Brother Nathanael Kapner Gives me the Creeps
To pick just one example, in Can White America Survive? Kapner cites "prominent White identity leaders" Peter Brimelow, Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor, James Edwards, and Harold Covington without demonizing them. Hallelujah. Then he tacks on this conclusion:
American jewry with its anti-Christian position now rules over America's multi-racial fragmentation. Only a return to historic Christianity that could unite our nation with one common language and one common faith and where jewry is granted no special status or privileges can save America from ruin and a very possible next civil war.Kapner is not praising the "prominent White identity leaders" he cited, he's criticizing them. None of them (excluding perhaps Edwards) express a strong Christian identity or advocate "a return to historic Christianity".
Though Kapner is critical of jewish rule he still wishes to secure a future for America that includes them. His America is an oxymoronic multi-racial nation, which he imagines can somehow rally around a single religion and language regardless of underlying racial differences.
Kapner reminds me of Lawrence Auster. Jew converts to Christianity; criticizes jewish rule (or the symptoms of it in Auster's case); advocates in favor of a return to the traditional, to some point in the past where jews were free to operate and prosper without being so obviously noxious and destructive; and, in the end, blames Whites for not keeping house well enough.
People like this may seem to serve White interests by criticizing jews, but ultimately they are inimical to White identity and separation from jews. They aren't us.
posted by Tanstaafl at 3/15/2012 09:03:00 AM
101 Comments:
I see a problem with modern Judeo-Christianity and not only with Jewish Christians. The problem is, if one was to agree to a renewed Christian social order (which is already quite a big moral concession for pagans, agnostics, atheists and others) in order to get relief from the present Jewish-dominated social order, how can one be confident that after a period of Christian persecution power wouldn't just revert to the Jews again?
That would be the worst of both worlds, and it seems plausible given that:
* This is the situation we're in: there was a mostly benevolent Christian social order, and it lost power to the malign Judeo-centric social order we live in. Why won't the slower horse lose the next race too?
* Holocaust-centric Judaism has established a moral ascendancy over Christianity beyond anything Exodus-centric Judaism achieved, and it is growing stronger not weaker.
* Far from learning the lesson of its fall, Christianity post-Vatican II has continued to make huge concessions that can probably never be reversed, in all sorts of matters including the indoctrination of priests. Such matters are discussed at the Pinay Blog. It's a sound rule that when you let the Jews in, they take over. The Jews have now been let in to the indoctrination of the Christian clergy. What's a reasonable guess as to what will (continue to) happen? As for Jesus' emphatic command that His followers beware of Jewish leaven in a doctrinal sense (Matthew 16, 5-12), such words are no longer heard.
In the thread following Alan Roebuck's post How Christian is the Society We Want? at the Orthosphere, I raised this problem. It came down to another debate on Auster, and the bottom line comments were:
cherub's revenge
Auster is proposing what we had, tried and failed at. And even at that, any time any one puts his proposed policy into practice, he’s one of the most vociferous shouters of “ANTI-SEMITE”!
His disingenuousness on this topic is pretty well documented in this regard and one can find it themselves if they search the web for it.
on March 11, 2012 at 4:38 pm Alan Roebuck
No, Auster only says “anti-semite!” to manifestations of irrational Jew-hatred. You are slandering a good man.
As to the policy itself, the fact that America abandoned a good policy does not make it a bad policy.
Allow Jews to assume dominating positions in society and take over the power of the mass media, and then just talk back to them if they abuse that dominant position. Well, then they won't permit much talking back, as we know because that's the status quo. So what good is that plan?
Anecdotally in regard to Daybreaker's comment, we had a Jewy Jew do a vegas-style standup comedy routine in our conservative bible church a couple of years ago for the Easter Sunday main service. His topic was about how Christians should be thanking our "big brothers" the Jews for Christianity. Did you get that? On Easter, the holiest of Christian holy days, a Talmudic Jew has the entire Christian congragation worshipping not Jesus but Jews. I asked around afterward and nobody else in the church saw anything wrong with it. They all thoroughly enjoyed the "service."
In another church we went to, they have inhouse "services" and support programs for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and God knows what else. We went to about a dozen or more churches but all were seriously corrupted like this; ALL of them had multiculti/feminist/Marxist fever. No hope here that Christianity will save us.
To be clear, I am not anti-Christian. What I see all around me and what I am against is not traditional Christianity but Marxism. Traditional Christianity could save us but I see no visible, practicing, traditionalist Christians so it is a long shot.
Kapner seems very strongly and consistently anti-Judaism, and he sees Western and Eastern Europeans' salvation through Orthodox Christianity.
Most conservatives/traditionalists still view Christianity in a favorable light, like Kapner and CWNY do, because it is the religion of our ancestors. They view it as the one thing that could save us. When we were strong in the faith, we were strong and the Jew was held at bay. Jews hate Christianity with a white hot passion and now that Christianity is practially dead they reign supreme.
Revilo Oliver thought that Christians might be the only ones who could save us even though he had strong doubts as to whether they were up to the task. The fact that Christianity today is so hideously unrecognizable makes their "white knight" status even less likely. But stranger things have happened and I would welcome a reawakening. Is there any system better? Who is actually building something? I don't know of anyone or anything serious happening.
I have nothing bad to say about Brother Nathanael Kapner as an individual. He made his choice and he's following through on it, which I respect.
He's recommending Christianity and trying to show how it can solve problems and prevent conflicts, which is part of his job as a preacher. (It's subordinate to preaching Gospel, sure, but it still fits his job description, which is more than you can say about a lot of things modern clergy get up to.)
And he does have a point: if the main religious culture of a revived White America wasn't Christianity, what would it be?
I just think he's trying to sell a medicine that was only ever partly effective and has now lost all its potency, as a palliative for a disease that's mutated and become far more virulent and resistant to medicines that once could keep it in check.
daybreaker, I think you would agree with the observation that "there has been no greater anti-Jewish force in world history than Christianity".
It is a mistake to blame the abomination of modern America on Christianity, or even blame it on what we might call the Christian social order.
Even up to the post WW2 period, the elite social order excluded Jews. The farther America has gotten from its unofficial Christian social order, the more virulent the problem has become.
The root vulnerability is always the same: a government system based on supremacy of the courts, combined with the First Amendment prohibition of religious establishment.
Neither of these is the fault of the Christian social order. In fact, they are manifestly in opposition to it.
America was established as a nation of Mammon, and it has blossomed into its full expression.
I have to disagree with you here Tan. While I agree with the idea of excluding Jews and also agree on the duplicitous nature of Gottfried and Auster, I don't think we can apply the same arguments against Kapner.
The argument that you are making against Kapner is not accurate because Kapner is a KMAC supporter and has even done interviews with him.
Kapner is an Eastern Orthodox monk and his beliefs can be more closely compared to a man like The Orthodox Nationalist Matt Johnson on VoR than to Auster or Gottfried.
I have not seen any of the same kind of defense of the Jews from Kapner that comes from Auster and Gottfried. Kapner is pretty damn vicious against them. Kapner also defends Hitler.
Believing that a return to traditional Christianity is what can save us is a belief many in the pro-White community hold and is not unique to Kapner.
I agree, Justin, except with this:
"Even up to the post WW2 period, the elite social order excluded Jews." Perhaps at the regular societal level but at the top where important decisions were being made, I think they and their money were definitely "in" in the East and the West.
Tan,
If you haven't seen it already, you might enjoy this:
http://inthesetimes.com/article/12710/there_will_be_paranoia
One shyster approvingly reviewing another's work about how those crazy paranoid white Christians are filled with hatred of the Other. Jut a couple of regular joes discussing this weird phenomenon. No irony at all, no sir. I eagerly await the sequel: "How Right-Wing Whites Have Used Goldman Sachs and Hollywood to Corrupt America."
Thanks Jim.
Steven Weinberg writes:
"As Goldwag notes, the “canonical works of scholarship” preceding his include The Paranoid Style in American Politics by Richard Hofstadter; Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons; and The Politics of Unreason: Right-Wing Extremism in America, 1790-1967 by Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab. Goldwag’s tome is the most up-to-date, naturally, but it is also the best written and the least paranoid about paranoid haters."
LOL! An authoritative list of the best work on White paranoia so far, at least until J.J. Jewfeldjewstein's even bigger tome gets published. Jews certainly are experts at pathologization.
"One of Goldwag’s revelations while researching past centuries is how a penchant for conspiratorial thinking leads to demonizing portions of the population who become “the other.” As he explains, conspiracists are, by definition, seeking scapegoats to blame for whatever seems wrong in society."
Experts at demonizing and scapegoating the Other too.
"Perhaps at least some of the haters are somewhat self-aware. As Goldwag concludes, “Though millions of Americans claim to believe that Obama is a Muslim and a foreigner, and some of them hate him because of the color of his skin, most of them know that the real issue isn’t what Obama is, but what they increasingly fear they’re not.” What they are not is part of the ruling class, despite the privilege they believe being born a white American should bestow."
Exactly. Not part of the ruling class. Thus fat targets for ridicule, pathologization, demonization and scapegoating. Just imagine the chutzpah of the insolent, paranoid White Americans who expect to be ruled by a White ruling class.
Though Kapner is critical of jewish rule he still wishes to secure a future for America that includes them. His America is an oxymoronic multi-racial nation, which he imagines can somehow rally around a single religion and language regardless of underlying racial differences.
This hits the nail on the head. The problem with jew firsters is that we aren't White firsters. And we are run everywhere it seems with jew firsters.
This cannot be stressed enough: what Auster, Gottfried, maybe Kapner (don't know enough about him) are doing is actually good. It's what we should be doing, for us. That is, our family, our race, is our first priority. It's as simple as that, and there's nothing wrong with it, everything right with it.
And Jews know this.
I know I've been harsh with Christians like Roebuck in the past, but it is warranted.
No, Auster only says “anti-semite!” to manifestations of irrational Jew-hatred. You are slandering a good man.
Auster abuses people, not says, and silences them, and harangues them with "anti-semite!!!!". He is a good man, morally it seems, and he is a good patriot - with Jews as his highest priority.
Which is Good, Right & Proper.
But, Jews aren't my people nor are they Roebuck's people. So why in God's name does Roebuck (and numerous intelligent moral others) not simply remove from their midst someone who does not put their own racial (familial) interests first?
The answer is: because the Jewish disease has infected all.
Even the on again, off again Daybreaker refers to Christianity as "Juedo-Christianity". Ffs, straight off there it is.
Christianity will not save Whites. Christianity *must* be in service to Whites. As it always was, and always intended to be.
If Christianity isn't in service to our nation (which Christ said go out and spread the gospel to all nations - not sunder all nations) then it is from the devil.
Christ came to the Jews, and the Jews only. That was his mission. There are many sayings like would a father give his son a snake if was asking for bread. The point is, our religion (whatever it is - or even atheism) must serve our children first. That is the natural order of our White ways, the basis for our civilisation.
Christianity no longer serves her own children, and actually serves other's children and puts forth the religion of the Jews, the Talmud, as it's keystone.
Christianity has failed. It will not save us. Only we can save us.
"The argument that you are making against Kapner is not accurate because Kapner is a KMAC supporter and has even done interviews with him."
Mike "I'm jewish" Wallace interviewed William Pierce. That doesn't mean he was a supporter. Can you provide some links which you think demonstrate Kapner's support for KMac?
Should add, when I say Christianity I don't mean anything other than the Catholic Church.
All those other Christianities are perverse jokes.
But, just like those other clownish Christianities the Catholic Church too has failed.
And it failed with Vatican II, all built to appease the Jews. Yet Auster says it didn't go far enough! in that appeasement.
The Orthosphere will not save us unless the Orthosphere recognises who is us. And it isn't the God damned Jews.
Let's face it, they'll all be calling each other anti-semites soon enough, once Auster's acolytes like Roebuck and BGC and Oz Con get their way.
If you don't look out for your own, don't expect anyone else to.
You're a funny fella Daybreaker, on and off like a bride's nightie.
I can't figure you out.
An Aryanized Islam like the variety practiced in Iran - or perhaps- a Euasianized variety like the one practiced in Turkey (heavily influenced by Sufism) is probably the only refuge left for some Westerners who can't find a home in Christianity of any sort. Sufi Islam has and keeps on attracting a rather educated group of people.
Kapner has a very simple, consistent message in two main parts: 1) Judaism is sick and evil and Jews dominate the world and they must be stopped, and 2) Christianity will save us all. He never gets more detailed than that, never deviates. There is no way to lump in with anyone else just yet. He distrusts Jews and is friendly to the WN movement. I cannot ask more than that of him.
I think that "in" or "out" must be defined differently for each group (of which I hope there will be many thousands, as all other ethnic groups now enjoy). Kapner is "in" when it comes to groups or circumstances fighting for Christianity and against Jewish tyranny. He would be "out" in other groups such as one for indigenous Germans.
If selection criteria are too strict all around, big enough kernels cannot form. I believe that most people would be afraid that they or some of their family members would not measure up and would shy away. Additionally, the atmosphere today is of inclusiveness; most people are sensitive to and prejudiced against groups that are too selective, especially against whites only groups.
Every group has a few levels. Exclusion from the larger group must be largely self-excluding (e.g., people who clearly do not belong there will leave of their own volition because they feel somehow uncomfortable). Exceptions would be people who are dishonest.
Qualifications for general office are made a little stricter, and qualifications for the highest offices and important jobs slighty stricter still.
It gets complicated and is quite a juggling act to keep the levels at the proper PH. But other groups do it and I'm sure we will have good leaders that can handle it.
"An Aryanized Islam...is probably the only refuge left for some Westerners who can't find a home in Christianity"
Various tabloids in the UK reported that ~75,000 White-English people have converted to Islam since colonization of Old Albion began a few decades ago.
Most are women, the article says.
A profile of one: "She met her boyfriend, Zahid, at university..."
The bulk of the males are probably drawn from the ranks of 'whigger'-dom. I have heard a wag or two dub them "Sand Whiggers". I doubt if very many at all have any Racialist sympathy.
Rusty, How homogeneously white is your congregation?
This guy's website is interesting and informative. He's truly an eccentric. I don't think his anti-jewish stances are disingenuous, and he seems more helpful than not. In spirit, he reminds me of David Cole, the jewish holocaust "denialist." While I agree wholeheartedly with Tan's take on the inherent problem of "jewish White nationalists", I wouldn't put a guy like Paul Gottfried in the same camp as Auster (or his smarter, less kookier twin, Takuan Seiyo). Those guys are true enemies, contemptible, poisonous snakes. I pretty much stopped reading Alternative Right because it annoyed me the way Richard Spencer would continue to quote Auster favorably, despite the fact that Auster pathologizes him and venomously slanders his website (and purported cause) at every opportunity. That's just weak. On the other hand, I had no problem reading Gottfried's articles on AltRight, despite some of his shortcomings and constrained freedom in topics touching upon jews. A guy like Derbyshire is more philo-semitic than Gottfried, it would seem, but is still a net plus to the White nationalist cause. Same with Buchanan. His latest piece:http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/rush-and-the-new-blacklist/ is quite eloquent, though it borders on absurd to write such a piece and leave out any mention of jewish interests. It's like those introductory physics textbooks that don't mention calculus: nothing makes sense, really, without it. But that's the world we live in right now.
Steve Sailer is the King, he expose the jews i extremely smart way.
RamzPaul also done a very good video exposing jewish chutzpah.
If the White race is genocided,blended and assimilated out, just what "Aryanized Islam" or any religion, will there be any choice of?
In his interviews with Kevin MacDonald, Nathanael Kapner is normally neutral. He asks questions and Kevin MacDonald answers then, that's all.
Here is a sympathetic note:
Br Nathanael: Getting back to Goldberg, does he have any sympathy for White interests?
Kevin MacDonald: As a Jewish ‘intellectual,’ Goldberg is horrified at any suggestion that Whites will define themselves as ‘Whites’ and seek to advance their interests.
In his article, Goldberg wrote: “I find Beck’s populism terrifying. But his basic message, flaws notwithstanding, is that our constitutional heritage defines us as a people regardless of race, religion or creed.”
What Goldberg is not admitting is that Jews refuse to be thrown into this “people-pudding” — they remain a people apart — but relish the fact that Whites will lose their identity and their consciousness by being tossed into this multicultural mush.
Thus, our new Elmer Gantry is praised by Goldberg and the Jewish crowd he represents since Beck preaches the proposition nation gospel that assigns Whites, not Jews, as water boys of slogans and cliches rather than bearers of blood and soil.
Br Nathanael: It was Fox News that sponsored the Beck rally and its message. How can we break through the media control of discourse on racial issues?
Kevin MacDonald: I don’t have any easy solutions. That’s what makes the Glenn Beck phenomenon so pathetic.
-
Kevin MacDonald tells the truth as he sees it, calmly but without distorting the message to make it acceptable. Brother Nathanael immediately asks how we can do what we obviously have to do.
I think the neutral questioning is more telling than the "we" as an indication that Nathanael Kapner isn't playing Jewish games.
The usual Jewish approach is like a possibly apocryphal story of a remark overheard at a dining table in Hollywood: "OK, you got me, I am lying, but hear me out..." The glib chicanery never ends.
And even if they're caught cold and made to stop, they're back next day with the usual codswallop, presumably hoping that new suckers will be along, or that everyone has forgotten how that point was refuted yesterday, or that people will get tired of posting the links necessary to refute them, or tired of hunting up links to support things that shouldn’t need to be argued in the first place, and then they'll win.
Normally Jews try to shape the conversation in their ethnic, religious and racial interest. They use emotive language, they fulminate and bluster or they play hurt and "beg for sympathy" in order to get concessions that aren't actually justified on the facts, they twist things by importing dubious implications and assumptions into their questions, they try to rule topics and issues that don't suit them out of bounds, they try to sniff out and expel antisemites, and so on. They're tricky, self-consciously smarter than the average gentile, and manipulative.
Nathanael Kapner isn't playing those tricks. He's quit the whole Jewish game. As far as I can see, his attitude is that yes means yes and no means no, end of story.
Someone could toss a false "we" into an interview to create an impression of sympathy that was untrue (though I don't think that's what happened there), but how do you fake simplicity, straightforwardness and non-manipulative questioning? You either put down the usual grab-bag of manipulative Jewish tricks and just ask your questions straight, or you don't.
Anon, Kapner is an Eastern Orthodox monk and his beliefs can be more closely compared to a man like The Orthodox Nationalist Matt Johnson on VoR than to Auster or Gottfried.
But Johnson - much as I love the guy - isn't one of us either. He isn't even one of the Russians/Ukrainians his 'nationalism' is all about.
By our standard - the conventional standard, incidentally - he isn't a nationalist but more of a religious loyalist, who, like E. Michael Jones mentioned in the last thread, insists that ethnic and racial identities be made subordinate to religious ones.
In all this Johnson's like Auster and Gottfried. But unlike Gottfried and Auster, he's really and truly concerned with our best interests and would take our side over the Jews'.
Here is an example of why I call modern, post-Vatican II Christianity "Judeo-Christianity":
Hitler Was a "Pagan Idol," Says Pope to Jews in Berlin
Praises Growing Trust Between Judaism and the Church
BERLIN, SEPT. 22, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI referred to Adolf Hitler as a "pagan idol" today as he addressed a small group of Jewish representatives in Berlin.
The Pope referred to his visit -- part of his four-day tour of Germany -- as bringing him to a "central place of remembrance, the appalling remembrance that it was from here that the Shoah, the annihilation of our Jewish fellow citizens in Europe, was planned and organized."
The Holy Father is on his third trip to his homeland as Pope, though his first state visit.
The Pontiff spoke of the "Nazi reign of terror" as being based on a "racist myth, part of which was the rejection of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Jesus Christ and of all who believe in him."
"The supposedly 'almighty' Adolf Hitler was a pagan idol, who wanted to take the place of the biblical God, the Creator and Father of all men," he said.
The Pope warned that "refusal to heed this one God always makes people heedless of human dignity as well."
He said the images from the concentration camps at the end of the war show "what man is capable of when he rejects God, and what the face of a people can look like when it denies this God."
Benedict XVI went on to highlight some of the signs today of a "real blossoming of Jewish life in Germany." He also praised a "deepening dialogue of the Catholic Church with Judaism."
The Pope proposed as well that "we Christians must also become increasingly aware of our own inner affinity with Judaism. For Christians, there can be no rupture in salvation history. Salvation comes from the Jews."
Nick, this doesn't seem right:
By our standard - the conventional standard, incidentally - [Johnson]isn't a nationalist but more of a religious loyalist, who, like E. Michael Jones mentioned in the last thread, insists that ethnic and racial identities be made subordinate to religious ones.
That doesn't describe the Johnson I have listened to and talked to. Johnson is more on the nationalist side than Kapner. He is always promoting ethnic group autonomy, informed by shared Eastern and Western interests and traditions(under the guidance of the Orthodox Church, of course). He is not a strict racialist but try to find anyone effective in practical politics who is. The strictest standards apply those holding the most important positions in any group.
@Anonymous, whites are a shrinking minority in Houston. In my immediate area, we are 10% and within a one mile radius we are about 20%, with a lot of those having mixed race family members. Houston must be one of the multiculti capitals of the world.
The intermarriage rate is very high here, with white guys pairing with asian and latino girls, and white girls pairing with anything dark. It shows me that we are going to be a much smaller minority much faster than most people think. I can see your future environment very clearly from here.
Nick Dean, I'm not really asking that Nathanael Kapner be "one of us" in every sense. (It would be amazingly presumptuous of me to do so, because I'm not a Christian.)
All I ask is that as a Christian loyalist he be who he says he is. If he recommends Christianity, that should be his true opinion. If he warns of Jewish perfidy, that should be his true opinion. He shouldn't be a hypocrite, or running an unannounced agenda that influences him so strongly that his overt agenda is moot.
I find his body language odd, but on all I've seen and read, his words are straight. He is supposed to be a servant of Jesus, and he is. He claims to be warning people of dangerous evils, and he is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty, Johnson's primary ethnic heritage is Irish. He's not Russian or Ukrainian at all so far as I know.
Based on his religious conversion - from Catholic to Eastern Orthodox - he has adopted and claimed a Russian/Ukrainian identity and nationalism that if it were taken as a model would open up all our real ethnic national groups to any hostile alien.
*John Sentamu's just as English as I am -- doncha know!*
Johnson is sincere and means the Russians and Ukrainians well, but his approach and his conception of ethnicity and nationalism is not one we should embrace.
Daybreaker, like you I try to stay out of Christian squabbles -- and Jew squabbles and Black squabbles etc. Kapner should stay out of White people's business.
@anonymous,
Sorry, I misread your comment. There are many mostly (90%) white congregations but they are all working very hard to diversify. Diversity, inclusion, white guilt, etc., are their obsessions.
@Daybreaker,
Excellent point. The primary and easiest of criteria is: is he trustworthy, is he who he says he is?
Compare Pope Benedict XVI. He looks good, sounds good, doesn't have any odd body language and comes off as a cultured, intelligent person. I'm half sold before he says a word.
But when I look at his words, as quoted in the story (and they are typical of the preaching of Judeo-Christianity), they're so devious on so many levels I wouldn't know how to begin untangling them.
And this is the Pope! His teaching carries great authority. There's no question of speaking badly but being a fine fellow when it comes to acts. His words are acts.
Nick Dean: "Daybreaker, like you I try to stay out of Christian squabbles -- and Jew squabbles and Black squabbles etc. Kapner should stay out of White people's business."
Is he in our business? Nathanael Kapner didn't write a blog post saying "Tanstraafl Gives me the Creeps". He's not starting a fight.
I don't think he's doing any harm.
What would be harmful is if White people took the attitude that he was good because we need a former Jew to speak for us.
Because White identity is defined as illegitimate within Jewish-dominated mass media and academic discourse, too often White people want to make a speaker and a leader of anyone who isn't White and addresses a part of what they are concerned about. How else could such concerns be addressed legitimately? It seemed no Tea Party rally was complete without a photo of a Black attendee, and the people speaking into the microphones were far more likely to be non-White than the people listening.
It's easy for non-Whites to grab that leadership role because they don't face the same stigma White men do in speaking up.
That's bad. We White people have to save ourselves.
And that implies White leadership for Whites.
But as far as I can see, Nathanael Kapner isn't angling for a leadership role. He's just doing his Christian thing, saying look at all the bad stuff happening in the world, and Christianity has the answer.
Kapner advocates for a return to the previous dispensation, with jews living under White rule, at least ostensibly. This is the sense in which he is like Auster.
So why do these men aim their proselytizing at Whites? Why not aim exclusively at jews and try to convert more of them to their views?
I don't believe it is because they like Whites, or are thinking about what is best for us. In Auster's case it is clearly because he thinks what he wants is best for the jews. In Kapner's case it is (perhaps) that he wants what he thinks is best for everyone, which includes the jews.
Both men are trying to manipulate Whites to serve the interests of others. They can fix it by stopping, or aiming their preaching at their own kind instead.
Revilo Oliver thought that Christians might be the only ones who could save us even though he had strong doubts as to whether they were up to the task.
You've obviously never read any Revilo Oliver. He hated Christianity intensely, and regarded it as the Jews' main weapon against us, which he was clearly right about.
"You've obviously never read any Revilo Oliver."
I have obviously read more than you. Though I cannot find it just now, he did in fact muse that our situation was hopeless and that Christians might have to be the ones to save western civ. The fact that he was usually so disparaging to Christians is why I remember it.
"Is he in our business? Nathanael Kapner didn't write a blog post saying "Tanstraafl Gives me the Creeps"."
Did you not see the video in the original post? Kapner is cajoling leaders of what he explicitly identifies as "White identity" towards a Christian identity instead. He is at the very least reporting on our business, trying to spin it his way - to save his multi-racial America.
"What would be harmful is if White people took the attitude that he was good because we need a former Jew to speak for us."
That's exactly what's happening. And you're doing it indirectly by trying to defend him.
Kapner appeals to Christians and racially conscious Whites exactly because he presents himself as a "former" jew. Exactly because Whites, through a combination of altruism and indoctrination, don't want to be seen, by themselves or others, as irrational jew-haters. Whites are hungry for some "former" jew to embrace and call one of their own. I think Auster and Kapner understand this, whether or not the Whites who take the attitude that they are good do.
"But as far as I can see, Nathanael Kapner isn't angling for a leadership role. He's just doing his Christian thing, saying look at all the bad stuff happening in the world, and Christianity has the answer."
You're not seeing clearly. Kapner is evangelizing, producing videos, and he's aiming his preaching at racially aware Whites. If he was just doing the Christian thing he'd be evangelizing jews.
"it's okay for Whites to criticize jews and defend our own interests"
Exactly. We don't need jews to ok what's best for us. They certainly don't defer to anyone else regarding what's best for the jews.
http://heretical.com/oliver/js12.html
For the deplorable acceptance of Christianity by the ignorant barbarians of our race, I have tried to account in my book, Christianity and the Survival of the West. I would now change nothing in that discussion except to make it more emphatic, for in the years since I wrote it, I have come to the conclusion that, with only numerically insignificant exceptions, the Christians are useless in any effort to preserve our race, and that our domestic enemies are, from their standpoint, well advised to subsidize, as they are now doing, the ranting of evangelical shamans and the revival of menticidal superstitions by every means, including the hiring of technicians who can pose as "scientists" and "prove," by subtle or impudent tricks, the "truth" of the flimsiest hoaxes and the most preposterous notions. The development of Christianity in all the sects of the Western world during the past two centuries has been the progressive elimination from all of them of the elements of our natively Aryan morality that were superimposed on the doctrine before and during the Middle Ages to make it acceptable to our race and so a religion that could not be exported as a whole to other races. With the progressive weakening of our racial instincts, all the cults have been restored to conformity with the "primitive" Christianity of the holy book, i.e., to the undiluted poison of the Jewish originals.
If Revilo Oliver ever wrote the precise opposite of what is plainly stated here, I'd sure like to see it.
Absolutely, we should not depend upon anyone except ourselves; to expect that anyone else would care as much for our families and heritage as much as we do fosters harmful ideas such as American propositional nationhood and leads to apathy and cowardice.
Tan, what are your guidelines for who is in or out? I'm thinking that sympathetic people like Kapner are in when it comes to marketing and to big tent politics but out when talking about indigenous ethnic/racial identity. I do not propose that we depend upon him or hide behind him as the Republicans hide behind blacks and jews, just that we should recognize that he is a good ally. He is "us" to our countrymen who are just awakening. He has been open and honest about who he is and what he wants so far and I think he deserves some respect for that.
My personal concerns are practical activities for the awakened, and marketing and political strategies. Purists do not obtain power by being pure, they do it through strategic alliances. Countless WN groups have destroyed themselves over issues of purity of body and soul. Our goal should be to gain power by whatever means we can stomach. After we have power then we will have the luxury of handing out peerages and purging the false friends.
One thing Kapner does very well is pointing out the players in this game.
I personally think that if we can't get our people to become "jew-wise" then we're screwed. I think he does a very good job of it.
But maybe he does have a hope that his kin can become something else like he did.Unfortunately for him i think he's the only one.
Ultimately i think he does more good than bad.
Happy St-Patrick's day everyone!
@anonymous,
Well you got me rethinking. Maybe I'm an ass but I'm still pretty sure it was him. I'll try to find it.
Justin: "daybreaker, I think you would agree with the observation that "there has been no greater anti-Jewish force in world history than Christianity"."
I care about what's good for the Whites, not what's bad for the Jews, so a powerful anti-Jewish force that would also want to race-mix the Whites into oblivion and demographically swamp them out of existence is of no interest to me.
I don't think any originally Semitic religion, whether Judaism, Christianity or Islam, is ever going to treat White survival as a non-negotiable, the way Judaism treats Jewish survival.
And that's what I want.
I would prefer a religion in which my entire race was not an expendable utensil in a story that was basically about members of other races, whether Jewish (in the Jewish and Christian stories) or Arab (in the Muslim story).
If you were able to ask a god if it was all right for the entire White race to vanish and be no more, and the straight answer would be "yes", I am unable to find in my heart or to fake any loyalty to such a god.
I can perhaps understand someone saying, "even if He kills me I will still trust Him", because one man dies and the race lives on. But indifference to the threatened death of the race itself is a step too far.
Is it possible for Whites bearing the blessings of their own ancestors and the gods of their own ancestors to defeat fanatics inspired by Semitic religion? The ghosts of Titus, Vespasian and a lot of legionaries say "yes".
Too many people converted to Christianity. Christianity beat classical paganism. And now Christianity has buckled before Judaism, which classical paganism defeated. And so the White peoples are spiritually destitute and defenseless, without any god that loves them, collectively, since the Altar of Victory was long ago demolished, and the ancient gods were long ago abandoned.
We are like foolish children who abandoned our own parents and wandered off with a silver-tongued "stepfather" who turned out to be uncaring and too weak. Now cold winter's night and the wolves that mother and father once kept at bay are closing in.
If we somehow get out of this, I don't think the experiment of worshiping foreign gods should ever be repeated, though I know many Whites will feel otherwise.
No offense to Christians intended, but that's how I feel about it.
So far no one has actually shown any proof that Kapner is lying, telling half truths, or has any deep resentment towards Whites as can be easily shown with Gottfried and Auster.
The evidence presented which is suppose to make Kapner look bad is that he wishes the White Identity leaders to become Christian. This is irrelevant. He is not doing anything wrong by wishing that these leaders would become Christian.
I have a right to exclude Jews and at the same time make exceptions to certain individuals. At this point I see no wrong that Kapner has done.
As far as I can see he supports a White America with Whites in total power.
Rusty,
It just seems an interesting phenomena that congregations are implicitly homogeneously white and yet explicitly promote heterogeneity w/o any cognitive dissonance. In other words consciously they promote diversity but subconsciously they live uniformity w/o being aware of their subconscious tendencies.
@Anonymous,
Yes, it is very weird, which makes me believe that I am missing some hidden force at work, like that hh-frequency buzzing sound that keeps teenagers away or the playing of country or classical music that keeps blacks away.
Christians haven't yet killed themselves completely off for some reason, though they work very hard at it and many have fallen. They seem to be living on the razor's edge or playing russian roulette or something, tempting fate to wipe them out. I'd say it's how Christians get their kicks these days ejxcept that I don't think any are doing it consciously. It would have to be their subconscious minds' way of getting some thrill into their lives in these mindnumbingly boring times.
Or maybe the total weirdness of it all is a repellent.
Here is an example of why I call modern, post-Vatican II Christianity "Judeo-Christianity"
Fair enough, and I agree with most of what you said, am still reading.
I didn't realise you were using the term "Judeo-Christianity" in the pejorative, but thought you were accepting of it.
I care about what's good for the Whites, not what's bad for the Jews
Spot.On.
Good work.
Pat Hannagan: "I didn't realise you were using the term "Judeo-Christianity" in the pejorative, but thought you were accepting of it."
I am accepting of it. It condemns itself.
"Tan, what are your guidelines for who is in or out? I'm thinking that sympathetic people like Kapner are in when it comes to marketing and to big tent politics but out when talking about indigenous ethnic/racial identity. I do not propose that we depend upon him or hide behind him as the Republicans hide behind blacks and jews, just that we should recognize that he is a good ally. He is "us" to our countrymen who are just awakening. He has been open and honest about who he is and what he wants so far and I think he deserves some respect for that."
The only people who even qualify as potential allies are those who understand and accept our goal: White communities free from jewish influence, jew-free White ethnostates. Anyone else can only be regarded as either neutral, tool, or enemy. There is some debate, even in my mind, which of the latter two classes Kapner falls, but he isn't neutral and I don't regard him as an ally no matter how many pro-White names he drops or how anti-jew his rhetoric is.
"So far no one has actually shown any proof that Kapner is lying, telling half truths, or has any deep resentment towards Whites"
I don't agree with your assessment. Kapner, or some of his fans, seem deluded about jews being White, or being transformable into White via conversion to Christianity. But even assuming your assessment were true, the question then is why anyone expects White nationalists to accept such a low standard.
"Hey jews! This guy doesn't lie and doesn't hate jews - he says mean things about Christians and just look at that GIANT skullcap in his videos!!! Now let him in, or at least acknowledge he is a good spokesman for jews!!!"
White advocacy is a job for Whites. The best thing for Whites that a supposed pro-White non-White can do is either shut up, or aim their advocacy at their own kind, not Whites.
"As far as I can see he supports a White America with Whites in total power."
Provide some evidence. What I see is an oddly behaving, oddly dressed jew describing the situation, admittedly in plainer terms than can be heard in the mainstream, but whose ultimate advice is:
"Only a return to historic Christianity ... where jewry is granted no special status or privileges can save [multi-racial] America"
Not my goal. Jews are not us. I have no more desire to rule them than is required to not be ruled by them.
I find the enthusiasm for Kapner more disturbing than Kapner's own efforts. Kapner is a clown. If White identity appeals to you then get behind White identity, not some jewish clown talking about White identity while evangelizing Christian identity. If White identity doesn't appeal to you, then your opinion is no more welcome to me than Kapner's.
Tan: I find the enthusiasm for Kapner more disturbing than Kapner's own efforts. Kapner is a clown.
When I see Kapner I always think of Bozo the Clown. Maybe some of you don't remember Bozo, but he was a well-known character and image in the early days of TV. He had a big nose and his curly hair stuck out from under his cap. Of course, he didn't have a beard but still Kapner seems a spitting image of Bozo. His get-up appears less sincere to me all the time ... that HUGE cross. If he were not a Jew, I believe no pro-white people would be interested in him ... in fact they would be embarrassed by him. This Jewish convert business gets everyone excited, but we should remember the history of it.
My own feeling is that Kapner is sincere, but is he really good for us? I don't think so.
I should clarify that Kapner may be sincere about wanting to be a White Christian, but I think his get-up, his dress, is overdone for showmanship sake. He remains a Jewish showman.
I think this thread shows there is little "gut level" ethnocentricity among Whites even in a subset of the population where you would expect it to be expressed.
Every reader of Age of Treason will be aware of many negative things that Jews have done, are doing and will continue to do. I don't think anybody in this conversation is motivated to seem more Jew-friendly than they are. Yet the commonly expressed attitude is: we object to various bad things that Jews do not because it's Jews doing them but because those things are bad, and if someone is born and raised Jewish but doesn't seem to us to be doing those bad things, there's no problem.
That may not be adaptive.
It's certainly not reciprocated. There are many examples of Jews who have strong and pervasive anti-White attitudes that apply whether Whites are doing anything anti-Jewish or not.
It's just a truth about what Whites are like. Our default setting is highly universalistic compared to Jews, and likely compared to anybody else.
All the more reason why key, stable aspects of our culture, such as religion, have to supply what our biology does not, that is strong motivation to look after our own in a racial sense, to maintain ourselves in time (revering our ancestors and making plans so that there will always be a future for White children), and to study those who are not us, and strongly oppose them on a collective level if they are doing things, collectively, that are negative for us, in tension with a good future for White children, or in tension with maintaining the fame and the ways of our ancestors, who laid our genetic and cultural foundations.
That can't be left to instinct, because we don't have enough of the instinct.
It has to be a matter of culture, and fortunately we have the brains to maintain a high culture.
And we have great foundations, thanks to our ancestors.
But we need a religious determination to monopolize the cultural gatekeeper roles. I don't think Nathanael Kapner is dangerous, but due to this thread I have a stronger appreciation of how dangerous non-White and particularly Jewish cultural authorities such as academics, critics and film and television popularisers are. If we aren't the ones to say what culture is good and good for us, we'll be sold poison, as we have been, and we have no instincts to fall back on.
What I'm saying is that while long-term survival for Whites may be instinctive in an all-White and relatively low population density environment where the main enemy is nature, in a multiracial and multicultural environment long-term survival for Whites is an acquired taste.
We acquire it through the right kinds of culture, including religion. We create and maintain that culture by effortful conscious processing, we validate it and maintain its place in our communities (against poisonous or untrustworthy alternatives) by effortful conscious processing, we act on it through effortful conscious processing, and we educate the next generation to be able to appreciate it, add to it and act on it through effortful conscious processing.
Through the "sweat" of building, maintaining, acting on and passing on specifically White and White-friendly culture we live.
If we're not consciously doing anything good, we're not doing anything good. For us, "it's natural" and "go with the flow" is empty talk. The flow is right down the drain.
@Carolyn "...still Kapner seems a spitting image of Bozo." LOL. I love your shows on Voice of Reason Radio, too, thank you.
@Tanstaafl "...the question then is why anyone expects White nationalists to accept such a low standard." I understand it completely. It's a desert out here in multicult America. Our people will take any bone thrown to them. Look at how the conservatives eat up the Jewish and black "conservatism" on all the mainstream conservative sites and delight in the supposed "wins" in the meaningless mainstream media political wrestling matches.
But I agree completely with your and Carolyn's statements we should rely on our own and promote our own. Thank you for holding firm and bringing up these important points.
So, speaking as an everyman, I ask, who is "us" anyway? Am I "us"? I don't really feel like I'm part of anything most of the time. Actually, I feel pretty crappy most of the time when I consider that I spend so much time posting to ghosts on the interwebs about unpopular subjects in a practically non-existent movement. I guess I am "in" but I'm not sure a lot of times. Nothing you can do about that of course but I'm sure a lot of people feel that way.
@Tan, here's the daily, unending situation for the everyman in most of America:
- TV, radio, movies, music, and all publications are hostile or indifferent to whites
- All churches I have investigated (12 so far) have the new multicult as their number one mission
- Civic "do-gooder" organizations are thick at the top with Jews and feminists who are heavy into the multicult
- Same thing with cultural heritage organizations such as the Celtic/Scottish clubs, Sons of Confederate Veterans, German/French/Dutch language meets, etc.
- Families are broken or just ruined by ethnic mixing. Family gatherings are tense and give one a feeling of total dispair.
- Americans do not have pubs, town squares, or other civic gathering places where they can join their mates for a pint.
- In America there is micro-isolationism. Most people, even in the big cities, are separated by great distances and make little effort to overcome them.
What support is there for the average white man? None at all. His environment is completely toxic to his mind and spirit. He has absolutely nowhere to go for societal support or affirmation. Oh, sure, he can type to ghosts on the interwebs who may or may not respond. But that lasts only as long as he is online.
The everyman is in Hell. He will eagerly buy whatever Kapner, Auster, or Gottfried are selling if he thinks it will help him.
What I'm saying is that while long-term survival for Whites may be instinctive in an all-White and relatively low population density environment where the main enemy is nature, in a multiracial and multicultural environment long-term survival for Whites is an acquired taste.
I don't believe this for an instant. Kevin MacDonald pushes this odious idea, and it's one of the many things he's totally wrong about.
Whites are not lacking in instinctive ethnocentrism. Anyone with even a casual familiarity with our history can see that. We lack ethnocentrism presently because the Jews have basically beaten it out of us. They dominate us through superior group cohesion. They're a group, we're a bunch of atomized individuals. Any individual White person who tries to stir up racialist sentiment and organize Whites as a group gets punished by Jews. Every White person knows this, so they submit without even being consciously aware of what's going on.
Anyone who visited the antebellum South would probably conclude that Blacks were just genetically lacking in ethnocentrism for failing to rise up against their White masters, even in cases where they were the numerical majority. But the same principle outlined above would apply - the Whites were organized, the Blacks were not, individual Blacks who caused trouble would be punished, so Blacks submitted. Of course, today we see self-confident Blacks and broken down Whites and assume that it's genetic, but that's bullshit.
We lack ethnocentrism presently because the Jews have basically beaten it out of us. They dominate us through superior group cohesion. They're a group, we're a bunch of atomized individuals.
No, I disagree. In my own experience in Oz, whenever discussing race and us Whites asserting ourselves, discussing it with Whites, I am met with scepticism.
Eeven though there is much agreement, and you point out what the Muslims have done in certain suburbs, what is happening with Islanders, and Aboriginals etc etc, and even though we all agree about the curse of multiculturalism and even multiracialism there is always, well, there's nothing you can do about it.
And when pressing it, or bringing it up from time to time, after a while it becomes, "Yeah alright Pat, we don't need to go to your White supremacy again" or something like that.
Yes, the Jews have twisted our media, and the education system but, there is definitely a lack of racial solidarity amongst Whites. They are, on the whole, unwilling to address the subject.
Of course fear of repercussions is a big motivator but these are just drinking conversations, social conversations. No threat of repercussions. Many agree with me and seem ready to be activist about these matters. But many, the most, don't want to know. Some want to punch my head in, it riles them so much to speak of us & them.
I don't know what to do about that except keep on plugging away and take the beatings when they come, change up the message, vary it.
But the fact remains that many Whites do want to be atomised. They do enjoy the liberty of being able to do whatever they please, the negatives of loss of liberty offset by moral freedom i.e. freedom to do whatever the f they feel like doing without repercussion or responsibility.
Rusty's comments there resonate with me very much. It's important, vitally important to build an online community, to keep spreading the word, and showing solidarity.
Yes, the Jews have twisted our media, and the education system but, there is definitely a lack of racial solidarity amongst Whites. They are, on the whole, unwilling to address the subject.
Of course fear of repercussions is a big motivator but these are just drinking conversations, social conversations. No threat of repercussions. Many agree with me and seem ready to be activist about these matters. But many, the most, don't want to know. Some want to punch my head in, it riles them so much to speak of us & them.
What I'm saying is, the reason why they are like that is because the threat of punishment is there. Psychologically, they have responded to the threat by pushing their normal racial instincts out of their conscious awareness. It's not something they can turn on and off at will. They're not even aware of it.
Think about it. Most WNs were, at one point, not racially conscious. Eventually we became "racially aware". What changed? Did we undergo a genetic mutation? No, it was just that for whatever reasons, what we've always known subconsciously managed to push its way into the conscious mind. I'd argue that pretty much every White person has the same capacity. There's nothing wrong with us genetically, and in fact it really pisses me off when people say that.
Actually, I feel pretty crappy most of the time when I consider that I spend so much time posting to ghosts on the interwebs about unpopular subjects in a practically non-existent movement. I guess I am "in" but I'm not sure a lot of times. Nothing you can do about that of course but I'm sure a lot of people feel that way.
Lol! And I thought it was just me.
The situation is more serious than White supremacy. Don't let them say that. What is being pushed in EVERY White country is White Genocide, through forced integration, assimilation. The only reason micegenation isn't forced is because they can't YET. But it is preached and advertised day and night. If you object, well you know what you are called. And of course, raping a White woman is never a HATE crime. It's GENOCIDE, we have to speak out about now or you know what happens to the kids.
"Our default setting is highly universalistic compared to Jews, and likely compared to anybody else."
Daybreaker, I get the distinct impression you are in some way jewish. Would you mind setting the record straight, one way or the other?
Brother Nathanael Kapner and Paul Gottfried aren't trying to take over anything. Their thoughts and views are obviously going to be influenced by their jewish backgrounds. Both of these men are sympathetic to European-American interests. Gottfried and Kapner aren't hididng anything.
Tanstaafl, why are you attacking people who are sympathetic to European-American people? These guys aren't trying to lead a European-American organization. I understand your idea about European peoples leading their own movements and not allowing others to frame the issues. But your attacks on these two guys are really misguided. Especially your attack on Gottfried. Gottfried hasn't gained anything by being sympathetic to European-Americans. He probably gets heat from his fellow jews by what he says. Gottfried even talked about the guilt tripping of Germans. Gottfried writes from a jewish perspective because he is jewish. That is normal.And its not going to change. But he is a guy that European-American can learn from. Attacking non-Europeans who are sympathetic to us is really a strange move.
Hey Tan.
Daniel here. I left a comment as an anon earlier praising the exchange you had with the Asian American student.
Can you tell me where that was? I want to copy it down.
ageoftreason:
I caught you on the radio(hah! as if. I mean podcast) today and really enjoyed the show. I hope you get to do more.
I've yet to hear convincing 'proof' of Brother Nathaniel's anti-white secret agenda. He ain't perfect, I don't know if he's harmless, but I enjoy his youtube vids and if he weren't jewish himself they'd get yanked. His garb helps get attention.
I've donated money to the guy, as well as others.
Watching him yesterday, along with Kony 2012, I see a distinct similarity in video production styles concerning graphics and editing and whatnot.
Brother Nathaniel's production quality is too good. He doesn't get as much self hating jew rhetoric as he should from the chosen people.
At the moment, as much as I want to like him, something just doesn't add up.
I have no proof other than gut instinct, but something is afoot.
Daniel: Burlington Takeaway: Words Whites Can't Say
Tanstaafl: "Daybreaker, I get the distinct impression you are in some way jewish. Would you mind setting the record straight, one way or the other?"
I'm not Jewish.
My personal background is not your business, and I'm not going to share it on the Internet, but I've been looking it up and I'm definitely not Jewish.
What I am is someone with enough Jewish education that I know what I'm talking about. That's a good thing.
It's like knowing mountain lions. Beautiful creatures, but you can't have one in the neighborhood wandering around eating someone's kid. ("We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.") It needs to be in its own space. But at the same time, if you know lions, you know that there are things the do, and things they don't do. They are not responsible for every bad thing. No natural creature is. Not every pet and wild creature that dies was eaten by the lion. Some got eaten by dogs, some got run over, and so on. So I have a definite "this but not that" attitude to alleged Jewish wrongdoings.
Your "distinct impression" lacks any foundation. The quote you gave just before saying you have this "distinct impression" ("Our default setting is highly universalistic compared to Jews, and likely compared to anybody else.") is not a rational basis for an impression that I'm Jewish in any way.
Let me be blunt. You're being paranoid.
Well, Tan's impression is one I got Daybreaker, or at least I questioned.
Your comments in this thread were beautiful but, when I've read you elsewhere you seem to me to have flip slopped and taken on the opposition's side.
It's not paranoia, just trying to work out if you're legit or not.
Just so we can get this out of the way now... (Sorry, other people who are focusing on the main business of the thread, but I should deal with this.)
I do think the Holocaust is historic fact. No I'm not prepared to read stuff arguing the contrary. I read about four lifetime's worth of stuff on the Holocaust many years ago, and talked to people who were in it and escaped it. No more. I'm done.
Making the Holocaust and Nazis so culturally central to White culture (even in Australia, most of a century later!) that Godwin's Law is necessary is still myth-building and it is still the perpetuation of war propaganda, which raises the questions: who is waging this culture war, and who is it being waged on, and since the offense was most of a century ago, is this the kind of war that ends when the side attacked redresses a particular grievance, or is this a war of annihilation?
Also, I feel two ways about it, but on the whole I support Israel. That's the mountain lion nature reserve, in my wildlife analogy. I don't support wars for Israel or any involvement with Israel, and I was and am extremely offended at the idea of Israel sending its bad people to Australia. But the idea that Jews need to live in a country of their own is valid. And I like the idea of them returning to their own part of the world, far from us. (Which they are doing, but not fast enough to save America and the rest of the White world unless we safe ourselves.) Separation is the answer. (Not separation from the Palestinians of course, but they don't care about me and mine and I don't care about them. May the Jews and the Arabs have much joy of each other's kind hearts.)
I think that covers most of what will be used to accuse me of being Jewish.
Pat Hannagan: "It's not paranoia, just trying to work out if you're legit or not."
OK.
I've said what I am, minus what particular countries my all White and all non-Jewish ancestors hail from. And I've done what I can to clear up the main points that may cause confusion.
There's nothing else I can do. I accept that you and Tanstaafl are not being paranoid. But you'll just have to keep wondering and working on it, because I can't make myself any plainer than to give you a straight no, which I already have.
Flip flopped not slopped.
Damn anti-skin-cancer ads are in my brain.
Then why do you carry on like such a pork chop at OneSTDV's and Oz Con's?
Seriously, I really like what you have to say here and am going to post it, but why do you go defensive at Oz Con and tip toe around the subject?
Pat - earlier you were having a pop at non-Catholic Christians.
Protestants may have since been corrupted by jewish influence but Martin Luther had, how shall we say, robust views on our tribal friends.
Well, yes Anon, Luther was right on that score. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I don't want to create division on that score, but rather, like Wolfe Tone, be in communion with otherwise historic foe (which none of it matters now) over something that goes to the core: that is, us.
Happy St Paddy's day. As forlorn, divisive and stupid (for us) as that is today.
So I will say, happy St Crispins day on the same day.
Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it.
That's one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you're a jew. Calling me paranoid is another. People think you're a jew because you act like one.
"Tanstaafl, why are you attacking people who are sympathetic to European-American people?"
I don't believe either Gottfried or Kapner is sympathetic to Whites. But whether they are or not is not the most important point.
"Gottfried writes from a jewish perspective because he is jewish. That is normal."
My main point is aimed at Whites: to look to ourselves for leadership, not to jews or "former" jews who can't help but have a jewish perspective. They aren't us.
Gottfried and Kapner could be the best jews in the world, and me the worst White. My "attack" remains true.
Tanstaafl: "Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it."
That's a "shut up" and I will.
But first…
Tanstaafl: "That's one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you're a jew. Calling me paranoid is another. People think you're a jew because you act like one."
Based on that additional evidence, I retract my retraction. You definitely are paranoid about Jews and imagined Jews.
The first time I saw Br. Kapner on Rense's website, I was impressed. Here is a Jew turned Christian, a true rarity. I even donated to his cause.
Then, he started a foundation. In his own name! Well, I thought, this is going from heaven straight to...earth(at least, for now).Then I thought; where in the world are his elders, his superiors in the Orthodox Church? Why are they not speaking out like him? Does this man have any support from his Church? What's going on here?!
I did e-mail Br. Kapner my doubts but received no answer. Oh well, it doesn't matter. I don't see the Orthodox Church, the many Protestant Churches or the Roman Catholic Church preaching what Br. Kapner is saying. They should.
All of Western civilization has become judaized. The Roman Catholic Church with their static one-and-only-true-church Pharisaism or the liberal Protestant every-man-a-king/priest idea. Neither is correct but the problem in America is not Christianity. It is "liberty, equality and fraternity".
One thing I noticed between Europe and America is how shamelessly Free Masons promote their religion in the U.S.A. Like a dog marking their territory, you see Free Mason symbols posted on boards when entering almost any city or town in this country. Even a one-horse-town like Cochranton, PA! It's a disgrace. At least in Germany they still need the cover of darkness to do their dirty deeds.
One other comment on Br. Kapner is in order. Not too long ago, there was a spat betrween he and Rev. Ted Pike on the validity of the Book of Esther. Rev. Pike denounced the book and Br. Kapner defended it. I myself cannot defend the Book of Esther. It is clearly not of God and this would be one more reason to question Br. Kapner's Christianity.
I was raised a Lutheran but have since found the truth in Christ Jesus. Not in any of these Churches. People will fail but God's unerring Word will not!
Maranatha!
It's taken me a while to digest what you are getting at but I think you may actually have a point here. I like Brother Nathaniel and I also think Judaism is a religion, a virus, and one can heal oneself, and baptism helps.
However, I think it's possible that we might have a "black conservative" fixation on "turned" Jews in spite of ourselves, and this is wrong. We do have to go our own way.
The thing is, they're great at media and they know how to hold an audience. It's probably that fixation on the way they phrase and present things that we see in all mainstream media that makes those with Jewish backgrounds seem "comfortable." In essence, by being saturated with Jew controlled media, we've become somewhat Jewish in our tastes in spite of ourselves. We do need to break free and define ourselves for ourselves.
In short, you being a bastard towards someone I like has awakened me to my perhaps perverted tastes. We need to grab our bootstraps.
By the way, Kapner's story mirrors your poster Sheila's story. I trust Kapner more than Sheila. But regardless, very interesting post that has taken me some time to digest.
Why not see christianity in the context of KMac's theories? That is, as another jewish intellectual movement aiming first and foremost at advancing jewish collective interests.
Who started it? Some jews in 1st century Palestine who clashed with their tribal leaders, the Pharisees.
What was their message? A universalistic appeal to gentiles that Jesus had come to the world to save all men from 'sin' (as defined by jewish religious law).
What was the effect? Many gentiles were drawn into the movement, which ultimately succeeded in permeating Greco-Roman society and taking over the empire from within.
The Romans were their enemy and they won over them, their cult became the new religion of Rome.
So, by becoming a christian, a jew could still retain his old jewishness (as expressed in the holiness of the Old Testament) while at the same time participating as an equal citizen in the empire.
Wasn't communism a similar enterprise?
The church only turned anti-semitic when the gentiles far exceeded jews in numbers and dominated it, thus starting using christianity for their own ends. And yet, despite all the horror stories they like to tell about 'christian anti-semitism' through the ages, the question is: if christianity was so virulent against them, how come did they manage to survive living among christians for over 15 centuries?
and why did they continue living among them if their situation was as unbearable as they describe it?
I think that being the 'people of the Bible' actually served them well, at least better than if they weren't, in their dealing with the christian gentiles. The various measures taken against them would have been much harsher for any other people, christian heretics were treated worse by the church. Living in their confined ghettos, not fully accepted by the christians, but not completely excluded either, may have been what they themselves wanted: living off foreign countries without being assimilated and even here and there attaining positions of power by occasionally becoming useful tools to the kings and the land aristocracy of Europe.
"If a white man mates with a negro, he's a race traitor. If a white man mates with a jew, he's a race traitor. Talking about you, Tan. "What's good for the Jews" = "What's good for Tan's family."
What's this all about?
"If a white man mates with a jew, he's a race traitor.
Talking about you, Tan."
I'm ok with this.
Of Whites, by Whites, and for Whites
A Personal Disclosure
I favor White group interests over jewish group interests.
I acknowledge that this requires Whites to create communities which exclude jews.
I acknowledge that this may include genetic testing in order to satisfy completely valid concerns about atavism and numerous precedents of jewish infiltration and insincere assimilation.
I acknowledge that this may mean my family is excluded from the White communities I advocate in favor of.
My wife understands all this and agrees. My children will decide their positions for themselves.
Pat said - I don't want to create division on that score, but rather, like Wolfe Tone, be in communion with otherwise historic foe (which none of it matters now) over something that goes to the core: that is, us.
Happy St Paddy's day. As forlorn, divisive and stupid (for us) as that is today.
So I will say, happy St Crispins day on the same day.
A belated, same to you sir!
A noble attitude, Tan.
A noble attitude, Tan.
Indeed. Sometimes you have to look beyond your narrow private interests to sleep well at night.
In fact, even from a "universalist" moral perspective, refusing to call out and roll back the jewish agenda is immoral (also cowardly and unmanly). By agenda, of course I mean their (loosely) coordinated attack on stronger, nobler people than themselves, their collective designs to make their host nations comfortable for themselves at the expense of so much good and nobility, their indifference to non-jewish suffering for even the smallest gain for themselves. They themselves know it; most jews have bad consciences. I think ti was Svigor who astutely noted they often act not much unlike someone trying to cover up a crime.
"Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it.
That's one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you're a jew."
Wow, that's all it takes to avoid the accusation? And here I thought I was just being 1) concise, 2) lazy, 3) not giving a crap if people misunderstand me or not.
Anyway. I have long thought that Christianity is not a solution to anything, because Christianity, taken to its true logical extremes, IS liberalism. Christianity as it was practiced in the glory days of the Middle Ages was half pagan and fully Catholic which is to say filtered through what wiser heads decided the religion should be as opposed to what the text actually says. Protestantism gets back to the text. Protestants - specifically, the Puritans earlier (and particularly their descendants) and evangelicals now - are the hotbeds of liberalism. Liberalism is a Christian heresy; it springs up wherever Christianity was historically strongest. (Whether one counts liberalism as cause or symptom is irrelevant, it's a useful indicator either way.)
Much more, very well said, on this topic:
http://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/fuck-christianity-2/
"Christianity taken to its true logical extremes, IS liberalism."
"Liberalism is a Christian heresy;"
Your position seems contradictory.
Anyway, today one can substitute the word "sin" for "liberalism" almost anywhere in a discussion of liberalism by American conservatives/traditionalists.
liberalism is anti-Christian, it is sin.
ConSwede said that the West kept Christian ethics but disgarded the Savior, which explains the total release of liberalism. I don't quite see the causation there but it looks like there would be. I'm still thinking on that one.
The West has been consciously white up until just a couple of decades ago, when Christianity was strong. Now that Christianity has been Judaized, Christians have joined the Jews in promoting Western suicide.
"Your position seems contradictory."
You're right. That was poorly phrased. Liberalism is a heresy in the sense that it perverts everything Christianity was understood to stand for. That understanding, however, was based on tradition and habit, not literal readings. Liberalism takes principles at the core of Christianity and tries to actually make them true (trying to save all human souls equally, valuing the poor and the weak above the rich and the strong), which nobody before did - nobody before could.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Our position is difficult. Without our traditional faith we are floundering just as the Romans did, just as the American Indians did, etc.
The anti-Christian whites blame Christianity and yes Protestantism has been moving in a liberal direction since the Englightment. But the anti-Christians, in my opinion, are too eager to encourage its abandonment. It must be replaced with something better; people will have their religion.
The neopagans have no comprehensive system to match Christianity's, and anyway the pagans I've seen are quite liberal. Buddhism? Islam? Scientology? Until there is a suitable replacement, it seems better to try to salvage what we can.
@ Scott (3/19/2012/04:20.00 PM)
"Most Jews have bad consciences".
I wish it were true. They seem to have NO CONSCIENCE at all, and LITTLE SHAME to boot.
"I think it was Svigor who astutely noted they often act not much unlike someone trying to cover up a crime".
That is not because of a bad conscience, it is more like a thief whose only concern is NOT TO BE CAUGHT.
That is not because of a bad conscience, it is more like a thief whose only concern is NOT TO BE CAUGHT.
Yes I was aiming more at "uneasy conscience." More narrator from the Tell-Tale Heart than Arthur Dimmesdale. I suspect that if you measured the biological determinants of guilty conscience as a quantitative trait, the jewish populational average might be at mildly sociopathinc levels.
I don't know if this is the correct place for these comments, but I thought I would leave them here.
Lawrence Auster post #1:
"THE WAY WE WERE" AND THE SAGA OF THE AMERICAN LEFT
The way they'll always be. In a finely crafted article at FrontPage magazine, Carol Iannone shows how the two leading characters in the 1973 Streisand-Redford movie, "The Way We Were," represent the two key elements in the political and cultural transformation of America since World War II: the pushy, never satisfied left, and the passive, complacent WASP establishment.
[a comment]
That's a superb summary by Mr. Carpenter, putting together the different sides of the problem: First, the Anglo-Saxons' loss or abandonment of their historic position of leadership, without which they lost their true vocation; second, the loss of transcendent belief and principle, which in turn makes them vulnerable to liberal guilt-tripping. But then, added on to these factors and in spite of them, a hubris which makes it impossible for the WASP to repent. I'm not speaking of the false repentance of liberal guilt, of course, but of the true repentance, the repentance FROM liberalism.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 29, 2003 3:36 PM
Comments to another Lawrence Auster post (post #2):
"The [Country Club Republicans] likely do more direct damage than the neocons. They are the ones who hold the levers of power in their hands."
Change the word "likely" to "definitely" and this is the absolute truth. What a group of clueless, amoral, destructive people, who are positively the worst kind of philistines to boot -- they have no culture, no respect, no brain, no love, no hate, no nothing. They have only golf, the stock market, and the rest of their utter zeroness which turns me off almost more than the mischief of the left -- at least some of the leftists have a few synapses between their ears.
Posted by: Unadorned on December 11, 2003 12:39 PM
And that's another "Unadorned" smash shot.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 11, 2003 3:20 PM
I wonder if Auster knows that unadorned = Fred Scrooby. I wonder what happened to Fred.
I know I am in the minority here by far with this opinion, and the ethnic/DNA thing has its merit, but behavior in my opinion is much more important, whether inherited or aquired. Jew, crytpo jew, spiritual jew, shabbaz goy, to me they are all the same....they are possessed with something that makes them a different being than myself.
This applies, in reverse, to Fred Scrooby. He had some jewish ancestry (a grandparent?) but was relentless in naming the jew, attacking neo-cons and so on. If it was all an act, all I can say is he never broke character. Pro-White all of the time. Pro-Christian some of the time.
Fred, where are you?
Daybreaker ran himself off after lashing out in typical jewish fashion when asked a simple, direct question.
Any Goyshekop can see that the man is a saboteur.He says he trained in a monastery and was given leave by Archbishop L- to promote these chaloshes! What hierarch worth his salt would bless the repelling of Jews from Holy Orthodoxy? Not that the Jews are any less blind to his
meshuganannigans.
He is neither Orthodox monk nor
"Fool for Christ"; but makes a 'YouTube' mockery of the Cross of The Korban Yisrael!
He is neither Orthodox monk nor
"Fool for Christ"; but makes a 'YouTube' mockery of the Cross of The Korban Yisrael!
Which is the greater disgrace - I'm
nonplussed to tell - this rason robed mocker of the Cross (per get-up and YouTube antics)or the fools
who support him!
Post a Comment
<< Home