|
|
|
On prescriptive ontologies – Part One, Judaism and Christianity I’ve always been a bit of a petrol-head, and I thought I would write something about motoring. A short while ago I came across an arresting photograph of a 1940’s Dodge Delivery Panel Van sitting sphinx-like in some late-spring North American field. Time and the irresistible will of Nature had turned it into an inverted flower-pot. It invited interpretation (some of which could even turn out to be relevant to Daniel’s recent exploration of new religious potentials, you never know). Discounting the usual romantic allusions to decay and the fragility of Man’s design, what I saw there is a statement about mediation. At the most obvious level, the image could be taken to represent the will of Nature to establish herself and remain established in a world of constant disorganisation, pushing through all obstruction, all negation, but having to be opportunistic, having to adapt to do so. As such, it is a figure for all that we can say for sure – that is, free of religious creation myths and other speculative theories - about Source and subsistence. But if I adjust the lens a little a second interpretation of this curious marriage of Nature and a delivery van hoves into view - this time nothing so abstract, so removed from the human experience. As I look I see something very like a dream-image of the two elements of the psyche. One, then, is a work not of Nature but artifice, something pulled together from a thousand places and given form and meaning strictly by its own time and circumstance. It is visible but impermanent - it does not truly belong to the earth on which it stands. It has a negative, entropic energy. It direction of travel is always downward. It is heavy and inanimate but maybe perceives itself otherwise, in quite a shining light. It is maya, illusion, exile. If we could directly give it the name of human personality, we might see how, as a vehicle, it enworlds the other element. That is its function in Nature. That other element, of course, is (or had been – the tree in the picture is bare) a living truth drawn upward from the ground-source. It is essential to us and natural in kind. Its energy is positive, and its character emergent and unchanging. It is the only thing it can be. There is intertwining between the two elements, but no mixing of substance. Of course, these are interpretations – not too rambling and attenuated, I hope - strictly reflecting my own not very interesting views about the life of Man. Someone else will come up with something entirely different. A Christian evangelical might find a meditation on the primal power of faith coursing through the worldly mind, re-ordering everything and generating a new, heaven-bound impetus. A Lurianic Kabbalist might be put in mind of the cosmic drama of the shattered vessels of Sephirot, and the introduction of evil into the world. A race-realist WN, on the other hand, might read into it a wry comment on the graceful, sad passing of that spirit of optimism and industry which animated a 90% white America, and which has its genesis in a Promethean relation to Nature quite unknown to other races. It’s a picture, that’s all, and it holds different meanings for all of us. Everything is pregnant with meaning. Life is full of competing claims and competing visions as to what we are and how we became so. There is no social darwinian moral law that weeds out the erroneous and lays a scourge upon the plain evil - would that there were. But ideas have consequences, and ideas about the life of Man, obviously, have human consequences. If such ideas hold powerful sway and yet tell us that Man is (or could be) different in some way to what he truly is as a whole and moderately conscious being, their effect on the lived life will always be to take something away. Man, individually and collectively, cannot be more than his own truth. Whatever greatness or insignificance attaches to him attaches there. Model him otherwise ... shape his behaviour and belief and the life he lives accordingly, and you shape the mediating component, the clay which is his personality. And because your model excludes his existential truth he will only be that clay, and will never know the freedom and unity and will that issue from that truth alone. He will know only the image in which you had the power to make him, so that, while he is reduced, you make yourself like a god. Judaism and supremacism The totality of ideas impacting formatively upon European Man today has its deepest root in the claim of one people to a semi-godlike or, at least, High Priest-like status. Judaism begins in the First Covenant, by which the natural man - Nature’s finest work - was perfected through the barbarism which is circumcision. Having granted Abram land and descendants ...
The total conviction of this perfectedness has remained an ever-present in post-biblical Jewish identity, combining with the chosenness of Deuteronomy 7:
… and of the Mosaic Covenant :
… to form the basis in faith of the millenarian ambition of an entirely literal and permanent Israelite, then Jewish tribal supremacy. But it happens that this not unnatural ambition has run up everywhere against the ordinary, all too real-world hegemony of the gentile Other - at different times Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Persian, Arab and, in the modern era, Ottoman, imperial Russian, and northern European in western Europe and North America. Of necessity, therefore, supremacy awaits its historical moment. What abides meanwhile is Jewish supremacism, impelling and colouring a project of overthrow in which the character and status of the gentile in the end-times is imposed surreptitiously and progressively upon the Other. More than once I have heard it said by Jew-aware Christian faithists, free of all evidence, that the Hebrew faith of Torah was foundationally different to the Talmudism which inherited the name of the beast. I don’t buy that. Judaism absolutely must have been a project this tribal, this radical and ambitious, this insolent from the first:
But, as is the way when faith systems disappear, Judaism’s forms of observance prior to the Babylonian intervention are lost. We can never know for sure. We don’t even know very much about the Essenes and Sadducees who died out around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. We know that as the Christ cult of the Apostolic Age became universalised it also became anathema to Jews, and that it was the Pharisees who survived to water the earth of modern Judaism. Accordingly today, Judaism takes its observance from the 613 behavioural requirements of Halakha and the Mishnaic call for justice (tzedek) and charity (g’milut chasadim), the latter two seated within the wider narrative of repair of the world (tikkun olam), which in our age has become synonymous among secular Jewry with open borders and the radical egalitarian agenda. Of this, the late, stubbornly Jewish Catholic convert Lawrence Auster wrote, in concluding his flawed 2004 Frontpage Magazine article Why Jews Welcome Muslims:
The consequence for you and me and our white brothers and sisters - for our race is the hegemonic power which Jews experience and must overthrow – is that it is our world, our culture, our norms, our morals, our lives and loves and meanings, our behaviour, our psychology which has to be re-formed, our land which has to be browned, and our ethnicity which has to be blended away to deliver the world unto Olam Ha ba. Jews are already perfected, after all. G-d has made His Covenant and the mohel does the rest with his knife and his mouth. So they suffer no requirement for spiritual and psychological reform. Theirs is an exercise in substituting the European truth, from which flows “whatever greatness or insignificance attaches to us”, for a wholly negative critique impressed into the clay of personality. It is a completely amoral, intolerant, coercive exercise in our collective consciousness. The two worst trespasses in our era have been the outrageous blood libel of the Holocaust narrative, with its implicit expansion of guilt to all European-descended people in perpetuity, and the agitation for racially alien immigration into the West, with the accompanying promotion of racial equality. The list, though, is long. There are various alienating political “gifts” authored wholly or largely by Jews in the language of human liberty or rights, for example Classical Marxism, revolutionary internationalism, Critical Theory, postmodernism, second-wave feminism, second-wave libertarianism, neoconservatism, LGBT Rights, American Civil Rights, anti-racism, and promulgation of hate speech law. Additional academic “gifts” include Freudianism, academic race denial, and the ultra-racist faculty poisons of White Privilege and White Abolitionism. Cultural “gifts” are too numerous to list, but the whole Hollywood thing after about 1963 – the relegation of conservative values, the reification of the anti-hero, ridicule of the European male as father and husband, the crass and copious encouragement for white race-mixing, the presentation of the African male as a source of leadership and reliance, the dehumanisation of white ethnocentricity, the 250+ mostly loss-making Holocaust-themed movies – together with the whole San Fernando Valley thing and the broadcast and print media thing testify to the extent and assiduity of the Jewish attendance to our cultural formatives. The repaired gentile Taken as a whole, this extraordinary philosophical, political, social and cultural output is staggering in its invention and brazenness. Yet its tribal competitive motive and its modus of the existential relegation of the European are never noticed outside nationalism, let alone examined or explained in the way they deserve. They are, instead, secreted away in the tabernacle upon which no European eye may rest, less the priests of anti-defamation who stand guard wield their word-weapon. However, one question above all others - one ancient, seminal question - aches for an answer. Is Jewish labour in the cause of endless immigration into European living spaces, and the dispossession and dissolution of racial Europe which it guarantees, not simply the final repair of the European problem but a struggle to make ethnicity itself the sole preserve of Jewry, at least in the Western context? In other words, is the claim to chosenness on the basis of Jewish ethnicity alone impossible to uphold morally and intellectually in a tumult of other, competing ethnicities:
… and if it is to be upheld, must it therefore require not just the physical conquest, dispossession and enslavement of those ethnic groups:
but their gene-killing, their differential annihilation:
... and re-ordering as this alien creature of the world to come, sans ethnic bounds, sans points of resistance, sans anything to identify, love, value or defend in himself, and no more sense or purpose than to lovingly serve his Jewish creators? After all, what true nationalist, Jewish or non-Jewish, religious or secular, does not consider that simple ethnicity, Nature’s signature of collective existence, is life’s defining and therefore most precious asset and proof positive of the people? There is no question that Jews believe this, notwithstanding the great genetic variation they exhibit - more than any European ethny – and the fact that fully ninety per cent of Jews are not of Palestinian origin:
But if the genes change, the psychology – the millenarian destining, the hyper-ethnocentrism and its expression as hyper-nationalism – remains remarkably constant. The psychology, so to speak, advances its case regardless of the genetic fact; and as it entertained no prospect of peaceful cohabitation, no fundamental human equality with “the first of the nations” which was Amalek, so it does so with racial Europe today. And the porn king shall be a priest. And the guys from Goldman too. In their own defence thinking Jews often proclaim that, far from being a racist paradigm, Judaism is simply concerned with the role of Jewry at the end-times as the race of newly revealed priestly persons who understand G-d directly, near enough, and serve Him by carrying this understanding to the rest of humanity. That would be this humanity:
… which, naturally, will have no desire but to receive such enlightenment from the wondrous new priestly caste. Apparently, all Jews will be religious supermen just by dint of their (questionable) ethnicity. So they wouldn’t indulge in this supremacism schtick for their own material interests:
And they wouldn’t do it just so that the gentiles will serve them for eternity:
No, no, it’s a sacred duty, you see. These and the many similar Talmudic curios are unimportant, and today nobody but a few fanatics really believes in them. They say. For us, of course, the ontology would be the same regardless of whether Jews are a benign future priesthood, or parasitic, elitist millenarians, or something in between. It would be encountered in the transformation between the state of European Man as he is in himself and the impoverished condition of the gentile in the Age of Mashiach. It would be the ontology of a being who is ceasing to exist, but one doing so because he has been told most insistently to embrace the way to die as the way to live, and let himself be carried along with it. One might now expect an article covering such matters to move on to the interesting question of the relation of Judaism to Jewish nationalism, sociobiology and trait selection. But this is not an essay about Jewish identity and evolutionary strategy. It is an essay about the prescriptions for European racial and ethnic identity, of which there are a multiplicity. All but one of the important ones, however, have their roots in the Jewish struggle of the late biblical period, and therefore in the same tribal perspective. Arguably, none of them has had a more radical formative influence over the centuries than Christianity. The Christian means to the Jewish end The original Christian ontology, the one that went out out into the world with the first Christian missionaries, who were all Jews, was, in most of its salient details, the Judaic prescription for the gentile. The post-Qumran debate about whether Christianity is rooted in the Pharisaic tradition or in the Zadokite tradition represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls is immaterial. The same tribal generalities apply. Christianity was fashioned by Peter, James, Paul and the early apostles as a syncretic cult that equits Jew and non-Jew for the completion of the Jewish struggle. From Acts 17:
Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee and, while his Phariseeism was renounced, he remained firm in his Jewishness all his life. He was born in the Hellenised city of Tarsus, in what is now south-central Turkey. Living as a member of a minority in another’s land, his attitude towards non-Jews may have been more nuanced and less uncompromising than that of his co-ethnics suffering Roman occupation in Palestine. In any event, he believed that he had physically encountered - and been commissioned by - the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, and his subsequent treatment of the Messianic eschatology reflected that. Pauline Christianity placed no great weight on Christ as Messiah (which was fair, since Jesus Christ had not made the Messianic claim). Rather, he was the redeemer of men’s lives, saving them from a life of sin and the wages thereof. Thus the Messianic action was both temporalised, stretched forward from the end-times, and individualised. It conflicted in content with Jewish millenarian tribal ascendency in the Messianic Age and with the personal Jewish conviction of perfectedness. The Jewish estate being said perfection, the notion of sin (chet) appeared and appears in Judaism only in terms of shortcomings in behaviours towards other Jews. The notion of redemption is collectivised, associated historically with escape from exile and eschatologically with the Messianic Age. This eschatological conflict extended into the respective positions on the immortality of the soul and the nature of resurrection (tribal in Judaism, individual in Christianity). While these were clear articles of faith for the early Christians, both Pharisees and Sadducees responded with characteristic disputatiousness, simply ignoring scriptural precedent like Isaiah 26.19 on the afterlife and Daniel 12.2 on Judgement Day. These crucial distinctions must have made it almost impossible for early Christians to face both ways and minister to Jew and gentile alike. The tensions seem to have come to a head in the Incident at Antioch when Peter, who had acceded to demands from Jewish Christians to cease eating with non-Jews in the new faith, was upbraided by Paul: From Galatians 2:
After this Paul left Antioch never to return. He dedicated his ministry to non-Jews, writing in Galatians 2 of a syncretism in which “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter”. The syncretic element in their ministries was the substitution of novel concepts for narrowly Judaic ones. Thus the doctrine of love was substituted in place of Jewish law:
Likewise, universalism was substituted in place of Jewish particularism, redemption for perfection, baptism for circumcision, the Christian afterlife for a some-time Jewish suzerainty in this world, God’s grace for G-d’s Covenant, and belief in the redeeming power of Christ for Jewish blood. Ontologically, perhaps the last is the most interesting. That phrase from the Antioch passage “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” is a clear claim for faith as a way to the momentary experience of being. But in fact it goes some way to explaining why faith alone does not and cannot generate that moment. It can only represent it in terms of its own emotional triggers. The phrase calls the present “I” (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה) by the name “Christ”. Naming is a classic prescription, the reductive nature of which is demonstrated in the next line from the passage, which reads,“and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me”. The truth-bearing impetus is lost, and Paul takes a step backwards into pure faith. Ontologically, he should sustain the reference to the binary of presence in being or absence in ordinary waking consciousness (perhaps something like, “and though the life which I had hath fallen from me, yet shall I fall and in that hour my faith in the found life shall be as my faith in the Son of God, and in his love, and in the giving of his life that I might find him again in mine own”). But, of course, this idea of a paradise lost but remembered through faith in absentia gets crowded out by the (essentially pointless) will to genuflect. It is an inherent characteristic of the faith trait that it operates mechanistically, that is, without attentionality. It leads, therefore, not to the present moment but away in the mist to ordinary waking consciousness and the personality which intones the name of the divine over itself for purely mechanical evolutionary reasons. We should not be surprised at this non-association of faith and being. It is a constant in the history of the human mind. If they do not address it (ie, in the familiar exoteric and esoteric concentric form, the latter concerning practic), religious systems can offer their adherents little more than analogy and genuflection. Further, religious systems cannot be created extempore as Christianity was, and be whole. Credo is not enough. Mystery is not enough. Morality is not enough. Prayer is not enough. All four together are not enough. But this is all Christianity is. Without an esoteric, existentialist sheet-anchor, exoteric religion can drift anywhere, and its ontology with it. As a jumping off point, the Jewish opinion of and use for the gentile, for example:
… is already a disaster, rendering the European personality open to manipulations of the kind already discussed. But whatever solely exoteric system had replaced the authentic religious expression of Europeans - about which we know so little thanks to the efficiency of the process - the result would always have been self-estranging. Authenticity is a property of emergence. It does not come from prescription. No amount of subsequent nativisation could change that (and Europeans certainly have nativised the faith of the early Christians). So we are back to that image of the Dodge Delivery Panel Van dumped on the pregnant soil. For a number of reasons it is inevitable that Europeans have, as Christianised peoples, become disassociated from the things of the blood. It is equally inevitable that our blood has sought to express itself through Christianity anyway, and has perhaps had some advantages in doing so from the hellenised context of the early Christian world, and in particular from Stoicism and Neoplatonism, providers of self-abnegation and a notionalised Source respectively. The ontology, therefore, is complex (and is further complicated by the fact that, especially in the Germanic north, we know relatively little of the other religious life, the one natural to Europeans, which was made before conversion). However, we can say that there are four principal characteristics in the Christian ontology which are broadly negative for our race, the first of them the prescription of belief itself. A European life? The fundamental requirement for participation in the Christian life is belief in the redeeming power of Christ. It is the central psychological component of Christianity (as blood is the central physical component of Judaism). It has a most pure and abstract quality, without the propositionalism that commonly attends religious belief. As Soren Kierkegaard famously put it in The Sickness unto Death:
So, the Christian faith in salvation is not a guarantee of salvation. There is no guarantee. Neither can salvation be purchased with good deeds, nor by repentance, nor by confession, nor by baptism. It is the unearned gift of God’s grace, and if is to be forthcoming, it will be through the conduit of faith alone that it passes. Faith, then, is an enabling medium in the Christian model. The active principle is the deity. From our standpoint as investigators of ontology, we can say that there are two things going on here. First, the focus on faith, unlike the Jewish focus on law, disconnects Man from agency and renders him passive. Kierkegaard was right, no doubt, about sin and grace as a Christian but wrong as an existentialist. “Sin” - the wrong word altogether, actually - is the state of being given over to or consumed by appetites or events arising in ordinary waking consciousness. The opposite of sin is the purity of detachment, ie, freedom in the truly conscious state, and that is not a matter of faith, indeed, just not in the nature of faith at all, as we have already discussed. The conscious state does not come through passivity but through attention and experience. Certainly, an acute religious observer might make the claim that this state of free mind is freely granted by the deity as an act of union … “I am that I am”. But the existential bird has already flown the Christian coop. If one is without faith, being-as-ground resolves as an essentially religious interpretation. A conscious encounter with being (which is the only type of encounter possible) is not an encounter with the ground of identity, but with the action of identity. Life is fluid, and therefore being is pure action. In such a turn, deity itself is completely superfluous, and faith’s ministrations amount to nothing more than the giving up of oneself to a beauty frozen as in a portrait. Seductive though that may be, it is not the human truth. It is another sin. Second, the role of belief in Christianity represents a huge inflation of the prior norm of mere religious affiliation. It is one thing to identify with one particular god (or goddess) as one’s guide, protector and ruler, to whom one must make sacrifice on certain days and can appeal in times of peculiar stress. But it is another to make faith an all-consuming necessity and the primary determinant of human worth. The difference between the two is quite literally that between the ethnocentrism of European peoples and the hyper-ethnocentrism of Jews. This completely inappropriate, inverted Jewishness will always visit upon non-Jews the marks and measures of its authors, witness of which was borne from the beginning:
… and re-surfaced in the Verdict of Verden and the deeds of Olaf Tryggvason, those of Bernard Gui and his kind, and those of John Calvin:
Of course, I only speak for the generations of quietly puzzled Englishmen and women who, while they might have been able to participate in the old faith ceremonially, never had the possibility to enter Christianity’s private faith club, and who gazed in silent incomprehension upon the mania about them each Sunday morning as the sermon reached its fiery culmination, or sat in wonderment at the efforts of otherwise subtle and intelligent thinkers to advance and advantage their own faith-conclusions. Some such sceptical folk doubtless paid for their emotional continence with their lives, but perhaps not many. Faith is more intolerant of itself than ever it is of the lack of it. The other three (connected) principal characteristics in the Christian ontology I will cover only briefly because I have said quite enough already in this first instalment of this post. We cannot know exactly how pre-Christian religion in Europe addressed sexual and social morality. It will, though, have been much more expressive of the European nature than the Christian prescription. Social mores reflecting the obligations and mutuality that attended defence of the group very likely entered into the moral requirements of the old faith. There will have been no doctrine of Original Sin, which only saw the light of day with Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century (in development of Paul’s comments in Romans and Corinthians). It is also quite likely that there was none of the atomisation that the doctrine of personal sin, confession, penance and forgiveness implies. This is important. The spiritual purpose of the man who goes to the house of his god to atone for sins against kind is social as much as it is spiritual. Religion enters into relational life thereby. The gods are engaged with the unfolding life of people in the group and of the group itself. But the man who seeks a private forgiveness in some on-going cosmic struggle with personal moral imperfection or some failure of faith is sealing himself away in a relationship with the deity, with only a faux-idealistic, notional outreach to “humanity” for social consolation. The context of the blood is gone, and with it the fitness of the religion itself. What is left is an internalised model of the conflictual posture of the Jew towards the gentile, from which the European self finds no respite and must withdraw. Judaism, a religion of the blood from Abraham to eschaton, has never entertained the concept of ancestral or inherited sin although, of course, it has a concept of the brokenness of the world. Sin and brokenness both refer to the non-Jewish world alone. Operating over and above this tendency to withdrawal is the Christian teleology itself. As a supposed atoning process, it transits from sin and, by implication, enmity towards God, via righteousness and then holiness to the three gifts of God’s grace of redemption, reconciliation, and salvation. Because it is an exoteric project and a faith project, and not a process of the consciousness (or even a serviceable proxy for it) … because it does not turn to being but works, therefore, within personality (albeit a very spiritual-seeming personality) … because it is an artificial struggle for the individual believer … because it reconciles the believer to the Jewish god at the cost of estrangement from his nature and identity … because Nature is non-purposive and functional, and the gods of men must comply with her or they will herald pathologies … because of all these things the Christian teleology cannot add to the sum of man. It may sacrilise appearances, which may be beautiful to the eye (the inner eye especially). But none of this is done in the presence of the real. Last of the four principal characteristics of the Christian ontology is its eschatology, to which I shall now return. Christianity is an apocalyptic religion. Norse mythology, too, had its Twilight of the Gods. Our nationalism has its vision of the end-times – the loss of our power, our land, our very race through the political, philosophical, social, cultural, economic, and demographic disaster now overtaking us. Eschatologies do not have to be religious, much less Messianic. They all deal in the destiny of Man. But within their own terms of historical reference, religious eschatologies rely upon Man’s lack of agency. The moving hand writes, but it is not Man’s. He is caught up in historical processes from which he cannot break free if he wanted to. To do that, to be an historically free being, he would have to be capable at all times of saying no to the word of God. Of course, when men do assert their will and make their own destiny, they do so not as isolated individuals or mere atoms of humanity but as members of a group with a common cause. To be a people, to have ethnicity, is to have also the possibility of destining independently of all prescriptions, and title to the name Man. So we come back to that same Judaic denial of the ethnic nature of the gentile’s humanity, as proclaimed by Paul in Act 17 to the Athenian Epicureans and Stoics:
To be a nationalist in these end-times is to be a man of Athens and know that in the Christian life, in the Christian ontology, the motive power of the European identity is simply not affirmed or truly expressed, and that can be by no means sufficient. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:43 | # Desmond, In this article I try to show how the Christian belief, moral teaching, teleology, and eschatology is perfectly congruent with Judaic belief, moral teaching, teleology, and eschatology as these impact the non-Jew. Why on earth you feel the need to drag in James’ Teutonic methods of settling political differences I do not know. I am not arguing for or against conducting politics by killing one’s opponents, nor that, say, your death or mine would be “fair”. I am not exploring European bio-culture. On the question of universalism (in the political sense, not the modern Christian theological sense), I have drawn particular attention to the “aching question” of Jewish exclusivity of ethnic identity in the European context - an exclusivity that would have to be/is being generated by the submersion of the European race in the bottomless seas of the Third World. Did I not make that clear? 3
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:19 | # The point was that the European bio-culture is what informed the teachings and morality of Christ. How else do you explain the rise of a group who supported individual autonomy from a society who imposed group sovereignty upon the individual? So yes, you argue, like so many before you that the Judeo-Christian (Catholic) morality etc. etc. is congruent with blah, blah, blah. Great, have a cookie. On ethnic identity…what’s good for me is not for thee. It’s loved like an old worn shoe. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 23:31 | # Desmond, Hellenism informed the ancient world, and even the Jews could not escape its influence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism
In the essay I have referred very briefly to this, in connection both with Paul’s Hellenist antecedents and those of Palestinian Jews; and noted the following:
Now, because you have, in general, a confrontational nature, which causes you so often to find some point of disagreement with my scribblings, you have allowed yourself to offer a critique that was addressed in the body of the essay. Perhaps I was a little too oblique, but then you have made a very bald statement:
... which, to my mind, suggests an intellect that has become over-extended. Read the essay properly. Take some time to consider it. Ethnic identity is not worn, by the way. It does not belong to personality but to being. It manifests through our instincts and related ground-level emotions. 5
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:31 | # I’m on trip to Italy hence cannot comment at length but, as always, it looks like an interesting and provocative essay by GW. Christianity has been a massive influence upon European culture - both for the bad and for some good too (no doubt) but the shaping of the European imagination, our self-understanding and our social ontologies is where our thoughts should be directed. I will read and comment once I’m back in the UK. Of course how much of the shape of liberal-modernity is a continuation with that Christian world-view and how much does it represent a break - an ontological break - with the past? 6
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:02 | # I’ve read through once - in my cirucumstnace, hurredly toward the end. Therefore, I must go through this again carefully. However, I am getting a clearer sense of what you meant in suggesting that I put the cart before the horse in proposing a White religion, one to be determined and negotiated as opposed to one growing out of natural European roots - the roots and disruption of those roots which you work to uncover. Oviously social negotiation, feedback and calibration will be required in cultivation from those roots but of the radically natural end, the other end of this religious (re)calibration, your penetration does strike me as important.
7
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:55 | # what we in Israel believe is: that 1000 years from now…. and 5000 years from now…. conscripted Hebrew Border Police girls will still be patrolling the streets of Jerusalem, and giving parking tickets to White Nationalists who park too close to a fire hydrant. In 5000 years, will anyone remember the name of any current European nation? 9
Posted by Dude on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:47 | # What is fondly believed HiA and what is reasonable to believe are two different things. The majority of Jews have spent more time outside the territory, now called Israel, than it it. Israel is supported financially and militarily by the United States. Will the US be available too in 5k years, will Israel develop a new protector or will its nuclear arsenal be sufficient to preserve it against enemies? Nuclear assault is a powerful deterrent, but not so easy to use in a fight within one’s nation. So, who knows how history will unfold. It is good and proper though that you feel such. Regarding Europeans, I would suggest similar to Jews after the expulsion - where ever Europeans are is the most important factor. Historical territory while important is not all. Turkey and many similar other locations attest to that. 10
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:16 | #
...is hardly equivalent to…
I may be stupid but I’m not that gullible. The Sadducees, the priestly keepers of the Mosaic law did not believe in the afterlife, no end times, no resurrection and certainly no resurrection of body and soul. And yet we have Jesus, a contemporary Jew, teaching the exact opposite. Why is that? It suddenly popped into his head! However, the original question was concerning love and law. How does the notion of love arise, an individual autonomous reaction to a legal structure that dominated this group for thousands of years? This is a moral evolutionary development that is fundamentally European in nature, not disassociated from blood and inevitably expressed as Christian, but a pure expression of a European bio-culture. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:46 | # Desmond, I have quoted from Matthew in the article. Here is Mark 12:
Here is Deuteronomy 6, Moses speaking to Israel on the plains of Moab:
And Leviticus 19, considered to have been compiled some time after 538 BC:
So can we dispense with the black/white notion that Europeans are essentially lovers but Israelites, knowing nothing of this, were just obsessed with tribal laws? I have offered a somewhat retiring but nuanced explanation for the nature of Christianity and its relation to European blood. Indeed, it is not equivalent to your very bald assertion. That was my point. The fact that I said I had addressed the question does not imply agreement. 12
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 08:32 | # >> Well, you forgot Khazaria pretty fast
>> The majority of Jews have spent more time outside the territory, now called Israel, than it it
>> will Israel develop a new protector I wonder if you can even begin to comprehend, what the world looks like to us - in all of history, no one ever went very far to protect us, and we have ALWAYS had to conscript even our women just to stay alive. Please google on the name Hannah Senesh.
>> Will the US be available too in 5k years The ==Americans== ?!? Next you’ll be telling me that the Iranians are scared of the Yankees, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is scared of the Yankees, and the Taliban is scared of the Yankees, and that Bashir Assad is scared of the Yankees.
But don’t feel bad there in america. You’ve lost your testicles - but at least you didn’t snip them off with your own hands, like the Brits and the French did. What Obama has done in the past week is incredibly dangerous to American Service personnel - I’ve dealt with plenty of them and they’re mostly… uhm…. not as bad as they could have become if Hillary had become POTUS. What American Service personnel are looking at right now (in the estimate of many of the coffee conversations in Afula) is a strong likelihood that “Great Successor” Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang will make an actual physical attack on a tiny American ship (say, one of the anti-submarine underwater-microphone-array haulers, with crew = 20-ish) or an isolated Marine squadron - just to test the waters and see what can be gotten away with in second-semester 2013, American-Red-Line wise. If you were in the Great Successor’s chair…. would YOU be scared of Obama?
13
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:45 | # Hymie: “no - we DIGESTED them into us.” Since 90% of world Jewry is Ashkenazic, and since ethnicity is real identity but the cultural is essentially tropic - a kind of acquisition or abstraction - would it not be more accurate to say that the Khazars ate you (or, at least, the aggressive and supremacist nationalism of Judaism)? 14
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:18 | # Word. Kissinger predicts Israel will be no more in ten years. I beleive him. If I were a Jew living in Tel Aviv today, I’d sell my real estate, move to AmeriKWA and buy real estate in the inner cities of AmeriKWA. Comparable houses that would sell for 800,000 USD in Toranto, Canada can be had for less than a grand in Detroit. Seriously. So my advice to all the Israeli Jews is to get out while the gettin’s good. Within ten years from now the real estate market in Israel will collapse—that event will occur in the wake of the muslim nuclear tipped ballistic missile attacks. The times they are a changin’. Muslim nations can/will wipe out Israel from afar. IMHO, the only defence Israel has is the threat to use the Samson Option. That may well work to deter Christian or secular nations from attacking Israel, but is it enough deterrent for, say, the Iranians? Highly unlikely. Then there is the demographic threat. Palestinian muzzies are outbreeding Jews within Israel’s borders—or so I’ve read…. Take my advice. If the Jews want to survive as a people, then it’s imparitive evacuate Israel en masse and move to AmeriKWA - or better yet: South Africa. It’s your last best hope. The writing is on the wall; time is running out. You’ve been warned. 15
Posted by Dude on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:14 | # @HiA “Abraham was promised” is that the gentleman who died at nearly two hundred years old? So, let’s amend the general point to ‘have spent almost as much time outside the territory as in it” “who ever lived in Europe, and then those who lived outside Europe ” you can do the calculations over history if you wish, but it will be a hard road. Let’s just look now for conveniences sake. I’d avoid “whites” as the definition normally includes all sorts of Caucasian ne’er do wells, but if we said instead Europeans, then population of America + Canada + Australia + Asian Russia is about 400m. Covers most of the main population groups, rather than the smaller ones (NZ etc) and doesn’t seek to subtract non-Euros. Population of Europe: 740m. “what the world looks like to us” I comprehend well how you must feel. Your ethno-cultural legacy has embedded an inward-looking persecution complex, without any analysis of why so many ethnically and geographically different peoples have consistently historically found themselves in mortal clashes with your people. “The ==Americans== ?!?” You miss my point, or sidestep it and this brings us back to where I entered this conversation. Whether the modern equivalents of the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Romans, Americans, whoever. One time defenders, later foes. My point is you suggest that in 5k years Jews will still be the masters of their own house, while all of your history, your sociobiology suggests otherwise. 16
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 03:35 | # One time defenders, later foes. My point is you suggest that in 5k years Jews will still be the masters of their own house, while all of your history, your sociobiology suggests otherwise. while all of Jewish history, its sociobiology suggests that it intends otherwise for White/Europeans. 18
Posted by Dude on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:52 | # “and the fact that fully ninety per cent of Jews are not of Palestinian origin” it is an interesting question as to how important this is. We know that minute genetic changes have large phenotypic effects. As Harpenden and Cochran discuss in the 10,000 Year Explosion, (from page 204 and elsewhere) x percentage mixed with y percentage in an enclosed breeding group over time results in an ethnic group where most members share that ratio. The important thing is that gene flow is severely limited, which was the case and yet is not now. 19
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:09 | # >> would it not be more accurate to say that the Khazars ate you I’m sorry, ==where== in your country did you see all these Khazar Community Centers, Khazar Studies syllabi in your universities, Khazar restaurants, Khazar bookstores, Khazar websites, Khazar…. well never mind. You’re the expert on history; the Khazars ate us. I dare not question the thread count of the Emperor’s cloak. >> [multiple, apparently well-meaning, warnings to evacuate out of Israel ==now==]
But what we’re looking at in September 2013 is: Swiss Re charges MORE for all-risks coverage for a 40-footer shipping container entering a depot in New Orleans, than for one entering the yards in either Haifa or Ashdod. And believe me, Swiss bankers are not sentimental about anyone’s hasbara.
But our organizing principle is language, not genes. The zionist project DOESN’T CARE if Afula-ians of AD 7013 look like Hymie or if they look like a chinese; it cares that they pay their parking tickets in Hebrew. The national heroes of our folklore (King David and King Solomon) had many shiksa wives.
Jordan today, of course, is plentifully supplied with American combat and support troops. Because the Sunni Crescent of Power in the Gulf wants the Hashemites to stay in the Palace. This is not secret, but it only shows up in incidental ways. Go watch the “Todays Weather” spots on US Armed Forces Network. Don’t ask me how we are viewing those broadcasts at Ramat David AFB. Anyway, the encryption on that MWR channel is weak; strongly protecting a streaming video channel is expensive. Even the Americans only would spend that kind of money for drone repeatbacks. 20
Posted by Dude on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:53 | # “But our organizing principle is language, not genes. The zionist project DOESN’T CARE if Afula-ians of AD 7013 look like Hymie or if they look like a chinese; it cares that they pay their parking tickets in Hebrew. “ Amazing statement. Jews do not care or the ‘Zionist project’ does not? This conflicts with history and clearly too in the here and now. Could Ethiopian Jews not read Hebrew sufficiently? “the Sunni Crescent of Power in the Gulf wants the Hashemites to stay in the Palace. “ Not so sure on the security of the Hashemites from Sunni (or factional) turbulence either. Many contrary indicators and the American presence is a telltale sign. Unless by the crescent of power you mean America. 21
Posted by For_England on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:30 | # Sad to see the continued intrusion of Americanisms into the language: “I don’t buy that”. Uhhh, really? 22
Posted by For_England on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:17 | # I haven’t been on this site in a while, and it’s always a refreshing and challenging read. Having said that, I remain unconvinced of the thesis. Ashkenazi Jews are supposed to make up between 75%-85% of Jews worldwide, yet they are exclusively have given rise to the political “gifts” enumerated. This might not appear very significant, accept when we factor in that they also use the Talmud; We might point to Karaites, who do not use the Talmud, and also have not contributed to the incessant stream of political “gifts”. I would interpret these observations in terms of the general psychology of the minority, whoever they are (the ‘us’ and ‘them’, which contrary to the dominant paradigm, is more ingrained in an alien population than in the host population) and the greater intellectual powers of the Ashkenazi. The Talmud, far from giving birth to this psychology, or of being a link in the chain demonstrating that this attitude originated in Genesis, is simply the manifestation, in the Jewish context, of this general and universal psychological truth. The Old Testament is undoubtedly ‘ethno-centric’, as is every piece of ancient literature, or, indeed, any piece of literature prior to the twentieth century. It no more proves some nefarious vein of gentile-hatred particular to the Jews than the Aeneid could be upheld as evidence that Italians have always hated Greeks. But we must, in the interests of fairness, note that Genesis also records the promise to Abraham that ‘in you all the nations of the earth will be blessed’. There we have the notion of the ‘families—ethnic groupings—of the earth’ affirmed, not negated. Indeed, Jewish tradition in the Second Temple period and beyond affirmed the ‘seventy nations’, and the Acts of the Apostles, which was also quoted in the article, affirms that God gave the nations their living space. Hardly, I would think, a recipe for the ethtnocide being inflicted upon us today. And, of course, Paul interpreted this blessing in terms of the manifestation of the salvation of God through Christ. Deuteronomy does indeed prescribe that the Israelite fight against the cities etc—but not of the nations generally, but of the Canaanites specifically. Indeed, they were not permitted to wage indiscriminate war against the nations outside of their allotment. The analogy of the Aeneid is here stronger—they have the will and favour of the gods, but only to wage war in Latium, not anywhere they might choose. I found the article linked to interesting, as I remember reading a study that showed that Jews were genetically closer to Palestinians than the latter are to Arabs. Furthermore, the study had elicited opposition from Jews who felt it undermined their exclusiveness (and their claim to Palestine!). But the article linked to would, in any case, only support my view, I think, that the psychology comes from the experience of living within a host environment, with the ‘us and them’ feelings and competitiveness which that engenders. Would many WNs really believe that the psychology would not ordinarily change when the genes change? Indeed, the whole argument, it would appear to me, is that culture is reflective of genes. It is not ordinarily true that ” The psychology, so to speak, advances its case regardless of the genetic fact”. Lastly, I would not negate the influence of the Talmud or Rabbinical Judaism in all of this, though my arguments above might be construed in this way. I do subscribe to the view that modern Judaism is one aberration among many, and that the Zadokite kind (represented, I think, in Christianity, Karaitism, and mysterical Judaism) represents a more normative form of Second Temple Judaism. Whether things would be the same today had this form prevailed, I know not—to what degree can we attribute things to Ashkenaz DNA, IQ, and alien status with the accompanying psychology, and to what degree has it mattered that their cultural trappings originated with the Pharisees instead of the Zadokites? I don’t know, nor am I convinced the question makes much difference, though I appreciate that the existential questions explored on this site demand that the question be asked.
23
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:55 | # The essential thesis is that Jewish prescription for Gentiles is evident in the texts that European peoples were encouraged (tricked) into adopting as their sacrosanct religious rule books. It moved aside the necessarily more affirmative, self and tribally reconstructive concerns that existed in Europeans prior to the Christian application. There are other sources of negative Jewish prescription for Europeans, but that there is prescription is the point, and even more the point that is clear enough in the very religious texts that Europeans have shared-in; but above all, that have been so overwhelmingly influential in directing (prescribing) their social practices. Hence the necessity to examine in fine detail, the key textual turning points. That there are some passages which can be pointed to that show a possible alternative interpretation is not important as they are weak compared to the psychology of ‘god’s chosen’ against individuals who might find ‘salvation in Jesus’.. ..while perhaps finding communal identity with some strange, ancient tribe nominalized in the bible? I could quibble with GW in making use of the Khazar hypothesis (I believe MacDonald disagrees with that), but it does not bear upon the thesis of prescription for Gentiles, and I do not want to distract from that thesis as it is sound and important to examine. That Jewish Genetic patterns are organized around their rule books to create a “psychology” (self and social rule structures governing behavior) is a working hypothesis that I can live with, certainly for this treatment. It does not interfere. That Jews reconstruct patterns from their genetics is likely, but to get into that here is not important. The important matter is the rules they set forth and how those rules prescribe, constrain and afford their behavior, their reconstruction and dissolution of the Other. Of course those rules have an influence is selecting what genetics will be reconstructed, and GW’s point is that the original, self affirming genetics of Europeans are not served by these rules, though express themselves irrespective, and need tending. I would take more issue of his listing “post modernity” among the pejorative prescriptions list. We must not let the Jews have that one. Dugin is screwing it up. Post Modernity properly understood is necessary to the reconstruction of our precious, ancient forms along with managing the simultaneous concerns of our modernist advances/changes and dealing with other peoples, with different rules, rules which do not necessarily care for our self/group affirming rules. 24
Posted by For_England on Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:02 | #
Indeed. The problem is, those texts are the ones you are using, as I clearly demonstrated. I didn’t even move out of the law books into the prophets, where foreign nations are to be prayed for and their good sought, or in which their future glory (not dissolution, which cannot be found) is spoken of. The ‘some passages’ are precisely the one or two poorly-interpreted passages in the article. No wonder you chose to gloss over that.
Then it is most strange that for two thousand years—in fact until the period at which European nations abandoned these texts—no European nation had the foggiest idea that their adoption of these Anicent Near Eastern texts laid upon them their duty of self-destruction; nay, that it was during this self-same period that the danger represented by the Jew to European man was widely assumed. It would appear from these self-evident facts that, if anything, the adoption of these texts had the polar-opposite effect of what you say was intended (without any contextually-interpreted texts in support, I would add). Oh well, don’t let me spoil a good thesis for you; carry on. 25
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:19 | # Yes,“For England”, don’t spoil it. Those who want to pursue the notion of how fostering of our European interests, how un-antagonistic Christianity has been to our interests all along and will continue to be, as the Jews pray for us, demonstrably in their texts….are free to go explore that - but please, elsewhere. I am not trying to prevent Christians from arguing their case that their religion is the way, or a valid way to defend European interests. The reason the angle you propose (which isn’t nearly true enough, by the way) should be aired elsewhere is because it will gunk-up a constructive thread. It is clear that GW is defending authentic European interests while you are defending Christianity, perhaps for the sake of Jews or perhaps for the sake of disingenuous (anti WN) Whites who want to keep Whites stupid and under control. - but not “For England” 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:26 | # For_England, Good to see you drop by. You are always welcome. The Israelites were enslaved in Egypt for a very long time ... something in excess of two hundred years (though scripture has it as four). The hyper-nationalist millenarianism of the Mosaic faith was forged in that crucible and kept alive by later travails, in turn serving to heighten tribal ethnic awareness. It would have been an entirely appropriate faith for the Khazarian tribes after the breaking of their empire by the Kievan Rus and the scattering of the people to the north and north-west. Perhaps this is the history of the Ashkenazim, perhaps it isn’t. But as Daniel says, and I said in my post, it isn’t germaine to the matter at hand, which is the modeling of European Man. Since Judaism and Christianity both prescribe a model, let us debate those. On the question of Ashkenazic intelligence, one must approach it, I feel, from an understanding of the selection pressures. That means our race. We are the natural world for Jews in the West because their relationship is not to climate and land but to the temper and capacities of the European host. If the Ashkenazim had lived off the Han the result would have been similar. If they had lived of the Turks the average might have been 105 or thereabouts; off the Arabs 98. Daniel is right, of course, that you are defending Christianity. Separating the OT faith from Phariseeism and modern Judaism is really a contrivance to that end, and I suspect it is a highly artificial one. You mention Prophets and praying for the nations. But what about Habbakuk 3:
The OT is full of this stuff. Of course, you are a bible scholar and I am nothing, but I am pretty confident that a weigh-in of the tribal terrors and the universal adorations would see the scales tip very heavily towards the former. 27
Posted by For_England on Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:21 | # Thanks GW, I couldn’t quite remember if it was you. It’s always a stimulating read, in either case. I do strenuously disagree with your interpretation of the OT, and I simply do not see that these texts support any specific hatred of the nations as an entity. I wouldn’t argue that Christianity has necessarily been very supportive of our ethnic interests, only that it hasn’t been the trojan horse that the article describes (indeed it must be admitted that the emphasis during the middle ages was on the religious difference of the Jew, not on the ethnic one—at least I haven’t come across much of the latter). Hab 3 describes the destruction of the (non-European) Canaanites. The reason given in the law is that their wickedness had reached the point of no return. We know from archaeology etc that child sacrifice and other lovely things were practiced. The Israelites had no mandate or right to wage war against other nations, and certainly not wars of extermination. I simply do not see the OT texts as supportive of that view, and I would view the Talmud (which really is far more central to the Jewish psyche than the OT, imo) as distinct in its attitudes. I suppose at the end of the day we are still faced with what we are faced with. Anyway, perhaps it was unwise of me to comment on this, and I’ll learn my lesson this time! Anyway, let me conclude with a wonderful description of the Negro drawn from the Talmud or some other such literature saved- Others say that Ham himself unmanned Noah who, awakening from his drunken sleep and understanding what had been done to him, cried: ‘Now I cannot beget the fourth son whose children I would have ordered to serve you and your brothers! Therefore it must be Canaan, your first-born, whom they enslave. And since you have disabled me from doing ugly things in the blackness of night, Canaan’s children shall be born ugly and black! Moreover, because you twisted your head around to see my nakedness, your grandchildren’s hair shall be twisted into kinks, and their eyes red; again, because your lips jested at my misfortune, theirs shall swell; and because you neglected my nakedness, they shall go naked, and their male members shall be shamefully elongated.’ Men of this race are called Negroes; their forefather Canaan commanded them to love theft and fornication, to be banded together in hatred of their masters and never to tell the truth. (from Graves, Hebrew Myths, 121). 28
Posted by Mick Lately on Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:27 | # Pleasing to witness GW entertaining the Khazar hypothesis in the MR salon. 29
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 08:47 | # On a totally different and more important note (GW put an admirable amount of work into this post, but given his atheistic starting point, I really can’t take anything he writes on Christianity seriously - he assumes the faith’s falsity, and then seeks to ‘explain’ it as one might do some Amazonian tribal belief-system): What is “white”? Would this guy qualify? 30
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:44 | # At first blush, for his red hair, skin tone, features and all, I would say yes. But then, given the source of the question and that his first name is Saul (or apparently some close derivative), I am not so sure. But whether or not this boxer is White is hardly a more important issue than that of the main post. ... 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:47 | # Leon, “False” is not a notion that can apply to faith, which is a human attribute a bit like the elbow (except we don’t all have it). Not even faith’s presumptive reflex is false as such, since it is merely the range of action of faith in the same way that the elbow has a range of action lateral with the upper and lower arm. Faith’s presumption operates in something like two-thirds to three-quarters of Europeans, I would say. I think the figure is higher in south and some south-east Asians, but lower in east Asians. As to the cultural form to which faith attends, that changes from place to place and time to time, obviously. Faith always insists that, whatever it is, it is true beyond all question. My post challenges you, Leon, to consider the nature and application of the Christian model of Man to our people. Where I am wrong in fact, point that out. Where my conclusions err, point that out. You, after all, often demand substantive responses to your positions on the utility of conservatism. Well, respond in that spirit to my position here. 32
Posted by Nemo on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 17:58 | #
Isn’t the error here defining faith in terms of faith in monotheism or one of the major traditional religions? Many Europeans may not have faith in Christianity anymore, but they have faith in modern liberalism, science, materialism, etc. From what I understand, east Asians may not be monotheistic or part of the major traditional religions but many of them have faith in folk religious beliefs, their ancestors, spirits, the Tao, etc. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 18:53 | # Nemo, I don’t think that an analysis grounded in the contest of monotheism/polytheism with materialism particularly bears on my essay. But you are right that faith is a process of the higher emotional system: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_2 ... and it can and will bring its focus to bear on anything that speaks of the journey betwixt criticism and ideal. In the thread to that linked post I found a comment of my own to the effect that “The engine of faith rumbles away in all commitments to teleology,” and such it is. 34
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:48 | # Science is science and faith is faith; NEVER the twain shall meet. 35
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:18 | # Thorn’s observation re science and faith reminds me of the words of a titled Cambridge scientist whom I had the privilege of meeting when I was a recent guest at a College High Table dinner at that University. He diffidently remarked that , when he embarked upon a scientific experiment, he did not expect any supernatural intervention and , by extension, expected none in day - to - day life. 37
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 04:15 | # How pithy. casually exuding atheistic sentiment is the exclusive provence of the too-clever-by-half Englishman. 38
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:54 | # Speaking of Jews ... Here is One Jew Advocating Pure Evil:
39
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:25 | # The description “too clever by half” was of a Scottish Conservative called Iain Macleod. Macleod was a Presbyterian. Thanks for playing. 40
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:44 | # Another lost opportunity on the road to our racial ruin: 41
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:15 | # Al is inimitable. I’d love to buy the man a beer someday. Stay sharp Al. 42
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:13 | # One could read Pascal Boyer’s ‘Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought’ - a PDF of a review can be found here - http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/Boyerreview.pdf Boyer does - in a restricted way - discuss the general ontology of religious belief as he understands it. Obvious GW is on the side of explaining religiosity in terms of human beings natural capacities and capabilities. The specific content of any religion, of course, may be in conflict with reality as such - no the universe was NOT created in six days - thus be false, but the instinct towards religiosity cannot be deemed false (as such) in the same way that our instinct for sugar and fat cannot be dubbed false either. However, what might be adaptive under one set of environmental conditions can be profoundly maladaptive under another set of environmental conditions. This insight seems to escape the defenders of Voodoo as “essential” - it might have been adaptive or useful in 8th century France but might also be utterly maladaptive in present circumstances. Boyer suggests that all religions share some common ontological features/commitments. Thus in some respects real Voodoo and Catholicism are the same. However, this is too crude and reductionist a hypothesis to explain everything about religion. Obviously the same population with a society informed at every level by real Voodoo or by Catholicism would in the ‘texture’ and lived experience of life be rather different places. However, the notion that some yokel at the local mega-church in Fuckwit Iowa etc., somehow has the secrets of reality - as such - so much so that all must bow and scrape before such a crude, asinine, and ill-informed world-view is risible. Of course perhaps 1% or so of Christians are actually genuinely thinking people (on speaking terms with intellectual rigor) - OK with those people one might be able to enter into a serious conversation. But the typical denizen of the local commercial religio-entertainment establishment are not capable nor indeed psychologically willing to even start such an exchange. In the end why bother even wasting breath or typing time on such people? I guess what is actually important in collective religious experience is the communitarian needs that humans naturally have. Simone Weil summed it all up in ‘The Need for Roots’ - “To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul”. We might even start to think about an ontology of place - place being a geographic, social, cultural et al., phenomenon that exists synchronically and diachronically (intra and inter-generationally) as well as vertically and horizontally in terms of both a moral and imaginative economy. Roger Scruton is very good on this topic. A nation is a collective of people with a shared bio-cultural inheritance that are ultimately prepared to both kill and be killed in order to defend that collective inheritance as they recognise that ultimately their fates are bound together - in other words the “social whole” and its health is ultimately the most important thing within the polis. A liberal such as Jonathan Meades might respond with a pithy put down such as “roots are for vegetables” which only reflects Meades own extremely shallow world-view. Still Meades is not all bad after all he also stated that “The constant injunction to celebrate vibrant diversity is moronic.” People can read a little bit more about Meades here - http://www.askeurope.com/blog/2012/01/31/roots-are-for-vegetables/ Let’s finish with a little Marx and Heidegger. “The philosophers have interpreted the world: the point is to change it.” - Karl Marx. “What this statement overlooks is that changing the world presupposes a change in the conception of the world. A conception of the world can only be won by adequately interpreting the world.” - Martin Heidegger On that topic of adequate interpretation I’ll leave the “giant intellect” of Mr. Bowery to tackle the fundamental political/ontological importance of extremely minor and unimportant “scientific” investigations into paranormal phenomena. Jesus wept doesn’t cover it. But I would say that wouldn’t I? I am obviously a “sexually deviant” member of the tribe that’s doubly condemned as a very minor member of that conspiracy known as “big science”. Not that there can’t be bad science or vested interests at work in the scientific community but you know science seems to have a good track record of eventually getting thing right. An iterative process of testing - ideally via experimentation - specific aspects of the world resulting in ever greater depth and breadth of knowledge about natural processes. It’s not a knock-down argument by any means but for this company it’s more than adequate - I refer the denizens of the stygian gloom of MR to the “no-miracles argument”. See - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#MirArg The idea has its roots in David Hume’s work. Of course it has been developed and defended in the post WW2 era by Putnam (among others) - Putnam seems to be a member of the tribe - so must, ipso facto, be wrong and malevolent in all that he writes and thinks. Does that win me back some brownie points with the MR troglodyte tendency? After all without the respect of outstanding characters like “Classic Sparkle” I have no idea how I can go on!
43
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:28 | # What is wrong with Germans? Totally abused by everyone, from Marxists wasting their money on domestic freeloaders; to neoliberals wasting their money on foreign deadbeats; to Third World colonists, well, colonizing (and Islamifying) their nation; to nearly everyone agreeing to endless tribute to Israel ... they finally have an opportunity to say “Enough!”, and vote at least to get out of the eurozone mess, and what do they do? Endorse the dispossessionist status quo. The excellent Alternative for Germany party did not (quite) make it into the Bundestag (4.8%), and neither did the only other pro-capitalist party (one albeit rather too neoliberal, esp on immigration and globalization, for my tastes), the Free Democrats (4.5%). Meanwhile, the Socialist SDP got 26%, the despicable Greens got 8.4% - and the literal communists (Linke) got 8.6%! In other words, the Left could actually form the government, if all three of its parties join forces. Merkel of course got 41.5%, and so was comparatively the big winner. But Merkel is hardly “right-wing”, and the FDP could be argued to be on the Left, at least from a nationalist perspective. I suspect Germany will never again be great, though it could be. 44
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:54 | # Thank you, CS. I like beer in copious quantities and, despite my being Scottish, I’d happily reciprocate. 45
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:06 | # The Kind-Hearted Scotsman A Scotsman and his wife walked past a swanky new restaurant… 46
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:21 | # Germany Gets Its 1st Black Members of Parliament http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/23/Germany-gets-its-1st-black-members-of-Parliament 47
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:37 | # I always forget you are Scottish! Ironic really I got my religion and drink from there.
How do we explain GW “explaining” religion? Naturalistic explanation Im sure…. Lolzzzzz 48
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 03:05 | # However, the notion that some yokel at the local mega-church in Fuckwit Iowa etc., somehow has the secrets of reality - as such - so much so that all must bow and scrape before such a crude, asinine, and ill-informed world-view is risible But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; Are you talking about Postville Iowa by any chance Graham? 49
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 03:09 | # And it’s you that doesn’t respect me friend. You are venomous. Post a comment:
Next entry: Can violence come?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 07:16 | #
As James has previously written and in the work he posted by Harland, Jesus’ notion of love in place of word-constructed man-made law that appealed to an “authority” was not unknown amongst the Germanic tribes prior to their conversion. In fact a fairness doctrine was employed widely from the Vikings to the Nilotic people of Africa. The principle of fair fight not only bred out the overly aggressive but gave protection to those who showed more of a temperament for poetry or gardening than for war. The early ‘civilized’ people remarked that such shielding was not an act of authority, but an obligation to protect that arose from personal choice. There was no need to say what Jesus needed to say, “Love one and other as I have loved you.” It’s unclear that universalism arose as a Jewish prescription for racial Europe. It may be, as James hinted, and considering the ethnic origins of European Jews that universalism was adopted by Jewish Christians from early N.European customs. It makes no sense that Jewish converts, after thousands of years of lawfare, suddenly emerge with a doctrine of universalism in the teachings of Jesus otherwise.