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

Old January 22nd, 2011 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default White Nationalists Argue with Catholic Traditionalists (Kalb, et al.)

[found this on alternativeright.com in comments section]

parmenicleitus 10 months ago in reply to James Kalb

Mr. Kalb-

Thank you for the reply.

Well, OK, at least you have it out in the open that you desire a Catholic Christian "alternative right." As it is, I see nothing in this that's "alternative" to the progressive social manipulation popular at present, as this is really what you are offering. It's simply rearranging the deck-chairs.

First, no where did I say anything about "returning to the egg," nor did I deny the fact that (some) "pagan" Greeks developed cosmopolitan ideals or that "spirit" was opposed to flesh, or that I think Germanic warbands are a better

alternative, or a way of life for all of us of Euro-descent. What I did say is that the contexts for these to arise were different than what Catholic Christianity proposes (Universalist ideology) and that culture by its very definition offers the very things you seek without the social engineering of ideologies. Simply put, there was, and is, no such movement called "Paganism." Indigenous cultures were just that, rooted in a place, not idea; and plural, while remaining related in some very basic concepts. Such a monolithic characterization is that of the Christians themselves, not of pre-Christian peoples of Europe, or us *un-Christian* people at present. Christianity is anti-cultural, since it evaluates abstraction as superior and operates from the top down. Cultures are rooted,
literally, and climb upward, with abstractions, well, abstracted from a ground of collective experience in-the-world amongst a people in a place. Again, cultures are not founded in "ideas" or "beliefs." That is ideology.

Your assumption that I desire a "return to the egg," of course, evinces the linear time concepts of Christian eschatology on which your faith depends, even as enmeshed as it has become with Aristotelian teleology. In a word, it is a concept of "progress" and the very root of the modern sense of that term. It doesn't follow, however, that because I reject this notion of time and history, that I subscribe to a simple circular "Eternal Recurrence of the Same" either, as time is neither wholly objective or subjective but an interweaving of both, and as such, is highly depended upon culture. Teleology/Eschatology are not, an never have been, the only game in town. Time, like the hierarchies in Alex Kurtagic's latest piece, isn't a singular phenomenon. Rome doesn't set the clock we all dance to.

The strange thing here, is that given your own concept of time, (expressed presently as a denial of an ovarian return) and the Catholic Church's inconsistency and "progress," you cannot return to Medieval Catholicism or any
other such "traditional" phase as might be imagined. The fact of the matter is, your source of "authority" has changed its views on numerous occasions regarding various issues and begs the question of whether or not Catholicism, despite its very name, really represents a consistent "tradition" at all outside the wavering inconsistencies on parade in the name of the "Universal Church".

Cultures are not ideas, they are not abstractions, but the very meeting place, the very world, you are postulating without the need of Catholicism or any of the Abrahamic faiths to justify their existence. Cultures do not require a universal faith, yet such faith is actually parasitic upon culture. Cultures are the very worlds of men, and developed quite apart from Christianity and predate it. Christianity could never have developed without cultures, and has always held an ambivalent attitude toward that essential part of humans. Catholicism will continue to reinterpret its role according to cultural values, and for us, reinterpret what it means to be of European descent, being the ideology that it is.

As such, it will not be long before the office of the Pontiff Maximus will be filled with an Black African or Hispanic, and the air will abound with hermeneutical apologia defending the "authoritative," but sanctimonious, separation of the man from the office, but in such a case, you will be further distancing the Church from Europe and actual Europeans. European identities (and those of their descendent's) will be relegated to the realm of abstract ideas. Once again, universalist ideology trumps place, people, and culture...As such, your proffered "alternative" is a well-worn, well-trodden path that is, indeed, circular. We're where we are because of it.

Catholicism does not get to set up the parameters of what constitutes "religion," (culture, really) and decide upon based on the scales of those self-serving parameters, what constitutes "true" religion. Such a dilemma as "true" and "false" religion is, in itself, silly, and based upon the artifice of abstraction, namely that religion can be abstracted from a living culture.


I don't reject European civilization, nor am I positing a revisionist past presuming that there's been no Christianity. Nothing is further from my mind. My point is that the path of ideology is well-worn, that Christianity is an ideology, that ideology can't be equated to culture, and that an "alternative right" is not alternative at all, if we continue to follow an anti-cultural ideology. Christianity, a universal ideology, has always piggy-backed culture to give it some manner of coherency (which I think is little), not the other way around.

While I would agree with you the Christianity was heavily Hellenized, I would also submit that it was heavily Romanized and Germanized. The Romans provided the means of an expansive, Imperium that coincided with Christianity's
inherent evangelism, which they freely adopted in becoming a State religion. The Germanic qualities of native industriousness, adventure, and spirited bellicosity, and even some governing institutions, have always underlaid European success, though little credit is given them, perhaps in penalty of not converting on time (i.e. the Vikings) in the name of their "progress."

All the above concessions only serve to demonstrate the inconsistency, incoherency and opportunistic features that have gone into creating the fog that is Christianity.




parmenicleitus 10 months ago

I believe I can see the push for this to become a Christian "alternative right" in this piece, even while I agree with many of the premises and respect Mr. Kalb and some of his writing.

That fact of the matter is, that while Christians bemoan "secular rationality," it is their very theology that dominates the day, and has led to where we are, namely "secular rationality." The whole split between "secular" and "spiritual" is, in turn, based in a dual ontology and given voice in Matthew 22: 21-22, or, as one study put it, it made possible the notion of the "Kings Two Bodies."

Theocracy is the split side of this coin. For a "spiritual authority" to gain power over what is ostensibly "un-spiritual," or namely "secular," is, of course, yet another way of giving credence to the very theology and ontology in question. In short, both "secularism" and "theocracy" are derived from the same source.

There was, and is, a possibility, in our "pagan" roots, which through Christian libel has been relegated to so-called "nature" worship (whatever that means). The ancient Hellenes centered their lives around the hearth (Hestia) both in their homes (oikos) and their cities (polis). This bound the people not only as families, but as a culture, a political unit, with *real* religion (to be bound together) focused always around and through Hestia.

Thus, while private and public were distinct, they were always bound together organically, as were the particular and general. The fussiness regarding them began when "logos" was torn away from "mythos" (even while in reality it remained a "mythos" in itself) and became even more exacerbated with logos was torn from the Kosmos itself finding its "origin" in the "Absolutely Other".

This was mirrored in Rome as well. Traditionalist Christians, and Christians in general, harp on about the family, yet had no compunction destroying the basis of Roman religion which was founded directly, like the Hellenes, in and upon the family. Like the Hellenes, the Romans had a hearth in both their homes and in their City (Vesta). All in all, religion, by definition, was destroyed in favor an ideology, which co-opted the term "religion" and transformed from family life to "universal children of God." "Secularism" has simply come to call it "humanity." "Religion" became a "bond" of ideas to be spoken (logos) rather than anything to do with "physis" (coming into being, growth, etymologically tied to the word "be."). As such Christianity is an ideo-logos, giving precedence to idea and speech over phenomena and imagery.

As this article has demonstrated, Christians feel no compulsion in utilizing de-contextualized "pagan" thought as it suits them...again, all things to all men. Plato did believe in a split between the "idea" and "mere physis," but it was always in context of *both* being in the same Kosmos (world-order). Christianity believes in a complete split between "natura" (a horrible translation of "physis") and an infinite, absolute "spiritus" which is ultimately unworldly and completely disengaged and separate from the world of "natura." At the end of the day, these are different ontologies, and don't necessarily add up to the same thing. In so saying, I also don't hold in high estimation the seemingly common assumption that Plato was somehow equivalent to a "Pope of Paganism". He simply didn't speak for all "pagan" thought, no matter how influential he was or remains. Life is simply more than matters of "thought" and "belief."

My point is that Christian ontological speculation and theology have ruled the day and have led to the very crisis in which we find ourselves. While on the surface Christians, such as Mr. Kalb and Patrick Ford, bemoan the same "secular rationality" as many who are undecided or already inclined to a more "polytheist" attitude, what they are really offering is a more reified solidification of the very metaphysical presumptions that led to this crisis in the first place: namely an ontologically dualist monolatry from the East.
 
Old January 22nd, 2011 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

parmenicleitus 10 months ago

I could only expect this much from Christians: more lying. All things to all men indeed.

First, your sense of history is rather, well, lacking. While it is undeniable that Christians stopped Islam from spreading into Europe, it seems you have no understanding of Islam, even in plain historicity. Christianity pre-dates Islam, and is tied to it. Christianity was the State religion of the Byzantine Empire through which Muhammad traveled and traded as a merchant. Islam is a reaction to what was perceived as both Christian and Jewish decadence, from yet another Abrahamic and yes, Semitic, perspective. But, the real meat is that if there were no Judaism, there'd be no Christianity, and hence no Islam. So, your point regarding who stopped Islam's advance is circular at best. None of the monotheisms like competition, after all, though Judaism is historically more or less indifferent to other religions.

Secondly, the main feature of monotheism in general, and Abrahamic "religion" in particular, is intolerance. No. I'm not speaking of "oppressed" women, minorities, etc. It is the distinction between "true" and "false" religion to which I refer. No such nonsense existed from a "pagan" perspective. Again, monotheism doesn't like competition, even within its own ranks.

Third, there is no such thing as "paganism" for it never was an "-ism," in the sense of a monolithic bloc.

Following from this, "paganism" isn't a "nature" religion as you (with your Wiccan Moon-Goddess crap), and your Hebraic-minded forebears couldn't, and can't, seem to understand. Religions, in the truest since of the word ("to bind together") was embedded in , and inseparable from, the cultures (in the truest, rock-bottom sense of *that* term) unlike Christianity which is an ideology which masquerades as "religion," but can't understand the fact that culture/religion isn't based in "ideas." While there are certain central features consistent in Indo-European religions (stemming, of course, from their shared Indo-European origin) the varieties of outlook on those themes came from, and comes from, the very places that IE's settle and live. Christianity, being an ideology, is u-topic, it has no place, but that doesn't mean it transcends place. It has simply subverted place for idea, a people for "belief".

It must be said, as well, that these various cultures had no teleological/eschatological "purpose." They were simply lived. Religion was, and is, the living of men, not a set of "beliefs" or a "faith."

Christianity had its day and nearly every failure of the "West" (again, an idea) can be pointed back to it. Christianity has opened the floodgates to, and created, "humanity" in a way that European polytheism never could, or would. Egalitarianism, the cult of the "individual," bureaucracy, the "anything goes" attitude, the myth of "progress," ( from Christian eschatology) multiculturalism, etc, can all find their origins in the cult of Christ, and its ever-shifting reinterpretation and subjectivity. The cult of Christ is, at rock bottom, anti-cultural, anti-family, anti-topic (being the universalistic screed that it is), appending itself however it could, and can, gain the most followers. I'm certain the hermeneutic atmosphere will be thick with apologia when you Catholics get your first black African Pope...But, then again, the "West," and Europe, are simply *ideas* that can be borne within by anyone "chosen by God", Belloc notwithstanding.

All in all, you have no clue of what you are talking about and Christianity has nothing left to offer us...except hope and change. Whoop-tee-doo!

And, no, I don't slaughter goats in the name of Thor. My gods aren't jealous little Middle Eastern tyrants who demand my worship before all else, if at all most of the time...
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Been reading James Kalb's blog here:

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2867

Going to respond to some of his arguments in this thread.

Particularly interesting that he sees 'PC' as a natural, organic evolution of a certain type's thinking rather than something constructed and imposed by a specific group, like, uh, jews.
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #4
Cesar Tort
Junior Member
 
Cesar Tort's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Particularly interesting that he sees 'PC' as a natural, organic evolution of a certain type's thinking rather than something constructed and imposed by a specific group, like, uh, jews.
Although I suspect that “Conservative Swede”, the blogger who recently vaporized his blog (out of fear of a police action after what happened to Fjordman because of the Breivik incident) is, like Fjordie, a half-Jew or something, the above thoughts remind me Swede’s view on Christianity. Liberalism & suicidal mass migration into the US and Europe understood as the deranged altruism in Western morals that started in Christianity and which was washed out, but ironically strengthened by, secular humanists after the Enlightenment. “With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics.”

Source.
__________________
http://chechar.wordpress.com/
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #5
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2867

dead link

i look at this to get a feel

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The link works for me.

More and more I see that the loudly bruited opposition between traditional catholicism and secular enlightenment is a deliberately posed false opposition, like Republican/Democrat.
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesar Tort View Post
Although I suspect that “Conservative Swede”, the blogger who recently vaporized his blog (out of fear of a police action after what happened to Fjordman because of the Breivik incident) is, like Fjordie, a half-Jew or something, the above thoughts remind me Swede’s view on Christianity. Liberalism & suicidal mass migration into the US and Europe understood as the deranged altruism in Western morals that started in Christianity and which was washed out, but ironically strengthened by, secular humanists after the Enlightenment. “With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics.”

Source.
I like the way the guy above puts it: christ-insanity is an ideology. It is universalist, and deliberately unmoored from any race or place.
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #8
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default

the link now works, after an hour of not.
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

One thing that bothers catholics about racialism, even apart from their dogmas, is that their whole shtick is about how man is more than an animal, and racialism, by insisting that the mere what-men-are is a better grounds for founding a community than what-men-believe, is humiliating to them.
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #10
Cesar Tort
Junior Member
 
Cesar Tort's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 88
Default

See also Greg Johnson's reply to the Christians at OD here (my chosen excerpts).
__________________
http://chechar.wordpress.com/
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesar Tort View Post
See also Greg Johnson's reply to the Christians at OD here (my chosen excerpts).
This means that all kinds of men can share heaven. Now, if a black Christian is good enough to share heaven with, on what grounds is he not good enough to share your neighborhood, water fountain, or city bus? On what grounds can you deny that he can enter holy matrimony, one of the sacraments of the church, with your sister or daughter?

Johnson gets it. Unfortunately, far too many WN do not. They can't disentangle the incidental from the essential so they attribute to the cult virtues it doesn't possess and fail to attribute flaws it does.
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #12
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default

Enough for a lifetime of discussion.

Intellectuals: These people are living in highly protected, highly subsidized contexts. They know jack about making things, or about business. They live by threats- put money in that plate, or go to hell. Put money in that IRS plate, or go to federal prison. Jews use force of government for their money scam. None of these groups thinks like engineers. Their writings remind me of "word salads" of schizophrenics.

I split intellectuals into two groups- those dealing with ideas, and those dealing with stuff (physicality) and ideas. The former rule the world. That is, people who could not build a shed in their backyards rule the world. Deep "thinkers" who barely know how to use a screwdriver rule us. Their world-view is one perpetual pipe-dream. The PSYCHOLOGY of these people is basically split from the harsh facts. There is the dualism- why tie the mind into facts when one is relieved from dealing with vulgar material reality? The works of the engineering types just pour in, LIKE MAGIC.

If you want more, subsidize it . The magical thought of these "intellectuals" gets lots of income. What incentive do they have to introduce facts into their theologies?

I have never heard on an engineer who changed his career to something in the social sciences. Yet this type is what we need, as engineers will not brook ANY nonsense.

What percent of these "thinkers" is sexually deviant as compared to the general population? The point I'm trying to make here is that those involved in the humanities are proportionally not playing with a full deck.

If engineering types took over the humanities, this stuff would stop in the blinking of an eye. Those dealing with ideas alone- feminine. Those dealing with facts- masculine.

Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; September 1st, 2011 at 06:12 PM.
 
Old September 2nd, 2011 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
I split intellectuals into two groups- those dealing with ideas, and those dealing with stuff (physicality) and ideas. The former rule the world. That is, people who could not build a shed in their backyards rule the world. Deep "thinkers" who barely know how to use a screwdriver rule us. Their world-view is one perpetual pipe-dream. The PSYCHOLOGY of these people is basically split from the harsh facts. There is the dualism- why tie the mind into facts when one is relieved from dealing with vulgar material reality? The works of the engineering types just pour in, LIKE MAGIC.
You're not giving them enough credit. Their expertise is social engineering. Your engineers have mastered mud and wood; their engineers have mastered people. Your bias tells you the former is a higher skill than the latter. But that's not the only way to look at it.

The Nazis are the only serious subset of White men that I know of that ever took a serious approach to understanding jews and competing with them. And they were successful. No other group of whites has even tried to get in the game - the Catholic church, most notably, basically said "we're better than that" and refused to engage by adopting ostensibly higher-minded politics that amount to concession and submission in the real world.

In the same way that most men are women (take views from others), and most whites are niggers (judge by externals), most WN are Southerners (not interested in others, only themselves). To win in the game of politics you must study the enemy microscopically. As the jews study the White man, and as the Nazis (uniquely among white men) studied the jew.

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 2nd, 2011 at 01:46 PM.
 
Old September 2nd, 2011 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

We have to beat jews they way they can be beaten, not the way we'd like to beat them.
 
Old September 9th, 2011 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Was pondering the affectlessness in Kalb. You could say, he's a lawyer. He's deliberately draining the drama. He's doing it the right way. But it might rather be he and the licks feel about multiculturalism, or neo-communism, the way they feel about original or paleocommunism or communism or ur-communism: kind of mehhy. I don't think they see it as a real threat. What's a threat to a lick? Something that could supersede it. Communism or multicommunism are no threat in that regard. Not to catholicism, anyway. That accounts for the lack of urgency in Kalb's tone.
 
Old September 9th, 2011 #16
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Kalb keeps very much away from specific or concrete examples of his generalizations. This doesn't put him in Mary Baker Eddy territory, where your entire thing is rotating and reversing a handful of abstractions, but it's an awfully curious way to go about political analysis, because specific examples are much more memorable than mere generalizations; they fix those general rules in the mind, and show you exactly what he means in a real-life situation. Whenever someone sticks purely to abstractions and generalizations, you begin to get the feeling he does it to protect himself, so that he can back-fit any particular counter-example an opponent dredges up into his system.
 
Old September 9th, 2011 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Licks like Kalb are big on social order. Consider this. What has ZOG done to disrupt Catholics compared to what it has done to disrupt Whites? What has government done to catholicism comparable to injecting African niggers into the whitest areas in every state, passing all kinds of legal discrimination against them?

Kalb says, flatly asserts, that race cannot be the basis of social order. Yet it manifestly is, and is perceived to be so by the organizations run by the enemies of one of the races.

Does a Catholic white criminal stuck in jail say to himself, "Phew, a bunch of my Mexican Catholic brothers are in here, I'll be fine"? If not, why not? Kalb can't answer the question.
 
Old September 9th, 2011 #18
Cameron Cook
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 51
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Does a Catholic white criminal stuck in jail say to himself, "Phew, a bunch of my Mexican Catholic brothers are in here, I'll be fine"? If not, why not? Kalb can't answer the question.
Kalb can discuss it the matter calmly, though, and while we may criticize him and say, look, you've got some hypocrisy to deal with, he's not someone we need to go ballistic against. He'll entertain racialist notions and his overall framework meshes superbly with WN. It's good to have his voice because he's so mild temperamentally, and it's not hard to switch out his false premises for racially realistic ones. So go ahead and switch them out--he's not stopping you.

It would be a major mistake to get shrill towards him. In the course of daily events there are times when I need to get mean and call out Hymey Kikestein. But there other times when a more muted and patient tone is better, and Kalb is one of the best models for that sort of discussion.
 
Old September 9th, 2011 #19
Cameron Cook
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 51
Blog Entries: 1
Default

FYI, I respect the grain of salt with which my remarks should be taken. In relation to someone like Linder I am a poseur and a hobbyist.
 
Old September 10th, 2011 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

I haven't finished reading Kalb's stuff, but I notice a strong proclivity for avoiding obvious questions. He doesn't ask himself, in what I've read, the most basic sort of questions one would use to verify one's assertion about race not being a suitable basis for a social order. "Can I think of any examples that suggest otherwise?" How about prisons? How about Japan? How about free citizens relocating within multiracial states?

Unless I see him deal with these without their being pointed out, it's an example of a clear deficiency of something.

If religion is the basis of social order, how come blacks and whites in America can't get along, when high percentages of both are christian?

These are very simple questions Kalb can't answer.

Again I assert that it's humiliating to religious fantastists like Kalb to admit that a simple biological classification outweighs all their lofty imaginings when it comes to producing simple sub-celestial order. Just as a Baptist is embarassed he's descended from an ape because in his heart he knows on a bad-hair day an outside server would be hard pressed to see a difference, the Catholic intellectual is too full of hubris to accept that what we are matters more than transient thoughts about the way the world might or should be.

People are animals. But Catholics can't admit that because their dogma says they're higher than animals. Same problem we find with jews. Catholics can't admit jews are different and incompatible animal from/to White men. So, by refusing, for ideological reasons, to allow those differences to be observed, accepted and acted upon, the Catholic lays the basis for disorder. Culminating in the destruction of his own church and the wider society he believes his cult is uniquely qualified to lead.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 PM.
Page generated in 0.28890 seconds.