Muslim rioters: the problem with them is *not* that they ain’t got that old time religion

Posted by ChrisB on July 18, 2010, 01:39 PM | #

“Crypto-something”. LOL.

Posted by Gorboduc on July 18, 2010, 04:49 PM | #

“crypto-what?”

The blogger’s pseudonym Laban Tall is borrowed from Hardy’s novel “Far from the Madding Crowd”. LOL. What Alex and ChrisB have inferred from this i can’t imagine, and it’s not worth the trouble.

I frequently look in at Laban’s blog.

Don’t diss him because he doesn’t bang on boringly about phenotypes.

He’s not slow to make outspoken comments about ethnicity where he thinks they’re needed.

But he is aware that sublety and irony play large parts in traditional English culture, of which he shows a much greater participatory awareness than many of the posters here.

Posted by Dasein on July 18, 2010, 04:53 PM | #

Gorboduc, I gave you some Chaucer in that last blog entry.  Didn’t you at least appreciate that bit, before I spoiled it with the phenotypes?

Posted by Alex Zeka on July 18, 2010, 05:12 PM | #

I don’t infer anything from his pseudonym. The fact of the matter is, Laban writes alot about personal background, and from what he’s written I can infer that he’s: an Englishman, an English Jew, a Welshman, a Welsh Jew, a Slav from the 40s immigration wave, an East Euro Jew from the 40s wave, a West Indian from the 50s wave. That crypto-something line is a throwaway about this bizarre ambiguity that surrounds who he actually is, despite the copious references to his own life.

As for banging on about phenotypes, Laban has several times flat-out stated that the problem with recent immigrants is that they don’t absorb traditional values. He’s compared them to 1950s ones, who were apparently fine because they did.

Irony? Subtlety? Laban gets his ass handed to him by leftie commentators more or less every time they show up, largely precisely because he shows no subtlety whatsoever in defending traditional culture.

Posted by Gorboduc on July 19, 2010, 12:35 PM | #

Dasein: yes, I recognised the Chaucer.

The phenotypes may attract a few biology teachers, but they don’t call me to the barricades.

Alex: it’d be great if more people here defended traditional culture. The traditions espoused by Dawkins don’t go back very far.
The sort of sprawling unsyntactical unmetrical stuff that one of two well-meaning folks have posted here under the impression that it’s poetry is an absolute disgrace.
One or two of the threnodists here have had their asses handed to them by this humble commentator, as not only do they not defend traditional standards, they’re unaware of them!

Posted by Dan Dare on July 19, 2010, 01:26 PM | #

Arses, Gorbo, arses.

If you’re going to bang on about traditional culture the least you can do is use the right lingo.

Posted by Gorboduc on July 19, 2010, 01:51 PM | #

Dan: I was merely following Alex’s usage.

It’s not an expression I’d ever come across before.

I think Chauce uses “ers”, and “fundament”.

And he makes a joke somewhere about “ars metricke”, I seem to remember.

“There was a young girl from Madras . . .”

[Traditional]

Posted by Dasein on July 19, 2010, 03:34 PM | #

I think Chauce uses “ers”—Gorbo

3806       This Nicholas anon leet fle a fart
              This Nicholas immediately let fly a fart

3807       As greet as it had been a thonder-dent,
              As great as if it had been a thunder-bolt,

3808       That with the strook he was almoost yblent;
              So that with the stroke he was almost blinded;

3809       And he was redy with his iren hoot,
              And he was ready with his hot iron,

3810       And Nicholas amydde the ers he smoot.
              And he smote Nicholas in the middle of the ass.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 19, 2010, 03:48 PM | #

I’ll see your Chaucer and raise you a Mozart (K 231)

Leck mich im Arsch!
Lasst uns froh sein!
Murren ist vergebens!
Knurren, Brummen ist vergebens,
Ist das wahre Kreuz des Lebens.
Drum lasst uns froh und fröhlich sein!

Leck mich im Arsch!
Dem Soldaten sein’ Marsch.
Dem Bäcker sein Brot,
Dem Henker der Tod.
Ist des Kreuzes Sinn vergebens,
Freut Euch trotzdem Eures Lebens!

Posted by Alex Zeka on July 20, 2010, 06:53 AM | #

Gorb,

The ‘poetry’ is quite laughable , yes. I don’t think that has anything much to do with defending traditional culture in the sense that Laban and religious conservatives do.

Posted by Alex Zeka on July 20, 2010, 06:55 AM | #

Also, I assume you’re not suggesting that ME and Black immigrants will become alot easier to assimilate if they learn traditional poetry. But that’s precisely the implication that comes up when people say that the problem isn’t race, but that it’s culture.

Posted by Gorboduc on July 20, 2010, 08:37 PM | #

I didn’t say the problem was merely that of culture, Alex.

Nor did I say that ME and Black Immigrants should win entry by composing well in traditional forms.

But there must be SOMETHING wrong somewhere when WNs couch their insights or give wing to their lyrical impulses in an ugly and clumsy style that seems to reflect, say, the influence of Allen Ginsberg.

They should be rejecting the enemy’s modes and manners, not appropriating them.

Posted by FB on July 22, 2010, 03:45 PM | #

Contrary to Alex’s analysis, the “youths” in question are not especially devout. They tend to be deracinated, culturelless, MTV-watching, pornography-ogling, bored unemployable dropouts who’ve assimilated the ghetto American Negro mores to a remarkable degree. They’re not conservative in any sense of the word, except for some macho reflexes regarding the role of women. After all, they might not be Muslim but they still have the Qu’ran flowing in their veins.

Posted by Tanstaafl on July 22, 2010, 04:33 PM | #

amydde the ers

Even though I’m an uncouthly direct American I think I could have puzzled out that Chaucer without translation, except for this bit, which I would have mistaken for “between the ears”.

Mein Deutch ist slecht however. Would someone be kind enough to transliterate that Mozart?

Posted by Dasein on July 22, 2010, 05:01 PM | #

FB is right: these people are complete hypocrites.

Posted by Gorboduc on July 22, 2010, 07:45 PM | #

FB, Dasein: absolutely agree.

The ones round my way all talk black twatois like halfwit Tim Westwood.

And yes, their women are “ho’s” and"bitches” too.

There’s a media pre-occupation like, “But Moslems surely wouldn’t do this, it’s not Koranic!”

So they’re regarded as impeccable moralistic straight-livers and tolerant sinned-against pacifists, totally obedient even to the gentle Koran’s most strictly penitential and self-denying but ultimately beneficent utterances.

Posted by Alex Zeka on July 24, 2010, 03:45 AM | #

Where did I say that they were especially devout? They are undeniably anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-feminism, etc. - that is what they claim makes them despise the West. Now, I know that they hold to this in a way more violent than what religious conservatives have in mind - but the point is that the spectrum is:

western liberal - western conservative - immigrant.

Immigrants accepting western conservative values means them becoming *more liberal*. Yet this is identical to the western liberal perspective on immigrant problems. I’ll expand this into a post to make my points clearer.

Gorb,

Of course you didn’t say that. I was pointing out the distance between your viewpoint and that of cultural/religious conservatives.

Posted by Leon Haller on July 25, 2010, 08:30 AM | #

Well, since you brought it up… a re-post:

Posted by Leon Haller on July 24, 2010, 03:52 PM | #

From GW:

Leon,

Saving the white race from extinction requires not a new ontology, but the recovery of an older ethics.

Moral systems emerge from the struggle for survival.  When a system is stretched beyond what is adaptive so as to accomodate social or religious change, the tendencies to maladaptiveness increase.  Does the “older system” you have in mind contain maladaptive ethical direction?

——————————

A few lines, yet so so pregnant with implications and implied questions ...

1. Moral systems emerge from the struggle for survival.

Well, I hope you are aware of what an enormous and controversial statement this is. In a sense, this is simply the atheist view of morality. Assuming no Deity, everything human emerges from the blind (note how I already must employ anthropocentric vocabulary) processes of natural evolution.

2. I think the implicit point of your comment is something like this: Moral systems (including their extensions into the social and political realms) do not exist of themselves (ie, in a Platonic or Ideal sense); they are not inherent in reality. Thus the value of any moral system or ethics can only be assessed from a utilitarian vantage. For you, that vantage is the extended genetically related kinship group comprising a sub-species of homo sapiens; that is, a race.

For you, then, we must assess any proposed ethical system in light of whether it favors (is “adaptive” in your language - a classic example of the inappropriate importation of the language of science into the realm of philosophy; but I suppose I’m begging the question here) the genetic interests of (let’s get practical here) the white race; that is, the interests of the genes comprising the white race in their own reproduction in perpetuity.

3. I’m speaking loosely here (this is a blog, not a grad school exam), but I think your essential point is to inquire whether the West’s traditional moral system (Christianity) has become maladaptive for white preservation. Again, I think your root assumption is that religion, or any supernaturalism (I’m sure you are too intelligent to believe in the physical existence of Wotan or Thor!!), per se is false, and thus can only be judged instrumentally - “but is it good for the Aryans”? And looking at the racial preservationist value of Christianity, you find it wanting.

4. I’m not capable of disabusing you of your atheism (perhaps no theist can ever do so for any atheist, at least given the present configuration of knowledge). I certainly cannot prove the existence of God, let alone the (ontological) truth of Christianity, though I would note that there are many brilliant men alive (and many more in the past) who are Christians, and that Christian philosophy is vastly more detailed and sophisticated than the caricature presented by Dawkins.

5. For me, being practical, the more interesting question is not whether God exists (I believe so, and am content in my belief, even though I continue to read books on both atheism and apologetics), but whether a) Christianity is indeed maladaptive for our race as a whole (it certainly isn’t for those fundamentalist American Christians who have huge families out of a sense of fulfilling divine edict; indeed, contemporary American whites who do have greater than 4-5 children are almost invariably very serious Christians; I would hazard a guess that even a substantial majority of those who have more than two children are religious), and b) whether it must be maladaptive as a function of its essential theology and internal philosophical coherence.

These are big issues - and the empirical evidence is not in the least one-sided in your favor.

Posted by Leon Haller on July 25, 2010, 08:33 AM | #

Posted by Leon Haller on July 24, 2010, 05:52 PM | #

5. For me, being practical, the more interesting question is not whether God exists ... but whether a) Christianity is indeed maladaptive for our race as a whole, ... and b) whether it must be maladaptive as a function of its essential theology and internal philosophical coherence. (- me above)

As to question (a), a few thoughts. If all that matters is the genetic perpetuity of our race (that is certainly not why I’m in this “race business”), then the issue for GW would seem to be twofold: first, does Christianity within a population have the effect of increasing or decreasing fertility; and second, does Christianity pose some type of “macro-threat” to societies in which it is the dominant ethical system (eg, by enervating the warrior spirit necessary to group survival, or promoting passive race-replacement by encouraging the ‘humanitarian’ admission of racial aliens into Europoid territories/ecological niches)?

If Christianity is maladaptive wrt fertility, then why are Christian whites having the largest families? Indeed, why has white, and especially European, fertility fallen the most precipitously in tandem with rising secularization? This has little to do with the Pill, either. My maternal grandparents both came from enormous families (14 kids, 11 surviving to adulthood; and 9, with 6 to adulthood), yet they managed to have two children. Those children were born, and the huge drop in global white fertility began, well before the advent of the Pill.

Even today, the most Catholic (indeed, Christian) white nation is Poland, and it has the highest fertility in the white world (not that it’s very high absolutely, but virtually every other white nation, except the US due to its high-fertility minorities, has a below-replacement rate of fertility (I think one or two other countries, maybe Ireland, are hanging in there with bare 2.1 replacement fertility), many appallingly so).

Why Christianity is adaptive for fertility I’m not sure, though I could adduce many conjectures, if I had the time and desire. I merely note my speculation (I suspect this will displease GW and MR generally) that the far future will see a resurgence of Western Christianity, if only on demographic grounds - it’s the committed Christians who are having the kids!! Surely you sociobiological determinists can see the writing on that wall?

As to question (b), this is likewise a big issue, and I’m not fully qualified to attempt a definitive answer. I would note, though, that Christianity was never historically opposed to the existence of nations, anti-miscegenation laws, immigration legislation, aristocratic distinctions, or slavery. With the exception of the latter, which could no longer be justified within the contemporary Christian consensus, Christianity, as traditionally understood, does not disallow any of these aspects of any healthy race-preservationist regime. That much present-day Christianity is race-treasonous (functionally, and often intentionally) is more a result of its pollution by liberalism, than of any defects inherent in its core theology (at least as far as I have gotten in my studies of it).

I end by reiterating my essential thesis on all this: practically (but also ultimately philosophically, I believe) we would do far more good, in terms of theoretical work, trying to render Christian social thought compatible with racial preservation, than in reaching for some new ‘ontology’ which few can understand, and almost no one cares about. Our traditions are powerful, and did not prevent our greatness in ages past. Let us recapture them for our present purposes.

Posted by Leon Haller on July 25, 2010, 08:37 AM | #

Posted by Leon Haller on July 25, 2010, 11:46 AM | #

Although my remarks were intended for GW, not uh (who needs a better online moniker), I will respond only to a limited extent, as I have already addressed many of these issues at other times (I suppose I should gather everything I have posted here pertaining to Christianity, rework it into one cogent piece, and then post it as a guest-blogger, so that I could refer back to it in the future when confronted with ignorance already disposed of).

1. Old time Christianity was hostile to neither white reproduction (quite the contrary!!), nor the maintenance of racial boundaries. Modern liberalism/leftism is premised on egalitarianism, which is asserted most strongly in the area of race. This liberalism has admittedly infected Christianity, but is not intrinsic to it (again, quite the contrary). It is liberalism which is destroying the West, racially as well as in many other ways, and it is liberalism which must be discredited.

2. As I keep pointing out, even if Christianity were empirically false, we race defenders should still advocate a non-liberal version of it publicly. The faith is traditional to the West (and whole mode of viewing reality); it has moved men to great achievements (we will see whether Heideggerianism, skinheadism, or other alternative ontological and (anti)ethical systems ever do the same - I utterly doubt it); it provides the metaphysical justification for an ethic of sacrifice, which will be needed if whites are to reject individualist hedonism in deference to racial preservation.

3. Those here who reject Christianity do so because they either perceive it to be cosmologically untrue, or otherwise have some personal animus. Unfortunately for them, atheism provides no justification for personal sacrifices, which absolutely will be required by many if our collective race is to survive. It is much easier to go along with the herd towards oblivion, than to try to wake up that herd, at great sacrifice (even if only in time blogging - but more likely, in much else).

4. The trick is not to dismiss something so elemental and powerful as religion, as you will simply alienate the bulk of your fellows, but rather to capture it and start using it for our purposes. At the very least, Christianity must be intellectually neutralized as a factor promoting race extinction. You don’t neutralize it by discrediting the whole religion, as too many (especially on the Right) have too great an emotional investment in it, and simply will not adopt atheism (and if they do, we go back to the problem of hedonism vs racial sacrifice). You neutralize it by uncovering exactly why Christianity does not mandate multiculturalism.

5. The equation of wealth with fertility is so ignorant as to be idiotic. Wealthy people tend to have the lowest fertility. This is true both within Western nations, and between richer and poorer countries. In the US, serious (white) Christians, regardless of personal wealth, have larger families than wealthier secularists. Christianity promotes family, both theologically and sociologically. Secularism does not promote family, and it leads to declining birthrates (which is why we should want to push it on the Third World, including programs to “raise the social status of women” - anything to depress their birthrates).

6. Modern Christians are not “dopes”. Sure many are morons, but so are many of all people. Secularists tend to be a bit more intelligent and better educated, but to those of us who are truly educated and intelligent, the average secularist is nothing impressive. What remains true is that secularists as a whole do not have large families.

7. uh has no understanding of the history of revolution. He is correct that men are not moved to the barricades by rational arguments. He is wrong to fail to recognize that revolutions are built on the slow accretion and permeation of ideas, often over decades. Indeed, how did we get to our present racially confused state? The white man was not defeated in battle by non-whites, though they behave as though that were the case. What happened was an ideological revolution in Western conceptions of justice, away from traditional notions, and in favor of a radical egalitarianism extended across the planet.

8. Whites are confused about their real interests, to be sure. But they are even more confused about the morality of asserting those interests. The task of the serious racialist intellectual is to integrate race-realism and racial nationalism into traditional Occidental (Christian/Western) conservatism. This is the task I will be pursuing in the coming years and decades. I understand the necessity of mass appeal. But the core doctrine must be developed first.

9. In future years you (all) will see that my approach is correct (at least for the US, but I suspect for the whole white world). The white race will be saved by collective action based on a renewed race-realistic Christian conservatism - or it will proceed on its present path to majority genetic amalgamation, territorial diminishment, and, for the final remnant of the racially strong (like us here), either systematic or more likely chaotic extermination. What is absolutely clear is that the secular society has racially failed.

Posted by John on July 25, 2010, 10:00 AM | #

Kiss my ass
let’s be happy on this day
complaining is forgiven
bitching and moaning are forgiven
this life’s all we’re given
let us therefore be happy and gay

Kiss my ass
to the soldier his brass
to the baker his bread
to the hangman his dead
the cross’s meaning is to forgive
enjoy yourselves despite that you live

I’ve done better german poem translations but I think it’s adequate.

Posted by John on July 25, 2010, 10:17 AM | #

I want to change “this life’s all we’re given” in the first stanza above to “this life’s what we’re given” (closer to the original meaning) but you can’t edit posts here.

Posted by John on July 25, 2010, 10:20 AM | #

Better yet, “this life’s the cross we’re given”.

Posted by John on July 25, 2010, 10:46 AM | #

It would appear that Christians were killjoys in Mozart’s day as well.

Posted by Tanstaafl on July 26, 2010, 01:39 PM | #

Thanks John.