Why European Christianity cannot ever accumulate to potency

Posted by SUCH on November 23, 2009, 12:17 AM | #

I accept scriptures except when they use ethnographic studies or cite real magic to edify their claims.

This is to say nothing of Hare Krnsas running around chanting Occidentalist hymns and perpetuating eternal suffering or Steven Segal, buddhist pony-tail ass lord or Bahais. 

Let’s all join a mystery bath-tub non-monotheistic heathen-unitarianist religion and damn the Abrahamic hordes to their own hell/personal Jesus.

Posted by h.kalervo on November 23, 2009, 12:30 AM | #

Hi PF,

I admire Nietzsche as a thinker and even more so as a writer, but he didn’t have the advantage of seeing what parts of Europe and United States would become without Christianity, especially what would happen to our liberated women, who no longer are interested in having children since after all we live only once, etc etc, and having fun now is much more important than anything else you could think of. This ties in with the idea that the reason Caesar didn’t fly to the moon was that we used the fifty-thousand years before him to have fun now. You can pretend that you know elevating the State to godhood and worshipping it as a god will be a good substitute for God, but what you’re actually proposing is replacing something proven to work with something rather dubious at best. And you still haven’t explained why Sparta, a State worshipping State if there ever was one, doesn’t now have colonies on the moon.

Another problem I have with Nietzsche is that he didn’t seem to be aware of the existence of biological sociopaths, i.e. “humans” without the capacity for conscience. I doubt he really understood what people liberated from traditional morality as well as any tendency for it would truly be like. This is the problem with abstract and speculative philosophy: easy to make huge errors without quite understanding you have.

P.S. Being knowledgeable about Nietzsche, you ought to know that he wanted to marry but was rejected. He often complained about loneliness, and not just of the intellectual sort. I think you may have missed something about Nietzsche: he was a male human being, and not very careful with facts either.

Posted by danielj on November 23, 2009, 01:15 AM | #

Your problem is that you are comparing the rational and true Christian faith to Druidic nonsense based on an argument of psychological utility. You explicitly rejected that tactic as honest and helpful criteria in your last comment on a previous post.

You’re inconsistent.

The triune God of the Bible is the only God that makes sense of the intelligibility of the universe, the uniformity of said universe and the laws of logic and other universals. Repent and be saved PF.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 23, 2009, 01:20 AM | #

A very good essay in parts; in parts certainly debatable.  I want what’s best for the European races and the Ancient Nations of Europe.  That of course includes their survival into the future racially intact.  If Christianity can deliver a product that serves those ends best, I’m for Christianity.  If not, Christianity is almost by definition a false religion for the Euro-race peoples, and whatever alternative religion can better serve those ends should be adopted in its place.  Right now, mainstream Christianity is fully on-board with the Jews and crony capitalists in ordering Euro-race peoples to go extinct racially by submitting to be turned into other races.  All mainstream Christian denominations participating in that crime surpassing the ability of words to describe are by definition false religions which should be ripped out root and branch by the people they are trying to genocide.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 23, 2009, 01:24 AM | #

DanielJ, can we agree that any religion that actively helps to force racial extinction on its flocks is by definition a false religion as far as those flocks are concerned and should be rejected?

Posted by danielj on November 23, 2009, 01:56 AM | #

DanielJ, can we agree that any religion that actively helps to force racial extinction on its flocks is by definition a false religion as far as those flocks are concerned and should be rejected?

I’d go one further and state that such a system of belief isn’t entitled to the appellation of religion and is nothing but mere nihilism disguised as spirituality.

Posted by h.kalervo on November 23, 2009, 02:02 AM | #

“Right now, mainstream Christianity is fully on-board with the Jews”

Funny how Christians are the only ones bearing white children in excess of the pathetic below-replacement levels of other whites. Christianity is winning, as James Joyce predicted, while we’re discussing whether to support Christianity or to mock it like rebelling teenagers.

And while what you say is, to some extent, true in the U.S., it’s not true in Europe.

Another point: our translations of the Bible have rather little to do with the tribal rule-book of the Jews. When Jews wrote down that “thou shalt not kill”, they merely meant that you aren’t allowed to murder other Jews of the tribe. Everyone else? Fair game. And that’s just one example for you.

Haven’t you noticed how religions, ideologies, philosophies, all take their unique forms depending on the genetic soil they are planted in? Western Christianity, in its essence, has nothing to do with the Jews. You don’t even know what you don’t know if you think it does.

And let’s not pretend that everything can’t be used as a tool by hostile elites. Even as a tool of American Zionist Jews, Christianity is still healthier for our genes than the alternative, which is death.

Posted by sirrealpolitik on November 23, 2009, 04:52 AM | #

Am I alone in feeling more of a spiritual connection to the Ainulindalë than to Leviticus?

I mean, c’mon. Leviticus? Really?

We don’t need the old ziggurat dogmatists of any stripe. We never did. We aren’t some Babylonian priestcraft cult. We need no brazier warmth. We need no brazier melted cheese.  Sweet Cheeseus never had a monopoly in Europe. It was more of a Swiss Cheeseus. Wholly hole-y. By the time the Scandinavians or Icelanders were duped, coerced, cajoled into toeing the party line by the 12th cent, the Minnesingers and Troubadours and Florentines were already emerging from their popery poppy-slumber.

We are scientist-poets.

We need scientist-poets.

Where are my poets, my fearless poets a la E.P.’s Cantos?

-Surreal pol

P.s. Neil Armstrong: “That’s one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.”
(note no mention to Gawd, Allah, Ra, nor flying joo).

Posted by sirrealpolitik on November 23, 2009, 05:12 AM | #

Funny how Christians are the only ones bearing white children in excess of the pathetic…

You think Euros were never prolific than through some juden lube?

FLDS aren’t considered Christians, and yet they have bursting broods. The Germano-Celtic tribes had large families. The population boom in pagan Scandinavia was what led to the Viking raids.

I mean, come on sir. Where’s your history?

Posted by h.kalervo on November 23, 2009, 06:16 AM | #

“Where’s your history?”

Notice how you managed to start reading my post, then lost attention and forgot the context of my response by the time you finished reading the first half of my first sentence. I wouldn’t try to take part in solving humanity’s problems if I were you. Seriously, you might want to focus on your open shoe laces first.

Posted by Frank on November 23, 2009, 06:44 AM | #

PF writes:

Texts have to be ‘translated’ mentally by those reading them into European thought forms, making “our” sacred texts essentially a form of Orientalist scholarship from the beginning.

Heliand is curious. I haven’t read it yet (I’d read the linked version if I knew Old Saxon...), but I’d like to.

I was going to link to a comment by Chamberlain (fan website) in the Aryan World-view, but it’s MIA… I’ve linked to it before anyway - he thought Jesus was an Aryan, though the Old Testament Jewish. I don’t buy into that… but it’s interesting how he thought Christ mirrored traditional Aryan hero tales.

sirrealpolitik,

what is a scientist-poet? Go have some children.

Posted by Frank on November 23, 2009, 06:52 AM | #

Where does non-Christian Euroman go from here? Hinduism? Archaeology? (better stop the Jews at their war games). Asatru?

Posted by Frank on November 23, 2009, 06:55 AM | #

Dangit, Chamberlain had another comment that was perfect for this.

Can I just blame Jewish hackers for the MIA page? Most hackers are from Israel and China anyway… (I joke about blaming Jews without knowing the reason...)

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 23, 2009, 07:29 AM | #

and probably also that strange lack of ethnocentrism which has been decried as an unfortunate part of our blood-and-bone essences.

Which is entirely contradicted by MacDonald:

Medieval Christian anti-Semitism was a concomitant of the highly collectivist and exclusionary medieval Christian society—another example of Western collectivism with powerful overtones of anti-Semitism. Thirteenth-century Western Christianity was, ideally at least, a societas christiana: “All of society came to be viewed as an organic unity, whose raison d’être consisted of striving for and ultimately realizing the perfect unity of Christ on earth.” ( Cohen 1982, 248). Christianity had become “a single social organism” ( Lawrence 1992, 157)—unified under the pope, substantially independent of secular power, and with a high level of religious enthusiasm and commitment at all levels of society. The group, not the individual was paramount, and every aspect of behavior was evaluated according to its effect on the harmonious organic whole. Indeed, Cohen ( 1982, 264) points out that many of the friars who developed the new, negatively-toned theological conceptualization of Judaism also had welldeveloped anti-individualist views, in which people were to strive for the benefit of the entire society. Also, as discussed in Chapter 5, this collectivist trend was accompanied by high levels of reproductive altruism by the leaders of the movement, including especially the mendicant friars, who, despite their origins among the affluent classes, adopted a monastic lifestyle of asceticism and celibacy.

Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism

Book by Kevin MacDonald; Praeger Publishers, 1998
p.146

The only reason nationalism, non-kinship based reciprocity, arouse in the West, is because of the Christian emphasis upon monogamy, that undermined extended family kinship. The fragility of the nation state is blindingly obvious in the ME, SS Africa, and on the sub-continent.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 23, 2009, 02:23 PM | #

Paragraph 6: please define AUTHENTIC.
It means, surely, demonstrably connected with and representative of its source: the Gospel of St. John is AUTHENTIC when it can be shown that St. John wrote it.

What doesn’t exist - and perhaps never did - can not sanely be described as AUTHENTIC.

I suspect that you are projecting into these hypothetical vessels a newly-made brew of your own, which can then be srtificially aged by some mechnical process.

Byron and the Lawrences possessed interesting minds, not great ones. Pity they were all sexual freaks.

Quite a few Shakespeare plays are set in England herself, although the one we don’t mention is set in Scotland.”

“Cymbeline” takes place largely in Milford Haven. What about the Forest of Arden?

I look forward to “The Merchant of Potters Bar” and “Timon of Knightsbridge”. You can always produce something AUTHENTIC along these lines.

Thank God for the “still-vexed Bermoothes” of “The Tempest” which I suppose would be more magical if set in Battersea, thank God for the sea-coast of Bohemia, and whose heart does not leap up for joy whwn he hears the exchange in “Twelfth Night” -
“What country, friends, is this? - This is Illyria, lady.”

Inferior playwrights of the time left us “The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green” “The Merry Devil of Edmonton” and “The Isle of Dogs”.

Bring on the book-burning! plenty of THAT in the English Reformation. This movement, which is so ignorantly lauded here, seems to have destroyed great tracts of old English lore that the Catholic Church in its generous wisdom left untouched!

Stop pontificating on cultural histories that are closed to you by your own short-sightedness, and have a wee read in R.M.Wilson’s The Lost Literature of Medieval England. it wasn’t the Catholic Medievals that lost it - it was the ignorant louts and oafs of the Reformation and the intellectual snobs of the Renaissance that did that!

Posted by Gorboduc on November 23, 2009, 02:52 PM | #

Oh, and Sirrealpolitik, if you want scientist-poets, there’s Erasmus Darwin, grandad of the sainted Charles with his “The Loves of the Plants”, a biological or botanical exposition in heroic couplets.

Canning or someone parodied it aptly enough; “The feathered tribes on pinions skim the air -
Not so the mackerel, and still less the bear...”

Otherwise stick wih Lucretius, but now I remember that Humphrey Davy left some verses.
shall look them up and inform you, though they might turn out to be things like “Laughing Gas: an Ode Heroicall” or “The Liberation of Sodium, with a Poetical Excursus on the Electrical Fluid; in 58 Cantos”.
Who knows? he might have left some charming lyrics, although I am mindful of Samuel Butler’s misgivings about people wearing other folks’ clothes:"Imagine a fugue written by Wordsworth!”

I’m afraid that your post isn’t very coherent, and if we are talking of science, clarity is all-important.

Hear, be warned by, and apply to your own profit, before it be too late, the words of Merlin addressed to a rabble of mad scientists in the great finale of CS Lewis’s That Hideous Strength:

QUI VERBUM DEI CONTEMPSERUNT, EIS AUFERETUR ETIAM VERBUM HOMINIS

{THEY THAT HAVE DESPISED THE WORD OF GOD, FROM THEM SHALL THE WORD OF MAN ALSO BE TAKEN AWAY)

Posted by Frank on November 23, 2009, 06:17 PM | #

What did the Catholics do with the Inca records?

Posted by Frank on November 23, 2009, 06:29 PM | #

Were the American Catholics not so bent on genociding America, they might be more popular.

Not to say the cultist “Evangelicals” or Zionist / “JudeoChristians” are any better - they’re all pretty much the same.

Posted by Frank on November 23, 2009, 06:35 PM | #

You can’t expect people to flock to a Church when it’s attacking you.

A man runs out stabs you in the gut, “join us”. And even if you join, he’ll keep stabbing you.

It might not be official policy to genocide America, the ruling on American nationalism is misunderstood I assume (unless Catholics hate whites?), but what we see done here is what we see as representative of the Vatican.

-

The great sin of the Reformation: to have faith, to actually believe rather than only pretend.

Posted by PF on November 23, 2009, 07:35 PM | #

Gorboduc

What doesn’t exist - and perhaps never did - can not sanely be described as AUTHENTIC.

This is a chilling assertion. What you are saying is that there is no authentic, native British spirituality. There is only the revelations to the Jews in scripture.

I think if the reader takes a step back, its possible to realize how horrifying the implications of that statement are.

I will spell these implications out: we have no higher knowledge that comes from ourselves, our ancestor’s traditions either did not exist (now that they have been sufficiently burned/excoricated by prior generations of Christians to achieve plausible deniability) or those traditions were worth nothing, and JC is our only path to the higher knowledge.

As such, this is basically the Christian reply to any native assertion of spiritual independence, which has ever been expressed, for the last 1,500 years of our history. Its profoundly humiliating and as I’ve said, I think its for this reason that whites themselves foreswear and deny the legitimacy of their culture.

I think you prefigure spiritually those acts which when you see them in the flesh, playing out on our modern streets, you view as degenerate and disgusting. Listen closely to what is being said here: who is it who condemned European man to worthlessness?

I suspect that you are projecting into these hypothetical vessels a newly-made brew of your own, which can then be artificially aged by some mechnical process.

The epistemological critique of spiritual knowledge which you aim at me is universally applicable. Just like “Uh” came on here and was blandishing a psychological critique which applies to all political groups, yet viewing it as uniquely pertinent to white nationalism, or modern grad students in English literature write papers about how our forebears had insufficient knowledge of the “Other”, whereas they are merely articulating the impossibility of perfect knowledge generally in human affairs - you come at me with the uniqueness and thus supposed idiosyncratic flawedness of my own spiritual knowledge. Not bearing JC’s stamp it supposedly has no relevance or lacks the highest relevance.

We articulate these things poorly, and its difficult for people to know who has experienced what.

This is why its possible to lose something so precious - because spiritual experience doesn’t translate directly into rhetorical power, allowing those who see less than others the ability to silence them with unconscious Groupthink, with the bystanders present not having the ability to properly adjudicate the matter. This is the same dynamic that effected all of what I’ve described above and it is the reason for Englands soullessness.

Posted by PF on November 23, 2009, 08:06 PM | #

Re: Authenticity

Authentic = non-imitative. i.e. not being done in imitation of someone with authority who is seen to be doing it ‘right’.

Posted by Frank on November 23, 2009, 09:28 PM | #

PF,

there might still be records in the ground.

Did you see this: [url=http://www.ansamed.info/en/top/ME12.XAM19105.htmlSPANIARDS DISCOVER FORGOTTEN EUPHRATES CITY[/url]?

Among the artefacts uncovered, a collection of ceramics that will allow researchers to understand how life was in an epoch privy of information. There was also a stamp of enormous artistic beauty, corresponding to those used by dignitaries, Montero assured. It is a clue that indicates the high possibility of finding the cities archive, according to what the excavation supervisors say, which would help us understand the era’s political and diplomatic structure.

The director of the project hopes to bring the walls to the surface as well as its secrets as a dam threatens to flood this piece of history.

Posted by Frank on November 23, 2009, 09:31 PM | #

Err, corrected link: SPANIARDS DISCOVER FORGOTTEN EUPHRATES CITY.

It doesn’t have to do with Britain, but it’s an example of lost information found. And who wouldn’t be surprised were these early cities inhabited by people who resemble Europe more than the ME? That’s not to say the original Jews were Aryans… But early civilisations seem to all be Mediterranean and Nordic.

Posted by h.kalervo on November 23, 2009, 11:53 PM | #

“What you are saying is that there is no authentic, native British spirituality. There is only the revelations to the Jews in scripture.”

Let me ask you a question.

Is it a foreign cultural influence that transforms a people? Or is it the people that transforms foreign cultural influences to reflect their own nature?

A corollary question: What is the stupid dichotomy you are trying to frame the discussion with? Shouldn’t you be reading books such as Those Terrible Middle-Ages! by Regine Pernoud? Just to get started? Thinking on your own doesn’t seem to be working too well for you. You might want to leave that thinking business to others.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 24, 2009, 12:11 AM | #

PF’s very impressive effort at putting some flesh on the bare bones of my comments in the interview with Alex Linder deserves a response.

We know almost nothing about the ascession of Christianity or the Old Faith that preceded it.  That alone tells us that this was a Year Zero enterprise.  The loss it visited upon our forefathers ranks only second in extent and finality to the loss of genetic distinctiveness which our elites are inflicting upon us now.  The Christian faithful here who cleave to the belief that it, being progress out of Darkness and the sin of ignorance, is all somehow to the good have to answer why their much more numerous brothers in faith who claim the same of multiracialism are wrong.  Why should a trespass against the European mind be acceptable while a trespass against the European genome is not?

The customary answer is that the one is Christianity while the other is liberal universalism masquerading as Christianity.  Well, it’s hardly news that extract of Christianity, when heated by revolutionary war and regicide, and passed through a rational filter for three centuries, emerges as the political faith known as advanced liberalism.  Even if the war on the European genome is not Christianity as she is spoke by the present shepherds-in-chief, the old girl is fingered by her parentage of the political bastard.

I must admit I am attracted by the notion of applying this same sleight of hand to the long-departed Old Faith and the likewise absent ontological nationalism - the politics of peoplehood - that, rightly, should be ours.  It would be pretty neat to be able to show that the child of the barrow and the oak and all the symbols of a faith of the natural world is just such a politics of our blood.  Note, a politics of blood, not of the sentimentalities of 19th century romantic nationalism brought into being only because the French peasantry had to have some kind of national focus now Louis was gone, and not of the subsequent fascist ascent to a life of ruthless “honour” and “glory”.

But we know almost nothing.  As PF says, the idea of essence being preserved across time is lost.  Without that a politics to preserve our blood is going to be a very hard sell to the faithful.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 24, 2009, 12:29 AM | #

Honestly, I’m beginning to think Friedrich (elsewhere, recently) might have had a point.
God isn’t JEWISH any more than He’s 6 feet tall, or a beer-drinker or a librarian or a soldier.
The fact that he chose to give His laws to a particular group doesn’t make Him member of it.
As a fairly cursory reading of the Old Testament will reveal, He frequently got pretty angry with them.
Using a BOO-WORD like this ensures a knee-jerk reaction from many of the well-trained and obedient and thoughtless class.
Liberals rant on tirelessly but nervously about HITLER; you rant on about JEWISH this-or-that.

Pot, kettle: Tweedle-Dum, Tweedle-Dee.

Sorprised anyone’s bothered here about the Inca records. Europe and the Jews are under discussion here.

There was no faith on show in the Reformation: only ignorant oikish loutish fanaticism: witness the destroyed abbeys, the gutted libraries.
“Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang...”

Moore and Fisher had faith; it was that quality that the “reformers” hated and feared: hence the scaffold and the axe.

Posted by Frank on November 24, 2009, 12:58 AM | #

Surprised anyone’s bothered here about the Inca records. Europe and the Jews are under discussion here.

You don’t know why I’m interested in the Incas? Take a gander, lol. The Spaniards say their leaders were __, mummies found were __, their religion says they learned from ___ Gods.

Spaniards? Burn, burn, burn.

-

You’re cheering on about Catholics and dismissing the Reformation like a hooligan at a soccer game.

Too much did get cut away - that much is clear. But were the Church not already idolatrous and corrupt it wouldn’t have been needed.

-

I don’t want to get into a religious debate, I’d lose anyway; but just as you have to instinctively stick up for Catholics I have to butt in when the Reformation is being senselessly attacked.

You mention blaming Jews - I can’t help it they’re currently involved in so many things. In America it’s plain as day. I don’t care anymore about proving how unbiased and fair I am. They’re at war. I’ll be nice when they cease.

Just today a Cannabis shop opens in Oregan. The owner? Jewish. Small case, yes, but it’s ridiculously predictable now. Goldman Sachs makes the news today about apologising for fleecing tax payers, etc. It’s just constant… And the MidEast wars? Who is primarily behind those?

Believe what you will, but it’s amusing how readily people join in against Muslims relative to Jews. Pavlov says bark, but I don’t have cable anymore.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 24, 2009, 12:59 AM | #

Can you answer GW’s question, Gorbo?:

“The Christian faithful here who cleave to the belief that it, being progress out of Darkness and [out of] the sin of ignorance, is all somehow to the good have to answer why their much more numerous brothers in faith who claim the same of multiracialism are wrong.”

You do agree, don’t you Gorb, that they can be shown to be wrong, these Christians “who claim the same of multiracialism” (namely that multiracialism is “progress out of Darkness") and can be shown to be wrong by invoking entirely sound Christian and Catholic doctrine?

If you agree this is so (namely, that an honest Catholic theologian can, anytime he wants, show, based entirely on perfectly sound Catholic doctrine, that in order to be a good Christian or a good Catholic it is not necessary to embrace the race-replacement of one’s traditional communal or national race), why is no theologian doing precisely that in this time of unprecedented demographic crisis which the Catholic priests can see because they have two eyes like the rest of us?

Are Trotskyists in control at the Vatican, the end result of conscious infiltration and Gramscian Long March planned many decades ago?

If not, what in the god damned fuck is going on, Gorb?

Posted by Frank on November 24, 2009, 01:00 AM | #

Admittedly it does feel good to look down on others and say “bigot”. I miss doing that…

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 24, 2009, 01:04 AM | #

I won’t even talk about Lambeth Palace — that’s a complete loss but also a blatantly political one in that the list of two names the Prime Minister presents to the Queen is compiled based on purest politics, so who winds up being Archbishop is not wholly Anglicanism’s fault.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 24, 2009, 01:13 AM | #

This is for PF and GW
GW, don’t talk of the Christians as “cleaving to a belief”.
It depicts an image of poor benighted ignorant frightened wretches clinging for shelter in a storm to a tottering tree ... we don’t “cleave” to faith, it possesses us.
And therefore we proclaim it!
Your question is too obscure, and I rather dislike the theory that we “have” to answer any such thing!
Who said “ignorance” was a “sin”? Marlowe, perhaps, and he put it into the mouth of the poor deluded dupe Faustus.
It is a misfortune: that’s all.
But I thank you for saying “Christians” and not “Christers” or “Jeebooists” or whatever terms are sometimes used to convey contempt rather than to make an argument.

No, I’m not condemning European man at all.

PF: Chilling? brace up man! Don’t step back, appalled! Come in closer! Honestly, you’re a bundle of nerves!

I’m merely suggesting that we CAN’T know ANYTHING for certain about an ancient spirituality which has left hardly any pre-christian records. We CAN entertain a lot of wish-fulfilment dreams, and we can weakly infer from the lack of evidence that a great deal of evidence was wantonly destroyed. We can re-invent it to our own satisfaction, but we can save ourselves the trouble by letting the designers of snazzy new Tarot packs and the folks who write for the occult/prediction colour magazines do it for us - ”Discover the inner Celtic Goddess within yourself! Consult the dark Cauldron of Cernunnos with Running Deer, and release the Inner Warrior Woman! Only £450 for course of 10 on-line lessons! Log on at etc. etc.etc.”

Oh, you can read up the few ancient mentions of Druids and look up Strabo or Tacitus & co., but WHERE are the documents? WHERE’S the evidence for an authentic British spirituality? Is it among the earliest written documents of our land - Gildas, or a few ogham stones, a few simplistic runic inscriptions, a few Romano-Celtic names chipped on old tombstones? When you say British, do you mean Welsh - in which case try the Triads. If you know an AUTHENTIC text, has it been handed down from mother to daughter through age to age? in which case, suspect the intervention of man-witch Gerald Gardner, or a buried memory derived from a reading of Arthur Machen’s “The Secret Glory”, or go and interrogate the Wiccan crew. Do you mean the Anglo-Saxons? Now we’re getting somewhere, for they soon developed a fully Catholic culture and the priests taught them to write. But I fear the whole thing may just be rooted in late 18th. century neo-druidical antiquarian fancies.

Look, I love and respect Stonehenge and Glastonbury and stone circles and oak groves and barrows and all our ancient landscape as much as anyone, and was once heavily into ley-lines and alignments and Tors and Tots and dragon-lines, and I still treat all these things with the utmost respect, almost bordering on superstitious awe, and I still add when I can to my collection of books on Druidism and folklore, and I respect what I know of our ancient literature.  It is of the greates importance to know about the Mithraic underground temples that lurk beneath some of our old churches.
The most I can gather from the monuments and landscape is a rather Wordsworthian feeling about the powers of nature, which ALMOST make themselves known as living persons: each hill, stream, thunderstorm and mountain has a hidden tutelary spirit, to please or placate whom one might leave a coin, cast a stone, light a candle, or chant a verse; but when the full strength of the Christian revelation illuminates the mind, one sees Whose these features are, and what of His attributes they reflect. THEN do they enter into one’s spirituality as symbols, parables, or moral exemplars: and this happens for the Frenchman in HIS landscape as well as for the Briton in his.

Here I’d like to quote the Catholic writer, Fr. Cuthbert, O.S.F.C. whose book Socialism or Democracy (London, 1926) which received the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat - and which contains three brilliant and sympathetic chapters ‘Nationalism’, ‘Literature and Religion’ and ‘Literature and Life’, which I wish, in the most friendly way, that you could all read here.*) I subjoin, in order, short quotations from the latter pair:

… the mind of the Roman world, formed by the pagan traditions, was eventually led to find in the Church a true and higher response to its own inherent aspirations; and the Church gained a world development - that is to say, it became the acknowledged interpreter of the Roman world’s deeper and more vital truth: that particular aspiration towards truth, which - as is the case with all great human developments, whether n thought or action - lay at the back of the old Roman life.

* * * * * * * * * * *

… High literature is always at base a confession of faith and never a mere expression of opinion or an array of argument or a retailing of gossip. When the Norse poets sang their sagas they were uttering the faith which was in them - their faith in the hardy valour which was at once to them the joy and glory of life ...real faith, the faith which wins battles - is never entirely in error, since it is always allied with thetrue instinct of human nature or with some vital perception of the heart ....

I know nothing about your spiritual knowledge. I suppose some like GW may claim that it speaks through the immemorial tongue of the blood, the voiceless certainty of our rooted being, the shared consciousness of the ancient awareness. the sense of tribal drawing togetherness, the underlying land from which flickers forth all our soul-consciousness ...( and all that sort of thing) - and I can go on inventing nonsense phrases like that till the cows come home, and so can he, especially if he is well up in the German Romantics; - and I can say that my OWN experience teaches me that all the ancient stuff falls into place in the Christianised soul, and creates doubt, frustration and unhappiness for the other sort!
Amazing how 40 unarmed monks and St Augustine could change the fate of a nation: still, it’s all in the Venerable Bede!

Posted by Frank on November 24, 2009, 01:17 AM | #

Fred,

the Catechism has something about nations and the Pope has frowned on mass immigration… but there doesn’t seem to be any valuing of race itself from Catholics, that I can gather. At best it’s not idolatrous.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 24, 2009, 01:54 AM | #

Dear Scrooby,
just when I’d posted my over-long response to GW and PF, thanking GW for his use of a more polite form of reference, while drawing attention to the fact that the question you underline is in fact meaningless...here you come in again with your swearing and bullying.
Please, old chap, DO try to preserve the decencies. I feel that were we in a bar together you would be stabbing me in the chest with a finger ALL the time.
The question contains a ridiculous implicit, that “ignorance “is a “sin”. I strongly suspect that this piece of nonsense has an origin in secular and not in divine literature, and until the question is more specific and less rich in implicits it’s not really a question, more a rhetorical device, and as such NEEDN’T and in fact CAN’T be answered.
Also I have NO IDEA what any theologian may be saying on the problem you obsess about. I simply DON’T have the time or the inclination to canvass them all.  I CONCEDE that there may be no references in the ones you do read (who, by the way? it’s no good just saying “The Vatican") but I DENY that it follows that there are none in the ones you don’t read, who just COULD constitute a pretty numerous bunch. Anyway, it’s not a theological question.

And Frank - WHERE did I mention “blaming” Jews?

Oh, and GW: I’d hoped, prayed, nay BEGGED for a moratorium on “ontological”. And there’s an “epistemological” from PF. There might be a “hermeneutical” lurking somewhere - I always get it it mixed up with “Euhemeristic”, and then there’s always more trouble ...

I’ll think about the Incas later. I got into trouble here for posting up a few Youtube vids of baroque music from Peru and Mexico; stuff about mestizos. This one’s fun;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8otAZOxzME&feature=related

Posted by Frank on November 24, 2009, 02:04 AM | #

Liberals rant on tirelessly but nervously about HITLER; you rant on about JEWISH this-or-that.

Pot, kettle: Tweedle-Dum, Tweedle-Dee.

Ah, oops I did misread didn’t I? You were defending Christianity from the accusation of being Jewish.

To my defense, you threw in a reply to me just below, but considering the source and clearly reading the post… my mistake.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 24, 2009, 02:23 AM | #

Sorry Frank, I can’t tell who misread whom: it’s late and I’m tired and I can’t see much now.
I was brought up to believe jews were ALL incarnate demons with supernatural powers: this sapped my resistance as even my desire for freedom was fingered as jew-programmed and controlled.
Likewise ANY hostile reaction to ‘em - well they knew about it and were controlling it, evil grins and all.
Well I couldn’t concede ‘em the victory so I just had to banish ‘em out of my head.
But when I see other folks attributing ALL the wrongs in the world to them, along with the supernatural powers - sometimes I just have to say “Enough!” as it reminds me of the old nightmarish days and I don’t want to wake up screaming again.
Love ‘em to bits, really!

Posted by Rob Smith on November 24, 2009, 02:25 AM | #

It’s the inclusive nature of Christianity which makes whites vulnerable. Find a religion which gives the white man the ability to link his past to his present and his future will be bright.

Posted by PF on November 24, 2009, 03:47 AM | #

Gorboduc,

I think you do a good job of replying to the points raised, I’m not in a position to reply directly to what you are saying until I’ve elaborated on some things, possibly in another blog post.

I think this has to be placed in a larger frame than what you or I imagine to be true or knowable about ancient British spirituality. Making this about my imagination of my ancestor’s religion, is falling back on an epistemological critique which applies to all spiritual knowledge. There is no way of knowing rationally and proving on a blog that when the Catholic shakes and quivers reciting Psalms, whether he has achieved timeless Knowledge or simply a reverie: you have to take his word for it, if you trust him. For the moment I want to make a larger point about the progression and potency of spiritual traditions generally, not (1) what you or I got from this or that tradition, nor (2) whether my attainment has any connection to that of my ancestors, or is merely a child’s imagination. I’m not trying to sell anyone on English blood mysticism, militarism & ancestor “worship” - that happens to be a description of some elements present in my upbringing and subsequent interior life, and surprise surprise, these things can be criticized!!! 

The larger question is: what works for the British, and what do they have a right to?

Posted by PF on November 24, 2009, 05:21 AM | #

Danielj wrote:

Your problem is that you are comparing the rational and true Christian faith to Druidic nonsense based on an argument of psychological utility. You explicitly rejected that tactic as honest and helpful criteria in your last comment on a previous post.

You’re inconsistent.

This is an interesting point; you’ve hit something with it.

The difference between these two instances is that the prior context was political and cultural expediency - i.e. “Christianity is good/bad for white survival in 21st century” or “was good/bad for white survival throughout history”. Although I touch that point tangentially in the above post, the central topic is whether Christianity is metaphysically expedient for British man, i.e. whether British people can actually legitimately acquire higher spiritual knowledge through this borrowed religion.

What I am arguing are the very same *deeper reasons* for adopting/accepting/validating a religion which I said it was ingenuine not to discuss in the prior comment.

Posted by h.kalervo on November 24, 2009, 05:32 AM | #

Guessedworker wrote: “it’s hardly news that extract of Christianity, when heated by revolutionary war and regicide, and passed through a rational filter for three centuries, emerges as the political faith known as advanced liberalism.”

What is this “Christianity” you speak of ? Surely it’s not the tribal exclusivist laws of the Jews, which were later mistranslated as universalist laws by the Europeans. So what is it ? Is universalism in our genes, as MacDonald argues, or is it not ? Try to decide which one you want to believe. Our individualism-universalism certainly wasn’t the product of any JEWISH religious influence.

If you can’t keep the basics straight, how are you going to make the world straight ? Serious question.

Posted by PF on November 24, 2009, 05:57 AM | #

h.kalervo wrote:

What is this “Christianity” you speak of ? Surely it’s not the tribal exclusivist laws of the Jews, which were later mistranslated as universalist laws by the Europeans. So what is it ?

There are many ways to interpret texts; anything that isn’t a cake recipe can take on 100 shades of meaning, religious works can take on thousands. As we are having this conversation in the context of European history, I take GW to mean that particular dispensation of Christianity which Europeans practiced.

It sounds like you are alleging that Christianity didn’t fail us, we failed it, by interpreting it the wrong way, is that accurate?

Is universalism in our genes, as MacDonald argues, or is it not ? Try to decide which one you want to believe. Our individualism-universalism certainly wasn’t the product of any JEWISH religious influence.

With specific regard to this question, until we can have another 1,500 years to develop absent Jewish influences, we can’t really claim to having a control group.

An authoritarian foreign religion could close European man’s spiritual window and force him into the world of materiality. In this frosty place, full of reason and explanations, the illusion of separateness looms all the more large, and people dont wax poetic about social bonds which they perceive rationally. So forcing them to either accept the authority of foreign access routes to pre-rational realms, which to them are no access routes, or live enclosed in rationality, they do the latter. Consider it this way: Rationality splinters. And, rationality is all we have, if you instinctively reject/accept JC the way most Englishmen do, i.e. accept it nominally/authoritatively/imitatively and reject it spiritually.

Posted by h.kalervo on November 24, 2009, 07:33 AM | #

Either you believe in evolution and the decisive influence of many millenia of Germanic wandering in the resource-scarce North, or you believe that a Jewish fairy tale tamed the Germanic tribes in a couple hundred years because fairy culture has the powers of a fairy lord and genes don’t matter. If the former, then you must admit that the Germanic tribes adopted Christianity either because it appealed to their instincts, or because they actually transformed it and made it a religion of their own.

You think we have been corrupted. But actually nothing has changed. The vast majority of whites aren’t miscegenating. Our mainly Jewish media elites promote miscegenation. There’s a difference here. The vast majority of whites retain their distaste for racial mixing both in instinct and deed, and even the feet of liberals reveal the racial allegiance of even their instincts. Nobody has been deeply corrupted. There remains a vast disconnect between the real wishes of the masses and what their hostile elites would prefer the masses to wish. The U.S. had to be nine-elevened into Iraq. No one would’ve gone otherwise, except Paul Wolfowitz with his own private UFO (kidding). Mass immigration is popular NOWHERE (not kidding). It’s the elites who are facilitating mass immigration. They are doing so because they are paid to do so. The majority of us are not reacting very strongly to that, because we never react very strongly to collective threats that aren’t OBVIOUS and perceived as GREAT. That’s because we are individualist, as per MacDonald. This doesn’t stop us from preferring the white face in our private dealings. OBVIOUS threat. How to make slow boiling an obvious threat? Is there any great threat to begin with? War would be an obvious threat, and this is why war always brings out our latent nationalism. In normal times, we are simply too individualist to give a fuck. Don’t you get it?

The problem isn’t miscegenation, since almost nobody is miscegenating. Liberals aren’t having children in the first place, how could they miscegenate? Sorry, the problem is our low birth rates.

Sure, there are many people who date people of other races because they are losers and can’t get anyone of their own race to date them, but they rarely get far enough to reproduce themselves, which can hardly be a bad thing.

The problem is low white birth rates. Christianity is taking care of that, even as we speak.

Churches began to promote “tolerance” (not quite the same as race mixing, mind you) in the U.S., because the U.S. government used every financial and tax trick in their book to force them to. I wouldn’t worry too much about that, since people have this ability to talk whatever rubbish is socially acceptable while telling the truth with their feet. Christianity remains a white religion of whites who make white children. Humans are social animals. They speak and smile whatever is expected of them. They keep doing what their instincts expect of them.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 24, 2009, 07:52 AM | #

“Advanced liberalism’ is a canard. Any ideology that embraces anti-discrimination cannot be reconciled with a liberal view of society. Anti-discrimination is a doctrine designed to promote a particular group’s EGI and since they believe Christians are idolaters, who worship a dead Jew, it is hard to belief a learned man would issue such a missive.

Universalism, as defined by Gandhi, for one, is the belief that “the fundamental Truth of all great religions...is God given”. Christianity, however, was discriminatory. In order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you must believe in Christ. For those who do not believe will be denied to His Father. However, groups like the Unitarians,

“On the path that leads to peace we are all members of one human family, brothers and sisters one of another. -Knapp Rev. Ron Knapp . . . Unitarianism” [5]

who trace their history back to Arianism, for whom Christ is a prophet but not divine, are quite happy to embrace Gandhi’s fundamental truth. It is, however, difficult to see them as Christians because they deny the divinity of Christ.

Posted by h.kalervo on November 24, 2009, 08:23 AM | #

Just to clarify… When I speak of universalism, I usually mean moral universalism. “Thou shalt not kill” is universalist, because it applies to everyone on two levels. It’s a law everyone should follow, and it doesn’t exclude anyone from its protection. In contrast, “thou shalt not murder anyone of your own tribe”, is no longer universalist. It applies only to members of the tribe.

When I speak of liberals, I rarely mean to speak of any sort of classical liberalism, which is now more or less extinct. Real libertarianism wouldn’t be anti-discriminatory, because a community has a right to decide what kind of people they want to live with. There are prices, and not just the obvious ones. Needless to say, even America is not free-market liberal. The U.S. government is IMPOSING “tolerance” on everyone, including Europe, as it happens, and FORCING independent institutions, such as churches, to impose it on others in turn. You want to know your enemy? Then learn to know the U.S. government. Once you’ve dealt with that enemy, dealing with the Jewish finance and media hegemony is a cakewalk. And once you’ve dealt with THAT, no JQ remains.

Actually, the best you can do is promote Christianity and decentralization and have children.

Posted by Frank on November 24, 2009, 09:00 AM | #

British liberalism = suicide

American liberalism = assisted suicide

Posted by danielj on November 24, 2009, 09:44 AM | #

When I speak of liberals, I rarely mean to speak of any sort of classical liberalism

Me too.

I think most of us have an excellent understanding of the distinction Desmond but are used to using the term in the manner in which it is widely and presently understood.

Universalism, as defined by Gandhi, for one, is the belief that “the fundamental Truth of all great religions...is God given”.

In my opinion, this is really some kind of relativism, or nominalism if you prefer. Also, mind-blowing-ly hypocritical since Gandhi was pissed off about having to make way for whites in South Africa but had no qualms about the caste system in Indian.

This is why I find the other definition of universalism to be more accurate and ‘utilitarian’.

Although I touch that point tangentially in the above post, the central topic is whether Christianity is metaphysically expedient for British man

I’m not British so I suppose I shouldn’t really give a shit.

To me, what the issue seems to be is what the truth is and not whether it is metaphysically expedient. To me, there is no metaphysical system aside from the one promoted in the Bible that can account for rationality, the laws of logic, the validity of sense perception and the uniformity of the universe.

There is much to say and no time. Perhaps, I’ll make it back today.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 24, 2009, 11:37 AM | #

hk: spot on mate.
I keep saying to the atheist materialists here that if it’s all in the genes or genomes or whatever, their genes are LOSING the fight, and there’s no point in wriggling and attempting to escape their manifest destiny, even if it’s not to their tastes; they will just have to bite the bullet and say “Nature has used us: She passes on, we pass, and we must be content.”
Others of us don’t believe in the genetic argument. But the determinists who do are making things extra difficult for everyone here by saying, in effect, ”This argument may be logically conclusive: but I am genetically programmed to reject it, irrespective of its virtues. That argument may contain a fallacy: but my genes incline me to it, therefore I’ll buy it!”
If only GW and the other theophobes could tell us WHAT the mechanical components (for that’s all they are really) in the various genetic formations bring about “spirituality”, or incline to a warped Semitic tendency to accept Christ (see whether the Chief Rabbi does that) or a straight honest Aryan tendency to reject Him, I should like to hear of it.
Did the arrival on our shores of Augustine and his 40 monks cause some sort of radioactive gene-warping effect, triggering on an otherwise-dormant self-destruct genetic command among the Saxons?

Posted by SUCH on November 24, 2009, 01:19 PM | #

Gorboduc:

Was Jesus a brown communist?  Do you speak Aramaic?  Do you believe in Hell?  Was Abraham an Aryan?  Is Heaven full of white liberals?  Is Hell full of social programs for the oppressed?

Posted by Gorboduc on November 24, 2009, 02:38 PM | #

SUCH a pity.
No:
No, but He probably spoke Greek:
Yes:
Don’t know, but then I don’t really understand who the Aryans were. High-class Persians, or Brahmins, or something:
Good authority speaks of the fewness of the Elect but I don’t think many WLs would be among them unless they repented in time.
No: only the depairing damned and their demonic tormentors. Read the famous sermon in Joyce’s “Portrait of the Artist...”

But I didn’t return here for such lugubriuos lucubrations, but to make the claim that protest, resistance and rebellion and reconstruction are somehow MORE FUN with Catholic support.
I feel real bad that I hadn’t recently done any POETRY for you, friends, (but then, thank God, neither have the regulars,) but the MUSE, a great big hulking blonde Greek maiden of the old style with imperious and flashing eye, a fetchingly flimsy sort of classical pinafore and rather nice gold strappy sandals, hasn’t been prodding me awake with a sharp quill as frequently as she was wont:  but may I remind you of two bit of battle poetry to steel our nerves against the future?

Chesterton’s two warlike masterpieces are THE BALLAD OF THE WHITE HORSE, the tale of Alfred’s heroic battle against the Danes, and LEPANTO, the tale of how an unwilling-to-fight Europe, worn out by the Reformation, was saved by the Catholic fleet from the Moslem sea-power. THey are full of high spirits and tragedy: GKC refers to the Prophet as MAHOUND which will get the Moslems spitting as they don’t like dogs. Also, they assume as a sort of implicit, a sense of spirituality: GKC supposes a sort of pagan pessimism on the part of the Danes (before their conversion) and also of the Moslems (then, and for ever and ever, Amen)

Belloc’s THE REBEL is a great hymn of hate and also puts forward, as GKC remarked, a strategy.

Posted by h.kalervo on November 24, 2009, 03:36 PM | #

SUCH,

You seem to have stuck to a stage of intellectual development which people like me passed while still in the cradle. I remain confident that a healthy baby could babble an answer to that: “At worst, Jesus is what you make of him. Your Bible was written in English. Hell is the dustbin of God. It’s where the genetic lines of failed experiments will go to spend an eternity. Oh yes. It’s really quite simple: no God, no future.”

A related point: when the Romans had played conquerors long enough, they got bored and stopped having children. R.P. Oliver wrote about that. They didn’t even need the pill for it. They had found a way to have fun without having to bother about that pesky thing, future. And so the future was taken from them. Our non-Christian whites seem deadly bored, too. Futureless, one might say. Are you sure, O SUCH, are you sure you genuinely want the white race to survive and thrive? I MEAN, could it be? Have you yourself suspected it? You’re playing an Edgy Godless White Nationalist - out of boredom.

Seriously, if you really wanted the whites to thrive, you would support Christianity. The math isn’t difficult: Christianity makes white women want to have children instead of good plus careers “and maybe one sick child when I’m forty-five and ready to spoil my body”. The numbers are easy: fifty thousand years without God, we spent it waving around our dicks; then came Jesus and soon after we started sending men to the moon. Anyone can do the calculus: over 90% of all the major geniuses we’ve had so far were all Christian. Then a couple of decades without God, and we’re back to waving around our condom dicks, mocking family life, and waiting secretly for death. Good plan, that. Except it’s not a plan.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 24, 2009, 03:37 PM | #

This is really what I came on above for, until distracted by SUCH’s questionnaire.

Three books on English spirituality as it was experienced here before, during and to some extent after the Reformation are by Eamon Duffy.
All are magisterial, and packed with information, most of it new. ED is a prodigious researcher: he is not “pious” and the books are especially relevant here because they show how peoples’ beliefs and faiths can be changed: by coercion, choice, or access of new information. There is, I’m very glad to say,, no half-baked nonsense about how a particular belief is appropriate to a particular genetic structure.
In order of composition, they are
1) ‘THE STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS:Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580’ (Yale, 1992)
2) THE VOICES OF MOREBATH: Reformation and Rebellion in an English Village’ (Yale, 2001)
3) FIRES OF FAITH: Catholic England under Mary Tudor. (Yale, 2009)

1) adopts a highly revisionist approach to the Reformation, and is highly critical of the “Whig” view of history.
2) and 3) deal in detail with the problems of changing allegiances, the motives that make men martyrs, and the ways in which the state attempts to impose beliefs on people.
3) is especially interesting in its study of the Catholic bishops who became non-papal “Catholics” under Henry VIII, veered towards Protestantism under Edward VI, became fully paid-up papists again under Mary and who, bitterly regretting that they’d allowed their true allegiance to be swayed at all by Henry’s policy of gradualism, and thus assist in the destruction of England, refused to re-adapt themselves in the slightest under protestant Elisabeth. They were all arrested, and all died for their beliefs in prison.
There is some trenchant comment on the Protestant martyrs under Mary. some of whom seem to have perfected an early form of what I think is known as “suicide by police” in forcing pointless confrontations with authority whose outcome was a foregone conclusion.
If GW could take a few days to read these tomes - I’m sure he’d enjoy them - he might have something to think about regarding the faith gene and its operation - if, in fact, it exists at all.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 24, 2009, 03:42 PM | #

hk, if I’d seen your post before beginning mine, I’d have said a prayer of thanks and asked a blessing for you. I do so now.
Thankyou.

Posted by SUCH on November 24, 2009, 10:30 PM | #

So why not Islam, then, gentiles?

Posted by Divine Julius on November 25, 2009, 03:23 AM | #

Jesus Christ, the God who became man. Julius Caesar, the man who became god. Jesus Christ, betrayed by Judas, Julius Caesar, betrayed by Brutus. Jesus who predicted the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, Titus, the Son of God (Vespasian Caesar) who destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Constantine, Vespasian and Titus’ descendant who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

The version of the Old Testament in Greek was read far more than any Hebrew source, and of course the New Testament was written in Greek. The New Testament is considered by Jews to be the ultimate origin of anti-semitism. By the time Vespasian and Titus had conquered Palestine, Jews were known around the world as the race that killed God. The Church kept the Jews separate from Europeans for the next 2000 years.

Christianity is the Eastern version of the cult of Divine Julius, specifically adapted to ruling the people in Near East, only a minority of which were Jewish. Christianity is so European and so anti-Jewish it’s a surprise to this day how people can’t see it; the Jews certainly recognize it which is why they hate Jesus.

Christianity was invented to inoculate Europe from Judaism, it’s worked surprisingly well up to now.

Posted by GoyAmongYou on November 25, 2009, 12:05 PM | #

This explains the schizophrenic aspect of post-Classical European civilization, which has only grown more schizophrenic in its American variant. To yield to foreign cultures and to try to co-opt them is natural for us, because our fundamental spiritual and religious culture is likewise not an expression of our own. Therefore European man is profoundly good at putting on different hats, and experimenting with different things, all the while himself being strangely adrift and homeless. This can be seen in everything: Shakespeare’s foreign settings for plays, 19th century German Neo-Hellenism, Schopenhauer’s interest in the Vedas, Byron’s Hellenic journeys, the Beatle’s trip to India, the middle-classes adopting black music first as Motown and then as Rap. Given rational food only at home, we naturally set out looking for a deeper experience of life elsewhere. It isn’t even cultural treason: one cannot betray a tradition which is already based on profound betrayal. Our Churches are monuments to a Jewish God. It is not therefore surprising to see the Beatles dressed in Indian garb, or turbanned Lord Byron, or the wiggers sporting gold medallions: what is European culture at its core, if our own spiritual space is occupied territory?

At least the Catholic Church knew how to deal with the Hippies:

How much that culture was imperilled can be seen from the main tenets which were openly preached and acted upon. All the sacraments were abandoned. In their place a strange ritual was adopted, mixed up with fire worship, called “The Consolation,” in which it was professed that the soul was purified. The propagation of mankind was attacked; marriage was condemned, and the leaders of the sect spread all the extravagances which you find hovering round Manicheism or Puritanism wherever it appears. Wine was evil, meat was evil, war was always absolutely wrong, so was capital punishment; but the one unforgivable sin was reconciliation with the Catholic Church. There again the Albigensians were true to type. All heresies make that their chief point.

The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc
Chapter IV. The Albigensian Attack
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Great_Heresies/Chapter_IV

Just saying.

Posted by GoyAmongYou on November 25, 2009, 01:07 PM | #

Posted by PF on November 22, 2009, 07:18 AM | #

The Bible was MTV and Hollywood version 1.0

Paul had the idea of displaying moving pictures for group audiences, rather than just to individual viewers, and invented a film projector, giving his first public showing in 1895. At about the same time, in France, Auguste and Louis Lumière invented the cinematograph, a portable, three-in-one device: camera, printer, and projector. In late 1895 in Paris, father Antoine Lumière began exhibitions of projected films before the paying public, beginning the general conversion of the medium to projection (Cook, 1990). They quickly became Europe’s main producers with their actualités like Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory and comic vignettes like The Sprinkler Sprinkled (both 1895). Even Edison, initially dismissive of projection, joined the trend with the Vitascope within less than six months. The first public motion-picture film presentation in Europe, though, belongs to Max and Emil Skladanowsky of Berlin, who projected with their apparatus “Bioscop”, a flickerfree duplex construction, November 1 through 31, 1895.

That same year in May, in the USA, Eugene Augustin Lauste devised his Eidoloscope for the Latham family. But the first public screening of film ever is due to Jean Aimé “Acme” Le Roy, a French photographer. On February 5, 1894, his 40th birthday, he presented his “Marvellous Cinematograph” to a group of around twenty show business men in New York City.

Source:
http://www.mailstar.net/zoroaster-judaism.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 25, 2009, 02:35 PM | #

“At least the Catholic Church knew how to deal with the Hippies [the Albigensians]” (—Goy Among You)

Good point.  The problem is, the Catholic Church are now become the hippies.  What do we do now?  Answer:  secede from the Hippie-ridden Catholic Church.  Those who do will be the True Catholic Church.  Of course, Gorbo doesn’t want to hear that.

Posted by ChristianPowerLight on November 26, 2009, 02:10 AM | #

Let’s get together and promote side-hugs.  White power!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Oj0-splZw&feature=player_embedded

Posted by Al Ross on November 26, 2009, 02:26 AM | #

The Catholic Church is doubtless something of a curate’s egg for those fortunate enough to know its operatives on a first hand, residential basis :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6932430.ece

http://markcoughlan.com/thy-brothers-keeper/

In the words of the Jagger and Richards song ‘Start Me Up’ - “You make a grown man cry”.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 26, 2009, 11:20 PM | #

Dear Al,
this is late but all I can say is:

If this isn’t a Nuremberg-style verdict - secret hearings, no examination of witnesses, statements read into the record without verificaiton etc - and there is some evidence that the whole thing and the atmosphere surrounding it has been somewhat manipulated as part of the modern world’s hysterical condemnation of Christianity - (read the heart-rending reactions to similar stories, accepted by the unquestioningly ignorant at face-value, at:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rock-Me-Gently-Judith-Kelly/dp/0747587140

and then consider the true situation as revealed at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/bloomsbury-withdraws-paperback-accused-of-plagiarising-jane-eyre-and-brighton-rock-502659.html )

then - even if only 10% of it is true - it’s still a shocking indictment of the behaviour of the Catholic Church today.

Be advised, the whole thing is post Vatican II- it starts in 1975. That’s some years after spirit of the modern world, the spirit of liberalism (private judgment) or Protestantism, that sways some of the more aggressively secular contributors here, began seriously to infect the church.
To me, as a Catholic, it’s a dreadful reminder of what can easily happen when the Church loses her way and becomes infected with liberal values, ultimately stemming from the Reformation.
It in no way affects the moral integrity of the Church’s teachings, and emphasizes the absolute necessity of following them.

Posted by danielj on November 27, 2009, 12:06 AM | #

To me, as a Catholic, it’s a dreadful reminder of what can easily happen when the Church loses her way and becomes infected with liberal values, ultimately stemming from the Reformation.

Everyday I thank Christ for the Reformation that pulled men out of the darkness of Catholicism although sometimes, I imagine a cheap indulgence would be so much easier than actually having to know the Scriptures and live a life reflecting the commands contained therein. I feel like it might be easier to just unthinkingly bow to the “authority” of the church instead of the authority of the Scriptures.

You and I know those “liberal” Protestant values are really consist of values like reading, owning a Bible, proper administration of the Sacraments, covenantal theology, etc. Still, it must be that silly fucker Calvin that is responsible for unleashing that awful torrent of modernity exemplified primarily by the sickly ethic and endorsement to work, the overturning of the oh-so-successful Catholic “laws” against usury, hyper-rationalism and the destruction of authority predicated by his emphasis on individual faith. It has to be Calvin even though we in the Protestant camp have no Vatican II to speak of - no great liberalizing of our faith. It is the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity that make sense to me and fortunately I can accept Aquinas and Augustine in my tradition without too much trouble.

However, we mustn’t indict the church for its unreasonable insistence that the invented and unscriptural office of priest be manned by horny young men forced into celibate service of our Lord.

The church is still Catholic and still invisible but it isn’t Roman Gorbo.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 12:46 AM | #

danielj - we of course have a lot of common ground, as CS Lewis pointed out, and for that we should be grateful.

Still, what is it that allows you to speak of the authority of the Scriptures? Or of the “proper administration” of the Sacraments?
We differ not merely as to their nature, but as to their number.
Why is Catholicism “dark”?

Whom do you respect more, Abbott Whiting or the butchers that ripped up his guts?

Still, the main question is prompted by the original essay at top - do you believe there’s a gene, possession of which makes for an infallible determinination without any argument at all that a religion that’s supposedly “Oriental” has to be rubbish?
(Oh, those wily “orientals”, forever associated in the popular imagination with funny smelly food, whiny music, souks, Aladdin and his genie, scimitars, sandals, Sinbad’s Hongkong Emporium, Kasbahs, et tout ce tralala - what would we think of a sensitive man who thought MR had automatically to be rubbish because it came from the West, home of obesity, Coca-Cola, junk food, TV soaps, coal-mines, cheap amplified music, industrial slums, concrete architecture, abortion mills, canned lager and all that?

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 01:12 AM | #

Actually PF’s original title is a bit mind-boggling.
It should have been posed as a question, “Can European Christianity ever accumulate to potency?” (I leave aside the secondary point about whatever ‘accumulating to potency’ might mean. If it means ‘come to power’ then let him say so. Too much obstructive Latinity about, here. Positively Papistical!)

When he’s demonstrated that it can’t, then he can go on to account for this failure.

It’s a bit like my calling an essay “Why GW and PF must always be wrong”. They would feel a bit short-changed if I then produced a series of variations on the theme, “Well, they’re Darwinians!” with the unspoken and therefore unexamined assumption that Darwinians can never be right on anything…
FIRST, I would have to demonstrate that they ARE wrong; THEN I would have to demonstrate the reasons for their wrongness. Merely alleging that I didn’t like or respect the reasoning or authority brought forward would not be sufficient.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 27, 2009, 01:16 AM | #

do you believe there’s a gene, possession of which makes for an infallible determination without any argument at all that a religion that’s supposedly “Oriental” has to be rubbish?

The faith gene is one argument, Gorb.  The alienness of the Abramic is another.  The one is not connected to or dependent upon the other.

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on November 27, 2009, 01:28 AM | #

What an idiotic posting by PF. PF you certainly don’t know anything about Christianity, Europe or history or race. You have written a flim-flam article of shallow observations of the current state of affairs.

Most of the problems of today is because of Freemasonry and not of Christianity. The Catholic Church has always taught the suppression of the Jews. It was Atheists and haters of Christianity that gave the Jew free reign and it is this multiculturalism and liberalism which is fueled by the Jews and their offspring of freemasonry that is destroying Europe and races. Not Christianity. Don’t you know PF that the Church is infiltrated by practicising Socialists and Freemasons? No, you don’t target these groups but you hate what you don’t know. It is the Atheists and christian haters that released the Jews, destroyed the Church that unleashed the powers that are destroying you!  What do you think the American and French Revolutions were?  Christian? 

They were Masonic!  They were all About the Novus Ordo!  You, PF, are complaining about the wrong things. 

First off the Official Old Testament of the Christian Church is the Septuagint written in Greek!  Last time I checked, Greek is an European Language. The New Testament was solely written in Greek! How can the New Testament be Jewish?  The Trinitarian concept of God is Jewish? Jesus Christ as God/Man is a Jewish concept?

Christianity is a Greek religion. If anything the real founder of Christianity is Plato and the last time I checked Plato was a Greek!  Even Christ said to his own tribesmen, that the faith will be taken away from you and GIVEN TO ANOTHER RACE.  Christianity is not a Jewish Religion but a Greek religion.

PF you don’t really know anything. You are an ignorant ass spreading lies and atheistic paganistic lies for your agenda.  Your pagan forefathers all left your pagan Nordic religion for a true religion that offers salvation, purification and union with a real God. None of your pagan religions do that.

And who just who drove the Muslims out of Spain, PF?  Who drove the Muslims off the sea? Remember the Battle of Lepanto?  Adolf Hilter rejected Christianity and who killed more people? Socialists and Communists have. Europe voted to remove Christianity with the American and French Revolutions!!!!! It was the European Elite and Peasants that divorced themselves from Christianity and adopted the tolerance and Diversity of FreeMasonry. You changed religions, freed the Jews!!! You adopted a New religion of “""FREEDOM"""". 

YOU MADE YOUR BED----Now lie in it----AND STOP BLAMING CHRISTIANITY---you ignorant peeon.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 01:42 AM | #

GW: I’m aware that you treat the “faith gene” as an argument.
Where is it, what is it?
Is it an assumption?
You use the term so much that I feel sure that somewhere there must be a clear proof of its existence, and how it works… Where?
I think you said that you didn’t have this gene.  Am I right in this? Is this a gain or a loss? If I have it, am I ripe for disposal? If you don’t, do you need an operation?
But then I don’t know what you mean by faith.

Now looky here - all short words, no more than three syllables.

If you’re going to answer - and this thread has been around for a bit - PLEASE don’t use EPISTEMOLOGY or even ONTOLOGY or PHENOMENOLOGY. Please.

Does alienness convey a moral quality?
Mandarin. Pagoda. (Nice words) Oh, and Bungalow and Pyjamas (fun things): and Printing (Useful thing)
Incense. Tea. Silk. (LOVELY things)
OK, they’re not Abramic. But we’d still better stop having them.
OK, Abramic operates more in the realm of ideas that of physical things. Still, WHY is it out of court?

Posted by danielj on November 27, 2009, 02:18 AM | #

danielj - we of course have a lot of common ground, as CS Lewis pointed out, and for that we should be grateful.

Indeed we do and I am.

Still, what is it that allows you to speak of the authority of the Scriptures? Or of the “proper administration” of the Sacraments?
We differ not merely as to their nature, but as to their number.

I’m not saying the church has no authority.

Why is Catholicism “dark”?

That isn’t what I meant. That was ‘loose’ and imprecise talk and I should be more circumspect but the medium doesn’t exactly encourage that.

Whom do you respect more, Abbott Whiting or the butchers that ripped up his guts?

The Abbott.

Still, the main question is prompted by the original essay at top - do you believe there’s a gene, possession of which makes for an infallible determinination without any argument at all that a religion that’s supposedly “Oriental” has to be rubbish?

Of course there is no “faith” gene. I spend a majority of my time here disputing the idea of genetic determinism and physicalism.

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on November 27, 2009, 02:56 AM | #

I am listening to the Kai Murros interview by John Giles who I am supposing is “PF” because the same reasonings of PF is spouted by John Giles.

Giles interupts Kai Murros with “the Christian preachers here all preach this ‘all men are equal’” stuff.

I really wonder---do you guys know what is going on?  This “All men are equal” of Thomas Jefferson is NOT a biblical teaching---but a Masonic teaching! It is NOT Christianity. It is not Biblical either.  What has happened is that Masonic teaching has corrupted Christianity. Christian leaders either knowingly or not have adopted Masonic/Marxist teaching!

So why are you blaming Christianity---when you should be blaming Jews and Masons? Judiasm and Masonry go together. That is why when you read traditional Catholic texts they attack “Judeo-masonic-bolshevism”.  It is all the same “Jews, Masons, and Commies”.  It’s all Jewish!  Even Protestantism is a Judiazed version of true orthodox Christianity! Catholicism is an European religion. Who has kept all the old European traditions of a tree, easter egg, halloween?  Protestants---or Catholics?  All those old European traditions are European ensconced in an European religion called Catholicism. Protestantism is a heresy--a Judiazed version of Christianity. “To Judiaze” is anathemitized by all the early church councils!

“All Men are equal” is a Judeo/Masonic/Bolshevist error/lie/untruth.

Instead of attacking Catholicism that built Western Civilization and Culture---start defending her! And attack Judiazing Protestantism, Freemasonry and Liberalism.

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 04:41 AM | #

Despite what ignorant Roman Catholics believe,Freemasonry’s tenets and its adherents do not claim that every man is equal. The claim is of equality between ‘men of worth’- quite different altogether and, as a classification, unlikely to include the many Roman Catholic child abusers from both clergy and laity.

Posted by danielj on November 27, 2009, 04:44 AM | #

Despite what ignorant Roman Catholics believe,Freemasonry’s tenets and its adherents do not claim that every man is equal. The claim is of equality between ‘men of worth’

Which would include people of all kinds of races.

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 05:16 AM | #

Yes, danielj, that is correct. Although this Masonic precept cannot, in and of itself, be interpreted as an understanding that race does not exist or that nations should not protect their people from racially alien interlopers. Ask Nick Griffin’s father, who is one of the top members of the Craft in the English Constitution, if he opposes the BNP stance on immigration and you are likely to receive a dusty answer.

No White Freemason would abase himself before a ‘brother’ of another race in the disgusting manner of Barack Obama when he bowed long and low before both the Japanese Emperor and the Saudi Arabian monarch.

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 07:39 AM | #

Gorboduc, the whereabouts of the ‘faith gene’ is certainly a three pipe problem, a bit like the location of the much vaunted ‘soul’.

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 08:27 AM | #

Gorboduc, I owe you a reply to your post which ended with your “emphasis upon the need to follow” the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings.

This may be all well and good, at least for believers in the Supernatural. Unfortunately, for ordinary, rational Brits like myself who read The Telegraph and are confronted with the sheer evil of senior Roman Catholic clergy at the apex of the Jesus business, whose knowledge of RC lore ( masquerading as theology) must surely dwarf your own, an optimistic exhortation seems an inadequate response.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/6663517/Irelands-Roman-Catholic-archbishop-covered-up-abuse-to-protect-churchs-reputation.html

It should be obvious what is happening here, viz., the hierarchy of the RC Church don’t believe a word of what they teach but are acutely aware that their power, prestige, pleasure and profit all depend on the ovine flock who turn up on Sunday to be blessed by a spiritual lollipop from the local priest.

Posted by danielj on November 27, 2009, 09:44 AM | #

Gorboduc, the whereabouts of the ‘faith gene’ is certainly a three pipe problem, a bit like the location of the much vaunted ‘soul’.

There is no problem with the location of the soul. In fact, it is right where it has also been in an immaterial realm just where all the other forms are. All kinds of other things exist there too; trianularity, the laws of logic, geometric proofs, etc.

It is basic Aristotlean metaphysics Al and if you need to get better acquainted with them I can send you some books.

Posted by danielj on November 27, 2009, 09:46 AM | #

Ugh. Sorry.

where it has also been = where it has always been

trianularity = triangularity

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 10:02 AM | #

Good Lord, your sort read books, danielj? How extraordinary. I suppose the Christian shaman dropped them off at the prison library for you.

Posted by danielj on November 27, 2009, 10:20 AM | #

Aristotle wasn’t a Christian Al.

Ad hominem is a fallacy Al.

Yes, I did read lots of books in prison Al.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 10:39 AM | #

Al Ross, do you speak with authority on the tenets of masonry?
How come?
Do you speak for the Craft alone, or for the Scottish Rite? Or for the York Rite? or Memphis Misraim? or the Grand Lodge or the Grand Orient of France?
Do you perhaps represent the Swiss Alpina set-up?
Do you speak for the U.S. Grand Lodges?
In many years of exchange with Masons, some quite high-ranking oficers and functionaries at Great Queen Street, I’ve never found one who cared to have his opinion recorded as representing an “official” pont of view. I know that some English masons support a “whites-only” policy, others quite the reverse. Which is the most truly “masonic”? Some lodges seem to be “Jews-only”: the “Jerusalem” and “Joppa” lodgeswere certainly like that.
I remember that whwn the Grand Lodge of Iran was set up some years ago under the aegis of the late Shah, (it was fully reported in whatever issue of “Ars Quattuor Coronatorum") the craft regalia was designed so as to incorporate the Jewish star as well as the Islamic crescent to demonstrate the Lodge’s “inclusivity”. Truly, the Craft is a bunch of chameleons.
When you say “ignorant Roman Catholics” are you speaking of “all Roman Catholics”, or just a few?
Are ordinary, rational Brits like yourself and the readers of the DT all good sound atheists? If you’re a regular DT reader, do you object to the regular appearances of Christopher Howse, an RC contributor? How can you demonstrate the rationality of the DT readership?
I don’t understand your complicated jibe about “lore” and “theology”. As I see it, you think the clergy promulgate a deceptive “lore” that impersonates and is overtrumped by genuine theology: but their knowledge of the “lore”, is greater than my own...well, what? “lore”? “theology”?
Are you implying that the “theology” is genuine and good and has somehow been replaced by ab illicit “lore”?
As you see, I’m suggesting that the questions you ask lack definition.
And of course, the sins of the Irish Church since 1975 are terrible: one of the sins that is involved, that of sodomy, is one that’s characterised by the Church as “crying to Heaven for vengeance”
The fact that a great proportion of the clergy may not believe what they are teaching (and their teaching, being post Vatican II will be a very much watered-down version of what they SHOULD have been believing and teaching) doesn’t of itself demonstrate, to a RATIONAL man, the untruthfulness of that teaching.
But I agree with you, it’s an absolute abomination.
As you say, the church’s teachings should have protecte everyone from that sort of thing: but the outside secular non-Christian world doesn’t even have that protection, does it?
What do you mena by “Lollipop”?

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 10:51 AM | #

Sound chap, Aristotle. Perhaps he still believes in immaterial stuff. His shade will appreciate your posts then.

All that the statement of “ad hominem is a fallacy” is meant to do, in this case as in so many others, is to avoid the obvious necessity of considering the source. It is Marxoid in nature, being related to “don’t be so defensive” when one counters a Leftist lie.

Autodidactism, even of the compulsory, taxpayer - funded variety, has its admirers, no doubt, but one can sympathise with the intelligent observer who succinctly remarked, “A self taught man has a fool for a teacher”.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 10:53 AM | #

Al, I’ve just seen your reply to danielj.
He can very well answer you for himself, but I just WISH you folks would try to get rid of the easily-learnt and unimaginative vocabulary of anti-Christian sneering that so frequently disfigures posts here.
A lot of it comes from Jewish and old-fashioned communist sources: but it seems either you weren’t aware of that fact,, or are quite easy with it.
Also the gene/soul problem is not as you describe it. Dj is right: the soul problem is a metaphysical one, but the gene problem isn’t a problem at all: you scientific folk have claimed to be able to identify or map it, and it should be no harder for you to answer now than it is to describe the oxidation of copper or the origin of the oil-fields ...although come to think of it, the “scientific” world hasn’t exactly covered itself with glory recently, has it?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5559816/the-smoking-iceberg.thtml

And yes, I know it’s Melanie ...so what?

Posted by Guessedworker on November 27, 2009, 11:08 AM | #

Daniel:

Of course there is no “faith” gene. I spend a majority of my time here disputing the idea of genetic determinism and physicalism.

Genes are themselves determined by natural selection.  Natural selection biases for fitness gain.  A bias that regulates for adaptive life choices and maximises intra-ethnic trust into the bargain is itself a substantial fitness gain.  Hence that bias has been genetically coded, and its phenotypic expression emotionalised as faith-feeling.  It is an evolved faculty of the human brain, produced in the pre-frontal cortex (higher emotional complex).  It is not a pre-requisite for the witness of being, ie higher “religious” or “spiritual” function.  I will repeat that because it is important: Faith is NOT a factor contributing to the capacity of men to witness being through presence, perception and consciousness.

Faith is also as sticky and stubborn as hell, and nobody who has an expressed faith gene, so to speak, will accept this certain testament.  But that is exactly why faith is a human faculty ... to pressage adaptive behaviour no matter what.  I can’t complain.  And, anyway, I don’t want to destroy anybody’s faith-feeling.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 11:08 AM | #

Oh, and BTW, Al, your “succinct” and “intelligent” observer was stating a prejudice, not a fact. Doubtless GW and PF have got their PhDs: if not, away with them!
I had NO idea that you were such an establishment man: and here was I thinking myself in the company of bold and independent rebels, and here you come along, sounding like a dyspeptic crusty old academic.
I hope your tenure is renewed and that you can come up with the “right” results so your research grant is continued: it looks as if your teachers didn’t do a very good job on your history, so look at this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Wright_(linguist)
Oh, and there’s Elgar, Shakespeare, Keats… Oh get real man, do!

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 11:09 AM | #

Gorboduc, I spoke with authority on one tenet, viz., the ‘man of worth’ qualification.

The Grand Lodges of various Constitutions in mutual amity would consider this a prerequisite. If you do not believe this then look up your local UK Yellow Pages (like all Secret Society venues, Masonic Halls feature in such directories) and call, speak to a Lodge officer and enquire whether or not this is so.

If I had written “intelligent Roman Catholics” what would you have inferred from that phrase? Then do likewise, please.

Posted by G on November 27, 2009, 11:24 AM | #

GW, on the principle that “what I say three times is true” could you please say it once more and then the scientific proof should be quite clear:  but please could you say it in English as the polysyllabic orutundity of the externalised innate expressiveness of the notionallistically-derived integrity of the intellectualised conceptually-orintated expressiveness of this particulate portion of genetic theorisation is somewhat obnubilated by the obfuscatory sesquipedalian verbiage impressively manipulated at the present location
You said you once worked in the “Brewery Tap”: did you never come across the great old phrase “Ale in a Saxon Rumkin then, such as will make Grimalkin prate...”?
For someone who regrets that Shakespeare didn’t write “The Two Gentleman of Clapham Common” but treacherously set his play in Verona, you do seem to have a liking for exotick latin imports ... potted tongue, perhaps.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 27, 2009, 11:33 AM | #

At risk of breaking my own injunction to refrain from direct challenge to religious belief, I will make a short addition to my last comment.

Among all advocates of theism, and especially among monotheists, the final argument in reason for God, before all falls to faith alone, is that a mechanical process such as evolution cannot produce a moral universe.  This is a fundamental, perhaps wilfull misreading not only of “good” in evolutionary terms, which is very plainly delineated and is not different to the good in common moral systems, but of the human condition itself, and human potential also.

The real final argument in reason for God, which I have made many times, should be this:

Why does Man possess the potential to witness being if this is not contingent on and to the evolutionary process?

I have not found a satisfactory answer to this riddle.  Not yet.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 11:36 AM | #

Al, yes, yes, I know.
“Man of worth” = man with a certain amount of disposable income., and a definite amount of gullibility.
I shall start posting as Hiram Abiff if you go on like this, or as K.S.
Great Queen Street claims to repudiate “Godless” masonry, but recognises several US obediences who recognise the French Grand Orient: what a confusion!
Shibboleth!

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 11:40 AM | #

Sorry, Gorboduc, I forgot to explain the lollipop reference. All children are encouraged not to bite such comestibles, but rather suck them.. So, it necessarily follows that Roman Catholic Communion attenders, who wish to gain admittance to Yahweh’s multi - racial, celestial retirement community had better sheath their teeth during the proffering of the host and not bite old Jesus’s posterior or automatic entry may not be a given.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 11:42 AM | #

GW, I’m not surprised that no-one can answer your riddle: no-one can understand it. Can you?

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 11:47 AM | #

Al.
Brill!
What a wit!
Larf?, Nearly wet mesel’, did’n I?
Cor! Wow!
Ah-ha-ha-ha!
Mus’ remember that one for the ol’ Festive Board!
Ah-ha-ha-ha!

Posted by Guessedworker on November 27, 2009, 11:49 AM | #

Gorb,

So, I am pilloried for not being able to specify at which frequency the complex of genes expressing as faith resides - something no lab technican or grand genetic theorist can do today.  Yet, in acknowledgement of that, my attempt to speak as precisely as possible is mocked!

I could as easily ask you to apply yourself more energetically (and more rigorously) to what I wrote.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 27, 2009, 12:15 PM | #

Gorb,

In a recent post - part 2 of an as yet unfinished trilogy - I noted that:

the survival strategy of sensing, to borrow the old German Idealist term, “the thing that is” beyond the organism itself is the only reason for human self-awareness and self-interest.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_2/

This is as close as I can get to answering the riddle of why we are sensate, and I think it is fit for purpose.  However, there are degrees of calibration, if you will, in human sensory capacity, and these are, at the same time, degrees of difficulty and of scale and of transcendence.

The problem for evolutionists is how to stretch the above answer to cover the capacity, rare though it may be, to sense the most recondite and transcendent “thing that is”, which is pure being.

Now, with a few philosophical exceptions faithists - particularly Christian faithists - don’t generally address this knotty issue, and don’t have to because, as I said before, faith is not a pre-requisite for sensing, or witnessing, being.  Faith is believing in “good”, which is quite a different, lighter and more social proposition.  That said, I do not wish to abuse or belittle your belief in “good”, so I will not pursue this conversation further.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 12:16 PM | #

I have given it close attention and have looked at it from every which angle; one problem that it poses is that it seems to enshrine an illicit assumption, which is that I, as the riddle’s potential solver, must believe in the evolutionary process. I don’t. So I needn’t accept the terms of the riddle.
Also I don’t understand what how being is witnessed. Am I aware of other people, other things? Well of course I am.
But that’s it: I know people and cats and trees, but I don’t know Man or Humanity, Cat or Felinity, Tree or - oh what the hell,- Dendrinity?  - and I’m NOT pillorying you, merely asking for a simplification. It is good of you to avoid the use of “ontology” which is always difficult for us foolish auto-didacts (Al, I so hope I spelled that ok!) to cope with.
Genes for gender I can grasp: genes for hair-colour likewise, and genes for height, colour vision, long fingers - but genes for belief?
Look, when I say your post is hard to understand - I mean, like who’s doing the acknowledging? You or I? And what’s being acknowledged - your being pilloried, your not knowing the answer, or the inability of the lab. tech. or theorist? See what I mean?
And I was applying gentle mockery to Al’s pro-Masonic stuff, not to your post.

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 12:30 PM | #

Well I’m gratified, Gorboduc, that you derived some humour from what must surely remain a serious religious dichotomy. We have heard much lately of the Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchy’s propensity to pedophilia. Some media fairness should be gained by Roman Catholics pointing out that the vast majority of their number evince little sexual interest in children and are, in fact, in love with a somewhat elderly Jew called Jesus ,who is, at best estimates ,around the age of 2000 or so.

So, obviously the gerontophilia of the laity should act as a counter balance to the pedophilia of the clergy who, one suspects, might actually know what their strange deity requires of them.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 27, 2009, 12:49 PM | #

Gorb,

I know people and cats and trees, but I don’t know Man or Humanity, Cat or Felinity

No, but I wrote, “there are degrees of calibration, if you will, in human sensory capacity, and these are, at the same time, degrees of difficulty and of scale and of transcendence.”

genes for belief?

Religious belief is a behaviour.  Many behaviours are gene-expressions.

Look, Gorb, perhaps you have not noticed that I am explaining the limitations of your worldview, based in faith, and of mine, based in reason, and I am showing what they have in common.  I am trying to be emollient, for Chrissake!  At any rate, I really do not wish to press this further, because then I would have to address the faith language endemic to the eastern transcendental tradition and, eventually, come back to attack your belief structure from two sides, not one.  All of that I want to avoid.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 27, 2009, 01:21 PM | #

Al: more Jewish Bolshevik humour. Or perhaps it’s R.P.Oliver. Gosh, you know Greek like GW knows Latin! Good old Hilaire Belloc coined one of those too, “Tuptophilist”, or.one who likes to strike. From tupto. You can supply the paradigm yourself.

GW:Belief is not a behaviour.
Are you an old-fashioned Skinnerite?
Thanks for the condescension and help: and you’re right, I am abnormally obtuse. And of course I’m allergic to reason. All of us sheeple are.
My belief structure is not noticeably dented: stupid of me though, to carry about such an impenetrable carapace. So if you don’t want to go for the double whammy, ‘s fine by me.
I’m now absenting me from felicity awhile: polysyllabic affectation is contagious (Big words are catching)
Sort out the impersonation lark going on in that more recent thread - damaging to everyone, that sort of thing.

Posted by 67only on November 27, 2009, 01:35 PM | #

This is nutty—a believer having to argue against the “faith gene”. Like J. de Maistre arguing for linguistic sanity sub specie ecclesiae. Despite the absurdity of his beliefs he can’t bring himself to believe in a gene determining those beliefs, and who can blame him?

Posted by Guessedworker on November 27, 2009, 01:36 PM | #

Gorb,

Belief is not a behaviour.

Not the belief but the act of believing.

My belief structure is not noticeably dented

We are testing the accessibility of reason to your mind.  I’m sure there is quite a bit really.

I do not mean to be condescending, btw.  Apologies for that.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 27, 2009, 01:38 PM | #

A bit off topic:

Phil Rushton here,
Two nights in a row of watching back-to-back TV dramas celebrating Darwin’s great works and its sequelae, including one on the Scopes Trial in Tennessee. The anti-science brigade are always no-nothing Christians and Richard Dawkins can always be counted on for a few more good kicks at the almost-corpse. But where are the Dawkinses in the push back against the political left who have done the most damage to Darwinism over the last 100 years?

Great to see Ralph Holloway and Napoleon Chagnon still standing and wielding bloody cudgels against the Academic Left and the AAA. But “evolutionary psychology” and “anthropological ecology” are pale versions of the full bodied “human sociobiology” that might have been. Very little emphasis on behavior genetics and modern processes of evolutionary selection to be seen, perhaps in part because most evol psychs have very few children and thorioughly enjoy the bio-diversity brought about by mass immigration of people who do have lots of children. Even noticing this, of course, let alone mentioning it, is guaranteed to make one perceived as a racist.

But then there was the item in the evol-psych digest that just came my way that made me want to throw caution to the wind again as it intersected with some data I’m analyzing.

The item was on Making the Grade Isn’t About Race, its About parents and the story was that African immigrants to the US are supposedly doing better in school than African Americans because they have fathers who will kick their asses if they don’t succeed. Ah, so THAT’s the magic bullet? Not disagrreing with importance of ftahers or of selective migration, but, in general, what a hoot!

The data I’m reviewing is of reading and math scores going back every year to 1962, and tomorrow I hope to go back to the 1930s and maybe even to post civil war when schools began. The bottom line is that every year since record keeping began, Blacks in grade 12 score like Whites in grade 8 or 9, that is 3 or 4 years behind. Yet, every year or two there is another flurry of explanations and magic bullets proposed (remember segregation in the 1950s? school bussing in the 1960s, head start programs throughout the 70s?). Well, Africans on international tests score even worse than do African Americans (who are, after all, 20% White, and get the benefits of living in a White majority country with all the nutrition, technology, schools etc.).

Yet while all of this was acceptable to evolutionists for thirty and fory years after Darwin (who also knew and wrote about brain size differences) , it has all been made to disappear by the politically correct brigade who silence any alternative suggestion to “White racism” as the cause. Remember James D. Watson’s fall from grace?

I wonder if Ralph and Nap think things are going to get better soon? The AAA after all did start up an evolutionary section recently, which they never would have a few years ago. And, in the labyrinths of academe at any rate, race realism and IQ studies do proceed apace.

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 02:08 PM | #

Of course, Gorboduc the best Roman Catholic truths comes from Ireland. Father O’Flynn is driving down Dublin’s O’Connell Street on a friday lunchtime and he’s late for a very important meeting with the Archbishop. There are no parking places so he decides to start praying:

“Oh Lord, you know Oi’m late so would you ever foind me a parking place, please?’

Nothing doing, so the priest raises his eyes heavenward and says :

“Oi promise if you foind me a parking place, Oi’ll give up me visits to Sweeney’s Tavern”.

Still nothing doing.

“Ah well, Oi’ll give up me visits to Paddy Powers betting shop”.

Zilch again.

“OK , if that’s the way of it I’ll give up buggering the little ones if you find me a parking place”.

Immediately,as if by magic, a parking place appears and Father O’Flynn says :

“Ah sure, never mind, I’ve found one”.

Posted by Al Ross on November 27, 2009, 02:26 PM | #

Thank you for that post, FB. Back to the real world again.

Posted by Frank on November 27, 2009, 03:14 PM | #

Faith is believing in “good”, which is quite a different, lighter and more social proposition.

That’s certainly where I stop, and I don’t see anything “beyond” this. If faith seems like a joke, then perhaps a more Hedonistic approach is in order: play the game of warrior to see whether or not you can save your people. I’m adding in a suggestion I’d prefer as tongue in cheek not to actually lead you… There are no answers outside of faith and attachment.

Why does Man possess the potential to witness being if this is not contingent on and to the evolutionary process?

If we’re to bring the Creator down to our level by personifying Him: perhaps He was lonely or wanted His work to be appreciated.

Or you could follow the logic of the transhumanists: we’re meant to figure how to “evolve” ourselves “further”, assuming some value system can be rooted to determine value. Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder though: man is both superior and inferior to a cockroach…

Is there anything more to ponder?