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


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > The Struggle > The Strategy
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old April 15th, 2011 #41
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
1. Christianity is universalistic: it teaches that all men are potential brothers in Christ, that all men have souls that can be saved. Well, if we are all brothers in the most important thing of all, then by what standard can we erect barriers to brotherhood in lesser realms: sex and marriage, politics, etc.?

2. Christianity teaches us to love and bless and sacrifice for the inferior. That is the meaning of the so-called Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus takes examples of people who were thought to be unfortunate and says they are blessed. From Wikipedia:

The beatitudes present in Matthew are:

* The poor in spirit; theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
* Mourners; they will be comforted.
* Those that hunger and thirst after righteousness; they will be filled.
* Those persecuted for seeking righteousness. The text says that theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The beatitudes present in the Gospel of Luke are:

* The poor. The text says that theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
* "Those who are weeping". The text says that they "will laugh".
* The hungry. The text says that they will "be satisfied".
* "Followers of the Son of Man". The text says that theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The beatitudes present only in Matthew are:

* The meek. The text says that they will "inherit the earth".
* The merciful. The text says that they will "obtain mercy".
* The pure of heart. The text says that they will "see God".
* The peacemakers. The text says that they will be called "the sons of God".[3] Other translations use the phrase "Children of God".[4]

Well ask yourself: if Jesus blesses such sorry people, and virtue for a Christian consists in imitating Christ, who are the most natural objects of this perverted, dysgenic coddling? The inferior races of course.

3. Christianity is anti-reason, but being anti-reason in and of itself is not anti-white. But I will say that Christianity has a special vested interest in unreason because the values it teaches are almost complete inversions of natural values, so that it must constantly be on guard against reasoning based in nature. Indo-European paganism teaches nature-based values and is thus not as vehemently anti-rational as Christianity. But all religions in the end preach irrational things that must just be accepted.
Thanks, Greg, this is exactly the type of stuff I'm looking for. The question is, has anyone written a full book or a long essay going through christian/doctrine and minset point by point, contrasting it with traditional or, let's say, sane racial views?
 
Old April 15th, 2011 #42
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John in Woodbridge View Post
Many will insist that atheism is a religion. Ben Stein made some documentary (Expelled) about how intelligent design (fancy words for creationism) is being kept out of the classroom. I believe he makes the point that religion creates a barrier against nazism and eugenics and that kind of stuff.
Atheism is not a religion. 'Atheism' is simply a term for those who reject god(s) posited by others. The bias is on the one making the assertion to back it with evidence, not on the one who points out there is no evidence. People assert all kinds of things exist that don't, and there is no term for the people who reject these assertions - only for those who reject, say, the christian God.

The Christian says "God" - what is this god? It is nothing. And the view that it is nothing is hardly a religious view, it's merely a factual observation.

It doesn't matter what the christ cultist says, his assertions do not form a special class to be treated by special rules. They are assertions like any other, and if they are unbacked by evidence, then like other unbacked assertions, they are rejected by sane people.

No amount of lying or social pressure will ever, intellectually, raise christ lunacy to the level of science and rationality. It's anger at that fact that leads the jebus cultists to come up with hateful epithets for others who laugh at their silly cult.
 
Old April 15th, 2011 #43
Franco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,428
Franco
Default

According to this, Matthew was early New Testament, and probably written by a Jewish author:

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/newtes.../section1.html





--------------------------------
 
Old April 15th, 2011 #44
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Atheism is not a religion. 'Atheism' is simply a term for those who reject god(s) posited by others. The bias is on the one making the assertion to back it with evidence, not on the one who points out there is no evidence. People assert all kinds of things exist that don't, and there is no term for the people who reject these assertions - only for those who reject, say, the christian God.

The Christian says "God" - what is this god? It is nothing. And the view that it is nothing is hardly a religious view, it's merely a factual observation.

It doesn't matter what the christ cultist says, his assertions do not form a special class to be treated by special rules. They are assertions like any other, and if they are unbacked by evidence, then like other unbacked assertions, they are rejected by sane people.

No amount of lying or social pressure will ever, intellectually, raise christ lunacy to the level of science and rationality. It's anger at that fact that leads the jebus cultists to come up with hateful epithets for others who laugh at their silly cult.
I think that Atheism doesn't really exist because worshiping is a human trait.

Some worship physical things like money, NBA teams, Pop singers, Niggers, women, Humanity, sex, the white race, political leaders, cars ...

Others worship spiritual or unphysical things like gods, heavens, religions, aliens, ideology, philosophy, science, psychoanalysis ...
__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Old April 15th, 2011 #45
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krystian Kowalczyk View Post
I don't know that there are many books like this. That said, it's not really hard to envisage what such arguments might look like. Christianity has been the motivator of both external and internal destructive actions. External examples could be the Spanish conquest of America, where the motivation was to "civilize the savages and bring them to Christendom" thus creating the blight of modern Latin America.
Christ-insanity breeds irrationality. You will notice that whenever I bring up specific points in an argument, the christ defender never addresses them. Never. He simply repeats the original claim, which I at least have tried and believe I have successfully refuted. So the christ-lunatic will say, "under christianity, the west conquered the americas." And i rejoin, but they didn't exterminate the natives, they tried to convert them. And look at the result. Look where that conversion mentality has led today. Christians are continually urged to sponsor little brown failure kids in South American and elsewhere in mudworld; at the same time, christ-cult churches work with the State Department to bring in millions of Third Worlders to traditionally White areas.

Christ-lunacy erodes the ability to think because it puts wishes and revelations on par with evidence and logic.

Quote:
Internal examples would be Vatican II or US Prot denominations assisting Third World mass immigration causes or drumming up support for Zionism. This is because Christianity is at its core subversive - the New Testament being replete with nihilistic ideas ranging from gender egalitarianism to judeo-supremacy to humanism.

The most sophisticated critique of Christianity from a white perspective was done by Ludwig Klages but his works have never been translated into English to my knowledge.
Back in the day, VNN posted translations of a number of pieces of Klages' work.
 
Old April 15th, 2011 #46
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

The bias is on. . .

s/b The onus is on. . . onus of proof = burden of proof

It's is a contraction of it is

>>The christians have the wrong views. First question- how many possible sources of these wrong views are there? Then list them

1) bible egalitarianism (of jew origin)
!) a) Schofield bible (of jew origin, s. untermeyer)
2) university (boaz, et al. mostly under jew control)
3) General media (under jew control)
4) genetic tendency towards egalitarianism, independent of any thought control. This includes the group mind and general tribalism/comformity
5) Mental blind spots- the christians don't see that there are flaws in their way of "seeing" the world

THe goal is to get the largest fraction of Whites to agree with us (starting with the smartest/strongest)

How many possible ways are there to do this?

1) Eliminate chritianity (How??)
2) Change the underlying thinking of the christians (how??)
3) Provide the unvarnished truth, starting with those showing signs of intellectual independence
4) Use peer pressure on our behalf
5) Establish small groups of converts, that would snowball
6) Other

Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; April 15th, 2011 at 03:17 PM.
 
Old April 15th, 2011 #47
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
I presume you mean excluding Oliver of whose corpus I believe you to be aware?
Yeah, I'm familiar with Oliver's stuff, at least most of it. I'm looking for more in his line - critical of the christ cult from a racial perspective.

Quote:
Elmer Pendell's 'Why Civilisations Self-Destruct' has implicit reference to it (it is available in reprint).
I've read that. Seems more scientific evaluation, doesn't deal with religion much, as I recall.

Quote:
Also Mathilde Ludendorff (last wife of General Erich Ludendorff) wrote pretty extensively on it in her many books: four of which have been translated into English (although these don't include the books that she goes into her in-depth critique of Christianity). See here.
I looked the link, but she seems to be pushing the usual metaphysical gibberish. There's endless amounts of that stuff, which I consider worthless.

Quote:
There is also a pretty extensive NS literature on the subject, but most of which; outside Anton Holzner, is untranslated from the original German. There are English-language academic summaries of their positions available however if you'd be content with that.
I'll read whatever's online, if you have links, please post.

Quote:
Savitri Devi spent a lot of time on it over her various books and Goodrick-Clarke gives a good summary of the whole gamut of racialist critiques of Christianity in his 'Black Sun' and Matthias Gardell also has some reference to it in 'Gods of the Blood'.

You could also try Alexander Rudd Mills' 'The Call of our Ancient Nordic Religion' and 'The Odinist Religion' both of which contain critiques of Christianity (both are available in reprint).
Ok.

Quote:
Yep: he spends a lot of time on his early pre-racial years and later on his transformation via Nietzsche into a racialist.

As to Duke (as much as I loathe the man): his (positive) comments as to Christianity (and Islam) are in 'Jewish Supremacism' (don't know about 'My Awakening') pp. 79-95 in both the 1st and 2nd editions.

You might find John Allegro's later work to be of interest (e.g. 'The End of a Road' (1970) and 'Physician Heal Thyself...' (1983)) as it directly feeds in to much of Oliver's influential racialist critique of Christianity although Oliver only ever cited 'The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross', 'The Copper Scroll' and 'The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth' to my knowledge.
Never heard of Allegro, is any of his stuff online?
 
Old April 15th, 2011 #48
D.G.
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
Default

What if the 'synagogue of Satan' is really the Catholic and protestant Church? It is the 'blasphemous who say they are jews, but are not', could this not be referring to non-Jewish christians?
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #49
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 909
Moose
Default

"Race" as a concept outside of the immediate nation-state/tribe is a relatively new idea. The only time I've seen it pop up is when Europeans came into direct conflict with non-white invaders in Europe. In such cases, Christianity was the closest thing to a representative of a white racial identity. That is to say, religion was race in places like the Iberian peninsula and the Balkans for well over five centuries respectively in both areas.

I don't think the idea of a white race sans religion began being formed until white and non-white populaces began co-existing for long periods of time in the Americas.

Christianity can be condemned from a racial perspective for its conversion principles, yet this same thing is the very foundation of the concept of Europe; of a people with a common bond.
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #50
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 909
Moose
Default

The Reconquista and Inquisition is some fascinating shit to me.

Limpieza_de_sangre Limpieza_de_sangre

Limpieza de sangre (in Spanish) or Limpeza de sangue (in Portuguese), both meaning "cleanliness of blood" played an important role in modern Iberian history. It referred to those who were considered pure "Old Christians", without Jewish or Muslim ancestors.

After the end of the Reconquista and the expulsion or conversion of Sephardim (Jews) and Mudéjars (Muslims), the population of Portugal and Spain was all nominally Christian. However, the ruling class and much of the populace distrusted the recently-converted "New Christians", referring to them as conversos or marranos if they were baptized Jews or descended from them, or Moriscos if they were baptized Muslims or descended from them. A commonly-leveled accusation was that the New Christians were false converts, secretly practicing their former religion as Crypto-Jews or Crypto-Muslims. Nevertheless, the concept of cleanliness of blood came to be more focused on ancestry than of personal religion. The first statute of purity of blood appeared in Toledo, 1449,[1] where an anti-Converso riot succeeded in obtaining a ban on Conversos and their posterity from most official positions. Initially these statutes were condemned by the monarchy and the Church. In 1496, Alexander VI approved a purity statute for the Hieronymite Order.[1]

This stratification meant that the Old Christian commoners could assert a right to honor even if they were not in the nobility. The religious and military orders, guilds and other organizations incorporated in their bylaws clauses demanding proof of cleanliness of blood. Upwardly mobile New Christian families had to either contend with their plight, or bribe and falsify documents attesting generations of good Christian ancestry. The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions were more concerned with repressing the New Christians and heresy than chasing witches, which was considered to be more a psychological than a religious issue, or Protestantism, which was promptly suffocated.

The claim to universal hidalguía (lowest nobility) of the Basques was justified by erudites like Manuel de Larramendi (1690–1766)[2] because the Moorish conquest of Iberia hadn't reached the Basque territories, so it was believed that Basques had maintained their original purity, while the rest of Spain was suspect of miscegenation. In fact, the Moorish invasion also reached the Basque country and there had been a significant Jewish minority in Navarre, but the hidalguía helped many Basques to official positions in the administration.[3]

Tests of limpieza de sangre had begun to lose their utility by the 19th century, rarely did persons have to endure the grueling inquisitions into distant parentage through birth records. However, laws requiring limpieza de sangre were still sometimes adopted even into the 1800s. For example, an edict of 8 March 1804 by King Ferdinand VII resolved that no knight of the Military Orders could wed without having a council vouch for the limpieza de sangre of his spouse.[4]

Official suppression of such entry requirements for the Army were enacted into law in 16 May 1865,[5] and extended to naval appointments on 31 August, of the same year. In 5 November 1865, a decree allowed children born out of wedlock or illegitimate, for whom ancestry could not be verified, to be able to enter into religious higher education (canons).[6] In 26 October 1866, the test of blood purity were outlawed for the purposes of determining who could be admitted to college education. In 20 March 1870, a decree suppressed all use of blood purity standards in determining eligibility for any government position or any licensed profession.[7]

The rise to power of Francisco Franco and the Falange, which had developed alliances to the racist governments of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, there was some renewed focus by the government on the "unity" of the Spaniards under one religion and one people. However, no statutes were officially enacted to enforce racial purity. The discrimination was still present into the twentieth century in some places like Majorca. No Xueta (descendants of the Majorcan Conversos) priests were allowed to say Mass in a cathedral until the 1960s.

Last edited by Moose; April 16th, 2011 at 08:57 PM.
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #51
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 909
Moose
Default

My point being, you can't make sense of Christianity versus race until you've established the history of race, ie when the supposed conflict began.

1. The idea of a racial bond (genetic rather than religious) between whites of various lineage didn't become necessary until co-habitation with non-whites.

2. Whites have never really been threatened racially until recently. I think this is an important thing to understand. It flies over most WNs heads.

Whites have never banded together because they never needed to, until now. We've always been on top. Not because Christian theology disallowed it; it never had the chance to disallow it until recently.

Blacks, mestizos, et al are all racial because human nature bands them together. They are, or were, outsiders in what was perceived by everyone as a White man's country from the top down, believed most of all by Whites. The same reason Southerners are typed as racist, contact and threat.

Last edited by Moose; April 16th, 2011 at 05:13 AM.
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #52
Sam Savage
Junior Member
 
Sam Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: If you don't know where I am, how do you expect me to know where I am!
Posts: 151
Sam Savage
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
2. Whites have never really been threatened racially until recently. I think this is an important thing to understand. It flies over most WNs heads.
I disagree, western Europe was subject to invasions by non-whites several times. I am not going to research the exact dates, but I am sure you are aware of:

(1) The invasion of Attila The Hun and his hordes.
(2) The invasion of the Muslims up through Spain.
(3) The invasions of the Khans and their hordes.
(4) The invasion of the Turks.

You cannot say that whites have never really been threatened, these were serious invasions that could have easily ended the white race. Let us not forget that our racial cousins the Greeks stopped the Persians at Thermopile, if the Persians had been successful they could have easily spread through the rest of Europe.
__________________
Why am I a werewolf?
Why am I always talking to myself?
Why are you talking to me?
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #53
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Christianity viewed the Cathars as a true enemy, and the enemy was exterminated forthwith. The jews, in contrast, were “elder brothers in Christ,” disappointing but indispensable to Christian theology. In addition, they didn’t proselytize and didn’t threaten Christianity in that way. For these reasons, the jews were kept around in a painful codependency relationship, the only such widely tolerated minority in Christian Europe. The most bizarre feature of the relationship was that Christians but not jews were barred from the usury business; the jews were going to hell anyway. In the meantime, Christian anti-Semitism made the jews very wealthy. Christinsanity strikes again.
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #54
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

re Post #50:

This was taken verbatim from Wiki. Without giving sources, some may infer that you wrote this material yourself. One should always give credit.
Plagiarism is a major sin and should be avoided like the plague.

Limpieza_de_sangre Limpieza_de_sangre
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #55
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,144
notmenomore
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I believe "Which Way Western Man" has a chapter or two on the author's trip through institutional christianity from the perspective of a man on the path to becoming a priest, if i recall correctly.



Since WWWM continues as a top-ten classic of intellectually supportable racialism, I'd add here that understanding the often overlooked early chapters pertaining to Simpson's growth through an extended time of very hard-core Christinsanity is a most worthwhile exercise in developing a sustainable racial weltanschauung. Simpson spent years living under a doctoral level case of insane religious lunacy, complete with vows of poverty and entrenched egalitarianism.



What's really interesting to me about Simpson's personal growth out of his dead ended religious ideology is not so much his later embrace of Nietzsche as rather the fact that he never actually finds it necessary to disavow or reject his Xtian roots. Rather, he simply outgrows them into a vastly more erudite and comprehensive understanding. I'd say that he eventually outgrows Nietzsche as well. In so doing Simpson - perhaps inadvertently - reveals one of the great tricks the jew built into its Christinsane propaganda: the combination of a level of common sense and rational moral and ethical instruction with a totally debilitating, destructive, dishonest, and anti-intellectual fantasy. I'd like to think that more WN would become familiar with the moral and, yes, mystical implications of Simpson's developed worldview (and Bill Pierce's by extension, too). Both men recognized the necessity of creating a White ideology that would not deny the fundamental tendency of humans to gullibly become victims of the shaman shyster - jew or otherwise. Both found non-destructive and intellectually honest ways to accommodate and to integrate the White man's inherent mysticism with the eventually practical inability to answer final questions posed by the real universe.



So: a review of WWWM's early chapters can be beneficial.



Of course Mein Kampfe offers much is this area, albeit stated rather subtly. (I think AH was reluctant to be to obvious in his distaste for the Christinsane, given the recognizable influence of the Church over too many Germans at that time. )



A more explicit (if, sadly, excessively pedantic) coverage can be found in Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century . Somehow I doubt that many WN will find the time to spend here, although Rosenberg's ideas of the development of a racial soul, and the mystical and spiritual implications of this thinking for NS and for Whites generally do lead both forward and also back toward the original roots of European mysticism.
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #56
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default In answer to Alex

I really do not know of a good essay that sums up the case against Christianity from a white racialist point of view. Maybe I will have to write it myself.
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #57
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 909
Moose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
re Post #50:

This was taken verbatim from Wiki. Without giving sources, some may infer that you wrote this material yourself. One should always give credit.
Plagiarism is a major sin and should be avoided like the plague.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre
Busted! You got me Rick. I didn't think I would get caught. Foolish of me to think I could slip anything by the Ronsanator.
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #58
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
Busted! You got me Rick. I didn't think I would get caught. Foolish of me to think I could slip anything by the Ronsanator.
The guy is strict. I'm surprised he didn't catch this one of mine.

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p...46#post1261346

It came from a Mel Gibson movie called Payback and I didn't give the source.
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #59
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 909
Moose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Savage View Post
I disagree, western Europe was subject to invasions by non-whites several times. I am not going to research the exact dates, but I am sure you are aware of:

(1) The invasion of Attila The Hun and his hordes.
(2) The invasion of the Muslims up through Spain.
(3) The invasions of the Khans and their hordes.
(4) The invasion of the Turks.

You cannot say that whites have never really been threatened, these were serious invasions that could have easily ended the white race. Let us not forget that our racial cousins the Greeks stopped the Persians at Thermopile, if the Persians had been successful they could have easily spread through the rest of Europe.
I was trying to establish that brotherly co-operation, to find a term off the top off my head, between various European tribes was the result of Christianity. This is what established our relations. When Germans sent military support during the Muslim invasion of the Balkans for example, this was religiously based rather than racial. Germanic people didn't help Slavic people in the Balkans when non-white people invaded for racial reasons. Collectivism between whites was always religious.

That we're racially bonded is relatively new. American white nationalism is result of the mating situation in America, and that we're in direct competition with non-whites on the same soil under the same state. Racial tradition is not typical amongst whites in America because even though we've always been in contact with non-whites, whites were always the "oppressors" (winners).

I was trying to point out that we're constantly finding philosophical weakness amongst whites without realizing that race consciousness was never a matter of necessity as it was with non-whites (thus why all non-whites in America have a strong racial consciousness).

Where there was reason to necessitate racial consciousness amongst whites (the South), we find racial consciousness, and there hand in hand with Christianity.

You have to understand the history of the situation before you contemplate what role Christianity might play in subverting white racial consciousness.
 
Old April 16th, 2011 #60
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 909
Moose
Default

Christianity survives today, through the crucibles of Western man's tradition of reason and scientific discovery, and the material excesses of our corner of the world, for only one reason; it provides what no other alternative has ever provided, communion/community.

The problem with it is not so much that it's really (really!) incompatible with racial consciousness, but that it is competition. This is the problem the National Socialists really had with it. They were trying to rebuild collectivism around blood, and Christianity got in the way.

Today, one can be a hedonist/materialist (non-philosophical kwan), a secular humanist (liberal kwan), a Christian (a kwan with morals and community) or a white nationalist.

Last edited by Moose; April 16th, 2011 at 10:13 PM.
 
Reply

Tags
christianity

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 AM.
Page generated in 0.21987 seconds.