R Crowley the White
Megaphoron
You are a power to be reckoned with.
Refuting anti-Christian Right
- Thread starter Petr
- Start date
Petr
Administrator
I have seen some anti-Christian Alt Righters asserting that fundamentalist Christians feel they have more in common with Third World Christians than with unbelieving First World Whites. Now, this is true in a certain sense - from the perspective of eternity, true believers (that is, those who are real Christians indeed, and do not merely call themselves as such) indeed have more in common with each other than any other people - but not true in another sense (the civic and biological sense).
Apostle Paul laid down this law, not saying that we should take care of our parents only if they are Christians - we have duties towards our own flesh and blood:
Btw, this sort of accusation is not just recent one. When the Western Roman Empire was tottering towards its downfall, the remaining Latin pagans noted with indignation how the people who had sacked Rome called themselves Christians (the Arian Visigoths):
Apostle Paul laid down this law, not saying that we should take care of our parents only if they are Christians - we have duties towards our own flesh and blood:
1 Timothy 5:8 - Support for Widows
If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
biblehub.com
Btw, this sort of accusation is not just recent one. When the Western Roman Empire was tottering towards its downfall, the remaining Latin pagans noted with indignation how the people who had sacked Rome called themselves Christians (the Arian Visigoths):
Rawhide "Doug" Kobayashi
Сила бога-нам подмога
Christians destroyed the greatest civilisation Europe has ever laid forth, the one that all Christian nations and Popes (esp. Leo X) tried desperately to reclaim even a modicum of their glory, only to fall flat because they lost the original attention to beauty and aesthetic that originally gave succour to it in the first place, replacing it with Semitic ugliness and austerity, and a god so hideous that he cannot be depicted (as per Celsus).I have seen some anti-Christian Alt Righters asserting that fundamentalist Christians feel they have more in common with Third World Christians than with unbelieving First World Whites. Now, this is true in a certain sense - from the perspective of eternity, true believers (that is, those who are real Christians indeed, and do not merely call themselves as such) indeed have more in common with each other than any other people - but not true in another sense (the civic and biological sense).
Apostle Paul laid down this law, not saying that we should take care of our parents only if they are Christians - we have duties towards our own flesh and blood:
1 Timothy 5:8 - Support for Widows
If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.biblehub.com
Btw, this sort of accusation is not just recent one. When the Western Roman Empire was tottering towards its downfall, the remaining Latin pagans noted with indignation how the people who had sacked Rome called themselves Christians (the Arian Visigoths):
View attachment 1062
Why would you seriously think they won't do it again? A single throwaway verse from an obscure Bible book doesn't really disprove the last thousand years of Christian attempt to destroy and replace any culture that doesn't agree with it's myopic, arid worldview.
Petr
Administrator
A counter-argument - perhaps the downfall of the Roman Empire was not such a bad thing after all, in the long run:
Escape from Rome
"In this book, Walter Scheidel provides a unique take on the perennial debates about the rise of the west. His main argument is straightforward and provocative: the fact that nothing like the Roman Empire ever again emerged in Europe was a crucial precondition for modern economic growth, the...
books.google.fi
R Crowley the White
Megaphoron
Christians in the West are generally similar to secular Whites in the West regarding their own racial membership, that is they are functionally, morally, spiritually deracinated. If they are addressed as members of the White race they recoil physically. Often one can witness an actual shock wave roll through their bodies. In the South there probably exists a certain holdover from the spirit of White community necessitated by the proximity of so many Blacks, ever poised to become aggressive, but generally in mainstream Christian community race is not a shared concept, and never will matters of anti White racism be addressed from the pulpit, whereas anti non White racism will be explicitly pandered to.
Rawhide "Doug" Kobayashi
Сила бога-нам подмога
A counter-argument - perhaps the downfall of the Roman Empire was not such a bad thing after all, in the long run:
Escape from Rome
"In this book, Walter Scheidel provides a unique take on the perennial debates about the rise of the west. His main argument is straightforward and provocative: the fact that nothing like the Roman Empire ever again emerged in Europe was a crucial precondition for modern economic growth, the...books.google.fi
The fact that every European civilisation (with the exception of the USSR, a true outlier) has been trying, whether latently or more literally, to reclaim the glory of Roman civilisation (indeed, Charlemagne's legitimacy was fonted from the idea that he was the successor to the Roman Emperors) and her legacy proves this notion wrong in the prima facie (those Roman words again!) Sense.
In fact, if one looks at the historical trajectory of European civilisation, it could be seen as a battle between the Clerical establishment and those true Europeans desperate to abscond from it and disestablish it: arguably, Separation of Church and State and Enlightenment era values only came into fruition as a challenge to the dominance of Semitic Christianity over the mindset of Europa, for which without it would never have come to in the first place.
Petr
Administrator
Well, this is obviously something we want to change. Or least, what I want to change, since you clearly would rather like to see right-wing nativist Christians fail so you could crow and jeer at their failure.
Rawhide "Doug" Kobayashi
Сила бога-нам подмога
Why is it a zero-sum game? Can people not want to see Christianity's failure for the indignity it caused to our ancestors, replacing their ancient Vedic (i.e, Edda) knowledge with some Semitic desert fantasy novel crap with heaven and hell, and forgiveness of arbitrary sin?
I personally want to see Christianity fail so it doesn't homogenise the rest of the world and turn it into a melting pot with Semitism as the final flavour, since Christianity is the death of culture and the birth of confused mongrelism--just look at Central America for the future you desire, where no one knows who they really are, no one speaks their indigenous languages and everyone worships a genie from the desert they can barely begin to fathom in such a humid place of abundance.
R Crowley the White
Megaphoron
What hyperbole is this? lol. Just now in the box you are going on about hyperventilation. I have zero native antagonism toward any form of White advocacy, Christian or otherwise, so long as it is executed in a positive manner.
Petr
Administrator
Well, I do believe you are a more fair-minded and objective critic of Christianity than Woddy is, at least.
Rawhide "Doug" Kobayashi
Сила бога-нам подмога
I'm fair-minded in that I defend my beliefs with the same tenacity in which you attempt to destroy and homogenise them, which is about what you deserve since you refuse to engage me on substance and instead resort to temper tantrums and name-calling.
Petr
Administrator
Hysterical polemical woofing without any concrete details. Christians did not destroy Rome; for one thing, the Roman civilization lived on in Christian Byzantium, which yet could not flourish very much because it was beset by such huge number of enemies; the pagan Rome, in the days of its happiness (that is, before the 3rd century AD), never had to fight serious war on two fronts at the same time, in both Europe and Asia, whereas the Byzantines had to do that all the time.
And the Roman civilization was never primarily about beauty and aesthetics (real Romans despised over-civilized Greek sissies and their own native mythology was notoriously unimaginative), it was about strength. When the Romans could no longer fight well enough, when they began to rely on barbarian recruits and mercenaries for their protection (and this took place well before the ascendancy of Christianity; already by the 2nd century AD there were almost no Italians left serving in the legions), then they were inevitably doomed - old-school macho Romans like Cato the Elder would have agreed that if the Romans would ever cease to be "sons of Mars," there really would be no more purpose for their existence.
Algernon Sidney, the fierce aristocratic English republican who himself had lots of experience in martial affairs, put it thus:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/sidney-discourses-concerning-government#lf0019_label_393
And btw, nowhere was the Roman civilization more thoroughly erased than in Britain, which was invaded by pagan Angles and Saxons. The remnants of classical civilization lived on in monasteries on the British isles.
Last edited:
R Crowley the White
Megaphoron
What were the Angles and Saxons meant to do, to your way of thinking? They had their own everything including building with wood rather than stone. So they were meant to throw themselves before the memory of Rome? Not understanding what is being proposed here.
Petr
Administrator
Just pointing out the objective historical fact that in Britain, the Roman legacy got erased more thoroughly than anywhere else in Western Europe. And it was not Christian fanatics (as Woddy had implied) but pagan barbarians who did that.
R Crowley the White
Megaphoron
Romans had some trade outposts there. When they pulled out their presence vanished of its own. The very fact that they could pull out tells they were foreigners. They did leave Christianity, which should please you.
Petr
Administrator
It is a common argument among anti-Christian Rightists that originally Christianity was a soft and decadent religion, but then in the Middle Ages, European Aryan peoples gave it some of their own strong manly energy and aristocratic values, that helped to carry it on.
Now, this claim can be countered in many different ways. For one thing, the zeal by which Christians defeated classical paganism in the 4th century AD itself shows that Christianity was already at that time a tough and militant faith, and did not need medieval noblemen to teach them how to be hard.
But on the other hand, it can also be admitted that in the Middle Ages, some less than Biblical or evangelical precepts were indeed introduced into Christendom - for example, was it really God's will to make the spreading of the Gospel a pretext for bloody wars of conquest, like those waged by the Teutonic Knights in the Eastern Baltic areas?
Those Baltic pagans certainly were not innocent darlings themselves - they had been making nasty viking raids into newly christianized Denmark and Sweden, and Christians there just punched back at them. But still... not all conquistadors were knights in shining armor, so to speak.
Naturally it was not only the RCs who could combine dreams of conquest with Christian piety. The English Puritans, when conquering Ireland in the days of Cromwell, believed they were executing God's judgment on the Popish idolaters - and conveniently taking over their lands while doing it.
The Leftist Czech novelist Jaroslav Hašek, in his famous satirical novel The Good Soldier Švejk, drew this mean caricature of an Austrian-German officer who still entertained such notions in the early 20th century:
Now, this claim can be countered in many different ways. For one thing, the zeal by which Christians defeated classical paganism in the 4th century AD itself shows that Christianity was already at that time a tough and militant faith, and did not need medieval noblemen to teach them how to be hard.
But on the other hand, it can also be admitted that in the Middle Ages, some less than Biblical or evangelical precepts were indeed introduced into Christendom - for example, was it really God's will to make the spreading of the Gospel a pretext for bloody wars of conquest, like those waged by the Teutonic Knights in the Eastern Baltic areas?
Those Baltic pagans certainly were not innocent darlings themselves - they had been making nasty viking raids into newly christianized Denmark and Sweden, and Christians there just punched back at them. But still... not all conquistadors were knights in shining armor, so to speak.
Naturally it was not only the RCs who could combine dreams of conquest with Christian piety. The English Puritans, when conquering Ireland in the days of Cromwell, believed they were executing God's judgment on the Popish idolaters - and conveniently taking over their lands while doing it.
The Leftist Czech novelist Jaroslav Hašek, in his famous satirical novel The Good Soldier Švejk, drew this mean caricature of an Austrian-German officer who still entertained such notions in the early 20th century:
Last edited:
Petr
Administrator
This here is not an ad hominem argument against Nietzsche, but "just saying": it was Jewish intellectuals like Georg Brandes who first began touting and popularizing Nietzschean thought in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, before Fascist-minded gentiles "appropriated" Nietzsche for themselves in the inter-war era:
In the forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, "Nietzscheism" was explicitly mentioned among the subversive ideologies that were promoted by organized Jewry - that tells you at least how things were perceived by Russian reactionaries at the beginning of the 20th century.
And the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg for his part admitted, in his magnum opus The Myth of the Twentieth Century, that Jews and their fellow travellers had indeed tried to "hijack" Nietzsche's thought, trying to transform his mental uprising into mere Anarchist-Libertarian rebellion against traditional values (like Ayn Rand was still later doing, for example).
Rosenberg was basically arguing that "Libertarian Right," or ultra-individualist interpretation of Nietzsche was wrong, and that "Authoritarian Right," or racial-collectivist path would have to be taken instead:
In the forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, "Nietzscheism" was explicitly mentioned among the subversive ideologies that were promoted by organized Jewry - that tells you at least how things were perceived by Russian reactionaries at the beginning of the 20th century.
And the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg for his part admitted, in his magnum opus The Myth of the Twentieth Century, that Jews and their fellow travellers had indeed tried to "hijack" Nietzsche's thought, trying to transform his mental uprising into mere Anarchist-Libertarian rebellion against traditional values (like Ayn Rand was still later doing, for example).
Rosenberg was basically arguing that "Libertarian Right," or ultra-individualist interpretation of Nietzsche was wrong, and that "Authoritarian Right," or racial-collectivist path would have to be taken instead:
The Myth of the Twentieth Century : Alfred Rosenberg : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This book is The Myth of the Twentieth Century by Alfred Rosenberg. It was one of the most important philosophy books of early 20th Century Germany. The book...
archive.org
Around the turn of the 19th century we experienced the appearance of a great number of personalities who, with the blossoming of our entire culture, marked that era with an unforgettable stamp. For a long time the era of the machine destroyed personality ideals as well as powers, type forming. The milieu, the factory, became master. A concept of mixed causality triumphed over true science and philosophy. Marxist sociology — through its mass delusion, quantity doctrine — strangled the concept of quality in research. The stock exchange became the idol of the materialistic sickness of the times.
Nietzsche embodied the despairing cry of millions against the latter. His wild exclamations about the Superman were a violent extension of his subjected personal life which had been strangled by the material pressure of the times. Now, at least one man suddenly destroyed all values in fanatical rebellion. He raged wildly. A feeling of relief passed through the souls of all searching Europeans. That Nietzsche became insane, is symbolic. An enormous blocked up will to creation forged a path like a storm flood. The same will, inwardly broken long before, could no longer attain shape. An era, enslaved for generations, understood in its powerlessness only the subjective side of the great will and vital experience of Friedrich Nietzsche. It falsified the deepest struggle for personality into a cry for the unleashing of all instincts.
The Red standards then joined the banner of Nietzsche, and the nomadic wandering Marxist preachers — the sort of men whose doctrine scarcely anyone else had unmasked with such derision as Nietzsche himself. In his name, racial pollution through Syrians and Blacks was sanctified, although Nietzsche, in fact, strove for selective racial breeding. Nietzsche has fallen to the dreams of overheated political whores, which is worse than falling into the hands of robbers. The German people heard only of a release from all bonds, subjectivism, personality, and nothing about discipline and inward building up.
Last edited:
Petr
Administrator
Here is that whole essay by the Danish-Jewish intellectual Georg Brandes, which really launched the wider circulation of Nietzsche's thought - written just around the time when the philosopher himself was going mad (Nietzsche thus never got to see the popularity of his writings, as a sane man):
