jtyler777 wrote:So if anyone here actually thinks that the late great Mr. Bradley Smith's legacy is being besmirched by my arrival on the scene, you need not worry. The sum is greater than its parts.
Sorry to be blunt, but if anyone is besmirching the legacy of CODOH it is Germar Rudolf. His recent comments about how the Germans during WWII committed Genocide is utterly repugnant and off the mark, I have lost respect for Germar because of this and so would any revisionist who understands the nature of the claims Jews have levelled at the German people and the German leadership during WWII who were doing their best in the interests of their people. You can see this thread on the topic: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13667
. I have already put my thoughts down there, nothing more needs to be said on this.
Thank you all for the warm welcome! I am thrilled and honored to be here.
It troubles me that I'm apparently off on the wrong foot with a few of you already. I apologize if there was anything in my introduction that offends anyone's sensibilities. I fully expect that many of you here do not share in my faith, but I'm reasonably certain that many do. Given that revisionism and ideological and academic insurgency draw free-thinking people of every stripe, I would like to think that knowing where the folks that we fellowship with in here stand can only open up newer and greater avenues for dialogue and mutual edification and enrichment.
I would respectfully point out to anyone who my introduction was vexatious to a few things though:
-Historically, it has been men of faith who paved the way for most if not all of the great advances in science and culture, so it's a bit obtuse and divisive to assert that religion is somehow the real enemy of our people and is incompatible with the scientific method. Or is something that cannot coexist with genuine scholasticism.
-One can choose to reject organized religion for whatever their reasons are, while still being intellectually honest enough to recognize the rather remarkable and timeless correlation AND causation between faith in a higher power and creator, discovery, and defense and preservation of that which has been discovered. One has to perform the mental gymnastics of an undefeated Olympic gold medalist to rationalize how Christianity is anything other than a central component of the development of the civilized world. One can choose not to be a Christian for any number of reasons. But attacking the entire structure is to attack vast portions of our own history. Which is a pretty schizophrenic tendency to nurture for anyone, but especially folks who pride themselves on their ability to understand real history and apply it to the present.
I don't really care that you're Christian, if you do a good job, then you do a good job. If you don't, then that's unfortunate but must be accepted all the same.
However, I don't at all think Christianity is a central component to development in the civilised world. Christianity as a faith has utterly failed to instil in Europeans a sense of racial pride and mission, if anything it has done the opposite. I myself have been fairly non-religious all my life, at one time I was a staunch Atheist before I realised that religion (generally) is not just the unfettered delusions of historical swindlers, but largely genetic, and has certainly been successful as far as group survival strategies go. I will concede that religion is also a general force for good to historically motivate certain accomplishments, some religions more than others. Islam for example has been utterly impotent in this regard and hasn't really changed whatsoever. Christianity has faired much better, but that's because it was put into the hands of Europeans. However the logical conclusion of a liberalised Christianity is what has brought the Western World to the brink of collapse. To deny this, would be to deny the current day political predicament we're in. You must be able to recognise the good, and the bad.
The real 'central component' is spiritualism
in the service of ones people. It is fiercely opposing a nihilistic, materialistic Marxist conception of the world. Substituting it for the duty towards ones own people is the most important thing a civilisation founded on a common thread of crimson kinship can do.
I'm rather ambivalent towards Christianity, and have personally seen many who are Pagan (I do not consider myself Pagan) that do a better job perusing truth than a Christian who is stuck in his dogmas about "humanity" and "mankind" and "love" or what have you. For example, Jonathan Bowden was a much more intelligent and wise politically 'switched on' person, than E. Michael Jones is, who spends is time talking about Jews and denying the reality of race, and the importance of race, in favour of a blind spiritualism that ignores the temporal issues our civilization faces. If I were a Christian, I would say that denying the existence of races, and the importance of racial differences is to spurn God's creation. Yet I would still say this now, but substitute God for "evolution" which has nonetheless produced a diversity among mankind that ought not to be destroyed. You see, we can differ in our belief, but still align.
I will still stress that I'm not an Atheist, such people I believe to also be a great danger to civilisation, for they are often the nihilistic Marxists who feel that they're not obliged to follow any kind of social convention if it impedes on their licentious, hedonistic lifestyles. I am a believer in ones people, very much in the spirit of the Third Reich.
I would suggest, if you're interested in a light read, the book...
'God and Folk: Soldierly Affirmation' English: https://archive.org/details/god-and-folk-soldierly-affirmation
(Gott und Volk: Soldatisches Bekenntnis)
German Original: https://archive.org/details/GottUndVolk-SoldatischesBekenntnis
This book characterises my criticism of Christianity and my view of the necessary nature of spiritualism quite well. That one must be devoted to their people biologically, and metaphysically.
I don't think it's particularly wise to insinuate that people who have historical criticisms of Christianity are 'schizophrenic'. You'll not be doing yourself any favours.
I would say that it is a mark against 'real history' to be unwilling to evaluate negative aspects of the past, and recognise when ones people has walked too far from the trail they need to be on. History can never change, nor should we spurn the past necessarily, let alone feel guilty for it, but we should move forward having learned from it, and with the intention of doing better than before.
You have claimed that accomplishments of our ancestors has been scorned on the basis of those having accomplished them being Christian. I haven't seen anyone do this, nor do I think people here have a vendetta against 'accomplishments'. But they certainly have a criticism of the results certain paths of history have taken us down. For example, the Industrial Revolution was a wonderful accomplishment, but is having some very unfortunate results, especially in the hands of those who peruse what they call 'progress' for its own sake. I think Ted Kaczynski is a great critic in this regard, but personally, his own idealised future where everyone runs around in the nude foraging in the woods isn't the right path either.
If one is going to criticize history, or religion, it should be tempered and nuanced. It should be done while keeping in mind where we would like to go in the future, and what we would like to avoid.