It's probably because you are not a poor misguided fool who is the victim of constant propaganda by some shady group with power on their mind, because most in those groups are.

In the case of Christian Fundamentalists/Evangelicals such as the followers of Reverend John Hagee, their leaders have such an iron grip on their minds that you can show them video of their tin god denying that Christ was the messiah (this is heresy in any Mainline Protestant Church, let alone the Catholic and Orthodox Church) and they will deny it is real, say he didn't actually mean it, or somehow rationalize it to keep clinging to their hero/prophet.

Anyone who does not see a distinction between Religious Judaism and Zionism should visit http://www.nkusa.org/ and read their charter.

Hmm.



So they aren't similar. They are just "very close". Gotcha.

Uh oh. How're you gonna pull yourself out of this one, Mors?

It would probably be best if he just said nothing.

Mors_Gloria probably has had only limited exposure to a few Christian denominations, if he has only had experience with prominent Churches in Greece, I can understand why he would think this. I think he is probably confusing the politics of certain churches with the general theology of Christianity. It is true that German politics in the past 400 years before WW2, of which Martin Luther is considered a principle influence, had a huge influence on Hitler. Given that Germany had an official church that was essentially run by the State in it's various forms, one could argue that German politics and German Christianity were basically one-in-the-same at that time.

But the general assertion that Christianity and National Socialism are very close is not really accurate.

Fixed.

I'll redirect you to http://www.nkusa.org/ again. These individuals, all of them Orthodox Rabbis or Worshipers, have gone to Israel (some still live there) and have protested alongside Palestinians for Israel to stop it's murderous policy. They have also called for the end of the state of Israel.

If you listen to the lectures on this site by Rabbi Goldstein, you'll understand that the principle empowering of the Zionists to originally take over Palestine came from the English government and the British Bankers (Rothschild in particular, but others were involved). Originally there was a LARGE amount of opposition to the state of Israel amongst the Hasidic and Conservative Orthodox Jewish faithful, but sadly if you can buy off a few leaders with promises of wealth and power, you can steer the majority of your opposition over to your side.

I would argue that there are at least a couple hundred thousand Religious Jews in exile (based on what this group puts out, which I find to be reliable) that do not support the existence of the state of Israel. So to state what you have in the general sense, is not accurate, although the majority of those CLAIMING to be religious (they are contradicting the Talmud, which forbids them from taking over any country, including Palestine) do favor what you describe.

Edit: Here is the link to Rabbi Goldstein's speech on Zionism and the State of Israel. http://www.inminds.co.uk/rabbi-goldstei ... onism.html

There are also a ton of religious Jews inside Israel, who while they won't join the IDF (for religious reasons), will happily illegally settle the West Bank, and take pot-shots at Palestinians, making life more difficult for everyone else. You're right though, that was flip and I apologize.

There are, I don't disagree with that, however, there is a loudly vocal minority, some of them Jews living in Iran who are not being persecuted by the government (regardless of the media propaganda to the contrary) who are condemning this very loudly.

P.S. - I put a link to Rabbi Goldstein's speech on my last post, if you're curious, there is some interesting historical information contained in it, although it is pretty long.

And more power to them.

Unfortunately they've been fighting a losing battle for over 100 years, according to Rabbi Goldstein and several of his compatriots in this organization.

"...The Muslim people basically got involved in the fight against zionism when it started effecting them on a political basis which is 1917 for the Palestinians or afterwards for some of the other Arab countries, We [religious Jews] were in this fight from the 1890 roughly... As soon as it was founded [zionism], it was condemned - Jews came out and said this is atheistic, this is idol worship..."

Edit your bloody quotes people, especially if you only want to add a simple one line response.

Personally, I like these guys. They call for the dismantling of a state and they have all-black banners I may disagree with them on religious sides but in these specific subjects I agree with.

Morrigan, actually hells_unicorn answered for me quite well. I haven't experienced US or Canadian Christianity. I've only encountered Greek Christianity and that's very close to Nationalism and National Socialism. In fact, today the Greek Church stated that it considers any relationship outside marriage to be prostitution. And the adherents of "nation, religion, family" and "Greek for Greek Christians" support this.

EDIT: typo. Replaced "this" with "these"

Still doesn't change the fact that you contradicted yourself.

I didn't. Similar is different to very close. I'm aware that in theory they are pretty different but in reality they share common lines in a lot of things. That's where I got the "very close" part.

Dude, it's pretty much the same exact thing. You are just backpeddaling now.

So very close means in a very little distance. But similar means exactly the same. And I didn't said that.

Wrong. Similar means sharing some characteristic(s).

Similar doesn't mean "exactly the same", it means "having a resemblance".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/similar

*sigh* Please come back to this forum when you've learned English. But yeah, I think it's just backpedaling too.

You're looking up the wrong definition, guy. You used it in a sense that implies they have contiguous relationship, and we all know it. Just admit your contradiction instead of putting up some charade. It's ok to be wrong, you know.

Oops. I fail then My fault then

Well, if that's the case then I said that. Cause that's what happens here

These guys definitely have a lot of courage, I've seen videos on youtube of secular Israelis throwing rocks at them and taunting them for standing in protest with Palestinian Christians and Muslims while their homes are being bulldozed. Out of all the so-called religious people I've encountered in my life, they are about as consistent as you can get. If everybody simply practiced their religion and private and didn't try political takeovers as the Naturei Karta suggest, there wouldn't be a problem in the Mid-east right now, nor likely most of the rest of the world.

If religious people didn't push their beliefs on others there wouldn't be religion. The imperative is just the same as for any other meme - proselytise or die.

Transference of culture is ultimately inevitable if people are free to communicate with each other across political borders, I was thinking more along the lines of not trying to take over governments and using the State to enforce ideas with bulldozers the way some do.

Gentlemen discussing theology at a dinner table without shouting at each other or unsheathing their swords would suffice for me, and that is what the Naturei Karta advocate, although they would likely submit to the will of whatever state they live in rather than fight for religious liberty.

Welcome to the art of revisionism, parallel to a race-related topic.

I don't find anything similar to National Socialism and Christianity at all. Both have been very influential in the powers they held in the name of their own grandiose intentions, but beyond that I don't find anything fundamentally related to that.



This is very true. That is a problem I find in many arguments about multiculturalism. I never found multiculturalism to be an invention of any sort, but as a simple truth that people of different cultures interact; nothing can really be done about that. Improving communication between cultures could be used to solve problems between peoples. Besides, multiculturalism seems to me to be a simple, transparent blanket term.

Most of the definitions that I've gotten out of people when I debate politics when it comes to multiculturalism is this sort of "tolerance without thought or question" when it comes to certain groups trying to pressure certain rights/privileges from the government courtesy the taxpayers.

I for one don't really have a problem with someone preaching Islam in the streets of Philadelphia, but I have a huge problem with any government taking my tax money to subsidize it or punish it. You could almost argue that it is used exclusively as a mantra to quell debate on whether giving money to certain pet causes involving either individual minorities or a coalition of them in exchange for political advantage is a good idea, because that is usually the result as I've observed it in the US Congress.

Alright I'm not attacking your claims about the politics of Martin Luther (not saying you're necessarily right, I'm just ignorant) but this statement is incredibly erroneous. At no point since the reformation has Germany had an official state church. Indeed for the majority of that time there was not even a state. A major theme in German history has been conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Perhaps if you were talking about just Prussia you might have a case, but even there you had a Lutheran/Calvinist population and, following the Congress of Vienna, a substantial Catholic minority in the Rhineland. Even if that were not the case, within the old German Empire the Kingdom of Bavaria had almost total autonomy in religious matters and a substantial Catholic majority. While this was challenged by Judeo-Bolshevism (literally) in the aftermath of the Great War, conservative Catholic politics reasserted themselves for the rest of the Wiemar years. The National Socialists were also willing to allow Catholicism to dominate religious life in the south. Adolf Wagner's famous opposition to crucifixes in schools being the exception that proved the rule: the government in Berlin quickly overruled him.

I really have no clue what you could mean by a "German state church."

Nor was there in many other parts of Europe as we would see it today, that is why I included the words "in it's various forms", including the scattered kingdoms within what we now know as Germany. The evolution of the German state was not in a uniform sense, I apologize if I gave that impression but that wasn't my explicit intent, but the uniform policy of the Princes was pretty well in line with each other during the Peasant Uprising and the Anabaptist persecutions, all of which was directly influenced by Luther. Luther's influence spread throughout all the various localities, including the non-Lutheran ones. He was not alone in his views regarding the Jews, but again, he was likely the most influential in this area.

Furthermore, I am well aware of the fact that Catholicism and National Socialism were not uniformly friend or enemy during the time period in question, at least as long as it was convenient for Hitler and the elites in the party.

Luther's writings are loaded with implied references to a greater German State and People that did not exist in his day, but that he probably helped make happen.

"I seek the welfare and salvation of you Germans. As I am the Prophet of the Germans, I will act as a faithful teacher and warn my staunch Germans of the danger in which they stand. I have been born for my beloved Germans, for them I will die. (Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, p. 79) (I think Wiener is sourcing Frantz Funck-Brentano for this quote, which I believe was lifted from one of Luther's speeches)

He also cites Luther referencing "the whole Germany", "The Whole of the German Land", and him preaching for the "unity of all German-speaking people".

"I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later -- once we hold power -- Christianity will be overcome and the German Church established. Yes, the German Church, without a Pope and without the Bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing.

--ADOLF HITLER
(Hitler's Speeches, edited by N. H. Baynes, Oxford, 1942, p. 369.)


If you wish to argue that pockets of resistance existed outside of the Lutheran Church to this, I wouldn't seek to contradict you, but the words speak for themselves, and the concept of an Authoritarian Germany is heavily pioneered in his lunatic ravings (Martin Luther). Personally I don't fancy this approach to governing people, whether it's done by the Fuhrer and his SS soldiers or by killer genocidal Judeo-Communist thugs.

About anti-zionist jews

Anyone heard about religious extreme group that called "Natuley Karta". from hebrew: "Without map". they believe that Zionism is the great sin on the base that Zionism is secular ideology and any attempt to return to Israel and take over the land without "god's will" is a mortal sin. They have quite good relations with Iran and other "not so friendly countries to Israel.

Also I believe that many people know the works and opinions of Proffesor Noam Omski.

I have a link to their homepage on one of my previous posts. Not to be overly critical, but the proper spelling is "Naturei Karta". I am also familiar with Noam Chomsky's work, although I'm not fond of his political ideology or the fact that he bashes corporations but completely ignores the Federal Reserve Bank, which is essentially the end all, be all of a private corporation and the outlet for most of the wealth that leads to corporate excesses.

how can national unity be attained with this? this is more divisive than anything I have have proposed (geographical separation) in that multiculturalism has been nothing more than an assault on our Anglo-American heritage - why should my daughter (in a few weeks!) have to celebrate other races' heritage? why cannot she celebrate her own? why is celebration of anything White = bad? its because multiculturalism as it presented from the government and an intrinsic part of its operations is a scam that so many are suckered into - I mean seriously, when do you hear multiculturalists talking about the amazing accomplishments of the Whites? All I see coming from that group are attempts to shame Whites for everything we have accomplished through forethought and inventiveness
each nation needs to have one unifying culture in order to remain strong - when the "all cultures are equal" mantra gets so ingrained in our way of thinking, we cannot identify what is beneficial for the further development and growth of us as a people and a nation - "gangsta" lifestyle is now more revered than the hardworking family man - our goals are all bass ackwards because of multiculturalism
and if any of you want to see th effects of multiculturalism, I will gladly take you on a tour of East St Louis (during the daylight, of course, because they arent up yet)

One of the problems is that America has never really had a unifying culture, you had the Native Tribes, the Slaves, and several rival European nationalities with different religions. My family came from a long line of Irish Catholics who are pretty far removed from the classic WASP culture that you speak of.

I personally don't like the idea of Statist Multiculturalism, which is essentially what the political term denotes, because it does amount to a culture that you may or may not agree with being shoved down your throat. But most of the cultural bile that you are addressing is more a sign of cultural decline than multiculturalism. "Gangsta" culture is a profane joke played upon a race of people with tribal roots that are not all that dissimilar from our own European one, only they had tropical and dessert adaptations rather than woodland and mountain ones.

If someone wants to opt out of cultural exchanges and form their own community based on a uniform culture and even race, I don't think any government should be allowed to stand in it's way, but if someone wants government enforced cultural unity, count me out.

Throughout this thread you have had some very well written posts hells_unicorn; your arguments show that you have a clear and deep understanding of the topic at hand. It's rare I think to meet someone who responds to racialist thinking with something more evolved then "fuck you", and I just wanted to thank you for that. Still, I'm inclined to argue at least some of your points. For starters;

Millions of blacks follow the gangbanger lifestyle, killing and raping for sport, and mainstream music distributers allow the garbage produced by these animals into white neighborhoods and schools. Don't think that I am ignorant to your point; I'm not criticising the merit of every black in the world. Indeed, Africans and Europeans do share some similarities in our beginnings as you said. Regardless, white youth are being subjected to the same "joke" as the black youth, but the fact remains that they don't behave nearly as savage. And who, pray-tell, is behind this "joke" that has caught up so many millions?

I would argue that a good deal of the problems that Blacks have been having in America had to do with the efforts to "Force" integration between Black and White culture, particularly the school busing policies and affirmative action. Black communities of the pre-60s era were strongly based in moral teachings and would have deplored the ridiculous counter-culture that has come up of late. When the government started to bus children around to alleviate its own sense of guilt, that ingrained sense of community was basically torn asunder.

Historically, black schools were in better shape before the 1960s in terms of academics, although the forced segregation vis-a-vis Jim Crowe laws was obviously immoral. Nonetheless, the facilities between the two were not equal and the infrastructure in White schools was better fortified. When coupled with the misguided/malicious advent of affirmative action, having a job became more important than being able to perform said job, the economic viability of black culture in America is thus destroyed. Take into account also that appropriations for schools in congress are determined by corrupt congressmen who pride themselves on bringing home the bacon for their own constituents while less powerful districts are left with scraps.

In short, if you combine the lack of education and widespread poverty, criminality becomes inevitable. If you have a lot of wealth, there is less likelihood of you either stealing or dealing drugs to feed yourself, or assaulting or murdering "The Man" in order to get back at society for your state of being. The issue actually has zero to do with the racism or multiculturalism of individual people, and everything to do with government policy.

I would say this a cop-out - where is the vast wealth in Appalachia? their education level is very low, yet the crime there is no where near that of Compton, Camden, Detroit, ESTL, Houston, New Orleans, etc etc etc - each race brings with it their morals, what they value, so when they are numerically dominant in any geogrpahical area, they are able to turn their environment into one with which they are most comfortable - with which they most identify - just look at the vast changes in the SW because of the MASSIVE influx of Mestizos - or go to any Chinatown or look what happened to Houston after they graciously allowed so many w/o homes because of Katrina to move there
I too am a dirty Mick, but the Irish assimilated despite the ridiculous xenophobia (which I still see in some White groups that for some crazy reason wish to exclude Greeks, Italians, Finns, Hungarians, Slavs, etc - if it were up to me, I would even allow many from South America, Iran, or even India) that somehow identified them as "different" when we all come from the same stock
I would argue that the cultural decline is due to multiculturalism which disallows us to identify one culture as better or contributing more to the growth of civilization, thus making all lifestyles virtually "equal" in that it is somehow free from criticism
if we ignore the lack of civilization, the invention of the wheel(!), or the fact that much of Africa is the same in these respects to this day despite (misguided Europeans) bringing farming, inoculations, and a vast array of other benefits of bothering to plan ahead, then I would agree
hell, even Gandhi believed this of the Black Africans (which he called Kaffirs)

btw, have you read anything by Sowell or D'Souza? I think you would enjoy their works
you seem to be coming from a libertarian perspective, and these are a couple of the authors I first enjoyed before I realized the massive importance of race and the plan to castrate and feminize the White man

You only interpreted about half of my argument here, blacks had the exact same poverty problems "BEFORE" the gangsta culture started. The key factor was the destruction of black community through Statism and forced Integration of the schools. Black American Culture pre-1960s was likely similar to Appalachia, though individual instances of crime was quite common.



The collapse of any state of morality and intellectual potency in academia and the elite in this country are the cause of multiculturalism as you define it. It definitely runs counter to the concept of free speech, which is why I am always willing to bust the balls of anyone trying to push this form of fascism on me.



(On Civilization) And what kind of civilization has Europe given us? Fascism? National and International Socialism? Communism? The Welfare State? Despotic Imperialistic Quasi-Democracy?

(Invention of the Wheel) The Tibetan People pre-Mao had a similar circumstance, only they had the wheel but didn't use it for its industrial purposes (they used it for prayer if memory serves me). Leave us not forget it was the Judeo-Germanic concept of Communism (Marx had similar views to Martin Luther and other German historical figures on the concept of the state and government) that is currently killing off an otherwise peaceful people who had a fairly civilized way of living by collectivist standards.

(The current state of Africa and Mis-Guided Europeans) They also brought guns, colonialist style government, and a host of other negative aspects of our more advanced culture. You and I would probably agree that never setting foot on the African continent would have been the preferred outcome at that time period, but this shouldn't stop us from keeping our historical perspective in place and balanced when it comes to criticizing past events.

P.S. - I have read Sowell and I am mildly familiar D'Souza, most of my readings of late have been through the Von Mises Institute and the Austrian School of Economics.

Sorry to derail from the last poster but i have to clear up something.

Nazism has little to do with socialism.

socialism - class equality (i.e everyone is equal because there is one class)

national socialism - racial equality (i.e everyone is equal because they are German or Aryan)

just because national socialism has socialism in its name does not mean it is left winged in any way.

I would fundamentally disagree with you there. I do agree with you in that nowadays race and religion are played as unanswerable trump cards, brooking no further argument or dissent. However, I find it distasteful to tar an entire race with the same brush. It's a gross overgeneralisation, and if we should have learnt anything in the past century, it's that race cannot be used as the basis of any form of discrimination. And I would argue this to the death with any Black Power, Arab Brotherhood, Aryan Brotherhood, Indians United or any racial group that espouses the superiority of one race. Race and morals/values cannot be logically linked. Blame communities if you want, Hells_unicorn got it spot on when he brings up social factors, education and all that. To denigrate an entire race is just foolish.

Not to mention the difficulties in defining race. Look at most questionnaires, there's a list of about 15-20 races (here in the UK at least). I don't think that's particularly right. Einvolk, you're a "dirty Mick", which means you're of Celtic stock, probably descended from the Germanic tribes or maybe Norse blood (someone can correct me on this). How far back do you want to go? Would you tar just "dirty Micks", or the entire white race? Bearing in mind the mixing of cultures and races and people - there's few examples of racially pure people these days.

It seems to me your problem with multiculturalism is assimilation - in that, I have no argument with you. I believe that multiculturalism in itself is no bad thing (it is a convenient blanket term to describe a state of affairs, rather than the basis of any action). Like I said, blame communities if you want, specific communities. Don't blame race, it's got fuck all to do with anything. Your people suffered xenophobia in the States (so did spics, wogs, greasers, yids, niggers, chinks, pakis etc), they suffered oppression from the English for donkey's years, they suffered terrible racism here in Britain in the 70s and 80s with the "troubles" (I love that euphemistic term). One would think you'd be more sympathetic.

The principle commonality between Socialism and National Socialism is the "Collectivist" metaphysics that they go by. They categorize groups differently and seek different advantages, but they both come from the basic premise that the group has rights while the individual is without rights.

But to be perfectly candid, in actuality, as long as any form of government with a Statist ideology and the ability to out-gun it's own people in existence, there really isn't such a thing as rights except by way of power/force. As long as any government keeps any kind of military, there really aren't any rights per say, only certain privileges that can be yanked away at the caprice of the governing class.

P.S. - Socialism/Class Equality is a metaphysical fallacy, mostly because it must rely on a superior governing class to dominate the economic field and keep all the non-governing people equal. Most who realize this will often turn to Anarcho-Socialism/Libertarian Socialism, which is intellectually consistent with the premise of equality in terms of power, but leaves questions as to how society would be properly organized.

I always wondered how Libertarian Socialism was supposed to work.