Soul-searching within the churches

I want to elaborate on a concept first briefly mentioned in the Geopolitics page:

http://aryanism.net/politics/geopolitics/

regarding mainstream Christianity, based on the popular conversations sparked by the positions recently taken by Francis on various social issues:

http://news.yahoo.com/francis-most-liberal-pope-ever-112600279.html

While Francis is the one who has attracted the most attention for his lukewarm position on sexual preferences, this is not just a Catholic issue; for example, Desmond Tutu has been expressing similar sentiments:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/desmond-tutu-i-would-not-worship-a-god-who-is-homophobic-8734897.html

This is only one issue out of many that indicate a broadly left-moving trend within Catholic and Protestant church leadership which has increasingly disappointed right-leaning existing Judeo-Christians while encouraging left-leaning people who might be newly interested in Christianity. On the other hand, among the ZC/BS circles I have noticed a reactionary attempt to promote Orthodox churches as “Christianity for right-wingers”, and hence pushing Orthodox positions on various issues even more unambiguously to the right in order to fit this image. If this keeps up, what seems eventually likely is a new schism of Christianity between Orthodoxy on one side and Catholicism/Protestantism on the other, based on different views on social issues.

This presents a great opportunity firstly for Catholics and Protestants to reunite, and secondly – if we Aryanists are able to play our cards skillfully – for them to reunite as Gnostic Christians. The ideological problem faced by Catholics and Protestants alike is that their existing theology doesn’t really allow them to be left-leaning. This is something they can ignore momentarily, but not indefinitely. Sooner or later the honest intellectuals among them will have to face their own theology, and have to admit that the Orthodox positions on social issues are the ones consistent with a scripture that includes the Tanakh (and, more fundamentally, with the worship of a creator god). At this point these post-Catholics/post-Protestants will have to make a choice: go with scripture and convert to Orthodoxy, or go with their hearts and demand a new theology. At this point, if no Christian theology is available, they will either switch to a different religion altogether, or abandon religion entirely. But if at this point we are well prepared to present to them the Gnostic narrative, then we stand to potentially gain a billion or more people into our extended camp all of a sudden.

From the beginning, we have defined the two fundamentally oppositional ideologies within Christianity as Judeo-Christianity (right-hand-path) vs Gnostic Christianity (left-hand-path):

http://aryanism.net/religion/christianity/

The strategy I am now proposing is simply to set things up so that, in the real world, this dichotomy superposes neatly over the neo-Orthodox (right-leaning) vs post-Catholic/post-Protestant (left-leaning) schism that I predict will occur in the future. In this way, we need not bother with converting one person at a time to Gnosticism, but instead can rapture entire churches and entire denominations at once.

Look at the graph on this article:

http://theweek.com/article/index/247425/the-rise-of-the-religious-left

I reckon that a skillful presentation of Gnosticism delivered at a good timing (e.g. as the religious dimension of an inspiring True Left political movement with charismatic leadership) could – in a best-case scenario – pick up most of the “Religious Progressive” category, perhaps half of the “Religious Moderate” category and even a significant fraction of the “Nonreligious” category.

If we want to try this out, we will need entryists into churches throughout the currently Catholic/Protestant world, and at the same time the formation of a group to standardize precisely what beliefs we are promoting. Contact us if you are interested:

http://aryanism.net/about/contact/

This does not mean we are in any way giving up on the Orthodox world. In a private discussion with Anthony, we discussed the possibility of developing an upgraded, anti-anarchist, pro-militarist revival of Tolstoyanism to compete against the Orthodox church in Russia. Aryanists in Russia who like the sound of this idea should also contact us.

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Soul-searching within the churches

  1. Decebal says:

    I’ve had the chance to experience both Catholic/Protestant societies and Orthodox ones first-hand. Of the two, I prefer the latter, not necessarily because of the content of the beliefs, but because of the content of the people. Some do indeed tend towards the overly-dogmatic and superstitious, but there are many who are sincere and kind. On the other side of the “dichotomy”, all we have are feel-good believers and hardcore traditionalists. There isn’t a hint of a more Gnostic weltanschauung, just one which is more at ease with, and identifies increasingly more with, the false left. If anything, the Orthodox are more likely to produce martyrs than the Catholics/Protestants: they are more familiar with the militant spirit we need and demand – they just need to be informed about the right direction.

    Contact with the Orthodox world is beneficial also from a tactical point of view. First, the dogmatic points are clear and can be more easily discussed (and challenged), whilst Catholicism & Protestantism provide us with a mass of apologetics who twist the verses of the Bible (both OT and NT) in such a way that the original meaning is dropped altogether in order to suit the false left. Secondly, while there was an immediate return to the Orthodox Church after ’89, the connection is now wanning, with the youth beginning to buy into the consumerist mentality of the West. This is still a time of confusion, however, as most are divided between tradition and what the West has to offer, and we could use this to promote their national culture and traditions along Aryan lines, discarding the ignoble and introducing some new concepts (such as Gnosticism); we haven’t run out of time for this yet, but we don’t have that much more either. Thirdly, if we bring the Orthodox not just in Orthodox countries to our side, but also those within MENA countries (along with the Muslims in those countries) – given that most Christians there tend to be Orthodox, not Catholic/Protestant – not only would we have MENA and a big part of Europe on our side, but also a superpower (Russia), cooperation between Christians and Muslims, and control of the Mediterranean Sea in the areas nearest to Israel.

    Thoughts?

  2. Libertarian Against the ZOG says:

    While bigotry against homosexuals is sadly somewhat common in Orthodox countries, anti-Zionism is more socially acceptable, and the Orthodox faith places less emphasis on the OT than does Catholicism, let alone Protestantism. (The OT is referred to as “?????? ?????”, “obsolete” rather than “old” testament). That said, given the mistreatment of Eastern Ukrainians (West Ukraine got lucky with a governor who defended them against Koch-style excesses and even promoted the formation of a Waffen SS unit), Belarusians, and Russians by certain controlled-opposition military leaders of NS Germany, good luck getting a broad segment of the population to accept a doctrine that posits Hitler’s especial nobility. Burning down non-J’s villages like a Jew Communist Commissar enacting Stalin’s Kosher scorched-earth policy isn’t terribly nice, and if anything may have contributed to a lessening of anti-Judaism.

  3. Libertarian Against the ZOG says:

    ^Looks like Cyrillic characters don’t show up here. That would be “vetkhiy zovet”, transliterated.

  4. Decebal says:

    LAZOG:

    “…and the Orthodox faith places less emphasis on the OT than does Catholicism, let alone Protestantism.”

    That’s also true, though in my language it’s still called “old”.

    As for promoting NS ideas, it’s not going to be easy anywhere. The point is not to promote past actions, but past spirit – actions will never be perfect, though the spirit might strive for it.

  5. Madoff-Barcenas Enterprises says:

    An anti-anarchist militarist Tolstoyanism is a forgery of Tolstoyanism.

  6. AS says:

    @Decebal

    “There isn’t a hint of a more Gnostic weltanschauung”

    I see such hints in the tendency of many young people raised in Catholic/Protestant families to say they don’t really care for the idea of a creator god but yet still consider Jesus to be a rolemodel. This suggests a yearning to return to the original Christianity (though they may not yet know what that is).

    In any case, the best way to measure affinity towards Gnosticism among both communties would be active attempt to introduce it to both communities. I suggest making this one of your long-term projects.

    “apologetics who twist the verses of the Bible (both OT and NT) in such a way that the original meaning is dropped altogether in order to suit the false left.”

    What we need to do is convince them that twisting verses is not radical enough – what they need to do is throw out entire books! Also, it’s not just the False Left that they try to suit, there are a few True Left ideas mixed in there too. We need to show them that the latter ideas can be promoted without depending on the former.

    “with the youth beginning to buy into the consumerist mentality of the West. This is still a time of confusion, however, as most are divided between tradition and what the West has to offer”

    I agree that there is much confusion. The first thing we need to do is show them that traditionalism and consumerism are not opposites, but two manifestations of the same psychology. Those who are able to grasp this are then ready for the real alternative.

    “we could use this to promote their national culture and traditions along Aryan lines, discarding the ignoble and introducing some new concepts (such as Gnosticism)”

    I agree that we should use the past to inspire them, but as I keep saying NOT the traditional past, rather instead the past that did not become tradition. For example, I strongly suggest that Aryanists in the Balkan region draw positive inspiration from the history of Bogomilism; this is an idea that you could work on in your forthcoming blog.

    “Thirdly, if we bring the Orthodox not just in Orthodox countries to our side, but also those within MENA countries (along with the Muslims in those countries) – given that most Christians there tend to be Orthodox, not Catholic/Protestant – not only would we have MENA and a big part of Europe on our side, but also a superpower (Russia), cooperation between Christians and Muslims, and control of the Mediterranean Sea in the areas nearest to Israel.”

    This would be excellent if we were able to make it happen. Unfortunately we currently have few correspondents from these regions, possibly due to language barriers. I hope illyrios’ activism can improve this as we go along.

    @LAZOG

    “While bigotry against homosexuals is sadly somewhat common in Orthodox countries, anti-Zionism is more socially acceptable”

    An ideologically unshakable anti-Zionism must be ultimately rooted in total anti-Judaism rather than purely political considerations, therefore we should promote among anti-Zionists in those countries the awareness that Judaism is heavily responsible for historical homophobia. This will force them to make a choice between abandoning their own homophobia for the sake of being stronger anti-Zionists, or weakening their anti-Zionism for the sake of retaining their homophobia, and hence allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you would like to help us in this (or any other) objective, please send in a contact form.

    @MBE

    “An anti-anarchist militarist Tolstoyanism is a forgery of Tolstoyanism.”

    I prefer to call it a completion. Tolstoy himself advised his fans not to just stop at his ideas, but use their own conscience, which is what I suggest Tolstoyans do also. The world would be a better place with more Tolstoyans and fewer traditionalists, but Tolstoyans have to face the harsh reality that they are LOSERS under natural selection compared to traditionalists. The only hope for a Tolstoyan society is National Socialism, which requires the willingness to organize and fight. This is exactly the same as the firearm ownership issue: the people who hate firearms are the people who most need to be armed. It is the same as the reproduction issue: the people who are horrified by the very idea of bringing children into the world are the only ones who can be truly kind to children.

    Both Tolstoy and Hitler were Schopenhauer fans; the difference is that only Hitler saw what needed to be done before we can start applying Schopenhauer’s ideas:

    http://aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-and-anarchism/

  7. Libertarian Against the ZOG says:

    @Decebal

    Fair enough. Do you guys generally consider _Table Talk_ unadulterated?

    @AS

    Thanks. I sent in a contact form. I understand if my ideological differences limit the help I can be.

  8. Libertarian Against the ZOG says:

    BTW, I’m not Russian, but I’m teaching myself the language and am at a point that I can do translations that would be much better than Gewgle’s.

  9. Decebal says:

    @AS, I’m a bit tired right now so I promise to return to your point another day.

    @LAZOG, regarding the Table Talks, I would say that they have been adulterated. I have a document saved somewhere which goes into detail about this; I’ll try to find it for you. This is not to say that everything in them is not authentic, though.

  10. Decebal says:

    @AS

    “This suggests a yearning to return to the original Christianity (though they may not yet know what that is).”

    I disagree. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. Jesus is seen as a great teacher because what he says can fit well into a utilitarian/pacifist worldview. This is a superficial and materialistic understanding of Jesus, far from what Gnosticism should be. Most don’t discard YHWH because they’ve actually given much thought to the character of that god, but because a belief in a deity is contrary to materialistic scientism; even if YHWH was to be discarded as a villainous god – some atheists are in fact discarding him on moral grounds, but they tend to point the finger at Christianity rather than Judaism – neither would Abba be accepted as real, were the same spirit to remain.

    “In any case, the best way to measure affinity towards Gnosticism among both communties would be active attempt to introduce it to both communities. I suggest making this one of your long-term projects.”

    My home country is divided amongst two basic ethnic lines, with each belonging to a different Judeo-Christian denomination. I think promotion of Gnosticism might in fact work as a unifying force.

    “We need to show them that the latter ideas can be promoted without depending on the former.”

    Agreed.

    “I agree that we should use the past to inspire them, but as I keep saying NOT the traditional past, rather instead the past that did not become tradition.”

    I apologize for the misunderstanding: that is what I meant to say. Each nation has it’s own mighty heroes of a superhuman character, as well as great myths about the past (some are more realistic than others), and these should be promoted. As well, the promotion of Bogomilism is certainly an interesting idea; I’ll keep that in mind. However, the reverence for St. Paul will have to be done away with. Interestingly enough, I think I remember my grandmother telling me a story similar to the Bogomilian myth, or I read it in a book on Russian folklore; I’ll try to remember.

    “This would be excellent if we were able to make it happen.”

    Well, yes, my last point is more idealistic than realistic at the moment.

  11. NZSRP says:

    Hi guys,

    love the effort you are putting in to provide restore authentic National Socialism. Keep up the good work!

    For me, I do not agree with, or believe in denominational Christianity. The idea of all these “Christian” churches, Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, Baptist, SDA, Penticolsals etc etc etc, is inherently flawed.

    Jesus did not set up multiple churches with multiple different and often differing doctrines. Rather, he set ONE church. HIS church, and he set out fairly clear and easy to understand method of entering His church.

    There is another choice post-Catholics/post-Protestants could also make, and that is simply go with scripture. Leave the man-made doctrines and man-made “orthodoxy” behind and join the church that Jesus created.

    The problem I have with the term “Orthodoxy” in relation to Christianity is it actually a deviation from genuine, authentic Christianity.

    All these different man-made organizations have nothing to do with the church Christ died for in the New Testament.

    I do reject your concept of the OT Creator God, your stance on Paul and on Gnosticism in general, but much of everything else I like.

    I also think we have to carefully look at a Jew of the New Tesatment and a modern “Jew”.

    I do not believe that the majority of these modern “Jews” are of Abrahamic/Hebrew descent, but rather Khazar (Ashkinazi) Jews. And to be honest, when looking at the rot occurring in my own country, the first thing I believe needs to be done is to expunge the Jew. To seal ourselves off from this “international clique” that is dominating the world.

    I believe that authentic Christianity is a complete rejection of materialism, and its teachings encourage us to strive to enoble ourselves.

    Ephesians 4:28 (English Standard Version)
    Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.

  12. AS says:

    Thank you for your encouragement, NZSRP!

    “There is another choice post-Catholics/post-Protestants could also make, and that is simply go with scripture.”

    Yes, but which scripture? For example, do we include the Apocryphal Gospels?

    “I do reject your concept of the OT Creator God, your stance on Paul and on Gnosticism in general”

    I have no problem with anyone who disbelieves in a creator god altogether; I personally am just as comfortable with the possibility of an accidental universe. What we seek agreement on is the proposition that IF there is a creator god, then he is necessarily evil. If this proposition is what you disagree with, you are welcome to explain why.

    “I do not believe that the majority of these modern “Jews” are of Abrahamic/Hebrew descent, but rather Khazar (Ashkinazi) Jews.”

    I agree that most modern Jews are Khazars, but would it make any difference if they were not? The bottom line is that modern Jews have chosen to self-identify with the Israelites of the Tanakh, and anyone who chooses to self-identify with the Israelites will readily treat others as the Israelites treated others, and that is enough reason for us to stop them from reproducing ASAP. In the same way, it is our duty to deal with followers of Christian Identity and similar groups exactly the same as we would deal with Jews.

    “And to be honest, when looking at the rot occurring in my own country, the first thing I believe needs to be done is to expunge the Jew. To seal ourselves off from this “international clique” that is dominating the world.”

    Please send in a contact form.

    “I believe that authentic Christianity is a complete rejection of materialism”

    I agree completely. Which is one reason why one cannot call oneself a Christian and yet worship a creator god who is responsible for, among other things, imprisoning us in material.

  13. Anthony says:

    Was just re-reading this post – I know it’s quite old, but I want to comment anyway because it has been bothering me. I completely disagree that these things are a sign that Catholicism is somehow improving. Supporting issues like this seems very superficial to me, and I think they’re only doing it to try to keep up with the modern world and attract people with modern Liberal views to a religion that is (thankfully) dying. A complete overhaul of how they think is needed, not just superficial support of trendy issues.

    I don’t agree with creating a kind of Neo-Tolstoyism that is militaristic and not Anarchist, because then it would have nothing to do with Tolstoyism. I’m not a huge fan of the Orthodox Church, but there have been some thinkers associated with it that I like, such as Mircea Eliade… and Corneliu Codreanu! I don’t think it’s fair to just write it off.

    Out of the three, Protestantism (especially Baptists) is definitely the way to go. The way I see it, throughout the history of Christianity, fake Christianity has been dominant with small groups of Christians leaning towards the true form periodically re-asserting themselves. Catharism is the most famous medieval Gnostic Christian movement, but there were loads of others cropping up all the time and then being wiped out (e.g. Bogomils, Paulicans)

    They failed because they were too radical, and hence too few people were willing to accept them. Then, in the Sixteenth century, Luther came along and created a version of Christianity that was a step in the right direction, but not such a big step that only a few people would be radical/ Aryan enough to accept it.

    So, I see Protestantism as an incomplete revolution. It was a necessary first step. If that step had not been taken, Europe would probably still be under the grip of the Catholic Church. But now the revolution needs to be completed by restoring Christianity to its true form.

    I used to have a beer in Luther’s honour every 31st October. I recommend we all follow this custom (or something similar if you are against alcohol), because if it weren’t for him we may still have been living as serfs in a Judeo-Christian theocracy.

    And actually, this narrative has great value for activism in America. Who were the first European settlers in America? The Puritans. Who were the Puritans? they were people who thought the Anglican Church in England was an incomplete revolution (and wanted to stay with the Church to reform it from the inside, in contrast to the ‘Separatists’ who wanted to break away and do their own thing.)

    The article above seems to be promoting an idea of progress – that this is the first time in history Catholics have had the opportunity to become more aware, due to relative freedom of speech and religion or telecommunications advances (or whatever.) But in fact they’ve had loads of chances in the last 500 years, which has seen some really hardcore radical Christian movements, and yet still they’ve resisted. Why should we pretend that these tiny changes are progressive, when there have already been radical Christian movements hundreds of years ago that were often very popular? If the leaders of these Churches want to be progressive, they should get on board with radical Christian movements that (unlike Gnosticism – so there is no excuse) they will have definitely studied at some point and some of which still exist today and are by no means obscure (e.g. Baptists.)

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

    There are movements in the article above that rejected trinitarianism, original sin, refused to baptise infants on the grounds that they could not consent, embraced agrarianism and simple living. And virtually all Protestants believe in following the word of God and not traditional authorities.

  14. Anthony says:

    Das Reich muss uns doch bleiben.

  15. Connor Schuster says:

    Ich verstehe nicht? Wofur ist das schreiben?

  16. Connor Schuster says:

    Entschuldigung mich. Aber mein Deutch jetzt nicht sehr gut.

  17. AS says:

    “I completely disagree that these things are a sign that Catholicism is somehow improving.”

    I never said it is improving. I said it is about to tear itself apart, which then offers us a chance to pick up people from the fallout.

    “complete overhaul of how they think is needed, not just superficial support of trendy issues.”

    This is what I suggest in the post, where I suggest discarding the Tanakh and discarding worship of a creator god. Surely this is a complete overhaul?

    “I don’t agree with creating a kind of Neo-Tolstoyism that is militaristic and not Anarchist, because then it would have nothing to do with Tolstoyism.”

    I thought you liked the idea when we first brought it up in private?

    Tolstoy rejected the state on the basis that it is violent. Abhorrence towards violence is the highest Tolstoyan principle. How then can the consistent Tolstoyan accept demographic violence? And what can stop demographic violence except the state? Therefore we would not be rejecting the Tolstoyan principle, but we would be taking it to its logical conclusion, which Tolstoy himself did not get around to doing. What Buddhism was in relation to Jainism, we can be in relation to Tolstoyanism.

    If, on the other hand, you would like to suggest alternative propositions on how to change thinking in the present-day Orthodox world, please go ahead.

    “I’m not a huge fan of the Orthodox Church, but there have been some thinkers associated with it that I like, such as Mircea Eliade… and Corneliu Codreanu! I don’t think it’s fair to just write it off.”

    This is why in the post I wrote: “This does not mean we are in any way giving up on the Orthodox world.” I also want Orthodox Church to be Gnosticized at some point, but merely believe that the sensible SEQUENCE is to Gnosticize the post-Catholics and post-Protestants first, observe the Orthodox reaction, and then decide how to proceed strategically. At present, however, I see the Orthodox Church moving in a very ugly direction, with very little attention on ethical issues and far too much attention on traditionalism. It’s not even that it examines ethical issues and then disagrees, instead it seems willing to dismiss such issues without serious examination.

    “this narrative has great value for activism in America. Who were the first European settlers in America? The Puritans. Who were the Puritans? they were people who thought the Anglican Church in England was an incomplete revolution”

    I agree, which is why on the Geopolitics page I encourage the idea of the Americas becoming the centre of the Christian world in the future. But for it to become this centre requires unification between the more heavily Protestant North America and the more heavily Catholic South America. To this end it seems more practical to encourage both sides to move towards the same new interpretation of Christianity than to require Catholics to turn Protestant.

  18. Connor Schuster says:

    “The Jew is that sacred being who has brought down from heaven the everlasting fire, and has illumined with it the entire world. He is the religious source, spring, and
    fountain out of which all the rest of the peoples have drawn their beliefs and their religious. The Jew is the pioneer of liberty. The Jew is the pioneer of civilization.
    The Jew is the emblem of eternity.”-Tolstoy

  19. Connor Schuster says:

    Leo Tolstoy, yes, ought to be avoided in all principle.

  20. Anthony says:

    >Ich verstehe nicht? Wofur ist das schreiben?

    It is the last line of the song ‘Ein Feste Burg ist unser Gott’, which was the anthem of Protestantism during their struggle in the Reformation. I’m sure how you can see it’s relevant to this discussion.

    >Aber mein Deutch jetzt nicht sehr gut.

    It’s not bad. you should look at the song I was talking about to improve your German:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErKTZchVVeE
    It’s quite simple, but it has some tricky parts.

    >I never said it is improving. I said it is about to tear itself apart, which then offers us a chance to pick up people from the fallout.

    I don’t think it’s about to tear itself apart. These are only superficial changes.

    >If, on the other hand, you would like to suggest alternative propositions on how to change thinking in the present-day Orthodox world, please go ahead.

    Why not just promote Corneliu Codreanu, who was voted as one of the greatest Romanians of all time in a fairly recent poll? Why pick someone who has more in common with a different political movement (Anarchism), thus making it look like Anarchism is superior to our ideology and we are trying to imitate it?

    >To this end it seems more practical to encourage both sides to move towards the same new interpretation of Christianity than to require Catholics to turn Protestant.

    I agree with this. But I think that a new Church needs to be created drawing people from both camps rather than thinking the old camps are being more ‘left-wing’/ acceptable. It’s as bad as saying that we think Republicans and Democrats should unite as National Socialists because both are becoming more left-wing! I mean, Republicans are much more left-wing than they were 50 years ago, so they’re clearly ready to become Aryanists, right?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/now-there-are-3-republican-senators-who-support-gay-marriage/277021/
    http://www.policymic.com/articles/31091/republican-support-for-gay-marriage-jumps-to-52-percent

    >How then can the consistent Tolstoyan accept demographic violence? And what can stop demographic violence except the state? Therefore we would not be rejecting the Tolstoyan principle, but we would be taking it to its logical conclusion, which Tolstoy himself did not get around to doing.

    Tolstoy was a Pacifist. Pacifists know that by abstaining from combat they are allowing evil to continue in the world, and yet they do so anyway. They have their reasons. So this attitude is sill not in line with Tolstoy’s thought.

    As a minor point, I’d also like to point out that support for Catholicism is inconsistent with our nationalism. Allowing a Catholic, who has dual loyalty to the Pope, to hold office is as bad as allowing a dual Israeli citizen to hold office.

  21. AS says:

    “I don’t think it’s about to tear itself apart. These are only superficial changes.”

    But these are changes that are alienating many of the old churchgoers, while at the same time attracting former non-churchgoers. The changes are superficial TO YOU because you are a deep thinker. For people who are not deep thinkers, these are the issues which polarize them into clear-cut camps that reveal something about their attitudes.

    “Why not just promote Corneliu Codreanu, who was voted as one of the greatest Romanians of all time in a fairly recent poll?”

    I’m trying to find a way into Russia, not Romania.

    “Why pick someone who has more in common with a different political movement (Anarchism), thus making it look like Anarchism is superior to our ideology and we are trying to imitate it?”

    No, the idea is to confront Tolstoy fans with our arguments against anarchism (which are arguments based on abhorrence towards violence, and therefore arguments that Tolstoy fans are required by their own beliefs to take seriously) and see if we can bring some of them over. I have no intention of imitating anarchism in any way. What I want to do is force a choice between anti-violence and anti-statism. Which is more important to Tolstoyans when it comes down to it? (I honestly don’t know, and I want to find out.)

    “Tolstoy was a Pacifist.”

    This does not imply that all his fans are pacifists. Those who are not could potentially be encouraged to develop towards active anti-violence.

    “It’s as bad as saying that we think Republicans and Democrats should unite as National Socialists because both are becoming more left-wing! I mean, Republicans are much more left-wing than they were 50 years ago, so they’re clearly ready to become Aryanists, right?”

    The point is not that Catholic and Protestant churches are becoming more left-wing; the point is that Catholic and Protestant churches, by becoming more left-wing, are TURNING AWAY their old churchgoers and BRINGING IN new churchgoers, meaning that the churchgoers of the future will be a different demographic than the churchgoers of the past. This demographic change – not the policy shift of itself – is what could open up opportunity for us.

    The Republican analogy is poor because the Republican demographic has not significantly changed in response to its policy shifts. Republicans today are still more or less the same fraction of society as they were a generation ago. But if hypothetically there were to be a mass defection of former GOP voters to the Libertarian Party (for example), so that the difference between Republicans and Democrats suddenly becomes less significant than the difference between Republicans/Democrats and Libertarians, THEN the analogy would be more valid, and indeed we should then be on hand to help formulate a counter to the Libertarian threat and bringing in former Republicans and former Democrats under our tent.

    “I’d also like to point out that support for Catholicism is inconsistent with our nationalism. Allowing a Catholic, who has dual loyalty to the Pope, to hold office is as bad as allowing a dual Israeli citizen to hold office.”

    Wouldn’t this argument apply to all experts trusted to arbitrate on what is canonical within that subject? And if not, why only the Pope? The Pope is just someone trusted by Catholics to arbitrate on what is canonical within Christianity. The Vatican is what I think you are worried about. But as long as the Pope himself is a citizen of our state and not his own state, we should be OK.

  22. John Johnson says:

    In America, at least, the majority of “Bible thumping fundamentalists” who think the Earth is 6000 years old, don’t believe in evolution, etc. are Baptists. Some of their beliefs might look good on paper, but their main demographic is angry old conservatives.

    http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/church_bodies.gif

    What makes you think Protestantism is less Judeo-Christian than Catholicism? Protestantism, with its emphasis on scripture, has probably more than anything furthered the acceptance of Jews as the ‘chosen people’.

    It’s the good old Judeo-Christian Protestants who enable and support things like this:
    http://static.squarespace.com/static/50b3b506e4b05036d3b18e4a/t/50b3ff9ee4b044271b605cef/1353973664582/whitehousemenorah.jpg

    as well as gave Palestine to the Jews (at least this is the motive that the populace accepted/supported and continues to support to this day).

    However, I do agree with the ‘incomplete revolution’ bit. America has had a number of religious revivals in the past, and it certainly could happen again.

    Also, here is an old video of some American converts to Orthodoxy who say they were drawn to Orthodoxy because of its traditionalism.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_2gI17e7A8

  23. Anthony says:

    >What makes you think Protestantism is less Judeo-Christian than Catholicism?

    It is true that it is in fact still very Judeo-Christian, but a key difference difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is, as you say, that Protestantism emphasises scripture and is in principle supposed to allow its adherents to explore their faith and try to find the correct interprtation of scripture, whereas the tenets of Catholicism are fixed by tradition. Catholicism is therefore very difficult to change, but there can in principle be as many varieties of Protestantism as there are believers. If someone thinks they have found the true version of Christianity by correct interpretation of scripture, they can just start a new Protestant movement. In practice, they tend to go with completely false interpretations, but this idea of a search for truth rather than fixed dogmas is the revolution that was necessary to prepare the way for the next stage.

    In many ways, Protestantism is more Jewish than Catholicism, but that is because they were trying to rediscover the true roots of Christianity without understanding Gnostic Christianity. They fell into the same trap as the poet William Blake, who was a Gnostic Christian at heart, but became philo-Jewish because he did not know that Gnostic Christianity existed. He thought that true Christianity was a Jewish movement and that it needed to be purified of Paganism, but not of Judaism since it has a Jewish core. Protestantism has been very good (but not completely successful) at purifying Christianity of the Pagan aspects that plague Catholicism, but has at the same time over-emphasised the Jewish aspects. (Note that I do not think we only have to purify Christianity of Judaism and Paganism to discover the truth. This is only a basic step. There is probably still a lot of work after that.)

    Catholicism is superior to Protestantism in some ways. It’s not really worth getting into a debate on which is better, since my point is that trying to change Catholicism into Gnostic Christianity is completely ludicrous. We need a new church to draw people to (like how the LDS was a completely new Church.) We cannot honestly take Catholicism, completely change it and still call it Catholicism. It’s dishonest and people won’t buy it. They’ve only recently admitted the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way round. They still think that the wine and bread literally becomes Jesus’ body and blood. We’re not going to be able to just walk in and change it into a completely different religion. It has to be done outside of the current Churches (especially the Catholic Church), not from inside.

  24. Anthony says:

    I have created the following pie charts representing the ideological content of various religious groups. Do not take them too seriously. They are an oversimplification and I have no way of actually measuring what they show, but they are useful as an approximate visualisation of the situation.

    http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/religion_chart.jpg

  25. AS says:

    @Anthony

    “We cannot honestly take Catholicism, completely change it and still call it Catholicism.”

    I agree, which is why in the post I specifically used the term “post-Catholic”. Again, I am aiming at the PEOPLE who today call themselves Catholics, and who may no longer do so in the future. I have no intention of maintaining the name “Catholic”. The Catholic Church is only supposed to last until the Second Coming of Christ anyway. So we have the perfect excuse to discontinue the name “Catholic” when we defeat Zionism.

    “We’re not going to be able to just walk in and change it into a completely different religion. It has to be done outside of the current Churches (especially the Catholic Church), not from inside.”

    Wouldn’t it be convenient if we had a Gnostic-sympathetic Pope? The wide influential reach of the Pope as compared to that of even the most senior Protestant leaders is a structural advantage.

    By the way, just out of curiousity, does your preference for Protestantism over Catholicism transfer to a preference for Sunnism over Shiism when considering Mohammedanism? Could you edit your pie charts to show separately these two major Mohammedan branches also, as you see them?

  26. Anthony says:

    >By the way, just out of curiousity, does your preference for Protestantism over Catholicism transfer to a preference for Sunnism over Shiism when considering Mohammedanism?

    Yes, but I don’t think the proportion of Paganism to Judaism would differ much between the two. Unlike Christianity, there are fairly large Mohammedan or Mohammedan-influenced groups around today (e.g. Sufism, Yazidism) with a significant Gnostic component, so if I had to promote any sect I would promote them. But Shia has produced more interesting splinter groups than Sunnism (e.g. Alawism, Qarmatism) because of their belief in ‘hidden meaning’ in verses of the Koran, which is a good thing. The bad thing is that they believe there are infallible humans who know the correct interpretation.

    If I did the pie chart for Sufism, the Gnostic component might be well over half or even near 100%, but as I said before, this does not mean they have all the answers.

  27. LuciferOverZion says:

    I have read the Bible, in almost all of its entirety, as if it was some kind of encyclopedia.
    I became very religious that way but as growing up I realized what was behind the pious message of the Old Testament…
    so I chose to become an atheist, although never a declared one but I want to become spiritual again and that is so easy for me to just read the Gospel of John and follow very basic concepts of Buddhism and I find it funny that many so called Christians and Buddhists do not follow the concepts they claim to have because of ego or perhaps I have to learn more about their ways to understand them but that would mean that they do not make sense lol

    I don’t know if anything I wrote above is understandable, if it is, contact me and write a list of books you like about racial theories, Jewish crimes, state planning, law, good and degenerate art, Gnostic and Gentile religions.
    I do not have a lot of time to socialize or read so I would like to read good stuff even if quickly and by skipping passages that seems unimportant but are not. I want to learn.

    Contact me by sending me a short simple first message without any unrelated content. Thank you.

  28. LuciferOverZion says:

    Forget it… For you can get One, two, more, four, for…

    Coolspeak =

    Rational vs Emotional, Logic and Reasoning.

    Cool =

    Good but Uncool = Bad.

  29. LuciferOverZion says:

    But I really want to believe in Occitania, I understand it and is something we all lost.

    Maybe even Occitania is cooler than ever.

  30. Decebal says:

    @LOZ

    “I don’t know if anything I wrote above is understandable, if it is, contact me and write a list of books you like about racial theories, Jewish crimes, state planning, law, good and degenerate art, Gnostic and Gentile religions.
    I do not have a lot of time to socialize or read so I would like to read good stuff even if quickly and by skipping passages that seems unimportant but are not. I want to learn.”

    Send me a contact form about what you want specifically, and I’ll see if I can help.
    By the way, if you don’t have time to socialize or read, what purpose are you learning for?

  31. LuciferOverZion says:

    I want to have all of my old psychotic messages (sep. 14- nov. 14), if you see them and have the time, deleted. They are an embarrassment and make me look stupid. I really thought that the Inquisition was after me to kill me but I was just starving and homeless.
    BTW I think AS has got it here.
    The Orthodox patriarchs and the Pope are about to do a full communion but they just can’t agree on some precepts
    like papal primacy, the filioque clause, and the purification after death.
    The thing is that the Western and Eastern Roman-Chalcedonian Churches need to be completely destroyed.

  32. LuciferOverZion says:

    BTW I think AS has got it wrong here*

  33. LuciferOverZion says:

    Plus in the Vatican and Ecumenical archives there are proofs of centuries of forgeries. If Francis was a good guy then he would have revealed this to the masses and been a martyr already.

  34. AS says:

    @LOZ

    Nowhere in the original post did I say Francis was a good guy. For the record, I consider Francis utterly evil, and if we were in government he would be executed in as slow and painful a manner as possible:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/pope-francis-parents-ok-smack-children-dignity

    Also, it has since become clear that he is still homophobic, just somewhat less so compared to the traditionalist Judeo-Christians:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis#Homosexuality

    But even bad guys can make moves that can be tactically beneficial to us if we know what to do with them. That was all I meant in the original post.

    Anyway, the idea stands. Anyone willing to become an entryist into the Catholic Church should send in a contact form.

  35. Andalucian Warrior says:

    @LOZ

    In all fairness, the stuff you posted is no worse than comments from many other posters I see on the blog these days. At least now you are making sense. Please continue in the path of reason.

  36. LuciferOverZion says:

    @ AS

    Now that’s the smartest idea I’ve ever heard, infiltrating the cathodes!
    I have several Catholic acquaintances and I used to be very zealous before studying theology and other scholar things noticing the fallacies.
    + I will be able to live the lifestyle I always wanted, immersed in books.
    - No beautiful women but hey duty first. :D

  37. LuciferOverZion says:

    - And of course the meat-eating part… urgh

  38. Andalucian Warrior says:

    @LOZ

    The only way to infiltrate them would be to lie all the way to the top then expose our true views once we get to a high enough position. No-one openly professing Gnostic or Aryanist views would ever get to a high position in the Catholic Church.

  39. LuciferOverZion says:

    That’s the main point. I would have to leave all of my past friendship and acquaintances since it wouldn’t make any sense. Perhaps having separate Facebook accounts.

  40. Andalucian Warrior says:

    If you’re going to do something like that, it would be best to restrict online activity.

  41. LuciferOverZion says:

    I’ll stop this here. Being a deceptive liar is not for me.

  42. Sun of the Isles says:

    I think that there is some hope for the Orthodox Church:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a19CAicIAYQ
    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/patrick-strickland/israel-arrests-palestinian-archbishop-during-protest-against-church

    The Russian Orthodox Church has degenerated, however the Orthodox Churches in the Levant/Shams are generally anti-Zionist in nature. As long as individuals like Archbishop Atallah Hanna keeps appearing, who knows, the Orthodox Church might de-traditionalise and Gnosticify iteself in the future.

    Also note that Hamas (and other anti-Zionist organisations in Shams) also ally themselves with the Orthodox Church (in Palestine):

    http://hamas.ps/en/post/692/hamas-leader-and-a-parliamentary-delegation-visit-christian-communities-in-gaza

  43. This is the kind of Church activism America needs to revive
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1688_Germantown_Quaker_Petition_Against_Slavery

    Petition Against Deportation? PAD, which is also slang for “house.”

    Possible slogans:
    Join my PAD
    Welcome to my PAD

  44. NuminousSun says:

    @Miecz:

    Thanks for the link. Such an important sentence there toward the end that fits well into what I’m planning on writing in regards to Western civilization. I think this is what many westerners fail to realize to this day, that most of their wealth came from their western ancestors plundering the rest of the world. Michael Jackson made a good point about that in an interview once also.

    “Ethnic minorities and women of many third-world countries are especially vulnerable. Societies that are sometimes called “advanced” are to some extent dependent on cheap labor and resources taken from those less fortunate. (Not so “advanced after-all then?) Some believe that our worldwide environmental crisis has been created by our willingness to ignore the pleas and lost lives of people who would work hard for equal pay and privilege. The expectation of equal rights for everyone is a powerful motivator that may help to give economic progress and environmental responsibility worldwide.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1688_Germantown_Quaker_Petition_Against_Slavery

  45. That Michael Jackson quote is pretty much what I wrote about in my review of the film Elysium.
    https://swordofelysium.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/elysium-leadership-vacuum-crisis/

  46. Gerulf says:

    @AS

    >For the record, I consider Francis utterly evil, and if we were in government he would be executed in as slow and painful a manner as possible

    Kind of late on this one, but this doesn’t ring “Hitler” to me. IIRC Hitler pardoned most of his adversaries when he took power, because they just seemed so insignificant to him at that point. If you really wanted to make a statement, that action would send shock-waves. A public execution would only get them up in arms.

    @Andalucian Warrior That would be lying elevated into an art form, although I consider it inevitable that someone will eventually attempt to change the Church from within it’s hierarchy. Consider the case of Erasmus. He was gaining support even in priestly circles.

    @Miez Getting closer to the mark here. Thomas Paine likened the old American Deism with the Quakers, but he said they left “the works of god out of their system”. A people who don’t know what their Founding Fathers believed are a people without heroes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>