Posted on 01/16/2018 8:00:37 AM PST by ek_hornbeck
Buchanan may not be an atheist, but he clearly worships a white racial "gxd" while claiming to worship a universal one.
You and I have been over this ground before. You are a culturist and civilizationist. I am a fundamentalist religious fanatic who essentially considers culturism and civilizationism to be forms of idolatry (often masking atheism that supports certain religions out of purely utilitarian reasons, such as the accursed Revilo P. Oliver). There is nothing lower than someone who supports a religion for utilitarian reasons.
You may not have noticed this, but I have spent a great deal of time on this web site defending the facticity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible, which is rejected by the so-called conservative bedrock of western civilization, the Catholic Church). And I'm supposed to consider other white people who reject the Word of G-d to be my "racial brothers and sisters?" Please. Perhaps you've not seen the slurs such people have posted on this very forum about their Fundamentalist "racial brothers and sisters," calling them Bible-toters, snake-handlers, brain-dead bibliolators, "cletus," "Billy Bob's Glory Barn," and such things. Suppose I were to tell you that I would prefer a country where everyone accepted the literal historical truth of the Hebrew Bible and the morality it teaches, even if multi-ethnic, to one made of of good pure whites who don't? (And support of morality for reasons of health racial hygiene doesn't count. The whole point of morality is submission to and obedience to G-d. Anything else misses the point entirely.)
But no, I have no problem with nationalism (or even the notion that each ethnic group has its own collective character), provided it isn't given metaphysical connotations (which so many do). But when people imply that each and every ethnic group should have its own "holy land," its own "gxd," and its own "one true religion" that specifically reflects its own unique and equally valid worldview, then I respond very loudly indeed. This is nothing but atheism and relativism. That it is traditionalist instead of nihilist means nothing. Sorry. The problem with atheist nihilists is ultimately their atheism rather than their nihilism. A traditionalist atheist is no better.
So no, I have no problem if people want mostly Europeans or northwestern Europeans to immigrate here--provided it isn't because the advocate believes that race is everything, that there is no universal religious truth or G-d, or denies that every single human being who has ever lived, from the blondest "aryan" to the shortest pygmy, is descended from the historical Biblical Adam and Eve. Most civilizationists, however, do exactly this.
Then we come to a special case: Blacks, who have been in this country almost as long as Anglo-Saxons and who, despite the mutual hatred, share the same language, dialects, background, and even religion (any "universal" religion that can't regard all its members as equally members is a fraud and a farce). Unlike so many other conservatives (and all the Leftists), I don't regard them as some sort of "vanguard" for the eventual importation of masses of "furriners." They've been here four hundred years. They're from the South. They eat Southern food. They practice Southern religion. They speak Southern English. Their origin is rural and agricultural, however "urban" they have become. But the fact remains, they aren't immigrants! If Anglo-Saxons are "native," then so are they! They constitute a special case unlike all other later immigrant groups. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Booker T. Washington's speech "Let Down Your Bucket where You Are," in which he implored white businessmen to hire native Blacks "whose habits you know" as opposed to those of alien speech and strange ways. But maybe you have to be descended from Southern Unionist Republicans, as I am, to understand. If so, too bad. (And please note, that I am the most mercilessly critical of Black political behavior and liberalism on this forum. Read my posting history if you doubt it. This for the exact same reason I criticize white atheist racialism: they have turned their backs on G-d, and if they don't repent, they will eventually pay.)
I have no doubt that you regard me as quite naive, but I am not nearly as ignorant as you may imagine. I know all about racialism and civilizationism, Ben Klassen and Revilo P. Oliver. I've been in this fight for forty years. I know what I'm up against, and how naive so many of my fellows are. I know all about the atheist intellectuals who support traditionalism for purely utilitarian social reasons, who oppose homosexuality because it is "subversive of western man" rather than out of obedience to a Divine Commandment. I have been around the block.
One of the greatest mysteries I have ever encountered is this bizarre alliance of highfalutin intellectuals and simple bumpkins that exists on both sides. Why do leftist atheists idealize the Black and brown masses, whose simple, superstititous beliefs they don't share? Why do "right wing" civilizationist/racialist atheists so idealize and support "Bible-thumping trailer trash" whose beliefs they also don't share? Is low animal biology really that important? If I had my way (and I know I never will), the atheist intellectuals on both sides would fight each other and leave all the "bumpkins" out of it. But no, each side is compelled to use its particular choice of bumpkins as cannon fodder.
I have no illusions as to what you probably believe, but I have never complained about you to the mods because you are a gentleman who is circumspect. There are others who are not and who blatantly violate the stated rules of FR but never seem to pay for it. So long as you are the gentleman you are, you may rest assured that I will never do any more than argue with you, though I have no doubt you regard me as quite naive in my religious faith. It's called being a "true believer." The Left is against it. Perhaps you should reexamine your own opposition, if that is indeed your position.
But whatever else one may say about atheist racialist intellectuals, at least they don't go around claiming to adhere to a "universal religion." Others do, and that violates all the rules of reason and logic. And that is why I will never understand Pat Buchanan.
Ultimately, if, as the intellectuals on both sides of the spectrum maintain, we are merely an infinitessimal and meaningless part of a vast meaningless universe of physical causes and effects, then all ideologies and ideological crusades are simply insane, whatever they are. No exceptions.
Immigration into this nation must respect legitimate authority to both man and God.
When the nations were first formed by God at the Tower of Babel by the number of tongues according to the number of the sons of God (some say angels), each nation falls under the authority of an angel (principality) and is characterized by a language, land, people, and governance both via man and God.
This is easily traced through Africa, Asia, and Europe. Possibly also through N and S America prior to Columbus.
Even with colonization and the declaration of States within the continent, this is true.
The US though is a bit different than other nations today, in that we were not originally formed from the Tower of Babel by any direct lineage, although we might be described as the sons of Tarshish.
It might be argued from the Mayflower Covenant, that our covering son of God, might even be the Son of God and Son of Man.
Whomever the watching son of God who covers the US might be, any legitimate immigrant should not only approach the US via the legitimate laws of man, but also in proper respect for the authority God has placed over our nation.
Pat supporters were banned or shut down here on FreeRepublic, when Pat ran for President.
I've often commented on the double-standard that leftists apply towards whites vs. non-whites or towards Western vs. Third World nations. You bring up an obvious example: the Left promotes atheism (or flaky New Age beliefs) among white liberals and ridicules Christianity when it's practiced by white conservatives. However, they never criticize any form of religion or superstition when it's practiced by non-whites in the US or in Third World nations.
Similarly, the Left attacks US conservatives for "sexism" and "homophobia" when a conservative talk show host says that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for some college girl's birth control pills or when a Christian baker won't custom-make cakes for homo-weddings. Meanwhile, multicultural Leftists keep very quiet about Muslims stoning women to death for pre-marital sex (even when they're victims of rape) or for beheading homosexuals.
Even Left-wing "environmentalism" is strangely selective. Western countries are supposed to de-industrialize so we stop polluting, and whites need to stop having kids to prevent overpopulation. But they never criticize non-whites for having too many children or Third World countries for polluting too much (even though most population growth is taking place in the Third World, and in spite of the fact that developed western countries are far better at controlling pollution and managing natural resources than developing countries).
What can be gleaned from all this is that the Left isn't really concerned with dispelling religious superstition. Nor is it concerned about "the environment." It isn't even all that concerned about "women's rights" or "gay rights." Instead, these are all just convenient ways to attack white people and western nations while advancing the collective interests of non-white clients of the liberal elite.
I have no illusions as to what you probably believe, but I have never complained about you to the mods because you are a gentleman
I always try to make an effort to respond to people in the same tone that they address me, whether I agree with what they're saying or not. So I reserve the right to be a jerk when dealing with jerks, but not otherwise.
But whatever else one may say about atheist racialist intellectuals, at least they don't go around claiming to adhere to a "universal religion." Others do, and that violates all the rules of reason and logic. And that is why I will never understand Pat Buchanan.
I've followed Pat Buchanan's career and writing for many years, and it seems to me that it isn't too difficult to understand what motivates him. He loves and admires the America that he knew during his formative years in the 1950's and early 1960's, and then saw it all collapse and get worse during the decades that followed. Mass immigration combined with multicultural ideology was one of the main contributing factors to this decline, which is why he has been talking about the problem of mass immigration from the Third World "before talking about immigration became cool." Ironically, Donald Trump called Buchanan a xenophobe and a bigot in 2000 for saying more or less the same things that Trump campaigned on, so as far as I'm concerned Buchanan was just saw and understood the issue long before they caught on at large (I've also noticed that a lot of conservative talking heads like Limbaugh etc. have started to move over to the right side of the national question too).
Maybe because they have an appreciation for what Thomas Jefferson and his fellow...
http://masonicworld.com/education/files/feb04/green_dragon_tavern.htm
....conspirators had in mind with that whole “infidels of every denomination” thing.
YMMV!
Pat was once hated here by the bigot baiting deep thinking crowd
He's still hated by those who admire the Bushes and by the handful of NeverTrump neoconservatives who still post here. I wonder if the latter also share Bill Kristol's views that Americans are worthless, lazy bums who need to be replaced by hard-working Third World people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.