|
|
|
WN and the Christianity problem by Karl LaForce Alabama governor and Baptist deacon Robert Bentley speaking at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, Monday 17th January 2011, shortly after taking his oath of office at the Alabama Capitol:
Alabama governor and Baptist deacon Robert Bentley speaking to reporters after meeting “Jewish leaders” on Wednesday 19th January 2011:
Alabama governor Robert Bentley is just another genetic-European whose head and heart have been captured by a Jewish ideology. There’s no shortage of Jewish ideologies, of course, or of captives. There are probably somewhere around one hundred million white Americans in a similar condition. Bentley is not at all an exception in terms of belief, not even among bible-belt state governors, though he is possibly ahead of most in the willingness, as a high ranking public official, to enlighten the public about the in-group status he believes Christians share. As shown by his statements, he is not merely a victim of the fertility of Jewish macro-religious thought and modern-day Jewish ethnic activism but he busies himself promoting both victimhoods. I was born in the bible belt, and I believed the whole Baptist-Presbyterian-Scofield mind-wash for many years. I had to walk a long road of seeking and discovery before I could leave all that behind and accept scientific truth as my faith; and it was a longer road that most people will ever, or can ever, travel. So what should a White racialist response to Governor Bentley be? How do we get some of these victims to put down their translation of ancient Jewish texts (the Bible), and start loving their race … get them to stop kneeling before the cross long enough to start working for their race? I do know that being brash and offensive will not work. Religious belief is part of human nature. It produces stable social foundations and healthy birthrates. It is important. The Christian religion is identity for many, and to attack it will close their mind faster than an invite to a gay wedding. Furthermore, Christianity worked in unstable societies in the past, as in post-Roman Europe. So why wouldn’t it work for us today? As cynical as it sounds, I have considered promoting white survival and unity by the simple expedient of telling white Christians that, far from seeing our racial survival as something morally inadmissible, Jesus wants them to defend our race (ala Oscar and Saul in the novel Hunter). Well, why wouldn’t he? God created us to glorify Him. Where in the gospel does it state that we must destroy that part of His Creation which is us? This, of course, is not an original thought. It is the customary pro-white argument that we see White Nationalists address to Christians. Has it worked so far? Are the numbers of Christians taking up WN encouraging? In any event, the thought of an actively pro-white Jesus is pretty distasteful. And even though this is a question of survival, not preference, I think we must reject it because in the long-term, and most likely the short-term as well, it is a losing idea; we are not skilled purveyors of stratagems as are the Jews, and in this age of mass communication, the internet, and the endless politically progressive voices coming from the television, the Jews hold all the aces. Furthermore, the “quick and dirty” method would have to compete with the authority of the churches themselves, and with all the Robert Bentleys. It is difficult to see it as other than a highly unequal struggle. So, if an anti-Christian message and a pro-Christian message are out of bounds, that leaves us with the sole option of promoting racial survival on a parallel track to Christianity, in which the majority of our propaganda and activism is mute-to-neutral regarding Christianity. When necessary, we can attack what the churches do. But we should avoid attacking the underlying faith itself. The debate about the historical merits of Christianity is an altogether different issue, and it need not take place in a way that damages white unity. As a unifying factor among our people Christianity was most likely indispensable at certain times and places - at the gates of Vienna, for example. Christianity united our people in a way that no other ideology could at that exact moment. We can acknowledge and praise past and present Christians who did great things; a hero is a hero, even if misguided in certain ways. We are living through the long drawn-out dawn of a new age. Christianity, which flourished in the darkness of faith and ignorance, has been withering under the bright sun of science and reason since the Enlightenment. And under that same bright sun, the flower of world-wide white racialism is just blooming. It is not too great an exaggeration to say that the bloom, and not the Christian cross, will be the symbol on the flag around which our posterity will rally. No one ever played for greater stakes than we WNs are playing for today. The promotion of untruth (anti-nature, anti-reality) will always produce failure as the final result. If we can promote the truth about everything that is vital (racial survival), without alienating Christians unnecessarily, then as conditions worsen - as they must - more whites (and even others) will look to us for answers. When the white masses are hungry, or cold, or in the dark, or feel threatened, the empty message of a better world to come will have stiff competition with the message that racial survival is the best of things. Comments:2
Posted by Frank on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:07 | # The pagans viewed this world as forever changing from one age to the next. Everything in this world would eventually disappear. (Christian concept of “dust to dust”.) If you lived and died honourably, your kin would long remember and praise you; and you’d be honoured in the afterlife, which the pagans very clearly believed in. Life then, was a test of sorts - sound familiar? Science has nothing to do with white racialism. Science might be useful to serve whites, but it’s merely a tool not a philosophy. Progress falls to relativity as with everything else. - Something from Bushido, (which isn’t Christian):
- Here’s Chesterton who was a Christian:
Don’t fear war, he’s saying - fear corruption and cowardice! Surely, that’s what an Aryan would say, too. - Heyerdahl, who was more of a unitarian:
- What does science give us? Homer (a pagan, yay) wrote in the Illiad:
We need ancestral traditions at the least. 3
Posted by Frank on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:12 | # A true warrior code, and it’s not Christian:
4
Posted by Horace on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:14 | # This reminds of a recent article I read about the rehabilitation of Confucius in China:
5
Posted by Frank on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:36 | # Buddhism is an anti-Aryan faith. It’s only Aryans who live by high ideals… and apparently the Japanese… and likely others haha. - The Koreans presently hold a similar philosophy as the Chinese I think. Countering Buddhism though you have ancestor worship over there and many superstitions. As well the philosophy mixed in: it’s a complete entity, and we can’t easily take parts from it expecting the same result. That said, I suspect there’s wisdom in studying both the East and West, learning from each. 6
Posted by Frank on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:52 | # Rather than bullying folks in the comments here, I’ll sometime submit something. I need to pull together a good assault on the enemy-within. Archaeofuturism is an excellent arch-enemy as well - so much leftism in it. It condemns pretty much everything whites should stand for, e.g. all of the little ethnic customs and such. White nationalists clearly believe in keeping their friends close, and their greatest enemies closer haha. I hope I haven’t caused the decline of MR via my misbehaving, haha. I could with just a little more work fight my battles in here via developed posts… Laziness has me atm I suppose. 7
Posted by Frank on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:50 | # If it’s alright, I’d like to produce one more comment: I suspect the Nietzschean spirit is in line with the Kabbalistic spirit. The Aryan perhaps wasn’t as humble as are Christians, but the little I’ve read by Nietzsche seems to take a truth like that and process it into a half truth. You might have, say, two monks striving for honour. One declares, “I’ll go without wine for a month!” The other declares, “I’ll go two months, grr.” “Grr.” Even though they’re giving something up, they’re vying for honour. I suspect the true Aryan spirit is more like that. Or similarly a man giving his life for his folks or dying in combat, perhaps single-deadly combat haha. - As the original article says, Jews have all the aces. However, we can’t just ignore this area. However difficult it is, we must fight. And when we die, we can meet our ancestors and declare what honours we managed to win in life. I think though honour is only won within a code, in service of something more than the individual ego. There must a sense of transcendence that isn’t material. You take someone like Robert E. Lee, he strove for perfection. He was a “superman”, but he was nothing like a Nietzschean. It’s the far east that tends to be imperialistic with all serving one man. But in the West we seem more pious. Even our supermen serve something higher than themselves. Lee refused to fight against his Virginia. He lost, but he lost fighting for his people. And he did so with the utmost discipline, always striving to perfect himself. 8
Posted by Karl LaForce on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:55 | # Gee whiz, Frank. Tell me how you really feel! The piece in question is straight forward. Lots of Whites find brotherhood with non-Whites through Christianity. I think that is backwards, historically, genetically, and in every other way. I want to promote the idea that Whites are brothers, without attacking Christianity. My coffee is cold, and as much as I would like to continue now, my role as a commentator is not a paid position. Stay Strong 9
Posted by Frank on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:12 | # Oh no, I’m being deconstructed! I’ve learned from the Jews: I don’t want to defend my views just attack yours, haha. If we have faith, then things will improve. Someone with faith though will act to serve the good. God does act on the world, but we’re expected to act as well. Faith and not acts get one into heaven, but again one with faith acts. Eventually He’ll sweep down, but who knows when that’ll be? “I want to promote the idea that Whites are brothers, without attacking Christianity. “ I’ve called for something similar. Btw, I overflowed into OD, with a post there lol. Now my time’s though. 10
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:24 | # Frank, Christianity is not the problem. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 20 percent of White Americans are explicitly racially conscious. The overwhelming majority of them are Christians who live in the Deep South. At least half of White Alabamians are explicitly racially conscious - one of the strongest reservoirs of White identity anywhere in the world. They understand and acknowledge the existence of racial differences. If Christianity is the problem, then why did a race based society flourish in the Deep South (or South Africa) for centuries? If the Enlightenment is the problem, then why did Americans base citizenship on race? It makes no sense. The Enlightenment and Christianity advanced with White racial consciousness across the North American continent. The term “racism” did not exist until the twentieth century. Christians never made much noise about “racism” or “racial prejudice” until well into modern times. Most of it in the last two centuries. The problem is not so much Christianity as it is the various heresies that have sprouted and taken root here. It started with the Quakers and Unitarians. Now the real problem is Secular Humanism. Secular Humanism and Marxism are what is rotting the Church. These people have infiltrated every other institution in American society. They took over the universities long before the churches. If you go back to the early twentieth century, it was the Soviet Union which persecuted Orthodox Christians that led the fight to spread “anti-racism” across the world. The communists supported black separatists in the American South. Anyway, this obsession with tearing down Christianity is one of the dumbest ideas that White Nationalists are always talking about. The vast majority of atheists are anti-racists. Are Sweden and Britain somehow pro-White? Is Vermont a great bastion of White Nationalism? I haven’t seen any evidence that the decline of religion has worked to our benefit. Surrendering the churches is just another example of handing over another institution to our enemies. Instead of attacking Christians, we should encourage them to take back their churches from the militants who have seized control. Christianity coexisted with Jim Crow. There is no reason why it can’t do so again. 11
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:28 | # Karl, Isn’t there a possibility that Bentley was just being polite? 12
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 17:45 | # Hollywood is the New World Vatican. It is Jewish. Understanding that the task before Jews is now and always has been to manipulate true religious sentiment—religion without quotation marks—look at the recurring motifs they use. That will give you a clue as to what it is they’re attempting to manipulate, hence true religion. This technique is far less desirable, of course, than direct experience of religion but it is the best most of us have given how divorced we are from our environment of evolutionary adaptedness. 13
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:13 | #
How about reality itself, for starters:
It that’s not Luciferian, I don’t know what could be. Of course the modern version would be more like:
14
Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:16 | #
Who always talks about it? Most atheists in the movement are willing to simply ignore the topic unless someone makes absurd claims. Maybe your imagination is running wild again, little “Hunter”. Are you going to “link” MR to the Spokane bomb like you did with the Northwest Front? On July 29, 2010 you said: And yet you’re more than willing to help the mainstream media try to railroad white nationalists, aren’t you? Ironic. 15
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:45 | # JM: “In the beginning was Television, and Telelvision reflected Reality, and Television is Reality.” Yes. One could substitute “Media” for “Television” and it would encompass “The Word” as well. In a “world without borders”, literacy, like civilization, is a public health hazard. 16
Posted by Frank on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:50 | # Hunter, you make an excellent case. Just to be clear though, I wasn’t intending to attack Christianity. However, for as long as Christian institutions are attacking the West, good men will turn to paganism, drawn by the authority of it being their “native” faith. And I think if they turn to the real stuff, they’ll be less corrupted than the neo-paganism and related New Right stuff, much of which I strongly suspect is only wanting to use the energy and is not legitimately pious in the least. It bothers me when some of the extreme American writers proclaim to me that “Aryans have a Promethian spirit”. They seem to truly embrace power and progress, only. Why do they love whites? Because whites advance technology… Of all things to value - “progress” only! The fault might lie partly in our own approach. We post articles of nonwhite crime and write on the US turning third world… And yet we seldom write on what we’re for and attached to (including culture and such). Power is wonderful… in service to our loved ones. Power is the servant not the master. Europe is strongly atheist. We in the states do best with restoring Christianity, and indeed Europe ultimately must as well. But work needs to be done within the pagan and, erm, philosophic pagan sphere as well. For a time, Europeans will turn there. Though too of course a clear Christian alternative is needed as well. Christianity certainly has the potential, but at present the actual institutions are nearly all enemy occupied. Y’know I really am a Christian, and for me I can’t conceive how nationalism couldn’t be serving God’s will. Must everything be within revelation? There’s no commandment for wiping our arses, and there’s certainly no commandment against nationalism. 17
Posted by Karl LaForce on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:27 | # Whether I am right or wrong about Christianity, time will tell. Either way, I am promoting the idea that world-wide White racialism is the best of ideas. Unlike the sentiment of the Governor, you need not be a Christian to be my brother, you must be something more important to me; a genetic European. Without realizing it, some of the voices here are making my point for me, in a similar way as Governor Bentley. I say all Whites are my brothers, regardless of religion, language or location, and that non-Christian WNs should not attack Christianity, because attacking serves no useful purpose. I predict that Christianity will continue to wain, due to it’s internal conflict with reality. In summary, my detractors say that by predicting its demise and stating that Christianity should be kept separate from White racialism, I make myself a less than fit brother, or no brother at all. I respect sincere faith, but I do not share a faith in Jesus. I believe Christianity will collapse on its own, and be replaced by other institutions, as similar transitions happened before. Does the sun revolve around the earth, as said the church? No. Science has no answers for White racialists? As compared to what? Ancient religious dogmas? No my brothers, science teaches us that we are a subspecies of man, surrounded by other competing and hostile subspecies, on a planet of limited resources. Science. reason, and logic free us from superstition, and allow us to reorient ourselves toward love of kind. Science gives us the keys to advance to higher levels of existence. We are standing on the achievements of our ancestors, at heights never before reached, I will not turn back toward belief in ancient religious dogmas. Keep your faith if you wish. Use whatever makes you stronger. Can Christianity co-exist with White racialism? Yes, but do not mistake one thing for the other. Can Christianity be the motivating force of a new world wide White racialism? No. There will of course be Christian White racial groups, but those can only appeal to subsets of the whole of our people. Am I wrong about that? Maybe. But if a future Christian world-wide White racialism is to supplant the corrupt church of today, then it must be White Christians who build it. 18
Posted by Karl LaForce on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:04 | # “Isn’t there a possibility that Bentley was just being polite?” Was he polite? Sure. And he was also politically expedient; the Governor was gaining political points by giving a message tailored to that gathering. 19
Posted by Horace on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:52 | #
I understand the general point about Hollywood being the new Vatican, but what do you mean by “true religion”? And what are the “recurring motifs” that point to this true religion they’re manipulating? 20
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:06 | # Depending on one’s perspective, “true religion” is anything from a Christian theological view that “The Holy Spirit” within each of us is necessary and sufficient to point to true religion, to the scientific view that “instinctive feelings” evolved from one’s environment of evolutionary adaptation point to things of primordial value. 21
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:17 | #
How does this paradigm apply to William Porcher Miles and his altering of the battle flag of the Confederacy.
Was Miles and the Confederacy also a victim of “the fertility of Jewish macro-religious thought”? Demographics is destiny and if Kaufmann’s projections hold the fundies will inherit the earth. Is it not better to produce a culture of critique for Christian dissertation thus encouraging high white fertility but also emphasizing the discriminating nature of the gospel. Bentley could easily change his words to affirm a positive rather than a negative message. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Implicit in the message is that here on earth there are differences. Bentley may chose to be one with his Jewish brethren in God’s heavenly kingdom if they wish to accept Christ. No apology is necessary. 22
Posted by Horace on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:20 | #
So they attempt to manipulate this by trying to override our instinctive feelings and tell us what to value? Which recurring motifs do you have in mind that they use to accomplish this? 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:27 | # I have vowed not to waste time commenting on websites anymore, but I am compelled by this topic to say that, though I share your concern, Mr. LaForce, with saving the white race (especially, for me, as doing so is the foundation for Western civilization’s survival - an important point: if 99% of whites became “whiggers”, or some other type of dysgenic retard, I would not be interested in preserving the race, other than for the personal security of myself until I die; I certainly would not involve myself actively with such an impersonal issue), your comments reveal you as nothing more than a race-conscious liberal. The comments on science and how it will ‘free’ us are particularly inane. Science can never resolve moral problems. I am strongly pro-science, as well as eugenics; these positions do not conflict with Christianity, rightly understood. Neither does white racialism, provided it is not of the aggressive, exterminatory variety (which, as I have argued at length on this site in the past, is the logical endpoint of non-Christian racialism). That racialism and eugenicism are widely seen to be anti-Christian merely reveals first, the extent to which the historic faith has been polluted by the egalitarian currents (or at least rhetoric) of modern elite class thinking dominant in the West; and second, a lack of Christian theological imagination in (admittedly desperate) need of remedy. I have noticed a spectacular lack of understanding of the real Christian message on the part of seemingly all its critics, whether Marxist, liberal humanist or nationalist. All these different persons, including famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, whose theological knowledge when set against his Olympian pronouncements is embarrassing, assume they understand the faith based on Sunday grade-school simplifications, without having really studied it. Honestly, to examine the whole relationship between Christianity and science is just too time-consuming, and not worth it in this place. The real issue for WNs is, obviously, not the truth of the faith, but its current and likely future impact on our racial perpetuity. Pragmatically speaking, I have made exactly the same comments as Hunter Wallace, in several different venues, and they are irrefutable. Even risking establishing WN in the public mind as incompatible with Christianity is empirically stupid to a nearly inconceivable degree, and not only in America, where whites are more religious than in Europe. If you force most whites to have to choose between their faith and their race, they will reluctantly side with the faith against the race. Yes, a parallel track of activism and analysis is better, and no, Christianity on its own will neither save the white race, nor rebuild Western civilization. Our civilization has a biological and philosophical substrate. Both are indispensable. The biology is of course racial. If pure whites do not continue to exist, the West will die out. The philosophy is primarily Christian. In a thinking species like humans, or at least among an intelligent race like whites (or perhaps all that can be said is that among whites), ideology is apparently more important than mere biology (or else we wouldn’t have the core racial problem, which is not one of physical power set against a looming racial enemy - yet - but of multiculti brainwashing and the concomitant need for white ‘deprogramming’). The primary intellectual task for WNs today is to demonstrate the compatibility between Christianity and what I call ‘biological realism’ (or maybe I should just say “science”, though that seems too broad, quickly involving cosmological and ontological (esp. ‘free will’) debates not in themselves directly relevant to the kind of ethical justifications for the tough political measures that will be needed to ensure white survival). I don’t think this is all that difficult (racialism is actually much easier to justify than eugenics), though it will require demonstrating an extensive academic grounding in one or another of the major Christian theological traditions. To put it simply, Christianity does not necessitate endless streams of racially/culturally incompatible immigration (the major, though not only, racialist problem). Yes, the Churches have been infected with contrary nonsense, but why assume that the correct response to such rubbish is to jettison the faith?! Why accede to the (false) leftist egalitarian version of Christianity; find that version wanting; and then conclude that the problem is the faith itself, and that the solution is ignoring or worse attacking it? To me, the correct response, intellectually, is to ‘de-marxify’ the Church’s thinking on race (and much else), and politically, to stress the compatibility between Christianity and WN; that is, that Christians are allowed multiple affective identities, and that there is no incompatibility between Christian faith and patriotic sentiment, including racial patriotism, which is the base of other patriotisms. This discussion of the relation between Christianity and race may never be resolved, because the debate between faith and scientism is probably a now permanent feature of the human condition. I’m quite certain, however, that we don’t have to resolve that debate in order to persuade a majority of our people to want to save our race. We only have to show that we whites have a moral right (perhaps even a duty) to endure; that to do so requires territorial separation; and that white nations have been the victims of active treason on the part of our elites, coupled with passive aggression by nonwhites muscling into our homelands, uninvited by the moral majorities. I’m also certain that the only type of nationalism that will ever take wing (until the literal personal survival of most or all whites is at stake, as it is today in American prisons) is a conservative nationalism that seeks to uphold the dignity of Western civilization, and reconnect our atomized and deracinated peoples with their historic traditions, a big part of which was what went under the heading of “Christendom”. And even if all forms of supernaturalism are finally false, as atheists claim, faith impels men to make great sacrifices, and that gives them great power (as we see with Muslim extremism today). Far better, strictly practically, to integrate with and subvert (if you are liberal) or cleanse (if conservative) the faith, than to imagine that it will ever be supplanted in emotive power by either arid scientific naturalism, or ridiculous ‘religious racialist’ cults or neopaganisms. 24
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 01:01 | # Horace asks: “So they attempt to manipulate this by trying to override our instinctive feelings and tell us what to value? ” They find and exploit weaknesses in our cognitive machinery to channel our natural morality into unnatural expression. There is nothing more mysterious about this than taking a young girl and shooting her up with heroin to turn her into a prostitute. Most of the motifs are situations familiar to us all in more or less “everyday life”. One of the main “everyday life” motifs exploited is the violation of female sexual choice. There is an entire genre of a young woman struggling to choose a man not approved of by her authorities. This is on a spectrum up to and including rape. On the male side things are more interesting. You almost never see male single combat to the death in everyday life, yet it is just as common, if not more common, than conflict over female sexual choice as a predominate motif. Moreover, there is a closely related motif of an individual man, innocent of any wrong-doing, being attacked by a group. If we go back to the Bible, these motifs are present in the origin of Israel with King David (old testament) and the crucifixion of Jesus (new testament). The purpose of all these motifs is to trigger strong primordial feelings in a way that they can be molded by the narrative into “the moral of the story”. When the narrative is written by Jews it is a safe bet that “the moral of the story” is “good for the Jews”. For a good example of a narrative Jews will never allow, let’s combine the two aspects, male and female individual sovereignty, within the following narrative: A father who loves his daughter finds that she is being successfully courted by a young man of whom he disapproves. He tells her of his disapproval and of his reasons, but the young man is so good at telling fraudulent stories that he overpowers the young woman’s emotions. The father tells the young man to stop seeing his daughter and the young man says “It is up to her, not to you! You don’t own her!” The father then posts a public notice that he is challenging the young man to natural duel. The young man laughs at the very idea! The young man is killed by the villagers as they would an invading beast. 25
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 01:45 | # Racial awakening derives from the recognition that the spirit inheres in, and emanates from DNA, and not vice-versa, and that the quest for “eternal life” is therefore nothing more or less than racial struggle itself. Inasmuch as Christianity is nothing more than a psychological trick used to fool it’s victims into believing that they can short-circuit this struggle, and obtain eternal life on an individual basis by professing faith in set of patent absurdities, it obviates the vital instincts pre-requisite to race struggle. While useless to the racial cause, Christians are not an obstacle to White Nationalism, except in that they inevitably try to change the subject of racialism to that of their psychopathology, which is a complete waste of time and energy. 26
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 02:07 | # The poet Browning possessed an interesting view on aspects of Christian belief : 28
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 03:46 | # In my native Scotland, Jimmy, we celebrate on Jan 25th, although Scottish Freemasons always remember Bro. Burns by commencing every Lodge meeting’s festive board with the Bard’s ‘Selkirk Grace’. 29
Posted by Frank on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 04:43 | # Karl LaForce, my usual:
This means transcending being human? 30
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 04:44 | #
31
Posted by Ivan on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:23 | #
The poultry philosopher got it all wrong again. Catechism for turkeys doesn’t work very well in the world of mammals: 32
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:58 | # Bowery,
If the outcome of WWII combat between the English and Krauts was to be decided by a preponderance of victories in single deadly combat matches between the fifty best English fighters and the fifty best Kraut fighters, in your opinion, would the English have had the balls to accept these terms of engagement? In your opinion, could it be said that the people capable of producing proportionately the greatest number of single deadly combat champions would be the racially superior people? If so, and assuming Krauts could produce proportionately a greater number of single deadly combat champions than the English, are Krauts not racially superior to the English? 33
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:35 | # Would it violate the spirit of single deadly combat as mechanism of social arrangement for White sovereign individuals to collude in challenging non-White individuals to single deadly combat as an ethnic strategy to gain Lebensraum at the expense of non-Whites? Assuming that Whites could produce a proportionately greater number of single deadly combat champions than non-Whites, according to the spirit of single deadly combat as mechanism of social arrangement as you see it, would this not entitle Whites to take whatever land they wished from non-Whites, since Whites would then be the superior race judged by the “natural” justice meted out by inter-ethnic resource competition via single deadly combat? If so, doesn’t that in effect make you a Nazi? Single deadly combat is “Nazism” for individualists. 34
Posted by Frank on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:30 | # CC, that’s very clever. You know one reason they had 1 v. 1 or 50 v. 50 battles in the past is they didn’t want to lose two armies of men. Though, I want to say these weren’t always upheld. Btw to give you a little motivation, did you see Gottfried’s video? He says Germany is doomed because of guilt for the Holocaust. If the Kraut brigades fail, there might not be a Germany when you’re elderly. But too there’s need to build here in the US too, have a family, develop a community, etc. Build for the future. If Europe at lost, at least ensure the German nation continues on somewhere. 35
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:12 | # CC asks: “If the outcome of WWII combat between the English and Krauts was to be decided by a preponderance of victories in single deadly combat matches between the fifty best English fighters and the fifty best Kraut fighters, in your opinion, would the English have had the balls to accept these terms of engagement?” In this scenario, there is no natural duel, so it is irrelevant to my proposed religion. It is just another way for some coward somewhere to organize others to do his dirty work for him. CC asks: “In your opinion, could it be said that the people capable of producing proportionately the greatest number of natural duel champions would be the racially superior people?” There are two problems with the question as stated: 1) There is no equality of ability—only equality of birthright sovereignty—so the idea of a class of individuals who qualify as “champions” is a nonstarter. It’s all about the shape of the high end of the demographic distribution—not absolute numbers.
It is the law of nature that the superior individual crowds out the type. So the question isn’t numbers but of types. 36
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:19 | # CC asks: “Would it violate the spirit of natural duel as mechanism of social arrangement for White sovereign individuals to collude in challenging non-White individuals to natural duel as an ethnic strategy to gain Lebensraum at the expense of non-Whites?” Not only would it violate the spirit, it would violate the letter of Point 5:
Think about NASCAR fans for a moment. Do they “collude” to make NASCAR “implicitly white”? That would be a contradiction in terms. All efforts to protect the “white race” must be implicit or they deny the very individualistic essence of the white race. The white race is anti-Nazi by nature of the anti-individualism of Naziism. Of course, the white race is even more anti-Commie because Commies are international socialists, rather than merely national socialists. The demonization of Nazis is greater than the demonization of Commies only because the state religion is Holocaustianity designed by and for the benefit of Jews. Holocaustianity is simply an instance of the narrative manipulation of primordial morality at which the Jews would appear to be without peer. So long as we keep things on the level of narrative manipulation (“media” stories whether in the form of words or motion pictures), Jews, or something worse, wins and that means destruction not only of the white race, but quite plausibly the entire biosphere, because there is no limit to the voraciousness the “generation of vipers”—that is, surreptitiously poisonous semi-organisms that defy death by denying sex—denying natural heterosexuality enshrined as immanent religion. 37
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:52 | # James, I was understanding things pretty well up until the last part of your last sentence:
Will you say a little more about this? 38
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:59 | # That afore-linked article on implicit whiteness quotes KMac making an important error:
Boasian anthropology has connotation-poisoned the word “culture” so that it is seen as divorced from genetics. Of course agrarian folks know the real origin of the word “culture” is all about breeding for desired characteristics. “Culture” was poisoned by Boas so as to turn it into just another <a >connotation play</a>—which is in fact an attack on the foundation of civilization in cultivars. Having pointed out the connotation poison in KMac’s quote, let me re-word for accuracy:
<iframe title=“YouTube video player” class=“youtube-player” type=“text/html” width=“480” height=“390” src=“http://www.youtube.com/embed/leKI3Cv9YYw” frameborder=“0” allowFullScreen></iframe> 39
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:23 | # Jimmy, various accounts of “the evolution of sex” run into fundamental problem: If sex is mere genetic recombination yielding “faster evolution” or some other evolutionary benefit, then why bother with programming the individual for death? If the “explanation” is that death is merely a byproduct of an individual having reached the age at which they statistically would have produced offspring we have to look deeper into the construction of multicellular organisms. The supposed unity of purpose created by a fair lottery during meiosis—unity that allows genes to cooperate in building an organism with specialized tissues—does not preclude reproduction by cloning as a strategy for furthering the collective interest of said unity. The reason Christianity appeals to whites so profoundly has everything to do with the voluntary submission of the individual to death as part of that individual’s direct relationship to the Father or, to use Jefferson’s term, “Nature and Nature’s God”. You can strip virtually all of the rest of the Bible from the story of Christ including anything to do with “sin”, and you are left with something that is as primordial as the unity of love and death that is true heterosexuality. Jews are threatened buy this aspect of Christianity—not by anything to do with the rest of the Bible. They are threatened by it because it lifts up (evolves) the Son of Man in direct relation to Nature and Nature’s God, rather than lifting up (evolving) the slime-mold-like semi-organism as serpent, which is the nature of Jewish “culture”. The fact that we may have a few remnants of what Jesus actually said in phrases like “generation of vipers”, “lilies of the field”, etc. need not distract us from the overwhelming primordial emotion that is the source of the power of Christianity (in its natural form) and Judeo-Christianity (as manipulated by the narratives of the theocratic institutions). The reverence with which whites hold female sexual choice (love) is the counterpoint to the reverence in which whites hold male valor (death). Ignore either one of these aspects and you destroy the white race because you destroy the vanguard of creation—the meaning of life. Defining “the white race” in any lesser terms is to lower our race to the same primitive evolutionary echelon as the Jews and, in KMac’s words “most of the rest of the world”. 40
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:20 | # James, I’m getting the idea that you use the term heterosexuality to denote murder/procreation rather than just male/female, and that when the organism of civilization usurps the power of lethal force it impairs sex at the individual level? 41
Posted by Karl LaForce on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:25 | # As to my statement: Frank asked: Not all humans exist on the same level currently. I was referring to applying scientific principles to our daily lives (like advanced nutrition, genetic science to further of our best genetic material as opposed to our worst, and the physical and mental conditioning of our youth) to improve the quality of future generations; becoming better humans. Smarter. Healthier. Stronger. Better looking. I know that sounds like Brave New World, but I believe we can bend destiny to our will. It is true that we evolved from lower organisms, and if that process continues, humans could evolve into something higher, but that was not what I was writing about. With respectto continued evolution, all our decisions, with or without our realizing it, can have an effect on that process. The way things are looking, there is some chance humans might devolve back into monkeys. 42
Posted by uncle joe on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:46 | # you destroy the vanguard of creation—the meaning of life. Bullshit. Meaning is a byproduct of life. Life happened before meaning. It continues without meaning. If an organism is so confused that it must posit meaning before creation, no amount of “meaning” in the world can sustain it. Which is why whites lose. Too much bloody “meaning”. Defining “the white race” in any lesser terms is to lower our race to the same primitive evolutionary echelon as the Jews and, in KMac’s words “most of the rest of the world”. Valor and chivalry aren’t taking us anywhere these days. We can’t adapt and we are dying for it. How’s that for a lowly evolutionary echelon! 11pressure 43
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:04 | # Jimmy, let me reword your question before I answer (see the explanation/question in the PS):
Yes. Indeed, that power at the individual level is a direct impediment to group power. Honest group organisms have to destroy sex openly. Of course “honesty” and “group organism” are virtually incommensurate terms. A slime mold doesn’t really speak to its individual cells any more than does a queen of a eusocial insect colony speak to the workers. PS: Why use the connotation-loaded word “murder” when that is the exact narrative Jews put on the primordial emotions of the natural form of dueling bewteen males? Murder is dishnorable. Murder is not valoric. Murder triggers group violence against the murderer. Do you REALLY see no difference between a society that upholds the individual male’s natural heritage as evidence by males in other species and a society that upholds murder?
44
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:22 | # Uncle Joe: The idea that “meaning” is “emergent” from mindless particles randomly colliding in space is, of course, the dominant paradigm and it the source of our alienation from ourselves. You go on to conflate that metaphysical view with the view that “valor” and “chivalry” being merely “emergent” can be dispensed with for the sake of “power” because to do otherwise is to die out. But this is merely a military argument. So which do you want to discuss: The origin of meaning or the military practicality of differing strategies—- explicitly defined strategies and how they are put into actual practice in the world as it presents itself to us now—not conditioned upon some “if only” wish list? 45
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:55 | #
I struggled with word selection in the context of the analogy I was trying to present:
My initial impulse was to use “death”, but I realized that death is not the opposite of procreation. Death is a state, while procreation is an activity. So the question became, “what what word expresses the activity of death?” I understand your comment about the connotations of “murder”, and I agree. Its referent is unlawful killing. Do you agree that “killing” is the best choice, or would you suggest something else. Female is to male, as procreation is to ?????? 46
Posted by Goethe on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 00:00 | #
To impregnate the future, or a pregnant pause before being removed from this world of consequences? 47
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 00:12 | # Jimmy, “killing” is the word. Imagine a society in which males say not “Fuck you!” but “Kill you!”, and back it up with natural duel. 48
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 01:14 | #
Well yeah, that’s the interesting thing: Trying to imagine all the natural consequences that would follow. My sense is that you are very good at that. It reminds me of chess players that can see way ahead into the ramifications of a single move. I can’t do it very well, but I’m intrigued by consideration of the possibilities. Is it ridiculous to think about designing a computer simulation? I think the point people are likely to miss is that a system of single combat would almost inevitably reduce total amount of violence in the world, not just within the society implementing it. And whatever violence remained would tend to be more eugenic. I notice that you have compromised on the inclusion of the “D” word in Natural Duel. Personally, I like combat better. I thin in order to highlight the idea that single combat is a substitution for mass war, the terminology should be interchangeable. 49
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 02:04 | # Why bother with a computer simulation when you can simply replace death with expulsion from a religious group consequent to losing a natural contest of some sort that does not require death? Of course removing death profoundly undercuts the purpose and may yield meaningless results due to that one fact. Better to find some legal angle, such as right to die based on self-ownership. If it is someone’s right to assisted suicide then presumably it should be up to the individual what the terms of that assistance should be. BTW: I’m not compromising on “duel”—I’m modifying it with “natural” so as to place the reader/listener in a state of cognitive dissonance as the connotation tries to shut nature out of his mind. As to reduction in violence: It could be that total violence would increase dramatically but that’s not the point. The point is the kind of violence. If globally adopted, it would suppress war globally and that includes anything smacking of “gang wars” in urban areas or “blood feuds” in rural areas. Nevertheless, billions might be killed. Given that the definition of “peace” is usually taken to mean “absence of war”, such a regime is the only rightful claimant of the name “Pax Natura”. 50
Posted by Racially conscious White Alabamians on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:11 | # Racially conscious White Alabamians
51
Posted by Frank on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 08:22 | # Karl, and you realise our racial identity could be undermined were the wrong changes made? You see, without faith you’ve broken the bounds and potentially threatened race. Only piety, and laws built on faith, could prevent man from destroying his race. Liberals also want GE, and there’s no threat of all of the world collapsing before the tech advances. So what are we really struggling for then? Whether we mix out due to Marxist Christians now or due to Nietzschean “white nationalists” later doesn’t make much difference. If we’re mixing out anyway, why even struggle for our “race” which will be “evolved” anyway? One pagan concept is that not only do we live on through our children, but we’re reborn down the line from our children - that is if the race is kept pure. In other words, the race is sacred to the old ancestor worshipers. Rather than using GE, a more eugenic society is needed. Then we can have our humanity, our purity, and our strength. 52
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:45 | #
For the record, Christian Alabama is 68% White, 26% black. Secular Vermont is 94.9% White and 1% black. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
But then most Christian White European-Americans (aka WASPs) didn’t consider Christian Italians, Christian Spaniards, Christian Portuguese or Christian Greeks and some eastern-European Christians as White, and thus “brothers”. I know there have been claims about Germans and Irish not being considered White, but I don’t buy it and have seen no evidence to back it up. At best, you could argue that religion had nothing to do with any of it.
It’s always good to know we’ll have such staunch allies in the trenches.
I’d be willing to bet that if you defined Christianity by the fundamentals of the faith (God, Christ -virgin birth, physical resurrection and return, literal heaven & hell) as well as the accompanying social dogmas (as in marriage, homos, abortion, womens place, etc…) you’d find that well under 50% of White Americans are Christians. Most would be considered “cultural Christians” I think that most people view faith like they do elves and haunted houses. It’s just a “neat”, romantic, idea that spices up the doldrums of every day reality. And in that, religious “faith” is actually a shallow thing which is playfully flirted with, but not truly taken seriously.
And so you could argue that the encouragement of religious faith is the encouragement of all fanciful lies which we know to be lies but that “make us feel better” in the present. Whether it’s the lie of heaven or the lie of equality. Do we encourage a ‘feel-good-now’ philosophy of life? ... 53
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:32 | #
Maybe. But to me, this would be taking the long way home. I think the need for laws and faiths arises from the vacuum created by an existential misplacement of identity. If we can correctly understand who we are(n’t), as individuals, existential fear will drop away, and need for faith will disappear. Our race will become the proper seat of our identity, and thereby be preserved under implicit threat of death. This passage comes close to awakening, but is still based on existential misplacement:
The idea that our genetic material could be re-manifested generationally is based on an existential fallacy. The fallacy inhere’s in the syntax; In the pronoun “our”. “Our” genetic material does not belong to us. We did not produce it. It produced us. We belong to it. We are the expressions of it. It is existentially upstream of our individual existences. It is alive, and permanent. Births and deaths are transient phases of its being. The simple act of perceiving this makes us fearless defenders of it. Courage is not required. Faith is not required. Laws are not required. In the twinkling of an eye, salvation is revealed. 54
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:15 | #
Beautiful thought, Jimmy.
Perfect.
Hmm, maybe stretching the case just a little there. 55
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:47 | # The best Man via science can do is attempt to crack the code of God’s creation. That’s the extent of it. So far, the best of the best scientists, in all their collective knowledge, have only begun to scratch the surface. The fact is: The human mind is finite, ergo, Man is inherently incapable of fully grasping or understanding concepts relating to infinity. We can’t even fully understand /grasp the slippery complexities of human nature. Frustrating, ain’t it? http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/christian-vs-non-christian-worldviews/ 56
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:51 | # Jimmy writes: ““Our” genetic material does not belong to us. We did not produce it. It produced us.” True in the ultimate sense but to “play god” as is the meaning of being fully human—co-creators of our worlds—each god participates in creation the way guests participate in making a party more enjoyable by adding to the theme given the party by the host. Our individual existences are given as biological life, sexual life and moral life. Particularly in the last theme—morality—it is our given prerogative to be creators by fully recognizing all that has been given us as inviolable. Our race is an aspect of the moral life given us but it is not given us as inviolable. It is truly ours in the sense that we participate in its creation within the overall inviolable creation we are given. We cannot escape moral responsibility for the future of our race—we cannot escape playing god—anymore than we can escape being human. This freedom is what some religions call “moral agency” and it is, indeed, the road to salvation (self-affirmation) or damnation (self-denial), as we choose to further, or deny, the inviolable theme that we each individually embody in our freedom as creators. Laws are merely the verbal expression of individuals who agree on a particular method of realizing a dreamt-of racial future. They are no more, nor less, necessary than is communication. 57
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:15 | #
Agreed. The race is not saved in this context. The salvation occurs at the level of the individual, when his existential fear is assuaged by being more correctly assigned to its more primordial cause. I say more primordial, because we can extend this same line of reasoning to Being itself, which undoubtedly encompasses all races, and all species. And therefore James is correct in pointing out that we still have work to do, decisions to make, and laws to enact, in our post-salvation or more Godlike identity. I prefer to face my day-to-day problems as a God, but I’m probably prejudiced. 58
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:43 | # Brand new NVA video by kid in Glasgow, Scotland: 59
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:11 | # Since PaxNatura.org stole the domain name, I figured I’d look for any vague signs of consciousness. This comes the closest:
60
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:05 | # Jimmy,
If being is the ground of identity, yes. And it is evident to me that James is thinking in that vein. It is the usual way to think. It’s almost as though we are evolved to think in terms of reaching down to the soil out of which our identity grows. It is certainly how the Platonics thought. It is inevitable that people with an expressed gene for faith will also think in this way.
You see - you use that phrase “primordial cause”. Being as the ground of identity, and that’s that! But what if it isn’t? What if there was no being before the first crude cells appeared? What if there was only mechanics? What if being happened with the first cell, and when that died, with the life of the next, and so on, until the lessons of cell division were learnt, then sexual reproduction ... on and on, and always being is dependent on the life process, and comes, therefore, after identity and not before it? Now, isn’t that (a) more likely and, (b) more interesting? Of course, it totally screws god. But that shit ain’t the truth, as someone once said. The truth is Man is lost to himself, but as himself, if he ever recovers, it is enough.
I have no idea why intelligent people who, one must presume, distrust faith and assiduously excise it from their own judgements, throw around grand teleologies as if they were ever anything other than conceits. Things would be much more satisfactory if they simply looked in the face of Man, and found compassion and brotherhood in themselves and in him, and a desire to realise the realisable. 61
Posted by Goethe on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:28 | #
The reason for this is that humans rose out of lesser complexity, and some notice that complexity is a continuum. Does not not speak well for Man that he wishes to be more than he is? This is the biological expression of what I have said elsewhere, that increasing complexity is an end in and of itself. Self-awareness is like a mirror; it is necessary to realize a distinction between the self and the else to be self aware. The interesting conclusion that can be reached from this is that self-awareness is dependent on a natural law which states the definition of separation between one thing and another. The self results from the else. All - else = self 62
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:46 | # GW: Why is it that Western philosophy seems, on the one hand, to accept “I am” as the only positive knowledge and on the other insists that “I am” somehow “emerges” from some material universe whose very existence is not positively known? Those of us who stay with “I am” and posit the material universe, hence life, sex and morality as created are not expressing “the faith gene”—you are. 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 02:59 | # James, I cannot remember who it was now, but a while back I read an Indian philosopher’s blurb on Being and Time. I’m sure the guy is working somewhere in the western academic system, and is not one of those wallahs wearing a loin cloth on the banks of the Ganges. Anyhow, this guy made the point that Heidegger was the first western thinker to introduce into the western canon the general model of consciousness and reality that appears in the Indian tradition. So, to turn around what this person is saying, before Heidegger western philosophy did not, in fact, “accept” the “I am” in the eastern sense, that is, as a moment of clear being in time, quite distinct and separate from the perceptual norm, and intentional in its generation. Of course, since the reception of Heidegger’s work, and his installation as the most important figure in 20th century thinking, all manner of flowers have bloomed. Still, the point holds that the epistemological capacity of the “I am” of pre-Heideggerian western thought would have been labelled, somewhat cruelly, by a thinker in the eastern tradition as “illusion”. If it is not, then it must suffer as an epistemological tool. You are “positing” from and about this epistemological position. That, perhaps, is why you see the other “I am” - the moment of clear being in time - as functionally non-existent or, at best, an automatically given capacity of the mind, and not as something that must be intentionally generated. But it is not a given. It is not simply something you can “stay with”. It is highly specific, and if we refer to it at all intellectually, we can only do so by differentiating the nature of the illusion. Now, far from being religious, my take on “I am” is experiential. It is what we, as living organisms, do. As much as procreation, it is of the material universe. We are not purposive. We are. 64
Posted by Hamish on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:40 | # For the record, Christian Alabama is 68% White, 26% black. Secular Vermont is 94.9% White and 1% black. That’s because Vermont was too cold to support the importation of Black slaves. Alabama was warm enough to support Black slavery, and that’s why they have so many Blacks. If Vermont was warmer, you can bet your ass they would’ve imported Black slaves the same as the South did. Also it should be noted that while the whites in Vermont may be numerous as compared to non-Euro groups, that doesn’t change what a pack of self-hating anti-white SOBs they are. If those mass scale immigration lovers have their way, even Vermont will be majority non-white. 65
Posted by Ivan on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:43 | #
No ethno-beings will fight with rifles and knives 66
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 04:59 | #
Yeah. Like Gods. 67
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 05:38 | # GW: Please stop appealing to authorities and just tell me how you got from “I am” to “I am emergent from mindless matter”? 68
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:11 | # As a plastic, post-modern who’s taken a few college biology and psych classes, I have to ask: “Am I?” Outside of faith and tradition, I can’t really answer that. Back to genetics: If genetics are our source for what we are and genetics are tampered with, what are we? Would children still love their parents if the children were designed in a lab? Perhaps they’d love the scientists or the state instead. Would the parents still love the quirky character traits of their children, or would these be seen as “flaws in the design”? Would the community likewise care for its own distinct quirky personalities, would there even be any? To deal with such issues, perhaps only family men with multiple children fully understand the human condition. Traditionally we’d view children as something from God, not man. GE is the extension of the glass and concrete prisons of the city over the mysterious and beautiful gifts (yes, a sense of gifts from God) of the natural. And maybe this discussion isn’t hinging on GE, but it all seems to go back to it. 69
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:31 | # Presently, we hold a certain reverence for the mysterious soul of fellow man. We see each other as more than mere biomachines: we’re “alive” with “souls”. It’s thought that eugenics is “good” because fellow man would “suffer” less - fewer unwanted synapses would fire notifying the “soul” of pain. Similarly “amazing” achievements are “desired” because they’d give human biomachines “pleasure”. So, we cheer it on, thinking it’s “good”. What would inevitably happen though is we’d fall outside our boxes. We’d find destroyed things we didn’t even know existed. Perhaps we’d work into the design for people to learn to be happy as they now are and to seek “progress”. How would this affect the overall character of the test subjects? We couldn’t possibly grasp every result, so it’d have to be tested. - I just wonder if some folks have truly grasped nihilism. There’s some disconnect there. Maybe it’s as with so many movements of the past: the promise of a “better” future is irresistible, and so it’s pursued until reached. And once reached, it’s found less than expected. The true joys of life are just experienced this all as a gift. We don’t need to transcend the world we’ve been given - just enjoy it. Allow oneself to believe the guy talking to you isn’t a biomachine giving off an illusion of somehow being “alive” with a “soul”. Develop friendships and attachments to other humans, and find a social belonging within that, as well within the place of generations living in this world and in the next. The true nationalist fights for his people, the folks he knows and loves. He loves their quirks and character and all he’s experienced. He doesn’t dream of progress stamping it all out and “transcending” it. He might however dream of progress serving these loved ones. Similarly, the reason murder, theft, and dishonesty are “wrong” shouldn’t be merely because “morality is a balance of power” - ie. we pretend these are “bad” only because they serve the whole group, which would mean if we could get away with them then they’d be fine. They have to be “wrong” because of some higher authority such as religion or tradition, which is also where we get our “souls” from. 70
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:40 | # A classic Darwinist cartoon by Hardin: An animal on one side: Eat, survive, reproduce. A human on the other: What’s it all about? - It seems like a Darwinian approach ironically ends with stronger designs encouraging “rational” man to “eat, survive, and reproduce”. That is to say, to override the “rational”. Because there is nothing rational. “Higher level of consciousness?” What, you can grasp the entire forest all at once and fully appreciate how pointless it all is? Once the mystery is removed, you’d have to program in stronger pleasure rewards to keep the biomachines going. It seems very low IQ to believe in an idea of progress. All is relative. All is plastic. Enter the abyss! Remove cognitive dissonance. 71
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:28 | # Frank,
That is because Christianity, like Judaism, is not organically whole, and never was. It is exoteric only. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism each has a living core of existential practic within which these questions of being and reality are addressed. I think it is possible that the pre-Christian faith of Europe also had no esoteric core, and that is the reason why, from Thales on, intellect has served the need that was missing in practical experience. James,
I am puzzled why you would ask this question. Is it not obvious that perceiving “what is” in the world outside the organism is a fitness gain, and thus consciousness is an evolved phenomenon? The interesting question is not how consciousness of “what is” came about but how it has degenerated into Man’s ordinary waking consciousness. 72
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:36 | # This fear pertains not to rifle 73
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:43 | # GW I think it has to do with relativity. There’s not an answer from anywhere outside tradition and faith. In preserving our genetic heritage and deriving authority from it, you too appeal to tradition, albeit a genetic tradition. It’s the same for this matter. However, if our societies ultimately all orient around the genetic as the esoteric bedrock, what happens when we manipulate that? There ceases to be any authority. There then is no progress for there’s no bedrock to define progress. There’s only movement and energy with no value. A spec of dust is no less amazing than the sun if there are no values. 74
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:57 | # The purpose of an esoteric core is one or more of the following (off the top of my head): 1. To create a sense of value by having people strive to obtain something and then be given it upon induction. 2. For an elite to manipulate people towards its benefit. 3. For an elite to manipulate people towards their own benefit or similarly some goal they don’t know of. 4. For an elite to create an easy sense of understanding that makes sense within the values people generally work with. You seem to be saying #4, but regardless your genetic authority only holds firm if it’s untouched. If someone bothers that, you’ve fallen into the abyss. There ceases to be any method of valuing after that. The only solution then would be to create a motivation within further genetic alterations, essentially becoming less rational. E.g. design a species that enjoys creating brilliant lights, followed by a second species that enjoys creating giant pyramids, following by a third species that enjoys creating the two previous species, as well itself. Since there are no values, you would create them to value these things thus creating value where none existed. And the original drive for creating these things seems to be a popular fad to be “gods” so that we might have some sort of impact on the world after death. I would rather just preserve what’s been created for us rather than create some new thing simply out of a desire to die thinking one is a god. 75
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:14 | # Reg. “wholeness”, you meant simply a faith that gives reason for the preservation and well-being of a race. Actually, that might have existed in the pagan past. Regardless it doesn’t now, but there’s no reason a Christian society couldn’t be built on such. My point wasn’t regarding that really, and I’d thought for a moment you might have picked up something from Evola and I was trying to hit at it. - Regarding paganism in Europe: you have to remember that after the flood or whatever destroyed the ancient societies, the old order was destroyed. So, likely whatever previously existed lost its form somewhat. It might have been very bizarre. When the Middle Eastern whites arrived in the Americas, they declared they were white gods, lol. It sounds there like it was used for control. We Europeans however seem to be very religious, pursuing high ideals. That’s different from the black superstitious sense of religious. 76
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:30 | # I don’t think science can answer “am I”? The mind is merely a mystery, so “rational” folks seem to view it as special. But thought is really only of the same category as water freezing at a certain temperature. Our minds are merely a more complicated physical version - we simply haven’t solved the riddle yet. Faith and tradition give a sense of consciousness and soul. Similarly if we didn’t teach children how the mind works, their genetics would likely give them the same concepts. But the material “reality” is there’s nothing special about it. It’s all relative. That’s not to say I don’t have faith, but I’m able to think outside faith. Contrary to your beliefs, I have fully grasped the material explanation of the mind and evolution. I’m not in some sense of denial - I can simply say “what if this, then that”. Cognitive dissonance isn’t a problem for me. I think rather it’s a strange sense of denial occurring in here via calls for “reason” and “higher consciousness”. I don’t think folks have been brought to the understanding that it’s all relative. They’re believing in fairy tales no different from the religions they condemn. Well GW, I’d say you really do seem to have a complete alternative, or more complete at least, via the authority of inherited genetics. But you also seem to be in the minority. The consciousness is again something that will be explained and understood and thus killed of value as if understanding something is a basilisk that kills all it sees. 77
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:25 | # Frank,
This is completely untrue. Esoteric practic is not faith-dependent.
I am harnessing the natural capacity of individuals and peoples to be and live as, and for, themselves. Most natural thing to do in the world, and no authority in it whatsoever.
Does the reality of the European presence change if some genetic disease is switched off in the genome? Obviously, selection is continuous, and whether is it unconscious or, given the technical development, conscious is not at issue. There has to be an allowance for fitness within what we understand as “European”. If, of course, fitness was construed by the technologists as going beyond a certain point - say beyond medical concerns - then an issue arises. The purpose of the esoteric core, btw, is to teach the means to free us from that which lives falsely in our name, which turns out to be pretty much everything, Frank, and, if only in brief moments, to be. This is a practical process, not a faith issue, and the only elite are those who have travelled the whole way along this path. Or so it is said.
I agree very much with that, with the exception that I think we may select for posterity’s freedom from genetic diseases with good conscience.
No, I am saying that the core component that might have been present before Saul journeyed to Damascus (but this being Judaism probably wasn’t) appears in the synoptic gospels only as disordered fragments of speech. All that is left is the exoteric ring of faith. Compare this to Islam with its vast and important Sufic tradition (much corrupted today and detached from its monastic and intellectual roots, one would think), or Taoism’s monastic focus on movement meditation. There is a cost to a people if nothing in their national life points to their own authenticity, and Europeans have borne this cost for a very long time.
I will note that.
An ungrounded fear. An explanation for consciousness of being can never be. It is a dead thing, and compared to the unique delight of being, it is nothing. 78
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:31 | # GW writes: “The interesting question is not how consciousness of “what is” came about but how it has degenerated into Man’s ordinary waking consciousness.” Please allow me to modify your statement so it directly addresses my question: “The interesting question is not how “I am” came about but how it was disciplined into Man’s ordinary waking consciousness.” 79
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:10 | # James, Let’s modify it some more.
Any advance on that, from your perspective? 80
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:57 | # I suppose you could say that an author disciplines a blank piece of paper and liquid ink in the act of creation, but I’m less interested in authority per se than I am in creation as self discipline. That’s why I liked your inclusion of “waking consciousness”, since once a discipline has been achieved, it is subconscious if not unconscious. 81
Posted by Karl LaForce on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:11 | # Frank commented: Science can show that you are a biological entity, and therefore you are. To reject that observation, is to reject all forms of human observation. You may believe that you are an animal with a soul, but an animal none the less. When a tiger eats a human, he is just as satisfied as when he has eaten an impala. “There’s not an answer from anywhere outside tradition and faith.” Many answers have come through people for whom faith and tradition was vital. But that does not mean that only the current faiths and traditions produce answers. The pre-Christian Greeks and Romans possessed a high degree of every attribute which I consider to define Whiteness. Whites were great before Christianity, and we can also be great after Christianity. GW commented to James; Nature hates a vacuum. Nature is also like a rugby scrum; if we do not push forward we will be pushed back. I am sure someone can say this better. I a nut shell… There are legitimate objections to every point above, it ain’t perfect. But that process mimicks processes found in nature. There are ant colonies that can easily take down large scorpions, but they are susceptible to a lone queen of a different spices that can take over the colony using chemical signals. That lone queen tricks the native ants to kill their own queen, and start serving the alien queen. 82
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:22 | # There are other, even more cohesive eusocial colonies that are susceptible to such extended phenotype hijacking. Those colonies are called “multicellular organisms”. 83
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:58 | #
No. The emergence theory is simply an intellectual band aid or plaster as they say across the pond. It would not emerge from matter anyway. Matter is simply the human hard drive that carries the information from which a human is formed. It would mean some sort of error in the copy process that produces a reproductive benefit. What benefit does consciousness provide to the oldest savage that aids his/her survival? None. The savage, like the animals around him survives quite well with out resorting to consciousness. No there was no fitness gain. It was sexual selection. “I am” is an analog and consciousness does not exist without language. 84
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 01:09 | # Karl, I like your idea of a declension in clarity of consciousness owing to a short life cycle. Quite aside from tying in with childhood fertility, which has always seemed to me a very cruel trick by Nature, it ties in to the lower IQ in the years of brain development (on average, at puberty a European child will have an IQ in the 70s). Europeans and East Asians tend to show interest in the esoteric question (what is the meaning of my life and of the life around me?) from age 20 or so, meaning the brain is very likely not sufficiently developed before then for the high degree of discrimination - the perception of what I have called ontological value - which the question requires. I have always been puzzled by the fact of the existence of such consciousness. One can see that the adaptive behaviours associated with faith have fitness value. But what adaptivity is there to witness to being? Homo sapiens has evolved perfectly well over, we must presume, a very long period with the present limitation to his perceptual range (“ordinary waking consciousness”). So why does the capacity of the brain to experience higher states, including the reported states of ultra high or mystical consciousness, persist if it serves no evolutionary purpose? Perhaps the answer lies in the protection afforded the genes by “blind” selection during the first decade after puberty. That still leaves the puzzle as to why the capacity got there in the first place. Now, if you’ve got any ideas about that ... 85
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 01:11 | # Desmond, As I have explained to you very clearly more than once, language is not the author of consciousness. Let’s not revisit that silliness again. 86
Posted by Karl LaForce on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:20 | # GW 87
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:19 | # Guessedworker, What is really silly is the emergence theory for it negates the very process of natural selection. For example there is no sense of wetness in its constituents, oxygen and hydrogen, it is only derived from a combination of its component parts. Emergence of consciousness, according to the theory then, must be derived from some chemical/matter combination at some point in time. God knows when. However, that denies the very theory of natural selection which says mutation built upon mutation, slowly, incrementally over millions of years through a reproductive differential enhances survival. If consciousness “emerges” it cannot be a product of natural selection, for what is incremental consciousness? Is it like being only a teensee weensie bit pregnant?
It’s rather a mundane question. Why, because we cannot be conscious of what we are not conscious of. Why, because if we were continually introspective or conscious of that which we cannot be conscious of, we could not function. 88
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:45 | # Empirical thought is evolution as experienced by the creator. 89
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:41 | # “Emerge” means “to come forth into view or notice, as from concealment or obscurity”. Perhaps not the best way to describe the origin of consciousness from the perspective of natural selection. However, since none of us were there to witness that event, or series of events, which produced consciousness, to say that consciousness (roughly) “emerged” from physical processes is not technically incorrect in keeping with the spirit of empiricism. Btw, from what I’ve seen of the clinical research regarding “mindfulness” I have to say that GW’s conjecture with reference to Dasein and ordinary waking consciousness is pretty close to the mark. For instance, training in “mindfulness” is effective in decoupling at the level of neurological processes “momentary self-awareness” and “extended self-reference”. Examples of “extended self-reference” are such acquired descriptions as “I am tall” or “I am smart”. “Mindfulness” training is effective in gaining greater mastery over emotional reactivity, that is in regulating emotion. Putting the pieces together, “mindfulness” training could be of some aid in seeing the acquired anti-White brainwashing for it is and squelching its power to manipulate one’s emotions. 90
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:53 | #
http://viewer.zoho.com/api/urlview.do?url=http://www.nil.wustl.edu/labs/raichle/MER_papers/160_Medial prefrontal cortex and self-referential mental activity.pdf “self-referential mental activity” = acquired personality “default mode of brain function” = ordinary waking consciousness Boom, there it is. 91
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:16 | # And incidentally, mindfulness training according to research tends to induce quite the opposite emotional states to “Fuck you!” and “Kill you!”. It empowers one to behave less like a nigger. 92
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:03 | # More:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/408u1002468n5273/ Isn’t this the kind of shit the English here should have cited in lieu of “verbalization”? 93
Posted by English vs. Krauts on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:54 | # The English are more individualistic than Krauts:
94
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:11 | # CC writes: “And incidentally, mindfulness training according to research tends to induce quite the opposite emotional states to “Fuck you!” and “Kill you!”. It empowers one to behave less like a nigger.” There is a difference between the two reactions, CC. “Fuck you” expresses mutilation of sexuality. “Kill you” expresses a natural male sexual attitude. The fact that blacks are permitted their masculinity by the current society relative to whites (blacks control the worst forms of punishment offered by society via their control of prison gang violence) is simply one more reason why healthy whites see the need for violence—not against other powerless individuals, not in a manner devoid of honor or lawfulness but against the lawless State that creates this situation. Do you really see no difference between, say, Timothy McVeigh and some black street thug trying to earn status in a gang by killing some random white guy in a movie theater? 95
Posted by Todd on Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:02 | # White women lead Islam conversions
96
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 05:42 | # Bowery,
The problem with your tendentiously constructed question is that, were one to adopt your perspective regarding the elemental, primal link between violence and male sexuality (I think this link, as far as it goes, is fairly self-evident), one would be forced to answer that, “Yes,” McVeigh and the hypothetical negro gang-banger are ultimately functionally equivalent in that they both are motivated at root by status striving to increase their reproductive fitness - violence being the means utilized. So their respective actions would be at base functionally equivalent, but not necessarily morally equivalent, depending on what “morality” one privileged. You have stated that one should be able to challenge another to single deadly combat for whatever reasons one wishes. I take it you will see that this in effect subordinates (moral) reasons for killing to simply killing. It is killing which is in the end privileged, and not whatever moral rationale you would hope this unharnessed ability to kill would serve. And if it is not some vision of morality (however misbegotten) which fuels your desire to see single deadly combat implemented, but merely a desire to see the link between violence and male sexuality reinvigorated, then you really have no moral grounds on which to reject one mode of male violence (mass murder) over another (dueling). 97
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 06:53 | #
Well, I will agree with you that these are the product of male sexuality; “sexuality” connoting a broader sense of psychological/physiological phenomena integrated in the individual than merely sexual attraction, intercourse and arousal. But in considering sexuality in this broader sense, both as relates to the individual and society, it would behoove us to really look at the consequences of sharpening male sexuality to a razor’s edge as it would be when molded by single deadly combat. It is sublimation of male sexuality, this most civilizing and civilized of pursuits, that would be sacrificed. There would be at least a coarsening if not downright brutalizing effect on male psyches. This would tend to decrease the amount of joy in living - the very end it is claimed single deadly combat is to serve. Who can honestly say that the inability of the negro male to sublimate his sexuality is anything but a permanent blight to negroes? You see, in life, that is in the real world, there are consequences, there are trade-offs; one cannot have everything of what one wants this side of heaven. And since neither of us believes there is any life but this one, it would seem we would both wish to make this life the best that it can be, all things taken into consideration. Depriving all the generations of our people yet to come of civilization - and without sublimation of male sexuality there is no civilization - does not do that. 98
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:07 | # For the ontology project to proceed the effort to increasingly ground it in the scientific study of the mind - psychology - must be made. That it has presently come to a bit of a halt is because this has not been done. Its proponents have hitherto relied on their native creativity, intuition and verbal stylings to breath life into the ontology project; all the while neglecting the disciplining and proof-giving for sceptics influence of existing and expanding body of psychological research regarding just that subject of enquiry (I won’t say pontification). If this method is adopted, I am confident the brass ring can be grasped, which is: once rendered accessible by clear verbiage supported by scientific evidence and concrete examples encountered frequently in everyday life, a psychological state can be induced in the mind of the reader such that he will experience the prospect of preserving his genetic peoplehood in keeping with concentricity of genetic relatedness as a necessity. Of course this approach will only appeal to a certain cast of mind, and thus a certain cast of individual. For those who incline to faith as a filter for the legitimacy of experience, or the stupid, this method will probably prove insufficient. But it is the approach I exhort which can itself best teach how to remediate this more opaque type of mind. And if that don’t work, I guess there is always Bowery’s way: anyone who doesn’t see it his way can just be fucking killed. 99
Posted by Guest Creator on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:34 | # Matt Hale on WN and Christianity Part 1 Matt Hale on WN and Christianity Part 2 101
Posted by Captainkraut on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:05 | #
Not to put too fine of a point on it, CC. But PF could have spared himself many an hour churning out reams of empty and unsubstantiated verbiage by simpling going to the scientific literature for support for his claims; and not exposing those claims to the light of day when not so supported. 102
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:27 | # CC writes: ““Yes,” McVeigh and the hypothetical negro gang-banger are ultimately functionally equivalent in that they both are motivated at root by status striving to increase their reproductive fitness - violence being the means utilized.” I’ll ignore the fact that the gang-banger situation was anything but hypothetical and proceed with a true hypothetical situation: You’ll agree that black attitude toward rape differs profoundly from white attitude toward rape and that this difference is why the death penalty for rape was overturned as part of the “Civil Rights Movement”. Please say if you disagree. So let’s take a “hypothetical” situation in which a young man hears the cries of a young woman and comes upon an older man who is apparently forcing himself upon the young woman while condemning her for rebelling against the will of God who had bound them together in holy matrimony. The young man doesn’t challenge the older man—he just kills him on the spot. Is this young man “behaving like a nigger”? 103
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:50 | #
James Bowery, A number of months ago I made the point, which you failed to address, that European man’s defining characteristic is not his individualism. It is in fact his ability to organize himself in a generally non-coercive manner that gives him infinite advantages over other races. Take for instance the Greek Phalanx and its inherent superiority over the more disorganized forms of combat. Also, the industrial strength of European man relies as much upon his ability to create complex divisions of labor, much lauded by Adam Smith, that allow him to efficiently create complex machinery and chemical compounds. European man exists as an individual with individual ideas but his ability to cooperate as a group is the key to his success. Lesser races can not maintain anything resembling Western civilization precisely because they can not cooperate or organize themselves at the level of general society. They often form tribes, akin to a troop of baboons, but beyond this their capacity fails and they revert to internecine conflict. A good example is the border town of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. In 2010 there were 3,000 murders in Ciudad Juarez. Look at the non-European countries throughout the world. They possess only a limited sense of universal values and they can maintain organizations only with the immediate threat of massive force. For these reasons, National Socialism or something like National Socialism will become absolutely necessary for European man to survive. It is one of the reasons why I, as an individual, can not abandon the rest of my race despite its stupidity or short-sightedness. We will rise or fall together. The failure of our people to awaken to their own racial decline is our failure because we, who know the truth, have not done our part. 104
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:22 | # Individual integrity is what gives whites their ability to form strong group structures. This individual integrity was exploited by the Roman empire in its use of Germanic mercenaries, as well as by the Arabs. It is being exploited now in con games like Holocaustianity where the image of a helpless individual Jew being chased down and rounded up by Nazi gangs is the central myth just as the individual Jesus being chased down and rounded up by Jewish gangs was the central myth of Christianity. You aren’t going to get rid of our individualistic nature by arguing us out of it*. You have to find out how to use it where Jews, and most other cultures, abuse it.
105
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 01:16 | # CC,
The examples you cite are very interesting. But it would be necessary to contact the researchers concerned to ascertain for sure that their terminology was truly applicable. If so, then the scientific backing would be useful - and so what knowing when we got it wrong.
That is so.
One needs to demonstrate a superiority of ideas to those who are able to discriminate and open to working with such ideas. In other words, creative thinkers. You see how difficult it is to do that.
Faith feeling I think could be appealed to at some level because of the esoterism that stands very close to the rational metaphysics. In the esoteric tradition there is the line of union with the divine and the line of self-perfectionment. Potential exists. 106
Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:56 | #
Our group empathy (or, altruism) is being exploited not our individual integrity. White Americans help Somalians because of a misplaced desire to help other people, not from the idea that they have somehow personally wronged a Somalian. 107
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:02 | # May the group empathy be on ya, Sam. You’re dead in this individualist’s eyes. 108
Posted by JImmy Marr on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:19 | # I’m sorry, Sam. I meant to write that your’e “dead on” in this individualist’s eyes. I’m not talking about Hunter Walrus. 109
Posted by Armor on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:27 | #
The ability to organize in a generally non-coercive manner sounds to me like a possible description of individualism. It’s never made clear what kind of individualism we are talking about. Individualism can mean different things : - you believe in self-reliance and personal independence There is an essay by K.MacDonald with the title “What makes Western culture unique ?” He gives a list of several elements. One of them is “a tendency toward individualism and all of its implications: individual rights against the state, representative government, moral universalism, and science.” As I see it, every man belongs to a number of concentric groups : 1 . his immediate family The individualistic white man is supposed to care about 1 and 5. — High Individualism = Identity is based on the individual High Collectivism: Identity is based on one’s social grouping Maybe it means that individualists don’t care who they work with. Actually, it is difficult to make sense of the results if we don’t know exactly what kind of questions were asked. 110
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 08:21 | # Individualism is the lifestyle of human ecologies where the primary relationship is with nature and relationship with other humans, although optional, is strongly motivated by sex and child rearing. 111
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:38 | # Individualist empathy arises from the natural ecology of the individualist: Surrounded by kin in a sparsely populated environment that simply kills off entire populations contaminated by prisoner’s dilemma defection, including the defectors, there is little selective pressure against indiscriminate altruism. This is profoundly different from the kind of kin-based empathy that arises in high population density environments where defectors survive. 112
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:10 | # As I see it, every man belongs to a number of concentric groups : 1 . his immediate family The individualistic white man is supposed to care about 1 and 5. I wish you were correct in your last statement. That most whites do not care about the fate of the collective race is the whole problem. I think there should be a sixth concentric circle, between 3 and 4. That is ‘country’ or ‘nation’. To the extent that today’s decadent whites possess any nationalist instinct at all, it is directed to country, not race, though that may continue to change as the race shrinks numerically, and the countries become ever more nonwhite (something I predicted hopefully back in the early 80s; it’s taking a damn long time, however, for that prediction to come true). 113
Posted by Armor on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:31 | #
I have always been race conscious and I’m always surprised to see people who see things differently. They are fooling themselves. A paragraph excerpted from the Occidental Observer.net : “According to MacDonald, ethnocentrism is a natural phenomenon, hard-wired into the oldest and deepest levels of the brain. Anti-ethnocentrism, however, exists as a conscious moral conviction. From a psychological point of view, therefore, anti-ethnocentrism is relatively superficial, even though it currently dominates our culture and politics.” — 114
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:05 | #
There is a range of potential expression for the individualism and altruism of our people. In the state of nature the individualism and altruism of our people would obviously and necessarily have been restrained as against what we observe now in our post-industrial societies as individual reproductive fitness would have absolutely depended upon doing more what was good for the extended kinship group and not only for one’s self. Malthusianism versus Cornucopianism. This is self-evidently why were civilization to pass away what we would get is not the artificial individualism of single deadly combat but a return to the muted individualism of the tribe: tribes would outcompete combative individualists for scarce resources and thus be more reproductively successful. It is the genes of tribes that would be passed along and not individual combatants. By that standard, the only standard that matters to Nature, it is single deadly combat which would prove dysgenic. Now, with that irrefutable and final word on the matter at last articulated, we may enquire just what reasons proponents of single deadly combat have to press forward? My tentative suggestion: they seek some means of reifying their conception of the Rousseauian noble savage that is naturally good and free in his sanguine simplicity. And why? Because for them civilization is a burden insufferable - a wound to their amour-propre which cannot be countenanced in proportion to the status and recognition they feel they deserve from their fellows yet are denied - with the only recourse a romantic vision of Man that is no more real or realizable than was Rousseau’s. 116
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:10 | # CC, aside from setting up the straw man of “the noble savage”—which I have clearly made impossible to impute to my position from the outset by pointing to a contract with specific terms—all you have said is that it is irrefutable that a gang can overpower an individual and that, therefore, genes for forming gangs will out compete genes for individualism. My disagreement with you is as to what is eugenic, plain and simple. You believe that the human to human competition is incidental to group organism competition. If you truly believe this then you have given up on man, let alone superman, because it is clear where that kind of competition leads, and it is not even animal, let alone man. 117
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:48 | # Me disciplining a kike who calls itself “Someday” over at TOO:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/01/wikileaks-leaks/#comment-24617 For some reason I cannot fathom Parrott keeps putting me on “moderation”. Maybe he fears standing up to the kikes as they deserve will make us look bad in front of the lemmings. Oh well. 118
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:48 | # What happened to Notus Wind? He has gone from major writer here to no-show. I miss Fred Scrooby and Trainspotter, too. 119
Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:28 | # The ‘problem’ with WN and ‘Christians,’ is that Baptists aren’t ..... Christian. Since most (if not all) deny the covenantal nature of the first sacrament of the historic Church, they are ipso faco, heretics. And, since most (if not all) of them are also Dispensattionalists (Scofield Reference Libel), that puts them even FURTHER out of the ‘pale’ of Christendom.
And we don’t need to look to heretics for corroboration of Belloc’s famous phrase, ‘Europe is teh Faith; the Faith, Europe. Not even from Modernist Rome…. which is no true Church, either. 120
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:18 | # Bowery,
You want to impose a social system on Nordics that I take it you believe will closely approximate the one they lived under in the state of nature. To recreate a time when a man’s word was his bond and if this bond was broken his life could justly be taken - to give it the most charitable spin as you have requested. In the state of nature, Nordic Man was at his least civilized, and therefore most “savage”. You think he was more “noble” then than he is now; and that the conditions he lived under were more “ennobling” in that they acted as a selective pressure to make him what it is you regard highly about him. The “savagery” Nordics evinced then was obviously not of the same variety that niggers exhibited in their state of nature because…Nordics are not niggers.
Dude, you just gave away the farm here. Wanna know why? Okay, I’ll tell you. Unless single deadly combat could be universally imposed on Nordics then it would ultimately prove an evolutionarily unstable strategy for those who did adopt it as those who didn’t adopt it would outcompete those who did for resources and thus reproductive success. Single deadly combat would prove an evolutionary dead-end for its (limited) adherents. The chances of successfully imposing single deadly combat on all Nordics, or most of them, are next to nil.
Straw man. I never said Nordics shouldn’t be allowed to compete for reproductive success within the confines of the group. I just don’t support enthroning murder as a means to that end. Sam Davidson,
I’m still waiting for the much vaunted cage match between Neo and GW. What, the first one to break a hip ‘loses’ and gets his face stuffed in the pillow? LOL! 121
Posted by itsnobody on Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:23 | # Of course White Nationalism and specifically Christianity are incompatible. That’s why all the Christian WNs constantly have to come up with strange interpretations and explanations where as the non-Christian WNs do not. Most of the Christian WNs come from Canada, the deep South of the US, the Northeast of the US, or Ukraine. Outside of these areas it’s rare to find a Christian WN. “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable” - Martin Bormann, the 2nd most powerful Nazi Since Christianity is a Jewish-based religion and the Old Testament is a completely Jewish text coming from the Tanakh that both modern day Christians and Jews use “Christian” White Nationalists have to try to make Christianity sound less and less Jewish. Not only is Christianity a Jewish-based religion but many passages from the Bible oppose nationalism and racism. Non-Christian WNs who follow native European religions like Norse or Celtic religions don’t have to come up with strange explanations. They know the religions they follow come from Europe and are a part of old European culture. Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with old European culture, although some elements of Christianity have been combined with old European culture. Since White Nationalism is about preserving the European race and European culture Christianity does not fit in well but atheism, agnosticism, non-religion, or following a native European religion fit into White Nationalism without any problem. The Deep South, one of the most religious regions in the world, is now integrated, more racially diverse - http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/03/statistical-proof-south-finally-more-integrated/36096/ Liberal atheism fits in well with White Nationalism, since the belief in evolution and natural selection are essential to most liberal atheists. This is why we see that the atheist countries are the ones closest to Nationalist countries: Without religion there’s very little to nothing stopping people from being nationalists. We also see nationalism rising in countries where non-religion and atheism are rising fast like Australia and Canada. Many liberal atheists like Richard Dawkins, James D. Watson, and Richard Lynn have expressed their support of scientific racism. “It is an article of passionate faith among “politically correct” biologists and anthropologists that brain size has no connection with intelligence; that intelligence has nothing to do with genes; and that genes are probably nasty fascist things anyway” - The most famous atheist in modern times, Richard Dawkins, quoted from The Evolutionary Future of Man (1993) “The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups, and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both” - Liberal atheist, Richard Lynn, author of “Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis”, “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all of our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really” - The most celebrated liberal atheist biologist, James D. Watson Atheism and White Nationalism just fit together perfectly, like a perfect couple. Post a comment:
Next entry: Oscar Wilde: the straight truth about a “gay” icon
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Frank on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:19 | #
WN and the pagan / atheist problem: Far too many of them embrace GE eugenics that seek to destroy the white race, though they still call themselves “white nationalists” so everything’s fine. Apparently all that matters is the name, not the content.
Woden’s Folk:
Archaeofuturism:
Hey, these guys are A-OK though because they call themselves white nationalists - wooh!
-
Whereas you have Christians: A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism
-
Evola wrote that Euro-paganism is something that’s never existed. For years Christians made up stories about pagans, and paganism became essentially “anti-Christianity”. So, in rejecting a “Jewish ideology”, Europeans embrace… another “Jewish ideology” that was created during the conflict.
Aryans were ancestor worshipers and true believers in whatever faiths they held. They resisted conversion not because they were atheists but because they were true believers in other faiths. These are deeply pious men, and it’s likely that Christianity is very similar to what they really believed in, at least relative to the major philosophic divide which is between: a backward view that values something (and fighting to preserve something is an excellent motivator for moving forward) and a forward view that wishes to burn it all and enjoy a big rush - wooh! The problem for the latter view is all a rush is is chemicals in the brain. Their pleasure can be deconstructed along with everything else.
Christianity has been the faith of Europe, even northern Europe, for centuries. Our people have developed their ideas within it, and the resulting philosophy is very Aryan.
If you push a neutral view, then promote some neutral pagan things such as:
Or similarly Ovid or Homer.
A scientific view doesn’t really have any answers. There’s need for a sense of something being “right”, and we need to clearly define what that is. It can be as simple as the races appear meant to exist separately - a sort of natural faith philosophy. And similarly we can say we believe in a sense of a soul. The Celts I know thought the soul existed in the head - I think they were right (Celts > Egyptians).
There is a problem I think in how strongly anti-Christian nationalists are. My thinking on this has been that a pagan alternative is needed for such people, for awhile until they return to Christianity. I don’t think “pagan” means building an altar and slaughtering a bull on it, nor dressing up in robes. Such nationalists ought to just read certain philosophy and stories.
When God ceases to be worshiped, the state or nation tends to become the god. Well, let it be so then. It’d be far better that then the present “alternative” to Christianity which: wooh, burn it all.