PDA

View Full Version : Christianity Today: Friend or Foe



SuuT
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 06:58 PM
Moody Lawless: "The question of the Human is far wider, and should be dealt with in another thread and in another context.

Your thesis of the holocaust of the Human is inextricably bound to whether or not a transvaluation of Christianity is possible. Yes, there are many degrees of separation between the two; however, the continuum you invoke--by insinuating that Christianity has not gone through all of its stages of self-cancellation; and is, therefore, transvaluable--is erroneous. Taken as a whole, Christianity, as the historical and currently demonstrative adjunct to Jewism, is the passive tool and means of rule, by proxy, of Semetic memes: this completes all possible transmogrifications: what is Christianity, without their Christ??. This is so regardless of whether or not one subscribes to racialism or no. Ergo, we are establishing a clear delineation of rank. Sure, a racialist 'Christian' is of greater value than the non-racialist. However, and this is key, it is NOT the sole consideration to make when one implies that how Christianity is 'used' makes all the difference e.g. the Crusades strike me as thanatos, and a last will and testament to the pagan and proud-to-conquer affect of the European Aryan; and not as a result of something in deference to this affect. In short, Aryan acts, are not always Aryan intentions. If not a war with this, then I know not what we fight.

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

I suggest that you don't advocate it at all in this forum, lest you find yourself in a war--with the Christians!

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

It is reductio ad absurdum.

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

This is not my concern. The fact is, they will have issue with [I]you. "The strong have always needed protection from the weak" (Nietzsche on Darwin's prolepsis). Anything less than an offence puts you at risk as you gain more responsibility.

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

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

See above.

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

Rank of race, sure. Not of Rank per se as is manifestly true even within 'mainstream(?)' christianity. You illustrate the obscurantism of Christianity: it eradicates, by its nature, natural rank in-general; then serves-up the other-worldly alternative which deviates, and draws attention away from, this-worldliness. This is done regardless of one's racialism; and, effects the vehemence with which one might pursue racialism. It all gets tempered by "the lord." Not the lords of the Earth.

There is also something to be said about succeptibility to Christian miasma, which I suspect will be hit upon later.

Just read who and what chimes in below. I might not have to say another word! But I will.

Youngland
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 08:18 PM
Taken as a whole, Christianity, as the historical and currently demonstrative adjunct to Jewism


I think you're wrong. Christianity isn't a adjunct to Judaism, inversely, Judaism is a little adjunct to the Old Testament.

Jew in the bible doesn't stand for the same Jew as today. If you read Jew in the bible, it can mean Judaic, Judean or an adherer of todays talmudic Judaism.

Prince Eugen
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 08:36 PM
I allways believe that religion is something personal !Many comrades in the past were christians!Jose Antonio,Codreanu,Degrelle were heroes of the Revolution and devoted christians too!
Even not a Christian i recognised that a part of European History and Art are influenced by christianity!We can't ignored that!
But all the Churches all dogmas work negative for European preservation!
They help immigrants ,they promote interracialism and condemned ''racism'' and ''nationalism''!
But also some heathens do the same:
http://home.earthlink.net/~wodensharrow/hah.html

Spjabork
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 09:10 PM
Jew in the bible doesn't stand for the same Jew as today.

With the same logic you could claim that the Hindus in the Bhagadhavad Gita are not the same as the Hindus today... No, you can say: the OT matches the Hindu Scripts, whereas the NT matches the Bhuddhist Scripts. Hinduism is confined to the Hindus, as is Judaism to the Jews. Bhuddhism is an "world-open" religion, as is Christianity.

NS has nothing to do with and nothing to gain from them all: Judaism and Hinduism are our - the Germanics - enemies, for they exclude us. Bhuddhism and Christianity are our deadly enemies, for they would like to include, i.e. devour us. The Nationalist movements which pacted with the Catholic church have, in hindsight, only been used by the Catholics - at that time in a transiently weak position - to fight and destroy communism. After that they were thrown away like broken tools... You might say this was kind of "diabolic" were it not for the cleverness of a weathered and highly experienced organisation.

Leofric
Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 10:50 PM
Jew in the bible doesn't stand for the same Jew as today.With the same logic you could claim that the Hindus in the Bhagadhavad Gita are not the same as the Hindus today...
I believe the point about the distinction of the Jews is that the Jewish religion today is wholly derivative of the Pharisaical sect of Judaism mentioned in the Christian New Testament. In New Testament times, it was a rather small sect that didn't come close to representing the fulness and rich variety of Jewish religion of the time. It is hardly representative of the folk religion of the tribe of Judah at the time the Bible was written.

The same is not true of Hinduism, which has retained all the variety and richness it has ever had (and probably even developed a good deal more).

Christianity, which is arguably a derivative of ancient Judaism, is most definitely not a derivative of the Judaism we see today. In its inception, it was very much opposed to the Pharisaical sect that gave rise to all the Jewish faith systems we see today. Christianity has always been inimical to the faith that has come to dominate the Jewish people during the past two millennia.

If Christianity and Judaism are related, then it is certainly not the case that Christianity is a derivative of contemporary Judaism. If they are related, it would be best to see the two religions as sisters that view one another as vile corrupters of the common inheritance.

I point this out because if folks want to meaningfully discuss the relative worth of Christianity for our people, it's necessary to discuss Christianity for what it really is, rather than discussing false analogies based on misinformation.

fms panzerfaust
Friday, May 5th, 2006, 09:02 AM
As I say, the enemy is invisible - the feeling of pity for those that are trying to destroy you, this is the enemy. And others too, like unecessary passions that go out of control in most individuals.
If this pity came or not from christianity, dont matters. It's attested by the site of "heathen against hate" that this feeling is not exclusive to christians.
I think that the war of Moody is, more or less, against liberal junk, as attested by his constant discussions in another list out there.

SuuT
Friday, May 5th, 2006, 05:48 PM
I believe the point about the distinction of the Jews is that the Jewish religion today is wholly derivative of the Pharisaical sect of Judaism mentioned in the Christian New Testament. In New Testament times, it was a rather small sect that didn't come close to representing the fulness and rich variety of Jewish religion of the time. It is hardly representative of the folk religion of the tribe of Judah at the time the Bible was written.

Then, by implication, the folk religion of the tribe of Judah at the time the bible was written (I'm surprised a historian such as yourself would say this--that is, "at the time the bible was written") is wholly different, and therefore inapplicable to the progression of Judaism more generally...? At any rate, the historiographical teleology with which you approach the issue is unable to answer the question I have posed in the title of this thread. More on this in a bit.

The same is not true of Hinduism, which has retained all the variety and richness it has ever had (and probably even developed a good deal more).

This is probably sound.

Christianity, which is arguably (?) a derivative of ancient Judaism, is most definitely not a derivative of the Judaism we see today. (of course its not, that would be anachronistic.) In its inception, it was very much opposed to the Pharisaical sect that gave rise to all the Jewish faith systems we see today. Christianity has always been inimical to the faith that has come to dominate the Jewish people during the past two millennia.

If (?) Christianity and Judaism are related, then it is certainly not the case that Christianity is a derivative of contemporary Judaism (anachronistic). If they are related, it would be best to see the two religions as sisters that view one another as vile corrupters of the common inheritance.



I point this out because if folks want to meaningfully discuss the relative worth of Christianity for our people, it's necessary to discuss Christianity for what it really is, rather than discussing false analogies based on misinformation.

First, "relative worth" is not the issue raised in the thread; although a value assessment must eventually be made by those still 'on the fence'. The issue is whether or not Christianity today is friend or foe in any form: whether or not it progresses or retards racialist processes, to what degree based on form, and why. Second, what Christianity "really is" is not only a bold statement to make in general, which I have no problem with (I will likely provide my own ontological status); but to leave it at that is just empty. Third, the issue must be approached psychologically, if not psycho-philosophically. Here are our means:

"Moral judgements agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities. Morality is merely an interpretation of certain phenomena...Moral judgements are therefore never to be taken literally: so understood, they always contain mere absurdity. Semeiotically, however, they remain invaluable: they reveal, at least for those who know, the most valuable realities of cultures and inwardnesses which did not know enough to 'understand' themselves. Morality is mere sign language, mere symptomology: one must know what it is all about to be able to profit from it" (Nietzsche).

For example, the way (including to whom) you spread "thanks" as if it were bring-cup-cakes-to-class-day, in and of itself, yields to me a rudimentary psychological profile. Perhaps, in another (seperate from this one) thread (for it would be off topic), you might test it.

SuuT
Friday, May 12th, 2006, 05:40 PM
No takers? No defenders of the faith?

More on the memetic connection of today's Christianity and Today's Jew:

What religions today are more bound to one another to the extent that they are equally bound to secular thought, mores, and folkways? To what has 'modern' Judaism rooted to more than the base suppositions of Christian love? The world is, by and large, far more willing to "do unto others" than they are to...well, see Leviticus. If one were to presuppose that all things arise from their antithesis--that the world is in fact the fractioning, and folding over, in and out, through, up and over and back into 'itself': in short, that the law of contradiction is the progenitor of the law of non-contradiction, and therefore fuller, richer, broader, older, and wiser of these two theorhetical and existential poles--then to what would hate be most related...? Would their not be a resentiment of one for the other that resembles the rivalry of human birth order? Who here be Cain? Who here be Able? Does it matter?--they were brothers.

"To each man his own private superstition" (Hitler)

It has always been and will always be: "Heavy is the head that wears the crown"--thus, the exemplars that the Europoid have thus had to example our way have always attempted to make concessions for Fictions; and the herd's succeptibility to them. The problem: when a Semetic fiction takes hold of a non-semite, the host finds no immunity exactly because of its antithetical substance. Thus, "...even the noble Teutons were 'improved'" (Nietzsche): who and what has been improved by Christianity? Aryan Germania is sedentary and lay prostrate before innaction; genuflects for Jewish ideology that lay beneath the surface of its antipodal adjunct (christianity); altruism and guilt pervades, and is pervading; this world and all that must be fought for to press 'our' rights to it is found tertiary, without fail (whether the 'christain' knows it or not is of little consequence), to the 'will of God'; guilt has taken on an unrecognizable form: Western Culture. The Christian prays to (G)od. What could be more...Jewish?

For those above 'less' sedentary: When we speak of ''preserving Germanic spiritual and cultural ______"--What is placed in this blank first and foremost...? What does your answer reflect? To what point in Germanic history can you trace your answer?

If it could be proven that Christianity is, indeed, the means and vehicle for rule by proxy of Jewish...shall we say, proclivity--

It would beg questions:

Who are you worshiping?

More importantly:

Whom, do you preserve...?