I'm afraid I have to disagree with Israel lasting, men.


I think there's a resurgence of anti-Africanism because at this point in time, Israel has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and Africans are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Israel is not going to be the monolithic society that it once was in the last century. Africans will be at the center of that. It's a huge transformation for Israel to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Africans will be resented because of their leading role, but without this transformation, Israel will not survive!

Quote: (01-31-2018 03:20 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Christianity doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be a dead end.

Red-pill Christians will debate endlessly about how this scripture or that verse is misinterpreted but at the end of the day it is what it is. Nobody is going to come up with a knockout interpretation of Christ's teachings that spreads like wildfire and has Christians up in arms, flooding once more to the Gates of Vienna.

I've said it before and I'm yet to see evidence to the contrary.

Christianity will survive in spite of itself. Chance may fall to the favour of enough Christians that their creed is spared total annihilation, but no Christian will survive the next century because of their ethos. In fact, many will have to temporarily turn a blind eye to their faith in order for their bloodlines to survive.

Despite all odds Christianity survives in North Korea which is ranked no. 1 in Christian persecution. According to Open Doors USA:
https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-p...rth-korea/


https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/...bcd47d56e3


So Christianity seems to prove itself tenacious. And there are chances that if such a religion is eradicated in one area it may simply be reintroduced by foreign missionaries.

Unless people are willing to chase them everywhere to kill them.

Quote: (01-30-2018 05:02 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2018 03:51 PM)Raylan Givens Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2018 02:59 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

Who were Europeans 1,700 years ago? Barbarians. Killing the Romans, and even each other over the smallest of things. Yet they would become the people who invented the airplane, computers, end an institution that was in existence since the beginning of mankind - slavery? None of which was accomplished before in human history. As we see society crumble around us today - a directly result of abandoning God - we see the significance in these rules. So please, let's put that to rest.

Thank god a breakaway Jewish sect came to Europe to save us ignorant savages from killing each other:

This is a cheap rebuttal commonly used by stereotypical modern atheists (not saying you are one of them, but it is a staple of their arguments). I am glad you brought it up so it can be addressed.

This rebuttal is misleading and an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Simply put, people will always compete with and kill each other. This was humorously illustrated in the Southpark episode 'Go God Go.' If you haven't seen it, Cartman travels to the future where two random atheist alliances are at war with each other. Yes, I'm aware that Southpark is not scientific or historical evidence, but it explains things in an easy to understand fashion. For actual evidence one only needs to review pre and post Christian society history.

Now in the grand scheme of things, did Christianity overall reduce violence and killing versus if it had never existed? That is hard to tell and difficult to prove, but to argue the converse is nonsense.

Many atheists and leftists cite the Crusades, the Inquisition, and colonialism as examples of Christian violence. These are viewed in a vacuum devoid of other factors. As for the Crusades, I shall wield Meme Magic ™ to illustrate my point:





Now, these do not discuss the crusades in Eastern Europe by the Teutonic Knights, of which one of your pictures illustrated. However, fighting between Slavs (especially Poles) and Germans has gone on for a millennium and is independent of Christianity. Hell, to this day the Germans are still trying to impose their rule on Poles by trying to force them to take in migrants. It is an age-old racial issue.

The Inquisition (more specifically, the Spanish Inquisition) has been given a bad rap, like the Crusades, to fit the Leftist narrative. It has been found by based historians to not be nearly as gruesome as we are led to believe in the mainstream. One must also understand Spanish history, in that the Spaniards were invaded in the late 600s and early 700s by the Muslim Berbers and Moors, had almost their entire country occupied, and over the course of 700 years until 1492 fought and took their nation back. Anyone with common sense would run some inquisition to not only rid the Muslims that were occupying your country for the last 700 years, but also Jews who were found to be playing both sides.

Colonialism has been discussed recently on this forum related to the topic. The conclusion is that it was natural consequence of more advanced civilizations expanding, and that it brought more positives than negatives (i.e. medical care, infrastructure, farming methods). There was no Christian genocide committed.

The Protestant Reformation is another example of violence which you alluded to (I think) in your pictures. However, it's cause is falsely attributed to Christianity itself, when in the end it is just human nature. The Catholic Church over time was used a vehicle to consolidate power to the few. The leadership took advantage of certain things for its own gains, such as using confessions to spy on people, or withholding knowledge from the people by not translating texts from Latin. With the advent of the printing press and increased literacy, people realized what was going on, and were pissed. Had knowledge been more dispersed and not consolidated would the same have happened?

Even if you disregard all of the above, the point still stands that Christian Europe has made the most advancements of any civilization to date. This level of advancement was not even matched by nations in East Asia - which is evident by the flow of technology, industry, and culture over the last 100-200 years.

As for looking to the future, it is silly to think some sort of return to paganism will save Western civilization. It will only fracture it even more and is a wet dream for the elite. The only hope is to return to a form of based Christianity, such as Orthodoxy (and I say that as someone who is not Orthodox). I say this based on my interactions with Orthodox people and priests. They have an understanding of what is going on in the world, and can support their positions with logic. This versus the cucked Jesuit Pope, or the Catholic priest or protestant preacher that pats you on the head and says 'aw cute, now go pray' whenever you try and discuss these topics.

What could really cause Christianity to stand out as a civilizing force is the impact it will have on Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Outstanding post by Para.

The American experiment of limited Federal government never really panned out in the long term. It was arguably dead after Lincoln's civil war. I suppose distance in this regard can be a killer. The guys next door can be far away enough to be foreign and close enough to still invade. Even today I suspect places like Idaho have more common ground with Tasmania than they do with California or New York.

Compare populations:

Sweden: 8.5mil
USA: 326 mil

Population density:

Sweden: 477.4/sq mi
USA: 85.10/sq mi

The comparison is stark. When you have lots of people stretched out over a vast area they are eventually going to develop extreme cultural differences for reasons including (but no limited to) climate, trade, regional industry, religion and immigration. Inevitably they will become alien to one another and beyond that they will become hostile.

Australia hasn't been affected as much by immigration yet and our population is still much lower but already I can note a growing cultural divide between the East Coast, Sunshine Coast and Tasmania for example.

Quote: (01-31-2018 10:07 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

...

What could really cause Christianity to stand out as a civilizing force is the impact it will have on Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.

It's a long bet.

The evidence stands with races adopting religions that cater to their genetic tendencies rather than suppressing those tendencies to cater to a foreign religion. In cases where foreign religions are taken on they have a disturbing tendency to be bastardised beyond recognition, Santa Muerte being the most obvious one to reference as an example.

The question is a bit abstract. How can a race be inclusive? Inclusive to who? How can a religion be inclusive? Doesn't a religion demand certain philosophical agreement at the very least.

I suppose that's my main question. What do you mean by inclusive? If you mean inclusive to different philosophies (say, collectivism vs individualism), then no.

Japan has homogeneity in regards to their culture. But they're boring, because they're all the same (they don't have crazy drunken Scotsman getting in fights and black rappers talking about bangin hoes).

U.S. is awesome in it's diversity of culture. That'd be fine, but as the country became wealthy, the government grew ($$ and people employed).

It's ying-yang. The ideal encompasses both philosophies. Individualism from the West, and cultural permanence from the East.

Japan maintains a culture largely without in-fighting or terrorist threats, but the same mentality allowed for many of the horrors of WWII toward non-Japanese. The U.S. basically created modern wealth but also created the biggest government on Earth over the last 80 years, so you can see the benefits and costs of both.

Just thoughts off the top of my head.

Edit: One reason Christianity flourishes is that it it's so liberating toward women (at least post-enlightenment). You double the social force. It's also why Christianity and Individualism go forth hand in hand. They're virtually interchangeable from that standpoint.

Quote: (01-31-2018 03:20 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Christianity doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be a dead end.

Red-pill Christians will debate endlessly about how this scripture or that verse is misinterpreted but at the end of the day it is what it is. Nobody is going to come up with a knockout interpretation of Christ's teachings that spreads like wildfire and has Christians up in arms, flooding once more to the Gates of Vienna.

I've said it before and I'm yet to see evidence to the contrary.

Christianity will survive in spite of itself. Chance may fall to the favour of enough Christians that their creed is spared total annihilation, but no Christian will survive the next century because of their ethos. In fact, many will have to temporarily turn a blind eye to their faith in order for their bloodlines to survive.

Christianity is necessary because it still has the infrastructure. There are still churches in almost every city and neighborhood across the West. People know what it is. It has to - once again - be influenced and invigorated with pagan beliefs.

Quote: (01-30-2018 05:02 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2018 03:51 PM)Raylan Givens Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2018 02:59 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

Who were Europeans 1,700 years ago? Barbarians. Killing the Romans, and even each other over the smallest of things. Yet they would become the people who invented the airplane, computers, end an institution that was in existence since the beginning of mankind - slavery? None of which was accomplished before in human history. As we see society crumble around us today - a directly result of abandoning God - we see the significance in these rules. So please, let's put that to rest.

Thank god a breakaway Jewish sect came to Europe to save us ignorant savages from killing each other:

This is a cheap rebuttal commonly used by stereotypical modern atheists (not saying you are one of them, but it is a staple of their arguments). I am glad you brought it up so it can be addressed.

This rebuttal is misleading and an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Simply put, people will always compete with and kill each other. This was humorously illustrated in the Southpark episode 'Go God Go.' If you haven't seen it, Cartman travels to the future where two random atheist alliances are at war with each other. Yes, I'm aware that Southpark is not scientific or historical evidence, but it explains things in an easy to understand fashion. For actual evidence one only needs to review pre and post Christian society history.

Now in the grand scheme of things, did Christianity overall reduce violence and killing versus if it had never existed? That is hard to tell and difficult to prove, but to argue the converse is nonsense.

Now, these do not discuss the crusades in Eastern Europe by the Teutonic Knights, of which one of your pictures illustrated. However, fighting between Slavs (especially Poles) and Germans has gone on for a millennium and is independent of Christianity. Hell, to this day the Germans are still trying to impose their rule on Poles by trying to force them to take in migrants. It is an age-old racial issue.

I understand people have always warred and killed each other and always will. My point is that Christianity has done nothing to stop that, which was the point of the post I quoted. The idea that Europeans were just ignorant savages with sub-Saharan Africa tier civilization before Christianity came is completely without merit. Christianity does NOT bring civilization and advancement, if it did Africa and South America would be leading the world in civilization right now. Those advances made in the past 1700 years in Europe are inherent to Europeans. The spiraling cathedrals reaching towards the heavens, the exquisite art and architecture, and inspirational music produced are expressions of the European soul. Where is the African Renaissance? Where is the South American art and architecture?

Quote:Quote:

As for looking to the future, it is silly to think some sort of return to paganism will save Western civilization. It will only fracture it even more and is a wet dream for the elite. The only hope is to return to a form of based Christianity, such as Orthodoxy (and I say that as someone who is not Orthodox). I say this based on my interactions with Orthodox people and priests. They have an understanding of what is going on in the world, and can support their positions with logic. This versus the cucked Jesuit Pope, or the Catholic priest or protestant preacher that pats you on the head and says 'aw cute, now go pray' whenever you try and discuss these topics.

We don't have to "return" to anything, we simply must embrace who we've always been. Christianity was thoroughly paganized, Latinized, and then later Germanicized to fit into European culture. The old gods never left, we just simply started referring to them by different names.

I don't think that Christianity will be reinvigorated, leading to the survival of Westerners. I suggest this puts the cart before the horse.

I think Westerners pushed to the brink of extinction will invoke God while running a bayonet through anyone they need to in order to survive, and both during and after the festivities the religion will either be bent, broken or reinterpreted by the people as a manual for their continued survival or it will be bent, broken or reinterpreted by (((the people's handlers))) as a negative founding myth for everything Westerners had to do to ensure they weren't wiped out of existence.

I think Europe will eventually be cleansed. It's the birthplace of the white race.

It's more difficult to know about US and Australia, secession is my guess.

I do think we're talking 50-100 years down the line. None of us will likely live to see a return to normalization. Better just accept it.

Without religion there isn't a moral compass for society.

Keep in mind that roughly 1/2 of the population is of below average intelligence and cannot reason themselves into a moral framework that is good for the individual and society as a whole.

Unfortunately for us not only has religion waned here in the states but what is left of it is cucked beyond belief.

Quote: (01-31-2018 04:08 PM)Enoch Wrote:  

Without religion there isn't a moral compass for society.

Keep in mind that roughly 1/2 of the population is of below average intelligence and cannot reason themselves into a moral framework that is good for the individual and society as a whole.

Unfortunately for us not only has religion waned here in the states but what is left of it is cucked beyond belief.

It's possible to create some sort of positive ethical system, but at least for large parts of the population it would need to be somewhat mired in the supernatural or at least agnostic.

Modern-day Atheism however as promoted by the likes of Dawson are as you noted utterly deluded when thinking that their marxist nihilist crap will be viewed as the only logical life chosen by everyone:






The truth is that criminals are highly logical.

Let us assume for example that you are an 85 or 90 IQ man living in an advanced society like the US where those with IQs of 130+ have an inordinately higher chance of attaining any success. Even MENSA plumbers have x-times the likelihood of making good money than if they were 90-IQ plumbers.

For those individuals it is actually a logical choice to turn to crime, sell drugs or join a Mexican gang. It may seem illogical to Dawson, but it makes sense to many young men.

This marxist thinking is permeating every facet of the media, of Hollywood and academia. Before we do not address those issues, then we won't get anywhere with any discussion on meritocracy or immigration reform.

Alright, so for those who argue against Christianity - tell me what alternative solution you have that incorporates the following:

-Return of the nuclear family and patriarchy.

-Return of a moral compass for women.

-Resistance to materialism/consumerism and incentivizing having children.

-Opposition to an interest-based monetary system. Come on Zel, I know that gives you a hard-on.

-And many more

What else is there? Some random form of paganism that one's ancestors worshiped a millennia ago that nobody knows about? 'Red pill philosophy?' 'Neomasculinity?' None of these have any form of infrastructure, documentation, or memory in people's minds anywhere close to that of Christianity. And please don't suggest Islam .

Amidst the arguments against it, I still stand on the argument that a re-enlightenment of based Christianity is the best shot the West has. At this point the decline is inevitable, so probably to help it rise out of the ashes.

Just look at what happened with the last two popes. For those that don't know, Pope Benedict XVI was the last pope, and conservative by modern standards. He held a hard 'no' on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, the usual. He called out Islam for what it was, even if it was just a brief statement. And what happened? He 'unexpectedly' resigned after just 8 years on the job, the first pope to do so since 1415. And who came next? Cuck Francis, who is cool with gay marriage, abortion, and lays out a red carpet for migrants and ignores the genocide of Christians in the Middle East. This was no coincidence. Clearly it was important enough for the Deep State to ensure that the pope was a cuck for their plans to go forward. Image how different things might be had the pope staunchly opposed the migrant invasion from the start, reminding us the true meaning of identifying neighbors versus enemies?

Quote: (01-31-2018 06:13 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

Alright, so for those who argue against Christianity - tell me what alternative solution you have that incorporates the following:

-Return of the nuclear family and patriarchy.

-Return of a moral compass for women.

-Resistance to materialism/consumerism and incentivizing having children.

-Opposition to an interest-based monetary system. Come on Zel, I know that gives you a hard-on.

-And many more

What else is there? Some random form of paganism that one's ancestors worshiped a millennia ago that nobody knows about? 'Red pill philosophy?' 'Neomasculinity?' None of these have any form of infrastructure, documentation, or memory in people's minds anywhere close to that of Christianity. And please don't suggest Islam .

Amidst the arguments against it, I still stand on the argument that a re-enlightenment of based Christianity is the best shot the West has. At this point the decline is inevitable, so probably to help it rise out of the ashes.

Just look at what happened with the last two popes. For those that don't know, Pope Benedict XVI was the last pope, and conservative by modern standards. He held a hard 'no' on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, the usual. He called out Islam for what it was, even if it was just a brief statement. And what happened? He 'unexpectedly' resigned after just 8 years on the job, the first pope to do so since 1415. And who came next? Cuck Francis, who is cool with gay marriage, abortion, and lays out a red carpet for migrants and ignores the genocide of Christians in the Middle East. This was no coincidence. Clearly it was important enough for the Deep State to ensure that the pope was a cuck for their plans to go forward. Image how different things might be had the pope staunchly opposed the migrant invasion from the start, reminding us the true meaning of identifying neighbors versus enemies?

Nothing needs to be done, Christianity is dying in the west. After the boomers die off several denominations (Episcopalianism, Methodists, some Baptist offshoots, several Catholic parishes, Lutheranism) could all but die off with them. Christianity, in our lifetimes, very well may become a fully Southern hemisphere religion.

You are right that Christianity does have the infrastructure in place already and in the meantime could be exploited.

As to what we need to "go back to" or what not, we can't go back to anything. We have to move forward. I follow the Norse pantheon but I don't believe that we need to follow exactly as our ancestors did to be authentic. I believe in the P.I.E. religion and I believe that it manifests itself uniquely to suit the needs of the time and the people.

^ Nazism did all you ask for and would have conquered the entirety of Europe if America hadn't supported Stalin's communists.

I'm not saying, let's be nazis, I'm saying their brand of Völkisch neo-paganism was indeed what the people wanted during a time of hedonist weimar 20s.

Quote: (01-31-2018 07:04 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

^ Nazism did all you ask for and would have conquered the entirety of Europe if America hadn't supported Stalin's communists.

I'm not saying, let's be nazis, I'm saying their brand of Völkisch neo-paganism was indeed what the people wanted during a time of hedonist weimar 20s.

Exactly.

I find it ironic that as the west moves away from the bonds of the nuclear family, Christianity, and into marxism that the east is moving more towards Christianity and away from marxism.

I'm puzzled when people use Rome as an example of this great empire with no dominant religious framework and there's a certain myth pushed about that. Rome was full of polytheistic beliefs. You also have to consider that a large part of being a Roman citizen was having your identity and free will subsumed by the powerful state and the imperial family.

Rome's core principles and moral framework was also encoded into the concept of the imperial cult which was Rome's own "mandate of heaven" when it came to the moral authority of the emperor. This is why when a immoral and degenerate emperor ascended to the throne Roman society also suffered and degenerated. Unlike other ancient civilizations Rome stopped just short of the concept of the god emperor (which probably prevented it from falling apart prematurely) but there's no doubt that this overwhelming dominance was a focal point in Roman culture and society.

Looking back to a culture where royalty was considered divine and your personal identity is subsumed by the all powerful state is unrealistic and foolish. It's simply unworkable in the modern era.

Quote: (01-31-2018 07:13 PM)Raylan Givens Wrote:  

Quote: (01-31-2018 07:04 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

^ Nazism did all you ask for and would have conquered the entirety of Europe if America hadn't supported Stalin's communists.

I'm not saying, let's be nazis, I'm saying their brand of Völkisch neo-paganism was indeed what the people wanted during a time of hedonist weimar 20s.

Exactly.

I used to be very critical of christianity for the reasons you and others have brought up.

I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've read from several christians on this site Samseu, Aurini, 911, all those I forgot, and as you can tell, clearly christianity has given them strength.

I do think the idea of the father and the son, particularly the all loving father, is very important. I think it's particularly important for disenfranchised males, those who otherwise are drawn to father figures like Jordan Peterson. God, the father, and the son, is a very important archetype.

What I would like seeing is an invigorated Völkisch paganism which makes christians step up their game.

Proverbs 27:17: “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

Keep in mind that EVERYTHING we know about Norse paganism (and by default germanic), comes from christians like Snorre and a lot of later christians were instrumental in translating the Eddas for example.

Quote: (01-31-2018 07:14 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

I find it ironic that as the west moves away from the bonds of the nuclear family, Christianity, and into marxism that the east is moving more towards Christianity and away from marxism.

I'm puzzled when people use Rome as an example of this great empire with no dominant religious framework and there's a certain myth pushed about that. Rome was full of polytheistic beliefs. You also have to consider that a large part of being a Roman citizen was having your identity and free will subsumed by the powerful state and the imperial family.

Rome's core principles and moral framework was also encoded into the concept of the imperial cult which was Rome's own "mandate of heaven" when it came to the moral authority of the emperor. This is why when a immoral and degenerate emperor ascended to the throne Roman society also suffered and degenerated. Unlike other ancient civilizations Rome stopped just short of the concept of the god emperor (which probably prevented it from falling apart prematurely) but there's no doubt that this overwhelming dominance was a focal point in Roman culture and society.

Looking back to a culture where royalty was considered divine and your personal identity is subsumed by the all powerful state is unrealistic and foolish. It's simply unworkable in the modern era.

Good post, but the latter is misunderstood, most likely because you look at it from a christian (buddhist?) perspective.

To be "divine" or descended from "divinity" didn't exactly mean the same in Rome as it would mean for later christian god-emperors.

Most experts on paganism consider almost all gods to have a basis in historical people. Kings made into gods posthumely. Saxo writes about Odin for example as a real man from the Black Sea area who ascended to become god. So for someone in Rome to claim divinity would not be preposterous as in a christian context, it would mean more like "of divine royal bloodline".

Quote: (01-31-2018 07:04 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

^ Nazism did all you ask for and would have conquered the entirety of Europe if America hadn't supported Stalin's communists.

I'm not saying, let's be nazis, I'm saying their brand of Völkisch neo-paganism was indeed what the people wanted during a time of hedonist weimar 20s.

Hitler tried to create a neo-pagan society with ancient tradition with a moral framework guided by the state. They essentially tried to replicate aspects of Rome including its iconography except replace the emperor with just the power of the state and different cults of personality.

Can such a system work? Sure. However be prepared to have your identity completely subsumed into the state and there's all sorts of moral issues with that especially when the all powerful figures on top of that hierarchy end up being degenerates.

The Nazis essentially did recombine the concept of "church" and state into the functioning organ of just the state. This means all morality and guided principles would ultimately be dominated by the state.

Quote: (01-31-2018 07:25 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Quote: (01-31-2018 07:13 PM)Raylan Givens Wrote:  

Quote: (01-31-2018 07:04 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

^ Nazism did all you ask for and would have conquered the entirety of Europe if America hadn't supported Stalin's communists.

I'm not saying, let's be nazis, I'm saying their brand of Völkisch neo-paganism was indeed what the people wanted during a time of hedonist weimar 20s.

Exactly.

I used to be very critical of christianity for the reasons you and others have brought up.

I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've read from several christians on this site Samseu, Aurini, 911, all those I forgot, and as you can tell, clearly christianity has given them strength.

I do think the idea of the father and the son, particularly the all loving father, is very important. I think it's particularly important for disenfranchised males, those who otherwise are drawn to father figures like Jordan Peterson. God, the father, and the son, is a very important archetype.

What I would like seeing is an invigorated Völkisch paganism which makes christians step up their game.

Proverbs 27:17: “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

Keep in mind that EVERYTHING we know about Norse paganism (and by default germanic), comes from christians like Snorre and a lot of later christians were instrumental in translating the Eddas for example.

I believe to be a Germanic/Northern European is to be a pagan/heathen, we just may outwardly follow a different structured path. Collin Cleary expresses it rather succinctly:

Quote:Quote:

Let’s begin by considering the fact that many of us tend to think of Asatru as a set of doctrines or beliefs that need to be reconstructed or recovered. Even where Asatruar do not explicitly understand the religion in doctrinal terms, I think for many of them this understanding is implicit. How did it come about? The answer is fairly simple. Christianity supplanted Asatru. Most of us were raised in the Christian religion. And even for those lucky few who were not raised as Christians, this is the religion most familiar to us. There is a tendency, therefore, to understand other religions in terms of how Christianity understands religion itself. We must be on our guard here, as this tendency is very often present even when we are not consciously aware of it.

As a type of religion, Christianity can be characterized as doctrinal or creedal. The other sort of religion is folk or ethnic. This distinction has to do, really, with the criterion for membership in the religion. Folk religions are specific to a certain people or race. Examples include Hinduism, Judaism — and Asatru. One is automatically a member of the religion simply by being born a member of the ethnic group. This will immediately invite the following sort of objection: “Is Rev. Mike Schmidt, the Baptist preacher who lives next door to me, automatically a member of Asatru simply because his ancestry is Germanic?” The answer, in fact, is yes. But this is a point to which I will return much later.

The intimate tie between a folk religion and the folk is reflected in language. The term “Hinduism” is derived from the Persian word “Hindu,” which actually just denotes the Indian people. The etymology of “Judaism” is similar, deriving ultimately from a word that simply means “Jew” (a “member of the tribe of Judah”). The words themselves therefore do not distinguish a member of the ethnic group from an adherent to the religion.

Now, our ancestors did not use the term “Asatru.” They did not have a name for their religion at all — just as ancient Hindus and Jews didn’t refer to “Hinduism” and “Judaism.” Given that ours is an ethnic religion, it would make more sense that the name of our religion, if it should have a name at all, ought to be based on the name of our people. (And if our religion did have such a name, much of the controversy over whether it should be folkish or universalistic might be simply sidestepped.)

https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10...tradition/
The National Socialist movement was a manifestation of the European folksoul and the spirit of the gods (a concept which is not properly understood due to the heavily Christian and monotheistic cultural conditioning Westerners have) reawakening. I believe that even if no written record existed we would have found ourselves in some fashion back to the archetypes and gods of old (though perhaps manifested differently) because they are an inherent part of our beings.

Christianity was taken and just molded to fit our worldview. First it was Hellenized, then Latinized, then Germanicized. We've just taken our worldview and superimposed it over a Christian framework. The Christianity of Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, Vlad the Impaler, or Constantine doesn't square very well with what is recorded in the New Testament because it is basically a different religion. When Evangelicals (or "White Jews" as I call them) say that Catholicism is full of paganism, they aren't lying. The reason many Protestant denominations have a distinctly Semitic feel to them (think of Seventh Day Adventists or teetotaling foot washing Baptists) is because they have divorced Christianity from the heroic Euro-Pagan worldview.

Quote: (01-31-2018 07:56 PM)Raylan Givens Wrote:  

Christianity was taken and just molded to fit our worldview. First it was Hellenized, then Latinized, then Germanicized. We've just taken our worldview and superimposed it over a Christian framework. The Christianity of Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, Vlad the Impaler, or Constantine doesn't square very well with what is recorded in the New Testament because it is basically a different religion. When Evangelicals (or "White Jews" as I call them) say that Catholicism is full of paganism, they aren't lying. The reason many Protestant denominations have a distinctly Semitic feel to them (think of Seventh Day Adventists or teetotaling foot washing Baptists) is because they have divorced Christianity from the heroic Euro-Pagan worldview.

I don't think you are very well versed in the early church fathers or development of (true, ancient christianity) predominating in the Eastern Roman Empire. The western Franco-Roman developments are clearly what you refer to, and they occurred WAY later in Christianity's history, and led to the development of what is now referred to as "Christian" by modern day westerners, most of whom have no idea where it came from (not "Rome" in the way they think of it, at least).

As a proof of this, when Christianity finally became accepted by Constantine in the early 4th century, one of the biggest movements was back out to monasteries and ascetical living (the desert) precisely for fear of it becoming a state religion and its true aim to be distorted. In its purest sense, Christianity is a religion of the East (as in Anatolia) and Holy Land as in the Greek Empire, but referencing above, the earliest Church fathers always warned against Judaizers and Hellenists (even though they themselves were "Greeks"). Of course, Christianity adopted anything that could be Christianized, and there were things that were able, and others that weren't.

I think you have a lot of ideas that end up being correct in terms of the West's development and bastardization of Christianity, but the people in old "Greece" and the "Holy Land" during all that time always held fast to what was taught in the New Testament, although of course it was constantly challenged by heretical sects. Note also that Irenaeus was in Lyons in the 2nd century (removed from the his birthplace in modern day Turkey) absolutely holding fast to "to what was recorded in the new testament", as you state.

Quote: (01-31-2018 07:30 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Good post, but the latter is misunderstood, most likely because you look at it from a christian (buddhist?) perspective.

To be "divine" or descended from "divinity" didn't exactly mean the same in Rome as it would mean for later christian god-emperors.

Yes, I tried to clarify that before by mentioning that Rome stopped short of believing in god emperors. I didn't mean divinity from a religious sense.

Divinity as i've read it meant having the ultimate moral authority through a combination of bloodline and influence. The resulting decisions of such figureheads were also to be considered just no matter what. What some people actually felt in private was another matter but the power of the state reinforced this role.

This type of cult like faith in royalty largely took the place of having a central dominating religion. The emperor (and the family) encapsulated within the power of the state became the defacto religion. The problem with this moral framework is it's also prone to a lot more abuse.

This is why there was a natural social progression away from the church and state later on when people became more educated and labor moved away from agriculture.

This is also why the philosophical underpinning of the Renaissance is what ended up being the dominant precepts.

This concept of divinity was also similar in Chinese dynasties which had a mandate from heaven. This also didn't literally mean the emperor was descended from a diety but had the spiritual moral authority to guide the people under the state. Just like Rome that "mandate of heaven" could also be rescinded if the emperor was too much of a shitbag or incompetent. Rome also had rather inefficient checks and balances but as history has shown us when certain figureheads have complete moral authority it's gambling on the system's very survival every time you want to remove that figure and instate a new one.

There is no reason to point out Rome as the best example out there.

If Rome had abolished slavery, ushered in public elementary school education for everyone, amped up their universities giving every genius out there born in any class the means to study and contribute, then Rome would have had an industrial revolution going on around the year 100. They could have conquered the world with tanks around the year 500.

Their system was advanced up to a degree. The weaknesses they had held them back from becoming something greater.

Also I might point out - something seldom mentioned it the importance of usury and the massive destructive nature of that part. It was the real reason Julius Caesar got killed - he wanted to issue interest free-state money and not be dependent on loans to the super-rich. History indeed repeats itself as presidents who did this even partly like Lincoln and JFK got the same end result (Andrew Jackson only failed attempts).

Inclined to think it's not so much a matter of colour, creed or culture. Rather - civility.

If your society is comprised of people industrious enough & intelligent enough; that society should prosper.
On the flip side, once you have too many parasites. The host will die.