Neoreactionary / alt-right

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rubee said:
No one made any point about there being “no connection” between birth and chosen religion but about membership being made exclusively through that.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s not exclusive. I’m sure there are some Muslims in the bible belt. But can you agree that the majority of adherents to the major religions as we know them now are primarily members of that religion by accident of birth. Not to say that they each haven’t come to a decision that they happened to have been born in the right place.
 
Freddy said:
Of course it’s not exclusive. I’m sure there are some Muslims in the bible belt. But can you agree that the majority of adherents to the major religions as we know them now are primarily members of that religion by accident of birth. Not to say that they each haven’t come to a decision that they happened to have been born in the right place.
Click to expand...
And this is not debated or relevant to the point I made.

Look, if you just want to have a discussion about this particular point you’re bringing up (Most people’s religious affiliation is largely due to an accident of their birth) I am game. I just don’t understand the implication that this is in any sense a response to the point I’m making about why neonazis reject christianity for paganism.
 
Last edited:
Rubee said:
40.png
Freddy:
Of course it’s not exclusive. I’m sure there are some Muslims in the bible belt. But can you agree that the majority of adherents to the major religions as we know them now are primarily members of that religion by accident of birth. Not to say that they each haven’t come to a decision that they happened to have been born in the right place.
Click to expand...
And this is not debated or relevant to the point I made.
Click to expand...
The main point? No. It was a comment incidental to the main point of the op that you made. But no need to delve any further if you don’t want to discuss it.
 
As I said, as you were typing, I have no problem discussing this point in its own terms: It is in fact true that religious affiliation is largely an accident of one’s birth. If you’re not acting like I denied that at any point, there’s no problem from me. To me it’s only relevance is that I don’t impute any guilt based on ignorance to anyone because of their worldview and that I don’t believe God does, either. Still, my only point in this thread was to explain that neonazis prefer old-style paganism because it’s less nagging to them about excluding non-Whites from their vision of society. I didn’t say modern religions don’t exclude; just not in the ways neonazis prefer.
 
Last edited:
Rubee said:
As I said, as you were typing, I have no problem discussing this point in its own terms: It is in fact true that religious affiliation is largely an accident of one’s birth. If you’re not acting like I denied that at any point, there’s no problem from me. To me it’s only relevance is that I don’t impute any guilt based on ignorance to anyone because of their worldview and that I don’t believe God does, either. Still, my only point in this thread was to explain that neonazis prefer old-style paganism because it’s less nagging to them about excluding non-Whites from their vision of society. I didn’t say modern religions don’t exclude; just not in the ways neonazis prefer.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that neo Nazis choose their religion as opposed to the aherents of mainstream religions? Which, as you say, can be quite exclusive.

I must admit I haven’t investigated the connection between white supremacists and Norse mythology. Although the original Nazis certainly made the connection. Wagner immediately springs to mind.
 
Freddy said:
Are you saying that neo Nazis choose their religion as opposed to the aherents of mainstream religions? Which, as you say, can be quite exclusive.

I must admit I haven’t investigated the connection between white supremacists and Norse mythology. Although the original Nazis certainly made the connection. Wagner immediately springs to mind.
Click to expand...
Yes, they explicitly make apologetics against christianity in those specific terms: it admits black people and others they consider unworthy to mix with White people in a single community. You can find these “preachings/arguments/apologetics” at Stormfront and similar places if your stomach can take it.

I’m also NOT saying that all modern pagans do this. There has been a movement of non-racist modern pagans (Wiccans and such) against neonazis precisely because they want to disconnect paganism from the latter. The two groups are obviously motivated to turn to old religions for VERY different reasons, and accuse each other of hijacking old paganism for nefarious motives, too.
 
Last edited:
To explain further:

My only point in comparing old paganism and more modern forms of religion here was to point out that the feature in christianity that neonazi neopagans find problematic is a feature more or less common to more modern forms of religion. They are explicitly expansionist/missionary (like Christianity and Islam), meaning they potentially include the whole planet in a single brotherhood, or when not expansionist, they still explicitly teach some kind of factual universal/spiritual brotherhood that includes everyone (as in Hinduism and Buddhism).

Point being, if the fundamental premise/frame in your worldview is how humans are separate “blood” groups and not “same,” and you’re not comfortable with dissonance, these are all going to be unpreferred at some point. Old style paganism was not interested in teaching about “humanity” as such, (its purpose and how it can attain salvation/ultimate happiness) as these more modern religions are, so much as it was about the specific kinship group and its relationship with the cosmos, and that’s far more conducive to someone for whom maintaining the distinctiveness of one’s ethnic/national group is the MOST important thing.
 
Last edited:
It is not a hoot, it’s a quite accurate description of the current American Left:

-Fascists were militaristic, the current Left is pacifistic. Not only they oppose military intervention against murderers like Saddam, Assad or Maduro, but they sometimes call for disbanding the police, as they wanted to do in Minneapolis.
-Fascists wanted uniformity. Everybody had be an identical drone in uniform. The current Left praises diversity for diversity’s sake, even if it’s not clever or wholesome. They make up identities like cryptoromantic pansexual demigirl and want everybody else to acknowledge it
-Fascists believed in white supremacy, as did Karl Marx. The current Left extols the most primitive cultures for diversity’s sake.
-Fascists enforced iron discipline, the current Left loves frivolity and wants people to be allowed to gratify every desire. See sex-positivity, body-positivity and the ethical sluts.
 
otjm said:
It depends on the circumstances of the killing. The Just War Theory is still part of Catholic morality, as is the right to self defense.
Click to expand...
Yup. I was making a different point to another poster.
 
It’s all well and good to complain about alleged alt-right boogey men when we have literal radicalized leftists rioting and committing actual violence out in the real world. It’s like talking about the potential for drowning when you’re standing in the middle of a house fire.
 
Last edited:
“Neo-fascist” seems like basic labeling… It helps develop negative imagery and de-humanization.

Realistically, these types do not exist in America, where I live. Maybe in Europe, where fascism and Authoritarianism are actual possibilities, where government is much less restricted.

But it’s not useful to associate the American right as this, since the American right is for limited government in the first place… European perspectives don’t transfer properly to American politics.
 
Last edited:
Adairio said:
But it’s not useful to associate the American right as this, since the American right is for limited government in the first place… European perspectives don’t transfer properly to American politics.
Click to expand...
There are people advocating for an ethnic-based society in America. What would you rather people label them? It’s amazing you could make a claim that “these types do not exist in America.” I’ve heard of denial but this is on a whole other level. What do you think Richard Spencer or David Duke are? Just regular “conservative” dudes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top