|
|
RISE
Posted by Søren Renner on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 10:38 AM in Political Philosophy Comments:2
Posted by Emperor Dano on April 14, 2010, 12:41 PM | # The dark gods laugh at the foolishness of meek appeasers. 3
Posted by Matt Nuenke on April 14, 2010, 12:44 PM | # In your post regarding Hegel and Kant, the universal can be captured via doctrines that are not specific, do not rely on identification with a nation-state, or any other narrow ideology. God can be identified as the ideologies of the right against Islam, egalitarianism, and against liberation theology. The evangelical right likewise is not an alliance against any particular ideology as much as it is an embrace of patriarchy and against modernity—it has no firm ideological foundation. From your other previous postings, “God” can be an organizing or unifying concept to be defined by the actions of the Right—rather than a descriptive unifying principle. 5
Posted by Gibson on April 14, 2010, 02:17 PM | #
There’s a god? He has enemies? You’d think he wouldn’t need any help with his enemies, with him being omnipotent and all that. What happened to good old fashioned smiting? Rise against the enemies of Truth! Rise against the enemies of the White Race! 6
Posted by Gibson on April 14, 2010, 02:56 PM | #
You’re trying to imply that that’s my belief? That’s a clever (and typically jewy) trick, but wrong. Whites might be superior in some ways, but they have weaknesses, and jews are, alas, expert at exploiting those weaknesses against them. 8
Posted by jamesUK on April 14, 2010, 08:52 PM | #
Didn’t know you were a supporter of Dugin Soren?
9
Posted by Gorboduc on April 14, 2010, 08:54 PM | # Last time I looked, this thread carried a post by (I think) Danielj criticising Gibson. Explain instanter. Or is this now CIF? 10
Posted by Gorboduc on April 14, 2010, 09:01 PM | # Gibson’s second post contains a quotation taken from a critical response to his first. Where has that response gone? 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 14, 2010, 11:01 PM | # Gorb yes I saw DanielJ’s comment too and I have no idea what happened to it. 12
Posted by Grimoire on April 15, 2010, 12:13 AM | # I am ready for the signal of the trumpets of the order to charge… Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam, after, elated by the lamentations and cries of mercy from our enemies….lets kill the priests while we’re at it. 13
Posted by James Bowery on April 15, 2010, 01:04 AM | # I think Danielj wasn’t criticizing anyone in particular—merely smearing the commentariate in general. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on April 15, 2010, 05:07 AM | # Gorb, apparently it’s CiF. Come on, Soren, just let it roll. These are friends. 15
Posted by Gorboduc on April 15, 2010, 05:13 AM | # James Bowery: I think Danielj was referring to Gibson’s atatement that in some ways Jews are smarter than us. Some right-wing commentators undoubtably DO treat them as if they were all Svengalis, manipulators of Golems, readers of minds, invisible movers of objects, perceivers of events happening at a distance, providers of compelling illusion, able to travel huge distances in the twinkling of an eye…and you’ll notice that several of the items in that list are drawn from traditional catholic treatises on demonology. Such things are ludicrous: it’s bad enough when believers from my side of the fence attribute all sorts of amazing powers to the Jews, but it’s even more comic when hard-headed scientific atheist materialists, who reject any talk of a supernatural order above ours, begin to treat the Jews as if they were all in league with the Devil that doesn’t exist! 16
Posted by Grimoire on April 15, 2010, 06:56 AM | # Gorboduc: I apologize for suggesting we kill priests while we’re at it. What I mean is well, they haven’t really been much use lately, the opposite really, what with Vatican II….more or less money changers in the temple. Since we are sweeping through with fire and sword perhaps we should do some traditional cleansing of the altar. Thats all I’m saying…..Coup de torchon…........Essuyez la table propre, Anyway, I defer to your judgement. But surely that Anglican fellow - Rowan whatshisname - surely we can impale him on a burning stake? Give it some thought anyway…. 17
Posted by Guessedworker on April 15, 2010, 07:36 AM | # Let’s try, at least, to put an edge on this ploughshare. Soren, Why, as the synthesis to the “natural world” thesis <> mondialist antithesis, would a divinus Europe, singular and free in its action, come into being? If you are claiming that the mechanism of delivery is a superior survival capacity in a coming population collapse, why would it deliver said Zarathustra rather than a surviving, pained and altruistic, heaven-bound Christian entity (of whatever creed or denomination)? The reason I cannot ascribe to the idea, as I understand it, is because it is without psychology - and therefore without metaphysics. It does not take a measure of Man as I understand him but, on the contrary, applies only sticky labels where the human, all bloodied and suffering, should be. To me it is a combination of too-pure and all too self-conscious intellectual analysis and a faith that is too ready to jump to conclusions (which is only what faith, be it religious or olduvaian, does). Between the intellectual and emotional here, some knowledge of what we are and what the world is has gone missing, as it always does with too-pure theory. It’s the way millions, actually, always seem to die - and, invariably, the principal actors with them. At least convince me that the two elements of profound population collapse and the emergent Subject are not merely interesting speculations. 18
Posted by Gorboduc on April 15, 2010, 08:59 AM | # I wasn’t at first very concerned about what Soren’s post actually meant. More important to me was to discover what happened to the missing post. My posting about the demonisation of the Jews depended merelyon the fact that THAT WORD had appeared in Gibson’s posting and in danielj’s now-obliterated response to it: it had nothing to do with Soren’s enigma. I thought Soren’s post was merely perhaps an exercise in gematria or Jewish word-magic, a cabalistic conundrum like the Sphinx mystification: perhaps an ingenious anagram, or even a secret pre-arranged sign, the signal for a general conflagration? Gosh! Is it related to the Chinese earthquake or the more recent Nordic Eruption? Is Doomsday upon us? Well I don’t know if Soren has caught the echo of Francis Thompson’s trumpet call “blown from the hid battlements of eternity”. But on second thoughts, I think it’s merely an oblique invitation to get readers to state their positions.
Satan and his legions (inspirers an encouragers of the subsequently listed) The worshippers of Mammon Jewish atheistic “thinkers” Neo-pagans Tha old-fashioned sort of “atheists” that are the grandchildren of the dreary old Rationalist Press Association and the French Grand Orient Humanists, whether of the “High-minded” or “low-minded” variety Libertarians Modern “scientians” Supporters of Grandaddy Darwin, Father Dawkins and promising youth Pullman Several people who post here, some in official capacities. And while we’re on that one, I can’t understand (as usual) GW’s contribution above. Is Europe a masculine or feminine proper noun?
. Yes, Grimoire, Rowan Whatsit isn’t really on my side of the fence. He claimed credit the other day for endorsing the enforced resignation of a black-bishop-fella who supported Mugabe: fine coming from a man whose ersatz state-religion was established in our miserable country by Britain’s very own Mugabe, the bloated and crazed monster Henry VIII. The stuff about the priests I’ll ignore for now. Now, what about the mystery of the excised post??? 19
Posted by Guessedworker on April 15, 2010, 09:19 AM | # Gorb, He doesn’t mean that God. Soren is saying that a certain process of creative destruction is required to release the free European who both he and I talk about in our different ways. The crucial difference is that I am interested in the metaphysics of freedom, while Soren is interested in historical process. For me the free European has always existed, but is self-estranged. For Soren, he is a New Man with limitless possibilities. For me, freedom is extant, if only for a moment, under certain ideational conditions. For Soren it is the final act in the human drama, and is therefore permanent. Perhaps. 20
Posted by Søren Renner on April 15, 2010, 09:58 AM | # I explicitly and formally deny, disaver and assert the falsity of part of the last comment. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on April 15, 2010, 10:08 AM | # Well, you may not care for the terms in which the difference is expressed, but where is it wrong? The “Perhaps”? 22
Posted by Q on April 15, 2010, 11:36 AM | # I read that post by Daniel J too. He misunderstood what Gibson was pointing out. If my memory serves me, Daniel said: “So now Jews are superior to whites?” “There you have it.” That said, I thought Daniel was correctly pointing out, in essence, that it’s wrong to think Jews are superior to whites and to do so is to reduce ourselves to the way Negroes blame all their problems on white-racism. I say that NOT to diminish the REAL damage Jews ARE doing to us (I agree with Fred Scrooby on that issue). I’m saying it because we cannot keep scapegoating the Jews for our demise and leave it at that. Sooner or later we will have to take responsibility for our ourselves and stand up to our enemies or we’ll find ourselves going by the way of the Dodo bird. Afterall, Darwin did have a point. 23
Posted by Wandrin on April 15, 2010, 11:56 AM | # jews are massively superior to white rabbits at being devious. I’m glad that is true. When they’re separated from us back in the middle-east where they belong it won’t matter. 24
Posted by DRS on April 15, 2010, 01:51 PM | # I saw a great comment on youtube once: “The white race has 3 main enemies. Jews, blacks and ourselves. If we could just sort ourselves out.” 25
Posted by Gorboduc on April 15, 2010, 01:53 PM | # GW: Confusion worse confounded. Creative destruction we know all about already. It’s clearly laid out for us in John 12. 24,25:
The great cycles of life, death, rebirth, and of death, decay, composting and fertility we design theorists know all about, but they must remain impenetrable enigmas to you evolutionists: are you talking about those? Or is it warfare you’re talking of? That’s different. Anyway, GW, WHAT God does Soren mean? Look, it’s really quite simple: if the Jews weren’t smarter than us in several ways, then there might be no need for MR. Oh, we mustn’t admit the Jews are that smart, after all: so MR was set up to reverse European Man’s self-estrangement. Smart Jews and self-estrangement are all programmed into mankind’s genetic endowment, and it is therefore NECESSARY that they arrive. I think that as evolutionists apparently can’t escape what’s written for them in the Book of Destiny, they should not bewail it, but go forward dry-eyed to embrace their fate: there is for them no drama, no playwright, no theatre, no audience, no applause, no trophy. Only the final curtain. Luckily for them, there IS an escape: but it would involve the “creative destruction” of all the Darwin and Dawkins nonsense. 26
Posted by Gorboduc on April 15, 2010, 01:56 PM | # DRS: 100%! The art of concision! What’s the URL? 27
Posted by Gorboduc on April 15, 2010, 03:44 PM | # Hold on now: someone (bearing a name unfamiliar to me, at any rate) posted after 06.00pm here, with a short comment about holocaust revisionists. 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 15, 2010, 04:01 PM | # “Hold on now: someone (bearing a name unfamiliar to me, at any rate) posted after 06.00pm here, with a short comment about holocaust revisionists. That’s gone too. I remember that the odd advert for [removed] boots used to get on and survive for an hour or two: but ths is different. What is happening?” (—Gorbo) I believe I did that, Gorb. The guy posted three comments in three different threads, each ending with “Drink Faygo.” Is that the one? I think one of the three may have been in this thread. I read all three carefully and right away suspected they were spam, nevertheless I decided to leave them alone and let GW zap them if he so chose — they struck me as unserious, someone “commenting” solely as a pretext for giving publicity to faygo, which I’d never heard of but googled, learning it was a soft drink, but because there appeared to be a semblance of actual content in at least one of them I decided to leave them alone at first. But I re-read two of the three and saw at least one was really gobbledygook, Gorb. Pity I didn’t keep them so any doubters could look for themselves but trust me, they weren’t serious comments. I said to myself, “No, this guy is outta here, he’s posting nonsense just to spam the thread with an advert for Faygo” and I zapped all three. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 15, 2010, 04:21 PM | # GW granted me zapping privileges about a year-and-a-half ago to help keep the threads free of spam — the [removed] boots, the loan-sharking loan offers, the college term papers for sale, the turkish porn links, etc. That’s why when I post in the Forum now, it identifies me as an “administrator” — administrator is apparently what the software calls you when you can zap stuff. I’m not really “an administrator.” I have no editing privileges, I have no “say” in any decisions whatsoever here, I am in no way in charge of anything. I’m what I always was, an ordinary commenter just like all of you guys. The only difference is I can now help with zapping stuff. (The need for extra help really started back when we had some creep who used to post porn pix in the threads.) I have never zapped anything but what was obvious spam, and I have no permission to zap anything else. If I think something is spam but am not a hundred percent certain I leave it alone. GW may then happen across it and zap it himself, or he may leave it alone too. I have never zapped actual content no matter what I thought of what it said, and do not have permission to do that, and I never would do it. Anything like that would be GW’s decision. (I noticed the recent comment by Silver disappeared. I assume that was GW’s doing and I’m sure he, or whoever did it, had good reason.) If I think a post deserves to be zapped because it is loathesome or legally questionable or whatever, I voice my opinion in the threads, or I might e-mail GW with my opinion. Either way, he decides. Once again, my zapping is strictly limited to spam. I have never zapped actual content and would never zap actual content. 30
Posted by Gorboduc on April 15, 2010, 04:44 PM | # Thanks, Fred. All clear there - see what you mean. 31
Posted by Jawake on April 15, 2010, 04:50 PM | # Just a test. I posted my first comment o the site and I am wondering how it works. 32
Posted by Guessedworker on April 15, 2010, 05:03 PM | # Fred, In case you have not noticed there is a very ingenious spambot that copies a few lines of type from a thread comment, pastes it and then adds the sales punchline. That’s why some of these spam entries look like they are from commenters. They are not. Zap the lot. Btw, as I recall full rights to post main pieces came with the zapping responsibility, but you have not pursued that - your decision and I respect that. Gorb, Soren can be, let us say, quite difficult to bring out, while at the same time quite abstruse in his formulations, in case you had not noticed. If you know the radio interview I did with him last year, you will understand that he cleaves to this with a will. MR’s subject matter is already frequently difficult for a lot of readers, and no doubt it is doubly frustrating when presentation compounds rather than dispels that difficulty. You’ve taken me to task only recently over my own heinous obscurities, so you know what I mean. Accordingly, I am attempting here to open up Soren’s typically occluded subject matter for the widest possible audience. If in the process I do him an injustice, Soren is at liberty to respond with whatever corrections and whatever degree of clarity he wants. Or not, as the case may regrettably be. But I have tried. I hope you understand that. Meanwhile, I think I can say with some confidence that Soren is not striving to explain to himself and to us a new and unexpected devotion to Catholicism, if that is what you thought. Neither, I think you will find, is he anti evolutionary theory. 33
Posted by Jawake on April 15, 2010, 05:16 PM | # Guess I lost it the first time. Glad I saved it. Soren, I believe I understand your call here. I have watched your videos and read Dugin’s “Subject Without Confines” (which, by the way, needs a better English translation). On one level you are calling for a return to aggression, which some may understand as pure, outward warfare against the globalist progressive project. But, in reality that is not entirely the case. Dugin has written that pure terror or the phenomenom we know as terrorism, is mostly a metaphysical reaction against soft liberal One World ideology. This liberal mondialism has become a worldwide project which “rallies the victims in a common, objective cosmos” which, in effect, has made war on the concept of aggression, which Dugin believes, was fully legitimized in traditional societies. (This, I believe is the essence of your concept of “discourse is war.”) For Dugin, aggression is understood as the “overcoming of bounds” or “bringing the ego to the absolute state” on the path to the realization of the Divine. Traditional societies understood the obstacles and impediments on the path to spiritual (existential) expansion as “Satan” which literally meant in Hebrew a “barrier” or “obstacle,” and was conceived in the traditional mind as a negative force.
Dune’s Fremen were the protypical traditionalists, who never fully participated in the liberal project of the Empire and the various corrupt fiefdoms that made up its power centers. The Fremen lived harsh lives of obscurity in a place few humans felt were habitable. But it was through the harsh environment, in severe isolation from the Empire, and by retaining their strict, traditional sensibilities and capabilities, which were really a source of incredible strength. The real power of the Fremen remained a mystery even to the greedy, decadent, decaying- but powerful- House Harkonnen, who ostensibly ruled the planet and the spice on Dune for ages. But, the Fremen’s prophet, Paul Atreides, realized what the Fremen really were soon after he met them; though he did not understand them and their faith intellectually at first. In various hallucinogenic visions, Atreides saw what the Fremen were capable of and envisioned they would lead a monstrous jihad “against all the known universe, which Atreides describes as a humanity-spanning subconscious effort to avoid genetic stagnation.” Although he sought to control this outcome, as their religious fervor grew and the faith in him and the prophecy deepened, Atreides eventually resigned himself to the jihad, and once he ascended to the throne, led it and saw to it that it ran its course. Thus, the radical inner subjectivity of the Fremen in Dune, as symbolized by the stark but secretly rich (spice and water) geography from which they emerged, eventually led them to become a universal and irresistible force; ostensibly the backbone of Atreides’ new Imperial order. The Fremen exemplify this idea of the “subject without confines.” Dugin writes:
When understood then, the “subject without confines” becomes an existential, and dare I say, spiritual project, which history proves is the vital, central force of European community everywhere; and the real reason why it is under attack. From this realization, community-building should flow naturally, and to RISE AGAINST THE ENEMIES OF GOD then means to insist on living in radical subjectivity, preserving the essentials of European culture against globalization and in effect ushering in the inevitable dualistic outcome: resistance. “Billions will die, we will win!” I write those words fully understanding the immanent horror they attest to. immanent. But they are correct, and the project must begin to build and take its blows and have the courage to live in necessary resistance. Otherwise, we remain objects and either live on as slaves to leviathan or get wiped out in the coming, insanity of global culture. 34
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 15, 2010, 05:23 PM | # “Fred, In case you have not noticed there is a very ingenious spambot that copies a few lines of type from a thread comment, pastes it and then adds the sales punchline. That’s why some of these spam entries look like commenters. They are not.” (—GW) GW yes I had caught onto that new spam bot trick some months back, and have indeed been zapping those once I verify, by going back over the commments thread and identifying part of the spam bot “content” as having been lifted word-for-word from an earlier legitimate comment. If I can’t verify that for certain, of course, I “stay my delete-button finger” and let the suspicious comment stand. “But you didn’t zap danielj, though.” (—Gorb) No, I did not. I don’t know who did. I believe I remember DanielJ having not one but two comments in this thread (not certain of two, though), both now gone. I believe GW started the comments thread with two of his own (just before Emperor Dano’s comment), of which there remains only one — I don’t know what happened to GW’s other one. I have just read GW’s latest comment, 9:03 PM, looking without success for clues as to whether or not the blogger himself (Soren) zapped any of the posts in question. I suppose the mystery remains. 35
Posted by Jawake on April 15, 2010, 10:31 PM | # How do real traditionalists, nationalists and such respond to news like this? From the London Times:
Do pagans snicker? Do atheists amongst us agree? Arresting the Pope on Human Rights violations. That it may not happen is not the point. This is exactly what we are talking about here, and people like Dawkins and Hitchens understand what they are doing. The hour is late indeed. 36
Posted by Grimoire on April 15, 2010, 10:54 PM | # Gorboduc
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Pert-Williamson.html#TP
37
Posted by danielj on April 16, 2010, 04:01 AM | # I think Danielj wasn’t criticizing anyone in particular—merely smearing the commentariate in general. No, no. It was that one guy. That said, I thought Daniel was correctly pointing out, in essence, that it’s wrong to think Jews are superior to whites and to do so is to reduce ourselves to the way Negroes blame all their problems on white-racism. Bingo. I wasn’t at first very concerned about what Soren’s post actually meant. Neither was I. I was responding to a slander against my God, whom, Soren’s post was not about. It was jovial banter. I wasn’t trying to cause a shit storm. He doesn’t mean that God. Which is why I jumped on the guy that brought that God into the picture. I suppose the mystery remains. No mystery. Rise against the enemies of God remains. 38
Posted by Gorboduc on April 16, 2010, 06:28 AM | # Grimoire: it doesn’t have to be an intuition. As far back as the 19th. century Pius IX had caused to be published the seized documents of the Italiam masonic secret society, the Alta Vendita, which was claiming that it would be able to put on the throne of Peter a pope of their own. Even earlier it had been suggested that the Papacy had already fallen into a state of apostacy from the truth - some traditionalists in France had objected to the papal validation of episcopal consecrations illicitly performed for the French revolutionary state church by the ex-bishop Talleyrand, and had gone off by themselves. Few people in the UK bothered much about this sort of thing - I mean, the barque of Petre COULDN’T sink, could it - until a few strange books and pamphlets began to appear. Position 1):You’ll be familiar with the doctrines of the Sedevacantists - they generally hold that there’s been no valid Pope since Pius XII (+1958) and that as the College of Cardinals in general fell away from the church by reason of its membership’s signing the heretical documents of Vatican II - which means that they automatically forfeited their positions and offices within the church - no further papal election is ipso facto possible, as the electors are all now outside the church. Material put out by Briton’s Catholic Library in the 1970’s and 1980’s argues this case strongly. Position 2): Another traditionalist theory holds that the Pope IS the Pope, protected by Christ’s promise of inerrancy, but he’s either more or less a prisoner in the Vatican, or else he’s only just holding on to orthodoxy by the skin of his teeth. The late voluminous Michael Davies, father of Irving’s lawyer Adrian Davies, seemed to hold one or other of these opinions. MD apparently couldn’t bear to encounter the sedevacantist type of traditionalist. Some sedevacantists, like Hutton Gibson, claim that Lefevre’s later extra-ecclesial consecrations such as that of Williamson, were not just ilicit but invalid, on the grounds that Lefevre had himself been invalidly consecrated by a bishop who was actually a Freemason, who thus would have intended internally NOT to confer a valid consecration on anyone, no matter what external rites he performed. Setting aside the extremist position which dates the papal apostasy to some two centuries ago, and a modified version of this, that holds that Pius XII was ALSO an antipope, there’s a fair number of Catholics who call themselves traditionalist and who subscribe to either Position !) or Position 2) loosely outlined above. There’s a fair amount of turmoil within these groups: some have a foot on both camps, but there’s also a fair amount of reciprocal name-calling and excommunication going on, which gets quite comical. I myself am aghast that men who call themselves the successors of St. Peter can carry on in the way they have since the 1960’s, and I would suggest that those modernists and atheists who like to make jolly fun at the expense of the mainstream post-Vatiican II “Church” are actually pillorying a sort of Jew-friendly, islam-friendly grotesque parody of the true Church set up by themselves, or by their inspirers and mentors. As regards SEDEVACANTISM, don’t take it from me. I typed all this up before even thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism and good examples of the approach of the traditionalist-but-papalist-with-some-reluctance school ( as at:2) are provided at: http://www.christianorder.com/ A traditionalist attack on the modernist sexual agenda and the dreadful damage it’s done is reviewed at: http://www.alcazar.net/Book_Sodomy.pdf Let the modernist, atheist, materialist smart-arses contend with the New Church: there’s no real struggle, for the NC opened itself to “thought” of their devisal decades ago: but the great minds of the true church still speak even from the grave to refute them and their piffling pretences. 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 16, 2010, 09:17 AM | # Well-put and interesting summary by Gorb of the view of today’s Catholic Church as having forsaken Catholicism. No one can deny that by the beginning of the 1960s, what are called “left-liberals” had gained the upper hand within the Catholic Church or that such men have the upper hand today. The present pope is one. So was the last pope though his left-liberalism was masked a little by his strong Polish nationalism, so that you mistakenly saw as strong anti-Marxism what in reality was nationalistic anti-Russianism (combined with only luke-warm anti-cultural-Marxism). I re-post the link which Grimoire posted above, the one to yesterday’s entry on Bishop Williamson at the TOO blog: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Pert-Williamson.html . Notice that the SSPX didn’t leave Catholicism, Rome left. The SSPX was those priests who refused to leave, refused the journey toward Marxism and Jew-worship decreed by the Second Council, preferring instead to remain with the Church. Accordingly, any reconciliation between the Vatican and the SSPX will signify not “the SSPX rejoining Catholicism” but the Vatican rejoining Catholicism. As a Catholic who prefers a religion in which God has not been replaced by the Jews, the Catechism by the Frankfurt School, or Jesus Christ by a combination of Karl Marx and the ©Ho£o€au$t®™, I prefer the teachings of Bishop Williamson to what’s currently vomited out of the Vatican’s maw. 40
Posted by Dasein on April 16, 2010, 09:59 AM | # Speaking of Williamson, today he was fined 10,000 Euros for his interview. He did not come to his trial, which was in Regensburg. I would imagine this means he will not be coming to Germany again, unless he pays the fine. 41
Posted by danielj on April 16, 2010, 04:56 PM | # Well-put and interesting summary by Gorb of the view of today’s Catholic Church as having forsaken Catholicism. Sorta seems like a logical impossibility. Notice that the SSPX didn’t leave Catholicism, Rome left. These folks must see Protestantism in a whole new light. 42
Posted by Gorboduc on April 16, 2010, 05:49 PM | # Danielj: There’s no call for modern Anglicans or Lutherans to call themselves Protestants: what are they protesting about, and to whom? Such an anachronism! Another departure from orthodoxy occurred at Vatican II: it gave some sort of [removed]as far as error CAN express itself) to liberal, modernistic and judaeo-masonic tendencies that had been fomenting within the church for centuries. Yes, the presence of so-called “Protestant” observers at Vatican II sessions and the fact that they were permitted to help draft documents seems to have helped the apostasy along: but what were these people “Protesting” about? Hell, they were now able to triumph in the large-scale destruction of their old enemy! If anyone has a right to protest, it’s the genuine traditionalists who’ve seen truth and beauty destroyed, first in the 16th. century, and then in the mid-20th. They also see the old protestantism for what it was, a disastrous movement towards a specious liberalisation which actually ushered in cruel theocracy and plutocracy. Their judgment on the new “reformed church” (or rather “deformed pseudo-church”) may be even more hostile than that they pass on the 16th. century rebels: at least men like Cranmer and Luther preserved some of the basic doctrines of Catholicism - the Godhead of Christ, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, Judgment leading to Heaven or Hell - even if they destroyed the sacramental system and denied the Apostolic Succession, but the modern rebels against Truth and Order have done away with almost all of the ancient landmarks. We traditionalists see both the old and new errors as Darkness Visible. This is not however intended to deny that “traditional Protestants” may be sincere and well-meaning and even holy: I honour a large company of “Protestant heroes” among which are Orlando Gibbons, Milton, Herbert, J.S.Bach. Samuel Johnson, Samuel Palmer, C.S.Lewis ... but the new reformed “Catholics” I abhominate (old spelling again!) as traitors and perverts. The very best among them are mere ignorant fools and dupes. 43
Posted by Gorboduc on April 16, 2010, 06:02 PM | # Can’t imagine what [removed] in the 5th. line down means, or how it intruded itself into the text: I think I’d intended that bit to go something like:
But I was frightened of getting my metaphysical knickers in a twist so I struck out fearfully and wildly . . . the above is NOT intended as a parody of GW’s style, and I begin to see how he must feel when there’s an idea and limited time and space to perfect its expression 44
Posted by danielj on April 16, 2010, 07:06 PM | # Another departure from orthodoxy occurred at Vatican II How so? The Catholic Church is Orthodox no matter what it does. What other standard of orthodoxy could there be? Sola Scriptura? 45
Posted by Gorboduc on April 16, 2010, 08:20 PM | # No so, Danielj. The point I’m making is that the Vatican II lot aren’t the Catholic Church, no matter what they’re called. At Vatican II the standards of orthodoxy were breached: and have been since then, frequently. Two little points: 2) JP II promulgated the condemned heresy of Jovinian, which erroneously teaches that the lay married state is preferable to the state of clerical celibacy. The Sola Scriptura doctrine is self-contradictory: nowhere within Scripture is it found, neither can it fix the canon of the Scriptures. The Church did that. 46
Posted by Jawake on April 16, 2010, 09:40 PM | # Gorboduc:
Great information Gorboduc, and essentially I agree. I think the Catholic Church has become a hypocritical player in the global progressive project and in my experience, de-emphasizes spiritual education and has become primarily concerned with politics. This has led to its present crisis in which it really has no one to blame but itself in turning away from the reality of homosexual/Marxist infiltration within its ranks. The deformed clergy that runs rampant throughout the (American) Church today, is proof that it is just an empty shell as far as any real spirituality goes. This was revealed by Malachi Martin in the 1990s and ever since then, it has become clearer and clearer that the Catholic Church is jockeying for position amongst other progressive forces in the New World Order. As American conservatives were decrying the new health care act and vowed to fight its enactment, the Catholic Bishops were quietly working for its passage, despite reports to the contrary. I think one of the most decpetive tropes of the liberal media is that it still considers the Catholic Church a real conservative force in American society today, when that has ceased being true has long ago. Accuracy in Media wrote:
My primary concern with noted atheists attempting to charge Pope Benedict with crimes against humanity has to do with what it actually indicates about the level of decay in Western society. To me, it represents the complete dominance of mondialist ideals over tradition, and is a perfect representation of the objective world of rights v. the subjective world (without confines) of legitimate aggression. Perhaps a good illustration of this this would be a comparison of the Catholic reaction to the news of atheists daring to charge the Pope with universalistic crimes, and the reaction of Muslim, traditionalist revolutionaries to the publication of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. The traditionalist revolutionaries, I think, had the proper reaction. This is why, I believe, they have a good chance of winning in the end. 47
Posted by danielj on April 17, 2010, 06:39 AM | # The Sola Scriptura doctrine is self-contradictory: nowhere within Scripture is it found, neither can it fix the canon of the Scriptures. The Church did that. Did the church define itself? Don’t you see you’ve transferred the exact same logical problem? Where does the metaphysical buck stop? This isn’t the post for a discussion about Sola Scriptura though. We are invading Soren’s space. 48
Posted by Gorboduc on April 17, 2010, 06:52 AM | # Jawake:do you mean there should be Fatwas against “popes”? H’mm. The Rushdie case interested me at the time:Rushdie hadn’t said anything original, the charge that the Koran hadn’t , as claimed by the pious, come straight from Heaven as a discrete whole and had never been altered, every tiniest feature being preserved JUST as it had come from the mind of God, is quite old! Mohammed, relaying the Koran to us earthlings, dictated some words which the scribes warned him couldn’t be quite correct, as they mentioned some goddesses, and there’s only Allah…, he thought about it, and said “Satan stepped in there disguised as an archangel and deceived me, Strike out those words! I never said them! They were never meant to be there!”. But there they are, proof that the text could be, well, if not falsified, at least temporarily interrupted. Beats me how anyone ever noticed that story in Rushdie’s book: no-one I know ever got beyond page 5. It’s stupefyingly, mind-numbingly, monumentally boring. I have read the Koran as a duty a couple of times, and felt I needed to go live for a week out in the open country for cleansing afterwards. Spring water and raw veg. only. Tony Blair, we know, keeps a copy by his bedside and it’s probably that magic book that gave him the wonderful power he so publicly claimed to give Cherie her five-times-a-night, no no, that’s wrong, get thee behind me Satan, I mean his wonderful abilities to run the UK and a few wars so effectively. Back to your point. 49
Posted by Gorboduc on April 17, 2010, 07:02 AM | # DanielJ: Briefly: Sorn’s post was open-ended: we are surely invited to take advantage of its richly-textured suggestiveness! Your questions, briefly
2) No I haven’t. 3) You mean, who’s ultimately responsible? What for? IS there a church? And on your final point: over to Soren! 50
Posted by Captainchaos on April 17, 2010, 12:27 PM | # 51
Posted by Robert Reis on April 17, 2010, 01:14 PM | # Two points. 1. The Orthodox Christian churches have existed for two mellenia. They do not consider the Pope necessary in the Roman Catholic mode. 2. Please read this article and spread the word about the lies the PC crowd spread about the Australian Aborigines. A thororoughly disgusting lot on their good days. 52
Posted by asfgargf on April 17, 2010, 01:19 PM | # The only truly fascinating thing here is that you all take Soren seriously. Here’s GW: while at the same time quite abstruse in his formulations This is how false idols are made. Soren Renner has nothing to offer and has offered nothing. 53
Posted by cladrastis on April 17, 2010, 02:44 PM | # Decide for yourself: 54
Posted by Søren Renner on April 17, 2010, 03:36 PM | # The main plot device in The Satanic Verses is copied (apparently) from a much better novel by Mervyn Peake, Mr. Pye. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Pye
55
Posted by Guessedworker on April 17, 2010, 05:34 PM | # Since no one else has addressed Jawake’s commentary on Dugin, and since Soren is now active on the thread, I shall respond to Jawake with the following:
The insuperable difficulty with your explanation of Dugin’s reification of aggression as the creative energy in the will to be, which is how I understand “bringing the ego to the absolute state”, is that it is simply not true. The “bounds” to presence are overcome by other means. They involve a move from psychological passivity to activity, it is true. But one cannot draw aggression out of “the absolute state”. It is not there. It stands at two, maybe three removes - evaluations actually. One is the evaluation of abiding interests, and another is the evaluation of the violence being done to those interests. The point where interests enter the equation is where aggression may be released, and brook no bounds until it has overrun the enemy. Salter uber Dugin. Of course, if one is actually doing faith-thinking, then one can ascribe “the absolute state” to anything, and all manner of strange justifications can enter. What is not justified if one views the expansion of the Ummah, for example, or Israel or the Volk or even the SWC as “spiritual expansion”? Your quote from Dugin to the effect that:
... is sudden and strange, and a bit of a let-down after the talk of “the absolute”. For now we are thrown into the world of ideology and the utilitarian, and of “the social sphere”. But solitary people? That doesn’t evince much potential for world-shaking, history-breaking aggression. From where is this vast energy to be got, this Absolute-grounded will to total power. Surely, there is a bit of a revolutionary deficit here. Well yes, and that’s why this looks and smells like a theory for theory’s sake, all wrapped up with geo-meta-historio-mysteriographical Eurasianism and a dollop of Orthodox Christian faith. It sounds impressive, though.
The conclusion - without the dead billions, of course - is the conclusion, our conclusion, the one all of us desire and scheme towards. The scheme goes something like this: being > volkishness > interests > ideology > politics. My feeling is that Dugin’s idea is half descriptive of the historical process to take us there and half descriptive of the generative mechanism, but the latter half does not describe a mechanism as such, for it has no moving parts. In their place are incorrect assumptions and, probably, quite a bit of faith-thinking. 56
Posted by Gorboduc on April 17, 2010, 09:01 PM | # @Robert: well, not quite 2 millenia: since Photius, (9th. cent.) although there had been some Byzantine rumblings earlier. @Soren: It wasn’t the main plot device in Rushdie that upset the Ayatollah, it was his pointing out a flaw in the theory of the transmission of the Koran’s unaltered text to mankind. At the same time I read another “Christian” novel, Powys’ Mr Weston’s Good Wine: as with Mr. Pye, once was enough. I found them about as Christian as I more recently found the writings ofPullman. The enemies of God are shown to great effect in Robert Hugh Benson’s Lord of the World (1905) which represents an Antichrist named Felsenburg who sets a one-world government and imposes the worship of Humanity as the universal religion. Thanks to Jawake and GW for sorting out the Dugin refs: all that side of things is completely new to me. There must be thousands of other identifications of God’s enemies:I’ll say goodnight with a quote from GKC’s Napoleon of Notting Hill: this treats of the sanctification of the merely municipal and humdrum, the little streets of old London, the gas-works, the trams, the hansom cabs, the little shops: be warned, the book is not without irony. GKC was a fervent loather of the ideals of Nietzsche, holding that the German moralist’s worship of strength and contempt for “weakness” were characteristics not of a strong man but of a chronic invalid.
It’ the singing of this anthem that sets off the war again: read on: 58
Posted by Gorboduc on April 18, 2010, 06:24 AM | # @Wandrin, Cladastris. Well, I decided to decide. And then I looked at the second video. IS this guy another AH fruitcake after all? Anyhow, I watched both the videos: I made up my mind.
And then this comes up on Youtube alongside one of the vids., from the same New Right concern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5bGTLN0eks&feature=related so I looked at it too. Gordon Bennett. More false gods. The cabbalistic interpretation of RAGNAROK had me in stitches. As I’ve always said, the Jews are behind neo-paganism, and here their hand shows. Look, all you ignorant pedlars of third-hand fantasies from Fraser’s Golden Bough, you’ve got the symbolism arse-over-tit! The Gods don’t symbolize the various aspects of your race, or any natural feature (thunder, fire, iron): the natural features symbolize truths about the Gods! 59
Posted by Guessedworker on April 18, 2010, 06:43 AM | # Gorb: Thanks to Jawake and GW for sorting out the Dugin refs: all that side of things is completely new to me. I am sure Soren will find my qualifications too partisan, intellectually ... pulling too hard from a direction he finds, perhaps, as elusive to pin down as I find his ideas. For one thing, if, today, there is an ontological gap in Dugin’s idea, as expressed by Jawake, there would not be tomorrow in the event of sudden population collapse and the attendant extreme resource competition - an eventuality that would reconfigure human relations, with trust, and therefore the return of the group, emerging on top. Where, in such a world, would there be liberalism and the money power? Nowhere. And where would aggression be? Inhabiting the winner. 60
Posted by cladrastis on April 18, 2010, 01:06 PM | # Gorby, it is a waste of time to debate you. However, I will point this out: “The Gods don’t symbolize the various aspects of your race, or any natural feature (thunder, fire, iron): the natural features symbolize truths about the Gods! “ “your race,” eh? Odd how that slips out, isn’t it? 61
Posted by Gorboduc on April 18, 2010, 01:54 PM | # @Cladastris: don’t be b****y daft mate! 62
Posted by PF on April 18, 2010, 04:14 PM | # Thanks to GW for pointing out where precisely this school of theory departs from truth. Jawake wrote:
Pope = tradition disagree. The Pope and the Catholic Church is as much an innovation, to my mind, as human rights or Dawkin’s evolutionary theory, they are innovations from different eras. Given the scale of actual human history, I’m not sure that, from a wider perspective, there is a significant difference between the advent of Christianity and the emergence of modern currents of thought such as Universal Rights. In terms of their claims on our nature and their rootedness in who and what we are. I think the whole idea of tradition as consisting in a few institutions and ideas or old social structures is silly, since obviously these structures supplanted prior ones, which supplanted prior ones. So the only thing to base thinking in, that is not of history, is GW’s metaphysics and the eternal nation. Thats my opinion anyway. Put another way: what percentage of my or your ancestors had an Italian in a big hat presiding over them in the name of a god of the Levant? 0.0000001% if we stretch the time scale out properly. What is always with us? is one way of formulating the idea. I can’t allow an analysis to find “the good” and lay out what it imagines to be the fundamental conflicts and dialectics of human life, when their vision of “the good” is based in something that transitory, shifting and vague. 63
Posted by Gorboduc on April 18, 2010, 06:29 PM | # PF: we are talking about HISTORY. This means a written record.
There can be NO history of pre-history. There can be lots of wishful thinking, though. So, in the absence of record, we have to believe in GW’s “metaphysics and the eternal nation” - Why? Isn’t the “eternal nation” something “of history”? Are there, or are there not, “traditions”? The mathematics about my ancestors seems a bit odd. I’d like a demonstration of that figure, please. You claim to have worked it out “properly”. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I won’t accept it just on your say-so. Please state how many ancestors YOU have. The nationality of the Pope is totally irrelevant to anything you or I have to say. Ditto the Levant, of course. (Cue for the obligatory nonsense about “goat-herds” and “deserts”)
Well, what IS always with us? Debt. worry, death? What then IS the idea? You are right to do as the mediaeval Catholics did, and to seek after “stability”. The sublunary world was one of changeability and fickleness, and many of the great poems of the time lament this. Hear G.K Chesterton on “the eternal nation”:
So what do you think “the good” is? It needs defining. Let’s have some more GKC;
I will the healthy preservation of our race and culture as much as you do: but I believe the thinking and strategy necessary for their successful defence and triumph has to be based on firm, and not on wishful, thinking! 64
Posted by Guessedworker on April 18, 2010, 07:03 PM | # If we are in the mood for quoting, Gorb, here is a passage from a piece by PF posted just over a year ago. You might recognise it:
If you now go to the original here: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/what_is_always_with_us/ ... you will encounter an active thread discussion involving you and PF, in which certain formative notions were being put forward. During this last 12 months we have not moved forward very far beyond the formative, have we? That is the difficulty ... getting started. But I think this thread of Soren’s may serve to that end. Let’s roll. 65
Posted by Rollory on April 19, 2010, 12:07 AM | # tl;dr except for the OP which is empty of actual content ... you people do go on and on and on without actually saying anything How may people here actually try to formulate their statements in a terse, simple, and clear manner, so that people who are not inclined toward spending weeks sorting through arcane intellectual discussions of possible implications of secondary subtexts of the mythico-historic roots of archetypal symbolic mottoes can grasp the point that is attempted to be communicated? fakedit: Just saw this “Soren Renner has nothing to offer and has offered nothing.” Ok, it is not just me. 66
Posted by Jawake on April 19, 2010, 12:27 AM | # “Would it have hurt us I wonder…just to have gathered a few laurel leaves?” 67
Posted by Jawake on April 19, 2010, 02:03 AM | #
Poetry, to the traditionalist, is more important than the sharpest sword or the most efficient machine whirring endlessly at its work. It is coming. Dies Irae. The fool says in his heart and on television; I shall plant a garden on my suburban property! A garden will not protect you. Fool. Do you really imagine that Leviathan will eat itself You will not be spared. Dies Irae is coming. Alex is right. Everything is what it is, and not another thing. National Anarchism The name is one thing and the thing is another. Our enemy has said: We declare the holiness of the absolute subject. We exhort you to live in peace with your friends and also with your enemies: Billions will die. We will win. For myself I request only that if my martyrdom precedes your own, that you avenge me…
* Day of Wrath 68
Posted by Gorboduc on April 19, 2010, 05:39 AM | # @Jawake. Poetry? What poetry? I’ve made gentle fun here before of the knock-kneed, lame, tongue-tied balderdash that’s sometimes posted here with the utterly misleading label “poetry”. We know very well what Dies Irae means, and some of us know where the phrase comes from, and who has a right to use it, and in what context! If you want POETRY, then learn from this.
69
Posted by Guessedworker on April 19, 2010, 06:49 AM | # Gorb: So, in the absence of record, we have to believe in GW’s “metaphysics and the eternal nation” - Why? Isn’t the “eternal nation” something “of history”? Are there, or are there not, “traditions”? No, that’s not how it works. There is no appeal to belief, and no appeal to history or tradition, or any ethnological or cultural picture abstracted from the past. Such would be a construction in the mind only. As Martin Heidegger wrote:
The only direct contact we have to our own kind is to their ... our “being” in the present. But to understand what that means is not so straightforward. I’m not talking about 19th April 2010 but another moment entirely. Where Heidegger speaks of authentic Dasien, we refer to the eternal nation. Put bluntly, the bond of kinship is always there. Nation is always within us. We can and occasionally do collectively experience it, and while that experience has its own quality, the moment of experience is not different to the moment of experience of the self which is the real core of the sacred. I will post something on this to expand the idea, for what it may be worth. 70
Posted by Gorboduc on April 19, 2010, 06:55 AM | # This is from the tradition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fMHms5Cvsw&feature=related But this may appeal more to the MR mindset, despite the Verdi: 71
Posted by Gorboduc on April 19, 2010, 07:32 AM | # They who wish to learn of Sacredness may read here. THE PORTAIT OF A CHILD by HILAIRE BELLOC
I have emphasised a few passages so that you may easily see how Belloc, true to The Tradition, links Sacredness with Victimhood.
I am sorry that it is such a long post: I hope that your readers will profit by it, and that you yourself especially will so do: for it is a model of clarity, and it demonstrates how an idiom rich in Latinisms may be used with the utmost clarity. 72
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 19, 2010, 12:53 PM | # Because Bishop Williamson and the SSPX were touched on earlier in the thread I’ll take the liberty of posting a link to the very interesting SSPX FAQ, along with the list of topics covered therein (link is at bottom):
73
Posted by PF on April 19, 2010, 02:48 PM | # Fascinating viewpoints on what constitute tradition, Gorb. I also like that you post so much material from interesting authors, English and otherwise. Have to think about this more as time allows. 74
Posted by PF on April 19, 2010, 03:14 PM | # Answering some of Gorb’s points:
The most interesting things you can learn about history are not from what was written down. Throughout most of human history, human beings had extremely poor tools for introspection. Naturally discipline is a requirement for this kind of work to have any meaning. But why would
The pope and the levantine religion were not always with us. They’re as “mondialist” to me as the “tradition” being talked about above. Here’s the provocatively worded punchline thats sure to garner a response: You cant build solidly on something thats only 2,000 years old. That ain’t nothing in human terms, only in terms of cultural products is that a long stretch. 75
Posted by PF on April 19, 2010, 06:14 PM | # Gorb wrote:
The Church ‘first received the first loyalties’. In those days they didnt have the fine psychological scalpel to distinguish loyalty from obeisance, and they didn’t care. 76
Posted by Guessedworker on April 19, 2010, 07:40 PM | # Thank you for the Belloc, Gorb. It is all beauty, of course. But beauty is the realm of the poet, and of the religious. Their fate, ineluctable but exquisite after its fashion, is to place a camera before the eyes, to focus on the object, to adore a frozen image. Belloc again:
Beautiful but not entirely true. 77
Posted by Wandrin on April 19, 2010, 08:19 PM | #
Tribe: A collective organism designed to maximize the survival and reproductive chances of the individual organisms contained within. 78
Posted by Gorboduc on April 19, 2010, 08:46 PM | # @GW; you’ve forestalled me. She’s somewher in the sunlight strong - was to be treated of in an essay I’m contemplating in answer to Sunic’s ludicrous charge that Christianity ‘desacralised’ the world. “Substantiate” is the key word here. The last verse is the tear-jerker. There is another essay this is to figure in, on the mystical vision of Sussex in Belloc. He saw Sussex as the foothills to Heaven, and not just in dreams. That does it! They will probably never be written. Bah. What’s with all this “object” stuff? Are you guys obsessed with Heidegger? 79
Posted by Søren Renner on April 19, 2010, 09:15 PM | # Octopus By ALGERNON CHARLES SIN-BURN STRANGE beauty, eight-limbed and eight-handed, 80
Posted by asfgargf on April 19, 2010, 10:36 PM | # Now I understand: Soren Renner is God and every utterance by His Eminence is to be analyzed by the garland of faithful MR pilpulists. Thus to “rise against the enemies of God” is to rise against the enemies of Soren Renner’s posing. 81
Posted by PF on April 19, 2010, 11:38 PM | #
this poem is fucked. I cant believe its so old, 82
Posted by sirrealpolitik on April 20, 2010, 03:22 AM | # soren “My idea of a state OR an empire is more like a hedge hog or porcupine, chunky and well defended. I don’t cotton to the idea of my country being an octopus WEAK in the tentacles and sufferin’ from stomach ulcers and chronic gastritis. I wish Brother Hoover had spilled his facts about the stinking and rotten Treaty of Versailles while he was still in the White House. But I am glad he has done so now.” Ezra Pound
Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme “organized delight”...ha. i love that one. 83
Posted by Gorboduc on April 20, 2010, 05:04 AM | # Hold on chaps! the pseudo-Swinburne piece, by A.C.Hilton, copied by Soren and continued by PF is a PARODY. Swinburne in his earlier days carried on so much about kissing and biting that I should think he was obsessed by many of D.G Rossetti’s painted full-blown beauties (try Google images) with their goitrous or bull-like necks. In his later days - he was picked up by Watts-Dunton, dried out and made to live a suburban life of blameless respectability, emerging daily from his asylum at Putney to coo delightedly over babies in perambulators - his poetry loses its note of wild excess and acstacy and becomes political and dull. Alfred Noyes, who wrote an interesting book The Unknown God, about the unconscious tributes social, scientific and religious rebels of the 19th and early 20th centuries were actually paying in their writings to the Levantine God from the desert, included Swinburne as a case in point. Swinburne’s famous expansion of the dying words attribute to Julian the Apostate no doubt sounded very fierce and fine to young Victorian rebels:
but his later quiet sojourn (bed at nine, with just one bottle of ale as a special treat) at “The Pines”, Putney, was doubtless prefigured by the fact that his Christian names were Algernon Charles. Noyes’s thesis was that poetry, even deliberately blasphemous poetry, is a tribut to the One above all: you can’t blaspheme what you don’t believe in. Chesterton challenged his readers to “think blasphemous thoughts about Thor” - it can’t be done. It’s a bit of a leap from a comic octopus (and remember, the Victorian age was the age of the public aquarium where the octopus was on show and readers would have remembered the octopus encounters in Jules Verne’s 20.000 Leagues…and in Victor Hugo, AND Tennyson’s The Kraken wakes) to Ol’ Uncle Ez’s theories about the octopus state. The all-embracing octopus is used by some tamer conspiracy theorists as a sort of pictorial substitute for The Jewish Serpent. Now look, folks: even if you don’t agree with what’s above, it’s all perfectly clear. I don’t hesitate over Heideggerian abysses of “presence-in-absence” paradoxes. http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/heideggers_confusion.htm VOTE BNP for a Heideggerian Cosmos! 84
Posted by Søren Renner on April 20, 2010, 10:12 AM | # The jackbooted fascist octopus is singing its swansong from the meltingpot! 85
Posted by James Bowery on April 20, 2010, 11:59 AM | # They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” Sounds like someone needs to be sentenced to attend an anger management seminar wherein they will learn the infinite value of tolerance… Next entry: Slaves to illusion Previous entry: The Bear’s Lair: When labor becomes a commodity |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Optigmata commented in entry 'More thread wars' on 05/24/12, 11:08 AM. (go) (view) payday loans commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/24/12, 10:27 AM. (go) (view) Verlene Zumwalt commented in entry 'Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine' on 05/24/12, 10:16 AM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) pay day loans commented in entry 'Heidegger: The West Texas Translation' on 05/24/12, 09:59 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Guessedworker on April 14, 2010, 11:30 AM | #
Let’s roll.