Towards a God that can save us

Posted by Guessedworker on March 20, 2009, 09:05 PM | #

First of all, welcome Dasein, and thank you for this first post.

Only a week or so ago I had a run-in on a Guardian thread with a probable miscegenating leftist quoting some kinship-denial from a book written by a black guy, a Jewish woman and our Mr Collins.  Unfortunately for my interlocutor, the first chapter begins with an appeal for psychologists to mediate what results can be construed from genetic studies.  I’m sorry I can’t find the link, but I recall that the book was savaged fairly widely when it appeared, so perhaps someone will remember it and provide the link that I can’t at this moment.

Collins is typical of liberals who experience the hormonal rush from unnatural behaviour as ennobling.

Yes, this is the inner truth of liberal universalism.  We are arguing with moral drug addicts about the destructiveness of their behaviours.  They are very weak, like all addicts, and mostly poor material for our purposes.  We should expect only to sideline them.

Posted by Mentious on March 20, 2009, 10:57 PM | #

“‘I am convinced that a change can only be prepared from the same place in the world where the modern technological world originated. It cannot come about by the adoption of Zen Buddhism or other Eastern experiences of the world.”

What if the modern technological world arose from ignorance? Why would we want to have a “change” derived from ignorance?

And why his fetish for “change”? Constant change is the necessity of the ignorant and already spiritually vacant.

The truth is, the modern west came from consciousness, like everything else. Everybody experiences consciousness. It is not uniquely “eastern.” The mystical traditions he decries deal directly with the phenomenon of consciousness, so they provide a master key for ameliorating any situation, whether eastern or western.

So his first sentence puts me off. The only truth in it is that the peoples who created their own pecadilloes (through the Delusion of Technological Progress, which fails to register that science never alters the problem of duality, but only makes it more complex and insidious) are the best ones to find their way out of those pecadilloes. And when they do, I am convinced (through living both ways) that their way out will look a lot like the knowledge contained in Eastern mysticism.

Posted by Mentious on March 20, 2009, 10:59 PM | #

Oh. and one wonders: Why was this fellow ever interested in, or involved with, “a God that couldn’t save him” in the first place?

Posted by Dasein on March 21, 2009, 07:31 AM | #

Mentious,

The quotes at the beginning are ones that I chose from an interview with Martin Heidegger; they are not from or chosen by Collins.  Perhaps the most famous quote from this interview was ‘only a god can save us’, which is the title Der Spiegel gave to the interview upon its post-humous publication.  I don’t think the modern technological world arose from ignorance.  Its roots are more centered in the analytical consciousness of Descartes.  As for mystical traditions, the West does have its own, and Heidegger was influenced by the writing of Meister Eckhart.  I’m sure there are overlaps with Eastern mysticism, but the point is as you said; those who created the mess must find their way out of it.  As for Collins, he doesn’t realize why or from what he needs to be saved.

Posted by Troy Tempest on March 21, 2009, 11:12 AM | #

Didn’t Venter quietly change his view on that ‘race is just a social construct’ concept a few years back?

Posted by Dasein on March 21, 2009, 04:06 PM | #

According to that article, Venter is even more full of BS now than he was back in 2001.  He admits, based on the publication of his diploid genome, that the original 99.9% similarity figure was off and that 99% is a better estimate. 

Ven­ter stuck to his guns. Race-isn’t-real pro­po­nents have other arg­u­ments be­side the 99.9 per­cent­age, though these are de­bated also. Ven­ter re­marked that even though vari­abil­ity is much great­er than once thought, hu­man popula­t­ions and traits blend to­geth­er every­where. That means each per­son could ar­bi­trarily di­vide hu­man­ity in­to a dif­fer­ent group of rac­es, if he so chose. Thus “race is a so­cial con­cept, not a sci­en­tif­ic one,” Ven­ter said, re­peat­ing a com­mon dic­tum.

So according to Venter dog breeds are also social concepts.  Do clustering algorithms have no place in scientific research?  If something has predictive power, doesn’t it point to something real?  I wonder if these guys ever cringe when they see themselves quoted.

Posted by White Western Man on March 21, 2009, 07:20 PM | #

Many Christians are natural conservatives, but the dominant versions of Christianity have made them defenseless to resist race replacement.  With a focus on the genome and Jesus’ death understood as the sacralization of altruism, Natural Law could be used to provide a Christian defense against race replacement.

There are some great points in this post, but a “Christian defense against race replacement” is unlikely to succeed in America because the people who are replacing White Christians in America are Christians as well, mostly Hispanic Catholics.  Also many Asians in California are Christians as well, especially those from the Philippines, Korea, and some other Asian nations. 

In Europe an appeal of this sort may succeed to an extent because a large majority of the invading immigrant hordes are Muslims (or perhaps Hindus in the UK), though of course many of the African immigrants to Europe are Christians.

The problem with many strong Christians and other highly religious peoples is that they seem to always see their religion as the primary concern or the crux of the issue, with racial/ethnic concerns only coming up later, being only of secondary or even tertiary importance.  But this is very much a mistaken view.  I’ve said it here before and I’ve said it again: race/ethnicity is biological and as such is much deeper and more important than religion, which is just a social construct; thus race/ethnicity should, for all racialists and ethnic nationalists, always trump religion, i.e. racial/ethnic concerns and issues should always come before religious ones.  Nations and peoples have, can, and do survive various religious conquests and mass religious conversions, but they never survive a large influx of alien blood because it leaves the people irrevocably changed at the most basic level. 

An important question to pose to strongly Christian racialists or these Jesus-freak White nationalists should be: does your loyalty first lie with the White race or with Jesus the Jew, the Great Colorblind Universalist?

Posted by Mentious on March 21, 2009, 07:24 PM | #

The quotes at the beginning are ones that I chose from an interview with Martin Heidegger; they are not from or chosen by Collins.  Perhaps the most famous quote
O.K. I was just hitting some protuberances and not dealing with it context. A fault of mine to speed my way. Excuse me.

Posted by White Western Man on March 21, 2009, 08:23 PM | #

Jesus the Jew, along with the Jew Paul of Tarsus (the main spreader of Christianity), were colorblind globalists, ‘One World/One People’ kind of guys - they were perhaps the pre-eminent and most popular ‘anti-racists’ of their time period.

It is clear that their type of thinking is highly incompatible with racialism and the permanent preservation of Whites as a genetically distinct group that (Darwinistically) engages in resource competition with other ethnic/racial groups.

Judaeo-Christianity promotes universalism, tolerance, internationalism/globalization, and the wholesale breaking down of all boundaries (ethnic/racial, economic, political, etc) because it espouses such nonsense as ‘universal love’ and ‘tolerance’; as such, it is entirely incompatible with strong pro-White/all-White countries.  Just check out some of these quotes from a recent article in The Atlantic on the universalistic, colorblind nature of Christianity:

For many Christians, the life of Jesus signifies the birth of a new kind of God, a God of universal love. The Hebrew Bible—the “Old Testament”—chronicled a God who was sometimes belligerent (espousing the slaughter of infidels), unabashedly nationalist (pro-Israel, you might say), and often harsh toward even his most favored nation. Then Jesus came along and set a different tone. As depicted in the Gospels, Jesus exhorted followers to extend charity across ethnic bounds, as in the parable of the good Samaritan, and even to love their enemies.

The more familiar Jesus, the one who stresses tolerance and interethnic charity, shows up in the books of Matthew and Luke, which seem to have been written a decade or two after Mark—about half a century after the Crucifixion.

What, after all, would have inspired early followers of Jesus to invent the idea of a brotherhood that knows no ethnic or national bounds?

The story of early Christianity highlights a kind of moral direction in human history, a current that, however fitfully, has repeatedly expanded the circle of tolerance, even amity.

Paul, a well-educated Jew from the city of Tarsus, has long been recognized as a figure whose influence on Christianity rivals that of Jesus himself. And it’s long been clear—and hardly surprising—that he is a big champion of themes Christianity is famous for, such as love and brotherhood. ... And it is Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, who gives us the New Testament’s familiar extension of brotherhood across bounds of ethnicity, class, even (notwithstanding the term brotherhood) gender: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”

So why did Paul become the point man for a God whose love knows no bounds of race or geography?

(continued)

Scrapping all forms and strains of Abrahamic (Jewish) thought is the only way forward for White Western peoples - as just another form of Jewish imperialism, Judaeo-Christianity has already done more than enough damage over the past 1,500 years by weakening the collective White Western ‘immune system’ which allowed many Jewish ideas to take root amongst Western peoples, along with encouraging racial aliens to settle amongst us.  Throwing Judaeo-Christianity off and reawakening the long sublimated ethnocentric spirit of Whites is the goal, along with reversing the demonization of White ethnocentrism which as been pushed hardest by Jews (starting with Jesus and Paul, apparently).  To continue to love, accept, pity, and tolerate other ethnic/racial groups in our midst like good little Christians eventually spells certain death for The West, as they will naturally retain their ethnocentrism and also use our White Western systems, inventions, and technologies to continue to invade and outbreed us.

Posted by q on March 21, 2009, 08:48 PM | #

An important question to pose to strongly Christian racialists or these Jesus-freak White nationalists should be: does your loyalty first lie with the White race or with Jesus the Jew, the Great Colorblind Universalist?

Try asking that lame either-or question at a Klan meeting. Heh heh heh ...

Seriously though, me thinks you’re making the mistake of conflating traditional Christianity with modern-liberalism or postmodernism. If that’s the case my friend, you couldn’t be more wrong!

Posted by John on March 21, 2009, 09:13 PM | #

Seriously though, me thinks you’re making the mistake of conflating traditional Christianity with modern-liberalism or postmodernism. If that’s the case my friend, you couldn’t be more wrong!

“Traditional Christianity”, being an abstract entity and which I imagine exists in some moldy books in some rector’s library, can’t do anything to solve the crisis we’re in now, leaving aside the question whether our people believing in and adhering to it contributed to the crisis in the first place. And it looks like some of the chief the keepers of the “traditional Christianity” flame, the Southern Baptists, are doing everything they can to embrace race replacement. http://web.archive.org/web/20070701164609/http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4916930.html Oh well, I guess it fills pews and collection plates.

Posted by Templar on March 21, 2009, 09:16 PM | #

John, I can imagine you as an abstract entity existing in moldy, half-forgotten books, but this is not necessarily true.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 21, 2009, 10:01 PM | #

“The problem with many strong Christians and other highly religious peoples is that they seem to always see their religion as the primary concern or the crux of the issue, with racial/ethnic concerns only coming up later, being only of secondary or even tertiary importance.  But this is very much a mistaken view.  I’ve said it here before and I’ll say it again:  race/ethnicity is biological and as such is much deeper and more important than religion, which is just a social construct; thus race/ethnicity should, for all racialists and ethnic nationalists, always trump religion, i.e. racial/ethnic concerns and issues should always come before religious ones.  Nations and peoples have, can, and do survive various religious conquests and mass religious conversions, but they never survive a large influx of alien blood because it leaves the people irrevocably changed at the most basic level.”  (—White Western Man)

All of what you say is basically true:  the thing is, no religion that disregards race and ethnoculture, no religion that views them as not important or as readily expendable, is a true religion.  Any religion doing that is a false religion.  All forms of today’s Christianity that hold that view of race and ethnoculture are false religions or sects and themselves can be disregarded totally.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 22, 2009, 12:15 AM | #

“The problem with many strong Christians and other highly religious peoples is that they seem to always see their religion as the primary concern or the crux of the issue, with racial/ethnic concerns only coming up later, being only of secondary or even tertiary importance.”

It’s not the problem, it’s the solution.

KMac on the Puritans:

By comparison with other colonies, “households throughout Massachusetts and Connecticut included large numbers of children, small numbers of servants and high proportions of intact marital unions. . . .”

The high percentage of intact families in the Puritan migration to America meant that they engaged in a much lower incidence of exogamy with the native Amerindian population (as was the case in the Spanish and especially the Portuguese colonies in the Americas), or with Black slaves (as in the Southern states), or even other European ethnic and religious groups (as in the Mid-Atlantic states). The leading Puritan families of East Anglia “intermarried with such frequency” that one historian dubbed them “a prosopographer‘s dream” (Fischer 1989, 39). . . .

Focus on the well-being of the family and thus the community through strong religious practises means the well being of the ethnicity.

Syrian Jews in Brooklyn:

Under an Edict put forward in 1935 and most recently reaffirmed by community leaders in 2006, they utterly ostracize anybody who marries a Gentile, along with their descendants.

  “Never accept a convert or a child born of a convert,” Kassin told me by phone, summarizing the message. “Push them away with strong hands from our community. Why? Because we don’t want gentile characteristics.” ...

  “It’s really a matter of statistics,” [Rabbi Elie Abadie ] explained to me. “Except for the Orthodox, the American Jewish community is shrinking, disappearing. In two generations, most of their grandchildren won’t even be Jews. But our community is growing. We have large families, five or six children. And only a tiny fraction of our kids leave. The Edict is what makes that true.”

Posted by Dasein on March 23, 2009, 08:21 AM | #

Focus on the well-being of the family and thus the community through strong religious practises means the well being of the ethnicity.

In many contexts religious belief will be adaptive.  A certain trust in Providence would have been required for those Puritans to bring children into the New World.

Although the direction of causation is not known, a recent study found that religious belief is associated with reduced anterior cingulate cortex activity (leading to reduced anxiety in response to errors, and fewer commission of errors).

http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~inzlicht/research/publications/Inzlicht McGre,gor, Hirsh, & Nash, 2009.pdf

I personally tend to the belief that whatever is causing reduced ACC levels predisposes one to belief (knowledge?) of God, though the authors support the opposite direction of causality.  They conclude that:

Future experiments that invoke religious conviction and assess subsequent changes in ACC activity, however, are needed to directly answer this remaining question.

Those should be some experiments!  Maybe they could get those guys in Gaza who had the Fox reporters hostage to run them.

This reduced anxiety perhaps also makes the majority of Christians seemingly resigned to race replacement (I say seemingly, but unless they do something at some point, they will have rightfully inherit the scorn of those like WWW).

Posted by Dasein on March 23, 2009, 09:07 AM | #

Here’s a good summary of the paper I mentioned:

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090306_god.htm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 11, 2009, 03:45 PM | #

”Many Christians are natural conservatives, but the dominant versions of Christianity have made them defenseless to resist race replacement.  With a focus on the genome and Jesus’ death understood as the sacralization of altruism, Natural Law could be used to provide a Christian defense against race replacement.  Transforming elements of the Western tradition which have become destructive to our race is one of the great tasks we face.”  (—from the log entry)

Some recent View from the Right observations are à propos:

Same old idiocy on immigration from Pope John Paul III

Hey, what happened to the idea that the Catholic Church is very canny and political about gaining favor and support in this world?  Doesn’t the hierarchy realize that their mindless support for unlimited Third World immigration into the West convinces many people that the Church is an enemy of our civilization, and that if Christianity mandates national and racial suicide, then it’s a bad and false religion and must be rejected?  Maybe the princes of the Church just don’t care.  Maybe, underneath their Christianity, their deepest commitment is to the religion of liberalism.  Maybe, after all, they are just robed versions of [Army Chief of Staff, General] George “diversity uber alles” Casey.

[ http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014738.html ]

Christianity does not require Christian communites to give up their race.  Any priest who says otherwise might as well be Elmer Gantry, Jim Jones, or Marshall Applewhite for all the legitimacy his words have.

The branch of Catholicism now occupying the Vatican is a false religion.  It says the European races must go out of existence.  Catholics everywhere must reject it.  There is no inherent conflict between reasonable and humane familial/communal/national racial self-preservation and Christianity, and there’s nothing unreasonable or inhumane about the setting of immigration policy that recognizes and respects the racial character of a community or nation in accordance with the wishes of a population honestly consulted.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 11, 2009, 05:59 PM | #

From the same VFR thread (see my post just above), a comment by a Catholic with two functioning eyes and a functioning brain who is replying to a Catholic Down’s patient named Kilroy:

Rohan Swee writes:

Re Kilroy M.“s comment that “[t]o suggest that such pronouncements are a reason why people are turning away from the Church is just a presumption.”  It is no presumption whatever.  I said “enough!,” turned my back on, and walked away from the church of my ancestors precisely for this reason.  I will not support an institution that holds my people and my culture in contempt, and actively seeks their dissolution.  And I know others who have done the same, and say so.  I have been shocked by the sheer gloating and anti-Anglo malice exhibited by some Catholic spokesmen over the on-going destruction of Anglo-America effected by our de facto open-borders policy.  Enough.

That Catholicism is “a spiritual, not a racial creed, and ... is growing in non-white communities” is a complete non sequitur in this context.  How does it follow that if Christianity is Truth for all human beings, that Europeans must cede their nations? 

Nothing

in Catholic dogma demands this destruction of nations.  It is  

nauseating

to watch the Church ally itself with kleptocrats domestic and foreign against ordinary Westerners.

The question must be asked, if there is nothing in Catholic dogma that demands this racial/ethnocultural destruction of the Ancient Nations of Europe and their Euro progeny nations around the planet, why is the Vatican doing what it is doing?  And not just doing it, but not admitting what it is so obviously doing or its reasons.  Guillaume Faye, I believe, has leveled the accusation that the Catholic hierarchy doing it are Trotskyists.  And we already know in what must be at least six or eight cases out of ten they’re homosexuals.  Kevin MacDonald thinks they’re merely going with the flow, a flow not of their making, created by forces unrelated to them but which they have no strong objections to.  Still others have said the Vatican simply sees the surge in non-white Catholic numbers worldwide and sees non-whiteness as its future.

Whatever the reason, Catholics who don’t like it have to make their displeasure known and in my view have to actually join already existing secessionist groups such as the Society of St. Pius X, or if they don’t like those, create additional ones more to their liking.  The Vatican can be fought, and either brought back to our side or, failing that, abandoned and then replaced, with the current Trotskist crew booted out on their backsides and our guys installed in Vatican City in their place.  And if we need to have two distinct Catholicisms, one for whites and one for non-whites, so be it and let’s get it on, the sooner the better.  I have nothing whatsoever against Cameroonians coming to Catholicism.  I will not tolerate, however, the deliberate changing of my country and race into Cameroon.

Posted by anonymous on November 12, 2009, 06:41 AM | #

Posted by White Western Man on March 21, 2009, 11:20 PM | #
‘’An important question to pose to strongly Christian racialists or these Jesus-freak White nationalists should be: does your loyalty first lie with the White race or with Jesus the Jew, the Great Colorblind Universalist?’’
Jesus is not just a belief or concept in the West, something you profess faith in its much deeper than that, it is an intrinsic part of the western mindset. Jesus is in every aspect of Western Civilization and he is not something you are going to erase. All music is about Jesus-
Celine Dion ‘’Because you loved me’’- Jesus
Elton John ‘’ Candle in the wind: Your footsteps will always fall here’’- Jesus
Phil Collins ‘’Jesus he knows me’’- Jesus
Jon Bon Jovi ‘’ Miracle:  Gonna take a miracle to save us this time
And your savior has just left town’’-  Jesus
Bonnie Tyler ‘’Hero: I need a hero’’ - Jesus
Dolly Parton ‘I will always love you’ - Jesus
U2 ‘’With or without you:  I can’t live
With or without you’’-  Jesus
Dido ‘’White Flag- Im in love and always will be ‘’ -Jesus
Ace of base ‘’Sign- I saw the sign and it opened up my eyes’’ - Jesus
Roxette ‘’Listen to your heart: When he’s calling for you’’ - Jesus
Richard Marx ‘’Right here waiting- I will be right here waiting for you’’ - Jesus
Bryan Adams ‘’Heaven: Ya - nothin’ could change what you mean to me’’- Jesus
Michael Bolton- ‘’Steel Bars: Ive been your prisoner since the day you found me
Im bound forever, till the end of time’’ - Jesus
R.E.M ’’ Loosing my religion’’ - Jesus
Mariah Carey ‘’Hero: I cant live
If living is without you’’ -Jesus
Beatles ‘’ Blackbird: all your life
you were only waiting for this moment to be free’’ -Jesus

Elvis Presley ‘’Always On My Mind’’ –Jesus

The list goes on ………