Article by Paul Johnson - Pursuing Success Is Not Enough

Paul Johnson recently wrote in Forbes the following:

"Of course, it is desirable, to my mind, that all business activities be rooted in Judeo-Christian teaching, both theoretical and practical, or conform to a morally defensible framework of principles. We should not pursue wealth, fame and success for their own sake. If we want a chance at happiness as well, our vision must be placed much higher."

Mr. Johnson makes some interesting points, but I think that he may be blinded by his unquestioning and non-objective "faith" in the "religion of love".

Forgive me for writing that I think that Paul Johnson has built a house out of glass and has decided to move into it...

Here's some great examples of Christian business principles from the not-too-distant past:

1. Pointing a gun to Indian farmers' heads and making them grow opium for pennies. Then selling this opium to the Chinese, and then going to war with them when the Chinese Emperor states that he disagrees with the British regarding the 20% addiction rate of the Chinese population!

2. The African slave trade which was used to build many Christian churches--free labor means christians get to keep 100% of the profits!

3. Again, wiping out the Aztecs and stealing their gold, raping their women and children, and then wiping them out like vermin.

4. Giving smallpox blankets to Native Americans for free!

5. Not allowing catholic priests to marry because their children would inherit church property( again, guarding the church's vast wealth). Then when the sexual abuse suits hit, engage in massive frauds and cover-ups. This is a good business principle.



On the basis of profit alone, I would have to agree with Paul Johnson that Christian business principles are very effective. The evidence reveals that there has been no better no more profitable business enterprise than the spread of Christianity and especially the use of Christianity to mask the true intentions of the aggressors. As per the "moral superiority" of these principles, I would have to disagree. Machiavelli said it best when he wrote that there can be no greater and effective stratagem than to mask ruthlessness with religion and piety.

What do you think?

White Supremacy & Christianity - Entwined or Irreconcilable? - Part 2

Question:

Has anyone ever heard of Project Thessalonica?

I have!

More to come tomorrow...

White Supremacy & Christianity - Entwined or Irreconcilable? - Part 1

The historical evidence would suggest that since NO Holy Book or scripture has ever been written by white hands or has ever been revealed to a white person, then how can I trust a white missionary who tells me that all non-christians are hell bound?

Let's go through all the major religions of the world:

1. Judaism - revealed to the Hebrews (who are NOT white; ask adolf hitler the christian or any neo-nazi christian)

2. Islam - revealed to the Prophet Mohammed of the Quraysh tribe of ancient Arabia (PM was not white)

3. Hinduism - over 500o years of revelations through Indian sages (not whites)

4. Buddhism - revealed to Lord Gautama Buddha (former Indian prince)

5. Shinto - from Japan

6. Daoism - from China

and lastly, CHRISTIANITY - revealed through the ancient Hebrews. BTW, Jesus was a rabbi (Jewish)

Whites have formulated countless political systems and ideologies, but have never had a religion revealed to them. They follow every religion, but have not had a major religion revealed to them. So, wouldn't it make sense to say that if a group of people as politically gifted as the white race would use religion for a political purpose?

Let's reason through this...

Every christian cult and movement is run like a corporation or a government or scarily as a govt within a govt.

Catholicism has a board of directors, owns property, has shareholders, has a bank, elects a lifetime member to chair the board of directors (the Pope), has members of the board (Cardinals) and appoints Vice Presidents (bishops, cardinals) to territories. Granted, all religions have these political dynamics, but this takes the cake. Now you mean to tell me that the Pope, who is elected by a Board is The representative of God?

Let's look at other tidbits from History:

1. Inquisition - murder of millions of scientists, philosophers, and gifted individuals who were a threat to the power of the Church--Galileo, etc.

2. The pope's private armies that massacred anyone who opposed them.

3. Wiping out of entire cultures and races from South/Central America---not by Smallpox alone. More through the barrel of a gun.

4. Wiping out Native Americans like "vermin", castrating them, and then wiping clean their minds so that they have zero self-image and no memory of their identity?

If you see my previous post, this theory is proven out with my accurate claim that all non-white christian countries are desperately poor, all white christian countries are unimaginably wealthy, and all non-christian non-white countries were once very wealthy (India, China, Vietnam, and other Asian nations), came into contact with christianity and because impoverished, but are now developing at a rapid pace to their pre-christian stage.

Question - many older African-Americans have told me personally that they witnessed lynchings on church property. Is this an example of christian love? Were christians trying to send these people to sit by their god? Is this why christians drink blood and eat their god? Does this ritual desensitize them to genocide?

Many African-Americans have also told me that when they go to mostly white churches in the suburbs, that they get unwelcome looks and when they go back the following Sunday, they see less white people!

More examples of the "religion of love"?


Again, these are just questions.

Jesus Myth Created By the Roman Empire?

Video of the Caesar's Messiah author and his collaborator: Joe Atwill and John Hudson interviews. They explain how Jesus and the Jesus cult was a Roman creation (which is still being used today for its original intended use: crowd control and empire building)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4759784634425171396
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4177667410483454304

The intent of this posting is not to hurt anyone's feelings. We're just debating just like christians do with non-christians. If christians can make claims that ALL non-christians are hell bound then I think it should be OK for non-christians to question christians freely about their "faith".

I have had many conversations with christians and they have asked me for "solid proof" of my faith in Hinduism. When I question them, they claim that they "have faith"!

How convenient! Hindus must use logic and objective evidence to prove their faith, but christians only have to have "faith" for everyone else to be wrong! I bow to your Great White God!!! Please Great White God-man! please accept the humble offering of a dark-skinned Son of Cain!!!!

LOL.

Let the discussion begin. Please don't mind the light-hearted banter. I'm trying to evoke without offending. If I do offend, please mention it and I'll stop. My point is to evoke a discussion.

God Bless.

Christist Contradictions and Twists

I watched a televangelist this morning while I was eating breakfast. I listened very intently and he stated the following:

Wherever Christianity has spread, it has brought with it prosperity, civilization, material wealth, literacy, health, and general morality.

Pretty broad claims!

Let's explore each of these points. Let's start with prosperity and material wealth. I think it's safe to group these two together. This is a patently false proposition. Japan is NOT a christian country but it is a very rich country. Bolivia, Peru, Philippines, Nigeria, Cameroon, Brazil, etc etc. are ALL christian countries but are very poor, under-developed, and economic basket cases. Not sure where this preacher got his evidence. Well, he's half right---Germany, England, Scotland, Wales, France, Netherlands are all very rich christian countries. See a pattern here?

Pattern Explained:

ALL white christian countries are rich countries.
All non-white christian countries are poor countries.
All non-white non-christian countries are rich or soon to be rich countries.

So, one could actually argue that christianity is a regressive religion for some and a very enriching religion for others. Why is this true? Let's explore how christianity was "spread" to non-white countries...

1. genocide
2. bribery
3. colonialism
4. exploitation and destruction of the native culture and religion

Could it be that christianity was used by the presently rich christian countries to impoverish the poor christian countries?

India and China were untouched by christianity for centuries, and from the beginning of the Common Era (1 CE), both India (Hindu) and China (Confucian, Buddhist) were the richest nations on earth until roughly 1820. That's a run of 1800 years of prosperity.

Form your own conclusions on whether christianity is a civilizing and prosperity-encouraging faith.

On morality and civilizing influences of christianity:

1. In the RICH Scandinavian christian nation if Iceland, the rate of alcoholism is 30% and in Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden, the rate of births outside of wedlock is also around 30-40%. christians can't blame Hindus or Buddhists for this state of affairs since there aren't any in Scandinavian countries.

2. In the USA, the rate of births out of wedlock for Blacks (majority of whom are christian) is 70%; or whites, it's 30%. Is this the fault of non-christians?

3. Ever been to that very Roman Catholic city of New Orleans during Mardi Gras? It makes the Kamasutra look like "Cat in the Hat".

4. Ever been to Las Vegas - started by Sicilian Roman Catholics. Wonder what the Pope thinks of this place?

It's safe to write that christianity does NOT have a civilizing influence and does NOT lead to an increase of morality.

Civilized and logical replies are welcome.

So Who Is Going to Hell?

Christians take it as an article of faith that anyone who does not accept Christ will suffer Eternal Damnation. OK, that's fine.

Here's what I don't get. Maybe you christists out there can explain this to me:

1. Baptists say that all other denominations are going to Hell.

2. Mormons claim to have a monopoly on the ONE TRUE message, so they claim that ALL other non-Mormons are going to Hell.

3. Catholics claim that ALL non-Catholics are going to Hell. This is what Mel Gibson said about his wife (who is not Catholic).

4. Protestants and Evangelicals claim that non-Christians and other denominations are going to Hell.

So, someone please clarify the entire "you will burn in Hell if you don't accept Christ" hypothesis.

It doesn't make sense to me. WHO IS GOING TO HELL? Is it just a personal thing? It seems that christism is a very morally relativistic cult, so if I started my own denomination, it seems reasonable that I could claim that everyone who doesn't think like me is going to Hell. Right?

Why Do Christists Want to Convert Hindus?

This is something that I have never understood. In Hinduism, we are secure enough with our beliefs to state that all religions represent a different path to the Godhead or Supreme Being. Why is is that Christians insist that they must save everyone from inevitable eternal damnation?

Why is it that they think that everyone should drive one type of car, wear one type of clothing, etc.?