On traction, and a farewell to a political friend
Having passed up the opportunity to acquire an education at the proper time and, anyway, never having been very willing to submit to the tyranny of other men’s minds, I’ve been glad of the theoretical minimalism that inhabits Conservatism. It is a visceral politics, and might even be a politics of Nature, or as close to it as any politics addressing a complex society is likely to get. It is certainly a politics of practical men only too inclined to draw a veil across the philosophical obscura of this, our Postmodern Age.
For example, just the other day I happened across a short passage authored in 1999 by the post-Marxist agony aunt Chantal Mouffe. She was agonising over the crisis in liberalism. Liberal intellectuals, you should know, are an anxious lot. They have been tearing their rational hair out over crises in the Enlightenment Project for well over a century (you would think that would tell them something, but no).
Mouffe, while not a neon-light left intellectual like Michael Walzer, Slavo Zizek or Chomsky, has about her the quality of a weather-vane. She points not so much to her own body of thought as to the theoretical horizon. Theoretically, Pomo is the undoing of Everything, even rationalism, in the belief that Something must succeed it. Well, in 1999 Mouffe sensed that it already had, but saw signs of danger everywhere. “New antagonisms have emerged,” she wrote, “not only in advanced societies but in the Eastern bloc and in the Third World.”
This was certainly true. Neither the British Multicultural nor French Integrationist models were uniting the rainbow peeps that were the “new West”. Russia was about to plunge into an ice-pool of seriously anti-liberal New Kremlinism. And in the Dar al Islam, a dangerously aggressive and expansionist Wahabbism was rising.
The Project, which in its broadest terms is the bringing together of humanity (otherwise known as peeps) in freedom and justice, was heading nowhere but into the history file. The future would hold no reverential memories of the ironic Fathers of the present. There would be no la-la land of liberal values. And probably, caught dancing too soon in the charnel house, the Jewish value of nihilism, Enlightenment’s one enduring gift, would stand naked and shivering, awaiting the inevitable, messy denouement.
There was still time for Mouffe to hope, however. An amphetamine progressive, she wrote of “The critique of essentialism – a point of convergence of the most important trends in contemporary theory: post-structuralism, philosophy of language after the later Wittgenstein, post-Heideggarian hermeneutics.” This “anti-essentialist theoretical stand” was, for her, the essence of a “new vision for the Left conceived in terms of a radical and plural democracy.”
Of course. Whether or not any “new vision for the Left” can or will ever materialise, Mouff is betting her shirt – and ours - on the staple method of all social constructionists and their Foucaultian and sometimes Gramscian sons and daughters: denial of essence.
It works like this. We cannot know such a thing as “African”, for example, or “female”. The apparently recognisable and describable essential qualities of both, or of a new-born baby, say, are only constructs of cultural meanings and practices. OK, there may be extanct biological forms, and these forms may be solid realities in themselves. But our ascription of meanings to them is wholly social and historical, and altogether more slippery, ambiguous and negotiable than we think.
And worse is to come. If the essence of things is only a social construct, our attempt to describe it in words produces a postmodern double-bind. For language defies any possibility of penetrating to objective reality or ultimate truth. It is self-referential, relying on words to describe words. Language never improves upon proximity. Therefore, the entirety of what we understand ourselves to be as people and what we understand of the world beyond ourselves is hopelessly compromised.
So round we swirl in the Pomo trap until its truly essential dichotomy hoves into view. The same regimen of denial which nullifies the meanings we ascribe to “African” also nullifies the positive values and meanings that progressives ascribe to, well, “radical and plural democracy”. It is only the ideals of the Pomo folk that pressage a progressive response to the vacuum rather than a conservative one. In Pomo itself, there is no preferential basis for progressivism over conservatism. Or, indeed, postmodernism over modernism. Or post-structuralism over its deconstructionist, structuralist, economic Marxist and classical liberal antecedents. There is no centre to hold (no doubt because the Pomo “text” itself has no bleeding essence!). When Pomo folks assert that they alone are the gatekeepers of what is and what is not epistemological they are being wholly dishonest.
Pomo, then, is a gas for mischievous intellectuals. But it is too ontologically empty to qualify as philosophy, and too nebulous, indeed slippery and ambiguous, for ideology. If there is a common thread running through it at all, it is precisely this anti-essentialism that interests Mouffe. Abolish essence, it says, and you abolish the knowable: the certainties you draw from life and Nature. Your sources of cultural power are neutralised, and rendered simply into places you may seek psychological source-material for a willed construction of the self.
All this really produces, of course, is willed self-deception. That first, notably wordless rush of adrenaline when an unknowable “African” shoulders our Pomo person into a dark alleyway, or a “female” cooly returns his gaze, belies all his linguistic contortions, and consigns his “texts”, his hermeneurotica, to a non-essentiality of their own. Life and love roar away in the world beyond the window, and will not be denied.
At all this the lumpen Conservative can only smile wryly and wonder at his eternally wrong-headed liberal foe. Probably, he will decide that this strange, discontented creature loathes his or herself. Then he will grow serious, and remember the anomie and the sheer, tragic waste that flows out of that loathing. And then ... he will think about something else. That’s the way it’s been going on for about three hundred years, and still liberalism ploughs its stony furrow, pulling him and the rest of us behind.
But how, exactly? Political philosophy is the sport of a tiny scholastic minority, and a sport largely incomprehensible to ninety per cent of the population. Critical Theory raises that to 95%, and the ironies of Pomo raise it again.
Nevertheless, we live in, or at the end of, the Postmodern Age. So how did a weird intellectual conceit that scarcely anyone outside the ironic elite understands convince anybody of anything? Take the Pomo position on the condition of language - Foucault’s mega-generalisation that “language is oppression”, for example. How did that get boosted to the station of social teaching?
Well, we know really. Here is a critical Wendy McElroy, writing in 2000 at LRC:-
Foucault’s speciality was the interpretation and meaning of language and, for decades, radical feminism has stressed language as a source of the oppression of women. Sometimes language is considered to be the source. Thus, they refuse to be called “Madam Chairman” and insist upon the wholesale replacement of the generic “he” with the ungainly “he/she.” The word “man” is replaced with “human being” or “person.” History becomes herstory. Words are deemed to be so powerful that syllables are acts in and of themselves. For example, pornography becomes an act of oppression and violence against women, and radical feminists call it “rape.”
How about another little Foucault incendiary device, then: “science is a language of power”?
Here’s an abstract from a 2006 paper by Diane Judd:-
More recent postmodern critics of science have taken their cue from Foucault’s work, and have argued that science is, among other things, a hegemonic form of Eurocentric male domination.
... The goals of this paper are to explore the adoption and/or rejection of western science in certain developing countries, and to outline what certain postmodern critics of science have said about the role of western science on a cultural level. Themes such as imperialism, universalism, and cultural particularism will be particularly emphasized.
“Texts” on the influence of Foucault are only a google away. Here health and illness, here religion, here education.
Here is Chantal Mouffe again, making it perfectly plain what it’s all about, “Our objective is to establish a dialogue between these theoretical developments and left-wing politics.”
For “left-wing politics” read a continuum of water-carriers – lower-order academics like Mouffe herself, journals and publications, liberal-left think-tanks, NGOs, public intellectuals and opinion-formers, advocacy groups, and party strategists – each of whom re-process and apply high intellectual output within their own sphere of interest. So theory is transported into culture. It does not matter that much whether it’s good theory or good culture. The mechanism needs raw theory to keep running and substantiate its existence thereby, and it takes what it can get. Even Pomo.
Anyhow, this is what a political traction engine looks like. The perilous condition of European Man, for example, his maladaptive existence, his anomie and self-estrangement, his ethno-masochism, his powerlessness, are all proofs that it works only too well.
In total contrast, traction is a concept almost foreign to Conservatism. Its more genuine thinkers – Roger Scruton, Thomas Fleming for example - have no need to drag society through an ideological hedge backwards. They wish others to cease doing so. Historically, they are reactionaries. They offer resistance to decline, in the manner of Greta Garbo meeting Dr Frankenstein. But since there is, as I said at the beginning, no real theory of the right, they can’t make any positive play against the aggressions of the left.
At the political level the goals of the right, especially in America, amount to no more than a variation on the Enlightenment Project of universal emancipation and civilisation. Real Conservative goals are too normative for party politics in the Postmodern Age. Part of the problem, no doubt, is fear of the left. But the very Anglospheric distrust of intellectuals also plays its part. The anti-essentialist terms of the opposing argument are not easy to understand. But the price for not understanding them is not understanding that a Conservative defence of the West must be essentialist, with all that implies for race, gender and sexuality. For without essence, there is nothing to conserve.
Over the last two or three months I’ve been re-examining my own Conservatism (which was never of the party political kind, of course - I defined it in the past as acting from and for what is good in us). Well, the hour is growing late and the night already dark. I am forced to the conclusion that the politics I have espoused since the mid-1970s are too static and supine, and too anti-intellectual to effect the kind of change that is needed now. It cannot transform.
Chantal Mouffe was right about the crisis in liberalism. After Post-structuralism there will be only banality. The Project has nothing more to give. There will be an opportunity to argue for survival. Few as we are in number today, for our side to stand any chance of success we have to equip ourselves with a theoretically-robust and revolutionary politic, something that can speak loudly to our people of freedom and justice. It must also be amenable to new modes of traction, for which the Interactive Age of communication on which we are embarking may serve.
As for the instinctual Conservative in my soul, I believe that Conservatism will describe the politics of a white society of the future matured by time and human wisdom. But it will not lead us to that high estate now, and on those strategic terms I renounce it.
I’m now beginning the search for a more active philosophical agent, and don’t yet know where that will take me. I hope it won’t make too dull a read for MR.
Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 09:37 AM in Political Philosophy
Comments (192) | Tell a friend
Comments:
Posted by Sally on February 08, 2008, 05:05 PM | #
Essentialism, as a frowned-upon attitude, is like foundationalism and reification in contemporary academic discourse. All three are somewhat unusable and fraudulent categories of discourse, yet all three share with what is loosely called “pomo” above some things that we can use.
We call the blithering chatter around us (and it is logo-centric) the jaw-bones of asses, and we pick up what we can use from the floor of the butcher shop and use in an instrumental way to rip the left-wing racialists who abound at tax-payer expense. We don’t ask if our techniques are conservative, they are survival.
Possibly Guessedworker may want to draw a distinction between a well-founded, thoughtful, grounded set of attitudes, ideas, and memes for what he calls “conservatism” on the one hand, and the development of a snarky, treacherous, logo-centric set of political and social attitudes, ideas, and memes for engaging in political and social guerrilla warfare. That would be the guerrilla war we face every day in every newspaper, on every TV station, and throughout the academy. A perfectly well-formed world view may not contain its warriors on the ground.
If there is any flaw in the chatter on this web site, it is the confusion between its trotskyist tendency (to design a perfect world, society, or philosophy) and its need to cherish, identify, and teach techniques (qua techniques) to our peers and to our children for logo-centric memes, attitudes, and ideas we can hurl back at our adversaries.
Posted by melba peachtoast on February 08, 2008, 06:34 PM | #
You may think that running a ranch in the Outback is all Picnic at Ayer’s Rock but I can assure you that it is no picnic at all. My orchard of bitter experience yields this one usufruct, which I with my darting tongue offer and recommend to you: Take this fruit and eat of it, and have your “friend” do the same. Let the best kill the rest.
Posted by Nux Gnomica on February 08, 2008, 06:47 PM | #
Foucault, being homosexual, belonged to one of the groups that like pouring acid on the foundations. Scruton, being scientifically illiterate, belongs to the one of the groups that won’t stop it happening.
I’m now beginning the search for a more active philosophical agent, and don’t yet know where that will take me.
The “agent” we need is race realism.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 08, 2008, 08:46 PM | #
Nux Gnomica,
Race-realism is merely a protest movement. We need a global solution, not something partial like that.
It is more difficult for white Americans to think in non-liberal terms than any other people. But they must if they want to survive. The very basis of the American political dispensation since the War of Independence is productive of the difficulties we all face today. Hyper-individualism and egalitarianism are American values, and none of us shall be free unless they are replaced in absolute.
Posted by Chestertonian on February 09, 2008, 02:41 AM | #
A new philosophy or religion is unneeded. What _is_ needed is to revert the definition of good and evil.
Good: Whatever furthers the interests of our kin group.
Evil: Whatever counters the interests of our kin group.
Jews have used exactly these tribe-centric definitions to gain control of the West. The West used these definitions to conquer and colonize the world. The medieval Muslims used these definitions to sweep from Morocco to Malaysia.
It’s only through intolerance of other ideas that they are overcome.
Understand, there is no “hypocrisy”, there is no “injustice”, there is only the good that benefits us and the evil that denies us. If you believe in something, you disbelieve something else. A thing is right in as much as it is good.
The great sweeping movements throughout history have little in common beside the absolute certainty of their truths. A “truth” is defined with a rigid concept of good and evil, right and wrong, positive and negative. To accept these truths you must /believe/, hence the highly stressed role of faith in religions and racial movements. Once faith is lost, so is the will to carry our definitions. Without “good” or “bad”, we are prey to other tribes who carry such concepts.
We need never feel guilty. There is no wrong except that which harms us. There is no right except that which furthers our interests.
Believe this, and the ethno-logic of the strangers among you will have no bearing. Their conception of being “wronged” will not register with us, as their being wronged is essentially “good”. Their failure is our success. Our success is their failure.
This is our truth. This is our “ism”.
Posted by Prozium on February 09, 2008, 05:25 AM | #
I have slouched into a generic authoritarianism out of pragmatism. Dictators take over when democracies fail. It’s not my ideal, but we don’t live in normal times. A strong hand will be needed to clean up this mess.
Posted by Francis de Groot on February 09, 2008, 09:45 AM | #
If you want to influence society, you have to influence artists and the creative classes. That’s how the Pomos got their bizzaro worldview into the mainstream. They didn’t teach their theories to the public in raw form, they preached and peppered it through film, song and comedic sketch. These things are people’s moral point of reference for almost everything.
Posted by Nux Gnomica on February 09, 2008, 07:06 PM | #
GW: Race-realism is merely a protest movement. We need a global solution, not something partial like that.
No, it has to be the foundation of thought and action, which is why the media and government plug race fantasy instead. A healthy instinct has been suppressed or inverted, but it will come roaring back in the right circumstances.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 09, 2008, 07:16 PM | #
Nux,
I post at length on the issue, and try to lay this question to rest. Interesting to see what you think.
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on February 09, 2008, 08:48 PM | #
Why running around finding this ideology or that. What built the West? Roman Catholicism with the Classics, the Graeco-Roman Heritage. The West beat back numerous Muslim invasions under the Cross. The Church, both Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, protested when it was Napoleon Bonaparte that gave liberty to the Jews.
And then radical Euro Atheists and Humanists rejected not only the Christian Heritage of the West but also the Graeco-Roman heritage as well. You’re swimming in your own juices. Modern Euro’s w/Scottish levellers rejected Traditional Europe. Napoleon Bonaparte wasn’t a Christian. He was a Liberal dressed as a Christian. Machiavelli, an atheist and a follower of Democritus, stated point blank that he and others are changing things; keeping the words but changing the meanings in order to bring about a New State of things. That is the Problem.
This is not something new. Socrates fought this very same paradigm in Athens with his nihilist compatriots. Socrates is the guide out of this mess. The conservative program is Truth and Right; following the footsteps of our fathers; obeying God and the Natural Law. Return back to the Old Order. That is the only way. A return to the Catholic Church, a return to Monarchy which is Patriarchy. You can’t fight Islam with Atheism.
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on February 09, 2008, 08:57 PM | #
I noticed in the article you linked to that GD mentions Pitt the Younger as the first conservative. While the Neo-cons have nominated Benjamin Disraeli, one of their own, as the first Conservative.
Socrates was the first conservative. He was about fighting liberalism and nihilism and democracy of his time. See, ideology, posits an idea like liberty and then says, ‘attain it’. But what is needed is Wisdom not ideology. Men have to start following Wisdom. Man doesn’t create Wisdom---it is found and inspired. The whole Enlightenment and Modernism, which is Jewish, and Pomo are all about men following ideology of this or that.
What man needs to start doing is following Wisdom. That is the only thing. Other than that man will be just tramping around in the darkness to his death.
Posted by silver on February 10, 2008, 03:49 AM | #
You can’t fight Islam with Atheism.
You can fight liberalism with Catholicism.
You can fight Islam with Catholicism.
But you can’t fight racial dispossession with Catholicism. I can appreciate the romantic appeal of doing so, however.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on February 10, 2008, 04:23 AM | #
I” have slouched into a generic authoritarianism out of pragmatism. Dictators take over when democracies fail. It’s not my ideal, but we don’t live in normal times. A strong hand will be needed to clean up this mess.”
Give me an authoritarian, racialist, anti-Semitic, national-socialist government, please of dear God! To paraphrase Castro: national-socialism or death!
The more time I spend understanding the Third Reich, the more I see national-socialism as the perfect political system.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 10, 2008, 09:10 AM | #
WLindsayWheeler,
There is little likelihood that Platonic and Aristotelian thought will cease to filter into a philosophy of Western survival. You have nothing to fear. On the Islamic/multi-invader issue I think you should answer silver.
Friedrich,
It’s not as simple as that. Presumably, you are looking into the domestic outcomes of National Socialism. But NS changed during its brief life. On which enduring philosophical ideas, set out by which thinkers, do you rely.
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on February 10, 2008, 04:35 PM | #
The problem with Catholicism, Silver, is not Catholicism/Christianity per se, it is the men inside it.
For example, Let’s look at nature Silver for this paradigm. The cowbird and the cuckoo lay their eggs in another bird’s nest. Upon hatching the the cowbird/cuckoo, push out the natural birds to their deaths. Here you have what you call entryism.
Now, let’s advance this paradigm to another secular body, the Conservatives. Again, we see that the neo-cons, Jews, ex-leftists, call themselves “conservatives” move in and then displace/fire Europeans such as Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, and Pat Buchanan. Two of those are Roman Catholics. These three people were pushed out, just like cowbirds and cuckoos hatchlings do, of the conservative movement. The conservative movement has been hijacked, taken over by a parasitic race.
Now, silver, does the Neo-con takeover, destroy, discredit Conservative ideas, principles, or thinking? No because they are not conservatives.
Same thing within the Christian/Catholic Church. Socialists and Communists made it a point TO INFILTRATE the Catholic Church and change it from within. They have pushed out traditionalists. They also have people who guard the seminaries and vet out all those deemed politically incorrect and manly. They accept as only good seminarians, leftists, liberals and effeminates. So of course the Church is compromised today. I grant you that Silver. Any movement and institution can be compromised.
But the Tradition (tradition means teaching, historical teaching) doesn’t change. These people have suppressed, obscured, maligned the tradition, but the Tradition remains True Tradition. Tradition remains unaffected. It takes good men to bring it up, defend it, hold it. We are to Guard. Catholicism is in a mess today. But running after heresy and failed ideologies is not going to solve it. Going back to Tradition, Holding it, and teaching it, to fight back is what is needed.
Truth has a way of always succeeding. Hold on to Truth. And let Truth do the rest.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on February 10, 2008, 04:57 PM | #
“It’s not as simple as that. Presumably, you are looking into the domestic outcomes of National Socialism. But NS changed during its brief life. On which enduring philosophical ideas, set out by which thinkers, do you rely.”
I like to go to primary sources, unpolluted by partial commentary and hostile distortions. Of course, access to uncontrollable Internet and an ability to read German helps.
One useful and bilingual source:
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/welcome.html
My university library also contains a great deal of primary German documentation.
What changes are you alluding to? The only change that I can see in National Socialism is a turn towards a more European-minded foreign policy; but that was mainly a result of the international makeup of the Waffen-SS, the finest, most idealistic young men that Europe has ever known who were fighting as volunteers with their German brothers to defeat the Judeo-Bolshevik monster in the East.
Introduction to Leon Degrelle’s Waffen SS
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xtd5GIuMi1Y
Leon Degrelle’s Lecture on the Waffen SS, Hitler
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-YxMirgw9xs
A truthful history of the Third Reich is yet to be written, but as Germar Rudolf told me: who will write it in today’s climate?
Posted by Briedrich Fraun on February 10, 2008, 07:25 PM | #
Lol guys, Hitler sure loved going to see the opera, and was a fervent Wagner fan! This obviously means he is more intelligent than people with actual law degrees and experience in the law courts!! Yes: being committed to high musical culture is a better marker of intelligence than any shoddy academic credentials! Now don’t get me wrong, this isn’t the only reason I admire Hitlol, but I have one time argued his intellectual superiority over other leaders with actual high-achieving academic pasts through this point alone. No, don’t be retarded you untermenschen, this doesn’t reveal a possible irrational, emotional motive behind my rabid Nazi admiration, one that isn’t in fact a result of serious, enlightened logical thinking. Did you know I can speak 4 languages?
Those bloody Jewdeo-Bolshokikes definitely killed millions in Gulags. Definitely. But, no, National Socialist Germany, despite being a totalitarian, personality-cult worshiping, war-mongering state NEVER, say, exterminated over 3 million Soviet POWs, most of them dying within 8 months of ‘41. Oh, and Holocaust?! Lolocaust!! Definitely not. German soldiers were the best behaved in the war!! Superhuman SS!!!
But by Himmler’s cock!, I certainly won’t apply an equal helping of skepticism to the historical tradition regarding Soviet, Allied or even Japanese war crimes, because..!!
You British peon scum are worthless, money-grabbing, soulless fools! You are less intelligent, less noble than the average German, what with your lower than average population and 15 more Nobel Prizes than us. Oh, and you Poles are even worse, you slack-brained Slavs, what with your complete superiority in Topcoder algorithm competitions compared to Germany, despite your significant economic disadvantage. Slaves!
Yuezhus = win.
We’re functioning automatic
and we are dancing mechanic
Posted by Prozium on February 10, 2008, 08:29 PM | #
And then radical Euro Atheists and Humanists rejected not only the Christian Heritage of the West but also the Graeco-Roman heritage as well. You’re swimming in your own juices.
Over 90% of Americans are Christians. The U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the world. George W. Bush is a Christian. Obviously, we are not suffering from any lack of Christianity in America.
Posted by Don on February 10, 2008, 10:20 PM | #
“How do Jews do it if there are only five million of them in the U.S.?”
In fact, there are probably 30 million Jews in the USA who promote the Jewish party line. Here are three bases for my claim.
1) In the early 1970s, I happened to meet a dozen or so old-timer immigration agents who were at or just past retirement age, and listened to their stories. One element that appeared over and over again was the very loose standards that they were required to apply to Jewish immigrants and refugees over their career. Even older agents were cited on this point, so the institutional memories recited were at least 60 years old at that time, back to 1910 or 1920 or so. In many cases, Jewish individual immigration officials granted admission to entire boatloads without creating documentation and without medical exams. The old-timers also frequently mentioned huge boatloads of Jews landing in Canada (where entry was even easier) who then scuttled across the US-Canada border to family, friends, and easily bamboozled Christian-financed refugee boards. The estimate the old-timer agents gave for illegal immigration of undocumented Jews was in the neighborhood of 10 million, peaking at three times, around the turn of the century (1900), at the end of WWI (1920), and post-WWII times.
2) In support of this reality and according to the old-timers who sought to blow the whistle on these criminal admissions, the Jews had academic & journalistic co-conspirators who silenced discussion of this huge phenomenon on the ground, yes, that it would “promote anti-semitism if known.” Mustn’t do that.
3) In additional support of this reality, Jews mounted a mighty campaign not to be counted in the US decennial census as Jews. An honest count of Jews in America would startle everyone who has been raised on the “tiny minority” story. Jews don’t mind being counted as Jews in the Canadian census, but utterly reject being counted in the US census. The only reason that can be teased out of this point is that there are many more Jews than as we realize. This may be why we hear about so many fights about test methodology between major Jewish organizations whenever there is a study of Jews by Jews in America.
But they stick together as described above to create new facts on the ground, especially those based on their tikkun olam commandment (one of 613 commandments) to change the world to accommodate Jewish tastes, comfort, greed, and hatreds. What we are seeing behind the huge variety of American-hating Jewish projects (in addition to the purposes stated above) is (1) the unlimited hatred by Jews for every other people, and (2) a religious commandment to change the world for their comfort. These two impulses are murderous toward us.
When the white American, Canadian, and European peoples finally get it that neo-tribalism is being forced down our throats, and when we finally embrace the tools that neo-tribalism offers, then we will see discussions like these in public media. We’ll be free to be ourselves.
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on February 10, 2008, 10:26 PM | #
Prozium, it is simply NOT just “Christianity”. Things in the world are made by a combinatorial system. For instance, the human body is NOT just made up of flesh--but bone and a liquid called blood. It is a combination of things. The Family is NOT just made up of a Man, but a Man and a woman---A combination of things.
There is an error in human thought that gravitates to one thing, this extreme to the other extreme. We dress all things down into a monism. Christianity is important but it isn’t the only thing. The restoration of Monarchy. Christendom is built on “Throne and Altar”. By decieving all Europeans to get rid of their kings, opened them all up to Jewish power and Euro ideologues. Kings have a care of their people as a father for his children. You can’t have Christianity without monarchy. Furthermore, you can’t have both of those without Patriarchy; that means ending woman’s suffrage and putting women back in skirts and back in the home where they belong.
Next comes the culture for it is culture that produces men. What is needed is Men, true Men. Only agrarianism, or a boy scout program for city boys, are men produced, hardened, rugged masculine men. Without the Culture of ruggedness and outdoorsmanship there is no true man. It is a combination of Christianity, Monarchy and Agrarianism/Outdoorsmanship that is needed.
Christianity provides the Transcendence, divine truth; Monarchy provides the Patriarchy and Authority; Agrarianism/Outdoorsmanship provides the Manliness. What is affecting Christianity is two things, the lack of manliness and second dysfunctionality between and inherent in Protestantism and Catholicism.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2008, 12:41 AM | #
Don,
It should be possible to arrive at a general indication of the size of the Jewish population in America on the basis of college admissions - given what we know of the Jewish bell curve, the devoted self-advancement and networking of Jews, and Jewish fertility.
“Hate” is a word that must be weighed with care. I am not happy with your generalisation that it is, in the Jewish case, “unlimited” and universal. Everything is limited. Further, there is a Jewish population in Iran whish appears not to hate Iranians, and recently refused to make aliyah. If one is to apply the “h” word let it not be with the same sloppiness and gratuity with which it is applied to us.
Posted by Prozium on February 11, 2008, 01:41 AM | #
Christianity provides the Transcendence, divine truth; Monarchy provides the Patriarchy and Authority; Agrarianism/Outdoorsmanship provides the Manliness. What is affecting Christianity is two things, the lack of manliness and second dysfunctionality between and inherent in Protestantism and Catholicism.
So now you are saying the problem is 1.) the race degeneracy produced by capitalism which is 2.) compounded by liberal democracy. If so, we are on the same page, but I still fail to see how Christianity is the solution. Isn’t Christianity already reconciled to the status quo and fully a part of the mainstream?
Posted by Friedrich Braun on February 11, 2008, 02:57 AM | #
“Isn’t Christianity already reconciled to the status quo and fully a part of the mainstream?”
Upon the renewal of my subscription to Occidental Quarterly (for three years), I received a fine little book “Breach of Faith: American Churches and the Immigration Crisis.” Organized Christianity today is part and parcel of the problem and labours against the genetic interests of White populations.
http://www.amazon.com/Breach-Faith-American-Churches-Immigration/dp/0967215447
Posted by silver on February 11, 2008, 03:09 AM | #
My diagnosis: Christianity renders unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Multiracialism is the modern Caesar, and since multiracialism is compatible with Christianity, Christianity offers no defence against racial dispossession. The problem is compounded by modern Christians having wholeheartedly embraced multiracialism, argued that it is un-Christian to oppose it, and used Christian theological non-opposition to it to advance their own Christian agenda—filling pews no matter whence congregants originate.
Wheeler attempts to remedy matters by invoking “Tradition”. Centuries of absence of such tradition would appear to make this a futile theological dispute. Nevertheless, if it can be used to rally support let it be used. Wheeler needs to be less zealous in insisting it is the only approach, however, and cease hostilities with those advocating alternative means.
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on February 11, 2008, 03:16 AM | #
Christendom is built on “Throne and Altar”. This is in answer to one part of the problem of “why” Christianity. It seperates religion from government and puts it into another institution called Church.
In Ancient times, there was really no seperate place for Religion. The Monarch, like the Egyptian Pharoahs and the Persian kings were both the head of their state and a religious figure. For these Monarchs, they all had divine foundation---but not religion. When Jesus Christ came, He personally instituted a Church; Religion was put into a seperate institution called a Church. Now, in Christendom, The Monarch had a divine foundation and the Church, the religion, had a divine foundation.
With the destruction of Christendom, ideologues and ideology becomes totalitarian; in other words ideology becomes religion. It becomes totalitarian because religion and the state are in one institution that of the ideology. Ideology takes on religious character and mentality. One can see this in both Anarchism, Communism, and Fascism.
The Second point of ‘why’ Christianity is that only Christianity solves the problem of evil. That man has salvation from sin because God himself took upon his royal self the punishment due to evil. Once evil is done away with or its demands satisfied, immortality is within the grasp of all men. All humans are spiritual, and Christianity is that Spiritual Truth that sets man free from evil and death. Christianity gives assurance in that. Christianity satisfies the spiritual hunger of man, it satisfies his intellect, and it satisfies the demands of Justice.
Christianity is a Greek/Indo-European religion. Indo-Europeans who had no divine revelation but only inklings and vague rememberings are given truth and substance with Christianity that the old European religions could not give. This is why most of the European old religious ways have been subsumed by Catholicism. The Trinitarian aspect of Christianity, which is NOT Jewish or semitic, which is a core doctrine of Christianity, is European.
Because Christianity is built on Truth, with a physical historical manifestation, it provides Transcendence. The Good, the Beautiful, Truth, Justice, Virtue is seen only in the context of God. It is Christianity that feeds the Soul of Man. It is Christianity that corrects the errors within the soul of man and heals it. It is what inspired Europeans to charity, beauty, which is embodied in the great art, architecture, music of Europe. From the Cathedral of Notre Dame, to Handel’s Messiah, to Michelangio to Da Vinci. Christianity built Europe. Civilized Europe. Educated Europe. Inspired Europe. Brought Europe Greatness. Died for Europe.
At the Battle of Lepanto, muslim ships went after a stray lonely Christian ship. On it were Templar Knights; they stood their ground and slew many before they were overwhelmed. These Christians, these religious men sacrificed their lives for Europe. Countless Monks and nuns, celibate, sacrificed their lives, pleasures, material things, to turn the marshes of Europe into arable land; Taught and improved agriculture and science; Monks and nuns who wrote down and passed on Classical and religious texts so that future generations could have learning and knowledge. It was Christianity that restricted warfare to only the aristocratic class and prevented cities and civilians from being harmed (didn’t work all the time; not always successful).
As GK Chesterton said, “Europe is the Faith and the Faith Europe”.
Posted by John Ray on February 11, 2008, 03:28 AM | #
David
I think you miss the essential point about the conservative response: Its distrust of big theories IS a good response to the Leftist babbling.
And vast numbers of voters distrust intellectuals so it is a response with a big constituency
But the “anti-racist” fever has to run it course before we get more rationality
In the meantime the Muslims are doing a great job of discrediting multiculturalism
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on February 11, 2008, 03:33 AM | #
Christianity is defined by the Truth, not by the heretics within it.
Posted by D.E. Johnson on February 11, 2008, 03:37 AM | #
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 03:16 AM | #
Once evil is done away with or its demands satisfied, immortality is within the grasp of all men.
Running completely off the rails under a full head of steam is not conducive to longevity, never mind immortality.
Posted by silver on February 11, 2008, 03:47 AM | #
Wheeler, I can agree with all that. I am a Christian. I just don’t have much use for encylicals or bulls or the blabbering of prelates regarding the issues of the day; in this, they are worse than useless—they are often the enemy. See: Benedict XVI; Rowan Williams.
Posted by Prozium on February 11, 2008, 03:58 AM | #
Upon the renewal of my subscription to Occidental Quarterly (for three years), I received a fine little book “Breach of Faith: American Churches and the Immigration Crisis.” Organized Christianity today is part and parcel of the problem and labours against the genetic interests of White populations.
Of course. Here in America, the Catholic Church (in alliance with the cheap labor lobby) has been a more prominent supporter of amnesty for illegal aliens than even the Jewish community. Insofar as American Catholics have bucked this trend, they have done so in spite of the clergy, not because of their influence. The Protestants also have a problem with liberal ministers who are pro-amnesty.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2008, 12:07 PM | #
Friedrich,
There were very significant and formative influences on the ideological basis of National Socialism who, nonetheless, fell by the wayside. One thinks, particularly, of the Strasser brothers and the great jurist, Carl Schmitt. Gregor Strasser sought a second revolution against the elites, and became a victim of the Night of the Long Knives. Otto Strasser survived but, along with Schmitt, was subsequently “criticised” for a paucity of judenhasse. Schmitt was saved by the intervention of Göring, who at least recognised a great mind when he saw one.
As I understand it, NS became wholly centred around the figure of the Führer, and his political principles as set out in Mein Kampff. The Führer, however, was not a very able philosopher (or war administrator). He might have been the greatest public orator the world has ever seen.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2008, 12:33 PM | #
John,
The difficulty with just waiting out the storm is that race-replacement is not mere leftist babbling, but formal elite policy. The left is useful to the elite’s anti-nation project, which is why it is given free rein. Loyal sentiment on the right is the opposite, and is strangulated.
The precondition for survival is territorial sovereignty. For the last sixty years political Conservatism has been uninterested in defending that, because it is more interested in power. That leaves people like me searching for a philosophical Conservative kernel that is unmixed with the ways of the modern world. It’s true that such a kernel would give a healthy society healthy politics. But it can’t restore health in a time when so many pointers lead to real destruction.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on February 11, 2008, 12:47 PM | #
The traitorous Strasser brothers were peripheral figures, I have written about them at some length in the past:
Strasser and National Bolshevism [1]
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/08/28/strasser-and-national-bolshevism-1/
Strasser and National Bolshevism [2]
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/08/29/strasser-and-national-bolshevism-2/
Posted by onlooker on February 11, 2008, 01:38 PM | #
WLindsayWheeler has it completely right about Christianity...HOW REFRESHING!!!!!!!
It has always frustrated and amazed me that so many that call themselves WN’ists would align themselves with the Cultural Marxists; they are our sworn enemy, you know! Anybody that is paying the least bit of attention knows the anti-White leftists find Christianity anathema to their leftist agenda. I find it mind boggling the so-called WN movement would aid and abet the complete demise of the Church. How can WN defeat their enemies when they join forces with them and attack the very religion that made Europe and it’s people great? Talk about self inflicted ethno suicide!
Some here are not much different than Gramsci. In fact some are in essence supporters of him.
“For a long time American Vision has been calling on Christians to understand that social change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. This does not mean that the top should be ignored. There were converts in “Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22). Political involvement is God-ordained and “ministerial” (Rom. 13:1, 4), not redemptive (John 19:15; cf. Acts 17:7). With these principles in mind, more attention should be given to family, church, education, business, law, art, journalism, and entertainment while not ignoring politics.
The Left learned this in the 1960s when their political agenda failed to accomplish their stated goals. Their radical agenda was shot down politically because the majority of Americans still retained a remnant of the older Christian worldview. The Left knew it would be necessary to capture those institutions that shape and mold children who will one day become leaders. Once the heart and mind are captured, everything else follows, including politics. This is a major tactical maneuver that most on the Right did not understand.
Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy for cultural and social change was the model for the new Leftists. Gramsci (1891–1937) considered Christianity to be the “force binding all the classes—peasants and workers and princes and priests and popes and all the rest besides, into a single, homogeneous culture. It was specifically Christian culture, in which individual men and women understood that the most important things about human life transcend the material conditions in which they lived out their mortal lives."1 Gramsci broke with Marx and Lenin’s belief that the masses would rise up and overthrow the ruling “superstructure.” No matter how oppressed the working classes might be, their Christian faith would not allow such an overthrow, Gramsci theorized. Marxists taught “that everything valuable in life was within mankind."2"
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on February 11, 2008, 03:49 PM | #
Heresies affecting Christianity has been there from the beginning. There has been no age that orthodox aposotolic Christianity has not been aflicted with heresy. Arianism almost triumped over it in the 4th century. Jesus had Judas. Every age, every year, there are Judases. The Church is never free from them but in this age it seems that there are millions of them.
It distresses me to no end the position of the Catholic Heirarchy and most of the mainline Protestant Churches on immigration and race. Our whole society is becoming more and more Judiazed. Jewish mode of thought is everywhere and it is corrupting Christianity. The Jewish mode of thought is solely on the written word and is materialistic. And it seems to be that Christianity is soley becoming more materialistic and concentrating on the Gospel and on the word “love” to the exclusion of all else.
This is not traditional European Christian thought. Traditional Roman Catholic Thought/Western Thought was about combining Scripture with the Natural Law. The Natural Law has somehow dropped off the agenda. Traditional Western European Thought is based on Divine Revelation and the Natural Law. It is based in the Golden Mean which is the holding of contradictory things in a harmony directed to their right objects. It is very complex thought that many people can not engage in. And that means understanding Proportion which is lost on many modern people.
Priests and Bishops only preach on Love and not on any other subject like Righteousness. Much of the Christian Laity are ignorant of many subjects because the socialist/liberal clergy are deliberatly dumbing down the laity. As I like to say “Even good in the wrong proportions does evil”. The overpreaching on Love within the Christian church has effeminized and damaged Christianity.
“Democracy” with its egalitarianism and the exaltation of the common man has shown that the common man is moved by propaganda and not by science, logic or wisdom. Wisdom is of the Few and the enlightened--not a purview of the many. This democracy is the methodology of Rabbinic Thought; it is how it comes to decide what it thinks is truth. Democracy is highly destructive to wisdom, to the Church and to the character of Man. On the other hand St. Maximos the Confessor, brutalized, tortured, imprisoned by his own Church said this, “One man with the Truth is the Majority”. This is Western Thought. Our Duty is to the Truth.
The current culture of modernism, the control of the educational system by leftists, by women, has disastrous effects and the Church can not be but affected by this. It’s sad.
-------
Christianity rests on Truth. It is all about Truth and Love. That is where True Christianity is. Our responsiblity is to hold Truth, have love, Duty to God and country. This is our personal responsiblity. We are going to be judged on this not on the actions/inactions/heresy of others. Yes, it is shameful and that majority of Christianity is in heresy. But that doesn’t negate our responsibility, our Duty. We who know better---act better. The war is about Education. That there has to be a thorough grounding in our common Graeco-Roman Foundation; a proper understanding of all of Scriptures, a love and knowledge of the Natural Law; This is all Wisdom. Training in Virtue which is completely lost on our whole society and Church. Virtue is what is needed and yet nobody knows what that is.
Posted by onlooker on February 11, 2008, 04:18 PM | #
“That there has to be a thorough grounding in our common Graeco-Roman Foundation; a proper understanding of all of Scriptures, a love and knowledge of the Natural Law; This is all Wisdom.”
Bravo!
Western Civilization and Christianity
by James Kurth
http://www.schwarzreport.org/SchwarzReport/2004/october04.html
Posted by Rusty Mason on February 11, 2008, 04:55 PM | #
WLindsayWheeler wrote, “Christianity rests on Truth.” As it should. But how does one handle the seeming contradictions in the Bible, and what does one say to those who insist on, “The inerrancy of Scripture,” and take every word therein literally?
Posted by Denethor on February 11, 2008, 04:58 PM | #
As GK Chesterton said, “Europe is the Faith and the Faith Europe”.
I’m pretty sure it was Belloc who said that, not Chesterton.
Posted by Denethor on February 11, 2008, 05:08 PM | #
At the Battle of Lepanto, muslim ships went after a stray lonely Christian ship. On it were Templar Knights; they stood their ground and slew many before they were overwhelmed.
Huh? I know the Templars are at the center of a great deal of New Age nonsense, but I think this is the first time I’ve heard anyone claim they’d traveled forward in time 250 years or so. (Well how else do you get them from their 1312 AD suppression to a 1571 AD naval battle?)
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on February 11, 2008, 05:53 PM | #
I have been asked to expound on another tangent; on Christianity and its “not invented here” objections.
First off, much of what we do is borrowed from the East. Our writing system, our chickens, and most domesticated animals and foods, our “0”, we borrowed from the East. Plato in his letter to Epinomis writes: “Bu we may take it that whenevr Greeks borrow anything from non-Greeks, they finally carry it to a higher perfection”.
In a sense, Christianity borrowed the Scriptures from the Hebrews----and carried it to a higher perfection. We only borrow what is Perfect or Excellent in the East and drop the rest. Or what we see could be perfected---pick it up---without imbibing the errors of the East. Even rudimentary Greek philosophy has its roots in Egyptian mysteries but those things in it were purified through Logic and the Western mind into the Excellence we now know as Greek Philosophy, Socratic, Platonic, Aristotelian, Thomistic, Philosophy. The Western Mind works on Excellence. We always move to a higher perfection or Excellence. Even dropping what is non-perfect in our world.
That said, Jesus Christ said himself: Matthew, Ch. 21
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.”
See, this “Taken From” and “Given to (another) Nation” (Ethni in Greek, Race/Nation). Jesus said the Faith was being transferred. It was being transferred from the Hebrews, from the Jews to the Indo-Europeans---to the Greeks. Edith Hamilton the American Classicist wrote: “Christianity, in its beginnings was addressed to Greeks. The Gospels, as we have them are in Greek. St. Paul wrote in Greek to Greek-speaking Christians.”
The Doctrine of Jesus Christ as Fully God and Fully man is NOT a Jewish/Semitic construct. That is a Greek thing. This is why the Jews rejected Jesus and the Greeks accepted him. The Trinity is NOT a Jewish/Semitic construct---it is Greek. The Immortality of the soul is NOT a Jewish/Semitic construct---it is totally Greek. When Alexander the Great conquered the Middle East, he Hellenized the Middle East. Plato’s ideas became the Cultural Norm for much of the East including Palestine. The Pharisees were Hellenistic Jews. Much of Judiasm was already Hellenized. The Septuagint written in Greek, Hellenized the Jews and brought them in touch with Greek Philosophical ideas. The Sadducees were the traditional Jews not so much Hellenized as the Pharisees. Jesus hobnobbed with the Pharisees---not with the Sadducees.
Original Sin is a Platonic Idea that Church Fathers read back into the Hebrew Scriptures and found them there. Plato is more of the Founder of Christianity than the Jews are. Jesus Christ is the Messiah---But Christianity is a Greek/Indo-European Religion. Jerry Dell Ehrlich wrote a fabulous book, “Plato’s Gift to Christianity, The Gentile Preparation for and the Making of the Christian Faith”. Furthermore, Prof. Phillip Cary, PH. D in his lectures “Philosophy and Religion in the West” Part I, part of “The Great Courses on Tape” states that “Christianity STOLE from Plato”. (His exact words). The Combined Deity and Humanity of Jesus Christ, The Trinitarian Dogma, the Immortality of the Soul, Original sin, are NOT Jewish concepts/ideas---But Platonic and therefore European. The Septuagint was written in Greek, an Indo-European Language and it replaced Jewish words and the anthropologizing of God with the Metaphysical language of the Greeks. Furthermore the New Testament is written IN Greek, an Indo-European language and ONLY quotes from the Septuagint and quotes a couple of pagan Greeks. Christianity is a Greek/Indo-European religion---not at all Semitic. It borrowed the ideas and the personhood of God from the Semites---But improved greatly the Faith and corrected Error.
(This post is already long; will continue in another post.)
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on February 11, 2008, 06:29 PM | #
Yes, Denethor is right it is Hillaire Belloc; I constantly mix him with GK Chesterton. It was the Knights Hospitallar, not the Templar Knights that were involved in the Battle of Lepanto. There is a famous story of one that stand of Knights on a galley against three or more muslim ships. 30 knights killed hundreds of Muslims before they were cut down themselves.
Posted by Rusty Mason on February 11, 2008, 07:06 PM | #
Great posts, Mr. Wheeler, thank you. Please, keep writing while you still have these thoughts in your head. Great answers on the “not invented here” problem many have. What about racial concerns: what firm protection does true Christianity offer the proponents of family, tribe, and nation? How does a correct interpretation of The Word and Truth encourage, direct, and support Real Men, giving that warrior spirit? This seems to be the draw of some of the pagan movements.
Posted by Rusty Mason on February 11, 2008, 07:16 PM | #
Another question: if the Jews had been so Hellenized by then, why have a Jewish Messiah? Why the Jews for Revelation?
Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2008, 08:23 PM | #
Christianity was forced upon Europe’s peoples for reasons of power, and turned to the same function as the old, true religion, which was to enhance genetic interests. No religion among the masses exists for “spiritual” reasons. There is no sky fairy. No one is going to His wonderland in heaven. No one is going to be judged after brain death, and found to have been a terribly good boy. No one is going to be immortal because of anything he does or does not do during his lifetime.
Whether human beings are capable of a transition along the ancient pathways of ecstacy and self-perfectionment is an entirely different question, and should not be confused with the spiritual bludgeon of organised worship, Christian or otherwise.
Sorry to so offend all those who have the faith gene. You are in the majority, and you are good people. But your tragedy is that you know part only of the three parts of the human story, and that part you inflate to the whole.
Posted by Prozium on February 11, 2008, 08:58 PM | #
What about racial concerns: what firm protection does true Christianity offer the proponents of family, tribe, and nation?
Zero.
If anything is true, Christianity undermines all of these things by teaching a universalist ethic. Jesus preached against the family in the New Testament. Christianity isn’t necessarily hostile to racial and cultural preservation, but these sentiments do not stem from religion (they are natural). The restoration of Christianity is thus not a solution to the crisis we are facing.
Where is Christianity opposed to the forces at work destroying the West? It looks to me like the Church is a collaborator everywhere. In some cases, as in the American immigration debate, the Church has led the charge on the other side. Christianity is for its own self perpetuation as an otherwordly cult. Zmirak never ceases to remind us that the perpetuation of Europeans is irrelevant to its goals.
Posted by onlooker on February 11, 2008, 09:28 PM | #
It is said, about 10%, or less, of the population are incapable of grasping, or believing, in the concept of a divine creator. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bad people; but, too bad, so sad, for them.
Posted by Al Ross on February 11, 2008, 09:28 PM | #
When Lindsay Wheeler can prove to us that there is something for humans beyond this life, then his sententious Jesusbabble might be taken seriously. Even then there are thinking people who would agree with Christopher Hitchens when he claims that, even if he knew God existed, he’d be agin Him due to the savage and arbitrary nature of His treatment of humans.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 11, 2008, 09:34 PM | #
“Where is Christianity opposed to the forces at work destroying the West? It looks to me like the Church is a collaborator everywhere. In some cases, as in the American immigration debate, the Church has led the charge on the other side.” (—Prozium)
This is true of mainstream Christianity as presently constituted (except Eastern Orthodox, however). Mainstream Christianity has joined the Jews and the Globalist Capitalists in pushing for the annihilation of the European races, supposedly out of Christian self-abnegation — something like “we have to do it to be nice to the world’s poor: to show our concern for them we are morally obliged to go out of existence and bequeath everything that is ours to them.” This is a condensation of the Jim-Jones-type mass-suicide doctrine which the Catholics and mainline Prods have now adopted from his cult in Guiana and are teaching their faithful today. Listening to these priests today, you can just hear the evil lunatic Jim Jones exhorting his flock, “Here, drink this, you must pass out of existence. Everyone must drink the Kool-Aid. Pass it around so everyone can have some. No one must be left alive. Everyone must drink. It is God’s wish.” The problem with all that is Christianity doesn’t call for group racial/ethnocultural suicide. Quite the contrary in fact, a case can be made that it condemns it as a sin analagously with the case of the suicide of the individual. Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have now become Jim-Jones-Guiana mass suicide sects.
“Zmirak never ceases to remind us that the perpetuation of Europeans is irrelevant to [Christianity’s] goals.” (—Prozium)
Zmirak would have felt right at home at Jonestown on the day the Kool-Aid was being passed out.
So-called “Christians” like John Zmirak make me puke.
Posted by Don on February 11, 2008, 09:36 PM | #
The scope of hatred held by Jews toward non-Jews is questioned by Guessedworker above,
““Hate” is a word that must be weighed with care. I am not happy with your generalisation that it is, in the Jewish case, “unlimited” and universal.”
I thought this was a well-known fact. So let us consult Professor Israel Shahak in his “Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” chapter five titled “The Laws Against Non-Jews.”
You may read the entire chapter at this web site:
http://www.ety.com/HRP/racehate/shahak5.htm
Anyway, here are some short quotations from chapter five of Shahak’s book.
===================
Under this heading ("ABUSE") I would like to discuss examples of halakhic laws whose most important effect is not so much to prescribe specific anti-Gentile discrimination as to inculcate an attitude of scorn and hatred towards Gentiles....
Let us begin with the text of some common prayers. In one..., every devout Jew blesses God for not making him a Gentile. The concluding section of the daily prayer (which is also used in the most solemn part of the service on New Year’s day and on Yom Kippur) opens with the statement: ‘We must praise the Lord of all ... for not making us like the nations of [all] lands ... for they bow down to vanity and nothingness and pray to a god that does not help’…
We have mentioned in Chapter 2 the rule according to which a pious Jew must utter [a] curse when passing near a Gentile cemetery, whereas he must bless God when passing near a Jewish cemetery. A similar rule applies to the living; thus, when seeing a large Jewish population a devout Jew must praise God, while upon seeing a large Gentile population he must utter a curse....
There is also a series of rules forbidding any expression of praise for Gentiles or for their deeds, except where such praise implies an even greater praise of Jews and things Jewish....
An important effect of all these laws - quite apart from their application in practice - is in the attitude created by their constant study which, as part of the study of the Halakhah, is regarded by classical Judaism as a supreme religious duty. Thus an Orthodox Jew learns from his earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that Gentiles are compared to dogs, that it is a sin to praise them, and so on and so forth....
Anyone who lives in Israel knows how deep and widespread these attitudes of hatred and cruelty towards all Gentiles are among the majority of Israeli Jews....a significant minority of Jews, both in Israel and abroad, have gradually become more open about such matters. In recent years the inhuman precepts according to which servitude is the ‘natural’ lot of Gentiles have been publicly quoted in Israel, even on TV....and as divine authority for their own plan to expel all the Arabs from Palestine....
Judaism is imbued with a very deep hatred towards Christianity, combined with ignorance about it....it dates from the time when Christianity was still weak and persecuted (not least by Jews), and it was shared by Jews who had never been persecuted by Christians or who were even helped by them. Thus, Maimonides was subjected to Muslim persecutions by the regime of the Almohads and escaped from them first to the crusaders’ Kingdom of Jerusalem, but this did not change his views in the least. This deeply negative attitude is based on two main elements....First, on hatred and malicious slanders against Jesus....Secondly, for theological reasons, mostly rooted in ignorance, Christianity as a religion is classed by rabbinical teaching as idolatry....
Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2008, 09:42 PM | #
onlooker,
Tell me what this means:-
“For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there” from Matthew 18.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2008, 09:51 PM | #
Don,
You wrote “the unlimited hatred by Jews for every other people”. Are you,then, shifting this to the hatred of Christianity, and is it still “unlimited”?
One understands that Judaism is Jewish Nationalism, and being the most ethnocentric people in the world, it is entirely probably that the converse of Jewish self-love, which is Jewish dislike of the out-group, will be of like strength.
So there are Jews, no doubt, who hate, and some of them hate a great deal. But that still isn’t what you wrote, which concerned all Jews and unlimited hatred. My injunction is to take care in that respect. You will come closer to the truth for it.
Posted by onlooker on February 11, 2008, 10:25 PM | #
onlooker,
Tell me what this means:-
“For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there” from Matthew 18.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m not a Theologian GW!
Ver. 18 means: To the Apostles as a body is given a part of the power granted to Peter. There will be no conflict of authority, since Peter is the head of the Church, including the Apostles he alone having received “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
What I think it means is: If you want to enter the kingdom of heaven, you must follow the teachings of the Church. The Church in this context clearly means the Catholic Church.
Posted by Al Ross on February 11, 2008, 10:36 PM | #
“The Church in this context clearly means the Catholic Church”.
That’s a relief. In 2004 the then Pope called for “a new world order based on the goals of the United Nations”.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2008, 10:51 PM | #
I’m not a theologian either. I am a Darwinian with a question about teleology. The point is that something is outside Western epistemology, and it is situated at the sacred core of every genuine religion (or, in the case of Christianity, once was). But it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or worship, which are genetic endowments. It is not accessible through faith. It is the question ... the mystery of whether a man might, in some way, become a god, and for us it is unanswerable.
I mentioned the three parts of Man’s story, meaning the Inate, the Acquired and this sacred thing which we might call the Esoteric. Religionists act from a genetic predeliction for faith, of which they are obviously unaware, and imbue it with an acquired set of meanings. Those meanings are not stable among all peoples at all times, and believers mutually refute them and frequently fight over them to the death. In other words, the meanings are foils for tribal genetic interests. Faith only exists because it has been selected for its fitness gain. Gods do not exist in this world, and there is no other.
Posted by onlooker on February 11, 2008, 10:57 PM | #
“That’s a relief. In 2004 the then Pope called for “a new world order based on the goals of the United Nations”.
Big Al,
Maybe, just maybe, the Pope (after all he’s only human) isn’t infallible after all? That’s not God’s fault!
Posted by Friedrich Braun on February 11, 2008, 11:11 PM | #
“Even then there are thinking people who would agree with Christopher Hitchens when he claims that, even if he knew God existed, he’d be agin Him due to the savage and arbitrary nature of His treatment of humans.”
He’s not the only to make that point:
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/02/02/god-the-psycho/
I find it an incredible waste of my time to debate godidiots such as Wheeler. Someone who obsessively spams every blog with his medieval nonsense about “Thrown & Altar” as answer to all of Europe’s problems.
The best way to deal with Jebus freaks on WN boards is to ignore them.
Posted by onlooker on February 11, 2008, 11:15 PM | #
GW,
As with all your intelligent posts, it’s going to require me a while to digest and fully understand what you said. You provide your readers a valuable education. Many thanks for that!
“Gods do not exist in this world.”
Maybe because of what happened in the Garden of Eden?
Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2008, 11:33 PM | #
Onlooker,
If God exists He is far away from his Creation, separated from it by the laws He created to bring it into a bounded form. If you happened to bump into him some time, and you asked Him for a spot of help, He would reply, “Very sorry, my friend, but although I made all these laws that, actually, made you, I cannot break them without breaking everything.”
You cannot break the laws either, of course. But there is a faint possibility, if you knew how and had some help, to escape, if only fleetingly, from the tyranny of the acquired.
Incidentally, one of the beautiful errors of Judaised liberalism is that it seeks to deliver Western Man from his, of course, racist, sexist, homophobic Nature. Spiritual pursuit seeks to deliver men from the acquired, the false, the sleep-inducing.
I love the way the best liberal minds got it wrong. But then they were not free in any meaningful sense.
Posted by Desmond Jones on February 11, 2008, 11:37 PM | #
How can a Darwinian pose a question about purpose and design? Randomness is randomness and evolutionary theory must deny teleology.
“Religionists act from a genetic predilection for faith, (not faith but survival) of which they are obviously unaware, and imbue it with an acquired set of meanings.”
Faith is purpose in the face of nihilism which enhances altruism. Altruism at the individual level appears not to enhance fitness, however, it does at the group level. The story of Christ, is the story of a highly altruistic man imbued with a sense of purpose derived from sources beyond earthly confines. His altruism did not enhance the survival of his own personal genes, however, it proved a fitness benefit to millions. People flocked to Christianity because it provided a greater sense of purpose and comfort than its Pagan fellow traveler and “incidentally” enhanced reproductive fitness. The end result, Christian women had more babies than Pagan women.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2008, 11:53 PM | #
Desmond, this is good:-
Faith is purpose in the face of nihilism which enhances altruism.
I think there are other gains that flow from faith, notably a very high threshhold of mutual trust. But essentially you are right with regard to purpose.
Here is the mystery question which I cannot yet satisfactorily answer: Since our ordinary waking existence is perfectly sufficient for evolutionary purposes, why is Man capable (if, indeed, he is) of transcending Personality through an act of attention, and finding within a presence, unity and, therefore, will which is missing in the ordinary waking state?
The possible answers are:-
1) Self-consciousness and unity are illusions.
2) They are the natural estate of Man, but he “fell” from that in some way long, long ago and continued to evolve rather well even in a state of absence and sleep.
3) God exists and made a paradise on Earth for Man, should he choose to live by His Word.
Take your pick. I’m for (2).
Posted by Guessedworker on February 12, 2008, 12:06 AM | #
I should just remind anyone who’s reading this and wondering why the hell we are so far from Pomo, that this is indeed a debate about essentialism, and quite a good one.
Posted by onlooker on February 12, 2008, 12:10 AM | #
Guessedworker,
You, or anyone else, can’t possibly explain how a bunch of molecules suddenly appeared out of nothing, in an infinite space --which is something—and from them (the molecules) outsprung mankind.
Who is believing in fairytales here?
Intelligent design is the only thing that’s logical.
Darwinism is a theory of how the Creator (God) created the material world and the living organisms within it by way of evolution.
Posted by torgrim on February 12, 2008, 12:29 AM | #
WLindsayWheeler;
“The Doctrine of Jesus Christ a Fully God and Fully man is NOT a Jewish/Semitic construct, that is a Greek thing.”
Yes, and Europe was essential in creating Christianity. The reason that the elder religions of Europe, were unfulfilled as you suggest, until Christianity came along, is an unarguable point, because, the replacement destroyed -almost- all of the elder religions. So the essentials cannot be debated as the history has been erased. The Trinity is an Indo-European construct, as is much of the New Testament, agreed. However, when, as I remember, at the Council of Nicea, the Church fathers, “cobbled on”, the Old Testament,- there, is where we have Christianity today, partly European and partly Rabbinic.
At least the elder Germanic religions, stated that their Gods and Goddesses created their sib, and many Germanic clans claimed/claim, descent from these dieties. This is what makes the elder religions much more fit.
It has been stated by more learned than I, that the Popes could not allow, any other authority, but theirs. Power and lust for power, caused much damage to whole areas of Europe.
Saying this, I would rather have a Christian as a neighbor than some smarmy liberal type.
I see the relationship between Euros of Christian, Atheist and Heathen,(which means those that live in the Heath, or country,btw), as with Holger the Danske.
When Holger’s enemy was being challenged by a alien race, Holger fought on the side of his genetic fitness and fought with Francia, against the Moors and defeated the Islamic Invasion of that era.
Posted by name on February 12, 2008, 12:35 AM | #
You, or anyone else, can’t possibly explain how a bunch of molecules suddenly appeared out of nothing, in an infinite space --which is something—and from them (the molecules) outsprung mankind.
Easier than explaining how an omnipotent, omniscient humanoid suddenly appeared out of nothing.
Posted by onlooker on February 12, 2008, 12:40 AM | #
“Easier than explaining how an omnipotent, omniscient humanoid suddenly appeared out of nothing.”
There are some things we’ll never understand, Voice. Deal with it!
Posted by Al Ross on February 12, 2008, 12:40 AM | #
“I love the way the best liberal minds got it wrong” - GW
It is hardly surprising when one considers the religious etiology of so many liberal political ideas. The endless search for ‘equality’, in the secular sense, is a replacement of the Christian idiocy that there exists a big sky-god who loves every individual, especially the primitive talking anthropoids of sub-Saharan Africa (Blessed are the poor...).
Also, the utterly useless emotions of guilt and pity which once powered the Christian drive have long since been transferred to those baneful, secular, advanced liberal superstitions which are ultimately responsible for the defacement and destruction of White Civilisation.
Posted by onlooker on February 12, 2008, 12:47 AM | #
I meant ‘name’ not Voice.
Posted by name on February 12, 2008, 01:00 AM | #
There are some things we’ll never understand [. . .] Deal with it!
I have. Without recourse to fairy tales.
I accept most people have “the faith gene”, as GW puts it. But I can’t accept claims that faith is somehow “logical” or “intelligent design” is scientific.
Posted by silver on February 12, 2008, 01:01 AM | #
Easier than explaining how an omnipotent, omniscient humanoid suddenly appeared out of nothing.
He was always there. The universe, on the other hand, had a beginning.
Posted by name on February 12, 2008, 01:28 AM | #
silver,
Asserting that an omnipotent, omniscient humanoid was “always there” does not make it so. There is not logical or “scientific” basis for believing in a sentient creator. “Deal with it”, as onlooker might say. It’s called a “faith” for a reason. I tired of this sort of argument sometime in high school, so I’ll leave it at that.
Posted by silver on February 12, 2008, 01:51 AM | #
The point is those who believe in God do not have to account for his origin. Asserting his existence does not make it so, but the existence of a “faith gene” does make it plausible. Ultimately, people (like myself) who lead lives of faith do so because they find it superior to the alternative. The trick is adapting such faith to other vital life concerns.
Posted by Desmond Jones on February 12, 2008, 03:35 AM | #
Take your pick. I’m for (2).
If two, then how do you account, as Darwin asks, for the lack of self-consciousness in young children?
It has been urged against the views here maintained that it is impossible to say at what point in the ascending scale animals become capable of abstraction, &c.; but
who can say at what age this occurs in our young children? We see at least that such powers are developed in children by imperceptible degrees.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 12, 2008, 07:31 AM | #
Desmond, what are you presuming of self-consciousness here? It’s not the power of abstraction.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on February 12, 2008, 01:14 PM | #
Silver: “He was always there. The universe, on the other hand, had a beginning.”
This type of moronic “reasoning” reminded me of an anecdote:
In A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books, 1988), Stephen Hawking tells
the story of an elderly woman who confronted Bertrand Russell at the end
of a lecture on orbital mechanics, claiming she had a theory superior to
his. “We don’t live on a ball revolving around the Sun,” she said, “we
live on a crust of earth on the back of a giant turtle.” Wishing to
humor the woman Russell asked, “And what does this turtle stand on?” “On
the back of a second, still larger turtle,” was her confident answer.
“But what holds up the second turtle?” he persisted, now in a slightly
exasperated tone. “It’s no use, young man,” the old woman replied, “it’s
turtles all the way down.”
It’s turtles all the way down for godidiots like silver.
Posted by onlooker on February 12, 2008, 03:38 PM | #
Silver: “He was always there. The universe, on the other hand, had a beginning.”
Friedrich Braun: “This type of moronic “reasoning”...”
Freidrich,
Let’s say for sake of argument Darwin’s theory of evolution is a fact. Okay. Let’s look at an infinite time and space line:
<----o----------------------2008-------->
Given - The “o” on the line represents the “big bang.” The segment between the big bang and the year 2008 represents billions of years of the evolutionary process.
But what led up to the big bang? Or in other words: How did the super dense ball of matter in an infinite space get there in the first place? Can you explain to a moron like me: Who, or what put the matter in that infinite space? How did it get there? And why?
Please don’t tell me it was always there.
Posted by Rusty Mason on February 12, 2008, 04:16 PM | #
GW wrote:
“Whether human beings are capable of a transition along the ancient pathways of ecstacy and self-perfectionment is an entirely different question, and should not be confused with the spiritual bludgeon of organised worship, Christian or otherwise.
“Sorry to so offend all those who have the faith gene. You are in the majority, and you are good people. But your tragedy is that you know part only of the three parts of the human story, and that part you inflate to the whole.”
GW,
I’m not sure if I have the “faith gene,” but no offense taken if I do. (It would be hard to say whether I’m Christian, Hellenistic, or heathen these days, but I’m definitely not to be confused with any evangelical or Judaeo-Christian, or any type of new-ager.)
What I wonder is, How can a person who does not fully understand the spiritual needs of most Europeans ("the faith gene"), create or discover a unifying system or pathway out of our current difficulties? Those who dismiss the power and reality of the spiritual dimension will never create anything of any value for Europeans. The Jews are always trying, and look what they and their childish, stunted minds push: socialism, nazism, communism, neo-conservatism, multiculturalism, modern art, pure democracy, anarchism, open borders, modern art, ad nauseum.
Posted by Kub on February 12, 2008, 04:26 PM | #
Please don’t tell me it was always there.
Why not? Why does one need a “guiding hand” for such things? Why can it not be that we are experiencing an event that will never be replicated EVER again? That even though the chances of its occurance were literally astronomical, it did come to pass and we are enjoying the fruits, if you will, of this chance occurance? The odds of this scenario are better than a supreme being tinkering with us, in my opinion.
Posted by Rusty Mason on February 12, 2008, 04:35 PM | #
To the majority, it IS turtles all the way down. It’s just a fact, that’s the way we are wired. I would think even a pure materialist could just accept this without such contumely.
It does not matter if you personally think Odin, Zeus, Jesus, or God are real or not. The reality is, the Truth is, that most people on the planet (especially Europeans, for these dieties) believe in them. Most people need—crave, like oxygen and food—a system whereby they can fill in the gaps in human knowledge. They need mystery, excitement, hope, and the prodding that only spirituality and religion can offer. They always have and always will.
More to the point, not only do they believe in certain things, their actions are manifestations of those beliefs. In a very real sense, then, these gods do exist, even for you: you must live among these people, and, if you hope to help or lead them at all, you must try, not only to understand what they believe, but empathize with them as best you can.
Posted by onlooker on February 12, 2008, 07:27 PM | #
Kub,
Forget a “guiding hand” for the moment. I was once an atheist too until I realized the universe is just to complex to create itself and evolve into what it is out of nothingness.
The questions are: How did matter come into existence? How did infinite space come into existence? Why do humans have the ability to be cognizant of their existence, yet are unable to explain their origins?
Posted by Desmond Jones on February 12, 2008, 07:41 PM | #
GW,
How about an example of “transcending Personality” then and where did man “fall” from?
Posted by Prozium on February 12, 2008, 09:05 PM | #
They need mystery, excitement, hope, and the prodding that only spirituality and religion can offer. They always have and always will.
i.e. Barack Obama’s constituency.
Posted by Prozium on February 12, 2008, 09:09 PM | #
But what led up to the big bang?
How do you move from the Big Bang to the claim that a Jewish carpenter who (possibly) lived 2,000 years ago was the Son of God? Those of us who never imbibed the faith meme in our youth just don’t get it.
Posted by Rusty Mason on February 12, 2008, 09:11 PM | #
Right! I should’ve added, ... and they are easily detached from reality, and so need proper guidance in spiritual things, lest their devotion be thrown to voodoo doodoo artists. Lordy, are we in for an exciting ride with Obama ...
Posted by Rusty Mason on February 12, 2008, 09:35 PM | #
Have you read Lindsay Wheeler’s site?
http://www.msnusers.com/TheDoricphilosopher
I think to fully appreciate Wheeler’s posts here on MR, one should read all his articles there. He has a (now) rare and refreshing understanding of what I would call Classical Christianity, the balanced mix of Classical Hellenist (mostly Platonic, I think) philosophy and Europeanized Christianity, together with a healthy understanding of natural law.
Posted by Rusty Mason on February 12, 2008, 09:37 PM | #
List of Wheeler’s articles here:
http://www.msnusers.com/TheDoricphilosopher/thelyceum.msnw
Posted by onlooker on February 12, 2008, 10:04 PM | #
“How do you move from the Big Bang to the claim that a Jewish carpenter who (possibly) lived 2,000 years ago was the Son of God?”
Prozium,
Did I claim a Jewish carpenter was the Son of God? Even if I did, that’s beside the point.
The question is: Did the universe and all that is contained in it suddenly appear out of nothingness, or was there an intelligent designer involved? I choose the later.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 12, 2008, 11:20 PM | #
But, Rusty, WLW is still calling upon us to follow him into belief - which, most obviously, is the modus operandum of the faith gene. It enlists, it binds, it is unshakable in adversity. It is, however, blind and indiscriminate ... given to following any light. Remember, it wasn’t a lack of faith which the liberal adversary possessed in driving us into this peril. Liberalism in all its platitudinous manifestations is a faith.
As for your earlier question about how we can “create or discover a unifying system or pathway out of our current difficulties”, I’m for clarity and reason. I’m for intention. I’m damned if I’m going to follow some 3000 year old desert-fairy because, apparently, Glaube macht frei. On the contrary, Christian universalism lies at the noumenal root of our difficulties. Saving Christianity from its own weakness and decrepidity is not necessary or wise. Let the faith geners be forced to choose between life on Earth for our people and the promise of eternal life in Heaven for themselves.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 12, 2008, 11:43 PM | #
Desmond: “How about an example of “transcending Personality” then and where did man “fall” from?”
An example lies in the words I took from Matthew whatever. You know, “When two or three are gathered together ...”
The fall? A Darwinian affair. I have advanced the theory elsewhere that Man is meant to be present to himself, as any animal is. But this presence, while natural enough in the extremely distant past, progressively lost ground to the development of intellect as proto-Man stood erect and processed the new world of waving grasses through his eyesight. Rapid cortical development shifted the seat of attention to the expanding intellect, and unbalanced the perceptual process.
Correction is possible, however. But it is a rather Esoteric business.
Posted by onlooker on February 13, 2008, 12:23 AM | #
“The fall? A Darwinian affair. I have advanced the theory elsewhere that Man is meant to be present to himself, as any animal is. But this presence, while natural enough in the extremely distant past, progressively lost ground to the development of intellect as proto-Man stood erect and processed the new world of waving grasses through his eyesight. Rapid cortical development shifted the seat of attention to the expanding intellect, and unbalanced the perceptual process.
Correction is possible, however. But it is a rather Esoteric business.”
GW,
Can you please translate that into English?
Posted by onlooker on February 13, 2008, 12:49 AM | #
Not all people that believe in intelligent design are “Jesus freaks” you know!
Posted by silver on February 13, 2008, 01:03 AM | #
It’s turtles all the way down for godidiots like silver.
Actually, I posit an eternal God in order to avoid infinite regression. Again, this says nothing about whether God exists, only if he does, then assuming he always has seems the most intelligent way to account for him.
How do you move from the Big Bang to the claim that a Jewish carpenter who (possibly) lived 2,000 years ago was the Son of God? Those of us who never imbibed the faith meme in our youth just don’t get it.
Jesus is an immensely charismatic, immensely attractive archetype. If you’re going to do the whole God thing, you could do a whole lot worse than Jesus.
The real problem is the church and the debilitating make-work of theological scribblers. If these people restricted themselves to saving souls, making people at peace with their place in the world, and preaching morality to shiftless ne’er-do-wells we’d all be much better off.
Posted by onlooker on February 13, 2008, 01:13 AM | #
“The real problem is the church and the debilitating make-work of theological scribblers. If these people restricted themselves to saving souls, making people at peace with their place in the world, and preaching morality to shiftless ne’er-do-wells we’d all be much better off.”
Hahahahahaha! Silver is right! Learn from it heathens, learn from it!!!
Posted by Al Ross on February 13, 2008, 01:15 AM | #
Isnt ‘decrepitude’ the word you meant to employ,GW?
“The promise of eternal life in heaven” surrounded by the sort of filthy, stupid, Third World human detritus of which Western governments, through criminally insane immigration policies, have kindly provided a plethora of samples, makes the Christian Hell look like a reasonably attractive destination.
Posted by onlooker on February 13, 2008, 01:34 AM | #
“The promise of eternal life in heaven” surrounded by the sort of filthy, stupid, Third World human detritus of which Western governments, through criminally insane immigration policies, have kindly provided a plethora of samples, makes the Christian Hell look like a reasonably attractive destination.”
I’m on the floor holding my stomach with laughter! Al is a comic genius!
Posted by rustymason on February 13, 2008, 04:37 AM | #
GW clarified:
But, Rusty, WLW is still calling upon us to follow him into belief - which, most obviously, is the modus operandum of the faith gene.
Oh, sorry, now I understand what you mean by the faith gene. If that’s what you mean, then no, I don’t have it. I’m not sure WLW does to the degree you say. He seems, overall, like a very reasonable man to me. But then, perhaps I’ve grown so used to prosyletizers here in Baptist-land that I don’t notice it. Perhaps I cannot distinguish it from the uncontrollable excitement of wanting to share exceptionally interesting revelations (THAT gene I do have).
It enlists, it binds, it is unshakable in adversity. It is, however, blind and indiscriminate ... given to following any light. Remember, it wasn’t a lack of faith which the liberal adversary possessed in driving us into this peril. Liberalism in all its platitudinous manifestations is a faith.
In most people, this is very true. But again, his “preaching” aside, he has reached his understanding in a most reasonable fashion, the most reasonable Christian I know, I think --and that’s really saying something here in the deep South.
As for your earlier question about how we can “create or discover a unifying system or pathway out of our current difficulties”, I’m for clarity and reason. I’m for intention.
Yes, quite, absolutely.
I’m damned if I’m going to follow some 3000 year old desert-fairy because, apparently, Glaube macht frei. On the contrary, Christian universalism lies at the noumenal root of our difficulties. Saving Christianity from its own weakness and decrepidity is not necessary or wise. Let the faith geners be forced to choose between life on Earth for our people and the promise of eternal life in Heaven for themselves.
Several different issues in that last paragraph, but I do understand generally what you mean. However, I was not really thining about your, Frederich’s, and Fade’s aversion to Abrahamic-based religions, or to universalism, but to your apparent hostility to faith and religion in general. Please, correct me if I have misunderstood you, but you seem to think things spiritual and religious are unimportant, even unworthy of discussion. Now, since 90% or more of your potential followers think spirituality and religion are important—incredibly important—how valuable can your contributions ultimately be, if you don’t seriously consider angels, ice giants, and god-men into your equations? I.e., how do you propose to deal with the faith gene?
Posted by torgrim on February 13, 2008, 04:37 AM | #
Onlooker;
“Hahahahahaha! Silver is right! Learn from it Heathens, learn from it!!!”
Ah, Onlooker, Silver is discussing the failure of the Church. But as in the past the Heathen, is again the place for addressing the failures of the Church.
The logic fails.
The Heathen that have survived,identify with blood, kinship and territory. That as before, is still a cause for Church and the secular to be derisive.
Unfortunately, the word heathen, has been propagandized by the Church, since first encounter with the older Germanic Culture/People.
The left today, has co-oped the meaning too, with all of the lefty, wicca, new age, snake oil, side-show, glitz..
Shiftless, ne-er-do-wells..yeah! Better word.
Posted by rustymason on February 13, 2008, 04:41 AM | #
(Dang, how do these bracket things work? Sorry.)
Remember, it wasn’t a lack of faith which the liberal adversary possessed in driving us into this peril. Liberalism in all its platitudinous manifestations is a faith.
Very true.
Posted by rustymason on February 13, 2008, 04:46 AM | #
Oops, crapola. Don’t type with a dog in your lap.
“The promise of eternal life in heaven” surrounded by the sort of filthy, stupid, Third World human detritus of which Western governments, through criminally insane immigration policies, have kindly provided a plethora of samples, makes the Christian Hell look like a reasonably attractive destination.
How do I know that only the people I like will go to heaven? Because if anyone else were there, then it wouldn’t be heaven, would it?
Posted by Guessedworker on February 13, 2008, 10:22 AM | #
onlooker: “Can you please translate that into English?”
Probably not. But I will try.
The two elements - or ultimate causes - which bear on Man’s psychological development are:-
1) His environment of evolutionary adaptineness, aka local Nature.
2) His post-natus unconscious accretion of external influences, manifesting as Personality.
There is a third but, frankly, esoteric possibility. A kind of mistake by Nature has happened - or, if you are religious, a cosmic joke has been played here, a disastrous one. Personality, the servant, a lazy and grasping creature, has become the master.
This is what appears in religious literature as the Fall, Exile, Maya, etc, and it amounts to a certain weakness or lazyness in the maintenance of our consciousness. It has tragic results. What should be an ordinary capacity to be present, like any other living creature, is utterly eviscerated, and requires a great will to stillness to control. In consequence, external influences enter us unseen and unmediated, and accrete in the disorderly psychological superstructure which we call Self, but which is anything but. “It” hogs the psychological sunlight and takes for itself what should belong to the other, and would, over a lifetime, bring that other to a certain, honourable maturity.
As a Darwinian, my suspicion is that this weakness arose with the very rapid cortical developments consequent upon the spread of grassland and the arrival of Homo erectus. Basic intellectual function and presence have not been entirely compatible ever since.
Even as we are, however, there may still exist in us a rather faint possibility that our psychological absence can be exchanged for presence via that “will to stillness”. Literally, attention has to be shifted from its seat in the thinking mind to something else. The minutea of breathing is a common one. Physical movement of a certain kind is another.
Of course first one has to believe there is some purpose and value in this. Let us assume, then, that you and I and all of us do indeed possess something that inherits “I” during that process of inner silence. Let us assume that this is part of Nature’s gift to the animal Homo whatever. Let us assume that the words, “I am”, are the extent of its vocabulary. Let us further assume that, for evolutionary reasons, a vehicle drawn from the world at large - Personality - is required for this inheritor to direct action in the world.
Which brings us back to the beginning. And that’s about as far as I can go with it here.
Posted by silver on February 13, 2008, 12:21 PM | #
GW, you seem to be critiquing man for what he was before he even became man. I don’t know how well that will go down with some. Nevertheless, why do you balk at interjecting God at this point? Can’t he be a way back to stillness? At the very least, doesn’t he lessen the amount of will required to do so? Doesn’t that preserve essence but still give the pomos something to play with (you can forget about them ever going cold turkey, imo)?
Next entry: Ron Paul: The Trouble With Forced Integration
Previous entry: Misology in America Part 3:Scientific Fraud - Homosexuality
Existential Issues
Of note
Recent Comments
Englander commented in entry 'Book review of “Breeding between the Lines” by Alon Ziv' on 03/19/10, 08:25 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 07:37 PM. (go) (view)
Anacleto commented in entry 'Book review of “Breeding between the Lines” by Alon Ziv' on 03/19/10, 07:01 PM. (go) (view)
kurt9 commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/19/10, 06:59 PM. (go) (view)
Alex commented in entry 'The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)' on 03/19/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
Alex commented in entry 'The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)' on 03/19/10, 06:28 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 05:03 PM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 04:14 PM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 03:52 PM. (go) (view)
ilan commented in entry 'Majority Radio: Bill White’s 2009/11/16 Letter to Alex Linder' on 03/19/10, 11:56 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 11:38 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 10:46 AM. (go) (view)
Drifter commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 01:58 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 01:13 AM. (go) (view)
cladrastis commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:59 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 12:42 AM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:25 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/18/10, 11:30 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 11:08 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 10:32 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 08:02 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 06:38 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:19 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Romilly Jenkins: Truth and 'Ethnic' Truth' on 03/18/10, 04:10 AM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:39 AM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/18/10, 02:17 AM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy' on 03/18/10, 01:45 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 01:24 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 12:35 AM. (go) (view)
Borvo commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 11:44 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Diasporal Hijinks: Christopher Hitchens and the Janjaweed' on 03/17/10, 10:31 PM. (go) (view)
Maximilio commented in entry 'Is Dr. David Duke, Ph.D., a Kosher Nazi?' on 03/17/10, 10:12 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 08:01 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 07:44 PM. (go) (view)
Recent Posts
- Automatic for the Sheeple
- Blowing Bubbles
- Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy
- Saturday Riddle Classic
- Apologies for the down-time
- It’s Official – fake money is as good as the real thing (if not better)
- Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.
- DDR or Third Reich, which would you choose?
- Greece thwarts Barbarossa, yet again
- Europe’s Future: Is this what “they” want?
- ‘Enlightened’ Child Abuse
- My latest teleology
- The Revolution of Kai Murros
- Linda Carty, the Reprieve lie machine, and the bleeding heart of Clive Stafford Smith
- Humour and the English Disease
- True Science is Barbaric
- The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)
- Cameron on Griffin and the MultiCult
- Absurd assumptions about life’s advantages
- Was It Real For You?
General News
Science News
Science Categories
All Categories
The Writers
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Links
Endorsement not implied.
Crime
General
- American Renaissance
- Age of Treason
- Balder
- Brussels Journal
- Civic platform
- CofCC
- Chronicles
- Crosstar
- Culture Wars
- Dissecting Leftism
- Face Right
- Fallen Freedom
- Fred on everything
- Freedom Site
- From The Wilderness
- Frontierist News
- Gates of Vienna
- God help Britain
- Hogtown Front
- I am an Englishman
- Inductivist
- iSteve
- Modern Tribalist
- National Policy Institute
- Occidental Dissent
- Occidental Quarterly
- Our Way of Life
- Oz Conservative
- ParaPundit
- The Political Cesspool
- Romanian National Vanguard
- Rusty Mason
- Renaissance Press
- Right Now magazine
- Salisbury Review
- Sam Francis Column
- Scotchfriend
- Signals From The Brink
- Spoils of War
- Snouck Hurgronje
- Songlight for Dawn
- Stop ACLU
- Tomorrow in Vinland
- Turnabout
- UK Commentators
- Viking Observer
- Western Survival
- White civil rights
Immigration
- American Patrol
- Immigration watchdog
- Immigration Watch Canada
- Limits To Growth
- Migration Watch
- Minutemen
- Numbers USA
- Private police
- Project USA
- Team America
- Vdare
Islam
Jews
- 9/11 – #1, #2
- Banking – #1, #2
- Eric Hufschmid
- Holocaust – #1, #2, #3, #4, #5
- Immigration
- Jewish deception
- Judenfrei
- Michael Delaney
- Subverted nation
- Why the Jews?
Nationalist Political Parties
- British National Party
- Front National (FR)
- Nationaldemokraterna
- Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands
- Vlaams Belang
New Right
Science
Whites in Africa