Amarna Forum

We all probably saw the mart thread. Link here if you haven't (probably won't last forever but good for now).



Raises many questions, as seen in our shoutbox already. If anybody wishes to pitch longer thoughts on the subject please do so here. Christians and migrants. Christianity and migrants. etc.



Where do you stand? Is this a valid answer? Is it a good one? Is it relevant? Do you have your own thoughts? I ask a lot of questions because frankly this subject just doesn't grab me too hard. I leave the discussion to all of you. Have fun and entertain me.

I've been reading a lot of eggreports/Randys stuff recently, finding insight and subject matters central to, if not needed, on the modern christian discourse. I can tell he has read Kierkegaard and expresses it in a new form, because as a fellow dane like Randy, Kierkegaard is the penultimate danish philosopher, and I have hence read him too.

The key thing that is expressed is the importance of personal belief in, or connection with, the divine. The online trads lack this. Using Christianity as a form of political memespeak, using Christianity in a Islamic Format and all the niggerlovers, the churchcucks - these people are all disgusting. Why? Because it is impersonal, irreligious and in the Kierkegaardian sense aesthetic. It's about showing off how good you are, revenge against your superiors, Nietzschean slave morality, etc. etc., be it in the form of I'M BASED LOOK AT MY ROSARY, or the christian ressentiment Nietzsche put his finger on.

When I look at a cross, standing in ancient cathedral, listening to the choir from behind urging me forward, I don't feel like being part of the "church community", or my based papal state, or any of these hispanic retardations. No, I feel great judgment, love, awe, fear - reaching out to me, begging me to touch back. I kneel at the altar and close my eyes. Take the bread. Then the wine. Completion. Reaching back. Daring to believe.



Deeply personal. Religious. No posturing. Only an authentic meeting with the divine.

Protestantism, western Christianity of the honest kind, this pessimistic view of man, the belief that man placed before Christ, being given a choice, faced with the paradox of irrational truth, that is what these brown e-caths avoid, and this is what drove the Higher strains of Protestant faith in the West. And it's not like we haven't seen honest attempts at christian discourse online, for one the very eggreport I steal this from is an example, but I also remember Quentin, nobodytm; these people don't present le hecking holy empire bro, but instead something quite different. This is not a question of paganism vs. christianity, but of Christ against the Church.

The honest people have been shying away from leadership positions in the churches, shrugging when faced with anal faggotry being allowed, because it is not in the frame of worship to care about these things. I've seen this first hand. I can relate to it - I don't want to fucking feel disgust at my priest. I don't want to see a small hole of authenticity being closed before my very eyes. And so the bad people got into those positions instead, the schoolmarms, the fat wholesome chungus trads.

It is an issue of lower life and cowardice. Because why tithe when you can buy bread for your poor uncle? Because why donate billions to apefreaka when your nation is in flames? Because why parrot and posture about old dead empires when the real living manifestation of God calls you, and all these acts turns to avoidance, to cowardice? The church suffers from the world being filled with faggots. Priests are the lowest creatures of the modern world. But Christ is eternal. And he still begs you.

Well anyways, read Randy, I think he is a good guy. And fuck the church.

Christianity doesn't have much to say on the NQ. I buy that it says that bantoids are human beans; it doesn't follow that you must let infinity niggers into your country. Trying to dice theology over this is absurd -- none of the infinity niggers [Jesus Edition] crowd wants to ban divorce or buttfucking (things which Christian tradition and scripture take very clear positions against, vice immigration policy).

synesth Wrote:Well anyways, read Randy, I think he is a good guy. And fuck the church.

I am going to become the pope and send Vatican deathsquads to liquidate "Randy" with blowtorches.

I have been thinking about this subject vaguely for a few months, I want to highlight a lurking dishonesty that I feel cuts to the heart of the matter Pax said this 

Pax Wrote:pro-immigration is a status symbol

Which is lying, because immigration is in everything Mart listed and framed by its advocates as morally just first, economically sound second. Pax of course would rather face a nice strawman that does not exist, such as liberal capitalism instead of the rather thorny facts that
1.Migration is framed as a matter of nobody should be forced to live in a bad place because of birth and this is all but gospel in both national and international law
2.In the case of the latter, which is one of the biggest road blocks in dealing with migration in a serious way, a non small number of clergy applauded such developments and went to work propping them up, which is how Mart gets a grand list just from googling who helps asylum seekers.
3.One naturally asks how did international law got to such a influence and who laid the foundations of such decrees on what authority:


I'll cut to the chase, while I could trace things to 1789 or earlier, weave some grand tale about the decline of Christendom I believe as a fundamental matter the choice made in those dark years of WW2 and its aftermath by most major clergy to bow their heads in effect to these new princes and their idea of humanitarianism of religions place on the top table of 'stakeholders' of a new world order be it out of simple pragmatism, a naive idea they could be changed, or out of a genuine belief these forces were righteous for banishing the Axis powers and the worldviews they represented it was the final nail in the coffin for the Christian social order that rose from the latter Roman empire and its collapse. Institutionally and socially  tip toeing around anything that is not applying salves to the poor charges of the godless and maybe talking about those higher things you care about fully becoming what those wits of the 18th century claimed-No different from the secular just another character in society. Reflecting and acting on botched thought from those with power and who laid the foundations of said power. This corruption has been documented and discussed by many learned men of faith, sadly the majority online are only apt in trying to hide rot, as bishops do for our princes. Instead of dealing with all the savages in the city and church( A category oneself and community is likely in) offense  is only raised when someone says it looks poorly on the church for such citizens to be around it. In my view only when this reality is accepted and backbone found to stand against it will dignity and greater things come to the faithful. Until then, they can enjoy being circled by worldly vultures and half heartily beating them away.

(12-23-2023, 06:06 AM)anthony Wrote: [ -> ]

synesth Wrote:Well anyways, read Randy, I think he is a good guy. And fuck the church.

I am going to become the pope and send Vatican deathsquads to liquidate "Randy" with blowtorches.

Please do. An amarnite pope would be fun.

I believe that this is mainly an effect of Liberalization, rather than an inherent flaw within Christianity. One can argue ad infinitum that the presuppositions of a Universal religion are responsible for these Chungus Conservatives who want infinite BASED ETHIOPIANS, but I think there is a an error in this causality. This immigration lobbying cancer didn't accelerate exponentially until the postwar interregnum seized power. Throughout European and American history, the Christian immigration policy looked more like the Jødeparagrafen:

Quote:The Evangelical-Lutheran religion is the state's public religion. The inhabitants who practice it are obliged to raise their children in the same. Jesuits and monastic orders must not be tolerated. Jews are excluded from access to the Kingdom.

(Much like the American Constitution, it is implied that "inhabitants" is referring to White Men of Good Character)

A very topical thread that raises the question that we can't really keep putting off. I have a few things that I want to say and I'm going to reference some thinkers and some historical events to say them, so forgive me in advance for any disorganisation or long-windedness. 

(12-23-2023, 07:03 AM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: [ -> ]while I could trace things to 1789 or earlier, weave some grand tale about the decline of Christendom

While I agree with you, Nuc, I am going to trace things back, because I believe that this is where we need to start. If we don't start here, it only makes it that much easier for this "Pax Tube" figure to spew such word vomit like "Western liberal capitalist system" ACKshually being the reason for mass-immigration. What does this even mean, Mr. Pax Toob? Oh, right. The JEWS. The JEWS that so many American Christians believe they need to worship as the so-called 'Chosen People'. Got it.

The reason why I say that 1789 is just about the right place to start is because of the quote that I shared when this was being discussed in the shoutbox: "Whether [Christianity] will be remembered as something else is up to the genuinely religious friends I have to ponder. It may have something to do with how these religions get filtered when you have a democratic mass" (The Pervert is the one who said this, by the way, in case that needs dispelling). This is the fundamental problem, the democratic mass. In this way, I agree completely with above. But this shouldn't mean that the Catholic Church or any other Christian denomination is blameless in this, maybe as Pax Toob wants to argue. 

I am going to assume that Mr. Pax Toob is an American. He also happens to be Catholic. This is already quite damning, given the unfortunate and perhaps controversial truth that I am about to say: the vast majority of American Catholic laity are, simply put, totally underqualified to opine on these types of religious-political matters. John Murray Cuddihy's famous work puts it into better perspective. "Modernization" he says, lifting from Talcott Parsons, is "a secularization of Protestant Christianity". This process of "modernization" serves as the basis of "civic culture". It civilises by differentiating:

Quote:It separates church from state (the Catholic trauma), ethnicity from religion (the Jewish trauma); it produces the "separated" or liberal state, a limited state that knows its "place," differentiated from society. Differentiation slices through ancient primordial ties and identities, leaving crisis and "wholeness-hunger" in its wake.

Cuddihy isn't alone in this observation. He said that in the 1970s, but Guenon was saying the same thing half a century earlier, before World War II: 

Quote:[W]e are thinking not only of more or less definite movements, such as that which was actually called "modernism" and which was nothing else than an attempt, happily frustrated, to smuggle the Protestant outlook into the Catholic Church itself, we are thinking more particularly of a state of mind which is more general and diffused, less easily definable, and therefore still more dangerous, and whose great danger lies in the fact that those who are affected by it are often unaware of its existence. It is possible to think oneself sincerely religious and not be at all religious at heart, it is even possible to consider oneself a "traditionalist" without having the least notion of the real traditional spirit; and this is one more symptom of the mental confusion of our time. 

[...]

We allude also to the almost complete ignorance of doctrine, and even indifference to everything connected with doctrine; religion for many people is simply a matter of "performance" and custom [...] The doctrine is consequently in fact forgotten or reduced to next to nothing, a process which brings Catholic practice very close to the Protestant conception, being an outcome of the same modern tendencies [...] there is constant talk of morality, while very little is said about doctrine, on the pretext that this would not be understood, religion has become mere moralism, or at least it seems as if nobody cares any longer to see what it really is.

I know. Why should we give any value to what this guy said, seeing as though he ended up deciding to become some desert raghead? But what if the same fundamental idea came even earlier than that... from Twilight of the Idols: 

Quote:They are rid of the Christian God and therefore think it all the more incumbent upon them to hold tight to Christian morality: this is an English way of reasoning; but let us not take it ill in moral females à la Eliot. In England, every man who indulges in any trifling emancipation from theology, must retrieve his honour in the most terrifying manner by becoming a moral fanatic. That is how they do penance in that country. [...] Christianity is a system, a complete outlook upon the world, conceived as a whole. If its leading concept, the belief in God, is wrenched from it, the whole is destroyed; nothing vital remains in our grasp. [...] Christian morality is a command, its origin is transcendental. It is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it is true only on condition that God is truth,—it stands or falls with the belief in God.

"Not the Catholic Church" says Mr. Pax Toob, but the "Western liberal capitalist system massively incentivizes people to be pro-immigration." It's a retarded argument because the supposed economic benefits of mass TURD WORLD ""immigration"" have been debunked again and again and again. To say that the Catholic Church carries little to no blame for immigration is to live in denial about the state of your own house. But I almost can't even hold Mr. Pax Toob to this standard when this is one of his tweets:



Real anti-"Francis" rhetoric isn't that he's a heretical liberal, it's that he isn't even the legitimate successor to Saint Peter. Pax Toob has no idea what I'm even talking about.

So, are we really surprised that all of this comes from an American Catholic? America has never been a Catholic state and should never be a Catholic state. There is little, if any, infusion of Catholicism and what remains of the actual American values, unlike in Europe. I mention this because we have historical examples of state leaders wielding the power of the Church (as the state religion) as a means of accomplishing something more. Machiavelli himself commends Ferdinand II for his success, in true Princely fashion, of "using religion as a plea, so as to undertake greater schemes, he devoted himself with pious cruelty to driving out and clearing his kingdom of the Moors". I can promise you that Machiavelli would not commend how the Church, or Christianity itself, is used today by our so-called """Machiavellian elites"""—not only because what is being done lacks, at the very least, some pretense of real religious justification, but because nothing is being done for the benefit of the state. On the contrary, it's done for the destruction of the state. There were, of course, more recent examples of 'Christian' leaders (after 1789, in the age of the democratic mass) that understood how to properly use their state's popular religion to further their own greater ends, and perhaps by their examples, ironically enough, is how Christianity and the state may be salvaged, though I am not so optimistic. Or, we can keep pointing to the Jews while Christian and Church-sponsored NGOs and immigration lawyer services do exactly what Pax Toob assures us that they aren't responsible for. 

I'll keep my reply short since I'm rather tired today - the nature of Christ, as the universalized scapegoat, overcame the ancient 'scapegoating' mechanism used to resolve communal/social tensions. Not to say it completely succeeded - people still burned witches, heretics - but it did the job well enough.

The psychological corollary is that Christianity innately infuses a desire towards a similar kind of martyrdom. This can be channeled in various ways, including towards crusading righteousness, but such shaping requires a firm hand. For better it worse, Christianity wires a particular frame that sanctifies self-sacrifice and self-negation, as well as a natural sympathy towards the scapegoats of a given era.

This should be obvious to everyone except perhaps an online trad LARPer who has never stepped foot in a church, but Christians can be libtards too. They're not libtards because of Christianity: as Pax says the West has been Christian for over a millennium. You could alter Martin's argument to smear Americans, White people or women if you wanted, and I don't think that's productive.

You could also argue that the Christian values of charity and self-sacrifice have no place in the modern world and I would agree to an extent, but again, Christianity used to be non-pozzed for a long time. It wouldn't be hard to reinterpret scripture to support the argument that you shouldn't help people of other races who don't share your values. Also, the Whites among these Christians are still acting in good faith and believe they are serving God by supporting mass migration. They don't hate us (like every other race does) and aren't our enemies in that sense.

I would prefer to see more specifically anti-charity messaging. The disparity between the public perception of charity and the reality is astounding. I couldn't prove this but I suspect that Christian charities could be more harmful than the average charity because they actually have moral principles and achieve their stated goals while frittering away a smaller than average proportion of their donations on administrative bloat.

Bit more awake, some expounding on my take. 

Imagine -if you will - that you visit an alien country and an alien people, and found that all of them wore a noose around their neck. You ask an old man about it and the following conversation commences:

Quote:>"You, old man...  Why do you wear the noose around your neck?"

>"We wear it because it is the symbolizes the sacrifice of the hanged man. He who came to universalizes the connection to all-things."

>"Oh... so he was a prophet then?"

>"Yes. No. The hanged man was the child of all-things. More precisely, he was its corporeal representation."

>"I see. I take it he wasn't just a man then?"

>"Yes, he was an aspect of all-things. In life, it was known that he may render stone into gold, salt to milk."

>"And... he was hung?"

>"Yes, essentially by the Vasani... A ancient people who had grown insipid and corrupt, and who turned aside the salvation he offered."

>"If he was as powerful as you imply, why was he hung? Why didn't he fight back?"

>"He choose to allow it, so that  - in his death - we may all be granted eternal oneness with the divine."

>"I apologize, I'm a bit confused. I have a lot of questions though: Why would the hanged man do that? Also, who is 'we'?"

>"'We' are all peoples, including myself, the poorest pauper, and the loftiest king - and including you yourself as well, the hanged man is your god too, though you may not know it yet. As to your first question - the divinity had seen fit to only grant a singular people oneness. They... Well, they were the ancestors of the Vasani. They were the ancestors of the hanged man too, who was himself Vasani. Understand that before the hanged man, only the Vasani could hope to achieve the connection with the all-things after death."

>"This is an aside, but - are the Vasani your ancestors?"

>"No, they are different people from a land far away. One could say that they still exist. Though they are fallen now in numerous ways." 

>"Alright, I'm still a bit curious. Why was it necessary for the hanged man to be hung -- for your salvation?"

....At this, the other man tilts his head a little bit. He seems irate, as if he was speaking with a child. With a delicate gesture, he tugs gently at the noose around his neck.

>"Before the hanged man, we were imperfect and sundered apart from all-things. We were to be rendered with the same heart of all-things, but we were imperfect. We were still more beast than man. We were failures. To only the Vasani, chosen of all-things, did all-things see fit to yield onto them the laws of creation. It abandoned the rest as unmanifest failures."

>"What did it mean for a man to be a failure? Tell me, why did all-things choose to condemn its creations?"

>"To act against the will of creation and betray the intents of all-things. In us, we were cast with the spirit of choice, so that we might choose to follow the way of all-things. As the chosen, endowed with the laws of creation, only the Vasani might hope to follow the path."

>"Let me more specific then: What does it mean to stray from the path?"

>"A poet once summarized the following transgressions: Greedalia, Invidiosa, Gulonia, Lustara, Pridion, Slothara, Chargina. These then...  they are the desires poison our hearts, and separate us from the laws of creation."

>"I see, these transgressions are the betrayal of all-things?"

>"Yes, but more - They are also a betrayal of the self and of those around us. In straying, we must inevitably suffer in the disconnection from all-things. This is the path to the becoming void - the price all-things had ordained for straying from creation's law."

>"Right, I think I understand a bit better now. There is a price for transgression. But, you still haven't explained why the hanged man must be hung...?"

>"Now, as to why the hanged man must allow himself to be hung - Because only all-things could itself pay the enormity of that price and only though the hanged man, its human avatar, could cleanse us of our transgressions from straying from the path. Do you understand now? To be hung once was to be hung for all future and past transgressions, and this was the choice he made atop the gallows. Before he was the hanged man, he had a name. We may only write it, but never speak it. For in his hanging, he became the universal. In the moment that the noose snapped, he was the avatar of every man and every transgression. He took it all upon himself."

>"You wear the noose around your neck to remind yourself of this?"

>"Yes."

>"Tell me, would you have made the choice, had you stood atop the gallows?"

>"I would like to believe I would, but I am not the hanged man, nor am I all-things made mortal and manifest. I am merely an old man and imperfect as such, though I strive to cast my life in his ideal. We all do, and we all fail."

>"How do you honor the hanged man?"

>"Many in this world remain fallen. There are those, in that wretched country to the south of us, that still sacrifice their children to secure a bountiful harvest. Children burnt alive, with their ashen flesh then spread across the soil. We bring them the noose... not to cast them from the gallows... but to tell them that the price of all-things has already been paid. To guide them back to all-things law, so that they find their eternal connection with all-things."

>"They are not your people though - shouldn't you focus on uplifting those around you? I see many in this country still suffer, if silently."

>"No, that is not the way. What part of 'all' in all-things is unclear? The hanged man was hung for all us, for he loved all of us. It is only selfishness that could compel us to turn away from others, who are themselves manifestations of all-things."

>"I still don't really get it. In my time in this country, I've seen mothers weeping over sons who died in the southern war? What of their pain? To bring the noose southwards - what of those left behind, bereft by the loss of sons and husbands? ... the blood of your own children?"

>"We are not the Vasani, and we do not hold ourselves as eternal exclusive elect. Those young men freely shed their blood in the name of spreading the hanged man's love - a love that extends past the bounds of any tribe. Those children who are burnt may well be our children. Against that, to offer ones body and life then is the highest act. At least to those who follow the spirit of the hanged man."

>"I see... But do they not hate you?"

>"They do, but now let me ask you: Must love be reciprocal? The Vasani did not love the hanged man, but he died for them all the same. We shall continue to endure the ire of the southerners, until such time comes that they or their descendants might share in the hanged man's love with us."

>"...that scorn must be a difficult burden to carry."

The old man nods, tugging once more on the noose around his neck.

Zed Wrote:Imagine -if you will - that you visit an alien country and an alien people, and found that all of them wore a noose around their neck. You ask an old man about it and the following conversation commences:

Cool lore snippet. Can't wait to play the complete gritty crpg and explore the rest of this world. These guys sound like a cool faction.

Christianity needs paganism in order to live.

What do I mean by "paganism"? It's a funny word, since its definition is negative. Practically speaking, it means everything within "religion" but without Christianity (or without Christianity, Judaism, and Islam).

One should keep in mind that this category of "religion" is a modern construction. Ask yourself what was torn from Christianity by the creation of this general category?

Modern people are trapped in a net of words and "Christianity" is ensnared right there with them. The modern man approaches everything with his word-snares so he can dominate it and set it in an exterior framework, whereas in times past Christianity was the universe in which man dwelled.

Modern moralism is a system for the domination of life by these verbal formulas and the transformation of the world into a realm of universal slavery. So long as Good and evil are grasped according to a system of calculation then there is no room for the mysterious work of grace.

The common speech is held hostage by mass media. In this age, so long as one "thinks" (imitates thought) in a common way, according to the definitions imposed on words by this society, then "Christianity" is a hostage of that society and its institutions.

The speech which breaks out of this prison is poetic, when the meanings of words are grasped as the out-pouring of an original and primordial creative source.

To join oneself to this source is magic. The phenomena that give rise to paganism, folk religion, and shamanism illustrate something true about our world.

Are miracles just an embarrassing exception to the proper and normal course of things? Or is it the case that miracles are the only moments where we think the universe as it truly is?

In science, there are no exceptions. One credible stumbling-block falsifies the entire theory. If one believes that the miracles recounted in the Bible really happened, what does that imply?

To believe in magic is to hold that life in the absence of miracles is the real aberration.

obscurefish Wrote:Christianity needs paganism in order to live.

What do I mean by "paganism"? It's a funny word, since its definition is negative. Practically speaking, it means everything within "religion" but without Christianity (or without Christianity, Judaism, and Islam).

One should keep in mind that this category of "religion" is a modern construction. Ask yourself what was torn from Christianity by the creation of this general category?

Modern people are trapped in a net of words and "Christianity" is ensnared right there with them. The modern man approaches everything with his word-snares so he can dominate it and set it in an exterior framework, whereas in times past Christianity was the universe in which man dwelled.

Modern moralism is a system for the domination of life by these verbal formulas and the transformation of the world into a realm of universal slavery. So long as Good and evil are grasped according to a system of calculation then there is no room for the mysterious work of grace.

The common speech is held hostage by mass media. In this age, so long as one "thinks" (imitates thought) in a common way, according to the definitions imposed on words by this society, then "Christianity" is a hostage of that society and its institutions.

The speech which breaks out of this prison is poetic, when the meanings of words are grasped as the out-pouring of an original and primordial creative source.

To join oneself to this source is magic. The phenomena that give rise to paganism, folk religion, and shamanism illustrate something true about our world.

Are miracles just an embarrassing exception to the proper and normal course of things? Or is it the case that miracles are the only moments where we think the universe as it truly is?

In science, there are no exceptions. One credible stumbling-block falsifies the entire theory. If one believes that the miracles recounted in the Bible really happened, what does that imply?

To believe in magic is to hold that life in the absence of miracles is the real aberration.

It's usually ignored, but the sort of person who funds a pro-immigration NGO ("charity") is usually the same sort of person who funds a pro-immigration Church. These institutions have a special material status because they survive off direct faith-investments which are tax-deductible, the government authorizes dollars to flow freely towards these institutions. If you've ever lived in a community of older wealthy people, you'd be surprised by just how many "Christians" there are. But they're not in the strange subversive Churches which youthful people prefer, they're attached to sclerotic Churches which behave more like charities than churches. This is why many Churches act like charities, because they know that their parishes wouldn't fund them if they stopped resembling a conventional (secular) charity.

Note, when I say "charity" I strictly mean the IRS's definition, I'm not thinking of classical charities.

Matthew 7:15

You can talk until you're blue in the face. People still won't ever understand.





"She should just do porn. What's the point of this? That would be more honest."

Every time I look at her face I imagine shooting cum into her mouth. This is the political personality that's marketed to us, and yet these are - we are - the very people who are aghast at cringe conservative hamana hamana bikini babe calendars. The discourse is getting dumber by the week and I'm here for it y'all.

To the topic, most Christianity is totally on board with white genocide and will excommunicate you for being a misogynist online. The few sects which are not like this are properly mum about all of this type of political stuff. Your typical Americhurch will have cope sermons celebrating the fact that e.g. this German-American parish here will be Sudanese in 30 years, and that's a heckin' good thing y'all. In my personal view, a legitimate church which ever had a reason to exist couldn't unravel like this. Time reveals the truth.

The existence of queers wearing the skin of religions does not invalidate the religion. That's a strawman fallacy and it's no different than coalservatives reposting some trans-identified female from witchtok wearing a Thor's hammer and calling it an "average gaygan." Obviously people like this exist but it doesn't erase millennia of Norse/Hellenic tradition.

There are no shortage of chuddy pastors who make vocal stances against immigration, but you will never hear about them thanks to the coordinated deboosting and deplatforming of anything remotely right wing by tech trannies (see: Twitter files.) Also see the monitoring and infiltration of "Christian extremist groups" and "tradcaths" by the FBI, despite the fact that these are practically non-existent and pose zero threat to national security especially when compared to the black supremacist groups that the Gay Nigger Communist regime loves so much.