0 comment Friday, November 28, 2014 | admin
Another good post from Iron Ink . It's well worth a read.
Talking about Race in modern America is the equivalent of talking about sex in the Victorian age. Most people have some experience with it but don�t want to talk publicly about it, and when it is brought up by somebody people either begin to blush or they go silent. Historical White America, if you don�t start learning how to intelligently but directly talk about race issues without either being intimidated or crude you�re culture is going to be decimated racially, ideologically, and financially. Historical White America, if you don�t start learning how to intelligently but directly talk about race issues without being either intimidated or crude your culture and your God is going to be replaced.''
Read the entire thing at the link.
Talking about Race in modern America is the equivalent of talking about sex in the Victorian age. Most people have some experience with it but don�t want to talk publicly about it, and when it is brought up by somebody people either begin to blush or they go silent. Historical White America, if you don�t start learning how to intelligently but directly talk about race issues without either being intimidated or crude you�re culture is going to be decimated racially, ideologically, and financially. Historical White America, if you don�t start learning how to intelligently but directly talk about race issues without being either intimidated or crude your culture and your God is going to be replaced.''
Read the entire thing at the link.
Labels: Anti-Christianity, Blogs, Political Correctness, Racial Division
0 comment Wednesday, October 22, 2014 | admin
It seems it's open season on Christianity at many blogs, including AmRen.
I'm willing to acknowledge that there are grounds for criticism, and it's fully understandable that many people on our side are disgusted with these multiculturalists in religious guise who are trailing two steps behind the secular multicultists. These 'Christians' are so eager to be in step with the current multicult madness that they can no longer see that they are emulating the world system, eager to be accepted by it and part of it. Christians should remember what our Bible says about 'friendship with the world.'
Lately I suddenly noticed that AmRen had been blessedly free of many of the anti-Christian comments that once plagued it, mainly the work of one particular poster who blamed Christianity for everything. Then I noticed that the comment policy had been revised, and now contains a warning about criticism of 'traditional Western religions.' Aha, that was why. But now it appears everybody is coming out of the woodwork with the usual ''Christianity is a slave morality'' nonsense via Nietzsche, et al. So back to square one. Christianity is to blame again, but notice the mods' statement on closing of this thread:
'' It is being closed before a certain conversation about a certain topic gets out of hand. Thank you for your consideration.''
I wonder what that unnamed topic could be?
We know it isn't Christianity which is the topic that must not be talked about. That conversation will continue unabated, and the criticism will continue -- deservedly so, to some extent. Thanks to those 'Christians' who have left their churches wide open to criticism by their misguided actions.
I'm willing to acknowledge that there are grounds for criticism, and it's fully understandable that many people on our side are disgusted with these multiculturalists in religious guise who are trailing two steps behind the secular multicultists. These 'Christians' are so eager to be in step with the current multicult madness that they can no longer see that they are emulating the world system, eager to be accepted by it and part of it. Christians should remember what our Bible says about 'friendship with the world.'
Lately I suddenly noticed that AmRen had been blessedly free of many of the anti-Christian comments that once plagued it, mainly the work of one particular poster who blamed Christianity for everything. Then I noticed that the comment policy had been revised, and now contains a warning about criticism of 'traditional Western religions.' Aha, that was why. But now it appears everybody is coming out of the woodwork with the usual ''Christianity is a slave morality'' nonsense via Nietzsche, et al. So back to square one. Christianity is to blame again, but notice the mods' statement on closing of this thread:
'' It is being closed before a certain conversation about a certain topic gets out of hand. Thank you for your consideration.''
I wonder what that unnamed topic could be?
We know it isn't Christianity which is the topic that must not be talked about. That conversation will continue unabated, and the criticism will continue -- deservedly so, to some extent. Thanks to those 'Christians' who have left their churches wide open to criticism by their misguided actions.
Labels: Anti-Christianity, Christian Chuches, Cultural Marxism
0 comment Friday, October 3, 2014 | admin
The other day I blogged about a piece at AmRen, and I've been following the lengthy discussion which has continued there.
The discussion has gone off in a decidedly anti-Christian direction, with a few posters going back and forth and cheering each other on in their slams at Christianity. Or is it one poster or two under several names?
This kind of stuff is not new on the right; I've alluded to it in the past and tried to give substantive responses to it. But it seems to be ramping up. I am sure most of you are familiar with the 'argument', such as it is. If for some reason you aren't, I'll sum it up: Christianity is the cause, or a main cause, of the dying of the West and all of its various symptoms, such as multiculturalism, mass immigration from the Third World, and the replacement or displacement of White people everywhere.
What do the anti-Christian zealots over there hope to accomplish? A lot of people on our side are Christians. The 'Bible Belt' has probably the largest proportion of people who are pro-White of any part of the country. What is accomplished by attacking the faith of many of your allies? I know it's certainly alienating me from that site and from those people who are constantly harping on how Christianity has to go.
The only people they are likely to persuade are people that are already 'post-Christian' or doubters.
I'll probably have more to say on this later, as it is deserves an answer. However, where are the pro-Christian responses over at AR? Apart from an occasional half-hearted defense, there's very little. And for every pro-Christian response, one or two anti-Christians pop up and go into their song and dance about how Christianity is an alien religion not fit for Westerners, and that we should go back to our pagan roots.
I've been given to understand that AR is strictly moderated. I don't post there, and haven't in the past, but I've heard that many comments don't pass muster, sometimes for less than obvious reasons. I have also heard that AR is very strict about not allowing criticism of certain religions, so why is it permanent open season on Christianity over there?
The discussion has gone off in a decidedly anti-Christian direction, with a few posters going back and forth and cheering each other on in their slams at Christianity. Or is it one poster or two under several names?
This kind of stuff is not new on the right; I've alluded to it in the past and tried to give substantive responses to it. But it seems to be ramping up. I am sure most of you are familiar with the 'argument', such as it is. If for some reason you aren't, I'll sum it up: Christianity is the cause, or a main cause, of the dying of the West and all of its various symptoms, such as multiculturalism, mass immigration from the Third World, and the replacement or displacement of White people everywhere.
What do the anti-Christian zealots over there hope to accomplish? A lot of people on our side are Christians. The 'Bible Belt' has probably the largest proportion of people who are pro-White of any part of the country. What is accomplished by attacking the faith of many of your allies? I know it's certainly alienating me from that site and from those people who are constantly harping on how Christianity has to go.
The only people they are likely to persuade are people that are already 'post-Christian' or doubters.
I'll probably have more to say on this later, as it is deserves an answer. However, where are the pro-Christian responses over at AR? Apart from an occasional half-hearted defense, there's very little. And for every pro-Christian response, one or two anti-Christians pop up and go into their song and dance about how Christianity is an alien religion not fit for Westerners, and that we should go back to our pagan roots.
I've been given to understand that AR is strictly moderated. I don't post there, and haven't in the past, but I've heard that many comments don't pass muster, sometimes for less than obvious reasons. I have also heard that AR is very strict about not allowing criticism of certain religions, so why is it permanent open season on Christianity over there?
Labels: Anti-Christianity, Divisiveness, Freedom Of Speech, Political Correctness
0 comment Friday, August 29, 2014 | admin
From the Telegraph, a surprisingly favorable article about American evangelicals, in the wake of the Harold Camping ''rapture'' scare of the last few days.
All the sneers and jokes in the mass media about the 'end of the world' that wasn't are a sharp contrast to the way they treat non-Christian 'prophecies.' The so-called Mayan Calendar prophecies about 2012 come to mind. There has been endless discussion of this Mayan prediction as we approach the fateful year. Even some professing Christians seem to be concerned about this supposed impending doom.
The media also devote a lot of space -- and respect -- to new-agey things like the writings of Nostradamus, a purported 'seer.' Nostradamus was a priest, so he is not in the same category as the third world shamen who are so revered by the new age followers and leftists in general. But the methods he used to make his predictions involved what the church would call occultism: scrying, for example.
How many TV documentaries have been made about Nostradamus? I think most Americans today know more about his prophecies than those of the Bible.
I've read his quatrains, years ago, before I was a Christian.Even then, I could see that his quatrains were so cryptic and so vague that one could read almost anything in them. They end up being like Rohrschach ink-blots, showing you what's in your own mind, absolutely subjective.
Be all that as it may, Camping's false prophecies should never have received the coverage they did, but the media couldn't resist it. So much potential for jokes and cheap shots at crazy Bible-thumpers up in the hills. They love that kind of thing. They couldn't let it go to waste.
But Camping and his predictions should have been ignored by the media. From a Christian viewpoint, his predictions about 'the end of the world' or the 'return of the Lord' are wrong simply because Christians believe that no one knows exactly the date or the time of these things. Therefore, anybody who claims to know the date or the hour is a charlatan, a fraud, a false prophet, a false shepherd. Any Christian who fell for this, shame on you for not knowing better.
Personally I don't know anybody who took it seriously, though no doubt there are some.
But the world has its share of gullible and undiscerning people, who are prey for all the wolves in sheep's clothing. That's a sad commentary on the world today, and it applies to the secular sphere as much as the religious.
Meantime, the media will make as much hay out of this 'failed prophecy' as they can, and many nonbelievers will be even more hardened against Christianity because they now think it's been discredited entirely.
The linked article alludes to 'Rapture parties' among nonbelievers, and sad to say, such people are partying because I think, deep down, some of them wonder at times if the Christian message is true. They exhibit a ''certain fearful looking for of judgement'' and that's not a pleasant state to be in. So now that they have gotten a reprieve as it were, and have been reassured that this world is all there is, they will go on with their lifelong party and go back to somnambulism for now.
I think that everybody senses that we are on the brink of something, but most hope to sleep and party their way through it.
All the sneers and jokes in the mass media about the 'end of the world' that wasn't are a sharp contrast to the way they treat non-Christian 'prophecies.' The so-called Mayan Calendar prophecies about 2012 come to mind. There has been endless discussion of this Mayan prediction as we approach the fateful year. Even some professing Christians seem to be concerned about this supposed impending doom.
The media also devote a lot of space -- and respect -- to new-agey things like the writings of Nostradamus, a purported 'seer.' Nostradamus was a priest, so he is not in the same category as the third world shamen who are so revered by the new age followers and leftists in general. But the methods he used to make his predictions involved what the church would call occultism: scrying, for example.
How many TV documentaries have been made about Nostradamus? I think most Americans today know more about his prophecies than those of the Bible.
I've read his quatrains, years ago, before I was a Christian.Even then, I could see that his quatrains were so cryptic and so vague that one could read almost anything in them. They end up being like Rohrschach ink-blots, showing you what's in your own mind, absolutely subjective.
Be all that as it may, Camping's false prophecies should never have received the coverage they did, but the media couldn't resist it. So much potential for jokes and cheap shots at crazy Bible-thumpers up in the hills. They love that kind of thing. They couldn't let it go to waste.
But Camping and his predictions should have been ignored by the media. From a Christian viewpoint, his predictions about 'the end of the world' or the 'return of the Lord' are wrong simply because Christians believe that no one knows exactly the date or the time of these things. Therefore, anybody who claims to know the date or the hour is a charlatan, a fraud, a false prophet, a false shepherd. Any Christian who fell for this, shame on you for not knowing better.
Personally I don't know anybody who took it seriously, though no doubt there are some.
But the world has its share of gullible and undiscerning people, who are prey for all the wolves in sheep's clothing. That's a sad commentary on the world today, and it applies to the secular sphere as much as the religious.
Meantime, the media will make as much hay out of this 'failed prophecy' as they can, and many nonbelievers will be even more hardened against Christianity because they now think it's been discredited entirely.
The linked article alludes to 'Rapture parties' among nonbelievers, and sad to say, such people are partying because I think, deep down, some of them wonder at times if the Christian message is true. They exhibit a ''certain fearful looking for of judgement'' and that's not a pleasant state to be in. So now that they have gotten a reprieve as it were, and have been reassured that this world is all there is, they will go on with their lifelong party and go back to somnambulism for now.
I think that everybody senses that we are on the brink of something, but most hope to sleep and party their way through it.
Labels: Anti-Christianity, Christianity, Media Bias
0 comment Monday, August 18, 2014 | admin
I think it's easy to guess how this unfortunate story will be used by our media and our current regime.
As we can see in this op-ed piece, all of us on the right are going to be tarred for the shooting of the notorious abortionist, George Tiller. The piece suggests that any of us who oppose abortion, including and especially ''late-term'' abortion, are as guilty as the man who pulled the trigger.
With Tiller slaying, abortion foes lose their moral standing
By midafternoon Sunday, authorities had a 50-something man in custody in connection with the murder of Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller, killed while serving as an usher at his church.
So far, we know little about the suspect, other than that he was driving a blue Ford when the cops stopped him outside Gardner.
However, the motive for the crime we can all surmise, given the vitriolic rhetoric aimed at Tiller these past couple of decades by anti-abortion activists.
And if we�re right about that, then we know the identities of his accomplices.
They include everyone who has ever called Tiller�s late-term abortion clinic a murder mill.
Whoever called Tiller "Tiller the Killer."
Groups that fomented hate toward a man who, rightly or wrongly, believed he was serving a noble purpose by being one of the few doctors in the country who performed late-term abortions.
Hate. Not heated opposition. Not strong disagreement.
But blind hatred.
The kind of hate that would prompt some maniac to take a gun into a church and shoot a man to death in front of friends and family.
His accomplices know they have blood on their hands, which might explain why they were quick to issue statements expressing disapproval of Tiller�s murder.
When we consider, however, that the left does not accord those of us on the right any moral standing to begin with, I suppose we haven't lost anything really. But we can be sure that this story will be milked for all it's worth to further criminalize the right.
This AP article mentions that the suspected shooter has an Internet history of expressing anti-abortion views. It should give us pause to notice how quickly, in cases like this, someone's Internet history is scrutinized and mined for anything to make them look guilty.
As of now, however, we don't know for certain what the motive was for this shooting, though the AP story certainly makes the suspect look guilty, as does this AP story, which ties him to 'anti-government' groups. It's almost like he was sent from Central Casting to fill the role of the 'terrorist' militiaman, as described by our 'homeland security' people. He even, according to the article, has a 'Christian fish symbol with the word Jesus inside' on his car. Imagine that!
At Vox Day's blog, there is quite a lengthy thread on this incident with many people expressing little sympathy for Tiller.
Vox himself questions what kind of church would welcome this man with his abortion practice. That thought had occurred to me, too, but it seems that he must attend a very liberal, abortion-accepting church. For the church be able to turn a blind eye to someone's having aborted 60,000 babies, as he claims to have done, is rather staggering.
This website documents the long-running protests in Wichita against this doctor's clinic, and the procedures being done there. If you read through the site, you will read of some of the practices which one of Vox Day's commenters alluded to in the thread linked above -- such as the 'extra services' offered, like baptism of the aborted babies, handprints and footprints, etc. How ironic is that? It certainly suggests a kind of brazenness at the very least.
There is also the political question of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's connections to Tiller.
The Sebelius nomination has been stridently opposed by pro-life advocates who have cited her personal and financial ties to the abortion industry, in addition to her pro-abortion record. However, their concerns were not aired in Sebelius' first two confirmation hearings.''
Still, I stop short of condoning the killing of abortionists, no matter how reprehensible we find their activities. This seems to be one of those situations where the Scripture ''vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord'' applies.
It is really regrettable that this incident will not only prove futile in stopping late-term abortions, but will further stimulate the left's witch-hunt against the right. The shooter was a godsend for the left. He embodies everything they hate: a White male, Christian, pro-lifer, anti-government ''militia type," if we are to believe the reports. And the crime was committed with a gun.
The end result will be a more militant left-wing jihad against the right, and against guns in particular. It will probably result in a further curtailment of our freedom of speech and assembly, and more surveillance on the Internet and elsewhere.
This incident was made to order for the left.
As we can see in this op-ed piece, all of us on the right are going to be tarred for the shooting of the notorious abortionist, George Tiller. The piece suggests that any of us who oppose abortion, including and especially ''late-term'' abortion, are as guilty as the man who pulled the trigger.
With Tiller slaying, abortion foes lose their moral standing
By midafternoon Sunday, authorities had a 50-something man in custody in connection with the murder of Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller, killed while serving as an usher at his church.
So far, we know little about the suspect, other than that he was driving a blue Ford when the cops stopped him outside Gardner.
However, the motive for the crime we can all surmise, given the vitriolic rhetoric aimed at Tiller these past couple of decades by anti-abortion activists.
And if we�re right about that, then we know the identities of his accomplices.
They include everyone who has ever called Tiller�s late-term abortion clinic a murder mill.
Whoever called Tiller "Tiller the Killer."
Groups that fomented hate toward a man who, rightly or wrongly, believed he was serving a noble purpose by being one of the few doctors in the country who performed late-term abortions.
Hate. Not heated opposition. Not strong disagreement.
But blind hatred.
The kind of hate that would prompt some maniac to take a gun into a church and shoot a man to death in front of friends and family.
His accomplices know they have blood on their hands, which might explain why they were quick to issue statements expressing disapproval of Tiller�s murder.
When we consider, however, that the left does not accord those of us on the right any moral standing to begin with, I suppose we haven't lost anything really. But we can be sure that this story will be milked for all it's worth to further criminalize the right.
This AP article mentions that the suspected shooter has an Internet history of expressing anti-abortion views. It should give us pause to notice how quickly, in cases like this, someone's Internet history is scrutinized and mined for anything to make them look guilty.
As of now, however, we don't know for certain what the motive was for this shooting, though the AP story certainly makes the suspect look guilty, as does this AP story, which ties him to 'anti-government' groups. It's almost like he was sent from Central Casting to fill the role of the 'terrorist' militiaman, as described by our 'homeland security' people. He even, according to the article, has a 'Christian fish symbol with the word Jesus inside' on his car. Imagine that!
At Vox Day's blog, there is quite a lengthy thread on this incident with many people expressing little sympathy for Tiller.
Vox himself questions what kind of church would welcome this man with his abortion practice. That thought had occurred to me, too, but it seems that he must attend a very liberal, abortion-accepting church. For the church be able to turn a blind eye to someone's having aborted 60,000 babies, as he claims to have done, is rather staggering.
This website documents the long-running protests in Wichita against this doctor's clinic, and the procedures being done there. If you read through the site, you will read of some of the practices which one of Vox Day's commenters alluded to in the thread linked above -- such as the 'extra services' offered, like baptism of the aborted babies, handprints and footprints, etc. How ironic is that? It certainly suggests a kind of brazenness at the very least.
There is also the political question of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's connections to Tiller.
The Sebelius nomination has been stridently opposed by pro-life advocates who have cited her personal and financial ties to the abortion industry, in addition to her pro-abortion record. However, their concerns were not aired in Sebelius' first two confirmation hearings.''
Still, I stop short of condoning the killing of abortionists, no matter how reprehensible we find their activities. This seems to be one of those situations where the Scripture ''vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord'' applies.
It is really regrettable that this incident will not only prove futile in stopping late-term abortions, but will further stimulate the left's witch-hunt against the right. The shooter was a godsend for the left. He embodies everything they hate: a White male, Christian, pro-lifer, anti-government ''militia type," if we are to believe the reports. And the crime was committed with a gun.
The end result will be a more militant left-wing jihad against the right, and against guns in particular. It will probably result in a further curtailment of our freedom of speech and assembly, and more surveillance on the Internet and elsewhere.
This incident was made to order for the left.
Labels: Abortion Pro-Life, Anti-Christianity, Christianity, Leftism, Media Bias, Second Amendment
0 comment Saturday, June 21, 2014 | admin
The list of blogs I read is shrinking. Why? Because it is hard to keep one's morale up and one's spirits high when the mainstream (so-called) media bombard us with propaganda, lies, and character assassinations all day, every day. The mainstream media are a disgrace to our society and to humanity. I wonder how they sleep at night. They have made themselves the enemy, the declared enemy of traditional America, specifically White America, even though many of the individuals who work for the media are themselves White. For that reason, they are also traitors to their own people.
The blogosphere has been something of an oasis in this wasteland of lies. But for whatever reason, it seems there is more and more division on our side, among those who dare to defend their own people against the constant slanders and manipulations of the powers-that-be and their media arm. The most obvious divisiveness is on the subject of religion, specifically Christianity. I've been reading race-loyalist blogs and forums of various kinds for a few years now, and the religious rift is coming more and more to the surface, with more out-and-out attacks on Christianity and on the person of Christ, as well as on Christians as a group.
I know there must be others beside myself who are Christian and race-loyal, but nobody raises a voice in defense of Christianity or Christ on those blogs and forums, usually. Occasionally one person might raise a half-hearted defense and get shouted down. Usually no one speaks up.
One such blog (whose name I won't mention; I don't want to start a back-and-forth with the blogger or his commenters) had such a discussion and it was disheartening enough to me that I don't care to visit that blog despite the blogger's interesting and articulate posts. I've already crossed AmRen off my list, as the moderator(s) let it be perpetual open season on Christianity there. So the blogs I visit are fewer now.
I don't see this as a good thing. I like to read what others are saying. Some will say I should overlook the attacks and let it roll off me; it's harder and harder to do when the media already bombard us with hostility. I go to the Internet to find like-minded people with whom to exchange ideas and to get my moral bolstered, if possible. I try to do that here, albeit imperfectly I'm sure. So I really don't see much of value in reading attacks on my faith and my Savior.
I will tolerate (though not without offering a defense) attacks on my ancestral origins -- people perpetually attack Anglo-Saxons in the far-right blogosphere; they, too, are a whipping boy. Southrons are another target. However, that can be chalked up to differences of opinion. That kind of criticism is far less virulent. I can take it, though I disagree with it and don't like it.
However when I see that a considerable percentage of pro-Whites seem to hate Christianity and Christians, that causes me to feel dispirited and alienated from these people. I can't in good conscience give my support or acquiescence to that. It makes me feel as if perhaps America, White America, has already been destroyed spiritually and mentally. I say this because it seems they have now declared war, as it were, on the traditional faith of America and on our ancestors -- their ancestors in some cases, although I wonder how many of these people are ethnic Americans who feel no kinship with old America. Why on earth should I put my heart into a cause which may in fact want no part of me or mine? I would be insane to do so. If the 'racial right' hates my Christian faith, and perhaps me, as much as the infernal left, what would I gain by supporting that cause? I and other Christians would be persona non grata in either a far-left atheist world or a far-right atheist/pagan society. Heads, they win, tails, I lose.
It's evident that some don't even want the support or help of Christians, considering us the enemy because they see our faith as an 'alien', Middle-Eastern, or 'Jew' faith. Here's a news flash: most Jewish people do not consider Christianity a Jewish religion, nor do they consider us their brothers in faith.
So I find myself feeling less welcome at many of these blogs and forums where Christianity is raked over the coals, sometimes in a less-than-gentlemanly manner. This is not intellectual, scholarly discussion we are talking about. If it were, and if my opponents were open to being reasoned with, I would not be nearly so bothered. But they are not open to any honest debate, and they don't acknowledge any other side to the story.
For instance: not one person has ever offered any answer to my question about why Christianity did not 'kill' Europe and Western civilization 1500 years ago? Why is the 'poison' so slow to act if poison it indeed is?
Why did Europe (and the United States, and all of Christendom) excel at the martial skills and why was Christendom so powerful throughout the earth when Christianity was at its zenith?
How on earth do Christianity's detractors blame Christians for 'killing' the West, when Christians are fewer and weaker than at any time since Europe was converted?
Why is it that countries which have largely abandoned their Christian faith are the farthest-gone? The Netherlands, once a staunchly Christian country, but now post-Christian, is being lost rapidly, and for a long time, has abandoned Christian morality and social values. Likewise the UK, where very few profess Christianity or attend church, much less read the Bible. Likewise, Scandinavia, where they have for decades been a secular society, known for their libertine sexual habits. Go down the list of Western countries: without fail, the most secular or nonbelieving are the most leftist, politically correct, and decadent.
And the fact that we still have a few shreds and fragments of our freedoms is only because, I am convinced, we still have a remnant (albeit a small remnant) of believers in this country. The fewer that are left, the weaker and more Orwellian will our society become. Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.
Another paradox: those on the left hate Christianity because it was 'militant' and is 'intolerant', while critics on the right say just the opposite: Christianity is a wimpy, feeble religion which is too tolerant.
I am convinced that most of those vocal critics (to use a kind word) of Christianity are people who have already rejected Christianity, who have personal ''issues'' with it. From personal experience, I've noted that many such people are the intellectual type, in love with their own reason, who find Christianity childish and a sign of weakness (as that great intellectual Jesse Ventura characterized it.). There are others who hate authority and rules, and who are rebels against all authority, and since God is the ultimate Authority, they hate him. These same people don't find exotic religions objectionable because they perceive these as having little moral content. It's easier to follow some 'god' who does not lay down rules about sexual behavior or drug use. Others are pagans, sometimes followers of 'sages' like Aleister Crowley, and his famous ''do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.'' For some people, that's the only kind of religion they want: one which gives its seal of approval to their selfish or self-destructive behavior.
Many of these people are young, callow people for whom anti-Christianity is a rebellious, hip pose that they strike; it plays very well among their college classmates or the coffee shop crowd. I suppose they may grow out of it, but given that our society is itself of this tendency, they may never grow out of it.
Christians know that we will be hated; that's a given. But it's getting very ominous when both sides hate us with a virulence that I don't remember seeing in my lifetime. And perhaps we may have to withdraw from active life and go underground as the Christians in Rome did, or be locked up or worse.
And speaking of Rome: did Christianity cause the fall of Rome? Or did the importation of many aliens and barbarians have some part in it? Did the widespread debauchery have some part in it? I believe it was Lycurgus of Sparta who warned that licentiousness and moral decay were fatal to a people and a country. I've always believed Lycurgus had it right on that score, and I believed that long before I became a Christian.
I don't expect I have won anybody over; those on the other side, as I have said, do not want to listen to an opposing opinion, or any arguments. They want a scapegoat. They are angry at Christians already, or resent them, and this goes even for some who profess Christianity in some form. Looking for a scapegoat is not what is needed right now, and the last thing that is needed is more division within our ranks. I wonder how many of the divisive people, especially those who despise Christianity, are actually plants or operatives trying to cause division?
I am, however, disappointed with the lack of response from Christians, who should be offering some kind of defense of their faith. I am disappointed with those Christians who give space in their comments sections to people who attack their faith and their Savior. I am disappointed to see Christians linking to blogs which habitually post anti-Christian screeds or bloggers who take potshots at Christians in veiled ways.
Perhaps some of these Christians believe they can 'witness' to these people, but I don't think that it is possible in most cases. There's a time for shaking the dust from one's feet and moving on.
I'll say it explicitly, though it should not have to be said: I am a Christian. I express a Christian point of view here. Those who are opposed to Christianity or who have some grudge or vendetta against the faith of their fathers, will not be treated accommodatingly here. Anti-Christian axes will not be ground in the comment section. Generally I don't suffer leftists attacking me or my ideas here, and the same goes for hostile comments from the right. Life is too short, and our time is short.
I want this blog to be edifying, not a place for division.
What is the answer to this rift, if any?
One thing is sure, in the context of the post below: if this country ever disintegrates, the unbelievers should separate from those of us who are Christians. It looks as though the religious division is as deep as the racial one.
The blogosphere has been something of an oasis in this wasteland of lies. But for whatever reason, it seems there is more and more division on our side, among those who dare to defend their own people against the constant slanders and manipulations of the powers-that-be and their media arm. The most obvious divisiveness is on the subject of religion, specifically Christianity. I've been reading race-loyalist blogs and forums of various kinds for a few years now, and the religious rift is coming more and more to the surface, with more out-and-out attacks on Christianity and on the person of Christ, as well as on Christians as a group.
I know there must be others beside myself who are Christian and race-loyal, but nobody raises a voice in defense of Christianity or Christ on those blogs and forums, usually. Occasionally one person might raise a half-hearted defense and get shouted down. Usually no one speaks up.
One such blog (whose name I won't mention; I don't want to start a back-and-forth with the blogger or his commenters) had such a discussion and it was disheartening enough to me that I don't care to visit that blog despite the blogger's interesting and articulate posts. I've already crossed AmRen off my list, as the moderator(s) let it be perpetual open season on Christianity there. So the blogs I visit are fewer now.
I don't see this as a good thing. I like to read what others are saying. Some will say I should overlook the attacks and let it roll off me; it's harder and harder to do when the media already bombard us with hostility. I go to the Internet to find like-minded people with whom to exchange ideas and to get my moral bolstered, if possible. I try to do that here, albeit imperfectly I'm sure. So I really don't see much of value in reading attacks on my faith and my Savior.
I will tolerate (though not without offering a defense) attacks on my ancestral origins -- people perpetually attack Anglo-Saxons in the far-right blogosphere; they, too, are a whipping boy. Southrons are another target. However, that can be chalked up to differences of opinion. That kind of criticism is far less virulent. I can take it, though I disagree with it and don't like it.
However when I see that a considerable percentage of pro-Whites seem to hate Christianity and Christians, that causes me to feel dispirited and alienated from these people. I can't in good conscience give my support or acquiescence to that. It makes me feel as if perhaps America, White America, has already been destroyed spiritually and mentally. I say this because it seems they have now declared war, as it were, on the traditional faith of America and on our ancestors -- their ancestors in some cases, although I wonder how many of these people are ethnic Americans who feel no kinship with old America. Why on earth should I put my heart into a cause which may in fact want no part of me or mine? I would be insane to do so. If the 'racial right' hates my Christian faith, and perhaps me, as much as the infernal left, what would I gain by supporting that cause? I and other Christians would be persona non grata in either a far-left atheist world or a far-right atheist/pagan society. Heads, they win, tails, I lose.
It's evident that some don't even want the support or help of Christians, considering us the enemy because they see our faith as an 'alien', Middle-Eastern, or 'Jew' faith. Here's a news flash: most Jewish people do not consider Christianity a Jewish religion, nor do they consider us their brothers in faith.
So I find myself feeling less welcome at many of these blogs and forums where Christianity is raked over the coals, sometimes in a less-than-gentlemanly manner. This is not intellectual, scholarly discussion we are talking about. If it were, and if my opponents were open to being reasoned with, I would not be nearly so bothered. But they are not open to any honest debate, and they don't acknowledge any other side to the story.
For instance: not one person has ever offered any answer to my question about why Christianity did not 'kill' Europe and Western civilization 1500 years ago? Why is the 'poison' so slow to act if poison it indeed is?
Why did Europe (and the United States, and all of Christendom) excel at the martial skills and why was Christendom so powerful throughout the earth when Christianity was at its zenith?
How on earth do Christianity's detractors blame Christians for 'killing' the West, when Christians are fewer and weaker than at any time since Europe was converted?
Why is it that countries which have largely abandoned their Christian faith are the farthest-gone? The Netherlands, once a staunchly Christian country, but now post-Christian, is being lost rapidly, and for a long time, has abandoned Christian morality and social values. Likewise the UK, where very few profess Christianity or attend church, much less read the Bible. Likewise, Scandinavia, where they have for decades been a secular society, known for their libertine sexual habits. Go down the list of Western countries: without fail, the most secular or nonbelieving are the most leftist, politically correct, and decadent.
And the fact that we still have a few shreds and fragments of our freedoms is only because, I am convinced, we still have a remnant (albeit a small remnant) of believers in this country. The fewer that are left, the weaker and more Orwellian will our society become. Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.
Another paradox: those on the left hate Christianity because it was 'militant' and is 'intolerant', while critics on the right say just the opposite: Christianity is a wimpy, feeble religion which is too tolerant.
I am convinced that most of those vocal critics (to use a kind word) of Christianity are people who have already rejected Christianity, who have personal ''issues'' with it. From personal experience, I've noted that many such people are the intellectual type, in love with their own reason, who find Christianity childish and a sign of weakness (as that great intellectual Jesse Ventura characterized it.). There are others who hate authority and rules, and who are rebels against all authority, and since God is the ultimate Authority, they hate him. These same people don't find exotic religions objectionable because they perceive these as having little moral content. It's easier to follow some 'god' who does not lay down rules about sexual behavior or drug use. Others are pagans, sometimes followers of 'sages' like Aleister Crowley, and his famous ''do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.'' For some people, that's the only kind of religion they want: one which gives its seal of approval to their selfish or self-destructive behavior.
Many of these people are young, callow people for whom anti-Christianity is a rebellious, hip pose that they strike; it plays very well among their college classmates or the coffee shop crowd. I suppose they may grow out of it, but given that our society is itself of this tendency, they may never grow out of it.
Christians know that we will be hated; that's a given. But it's getting very ominous when both sides hate us with a virulence that I don't remember seeing in my lifetime. And perhaps we may have to withdraw from active life and go underground as the Christians in Rome did, or be locked up or worse.
And speaking of Rome: did Christianity cause the fall of Rome? Or did the importation of many aliens and barbarians have some part in it? Did the widespread debauchery have some part in it? I believe it was Lycurgus of Sparta who warned that licentiousness and moral decay were fatal to a people and a country. I've always believed Lycurgus had it right on that score, and I believed that long before I became a Christian.
I don't expect I have won anybody over; those on the other side, as I have said, do not want to listen to an opposing opinion, or any arguments. They want a scapegoat. They are angry at Christians already, or resent them, and this goes even for some who profess Christianity in some form. Looking for a scapegoat is not what is needed right now, and the last thing that is needed is more division within our ranks. I wonder how many of the divisive people, especially those who despise Christianity, are actually plants or operatives trying to cause division?
I am, however, disappointed with the lack of response from Christians, who should be offering some kind of defense of their faith. I am disappointed with those Christians who give space in their comments sections to people who attack their faith and their Savior. I am disappointed to see Christians linking to blogs which habitually post anti-Christian screeds or bloggers who take potshots at Christians in veiled ways.
Perhaps some of these Christians believe they can 'witness' to these people, but I don't think that it is possible in most cases. There's a time for shaking the dust from one's feet and moving on.
I'll say it explicitly, though it should not have to be said: I am a Christian. I express a Christian point of view here. Those who are opposed to Christianity or who have some grudge or vendetta against the faith of their fathers, will not be treated accommodatingly here. Anti-Christian axes will not be ground in the comment section. Generally I don't suffer leftists attacking me or my ideas here, and the same goes for hostile comments from the right. Life is too short, and our time is short.
I want this blog to be edifying, not a place for division.
What is the answer to this rift, if any?
One thing is sure, in the context of the post below: if this country ever disintegrates, the unbelievers should separate from those of us who are Christians. It looks as though the religious division is as deep as the racial one.
Labels: Anti-Christianity, Christianity, Divisiveness, Liberal Christianity, The Right
0 comment Sunday, May 18, 2014 | admin
This kind of thing is what gives fuel to the anti-Christian faction on the nationalist right.
When we talk of a society built on Christian values, it is often misunderstood as a reference to intolerance, of exclusivity. The ultimate expression of this tendency comes in a campaign billboard, unveiled in March, which quoted scripture out of context, then posed the question: "What would Jesus do?" The answer given was simple: "Vote BNP."
This was a clear example of using Christian-sounding words to promote a profoundly anti-Christian agenda. No one should be taken in by it. The policies advocated by the BNP are contrary to our belief that all human beings, regardless of race or colour, have a common origin and are made in God's image. It is this belief which underlies those British values of human dignity and equality. There can be no compromise about such values. It is recognised that the number of people coming to live and work in Britain must be limited to what the social and economic fabric can sustain. Nevertheless, the Christian value of hospitality demands that those who come legally are welcomed. Providing refuge for the genuinely persecuted is also a long-standing British tradition, and must be upheld.
So when we ask "What would Jesus actually do?", the answer is clear. He would include all in the embrace of his Father's love, and so change them that they begin to live for others, to meet the needs of strangers and to work for a just and compassionate society.
Such work is badly needed. Not only have we witnessed the sometimes deliberate destruction of a moral framework for our social and economic life in Britain, but we have also seen the steady erosion in the formation of character. For example, if The Daily Telegraph has revealed anything fundamental about our political masters, it is the woeful lack of that character building, which leads us to behave with integrity and put service to the nation before self. But before we give in to scapegoating people, we have to admit that there has been a lack of emphasis on the formation of conscience and moral awareness in the nation. Once, responsibility, trust, truth-telling and hard work characterised what was best about us. These are virtues derived from Christian beliefs. Have our schools and universities been inculcating such virtues? If they have, how have we come to such a pretty pass in our national life? ''
I understand that for those in the post-Christian churches of today, there is "neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28) and thus nationality and race are obsolete, if not downright heretical notions. But somehow, having foreign-born clerics lecturing Britons (or Americans, for that matter) on their own traditions is ironic to say the least; as if we have no leaders from among our own, and must be led and shepherded by our moral betters from among the world's victim groups.
Nazir-Ali is lecturing the British people about political matters, and justifying his moral prescriptions on the basis of Christian ethics -- or more accurately, on his interpretation thereof.
This kind of thing is why church and state should be separate; the church should not become a shill for the liberal regimes in the West, and Christians should not be full-time advocates for the globalized beggar classes who are looking for better pickings in the West. Does this sound uncharitable? Christian charity is a good thing, but so few people today understand the voluntary nature of charity; if it is compulsion, done with the force of government behind it, it is not 'charity'. No one can or should compel people to show charity or to offer hospitality to the point of giving up one's home and country to the ''poor''. This is what Nazir-Ali and those who preach 'another gospel' of open borders are doing.
A Christian moral and spiritual framework would lead, instead, to genuine hospitality towards those arriving to share our freedoms, on the basis of a principled integration into national life. Such integration would be based on sharing a common moral framework and a lingua franca. Integration of this kind should not be mistaken for assimilation. It is quite possible to respect people's faith, culture and language while insisting on a common framework for public life and reasoning.
[...]
In terms of our political culture, I hope that this newspaper's investigation leads not to voyeurism or recrimination, but to a national catharsis, a purging of all that is unworthy. We should reaffirm a Christian basis for society and the need for a common framework for our life together. If we are looking for moral and spiritual renewal, this will mean that new people, and new kinds of people, will appear in the political life. This is, of course, to be welcomed � as long as it is understood that their participation, and ours, is on the basis of a common moral understanding.''
It's funny how the multicultists and globalists generally despise Christianity, wanting to expunge it from public life and strip it of any political influence, but they are eager to marshal the meager moral authority of today's Christianity to try to make their case for their one-world Babel regime. "Christianity" is allowed to have its say as long as it speaks the language of the multicult and bows down to Baal.
I've written before about how the liberalized apostate Christianity is a precursor to leftism/Marxism, which is an attempt to counterfeit the faith to use it toward political ends. Yet this faux Christianity passes as the authentic faith, while those who believe as their fathers believed, and their fathers before them, are condemned by the left as being uncharitable and in fact un-Christian. At the same time, we are condemned by many on the secular or pagan right as being weaklings and liabilities, who are causing the West's destruction.
Thomas Fleming offers a welcome defense of Christianity:
And yet it is Christianity, not Marxism or liberalism, that usually receives the credit or blame for the repudiation of loyalty and patriotism. Pseudochristian leftists�including far too many Catholic bishops in the United States�make the preposterous claim that Christ came to liberate us from the duty to defend borders or respect the law. Antichristian nationalists, following in Nietzsche�s drunken meandering footsteps, complain that Christianity weakened Western man�s resolve to defend his interests against other peoples and races. Paradoxically, many of these neopagans are also followers of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman�the liberal gurus who did their best to dissolve all the bonds linking human beings and to replace them with (to use a phrase Marx borrowed from Carlyle) the cash nexus.
If the neopagan nationalists had ever read any history, they would, perhaps, be puzzled by the behavior of Christian warriors like Justinian and Charles Martel, Saint Louis and Saint Joan, but their response would be that Saint Joan was a bad Christian who did not understand Christ�s message as well as they do�ill-read pagans though they are. What else did Jesus mean in His Sermon on the Mount?'
[...]
To delegitimate nations, some radicals misleadingly cite Paul�s statement that, in baptism, "There is neither Jew nor Greek" (Galatians 3:28), but this statement is aimed at repressing quarrels that broke out between gentile and Jewish Christians. The sentence continues, "there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." And yet, so far from uttering a word against slavery per se, he instructs slaves to obey their masters, and Paul, who has been unfairly stigmatized as a misogynist, can hardly be accused of pursuing a feminist agenda.
Some leftists have pretended that Christians cannot restrict immigration into their country, even if they believe it is harmful to their nation�s security and prosperity. They cite such statements as "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Like most prooftexts taken out of context, these sentences are open to misinterpretation.''
Why are these points so hard to get across to most people? The secular/pagan right does not want to hear any good word about Christianity, because they wish a world free of Christianity and especially Christian morality. The liberal Christians whose faith is liberalism first and Christianity only insofar as it can be made to conform to liberalism, have to 'feel good about themselves'' and this means being 'non-judgmental, open and welcoming, unprejudiced', even to the point of self-immolation. So nobody wants to hear the other side of the story.
I agree with the point of view expressed by Cambria Will Not Yield: it is only through embracing our the Christian faith of old Europe that we can hope to survive and renew our people. Christianity was at the core of what made Europe what it was. There can be no strong and whole nationalism that does not embrace the faith of our fathers.
When we talk of a society built on Christian values, it is often misunderstood as a reference to intolerance, of exclusivity. The ultimate expression of this tendency comes in a campaign billboard, unveiled in March, which quoted scripture out of context, then posed the question: "What would Jesus do?" The answer given was simple: "Vote BNP."
This was a clear example of using Christian-sounding words to promote a profoundly anti-Christian agenda. No one should be taken in by it. The policies advocated by the BNP are contrary to our belief that all human beings, regardless of race or colour, have a common origin and are made in God's image. It is this belief which underlies those British values of human dignity and equality. There can be no compromise about such values. It is recognised that the number of people coming to live and work in Britain must be limited to what the social and economic fabric can sustain. Nevertheless, the Christian value of hospitality demands that those who come legally are welcomed. Providing refuge for the genuinely persecuted is also a long-standing British tradition, and must be upheld.
So when we ask "What would Jesus actually do?", the answer is clear. He would include all in the embrace of his Father's love, and so change them that they begin to live for others, to meet the needs of strangers and to work for a just and compassionate society.
Such work is badly needed. Not only have we witnessed the sometimes deliberate destruction of a moral framework for our social and economic life in Britain, but we have also seen the steady erosion in the formation of character. For example, if The Daily Telegraph has revealed anything fundamental about our political masters, it is the woeful lack of that character building, which leads us to behave with integrity and put service to the nation before self. But before we give in to scapegoating people, we have to admit that there has been a lack of emphasis on the formation of conscience and moral awareness in the nation. Once, responsibility, trust, truth-telling and hard work characterised what was best about us. These are virtues derived from Christian beliefs. Have our schools and universities been inculcating such virtues? If they have, how have we come to such a pretty pass in our national life? ''
I understand that for those in the post-Christian churches of today, there is "neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28) and thus nationality and race are obsolete, if not downright heretical notions. But somehow, having foreign-born clerics lecturing Britons (or Americans, for that matter) on their own traditions is ironic to say the least; as if we have no leaders from among our own, and must be led and shepherded by our moral betters from among the world's victim groups.
Nazir-Ali is lecturing the British people about political matters, and justifying his moral prescriptions on the basis of Christian ethics -- or more accurately, on his interpretation thereof.
This kind of thing is why church and state should be separate; the church should not become a shill for the liberal regimes in the West, and Christians should not be full-time advocates for the globalized beggar classes who are looking for better pickings in the West. Does this sound uncharitable? Christian charity is a good thing, but so few people today understand the voluntary nature of charity; if it is compulsion, done with the force of government behind it, it is not 'charity'. No one can or should compel people to show charity or to offer hospitality to the point of giving up one's home and country to the ''poor''. This is what Nazir-Ali and those who preach 'another gospel' of open borders are doing.
A Christian moral and spiritual framework would lead, instead, to genuine hospitality towards those arriving to share our freedoms, on the basis of a principled integration into national life. Such integration would be based on sharing a common moral framework and a lingua franca. Integration of this kind should not be mistaken for assimilation. It is quite possible to respect people's faith, culture and language while insisting on a common framework for public life and reasoning.
[...]
In terms of our political culture, I hope that this newspaper's investigation leads not to voyeurism or recrimination, but to a national catharsis, a purging of all that is unworthy. We should reaffirm a Christian basis for society and the need for a common framework for our life together. If we are looking for moral and spiritual renewal, this will mean that new people, and new kinds of people, will appear in the political life. This is, of course, to be welcomed � as long as it is understood that their participation, and ours, is on the basis of a common moral understanding.''
It's funny how the multicultists and globalists generally despise Christianity, wanting to expunge it from public life and strip it of any political influence, but they are eager to marshal the meager moral authority of today's Christianity to try to make their case for their one-world Babel regime. "Christianity" is allowed to have its say as long as it speaks the language of the multicult and bows down to Baal.
I've written before about how the liberalized apostate Christianity is a precursor to leftism/Marxism, which is an attempt to counterfeit the faith to use it toward political ends. Yet this faux Christianity passes as the authentic faith, while those who believe as their fathers believed, and their fathers before them, are condemned by the left as being uncharitable and in fact un-Christian. At the same time, we are condemned by many on the secular or pagan right as being weaklings and liabilities, who are causing the West's destruction.
Thomas Fleming offers a welcome defense of Christianity:
And yet it is Christianity, not Marxism or liberalism, that usually receives the credit or blame for the repudiation of loyalty and patriotism. Pseudochristian leftists�including far too many Catholic bishops in the United States�make the preposterous claim that Christ came to liberate us from the duty to defend borders or respect the law. Antichristian nationalists, following in Nietzsche�s drunken meandering footsteps, complain that Christianity weakened Western man�s resolve to defend his interests against other peoples and races. Paradoxically, many of these neopagans are also followers of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman�the liberal gurus who did their best to dissolve all the bonds linking human beings and to replace them with (to use a phrase Marx borrowed from Carlyle) the cash nexus.
If the neopagan nationalists had ever read any history, they would, perhaps, be puzzled by the behavior of Christian warriors like Justinian and Charles Martel, Saint Louis and Saint Joan, but their response would be that Saint Joan was a bad Christian who did not understand Christ�s message as well as they do�ill-read pagans though they are. What else did Jesus mean in His Sermon on the Mount?'
[...]
To delegitimate nations, some radicals misleadingly cite Paul�s statement that, in baptism, "There is neither Jew nor Greek" (Galatians 3:28), but this statement is aimed at repressing quarrels that broke out between gentile and Jewish Christians. The sentence continues, "there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." And yet, so far from uttering a word against slavery per se, he instructs slaves to obey their masters, and Paul, who has been unfairly stigmatized as a misogynist, can hardly be accused of pursuing a feminist agenda.
Some leftists have pretended that Christians cannot restrict immigration into their country, even if they believe it is harmful to their nation�s security and prosperity. They cite such statements as "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Like most prooftexts taken out of context, these sentences are open to misinterpretation.''
Why are these points so hard to get across to most people? The secular/pagan right does not want to hear any good word about Christianity, because they wish a world free of Christianity and especially Christian morality. The liberal Christians whose faith is liberalism first and Christianity only insofar as it can be made to conform to liberalism, have to 'feel good about themselves'' and this means being 'non-judgmental, open and welcoming, unprejudiced', even to the point of self-immolation. So nobody wants to hear the other side of the story.
I agree with the point of view expressed by Cambria Will Not Yield: it is only through embracing our the Christian faith of old Europe that we can hope to survive and renew our people. Christianity was at the core of what made Europe what it was. There can be no strong and whole nationalism that does not embrace the faith of our fathers.
Labels: Anti-Christianity, Christendom, Christianity, Cultural Marxism, Liberal Christianity, Mass Immigration, Open Borders, Political Correctness