Vanguard News Network

I think we all know by now that Slezkine’s book is the entire catalogue of anti-Semitic charges in reverse: he says positively what we say negatively.

That’s european intellectualism for you. All book-learnin’ among WNs, from the lowliest forumite to the alleged theorists of national dissent, seems to come down to who gets their hands on what book first (being able to divert a paycheck to this end counts for very much) and is able to best publicize their interpretation of it, that is, apart from yockeyism, evolism, and other pseudo-philosophical fetishes.

But if you want the key to the essay linked above – lest we be charged with talking below the belt, God forbid – you need only read the last sentences:

In order to get rid of this millenarian anti-Semitic neurosis it may be advisable for all white Europeans and Americans to revive their primordial pre-Christian beliefs and critically reexamine stories of Bedouin saviors and a host of other Levantine rag-tag preachers. How about starting reading Homer again?

In other words, it is advisable for we homo americani to narcotize ourselves in common with our superior European cousins on Homer and, we may presume, odinism and the like. It is advisable to submit to nouveau-droit drivel about how Christianity is to blame for all our problems and only by reviving the very very ancient traditions of the pure ancient Teutons can we achieve the great inevitable Imperivm Evropa.

There is no solution to the Jewish problem: not in Homer, not on VNN. No soup for you. Next!

“Jewish social prominence has been the direct result of the white Gentile’s acceptance of Christianity and its early Jewish promoters – an event which was brought to its perfection in America by early Pilgrim Founding Fathers. Be it in Europe or in the USA, Christian religious denominations are just differentiated versions of Jewish monotheism. Therefore, the whole history of faked philo-Semitism, or anti-Semitism in America and in Europe, must be described as a kind of social neurosis.”

I think there is some truth in what he’s saying, and I’ve thought about this before. I certainly agree that Christianity, the adoption of a Middle Eastern religion in place of a native tribal religion, is a negative influence that leads us away from our origins, even if the foreign religion has some positive aspects to it. Although I don’t think it’s the only factor.

I think whites are always looking outwards for something to become, adopting foreign cultures and religions, instead of looking inward. I often witness expressions about how white is bland and boring, and how adopting other cultures is far more interesting and progressive. Whites often treat strangers better than their own family, eager to please someone they don’t even know. It’s a form of pathology in my opinion, when taken to extremes, such as anti-white liberalism. Learning and experiencing new things is good, but don’t neglect or replace your own heritage and culture.

“He states that Christians are anti-semites who yearn to be jews. This amounts to a page of intellectual sounding, but senseless and content free pabulum.”

This contradiction is found in many people, which amounts to envy. You hate that which you are not, so you must destroy them. Such is the case with non-whites and whites. They desire to be us so much, but can’t, so they want to destroy us. I find that Christian Identity is similar in this regard. Blacks also have their own version of it, as well as the Afrocentric thinking that all civilization started with blacks, Egyptians were blacks, and Greeks and Romans stole all their knowledge from them. It’s absurdity and delusion.

ooops,

correction: “it is just as axiomatic that ‘talmudism’ is NOT the source from which it flows!

Sorry.

I agree with Tom Sunik’s analysis of the problem we face, when he says that we lack “what the Germans call Kulturvolk, i.e. a rooted cultural and nationalist community, (not just an adherence to the white race)” We have become the rootless cosmopolitans, just like what the jews have been for centuries, but without the cultural cohesion which they have in abundance. White people are in a wide diaspora, of our own, spreading daily, among the sea of humanity, which many of our cities and suburbs have become. We have become strangers in a strange land, which we can no longer identify as our own. Like Mark said, in the previous post, we have fallen victim to various other movements such as “anti-white liberalism” multiculturalism, New Age mumble-jumble, Eastern Religions and hundreds of other distractions, which prevent us from unifying as a cohesive Race. We have decided that white culture is too “bland,” too vanilla, too “white bread” to hold our interest for any length of time. We move on to more exotic ideas, always curious, always seeking out different ways of seeing the world. This White trait to seek out the exotic has served us well throughout our history, but the rules of the game have changed. We have lost sight of who we are and why we are here. We should heed the advice of Rudyard Kipling when he wrote of the British Empire. He advised against “going native” and had a clear understanding of why the British had to isolate themselves from the native populations. They were the few, surrounded by the millions of heathens. Only racial awareness and solidarity would protect them. They knew the Zulus, or the Hindus, would overwhelm them if they showed even a crack in their ethnic identity. They played their cricket and had their afternoon tea in their English gardens, in whatever God forsaken jungle they found themselves in. Anyone “carrying on” with, or worse, marrying a native, was ostracized from the group or sent back to England. They knew, deep down, that they were Englishmen first and foremost, just like we once knew we were White Americans. Now, with America becoming darker, and more alien to our way of thinking, we are finding ourselves identifying with an “American” culture which no longer serves our interests. It is time to circle the wagons, once again. We owe it to our children, if not to ourselves.

While it is true that Christianity did come ‘ex oriente lux’ it is just as axiomatic that ‘talmudism’ is [not] the source from which it flows!

The Old Testament is the basis for talmudism.

Since the OT is part of Christianity, it could justifiably be said that Christianity is partly talmudic.

I think whites are always looking outwards for something to become, adopting foreign cultures and religions, instead of looking inward.

This is true to an extent for all intellectually gifted races, perhaps especially for the more active elements of Aryandom. However, Traditionalists – and Sunic is an indirect spokesman – would have us look backward while using the verbiage of “looking inward”. Although both are approximately useless in our present political situation, there is a profound spiritual benefit in “looking inward”, but traditionalists are the last people anyone needs preaching about it: the sad truth is that none of them are as introspective as their narcissistic europeanism would lead one to believe. Again, it is verbiage, rhetoric — not a bona fide call to the spiritual life. Any old text of the Desert Fathers would suffice to lead one onto that path. Ironically, much of the literature and scholarship of Europe, and naturally research in its folklore, would not be conceivable without the monastic impulse; we would know nothing about the past if it were not for very dedicated Germans, French and Englishmen of the Old World passing their lives in the university and study, digging out and piecing together the story of the world as it was known through texts available to them. This has been popularized as the Irish monks “saving civilization”, which is probably true to an extent, and without it, the Grécistes would not exist. It thus points to a fundamental – though perfectly obvious – contradiction in the traditionalist project (the fact that it is a “project” should be a tip-off to begin with): the need for the simplicity of barbarian times and in the inability of the French academic in modern Europe to get back to them. Solution: adopt the rhetoric of postmodernism (barbarian Europe an “unfinished project”) to make heathenism appear plausible to lay European dissenters; play up the “Semitic” in an already dead Christianity to get at Jews backhandedly, since in Europe, lest we forget, criticism of Jews as such streng verboten ist.

Culture and its folk are not, unfortunately, products of scholarship. European innocence is dead, perhaps more through narcissistic speculation than the spread of a “Semitic doctrine”. Traditionalism is very simplistic and naive, in this respect. You have to keep in mind that traditionalism arose as a reaction to anti-colonialist movements in Algeria and elsewhere: it is in essence an imitation of just these movements, simplified, mock-tribal, with easy answers for complex problems of history.

Sunic and his buddies will be crowing about “Semitic religions” for decades to come. From the purview of the European dissenter, indeed, this is the only real problem facing them: hemmed in by stricter laws, narcotized by decades of mealy self-propaganda, this is all they are willing to accept. Sunic goes a bit further, but falls back into the very euro-national whining about Xtianity. Theoretically, they suffer a severe disadvantage compared to us (though American nationalists are, naturally, handicapped in other ways). It is nice to post articles by so-and-so, but there’s no point in it: the mentalities are sharply different and one does not serve the other. It is a casual confusion to which American nationalists are exposed for no reason other than that Sunic, whose nationality is en vogue, has risen to the status of celebrity dissenter.

Harping only on genetic determinism, as many American eugenicists and racialists do, in order to promote some abstract white man American identity is often self-defeating.

They love harping on that note, themselves. What does the European racialist do? He harps on Christianity, and he harps on how backward American racialists are. In fact, we are just more to the point, which they can’t stand. They require this obnoxious tapewormish theory of Christian cultural poisoning, ultimately derived from Nietzsche, which they waft over the immense political upheaval of the past century as sole cause of decline in traditional authority. In psychology, in political theory, this is the absolute nadir of simplification. They delight in this catty reversal of American straightforwardness in anti-Semitism as “neurosis” (which it is, but for good reason) blocking the road to valid nationalist politics, or “dialogue” as Sunic sumptuously calls it, unwittingly validating the metanarrative of academic leftism.

Without the specter of anti-Semitism, Jews would likely assimilate quickly and hence disappear.

This is actually the very oldest canard of European anti-Semitism lite. If you review the anti-Semitic literature, esp. that of Germany, from the eighteenth, nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, you’ll see this sentiment often repeated, and round about the 1880’s give way to a new thought: that Jews are fundamentally alien and simply cannot assimilate, or to the extent that they can would only dilute German culture and race. This new thought proceeded directly from Haeckel and the growth of racial science and eugenics, which Sunic stupidly lambasts, and nationalism (both German and Zionist, the latter rejecting assimilation as death of their own Volk and, opportunistically, as dilution of the Germans’). The great irony in this is that in the foregoing centuries, the most passionate defenders of the former belief – that the only curse for anti-Semitism is total assimilation, which many a German Jew also held – WERE CHRISTIANS AND HUMANISTS. I cannot recount how many times I have seen that stupid idea, nor think of all the names who repeated it; but in the beginning, the most pious souls, as anxious to make the Jews disappear as their more plain-spoken German compatriots, firmly believed assimilation was the answer. Sunic does as well: in other words, Sunic is unconsciously reenacting the stupidity of early Christian anti-Semitism, and so betraying the advance of racial thought of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which, of course, culminated in an explicitly anti-Christian, pro-scientific approach to the Jewish question under the National Socialists (though they of course were only the political inheritors of this doctrine). Sunic, then, is anti-science and in effect anti-national in his slovenly repetition of this old canard about assimilation, and he uses this as a blunt tool with which to castigate American anti-Semites, who have been free to inherit racial science and scientific anti-Semitism. One might call it envy, but that would be catty as well. At any rate, how’s that for a fucking paradox, Mr. Sunic?

You simply cannot trust these europeans. David Duke loves them because he’s washed-up and is shallow enough to be enchanted by european chauvinism.

“Unfortunately, the Biblical flood flowed from the Sumerian and Babylonian, more particularly from the Epic of Gilgamesh; had nothing at all to do with European flood mythos. It is chronologically absurd, of course, to suggest that then-unwritten European myth (and to the extent that it itself was not a product of adoption by Europid groups in the East) had a hand in the standardization of Hebrew myth. However, I suppose your point is that this myth somehow struck Europeans as tailor-made, given certain similarities.”

In my view, Babylonians were Indo-Europeans. Who else creates civilisations? We’re talking a very large group here (but non-Semitic). If Jews took it from Babylonians, then yes they incorporated Indo-European elements in their myths. Anyway, there were various flood myths in Greek mythology.
What I mean is that many of the myths in the Ancient Testament weren’t new to Indo-Europeans around 1AD; however, most people in the past and today would be inclined to think, wrongly, that those are typical Jewish myths, or even “history”.

“This is an extremely simplistic view, and mostly incorrect.”

I don’t respond to such “arguments”. You can even call me a “moron” if you want, it proves nothing except that you are impolite.

“Given the West’s long familiarity with Christianity, it is rash to conclude that the “context” is Semitic. (…) ”

No, it is not moronic to conclude that the “context” is Semitic.
For the Semitic context, no need to look at the long insane history of Christianity; just at the origins of the disease: biblical texts, full of Jewry, especially the Ancient Testament. Jew David became every white child’s hero. Jew Moses brought us the divine laws. Jews everywhere. The Chosen Ones. And of course “Jesus” is depicted as a Jew living in Palestine among Jews, and in direct communication with the Jewish god Jeovah. What more do you need?
This is the Semitic context. The basis for US Zionist televangelists. If the Semitic context were irrelevant, then televangelists would have no success in gathering support for Israel among the faithful crowds, eh?

Religions around Odin, Zeus, etc. have 1 advantage: At least, the context isn’t Semitic, they are European gods and godesses for European men and women. It’s another context, and the Renaissance was a going back to those roots.

This is an extremely simplistic view, and mostly incorrect.

R’s favorite adjective is “simplistic.” His theme song is “there is no solution.” This is suspicious.

Oooh. I see how it is.

Meaning you don’t.

To every political or social problem there is a solution. The solution to the jew problem is becoming more obvious with every passing day.

Junghans, it never occurred to me, but you must be right that

Sunic is wordy, verbose and canny because he has to be, considering the muzzled state of European “democracy” in which he has to operate

The guy is so convoluted not necessarily because he is an asswipe but because there is a gun not far from his head, the gun of ZOG. Assimilation is obviously an unworkable “solution” but about the only one he would be permitted to proffer. Here we are – well, some of us – blaming the victim. It’s like blaming a Cuban political prisoner for coughing too much while speaking…never mind that he just emerged from an all-night beating and is terrified his family will be arrested…

Man, I can’t believe someone actually mentioned Waddell. His utterly propagandistic tome is exactly what I had in mind — if you take garbage like that seriously, there is just no discussion possible at all. Do you realize that such a “theory” completely self-serving and unsupported by anything – archaeological, scriptural, racial (meaning genetic evidence in Mesopotamia) – other than total conjecture on the part of an untrained bigot? do you realize that theories can be self-serving on our side, as well? Good Christ, try not to be so gullible. Waddell. Aryans, Babylonians! Angkor Watt maybe! no doubt Tenochtitlan as well! Wait, what was that amazing, truly original scholar’s name, the one who found evidence of Viking “civilization” among the Guarani, damnit! I can’t recall.

To every political or social problem there is a solution.

Yes, that is logical! those words fit so nicely together, how could it not be true? If a situation exists, why, there must be a way, theoretically, to change it, to alter the circumstances: there is a solution, there is a solution, there is a solution — with all the desperate fervor of trying to see five fingers for four, if you get me. Welcome to Whitesoc.

Dear sirs, I read your long mantras about Sobran.
Anybody who is judeo-christian believer is not quite reliable but there is big spread. Sobran same sa clinical Psychologist Juraj Djurdjevic, fanatical judeo-christian, produced one sentence definitions which make all our long diatrives nonsense.
Here are: Sobran: “It is not cause of Jews, it is cause of spineless Gentiles.” How true from devoted roman catholic.
Jurjevic: “Amnerican people are severily sick of endemical disease known as FOJ – Fear of Jews.” How true from deoted Baptish who is not even MD of epidemiology.
There are aoso thoughts from two thinkers who are not judeo-christians, may be it can help you too. Think avbout it and do not waste precious time in mantr at nauseam.

by Dragan G. Glavasic:
While other religions, “cultures”, and races are taught to hate us, take advantage of us and/or kill us any time they get a chance. At the same time, we are persistently brainwashed to be pacifist, tolerant, compassionate, kind and forgiving to everyone: even our worst enemies! And that makes all the difference thus will ultimately result in our destruction: because our political, spiritual and economic leaders are corrupt, immoral, low-life scum that secretly collaborate with our worst foes thus insidiously work against our real interests. WAKE UP! Christianity was a big mistake and sin and an insidious ploy to perfidiously tie our hands and render us helpless as the ideal victims for other races and religions.

By Tsun
In a world where there were no christians… There would be no jews…
It is only on the authority of the christian bible that jews
maintain the myth of being “yahweh’s chosen people”.
If it were not for their christian protectors the non-christian
peoples of the earth would make short work of the jews.
Or maybe just laugh them to death.
Catch 22 You can’t keep christianity and get rid of the jews.