Sunday, January 06, 2013

One of their motives?

Daybreaker wrote an interesting comment in the last post. In it he pointed out how all-embracing the charge of racism has now become:
You can't avoid being charged with racism if you are white. That's because "racist" basically means "white".

University of Delaware:
“[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

That means that whites count as racist, and non-whites do not.

That means that the mandatory policy in all white nations to get rid of "racism" is the same thing as a policy to get rid of whites.
 
I agree with Daybreaker that this is the logic of the leftist position on race.

Left-liberals choose to explain race differences in terms of one race (whites) being socially constructed to exploit and oppress other races. Whites get to be exceptional in a highly negative way. Whiteness is held to exist as a manifestation of privilege, discrimination and racism. Therefore, those who defend being white must be, by the leftist definition, "white supremacists" - people who want to maintain a supremacy over others.

As Daybreaker points out, the logical solution then becomes to defeat whites and whiteness through mass immigration and the breaking up of formerly white societies. The demographic decline of whites becomes, for leftists, a mark of progress to be cheered on.

Leftist anti-racism becomes, in effect, an anti-white movement. Getting rid of racism comes to mean getting rid of whites and white societies.

Daybreaker also made a point in his comment that I've made at this site as well. Whites get targeted by the left in this way, despite the fact that we are not even the most privileged ethnicity. On measures of income, careers, family stability and education, Asians are on average the best off in countries like America or Australia.

So why target whites? I don't want to attempt a complete explanation in what follows. I just want to point to one particular strain of thought on the left.

It seems to me that there exists a certain kind of person who reacts badly to the existence of order, authority or structure in society or within reality itself. Why? Perhaps because they think of this as a power existing outside of their own self which, in their pride, they think of limiting their own self, rather than as giving meaning to it. Perhaps they want their own self to be the organising power. Perhaps there is a personal bitterness or disappointment toward representatives of authority or power in their own lives, for instance, in the relationship with their father.

Whatever the reason, such people seem to view white, conservative, Christian males as symbols of an order or authority that they see as a hostile force at an existential level - it scares them or at least discomfits them at some level of self and being to be confronted by such symbols.

And it's what traditional whites mean symbolically that seems to matter. Asian Americans, for instance, are more privileged in a range of fields, but their success doesn't carry the same symbolic weight, as they aren't (yet) associated with traditional structures of authority or value or order in society. Similarly, Republicans are mostly right-liberals who self-neutralised a long time ago. And yet there are some on the left for whom the symbolism of Republicans as white, conservative, Christian males still very much matters.

This helps to explain too why some on the left see themselves as anti-establishment outsiders, even though they became the establishment decades ago. They continue to understand their own political mission in terms of opposition to the symbolically powerful white, Christian male. They are still, in their minds, fighting an entrenched power structure, whereas they themselves, no matter how powerful, are the liberating force, opening society up to some new possibility or some new experiments in living that will somehow take things forward, i.e. that will open up the path to human progress.

If I'm right on this, then so much the worse for liberal Christianity. The Christian tradition has always set itself strongly against a spirit which, on sensing a power or authority or order outside itself, reacts nihilistically out of pride or hubris. In the Christian tradition the fall of Satan is understood along these lines. And yet so many Christians today fall in with a programme that has its origins, at least in part, from this spirit which is so strongly condemned within the Christian tradition.

For instance, there are those on the left who use open borders to destroy the existence of a "whiteness" which they associate negatively with order or authority. Instead of condemning this as a manifestation of nihilism (or of the kind of pride which led to Satan's fall), there are many in the churches who fall in line with it or even put a Christian gloss on it as being an act of charity. The churches have not confronted what they ought to have confronted; they have not examined what might lead a person to be disloyal or to seek to destroy. It's an uncomfortable fact that a relatively small number of nihilist spirits have ended up on the winning side, despite transgressing a core aspect of Christianity.

67 comments:

  1. "It seems to me that there exists a certain kind of person who reacts badly to the existence of order, authority or structure "

    Once when I was young I was in the liberal leftist mindset (during high school) and there is elements of it in my upbringing.

    What a liberal leftist is thinking and I still recall it clearly is that orderly, conservative and essentially white christian societies are elitist. So overly powerful Elitist that you as a working class or young white cannot possible live up to the lifestyle or even gain access to these communities.

    So you hate them and rebel against them. Thanks to the media these societies have been portrayed really as demonic.
    That is exactly how you think as a liberal/leftist. You think of well run orderly conservative communities as not human.


    The truth of the matter is that the "elite" are largely liberalised themselves and just have a veneer of conservatism (the perks of being wealthy is you can live a traditional life) They are actively for the replacement of the white working class with foreigners.


    Thankfully before I even left high school I snapped out of the Liberal brainwashing.

    I think what conservative traditionalists can do is to ensure this way of life is accessible for those that desire to live this way.
    To have a wife and children and a home. To have a work and higher ideals and spirituality (Christianity) than self destructive liberalism.
    This should not be an exclusive lifestyle for the rich.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems to me that there exists a certain kind of person who reacts badly to the existence of order, authority or structure

    Respect for Authority is one of the 5 moral foundations that Jonathan Haidt has found.

    As Haidt has noted, liberals have a little bit of appreciation for moral foundations of Loyalty and Purity, but they just can't stand any sort of Respect for Authority.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This helps to explain too why some on the left see themselves as anti-establishment outsiders, even though they became the establishment decades ago.

    This is spot-on. A lot of them can't really see that for example, people such as Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck are liberal in their outlook and philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @little bit of appreciation for moral foundations of Loyalty and Purity

    Have you met any lately? They have no loyalty and they do not even understand the word Purity. They will think Purity is referring to racial purity or the purity of a privileged society or the purity of innocence or the purity of a chaste woman...
    All of them evil things that need to be torn down or ruined.
    They have no use for the word purity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As with all leftists, they consider "privilege" to be anything they can't get themselves for free.

    Lazy, greedy, envious slobs. That's what they.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If I'm right on this, then so much the worse for liberal Christianity."

    I think you are right.

    In a different way, I also think that Anonymous at Sunday, 6 January 2013 1:52:00 PM AEDT is right. That was a shout of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This post developed the point you made in the earlier post about Camille Paglia, since her "vitalism" is a sort of nihilism. She admires singers who are passionate, and hates singers who seem to have their passions under control. Christian and classical thought said that reason governed a well-ordered soul, but in a disordered soul the will or the passions overthrew reason and took charge. Reason was the means to perceive the logos, which for Christians would mean the will of God, so a well-ordered soul was not only governed by reason, but also attuned to reality.

    It is obvious that, when critics condemn "whiteness," they are really condemning well-ordered soul. This is not to say that all whites have well-ordered souls. Far from it, alas! Or that there are no well-ordered souls among the other races. But whites have come to symbolize self-control, and this is why the vitalists hate them and say that white culture lacks "authenticity." For a vitalist, authentic culture rises up from the passions and the will. To an anti-vitalist, it descends from reality (God) by way of the reason.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Leftists oppose everything and only ever propose the idealistic and impractical. They oppose all authority. Our Leftist media attacks the Coalition fro the Left and then attacks Labor governmemts from the hard Left.
    I think its a maturity thing thing. As adolescents we strive to forge our own identities by opposing parental authority. Leftists never grow up and realise that at some point you have to stand for something rather than just pull it down. They never quite make adulthood.
    And they have done a very good job of pulling d8wn social structures over the past 50 years.

    ReplyDelete
  9. racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system.

    The idea that the US (or Canada, the UK, Australia, or NZ) is a " white supremacist (racist) system" is laughable.

    I don't even know what "socialized on the basis of race" means, but in the US, white children are socialized to pretend that race does not exist as a biological reality, and at the same time they are exhorted to celebrate the (puny) achievements of non-whites and to wallow in guilt for the supposed past and ongoing crimes of whites.

    What fantastic nonsense the U of Delaware statement is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. They will think Purity is referring to racial purity or the purity of a privileged society or the purity of innocence or the purity of a chaste woman...
    All of them evil things that need to be torn down or ruined.
    They have no use for the word purity.


    The concept of "purity" is an affront to the Leftist dogma of equality. Someone who is pure, in any sense, is different and better to someone who is impure. The pure person must thus be made equal by becoming impure. Hence the Left's encouragement to engage in every type of vice.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I remember, in the 90s, watching a police drama called The Commish, which starred Michael Chiklis as a young police commissioner in a small city.

    One episode had a "white racism" episode where white members of the police force were supporting a new local pol who was accused of "white supremacism."

    In one speech, the politiian responded that he was "proud to be white." This was taken as "obvious" evidence in the show that he was a flaming evil racist.

    This weeds have grown thick and strong for a long time, boys. A long, long time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The concept of "purity" is an affront to the Leftist dogma of equality. Someone who is pure, in any sense, is different and better to someone who is impure. The pure person must thus be made equal by becoming impure. Hence the Left's encouragement to engage in every type of vice.

    Leftists simply think that morality is oppression from the evil White Christian Patriarchy. They don't want someone deciding what's right or wrong, unless it's them of course and then they are the ones making it against the LAW to do something they see as "wrong" e.g "hate speech" laws, they are truly the ideology of Satan.

    Just look at leftist speech now, they think that if a black guy wears a nice suit, went to college, speaks the language well, and provides for his wife that has cancer and his 2 kids that are like 9ish**. he is seen as an "uncle tom" or "house negro" and is basically uncle ruckus*. They want total control and if they can't have it they'll take total anarchy.

    *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knQWlri5GGw
    **I play video games online with a guy I know that is in his 50's taking care of his family and raising his children, he's a cop of 30 years, hell he is even like a father figure, last year when another friend tried to pressure me to play a game before I finished homework he said "no, no, go finish your homework first and you can play later" and it was rather nice hearing that firm guidance also he's a conservative

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think there is a more practical motive for white anti-whiteness.

    For a materialist, Christianity is nothing if it is not practised, and its practice depends on family, society and tradition. Historically, the society that has been most effective in living Christianity, especially in the formulation of laws and social mores, is white society. Therefore, the materialist who wishes to destroy Christianity must break apart the people who keep it alive.

    - Kevin.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whites are targeted for a very simple reason; because they are vulnerable and give up things of value such as living space and reproductive age females and wealth, if only you call them a racist.

    That's it -- it's economical. They do it for the same reason the bully picks on the frail, bespectacled nerd; BECAUSE THEY CAN.

    But that bespectacled nerd is going to an MMA gym and is preparing a beating for the bully.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "[I]n the US, white children are socialized to pretend that race does not exist as a biological reality, and at the same time they are exhorted to celebrate the (puny) achievements of non-whites and to wallow in guilt for the supposed past and ongoing crimes of whites."

    --This Anonymous sums it up well. Truly, besides the rest of the falsehood and evil of such indoctrination (in making middle class children grow up to be moral cowards before the rabble-rousing of "black leaders" and the black community), it makes for an awesome exercise in radical egalitarianism. Gottfried von Leibniz or George Washington Carver, what's the difference?!

    --one of Auster's commenters directed him to a Rod Dreher piece at "The American Conservative", noting it as a worthy sign of progress. I read it with the expected sense of disappointment, of the Same Old. There's no righteous indignation about the black crimes, or media silence; at most, Dreher declines to outright blame whites for White Flight. And where are whites to fly to, when no perch remains?

    In his comments section, Dreher makes it plain that he suffers many "liberal Christian" delusions. As to why blacks might have had a head start on the rising tide of illegitimacy, he seems incurious, to say nothing of clueless.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is one of the best posts you have ever made, Mark. This is your "eureka" moment:

    "Getting rid of racism comes to mean getting rid of whites and white societies."

    That's it! Bingo!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Leftism is, at its root, anti-Christ. Europe is the place where Christianity established itself and the European culture is overwhelmingly Christian. Therefore, white-ness is identified with Christ and vice versa. If one wants to annihilate the presence of Christ in the world, not just His concrete, outward manifestations (churches, public prayer, outdoor crosses, etc.) but His Spirit as well, one must attack white-ness. Ultimately this means genocide. In the meantime there is: the "racism" industry, the hard anti-Christian line in public schools, the "affirmative action" racket, the "sexual revolution", the sodomy lobby, demonization and demoralization via the media, the disincentivization of Christian and traditionally white virtues like thrift and prudence through rampant inflation, government subsidization of profligacy, etc., etc., etc. All of it heavily pushed by our "liberal" (= anti-Christ) ascendent classes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mark, this rot set in a long, long time ago, and slowly, slowly crept up on us as a whole. Perhaps you should read up on who belongs to the Left academically, and who spreads the poison in the first place. Thought you might like these articles, if you keep an open mind.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/08/the-war-on-white-australia-a-case-study-in-the-culture-of-critique-part-1-of-5/

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/08/the-war-on-white-australia-a-case-study-in-the-culture-of-critique-part-2-of-5/

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/08/the-war-on-white-australia-a-case-study-in-the-culture-of-critique-part-3-of-5/

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/08/the-war-on-white-australia-a-case-study-in-the-culture-of-critique-part-4-of-5/

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/08/the-war-on-white-australia-a-case-study-in-the-culture-of-critique-part-5-of-5/

    ReplyDelete
  19. whoresoftheinternet said...
    In one speech, the politiian responded that he was "proud to be white." This was taken as "obvious" evidence in the show that he was a flaming evil racist.
    -
    I'll defer to Mark here, but I think the explanation for that might be that left-liberals explain different races as one race (whites) being socially constructed to exploit and oppress other races.

    That means, to be white is to be racist, and to be non-white is not. (Though it is possible for a non-white to be an "Uncle Tom".)

    In this picture, it is possible for a mostly good person to identify as white, if by "white" they mean "guilty". In other words, you admit to what the professors say is true: you are part of an evil conspiracy to oppress and exploit people of other races. You were born into it. That admission implies that you are consciously against it. You repudiate it. (Even though you still have unconscious racism, and structural racism privileging you.) That means you have at least a partial and conditional redemption.

    In this picture, to be "proud" to be white is to be wholly evil, and proud of it. It is like being the Devil.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "For instance, there are those on the left who use open borders to destroy the existence of a "whiteness" which they associate negatively with order or authority. Instead of condemning this as a manifestation of nihilism (or of the kind of pride which led to Satan's fall), there are many in the churches who fall in line with it or even put a Christian gloss on it as being an act of charity."

    So you're saying that white Christian people who advocate letting blacks and refugee muslims into Australia, for example, out of charity and concern with their material welfare, are more OUT OF TOUCH with Christian teachings than they are in touch? You're saying Jesus would have been more concerned with nihilism towards an existing order than with breaking bread with people?

    ReplyDelete
  21. This left-liberal interpretation of whiteness is an aggressive intellectual construct.

    If you interpret life through this framework, someone who pleads for white people not to be genocided and who reminds you that you too are white is committing themselves to the perpetuation of an aggressive conspiracy of exploitation and evil, and trying to get you to change sides and identify with a group that has no real existence except its oppressiveness. To become a hollow person whose whole identity is a lie that only covers up evil.

    An intellectual system that reinterprets pleas for mercy and reminders of kinship and commonality as aggressive statements pursuing an exploitative conspiracy and trying to seduce good people into becoming evil is aggressive.

    The people who teach that system may not act aggressively, in obvious, visible ways. The pupils who go into politics and administration may not throw punches and kicks either. But the effect of propagating this system of interpretation among members of culturally and politically influential groups is that white people without insider status or political influence will be treated with unnatural hostility. Poor whites will be over-ridden on their vital interests because they will be seen as living symbols of unjust power and exploitation. People who are politically passive because they trust (naturally and instinctively) that elites of their own race and culture could not be "out to get them" will be betrayed - and the betrayers will feel righteous about defeating a conspiracy - the white racist conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If i remember correctly, Jesus did condemn the existing order he was part of in favour of other concerns (primarily concerned with 'charity', or at least much more with 'charity' than a prior cultural order!!)

    ReplyDelete
  23. The left-liberal system of racial (mis)interpretation is untruthful, unnatural, and genocidal. The least we should do is to say that it is wrong and we are against it.

    It's also good to talk about what a more constructive and balanced alternative would look like, intellectually. This is where Oz Conservative blog is unusually valuable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Bill: You're saying Jesus would have been more concerned with nihilism towards an existing order than with breaking bread with people?
    -
    What I would suggest is that whites also are people. And genociding them is a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "It's an uncomfortable fact that a relatively small number of nihilist spirits have ended up on the winning side, despite transgressing a core aspect of Christianity."
    -
    The left-liberal system of racial interpretation licences anti-establishment pride, packaged together with personal guilt (a sort of "born in original sin" message for whites) and a system for expiating that guilt through penitential anti-racist actions.

    Anti-racist actions are often at the expense of others, such as relatively uneducated and politically disempowered whites.

    It's easy to quietly undermine the racists, because they don't see you coming.

    And to take such actions (for the good of the anti-racist cause, not for your own selfish good!) it's helpful to seek as much power for yourself as you can. (Unselfishly!)

    In overthrowing the white racist conspiracy, it's appropriate to use those who are still part of it as your stepping-stones to power.

    And it's appropriate to network with other anti-racists - almost as though one was part of a conspiracy oneself. (But one isn't, of course; it's whiteness that's the real conspiracy.)

    The whole thing is a nasty poison pill, with redemptive anti-racism giving it a sweet taste.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bill: "You're saying Jesus would have been more concerned with nihilism towards an existing order than with breaking bread with people?"

    Leftists and doormat Christians deliberately misinterpret what Jesus said. His mission was and is about direct personal morality, not some indirect program forced by the State.

    An underlying trait of the left and their useful idiots is abrogation of all personal responsibility and making the State responsible. The concomitant result is worship of the State in which all morality is invested, coupled with feigned horror about and demonization of anyone who refuses to bow down with them. Since each leftist dispenses with personal responsibility, he must tell the State "Go get those evil white traditionalist conservatives for me, because in my projection fantasies I'm sure they will eventually do me harm, and also their mere existence is a constant reminder that I am a wuss and a pussy no matter how many times a day I affirm my fragile self-esteem".

    This is the epitome of masturbatory morality, and each leftist is nothing but an envious, preening little morality masturbator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Bill: You're saying Jesus would have been more concerned with nihilism towards an existing order than with breaking bread with people?
    -
    Daybreaker: What I would suggest is that whites also are people. And genociding them is a bad thing."

    Woa. You're leaping really far ahead in your logic here, further than it warrents I think. It helps draw out a shattering reality, however, with the discussion.

    The connection between 'humanitarian' immigration and genocide is much more subjective and tenuous than the connection between 'humanitarian' immigration and charity! i would dobut that Jesus was worried about the 'genocide' of the jews when he preached the brotherhood of man. Now, you may engage with 'revisionist' interpretations of the gospel which frame it in less a universalist light, and so my worry might be routed that way, however I highly doubt the sucess of such an enterprise.

    I find it dubious, and this is a matter of foundational principles, how you can argue for ANY sort of cultural particularism when you're coming from a tradition like Christianity which is, in it's core premises, universal. This raises huge issues relating to where the right needs to come from, and will lead quickly away from the discussion at hand, but these issue lie at the heart of the modern cultural struggle between left and right.

    To me it is no wonder why the right has increasingly lost ground to the left of late when the current culturally-audible bearers of right wing thinking are proponents of a foundational system like Christianity which it at its core is universalist. From the point of view of political dialectics it's hugely problematic to shift the political climate back to the right when you're arguing from premises which, when particularist conclusion are drawn from them, results in contradiction. A christian right cannot claim ground from the left *because the left derives more logically coherent conclusions from the Christian's own premises*!

    You must appreciate how it looks to a non-christian outside observer when the tradition that sprang from Jesus Christ attempts to argue against a leftist egalitarian brotherhood of man. I hugely dobut jesus was concerned with 'the white race' but I'm sure he was concerned with charity and raising the material lot of people who are lacking. In no way do i mean this is a polemic sense but it comes across as very laboured and awkward, and it really is a lurking issue at the heart of the whole problem with conservatism in post-modernity.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Bill: "You're saying Jesus would have been more concerned with nihilism towards an existing order than with breaking bread with people?"
    -
    ericcs: Leftists and doormat Christians deliberately misinterpret what Jesus said. His mission was and is about direct personal morality, not some indirect program forced by the State."

    Ericcs, we can leave the state out of it if you like. Let's assume the Christians who are supporting humanitarian immigration contribute towards leftist-secular community groups who organise immigration into the country using a combination of private funding and volunteerism.

    ReplyDelete
  29. re Bill: You want me to buy into your progressive fantasies. Instead I am here to raze them to the ground. In the case that you posit, each such secular humanist would have to individually sponsor a single immigrant (not an entire family) and be legally responsible for his health and welfare at all times, as well as his integration into the mainstream culture.

    Let's not play precious progressive "what-if" games here... I not only doubt, I know that such a policy would reduce immigration by orders of magnitude down to a trickle of what is now rammed down everyones' craw by the almighty State.

    Also, do you really want to get into this about Jesus? In my Bible, He came to fulfill the law (Torah), not undermine it. In the case of Western geopolitical entities (especially the US), that means that a basic function of national government is to protect the hierarchical foundations of the primary culture already in extent, one that tries to live in righteousness. It is never the purview of that government to destroy the culture in some orgy of nihilistic zeal for amorphous ideals like "democracy" or "pity the poor" or some other slapdash abstraction foisted on us by the masturbatory morality of the left.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You must appreciate how it looks to a non-christian outside observer when the tradition that sprang from Jesus Christ attempts to argue against a leftist egalitarian brotherhood of man. I hugely dobut jesus was concerned with 'the white race' but I'm sure he was concerned with charity and raising the material lot of people who are lacking. In no way do i mean this is a polemic sense but it comes across as very laboured and awkward, and it really is a lurking issue at the heart of the whole problem with conservatism in post-modernity.

    I'm not a christian either it hasn't stopped me agreeing with Daybreaker of for Daybreaker agreeing with me either.
    That's the lie that everyone that is conservative or interested in what tradialists/conservatives/Christians have to say is a Christian themselves.

    I think Jesus would of cared about the white races extinction. I think people in ancient times would care (without political correctness) about the lives of various tribes by ethnicity. Whether they were hated or respected.

    In short you are not gaining supporters from anywhere but the third world and even that is sketchy.

    Anyone that desires rational thinking, civilisation and their own survival is being drawn away from Liberalism.

    A christian right cannot claim ground from the left *because the left derives more logically coherent conclusions from the Christian's own premises*!

    Especially this the favourite trump card of leftist thinking that the because the "right" believes in a deity all their arguments are invalid and all leftist arguments are valid.
    No. The entirety of Liberalism is irrational and Christians are sounding much more rational than liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Craig,

    I read some of those links you posted. I don't think it presents the history accurately.

    The decision to turn Australia into a multicultural country was taken by cabinet during WWII. It seems to have been taken, in part, by a desire to emulate the course of development taken in the USA.

    The background to this shift relates to changes in the general political and intellectual climate during the course of the 1900s. The first leaders of the labor movement in Australia tended to represent the national feeling of the rank and file.

    However, during the first half of the twentieth century, the intelligentsia shifted hard to the radical left, with many either joining or becoming associated with the Communist Party and its internationalism by the late 1930s/early 1940s.

    Therefore, the "brake" that the labor movement had once placed on open borders in Australia was let loose.

    Added to that problem, Australia had once relied both militarily and economically on the UK. It was therefore relatively easy for the elites to go with the idea of Australia remaining a British nation.

    But when that alliance foundered after the fall of Singapore the elites turned away from that ideal.

    So another "brake" on open borders was let loose.

    And who was left to remain loyal in the 1940s? The left had become more strongly influenced by the ntelligentsia, many of whom were loyal to Moscow and many of whom were suffering from the "peak nihilism" that infested Western cultural generally at this time.

    Meanwhile the commercial classes had turned away from an orientation to the U.K. and were already starting to focus instead not only on emulating the American path of development but also on economic relations with Asia.

    And more generally the non-liberal influences on society had waned by this time within the Anglosphere.

    Of course, these liberal influences were very strong in the 1800s. But Anglo cultures in the 1800s were not only a product of this liberalism. The aristocracy in England made up a significant part of the elite and so aristocratic forms of culture were still part of the mix. The influence of classical culture on the elite was also strong. And up to about the 1870s or 80s, so too was Christianity.

    But all these non-liberal influences were shed during the course of the 1900s. What you had instead was a liberalism which was increasingly "going it alone" - without reference to non-liberal sources of value, with communism making up part of the mix amongst the intelligentsia (the exception to all this being the Catholic Church which held its ground until the 1970s).

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bill,

    It's true that in Christianity charity extends to those we are not closely related to.

    But that doesn't mean that we don't have particular relationships which come with particular duties and loyalties.

    This is officialy recognised within Catholic teaching (in the ordo caritatis).

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ericcs, you're hostile to a rediulous degree. Calm down. I'm not a 'progressive'. I'm raising an abstract issue to do with christianity and traditionalism, and whether christianity isn't too progressive in it's core philosophy to start with. The point that i'm questioning, that you seem to have adopted with great passion, which is OK as these are important issues, is that christianity is more concerned with the hierarchical foundaitons of a particular ethnic group than with a universal notion of mankind and a basic level of material equality. I'm not necessarily arguing for the latter!

    Anonymous:

    "I'm not a christian either it hasn't stopped me agreeing with Daybreaker of for Daybreaker agreeing with me either.
    That's the lie that everyone that is conservative or interested in what tradialists/conservatives/Christians have to say is a Christian themselves."

    Like I say above to Ericcs, I think i've been misinterpreted. I'm not Christian *but I'm not liberal*! I'm not attacking traditionalism i'm asking how a christian can attack liberalsim, from a philosophical point of view based on first principles! I'm floating the hypothesis that in order to combat the left you need to start from a position that is genuinely ON THE RIGHT on a philosophical level (i.e. more concerned with particular than the universal and abstract, re my main post).

    Mark,

    Thanks for your reply. I really like your blog, and this is the first time i've posted and sorry to immediately be antagonistic (on a philosophical level not political level). However I'm sure you can see the issues i'm getting at, as opposed to the previous 2 posters. I'd be interested in your thoughts in more detail on these issue if you would want to address them. Regards, Bill.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What Bill is saying is nothing new. It is a tenet of the 'Nouvelle Droite' school of thought and even that comes from earlier radical traditionalist thinkers and philosophers. I think it has much merit as a line of inquiry, divisive as it may be particularly when it leads certain scholars to advocate a return to paganism (think Hellenic-Roman philosophical type as opposed to neo-pagan Wotanism etc.).

    I for one am not a Christian (although raised so) but I see no point in engaging in bickering and blame laying. Processes have happened, hijacked if you will, and it is important to see where it went awry. If the processes are terminal then it may seem pertinent to abandon them.

    I for one have much time for how medieval and middle age Europe considered themselves in Christian reflection, considering their world was known as Christendom, before its schizophrenic splitting.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Bill@:
    This is a recurrent argument among traditionalist, and it is so divisive that I suspect it was cooked up by leftists to keep us fighting with one another. A sincere Christian would not abandon Christianity because he thought it had undesirable political consequences. He believes that Christian doctrines are true, and so believes them regardless of their consequences. But I don't think that it has the political consequences that you say it does.

    With respect to Christian universalism, I would say that Christianity is universalist in a very restricted sense, and that it does not in fact teach the brotherhood of man. It is universalist in the sense that its God is the God of all (not a local or tribal deity) and salvation is available to all, but when it speaks of "brotherhood" it means the brotherhood of Christians, not the brotherhood of man. The doctrine of the brotherhood of man emerged among philosophers in the 18th century, most of whom were rabidly anti-Christian. They hated Christianity because they thought it was untrue, but also because it divided men and was an obstacle to the brotherhood of man. The brotherhood of man is a post-Christian doctrine.

    Since you mention "first principles," I would suggest that one of the first principles of Christianity is that mankind is divided. Christ said that he came with a sword! He was speaking of the division between believers and non-believers, but once this division is admitted, it is easy to imagine other natural divisions in the human race.

    You are probably right to say that post-Christian humanism could only grow in Christian soil, but Christianity can't be blamed for the beliefs of people who have rejected Christianity. It is true that Christianity tends to temper ethnocentrism, but tempered ethnocentrism is not ethno-masochism. Christianity is perfectly compatible with healthy nationalism.

    ReplyDelete
  36. JMSmith,

    Thanks. You are perfectly correct in that no one holds religious beliefs because of their politican consequences. I'm sounding more polemical than I mean to. I was really asking these question, that indeed come straight from the 'new right' school of thinking, out of sheer theoretical interest to an obviously intelligent, extremely well-versed Christian traditionalist like Mark. For reasons that might be contrary to how my questions look. I'm increasingly interested in how to deduce right wing ideas to people without having to revert to beliefs (pre Christian or redical) that are so alien to our post modern culture that they seem insane.

    ReplyDelete
  37. You might want to delete the post at 11:48

    It's obscene.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Get Affirmative Action(tm) over here, stat!

    Chicago Charter School Boasts 100 Percent Graduation Rate for Third Consecutive Year
    http://www.afro.com/sections/news/afro_briefs/story.htm?storyid=75319

    I think we need a little diversity in this school, don't you think?

    You know, some get hispanics, Asians, wymen(tm)... perhaps bus in a few rednecks from the trailer park in the burbs.

    In the name of... you know... Diversity! (tm)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hello all,

    A while back, Mark's writings inspired me to put up a couple of posts on the relationship between Christian love and particular loyalties.

    http://orthosphere.org/2012/09/17/christianity-liberalism-and-love-of-the-other-part-i/

    http://orthosphere.org/2012/09/17/christianity-liberalism-and-love-of-the-other-part-ii/

    People often speak as if the two are difficult to reconcile, but in reality the opposite is the case. All love is particular, and it is a natural outgrowth of my love of my neighbor to wish to collectively affirm the Good with him through membership in a moral community.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Bill@:

    I don't think your comments were overly polemical. There certainly are Christians who espouse comprehensive universalism and claim that it is a Christian doctrine, so it is reasonable to ask whether the faith itself is to blame.

    I often ask myself your question as to how a traditionalist can voice his opinions in the contemporary world. I don't have a good answer, but do know that it must be with considerable subtlety. If you give it to people hot and strong, they will dismiss you as a dangerous crank. I suspect that it is best to proceed indirectly and plant questions in people's minds. A person is more likely to accept an answer when they feel they have come to it on their own then they are when the answer is simply given to them.

    Here's an example using the concept of charity that you mentioned earlier. "If charity is a duty, how do the poor discharge their duty to be charitable?" With any luck such a question might set a person to wondering who owes what to whom, and why?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mark,
    While I agree with what you have written about the past in a overall political and geopolitical sense. Yet there is still something missing. You see for people who view what is good for their race, ethnicity, and culture, see no left or right, just the best outcome for you know who.

    Take this remark by a film maker of the conservative Libertarian stripe, James Jaeger.

    " As John Cones points out in his many works, movies reflect their makers and since over 75 percent of the top executives at the studios are politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage, the movies that get green-lit reflect mainly this demographic's views on reality. And readers, PLEASE don't call me anti-Semitic for quoting John. I love Jews and feel they had a perfect right to establish the movie industry in Hollywood because Edison and his trust attorneys back East were a suppressive and greedy bunch. We are trying to tell part of this story in "TESLA - The Poet of Electricity" if anyone will listen to what I'm saying here."

    Read the rest here, great web site by the way. Oh in the rest of the article you'll find out how cheap this cleaver fellow makes his films, with modern technology. Now if Conservatives, TradCons, PaleoCons, Libertarian Cons, WN, started producing movies on mass, imagine the effect this would have on our culture and the current 4th estate being that Hollywood and the MSM

    http://thedailybell.com/28545/James-Jaeger-on-Gun-Control-Nikola-Tesla-and-the-Inevitability-of-the-Internet-Reformation

    Now compare the political leanings of a faux conservative, who was editor of the only conservative magazine in Australia, funny how he tried to push it to the left. Thankfully he resigned.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Manne

    Now if only Australia or the USA could do something like this to send a message.

    http://www.theage.com.au/world/israel-expels-south-sudanese-infiltrators-20120620-20odh.html

    Notice the pattern here.

    Australia is similar to Greece in one way, next door to Greece is Turkey. Next to Australia is Indonesia with 250 million Muslims. There is one race that loves white Aussies in the Indonesia local and that's the Fuzzy wuzzies.

    White Australian force, with our allies has prevented the fuzzy wuzzies genocide since the Japanese invasion, again in 50's from the Chinese and latter in the 60's from the Muslim Indo Chinese, finally back in 2000 in East Tiomr from the Muslims again.

    This is just our politicians and military men drawing a line in the sand, to form a bulwark, against the Asian hordes for our own benefit as a nation and peoples. Though I must say the last Timor did involve Gas and oil, which paid for the peace keeping adventure. Average Joe people do not think like this, nor understand it, yet that is the reality.

    If you look beyond the veil even at our own race and ethnicities and those on the fringe, you'll find who has benefited from our cultural and future civilisation-al collapse. It certainly wasn't the Christian faith or it's followers. Now why would that be?

    I guess I should look on the bright side, those who oppose us, don't breed enough.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Our northern neighbours and their backers China know what they want for their peoples prosperity.

    Read this Asian Supremacist screed, we always need an enemy to forget our squabbles to unite as a people, so perhaps it could be a good thing. Then again WW1 and WW2 were not really good for us demographically, so who would this new cold war benefit?

    http://www2.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/09/07/australia-s-destiny-asian-century-part-1-2.html

    Then there's this, see even the Chinese mainland and Diaspora has it together, for their races best interests.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/14/asia-will-resist-us-efforts-to-contain-china-says-/?page=all

    ReplyDelete
  43. Bill,

    The question you ask is a critical one, in my opinion. Because religion pertains to questions of the soul, it matters a great deal how religion is understood. If it's understood to mean something like contemporary liberal Christianity, then our first duty is to help Muslim refugees settle in countries like Australia, even if that means the long-term de-Christianisation of society and something like the genocide of European peoples.

    Does Christianity really commit us to this outcome? Obviously, I don't think so.

    I've made various arguments explaining why at this site and Bonald has made a sophisticated explanation on the issue at The Orthosphere (see the links he has supplied above).

    Here's another thought that occurs to me now, though.

    Most of those seeking to immigrate to countries like Australia or the U.S. do so, not because they have no life elsewhere, but in order to improve their material standard of living.

    Right liberals see this as highly virtuous as they see the point of life in terms of self-realisation through the market (of being self-made through the market). Economic immigrants are thought to be making a stronger commitment to this process of being self-made through the market than are natives.

    But should a Christian really be as strongly committed to economic migration as is a right liberal?

    I don't think so, as this is putting material goods above spiritual ones, something that the New Testament is set strongly against.

    What matters in the New Testament is not the process of gathering worldly riches, but the quality of faith.

    So the question is this. Should a Christian really help to destroy spiritual goods (the connecting of a person to the transcendent through membership of a particular, historic human community) in the pursuit of material goods (i.e. helping Tamils into the shopping malls of Melbourne rather than those, say, of Madras)?

    ReplyDelete
  44. This is --> PURELY SPECULATIVE <--. Don't take this as an attempt to put forth an important opinion; I sure don't.

    For a Christian, a lot might depend on how you understand Matthew 28/19:

    "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

    (NRSV)

    If this is understood exclusively as meaning to baptize individuals taken separately from different nations, that is compatible with betraying to their destruction all such nations. (Except Israel, which has a continuing, non-superseded special deal.) It's a "God hath no love of oxen" sort of thing, with the non-Jewish nations as the oxen.

    If this verse is taken to include the idea of baptizing nations, which at least in this translation looks like a natural aspect of Jesus' words, then conniving at their destruction is pretty much out of court. They are baptized to the Lord, each in the sort of way that Israel is, and therefor each nation that has at some time reasonably been seen as "a Christian nation" (like Australia, or America, or England) is no more meat for the foxes from the point of view of legitimate priests than the people of Israel is for legitimate rabbis.

    Given the continuing covenant with Israel, there is no question of the Bible being "universal" in the sense of not having a racial and national agenda. It does have such an agenda. The question is only whether any other nations than Israel get to be part of such an agenda. Jesus opinion here seems to me to be "universal" in that all nations are called to such a covenantal relationship - not "universal" in the sense that all except Jews are reduced to the status of atomized individuals with no linking relationship bigger than the nuclear family and smaller than "all Christians".

    There are more implications. A nation in the Bible is defined racially, that is in terms of kinship and descent, with Israel as the preeminent example of course. It is not defined, for example, as land, regardless of who occupies it. The desired continuity is of peoples sharing common ancestry. So it is no good to say that the British Isles or America or the continent and island of Australia will still be here, it's merely that different people will occupy it.

    Jesus speaks in terms that might imply collective judgment, that is on cities, and the Bible often speaks of collective judgment. Destruction is consistently spoken of in a negative way, as implying an adverse judgment by the Lord. National continuity, on the other hand, is positive, implying divine mercy.

    I do not know of a case where the Bible speaks of blessed nonexistence for nations, saying something like: they did the right thing in the eyes of the Lord, and for their reward they are vanishing (or have vanished), they are scattered and do not know each other, they have blended away their uniqueness, their chains of "begats" are all broken, and they would not know their ancestors, not would their ancestors know them. In terms of Biblical thinking, that could only be a terrible curse. And as a terrible curse it necessarily would reflect an adverse judgment.

    Now, is it the role of the churches and the clergy to bring about a terrible curse on the nations baptized by Jesus' command and untrusted to their care, a curse so severe that it necessarily condemns those nations and the quality of the advice they were getting from the churches and their clergy?

    Or is it some part of the role of the churches and the clergy to do what they can to protect the baptized nations from misbehavior, unfavorable judgment and vanishing away?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Consider also that Christianity, has, collectively, a great historic responsibility. In power, it made war on all the traditional Western pre-Christian religions, and tore up and destroyed as far as it could all the rites and "pagan" customs by which the nations it took over sustained themselves. It did this, practically speaking, for the whole White race. It was and is like a spiritual super-AIDs, destroying the immune system and condemning the national victims to slow, ugly deaths by opportunistic infections. With this all-important difference: it supplied those deprived of their previous national immune systems with its own, hopefully superior, immune system.

    Thus, according to its self-understanding, Christianity did not make war on the good. Everything good was preserved, as well as it could be (for example with beautiful temples converted to churches) or replaced with something better.

    Liberal, modern, "anti-racist" Christianity has changed the deal. There is now no Christian national immune system for any white nation, and liberal Christians with a proud passion for overthrowing the white Christian male as a symbol of "authority" and "the establishment" actively foster the dilution and "multicultural" destruction of once-Christian nations. Actually, all of them, that are white.

    Chronic mass immigration plus forced integration and assimilation means the wiping away of the races and nations that are subjected to it, practically speaking, the white race and all historically white nations. That is genocide.

    That is what "anti-racist" modern liberal Christianity is conniving at, or collaborating with, or at very least not opposing, although Christianity has a great responsibility to oppose it. That's a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Bill: You're saying Jesus would have been more concerned with nihilism towards an existing order than with breaking bread with people?
    -
    This implies a dichotomy. On one side, whites are identified with "an existing order" toward which nihilism may be appropriate or at least allowable. The other option is "people" in a context where they would be contrasted with the whites, that is the "people" would be non-white.

    That is the left-liberal take on race in a nutshell.

    White = power structure, not legitimate authority, not authentic, not really human, nihilism is appropriate. To the ash-heap of history with you!

    Non-white = real, legitimate, human, not identified with a "power structure" but liberation and the future. Power to "the people," right on!

    And in this picture, you put Jesus implicitly picking the side of "the people" and breaking bread with them, and on the other hand countenancing "nihilism" (I agree that that is an appropriate word, considering what we are discussing) toward the "existing order" - that is to say the white race and every white nation that put its trust in Jesus.

    That is not a good shepherd. That is an exterminator.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I don't mean that the implications in what Bill said say anything about his own attitudes. He was just doing a thought experiment.

    I do suggest this illustrates how pervasive left-liberal racial thought is. It is so much in the air that its tropes jump instantly into the minds even of people who are deliberately conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  48. But should a Christian really be as strongly committed to economic migration as is a right liberal?

    You may note that the US Catholic catechism asserts that economic migration is a natural right and that Christians have an obligation to facilitate this:

    "2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

    Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

    We have to let them in and open our wallets, and they have to be "grateful". Feh, what a deal.

    Such pernicious Leftism has no basis in actual Christian doctrine, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Daybreaker,

    Excellent comments, thank you. Your comment of 5:34 reads well, in the sense of accurately describing the Bible and drawing a logical conclusion. I think you make an important observation in it.

    JP,

    Interesting. It's there in black and white: the idea of economic migration as a natural right. I wish I could feel great surprise, but I've accepted that parts of the Church have lost the way.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I tried to find a justification for the "natural right to economic immigration" part of the catechism and found this from Cardinal Roger Mahoney:

    "The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the dignity and rights of the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate"

    Again, there is the idea of a right to immigrate. And, again, it seems to be based on a non-traditional understanding of charity - of caritas.

    ReplyDelete
  51. One further comment on Cardinal Roger Mahoney.

    He has a personal blog. From August to the present time he has written 12 posts. All of them except one focus on the cause of Hispanic immigration.

    I find that extraordinary, that someone professing to live a religious life should be so oriented. It is Catholicism as a commitment to liberal causes.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Mark Richardson, thanks.

    Regarding my comment of 5:34, I did not mean to make an important statement, in the sense of something to bind others, because I know I haven't the right. No play-a the game, no make-a the rules.

    Christians must decide for themselves what their scriptures mean. (Or if they choose, tacitly for example by accepting the term "Judeo-Christian" in common use and by letting the rabbis be influential in Catholic education since Vatican II, they can legitimately be swayed by others. Christians have the right to listen.)

    Jesus warned his disciples strongly against the leaven of the rabbis and of Herod, and Jesus was, to say the least, unusually canny. His reference to his miracles of bread show he was aware that seemingly small intellectual influences can have vast transformative effects. Warning his disciples against the influence of the rabbis and of Herod (rather than warning them simply against influence by random individuals of all non-Christian kinds, which he could have) shows he was aware of the power of bias. Herod had and rabbis still have interests in tension with the interests of Christians and Christianity, and consequently an intellectually adversarial relationship with Jesus. Whatever they said, even (or especially) if it seemed clever, would have a tendency to influence Jesus' followers contrary to Jesus' own wishes. Therefore it was necessary for Jesus' followers to be intensely vigilant against the influence of the rabbis and of Herod. And this was a big deal. Jesus was aware of a lot that his disciples did not understand; he had a lot to cover and a short life; he was not wasting his time on parables about ephemera.

    I'd like it if that interpretation of Jesus' instruction on intellectual leaven puts me in the clear, but it doesn't. I have a bias too. My loyalty to is to whites, and to historically white nations. Everything I say will have a tendency to preserve them, whether it is in keeping with Jesus thinking or not. If I thought advocating a return to Zeus or Jupiter Optimus Maximus was the best way to save the white race and white nations from destruction, I'd be advocating that. Buyer beware.

    That said, and even being aware of the power of self-deception, my comment of 5:34 is what I really think now.

    I used to think that effective self-defense for the white race, white nations and even white families seeing a long term future was impossible on the basis of Christianity, as I thought it was so "universalistic" that it had only icy disdain for our survival, combined with implacable hostility to any other, rival, cause that would authorize our survival.

    I now think Jesus got it all right. In a very concise way, but he had a lot to cover and not much time, and prolixity leads to confusion too. I think the mistakes came later.

    But obviously Cardinal Roger Mahoney, with his single-minded passion for Hispanic immigration, is a better authority on Christianity than a random unbeliever, and the US Catholic catechism asserting that economic migration is a natural right and that Christians have an obligation to facilitate it contradicts me with decisive authority on a vital point. I've got no answer to that. Unlike my blog comment, the US Catholic catechism really is "an important opinion," meant to bind people and armed with authority to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Left liberals, in some but not all cases with non-white and non-Christian religious, ethnic and racial interests, have accepted and propagate an argument that the white race is a fraud and a conspiracy against the non-white races, that it is inherently racist and as such evil, and that racism, identified with the white race, must be gotten rid of. They advocate for every white nation (and only white nations) mass non-white immigration and forced integration and assimilation, which are the law now, and which inevitably will have the desired effect, in time.

    Authoritative figures in the religion of the only god that whites have ever historically accepted in common are on the side that left-liberals prefer. They are for the mass immigration. They are anti-racist, meaning anti-white. They are nihilistic not only toward the white race but toward white nations, and ultimately even toward white families that want a long term future, a continuing chain of generations like themselves genetically and culturally.

    I find it distressing that people entrusted with the role of the keeper of the consciences of nations are betrayers.

    It's like they want to be rebels in harmony with academic and fashionable thought. They want to be heroes, slaying "evils" (such as racism) as defined by the intellectual consensus of the "best" people.

    They're not entitled to be rebels. They're not supposed to be proud enemies of race, nation and kin. They're not supposed to be the underminers.

    They were supposed to be trustworthy guides in perpetuity for the descendants of people that accepted Christianity and believed that it would be good not just for them as individuals but for the future of their families, tribes and nations; for people who did not think that they were purchasing individual salvation at the price of collective obliteration.

    ReplyDelete
  54. No Mark,

    Go read the Bible and read about Jews and realize that whites are the only race that can stop anything.

    Asians are just there, and I'm with Hitler as he said in Mein Kampf that Asians are themselves just running on fumes supplied by whites.

    Defeat the White Christian Male and Rule the World...Asians will be more than happy to hold the keys.

    This is the battle between good and evil.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I assume the comment at Wednesday, 9 January 2013 1:27:00 PM AEDT will be deleted, and it should be.

    I'm not a big fan of Islamic influence, but Muslims were right when they got George W. Bush to rename the military response to 9/11 from "Operation Infinite Justice" to the (still dubious) "Operation Enduring Freedom") on the ground that only God gives infinite justice.

    The cause of any human group, even a vast group such as a race, is always finite. In conflict with other groups and disloyal members of the in-group, it is never pure "good" as opposed to pure "evil". We are only so good. We are always flawed and error-prone. We always have things on our conscience, especially when you are talking about big collectives like nations and races.

    Even if the white race, including all white nations, and in the long run including all white culture - art, architecture. drama, poetry, everything to small jokes - was wiped away, the loss would only be so much. Haiti continues to get by just fine, in its way, without the whites that once lived there. The world can do the same. (Though of course without being able to call on occasional aid from the white part of the world, which will be gone.)

    I question whether it's the job of Christians, especially Christian clergy, to bring these merely finite evils about. I think that's a reasonable thing to doubt.

    I don't think that Sampson is a good role model for the Christian clergy of white nations. I'd like it if they would stop mistaking the white race for something like a Philistine temple: a structure with no right to exist.

    And for Anonymous at Wednesday, 9 January 2013 1:27:00 PM AEDT:

    You say you want a revolution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the world
    You tell me that it's evolution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the world
    But when you talk about destruction
    Don't you know that you can count me out?

    ...

    But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
    You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I tried to find a justification for the "natural right to economic immigration" part of the catechism and found this from Cardinal Roger Mahoney

    Most often such statements are simply asserted, and the author doesn't attempt to justify them at all. It is simply assumed that all Christians believe this is true. If the author refers to Bible verses, the author is usually quite obviously projecting 20th century liberal views onto the Bible and interpreting it accordingly.

    One further comment on Cardinal Roger Mahoney. He has a personal blog. From August to the present time he has written 12 posts. All of them except one focus on the cause of Hispanic immigration. I find that extraordinary, that someone professing to live a religious life should be so oriented. It is Catholicism as a commitment to liberal causes.

    I had a coworker ten years ago who was a rock-ribbed conservative even by the standards of my conservative industry. He "got Jesus" and became the pastor at a local Protestant church, where he still is. Whenever I notice his name in the news, it was in connection with Hispanic immigration; since he became a pastor, he has written letters to the editor and marched in pro-amnesty parades. He also has a blog that contains numerous pro-immigration posts. It was astonishing to me that this suddenly became a central issue to him, and that he had flip-flopped so dramatically from conservative to liberal.

    I have not had the occasion to query him on the theological basis for his views, but I have no doubt he could cite verse after verse of the scriptures to support his progressive views. Such is the nature of modern "Christianity"...

    ReplyDelete
  57. Why should my comment be deleted Daybreaker?

    Admittedly I get a bit hot under the collar....

    But Mark writes as though the liberals want to get rid of White Christian Males because they are perceived as 'authority' or 'order' or whatnot...and Asians are not yet perceived that way so they are ignored for the time being.

    I don't think that's it. I Think This is So Much Deeper. It's good versus evil.

    Whites are imperfect, but overall, we have good souls. We always look at our actions and go 'You know, this ain't cool, this ain't right.'

    We're builders..imperfect...but we build and we do good things.

    Jesus came to Europe for a reason...because we had those abilities but I don't think the other races are there yet.

    Daybreaker's like my favorite poster but seriously, what I said was harsh, but hey...deal

    And u know what Asians...even Hitler was surprised by the cruelty that they did...For Realz...I'm sticking with whites!

    ReplyDelete
  58. In fact, I think what I said is the missing component and the reason why our side is losing.

    I really believe that whites are spiritually superior.

    I believe Christianity gives me the right to believe that.

    I believe whites are the warriors for good in the battle between good and evil, and many races are mere spectators in that battle who side with whoever is winning at the time.

    I think a lot of race realists and HBD people and the evolutionary people....they don't have this gut feeling...

    It's this feeling of spiritual righteousness that will lead us to victory, that will make us win against the bad guys...whether they be black opportunists, white traitors, or jewish enemies.

    So yeah...you can't ask that my comment be deleted

    I'm right. I'm hitting the nail on the head.



    ReplyDelete
  59. I think Mark is right, but only for one generation.

    Like of my friend this post reminds me of...this post describes his father...but it no longer describes the son.

    The fathers feel Christianity is some type of horrible authority...but the sons of such men then become Orks like in Lord of the Rings.

    They love authority, they feed off of authority, they happily pull ranks in Sauron's army.

    It's weird...It's hard for me to describe so I sound crazy...

    I think I've met the next generation and Ork is the only way to describe that generation's soul.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Possible objections to my speculation based on Matthew 28:19 :

    Objection: The NRSV translation is aberrant.

    Answer: It doesn't look aberrant. Here are alternatives. The same meaning is regularly available.

    http://bible.cc/matthew/28-19.htm

    For example:
    Douay-Rheims Bible
    Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

    Objection: the suggested interpretation of the NSRV translation is aberrant in view of the kind of thinking that prevails in other parts of the Bible.

    Answer: It doesn't look aberrant. Here are links to other parts of the Bible.

    http://scripturetext.com/matthew/28-19.htm

    Psalm 22:27,28 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before you...

    Kindreds as groups united by descent, the nation as a valid religious unit in the eyes of the Lord; that's what I'm talking about.

    That's not the main meaning; individual salvation is primary, and I'm not saying it isn't. I'm only suggesting that the national, collective, kinship level of baptism and salvation is a part of the message.

    Objection: the verse is a fraud inserted by Constantine.

    http://www.israelofgod.org/constantine.htm

    Answer: I am not qualified to discuss the Bible being a fraud. At all.

    And if it is, Christians have plenty to worry about other than whether racism / the "race problem" / whites should be eliminated. That part about "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is important too.)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous Thursday, 10 January 2013 6:33:00 PM AEDT: Why should my comment be deleted Daybreaker?
    -
    It wasn't my business to suggest what should be deleted. It's Mark Richardson's blog.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Jesus came to Europe for a reason...

    Israel is in Europe?

    Jews are white?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Daybreaker wrote:

    "Jesus speaks in terms that might imply collective judgment"

    I remembered that when I read the following from Pope Pius XI:

    "Nor in this connection is there any difference between individuals and communities whether family or State, for community aggregates are just as much under the dominion of Christ as individuals. The same Christ assuredly is the source of the individuals salvation and of the community's salvation"

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Nor in this connection is there any difference between individuals and communities whether family or State, for community aggregates are just as much under the dominion of Christ as individuals. The same Christ assuredly is the source of the individuals salvation and of the community's salvation"

    Oh, that's extremely clear! And worth a lot more than me saying it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The acceptable form of racism - vilifying white Anglo Australians:

    Race and Nation in the Media

    ReplyDelete
  66. Good link! Thanks, RD. Frank Salter is great.

    ReplyDelete