Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: The Problem with Primitivism

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    5,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    94
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    751
    Thanked in
    414 Posts

    The Problem with Primitivism

    The following article is a critique of sects like the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, etc. from a theological view mainly, but there are other issues the author points out about these sects. Unfortunately, I think there are issues with primitivism among preservationists as well. Many want to "preserve" a certain part of history, be it the ancients and all the references to the Vikings ("the Vikings did this"... is often used to justify certain types of behavior), medieval, pre-industrial, early modern and so on. However, isn't this antithetical to history itself? Our people, languages, etc. have always evolved, we don't f.e. speak Old English today. Of course we must be wary of certain infuences, however not anything that is catalogued as modern is necessarily evil.

    How do you see primitivism?

    I am posting the article because I've often seen written on tese boards that "we should be more like the Amish", and the like:

    One of the basic assumptions of Protestantism is Primitivism. This is the idea that the Catholic Church became corrupt at some point and that the Reformers need to ‘restore’ the simple, primitive faith of the early Christians.

    Primitivist movements have been around since the beginning of the church, the Protestant Reformation threw up a good number of Primitivist sects like the Amish and Mennonite, but no part of church history is more replete with Primitivist Restorationist movements than 19th century revivalist-mad America. The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints with its ideas that the Native Americans are a lost Jewish race and golden tablets written in Reformed Egyptian etc etc. is just one of many such Primitivist sects. You can add in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Science, Landmark Baptists not to mention the Biblical interpretation system called Dispensationalism which still influences the vast majority of Baptists in this country.

    Well, if people want to think it through they can read this longer article of mine called The Problem with Primitivism. It examines the faulty assumptions of the Primitivist movements and their even worse solutions. This comes from my Archived Articles section–which I am regularly updating.

    he Problem with Primitivism

    As a boy I attended a church that was founded in 1962. It grew from a group of Christians meeting together in their homes for Bible study. They were disenchanted with the liberal drift of the mainstream Protestant denominations and decided to get back to basics. They did not believe they were doing anything new. Instead they were returning to the simple principles of the early church.

    From their reading of the New Testament, they concluded that the first Christians met in homes to sing hymns, study the Bible and pray together. Eventually the founders of our church wrote a constitution, bought land and built a church building and school. They did not regard this as anything more than a natural outgrowth of their first, simple communal meetings in their homes.

    The idea that a new church or denomination is really a return to the simple, early days of Christianity is called Restorationism. It is the active result of an underlying assumption called Christian Primitivism, which is the Christian expression of a more general philosophical position called ‘Primitivism’–the belief that some earlier, simpler and more basic civilization is better than the present one.

    Christian Primitivism and its active expression, Restorationism is written into the genetic code of Protestantism. It is an seductive ideal, but it provides a fatally flawed foundation for Protestant churches. Before we examine the problems of Restorationism (and it’s foundation, Primitivism), it is worth looking at it’s history.

    Let’s Start at the Very Beginning

    The urge to shed accumulated ‘traditions of men’ and return to the simple gospel message is nothing new. The first Christians to fall into this trap may have been the Montanists in the mid second century. Like modern-day Pentecostals, the Montanists emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit and prophecy. Their opposition to the organized church and ‘loyalty’ to the Holy Spirit suggests a restorationist agenda.

    Other ancient heretical groups had primitivist tendencies, but the first separatist group to be clearly driven by restorationist zeal, were the Paulicians. They were founded in the mid 600s by an Armenian named Constantine, who claimed to be restoring the pure Christianity of St Paul. The Paulicians were Adoptionists (believing that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism). Influenced by Manichaeism, they rejected infant baptism, the clergy, monasticism, the doctrine of the real presence, and all iconography.

    In Bulgaria three hundred years later a new shoot sprang out of the Paulician sect. The Bogomils (meaning Dear Ones of God) grew in reaction to what they perceived as the corrupt established church of their time. They met in their own homes, rejected the priesthood, rejected the doctrine of the real presence and believed that all should be taught by the simple minded. They also rejected monasticism and did not accept marriage as a sacrament. Like the Paulicians, the Bogomils were dualists–believing in equal good and evil forces in the world.

    Henry the Monk and Waldes (from whom the Waldensians are descended) were wandering preachers in the twelfth century who lived simple lives and preached against the corruption of the church. They gathered groups of disciples around them, while at the same time the Cathars carried on the dualistic and heretical teaching of the Bogomils. All these pre-Reformation groups were primitivist in their beliefs and restorationist in their actions. As such they were the pre-cursors of the Protestant Reformation.

    Anti Tradition Tradition

    Restorationists might be opposed to human tradition, but by the sixteenth century they had developed their own venerable anti-tradition traditions. Usually their reasons were sincere and urgent. Wherever the church is corrupt, complex and privileged the urge for primitivism and restorationism is strong. People long for a simple and pure church of the early days. Simple Christians want the church to be for simple people. They read the gospel and see Christ ministering to the outcasts, the sick and the ordinary people and believe that is what the Church should be like. They are not wrong in their desire for simplicity and purity, and so it is easy to see why Restorationist movements are so attractive and successful.

    While Luther and Calvin initially wished to reform the established church, the more extreme Protestants were radical in their restorationist zeal. The Hussites and the Anabaptists were the most radical, and it is the radical restorationism of the Anabaptists which comes down to us today as the grand-daddy of all the subsequent restorationist movements.

    The Anabaptist line continues through the Quakers, Shakers and other sects to the Landmarkists, who claim a line of succession for Baptists right back to John the Baptist. The Calvinist and Wesleyan ‘Great Awakening’ in the eighteenth century was radically restorationist, followed by the similarly restorationist ‘Second Great Awakening’ in the United States, but by now the restorationists were not only reacting against the Catholic Church, but against all the other historic Protestant denominations.

    Through the nineteenth century in America wave after wave of Restorationist churches sprang up. The Christadelphians, Christian Conventions, Seventh Day Adventists, Latter Day Saints, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. At the same time a strong restorationist movement (the Cambellites) fostered independent groups like the Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church.

    The tradition continues today with each new wave of Protestantism reacting not only against Catholicism and liberal Protestantism, but also against the previous generation of restorationists. In the 1960s my family attended an independent fundamental Bible Church. Then in the 70s the charismatics, with their house churches and local communities picked up the restorationist baton. The eighties saw the growth of charismatic mega churches like John Wimber’s Vineyard and now a whole range of local community churches fly the restorationist flag. For all their rejection of tradition, it seems the restorationists follow their own well established traditions.

    Restoration or Reproduction?

    My grandmother had a ‘French Provincial’ dining room suite. Her white and gold ornate table and chairs had nothing to do with Louis XIV however. They were a twentieth century furniture designer’s take off. Similarly, Restorationist churches are the product of the imagination of ‘church designers’ who produce an imitation product. They are attracted to an idea, draw some inspiration and come up with their own reproduction.

    There are ten problems with Primitivism and Restorationism. Five have to do with Restorationism itself, and five go to the roots of the Primitivist instinct. When the problems are outlined we can understand why Restorationist movements are inherently unstable and why the deeper Primitivist instinct is ultimately unsatisfactory.

    Firstly, each restorationist movement, although it seeks to return to the ancient church of the apostolic age, is actually produced as a reaction to the circumstances of its own age and culture. For example, the peasant movement of the Bogomils came out of a church weighed down with corruption and aristocratic influence. The radical reformers in sixteenth century Europe and the New World were influenced by the utopianism, the rise of the nation state, and revolutionary spirit of their age. Similarly, the American restorationist movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was determined more by the independent, anti-establishment mentality of the American frontier than by any real reference to the church of the apostolic age. Restorationists believe they are restoring something ancient. In fact all they do is create an expression of Christianity which is a reaction against the circumstances and assumptions of the age in which they live.

    Secondly, while Restorationist movements are reactions to the particular age in which they live, they are also conditioned by the long history of Restorationist movements. For hundreds of years Protestants have perpetuated a particular vision of the early church. Each new Restorationist movement borrows those ideas, never questioning whether the tradition they are inheriting is actually true to the reality of the early church or not. Therefore, the Restorationist doesn’t so much restore primitive Christianity; he simply replicates are earlier Restorationist model, re-producing what he has been told early Christianity was like.

    This assumption leads to the third problem: The Restorationists are usually totally ignorant of what the early Church was really like. They assume is that the early church was congregational, not hierarchical. They assume it was non liturgical and non sacramental. They assume it was Bible based. They assume there was no clergy and that the congregation met in people’s homes. They don’t have any evidence for these assumptions, and all of these assumptions are simply not true, or if they were true in some isolated places they are not the whole truth. (see my article in This Rock )

    The reason the Primitivists are ignorant of what the primitive Church was really like is because they are largely unaware of the writings of the Early Church fathers. Most if them do not know that we have documents telling us just what the early Christians believed, how they worshipped, how the Church was structured.

    This ignorance is not only the lack of education, it is also the result of the Protestant dogma of sola Scriptura. The Christian primitivist believes that his hymn-singing, Bible studying little home church is what is found in the Bible, but even that is unsupportable. While we do find examples of house churches in the New Testament (Rom.16:5; I Cor.16:19; Col.4:15) we also find the apostles meeting for worship regularly in the Temple, (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42) and St Paul always went to worship first in the synagogue when he went to a new city in his missionary travels. (Acts 14:1; 17:2)

    The fourth obvious problem with Restorationist movements, is that they are blind to their own cultural and historical contradictions. On the one hand, they wish to go back to the basics, but on the other hand, they wish to be ‘relevant’ to the modern age. How can they be both? Can a restorationist church have a radio station? Can they have high tech worship? Can they have a website? What about moral issues? Can a primitivist congregation speak about in vitro fertilization, climate change, artificial contraception, globalization and a whole range of other contemporary issues? If so, where does he find the information and authority to do so?

    The fifth problem with the Restorationist movements is that they contradict one another. If each group was simply returning to a beautiful, basic Bible religion, wouldn’t they all agree? Instead the different Restorationist movements all disagree with the other Restorationist churches, and to make matters worse, the Restorationist movements are notoriously fissiparous. If they were returning to a simple, clear and unadulterated gospel message and church structure why have they split and splintered into tens of thousands of separate ecclesial groups?

    Primitivism’s Problem Principles

    The first five problems are critiques of Restorationism, which is the outworking of Christian Primitivism. They reveal deep fractures in the edifice, but the fractures are there because of deeper fault lines that run through Primitivism–the philosophical foundation of Restorationism. Like all faulty foundations, the problems lay hidden, but it is in examining the foundations that we see the deeper problems.

    The first foundational problem of Christian Primitivism is the denial of the necessity for the visible church. One of the foundation assumptions is that all church institutions are provisional. They are necessary evils. They are man made institutions. As such they are to be distrusted and they are disposable. Built into this assumption is the bias that the Catholic Church ‘cannot possibly be right.’ Therefore the Catholic Church is simply ‘another denomination’ like every other, and if it seems corrupt or apostate it should be scrapped to start again.

    The second problem is the naive belief that the Church should be immaculate. In other words, that it is possible that the Church should be sinless. Rightly shocked by the corruption of members of the established church, primitivists wished to return to a purer and more basic church. This is unrealistic. What they failed to see was that there is no such thing as the perfect church. They overlooked the fact that among the apostles themselves there was a traitor, one who betrayed the Lord, cowards, sinners and weaklings, and that the Lord prophesied and allowed that the wheat and the tares would grow together.

    The third foundational problem of Christian Primitivism is that while the Primitivist wants an immaculate church he does not believe in an infallible Church. Along with the denial of a visible church, Primitivists also deny an infallible church. Because the Catholic church has (in their view) departed from the truth, she cannot be infallible. But this assumption is leaky, because the primitivist’s whole enterprise is an attempt to recover a church that was pristine and pure and (by inference) infallible. Either there was an ancient infallible church, in which case it has never failed because it cannot fail, or there was never an ancient infallible church, in which case, why bother to attempt a recovery of it?

    The fourth foundational problem is connected with the third. Primitivism is based on the assumption that the Catholic Church is not infallible, and that there is no such thing as an infallible church, but the primitivist would have us believe that his ‘restored’ church is infallible. It is true that he does not state this belief openly, yet he heartily believes it is so, for he has given his total allegiance to this church. But if his restored church is infallible, why does it clash with all the other restored churches and why did God allow six or ten or nineteen centuries to pass before establishing it? If, on the other hand, this restored church is not infallible, why should I (or anyone else for that matter) be expected to owe allegiance to it?

    The fifth underlying problem of Primitivism is the most blatant of all. Assuming that the primitive church is the church of the first century (and this assumes that there is a cut off point when the church ceases to be ‘primitive’–and who decides that?) how can anyone really know what the first century church was like? We have archeological evidence. We have Scriptural evidence. We have documentary evidence, but all we can do is the delicate and tentative work of the historian. We cannot really get back into the skin of first century Christians in the Roman Empire. We can’t really understand the culture, the assumptions and the worldview of former Jewish and Gentile Christians in the Roman Empire. Even if we could come up with an accurate checklist of all the attributes of the primitive church, who would decide which of the attributes we wanted to re-create and which ones we would omit? Shall we have house churches or mega churches? Shall we exclude women from ordination, but allow them to not cover their heads in church? Shall we have simple Bible preaching, but not speaking in tongues and miraculous handkerchiefs? Shall we have sacraments but not slaves; Bible studies, but not bishops?

    Linked with this problem is the biggest elephant in the living room: Why it should necessarily be a good thing to re-create the primitive church at all? We live in the twenty first century, not the first. Any attempt at recovery can never be anything more than an artificial reproduction–with the same relationship to primitive Christianity as my grandmother’s dining room table has to the furniture of Versailles or Cinderella’s castle at Disneyland to Windsor Castle.

    The Alternative

    When faced with a church that is corrupt, complex and seemingly out of touch, Christian Primitivism seems like an admirable ideal. To establish a simple, down to earth form of Christianity seems laudable. If one is going to start a religion, it is a good thing to wish for that religion to be the ancient faith that comes to us from the Apostles.

    Given that it is a laudable thing to want one’s church to be connected with the Church of the first century, and accepting the arguments put forward here on the intrinsic flaws of Primitivism, one has therefore to ask if any link with the primitive church exists, and if it does, where one might find it.

    Catholics have always believed that the primitive church never ceased to exist. It was established by Jesus Christ himself on the rock of Peter and his divinely inspired profession that Jesus was the Son of God. This church, as Christ promised, has withstood the test of time. She has been buffeted by corruption from within and persecuted by enemies from without. Nevertheless, the gates of hell have not prevailed against her, and time and again, led by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church has been reformed, renewed and refreshed.

    The primitive church may have become more complex, but she did not cease to constantly preach the simple message of Jesus Christ and his saving work on the cross. The primitive church may have adapted and changed and grown throughout two thousand years of history, but she has not become something different. Her understanding of the apostolic deposit of faith may have developed and matured, but she did not alter that faith once delivered to the saints. Members of that primitive church may have stumbled and fallen; they may have sinned and caused scandal; they may have obscured the gospel and betrayed the gospel, but in every age there have always been saints who have remained radiantly faithful.

    Catholics maintain today, as we have always done, that the primitive church is alive in the world as she has always been. Just as the simple pauper’s tomb of the fisherman lies beneath the soaring dome of St Peter’s so the primitive church lies at the heart of Catholicism.

    At her head is the successor of Peter and at her feet is a world more in need of her message of forgiveness and love than ever before. It is a good thing to search for the primitive church, but why embark on an empty quest to create your own when the Catholic Church stands waiting–ever ancient and ever new.
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standi...imitivism.html

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nachtengel For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Senior Member J.Yaxley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Last Online
    Friday, June 14th, 2019 @ 06:18 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Ethno-Nationalism
    Posts
    284
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    505
    Thanked in
    212 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nachtengel View Post
    The following article is a critique of sects like the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, etc. from a theological view mainly, but there are other issues the author points out about these sects. Unfortunately, I think there are issues with primitivism among preservationists as well. Many want to "preserve" a certain part of history, be it the ancients and all the references to the Vikings ("the Vikings did this"... is often used to justify certain types of behavior), medieval, pre-industrial, early modern and so on. However, isn't this antithetical to history itself? Our people, languages, etc. have always evolved, we don't f.e. speak Old English today. Of course we must be wary of certain infuences, however not anything that is catalogued as modern is necessarily evil.

    How do you see primitivism?

    I am posting the article because I've often seen written on tese boards that "we should be more like the Amish", and the like:
    1. People who say we need to be 'more like the Amish' are, at best, very foolish. At worst they're shills trying to make us look stupid. The Amish are powerless, inbred, & downright weird (I live in the Midwest and have met many of them).

    2. Societal evolution / improvement is both necessary & desirable. Just go to any American town's Walmart... There's a lot of room to improve.

    3. Technology rarely goes backwards and the changes it has brought to society aren't going to simply disappear.

    4. There is nothing wrong with being inspired by history - but history needs to be fused with something new in order to win power.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to J.Yaxley For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Wolgadeutscher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Volga German
    Ancestry
    German communities in Russia
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Russia German Community Russia German Community
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Politics
    Traditionalist
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    110
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    127
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    123
    Thanked in
    43 Posts
    The article is clearly written by a Catholic with a chip on his shoulder. It is the usual babble you hear: Peter, the rock, etc.

    Also:
    The third foundational problem of Christian Primitivism is that while the Primitivist wants an immaculate church he does not believe in an infallible Church. Along with the denial of a visible church, Primitivists also deny an infallible church. Because the Catholic church has (in their view) departed from the truth, she cannot be infallible.
    When Protestants refer to the this type of church, they mostly mean the clericals. So it should come as no surprise that they see it as non-infallible. If you ask a Protestant what the true meaning of a church is, he will tell you it is a community of believers. Not the buildings, not the clericals.

    As regards the Anabaptists and so on, while nobody says that we should be exactly like them, there are many things that we could learn from them, such as:

    - the meaning of community
    - the us vs. them attitude
    - the meaning of family
    - the rejection of modernity. And by this I don't mean all technology and such, but modern notions which bring more bad than good.
    - the rejection of foreign customs
    & so on.

    I have to say that the "alternative" the West provides us with is not preferable. I would more gladly live in an Amish-like community than in your typical Western type of ""community", if it can be called that. Call them "weird" all you want, but they embody something we constantly preach, ie noncomformism. As for inbred, is not preservation "inbreeding" to a certain degree? Think about it.

  6. #4
    Senior Member Tripredacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 09:31 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germany, Poland, Italy
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Software Engineer
    Politics
    Fascism
    Religion
    I Am
    Posts
    307
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    16
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    46
    Thanked in
    28 Posts
    Two religious primitivism examples I can think of:

    - Jewish Kosher and Islamic Halal food requirements. These were food practices that were determined many many years ago in order to combat disease, however these practices have not evolved with the times in regards to food safety, quality and industry standards. In other words, these practices have become so ingrained into their respective religions that they have lost their original meanings and are likely not even required in the modern era.

    - Islam clothing modestry requirements. This includes the general rule as to not stand out, and the rules relating to women covering themselves. This is a borrowed idea from previous cultures (and perhaps religions) and goes back to the "ancient" idea that women had to hide themselves when out in public so to not be noticed by the Nephilim. However, this practice had become ingrained into the area well after the era of Sumer and Akkad, and ended up becoming adopted as a requirement of Islam.

    Of course these examples are backwards from what the article in the first post is referring to, rather they are currently existing primitive elements that exist within religion, rather than ones that a religion would revert to during a reformation crisis.

  7. #5
    Wild Cat
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Gareth Lee Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English/German American
    Ancestry
    England and Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Location
    A peaceful oasis.
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Cancer
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    I work at home.
    Politics
    Not a Republicrat.
    Religion
    Nondenominational Christian
    Posts
    1,380
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,698
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,757
    Thanked in
    882 Posts
    While I disagree with the theory of radical biological evolution (Not evolving forms of abnormal mutations, which does occur). I'm all in favor of realistic technological evolution that provides us with all the constantly improving material conveniences and tools that help us simplify our daily lives so that we can enjoy more interesting pursuits.

    Frankly, I was raised in an austere, nearly impoverished family environment where hard work, and a proud but unimaginative patriarch eventually resulted in a state of depressing resignation for me and my bored siblings due to mundane stagnation.

    Thankfully, I managed to escape this "nothing like the good old days" mentality.
    Aside from an ever increasing number of mortals who have willfully chosen to worship Satan and his minions, our battle has always been against the powers and principalities operating surreptitiously throughout this twisted world.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Gareth Lee Hunter For This Useful Post:


  9. #6
    Senior Member Uwe Jens Lornsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    5 Hours Ago @ 06:47 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Jutland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Zodiac Sign
    Taurus
    Family
    Widowed
    Politics
    cons. old fashion worker class
    Religion
    Philosophical Archaic Christian
    Posts
    951
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    476
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    277
    Thanked in
    230 Posts
    Primitivism has a nice aura of slowliness .

    But it needs it's far away refuge , to not been bothered mentally by the development all around .

    One has to afford his way of life .

    I can not afford religion , so I am not a member anymore .
    I can not afford the modern Western Society , so I do my best , to reject almost everything ,
    this modern society offers and demands .

    Everything has two sides of a coin : The modern internet for example , makes it possible , to
    access a lot of different information and opinions .
    But the modern internet makes it possible , that a Big Brother State with a high degree of
    survillance is beeing able to be established .

    From the point of the modern European minority , it seems like a spiritual relief , that websites like
    Skadi exist , but from the overall development , it highly likely will bring no success ,
    and therefore might as well being scuttled .

    I mean , we waste our time to post here , and it will not lead anywhere , that will reach a
    boom , where we would be happy in having positive perspektives . And all these voices for Privacy Rights
    once a decade ago uttered by Lefties now have vanished , thanks to the crimes , that the
    mass immigration tsunami brought to us .

    In that sense , one could reject modern computers for many decades , until there would be
    different internet structures for example , that leave the people in their own worlds of happiness .

    We have had the IP version 4 with four 3-digit numbers , now we have IP version 6 with six 2-hexadecimal numbers .

    There could have been several IPv4 nets , with one 3-digit number prepended , depicting the net to telephone into .
    Websites , who want to be available in more than one net , then need to set up more servers , serving each net differently .

    The Amish for example , could have had their own digit number , to have their own Wide Area Intra Net .
    If wikipedia wants to be present in that network , it would need to ask for permission to do so .

    Example : 123.wikipedia.org would ring to the wikipedia server in network assigned the number 123 .
    Mk 10:18 What do you call me a good master, no-one is good .

  10. #7
    Senior Member J.Yaxley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Last Online
    Friday, June 14th, 2019 @ 06:18 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Ethno-Nationalism
    Posts
    284
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    505
    Thanked in
    212 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolgadeutscher View Post
    I have to say that the "alternative" the West provides us with is not preferable. I would more gladly live in an Amish-like community than in your typical Western type of ""community", if it can be called that. Call them "weird" all you want, but they embody something we constantly preach, ie noncomformism. As for inbred, is not preservation "inbreeding" to a certain degree? Think about it.
    The reason l call them inbred is because they tend to look sickly (many have malformed ears) and most are rather dimwitted. They are also infamous around here for being rude to staff at lumber stores, cutting in line at stores, yelling in public, and otherwise being a public nuisance. The wholesome image that is projected onto them has very little to do with how they actually behave. I'd guess their average IQ is probably around 90 or so.

    As far as I'm concerned, if the Germans or Swiss want them back they can have them.

  11. #8
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    16 Hours Ago @ 06:57 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,176
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,277
    Thanked in
    543 Posts
    No no, there was a reason why we kicked them out, keep them

    Back to topic, most people posting here dont really seem to grasp the concept of primitivism. It's much more than the widespread nostalgia of good ol' days, coming with the notion that people generally led a simpler, but probably happier life. The ideological idea of Primitivism, while rightfully called a reaction to the day and age of the people who come up with it, goes far beyond that, aiming to scrap EVERY 'original thought' or any thought for that matter and (just have to invoke the NPC topic here) become Golems, animated purely by scripture, and never transgress over the limit of what the script says. They dont even seek a community, they reject monasteries, that very environment where they could pursue their scripture-governed lifestyle, essentially they wish to be wandering apostles themselves, ignoring everyone and everything around them (unless they can preach their gospel to a distanced audience) and basically rejecting all kinds of community besides maybe the existence of other apostles, with whom they dont want anything to do either, though, because the moment two or more apostles come together, worse, on a regular basis, you have an "organised church" which they had to reject like all other organised, and therefore corrupted, structures; with this rejection of all structures (and that really extends into the family and society) being the base motivation for Primitivism.

    This is not just rejecting modernity, where one - religious or not - could fine a lot of objection to. It's a wholesale rejection of any progress, even self-improvement and ultimately, of mankind itself with its 'disgusting' communities, cultures, families, rules, compromises and exchange of ideas. They're not interested. Basically it's religiously motivated Autism.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  12. #9
    Sound methods Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 03:04 PM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,147
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,468
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,519
    Thanked in
    1,095 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by WolgaDeutscher
    The article is clearly written by a Catholic with a chip on his shoulder. It is the usual babble you hear: Peter, the rock, etc.
    Chip on his shoulder? It's just Catholicism. Christ called Peter the rock on which he would build his church, it's strange for a Christian to call that babble.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolgadeutscher View Post
    When Protestants refer to the this type of church, they mostly mean the clericals. So it should come as no surprise that they see it as non-infallible.
    The Pope is only infallible when talking about matters of the faith and morality - and not when the Pope makes off-hand comments, but only when speaking ex cathedra.

    If you ask a Protestant what the true meaning of a church is, he will tell you it is a community of believers. Not the buildings, not the clericals.
    Which community of believers? The ones who believe in gay marriage and abortion, or those who are against? Those who ordain female priests or those who don't? Plus, I think that's incorrect: it's us Catholics who say Christ left us a community of believers (= the Roman Catholic Church) - and that is the most important thing for Catholics. While Protestants seem to focus more on the Bible, and often altered versions of it too, rather than a community of believers - there's not even a single community of Protestants, there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.
    “Remember that all worlds draw to an end and that noble death is a treasure which no-one is too poor to buy.” - C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


  14. #10
    Senior Member Uwe Jens Lornsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    5 Hours Ago @ 06:47 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Jutland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Zodiac Sign
    Taurus
    Family
    Widowed
    Politics
    cons. old fashion worker class
    Religion
    Philosophical Archaic Christian
    Posts
    951
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    476
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    277
    Thanked in
    230 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    Chip on his shoulder? It's just Catholicism. Christ called Peter the rock on which he would build his church, it's strange for a Christian to call that babble.
    Christ called Judas a Devil and Peter a Satan !

    If it were the same Constellation , Jesus would be the devil, too !

    Our ancestors fell for Jewish salesmen !

    Jesus might have been a half-jew , but Peter and Paul likely were Jews !

    And the Jews have still an Agenda !

    Even a Rock will be crunched to dust one day !
    Mk 10:18 What do you call me a good master, no-one is good .

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Uwe Jens Lornsen For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. On Racial Primitivism and Progressivism
    By Loki in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: Saturday, December 24th, 2011, 09:16 PM
  2. Do You Mourn The Ascent From Primitivism?
    By Cythraul in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Saturday, September 4th, 2010, 09:26 PM
  3. The Germanic Peoples, Rome and Primitivism
    By Friedrich in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, July 25th, 2010, 08:33 PM
  4. 'The Plumed Serpent' (1926) - Völkisch Organicism and the Use of Primitivism
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Literature & Book Reviews
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Saturday, June 18th, 2005, 07:19 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •