|
|
|
Faith no faith As happens sometimes here, a thread given over to one subject has been rudely assaulted by another ... the perennial, insoluble, irresistible problem of ... well, God. So with belated apologies to Soren, whose thread God offended against, I’m relocating the unequal struggle here. Just in case the Blighter has any fight left in Him. In danielj’s intellectual armoury lies the following by no means rusty and unsharpened assertion:
Now, this way of looking at the empirical enemy recognises the hard and unpalatable fact that ever since that night in Oxford when the Bishop was slain by a mawnkey, religion has been in full and undignified retreat. We all know the story. I don’t need to reproduce it here. The reverberations of that night, and of the publishing event that preceded it, still reach down to us today, a century and a half later. Although evolutionary science has won every battle since, the faculty of faith is nothing if not enduring. It doesn’t give up. It can’t. It is as much a part of the human genome as the strict and methodological intellectualism it disdains. So we have daniel’s response to all the long years of being told that Christians are dealers in self-deception. It is to assert that the scientific method - the pursuit of the predictive - is predicated on belief no less than belief itself. Now, I am not much interested in how this conclusion is reached. It must, after all, only be a matter of faith. It cannot, by its own admission, be true. And there is the little local difficulty. Daniel’s stratagem has the effect of rendering all truth hollow and meaningless, though this probably isn’t his intention. We are not taken back to some sweet life of the mid-Victorian past, filled with simple and good, hi-fidelity hearts. We are transported to a truthless world, and Man cannot live without truth. Truth is more necessary, more visceral and humane, more of our lives than faith or beauty ever was or, most certainly, ever will be. But that is what happens when the terms of the debate are dictated by Christians, and all categories are reduced to mere belief. Well, let’s keep them separate here, at least. The committment to ontology and the committment to teleology are separated by qualitative differences. They employ the qualitatively different methods of, respectively, proof and prayer, and journey along qualitatively different lines. Ontology predicates experience > hypothesis > predictiveness > truth. Teleology predicates thought > idealism > faith > beauty. Truth and beauty are not equals. Truth leads to enlightenment. Beauty leads only to itself. To make truth and beauty both matters of belief is disingenuous and rather unEuropean. It has something in common with the semitic attraction to postmodernism, and the equally semitic promulgation of the Sociobiology Wars of the 1970s, 80s and 90s. It is inappropriate for us. Let the faithful reflect, if they can possibly bring themselves to, on the spirituality of superfice which eschews the subtle and difficult, the psychological, and grasps instead at bibles and prayers, salvation and eternal life, and all the beautiful exordia of self-deception and moral frailty that once cost “witches” their yet more beautiful lives and brought destruction to the sons of men in a way that blood and soil never did. Let them reflect on the responsibility they all share of bearing a powerful psychological driver through life without visiting harm upon others, as one would with the sex drive or with male aggression. Let them learn to withhold it from the world, keep it private so public life, public progress and intellectualism can proceed, naturally enough, not on daniel’s relativistic terms but on their own. Comments:2
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:54 | # Okay. Continuing from that thread,
Alright, perhaps I should have said hard-work. After all, teaching isn’t exactly coal mining. My point though was that it requires a certain amount of luxury to find the time to ponder the mysteries of life and thus “seek answers.” . Posted by danielj on September 26, 2009, 02:29 PM You know you just described the premise of ‘Idiocracy’ don’t you? Seriously, don’t use the phrase “white trash.” It’s not “charming” or a label one should hold in reverence.
A Finn, what you wrote is all true…....according to the gospel of C.S. Lewis.
So this life is heaven and heaven is hell? Because you just described what heaven is suppose to be like; no tears, prayers answered, pain done away with, up close and personal with God etc..etc…
That sound great in theory, but won’t fly in practice. Particularly in the context of Christianity with its images of a “city upon a hill’ and its evangelistic theme song “this little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine.” Similarly, do we expect the discovery of the next Ugaritic text or Epic of Gilgamesh to be secretly destroyed to preserve the harmony? Shall we construct tax payer funded catacombs for Christians to gather in secret to keep from disrupting social cohesion? ... 3
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:16 | #
But it must. I don’t know what precisely GW is trying to accomplish with this particular post, other than to knock some much needed, in his opinion, sense of humility and proportion back into the “Christers,” as GT so artfully (artlessly) refers to them. GW speaks of calibrating the culture via I presume his anticipated Philosophy of European Being (PEB) so as to select against the faith gene, and in favor of those without the faith gene, such as himself. But, ah, and this is key, wouldn’t_that_take_a_long_freakin’_time to be done to the degree necessary to make a substantial impact, and isn’t that more time than we have at our disposal to save our race? Clearly. He says he isn’t writing for the masses, most of which are too dumb to understand what is said here anyway (e.g., Lee Barnes and JamesUK), and for a hypothetical revolutionary elite. Does he wish the elite to be constituted of the faithless? Must they necessarily be constituted of the faithless? If White Christians constitute a substantial enough proportion of the people we need on our side, and potentially can get on our side, and who will not be gotten on our side with said approach, certainly not with said as a keystone of the PEB, doesn’t that obviate the raison d’etre of the PEB and degenerate in effect into an exercise in splenetics (‘You filthy witch burners!’)? Perhaps delivering the PEB will require an exoteric dimension for the rabble? Well, whatever it is, it sure ain’t conservative, which is refreshing. 4
Posted by danielj on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:47 | # It is to assert that the scientific method - the pursuit of the predictive - is predicated on belief no less than belief itself. Now, I am not much interested in how this conclusion is reached. It must, after all, only be a matter of faith. It cannot, by its own admission, be true. How can it not be true? You accept the premise of uniformity in nature as an article of faith without justification. Have you tested every drop of water in the world to ensure that it is all made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? The scientific method does not produce Truth, but truths and even those we have reason of which to be suspect. And there is the little local difficulty. Daniel’s stratagem has the effect of rendering all truth hollow and meaningless, though this probably isn’t his intention. Yes it was my intention. Knowledge not grounded in the Christian God should reduce to skepticism if one is consistent and honest. I drank too much last night to deal with this but I certainly have fight left and will get back to it. 5
Posted by danielj on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:09 | # You know you just described the premise of ‘Idiocracy’ don’t you? Intentionally and without irony. Seriously, don’t use the phrase “white trash.” It’s not “charming” or a label one should hold in reverence. I was being tongue-in-cheek. Do you think I’m too dumb to have kids too? Do you hold us Christers in utter contempt like the rest? It appears that GT’s perceived genetic split in the race between the status seeking elite and the microcommunity types is a trifling matter compared to the split that runs vertically through the entire race. That sound great in theory, but won’t fly in practice. Particularly in the context of Christianity with its images of a “city upon a hill’ and its evangelistic theme song “this little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine.” Probably right about that one. Especially if the Reconstructionists have their way. Upon empowerment they will begin reapplying Old Testament case, law utilizing general equity, killing heretics and such. Shall we construct tax payer funded catacombs for Christians to gather in secret to keep from disrupting social cohesion? Maybe we just separate after we’ve separated ourselves from the others? ... the perennial, insoluble, irresistible problem of ... well, God. Well, if you can’t kill Him, just breed me and my kind out of existence then huh? Now, this way of looking at the empirical enemy recognises the hard and unpalatable fact that ever since that night in Oxford when the Bishop was slain by a mawnkey, religion has been in full and undignified retreat. Well, that isn’t really true of all religion. Obviously, it is true of the modern, non-denominational, (whatever that means) evangelical/ecumenical types but not of Orthodoxy, “high” Catholicism and Reformed Protestants. You must not have seen the famous Bahnsen vs Stein debate where the Bishop raises his undignified head in quiet repose and slays the silly notion of materialism and makes short work of the mawnkey. Why not give it a listen some time? 6
Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:10 | # “Now, this way of looking at the empirical enemy recognises the hard and unpalatable fact that ever since that night in Oxford when the Bishop was slain by a mawnkey, religion has been in full and undignified retreat. We all know the story. I don’t need to reproduce it here. The reverberations of that night, and of the publishing event that preceded it, still reach down to us today, a century and a half later. Although evolutionary science has won every battle since…” Wrong - on so many levels. Let me enlighten you, who are in darkness and error. (lol) First, You confuse skirmishes with the battle. And the Church (of whatever persuasion, just to be ‘ecumenical’) thinks in terms of CENTURIES, not decades. Secondly, why think there is a dichotomy between God and science? THAT may be presumed upon by childish minds (i.e., the “Scientific Creationist” Crowd) but the Adult is not the child it once was…. not are Churchmen mandated to believe ideas that atomistic, baptistic, chiliastic prots decide speak for the ‘consensus patrem.’ Clearly having read much recently in this arena, to use the ‘spectre’ that supposedly ‘haunts Europe’ and call it Darwinism, is to admit the Jew/Marxist has already won! But I thought this site was against the ‘xenos’ the ‘Other’ those who are NOT part of what still is called ‘Christendom’? I can now understand how the universe can be 4.5 billion years old, and be created in six 24-hour days, knowing about the speed of light, the theory of relativity, and the atomic structure of the cosmos, as Gerald Schroeder has made known in his honest book, ‘The Science of God.’ What I am trying to say, is both that ‘it is not ‘either/or,’ but can be ‘both/and’ once our sinful intellectual eyes see things as God sees them - in short, as one great scientist once said, ‘to think God’s thoughts after Him.’ Religion, I know not. Orthodox Christianity, I know. While ‘religion may be in retreat’, I would add, ‘hear, hear’- it’s about damn time the smarmy emotionalism that masqueraded as Christianity, that saw ‘the Negro as my brother’ and sent woman ‘missionaries’ to ‘darkest Africa’ would awaken to the virile Apostolic brand of worship that forever knew that the bounds of Europe ARE the bounds of Christendom! There is a resurgence in each nation that partakes of Christendom’s race, and Christianity’s tribal religion, of this nativist, racial/ecclesial awareness that rightly equates Christianity with Caucasoid humanity. Your own BNP’s victories are the ‘dawn’s early light’ in this arena… and the ‘powers of darkness’ (including the evolutionist troglodytes) know it, and ‘fear, for the days are short.’ Even the African Anglican bishops calling their ‘elder brethren’ back to the Nordic/Germanic sanity of race, culture, and cult is a ‘working of the lesser to the greater.’ But to assume that such a manly Christianity will, AT ANY TIME, nor for ANY reason submit to this ideological Bolshevism- “Let them learn to withhold it from the world, keep it private so public life, public progress and intellectualism can proceed, naturally enough,Let them learn to withhold it from the world, keep it private so public life, public progress and intellectualism can proceed, naturally enough…” is to assume that the ‘religion’ you presume to be Christianity, is the Rick Warren ‘seeker-sensitve’ bow the knee to Barack, Cof E Rowan Williams ‘sharia law’, Evangelical pantywaist faggotry that has… for a time… captured the reins of power, is the nadir of ignorance. Christ is King. That was the cry of the Church, that gave us Europe, universities, science, medicine, and all those things that make for a ‘Western Civ.’ She’s not about to abandon her children, or deny her patrimony for some pimping demagogue (whether he be Brown, or Obama) to steal it away from her. We are NOT going into the night, gently. Christus Vivat. (Have a nice day!) 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:43 | #
some pimping demagogue (whether he be Brown, or Obama, or Benedict XVI) to steal it away from her. 8
Posted by Q on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:44 | # Until scientists can PROVE how the universe and all that is contained within sprung forth on its own from nothing, then the only rational conclusion we can work with is: there is something infinitely greater than mere humans out there that designed and built the universe we live in. Furthermore, it only makes sense that that the Creator of the universe would communicate with His highest achievement; hence, The Holy Bible. Here’s a little story I use to educate young nascent atheists about the folly of their soon to be rebellious faith (yes atheism is a faith):
9
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:49 | # CC: Both truth and beauty are grounded in experience, experience of being more precisely. Yes, thank you. The debate over epistomology is secondary. Nonetheless ... ... what ultimate and absolute legitimacy can we place in experience as the sine qua non for establishing truth? Legitimacy resides in the evolution - or creation, it doesn’t matter which - of sapient life. The experience of the sapient is the only light there is. This is so even if sapience was created on the fourth day with the sole purpose of praising the Creator. The creation of sapience by God from the materials that existed with God in the beginning, and into an otherness from God, lends legitimacy to our experience even in the faithist’s terms. There is no escaping from this. The question is whether the bifurcation was wrought by God’s design or by subsistent Nature. This is the Oxford debate again. It never ends. If a man be capable of proving indisputably that the external world of his senses, and the inner life of same does indeed exist, in anything close to the way in which he experiences it, let him speak now. If the external world did not exist, the senses would not exist. The alternative to the evolutionary model of cognition is that the cognate exists in isolation, which is how daniel comes to deny any basis at all for truth that is not God’s universal truth? The better question is: what cognates? And part of the answer to that, at least, I am trying to formulate in my “What it is to be human” posts. (I don’t believe them to be solipsistic, btw.) be not so quick to deny the possibility of him finding beauty in it. I am not in the least troubled by a religious exaltation in beauty. It is a part of the human genetic endowment. The problem is the claim that faith makes for God’s universal truth, specifically via Genesis. We are sapient. We are cognators. It is our burden to uncover the truth of what is, and that was not a process that ended three thousand years ago among the Jews of the Torah. 10
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:09 | #
Or it could be put to a council of elders and their judgment would be excepted by all? There are other outcomes than simply subdividing into neo-tribes, which is a form of surrender to division.
Perhaps the most irritating and preposterous claim heard from the religious nationalists. .
1. We don’t need to prove a new theory to punch holes in the absurdities of another. 2. There are various (equally, potentially, absurd) alternatives. God or The Gods may have died shortly after creating us. Or, this is all a computer simulation by future humans to run simulations on possible long term social outcomes. Or perhaps you’re just dreaming all of this Q. 3. I can’t help but wonder why God would choose to communicate with a mostly (historically) illiterate population….with a book?!
11
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:52 | #
Not for the Christers, if they want to salvage Jebus and Gawd from the wreckage wrought by the mawnkey.
Yes, the Problem of Solipsism cuts both ways.
If made per God’s design, it seems Christians have little to fear if palingenetic eugenic atheists attempt to rig a system in which the faith gene would be dispatched, that is unless God will allow said to take place, in which case he will have abandoned them, in which case he would be an unfaithful god and not worthy of their worship.
In the case that the external world did not exist as such, though sensed, the senses could conceivably be sensing the product of separate organs of mental image manufacture and projection. So it comes down to what is meant by ‘external world’.
Christians cannot ultimately accept the materialist contention that the gene is the unit of selection, and not the personality as the unit of selection for salvation.
If we accept Salter we already have our answer, individual humans are Dawkin’s “survival machines” whose ultimate interest is to pass along their storehouse of genes. All the rest falls under proximate interests, Christians can’t logically accept that contention.
God forbid. But the Problem of Solipsism is unanswerable. Which is why I included the caveat of seriousness in my above comment. That is acting seriously in the world as if the actor assumed it to be real and therefore worthy of serious interaction with, certainly moral seriousness. Which is I suspect the rhetorical effect you were aiming at with the mention of “witches”.
No arguments here. But shoving the Jew-poison “back where it came from” has to be approached incrementally, and with some guile, part of which I suspect will entail constructing a version of Christianity not antagonistic to our ethnic genetic interests. 12
Posted by expeedee on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:54 | # A belief in God is a luxury that white people can no longer afford in the face of growing diversity, racial hostilities and challenges to Western culture - unless you like turning the other cheek. 13
Posted by danielj on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:03 | # Or it could be put to a council of elders and their judgment would be excepted by all? Excepted indeed. There are other outcomes than simply subdividing into neo-tribes, which is a form of surrender to division. Well, if there is a “faith” gene then there is nothing wrong with subdivision. I think we’d all be maximizing our EGI under such an arrangement. Besides, we are too far down the path of republicanism here in America for me to ever submit to a “council of elders”. It will take around 10 generations for us to get back to that. The only reason you are intent on bridging the gap with us is because you were once one of us. No other non-Christian nationalists really seem to give a shit about the problem. Perhaps the most irritating and preposterous claim heard from the religious nationalists. I’ll definitely concede the point that God worked with Europe and that there is something that is fundamentally inviolate about her that remains even with the slow spreading and conquering Christian cult coming to dominate her elite and the masses through them. Europe remains Europe but was informed by Christianity and not the reverse. 1. We don’t need to prove a new theory to punch holes in the absurdities of another. Indeed we don’t. Hence the arguments against evolution put forward by all camps should be considered carefully by you Dawkins types since they don’t need an alternative theory, just enough holes. 3. I can’t help but wonder why God would choose to communicate with a mostly (historically) illiterate population….with a book?! Is that just rhetorical point scoring? The debate over epistomology is secondary. Well, that is the cutest way I’ve ever seen somebody brush the problems of induction under the rug and I’m afraid that we are just going to have to be in perpetual disagreement about the subject. I’ll try to keep my protests to a minimum and relegated to posts that address the subject since it (the epistemological question) is definitely secondary in regards to the salvation of our people from the far more eminent threat of demographic decline and our collective apotheosis. Hume’s problem still stands undemolished looming over all and casting shadows over everybody hell bent on skipping happily down the ontological path. However, if people wanna bury their head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t that is their prerogative. Regardless, I’m still very interested what you come up with GW, with your (our) Philosophy of European Being. 15
Posted by danielj on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:16 | # If we accept Salter we already have our answer, individual humans are Dawkin’s “survival machines” whose ultimate interest is to pass along their storehouse of genes. All the rest falls under proximate interests, Christians can’t logically accept that contention. They have no “ultimate” interests and no goals and therefore absolutely no proximate interests and they certainly aren’t “selfish” and don’t “select” for anything since all those terms are teleological or imply agency. Saying “all is proximate” is an ultimate statement and sorta illogical. You’ve just raised the proximate to the place of the ultimate. Christians cannot ultimately accept the materialist contention that the gene is the unit of selection, and not the personality as the unit of selection for salvation. God actually does select corporately to some degree and He uses the D.N.A. but he is no respecter of persons. There is a covenant though in Reformed theology and it is made with people and their children and therefore it is, to some mystical degree, passed on genetically. God doesn’t select us because of our genes or our personalities however, it is unmerited grace on His part and an unearned favor to us-ward. If made per God’s design, it seems Christians have little to fear if palingenetic eugenic atheists attempt to rig a system in which the faith gene would be dispatched, that is unless God will allow said to take place, in which case he will have abandoned them, in which case he would be an unfaithful god and not worthy of their worship. Indeed we don’t anything to fear. I will not bow to any false god but because human beings are naturally religious and tyrannical I can almost guarantee said palingenetic Nationalists will try to force me to do so and we will wind up at odds whereupon I will almost certainly wind up burned like the aforementioned witches. God will judge the church. Amillenalists are pessimistic in this regard so we can all take comfort in knowing that even the Scripture states that the love of many will grow cold and the Faith will all but disappear from the Earth before the Second Coming; no genocide required. 16
Posted by Frank on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:45 | # If I get in trouble for this, my excuse is a hacker wrote this in my name and IP. Justifying “religion” as if others are equal to Christianity and as if it’s all bunk is a dangerous path… What’s religion without faith?: I. One purpose of prayer: allows a person to ask himself what he ought to do, or what another would do in the stead. For those who pursue beauty… it could conceivably allow a man to order his hierarchy of attachments to beauty and so discern the best course of action in pursuit. II. Evolution has not at all been proven. GW might be a highly evolved chimp or less atavistic negro, but I’m a white man. There is no explanation for how highly complex mutations could have occurred. There is no explanation for Darwin’s eye. Pretending such explanation exists requires faith. III. 4 components of a world view (from daniel’s article): 1. Ontology: nature of reality or being From #2: do we begin with nothing and attempt to work from there, or do we begin with tradition and attempt to rectify religion with reality? From #3 & #4: Morality is determined by the power balance within a society. If those with power decide they want a new set of ethics and purpose, they will make it so. However, it doesn’t have to be understood what’s going on, only that one system is preferred to, or “better” than, another. Ideology is the justification of some group’s set of ethics. It is grounded in some set of precepts and provides a purpose to society. Religion takes ideology a step further and declares the precepts “sacred”, rather than baseless. Fighting for beauty and pleasure as GW wishes is a foundation of sand that will wash away. It offers no justification for why Thrasymachus shouldn’t seek out his own individual pleasure at the expense of the rest – it assumes all will find the same beauty as GW does objectively rather than as the product of unique environmental circumstances (which change for a population). So, while on one hand it is a “world view” and answers the four questions above, it is a corrupted world view that will not be capable of surviving. Members of a church often don’t fully believe what’s taught. Only a few are “chosen”. But they do pick up a rough understanding of ethics and morals that keeps them from acting against society. And as needed (e.g. as aging or as seeking a purpose) they are offered comfort in the sacred. Man is naturally gregarious. Man is naturally a social being. But man is not naturally good. A balance of power is the best control of man within a society, because otherwise he will exploit an opportunity. There are few men who resist such temptations; there are few who view such as “wrong” or (as GW) “against beauty”. Religion helps improve man; it helps shape him for function within society so that he’ll be able to resist temptation or fight to stop those who can’t. Habit and ethics (in a socially acquired sense not in a logically derived sense) rather than logic are probably more often the cause of society-supporting actions, but such training requires a justification greater than “it keeps society going” or “it supports beauty” – it requires the holy. I don’t mean to say Christianity is only good because it offers us comforts and survival benefits. However, as CS Lewis’s Screwtape said: “He gives with one hand what he takes with the other”. The laws given us are for our benefit – they do help us. And this might be partly why Christian society is so blessed. However, that’s not to say God doesn’t play an active role… Those who wish to found a society on another religion, perhaps not a revealed truth religion or one that is otherwise certain of what is true, will find success where they emulate the Christian and trouble where they stray. Some systems are superior to other systems. However, that said Christianity requires some amount of tradition to adjust for racial differences. What is right for the negro’s society might not be right for the white man’s society. The ten commandments and teachings of Christ will always apply, but society’s ordering will differ. Modern Christians have mistaken negros for white men. 17
Posted by Frank on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:07 | # Clarification: one could attempt to restructure a society by keeping or altering the religion or by introducing an entirely new religion. Christianity for example is quite flexible, even justifying slavery. However if keeping the current religion, one would seek out justifications based upon it. Many of the various ideologies of liberalism in the US have often attempted to undermine Christianity. Whether oligarchy is “right” or whether democracy is “right” according to Christianity will vary with populations. What’s more likely though is whoever benefits will seek to justify the change however is convenient, since most men are corrupt. However, there’s surely a contingent part of “beauty” and “ugliness” too. Elites aren’t entirely rational. Jews for example abhor Christianity because of historical grievances - despite that modern “Christianity” probably serves their interests, or what they believe to be their interests. 18
Posted by Frank on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:18 | # One more clarification: When religion doesn’t provide an answer, the traditionalist adheres to tradition until such becomes clearly immoral or otherwise unwanted. The ideologue adheres to ideology for no reason other than faith in said ideology - that’s why it’s very religious. The faith might stem from benefit, but most won’t notice the benefit and those who do are really mystics rather than truly believing ideologues. Irving Kristol (evil but intelligent neocon) believed we were in an age of ideology since the French Revolution because society is changing too rapidly for traditions to keep up with and the change is generally associated with good. However, in this day change isn’t associated with good for whites; so we may now perhaps stand on tradition once again. Kristol saw ideology as religious in nature, and that’s where I got the accusation that ideology is religious. To the extent it’s too fuzzy to be religious, it’s simply religious-like… My original goal was to simply point out that Mr. Barnes’s mind had been abducted by a mystic - that his statements were religious, and they undeniably were. He even stated that man needs a purpose and that we can follow evolution and discover that purpose - such clear teleology is surely religious. That puts forth a firm faith that such is the goal of life. When a man’s brain is abducted by a cult, it should be noted. CC is closely attached to NS, I’m Christian, GW is attached to beauty and Darwin; but we all agree on certain areas and so can work together towards common goals. Barnes’s faith was in violation of the overlap. Though he’s apparently never heard the name, he’s clearly a cosmotheist. 19
Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:40 | # Just as an aside: what is all this Jebus and Gawd and mawnkey about? and who is the Blighter? Is this a secret code by which cult members recognise each other? Kipling’s uneducated cockney soldiers call God “Gawd” and so do vulgar little girls on the street who shout “Oh - my - Gawd” in pseudo American accents when they wish to tell their vulgar little cronies that they can’t believe something. I suggest that good manners only should be employed when be employed in this serious context, and I am sure that those who are calling for
[as in GW’s original post] 20
Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:44 | # Apologies to men of good will: serious garbling in my recent post, or which the 5th line down should read: ... good manners only should be employed in this serious context ... 21
Posted by Frank on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:52 | # Some obfuscations: race is important to a society in its potential. I said this simply as a possibility really - I’m not sure how blacks ought to order themselves, but I think it wise for them to take race into account. Other considerations: the wealth distribution, climate, traditions, whether the citizenry is accustomed to a greater degree of freedoms or a greater degree of regulation, etc. In the long term though, except for climate these could be changed. When I wrote this:
I was thinking of an elite that might not be overly concerned about morality. It might convince itself that such is within the professed religion or it might take to mysticism and simply proclaim such. Either way, the corruption leads it to do this, whereas a virtuous man who has been well trained and ideally has faith to logically justify this training might be more apt to carefully consider the morality of a new change. - The East Asians and other pagans seem to be religious in a different sense, in a sense the “atheist” Narrator might more readily understand. There might be a more complete understanding of possibilities found there then… I find it odd a Samurai would take up “The Way of the Sword” simply because he’s in need of a purpose and similarly that things are revered almost out of a need to revere something… And I find the superstitions and attachment to beauty rather than morality as similarly odd. GW and The Narrator are perhaps East Asian in spirit, and maybe that’s how the pre-Christian Europeans were of old times… If a society can be constructed on that or anything so long as it’ll resist the transhumanists and obvious ensuing moral anarchy, I’ll tolerate whatever - assuming the Christians are tolerated as well… 22
Posted by Frank on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:54 | # It is European to pursue truth and morality; but I think these are rooted in a sense of the religious, in a sense that such is “right”. 23
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:00 | # Frank, I can tell you with all sincerity that my only litmus test is loyalty to our race. A man’s faith does not interest me insofar as it does not clash with the former, and is to me no less inviolate than his home where his family sleeps. In reference to NS, I’d ask you to read this excerpt from Anne Lindbergh’s diary, which comments on her feelings regarding her husbands speeches in connection with America First (these excerpts were posted several years ago in a .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) by Wintermute, an intellect of the first order, in which he discusses the shortcomings of conservatism with GW - it is a must read):
Truly, for a member of the bourgeois classes, it is easier to face death in combat if order to do so by the powers that be, than to stand as a man for his race. Look at what our enemies did to Lindbergh, and all he did was tell the truth. Now, think carefully about the almost preternatural courage, loyalty and will of Adolf Hitler and those who followed him through the Years of Struggle in the hope that they might save Germany and our race from destruction. It must boggle the mind. It is not something to be scorned lightly. 24
Posted by Frank on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:19 | # I don’t scorn Hitler… I admire Lindbergh. I was simply pointing out your attachment, even if I wasn’t as clear as I ought to have been. I didn’t even name NS to be a religion since you’re clearly open to criticising it. My point was to name a few people who were within the overlap - these attachments and beliefs are in harmony within the overlap. And as king of the overlap I suppose is GW’s view atm for the overlap is attachment to our people. It might be said you’ve taken to a quasi-religious view of EGI though I think like GW you’re more attached to beauty. Without religion you’ll have to I suppose rear children on just how beautiful the white race and its lands are.
Isn’t this a failure of education at least as much as it is of class? I could never be a teacher or serve on a board of a nonprofit or serve many prominent managerial posts because of my views I suspect. I’d say if the bourgeois class is cowardly, the managerial class (and ironically NS is said to be one of several managerial systems) is infinitely more so. Henry Ford spoke out. Bill Gates is part of the problem. What’s the solution? 25
Posted by Frank on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:22 | # Henry Ford = bourgeois Bill Gates = managerial - Even the US military is said to be staffed with careerist bureaucrats who are good with people and good with going along but devoid of courage. The current society is NOT bourgeois. Burnham clearly distinguished between the two, and the new elite is even more of a fox and even less of a lion imo. And… that would mean force is what’s needed to take them on (at least in theory), as you’re often saying, but what’s the alternative system I wonder? 26
Posted by Frank on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:36 | # A radical could own a business or be a partner and thus be a part of the bourgeois class. And one could be a worker… But a radical could never be respectable and so chosen to manage and thus represent some respectable group. 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:55 | # CC: If we accept Salter we already have our answer [to what it it is to be human], individual humans are Dawkin’s “survival machines” whose ultimate interest is to pass along their storehouse of genes. Being precedes interests. Actually, it is the eternal precedent. Its subsistence is the reason for reproductive interest. Therefore, the politics of a European being, were they to exist, would be as fundamental to us as any politics could be, and would stand a pretty fair chance of countering the status attractions and individualism of the present system just as a factor of ultimo vs proximation. That, after all, is what all nationalism aims for. Daniel, Induction does not arise in an act of attention or discovery, no? If one is present, that is presence to being. If one is absent, that is absence, and the state in which conclusions about the behaviour of Nature must be inferred. I am advocating presence. I think you will find that whatever problems Mr Dawkins has with Hume’s puzzle, no philosophy of being worth the name will be caught in the same trap. But we shall see. Frank, It’s truth I bat for, not beauty - though I do not eschew beauty. It is part of our nature, obviously. 28
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:04 | # Frank, here’s a recap:
Indeed, and all credit to that his show of courage. But eventually he shut up, most likely out of fear the Jews would ruin him. Look what has become of his family: the Ford Foundation, which is a hitter in the league of Soros’ operations. Adolf Hilter, loyal to his people unto death, never did quite ‘shut up’.
I rest my case. 29
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:06 | # You bat for truth? What of attachment to the beauty of the white race?
Why start with nothing? Darwin has not been proven - he’s merely a theory. If starting with Christianity, we can see the Catholic Church was wrong about the solar system… but it erred in declaring something sacred that had no foundation in scripture. Otherwise, it’s as yet unchallenged. One may doubt, but one may not prove it false. We are not building upon fantasy but upon the historical experiences of our ancestors, both in spirit and in blood (e.g. later miracles). 30
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:15 | # I think you will find that whatever problems Mr Dawkins has with Hume’s puzzle, no philosophy of being worth the name will be caught in the same trap. But we shall see. We shall indeed. He is quite a twit and you are not so I’m much more interested in what you have to say. It’s truth I bat for, not beauty - though I do not eschew beauty. It is part of our nature, obviously. That is part of the fundamental difference between those of us with the gene and those without. Conservatism, the Burkean kind I have no problem advocating, is an appreciation of the beautiful. “Truth” is for revolutionaries. Regardless, it is here I feel mostly at home. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:18 | # Frank, We are motivated by our Europeanness, not by our attraction to the European aesthetic. How do we have knowledge? A very partial answer: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_2/ How do we justify knowledge. An even more partial answer: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/faith_no_faith/#c81902 32
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:20 | #
That’s another of those damned foundations. Are all (or any?) of these people his descendants or are they official looking people who have moved in and taken over? I know and abhor respectable morons like these people who’ll do whatever is respectable. Bill Gates too gives to whatever is respectable. They’re led around by whoever determines respectability, and if one breaks respectability he’s replaced. Wikipedia:
But surely Ford would abhor what it’s become. Perhaps his son was a moron, or perhaps he had an influential teacher or favourite rock band… Similarly churches are overtaken by queers and their institutional funds put to queer causes. The queers are welcomed in as fellow humans, and then they slowly acquire positions of power. I guess the queers have a purpose whereas the others are uncertain how to act and are too content with the present to fear anything bad happening. Individual hard work is of the bourgeois class. The managerials just get perfumed up or patiently fill out the paper work and move in. Sometimes there’s some merit of having managed something else (in a respectable manner) behind it but not always. 33
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:31 | # Scrooby, here’s a tasty little bit of spiritual reading for you: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp Oh, Scrooby, do look, here’s one called The Jesuits sank the Titanic: 34
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:45 | # What’s your position on excessive incompatible immigration, Gorb? Have you said? I must’ve missed it. 35
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:48 | # Ugh. I’ve had enough for a couple of months… I’m going off the Barnes and Noble to buy An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology… I’ll see you guys in a while. Blessings All, 36
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:04 | # It’s probably yours, more-or-less as you’ve stated it to be,Scrooby, but it’s a pity it seems to be the only thing you’re interested in! 37
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:31 | #
Assuming we’re like the lower life forms and most interested in eat, survive, reproduce. Not that that’s such a terrible thing.
Oh. Hopefully you don’t take up with Mr. Barnes’s conclusion then… Presently our race is threatened, and so it appears valuable to us. But what when the situation changes? Ought I pray for eternal danger lest the philosophers shift with the winds away from racial attachment? I have a similar set of driving environmental cues as you do, but how are we to enslave our children to ensure they too value what we value? - Chamberlain seemed to believe Christianity was open to new developments and wasn’t boring and entirely set in stone. I’m a little curious what he meant by that… St. Thomas united reason with Christianity, and I don’t see why modern studies of the human brain can’t do that as well. We go with what we know, and we fall back on faith for what we don’t. Man’s environment does shape him and his physical brain does shape him, but he’s nevertheless responsible. If this means an evil system damns an otherwise good man to Hell for eternity, all the more need to end it. 38
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:36 | # Oops, I must have cut this comment out…:
Memes! You cannot escape. - Instead of “enslave” our children, perhaps I should say “awaken” or “reveal the truth to”... But I’m just doubtful of this natural white man stuff. I suspect we naturally seek out memes to guide us. If they don’t exist, we create them to rule us. 39
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:50 | # GW, I had the wrong definition for solipsistic… My reference to it previously no longer makes sense then… Your piece is certainly not solipsistic. Explanation: I thought it meant the belief that being is not the highest value. So, I thought you were then deriving a purpose to life… And since you and Mr. Barnes share a similar acknowledgment of evolution, I thought the quest for purpose could end at a similar point. 40
Posted by dsf on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:26 | # Adolf Hilter, loyal to his people unto death, never did quite ‘shut up’. More like: loyal to his anti-Russian mania unto death. Could’ve kicked back after Poland and Czechoslowakia. But nooo. 41
Posted by dsf on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:35 | # so do vulgar little girls on the street who shout “Oh - my - Gawd” What about bookworm Englishmen who put on histrionics in lieu of style? Oh Scrooby, do look. Oh, oh! I’m pretending to be exasperated as I look down my nose at you! 42
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:49 | # Narrator: “So this life is heaven and heaven is hell? Because you just described what heaven is suppose to be like ...” - Yes, humans are tied to their needs, fears, inadequacies, status-striving, sex-drive etc, to their bodies and minds. Any situation even resembling heaven will corrupt them. Heaven (metaphor of afterlife) does not make sense without profound change in being, psychology, strivings and goals. 43
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:32 | # GW, if I follow your purposeless atheistic (and implicitly liberal) path, we can ask, what good is Egi or humans. Mindless collections of molecules, which have, in the final analysis, rather automated biochemical functions. In that case, who cares what gene compositions people have. Life itself is futile temporary steam and fury (read: biochemical movements). Egi is arbitrary meaningless faith in temporary collections of molecules. If person wants, he can choose to define Egi in a way that includes the whole human race instead of ethnicity/race definition. There is no ultimate way to say that one is the right way to choose and the other is not. If we have to be here, let’s just eat, have pleasure-purpose sex, collect some meaningless status materia, and protect ourselves from the elements in the liberal way to get through this folly. Let’s just say wholeheartedly, in the liberal way, fuck Egi and the horse it rode in on. Egi is the most stupid religion of all, which makes even the most primitive tree spirit religion look like the work of geniuses. Let’s go to a good mall to enjoy life while it lasts. Drink some fine white wine, dine something from the Greek cuisine and listen Prince’s Little Red Corvette. Let’s leave those stupid fringe Egi religionist nuts to debate endlessly about this or that position of a molecule and waste their life. While we are at it: Everything is based on faith, even reality. We accept what see, hear, taste, think, touch, feel etc. as reality, based on faith. There is no ultimate way to tell if it is real or not. It is a basic philosophical position. Maybe false reality is God’s little joke, smokescreen, to humans. Fr. Eugene Rose makes many good points in the following article (My advocacy of every point not implied): 44
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 06:59 | #
Hmm, at least that’s settled. 45
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:14 | # GW, Egi, ethnicity and race have an important meaning, but Egi can have it only in a proper context of other things; culture, people’s life contents, religion, tradition etc. Your reductionist view leads logically to what Auster talks about in the following article, liberal relativism (endorsement of everything that Auster has ever written not implied): http://www.jtl.org/auster/articles/Multiculturalism_and_the_Demotion_of_Man.htm 46
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:24 | # I wrote: “GW, Egi, ethnicity and race have an important meaning, but Egi can have it only in a proper context of other things; culture, people’s life contents, religion, tradition etc. Your reductionist view leads logically to what Auster talks about in the following article, liberal relativism (endorsement of everything that Auster has ever written not implied):” More accurately: GW, Egi, ethnicity and race have an important meaning, but they can have it only in a proper context of other things; culture, people’s life contents, religion, tradition etc. Your reductionist view leads logically to what Auster talks about in the following article; liberal relativism (endorsement of everything that Auster has ever written not implied): Ps. CC, the comment you quoted was part of a demonstration what logically follows from GW’s hateful anti-Christian materialist and relativist position, not my opinion. You should know it from my previous writings. 47
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:42 | #
It will be up to the council to decide whether or not you are ready to accept what the council decides. .
No, I bring it up because before long there aren’t going to be enough of us sub divide and hold ground. Even if our numbers begin to dramatically increase, our percentage will continue to decrease. And since our lands are now overrun and occupied we can’t afford to go at this Clint Eastwood -man with no name/drifter- style. .
As I said before my personal disbelief in God or an after life is not based on a belief in an opposing theory. The average American has never read Dawkins, or even heard of him for that matter. But most are willing to believe in evolution to some extent. Evolution gives us the starting point from which our people can learn that it is in fact okay to be “uncaring and indifferent” to the plight of those not of our own. We must wall the others out, physically and psychologically. Even though Christianity is exclusive in membership, it sets up an inclusive meme in its suggestive universal language. All men sin because of Adam, All men can be saved because of Christ, and so on. Evolution is, of course, espoused by universalists, but they are projecting. Evolution of itself has no morality. It does not declare good and evil. It does not command us to love our enemies or to be kind to those who would use us. It does not promise paradise nor threaten hell.
Not just. It’s also a legitimate question, is it not?
That’s not quite the flow of the question, but never the less your assessment of this world seems disparaging towards much of what we struggle for. ... 48
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:27 | # Evolution is espoused all the time by universalists, almost always in support of an attack on Christianity & Creationism and by extension that usually means whites. Almost never used in any other way. When faced with this I always try to bring other aspects of evolution into play. Once the topic has switched from bashing Creationists, your average universalist usually runs a mile, they dont want to discuss evolution after all, no sir. 49
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:31 | # Odd how Scroobies and dsf s seem to hunt in couples. Lurker has struck the much-needed note of realism here. His point about evolutionists never really wanting to debate the technical details of evolutionary theory is quite right. This is supposed to be a philosophical/scientific discussion, but the technical terms of philosophy or science seem to have been used very sparingly so far. The tactics and strategy of WWII can never be more irrelevant than in a discussion such as this. Diversionary tactics again. A Finn is also right: there seem to be a few obsessional types around who think that even if the white race were to lose its languages, its arts and cultures, it would still have a self-conferred right to call the shots, even when no longer capable of articulating its mass of incoherent and contradictory dreams. I like the way dsf attacks me for being an Englishman who reads. I suspect that the general aggressiveness of dsf and his/her alter ego Scrooby may be a smoke-screen. Perhaps he/she really doesn’t like white people despite all the rhodomontade, and the disguise sometimes slips. 50
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:55 | #
There are traces of Euro paganism remaining, but I wonder what you’d build it on. They don’t like that they’ve been Christianised, but they don’t seem to have much else. One site appeared to me to have just written out a new religion from nothing, though maybe more has been preserved than I know… No one wants to pass on a lie, though supporting a religion one doesn’t believe in seems somehow better if it’s already in existence and supports what one holds dear. We can bind with nonreligious traditions and explain openly that we are binding and why we are binding - and also bind ourselves in the process (as opposed to being specially above…) Ah, but I think this could only be done with a religious foundation underneath even if the traditions themselves are fully open to review and not “sacred”. It might be possible to stumble along as some in the East seems to - belief in God with doubt of details is very common everywhere as is reverence for tradition and ancestors and the natural. But founding upon raw reason alone is surely folly. Alasdair MacIntyre from wiki:
I’m doubtful there’s any other way. - If I had more time I’d offer a better response. I’ll be sure to read along, and I look forward to what answers folks develop. I realise not everyone can be a Christian and that a future movement even has a high chance of not being Christian since the institutions have been abducted. So, those who aren’t Christian have to figure out what the alternative is. 51
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:00 | #
Evolution is surely folly. You end up with wanting to continue to evolve. Only something pagan or Christian could work. 52
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:02 | # Evolution calls for creative destruction. How’s it any different from any of the other destructive ideologies? It guarantees racial suicide. With a theistic, Creation-based religion one may at least declare Creation sacred and worth preserving. 53
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:34 | # Well said, Frank. You can’t deduce morality or ethics from Evolution. Some evolutionists try it by illicitly ascribing a sort of consciousness or will to evolutionary forces: “It is the law! The weak shall perish!”. They are attempting a sort of illicit personification of Evolution. I have several times asked on this site how it is that, if we all all part of an evolutionary process - and remember Darwin said that each new development is selected “with unerring skill” - why evolutionary racists don’t just accept that evolution is bringing the curtain down on the white race as a failed experiment, just as surely as it did on the dinosaurs. Our enemies have out-smarted us, and it is they who are destined to occupy the world stage in future. No evolutionist on MR has ever really grappled with that fairly simple question. Evolutionism brings in its train pessimism and then nihilism: neither of these are noble, but only base. It is obvious that Christianity with its picture of cosmic and winnable struggle can be the only inspiration to those who wish to survive even in purelyb terrestrial terms. To the others, we can only say, “Your god Evolution has already inscribed eternal Death on your genes: you are accursed by that which you vainly attempt to placate.” But then the old Nordic mythology DID look forward to the Twilight of the Gods .. 54
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:03 | #
With dread though right? I find it somewhat beautiful in the same way CC finds Hitler’s supposedly futile struggle against fate beautiful. However, as GW and others have pointed out: it’s better to win or at least survive than to die beautifully. Also… after Ragnarok comes a rebirth. So, it could be understood in part as a nation needing to prepare for rebuilding after its institutions are destroyed - nothing lasts forever. 55
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:06 | # And it’s even better to act morally… but just as we may steal to eat (for survival) and just as the death penalty is just, I’d like to think we may commit some immorality in pursuit of the good. Circero wouldn’t like my saying that though - that’s an offense to the gods he’d say. 56
Posted by Q on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:40 | # Faith no faith For the purposes of white preservation, I really don’t care much whether someone is Christian or not. I happen to be of the Catholic faith and am as anti-race-replacement as one can get. The fact that a Euro chooses to be Christian doesn’t eo ipso mean he/she is anti-racist.. far from it. The common misconception many WN’s operate under is that white Christians are largely responsable for the demographic debacle we face. Of course those that beleive such are wrong. “Anti-racism” combined with white-guilt enforced by politically correct rules (all secular-liberal/Jewish inventions btw) are a few common denominators causing our demise. . Q intel-dialectics: A. All radical leftists are anti-racists (read: anti-white). B. All radical leftists despise Christianity. C. Ergo, all those who despise Christianity are in league with radical leftists. 57
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:01 | # Hear, hear, Frank - but up to a point! Stealing to survive is permitted because it is a means of righting an injustice that the possessors of food are committing against the hungry, by refusing to share with them. It’s only in the short term here-and-now context that this is permitted. A scientist is not allowed to perform some wicked experiment on the grounds that it “is likely to” produce any amount of physical benefits for future generations. Look, I too honour the ancient Gods and the Muses - but up to a point! Renaissance minds wrestled with the possibility that there’d been a lesser revelation to the gentiles - they still believed in the possibility of the direct inspiration of the Sybils. And there is still the serious possibility that texts supposed by many to be the unaided work of the pagan imagination were actually composed under the direct inspiration of Christian thought, if not by writers who were fully Christian, even if using pagan symbolism; Beowulf is a good example. 17th. century poets referred to Christ as Pan, even though they knew that an oracular had been heard at the time of Christ’s birth lamenting the death of Pan: this is recorded by Pliny (or is it Plutarch?) Cicero’s De Legibus and De Natura Deorum are helps to modern apologetics. 58
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:18 | #
Sorry, that’s not qiute clear. Christ Himself was of course the “light to lighten the gentiles” as we know from the song of Simeon, the Nunc dimittis: but there may well have been a preparation of the gentile peoples before this event. 59
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:43 | #
Exactly! Religions posit morality. And the Christian religion in particular prescribes a morality that proscribes “love your enemy.” We need to re-frame a new morality based on inherent and historic ethics that eschews the notion of universal contexts. .
Truth, hopefully. Or better stated, the pursuit of truth. In terms of every day living we should aspire to embrace reality. And if pressed on the point I would say we need to embrace reality as best we understand it. And the reality is, the races aren’t equal, men don’t have souls, no one rises from the dead, what goes up must come down, and so on and so forth. In fact you could compare this to gravity. One could, I suppose, make preservationalist argument based on the denial of gravity. A passionate argument designed to elevate and enliven the hearts and minds of our fellow travelers. The wails in the haunted houses were shown to be merely wind whistling through hollow rooms. We’ve been to the heavens and found no gods nor angles. All of the elves, dwarves, dragons and unicorns have receded into the myths from which they sprang. And thunder, it turns out, is not god overturning his potato wagon after all. We talk about the material world, because that is all there is.
Probably for the same reason that most people, knowing they will inevitably grow old and die, still eat and shelter their body to keep it healthy. You will see immortality in the eyes of your offspring. Just like you can see their ancestors. On this, the non-faithful have more a claim to life than the religious. After all if you believe this is all just a proving ground and that paradise awaits you in the afterlife, then you should care little for this world and be anxious to leave it.
Or perhaps it is the will of God. God often bragged about his authority to rise up a nation and then cast it down. So maybe it is his will that we perish from the earth.
First off…...Yes, but now that we’re in it, will Christianity prove a hindrance or not? It’s not a question of what it once was or what it might be. It is a question of what it is, presently. Can something that is fundamentally non-White in origin and nature (the bible) represent a lasting foundation for White civilization? Secondly….again it is a question of truth. Or, That finite and limited man created an all powerful entity to explain away the “mysteries of life”? .
Which seems an ironic assertion considering where he came from (Palestine) verses the civilizational accomplishments of Greece and Rome. I think it was probably the other way around. ... 60
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:44 | # I find religion good for my morale e.g i believe God gave England to the English people and as long as we’re prepared to fight for it God will give us the final victory. Foolish perhaps but useful and therefore not so foolish. I fully accept the right of more logical people to roll their eyes at this but it works for me. 61
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:30 | # Narrator: I take it you are an evolutionist, in which case you are not to prate about what you think I suppose the will of God to be, but just answer the question as I posed it today at 12.34.! Read the Psalms. And WHERE will you find ANYTHING to equal THEM? Don’t wriggle, you won’t. They are part of the heritage of all civilised Europe. You’re not specific about which sections of Christianity were borrowed from Greek and Latin sources. 62
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:32 | # The intensity of the debate we observe here brings to mind the following interpretations: 1. There are very real and legitimate interests at stake such as genetic and quality of life. 2. The dissension itself is possibly a product of hyper-individualism, which quashes cooperation at the expense of individual striving. 3. If issues such as this cannot be resolved amicably, in lieu of a centralized authority settling the matter as would be done under a National Socialist regime, then Bowery’s recommendation of assortative migration and community formation is optimal. 4. A centralized authority is perhaps optimal. 63
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:09 | # Not quite sure, Cap’n, what you’re saying. I strove with none, for none was worth my strife: 64
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:36 | #
You clearly dismissed most of what I wrote, haha - which is fine. I’ll come back to this when I’ve more time. Morality does seem to come from evolution though: those who stand in the way of progress are “evil”. Those who defend the white race are then evil. CC… your comments don’t make any sense. You’ve gone soft in the head like me lately? 65
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:43 | # A centralised authority would, without checks on its power, be fully capable of betraying anything it was supposed to do. A stranger high up would have few attachments to those distant cogs in his machine. Y’all are convinced somehow your attachments are based in reason and somehow natural. Utter nonsense… This has gotten to be retarded, and I don’t think my posts are all that great either. 66
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:47 | # Frank, I too wondered if the Cap’n and Narrator had written their posts after an extended lunch ... 67
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:57 | #
Hardly, my observation should be construed as nothing more controversial than that the group dynamic of Christians is vulnerable to all the atomizing influences of the age. I assume that if one were to “defend a Christian ethos” it would include the desire to bring Christians together in a spirit of community, which, unless I am mistaken, is one of the points of Christianity in this our material realm. I’m not familiar with the state of the church in England, but in Amerikwa it is in a considerable state of disrepair: garish mega churches which are the equivalent of big box stores, superficial hypocrites who treat the church as little more than a social club and lifestyle option. That ain’t good, right?
It beats racial and civilizational extinction, wouldn’t you say? Plus, National Socialism as incarnated in 1930s Germany actually has the benefit of working. All the forces of social and racial anomie and entropy were quickly checked. What would be the benefit to Christianity and Christians? A flock worthy of the church. Hitler had the good sense to leave the church alone.
Let’s face it, most people are sheep, in addition to being morons. But they can be good sheep, which means going with the flock in a congenial manner, and not wandering off the cliff. Shepherds are needed.
That is a very broad question, narrowing it to the socio-political scope of NS, there were what were call Fuhrer Orders and Fuhrer Directives; the former was an order that was to be carried out more or less to the letter, the latter was the provision of a general goal on which the man or men tasked with it were given latitude in which there creative energies could be expatiated. Again, I don’t see that it much applies to the internal workings of whatever church. And cannot a man be a good Christian and National Socialist? I think so.
It’s part of Bowery’s plan for America, meaning that the races would voluntarily, or perhaps with mild incentives applied, assort themselves geographically and culturally in a process of migration: freedom of association writ large. I don’t know how applicable that model could be for Europe. 68
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:02 | # Also: a centralised authority doesn’t mesh with Norman’s great predicted WHITE ARISTOCRACY. Or does it go, in a Platonic pyramid structure: KING NORMAN 69
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:25 | #
Frank, just what are you really objecting to, the moral frailty of Man? That’s not really any objection at all, for if it proves decisive in the end we might as well throw in the towel now. Of course the success of any program or system will stand or fall upon the quality of the men which maintain it. We know that the National Socialists were men of the highest quality - at least from the perspective of love and loyalty for their people - if such men no longer exist, or cannot be found, then we are fucked anyway. And let us not forget the power of indoctrination via mass media if only we controlled it, which was no doubt of immense importance in establish espirit de corps and cohesion amongst the German people. Much ado about nothing then? 70
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:39 | # NS, like monarchy, relies heavily on the man in power.
Exactly! It depends on their quality and virtue.
Very dangerous too… It all needs to be bound in traditions. You can’t trust a man of “reason” with such powers. That’s what I’m saying. I’m no capitalist as you know - you once suspected distributism was the same as NS. I think Plato went too far, but some of his suggestions on how to control an elite are good imo. Luxury would spoil an aristocracy. A united state can offer needed power, but there needs to be a balance of powers in place. I just want the idea that few men are trustworthy enough with such power to be heard and considered. - You’re probably right in that what’s important now is the struggle. After something is won, then we could fight over how to maintain what we’ve won. 71
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:12 | #
I’m objecting to not dealing with it, not to its existence. I don’t like the idea of controlling people with propaganda. I like the idea of controlling people with tradition and having them fully aware they’re being controlled. My view of freedom: slave to good traditions that allows them to responsibility wield some power - freedom from tyranny and propaganda. It might be necessary or at least very useful to use such propaganda as a means though. The enemy has no morality… 72
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:21 | # Every institution, even an NS state, goes corrupt. When the institutions are once again anti-white, whites need to be ready to tear it down once again to rebuild along the right principles. Slaves can’t fight. - One tradition I’d want people to agree on is for nonwhites to not even be allowed on certain native soil. It’s probably good to have tourists; but there should be no nonwhite workers and no nonwhite residents. Citizenship shouldn’t be possible for a nonwhite. No one, not even the entire nation voting in unison, ought to have the authority to change such a tradition. It ought to be set in stone, or better yet: brass. A TV cannot be trusted, but brass will remain. And if it’s blown up, it ought to be the duty of every national to rebuild it as soon as possible. And similarly any institution aiming for such ought to lose all credibility and become the enemy of the nation, despite what the TV says. Since we’re not all Christian, I won’t mention other things; but we can at least agree on that. 73
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:21 | #
“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea.” - Matthew 18:6 74
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:08 | # Well said, Frank. Glad that the Cap’n is back firing properly again on all syllables, even if his “assumption” of what I take the Christian ethos to be is a mite hazy. WHO knows that the NSs were “men of the highest quality”? Just HOW did Hitler “leave the Church alone”? By not going to Mass much, I suppose. It is ludicrous to pretend that Hitler as it were improved the morals/calibre of church members. Surely you’ve read “Mit brennender Sorge” and studied what Fulhauber said? Any more of this and I will post another shortish essay by Chesterton, and there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. i have shortened it a little bit it is all ready, and there are anothe 25 or so, “Variations On An Unwelcome Theme”. Anyway, dead men don’t make politics, and I don’t wasnt to be sacrificed as a tribute to a past leader or to someone else’s vision/revision of this dead man. 75
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:26 | # Not just. It’s also a legitimate question, is it not? You don’t understand the intensely oral tradition of the Jews? Or all the public stonings and sacrificing and temple visiting? The N.T. clearly states that the things that were written down were written down for our instruction (those of us in the N.T. era) and not for them. Nevertheless, they had clear the clear example of the law available to them in their daily lives. 76
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:32 | # To be blunt, it is far easier and the wiser and more expedient course to simply tear down their faith and start over All of written history and every conservative thinker (and even some radicals) stand stridently opposed to this idea. It is utterly wrong. All that shite about feeding the poor is social gospel nonsense (although I’m sure the socialist among us wouldn’t mind applying it in a monoracial environment) and the whole point of passages like that are that we should feed the poor in spirit with the spiritual bread of the gospel. Just because people are swayed by bad theology doesn’t mean that can’t be swayed back by good theology. God doesn’t care whether you eat bread from Whole Foods or bread from Stop and Shop, or Piggly Wiggly or Ralphs, or Tesco or whatever the hell… 77
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:27 | # Gorboduc, I’m in favour of decentralisation and balance of power, but I prefer aristocracy to democracy since democracy is essentially rule by the depraved majority. Those given power should be prevented from exploiting said power. And greed is a great threat. It might be possible to build upon something a little more exclusive than the original founders of the US planned out. E.g. those who are past a certain age, with children, who’ve worked and not divorced, and who have an education. Distributism encourages small business owners even if within larger organisations, and it is supposed to curtail greed and power seeking. I think it would make for a better man who’d fight for what he believes and wouldn’t tolerate being pushed around. 78
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:30 | # The more exclusive an aristocracy is, in theory, the better its quality. Another option is for the best students to be specially educated for governance… I don’t really know what’s best. I only vaguely prefer aristocracy… I know I don’t like democracy nor oligarchy (rule by the rich). 79
Posted by Frank on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:34 | #
We’re also supposed to love our neighbor as ourselves. Mexico… is not my neighbor. And there will always be plenty of problems within the US to sort out. And while we’re to give to the poor, we’re only commanded to provide food and water… not free health care etc. 80
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:26 | # Friends, I’m not being controversial for once - what do you think of the vitality and strength of this particularly American social/religious form of culture? 81
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:43 | # Almost at the top of the thread CC made a few interesting observations to which I want to respond. GW speaks of calibrating the culture via I presume his anticipated Philosophy of European Being (PEB) so as to select against the faith gene, and in favor of those without the faith gene, such as himself. My perception of religion in nationalism is that it carries a substantial risk of introducing competing goals. After all, it holds its object of worship above all human agency and human interest. There is an argument for harnessing the telelogical drive, and you have made it eloquently on innumerable occasions. But teleology must be restrained by cords of steel, its limits being the striving that grows naturally out of the soil. Forced growth, exultant dreams of supremacy and destiny, fantastical mythology ... all that would be toxic to the intellectual coherence and stability of the project. And quite likely its moral authority too. wouldn’t_that_take_a_long_freakin’_time to be done to the degree necessary to make a substantial impact, and isn’t that more time than we have at our disposal to save our race? I might like to see the faith gene weakened over time in the White population. Birth-rate is an argument against that, of course. But I don’t think we have applied ourselves creatively yet to the procreative problem, so there might be more to say about it than there is currently. Does he wish the elite to be constituted of the faithless? The elite must primarily be constituted of people who understand. Faithists who know that, rationally speaking, they are piloting a flying bomb through life, and not a Stearman, would be fine. Perhaps delivering the PEB will require an exoteric dimension for the rabble? Well, below IQ 115 it’s a different world. But, anyway, who among us understood the nature of liberalism in the years before we educated ourselves? The general population needs little real understanding. Above all, I think, it needs a clear and repeated expression of its own interests, peppered with a little romanticisation and lots of positive imagery ... maybe even the “edgy”, “sexy” stuff that Kai is so convinced about. This really isn’t my thing, though. I’ll gladly leave it to others. 82
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:47 | # GW - Can you kindly paraphrase your sentence as given below, so that the result is clear and unambiguous, in such terms as not to remind the reader of some piece of wiry garden furniture?
I always thought ‘teleology’ was the science of studying ends or final causes. In abstract philosophy, the term is perhaps more useful to those who believe in God and His providence than to those who scoff at such ideas. I wonder if you’ve ever used it correctly? 83
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:42 | # It would be interesting to hear views on reports that Creation, the acclaimed new BBC docudrama on Darwin, has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is considered to be ‘... too controversial for American audiences.’ 84
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:19 | #
It is an organic way of life which once exemplified the way in which our Northwestern European ancestors lived on the North American continent, in the civilization that they alone build, which is now dying, along with the flesh-and-blood people which if asked they would have replied would forever endure. It is simple, it is naive, it is tender and beautiful for being that, yet it is inherently vulnerable. If you asked them who they really are could they tell you? And if you told them just who they are - Northwestern Europeans - and told them that they ought and must live, in the sense that is as earthy as is their way of life, in the sense of the passing along of their blood unalloyed unto all the innumerable generations that yet might be, what would they say? If they would not reply with unhesitating affirmation to that proposition then they are not awake, and they sleep as the curtain of death is about to shroud them and theirs for all time. If they were awake, if they were not vulnerable , it would have never come this; and it would not yet progress, ever gathering speed toward finality. It is such visions which ought to give us the strength to do what must be done, whatever must be done, to take back all that has been stolen from us, to leave no stone unturned, no effort forsaken, no injustice left unavenged and no enemy left unpunished. To never give in and never be satisfied with nothing less than Final Victory. All else is execrable cowardice. 85
Posted by the Narrator,,, on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:17 | #
at 12:34 you wrote,
I think that is what you are referring to. You could, at the most, say that right now there is a culling of the herd taking place. Historically, we’ve been here before. Turks, Berbers, Mongols, Arabs, Jews and others have overrun and occupied (for centuries) parts of The West, damn near destroying her and her peoples. Still, here we are. I’m actually optimistic in the long term. I’ve no doubt we’ll overcome the current crisis. I just lament the short term, knowing that it will take centuries to reach the new dawn. I think that answers your question… .
Are you kidding?
Now you’re talking French. Don’t know what AV is. I was raised Protestant. And everybody knows God gave the civilized and enlightened world the King James Version….and a Strong’s Concordance to back it up. Seriously, the KJV is a work of art.
Jesus’s description of the afterlife looks particularly Greek instead of the more Oriental take in the Old Testament (in Job, for example, the promise of everlasting life in paradise never enters the discussion. Job’s reward from God is strictly earthly, material.) But to the point of the discussion here, there is a striking parallel in Rome’s “pragmatic” political approach to conquest (offering the possibility of citizenship to the conquered) and Christianity. The portrait of Jesus that his followers paint is more similar to Emperor of Rome than throne of David. He is our emperor whether we like it or not. We must bow a knee. BUT, we are afforded citizenship in the realm.
I speak English, so I wouldn’t know.
If so, it wasn’t intentional. I read all that you wrote, but sometimes one thing stands out and that’s what I’ll respond to.
Was there an ancient society that didn’t function on intensely oral tradition?
Them who? Most of the world remained illiterate right up into the 20th century. Everyone else was dependent on the honesty of those who could read to actually read what was written. And I think we can all agree that, the Catholics for example, added to the text. Most also depended on the competence of scholars to accurately translate the text. And as there are a multitude of translations and a host of debates on the translations of certain passages, well, the written word seems like the most convoluted and unnecessarily clumsy way for God to communicate with us. Rotating angelic heads, versed in every language, located in every region of the globe, spouting divine instruction and answering questions seems the more certain way to achieve maximum communication with the unearthly.
Are you sure? As for “every conservative thinker standing stridently against it”, well, judging their “success” over the past 40 years I’d say that’s more of an endorsement of my suggestion.
And the good Samaritan?
That’s good to know, cause none of those stores exist anywhere near where I live. .
And if a devout family of Mexicans move in next door to you? That is what I mean about dealing with Christianity for what it is now, instead of what it would be in an ideal situation. (which will never happen anyway) As an atheist I can (if I choose) say, “to hell with them” and be completely justified morally. ... ... 86
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:39 | # Sorry, mate, I didn’t mean to sound superior: but as you are apparently delivering a withering critique of Christianity from your lofty eyrie, I thought you might have some close acquaintance with the various versions of the texts you so airily dismiss, and the textual problems that arise therefrom.
. 87
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:42 | # Sorry, last sentence above misfired: pl. read ...GW said above that he
88
Posted by danielj on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:31 | # Was there an ancient society that didn’t function on intensely oral tradition? So it was rhetorical then? And the good Samaritan? Yes. They were all literal and all symbolic! Without a parable, God does not speak and all things come in parables to those outside the kingdom! Lazarus? Remember when Mary told Jesus that “he stinketh?” Lazarus is a picture of us dead in trespasses and sins, unable to repent of our own power. Five in the bible is symbol of the holy spirit. Hence Pentecost being fifty days after Passover and the gift of the Holy Spirit coming then. Bread is a symbol for spiritual nourishment and the Gospel. Loving your enemy: While we were at enmity with Christ He yet died for us. While we were still “enemies” with God and we should preach the Gospel (love) to all our enemies.
Most also depended on the competence of scholars to accurately translate the text. And as there are a multitude of translations and a host of debates on the translations of certain passages, well, the written word seems like the most convoluted and unnecessarily clumsy way for God to communicate with us. This is really a non-issue for those of us that know jack about textual criticism. If you would like, I could direct you to some positively fantastic info on the subject. Needless to say, you can rest assured that reading your King James Bible is just about as close as you can get without diving into your Strong’s con (besides the Young’s Literal or a couple other literal translations) and that it is most assuredly and authoritatively the word of God. As for “every conservative thinker standing stridently against it”, well, judging their “success” over the past 40 years I’d say that’s more of an endorsement of my suggestion. It doesn’t matter if “they” succeeded, what matters is if they are right or not. Christianity didn’t happen overnight in Europe and people genuinely converted from the bottom up generally. In fact, there are some traditions we still have that are Pagan, even outside the very Pagan Catholic traditions. We will succeed, but we don’t need to do it the wrong way. No matter how you spin it, as a Christian, if you see Pedro or Ping or Jamal lying injured on the side of the road crying out for help, and you choose to ignore them and walk on by, you have “sinned” and are morally unjust. Every atheist I know will tell you the same thing and every sane White Nationalist would help as well. It isn’t an argument against White Nationalism though… 89
Posted by G on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:20 | # DanielJ; do you and I agree then that evolutionary theory is no help to WNs, but a hindrance as 1) It’s scientifically nonsense (or at least unprovable) 2) That it’s one of the enemy’s weapons, and that acceptance of it weakens our cause and generates pessimism? (I think it’s CC who very recently posted “our people are dying…”) and that the sort of science-fantasy world Imperium dreamt of by Murros and Norman L is a distracting pipe-dream? (Someone slagged off Asimov here recently, but it seems that he and lots of the great (but sometimes loony) SF writers seemed to have fun dreaming up Star Wars type multi-galaxy Imperium structures which seem influential here, on posters like Murros and Norman as well as on the departed LJBarnes. Bet Asimov was an evolutionist… but hush, he was also a 4x2) 90
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:38 | #
You shouldn’t take it so personally.
Well, there are 150 in my redneck Protestant Bible, so. But you’re right. I should have picked it up and counted them all before I mentioned it. Frankly, I’m ashamed to say I don’ know how many verses there are in them in total either. I’d be afraid to even ballpark a number on the amount of adjectives and such, so, you’ve got me there too.
That’s okay. Nobody’s perfect. But I think most would agree that the Iliad, for example, leaves David and Solomon’s opining in the dust, no?
I have a trusty-rusty NIV as well. And as I said a Concordance gives you access to the meaning of words in the original hebrew and Greek. Plus the other translations can be found online.
Well I’ve read the bible over and over and over. Still pick it up once a week and read it.
Well at least you aren’t resorting to the same anti-White stereotyping the left engages in. .... But in truth I consider the KJV the best translation. When I still considered myself a believer the topic was still a hot one, and after some study on the subject, I concluded the KJV was the most fit. And I’ll freely admit that I have an unabashed instant bias against all things (in terms of literature, politics, art etc…) non-English.
Nope, it’s based on me reading it. Never once, either from his friends, his wife or God is the prospect of suffering through this life to gain a heavenly rewards placed on the table of discussion.
The Bible. But really, are you actually denying the Bible is Oriental. They were certainly immersed in Western thought (as they had been dominated by Greek culture and Roman politics) but the people and their God are strictly non-Western.
Well, if my answer didn’t suffice for you, nothing I can do about that. Spain faced a similar dilemma for centuries.
I didn’t say they shared it. But I would add that we don’t really know how serious any of our ancestors have taken faith, either in Odin or in Jesus. Obviously what has happened of late represents apathy more than a pro-active belief in faith or no belief. But when pressed on fighting for their race, most fall back on “it’s not the Christian thing to do.”
Nothing to be sorry about. ... 91
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:09 | #
Not unless you consider grandma’s recipe for soap on par with the supposed creator of the universe pronouncing instructions on how to avoid eternal damnation.
Sure, I’m teachable. I’m familiar with some of it, and if I’m not mistaken it could be called, pardon the expression, denominational, no? As for the theme you just laid out, well, that’s kinda the problem. (and I’m not talking about, again, the problem of divine revelation through the passing down orally or through the written word, the will of “him”.) I’m talking about the conditioning towards inclusiveness. And you’ve just illustrated that. “We’re ALL enemies of God.”
Well, I know some that wouldn’t (and it depends on the situation), but I generally agree. Anyway that wasn’t my point.
92
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:24 | # Narrator: thanks! 1) Catholic bit: Well you struck a nerve (I’m not physically quite dead yet) but it’s the ADDITIONS I’m interested in! And they are…? 2) Psalms; I’m not interested in the number of verses in the psalms either, merely in the majesty of their language and the way their phraseology and thought echo threough so much of our lyric and religious poetry. You shouldn’t have had to count the Psalms themselves though, you being a regular reader and all! 3) Iliad: don’t agree at all. The Iliad has excited and charmed me, but I don’t find myself saying any of it as a thanksgiving or a cry for help! 4) Tongues;I have latin and a little tiny bit of Greek myself, and a general interest in a sort of amateur philology. I’m not claiming to know ANYTHING else at all: so when someone says, Jerome faked up the Latin Vulgate a bit here, I mutter and writhe uneasily, and then say Aha! but he had access to more ancient MSS than the King James translators did (as I’ve just said to danielj) 5) Job. yes, but you can’t compare Job with Job - I mean to demonstrate the oriental nature of the thing you need to compare it with something else! (1001 Nights?) 6) Redneck. No, no, don’t get me wrong on this! You seemed to be exhibiting the reaction that I’ve met in the Catholic or ex-Catholic community; “I had too much of that forced down my throat by my parents when I was young, so later when I got to think for myself…” sort-of-thing. 7) All agreed: I felt that by saying “all agreed” when it’s plain that I and a few others here DON’T agree on some things with you, that the Xtian view was looking to be excluded from MR. Paranoia? 8) Oriental again; I suppose it’s your assumption that anything oriental is inferior, cheap, dishonest that I find a bit numbing here. Like, printing, gunpowder, the zero symbol etc; these are all in the scientific/technological realm, admittedly, but I can’t see WHY a God acknowledged by the Orientals is automatically non-existent, or debarred for us. I used to have a friend who would dismiss anything he didn’t like, for whatever reason, as “hither Asiatic”, a phrase he’d picked up from some half-arsed Nazi race theorist and skull-measurer. 9) Spain’s liberation: absolutely unrelated to the matter in hand. Spain had been subject to a series of military conquests and then occupation:such matters probably serve to keep the minds of the vanquished on their traditions and identity. What we are witnessing is a gradual and quickening up of coalescence between the enemy’s cultures and ours. (Spain’s folk music is still notably Moorish, or dare I say it, Oriental). How many ships did the Protestant powers send along to Lepanto? The newly released spirit of capitalism, miscalled ‘free enterprise’ or ‘merchant adventuring’ or whatever, has resulted in much of our racial problems: the Catholic Church tried to limit slavery but our ‘British sea-dog Protestant heroes’ liked it, until such time as the new liberalsim intervened, to our greater disadvantage. It’s difficult for folk like me to try and roll back in any way the effects of the Reformation AND to have you atheists frustrating those efforts, by using against us weapons that we recognise as having been lent out by the enemy’s armourers - Evolutionary theory, sheer visceral anti-popery, God-hatred and all the rest of the train. 10) Faith : still need proof that there ever WAS such a thing as Odinism or anything that any of our pre-Christian ancestors COULD have translated as ‘faith’. 93
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:26 | # Spain: I should have mentioned that the culture that liberated Spain was a Cathoilc one. Not an invented neo-pagan one, nor a fantasy SF Goth-Ken’n'Barbie one like that dreamt up by Murros. They just MIGHT just have fought because they wanted to go to Mass freely! 94
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:44 | # Scrooby: In goode soothe felawe we nil no Lollardys here! Thou arte a verray vileyne, a scurvie heretyk and a schytten knave, Ich wol plukke out thy foule hertes roote! Ich wil bryng the to the brennynge by Goggys bones that wil Ich! I’m glad you like Tyndale even though he taught, against the Catholic Church, that Mass can be said by any man, woman or child. It is fun to see he and More laying about each other with great thwacks. 95
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:52 | #
That’s obviously a long and contentious subject, but the short of it is, deriving new doctrine through creative and original interpretation is adding to it.
Well, remember though that their general tone is nationalistic. That may be why they appear appealing and majestic. And what would be an example of a Western derived religious poem that is commonly known?
I’ve been watching Beverly Hillbillies re-runs for most of my life and off hand I can’t remember the name of the secretary on the show, so…
I use it to refer to the east; the non-European (Western) world.
Personally, I’m just engaging in a discussion. That’s how you learn things. I don’t expect everybody to agree on everything, nor would want to be around people who do (when you find yourself in the company of those with whom you agree 100%, you’re probably in a cult) Religion is of course important because it often (though not always) informs general morality and ethics of the society it pervades. Having said that, if I were advising you and Danielj on counter points to my own, I’d probably suggest bringing up statistics (on abortion, illegitimacy, tolerance toward all manner of immoral behavior) that would seem to infer that most people aren’t basing their current ethics on the Bible so it shouldn’t be blamed for our predicament. .
I believe you just made two contradictory points there.
I tend to agree. But the reformation itself was inevitable as the religious division was ethnic. I’ve said before on here that the Germanic Pagans could be described as Protestant Pagans based on the description given by Tacitus and the testimony of other texts written down later.
I wouldn’t be so dogmatic as to intertwine the above with Catholicism in particular. Much of the spirit of the Reformation was genetic (inherent to Northern Europeans). For example, a closer study of the Vikings might reveal them to have been, in a way, the first capitalists.
I think Odinism is a neo-Pagan thing. My reference was to the social coercion to, in some way or another, pay homage to a divine deity. I would say that, That which is true is material, that which is not true doesn’t exist. ... 96
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:26 | # Dear Narrator: Where in Scripture does it say “This is the Scripture: there is nothing else permitted”? The Koran however DOES contain several prescriptive self-referential passages like that. Christ instituted His Church on earth and gave the power of defining and refining doctrine to it. Spanish culture;The Mass is a centrality; folk music isn’t. Music’s odd, anyway, and I hope your obsessive anti-Orientalism will not cause you to stop up your ears. Certain tunes are known in Europe, the East and North Africa. Arnold Dolmetsch discovered these on his travels. The lute, for which John Dowland and Anthony Holborne and all sorts of wonderful Elizabethan and Jacobean composers wrote such lovely music, was originally the Arabic ‘Oud. A well-known type of medieval fiddle, still played by early music performers and continental folk musicians, is the Rebeck: Arabic rebab. There are all sorts of other parallels. Recently I put up a lot of stuff about the cultural cross-overs in music, so much so that I think I seriously perturbed GW who told me I was muddying the colour-palette. Still, trutH is truth, isn’t it? Interesting about the Vikings. I’ll look that up. You mean the Jews got it from them by culture theft? Now the stuff about the Protestsnt ethic and the Reformation and North Europe is also interesting. Dare I post an essay by Chesterton called “The Judaism of Hitler”? I hope it will call forth comment, but it just might call forth the assassins (oops, those pesky orientals again!). I couldn’y activate the Danielj link: but I think the account of the famous put-down is so garbled as possibly to make it a self-wounding weapon in the hands of scientific materialist triumphalists. 97
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:42 | # Narrator: “I mean, how can you justify fighting to preserve what you consider to be hell?” - I don’t consider the world in itself, inherently to be a hell, but it always has a tendency to degenerate towards such if nothing is done to prevent, and/or if the power is in the hands of immoral, materialist, self-interested elite, and/or if people in general are psychologically and morally decadent and lack the community structures with which to resist it. I remind you, that if there is no transcendent morality, degeneracy and decadency are as good choices as it’s opposites and liberals promote degeneracy and decadency (in themselves too, but especially among others) because of variety of logical self-interested and hedonistic reasons. “Religions posit morality. And the Christian religion in particular prescribes a morality that proscribes “love your enemy.” .... And let’s be honest, comparing the potential morals of evolution to the morals of Jesus Christ, which one is more likely to be used as a pretext to shelter the starving masses? To feed the poor? To nurse the sick?” Narrator, why are you feeding us that liberalism, which pretends to be Christianity. Don’t you know that, like all the other information in Western societies; news, entertainment, science, politics, etc., Christianity too has been subverted. Forging information is one of the foundations of liberalism. “Feed the poor”, “nurse the sick” etc. are ingroup morals. “Love your enemy”, “don’t care about tomorrow” etc. were temporarily more universally possible during the life of Jesus because of him, but when his death approached he explicitly abrogated those (Luke 22: 35-36). The example and teachings of Jesus were ethnic ingroup morality, first among the Israelites and and later to be spread universally (Compare to Frank Salter’s universal nationalism, preceding it by two thousand years). You can observe Jesus’ moral towards outgroups in Matthew 15: 21-28. Jesus accepted the endogamy rules of Esra 9 -10, which is indicated by the Matthew 1: 1-17. Also Jesus said that he didn’t come abolish the former prophets teachings, but to add to them, further confirming the Esra 9-10. Ten commandments were forged by the early Roman church fathers by omitting their reference to ingroup (they were ingroup commandments), thus enhancing Roman elite’s universal power (Hartung, 1995). All I said doesn’t mean that we have to be hostile towards outgroups, just that we have normal range of possible policies towards them. “Or perhaps it is the will of God. God often bragged about his authority to rise up a nation and then cast it down. So maybe it is his will that we perish from the earth.” - Maybe the former part of this answer explains to you that it is not so. GW: “I might like to see the faith gene weakened over time in the White population. Birth-rate is an argument against that, of course. But I don’t think we have applied ourselves creatively yet to the procreative problem, so there might be more to say about it than there is currently.” - Thank you for indicating so clearly that you are an enemy of Christians and hinting what you would do if you gain any power. Notice that to reasonable pro-Europeans it is enough to resist liberalism in all it’s forms, including liberalism posing as Christianity and to leave true Christians to be in peace, but it is not enough to GW the totalitarian. “My perception of religion in nationalism is that it carries a substantial risk of introducing competing goals.” - The clueless nature of GW is expressed by the previous statement. All ideologies (secular religions), religions, science, etc. “carry” (it is not in the ideologies etc. themselves) substantial risk of introducing competing goals and it is inevitable that “they” will do so, no matter how they are arranged. Opposing goals are hardwired into the psychology and all kind of situations of humans (capitalism, communism, liberalism, nationalism, Christianity, etc. and to all kinds of differences between individuals and groups) and they can’t be “bred out” (It is theoretical possibility in any case, only ignorant persons like GW believe in it) without killing all the crucial and good psychological qualities of humans. If it could be done, it would leave the humans as walking deads, which would soon disappear. Also, totalitarian one truth, all connected to it -system just increases the risk of fatal back swan event for the system, i.e. fattens the extreme event thin tails of the bell curve until the system explodes or disintegrates. This is slowly happening to the global liberal capitalism system. Only way to prevent the subversion of a system is to create such community network structures that the opposing goals which eventually surface are normal part of the system and the communities are designed to be resistant to subversion. There must be enough variation in the communities, which starts group evolution. Lawrence Auster deals with these moral problems too (Automatic endorsement to Auster’s articles not implied): “Here is your first paragraph: What is it that makes it right or good to behave in such a way as to promote our mutual flourishing in the polis? The flourishing itself has to be really and factually good, good absolutely, or else behaving in such a way as to promote is neither here nor there. After I read this, I thought I’d play the Devil’s Advocate and I wrote: But what if the other side says: “We know that living in a well-functioning polis simply feels better than not living in one. So we don’t have to know about any absolute good in order to organize a good society.” But then I read your second paragraph: But what is the good of living? Why should we promote it? Yes, to be sure, living is inherently enjoyable. But why does that matter, in moral terms? If there be nothing more to the good of living than our personal enjoyments, then there is no higher morality than our personal appetites. “I ought” then collapses to “I want,” and there is nothing really wrong with my using others merely as instruments of my own wish fulfillment. And that answered my question. If the good is simply identical to what feels good, then it’s identical to “what I desire.” And if it’s identical to what I desire, then all desires become equally good. And if all desires become equally good, then the good of the polis becomes just one good jostling with innumerable others in a multicultural, Brownian motion of goods, and we’re back we’re we started, in suicidal liberal society.” 98
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:53 | # Correction: “Also Jesus said that he didn’t come to abolish the former prophets teachings, but to add to them, further confirming the Esra 9-10. Ten commandments were forged by the early Roman church fathers by omitting their reference to ingroup (they were ingroup commandments), thus enhancing Roman elite’s universal power (Hartung, 1995).” 99
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:18 | # A Finn; Did you too read this as suggesting that GW was planning to get rid of the Christians?
Some of the MR people are Holocaust Revisionists, as I am myself. But GW seems to be the sort of Revisionist that says “So we failed 60-odd years ago! Well, we’re gearing up to do it again and this time we’ll get all the faithists, and the Christers too.” I have met such people in the past. 100
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:32 | #
It’s ironic Finn, that two of the best commentators in this sites’ history, Wintermute and JWH (both of whom are pretty vehemently anti-Christian by the way), flew the coop in a fit of prissy umbrage precisely because GW refused to endorse their ‘radical’ policies for racial preservation and to edit comments that gainsaid that, as well as to shield their apparently fragile egos from “trolls” and “mental defectives”. I do however understand that the prospect of being cut off from your “God” could be at least mildly disconcerting. I believe I said something to the effect once that Christians will guard their faith genes with no less ferocity than a man guardeth his own balls. 101
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:14 | #
That’s bullshit Gorboduc. The problem isn’t lack of common cause and good character, as I told Finn above, it is egotism, prissiness and pettiness. Not saying I’m categorically exempt from those shortcomings, btw. 102
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:26 | # Your response just now, GW, doesn’t really reassure me, whatever it does for A Finn. Well then, here is the essay by Chesterton. It is very slightly abridged, omitting absolutely nothing of moment. It comes from a scarce posthumous collection called “The End of the Armistice”(1940) and most of its contents concern Hitler. I thought it was interesting as: 1) it displays an earlier version of a critique that journalist Douglas Reed frequently made of the Great Messiah 2) its ideas possibly underlies an exchange in George Steiner’s 1975 play The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H where Israeli agents, trekking on foot through the jungle with their prey, Hitler, after retrieving him from his postwar hideout, say to him, “Where did you get all these ideas about racial purity?” and he answers “From your people.” 3) it comes pat upon some ideas about the realtionship of Nordic Man to the Reformation as expressed just recently by Narrator 4) it may throw a new light on the relationship between the noble ideals of Western or Nordic Man and the despised Orientals
THE JUDAISM OF HITLER HIITLERISM is almost entirely of Jewish origin. This truth, if inscribed in the noble old German lettering on a large banner and lifted in sight of an excited mob in a modern German town might not have the soothing effect which I desire. This simple historical explanation, if written on a post-card and addressed to Herr Hitler, might not cause him to pause in his political career, and reconsider all human history in the light of [this] blazing illumination. These words may not be wholly comprehended or connected with their true historical origins; but they are none the less strictly historical. 103
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:26 | # Gordobuc: “Did you too read this as suggesting that GW was planning to get rid of the Christians?” - If GW would have enough power, yes. But he is not, let’s say it politely, the kind of person which can gain power. He has been a blind man groping for information, and he sometimes learns, but unfortunately it is too often in a rhytm of one step forward, two steps back. This site as a whole is a random collection of pro-whites, immigration critics, trolls, authority-fetishists, national socialists, national bolshevists, dream emperors, people with fixations, pro-ethnicity people, pro-community people, traditional nationalists, atheists, Christians, pro- US constitution people, people with hallucinations, paleoconservatives etc. in different combinations. As such it doesn’t have a focused agenda. CC: “.... because GW refused to endorse their .... policies” - For my part, I just suggest that GW could be more reasonable. I couldn’t care less if GW has the same opinions than I or not. “... for racial preservation and to edit comments that gainsaid that, as well as to shield their apparently fragile egos from “trolls” and “mental defectives”.” - Well, my ego doesn’t need protection. I have seen worse. The question is the same as it always has been to a large part of MR writers: Do you want to continue playing childish games or do something useful and efficient to Europeans around the world. 104
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:32 | # Gorby: Can you kindly paraphrase your sentence as given below I was employing a certain poetic licence - you like poetry, don’t you? You can find my meaning in the following:- Finn, The opening to what “is” cannot be found in mere belief and the desire, no matter how powerful, to genuflect to the beyond and to a diety. Faith is a faculty which clothes distant images in absolutes. I see it everywhere, the evidence of this. Its results in the 20th century alone have been catastrophic. It has played its part in bringing us collective madness and in setting us on a path towards racial extinction. One is entitled to ask how this came about. I don’t just mean how faith emotions were secularised into hyper-individualist, Marxist and palingenetic nationalist forms. I mean how did the faith faculty, which is an evolved faculty of our emotional system, become biased for such populist yet anti-human extremisms? I am an evolutionist, and it is very inviting to me to ponder what effect the forced conversion to Christianity had on genes for faith. My suspicion - and with the present state of genetic knowledge it can only be a suspicion - is that prior to the conversion few Europeans exhibited the same intense concentration on distance and absolutism. I suspect that the old religion was quite different in that regard, more holistic and much more expressive of European nature. Genes for ethno-centrism may well have been favoured (and, theoretically, this certainly should be the case with all religious faiths in the environment of their own arising). By this reading, the Asiatisation of our religion has changed the European genome by making genes for individualism and intense faith more adaptive. In so much as that has happened, it has changed European Man - but in a way that is not stable, and will lead us to our own destruction. Hence my view that a reduction in the frequency of the faith gene might be desirable. I hope this explanation will satisfy my critics who assume me to be some kind of monstrously anti-Christian eugenecist. I am for the survival of the European people, and I will take a position accordingly on any development that advances or frustrates that objective. 105
Posted by Frank on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:37 | #
Then it’s my duty to drive them out of my homeland. And woe betide the zealot who gets in my way. Marse Robert had no trouble seeing the benefit of expelling Virginia’s blacks. No where are we told to rebuild Babel or to ruin our children’s future by rendering all that we’ve built into ashes, along with all memory of where they come from and otherwise what defines them. Good borders make good neighbors. And the day whites fix all of their affairs is the day white gods should begin meddling with Mexico. Trade could be beneficial, and we ought to ensure we leave them somewhat better off as a result; but we are not white gods. You know what the Amerindians did with their white gods? History repeats… 106
Posted by Frank on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:47 | # The Jews were certainly encouraged to remain pure. Christ never told us to change this. Tribes are the natural ordering of mankind. 107
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:52 | # GW at 7.32pm Gorby: Can you kindly paraphrase your sentence as given below: But teleology must be restrained by cords of steel, its limits being
:- Well, yes, GW, I do like poetry and verse, but I was hoping for something a bit more technically accurate. But I take your point: it’s meant to be poetical. But teleology must be restrained by cords of steel, its limits being Thus ran the Sentence that I found opaque: Well, I am none the wiser. 108
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:06 | # “The opening to what “is” cannot be found in mere belief ...” - If you would know faith, you would know that it very much is and will be, and it is never “mere”. I am not hoping that you learn, though. “Faith is a faculty which clothes ...” - As I said, even your cherished existence of reality is based on faith (In different ways thinkers as diverse as Michael Dummett, Nelson Goodman, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Hillary Putnam, Richard Rorty, Jacques Derrida, Humberto Maturana, Francesco Varela, Terry Winograd, J.R. Wheeler etc. have challenged the idea of independent reality. Christian faith is based on interaction between God and people, not on clothing something. “I see it everywhere, the evidence of this. Its results in the 20th century alone have been catastrophic. It has played its part in bringing us collective madness ...” - I just mentioned that some people here have hallucinations ... “I mean how did the faith faculty, which is an evolved faculty of our emotional system, become biased for such populist yet anti-human extremisms?” - It was European hunter-gatherer individualism which developed in harsh northern climates and centralized government combined with hostile memes, not faith faculty which produced the present state of things (Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections p. 286-294). And I remind that centralized government, whether it poses as Christian or not, is not what Christianity teaches. Christianity is a faith of communities. Centralized Christian government is anti-Christian. “I am an evolutionist, ...” - No, you would like to be, but you are not. “same intense concentration on distance and absolutism.” - Distance is your own misconception. Among other things certain absolutism has produced Jewish communities which has lasted more than 5000 years, longer than any other human communities and they will last forever. Christiany applied according to it’s teachings will produce the same. All other systems will disintegrate at some point, in one way or another, as we see now slowly happening to Western societies. “... more expressive of European nature. Genes for ethno-centrism may well have been favoured ...” - They were favored relatively little, see the previous MacDonald reference. “(and, theoretically, this certainly should be the case with all religious faiths in the environment of their own arising).” - Not very much in the case of environment with relatively little ethnic competition, like in ice age Europe. I remind that Europeans have some propensity to ethnocentrism (Philippe J. Rushton, Genetic Similarity Theory), it just is less than what e.g. middle easterners have. This is according to European evolutionary environment. “By this reading, the Asiatisation of our religion has changed the European genome by making genes for individualism and intense faith more adaptive.” - I reject the “Asiatisation” claim (read middle-easternization), I wish it were so, we would have communities and wouldn’t have liberal suicide problem. Christianity was misinterpeted (both deliberately and through ignorance), forged, centralized and thoroughly Europeanized. That is important part of why we are in trouble today. “Hence my view that a reduction in the frequency of the faith gene might be desirable.” - Keep your (theoretical) hands off the Christian genome, you witch doctor. “I hope this explanation will satisfy my critics who assume me to be some kind of monstrously anti-Christian eugenecist. I am for the survival of the European people, and I will take a position accordingly on any development that advances or frustrates that objective.” - So you are like weather wane, which will take any position, that is often based on delusions and misconceptions, as long as you have blind secular atheistic faith that it will somehow improve the survival of Europeans. If e.g. some delusional people convince you that killing 80% of the least ethnocentric Europeans will improve the survival of Europeans, you support that position. So you really are (at the moment, until some new horrible idea wind blows) monstrously anti-Christian eugenecist. You unintentionally described the problem of monstrous secular atheist materialist relativism, which is the same problem as liberals have. That is part of the reason why it is important that society is anchored on Christianity. 109
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:07 | #
Of course there is always room for improvement, but what really is the alternative? The Occidental Quarterly Online? Let me see here, O’Meara is their big gun right? What does he have to offer? ‘We need some myth, what will that entail? I don’t know, someone smarter than me will have to figure that out later. Car bombs? Those are always good for shits and giggles. You guys build them and risk your lives. I’ve got to finish reading Junger and drinking my Guinness.’ LOL! I’m sorry, but that is fucking bullshit. And of course the time GW went over there to argue the myth point with O’Meara none other than JWH popped up in the form of “Teddy Theodore” like a lover scorned with his ‘you dipshits discuss EGI as if it could account for everything from the price of milk to the weather’ trope, LOL! You can’t make this shit up. 110
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:20 | # I wrote: “I reject the “Asiatisation” claim (read middle-easternization), I wish it were so, we would have communities and wouldn’t have liberal suicide problem.” I mean of course selective adoption and application of middle-eastern methods, not mindless copying. Some Europeanization is inevitable and desirable. E.g. I don’t want polygamy, lawlessness in the larger society or child wife practices to exist among Europeans. 111
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:25 | # The sainted G, Why is it so hard to understand. The thesis is that the ruthless and destructive conversion to Christianity favoured certain human characteristics above others. Some family lines prospered. Some ended. The result is the powerfully concentrated focus of the surviving genes for faith, which focus applies regardless of whether the faith object is religious or secular. This is the European today, or certainly 80% of him. But I would like to see this gene disfavoured, and something more stable develop. But how? How does one restrain its replication and favour the replication of a more stable gene - or a gene with a more stable phenotype. I don’t know. Hence my flight into the poetic. 112
Posted by Frank on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:26 | #
Has MacDonald of the clan Donald (which apparently traces back to “Children of Colla and Seed of Conn”), has he ever bothered to read the pre-Christian bits that are left? Granted kinship and descent might have been more important than a pure concept of race, but blood was extremely important. He isn’t Kevin potter named after his occupation; he’s Kevin MacDonald of the Clan Donald. That other king of Scotland - now there’s an individualist who’s truly full of himself. 113
Posted by danielj on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:31 | # There would be nothing morally unjust about it outside of religious imposition. There is nothing morally unjust, indeed, no morality worth the name outside of a religious injunction, imperative, or imposition. 114
Posted by danielj on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:33 | # I’m looking at apartments tonight but I’m going to come back to all of this. Gorbo - Yes I think the materialistic, atheistic evolutionary theory that considers “molecule to man” as a probable scenario is unprovable, absurd and a hindrance. 115
Posted by Frank on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:38 | #
I tend to agree, but this wasn’t always what was done in Christ’s name. I only have time to pose as if I know what I’m talking about, but you might find it interesting to read this somewhat anti-Christian Europagan site: Northern European Studies Texts. It seems to blame Christianity for many things. If you’re looking for someone to war with, someone there might be worth braining with your battle axe. 116
Posted by Frank on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:04 | # Going by the Norse creation myth, Africans might have evolved from Nordics:
Note: I post the above tongue-in-cheek. I don’t know whether this is Christianised nor what the authority of this is. 117
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:17 | #
Ethnocentrism, in the case of the Puritans.
http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/macdonald_puritans.html 118
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:48 | # “... conversion to Christianity favoured certain human characteristics above others.” - “Conversion to Christianity” doesn’t mean anything unless the quality of Christianity is analyzed. You are blaming forged Christianity used in centralized government on Christianity. It is not Christianity’s fault. Christianity’s teachings taught, we didn’t listen. The liberal results are all around us. “Some family lines prospered. Some ended. The result is the powerfully concentrated focus of the surviving genes for faith, which focus applies regardless of whether the faith object is religious or secular.” - You are talking about individualist propensities, not faith propensities. Individualists can suppress with their frontal lobes the too weak ethnocentric instinct under a second. Individualists are also inclined to follow abstract universal ideologies and rules. That is the problem. Faith propensities depend heavily on the content and application of religion, general “faith gene” does not exist. “... the European today, or certainly 80% of him. But I would like to see this gene disfavoured, and something more stable develop. But how?” - Ethnocentrism is increased by establishing ethnic communities and starting ethnocentric evolution, learning from Hutterites, Jews etc., and creating our own application, suitable to us. When communities are designed properly, small number of people in each generation, those who are less ethnocentric, will selectively leave to a more liberal environment. The members must be on the other hand well attached to a community with variety of social, material and psychological methods, and on the other hand enticed just the right amount by the liberal environment. It can be accelerated to some extent by increasing the number of people leaving in each generation, but the number must remain so small that it doesn’t threaten the integrity of the community. Community can’t, of course, suddenly pop up to existence, it must concentrate to community from more loose social formations and it takes some time. These are a small fraction of the knowledge that must be known. There is no other way, there is no easy way. To those searching for a quick, easy fix, I recommend exogamous marriages and liberalism. CC, OQo has good information too, and O’Meara is not that bad. We just is have a need for a site, where reasonable people gather to think, and writers and commenters must fulfill certain standards, meaning normal moderation. 119
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:53 | # Finn, Religion I give you, my friend. Presence in a life that is become real, even fleetingly, I do not. You don’t like the idea of an emotional clothing of the distant image? But it is so obviously what faithists, like all lovers, do. They formulate their god-image, then clothe it with emotional significance. It is a confirmatory action, that’s all. And it is just gene expression. Blind. Functional. Mechanical. If you would know faith If you would know faith! Distance is your own misconception. Please, not the personal god. Anything but that. At least a certain majesty attaches to the god of the OT Jews who angrily stalks the Sinai looking for bushes to ignite. But this terribly moderne personal trainer who is always on hand to apprehend a quick prayer about a bit of bad luck? No, please, not that. Odd that MacDonald predicates all negativity on individualism and Jews in government, while completely missing the millenia of seismic events that resulted, finally, in the wiping out of the last true European religion from Scandinavia by 1100. It is commonplace for evolutionists to point out that the high birthrate associated with religiosity demonstrates its adaptiveness. Therefore, genes are being favoured. The argument makes itself. I find MacDonald’s position vaguely disturbing. Is he religious or not, do we know? I remind that Europeans have some propensity to ethnocentrism (Philippe J. Rushton, Genetic Similarity Theory), it just is less than what e.g. middle easterners have. This is according to European evolutionary environment. No, that’s not quite right. The Jewish and Islamic faiths in the Middle-East are expressive of genetic interests both in the narrow familial and wide ethnic ranges. The Christian faith in Europe is substantially biased on the familial genetic interests. It tends to throw up complications for EGI (universalism, compassion, charity etc). The question is whether this difference is wholly because of European individualism or, even partly, because of the distortions produced by a millenia of genetic warfare on European faith. I do not believe the latter has been adequately considered. Can you point me to such consideration? So you really are (at the moment, until some new horrible idea wind blows) monstrously anti-Christian eugenecist. Very silly. I am showing Christians like you that there may have been a cost at the gene level to the imposition of their faith. This generates a potential opposition between Christianity and our most true Europe, and it is that opposition that is unfamiliar and offensive to Christians. OK, it is an offensive idea. It means the quality you value most in yourself isn’t entirely lovable. It is very likely true to some degree. Fortunately, nobody agrees with it. Not Kevin. Not Phillipe. You will comfortably be able to ignore it. 120
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:00 | # Correction: “We just have a need for a site, ...” 121
Posted by Frank on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:05 | #
He’s not, and there’s a good quote of him from (I want to say) one of his books on it. Lacking the quote, I have no authority to stand upon better than my own vague memory… 122
Posted by Frank on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:07 | #
You’re welcome to join kinism if you don’t mind a few CI here and a few non CI who believe Jesus was white. There’s no moderation among intellectuals. 123
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:10 | # “Conversion to Christianity” doesn’t mean anything unless the quality of Christianity is analyzed. You are blaming forged Christianity used in centralized government on Christianity. It is not Christianity’s fault. Christianity’s teachings taught, we didn’t listen. The liberal results are all around us. I am talking about events in the Dark Ages. Not many liberals about then. But the liberals about today are a direct result of that forced conversion. Look to the sword, not the word. It was the sword that made the faith gene what it is. You are talking about individualist propensities, not faith propensities. I am surprised at you for walking into that error. I am talking about trait selection. There is no division into individualism and faith. They are both traits. Those with a high loading of the trait of individualism do not acquire that at the cost of the trait of faith. Individualists with the faith gene might be more inclined to certain secular faith-forms, that’s true. But they are just as likely to carry faith genes as are people with a lower loading of the individualist trait. Faith propensities depend heavily on the content and application of religion, general “faith gene” does not exist. The form of religious practise depends upon the content of the religion. But faith is a selected behaviourial trait, like any other. It won’t go away because religion is weak. It will seek other expressions. Ethnocentrism is increased by establishing ethnic communities and starting ethnocentric evolution, learning from Hutterites, Jews etc., and creating our own application, suitable to us. I don’t want to learn anything from narrow-minded people. Certainly not from Jews. I value the European individualism. I would expect that it shaped the old religion to no small degree, and produced an adaptive outcome. But, of course, the wipe-out by Christianity was so complete we know nothing of our own heritage. Community can’t, of course, suddenly pop up to existence, it must concentrate to community from more loose social formations and it takes some time. Yes, perhaps a century of healthy politics is required. 124
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:11 | # GW: “I am showing Christians like you that there may have been a cost at the gene level to the imposition of their faith.” - No you are not as I explained before. Christianity has never been taught to us according to Christianity’s teachings and it has been misapplied and forged. You make a lot of other mistakes, but I don’t have time and possibly not a need to correct them. You seem to love your mistakes. 125
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:13 | # “Yes, perhaps a century of healthy politics is required.” - What a joker. 126
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:21 | # GW: “There is no division into individualism and faith. They are both traits. Those with a high loading of the trait of individualism do not acquire that at the cost of the trait of faith. Individualists with the faith gene might be more inclined to certain secular faith-forms, that’s true. But they are just as likely to carry faith genes as are people with a lower loading of the individualist trait.” - You create a strawman and then accuse me with. Carry on. Bye. 127
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:30 | # My God! These dreadful Mexicans! fancy having to live next door to them! 128
Posted by Marcus Eli Ravage on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:35 | # OF COURSE, YOU DO RESENT US. It is no good telling me you don’t. So let us not waste any time on denials and alibis. You know you do, and I know it, and we understand each other. To be sure, some of your best friends are Jews, and all that. I have heard that before once or twice, I think. And I know, too, that you do not include me personally—“me” being any particular individual Jew—when you fling out at us in your wholesale fashion, because I am, well, so different, don’t you know, almost as good as one of yourselves. That little exemption does not, somehow, move me to gratitude; but never mind that now. It is the aggressive, climbing, pushing, materialistic sort you dislike—those, in a word, who remind you so much of your own up-and-coming brethren. We understand each other perfectly. I don’t hold it against you. Bless my soul, I do not blame anybody for disliking anybody. The thing that intrigues me about this anti-Jewish business, as you play at it, is your total lack of grit. You are so indirect and roundabout with it, you make such fantastic and transparent excuses, you seem to be suffering from self-consciousness so horribly, that if the performance were not grotesque it would be irritating. It is not as if you were amateurs: you have been at it for over fifteen centuries. Yet watching you and hearing your childish pretexts, one might get the impression that you did not know yourselves what it is all about. You resent us, but you cannot clearly say why. You think up a new excuse—a “reason” is what you call it—every other day. You have been piling up justifications for yourselves these many hundreds of years and each new invention is more laughable than the last and each new excuse contradicts and annihilates the last. Not so many years ago I used to hear that we were money-grubbers and commercial materialists; now the complaint is being whispered around that no art and no profession is safe against Jewish invasion. We are, if you are to be believed, at once clannish and exclusive and unassimilable because we won’t intermarry with you, and we are also climbers and pushers and a menace to your racial integrity. Our standard of living is so low that we create your slums and sweated industries, and so high that we crowd you out of your best residential sections. We shirk our patriotic duty in wartime because we are pacifists by nature and tradition, and we are the arch-plotters of universal wars and the chief beneficiaries of those wars (see the late “Dearborn Independent,” passim, and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”). We are at once the founders and leading adherents of capitalism and the chief perpetrators of the rebellion against capitalism. Surely, history has nothing like us for versatility! And, oh! I almost forgot the reason of reasons. We are the stiff-necked people who never accepted Christianity, and we are the criminal people who crucified its founder. But I tell you, you are self-deceivers. You lack either the self-knowledge or the mettle to face the facts squarely and own up to the truth. You resent the Jew not because, as some of you seem to think, he crucified Jesus but because he gave him birth. Your real quarrel with us is not that we have rejected Christianity but that we have imposed it upon you! Your loose, contradictory charges against us are not a patch on the blackness of our proved historic offense. You accuse us of stirring up revolution in Moscow. Suppose we admit the charge. What of it? Compared with what Paul the Jew of Tarsus accomplished in Rome, the Russian upheaval is a mere street brawl. You make much noise and fury about the undue Jewish influence in your theaters and movie palaces. Very good; granted your complaint is well-founded. But what is that compared to our staggering influence in your churches, your schools, your laws and your governments, and the very thoughts you think every day? A clumsy Russian forges a set of papers and publishes them in a book called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which shows that we plotted to bring on the late World War. You believe that book: All right. For the sake of argument we will underwrite every word of it. It is genuine and authentic. But what is that beside the unquestionable historical conspiracy which we have carried out, which we have never denied because you never had the courage to charge us with it, and of which the full record is extant for anybody to read?
You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom not merely of the latest great war but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it. Look back a little and see what has happened. Nineteen hundred years ago you were an innocent, carefree, pagan race. You worshipped countless gods and goddesses, the spirits of the air, of the running streams and of the woodland. You took unblushing pride in the glory of your naked bodies. You carved images of your gods and of the tantalizing human figure. You delighted in the combats of the field, the arena and the battle-ground. War and slavery were fixed institutions in your systems. Disporting yourselves on the hillsides and in the valleys of the great outdoors, you took to speculating on the wonder and mystery of life and laid the foundations of natural science and philosophy. Yours was a noble, sensual culture, unirked by the prickings of a social conscience or by any sentimental questionings about human equality. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone. But we did not leave you alone. We took you in hand and pulled down the beautiful and generous structure you had reared, and changed the whole course of your history. We conquered you as no empire of yours ever subjugated Africa or Asia. And we did it all without armies, without bullets, without blood or turmoil, without force of any kind. We did it solely by the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda. We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the earth, to the countless unborn generations. Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents at large of our racial tradition, carrying our gospel to the unexplored ends of the earth. Our tribal customs have become the core of your moral code. Our tribal laws have furnished the basic groundwork of all your august constitutions and legal systems. Our legends and our folk-tales are the sacred lore which you croon to your infants. Our poets have filled your hymnals and your prayer-books. Our national history has become an indispensable part of the learning of your pastors and priests and scholars. Our kings, our statesmen, our prophets, our warriors are your heroes. Our ancient little country is your Holy Land. Our national literature is your Holy Bible. What our people thought and taught has become inextricably woven into your very speech and tradition, until no one among you can be called educated who is not familiar with our racial heritage. Jewish artisans and Jewish fishermen are your teachers and your saints, with countless statues carved in their image and innumerable cathedrals raised to their memories. A Jewish maiden is your ideal of motherhood and womanhood. A Jewish rebel-prophet is the central figure in your religious worship. We have pulled down your idols, cast aside your racial inheritance, and substituted for them our God and our traditions. No conquest in history can even remotely compare with this clean sweep of our conquest over you. How did we do it? Almost by accident. Two thousand years ago nearly, in far-off Palestine, our religion had fallen into decay and materialism. Money-changers were in possession of the temple. Degenerate, selfish priests mulcted our people and grew fat. Then a young patriot-idealist arose and went about the land calling for a revival of faith. He had no thought of setting up a new church. Like all the prophets before him, his only aim was to purify and revitalize the old creed. He attacked the priests and drove the money-changers from the temple. This brought him into conflict with the established order and its supporting pillars. The Roman authorities, who were in occupation of the country, fearing his revolutionary agitation as a political effort to oust them, arrested him, tried him and condemned him to death by crucifixion, a common form of execution at that time. The followers of Jesus of Nazareth, mainly slaves and poor workmen, in their bereavement and disappointment, turned away from the world and formed themselves into a brotherhood of pacifist non-resisters, sharing the memory of their crucified leader and living together communistically. They were merely a new sect in Judea, without power or consequence, neither the first nor the last. Only after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did the new creed come into prominence. Then a patriotic Jew named Paul or Saul conceived the idea of humbling the Roman power by destroying the morale of its soldiery with the doctrines of love and non-resistance preached by the little sect of Jewish Christians. He became the Apostle to the Gentiles, he who hitherto had been one of the most active persecutors of the band. And so well did Paul do his work that within four centuries the great empire which had subjugated Palestine along with half of the world, was a heap of ruins. And the law which went forth from Zion became the official religion of Rome. This was the beginning of our dominance in your world. But it was only a beginning. From this time forth your history is little more than a struggle for mastery between your own old pagan spirit and our Jewish spirit. Half your wars, great and little, are religious wars, fought over the interpretation of one thing or another in our teachings. You no sooner broke free from your primitive religious simplicity and attempted the practice of the pagan Roman learning than Luther armed with our gospels arose to down you and re-enthrone our heritage. Take the three principal revolutions in modern times—the French, the American and the Russian. What are they but the triumph of the Jewish idea of social, political and economic justice?
Is it any wonder you resent us? We have put a clog upon your progress. We have imposed upon you an alien book and an alien faith which you cannot swallow or digest, which is at cross-purposes with your native spirit, which keeps you ever-lastingly ill-at-ease, and which you lack the spirit either to reject or to accept in full. In full, of course, you never have accepted our Christian teachings. In your hearts you still are pagans. You still love war and graven images and strife. You still take pride in the glory of the nude human figure. Your social conscience, in spite of all democracy and all your social revolutions, is still a pitifully imperfect thing. We have merely divided your soul, confused your impulses, paralyzed your desires. In the midst of battle you are obliged to kneel down to him who commanded you to turn the other cheek, who said “Resist not evil” and “Blessed are the peace-makers.” In your lust for gain you are suddenly disturbed by a memory from your Sunday-school days about taking no thought for the morrow. In your industrial struggles, when you would smash a strike without compunction, you are suddenly reminded that the poor are blessed and that men are brothers in the Fatherhood of the Lord. And as you are about to yield to temptation, your Jewish training puts a deterrent hand on your shoulder and dashes the brimming cup from your lips. You Christians have never become Christianized. To that extent we have failed with you. But we have forever spoiled the fun of paganism for you. So why should you not resent us? If we were in your place we should probably dislike you more cordially than you do us. But we should make no bones about telling you why. We should not resort to subterfuges and transparent pretexts. With millions of painfully respectable Jewish shopkeepers all about us we should not insult your intelligence and our own honesty by talking about communism as a Jewish philosophy. And with millions of hard-working impecunious Jewish peddlers and laborers we should not make ourselves ridiculous by talking about international capitalism as a Jewish monopoly. No, we should go straight to the point. We should contemplate this confused, ineffectual muddle which we call civilization, this half-Christian half-pagan medley, and—were our places reversed—we should say to you point-blank: “For this mess thanks to you, to your prophets and to your Bible.” 129
Posted by danielj on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:08 | # None of those charges are really contradictory. One can plot a war and not fight in it. Indeed, it is a System of a Down lyric! Why don’t presidents fight the wars? Why do they always send the poor! Post your philo-semitic crap elsewhere. 130
Posted by Frank on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:20 | # Marcus Eli Ravage writes:
Jews follow the Talmud… Christianity is not Judaism. Judaism has become pagan and false. - The real question is: why do Jews hate the rest of humanity? Why do they work so furiously to destroy Europe? Jews are the aggressors not the victims. 131
Posted by Frank on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:24 | # Marcus Eli Ravage is clearly not Jewish btw… Or if he is the purpose is the same: the drive away support for Christianity here. No Jew would be so ignorant of history. Our schools might be ruined, but they still teach their children. We’ve yet to separate from the system while they and other minorities already have. 132
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:33 | # It’s a cut and paste job. You think Jews wouldn’t really openly taunt the goyim like that? Think again.
133
Posted by Frank on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:39 | # What’s funny about the post though is this:
Has the poster ever met Jews in real life? Does he have any idea of how corrupt they are - how prominent they are in ushery, the mob, porn, perversion, scams, warring, and propaganda? They lead most every activity that is against Christian teachings. There’s nothing remotely Christian about Jews. Perhaps they’ve simply become too mixed - who knows. But Jews today cannot follow their own teachings… unless of course one goes with the Talmud and admits that anything done to a Goy is somehow justified. Jews finally enjoy a moment of power and just like a lower race they march up and down declaring how superior they are… They beg to be a guest and then stab their host in the back - afterward declaring superiority over an evil tyrant or a subhuman being. And once they find that without their host they’re in need of a new one, they’ll come crying once again for a seat at our table. The pre-Christian pagans were not even as the Jews are today. They can improve but not until they drop the Talmud and with it their supremacism and refusal to face reality. When a Jew falls into temptation, the error still occurred whether or not he writes a new tale of the event. 134
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:39 | # Btw, I did not originally post that “Marcus Eli Ravage” thing. 137
Posted by Marcus Eli Ravage on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:02 | # You Christians worry and complain about the Jew’s influence in your civilization. We are, you say, an international people, a compact minority in your midst, with traditions, interests, aspirations and objectives distinct from your own. And you declare that this state of affairs is a menace to your orderly development; it confuses your impulses; it defeats your purposes; it muddles up your destiny. I do not altogether see the danger. Your world has always been ruled by minorities; and it seems to me a matter of indifference what the remote origin and professed creed of the governing clique is. The influence, on the other hand, is certainly there, and it is vastly greater and more insidious than you appear to realize. That is what puzzles and amuses and sometimes exasperates us about your game of Jew-baiting. It sounds so portentous. You go about whispering terrifyingly of the Jew in this and that and the other thing. It makes us quake. We are conscious of the injury we did you when we imposed upon you our alien faith and traditions. Suppose, we say trembling, you should wake up to the fact that your religion, your education, your morals, your social, governmental and legal systems are fundamentally of our making! And then you specify, and talk vaguely of Jewish financiers and Jewish motion-picture promoters, and our terror dissolves in laughter. The Goi, we see with relief, will never know the real blackness of our crimes. We cannot make it out. Either you do not know or you have not the courage to charge us with those deeds for which there is at least a shadow of evidence and which an intelligent judge and jury could examine without impatience. Why bandy about unconvincing trifles when you might so easily indict us for serious and provable offences? Why throw up to us a patent and a clumsy forgery such as the Protocols of the Elders Zion when you might as well confront us with the Revelation of St. John? Why talk about Marx and Trotski when you have Jesus of Nazereth and Paul of Tarsus to confound us with? You call us subverters, agitators, revolution-mongers. It is the truth, and I cower at your discovery. It could be shown with only the slightest straining and juggling of the facts that we have been at the bottom of all the major revolutions in your history. We undoubtedly had a sizeable finger in the Lutheran Rebellion, and it is simply a fact that we were the prime movers in the bourgeois democratic revolutions of the century before the last, both in France and America. If we were not, we did not know our own interests. But do you point your accusing finger at us and charge us with these heinous and recorded crimes? Not at all? You fantastically lay at our door the recent great War and the upheaval in Russia, which have done not only the most injury to the Jews themselves but which a school-boy could have foreseen would have that result. But even these plots and revolutions are as nothing compared with the great conspiracy which we engineered at the beginning of this era and which was destined to make the creed of a Jewish sect the religion of the Western world. The Reformation was not designed in malice purely. It squared us with an ancient enemy and restored our Bible to it’s place of honour in Christendom, The Republican revolutions of the Eighteenth century freed us of our age-long political and social disabilities. They benefited us, but they did you no harm. On the contrary, they prospered and expanded you. You owe your pre-eminence in the world to them. But the upheaval which brought Christianity into Europe was - or at least may easily be shown to have been - planned and executed by Jews as an act revenge against a great Gentile state. And when you talk about Jewish conspiracies I cannot for the world understand why you do not mention the destruction of Rome and the whole civilization of antiquity concentrated under her banners, at the hands of Jewish Christianity. It is unbelievable, but you Christians do not seem to know where your religion came from, nor how, nor why. Your historians, with one great exception, do not tell you. The documents in these case, which are part of your Bible, you chant over but do not read. We have done our work too thoroughly; you believe our propaganda too implicitly. The coming of Christianity is to you not an ordinary historical event growing out of other events of the time, it is the fulfilment of a divine Jewish prophecy - with suitable amendments of your own. It did not, as you see it, destroy a great Gentile civilization and a great Gentile empire with which Jewry was at war; it did not plunge mankind into barbarism and darkness for a thousand years; it came to bring salvation to the Gentile world! Yet here, if ever, was a great subversive movement, hatched in Palestine, spread by Jewish agitators, financed by Jewish money, taught in Jewish pamphlets and broadsides, at a time when Jewry and Rome were in a death struggle, and ending in the collapse of the great Gentile empire. You do not even see it, though an intelligent child, unfuddled by theological magic, could tell you what it is all about after a hasty reading of the simple record. And then you go on prattling of Jewish conspiracies and cite as instances the Great War and the Russian Revolution! Can you wonder that we Jews have always taken your anti-Semites rather lightly, as long as they did not resort to violence? And mind you, no less an authority than Gibbon long ago tried to enlighten you. It is now a century and a half since The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire let the cat out of the bag, Gibbon, not being a parson dabbling in history, did not try to account for the end of a great era by inventing fatuous nonsense about the vice and degradation of Rome, about the decay of morals and faith in an empire which was at that very time in the midst of its most glorious creative period. How could he? He was living in the Augustan Age in London which - in spite of nearly two thousand years since the coming of Christian salvation - was a good replica of Augustan Rome in the matter of refined lewdness as the foggy islanders could make it. No, Gibbons was a race-conscious Gentile and an admirer of the culture of the pagan West, as well as an historian with brains and eyes. Therefore he had no difficulty laying his finger on the malady that had rotted and wasted away the noble edifice of antique civilization. He put Christianity down - the law which went forth from Zion and the word of God from Jerusalem - as the central cause of the decline and fall of Rome and all she represented. So far so good. But Gibbon did not go far enough. He was born and died, you see, a century before the invention of scientific anti-Semitism. He left wholly out of account the element of deliberation. He saw an alien creed sweeping out of the East and overwhelming the fair lands of the West. It never occurred to him that the whole scheme of salvation was dedicated. Yet the facts are as plain as you please. Let me in very brief recount the tale, unembroidered by miracle, prophecy or magic. For a good perspective, I shall have to go back a space. The action conveniently falls into four parts, rising to a climax in the third. The time, when the first curtain rises, is roughly 65 B.C. Dramatis personae are, minor parts aside, Judea and Rome. Judea is a tiny kingdom off the Eastern Mediterranean. For five centuries it has been hardly more than a geographical expression. Again and again it has been overrun and destroyed and its population carried into exile or slavery by its powerful neighbours. Nominally independent, it is now as unstable as ever and on the edge of civil war. The empire of the West, with her nucleus in the City Republic of Rome, while not yet mistress of the world, is speedily heading that way . She is acknowledged the one great military power of the time as well as the heir of Greece and the centre of civilization. Up to the present the two states have had little or no contact with one another. Then without solicitation on her part Rome was suddenly asked take a hand in Judean affairs. A dispute had arisen between two brothers over the succession to the petty throne, and the Roman general Pompey, who happened to be in Damascus winding up bigger matters, was called upon to arbitrate between the claimants. With the simple directness of a republican soldier, Pompey exiled one of the brothers, tossed the chief priesthood to his rival, and abolished the kingly dignity altogether. Not to put too fine a point on it, Pompey’s mediation amounted in effect to making Judea a Roman dependency. The Jews, not unnaturally, objected; and Rome, to conciliate them and to conform to local prejudice, restored the royal office. She appointed, that is, a king of her own choosing. He was the son of an excise-man, an Idumean by race, named Herod. But the Jews were not placated, and continued making trouble. Rome thought it very ungrateful of them. All this is merely a prelude, and is introduced into the action to make clear what follows. Jewish discontent grew to disaffection and open revolt when their Gentile masters began importing into Jerusalem the blessings of Western culture. Graven images, athletic games, Greek drama, and gladiatorial shows were not to the Jewish taste. The pious resented them as an offence in the nostrils of Jehovah, even though the resident officials patiently explained they were meant for the entertainment and edification of the non-Jewish garrison. The Judeans resisted with especial strenuousness the advent of the efficient Roman tax-gatherer. Above all, they wanted back a king of their own royal line. Among the masses the rebellion took the form of a revival of the old belief in a Messiah, a divinely appointed saviour who was to redeem his people from the foreign yoke and make Judea supreme among the nations. Claimants to the mission were not wanting. In Galilee, one Judas led a rather formidable insurrection, which enlisted much popular support. John, called the Baptist, operated in the Jordan country. He was followed by another north-country man, Jesus of Nazareth. All three were masters of the technique of couching incendiary political sedition in harmless theological phrases. All three used the same signal of revolt - “the time is at hand”. And three were speedily apprehended and executed , both Galileans by crucifixion. Personal qualities aside, Jesus of Nazareth was, like his predecessors, a political agitator engaged in liberating his country from the foreign oppressor. There is even considerable evidence that he entertained an ambition to become king of an independent Judea. He claimed, or his biographers later claimed for him, descent from the ancient royal line of David. But his paternity is somewhat confused. The same writers who traced the origin of his mother’s husband back to the psalmist-king also pictured Jesus as the son of Jehovah, and admitted that Joseph was not his father. It seems, however, that Jesus before long realized the hopelessness of his political mission and turned his oratorical gifts and his great popularity with masses in quite another direction. He began preaching a primitive form of populism, socialism and pacificism. The effect of this change in his program was to gain him the hostility of the substantial, propertied classes, the priest and patriots generally, and to reduce his following to the poor, labouring mass and the slaves. After his death these lowly disciples formed themselves into a communistic brotherhood. A sermon their late leader had once delivered upon a hillside summed up for them the essence of his teachings, and they made it their rule of life. It was a philosophy calculated to appeal profoundly to humble people. It comforted those who suffered here on earth with promised rewards beyond the grave. It made virtues of necessities of the weak. Men without hope in the future were admonished to take no thought for the morrow. Men too helpless to resent insult or injury were taught to resist not evil. Men condemned to lifelong drudgery and indigence were assured of the dignity of labour and of poverty. The meek, the despised, the disinherited, the downtrodden, were - in the hereafter - to be the elect and favoured of God. The worldly, the ambitious, the rich and powerful, were to be denied admission to heaven. The upshot, then, of Jesus’ mission was a new sect in Judea. It was neither the first nor the last. Judea, like modern America, was a fertile soil for strange creeds. The Ebionim - the paupers, as they called themselves - did not regard their beliefs as a new religion. Jews they had been born, and Jews they remained. The teachings of their master were rather in nature of a social philosophy, an ethic of conduct, a way of life. To modern Christians, who never tire of asking why the Jews did not accept Jesus and his teachings, I can only answer that for a long time none but the Jews did. To be surprised that the whole Jewish people did not turn Ebionim is about as intelligent as to expect all Americans to join the Unitarians or the Baptists or the Christian Scientists. In ordinary times little attention would been paid to the ragged brotherhood. Slaves and labourers for the most part, their meekness might even have been encouraged by the soldier class. But with the country in the midst of a struggle with a foreign foe, the unworldly philosophy took on a dangerous aspect. It was a creed of disillusion, resignation and defeat. It threatened to undermine the morale of the nation’s fighting men in time of war. This blessing of the peacemakers, this turning of the other cheek, this non-resistance, this love your enemy, looked like a deliberate attempt to paralyse the national will in a crisis and assure victory to the foe. So it is not surprising that the Jewish authorities began persecuting the Ebionim. Their meetings were invaded and dispersed, their leaders were clapped into jail, their doctrines were proscribed. It looked for awhile as if the sect would be speedily wiped out. Then, unexpected, the curtain rose on act three, and events took a sudden new turn. 138
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:39 | #
You do know, I presume, that the King James Version also doesn’t contain books like Tobit, Judith, Macabees and others, right? Protestant scholars did their own research. In some cases they independently reached the same conclusion on the viability of the text that Catholics did. But in other cases they did not. So no, the Catholic church did not “define the canon” anymore than they invented architecture.
That is a huge strain at history.
Well, there is in fact no transcendent morality.
You don’t find it more than coincidental that the liberalism we all bemoan has flourished ONLY within “Christendom”.
Actually I think he said he came to FULFILL them, not add to them. But, As to your point, naturally Christianity wasn’t very geopolitically multi dimensional in 50 AD. Peter couldn’t just load the kids in the car and drive them up to Athens for the weekend. But its’ central universalist tenant was present. Look at the interchangeability of the Christian monarchy.
Good on you then.
Do you realize that you are degrading Western Civilization by saying that? The middle east is, as it always has been, a third world ghetto.
Morality is tribal, which is to say genetic.
You earlier wrote,
That would be twice now in one thread where it appears you are bestowing some sort of honor upon mongrels because you like their music and because they’re religious. You’re actually helping me prove my case that Christianity’s universalist motif leads towards the inability to purposefully and positively discriminate. .... 139
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:47 | # Except in the above excerpt he is not emphasizing fertility. MacDonald emphasizes a much lower incidence of exogamy in the Puritans as being adaptive.
It is also the sword that made individualism (or more accurately the extended phenotype of the English) what it is. Ike and Monty, 20th century Charlemagnes killing millions of good Saxons for the supremacy of the individual. Individualism and Christianity competing memes, each with a will of their own and each willing to consume human biological resources in order to survive. The Selfish Meme. 140
Posted by Marcus Eli Ravage on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:58 | # Perhaps the bitterest foe of the sectaries was one Saul, a maker of tents. A native of Tarsus and thus a man of some education in Greek culture, he despised the new teachings for their unworldliness and their remoteness from life. A patriotic Jew, he dreaded their effect on the national cause. A traveled man, versed in several languages, he was ideally suited for the task of going about among the scattered Jewish communities to counteract the spread of their socialistic pacifistic doctrines. The leaders in Jerusalem appointed him chief persecutor to the Ebionim. He was on his way to Damascus one day to arrest a group of the sectaries when a novel idea came to him. In the quaint phrase of the Book of Acts he saw a vision. He saw as a matter of fact, two. He perceived, to begin with, how utterly hopeless were the chances of little Judea winning out in an armed conflict against the greatest military power in the world. Second, and more important, it came to him that the vagabond creed which he had been repressing might be forged into an irresistible weapon against the formidable foe. Pacifism, non-resistance, resignation, love, were dangerous teachings at home. Spread among the enemy’s legions, they might break down their discipline and thus yet bring victory to Jerusalem. Saul, in a word, was probably the first man to see the possibilities of conducting war by propaganda. He journeyed on to Damascus, and there to the amazement alike of his friends and of those he had gone to suppress, he announced his conversion to the faith and applied for admission to the brotherhood. On his return to Jerusalem he laid his new strategy before the startled Elders of Zion. After much debate and searching of souls, it was adopted. More resistance was offered by the leaders of the Ebionim of the capital. They were mistrustful of his motives, and they feared that his proposal to strip the faith of its ancient Jewish observances and practices so as to make it acceptable to Gentiles would fill the fraternity with alien half-converts, and dilute its strength. But in the end he won them over, too. And so Saul, the fiercest persecutor of Jesus’ followers, became Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. And so, incidentally, began the spread into the pagan lands of the West, an entirely new Oriental religion. Unfortunately for Paul’s plan, the new strategy worked much too well. His revamped and rather alluring theology made converts faster than he had dared hope, or than he even wished. His idea it should be kept in mind, was at this stage purely defensive. He had as yet no thought of evangelizing the world; he only hoped to discourage the enemy. With that accomplished, and the Roman garrisons out of Palestine, he was prepared to call a truce. But the slaves and oppressed of the Empire, the wretched conscripts, and the starving proletariat of the capital itself, found as much solace in the adapted Pauline version of the creed as the poor Jews before them had found in the original teachings of their crucified master. The result of this unforseen success was to open the enemy’s eyes to what was going on. Disturbing reports of insubordination among the troops began pouring into Rome from the army chiefs in Palestine and elsewhere. Instead of giving the imperial authorities pause, the new tactics only stiffened their determination. Rome swooped down upon Jerusalem with fire and sword, and after a fierce siege which lasted four years, she destroyed the nest of the agitation (70 A.D.). At least she thought she had destroyed it. The historians of the time leave us in no doubt as to the aims of Rome. They tell us that Nero sent Vespasian and his son Titus with definite and explicit orders to annihilate Palestine and Christianity together. To the Romans, Christianity meant nothing more than Judaism militant, anyhow, an interpretation which does not seem far from the facts. As to Nero’s wish, he had at least half of it realized for him. Palestine was so thoroughly annihilated that it has remained a political ruin to this day. But Christianity was not so easily destroyed. Indeed, it was only after the fall of Jerusalem that Paul’s program developed to the full. Hitherto, as I have said, his tactic had been merely to frighten off the conqueror, in the manner of Moses plaguing the Pharaohs. He had gone along cautiously and hesitantly, taking care not to arouse the powerful foe. He was willing to dangle his novel weapon before the foe’s nose, and let him feel its edge, but he shrank from thrusting it in full force. Now that the worst had happened and Judea had nothing further to lose, he flung scruples to the wind and carried the war into the enemy’s country. The goal now was nothing less than to humble Rome as she had hutnbled Jerusalem, to wipe her off the map as she had wiped out Judea.
If Paul’s own writings fail to convince you of this interpretation of his activities, I invite your attention to his more candid associate John. Where Paul, operating within the shadow of the imperial palace and half the time a prisoner in Roman jails, is obliged to deal in parable and veiled hints, John, addressing himself to disaffected Asiatics, can afford the luxury of plain speaking. At any rate, his pamphlet entitled “Revelation” is, in truth, a revelation of what the whole astonishing business is about. Rome, fancifully called Babylon, is minutely described in the language of sputtering hate, as the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, as the woman drunken with the blood of saints (Christians and Jews), as the oppressor of “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues” and—to remove all doubt of her identity—as “that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” An angel triumphantly cries, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen.” Then follows an orgiastic picture of ruin. Commerce and industry and maritime trade are at an end. Art and music and “the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride” are silenced. Darkness and desolation lie like a pall upon the scene. The gentle Christian conquerors wallow in blood up to the bridles of their horses. “Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.” And what is the end and purpose of all this chaos and devastation? John is not too reticent to tell us. For he closes his pious prophecy with a vision of the glories of the new—that is, the restored—Jerusalem: not any allegorical fantasy, I pray you, but literally Jerusalem, the capital of a great reunited kingdom of “the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.” Could anyone ask for anything plainer? Of course, no civilization could forever hold out against this kind of assault. By the year 200 the efforts of Paul and John and their successors had made such headway among all classes of Roman society that Christianity had become the dominant cult throughout the empire. Meantime, as Paul had shrewdly foreseen, Roman morale and discipline had quite broken down, so that more and more the imperial legions, once the terror of the world and the backbone of Western culture, went down to defeat before barbarian invaders. In the year 326 the emperor Constantine, hoping to check the insidious malady, submitted to conversion and proclaimed Christianity the official religion. It was too late. After him the emperor Julian tried to resort once more to suppression. But neither resistance nor concession were of any use. The Roman body politic had become thoroughly wormeaten with Palestinian propaganda. Paul had triumphed. This at least is how, were I an anti-Semite in search of a credible sample of subversive Jewish conspiracy, I would interpret the advent of a modified Jewish creed into the Western world. 141
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:23 | # Please desist from spamming the blog. Further cut ‘n pastes will be deleted. 142
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:41 | # Finn,
How am I making mistakes? Here’s a mistake ... You say that real Christianity has never been taught. But it was very likely not “taught” at all to a willing populace in the conversion. It was forced upon them by the usual means, at the command of warlords. In the new psychological dispensation certain faith characteristics were advantaged. Here’s another mistake, it seems ... Do you mean that you alone have hold of some “real” version of the creed. That would be an extraordinarily arrogant claim, wouldn’t it? Actually, Christianity has always been a highly fragmented faith. It has always lacked an active esoteric component - compare it to Islam, for example, with its Sufic core. The lack of such a core, incidentally, demonstrates the essentially political nature of the European conversion. Christianity was espoused as a vehicle for faith, certainly, but it was a not really a religion at all. Whether the old faith had a live core we cannot know. If it did, then the conversion truly was a process of murder in religious terms. 143
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:17 | # Narrator: of course I know about the OT Apocrypha! Yes, you censored out some of the OT at the request of Luther, but you tamely followed the Catholic Church in rejecting all the rest of the stuff! And the point about “mongrels” is, that despite their shocking low level of intellect and their disorganised genetic structures and all the rest of the tra-la-la, these poor “spics” or whatever you like to call them could make worthwhile, no, not just “worthwhile”, for that read “profound”, contributions to European culture at a time when that culture was much more closely controlled by an elite and less commercialised than it is now. I suppose that may give you the cue to say, “My point exactly! It’s the Catholics again!” I know you will say that race and culture aren’t linked. I’m sure you’re right. You are all so busy maintaining racial purity that you have no time for culture, except by defining it in archaeological and genetic terms. I have been DELIGHTED to observe that Rolf Gardiner, who did a lot to popularise English folk song and dance and who took a team of Morris Dancers to perform before Walter Darre seems to have been halachically Jewish: also that Tolkien who probably knew more about the older literary cultures of Europe than anyone, regretted in a pre-war letter to a German publishe, who seemed to be impudently quizzing JRRT on his Aryan credentials, that he had NO connection with the Jews. The bit in italics above is not included because I am a race-traitor or a disguised (or an open!) Jew or a liberal - I am NONE of those things - but because I believe your approach to these matters is over-puritanical and hence off-putting to many of good-will who would otherwise support you. Sometimes when I contemplate the inner cabal of MR at a board meeting I’m reminded of that little coterie of academics in the amazing film “The Believer”... I’m sorry if my impudent posting of the GKC essay on Hitler called down Marcus Eli Ravage on you. There’s a middle-size quote from him in William Grimstad’s Antizion. I did not make those postings, although I’m sure someone will try to pin them on me: but I certainly said somewhere, a short while back, that the sort of aggressive atheism displayed so frequently by the people that run MR will key in PERFECTLY with a lot of Jewish attitudes: and there you are! Although I think you should actually be grateful, for it’s the sort of the-smart-Jews-invented-Xtianity-to-make-fools-of -the-gullible-Goyim stuff that you are quite capable of paraphrasing yourselves (and of abridging, I hope!) GW; your most recent post seems to carry a faint waft of Guenon’s spicy presence, like the ghost of the scent of sherry haunting a long-dry decanter…. Can Evola be far behind? Ah, the esoteric: “of that of which which one cannot speak it is better to remain silent” and dammit, I can’t remember if it was Heidegger or Wittgenstein who came up with that little smasheroo… 144
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:04 | # Oh btw, Narrator at 06.39… No it’s not my musical taste I’m appealing to, but BEETHOVEN’S, who knew him, performed in public with him, wrote for him and liked him until they fell out over a woman. That good enough for you? And btw again: It was one of the more aggressive members of the old NF when that party in general had a hard-line racist attitude that would make today’s BNP look positively girly, who once told me, in all seriousness, that, although he accepted me as a full-blood Englishman, he had more in common with a black Nigerian member of the Orange Order than with me, as they could both cry “To hell with the Pope” together. 145
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:04 | #
I’ll just assume you were speaking in terms of the “royal You” and “royal We” there. My point was that obviously the Protestants did their own study on the subject, reaching their own conclusions independent of what the Catholics did. I would assume the Orthodox in the east did the same.
I take it I’ve struck another nerve??? Besides, I didn’t say spics. And why put Mongrels in quotes. It’s a legitimate term to describe a mixed breed person.
.
1. The fellow you linked to was, based on what I could find on him, a Mexican (mestizo), not a European. 2. I just conducted an impromptu poll and 12 out of 12 people have never heard of him. And I’m willing to bet that if I expanded that poll into the hundreds I’d find a similar result. 3. No, I would not say, “It’s the Catholics again” because I never said it the first time. I’m sure someone who was raised Catholic was probably indoctrinated to believe that the universe revolves around Catholicism. But it doesn’t. When I speak of Christianity I’m speaking of all of it; Protestants, Catholics, Eastern groups, Mormons, Jonestown etc…. Or more specifically I’m speaking of the central pillar of that ideology, the Gospels and, by extension (in the periphery) their connection to hebrew texts and the letters of Paul and so on. And even beyond that, when I speak of theists I include all theists, both monotheists and pagan alike.
Culture is in the blood. The blood is the life.
It’s interesting that you’ve linked racial purity to a discussion on the racial implications of religion. Not to be smart, but again, I believe you are making my case for me. You are (whether intentional or not) counseling a softer racial standard on the pretext of your religious beliefs. On the one hand you say the hour is late and our predicament grave, yet on the other hand you declare that a decisive mandate on race and identity to be “over-puritanical”, insinuating that it is unreasonable. It’s not a question of driving people away or shepherding them in. Most people know the truth. All I attempt to do is to get them to shed their fear of admitting it, first to themselves, then to the world.
What adversary wouldn’t love to war with a people who have “love thy enemy” as part of their new philosophical matrix? And you’ll note that the jews did not invade Africa or parts of Asian in mass numbers, but Europe….Christian Europe. ... 146
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:14 | #
I’ll have to take your word on that. But I hope its all true, cause it only serves to the prove the point. After all, were not all of those admirers of the half-breed theists? ... 147
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:08 | # Have you got access to the Online GROVE, the famous musical dictionary? YOUR dictionary definition falls flat. It talks about animals and plants, and then an unspecified state of the ‘incongruous’. Can’t see people, or Sumaya there at all. One or two of the Youtube postings have what might be a little picture of him: doesn’t look ‘incongruous’, certainly doesn’t SOUND it either! And Sorry about your friends’ musical ignorance. Well, if they’ve never heard of him, he CAN’T be any good, can he? And I suppose that if a theist thinks he’s good, that just demonstrates his and Sumaya’s shared insignificance? A bit of a circular argument, I think, but it’s also wheeled out to dismiss Bridgtower. And, hey, it’s as good as I’m going to get I suppose, as most of your brisk and snappy posts are a bit short on arguments, beyond variations on the one apparent axioms BLOOD IS ALL THAT MATTERS and THEISTS ARE FOOLS. Oh, and Tolkein got in because he had opinions on blood and culture and faith and Hitler and Jews - all the things that come up here sometimes…
148
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:17 | # Scrooby: I can count as well as you, thank you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxCeT5reTtg A well-timed intervention on the sanctuary of your local Parish Church during Mass might bring your concerns to a wider audience. Get a friend to video it. Or write to Williamson. 149
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:27 | #
I’m not GW, dipstick.
LOL!
Why in the hell should it be worrying that we want to save our people from genetic annihilation? I should think the opposite of that, which is what we are seeking to combat, would be of real worry.
That is navel-gazing buffoonery: if we think the object of your worship does not exist and therefore cannot be pursued as an interest in any real sense, but the continuity of our blood can, then why the fuck would we have as our main objective the “destruction” of what we ourselves believe is not real to begin with?
So as long as you can save your own ass the existence of your people can go hang. Gee, why am I not surprised? 150
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:25 | #
Gorbo doesn’t seem open to the possibility that the great majority of the participants on MR will have given up on organised Christianity with its universalist propensity for nation-wrecking long before becoming aware of Guessedworker and his works. He (GW) is preaching to the converted. 151
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:51 | #
What in the name of purple Unicorns does that have to do with anything?
1 : an individual resulting from the interbreeding of diverse breeds or strains; especially : one of unknown ancestry http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mongrel Is that better for you?
You earlier wrote,
What’s with this thing of you bringing up some imaginary conspiratorial plot on the part of a few posters at MR to purge the world’s 1.5 billion Christians. Or worse, all “faithists”. It’s hard to take you seriously when you write things like that… 152
Posted by Q on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:58 | #
I think GW is as frustrated as all of us of due to the fact we haven’t found a workable solution to stop and reverse the ongoing genocide of our race. There is plenty of blame to go around, however, I think GW’s antipathy towards “the faith gene” is a mistake on his part. First off, most Christians, including myself, aren’t brainwashed robotic like creatures that are completely consumed with our beliefs. Most Christians hardly ever discuss their faith with one another.Basically, Christianity for most, serves to enhance and nourish the spiritual aspect of our being. It also provides a moral framework to operate within. It is NOT meant to be a strategy to save the white-race, nor does it create a weakness which makes whites vulnerable to our enemies— anti-racism, white-guilt, and PC do that. In fact all the pro-white anti-anti-racists I knew before I discovered WN sites were/are Christians. I find it ironic that for years I had to endure ramblings from black-militant co-workers reject Christianity because they regarded it as the “white-mans” religion. The Jews hate Christianity for obvious reasons. But then to my amazement I discovered via the internet that most “White Nationalists” reject Christianity for various reasons as well! (LOL) I was astonished! That was the last thing I expected. If the preservation of the white-race is to succeed, then hardass-atheists must come to terms with the fact that in the real world, Christian-white-preservationists out number them by a ratio of 10,000:1. BTW- 99.9999% of Negroes have the “faith gene” and it doesn’t interfere with their ethnocentrism one bit. Again, our problem is not rooted in Christianity, it stems from different sources.. Fred Scrooby does a great job identifying a big one. 153
Posted by Frank on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:02 | #
Ushery’s immoral, but it can’t be blamed for that. 154
Posted by Frank on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:04 | #
Their highly evolved brains don’t get in the way. 155
Posted by Frank on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:10 | #
GW’s not really anti-religious just nonreligious. He might have the best approach really, even if a civilisation couldn’t be built upon it. If it works now, then later we could fight over the details. Praise European civilisation and culture and get whites ethnocentric again. Most whites won’t add in the religious component. God could be mentioned vaguely as was done by the (American) founders (who were mostly not Christian though that’s not the same as atheist). 156
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:26 | # @Q: The keyword in my brief post above was ‘organised’. As a lapsed Anglican I can still experience a frisson of wonder when visiting Durham Cathedral or listening to choral music sung by a cathedral choir. I can still enjoy Evensong, and love attending church weddings and christenings, but not when adminstered by a female, a homosexual or a negro.
157
Posted by Frank on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:41 | # Epicurus is interesting:
Though again… even a moderate and thus strong man might not “piously” revere his society and fellow nationals. Reg. post-modernism: Lovecraft warned Cthulhu might be freed if little boys misbehave (fiction tale can be read here.) - Reg. the Jew who’s reposted above: Immoral Traditional Jewish Occupation #17: slave trading. Probably annoying too that early Christians didn’t want Jews to own Christian slaves. Though again: apparently nothing is immoral when done to a Goy. 158
Posted by Q on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:15 | #
All I can say about that is: AMEN. 159
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:34 | # Here’s a little bible fact quiz for all those believers in airborne Jewish spirits : 160
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:01 | # Frank: GW’s not really anti-religious just nonreligious. For me, it’ isn’t about religion at all. I am pretty much convinced that there is something awry with faith in the European mind. In important respects it has evolved towards the type of faith (but, obviously, not the form) we observe in lower-IQ middle-eastern peoples, most especially the non-Ashkenazic tribes of Israel. I would pick out very intense belief as an unEuropean quality. I think this evolution has inevitably brought us estrangement from self and visited much instability on the European life. I think that the great attraction to teleological goals in all their guises has its root here. Many of the darker passages in the European history of the last thousand years have been impelled along their hideous paths by it, the worst of them not overtly religious at all. Now that’s positively the last statement I’m going to make on this for a while. Time to move on. 161
Posted by Frank on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:00 | # Divinations are supposedly a very European obsession… I’ll dig up some things and try for a more complete post on Euro paganism at some point maybe - I’m still learning myself. 162
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:27 | # I suppose I will have to concede to the culturalists Gorboduc and Dan Dare that cultural exchange, at least at the level of individual cultural elites, is mutually enriching for the cultures involved. So how then to allow for that and protect the integrity of our blood? I propose that miscegenation be legally proscribed. A selfish lemming may object: “But…but…my freedom!” To which I would respond: “You mean the freedom to aid in the genetic annihilation of your race? Fuck you freedom.” 163
Posted by Frank on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:14 | #
Wouldn’t it be nice were most things grown out of your own people, often using local materials? Technological and comparative advantage exchange is another thing. 164
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:08 | # Frank, we cannot remove ourselves from modernity and travel back to the 18th century; it is not to be. I see no reason why a virtuoso musician of non-White ancestry cannot perform locally in symphony given there is reasonable assurance they will not impact our gene pool. With anti-miscegenation laws we can have our cake and eat it too. 165
Posted by Frank on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:23 | #
That’d be fine, but it’d be ideal for a distinct national culture to exist too. 166
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:42 | # Two potential approaches for racist Christers in combating the alleged “coming persecution”: 1. ‘You mean to say you’ll take my faith gene? You big meanie. I’m taking my ball and going home.’ 2. ‘The fuck you say! Let’s see you try it motherfucker!’ So, my question to you racist Christers, which do you suppose will be more effective in getting your voices heard and your genetic interests protected (in this case your faith gene), slinking off like pussies or standing and asserting your interests like men? But it may be objected: ‘I’m the eminent so and such, I’m accustomed to a certain level of respect.’ LOL! Are you sure you ain’t just a highfalutin pussy? Of course this advice is also applicable to other ‘scholars’ and ‘biological scientists’ who shall remain nameless. 167
Posted by danielj on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:05 | #
I made a point and you made a completely different point. So, my question to you racist Christers, which do you suppose will be more effective in getting your voices heard and your genetic interests protected (in this case your faith gene), slinking off like pussies or standing and asserting your interests like men? I think I’ve made it very clear that I’m a firm believer in option 2. I believe I ended one of my posts on the subject this way: We’ll see who is maladaptive, mother fuckers. Please, do continue to put the term “faith gene” in quotes because that is certainly where it belongs and has no right to stray beyond or outside that domain. 168
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:52 | #
My (admittedly condensed point) is that religions evolve from morals which evolve from tribes. Thus they differ from one to another. Religion is then merely the window dressing to give them specified form and social focus/function. Remove the religious window dressing however and the morals will, generally, remain. In other words, the morals came BEFORE the religions. As an example, did the European preference for monogamy come from the Bible, the Gospels, the letters of Paul and so on, or was it an indigenous moral proclivity? ... 169
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55 | # Narrator: “You don’t find it more than coincidental that the liberalism we all bemoan has flourished ONLY within “Christendom”. - Liberalism has flourished in different forms in Babylon, Assyria, Rome, Turkish empire, old Chinese empire etc. It exists increasingly in Japan and is threatening to emerge in China, although it has long way to go there. - That is why Christianity will not disappear. “Actually I think he said he came to FULFILL them, not add to them.” - Jesus said and indicated clearly that he followed the teachings of prophets, e.g. Matthew 5: 1-9, 5: 17-20, 22: 23-46, 23: 1-40. Later he abolished those rules that were made possible by his presence. “But its’ central universalist tenant was present.” - Universalism (tenet) was present in it in the same way as universalism in Salter’s universal nationalism. “Look at the interchangeability of the Christian monarchy.” - Exogamy existed in Europe long before Christianity. It is an unfortunate natural propensity of Europeans. - I suggest you deduct hundred points if I even mention Auster. I will link Auster if see it as necessary or happen to feel like doing so. GW: “It was forced upon them by the usual means, at the command of warlords.” - Bishop Henrik was such a crook in Finland, and that is why Lalli killed him by hitting him with an ax to the head in Köyliö lake. Jesus said that tree is known for it’s fruits. That is valid method of evaluating individual Christians. Some are bad, most are good. “Do you mean that you alone have hold of some “real” version of the creed.” - No, Jesus alone is the author of the real version of the faith. Ps. About community endurance. In the beginning community relies more on rules and community culture to maintain endogamy/ ethnocentrism. With increasing group evolution, endogamy/ ethnocentrism becomes more and more a propensity. When in each generation those that have irresistable inclination to liberalism go away, it makes upholding endogamy/ ethnocentrism increasingly a lot easier. Those that are now pro-European are on average more ethnocentric than others. This spontaneous self-selection is a good starting point to community. It could be intensified with deliberate selection for ethnocentrism, but I don’t see it as necessary at the present situation. About faith “gene”. First of all, of course, countless genes affect religiosity/ religious experiences, like individualism traits. There are countless different reliogisities and religious experiences inside each religion. Second, to talk about genes is reductionists. Content of religion, culture, environment, upbringing, experiences etc. have more effect on religiosity than genes. In brains religious experiences are the results of normal and healthy brain functions in combinations that depend on the nature of religious experience in question. They are not the results of pathological or random processes. (d’Aquili and Newberg, 1998, 1999)(Newberg, d’Aquili and Rause 2001)(Atran 2002). Brain regions connected to religious experiences include in different combinations right parietal lobe, left parietal lobe, frontal lobes, left posterior superior parietal lobe, inferior portion of the parietal lobe in the left hemisphere, amyglada, hippocampus, temporal lobe etc. The ability to experience religious experiences in the brains include, but are not limited to the following; logical thinking; mathematical thinking; word processing; visual and space processing; will; consciousness; sensory processing; decision making ability and the ability to estimate importance (including the ethnocentric/ endogamy propensity); the ability to relax, the ability to feel pleasure; the ability to be active and excited; the social ability to interpret/ estimate other people’s goals, intentions and thoughts; fear and hope; balance; etc. So, indeed, breed out religiosity from your relatives. Genes are marked by codes, like HBA1, CYP21, Cry2, MFAP2 etc. You can start by listing genes which have effect on religiosity/religious experiences (The list will be long). (Damasio, 1994)(LeDoux, 1996)(MacLean, 1990)(Schacter, 1997)(Aggleton and Passingham, 1991)(Bremner, Staib et al, 1999)(Cahil et al, 1994)(McCaugh et al, 1995)(McReady 2002)(Persinger, 1983)(Gloor et al, 1982)(Geschwind, 1983)(Gelhorn and Kiely, 1972)(LeDoux, 1993)(Lynch, 1980)(Wheeler, Stuss and Tulving, 1997)(Sperber et al, 1995)(Nagel, 1961)(Rosch et al, 1976)(Atran et al 1997)(d’Aquili, 1986)(Hauser, 2000)(Leventhal and Scherer, 1987)(Ellsworth, 1991)(Keltner, Ellsworth and Edwards, 1993)(Persinger, 1987)(Passingham, 1993)(Corcoran, Mercer, Frith, 1995)(Baron-Cohen, 1995)(Barrett et al, 2001)(Knight et al, 2001)(Garcia, Ervin and Koelling, 1966)(Eliade, 1964)(Kelley, 1958)(Slater and Beard, 1963)(Dewhurst and Beard, 1970)(Beard, 1979)(Gloor et al, 1982)(Karagulla and Robertson, 1955)(Larkin, 1979)(Stern and Silbersweig, 1998)(Muser, Bellack and Brady, 1990)(Oulis et al, 1995)(LaBar et al, 1995)(Hustig and Hafner, 1990)(Zisook et al, 1995)(Worthington et al, 1996)(Hughdahl, 1996)(Phillips and David, 1995)(Knight and Grabowecky, 1995)(Hooker, Roese and Parks, 2000)(Leslie and Frith, 1987 and 1988)(Lotter, 1966)(Bauman and Kemper, 1985)(Delong, 1992)(Aggleton and Passingham 1981)(Zola-Morgan et al, 1991)(Bachevalier and Merjanian, 1994)(Geuter-Newitt, 1956)(Kent and Wahass, 1996)(Wahass and Kent, 1997)(Hay, 1990)(Spilka, Brown and Cassidy, 1992)(Thomas and Cooper, 1978)(Hay and Heald, 1987) 170
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:04 | # CC, who has more power in our societies, those who shout f.ck the loudest or those who produce logical and reasonable functional information? 171
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:24 | # Finn, The vast preponderance of faith behaviour is in the service of evolutionary fitness. And faith - or, at least, belief in a deity - is not a prerequisite for the esoteric remainder. Intentionality is enough. 172
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56 | # GW: “The vast preponderance of faith behaviour is in the service of evolutionary fitness.” - Faith and evolutionary fitness are one. They can’t be separated. If you try, you will ensure your failure. You don’t seem to know anything about religion., except what liberals have taught you. 173
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:44 | #
Auster thinks Roman Polanski should have been left alone because, well, let’s face it, all he did was rape a shiksa. Inhuman filth like that cannot be allowed to be our teachers and masters. I’d rather suck Zyklon-B than submit.
Ask your friends the Jews. 174
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:54 | # Finn, I have no way to understand why anyone practises social religion or holds any belief at all in a deity. About the remainder, however, I might be informed just a little. 175
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:06 | #
The arcane few need the deity, the remainder need the deity’s stick. 176
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:19 | # CC, it is possible that Auster had insufficient information. After all, he, like others, have to obtain some of the information from the liberal media. When the details of the case was pointed to him, he recanted. It is also possible, of course, that his initial reaction was partly or wholly a tribal instinct. It is likely that the initial reaction was a combination of both. I don’t judge your reaction. It is the same kind of absolute black and white reaction that is typical to liberals and is the same than Jewish, Muslim etc. middle-eastern reactions. It is protective in our balkanized insane liberal world in the same way than it has been proven to be effective in the long history of middle-east. I would like to, however, point to you that what distinguishes you and other similar people from liberals, Jews, Muslims etc. is that there is almost nothing inside the protective crust, words resound in the hollow interior. Thus, it is important to build the necessary structures to our continuity to make the crust reasonable. I will continue to make fine and large distinctions and in the process I gather information and contemplate all kinds of things. I make distinctions e.g. between selectively bolshevik apologizing, history distortionist and communist mass murder denier Anne Appelbaum and traditional conservative Lawrence Auster. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014415.html Polanski? To the jail, long sentence, no mercy. Ps. Something liberal in the end that you love to hate http://www.guavaleaf.com/video/1603/Prince-And-The-Revolution—Little-Red-Corvette http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-196646101143773778# 177
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:25 | #
If such is the case, why be an advocate? Say nothing. Auster:
http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2009/09/outrageous-defense-of-roman-polanski.html 178
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:06 | # Desmond, I had the impression that Auster’s initial opinion was that Polanski had sex with (willing) underage girl (statutory rape the legal term?). Whatever the case, I advocate what I write and link (sometimes not all the content behind the link), not every opinion of the linked persons. Sometimes I link persons whose opinions I don’t advocate at all, but I see necessary to link them because of some reasons. 180
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:30 | # Finn, There was no need for Auster to post at all about Polanski until after he was informed. However, his knee jerk reaction was to proclaim the arrest as “America’s vendetta against Roman Polanski”. Why would “America”, whoever that is, have a vendetta against Polanski? 181
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:43 | # Finn, Those were fine words from Auster. Whatever his motivation in writing them I do not care, it is what he does as effects our people which is important. If Jews would but cease to harm us I would no longer have any quarrels with them. It is just they be given that opportunity, and right they take advantage of it. 182
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:34 | #
As I said, the liberalism *WE* (as in Western Man) bemoan flourished only within Christendom.
I wasn’t talking about Christianity.
.
.
If the above passage from Revelation ch. 7 isn’t vomit inducing in all of its Marxist -multicult- rainbow imagery, I don’t know what is. That “paradise” represents the antithesis of all that we stand for. It is the kingdom we now fight against. It is the kingdom we must always fight against.
If you want to quote an article a non-White wrote which contains facts and information, that’s one thing. (most articles seem to be written by jews anyway so it is unavoidable). I have no problem with linking to an article Auster wrote in reference to a fact or set of facts. .... 183
Posted by danielj on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:03 | # As I said, the liberalism *WE* (as in Western Man) bemoan flourished only within Christendom. I’m not exactly sure which fallacy you are commiting with this line of reasoning. Perhaps it is affirming the consequent? How do we know it wouldn’t have flourished otherwise? We can’t really assume that it wouldn’t have. Also, you can’t have it both ways. If Christianity was informed by Europeans than Europeans are the essential and immutable feature of European culture and the should have created this decaying rot of a society regardless of whether Christianity was adopted as our creed or not. This is evidenced by the plain and simple fact that Europe has turned her back to Christ and opened her arms wide to third world pollution. I hope you will acknowledge your inconcsistency on this point and adjust your theory accordingly. 184
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:12 | #
Isn’t religion most often the example of that? .
The “otherwise” didn’t occur, so the natural and logical point of reference is to what did, no? .
What I’ve said is that Christianity was informed by For example, Paul, a jew, was a Roman citizen. Rome allowed conquered peoples the ability to become citizens (or in Paul’s case, to be born citizens). That was a very, very bad idea. That’s what I’m getting at Daniel. When I said European culture informed Christianity, I wasn’t implying it was a positive thing. Christianity was the mutant offspring of cultural miscegenation. .
Actually, considering what Christian dogma actually espouses I’d say Europe’s open arms for the third world is an indication that it is becoming more Christian, not less. ... 185
Posted by danielj on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:53 | # Isn’t religion most often the example of that? Have you listend to the Bahnsen/Stein debate? Have you read the Alan Myatt text yet? Are you familiar with the arguments of the Presuppositionalists yet like Dr. Bahnsen and John Frame et al? The “otherwise” didn’t occur, so the natural and logical point of reference is to what did, no? Are you admitting that you are indeed affirming the consequent or not? I would agree that we can make guesses but that we should take pre and post Christian Europe into consideration, particularly post-Christian Europe as it is presently constituted; liberal, effete, groveling, radical, self-doubting/self-loathing and pre-Christian Europe compared to the barbarians surrounding it. Europeans have always had “more” Chrisitanized values than the rest of the human race and are therefore inherently more liberal by your definition. For example, Paul, a jew, was a Roman citizen. Rome allowed conquered peoples the ability to become citizens (or in Paul’s case, to be born citizens). That was a very, very bad idea. The Roman empire, near its peak, fully controlled by Euros allowed Jews to become citizens? Humm… (Danielj scratches head) What I’ve said is that Christianity was informed by Have you, or have you not said numerous times in divers manners that Europe informed Christianity more than the reverse? That is what my argument was hinged upon. That’s what I’m getting at Daniel. When I said European culture informed Christianity, I wasn’t implying it was a positive thing. Christianity was the mutant offspring of cultural miscegenation. Are you going to qualify that you don’t find all cultural exchange negative? Or are we now to be prohibited from cultural and exchange by rational, white nationalist polities? Will you now aruge as well then that European biology was no match for the effects of a combination of the three cultural points you’ve raised? What then exactly did the Europeans bring to the table? How did they “inform” anything? It sounds like you are arguing that they were conquered by three measely memetic imports! Actually, considering what Christian dogma actually espouses I’d say Europe’s open arms for the third world is an indication that it is becoming more Christian, not less. This is not representative of the normal qulity of your posts and I consider it straw grasping. You’re now telling me that rejecting Christ and the marriage of atheistic materialism to the former Christendom and the resultant moral decline that has ravage us is the product of Chrsitianity? Your soteriology is fundamentally unsound or you are intentionally being coy. Suffering, is not vicarous “just cuz” regardless of who is doing it and why and how and you know that. God doesn’t tell you to autoimmolate for the greater good. Violently ripping passages out of context isn’t very Presbyterian of you. 186
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:45 | # Narrator: “As I said, the liberalism *WE* (as in Western Man) bemoan flourished only within Christendom.” - Rome was liberal before Christianity and liberalism destroyed it. In the end when over 90% of Rome’s soldiers in Italy were foreigners the game was finally over. It seems that you don’t know what causes liberalism. It is a function of increasing system complexity, striving towards universal power and individualization /loss of group unity and culture. (Jürgen Habermas; Theory of Communicative Action, vol 1 and vol 2). It is a function of commercialization, bureaucratization and clientilization with a deep knowledge increasingly everything that is in humans; needs, desires, normalness, deviations, ethnic variations, fears/ need for security/ uncertainty, secularity, religions, intelligence, stupidity, hopes, sex, work, waking hours, sleeping hours, entertainment, politics etc. (Michel Foucault; Abnormal; Discipline and Punish; Security, Territory and Population; The Birth of Biopolitics; History of Sexuality, three volumes). It is probably natural that we don’t bemoan so much liberalism among non-Europeans than among us, but it doesn’t/ didn’t reduce their liberalism and it’s destructiveness one bit. “If the above passage from Revelation ch. 7 isn’t vomit inducing in all of its Marxist -multicult- rainbow imagery, I don’t know what is.” - I make several points: * The text you quoted just reflects the fact that there are Christians among all nations and they will be all rewarded by God. That doesn’t tell anything about how their communities and societies should be arranged. Jesus explained and showed that with his example (ethnic communities). If you see hundred different ethnic groups participating Salter’s universal nationalism conference, do you accuse them of multicult-cultural marxism. * If you would have read the whole text of revelation, you would have noticed that Babylon, the first extreme liberal multiethnic and multicultural city/ kingdom is the city/ kingdom of satan, and it receives the judgement and destruction from God (Revelations 17-19). * Jesus is the the most important source of Christianity. * I presume you are an American. If your parents didn’t immigrate to US recently, your ancestors understood well that although blacks had the same Christian faith, it was still forbidden according to the Bible to miscegenate with them. 187
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:17 | #
I read it.
It’s an interesting argument, nothing more. In fact it kind of falls into the same category as C.S. Lewis. It’s only truly compelling to those who are already predisposed to believing.
Nope.
Don’t confuse late era Rome and Greece for all of Europe. And there is still one school that upholds that the pagan Anglo-Saxons ethnically cleansed Britain of its native peoples rather than blend with them. It seems it was that late-era Roman Empire (the one in which Jesus and his followers were born into) that bequeathed to The West so many bad habits.
Outside of some sort of shampoo issue I don’t know why you’d be scratching your head. And yes Daniel, Europeans can do stupid things. And if there is anything dumber than the practice of internationalizing citizenship, it is institutionalizing that practice into a religion.
Not only have I done so previously, but even in this very thread. And just a few posts up. Two-thirds of that are European.
That’s actually a funny question. If I give you the answer from my own cultural worldview, then I would be compelled to say that, indeed, all cultural exchange is negative. You could point out, for example, that my alphabet was Latin, but that would only harden my resolve. It’s a cultural thing. Were I king for a day I’d bulldoze the interstates and decree that no one could move or live more than 10 to 20 miles from where they were born. Again, that’s cultural. A more “enlightened” response would be that there doesn’t appear to have ever been a hell of a lot to exchange with, culturally speaking, outside of The West. And certainly today there is nothing worth exchanging with out there. With the technological advances we now have (and seeing the dreadful conditions the other races are creating for themselves), The West can be 100% self dependent and thus could and should wall out the rest of the world, both psychologically and physically.
1. Rome and Greece were local, thus their “memes” were not imported. 2. Europe was conquered by military and economic dominance. In biblical parlance, you could not buy or sell unless you had the mark of The Christ. .
No offense, but your question/comment there is a little hard to decipher the way it is written. If I’m reading it right, then perhaps this will help answer the question, http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/02/Whats-A-Red-Letter-Christian.aspx .
.
.
.
.
.
What is liberal and destructive to us is naturally going to be different for them.
It creates the explicit image of a mixed race congregation. And it rather bluntly sets the dividing line, not between races, but between religious affiliation. Universalism is poison no matter what guise it takes. It may work slower in some systems than in others, but eventually is destroys its host. .
If it was of different races I’d accuse it of being ironic, self-nullifying and just plain dumb.
You don’t find it a bit paradoxical that Babylon and Heaven have so much in common?
Yes, I’m American. My family has been here for centuries. And in point of fact my immediate ancestors (grandparents and great-grandparents) didn’t even believe blacks had souls, let alone that they could be Christians. Like most, they never actually read the bible or considered its implications.
. 188
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:17 | # Narrator, I start to understand you better. What your claims boil down to (minus claims about the content of Christianity) could be right in certain contexts. What you seem to say that any images, texts policies etc. which could be interpreted, however wrongly, to be advocacy for liberal universalism, should be rejected, banned etc. That creates one kind of communities, and they are legimate from the ethnocentric point of view. That is one way of protecting our people. We have in principle mostly the same goals in this life. Where there is a little difference in practical methods is this: You want total rejection of liberal universalism or anything that could be even misunderstood to be that. I want to create an immunity against liberal universalism and any misunderstandings which produce liberal universalism. I want to create people so resistant to liberalism that even if liberal propaganda, liberal entertainment, liberal emotional cajolery, liberal decadence etc. is constantly poured over them, they reject it stone cold and remain stalwartly ethnocentric. - Yes, for the ethnic communities, which is exactly what we need. “What is liberal and destructive to us is naturally going to be different for them.” - There is no practical difference between the liberalism of Babylon, it’s increasing degeneracy, decadence and weakening, and eventual destruction, and the same happening in the Western world now. “It creates the explicit image of a mixed race congregation. And it rather bluntly sets the dividing line, not between races, but between religious affiliation. It creates a non-Racial Us vs. Them.” - Isn’t that a bit extreme. Different people are mentioned in the same context in the end of times (meaning eventual afterlife in Heaven and profound change in being), while the explicit teaching of Christianity for earthly life is ethnocentric. Using the same logic do you see any multiracial picture dangerous, e.g. different race prime ministers shaking hands in a conference? “If it was of different races I’d accuse it of being ironic, self-nullifying and just plain dumb.” - Why? They are all endogamous, against immigration, reciprocally supportive, and open to reasonable trade and cooperation between countries in a way that respects ethnicities and races. “You don’t find it a bit paradoxical that Babylon and Heaven have so much in common? - They have almost nothing in common. On earth we have material bodies, Dna, ethnic and cultural differences, small intelligences (including the highest intelligencies); large differences in IQs in relation to our context, sexes, procreation, spouse competition, limited resources, compelling work, diseases, death, large status and power differences, all kinds of threats and risks etc. In heaven there probably is some residue of ethnicity, but ethnocentrism and endogamy does not make sense, because there is no procreation (ethnic mixing in afterlife is not possible); competition for limited resources has ceased and it is replaced by new and different goals; there is no status competition; there is no death or diseases; no material bodies; no profound differences in the spirits in the context of heaven; etc., and it is arranged, ruled and uphold by God in a way that He knows is everlasting. God gave us ethnocentric rules to earthly life exactly because of our earthly reality. Babylon is a mutiny against God and His rules, indulgence in decadence and degeneracy, and laughable, but dangerous attempt to raise humans to god status. 189
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:43 | #
Not exactly. The New Testament is not ambiguous on the question of the universality of eternal destination. Nor is it shy of inferring the ultimate irrelevance of non-spiritual alliances and loyalties in this physical world. So it’s not a matter of a dispute over the interpretation of one passage of text or another, because, in the end, the undeniable impression one is left with is that of a singular entity (the church) awaiting it’s shared destiny. White, black, brown or yellow, all are the “bride” of Christ. And that in itself is a very middle-eastern sentiment and an additional reminder of the fact that a good portion of the themes of the New Testament text are alien to Western thinking. The image of the “bride of Christ” is basically that of a cosmic harem. Or at the least, a fairly direct derivation of the polygamous arrangement; One husband, many wives. I’m not advocating that these universalistic philosophies and images should be outright censored, but that they should be appropriately demonized when they do reach the light of day.
Taken alone the words of Jesus could certainly be seen as ethnocentric. Yet the gospels along with the letters of Paul set a context that is rather different. Even at that Jesus contradicts himself though. Or at least the text does in its latter additions made in order to justify its international aspirations.
.
.
I was speaking more to the fact that both Babylon and Heaven are multi-racial. Anything that is multi-racial is liberal (Marxist) by definition.
Where in the New Testament text is there an explicit advocacy of earthly life being ethnocentric? And what of this profound change in being? Are you saying the Bible teaches that race is ultimately irrelevant?
Depends on the context. In times past no so much, but given our predicament today and the lax attitudes many already share, I’d say any such image which denotes a general equality is dangerous.
Because I believe the races are profoundly different. At current they may appear similar but that is only the veneer courtesy of the Western cultural dominance of the past few centuries. Beyond that shallow similarity profound differences are still concrete and lasting.
Do you really understand what you wrote above? I could run with that, but I’ll just quickly address the specifics within. As I told Gorboduc, I don’t want a single non-White within a thousand miles of me or my family. I don’t want to know them or even to know of them. I’m not interested in them or their predicaments whether good or tragic. If half of Africa falls into the ocean tomorrow morning, I’ll go right on eating my cornflakes. If South America is wiped out by an asteroid next weekend, I’ll go right on enjoying my free time without giving it a second thought. If that sounds extreme to someone, then they’ve not considered the seriousness of our current crisis. ... 190
Posted by Frank on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:23 | # Good men can be of any ethnicity, but they cease being good when they abandon their own people for other good men. There’s no way to pit father against son etc. without violating the Commandments. Just because the faithful are saved doesn’t mean the next life is multiracial. I’m doubtful we could comprehend the next life. 191
Posted by Frank on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:27 | # As you point out: a multiracial next life where we’re separated from our kin would seem like Hell. There’s just no way such could be so. 192
Posted by danielj on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:28 | # It says the NATIONS stand before the throne, not a globalized lumpenprole. The people have not lost their national distinctions. One can take any one passage in the Bible and find something that seems to contradict it in another spot. This is why systematic theology is so important. The Narrator doesn’t wanna argue systems though, he wants to quibble about concepts in his head that are ill-defined then backtrack when confronted, obfuscate and confuse the issue at hand with muddled thinking that jumps from topic to topic because then his position becomes jelly and nobody can nail that to the wall. Europeans are liberal. That is all there is to it. Two questions for our brother the Narrator: 1)Do you object to Kevin Macdonald essentially characterizing Euros as liberal, especially in comparison to other races? 2)Do you accept genetic determinism GW style? 193
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:22 | #
Okay??? Well, that still only proves my point, actually. But, in case you still aren’t seeing it,
.
.
.
.
. And As I pointed out in another post, Jesus separates mankind into TWO (and only two) camps.
Granted, you may be able to dig up some translation that phrases it’s translation somewhat differently (as there are about 17,000 different bibles out there) nevertheless the theme the text provides is undeniable. And that theme is one of Saved and Un-Saved. Heaven or Hell. .
Who are you talking to?
First you suggested that all I need to do is read the Bible. When I tell you I have and demonstrate that fact through textual references you turn around then and seem to suggest that my problem is that I’m not a true scholar on the subject. You accuse me of wanting to quibble right after you tell me that “It says the NATIONS stand before the throne, not a globalized lumpenprole” as though that were counter to my point. And it’s beyond ironic that you use words such as “muddled”, “confuse” and “ill-defined” in the context of me holding up scripture to let it speak for itself.
So now you are talking directly with me again? Well, I’ll tell you what, brother, if you’ll give me specific examples ( as in links to their specific writings on the particular subjects you outlined) instead of fuzzy summaries of what you personally think they’re saying, I’ll give you my opinion. How bout that? ... 194
Posted by danielj on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:35 | # In the five translations used above, the language is of a SINGLE group gathered “out of” or “from” ever nation. And As I pointed out in another post, Jesus separates mankind into TWO (and only two) camps. Yes, we agree on that. I just don’t see how it is that big of a deal and the resurrection of the body implies to me that race still exists in Heaven. Granted, you may be able to dig up some translation that phrases it’s translation somewhat differently (as there are about 17,000 different bibles out there) nevertheless the theme the text provides is undeniable. And that theme is one of Saved and Un-Saved. Heaven or Hell. Agreed. I don’t see how it could really be any differently. I’m not sure how I got into an argument about Heaven though. Generally, you and I are talking about social policy in a hypothetical Christian country usually. I think we’ve covered sufficiently and established the fact that you are revolted by the prospect of a multi-racial afterlife. I guess part of the problem stems from the fact that you are always responding to three or four of us and then I start getting posts jumbled up. It is probably easier to carry on correspondance like this through a different medium. And it’s beyond ironic that you use words such as “muddled”, “confuse” and “ill-defined” in the context of me holding up scripture to let it speak for itself. It just isn’t that simple and you are always being forced to defend yourself from too many angles. It is a really bad format. I’m gonna backtrack and say that I don’t actually think that your thinking is inconsistent but that the way we broach the subject doesn’t enable either of us to fully outline our positions properly. After all, I’m trying to defend - in my weak and limited way - a system and not random passages of Scripture. Again, multi-racial heaven is a settled issue but my point is that the nations haven’t lost their ‘identity’ if that makes sense. Yes, there are only sheep and goats on the spiritual level, but that doesn’t really bother me like it does you. I suppose we are going a better direction and I am much more interested in your theories about your hypothetical ethno-state; bulldozing the freeways and such. Kmac characterizes Europeans as genetically predisposed to moral universalism and radical individualism. Do you really need specific links for that assertion? Guessedworker has repeatedly, although not always clearly, stated that all there is, is matter. Anybody that accepts that, must as a logical corollory accept the principles of genetic determinism; i.e. genes determine absolutely everything. Both of their writings are sort of laced with this thinking. How about I just send them emails and ask them if this is an accurate description of their views instead? Regardless, I’m interested in your take on the matter. I apologize. I was a bit rude, I didn’t mean to be. Moving on:
If it is an argument, then it has to be refuted. C.S. Lewis is nowhere in the same league in my opinion. Anyway, what it boils down to is TAG and TANG in my opinion. Here is the best, very concise, way to understand the positions fully: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html Addressing the actual post:
I think this speaks to the issue half directly. 195
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:39 | #
Well that would be a theological debate. And I think that point illustrates some of the nature of the conversation here. As to the question about discussing heaven in this thread, I believe it came about within the context of how a society views their idea of utopia or the ideal to which they strive.
I keep getting the impression that when I say I know the bible, no one believes me. Did the fellow who wrote the following, years ago, have any insight at all into the system of which you speak?
. I hope that is clear. In other words European altruism is exclusive to Europeans and thus can only function between Europeans. And certainly what we see today is imposed from above rather than being a natural inclusiveness. Christian ethics is certainly in the top few potential considerations for an answer. I’ll read through the apologetic links you gave and respond latter. It will take a while to go through them. ... 197
Posted by Frank on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:31 | #
The response might be: genes + environment + cultural memes = how a person will act/think/be. 198
Posted by danielj on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:30 | # The response might be: genes + environment + cultural memes = how a person will act/think/be. That is still a variant of determinism. Not that I’m not to some extent. Consistent Calvinists don’t believe in Libertarian Free Will, but it is a different brand of determinsim in my opinion. 199
Posted by danielj on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:40 | # My understanding, and what I’ve always been taught, is that there is a spiritual body, not a physical one, that awaits us on the other side. (1st. Corinthians 15:46-58) I would definitely disagree and we could produce a wealth of Scripture to indicate a bodily resurrection. Particuarly, the fact that Jesus is alleged to be the firstborn from the dead and that Thomas believed on account of the corporeal manifestation of Christ to himself after missing out on the Disciples first encounter in the upper room. However, there is much more than that. The Scriptures referring to the arguments between the Pharisees and the Saducees about the resurrection of the the body where Christ (or perhaps Paul, I forget exactly) comes down squarely with the camp that does believe in the resurrection of the body. A new heavens and a new earth is what is promised to us. Something material, that is. Maybe not the exact material that exists now, but a new and everlasting Garden of Eden. As to the question about discussing heaven in this thread, I believe it came about within the context of how a society views their idea of utopia or the ideal to which they strive. Indeed. However, universal morality applied in specific political bodies, which I read as tribal ordering, seems to me what God requires. I don’t think he requires multi-racialism of us on earth and that one can make a convincing case for this position from Scripture from within a proper Reformed hermeneutic that is creedal and orthodox. I’ll get back to the rest later. 200
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:39 | # Narrator: “... because we are sinners in a fallen world!” - Because we are human. And we have to eat too, and sleep. ““I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” -Jesus, Matthew 15: 24 “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” -Jesus, John 12:32” - You seem to offer these to us like you made discoveries which nobody else have noticed. All who know Bible, know about these things. As I said earlier, on earthly life Jesus set the the ethnocentric example and teaching, which is spread universally after his death. So the accurate meaning of Matthew 15: 24 in it’s proper context is “On earthly life I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel and I will spread this ethnocentric religion to all mankind after my death.” “Anything that is multi-racial is liberal (Marxist) by definition.” - By your definition earth is Marxist. 201
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:42 | # Addition: By your definition earth is (liberal) Marxist. By the way, Marx was racist (Nathaniel Weyl; Karl Marx, Racist). 202
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:46 | # . For example Van Till writes here http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html under ‘Implication’ that,
The above is what I meant when I wrote in another thread that to ponder the mysteries of the world in depth is a luxury afforded to those with a lot of free time on their hands. And this may be why Christianity was pretty much exclusive to urban centers in its early centuries. It would seem that most Pagan religions weren’t concerned with the how or why of origins. They were basically utilitarian in that they were employed not to answer questions but to make the crops grow. Throughout human history man has spent his time trying to survive, day-to-day, in a mostly inhospitable world. In fact nature itself tends to testify against the eternal as everything in nature dies. Again, this we learn from experience, not through deep questioning of the why and how. And what we learn and pass on is how to survive day-in, day-out in a hostile world. When we move out of that mode we are susceptible to destruction. The White Man today spends his time pondering deep philosophical and existential questions (of origins, sins, wrong and right, truth and justice, etc…) even as the physical world he treads upon falls into ruin. The season has turned. Thieves have broken into the cellar, wolves have gathered in the forest, foreigners are plundering on the roads and in the heart of darkest winter, as his wife and children are starving and under attack, the White man is in his attic studying the color of frogs and pondering absolutely useless questions like, “what does it all mean? Why am I here?”
Yes, but that is a “spiritual body”. Jesus himself was not recognized after he came back and seemed to be able to appear and disappear, walk through walls and so on.
.
It would seem the majority of Christians don’t share that interpretation. At the very least can it be said that God forbids multi-racialism on earth?
No, I offered them up because that is generally how such discussions are held. I offer up specific points of reference so you can see specifically that which I am speaking of. How can you have a debate about the meaning and content of the bible if you don’t quote relevant text from it?
Actually the context is that Israel is the children of God and we gentiles are mere animals,
.
Only if you believe that it was designed and destined to be multi-racial. ...
.... 203
Posted by Frank on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:39 | #
Is that speculation or is there a basis? 204
Posted by Frank on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:50 | # I’d be interested in hearing of a religion that wasn’t concerned with origins and purpose. Civilised men have need to think on what is moral so they can learn to act as they ought to. But that’s not the same as saying they ought to drop out from the world and only think on such things. Moral training is simply a part of growing up. That most Christians today are depraved morons is beside the point. Most atheists too are likely depraved morons… It’s just a sign that we’re in moral decay - without a guiding center. There doesn’t need to be a complex answer to everything; there just needs to be an answer. Attending church once a week and schools that actually teach is all we need.
Babel and prohibition against unequal yoking (marriage). 205
Posted by Frank on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:53 | # Cicero I think is a fine example. He wanted to continue serving his state (Rome), and only when he couldn’t do that did he write. 206
Posted by Frank on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:18 | # You could possibly have a “philosophy” that left the question of God open and established a set of ethics around the need to preserve a race, but there wouldn’t be as much of a basis for it. You could establish traditions and teach the need of each generation to not let up else they lose all they hold dear. It sounds like this is what many folks want - maybe that’s what we’ll get. Putting evolution there or some accepted atheism bothers me a great deal though. I don’t comprehend how that could possibly work except via manipulation (e.g. constant propaganda or peer pressure to keep people in line). 207
Posted by Frank on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:31 | # It’s the concept of the sacred or just that keeps a man working hard or fighting hard etc. when he doesn’t have to. Why does a good politician who is fully able to enjoy the pleasures of life not reject Israel’s prostitutes and vote for war on Iran if he doesn’t really believe it will affect him or his loved ones? Why ought he embrace race if he’s truly on attached to his wife and immediate family? Religion is not inherently a manipulation like promising 72 white virgins to a Semite. In my mind it’s allowing a naturally good man to believe and not taking that away from him. Some men live to serve - it’s as vital to them as bread and water. They inherently seek out God, and they inherently wish to serve. Others are depraved or uninterested in thinking along such things, but some relish duty. And only the holy can fill that need. 209
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:54 | #
Speculation. That’s why I said, “It would seem…” But I don’ recall much focus on the creation of man in old mythologies. Most of the stories focus on the function of the gods in regards to their relation to various natural causes. The origin of man doesn’t seem to really be the point of most mythologies such as Greek or Norse mythology.
Care to expand? 210
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:04 | # The U.S. Protestant Evangelicals are now aboard the race-replacement endorsement train: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014473.html . To listen to a discussion with Prof. Tom Sunic and Prof. Kevin MacDonald on the role played by Christianity in today’s Eurosphere race-replacement crisis, go to this page, http://reasonradionetwork.com/?page_id=55 ; in the right-hand margin under “More,” look down the list of titles (in red) for “The New Nationalist Perspective: Sunic and MacDonald on Christianity (Part 1 of 2) • [mp3]” and click on “[mp3].” (Whatever mp3 player your computer uses will then prompt you to click this or that to get the audio started.) In the audio discussion Prof. Sunic wonders if Christianity is at fault independently of the Zeitgeist and says he published an opinion in the affirmative on that question in 1994: it was Christianity, not the Zeitgeist. Prof. MacDonald says Christianity is at fault only secondarily, in that it conforms to a Zeitgeist made corrupt and unhealthy by other forces extrinsic to Christianity proper. Prof. Sunic asks why Christianity doesn’t resist that corrupt, unhealthy Zeitgeist instead of conforming to it. Prof. MacDonald doesn’t really answer that. Sunic has a point. Think of the Vatican, one of the big promoters of race-replacement today: the Zeitgeist demands of today’s Catholicism that it ordain openly practicing homosexual men as priests, condone the practice and lifestyle of homosexuality and endorse the socio-political theory of homosexualism in principle, agree to perform marriages of same-sex couples, ordain women as priests, permit priests to marry, condone abortion, and promote race-replacement of white people. Of those, the Vatican conforms solely to the last, rejecting the other six. Why not reject all seven? Clearly Prof. MacDonald is wrong, and it’s not the Zeitgeist’s doing entirely. Some other element is in play, and that is as Sunic states, a grave defect in Christianity along the lines of making it hard for Christians to see that there are grounds even in Christianity for discriminating in some kinds of situations, race being one. What the Vatican should be doing is clarifying this issue for Catholics worldwide but it’s not doing it, so the world’s Euro-race Catholic faithful erroneously believe it’s some sort of sin to question their own race-replacement. The Vatican is committing the crime of the decamillennium in letting them go on believing that. 211
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:53 | #
I’ve never seen a demographic breakdown of White Catholics, but their numbers must be small. Only 23% of Americans are Catholics and considering the numbers of hispanics here, White Catholics are probably no more than 6 to 9% of the total population.
... 212
Posted by danielj on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:34 | # At the very least can it be said that God forbids multi-racialism on earth? I would agree with Frank. It can generally be stated in broad form that God prohibits it. There is no specific New Testament command that explicitly states “Thou shall not miscegenate” but it is certainly there to be deduced from the prohibition against being unequally yoked. Danielj, reading through the links you provided I’m left with the same impression I had the first time I read some of Van Til’s writings on the subject. (unless you have a specific article in mind that you think best sums up their apologetic approach) He, I believe, operated on the mistaken assumption that everyone was as naturally curious about the origins of things as he was. Maybe I’ll find some more articles but they will most likely be by Dr. Greg Bahnsen and not ol’ Cornelius. I would argue that he is operating under the assumption that epistemology is a rational starting point for human knowledge and that the only foundation for human knowledge not made of sand is TAG. Rationality, order, laws of logic, mathematics; these things all presuppose the triune God of the Christian Bible. I guess what I want to know is what alternative you believe in that accounts for all that? Perhaps you just don’t care to have rational beliefs? The Pagans definitely, whether or not they tried to account for the origin of the universe, (I haven’t read the entire Poetic Edda or any history books on Druids so I can’t say that I know the answer for certain but I’m inclined to believe that the Edda certainly accounts for the origins of man. We also know that the Greeks have their own story that explains the origins of the universe and man.) were certainly irrational and wrong. In my opinion, Van Til and his modern followers/exponents are rational and right. The above is what I meant when I wrote in another thread that to ponder the mysteries of the world in depth is a luxury afforded to those with a lot of free time on their hands. And this may be why Christianity was pretty much exclusive to urban centers in its early centuries. It would seem that most Pagan religions weren’t concerned with the how or why of origins. They were basically utilitarian in that they were employed not to answer questions but to make the crops grow. I knew what you meant and I agreed with the essential line of reasoning. I just felt like there was a bit of a qualification required. Christianity is a complex faith. This is because it accounts for the origins of the universe, the nature of man, original sin, redemption, etc. It is a luxury and I’m grateful for it. God doesn’t offer this luxury to every man that ever lived; hence election. He does command all men everywhere to repent of their sin. I’m not sure how the large intellectual tradition that has sprung up around the Christian tradition, one that adequately defends it - even when using Feser’s Fifth Way - in my opinion, is a flaw or fault. The Pagans were wrong and we know they are wrong. No, if one can disprove TAG sufficiently then Christians must be wrong but until then, I think the argument stands and we owe Christ our allegiance. The season has turned. Thieves have broken into the cellar, wolves have gathered in the forest, foreigners are plundering on the roads and in the heart of darkest winter, as his wife and children are starving and under attack, the White man is in his attic studying the color of frogs and pondering absolutely useless questions like, “what does it all mean? Why am I here?” A lot of people won’t contemplate the lower order until they have the higher order sorted out. This was as true of the Pagans as it is of us. I would also argue, that people are generally concerned about what is going on, in fact, the people at the top are directing it and the people at the bottom are incapable of properly forming a counterattack. Providence: Cultural and Biological, Part I The Kinists have obviously spent time addressing the issue since they (I) consider it a Biblical injunction not to miscegenate. I can’t find links to position papers right now though. The Reformers, in their Scriptural commentaries, were pretty much to a man dead set that the command not to be unequally yoked was a prohibition against intermarriage. I would argue, a fair reading of the Bible and a proper understanding of Law and the Old Testament, would lead one to the same conclusions. 213
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:17 | #
Frank mentioned Babel and “unequal yoking” in marriage but that is in reference to believers and unbelievers.
.
.
At Babel men tried to unite and climb up into heaven some other way, so God scattered them. But in Christ he draws them all together again from out among the nations.
I think much of that is what we make of it. We see order, or perceive order and thus to an extent we make order. For example, the constellations. There are no constellations. At least there is no real pattern to a certain combination of stars. It’s pattern is implied by the viewer. People look at stars and invent order or design where there is none. Even at that, what they see is cultural not foundational in reason or logic. Take Orion, “The Hunter” for instance. Can you honestly say that you can see the shape of person standing there with a weapon in those stars? Really? About the only constellation people can agree has shape is the Big Dipper. But then, you have to know what a dipper is to be able to see that. But really, did Jesus not defeat TAG when he walked on water or raised the dead? Deeds that were neither rational nor obeyed the laws of logic. And doesn’t the “three but one” deity collide with the laws of mathematics? And then there is the fact that God himself broke his own law when he took the life of David’s son rather than Davids for David’s crimes.
Might want to read this again, Providence: Cultural and Biological, Part II .
Ruth? .
No, Catholics have always been a small percentage in America. In colonial days there were even ordinances in some places that forbade them from living there. Their numbers grew with the influx of Irish and southern and eastern European immigrants that flocked here from the 1880’s to the the 1920’s. And the growing number of Catholics was part of the concern that moved the immigration restriction act of 1924 into law. America was always overwhelmingly Protestant. That is why the election of Kennedy in 1960 was such a bid deal. Many argued then that a Catholic would never be elected president. Today Protestants are considered to be 51% of the population. In 1990 they were around 70%. That’s due to the increased number of immigrants from South America as well as an increasing number of “non-denominational” Christians. They’re Protestant in their beliefs, just unaffiliated with any denomination. Also I think there are a lot of people who don’t know the difference. There are people who, if you asked them if they were protestant would reply, no I’m a Baptist. .... 214
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:59 | # I wrote: “... the spirits in the context of heaven;” Spirit is insufficient and unsuitable word and I don’t claim to know what would be proper word in this context. 215
Posted by danielj on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:02 | # Frank mentioned Babel and “unequal yoking” in marriage but that is in reference to believers and unbelievers. I would argue the principle is broader than that and although the Scripture speaks specifically to the marriage of believers and unbelievers, it is in other forms, more generalized, throughout the law and prophets. Ruth? The entire O.T. is essentially a call for Israel to be faithful and not to intermarry with the heathen. There is even a few stories about times when all the men of Israel put away there foreign wives. Systems friend! You keep cherry picking and it won’t further the debate. I suppose I could just refer to Rushdoony and Bahnsen’s works that would require thousands of pages of reading which we obviously don’t have time for. As I get my own thoughts more collected over the years and have greater breadth of understanding I’ll start to try to do my own writing, much more condensed, on the subjects in a more easily digestible fashion. I think much of that is what we make of it. We see order, or perceive order and thus to an extent we make order…. The Law of non-Contradiction is cultural? If we perceive order than we really only perceive whiteness or anything else and it is all just cultural. If the stars themselves are unordered, the planets unordered, then so are the atoms that make up your body and ditto for the DNA that codes for the complex systems involved in sustaining your life and generating your whiteness. Might want to read this again, Providence: Cultural and Biological, Part II I don’t care what it says. I meant the Pagans were wrong about where man and the universe come from. Would you disagree? At Babel men tried to unite and climb up into heaven some other way, so God scattered them. But in Christ he draws them all together again from out among the nations. Again, I’ve already conceded that Heaven is multi-racial. Whether or not it will be segregated, I neither know nor care. It is all wistful speculation since there is hardly anything about Heaven in the Bible. Now, whether or not the bit of the heavenly model that we can gleam from Scripture is a fitting model for earthly social policy, well that is the question under debate I suppose. I would obviously submit, firstly, that we do not know enough about it to even consider that a possibility and secondly that a fallen world requires policy prescription suited to its condition and that theonomy fits the bill. 216
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:13 | #
Could you give me a hint as to where?
Ezra, would be what you are referencing. From about chapter 9 on. But the argument goes that as “holy” means separate and as Israel was God’s holy people, the injunction to intermarry was more about preserving, not a race, but the “holy” people through whom the whole world would see God’s blessings and curses depending on their fealty. Through Christ people everywhere are called to be “holy” and separate themselves from the world. The Holy or separate people are now Christians, circumcised of the heart not of the flesh. In other words, as in the old testament Israel (through covenant with God) was a nation and a people, since Christ Christians have been a nation and a people through a new covenant. The one foreshadowed the other.
I’ve quoted multiple verses with a common frame of reference and I’ve quoted whole passages. For example, that the Babel story is just 9 verses long. .
Ever heard of Detroit?
You missed my point entirely or I didn’t do a good job of articulating it. What I meant by cultural perception was using Orion as an example. It is called The Hunter, which for me, being born in North America in the latter half of the 20th Century, makes no sense. When I think of a hunter I think of someone in camouflage with a blazer orange vest and toboggan, perched in a tree stand with a rifle in hand. A Chinese person might look up at a cloud and see a big bowl of rice when all I see is a cloud.
It was your link.
Again, that wasn’t my point. But the argument goes that as “holy” means separate and as Israel was God’s holy people, the injunction to intermarry was more about preserving, not a race, but the “holy” people through whom the whole world would see God’s blessings and curses depending on their fealty. Through Christ people everywhere are called to be “holy” and separate themselves from the world. The Holy or separate people are now Christians, circumcised of the heart not of the flesh. In other words, as in the old testament Israel (through covenant with God) was a nation and a people, since Christ Christians have been a nation and a people through a new covenant. The one foreshadowed the other. 217
Posted by anonymous on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:58 | # Posted by Guessedworker on September 29, 2009, 07:32 PM | # Come willingly or unwillingly but come you will have to. Post a comment:
Next entry: Before and after the White American Revolution
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 04:00 | #
Both truth and beauty are grounded in experience, experience of being more precisely. For if one experiences not a thing how can one say it is not beautiful, or that it is for that matter? As with truth, one must experience to know. But what ultimate and absolute legitimacy can we place in experience as the sine qua non for establishing truth? The Problem of Solipsism should come to the fore in answering that question. If a man be capable of proving indisputably that the external world of his senses, and the inner life of same does indeed exist, in anything close to the way in which he experiences it, let him speak now. I will not hold my breath waiting on him. I will however not refrain from judging him as acting as if he did believe it, that is as if his actions in this life - and the life he may or may not anticipate to come by which his actions might have consequences which reverberate forever for him - have consequences that are of permanent significance. For the man that needs his beautiful God, let him have it so long he does his duty by us now, and to the man who does his duty without want of heavenly reward, be not so quick to deny the possibility of him finding beauty in it. Are our people not beautiful; do they not create beauty which exceeds all the other works of men?