Site Will be Closing Down

Having recently been influenced by the inspirational words of Barack Obama and David Frum, many of my political views have changed. As a result, I cannot but question the rationale for a site such as this one. As of Friday, this site will no longer exist.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

April Fools Day!

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

25 thoughts on “Site Will be Closing Down

  1. Captainchaos

    “As of Friday, this site will no longer exist.”

    Sniffle, sniffle.

    “April Fools Day!”

    How ’bout turning it into a WN site? Just a thought.

  2. Sean Scallon

    Hey, don’t I get a say in this decision? I know I’m on hiatus but hey, don’t be rash.

    My advice for those affected with Obama-mania is good stiff drink and cigar.

  3. fellist

    Fidelity to America’s history (and any future for the West) would demand a White nationalist ethos, of course.

  4. Captainchaos

    Fellist, getting paleos on board will require constructing, er, I mean showing the truth about, (a muscular) Christianity which is at least not antagonistic to the ethnic genetic interests of Whites. Strangely, that seemingly less ambitious feat of the intellect is the less viable for our purposes. Why? Because for paleos to feel they have some stake in participating in the process, the more Christianity must occupy center stage, and for a retooled Christianity to push closer to the center of the stage the more muscular it must be; and for it to be of any use to us as ethno-nationalists it must be profoundly muscular a force otherwise we can gain no traction from it.

    Yet, a muscular Christianity not constructed so as to merit near iron strong confidence in its utility to aid the struggle for our genetic continuity could be the mightily woven rope that hangs our people. It is a dangerous game, but one I am willing to play, for now.

    Of course all this is assuming that paleos, and their fellow travelers, constitute a group both numerically and constitutionally significant enough to be the core of the movement to save our people from destruction.

    Weaver, why does no one ever post anything of substance, like the above, on this blog? Is it because the intellectual firepower is missing, or the will is missing, or both?

  5. Andrew T.

    You can not turn Christianity, which is inherently non-”muscular” (not absorbed in the particularities of this world, not to mention non-RACIST, or whatever polite terminology you wish to use instead) and universal in its theological propositions into the opposite of that. Not that it hasn’t been tried in the form of “positive Christianity”; Hitler himself was apparently such a “Christian”.

    Give up. Nobody wants to get on your racist bandwagon. You are an embarrassment and a hindrance to people that are actually interested in a revival of healthy Western culture.

  6. Weaver

    Weaver, why does no one ever post anything of substance, like the above, on this blog? Is it because the intellectual firepower is missing, or the will is missing, or both?

    I don’t find Christianity as universalist as do some (or to state that more accurately: it’s universal but not necessarily in the way that is commonly interpreted), but Andrew’s right: you can’t mold God’s law.

    I think what you mean to say is to create a movement that includes Christians or is identifiably Christian and has such values. That is fine provided it’s within true Christian values (notably: no dual morality). But what you come across as suggesting in your post is an abomination: that you’d use religion to manipulate people.

    I enjoy reading the posts here. It’s just a fun site – take it for what you will. I do other things besides post here, and I’m sure the same is true of most folks though that’s their business.

  7. Weaver

    intellectual firepower is missing

    What’s needed isn’t so much intellectual firepower as mental endurance for research.

    Edison once said:

    Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.

    There are too many half baked ideas floating around as is.

  8. fellist

    Andrew, if you are serious about desiring a healthy revival of Western culture you ought first to be concerned about the health of Western man. Setting yourself up as his defender but then rejecting all concern for his existence ain’t good.

  9. Captainchaos

    Andrew T: “You are an embarrassment and a hindrance to people that are actually interested in a revival of healthy Western culture.”

    Andrew, I’m sure you’re a nice enough guy, you claim to be well read and to possess an open and probing mind, while you have displayed sufficient verbiage to convince me of the former, the latter contention has been consistently belied. Further, and this is something I encountered all too often with the Tacky Mag peanut gallery, there was no actual comprehension of what was read going on there, either online or from other books. I ran those well intentioned twits through a dialectical buzz saw, and it wasn’t hard; for me.

    Now, to the corner with you and don the dunce cap.

    Weaver: “…it’s universal but not necessarily in the way that is commonly interpreted),”

    Well now, isn’t the thrust of that what everyday observation and empirical science would force an honest (White) man to concede anyway: Individuals are descendants of various genetic lineages of continental origin emanating from a common source, Africa, and the time passed in genetic differentiation through adaptation (which is the source of important, real differences) of said lineages has not been sufficient to create new species. I.e., They are different varieties of human beings, that is, all human, yet of a variety.

    Try and hum along Andrew.

    “…but Andrew’s right: you can’t mold God’s law.”

    But you can interpret it, or tease out plausible interpretations. If not, what have Cultural Marxists done then?

    “That is fine provided it’s within true Christian values (notably: no dual morality).”

    No dual morality. The necessary conditions to secure the existence of those of European descent are to be had by us, period, no negotiation; by definition, any less means our genocide. In return other peoples will be granted same.

    “…that you’d use religion to manipulate people [is an abomination].”

    I believe this life is all we have, in absence of any substantive proof to the contrary. So, what IS is either of utility to the continuity of the unique life of our people or it is not. I may be running askance of your principles but not my own (and no I do not mean by this an unlimited unleashing of a tribal will to power). Save your lecturing for the likes of Gottfried and Spencer, at least I’m up front about it.

  10. Weaver

    I only meant to point out that people aren’t going to like you manipulating their faith in case you hadn’t viewed it from the receiving end.

  11. fellist

    CC: In return other peoples will be granted same.

    And in point of fact the current settlement is that the right of non-White Christian peoples to own their homelands and secure their existence is recognised while the White Christian peoples are denied the same.

    Unless Christianity is doctrinally anti-White and anti-Christian, I cannot see why Christians should have a problem with levelling the playing field.

  12. Captainchaos

    Weaver,

    Our cause is just, and we who take it upon ourselves to fight for our people are good men, if not the best men. Yet if the best men will not step forward we must carry the burden.

    And I tell you now that Christianity gives comfort to many good people and I can never be convinced that is not a good thing. Our people are also good and deserve life. It is our solemn duty and great honor to see to it with every breath we can muster that good things never die.

    Now for it.

  13. Doestoevsky

    “It is our solemn duty and great honor to see to it with every breath we can muster that good things never die.”

    Is it just me, or does anybody else envision Sam the Eagle — from the Muppet Show — giving some of this guy’s speeches?

    (Sam the Eagle as white nationalist. I love it. The camera could cut from Miss Piggy trying to strongarm Kermit into marrying her, to Sam reading and musing over “The Turner Diaries”.)

    Anybody who refers to Christianity as “an obscure Jewish cult that made the big time” in one post, and proclaims in another that “the name of the game of life is to pass on your genes” … but then pretends, in yet another post, to be all friendly to Christians and gently, condescendingly tries to explain to them what their faith really means –is quite literally a retard.

    Or an ADHD case, maybe.

  14. fellist

    Anybody who takes the name “Dostoevsky” ought to be careful about chiding others for telling Christians what they ought to think their religion means. But whether or not your uncle Fyodor was right about Christianity he surely got the Jews spot on, D.

    Just one example here, but how prescient: http://www.jstor.org/pss/307858

  15. Dostoevsky

    Mr. Fellist,

    I don’t know where you’re coming from so I will attempt to make my point plain in the politest possible way: Namely, that it is idiotic for someone who rejects the fundamental tenets of a creed to attempt to tell someone else (who accepts said creed) what the creed actually means.

    It would be as if I were to try to tell Muslims what “real Islam” truly is (i.e., George Bush lecturing them that it is a “religion of peace”) or, for that matter, if I were to attempt to lecture white nationalists on what “true white nationalism” is. Such attempts are instances of appalling hubris, on a collosal scale, and are insulting.

    I don’t so much object to the insults themselves, as to the half-witted intellect which doesn’t even REALIZE that it’s insulting.

    I’m not particularly keen on Islam and have no problems criticizing it, but the one thing I would not do is insult Muslims by trying to tell them what it actually IS, or SHOULD BE. What I think it should be is Christianity.

    What “Captain Chaos” thinks Christianity “should be” is white nationalism with a vague Christian veneer. In other words, the position is that Christianity would be fine, if only it were to become something else.

    This is a logically defensible position; what is revolting is the attempt to present the position as something which it is not. It is identical to that of cultural Marxists who think that Christianity would be A-OK if only it became cultural Marxism with a superficial Christian veneer.

    No serious Christian really cares whether his creed is acceptable to white nats, Marxists, Muslims, etc.

    That’s why they call it a CREED.

    What is simultaneously retarded and insulting is that the aforementioned cybertroll seems incapable of acknowledging that Christians just might actually take Christ’s commandments just as seriously as he himself takes the view that “the name of the game of life is to pass on your genes.”

    Reject my convictions, by all means; just please don’t try to patronize me or pretend like we are — or could be — part of one big happy team if only I discarded a few inconvenient minor beliefs which impede the construction of a glorious white nationalist coalition … such as love thy neighbor, do unto others, Christ is the Son of God, Original Sin, salvation, the eternal soul, etc. etc.

    As to Fyodr Dostoevsky, you’re exceedingly off-base there … again, I’m trying to be polite. Of course it’s possible you’ve mistaken me for someone else — it’s very easy to get various position’s of one’s opponents mixed up.

    In any event, I am well aware of Dostoevsky’s suspicion toward the Jews; and unlike the academic hack who wrote the article this suspicion hardly scandalizes my PC sensibilities because I haven’t got any. I am well aware that Jews are disproportionately represented in the pornography industry and in the Bolshevik Revolution. I do not get my panties in a bunch when someone (like, say, Paul Gottfried or John Mearsheimer,) points out that, yes, there really is a Jewish lobby which exerts undue influence on American foreign (and domestic) policies.

    I only get annoyed — not scandalized, but annoyed — when someone latches on to that one fact as an idee fixe and attempts to use it as a simple, one-size-fits-all explanation for every last damn thing that happens in the world.

    Dostoevsky was a Slavic nationalist; he believed that Russia had a destiny to save the world by becoming the new heart of Christendom, inheriting a sacred role that had previously been held by Jerusalem and then Rome. I don’t share this opinion but not being an ideologue it doesn’t bother me either.

    The important point lies in his first principles, that he genuinely believed in the primacy of spiritual reality and of Christ, and that he did not in fact believe that we are simply piles of atoms jammed together in a meaningless mechanistic universe.

    Whether one subscribes to this latter view or not is not the point; the point is that someone who does subscribe to it has zero business trying to lean on Dostoevsky — or C.S. Lewis, or J.R.R. Tolkien — for support.

    “Zero business” is an understatement. It’s completely asinine for a materialist to try to lean on such men for support, as if the differences between their ideas and his consist only in a few cosmetic details (say, the belief that every human being is made in the image and likeness of their Creator). I’m not arguing here about which side one should be on; the point is that anyone who can’t recognize the existential gulf here is mentally crippled and incapable of intelligent discourse.

    Dostoevsky’s ethnic nationalism gives him no more (nor less) common ground with a white nationalist than his belief that “all men are brothers in the sight of God” gives him common ground with Marxism.

    If you really wish to debate regarding Dostoevsky’s views — on the Jews or anything else — then I suggest you read (and re-read, multiple times) Brothers Karamazov, Crime & Punishment, Demons, Notes From the Underground, The Adolescent, The Gambler, The Idiot, Poor Folk, and a number of his short stories (start with “Dream of a Ridiculous Man”, Dostoevsky’s surreal sci-fi vision of Heaven).

    Taking a serious and substantive look at the man’s writing and deepest convictions would be preferable to surfing the database via your college JSTOR account in order to invoke an article written by some imbecilic, politically-correct professor.

  16. Dostoevsky

    Actually Weaver made the main point in a much more succint fashion, but since it seemed to register with absolutely nobody I figure it’s worth repeating:

    “I only meant to point out that people aren’t going to like you manipulating their faith in case you hadn’t viewed it from the receiving end.”

    As to your own earlier point –

    “Unless Christianity is doctrinally anti-White and anti-Christian, I cannot see why Christians should have a problem with levelling the playing field.”

    – you are correct. I see nothing objectionable about “levelling the playing field”, and I doubt any other members of CHT would either.

  17. Filmer

    Dostoevsky, you poor, pitiful, naive young man. Aren’t you aware that the Jews are behind the scourge of Irritable Bowel Syndrome? Were it not for the Jews millions of Americans now suffering this awful plague would have regular bathroom habits. Take off our blinders man!

  18. fellist

    D, I believe you misrepresent CC. He does not, from my reading, desire Christianity to be anything other than what it is – compatible with nationalism, he does not seek to manipulate anything. Since you evidently agree that Christianity and nationalism can co-exist, your lengthy huffing and puffing about his insulting hubris is just insulting hubris.

    Just as in the Sanford thread [ http://conservativetimes.org/?p=3082 ] it appears you ought to be attacking CC’s foes rather than him.

    I’ve read my Dostoevsky, D. He was too soft on Jewry, he actually thought they might come around. In 2008 though, the questions he asked in that link are answered. Only WNists have a correct response to that fact: peaceful separation. I doubt very much that Dostoevsky would disagree.

Leave a Reply

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

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