on earth . . .

Shall I go on? I don't think the gospel of 'God prospers the Good', which really is a recent invention, has anything remotely to do with what was preached in Palestine so many years ago.

It would still be incorrect for me to decide that I dislike Shakespeare because he was a rabid supporter of witchcraft.

Actually, Shakespeare was a rabid supporter of 'witchcraft'. Love's Labor Lost indicates that he was in close contact with Giordono Bruno, or his supporters, during that man's stay in England. Bruno's metaphysics squarely quite nicely with S's own, as well as that of his pals: Raleigh, Marlowe, etc.

Also, when time came for autobiography, S decided to portray himself as a Magician in 'The Tempest'. I suppose he could have as easily portrayed himself as a priest . . .

Midsummer Night's Dream is predicated on a close reading of Apulius' Golden Ass, as well as local 'lore'. Shall I recall to you the number of times the play has been supressed on just the grounds you describe?

So, actually, the situation you describe is more or less true. You don't have to alter your opinion of Shakespeare, I just thought you should know.

WM

[quote]

Hey Bardamu, sorry to disturb your fantasy, but those Indian "Aryans" probably looked more like Gypsies (Indo-Aryan people) than Germans.



It is doubtful that 2500 years ago Indo-Aryans looked less Caucasian than this beautiful contemporary woman:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/bardamu/indianactress.bmp

Of course, it is in your interest to severe any kinship ties between ancient Europeans and ancient Persians and Indians, since they were all heathens anyway. It is instructive how your mindset works against the great tradition of your own racial family, instructive but not surprising.

If by 'keep on ice' you mean 'keep fresh', then please do.

Will do my part to advise against the exposure to warm public air of what you hold to be your maggot-prone proclivity. ["So, because something undesirable eventually evolved from Christianity, Christianity is therefore bad? I guess a steak is therefore 'bad' because it will get maggots after being left outside for a week?"]

Robinder, if you still think (in the cliched Nietszchean manner) that the early church sucked up to resentful and envious lower classes, then what do you think about this parable:


Matthew 20

1. "For the Kingdom of heaven resembles the man who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2. "He cut [a deal] with the laborers for the daily dinara, and he sent them to his farm.
3. "And he went out in three hours and saw others who were standing idle at the market place.
4. "And he said to them, 'Go to the farm you too and I will pay your due.'
5. "And they went, and he went out again at six and nine and did likewise.
6. "And for their sake, he went out at the eleventh hour and found others standing idle, and he said to them, 'Why are you standing all day idle?"
7. "And they told him, 'No one* is hiring.' He told them, 'Go to the vineyard you too and you will receive what is due.'
8. "As it was evening, the lord of the vineyard said to his house master, 'Call the laborers and give them their wages.' And he began from the last until the first.
9. "And there came those of the eleventh hour and received each one dinara.*
10. "And as the first ones came, they expected to get more, and they received each one dinara also.
11. "And as they took it, they complained against the owner of the house.
12. "And they said, 'These last ones served one hour and you have made them equal with us who bore the burden of the day and its heat.'
13. "He replied and said to one of them, 'My friend, I am not treating you unfairly.* Did you not cut [a deal] for a dinara with me?
14. " 'Accept yours and go. I wish to pay this last one then like you.
15. " 'Or is it not allowed me to do what I wish with what is mine? Or are you eyeing me disapprovingly since I am good?'*
16. "Thus, the last will be first and the first last, for many are called and few are chosen."


Petr

I can't see what this has to do with views on Christian views of wealth. It does, however, indicate that Jesus should not be put in charge of a company payroll.

Ummmm . . . .

Is the Sermon on the Mount a modernist text? Then you have a point, otherwise no.

Blessed are the poor . . .

Sell all that you have . . .

Lay up not your treasure on earth . . .

Shall I go on? I don't think the gospel of 'God prospers the Good', which really is a recent invention, has anything remotely to do with what was preached in Palestine so many years ago.

It is actually, Blessed are the poor in spirit not Blessed are the poor.
The 'sell all that you have' was in a conversation with a specific person, who happened to be a rich man. Jesus told him specifically what he needed to do, which was give up his riches. He did not state it as a universal principle.
Lay up not your treasure on earth... fits quite nicely with what I was saying before. The teaching is against materialism and idolotry of wealth, not against the owning of any wealth, per se.

Will do my part to advise against the exposure to warm public air of what you hold to be your maggot-prone proclivity. ["So, because something undesirable eventually evolved from Christianity, Christianity is therefore bad? I guess a steak is therefore 'bad' because it will get maggots after being left outside for a week?"]

Everything is susceptible to decay and corruption. This merely demonstrates the need for constant vigilance.

- "It is doubtful that 2500 years ago Indo-Aryans looked less Caucasian than this beautiful contemporary woman:"


Are you aware that masses upon masses of Caucasoid Persians, Afghans and Turks have immigrated to northern India following each new conquest of India?


- "Of course, it is in your interest to severe any kinship bonds between ancient Europeans and ancient Persians and Indians, since they were all heathens anyway."


On the contrary, I want them too to abandon Islam and convert to Christianity.

Diabloblanco's panaryanism attracts me quite a lot.

Almost any religion is better option than Islam.


Petr

- "Also, when time came for autobiography, S decided to portray himself as a Magician in 'The Tempest'."


Nuh uh. Prospero's alter ego was the Elizabethan court magus John Dee, who more than anyone else laid foundations for Freemasonry and the corrupt British Empire.

Check out some works by Frances Yates on these beloved occultists of yours.


Petr

- "I can't see what this has to do with views on Christian views of wealth. It does, however, indicate that Jesus should not be put in charge of a company payroll."


Ah, "pearls before a swine".


Petr

Nuh uh. Prospero's alter ego was the Elizabethan court magus John Dee, who more than anyone else laid foundations for Freemasonry and the corrupt British Empire

What was wrong with the British Empire?

- "I can't see what this has to do with views on Christian views of wealth. It does, however, indicate that Jesus should not be put in charge of a company payroll."


Ah, "pearls before a swine".


Petr

Well, ok, if Jesus owns the business and is practicing some sort of Keynesianism, I guess his views on wages might be justifiable. But let's not let this boil over into the labor theory of value debate.

Nuh uh. Prospero's alter ego was the Elizabethan court magus John Dee, who more than anyone else laid foundations for Freemasonry and the corrupt British Empire

What was wrong with the British Empire?


It was started by freemasonry to help further Satanism.

It is, at best, no more than a bastard child of Christianity, as well, yet many of the posters on this thread are happy to lay all the horrors of Liberalism at Christianity's doorstep.
I have not argued that Liberalism is Christianity. That's obviously not the case. I have argued, however, that Liberalism is the spawn of Christianity (e.g., a degenerate Christian heresy). Well. Perhaps I should qualify that statement. Liberalism is the spawn Western Christianity. I just checked out several intellectual histories of liberal political theory in my college library. So I will have more to say about the subject later.

The problem is the more loathsome egalitarian aspects of liberalims emerge from christianity, "turn the other cheek", "rich man and the eye of the needle" etc.
Don't forget 'When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?'

It is actually, Blessed are the poor in spirit not Blessed are the poor.

Luke 6:20 "Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

The 'sell all that you have' was in a conversation with a specific person, who happened to be a rich man. Jesus told him specifically what he needed to do, which was give up his riches. He did not state it as a universal principle.

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.


There are dozens more where those came from (a starter set:Luke 6:24; 6:30 Matthew 5:40- 42;10:23- 25), Quantrill, and I feel fairly certain that you know this. I will say that your analysis of the three quotes provided indicates to me that not only are you not interested in the historical teachings of Yeheshua, but that you are prepared to use pilpul to distort what is a very obvious message, repeated again and again, and second only in importance to his eschatological message (which may have been garbled by early followers).

I often say that Christ attacks the intellect first, and only then the conscience. It is by the methods you use to deflect the plain meaning of Yeheshua's words that we see the mechanism of the lamentable progression.

Wintermute

- "It is doubtful that 2500 years ago Indo-Aryans looked less Caucasian than this beautiful contemporary woman:"


Are you aware that masses upon masses of Caucasoid Persians, Afghans and Turks have immigrated to northern India following each new conquest of India?




Thank you for making my point for me: that Guatama Siddhartha was a descendent of a line of the many Caucasoid invaders of India.

Don't forget 'When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?'I believe according to Barbara Tuchman's( like her despite her Francophile tendencies, I did not like "The Guns of August") "A Distant Mirror" that meme entered Western thought during the 14th century peasants revolt.

While christianity played a part... I don't think it was the sole factor.

I checked out Jeremy Waldron's God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought (2002) this morning. From the back cover:

"Are we humans all one another's equals? And if we are, what is this equality based on and what are its implications?

In this concise and engaging book, Jeremy Waldron explores these questions in the company of the seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke. Waldron believes that Locke provides us with 'as well-worked-out a theory of basic equality as we have in the canon of political philosophy.' But for us it is a challenging theory because its foundations are unabashedly religious. God has created us equal, says Locke, and a proper grasp of the implications of this equality is inseparable from an understanding of ordinary men and women as creatures of God, created in his image and 'made to last during his, not one anothers Pleasure.'

The religious foundations of Locke's political thought have been noted before, but they have never been explored more sympathetically, or with greater attention to their implications for modern debates about equality. Jeremy Waldron is one of the world's leading legal and political philosophers, and this book is based on the Carlyle Lectures that he presented in Oxford in 1999. It provides new perspectives on Locke's egalitarianism and the tribute he paid to the status and dignity of the ordinary person; it examines the problems Locke faced in defining the human species for the purpose of his commitment to basic equality; it explores the relation between his egalitarianism and his Christian beliefs; and, most important, it offers new interpretations of Locke's views on toleration, slavery, property, aboriginal rights, the Poor law, the distribution of the franchise, and relations between the sexes.

But this is not just a book about Locke. God, Locke, and Equality discusses the contemporary approaches to equality as well as rival interpretations of Locke, and this dual agenda gives the whole book an unusual degree of accessibility and intellectual excitement. Indispensible for Locke scholars and for those who study the foundations of equality and the relation between politics and religion, it will be of interest also to philosophers, political theorists, lawyers, and theologians around the world."

For the record, I also checked out:

Launching Liberalism: On Lockean Political Philosophy (2002)
by Michael P. Zuckert

An Intellectual History of Liberalism (1994)
by Pierre Manent

The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (1984)
by Anthony Arblaster

Nuh uh. Prospero's alter ego was the Elizabethan court magus John Dee,

Certainly Dee was a Magus who had captured popular imagination, and I'm sure S played on that. But then, the Magus figure in general - and I'm taking you at your word that you've read Yates, and not just plundered her - was one of the defining images of the Renaissance. I believe Yates was the first to argue that Bruno and Shakespeare either met, or corresponded extensively, or exchanged ideas through a middleman. So Bruno, also a Magus, would have fed that literary image.

However, whoever modelled for the trappings of Prospero, it cannot be doubted that he is an autobiographical figure for Shakespare.

Of course, it's very like you to toss out an irrelevancy grenade to obscure the larger point. Between Bruno, Apulius, Dee, and Prospero, it's pretty obvious that S was, in the broad sense, sympathetic with what would be deemd at the time, 'witchcraft'. The evidence for this is far, far more abundant than the evidence for his Catholicism, which is trumpeted in a most shameless manner by Catholics at the slightest provocation.

At any rate, there's also literary evidence for his homo or bi- sexuality, so there you have two excellent grounds for which the poor man should have been burned alive, or pressed to death, or hot poker'd, or whatever other enormity the Christian imagination has produced in its infinite 'love' and eager contemplation of the pit that burns with fire, day and night forever, where the worm is not consumed, and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.

N was right: put on gloves before reading the Bible.

Wintermute

At any rate, there's also literary evidence for his homo or bi- sexuality, so there you have two excellent grounds for which the poor man should have been burned alive, or pressed to death, or hot poker'd, or whatever other enormity the Christian imagination has produced in its infinite 'love' and eager contemplation of the pit that burns with fire, day and night forever, where the worm is not consumed, and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.

N was right: put on gloves before reading the Bible.

Wintermute

So true. And over at OD they look down their noses at Nazis!

that Guatama Siddhartha was a descendent of a line of the many Caucasoid invaders of India.

Both Siddhartha and the Bodhidharma are recorded in legend, and depicted in painting and statuary, as having blue eyes.

http://www.karlgrobl.com/Nepal%20new/buddha%20eyes%20horizontal_std.jpg


http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/czs/bluelotus.html

Ancient Wisdom
The Blue Lotus by Chuan Zhi Shakya, OHY

The countenance of the Buddha is like the clear full moon,
Or again, like a thousand suns releasing their splendour.
His eyes are pure, as large and as broad as a blue lotus.
His teeth are white, even and close, as snowy as white jade.

- from the Suvarnaprabhasa (Suvarnabhasottama) Sutra

Something may strike us odd about these lines of scripture. Anyone who has been to China or India is familiar with lotus flowers: they are white or pink or cream or rose colored …but they are not blue.


We’re all prepared to visualize the Buddha’s blue eyes. He was an Aryan, of European descent, a nobleman in a societal caste system that did not ‘officially’ intermarry with native populations. The rigidity of the system can be seen even in further generations. Nearly a thousand years later, Bodhidharma, another Aryan descendant, was called The Blue Eyed Demon by the Chinese.

http://www.ashevilleshaolin.com/history.html

The Legend of Bodhidharma
Ferociously ugly, with piercing blue eyes and wild curly hair, the Indian monk Bodhidharma is known as the founder of Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism and of the ShaoLin fighting arts.

http://www.ashevilleshaolin.com/images/bodhidharma.jpg

Sometime around 500 A.D., Bodhidharma traveled by ship from southern India to eastern China. He traveled hundreds of miles, crossing the Yangtze River and the Himalayan mountains, eventually finding his way to the ShaoLin temple in the Honan province.


The full beard and round eyes on Bodhidharma also indicate Caucasoid ancestry.

WM

Everything is susceptible to decay and corruption. This merely demonstrates the need for constant vigilance.

But Liberalism/Marxism/Utopianism, in its eschatological expectations, is not a corruption of Christianity - it is true to the original impulse to the realization of the Kingdom which can never be.

I have argued, however, that Liberalism is the spawn of Christianity (e.g., a degenerate Christian heresy).

I don't disagree with this. I am merely pointing out that the fact that a thing can be corrupted does not make the thing itself corrupt.

Luke 6:20 "Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

The version in Matthew specifies the poor in spirit.

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

This is also a warning against putting anything else before God. Surely you are not suggesting that it literally means a Christian should not care about anything else, not family, not friends, not the Church, not society?


I will say that your analysis of the three quotes provided indicates to me that not only are you not interested in the historical teachings of Yeheshua, but that you are prepared to use pilpul to distort what is a very obvious message, repeated again and again, and second only in importance to his eschatological message (which may have been garbled by early followers).

I am not interested in His historical teachings because I don't agree with your interpretation of them? Very broadminded of you. I guess the case is closed.

I guess those Church Fathers who interpreted these verses the same way I do were wrong. It's good we have somebody to come along two millennia after the fact, cherry pick some verses from a translation, and settle the matter for good.

But Liberalism/Marxism/Utopianism, in its eschatological expectations, is not a corruption of Christianity - it is true to the original impulse to the realization of the Kingdom which can never be.

On the contrary, Christian teaching is that the Kingdom of God cannot be realized on the present Earth. That is the clear message of the verses cited on this thread. In fact, it was Catholics who defeated Marxism in Chile and Spain. It would take some research I'm not inclined to spend time on, but you could probably find a number of Church writings warning against overweening individualism, i.e., Liberalism.

On the contrary, Christian teaching is that the Kingdom of God cannot be realized on the present Earth. That is the clear message of the verses cited on this thread. In fact, it was Catholics who defeated Marxism in Chile and Spain. It would take some research I'm not inclined to spend time on, but you could probably find a number of Church writings warning against overweening individualism, i.e., Liberalism.

"Christian teaching," eh?

Tell us pertinently what "chiliasm" means and how such a term came to be.

Don't immanentize the eschaton.

Its a gnostic heresy. Strawman.

Here (http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/orthodox/orthodox_advices_cleopa_thousand_year_reign.htm) is what one Orthodox writer has to say about it.

Even taking John's writing at face value (I note that most people on this forum are more Biblical literalists than most Biblical literalists), it does not contradict Christ's message that we should value spiritual gain over material gain.

http://members.aol.com/twarren14/reformedchil.html

Chiliasm is the belief that Christ will return to establish a glorious kingdom of peace on this earth for one thousand years. The term comes from a Greek word that means one thousand, and arises out of the reference in Revelation 20 to a thousand-year period in which Satan is bound and the souls of martyrs reign with Christ. Chiliasm is distinct from the present day premillennialism in that chiliasm does not teach a secret rapture or emphasize dispensations. Some of the early church fathers held to a form of chiliasm. However, it died out in the church after Augustine came to understand that the millennium is not a literal one thousand-year period, but is the era from Christ's ascension to His second coming.

Chiliasm was resurrected by the radicals of the Reformation. Willem Balke (Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals) asserts that "in spite of their differences, all of these Anabaptist groups shared a common, feverish longing for the advent of the kingdom of God."3 In his comprehensive study, The Radical Reformation, George Williams concludes that the expectation of a golden age or kingdom was not only a significant common thread among the radicals, it also accounts for their rash and often violent behavior. He writes that "the churches of the Radical Reformation were sustained and emboldened by the conviction that they and their charismatic leaders were the instruments of the Lord of history in the latter days." 4

=========================================

[Thus the repetitious odor and impulse of Bolshevism arising from pure Christian convictions held despite the temporizing and rationalizing performed by "teachers" - the Augustines, the Luthers, the Calvins - who would suppress those whom the Gospel has animated with its clear eschatological expectations of earthly "power and glory":]

=========================================

http://www.pbc.org/dp/stedman/olivet/oliv08.html

This shining cloud may well be what Jesus himself is referring to when he says, "They will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven." There is an obvious reference to this same event in Revelation 1:7. There John says: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him." Of course it can simply refer to the atmospheric clouds, but the repeated emphasis seems suggestive of more. When Jesus thus appears it will mark the close of the age, but it will also be the opening event of a new age, and the supreme characteristic of that new age will be that God dwells with His people. In Revelation 21:3, John describes it, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them." Since the Shekinah is the sign of God's presence with man, it is fitting that it should reappear as the sign that explains, clarifies, and reveals the meaning of Christ's coming. He comes that he may be, as the Old Testament prophets whispered, "Immanuel-God with us."

God With Us---In Power

The shining cloud will be followed by the dramatic appearance of Jesus Christ himself. It is not a silent appearing, not something that takes place in a corner, but a bold, triumphant revelation. As we have seen, John declares that every eye shall see him. In 2 Thessalonians 1:7,8, Paul speaks of a time: When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." The present age, when God allows man to have his head, is brought to an end and God now reasserts his right to [i]rule over all the earth. It is described in striking language in Revelation 11:15: "Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever.'"

The reference of Jesus to his coming "with power and great glory" reminds us immediately of the closing words of the Lord's Prayer. How many times have you prayed, "For Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory?" That prayer reflects the anticipation of God's people, through all the dark centuries, of the eventual coming of that flaming hope when the power and the glory of the universe will be in the hands of the One to whom it rightfully belongs.

Don't immanentize the eschaton.

Its a gnostic heresy. Strawman.

Anything with which Voegelin disagreed was a "gnostic heresy".

Sloppy apologetics.

Chiliasm is the belief that Christ will return to establish a glorious kingdom of peace on this earth for one thousand years.
Yes, that Christ will establish a kingdom on earth. Not mankind, Christ.
Believing that God will eventually do something is hardly the same as thinking that humans can or should do it.

Yes, that Christ will establish a kingdom on earth. Not mankind, Christ.

Believing that God will eventually do something is hardly the same as thinking that humans can or should do it.

A large part of projecting and anticipating the success of a new undertaking is the belief that it is achievable in principle.

And Christians and Liberals, etc., are mush-heads, undeterred by rational counter-considerations, and full of self-righteous commitment to the pursuit of righteousness.

NeoNietzsche, you just stated:

And Christians and Liberals, etc., are mush-heads, undeterred by rational counter-considerations, and full of self-righteous commitment to the pursuit of righteousness.

However, a few posts back, you wrote:
Rationalism properly applied to the analysis of society finds the latter to be organic and non-rationalizable. The Judeo-Christian eschatological impulse rejects acknowledgement of this dolorous reality and so engages in the abusive pretense that Rationalism may nevertheless be applied to the realization of its relentless aspiration. Marxism and Liberalism are the product of this misapplication and pretense.

So Christians simultaneously ignore rationality in their eschatological mania, and rabidly apply rationalism to their eschatological vision.
Perhaps you could clarify this apparent contradiction?

...a few posts back, you wrote:

"Rationalism properly applied to the analysis of society finds the latter to be organic and non-rationalizable. The Judeo-Christian eschatological impulse rejects acknowledgement of this dolorous reality and so engages in the abusive pretense that Rationalism may nevertheless be applied to the realization of its relentless aspiration. Marxism and Liberalism are the product of this misapplication and pretense."

So Christians simultaneously ignore rationality in their eschatological mania, and rabidly apply rationalism to their eschatological vision.

Perhaps you could clarify this apparent contradiction?

Indeed, by simply drawing your attention to what, in fact, I wrote - as opposed to your characteristic mis-statement of a re-statement:

>I wrote: "...engages in the abusive pretense that Rationalism may...be applied..."

>You re-wrote: "...rabidly apply rationalism..."

If the distinction between these passages is not now evident, you are beyond help - a cautionary tale of the indulgence in Jewish intoxicants.

[So don't let this happen to you, Boys and Girls. Think Responsibly, for half the population is already below the average of intelligence, and many of the rest are as yet under the influence.]

- "You know that Siddhartha Gautama may well have been a tall white man speaking an Indo-European language? As a prince of the warrior caste, in India, 500 BC, he was almost certainly an Aryan."

Hey Bardamu, sorry to disturb your fantasy, but those Indian "Aryans" probably looked more like Gypsies (Indo-Aryan people) than Germans.

Haha, you lose. Julius Evola cites several sources from early Buddhist texts in his Doctrine of Awakening: The Attainment of Self-Mastery according to the Earliest Buddhist texts that Siddhartha Gautama was indeed a tall man with fair skin, blue eyes and blonde hair.


- "IN it's roots, a case can be made that Buddhism is closer to our spirit than is Christianity."

Perhaps in the imagination of misogynist (closet homosexuals?) like Schopenhauer.

Oswald Spengler saw the emergence of Buddhistic cults in Europe after the WW I as a sign of cultural decay and nihilistic exhaustion.

Buddhism is not a religion, it is a technique used for self-discipline, clearing one's mind of obsessions and possessions, and strengthening one's will. It was a reformation of the original warrior ethos of Aryan India free of metaphysical distortions carried out by the priesthood (aka Brahmins), and later Buddhism became perverted itself when it became a mass doctrine for the Asiatic masses, the 'weak-willed Buddhism' which both Spengler and yourself refer to.

And so do I.

Petr

I almost pity your ignorance.

- "At any rate, there's also literary evidence for his homo or bi- sexuality, so there you have two excellent grounds for which the poor man should have been burned alive, or pressed to death, or hot poker'd, or whatever other enormity the Christian imagination has produced in its infinite 'love' and eager contemplation of the pit that burns with fire, day and night forever, where the worm is not consumed, and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth."


Gee, you're touchy. Could you have a personal stake involved here?


Petr

- "It was a reformation of the original warrior ethos of Aryan India free of metaphysical distortions carried out by the priesthood (aka Brahmins), ..."


Some documentation would be nice.

Hinduist warrior ethos... Everyone in India knows that until very recently, Muslims have trounced Hindus in almost every confrontation they had with them, often against great numerical odds.

And weren't Brahmins supposed to be those hyper-pure Aryans themselves?


Petr

Indeed, by simply drawing your attention to what, in fact, I wrote - as opposed to your characteristic mis-statement of a re-statement:

>I wrote: "...engages in the abusive pretense that Rationalism may...be applied..."

>You re-wrote: "...rabidly apply rationalism..."

If the distinction between these passages is not now evident, you are beyond help - a cautionary tale of the indulgence in Jewish intoxicants.
Yes, so they are applying Rationalism. I don't think that their success at that application is the issue. I am merely pointing out that you stated that Christians were applying Rationalism (successfully or not, abusively pretentious or not), while at the same time ignoring rational arguments.
This still seems to me to be a contradiction.

Yes, so they are applying Rationalism. I don't think that their success at that application is the issue. I am merely pointing out that you stated that Christians were applying Rationalism (successfully or not, abusively pretentious or not), while at the same time ignoring rational arguments.
This still seems to me to be a contradiction.

It's like you and Brother Petr pretending to adhere to the rational requirements for coherence and correspondence in argument - but refusing, ultimately, to do so in fact. I advise avoidance of Jewish intoxicants - I think that there is some research now indicating that brain cells can recover.

I am not that fond of Christianity myself, but I do not consider it to be a threat to us.

Yggdrasil has some essays on Christianity and his positive take on it is reassuring.
That said, I did find it very disturbing to see the vitriol spewed forth on OD versus National Socialists and the bold assertion that when the OD type Christians attain power they will genocide NS people.

This despite a record of tolerance by NS leaders and laity whether Adolf Hitler in Germany or George Lincoln Rockwell in America.

I think that those Christians who embrace the heretical views as taught in the Zionist version of the Bible, the Scofield, are surely yearning for nuclear armageddon of the goyim to satisfy the bloodlust of their jew god.

Traditional Christians are certainly no danger to our race going by the precedence in Europe, America, and South Africa of just a hundred years or so ago.

What is important is not the particular religion or philosophy for dealing with the transcendent that is chosen but with the race and racial consciousness of the person.

I don't believe in the 3 middle eastern religions because they aren't true.
However I am not hostile to those Whites who are Christian or Muslim for that matter as long as they understand the plight of our folk.

Both Siddhartha and the Bodhidharma are recorded in legend, and depicted in painting and statuary, as having blue eyes.
The full beard and round eyes on Bodhidharma also indicate Caucasoid ancestry.


As both WM and bardamu have pointed out Shakyamuni was Aryan, a White Man.
Which is why Richard Gere wanted to play the part of the Buddha in a biographical film. The project, to this date, has not gone ahead.

I might also add that the Rig Veda is an Aryan scripture.
The enemy of mankind continually attempts to destroy the knowledge of our Aryan heritage but the swastika is out of the bag, so to speak.

Originally Posted by FadeTheButcher
I am not that fond of Christianity myself, but I do not consider it to be a threat to us.

Well to disagree with Current93 above it should be pointed out that Christianity is a large part of the massive immigrantion crisis in the ZOGUSA right now. Look at the Catholics encouraging Mestizos to come up here and Lutherans importing Bantu bucks into formerly all White enclaves like Maine (where it started a huge outcry by some Whites) and Minnesota.

I'll be kind and state that perhaps the theology itself is not that bad and iz not a threat to Whites, but the actions of many Churches are indeed a threat.

As both WM and bardamu have pointed out Shakyamuni was Aryan, a White Man.
Which is why Richard Gere wanted to play the part of the Buddha in a biographical film.

Why would a jew want to play a White Aryan Buddha??

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gere

Why would a jew want to play a White Aryan Buddha??

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gere


Is that a koan?

Why did Bodiharma come from the west?

edit

edit
edit

The reason Gere wants to play Buddha is because he doesn't have to do it in "yellow-face" as the 'Charlie Chan' series was done by Warner Oland.

jews often portray Aryans in film. I don't think Gere actually ponders the significance of Buddha's Aryan nature, merely assumes White skin is the determinative issue.

Yet Buddhism does not have anything remotely like the political sway of Christianity in the U.S.

That is likely to change though since Buddhism is on the rise in North-America.

Even though Buddhism originates from the Eastern Culture, why should it be discarded by the West simply because it is considered "alien"? I think a lot of great aesthetic values originate from the East, some of which can be valuable for the enrichment and survival of Western Civilization. Like it or not, western culture cannot remain static, it has to evolve to a certain degree while remaining its core values.

I doubt any real Buddhism is on the rise in North America. What I mostly have seen is trendy new age pseudo-Buddhism (along with all Eastern religion) that someone goes through a "phase" in.

I doubt any real Buddhism is on the rise in North America. What I mostly have seen is trendy new age pseudo-Buddhism (along with all Eastern religion) that someone goes through a "phase" in.


From someone partial to the Tao I have to agree. Especially I imagine in California(to paraphrase tacitus "where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular" and "all things good are made horrible and shameful and become popular").