Which religious sect has been most detrimental to European preservation?

[Joe McCarthy]

Religion influences ideas, and is often the wellspring for them. Religion also drives historical events. For the purposes of this discussion I've included atheism in the poll, though I know atheists will balk at being considered religious.

[Joe McCarthy]

I've taken the liberty of adding atheism to the poll.

Note to moderators: Please delete the other thread. Thank you.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Judaism is where all the anti-white money and academia comes from.

Unitarians & new-agers are just as loopy, perhaps even more so, but have a lot less influence.

Catholicism is generally a liberal influence, but is not quite as crazy leftist as those others.

Modern day Lutheran and Anglican state-run churches are bad, and some of their counterparts in North America are almost as bad, but this is a recent happenstance of just the past generation or so. Generally positive influences for these churches over history.

Islam is only bad because it is the religion of third world immigrants. No Europeans have adopted this religion in any consequential numbers.

No real negative influences from Atheism or Calvinism, generally positive influences here.

[_______]

catholicism and islam.

judaism would have little influence without christianity

[billErobreren]

Judaism is where all the anti-white money and academia comes from.

Unitarians & new-agers are just as loopy, perhaps even more so, but have a lot less influence.

Catholicism is generally a liberal influence, but is not quite as crazy leftist as those others.

Modern day Lutheran and Anglican state-run churches are bad, and some of their counterparts in North America are almost as bad, but this is a recent happenstance of just the past generation or so. Generally positive influences for these churches over history.

Islam is only bad because it is the religion of third world immigrants. No Europeans have adopted this religion in any consequential numbers.

No real negative influences from Atheism or Calvinism, generally positive influences here.

I agree however Jews are more united by identity & ancestry, rather than religion the Jews I've met are often quite smart & many know better not follow this religion but stay united(can't say I blame them), & also very active in the liberal media

If it were an Option I'd pick "all of the above except for atheism" more people & civilizations have been destroyed in the name of deities than any other thing.

[BeerBaron]

I don't think there is much room for debate on this, it's clearly islam. From the crusades to the christian slaves at the hand of muslim islamists in north africa to modern day islam, I don't see how any other comes close.

[_______]

I don't think there is much room for debate on this, it's clearly islam. From the crusades to the christian slaves at the hand of muslim islamists in north africa to modern day islam, I don't see how any other comes close.

christianity weakened europeans

[Joe McCarthy]

I would say that the Jews that have been troublesome have been characterized by their Godlessness more than their yarmulkes. I'd also say that Islam's history of destruction, particularly in Byzantium, gives it the best demonstrable case, and I would say that Unitarianism as centered in New England has been perhaps the nexus of American socialism, feminism, pacifism, abolitionism, and so forth, though other heretics from orthodox Calvinism as found in Congregationalist congregations can be found as well. It's interesting, for example, that the main founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, was a Unitarian and the group's leading light for decades.

A Hasidic haberdasher, or genuine Jew, simply doesn't rate with these forces.

[Lithium]

Personally for me it is the Christianity as a whole. It destroyed a lot of pagan traditions and is also responsible for the death of thousand of people.

[The Ripper]

christianity weakened europeans

How so? Didn't it rather enable them to unite against exterior foes, such as Islam?

[SwordoftheVistula]

I would say that the Jews that have been troublesome have been characterized by their Godlessness more than their yarmulkes. I'd also say that Islam's history of destruction, particularly in Byzantium, gives it the best demonstrable case, and I would say that Unitarianism as centered in New England has been perhaps the nexus of American socialism, feminism, pacifism, abolitionism, and so forth, though other heretics from orthodox Calvinism as found in Congregationalist congregations can be found as well. It's interesting, for example, that the main founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, was a Unitarian and the group's leading light for decades.

A Hasidic haberdasher, or genuine Jew, simply doesn't rate with these forces.

Well if you are going to rate 'external threats associated with a religion' like Islam up there, you'd have to include Jews. I doubt the muslims who sacked Byzantium were especially observant.

The Unitarians are kooks, but few in number, even taking the ACLU alone as an example, the number of leading Jews in the organization will far outstrip Unitarians, and the amount of money from Jewish donors will far outweigh that of Unitarians.

[_______]

How so? Didn't it rather enable them to unite against exterior foes, such as Islam?

there would have been no need to engage with arabs etc if they had remained heathen

[BeerBaron]

How so? Didn't it rather enable them to unite against exterior foes, such as Islam?

She does bring up a good point, the great schism of the 11th century and protestant reformation of the 16th century hurt europeans since it turned christians against one another. There are also the issues between protestant and catholics. So christianity as a whole had its negatives, and wasnt nearly as important as the enlightenment.

[The Ripper]

She does bring up a good point, the great schism of the 11th century and protestant reformation of the 16th century hurt europeans since it turned christians against one another.

But she didn't bring that up, you did.


There are also the issues between protestant and catholics. So christianity as a whole had its negatives, and wasnt nearly as important as the enlightenment.

Important for what?


there would have been no need to engage with arabs etc if they had remained heathen

Well, they did not remain heathen, neither were they Europe's only Muslim enemy.

[_______]

Well, they did not remain heathen, neither were they Europe's only Muslim enemy.

exactly! if europeans had remained heathen, europe would be in a better state.

[The Ripper]

exactly! if europeans had remained heathen, europe would be in a better state.

So, disunited European heathens vs. organized and centralized Islam would have been a good thing? :confused:

[Hevneren]

Atheism isn't a religious sect. :rolleyes:

[_______]

So, disunited European heathens vs. organized and centralized Islam would have been a good thing? :confused:

i imagine they would have stayed in the desert and left us forest dwellers alone! ;)

but seeing as they are religion of the sword, perhaps not...

:D

either way, we'd have ultimately won...

[BeerBaron]

Important for what?



Why was the enlightenment important for Europe? You have to be joking

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

im to lazy, you can just read about it

[The Ripper]

Atheism isn't a religious sect. :rolleyes:

Many atheists seem to be lured in by religious sects and their prophets, though. Take Dawkins and his followers as an example.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Many atheists seem to be lured in by religious sects and their prophets, though. Take Dawkins and his followers as an example.

If that counts as a religion, so should 'multiculturalism' and 'global warming'

[Hevneren]

Many atheists seem to be lured in by religious sects and their prophets, though. Take Dawkins and his followers as an example.

Bending the definition of "religion" or "sect" doesn't change the fact that what you mention describes neither. It's comparable to calling fans of Star Wars movies a sect or religion. :rolleyes:

[_______]

If that counts as a religion, so should 'multiculturalism' and 'global warming'

metanarrative is the correct term :thumbs up

[_______]

:D
Bending the definition of "religion" or "sect" doesn't change the fact that what you mention describes neither. It's comparable to calling fans of Star Wars movies a sect or religion. :rolleyes:

they are 'cults' of sorts :D

[Tarja]

Islam, as they are currently vehemently and very obviously trying to destroy us. In Europe's history, I'm unsure.

[Pallantides]

pZ7JyfEuNFE

The Abrahamic religions.

[The Ripper]

Bending the definition of "religion" or "sect" doesn't change the fact that what you mention describes neither. It's comparable to calling fans of Star Wars movies a sect or religion. :rolleyes:

Didn't they make the Jedi a recognized religious group somewhere?

[_______]

Didn't they make the Jedi a recognized religious group somewhere?

there is also a church of spongebob squarepants :rolleyes:

[Hevneren]

Islam, as they are currently vehemently and very obviously trying to destroy us. In Europe's history, I'm unsure.

Islam has been a threat ever since the Moors invaded the Iberian peninsula, but Christianity has been a more persistent threat throughout the centuries.

[The Ripper]

Islam has been a threat ever since the Moors invaded the Iberian peninsula, but Christianity has been a more persistent threat throughout the centuries.

Without Christianity, there is no Europe.

[_______]

Without Christianity, there is no Europe.

i think i know what you mean, but please explain! :)

[The Ripper]

Why was the enlightenment important for Europe? You have to be joking

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

im to lazy, you can just read about it

Just answer the question, as you seemed to be implying that the enlightenment united Europeans more than Christianity did. When in actual fact the enlightenment brought about exactly the same kind of internal strife as the reformation did.


please explain! :)

It was Christianity that united Europe and that gave Europe its common & shared identity as "Christendom".

[supergiovane]

all the various christian sects with the evangelical message about loving your own neighbour like yourself, the good samaritan tale etc. are definitely the opposite of any ethnic and nationalist ideology. it's weird how many nationalists use religion as a device to preserve their own traditions when christianism is actually one of the furthest thing from nationalism.

[Hevneren]

Didn't they make the Jedi a recognized religious group somewhere?

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's a joke and not a real religion. Atheists have created a "religion" involving The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and have petitioned to get tax exemption and other privileges that religions have, in order to point out that religions have an unfair advantage other groups don't have.

The point is that Atheism isn't a religion. However, you can be Atheist and religious, because Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. You can therefore be an Atheist Buddhist, Jain, or you can be a Raelian, which believe that life was seeded here by intelligent aliens.

If Atheism was a religion, then you wouldn't have Atheists (although they are relatively few) who identify as Buddhists, Jains or Raelians.

_mZsCnHy3rA
:D

[Hevneren]

Without Christianity, there is no Europe.

I disagree. It would be a different Europe, but it would still be Europe. In fact, the name "Europe" itself comes from the pagan Greek goddess Europa. The Greeks invented the concept of Europe in the first place, and it was later expanded upon by the pagan Romans.

Christianity, a Middle Eastern and therefore foreign religion, has centralised Europe a great deal, but who's to say that it's a requirement that we should all be centralised? Isn't it rather obvious that centralisation isn't always a good thing, when we look at the European Union?

[Hevneren]

It was Christianity that united Europe and that gave Europe its common & shared identity as "Christendom".

Yes, but then came the infighting between various Christian sects. I wouldn't call that unity. In fact, Catholics and Protestants are still enemies in a place like Northern Ireland.

How genuine is this Christian unity, when you look at history?

[Kadu]

Yes, but then came the infighting between various Christian sects. I wouldn't call that unity. In fact, Catholics and Protestants are still enemies in a place like Northern Ireland.

How genuine is this Christian unity, when you look at history?


I don't agree completely with Ripper, however, Europe didn't exist as geopolitical entity before Christianity - as in the establishment of the Roman church -

[rhiannon]

catholicism and islam.

judaism would have little influence without christianity

Agree with this.

The history of Christianity is about as barbaric as the Extremist' vision of Islam today.....both of which are bad for European Preservation.

[Albion]

pZ7JyfEuNFE

The Abrahamic religions.

Agreed. Sadly modern Pagan reconstructions aren't up to much either, but at least they haven't had much negative impact unlike the religions of the Semites.

Christianity isn't all bad, it does teach important values, but it cannot be forgotten of the way it was imposed on Europe and all the trouble the different variations have caused.

[Tony]

But she didn't bring that up, you did.



So, disunited European heathens vs. organized and centralized Islam would have been a good thing? :confused:
Well, regardless who bringed this up first it's noticeable to note that both Christianity and Islam have been plagued from their beginnin by shisms.
Everyone who studied a bit of both knows the several eretical denominations that dealt with early Christianity (Aryanism, Marcionism, Donatism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism etc) and early Islam (Sunni, Shia, Zaidiyyah, Ismaili, Maliki etc)...
Sometimes scholars speculate what if Catholic have acctepted the ideas of say Donato or Marcione, now we would have a different kind of Church (don't wether better or worse).

Just to stress the fact that neither Islam nor Christianity were useful tools that helped their own kin to stand unite against the enemy (wich enemy we're talking about after all??)
Most times Muslims and Christians ended fighting among themselves :rolleyes2:


I don't agree completely with Ripper, however, Europe didn't exist as geopolitical entity before Christianity - as in the establishment of the Roman church -

Exactly, it was just the Middle East and the Med basin that existed back then, that was the ancient classical world, North Europe was somethin like "hic sunt blondies and gingers", it's only with the rise of Islam and its expansion all over the southern shore that we started to think in European terms.

[_______]

Well, regardless who bringed this up first it's noticeable to note that both Christianity and Islam were plagued from their beginnin by shisms.
Everyone who studied a bit of both knows the several eretical denominations that dealt with early Christianity (Aryanism, Marcionism, Donatism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism etc) and early Islam (Sunni, Shia, Zaidiyyah, Ismaili, Maliki etc)...
Sometimes scholars speculate what if Catholic would have acctepted the ideas of say Donato or Marcione, now we would have a different kind of Church (don't wether better or worse).

Just to stress the fact that neither Islam nor Christianity were useful tools that helped their own kin to stand unite against the enemy (wich enemy we're talking about after all??)
Most times Muslims and Christians ended fighting among themselves :rolleyes2:



Exactly, it was just the Middle East and the Med basin that existed back then, that was the ancient classical world, North Europe was somethin like "hic sunt blondies and gingers", it's only with the rise of Islam and its expansion all over the southern shore that we started to think in European terms.

sounds alright to me :p

[Loddfafner]

Wrong question.

Roman Catholicism: what would Europe be without the network of cathedrals and its efforts to bind a whole continent into one community? Yes it displaced and distorted much of our culture and held entire countries back for decades, but I suggest that the positives at least slightly outweigh the negatives. Hoe many of our indigenous gods were preserved as saints?

New Age-Eastern Religion: I almost checked this box, as New Agers are increasingly a threat to our Enlightenment achievements, but New Agers have played a role in finding, cherishing, and preserving megalithic monuments.

Calvinism: What would Europe be without the progress of Capitalism, thanks to the Calvinists, if we are to believe Weber.

Judaism: Perhaps it has displaced and diluted much of our indigenous identity but its habits of scholarship have been a major contribution.

Lutheranism or Anglicanism: Protestants helped Northern Europe transcend some of the limitations of Catholicism, although in the US many of its sects are holding us back.

Unitarianism: Emerson has helped us learn to handle modernity. Don't forget that he was Nietzsche's muse. As for the Unitarian movement more broadly speaking, it has provided a shelter and channel for misfits in overly Protestant communities. I doubt they much remember their Romanian roots.

Islam: Aside from some small Balkan pockets, it has not been a major player within Europe except through immigration, but there it is the quantity of immigration and its effect on labor markets and the cultural climate rather than the theological claims. It does threaten to displace us though, but as a symbolically external threat.

[The Ripper]

Europe didn't exist as geopolitical entity before Christianity

This is what I meant. The whole idea of Europe owes its existence to Christianity.

[Tony]

This is what I meant. The whole idea of Europe owes its existence to Christianity.

But it's been just a historical accident, Christianity became synonim of Europe when the Muslims armies took over the Mediterreanean southern and eastern shore thereby restricting the Christosphere to Europe only...

before that a lot of Church Fathers came from Middle East, Egypt, Anatolia, Maghreb etc Saint Clement came from Alexandria, Saint Augustine from Hippo, Numidia (today Algeria)

Christianity is a MiddleEast born religion, it's not a product of White European minds, face it.

Spread of early Christianity

http://adfinesterrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Spread-of-Christianity.gif

[Agrippa]

Definitely Calvinism and Judaism.

Even though they indeed contributed to cultural and economic progress in certain fields, there overall influence was and still is a catastrophy, probably even ruining the European, occidental culture and European racial base as a whole - worldwide, with its dangerous memetic poison.

At some point, the progress they PROBABLY initialised, though I think Europeans would have done well without those religious groups, should have been taken back to the true European spirit and their influence on society and culture stopped.

That didn't happen, now Europeans worldwide bleed for that, because they rot from the inside due to this memetic poison.

All other groups and sects had not the influence or were not as detrimental as a whole, never truly endangered Europeans as an entity (so far at least).

Islam was an external enemy, making it into certain parts of Europe, but in the end, it was stopped and never as dangerous as Judaism and its Christianised form, the Calvinist sects, especially those of England - because Calvinism as such was a problem from the start, but what was growing out of it in England was even much worse...

In the end, it all falls back to England and the Jews, that's a fact - partly due to their great influence and power, but also because of their basic principles.

I strongly recommend to read Sombart on the Jews and Capitalism. He wasn't right about everything, especially if talking about the "Jewish racial character and background", but his cultural and economic insights are a must have.

All in all, Calvinism and Judaism mustn't have been that detrimental, if at some point, I can just repeat it, the true European spirit would have regained control, taken the advantages produced by it in the form Capitalist structures and tame the beast again.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Now we are being eaten alive by the Liberalcapitalist beast and its master, the Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy.

Of those Anglos in the Plutocracy, the majority is still part of the Calvinist sects in the USA...

[hajduk]

Personally for me it is the Christianity as a whole. It destroyed a lot of pagan traditions and is also responsible for the death of thousand of people.

If there were no such thing as Christianity, we, greeks, serbians, wouldn't survive Ottomans, and we would be turks, or like albanians probably

[Argyll]

Catholicism has been bad, because of the whole chritianity thing, but I would say Islam and Judaism have been the worst for Europe. I believe Heathenry and the like are the best religions for Europe. At least Catholicism has made Europe into something recognizable, and the protestant versions of it: Lutheranism and Anglicansim. Presbyterians aren't that bad either. But I prefer a heathen majority over all.

[The Lawspeaker]

I misclicked but it's definitely Judaism and Islam.

[Óttar]

If there were no such thing as Christianity, we, greeks, serbians, wouldn't survive Ottomans, and we would be turks, or like albanians probably
If there were no Christianity, there would've been no Islam, thus no Saracens and no Ottomans.

[The Ripper]

But it's been just a historical accident, Christianity became synonim of Europe when the Muslims armies took over the Mediterreanean southern and eastern shore thereby restricting the Christosphere to Europe only...

It's interesting to speculate what Europe would be without Christianity. Would there even be any such geopolitical and cultural sphere? What would Russia be without it's Orthodoxy? The Irish without their Catholicism? The Prussians without their Protestantism?


before that a lot of Church Fathers came from Middle East, Egypt, Anatolia, Maghreb etc Saint Clement came from Alexandria, Saint Augustine from Hippo, Numidia (today Algeria)

Christianity is a MiddleEast born religion, it's not a product of White European minds, face it.

Spread of early Christianity

http://adfinesterrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Spread-of-Christianity.gif

Does that map mean that even the Roman Empire is somehow unEuropean? ;)

In many ways, the spread of Christendom in Europe was the spread of a "residual" Roman Empire. It is very hard for me to see the religion that shaped what we understand as Europe and which has been the religion of our ancestors for a millennia or more, as unEuropean.

[antonio]

I can help from intuitively attaching Atheism (ThirdReich more characteristical belief was a kind of Esoterism pre or postHeatenism) and NewAge-ExtremeOrient cults with European decadence. OTOH it's almost bizarre how one of the religions which had done more for European construction (as is Islam and its expansive Yihad) ranked the first on the poll.

Ps. Of course Shoah has something really massive to do with current circunstances, but for a minimum respect for those millions I didnt include Judaism: it was Hitler error by bringing too far the repressive measures against Jews. A special tax on them (as Arabs did with Christian in Spain during their rule) would have suffice.

[SilverKnight]

both Catholicism and Islam .

[El Palleter]

Catholicism is generally a liberal influence, but is not quite as crazy leftist as those others.The problem with internet forums is that they're literally plagued with fudging ignorant slobs (and no, after a while of experience I'd say not especially Americans...never mind you...just more vociferous).

Liberalism was born as staunchly anti-Catholic AND, mind you, as post-Protestant ("post-" meaning here following and influenced by, as usual.. ). I.e. NON CATHOLIC.

What resulted from the Second Vatican Council was a post-Reformation reformed Church...read protestantised or, to be politically incorrect, a mishmash of prods and Catholics that's...never mind.

What you all idiots are so confused about (and you are part of it) it's called Modernism and protestantism happens to be the source of it. Do some bloody good reading for a damned change before you beat your keyboards again.

[The Ripper]

The problem with internet forums is that they're literally plagued with fudging ignorant slobs (and no, after a while of experience I'd say not especially Americans...never mind you...just more vociferous).

Liberalism was born as staunchly anti-Catholic AND, mind you, as post-Protestant ("post-" meaning here following and influenced by, as usual.. ). I.e. NON CATHOLIC.

What resulted from the Second Vatican Council was a post-Reformation reformed Church...read protestantised or, to be politically incorrect, a mishmash of prods and Catholics that's...never mind.

What you all idiots are so confused about (and you are part of it) it's called Modernism and protestantism happens to be the source of it. Do some bloody good reading for a damned change before you beat your keyboards again.

I guess the American experience is a bit different, with Catholics traditionally being a Democratic, hence a 'liberal' demographic. I don't see any other possible reason for describing Catholicism as a liberal influence.

[Óttar]

Isn't there another thread on this topic? I said without Christianity, Islam would've never existed. Islam was influenced by the sects of Christianity in the Byzantine Empire.

Abrahamic religion as a whole has been the most destructive ideology to the world period.

[Peyrol]

Islam, of Course

http://blog.ilgiornale.it/foa/wp-content/photos/colosseo_roma.jpg

http://images.virgilio.it/sg/notizie1024/upload/rom/0003/romamusulmana_450.jpg

http://images.virgilio.it/sg/notizie1024/upload/mil/0001/milanomusulmana3_450.jpg

[Joe McCarthy]

Well if you are going to rate 'external threats associated with a religion' like Islam up there, you'd have to include Jews. I doubt the muslims who sacked Byzantium were especially observant.

The Unitarians are kooks, but few in number, even taking the ACLU alone as an example, the number of leading Jews in the organization will far outstrip Unitarians, and the amount of money from Jewish donors will far outweigh that of Unitarians.

Jews in the ACLU are probably about as religious as Leon Trotsky was. Which is rather the point. Even the Bolshevik regime closed down synagogues. It's not a fair comparison to rate these along the conquerors of Constantinople. Mehmet, in conformity with Islamic strictures, gave the Byzantines the option of conversion before storming the city, and once in, his troops began hacking at Christian icons, in accordance with their faith.

Unitarianism had the added effect of having morphed into Transcendentalism, which served up much of the intellectual output of Antebellum liberalism. Henry David Thoreau, for instance, was both a radical, pro-John Brown abolitionist and a fierce opponent of the war with Mexico.

[Joe McCarthy]

She does bring up a good point, the great schism of the 11th century and protestant reformation of the 16th century hurt europeans since it turned christians against one another. There are also the issues between protestant and catholics. So christianity as a whole had its negatives, and wasnt nearly as important as the enlightenment.

However lacking in unity Europeans were post-Reformation pales in comparison to the pagan era. Christendom instilled a sense of unity that diid not previously exist. A Pole, Sobieski, came to the defense of Austrians motivated in large part by religious unity. What unity existed between Slavic and Germanic paganism before Christianity?

[Transhumanist]

Spread of early Christianity

http://adfinesterrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Spread-of-Christianity.gif

Thanks for the map. One quibble, however. It does not include northeastern Mesopotamia. The first map below does.
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, a comment regarding the second map I have attached. "Nestorianism" is not Arabian in origin. Its penetration into Arabia was a result of Church of the East (now the Chaldean and Assyrian churches) missionaries from Seleucia-Ctesiphon (~Babylon-Sassanian capital), and Arbil (~Assyria-Asuristan province, Sassanid Empire).

[Don]

The problem with internet forums is that they're literally plagued with fudging ignorant slobs (and no, after a while of experience I'd say not especially Americans...never mind you...just more vociferous).

Liberalism was born as staunchly anti-Catholic AND, mind you, as post-Protestant ("post-" meaning here following and influenced by, as usual.. ). I.e. NON CATHOLIC.

What resulted from the Second Vatican Council was a post-Reformation reformed Church...read protestantised or, to be politically incorrect, a mishmash of prods and Catholics that's...never mind.

What you all idiots are so confused about (and you are part of it) it's called Modernism and protestantism happens to be the source of it. Do some bloody good reading for a damned change before you beat your keyboards again.


Amazes me that anyone can not be aware of these evident facts.

Human blindness is an infinite source of surprises and misteries.

Regarding the topic, If I don't remember bad, were catholic warriors who saved the neck of the whole europe for centuries (from Spaniard Chivalric Orders in Reconquista to Spaniard Tercios in Lepanto, to name a pair) from Islamic Knifes.

Interesting to notice that this time, when the catholicism is demonised (even by idiots who, in daring incongruence, call themselves "westerners") and weak as never, the Islamic Rats are invading us again with great virulence and nerve.

Human blindness...

[Ibericus]

Islam, of Course
http://images.virgilio.it/sg/notizie1024/upload/rom/0003/romamusulmana_450.jpg
What a mix, the Colisseum and hundreds of praying muslims...

[BeerBaron]

However lacking in unity Europeans were post-Reformation pales in comparison to the pagan era. Christendom instilled a sense of unity that diid not previously exist. A Pole, Sobieski, came to the defense of Austrians motivated in large part by religious unity. What unity existed between Slavic and Germanic paganism before Christianity?

I don't disagree with this, but I think it is a stretch to credit chiritianity as a whole for the rise of Europe to modern times. Though, it's contributions to cohesion from inception to the enlightenment are undeniable, I was just pointing out that there were negatives along with it. Overall it was a positive force throughout Europe, but it wasn't without it's downfalls, I think crediting christianity to the point of the protestant reformation is fair, that's why I didn't check christianity as having an overall negative impact on European preservation.

[Osweo]

In many ways, the spread of Christendom in Europe was the spread of a "residual" Roman Empire.

Absolutely. Even the terms in the hierarchy and organisation show this Romanitas. The West is the old hinterland of the Latin side of the Empire, and Orthodoxy is the mainland expansion of Byzantium.

Christianity started in the Med basin, but that's where all the civilisational stuff started. It's more important to see the space that was eventually filled. To my mind, this indicates that a Europe existed in potentiality, and Christianity was the big Idea that just happened to hold sway once the southern Civilisational model spread northward.

Something like Christianity was inevitable at some point, so it's foolish to wail about it. A phase we had to go through. But not something we should feel compelled to cling to, which is where I find too many are stumbling. Much of Europe has outgrown Christianity. This was always inevitable, and I refuse to countenance claims that we'll perish because of it. To force us back into it would be to deny what we are. We have to move onward and upward, overcoming our temporary present setbacks, and the Christian experience is an important part of what made us who we are now, and will inform our future development. But European values are greater than Christianity. When Near-Eastern civilisational traits were first brought into play on the northern shore of the Mediterranean, something unique was born. Rome took much from Greece, and this chain of transmission is unbroken. Each time, the alien was absorbed, digested and reformed into something quite different. Phoenicians, Egyptians and so on provided many of the forms, but the deeper content was peculiarly European, drawing on the way our ancestors had been made by their natural surroundings in our woods, fields and mountains.

I don't think it's TOO out of place to find a racial element in this, even. :suomut:

[Svipdag]

Not only to European preservation, but to Western civilisation.It is a primitive religion born in and of the Dark Ages. Its values reflect those of a time when life was "nasty, brutish, and short."

Exposing the culture of the west to Islam can only corrupt it. The values which we cherish most, freedom, compassion, love, are anathema to the spirit of harsh, cruel, bellicose Islam.

Oh, I know that every sura of the "glorious" Qur'an begins with the words "In the name of Al'lah [or, Ar-Rahman], the merciful, the compassionate........"
But a diligent search for that compassioin will reveal few examples, and those few are reserved for devout, if erring, Muslims ONLY .

There is little mercy and little compassion (none for infidels) to be found in the "glorious"Qur'an. It may be an artifact of the translation, but I doubt it, but the word "love" does not, to my knowledge, occur in the "glorious"
Qur'an. Throughout, it is alien, And therfore disruptive to our values.



"This is not my time; this is not my world; these are not my people."
Martin H. Francis

[Magister Eckhart]

Atheism isn't a religious sect. :rolleyes:

This is true; really it encompasses several: scientism, egoism, humanism, epicureanism, hedonism, materialism and a variety of other amoral, areligious movements that fill the void of "religion" for the soul of a man.

This is in fact why I have elected "atheism" as the most dangerous of religious sects, because it encompasses so many and presents such a terrifying united front against social and cultural survival.

The other major detriment, I would say, is Calvinism, which is at the root of all modern heresies either having produced a reaction against "Christianity" through its over-representation among Christians or by the creation of splinter groups that move further and further from Correct Belief. Calvinism is the very definition of the haereses perfidae: it is a sect that is the root of unbelief exactly because it is not itself unbelief. This is the danger that Tertullian and Aquinas both warn against in their commentary on heresies.

I also selected the other "new age eastern religion" but I don't stop at the Asiatic paganisms that have seeped into the West, since they are not the length and breadth of the hedonistic pagan movement (to be heavily contrasted with the Folkish heathen movement, which actually has cultural potential). We see druidic and Greek "revivals" as well as foreign Egyptian idols being worshipped by what are essentially sex-crazed hippies who are too pacifistic and moderate to take a strong stand like atheism, but instead fall into a different kind of atheism in the idolatry of the body and a sort of vague humanism combined with ritualistic incense-burning.

These are the most dangerous groups to Western Faustian Christianity, which was the core of our entire Civilisation from the very beginning to the very end.

[Kataphraktoi]

According to my religious beliefs, I am forced to vote for atheism - and it pains me to do so because I know many atheists, such as close friends, are good people. Christianity has shaped the bulk of European history, along with the compatible Greco-Roman and Germanic pagan philosophies and laws/social structures. Atheism has simply eaten away at this order. Islamic hordes have invaded and attacked Europe, but it was our strength in Christianity that repelled them. Judaism has been no real threat - it was the Age of Faith that saw to that, Jews were forced to behave. I know there have been a prominent amount of Jews in liberal and communist movements, but they were Jews by ethnicity alone for the most part (Marx, Trotsky et al), so religion wasn't really a factor, and they pushed for atheism and secularism.

I will also say that man is homo religiosus and if we surrender our Christian religion, others such as Islam or 'New Age-Eastern Religion' will simply fill the void.

Edit: I didn't realize it was a multiple-choice poll, otherwise I might've voted for New Age-Eastern Religion as well because pantheism is as much of a threat to Christianity as atheism is; and Calvinism with it's almost semi-atheistic rationalism.

[BeerBaron]

This is true; really it encompasses several: scientism, egoism, humanism, epicureanism, hedonism, materialism and a variety of other amoral, areligious movements that fill the void of "religion" for the soul of a man.

This is in fact why I have elected "atheism" as the most dangerous of religious sects, because it encompasses so many and presents such a terrifying united front against social and cultural survival.


There is no objective evidence to prove this statement, in fact, there is plenty of objective evidence that correlates with atheist nations being more peaceful, and more successful. Take Scandinavian countries, widely regarded as the most successful nations in the west in regards to education, living standards, health, women in gov and the workforce, and consistently rank at the top of the Human Development Index. These nations, as well as Japan, another peaceful, high ranking country are almost entirely atheist.

[Magister Eckhart]

There is no objective evidence to prove this statement, in fact, there is plenty of objective evidence that correlates with atheist nations being more peaceful, and more successful. Take Scandinavian countries, widely regarded as the most successful nations in the west in regards to education, living standards, health, women in gov and the workforce, and consistently rank at the top of the Human Development Index. These nations, as well as Japan, another peaceful, high ranking country are almost entirely atheist.

Yes, because material wealth and access to free sex and drugs definitely define a healthy culture. After all, look at how wonderfully nationalistic and culturally aware Scandinavians are. :rolleyes:

How anyone can believe atheism is a positive thing boggles my mind. There are two officially atheistic nations that immediately spring to mind: the USSR and the PRC, and neither are expressions of a healthy culture or society in their own lands any more than the materialistic, hedonistic form of atheistic scientism is in the West.

"Human Development Index". What an absurdity.

[BeerBaron]

Yes, because material wealth and access to free sex and drugs definitely define a healthy culture. After all, look at how wonderfully nationalistic and culturally aware Scandinavians are. :rolleyes:

How anyone can believe atheism is a positive thing boggles my mind. There are two officially atheistic nations that immediately spring to mind: the USSR and the PRC, and neither are expressions of a healthy culture or society in their own lands any more than the materialistic, hedonistic form of atheistic scientism is in the West.

"Human Development Index". What an absurdity.

Sarcastic commentary doesn't change objective evidence.

It always amazes me when religious people bring up the USSR and use this as an argument, while in the same sentence failing to mention Norway, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, and various other highly successful nations that are indeed, atheist.:rolleyes:

I don't know how you are measuring China's lack of success, considering their recent history, I, and many analysts consider them very successful.

It probably would surprise you to find out as well that according to the 1900 census, the USA was FAR LESS religious, half as much in fact. The USA didn't even become a highly religious nation until after WW2. Although that is yet another fact you will conveniently omit from you argument about what constitutes a "healthy" culture. Religious zealots usually ignore things like facts, and evidence and instead argue with emotion.

I do think the brand of humanistic, evangelical atheism is a problem though. The type that attacks religion on one hand, but gives islam a pass on the other, and thinks that all humans are equal. Such a revolting behavior is reminiscent of when communism was sold under the guise of equality. So, when talking about this kind of atheism I do agree with you, at least in part.

[SwordoftheVistula]

If there were no Christianity, there would've been no Islam, thus no Saracens and no Ottomans.


Jews in the ACLU are probably about as religious as Leon Trotsky was. Which is rather the point. Even the Bolshevik regime closed down synagogues.

The Jewish religion is what kept them separate for all those centuries of living in Europe. Otherwise, they would have long ago assimilated into whichever population they happened to live in. This living apart as a separate people is what led them to support multiculturalism, Marxism, etc.



Unitarianism had the added effect of having morphed into Transcendentalism, which served up much of the intellectual output of Antebellum liberalism. Henry David Thoreau, for instance, was both a radical, pro-John Brown abolitionist and a fierce opponent of the war with Mexico.

That was short lived, as far as influence goes. They lost out on the Mexico war issue, and after Reconstruction ended, the South pretty much went back to the way it was before the war, until the 1950s when the Jewish led 'civil rights movement' changed everything.


There are two officially atheistic nations that immediately spring to mind: the USSR and the PRC, and neither are expressions of a healthy culture or society in their own lands

What's wrong with the PRC? It's on course to be the most powerful country in the world.

As regards Catholicism, it clearly is a liberal influence and has been for a long time. The whole 'social justice' movement, opposition to any form of eugenics, and the longest advocates for immigration in the US and probably other countries as well. Not only today do Catholic bishops continually press for more immigration and argue against any effort to enforce immigration laws, but even a century ago or more they were pulling the same shit, for example here we have Catholic bishops campaigning against a law proposed in 1915 which would have made a literacy test for immigrants and kept the illiterates out: http://archives.lib.cua.edu/res/docs/education/immigration/pdfs/Denounce-Literacy-Test.pdf and http://archives.lib.cua.edu/res/docs/education/immigration/pdfs/Indignation-at-Vatican.pdf

Not to mention, as soon as we got a Catholic President, all the major social changes which followed on the heels in the 1960s. JFK is even today touted as a hero by the ADL which republished his book (http://www.adl.org/immigrants/introemk.asp) advocating for the end of racially based immigration laws.

Pulling the same thing in Britain, the Catholic church condemned the BNP (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=29305), and probably the same in other countries.

Going back further in history, you have attacks on the Dutch and English and the 30 years war, and a general opposition to national sovereignty and self rule of peoples.

[Magister Eckhart]

What a mix, the Colisseum and hundreds of praying muslims...

Both portray cultural ruins; I don't see much of a contrast in that picture.


Sarcastic commentary doesn't change objective evidence.

There is no objective evidence; you cite a "standard of living" and "Human Development Index" based on the quantification of human happiness and fulfilment, both of which are spiritual things that cannot be quantified. You can only quantify material: unemployment, GDP, and the amount of stuff a man can own, the number of females he can freely bed, the amount of moral rules he no longer has to abide.

The sarcasm is a response to the pure absurdity to be found in the assertion that hedonism, materialism, greed, and selfishness somehow represent human "development" or a mythical "progress" provided by the worship of science and money. What you are highlighting as positive aspects of atheistic societies are exactly those things we have to blame for the collapse of our entire civilisation. What can I do with such utter nonsense as that but laugh and pity your ignorance?

[BeerBaron]

There is no objective evidence; you cite a "standard of living" and "Human Development Index" based on the quantification of human happiness and fulfilment, both of which are spiritual things that cannot be quantified. You can only quantify material: unemployment, GDP, and the amount of stuff a man can own, the number of females he can freely bed, the amount of moral rules he no longer has to abide.

The sarcasm is a response to the pure absurdity to be found in the assertion that hedonism, materialism, greed, and selfishness somehow represent human "development" or a mythical "progress" provided by the worship of science and money. What you are highlighting as positive aspects of atheistic societies are exactly those things we have to blame for the collapse of our entire civilisation. What can I do with such utter nonsense as that but laugh and pity your ignorance?

There is no way to measure "spiritual fulfillment," and you are just assuming that religious nations are happier because they have this so called spiritual fulfillment. The absurd nature of your logic cannot be overstated and is a common theme in those who conform to a particular brand of dogma.:rolleyes:

I probably shouldn't point out that the most religious nations are also the most violent, no doubt a consequence of their "spiritual fulfillment."

You need a time machine because you belong in pre-enlightenment Europe, hunting witches or exorcising demons, I think those would be your ideal career.

[Magister Eckhart]

There is no way to measure "spiritual fulfillment," and you are just assuming that religious nations are happier because they have this so called spiritual fulfillment. The absurd nature of your logic cannot be overstated and is a common theme in those who conform to a particular brand of dogma.:rolleyes:

I probably shouldn't point out that the most religious nations are also the most violent, no doubt a consequence of their "spiritual fulfillment."

You need a time machine because you belong in pre-enlightenment Europe, hunting witches or exorcising demons, I think those would be your ideal career.

You're right. There is no way to measure spiritual fulfilment - any more than there is a way to measure true happiness. I'm glad to see we can agree that any attempt to measure human development, therefore, is completely absurd.

You say "religious nations" as if this says something about religion - but has it never occurred to you that atheistic nations, all hedonistic and acultural, are simply too wrapped up in pleasure to care about anything that matters enough to do violence on its behalf? You haven't defeated human evil, you've merely redirected it in self-destructive ways instead of other-destructive ways. The violence done against integrity, against honour, against the spirit are infinitely more dehumanising than any physical violence done by any man.

Your cartoonish understanding of Europe before the rise of the Enlightenment and the scientific positivism that gave us the worst acts of spiritual and physical violence in Western history only betrays what a childish, spoon-fed version of history you espouse. It's disgusting to see someone who claims to care about our civilisation speak of the Enlightenment as if it actually enlightened anyone, to regard our ancestors who gave us a path to true peace never followed as barbaric and primitive "witch-hunters". I won't bother teaching you the history of how the Roman Inquisition saved hundreds of thousands of accused "witches" from the death secular authorities would have dealt them, or the number of canonised saints of your false scientistic religion were merely agents provacateur looking for a fight, and cried when they got one. Why waste my breath on someone who would believe the nonsensical claim that the death of God has somehow ended violence, after watching secular states encouraging "virtues" like libertine morality and liberalism plunge Europe into the worst fratricide it has ever seen?

Let's stop mincing words about religion, though, and get to brass tacks: it's not religion you have a problem with, it's Christianity and it's morality, both mainstays of Western Culture. It's not "religion" as a whole that atheists can ever purport to have evidence against: it's the West itself, and the single pillar that forms the core of the whole culture our ancestors built from Charlemagne right through to Luther. Christianity is your enemy, because you cannot tolerate the Truth that it preaches that men are violent, evil creatures who can only destroy themselves or each other without faith. For centuries, men have slaughtered each other and done violence to each other's homes and children, while men of God could do nothing but watch and pick up the pieces afterwards - but at least there were in those days men of God to pick up the pieces, unlike in the society you canonise and glorify, in which the only escape from the void men create through hedonism and selfishness is suicide. But, indeed, what matters it that suicide rates have sky-rocketed since the dawn of your Golden Age? This clearly says nothing about the quality of life the atheistic society provides to its denizens. After all, they're only killing themselves, so what does it matter?

You disgust me. Your foolishness and your inhumanity speak volumes to the kind of human being - if such a phrase can even be used in this case - that the Enlightenment has produced, vain and pleasure-seeking, animalistic and amoral. It is a dark beast indeed that inhabits this brave new world.

[Joe McCarthy]

The Jewish religion is what kept them separate for all those centuries of living in Europe. Otherwise, they would have long ago assimilated into whichever population they happened to live in. This living apart as a separate people is what led them to support multiculturalism, Marxism, etc.
.

The trouble with Jews though has been in their renunciation of Judaism. The gulags, the Cheka, etc., were not manned by rabbis, and indeed Lenin regarded rabbis as enemies and reactionaries. Had they remained true to Judaism they wouldn't have become atheistic communists.

And while I agree that ethnic Jews were heavy in the ranks of civil rights activists (David Horowitz placed it as high as 50 percent of the total), there again you have a case of very secular, nominal Jews doing the dirty work. Contrast that with the liberal but religious Christians also active in the movement. As Rabbi Daniel Lapin has said, the religion of most Jews is not Judaism but liberalism, and very often it is atheistic liberalism. Orthodox Jews are and have been conservative politically.



That was short lived, as far as influence goes. They lost out on the Mexico war issue, and after Reconstruction ended, the South pretty much went back to the way it was before the war,

What I'm getting at is that American liberalism is indigenous to the US, only to be reinforced later by immigrants, including, yes, Jews. The nexus of decline started in New England. Jews and others just joined an already existing movement, which fortunately until recently lacked enough strength to attain ideological hegemony.

[BeerBaron]

You're right. There is no way to measure spiritual fulfilment - any more than there is a way to measure true happiness. I'm glad to see we can agree that any attempt to measure human development, therefore, is completely absurd.

You say "religious nations" as if this says something about religion - but has it never occurred to you that atheistic nations, all hedonistic and acultural, are simply too wrapped up in pleasure to care about anything that matters enough to do violence on its behalf? You haven't defeated human evil, you've merely redirected it in self-destructive ways instead of other-destructive ways. The violence done against integrity, against honour, against the spirit are infinitely more dehumanising than any physical violence done by any man.

Your cartoonish understanding of Europe before the rise of the Enlightenment and the scientific positivism that gave us the worst acts of spiritual and physical violence in Western history only betrays what a childish, spoon-fed version of history you espouse. It's disgusting to see someone who claims to care about our civilisation speak of the Enlightenment as if it actually enlightened anyone, to regard our ancestors who gave us a path to true peace never followed as barbaric and primitive "witch-hunters". I won't bother teaching you the history of how the Roman Inquisition saved hundreds of thousands of accused "witches" from the death secular authorities would have dealt them, or the number of canonised saints of your false scientistic religion were merely agents provacateur looking for a fight, and cried when they got one. Why waste my breath on someone who would believe the nonsensical claim that the death of God has somehow ended violence, after watching secular states encouraging "virtues" like libertine morality and liberalism plunge Europe into the worst fratricide it has ever seen?

Let's stop mincing words about religion, though, and get to brass tacks: it's not religion you have a problem with, it's Christianity and it's morality, both mainstays of Western Culture. It's not "religion" as a whole that atheists can ever purport to have evidence against: it's the West itself, and the single pillar that forms the core of the whole culture our ancestors built from Charlemagne right through to Luther. Christianity is your enemy, because you cannot tolerate the Truth that it preaches that men are violent, evil creatures who can only destroy themselves or each other without faith. For centuries, men have slaughtered each other and done violence to each other's homes and children, while men of God could do nothing but watch and pick up the pieces afterwards - but at least there were in those days men of God to pick up the pieces, unlike in the society you canonise and glorify, in which the only escape from the void men create through hedonism and selfishness is suicide. But, indeed, what matters it that suicide rates have sky-rocketed since the dawn of your Golden Age? This clearly says nothing about the quality of life the atheistic society provides to its denizens. After all, they're only killing themselves, so what does it matter?

You disgust me. Your foolishness and your inhumanity speak volumes to the kind of human being - if such a phrase can even be used in this case - that the Enlightenment has produced, vain and pleasure-seeking, animalistic and amoral. It is a dark beast indeed that inhabits this brave new world.

The human development index is a useful tool, as it points to education, health ect ect. You are the only one who doesn't want to use it as a measure of a nations success, and it's because it hurts your argument.

Right, well insults aside I actually credited christianity for the cohesion it developed among those in Europe before the enlightenment, at no point did I say it was worthless or didn't contribute, in fact I specifically stated that up until the enlightenment it was a positive force, even for the downfalls it caused. So now you are just flat out making shit up to one up your side of the argument.

I agree we should stop mincing words, and you could stand to be a little more concise instead of pretending you are writing a sermon. I never said I have a problem with Christianity or morality, here you are yet again making shit up and putting words in the mouths of others.

The fact that you correlate Christianity or any religion for that matter with being moral is hilarious, and a common tactic among the religious. Last I checked no one proved the existence of any super natural being, therefore the Divine Command Theory, doesn't apply.

Right you are leaving one important fact about suicide rates, well actually a few important facts. In the time periods you seem to glorify people didn't live very long, and autopsies weren't even done which makes establishing a cause of death more inaccurate. So your suicide argument is stupid, at best.

You disgust me as well, not only are you a pseudo intellectual, who puts words in the mouths of others when it is convenient for your argument, you are also a throwback to the good ol days of witch hunts.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I get what you're saying, Joe. I just don't think the religiosity of individual jews who were active in leftist/anti-western causes is relevant, since it's the existence of the jewish religion which led them to the position of becoming what they are now.

[Joe McCarthy]

I get what you're saying, Joe. I just don't think the religiosity of individual jews who were active in leftist/anti-western causes is relevant, since it's the existence of the jewish religion which led them to the position of becoming what they are now.

I think the problem is liberalism-atheism-socialism, not so much Judaism. For whatever reason Jews post-Enlightenment have been unusually prone to take to these destructive causes. I guess why is a question to ponder in some detail, though I think I understand it in part. Another question is would they have become a problem had they remained pious Jews?

[Agrippa]

I get what you're saying, Joe. I just don't think the religiosity of individual jews who were active in leftist/anti-western causes is relevant, since it's the existence of the jewish religion which led them to the position of becoming what they are now.

That's absolutely correct. Just read Sombart:

http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/sombart_werner/Jews_and_modern_capitalism/sombart_jews_capitalism.pdf

Remind you, as for his racial and genetic ideas-theories, he is sometimes rather on the wrong track, but the many proofs he delivers that it is the Jewish religion which in itself IS Liberalcapitalism in a way, and how this influenced Calvinism too, is just a great piece of work overall, with many valuable quotes.

From the text:


Three reasons have actuated me in devoting a special chapter to the
consideration of the religion of the Jewish people and the demonstration
of its enormous influence on Jewish economic activities. First, the Jewish
religion ca be fully appreciated in all its bearings from the economic
standpoint only when it is studied in detail and by itself; secondly, it
calls for a special method of treatment; and thirdly, it occupies a position
midway between the objective and the subjective factors of Jewish
development.


Now, if Puritanism has had an economic influence, how much more
so has Judaism, seeing that among no other civilized people has religion
so impregnated all national life. For the Jews religion was not an affair
of Sundays and Holy Days; it touched everyday life even in its minutest
action, it regulated all human activities. At every step the Jew asked
himself. Will this tend to the glory of God or will it profane His name?
Jewish law defines not merely the relation between man and God, formulates
not merely a metaphysical conception; it lays down rules of
conduct for all possible relationships, whether between man and man or
between man and nature. Jewish law, in fact, is as much part of the
religious system as are Jewish ethics. The Law is from God, and moral
law and divine ordinances are inseparable in Judaism.1 Hence in reality
there are no special ethics of Judaism. Jewish ethics are the underlying
principles of the Jewish religion


We are told, for example, of some of the Spanish Ministers of Finance,
bankers and court physicians that they devoted to the study of the Holy
Writ not only the Sabbath day but also two nights of each week. In
The Jews and Modern Capitalism/137
modern times old Amschel Rothschild, who died in 1855, did the same.
He lived strictly according to Jewish law and ate no morsel at a stranger’s
table, even though it were the Emperor’s. One who knew the Baron well
says of him that “he was looked upon as the most pious Jew in all
Frankfort. Never have I seen a man so afflict himself — beating his
breast, and crying to Heaven — as Baron Rothschild did in the synagogue
on the Day of Atonement. The continual praying weakens him so
that he falls into a faint. Odorous plants from his garden are held to his
nose to revive him.”9 [Sombart in the German text quotes this as an
occurrence on the Sabbath. It is obvious that the description refers to
the Day of Atonement. — Trans.] His nephew William Charles, who
died in 1901 and who was the last of the Frankfort Rothschilds, observed
all the religious prescriptions in their minutest detail. The pious
Jew is forbidden to touch any object which under certain circumstances
has become unclean by having been already touched by some one else.
And so a servant always walked in front of this Rothschild and wiped
the door-handles. Moreover, he never touched paper money that had
been in use before; the notes had to be fresh from the press.


Look through Jewish literature, more especially through the Holy
Writ and the Talmud, and you will find, it is true, a few passages wherein
poverty is lauded as something higher and nobler than riches. But on the
other hand you will come across hundreds of passages in which riches
are called the blessing of the Lord, and only their misuse or their dangers
warned against. Here and there, too, we may read that riches alone
do not necessarily bring happiness, other things are essential in addition
(such as health, for example), that there are “goods” (in the broadest use
of the word) more valuable or as valuable as riches. But in all this
nothing is said against riches; and never is it stated that they are an
abomination to the Lord.

= direct opposition to the classic, traditional Christian position.


I put the question to myself in this way. Let us imagine old Amschel
Rothschild on a Friday evening, after having “earned” a million on the
Stock Exchange, turning to his Bible for edification. What will he find
there touching his earnings and their effect on the refinement of his soul,
an effect which the pious old Jew most certainly desired on the eve of
the Sabbath? Will the million bum his conscience? Or will he not be
able to say, and rightly say, “God’s blessing rested upon me this week. I
152/Werner Sombart
thank Thee, Lord, for having graciously granted the light of Thy countenance
to Thy servant. In order to find favour in Thy sight I shall give
much to charity, and keep Thy commandments even more strictly than
hitherto”? Such would be his words if he knew his Bible, and he did
know it.
For his eye would rest complacently on many a passage in the Holy
Writ. In his beloved Torah he would be able to read again and again of
the blessing of God. “And He will love thee and bless thee and multiply
thee. He will also bless the fruit of thy body and the fruit of thy ground,
thy corn and thy wine and thine oil ... thou shalt be blessed above all
peoples” (Deut. vii. 13-15). And how moved he would be when he reached
the words, “For the Lord, thy God, will bless thee, as He promised thee:
and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow” (Deut.
xv. 6). Then suppose he turns to the Psalms, what would he find there?
O fear the Lord, ye His saints: for there is no want to them that
fear Him (Psa. xxxiv. 10).
Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord.... Wealth and riches are
in his house (Psa. xc. 1–3).
Our garners are full, affording all manner of store, our sheep bring
forth thousands and ten thousands in our fields (Psa. cxliv. 13).
He would rejoice with Job when on concluding the story of his trials
he found that his latter end was more blessed than his beginning, and
that “he had 14,000 sheep, 6000 camels, 1000 yoke of oxen and 1000
she-asses” and the rest. (Happily our friend Amschel knew nothing of
modern Biblical criticism, and was not aware therefore that this particular
portion of Job is a later interpolation in the story.)
The prophets also promised Israel earthly rewards if it kept to God’s
way and walked therein. If Amschel turned to the 60th chapter of Isaiah he would find the prophecy that one day the Gentiles should bring their gold and silver to Israel.

And so on...

As for the "Jewish problem", it is mainly a religious-cultural issue - race is just secondary, in the end, if looking at the facts, even though certain variants more common among the Jews are indeed predestined to "be like that", I'm talking about the "reduced Armenid stock" in particular:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16079

Sombart was wrong about the racial interpretation, in my opinion, yet the cultural analysis was excellent.

If you add to that the writings of Coudenhove-Kalergi and Max Weber, a clear image emerges, of Jews and their Christianised "soul mates", the Puritans...


In both of these heterogenic merited races lies the core of the European nobility of the future: in the feudal blood aristocracy, as far as it did not let itself be corrupted by the farm, in the Jewish spiritual aristocracy as far as it did not let itself be corrupted by money [capitalism].

What happened in the form of the Liberalcapitalist Plutocratic Oligarchy and their (often Jewish) menials.


Coudenhove-Kalergi in his autobiography:

"At the beginning of 1924, we received a call from Baron Louis de Rothschild; one of his friends, Max Warburg from Hamburg, had read my book and wanted to get to know us.

To my great surprise, Warburg spontaneously offered us 60,000 gold marks, to tide the movement over for its first three years ....

Max Warburg, who was one of the most distinguished and wisest men that I have ever come into contact with, had a principle of financing these movements.

He remained sincerely interested in Pan-Europe for his entire life.

Max Warburg arranged his 1925 trip to the United States to introduce me to Paul Warburg and financier Bernard Baruch."

Finance theorist Ludwig von Mises (supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation) also participated in Coudenhove-Kalergi's Pan-European Movement.

Later von Mises disciples Arthur Burns and Milton Friedman spread von Mises ideas through a network of secret 'conservative' think tanks, led by the Mont Pelerin Society.


http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coudenhove-Kalergi-Practical-Idealism-Vienna-1925.php

[Joe McCarthy]

I've read Sombart. He has historically played to the prejudices of anti-capitalists-anti-Semites, even if it wasn't his intention. But while it is a worthy companion to Weber, I think if anything it just makes Jews look good, especially as European royals were inviting them in for their business acumen. The old trader-guild types certainly hated the arrangement, but that was because Jews were often better businessmen. Only the most intense feudal reactionary could see in Sombart an indictment of Jewry.

[Agrippa]

I've read Sombart. He has historically played to the prejudices of anti-capitalists-anti-Semites, even if it wasn't his intention. But while it is a worthy companion to Weber, I think if anything it just makes Jews look good, especially as European royals were inviting them in for their business acumen. The old trader-guild types certainly hated the arrangement, but that was because Jews were often better businessmen. Only the most intense feudal reactionary could see in Sombart an indictment of Jewry.

You look at things from the perspective of the "converted European" of course, the Puritan-Capitalist spirit is in you and your "nation", you are the result of the Jewish influence, so it is, for you, probably hard to realise how much they changed and how harmful it was in many respects!

However:

The real problem I described already is, that probably Jews played a bad role, but it was - in parts - for good, as long as the true European spirit, the independent spiritual elite of the Europeans kept them largely under control.

Now the problem is, what they did wasn't used for and by Europeans on the longer run, but they poisened Europeans and now largely replaced the European spiritual elite with themselves or allied corrupted souls, often from the Calvinist sects, which don't really care for Europeans and a true community.

Liberalcapitalism is a memetic virus, it might have helped to achieve advances in certain fields, but at some point, it needed to be stopped, tamed, transformed into something "good for the people", rather than monetarising and corrupting all parts of life.
That didn't happen and the Jewish Plutocratic elite fought hard to prevent it. Now we have this mess and it is totally unthinkable that such an abomination of a society would have ever emerged without the Jews.

And I might add, that it is probably not as bad right now, but the real problem is, where we are heading to, namely towards total Liberalcapitalism, totalitarian rule of the Plutocratic Oligarchy, Europeans being reduced to slave status - or better those which survive, because the mass will be mixed or replaced in a couple of generations by the policy and demographic catastrophy caused by the Plutocratic Oligarchy. From the Liberalist and Cultural Marxist ideology, mass immigration of non-integrable foreigners, destruction of true values and healthy structures, monetizing of all aspects of life and corruption inherent to Capitalism...

[SwordoftheVistula]

The nature of expanding empires themselves brought on miscegenation, which is to say the conquerors welcomed it, they didn't have it imposed on them.

Not always. For example, the Jews, if you take the bible as a roughly historical record, would kill off all the people they conquered, instead of mixing with them.

I think the Calvinist emphasis on the 'old testament' may have had some influence on the tendency of Anglo & Dutch (Boer) to remove previous populations instead of miscegenating with them as the Catholic empires (French, Spanish, Portuguese) often did.

[Don]

I forgot to vote for atheism.

The lack of a strong belief (religion usually) weakens the conviction of any warrior in the terrible core of a battle.

No need to remind that the battles were the factors that decided the future of human societies.

Christianity, in particular catholicism, was a vital variable to explain the victory in most of the battles that configured our western societies, now invaded and defendless.


A man fights more fiercely if he knows the king is looking his blows.
If is not a king, but a God who is looking at him...

Until recently, the spaniard battlecry was for centuries "Santiago, cierra España". A call to a religious figure: a Saint-Hero, Santiago the moor-slayer. No one can doubt that these cries decided the result of many many battles.

I honestly doubt that they will earn the same strength invoking the name of Endobeles, the dark one, the ancient boar-god of pre-roman, pre-christian Iberians, since is under the name of Santiago and the Christianity when the descendants of these iberians did the greater and most known deeds worldwide. Not about personal preferences -I honor Endobeles or any ancient cults as well- , but to objective strength of invocations, and Christian Invocations in Spain overwhelm the ancient ones due to known reasons.

I am sure that, still today and the conflicts to come, some of our soldiers will invoke again in the battle these holly names.
I have no doubts that these who will do it, will have a powerfull advantadge.

[Joe McCarthy]

I think the Calvinist emphasis on the 'old testament' may have had some influence on the tendency of Anglo & Dutch (Boer) to remove previous populations instead of miscegenating with them as the Catholic empires (French, Spanish, Portuguese) often did.

Possibly. Whatever the case we'd be hardpressed to find a Catholic population as hardy and conservative (in all of the right ways) as the very Calvinist Boers have been. They didn't succumb internally but from outside pressure beyond their control.

[R4ge]

Catholocism, Orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all progressive religions when practiced correctly, in a beneficial way.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Catholocism, Orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all progressive religions

Ya, that's why they are detrimental

[Nglund]

Islam, atheism, ecology, and the so-called 'palestinian' cause.

[Magister Eckhart]

Catholocism, Orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all progressive religions when practiced correctly, in a beneficial way.

How are Orthodoxy and Catholicism progressive? Perhaps it could be said of Catholicism today, having taken the modernist heresy to the bosom of the Church, but certainly never of Orthodoxy. We are talking about two of most deeply-rooted expressions of the Christian faith in existence today. Pre-Tridentine Catholicism especially, the religion of Western Civilisation, is one of the least "progressive" faiths in the world. Faustian Christianity has no room for the linear progress of Hegel and Marx -- one of the principle flaws of Protestantism is the interpretation of the world "building up to" the Apocalypse. Such a thing does not happen.

Even scripture denies any sense of "progress" in either a positive or negative sense:


But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be... Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

And again:


Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

The eschatology of Christianity, especially as taught in the Western Christian faith (until the rise of Protestant heresies) is completely sudden and unplanned. Linear progress and "progressiveness" in general are inventions of a post-Christian West in its death throes, not the living and vibrant Christian West.

[Apollonaris]

The lack of a strong belief (religion usually) weakens the conviction of any warrior in the terrible core of a battle.

No need to remind that the battles were the factors that decided the future of human societies.

Christianity, in particular catholicism, was a vital variable to explain the victory in most of the battles that configured our western societies, now invaded and defendless.

Yes, Catholicism did wonders for the fighting prowess of the French, Italian, and Polish armies in World War Two. Oh, wait ...

[Don]

Yes, Catholicism did wonders for the fighting prowess of the French, Italian, and Polish armies in World War Two. Oh, wait ...

World War Two was in XX Century. Did you know it? Oh, wait...


:yawnee20:

[Curtis24]

I think it was both mainstream Prostentasim, which undermined traditional authority - remember, Luther said that the common peasant has a relationship with God and doesn't need to obey authority - as well as Calvinism, which very obviously corrupted portions of the Western elite.

Calvinism preaches that God holds some people above others, and that the "select" will know they are chosen by the fact that... they're rich. The perfect ideology for a plutocracy.

Of course, now we have degenerated to the point where organized religion is no longer necessary to corrupt...

[Osweo]

As regards Catholicism, it clearly is a liberal influence and has been for a long time.
The problem with this discussion is that the Catholic Church is a different thing in different places, or rather that it has a different face depending on where you view it from. Spain and Ireland, for instance, constitute the Church's 'in-group', and there it stands for Tradition. England, Russia and the US are 'enemy territory', however, and the Church sponsors all kinds of disgusting attacks on the national interest in these lands. I only wish Rome would mind its own business, and reject expansionism. We could all co-exist happily then. Unfortunately, its universalist dogma doesn't seem easy to shelve. :(


Another question is would they have become a problem had they remained pious Jews?
And would Europeans be a problem to themselves if they'd remained pious Christians? Probably not, but this is irrelevant, as it was inevitable that neither would remain in a static condition. It is stupid to bemoan such natural shifts, as they are ALWAYS due to internal mechanisms that are deeply integral to the phenomenon you want to remain constant.


Until recently, the spaniard battlecry was for centuries "Santiago, cierra España". A call to a religious figure: a Saint-Hero, Santiago the moor-slayer. No one can doubt that these cries decided the result of many many battles.

I honestly doubt that they will earn the same strength invoking the name of Endobeles, the dark one, the ancient boar-god of pre-roman, pre-christian Iberians, since is under the name of Santiago and the Christianity when the descendants of these iberians did the greater and most known deeds worldwide. Not about personal preferences -I honor Endobeles or any ancient cults as well- , but to objective strength of invocations, and Christian Invocations in Spain overwhelm the ancient ones due to known reasons.

I am sure that, still today and the conflicts to come, some of our soldiers will invoke again in the battle these holly names.
I have no doubts that these who will do it, will have a powerfull advantadge.
THere is much truth here. However, Santiago is, in the mind of the warriors invoking him, far more a new native Iberian deity than a character of Catholic hagiolatry. His character IS Endobeles. The only reason for modern discomfort with the latter is linguistic. 'Santiago' is phonetically familiar to a modern Spaniard. 'Endobeles', on the face of it, is an antiquarian curiosity, despite the deep feelings that may be uncovered when properly attuned souls look into these matters.

Who knows, however, if the battlers of the future might not find a new standard to invoke, in just as spontaneous a way as those who first came up with the idea of calling on Santiago?

[Apollonaris]

World War Two was in XX Century. Did you know it? Oh, wait...

Yeah, I knew that. What's your point? :coffee:

[Joe McCarthy]

And would Europeans be a problem to themselves if they'd remained pious Christians? Probably not, but this is irrelevant, as it was inevitable that neither would remain in a static condition. It is stupid to bemoan such natural shifts, as they are ALWAYS due to internal mechanisms that are deeply integral to the phenomenon you want to remain constant.


Yet it isn't irrelevant as it cuts to the core of the question of whether Judaism itself is the culprit. If in remaining pious Jews our Semitic friends wouldn't have become destructive, that absolves Judaism of blame. After all, it really makes no more sense to blame Judaism for a wayward soul like Trotsky than it does to blame John Calvin for Roger Baldwin. (In the latter case liberal 'Calvinist' offshoots in the US became problematic because they rejected doctrinaire Calvinism, seeing salvation as universal rather than predestined. In that sense they became more like Catholics.) One could even say, as Rabbi Kahane did, that Jewish deviance was a result of Gentile corruption. To some extent I believe that to be the case.

[Osweo]

Yet it isn't irrelevant as it cuts to the core of the question of whether Judaism itself is the culprit. If in remaining pious Jews our Semitic friends wouldn't have become destructive, that absolves Judaism of blame. After all, it really makes no more sense to blame Judaism for a wayward soul like Trotsky than it does to blame John Calvin for Roger Baldwin. (In the latter case liberal 'Calvinist' offshoots in the US became problematic because they rejected doctrinaire Calvinism, seeing salvation as universal rather than predestined. In that sense they became more like Catholics.) One could even say, as Rabbi Kahane did, that Jewish deviance was a result of Gentile corruption. To some extent I believe that to be the case.

Not at all. Religions come and go, and do well if they fit better with reality. One that is supposed to be for an entire people should do a better job of catering to all the different personalities and temperaments that you find in such a wide section of humanity. Judaism somehow stifled or didn't satisfy the individuals in question here.

Each religion creates a very specific type of atheist, and is somewhat to 'blame' for the faults of those it creates.

[Curtis24]

You look at things from the perspective of the "converted European" of course, the Puritan-Capitalist spirit is in you and your "nation", you are the result of the Jewish influence, so it is, for you, probably hard to realise how much they changed and how harmful it was in many respects!

However:

The real problem I described already is, that probably Jews played a bad role, but it was - in parts - for good, as long as the true European spirit, the independent spiritual elite of the Europeans kept them largely under control.

Now the problem is, what they did wasn't used for and by Europeans on the longer run, but they poisened Europeans and now largely replaced the European spiritual elite with themselves or allied corrupted souls, often from the Calvinist sects, which don't really care for Europeans and a true community.

Liberalcapitalism is a memetic virus, it might have helped to achieve advances in certain fields, but at some point, it needed to be stopped, tamed, transformed into something "good for the people", rather than monetarising and corrupting all parts of life.
That didn't happen and the Jewish Plutocratic elite fought hard to prevent it. Now we have this mess and it is totally unthinkable that such an abomination of a society would have ever emerged without the Jews.

And I might add, that it is probably not as bad right now, but the real problem is, where we are heading to, namely towards total Liberalcapitalism, totalitarian rule of the Plutocratic Oligarchy, Europeans being reduced to slave status - or better those which survive, because the mass will be mixed or replaced in a couple of generations by the policy and demographic catastrophy caused by the Plutocratic Oligarchy. From the Liberalist and Cultural Marxist ideology, mass immigration of non-integrable foreigners, destruction of true values and healthy structures, monetizing of all aspects of life and corruption inherent to Capitalism...

I hope you enjoy scaring the hell out of us :(

[Joe McCarthy]

Each religion creates a very specific type of atheist, and is somewhat to 'blame' for the faults of those it creates.

So then help me out here. What is the essential difference between an atheistic revolutionary socialist of Jewish background and an atheistic revolutionary socialist of Christian background that makes the former 'Jewish' and the latter 'Christian'?

There is a continuum of ideas that influence any new idea, but we might as well blame Catholicism for Lutheranism, even as one was a negation of the other. Indeed, to do so would be more sensible than to blame Judaism for atheistic socialism.

[Raskolnikov]

What makes the average Jewish gangster that joined the Bolsheviks a secularist? Promoting secularism in other people =!= atheism, promoting multiculturalism in other people =!= lack of belief in race, so attacking someone else's religion (Marxism), nationality and ancestry (Multiculturalism) do not constitute principled secularism within Jewry - Judaism anyway is racist not universalist. Jews also have a track record in false conversion (conversos).

[Joe McCarthy]

What makes the average Jewish gangster that joined the Bolsheviks a secularist? Promoting secularism in other people =!= atheism, promoting multiculturalism in other people =!= lack of belief in race, so attacking someone else's religion (Marxism), nationality and ancestry (Multiculturalism) do not constitute principled secularism within Jewry - Judaism anyway is racist not universalist. Jews also have a track record in false conversion (conversos).

If Jewish Bolsheviks were merely rabbis hiding their yarmulkes why would they also close synagogues?

In any case, the Jewish component of Bolshevism was probably no more than 20 percent. That is the figure Antony Sutton used, at any rate.

[Raskolnikov]

If Jewish Bolsheviks were merely rabbis hiding their yarmulkes why would they also close synagogues?Rabbis they weren't, but for me it depends on the person who is sincerely for the Socialist ideal or other ideological options even if they are in such a movement. The same types of people here join all the political movements, even 'Christian' or 'Westernist' ones (Neoconservatives), whereas the average political white usually has no ethnic interest calculated in whatever (free market, socialist, . . .) ideal.


In any case, the Jewish component of Bolshevism was probably no more than 20 percent. That is the figure Antony Sutton used, at any rate. Right, bourgeois Jews joined, not created, and not to my knowledge dominated the movement, especially once Stalin took over.

Obvious advantages to joining the party were the dissolution of Christianity and local nationality, and entry into legitimated office. This is much more advantageous to the mission of control than Torah schools.

They weren't classical Jews either, but who is a classical Jew? Judaism is very anarchic and the most of it can be said are tends, so even the 'Orthodoxy' is nothing but that. If the Jews could influence and gain from a scientifically rationalised bureau for their obviously ethnic religious background, there's not even a contradiction for me between a 'Socialist Jew,' true secularists aside (Marx I would say).

PS: I think there's some sanity to more principled than just 'ethnically conscious' like the racially-obsessed Jewish 'liberal' (mirror of a Stormfronter).

[Magister Eckhart]

If Jewish Bolsheviks were merely rabbis hiding their yarmulkes why would they also close synagogues?

In any case, the Jewish component of Bolshevism was probably no more than 20 percent. That is the figure Antony Sutton used, at any rate.

That's a very generous figure, even. The majority of Bolsheviks and Communists in general have always been natives, not foreigners. To say otherwise is pure vanity.

[Hevneren]

Apparently, 14 members don't know that Atheism isn't a religion. Excellent. :rolleyes2:

[Agrippa]

If Jewish Bolsheviks were merely rabbis hiding their yarmulkes why would they also close synagogues?

In any case, the Jewish component of Bolshevism was probably no more than 20 percent. That is the figure Antony Sutton used, at any rate.

That's as uninteresting as to talk about how much percent of the banksters are Jews.

The question is NEVER the percentage, but the decisive influence and the origin, the origin and construction of a phenomenon.

Socialism in itself was never the real problem, but that Jews hijacked it and constructed Marxism was the REAL PROBLEM!

As for the Bolsheviks, to speak of those in detail: Take away all the Bolshevik Jews, and there would have been no Bolshevism, especially no successful one, especially not THAT KIND OF Bolshevism.

One of the problems of secular Jews was and is, that they are still "the outgroup", so they need to destroy all elements which prevent their advent in the "ingroup" first!

That's exactly the problem of Marxism in all its forms: Socialism could have been a Social revolutionary approach which just tames and controls Capitalism, brings forward social justice and greater social equality for all members of a given society and group.

Marxism however said not just the social question is the problem, but society as a whole must be completely changed and all older traditions are to a large degree just part of the "class struggle" and of course, it is not just about social injustice and exploitation in the group, but the whole way of society must be changed and ALL PEOPLE MUST BE EQUAL, there is no and can be no differences others than those caused the environment, by the social milieu.

This radical deconstructivist approach was not inherent to all social revolutionary movements, it was a typical Neo-Christian, secular Christian but in its essence JUDAISED perspective, adapted to the late Christian society!

Unthinkable without the involvement of Jews in that way!

Who cares about the 90 non-Jewish Bolsheviks, if 5 of the top ten were Jews and had a decisive influence?!
And I repeat it, the primary source of that was the ethnoreligious identity, the "out group status" and character of the Jewish religion.

There were/are different kinds of Socialism and that Marxism "made it" and corrupted all those movements but some, was primarily "the achievement", to a very large degree, of Jewish activists.

If talking about Capitalism, the second secular-materialistic ideology of real importance, again based on late Christian mentalities modernised by a largely Jewish or Judaised spirit (Calvinist sects in Britain in particular).

We see the same issue as with Bolshevism and Neoliberalism - our current societal and systemic model, is based on THE WORST of both ideologies in the form of pure Capitalism + Cultural Marxism.
Marxism was the degeneration of Socialist ideas and Cultural Marxism is the degeneration of Marxism - and this shit - digested two times by mostly Jewish think tanks, being now part of the tools the Plutocratic Oligarchy, the high finance and core group of "real Capitalism" uses and abuses to control its sheeple, exploit and control them even more efficiently than ever, while keeping down any resistance of significance of the European people.

That's actually ironic and very bitter...or even better, the Plutocrats might by the greatest cynics of all.

[Magister Eckhart]

Apparently, 14 members don't know that Atheism isn't a religion. Excellent. :rolleyes2:

This has been discussed. While, I agree, atheism is not a religion, it does serve a catch-all for a variety of humanist, secularist, egoist, etc. ideologies that play a similar role to religion.

[Agrippa]

This has been discussed. While, I agree, atheism is not a religion, it does serve a catch-all for a variety of humanist, secularist, egoist, etc. ideologies that play a similar role to religion.

Both Capitalism and Marxism were, in a way, secular branches of the late Christian mindset, with a lot of Jewish influences thrown in and giving it "the right" direction.

[Hevneren]

This has been discussed. While, I agree, atheism is not a religion, it does serve a catch-all for a variety of humanist, secularist, egoist, etc. ideologies that play a similar role to religion.

Not really. Atheists can be anything but believers in a god or gods, but they (usually) don't believe in something because they're Atheists. If you are a selfish person, you'll be a selfish person no matter if you're religious or not.

By the way, there are secularist religious people.

[Kadu]

By the way, there are secularist religious people.


And Humanists too, Petrarch the "father" of Humanisn was a devout Christian.

[Osweo]

So then help me out here. What is the essential difference between an atheistic revolutionary socialist of Jewish background and an atheistic revolutionary socialist of Christian background that makes the former 'Jewish' and the latter 'Christian'?
Eee, tiresome to write it all out. :tsk:

Look; do you know many 'cultural Catholic' people who aren't religious? Compare them with your godless friends of Protestant background. The differences are deep. How could it NOT be so, indeed? I can't be arsed typing it all out, as it's an accumulative thing of many subtle aspects, and surely you already know all about it anyway.

If this is true for Christian denominations, it's obviously going to be even more marked for Christian/Jewish backgrounds.

.... Or let Lenin himself inform you. There was some instance when he sent a Jew to do a nasty job instead of a Russian. When asked about it, he said 'the Russians are too soft for this sort of thing'. :....

Or look at it like this; who is easier to kill/hurt; a member of a different people who looks, smells, sounds and acts different to all your closest kith and kin, or a co-national?


There is a continuum of ideas that influence any new idea, but we might as well blame Catholicism for Lutheranism, even as one was a negation of the other. Indeed, to do so would be more sensible than to blame Judaism for atheistic socialism.
'Blame' isn't the word, but the connection is quite a fair one to make, and isn't this a blatantly obvious one to see? :shrug:


As for Jews in Communism... ekh, read the Politburo lists in the early half of the Soviet Union's history, for fuck's sake. Mull over how unknown the Russian names are to you, and how famous Kamenev, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kaganovich etc. are. The influential figures within the party are very seldom Russians until later on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Politburo_of_the_Russian_Co mmunist_Party_(bolsheviks)_in_the_1910s

[Joe McCarthy]

One of the problems of secular Jews was and is, that they are still "the outgroup", so they need to destroy all elements which prevent their advent in the "ingroup" first!


I think it would be better to say that Jews were attracted to Bolshevism because it promised the millenium, a brotherhood of man. But the horse they rode was not the Torah but a highly gentilized atheistic socialism. Even Marx condemned Judaism for essentially making money acquisition into a religion, and his comments on Jews don't sound altogether different from yours.

[Joe McCarthy]

Osweo, your explanation is unconvincing. It doesn't help in understanding why the destruction wrought by a 'Jewish' Bolshevik is different in character from that of a 'Christian' Bolshevik because one is of Jewish background and the other Christian. A Beria was every bit the killer Trotsky was regardless of whatever specific ethno-religious motivations may have propelled them.

Anyway, I've reviewed the issue of the Jewish makeup of early Bolshevism thoroughly, and I've learned that the numbers can be manipulated depending on whether one assesses the general membership, the central committee, the politburo, and so on. The bottom line is that the sort of stories borrowed from writers like Wilton that are used on 'these' types of forums leave a lot to be desired.

[Stars Down To Earth]

Well, the Bolsheviks burned and destroyed Orthodox churches, while also making Anti-Semitism a crime...

[Joe McCarthy]

Well, the Bolsheviks burned and destroyed Orthodox churches, while also making Anti-Semitism a crime...

Yes, the Soviet state criminalized every form of ethno-national chauvinism and racism. For years it was hailed as a model 'democratic' state by Western progressives, including American blacks who hailed the construction of the New Soviet Man in contrast to American racism.

[Agrippa]

I think it would be better to say that Jews were attracted to Bolshevism because it promised the millenium, a brotherhood of man. But the horse they rode was not the Torah but a highly gentilized atheistic socialism.

But they invented that or at least tamed the horse to USE IT!

Just think about the absurd fact, that the most Capitalist of all ethnocultural groups in Europe became the leading element in a "Socialist" movement and shaped it as it wanted, partly with the support of the Plutocracy and most of the leaders being bourgeois Jews!


Even Marx condemned Judaism for essentially making money acquisition into a religion, and his comments on Jews don't sound altogether different from yours.

By doing so, he distracted from the High Finance Jews in a way and brought the social revolutionary movement in a clear direction - away from attacking the money system and those behind it, which were/are often Jews and more towards a class struggle, in which the lower social elements of the European people were spurred to attack its own people and seeing the Jews as "saviours" and "progressive", so making it a tool for them against the leading European elements, rather than a movement from inside of the European traditions, made up by an own European spiritual elite and so on.

Marx was right in the way he attacked Capitalism for its atrocities, but that's not the point, the point was the exact way he did it, which things he focussed on and what kind of solutions he favoured.

I don't even say that Marx himself must have been corrupted, but that he was chosen, from all those "Social revolutionaries"/general Socialists by some groups I think and HIS THEORY was supported, because in a way, it was the one - of all Social revolutionaries, with which the Plutocracy could live the best.

Because they attacked the aristocracy and every small European bourgeois, whereas the Social revolutionary, Socialist "tradition" in the European sense was to bring forward a better system without destroying everything else, just for the social aspects and for attacking the worst of all first, the bankers and Plutocrats, rather than the bourgeois neighbour or somewhat bigger farmer!


Yes, the Soviet state criminalized every form of ethno-national chauvinism and racism. For years it was hailed as a model 'democratic' state by Western progressives, including American blacks who hailed the construction of the New Soviet Man in contrast to American racism.

Yet, especially after the radical Jewish elements being eliminated or tamed, they never took it as seriously in reality - same with Feminism.

Women had to work if it was good and necessary for the group and state, but not as a principle above all.

Cultural Marxism is in this respects much worse, because he lost every rationality, every rational aspect in its demands for doing better for the individuals and group, but being just a destructive-deconstructivist principle in itself.

That's why, when the iron curtain fell, you could see Eugenic programs, "discrimination of minorities" and more traditional thinking and living females in the East, than in the West, in which Cultural Marxism has destroyed, in the end, in the last decades, much more than Communism in the East with respect to more European-like and traditional lifestyles.

[Osweo]

Osweo, your explanation is unconvincing. It doesn't help in understanding why the destruction wrought by a 'Jewish' Bolshevik is different in character from that of a 'Christian' Bolshevik because one is of Jewish background and the other Christian. A Beria was every bit the killer Trotsky was regardless of whatever specific ethno-religious motivations may have propelled them.

I didn't 'explain', just hinted at self evident truths. :ohwell: A Jew has a way of behaving, just like any other ethnicity. Seems foolish to deny this. :shrug:

Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev WERE Bolshevism, excepting only Lenin's major role. Beria was a hanger on who got where he did just because Soso could relate to his own countryman better.

Soviet Communism got more Russian as time went on. This is undeniable. It's like the nation stumbled out of the coma that the War and Revolution had put it in. The 20s and 30s saw a particularly Jewish style of Marxism, though. To the extent that the word 'Russian' was as good as banned. When the word started to reappear in 37 onwards, it was as striking as it is now to hear the word 'English' on the BBC. :eek:

[SwordoftheVistula]

If you want to look at the strictly theological/spiritual concepts of Judaism, the big one would be 'Tikkun Olam', which cited here for example (http://forward.com/articles/142639/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Weekly%2520%252B%2520Daily&utm_campaign=Weekly_Newsletter_Friday%25202011-09-16) as a motivating factor by left wing activist Rosanne Barr.

'Tikkun Olam' means 'fix the world', so it is no surprise that people who adhere to this would be drawn to globalist and totalitarian ideologies which purport to 'fix the world'.

[Saturni]

All the Desert religions are spiritually/culturally injurious to the Occident.

[Magister Eckhart]

All the Desert religions are spiritually/culturally injurious to the Occident.

This is true of Judaism and Mohammedanism, certainly, but the Occident is Christian. No one who knows anything about history can deny this. It arises entirely from Christianity infused with the ancient values of the Germanic tribes. The bond between the Christianity of Late Antiquity and the Germanic values of chivalry (the warrior ethos) and monasticism (the Odinnic quest).

[Saturni]

This is true of Judaism and Mohammedanism, certainly, but the Occident is Christian. No one who knows anything about history can deny this. It arises entirely from Christianity infused with the ancient values of the Germanic tribes. The bond between the Christianity of Late Antiquity and the Germanic values of chivalry (the warrior ethos) and monasticism (the Odinnic quest).

The Occident is not Xtian, it's Aryan. As such, the religion of slaves can hardly be thought of as fitting for freedom loving peoples.

[Magister Eckhart]

The Occident is not Xtian, it's Aryan. As such, the religion of slaves can hardly be thought of as fitting for freedom loving peoples.

Care to cite some sources on the origin of Western Europe in the "Aryan race". I suppose Charlemagne was part of a Jewish plot? Take your Jewspiracy theories back to Stormfront.

[Saturni]

Care to cite some sources on the origin of Western Europe in the "Aryan race". I suppose Charlemagne was part of a Jewish plot? Take your Jewspiracy theories back to Stormfront.

Turkey: Discovery of 12,000-year-old Temple Complex Could Alter Theory of Human Development
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav041708a.shtml


Archaeologists Unearth 7,000-Year-Old Swastika in North-western Bulgaria
http://www.balkantravellers.com/en/read/article/1975

The Bosnian Pyramid
http://www.bosnianpyramids.org/

One can only wonder at how much more technologically advanced Occidental society would be now if it hadn't been infected with the Nazarean plague. Or, as Nietzsche said,

"After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

Now I personally think "Vanquisher of Shadows" is a worthy sorbiquet, don't you?

[Hevneren]

This is true of Judaism and Mohammedanism, certainly, but the Occident is Christian. No one who knows anything about history can deny this. It arises entirely from Christianity infused with the ancient values of the Germanic tribes. The bond between the Christianity of Late Antiquity and the Germanic values of chivalry (the warrior ethos) and monasticism (the Odinnic quest).


The Occident is a synthetic concept to begin with. It sets as a premise a uniform cultural bloc, which is - even with the influx of a "unifying" Middle Eastern religion - an illusion.

The Abrahamic faiths are entirely alien faiths belonging among other Middle Eastern desert myths. They are no more indigenous to Europe than the Turks.

Christianity is indeed a faith promoting slavery, obedience and servitude. It also borrows (or steals) heavily from pagan faiths in order to appeal to indigenous Europeans.

[Magister Eckhart]

The Occident is a synthetic concept to begin with. It sets as a premise a uniform cultural bloc, which is - even with the influx of a "unifying" Middle Eastern religion - an illusion.

The Abrahamic faiths are entirely alien faiths belonging among other Middle Eastern desert myths. They are no more indigenous to Europe than the Turks.

Christianity is indeed a faith promoting slavery, obedience and servitude. It also borrows (or steals) heavily from pagan faiths in order to appeal to indigenous Europeans.

All of this nonsense is founded in the idiotic notion that somehow physical "freedom" means anything at all aside from pure licentiousness. If Christianity promotes slavery, then law itself can be construed as such. How can anyone expect to preserve a culture based on the chaos of this "freedom"? It's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard-- and flies in the face of 200 years of history in which the growth of freedom under the law has been followed with the complete collapse of civilization. Obedience, duty, and responsibility are the foundations of Western--indeed, any--culture. To damn them is to be little more than an anarchist and a social virus.

I suppose chivalry and monastic scholarship are forms of slavery and servitude? Those "pagan faiths" you give reference to share with Christianity the foundation of Western civilization; the fact that you see pre-Christian influences in Western civilization flies in the face of anyone who claims Christianity is destructive of culture-- it embraces native culture, and directs people where their minds ought to be directed: to that which is greater than they are.

But then, I'm wasting my breath arguing with an atheist, driven by the arrogant falsehood that there is nothing greater than the petty creature we call "man". All of the achievements of the West come from reaching to the eternal rather than revelling in the temporal; the collapse of our entire civilization has its roots in the abandonment of anything higher than the sensuous and the immediate present.

[Saturni]

Lol, fundamentalist thread killing post.

[Odoacer]

Calvinism preaches that God holds some people above others, and that the "select" will know they are chosen by the fact that... they're rich. The perfect ideology for a plutocracy.

This fails to comprehend even Weber's misguided thesis, much less Calvinism proper.

Anyway, in my opinion the real detriment has come at the hands of classical Greek & Roman paganism, as mediated with some Christian influence by the Renaissance & later Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is the proper fountainhead of the most destructive tendencies of modernism, of which atheists are the direct heirs & advocates. Hence my vote.