PDA

View Full Version : European Islam: the Answer?



Rahul
Sunday, October 26th, 2003, 04:25 PM
It may come as a shock to people that I consider Islam to have the answer and end all troubles regarding the racial situation in Europe. What can help Europe sustain what it really is about is not any concocted religion from the past but something which provides direction and some sort of vision to the folk.

Islam has soil under it. So says Oswald Spengler. It is not bound to be under jewish control the way Christianity went from its early beginnings, where it was the faith of the jewish in the ghettos of Europe. I say so detached from it. I am trying to remain objective and cool in viewing the past two thousand years of European History and compare them very much with what happened in India at the Buddhist age. Buddhism was a dialectical assault upon the tradition and Vedic religion suffered this assault and sought to defeat its nihilism by creating various nihilisms of its own. Man is a coward usually in the face of reality. This reality takes form in all ages before all people and in all scenarios and effects.

The answer is to see the greatest strength in a religion whose cosmology is not very much distinct from the previous faith of the people-Christianity. Primitive Jewish Christianity was transformed into European-Gothic Christianity, and it did provide a spiritual expression for the people and a great deal of growth also in that age, while its expressive vigour lasted. However the destiny of America is more or less going to be different, depending upon the forces which will effect a new order there, fighting and opposing the present one.

I see a world troubled by all , some unimaginable at this point of time in our lives, kinds of conflicts after 15-20 years, it will be unlike any other period of the past. Hope for some order at the end of it!

A positive and stable world will have to be multipolar and based at Culture at the core. India, CHina and Iran will need to re-invent their lands and folk. Japan will be decimated, and something is going to rise from Central Asia.

I wish that Islam should be freed of its Arabian legacies which are too supressive for many races which are going to adhere to it or those which have already accepted it. For them, rule implies change and reverting to their natural instincts. Such a religiousity will be afforded back to the major European folks, by the soil of their own lands, but inspired and led by another faith.

Grimr
Sunday, October 26th, 2003, 05:11 PM
Satire humour, I like it... Seriously though Islam is very anti-female, I don't think that racists would like the kind of sexism Muslims practice also Islam is very strict, Europeans aren’t very good with strict religions it gets in the way of our creativity, imagination and general productivity.

I don't personally have a problem with the religion of Islam other than the fact that Negroes tend to like it, there are some whites in it so its not really that bad but its not really that good if you catch my drift.

Phlegethon
Sunday, October 26th, 2003, 05:14 PM
Why would racists hope for the success of a non-racist religion?

Rahul
Monday, October 27th, 2003, 08:17 AM
Why would racists hope for the success of a non-racist religion?

There is nothing strictly racialist or non-racialist about any given religion.

Islam can either revive the Christianity of Gothic Spirit or it can give a sense of the live or the organic within the European people.

And I am not talking in anyway nor even alluding indirectly to the desert spirituality of the Arab/Juden. I speak of the Paktia, where a problem still exists with respect to the race's idea of its origin, they think that they are descended from the Bene Jews, contrary to the genetic evidence, so for Kashmiri Janjua Muslims. The blame lies with the jewish mischief of falsification of these people's historicity.

I am also alluding to the fanaticism, which can transpire as the steadfastness of the belief and faith in Europe. The belief in race and ancestry, that is.

Old religions sound very nihilist, except for a few practitioners, and considering all this, Christianity can still be developed as a folkish variant of Odinism or Asatro. Look at what is real about people, the folk, their centuries-old beliefs. Even Catholicism can be quite conservative, if the racialists aspire to take control of it with all their spirit. Religion must not divide people here, get over creed. Islam poses still another problem where the Arab might become a holy tribe as is the Jew to the fundamentalist Christian in US.

Most of all, let no religion divide people. The strongest spirit in religion is often driven by one's old ego.

Evolved
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 08:22 PM
Seriously though Islam is very anti-female, I don't think that racists would like the kind of sexism Muslims practice

You're talking about societies and cultures which think of themselves as Islamic and not the actual religion. In Islam itself, untainted by Indo-Persian customs, women are treated better.


also Islam is very strict, Europeans aren’t very good with strict religions it gets in the way of our creativity, imagination and general productivity.

I would think the opposite were true, that a strict religion would increase the focus and order within a person's life. And anyway, Europeans would likely not be adopting conservative Islamic sects but something like Sunni-Hanafi which the liberal sect the Tatars and Bashkirs follow.


I don't personally have a problem with the religion of Islam other than the fact that Negroes tend to like it, there are some whites in it so its not really that bad but its not really that good if you catch my drift.

I feel the same way about Christianity. :jk

Black Americans like their Afrocentric sect of so-called Islam because they view it as a type of revolutionary faith going against "the white man's Christianity." But they still hold their race theories higher than God, so are not really Muslims at all. Read the summary of Message to the Blackman in America (http://home.att.net/~phosphor/week1a/message.html) by Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad. In it he says, "the whole Caucasian race is a race of devils," though he was half-white himself. Elijah Muhammad called himself either a manifestation of God or a prophet, which guarantees his place in Hell forever. :dwink

I have suspicion that (like the so-called "white power" movement itself) The White Man's Bible written by Ben Klassen in 1981 (decades after NOI was established) was just a white response to Nation of Islam and Black Power. Compare the two and you'll see how similar they are.

Siegfried
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 08:46 PM
I'd prefer Evola's Traditionalism to Islam. It's not as universalist and moralistic as Islam, and much 'deeper'. I've read the Qur'an and wasn't impressed at all. I consider Evola's works to be of much more spiritual significance (Revolt Against the Modern World, for example).

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, November 12th, 2003, 12:09 AM
Islam should be banished in Europe, but England and France have many and it would be pretty hard to get rid of it without a mass rahowa. France has so many because of DeGaulle welcoming foreigners into France after WW2, too bad Petain couldn't stop him if he still were around. Islamic people plague Europe they should move west instead. They are not wanted in Europe and I do not even want them in America. Mexicans/Untrue Spanish people are more of a plague though.

Evolved
Wednesday, November 12th, 2003, 03:31 AM
The only places in Europe and America where there is large and noticeable racist presence is the lower class areas, poorer countries or volatile areas. People who have not much to complain about financially are willing to put up with primitive jungle people who mutilate their women. If white nationalists (for lack of a better term) don't like Islam for Europe, they must come up with something which counters the current cult of materialism. Christianity in its current ultraliberal queer-inundated guise is not going to do it and most people are not willing to adhere to made up flaky pseudo-religions like "Creativity."

It's basically over for the British racially, they have been thoroughly colonized and most seem not to care in the least if their daughters date coal black bushman. "As long as they love each other!" they say.

The worst of these immigrants are the Somalis and other savages who practice sick crap like female genital mutilation and honor killings. It's primitive desert/jungle crap with no Qur'anic support. No doubt such criminals get what they deserve in the end. :devil

But they're more than welcome to live here in the US, why not - we let all kinds of people live here. Maybe we'll get some Somalis to wage Jihad against the santeria-Catholic Mexicans. That will be lots of fun to watch on CNN. :ehm :tv

Evolved
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 05:36 AM
Integrating European Muslims: Europe's Fearful Bid (http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/Hijab/2004-03/article_05.shtml)
By Alaa Bayoumi
Researcher - CAIR
17/03/2004

http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/Hijab/2004-03/images/topic_07_pic01.jpg

The new regulations disregard
historical and contemporary
Muslim contributions to the
advancement of Europe.

News coming from Europe over the last few weeks shows a rising trend within several European countries to assimilate Muslim inhabitants through new laws forcing Muslim women to give up their Islamic attire in public schools, sending Muslim refugees back home, and limiting the number of new Muslim clerics.

A closer look at Europe's current economic and ideological circumstances and at the consequences of the latest regulations on European Muslims shows that Europe is taking the wrong route to integrate its Muslim population. On February 17th, Danish PM Anders Rasmussen announced various changes to immigration policies aimed at curbing the number of Muslim religious leaders allowed into Denmark. The proposed changes, which the parliament is expected to rapidly pass into law, are part of a deal reached last September between Denmark's Liberal-Conservative government and its far-right ally, the Danish People's Party (DPP). "In theory, these rules concern all clerics from all religions. But in practice, they target the imams," a DPP spokesman Peter Skaarup told journalists in September.

On the same day, the Dutch Lower House voted to expel up to 26,000 failed asylum-seekers over the next three years. Many have been in the asylum process for years, and include Somalis, Afghans, Chechens, and stateless persons. The New York-based Human Rights Watch described the move as a violation of international standards that "signal a serious departure from the Netherlands' historic role as a leader in human rights' protection in Europe... [because] sending people back to places where they could be in danger not only jeopardizes their safety, it is illegal."

On February 10th in France, home to Europe's largest Muslim population (four to five million), the National Assembly approved an internationally controversial ban on hijab from public schools. The new legislation would ban religious symbols, including large Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps. "But no one here pretends the target is anything other than the hijab in a Europe showing growing discomfort over its burgeoning Muslim population," thought The Boston Globe.

Europe is home to more than 15 million Muslims.

Politicians in Belgium and Germany are debating similar hijab bans. The new regulations unjustly infringe on the civil rights of millions of law abiding Muslim immigrants by: forcing Muslim women and girls to choose between their religiously mandated attire and available public educational opportunities; sending Muslim refugees to countries where their lives may be endangered; and limiting Muslim access to religious leaders and education. They also disregard historical and contemporary Muslim contributions to the advancement of Europe. During the colonial area, the Islamic world provided major springs of cheap labor and natural resources necessary for the advancement of industrial Europe. After the Second World War, France and Britain turned towards their former Muslims colonies in North Africa and South Asia to seek a badly needed workforce to help their economic recovery; while the Germans sought the help of the Turks, their former allies.

Today, more than 15 million Muslims create an integral part of Europe. Some of them are highly educated immigrants and converts. While many are underprivileged workers who help fill blue-collar jobs, have little political access, if any, and face frequent discrimination, especially in the post 9/11 era.

Center and extreme right-wing parties have gained ground in many European countries.

In Britain, where 1.6 million Muslims live, a London-based Islamic human rights group reported 344 incidents of anti-Muslim violence against Muslims in the year after September 11, including the stabbing of a Muslim woman. Instead of confronting the post September 11 anti-Muslim phobia, these new laws will scapegoat Muslims for the real problems dwindling Europe's ability to build on its traditions of multiculturalism and tolerance; its need for economic and political reform; and the rise of the extreme right. In Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway and Portugal, center and extreme right-wing parties have recently gained great ground.

Europe's difficult political and economic integration, the worldwide economic recession, and the inefficiency of several European leftist governments are all possible causes for the rise of the European right. But what is certain is that Europe's extreme right-wingers are prospering by amplifying Europeans' economic and cultural fears, especially toward their Muslim immigrant neighbors. Europe's proposed anti-Muslim laws will create a false solution for serious problems impeding Europe's multiculturalism. This will hinder Muslim integration into European society, as well as damage Europe's image in the Muslim world. Instead, European countries should seek creative approaches to fully engage their Muslim communities in the struggle for economic reform and ideological moderation.

[I]Alaa Bayoumi is a researcher at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), America's largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy group.

ogenoct
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 07:27 AM
The Aryan King Frederick II. made the mistake of not converting to Islam (and thereby making faithful Muslims out of his subjects). Since Frederick II. was excommunicated anyway, he should have broken with the Vatican, the Roman Church, the Pope and the whole of Christianity. Under the banner of the prophet Muhammed, he could have reconquered his realm for the glory of almighty Allah. The Islamic Rennaissance has the possibility of becoming a cultural revolution in the heart of Europe. Islam reborn with a distinct European mark - a new chance for a people satiated with "bread and games"?-- Constantin von Hoffmeister

Evolved
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 08:18 AM
I completely agree about finding an alternative to the current society, and that is what the millions of individuals converting to Islam in the Western world are basically seeking. These are people who have studied Islam from authentic sources and who are able to seperate the faith from stereotypes of the practicioners. When I say 'Muslim' on Skadi.net, a few pictures probably come to mind: 1. swarthy North African Arabs killing their sisters and raping animals; 2. Albanian mafioso cutting off a Christian's head and raping, looting; or 3. some Al-Qaida 'terrorist' (terrorism is subjective) flying a plane into the World Trade Center. And they cannot seperate these images from the religion such people are grossly misinterpreting and/or infusing with their own ethnic/tribal practices.

(In pure form) Islam offers a purpose (living for God) rather than an aimless existence. It offers an extreme opposite to Jewish materialism, individualism and self-centeredness we're all being raised to worship. It offers a warrior & head of the household role for the man, and a modest and motherly role for the woman (very natural gender roles). The women's rights are guaranteed by the Qur'an, a holy book which has not and cannot be tampered with. It offers a way to connect with God without interference from secondary figures such as priests or so-called "Saviours". One God- no sons, no daughters, no confusion. No chosen people and Jews are cursed. It teaches responsibility for ones' actions (i.e. God's "son" who supposedly committed suicide 2000 years ago does not magically take the blame for your screw-ups), that no one may bear the burden for the sins of another. It enjoins healthy eating, abstaining from drugs and alcohol. Abortion is allowed up to 4 months of pregnancy but only in cases of health or moral reasons (i.e. rape). Large families are promoted. Scholars of Islam recommend couples be as compatible as possible to ensure a sound family environment, though like in Christianity interracial relationships are not looked down upon. Homosexuality and beastiality are punishable by death. Mercy and kindness toward animals, children, women, and even one's enemies upon capture are taught in the Qur'an.

Of course, I am talking about laws and practices straight from the sources: Qur'an, Hadith & Sunnah (words and actions, respectively, of the Prophet Muhammad :saw). These things are not all put into practice in "Muslim countries" or by "Muslim immigrants." Just like most Christians do not practice their religion 'to the letter,' it is the burden of the believer to practice his or her faith the correct and lawful way which does not always happen. Everyone is only human, if you ever find anyone who is perfect in whatever faith they practice I would be shocked.

This is what I said on Slav Anthro:


Does the Semitic origin of something make it "bad" for Europeans by default? Gunpowder & paper of Chinese origin are not bad for us. If it works better, why not try it? In a racially homogenous European country a uniquely European brand of Islam would be nothing but good for the population- higher birthrates, less feminism, and more men would be in charge. That is the reason Europeans are turning to the faith, together with dissatisfaction with liberal and illogical Trinitarian Christianity. I have talked with White Muslims and they are not a bunch of nutcases, but people who converted mainly because they desire a structured, family-centered life.

I stand by my words. Allahu akhbar. :bow

Now, I want anyone who wants to bash Islam to give me all you got! Every negative aspect of authentic Islam (from the sources I listed above) you can come up with, please post here for comparison with other popular faiths and historical practices. ;)

cosmocreator
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 08:23 AM
As you said before Islam is not a racial religion. There is nothing to separate Europeans who accept Islam from the swarthy billions of others.

Saoirse
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 08:30 AM
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are alien religions.

ogenoct
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 08:39 AM
It will only be natural, once Islam becomes the majority religion in Europe, that the religion will take a definite turn towards the occidental, meaning that Islam will become a European religion - with its own uniquely Western characteristics. There is no reason, for example, why a European Islam should not include certain Faustian aspects, such as the striving for the infinite (including space travel and eventual colonization), to come closer to God. In many ways, Islam seems to inherit unique aspects that are perfectly compatible with Aryan Man (such as hierarchy, order and cleanliness). Also, Islam is closer to Paganism than Christianity ever was. For one instance, in Islam, a certain cosmic unity is espoused in the sense that there is only ONE God, and - according to the Sufi tradition - this God resides within ALL of us. Therefore, we are all parts comprising one whole (all of God's creations, including Nature itself). God is the macrocosm, the individual is the microcosm. ALLAHU AKHBAR!

Constantin

Gesta Bellica
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 09:08 AM
i will always strongly oppose to such a rise of Islam in Europe
I don't see anything alluring or useful in it ..moreover this religion will surley promote racial and cultural integration, something that i firmly stand against.
My hate and despise towards muslims will never die.

If people really need something strong to believe in, they should rather rediscover the roots of Christianity. i fail to see the logic to be anti-christian and pro-islamic, they have both their own share of fanatics their ranks.
So why we should bother to integrate Islam in Europe when we have already Christianity?

Evolved
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 09:12 AM
As you said before Islam is not a racial religion. There is nothing to separate Europeans who accept Islam from the swarthy billions of others.

Neither is any kind of European paganism, they have simply been recreated as such by a tiny fringe who wish to infuse every area of their lives with racism out of a sad paranoia. If you can't be secure in your racial identity without an Aryan version of God, it doesn't say much for your willpower!

Christianity is firmly anti-racist, see for instance the story of Moses and his Ethiopian wife. His children disapproved of his marrying a black woman and Moses punished them for their racism.

National Socialism is a way of life many at this forum claim to believe in, and it is also not 'racist', but racialist (i.e. acknowledging racial differences).


"...nothing would be more superficial than to measure a man's worth by his physical appearance (with a centimeter rule and cephalic indices). A far more accurate measure of worth is conduct." ~ Alfred Rosenberg, Mythos des XX. Jahrhunderts


"We do not conclude from a man's physical type his ability, but rather from his achievements, his race." ~ Adolf Hitler, 1933

Compare with:


"There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab and for a non-Arab over an Arab; nor for white over the black nor for the black over the white except in piety. Verily the noblest among you is he who is the most pious." ~ Prophet Muhammad's :saw Last Sermon

Jack
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 11:58 AM
The Aryan King Frederick II. made the mistake of not converting to Islam...

Thank God for that.

American Nationalist
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 12:29 AM
Check out the following site:

http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/phtml/index.php

hchalice
Monday, May 10th, 2004, 03:30 AM
Irish Nationalist - "Christianity, Judaism and Islam are alien religions."

So are we to start dancing around trees - the Celtic way?

But then again, alien to whom?

the only religion not alien to Europeans is animism (I believe)

Oskorei
Monday, May 10th, 2004, 05:02 PM
It will only be natural, once Islam becomes the majority religion in Europe, that the religion will take a definite turn towards the occidental, meaning that Islam will become a European religion - with its own uniquely Western characteristics. There is no reason, for example, why a European Islam should not include certain Faustian aspects, such as the striving for the infinite (including space travel and eventual colonization), to come closer to God.Yes there is one important reason. We will no longer be Aryans, we will be halfbreeds.

ogenoct
Monday, May 10th, 2004, 10:35 PM
Yes there is one important reason. We will no longer be Aryans, we will be halfbreeds.
Not if we kick out all non-Europeans! Why would Islam (as a religion!) make half-breeds out of us? Please explain.

Constantin

Siegfried
Monday, May 10th, 2004, 10:51 PM
So are we to start dancing around trees - the Celtic way?


I'd rather see European children dancing around a tree, then bowing their head towards that Semitic city of Mecca.

Besides, it's ridiculous to reduce European paganism to a mere dance around a tree. That's like reducing Judaism and Islam to refusing to eat pork.

Strengthandhonour
Monday, May 10th, 2004, 11:16 PM
Europe?adopting Islam?please..I think one of the main problems today with people thinking mixing is OK is that Europe has adopted foreign religions. With Catholics it's more than enough! ;)

Frans_Jozef
Monday, May 10th, 2004, 11:48 PM
I'd rather see European children dancing around a tree, then bowing their head towards that Semitic city of Mecca.

Besides, it's ridiculous to reduce European paganism to a mere dance around a tree. That's like reducing Judaism and Islam to refusing to eat pork.

The Mevlevi Derwish dance in rotation to be nearer to Allah and become his vehicle, sure bet that they will be it hit by something, a dazing headache of that spinning around and around.
Besides, they are ascetics, so they make great cause of starvation to purify them from lesser needs; the nausea accompagnying the the headache will purge that big sin of gluttony of having eaten a snack before the performance begun, out of their system. :D

A child's game exalted to a ritual path to achieve revelation or illumination.
The contemptious critics and repeated ridiculations applied to the exoteric practices of heathenism are also valid for those of our monotheistic friends.
How acceptable would they find it?

Dancing around a tree or the derwish way are both evocations of a Polar theme, of a fixed axis whereby the whirling movements symbolize centrifugal/petal forces that emulate the axis, set them in move but is itself untouched by the vortex that has been created.
It moves without being moved, it's an anchorpoint that sets things in motion.




http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/WhereToGo/CentralAnatolia/Konya/mevlevi.html

http://www.guidetoturkey.com/aboutturkey/info_tips/mevlevi.asp

Krampus
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 12:33 AM
lg

Christianity is firmly anti-racist, see for instance the story of Moses and his Ethiopian wife. His children disapproved of his marrying a black woman and Moses punished them for their racism.

I think the objection that Aaran and Minian had in the story was more ethnic/nation than race based. Most anthropologist suggest Hebrews were Hamito-Semitic based on their language, Ethiopians are Hamito-Semitic as well. It was not his children who objected, but his brother Aaron and his wife who the Hebrew god in the story smote down with leprosy, then the Hebrew god went to hide behind a cloud, which oddly enough was located near a volcano in mount Sinai. Yahweh was nothing but a volcano god like the Pacific Islanders had. Some have argued that the Levite priest tribe were Hyskos, possibly Hittite Indo-Europeans, while the other Hebrew tribes were Hamito-Semitic. I suppose if you follow this reasoning this passage would be "racial" and could explain the Afro-curl some Jews have today. They must of been descended from Moses and his Ethiopian wife. Note this belief differs much from what Christian Identity types believe, which is that all tribes were descended from Indo-Europeans.

There are of course many other passages, which point to the the genocidal character of the Israelites and their god in general. This isn't necessarily "racial" as I tend to believe most of these people didn't differ to much on a racial scale. Midianites weren't well liked and apparently worthy of extermination in Hebrew eyes as were many other tribes. Most of these passages have zero credibility, particularly the ones which refer to the Hebrews killing Philistines. Hebrew tribes were nothing but gnats in the eyes of the other people there, not amounting to much of anything in terms of military might, despite the Biblical stories.

Christianity isn't racist? The Jewish character Jesus is quoted as calling Greeks "dogs" in Mark chapter 7 verses 26-28.


The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to
take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

It's not until this Greek woman grovels at the feet of Jesus, which seems to work...as Jews love when Gentiles grovel. Jesus changes his mind! Deciding to heal her daughter.The character known as Jesus in the story wants to make it clear the supremacy of Jews and the position Gentiles are to have in Christianity, that of a subservient lap dog.

hchalice
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 05:22 AM
Siegfried Augustus - " I'd rather see European children dancing around a tree, then bowing their head towards that Semitic city of Mecca.

Besides, it's ridiculous to reduce European paganism to a mere dance around a tree. That's like reducing Judaism and Islam to refusing to eat pork."

True, I have to work on my acid tongue WRT religious systems I deem primitive. I do not know much about Celtic religion so I was out of place to make such a comment, my apologies

however, both druidism and islam are forms of animism, islam being a christianized form of idol worship - my opinion on my readings

[If I am wrong - expletives, angry comments and clarification welcome]

and yes I agree with your " I'd rather see European children dancing around a tree, then bowing their head towards that Semitic city of Mecca." but exactly what is alien about religions which accept anyone as members and good lord what is alien about Christianity - you know that belief system without which Europeans would not have an empire?

Oskorei
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:39 AM
Not if we kick out all non-Europeans! Why would Islam (as a religion!) make half-breeds out of us? Please explain.

Constantin
It is a question of Realpolitik. The main threat to White survival today is the invasion of aliens, mostly of muslim creed. It is not very realistic that we would kick out our "muslim brothers" after converting to islam. It is much more likely that it would increase the rate of White woman/Arab male-marriages exponentially. You have a sense of community with your co-religionists, which makes it much easier to mix with them.

Besides, I do not find it honourable to convert to the religion of the invaders. Even if this religion, as all religions, may have positive attributes.

Siegfried
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:55 AM
True, I have to work on my acid tongue WRT religious systems I deem primitive. I do not know much about Celtic religion so I was out of place to make such a comment, my apologies

Apologies accepted, of course. :) The problem with European paganism is that many of the esoteric teachings seem to have been lost in time, and we are left with the exoteric remnants of these religions (such as dances around a tree, and myths which far too many people treat like children's stories). This leaves many with the impression that these people were simplistic and primitive, which I don't think is fair.


and yes I agree with your " I'd rather see European children dancing around a tree, then bowing their head towards that Semitic city of Mecca." but exactly what is alien about religions which accept anyone as membersand good lord what is alien about Christianity - you know that belief system without which Europeans would not have an empire?

They are alien insofar as their teachings are drawn up by people who did not belong to the European ethnoracial group, and are therefore intrinsically connected to alien cultures. During the Middle Ages, Christianity was 'Europeanized' and got mixed up with pagan practices and various superstitions. The religion of the Middle Ages was a hybrid one. I feel that in many Christian circles, the Semitic element is re-emerging though.

Evolved
Thursday, March 17th, 2005, 06:55 AM
I support and respect anyone who searches for spiritual truth and finds it wherever - a tree, a statue of the buddha, a cross, Allah. Nothing is more noble in my eyes than a person who doesn't accept the status quo, who questions everything they were raised to believe and who in faithful fervor blazes their own trail toward the enlightenment of their choice. That is what separates the mice from the men, afterall.

Aragorn
Thursday, March 17th, 2005, 05:20 PM
An true European, no matter he is Germanic, keltic, Slavic, Hellenic, can not be muslim and European the same time. Europe became great in art, culture, philosophy and literature, because of christianity. Although the roots came from the middle east, I have great respect for christianity, but not for the church of today. An European is only he who is an christian or fellower of paganism, he cant be muslim, hindu or what ever kind of fake religion. Islam cant be united with racial awerness and European culture. I dispite islam greatly, they are nothing but then murderers and cant stand any form of critism. I once was posting on an muslimsite and for my ideas about Mohammed, islam and his connection with violence and war, for this I was banned and these losers even replaced all of my post so no one could readed. how childish.

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, March 17th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Although the roots came from the middle east, I have great respect for christianity, but not for the church of today.

Christianity became native as it took the form of the native society, and so would any imported religion. Northern European Folk Christianity was a continuation of pre-Christian beliefs, and in the same way folkish Moslems continue indigenous beliefs.

Wjatscheslaw
Thursday, September 8th, 2005, 03:01 AM
The Aryan King Frederick II. made the mistake of not converting to Islam (and thereby making faithful Muslims out of his subjects). Since Frederick II. was excommunicated anyway, he should have broken with the Vatican, the Roman Church, the Pope and the whole of Christianity. Under the banner of the prophet Muhammed, he could have reconquered his realm for the glory of almighty Allah. The Islamic Rennaissance has the possibility of becoming a cultural revolution in the heart of Europe. Islam reborn with a distinct European mark - a new chance for a people satiated with "bread and games"?-- Constantin von Hoffmeister

King Frederick was Atheist and pragmatic. His aim was to crash Roman Charch power over German territories.

Gorm the Old
Thursday, September 8th, 2005, 04:44 AM
I have read the "glorious" Qu'ran three times, carefully. This is, of course, in English translation inasmuch as I cannot read Arabic. How "authentic" these 3 translations are I cannot say, though the last is attributed to a noted Islamic scholar. (I do not have the book at hand tonight, having lent it to a friend.) Considering that it is regarded as a major sin to translate the Qu'ran into another language than Arabic, Moslems may well dispute the authenticity of the translation on this basis. Every sura of the Qu'ran begins with the words "In the name of Allah [or ar-Rahman] the merciful, the compassionate" In vain have I searched this book for any manifestation of mercy or compassion. All I find is threats. Few other religions are harsher than Islam. It obligates every one of the faithful to participate, if able, in converting the rest of the world to Islam by fire and sword. Islam seems to proclaim itself the enemy of every other religion in the world. I am willing to take the Qu'ran's word for this, especially considering that most of the world's religions which are not pacifist, such as Hindus, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians, are hostile to Islam because, at one time or another, they have been harrassed or oppressed by the Moslems. It seems to me that fanaticism is part of the very fabric of Islam and has been since the days of the Prophet. The notion that , after a world-wide, or at least European, triumph, Islam could gradually become "Europeanized" is absurd. Islam CANNOT change. Every minutest item of its faith is immutable cast in bronze and chiseled in granite.

Gorm the Old
Thursday, September 8th, 2005, 04:56 AM
If a "mistake" was made, it was not by Frederick II but by the Crusaders. In the Byzantine Empire, they had a potential, powerful, Christian ally. If they had joined forces in common cause with the Byzantines, they would have had a military force capable of halting the advance of Islam in its tracks. Instead, allowing some intra-faith doctrinal differences to anatagonize them, they attacked their fellow Christians in Constantinople. Not only did they alienate the Byzantines, but they weakened Byzantium's ability to stand against Islam on its own. What UTTER STUPIDITY !

Wjatscheslaw
Friday, September 9th, 2005, 10:53 PM
1. I have read the "glorious" Qu'ran three times, carefully. This is, of course, in English translation inasmuch as I cannot read Arabic. How "authentic" these 3 translations are I cannot say, though the last is attributed to a noted Islamic scholar.
2. In vain have I searched this book for any manifestation of mercy or compassion. All I find is threats.
3. It seems to me that fanaticism is part of the very fabric of Islam and has been since the days of the Prophet.
4. The notion that , after a world-wide, or at least European, triumph, Islam could gradually become "Europeanized" is absurd. Islam CANNOT change. Every minutest item of its faith is immutable cast in bronze and chiseled in granite.

1. Reading Qu'ran i found out that it's cultural context is too far from me to understand it correctly, then i clear it up the question, i took another book, named "Description of Prophet Mohammad's Life" by Ibn Hisham (first part of VIII centure), in Russian. I give some advice you to read this book, many things will appear in unexpected light...
2. Possibly so. I should read Qu'ran again and more closely. Note that threats are common business for religions and especially monotheistic.
3. Fanatism is part of the very fabric of Pure Islam (Sufiam and Shiitism are another kind)
4. They has more new converted Whites than any Christian Church's. ..At present moment it's too early to make conclusions.

Blutwölfin
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 06:21 PM
"Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Islamic civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (--I do not say by what sort of feet--) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin--because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! . . . The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust--a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile."--What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich. . . . Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the "Swiss guard" of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church--but well paid. . . Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious. . . Christianity, alcohol--the two great means of corruption. . . . Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Hebrew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not. . . . "War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!": this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can't make out how a German could ever feel Christian...."

Antichrist 60.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 06:42 PM
One more reason to despise Nietzsche.

Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 07:02 PM
I always found der alte Pulverkopf overrated; if he had been anyhow in the position to post on Skadi, I would have him banned for trolling and retardism.:D

Oskorei
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 09:03 PM
I doubt Nietzsche knew very much about Islam, except for his own romantic phantasies on the subject. ;)

OdinThor
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 09:12 PM
He hated Christianity, the destroyer of European strength and will. Islam as an enemy of Christianity was therefore seen in a favourable light. But he would have never welcomed Islam or any religion as positive to Europe.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 09:17 PM
He hated Christianity, the destroyer of European strength and will.

How on earth can you call Christianity the destroyer of Europe's strength and will? Christianity was the major force behind Europe's great strength and vitaliy!

Imperator X
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 09:28 PM
This is utterly ridiculous. Yes, Christianity sucks (How I wish the Mithraists had won instead.) but Islam is no more noble, and is also an enemy of the ancient ideals. Semitic, intolerant, dusty, absolutist, desert trash. The only things which Christianity has to its credit are all the elements that they so blatantly stole from Mediterranean paganism (reverence for the feminine, solar iconography, art etc.) Islam has even less of this.

I think Nietzsche has made a common mistake, everything which makes Islam look so appealing was hijacked from other peoples. Islam didn't "boom" until some of the Central Asians were converted i.e. the Mongols, called after they converted "the Golden Horde", which allowed them to establish trade routes with superior civilizations particularly the Persians and Hindus. Evidence of this confusion can be seen in calling our numbers "Arabic" <barf> numerals. These numerals do not come from the Arabs, they merely were introduced by them to the West through trade routes via Hindu India (note Indian numerals and note their similarity to our commonly accepted numerals). The Arabs also became familiar with Vedic (classical Hindu) mathematics, and they are attributed great mathematic skills?! Also, note the Arabs, after they conquered Egypt, became familiar with the mathematics of the Greeks, whom got their ideas from Pythagoreas (whom some think may have been influenced by Indian civilization, note he founded his own mystery school.)

Burning down the library of Alexandria (which people either attribute to the Christians or Muslims)... Yeah, a real respect for civilization. <rolls eyes>

* all bold in the following quotations, my commentary.


"Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Islamic civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (--I do not say by what sort of feet--) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin--because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! . . . The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust--a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile."--What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich. . . . Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the "Swiss guard" of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church--but well paid. . . Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious. . . Christianity, alcohol--the two great means of corruption. . . . Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Hebrew. ( read either one sucks almost equally) The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala (gee, I wonder where this term comes from) or he is not. . . . "War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!": this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can't make out how a German could ever feel Christian...."

Antichrist 60.

OdinThor
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 09:36 PM
How on earth can you call Christianity the destroyer of Europe's strength and will? Christianity was the major force behind Europe's great strength and vitaliy!
Christianity is a never ending guilt trip. It knows no races and favours the weak. In fact it is the direct predecessor of decadence and multi-racialism!

Christianity tells the weak that they are better than the strong.
Democracy tells the dumb that they are as able as the intelligent.
Feminism tells the woman they are like men.
Anti-racism tells the black they are better than whites.

See the pattern? Christianity has been the soil where the evil seed is growing.

Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 09:48 PM
Europe was build into a great civilisation and outweighed by its achievements in arts and science other civilisations in the world due to its geniuses and the talents or potentials living in our peoples. Christianity's role shouldn't be dismissed, but imo it functioned more likely as a psychopomp, helpful in recovering the Europeans from a temporary spiritual and political backwash, a Jacob's ladder to be discarded once its use is made obsolete by success and a grip on destiny is secured.

To give Christianity all credit is saying that the previous civilisations on our continent, including the somewhat neglected complexes in protohistoric times, were in comparison lacklustre and devoid of innovations, grandeur and moral soundness.

Jack
Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 06:06 AM
He hated Christianity, the destroyer of European strength and will. Islam as an enemy of Christianity was therefore seen in a favourable light. But he would have never welcomed Islam or any religion as positive to Europe.

Garbage. Christianity united, nay, created Europe. It turned Europe from a continent of barbarian tribes into confederation of Kingdoms under a single religion and a single leader - the Pope - and brought Eastern Europe into the fold, produced such powerful fighting units as the Knights Templar and St. John's Hospitallers and delayed the destruction of the East Roman Empire for hundreds of years.


Christianity is a never ending guilt trip. It knows no races and favours the weak. In fact it is the direct predecessor of decadence and multi-racialism!

You're a fool. Christianity is not a never ending guilt trip. It is a demand for inner purification. Roman Catholicism acknowledges ethnocultures and supports the rights of national self-determination.


Christianity tells the weak that they are better than the strong.

ROFLMAO. 'The meek shall inherit the earth' is a statement supporting the strength of those who hold to God's order within themselves. 'Turn the other cheek' is a statement preferring tolerance of personal insults instead of eviscerating someone because they've called you an arsehole.


Democracy tells the dumb that they are as able as the intelligent.

Democracy is vox populi vox dei. Our current mess can be attributed to three things: the effect the holocaust and Nazi Germany in general (whether manufactured or not) has had on the prospects of racialism, nationalism and eugenics in the West, the concept of the seperation of powers, which leaves government open to be siezed by special interest groups and ultimately leaves the voice of the people shattered and ineffective before the power of corporations and other pressure groups, and the perversion of freedom and the destruction of traditional morality combined with the rise of expressive individualism, the tolerance morality and the 'freedom' cult.


Feminism tells the woman they are like men.

First wave feminism sought to expand the one-man-one-vote to include women as well. It's entirely debatable whether or not this is a cause of the dissolution of the west. Second generation feminism - equal pay for equal work - certainly crushed the idea of a man being given a wage enough for him to live in his own home and support his two kids and wife, but opportunity does not equal necessity. On the other hand, the elevation of the expressivist ethic - do what you want - helped dissolve the primacy of gender roles such as stay at home mothers, etc. Capitalism has also played a rather important role in encouraging this change of ideals.


Anti-racism tells the black they are better than whites.

Never mind that the Puritans were the ones that began the greatest genocide in human history, Manifest Destiny.


See the pattern? Christianity has been the soil where the evil seed is growing.

LOL. Your case is laughable. Sorry.

Imperator X
Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 08:40 PM
Garbage. Christianity united, nay, created Europe. It turned Europe from a continent of barbarian tribes into confederation of Kingdoms under a single religion and a single leader - the Pope - and brought Eastern Europe into the fold, produced such powerful fighting units as the Knights Templar and St. John's Hospitallers and delayed the destruction of the East Roman Empire for hundreds of years.

Christianity is in no way an improvement, or more civilized then the pre-Christian religion of the Greeks and Romans. Kingdoms, unified? This can be attributed to the recovery of Greek and Roman sciences and cultural acheivements, facilitated by the Catholic Charlemerde, yes, but Europe's greatness owes more to the Greco-Roman tradition than it does to Christianity. As I said before, the only thing the least bit palatable about Christianity is what it stole from Mediterranean paganism.

Note, towards the proclamation of Christianity as the official religion of the empire in the time of Constantine, paganism was beginning to develop a monism not unlike Hindu Vedanta which proclaimed the doctrine of a supreme God which incorporated the other deities. The one thing which owed to the survival of Hinduism, and not European paganism as well was that this philosophy/doctrine was developed in the 5th century BCE with the writing of the Upanishads in India, but did not develop until much later on in Europe. The supreme cult would have been Mithraism, and how much better our world would be if only, that had survived instead. If only Constantine had declared that he saw Mithras in the sky on that fateful day instead of the King of the Jews.

For example, in the 3rd century CE Isis was declared as being in control of all offices and possessing the attributes of all the gods, as evidenced by papyri proclaiming Her many names. This unifying monism also existed in the figure of Mithras, had it survived perhaps we would still be able to enjoy the worship of all the many deities of all of Europe's peoples in the present day. The native religion(s) of Europe and the World, all destroyed owing to the whim of one man.

If there is a Hell, surely he should be damned to the lowest rung of it for destroying beauty. Nietzsche doesn't call it the Birth of Tragedy for nothing.

Jäger
Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 09:02 PM
Christianity united, nay, created Europe. And surpressed sience and people wherever it could.
Galileo anyone? The church was one of the most destructive forces in european history. The church was the reson we had the dark ages, the crusades, the buyable absolutions, all that crap.
The burnings of all non-christian knowladge under Karl the Great, I could go on and on.
The christian leaders didn't care about their people, as long as the others are christian and thus take the legitimation of a King serious they were welcome.

No one can ever say for sure, if we would be worse or better off with/without christianity, but I prefer not to believ ein jewish teachings.
Why are they so right, and our ancestors were so wrong?

anthropos
Friday, April 21st, 2006, 07:37 PM
I doubt Nietzsche knew very much about Islam, except for his own romantic phantasies on the subject. ;)

I come from another famous american WN forum, a see that even here somebody tries to see islam in a positive light, as it was a religion that could do something for Europe.

On the contrary it is poised to destroy our superior civilization.

this 19th century romanticized views of islam were born out of the sheer ignorance of its nature.

Islam is a semitic religion founded by a clever but half mad narcisistic paedophile and street robber, who created a cult that destroyed what good the roman empire and the greek civilization had planted among the southern mediterranean peoples.

Islamism bigotry coupled with the miscgeneation with black slaves destroyed that civilization, and the same pattern seems to be establishing here in Europe, thanks to open immigration of islamic hordes.

fms panzerfaust
Friday, April 21st, 2006, 08:34 PM
I don't see kingdoms unified at the middle ages...is more likely to see divided nations and peoples than in the ancient roman world, when the government was centralized in Rome.


the Catholic Charlemerde

laughs


Note, towards the proclamation of Christianity as the official religion of the empire in the time of Constantine, paganism was beginning to develop a monism not unlike Hindu Vedanta which proclaimed the doctrine of a supreme God which incorporated the other deities. The one thing which owed to the survival of Hinduism, and not European paganism as well was that this philosophy/doctrine was developed in the 5th century BCE with the writing of the Upanishads in India, but did not develop until much later on in Europe. The supreme cult would have been Mithraism, and how much better our world would be if only, that had survived instead. If only Constantine had declared that he saw Mithras in the sky on that fateful day instead of the King of the Jews.

The supreme cult already was Mithraism. I'm actually reading that book about the cult of Mithras by Franz Cumont. The cult was spreading through recrutation in the east of persian soldiers to the roman legions. These soldiers were then send to the west, to the roman-german frontier. There they spread the cult to locals and other legionaries from other etnies. Result is that there is much archeological evidence in the area where is today Austria and Hungary.
Mithraism was adoted by Commodus and other emperor as well, that was already being developed, but Constatine was thinking in more control to the emperor, that is, to himself, and, as I say in other post, the idea of guilty was good for tame the masses and the barbarians, conditioning the mind and the body to this disposition. Nietzsche develops how the idea of guilty played in the minds of the german tribes in his Genealogy of Morals.

Taras Bulba
Monday, April 24th, 2006, 03:21 PM
And surpressed sience and people wherever it could.

No....in fact Catholicism was the greatest patron of scientific developments well into the modern era. Most historians now actually admit this.



Galileo anyone?

Lets just assume for a moment that what's commonly said about that incident is indeed correct. Galileo was brought before the Inquisition for his scientific theories(actually that wasnt the case, but rather for his dealings in a topic he knew little about, theology). What effect did it have in the long term? None. Even within Catholic circles, the Galileo affair did not stop anykind of further scientific research, in fact it actually expanded. The Galileo affair also had no theological significance either.




The church was one of the most destructive forces in european history. The church was the reson we had the dark ages

That was caused by the collaspe of the Roman Empire. Although many historians also now admit that the "Dark Ages" were much more richer culturally and even intellectual speaking than previously thought.

Just one example, what we now know as the book today actually saw its full development during the "Dark Ages". This fully allowed monks and scribes to preserve multiple documents and chronicles than was previous possible with the old scroll. The Carolingian Renaisance and further revivals of learning in the late Medieval and the Renaisance was built upon these "Dark Age" developments in scholarship.



, the crusades,

The Crusades were by an large an European counter-attack against the massive invasions of Islamic hordes from the previous century. Jay Williams has even written a book The Way of the Crusades (http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-1416504850-0) which makes the argument that they actually contributed greatly to the cultural development of both the Arab and European worlds.

Moody
Monday, April 24th, 2006, 05:11 PM
I think we have to see Nietzsche's comparison between Islam and Christianity [as quoted from The Antichrist, in the first post], as primarily an historical observation.

The first mention of Islam in The Antichrist is long before the one quoted, and we need to look at in in order to put the other one in context.

Nietzsche writes;

"In Christianity all the instincts of the subjugated & oppressed come to the fore: it is the lowest classes who seek their salvation in this religion ...
Here the body is despised, hygiene is repudiated as sensual; the Church repudiates even cleanliness - the first Christian measure after the banishment of the Moors was the closing of the public baths, of which Cordova alone possessed 270 ..."
[Nietzsche, A 21]

Now this is broadly true historically; the Muslim Moors ruled Spain from AD 711 to AD 1492, and scholars reckon that their university at Cordova was a great centre of learning.

As to cleanliness, [Christian] Europeans hadn't [during this period] connected a lack of hygiene with disease, and so cared little for it.
Indeed, certain Christian attitudes [anti-vanity etc.,] militated against it, whereas the Koran itself stresses cleanliness [Koran 74.4], and frequent ablutions [Koran 5.6].

Now hygiene was very important for Nietzsche, hence his attitude towards Christianity in relation to Islam here.

Lest we think this peculiar to Nietzsche, we see that Hitler felt similarly;

"I do wash my hands very frequently".
[Hitler, Table Talk, 12 Aug 1942]

Indeed, Hitler agrees with Nietzsche mainly on this general theme;

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity".
[ib., 9 April 1942]

SuuT
Monday, April 24th, 2006, 05:46 PM
As to cleanliness, [Christian] Europeans hadn't [during this period] connected a lack of hygiene with disease, and so cared little for it.
Indeed, certain Christian attitudes [anti-vanity etc.,] militated against it, whereas the Koran itself stresses cleanliness [Koran 74.4], and frequent ablutions [Koran 5.6].

Now hygiene was very important for Nietzsche, hence his attitude towards Christianity in relation to Islam here.


Let us not forget Nietzsche's concern for 'gender' cleanliness in the order of rank of the Monotheistic traditions--in which, the long term affect of Islam is superior to that of Christianity:

"...Islam presupposes men..." (The Anti-Christian).

This affect is still seen today; whereas Christianity almost defines "effete" as its affect continues its progressive devolution. Christianity does not contain within itself the elements that would allow it to regressively evolve--although many participants in Skadi would seem to think otherwise. For whatever reason, it strikes me as odd that I have yet to see, under the descriptions of forum participants, a single Muslim. Yet "Christian" (or some derivation thereof) is prolific...

It would seem that a lack of an historical sense is not only the family failing of Philosophers. There will come a day in which Christians will be shown no mercy; and given no quarter. The day is already at hand, in many ways: Christians are largely assumed guilty unless proven innocent. Islam, at least, continues to proceed with its ascent from Judaism; Christianity proceeds to its aposite union with this virus.

anthropos
Monday, April 24th, 2006, 06:40 PM
Reasoning about today, what christianity has become is a powerful anti-racist force, as much antiwhite as islam, and more dangerous than the latter because it is still well established and respected by the most conservative strata of society.

i see some light only in the lefevrian field towards wich I have many sympathies, as the only truly white friendly portion of christianity left.

Moody
Tuesday, April 25th, 2006, 04:44 PM
"...Islam presupposes men..." (The Anti-Christian).

The above is from the next important passage in the Antichrist on this issue;

"If Islam despises Christianity, it is justified a thousand times over; for Islam presupposes men".
[Nietzsche, A 59]

There is a sense in Nietzsche that Christianity had 'unmanned' and effeminised Germans in a way that Islam never would have.

One thinks again of Hitler's views on the subject;

"It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German ... one is flabbergasted to think that German human beings could have let themselves be brought to such a pass by Jewish filth & priestly twaddle ...
It angers one to think that, while in other parts of the globe religious teaching like that of Confucius, Buddha & Mohammed offers an undeniably broad basis for the religious-minded, Germans should have been duped by a theological exposition devoid of all honest depth ..."
[Hitler, TT 5 June 1942, my emphasis]

In the very act of accepting Christianity, Germans had made themselves suspect;

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure".


Clearly, National-Socialism, like Nietzscheanism, was an attempt to rectify these failings.

However, I am not for creating religious wars within the Folk over the matter, and prefer Hitler's [i]gradualist approach to the cleansing of religious feeling.

Hitler lays out the basic steps to the future thus;

"1) First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights.

2) The National-Socialist State is sheltered from the danger of competing with religion.

3) Religions must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters.

4) From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the National-Socialist State ...

5) We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread teachings in conflict with the interests of that State.

6) We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National-Socialism & the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth ..."
[ib., 14 Oct 1941, adapted]

This is excerpted from a very important speech on the issue.

SuuT
Tuesday, April 25th, 2006, 08:11 PM
Hitler lays out the basic steps to the future thus;

"1) First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights.

2) The National-Socialist State is sheltered from the danger of competing with religion.

3) Religions must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters.

4) From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the National-Socialist State ...

5) We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread teachings in conflict with the interests of that State.

6) We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National-Socialism & the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth ..."


This is excerpted from a very important speech on the issue.

Ergo, a European caliphate--if one is to adhere to Hitler's axiomatic appraoch--is...[I]unwelcome. The substrate that binds Islam (submission) by means of the abdate (slaves to Allah) is that there are those living, and governments functioning, under the rubric of Islam; are "under the sword"--and those that are not: the latter are to be converted and governments altered to reflect a theocracy (e.g. Iran...), or decimated. NONE of the points in your exerpation can, in any way, fit a National Socialist agenda with respect to the ardent and as of yet 'unsecularized' Muslim. Nor can they (Muslims) be offered the eqivalent of the protected status (dimi) that they once granted to Jews and Christians alike: they would rather be destroyed than not be on top; which runs counter to what Nietzsche states about the Aryan: "the master race is either on top, or it is destroyed" (emphasis mine; and, as you know, I disagree with this: the master race now waits).

In short, while Islam is plainly 'masculine'; it cannot be anything other than given its due respect from a distance. A long distance. There is no place for it within Arya.

Borgia: "However, I am not for creating religious wars within the Folk over the matter, and prefer Hitler's gradualist approach to the cleansing of religious feeling"

Capitulation or Diplomacy...? I am inclined to neither.

Hitler's gradualist approach, as you know, had many final solutions. The important thing is that Christians have received fair warning. "knowing not what they do" will only save them, in the now. They retard the process that I, and if I sense you at all, you, wish to expedite. There are many exemplars in this forum that know not what they do. But they will.

Cole Nidray
Tuesday, April 25th, 2006, 09:45 PM
Garbage. Christianity united, nay, created Europe.
Yea, just like Christianity created "Yahweh". :D

Europa is a name from Greek mythology and defined the entire continent by the fifth century BC.

It turned Europe from a continent of barbarian tribes into confederation of Kingdoms
Oh yes, Rome and Greece were barbarian tribes before Christianity.

There were already Aristocracies in Northen Europe (which is the region you probably meant to lie about). The dysgenic sprawl that overtook Northern Europe however is a result of Christianity which provided numerous "enlightening" methods to add to this, such as enrolling the smartest and strongest men into professions that demanded celibacy.:) They also kept feeding and coddling the unfit so they reproduced when they should have been allowed to naturally die out since sterilization wasn't an option then.

under a single religion and a single leader - the Pope -
So you believe in the Papalprinzip while calling those that believe in loyalty to an Aristocratic leader who has demonstrated ability and achievement, "Nutzis".

and brought Eastern Europe into the fold,
You mean ravaged the Europids of the Eastern European countryside while maintaining friendly relations with Muslims and Jews.


produced such powerful fighting units as the Knights Templar and St. John's Hospitallers
The Knights were sworn not only to poverty and wasted much energy in caring for the weak instead of working towards advancement, but also they were forced into celibacy, once again depleting Europe of warrior stock which is exactly the opposite of the heathen approach from Sparta to the SS. The Knights Templar was also destroyed by the Catholic Church with many members burned at the stake for "heresy". :P


You're a fool. Christianity is not a never ending guilt trip. It is a demand for inner purification.
It is a guilt trip, it imparts special status to outsiders (Jews), and it is as you say, focused on the individual.

Roman Catholicism acknowledges ethnocultures and supports the rights of national self-determination.
You're a fool. Look at the immigration policies of America from the 1920's through today, see if you can ignore the Catholic influence to this present day.

Official Catholic Church immigration group:

http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org

Cole Nidray
Tuesday, April 25th, 2006, 10:16 PM
Democracy is vox populi vox dei.
Wrong.

Democracy is vox pluto vox populi.


Our current mess can be attributed to three things: the effect the holocaust and Nazi Germany in general (whether manufactured or not) has had on the prospects of racialism, nationalism and eugenics in the West,

It must be noted that this is only the most recent tool used against racialism. Racialism was NEVER universally accepted among Europeans (particularly Anglos who crafted amorphously restrictive immigration policies to avoid the race issue). If they didn't have the WWII lies they would use something else.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/03/the_racial_ideo.php


During the ages of discovery and colonization, whites rarely held well-considered or consistent views of race. Their actions and opinions varied widely in time and from place to place. Europeans often felt superior to the primitive peoples with whom they came into contact, but during the entire modern period, there have always been whites who held anti-”racist” views of the kind that prevail today. Since the Second World War, opinion has certainly shifted in a markedly unhealthy direction, but Europeans have never had a sound, generally-accepted understanding of race.


the concept of the seperation of powers, which leaves government open to be siezed by special interest groups and ultimately leaves the voice of the people shattered and ineffective before the power of corporations and other pressure groups,
How then can you support such concepts as Democracy and Libertarianism?

We need leaders. The only point of contention is how to go about choosing who is to lead. I would argue that leaders should be those that have demonstrated marked talent and achievement within a government/military organization, not those that are merely most appealing to financiers and mobs. An order structure should be in place to insure a gradual increase in responsibility among potential leaders with a strict code to live by.


and the perversion of freedom and the destruction of traditional morality combined with the rise of expressive individualism, the tolerance morality and the 'freedom' cult.
Agreed.

Moody
Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 12:01 PM
what Nietzsche states about the Aryan: "the master race is either on top, or it is destroyed" (emphasis mine; and, as you know, I disagree with this: the master race now waits).

The passage you quote from is once again an important one; this time from 'The Will to Power'.

It must be quoted in a more complete form, as it outlines Nietzsche's coherent grasp of the major religions from an Aryan perspective;

"What an affirmative Aryan religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: The Law Book of Manu ...

"What an affirmative Semitic religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: The Law Book of Mohammed ..."
[Nietzsche, WP 145 (1884-8)]

So this actually agrees with your point; there cannot be more than one ruling idea within a single State; however, there should be a mutual respect, as you allow, between ruling ideas within a World-Order.
Aryanism and Islam should rule their respective parts of the world in a peace-ful co-existence. The reason that the West is in conflict with Islam today is because the West has been thoroughly Judaised.

The Nietzschean point is simply that Aryans [and Hitlerism is a Germanic version of Aryanism] should respect Islam as it is the product of a ruling class, like Aryanism.

But let Nietzsche continue;

"What a negative Semitic religion, the product of an oppressed class, looks like: the New Testament ...
"What a negative Aryan religion looks like, grown up among the ruling orders: Buddhism ..."


Note that Nietzsche is specific; it is the [i]New Testament to which he objects.
And note too that he does not include the concept of an Aryan oppressed class amongst his comparisons, because, as you quote him above, there can be no Aryan oppressed class, it is a contradiction in terms.

Therefore Christianity is objectionable because it was the invention of the oppressed classes.

Again, this is historically true.


The Aryan must always be above the ravings of the oppressed classes, which are beneath him;

"Let us be the only people who are immunised against the disease of Christianity".
[Hitler, Table Talk 13 Dec 1941]

Of course, as you suggest, Hitler did admire the Muslim methods at times;

"The rapidity with which Mustapha Kemal Ataturk rid himself of his Christian parsons makes one of the most remarkable chapters in history. He hanged thirty-nine of them out-of-hand, the rest he flung out, & St. Sophia in Constantinople is now a museum!"
[Hitler, Table Talk 1 Aug 1942]

However, I think he knew too that these were not Aryan methods.
And as Christianity was originally the product of an oppressed class, it is just a matter of relegating it to the realm of private spirituality.
While so doing, any Aryan elements which have become entangled with it historically can be rehabilitated.
These elements may rise to the top and inform the Aryan spirituality which resides in the ruling idea of what I call Aryanosophy.
Meanwhile, Christianity will slowly become Aryanised.
This is an Aryan solution.

I can think of no better guide on these difficult questions than Hitler.

SuuT
Monday, May 1st, 2006, 08:51 PM
Quote:
The passage you quote from is once again an important one; this time from 'The Will to Power'.

It must be quoted in a more complete form, as it outlines Nietzsche's coherent grasp of the major religions from an Aryan perspective;

"What an affirmative Aryan religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: The Law Book of Manu ...

"What an affirmative Semitic religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: The Law Book of Mohammed ..."
[Nietzsche, WP 145 (1884-8)]

So this actually agrees with your point; there cannot be more than one ruling idea within a single State; however, there should be a mutual respect, as you allow, between ruling ideas within a World-Order.
Aryanism and Islam should rule their respective parts of the world in a peace-ful co-existence. The reason that the West is in conflict with Islam today is because the West has been thoroughly Judaised.

"In times of peace, the man of war turns against himself" (N)

..."War is not the answer" they say: peace is not the question.

--Let us ruminate on the fact that, while you are correct that Islam is to be left alone (sided with even), the poets must "...have something for a long time to sing about and to praise" (N).--I am reminded of a vision I recently had of the mutual respect between Richard the 1st and Saladin (this name may be off a bit...) returned in the form of like men, which who have yet to appear: much must happen yet--including the eventuation of a war with Islam simply to repel it. The chronology of the future is not on our side. Let us make our hearts small.

The Nietzschean point is simply that Aryans [and Hitlerism is a Germanic version of Aryanism] should respect Islam as it is the product of a ruling class, like Aryanism.

But let Nietzsche continue;

"What a negative Semitic religion, the product of an oppressed class, looks like: the New Testament ...
"What a negative Aryan religion looks like, grown up among the ruling orders: Buddhism ..."


Note that Nietzsche is specific; it is the New Testament to which he objects.
And note too that he does not include the concept of an Aryan oppressed class amongst his comparisons, because, as you quote him above, there can be no Aryan oppressed class, it is a contradiction in terms.

Therefore Christianity is objectionable because it was the invention of the oppressed classes.

Again, this is historically true.


The Aryan must always be above the ravings of the oppressed classes, which are beneath him;

"Let us be the only people who are immunised against the disease of Christianity".
[Hitler, Table Talk 13 Dec 1941]

Ideologically sound. Pragmatically (as has been borne out) nugatory: it just does not work.

"...Perhaps Christianity will always be possible..." (N): [I]This was a warning.

Of course, as you suggest, Hitler did admire the Muslim methods at times;

"The rapidity with which Mustapha Kemal Ataturk rid himself of his Christian parsons makes one of the most remarkable chapters in history. He hanged thirty-nine of them out-of-hand, the rest he flung out, & St. Sophia in Constantinople is now a museum!"
[Hitler, Table Talk 1 Aug 1942]

However, I think he knew too that these were not Aryan methods.

I've not read this in years; but, if memory serves, the eqivalent was performed via Blitzkrieg and Panzer... What makes Hitler an exemplar was exactly his willingness to utilize any means offered up by history--and to evolve them. This, brother, is what lay solid in the aim of the new nobility.

And as Christianity was originally the product of an oppressed class, it is just a matter of relegating it to the realm of private spirituality.


While so doing, any Aryan elements which have become entangled with it historically can be rehabilitated.
These elements may rise to the top and inform the Aryan spirituality which resides in the ruling idea of what I call Aryanosophy.
Meanwhile, Christianity will slowly become Aryanised.
This is an Aryan solution.

Remarkable. I would like to speak more as to how one can Aryanize Christianity. Some examples might help. The period during the crusades was about as Aryan as Christianity can conceivably be. (we are now off thread topic).

I can think of no better guide on these difficult questions than Hitler.

Who, ultimately, failed.

Moody
Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006, 01:47 PM
Was it not the British politician Enoch Powell who said that "all political careers end in failure"?

My focus in this thread is to suggest that Nietzsche and Hitler shared a very similar vision when it came to the Aryan attitude towards historical Islam, and of the historical comparison of Islam to Christianity from an Aryan perspective.

However, it must be stressed that this is an historical position. It does not mean that we should view the Islam or the Chrisitianity of today in the same light.

Going back to the Nietzsche passage quoted in the very first post, we have;

"Christianity destroyed the harvest we might have reaped from the culture of antiquity, later it also destroyed our harvest of the culture of Islam.
The wonderful Moorish world of Spanish culture, which in its essence is more closely related to us ..." "... was trampled to death ... Later on the Crusaders waged war upon something before which it would have been more seemly in them to grovel in the dust ..."
[Nietzsche A 60]

This must be compared with Hitler;

"In the Spanish people there is a mixture of Gothic, Frankish & Moorish blood ... The Arabian epoch ... was the most cultured, the most intellectual & in every way best & happiest in Spanish history. It was followed by the period of the persecutions with its unceasing atrocities".
[Hitler, TT 1 Aug 1942]

This is straightforward agreement between the two men, and when Nietzsche calls ;

"Christianity & alcohol - the two great means of corruption".
[Nietzsche ib.,]

We see that Hitler agrees with him again, having already called Christianity "unhealthy", Hitler says of alcohol that he has given it up;

"When I became a vegetarian, a mouthful of water from time to time was enough".
[Hitler TT 22 Jan 1942]

And when Nietzsche writes;

" 'War with Rome to the knife! Peace & friendship with Islam': this is what that great free-spirit, that genius among German emperors, - Frederick the second, not only felt but also did".
[Nietzsche ib.,]

We find Hitler saying something very similar;

"The Church was ... at fault in its assessment of the Sicilian Frederick, who, as an Emperor at the age of twenty-one, conquered the German Reich ..."
[Hitler TT 23 April 1942]

You seem to be suggesting that we should today take the Frederickian view;

'War to the knife against the Christian Church, and friendship with Islam'.

However, the Christian Church is in a very different position today compared to a century or so ago, as is Islam.
We need to present a modified view of these things which apply to today [just as Hitler did in his day].

We must weigh up the actual threat presented to an Aryan revival by both Christianity and Islam in today's Europe, and compare them to other anti-Aryan forces, before taking up a philosophic position which may differ from both Nietzsche and Hitler's.

So I might ask, is the Christian Church the same kind of threat today as it was 500 years or so ago?
Is it even the same kind of threat as it was 70 years ago?

Is not the Christian Faith in Germanic regions fading away today?

And is it not rather the residue of that historical faith that needs to be attacked?

SuuT
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 01:49 AM
Was it not the British politician Enoch Powell who said that "all political careers end in failure"?

I would not call Hitler a politician any more than I would call Islam a philosophy.

My focus in this thread is to suggest that Nietzsche and Hitler shared a very similar vision when it came to the Aryan attitude towards historical Islam, and of the historical comparison of Islam to Christianity from an Aryan perspective.

However, it must be stressed that this is an historical position. It does not mean that we should view the Islam or the Chrisitianity of today in the same light.

Going back to the Nietzsche passage quoted in the very first post, we have;

"Christianity destroyed the harvest we might have reaped from the culture of antiquity, later it also destroyed our harvest of the culture of Islam.
The wonderful Moorish world of Spanish culture, which in its essence is more closely related to us ..." "... was trampled to death ... Later on the Crusaders waged war upon something before which it would have been more seemly in them to grovel in the dust ..."
[Nietzsche A 60]

This must be compared with Hitler;

"In the Spanish people there is a mixture of Gothic, Frankish & Moorish blood ... The Arabian epoch ... was the most cultured, the most intellectual & in every way best & happiest in Spanish history. It was followed by the period of the persecutions with its unceasing atrocities".
[Hitler, TT 1 Aug 1942]

This is straightforward agreement between the two men, and when Nietzsche calls ;

"Christianity & alcohol - the two great means of corruption".
[Nietzsche ib.,]

We see that Hitler agrees with him again, having already called Christianity "unhealthy", Hitler says of alcohol that he has given it up;

"When I became a vegetarian, a mouthful of water from time to time was enough".
[Hitler TT 22 Jan 1942]

And when Nietzsche writes;

" 'War with Rome to the knife! Peace & friendship with Islam': this is what that great free-spirit, that genius among German emperors, - Frederick the second, not only felt but also did".
[Nietzsche ib.,]

We find Hitler saying something very similar;

"The Church was ... at fault in its assessment of the Sicilian Frederick, who, as an Emperor at the age of twenty-one, conquered the German Reich ..."
[Hitler TT 23 April 1942]

You seem to be suggesting that we should today take the Frederickian view;

'War to the knife against the Christian Church, and friendship with Islam'.

I suggest nothing. I'm telling you of a certain eventuation to which you will either subscribe or not.

However, the Christian Church is in a very different position today compared to a century or so ago, as is Islam.
We need to present a modified view of these things which apply to today [just as Hitler did in his day].

We must weigh up the actual threat presented to an Aryan revival by both Christianity and Islam in today's Europe, and compare them to other anti-Aryan forces, before taking up a philosophic position which may differ from both Nietzsche and Hitler's.

Well said.

So I might ask, is the Christian Church the same kind of threat today as it was 500 years or so ago?

The church? Certainly no. Not the same "kind." Nietzsche, himself, recognized that the church even in his time retarded the Christian memetic hoard that has now engulfed all of the west: see the change in Canonic edict just after WWII. It knew it had but to essentially watch, and wait. The church simply pokes here, and then there; nuzzles here and then there: prodding the cattle. There is an argument to made about this being more incideous than the church of any Medieval Pope.

Is it even the same kind of threat as it was 70 years ago?

I don't know that "kind" applies, really. Although an impossibility to quantify, something tells me that 'degree' (the degree to which the church is a threat today) is of qualitative import: the church has served its purpose as a memetic device; it is now the memetic status quo that is of threat given that it has conqured so completely.

Is not the Christian Faith in Germanic regions fading away today?

Memetically, no. The last time I was in Germany (proper) I actaully left 3 days early because of the aire of gloom: passive Nihilism sits at the throne. I never seen such empty faces. Yet, every voice I encountered was still terrified of the Jews: I spoke with no one that did not refer to them as a "gang" and Christianity as long gone. Gods shadow looms large.

And is it not rather the residue of that historical faith that needs to be attacked?

The problem with this is that this "residue" is the primordial slime out of which the last man has devolved. Europe stinks to the heavens with this creature. I once heard a wise man say that "...there must be a vertiable holocaust of the Human..." I wonder how he might, to reitterate a question, Aryanize Christianity.

Moody
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 04:33 PM
The problem with this is that this "residue" is the primordial slime out of which the last man has devolved. Europe stinks to the heavens with this creature. I once heard a wise man say that "...there must be a vertiable holocaust of the Human..." I wonder how he might, to reitterate a question, Aryanize Christianity.

The question of the Human is far wider, and should be dealt with in another thread and in another context; I am trying to keep to this thread's topic, first and foremost.
And I am also trying to respect the ambit of this Forum.

Now I certainly believe that the Human must be overthrown; however, I don't think that this position will be understood within the context of this thread. That's why I don't advocate that here.

I admit that the phrase "Aryanise Christianity" is something of an euphemism. It really means the gradual, but eventually the complete, eradication of Christianity from Europe, and its transmogrification into a purely Aryan spirituality.
This is to be achieved over time , and will be furthered by the increasing 'rediscovery' [and re-invention] of European pagan forms.

Now, given that this Forum contains Nietzscheans, Pagans, Aryanists, Atheists, New Agers etc., as well as Christians, I do not think it is the place to start a 'holy war' of Nietzscheans against Christians, as that would achieve nothing [i]because the Christians who are here are the type who do want to see an Aryan revival!
I have no issue with those Christians at all!

Now mainstream Christians, who are anti-Aryan and pro-multiculturalist/multiracialist, - of course we should do battle with them.
But there are none here!
Therefore I will not follow the tangent which suggests a whole-scale war against Christianity here on this Forum.

This is not because I don't want to get into a fight: it is simply that I want to fight the right people. I consider all the Christians that I know-of here to be allies, not enemies.
Not because they are Christians, but because they are racialists.

I regard the lack of racial belief to be far more of a threat today than anything else, as it implicitly denies every and any order-of-rank.
[And we might reflect that in Nietzsche's time and before, belief in race was commonplace, even amongst Christians].

Now, the thread itself is mainly concerned with Islam in Europe; and we see that historically, Nietzsche regarded the Islamic rule of Spain which covered around 800 years (!) to be superior to the Christian rule in that country.

Indeed, Nietzsche thought that Islam was generally closer to Aryan values than Christianity simply because the former was the product of a ruling class.

This has already been said, and I have shown that Hitler in his private talks was in full agreement with this. .

But there is an important note of disagreement between Nietzsche and Hitler which mustn't be papered-over.

It is this - Nietzsche thought that the [i]Germans had always been at fault, historically, for preserving Christianity. He blamed the Germanic element for the Crusades, and for the Reformation, for example. When Pagan values stood a chance of re-surfacing, Nietzsche finds the Germans ready to charge in and reaffirm the Bible.

Now this is a thesis not shared by Hitler [and was surely disproved by him]! And it is not one that will run very far on this Forum committed as it is to Germanic values.
It is not a thesis that I would want to argue either [here or anywhere else] as I think that it is peculiar to Nietzsche, and it is unsound. I take it to be an exaggeration based on his lack of appreciation in his home country, Germany.
And anyway, Nietzsche himself says in the section quoted in the first post that 'Germans can't be Christians'!

So what do I get from all this?
I believe in the pagan essence of Germanism and the wider possibility of an Aryan revival.
That racialism is essential and the most important aspect today.
That the war against Islam is largely a Judeaocratic affair, and we shouldn't be sucked into the 'Islamophobia' promoted by the Jewspapers.
I also believe that Christianity is dying a slow death and that only a spirituality based on Race will suffice for the future.
And yes, that Racial spirituality will lead to a rejection of the Human altogether; in favour of the Overhuman [or Master Race].

SuuT
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 05:44 PM
(...I have Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" pounding in my ears...)

If one 'Christian' be here that places his race above his Jewish God without semantic acrobatics--let him come forward, and be heard. I'm certain that it will be quite interesting...

Respect the ambit of the distance between man and man. Am I asking it...? Yes, I suppose I am: Do you have the courage of your convictions?-- to which you do have a right.

I will later address the other issues you raise in another thread; as I, too, wish to respect the ambit of order.

Bottom line on today's Islam: Masculine/due respect/kept at bay

Bottom line on today's Chritianity: Let the Christian's speak...

fms panzerfaust
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 09:51 PM
Moody, you're still making this war in that discussion list? A war is not only made of words, actions are needed. The red-armored Zíw needs conscious action.
The enemy is invisible. To blame others is very easy. The first step is to bring peace of mind in the middle of brainstorms. Annihilation of passions that aren't necessary. Concentration on reason to bring awareness, analysing situations and how the mind reacts to them.
Me for example, I was always the "evil one" in the eyes of others.
First was the leftist communists. They called me a nazi, "enemy of the workers".
Then was the liberals. They called me a fascist, "enemy of the market".
Some brazilian patriots called me a fascist too, "enemy of the nation" (sic - dont exist a brazilian nation, a melting pot can only be a country).
As this was not enough, the nazis called me a jew. That is, "enemy of the race".
I'm a jewnazifascistbourgueiosefifthcolumn. I get sick of politics, why I need ideologies to wage a war? Caesar and Augustus dont needed one!
As the eurasists say, "left or right? Dont cares, destroy the system!", much more practical, of course.

Winterhammer
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 06:32 PM
muslims cause 85% and almost all gangrapes in Europe and Scandinavia and now we have people here that claim to be nationalist and who want Europe to turn islamic

some people have really lost it...

if you like the pislam so much move to arabia, or go teamup with the communists and lefties, they want it too.

because if you want Europe to turn islamic this forum is not for you

Aptrgangr
Saturday, November 18th, 2006, 08:57 PM
Native European Muslims Organisation
http://europeans.ws/

angler
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 11:43 PM
http://forums.skadi.net/native_european_muslims_organisation-t82951.html


Native European Muslims Organisation
http://europeans.ws/

must see website

Aragorn
Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 11:37 PM
The day Europe gonna be Islamic, is the day of the end of the world as we know it.

Thusnelda
Saturday, February 3rd, 2007, 12:28 AM
"Europe" and "Islam" are two things that doesnt fit together! :thumbdown I confess: I feel anxiety when I think about the ongoing slighty islamisation of european nations. It must end. But how? :~(

Torquil
Friday, March 30th, 2007, 05:29 PM
I completely agree about finding an alternative to the current society, and that is what the millions of individuals converting to Islam in the Western world are basically seeking.

Current society is sick and decadent and many want to find a way out. Islam for us might end up being like the way Christianity was for the Romans. A despised religion of foreigners on the fringe of society slowly making converts among more affluent members of Western society. Like a swinging pendulum, we've gone so far into the materialist-individualist viewpoint that we'll be swinging towards the other extreme, Islam.


The problem with European paganism is that many of the esoteric teachings seem to have been lost in time, and we are left with the exoteric remnants of these religions (such as dances around a tree, and myths which far too many people treat like children's stories). This leaves many with the impression that these people were simplistic and primitive, which I don't think is fair.

This is true unfortunately. The esoteric aspects of paganism need to be rediscovered. I've always thought it humiliating how Europeans have looked to the East for spirituality.

Hardwig
Friday, March 30th, 2007, 05:37 PM
I'm not European,but I wonder why this Islamization problem doesn't threat the United States demographically speaking.

Æmeric
Friday, March 30th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Geography. There are many poor, overpopulated Muslims countries on the periphery of Europe, in addition to colonial lengths between France & North Africa, Britian & South Asia. Muslim immigration to the US is much less then to Europe and consists primarily of professionals & entrepenerials.

On the otherhand, the US is being overwhelmed by "Hispanic surnamed" Amerindians & Mestizos from Latin America & Negroes from the Carribbean, because of geography.

Hardwig
Friday, March 30th, 2007, 06:13 PM
But many of the so called "Muslim immigrants" in Europe and in the US are refugees and that doesn't explain their much higher preference for Europe.

Aptrgangr
Friday, March 30th, 2007, 06:22 PM
Geography. [...]
On the otherhand, the US is being overwhelmed by "Hispanic surnamed" Amerindians & Mestizos from Latin America & Negroes from the Carribbean, because of geography.

An increased number of Mestizos resp. inhabitants of Latin America are converting to Islam. Many of them convert after they have entered the USA since there are increasingly stong Islamis infrastructures - Nation of Islam etc. but in Brazil and other countries Islam is on the increase. It is not only the liberal-democratic "West" being morally bankrupt, it is Christianity as such too. That's why this many convert.

http://www.hispanicmuslims.com/articles/
http://www.islamlatino.com/
http://www.muhajabah.com/latinos.htm
http://www.latinodawah.org/
http://www.islamawareness.net/LatinAmerica/
http://www.islamamerica.org/articles.cfm/article_id/105/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p11s02-ussc.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9352969/
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369844

Hardwig
Friday, March 30th, 2007, 06:35 PM
Is true that in Germany the authorities created laws two years ago that effectively stop immigration and facilitate deportation of Muslims?

Aptrgangr
Friday, March 30th, 2007, 08:04 PM
Is true that in Germany the authorities created laws two years ago that effectively stop immigration and facilitate deportation of Muslims?

Is it true earth is flat and sun circles around it?

Sorry, but your question is more than silly, just this week laws were made in order to let in many more of them. The deportation of asylum seekers that had no right of residence this far will now granted a right of residence.

Hardwig
Friday, March 30th, 2007, 10:24 PM
Is it true earth is flat and sun circles around it?

Sorry, but your question is more than silly, just this week laws were made in order to let in many more of them. The deportation of asylum seekers that had no right of residence this far will now granted a right of residence.No,I'm not crazy.http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,338766,00.html

Catterick
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 07:29 AM
Until there is an alternative to shariah patrols against alcoholism, homosexuality and female immodesty in British society, so-called traditionalists and conservatives ought to stop criticising Moslems for their fortitude.

"White girls are being raped!"
"Then protect our daughters! "
" But then we would be like Moslems! "

Good riddance to Western values. Western identity is obviously nothing but a front to preserve Western degeneracy. How many faggot flags fly at an anti-Moslem march? Did anyone bother counting? How come critics of Islam are so fond of associating Nazism and Hitler with Islam. Anyone with a brain that works could read between the lines there, what they think of Germanic people.

Bernhard
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 09:36 AM
Until there is an alternative to shariah patrols against alcoholism, homosexuality and female immodesty in British society, so-called traditionalists and conservatives ought to stop criticising Moslems for their fortitude.


There is a reason why these patrols are called shariah patrols and not decency patrols. They want to make sure people are good muslims, not decent people. Opposition to alcoholism, homosexuality etc. is secondary to this goal. They do not care about decency as such. It's the same type of reasoning that makes it okay for young Moroccans in the Netherlands to rob old Dutch ladies, while leaving alone the old Muslim ladies. Do you think old ladies in the Netherlands are targetted for 'female immodesty'?

SpearBrave
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 10:58 AM
This is an old outdated thread to some great extent.

Islam is a cancer and so is marxism. True they are not the same cancer, but they are both dangerous to Germanics. One of the main features about Germanics/Indo-Europeans is their love of free thought, both islam and cultural marxism are against those principles.



Until there is an alternative to shariah patrols against alcoholism, homosexuality and female immodesty in British society, so-called traditionalists and conservatives ought to stop criticising Moslems for their fortitude.

"White girls are being raped!"
"Then protect our daughters! "
" But then we would be like Moslems! "

Good riddance to Western values. Western identity is obviously nothing but a front to preserve Western degeneracy. How many faggot flags fly at an anti-Moslem march? Did anyone bother counting? How come critics of Islam are so fond of associating Nazism and Hitler with Islam. Anyone with a brain that works could read between the lines there, what they think of Germanic people.


Keep in mind under sharia law you as a woman would not be allowed to state your thoughts or opinions. ;)

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 12:24 PM
Until there is an alternative to shariah patrols against alcoholism, homosexuality and female immodesty in British society, so-called traditionalists and conservatives ought to stop criticising Moslems for their fortitude.

"White girls are being raped!"
"Then protect our daughters! "
" But then we would be like Moslems! "

Good riddance to Western values. Western identity is obviously nothing but a front to preserve Western degeneracy. How many faggot flags fly at an anti-Moslem march? Did anyone bother counting? How come critics of Islam are so fond of associating Nazism and Hitler with Islam. Anyone with a brain that works could read between the lines there, what they think of Germanic people.

Those aren't Western values, they are slave programming by the first usurpers of our culture, the Jews.

They've been trying to murder TRUE Western values, which are mostly part of the male ethos. Kill masculinity, kill the male ethos, then flood Europe with jihadis to kill the West. Why do you think they promote this filthy faggotry agenda and transsexual abominations? Why do they promote feminism? Because they couldn't win with with a bunch of John Waynes and Charles Martels running the place. I really think it's chemical, too. BPA and other estrogen mimickers infused into every plastic bottle and food can, to make sure our testosterone gets clobbered. Women in charge of elementary schools drugging up the young boys and punishing them for being masculine. The only way this CAN be explained is by orchestrated attack.

You want to defeat Islam and bring back our people? Get rid of feminism and everything else that's destroying the male ethos. Get women out of government and the legal profession, and everyplace else they don't belong. Make it a part of the culture to have children BEFORE pursuing college or career, so we will not be outbred by the third world.

Catterick
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 12:43 PM
Whatever is the "true" Western culture is semantics. At present the word is toxic and if anyone uses the "Western civilization" meme it is usually a "tell" (like in poker). Islam is the least problem and those fixated on it are drowning out discussions - on purpose I might add. There is little hope those people will defeat feminism, when their objections to Islam are rooted in it and in gay liberation. The Western civilization patriotic idiots willingly protest to preserve.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 01:22 PM
To continue, part of getting rid of the male ethos was defaming the KKK and the NSDAP. These commies marching today chant "No Trump, no KKK, no facist USA." So how do the Alex Joneses and other cucked "conservatives" react to this? They say, "Haha, they think we are the KKK when we regularly denounce them!" That's the trick, Alex... they cucked you. They have made us renounce every masculine movement meant to save our people and culture.

What was going on in the 20s in Europe and America? Two opposite camps gained strength: the pro-European and the anti-European. The pro-Europeans were the KKK in America and the NSDAP and other fascists in Europe. These were masculine in the extreme, even evoking knightly virtues from the past. The whole point was to come together as men and save our people and culture from the anti-Europeans subverting us. The anti-European camp was comprised almost entirely of Jews and other communists, of course. The trump card the Jews had was control of the financial system. They killed the KKK and the male ethos in America by crashing the economy and throwing men out of work, effectively emasculating them and making them more dependent upon government for survival. They got their man, the closet commie FDR, into power to oppose the ascendant fascist movements in Europe which were coming to power and opposing Rothschild banking power there. This was the European male ethos asserting itself, and our enemies couldn't have that.

There's nothing like war to polarize public opinion, and that's how they so successfully demonized fascism and the NSDAP. The reality of it didn't matter... the picture the Anglo-American Jewish propagandists painted of it as our darkest, most evil enemy, did. So now the enemy has most of us confused and under control now. Most of us, even "conservatives," believe that the only sort of movements that could truly oppose them and save us are terrible and evil and "racist." The last barrier to our winning is to break that brainwash. If the anti-white communists hate and fear the KKK and Nazis, then we must liberate the images of the KKK and Nazis. Sow the seeds in comment sections and social media everywhere. When you find someone calling you a "racist" or a "Nazi," embrace it. Tell them the "Nazis" were the good guys. The KKK were the good guys too. Turn their world upside down and you will have begun to turn ours right side up.

Wulfaz
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 03:59 PM
Interesting that Hitler was in the party of the Muslims, he met with the High Mufti of Jerusalem. Furthermore the Jihadist use to call as "Islamo-Fasists", so the Nazis-Muslims parallel is exist.

To the main topic, Islam in Europe? The Albans and the Serb-Croat Boshniaks Muslims too, but they are Balkanics, they are brutal nations too, but they not connected to the Shiita or Sunnita Jihadists.

The Islam is incompatible with the Greco-Roman-Christian-German-Slavic-etc. moral of Europe what the contemporar secular, non-nationalist Europan moral is based.

Mööv
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 04:48 PM
The Albans and the Serb-Croat Boshniaks Muslims too, but they are Balkanics, they are brutal nations too, but they not connected to the Shiita or Sunnita Jihadists.



Yes they are. They are Sunni, and their communities harbour many extreme groups. The main terror training camps in Europe are in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Catterick
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 05:06 PM
There are also Baktashis in the Balkans.

Juthunge
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 08:19 PM
Until there is an alternative to shariah patrols against alcoholism, homosexuality and female immodesty in British society, so-called traditionalists and conservatives ought to stop criticising Moslems for their fortitude.

"White girls are being raped!"
"Then protect our daughters!"
"But then we would be like Moslems!"

Good riddance to Western values. Western identity is obviously nothing but a front to preserve Western degeneracy. How many faggot flags fly at an anti-Moslem march? Did anyone bother counting? How come critics of Islam are so fond of associating Nazism and Hitler with Islam. Anyone with a brain that works could read between the lines there, what they think of Germanic people.

I don’t care one iota if Muslims would coincidentally do something that betters the undoubted levels of degeneracy in western society. Because whatever they do ultimately only serves their own goals and not ours.
Not even regarding the fact that whatever Muslims understand as modesty and morality bears only the slightest of resemblance to what these concepts mean to a Germanic.

In principle these ridiculous “patrols” only show one thing to our own people as well as to other Muslims: that we’re not masters of our own lands anymore if we let this happen.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by Muslim “fortitude” in connection to rape of our women. If you meant it’s mostly brought about by them being clothed and behaving immodest then let me tell you one thing: Muslim refugees rape German women in summer as well as in winter, when there’s not even the chance to being immodest. Unless of course you consider trousers and a winter jacket as immodest.

It doesn’t matter to them if they’re clothed western, if they’re children, adults or past 70. A lot of these rapes happen to young girls in swimming baths or old women in their own homes. In fact, it doesn’t even seem to matter whether they’re even female in some cases.


Islam is the least problem and those fixated on it are drowning out discussions - on purpose I might add. There is little hope those people will defeat feminism, when their objections to Islam are rooted in it and in gay liberation.

No, Islam or rather the people bearing that ideology, are indeed at the moment the foremost threat to (Germanic) Europe. Even though it might just be a symptom of the illness that has befallen us, there’s no chance of an eventual rebirth/renaissance of Germanic morals if we’re already outbred in oblivion.

You can always work to change mentality within a population but only as long as it stays genetically pure. Of course you could try to do the same with a mixed population and impress Muslim values upon them but what would be the point of that for a Germanic preservationist?

Thusnelda
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 09:30 PM
I will ignore all pro-Islam members and those who think Islam is not an integreal threat to our Germanic civilization.

LordLoki
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 11:52 PM
Personally I've always concluded that the main reason why Muslims feel more exclusion and disillusionment in Europe than in USA is not because Europeans are more culturally self-conscious. It's just that the average American can't tell a Muslim apart from a Mexican or anyone else. Look at all the attacks on Sikhs after 9/11.

It saddens me that it took Europe so long to wake up to even a lick of the reality going on, and Americans overall haven't even started.

Primus
Thursday, February 2nd, 2017, 08:24 AM
Catholics have been at war with the saracen horde for 1,400 years. I do not like them. At all.

Catterick
Thursday, February 2nd, 2017, 08:28 PM
Juthunge: game theory suggests to cooperate with rivals when it is in one's self interest to cooperate (shared values and opponents) even if it is better to be hostile at other times. This is a direct contradiction of treating any "outgroup" as enemies unconditionally.

Juthunge
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 12:15 AM
Juthunge: game theory suggests to cooperate with rivals when it is in one's self interest to cooperate (shared values and opponents) even if it is better to be hostile at other times. This is a direct contradiction of treating any "outgroup" as enemies unconditionally.

That might well be true in some situations, where “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” indeed. But that isn’t true if the former is actually worse than the first enemy and is threatening your existence.

When looking at the demographics of European Germanic nations and especially at the current connection of age structure and ethnicity, it becomes easily apparent by whom we’re threatened.


Official percentages for Germany from 2015 (https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Bevoelkerung/MigrationIntegration/Migrationshintergrund2010220157004.pdf?_ _blob=publicationFile) for example:

Foreigners with or without German pass are now 21% of the population. They have a much higher birth rate and are much younger than Ethnic Germans. Percentage of foreigners in given age groups:

00 – 05 years: 35,9%
05 – 10 years: 35,6%
10 – 15 years: 32,7%
15 – 20 years: 28,5%
…and so on.

It reaches equilibrium, to the actual share of population, only for the age group of 45 – 55 years and decreases afterwards. That’s obviously for most people well past child bearing age.


To be graphic:
Orange: Foreigners, no German pass
Green: Foreigners, with German pass
Beige: Ethnic Germans

https://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=112857&stc=1&d=1486166698

This situation will further worsen with the ongoing refugee crisis, mostly from Muslim regions. (http://www.theeuropean.de/adorjan-f-kovacs/10622-einwanderung-oder-zuflucht) Own, free translation:

In the year 2020, 11,5 million people of the age group 20 - 35 will be of migrant background. That's full 50% of that age group. Not even including higher birth rates for first generation immigrants.
But that only if merely half of 3-4 million current and expected refugees will stay and if only 3 persons will follow via family reunification. That's a minimum estimate.

Same goes for most (continental) European Germanic countries but perhaps a bit less extreme in some cases.


So it’s definitely not homosexuals that threaten us because, obviously, per definition they won’t outbreed us. Homosexuality, but to me only really if expressed as overly effeminate behaviour, and its support by a big part of the heterosexual population are of course still a problem to the mindset of a society.

But definitely one that pales in comparison to immigration and the crime, destabilisation as well as the loss of identity that comes with it.

Catterick
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 04:48 PM
So? It doesn't change that without Moslems, there would be less criticisms of the liberalism we live under. The "right wing" parties are to the left, on social issues, of the old school Communists. The Alt-Right panders whenever it can to gays and feminists. It is not my political movement. Nor is the counter-jihad.

Spjabork
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 06:17 PM
game theory suggests to cooperate with rivals when it is in one's self interest to cooperate (shared values and opponents) even if it is better to be hostile at other times.

This is a direct contradiction of treating any "outgroup" as enemies unconditionally.
The problem is: what is in your mind is not in the mind of others.
If you deem, muslims is -- albeit temporarily and only 'conditionally' -- your 'ally' in a certain environment, under certain conditions, and at a certain time, it does not mean than the muslims also think so, or that they also perceive things this way.

To the muslims, you are no different from all those 'giaurs' they are trying to extinguish, yet if their was a difference between you and normal westerners, they would despise you and laugh at you because of it.
Under the given circumstances, you can not be perceived by them otherwise than as a traitor to your culture, to your people, to your race, and -- most importantly to the muslims -- to your religion (whatever that may be).

Chlodovech
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 06:41 PM
So? It doesn't change that without Moslems, there would be less criticisms of the liberalism we live under.

How so? There's very little criticism of liberalism in European societies - and as far as Muslims is concerned, they keep their criticism behind closed doors. It's not like they get to promote their Islamist views on television.

Catterick, you make the same error as the leftwing - they also believe they can play and use the Muslims , but their Muslim pets have their own laws and are playing and using the leftwingers - and you. You're not being very different from those German girls with their "welcome refugees" signs.

For nationalists to align themselves with the Muslim invaders would be the gravest mistake, it will be the end of our civilization, our independence and our peoples. They're not simply going to do away with feminism, but with all European high art too, for instance. Why would we want these desert dwellers to lord it over us? In the current circumstances any kind of intercultural dialogue is treacherous and must end badly for us.

Why don't you rediscover your Christian heritage instead of flirting with the Islamic faith, Catterick? Why does the solution (always) have to be exotic and alien? There's nothing good about Islam that Christianity can't offer us far better.

You attitude towards the North-African, Middle Eastern invasion of the West is very questionable indeed. These colonists are our archenemies, our ancestors have been fighting them on and off for centuries - that won't change. They don't like us and we don't like them either. These people need to leave our countries and go home, that's all.

Catterick
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 06:58 PM
The problem is: what is in YOUR mind is NOT in the mind of others.
If YOU deem, muslims is -- albeit temporarily and only 'conditionally' -- your 'ally' in a certain environment, under certain conditions, and at a certain time, IT DOES NOT MEAN than the muslims also think so, or that they also perceive things this way.

To the muslims, YOU are NO DIFFERENT from all those 'giaurs' they are trying to extinguish, yet IF their WAS a difference between you and normal westerners, THEY WOULD DESPISE YOU AND LAUGH AT YOU because of it.
Under the given circumstances, you can not be perceived by them otherwise than as a TRAITOR to your culture, to your people, to your race, and -- most importantly to the muslims -- TO YOUR RELIGION (whatever that may be).

What rubbish. What they think and feel is irrelevant. Racial "outgroups" are objects to be used, made easier whenever there is a shared interest.

Every human group behaves as a sociopath towards outsiders. You have so much guilt about this you bother with their feelings to us. As though you think of them as having a shared "humanity" with us.

Like silly forms of antisemitism the counter-jihad is "altruistic punishment" at its root. Though they are outsiders you treat them as though you were punishing/exiling freeloaders or traitors from your ingroup. Otherwise the counter-jihad would not bother with moral evaluations of Moslems (their attitudes to women, gays etc are an obsession of moralistic anti-Islam).

Chlodovech: I come here for the anthropology and the ethnography. In no way am I a nationalist anymore, and I only ever was in the cynical sense meaning anti-liberal. As the big tent kicked me out I have nothing to do with it. I have no patriotic feelings nor attachments to Christianity, which is merely a foreign Abrahamic faith, very like Islam but one that is now less vigorous. Christianity has nothing today to offer but televangelism and a false pope washing the feet of AIDS victims. Though I wish well to sincere folkish Christians as in Orania, there are not enough around to make a difference. Unless you include the world outside ethnic Europe: Christianity today is the faith of Latin America and Black Africa just like Islam is the "sand nigger" religion. And I most certainly feel no connection to this Western Civilisation meme floating round.

The Fuhrer and Il Duce did not see Moslems as some existential threat, and in the postwar period European nationalist movements were not anti-Islam - even when French were murdered in North Africa at the hands of Moslems, on a far greater scale than happened in Paris. Of course no one then was being baited by a hysterical mass media into supporting some surveillance state or perpetual war against Islam. People's evaluation of Islam was allowed to be measured and rational before 9/11.

All that I say about Islam was normal for the "far right" till Zionist money crept in. Ever since then, everything has been watered down so that Islam can be blamed in (post-Christian) Western terms. And there is no place for me in nationalism 2.0. That is all.

Juthunge
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 08:35 PM
What rubbish. What they think and feel is irrelevant. Racial "outgroups" are objects to be used, made easier whenever there is a shared interest.

Every human group behaves as a sociopath towards outsiders. You have so much guilt about this you bother with their feelings to us. As though you think of them as having a shared "humanity" with us.

Like silly forms of antisemitism the counter-jihad is "altruistic punishment" at its root. Though they are outsiders you treat them as though you were punishing/exiling freeloaders or traitors from your ingroup. Otherwise the counter-jihad would not bother with moral evaluations of Moslems (their attitudes to women, gays etc are an obsession of moralistic anti-Islam).

I’m a cultural relativist, I know that there is no universal cultural norm to be understood by all people and peoples of this world, apart from the very basics of Hominid behaviour. I know that western Morals are just that, western and not very old.
Quite frankly, I don’t care how Muslims behave towards their own in their own countries. Live and let live, trade goods for goods, make strategic pacts with their countries. That’s probably the way 90% of nationalists and almost anyone on here sees it.

That doesn’t mean, however, that we won’t judge them by the standards of our own culture if they’re living in our countries. If they rob, beat, murder, rape and replace us in our own countries and we don’t exactly “like that”, it’s no “moral evaluation” of any sort we’re making anyway. It’s just an essential will to survive and our natural right.
If you’d ever leave your house and open your eyes you’d probably know that.


The Fuhrer and Il Duce did not see Moslems as some existential threat, and in the postwar period European nationalist movements were not anti-Islam - even when French were murdered in North Africa at the hands of Moslems, on a far greater scale than happened in Paris. Of course no one then was being baited by a hysterical mass media into supporting some surveillance state or perpetual war against Islam. People's evaluation of Islam was allowed to be measured and rational before 9/11.

If Hitler, Mussolini and other NS and Fascist leaders didn’t see Islam as a threat, well, then it’s perhaps because it wasn’t one back then? Not anymore, in any case?
The Ottoman Empire, was nevertheless a threat for (Central) Europe for centuries before that. But in the 1930s the Middle East was a sleepy backwater, a sandbox for British, French and Russian colonial interests, while Turkey was barely getting by and restructuring itself around a superficial western political system.

But times changed. Stop acting like a fundamentalist Islamic Revival never happened in the 1970s. Stop acting like mass immigration never happened and they’re not in our midst in the millions.
I don’t understand what’s so hard to grasp about the fact that that’s not a good thing for us.

And it will shock you but nationalists opposed extra-European immigration already decades before 9/11. Don’t mistake us for Fox News or neocons.


I come here for the anthropology and the ethnography. In no way am I a nationalist anymore, and I only ever was in the cynical sense meaning anti-liberal. As the big tent kicked me out I have nothing to do with it. I have no patriotic feelings.

I wonder why you’re even commenting in this thread when you’re not a nationalist, not “patriotic” and obviously don’t care about anyone or anything. Not even about Muslims in our midst, as I thought at first. If you only care about anthropology and ethnography, that’s fine. So do probably a lot of other people on here.
But at least they don’t get into subjects they apparently have no actual interest in.

Catterick
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 08:44 PM
Juthunge: I am very interested in moral and political psychology. Not least the way group identities are regularly responsible for people taking self-destructive positions. Game theory is about what is the optimal judgement in a circumstance, correct? And us vs them rubbish clouds what is most in one's self-interest. Let's you and him fight?

Frankly of two possible dhimmitudes the Islamic shares more of my values than the Liberal. But at least Liberalism is Western? ;)

The counter-jihad ruined everything.

North Vinlander
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 09:48 PM
Maybe we should just copy all our values from ancient Athens. Patriarchy, sodomy allowed but marriage is man-woman, no genital mutilation, no hijabs, and most importantly, destroying your enemy is A-ok. No need for non-Aryan deities.

A return to ancient pagan values, without necessarily keeping the theology, is what we need. And it's already happening.

SpearBrave
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 10:49 PM
Catterick, I have for some reason gathered the thoughts that you had some sympathy for islam because they are anti-homosexual. Well as I have stated blatant homosexuals generally disgust me also, however I do realize that islam is the bigger threat to Germanic preservation. No, I'm not a Christian or neo-con person. Truth be told I would could care less about arabs or muslims if they stayed in their own lands, but they are not. They are an invading force into Germanic lands and therefor my enemy.

I get what you are saying and I too have read where the random nationalist has supported islam because they are anti-jewish and I have never understood those view points other than blind hatred of jews. I don't like jews as they are equally damaging to Germanic preservation as muslim invaders and they even support the idea of muslims invading Europe, however we should never climb into bed so to speak with islam to defeat judaism. They are both our enemies and should be treated as such.

Here at Skadi we have many threads and sub forums, all of them deal primarily with Germanic preservation in some way or another and you cannot argue that islam is good for Germanic preservation when they are invading the very core of our homelands. As an American of German decent I view Europe as our life spring that has to be defended at all cost as we are nothing without it. If you really want to know how I feel about non-Germanics of any sort read my signature, as I do believe that the whole world is our enemy and they are all bent on our destruction. Sorry, but I am going to speak for almost any member here when I say that the reason we are here is because we love ourselves and we love our people and when you love something that strong you will fight to protect it.

Catterick
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 11:25 PM
Maybe we should just copy all our values from ancient Athens. Patriarchy, sodomy allowed but marriage is man-woman, no genital mutilation, no hijabs, and most importantly, destroying your enemy is A-ok. No need for non-Aryan deities.

A return to ancient pagan values, without necessarily keeping the theology, is what we need. And it's already happening.

Greek women of high status were veiled, and sodomy between adult males was frowned upon unless one of them was a slave. Greek men could however bugger nine year old boys similar to today's Afghani practice of bacha bazi - that certain Alt-Righters seem in denial about these basic historic facts is what I meant. They rewrite history to project precedents for modernity upon the past. Without a bias they would not be doing that.

SpearBrave: although I do not care what homosexuals do in relative privacy, their movement is a greater threat than Islam at the present time. Because without them and other Cultural Marxists there would be something left to love. At present what is required is on the scale of Mao's Cultural Revolution. Or Hitler's. Common Filth may be an idiot but he is on the right track with his black pill. Fin.

SpearBrave
Saturday, February 4th, 2017, 11:45 PM
SpearBrave: although I do not care what homosexuals do in relative privacy, their movement is a greater threat than Islam at the present time. Because without them and other Cultural Marxists there would be something left to love. At present what is required is on the scale of Mao's Cultural Revolution. Or Hitler's. Common Filth may be an idiot but he is on the right track with his black pill. Fin.

Open blatant homosexuality is just the symptom of cultural marxism, it is not the core of the sickness. The core of the sickness is jewish marxism and jewish critical theory, both of which is supporting the invading muslim horde.

Spjabork
Sunday, February 5th, 2017, 10:38 PM
What rubbish. What they think and feel is irrelevant. Racial "outgroups" are objects to be used, made easier whenever there is a shared interest.

Every human group behaves as a sociopath towards outsiders. You have so much guilt about this you bother with their feelings to us. As though you think of them as having a shared "humanity" with us.
You entirely misunderstood me. I do not care about the feelings of the musels. I do, though, care somewhat about the feelings my fellow kinsmen have for me. If I fraternize with muslim civil invaders now, as you seem to suggest (correct me, if I am wrong), then, for the musels I am either the tool, that will be laid off after the job is done, or I in fact must fully submit to them. This has nothing to do with my care for their 'feelings', it is just a fact, and people as you better should consider this, before they commit any fallacies. In the eyes of my fellow kinsmen, on the other hand, in any case I already have deserted them in their stance against the musels, if I only in the slightest way would flirt with them. You may say, my kinsmen are so decadent and so weak, why would I even consider them? Well, no matter how weak, how deceived, how duped, how helpless they are, they are still my kinsmen, and I do belong to them. If they really are doomed, then I will perish with them. Because I do not want to live alone, when they all are gone, and I certainly do not want to 'live' in a sandniggers' world, neither as their slave, nor as one of them.


Like silly forms of antisemitism the counter-jihad is "altruistic punishment" at its root. Though they are outsiders you treat them as though you were punishing/exiling freeloaders or traitors from your ingroup. Otherwise the counter-jihad would not bother with moral evaluations of Moslems (their attitudes to women, gays etc are an obsession of moralistic anti-Islam).
Where did I say I would take part in a counter-jihad? Why is it always so hard for you to get rid of that narrow black/white world view? If I am not commie, I must be anti-commie. I am not jihad, I must be counter-jihad, and so on and so forth. Isn't that silly in itself? I do not want the musels in my lands, but it doesn't mean I will go over there and dirsturb them in their lands. Why should I? If they bother me, I must do something about it, true, but I would not even have to talk bad about them. I would just and only have to close the borders of my land, that's it. I don't have to give reasons for this, I don't need 'hate' or any other propaganda, I just must do it.

Primus
Monday, February 6th, 2017, 07:48 AM
The god of Islam, 'Allah,' is the evil spiritual entity that Christians call Lucifer, i.e. Satan, Mammon, the Devil, i.e. the 'god of the world.'

You Asatro fellers want to smash some devils aye? :) Catlicks, the few good ones left that is, aren't your enemies. :P

Mööv
Monday, February 6th, 2017, 01:46 PM
The god of Islam, 'Allah,' is the evil spiritual entity that Christians call Lucifer, i.e. Satan, Mammon, the Devil, i.e. the 'god of the world.'



No. Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god. Muslims are the most hard-core of the bunch.

Catterick
Monday, February 6th, 2017, 03:09 PM
Bear in mind that to Christians and Moslems, deviance from orthodoxy is satanic. Whereas for pagans there was no heresy merely heterodoxy. So Primus is correct (theologically, for a Christian).

Spjabork
Monday, February 6th, 2017, 03:41 PM
No. Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god.This sentence is factually wrong, but it is also politically unwise.

Factually, to the Christians the person Jesus Christ is central, whereas to the Musels he is just a minor 'prophet', among many others, and to the Jews HE is a sort of major devil. 'Allah' is singular, 'Eloh-im' is plural, and 'God' is not the same word, but a rendering with quite different meaning.

But let aside all this, which is theoretical anyway, it is extremely unwise, imprudent, and also impractical, to say above sentence in public. Because if really, truly, deeply, the god of the Musels and the god of the Christians was one and the same, then what reason would we have, what reason would remain for us to resist islamization? There would be no reason then.

On the contrary, in public ALL the differences between them and us, yet especially the religious ones, must be stressed to the utmost and must even be exaggerated wherever possible and timely.

Muslims are the most hard-core of the bunch.Even that would be debatable. These three religions are not identical in their creeds, yet they are quite similar in their outward behavior. In this point actually they are most similar. Christians and Jews have shown countless times that they can be equally cruel and barbaric as Musels.

What is true, though, is that the Musels, at the moment and since quite a few decades, have the highest birthrate of the three, and it is this point that makes them look more dangerious, in comparison.

This higher birthrate of the Musels is due to their scientific backwardness, which entails a mental backwardness. But now it turns out that mental backwardness translates directly into biological hard- and toughness. (And, as must be stated, mental progessiveness seemingly translates directly into biological weakness and a leaning toward suicide.)

Yet also this we might have known long ago, as George Orwell has worded it: Ignorance is strength.

Mööv
Monday, February 6th, 2017, 07:29 PM
then what reason would we have, what reason would remain for us to resist islamization? THERE WOULD BE NO REASON THEN.



Ah, so in order to resist Islam I must praise christianity? I'd rather die the most horrible death a 1000 times over!




Bear in mind that to Christians and Moslems, deviance from orthodoxy is satanic. Whereas for pagans there was no heresy merely heterodoxy. So Primus is correct (theologically, for a Christian).

Deviance is irrelevant. Essentialy their god is the same, how they view one-another does not interest me since I'm neither. So, no he is not correct.

SpearBrave
Monday, February 6th, 2017, 07:41 PM
Islam, judaism, and Christianity all stem from some character named Abraham that is why each of them is called Abrahamic faith. They all have the same origins and they are not European in origin and not of Indo-European peoples.

Spjabork
Monday, February 6th, 2017, 07:54 PM
Ah, so in order to resist Islam I must praise christianity? I'd rather die the most horrible death a 1000 times over!You twist my words. Did I ask you, or anybody, to 'praise' christianity?
What I strongly advise you is, though, to take into account that all your kinsmen of the past 1000 years have been Christian, to a lower or higher degree. At the very moment, we can not disregard this our past, we might deplore it, but we must reckon with it in anything we do.

We certainly do not want to revive the dead body of christendom, but this is also unnecessary. It is perfectly sufficient just to stress the difference between Christians and Musels.

If you are no christian, then you have nothing to do with the Musels. Yet if you were Christian you also would have nothing to do with them. This is the point!
And this approach makes it easier, or makes it possible for you to unite with your kinsmen, who, 'unfortunately' still are christians, albeit on paper. You must not let yourself get separated from your kinsmen, under no circumstances!

And what you have in common with your kinsmen, is not christianity, but is your kin.


Islam, judaism, and Christianity all stem from some character named Abraham No, they stem from the first man who is called Adam, and one first woman, called Eve. ;)


that is why each of them is called Abrahamic faith. The term 'Abrahamitic' is bullshit. It is an ad-hoc invention of one Jewish social scientist who came up with it a few years ago. When I was a little boy, I did not know this 'term', I never heard or read it, because it did not exist. We must not let our enemy provide us with the 'terminology' we would have talk in, and argue with.


They all have the same origins and they are not European in origin and not of Indo-European peoples. 'European' again is just a hollow term, nothing more. Strictly speaking, the Germanic language and culture also is not 'European'. The 'origins' of everything lie so far back in time, that nobody can remember, or prove them accurately.

We should be concerned somewhat less about our past, especially our most ancient past, as we do not know too much about it; instead we should care a lot much more about our future. Because our future we still can change. Our past we can not.

Juthunge
Monday, February 6th, 2017, 09:13 PM
But let aside all this, which is theoretical anyway, it is extremely unwise, imprudent, and also impractical, to say above sentence in public. Because if really, truly, deeply, the god of the Musels and the god of the Christians was one and the same, then what reason would we have, what reason would remain for us to resist islamization? There would be no reason then.

On the contrary, in public ALL the differences between them and us, yet especially the religious ones, must be stressed to the utmost and must even be exaggerated wherever possible and timely.
Well, Muslims, as the last of the three religions, draws as deeply from Judaism and Christianity as the latter draws from the former. All these religions are originally alien to European thought but Western forms Christianity were at least filtered through a syncretism of the original Jewish heresy with Mithraism/Sol Invictus, Greek philosophies like Neoplatonism, Stoicism etc and later European pagan beliefs.

But it’s actually an entirely futile theological question whether they believe in the same or a similar god. Islam is not only a religious belief system anyway but a whole set of ideologies infiltrating every aspect of life. And, in our case, ideologies entirely different to our mentality and conceptual systems.
Therefore even to any professing Christian, who has nationalist leanings in any way, similarities or differences of religious belief are irrelevant. Our most prominent Christian member, Chlodovech, could probably explain that much better and much more detailed than I, though.

In any case, the religious differences would be the most irrelevant especially when trying to convince the ordinary westerner, since they’re largely irreligious, even if they’re Christian on paper. Not even to speak of professing Atheists/Agnostics and pagans.


What is true, though, is that the Musels, at the moment and since quite a few decades, have the highest birthrate of the three, and it is this point that makes them look more dangerious, in comparison.

This higher birthrate of the Musels is due to their scientific backwardness, which entails a mental backwardness. But now it turns out that mental backwardness translates directly into biological hard- and toughness. (And, as must be stated, mental progessiveness seemingly translates directly into biological weakness and a leaning toward suicide.)

Muslims rather have much higher birth rates because our people, since at least the counterculture of the 1960s, have been led to believe and indoctrinated that it’s somehow “disgusting” to have children, that it’s low-class animalistic and that the real goal in life is pure individualism without regard for anything else.
This pretty much breeds “adult” children without goal in life beyond consuming and no loyalty to anyone or anything.

While at the same time it actually should be obvious, from a scientific/logical point of view, that in a social state of any form, births, at least at a replacement level, are necessary. Otherwise there will be no pension in age in the form of an intergenerational contract, with the young workers paying for those beyond working age.
Of course one can try and import droves of foreigners but turns out that doesn’t work so well in Germany, for a whole lot of predictable reasons.
Besides the fact, that not even enough are coming for that purpose and the foreigners attracted are much more of a burden to the social system, than what is financially gained from them, anyway.

But that’s only the materialistic fact beyond all social conflicts, deaths of identity and anything else that doesn’t have to be specifically mentioned again because it should be obvious by now.

Therefore scientific progressiveness and childlessness don't have to go hand in hand. Outside of the West it very often didn't in fact, even since contraception and abortion exists.

Spjabork
Monday, February 6th, 2017, 11:49 PM
Well, Muslims, as the last of the three religions, draws as deeply from Judaism and Christianity as the latter draws from the former. All these religions are originally alien to European thought but Western forms Christianity were at least filtered through a syncretism of the original Jewish heresy with Mithraism/Sol Invictus, Greek philosophies like Neoplatonism, Stoicism etc and later European pagan beliefs. I think the important point is not whether something was (originally) 'alien' to somebody. Potatoes were 'alien' to German people just 250 years ago, yet today the Gemans are nicknamed 'Potatoes'. The important point is, always, whether something is applied by someone, because it looked promising and useful to that same someone. The Roman catholic christian faith was applied by Chlodowech, because it looked to him a useful tool to establish his dynasty. And it must be added: his calculation paid off, at the time.

One must also not forget that there are several 'european' people, or populations, who, already being Christian went over to islam, as the Bosniaks in 'Bosnia', the Pomaks in Bulgaria, the Torlaks in Serbia, or most notably the Albanians, who are linguistically as 'aryan' as we are. To all these people at a certain point it seemed they would hence fare better under islam, whereas their 'tradidional' christian faith hence would hinder them and maybe even endanger their future existence.

At one point there existed islamic populations in Poland. When the Poles fought against the Teutonic Order at Grunwald in 1410, islamic Tatars were on the side of the 'arch-catholic' Polish king. So what has been at one point really means nothing. And the longer that point lies back in time, the less it means.

Catholic christianity was applied as a means of rule over people, and of organizing life in the widest sense, in 'Europe', over a time span of 1000 till 1700 years, depending on the area, and it worked quite well. No matter how many wars, and famines, and epidemies haunted the catholic christian european people, women did always give birth to enough children to refill even the biggest gap. Nowadays, they do no longer this, which is the ultimate source of all our other problems. So, this fact obviously can't be blamed on catholic christianity, but must have other reasons. And it is also quite understandable that people, who examine our present situation, and who compare it to what they think has been before, more or less inevitably must come to the conclusion, that 'all went well as long as we were catholic'.

Do not get me wrong: I do NOT think this way, I am just refering to others, who are, though, a respectable minority.

But it’s actually an entirely futile theological question whether they believe in the same or a similar god. Islam is not only a religious belief system anyway but a whole set of ideologies infiltrating every aspect of life. And, in our case, ideologies entirely different to our mentality and conceptual systems.I since long time strongly object and refute the separation of 'culture', 'religion', and 'policy'. These three are actually the angles of a triangle. They can't be separated. 'Religion' tells the human beings where they have been before birth, and where tey will go after death. 'Culture' tells them what they should do, and how they should behave during the time in between birth and death. 'Policy' is the way of organizing, connecting and protecting, also enhancing and expanding the space ('Raum') of such a certain, specific triangle. As for 'ideology', it is just the theoretical side of a policy, 'policy' being the practical, 'hard' side of an ideology, its application.

Therefore even to any professing Christian, who has nationalist leanings in any way, similarities or differences of religious belief are irrelevant.
I do not think so. The first and last questions: Where did I come from before birth? Where will I go to after death? Will always be relevant, to everybody, albeit unadmittedly. The strength of islam is, so to speak, that it gives, or re-gives people clear answers to these questions they are in need of and are longing for.

In any case, the religious differences would be the most irrelevant especially when trying to convince the ordinary westerner, since they’re largely irreligious, even if they’re Christian on paper.
Here you speak as a European. I must bring to your special attention that the situation in America is entirely different. As by now, NO president dared, or even could afford to openly declare that he did not believe 'in god'.

Not even to speak of professing Atheists/Agnostics and pagans.
Atheists do not profess. I am atheist, yet I do never 'profess' it. How could I? Should I argue with others about things I just do not know? This no doubt is the shortcoming of atheism, that it makes lonely, and the weakness of atheists, that they are lonely. It may well be that atheism is something for only-childs?
And 'pagans', to put it mildly, are a politically irrelevant minority, in Europe as well as in America, as well as anywhere else. And I am sure they will always be. This is not my wish, but my forecast.
They suffer from the same handicap as atheists, namely that they have no answers to the first and last questions. Which was -- by the way -- the main spiritual reason why paganism was so easily and so quickly overcome by christianity.
And a great part of the neo-pagans, may I add this, are not genuinly, honestly pagan (provided they could be), but just out of an aversion, a hatred, a disappointment. So, these 'pagans' are no positive believers, but negative objectors, negators, they are just renegades. They have a 'cause', yet it's always negative.
True, genuine paganism comes out of oneself, it is actually no 'religion' in the sense we understand and use the term, but it is the manifestation, the utterance of a specific ghost-mind, flowing from a specific life-body.
So, how could someone who is too spineless to speak out freely and clearly that he is German, be a 'pagan'? What would this 'confession' from such a person even mean? That he wants to be a ghost without a body, so that police can not arrest him?
Much of that 'paganism' is actually thin-board-drilling. People hope they would be allowed to say and do things under the shield of 'religion' which they otherwise are forbidden.

Muslims rather have much higher birth rates because our people, since at least the counterculture of the 1960s, have been led to believe and indoctrinated that it’s somehow “disgusting” to have children, that it’s low-class animalistic That is not quite correct. 'European' peoples in a core region of Europe already began in late the middle ages to reduce the quantity of their offspring, in order to improve the quality. You can read about this phenomenon under 'Hajnal line'.
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hajnal_line.JPG
So, birth control originally was a sign of higher mental development. Please note that 'birth control' is not the same as abortion, or contraception. It can be achieved by other, more intelligent, more civilized, and less unhealthy means, as raise of marriage age, for example.

and that the real goal in life is pure individualism without regard for anything else. This pretty much breeds “adult” children without goal in life beyond consuming and no loyalty to anyone or anything.No. The emptiness and shallowness of the life of western youth has nothing to do with a low birth rate as such, these are two different problems, which must be kept and investigated, and solved, seperately.

Also, individualism is by no means a new or recent thing. Individualism, properly understood, is a part of intrinsic Germanic nature. We would not be Germanics, if we were not individualistic. Just the extreme, negative, nihilistic, running-wild-out-of-control individualism, the atomism, is evil.

While at the same time it actually should be obvious, from a scientific/logical point of view, that in a social state of any form, births, at least at a replacement level, are necessary. Otherwise there will be no pension in age in the form of an intergenerational contract, with the young workers paying for those beyond working age.
Here you speak as a really 'godless' materialist. If people do not see a purpose and a meaning in their life, if they are given the impression that their are superfluous, that they are not needed by anybody for anything, then they first cease to care about offspring, and finally even cease to care about themselves. And when they did already arrive at that point, you can not stir them up with rational arguments anymore. Because for every 'rational' argument they have already heard an equally 'rational' counter-argument. For example, if you tell them that they should have more children, in order to have a good pension, then they will tell you that earth is already 'overpopulated'. Your materialist, 'rational' argument is countered, and in fact outdone, by an equally rationalistic, yet even more moralistic argument.

Of course one can try and import droves of foreigners but turns out that doesn’t work so well in Germany, for a whole lot of predictable reasons. Besides the fact, that not even enough are coming for that purpose and the foreigners attracted are much more of a burden to the social system, than what is financially gained from them, anyway.People must realize, or someone must it reveal to them, that it is already a value in itself, unquestionable and undisputable, that they are what they are. And that it is PRECIOUS in itself if they STAY what they are. Because they are NEEDED for the progress, nay, for the mere existence of mankind!
That means: alien people must not come to us even if they were, every single one, precious as gold. Because we in ourselves are precious enough. And they can not give us anything that we not already have. But THEY are depending on us, now and forever, as everything depends ON US.

Therefore scientific progressiveness and childlessness don't have to go hand in hand. Outside of the West it very often didn't in fact, even since contraception and abortion exists.Outside the West there has not been much scientific progressiveness so far. And those peoples who adopted western lifestyle, they all share the same problems.

Juthunge
Tuesday, February 7th, 2017, 06:57 PM
That’s one behemoth of a post. I’ll try to keep it a bit shorter.

I think the important point is not whether something was (originally) 'alien' to somebody. Potatoes were 'alien' to German people just 250 years ago, yet today the Gemans are nicknamed 'Potatoes'. The important point is, always, whether something is applied by someone, because it looked promising and useful to that same someone. The Roman catholic christian faith was applied by Chlodowech, because it looked to him a useful tool to establish his dynasty. And it must be added: his calculation paid off, at the time.
One must also not forget that there are several 'european' people, or populations, who, already being Christian went over to islam, as the Bosniaks in 'Bosnia', the Pomaks in Bulgaria, the Torlaks in Serbia, or most notably the Albanians, who are linguistically as 'aryan' as we are. To all these people at a certain point it seemed they would hence fare better under islam, whereas their 'tradidional' christian faith hence would hinder them and maybe even endanger their future existence.
Comparing a vegetable and ideologies is hardly a fitting comparison. One merely changes eating habits, the other tries to influence a thought system and the behavior resulting from it.

Converting might have paid off for the Merovingian dynasty but it brought oppression and mostly alien thought to all his subjects and lots of not yet converted German tribes. But in any case, the form of Catholicism at that time, as I said before, was already majorly different from early Christianity anyway and continued to diverge through syncretism before it eventually became “stable” Catholicism. Chlodovech would’ve hardly converted to the sheepish, fatalistic version of Christianity before the various councils of the 4th century.

The different Muslim populations of the Balkans were either converted by force or converted mostly because it spared their children from being enscripted as Janissaries(Devshirme) and they could climb the career ladder in the Ottoman Empire. Neither fate is preferable and the latter is even more dishonorable and cowardly than the first. Not everything that is individually advantageous is “good” for a people.
One look at the Balkan should suffice to see, that Islam is never fitting for European peoples and what it does to them.


Catholic christianity was applied as a means of rule over people, and of organizing life in the widest sense, in 'Europe', over a time span of 1000 till 1700 years, depending on the area, and it worked quite well. No matter how many wars, and famines, and epidemies haunted the catholic christian european people, women did always give birth to enough children to refill even the biggest gap. Nowadays, they do no longer this, which is the ultimate source of all our other problems. So, this fact obviously can't be blamed on catholic christianity, but must have other reasons. And it is also quite understandable that people, who examine our present situation, and who compare it to what they think has been before, more or less inevitably must come to the conclusion, that 'all went well as long as we were catholic'.
Do not get me wrong: I do NOT think this way, I am just refering to others, who are, though, a respectable minority.

No one did blame that on Catholicism anyway. But I would also be a logical fallacy to assume “all went well as long as we were Catholic”, therefore we have to become Catholic/Christian/religious at all again. The reasons for our decay are different and people believing religion will cure our societal disease(s) are simply wrong.
Even if it were true, in any case you couldn’t bring back religiosity to Europe in any way. “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him”.



I since long time strongly object and refute the separation of 'culture', 'religion', and 'policy'. These three are actually the angles of a triangle. They can't be separated. 'Religion' tells the human beings where they have been before birth, and where tey will go after death. 'Culture' tells them what they should do, and how they should behave during the time in between birth and death. 'Policy' is the way of organizing, connecting and protecting, also enhancing and expanding the space ('Raum') of such a certain, specific triangle. As for 'ideology', it is just the theoretical side of a policy, 'policy' being the practical, 'hard' side of an ideology, its application.

I do not think so. The first and last questions: Where did I come from before birth? Where will I go to after death? Will always be relevant, to everybody, albeit unadmittedly. The strength of islam is, so to speak, that it gives, or re-gives people clear answers to these questions they are in need of and are longing for.
Most Europeans don’t care about these questions. That’s why we see mass church exits but no mass conversions to Islam at the same time. Most of those that remain in church also aren’t spiritiual either, it’s just laziness to go through the bureaucratic process for that.
The only natives that convert to Islam are those who grew up with migrants in their ghettos and tried to adapt to them. Usually they’re not the sharpest tools in the shed either.

But if you were to ask me personally: Where do I come from? I would merely answer: From my ancestors, being sprung from their genes. I am just the sum of them.
Where do I go to? Into the abyss or perhaps into one of the various forms of heaven or hell. I do not know, I cannot know, therefore it’s irrelevant. Which of the myriad forms of religions, humans made up should I follow? Other people can try to convince me of their form of belief but they can’t know it any better than I do.
“Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not.”
But what I know is, that part of me lives on in my children and in my nieces and nephews, as did my ancestors in me and will in them, too. That’s real immortality, it’s a religion of the blood.


Here you speak as a European. I must bring to your special attention that the situation in America is entirely different. As by now, NO president dared, or even could afford to openly declare that he did not believe 'in god'.
I speak as a European by default because here I know the mentality of the people. I’ll leave judgment of America to the Americans.



True, genuine paganism comes out of oneself, it is actually no 'religion' in the sense we understand and use the term, but it is the manifestation, the utterance of a specific ghost-mind, flowing from a specific life-body.
So, how could someone who is too spineless to speak out freely and clearly that he is German, be a 'pagan'? What would this 'confession' from such a person even mean? That he wants to be a ghost without a body, so that police can not arrest him?
Much of that 'paganism' is actually thin-board-drilling. People hope they would be allowed to say and do things under the shield of 'religion' which they otherwise are forbidden.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at here, as I never said anything in that direction. I was merely including pagans to account for all spiritualistic views in our lands.



That is not quite correct. 'European' peoples in a core region of Europe already began in late the middle ages to reduce the quantity of their offspring, in order to improve the quality. You can read about this phenomenon under 'Hajnal line'.
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hajnal_line.JPG
So, birth control originally was a sign of higher mental development. Please note that 'birth control' is not the same as abortion, or contraception. It can be achieved by other, more intelligent, more civilized, and less unhealthy means, as raise of marriage age, for example.
I know the Hajnal line well. But it never stopped most people from getting children entirely, as raising age of marriage and excluding a small part of the population from marriage has different effects than active birth control.

I never said that I’m against birth control in general anyway. It has it’s time and places, as for example if you have a population with a fixed amount of space/ressources. Then it’s necessary to adapt the population size to that, if you can’t expand the space/ressources to accommodate for a growing population.
But I was actually speaking about more direct, active forms of modern birth control that, coupled with a selfish mindset, serve to restrict average European couples to none, one, or at the most, two children, while immigrants multiply rapidly.


No. The emptiness and shallowness of the life of western youth has nothing to do with a low birth rate as such, these are two different problems, which must be kept and investigated, and solved, seperately.
What else is the primary reason for it then? Financially and due to public child care, it has never been easier to get children in the west. If they wanted to, they could have children but they prefer to waste their time with self-indulgence.


Also, individualism is by no means a new or recent thing. Individualism, properly understood, is a part of intrinsic Germanic nature. We would not be Germanics, if we were not individualistic. Just the extreme, negative, nihilistic, running-wild-out-of-control individualism, the atomism, is evil.
Only the latter form is, what I meant when I used the term individualism, anyway. True Germanic nature is a belief into rights and duties of the individual and the community at the same time. It’s a third path between extreme forms of individualism and collectivism.


Here you speak as a really 'godless' materialist. If people do not see a purpose and a meaning in their life, if they are given the impression that their are superfluous, that they are not needed by anybody for anything, then they first cease to care about offspring, and finally even cease to care about themselves. And when they did already arrive at that point, you can not stir them up with rational arguments anymore. Because for every 'rational' argument they have already heard an equally 'rational' counter-argument. For example, if you tell them that they should have more children, in order to have a good pension, then they will tell you that earth is already 'overpopulated'. Your materialist, 'rational' argument is countered, and in fact outdone, by an equally rationalistic, yet even more moralistic argument.
People must realize, or someone must it reveal to them, that it is already a value in itself, unquestionable and undisputable, that they are what they are. And that it is PRECIOUS in itself if they STAY what they are. Because they are NEEDED for the progress, nay, for the mere existence of mankind!
That means: alien people must not come to us even if they were, every single one, precious as gold. Because we in ourselves are precious enough. And they can not give us anything that we not already have. But THEY are depending on us, now and forever, as everything depends ON US.

I was exaggerating on purpose because godless materialists is, what most people are. But it’s not true, that people that feel “superfluous” have the lowest birth rates. Rather, the “lowest”, “left-behind” classes regularly have the highest birth rates in any society.
To me personally the problems of childlessness and aging, of course, aren’t primarily about pensions. I would resort to tilling a field with my hands in old age and live in a mudhut or simply die, if that gave my descendants a chance of unmixed survival and eventual cultural rebirth.

But that obviously doesn’t apply to the average, belief- and identityless mass of today. That’s precisely why you can’t appeal to them with supernatural arguments or ideas higher than themselves, when they don’t even care now about wordly problems that directly concern themselves and their immediate future.
First you have to press home rational arguments about finances, the threat to their “quality of living” etc. That’s how you can get people that have to pay 30-40% of their income as taxes, of which only a fraction will in any form return to them.

If that serves to convince them of the need to act against that threat at all, then you can worry about convincing them with/about anything else.
But even then you can merely try to inspire them because a true feeling of self-worth can only come from within.

Spjabork
Wednesday, February 8th, 2017, 01:05 AM
That’s one behemoth of a post. I’ll try to keep it a bit shorter.
You must excuse me.:) I was absent from Skadi for almost 10 years.;) I am Spjabork, who wrote 470something posts. I would like the get my old account back, it this was possible. Then I would be able, among other things, to find back and re-read my old posts, at least a part of them. But I can not use my old email under which I registered in 2006.:~(
I wanted to send a PM, but I am not yet allowed to send PMs. Right now I feel awkward, and uneasy.
After Thiazi was separated from Skadi, I wrote only there, till it was taken out in May 2012. So, since almost 5 years I could not communicate with people of similar political and spirituell leaning.:|

I will control myself not to write too much and to join in too many discussions. There is no obligation to answer, right? This is often a bad thing, but sometimes it can also be a good thing.;)

I am not afraid of getting banned, temporarily or permanently, I got banned on Thiazi a dozen times. In the end, even my opponents in the discussions got denerved about it and complained to the administrator it was not necessary to ban me that often.:) They solidarized with me and displayed my avatar when I had to be silent.:)

As we actually do nothing, just write, we have all the time of the world. We can respond or not, whenever, and how much we want. I do not expect anything, and I do not hope for anything.

Comparing a vegetable and ideologies is hardly a fitting comparison. One merely changes eating habits, the other tries to influence a thought system and the behavior resulting from it.
It is very well fitting. Whatever you say, you always betray your materialism. You always try to seperate things that can't be separated.

When you are newly born, you know nothing. You do not know how to speak, and what to say. And likewise, you do not know how to eat, and what to eat. Your mother, or some 'elder', must show you everything and must feed you. Some of the food gets into your mouth, thence into the stomach. Some other food gets into your ears, thence into your brain.

When you are born, you don't know that you are German, but you hear your mother talking to you in German, so you trust her, and swallow it. How long your ancestors already spoke German before you were born, is irrelevant for you. You don't even need to know it. But when you grow up, you maybe want to know it, and inquire.

When you are born, you don't know that German people eat potatoes, but when you are at a certain age, your mother will give you potato porrige, so you trust her and swallow it. How long your ancestors already ate potatos before you were born is irrelevant for you. You don't even need to know it. But when you grow up, you maybe want to know it, and inquire.