Archive for April 22nd, 2006

The Judgement is not Just Theology

A German once said to other Aryans, “If you said the things to other people that you say to yourself, you would be a sadist.”

Those of us who have a conscience are very cruel to ourselves.

One commenter says he feels guilty about nothing in his life and he is not a sociopath. He is an enormous exception.

I do not need the Bible to stand before Judgement all the time. To me, this is Aryan morality. It is a cruel master.

I have never considered heaven-and-hell Christianity to be Christian “morality.” What Christianity says is that if you are good you will be rewarded forever. If you do evil you will be tortured eternally.

This is religion, but it is certainly not morality.

I wonder if a person who is not bound to morality regardless of reward or punishment can be saved when the real Judgement Day comes?

Action based entirely on punishment and reward is not yet morality, but many a person has been frrightened into acting morally by a fear of Hell. But as he thinks in terms of morality year after year, his conscience will develop.

CS Lewis says, “If you are not yet sure the Faith is true, pretend as if it WERE true”

A dog who obeys because he will be whipped if he doesn’t is obedient, but he is NOT moral.

In the movie “A Man for All Seasons,” a Duke who was a friend of Thomas More urged him to say he was for Henry VIII’s divorce even if he didn’t believe it was right.

He said, “Say it, Thomas,and I will stand beside you.”

Moore answered, “And when we both face the Judgement, and God says you will go to heaven because you endorsed the divorce because you believed it was right, and God says says I am damned because I endorsed it though I believed it was wrong, will you THEN stand beside me and walk into the Pit of Hell with me?”

I think this is profoundly true.

The only difference is that I don’t need the Pit of Hell to make me do what is right.

My own conscience, my Aryan conscience, is all the punishment I need to make immorality painful.

4 Comments

Real Prophecy Doesn’t PAY

I put this in Stormfront:

I remember watching “Crossfire” in its original version back about 1978.

Pat Buchanan and his liberal had a young “racist” on, and Buchanan was trying desperately to prove he was a respectable conservative.

Buchanan said that Americans who died in World War II gave their lives to open Europe to third world immigration. His pet liberal praised him to the skies.

Two decades later, Pat published the best-selling book he ever wrote, “The Death of the West,” which said just the opposite.

In the intervening period I talked to Pat a number of times.

He and Joe Sobran moved steadily — not because of me — into the anti-immigration camp by the early 1980s.

For fifteen years or so after his conversion, Joe and I and others tried to get Pat to write a book about it. He kept saying a book like that would do more harm than good, that it would ruin him.

I repeat, when he finally did write it sold like hotcakes.

So today, when you talk about anti-immigration leaders, the top of the list is Pat Buchanan.

And David Duke, the man Buchanan crowded out of the Republican primaries against Bush, the man who was ALWAYS on the side Buchanan claims for himself?

He is STILL called “Former Klansman David Duke” by the media.

Liberals and respectable conservatives call me some things, too. But what they call me is less public and a hell of a lot less publishable.

David and I were right from the word go. In fact, we right at least twenty years BEFORE the word Go.

In order to destroy Communism, I was advocating, –before 1960! — that Republicans stop their “moderation” and their hopeless pursuit of the “The Negro Vote.” I said Republcains go after the socially conservatives Democrats who were against “civil rights” in the South and the “ethnic” areas up North.

By 1963 I had won elections with that strategy.

It took us twenty years to get that idea into practice.

In 1968 those “Wallace Democrats” for ten million votes in the general election. But respectable cosnervatives wouldn’t touch them because they were called “Wallace Democrats” and would stain conservative respectability.

So Republicans continued keeping their respectability and being moderates. They kept going after what was now called “the black vote.”

And they kept losing.

Finally, in 1980, Reagan went after “the Wallace vote” and smashed the Democrats.

Overnight nobody ever heard about “Wallace Democrats” again.

They are now called “Reagan Democrats.” You have not heard “Wallace Democrats” since election night, 1980.

Since election night in 1980 every single Republican says he was ALWAYS for appealing to the “Reagan Democrats.”

So who got credit for going after the “Reagan Democrats?”

Credit went to every Republican and respectable conservative who fought me every inch of the way for two decades, that’s who.

And who gets credit for trumpeting the danger to the white race posed by open borders?

Former Klansman David Duke?

Of course not.

Pat Buchanan, the one who said Americans died in World War II to make Europe brown, gets the credit.

This surprises neither David nor me in the least.

In fact, this is what David and I both signed on for. We knew this would happen from the get-go.

David and I have been in this battle since we were very, very young.

To say that we ever expected credit would be an insult to our intelligence.

One of the first things a political revolutionary learns is that there are those who fight the fight and those who take the credit. The minute our vital job is really done someone who is a professional credit-taker will cash in on what we have been pushing for decades.

This is routine.

We are willing to settle for this because we know we are the ones who make real history.

There are planty of people available to take credit when the time comes. They are not really important.

But there are NOT plenty of people who are willing to keep plugging away trying to light the match the way David and, to a lesser extent, I do.

We are VITAL. We know we are IMPORTANT.

We know that if we keep trying to light the match, no matter what it costs us, the match will eventually be lit.

There are plenty of credit-takers. We who light the match are critical and indispensable.

Pat did us a favor when he finally, at long last, cashed in what we had been trying to get SOMEONE to cash in on for so many years.

Reagan was useful, too. He did destroy the USSR.

FINALLY.

I was glad to see it when big-time, big-pay political consultants FINALLY cashed in on what I had been pushing since before 1960.

What do David and I get for it?

We get the knowledge that we exercise POWER.

None of the credit-takers have any real power. If one credit-taker was never born, history would not be changed in the slightest.

But if there were no Bob Whitaker, no David Duke, no James Kelso, no Don Black, history might be entirely different.

The Pat Buchanans can make money hand over fist.

The Ronald Reagans can go down in history as Mister President.

We are willing to let them have the titles.

We are willing to let them have the money.

We are willing to let them have the fame.

All we ask is something the average person would consider to be a minor matter:

We just want to change the course of world history.

This may seem silly and irrelevant to those who are proud of calling themselves Practical People.

But we will settle for nothing less.

2 Comments

The POLITICAL Lesson in the Death of Mainline Protestantism

Shari says,

“Are you saying that the Catholic church will not defend and even promote the notion that whites ought to mate only with whites? If so, I can say that I have noticed this and been puzzeling about it. I don’t know where it came from other than confusing nice and good. Our bishop said,in relation to illegals, a while back,”be kind, be kind,be kind.” Which I translated in my head to be nice, be nice, be nice. But, I have to admit that I don’t know how to be good rather than nice either. Other than that my husband and children are white, but my children are adults and struggling.”

Comment by Shari

MY REPLY:

Like every other large church, the Catholic Church has done all it can in recent years to destroy the white race. All the churches today are simply one more branch of respectable conservatism and liberalism.

The most horrible example of this in recent times has been the Reformed Church of the Afrikaaners in South Africa. The Methodist Church did this to me when I was a child.

But as usual I am going to veer off into what your comment made me think of.

Thinking about what you said, I realized that I see three major branches of today’s Western Christianity:

1) The Catholic Church,

2) The mainline Protestant Churches,which includes the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterian, Lutherans and so forth

3) The evangelicals, a category that exists in my own mind. They are what the media refer to as “Bible-thumpers.”

I say this because some Baptists are just more mainline churches, while the Bob Joes types are in the category of evangelical.

You can tell which is which not just by their theology, but by a more obvious measure.

ALL of the mainline churches are dropping steadilyi n membership.

The harcore evangelical Baptists are all taking large numbers of converts, and have been doing so since the 1960s. The respectable Baptists, those who do not call themselves Southern Baptists, are stagnating along with every one of the mainline Protestant denomincations.

There is a giant growth of evangelical churches in South America. It is one of the least reported historical turnovers in history.

Please, please, PLEASE understand I am not talking theology here. When it comes to the numbers and major conversion, this ia matter that is vitally important to a political pro.

Politics, real politics, is about what people WANT.

If the militant vegetariansim had had a steadily increasing membership for two generations, I would discuss it and look at it very carefully.

This would NOT mean that Bob takes vegetarianism seriously or that I am sympathetic to it.

I am trying to sell some ideas, so I want to know why ideas, any ideas, sell.

I haven’t gone into this because I was afraid everybody would get all tied up in theology.

But the simple statistical fact is that category 1), the Catholic Church, is still a net gainer in the matter of CONVERTS, not juts in its birth rate.

Every single church in category 2), the mainline Protestant, is going steadily down.

Every single church in category 3) is heading upwards in CONVERTS, and has been doing so for most of my lifetime.

I am NOT interested in this as a matter of theology. This is a critical POLITICAL phenomenon.

There were practically NO evangelists in South America when I was born. Now there are tens of millions of them. They are heavily into the politics of Central America.

The media almost totally ignore this.

They are NOT our friends. But they are important, because they are doing something RIGHT in a matter of practical politics.

Here is a major lesson I get out of this:

Conventional wisdom is dead wrong.

Conventional wisdom tells us that the way to succeed in any kind of politics is to go along and get along.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the mainline Protestant denominations are the ones who do absolutely nothing BUT go along and get along. Every political fad becomes part of the official doctrine of every church from Methodist to Lutheran to the more respectable branches of the Baptists adopts Politically Correct dogma as the Voice of God the minute some sociologist comes up with it.

The Catholic bureaucracy in Rome tries hard to do the same thing, but the Catholic Church can thank its lucky stars that it so rooted in old, “outdated” theology.

While evangelicals sell US out, they do run the “Christian” right.

In fact, the only reason the Catholic Church gets as much grief from Political Correctness freaks as evangelicals do is because the Catholic Church is so much BIGGER than they are.

So if you look over what I just said, you will notice that on critical rule over thepast two generations has been that churches are growing in direct proportion to the amount of grief they are getting from the PC freaks.

Or, to put it in even more basic English, churches are growing or dying in direct proportion to how much grief they are getting from mainline liberals and respectable conservatives. The more they “with the times” the more they are DYING.

To the extent that churches “go along and get along” they are DYING.

We do not approve of the politics of any of them on race. That is not the point.

What IS the point is that, in the long run, the way to die is to go along.

Think about the conclusion the media would be trumpeting if the opposite were the case. What if churches that go along with fashionable oopinion were growing and those the media disapprove of were dying.

Do you think THAT trend would be ignored inthe media the way the real trend has been?

If the opposite were the case, every magazine would have an article in every issue about how traditional Catholicism is dying out. Every issue would have pictures of the empty churches “out of date” preachers were talking to.

There is NEVER a media picture of the ever-emptier churches where mainline, government-supported preachers in Europe are talking to churches.

In a really respectable Anglican Church in England the congregation each Sunday is smaller than the choir used to be.

When was the last time you saw a picture of THAT in the media?

4 Comments

Mainline Protestantism

Shari says,

Are you saying that the Catholic church will not defend and even promote the notion that whites ought to mate only with whites? If so, I can say that I have noticed this and been puzzeling about it. I don’t know where it came from other than confusing nice and good. Our bishop said,in relation to illegals, a while back,”be kind, be kind,be kind.” Which I translated in my head to be nice, be nice, be nice. But, I have to admit that I don’t know how to be good rather than nice either. Other than that my husband and children are white, but my children are adults and struggling.

Comment by Shari

MY REPLY:

Like every other mainline church, the Catholic Church has done all it can in recent years to destroy the white race. All the churches today are simply one more branch of respectable conservatism and liberalism.

The most horrible example of this in recent times has been the Reformed Church of the Afrikaaners in South Africa. The Methodist Church did this to me when I was a child.

But as usual I am going to veer off into what your comment made me think of.

Thinking about what you said, I realized that I see three major branches of today’s Western Christianity:

1) The Catholic Church,

2) The mainline Protestant Churches,w hich include the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterian, Lutherans and so forth

3) The evangelicals, a category that exists in my own mind.

I say this because some Baptists are just more mainline churches, while the Bob Joes types are in the category of evangelical.

You can tell which is which not just by their theology, but by a more obvious measure.

ALL of the mainline churches are dropping steadilyi n membership.

The harcore evangelical Baptists are all taking large numbers of converts, and have been doing so since the 1960s. The respectable Baptists, those who do not call themselves Southern Baptists, are stagnating along with every one of the mainline Protestant denomincations.

There is a giant growth of evangelical churches in South America. It is one of the least reported historical turnovers in history.

Please, please, PLEASE understand I am not talking theology here. When it comes to the numbers and major conversion, this ia matter that is vitally important to a political pro.

Politics, real politics, is about what people WANT.

If the militant vegetariansim had had a steadily increasing membership for two generations, I would discuss it and look at it very carefully.

This would NOT mean that Bob takes vegetarianism seriously or that I am sympathetic to it.

I am trying to sell some ideas, so I want to know why ideas, any ideas, sell.

I haven’t gone into this because I was afraid everybody would get all tied up in theology.

But the simple statistical fact is that category 1), the Catholic Church, is still a net gainer in the matter of CONVERTS, not juts in its birth rate.

Every single church in category 2), the mainline Protestant, is going steadily down.

Every single church in category 3) is heading upwards in CONVERTS, and has been doing so for most of my lifetime.

I am NOT interested in this as a matter of theology. This is a critical POLITICAL phenomenon.

There were practically NO evangelists in South America when I was born. Now there are tens of millions of them. They are heavily into the politics of Central America.

The media almost totally ignore this.

They are NOT our friends. But they are important, because they are doing something RIGHT in a matter of practical politics.

Here is a major lesson I get out of this:

Conventional wisdom is dead wrong.

Conventional wisdom tells us that the way to succeed in any kind of politics is to go along and get along.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the mainline Protestant denominations are the ones who do absolutely nothing BUT go along and get along. Every political fad becomes part of the official doctrine of every church from Methodist to Lutheran to the more respectable branches of the Baptists adopts Politically Correct dogma as the Voice of God the minute some sociologist comes up with it.

The Catholic bureaucracy in Rome tries hard to do the same thing, but the Catholic Church can thank its lucky stars that it so rooted in old, “outdated” theology.

While evangelicals sell US out, they do run the “Christian” right.

In fact, the only reason the Catholic Church gets as much grief from Political Correctness freaks as evangelicals do is because the Catholic Church is so much BIGGER than they are.

So if you look over what I just said, you will notice that on critical rule over thepast two generations has been that churches are growing in direct proportion to the amount of grief they are getting from the PC freaks.

Or, to put it in even more basic English, churches are growing or dying in direct proportion to how much grief they are getting from mainline liberals and respectable conservatives. The more they “with the times” the more they are DYING.

To the extent that churches “go along and get along” they are DYING.

We do not approve of the politics of any of them on race. That is not the point.

What IS the point is that, in the long run, the way to die is to go along.

Think about the conclusion the media would be trumpeting if the opposite were the case. What if churches that go along with fashionable oopinion were growing and those the media disapprove of were dying.

Do you think THAT trend would be ignored inthe media the way the real trend has been?

If the opposite were the case, every magazine would have an article in every issue about how traditional Catholicism is dying out. Every issue would have pictures of the empty churches “out of date” preachers were talking to.

There is NEVER a media picture of the ever-emptier churches where mainline, government-supported preachers in Europe are talking to churches.

In a really respectable Anglican Church in England the congregation each Sunday is smaller than the choir used to be.

When was the last time you saw a picture of THAT in the media?

1 Comment