PDA

View Full Version : F.W. Nietzsche on the Christian Superstition



friedrich braun
Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 10:25 PM
Christianity's Origin

Christianity as antiquity.-- When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.405, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.
from Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy, p.23, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Change of Cast. -- As soon as a religion comes to dominate it has as its opponents all those who would have been its first disciples.
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.118, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Blind pupils. -- As long as a man knows very well the strength and weaknesses of his teaching, his art, his religion, its power is still slight. The pupil and apostle who, blinded by the authority of the master and by the piety he feels toward him, pays no attention to the weaknesses of a teaching, a religion, and soon usually has for that reason more power than the master. The influence of a man has never yet grown great without his blind pupils. To help a perception to achieve victory often means merely to unite it with stupidity so intimately that the weight of the latter also enforces the victory of the former.
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.122, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Speaking in a parable.--A Jesus Christ was possible only in a Jewish landscape--I mean one over which the gloomy and sublime thunder cloud of the wrathful Yahweh was brooding continually. Only here was the rare and sudden piercing of the gruesome and perpetual general day-night by a single ray of the sun experienced as if it were a miracle of "love" and the ray of unmerited "grace." Only here could Jesus dream of his rainbow and his ladder to heaven on which God descended to man. Everywhere else good weather and sunshine were considered the rule and everyday occurrences.
from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.137, Walter Kaufmann transl

The first Christian. All the world still believes in the authorship of the "Holy Spirit" or is at least still affected by this belief: when one opens the Bible one does so for "edification."... That it also tells the story of one of the most ambitious and obtrusive of souls, of a head as superstitious as it was crafty, the story of the apostle Paul--who knows this , except a few scholars? Without this strange story, however, without the confusions and storms of such a head, such a soul, there would be no Christianity...
That the ship of Christianity threw overboard a good deal of its Jewish ballast, that it went, and was able to go, among the pagans--that was due to this one man, a very tortured, very pitiful, very unpleasant man, unpleasant even to himself. He suffered from a fixed idea--or more precisely, from a fixed, ever-present, never-resting question: what about the Jewish law? and particularly the fulfillment of this law? In his youth he had himself wanted to satisfy it, with a ravenous hunger for this highest distinction which the Jews could conceive - this people who were propelled higher than any other people by the imagination of the ethically sublime, and who alone succeeded in creating a holy god together with the idea of sin as a transgression against this holiness. Paul became the fanatical defender of this god and his law and guardian of his honor; at the same time, in the struggle against the transgressors and doubters, lying in wait for them, he became increasingly harsh and evilly disposed towards them, and inclined towards the most extreme punishments. And now he found that--hot-headed, sensual, melancholy, malignant in his hatred as he was-- he was himself unable to fulfill the law; indeed, and this seemed strangest to him, his extravagant lust to domineer provoked him continually to transgress the law, and he had to yield to this thorn.
Is it really his "carnal nature" that makes him transgress again and again? And not rather, as he himself suspected later, behind it the law itself, which must constantly prove itself unfulfillable and which lures him to transgression with irresistable charm? But at that time he did not yet have this way out. He had much on his conscience - he hints at hostility, murder, magic, idolatry, lewdness, drunkenness, and pleasure in dissolute carousing - and... moments came when he said to himself:"It is all in vain; the torture of the unfulfilled law cannot be overcome."... The law was the cross to which he felt himself nailed: how he hated it! how he searched for some means to annihilate it--not to fulfill it any more himself!
And finally the saving thought struck him,... "It is unreasonable to persecute this Jesus! Here after all is the way out; here is the perfect revenge; here and nowhere else I have and hold the annihilator of the law!"... Until then the ignominious death had seemed to him the chief argument against the Messianic claim of which the new doctrine spoke: but what if it were necessary to get rid of the law?
The tremendous consequences of this idea, of this solution of the riddle, spin before his eyes; at one stroke he becomes the happiest man; the destiny of the Jews--no, of all men--seems to him to be tied to this idea, to this second of its sudden illumination; he has the thought of thoughts, the key of keys, the light of lights; it is around him that all history must revolve henceforth. For he is from now on the teacher of the annihilation of the law...
This is the first Christian, the inventor of Christianity. Until then there were only a few Jewish sectarians.
from Nietzsche's Daybreak, s.68, Walter Kaufmann transl.

The persecutor of God. -- Paul thought up the idea and Calvin rethought it, that for innumerable people damnation has been decreed from eternity, and that this beautiful world plan was instituted to reveal the glory of God: heaven and hell and humanity are thus supposed to exist - to satisfy the vanity of God! What cruel and insatiable vanity must have flared in the soul of the man who thought this up first, or second. Paul has remained Saul after all - the persecutor of God.
from Nietzsche's The Wanderer and his Shadow, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Christianity's Nature

The everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him.
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.116, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

What a crude intellect is good for.-- The Christian church is an encyclopaedia of prehistoric cults and conceptions of the most diverse origin, and that is why it is so capable of proselytizing: it always could, and it can still go wherever it pleases and it always found, and always finds something similar to itself to which it can adapt itself and gradually impose upon it a Christian meaning. It is not what is Christian in it, but the universal heathen character of its usages, which has favored the spread of this world-religion; its ideas, rooted in both the Jewish and the Hellenic worlds, have from the first known how to raise themselves above national and racial niceties and exclusiveness as though these were merely prejudices. One may admire this power of causing the most various elements to coalesce, but one must not forget the contemptible quality that adheres to this power: the astonishing crudeness and self-satisfiedness of the church's intellect during the time it was in process of formation, which permitted it to accept any food and to digest opposites like pebbles.
from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 70, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

The despairing.-- Christianity possesses the hunters instinct for all those who can by one means or another be brought to despair - of which only a portion of mankind is capable. It is constantly on their track, it lies in wait for them. Pascal attempted the experiment of seeing whether, with the aid of the most incisive knowledge, everyone could not be brought to despair: the experiment miscarried, to his twofold despair.
from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 64, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

The compassionate Christian.-- The reverse side of Christian compassion for the suffering of one's neighbor is a profound suspicion of all the joy of one's neighbor, of his joy in all that he wants to do and can.
from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 80, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Doubt as sin.-- Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.
from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 89, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Other fears, other securities.-- Christianity had brought into life a quite novel and limitless perilousness, and therewith quite novel securities, pleasures, recreations and evaluations of all things. Our century denies this perilousness, and does so with a good conscience: and yet it continues to drag along with it the old habits of Christian security, Christian enjoyment, recreation, evaluation! It even drags them into its noblest arts and philosophies! How worn out and feeble, how insipid and awkward, how arbitrarily fanatical and, above all, how insecure all this must appear, now that the fearful antithesis to it, the omnipresent fear of the Christian for his eternal salvation, has been lost.
from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 57, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

What distinguishes us [scientists] from the pious and the believers is not the quality but the quantity of belief and piety; we are contented with less. But if the former should challenge us: then be contented and appear to be contented! - then we might easily reply: 'We are, indeed, not among the least contented. You, however, if your belief makes you blessed then appear to be blessed! Your faces have always been more injurious to your belief than our objections have! If these glad tidings of your Bible were written on your faces, you would not need to insist so obstinately on the authority of that book... As things are, however, all your apologies for Christianity have their roots in your lack of Christianity; with your defence plea you inscribe your own bill of indictment.
from Nietzsche's Assorted Opinions and Maxims,s. 98, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Christianity's Destiny

Historical refutation as the definitive refutation.-- In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.- When in former times one had refuted the 'proofs of the existence of God' put forward, there always remained the doubt whether better proofs might not be adduced than those just refuted: in those days atheists did not know how to make a clean sweep.
from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 95, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

But in the end one also has to understand that the needs that religion has satisfied and philosophy is now supposed to satisfy are not immutable; they can be weakened and exterminated. Consider, for example, that Christian distress of mind that comes from sighing over ones inner depravity and care for ones salvation - all concepts originating in nothing but errors of reason and deserving, not satisfaction, but obliteration.
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.27, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Destiny of Christianity. -- Christianity came into existence in order to lighten the heart; but now it has first to burden the heart so as afterwards to be able to lighten it. Consequently it shall perish.
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.119, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

At the deathbed of Christianity.-- Really unreflective people are now inwardly without Christianity, and the more moderate and reflective people of the intellectual middle class now possess only an adapted, that is to say marvelously simplified Christianity. A god who in his love arranges everything in a manner that in the end will be best for us; a god who gives to us and takes from us our virtue and our happiness, so that as a whole all is meet and fit and there is no reason for us to take life sadly, let alone exclaim against it; in short, resignation and modest demands elevated to godhead - that is the best and most vital thing that still remains of Christianity. But one should notice that Christianity has thus crossed over into a gentle moralism: it is not so much 'God, freedom and immortality' that have remained, as benevolence and decency of disposition, and the belief that in the whole universe too benevolence and decency of disposition prevail: it is the euthanasia of Christianity.
from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 92, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.
from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.108, Walter Kaufmann transl.

http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche.html

Siegfried
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 01:12 AM
Great quotes. Christianity must be defeated; Europe must get rid of Christianity before it can rise to true greatness.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 01:29 AM
Great quotes. Christianity must be defeated; Europe must get rid of Christianity before it can rise to true greatness.

:lol I always love it how so many just easily dismiss Christianity's contributions to Europe.

Anyways, bravo Friederich, much better than some of the other articles you've been posting lately! :bravo

friedrich braun
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 03:33 AM
Great quotes. Christianity must be defeated; Europe must get rid of Christianity before it can rise to true greatness.

I fully agree.

See my last post in this thread for more in the same vein:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53260

Taras Bulba
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 07:49 PM
I fully agree.

See my last post in this thread for more in the same vein:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53260

Your link goes to posting a new reply!

Siegfried
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 08:12 PM
I always love it how so many just easily dismiss Christianity's contributions to Europe.

Christianity didn't contribute anything to Europe; it only destroyed. The single 'virtue' of Christianity was that it could be used by people like Charlemagne to unite European peoples against outside enemies (which immediately means employing non-Christian ethics, as Christ preached pacifism, servility, and the like).

friedrich braun
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 08:34 PM
Christianity didn't contribute anything to Europe; it only destroyed. The single 'virtue' of Christianity was that it could be used by people like Charlemagne to unite European peoples against outside enemies (which immediately means employing non-Christian ethics, as Christ preached pacifism, servility, and the like).

I'm glad that there are people who have a head firmly planted on their shoulder:

In case you haven't seen this thread in which I address the mortal, deadly threat the wicked Christian abomination poses to Europe and the European man:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=5418

Taras Bulba
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 01:30 AM
Christianity didn't contribute anything to Europe; it only destroyed.

:lol Once again you dismiss all the contributions in terms of architecture, scientific discovery, intelletcual development thaty occured in Europe under Christianity. Need we forget that during the Dark Ages, it was Irish monks who preserved most of the knowledge from the Classical period. Many historians agree that without the efforts of these monks, all books written before 1000AD probally would've been lost forever, or not known in their full content.

And like the Pagan Romans were better. I do believe St. Augustine in his "City of God", where he docments how much destruction the pagan Romans brought onto the peoples they conquered.



The single 'virtue' of Christianity was that it could be used by people like Charlemagne to unite European peoples against outside enemies


Yes how ironic that the notion of a single united European identity first took shape with the rise of the Christian church.



(which immediately means employing non-Christian ethics, as Christ preached pacifism, servility, and the like).

"Do not suppose that my mission on earth is to spread peace. My mission is to spread, not peace, but the sword."
--Mathew 10:34

Neither Jesus nor the Church fathers were ever pacifists! In fact traditional Christianity has always upheld the notion of the Just War. In that in certain cases, war is justified. So Jesus and Christianity are against war just for the hell of killing people, it believes that such a war must have a moral purpose behind it! We find this in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustine. Only the theologian Tertullian was ever really a staunch pacifist.

There's little historical evidence of the earliest Christians rejecting military service on account of a moral aversion to bloodshed. In fact according to the scriptures, the first Roman convert to the faith is a Centurion(ie a soldier). So why would St. Peter, the "rock" on which Jesus wished to build the church on, convert a soldier if the faith was clearly in favor of pacifism? That simply doesn't make sense.

When Jesus tells us to turn our cheeks when struck, he means that we should not retaliate out of vengeance. We leave vengeance to God, who works his vengeance on the evildoer through the State’s use of the sword. Christians are called upon to support the State, which has been ordained by God just for the purpose of using the sword to establish and maintain justice (Rom. 12–13). This is clearly explained by the Apostle Paul.

So clearly Jesus was not a pacifist, and those who claim he was are basing their theology simply on a few verses from the Bible, as opposed to taking his teachings altogether so as to put it in proper context.

Need we forget the huge influence Christianity had on the development of the code of chivalry in Medieval Europe.

Sigrun Christianson
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 03:04 AM
From whom did that literature need protection, eh? In typical semitic fashion, the church first causes the problem and then wants credit for trying to solve it. Please. :anieyes

Taras Bulba
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 04:17 PM
Need we forget that it was the very Christians who created the Dark Ages and lead Europe into the deepest state of superstitions, stakes, torture, persecutions, genocide, and mental decay in the first place?


The Dark Ages were the result of the breakdown of central authority caused by the collapse of the Roman Empire. If you want to blame Christians for the fall of Rome, again read St. Augustine's "City of God", in which he details about how Christianity did not bring about Rome's fall but Rome itself did it. As St. Augustine noted that Rome's Republic fell to the whims of corrupt generals and civil wars reigned long before Christ was even born.



The mere continued presence of Judeo-Christian places of worship on our soil is an affront against the Germanic people. Not even to mention the secular reflection of Judeo-Christian values that is the primary cause for Europe's current state of spiritual rottenness.


Yes and Friederich made this argument as well. Need we forget that modern secularism came about during the Renaisance, when intelllectuals were rediscovering ancient Greco-Roman texts. Interesting enough is that this also the time of the birth of modern liberalism. Even the anti-Christian Evola makes this argument. So don't blame Christianity for all your problems.

Taras Bulba
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 04:23 PM
From whom did that literature need protection, eh?

Let's see, I do believe it was the barbarian hordes(who were often pagan) that roamed across Europe. Do I need to mention about the many libraries destroyed by the Norse pagans?



In typical semitic fashion, the church first causes the problem and then wants credit for trying to solve it. Please. :anieyes

Excuse me, aren't you pagans pissed at Christianity because its a foreign religion and wish to see it destroyed? Yes, we must oppose Christianity because it's not "kosher" enough for us Europeans and we must destroy it because "eye for an eye". If I'm not mistaken such a mentality is very Jewish indeed. In reality, you pagans are nothing more than Euro-centric Jews.

friedrich braun
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 06:26 PM
Are we supposed to take the word of a self-serving Christian propagandist and apologist over the historical record? There is a consensus amongst historians of late antiquity that Rome fell largely due to the destabilizing, corrupting, and dissolving influence of the various Jesus sects with which the late Roman Empire was teeming. I challenge you to read any modern, objective work written on this subject matter that doesn’t mention the advent of Christianity as a contributing factor. This is only controversial for obscurantist Christian fanatics (such as you) blinded by their faith and unable to face facts and reality.

Both Jews and Christians hated the Roman system and worked diligently to end it. (The latest scholarship points to Jews and Christians as those who were most likely responsible for the burning of Rome -- and not Nero. I’ll try to find some links on this point.)

The Roman Empire was the host of a myriad of religious cults; yet, the Christian abomination was the only religious movement persecuted by the Romans. What does that tell you?

Pope Pius XII has said that all Christians are “intellectual Semites”; of course, that’s an accurate statement or observation. Christianity was just an offshoot of normative Judaism for the first two hundred years, as a matter of fact; during that period the followers of the Jew Jesus regarded themselves as Jews (on par with the Essenes or the Qumran sect, for e.g.) and frequently worshiped at the synagogue.

Taras Bulba
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 10:47 PM
Well countered, Pushkin! ;)

Glad to have you on the board.

You might wish to read Nietzsche's texts on early Christianity, though. He describes it as a Jewish conspiracy to subvert the Roman Empire and is i. m. h. o. spot on with his analysis.

I'll consider it, but I usually prefer Porphyry



Nietzsche was a highly sceptical philosopher and not a stereotypical anti-Semite.


If I'm not mistaken I do believe he was extremely against anti-semitism. He was also against nationalism, and I do believe he made comments about how race-mixing would bring about the Superman.

Taras Bulba
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 11:05 PM
Are we supposed to take the word of a self-serving Christian propagandist and apologist over the historical record? There is a consensus amongst historians of late antiquity that Rome fell largely due to the destabilizing, corrupting, and dissolving influence of the various Jesus sects with which the late Roman Empire was teeming. I challenge you to read any modern, objective work written on this subject matter that doesn’t mention the advent of Christianity as a contributing factor. This is only controversial for obscurantist Christian fanatics (such as you) blinded by their faith and unable to face facts and reality.

Augustine's "City of God" is in many ways no different than anyother historical texts written during that era. As for modern historians, funny you should be an apologist for them since theres a consensus that among them that the Nazis committed the worst atrocities in all human history, Hitler was a psychopath, and they were just "evil".



Pope Pius XII has said that all Christians are “intellectual Semites”; of course, that’s an accurate statement or observation. Christianity was just an offshoot of normative Judaism for the first two hundred years, as a matter of fact; during that period the followers of the Jew Jesus regarded themselves as Jews (on par with the Essenes or the Qumran sect, for e.g.) and frequently worshiped at the synagogue.

Yes Christianity grew out of Hellenic Judaism. Yet whats interesting is that Jews themselves don't consider themselves related to Christianity. In fact after the destruction of the Temple, they rewrote the Torah so as to try seperate themselves further from the Christian faith.

As for Pius XII(a post Vatican II pope), all I can say is that Pope Gregory I stated "the Jews reject the One Faith of Jesus Christ". The Jews are not "our dearest brothers", said Pope Innocent III. So Traditional Christianity rejects Judaism and Jews as our "brothers".


http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/judeochr.htm

The Myth of a Judeo-Christian Tradition
The following article from New Dawn Magazine No.23 Feb-March 1994.
This is an age in which news has been superseded by propaganda, and education by brain-washing and indoctrination. From the advertising used to sell poor quality goods, to the classes in schools designed to make children into conditioned robots of the State, the art of persuasion has displaced the simple virtue of truth.

Since the end of the Second World War we have been bombarded from all sides with references to the Western world's "Judeo-Christian religion," and "our Judeo-Christian heritage." We are told by both church leaders and scholars that our society is based on a supposed "Judeo-Christian tradition".

The notion of "Judeo-Christian religion" is an unquestioned -- almost sacrosanct -- part of both secular and church thinking. American Christian leader Prof. Franklin H. Littel, a vocal supporter of the Zionist state, frankly declared that "to be Christian is to be Jewish," and that consequently it was the duty of a Christian to put support for the "land of Israel" above all else. Pat Boon, the North American singer and evangelist, said there are two kinds of Judaism, one Orthodox and the other Christian.

Yet such a decidedly Christian Zionist outlook is to say the least, wildly simplistic and profoundly ahistorical. As the astute Jewish writer, Joshua J. Adler, points out, "The differences between Christianity and Judaism are much more than merely believing in whether the messiah already appeared or is still expected, as some like to say."

The comments of Jewish author Mr. S. Levin may well explain the Christian's need for the Judeo-Christian myth. Writing in the Israeli journal Biblical Polemics, Levin concludes: "'After all, we worship the same God', the Christian always says to the Jew and the Jew never to the Christian. The Jew knows that he does not worship the Christ-God but the Christian orphan needs to worship the God of Israel and so, his standard gambit rolls easily and thoughtlessly from his lips. It is a strictly unilateral affirmation, limited to making a claim on the God of Israel but never invoked with reference to other gods. A Christian never confronts a Moslem or a Hindu with 'After all, we worship the same God'."

Back in 1992 both Newsweek magazine and the Israeli Jerusalem Post newspaper simultaneously printed extensive articles scrutinising the roots of the sacrosanct Judeo-Christian honeymoon!

The statement heading the Newsweek article read: "Politicians appeal to a Judeo-Christian tradition, but religious scholars say it no longer exists." The Jerusalem Post article's pull quote announced: "Antisemitism is a direct result of the Church's teachings, which Christians perhaps need to re-examine."

"For scholars of American religion," Newsweek states, "the idea of a single Judeo-Christian tradition is a made-in-America myth that many of them no longer regard as valid." It quotes eminent Talmudic scholar Jacob Neusner: "Theologically and historically, there is no such thing as the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a secular myth favoured by people who are not really believers themselves."

Newsweek cites authorities who indicate that "the idea of a common Judeo-Christian tradition first surfaced at the end of the 19th century but did not gain popular support until the 1940s, as part of an American reaction to Nazism . . ," and concludes that, "Since then, both Jewish and Christian scholars have come to recognize that -- geopolitics apart -- Judaism and Christianity are different, even rival religions."

The Jerusalem Post accused the Christian Church of being responsible for the Holocaust. The French Jewish scholar Jules Isaac was quoted as saying: "Without centuries of Christian catechism, preaching, and vituperation, the Hitlerian teachings, propaganda and vituperation would not have been possible."

"The problem," concludes the Jerusalem Post, "is not, as some assert, that certain Christian leaders deviated from Christian teachings and behaved in an un-Christian manner; it is the teachings themselves that are bent."

Joshua Jehouda, a prominent French Jewish leader, observed in the late 1950s: "The current expression 'Judaeo-Christian' is an error which has altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in men's minds, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of Christianity . . . If the term 'Judaeo-Christian' does point to a common origin, there is no doubt that it is a most dangerous idea. It is based on a 'contradictio in abjecto' which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcileable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavouring to construct a civilisation." (l'Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde pp. 135-6).

What is the Truth?
Is there then any truth in this term, "Judeo-Christian"? Is Christianity derived from Judaism? Does Christianity have anything in common with Judaism?

Reviewing the last two thousand years of Western Christian history there is really no evidence of a Judeo-Christian tradition and this has not escaped the attention of honest Christian and Jewish commentators.

The Jewish scholar Dr. Joseph Klausner in his book Jesus of Nazareth expressed the Judaic viewpoint that "there was something contrary to the world outlook of Israel" in Christ's teachings, "a new teaching so irreconcilable with the spirit of Judaism," containing "within it the germs from which there could and must develop in course of time a non-Jewish and even anti-Jewish teaching."

Dr. Klausner quotes the outstanding Christian theologian, Adolf Harnack, who in his last work rejected the hypothesis of the Jewish origin of Christ's doctrine: "Virtually every word He taught is made to be of permanent and universal humanitarian interest. The Messianic features are abolished entirely, and virtually no importance is attached to Judaism in its capacity of Jesus' environment."

Gershon Mamlak, an award-winning Jewish Zionist intellectual, recently claimed that the "Jesus tradition" is essentially the ultimate extension of ancient Greek Hellenism and is in direct conflict to Judaism's "role as the Chosen people".

Dr. Mamlak, writing in the Theodor Herzl Foundation's magazine of Jewish thought, Midstream, maintains that the prevailing theory that Christianity originated in the spiritual realm of Judaism "is anchored in a twofold misconception: 1) the uniqueness of Judaism is confined to its monotheistic God-concept; 2) the 'parting of the ways' between the Jesus coterie and Judaism is seen as the result of the former's adaptation of the doctrines of Christology."

The first misconception means: "When the affinity of the Jesus coterie with Judaism is evaluated by common faith in the One, severed from the believer's duty to execute the Law of the One and to acknowledge the Chosen Nation of Israel as His instrument-faith in the One becomes anti-Judaism par excellence!"

In Gershon Mamlak's view, "The conflict between Judaism and the Jesus tradition goes beyond the confines of theology. [The Jesus tradition] was the cosmopolitan renunciation of the national phenomenon in general and extreme hostility to Israel's idea of a Chosen Nation as the divine instrument for the perfection of the world."

Evidently the concept of a common Judeo-Christian tradition has more to do with post 1945 politics and a certain amount of 'public relations' than it does with historical and Biblical reality. Never the less a number of modern Christian polemicists have managed to rest certain New Testament verses in the drive to give a Scriptural basis to their argument.

Confusion over the origin of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity is the root of the Judeo-Christian myth.

Biblical scholars Robert and Mary Coote clearly show in their book Power, Politics and the Making of the Bible that neither is Christianity a patched up Judaism, nor is Rabbinic Judaism automatically synonymous with the religion of Moses and the old Hebrews.

The Cootes' illustrate the religious climate in Judea two millennia ago: "The cults, practices, and scriptures of both groups, rabbis and bishops, differed from those of the temple; thus we reserve the terms Jew, Jewish, and Judaism for the rabbis and those under their rule and use Judean, contrary to custom, for the common source of Judaism and Christianity...."

"Despite the ostensible merging of Judean and Jew even in certain New Testament passages and by the rabbis who became rulers of Palestine in the third century and continued to use Hebrew and Aramaic more than Greek, the roots of Christianity were not Jewish. Christianity did not derive from the Judaism of the pharisees, but emerged like Judaism from the wider Judean milieu of the first century. Both Christians and Jews stemmed from pre-70 Judean-ism as heirs of groups that were to take on the role of primary guardians or interpreters of scripture as they developed on parallel tracks in relation to each other." (Power, Politics, and the Making of the Bible).

The few New Testament 'proof texts' utilised by Christian Zionists and secular proponents of the modern Judeo-Christian myth are the product of poor translation. Messianic Jewish writer Malcolm Lowe in his paper "Who Are the Ioudaioi?" concludes, like Robert and Mary Coote, that the Greek word "Ioudaioi" in the New Testament should be translated as "Judeans", rather than the more usual "Jews". The Israeli scholar David Stern also came to the same conclusion when translating the Jewish New Testament.

Few Christians are aware that the translators of Scripture often mistranslated the word "Jew" from such words as "Ioudaioi" (meaning from, or being of: as a geographic area, Judean). The word Judean, mistranslated as "Jew" in the New Testament, never possessed a valid religious connotation, but was simply used to identify members of the native population of the geographic area known as Judea.

Also it is important to understand that in the Scriptures, the terms "Israel", "Judah" and "Jew" are not synonymous, nor is the House of Israel synonymous with the House of Judah. The course of history is widely divergent for the peoples properly classified under each of these titles. Accordingly, the authoritative 1980 Jewish Almanac says, "Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a Jew or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew."

A writer for The Dearborn Independent, published in Michigan back in 1922, summarised the problem thus: "The pulpit has also the mission of liberating the Church from the error that Judah and Israel are synonymous. The reading of the Scriptures which confuse the tribe of Judah with Israel, and which interpret every mention of Israel as signifying the Jews, is at the root of more than one-half the confusion and division traceable in Christian doctrinal statements."

Jesus Christ and the Pharisees
The New Testament Gospels reveal an intense conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, one of the two principal Judean religious sects (see Matthew chapter 3, verse 7; Matthew chapter 5, verse 20; Matthew chapter 23, verses 13-15, 23-29; Mark chapter 8, verse 15; Luke chapter 11, verse 39). Much of this controversy was centred on what was later to become the foundation and highest authority of Judaism, the Talmud. In the time of Jesus Christ, this bore the name of "The Tradition of the Elders" (see Matthew chapter 15, verses 1-9).

The Judean historian Josephus wrote: "What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses . . ."

While the Pharisees recognized the laws of Moses, they also claimed that there was a great body of oral tradition which was of at least equal authority with the written Law - and many claimed that the Tradition was of greater authority. By their tradition, they undertook to explain and elaborate upon the Law. This was the "Tradition of the Elders", to which the name of Talmud was later given. It had its beginning in Babylon, during the Babylon captivity of the people of Judah, where it developed in the form of the commentaries of various rabbis, undertaking to explain and apply the Law. This was the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism.

This Judaism was very different from the religion of the ancient Israelites. The late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, who was the Chief Rabbi of the United States, expressed this conclusively when he said: "The return from Babylon, and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud, marks the end of Hebrewism, and the beginning of Judaism." The Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that the Talmud is actually "the product of the Palestinian and Babylonian schools" and is generally referred to as "the Babylonian Talmud".

Dr. Boaz Cohen in Everyman's Talmud states the Talmud is the work of "numerous Jewish scholars over a period of some 700 years, roughly speaking, between 200 [B.C.] and 500 [A.D.]."

Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in Volume 1 of The Pharisees, the Sociological Background of their Faith says, "Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaption of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered."

According to The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, (1942) p.474 : "The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature."

Moshe Menuhim explains that the Babylonian Talmud embodied all the laws and legends, all the history and 'science,' all the theology and folklore, of all the past ages in Jewish life -- a monumental work of consolidation. In the Talmud, Jewish scholarship and idealism found their exclusive outlet and preoccupation all through the ages, all the way up to the era of Enlightenment. It became the principal guide to life and object of study, and it gave Judaism unity, cohesion and resilience throughout the dark ages.

The Talmud, more than any other literature, so defined Judaism that Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser admitted, "Judaism is not the religion of the Bible." (Judaism and the Christian Predicament, 1966, p.159) It is the Talmud that guides the life and spirit of the Jewish people.

"The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart's blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs, or ceremonies we [Jews] observe -- whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists -- we follow the Talmud. It is our common law." (A History of the Jews, Solomon Grayzel).

Both Jewish and Christian scholars agree that it was Jesus Christ's flagrant rejection of this "Tradition of the Elders" and his open confrontation with the powerful Pharisees that created the climate that led to his death. Historically, Christian thinkers argued that the Talmud was directly responsible for the rejection of Christ.

In their view these "traditions" blinded the eyes of the people to a true understanding of the prophecies which related to the coming of the Messiah.

Defining Christianity
If, as we have seen, the Pharisees and the Talmud forever defined Judaism, then most certainly the writings of the post-Apostolic Christian church leaders help us in understanding the relationship of the early Christian faith to both paganism and Judaism.

Justin Martyr (c100-165 A.D.) was indeed the earliest and most significant of these post-Apostolic church apologists. Following in the theological footsteps of Paul, who taught that the Gospel was the fulfilment of Moses and the Prophets, Justin argued that the Gospel was in the mind of God from the beginning and it was given to Abraham and the righteous Patriarches long before Judaism existed. This is in keeping with the Gospel teaching that the Hebrew Scriptures find their 'flowering' in the life, purpose, and accomplishments of Jesus the Christ.

Hence, the Christian faithful have traditionally understood the Old Testament through the New Testament.

In his Dialogue with Trypho Justin seeks to persuade a Jew of the truth of Christianity. Unlike the other apologists, he focuses mainly on the nature and meaning of Christ. Christ was the Logos who inspired the Greek philosophers and is present in all men as the Logos spermatikos (seminal reason or word). Through Him, the best of the philosophers were able to produce significant works of theology and philosophy. Their ideas could serve as beacons of truth just as much as could the inspired writings of the Old Testament Hebrews. Those who lived according to the Logos, even before Christ, were Christians. In the Old Testament it was the Logos who was revealed as God, because the transcendent Heavenly Father could not thus speak to man.

Justin wrote in Apology:
"We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word [or reason] of whom all mankind partakes. Those who lived reasonably [with the Word] are Christians, even though they have been called atheists. For example: among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus and men like them; among the barbarians [non-Greeks], Abraham...and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious."

Christianity, seen through Justin Martyr's writings, takes on a 'cosmic' breadth:

"I both boast and strive with all my strength to be found a Christian...Whatever things were rightly said by any man, belong to us Christians. For next to God we worship and love the Word, who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since He also became man for our sakes, that by sharing in our sufferings He might also bring us healing. For all those writers were able to see reality darkly, through the seed of the implanted Word within them." (2 Apology).

Jesus Christ had come, argued Justin, to restore true religion and to denounce the hypocrisy of the religion of Judea. For that crime Jesus had been crucified. Consequently, Christianity is not a form of Judaism or simply Jewish prophecies fulfilled but 'the true philosophy'.

Justin's Christianity was eventually reducible to three major principles: (1) worship of God, mostly through private prayer and communication of being; (2) belief in an after-life with rewards and punishments for one's actions in this world; and (3) the importance of leading a virtuous life in imitation of Christ and in obedience to His commandments.

The Romans killed Justin for his religion. He was ever known as Justin Martyr, and not as St. Justin. His works defined Christianity as a culminating religion and a "universal" faith incorporating the essential and perennial truth of the pre-Christian religious tradition. Christianity was the restatement of a very old doctrine encompassing the Old Testament and the grand verities of the ancients. Two centuries later Augustine again clarified the Christian faith in these terms when he wrote:

"That which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist from the planting of the human race until Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion which already existed began to be called Christianity."

Justin not only showed that Christ is the culmination and completion of all the partial knowledge of truth in Greek philosophy, He is also the culmination of the history of ancient Israel. According to Justin Jesus Christ is Israel and because of Him the church now bears the name of Israel.

This is to say, therefore, that the central message of the Old Testament has been fulfilled in the New Testament. It must be understood that this was the position of Christendom for at least 1900 years. It was the position, not only of Justin Martyr, but of such Stalwart saints as Irenaeus and Hippolytus; a position embraced by Martin Luther and John Calvin, the two towering figures of the Protestant Reformation.

Here we have not only a clear separation of Christianity and Judaism, but a direct challenge to Judaism's core dogma of a Chosen Nation. A point which has not been lost by Jewish writers.

We read in Zionist author Uri Zimmer's Torah-Judaism and the State of Israel: "The Jewish people, Rabbi Judah Halevy (the famous medieval poet and philosopher) explains in his 'Kuzari', constitutes a separate entity, a species unique in Creation, differing from nations in the same manner as man differs from the beast or the beast from the plant...although Jews are physically similar to all other men, yet they are endowed with a 'second soul' that renders them a separate species."

Fraud
Traditionally Jewish scholars, as we have shown, were highly critical of the Judeo-Christian myth. There are many others, under the influence of modernism and secular Zionism, who do see some advantage in it.

Rabbi Martin Siegel, reflecting a Messianic zeal, was quoted in the 18 January 1972 edition of New York Magazine as declaring: "I am devoting my lecture in this seminar to a discussion of the possibility that we are now entering a Jewish century, a time when the spirit of the community, the non-ideological blend of the emotional and rational and the resistance to categories and forms will emerge through the forces of anti-nationalism to provide us with a new kind of society. I call this process the Judaization of Christianity because Christianity will be the vehicle through which this society becomes Jewish."

While historic Christianity has looked to the eventual triumph of the Kingdom of God throughout the earth, according to the Zionist leaders Talmudic Judaism is zealous in the "drive to perfect man's earthly habitat" (Gershon Mamlak, Midstream, Jan., 1989, p.31).

Dr. Mamlak admits that "many Jews have filled the ranks of the various revolutionary movements" (op. cit., p.32) in order to satisfy this urge. [But who can agree on the terms of the social contract? Were the Zionist Irgun and Stern gangs who terrorised and massacred the Palestinian Arabs in the campaign to establish the Israeli state, shining role models for young Jews? What about the immorality of "the end justifies the means"?]

Rabbi Michael Higger, renowned Talmudic scholar, in his book The Jewish Utopia, discusses the reshaping of the world into a Jewish Eden. The victory of this Utopia is inexorably tied to the coming of the Jewish Messiah.

"And the Messianic Age," argues the eloquent Jewish Zionist author Leon Simon, "means for the Jew not merely the establishment of peace on earth and good will to men, but the universal recognition of the Jew and his God. . . For Judaism has no message of salvation for the individual soul, as Christianity has; all its ideas are bound up with the existence of the Jewish nation." (Studies in Jewish Nationalism).

Driven by political agendas compromising Jews and compromising Christians began, only in this century, to disseminate the theretofore unheard of doctrine that Christianity originated from Judaism and that the two share a common worldview.

Dr. Gordon Ginn, an American Christian scholar, made a very valid point when he noted: "It is most interesting, indeed, that rabbis as well as Jewish scholars such as Mamlak and White agree with orthodox, historical Christianity that 'Judeo-Christian' is a contradiction in terms, even though that truth is yet to be discovered by contemporary evangelical and fundamentalist Christians" (Smyrna, August, 1993).

Christianity and Judaism are two distinct religious inheritances, despite all the superficial attempts by modern scholars to manufacture a naive "Judeo-Christianity." The very term "Judeo-Christian" is a mischievous misnomer without historical or Scriptural validity.

The religions of the world are the product of progressive revelation to a diverse humanity, separately expressing as they do the great metaphysical realities of life. Attempts to distort or eliminate these unique, ancient and divinely ordained patterns, through non-divine syncretism and politically-motivated concoctions, is both anti-traditional and truly diabolical.

Appeals to a nonexistent historical unity and calls for a banal, modernist theology do nothing for religious understanding and mutual respect. "Judeo-Christianity" should be seen for what it is - another secular twentieth century fraud, manufactured for narrow political ends, that is supremely disrespectful to all true believers.

Any fundamental unity that does exist between world religions cannot be appreciated by ignorant and secular scholarship, but only through knowledge of the great primordial and universal truths.

As Luc Benoist aptly wrote, "Our age is seeking a universal understanding which men of vision can already foresee and which is the longing of all great souls. There is ample evidence that the world's economic problems can be solved without the different religions having to abandon their unique spiritual insights; after all, brotherly agreement does not prevent the individual growth of each member of the family, bodily separate, but united in heart and mind." (The Esoteric Path).

friedrich braun
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 11:14 PM
If I'm not mistaken I do believe he was extremely against anti-semitism. He was also against nationalism, and I do believe he made comments about how race-mixing would bring about the Superman.

Again, have you read *any* Nietzsche? I meam, a major work? And I don't mean out of context snippets here and there?

If you haven’t (and the above clearly points to the fact that you haven’t read any Nietzsche at all), don’t speak from ignorance – you’ll only make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

Some Nietzsche on race:

"In the Latin malus (which I place side by side with m e l a V ) the vulgar man can be distinguished as the dark-coloured, and above all as the black-haired ("hic niger est"), as the pre-Aryan inhabitants of the Italian soil, whose complexion formed the clearest feature of distinction from the dominant blondes, namely, the Aryan conquering race: … good, noble, clean, but originally the blonde-haired man in contrast to the dark black-haired aboriginals. The Celts, if I may make a parenthetical statement, were throughout a blonde race; and it is wrong to connect, as Virchow still connects, those traces of an essentially dark-haired population which are to be seen on the more elaborate ethnographical maps of Germany, with any Celtic ancestry or with any admixture of Celtic blood: in this context, it is rather the pre-Aryan population of Germany which surges up in these districts. (The same is true substantially of the whole of Europe: in point of fact, the subject race has finally again obtained the upper hand, in complexion and the shortness of the skull, and perhaps in the intellectual and social qualities. Who can guarantee that modern democracy, still more modern anarchy, and indeed that tendency to the "Commune," the most primitive form of society, which is now common to all the Socialists in Europe, does not in its real essence signify a monstrous reversion – and that the conquering and master race – the Aryan race, is not also becoming inferior physiologically?)"The Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, Section 5 "The knightly-aristocratic "values" are based on a careful cult of the physical, on a flowering, rich, and even effervescing healthiness, that goes considerably beyond what is necessary for maintaining life, on war, adventure, the chase, the dance, the tourney — on everything, in fact, which is contained in strong, free, and joyous action. The priestly-aristocratic mode of valuation is … based on other hypotheses; it is bad enough for this class when it is a question of war! Yet the priests are, as is notorious, the worst enemies — why? Because they are the weakest. Their weakness causes their hate to expand into a monstrous and sinister shape, a shape which is most crafty and most poisonous. The really great haters in the history of the world have always been priests, who are also the cleverest haters — in comparison with the cleverness of priestly revenge, every other piece of cleverness is practically negligible. Human history would be too fatuous for anything were it not for the cleverness imported into it by the weak — take at once the most important instance. All the world’s efforts against the "aristocrats," the "mighty," the "masters," the "holders of power", are negligible by comparison with what has been accomplished against those classes by the Jews — the Jews, that priestly nation which eventually realised that the one method of effecting satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the cleverest revenge. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation — but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!" The Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, Section 7;see also Beyond Good and Evil, Section 195. "This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" bringing salvation and victory to the poor, the sick, the sinful — was he not really temptation in its most sinister and irresistible form, temptation to take the tortuous path to those very Jewish values and those very Jewish ideals? Has not Israel really obtained the final goal of its sublime revenge, by the tortuous paths of this "Redeemer," for all that he might pose as Israel ’s adversary and Israel’s destroyer? Is it not due to the black magic of a really great policy of revenge, of a far-seeking, burrowing revenge, both acting and calculating with slowness, that Israel himself must repudiate before all the world the actual instrument of his own revenge and nail it to the cross, so that all the world — that is, all the enemies of Israel — could nibble without suspicion at this very bait? Could, moreover, any human mind with all its elaborate ingenuity invent a bait that was more truly dangerous?" The Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, Section 8 "[The aristocratic men] enjoy their freedom from all social control, they feel that in the wilderness they can give vent with impunity to that tension which is produced by enclosure and imprisonment in the peace of society, they revert to the innocence of the beast-of-prey conscience, like jubilant monsters, who perhaps come from a ghastly bout of murder, arson, rape, and torture, with bravado and moral equanimity, as though merely some wild student’s prank had been played, perfectly convinced that the poets have now an ample theme to sing and celebrate. It is impossible not to recognise at the core of all these aristocratic races the beast of prey; the magnificent blonde brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory; this hidden core needed an outlet from time to time, the beast must get loose again, must return into the wilderness — the Roman, Arabic, German, and Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings, are all alike in this need. … The profound, icy mistrust which the German provokes, as soon as he arrives at power, – even at the present time, – is always still an aftermath of that inextinguishable horror with which for whole centuries Europe has regarded the wrath of the blonde Teuton beast (although between the old Germans and ourselves there exists scarcely a psychological, let alone a physical, relationship). … Granted the truth of the theory now believed to be true, that the very essence of all civilisation is to train out of man, the beast of prey, a tame and civilised animal, a domesticated animal, it follows indubitably that we must regard as the real tools of civilisation all those instincts of reaction and resentment, by the help of which the aristocratic races, together with their ideals, were finally degraded and overpowered; though that has not yet come to be synonymous with saying that the bearers of those tools also represented the civilisation. It is rather the contrary that is not only probable — nay, it is palpable today; these bearers of vindictive instincts that have to be bottled up, these descendants of all European and non-European slavery, especially, of the pre-Aryan population — these people, I say, represent the decline of humanity! These "tools of civilisation" are a disgrace to humanity, and constitute in reality more of an argument against civilisation, more of a reason why civilisation should be suspected. One may be perfectly justified in being always afraid of the blonde beast that lies at the core of all aristocratic races, and in being on one’s guard: but who would not a hundred times prefer to be afraid, when one at the same time admires, than to be immune from fear, at the cost of being perpetually obsessed with the loathsome spectacle of the distorted, the dwarfed, the stunted, the envenomed? And is that not our fate?" The Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, Section 8

Here's an old an good thread on Nietzsche at SF.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=58248&page=1&pp=15&highlight=nietzche

Taras Bulba
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 11:21 PM
Again, have you read *any* Nietzsche? I meam, a major work? And I don't mean out of context snippets here and there?


Yes I've read "Thus Spake Zarathustra", which seems to be the favorite out of many Nietzsche fans.



If you haven’t (and the above clearly points to the fact that you haven’t read any Nietzsche at all), don’t speak from ignorance – you’ll only make yourself look like an ignorant fool.


I wouldn't point the finger Friederich, because you're clearly showing an equal(if not more) ingorance of Christian theology. Let my ask you something, have you ever read any work written by a major Christian theologian? Or do you rely mainly on Hal Lindsey's works?

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 12:22 AM
Undoubtedly true. Christianity is the "cosmopolitan renunciation of the national phenomenon in general",

By that meaning that God is no longer restricted to only one nation, but is now accessible to all people. Nowhere in scriptures does this mean that nations cease to exist, in fact even after the second coming of Christ nations are preserved. Nations are and have always been part of God's plan for humanity.

As the "alternative" traditionalist Pope Pius XIII writes in his condemnation of the United Nations,

http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/condemnationsbypius13.htm

No matter how well such a universal state is composed it can never provide proper care for the citizens of the world as natural law requires. There must be independent and sovereign states. Those states must be composed by the rules of natural law. They have ideals and a purpose all their own. They have, so to say, a personality which makes the citizens different in each state. The esprit de corps of the Japanese differs from that of the Chinese. The esprit de corps of the Germans differ from that of the Italians. It is a common and necessary way people want to conduct themselves.


And then concludes


Our Lord Jesus Christ was born at a time when there was a one world government under Caesar. His Church was birthed during the same era. By the directions and divine assistance of the Church that One World Government ended, and the Christian social order with sovereign states filled the earth. Once again, if the world generally becomes Catholic the slip into the slavery of the now encroaching New World Order of the One World Government can be stopped, and once again sovereign states can fill the world. In that form of civil order God ordained that men work out their eternal salvation, and that is their one and only reason for being on this earth.

You find very similar senitments within the works of many traditional Christian works. Nationalism and Christianity are totally compatible and have been compatible for 2000 years.



and "the vehicle through which this society becomes Jewish."

Coming soon ... ;)

Don't get too cocky, if Christianity somehow miraculasly died, the Jews would infiltrate and do the same to paganism. In fact we're already seeing signs of that with many pagan groups(especially Wicca) endorsing extreme liberal even communistic stances and attitudes. So if Christianity dies, you pagans are not far behind.

friedrich braun
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 12:25 AM
Yes I've read "Thus Spake Zarathustra", which seems to be the favorite out of many Nietzsche fans. I wouldn't point the finger Friederich, because you're clearly showing an equal(if not more) ingorance of Christian theology. Let my ask you something, have you ever read any work written by a major Christian theologian? Or do you rely mainly on Hal Lindsey's works?

Let me know where exactlyI showed myself to be "ignorant" of Christian theology. Cite evidence or shut your mouth.

You, on the other hand, don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I've read ALL of Nietzsche and I believe to have a greater understanding and grasp of his philosophy and world-view than you do.

The Nietzschean “Overman” is a spiritual/philosophical construct, and not biological in nature (and Nietzsche certainly never advocated race mixing). Again cite evidence when you say something as inflammatory as that, but you won’t, because you can’t – you’re being disingenuous and provocative and your bad faith is showing. You don’t like Nietzsche because no philosopher has done more to expose the Christian abomination as the hideous, diseased Jew-produced spiritual pollutant and sewer that it is -- entirely incompatible with the Aryan psyche.

I seriously doubt that you have read Thus Spake Zarathustra, because you would have a better comprehension of the Nietzschean “Overman”.

Excerpts from Thus Spake Zarathustra:

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment...
Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth.Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.
Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth...
What is the greatest experience you can have? It is the hour of the great contempt. The hour when your happiness, too, arouses your disgust, and even your reason and your virtue.
The hour when you say, 'What matters my happiness? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment. But my happiness ought to justify existence itself.'
The hour when you say, 'What matters my reason? Does it crave knowledge as the lion his food? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment.'
The hour when you say, 'What matters my virtue? As yet it has not made me rage. How weary I am of my good and my evil! All that is poverty and filth and wretched contentment.'
"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...
"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.
'What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man, and blinks.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.
'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth...
One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...
One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.
'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink."
from Nietzsche's Thus spoke Zarathustra, p.3,4,5, Walter Kaufmann transl.

ON THE THREE METAMORPHOSES OF THE SPIRIT
Of the three metamorphoses of the spirit I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child.
There is much that is difficult for the spirit, the strong, reverent spirit that would bear much: but the difficult and the most difficult are what its strength demands.
What is difficult? asks the spirit that would bear much, and kneels down like a camel wanting to be well loaded. What is most difficult, O heroes, asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon myself and exult in my strength? Is it not humbling oneself to wound one's haughtiness? Letting one's folly shine to mock one's wisdom?...
Or is it this: stepping into filthy waters when they are the waters of truth, and not repulsing cold frogs and hot toads?
Or is it this: loving those that despise us and offering a hand to the ghost that would frighten us?
All these most difficult things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel that, burdened, speeds into the desert, thus the spirit speeds into its desert.
In the loneliest desert, however, the second metamorphosis occurs: here the spirit becomes a lion who would conquer his freedom and be master in his own desert. Here he seeks out his last master: he wants to fight him and his last god; for ultimate victory he wants to fight with the great dragon.
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." "Thou shalt" lies in his way, sparkling like gold, an animal covered with scales; and on every scale shines a golden "thou shalt."
Values, thousands of years old, shine on these scales; and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons: "All value has long been created, and I am all created value. Verily, there shall be no more 'I will.'" Thus speaks the dragon.
My brothers, why is there a need in the spirit for the lion? Why is not the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, enough?
To create new values -- that even the lion cannot do; but the creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred "No" even to duty -- for that, my brothers, the lion is needed. To assume the right to new values -- that is the most terrifying assumption for a reverent spirit that would bear much. Verily, to him it is preying, and a matter for a beast of prey. He once loved "thou shalt" as most sacred: now he must find illusion and caprice even in the most sacred, that freedom from his love may become his prey: the lion is needed for such prey.
But say, my brothers, what can the child do that even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child? The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred "Yes." For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred "Yes" is needed: the spirit now wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers the world.
from Nietzsche's Thus spoke Zarathustra, part I, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Here’s “Moody Lawless” from SF on Nietzsche, his posts show a deep understanding and I’ve decided to include them in this post.

It is the Jew Kaufmann and others in the post-war period that have distorted Nietzsche!

Nietzsche's sister knew her brother and his philosophy INTIMATELY. She set up the Nietzsche Archive and got generous funding from Hitler's government [whereas the previous 'democratic' Weimar government impoverished it].
It is thanks to Nietzsche's sister that we have a Complete edition of Nietzsche's writings.
In the last years of his life Nietzsche was planning to publish his magnus opus 'The Will To Power'; his letters, notebooks and various comments from his friends show that the work was in a very advanced state. It was only Nietzsche's untimely collapse in his mid-40s that prevented its ultimate completion.
His sister was completely right to publish the unfinished master-piece as she did.

As a general point - we do not have Aristotle's finished works; his treatises are largely lecture notes. The Presocratic philosophers [Nietzsche's favourites] have only come down to us in fragments - rarely in their own hand.

So let us not fall for this Jewish deception re. Nietzsche.
Nietzsche was THE philosopher of National Socialism/Fascism.
Here’s “Moody Lawless” from SF on Nietzsche (since his posts are excellent, I’m taking the liberty of including them here).
Only three books were enshrined in the Tannenberg Memorial in 1933;

Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra,
Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th Century, and
Hitler's Mein Kampf.

That act of singular homage shows how important Nietzsche was to National Socialism. The world renowned philosopher Martin Heidegger [NSDAP member] gave a mammoth series of lectures on Nietzsche in the 1930s which place Nietzsche's concepts to the very centre of National Socialism [and are now available in a 2 volume book called 'Nietzsche' for those interested in this philosophy].

Your example of Heine [presumably because Heine was Jewish] does not disqualify - Hitler liked the music of Brahms!

Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil' deals in part with contemporary politics, while Book IV of 'The Will to Power' [called 'Discipline and Breeding' is all about politics!]. See also Nietzsche's early essay 'The Greek State' to understand his political stance [which was elitist, anti-democratic and anti-liberal, rather like fascism].

The piece you quote [from Zarathustra] is referring to the democratic 'State' of his own time, a state which PRETENDS to be of the people. He found Bismarck's State to be;
"founded on the most thread-bare and despised ideas: equal rights and universal suffrage".
[Nietzsche WP 742]

Nietzsche envisaged a military dictatorship ruled by an elite as his ideal;

"The maintenance of the military state is the last means of all of aquiring or maintaining the great tradition with regard to the supreme type of man, the strong type".
[Nietzsche WP 729]

Remember that Nietzsche's rejection was of contemporary PARTY politics and liberal democracy. He was always pushing for what he called 'Great Politics', and regarded the breeding of a new European Ruling Caste as the most important project.
This Nietzschean conception can be seen in the SS, for example.

I think 'Super-Human' is the best translation of 'Uebermensch' in most cases, simply because this is the term used twice in Byron's Manfred which clearly inspired Nietzsche's use of the term.
Alfred Rodenberg is usually referred to as the in-house philosopher of National Socialism. That the only pre-Nazi philosopher placed in the Tannenberg was Nietzsche demonstrates something!
Not Schopenhauer, not Hegel, not Kany - but Nietzsche!
This is a fact, not an opinion.

The Left may call that 'appropriation', but that means nothing; it is a fact that fascism and nazism were both influenced BY Nietzsche.
Also, Nietzsche was not [is not] considered a respectible academic philosopher; so if all the Nazis wanted was credibility [and hence to 'appropriate' a philosopher] they would NOT have chosen Nietzsche [rather Hegel, Kant etc.,]

Who, in your opinion, is THE philosopher [pre-cursor of course, as Nietzsche died in 1900] of National Socialism?

That Nietzsche enjoyed the German-Jewish poet Heine means nothing, as Hitler himself enjoyed the music of the German-Jewish composer Mahler!

Nietzsche hated the CHRISTIAN anti-Semitism of HIS TIME. He tried to make the Christian anti-Semites aware that their own creed was of Jewish roots; in this he was like Himmler, Bormann and Rosenberg.
Nietzsche pitted SEmite against Aryan in his work:
"Judea versus Rome"!

Nietzsche was a prime influence on the Italian Futurists and on Mussolini.
Also, look at the work of JUlius Evola - this is Nietzschean, fascist elitism.
Fascism sought to create the New Man - a kind of Super-human. Nietzsche admired the Roman Empire above all other political forms - so did Mussolini.

Nietzscheanism is NOT individualism - Ubermensche means Super Human.
An Aristocracy is a group, an elite - NOT an individual.
How could they breed without being a race?
Nietzsche always spoke of a Master Race, a group of Free Spirits etc.,
It is the post-war liberal distortion of Nietzsche that has tried [miserably] to make him an existentialist/individualist.

Before you answer, please re-read Book IV of 'The Will To Power' [entitled 'Discipline and Breeding'].
That liberals such as Kaufmann are the dominant translators of Nietzsche in English in the post-war period indicates that a liberal reading [distortion] of Nietzsche has occurred after WWII. This was a rehabilitation - a denazification if you like.
As proof, compare this to the pre-WWI [one] reading of Nietzsche in England, where eugenicists pre-dominated.

If we look at Nietzsche the man we see that he constantly craved to find a small group of like-minds [see his relations with Ree, Gast and Salome to name a few]. He belonged to Germanic associations at University and there is some specualtion that he was an initiate in a secret order. He wanted a Brotherhood of the 'Joyful Wisdom' to propagate his philosophy - unfortunately there was no one in his day who understood him.

Nietzsche's view of society was hierarchical - great Artist Tyrants dominating at the top [Leadership Principle as in fascism]; an Aristocracy of Breeding round them and the masses below.
This is similar to the basic Aryan division of society.
Such an arrangement has transmogrified to day into a global racial hierarchy.

For Nietzsche only Blood could deliver Nobility - nothing else.
Nietzsche spoke of a great chain of becoming and recurring cycles - all of us are connected by that chain.
I prefer the translations made in the late 19th/early 20th century. I feel they are nearer to Nietzsche in spirit as well in time. However I do use the modern transaltions, but only for comparison/modification where necessary.
While I agree that Kaufmann sins mainly in his self-serving and politically correct notes, I cannot help but think that such a man would also - even if unconsciously - slant a translation that way as well.
Many of the early translators were elitists, racialists, anti-feminists and eugenicists [such as Anthony Ludoici, James Kennedy, Alexander Tille] and one of them [Helen Zimmern] even knew Nietzsche and was asked by him to translate his work.
Indeed, on the latter point, Nietzsche also asked Strindberg to translate some of his books [he declined]; therefore the perspective of the translator is important [see also Mencken's translations].

There will always be a bias, and I would rather the bias be my way.
A lot of nonsense is talked about Nietzsche's sister's tampering with his works. The Will to Power was near completion, and if his nationalist and anti-Semitic sister was intent on removing everything she disagreed with [as the excecutor of his works], then we would not have the anti-German and pro-Jewish references within them.

I know the latter point is a problem for modern Nationalists in the Anglo-Saxon world today. It was not such a problem to Hitler and his circle because Germany is the home of philosophy. Germans understood that a philosopher must thoroughly test all his ideas and opinions; a philosopher is not a mere ideologist.
Nietzsche's early work was written when he was an associate of Wagner; he then shared Wagner's anti-Semitism and German nationalism.
However, he felt the Master's domination over-much and did not want to become a mere propagandist for the Wagnerites.
This led him to break with Wagner - this could only be done by a rejection of wagner's values.
In his book 'Human all too Human', Nietzsche "took sides against himself". Every position he had once held he argued against. He criticised the Germans and praised the French; he also found good things to say about the Jews, knowing that this would cause a break with Wagner.
When the Master received his copy of Nietzsche's book he read a few pages and set it aside forbidding the name of Nietzsche to said in his house, while his wife Cosima said that "the Jews have got to Nietzsche".

But as Nietzsche's career went on, and he wrote Zarathustra and the rest, it became clear where his true position lay.
He was against the narrow petty nationalism which led eventually to white nations fighting each other; Nietzsche advocated a wider nationalism of the Good European [a precursor of today's White nationalism?].
As I mentioned before, the anti-Semitism in Nietzsche's time was mainly Christian. Nietzsche, the anti-Christian, felt that the anti-Semites were sneaking Christianity into the back door and so attacked them at every turn. In so doing he made some ironic and teasing pro-Jewish remarks which should only be seen in this context.

Nietzsche desired a pagan, Aryan spirituality, and so was essentially anti-Semitic in the profoundest sense of the phrase. He saw Semitic values as the antithesis of the Aryan, and thought of Christianity as Semitic.

So you will not find in Nietzsche the black and white of an ideologist, but you will find the very profound depths of a true philosophy.
The nearest to him that I've seen since is Julius Evola who has a similarly subtle view of the racial issue.

But I return to something that I have already touched upon - is there an ORIGINAL philosopher in the Anglo-Saxon tradition who could compare and be useful to nationalism?

think there is a constant level of irony in Nietzsche [irony = saying one thing to mean the opposite and thereby giving added emphasis].

Look what Nietzsche praises the Jews for - their racial purity!
Nietzsche is doing here what Tacitus did when he wrote his 'Germania' [the 'Germania' was a very flattering description of a race regarded by Tacitus's fellow Romans as 'barbaric'; Tacitus wanted to bring home to the Romans that the Germans still valued racial purity while the Romans had become miscegenated].
Again, you cannot expect a philosopher to be a black and white ideologist - and you cannot therefore take a philosopher too literally.

I believe that this difficulty is due to the cultural difference between the Germanic and Anglo-Saxon worlds. How was it that the most profoundly anti-Semitic regime in the modern era, the Third Reich, was able to take Nietzsche as their main philosopher [remembering that only Nietzsche's works were placed along side those of Hitler and Rosenberg]?
How were they able to take from Nietzsche what they needed and see the spirit of Nietzsche as essentially Aryan, whereas the Anglo-Saxon world quibbles over any non-sectarian remarks and even goes into etymology?

I suspect that Nietzsche was right when he said in BGE that they are "no philosophical race these English" [and by extension Americans].

It must be down to a Puritan streak in the Anglo-Saxon world.
But I ask again, where is the ORIGINAL Anglo-Saxon philosopher of racial nationalism who could compare with Nietzsche?
I say 'original' because Yockey owed so much from Spengler who in turn was indebted to Nietzsche.

Surely this is an important philosophical question for us

There is a reference to Nietzsche in "Liber L II Manifesto of the O.T.O." [see www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib52].

Viewing Nietzsche's work 'internally', I am finding certain parallels with 'philosophical alchemy'. Similarities in Blake's thought and Nietzsche's come out along those lines [perhaps Blake is the nearest to our kind of philosopher in the Anglo-Saxon world - but then he is not a philosopher but a poet/artist].

Note also that Nietzsche corresponded with Strindberg - another adept.

This all connects ultimately with what we may call 'Nazi Esotericism'; the Superhumans of Nietzsche and the SS as realization of the same.

The Nationalist who strives for power - even if it means him having to suffer hardship and persecution - is hardly striving just to gain pleasure.
Nor is the ascetic who half starves himself and deliberately inflicts pain on himself in order to purify his being.

Indeed, in both cases there is not a 'will to pleasure', but a 'will to purity'.

Ultimately though, all these drives are a 'will to power' - whether to political power or power over Self. Will to pleasure/pain/purity are all aspects of the will to power.

Nietzsche was not only talking about humans with his will to power; he saw it in Nature also; Nature seeks to grow and expand, to over-reach herself; one cannot accord 'pleasure' to this.
The Universe itself is in continual flux; it is ascending and declining again and again - striving for Power and losing Power ... eternally.

This is why Nietzsche settled on Will to Power as his most fundamental principle. That should underlie a political outlook too - what good is it without Power?
The position, 'to avoid pain and seek pleasure', is called Hedonism.
This is the basic philosophy of liberalism.

Nietzsche's philosophy, on the other hand, said that one should struggle - 'what does not kill me makes me stronger'.
This philosophy is much closer to nationalism.

Nietzsche meant power by power [he spoke of pleasure and pain only as aspects of power].
The philosophy of pleasure or Hedonism, does not really apply to the nationalist outlook - Hedonist Nationalists would be something of a push-over, consuming pop culture and drugs and having cross-racial sex like today's democrats.

But a philosophy of 'human rights' applies to all political philosophies; the question is where you draw the line around your rights.
In the Third Reich Germans had more human rights than non-Germans; in today's decadent West, immigrants and have more rights than indigenous populations and criminals have more rights than their victims.

Nietzsche's philosophy is not negative - far from it. When he tears something down he always replaces it with something else - something Aryan.
Slave Morality is replaced by Nietzsche's Aryan Master Morality.
The will to pleasure of hedonism is replaced by the Will to Power.
And Liberalism [of any stripe] is relaced by Discipline and Breeding.
And the diminishing man of equal rights is replaced by the Order of Rank and the Super Human.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=58248&page=1&pp=15&highlight=nietzche

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 12:40 AM
Let me know where exactlyI showed myself to be "ignorant" of Christian theology. Cite evidence or shut your mouth.

Well for example your continual insistance that Christianity is anti-nationalist, despite the fact that scriptures, the works of church fathers and other theologians state that indeed it is not! I could also go into your ignorant assumption that liberalism and communism are pure byproducts of christianity, despite evidence towards the opposite. Plus your Edwin Clark essay about how universalism, class struggle, moral relatvism, and all that didn't exist in Ancient Greece and Rome, despite clear evidence to the counter! I could go on and on and on.



You, on the other hand, don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.


At least I can reply to most arguments made against me here. You on the other hand pick one or two sentences out of my argument and ignore 90% of what I said! Even now, you ingored my question of whether or not you've read the works of a major Christian theologian. I answered your question, now it'd be fair if you answered mine.



I've read ALL of Nietzsche and I believe to have a greater understanding and grasp of his philosophy and world-view than you do.


That maybe true, but it still doesn't disprove your ignorance of Christian theology. BTW, why are you continually quoting from Stormfront? I though you hated it so much?

friedrich braun
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 02:26 AM
BTW, why are you continually quoting from Stormfront? I though you hated it so much?

I don't have time to address every irrelevant little provocation you bring up.

I never said that I hated SF; I said that I found it odd that a WN site (or a site that describes itself as such) would allow the loathsome individual knows as "Diablo" to post (outside the "rants" section). It's a joke that SF allows him to masquarade as a WN, when he's nothing of the sort; on the contrary, I regard his ideas as dangerous to Whites.

SF is, in many ways, a useful board, and I have a deep respect for many SF posters and mods (MuadDib knows the Jew as well as anyone in cyberspace, for e.g.). But it does have a too many immature teenagers and Hollywood "Nazis" (with nothing to say), and that's why I don't post there as often as I used to.

In any case, SF is still in many ways better than OD with its American flag-humping paleoconservatives ( :yawn); the only difference between them and neoconservatives ( :jew ) is that the former don't want to share the "spoils" with the Jews. However, both parties are comfortable with US world hegemony. I'm not.

There's a cardinal rule of debate: you don't have to be polite while debating, but you should not distort or misrepresent your opponents views and positions.

I challenge you to quote me saying that I hated SF.

Again, you won't be able to provide a quote because it doesn't exist.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 01:24 PM
There's a cardinal rule of debate: you don't have to be polite while debating, but you should not distort or misrepresent your opponents views and positions.

I challenge you to quote me saying that I hated SF.

Again, you won't be able to provide a quote because it doesn't exist.



http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=53052&postcount=3

I don't care about SF.

A place that allows the loathsome "Diablo" to masquarade as a "WN" has no credibility.

In response to my argument that even people at Stormfrom accept Pushkin as a true Russian.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 01:38 PM
Here's an interesting article from Yggdrasil


http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thread?forumid=86294&messageid=1067923537&lp=1067923537

From Yggdrasil's White Nationalist Library


Deep Cultures - Part III - Christ the Tiger!

"In the juvenescence of the year came Christ the Tiger."

Gerontion
T. S. Eliot

As I demonstrated in earlier posts entitled "Deep Cultures - Part I" and "Deep Cultures - Part II," the Jews have a rather powerful fear of Christianity.

Many young White Nationalists have developed a contempt for Christianity. They view it as passive, weak and ineffective. They argue that it is a "semitic religion" designed to weaken us.

They turn instead to Christian identity or paganism.

Ironically, while the Jews are frightened of Christianity, White Nationalists view it as too wimpy and passive. Who is right?

In the spirit of Easter, it is time to ask whether T.S. Eliot's poetic image is accurate. Do we really have "Christ the Tiger?"

In part, we have become the victims of our own declining literacy. Few Christians understand that all modern Jews are "Pharisees," believers in the "oral law" passed down in the Talmud.

Christ the Tiger had a few words about the Talmud and Talmudic (Halachic) reasoning.

Let's review them:

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

Could Christ the Tiger give a more clear warning about double dealing and saying one thing while doing another? Must Christians ignore his words?

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in mens faces. You yourselves do not enter nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

Doesn't Christ the Tiger clearly say that the Pharisees do not enter heaven themselves and prevent the faithful from entering as well?

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make a single convert and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

Talmudic Rabbis sons of hell? - Strong words Christ!

"Woe unto you blind guides!

"You say, if anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath! You blind fools: which is greater, the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'if anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath. You blind fools! Which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple, swears by it and the one who dwells in it."

Apparently Christ the Tiger doesn't like halachic logic. Probably would not like the Marxist incarnation of it either. He is telling you that Talmudic reasoning is just complexity that enhances rabbinical power and twists the commandments of God into their opposites.

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of greed and self- indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

Again it is hard to conceive of words that more clearly command us to be on the alert for hidden agendas and double meanings. Any hint here that Christ the Tiger wants his followers to be gullible and stupid?

Would Christ the Tiger feel comfortable at a dinner meeting of the Conference of Christians and Jews?

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets, and decorate the graves of the righteous, And you say, 'If we had been in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets, and stone those sent to you. How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

Indeed it is hard to imagine language that more clearly un-chooses the Talmudic Jews. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

It is a major rant!

Indeed Christ the Tiger spends many more words warning us away from the dangers and deceptions of Talmudic Judaism than he does of, for example, pre-marital sex.

In those bibles that print Christ the Tiger's words in red, you will see that it fills an entire page.

Most modern clergy are so busy attending banquets of the Conference of Christians and Jews that they have little taste for attending the words of Christ the Tiger. Indeed, Matthew 23 is an embarrassment to them.

I am afraid that many of you hot-heads who are turning away from Christianity are reacting to cowardly modern clergymen.

But if you look closely, you may see a Tiger lurking.

Yggdrasil-

Nordhammer
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 05:41 PM
I said that I found it odd that a WN site (or a site that describes itself as such) would allow the loathsome individual knows as "Diablo" to post (outside the "rants" section). It's a joke that SF allows him to masquarade as a WN, when he's nothing of the sort; on the contrary, I regard his ideas as dangerous to Whites.

You got that right. It was hilarious when his shirtless picture got out in the Yahoo forum circles. I sure wish I would have copied some of his quotes, they were really funny. Like how 1/4 Negroid is okay. :D

Nordhammer
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 05:54 PM
Here's an interesting article from Yggdrasil

I find his idea of race a bit curious:

Yggdrasil says:

"There are two concepts of race: a descriptive concept based on physical characteristics and genetic inheritance, and a functional concept based on the tendency of groups sharing physical or cultural affinities to fight or use the political process for shifting resources in their favor.

"For the purpose of drawing rational borders around competing groups to minimize conflict, the functional definition is useful. The descriptive definition is not."

friedrich braun
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 05:55 PM
You got that right. It was hilarious when his shirtless picture got out in the Yahoo forum circles. I sure wish I would have copied some of his quotes, they were really funny. Like how 1/4 Negroid is okay. :D

Nice sig! :D

Siegfried
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 06:01 PM
When I said 'destroyed' I did not solely point at the murder of individuals, Pushkin, I meant it ruined the world-view of the European pagans, which had a special emphasis on clan and/or family. Now don't start telling me Medieval Christianity also served nationalism, because Medieval Christianity wasn't real Christianity. Only the clergy read the Bible, many of them only certain parts. The mob and most of the aristocracy either couldn't read the Bible (it was only available in Latin at the time), or didn't bother. Their Christianity thus became a mix of Jewish morals and myths and European ethics and legends.



Excuse me, aren't you pagans pissed at Christianity because its a foreign religion and wish to see it destroyed? Yes, we must oppose Christianity because it's not "kosher" enough for us Europeans and we must destroy it because "eye for an eye". If I'm not mistaken such a mentality is very Jewish indeed. In reality, you pagans are nothing more than Euro-centric Jews.


If it makes me an 'Euro-centric Jew' for believing it is morally corrupt to rever a member of another race as 'God', then feel free to call me a 'Euro-centric Jew'. I do not accept Christianity because it is 1) of Jewish origin, 2) I do not like the pacifist twists (Sermon on the Mount, turn the other cheek, etc), 3) I do not like its universalist nature. On top of all that, I do not believe in God as a sort of World Administrator, who will condemn all 'evil' people to eternal torment, while 'rewarding' the good in heaven where they can praise him for all eternity (the vanity!)...



If I'm not mistaken I do believe he was extremely against anti-semitism. He was also against nationalism, and I do believe he made comments about how race-mixing would bring about the Superman.


Nietzsche thought race mixing tends produce mentally unstable individuals, especially if the races are distinct (like Negroes and Europeans). He did, however, seems to suggest the European Jews and Europeans should mix (he mentions this somewhere in Beyond Good and Evil). It is important to note in this context that there are three kinds of Jews; Ashkenazim (descendents of converts from Slavic and German peoples), Sephardim (Mediterranean Jews, and probably the closest thing we still have to the ancient Tribes) and Ethiopian Jews (descendents of Negroid converts). Nietzsche seems to suggest Europeans should mix with the Ashkenazim, and possibly some of the Sephardim (the ones that have lived in Europe for many centuries - he thought that made them 'European' enough).
To return to your comment about the Superman, Nietzsche seems to suggest the mixed Judeo-European breed should form a caste to rule Europe. I do, however, think this suggestion is limited to one disturbing paragraph in 'Beyond Good and Evil'.


Yes I've read "Thus Spake Zarathustra", which seems to be the favorite out of many Nietzsche fans.

I consider 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' slightly overrated, and prefer 'Beyond Good and Evil', 'Genealogy of Morals', and 'Twilight of the Idols'.


Don't get too cocky, if Christianity somehow miraculasly died, the Jews would infiltrate and do the same to paganism. In fact we're already seeing signs of that with many pagan groups(especially Wicca) endorsing extreme liberal even communistic stances and attitudes. So if Christianity dies, you pagans are not far behind.

You'll never hear me deny Jews cannot infiltrate a certain religion. I do not, however, see any point in accepting a religion which revers a Jew as God incarnate, and whose Holy Book is a collection of Jewish writings (don't deny it; most, if not all, of the Biblical books were written by Jews or half-Jews).

That's all for now.

friedrich braun
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 06:46 PM
As for Pius XII(a post Vatican II pope), all I can say is that Pope Gregory I stated "the Jews reject the One Faith of Jesus Christ". The Jews are not "our dearest brothers", said Pope Innocent III. So Traditional Christianity rejects Judaism and Jews as our "brothers".b]

Pius XII was a pre-Vatican II Pope.

If you oppose Vatican II, you're not in communion with the Church and could be excommunicated (see what happened to Mgr. Levebvre).

Are you aware of this little nugget?

friedrich braun
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 07:37 PM
SA,

You should keep in mind that some of what Nietzsche wrote was with the purpose of drawing attention to himslef by shocking people into noticing him.

It was akin to a peddler shouting in a crowded market square to get noticed by the largely indifferent passersby.

Therefore, I take his calls for Jews mixing with Prussians to produce a master race with a grain of salt. It was a hugely provocative thing to say in late 19th Century Germany -- and he knew it.

He wasn't read by anyone while he was still alive and sane; that made him somewhat bitter against Germans whom he felt didn't appreciate the extent of his genius. He was more popular in France, and that in part explains his pro-French sentiments present throughout his works.


When I said 'destroyed' I did not solely point at the murder of individuals, Pushkin, I meant it ruined the world-view of the European pagans, which had a special emphasis on clan and/or family. Now don't start telling me Medieval Christianity also served nationalism, because Medieval Christianity wasn't real Christianity. Only the clergy read the Bible, many of them only certain parts. The mob and most of the aristocracy either couldn't read the Bible (it was only available in Latin at the time), or didn't bother. Their Christianity thus became a mix of Jewish morals and myths and European ethics and legends.



If it makes me an 'Euro-centric Jew' for believing it is morally corrupt to rever a member of another race as 'God', then feel free to call me a 'Euro-centric Jew'. I do not accept Christianity because it is 1) of Jewish origin, 2) I do not like the pacifist twists (Sermon on the Mount, turn the other cheek, etc), 3) I do not like its universalist nature. On top of all that, I do not believe in God as a sort of World Administrator, who will condemn all 'evil' people to eternal torment, while 'rewarding' the good in heaven where they can praise him for all eternity (the vanity!)...



Nietzsche thought race mixing tends produce mentally unstable individuals, especially if the races are distinct (like Negroes and Europeans). He did, however, seems to suggest the European Jews and Europeans should mix (he mentions this somewhere in Beyond Good and Evil). It is important to note in this context that there are three kinds of Jews; Ashkenazim (descendents of converts from Slavic and German peoples), Sephardim (Mediterranean Jews, and probably the closest thing we still have to the ancient Tribes) and Ethiopian Jews (descendents of Negroid converts). Nietzsche seems to suggest Europeans should mix with the Ashkenazim, and possibly some of the Sephardim (the ones that have lived in Europe for many centuries - he thought that made them 'European' enough).
To return to your comment about the Superman, Nietzsche seems to suggest the mixed Judeo-European breed should form a caste to rule Europe. I do, however, think this suggestion is limited to one disturbing paragraph in 'Beyond Good and Evil'.



I consider 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' slightly overrated, and prefer 'Beyond Good and Evil', 'Genealogy of Morals', and 'Twilight of the Idols'.



You'll never hear me deny Jews cannot infiltrate a certain religion. I do not, however, see any point in accepting a religion which revers a Jew as God incarnate, and whose Holy Book is a collection of Jewish writings (don't deny it; most, if not all, of the Biblical books were written by Jews or half-Jews).

That's all for now.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 04:08 AM
When I said 'destroyed' I did not solely point at the murder of individuals, Pushkin, I meant it ruined the world-view of the European pagans, which had a special emphasis on clan and/or family. Now don't start telling me Medieval Christianity also served nationalism, because Medieval Christianity wasn't real Christianity.

And the only way you can prove that Medieval Christianity wasn't real christianity is to resort to Protestant like "scriptures only" arguments, which will in many ways destroys your argument even further.



If it makes me an 'Euro-centric Jew' for believing it is morally corrupt to rever a member of another race as 'God', then feel free to call me a 'Euro-centric Jew'.


Ok than you are a Euro-Centric Jew, because your idea of worship is based purely on origin as opposed to on truth. The world is still round even if it's a Jew who saids so.

Yet the universal truth can be celebrate in different ways according to the local national customs, as we see clearly in both the Orthodox/Catholic Christian churches. Paganism doesn't make sense bacause then which gods are the true gods? Whose the most powerful god? Odin? Zeus? Perun?



I do not accept Christianity because it is 1) of Jewish origin, 2) I do not like the pacifist twists (Sermon on the Mount, turn the other cheek, etc), 3) I do not like its universalist nature. On top of all that, I do not believe in God as a sort of World Administrator, who will condemn all 'evil' people to eternal torment, while 'rewarding' the good in heaven where they can praise him for all eternity (the vanity!)...

And I have already addressed many of the issues here. The relationship between Judaism and Christianity is much the same as between Hinduism and Buddhism. They share some common basic views, but overall they're in opposition to each other.

As for pacifism, I've already refuted this and one can even read such refutations in scriptures themselves. Funny a pacifist faith would make its first Roman convert a soldier, and done by Jesus's most trusted disciple. Also there's the writings of the Apostle Paul. And countless other Christian theologians. Jesus himself claims that his mission is not spread peace but the sword in Mathew 10:34. Those who claim that Jesus and christianity are pacifist can only back their arguments up by taking one or two verses out of context without looking at the big picture as a whole. Jesus wasn't a pacifist, but neither did he believe that violence was always the best solution(especially for personal problems).

And as for universalism, Jesus himself declares the existance of nations. Paul boats of his nationalist pride, and so on. So even in scriptures there is support for nationalism. Need we forget, the creation of nations was fully ordained by God and the existance of nations continues even after the second coming of Christ, as Revelations prove.



Nietzsche thought race mixing tends produce mentally unstable individuals, especially if the races are distinct (like Negroes and Europeans). He did, however, seems to suggest the European Jews and Europeans should mix (he mentions this somewhere in Beyond Good and Evil). It is important to note in this context that there are three kinds of Jews; Ashkenazim (descendents of converts from Slavic and German peoples), Sephardim (Mediterranean Jews, and probably the closest thing we still have to the ancient Tribes) and Ethiopian Jews (descendents of Negroid converts). Nietzsche seems to suggest Europeans should mix with the Ashkenazim, and possibly some of the Sephardim (the ones that have lived in Europe for many centuries - he thought that made them 'European' enough).
To return to your comment about the Superman, Nietzsche seems to suggest the mixed Judeo-European breed should form a caste to rule Europe. I do, however, think this suggestion is limited to one disturbing paragraph in 'Beyond Good and Evil'.


So I wasn't entirely wrong about Nietzsche advocating race-mixing?



You'll never hear me deny Jews cannot infiltrate a certain religion. I do not, however, see any point in accepting a religion which revers a Jew as God incarnate, and whose Holy Book is a collection of Jewish writings (don't deny it; most, if not all, of the Biblical books were written by Jews or half-Jews).

Funny you consider Jesus a Jew when Jewish tradition does not. I've always found this interesting. As for the rest of your argument, I can resort to Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies", which btw is a good source for disproving that Christianity and Judaism are related(except by very basic general standards).

http://www.awitness.org/books/luther/luther_jews/2_ancestors.html

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 04:16 AM
Pius XII was a pre-Vatican II Pope.

Ok my mistake. I sometimes get Pope's names mixed up! But I do believe he was the Pope was made the alliance with Hitler's regime?

If what you say is true about Piux XII, then he was in violation of major Catholic teachings on the Jews, teachings that were upheld even in the early 20th Century. Theres even a book written by a Jew(or at least his name sounds jewish) titled "The Popes Against the Jews:The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism" by David Kertzer.

In 1880, Pius IX had this written into the official Vatican journal:

'The Jews -- eternal insolent children, obstinate, dirty, thieves, liars, ignoramuses, pests and the scourge of those near and far . . . managed to lay their hands on . . . all public wealth . . . and virtually alone they took control not only of all the money . . . but of the law itself in those countries where they have been allowed to hold public offices . . . [yet they complain] at the first shout by anyone who dares raise his voice against this barbarian invasion by an enemy race, hostile to Christianity and to society in general.''


Another quote from the Vatican journal in the late 19th century declared:

''Oh how wrong and deluded are those who think Judaism is just a religion, like Catholicism, Paganism, Protestantism, and not in fact a race, a people, and a nation! . . . For the Jews are not only Jews because of their religion . . . they are Jews also and especially because of their race.''


So even the Catholic church dealt with the Jews on a somewhat racial basis.

Pius IX wasn't the only one, Pius X was about as staunch in his stance against the Jews as his predeccesor.

So if Pius XII declared Christians "Jews" or whatever it was along those lines your quote states, he was clearly going against the teachings of the Church as is the modern Pope doing today!



If you oppose Vatican II, you're not in communion with the Church and could be excommunicated (see what happened to Mgr. Levebvre).

Not not really, there are many traditionalist Catholics who oppose Vatican II and are still in communion with the Church.

friedrich braun
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 04:31 AM
What alliance are you talking about? The Concordat? That wasn't an alliance; rather the Church in Germany obtained some privileges through it and the Vatican formalized its relationship with the regime.

Again, if you oppose Vatican II, you're in a state of sin and not in communion with the Church. Case in point, Mgr. Levebvre (see, http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1978_July/New_Inquisition.htm and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/lefebvre.htm) who never accepted the reforms of Vatican II and was consequently excommunicated. I defy you to go to your priest or bishop, and explain to him your views on Vatican II -- let's see what happens.


Ok my mistake. I sometimes get Pope's names mixed up! But I do believe he was the Pope was made the alliance with Hitler's regime?



Not not really, there are many traditionalist Catholics who oppose Vatican II and are still in communion with the Church.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 04:45 AM
Again, if you oppose Vatican II, you're in a state of sin and not in communion with the Church. Case in point, Mgr. Levebvre (see, http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1978_July/New_Inquisition.htm and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/lefebvre.htm) who never accepted the reforms of Vatican II and was consequently excommunicated. I defy you to go to your priest or bishop, and explain to him your views on Vatican II -- let's see what happens.

I have explained many of my views to the priest of my parish, and he doesn't seem to mind.

BTW, I edited my post above that includes info you might be interested in.

friedrich braun
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 05:06 AM
Well, in that case your priest is a renegade heretic. Catholicism is not a buffet, where you pick and choose the docrtine you like -- you understand that, right?


I have explained many of my views to the priest of my parish, and he doesn't seem to mind.

BTW, I edited my post above that includes info you might be interested in.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 05:25 AM
Catholicism is not a buffet, where you pick and choose the docrtine you like -- you understand that, right?

Yes I know that. Catholic doctrine also cannot change at the whims of a heretical leadership.

friedrich braun
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 07:37 AM
Yes I know that. Catholic doctrine also cannot change at the whims of a heretical leadership.

Do realize what you're saying?

I fear for your soul.

Siegfried
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 08:51 AM
Funny you consider Jesus a Jew when Jewish tradition does not.

I don't care what Jewish 'tradition' has to say about him. He was born of Jewish parents, belonged to a Jewish aristocratic line (which went poor), and celebrated Jewish religious holidays. That makes him a Jew, doesn't it?



And as for universalism, Jesus himself declares the existance of nations.


Provide a Scripture verse, please. And besides, only a complete idiot would deny the existence of nations. Declaring something exists is far from accepting something as 'good'. Christianity is a religion which accepts people from all strata of society, and all races of man. Thus it is universalist.


Paul boats of his nationalist pride, and so on.


Once again, Scripture verse? I only remember him making claim to his Roman citizenship, and then he only used it to get in touch with the Emperor.

Don't have the time to respond to the rest.

friedrich braun
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 09:58 PM
I don't care what Jewish 'tradition' has to say about him. He was born of Jewish parents, belonged to a Jewish aristocratic line (which went poor), and celebrated Jewish religious holidays. That makes him a Jew, doesn't it?

That's if you accept Jesus' genealogy as presented by the propagandists of the New Testament. Matthew and Luke give contradictory accounts of his genealogy, see http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_genealogy.htm.

Both stress the Davidic lineage because of the OT "prophecy" that the Jewish Messiah had to be a descendant of David.

Anyway, the entire mythical Jesus is a theological construct, i.e., you won't find the historical Jesus in the gospels.

As to Nietzsche and race mixing, I'm only aware of one reference (in his entire body of work) where he mentions Prussian officers and Jewish females; but if you read the entire section you get a vivid impression that his tongue is firmly planted in his cheek.

There's also disagreement pertaining to Kaufmann's translation, more on that later.

friedrich braun
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 02:35 AM
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=53052&postcount=3

I don't care about SF.

A place that allows the loathsome "Diablo" to masquarade as a "WN" has no credibility.

In response to my argument that even people at Stormfrom accept Pushkin as a true Russian.

Yes...where do you see any feelings of "hate" being expressed towards SF?

Again, don't twist, distort, or misrepresent my words.

My complaint was lodged solely at the fact that the loathsome individual known as "Diablo" is allowed to post outside the "rants" section on SF, I think that was pretty clear from my post.

When he, and others like him, are allowed to masquarade as WNs on SF, SF loses credibilty.

I'm patiently waiting for him to loudly proclaim the African Pygmy as "White" -- since he has this uncanny ability to detect "White" genes in the most remarkable and unusual places. (I'm sure that he'll get around to it eventually; btw, I think you and him might have a lot in common, i.e., you both have a very expansive and generous definition of who's White and who isn't.)

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 06:06 AM
Reasons we should lose Christianity.

Firstly, Christianity is non-European.
Secondly, it is a second-class version of Judiasm for second-class Jews.
Thirdly, it was used as a tool against Rome just as it was used against reason and scientific thought.
Fourth, it is used by the Chosenites to argue for a position of special privilege within the Roman world just as it is used by them to argue for the same special privilege within the Western world.

If I name it for what it really is, I risk the reality of being censored in this forum but, the reality is that Christianity is a slave religion, and it should be denounced and recognized for what it is if we are to set one foot out of our current morass.

Siegfried
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 09:03 AM
As to Nietzsche and race mixing, I'm only aware of one reference (in his entire body of work) where he mentions Prussian officers and Jewish females; but if you read the entire section you get a vivid impression that his tongue is firmly planted in his cheek.

Hmm, perhaps. Here is the section I referred to:

Beyond Good and Evil, 251
If a people is suffering and wants to suffer from nationalistic nervous fever and political ambition, it must be expected that all sorts of clouds and disturbances—in short, little attacks of stupidity—will pass over its spirit into the bargain: among present-day Germans, for example, now the anti-French stupidity, now the anti-Jewish, now the anti-Polish, now the Christian-romantic, now the Wagnerian, now the Teutonic, now the Prussian (just look at those miserable historians, those Sybels and Treitschkes [Heinrich von Sybel (1817-95) and Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-96). ] , with their thickly bandaged heads— ), and whatever else these little obfuscations of the German spirit and conscience may be called. May it be forgiven me that I too, during a daring brief sojourn in a highly infected area, did not remain wholly free of the disease and began, like the rest of the world, to entertain ideas about things that were none of my business: first symptom of the political infection. About the Jews, for example: listen.— I have never met a German who was favorably inclined towards the Jews; and however unconditionally all cautious and politic men may have repudiated real anti-Jewism, even this caution and policy is not directed against this class of feeling itself but only against its dangerous immoderation, and especially against the distasteful and shameful way in which this immoderate feeling is expressed—one must not deceive oneself about that. That Germany has an ample sufficiency of Jews, that the German stomach, German blood has difficulty (and will continue to have difficulty for a long time to come) in absorbing even this quantum of "Jew"—as the Italians, the French, the English have absorbed them through possessing a stronger digestion— : this is the clear declaration and language of a universal instinct to which one must pay heed, in accordance with which one must act. "Let in no more Jews! And close especially the doors to the East (also to Austria)!"—thus commands the instinct of a people whose type is still weak and undetermined, so that it could easily be effaced, easily extinguished by a stronger race. The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest and purest race at present living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions (better even than under favorable ones), by means of virtues which one would like to stamp as vices—thanks above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before "modem ideas"; they change, when they change, only in the way in which the Russian Empire makes its conquests—an empire that has time and is not of yesterday— : namely, according to the principle "as slowly as possible"! A thinker who has the future of Europe on his conscience will, in all the designs he makes for this future, take the Jews into account as he will take the Russians, as the immediately surest and most probable factors in the great game and struggle of forces. That which is called a "nation" in Europe today and is actually more of a res facta than nata (indeed sometimes positively resembles a res ficta et picta [res facta: something made; res nata: something born; res ficta et picta: something fictitious and unreal. ] — ) is in any case something growing, young, easily disruptable, not yet a race, let alone such an aere perennius ["more enduring than bronze"] as the Jewish type is: these "nations" should certainly avoid all hot-headed rivalry and hostility very carefully! That the Jews could, if they wanted—or if they were compelled, as the anti-Semites seem to want—even now predominate, indeed quite literally rule over Europe, is certain; that they are not planning and working towards that is equally certain. In the meantime they are, rather, wanting and wishing, even with some importunity, to be absorbed and assimilated by and into Europe, they are longing to be finally settled, permitted, respected somewhere and to put an end to the nomadic life, to the "Wandering Jew"— ; one ought to pay heed to this inclination and impulse (which is perhaps even a sign that the Jewish instincts are becoming milder) and go out to meet it: for which it would perhaps be a good idea to eject the anti-Semitic ranters from the country. Go out to meet it with all caution, with selectivity; much as the English nobility do. It is plain that the stronger and already more firmly formed types of the new Germanism could enter into relations with them with the least hesitation; the aristocratic officer of the March, for example: it would be interesting in many ways to see whether the genius of money and patience (and above all a little mind and spirituality, of which there is a plentiful lack in the persons above mentioned — ) could not be added and bred into the hereditary art of commanding and obeying, in both of which the above-mentioned land is today classic. But here it is fitting that I should break off my cheerful Germanomaniac address: for already I am touching on what is to me serious, on the "European problem" as I understand it, on the breeding of a new ruling caste for Europe.



He wasn't read by anyone while he was still alive and sane; that made him somewhat bitter against Germans whom he felt didn't appreciate the extent of his genius. He was more popular in France, and that in part explains his pro-French sentiments present throughout his works.

That may very well be true. I never really understood why he liked the French so much.


Ok than you are a Euro-Centric Jew, because your idea of worship is based purely on origin as opposed to on truth. The world is still round even if it's a Jew who saids so.

Granted. But if a Jew says something I don't believe, I actually have two reasons not to follow his guidance. As I said:


I do not believe in God as a sort of World Administrator, who will condemn all 'evil' people to eternal torment, while 'rewarding' the good in heaven where they can praise him for all eternity (the vanity!)...




Yet the universal truth can be celebrate in different ways according to the local national customs, as we see clearly in both the Orthodox/Catholic Christian churches. Paganism doesn't make sense bacause then which gods are the true gods? Whose the most powerful god? Odin? Zeus? Perun?


Pagans usually accepted the gods of other tribes to be just as real as their own gods. When pagan peoples mingled or conquered each other, their gods often married or fought each other.

Loki
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 01:05 PM
Let's return to the fundamentals. Why should we try to revitalize a faith spiritually alien to our racial soul that originated amongst the Jewish desert tribes, and which could only be enforced upon Europeans by mass genocide, terror, blackmail and 1,001 compromizes with the old indigenous spiritual traditions in the first place?

What possible benefit could we have from worshipping a Jewish rabbi as God? Do you really believe this nonsense? Christianity is rotting away, and I am happy about it. As someone said (a Christian theologian, I believe; I unfortunately lost the source), Germany is nowadays basically a Pagan country with Christian remnants. That's true for all European Germanic nations, in fact. While polls show that 98+% of the people believe in God or a "higher being/force", less than 20% believe in the pillars of Christianity, such as the trinity, the virgin birth, Jesus' physical resurrection, the miracles, &c.

With Christianity being no longer a religious factor for the majority, your Lueger/Schönerer argument becomes invalid. The questions are no longer "How can we use Christianity and Christian sentiments for our purposes?" or "How can we avoid to unnecessarily offend Christians?" but "How can we fill the spiritual vaccum the final and irreversible decline of Christianity left?" -

Obviously, we don't want our people to become Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or that their religious instincts be abused by all sorts of sects even more scurrile and alien than Christianity. The only solution is to rediscover our roots. We have to replace the vaccum by our own European spiritual traditions, as well as by European art and philosophy; by Homer, the Edda, the Völuspá, the Niebelungenlied; by Goethe, Schiller, Nietzsche, Mozart, Beethoven, and Heidegger, and many others, as far as Germans are concerned. Russians and Slavs have their own native roots and traditions which are as rich and which you know better than I. But what do we need these aberrant Christian superstitions and this Jewish messiah scam for?

- Thorburn

Great post, Njord! I agree with all this. Unfortunately I don't have much time to elaborate on this, since I am taking a lunch break...

Nordhammer
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 03:37 PM
The Germans being more sensitive to racial poisoning could hardly be called a vice.

Nietzsche would eat his words if he were alive today. Jews do not simply want a nice play to settle down in and assimilate.

I agree with him that Jews are a tough breed, and their peculiar personality is carried on even into the 2nd and 3rd generation of mixing. Such an example is the 1/4 Jew Tim Wise, who is insanely anti-white.

Blutwölfin
Friday, October 7th, 2005, 10:57 AM
By G. J. Mattey




Modern Christian civilization, Nietzsche declared, is sick and must be overcome. Much of On the Genealogy of Morals is devoted to an etiology of the modern sickness, and the cause is said to be two-fold. There has always been the seething resentment of the "herd," the base, the powerless mass. By itself this resentment is not sickness; it becomes so through the ministrations of the priests, who manage the resentment by turning it inward.

Civilization itself sets the stage for the disease. In civil society, individual humans are confined and their the exercise of their wills repressed. Like a wild beast in a cage, a civilized human hurls himself at the walls in a frenzy of self-destruction. Thus arises bad conscience in its natural form. In its religious form, bad conscience becomes much more: it becomes guilt.

Society as a whole finds itself indebted for what it has to its ancestors. As civilization becomes more powerful, the ancestors are made into powerful gods, to whom the debt is even greater. The Christian God is the most powerful of all, and the debt owed that God is the greatest. It is so great that it cannot be discharged by any action, any sacrifice. Redemption comes only through grace, which is granted only through God's will, which might be turned by the intercession of the priest. Thus the human being is a sinner and the priest is his greatest hope.

The values of the priest are ascetic values. The priestly virtues of poverty, chastity, obedience are all forms of self-denial. Shortly we shall see how they are said by Nietzsche to give meaning to the life of the masses. But first we will turn our attention to the meaning of ascetic values for the philosopher.

It was Socrates who invented the type of the philosopher: "theoretical man," one whose entire being is devoted to thought. The activity of the philosopher is the discharge of his power, and it is to be enhanced in any way possible. Asceticism, self-denial, is the effective means to philosophical thinking. All philosophers up to his time that Nietzsche marked as great -- Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer -- were unmarried. One could not even imagine them married. "A married philosopher belongs in comedy, that is my proposition -- and as for that exception, Socrates -- the malicious Socrates, it would seem, married ironically, just to demonstrate this proposition" (On the Genealogy of Morals, Third Essay, section 7). A philosopher gives up the possibility of fame, fortune, sensuality for the prize of enhancing the fundamental activity which makes him what he is.

The ascetic priest generalizes self-denial to a repudiation of the natural world as a whole. He begins with a general disgust with life, which holds nothing but pain and suffering. Moreover, this miserable condition is meaningless. One response to this situation (that of Buddhism and Schopenhauer) is to attempt to give up willing altogether. But the ascetic priest repudiates this way out, instead giving life a purpose.

Suffering has a meaning after all: it is the sufferer who brings it upon himself! The response is for the sufferer to turn against himself, to deny himself, to adopt ascetic ideals. "'I suffer: someone must be to blame for it' -- thus thinks every sickly sheep. But his shepherd, the ascetic priest, tells him: 'Quite so, my sheep! someone must be to blame for it: but you youself are this someone, you alone are to blame for it -- you alone are to blame for yourself!'" (On the Genealogy of Morals, Third Essay, Section 15). In this way, resentment is turned inward and the herd is rendered harmless. Self-punishment for one's own guilt is the most effective regulator at all, and at the same time, it gives a meaning to life.

Thus Nietzsche condemned Christianity as a movement led by sick men whose aim was to infect everyone else. It is a religion of resentment, at its very beginning blaming the Jews for the death of its founder. Its stance toward life, toward everything sensual, is one of hostility. It must tame every natural instinct, just as it tamed the barbarian tribes of the north (thus accomplishing what the Roman Empire could not). Hegel had stated that this taming process was necessary to bring forth the genius of the German people, but to Nietzsche all that resulted was the loss of all that was noble in them.

In this respect, Christianity is far different from the older religion of the East, Buddhism, which grew out of an already-mature culture. Far from needing to be tamed, the ancient Indians were overly civilized, with the result that they were hyper-sensitive to pain. They sought release from pain by slipping gently into nothingness, by giving up the will.

Nietzsche also distinguished Christianity from the teachings of Jesus Christ. The message of the Christ was one of glad tidings, that heaven is to be found in how one lives. It is not by following the law, not through redemption from sin, but only through a benevolent disposition, which might best be summarized in the commandment to love one's neighbor as one's self. "The 'kingdom of Heaven' is a condition of the heart -- not sometihng that comes 'upon the earth' or 'after death'" (The Anti-Christ, section 34).

Christian doctrine, however, is little concerned with the glad tidings, Nietzsche went on. After the death of Jesus, it turned in the opposite direction, to become a religion of hatred. This began by Jesus's followers blaming the Jews for putting their leader to death. But it could not be the whole story, for God had to have permitted the event to occur. "And now an absurd problem came up: 'How could God have permitted that?' For this question the deranged reason of the little community found a downright terrifingly absurd anser: God gave his Son for the forgiveness of sins, as a sacrifice" (The Anti-Christ, section 41). Guilt, which played no part in the glad tidings of Jesus, took center stage once again. Nietzsche accused the disciples, Paul in particular, of having gone on to falsify the history of Christianity, for example by putting words of vengeance in the mouth of Jesus.

Christianity had its battles with secular civilizations of Greece and Rome, with the northern barbarians, and it emerged victorious. The last battle was fought by Luther against the re-emergence of noble values in the Renaissance. Thus Nietzsche was uncompromisingly anti-Christian, for Christianity was the most potent force against those values which he prized most highly. It is a life-and-death struggle that may someday be won, but in the present day is more difficult than ever. "I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty -- I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind" (The Anti-Christ, section 62).



Source (http://foster.20megsfree.com/433.htm)

ikki
Sunday, October 9th, 2005, 08:57 PM
Maybe, yes.

I was more struck by a tiny coincidence, the cycle of some 2000 years.

Nietzsche actually just declared god recently deceased, which would give a lifespan of some 2000 years. Now check for yourself for how long various other gods have remained alive.. 2000 years, give or take a few centuries seems to be the lifespan of those gods.


Weighted, measured and found wanting!



...
Just like the eternal wandering of the ages of the stars, by the way..!
The sphinx that lost its head.. the pyramids outlasting the gods for whom they were built!

So where, and whom, are they today, the new gods of this era?
Or perhaps we already have that answer, we just dont realise it? ;)

jcs
Sunday, October 9th, 2005, 09:01 PM
I was more struck by a tiny coincidence, the cycle of some 2000 years.

Nietzsche actually just declared god recently deceased, which would give a lifespan of some 2000 years. Now check for yourself for how long various other gods have remained alive.. 2000 years, give or take a few centuries seems to be the lifespan of those gods.
According to Spengler, this is also about the average lifespan of a culture.

ikki
Sunday, October 9th, 2005, 09:05 PM
According to Spengler, this is also about the average lifespan of a culture.

Looks like we are on to something here.
Life, universe and all of that.. :D