An oblique attack on libertarianism.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 22, 2009, 02:17 PM | #

James,

If there were no government, all those hoards of Mexicans and other nationalities wouldn’t make it past the first town.

They would if endemic Jewish victimology had been concretized in the religio-political canon of Holocaustianity, among other Jewish delights, and the natural instincts of the “hateful” and “bigoted” white “authoritarians” had been perverted.

The state did not mandate Culture War.  It confirmed it.

Posted by Gorboduc on September 22, 2009, 02:49 PM | #

LEE!  I apologise! I’ve been trying for years but I never could have put all that with your seemingly effortless elegance!

I am totally, totally converted! Changed! Transfigured! Oh Rapture! Ecstacy! Oh! Oh!

Take my hand;  oh fly with me into the future, soaring up into limitless realms of pure being-ness…

BUMP CRASH

Oh shit, I woke up.

NOW look at me…help.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 03:12 PM | #

” That’s a bit Lamarckian for me.  There is no aim in life.  There is only genetic transmission, the genes having been selected for their fitness to environment.  “Higher self-evolution” is a completely wrong-headed and nonsensical concept. “

How can there be no ‘aim’ in life - from the first single celled organism to human beings, the ‘aim’ in life has been higher evolution or entelechy.

Life evolves via entelechy, matter is subject to entropy.

Darwinism is also under attack as a theory by Empedoclean Evolution ;

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/03/new_work_on_lateral_transfer_s.php

and also by punctuated equilibrium ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium.

Therefore Darwinism is a theory increasingly at odds with science. 

Higher Human Self evolution is self evidently true.

We as a human species are now vetting sperm and eggs prior to conception for genetic defects, we abort defective foetuses, we do not implant defective fertilised eggs as we screen them before implantation, and we change the genes of defective genes lines to cure genetic defects.

We are on the brink of being able to construct our children before they are born via genetic engineering to remove all the thousands of inherited genetic defects we each carry.

The New Art is the art of higher human evolution via genetic engineering, the genetic scientist the new artist and humanity itself a form of art. 

Human being have been actively undertaking Creative Self Evolution and higher human evolution for decades.

Creative Self and Higher Human is practised in every fertility clinic, abortion clinic and sperm donor clinic every day.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 03:14 PM | #

LEE!  I apologise! I’ve been trying for years but I never could have put all that with your seemingly effortless elegance!

I am flattered that you have taken the time to read, assimilate and critique what I have been writing for years.

Cheers !

Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 03:41 PM | #

Genetic transmission is about to be replaced by Genetic Engineering, the directed evolution of humanity.

Genetic Transmission is the mechanism of Homo Sapiens reproduction - Genetic Engineering will be the reproductive methodology of a higher humanity.

We are the brink of a new speciation, whereby the human genome will be cleansed of all inherited defects and higher humans capable of actively constructing the children they want to have.

Out of the Homo Sapiens mass, a new human species will arise.

On top of this the advances in nanatechnology may even allow man to become immortal.

A new era has begun ;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html

Creative Self Evolution leading to a Higher Humanity has already begun, although still in its formative phase regarding the technology and mass accesibility.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html

This isnt science fiction, this is science fact.

Posted by Captainchaos on September 22, 2009, 03:56 PM | #

Genetic Engineering will be the reproductive methodology of a higher humanity.

Barnes, this is real fucking simple, if transfiguration to the “higher” be our destiny, then racial preservation is rendered moot.  You see, “cognitive elitism” can deliver us that sans “doing politics.”  Yup, East Asians and Jews can be the primary cogs in that infernal machine with just enough White men plugged in to give it that creative spark the former so glaringly lack.  You say you are not a Nietzschean?  LOL!  Dipstick.  What?  Even the slightest effort at internal consistency is not required of a barrister these days?  Not surprising.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 22, 2009, 03:58 PM | #

Lee,

You are making embarrassingly simplistic statements.  It would be much better for you to ask rather than declaim.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 04:09 PM | #

Barnes, this is real fucking simple, if transfiguration to the “higher” be our destiny, then racial preservation is rendered moot.  You see, “cognitive elitism” can deliver us that sans “doing politics.” Yup, East Asians and Jews can be the primary cogs in that infernal machine with just enough White men plugged in to give it that creative spark the former so glaringly lack.  You say you are not a Nietzschean?  LOL!  Dipstick.  What?  Even the slightest effort at internal consistency is not required of a barrister these days?  Not surprising.

The preservation of races is essential in order to preserve the human DNA database which is contained within human racial groups.

Racial preservation is the equivalent of saving the seeds of various plants - the more diverse the DNA we preserve in the world the safer humanity is in the event of some event which destroys large swathes of humanity eg through some mutant virus that wipes out vast swathes of humanity, bio-terrorism that is race based and targeted, comet strike, etc etc.

Racial preservation is essential for the future of a higher humanity.

Future racial groups will exist, though self cleansed of genetic defects.

In fact, as a result of two world wars that destroyed most of the fittest, strongest and most intelligent of our race - we must preserve as much as we can of what is left in order to ‘sift’ through it and harvest the best genes that are available from the genetic dross amonst our race - which unfortunately due to liberal social policies which reward the low IQ people amongst our race has ensured the remaining high IQ remnants of our race are having the least amount of children and thereby destroying the remaining high quality DNA. 

All races will do the same = both black and white parents will seek to have genetically engineered, more intelligent, healthier children whose characteristics they can choose to suit themselves and their own racial aesthetic.

I am not a Neitzschean, simply as Neitzsche was not aware of DNA, nanotechnology and genetic engineering.

His language though unlocks concepts relevant to defining this new science.

It appears that in fact you are ‘real fucking simple’.

Posted by Gorboduc on September 22, 2009, 04:10 PM | #

Lee!

I -CAN’T - BELIEVE -IT!

GW warned you just now, on the Bowden thread… very temperately and tactfully ...

For God’s sake, you daft bugger!

Pay attention!

HEED HIM!

Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 04:12 PM | #

Lee,

You are making embarrassingly simplistic statements.  It would be much better for you to ask rather than declaim.

No, it appears that I am talking to people unable to understand simple science.

Read a bit more outside the dead ideology of archaic nationalism as regards modern science, and try and get to grip with whats happening in the real world instead of simply squatting in the ideological museum you inhabit.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 04:19 PM | #

Lee!

I -CAN’T - BELIEVE -IT!

GW warned you just now, on the Bowden thread… very temperately and tactfully ...

For God’s sake, you daft bugger!

Pay attention!

HEED HIM!

Heed this.

It appears that when you dig beneath the rhetoric of pseudo-intellectualism that postures as debate on this site, many of you are simply unable to accept the reality of the new world that is dawning.

I had enough of vacuous intellectual poseurs at university.

I expected better from the ‘intellectual wing’ of nationalism. 

Therefore, as you have nothing to offer of interest to me or contribute as regards debating the things that interest me, which is futurology as opposed to history or dead ideologies as opposed to new ideologies, here we shall part company.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 22, 2009, 04:21 PM | #

Lee,

You have no idea what you saying or to whom you are speaking.  If it is eugenics you are interested in, we have Matt Nuenke here.  Do you know any racial nationalist more knowledgeable on the subject of eugenics than Matt?

I don’t expect you to understand what MR is or why it differs from other resources in the nationalist media.  But you might at least give yourself time to learn rather than visit upon us so much callow presumption.  Yes, I know you have been around the “scene” for a long time.  I know you think that the party is at the cutting edge.  But there is more than one cutting edge, and the discussion here is one of them.  You mentioned creative thought.  You will not find it at TOQ.  You will find it here - not in every post and every thread by any means, but it’s here.

We know more than you do about virtually everything (except UAF and the innards of British political nationalism).  Allow us our strength and we will allow you yours.  But do not endeavour to cut away at an image of us you have constructed in your own mind for that precise purpose, and thence to enthrone yourself as King.  It is embarrassing to witness and it is perfectly unnecessary.

Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 04:26 PM | #

Are you Jesus ?

Christianity is supposed to be the archrival of Cosmotheism…

I’m merely a hobbit from the Shire open to ideas about normal, sane eugenics to correct/prevent mutations that’ve entered post-Creation.

My people = northwestern Europeans. I’d prefer you were preaching to some other [supra]race. The IQ in other parts of the world are high. There are other races you could evolve towards godhood… Heritage is my bag, not godhood.

I suspect CC is correct:

You say you are not a Nietzschean?  LOL!

I’ll let others take you on this since I’ve rambled elsewhere on it plenty. As CC says it’s “real[ly] ... simple” - easy enough for a hobbit to grasp if he’ll but put down the pint long enough to let his head clear.

I want to say Cicero said politics is applying common sense - something like that?

Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 04:31 PM | #

I’m really quite tolerant of pagan pagans. Just so long as they’re not going wild, I’m fine with freedom of religion. Where that line is drawn, I’ll tell you as it’s crossed. Judaism does cross that line - they are a distinct people.

Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 04:38 PM | #

Sorry if it seems I suddenly snapped, but this is an issue I won’t back down on. There’s probably nothing else I’ll jump so readily upon.

I really was enjoying your hobbit tales for awhile. I read LOTR in 5-6th grade, so it’s been some time. There’s this one scene that sticks in my mind, but no one seems to know of it. So, whenever I find it I’ll be sure to share.

The two, ah, white tribes are about to fight when Gandalf jumps in to tell them they may kill each other once they’ve defeated the Orcs. And both white armies turn to see Orcs streaming in over the hills.

At the end of the war, almost no one was left. It reminds of sayings such as “For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; For want of the shoe, the horse was lost” etc.

The series is a masterpiece. Tolkien achieved genius.

Posted by Gorboduc on September 22, 2009, 05:03 PM | #

This is a long one, but it’s by the immortal GKC, and although just a century old is still up-to-date.

I hope GW won’t think of it as clogging up the site.

It has a certain connection with some of what has gone before.

Daily News 1909

Readers of Mr.  Bernard Shaw and other modern writers may be interested to know that the Superman has been found.  I found him; he lives in South Croydon.  My success will be a great blow to Mr. Shaw, who has been following quite a false scent, and is now looking for the creature in Blackpool; and as for Mr. Wells’s notion of generating him out of gases in a private laboratory I always thought it doomed to failure.  I assure Mr. Wells that the Superman at Croydon was born in the ordinary way, though he himself, of course, is anything but ordinary. 

Nor are his parents unworthy of the wonderful being whom they have given to the world.  The name of Lady Hypatia Smythe-Brown (now Lady Hypatia Hagg) will never be forgotten in the East End, where she did such splendid social work.  Her constant cry of “Save the children!” referred to the cruel neglect of children’s eyesight involved in allowing them to play with crudely painted toys.  She quoted unanswerable statistics to prove that children allowed to look at violet and vermillion often suffered from failing eyesight in their extreme old age; and it was owing to her ceaseless crusade that the pestilence of the Monkey-on-the-Stick was almost swept from Hoxton. 

he devoted worker would tramp the streets untiringly, taking away the toys from all the poor children, who were often moved to tears by her kindness.  Her good work was interrupted, partly by a new interest in the creed of Zoroaster, and partly by a savage blow from an umbrella.  It was inflicted by a dissolute Irish apple-woman, who, on returning from some orgy to her ill-kept apartment, found Lady Hypatia in the bedroom taking down some oleograph, which, to say the least of it, could not really elevate the mind. 

At this the ignorant and partly intoxicated Celt dealt the social reformer a severe blow, adding to it an absurd accusation of theft.  The lady’s exquisitely balanced mind received a shock; and it was during a short mental illness that she married Dr. Hagg. 
Of Dr. Hagg himself I hope there is no need to speak.  Anyone even slightly acquainted with those daring experiments in Neo-Individualist Eugenics, which are now the one absorbing interest of the English democracy, must know his name and often commend it to the personal protection of an impersonal power. 
Early in life he brought to bear that ruthless insight into the history of religions that he gained in boyhood as an electrical engineer.  Later he became one of our greatest geologists; and achieved that bold and bright outlook upon the future of Socialism which only geology can give.  At first there seems something like a rift, a faint, but perceptible, fissure, between his views and those of his aristocratic wife. 
For she was in favour (to use her own powerful epigram) of protecting the poor against themselves; while he declared pitilessly, in a new and striking metaphor, that the weakest must go to the wall.  Eventually, however, the married pair perceived an essential union in the unmistakably modern character of both their views; and in this enlightening and comprehensive expression their souls found peace.  The result is that this union of the two highest types of our civilisation, the fashionable lady and all but vulgar medical man, has been blessed by the birth of the Superman, that being whom all the labourers in Battersea are so eagerly expecting night and day. 

I found the house of Dr. and Lady Hypatia Hagg without much difficulty; it is situated in one of the last straggling streets of Croydon, and overlooked by a line of poplars.  I reached the door towards the twilight, and it was natural that I should fancifully see something dark and monstrous in the dim bulk of that house which contained the creature who was more marvellous than the children of men.  When I entered the house I was received with exquisite courtesy by Lady Hypatia and her husband; but I found much greater difficulty in actually seeing the Superman, who is now about fifteen years old, and is kept by himself in a quiet room.  Even my conversation with the father and mother did not quite clear up the character of the mysterious being.  Lady Hypatia, who has a pale and poignant face, and is clad in those impalpable and pathetic greys and greens with which she has brightened so many homes in Hoxton, did not appear to talk of her offspring with any of the vulgar vanity of an ordinary human mother.  I took a bold step and asked if the Superman was nice looking. 

“He creates his own standard, you see,” she replied, with a slight sigh.  “Upon that plane he is more than Apollo.  Seen from our lower plane, of course. . . ” And she sighed again. 

I had a horrible impulse, and said suddenly, “Has he got any hair?”
There was a long and painful silence, and then Dr. Hagg said smoothly, “Everything upon that plane is different; what he has got is not. . . well, not, of course, what we call hair. . . but. . . ”
“Don’t you think,” said his wife, very softly, “don’t you think that really, for the sake of argument, when talking to the mere public, one might call it hair?”
“Perhaps you are right,” said the doctor after a few moments’ reflection.  “In connection with hair like that one must speak in parables. ”
“Well, what on earth is it,” I asked in some irritation, “if it isn’t hair?  Is it feathers?”
“Not feathers, as we understand feathers,” answered Hagg in an awful voice. 
I got up in some irritation.  “Can I see him, at any rate?” I asked.  “I am a journalist, and have no earthly motives except curiosity and personal vanity.  I should like to say that I had shaken hands with the Superman. ”

The husband and wife had both got heavily to their feet, and stood embarrassed. 
“Well, of course, you know,” said Lady Hypatia, with the really charming smile of the aristocratic hostess.  “You know he can’t exactly shake hands. . . not hands, you know. . . . The structure, of course. . . ”
I broke out of all social bounds, and rushed at the door of the room which I thought to contain the incredible creature.  I burst it open; the room was pitch dark.  But from in front of me came a small sad yelp, and from behind me a double shriek. 
“You have done it, now!” cried Dr. Hagg, burying his bald brow in his hands.  “You have let in a draught on him; and he is dead. ”

As I walked away from Croydon that night I saw men in black carrying out a coffin that was not of any human shape.  The wind wailed above me, whirling the poplars, so that they drooped and nodded like the plumes of some cosmic funeral. 
“It is, indeed,” said Dr. Hagg, “the whole universe weeping over the frustration of its most magnificent birth.”

But I thought that there was a hoot of laughter in the high wail of the wind.

Posted by Captainchaos on September 22, 2009, 05:28 PM | #

Barnes, The Blighter who would be Queen:

I am not a Neitzschean, simply as Neitzsche was not aware of DNA, nanotechnology and genetic engineering.

His language though unlocks concepts relevant to defining this new science.

But for the fact your (scant) “knowledge” of genetic science and technology is not coterminous with Nietzsche’s (since he died before you were born), though you claim his philosophy as an animating framework which legitimizes Promethean meddling in our very being, yet you claim you are not essentially a Nietzschean?  You insufferable fuckwit.  You ought to be digging ditches for a living boy, not “thinking”.

twat

What’s the matter Barnesy?  Get some sand lodged in yours last time to the seaside on holiday?

Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 05:50 PM | #

Are you Jesus ?

Oh, I see what was meant now.

Everything you were preaching was religious, even if you don’t yet understand what I mean by that.

If you look at the recent archaeology thread, I accused the genetic experts of being “expert-priests” - a reference to the modern “cult of the expert”. This refers to how “respectable” experts are our trusted authorities. A ready example is the Holocaust. Anyone attempting honesty on this is excommunicated from the Church of Experts.

It’s likely you’re unfamiliar with traditionalist thought. Gorboduc (because he looks the type to be familiar with this area) could likely provide a better introduction.

I’ll quote Gandhi again just to bug you English:

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.

My history’s a little rusty, but didn’t he run you Brits out?

The Jews have been beating whites over the head with this. Movies, music, certain “sciences”... You should look up the Frankfurt School - it’s just amazing. And everything they’re doing there is religious. The Frankfurt School is full of priests.

You may laugh because no one’s ever spoken so clearly on this, but it’s high time whites woke the Hell up and called a priest a priest.

Forget organized religion for one moment if possible. Think back to the old days of pagans. This is how the pagans thought. This is how the Jews think. This is what they’re using against us. And yes, the Jews are significant.

Posted by Captainchaos on September 22, 2009, 05:50 PM | #

Hey GW, why not add Gorboduc to the slate of writers?  I realize he is one of the fey and emotionally ephemeral “spirit people,” yet seems to have much in the way of, er, functioning neurons over and above Barnes, the latter of which apparently holds the fate of the English nation in his hands.

Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 05:57 PM | #

I meant everything the school was doing there… So far as I’m aware, it’s no longer around though Columbia is as left wing as ever.

Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 06:00 PM | #

Everything you were preaching was religious, even if you don’t yet understand what I mean by that.

  “No one is religiously neutral. Whether an atheistic philosopher offering arguments against the existence of God, or a psychologist attributing belief in God to some cognitive malfunction, or an ACLU lawyer attempting another tactic to remove religion from the public system, no human is religiously neutral. The world is not composed of religious and non-religious people; it is composed rather of religious people who have differing ultimate concerns, different gods, and who respond to the Living God in different ways. Each human life manifests different ways of expressing our allegiances and our answers to the ultimate questions of life. All humans are incurably religious; we simply manifest different religious allegiances.

  This point dismisses much of the usual distinction between things sacred and secular… Secular humanism is a religious worldview as certainly as Christianity…. It expresses the ultimate commitments and concerns of its proponents.”

  Dr. Ronald H. Nash
  The Meaning Of History

My history’s a little rusty, but didn’t he run you Brits out?

Also one helluva hypocrite. It appears it just doesn’t hamper success in any way which is good news for us human beings.

Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 06:09 PM | #

Daniel,

thanks. That’s an exceptional explanation.

which is good news for us human beings.

Only for those on good terms with the media.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 22, 2009, 06:33 PM | #

”you have nothing to offer of interest to me or contribute as regards debating the things that interest me, which is futurology as opposed to history or dead ideologies as opposed to new ideologies”  (—Lee Barnes, 8:19 PM)

Oh lord, “futurology.”  Remember Alvin Toffler, Newt Gingrich’s futurology guru?  The futurologist Gingrich lectured us on every five minutes 15 years ago, complete with recommended reading lists?  The one whose predictions he included in literally every speech he made in Congress or before the TV cameras?  Where are Gingrich and Toffler now?  Toffler is sunk back in richly-deserved obscurity and Gingrich, after resigning as Speaker and vanishing from politics when his “Contract With America” accomplished exactly zip, is nothing but a

political has-been

a political never-was, a twin of Bush lacking only the aphasia and the mentally retarded expression.  There aren’t going to be designer babies, Lee.  In 1955 they promised us fusion.  It was just around the corner.  Where is it?  It’s as far away as it was in 1955 and, likely, will be in 2055.  Today’s futurology promises of designer babies are 2009’s fusion.  The future we’re striving for is a future that used to be.  It’s not Brave New World but Back to the Future.  By all means play your games, designer babies, the Singularity, all that but know this, that our race will stand or fall the way Homer’s race did three thousand years ago.  It’s the old tried and true, Lee:  there’s nothing new under the sun.
______  

Nothing under the sun is new, neither may any man say, Lo! this thing is new; for now it went before in worlds, that were before us.

That thing that is made, dwelleth perfectly; those things that shall come, were before; and God restoreth that, that is gone.

______

10 No thing vndir the sunne is newe, nether ony man may seie, Lo! this thing is newe; for now it yede bifore in worldis, that weren bifore vs.

http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/ecc1.htm

15 That thing that is maad, dwellith perfitli; tho thingis that schulen come, weren bifore; and God restorith that, that is goon.

http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/ecc3.htm

Posted by Guessedworker on September 22, 2009, 06:40 PM | #

CC,

If he drank in The Brewery Tap he can’t be all bad!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/55935853@N00/2384001310/

So how come you are recommending as a poster the dangerous and unknown, entertaining G while spurning the same offer I made you?

Gorboduc,

Any time you want to mail me a guest-post on a subject relevant to “the preservation of Western culture and the ethnic genetic interests of people of European ancestry” you will find the contact button under the header.

If it’s better written than my scribbles I shall of course find some pathetic excuse not to publish it!

Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 07:07 PM | #

thanks. That’s an exceptional explanation.

For a much better and much more thorough explanation than that one and a particularly fascinating introduction to presuppositional philosophy and ultimate commitments, I highly recommend - for the MILLIONTH time - Conversations with Atheists by Alan Myatt.

Even if you just skip to the summary of the arguments like he suggests you will be very impressed Frank.

Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 07:08 PM | #

Toffler is sunk back in richly-deserved obscurity

Him and the Mrs. just published another book of the week. I saw it at B&N;the other day.

I read Future Shock (which was around 1969 or so I’d say) a couple years ago and it was worth every page just for the laughs.

Posted by Captainchaos on September 22, 2009, 07:56 PM | #

So how come you are recommending as a poster the dangerous and unknown, entertaining G

Just got a feeling.  He strikes me as a talent on the level of a Wintermute, except with the faith gene of course.  (NS or Christianity, sometimes one does have to pick one’s poison.)  He gives as good as he gets, unlike Barnes.  Seems to be pro-White.  And most important of all, he don’t like Jews.

while spurning the same offer I made you?

I’ve got a bunch of books I bought off Amazon I’ve got to slog through before I feel I’d be up to the task.  I’d like to contribute something of a higher quality than ranting about Nazis and spraying bullets.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 22, 2009, 08:26 PM | #

Fair enough, CC.

It will be interesting to see what our friend says tomorrow.

Posted by Lurker on September 22, 2009, 08:27 PM | #

My history’s a little rusty, but didn’t he run you Brits out?

Frank, I think we ran ourselves out.

Posted by Al Ross on September 22, 2009, 08:45 PM | #

Alan Myatt, like most carriers of the West’s most common mind virus, doubtless realises that the salient variable determining Christian belief (or any other non-evidence based faith) comes from mere accident of birth.  The unsupported spiritual beliefs that we see on display in GW’s blog from some American contributors like danielj are simply the result of an accident of birth and would represent an entirely different and contradictory agglomeration of convictions had such people been born in a different place.

Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 09:11 PM | #

And most important of all, he don’t like Jews.

Who does though really?

I’d like to contribute something of a higher quality than ranting about Nazis and spraying bullets.

Don’t get all sensitive on me.

You know I’m just busting your balls. I actually seconded the notion that you post on the main page.

I’m gonna come visit you on the way to Cali after I go visit the GW in England.

Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 09:14 PM | #

Way to engage the argument Al.

I’m sure you’d romp the good doctor in debate right?

I’ll just stop posting and let you continue to contribute the valuable insights that you do on a…. Wait, you are about as valuable as I am….

Posted by Al Ross on September 22, 2009, 09:29 PM | #

Is Myatt a professional in the Jesus business ? Do you send him money in the manner popularised by those witch doctors Swaggart and Bakker, danielj?

Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 09:32 PM | #

Of course not. Did you happen to catch the quality of the website? He is probably broke.

Although I love Jim and Tammy’s hair!

If you honestly think Reformed Christianity is anything close to televangelism you have no right to even broach the subject of Jebus.

Posted by Al Ross on September 22, 2009, 09:41 PM | #

Reformed, eh? Well that’s all right then. I’m sure it all makes sense to you,danielj, but in the end it is facts, not supernaturally - based wishes, which will help the cause in which we both believe.

Posted by James Bowery on September 22, 2009, 09:56 PM | #

GW: The state did not mandate Culture War.  It confirmed it.

I would contend that without the infrastructure of government, it would have been far harder to wage the culture war.

Take, as just one example, the mass media.  Such entities need government protection to stand atop their bully-pulpits and spew all manner of defamatory myths about the majority.

Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 10:09 PM | #

Reformed, eh? Well that’s all right then. I’m sure it all makes sense to you,danielj, but in the end it is facts, not supernaturally - based wishes, which will help the cause in which we both believe.

Which facts Al? You think that if enough whites are aware of the speed of light our very own AIPAC will spring out of the ether? Or maybe widespread knowledge of the atomic weight of helium will inspire white folks to adopt the 14 words as a rallying cry? We agree on the essentials in the racial realm, but, I happen to find some importance in some things beyond race. Perhaps informed by and related to race, but beyond it.

Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 10:13 PM | #

I’m sure it all makes sense to you,danielj

Honestly Al, it doesn’t.

It doesn’t make sense. Our extinction, the collapse of the West, the rise of the Sino empire, drunkenness, adultery, rape, the erosion of the middle class, the CIA flying China White into New York….

None of it makes sense…

but in the end it is facts

Hume destroyed “facts”. There is no such thing. I, unlike you, believe that induction and the scientific method provide us with no certainty about anything and that facts, if they exist, aren’t accessible to finite minds.

Posted by Al Ross on September 22, 2009, 10:14 PM | #

Thank you, anyway, danielj, for keeping us all up to date on supernatural matters.

Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 10:50 PM | #

Somebody has to!

Posted by Al Ross on September 23, 2009, 12:26 AM | #

Perhaps so, danielj, in which case this ’ somebody has to’ style item will gladden your heart.

http://bit.ly/bu27L

Even the Koran contains ( a much ignored) verse stating that “there is no compulsion in religion”.

Posted by the Narrator... on September 23, 2009, 02:28 AM | #

There was a time when the BNP was run by lederhosen fetishists whose idea of politics was camping it up in a nice uniform and with a foppish wave of the right arm would shout, ‘Oooh Sieg Hiel’.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 08:15 AM

Also by Mr. Barnes,

We are on the brink of being able to construct our children before they are born via genetic engineering to remove all the thousands of inherited genetic defects we each carry.

The New Art is the art of higher human evolution via genetic engineering, the genetic scientist the new artist and humanity itself a form of art. 

Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 07:12 PM

So, from attacking the “lederhosen fetishists” to sounding like a caricature of one in the same post…..

As for the “science of tomorrow”, well, according to “thinking men” of the 1950’s we should all be zooming around in flying cars and living on moon bases by now, so.
.
.
.
.

Read a bit more outside the dead ideology of archaic nationalism as regards modern science, and try and get to grip with whats happening in the real world instead of simply squatting in the ideological museum you inhabit.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 08:12 PM

That’s the exact same loosing strategy the GOP has been pursuing in America for three decades.
.
.
.
.
danielj, the problem with the quote you used from Nash is that it’s being spoken by a promoter, which makes it come off like a cereal commercial, at best.

...

Posted by danielj on September 23, 2009, 05:27 AM | #

danielj, the problem with the quote you used from Nash is that it’s being spoken by a promoter, which makes it come off like a cereal commercial, at best.

It wasn’t supposed to be a defense of anything. Frank is on the level. I just thought it would be helpful for him.

Besides, it is a simple concept. A materialist telling you: “There are no such thing as ultimate concerns, only proximate ones” is as laughable as people who are assert “That there are no ultimate truths!” Oh really Mr. Relatavist? How you did you get to that ultimate vantage point to ultimately decide there is no ultimate truth and then summarize that so pithily in the form of an ultimately encompassing truth?

Everybody is committed to some Jebus or another.

Posted by the Narrator... on September 23, 2009, 07:05 AM | #

It wasn’t supposed to be a defense of anything. Frank is on the level. I just thought it would be helpful for him.

Besides, it is a simple concept. A materialist telling you: “There are no such thing as ultimate concerns, only proximate ones” is as laughable as people who are assert “That there are no ultimate truths!” Oh really Mr. Relatavist? How you did you get to that ultimate vantage point to ultimately decide there is no ultimate truth and then summarize that so pithily in the form of an ultimately encompassing truth?

Everybody is committed to some Jebus or another.

Posted by danielj on September 23, 2009, 09:27 AM |

Yeah, I didn’t read it is a defense. But what I meant was that his assertion looks commercial since he’s telling the reader that what he is selling (religion) is just what the customer needs.

Pardon the analogy, but Nash’s point is kind of like a pimp arguing that prostitution has been around since the dawn of time and that therefore everyone who has ever lived is either a hooker or a john.

There is no way to know the seriousness with which ancient peoples held religion to be. That many were compelled by governmental powers to go through rituals and the like is a given. But there is no reason not to assume that 90% of all the people who ever lived never really believed in the supernatural, but like many Whites today on the matter of race, merely went along with the official state-backed program, publicly.

The majority of peoples down through time may have really believed, but then again, they may well have been atheists in their heart of hearts.

We don’t know, and never will.

Nash simply leaps to the conclusion that he does know, and goes from there.

...

Posted by Gorboduc on September 23, 2009, 08:12 AM | #

Gentlemen, I am mighty flattered by the suggestion. That’s probably the quickest way of shutting me up that anyone could think of, but I’ll think about it.

I just hope no-one missed out the disclaimer on the SUPERMAN posting above. It really is by the great Gilbert Keith Chesterton.
I was interested to see that GKC features in the bibliography appended to a recent novel by the late Michael Crichton.

Crichton’s Next is by no means the best of his output: it’s about the perils of genetic engineering and the legal perils that may result therefrom when a crazed scientist tries to copyright someone’s blood that he’s altered somehow and to have it all legally confiscated from him. It also features a poor man who’s genetically the parent of a humanoid ape-child, and there’s an intelligent parrot whose speech is the product of an IQ artificially raised by the addition of human-genes IQ, not merely of some imitative faculty.

(Anyone remember Polynesia, the talking parrot in Hugh Lofting’s ‘Dr. Doliitle’ books for children? A film of the 60’s had Rex Harrison as the good Dr. but the books aren’t PC and a more recent filming had Dr. D. played by Eddie Murphy or O.J. Simpson or some udda brudda. I bet GW had them as childhood reading about 1960 before he entered the licensed trade.)

GKC’s Eugenics and Other Evils is cited in the bibliography of Next.  (I realise that not that many novels have bibliographies, or indexes: but I suppose that as more and more novels will turn out to be allegories or thinly disguised polemics, bibliographies and citations and footnotes and url’s will appear more and more frequently.)

GKC’s point was that Eugenics as understood in his day WASN’T going to be good for us.He mistrusted the motives of the scientists who wanted to take control of us: also he held that certain actions that a eugenic programme would call for would be morally intolerable (Unlike Barnes!) and that the whole thing might enslave, not liberate, us. He just didn’t trust scientists qua scientists to take charge.

Anyway, it seems our enemies can also use Eugenics to their advantage: some 20 years ago, wasn’t there a suggestion in Instauration that the Jews had hijacked a whole lot of blond children from German orphanages to boost the physical attractiveness of their future offspring? The much-vaunted kibbutz-born Sabras resulted:  they’re the first generations of children born sfter 1947 and they are blonder and taller and less Mongoloid than their Askenazi counterparts; more able to pass as Europeans. (A Google on this wasn’t very helpful, but perhaps this is periphally related and interesting: 

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/10/the-slave-in-yo.html

Anyone know more?

Posted by Gorboduc on September 23, 2009, 08:17 AM | #

btw, the Humean “there are no facts” position is self-refuting.

Linguistic philosophy (e.g. Ayer) says “no statement is valid unless mathematically verifiable”. Where’s the maths in that? Ergo, twaddle.

Hume’s attack on miracles is just as open to objection.

Posted by Frank on September 23, 2009, 09:19 AM | #

Al,

For just a moment: forget Christ and forget organised religion.

If someone comes up to you asks you what you value in life or asks whether something is good or bad, you’re going to provide a religious answer.

Ideology is religious (ever tried debating a devout libertarian?), nationalism is religious, anything that is revered is religious. These can be religious whether they are rooted in an organised religion or found outside one on their own.

The root of culture is “cult”. There’s no escaping religion. If you want to reject Christianity, fine. But it’s impossible to reject religion.

All those who dream of one world government and think the world would be so nice if race and religion simply didn’t exist… are religious. Marxism is the opiate of Marxists. They’ve been programmed with certain desired impressions and stereotypes and given certain dreams and repeated conclusions to stories.

-

If you’d prefer to use a different word than religion, fine: Only Christians may be religious and everyone else is xigious.

The point is that xigious views are passed on through the media, schools, movies, music, etc. If you grasp that, then there’s nothing else squabble about on this topic.

Posted by the Narrator... on September 23, 2009, 10:56 AM | #

Ideology is religious (ever tried debating a devout libertarian?), nationalism is religious, anything that is revered is religious. These can be religious whether they are rooted in an organised religion or found outside one on their own.

Posted by Frank on September 23, 2009, 01:19 PM

In which case religion is defined out of existence.

Religion has generally been held to be a belief in the supernatural. Specifically, that the supernatural has power or influence over the natural.

.
.
.

The root of culture is “cult”.

Posted by Frank on September 23, 2009, 01:19 PM

And of course the word Pagan just means country-dweller. It was meant to be a slander by city-dwelling Christians on the “backwards and unsophisticated” rustic rural folks who clung to their ancestors non-Christian beliefs and traditions.  Which is interesting, as urban dwellers tend to be by far more liberal and cosmopolitan. And it is in urban centers that Christianity blossomed first.

...

Posted by Frank on September 23, 2009, 12:40 PM | #

In which case religion is defined out of existence.

You mean I won’t any longer be able to beat atheists over the head with “religion is a need” or something along those lines?

Religion has generally been held to be a belief in the supernatural. Specifically, that the supernatural has power or influence over the natural.

I’m not sure what the logical proof would look like, not certain what the premise for “religion” would be, but I suspect all of these values could be taken back to the “supernatural” in a sense.

I’ll reply later today - I’m gonna regret writing something half-baked here with this crowd of clear thinkers, especially since I’m not entirely preaching to the choir.

Posted by Frank on September 23, 2009, 12:42 PM | #

And if the atheists don’t shoot me, the pagans or the anti-Christians might well burn me, or the kinists crucify me. I prefer to make general, fuzzy statements that won’t get me killed.

Posted by Captainchaos on September 23, 2009, 01:32 PM | #

Here’s how I would put it Frank: Those that reject any supra-natural source of values may possibly not be able to establish their own valuations as absolutely binding without committing the Naturalistic Fallacy, which is the act of inferring or asserting that a thing ought to be merely because it is.  Interestingly, this mode of argument can be extended to that of freely choosing the holy over the profane in that just because God decrees a thing is right doesn’t necessarily mean it is.  Or even if God’s decree of what is holy is necessarily as such, a free actor is not necessarily bound to abide by said, his being a free actor.  Also, there is the idea that God perhaps is himself not free to define the Good by whim, in which case does that not then obviate the need of God for Man, assuming a man cares not at all about that burning in Hell bit of rejecting God.  Or, perhaps, the Good and God are synonymous, both eternal and in effect indistinguishable, in which case God would not be omnipotent for the fact that he is unfree to separate himself from the Good and to be ungood.  I believe C.S. Lewis came down in favor of the latter interpretation (I forget which of his writings), it being more important to him that God was good than all powerful.

I’m certain our resident curmudgeon, Gorboduc, could give a better rendering.

Posted by danielj on September 23, 2009, 01:57 PM | #

btw, the Humean “there are no facts” position is self-refuting.

No it isn’t.

The Humean position is that induction provides no certainty and it is based on deductive argumentation.

Posted by danielj on September 23, 2009, 02:01 PM | #

The majority of peoples down through time may have really believed, but then again, they may well have been atheists in their heart of hearts.

Yeah… But his point was it doesn’t matter if they are atheists. The point is there is no such thing as religious neutrality since everybody has a “starting” point that it requires a leap of faith to believe in.

Posted by danielj on September 23, 2009, 02:04 PM | #

I think libertarians have successfully marketed their ideology by tying it in with the idea of “freedom” when in reality they are different concepts.

They also sullied the wonderful concept and dragged it though the mud by claiming that freedom is the immediate satisfaction of any appetite.

We need to reclaim the term and define it properly and never allow them to use it again. After all, if they alone get to bandy about the word we are immediately branded as “those opposed to freedom.”

Posted by Al Ross on September 23, 2009, 04:11 PM | #

Certainly, MR’s Christian claque will be meeting some interesting, non-Aryans in old Yahweh’s stratospheric retirement community, according to this fascinating article :

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/september/16.24.html

Posted by Abelard Lindsey on September 23, 2009, 11:04 PM | #

I consider world-views such as libertarianism and transhumanism as fundamentally empowering. By comparison, I consider religions such as Christianity as dis-empowering. Why should I choose a dis-empowering world-view over an empowering one?

Posted by danielj on September 23, 2009, 11:08 PM | #

Oh empowerment!

Glorious empowerment!

I consider the barrel of a gun empowering when I’m on the right end of it…

Posted by the Narrator... on September 24, 2009, 03:16 AM | #

I’m not sure what the logical proof would look like, not certain what the premise for “religion” would be, but I suspect all of these values could be taken back to the “supernatural” in a sense.

Posted by Frank on September 23, 2009, 04:40 PM

Must the heavens part and a voice like many waters come rushing down with the command, “thou shalt not nail thy foot to a 2x4!!!”?

Is sleeping part of a values system?
Or drinking?

I think the confusion over this arose with the modern expression, “So and so has made a religion out of it.”

But the essential fact is, religion is a belief in the supernatural. And perhaps more specifically, it is the deification and worship of those supernatural entities the devotee believes are real.

.
.
.

Yeah… But his point was it doesn’t matter if they are atheists. The point is there is no such thing as religious neutrality since everybody has a “starting” point that it requires a leap of faith to believe in.

Posted by danielj on September 23, 2009, 06:01 PM |

Which gets back to my point about the 2x4.

But again, this seems to be a disagreement as to the definition of what religion is. It has, as best as I have always understood the term, always been defined as a belief in the supernatural.

Someone might exercise a “leap of faith” in the coffee pot working every morning, but that doesn’t imply they believe mystical forces are at work in keeping the machine going. Thus faith and religion are not inherently intertwined.
In fact most faith is material in nature. Which is why often times people are let down as they had a misplaced faith in a person, thing, event or outcome.

And all of that faith is not blind, but based upon material, natural, reality.

For example, believing you have a soul that will depart your body upon death is not a natural faith, but a supernatural one.

...

Posted by danielj on September 24, 2009, 05:07 AM | #

But again, this seems to be a disagreement as to the definition of what religion is. It has, as best as I have always understood the term, always been defined as a belief in the supernatural.

I don’t understand it that way.

I understand it as the epistemological starting point which one believes in without empirical evidence. Everybody has one. The Objectivists, for instance, call theirs concept formation and the primacy of objects.

Posted by the Narrator... on September 24, 2009, 07:06 AM | #

I don’t understand it that way.

Posted by danielj on September 24, 2009, 09:07 AM

So I gathered.
But is that not the way it has always been understood? Generally?
And to be clear, I’m not trying to be obtuse. I know where you are coming from, but doesn’t that position ultimately cause you other problems? I mean don’t you loose the conversational ability to declare something Secular or Materialist? If every position is religious, then nothing is Material, after all. And then how do you critique Materialism since you essentially deny it exists?

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

4. comes close to what you posit, yet it relies on the previous, understood and accepted, definitions in 1-3.

Posted by Gorboduc on September 24, 2009, 09:24 AM | #

“Religion” from, I think “Ligo”, I bind.

I was always told in my youth that it means what binds us to our fellows, what many would call “a shared belief system”. It doesn’t have to be transcendent or theological other-worldly at all: some folks follow/share the religion of scientism or Marxism. “Look mate, my bleedin’ religion is FOOTBALL! There ain’t nuffink else.”  (Millwall fan)

Curmudgeon. memory tells me, is from “coeur mechant” or evil heart.

“...And as for curmudgeons who will not be free,
I wish they may die on the three-legged tree!” ( - A curmudgeonly wish in itself, perhaps.)

I’d prefer “angry old man”.

unfree to separate himself from the Good and to be ungood.

from CC:

God isn’t “free” to perform any actions that limit,or are inconsistent with, His own nature. That “privilege” belongs to created (but fallen) life: and has led to all sorts of nonsense about various meanings of the word “Nature”. You are free to eat dung or to perform homosexual acts (like the attractive lady on the “Turkey” post, who reminds me somehow of Edwina Currie), but such things don’t properly enter into the definition of your “nature”.

Posted by danielj on September 24, 2009, 07:09 PM | #

The Narrator,

Accepting the fundamental starting point of empiricism as the only way to obtain sound knowledge is religious because it requires believing a system of epistemology for which there is no empirical evidence.

To me everybody has a religion because everybody asserts, sometimes unknowingly, basic axioms about the universe which they cannot prove and for which there is really no reason to believe in them besides faith.

Accepting that matter reigns supreme is an article of faith.

Again I reccomend the work of Alan Myatt as a starting point for those new to the issue. Conversations with Atheists

Posted by Guessedworker on September 24, 2009, 07:37 PM | #

Religion, Daniel, is not a question of knowledge but of substitution - although it is fair to say that the religious commonly know the substitute but not the substituted.

My guess - not, I hope, a too religious one - is that faith tendencies began to be selected as human settlements became more complex and life in them more artificial, more oriented around stranger-relations, trade and personal acquisition, and less to the tribe and the soil and the hunt ... as personality began, accordingly, to lose weight, and the gap between it and the core of our being began, ineffably, to increase.  So experience gave way by degrees to idealism and the process of reaching for the core of our meaning through a proxy became, in the new environment, adaptive and important.

If, of course, one could return to the core of European humanity the process of selection would favour that 20% of the population for whom the possession of faith will always remain an impossibility.  CC please note, no genocide required.

Posted by danielj on September 24, 2009, 07:48 PM | #

Of course it was religious.

You guessed GW. (Hell, it is in your name right?)

You have no idea - and I mean absolutely none - about the origin of faith; faith in materialism that is since we know where faith in Christ comes from. Regardless, there isn’t one tiny little speck of a reason to believe anything you wrote in the above paragraph. It sounds nice when you type it out since you are gentlemanly and articulate but it is puff and fluff.

If, of course, one could return to the core of European humanity the process of selection would favour that 20% of the population for whom the possession of faith will always remain an impossibility.

How the hell could we empirically demonstrate that?

Doesn’t the history demonstrate otherwise? Weren’t things Christianized when the core of European humanity was ascendant and ruling the globe, and now that we have lost leaders that truly have the faith gene, we are perishing?

Posted by danielj on September 24, 2009, 07:54 PM | #

That didn’t come off too angry and dumb sounding did it?

Regardless, I’m off for the evening.

Best to all!

Posted by Guessedworker on September 24, 2009, 08:26 PM | #

Daniel,

Beneath the dogma and the rules, the surface ritual, the beauty, the sincerity, the release, beneath all that lie two unchanging, unattained imperatives.  They are (a) to be, and (b) to receive revelation.  My thesis is that these things belong with and in our very core.  But we do not live, and have never lived, in our core.  We live in personality, in the sum of the acquired - which accretes from our first breath to our last.  This is what has always separated us from being and from the revelatory.  Why, then, would that separation not increase as our patterns of living became detached from the tribal ways and from the micro-environment of our adaptivity?  I think it would have to, and I think there would be many profound consequences.

So one is surely entitled to ask what might be selected to compensate for this separation, to try to re-connect with these two fabulous and wholly human and real capacities, and one is entitled to an answer to that in the religious impulse.  We are men, and we have a perfect right to claim the fullness of what we are.  Those who would hive off a portion of it, privatise it for faith and fence it about with particular rules and beliefs are, it seems to me, not lovers of Mankind.  I don’t blame them for their zeal.  It is genetic and they cannot be free of it.  But I will still claim that which is mine.

A while ago I mentioned to Desmond that I thought genes for faith might have been selected because connecting being and becoming in some way was adaptive, but I needed to think through the issue a little more.  All this feeds into the crazy schemes whirling around night and day inside my head just now.  Forgive me if I am off-base a bit or too excitable.  But somewhere in all this is five kilos of Saxon gold, and I am damned well going to find it if I can.

Posted by Gorboduc on September 24, 2009, 10:46 PM | #

Sorry, GW, if you could clear your head of all this accretory and compensatory muddy confusion or re-programme your genes to do it for you, you’d possibly realise that some now-very-rich bloke with a metal detector has actually FOUND all the Saxon spoils and some blokes from museums have begun cataloguing all the little bits.

But what stops you from being? Aren’t you really there? I’m here, all right.

Is your sense of disconnectedness due to an imperfectly realised evolutionary process that seems to have unplugged a few DNA cables and left the loose ends shorting and sparking?

Could it be that the faith genes that led to your apparently blind trust in evolutionary theory have got bent, or slipped round somehow?

So what are the genes that enable you to see and recognise truth? What are the genes that let you know the first set are telling the truth -and so on?  Or do you live in a genetically controlled prison?

I suppose the next question should be, have you seen the film Island? It’s not as pretentious as the gnostically inspired Matrix films but it does concern people whose perceptions are limited by living in a carefully controlled environment, who thus don’t realise that they are being bred as organ donors. Then they escape…

Another film about people living in artificially constrained or limited environments is The Village. Is it not possible that the human controllers that in these pictures that are seen as censoring the reality and fostering the comparatively poverty-stricken illusion that their victims enjoy could be seen as symbols for the devisers, manipulators and imposers of materialistic evolutionary theory?

I think that people who have chosen to live in a world of genetic determinism have had their perceptions and options limited as surely as the victim characters in these films have.

Hence the sense of disconnectednes, the unrechable core, the manic and increasingly improbable programmes for revolution and liberation, the crushing feeling that the enemy has unfairly outsmarted you, even though you can prove you hold all the evolutionary cards.

KAI’s revelatory salvation-through-gay-fashion-statement thesis, or salvation-through-dressing-up-as-a-character-from-2000AD-or-from-Games-Workshop seems to me just one more hopeless dream.

Salvation through tattoo’d biceps and denim. Is that REALLY likely?

Posted by danielj on September 24, 2009, 11:34 PM | #

Hey, I’ve got tattoos…

Posted by the Narrator... on September 25, 2009, 02:41 AM | #

To me everybody has a religion because everybody asserts, sometimes unknowingly, basic axioms about the universe which they cannot prove and for which there is really no reason to believe in them besides faith.

Posted by danielj on September 24, 2009, 11:09 PM

And as I tried to point out earlier, faith and religion are not synonymous.

In fact, to go further, odds are when some primitive culture sacrificed to a Volcano god, they did so not on blind faith, but on the material evidence that the volcano god occasionally, ACTUALLY - PHYSICALLY, shook the ground and spewed forth rivers of fire.

That’s why all of the early gods were associated with nature. There were river-gods, air-gods, mountain-gods, climate-gods and so forth.

These people could prove the existence of, for example, their river-god, because hey, there’s the river!
And when river-god gets pissed, he overflows and drowns crops and people. An observable, material, physical, empirical, fact.

So religions begin with the insinuation of a supernatural motivating force (the power to control nature), but again, faith is not always motivated by the supernatural and is therefore not inherently religious.

One can have faith that too much rain will cause the the river to overflow by nightfall, without believing supernatural forces are at work. Thus that kind of faith is not religious in nature, being based on something unknown.

.
.
.
.

I suppose the next question should be, have you seen the film Island? It’s not as pretentious as the gnostically inspired Matrix films but it does concern people whose perceptions are limited by living in a carefully controlled environment, who thus don’t realise that they are being bred as organ donors. Then they escape…

Another film about people living in artificially constrained or limited environments is The Village. Is it not possible that the human controllers that in these pictures that are seen as censoring the reality and fostering the comparatively poverty-stricken illusion that their victims enjoy could be seen as symbols for the devisers, manipulators and imposers of materialistic evolutionary theory?

Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 02:46 AM

I think that’s probably the exact opposite message those filmmakers intended.
And it seems a particularly odd interpretation of The Village since in that film part of the illusion the controllers fabricated included supernatural beings to whom the people offered sacrifice.

But none of those films were particularly good. The Matrix films are just action movies with a worn out gimmick (‘Total Recall’ operated on the same theme, as did ‘Dark City’ and ‘Open Your Eyes’, the Spanish film that was remade in America as ‘Vanilla Sky’).

The Matrix would have been more compelling if it had not definitively answered its core question of “is the world real or is it a computer simulation.” Or at the very least it should have waited to the very end to answer it. Alas, it was just another shoot em up flick.

.
.
.
The only movie to successfully play on the theme of questioning reality and the manipulation of people was ‘The Dark Knight’.
I know when I watched it I kept asking myself, “did I really pay money to see this piece of shit? Did it really make 900 million dollars? Do people really believe it has a coherent and ‘grounded’ plot? Do masses of people really believe the guy playing the joker is doing a good acting job?”

It was definitely a Matrix-like moment.

...

Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 04:45 AM | #

I totally agree with you, Narrator, about the films. Village and Island were the only ones that at least kept me awake, and I’m not surprised the actor that played The Joker died soon after shooting. I didn’t see the Spanish ones. I’m only aware of one film more boring than Dark Knight, and that was Death in Venice, abt. 25 years ago!  But they don’t have to be “good” to be valuable.

And yes, I take your point about the message the makers intended not according with my readings of them (that frequently happens, and there wasn’t much of a message in Island, really): but the sacrificial impositions in Village may still be relevant, for I was saying that a strict materialistic/genetic interpretation of reality is perhaps cynically imposed to limit enquiry and discovery. Dawkins wants Christians recognised as unemployables - (well, I’m not sure I’d want to work for him anyway)
You want to keep safe? Then let’s throw the Xtians over the fence. Nosaying what they might bring in on us…

I bet that in Village there was actually an racial motive for the controllers’ retreat from the world. I shall need to go back to the DVD and freeze on that sad little collection of press cuttings.

Isn’t there a Ray Bradbury maintained-illusion story about an expedition to Mars, where the astronauts find a 1920’s small US town with the soda fountain and store all intact, with all their favourite grandparents all waiting to welcome them with slices of pumpkin pie? Only, they’re not, really ...

Posted by Lurker on September 25, 2009, 05:32 AM | #

dressing-up-as-a-character-from-2000AD

Now that would be fun. Obviously I get to be Judge Dredd.

Posted by the Narrator... on September 25, 2009, 06:00 AM | #

but the sacrificial impositions in Village may still be relevant, for I was saying that a strict materialistic/genetic interpretation of reality is perhaps cynically imposed to limit enquiry and discovery. Dawkins wants Christians recognised as unemployables - (well, I’m not sure I’d want to work for him anyway)
You want to keep safe? Then let’s throw the Xtians over the fence. Nosaying what they might bring in on us…

Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 08:45 AM

Okay, I can see that possible interpretation.

But you could also see that as the Garden Of Eden, no? Enquirery and discovery leading, inevitably, to the fleshly world with its hedonistic fruits.
Outside of the village was a world of good and evil. Come to think of it, maybe that’s what the inidan who made that film was going at. A critique of the Garden of Eden. It was innocent and safe and ignorant of the good and evil that was outside.
And in the film, like in the Eden narrative, boy + girl leads to catastrophe and the need to leave Eden.
(on a side note that always struck me as odd about the Eden story. God said it wasn’t good that man should be alone, yet his solution to the problem, woman, is what cased the fall)

Yet outside, in the corrupt and fallen world, was where salvation (the medicines for the wounded kid) was to be found.

At any rate, the supernatural “monsters” were seen as necessary in instilling fear in the young people to keep them on the straight and narrow and out of the dangerous wood.
.
.
.

I bet that in Village there was actually an racial motive for the controllers’ retreat from the world.

Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 08:45 AM

If it wasn’t a portrait of “white flight” I don’t know what is.

BUT,

I’d guess that the demographics of the people was merely the distraction to set up the movie’s gimmick “twist ending”. We were meant to believe it was a 17th century colonial setting, but it wasn’t, surprise-surprise…

.

Posted by Lurker on September 25, 2009, 06:29 AM | #

I wondered about the white flight element when the nature of the village was revealed. Otoh, its just a list of bad ‘people’ doing bad things to other ‘people’.

A liberal viewer can happily inpute their own preferred racial groups into those categories and the residents of the village “just happen to be” all white.

Its necessary to believe that characters in movies “just happen to be” one group or another for liberal viewers and interpreters to protect their world view.

Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 07:00 AM | #

Lurker and Narator:
Actually the scenario of Village was given away quite early on, when the good doctor says he’s pleased that one of his kids is bonding with his brother. “Ouch,” I thought,“they didn’t talk like that then - the script’s badly edited.” It niggled, but there were no other apparently false steps, and the rest of the illusion was kept up so well,  that I was shocked to see the wardens’ van, and thought a joker had got into the projection room!
It was probably meant as a clue, but I didn’t read it.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 25, 2009, 07:24 AM | #

Gorboduc,

But what stops you from being? Aren’t you really there? I’m here, all right.

... Is your sense of disconnectedness due to an imperfectly realised evolutionary process that seems to have unplugged a few DNA cables and left the loose ends shorting and sparking?

Either one understands the human condition and its self-estrangement, mechanicity and confusion, or one does not.

Could it be that the faith genes that led to your apparently blind trust in evolutionary theory have got bent, or slipped round somehow?

I am undecided whether the genes for faith are/were unexpressed or simply missing in my family line.  In any event, none of us have the religious impulse, and none of us developed powerful compensatory attachments to other teleologies.

So what are the genes that enable you to see and recognise truth? What are the genes that let you know the first set are telling the truth -and so on?

Genes, no.  In the search for truth, falsifiability is your friend.  You conceive an hypothesis and test it.  Hypotheses which cannot be tested are at best moot.

Or do you live in a genetically controlled prison?

Well, anyone can throw around charges like that.  Do you live in a prison of religious superfice?  You see?  It’s pointless to debate at such an asinine level.  Nothing is proved, no good is served.

I think that people who have chosen to live in a world of genetic determinism have had their perceptions and options limited as surely as the victim characters in these films have.

In my long experience with debating with members of the religion of radical liberalism, this charge of genetic determinism always comes too quickly and with a tell-tale hint of gratuity.  It indicates a relinquishment of thought about the other man’s view - what Alexander Baron calls “blanket dismissal”.  In the process subtle distinctions are lost and meanings ignored.

Look, our psychological mechanicity is a condition of our ordinary waking consciousness, which is flawed.  Genetic determinism is complete automaticity, and I know of no one who makes claims for that.  Don’t throw the blanket over them together, and reject the first with the second.  They are not the same.

Hence the sense of disconnectednes, the unreachable core, the manic and increasingly improbable programmes for revolution and liberation, the crushing feeling that the enemy has unfairly outsmarted you, even though you can prove you hold all the evolutionary cards.

I’m not sure what you really mean to say.  If it is that returning to Christ’s love will deliver us from our time of danger, I’m afraid that is a delusion.

The sense of disconnectedness I was referring to is the consequence of the increasing artifice of the human personality - what does not really belong to us, what is learned, what is abstracted from culture, and so on.  The selection of the genes for faith might be explicable if it can be shown that the movement away from artifice and back towards being carries a fitness gain.  Behaviourially, this is undoubtedly so.  But there is plainly more to consider here than that, and I have not yet done so.

Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 11:29 AM | #

GW, when I said

Or do you live in a genetically controlled prison?

I meant to say,
Do you live in a prison controlled by geneticists? Or one controlled by genetic determinists?

Sorry, it’s quite different in meaning.

I don’t THINK I mentioned Christ’s love anywhere, did I? Well, let’s test that one for verifiability - ah!  So the delusion there is yours.

And I nearly forgot, where’s the radical liberal?

Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 11:55 AM | #

PS, GW, it just struck me. Your sense of angst and flawedness -spot of deja vu. - try Fulke Greville (I think)

O wearisome condition of humanity!  Created under one law, to another bound:
Created vain, and yet forbidden vanity: created sick, commanded to be sound…

You might try John Davies Nosce Teipsum

If that doesn’t do it for you, try Keat’s favourite, Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 25, 2009, 12:19 PM | #

Gorboduc,

You are demonstrating a disturbing unfamiliarity with religious thought.  Are you “saved”, by any chance?

Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 12:37 PM | #

All depends what you mean by “religious”, I suppose, GW.

Saved? Possibly. But not so’s you’d notice.

I sing the old Dies Irae through sometimes. Did you have a Liber Usualis at school?

I DID have fun with the first 12 volumes of the Left Behind series, though!

Posted by Andrew on September 25, 2009, 05:18 PM | #

Libertarianism is but one vehicle that accelerates depravity and creates opulent life styles ; of those who would otherwise be a toilet brush; It is interesting how Government sponsored Cultural Wars has taken hold- accelerated any national demise , and the premise of Government as a controlling mechanism ;- Lets see ;  Government - Libertarianism - can only exist if it has a base to fund it – for that there needs to be people of some ability , and to produce a product for libertarianism and Government to exist-  There Occupational status can never exist without a host to bleed dry ; So an element of civility must exist to produce , so it can be stolen , I suppose that is the example of Socialism and Communism – Mohammadism   ,are all the same – just a different methodology to control –  and a Religious Mystical Ideology ;
Government (Oxymoron) Libertarianism is and Enemy Occupation force, and not a controlling body; How can it exist when it generates nothing but misery and depravity; - It should be called the Black Hole of idiocy ; get sucked into it , there is NO escape.

Posted by danielj on September 25, 2009, 06:05 PM | #

Narrator,

  Ok… Conceded in the year of our Lord 2009, this 25th day of September that: everybody has a faith  and not a religion, even if this “faith” is ‘a’ or ‘ir’ religious in that it is not rooted in or based on supernatural explanations - supplied by or mediated by a priestly class that may or may not utilize “divine revelation” - of naturally observed phenomena

Posted by danielj on September 25, 2009, 06:29 PM | #

Still… Faith, of any kind, presupposes and necessitates a religion according to Ann.

(Any chance you’ll ever open up your blog to comments there brother?)

Posted by Guessedworker on September 25, 2009, 06:34 PM | #

Daniel,

One of the most annoying aspects of faithists is their powerful tendency to want to incorporate the rest of humanity in their own belief structure.  Here we go again:

everybody has a faith and not a religion

You are generalising anything and everything as faith.  But it isn’t about “everything”.  It is about the mind.  By my very rough estimation about a fifth of people do not have faith in any form because they simply cannot “get” faith.  It is impossible for them.  They/we live our lives entirely bereft of this gift of Nature, and seemingly none the worse for it.

Posted by danielj on September 25, 2009, 07:27 PM | #

Belief in empiricism isn’t merited by the plain fact.

How is it not then faith?

This was the position the Narrator talked me into and he claims to be bereft of this “faith” gene (I think it is fair of me to make this assessment of his position but perhaps he would counter this assertion of mine) we talk of so oft here.

I initially advanced the idea that everybody had a religion but was talked back by the Narrator.

One of the most annoying aspects of materialists is their perfect contentment that they have in their possession, an ultimate truth while declaiming the very notion.

You are generalising anything and everything as faith.

I’ve stated repeatedly that I’m restricting the term to mean that everybody has an epistemological starting point that they must accept solely by faith. Your starting point, your faith, is that the material is all that exists and a faith it most certainly is since there is no reason to believe it.

By my very rough estimation about a fifth of people do not have faith in any form because they simply cannot “get” faith.

Everybody has a starting point and that point, by my definition and estimation is faith. It is an inescapable category. Why do insist otherwise? Why should I accept the debate on your terms? What reasons?

They/we live our lives entirely bereft of this gift of Nature, and seemingly none the worse for it.

You guys must also be lacking, to your utter detriment, the ability to realize that claiming that only the proximate exists is raising up the dagger and cup and sacrificing to the altar of the all encompassing and ultimate god of proximity. You’ve your Godhead to worship and I’ve mine.

mens super totus

If you prefer we drop the subject on the pages of MR than I can carry on the discussion elsewhere.

Posted by danielj on September 25, 2009, 07:49 PM | #

Back to our girl Ayn though…

All those thousands of concepts perpetually forming, from her birth to her death, and she never seems to have come up with the concept of the “White Race”?

Perhaps she was blinded by her Hebraism? Maybe, she was just plain double dealing and deceitful when it came down to the “us and them” question.

Posted by Søren Renner on September 25, 2009, 09:15 PM | #

Your observations are valid, danielj, but the attack on Rand is not the point of the post. The point is the flaw in libertarianism, which I asserted without argument. I have never heard of a WN Objectivist. There are some libertarians among us though.

Posted by Andrew on September 25, 2009, 09:55 PM | #

I am not sure how you go about explaining it, but religious connotations are a part of human existence;  even the most hardened atheist has a religious back step, to which there are attempts to cloak – even those who believe in Alien life forms and visitations – to Socialists or communists – Polytheistic syntheses, etc; - they all contain an element of sub – categorised religious connotations - ; and in most are but ridicules exploitations of Human Psychology and emotion charged idiocy.
What a person believes in; within them has a massive medicinal value even professional practitioners cannot explain; and in all probability, an explanation could never be reached.
So it would be reasonable to expect that there are some who wish to exploit people’s primal religious instincts, and try using it to benefit in their quest of insatiable greed and power over the masses, indeed, the psychopath’s intent.
For a simple definition; just look at the Global Warming Freak show, and if they can get that up to a level of religious connotations on par with Mohammadism. (Islam) You may well know western society is in advanced state of decay. And 800 years of barbarianism reigns supreme, and has already ushered into your living room.
That is that big fat white elephant everyone pretends that is not there.
If you don’t believe in its Global Warming/ Climate change freak show, even when the basic principles of science and physics tell us it is absolute garbage; you are a heretic – an enemy to be terminated.
And that is how simple it is.

Posted by danielj on September 25, 2009, 10:42 PM | #

There are some libertarians among us though.

A lot I think…

Our boy Alex apparently.

This is the keystone: there is no clash of interests among men. Pull it away and Rand’s ideology collapses. “There is no clash of interests” is another way of saying “there is no us and them any longer: in a proper understanding of the world there is only us.” How very anti-Darwinian! Considered another way, Reardon is telling the truth, but neglects to add that all creatures must by their natures “demand the unearned”, even unto cannibalism. Objectivism requires both moral universalism and cornucopianism. The same must be true of libertarianism.

It is really just wishful thinking on the part of libertarians and very astute of you to notice Soren.

Saying there is no us and them any longer is a really boring way of translating John Lenon’s Imagine into prose. It is a swords into plowshares flight of libertarian fancy to believe that we can that if we can just beat the principle of cannibalism and demanding the unearned out of human nature than everything will be peachy.

Fucking retards.

Posted by the Narrator... on September 26, 2009, 04:07 AM | #

This was the position the Narrator talked me into and he claims to be bereft of this “faith” gene (I think it is fair of me to make this assessment of his position but perhaps he would counter this assertion of mine) we talk of so oft here.

Posted by danielj on September 25, 2009, 11:27 PM |

Well, I never endorsed the faith-gene idea. And without having studied more on it I’d have to remain neutral on it one way or the other. Though it would certainly seem to have merit considering what we now know about genes and their influence on behavior .

And I would add that there are alternate words to faith witch operate in the same linguistic dimension, but do not share the same general context that that word implies, such as the word suspicion, for example.
We might say, “I suspect a certain politician is probably a blithering idiot,”.
It doesn’t quite ring the same to say, “I have faith that a certain politician is probably a blithering idiot.”

It’s not the best example, but that is kind of what I meant about faith and the supernatural/religion not always occupying the same space.
.
.
.

I think it’s important to point out that a lack in belief in the supernatural (god, gods, etc…) does not automatically imply an embrace of evolutionary theory or any other attempt at an alternate explanation.

I happen to have a greater (though far, far from scholarly) understanding of basic evolutionary science NOW, but when I first admitted to myself that I didn’t believe in the supernatural, I didn’t. Nor did I feel particularly compelled to find an alternate explanation for the origins of life.  Ultimately, I still don’t.

Unfortunately religion keeps coming up due to the fact that a great many Western people justify the destruction of the White race through biblical texts. So it has to be addressed and dealt with.
Were it not for that though, I could go contentedly to the end of my days without worrying about the why or the how.
And maybe that is a regional/cultural thing, I don’t know, but where I’m from there is a general attitude of, knowing the meaning of life isn’t going to fix the leak in the roof.
You know?
If Jesus returns tomorrow and sets foot in Jerusalem with ten thousand angels at his side pledging an everlasting reign of peace and harmony, well, that’s great, but the garbage still has to be taken out, the dog fed, the refrigerator fixed, that clanking noise in the engine checked on etc. etc…

Belief in the supernatural is not inherently one side of a two-sided coin.
Our ancestors might never have pondered the why and the how of existence were it not imposed on them by priests (be they Pagan or Christian). Or at least the context in how which addressed those questions may have been completely different over time.  But for the most part they were probably mostly pre-occupied with surviving from one day to the next to reach an average life span of 35 years.
It takes time and luxury to even desire to ask “why?”
It is a fact, after all, that most historic philosophers were allergic to employment, being use to a life of plenty…plenty of food, plenty of play and plenty of time in which to ask things like, “if a tree falls and no one is around does it make a sound?”

And we in The West today certainly have more time and the material comfort to argue about things that won’t heat the house this winter or put food on the table tomorrow.

What I’m saying is, contemplating the mysteries of life is most likely a discipline first learned in luxury, then imposed upon the peasants with a portly priest class standing by to offer the answers.

We just don’t know whether or not a people would naturally ask such questions on their own, independently.

And that theory is at odds with both yours and Guessedworker’s religious-gene theory.

...

Posted by danielj on September 26, 2009, 10:29 AM | #

I’m not arguing for a return to securing existence by barely eking out a subsistence level life for the wife and children, but I’m pretty sure I’d have one hand on the plow and one hand on a Bible of my making even without the priestly caste. Or in my case, one eye on the still and one eye on the stars

It is a fact, after all, that most historic philosophers were allergic to employment

They all ran schools and tutored people. It wasn’t like rich people stopped striving after money and started contemplating existence. The middle class was formed by the pressures of the rich who never cease striving after trinkets and those clever philosophers convinced them they needed an education too.

I do know that the degree holding, latte sipping, Prius driving atheists in my country aren’t going to be around much longer no matter what we you split it despite GW’s assertion that the faith gene will breed itself out of existence, no genocide required. I do know that tattooed, Bible thumping White Trash like me have babies and I’m willing to bet we are the ones that survive.

We’ll see how is maladaptive mother fuckers.

Posted by danielj on September 26, 2009, 10:31 AM | #

This: much longer no matter what we you split it should read “no matter what way you split it” and that last line should read “who is maladaptive”

Posted by Søren Renner on September 26, 2009, 12:53 PM | #

There are some libertarians among us though.

A lot I think…

Our boy Alex apparently.

Precisely, danielj. You have correctly identified the target.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 26, 2009, 01:33 PM | #

Just to be clear, for any who may wonder which “Alex” Soren is referring to:  it’s Alex Linder.  (I point that out because there are two other Alexes, Alex Zeka and the other Alex, not Zeka, who has both posted and blogged here on Big Capital as a force pushing excessive incompatible immigration ever since the epoch of Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 26, 2009, 01:51 PM | #

I prefer Christianity to Libertarianism.  If Catholicism and the rest of mainstream Christianity can be repaired so as no longer to reflexively favor forced race-replacement of white people every time the Jews try to lay a guilt trip on them with that very result in mind (the aim of maneuvering them into supporting Jewish race-replacement schemes), then fine; otherwise they will have to go, to be replaced by branches of Christianity that are true not false, Godfearing not Satan-worshipping, Christian not anti-Christian, sane not criminally insane, normal not perverse, healthy not diseased, clean not foul, good not evil.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 26, 2009, 01:54 PM | #

Am I saying today’s mainstream Catholicism is false, Satan-worshipping, anti-Christian, criminally insane, perverse, diseased, foul, and evil?

Yes.  That’s exactly what I’m saying.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 26, 2009, 02:18 PM | #

See also the discussion at Prozium’s, in these recent entries on libertarianism:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/09/12/linder-and-libertarianism/

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/09/21/stuff-libertarians-hate/

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/09/22/more-stuff-libertarians-hate/

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/09/22/libertarian-rap/

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/09/23/libertarianism-and-conservation/

Posted by a Finn on September 26, 2009, 06:40 PM | #

Common mistakes of atheists:

* They find some ancient tribe from a book, say, believing among other things that tree spirits makes leaves grow. Then they triumphantly attack it with their knowledge of chlorophyl, sunshine etc. and track a possible logical development of that belief. This gives them an “explanation” of the belief and disparaging superior attitude towards the believers. Superstition, they croak.

Their first mistake is thinking that science and faith are directly comparable. The most important thing in a faith is that it is striving towards God, whatever form it takes and whatever is lacking in it’s understanding of how things function. If faith was dependent on complete knowledge of functions in the world, no human could ever have a faith. God cares about humans, so He is accepts our imperfections and inadequacies. This applies to different levels of developments in history, between different cultures and ethnicities, between different IQs, etc. Although we can compare faiths, have preferences about them and explain their superiority, we can’t totally disregard e.g. primitive tribe’s belief in the tree spirits. If their striving towards God is sincere and adequate, and they have no knowledge about other more advanced religions, God accepts their faith. God’s influence is in everything in the universe, including trees, so in their imperfect way the primitive tribe is honoring God.

* When science has found faith module from the brains, there have been theories about it’s development and it has been shown that it has conferred advantages in personal and group level, atheists think that this somehow pulls religion down to the level of mere atheist explanations. But as we are made of materia, everything in us involves materialist explanations. God’s influence on earth doesn’t involve cancelling our chemical reactions, cancelling laws of physics, dissolving our structures and then substituting them with something totally different, but influencing what already exist, influencing us and the world when He wants to do so. Is it supernatural influence? No. I am sure that God can explain his influence. It is not supernatural merely because we can’t explain it.

* Why then, asks the baffled atheist, we can’t observe God and His influence directly with our scientific instruments or our senses? I ask, are you so overconfident that you think God would let us study him or His influence. It was designed this way from the beginning and will always be, no matter how advanced our science becomes. Life is a trial before afterlife. Life can’t be a proper trial if God would be visible in our lives, because the difference between God and humans is too great. God could easily do everything for us; prevent deaths, cure diseases, pour resources and all kinds of superthings on us like rain, wipe away our tears and pain, grind our problems to dust and scatter them to the winds; create a paradise on earth. Thus if God would be observable, the humble prayers would turn into endless dissatisfied and spoiled demands. Either God would become heavenly super social security office, degenerating us in the extreme or he would have to establish cold and brutal relationship with us.

* GW, atheism is a weak vacuum and modern religion will fill it. Ask childless atheist and hedonist liberals about their breeding ability.

Atheists, I was once like you, but God called. If you believe only in science, you can do the following as an experiment. If you are right, you have nothing to fear:

Pray two weeks sincerely and humbly, every day, on your knees, head bowed. Ask God to guide you, to give you an inner or outer sign. Pray about things which are important to you.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 26, 2009, 07:14 PM | #

Oh Finn, I cannot pray.  The irony, you know ... the irony.  Neither, let it be said, can I march towards the dawn of some New Man.  These simple things are not for me to partake in.  I have quite another way.

Posted by Captainchaos on September 26, 2009, 07:47 PM | #

CC please note, no genocide required.

In that case I hope you will be, ah, ‘blessed’ with many (Nordic) incredulous grandchildren.  Let the genetic arms race begin, and may the best genes win.

We’ll see how is maladaptive mother fuckers.

LOL!

Posted by a Finn on September 26, 2009, 08:11 PM | #

CC: “Let the genetic arms race begin, and may the best genes win.”

- It has been going on tens of thousands of years already, LOL!

GW: “Oh Finn, I cannot pray.”

- What, no scientific test about praying? Do I sense underneath the ironies underlying .... fear. You might feel .... something. It is strange, isn’t it? All those purely atheistic minds, or so they tell me, and then comes a little challenge. It is brittle, this atheism.

Posted by Captainchaos on September 26, 2009, 08:14 PM | #

atheism is a weak vacuum and modern religion will fill it.

How about National Socialism?

Posted by a Finn on September 26, 2009, 08:51 PM | #

CC: “How about National Socialism?”

- Religion and ideologies are not substitutes for each other.

But what do you see in National Socialism? Why do you want dictatorship? Your writings imply that you are exactly that kind of guy which doesn’t fit well into a dictatorship or feel comfortable in it.

Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on September 26, 2009, 09:03 PM | #

But what do you see in National Socialism? Why do you want dictatorship? Your writings imply that you are exactly that kind of guy which doesn’t fit well into a dictatorship or feel comfortable in it.

What you anti-NS types completely fail to understand is that NS is merely a continuation of the type of gov’t White folks had prior to global-capitalist-democracy.  Aristocratic feudalism was the gov’t type of Europe in the Middle Ages.  It was stable and allowed the planning of the economy from top to bottom in accordance with both the needs of the individual and the interests of the state.  Fascism/NS merely replaces the manor house with the corporation.

Fascism/NS is merely an update or evolution of our ancestral ways.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 27, 2009, 05:51 AM | #

Mark,

I think you might be conducting an exercise in apologetics there.  National Socialism had little connection to the manorial system.  One could argue that the 19th century German Volkish movement drew some of its energy and idealism from the same ancient well, and insomuch as NS had incorporated elements of Volkishness into itself so did NS.  But it is a very indirect connection, to say the least.