Kevin MacDonald: I went through a Nietzsche phase as an undergrad philosophy major but never read The Anti-Christ, so Thomas Dalton’s current TOO article “Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity” was a real eye-opener — the ultimate conspiracy theory: St. Paul as the center of a plan to counter Roman power by recruiting non-Jews to “to steal away their moral authority and place it, ultimately, in the hands of a Jew who would sooth their suffering, and ‘save’ them.” The result of the triumph of Christianity was a Jewish slave morality — “a catastrophe of the highest magnitude. … countering every aspect of Roman morality and spirituality, and … establishing a system favorable to Jewish interests.” A morality born of “the hatred and revenge of the Jews.”
What an incredible feat: to turn Europeans away from their own western heritage — a noble, life-affirming Greco-Roman culture — and toward a foreign, alien, decadent, Oriental worldview. And it was done as revenge, out of hatred, and built upon lies. An ancient religion — Judaism — born of falsehood and lies, creates another born of falsehood and lies. It is done for reasons of power, control, wealth, and survival. And the lie prevails.
Anything bordering on religion is always likely to provoke intense feelings and for good reason. Since I am an evolutionist, I see all religion as a sort of ideology — a belief system that gives meaning and coherence to the world, and motivates behavior. The only important question is whether the ideology furthers or hinders the evolutionary aims of the people who believe in it. In that sense, Jewish religious ideology has tended to be quite adaptive for Jews — regulating marriage and providing for group cohesion and negative views of non-Jews, etc.
What about Christian ideology? Here the record is quite a bit more mixed, but in general I am much more positive about Christianity than Nietzsche. Regarding the ancient Roman world, the following is a passage from my review of David Sloan Wilson’s Darwin’s Cathedrals:
Particularly interesting is the discussion of early Christianity based on the work of Rodney Stark (1996). Early Christianity emerges as a non-ethnic form of Judaism that functioned as a way of producing cohesive, effective groups able to deal with the uncertainties of the ancient world. The ancient world was a very unpredictable place indeed, characterized by natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, rioting, epidemics, brutal military campaigns against civilians, famines, and widespread poverty. Navigating this world was greatly facilitated by co-religionists ready to lend a helping hand and to establish economic alliances. Wilson has no hesitation in supposing that Christian charity in extending aid to fellow Christians suffering from the plague involved altruism, as indeed it did. But the result was that more Christians survived these disasters than did Pagans: Christianity was adaptive at the group level. The adaptiveness of Christianity also stemmed from its emphasis on several attitudes that were notably lacking in the Roman Empire: encouragement of large families, conjugal fidelity, high-investment parenting, and outlawing of abortion, infanticide, and non-reproductive sexual behavior. The bottom line is that Christian women did indeed out-reproduce Pagan women. Other obvious examples of religiously mandated fertility and family-promoting values in the contemporary world are the Amish and Hutterites, the Mormons, and Orthodox Jews. All of these religions are characterized by social controls and religious ideologies that promote adaptive behavior at the group level.
Further, Christianity has at times been a very effective force against Judaism. Indeed, in Ch. 3 of Separation and Its Discontents I argue that the institutionalization of Christianity in the late Roman Empire was fundamentally an anti-Jewish movement. See here for the short version. I note there that these fundamentally anti-Jewish attitudes remained Church teaching and influenced Church policy until Vatican II. I also note that
on the one hand, there is no question that Catholicism was able to serve as a viable institution of ethnic defense in other historical eras, notably the Middle Ages when, as James C. Russell notes, the Church was influenced by German culture. On the other hand, the strands of Christian universalism can lead to compromising the ethnic interests of Christians. Indeed, since Vatican II, Catholicism has become part of the culture of Western suicide. In the US, it is in the forefront of the open borders movement. It is therefore not at all surprising that Jewish organizations would be dismayed by any retreat from Vatican II.
As Russell notes, Germanic culture was not submerged by Christianity. My view is that a biological tendency toward individualism is a far better explanation of Western institutions since the Enlightenment than Christianity. There is much else to be said — too much to get into in a blog. Suffice it to say that whatever St. Paul intended in creating Christianity, he could not control the outcome in its long later history.
Nevertheless, I do think that Christian universalism remains a problem for European survival. In commenting on Evangelical Protestants in the US, I noted their high fertility and strong sense of family values as clearly adaptive. However,
A great many Christian denominations, including some evangelical groups, are strong supporters of multi-racial immigration and quite a few Christian groups avidly seek converts from all races and ethnicities. My impression is that most white Christians live in an implicit white world. Their gut instincts are to preserve an America that has at least a vague resemblance to the world in which they grew up.
There is no question that Christian Zionism has been a negative force on US foreign policy in the Middle East, although. as Mearsheimer and Walt note, it is very doubtful that they would have any influence at all without the support and encouragement of the Israel Lobby.
I do think that race will trump religion in American politics in the sense that White Americans will realize that importing millions of non-White Christians from Mexico and elsewhere is a horrible idea. Race is a far more powerful variable in predicting people’s political affiliations than religion, and that will continue as the racial polarization of America continues and the Republican Party (or, hopefully, the A3P) becomes the party of Whites. Implicitly at least, White people who are strong Christians understand that they have far more in common with atheists, agnostics and liberal Protestants who are White than they do with non-White Christians. The fact that Conservative Protestants defied their leaders and were strong supporters of immigration restriction in the period of ethnic defense that culminated in the 1924 law shows that they can be rallied to sensible causes. The fact that so many of them are now involved in the Tea Party opposition movement and the rallies against immigration amnesty of recent years shows that they have healthy instincts.
So I remain optimistic that Christianity will ultimately prove to be an evolutionarily adaptive ideology for Christians.
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
me said: “Eileen, as i have said before, this is not the first time someone’s thought of this…”
Well, I didn’t say or mean that I was the first one to think of this. (Sheesh.)
I simply pointed out that the ‘turn the other cheek’ rule will most likely not be beneficial in the long run when we are confronted by other, competing groups.
You said that ‘turn the other cheek’ “has never meant what you think it means”, but then you go on to quote some other, unrelated scripture to defend that notion of yours. You CANNOT demonstrate that ‘turn the other cheek’ doesn’t mean EXACTLY what it says from the passages where that quote appears because, of course, those passages support what I said — that ‘turn the other cheek’ is a completely pacifistic message, one that will not serve any group of people in the long run if they are confronted with competitors.
Frankly, the fact that there are so many conflicting lessons from Jesus in the New Testament demonstrates that either 1) Jesus was seriously confused and hadn’t fully worked out his “message” to the people of Earth before he started preaching, or 2) the New Testament is the product of a lot of different minds with differing ideas and interpretations of what Jesus (may or may not have) said, many of which were Jewish minds — which is the original problem that Nietzsche and Dalton addressed.
Bourdain says:
Adam,
Those cases you conceive of being examples of mutualistic symbiosis involved suppression of Jews and Jewish influence through violence, exclusion, legal/political control, domination, etc. Hence they can’t really be conceived as being examples of mutualism but rather as the beneficial side effects of repressing parasites.
So you wish to assert the “family values” promoted by early Christianity weren’t adaptive in themselves, and wouldn’t have been good unless they were associated with attacks on Jews? I don’t think so. They would have been adaptive even if no repression had taken place. Likewise with the economic benefits that accrued to whites from the expansion of the global technological system. The expansion of that system, working in conjunction with Christianity, caused a white population explosion and enabled whites to dominate the world as of 1900. This was adapative in an evolutionary sense, and would have been so even if there had been no repression of Jews anywhere at any time in history. The subsequent precipitous fall from racial dominance that has characterized the white race in the last 100 years originated from both the working out of a hidden flaw within Christianity (i.e., its universalism) and a side effect of the population transfers stemming from expansion of the global technological system. These population transfers were an ecological disaster that have destroyed the geographic isolation necessary for the continued existence of the white race.
Your view would seem to rule out the possibility of any mutualism where there is a conflict of interests between the two partners. But a dynamic tension between both participants in a symbiotic union always exists. It’s understood that one partner is always trying to take advantage of the other. “Repression” of the Other is an indispensable part of mutualism.
“Frankly, the fact that there are so many conflicting lessons from Jesus in the New Testament demonstrates that either 1) Jesus was seriously confused and hadn’t fully worked out his “message” to the people of Earth before he started preaching, or 2) the New Testament is the product of a lot of different minds with differing ideas and interpretations of what Jesus (may or may not have) said, many of which were Jewish minds — which is the original problem that Nietzsche and Dalton addressed.”
Eileen, does it matter that Christianity has served whites well up until the 1960’s? I’m not saying I’m completely comfortable with Christianity’s equivocations and such. But compared to Spanish English is a nightmarish jumble of inconsistencies as well. Does that mean Spanish is a greater language than English because of What I am saying is that whites became the most powerful people on earth under a Christian regimen. And now the further they move away from Christianity, the weaker and more depraved we become.
Adam,
It’s very easy to misuse ecological concepts as analogies, especially if you don’t understand them.
When you flippantly and incorrectly through terms and concepts around, you mislead and confuse lay readers who aren’t versed in the science.
And you’re attributing ideas and statements to me that I didn’t make.
Bourdain says:
Adam,
It’s very easy to misuse ecological concepts as analogies, especially if you don’t understand them.
When you flippantly and incorrectly through terms and concepts around, you mislead and confuse lay readers who aren’t versed in the science.
And you’re attributing ideas and statements to me that I didn’t make.
That’s the best you can do? LOL. Pathetic!
“I don’t think so. They would have been adaptive even if no repression had taken place.”
An obvious insight. Moving on…
“Likewise with the economic benefits that accrued to whites from the expansion of the global technological system.”
…I’m with you so far…
“The expansion of that system, working in conjunction with Christianity, caused a white population explosion and enabled whites to dominate the world as of 1900. This was adapative in an evolutionary sense, and would have been so even if there had been no repression of Jews anywhere at any time in history.”
…sounds good…
“The subsequent precipitous fall from racial dominance that has characterized the white race in the last 100 years originated from both the working out of a hidden flaw within Christianity (i.e., its universalism) and a side effect of the population transfers stemming from expansion of the global technological system.”
…I notice any culpability of the Jews is conspicuously omitted. Why oh why?
“These population transfers were an ecological disaster that have destroyed the geographic isolation necessary for the continued existence of the white race.”
But you just got done saying that those population expansions were adaptive. And have in the past exhorted racial mixing to the achieve the ‘desirable’ effect of ‘hybrid-vigor’. And why is it set in stone that accompanying population expansion could be ethnic cleansing to achieve said geographic isolation when said cleansing has clearly been the case in many of the White race’s expansions? And just who is it that provides a major impediment to our effecting said ethnic cleansing? And just who is it that would also most likely be subject to said cleansing? Funny how the Jews figure so intimately in how you would answer those questions.
“Your view would seem to rule out the possibility of any mutualism where there is a conflict of interests between the two partners.”
But what’s better for our race, Adam, the Final extirpation of the Jews or the dither on as we have been lo these many centuries? I know what my answer is, even if your father was a short, swarthy, hook-nosed kike.
“You said that ‘turn the other cheek’ “has never meant what you think it means”, but then you go on to quote some other, unrelated scripture to defend that notion of yours. You CANNOT demonstrate that ‘turn the other cheek’ doesn’t mean EXACTLY what it say”
i am often amazed how rigid, almost oriental (as in east asian) the minds of many materialistic atheists are. .. Bobby Burns says “my luv is like a red red rose” does that mean he was in love with a women with rose petals for hair?
You look at it as if they are supposed to be some sort of codified law – when clearly it is not. They require one to THINK. “the sabbath (law ) was made for man” and so forth.
that requires a little more effort than what you have put into understanding them.
“Frankly, the fact that there are so many conflicting lessons from Jesus in the New Testament demonstrates that either 1) Jesus was seriously confused and hadn’t fully worked out his “message” to the people of Earth before he started preaching, or 2) the New Testament is the product of a lot of different minds with differing ideas and interpretations of what Jesus (may or may not have) ”
or 3. you don’t understand them. again, none of these ‘ideas’ asserted by you or the anti-Chrstian crowd are terribly original, and in many ways they are horribly outdated. relying on an ‘clockwork universe’ worldview. Richard dawkins still thinks this way and he’s about 150 years behind modern science (especially physics) outside his field.
what next are you going to come up with the terribly clever and original remark about the trinity…how can it be one god? No one’s EVER thought of that before!
“I would feel much better about those who fought the revolution if I knew they relied upon reason”
Oh yes, the reason based French revolution is a shining example of that. And later reason based communism. Barbara the mind and soul of man is far far more complex and nuanced than we shall ever know, but one thing is for certain, treating reason (or scienece) as a ‘religion’ or ’savior’ has consistently been disastrous for mankind.
I just found the following passage that illustrates well why Christianity is so important to whites. It was written by (pro-white) Comanche Indian David Yeagley. But lots of whites think just like he does, even if they aren’t so explicit.
As KMD has written, Evangelical Christianity is a form of implicit whiteness. It blows my mind that any white would think this is other than a good thing.
This passage discusses why Barack Obama, as a foreigner, will never be accepted as leader of America:
“The notion that a foreign race, a godless heathen, could successfully occupy that Throne [meaning the White House] is a notion that reveals the godlessness that has grown up in the white race, particularly in America. It is the expression of a self-congratulatory, self-idolizing, and self-righteous sentiment, born of a profound displacement, yea, ignorance, of the true God. God created the nations, and the ethnicities, and the races. To dismiss this would seem ominous, (to assign such a purpose to Christian faith, blasphemous).
Once again Adam demonstrates that he is the perfect example of the “Dunning – Kruger effect” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/?tool=pubmed) He simply insults someone if he doesn’t have an answer, flies off with “… that’s the best you can do?” Which is apparently the best he can do.
The West is ripe for a new religion…it is coming within the next few years – 2012 is Year Zero for the White Rebirth.
Barbara C:”White people would have done great things no matter if we still had Druids and I wish we did.”
White Druids still exist – http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/
NEW RELIGION COMING:
“Arnold Toynbee, whose massive A Study of History remains the most comprehensive study of historical cycles, has a great deal to say about what he calls “the schism in society.” As civilizations tip over the brink into decline, he suggests, one of the core symptoms of decay is a split between the dominant minority and the rest of society. The dominant minority has lost whatever capacity it once had to inspire loyalty and emulation, but its hold on the institutions of power remains strong enough that it can’t be unseated; the rest of society, alienated from the values of the dominant minority, becomes an “internal proletariat” ripe for alternative values. When those new values emerge, usually in the form of a new religious movement, they become the framework around which new social patterns begin to coalesce – and about the time this gets well under way, the old social framework of the dying civilization, abandoned from within and assailed from without, comes messily apart.” – http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/this-presupposition-of-passivity.html
Taming Trolls says:
Once again Adam demonstrates that he is the perfect example of the “Dunning – Kruger effect” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/?tool=pubmed) He simply insults someone if he doesn’t have an answer, flies off with “… that’s the best you can do?” Which is apparently the best he can do.
If “Bourdain” feels he has a grievance, it is up to him to articulate it, not simply whine and leave me to guess what he’s complaining about. If he thinks I have incorrectly used terms, then he should say which ones and how; if he believes I have misquoted him, then he should say where. That he doesn’t just shows him up as a dishonest interlocutor; someone who wishes to insinuate he has superior knowledge, but who refuses to offer it up for public inspection. And that is indeed pathetic.
As for the cartoon Nazi and his army of sockpuppets, I don’t feel the need to step in to correct every surly moron who misinterprets what I’ve said. My words can stand on their own for those who have a wish to understand them. I don’t waste my time on those who have no such wish.
to sum up;
a. there is no evidence that Christianity has been detrimental to the West – on the contrary it is an integral part of the West. – theologicaly, philosophically, artistically, morally.
b. however, like our other institutions – most notably academia- it has been corrupted
c. there is a pretty consistent relationship between religsousity /fertility rates – the more secular, the more atheist a country or person, the lower the birthrate.
d. utopian ‘new orders’ based on ‘rationality’ or ‘reason’ have quickly become destructive (pretty poor track record here – French revolution, communism..Ayn Rand!) and are as likely to become universalist.
I don’t know what Sunic and Dalton are trying to accomplish, but whatever it is, i won’t be signing on anytime soon.
What’s the matter “Adam,” is that glass jaw of yours smarting? I didn’t mean it, really, I know your just a lil’ guy, per your dwarfish Semitic ancestry. Funny thing, your tactics of obfuscation are so transparent, so crude, so monumentally ham-fisted and with your venomous hatred for not only our race but for all of non-Kikish humanity oozing out every pore in your body with the shock being for observers that you are able to conceal it for even a second. A better rendering Julius Streicher could not have done. Let me see here, what is the angle that you are playing with such pusillanimity: check to see what MacDonald said regarding issue x on pp. y, do a quick google books search then regurgitate, and every once in a while slip in the strychnine in the form of exhortations to race mixing and to ignore the Jews in lieu of the ‘real problem’ which is of course the ‘global technology system’. LOL! Yup, that really is about it. No wonder you kikes are so nervous, if that’s the best, and you are the best, that they’ve got, which ain’t much.
Since there’s already over 50 comments here, I won’t bother digging out this or that to comment on.
Suffice to say that my position is that of Baron Evola: “primitive Christianity” is the enemy of any virile culture; any “achievements” of Roman Christianity are due to its Roman elements, not the Christian.
As a semitic contrivance, Christianity has always benefited from scriptures containing endorsements of both sides of any issue, along with the well-known but still effective “interpretation” finangle.
Christianity didn’t “end slavery” it just provided the framework for the arguments for and against [remember how God cursed Ham?] and aligned itself with the winner. Before all you Catholics pat yourselves on the back, remember that your opposition to abortion “is just like slavery” so there.
I would like to point out, however, that all these historical counterfactuals are both question-begging ["Without Christianity we'd have infanticide!" Well, in that case, you wouldn't notice any difference, now would you?] and irrelevant.
If the issue is: Is Christianity good for Whites, let’s look at the present day facts.
Who supports “civil rights”? The churches.
Who supports “open borders”? The churches.
Who supports “our Older Sister,” Israel? The churches.
Have you ever debated, or seen a debate, on these issues without being confronted by some jive-talking self-ordained negro “Revrun,” or a weepy-eyed lesbian nun?
Why is it so hard for Whites to recognize their enemies? Oh yeah: Christianity.
Also, for a more nuanced view of Nietzsche [anti-Christian, pro-religion as social function, anti-Nazi] see Julian Young: Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Religion [Cambridge, 2006]. My review should appear in the upcoming issue of TYR but if requested, I could send along a copy to the interested…
me said: “i am often amazed how rigid, almost oriental (as in east asian) the minds of many materialistic atheists are.”
Well, I’m not an atheist, so I don’t know to whom you are referring. I said I was not religious; that does not mean that, therefore, I am an atheist. For the record, I am an agnostic.
me said: “Bobby Burns says ‘my luv is like a red red rose’ does that mean he was in love with a women with rose petals for hair?”
No, because Burns used the word like. In other words, that sentence he wrote there is a simile.
Jesus (according to Matthew) didn’t say “when someone strikes you on the cheek, behave like a pacifist, but really make sure to be on the offensive when the chips are down” (which is what I’m assuming you’re saying, although you haven’t managed to be clear about it).
No. What Jesus said (according to Matthew) was “do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Now, we’re really having an argument for no good reason here, ’cause if you look back on my comments, I already said that I’d rather live in a Western Christian society than any other. I agree, Christian societies — especially Western ones — are pretty d*mn good and nice places to live.
However, there are, in my opinion, some weaknesses to Christianity when it comes to dealing with aggressive outsiders. One is the ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy. Another is Western Christianity’s policy of universalism — anyone can join so long as the agree to the precepts of the faith. Well, frankly, that’s not a good policy because it overlooks the fact that different peoples are different and if you let too many foreigners into your society, your society will inevitably change. Finally, forgiving one’s enemy — that can be a chink in the armor, too.
These, in my view, are some of the weaknesses in Western Christianity. I’m not arguing for throwing out the whole religion. Just sayin’ that there are some problems with it.
Whatever happened to the real ‘crusaders,’ the Christians who were willing to fight and if necessary die for their principles and their people?
Jesus supposedly said: “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword” (Matthew 10:34)
So again I ask: where are all of the modern Christian crusaders taking Jesus’ above statement as divinely revealed fact? Why are they not forming ‘Christ Militias’ and the like to protect themselves and their own? Why has modern Christianity become so weak and effete?
@James O’Meara:
“Who supports “civil rights”? The churches. Who supports “open borders”? The churches.” I see that in your mind, you have identified the dragon, that if slain, will end just about all the problems that the West faces. But would we really be better off without Christianity? Recently, OO has noted that our universities are heavily influenced by the left, and support multiculturalism much more strongly than the churches. Do you therefore suggest we dismantle the universities? I could go on to name hundreds of organizations and institutions that have been subverted, even the Boy Scouts have gone multicultural. Should we therefore dismantle everything? If you would suggest getting rid of Christianity, would you please point to an alternative? Pro-Christians like me wait with great anticipation for a proven replacement, which addresses Whites’ needs for spirituality, is appealing and fulfilling, and gives them the benefits of stable families, good morals and higher birth rates. Of course, we do expect you to offer some evidence along with your proposal, so we know that from experience, it works. Perhaps Tom Sunic and others have some good ideas they might share with you. I urge you to be so good as to provide this alternative, to help lead the pro-Christians out of the darkness of our ignorance and into the light of your knowledge.
@Eileen:
I appreciate your desire to understand Christianity more fully. You raise some good questions, as in the “turn the other cheek” issue. As you know, theologists have discussed these issues for two thousand years, among whom rank some of the greatest philosophers of our civiliation. Historically, Christians accept that “turn the other cheek” is applied to our neighbors, but this is not applied to our external enemies. For example, if you were my neighbor, and did something nasty, I would be advised as a Christian to forgive you and turn the other cheek. But if a criminal is attempting to break in, or if a foreign power is attempting to invade, I am duty bound as a Christian to defend myself and my family. As someone familiar with the bible, you will surely agree that this is a large book which contains many different lessons and ideas, some of which are appropriate for some situations but not others. There are other scriptures that speak of self-defense. Please note that your average Christian is also well-armed in the US, and would not be reluctant to blow the head off an intruder in his home.
Lets look at a historical example. In the waning weeks of 1941, the US was a firmly Christian nation. Unlike today, the vast majority went to church on Sunday, and were true believers. Miscegenation was a crime in many states, segregation was common, and the nation was happy with its restrictionist immigration laws. Most Whites followed the “turn the other cheek” rule with their neighbors, which made life better for most people. Now, one fine December day in that year, the nation was attacked at Pearl Harbor by a foreign power. How many Christians suggested turning the other cheek at this? Very few, because just about everyone understood their inalienable right to self defense. This Christian nation prosecuted the war successfully, people by and large did their duty, and there was hell to pay for Japan in the end.
Hopefully this helps to clarify Christian ideas on how the ethics for private relations between individuals are different than those used between group conflicts. You do point out some valid criticisms with Christianity, such as how some apply its universalism in ways that had never been done before. It is certainly unfortunate that some Christian organizations support immigration and other ideas that are harmful to Whites. I think that pro-Christians would argue that these problems are best addressed by working to take back the churches, rather than try to abolish the religion. Likewise, when faced with leftist universities, we might want to try to recapture higher education rather than abolish it altogether.
Andrew says:
February 2, 2010 at 6:34 PM
@James O’Meara:
Do you therefore suggest we dismantle the universities?
PBE: ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!
All of our Institutions need to be scraped and rebuilt and repeopled – by us.
I realize the chances of that happening just now, but you have to admit, the thought does have it’s charms.
First off, I merely want to comment on a few things before my ranting begins
I found Mr. Dalton’s article to be a breath of fresh air, even though many of you seem to find TOQ biased towards “pagan” writers, I do not see this and enjoy getting to hear the minority within our movement! But than again, I am biased! I consider myself an Odinist, however, such terms are rather pointless and are merely used to signify ourselves amongst the overwhelming spring of religions. I am rather new to this way of thinking, so under no presumptions do I consider myself an expert on these matters, but it is rather hard to set idly by and listen to the bible thumping that has went on amongst this apparently scandalous topic! In fact it gives me much pleasure to see that the atheists/the non-religious/and agnostic rank so highly among world “religions”, in fact, because I know all so well how Christianity and her sister religions (Judaism and Islam) are a hard yoke to throw off. Unlike myself (and others like me), you cannot objectively look at this topic of religion, for you have not “walked in our shoes” as they say. I (and as I said, many like me) have been a Christian and have grew up around nothing but Christians, so I can definitively say, I know what it means to be a Christian – can you honestly say this? I struggled early on in my life with this issue, seeking solace in God’s grace, I went to church and I searched the Bible in earnest and even sought discussion with professed men. But I was always at a loss, none of these things gave me what I sought – answers. This concept, so central to your religion, Faith, was foreign and hidden to me, my reasoning could not allow myself to walk this blind path. I truly sought these things and honestly felt a rebirth within myself to live by God’s will and I did. But the more I awakened to our people’s plight, the more foreign the religion became to me, the more I began to analyze exactly what was going on within me to choose the path of living towards a standard of ethics and not the demagogue of modern culture. I was always lead back to myself and not God. I’m sure this seems rather self-centered to you, but I will retort the simple fact that man will always be self-centered, no matter how much we pray and seek God’s grace, how else do you suspect we have survived as a race for so long? I’m sure you see the Wagoneer in Aesop’s fable (http://www.lodge45.org/stories/hercules.shtml) as egocentric, but I see him as the pioneer for all our people, to turn away from such lowly groveling and to look up, not high, but to what is right in front of us!
I do not expect any of you to read this and open your eyes to what seems so clear to me, no more than you can honestly expect me to listen to your preaching and open mine! But preach to the choir, nonetheless, I will, because someone has to!
“For Nietzsche, Christianity was decadent, weak, and nihilist. It led to sickly, subservient herd morality, and suffocated the quest for human excellence.”
But what about our Renaissance and Enlightment, the scientific discoveries and technological advances, and even our Founding Fathers quest for freedom and happiness? What about all the advancements of mankind done so under the patriarchal guardianship of Christianity and its followers? Here is the misconception that divides our understanding of East vs West. Unlike Christianity, “pagans” see their religion as organic – a very hard term for Christians to grasp because their religion sets no precedent for this understanding, their religion was “created” and drawn out from another’s religion that is alien to the West.(And to clarify what I mean by created, all religion is created, even my own – our people gave the Gods their names and their stories; however, pagans, and I do not mean the farce of neo-paganism you so undeservedly classify us all under, do not bind ourselves to this one-dimensional history, history is repeated and created every day)!
What do I mean by organic? Personally, it is something that is already there, it is wholesome and not merely “a part of ourselves”, no, it is everything within ourselves. These Christian men you speak so highly of were pagan, you cannot deny it unless you wish to erase our history and begin ourselves with your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Odin did not address these men to invent and advance, Zeus did come down from Mt. Olympus to beseech these men no more so than God or Jesus could have possibly done so! It was themselves, their history, their belief in hope for the future, their will, and their manly virtue that set forth their excellence – how demeaning to put forth their great efforts as not their own, but as an unforseen force! How low to see ourselves as servants when these men were innovators and the giants of all that we represent! These men were the wagoneers of our civilization, they are the ones that have succeeded in pushing the cart out of the mud instead of still bended upon one knee looking for divine intervention.
You jest at our lack of “holy books” because our poor and simple Northern ancestors were illiterate, I am not going to point out to you books that were later written to help defend myself in order to simply justify your case, it is meaningless and pointless. I have no need for a holy book, dogma, nor the idiocracy of “faith”, in fact I find these terms distasteful for any person that divulges they are reasonable. My “holy book” is my conscience, by morality is my innate ethics, my “faith” is not blind, I can clearly see the magnificence of the beauty that surrounds me and can too clearly see the ugly blindness that so easily binds others. Why suffocate ourselves to something that impedes us to a past that cannot be fully uncovered, why base our existence upon something stagnant? Organic religions do not hold themselves to a fundamental past, our very being and existence pushes us to move forwards, to grow not only in our human advancements, but spiritually as well. No, we revere our past and our ancestors because they are us! They are not stories in a book, they are the spoken tales of past heroic deeds that live on in our very soul, not verbally passed down (even though such things within our Western heritage would put the short span of Christianity’s fable to pathetic shame) they belong within us and grow with us. We have no need to go a wandering!
Why does this matter, how does it affect our cause???? Once again, think of the wagoneer, do you think this parable could have followed through to it’s moral if written in the hands of the Jews (if they actually bond themselves to their religion so completely)? No, the wagoneer would still be stuck in the mud and be looking to all other places for his help, when what he needed was already possessed by him all along. What future could we possible hold if we do not toil and use what has been given to us (either by nature, coincidence, or intelligent design)? Yes, a bleak future indeed!
I have sooo much more that I want to say, but alas, I am but a humble homeschooling mother and have lost the time for such idle banter. I suppose, anyway, that I should return to my “tree worship” and dancing about naked around the fire as you have so designated me…..
No, because Burns used the word like. In other words, that sentence he wrote there is a simile.
Jesus (according to Matthew) didn’t say “when someone strikes you on the cheek, behave like a pacifist, but really make sure to be on the offensive when the chips are down” (which is what I’m assuming you’re saying, although you haven’t managed to be clear about it).
andrews reply is excellent, but again you are approaching this in a ‘talmudic’ way, – codfied law, which is exactly what Jesus was trying to move away from.
The talmudic way was what was wrong with Hebrews back then and the US today (lawsuit happy, ignoring the spirit of the law, finding ‘technicalities’ that allow criminals go free- a very jewish thing – a ha! if i carry a stone in my pocket I am not breaking the sabbath!)
Do you honestly think that, even if it were a neighbor, that for example, one is supposed to ‘turn the other cheek’ when say, someone is raping your daughter?
the gospels, like anything hav
How can Christianity evolve? Is it possible or even desirable?
Culture and the realization of culture among those of true racial conscious are “striving to improve and enhance oneself… (this) was the ideal state of the mind just as health was the ideal state of the body.” (TOQ “Race, Culture, and Anarchy” by O’Maera Vol. 9 No. 2)
Within Christianity all things are done for God and a preparation for the afterlife. This seems to me to be against a future for our race. How can you as a Christian, devote yourself to such worldly tasks as self-sacrifice for anyone other than God or for his religion? A religion that so openly admits itself to “brotherhood” and “equality” are nothing more than a counter-productive brainwashing.
I am dumbfounded by the responses to Dalton’s article, to bring up such utter nonsense as his historical inaccuracy which neither give nor retract away from his intent! Granted, I believe the article was improperly constructed, IF it was to be used to convince Christians of their debased faith. Honestly, take away what is said about the “history” of the apostles and you are still left with the ugly truth that Christianity lead man towards weakness and a herd mentality – you cannot refute this, simply look at the nation of weaklings it has created – the evidence is all around you!
What man can rightly justify himself as a “warrior for God”… while on his knees! Such weakness has NO place within a society that wishes to excel!
Oh! But of course, there are our knights for Christ, you say? Think about this, how useless is it to claim to be “for Christ”? How can you prove it? Why, I think there is no way you could. This can only be done by God himself who knows all, or through your own conscious, which obviously has seen all.
Did you walk with these men in their daily lives, talk to them, worship with them, were you there through all their idle pastimes? Can you honestly sit back and proclaim them thus? We know of the time they lived in, we know the presence of the church, and we know facts about what Crusades they took – is this the evidence you would use to justify your men of God? I would surely hope that more than a knight bearing a cross is needed to provide proof that these men did this ALL for God and his kingdom!
It matters not if Jesus was a Jew or a Gentile, if he was illiterate or literate, Mr. Dalton did not refute his existence (on which you entire faith stands), he refuted his divinity – which there is absolutely no way of proving – it is based purely on FAITH!
How can Christianity “evolve” when within its essence, it is self-sacrifice only for God, this life means nothing compared to the service and eternal grace that can be given by God. What happens is nothing to you – all is purely done for the soul and its destination!
Why should Christianity evolve? Would this not change it so completely that it is inconsistent to even be able to recognize itself? What’s the point if it needs to evolve in the first place? We already have all the necessary faculties to discern for ourselves right and wrong, we don’t need a prophet to tell us what every human being already knows!
We are perpetually like children; we will choose to go to those that promise the easy way and the one that offers much forgiveness and many rewards. This is why Christianity has such a hold over so many! Of course, we should not fail to mention FEAR. Why should we fear him? Am I on this waiting list to be struck down by lightening for my blasphemies? How about all of those good, honest, and virtuous people out there that have done nothing but good for themselves and for the people that surround them, but yet they lack “faith”. Faith that a Christian god, as told in the Bible, is real or that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, or even for simple “idol worship” of such “noble” figures as Mary? Will you condemn them to forever reside in God’s shadow because they failed to obediently believe everything told to them and because they failed to fear “God”?
The only way “Christianity” will “evolve” is if it completely changes everything about itself. Sure, there are good Christian people out there that truly believe in our race (Kinism comes to mind). However, they are but the handful, the masses will forever look upon Christianity as it was created to be; for a people that are used to tyrants, fear, and servility – NOT FOR THE FREE, COURAGEOUS, AND PROUD WHITE MAN – A MAN WHO DOES NOT FEAR DEATH BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHERE HE IS GOING, BUT BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT HE HAS DONE!
Krista,
I appreciate your comments and its kind of a breath of fresh air to hear from a critic of Christianity who appears to be open minded and practical. So often, it seems that the atheists we hear from are the opposite. Rather than rehash old arguments, I think its best to just cut to the chase. I think that the bottom line here is that we want to welcome just about all groups into the movement, including atheists, Kinists, Odinists, etc. Any political movement will want to maximize its base, drawing supporters from wherever it can. However, a problem arises when one group begins attacking another group’s cherished beliefs. The pro-Christians arent trying to start discussions about religion, which are extremely divisive. This is the part of the atheists, who with the fervor of a Puritan feel some primal drive to attack the religion of the vast majority of Whites. The end result is to offend large numbers of people and divert the discussion from the most important issues at hand. There are millions of Christians that are on board with wanting to halt immigration, but would be deeply offended and driven off by this anti-Christian drivel. Perhaps I am obtuse, but I dont see how this helps the situation.
All I need to know is Jesus said, Beware the synagogue of satan ! The message is loud and clear.The jews tricked most Christians into becoming Judeo-Christians and believing the jew bible Torah/Old Testament is the word of God.I love Jesus,but i’m not a Judeo-Christian and I don’t believe in the Old Testament.
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
Thank you Andrew for your response, which actually leads me to what I wanted to say next. Your right, our division on religion will do nothing but make us weak. I would however like to direct to everyone’s attention, how Christians tend to be the dividers. I would have no problems with Christians (by which I mean, working side-by-side with them) if they did not have this need to convert me and condemn me. I do not judge people on their beliefs, even though I find it hard for any intelligent person to accept faith, I do not condemn them for it. If I’m ever asked, I try to explain to the best of my abilities what exactly I believe, which is usually followed by shock and the condemnation of how dark my life must be without the light of God, or the expression of fear for my everlasting soul… which is generally followed by a sermon on why I need to become a Christian in order to live a fulfilled life and to prepare my way for an afterlife. Anyway, my point being, it is generally accepted that it is Christians that condemn, not pagans.
However, as I stated above, I believe we are all pagans, even if Christians may feel otherwise. Now, after stating all of this, what do I feel is the solution? I really don’t have one, I’m just as perplexed as many of you are on this issue. I would like to take note however on a few things I have been thinking about recently, since reading this discussion:
First, a comment on MacDonald’s referral to the moral bankruptcy of the ancients, in which he specifically noted the Romans. I’m rather surprised that he made such a all encompassing statement, this is the general pedagogy-pedaling made by the masses to discredit the past to further put forth our modern progression. I do not view the ancients in such a manner, from my own experience and from what I can contrive from media, we really are not very different when it comes to our depravity – which completely throws out the ideal of Christian morality, since it has been stated that, as of 2008, 76% denote themselves as believers in Christ. Roman pagans were just as human as American Christians, I think it is a falsehood to claim they were morally lax without the Christian faith, it is that we are all morally lax. I find it odd that such a “morally inferior” peoples could have codified so many civic and personal virtues: http://www.novaroma.org/wiki/Roman_Virtues
I would also like to mention that being pagan, since it does not constricts one’s beliefs, doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in physical God’s, personally, I don’t put much thought into these things, I am more or less an evolutionist when it comes to this, and I don’t need to worry over such a trifle, because I am not bound to believe a certain way. Also, I have not met one pagan that believed our myths were literal, however, I have met many Christians that believe men lived for 500 years, resurrected the dead, and parted the sea.
Secondly, I just finished reading Thomas White’s part 3 of his series entitled “Three Horsemen of an Evolutionary Apocalypse” and of course, completely disagree with his conclusion – except on one point! It is true, it would be much easier to assimilate everyone under Christianity because of its familiarness and the community that already exists. I would really like to see studies done on pagans, such as myself (not Wiccans for example) and their birth rates. I know personally, many of the Odinist’s I know homeschool and have above average birth rates. I know this has been stated before, but quality trumps quantity. Showering praise on having 9 children is setting forth an impossible standard for most people! I would like to put forth my opinion why many of these Christian families have so many children and can support them – it is because they have a religious community that helps them (and I don’t imply through monetary means, but spiritually). Odinists, on the other hand, have to live with long distance relationships amongst other believers, we don’t have the luxury of “fellowship”. I currently have two children and my husband and I plan on having a third within the next to years (you see, normal people have to plan these things out because my insurance does not cover childbirth unless I pay an extra $75 a month for 7 months!). Subsisting on one income (which thankfully, my husband gets paid very well) causes a lot of stress on families, I do not see the point bringing a child into this world if the parents will reside themselves into constant entanglements on financial issues – this is not a stable environment! If the parents relationship is not well, much is sacrificed in their children’s upbringing. I appreciate Greg Johnson’s comments and I would have to say I agree with him 100%.
If you truly want to educate yourself, I ask you to check out the Odinic Rite website and http://www.odinist.net forums, I believe that when it comes right down to it, you will be shocked with how much of what many of these people say ring true to you.
Finally, I read O’Meara’s beautiful essay published just recently in TOQ titled “Race, Culture, and Anarchy” which is hugely based of the work by Matthew Arnold “Culture and Anarchy”. I must say that perhaps I can replace my definition of “pagan” with “culture”, this is the revival I speak of.
“As such, man’s being is caught in an endless exchange between interior forces (intelligence, will, imagination, etc.) and exterior ones (the environment), as the exterior is assimilated into the interior and the interior is manifested in the exterior. Mind – and the culture it creates – are not, then, mere reflections of the body, though they are inseparable from it.” Michael O’Meara
“This is why he (Arnold) championed the cause of culture, which he called “the most resolute enemy of anarchy.” If the whole nation would learn self-discipline through a unified culture of “right reason, ideas, and light,” it might be possible “to cure the narrowness of Puritanism” and bring it “into the main current of national life.” A man reared in the “totality” of the established church had no need, he claimed, to struggle to find a private form of self-expression: imbued with a “sense of the historical life of the human spirit, outside and beyond (his) own fancies and feelings,” he could take that which the larger culture commended, and leaving himself free to develop his other sides. A national culture centered in an established church thus offered innumerably more avenues for self-development and realization, suggesting “new sides and sympathies in us to cultivate; and, by saving us from having to invent and fight for our own forms of religion, gives us the leisure and calm to steady out our view of religion itself.”
“Culture as such is an organic growth, inseparable from the people who live it and make it grow.” Michael O’Meara
“… it is largely a cultural project seeking to heighten white identity by anchoring it in a body of beliefs and practices – a culture – whose consciousness defies the racial anarchy presently threatening whites….it is the spirit engendered by the blood that created the European life world and the people who inhabit it – it is the extended phenotype of the white genotype.” Michael O’Meara
But of course, at being only 25 years of age, I will admit that much is extended beyond me in wisdom!
Krista,
Okay, I think we have settled it: we have a gentleman’s agreement to not attack each other’s religions on OO and other WN forums. I do support healthy debate about all topics, and dont want to censure the atheists by any means. I would just hope they are on board with trying to grow the movement wherever possible, and since there are so many Christians, lets not turn them off unecessarily. Outside of WN forums, I am sure that you will have problems with Christians thinking that Pagans are strange, but of course its normal for people of different religions to be wary of each other. I personally dont know what to think about Odinists, I tend to be a traditionalist and distrust the unknown. I have a Mormon background, many other Christians think that is at least as weird as Odinism, and thats fine, I support them anyway and am glad they are out there.
I am very glad that you are having children and raising them to appreciate their European heritage and ethnicity. Its not as difficult to have a big family as you think, but of course there is a lot of support for this in Utah, the seat of Mormondom. My sister is 23, has 3 blonde young ones and is planning for the next one. She finds all kinds of ways to stretch her budget, there are lots of homemakers around her who teach classes on all kinds of things. One lady with 8 kids showed her a method to cook 90 dinners in one day, each of which feeds a family of 10 (you freeze the dinners then just warm them up when needed). With this method, you can buy foods in bulk, and save a lot of time.
And thus may it rest in peace.
Barbara says: “The mystery is why Jews choose to live among people they hate.”
That’s backwards, and it ain’t no mystery a’tall.
They hayte us because they live with us.
They live with us cuz that’s where the money is.
Read:
1. The Bible Unearthed – by Finkelstein and Silberman (this is a book about archeology’s evidences regarding ancient Israel)
2. The Jesus Mysteries – by Freke & Gandy (an easy to read book about the roots of Christianity that is rich in references for further research)
now i was using nod32 antivirus.i think it was not working properly..when downloading files by using torrents my internet connection was very slow.now a days my pc which was very slow..i think some one was hacking my pc…suggestion pls..what to do? santoramaa