On traction, and a farewell to a political friend

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 08 February 2008 10:37.

Having passed up the opportunity to acquire an education at the proper time and, anyway, never having been very willing to submit to the tyranny of other men’s minds, I’ve been glad of the theoretical minimalism that inhabits Conservatism. It is a visceral politics, and might even be a politics of Nature, or as close to it as any politics addressing a complex society is likely to get. It is certainly a politics of practical men only too inclined to draw a veil across the philosophical obscura of this, our Postmodern Age.

For example, just the other day I happened across a short passage authored in 1999 by the post-Marxist agony aunt Chantal Mouffe. She was agonising over the crisis in liberalism. Liberal intellectuals, you should know, are an anxious lot. They have been tearing their rational hair out over crises in the Enlightenment Project for well over a century (you would think that would tell them something, but no).

Mouffe, while not a neon-light left intellectual like Michael Walzer, Slavo Zizek or Chomsky, has about her the quality of a weather-vane. She points not so much to her own body of thought as to the theoretical horizon. Theoretically, Pomo is the undoing of Everything, even rationalism, in the belief that Something must succeed it. Well, in 1999 Mouffe sensed that it already had, but saw signs of danger everywhere. “New antagonisms have emerged,” she wrote, “not only in advanced societies but in the Eastern bloc and in the Third World.”

This was certainly true. Neither the British Multicultural nor French Integrationist models were uniting the rainbow peeps that were the “new West”. Russia was about to plunge into an ice-pool of seriously anti-liberal New Kremlinism. And in the Dar al Islam, a dangerously aggressive and expansionist Wahabbism was rising.

The Project, which in its broadest terms is the bringing together of humanity (otherwise known as peeps) in freedom and justice, was heading nowhere but into the history file. The future would hold no reverential memories of the ironic Fathers of the present. There would be no la-la land of liberal values. And probably, caught dancing too soon in the charnel house, the Jewish value of nihilism, Enlightenment’s one enduring gift, would stand naked and shivering, awaiting the inevitable, messy denouement.

There was still time for Mouffe to hope, however. An amphetamine progressive, she wrote of “The critique of essentialism – a point of convergence of the most important trends in contemporary theory: post-structuralism, philosophy of language after the later Wittgenstein, post-Heideggarian hermeneutics.” This “anti-essentialist theoretical stand” was, for her, the essence of a “new vision for the Left conceived in terms of a radical and plural democracy.”

Of course. Whether or not any “new vision for the Left” can or will ever materialise, Mouff is betting her shirt – and ours - on the staple method of all social constructionists and their Foucaultian and sometimes Gramscian sons and daughters: denial of essence.

It works like this. We cannot know such a thing as “African”, for example, or “female”. The apparently recognisable and describable essential qualities of both, or of a new-born baby, say, are only constructs of cultural meanings and practices. OK, there may be extanct biological forms, and these forms may be solid realities in themselves. But our ascription of meanings to them is wholly social and historical, and altogether more slippery, ambiguous and negotiable than we think.

And worse is to come. If the essence of things is only a social construct, our attempt to describe it in words produces a postmodern double-bind. For language defies any possibility of penetrating to objective reality or ultimate truth. It is self-referential, relying on words to describe words. Language never improves upon proximity. Therefore, the entirety of what we understand ourselves to be as people and what we understand of the world beyond ourselves is hopelessly compromised.

So round we swirl in the Pomo trap until its truly essential dichotomy hoves into view. The same regimen of denial which nullifies the meanings we ascribe to “African” also nullifies the positive values and meanings that progressives ascribe to, well, “radical and plural democracy”. It is only the ideals of the Pomo folk that pressage a progressive response to the vacuum rather than a conservative one. In Pomo itself, there is no preferential basis for progressivism over conservatism. Or, indeed, postmodernism over modernism. Or post-structuralism over its deconstructionist, structuralist, economic Marxist and classical liberal antecedents. There is no centre to hold (no doubt because the Pomo “text” itself has no bleeding essence!). When Pomo folks assert that they alone are the gatekeepers of what is and what is not epistemological they are being wholly dishonest.

Pomo, then, is a gas for mischievous intellectuals. But it is too ontologically empty to qualify as philosophy, and too nebulous, indeed slippery and ambiguous, for ideology. If there is a common thread running through it at all, it is precisely this anti-essentialism that interests Mouffe. Abolish essence, it says, and you abolish the knowable: the certainties you draw from life and Nature. Your sources of cultural power are neutralised, and rendered simply into places you may seek psychological source-material for a willed construction of the self.

All this really produces, of course, is willed self-deception. That first, notably wordless rush of adrenaline when an unknowable “African” shoulders our Pomo person into a dark alleyway, or a “female” cooly returns his gaze, belies all his linguistic contortions, and consigns his “texts”, his hermeneurotica, to a non-essentiality of their own. Life and love roar away in the world beyond the window, and will not be denied.

At all this the lumpen Conservative can only smile wryly and wonder at his eternally wrong-headed liberal foe. Probably, he will decide that this strange, discontented creature loathes his or herself. Then he will grow serious, and remember the anomie and the sheer, tragic waste that flows out of that loathing. And then ... he will think about something else. That’s the way it’s been going on for about three hundred years, and still liberalism ploughs its stony furrow, pulling him and the rest of us behind.

But how, exactly? Political philosophy is the sport of a tiny scholastic minority, and a sport largely incomprehensible to ninety per cent of the population. Critical Theory raises that to 95%, and the ironies of Pomo raise it again.

Nevertheless, we live in, or at the end of, the Postmodern Age. So how did a weird intellectual conceit that scarcely anyone outside the ironic elite understands convince anybody of anything? Take the Pomo position on the condition of language - Foucault’s mega-generalisation that “language is oppression”, for example. How did that get boosted to the station of social teaching?

Well, we know really. Here is a critical Wendy McElroy, writing in 2000 at LRC:-

Foucault’s speciality was the interpretation and meaning of language and, for decades, radical feminism has stressed language as a source of the oppression of women. Sometimes language is considered to be the source. Thus, they refuse to be called “Madam Chairman” and insist upon the wholesale replacement of the generic “he” with the ungainly “he/she.” The word “man” is replaced with “human being” or “person.” History becomes herstory. Words are deemed to be so powerful that syllables are acts in and of themselves. For example, pornography becomes an act of oppression and violence against women, and radical feminists call it “rape.”

How about another little Foucault incendiary device, then: “science is a language of power”?

Here’s an abstract from a 2006 paper by Diane Judd:-

More recent postmodern critics of science have taken their cue from Foucault’s work, and have argued that science is, among other things, a hegemonic form of Eurocentric male domination.

... The goals of this paper are to explore the adoption and/or rejection of western science in certain developing countries, and to outline what certain postmodern critics of science have said about the role of western science on a cultural level. Themes such as imperialism, universalism, and cultural particularism will be particularly emphasized.

“Texts” on the influence of Foucault are only a google away. Here health and illness, here religion, here education.

Here is Chantal Mouffe again, making it perfectly plain what it’s all about, “Our objective is to establish a dialogue between these theoretical developments and left-wing politics.”

For “left-wing politics” read a continuum of water-carriers – lower-order academics like Mouffe herself, journals and publications, liberal-left think-tanks, NGOs, public intellectuals and opinion-formers, advocacy groups, and party strategists – each of whom re-process and apply high intellectual output within their own sphere of interest. So theory is transported into culture. It does not matter that much whether it’s good theory or good culture. The mechanism needs raw theory to keep running and substantiate its existence thereby, and it takes what it can get. Even Pomo.

Anyhow, this is what a political traction engine looks like. The perilous condition of European Man, for example, his maladaptive existence, his anomie and self-estrangement, his ethno-masochism, his powerlessness, are all proofs that it works only too well.

In total contrast, traction is a concept almost foreign to Conservatism. Its more genuine thinkers – Roger Scruton, Thomas Fleming for example - have no need to drag society through an ideological hedge backwards. They wish others to cease doing so. Historically, they are reactionaries. They offer resistance to decline, in the manner of Greta Garbo meeting Dr Frankenstein. But since there is, as I said at the beginning, no real theory of the right, they can’t make any positive play against the aggressions of the left.

At the political level the goals of the right, especially in America, amount to no more than a variation on the Enlightenment Project of universal emancipation and civilisation. Real Conservative goals are too normative for party politics in the Postmodern Age. Part of the problem, no doubt, is fear of the left. But the very Anglospheric distrust of intellectuals also plays its part. The anti-essentialist terms of the opposing argument are not easy to understand. But the price for not understanding them is not understanding that a Conservative defence of the West must be essentialist, with all that implies for race, gender and sexuality. For without essence, there is nothing to conserve.

Over the last two or three months I’ve been re-examining my own Conservatism (which was never of the party political kind, of course - I defined it in the past as acting from and for what is good in us). Well, the hour is growing late and the night already dark. I am forced to the conclusion that the politics I have espoused since the mid-1970s are too static and supine, and too anti-intellectual to effect the kind of change that is needed now. It cannot transform.

Chantal Mouffe was right about the crisis in liberalism. After Post-structuralism there will be only banality. The Project has nothing more to give. There will be an opportunity to argue for survival. Few as we are in number today, for our side to stand any chance of success we have to equip ourselves with a theoretically-robust and revolutionary politic, something that can speak loudly to our people of freedom and justice. It must also be amenable to new modes of traction, for which the Interactive Age of communication on which we are embarking may serve.

As for the instinctual Conservative in my soul, I believe that Conservatism will describe the politics of a white society of the future matured by time and human wisdom. But it will not lead us to that high estate now, and on those strategic terms I renounce it.

I’m now beginning the search for a more active philosophical agent, and don’t yet know where that will take me. I hope it won’t make too dull a read for MR.

Tags: Political Philosophy

Comments:

Posted by Sally on Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:05 | #

Essentialism, as a frowned-upon attitude, is like foundationalism and reification in contemporary academic discourse. All three are somewhat unusable and fraudulent categories of discourse, yet all three share with what is loosely called “pomo” above some things that we can use.

We call the blithering chatter around us (and it is logo-centric) the jaw-bones of asses, and we pick up what we can use from the floor of the butcher shop and use in an instrumental way to rip the left-wing racialists who abound at tax-payer expense. We don’t ask if our techniques are conservative, they are survival.

Possibly Guessedworker may want to draw a distinction between a well-founded, thoughtful, grounded set of attitudes, ideas, and memes for what he calls “conservatism” on the one hand, and the development of a snarky, treacherous, logo-centric set of political and social attitudes, ideas, and memes for engaging in political and social guerrilla warfare. That would be the guerrilla war we face every day in every newspaper, on every TV station, and throughout the academy. A perfectly well-formed world view may not contain its warriors on the ground.

If there is any flaw in the chatter on this web site, it is the confusion between its trotskyist tendency (to design a perfect world, society, or philosophy) and its need to cherish, identify, and teach techniques (qua techniques) to our peers and to our children for logo-centric memes, attitudes, and ideas we can hurl back at our adversaries.

Posted by melba peachtoast on Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:34 | #

You may think that running a ranch in the Outback is all Picnic at Ayer’s Rock but I can assure you that it is no picnic at all. My orchard of bitter experience yields this one usufruct, which I with my darting tongue offer and recommend to you: Take this fruit and eat of it, and have your “friend” do the same. Let the best kill the rest.

Posted by Nux Gnomica on Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:47 | #

Foucault, being homosexual, belonged to one of the groups that like pouring acid on the foundations. Scruton, being scientifically illiterate, belongs to the one of the groups that won’t stop it happening.

I’m now beginning the search for a more active philosophical agent, and don’t yet know where that will take me.

The “agent” we need is race realism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:46 | #

Nux Gnomica,

Race-realism is merely a protest movement. We need a global solution, not something partial like that.

It is more difficult for white Americans to think in non-liberal terms than any other people. But they must if they want to survive. The very basis of the American political dispensation since the War of Independence is productive of the difficulties we all face today. Hyper-individualism and egalitarianism are American values, and none of us shall be free unless they are replaced in absolute.

Posted by Chestertonian on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:41 | #

A new philosophy or religion is unneeded. What _is_ needed is to revert the definition of good and evil.

Good: Whatever furthers the interests of our kin group.
Evil: Whatever counters the interests of our kin group.

Jews have used exactly these tribe-centric definitions to gain control of the West. The West used these definitions to conquer and colonize the world. The medieval Muslims used these definitions to sweep from Morocco to Malaysia.

It’s only through intolerance of other ideas that they are overcome.

Understand, there is no “hypocrisy”, there is no “injustice”, there is only the good that benefits us and the evil that denies us. If you believe in something, you disbelieve something else. A thing is right in as much as it is good.

The great sweeping movements throughout history have little in common beside the absolute certainty of their truths. A “truth” is defined with a rigid concept of good and evil, right and wrong, positive and negative. To accept these truths you must /believe/, hence the highly stressed role of faith in religions and racial movements. Once faith is lost, so is the will to carry our definitions. Without “good” or “bad”, we are prey to other tribes who carry such concepts.

We need never feel guilty. There is no wrong except that which harms us. There is no right except that which furthers our interests.

Believe this, and the ethno-logic of the strangers among you will have no bearing. Their conception of being “wronged” will not register with us, as their being wronged is essentially “good”. Their failure is our success. Our success is their failure.

This is our truth. This is our “ism”.

Posted by Prozium on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:25 | #

I have slouched into a generic authoritarianism out of pragmatism. Dictators take over when democracies fail. It’s not my ideal, but we don’t live in normal times. A strong hand will be needed to clean up this mess.

Posted by Francis de Groot on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:45 | #

If you want to influence society, you have to influence artists and the creative classes. That’s how the Pomos got their bizzaro worldview into the mainstream. They didn’t teach their theories to the public in raw form, they preached and peppered it through film, song and comedic sketch. These things are people’s moral point of reference for almost everything.

Posted by Nux Gnomica on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:06 | #

GW: Race-realism is merely a protest movement. We need a global solution, not something partial like that.

No, it has to be the foundation of thought and action, which is why the media and government plug race fantasy instead. A healthy instinct has been suppressed or inverted, but it will come roaring back in the right circumstances.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:16 | #

Nux,

I post at length on the issue, and try to lay this question to rest. Interesting to see what you think.

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:48 | #

Why running around finding this ideology or that. What built the West? Roman Catholicism with the Classics, the Graeco-Roman Heritage. The West beat back numerous Muslim invasions under the Cross. The Church, both Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, protested when it was Napoleon Bonaparte that gave liberty to the Jews.

And then radical Euro Atheists and Humanists rejected not only the Christian Heritage of the West but also the Graeco-Roman heritage as well. You’re swimming in your own juices. Modern Euro’s w/Scottish levellers rejected Traditional Europe. Napoleon Bonaparte wasn’t a Christian. He was a Liberal dressed as a Christian. Machiavelli, an atheist and a follower of Democritus, stated point blank that he and others are changing things; keeping the words but changing the meanings in order to bring about a New State of things. That is the Problem.

This is not something new. Socrates fought this very same paradigm in Athens with his nihilist compatriots. Socrates is the guide out of this mess. The conservative program is Truth and Right; following the footsteps of our fathers; obeying God and the Natural Law. Return back to the Old Order. That is the only way. A return to the Catholic Church, a return to Monarchy which is Patriarchy. You can’t fight Islam with Atheism.

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:57 | #

I noticed in the article you linked to that GD mentions Pitt the Younger as the first conservative. While the Neo-cons have nominated Benjamin Disraeli, one of their own, as the first Conservative.

Socrates was the first conservative. He was about fighting liberalism and nihilism and democracy of his time. See, ideology, posits an idea like liberty and then says, ‘attain it’. But what is needed is Wisdom not ideology. Men have to start following Wisdom. Man doesn’t create Wisdom—-it is found and inspired. The whole Enlightenment and Modernism, which is Jewish, and Pomo are all about men following ideology of this or that.

What man needs to start doing is following Wisdom. That is the only thing. Other than that man will be just tramping around in the darkness to his death.

Posted by silver on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:49 | #

You can’t fight Islam with Atheism.

You can fight liberalism with Catholicism.

You can fight Islam with Catholicism.

But you can’t fight racial dispossession with Catholicism. I can appreciate the romantic appeal of doing so, however.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:23 | #

I” have slouched into a generic authoritarianism out of pragmatism. Dictators take over when democracies fail. It’s not my ideal, but we don’t live in normal times. A strong hand will be needed to clean up this mess.”

Give me an authoritarian, racialist, anti-Semitic, national-socialist government, please of dear God! To paraphrase Castro: national-socialism or death!

The more time I spend understanding the Third Reich, the more I see national-socialism as the perfect political system.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:10 | #

WLindsayWheeler,

There is little likelihood that Platonic and Aristotelian thought will cease to filter into a philosophy of Western survival. You have nothing to fear. On the Islamic/multi-invader issue I think you should answer silver.

Friedrich,

It’s not as simple as that. Presumably, you are looking into the domestic outcomes of National Socialism. But NS changed during its brief life. On which enduring philosophical ideas, set out by which thinkers, do you rely.

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:35 | #

The problem with Catholicism, Silver, is not Catholicism/Christianity per se, it is the men inside it.

For example, Let’s look at nature Silver for this paradigm. The cowbird and the cuckoo lay their eggs in another bird’s nest. Upon hatching the the cowbird/cuckoo, push out the natural birds to their deaths. Here you have what you call entryism.

Now, let’s advance this paradigm to another secular body, the Conservatives. Again, we see that the neo-cons, Jews, ex-leftists, call themselves “conservatives” move in and then displace/fire Europeans such as Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, and Pat Buchanan. Two of those are Roman Catholics. These three people were pushed out, just like cowbirds and cuckoos hatchlings do, of the conservative movement. The conservative movement has been hijacked, taken over by a parasitic race.

Now, silver, does the Neo-con takeover, destroy, discredit Conservative ideas, principles, or thinking? No because they are not conservatives.

Same thing within the Christian/Catholic Church. Socialists and Communists made it a point TO INFILTRATE the Catholic Church and change it from within. They have pushed out traditionalists. They also have people who guard the seminaries and vet out all those deemed politically incorrect and manly. They accept as only good seminarians, leftists, liberals and effeminates. So of course the Church is compromised today. I grant you that Silver. Any movement and institution can be compromised.

But the Tradition (tradition means teaching, historical teaching) doesn’t change. These people have suppressed, obscured, maligned the tradition, but the Tradition remains True Tradition. Tradition remains unaffected. It takes good men to bring it up, defend it, hold it. We are to Guard. Catholicism is in a mess today. But running after heresy and failed ideologies is not going to solve it. Going back to Tradition, Holding it, and teaching it, to fight back is what is needed.

Truth has a way of always succeeding. Hold on to Truth. And let Truth do the rest.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:57 | #

“It’s not as simple as that. Presumably, you are looking into the domestic outcomes of National Socialism. But NS changed during its brief life. On which enduring philosophical ideas, set out by which thinkers, do you rely.”

I like to go to primary sources, unpolluted by partial commentary and hostile distortions. Of course, access to uncontrollable Internet and an ability to read German helps.

One useful and bilingual source:

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/welcome.html

My university library also contains a great deal of primary German documentation.

What changes are you alluding to? The only change that I can see in National Socialism is a turn towards a more European-minded foreign policy; but that was mainly a result of the international makeup of the Waffen-SS, the finest, most idealistic young men that Europe has ever known who were fighting as volunteers with their German brothers to defeat the Judeo-Bolshevik monster in the East.

Introduction to Leon Degrelle’s Waffen SS

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xtd5GIuMi1Y

Leon Degrelle’s Lecture on the Waffen SS, Hitler

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-YxMirgw9xs

A truthful history of the Third Reich is yet to be written, but as Germar Rudolf told me: who will write it in today’s climate?

Posted by Briedrich Fraun on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:25 | #

Lol guys, Hitler sure loved going to see the opera, and was a fervent Wagner fan! This obviously means he is more intelligent than people with actual law degrees and experience in the law courts!! Yes: being committed to high musical culture is a better marker of intelligence than any shoddy academic credentials! Now don’t get me wrong, this isn’t the only reason I admire Hitlol, but I have one time argued his intellectual superiority over other leaders with actual high-achieving academic pasts through this point alone. No, don’t be retarded you untermenschen, this doesn’t reveal a possible irrational, emotional motive behind my rabid Nazi admiration, one that isn’t in fact a result of serious, enlightened logical thinking. Did you know I can speak 4 languages?

Those bloody Jewdeo-Bolshokikes definitely killed millions in Gulags. Definitely. But, no, National Socialist Germany, despite being a totalitarian, personality-cult worshiping, war-mongering state NEVER, say, exterminated over 3 million Soviet POWs, most of them dying within 8 months of ‘41. Oh, and Holocaust?! Lolocaust!! Definitely not. German soldiers were the best behaved in the war!! Superhuman SS!!!

But by Himmler’s cock!, I certainly won’t apply an equal helping of skepticism to the historical tradition regarding Soviet, Allied or even Japanese war crimes, because..!!

You British peon scum are worthless, money-grabbing, soulless fools! You are less intelligent, less noble than the average German, what with your lower than average population and 15 more Nobel Prizes than us. Oh, and you Poles are even worse, you slack-brained Slavs, what with your complete superiority in Topcoder algorithm competitions compared to Germany, despite your significant economic disadvantage. Slaves!

Yuezhus = win.

We’re functioning automatic
and we are dancing mechanic

Posted by Prozium on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:29 | #

And then radical Euro Atheists and Humanists rejected not only the Christian Heritage of the West but also the Graeco-Roman heritage as well. You’re swimming in your own juices.

Over 90% of Americans are Christians. The U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the world. George W. Bush is a Christian. Obviously, we are not suffering from any lack of Christianity in America.

Posted by Don on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:20 | #

“How do Jews do it if there are only five million of them in the U.S.?”

In fact, there are probably 30 million Jews in the USA who promote the Jewish party line. Here are three bases for my claim.

1) In the early 1970s, I happened to meet a dozen or so old-timer immigration agents who were at or just past retirement age, and listened to their stories. One element that appeared over and over again was the very loose standards that they were required to apply to Jewish immigrants and refugees over their career. Even older agents were cited on this point, so the institutional memories recited were at least 60 years old at that time, back to 1910 or 1920 or so. In many cases, Jewish individual immigration officials granted admission to entire boatloads without creating documentation and without medical exams. The old-timers also frequently mentioned huge boatloads of Jews landing in Canada (where entry was even easier) who then scuttled across the US-Canada border to family, friends, and easily bamboozled Christian-financed refugee boards. The estimate the old-timer agents gave for illegal immigration of undocumented Jews was in the neighborhood of 10 million, peaking at three times, around the turn of the century (1900), at the end of WWI (1920), and post-WWII times.

2) In support of this reality and according to the old-timers who sought to blow the whistle on these criminal admissions, the Jews had academic & journalistic co-conspirators who silenced discussion of this huge phenomenon on the ground, yes, that it would “promote anti-semitism if known.” Mustn’t do that.

3) In additional support of this reality, Jews mounted a mighty campaign not to be counted in the US decennial census as Jews. An honest count of Jews in America would startle everyone who has been raised on the “tiny minority” story. Jews don’t mind being counted as Jews in the Canadian census, but utterly reject being counted in the US census. The only reason that can be teased out of this point is that there are many more Jews than as we realize. This may be why we hear about so many fights about test methodology between major Jewish organizations whenever there is a study of Jews by Jews in America.

But they stick together as described above to create new facts on the ground, especially those based on their tikkun olam commandment (one of 613 commandments) to change the world to accommodate Jewish tastes, comfort, greed, and hatreds. What we are seeing behind the huge variety of American-hating Jewish projects (in addition to the purposes stated above) is (1) the unlimited hatred by Jews for every other people, and (2) a religious commandment to change the world for their comfort. These two impulses are murderous toward us.

When the white American, Canadian, and European peoples finally get it that neo-tribalism is being forced down our throats, and when we finally embrace the tools that neo-tribalism offers, then we will see discussions like these in public media. We’ll be free to be ourselves.

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:26 | #

Prozium, it is simply NOT just “Christianity”. Things in the world are made by a combinatorial system. For instance, the human body is NOT just made up of flesh—but bone and a liquid called blood. It is a combination of things. The Family is NOT just made up of a Man, but a Man and a woman—-A combination of things.

There is an error in human thought that gravitates to one thing, this extreme to the other extreme. We dress all things down into a monism. Christianity is important but it isn’t the only thing. The restoration of Monarchy. Christendom is built on “Throne and Altar”. By decieving all Europeans to get rid of their kings, opened them all up to Jewish power and Euro ideologues. Kings have a care of their people as a father for his children. You can’t have Christianity without monarchy. Furthermore, you can’t have both of those without Patriarchy; that means ending woman’s suffrage and putting women back in skirts and back in the home where they belong.

Next comes the culture for it is culture that produces men. What is needed is Men, true Men. Only agrarianism, or a boy scout program for city boys, are men produced, hardened, rugged masculine men. Without the Culture of ruggedness and outdoorsmanship there is no true man. It is a combination of Christianity, Monarchy and Agrarianism/Outdoorsmanship that is needed.

Christianity provides the Transcendence, divine truth; Monarchy provides the Patriarchy and Authority; Agrarianism/Outdoorsmanship provides the Manliness. What is affecting Christianity is two things, the lack of manliness and second dysfunctionality between and inherent in Protestantism and Catholicism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:41 | #

Don,

It should be possible to arrive at a general indication of the size of the Jewish population in America on the basis of college admissions - given what we know of the Jewish bell curve, the devoted self-advancement and networking of Jews, and Jewish fertility.

“Hate” is a word that must be weighed with care. I am not happy with your generalisation that it is, in the Jewish case, “unlimited” and universal. Everything is limited. Further, there is a Jewish population in Iran whish appears not to hate Iranians, and recently refused to make aliyah. If one is to apply the “h” word let it not be with the same sloppiness and gratuity with which it is applied to us.

Posted by Prozium on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:41 | #

Christianity provides the Transcendence, divine truth; Monarchy provides the Patriarchy and Authority; Agrarianism/Outdoorsmanship provides the Manliness. What is affecting Christianity is two things, the lack of manliness and second dysfunctionality between and inherent in Protestantism and Catholicism.

So now you are saying the problem is 1.) the race degeneracy produced by capitalism which is 2.) compounded by liberal democracy. If so, we are on the same page, but I still fail to see how Christianity is the solution. Isn’t Christianity already reconciled to the status quo and fully a part of the mainstream?

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:57 | #

“Isn’t Christianity already reconciled to the status quo and fully a part of the mainstream?”

Upon the renewal of my subscription to Occidental Quarterly (for three years), I received a fine little book “Breach of Faith: American Churches and the Immigration Crisis.” Organized Christianity today is part and parcel of the problem and labours against the genetic interests of White populations.

http://www.amazon.com/Breach-Faith-American-Churches-Immigration/dp/0967215447

Posted by silver on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:09 | #

My diagnosis: Christianity renders unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Multiracialism is the modern Caesar, and since multiracialism is compatible with Christianity, Christianity offers no defence against racial dispossession. The problem is compounded by modern Christians having wholeheartedly embraced multiracialism, argued that it is un-Christian to oppose it, and used Christian theological non-opposition to it to advance their own Christian agenda—filling pews no matter whence congregants originate.

Wheeler attempts to remedy matters by invoking “Tradition”. Centuries of absence of such tradition would appear to make this a futile theological dispute. Nevertheless, if it can be used to rally support let it be used. Wheeler needs to be less zealous in insisting it is the only approach, however, and cease hostilities with those advocating alternative means.

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:16 | #

Christendom is built on “Throne and Altar”. This is in answer to one part of the problem of “why” Christianity. It seperates religion from government and puts it into another institution called Church.

In Ancient times, there was really no seperate place for Religion. The Monarch, like the Egyptian Pharoahs and the Persian kings were both the head of their state and a religious figure. For these Monarchs, they all had divine foundation—-but not religion. When Jesus Christ came, He personally instituted a Church; Religion was put into a seperate institution called a Church. Now, in Christendom, The Monarch had a divine foundation and the Church, the religion, had a divine foundation.

With the destruction of Christendom, ideologues and ideology becomes totalitarian; in other words ideology becomes religion. It becomes totalitarian because religion and the state are in one institution that of the ideology. Ideology takes on religious character and mentality. One can see this in both Anarchism, Communism, and Fascism.

The Second point of ‘why’ Christianity is that only Christianity solves the problem of evil. That man has salvation from sin because God himself took upon his royal self the punishment due to evil. Once evil is done away with or its demands satisfied, immortality is within the grasp of all men. All humans are spiritual, and Christianity is that Spiritual Truth that sets man free from evil and death. Christianity gives assurance in that. Christianity satisfies the spiritual hunger of man, it satisfies his intellect, and it satisfies the demands of Justice.

Christianity is a Greek/Indo-European religion. Indo-Europeans who had no divine revelation but only inklings and vague rememberings are given truth and substance with Christianity that the old European religions could not give. This is why most of the European old religious ways have been subsumed by Catholicism. The Trinitarian aspect of Christianity, which is NOT Jewish or semitic, which is a core doctrine of Christianity, is European.

Because Christianity is built on Truth, with a physical historical manifestation, it provides Transcendence. The Good, the Beautiful, Truth, Justice, Virtue is seen only in the context of God. It is Christianity that feeds the Soul of Man. It is Christianity that corrects the errors within the soul of man and heals it. It is what inspired Europeans to charity, beauty, which is embodied in the great art, architecture, music of Europe. From the Cathedral of Notre Dame, to Handel’s Messiah, to Michelangio to Da Vinci. Christianity built Europe. Civilized Europe. Educated Europe. Inspired Europe. Brought Europe Greatness. Died for Europe.

At the Battle of Lepanto, muslim ships went after a stray lonely Christian ship. On it were Templar Knights; they stood their ground and slew many before they were overwhelmed. These Christians, these religious men sacrificed their lives for Europe. Countless Monks and nuns, celibate, sacrificed their lives, pleasures, material things, to turn the marshes of Europe into arable land; Taught and improved agriculture and science; Monks and nuns who wrote down and passed on Classical and religious texts so that future generations could have learning and knowledge. It was Christianity that restricted warfare to only the aristocratic class and prevented cities and civilians from being harmed (didn’t work all the time; not always successful).

As GK Chesterton said, “Europe is the Faith and the Faith Europe”.

Posted by John Ray on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:28 | #

David

I think you miss the essential point about the conservative response: Its distrust of big theories IS a good response to the Leftist babbling.

And vast numbers of voters distrust intellectuals so it is a response with a big constituency

But the “anti-racist” fever has to run it course before we get more rationality

In the meantime the Muslims are doing a great job of discrediting multiculturalism

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:33 | #

Christianity is defined by the Truth, not by the heretics within it.

Posted by D.E. Johnson on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:37 | #

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 03:16 AM | #

Once evil is done away with or its demands satisfied, immortality is within the grasp of all men.

Running completely off the rails under a full head of steam is not conducive to longevity, never mind immortality.

Posted by silver on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:47 | #

Wheeler, I can agree with all that. I am a Christian. I just don’t have much use for encylicals or bulls or the blabbering of prelates regarding the issues of the day; in this, they are worse than useless—they are often the enemy. See: Benedict XVI; Rowan Williams.

Posted by Prozium on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:58 | #

Upon the renewal of my subscription to Occidental Quarterly (for three years), I received a fine little book “Breach of Faith: American Churches and the Immigration Crisis.” Organized Christianity today is part and parcel of the problem and labours against the genetic interests of White populations.

Of course. Here in America, the Catholic Church (in alliance with the cheap labor lobby) has been a more prominent supporter of amnesty for illegal aliens than even the Jewish community. Insofar as American Catholics have bucked this trend, they have done so in spite of the clergy, not because of their influence. The Protestants also have a problem with liberal ministers who are pro-amnesty.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:07 | #

Friedrich,

There were very significant and formative influences on the ideological basis of National Socialism who, nonetheless, fell by the wayside. One thinks, particularly, of the Strasser brothers and the great jurist, Carl Schmitt. Gregor Strasser sought a second revolution against the elites, and became a victim of the Night of the Long Knives. Otto Strasser survived but, along with Schmitt, was subsequently “criticised” for a paucity of judenhasse. Schmitt was saved by the intervention of Göring, who at least recognised a great mind when he saw one.

As I understand it, NS became wholly centred around the figure of the Führer, and his political principles as set out in Mein Kampff. The Führer, however, was not a very able philosopher (or war administrator). He might have been the greatest public orator the world has ever seen.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:33 | #

John,

The difficulty with just waiting out the storm is that race-replacement is not mere leftist babbling, but formal elite policy. The left is useful to the elite’s anti-nation project, which is why it is given free rein. Loyal sentiment on the right is the opposite, and is strangulated.

The precondition for survival is territorial sovereignty. For the last sixty years political Conservatism has been uninterested in defending that, because it is more interested in power. That leaves people like me searching for a philosophical Conservative kernel that is unmixed with the ways of the modern world. It’s true that such a kernel would give a healthy society healthy politics. But it can’t restore health in a time when so many pointers lead to real destruction.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:47 | #

The traitorous Strasser brothers were peripheral figures, I have written about them at some length in the past:

Strasser and National Bolshevism [1]

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/08/28/strasser-and-national-bolshevism-1/

Strasser and National Bolshevism [2]

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/08/29/strasser-and-national-bolshevism-2/

Posted by onlooker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:38 | #

WLindsayWheeler has it completely right about Christianity…HOW REFRESHING!!!!!!!

It has always frustrated and amazed me that so many that call themselves WN’ists would align themselves with the Cultural Marxists; they are our sworn enemy, you know! Anybody that is paying the least bit of attention knows the anti-White leftists find Christianity anathema to their leftist agenda. I find it mind boggling the so-called WN movement would aid and abet the complete demise of the Church. How can WN defeat their enemies when they join forces with them and attack the very religion that made Europe and it’s people great? Talk about self inflicted ethno suicide!

Some here are not much different than Gramsci. In fact some are in essence supporters of him.

“For a long time American Vision has been calling on Christians to understand that social change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. This does not mean that the top should be ignored. There were converts in “Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22). Political involvement is God-ordained and “ministerial” (Rom. 13:1, 4), not redemptive (John 19:15; cf. Acts 17:7). With these principles in mind, more attention should be given to family, church, education, business, law, art, journalism, and entertainment while not ignoring politics.

The Left learned this in the 1960s when their political agenda failed to accomplish their stated goals. Their radical agenda was shot down politically because the majority of Americans still retained a remnant of the older Christian worldview. The Left knew it would be necessary to capture those institutions that shape and mold children who will one day become leaders. Once the heart and mind are captured, everything else follows, including politics. This is a major tactical maneuver that most on the Right did not understand.

Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy for cultural and social change was the model for the new Leftists. Gramsci (1891–1937) considered Christianity to be the “force binding all the classes—peasants and workers and princes and priests and popes and all the rest besides, into a single, homogeneous culture. It was specifically Christian culture, in which individual men and women understood that the most important things about human life transcend the material conditions in which they lived out their mortal lives.“1 Gramsci broke with Marx and Lenin’s belief that the masses would rise up and overthrow the ruling “superstructure.” No matter how oppressed the working classes might be, their Christian faith would not allow such an overthrow, Gramsci theorized. Marxists taught “that everything valuable in life was within mankind.“2”

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-07-04.asp

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:49 | #

Heresies affecting Christianity has been there from the beginning. There has been no age that orthodox aposotolic Christianity has not been aflicted with heresy. Arianism almost triumped over it in the 4th century. Jesus had Judas. Every age, every year, there are Judases. The Church is never free from them but in this age it seems that there are millions of them.

It distresses me to no end the position of the Catholic Heirarchy and most of the mainline Protestant Churches on immigration and race. Our whole society is becoming more and more Judiazed. Jewish mode of thought is everywhere and it is corrupting Christianity. The Jewish mode of thought is solely on the written word and is materialistic. And it seems to be that Christianity is soley becoming more materialistic and concentrating on the Gospel and on the word “love” to the exclusion of all else.

This is not traditional European Christian thought. Traditional Roman Catholic Thought/Western Thought was about combining Scripture with the Natural Law. The Natural Law has somehow dropped off the agenda. Traditional Western European Thought is based on Divine Revelation and the Natural Law. It is based in the Golden Mean which is the holding of contradictory things in a harmony directed to their right objects. It is very complex thought that many people can not engage in. And that means understanding Proportion which is lost on many modern people.

Priests and Bishops only preach on Love and not on any other subject like Righteousness. Much of the Christian Laity are ignorant of many subjects because the socialist/liberal clergy are deliberatly dumbing down the laity. As I like to say “Even good in the wrong proportions does evil”. The overpreaching on Love within the Christian church has effeminized and damaged Christianity.

“Democracy” with its egalitarianism and the exaltation of the common man has shown that the common man is moved by propaganda and not by science, logic or wisdom. Wisdom is of the Few and the enlightened—not a purview of the many. This democracy is the methodology of Rabbinic Thought; it is how it comes to decide what it thinks is truth. Democracy is highly destructive to wisdom, to the Church and to the character of Man. On the other hand St. Maximos the Confessor, brutalized, tortured, imprisoned by his own Church said this, “One man with the Truth is the Majority”. This is Western Thought. Our Duty is to the Truth.

The current culture of modernism, the control of the educational system by leftists, by women, has disastrous effects and the Church can not be but affected by this. It’s sad.
———-
Christianity rests on Truth. It is all about Truth and Love. That is where True Christianity is. Our responsiblity is to hold Truth, have love, Duty to God and country. This is our personal responsiblity. We are going to be judged on this not on the actions/inactions/heresy of others. Yes, it is shameful and that majority of Christianity is in heresy. But that doesn’t negate our responsibility, our Duty. We who know better—-act better. The war is about Education. That there has to be a thorough grounding in our common Graeco-Roman Foundation; a proper understanding of all of Scriptures, a love and knowledge of the Natural Law; This is all Wisdom. Training in Virtue which is completely lost on our whole society and Church. Virtue is what is needed and yet nobody knows what that is.

Posted by onlooker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:18 | #

“That there has to be a thorough grounding in our common Graeco-Roman Foundation; a proper understanding of all of Scriptures, a love and knowledge of the Natural Law; This is all Wisdom.”

Bravo!

Western Civilization and Christianity
by James Kurth

http://www.schwarzreport.org/SchwarzReport/2004/october04.html

Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:55 | #

WLindsayWheeler wrote, “Christianity rests on Truth.” As it should. But how does one handle the seeming contradictions in the Bible, and what does one say to those who insist on, “The inerrancy of Scripture,” and take every word therein literally?

Posted by Denethor on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:58 | #

As GK Chesterton said, “Europe is the Faith and the Faith Europe”.

I’m pretty sure it was Belloc who said that, not Chesterton.

Posted by Denethor on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:08 | #

At the Battle of Lepanto, muslim ships went after a stray lonely Christian ship. On it were Templar Knights; they stood their ground and slew many before they were overwhelmed.

Huh? I know the Templars are at the center of a great deal of New Age nonsense, but I think this is the first time I’ve heard anyone claim they’d traveled forward in time 250 years or so. (Well how else do you get them from their 1312 AD suppression to a 1571 AD naval battle?)

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:53 | #

I have been asked to expound on another tangent; on Christianity and its “not invented here” objections.

First off, much of what we do is borrowed from the East. Our writing system, our chickens, and most domesticated animals and foods, our “0”, we borrowed from the East. Plato in his letter to Epinomis writes: “Bu we may take it that whenevr Greeks borrow anything from non-Greeks, they finally carry it to a higher perfection”.

In a sense, Christianity borrowed the Scriptures from the Hebrews——and carried it to a higher perfection. We only borrow what is Perfect or Excellent in the East and drop the rest. Or what we see could be perfected—-pick it up—-without imbibing the errors of the East. Even rudimentary Greek philosophy has its roots in Egyptian mysteries but those things in it were purified through Logic and the Western mind into the Excellence we now know as Greek Philosophy, Socratic, Platonic, Aristotelian, Thomistic, Philosophy. The Western Mind works on Excellence. We always move to a higher perfection or Excellence. Even dropping what is non-perfect in our world.

That said, Jesus Christ said himself: Matthew, Ch. 21
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.”

See, this “Taken From” and “Given to (another) Nation” (Ethni in Greek, Race/Nation). Jesus said the Faith was being transferred. It was being transferred from the Hebrews, from the Jews to the Indo-Europeans—-to the Greeks. Edith Hamilton the American Classicist wrote: “Christianity, in its beginnings was addressed to Greeks. The Gospels, as we have them are in Greek. St. Paul wrote in Greek to Greek-speaking Christians.”

The Doctrine of Jesus Christ as Fully God and Fully man is NOT a Jewish/Semitic construct. That is a Greek thing. This is why the Jews rejected Jesus and the Greeks accepted him. The Trinity is NOT a Jewish/Semitic construct—-it is Greek. The Immortality of the soul is NOT a Jewish/Semitic construct—-it is totally Greek. When Alexander the Great conquered the Middle East, he Hellenized the Middle East. Plato’s ideas became the Cultural Norm for much of the East including Palestine. The Pharisees were Hellenistic Jews. Much of Judiasm was already Hellenized. The Septuagint written in Greek, Hellenized the Jews and brought them in touch with Greek Philosophical ideas. The Sadducees were the traditional Jews not so much Hellenized as the Pharisees. Jesus hobnobbed with the Pharisees—-not with the Sadducees.

Original Sin is a Platonic Idea that Church Fathers read back into the Hebrew Scriptures and found them there. Plato is more of the Founder of Christianity than the Jews are. Jesus Christ is the Messiah—-But Christianity is a Greek/Indo-European Religion. Jerry Dell Ehrlich wrote a fabulous book, “Plato’s Gift to Christianity, The Gentile Preparation for and the Making of the Christian Faith”. Furthermore, Prof. Phillip Cary, PH. D in his lectures “Philosophy and Religion in the West” Part I, part of “The Great Courses on Tape” states that “Christianity STOLE from Plato”. (His exact words). The Combined Deity and Humanity of Jesus Christ, The Trinitarian Dogma, the Immortality of the Soul, Original sin, are NOT Jewish concepts/ideas—-But Platonic and therefore European. The Septuagint was written in Greek, an Indo-European Language and it replaced Jewish words and the anthropologizing of God with the Metaphysical language of the Greeks. Furthermore the New Testament is written IN Greek, an Indo-European language and ONLY quotes from the Septuagint and quotes a couple of pagan Greeks. Christianity is a Greek/Indo-European religion—-not at all Semitic. It borrowed the ideas and the personhood of God from the Semites—-But improved greatly the Faith and corrected Error.

(This post is already long; will continue in another post.)

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:29 | #

Yes, Denethor is right it is Hillaire Belloc; I constantly mix him with GK Chesterton. It was the Knights Hospitallar, not the Templar Knights that were involved in the Battle of Lepanto. There is a famous story of one that stand of Knights on a galley against three or more muslim ships. 30 knights killed hundreds of Muslims before they were cut down themselves.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:06 | #

Great posts, Mr. Wheeler, thank you. Please, keep writing while you still have these thoughts in your head. Great answers on the “not invented here” problem many have. What about racial concerns: what firm protection does true Christianity offer the proponents of family, tribe, and nation? How does a correct interpretation of The Word and Truth encourage, direct, and support Real Men, giving that warrior spirit? This seems to be the draw of some of the pagan movements.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:16 | #

Another question: if the Jews had been so Hellenized by then, why have a Jewish Messiah? Why the Jews for Revelation?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:23 | #

Christianity was forced upon Europe’s peoples for reasons of power, and turned to the same function as the old, true religion, which was to enhance genetic interests. No religion among the masses exists for “spiritual” reasons. There is no sky fairy. No one is going to His wonderland in heaven. No one is going to be judged after brain death, and found to have been a terribly good boy. No one is going to be immortal because of anything he does or does not do during his lifetime.

Whether human beings are capable of a transition along the ancient pathways of ecstacy and self-perfectionment is an entirely different question, and should not be confused with the spiritual bludgeon of organised worship, Christian or otherwise.

Sorry to so offend all those who have the faith gene. You are in the majority, and you are good people. But your tragedy is that you know part only of the three parts of the human story, and that part you inflate to the whole.

Posted by Prozium on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:58 | #

What about racial concerns: what firm protection does true Christianity offer the proponents of family, tribe, and nation?

Zero.

If anything is true, Christianity undermines all of these things by teaching a universalist ethic. Jesus preached against the family in the New Testament. Christianity isn’t necessarily hostile to racial and cultural preservation, but these sentiments do not stem from religion (they are natural). The restoration of Christianity is thus not a solution to the crisis we are facing.

Where is Christianity opposed to the forces at work destroying the West? It looks to me like the Church is a collaborator everywhere. In some cases, as in the American immigration debate, the Church has led the charge on the other side. Christianity is for its own self perpetuation as an otherwordly cult. Zmirak never ceases to remind us that the perpetuation of Europeans is irrelevant to its goals.

Posted by onlooker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:28 | #

It is said, about 10%, or less, of the population are incapable of grasping, or believing, in the concept of a divine creator. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bad people; but, too bad, so sad, for them.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:28 | #

When Lindsay Wheeler can prove to us that there is something for humans beyond this life, then his sententious Jesusbabble might be taken seriously. Even then there are thinking people who would agree with Christopher Hitchens when he claims that, even if he knew God existed, he’d be agin Him due to the savage and arbitrary nature of His treatment of humans.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:34 | #

“Where is Christianity opposed to the forces at work destroying the West? It looks to me like the Church is a collaborator everywhere. In some cases, as in the American immigration debate, the Church has led the charge on the other side.” (—Prozium)

This is true of mainstream Christianity as presently constituted (except Eastern Orthodox, however). Mainstream Christianity has joined the Jews and the Globalist Capitalists in pushing for the annihilation of the European races, supposedly out of Christian self-abnegation — something like “we have to do it to be nice to the world’s poor: to show our concern for them we are morally obliged to go out of existence and bequeath everything that is ours to them.” This is a condensation of the Jim-Jones-type mass-suicide doctrine which the Catholics and mainline Prods have now adopted from his cult in Guiana and are teaching their faithful today. Listening to these priests today, you can just hear the evil lunatic Jim Jones exhorting his flock, “Here, drink this, you must pass out of existence. Everyone must drink the Kool-Aid. Pass it around so everyone can have some. No one must be left alive. Everyone must drink. It is God’s wish.” The problem with all that is Christianity doesn’t call for group racial/ethnocultural suicide. Quite the contrary in fact, a case can be made that it condemns it as a sin analagously with the case of the suicide of the individual. Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have now become Jim-Jones-Guiana mass suicide sects.

“Zmirak never ceases to remind us that the perpetuation of Europeans is irrelevant to [Christianity’s] goals.” (—Prozium)

Zmirak would have felt right at home at Jonestown on the day the Kool-Aid was being passed out.

So-called “Christians” like John Zmirak make me puke.

Posted by Don on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:36 | #

The scope of hatred held by Jews toward non-Jews is questioned by Guessedworker above,

““Hate” is a word that must be weighed with care. I am not happy with your generalisation that it is, in the Jewish case, “unlimited” and universal.”

I thought this was a well-known fact. So let us consult Professor Israel Shahak in his “Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” chapter five titled “The Laws Against Non-Jews.”

You may read the entire chapter at this web site:

http://www.ety.com/HRP/racehate/shahak5.htm

Anyway, here are some short quotations from chapter five of Shahak’s book.

===================

Under this heading (“ABUSE”) I would like to discuss examples of halakhic laws whose most important effect is not so much to prescribe specific anti-Gentile discrimination as to inculcate an attitude of scorn and hatred towards Gentiles….

Let us begin with the text of some common prayers. In one…, every devout Jew blesses God for not making him a Gentile. The concluding section of the daily prayer (which is also used in the most solemn part of the service on New Year’s day and on Yom Kippur) opens with the statement: ‘We must praise the Lord of all ... for not making us like the nations of [all] lands ... for they bow down to vanity and nothingness and pray to a god that does not help’...

We have mentioned in Chapter 2 the rule according to which a pious Jew must utter [a] curse when passing near a Gentile cemetery, whereas he must bless God when passing near a Jewish cemetery. A similar rule applies to the living; thus, when seeing a large Jewish population a devout Jew must praise God, while upon seeing a large Gentile population he must utter a curse….

There is also a series of rules forbidding any expression of praise for Gentiles or for their deeds, except where such praise implies an even greater praise of Jews and things Jewish….

An important effect of all these laws - quite apart from their application in practice - is in the attitude created by their constant study which, as part of the study of the Halakhah, is regarded by classical Judaism as a supreme religious duty. Thus an Orthodox Jew learns from his earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that Gentiles are compared to dogs, that it is a sin to praise them, and so on and so forth….

Anyone who lives in Israel knows how deep and widespread these attitudes of hatred and cruelty towards all Gentiles are among the majority of Israeli Jews….a significant minority of Jews, both in Israel and abroad, have gradually become more open about such matters. In recent years the inhuman precepts according to which servitude is the ‘natural’ lot of Gentiles have been publicly quoted in Israel, even on TV….and as divine authority for their own plan to expel all the Arabs from Palestine….

Judaism is imbued with a very deep hatred towards Christianity, combined with ignorance about it….it dates from the time when Christianity was still weak and persecuted (not least by Jews), and it was shared by Jews who had never been persecuted by Christians or who were even helped by them. Thus, Maimonides was subjected to Muslim persecutions by the regime of the Almohads and escaped from them first to the crusaders’ Kingdom of Jerusalem, but this did not change his views in the least. This deeply negative attitude is based on two main elements….First, on hatred and malicious slanders against Jesus….Secondly, for theological reasons, mostly rooted in ignorance, Christianity as a religion is classed by rabbinical teaching as idolatry….

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:42 | #

onlooker,

Tell me what this means:-

“For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there” from Matthew 18.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:51 | #

Don,

You wrote “the unlimited hatred by Jews for every other people”. Are you,then, shifting this to the hatred of Christianity, and is it still “unlimited”?

One understands that Judaism is Jewish Nationalism, and being the most ethnocentric people in the world, it is entirely probably that the converse of Jewish self-love, which is Jewish dislike of the out-group, will be of like strength.

So there are Jews, no doubt, who hate, and some of them hate a great deal. But that still isn’t what you wrote, which concerned all Jews and unlimited hatred. My injunction is to take care in that respect. You will come closer to the truth for it.

Posted by onlooker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:25 | #

onlooker,

Tell me what this means:-

“For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there” from Matthew 18.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m not a Theologian GW!

Ver. 18 means: To the Apostles as a body is given a part of the power granted to Peter. There will be no conflict of authority, since Peter is the head of the Church, including the Apostles he alone having received “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

What I think it means is: If you want to enter the kingdom of heaven, you must follow the teachings of the Church. The Church in this context clearly means the Catholic Church.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:36 | #

“The Church in this context clearly means the Catholic Church”.

That’s a relief. In 2004 the then Pope called for “a new world order based on the goals of the United Nations”.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/01/pope.ny.ap/

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:51 | #

I’m not a theologian either. I am a Darwinian with a question about teleology. The point is that something is outside Western epistemology, and it is situated at the sacred core of every genuine religion (or, in the case of Christianity, once was). But it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or worship, which are genetic endowments. It is not accessible through faith. It is the question ... the mystery of whether a man might, in some way, become a god, and for us it is unanswerable.

I mentioned the three parts of Man’s story, meaning the Inate, the Acquired and this sacred thing which we might call the Esoteric. Religionists act from a genetic predeliction for faith, of which they are obviously unaware, and imbue it with an acquired set of meanings. Those meanings are not stable among all peoples at all times, and believers mutually refute them and frequently fight over them to the death. In other words, the meanings are foils for tribal genetic interests. Faith only exists because it has been selected for its fitness gain. Gods do not exist in this world, and there is no other.

Posted by onlooker on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:57 | #

“That’s a relief. In 2004 the then Pope called for “a new world order based on the goals of the United Nations”.

Big Al,

Maybe, just maybe, the Pope (after all he’s only human) isn’t infallible after all? That’s not God’s fault!

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:11 | #

“Even then there are thinking people who would agree with Christopher Hitchens when he claims that, even if he knew God existed, he’d be agin Him due to the savage and arbitrary nature of His treatment of humans.”

He’s not the only to make that point:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/02/02/god-the-psycho/

I find it an incredible waste of my time to debate godidiots such as Wheeler. Someone who obsessively spams every blog with his medieval nonsense about “Thrown & Altar” as answer to all of Europe’s problems.

The best way to deal with Jebus freaks on WN boards is to ignore them.

Posted by onlooker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:15 | #

GW,

As with all your intelligent posts, it’s going to require me a while to digest and fully understand what you said. You provide your readers a valuable education. Many thanks for that!

“Gods do not exist in this world.”

Maybe because of what happened in the Garden of Eden?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:33 | #

Onlooker,

If God exists He is far away from his Creation, separated from it by the laws He created to bring it into a bounded form. If you happened to bump into him some time, and you asked Him for a spot of help, He would reply, “Very sorry, my friend, but although I made all these laws that, actually, made you, I cannot break them without breaking everything.”

You cannot break the laws either, of course. But there is a faint possibility, if you knew how and had some help, to escape, if only fleetingly, from the tyranny of the acquired.

Incidentally, one of the beautiful errors of Judaised liberalism is that it seeks to deliver Western Man from his, of course, racist, sexist, homophobic Nature. Spiritual pursuit seeks to deliver men from the acquired, the false, the sleep-inducing.

I love the way the best liberal minds got it wrong. But then they were not free in any meaningful sense.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:37 | #

How can a Darwinian pose a question about purpose and design? Randomness is randomness and evolutionary theory must deny teleology.

“Religionists act from a genetic predilection for faith, (not faith but survival) of which they are obviously unaware, and imbue it with an acquired set of meanings.”

Faith is purpose in the face of nihilism which enhances altruism. Altruism at the individual level appears not to enhance fitness, however, it does at the group level. The story of Christ, is the story of a highly altruistic man imbued with a sense of purpose derived from sources beyond earthly confines. His altruism did not enhance the survival of his own personal genes, however, it proved a fitness benefit to millions. People flocked to Christianity because it provided a greater sense of purpose and comfort than its Pagan fellow traveler and “incidentally” enhanced reproductive fitness. The end result, Christian women had more babies than Pagan women.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:53 | #

Desmond, this is good:-

Faith is purpose in the face of nihilism which enhances altruism.

I think there are other gains that flow from faith, notably a very high threshhold of mutual trust. But essentially you are right with regard to purpose.

Here is the mystery question which I cannot yet satisfactorily answer: Since our ordinary waking existence is perfectly sufficient for evolutionary purposes, why is Man capable (if, indeed, he is) of transcending Personality through an act of attention, and finding within a presence, unity and, therefore, will which is missing in the ordinary waking state?

The possible answers are:-

1) Self-consciousness and unity are illusions.

2) They are the natural estate of Man, but he “fell” from that in some way long, long ago and continued to evolve rather well even in a state of absence and sleep.

3) God exists and made a paradise on Earth for Man, should he choose to live by His Word.

Take your pick. I’m for (2).

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:06 | #

I should just remind anyone who’s reading this and wondering why the hell we are so far from Pomo, that this is indeed a debate about essentialism, and quite a good one.

Posted by onlooker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:10 | #

Guessedworker,

You, or anyone else, can’t possibly explain how a bunch of molecules suddenly appeared out of nothing, in an infinite space—which is something—and from them (the molecules) outsprung mankind.

Who is believing in fairytales here?

Intelligent design is the only thing that’s logical.

Darwinism is a theory of how the Creator (God) created the material world and the living organisms within it by way of evolution.

Posted by torgrim on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:29 | #

WLindsayWheeler;

“The Doctrine of Jesus Christ a Fully God and Fully man is NOT a Jewish/Semitic construct, that is a Greek thing.”

Yes, and Europe was essential in creating Christianity. The reason that the elder religions of Europe, were unfulfilled as you suggest, until Christianity came along, is an unarguable point, because, the replacement destroyed -almost- all of the elder religions. So the essentials cannot be debated as the history has been erased. The Trinity is an Indo-European construct, as is much of the New Testament, agreed. However, when, as I remember, at the Council of Nicea, the Church fathers, “cobbled on”, the Old Testament,- there, is where we have Christianity today, partly European and partly Rabbinic.
At least the elder Germanic religions, stated that their Gods and Goddesses created their sib, and many Germanic clans claimed/claim, descent from these dieties. This is what makes the elder religions much more fit.
It has been stated by more learned than I, that the Popes could not allow, any other authority, but theirs. Power and lust for power, caused much damage to whole areas of Europe.

Saying this, I would rather have a Christian as a neighbor than some smarmy liberal type.

I see the relationship between Euros of Christian, Atheist and Heathen,(which means those that live in the Heath, or country,btw), as with Holger the Danske.
When Holger’s enemy was being challenged by a alien race, Holger fought on the side of his genetic fitness and fought with Francia, against the Moors and defeated the Islamic Invasion of that era.

Posted by name on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:35 | #

You, or anyone else, can’t possibly explain how a bunch of molecules suddenly appeared out of nothing, in an infinite space—which is something—and from them (the molecules) outsprung mankind.

Easier than explaining how an omnipotent, omniscient humanoid suddenly appeared out of nothing.

Posted by onlooker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:40 | #

“Easier than explaining how an omnipotent, omniscient humanoid suddenly appeared out of nothing.”

There are some things we’ll never understand, Voice. Deal with it!

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:40 | #

“I love the way the best liberal minds got it wrong” - GW

It is hardly surprising when one considers the religious etiology of so many liberal political ideas. The endless search for ‘equality’, in the secular sense, is a replacement of the Christian idiocy that there exists a big sky-god who loves every individual, especially the primitive talking anthropoids of sub-Saharan Africa (Blessed are the poor…).

Also, the utterly useless emotions of guilt and pity which once powered the Christian drive have long since been transferred to those baneful, secular, advanced liberal superstitions which are ultimately responsible for the defacement and destruction of White Civilisation.

Posted by onlooker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:47 | #

I meant ‘name’ not Voice.

Posted by name on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:00 | #

There are some things we’ll never understand [. . .] Deal with it!

I have. Without recourse to fairy tales.

I accept most people have “the faith gene”, as GW puts it. But I can’t accept claims that faith is somehow “logical” or “intelligent design” is scientific.

Posted by silver on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:01 | #

Easier than explaining how an omnipotent, omniscient humanoid suddenly appeared out of nothing.

He was always there. The universe, on the other hand, had a beginning.

Posted by name on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:28 | #

silver,

Asserting that an omnipotent, omniscient humanoid was “always there” does not make it so. There is not logical or “scientific” basis for believing in a sentient creator. “Deal with it”, as onlooker might say. It’s called a “faith” for a reason. I tired of this sort of argument sometime in high school, so I’ll leave it at that.

Posted by silver on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:51 | #

The point is those who believe in God do not have to account for his origin. Asserting his existence does not make it so, but the existence of a “faith gene” does make it plausible. Ultimately, people (like myself) who lead lives of faith do so because they find it superior to the alternative. The trick is adapting such faith to other vital life concerns.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:35 | #

Take your pick. I’m for (2).

If two, then how do you account, as Darwin asks, for the lack of self-consciousness in young children?

It has been urged against the views here maintained that it is impossible to say at what point in the ascending scale animals become capable of abstraction, &c.; but
who can say at what age this occurs in our young children? We see at least that such powers are developed in children by imperceptible degrees.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:31 | #

Desmond, what are you presuming of self-consciousness here? It’s not the power of abstraction.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:14 | #

Silver: “He was always there. The universe, on the other hand, had a beginning.”

This type of moronic “reasoning” reminded me of an anecdote:

In A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books, 1988), Stephen Hawking tells
the story of an elderly woman who confronted Bertrand Russell at the end
of a lecture on orbital mechanics, claiming she had a theory superior to
his. “We don’t live on a ball revolving around the Sun,” she said, “we
live on a crust of earth on the back of a giant turtle.” Wishing to
humor the woman Russell asked, “And what does this turtle stand on?” “On
the back of a second, still larger turtle,” was her confident answer.
“But what holds up the second turtle?” he persisted, now in a slightly
exasperated tone. “It’s no use, young man,” the old woman replied, “it’s
turtles all the way down.”

It’s turtles all the way down for godidiots like silver.

Posted by onlooker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:38 | #

Silver: “He was always there. The universe, on the other hand, had a beginning.”

Friedrich Braun: “This type of moronic “reasoning”...”

Freidrich,

Let’s say for sake of argument Darwin’s theory of evolution is a fact. Okay. Let’s look at an infinite time and space line:

<——o———————————2008————>

Given - The “o” on the line represents the “big bang.” The segment between the big bang and the year 2008 represents billions of years of the evolutionary process.

But what led up to the big bang? Or in other words: How did the super dense ball of matter in an infinite space get there in the first place? Can you explain to a moron like me: Who, or what put the matter in that infinite space? How did it get there? And why?

Please don’t tell me it was always there.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:16 | #

GW wrote:
“Whether human beings are capable of a transition along the ancient pathways of ecstacy and self-perfectionment is an entirely different question, and should not be confused with the spiritual bludgeon of organised worship, Christian or otherwise.

“Sorry to so offend all those who have the faith gene. You are in the majority, and you are good people. But your tragedy is that you know part only of the three parts of the human story, and that part you inflate to the whole.”

GW,
I’m not sure if I have the “faith gene,” but no offense taken if I do. (It would be hard to say whether I’m Christian, Hellenistic, or heathen these days, but I’m definitely not to be confused with any evangelical or Judaeo-Christian, or any type of new-ager.)

What I wonder is, How can a person who does not fully understand the spiritual needs of most Europeans (“the faith gene”), create or discover a unifying system or pathway out of our current difficulties? Those who dismiss the power and reality of the spiritual dimension will never create anything of any value for Europeans. The Jews are always trying, and look what they and their childish, stunted minds push: socialism, nazism, communism, neo-conservatism, multiculturalism, modern art, pure democracy, anarchism, open borders, modern art, ad nauseum.

Posted by Kub on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:26 | #

Please don’t tell me it was always there.

Why not? Why does one need a “guiding hand” for such things? Why can it not be that we are experiencing an event that will never be replicated <u>EVER</u> again? That even though the chances of its occurance were literally astronomical, it did come to pass and we are enjoying the fruits, if you will, of this chance occurance? The odds of this scenario are better than a supreme being tinkering with us, in my opinion.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:35 | #

To the majority, it IS turtles all the way down. It’s just a fact, that’s the way we are wired. I would think even a pure materialist could just accept this without such contumely.

It does not matter if you personally think Odin, Zeus, Jesus, or God are real or not. The reality is, the Truth is, that most people on the planet (especially Europeans, for these dieties) believe in them. Most people need—crave, like oxygen and food—a system whereby they can fill in the gaps in human knowledge. They need mystery, excitement, hope, and the prodding that only spirituality and religion can offer. They always have and always will.

More to the point, not only do they believe in certain things, their actions are manifestations of those beliefs. In a very real sense, then, these gods do exist, even for you: you must live among these people, and, if you hope to help or lead them at all, you must try, not only to understand what they believe, but empathize with them as best you can.

Posted by onlooker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:27 | #

Kub,

Forget a “guiding hand” for the moment. I was once an atheist too until I realized the universe is just to complex to create itself and evolve into what it is out of nothingness.

The questions are: How did matter come into existence? How did infinite space come into existence? Why do humans have the ability to be cognizant of their existence, yet are unable to explain their origins?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:41 | #

GW,

How about an example of “transcending Personality” then and where did man “fall” from?

Posted by Prozium on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:05 | #

They need mystery, excitement, hope, and the prodding that only spirituality and religion can offer. They always have and always will.

i.e. Barack Obama’s constituency.

Posted by Prozium on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:09 | #

But what led up to the big bang?

How do you move from the Big Bang to the claim that a Jewish carpenter who (possibly) lived 2,000 years ago was the Son of God? Those of us who never imbibed the faith meme in our youth just don’t get it.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:11 | #

Right! I should’ve added, ... and they are easily detached from reality, and so need proper guidance in spiritual things, lest their devotion be thrown to voodoo doodoo artists. Lordy, are we in for an exciting ride with Obama ...

Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:35 | #

Have you read Lindsay Wheeler’s site?
http://www.msnusers.com/TheDoricphilosopher

I think to fully appreciate Wheeler’s posts here on MR, one should read all his articles there. He has a (now) rare and refreshing understanding of what I would call Classical Christianity, the balanced mix of Classical Hellenist (mostly Platonic, I think) philosophy and Europeanized Christianity, together with a healthy understanding of natural law.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:37 | #

List of Wheeler’s articles here:
http://www.msnusers.com/TheDoricphilosopher/thelyceum.msnw

Posted by onlooker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:04 | #

“How do you move from the Big Bang to the claim that a Jewish carpenter who (possibly) lived 2,000 years ago was the Son of God?”

Prozium,

Did I claim a Jewish carpenter was the Son of God? Even if I did, that’s beside the point.

The question is: Did the universe and all that is contained in it suddenly appear out of nothingness, or was there an intelligent designer involved? I choose the later.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:20 | #

But, Rusty, WLW is still calling upon us to follow him into belief - which, most obviously, is the modus operandum of the faith gene. It enlists, it binds, it is unshakable in adversity. It is, however, blind and indiscriminate ... given to following any light. Remember, it wasn’t a lack of faith which the liberal adversary possessed in driving us into this peril. Liberalism in all its platitudinous manifestations is a faith.

As for your earlier question about how we can “create or discover a unifying system or pathway out of our current difficulties”, I’m for clarity and reason. I’m for intention. I’m damned if I’m going to follow some 3000 year old desert-fairy because, apparently, Glaube macht frei. On the contrary, Christian universalism lies at the noumenal root of our difficulties. Saving Christianity from its own weakness and decrepidity is not necessary or wise. Let the faith geners be forced to choose between life on Earth for our people and the promise of eternal life in Heaven for themselves.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:43 | #

Desmond: “How about an example of “transcending Personality” then and where did man “fall” from?”

An example lies in the words I took from Matthew whatever. You know, “When two or three are gathered together ...”

The fall? A Darwinian affair. I have advanced the theory elsewhere that Man is meant to be present to himself, as any animal is. But this presence, while natural enough in the extremely distant past, progressively lost ground to the development of intellect as proto-Man stood erect and processed the new world of waving grasses through his eyesight. Rapid cortical development shifted the seat of attention to the expanding intellect, and unbalanced the perceptual process.

Correction is possible, however. But it is a rather Esoteric business.

Posted by onlooker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:23 | #

“The fall? A Darwinian affair. I have advanced the theory elsewhere that Man is meant to be present to himself, as any animal is. But this presence, while natural enough in the extremely distant past, progressively lost ground to the development of intellect as proto-Man stood erect and processed the new world of waving grasses through his eyesight. Rapid cortical development shifted the seat of attention to the expanding intellect, and unbalanced the perceptual process.

Correction is possible, however. But it is a rather Esoteric business.”

GW,

Can you please translate that into English?

Posted by onlooker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:49 | #

Not all people that believe in intelligent design are “Jesus freaks” you know!

Posted by silver on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:03 | #

It’s turtles all the way down for godidiots like silver.

Actually, I posit an eternal God in order to avoid infinite regression. Again, this says nothing about whether God exists, only if he does, then assuming he always has seems the most intelligent way to account for him.

How do you move from the Big Bang to the claim that a Jewish carpenter who (possibly) lived 2,000 years ago was the Son of God? Those of us who never imbibed the faith meme in our youth just don’t get it.

Jesus is an immensely charismatic, immensely attractive archetype. If you’re going to do the whole God thing, you could do a whole lot worse than Jesus.

The real problem is the church and the debilitating make-work of theological scribblers. If these people restricted themselves to saving souls, making people at peace with their place in the world, and preaching morality to shiftless ne’er-do-wells we’d all be much better off.

Posted by onlooker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:13 | #

“The real problem is the church and the debilitating make-work of theological scribblers. If these people restricted themselves to saving souls, making people at peace with their place in the world, and preaching morality to shiftless ne’er-do-wells we’d all be much better off.”

Hahahahahaha! Silver is right! Learn from it heathens, learn from it!!!

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:15 | #

Isnt ‘decrepitude’ the word you meant to employ,GW?

“The promise of eternal life in heaven” surrounded by the sort of filthy, stupid, Third World human detritus of which Western governments, through criminally insane immigration policies, have kindly provided a plethora of samples, makes the Christian Hell look like a reasonably attractive destination.

Posted by onlooker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:34 | #

I’m on the floor holding my stomach with laughter! Al is a comic genius!

Posted by rustymason on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:37 | #

GW clarified:
<quote>But, Rusty, WLW is still calling upon us to follow him into belief - which, most obviously, is the modus operandum of the faith gene. </quote>

Oh, sorry, now I understand what you mean by the faith gene. If that’s what you mean, then no, I don’t have it. I’m not sure WLW does to the degree you say. He seems, overall, like a very reasonable man to me. But then, perhaps I’ve grown so used to prosyletizers here in Baptist-land that I don’t notice it. Perhaps I cannot distinguish it from the uncontrollable excitement of wanting to share exceptionally interesting revelations (THAT gene I do have).

<quote>It enlists, it binds, it is unshakable in adversity. It is, however, blind and indiscriminate ... given to following any light. Remember, it wasn’t a lack of faith which the liberal adversary possessed in driving us into this peril. Liberalism in all its platitudinous manifestations is a faith. </quote>

In most people, this is very true. But again, his “preaching” aside, he has reached his understanding in a most reasonable fashion, the most reasonable Christian I know, I think—and that’s really saying something here in the deep South.

<quote>As for your earlier question about how we can “create or discover a unifying system or pathway out of our current difficulties”, I’m for clarity and reason. I’m for intention.</quote>

Yes, quite, absolutely.

<quote>I’m damned if I’m going to follow some 3000 year old desert-fairy because, apparently, Glaube macht frei. On the contrary, Christian universalism lies at the noumenal root of our difficulties. Saving Christianity from its own weakness and decrepidity is not necessary or wise. Let the faith geners be forced to choose between life on Earth for our people and the promise of eternal life in Heaven for themselves. </quote>

Several different issues in that last paragraph, but I do understand generally what you mean. However, I was not really thining about your, Frederich’s, and Fade’s aversion to Abrahamic-based religions, or to universalism, but to your apparent hostility to faith and religion in general. Please, correct me if I have misunderstood you, but you seem to think things spiritual and religious are unimportant, even unworthy of discussion. Now, since 90% or more of your potential followers think spirituality and religion are important—incredibly important—how valuable can your contributions ultimately be, if you don’t seriously consider angels, ice giants, and god-men into your equations? I.e., how do you propose to deal with the faith gene?

Posted by torgrim on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:37 | #

Onlooker;

“Hahahahahaha! Silver is right! Learn from it Heathens, learn from it!!!”

Ah, Onlooker, Silver is discussing the failure of the Church. But as in the past the Heathen, is again the place for addressing the failures of the Church.

The logic fails.

The Heathen that have survived,identify with blood, kinship and territory. That as before, is still a cause for Church and the secular to be derisive.

Unfortunately, the word heathen, has been propagandized by the Church, since first encounter with the older Germanic Culture/People.
The left today, has co-oped the meaning too, with all of the lefty, wicca, new age, snake oil, side-show, glitz..

Shiftless, ne-er-do-wells..yeah! Better word.

Posted by rustymason on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:41 | #

(Dang, how do these bracket things work? Sorry.)

Remember, it wasn’t a lack of faith which the liberal adversary possessed in driving us into this peril. Liberalism in all its platitudinous manifestations is a faith.

Very true.

Posted by rustymason on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:46 | #

Oops, crapola. Don’t type with a dog in your lap.

“The promise of eternal life in heaven” surrounded by the sort of filthy, stupid, Third World human detritus of which Western governments, through criminally insane immigration policies, have kindly provided a plethora of samples, makes the Christian Hell look like a reasonably attractive destination.

How do I know that only the people I like will go to heaven? Because if anyone else were there, then it wouldn’t be heaven, would it?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:22 | #

onlooker: “Can you please translate that into English?”

Probably not. But I will try.

The two elements - or ultimate causes - which bear on Man’s psychological development are:-

1) His environment of evolutionary adaptineness, aka local Nature.

2) His post-natus unconscious accretion of external influences, manifesting as Personality.

There is a third but, frankly, esoteric possibility. A kind of mistake by Nature has happened - or, if you are religious, a cosmic joke has been played here, a disastrous one. Personality, the servant, a lazy and grasping creature, has become the master.

This is what appears in religious literature as the Fall, Exile, Maya, etc, and it amounts to a certain weakness or lazyness in the maintenance of our consciousness. It has tragic results. What should be an ordinary capacity to be present, like any other living creature, is utterly eviscerated, and requires a great will to stillness to control. In consequence, external influences enter us unseen and unmediated, and accrete in the disorderly psychological superstructure which we call Self, but which is anything but. “It” hogs the psychological sunlight and takes for itself what should belong to the other, and would, over a lifetime, bring that other to a certain, honourable maturity.

As a Darwinian, my suspicion is that this weakness arose with the very rapid cortical developments consequent upon the spread of grassland and the arrival of Homo erectus. Basic intellectual function and presence have not been entirely compatible ever since.

Even as we are, however, there may still exist in us a rather faint possibility that our psychological absence can be exchanged for presence via that “will to stillness”. Literally, attention has to be shifted from its seat in the thinking mind to something else. The minutea of breathing is a common one. Physical movement of a certain kind is another.

Of course first one has to believe there is some purpose and value in this. Let us assume, then, that you and I and all of us do indeed possess something that inherits “I” during that process of inner silence. Let us assume that this is part of Nature’s gift to the animal Homo whatever. Let us assume that the words, “I am”, are the extent of its vocabulary. Let us further assume that, for evolutionary reasons, a vehicle drawn from the world at large - Personality - is required for this inheritor to direct action in the world.

Which brings us back to the beginning. And that’s about as far as I can go with it here.

100

Posted by silver on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:21 | #

GW, you seem to be critiquing man for what he was before he even became man. I don’t know how well that will go down with some. Nevertheless, why do you balk at interjecting God at this point? Can’t he be a way back to stillness? At the very least, doesn’t he lessen the amount of will required to do so? Doesn’t that preserve essence but still give the pomos something to play with (you can forget about them ever going cold turkey, imo)?

101

Posted by onlooker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:14 | #

“Ah, Onlooker, Silver is discussing the failure of the Church. But as in the past the Heathen, is again the place for addressing the failures of the Church.”—torgrim

Yes, torgrim, I know what Silver was discussing. Silver has it right when he said: “The real problem is the church and the debilitating make-work of theological scribblers. If these people restricted themselves to saving souls, making people at peace with their place in the world, and preaching morality to shiftless ne’er-do-wells we’d all be much better off.”

The problem with the Church today, is it has been invaded by heretics. Heretics who alter the main message of Christ by slipping in the propaganda of secular-modern-liberalism and racial-universalism - ie Cardinal Mahoney, et al.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To GW,

Thanks for taking the time to explain what you meant. What you say makes a great deal of sense. You have been blessed with a brilliant mind.

What has always confused me about atheists, is they cannot, or refuse to deal with the fundamental question of how space and matter can into existence. Darwinism is fine theoretically. It’s basic premise is that life as we know it evolved from primitive organic molecules. Great! This may very well be true; but, how did those molecules get there in the first place? If they evolved from non-organic molecules, then how did the non-organic molecules get there…? Until those questions can be answered, the only logical conclusion a rational person can come to is that the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

Best wishes to you, Guessedworker, and God bless,

onlooker

102

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:18 | #

Silver’s post echos my question a bit: now that we have the faith gene, how do you propose to handle it? It is completely illogical and unreasonable to think that more than a handful of the brightest of our people will be swayed from the current religions (Christianity and liberalism, mostly) by a call to logic and reason alone.

Those who call for the destruction of one belief system are hardly doing their followers any service by not offering a better, more complete and more attractive alternative. In this regard, Lindsay Wheeler’s Christianity, Wintermute’s Hellenismos, and Stephen McNallen’s theodish Asatru are far superior to anything offered by many of the leaders on this blog. These three men are offering to smart (but flawed) men and women real alternatives, systems which have been tried and proven successful for long periods of time, and are backed by fairly solid reasoning (at least well enough for most people). Pure logic and reason are fine, but people need much more. They need an ethical system to lean on, they need spirits to animate them. Besides, they can and will reason themselves into anything; into destructive beliefs just as easily as constructive ones.

Our job, as I see it, is to lead them to reason and logic—to Truth—, happiness and productivity, through faith, faith that is also as true as we can determine (this is what Christianity, in its best forms, should be for). It’s part logic, part marketing, part mysticism, and part common sense.

103

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:43 | #

silver: “you seem to be critiquing man for what he was before he even became man.”

The OT, of course, places the Fall at the very beginning of Man’s time on Earth.

why do you balk at interjecting God at this point?

I do not need superhuman intervention to theorise the condition of Man. Nature can do it, and explain the existence of the superhuman too.

Can’t He be a way back to stillness?

For the individual, religious worship is a path to beauty, not to consciousness.

doesn’t He lessen the amount of will required to do so?

Recently, there was a short series of programmes on British TV about three journeys made by Peter Owen-Jones. He is vicar of Firle, a village close to my home town. At a retreat in China he was told, “If you are walking along the road and you see the Buddha coming towards you, slay him.”

Doesn’t that preserve essence

Well first, Pomos use the term more broadly, in the sense of any meaning inhabiting anything. But it is our wont to concentrate upon human essence, and that’s fair enough. Essence is preserved no matter what Yahweh gets up to, or us. It’s all the accretions of a life lived unconsciously that are perishable through the act of stillness (and developments thereof).

104

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:57 | #

You’re welcome, onlooker.

On the molecules, the imperfection of our knowledge does not necessitate a Supreme Being. Rather, it necessitates caution, humility and patience.

105

Posted by Don on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:41 | #

Gessedworker said on Tuesday, “Christian universalism lies at the noumenal root of our difficulties.”

He’s so right. A mind that absently applies universalism to all peoples, all regions, all religions, all philosophies, and all nationalities, is trapped by a meme that imprisons us. From a meme point of view, this is the archway stone that bars us from finding real freedom to live our lives in our own communities with our friends and families.

106

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:58 | #

His post-natus unconscious accretion of external influences, manifesting as Personality.

For instance?

In consequence, external influences enter us unseen and unmediated, and accrete in the disorderly psychological superstructure which we call Self, but which is anything but.

For example? What are those apparently unmitigated influences that are growing or expanding one’s personality? Where’s the teleology? Where’s the purpose and design, GW?

107

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:48 | #

Where did god come from, silver? Who designed the designer? *yawn* This is about as fascinating and relevant as watching paint dry.

108

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:34 | #

Theology and cosmology are important to a well-functioning society. A group’s common understanding about First Causes, including the how and the why, are a fundamental part of its culture, society, and law.

109

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:39 | #

Those who call for the destruction of one belief system are hardly doing their followers any service by not offering a better, more complete and more attractive alternative. In this regard, Lindsay Wheeler’s Christianity, Wintermute’s Hellenismos, and Stephen McNallen’s theodish Asatru are far superior to anything offered by many of the leaders on this blog.

That’s because a new and improved mysticism really isn’t necessary to function in the modern world. A proper understanding of reality and how it works will suffice.

110

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:35 | #

“A proper understanding of reality and how it works will suffice.” (—Prozium)

“A proper understanding of reality and how it works” encompasses a sense of the transcendent.

Prozium I told you when you were Daedalus and possibly Scimitar as well, you’re wasting your time with this stuff (so are Friedrich, Al Ross, and the other big atheists). You’ve a first-rate mind — all of you have. Use them for debating other topics. I guarantee you, this is the biggest time-waster possible for your talents. You’re talking like a child where this stuff is concerned. You have no idea what you are talking about.

When a baby is sick and it isn’t known if it will live the atheist will pray. He may blurt it out clumsily but the meaning of his words and the one to whom they are addressed will be unmistakable.

111

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:38 | #

Christian universalism is not Christianity. MacDonald argues that Christianity is part of what made the West unique.

Western culture was built by people who differ genetically from those who have built the other civilizations and cultures of the world. In the following I will argue that Western cultures have a unique cultural profile compared to other traditional civilizations:

1. The Catholic Church and Christianity.
2. A tendency toward monogamy.
3. A tendency toward simple family structure based on the nuclear family.
4. A greater tendency for marriage to be companionate and based on mutual affection of the partners.
5. A de-emphasis on extended kinship relationships and its correlative, a relative lack of ethnocentrism.
6. A tendency toward individualism and all of its implications: individual rights against the state, representative government, moral universalism, and science.

In the case of monogamy, a battle carried to the European elite by the Catholic Church, KMac asserts:

Monogamy is a very central aspect of Western uniqueness with some important effects. Monogamy may well be a necessary condition for the unique European “low-pressure” demographic profile.20 This demographic profile results from late marriage and celibacy of large percentages of females during times of economic scarcity. The connection with monogamy is that monogamous marriage results in a situation where the poor of both sexes are unable to mate, whereas in polygynous systems an excess of poor females merely lowers the price of concubines for wealthy males. For example, at the end of the 17th century approximately 23% of both sexes remained unmarried between ages 40-44. But, as a result of altered economic opportunities, this percentage dropped at the beginning of the 18th century to 9%, and there was a corresponding decline in age of marriage. Like monogamy, this pattern was unique among the stratified societies of Eurasia.21

In turn, the low-pressure demographic profile appears to have had economic consequences. Not only was the marriage rate the main damper on population growth, but this response, especially in England, had a tendency to lag well behind favorable economic changes so that there was a tendency for capital accumulation during good times rather than a constant pressure of population on food supply:

The fact that the rolling adjustment between economic and demographic fluctuations took place in such a leisurely fashion, tending to produce large if gradual swings in real wages, represented an opportunity to break clear from the low-level income trap which is sometimes supposed to have inhibited all pre-industrial nations. A long period of rising real wages, by changing the structure of demand, will tend to give a disproportionately strong boost to demand for commodities other than the basic necessities of life, and so to sectors of the economy whose growth is especially important if an industrial revolution is to occur.22

There is therefore some reason to suppose that monogamy, by resulting in a low-pressure demographic profile, was a necessary condition for industrialization.

And again, KMac emphasizes the exclusiveness of the Puritans enhanced their reproductive fitness.

The Puritans, like the Amish and Hutterites, sought to build their own society and exclude outsiders rather than dominate non-Puritans. But the very success of the Puritan enterprise?its size, its wealth, and its control over a large area of land comprising the Massachusetts Bay Company?made it the target of the British colonialists seeking to control their possessions and a goal for immigrants seeking economic advantage. The Amish and Hutterites, on the other hand, because of their very low economic and political profile, would never have excited the sort of attempts at control which the British exercised on the Massachusetts Bay (Company. But in the absence of control over their own territory, the group strategy quickly unraveled. The Puritans lost the abilities to govern their territory, control the behavior of its inhabitants, and control immigration. And in the absence of these prerogatives, the Puritans gradually ceased being a well-defined group strategy. These trends were well in place by the end of the 17th century, less than 75 years after the origins of the colony. . . . Without control of a specific territory, the Puritans succumbed to their own individualistic tendencies and those of the surrounding culture.

One wonders what might have happened if the British colonial authorities had allowed the colony complete sovereignty and if it had ultimately become a nation-state. Such a state, based on a clearly articulated exclusivist group strategy, might have been extremely successful. Composed of a highly intelligent, educated, and industrious citizenry, and with a proneness to high fertility and strong controls promoting high-investment parenting, it might have become a world power. One can imagine that as the 19th century wore on. Puritan intellectuals would have begun to see themselves as an ethnic-racial group and that Darwinism would have replaced Christianity as the ideological basis of the state, at least among the well-educated. The demise of Puritanism is likely a major event in the history of European peoples.

112

Posted by onlooker on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:45 | #

“Where did god come from, silver? Who designed the designer? *yawn* This is about as fascinating and relevant as watching paint dry.”

On the contrary, this subject is very fascinating; it highlights the central point in fact that humans—on their own—are intellectually incapable of understanding, or explaining, their origin.

113

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:56 | #

When a baby is sick and it isn’t known if it will live the atheist will pray. He may blurt it out clumsily but the meaning of his words and the one to whom they are addressed will be unmistakable.

The atheist also calls an ambulance. For they know hope does not reside in their prayer, but in the science of medicine.

114

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00 | #

Desmond,

I’m not sure what you are driving at, or whether you fully understand the thrust of these ideas.

I am running with the Darwinian grain, but acknowledging one inconvenient fact: that currently I cannot wholly explain from an evolutionary perspective the “honorable maturity” to which man strives. Of his striving for personal status - a figure for fitness - we know. But status is not the issue here, quite the reverse. The maturation of which I speak is a thing of humility. Further, personal status is not the goal of woman. Yet woman, too, strives for this same completion, notwithstanding the Muslim belief that she does not have a soul.

Basically, what I am doing here is separating out the essential pursuit - observable in Islam, for example, in certain forms of Sufism - from the rule-following, religious crust. I am then postulating a distant evolutionary explanation for the recondite place of essence in the life of Homo sapiens.

The religious crust - the worshipping, the ritualising, the evangelising, and so on - I am, as you fully understand, founding on genetic interests.

So that’s the schematic.

On the Nature (the Inate) and Nurture (the Acquired) aspects of my three-part model of man’s psychology there should be little general disagreement between us. However, I assume that you are unfamiliar with the overlay concepts of absence and presence, and have not considered how Nurture impacts upon a mind marked by the former - that is, the lowly state of consciousness at work as I write these words and you read them.

Understand, I am reaching for a model of Man and mind that is truthful and can be foundational for philosophical purposes. If I have not set that model forth with much skill, I apologise. I will try to get better at this thinking game.

115

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:13 | #

It’s a good thing Pericles isn’t still around. This thead would give him conniption fits.

116

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:22 | #

Don’t be dense, Desmond. I’m talking about after the ambulance has already been called, the baby already seen by the doctors and specialists who’ve already done everything they could, and the grandmother, aunt and uncle are comforting the quietly sobbing mother. And yes I’m talking from a memory of a scene I saw as a young man, one I’ll never forget till my dying day.

117

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:26 | #

That baby lived, by the way. My own sons just went to his wedding in Long Island this past summer.

118

Posted by onlooker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:36 | #

Mr Scrooby,

Do you recall right after 9-11 the church pews were suddenly filled for a few weeks? All that self righteous smugness disappears quickly when people are in fear of their own safety. When people face the actual reality of their own death, isn’t it ironic how so many people that proclaim they don’t believe in God suddenly call upon God for comfort and reprieve?

Just an observation.

119

Posted by Prozium on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:51 | #

And again, KMac emphasizes the exclusiveness of the Puritans enhanced their reproductive fitness.

Check out the demographics of Massachusetts. C’mon, Desmond. I know this must have you wincing.

120

Posted by rocket on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:44 | #

well well , intellegent pro - tribalists that articulate the us verses them skin pigment dialectic . there is only one fly in the oinment : JESUS OF NAZARETH . and suprise surpise , he even ranks higher in power , authority, intellect and authenticity than martin luther king and oswald spengler.

clarification : it goes like this—Jesus verses Christianity . Jesus came to tear the family apart , tribalism , the cult of self , you name it . Christianty sought to put it back together . Christianity-Christendom made the same mistakes that the Jews made in regards to Jesus . they expected a messiah that was gonna kick butt and take names. they wanted a warrior . sound familar ? does not Euroman want that same warrior ? Euroman is so Jewish .

But leave it to GOD to appear on the scene in history with a ‘‘reversal of expectation ‘’ , an explode all of the walls that man has set up with his fellow man . Kierkegaard was right when he said ‘‘one must trample on ethics in order to become a knight of faith ‘’. the tribal mentality prefers another kind of knight . one that chooses conveience over truth and a sword instead of the cross.

121

Posted by onlooker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:14 | #

Tell that to the Islamofascists, not us.

122

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:40 | #

Onlooker, yes I do remember it, thanks. I also remember from my boyhood hearing a man who’d been in combat in WW II say, “There’s no atheist in a foxhole,” a saying I’ve heard many a time since then.

Rocket, Christianity doesn’t require of us that we blind ourselves to race or pretend it doesn’t exist, or mandate our group racial/ethnocultural mass-suicide. If you think it does, not only are you wrong, you’re a perfect example of a major defect in Christianity itself, to wit, the way it makes it difficult for men to understand precisely they DON’T have to acquiesce in their group’s mass suicide in order to “be good Christians by being extra-nice to non-whites” or whatever the “thinking” is (if you can call it “thinking,” a very big if). A religion can possess all the truth in the world but if something about it makes it hard for its faithful to access its truth, so hard they keep getting it one-hundred-and-eighty degrees wrong, that religion has a fundamental defect which will sooner or later be its downfall. Thou shalt not steal is pretty straighforward and doesn’t have this problem: people don’t get it backwards, but imagine if they did. You’d have people going around stealing under the mistaken impression Christianity required it of them. Well, it’s that way with racial/ethnocultural suicide: Christians all over the place are rushing to acquiesce in it, in the mistaken belief Christianity requires it of them. Christianity does not mandate group suicide of races any more than it mandated group suicide of the Jim Jones cult members or the Heaven’s Gate loonies but for some reason Christians find that simple truth as hard to grasp as I found certain topics in senior-year math electives in college. The priests could go a long way to straightening that misunderstanding out but won’t for some reason. That’ll be their downfall and the downfall of the entire religion if they persist in their immoral negligence.

Nothing in Christianity favors Rocket’s “[pseudo]Christian universalism” over Salter’s “Universal Nationalism.” Nothing. Rocket, you need to check out the blog sites “Spirit Water Blood” and “Cambria Will Not Yield,” and the Kinists generally. Oh, and one more thing: don’t try to fob off your weak-minded faux-Christian Jim-Jones-Kool-Aid-guzzling-style racially-suicidal clinical depression masquerading as Christianity here, because the regulars are neither that weak-minded nor that clinically depressed that they’d fall for it for one millisecond.

Oh and by the way, of you’re so intent on putting into practice the Church’s supposed exhortation to Christian Raceless Universalism (as you see things that is, blinkered fool that you are), go be about it in the Sub-Sahara, Brazil, or ... where was that other place again? ... oh yes, Port Moresby. Don’t try it here please, Rocket. We’re Christians but not “Raceless Christian Universalists.” We’re normal, you see: it’s not Rocket science (... no pun intended, I’m sure) ....

123

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:44 | #

Christianity doesn’t see it as being mean to non-whites for whites not to commit racial/ethnocultural group suicide. Morons like Rocket think it does.

It doesn’t.

I don’t know a simpler way to put it, and priests had better start clarifying that.

124

Posted by Prozium on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:48 | #

Jesus came to tear the family apart , tribalism , the cult of self , you name it .

True dat.

125

Posted by rocket on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:53 | #

you can either follow christianity or you can follow the Christ of the new testament . there is no nuetral ground . if you think that following Christ is suicidal then you fail to see the difference between the suicide and the martyr. something that st. Augustine made clear in the ‘‘CITY OF GOD’’ .

i notice that some of you are fond of qouting Chesterton . i like him too . Chesterton said ‘‘the suicide denys all life , the martyr affirms it ‘’. if you seek to defend ‘‘your people ‘’ then answer me this , what makes you any different than the pagan multiculteralists ? as far as i can see it is all social engineering and not the commands of Jesus .

Christ said about his own family ‘’ who are my mother , brother , and sister? those who do the will of GOD ‘’ . Christ commanded us to love our enemys . Christ is not asking you to do anything . Christ commands. since Christ died for everyone , picture in your mind him washing the feet of osama bin laden . if you think that you can do any less , then hide behind your patriotism , which is nothing more than the virtue of the viciuos .

you want a domesticated christianity with no teeth , that cant shake the world ? that is disfigured and powerless . that comprimises . then you will have it . you want to stick by ‘‘your people ‘’ like the other races ? thats fine by me . as a fellow american i will defend your right to do it . but dont do it in the name of Jesus CHRIST. dont defame that sacred name .

by the way , i have preached the gospel to the islamofascists. they responded just like some of you all did . mmmm.

126

Posted by Prozium on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:55 | #

Rocket, Christianity doesn’t require of us that we blind ourselves to race or pretend it doesn’t exist, or mandate our group racial/ethnocultural mass-suicide.

Christianity doesn’t require anti-racism, but the universalism in the Christian message easily lends itself to that interpretation. The same is true of liberalism. At face value, liberalism doesn’t require you to be an anti-racist. It is possible to be liberal (someone who believes in “freedom,” “equality,” and “tolerance”) while believing in the existence of racial differences. Eventually, the logic of liberalism will work itself out to the point where it starts to corrode racial and ethnic identity, as well as other customs and traditions. It works like cultural acid.

127

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:22 | #

More “Rocket science” ....

Rocket exemplifies postively THE WORST AND MOST OBNOXIOUS defect of Christianity as it is now taught: the way it ensnares the weak-minded into taking pride in this truly nauseating faux-“Christian”-self-abnegation spectacle which these specimens always try to boast of. One way you know it’s faux is Christianity never taught it; another way is these specimens are being “self-abnegating” with something that’s 1) not their personal property, and which 2) they, being totally soulless, don’t care about and wouldn’t even if it were their personal property: the Euro races. Notice Rocket, who takes such satisfaction in ostentatiously giving away the Euro race, doesn’t give away his personal savings, his own car, his house, or his other property. Shouldn’t he be giving that away if he’s so “self-abnegating”??? But no, he’s only willing to give other people’s stuff away, stuff he doesn’t give two squats about. But when you give away stuff that isn’t even yours and that you don’t give two squats about, is that called “self-abnegation”? Doesn’t seem like it.

The European race, which he doesn’t care about anyway, isn’t his personal property to give away. It’s his posterity’s. The whole “gesture” is faux from A to Z: 1) it’s not Christian, 2) it’s not his to give away, 3) and even if it were his, he doesn’t care about it so it’s no sacrifice for him whatsoever. So where’s the “Christian” (it’s not called for by Christianity) and where’s the “self-abnegation” when he’s making no personal sacrifice whatsoever?

When Lord Bertrand Russell, the philosopher, renounced his title of nobility (he was a hereditary earl) out of personal conviction opposed to hereditary aristocracy, he wasn’t able to renounce it for his son, only for himself. His son Conrad could still inherit the title. Rocket is giving away something bequesthed not just to him but his posterity forever, the European race, yet he’s giving it away irretrievably, taking it away not only from himself who spits on it, but from all his and our posterity, which he’s not entitled to do: that’s THEIR inheritance he’s squandering in the supposed spirit of “Christian self-abnegation,” the inheritance of generations to come, and he has no right, Christian or otherwise, to squander it.

Rocket’s whole schtick is vomit, and the whole Christian priesthood are vomit if they persist in letting phonies like him get away with their disgusting pose, especially if they influence the gullible.

128

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:37 | #

“Christianity doesn’t require anti-racism, but the universalism in the Christian message easily lends itself to that interpretation.” (—Prozium)

That’s a major defect in Christianity, analagous to, let’s say, the defect in the system of Roman numerals. Using Roman numerals, addition was hard, multiplication required brilliance, and it took a mathematician to do long division. Ordinary people couldn’t manage it. Certain things were too hard when using Roman numerals, so the system was replaced. Likewise, in Christianity certain simple truths seem too hard for ordinary people to grasp, such as that we’re not required under Christianity to self-abnegate ourselves to racial extinction. If that remains too hard for the ordinary rank-and-file to grasp, Christianity is in big trouble. Again, the Church establishments are falling down on the job in not clarifying this for the faithful and their negligence is a crime. There’s nothing unchristian about Salterian Universal Nationalism. Christianity frowns neither on Salterian Universal Nationalism nor on “Christian Universalism,” meaning if the people want the former it’s fine with Christianity, just as it’s fine with it if they want the latter. BUT THE FORMER IS IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER A SIN. The Church needs to be setting the record straight on that, but they’re deliberately not doing it.

129

Posted by VLC on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:35 | #

if you christians can save the West and the White race using the Bible and your sermons then I’ll line up to be baptised and I’ll even spend years punishing myself like the monk in the DaVinci Code but being like Thomas I need to see some evidence that you are right. You’re wasting your time trying to convince people here that christianity is the way by arguing with words, you should demonstrate it. Argue with deeds and results. I will support anything that works.

Prozium: “It looks to me like the Church is a collaborator everywhere.”

in France and in Holland particularly. They behave exactly as Jean Raspail described them in The Camp of the Saints. When the liberation comes we should shave their heads along with those of the women who slept with the invaders

“Christian universalism lies at the noumenal root of our difficulties.”

but you see back in healthier days our christian ancestors were more than christians, their religion wasn’t an obstacle for sane ideas: they could be christians and nationalists, christians and racists, christians and this or christians and that. Even Hitler considered himself a christian. Their religion didn’t really interfere with their earthly decisions outside of the personal sphere, i.e. individual sins. The Western mind was and still is poisoned by self-destructive universalisms of all kinds and this same poison got the West’s religion. Consider religion as a part of the body, its condition reflects the condition of the patient. A symptom more than a cause.

130

Posted by VLC on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:43 | #

Mouff is betting her shirt – and ours - on the staple method of all social constructionists and their Foucaultian and sometimes Gramscian sons and daughters: denial of essence.

Leftists are secular creationists and their irrationality and their hatred will kill us all if we don’t kill it first. Being right isn’t enough to win, we must fight and defeat the crazies. That’s simply what we must do, either that or we die.

I don’t care what the Left or the Right is, I don’t call myself a conservative nor a liberal or whatever else, I don’t think in those terms. If those who call themselves conservatives harm whites intentionally or not then we have to push them aside. If they’re on our side intentionally or not then we leave them alone or help them. I’m a man of the white race and that’s the starting point for the rest - and we are being overtly attacked as men of the white race in the academic world by skunks like Mouff and more subversively by jews in the entertainment business and the media. Once you realize that you realize that the world isn’t a big complicated and murky place that needs intellectuals to explain it to the man on the street. All I had to do to understand the mess we’re in was to stop watching TV, discover American Renaissance and listen to William Pierce’s broadcasts. I didn’t need to read tens of books or even to understand the concept of EGI.

I don’t understand why some of you seem to have the need to hold grand theories or doctrines. Things are simpler than what nutcases of the MultiCult like Mouffette want you to believe

131

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:16 | #

...the lowly state of consciousness at work as I write these words and you read them.

The question is, GW, do we all see green the same way? Or if reverse-engineering Star Trek’s Lieut. Commander Data, was merely dismantling a machine or snuffing out a sentient life? Are there true zombies—beings who act like us but in whom there is no self, actually feeling anything. Is that the deal?

132

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:34 | #

Desmond,

Absence/presence is not absence<>presence, like blue<>green. It is not a continuum open to subjective interpretation. It is dark/light. Our ordinary consciousness is flawed and dark, irrespective of the intelligence operating within it. Everyone is a “zombie” if you like, Goethe and Wittgenstein no less than the feted recipients of the Darwin Awards.

Presence is the precondition for the (often fleeting) emergence of “I”, the authentic, the self in being ... essence. Of course, the ordinary working of the mind always resumes in all its mechanical tedium, and the thief returns.

I stress that anti-essentialism, as the term is employed in Pomo, is not a war on human essence in this fankly sacred sense. It is a war on the properties we ascribe not just to Homo sapiens, but to absolutely anything - animal, vegetable or mineral.

133

Posted by onlooker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:04 | #

VLC wrote: “Once you realize that you realize that the world isn’t a big complicated and murky place that needs intellectuals to explain it to the man on the street. All I had to do to understand the mess we’re in was to stop watching TV, discover American Renaissance and listen to William Pierce’s broadcasts. I didn’t need to read tens of books or even to understand the concept of EGI.”

I couldn’t agree more! And for the umpteenth time: It’s not TRADITIONAL Christianity that is plaguing us, it’s MODERN LIBERALISM and RACIAL UNIVERSALISM that are. The masses are brainwashed mainly through the garbage that emanates from the TV set, not from churches. Besides, most leftists, or died-in-the-wool liberals, don’t go to church anyway. Sadly, in post Constitution America, and post Christian Europe, the Church has been replaced by the TV.

Regarding racial universalism, the late great Samuel Francis said it well in his essay titled:

Race and the American Identity

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/race_and_the_am.php

134

Posted by wjg on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:11 | #

GW,

Your post and the subsequent discussion is excellent; a challenging and important question and a serious grasping for answers.

Over the past two years I have been in the process of better understanding “God” and “his” place in my life / in our lives. The quotes are to emphasize the nebulous meaning of the word not that there isn’t a god or gods. I love being a fly on the wall in these God discussions between passionate atheists and theists. They speak past each other to such a degree that an edifying conversation is impossible.

I have become so completely disillusioned by the Christianity espoused through all orthodox channels, be they liberal or conservative, that I have rejected it because it is everything I expect of poison and nothing of remedy. As Revilo Oliver said Christianity has had several reformations (from Luther to Marx), all in an ever harmonious direction towards the gods of this world. For Rocket to suggest that contemporary “Christianity” is a barrier to the cult of Euro-suicide (personified by his use of the word “Christ”) is absurd. Contemporary Christianity is what he says his “Christ” is: one of a seemingly infinite variety of institutions who have declared war or denied succor to Euro-man. His (and he is definitely “orthodox” these days) Christianity has been described best as Judeo-xtianity. It is the pseudo-spiritual element in the trinity of the liberal cult from the esoteric perspective; the other pieces being The Father – Jewry – and The Son – the pc martyr archetype (e.g. MLK). In this new moral universe Euro-man clearly plays the role of Satan – having destroyed Eden. But the new heaven is fast approaching as Satan is about to be vanquished eternally.

Of course (pre-marxian) Christians only see the exoteric pieces of this shell game; actually thinking there is a substantive difference between Jonestown and Hymietown (our world) when all that separates them is timeliness (slow vs. quick) and method (miscegenation/faggotry/pacifism/abortion/sterility vs. cyanide). They are given all the fantasy; all the hope fors; all the maybes; like a literal omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent diety, an eternal (but otherworldly) paradise, and eternal hell for the “others”. Might these things be literally true? I don’t know. It also might be true that those who believe them were themselves tested and found wanting and are headed for the very pit they think was intended for their enemies. Who knows. What we do know – albeit imperfectly at points in time - is what our minds and spirits have been created to or evolved to know and that is what is in front of us. What we also know is that the string pullers in this production get all the measurable gain. The Christian is only left with the hope that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus proves true again.

Fred well describes what Christianity should be from the perspective of the interests of Euros. But Rocket and the atheist Christian critics like Prozium, FB, and AR are right about what Christianity is. Can it, should it, be reformed to be consistent with and help to propel holistic, progressive (real) life? I don’t know. I am not sure whether Christianity is currently in a corrupted state (the view of FS and Kinists) or has just come “home” after a long detour as a semi-acceptable, Euro-friendly weltanschauung (the view of RPO).

Jesus as quoted in the Bible has many words of wisdom as well as many that are a bit perplexing to put it mildly. All should follow this command of his and I’m paraphrasing: “If a tree does not bear fruit, pull it up by the roots and burn it”.

That wisdom should be heeded if we are to escape our current spiral of descent. It may well apply to the edifice erected in his wake and in his name.

Bottom line is we need a spirituality that works. We need myths and stories that bind us as a people(s). Without these things we can never even try to answer “why?” Most of these things are beneath a thin layer of dust that only needs to be blown off but some are new to our times and we must be pioneers in their implementation.

135

Posted by Rusty Mason on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:31 | #

Rocket,

You are not really following The Christ, as hard as that might be for you to believe just now; you are regurgitating radical communist (liberal) dogma, built on Christian heresy (errors) of centuries past, and perfected to a sweet poison by a hostile, foreign, parasitic tribe of spiritually-challenged neurotics. If you were better read in history and philosophy, you would see what even the muslims and the atheistic nihilists on this blog see.

A messiah should lead you to Truth, not away from it. “Truth through faith.” Ever heard that? That’s what it is supposed to mean, what it used to mean in Christianity’s glory days: find the whole, universal, cosmic Truth through a combination of faith and logic. One needs knowledge, logic, reasoning, etc., but one also needs faith to complete ones understanding before ones spirit can rest, before peace (heaven) will come. You’ve got the faith part, but your knowledge and reasoning are very weak. This is not all your fault, we all live a most feckless and idiotic society today, where real knowledge and hard study work is discouraged.

Best,
Rusty

136

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:58 | #

I made comments à propos of this discussion in another thread, comments I stand by. They’re here, here, here, here, here, and here.

137

Posted by Rusty Mason on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:08 | #

WJG,

“Bottom line is we need a spirituality that works. We need myths and stories that bind us as a people(s). Without these things we can never even try to answer “why?” Most of these things are beneath a thin layer of dust that only needs to be blown off but some are new to our times and we must be pioneers in their implementation.”

Yes, we have these, in the Northern and Celtic gods of old. The only modern group I’ve found so far that seems to have a real understanding of spirituality, reason, and natural law, as interpreted by European peoples, is the AFA, the Asatru Folk Assembly, headed by Stephen McNallen (http://www.runestone.org). It is folkish (respects ancestors, heritage, and race), theodish (respects natural law, hierarchy, responsibility, duty, etc.), and is reasonable (not given to ideologies such as universalism, communism, liberalism, socialism, nazism, etc.).

If you prefer the Southern European beliefs, there is Hellenismos (aka Hellenism or Latinism), a most fascinating way of ordering your life and viewing the world. You could literally read and study 100 lifetimes and never cover all of the best of what has been thought about it and what has been written by its best thinkers. It is fascinating to me per se, but also because parts of it could be a model for what Northern European may have been like at one time, and a pointer to what movements like Asatru and Celtic spirituality could be in the future.

Vale,
Rusty

138

Posted by onlooker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:08 | #

“I don’t understand why some of you seem to have the need to hold grand theories or doctrines.”

Yes, keep it simple.

1- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

2- If you’re a Europid, do not violate the genetic interest of your own ethnic group.

3- Whatever the neo-cons advise you to do, do the opposite and you’ll be okay.

139

Posted by wjg on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:38 | #

Fred,

Your links to that earlier thread and your posts in this one are all spot on. Your emphasis on the cowardice, hypocrisy, and treachery of the NWO’s satraps masquerading as Christian theologians is perfect. They always give away things as does the limousine liberal: things that are neither theirs to give nor things which they care about.

If the Vatican wants to turn itself into the third world’s drain field as opposed to all the historic Euro-lands it still holds shamanistic sway over then its sacrifice could be respected both for its legitimacy and - thankfully - finality. Of course it serves a different master who will suffer no others and him they serve faithfully, getting a few scraps from the table in return.

Christianity had its age as the defender of the West but whether this age was a distortion of its pedigree or its fulfillment is not clear. Judging by the conviction of many judeo-xtians - as evidenced by the fairly typical Rocket - winding up a cadre of commissars to implement their people’s suicide is something that Biblical cannon is well suited for. Other flavors of this fanaticism were revealed during the Hundred Years War, the abolitionist movement, and others. This does not bode well for its future utility.

As with the entity still called the United States Christianity has been divested of almost all its former value. Even if it can be reformed to a race-neutral institution it might be best left alone.

140

Posted by wjg on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:42 | #

Rusty,

Thanks for the info.

141

Posted by VLC on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:47 | #

onlooker:

The masses are brainwashed mainly through the garbage that emanates from the TV set, not from churches.

There are many churches and christian groups promoting international adoption (there’s a christian guy who has a blog I don’t have the link but he blogs about the fat baby nigger he adopted in Africa and how it’s a gift from The Lord and so on) and many non-religious groups do the same (I was driving through a rich neighborhood the other day [about 15 minutes from Montreal] and I saw a fat white woman with a baby nigger too dark to be a mixed one that she must have adopted), you see christians supporting the mexican invasion because the mexicans are said to be christians too and that Jesus said to welcome everyone in your house and you see many non-christian white liberals supporting the mexican invasion too because they believe that opposing it would be to commit the sin of racism.

There’s not a lot of difference between the TV set and the churches, the poison is the same, the lies are the same. In Europe I doubt you could find even a single priest who would openly oppose the destruction of the european race. Recently in France there were Franciscan monks demonstrating in support of illegal aliens (called the ‘sans-papiers’, meaning the paperless or the unauthorized):

http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=1333

The christian religion isn’t a dam or a force, it follows the trends and the moods of our race, because its ranks are filled with white people. You guys need to read the Camp of the Saints.

142

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:22 | #

Fred, on a personal note regarding atheists under pressure resorting to prayer, I left that straw unclutched when,some years ago, armed home invaders entered my house, assaulted my visiting parents, tied up my wife and me while threatening us (infants included) with death and hurled our maid down the stairs. My father, an elder of the Church of Scotland, didnt mention to me when we discussed the attack whether or not he had called for supernatural assistance.

143

Posted by rocket on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:55 | #

There really is no need for ad hominum here gentleman . first let me tell you who i am not : i am not a liberal . i am not a communist. and i dont own a house . i happen to despise all 3 of those things. i am against the taking of all life. so forget the jim jones analogys . i am against abortion , war , the death penalty , and euthansia . and if you cant tell te difference between the suicide and a martyr then what can i say ?

what i am for and have been doing in the last 3 decades has been to follow my Lord Jesus . Now , this is an intellegent board. it was reccommend to me by a very dear freind of mine that shares your views. what i am setting up here is an athithesis to your thesis . i happen to agree with some of the views on this board. but maybe for different reasons .

i am for building the wall to stop illegals . why ? the preservation of the nation state that st. Paul talks about in Acts 17 to the Athenians as in regards to GOD setting up nations with boundrys . i am against the WTO undermining our sovergnty as a nation . and i think that when it comes right down to it races have a hard enough time getting along with each other . when you mix them there is trouble. but , as we read in Acts 13 , that is what the Apostles did at the first sending out . that is why multiculturism is a false divine substitute for the real thing . only GOD can unite people of other races. and since you all can read , and if you believe in the new testament that is what GOD is seeking to do .

so , here is your choice : choose your own genetics or obey Christ . there are more important things in this world than preserving a race since all men will die anyway . and that important thing is the kingdom of heaven on earth . and if you had any guts and faith and fear of GOD you would do just that.

144

Posted by onlooker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:03 | #

“The christian religion isn’t a dam or a force, it follows the trends and the moods of our race, because its ranks are filled with white people.”

Exactly, and the trends and moods of our race,including the Christian clergy, are conveyed to the masses via the TV. The anti-white liberals use the power of the TV to mold our minds in the shape the they want to form it into. The modern Church, meaning post WWII, acquiesced to the popular culture rather than maintaining their central message of salvation through Christ. So, yes, the modern Christian churches are filled with, and run by, a bunch of racial universalists. That said, I still maintain it’s a mistake to focus in on Traditional Christianity as a destructive force. We should direct our attention on modern liberalism and racial universalism/egalitarianism. It’s modern liberals that are the enemy, whether they be atheist, agnostic, Christian, or whatever. Furthermore, it’s WHITE liberals that are the most damaging to the white race. Come to think of it, I’m not sure if there’s such a thing as a non-white liberal? Non-whites align themselves with masochistic white liberals only because they recognise it’s to their own ethnic advantage to do so.

Yes, I’m well aware of the perverted heretics that occupy and preach false Christianity in the churches; but (sorry for belaboring the phrase), I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bath water.

145

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:27 | #

This is it. Correct?

The essence of antiessentialism

Comments about the “clash of civilizations” and such like provoke complaints about “essentialism,” the supposed error or sin of attributing a particular fixed character to a group of people. The thought behind such complaints is that something as complex as a civilization or religion or race must be a heterogeneous collection of things that seems to acquire unity and take on a particular character only in relation to other things and to the purposes of the viewer.

That general philosophical view is appealing to many people because it reflects strong skeptical and subjectivist tendencies in modern thought. We can’t know things as they are in themselves, only things as they are to us, which is what we make of them. It also seems to have a practical result: if something is what it is only in relation to its setting and what one makes of it, then one can in effect change the thing by changing its environment and how one reads it. Whatever that thing does is therefore really one’s own doing, and whatever it seems to do habitually must be the reflection of one’s own obsessions. If Islam is aggressive, or the wogs (who begin at Calais) are untrustworthy, then the fault is not wholly—or perhaps at all—in Islam or the wogs. It is we ourselves who construct Islam and the wogs through our classifications, who elicit their conduct through our actions, and who give it the significance it has for us through our interpretations.

It’s hard to know what to do with such a line of thought. There’s no doubt that people often construct the situations they find themselves in. Still, taken as an overall theory the point is useless. For one thing, it always involves a double standard. it can’t be applied generally because doing so would disintegrate all categories and make thought and discussion impossible. If it’s somehow illegitimate for Slovaks to complain about gypsy “thievishness,” because gypsies and their supposed qualities are a creation of Slovak society, then how can it be legitimate for the EU or the gypsies themselves to complain about Slovak “racism”? If the EU shuns the Slovaks because the Slovaks shun the gypsies and drawing lines that exclude is bad, who’s being irrational?

What follows from any of this? Only that it’s silly to think you can quash a line of discussion by saying “essentialism.” One can always complain that a conception like “Islam” or “the black race” is being applied in too simpleminded a way. One should give the particulars, though. If the conceptions have been used for a long time by a wide variety of people on both sides of the lines they draw, there must be something in them that reflects important realities. To say there is something essentially illegitimate about using them in reasoning about public affairs is itself to reason is an overly schematic and thus culpably “essentialist” fashion.

Posted by Jim Kalb at October 18, 2002

Again, it’s a metaphysical construct. It’s not science because it’s not falsifiable. How is it a third rail for evolutionary theory?

146

Posted by onlooker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:28 | #

Al,

I’m really sorry that horrible incident happened to you, your maid, and your family. What happened is everyone’s nightmare. My sincere condolences to out to you and yours. I hope you all are fully recovered from the truman.

Are the perps in prison now?

Your unfortunate experience serves to outline the question: Why do bad things happen to good people.

147

Posted by onlooker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:32 | #

“I hope you all are fully recovered from the truman.”

Also, I hope you all are fully recovered from the trauma.

148

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:17 | #

Al,

I second onlooker’s gesture of sorrow.

Desmond,

“How is it a third rail for evolutionary theory?”

Jim, as usual, does a nice job. Anti-essentialism is very like anti-racism in its political application. It is pre-programmed for one given purpose, which is left-revolutionary in character. Its entire claim to moral worth resides in the prejudice, “hate” etc which it can attach to the white claimant to hegemony.

My point is that regardless of the left’s machinations, Conservatives and traditionalists should be vigorously arguing for the nature of things. They dont, and that fact both turns them into petty anti-essentialists and tells us everything we need to know them.

That said, arguing for the nature of things necessarily draws from evolutionary theory, n’est-ce pas?

I am still puzzled by your objection.

149

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:24 | #

Thank you, onlooker and GW, for your sympathetic words. The perps were not caught. An Assistant Commissioner of Police (with whom I sometimes drink) kindly came to my house despite its being outside his area, and he surmised that they were illegal immigrants, so the cops and a posse of immigration officers rousted a squatter settlement and rounded up (sans kid gloves) all foreigners without valid visas and jailed them for a month or so prior to mass deportation.

150

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:56 | #

Ok, GW, however, your initial statement was,

I am a Darwinian with a question about teleology. The point is that something is outside Western epistemology, and it is situated at the sacred core of every genuine religion (or, in the case of Christianity, once was). But it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or worship, which are genetic endowments. It is not accessible through faith. It is the question ... the mystery of whether a man might, in some way, become a god, and for us it is unanswerable.

What part does design play here? For an evolutionist the question is not unanswerable. It is a simple no. Moreover, the man god symbolism is not at the centre of every major religion, only Christianity.

151

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:18 | #

Subsutite “honourable maturity” for “god”, and the argument is perhaps less offensive to you. I don’t mind which formulation is used, since the issue is the same. The issue is: what would be the rightful estate of a life lived in high consciousness of the essential self?

Now, and this might upset you still further, I have to tell you that there is another aspect to the brain which science is yet to seriously address. I mentioned the path of the ecstatic. Beatification (in the sense of the coming of visions in the mind) is reportedly either emotional or intellectual in nature. That is, it can express through the language of imagery or symbology, both of them thoughtless in the conventional sense. Now, perhaps it’s just a good trip induced by voluntary physical hardship ... a mess-around with serotinin and a few other chemicals in the brain, I don’t know. Perhaps that’s not all it is. But the same old existential question and the same three possible answers that I put in a comment earlier still apply.

1) It’s no more meaningful than any experience of brain-manipulating drugs.

2) It’s natural to Man, and would furnish him with a sublime understanding of reality were it not for his fall into an unconscious life.

3) It is the Divine voice.

Forget the exhibitions of the faithful. We can explain that behaviour. Beatification and the consciousness of “I” are the real nuts for Darwinian thought to crack.

152

Posted by rocket on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:16 | #

throwing away my Euro interitance ? well , i guess its better than having Euro idolatry . i owe nothing to that which is cultural and fleshly , but all to my Lord and Saviuor Jesus Christ. treason against my ancestors ? nothing short of it will you make you his disciple .

i see the words CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM banded about in the pergorative on this site alot . but does any one really understand what it is ? first off the term is redundant . every true follower of Jesus is a universalist. this is never to be confused with the counterfeit politcally correct multicults . they are seeking by their own man made power to substitute that which was wrought in GOD during the age of the Apostles as seen in the book of Acts.

look at Acts 13 . why does Luke chronicle these different races that normally would hate each other and state that ‘‘those who believed where together ‘’? why was the first sending out of the Apostles in Antioch ? because of its heterogeniety . GOD was showing that he could break these differences down FOR HIS GLORY . the multicults of our day dont do it for GOD’S glory but for their own utopianism . and how many on this board are intersted in GOD’S glory ? your too busy worshipping at the alter of your own genepool . your so jewish . they gaurd their genepool and earthly power too.

so , no wonder the reaction to this counterfeit is your kind of segregationalism . so , we have the multicults counterfeiters and the reactionary white fear culture. what do they have in commen? they are both missing the purpose of GOD on earth . which is that GOD did not create man to kill each other , but love each other. that is what Christ taught and lived . and for those who have said that i am not a christian becuase i believe this , either cant read the new testament , or their perception of the human race boils down only to genepool and skin color. pity.

and so the psuedo debate about racial homogeniety verse racial heterogeneity drags on and distracts us from the dignity that GOD wants to give us as being more than psycho-social beings , but rather spirits created in his image.

153

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:39 | #

Rocket is completely degenerate and a perfect example of the kind of degenerateness Christianity stumbles into when it’s not careful. It’s nihilism. We’ve all seen Jewish nihilism. This is the Christian variety (probably related at some deep level, the two being sister religions). You wanna know what Nietzsche rightly LOATHED about Christianity? Read Rocket’s post above: you’ll be staring a sample of it right in the face.

154

Posted by torgrim on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:02 | #

Al Ross;

My condolences.

How utterly symbolic, of the times we live in.

155

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:43 | #

Beatification and the consciousness of “I” are the real nuts for Darwinian thought to crack.

Sorry, GW, but no sale. People may believe what they want. It’s not upsetting. The point is only that mixing metaphysics with science does not a Darwinian make.

156

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:54 | #

Desmond,

These two exercises of a non-ordinary consciousness - meaning, consciousness of self and consciousness of the beatific - are either experientially real or they are delusions. Their reality ... their existence would lie squarely in the material world. As actions of the mind they would be phenomena, not noumena.

As such, they are fit subjects for scientific examination. The objective would be to explicate them in terms of fitness gain, just as the impulse to faith can be explicated. And although the mechanism for that is not at all understood today, nor is perhaps even imaginable, that does not mean that science should draw back from the challenge. After all, the vermiform appendix exists despite the absence of any explanation by medical science.

157

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:01 | #

...are either experientially real or they are delusions.

Why? Evolutionary biology is currently unable to explain cogniton or correlate it to fitness therefore it must be a delusion? It’s the same argument Creationists apply to the appendix. Science traditionally proclaimed the appendix vestigial. More recently the old remnant apparently is discovered to be a hot breeding ground for “good” bacteria, which aids in the digestive process. It just goes to show evolution is a believer in teaching old dog’s new tricks. However, because of the Darwinist’s non-explanation for the function of the appendix, Creationists immediately suggest a teleological explanation. It was a curse.

If it can’t be proven real it must be a delusion (which really means it’s a God intervention because who else could create that kind of delusion). It’s analogous to the fossil record or abscence of, presented to undermine evolution. Knowledge of the brain like the geologic record is imperfect. Unless every single minute transitional form is revealed, then it must be God in the mix.

Evolution discounts God whether secular or non-secular. It can’t be bothways.

158

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:12 | #

Yes, Desmond. That’s what I said. Again, I am puzzled as to why you will yourself to a completely purposeless diametric opposition.

Anyway, I repeat: I am an evolutionist with a question about aspects of the life of Man which manifest in a sense or, perhaps, a process of becoming. And that question is: given that these extraordinarily elusive and, therefore, scientifically near-ignored phenomena of consciousness have no apparent evolutionary purpose, why do they exist?

As you say, the only fit answer for a scientist is: today we just do not know, but perhaps tomorrow we shall.

My purpose, then, is not to introduce the Divine into Man’s mentation, but to introduce all of Man into ours. Even if I can’t explain everything today, my model of Man must accomodate the possibility of a rational understanding of the phenomena associated with spirituality, from the most common to the most rare: the impulse of faith; the model of absence/presence and the emergence of “I” which the latter portends; the life-process of maturation as a “present” being; beatific consciousness.

These are part of the essence of Man, regardless of their seeming godliness. Lenin wrote them all off as “opium”, but he was a religionist too, in his way. You and I are not. We don’t need to disagree on this.

159

Posted by rocket on Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:32 | #

Fred , what appears to an unbeliever on the outside while looking at the followers of Jesus as nihilism, is on the inside of the believer is the supernatural life of GOD .

weather it be Tacitus , Celsus , Gibbon , or Nietzsche , they were all looking at this from the outside . and since they have nothing eternally to offer , they are the real nihilists.

since 100 per cent of every generation dies , what else is there but the life of GOD ?

the fundamental axiom of all intellect is to go back to the source. in the case of this debate , the source is the text called the new testament . in it you will find inclusion of all , and a sharp rebuke from john the baptist , Jesus , and his Apostles against their own people for being too tribal and excluding the gentiles from salvation .

show me in the text otherwise ,. then we have a debate. until then you are just hurling invectives .

160

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:20 | #

“then we have a debate”

Right, I can’t wait.

161

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:29 | #

“since 100 per cent of every generation dies , what else is there but the life of GOD?” (—Off His Rocket)

Here is your nihilism right here, by the way: he comes right out and says it in black and white: “We all die anyway, so what difference does anything make?” Couldn’t be clearer. This right here is one of the biggest problems with Christianity: it exerts an attraction on depressive degenerates who interpret it as offering them a home, and they move right in and proceed to distort it and get everything ass-backwards.

162

Posted by rocket on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:12 | #

Fred , i would not call lving forever with GOD nihilism . look at the root of the word . ...the nihil , nothing , nada. those of us who are found faithful and rise with Christ on the final day run in a parallex to nihilism by definition . also , that ressurrection life begins at the new birth now is we believe . once again i go back to the new testament .

now , i looked at another post and you said that christianity cant have it both ways . it cant be universal and be for preserving white man tribal . i agree with you . there are those who seek to have it both ways .At least you and i know where we stand . by the same token , if you claim to be a christian and you cant substantiate an argument against christian universalism from the new testament, then are you not trying to have it both ways ? my challenge was to use the text. if not then we dont have a debate but rather a subjective projection of how we wish to make the world in our own image. and we remained deadlocked.

163

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:52 | #

“we remain deadlocked.”

Drat, I wish Rocket hadn’t said that. It’s gonna keep me from sleeping nights. I feel sure of it.

164

Posted by onlooker on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:31 | #

“now , i looked at another post and you said that christianity cant have it both ways . it cant be universal and be for preserving white man tribal . i agree with you .”

I’m a Christian who is fervently for preserving the white-race. Yes, Christianity IS universal, it is meant for the salvation of ALL ethnic groups. The crucial difference between Christian racial-egalitarians and race-realist Christians, is that race-realist Christians don’t believe we have to willingly submit to forced race replacement in order receive salvation. There is something written in the Catechism called the Doctrine of Self Defence, you know!

165

Posted by onlooker on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:03 | #

“The crucial difference between Christian racial-egalitarians and race-realist Christians, is that race-realist Christians don’t believe we have to willingly submit to forced race replacement in order receive salvation.”

Or to put it another way: Fighting off the barbarians that seek to destroy our gene pool does not preclude us from salvation.

166

Posted by rocket on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:35 | #

Onlooker, GOD is merciful , and so i agree with you that our salvation cannot be lost by fighting . However , that is not GOD’S will .

Jesus , the Apostles , and the church fathers of the patristic age pre-Constantine all spoke out against taking up arms . and they all lived it . as we read Tertullians ‘‘Apology’’ , he equates being in the military with infanticide.

Everything changed when that genuis st. Augustine came up with his ‘‘principle of proportinality just war theory’’ was posited to the Church and adopted into a cathechism of self defense . keeping this in mind , there is as Kierkegaard writes in his 15 page essay called ‘‘the difference between a genuis and an Apostle ‘’ the decisive qualitative difference being one of authority .

the genuis has no divine authority . the Apostle does . Ergo , the Apostolic writings in the new testament trump the brilliant work of Augustine . hence the famous debate between the jansenists and the Jesuits in the 17th century with Pascal caught in the middle .

167

Posted by onlooker on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:20 | #

‘’the difference between a genuis and an Apostle ‘’ the decisive qualitative difference being one of authority . the genuis has no divine authority . the Apostle does .”

Excellent point, rocket.

“he equates being in the military with infanticide.”

Infanticide? I take it you’re professing the assumption: If you’re not a pacifist, you’re not practicing divinely inspired Christianity; ie, false Christianity?

In light of the fact that the world is overflowing with murderous criminals, I don’t agree with the Christian pacifists. I admit I’m not not as learned on the subject as you, but my common sense tells me the ‘legitimate defence’ argument comports with the highest Christian values. I believe the Catholic Church has it right.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

168

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:49 | #

Onlooker, the fact that the Vatican isn’t right now setting its best clerks, scholars, and theologians to uncovering and making explicit every single solitary text in Christianity having the effect of acknowledging whether directly or indirectly the right of communities to all reasonable, humane self-defense against racial/ethnocultural attack — and the setting by a nation of its own national immigration policy lies within the realm of the “reasonable” and the “humane” and is therefore permitted under Christianity, and yes the “racial” is fully and completely part of all that wherever the concept applies — can only mean one thing: the Vatican supports the current Eurospherewide Post-1933-Forced-Race-Replacement-of-Whites-Régime. The Jews keep blaming the Vatican for, according to them, having either supported or insufficiently opposed the Nazi government’s treatment of Jews. I blame the Vatican because it blatantly supports and actively colludes with the present forced race-replacement régime. Has anyone on the planet heard so much as a peep out of the Vatican in regard to the current race-replacement crisis — which has been in the planning stage since at least the 1930s, the implementation stage since the mid-1970s, and going at a full gallop since the mid-1980s — other than telling Catholics explicitly or implicitly they have to swallow it if not outright rejoice in it? No, no one.

169

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:54 | #

(Nux Gnomica, don’t read the comment just above — it risks jarring your “liberal sensibilities” and coming across as too long and, to put it frankly, bonkers. I’ll post another one later on recipes for baking the best-ever chocolate-chip cookies. You can read that one.)

170

Posted by onlooker on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:20 | #

“I blame the Vatican because it blatantly supports and actively colludes with the present forced race-replacement régime.”

Fred Scrooby, let’s be frank and to the point. We both know it’s not the Religion of Catholicism that caused the problem you describe. It’s the flawed men who’ve occupied and occupy the Vatican that are negligent in their protest.

I’m not denying the Church is aiding and abetting or even advocating for illegal immigrants, BUT, the main reason for race-replacement must laid where it belongs. It’s main players are bussiness working in concert with government. Rapacious businessmen and traitorous politicians. Mexicans are not invading the USA to attend church, are they? No! They come to make money. The government is complicit along with bussiness in this PLANNED, AGREED UPON, illegal invasion. Notwithstanding the white-race hanging in the balance.

171

Posted by rocket on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:17 | #

Both points well made gentlemen . One has to remember that since Vatican 2 , the magisterium and the subsequent Popes have all condemed the taking of any kind of human life . Archbishop B ernidian of Chigago called this ‘‘the seamless garment ‘’. Hence echoing the consistent life ethic of Tertullian .

Pope john paul the 2nd closed the clause on the death penalty that was upheld since Constantine . the present consensus at Rome trumps even past councils , and the brilliance of Augustine’s just war that lead to the legitimate defence doctrine .

pass the those chocolate cookies fred. i will eat them even during lent .

172

Posted by onlooker on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:58 | #

“Pope john paul the 2nd closed the clause on the death penalty that was upheld since Constantine . the present consensus at Rome trumps even past councils , and the brilliance of Augustine’s just war that lead to the legitimate defence doctrine .”

You’re wrong, rocket. Here is what the current up to date Catechism says about the death penalty:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.“68

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

173

Posted by rocket on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:21 | #

onlooker , before John Paul 2 died he closed the loop hole . now , maybe Benedict re-opened it . if so , that is news to me . or maybe you have an old Catechism . i am a practicing Catholic and i have not heard anything about it .

but , i will check with the Dominicans , who are our parish preists and get back with you .

174

Posted by onlooker on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:11 | #

>>>“before John Paul 2 died he closed the loop hole .”

Pope John Paul II couldn’t have closed the loophole entirely. because their still is a small opening.

“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.“68

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

>>> “or maybe you have an old Catechism”

No, rocket, it’s the post Vatican II Catechism I’m referencing.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONTENTS

APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM
ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE

***CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PREPARED FOLLOWING THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL***

Please check out the link:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

God Bless,

Onlooker

175

Posted by rocket on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:46 | #

in sept 1997 , the Pope changed the words ‘‘in cases of extreme gravity ‘’ and closed the loophole on the death penalty once and for all .

check the new york times april 4 , 2005 story called ‘‘ABOVE ALL ELSE, LIFE’’ written by sister helen prejean . it explains the whole thing . rememember , the bishop of Rome has the rite according to canon law of infallibility to over ride even a council . it is not done very often . but it was done here .

this sealed up the doctrine of the seamless garment , and that life is sacred from womb to tomb .

God bless you too my freind .

176

Posted by JLH on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:00 | #

The problem with the “life is sacred” argument is that too many so-called “God’s creatures” are equipped with both the means and the drive to kill as a requirement of their own survival. Life itself demands the destruction of living beings to further its own ends. In that sense life is anything but sacred. It squanders itself all over the place.

177

Posted by onlooker on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:26 | #

“The problem with the “life is sacred” argument is that too many so-called “God’s creatures” are equipped with both the means and the drive to kill as a requirement of their own survival.”

True enough, but:

A fundemental purpose for practising Christianity is to lift humans above their animal instincts.

178

Posted by JLH on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:39 | #

Yes, and at the cost of leaving us defenseless.

179

Posted by onlooker on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:59 | #

“check the new york times april 4 , 2005 story called ‘’ABOVE ALL ELSE, LIFE’’ written by sister helen prejean . it explains the whole thing .”

Sorry, rocket, but the source you cite is flimsy at best.

My source is from the Holy See.

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

click on site map. then click on Catechism. then go to:

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Under the title: Legitimate self defence ... the last paragraph, last sentence, clearly, unambiguously spells out a very narrow exception for justifying capital punishment.

P.S. My apologies to Guessedworker and MR for belaboring this point.

180

Posted by onlooker on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:08 | #

“Yes, and at the cost of leaving us defenseless.”

Don’t expect the Church to defend you, you already have the right to defend yourself. That’s why I repeatedly cited the “legitimate defence’ doctrine. Besides, our Governments’ first and foremost duty is to protect it’s citizens. Are they not the guiltiest of all the parties in the race-replacement process?

181

Posted by JLH on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:11 | #

1) The state doesn’t do a very good job of preventing crime, just preventing white people from opposing colored criminals.
2) The colored criminals, far from being rendered harmless, are used by the state as a threat to whites who run afoul of the law in their efforts to defend themselves and preserve their living space against encroachment by hostile race aliens.
3) “redeeming himself”? this gives up the game. From a purely Biblical perspective, I thought unregenerate man is incapable of effecting his own salvation. If God or the Holy Spirit can save a man, He can save one facing execution just as easily as one who isn’t, no?

182

Posted by onlooker on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:37 | #

“1) The state doesn’t do a very good job of preventing crime, just preventing white people from opposing colored criminals.”

Agreed!

“2) The colored criminals, far from being rendered harmless, are used by the state as a threat to whites who run afoul of the law in their efforts to defend themselves and preserve their living space against encroachment by hostile race aliens.”

Blame the white liberals for that!

http://www.niggermania.com/purpose.shtml

“3) “redeeming himself”? this gives up the game. From a purely Biblical perspective, I thought unregenerate man is incapable of effecting his own salvation. If God or the Holy Spirit can save a man, He can save one facing execution just as easily as one who isn’t, no?”

No. Salvation of the soul and saving a man from physical execution are apples and oranges.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro4.html

183

Posted by rocket on Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:27 | #

to JLH—Herbert Spencer ‘s social darwinism runs in a direct parallex to the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.

onlooker—the bishop of rome sits in ‘‘ex cathedra’’ and can alter canon law and councils . also , salvation and execution are not apples and oranges. st. james says that ‘‘judgement will be mercilless to those who have shown no mercy ‘’.

remember the story that Jesus gave of the King who forgave his servant a great debt , and the servant turned right around and would not forgive the slave the small debt he owed ? what happened ? THE KING GOT VERY ANGRY AT HIS SERVANT .

what does this mean ? it means those of us that know that God has forgiven us have no right to not to forgive others. the servant was thrown in to outer darkness. salvation and promoting the death penalty are not apples and oranges. who are we not to forgive ?

184

Posted by rocket on Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:45 | #

JLH—‘‘at the cost of being defenseless’’ ? you say . i dont know where you got that. The christian who rises above nature has sufficient defence .

read ‘;‘the sorrow of the Romans ‘’—it documents the gladiator culture and how they were trained and how the early martyrs would use the same verbage at death being trained as they would say by the Paraclete ( holy spirit ) , and saying ‘‘we who are about to die, salute you King Jesus ‘’ .

this is not being defenceless . this is warfare on another level . in fact it was so effective that it began to undermine the moral of the Empire hundreds of years before Alaric and the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410A.D.

what the warrior and the martyr had in commen was COURAGE. neither was defenceless. weather they died for their tribe or died for Christ they had guts. both are lacking today .

185

Posted by onlooker on Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:19 | #

“also , salvation and execution are not apples and oranges. st. james says that ‘’judgement will be mercilless to those who have shown no mercy ‘’. “

To rocket and JLH,

Let me try to untangle this mess.

I cited the last paragraph of the legitimate defence sub section to refute rocket’s contention that capital punishment was completely banned by the Catholic Church.

Take note of the last sentence:-

It states:“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.“68

JLH took issue will the term, “redeeming himself.” He goes on to contend: “this gives up the game. From a purely Biblical perspective, I thought unregenerate man is incapable of effecting his own salvation. If God or the Holy Spirit can save a man, He can save one facing execution just as easily as one who isn’t, no?”

Well, JLH, takes the term “redeeming himself” out of context from what we were discussing, and what the Catechism is driving at. This is where the confusion happened. If JLH, or anyone else goes back and reads the entire legitimate defence sub section, you can clearly understand it is preferable NOT to execute the offender so as to allow him or her every chance to repent and come to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior before they die. If the offender is summarily executed, then we are effectively depriving him or her from their every opportunity/chance to be redeemed.

JHL: “From a purely Biblical perspective, I thought unregenerate man is incapable of effecting his own salvation.”

He is capable if he sincerely repents and accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

JLH: “If God or the Holy Spirit can save a man, He can save one facing execution just as easily as one who isn’t, no?”

Again, only if the man facing execution sincerely repents and accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I hope it’s cleared up?

P.S.

My link to niggermania was not meant to offend, it was meant as a joke.

186

Posted by Sally on Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:38 | #

onlooker says, “Well, JLH takes the term “redeeming himself” out of context from what we were discussing…”

Possibly you could make “redeeming” understandable, if you would define “deeming” which surely must be an important concept. After all, isn’t “redeeming” a second act of “deeming”?

Interested readers want to know.

187

Posted by onlooker on Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:24 | #

Sally asks: “Possibly you could make “redeeming” understandable, if you would define “deeming” which surely must be an important concept.”

Of course I can make it understandable, Sally. But let’s make a deal. I’ll make “redeeming” understandable and define deeming, if you’ll answer the following question:

How did infinite space and all the matter within it come into existence?

**‘I don’t know,’ and ‘it was always there,’ are unacceptable answers.**

188

Posted by Robert ap Richard on Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:40 | #

Anyways ...

“I’m now beginning the search for a more active philosophical agent, and don’t yet know where that will take me. I hope it won’t make too dull a read for MR.”

Welcome to point, GW; We’ve been hoping you could make it. We lower-order academics and assorted water-carriers have our pencils and notebooks handy. Now awaiting further instructions, Sir ...

189

Posted by rocket on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:17 | #

i feel guilty about hijacking GW’s thread. he is a cool dude . that was not my intent .

onlooker—to make execution contingent upon regeneration reduces divnine love in man to secular humanism . its not christian . Christ is our example , and judgement is mine siath the Lord.

this is more for our sake than the criminals sake . it changes something in us to become more like Christ by erring on the side of mercy .

190

Posted by onlooker on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:05 | #

“to make execution contingent upon regeneration reduces divnine love in man to secular humanism .”

Rocket, if I’m understanding you correctly, I have no disagreement with your statement.

In addition to the Christian argument against capital punishment. I have another, more worldly reason to oppose capital punishment. That being the criminal justice system cannot be trusted to mete out fair and just verdicts. The whole criminal justice system—from top to bottom—is littered with sociopaths, incompetents, and other assorted ‘shreds of human debris.’ Too many innocent people are arbitrary arrested, framed, falsely accused, overcharged, etc., then railroaded through the system.

One can’t help but notice that law enforcement and the court system attracts the extremes. It employs the some of the most virtuous of men/women, and some of the most morally depraved.

[The jailer] “brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:30-31)

191

Posted by rocket on Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:50 | #

onlooker , i have had a prison ministry for over 30 years , and i write death row inmates weekly so this also personal to me .

if you read the national review cover story( a few years back ) by carl cannon called ‘‘the conservative case against capital punishment ‘’ he says the same thing you do about innocent men being put to death .

aslo , one might add—it really does not deter crime . what does deter crime is to spread the good news of Christ and see people re-generated in Him . an ounce of prevention ....

192

Posted by onlooker on Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:30 | #

“one might add—it really does not deter crime . what does deter crime is to spread the good news of Christ and see people re-generated in Him . an ounce of prevention ....”

I think that about sums it up, rocket.

All the best to you, and may God help us all

onlooker

193

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:44 | #

Good news for the believers in the theory of the emergent human brain.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/on_traction_and_a_farewell_to_a_political_friend/#c55430

Colin Blakemore: how the human brain got bigger by accident and not through evolution

Oxford neurobiologist Colin Blakemore tells Robin McKie why he thinks a mutation in the human brain 200,000 years ago suddenly made us a super-intelligent species

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/28/colin-blakemore-how-human-brains-got-bigger

194

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:46 | #

silver,

you seem to be critiquing man for what he was before he even became man.

If one accepts that consciousness is intentional, and our ordinary waking state is not the only state of consciousness possible for a man, then it does seem that the date (or period, really) for a bifurcation must be set well back.

why do you balk at interjecting God at this point?

If one has no faith, the idea of a god is superfluous.

Can’t he be a way back to stillness?

The object is not to be still. Anyone can be still at any time simply by employing the power of attention in a certain way. What flows from that is a certain functional unity of the mind, and what flows from that is the object: however fleeting or imperfect it may be, a consciousness of self which is quite distinct from the former thing that went by that name.

At the very least, doesn’t he lessen the amount of will required to do so?

I imagine (I have to imagine because I would never do it) that praying at the outset in the conventional way would continually destract from the stilling of the mind. However, if you are interested, the real meaning of “prayer” might become the action of the state of consciousness of self. Prayer might be what we can do in such a state, so to speak.

Doesn’t that preserve essence but still give the pomos something to play with (you can forget about them ever going cold turkey, imo)?

Essence, meaning all that is not acquired, all that belongs to our being, needs no preservation. It is.

What pomos and latter-day pomos of this or that church of total confusion say about Man is just noise to me. They are babbling children with 140 IQs. The pity is that they have so much political traction for their nonsense.

195

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:50 | #

Desmond,

So you are living in the house of liberalism now? Strange friends you keep.

I will stick with the scientific consensus.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments