|
|
|
Jewish porn, Christian virtue, Pagan love ... European nature. A year ago I put up a brief post which linked to Nathan Abram’s article on Jews in the American porn industry:-
And so on. Here is a Jew, Nathan Abram, writing for other Jews about the Jewish ethno-aggressor in his most secular manifestation. For me, that is validation enough. The freely given testamonies of Abram, Ford and Goldstein are more to the point and more persuasive than anything I could write on the subject - which, actually, was the purpose of that particular post. In this post I am not seeking simply to revisit Abram’s self-described Jewish ethnic interest in societal subversion. As they say, it takes two to tango ... and here, indeed, three. The arrayment of forces hasn’t changed since the invention of the brothel, and probably earlier than that. Today it’s the Jewish pornographer, as elsewhere it is the inevitably foreign “boyfriend” or dealer, trafficker and brothel owner, who plays Gott de Vater. The absurdly pneumatic girl and the client’s cash complete the scarcely cosmic but nonetheless indivisible trinity. Given such famous historicity, it might be more interesting and original to reflect on European sexuality and the phenomenon of Jewish pornography from a general evolutionary perspective rather than a merely ethnic or moralistic one. Porn actresses are just actresses to the same extent that Page Three Girls are just models. They are not. For all their ubiquity and, in the former case, “the industry’s” long-term effort to export its unique sales point to mainstream Hollywood, they are not just anything. Both are decidely in and of the sexual professions, which begin at nudity for the camera and proceed by rather obvious degrees until all intimacy is made public. Both are products - weapons in one case - of opportunistic and rapacious ethnic and commercial interests. Both, at a deeper level, are signallers of a transition from an exhausted Christian culture to something post-Christian, a new barbarism informed by forces utterly careless as to the moral and, thence, genetic outcome. It is in the nature of cultural exhaustion that the moral checks and balances to maladaptive behaviour can no longer effect a correction. In contrast, it seem to me, a healthy, stable culture not only achieves that but can also afford a certain waxing and waning of sexual morality. There were those moments in history - in the Paris of the 1890’s, or Wiemar Berlin or the brothels that entertained the soldiers of the Western Front - when public mores no doubt seemed fatally compromised. Such moments were separated, though, from the morality of France in the Hundred Years War, the puritanism of 17th Century New England, and the entirely brothel-free environs of an RAF Bomber Command or USAAF 8th Airforce base in East Anglia c.1944 only by a few brief moments in evolutionary time. And they were - all of them - of a markedly Christian culture. The moral checks and balances worked more or less as they should. Perhaps a healthy, stable culture has to afford a certain moral latitude the better to accomodate both Nature in all its primal force and the high valuation Europeans place on their own offspring. For this valuation is the foundation of the female demand for lifelong fidelity from the male. Female mate selection has acted as a constraint on European sexual vigour for millenia, and probably tens of millenia. Sexual morality is principally a product of the resultant conflict in the self and between the sexes. It’s part of what defines us as what we are. It is a highly dynamic field, though, and evolution itself knows no rest. If natural selection has favoured the faithful European male, the new barbarism does not. Its womenfolk - frankly, whores by almost any past moral yardstick - no longer filter out the serial womaniser to the same degree. He is breeding and moving on across a sexual topography to his liking. If the new barbarism lasts ten generations or so it will alter the European genepool quite independently of any “hot-climate” alien genetic inflow. That would be a truly remarkable result for the digital arts of one hyper-secular, hyper- ethnocentric, hyper-aggressive people. However, there is another, more positive and hopeful way of looking at all this. Christianity is, as Tom Sunic reminds us, also a gift of the Jewish mind. It is not of us, and as a foundation for European sexual mores it might never have been particularly suitable. Why should the monotheistic faith of a desert people, evolved to express all the moral particulars of that people, provide Europeans with a similarly exact framework? Environments are not the same, and do not select sameness across peoples. So, perhaps Christianity has never been a glove that fits. Perhaps that is even one of the reasons why our moral compass has wavered so markedly down the centuries. Before Christianity we had another belief structure that must have expressed our complex sexual nature well enough. What remains of it is pitiful ... some standing stones, some half-remembered tales of Gods and mortal men. But among them is what became Walpurgisnacht, when witches held their revelries with the gods. There was the Nixe - the Rhine Maidens - among whom Lorelei, by the beauty of her voice, drove men to distraction and drowning in the cold currents of the great river. There was Frige, the love goddess of the old German faith. She, some say, was both the promiscuous and lovely Freyja and the unfaithful Frigg. Even in these few ancient scraps of memories an imaginative observer might call up a theatrical vision of female sexuality which would have horrified a New England goodwife. Perhaps Europeans once knew better than we do today how to live with the fire i’ the blood. Perhaps somewhere in us we still do, and even if the porn queen in her Jewish micro-world, and the scrawny drug-addict selling herself to seven men a day on the streets of 21st Century London, and the girl-next-door smiling out of the pages of The Sun at four million truck drivers ... even if they are all ringing the death-knell of Christian culture, that might be the very beginning we need. Barbarism, after all, is a kind of vacuum. And as everybody knows, the Nature which lives in us - regardless of whether or not it finds expression at any one time through culture - just abhors that kind of thing. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:00 | # Desmond, Christianity is a fragmented spiritual discipline, with a few esoteric pointers but no coherent narrative. In the Gospels these pointers are tossed into a melange of self-abnegatory behavioural injuctions and nonsense about miracles. The rest is beauty - the Passion, for example - which, as someone once said, leads only to the love of beauty. It is not in the least surprising that the imposture of Christianity should warp the normal cultural expression of European nature. Priestly celibacy was one such warp. That it did not arise in Judaism, whilst genital mutilation did, has more to do with the specifics of the ancient desert life it expressed, I suppose. How does Jenny Jochens of Towson State University know anything about our pre-Christian world? Very little survived the burn-out. Her reports of Rwandan-style violence seem highly suspicious to me. Then again does Ms Jochens even comprehend that all cultural topography is bound to express the underlying physical reality. Unlikely. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:10 | # “If barbarism is a vacuum waiting to be filled, how will it defend against a more morally charged Abrahamic religion residing in our midst?” I suppose it depends on whether the destruction of Christian culture is creative destruction. There is the possibility, Desmond, that the pendulum swings through a constant centre. If we are invigorated by the destruction we will turn again to our own ethnic interests. If we are only eviscerated by it we may well be overwhelmed by the followers of said Abrahamic faith. 4
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:57 | # “more resembling modern day black society than that of European Christians”. That is not what one might infer from this account: 5
Posted by Proofreader on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:53 | # OT: 6
Posted by Rusty Mason on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:07 | # I am looking for a blog or website that discusses current events in light of Norse/Germanic/Heathen theology, cosmology, and metaphysics. Is there even one such blog or website out there? There are plenty of sites covering mythology and mysticism. 7
Posted by Mark on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:05 | # Christianity is not European. It is made-up nonsense. Europe is better off without it, and the US will be too, hopefully. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:38 | #
Desmond you’re always pinpoint accurate so I’m surprised to see you post the above which strikes me as totally misleading and partly flat-out incorrect. The first sentence of that, especially, is not right. When I was in my 20s I read almost all the Icelandic sagas, missing only a number of the shorter ones: I read all the big ones: Njal’s Saga, Laxadaela Saga (spelling?), Egil’s Saga, and the other long ones, and many of the shorter ones: Hfraenkel’s Saga (spelling?), St. Olaf’s Saga, and so on (I’m pulling up these names from memory from 30 years ago so please forgive any wild misspellings) — I’ve read about a dozen or more sagas all told. Anyone interested, get a hold of Njals’s Saga, which I think is the most widely read, and read it. You’ll see that the above statement by Desmond will be a real head-scratcher, looking as if it came from the planet Butch-lezz located in the extreme leftward spiral-arm of the Andrea Dworkin Downwithpatriarchy Galaxy. Desmond don’t come back at me with stuff like, “If you don’t think those societies were full of violence you’ve never read the sagas,” or “I’ll cite you numerous examples of concubinage from the sagas: here, here, here, etc.,” or “here’s an example of ‘often led to murder’, ” and so on. I know exactly what’s in the sagas. That paragraph is totally misleading and partly flat-out wrong. Period. I don’t have time right now to give detailed debunking with references. Read the sagas, anyone interested. It is one-hundred-percent misleading and worse than misleading because it takes isolated truths such as that there was violence and weaves them into utter untruths. That paragraph is crap and fit to be flushed down the toilet. Don’t anyone even read it, would be my advice. The other thing Desmond’s going to do is come back with “Snorri Sturluson (or whatever his name was, I forget the spelling now) was writing during the Christian Middle Ages, inaccurately depicting a more Christianized lifestyle than the pagan one two and three centuries earlier.” OK, that might hold water. But nothing else will, sorry. 9
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:29 | #
On her own, I’d agree. With Fred as well. However, her work does not really move outside of the framework of KMac or Wilson (Darwin’s Cathedral) pointing to the adaptiveness of Christianity. The issue for Fred should be proportionality. If Christian sexuality was maladaptive vis-a-vis Norse, Roman or Greek pagan sexuality then wouldn’t that be evident to KMac or Sloan? Or are they just lying to us? Is it crap to suggest that Christianity, with its alleged ill-fitting sexuality, was more adaptive for Europeans than paganism? That road appears well-trodden and the answer is no. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:26 | # Nobody is suggesting that Christianity was solely maladaptive, Desmond. The charge is that in stamping out the old faith, it stamped out the “freer” part of its sexual exegesis. The other part, the part about restraint as virtue, that part Christianity took over itself. So there was adaptiveness in it, but there was also tension. Has KMac and Sloan been over this ground? Has anyone been over it from our perspective? I don’t know. But I certainly haven’t read them on it. I’m only throwing ideas out of my own head. 11
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:23 | # How was there adaptiveness? In KMac’s review of Wilson, he writes: “The adaptiveness of Christianity also stemmed from its emphasis on several attitudes that were notably lacking in the Roman (Pagan) Empire: encouragement of large families, conjugal fidelity, high-investment parenting, and outlawing of abortion, infanticide, and non-reproductive sexual behavior. “ Jochens suggests that the Pagan Norse laws regarding marriage, were intended to control property not sexual energy. Thus concubinage, aggressive sexuality toward women of all classes, slaves, indentured servants, foreigners, was not forbidden. That behaviour encouraged infanticide to cover the illicit and illegitimate outcome. KMac’s bottom line: “Christian women did indeed out-reproduce Pagan women.” Illegitimacy in the Victorian era was what, 4% max? Wales and the N. of England exceed 50% which is trending to the black rate. The abortion rate is enormous. The infanticide rate is small largely do to gov’t funding for unwed mothers and the shame of illegitimacy being eliminated. Religions, as KMac writes, enhance altruism.
In such a case the tension, higher rates of infanticide, abortion etc., must mitigate the adaptiveness. Adaptation is sought to improve reproductive fitness, isn’t it. The British, if Glasgow is any indicator, are dying faster than they are being born. Even without massive immigration, it cannot be considered adaptive behaviour. England leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, crime and STDs. Isn’t this the modern epoch of self-serving humanity? Is this not egotistic behaviour replacing altruism? How can it ever potentially be adaptive? 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:02 | # Obviously Sloan and KMac haven’t read all the sources on Roman marriage:-
As for Jochens ... One of the very few surviving sources for the pre-Christian period in Britain are the laws of king Dyfnal Moel Myd, described in general form here:-
13
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:33 | # No doubt GW. The scholarship of Wilson, MacDonald and Jochens is no match for the wisdom of .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and Mr. Cooper at ldolphin.org. 14
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:42 | # Any discussion of sexuality that stops with copulation, arguably a sacral privilege of female choice, and does not also include killing, arguably a sacral privilege of male choice, denies masculinity. So let’s start there: How did our pre-Christian period deal with the masculine sacral privilege of killing? I mean, let’s be reasonable about sexuality: Who among us does not feel an overwhelming urge to kill the men sitting in their comfortable offices thousands of miles away concocting dishonorable stories about their sexual competitors—especially when they broadcast them directly to the visual cortices of our women and children? How have we sunk so low as to sit by let the minds of our women and children be so poisoned against their own protectors? 16
Posted by JB on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:34 | # [quote=“Desmond Jones”] I’m not sure. Tacitus wrote that the germans were strongly monogamous. Was the germanic culture that much different from the scandinavian one ?
our problem isn’t so much that we aren’t christians anymore but that we have lost our racial conscience. Christianity was part of our group identity but it didn’t survive the onslaught of individualism and egalitarianism. Most whites have been raised to feel that their moral duty is to do anything absolutely anything but defend their own race. Doing what all other races do is the ultimate sin, the sin they call “racism”. anyone looking for christianity to save us is in for a big surprise. Just take a look at that: http://rawchristianity.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/the-first-week-of-psalm-1273/ and the Church in western Europe is silent about the mortal threat of non-european immigration. They would rather renounce their faith or even burn in hell than to risk being called “racists” by leftists 17
Posted by JB on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:44 | # Rusty Mason:
like this one ? 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:15 | # Desmond: No doubt GW. The scholarship of Wilson, MacDonald and Jochens is no match for the wisdom of .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and Mr. Cooper at ldolphin.org. That’s not very helpful, Desmond. Based on what you have quoted, there is a question mark over Sloan and KMac. Their presumptions seem to be a bit too convenient. They don’t allow for the full range of r-K, and the shifting focus within that in any given time and place. They assume one narrow behavioural range for all time, label it accordingly “Christian” or “pagan”, and build up their arguments from there. It’s symptomatic of a lack of real information - especially in the pagan context. Now, I have raised two possibilities why seemingly contrary variations occur within the same morality system. Either:- 1) As a K-heavy strategiser, the European has both to control r and accomodate it. r is always straining to be let off the European leash, and it might be that a successful strategy has to accomodate that by allowing us periodically to re-experience and recoil from the destructive power of r (which includes, from the European group context, a potentially debilitating reduction in child birth/survival). Ordinarily we would not go in too deep, so to speak, before the corrective, which is embodied in the wider culture, would suggest itself. However, the anti-Christian, anti-conservative dynamic of post-war Jewish revolutionary sexual politics has overwhelmed the corrective moment, and pushed us deeper into maladaptive r behaviour. I think it’s reached the point where we can safely say that Christian culture has ceased to function as an evolutionary strategy. or, quite unprovably:- 2) Paganism was, in fact, a very natural and, one might therefore surmise, stable strategy. It managed to express both r and K. But Christian culture arrived as a K-heavy strategy that out-competed it at the beginning. Now, it’s worth remembering that in England there were two versions of Christianity competing for the souls of the people at the end of the sixth century. The Celtic Church, pushing in through Wales and from its foothold on Lindisfarne, was fearful strict, practical in its observation, and monastic at its core. The Roman Church, approaching from the south, was more moderate and focussed on belief rather than harsh, physical forms of observation. So although it was the Roman Church that had the greater influence, from the beginning there was a weighting towards sexual denial and personal asceticism. r was always “bad” for Anglo-Saxon Christians. But K without r simply does not accord with hormonal reality. The longer-term prospect for Christianity, papal encyclicals and five centuries of witch-burning notwithstanding, was always one of instability and failure. 19
Posted by Proofreader on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:39 | # Thanks, JB, for the link. (and apologies to GW for the OT request) 20
Posted by _jimbo_ on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:48 | # when ‘the Great Day’ comes, most, if not all, kikes will have to be bull-dozed into a big pit & then incinerated!.....jews are a filthy corrupting, pustulating virus on the body politic of the White Race! RAHOWA! 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:03 | # Jimbo I like and respect you, and of course we’re on the same side, but ... hadn’t you better ... rethink one or two of your rhetorical tactics? Hey just a friendly thought, comrade. We do want to advance our point of view in the shortest possible time, no? 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:21 | # Jimbo, improve yourself. There will be no Great Day until you do, or just learn to keep quiet in the shadows where you can’t do any harm. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:39 | # Rusty, We have a new lady blogger named Jean West joining us, and she has asked me to pass on these links to you:- http://www.wulfsgeist.com/njasatru.htm Proofreader, Jean reminds me that the most indefatigable puncturer of the myth of Paradise Israel is:- 24
Posted by PF on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:02 | # If society had a ‘why’ for its existence, wouldnt that dictate the subordination of individual drives to goal-oriented behavior? European women are not whores. They have access to the condom, which gives them more sexual freedom than any previous generation of women on earth, and they have no ‘why’ to dictate their behaviors beyond random pleasure seeking. Those are greater burdens, or very different burdens, than your and my grandmothers had to bear. Unlike our grandmothers, established custom has no suggestions for how women are to react to their new conditions, so each of them has to find a solution on their own, an enormous task. They are born into an era where the passing of ideology (Christianity) and new material conditions have caused the societal ‘Why’ and ‘Wherefore’ to become unclear—no one has any ideas why we exist, what our goals are, what we are doing. Capitalism and the Spectacle’s suggestions are extremely short-sighted and predicated on an ignorance of history. At the same time, society is physically dissolving through human migration of foreign peoples. So for a woman, it must be a very confusing place to live, having rebellion against the Patriarchy as an established right of passage and the best guideposts to inform onesself being weekly magazines and talk shows. Women of today have to claw themselves up out of this cultural swamp just like young men have to. Chrisitianity was a supernatural explanation for the natural world. In my eyes, it was clearly wrong and unscientific. Christianity is fundamentally confused, pulled between its origins and its interpretations: is it tribalism? Is it a book of etiquette? Those who vindicate Christianity say: Look, it almost made us behave like tribalists, seeking evolutionary advantage and expansion and EGI. Well, la-di-fuckin-da. A hapered understanding of tribalism means we are abandoned to the moral dictates of Christianity without understanding the “why” and “wherefore” of them. It means we cant elaborate on the rules, because we dont understand the reasons for them. Also, there is no method of investigation, because the ‘empirical sources’ are mystical religious experiences lived by Desert Jews in bygone millenia. So we have some rules, and like people with a Constitution—as NeoNietzsche demonstrated on my Classics thread—we look frustrated on as a new constellation of players renders maladaptive our once-adaptive rules. Because the rules of play have to be re-crafted anew with an imperfect knowledge of the game, until you have arrived at the ultimate set of rules, and you can only recraft your rules insofar as you know what game you are playing: Christianity gave us once-efficient rules but obscured the nature of the Game. Old nations learned this through trial-and-error involving tribal contests, wars, and experience in old civilizations and diasporas over millenia. We learn it in our own diasporas but have a theoretical framework to explain it: Darwin-Dawkins-Salter-Hamilton. Already we surpassed their mysticism because Science is innate in us. My opinion. Beyond that, arranging things so that society has a pressure release valve for sexual energy doesnt seem an insuperable difficulty. Perhaps a widening of the age gap in relationships could accomplish it. Older men take younger wives, the women in the ages of 18 to 30, for the purposes of child bearing. Young men of promise get access to women above 35 or 40, considered past the prime age of child bearing. Perhaps older women could act like Socratic teachers to younger guys, giving them instruction in all the areas of life, who can help them grow up a bit and get themselves centered, give them some perspective, as well as whatever physical affection might be desirable. That would cure alot of us of immaturity, unrootedness, and personality-distorting sexual frustration. As well as relieving the burden of having to chase after women who are far, far, far, far, far from being spiritually mature, and having to relate to these unripe persons as equals. 25
Posted by bball on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:26 | # Looks like you know who took the article down at jewishquarterly. It can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?articleid=38 Post a comment:
Next entry: Portrait of an activist
|
|
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 Desmond Jones on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 06:50 | #
Did it though? Abraham, David and Solomon were polyganist and embraced consanguinous marriage.
The saga of Norse pagan sexuality is one of violence and concubinage, more resembling modern day black sexuality than that of European Christians. A young girl was an asset to her family not only for her potential as mother of the next generation but, more immediately, for new kinship networks established through her marriage. The families attempts to defend her against untoward advances of aggressive males often led to murder of not only the unwanted suitor but potentially the father or other family members that attempted to protect her.
Although no doubt not entirely successful, Christianity put the “fear of God” into Europeans, which essentially was a cost effective and efficient means of controlling rogue sexuality and thus was adaptive.
If barbarism is a vacuum waiting to be filled, how will it defend against a more morally charged Abrahamic religion residing in our midst?