The content presented at this web site thewhitenetwork-archive.com is the sole property of the program host and/or writer and The White Network. All rights reserved.
Before copying or re-posting anything from this site, please refer to our Copyright and Re-posting Policy.
Before commenting, please refer to our Comment Policy.
I don’t regard the private militias as plausible counters to the government. Basically that’s a ‘hamas’ style situation, in which we’re committing suicide against overwhelming force. Militias are educational, and are local control solutions for cases of social collapse, keeping away looters. I realize that the Founders wanted citizen militias to keep the government in check, but I think that has to be regarded as a quaint but unlikely concept.
NSDAP didn’t challenge the government by force, and present pockets of fierce resistance against overwhelming odds until one day, miracle of miracles, they took control. NSDAP won election.
As for Christian Identity, I don’t worry about debating it much, because I regard it as inevitable that White people will eventually understand themselves to be the Israelites. In other words, it’s just a discovery process, followed by a social process of dissemination. To me the evidence seems pretty sound, although I am an amateur at it. I think it is the best overall school of thought, and its eventual success strikes me as inexorable, if a long way off. I wouldn’t make it a criterion, nor even a primary mode of thinking. It’s just there, slowly becoming real.
Lots of interesting topics brought up, so thanks Carolyn and Tan.
Some comments:
* Programs on theWhiteNetwork – What about a ‘Random Thoughts’ sort of Program where people can submit a pre-recorded, one-off podcast? A sort of training wheels situation where Carolyn or whoever could vet them for suitability. Could be a compilation of say, several 15 to 30 minute talks.
* Online anonymity – I can’t see any advantage for Tan to make public his real name. The same goes for most other people. We’re talking about things that some consider semi-criminal, if not criminal, in some countries. So why make it easy for employers and others to know what you privately think so that they may harm you?
* Christianity – Good to hear that Carolyn and Tan describe themselves as ‘cultural Christians’. That’s a loose enough category that many will feel comfortable with.
But as Tan indicated with his reference to William Pierce’s view on standard Christianity, White Nationalism and Christianity are not compatible. Christianity is about saving everyone equally, while White Nationalism is about about saving Whites.
A very good show.
Katana: A great idea about bite sized, pre-recorded pod casts. This is a great way to “activate” more rank and file white people by giving them a chance to really participate in white resistance.
We need more white voices. Speaking out gives people strength confidence and courage. A great way to get them on the air.
I think Rockwell used the concatenation “White and Christian” mainly to make a distinction from everything Jewish.
I made these observations about a radio interview that Rockwell gave in 1965:
I don’t think you made your case with your following sentences, but, as usual, you will interpret an icon like Rockwell to fit your own worldview.
Now here is something I just received via email; I cannot judge it’s reliability. Maybe you can research it.
SCIENTIST FORCED INTO A U-TURN
“We’ve made an awful mistake!”
Dismay was in Dean’s voice. “A student has knocked
our theory to bits!”
Dr Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology (Emeritus) at
San Francisco State University, was one of the
leading chemical evolution theorists in the world.
He co-authored “Biochemical Predestination”, which
claimed
1. that the evolution of life was inevitable…
2. that proteins to produce living cells were formed
directly by forces of attraction between their parts…
3. that proteins are just formed together (self-assemble)
in chains, directly from amino acids, without any DNA
assembly instructions.
His theory was accepted with enthusiasm by the
evolutionary scientific community. But within just five
years after publishing, Kenyon suddenly had serious
doubts.
It began when one of his students asked, “How could the
first proteins have been assembled without the help of
genetic instructions?” (Proteins were the necessary
information to build the first cell.)
And then DNA was discovered. This would prove fatal to
Kenyon’s molecular evolution theory. Kenyon confesses,
“The more I conducted my own studies, including a period
of time at NASA-AIMS Research Center, the more it became
apparent there were multiple difficulties with the
chemical evolution account.
“And further experimental work showed that amino acids
do not have the ability to order themselves into any
biologically meaningful sequences.
“The more I thought about the alternative that was
being presented in the criticism, and the enormous
problem that all of us who had worked on this field
had neglected to address, the problem of the origin
of genetic information itself, then I really had to
re-assess my whole position regarding origins.”
(Unlocking the Mysteries of Life)
What he now had to address was this: What was the
source of the biological information in DNA?
“If one could get at the origin of the messages,
the encoded messages within the living machinery,
then you would really be onto something far more
intellectually satisfying than this chemical
evolution theory.” (Ibid.)
The astonishing fact is that inside every
microscopic-sized cell, machines work together to
accomplish specific jobs and are shepherded by
other specially shaped machines to precise locations
where they are needed.
Learning this, Kenyon exclaimed, “This is absolutely
mind-boggling, to perceive at this scale of size,
such a finely tuned apparatus, a device, that
bears the marks of intelligent design and
manufacture!”
OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF A MASTER DESIGNER
This is observable evidence of thoughtful, programmed
designing by some Superior Mind. Evidence of
intelligently organized patterns.
MUSIC IN GENES
Something else. Did you know this? It was recently
discovered that DNA is linked to music!
If you like music, but think that you can’t carry a
tune, you may be wrong.
Respected geneticist, Susumo Ono, believes he’s
discovered music in genes – particularly human genes,
fish genes and rabbit genes. Susumo is a researcher
in DNA.
He asked himself, If we were to assign a musical note
to each chemical on the DNA strand and string those
notes together and play them, what would DNA sound
like?
So he did this – and the result was amazing.
He discovered musical patterns of notes, that again
reveal intelligence.
Susumo Ono was so astonished that he took his
findings to musicians.
And musicians, in turn, were astonished to hear
echoes of Bach, of Schubert, of Mozart in DNA
music.
Using the same formula for converting DNA into
music, Dr Ono worked backwards and translated
Chopin’s funeral march into chemical symbols. It
came out cancer!
Skeptics naturally point out that these strands
of DNA produce only a string of single notes; it
is the musicians who fill in the rhythm and the
harmony.
But the bottom line is this: Whichever way you
look at it, the PATTERNS of single notes testify
to intelligence as the source of DNA.
Certainly it is not from a blind, accidental force
in nature.
IDENTICAL TO WRITTEN LANGUAGE
But there’s more, much more.
Scientists at Bell Laboratories conducted studies
on the mathematical language in the DNA molecule.
And what did they find? Its mathematical pattern
is identical to that of conversational language.
Concerning DNA, Charles Thaxton states:
“A structural identity has been discovered between
the genetic message on DNA and the written messages
of a human language.” (Charles Thaxton, “A New
Design Argument,” Cosmic Pursuit 1, no. 2, Spring
1998)
Hupert Yockey explains:
“There is an identity of structure between DNA
(and protein) and written linguistic messages.
“Since we know by experience that intelligence
produces written messages, and no other cause is
known, the implication, according to the abductive
method, is that intelligent cause produced DNA and
protein.
“The significance of this result lies in the security
of it, for it is much stronger than if the structures
were merely similar.
”We are not dealing with anything like a superficial
resemblance between DNA and a written text.
”We are not saying DNA is like a message. Rather, DNA
is a message. True design thus returns to biology.”
(Hubert P. Yockey, “Journal of Theoretic Biology”)
Since there is no doubt in anyone’s mind it takes
intelligence to write a language, it is evident that
it took intelligence to write the DNA code.
INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED ‘SENTENCES’
IMPRESSED FROM THE OUTSIDE
Dean Kenyon was asked if DNA comes in intelligently
designed ‘sentences’.
INTERVIEWER: “And is it true that when scientists
peer into the microscopic world of DNA, they find
not mere random arrangements, but well-written
‘instruction books’?”
KENYON: “Yes. Masterpieces of immense intricacy and
subtlety.”
INTERVIEWER: “And you argue that these biological
‘sentences’ in DNA could not have arisen merely by
material means, as evolutionists suggest?”
KENYON: “No. Just as the chemistry and physics of ink
and paper do not determine the order of symbols in a
printed text, but that order must be impressed on the
ink from the ‘outside’, so also the order of the
bases, or sub-units, in DNA [adenine, thymine, guanine,
and cytosine, or A, T, G, and C as commonly represented]
is not determined by the known chemical tendencies of
these individual sub-units, but instead appears to have
been impressed from the ‘outside’ on the sub-units to
create just those sequences that make biological sense.
The fantastic complexity and orderliness of the DNA code
– condensed into an incredibly tiny size – suggests the
work of a brilliant intellect rather than chance
processes.
It suggests that much thought has gone into their design
– just as human beings use intelligence to design and
construct computers, Jumbo jets, space craft and other
intricate equipment.
If radio signals were to be received from outer space,
they would be understood as evidence of an intelligent
source.
Why then should we not regard the message sequence on
the DNA molecule as prima facie evidence of an intelligent
source?
DESIGNED NOT TO EVOLVE
But that is not all! Gene code letters have built in
error protection!
Genes store information in long strings of DNA, in the
form of chemical letters, called A, T, C and G.
So that genes can be accurately copied, each gene
consists of two parallel strands of DNA held together
by links between the code letters of one strand and
those of the other strand.
The two strands are not identical. That is, A’s do not
link to A’s, and so on.
Instead, they are complimentary. A’s always link to T’s;
C’s always link to G’s.
Donail MacDonaill of Trinity College, Dublin, studied
that pattern of linkages between letters.
And he found that they form a parity code similar to
computer codes, to minimise mistakes during the
electronic transfer of information. (Nature science
update, http://www.nature.com/nsu < http://www.nature.com/nsu> September 18, 2002)
Now is the moment of truth. No one would be so naïve as
to believe modern electronic parity codes could have
evolved by chance. They were carefully planned by
software designers.
The parity code found in DNA is further evidence the
genetic code was deliberately created.
It also reminds us that DNA is designed to maintain
accurate copies and avoid changes in the information
it carries.
This means it was designed to NOT evolve. But rather
to reproduce its own kind forever.
Come to think of it, wouldn’t that make evolution
scientifically impossible?
The argument that something in Nature is complex, therefore it must have been created by some intelligence pre-dates Darwinism. See Watchmaker analogy.
I don’t suppose that it would suffice just to say that you don’t understand my argument. You have to accuse me of distortion.
Creationism means that humans are distinct from other animals, whereas Rockwell (like Darwin before him) directly contradicts this. Anybody who says, “I say there’s no sharp line” between human and non-human is contradicting Creationism.
Hadding – I don’t suppose you would take it too well if I say that telling someone they don’t understanding your argument is associated with all the wrong people. Back in 1965, “Creationism” was not a topic of discussion, at least as I recall. Rockwell called himself White and Christian (in the spirit of the time), linking the two, but that is unacceptable to you so you interpret what he said differently. I listened to the audio clip – you take two or three phrases from Rockwell in response to questions from callers (yes, who all identified themselves as White Christians, because the show dealt with Jews and Negroes) and make out they prove Rockwell was a Darwinist. Nonsense. The line you quote: “I say there’s no sharp line” has to be put in the context of his example of aborigines having not even invented a cup to drink out of, similar to the monkeys. This was in context of pointing out the inferiority of the primitive blacks to the White man. It does not prove he was a Darwinist. It does not prove he could not believe that man was created.
Did Rockwell ever say he was a Darwinist? I don’t know, I’m asking you. He did say many times he was a Christian. I’m sure he was what we would call a cultural Christian. In 1965, very few people would admit to being atheists. Christianity was still respectable; there was no Christian Zionism. I say let George Lincoln Rockwell speak for himself! You’re doing the same thing to Adolf Hitler, when Hitler said many times he was a Christian. Was he lying? So when it comes to arguments like what you’ve put forth here, I understand them only too well.
Tan – The claims made in what I presented go beyond complexity and the Watchmaker Analogy … they speak of conversational and musical patterns. But the proof is not there, only the claims, so I cannot judge whether any of it is valid and just what is meant by “conversation” and “music.” Maybe it’s a stretch. I thought it was interesting. I don’t necessarily think the conversation on all this is over and Darwinism has won. At the same time, I don’t think the Bible represents “the plan.”
But I should add that being Christian or defending Christianity does not preclude believing in evolution. And vice versa.
Carolyn
February 27, 2013 at 11:03 am
Maybe it’s a stretch. I thought it was interesting. I don’t necessarily think the conversation on all this is over and Darwinism has won. At the same time, I don’t think the Bible represents “the plan.”
—————-
Darwinism adequately explains with evidence and logic how life has evolved to its present state. Any ‘Bible’ explanation involves a kind of hocus pocus process that is more at home in some ancient world mentality.
Many exposed to Christianity really want to believe in the explanations they were brought up on in Sunday school as children. Religious beliefs are formed in nearly all cases in the cradle, and are therefore extremely hard to shake off.
What you say is highly opinionated, katana. Exposure to anything at a young age works the same. How about exposure to communism or the stories of Greek heroes? Or Disney characters? I don’t think religious beliefs are formed in the cradle, what do infants care about such things? But our bonding with our parents makes us want to have the same beliefs they do. This occurs in all of nature; the newly born develop by mimicking their parent(s), and then others of their kind. This is all healthy and good. At some point humans start to reason things out for themselves. Some want to “shake off” some of what they received, others don’t.
But it’s in our natures to seek for meaningful explanations to why we are here, and if we reject a former belief it’s usually because we’ve found another to take its place.
I think it’s a mistake to blame Christianity for everything that ails us.
>Carolyn, February 28, 2013 at 9:18 am
What you say is highly opinionated, katana.
I don’t think the ‘Theory of Evolution’ (Darwinism) is just an opinion. It’s established science, i.e., has been through the wringer of the scientific process ever since Darwin presented it.
> Exposure to anything at a young age works the same.
Sure. But my point was only that this belief in Christianity (with all its inanities) continues to exist in adults because it is indoctrinated into defenseless children.
> I think it’s a mistake to blame Christianity for everything that ails us.
I don’t blame Christianity for all our problems. I blame it for seriously contributing to our problems through making us vulnerable to the scheming of the predator jew.
I appreciate that my criticism of Christianity gets you annoyed as you are sympathetic to it, and it’s a divisive issue among Whites. But we need to face various realities, and that to me means understanding that Christianity is a jewish scam in origin, that, pretzel like, can take novel forms.
CI is a recent, good example.
That which is bolded is your opinion.
What kind of a point is that? As I already said, everything taught to children is “indoctrinated into defenseless children.” Still, many children resist it and inwardly don’t believe it. Also working against your opinion is that the churches continue to empty out of White European people. But it doesn’t help us at all. Do these Christian drop-outs become fighters for the White race?
I am not as annoyed as I am disappointed in your poor thinking about the issue. You are the fanatic who repeats your opinion that Christianity is a “Jewish scam” without offering any proof. You may be convinced by things you have read, so maybe you should tell us in condensed form what is the evidence for your belief. I don’t mean a lot of links to other people giving their opinions. I mean evidence in the briefest form possible.
And readers, this will not be turned into a CI debate. Okay? Only katana’s opinions about standard Christianity are up for discussion here.
>I am not as annoyed as I am disappointed in your poor thinking about the issue. You are the fanatic who repeats your opinion that Christianity is a “Jewish scam” without offering any proof. You may be convinced by things you have read, so maybe you should tell us in condensed form what is the evidence for your belief. I don’t mean a lot of links to other people giving their opinions. I mean evidence in the briefest form possible.
Your use of the word ‘fanatic’ is wrong. I try to be realistic. Christianity is based on the (jewish) belief of a sky god that listens to our prayers, and so on. Simply rubbish.
>And readers, this will not be turned into a CI debate. Okay?
Inconvenient? CI is more garden path stuff.
>Only katana’s opinions about standard Christianity are up for discussion here.
Good. Let’s discuss ‘standard Christianity’ and how it helps or doesn’t help our White cause.
Question: Was Jesus a jew?
Answer: Any question about Jesus will take you down a jewish rat hole that leads to a maze of further rat holes that leads to utter confusion and muddled thinking.
The whole thing is nonsense.
Charging people with ‘infantile belief’ is unlikely to bring greater unity to our tribe in any case.
A better use for the concept is what Carolyn has already observed: the Hoaxers are going after the children, with experiential ‘learning’ exercises intended to inculcate, from near infancy, a core belief in the Hoax. The latest is the IWitness project, which introduces technology into the mix. Now children can record and share their emotive responses to the Hoax with other exposed children, all under the careful guidance of Jews and other Hoaxers.
“Back in 1965, “Creationism” was not a topic of discussion, at least as I recall. ”
In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.
Young Earth Creationism was revived in the 1960’s.
The Butler Act was fought over several times in the 1960’s
Creationism was a hot topic – particularly in the South where it was under siege.
Katana – I don’t think you offered any evidence. To your question: Was Jesus a Jew? According to the narrative, Jesus was a Galilean whom the Phariasees and high priests from Judea didn’t think was a real Jew. Adolf Hitler said Jesus was not a Jew because he didn’t think or speak like a Jew. You can’t rely on every sentence in the Bible because it’s been tampered with.
Then again, if Jesus did not really exist as an individual person, the Person of the Christ is not at all Jewish, but is an Aryan conception. The Catholic Church did not teach the bible but it’s own doctrine. Religions are funny that way. We’re dealing with an ideal.
>Carl
March 1, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Charging people with ‘infantile belief’ is unlikely to bring greater unity to our tribe in any case.
————-
If they are guilty of holding infantile beliefs then it needs to be pointed out for our cause to be advanced.
Christian beliefs in my opinion are infantile, to use your term.
Does that mean that people who believe in Christianity are infantile? Yes and no, because the beliefs and the intelligence of the believers are two separate things. Dumb and smart people can both believe in stupid things, especially if they learn them at a young age (the cradle). The smarter people can use their intellectual horsepower to rationalize their infantile beliefs with impressive displays of logic and so on.
For example, in the day when people believed that the sun revolved around the earth both the dummies and smarties thought this was commonsense. Both were wrong.
But, back to your point about unity. There’s unity based on utility and there is unity based on truth. For me Christianity may have some utility, but no truth.
Whites in any case, regardless of their religious beliefs, should join together to defeat our enemy.
flippityfloppity – okay,thanks. I was completely unaware of it.
A lot of the “rationalization” that Christians engage in relates to sorting through social and historical phenomena, that is, personal and group phenomena, to see how they can be interpreted coherently. For example, on Christogenea last evening, Mr. Finck had two guests who did a remarkably sound job of explaining the US Constitution as Christian and, of course, White. The winner of the overall metaphysical contest goes to whomever makes the most coherent picture of all sound data. Without Christianity, you end up having aliens as creators, underground creatures, messages given to seers, phony dates, and worse.
You could also embrace an inherently chaotic metaphysics, but then you might as well race-mix, because that is the ultimate chaos.