Culture and the Death of God

Posted by Graham Lister on Sunday, 28 April 2013 08:30.

Well instead of talking about which of the many conspiracies is at work (today this Sunday) to destroy organised Voodoo, why not enjoy the slightly more intelligent and thoughtful reflections of Terry Eagleton on culture and the death of God this fine Sunday as an alternative?

‘Culture and the Death of God’ - part 1 and part 2.

Eagleton is a literary critic and is both a sometime Marxist and a Catholic – but of those two options he is by far a Catholic.

Still whatever the possible errors and omissions of Eagleton’s thought on culture and the death of God, I would suggest reasonable people must forgive him - we can’t all be obsessed about the burning issues of the day such as the corruption (by gays as a proxy for the J-lizards) of the boy scouts of America now can we?

Obviously Eagleton – being someone with an IQ in three figures - will be a little scary for the typical MR denizen but honestly he really doesn’t possess ‘mind-control’ powers.

Oh and Eagleton isn’t too keen on liberalism in case anyone thinks that Mill and Marx are the same ‘thing’.

Every social-order – including non-Voodoo ones - has some form of moral-order. Even that old favourite of philosophers the ‘rational immoralist’ is actually making some type of normative claim.

Evolution by natural selection gave human beings moral capabilities, empathy, imaginative sympathy etc., because they are adaptive (in some way) under certain bounded conditions. Those capacities and capabilities are not a gift from the supernatural ether or a Nobodaddy. The question has always been what type of moral-order, what type of social-order, and what types of human flourishing, virtues, relationships and communal values should be normative? And, of course, the relationship between particularity and universalism in the expression of such values.



Posted by Joe on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:17 | #

If the Christian God is “dead”—as You Mr. Lister—love to assert, then why bother talking about something you consider “dead” ? Why don’t you critique Judaism and Islam, both Jewish Zionism and Islamic Jihad are alive and kicking, and making their respective moves in the New World Order.

The Jewish god isn’t dead, not at all. The Muslim god isn’t dead, not at all. Let’s talk about “living” gods, not a “dead” God.

Jews don’t tell themselves their god is dead, Muslims don’t tell themselves their god is dead. All the cultural/social/academic pressure is on us Christians to declare our Christian God “dead”.

I don’t buy what you’re selling, Lister. I still think you’re a Jew.


Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:13 | #

Culture is artificial selection.

There are two basic cultures:  Individual selection and group selection.

The attempt to reconcile the two may seem to provide grist for Eddington’s mill but all that results is sand in the works.


Posted by Silver on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:33 | #

I like Terry Eagleton.  I have read his book Very Short Introduction To The Meaning Of Life.  He seems like a very decent sort of a chap, particularly for a Marxist.  (To his credit, he is more an ‘inquiry’ Marxist than a ‘solutions’ Marxist. The former is more focused on understanding and explaining the workings and interconnections of society, while the latter is typically obsessed with revolution. The former can be read profitably even while disagreeing with their conclusions; the latter are best shot dead.)  But he’s rather useless on race.  The race-via-leftsist communitarianism approach is even more vague on what the magic connection or spark is supposed to be than Haller’s race-via-Christianity.


Posted by Joe on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:44 | #

Daniel S and Graham Lister love totalitarian regimes. When they’re not promoting Hitler and Nazism, then they’re promoting Communism.

They try to promote Nazism—when one proves beyond a doubt Hitler was put in power by Jews, and even Hitler was a Jew himself , then they switch gears, then they start promoting Communism. Prove beyond a doubt Communism is Jew to-the-core, they switch gears again, then they start promoting Hitler all over again.

Back and forth from one Jew-to-the-core totalitarian regime [ Nazism ] to the other Jew to-the-core totalitarian regime [ Communism]. Both regimes based on Dasein, existentialism, Darwinian Evolution, both regimes requiring massive death sacrifices of the ordinary, everyday citizens.

In the meantime Graham Lister and Daniel S spit on everything good and worthwhile about Authentic European culture, heritage, and culture. Of course, they reserve their greatest hatred for the Faith that once United Europe into a strong, unified whole. The Faith that preserved Europe and saved Europe from Islamic Jihad.

Daniel S and Graham Lister hate with a passion the Faith that protected Europe from Islamic Jihad, and defeated Communism in Russia.  I’m not surprised as Dasein originates in the Sabbatean /Donmeh Jew, Satanic/Sufist Freemasonry Halls of Turkey, and the ontology/metaphysics, and eschatology is a fusion of Islamic Sufism and Jewish Sabbatean Kabballa ” Kabballah is one of the main books of Satanism, right next to the Babylonian Talmud and Sufism.

Dasein—which gives the world Existentialism, Nihilism, Nazism, Communism, and Zionism—All hate Christianity with a feral hatred—All originate at the very ontological level with Satanic Sabbatean Jews. No wonder Daniel S and Graham Lister support Any and All agendas that diminish the White Birth-Rate.

Graham Lister actively supports the lesbians in Brussels who attacked the White Man—a white Catholic priest—who was calling us and our fellow Whites to Morality, Family, and Children. Lister is Actually happy about the attack. He gloats about how the lesbians attacked the White Man because he spoke up for Family and Children.

Lister quoted Bertrand Russell in one of his posts as Lister was spewing out hatred for Christianity—as he always does, all he has to say, his only message to us : hatred for Christianity . About Bertrand Russell :

I never hear Graham Lister and Daniel S negatively critique Judaism, Sabbatean Jews, Satanists, Freemasons,  Islam, Sufism, Islamic Jihad, the role of Jews in creating and building The Third Reich, the role of Jews in Communism in building the Soviet Union,  the role of Communist Jews in undermining our cultural/political/social/academic/religious institutions. When they do critique a non-Christian faith and culture, the critique is very mild, even apologetic for the non-Christian faith and culture, compared to the hatred they constantly direct against Christianity :

They don’t put up articles tearing Judaism to shreds, tearing Sufism to shreds, tearing Islamic Jihad to shreds, tearing Freemasonry to shreds, tearing Satanism to shreds, tearing Sabbatean Jews to shreds, shredding Donmeh Jews to shreds—they just put up articles, one after another, tearing Christianity to shreds.

When Daniel S and Graham Lister negatively criticize Christianity—as they incessantly do— they don’t criticize the Christian sell-outs necessarily, they go straight for the jugular and attack Christianity at the very ontological level. They attack Christianity at the very ontological level with pure hatred.

As they attack Christianity with pure hatred at the very ontological level they point to corruption in the Church as a means to make their points : They don’t Ever come around to telling the readers about the Communist takeover of the Catholic Church in 1958.

While the Communists [ Daseinites ] in the Church destroy Christianity from within, the Daseinites outside the Church—like Daniel S and Lister [ today they’re promoting Communism however subtlety ] point to the corruption being caused by Communists in the Church as if true Christians are the cause of the corruption. They never point out that the Church was usurped by Communists in 1958.  They never put up any articles about how Satanists of all stripes through the centuries have worked—and still do—untiringly and unrelentingly to destroy Christianity, any way they can.

Christianity defeated Communism in the erstwhile Soviet Union, and Christianity protected Europe from Islamic Jihad. Now, at the time in history the White Race is under assault by both Jew Communists
[ read : Neo-Cons, Zionists] and also Islamic Jihad, Daniel S and Graham Lister encourage us to hate with passion the Very Faith that saved the White Race from both Communism and Islamic Jihad.

Graham Lister and Daniel S Never put up any articles about how the White Race ruled the world when Christianity was the Guiding Faith of the White Race. They just encourage us to hate—and hate with a passion no less—the Very Faith that protected the White Race from Islamic Jihad and Jew Communism [now called Zionism]. We’re not to hate the sell-outs and those who work within in the churches to destroy Christianity from within, no —We are, as per Graham Lister and Daniel S, to hate with passion the very ontological roots of Christianity.

Learn the very ontology of Christianity. That’s what Daniel S and Graham Lister constantly encourage us to hate with a passion : The very ontology of Christianity. The evry ontology of Christianity :

Main website address :

Graham Lister and Daniel S might as well be Satanic Sabbatean Jews for all the deep, feral, brutal, and never-ending hatred of Christianity they incessantly spew out.









Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:07 | #

oyyy, the YouTube Gen ... I so much prefer a good article to a video ...

Evolution by natural selection gave human beings moral capabilities, empathy, imaginative sympathy etc., because they are adaptive (in some way) under certain bounded conditions. (Lister)

A closed argument. You simply assume there is nothing divine, then look for ways to account naturalistically for everything about the world, including, obviously, human traits.

Those capacities and capabilities are not a gift from the supernatural ether or a Nobodaddy. (Lister)

There is nothing contradictory about God (in some understandings, but not all) and evolution, or that phenomenal elements can have noumenal significance.

The question has always been what type of moral-order, what type of social-order, and what types of human flourishing, virtues, relationships and communal values should be normative? (Lister)

Yes, these are important questions in ethics, but they are not the only ones. There is also the issue of inherent right. In the race realm, it would clearly promote white human flourishing in the US if we could effortlessly eliminate the negroid presence, even if that meant physically eliminating negroids. The same would be true for other human types whose costs are greater than their contributions (eg, the mentally retarded). But no Christian (nor most non-Nazi whites) would view such a course of action as morally acceptable.

The social effects of moral systems are highly important, but they are not dispositive without more.


Good comment. Lister is probably not Jewish, and he doesn’t critique Muslims etc because it’s obvious by transitivity that he disbelieves in their supernaturalism, too. He critiques Christianity because that is ‘his’ (ancestral) faith. However, the intensity of his obsession in that regard is, as Thorn observed, suggestive of someone with a ‘beef’ against the faith quite independent of WN concerns (the Scots have a long and arrogant tradition of ‘free thought’). Lister is a hard case to classify under neat ideological rubrics, but he is clearly a strongly ‘emotional Leftist’ (anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, perhaps antibourgeois), but with some interesting conservative inclinations - intellectual and cultural elitism, and the civilized white man’s obvious fear and dislike of racial diversification, which is doubtless the obverse side of a genuine local patriotism.

I think I understand Lister pretty well. He reminds me of European intellectual (noncommunist) Lefts of the first half of the 20th century. These persons wanted to overthrow Church authority, as well as traditional morals (esp wrt sex - eg, Bloomsbury), and professed a myopic and untutored distaste for grubby capitalism, seeing themselves as naturally ‘above’ the common struggle for life. But they had decent manners (which of course were merely cultural residues of the older and sterner Christian tradition they no longer took seriously), high intelligence, and would have been perfectly horrified at the importation of violent 7th century savages into their drawing rooms and afternoon teas.

Dr. Lister would have been much happier with a century earlier’s birthdate (as would I).


And what was the Meaning of Life according to Eagleton?

Yes, Marxists can be most useful in unmasking power relations, but their normative prescriptions are at best utopian (and at their more common worst, mere rhetorical charades whose purpose is to effectuate not justice, but transfers of real power to themselves). 

But he’s rather useless on race.  The race-via-leftsist communitarianism approach is even more vague on what the magic connection or spark is supposed to be than Haller’s race-via-Christianity. (Silver)

Elaborate, please. What about my position is inadequate or missing?



Posted by Joe on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:52 | #

More info about the Christ-hating Sabbatean Jews :


Posted by Joe on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:14 | #

The Protestant Reformation in England as it concerns hatred for Catholicism :

The article also includes book recommendations about this subject.

Both Calvin and Melancthon were Jews. Melanchthon was Luther’s buddy-buddy and collaborator.

Read :

” Israel Shahak + The Weight of Three Thousand Years pdf “

” The Protestant Reformation + Islam”


Posted by Joe on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:40 | #

A Daseinite calls his fellow Daseinites to some respect for religion.

Please keep in mind Daseinites only go after Christianity, they’re very accepting of all other religions. When Daseinites say “religion”  they mean “Christianity”. The Daseinite in the following article means “Christianity” when he says “religion” :


Posted by Joe on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:22 | #

On Heidegger’s Dasein and how leftists of all stripes, from so-called “conservative” Daseinites like Daniel S who leans toward some kind of vague neo-Nazism* -  and who is a leftist to-the-core—and leftists who lean towards communism, like Graham Lister - Like Daniel S, Lister is leftist-to-the-core as well. Both hate Christianity with a passion. The Very faith that defeated the Communism in the erstwhile Soviet Union, and the Very Faith that saved Europe from Islamic Jihad.

The Daseinites, I notice, have the same exact “religious beliefs”  as our Spiritual and Racial Enemies :

Dasein has the same ontology/metaphysics/eschatology as Jewish Talmudic/Kaballah Communism, and Dasein has the same exact ontology/metaphysics/eschatology as Islamic Sufism. Islamic Jihad is born from Sufism.

Dasein serves totalitarians :

* Nazism is leftist also. Nazism ushered in Gay/Lesbian rights movement, for example, and Nazism ushered in the “New Age religions”. 

Read : ” Savitri Devi + Hitler’s Priestess pdf ”

        ” Nazis + The New Age “



Posted by Joe on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:08 | #

Learn all about the prophets of the Dasein “religion”. Dasein comes to us from Sabbatean Jews.

The so-called “White race religions” are all based on Dasein.

Sabbatean Jews—Satanic Jews—gave all you white Daseins your “white race religions”, your Dasein, your existentialism ,your nihilism,  your “New Age” spirituality, and your hatred for Christ. 

Learn more about your Dasein prophets :

The teacher and mentor of the great “founder” of Dasein—Heidegger—was a Jew Sabbatean : Edmund Husserl.

Husserl—a Sabbatean Jew [ sabbatean jew = satanic jew ]—was Heidegger’s “spiritual” mentor and teacher.

Husserl was born a Jew, he was born into a Jewish family. He had Jew blood. He was a Sabbatean Jew —albeit pretending to be a Lutheran.

Listen to Heidegger ; Listen to the great “founder” of the Dasein religion :




Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:51 | #

You’re spamming again, Joe.


Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:56 | #

I’m waiting, Dr. Lister:

Posted by Leon Haller on April 20, 2013, 07:11 AM | #

I’ve discussed Christianity and Race too many times here at MR to want to regurgitate it all. It’s not that complicated. There are four questions:

1) What is Christianity?

2) Is it true (ie, an accurate description of reality)?

3) What is the Christian view of or approach to biological realities in general?

4) What is the Christian morality of race?

There are learned disagreements wrt #1, though there is a core which cannot be denied while remaining Christian: God exists, and is (consubstantially) triune; souls exist, are immortal, and will be morally judged in some way by God; salvation is through Christ; the essence of morality consists in “Do unto others ...”. There is vastly more, wrt both metaphysics and morality, but its heart is found in the virtues of piety (whose essence in turn is humility - something sorely lacking among WNs, very much including at MR), and charity.

Is this true? All scientific arguments for the existence of God (or anything supernatural) have thus far proven empirically indeterminate, while all philosophical arguments have either been defeated logically, or, perhaps, are true in ways that cannot be known by the general run of even intelligent men (eg, Anselm’s Ontological Argument, which most intellectuals judge a failure, though several exceptional intellects, even in this day, have thought valid; the same can be said for Descartes on God (the latter was more Deist than Christian, but his “rational” argument for God’s existence might still be true)).

For most Christians, we are talking about the perpetuity of simple ancestral belief. Is that, ipso facto, evidence of falsity? I think not.

I believe in God, because I believe in the resurrection of Christ; or more precisely, I’m willing to give His NT story the benefit of the doubt. I do so partly out of a “will to believe”, but also out of what might be called evidentiary instinct. I am not credulous (I was, eg, a racialist long before I knew there were others of my ‘kind’). But though my rational intellect might incline towards atheism (reduced to agnosticism out of respect for all the brilliant men who have been believers), in my gut I go the other way. I don’t pretend to possess a logical, let alone scientific, argument establishing God. God explains nothing about observed reality (as Graham Lister likes to assert), and, as noted, none of the analytical proofs for His existence are finally dispositive. But the NT narrative seems true to me. Perhaps we can look at this in terms of historical probabilities.

I doubt the story of the Resurrection would have survived all this time if it were not a real historical event. Why did Christianity survive and advance? The ancient Mediterranean was not primeval Africa. These people were more ignorant, but no less intelligent, than we. If you told me you saw a man jump over the Eiffel Tower, would I believe you? Of course not. Only a few retards or fanatics might.

Who would ever believe that a man who was widely witnessed crucified, judged to be dead, and undeniably buried, later rose from the dead, and was seen resurrected by many persons, none of whose recorded behavior in any way suggests mental instability? People would laugh at an assertion of resurrection. But they didn’t. Moreover, the men who claimed to have seen the risen Christ were utterly transformed to the point of willingly accepting often gruesome martyrdom. Would you martyr yourself to the cause of some crackpot who claimed to have jumped over the Eiffel Tower, or saw someone else do it? Obviously not.

You simply can’t lie about something like this and really be believed. One lunatic might fit the bill, but not a large group - and not the Apostles as they are presented in the NT. They were believed by converts because they were convincing. They were convincing because they were willing to die for Christ, something that at first they had not been willing to do (recall Peter’s denials). Why did they become willing to die for Christ? Because the truth of His teachings was in His physical resurrection.

So it is my gut instinct, based on what I know of men and the reality of the world of men, to believe in the historicity of Christ. Because I accept Christ, I am inclined to accept the rest of the core Christian message (albeit in a somewhat purified, and thus heterodox, form), part of which is that all men are presumptively possible brothers in Christ, and thus deserve the benefit of being treated as ‘ends’, and not mere animals or ‘means’.

I have discussed points 3 and 4 many times. Christianity is decidedly other-worldly in primary focus, yet there is nothing in the faith suggesting that the world is so evil that it must be abnegated (although traditions of monasticism and holy hermeticism are much admired, at least by Catholics and the Orthodox). While attaining the Kingdom of Heaven is the primary goal of any Christian, achieving that goal does not require super-human efforts. One does not have to be a saint, or pursue some kind of radically ascetic existence, though there is a reasonable duty of charity (many Protestant groups talk about ‘tithing’ - giving 10% of one’s income to the Church; note that the Obamas and Blairs and Graham Listers demand far more be given to the State), and gross sybaritism is obviously incompatible with living in the spirit of Christ.

The Christian morality of race is simply a subset of its general morality. One should act peaceably and charitably towards others. Does this require that whites give up their homelands to nonwhites? Of course not. Race-replacement is not a part of Christianity (it is liberalism, which unwise Churchmen have unthinkingly and improperly adopted). One has obligations towards others, but they are staggered and hierarchical. The primary worldly duty is towards one’s own biological family, to honor one’s parents, and provide for one’s spouse and children. There is nothing in the Christian tradition suggesting that one owes the same obligation of care to one’s neighbor as to one’s family. Similarly, one owes a greater duty of care to one’s literal and “biological neighbors” (which in ancient times were mostly the same), than to someone outside the boundary of genetic interest, to whom, I would extrapolate, only ‘negative’ duties (basically, to be left in peace) are owed.

Liberalism denies the reality of innate psychological differences between races, and even that acquired historical and cultural differences have serious social and political significance. Thus liberals have no regard for community, or at least white community (at this point liberalism’s self-hatred enters the picture). Liberalism denies that whites have legitimate interests as communities (and ultimately as a race), but liberalism is not Christianity. Someday I am going to elucidate for publication exactly why Christian and liberal moralities are quite distinct, but that will be after I receive my doctorate, which is still some years away.

For now, I will end this by saying that I have thus far encountered nothing in the Catholic intellectual tradition suggesting that the desire to preserve white communities and their associated ways of living violates either the letter or spirit of Scripture and Christ’s teachings. Being charitable towards others, for example, does not necessitate mandatory racial integration; open immigration; promoting false conceptions of the contribution of nonwhites to the growth of civilization; or gigantic interracial wealth transfers (or any kind of wealth transfers, especially those to be effected through the mechanism of the State). There is absolutely nothing suggesting that people, whether as individuals or tribes, have some right to equal incomes or portions of worldly goods (a Christian community does have certain provisioning duties to the poor - but those are considerably less than what modern social(ist) democracies require).

The typical WN conflating of Christianity with liberalism is tiresome, and needs to be thoroughly debunked. I am not aware that this task has been done, however, at least at an intellectually definitive level of analysis. So confusions persist.

I think WNs may be a hopeless cause. I don’t care about their anti-semitism, though I do think it overdone. The JQ is complex and the proper Aryan response to it must change with exigent circumstances.

But when these types start going after Christianity per se, instead of criticizing, as I do relentlessly (including in my doctoral program - and I am making allies among some of the students, interestingly), the subversive liberal tenets which have seeped into the faith, then they reveal both their philosophical error (they would deny this, obviously), and, more importantly, their political stupidity.

Christianity is at the core of Western Civ. Attacking the Church has been a centerpiece of the centuries-long assault on that civilization (including the assault by leftist Jews). There is a near-perfect EMPIRICAL (listening, Lister?) correlation between Christ-haters and white-haters (does Richard Dawkins fight for the white race? AC Grayling? Anthony Kenny? Daniel Dennett? the ACLU? the ADL? I could go on ... and on with this list). Even if all religion is false, does it make even the slightest sense to drive an ideological wedge between conservative Christians and WNs? What is the goal here: stopping the alien colonizations of our territories, or pushing atheism and socialism?

Note none of the above touches on the real matters of interest: can an atheist civilization long endure? Evidence? Is it not far more likely that atheist secularism breeds selfishness and nihilism, than children (civilizational continuity)? Is it not more intelligent policy to seek to purge the Christian churches of their completely doctrinally-aberrant diversity-mongering, and then rebuild optimistic, conservative, pro-children and pro-tradition communities with revivified churches at their centers (as in past times) - than to ludicrously expect people to make sacrifices for their ... genetic interests? [One could do a wonderful anti-WN dramatic satire from a Christian conservative perspective, and call it Genetic Interests.] Who really is the realist here?

I again restate my central point: we need a widely agreed-upon nationalist minimum, which I think ought obviously to be immigration termination. If we can’t stop the invasion, everything else is irrelevant. The rest of the alleged WN agenda should be shelved in the interests of building comity and maximum effectiveness among the anti-immigration community.

What WNs are apparently too foolish to understand is that politics is about electoral addition, not doctrinal purity.

Posted by Leon Haller on April 23, 2013, 05:30 AM | #


In what sense could we speak of Europe before Christianity? How about the West?

Of course Aristotle et al were white men. But it was the marriage of Hellenism and the Bible which produced Western Civ. WC is what I value - not whiteness per se. There are plenty of dirtbag or disgraceful whites (these days, more than ever).

As I’ve said before, I value whiteness per se only in the context of a mixed race prison (and for aesthetic reasons: our best women are the most beautiful in the world, and it seems like a shame if they miscegenate themselves out of existence). I am a personal racialist because I prefer white society and dislike diversity. But I am a philosophical racialist because I see no evidence that the unique Western cultures can be appropriated and perpetuated (except in the most superficial ways) by nonwhites.

No whites, or too few whites in all sovereign polities = no Western Civ.

I admire much in classical antiquity, both Greek and Roman. But there is much that I find distasteful if not horrifying, too. Our innate racial superiority made us powerful, but it was Christ Who made us noble.

BTW, what do you do about the history of Christian assertion? In other words, is it your opinion that Christ never existed in history? Or merely that He was not resurrected?


Posted by Joe on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:23 | #

About Dasein ;

About Heidegger and Dasein,

Dasein ;  ” A Theology Yet To Come” :

As Heidegger says in the video I linked to, maybe in a hundred years the Daseins will finally have some kind of answers to their existential angst.

In the meantime, I guess the Daseinites will have to settle for the 14 Words in replace of any thing that may resemble some kind of theology, considering how disambiguous Daseinites are, even something vaguely approximating some kind of Dasein theology would be appreciated, especially for the sake of the Daseins, I would imagine.

But, it may take a hundred years, though Heidegger hemmed-and-hawed about that also, so it may take a lot longer than 100 years before Daseins have anything even approaching anything one can truly call a theology :

No, Daseinites, nihilism + angst is NOT a theology.

Maybe in 100 year from now, Daniel S will answer me as to what sacraments exactly the Daseinites have to hallow their families, their children, their lives, their gratitude for life, etc..

Daniel S mentioned the Dasein “religion” has sacraments—but he has yet to mention what the Daseinite sacraments are exactly.

Well, in the meantime, the Daseinites have at least the first The 14 Words of their Dasein theology already figured out ;

Remember Your 14 Words !!!!!! Don’t Ever Forget Your 14 Words !!!!!! :

Dasein Comes From Islam And Sufism And Comes To Us From Satanic Sabbatean Jews !!!!!!





Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 04:18 | #

It matters not one jot if I am an agnostic, an atheist, an anti-theist, anti-Papist, anti-Christian or whatever.

I know thoughtful Christians – I have some in my circle of friends and acquaintances. No problem there.

But they aren’t the type that believe in the rapture. Or speaking in tongues, or in Papal infallibility, or that Europe is nothing more than a synonym for Christianity, or any other form of obviously banal nonsense.

What I am is two things. Anti-stupidity and anti-clerical.

The world in which a priest said “believe in X and do Z or else! Why? Because it’s in the Bible and/or I say so” and everyone could not even imagine any alternative is long gone never to return. History has moved on. Yes there is a large proportion of people that still trust in ecclesiastical authority figures or sola scriptura.

Big deal.

An idea, even the worst of ideas, can have an extremely long cultural half-life. Just look at Mormonism or L. Ron Hubbard’s scam called Scientology. Yes some people believe with passionate intensity in both these forms of religion. That doesn’t make them true descriptions of reality now does it? They are both bat-shit crazy nonsense. But a burning bush and other manifestations of magical thinking are unquestionable holy of holies. The gold-standard for truth and all that. Really?

But for most thinking people just because a priest says do something or it’s in the Bible, isn’t ipso facto, a good enough reason to wilfully abandon one’s own critical faculties. Hell even most religious people aren’t actually that dumb in reality. Even if some folk claim to be totally devout and/or literalists, well they seem to be in quite a significant performative contradiction in how they conduct their everyday lives, compared to their stated views. Who knew that much of Voodoo consists of propositional content that has only an indirect and loose connection with how people actually live?

Acts of interpretation are inescapable even when it comes to what your shaman says or the content of your Voodoo instruction manual. Even William James (not an anti-theist by any means) wrote: “the trail of the human serpent is thus over everything”. There is no view from nowhere.

The basic ‘take home’ point is this; absolutist clerical authority and mass obsequious conformity to such is not going to break out any time soon. Deal with it. We might have other political theologies at work within modernity, but that’s another matter.

Really it’s no accident that fascism is broadly a Catholic phenomenon now is it?

Still I would have thought Eagleton would be appreciated a little, after all he is in his own way in the Voodoo is essential camp, thinks communtarianism is disingenuous per se, Terry also rather dislikes Simon Critchley (recall this is the guy that wrote about Las Vegas being a shining beacon of nihilism and representing the termination of European civilisation) etc.

You all know I am very much in the communitarian camp, don’t think our brand of Voodoo as such is ‘essential’, and rather like Critchley and think he’s one of the more fascinating contemporary political and cultural thinkers writing in English (without agreeing 100% with his thoughts).

So really I thought I was trying to met you all half-way with this offering!

The USA is, at least superficially, the most religious society in ‘the West’ but it all seems a bit of paper-tiger politically doesn’t it? But campaigns to save the military from gays (they would terribly interfere with God’s warmongering abroad - recall that extraordinary political thinker Sarah Palin told us all that the second Iraq war was “a mission from God”), to completely ban abortion, and having Cletus Spuckler teach ‘intelligent design’ in public schools, are all political issues of cardinal importance, yes?

And if I annoy the Voodoo crowd isn’t it your duty to forgive me? Or have I misunderstood?


Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:15 | #

Dr. Lister resolutely refuses to state his position baldly.

Just answer two questions (so we can all get the lay of Listerland, as it were):

1. Did Jesus exist as an historical personage, and was He crucified?

2. Do you deny the death and bodily resurrection of Christ?

I suspect your answers will be 1) yes, and 2) no, but I just want to see them stated plainly. No more evasions.

The burning bush and parted sea and the like may qualify as legends of the Jews, but Christ existed in historical time. That, at least, seems to be the modern academic consensus.

You are of course aware that “raptures” and “holy rolling” and other manifestations of American evangelical/Protestant enthusiasms are thoroughly rejected (where not actually mocked, in private) by more traditional Christian communities, whether Orthodox, Roman, or Reformation. You enjoy conflating these idiocies with a more general Dawkins-esque delegitimation of anything divine. But if God has not been proven (at least to the satisfaction of all), neither has He been disproven. And Christian theology is far more sophisticated than either Dawkins or the pathetic but happy Rapturites imagine.

But the real issue is not religion, per se, as what Lister or Haller or anyone else believes privately is unimportant. Rather, the chief ideological or political concern in thinking about the political place of Christianity is twofold:

first, what is the place of Christianity in European Civilization - something essential or trivial, and desirable or undesirable;

and second, whether it would be better for EC’s survival, now very much in doubt, if pro-white forces were to a) align themselves with atheism, or at least a secular politics grounded in a totally demystified reality, in which Christianity is either openly rejected and attacked, or relegated to an inconsequential and purely private matter, like the decision to take up golfing or knitting; or b) seek to racially reform and recover the faith, and then transform it into a creed at least no longer hostile to white EGI (except when or insofar as they violate basic Christian ethical precepts), and perhaps even supportive of it (as the Roman church long battled Islam, or as the many European national churches in both West and East were bastions of patriotism, and not universalistic pacifism and/or outright genetic treason, as is mostly the case today - CofE, anyone)?

I don’t have time to elaborate my reasons for holding as I do, but I can at least restate my positions clearly. I think Christianity was an essential and very desirable aspect of EC, even if there were by modern standards abuses (including intellectual ones) which needed challenging and righting. I also think it would be infinitely preferable for WPs to try to co opt the moral prestige of historical Christianity, and proclaim themselves conservative defenders of Western Civilization, than to mock and attack the religious faithful, which always smells of immaturity and an attendant desire towards provocation and exhibitionism. Never forget empirical social psychology: most anti-Christians are also committed racial leftists, and anyone at this late date who is still a race-liberal, let alone militant ‘diversity-monger’, is never going to be open to WP arguments anyway. Our potential political ‘space’ remains with conservatives, including religious ones, or at least the ideologically uncommitted white masses, who know that continuing multiculturalization is not good and not what they want, but who are confused about the morality of white racial politicking and resistance.

I am absolutely convinced that my race-conservative approach is the only one likely to make any real impact in politics, even if I still think the only hope for white racial survival in the longest-term is White Zion.


Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:28 | #

As to Eagleton, I’ve heard of him, of course - I’ve seen him in the TLS as a lit crit. But I haven’t watched these two hour (!) lectures yet.

Whether any aspect of Marxism is compatible with even a heterodox Catholicism is debatable. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and Marx’s is only of it, for a start. But the tensions between Christianity and Marxism go way beyond that.


Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:54 | #

Graham, not that I believe fully against my wish that you will change, but you set yourself up for this nonsense when you needlessly insist upon associating yourself with terms of Marxism and Nietszchean god is dead talk. It’s stodgy anachronistic irrelevance at base. How shocking, I might faint, “god is dead”?

God is none of my business.


Posted by Joe on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:37 | #

One doesn’t faint from listening to Daseinites discuss their existential angst, one walks away yawning from how tedious, tiresome, dreary, weariful, and monotonous the Dasein “faith” truly is ;

“The Lonely Soul Of Dasein” :


Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:54 | #

I regret that comment, of course, as Graham is the most competent ally against a myriad of stupidity. In fact, one may usefully take a god’s eye view of our cause, at least from time to time. Still, there is no sense in an affectionate view of Marx, coddling those who cite him as if a champion of our interests, simply because he offends the right wing. That position is reactionary, similar to the right wingers who reject good ideas offhand simply because they have been abused by Jews.


Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:03 | #

Joe, you are nobody to talk about boring. Here, let me liven you up. Is your mother dead? Was it a painful death that the whore experienced in eternal punishment for inflicting the disease that is yourself upon the world?


Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:41 | #

And the lightning rod that Graham set up is appreciated as well.


Posted by Joe on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:06 | #

DanielS, bless his Southern-Secessionist Daseinite heart , he aletheia eleutherosei umas *:

“Dasein and the Necessity of Hope as Seen in Societies IN VIA : A Mini case study of Binary Decision Making During the Secession of US States in 1861” :

More about Sabbatean-Jew/Southern -Dasein desires for a Golden Circle Slave/Opium Empire, Sabbatean Freemasonry, Albert Pike :

About the Sabbatean Jews in Charleston, South Carolina : Where the B’nai B’rith ADL originated , 2 Sabbatean Jew organized crime syndicates ;

A long read, but very informative. The story of the role of Sabbatean Jews down South who fomented and started the War Between the States in order to have what they call a , “Golden Circle Empire” [ slave and opium empire] is towards end of book. If link doesn’t work ;

Search Terms :

” + ADL”

” Judah Benjamin + August Belmont + Golden Circle +”

” Knights of the Golden Circle + Golden Circle +”

” Judah Benjamin + Albert Pike + War Between The States +” is an excellent website to learn about Southern Sabbatean Jew history, learn more about Sabbatean Jews in the American South.

Albert Pike and Judah Benjamin were yet 2 more Sabbatean Jews, bless their “Southern” Sabbatean-Jew-“Dasein” hearts.

* And, “the truth shall set you free”



Posted by Joe on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:18 | #

The Search Term : “Judah Bejamin + Knights Of The Golden Circle” will access a lot more information about Southern Sabbatean Dasein Jews ;

Articles such as the following :

Read what a patriotic White Southern American Christian—Eustace Mullins—has to say about Jews, especially Sabbatean Dasein Jews :

For Mullins’ life story [ and the life story of Ezra Pound : Mullins’ mentor ] :

” Eustace Mullins + The Curse Of Canaan pdf “

” Eustace Mullins + The Secret Holocaust pdf ”

“The Secret Holocaust” :  about Dasein Sabbatean Jews in the Soviet Union & their mass Sabbatean Dasein Jew slaughter of Russian Christians in the Dasein Soviet Union ]

Also :

” Eustace Mullins PDF ”  : for more of Mullins’ books.

” Ezra Pound + Eustace Mullins”

Mullins is one of our most honest historians. He payed a heavy price in his life to bring us truth. So did Ezra Pound. Sabbatean Dasein Jews hate truth—they hate Christianity. They hated Pound and Mullins with a passion. Read their books, their work. Both suffered much in their lives to bring us truth. They didn’t give up. They actually won. They got The Truth Out. We owe them a lot.



Posted by Joe on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:58 | #

Heidegger was mentored in “Dasein” by the Sabbatean Jew, Edmund Husserl.

Learn more about who was behind the “great” philosopher, Heidegger ;

Learn more about Edmund Husserl, the Sabbatean Jew behind Heidegger, the Sabbatean Dasein Jew—Husserl—who taught Heidegger the Sabbatean Jew Dasein “religion” :

Listen to the “great” Dasein “philosopher” speak, hear what the great Dasein “philosopher” and so-called “founder” of Dasein has to say :

Heidegger double-crossed his own mentor in 1933. Even the Nazis got tired of Heidegger. The Nazis saw clearly how inarticulate Heidegger truly was without his Jew mentor around.

Husserl and Heidegger—the two leading figures of the Dasein “religion”.




Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:26 | #


Yep stodgy and irrelevant is certainly the territory of WNs and fellow travellers like your good self - only joking honest guv! Let alone conspiracy nuts whom are intellectual titans – stodgy and irrelevant could never be terms associated with such analytically sharp minds.

Look my take on Marx and his output is some of it is quite interesting, other parts total garbage. Equally this is true of those working within the Marxist tradition. Some excellent work and a lot of crap. But I feel that way about almost ever major intellectual figure and any tradition that follows in their wake. There are no saints unstained by error in my world. And even post-modernists can say interesting things. I’m intellectually promiscuous and proud of that fact. Echo chambers and self-constructed ghettos with ‘off limits here be dragons’ warning signs are not my thing.

That God is dead, in the sociological and conceptual sense Nietzsche was getting at, isn’t news for anyone other than followers of Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, the Pope, Krista Tippett and similar disreputable charlatans.

Unfortunately MR, as you might have noticed, is by and large a grisly collection for people that somehow haven’t received the news down in Louisville, Kentucky and other similarly delightful places. The “Voodoo is essence of Europe and everything else!” crowd are very much in show, yes?

Now why the Marxism and religion stuff has some relevancy is for this reason and this reason only. It takes as its starting point that religion is a phenomena shaped by social, cultural, economic etc., forms of life - in short by human beings acting within history.

The old opium of the people quote is a little more subtle than appreciated:

“The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.”

Now make of that what you will and obviously there are two other ‘masters of suspicion’ - Freud and Nietzsche.

OK what can be said on this topic?

(1) No doubt a MacDonald style plea about evil J-lizards and their evil ideas (which apparently others are powerless to stop) could be forthcoming. As intellectual history that’s piss-poor and pitiful crap. It amounts to a pseudo-sophisticated updating of the ‘innocent and powerless victim versus all-powerful evil outsider’ trope of applied victimology. This fails on at least two levels. Firstly, European intellectuals had already laid most of the groundwork for the whole God is dead business themselves. And secondly, critique the critique for fucks sakes. Oh all this “people with their ideas, why how unfair” nonsense. Well step up and show why those ideas are bad ideas with evidence and compelling arguments rather than whine like some little fucking cry babies. Offer alternatives. Bad ideas can, if they really are in error, presumably be shown to be in error. Because a Jew said something, ipso facto, it’s wrong and evil doesn’t convince very many people as an argument - especially those of us that aren’t primarily breathing through our mouths. Ayn Rand being the exception to the rule - obviously.

(2) We can all admit religion (in general) is a complex and multifaceted phenomena that is widely observed in nearly all societies and social-orders. A near anthropological universal. So one can understand it from an evolutionary viewpoint, anthropologically, sociologically, as a form of culture, etc., that is to understand it as a human phenomenon within the framework of methodological naturalism, materialism etc. One doesn’t need to be a Marxist at all to operate within these broad assumptions. David Hume would make for a very odd Marxist, as indeed would Nietzsche, or Pascal Boyer or Daniel Dennett.

However, there will be a problem. It’s with the Voodoo people. They may well admit that all other versions of Voodoo are obviously species of magical thinking. These forms of magical thinking may have served wider cultural or social functions but are not in any real sense ‘true’ except for their OWN brand of Voodoo - which of course is unquestionably true and the Voodoo lovers will get very offended indeed if people dare suggest otherwise.

God uniquely speaks to us via their brand of Voodoo but not in others – every other version of Voodoo is obviously false and utter bollocks as a detailed description of reality. All except their own. Which has the same truth status as say, the statement that the atomic number of oxygen is eight, apparently by the way they incessantly drone on.

Now that might be acceptable if it was the God of the philosopher we are talking about or some Platonic Demiurge that was being defended. After all the question why there is something rather than nothing is an open one. If the reality turns out to be that there is some prime mover – infinite, timeless and beyond human comprehension then so be it. But such an abstract conceptualisation is of course socially, culturally, politically, and morally inert. One cannot ‘read off’ from an ineffable and unknowable phenomenon how one should live.

No the God of Voodoo is a Nobodaddy. With a whole complex set of behavioral rules, social-ontology, moral framework and so on. And then Nobodaddy is represented by an institutional history in which power, money and other worldly concerns are rather important factors at play.

So we can attempt to ask the question is religion a good or bad thing? We might say well which religion, which version, which ideas or concepts associated with a religion and for whom? It might be quite a complex question to answer.

However, that type of conversation is very hard to start when a stupidity of Cletus Spucklers all turn up with the following sentiments:

“how dare you suggest my Voodoo is not true”; “why Voodoo is essential the sky will fall in if you doubt for one second”, “being sceptical of Voodoo is part of a J-lizard conspiracy”, “don’t you know my Voodoo instruction book is the direct word of Nobodaddy - why without being so thought anarchy awaits” blah, blah, blah.

I’m a nobody, a non-entity. It’s not me that has the power to dethroned God, nor was it a J-lizard conspiracy. It’s all of us. We are collectively his ‘murderers’. Now being in willful denial about such developments is not the starting point for serious discussion. Equally being in willful denial that religiosity is a phenomena shaped by human practices, needs, wants and so on strikes me as also not the starting point for serious discussion. As a fallibilist without access to unquestionable ‘Divinely authored’ knowledge, I’ll admit I could be wrong in everything I’ve ever said or believed. But that’s not the position of our band of Cletus Spucklers now is it?

One cannot start to address the question of nihilism and how to live and fully flourish under its threat unless one honestly acknowledges that Nobodaddy is but one possible answer but is not ‘the answer’ and never will be the ‘exclusive’ and unquestionably ‘true’, self-evident answer ever again. And that is the point - which is quite independent of the issue of Nobodaddy being genuinely real and not simply the imaginary product of the human mind.


Obviously if the available evidence changes and Jesus is on his comeback tour in Sandpoint, Idaho then I will be very much mistaken. But I do wonder if Jesusland would really be receptive to him?

He might not be as much of a pull as say eating gargantuan portions of junk food, epic corruption and turpitude on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms across the land, watching Glenn Beck or Jack van Impe, hunting small animals with big weapons (in a totally macho way naturally), NASCAR and monster-truck racing, listening to bad country music, and most important of all being abducted for a quick anal probe by aliens. On that last activity - well it really is such a right of passage it is quite shocking that it’s still not one of those God-given, inalienable (pardon the pun) Constitutional rights of yours.

Americans, being unusually parochial, ignorant, incurious and self-absorbed people by nature, it is helpful I think, to remind you all from time to time that reality, that is the real world, does not consist merely of your own or your own group’s mentality, perceived realities or doxa (to be a snooty European pseudo-intellectual about the land of the free. Doxa? Seriously I know - whom but a Godless faggot lover that eats French cheese could use such terms?).

America is an exceptional place; for some good reasons but mostly for bad ones. In the matter of what passes for Voodoo in America it’s exceptionally awful. Go to a mega-church service this coming Sunday if you don’t believe me. Or switch on Sunday morning religious TV.

Honestly is such shit fit for human beings on even a temporary basis - let alone be claimed as their ‘essence’? Call me an elitist but religion seems a little like a public swimming pool - all the noise comes from children at the shallow end.

I did not agree with much of what Christopher Hitchens wrote or said (to put it mildly) but on people like Jerry Falwell I’m in sympathy with most of what he has to say.

Chaucerian frauds and hucksters.


Posted by Joe on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:46 | #

“New York City Prefers Satan To Christianity” :

So do Graham Lister, Daniel S, and James Bowery. At last some contributors to Majority Rights aren’t satan followers.

JonJayRay has his heart in the right place. JonJayRay sees clearly where Dasein leads to :

A preference for satan over Christ. Dasein leads to a deep hatred for Christ.


Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:28 | #

A tiresome and venomous Scots atheist.


Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:58 | #

Graham, I enjoyed your comment 25, thank you.

I can agree with your logic there.

However, I think that you are giving Marx a bit too much credit and yourself not quite enough.

Just as we need not remain humble to those who maintain that the National Socialists figured it all out perfectly and that we cannot or need not think through matters for ourselves, there is no need to genuflect or make a Marxist symbol from forehead to shoulders with blessed water as if entering a church of Marxism when entering territories addressed by Marxists.

It isn’t necessary to give easy ammunition to anti-communists or anti-national socialists by way of over crediting.

We’re beyond that. 


Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:09 | #

That is, while I hear what you say that you reject parts of it as nonsense, I still think you are giving it too much credit and yourself not enough.


Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:09 | #

Right, well, first a belated welcome back to Graham.  I would have been mortified to see the our most distinguished anti-liberal walk off into the mists of the communitarian internet.  I am very pleased that that has not happened.

Having just finished listening to Eagleton I can now offer a quick - very quick - thought on what is, I believe, the heart of his lecture and of his own personal spiritual and political life.  I was interested by his closing remark and by a passage in an answer to a member of the audience which he gave, thus:

... whatever authentic forms of culture or politics and society there are would have to be based upon a recognition, somehow, of the meaning of the crucified body, of the meaning of crucifixion and the belief that crucifixion is in some sense the indispensable condition, the sine qua non, of resurrection - no new life without crucifixion.

Now, that is politically explosive in my view, because that’s not accepted at all by our orthodox and prevalent forms of politics ... there’s no new life without crucifixion.  The rupture, the trauma, the discontinuity involved in that are simply too much to be taken by our contemporary forms of politics ... our conventional forms of politics.  So one would have to look to forms of political and cultural thought that understood what that meant, and they are few and far between.  Marxism, I think, is one ... but it’s not the only one. 

... our society is actually based in its thought forms, its political forms, its cultural forms on a repression and disavowal of that real.

If one removes the Christian element from this, because Christianity is but Judaism universalised for and nativised by the sometime raceless European gentile and it and its deity does deserve our agreement to forget our older spiritual history, what we have is a figure, as always, for the journey described in my ontology post here.

In other words, nationalism, freed of what Eagleton calls mythology, has the potential to realise what he is saying in that quote above in a most perfect and concentrated way.  Whether other nationalists grasp this fully, I cannot say.  About it I wrote:

The intellectual challenge of creating a nationalist ontology ... consists in setting the European nature, being, and mind in creative opposition to our present declension, using historical and political analysis as well as ontological thinking itself to model the liberation which this perfect trinity vouchsafes.  The rest, if sufficient intellectual energy could be generated amid the decay of liberal belief, will follow the inevitable path of any turn towards the authentic.  We know it because we saw it in Italy and in Germany in the 20th century, despite the many inauthenticities in those ideological systems.  It was enough just for the mass of the population to orient itself away from the old system ... even just to harbour the hope of change.  It would be so again.

What can we do to meet this challenge?


Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:43 | #

I shall never get straightforward answers to my plain questions in this place.


Posted by Joe on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:09 | #

Daniel S and Graham Liter : Asisnus Asinum Fricat.

About Communism—Communists despise Christ with feral passion. Communism comes from Sabbatean Jews and the Talmud :

Search terms :

” Jews + Talmud + Communism “

” Jews + Communism + Zionism”

Communism is another form of Zionism.

About Nazism. Nazis despise Christ with feral passion. Nazism comes to us from Sabbatean Jews and the Talmud :

Search Terms :

“Sabbatean Jews + Nazis”

” Who Owned IG Farben During World War Two”

More about the Jew owned IG Farben cartel vis-à-vis Nazi Germany and the Third Reich :

“Hitler As Jewish Messiah :

Nazism serves Zionism, even Hitler was a Jew :

Nazism, Communism, Zionism—like Dasein, all 3 are Dasein-based—hate Christ with feral passion. All 3 serve—along with the Dasein, which is the ontology of all 3—are Satanic Sabbatean Jew to-the-core. Dasein serves satanic Jews and the Satanic New World Order.

The Muslim Brotherhood was started by Sabbatean Jews also. Islamic Jihad is also Dasein-based at the ontological level. Islamic Jihad [ which comes from Sufism/Talmud/kabballah ] hates Christ with a passion.

Islamic Jihad, like Nazism serves Zionism—albeit as Hegelian Dialect :

The synthesis of Nazism and Communism and Islamic Jihad is Zionism. Zionism is anti-Christ to-the-core. Zionism despises Christ with feral passion.

Dasein is the ontological foundation of Communism, Nazism, Zionism, and Islamic Jihad ;

And Communism/Nazism/Zionism/Islamic-Jihad/Dasein All Despise Christ With feral passion.

Dasein serves the Sabbatean Jews who started Communism,  Nazism, Islamic Jihad, and Zionism.

That’s why Graham Lister, Daniel S and James Bowery push Dasein on the readership so intently and s incessantly.

They’re either Sabbatean Jews themselves or their in the employ of Satanic Jews. Sabbatean and Satanic are synonymous.

How Dasein-based Jihad, Dasein-based Nazism, Dasein-based Communism, Dasein-based Zionism, and the Dasein-based “religion” fit into the Satanic Sabbatean Jew/New World Order :

“Black Terror, White Soldiers : Islam, Fascism, and The New Age” :

Nazism—which was started by Sabbatean Jews—ushered in the “New Age” of spirituality, of which Dasein is integral. The “New Age” is very anti-White, it’s also very anti-Christ : The two go hand-in-hand.

” Nazis + The New Age “

” Savitri Devi + Hitler’s Priestess pdf “

Videre Licet ; It is “allowed to see” : A Christian principle, a Christian principle at the Very Ontological Level of Christianity.





Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:20 | #

GW: The crucifixion of the body is, quite simply death.  Death is not an essential aspect of life.  Death is an essential aspect of sex.

And what is sex?

Any nationalist ontology that attempts to escape the answer to that question attempts to deny the crucifixion.


Posted by Joe on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:30 | #

Excuse my typos in my last post. I was typing too fast.

@ Leon Haller

You can forget about ever getting your questions answered around here, especially answered in an honest, straight-forward manner—especially with Daniel S, Graham Lister, and James Bowery around.

You are correct, they will Never answer your questions in an honest straight-forward manner.

You are also correct when you say anti-Christ philosophies/“religions” are inherently anti-White; As Dasein is a “religion”, and Dasein despises Christ with a feral passion is inherently anti-White.

The White Race is the Christ-Bearing Race. Anti-Christ equals anti-White :

Search term :

“Cambria Will Not Yield White Race Christ-Bearing Race” ;

Many more articles about the White Race being the Christ-Bearing Race.


Posted by Joe on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:46 | #

About the “Ashkenazi Jew Conspiracy” for a Jew/New World Order. Sabbatean Jews are a part of Ashkenazi Jews : Same thing, two different terms for the same the people. Ashkenazi and Sabbatean Jews are anti-Christ to the core. Ashkenazi Jews despise Christ with a feral passion ;

That’s why they devise philosophies/ “religions”, that are full of hatred for Christ. Dasein being the perfect example. Dasein despises Christ with a feral passion, just as the Satanic Sabbatean/Ashkenazi Jews who are striving hard to take over the whole world despise Christ with a feral passion :

A long video, but also a very informative video about Sabbatean/Ashkenazi mentality, and their religious beliefs and their “religious” goals. Their religious beliefs are very much the same as the “religious” beliefs of Daseinites : Get rid of Christ totally ;

Like Dasein, at the very ontological foundation of Sabbatean/Ashkenazi “religion” and thought, is pure hatred for Christ, for the White Race ; Pure hatred for anything to do with Authentic Christianity and Authentic European culture, heritage, and Christian Spiritual patrimony, pure hatred for the The Christ-Bearing Race : The White Race.

Anti-Christ is anti-White, anti-White is anti-Christ. They go together, and can’t truly be separated :

Anyone who tells you otherwise, is a goddamned liar.


Posted by Nietzsche is Right on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:25 | #

Graham Lister will yet one day discover that what he is is a cynic and not a skeptic.

“The scholar, without good breeding, is a pedant; the philosopher, a cynic; the soldier, a brute; and every man disagreeable.” - Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield


Posted by Thorn on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:28 | #

he is is a cynic

Nah, he’s just frustrated at the moment. That’s what happens when man’s finite mind tries to wrap itself around concepts involving infinity, or concepts beyond/outside the infinite universe.

Hopefully someday he’ll think himself outside that secular trap he’s unwittingly snared himself in.

In the mean time, let’s all enjoy viewing—via the Hubble telescope—some of the closer-in heavenly bodies occupying God’s infinite universe:



Posted by Joe on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:18 | #

Graham Lister is a ‘philosopher”, and I’m James Bond.

More about Dasein :

Precious “faith” of Sabbatean Jews, AshkeNazi Jews, Communists, anti-Christs, Freemasons, Aleister Crowley Satanists, Anton LeVay Satanists, Sufists, Islamic Jihadists, Zionists, wanna-be intellectuals, meth-heads, black metal fans, more Sabbatean Jews, more AskeNazi Jews, jerk-offs, jackassess and wanna-be “philosophers” :

Even Heidegger admits only God can save us.




Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:23 | #

What I took from Graham’s post #25 is that he dislikes the American pop-religion phenomenon and its particularly intolerant mentality towards others not similarly “enlightened”, not that he is dismissive of all religion.  He’s laid out his thoughts on this in a reasonable way even if you tend to disagree with him on the substance.

I think he overstates his case a bit, though.  Not all Americans, even religious ones, tend toward the McReligion/holy roller tendency.  I could also point out that the populist/low church/charismatic form of religion had clear antecedents in Europe.  As far as I can tell, as long as Man exists, there will be this tendency in any religion - as a reaction towards more elitist/top-down forms of religious organization if nothing else.  I suppose it has come to a position of relative dominance in America thanks to our nation’s mythology of the virtue of the common man.  But frankly it’s not all that powerful even so, since only Republican legislators seem to pay it any mind and it seems a tendency that’s in decline at least vis-a-vis political influence.  The younger generations here are ever less religious.

As for God being dead, I suppose that is true for much of Europe but not all of it by any means.  The Poles, Hungarians, Irish, Croatians, and others are still strong in the faith.  That’s why I find the whole discussion about religion in this venue a bit of a distraction.  If your intention is to ‘save’ Europe - if that’s even possible - why focus on this of all things.  Does one really believe that there will ever be some kind of historic compromise between atheists and religious people.  Is the secular concern of what neoliberalism is doing to Europe not enough?  Do not both religious and atheist Europeans alike stand to lose from the situation that is now unfolding?


Posted by DanielS on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:51 | #

That’s why I find the whole discussion about religion in this venue a bit of a distraction.  If your intention is to ‘save’ Europe - if that’s even possible - why focus on this of all things.  Does one really believe that there will ever be some kind of historic compromise between atheists and religious people.  Is the secular concern of what neoliberalism is doing to Europe not enough?  Do not both religious and atheist Europeans alike stand to lose from the situation that is now unfolding?

Gudmund, I agree with all of your comment and this especially.


Posted by Joe on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:15 | #

Neoliberalism is based on Dasein. Dasein is not secular. Dasein a “religion” in and of itself. Dasein is a religion—in fact, Dasein is a “messianic” religion.

Like the Daseinites in the 20th century saw Hitler as a Messiah, Daseinites now wait for another Messiah to show up.

Dasein serves the Satanic Sabbatean New World Order ;

” We Shall Unleash The Nihilists And The Atheists” :

[ Overlook the Catholic aspect of the article and read about WW1, WW2, and the present-day situation as concerns Zionists, Muslims, and the White Race].

Another article about WW3, no religious over-tones. I couldn’t get the link to work, yet it works when I type in my search engine [ google] :

Search Term :

” Albert Pike 3 World Wars Planned + We Shall Unleash the Nihilists And The Atheists”

It’s one thing to be an atheist, but the pure hatred for Christianity that emanates from Majority Rights is the same Exact pure hatred for Christianity as our racial enemies have : The same racial enemies who opened up all the formerly White countries to the third world, who push abortion, gay/lesbian rights, who push agendas that are inimical to the White Race ; More than that, agendas which are very much advance the silent genocide of the White Race.

Daniel S, Graham Lister, and James Bowery, don’t hate the Daseinite “christian” sell-outs who are destroying the churches from within—they actually fully support the Daseinites in the churches destroying Christinaity from within—Daniel S, Graham Lister, and James Bowery, hate the Very ontological core of Christianity—Christ. This serves the New World Order.

Our Sabbatean/Ashkenazi Jew Over-Lords want us to despise Christ with the same feral passionate hatred they themselves have.

It’s the Sabbatean/Ashkenazi Jew Over-Lords who are behind all the various agendas that advance the silent genocide of the White Race ; They also simultaneously push Dasein on us, Dasein with it’s pure hared of Christ, they want us to hate Christ as much as they do. That’s why Daniel S, Graham Lister, and James Bowery, are pushing Dasein/Hatred for Christ on us so intently and so incessantly.

The hatred for Christ Daniel S, Graham Lister, and James Bowery spew out, is the same exact hatred the Sabbatean/Ashkenazi Jews have for Christ, the same exact hatred the Islamic Jihadists have for Christ, the same exact hatred for the Communists have for Christ, the same Exact hatred for Satanists have for Christ.

The New World Order is satanic to-the-core, so is Nazism, so is Islamic Jihad, so is Communism, so is Zionism. Dasein is the ontology/metaphysics/eschatology of Nazism, Islamic Jihad, Communism, and Zionism.

Like Nazism, Communism, Islamic Jihad, Zionism, Dasein hates Christ with a passion and is at the same time Messianic, except the Dasein Messiah will be a Satanic Mass-Murdering Jew. Just as Hitler was. Just as Lenin was. Just as Stalin was.

” Eustace Mullins + The Secret Holocaust pdf “

Find out where Dasein—hatred for Christ—leads to. See what happens when the Jews “Unleash the Nihilists and The Atheists”. The Jews want to do the same here in the States and in Europe, in the whole Occident, as the Jews did in the Soviet Union, where they Unleashed The Nihilists and the Atheists on The Christians of Russia.

Those whites who have a deep hatred for Christ in their hearts need to seriously re-think. Doesn’t mean you have to become church-goers. It does mean, however, you may want to have some respect for The Faith that defeated Communism in the Soviet Union, and some respect for The Faith that historically protected Europe from Islamic Jihad. The White Race is now under assault from both, except we call Communists Neo-Cons and Zionists now.

The Jews, by the way, label all Whites as Christians. They remember when Europe was called “Christendom”. Europe was called Christendom because Christianity united the White Race in Europe. Hence, the never-ending Jewish schemes to divide the White Race. Dasein is yet another division.

Dasein comes from Satanic Sabbatean Jews. They want us to hate Christ as much as they do, because the Jews know it is Christ who is the True Foundation of Strength of the White Race.




Posted by Joe on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:42 | #

Daniel S, Graham Lister, and James Bowery, put up one article after another tearing Christianity to shreds : One article after another spewing out hatred for Christ.

When one puts up a defense of Christ, all of a sudden they think discussing “religion is a distraction” ; This is not the proper “venue” to discuss “religion”.

When they put up one article after another about “religion” [ i.e. = Christianity ] and they’re spewing out hatred for Christ, they never say their hatred of Christ is a “distraction” however.

They never call all the articles they put up tearing Christianity to shreds a “distraction”, I notice.

They put up one article after another spewing out hatred for Christ ; When one puts up a defense of Christ , then all of a sudden, this is not the proper “venue” to discuss religion.

Don’t want to discuss religion ? Daniel S, Graham Lister, James Bowery, stop putting up articles about “religion” [ i.e.= Christianity].

“Culture and The Death Of God” seems like a “venue” to discuss “religion” to me, especially as you made sure to point out you were putting the article up on a Sunday, and especially as you made sure to equate Christianity with voodoo.

Calling Christianity “voodoo” is not a “distraction”, somehow. Putting up a defense of Christianity, however : ” Oh no, this is not the proper ‘venue’ for that”  :  Well, tough shit.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:11 | #


I’m no philosopher, yes that’s true, but you’re not even able to quote someone correctly.

Martin Heidegger said “Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten” in Der Spiegel (1976).

Trans. by W. Richardson as “Only A God Can Save Us”.

It’s one of the first Google results that comes up for the quote.

Serious monotheists don’t normally speak of a God do they?

Now Joe there might just be something called God – I wouldn’t like to say with 100% certainty that there is not – unlike your good self naturally (that’s 100% sure about everything). But however certain, however sure you are that such a phenomenon is real what you cannot say, with judgemental rationality or in ‘good faith’, is that it must be the Nobodaddy of your Voodoo.

After the masters of suspicion you don’t fully know, if you are being honest, whether you have good arguments or merely a bad symptom or two. Elaborate delusions or Divinely authored certitude? And that’s one of the key developments of modernity. Lament or celebrate that position but only a fool doesn’t acknowledge the situation.

The issue is this – the world of liberal-modernity has no need for Nobodaddy or any other form of overtly Divine overseer. It’s a radically atheistic world - not always in what people say but rather in what they do and how they actually live – their praxis. After all many Americans are Christians for a hour on Sunday and ruthless materialists and practitioners of methodological naturalism at all other times. Nothing the trader does on Wall Street reflects or needs God to ‘work’. Nothing the civil engineer does in his office or on a building site requires Divinity either conceptually, imaginatively or practically. He has no need of the God hypothesis. Nor do either of these characters actively use ‘Christian values’ in their day to day praxis.

Yes we must look at what people say they believe with some seriousness, but we must also look at what they actually do too.

What Americans really worship – the ground of their being in the world, their most foundational and fundamental beliefs, their Tillichian ‘ultimate concern’ is a particular brand of liberal-ontology fused with the sensibility of radical Protestantism. Individualistic liberty and a maximally individuated freedom from the previously odious collective constraints of Albion - and all that inevitably flows from such history and social-ontology.

Two aspects are an infinite appetite for money and power (not new to the human experience as such, but with a new Lockean-derived ideological spin on the matter - one can never have ‘too much’ and money is the only value that really counts), and a passion for endlessly buying shit you don’t need (but think you want) and so on. Worshipping in only the true sacred spaces within the contemporary USA – the shopping mall (for the plebs) and the corporate boardroom (for the elite).

All the various Voodoo products on offer is yet another aspect of the scene. Another consumerist product/service on offer from religious entrepreneurs.

I hope to write something more on Christianity and bad faith within American culture in the near future.

As a hint of what that might contain it seems that from professional polling data most American ‘Christians’ cannot successfully name all the given authors of the synoptic Gospels. This despite the same people saying they read the Bible “a lot” and their religious faith is the “most important thing in their life” etc., but they do ‘know’ the Rapture is next Tuesday - if the weather is nice enough.

Wow that is a serious commitment to a serious belief system – the majority of ‘Bible believing’ American Christians not even knowing all the given names of authors of the synoptic Gospels! It’s not like they don’t know the name Aquinas or other obscure parts of their ‘faith’. So it seems a very large proportion of American Voodoo lovers are not simply ignorant in the general sense, but specifically are massively ignorant of even the basics of the Bible etc.

Anyway Joe you’re sure about everything so that’s OK. No need for any further thought, yes?


Posted by Joe on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:53 | #

@ Graham Lister

I’m reluctant to reply to your concerns, as any discussion of “God” and “religion” is a “distraction”;  Majority Rights is not the proper “venue” to discuss “religion” and “God”, especially as “god is dead”, as per the Daseinites, and Daseinites Rule, dude .

Let’s not upset the Daseinites any more than we have to. We wouldn’t want the Daseinites to get their panties all tied up in existential knots . Or is that “ontic” knots?

It would perturb Daniel S no end to continue discussing a subject not proper for this “venue”; A subject which is a “distraction” : OH, do I dare say the word, “Christianity”.

I shall focus on Godless philosophies [ “god is dead” ] type, OH dare I say the word, “religions”.

Communism and Zionism [ same thing ]—that should pass the Daseinite shit test because Zionism is atheistic and godless. Right up their “god is dead” Daseinite alley.

About godless [ “god is dead” ] Sabbatean/AshkeNazi Jews :

I can’t get the link to work, excellent book :

” Willie Martin + Communism A Jewish Talmudic Concept pdf”

Of Course :

” Eustace Mullins + The Secret Holocaust pdf”

Both books are excellent. Learn what happens in Godless [ i.e. = “god is dead”] societies. The kind of “god is dead ” [ i.e. = Godless] society you and your buddy-buddies, James Bowery and Daniel S, are so intent on promoting.

Search Term :

” Jews Communism Talmud Mass Murder “

About another Dasein-based phenomenon, also started by Godless [ “god is dead” ] Jews :

About Islamic Jihad, and the role of Jews in starting Islamic Jihad :

I say Islamic Jihad is Dasein-based because both Dasein and Islamic Jihad come from Sufist/kaballah Satanism from the Sabbatean/Donmeh-Jew snake-shit dens of Turkey. Both have the same ontology/metaphysics, and eschatology. Both share, both despise , Christ with feral passion.

About the most famous Daseinite of them all, the Godless [ “god is dead” ] Shitler . Shitler always passes the Daseinites shit test. Hitler is kewl, Hitler is “Dasein kosher” :

Search Terms :

” Hitler Was A Jew Himself “

” Dietrich Bronder + Bevor Hitler Kam pdf “

” This Is Zionism + Hitler The Mass-Murdering Jew”

Link may not work, but the address works when I type in the Google search engine. The above search term will access article also.




Posted by Joe on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:04 | #

About Dasein [ “god is dead’ ] existentialism, atheism, and how “god is dead” Dasein serves Jewish Communism/Zionism :

The Jewish roots of ” god is dead” Communism :

About Hitler “god is dead” and Jews :

About “god is dead” Zionism and the Zionist New World Order” :

About Jews and the Muslim Brotherhood and the NWO :

I notice no cultural pressure is brought to bear on Jews to give up their jew g*d. No pressure is brought to bear to make the Muslims give up their god. All the cultural/social/academic pressure is on Whites to declare our God—our Christ, is “dead”. Dasein’s “god is dead” serves the Jews pushing for their Jew New World Order of Communism—Communism is Mass Murder. Mass Murder of Christians.





Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:14 | #


But what is the significance of this for white preservation?

You keep conflating the idiocies of American low-church/charismatic Protestantism, which Joe as a Catholic obviously rejects (and which, incidentally, is actually spreading across the world quite rapidly, and will within your lifetime constitute a globally significant ideational force - more for good, I think, than ill, though that is not a firm prediction), with Christianity in general, which you then ruthlessly critique. This is circular reasoning. One cannot, for example, condemn the immensity of Catholicism merely because a few filthy pedophiles infiltrated the priesthood.

But more saliently, what, precisely, is your point wrt Christianity and race? I mention this above, in #15, but receive no response. I must repeat myself:

the chief ideological or political concern in thinking about the political place of Christianity is twofold:

first, what is the place of Christianity in European Civilization - something essential or trivial, and desirable or undesirable;

and second, whether it would be better for EC’s survival, now very much in doubt, if pro-white forces were to a) align themselves with atheism, or at least a secular politics grounded in a totally demystified reality, in which Christianity is either openly rejected and attacked, or relegated to an inconsequential and purely private matter, like the decision to take up golfing or knitting; or b) seek to racially reform and recover the faith, and then transform it into a creed at least no longer hostile to white EGI (except when or insofar as they violate basic Christian ethical precepts), and perhaps even supportive of it (as the Roman church long battled Islam, or as the many European national churches in both West and East were bastions of patriotism, and not universalistic pacifism and/or outright genetic treason, as is mostly the case today - CofE, anyone)?

I don’t have time to elaborate my reasons for holding as I do, but I can at least restate my positions clearly. I think Christianity was an essential and very desirable aspect of EC, even if there were by modern standards abuses (including intellectual ones) which needed challenging and righting. I also think it would be infinitely preferable for WPs to try to co opt the moral prestige of historical Christianity, and proclaim themselves conservative defenders of Western Civilization, than to mock and attack the religious faithful, which always smells of immaturity and an attendant desire towards provocation and exhibitionism. Never forget empirical social psychology: most anti-Christians are also committed racial leftists, and anyone at this late date who is still a race-liberal, let alone militant ‘diversity-monger’, is never going to be open to WP arguments anyway. Our potential political ‘space’ remains with conservatives, including religious ones, or at least the ideologically uncommitted white masses, who know that continuing multiculturalization is not good and not what they want, but who are confused about the morality of white racial politicking and resistance.

So where do you stand? How do we reach the white masses wrt religion? Defend Christianity, the conservative, historic version (not the current PC brand), or loudly reject it in favor of shoving everybody’s faces in brute materialism in the manner of Dawkins? Will a renewed and racially reformed Christianity, or an ontological nationalism somehow made understandable to mass-men, be more likely to lead to greater white family formation and higher white birthrates - not to mention broad rejection of immigration, and eventual repatriation?



Posted by Je on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:23 | #

About the “god is dead” Dasein Nazis :


Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:51 | #


Go and find Being and Time on-line and at least take a look at what you are up against.  Ask yourself if the people who generated the pages you are spamming on this thread have read the book, understood the book, based their judgements on the book.

When you have your answer to that inquiry, then ask yourself what on earth you were doing in all that painful certainty before.


Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:04 | #


For the avoidance of doubt, the cross is the symbol of human presence; in fact, of the intersection of being and time.  The crucifixion is the fixing of the self thereon, implying the unfixed and formless, psychologically passive condition which is our habitual estate.  Resurrection is the act of living while the state of presence obtains.

There is no “new life” in the sense that Eagleton means.  He is confusing two categories of truth (the sacred and the profane), as do virtually all exotericists.  In fact, the entire “God is dead” notion is a conceit, really.  It can only fascinate exterior thinkers because the exoteric is precisely a place in which the relevant distinctions are falsely drawn.  There is nothing new in human presence, but then human presence is not a subject of discussion in the exoteric mists.


Posted by Joe on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:23 | #

Dasein proclaims, “god is dead”, but the Daseinites Never say satan is dead. Dasein leads to godless societies like Nazi Germany [ a daseinite state] and the Soviet Union [ a dasinite state].

The USA, for example, becomes increasing totalitarian as Dasein [ existentialism ] is the ruling foundational principle of our society.

Ever since the massive rejection of true Christianity [ whatever was left after 100 years of existentialism and nihilism] the USA has become increasingly Communistic and totalitarian. The USA now is a police state. That’s what “god is dead” societies become : Totalitarian police states.

Totalitarian police states ruled over by the godless, mass-murdering Jews. The FEMA are already in place.

Dasein also leads to out-right satan worship. There’s no God to worship, so Daseins go looking for something “powerful” and “transcendent” to worship. “God is Dead” to the Dasenites, that leaves Satan as the “transcendent” and “powerful” one. Daseinites NEVER proclaim, “Satan is dead”.

Daseinites only proclaim , “god is dead” ; They mean the Christian God when they say that—and only the Christian God. Daseinites pay all the other religions in the world homage and respect.

I notice Daseinites have complete scorn and disdain for the culture and heritage of pre-Dasein Europe, as well : Complete scorn and disdain for The culture and heritage of Europe when Europe was predominately Christian.

I notice the Daseinites here despise Christ with a feral passion. Constantly, incessantly, the Daseinites spew out hatred for Christ. One article after another.

There’s no room in a Dasein society for Christianity : The Very Faith that saved Russia from Jew mass-murdering Communist rule, the Very Faith that historically saved Europe from Islamic Jihad.

Daseinites don’t give shit that Christianity defeated Communism and historically saved Europe from Islamic Jihad—they don’t care about any of that. They only care about “Being There”. Dasein and bad faith :




Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:29 | #

GW, your take on the cross is reminiscent of George Gilder’s conclusion to his book “Microcosm”:

Combining a particle and a wave, it joins the definite to the infinite, a point of mass to an eternal radiance.  In this light, we can comprehend the paradox of the brain and the mind, the temporal and the divine, flesh and the word, freedom and fatality.  By this light we can even find the truth.  But we cannot see through it.  In science and technology, religion and life, we can triumph only by understanding that truth is a paradoxical and redemptive cross at the heart of light, radient in the microcosm and in the world.

I’m not going to contradict this except to say that sex is of two parts that correspond to the dual creative/evolutionary principles of change/death/mutation/killing and continuity/growth/selection/nurturing.  Both are aspects of Being and, in complementary perspective, both are aspects of Time.  These principles precede not only sex but life, matter and space.

So, yes, we—as human beings—may “escape” sex in the same sense that the Hindu or Buddhist can escape incarnation—by denying our very beings.


Posted by Joe on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:31 | #

” Heidegger’s Elucidation of St. Augustine’s Distentio” :


Posted by Joe on Wed, 01 May 2013 00:23 | #

On Dasein :

How Dasein reflects the true nature of ecology, the true natural state of Being, analysis-paralysis, existentialist angst, confusion and conundrum ;



Posted by DanielS on Wed, 01 May 2013 01:07 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on April 30, 2013, 05:51 PM | #


Go and find Being and Time on-line and at least take a look at what you are up against.  Ask yourself if the people who generated the pages you are spamming on this thread have read the book, understood the book, based their judgements on the book.

When you have your answer to that inquiry, then ask yourself what on earth you were doing in all that painful certainty before.

This is a good place for me to re-assert that I do not base my discussions, even of Dasein, upon a concern for a perfect understanding of Heidegger (though that pursuit is not particularly troubling) but I will try to make use of what I find necessary and good from his thought.

Therefore, whatever pejorative tendencies that are contained in his thought, be they Nazi or otherwise, are sufficiently quarantined as to be irrelevant.

I suppose like many people, part of the initial interest in Heidegger was sparked by a morbid curiosity to see what the Nazi was thinking. Having set Nazism aside as German Nationalism hypertrophied into German imperialism gone over the top, any statements of Heidegger that might recommend that became simply a cautionary tale; and I observed as remedy those applying ecological, biological metaphor and Aristotlian optimality over and against those moments of nationalistic overcompensation in Heidegger.

As for Joe’s talk of some sort of mystic satanist cult of Dasein that might infect the minds of those who so much as see the word, well it is of course insane.

My use of dasein is completely ordinary and everyday. However, I might like to add there-being as, as per Jim’s observation.

And of course GW made an excellent clarification in grasping the importance that Heidegger laid on form as well as process; as O’ Meara had retrieved MidtDasein.

Thus, we have the non-Cartesian there-being

there being as


there-being amidst the class.

very nice.

  The rest, if sufficient intellectual energy could be generated amid the decay of liberal belief, will follow the inevitable path of any turn towards the authentic.  We know it because we saw it in Italy and in Germany in the 20th century, despite the many inauthenticities in those ideological systems.  It was enough just for the mass of the population to orient itself away from the old system ... even just to harbour the hope of change.  It would be so again.

What can we do to meet this challenge?

It is evident that Italy and Germany gained popularity by assimilating a form of optimal leftism. Thus, they were sufficiently socially conscientious of ordinary and marginal concerns to gain the loyalty of the body politic.

However, sources that I trust have convinced me that National Socialist Germany stopped being on the night of the long knives. At that point it went into a mode of capitalist imperialism.

Hence, it would seem the objective is how to maintain an optimality of social basis along with authenticity, freedom and autonomy of the nation.

P.S. I do not at all agree with Leon’s assessment that Europe’s best was completely extinguished by the two world wars. It was a horrific set-back - a loss of 55 million Europeans in addition to vast treasures -
one that should not have happened: hence the absurdity of those who might suggest that we should not condemn Hitler for obvious errors in judgment (and not only where he want “wrong” for his strategic objectives, such as Dunkurque).

Radical measures are necessary, but the situation is not hopeless.

It is important to understand that America has been a Germanic country and therefore those Americans who sour on it will have a natural but incorrect tendency to believe that Nazism (i.e. German imperialism was/is the only or best possible response).

It should be possible for German nationalism to work symbiotically with other European nationalisms to defend ourselves as a collective; where that has not been the case one wonders of those who were killed leading such a cause, where they may have been defective of judgment for better solution than fratricide.

But neither was this culling of bad judgment a spirit completely extinguished by the two world wars - evidence the all too kind sentiments of Ex-Pro White Activists:

The park-shagging ostensible white skank “English women” are too busy interbreeding with African descended bucks to bring forth yet another generation of “English” j-lizard fool tools.

And this is justice.  They can only atone for their crimes against the white race by collectively ceasing to exist. Thus will be excised this incurably malignant tumor on the body politic of the white race. 

What a nice guy.


Posted by DanielS on Wed, 01 May 2013 02:31 | #

Speaking of fratricide, I think Graham’s talk of its tendency under certain circumstances (and how to avoid it - through “parental” guidance - ?) is a highly relevant and important concern.

By contrast, Joe’s incessant imposition of Jesus and God over and against secular thought is an inclination in a strain of Catholicism that I personally, have experienced all too much of: an attempt on the part of others to thwart thinking and replace it with obedience to “God” or whatever; i.e., an imposition to force something else or some others to do the thinking (those doing the thinking would amount to Jews, in the end).

I would guess that Joe is partly Jewish or somehow identifies a bit too much with Jews*, perhaps unbeknownst to itself, and that is why it tries so hysterically to deny White male being and replace it with worship of the quasi-Jewish religion of Christianity.

* Its tirade against blondes and its endorsement of Atzmon indicate something as such.



Posted by Thorn on Wed, 01 May 2013 06:00 | #

Is God dead? Only in the minds of the so-called “enlightened”.

Check out the “enlightened” white masses eschewing God whilst exalting their mulatto messiah.

The poster reads: “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” ~ Voltaire!/photo.php?fbid=546175795434132&set=a.455173781201001.130128.455139721204407&type=1&theater;


Posted by DanielS on Wed, 01 May 2013 06:17 | #

Is God dead (?) is not a question that I ask.


Posted by Joe on Wed, 01 May 2013 10:41 | #

****** Exciting Breaking News In The World Of Dasein ******

*** Exciting Breaking News For The “God Is Dead” Religion *** ;

Black Sabbath is About to Release their new hit single :

“God Is Dead” ;

Hurry, order your Dasein “religious hymn” today !!!!

More about bLacK SabBath and “god is dead” here :



Posted by Joe on Wed, 01 May 2013 11:17 | #

Black Sabbath’s “god is dead” new Dasein “religious hymn” fits in perfectly with the Dasein—“god is dead”— religious hymn genre in-toto ;

Another “sacred” “god is dead” Dasein “religious hymn”:

“Freises Dasein” ;

“Free-Be-There” :

How Up-Lifting!!!!!! How Transcendent!!!!!! How Inspiring!!!!!!

Is “Free-Be-There” considered Dasein “Sein Zum Tode ? Or, Dasein “Worldhood”?

Or, both?


Posted by Joe on Wed, 01 May 2013 11:29 | #

A hymn from the musical genre of Catholic religious hymns :

Adoro Te Devote ;

* I hope the Christian hymn is not too much of a “distraction” from your Dasein’s “black sabbath”.


Posted by Joe on Wed, 01 May 2013 11:51 | #

Two Catholic hymns on death, in gratitude for Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross to win for us Redemption and Salvation unto the Holy Creator, the Lord and Giver of Life :

“Absolve Domine” :

” O Lord, you have rescued my soul from hell” ;


Posted by Joe on Wed, 01 May 2013 14:23 | #

More Dasein music ;

Dasein “god is dead” music from the 60’s. It’s wasn’t so intense as black metal, still it was full of “god is dead” sentiments. “god is dead” was the ontological foundation for the 60’s cultural revolution.

The Beatle’s paean to the Satanist Aleister Crowley :

The Pied-Piper song [ read the description of the song ] Mr. Tambourine Man :

The Sound of Dasein Existentialist Silence :

Behind Blue Eyes,yet more Dasein existential angst :

My all-time favorite Dasein song. It reminds me of my hometown NYC , and my youth [ 1970’s New York City]:

Another kewl Dasein song :




Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 01 May 2013 14:26 | #

It’s so wonderful that the victims/rubes/true-believers of this atrocity propagating, superstitious, child abusing, blood-drinking, death cult continually confirm how rational and coherent they are when their mumbo-jumbo is questioned.

Look I’d call systematic child-rape and it covering-up for decade after decade evil. And yes the Nazi regime was pretty evil too – mostly for the death of 55 or so million bona fide Europeans on its head.

But all this Satanic talk gets a bit dull. After all isn’t the Satan the real hero of Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’?

Whatever, simply spraying that term around isn’t going to impress or convince many people other than those that already buy into Joe’s world-view.

OK so it’s true that some people, some of the time will read a Heidegger, or a Nietzsche, or a Hegel, or even a Darwin and treat all their words as quasi-Holy never to be questioned; admiration or interest can slip from critical engagement into cultist hero-worship.

Why we might even call that process idolatry but really crazy Voodoo adherents are in no position to lecture anyone on such matters; especially that those are praying to Saints every other five seconds or that think the Pope – a mere human being that puts his dress on one leg at a time like everyone else – is ‘infallible’ when discussing particular matters. Or that a book can be ‘error free’ in all it’s statements etc., just for the Protestants looking in.

A part of the unbelievably hysterical reaction of many religious (and ideologically driven) people to doubt and the expression of doubt is, of course, not a sign of a robust and secure belief system but must be the very opposite - that they themselves secretly acknowledge their beliefs to be extremely vulnerable to challenge. Call it an effect of cognitive dissonance perhaps? The disconnect between their own actually existing reality and their model of how the world ‘should be’.

In term of political theologies just look at how shrill most neo-liberals get when intelligently challenged.

Their only answer is the quasi-religious chant of “there is NO alternative”. Or “the market was never ‘free’ enough” etc.

And since when was it true that everyone who has ever read anything written by Heidegger is a card-carrying Nazi? Is this magical ‘mind-control’ power also at work in Schmitt too? Is it also the case that anyone that’s ever even looked at a book by Marx or a Marxist is also ipso facto ‘transformed’ into a card-carrying Stalinist? Such a view is very obviously infantile.



Yeah Voltaire is really on the side of Voodoo.

I think you’re missing the point very badly indeed.

Any individual can be religious in whatever way they like. Individual belief is possible – even if problematic. What isn’t on the agenda is that an entire culture and social-order, in an unquestioning and docile manner, simply and unproblematically gets its ‘master-narrative’ from such a source. For medieval peasants it would be more or less unimaginable and unthinkable that Voodoo wasn’t true. No-one, even the believer in modernity, let alone an entire social-order can return to such an ‘innocent’ state. We might well have other political theologies that everyone unreflectively believes in (the water the fish swim in) but that is another matter.

And since when did Christianity become a synonym for vulgar racism? Sure there can be such racists who call themselves Christians but then Christianity in turn can be used to powerfully critique such racism. Christianity is politically and ideologically quite a plastic phenomena. It can be ideologically used both by the powers that be and by the powers that not be (so to speak). It provides a justifying story for slave-holders – but it can also be used by the slaves too – often in politically radical ways. That’s just part of the historical record.

Now Joe and friends would say for example that black liberation theology was incorrect, wrong and so on.

Something like Cone’s ‘The Cross and the Lynching Tree’ would for, for the Joe’s and Haller’s of this world be, unspeakably misguided. And William Cavanaugh’s ‘Torture and Eucharist’ would equally be wrong-headed as Pinochet and his regime of thugs are heroes and solid neo-liberal citizens within the international community.

After all torturing women that might politically disagree and be ‘ideologically unsound’ by forcing starving rats into their vaginas is, of course, Nobodaddy’s work and his spirit in action, yes?

The point being that intra-Voodoo debate about the ‘true’ version of Voodoo tends to leave the rest of us to look on at an argument between two bald men over a comb. Watching nothing more than “my version of Voodoo is correct”, “why no mine is the true one” blah, blah, blah. As if anyone actually cares or is blind to the obvious ideological work of these, mostly superficial, alternative Voodoo narratives.

More broadly, people use narrative resources to conceptually and imaginatively ‘see’ a picture of the world.

Christianity was not merely one part of the picture but used to be symbolically ‘the frame itself’ that form in which picture sat within for European societies and thus, at least symbolically, illuminating the picture in all its parts. But that’s not the case now. The framework of modernity is a complex and somewhat incoherent mix of liberal, rationalistic, and naturalistic ontologies.

Hence, for example Spinoza’s transformation of ethics into geometry side by side with Hume’s claim that the only answer to the dilemmas of philosophy was to forget about them and play billiards instead (that is a joke by the way).

Blame Max Weber for the disenchantment of the world if you like or conjure up some dastardly J-lizard conspiracy (if it makes you feel better) but we are where we are.

It’s really no good being like the Irishman when asked how to get to Tipperary answered “well I wouldn’t start from here”.

The obscurantist ‘traditionalists’ suggested return to pre-modernity is rather like a 90 year-old man deciding to be a teenager again. Undignified, impossible, and ludicrous in its folly - he can only be a bad actor caricaturing his younger self.

The past, as the past, cannot be unproblematically recreated in all its ‘pristine glory’ by an act of will. Our radical historicity, as individuals and as a species, gets in the way of such schemes. That doesn’t mean the past is ipso facto ‘junk’ a la Richard Dawkins and his Whiggish historiography concerning human affairs, but I’ll leave that topic for another day.

So people want to disagree with the above, that’s OK. There is after all only so much discussion to be had before it becomes redundant to genuine communication.

People screaming ‘Satan’s work’ or ‘conspiracy’ or ‘Jew’ is one such end-point.

Oh and I cannot think of any cultural product more radically evil than Mr. Tambourine Man . . . well the version ‘sang’ by William Shatner naturally.

In the jingle jangle morning. . .


Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 May 2013 02:08 | #


Gilder mentions “science and technology, religion and life” as means through which we can understand truth.  He omits mathematics.  You might find Alain Badieu’s employment of set theory in ontology interesting:

When you speak of the recreative drive/act you are, I take it, doing so from the perspective of “new life” as continuity, which is to say from the exoteric notion that Nature herself functions to subsist in the teeth of Time/Entropy.  As inquiry, this is different to, but ought to prove the same as, the direct, experiential approach I am advocating - different in that the material and the spiritual (or appearing and being, in Badieu’s more supple terms) are mutually exclusive worlds; the same in so much as the level of general unity (or foundation) at which they coalesce, and obey the same laws, should, even must, exist.

Personally, I cannot venture much into examination of the proofs of unity.  The language is unknown to me.


Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 02 May 2013 06:30 | #

Dr. Lister is simply incorrigible. Note how I have directed questions and comments to him which he refuses to address. Sure, he provides us with his longwinded, repetitive diatribes, but he does not address any serious points, preferring to debunk mostly ‘strawmen’. Very tiresome.


Posted by Thorn on Thu, 02 May 2013 06:41 | #

I know thoughtful Christians – I have some in my circle of friends and acquaintances. No problem there.

But they aren’t the type that believe in the rapture. Or speaking in tongues, or in Papal infallibility, or that Europe is nothing more than a synonym for Christianity, or any other form of obviously banal nonsense.

Dr. L,

Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place?

Of course I agree with all of that. People that beleive in such nonsense as what you’ve noted are pathetic fools IMHO. Moreover, since I was a tween I rejected the literal translation of the Bible. I regard the Bible as a deeply flawed history book which was manipulated, mistranslated, edited for the purpose of capturing the minds of the vulnerable.

That said I DO believe there is a divine creator; and I DO think the Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration narrative is the best overall belief system out there. That’s the difference between your worldview and mine. I reject the notion that the universe and man came into being without the hand of a supernatural entity guiding its creation. Your faith informs you that the universe, for no rhyme or reason, created itself. I find that to be utterly ridiculous thus I reject it out of hand.

Secondly I strongly believe Christianity (even in this day and age of advanced science) has great utility in fending off the cultural-Marxist attacks on whites.

There are at least three attack vectors that the cultural-Marxists use in their war against Western civilization/:

1. Attacking the family

2. Attacking private property

3. Attacking Christianity

Of course a solid foundation of Christian moral values (not the Benny Hinn type VooDoo) has, thus far, proven to be the most effective countervailing force strong enough to fend off such attacks. Gramsci knew that! So did the Frankfort School Jews know it!

In a multicultural environment, (such as the USA), Christianity and capitalism are necessary for the white race to survive. Absent those two elements in our culture, the white race will be completely subsumed and consumed in a culture of radical-egalitarianism (equal outcomes between the genders and racial groups rather than equal opportunity), radical-individualism (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification) and a racial-socialist “anti-racist” system of laws designed to discriminate against whites —especially white-males. I need not spell out the long term consequences of this toxic environment; we’ve all deduced the outcome decades ago.

Just one last addition. WRT capitalism and Christianity in an advanced state of a multicultural/multiracial society (such as it is in the USA), Leon Haller’s theses are spot on.


Posted by Silver on Thu, 02 May 2013 13:58 | #


And what was the Meaning of Life according to Eagleton?

He didn’t offer any conclusions, sorry.  I really thought he might have and was interested in what he’d have to say, which is why I read it in the first place, but it wouldn’t have been appropriate for the “Very Short Intro” series, which attempts to maintain a neutral tone.  But it is a useful tour through various ways of thinking about the question. 

But he’s rather useless on race.  The race-via-leftsist communitarianism approach is even more vague on what the magic connection or spark is supposed to be than Haller’s race-via-Christianity. (Silver)

Elaborate, please. What about my position is inadequate or missing?

I didn’t mean to mention your name there. It just popped up in my mind, I guess, because of the connection/dispute with Lister.  The value of your approach or desire to square WN with basic Christian concerns and principles, or to motivate conservative white Christians to adopt a racial stance can’t seriously be critiqued.  (It’s not as if there’s alternative, lol.) 

The race-via-Christianity approach is a different animal. It urges whites to reconnect to their Christian routes and promises that by so doing a desire to preserve/defend their race will consequently blossom.  In other words, don’t mention race, just expect it as an outgrowth of Christian commitment.  The obvious question is just what is supposed to be the catalyst here?  What is the connection between the two that the former should naturally give rise to the latter?  The same questions can be put to leftist communitarians.  Have them explain just how leftist communitarianism is supposed to give rise to white racialism. 

Personally, while I don’t think playing dumb about race can hope to achieve anything, I can see how a commitment to a Christian identity could lead to a commitment to other forms of shared identity, the most important of which are nation/race.  That is, the idea that someone already committed one form of shared identity (eg Christianity), and reaping the benefits of a life organized to reflect that commitment, could seek out other forms of shared identity or would be better placed to comprehend arguments put to him in favor other forms of shared identity than he would otherwise be.  A similar case could be made for leftist communitarianism, but I just don’t see that there is nearly enough ‘oomph’ in what leftist communitarians ‘share’ with each other that would give impetus to movement towards shared racial identity.  Maybe Lister could explain.


Posted by Silver on Thu, 02 May 2013 14:18 | #

1. Did Jesus exist as an historical personage, and was He crucified?

There’s certainly good reason to doubt it, I think.  Extra-biblical evidence of Jesus’s existence is scarce indeed and what there is can be fairly considered fabricated or hopelessly corrupted or extremely tenuous.  Then there’s the New Testament writings from earliest to latest (chronologically) showing a fairly clear progression from disembodied, biography-less resurrecting godman (Paul) to a fleshed out Jewish carpenter from Nazareth (Gospels and others).  Believers, unsurprisingly, tend not to be swayed by such arguments, but I think most skeptics find the line of reasoning persuasive, or at least intellectually respectable.

For my part, I consider myself a Christian of sorts.  Regarding the ‘Jesus myth’ position as eminently tenable would clearly discredit my claim in the eyes of most, but I defend it by ‘having faith’ in Jesus, even if I don’t ‘believe’ in Jesus or the Resurrection (that is, the way I believe facts about the world discerned through the evidence of my senses, or the way I believe historical facts like the reality of WWII).  For me, the paucity of evidence of a real historical Jesus only adds to the whole ineffable ‘mystery’ of Christ and Christianity. 

Skeptics and true believers alike can scoff at this—and in my life many have and do—but it works for me and to me that’s enough.


Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 May 2013 14:27 | #

GW, thanks for the reference to Badiou.  Although set theory is a wrong-headed approach (ZF can be shown to be a formal digression relative to identity) it may be an alternate, and more fruitful, path to bringing Heidegger’s “as structure” into my universe of discourse/ontology.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 May 2013 16:34 | #

I’m just skim-reading an essay on Eagleton’s recent ‘theological turn’ and the of topic of Alain Badiou was brought up by the author.

This seems to be pithy summary of Badiou’s views.

“The shining idea in Alain Badiou’s view of ethics is subjective fidelity to the unique truth of an ‘Event’. Badiou’s point is not that we entertain the significance and value of an Event’s occurrence in the light of some wider contextual canvass that alone makes sense of it. That would be the kind of reasoning - Symbolic thinking, of course - that, along with his French confrères, Badiou finds both inadequate and pusillanimous. In Badiou’s alternative ontology, Events cannot be calibrated with the ‘situations’ that they puncture because they are not knowable generalities, or markers of emergent processes within a single stable world; rather they are singular irruptions that constitute and reconstitute worlds. The ethical purport of Events is not decidable as such, either according to pre-existing reference points, or by dint of some postulated externality. Events confront and determine us, our ethical and epistemological subjectivity formed and defined in anticipatory commitment to their force.”

There might be something of interest here but I don’t know. Badiou in his Platonism and ultra-abstract mathematical ontology, with its utter disdain for our animality, the ‘ontology of the flesh’ and so on, is not my cup of metaphysical tea.

But as for reading Badiou himself, I only have a half-read (at best) copy of Badiou’s study of Paul –

Perhaps he is someone to take another look at?

Alas time is always limited and there is only so much that any person can usefully read and engage with.

Maybe Leon Haller could review the Saint Paul study for MR?


Badiou claims that Christianity is radically universal - the foundation of universalism as such - in its ontology and ethics etc., and Mr. Haller is of a different view.

Pointing out Badiou’s errors (if they are errors) would be illuminating for everyone.


Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 May 2013 17:11 | #


You are quoting from this?

Here is an essay by two guys critiquing mathematics as ontology.  Alan Sokal has done the same, though he has form:


Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 May 2013 18:02 | #


No I was quoting from an essay called ‘Mr Love and Justice’ about Eagleton.

It’s here -

It just had a paragraph or two about Alain Badiou in the context of what Eagleton thinks of him and his views.

I’m just too much of a grubby ‘in the dirt’ physicalist/materialist of an Aristotelian bent to ever take Platonism that seriously.

Plato himself is of course worth reading but the later followers/schools I’m not so sure about. The Republic is really interesting (without endorsing everything within its pages).

But I’ll admit I’m no philosopher.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 May 2013 21:23 | #

Not to bore people to death but this is from ‘The Tablet’

“This divergence in Kierkegaard’s intellectual heritage is not merely arbitrary. For he was among the first Christian thinkers really to grasp – existentially as well as intellectually – that, after the Enlightenment and the democratic revolutions of the nineteenth century, Christianity could no longer be assumed to be the fallback position of any well-meaning citizen. Here, however, we encounter a major stress point in his thinking. On the one hand, he regarded many aspects of modernity with horror and some of his remarks about modern science, women’s emancipation, democracy, and nineteenth-century “progress” come fairly close to the views expressed in the “Syllabus of Errors”. On the other hand, he seems to have realised that attempts to restore the ancien régime were doomed to fail, intellectually and socially. We can’t go back behind the Enlightenment by invoking an authority that has lost its power to compel. Christianity may have significant reservations and criticisms vis-à-vis the ideologies of modernity, but it needs to recognise the reality of what has been called the condition of modernity.”

And in other news . . . the individualism and alienation of our age has spawned a culture of death.

And which nation is the most ideologically and culturally committed to ‘individualism’ in all things I wonder?

A clue - it isn’t Denmark.

Really someone should inform Pat Robertson, Krista Tippett, Ralph Reed, Ted Haggard, James Dobson, Joyce Meyer and all our American friends at MR like Joe and those of a similar mindset.


Posted by Jon on Fri, 03 May 2013 05:37 | #

Thorn: “Check out the “enlightened” white masses eschewing God whilst exalting their mulatto messiah.”

They were softened up by the thoroughly Christian doctrine that Darkies have souls worth saving and explicit Pauline instructions to proselytise to them. Such doctrine is enough reason to reject Christianity on its face, never mind its origins or questions about resurrection or whether the Christian godhead is “dead”. If any of us is to have a religion, better it be explicitly racially exclusive. If our ancestors hadn’t tried to Christianise the Third World, we wouldn’t have half the problems we are now facing.


Posted by Thorn on Fri, 03 May 2013 07:34 | #

They were softened up by the thoroughly Christian doctrine that Darkies have souls worth saving and explicit Pauline instructions to proselytise to them.

Sorry, but I regard that statement as typical anti-Christian sophistry ... even though it may have been well intended.;

What you see in the poster is the result of 80 years of cultural Marxist propaganda pounded into the heads of white people; political correctness writ large. It’s white guilt manifesting itself in a most racially suicidal expression. It is white folks who’ve bought into the notion that only white people can be racists and practicing racism is the most evil repugnant activity on the planet. Trotsky’s invention of the term racism, then the subsequent incessant “anti-racist” agitprop that the masses of whites have been subjected to have had their intended effects.

The “anti-racist” ideology of cultural-Marxism is to white people as the parasitic Gordian worm is to the cricket :

Bottom line:  It wasn’t Christianity that caused negro worship/ethnosuicide/ethnomasochism, it is the negative consequences of white people being subjected to 80 years of cultural-Marxist propaganda.


Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 03 May 2013 10:09 | #

And which nation is the most ideologically and culturally committed to ‘individualism’ in all things I wonder? (Lister)

In your strictures against radical individualism (which Christians and conservatives likewise reject), please do not conflate ontological with methodological individualism. Yes, the self is socially constructed, but it acts (obviously) individually. That radical individualism is dangerous to a nation’s collective survival, racially and militarily, doesn’t mean that radical collectivism isn’t also dangerous to a nation’s economic prosperity. 

All or nothing theories of both collectivism and individualism do violence to the nuances of social reality.


Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 03 May 2013 10:37 | #


Why are modern writers so unclear? I looked at that essay on Eagleton; tough sledding, it seems: eg,

Under the ‘sovereignty’ of the Symbolic, the ‘insistence’ of the Imaginary is held at bay, and ‘the closed sphere of the ego’ opens out into the field of regulated moral inter-subjectivity. It is the job of symbolic thought to endow normative interaction with objectivity and legitimacy, setting its roles and reactions within some universal conditions of possibility and difference. Just about any ‘modern’ theory could be made to fit this bill, and liberalism and utilitarianism are named as major ethical variants; but Eagleton settles on Spinoza and Kant as the quintessential expressions. Then, with striking acuity, Measure for Measure is presented as an escalating set of dilemmas in which the valences of the Symbolic are fatally disturbed by the relentless undertow of the Real. This is because—to generalize across the work—the emancipation and distance that are indeed enabled by the Symbolic order, so that we leave behind Imaginary forms of the ‘addiction to desire’, are themselves conditional upon the repression of sentience, fantasy and dependency. The Symbolic thus entails a profound estrangement of self, a ‘gash in our being’, a mortal contradiction between settled projects and untrammelled desire-for-itself.

Surely there are more intelligible ways to express these thoughts?


Posted by Jon on Sat, 04 May 2013 03:19 | #


I see you have no answer denying or affirming/explaining what I wrote about Christian doctrine other than dismissing of its entire contents, premise as well as conclusion as “sophistry”.

Christianity is no longer useful to Communists. But it was very useful to proto-Communists who would have Christians “love the little children of the world” like Jesus does.


Posted by Jon on Sat, 04 May 2013 03:47 | #

If Jesus appeared to Thorn and told him he should love all peoples of all races as He does, Thorn would say, “yes, Master”. If He did the same to me (and there were a sane government in place), I’d report Him to the immigration authorities.


Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 04 May 2013 04:01 | #

Jon, you have the understanding of Christianity as well as general maturity level of a teenager. Grow up.


Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 May 2013 05:10 | #

Christianity forces its advocates to be dishonest, as only convoluted and “imaginative” (read dishonest) interpretations of the text can have any function in reality.

That is the case as Leon proposes himself a shaman over the ouija board of Christian texts, a bewildering font of nonsense, perfect for beguiling the “losers” in cat and Mises individualism.

He may not be be Jewish, but it is Jew thinking chimera he is espousing:

He asks, “Why are modern writers so unclear?”

The same would be usefully asked of the Christian texts. Why aren’t they more clear? The answer is so that charlatans can deprive you of your birthright.

Jon is right.







Posted by Joh on Sat, 04 May 2013 07:28 | #

Haller: “Jon, you have the understanding of Christianity as well as general maturity level of a teenager. Grow up.”

Your post brings to mind this advice given to lawyers: when facts are against you, argue law; when aw is against you, argue facts.

You cannot refute the incontrovertible prima facie fact that Christianity is universalist religion that not only accepts as members but also actively recruits non-Europeans (because, I presume, you don’t wish to face or at least discuss the implications of this unfortunate and unchangable aspect of Christian doctrine and practise for the fitness for Christianity for continued existence of White people). So what else to do but attack how I express this inconvenient fact and differentiate myself from Thorn, instead?


Posted by Thorn on Sat, 04 May 2013 07:45 | #


Whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist or whatever .... since when is it a charactor flaw to love all peoples and races? Only a disturbed or very immature mind would hate other races for no other reason that they are the other.

There is nothing wicked or race traitorious in loving and respecting all races, in fact it’s a virtue. However, lets cut to the chase:  the only way there can be love and respect between the races is on the condition that they do not dwell amongst each other. I don’t think Jesus would have any problem whatsoever with the physical separation of the races HE CREATED. Not one bit. Why would He? Especially since it is universally known that close proximity between differing racial groups invariably breeds contempt. Jesus doesn’t want us to feel contempt for one another, quite the opposite. OTOH, Satan is all for race mixing! Satan loves contempt between the races!  Moreover, separation of the White race from all the other races is the core mission of White Nationalism. Hence, WN would be smiled upon by Jesus. Especially since it engenders harmony and love between the races.  wink


As usual, Leon is right.


DanielS is acting like an impertinent fool, as always.


Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 May 2013 08:02 | #

Thorn says Jesus created the races.


Posted by Jon on Sat, 04 May 2013 08:17 | #

Thorn: “Especially since it is universally known that close proximity between differing racial groups invariably breeds contempt.”

As in my philosophical heirarchy I hold religion in status below or equal to race my solution for that problem, a racially exclusive religion (for those so-inclined) is infinitely more elegant than your Christianity-based solution.

Not proseltysing to other races or even admitting them to our churches or other ritual spaces would go a long way toward keeping them separate (nowadays, would practically be a prerequisite for it).


Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 04 May 2013 08:40 | #

I’m bored by the topic but some last thoughts about Nietzsche. One serious thing we must learn from him is this: where is a critique coming from? What is the critic asking us to value? What will expresses itself in the critique? Almost no-one notices that, in Nietzsche’s parable of the death of God, it is “many of those who did not believe in God” who sneer at the madman-prophet, smugly certain that they have transcended religious beliefs. That they are post-theological subjects.

But, like Marx, Nietzsche understood that what was crucial was not the content of religious belief, but its form. Even in his nineteenth century, Christianity as content was effectively finished.

However Nietzsche, protested rather too much about his anti-Christianity and his rejection of it. Nietzsche was the inheritor of Christianity because he believed in history as Progress. It would be the Anti-Christ ubermensch who would emerge as the redeemer of history as such. A soteriological narrative in which the individual ‘will to power’ saves the world in some way.

Nietzsche in his radical ‘willpower’ is, of course, the ‘obscene’ recapitulation of the earlier liberal (Lockean etc.) subject and the underlying liberal ontology thereof.

Perhaps no social-order can actually live without a theology of some sort. But modern theologies are about never-ending wealth, progress, freedom etc., rather than crude takes on the old style Voodoo. And the conceptual links between modern liberal theologies and those of our version of old-time ‘Voodoo’ is precisely the question that needs to be asked.

Why all the evasive refusal to acknowledge the radical universality of Christianity?

Or even the willful ignoring of the facts on the ground. The demographic and cultural ‘centre of gravity’ of Christianity is rapidly moving to the ‘global South’.

The simple-minded view of Christianity = the West was never true anyway, it isn’t true now, and will not be true in future.



Jesus ‘created’ different ethnic groups etc., within the human species?

Seriously are you really that stupid that you think your Nobodaddy is some sort of mega-manufacturing super-creature that constantly tinkers with American football games and forms of biological differentiation?

99% of species on this tiny planet are already extinct. Is that part of the plan too?

Did Jesus make all the species and sub-species of the Coleoptera in the world just for a bit of fun on a boring Sunday afternoon?

No intellectually serious theist, an endangered species to be such, could possibly believe such rubbish.

Still most American Voodoo lovers do think that God is like a version of Uncle Sam only with really ‘kick ass’ powers, yes? Why God has a ‘special plan’ for the USA only he knows I guess.

I suspect if he was real he doesn’t have such a plan and doesn’t resemble an Uncle Sam figure (but with more magic).

And sensible people, of any political view, are supposed to ‘respect’ and pay lip service to such nonsense as Jesus as bio-engineer?


Posted by Thorn on Sat, 04 May 2013 08:46 | #


If Jesus is God and God created mankind, then it stands to reason Jesus created human biodiversity, no? Preserving what God created (HBD) is doing His will.

ow let’s look at it from a leftard’s POV (such as yourself, Danny): HBD = Diversity, and we’ve all be taught that “Diversity Is Our Strength!” 


Even the odious leftists’ clock can be right twice a day!



Posted by Thorn on Sat, 04 May 2013 08:51 | #


I beleive God created HBD via evolution.

Am I stupid for believing in evolution?


Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 May 2013 08:58 | #

You are quoting the Marxist left and attributing it to me, Thorn.

As I had suggested, you are dishonest.

Jewish interests, in their doublespeak say, “diversity is our strength.” ..what they mean by that, of course, is integration “is our strength”

I am a White/native European separatist. Against integration.

Of course I recommend an optimal level of human bio-diversity. But that implies stewarded separation. That is virtually the opposite of what the Marxists mean by diversity in practice and what the White left means by bio-diversity in word and in reality.


Posted by Thorn on Sat, 04 May 2013 09:02 | #


Maybe if you go back and read my comment @66 you’ll see that we agree with each other more than disagree .


Posted by Thorn on Sat, 04 May 2013 09:25 | #

Jewish interests, in their doublespeak say, “diversity is our strength.” ..what they mean by that, of course, is integration “is our strength”

100% correct, DanielS..



Another excellent vid from Incog Man:

What’s Up With Trayvon Martin?


Posted by Thorn on Sat, 04 May 2013 21:29 | #

Communism Is Conducive To Cannibalism. What’s New?

Is communism conducive to cannibalism? Of course. Immoral systems give rise to more of the same. Food shortages and starvation are byproducts of communism. The rest follows as sure as night follows day. Taboos fall by the way when one is starving. The Plymouth pilgrims, circa 1623, abandoned private property for communal ownership of the means of production. They starved.



Posted by Thorn on Sat, 04 May 2013 21:40 | #

The indomitable Miss B holds her head high even while she is being subjected to the oppression of the cold impersonal system. Strong lady that Miss B! She has the courage of her convictions. Something that’s rare nowadays.

Moving Days

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - April 28, AD 2013 9:15 PM MST

I’m moving so posts will be thin for a few days.

First, thanks to the buyer of the license plate for an amazing $1337. Once again, I am humbled.

Thanks also to all of the folks sending me emails telling me that I am a fraud and a thief and a moral degenerate for doing my estate sale auctions. Yes, I know. I can’t win. If I sell stuff I’m going to hell for being a money-grubbing fraud, and if I don’t do anything I am being prideful in not asking for help when it is needed, and there is nothing that sends a person to hell as quickly and surely as the sin of pride. So, yeah. It’s pretty much existential for me. Waking up breathing makes me a sinner. Please pray for me. Obviously.

And, just so you know, the hits keep on a-comin’. After being told by the phone company that they were charging me a $1200 cancellation fee, the next day the security system company told me that they were going to charge me a $1000 termination fee.

The first punch didn’t quite destroy my kidney. Please, just punch me right there again. It’s cool. I have another kidney, so no prob.

But in all seriousness, this is just a testament to how far gone our culture is, and not just on the macro level. Fifty years ago people would never treat others like this. If someone went broke, or whatever, generally people didn’t kick them when they were down. If contracts became untenable, human decency kicked in and contracts were voided according to A.) common sense and B.) human decency.

This ruthless interpersonal behavior is a direct function of the decent into Marxist-Communism or whatever you want to call this. When human beings are reduced to economic units by the government, that eventually trickles down to the personal level. It is the ultimate irony. Capitalism tempered by Christian culture has a built-in incentive for people to be good to each other - in business it is called “goodwill”, and it is a very real asset. So while the Marxists lyingly claim that they will deliver a charitable, merciful culture, it is exactly the opposite. Marxism makes people ruthless, hard and unforgiving. Capitalism restrained by Christian culture yields the most fertile ground for charitable interpersonal dealings.
The funny thing is, if the security system company would have been cool about it, I would have totally plugged them here on the blog. They really were a good company in terms of their service. After I burned the koran I upgraded and added video surveillance and all the bells and whistles, and it was great. Too bad they blew the opportunity for massive “goodwill”.

And no, I won’t say their name in order to poison their well. I’ll just bear their hardness with a smile - thanks to all of you.

And now, a little jukebox goodness: Bonnie Raitt’s cover of “Runaway”. Heh.





Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 May 2013 02:51 | #

Thus, we have the non-Cartesian there-being

there being as


there-being amidst the class.

very nice.

I recall Heidegger talking a great deal about “care” with regard to Dasein.

That would apparently add an important qualitative element to Jim’s as structure.


Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 05 May 2013 06:13 | #

Why all the evasive refusal to acknowledge the radical universality of Christianity? (LISTER)

Because we’re all speaking different languages.

Christianity is only spiritually, not anthropologically, universalist. It posits that all men are presumptive brothers in Christ - that all share the same Maker, same ontological (but not anthropological, psychological, or sociological) nature, and same ultimate destiny (that of divine moral judgment).

It does not, putting things crudely, state that every nation needs to be ethnically diversified and integrated, especially when history as well as biology illustrates that such policies lead to conflict and harm; that whites collectively need to atone to nonwhites for their ancestors’ alleged sins (of course, if a white wrongs a nonwhite, then he must right that wrong - as must a nonwhite who wrongs a white, or a nonwhite who wrongs another nonwhite); that whites must never notice statistically significant differences in abilities or behavior between visibly biologically distinctive groups; that whites must ensure that nonwhites enjoy material equality with them; or that whites must extend the same ethic of care to nonwhites that they do to their fellow whites (not that this might not be individually laudable - the white missionary bringing the Gospel, literacy and irrigation techniques to some benighted savages - only that whites qua whites have no such collective duty; OTOH, the savages likewise have their own moral duties: to receive the Gospel with humility, and their benefactors with gratitude).

These ‘principles’ are liberal, not Christian. Liberalism represents not only a secularization but a bastardization of Christianity. Liberalism is a false imitation of real Christian morality and compassion. The classic example of a liberal is the politician who thinks he’s being compassionate by promising to give away other people’s money.

There’s so much more to all this - whole theologies of the virtues would need to be brought in for a full response - but Christianity is not a deathwish, either for the man or his community (whatever Nietzsche said - and who cares?).


Posted by Thorn on Sun, 05 May 2013 09:09 | #


Your attempt at trying to explain the difference between the principles of authentic Christianity and modern liberalism to the anti-Christs here at MR reminds me of Jamie Kelso’s valiant attempt at trying to get through to a group of young white “conservatives” WRT the grave consequences of not participating in the cause of preserving their own race.

Jamie Kelso at CPAC


Posted by Thorn on Sun, 05 May 2013 10:10 | #

The Pope and Godless Capitalism—Global Economy Impoverishes US Working Class, Kills Foreign Workers

By Patrick J. Buchanan on May 2, 2013 at 6:05pm

“This is called slave labor,” said Pope Francis.

The Holy Father was referring to the $40 a month paid to apparel workers at that eight-story garment factory in Bangladesh that collapsed on top of them, killing more than 400.

“Not paying a just wage ... focusing exclusively on the balance books, on financial statements, only looking at personal profit. That goes against God!”

The pope is describing the dark side of globalism.

Why is Bangladesh, after China, the second-largest producer of apparel in the world? Why are there 4,000 garment factories in that impoverished country which, a few decades ago, had almost none?

Because the Asian subcontinent is where Western brands—from Disney to Gap to Benetton—can produce cheapest. They can do so because women and children will work for $1.50 a day crammed into factories that are rickety firetraps, where health and safety regulations are nonexistent.

This is what capitalism, devoid of a conscience, will produce.

Read more>>


Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Sun, 05 May 2013 11:51 | #


Jamie Kelso’s valiant attempt at trying to get through to a group of young white “conservatives” WRT the grave consequences of not participating in the cause of preserving their own race.

Jamie Kelso at CPAC

vDare’s excellent post-election disaster coverage plainly exposed the deeper force$ at work.  If those individuals HAD expressed the slightest sympathy with Kelso then they would have been blackballed from feeding at the hog swill troughs filled by Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer et al and tended by Karl Rove, Dick Morris and that ilk. 

Instead these 3d rate losers personally prospered while presiding over contributory disasters like “Orca” poll watching software and similar head-in-the-ass nostrums designed to conceal the lack of a motivated base from everyone, including themselves.

I’m sure almost all of them have since pushed on to promoting Comprehensive Immigration Reform and outreach to the tens of millions of black and mestizo voters they believe are straining at the leftist leash to join the GOP.

Of course Kelso himself displayed a most similar confusion over campaign tactics and loyalties.  For most the campaign Ron Paul was far more prominent on Kelso’s White News Now website than the A3P’s official candidate, Merlin Miller.

These incidents are merely two recent examples among thousands forming the basis of my unalterable hostility to all top-down organizing for white people.


Posted by Jon on Sun, 05 May 2013 12:23 | #

Leon: “Christianity is only spiritually, not anthropologically, universalist.”
It does not, putting things crudely, state that every nation needs to be ethnically diversified and integrated, especially when history as well as biology illustrates that such policies lead to conflict and harm!

Of course it says nothing about anthropology. Any more than an anthropology text would have anything to say about the nature and state of one’s immortal soul. But I’d have the reverse problem with an anthropologist who concluded that Blacks and Whites are exactly the same from the neck-up. It wouldn’t make a bit of difference to me if he believed that only Whites are his spiritual brothers and only they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Christianity’s domain is spiritual. That a Black believer is your “brother in Christ” (or even is allowed as a member of you sect) says all about Christianity I need to know.


Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 May 2013 12:55 | #

Of course I recommend an optimal level of human bio-diversity. But that implies stewarded separation. That is virtually the opposite of what the Marxists mean by diversity in practice and what the White left means by bio-diversity in word and in reality.

This statement of mine was not well considered. It’s grandiose. While some non-Whites are less offensive to me than others, I don’t want to pretend to be particularly concerned about them beyond their not negatively impacting the common environment and European people otherwise.

The optimal human biodiversity that I am concerned for is that among native Europeans.


Posted by Thorn on Sun, 05 May 2013 14:44 | #

These incidents are merely two recent examples among thousands forming the basis of my unalterable hostility to all top-down organizing for white people.

Man am I with you on that!

I had a glimmer of hope in 1994 when the GOP regained both the House and Senate. I thought FINALLY! Finally “conservatives” can beat back the tide of destruction and degeneracy the liberal order has wrought on just about every aspect of our culture and institutions. But that feeling of victory was short lived. Soon thereafter it became all too evident the game was rigged. The two party system operated as one. The same tax and spend, expansion of government, and pandering to minorities not only stayed the same but steadily increased. Then along came the TEA Party (Taxed Enough Already) protesters; which, of course, the movement was almost immediately co opted by the ruling class. As little as a year after the TEA Party got started, their rallies looked more like a celebration of diversity and multiculturalism than organised protests against an ever expanding and overly oppressive government.

What to do now?

I have no good practical answers.

In the mean time we can give tribute to the late George Jones and Tammy Wynette. (RIP)

Cue the music, maestro:



Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 May 2013 15:52 | #

Of course I could be wrong but I recall the ‘Tea Party’ in its very early days was a protest against Wall Street and their outrageous blackmailing of the ordinary US taxpayer – “money or else!” was the cry from Goldman Sachs et al. One of the largest redistributions of wealth upwards in human history had just been pulled off.

However, focus was soon moved away from the machinations of the state-finance nexus and the ‘Tea Party’ became some sort of bone-headed, anti-government, douche-baggery – with the Becks and Palin’s of the world on board for the ride.

Ideologically, the vast majority of calls for ‘smaller government’ are a not so subtle code for more ‘free-marketry’ in all things – notable exceptions might be to roll back the surveillance state – which I would agree with.

Anyway the Koch brothers and other plutocrats soon hijacked the ‘Tea Party’.

See more here

and the follow up references such as

OK so ‘leftist bias’ J-lizards at work etc., but why would people like the Koch siblings be so interested in influencing the politics of the ‘Tea Party’ to the extent of investing millions of dollars? Assume they are rational actors – what’s in it for them and other plutocrats?

Hardly ‘grass-roots’ or ‘bottom-up’ politics is it?

Everyone that’s not brain-dead knows that the US political system is dysfunctional and morally corrupt.

Elite political actors are all for sale to the highest bidder(s).

The only thing the politicos have to offer is ‘voting the right way’ etc., should they be elected.

Clinton probably was told he could not dare risk upsetting the bond market upon winning in 1992. Not that he had any principles to ‘sell out’ in the first place. See Christopher Hitchens’ ‘No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton’ ( for all the gory details.

Plutocrats, Wall Street and corporate America have very deep pockets indeed.

Sure there is intra-elite competition and antagonism over policy - but such strata are far more united by what interests they share in common than by what divides them. But its not a conspiracy, simply a far tighter level of co-ordination and clear sighted pursuit of such goals among an interest group - the special interest to end all special interests - than the plebs have thus far managed to achieve.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 May 2013 16:21 | #


Oh and this is your ruling class in all their youthful ‘splendour’.

The Yale Spizzwinks sing Lady Gaga

After watching that if you really think such people are your ‘natural’ superiors then God help you.

Was Haller a ‘Spizzwink’?

I know undergrads have a tendency to be totally obnoxious dicks but seriously?

Mind you we have the notorious Bullingdon Club and the like.

Well that’s totally off topic so ignore it.


Posted by Thorn on Sun, 05 May 2013 19:38 | #


I know wikipedia isn’t the most reliable source, but in this case it is.

“The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending and taxes, and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit. The movement has been called partly conservative, partly libertarian, and partly populist.”

Of course leftists regard that as “racist” because any reduction in the growth of government translates ( in their twisteted minds) as a restriction in the “racial minorities” avenue toward upward social mobility.

FACT: Groids can’t compete in the open marketplace! They need taxpayers money and affirmative action laws in order to artificially elevate them into the middle class.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 May 2013 20:23 | #

Just a note on ideas of moral realism and non-theism.

Some philosophers do defend such a position. An examples of such non-theistic neo-objectivism can be found in Paul Bloomfield’s ‘Moral Reality’.

The neo-Aristotelian approach typified by Bloomfield construes moral properties as concerned with human flourishing, and having the same ontological status as ‘healthiness’; but this appears to require, for the traditional theist, the unacceptably relativistic conclusion that rightness or wrongness depend on the contingencies of evolutionary development of adaptations in species via the process of natural selection. Bloomfield compares on how, under different population and survival conditions, sibling rivalry might have turned out to be morally good: well sibling rivalry – even of a lethal type – IS adaptive under certain conditions and observed in many species within nature.

Another different and highly sophisticated form of Aristotelian neo-objectivism, is championed by John McDowell.

Personally. I have little problem in broadly agreeing that we have an ‘Aristotelian moral nature’ because of the type of natural creatures we are. Our moral capacities are a product of natural selection and under certain bounded condition are adaptive. Of course we, as interpretative and linguistic creatures, are open to internally misreading or misunderstanding them, along with such moral capacities being externally manipulated by others against our own best interests in morally, emotionally, psychologically, and ultimately physically unhealthy ways. Hence, alienation can occur in both these ways and of course they may be interdependent and complimentary in a myriad of complex and subtle ways.

Again the relationship between subjective, or culturally ‘thick’ virtues and objective virtues within the Aristotelian tradition is itself a complex one for both critics and defenders of virtue ethics. Very much over-simplifying but my own feelings are that there is a nested hierarchy involved; courage, for example, exists in all human cultures and in that sense is both universal and is an objective human phenomenon; however its precise expression, via concrete particulars - cultural values, praxis, symbols etc., is quite plastic. For the European the widespread Native American practice of ‘counting coup’ in battle and in doing so risking injury or death seems bizarre – yet for the plains Indians it was one of the most profound expressions of courage imaginable.

But as I say these are very complex issues that are hard to discuss fully in a short comment or two on a website. However, I’m in sympathy with Alasdair MacIntyre’s suggestion that the ‘plain person’ is a proto-Aristotelian, (or underdeveloped one) and that this reflects the basic ‘grain’ of human nature (but not quite the entirety of human nature - we are also, at our worst capable, of being extraordinarily cruel and viscous ‘killer apes’ – however even then the issue is are we being ‘killer apes’ for a mistaken interpretation of virtue?).

Well that’s as clear as mud.

But it’s late here and I’m going to get some sleep and enjoy the delayed May Day holiday - viva the workers of all nations!

I do hope that last comment greatly offends and annoys Mr. Haller.



Well I can’t say I follow the ‘Tea Party’ in immense detail. I’m sure others, if they wish to, will express a view on the authenticity (or not) of the whole thing.


Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 06 May 2013 04:01 | #

But it’s late here and I’m going to get some sleep and enjoy the delayed May Day holiday - viva the workers of all nations!

I do hope that last comment greatly offends and annoys Mr. Haller. (Lister on May 5, 2013)

Hey, pal!

You really must be a Scotsman. Yesterday, while you were belatedly if unsurprisingly celebrating Marx Day, we real Americans were whoopin it up for .... Cinco de Mayo, of course!

Biggest holiday of the year in LA.


Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 06 May 2013 04:07 | #

The essence of ethics is personal sacrifice in the service of the Good. What is the Good? That which promotes human flourishing without non-defensive aggression against others.

PS - MacIntyre is a Catholic. Is that of relevance?


Posted by Thorn on Mon, 06 May 2013 08:34 | #

Silver wrote: “For my part, I consider myself a Christian of sorts.  Regarding the ‘Jesus myth’ position as eminently tenable would clearly discredit my claim in the eyes of most, but I defend it by ‘having faith’ in Jesus, even if I don’t ‘believe’ in Jesus or the Resurrection ...”

That’s exactly how Muslims regard Jesus.

Were you brought up in a Muslim family?


Posted by Silver on Mon, 06 May 2013 16:25 | #

Thorn, you’re a fucking idiot and you seem intent on remaining one for life.

Muslims don’t ‘have faith’ that Jesus is the son of God (or equal to God himself), you intensely idiotic imbecile.  I don’t have very much faith in that proposition, either, fwiw, but I’m willing to go along and claim that I have at least some.  (‘Being spiritual’ seems a better way to live and I figure I may as well access the spiritual realm through the religious tradition I’m most familiar with, for the communal benefit if nothing else.)  The point I was attempting to make was that ‘having faith,’ in this sense, is rather distinct from ‘believing’ that something is the case (since belief, in this sense, rests on a solid foundation of evidence, whereas faith, as is clear, can happily fly in the face of evidence).


Posted by Thorn on Mon, 06 May 2013 17:18 | #

Silver, you filthy Pakistani liar!

You, like all Muslims, don’t beleive in Jesus’ Resurrection. How can you beleive Jesus is the Son of God if you don’t beleive Jesus was crucified, died then Resurrected?  Did you actually think that little mistake you made would go unnoticed?

Here is what you and your fellow muzzies beleive about Jesus WRT His Crucifiction and Resurrection:

Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified.  It was the plan of Jesus’ enemies to crucify him, but God saved him and raised him up to Him.  And the likeness of Jesus was put over another man.  Jesus’ enemies took this man and crucified him, thinking that he was Jesus.  God has said:

...They said, “We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but the likeness of him was put on another man (and they killed that man)...  (Quran, 4:157)

Who’s the idiot now?


Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 06 May 2013 17:28 | #


You’re probably of the “I’d prefer God exists, but with the evidence on hand, I’m just not sure” variety. Basically, a modern man of the West (maybe I don’t even need to add “of the West”). From there, it’s “well, why not believe and be good: if the Christian God exists [and it’s really unlikely any other god does; they’re all philosophically untenable], I’ll be rewarded in the hereafter, and if not, my consciousness will be extinct, so I won’t know I was a sap in life.” [Pascal’s wager, more or less.] Meanwhile, “I’m a peaceable and sociable guy, so “being good” (as long as it doesn’t involve horrendous sacrifices, where the “rubber meets the road”, so to speak)n is really my preferred course of action anyway.”

I might be there, too, and was for a long time. But the more I studied the matter (and, perhaps, just gained more life experience), the more I have come to believe in the historicity of Christ, and the (fundamental) truth of the NT witness. I wrote about this above @12, so I will only reiterate that I don’t think the Christian ‘story’ would have survived all this time if it were false. It strikes me as psychologically and narratively true, even if radical sceptical objections cannot be definitively answered (but when can such objections to anything ever be answered? Can Lister prove - I mean PROVE, at the level of formal logic or mathematics - that he’s ‘embodied’, not merely a brain in a vat?). 

Anyway, on a more prosaic level, to save the white race, whites need to find maximum common ground amongst themselves. I think all this search for ‘positive’ grounds for nationalism is not only a waste of scarce time, but needlessly divisive. All whites are never going to agree on a common metaphysics. But I think we can get majorities (or at least a majority, somewhere - cf White Zion) to agree that coercive racial diversification via immigration and totalitarian legal integration is undesirable, as well as that the sociological problems besetting nonwhites in white majority countries are their own fault (or at least due to their own biological and behavioral inadequacies), and not ours.


Posted by Thorn on Mon, 06 May 2013 18:23 | #


Just like n/a and J Richards did a google search about you, I did one on Silver. It seems there are some glaring “contradictions” surrounding this charactor. He claimed he’s a Paki then denied it. Then claimed he is Serbian but insists he is not white. WHAT? Are Serbs not white? I know Pakis aren’t white but Serbs aren’t white either? Paleeeeeease!

I admit I’m not the brightest bulb at MR but judging by Silver’s reaction to my VERY legitimate question clearly reveals I hit a very sore spot with him. Meaning: asking if he was brought up in a Muslim family hits too close to the truth that he is of Pakistani extraction.

Just admit you are a muzzie Paki, Silver. Nobody is going to hold it against you. I promise you that! (wink)

C’mon Sliver, fess up.

Fess, Silver, fess!



Posted by Jon on Tue, 07 May 2013 02:53 | #

Leon: “...if the Christian God exists [and it’s really unlikely any other god does; they’re all philosophically untenable]...”

Since nothwithstanding the implicit and explicit claims therein, there is no evidence that God wrote any religious books, you limit the discussion there to those gods demarkated and delimited by humans. A third possibility: god(s) exist and it/they is/are nothing like anything anyone has ever written or said. Any attempt to describe what we call a god is “philosophically untenable”, like an ant’s model of a human being.


Posted by Jon on Tue, 07 May 2013 03:26 | #

Leon: “I don’t think the Christian ‘story’ would have survived all this time if it were false.”

That’s a non-sequitur. And I suppose that powerful and well-organised political figures, starting with Constantine, finding it useful to their puropes or being behind it for some other reason (like finding themselves born into its millieu) had nothing to do with its endurance.


Posted by Thorn on Tue, 07 May 2013 07:19 | #

Recently Speaker Boehner’s daughter’s groid fiance was busted for possession of marijuana.—arrested-possessing-marijuana.html

now this:

Paul Ryan Backs Adoption by Homosexuals

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), the 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate, used to oppose adoption of children by homosexuals but now says it is okay for gays to adopt kids and that he would vote to support such a policy.

The Catholic faith, which Ryan professes, teaches that such adoptions “are contrary to the divine plan” of God and Pope Francis has said that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children




Posted by Thorn on Tue, 07 May 2013 07:43 | #

How Germany is being erased

35% of German Muslims have multiple wives, all funded by welfare

The average German family struggles financially with large tax burdens and as a result have only 1.3 children per family due to high financial costs. One of the lowest rates in Europe Meanwhile Muslim immigrants have as many as 3-4 wives, perhaps 6-7 children from each wife, and all of this is funded by welfare as none of these wives work.



Posted by Thorn on Tue, 07 May 2013 08:28 | #

C’mon audience, let’s give it up for the ‘Gang of Eight Quislings’  (lemmings applauding)

Study pegs cost of immigration bill’s mass legalization at $6.3 trillion

The comprehensive immigration overhaul being taken up in the Senate this week could cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion if 11 million illegal immigrants are granted legal status, according to a long-awaited estimate by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The cost would arise from illegal immigrants tapping into the government’s vast network of benefits and services, many of which are currently unavailable to them. This includes everything from standard benefits like Social Security and Medicare to dozens of welfare programs ranging from housing assistance to food stamps

Read more:


Posted by Thorn on Tue, 07 May 2013 08:38 | #

We must to grant amnesty to 11 million third world muds to do the jobs Americanos won’t do.

Postal workers too scared to deliver mail in crime-ridden Brownsville, Brooklyn

Snow, rain and gloom of night might not slow Brownsville mailmen down — but gangbangers sure will.

Postmen are too scared to deliver letters and packages to one of Brooklyn’s most crime-ravaged neighborhoods, a US Postal Service worker told The Post yesterday.

“The neighborhood is bad,” the worker said outside the Brownsville Station Post Office on Bristol Street. “I wouldn’t want to go into those buildings.”

Read more>>


Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 07 May 2013 14:47 | #

“Can Lister prove - I mean PROVE, at the level of formal logic or mathematics - that he’s ‘embodied’, not merely a brain in a vat?)”

I’d would still be a physical phenomenon even as a brain in a vat and I’m not sure the feeling of being a self-aware conscious being could simply be an illusion or con-trick. The grammar of the argument is revealing. If consciousness is an illusion, mere folk-psychology etc., whom is the subject that is being conned? True the brain in vat might be tricked into what it’s thinking about - the content - but not the fact that it’s thinking as such.

However, answering such questions are above my pay grade.

I doubt the radical skeptic would be moved by mathematics or logic on the old “how do you know you’re not a brain in a vat?” issue. I think that’s to misunderstand the question.

Look it comes down to this is it a scandal we haven’t proved the existence of the external world or is the scandal that we ever doubted its existence in the first place?

Various forms of radical solipsism and associated forms of radical skepticism can’t be fully defeated philosophically but very few philosophical positions are ‘water-tight’ or knock-down, and very few are completely void of any possibility of being somewhat plausible - except Ayn Rand’s nonsense obviously. Her ‘thought’ can’t seriously be called a philosophy at all.

It strikes me that much of philosophy seems to be about choosing the least worst option rather than some ‘absolutely correct’ position.

After all we could be in a virtual reality computer game - ‘Better than Life’ - or some such, or all of the personal and collective memories we have could have been implanted by some super-alien just 5 nanoseconds ago. But what can one do with such a view? It seems to contain an element of frivolous insincerity about it.

A skeptical eye towards religious claims seems a far more reasonable and modest brand of skepticism. With some powerful alternative explanations on offer for what’s ‘going on’ in religion (as a human phenomenon) in contrast to the internal narratives/explanations provided by the religions under consideration.

Perhaps Christianity is too significant to leave understanding it to the Christians themselves?


Posted by Jon on Wed, 08 May 2013 02:16 | #

Thorn: “Whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist or whatever .... since when is it a charactor flaw to love all peoples and races?”

Generally speaking, “people whom I love” and “people who I’d prefer live half a world away from me and mine” are mutually exclusive categories.


Posted by Thorn on Wed, 08 May 2013 07:57 | #


Separation of the races is a good thing. I’m for separation of the many subsets of Europeans on the European Continent too. I.e. England for the English, Sweden for the Swedes, Italy for the Italians etc. etc. I’m especially for the separation of people of European decent from those of non- European decent. Next in order, I’m for Caucasians maintaining separation from Negroids and Mongoloids.

Where you make a mistake, Jon, is proclaiming such inanities as “Negros do not have souls.” Even if you’re personally repelled by Negroes—as most of us are—don’t you think it’s unwise to express those terms out loud in the public square? Try to understand that proclaiming the odious notion that “Negroes do not have souls” is counter production to the WN cause ... in the extreme.

At the moment (for all the obvious reasons) WN suffers greatly from a negative public relations perspective. That need not be the case. Our position of stopping white genocide is of the highest ethical and moral order. We can overcome the anti-white propaganda if we play it smart; thus, in turn, stop white-genocide in its tracks. That’s WNs mission: stopping the ongoing white genocide, no?

Bottom line: Don’t play into their “anti-racist” hand by making stupid remarks. The last thing we want to do is give the bastards ammunition to shoot us with. Stupid remarks such as ” Negroes don’t have souls” legitimises and or lends credibility to the anti-white propaganda generated by Jewish activist groups such as the SPLC.


You may have already read this, Jon, but for those who haven’t, (especially those new to the subject of white genocide) it’s well worth the read.

Genocide by Stealth



Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 May 2013 08:11 | #

Talk about a concept without credibility: The concept of the soul is lame, period, let alone defending Negroes on its “grounds.”


Posted by Thorn on Wed, 08 May 2013 08:17 | #

Don’t listen to DanielS, Jon.

DanielS works for the SPLC and has a man crush on Mark Potok to boot.


Posted by Jon on Wed, 08 May 2013 09:20 | #

Thorn’s straw man:“Where you make a mistake, Jon, is proclaiming such inanities as “Negros do not have souls.”

I never said that.

What you call a “soul” I call “consciousness” or maybe conscience depending on emphasis. Obviously, Negros have consciousness (though its contents (generally) differ vastly from those of any other race).

Christianity’s fault above others, as I stated above is it concern for saving racial others’ souls.

My ideal religion (for those so inclined) is, like Judaism, exclusive and not concerned for any other than Europeans’ “souls”.


Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 May 2013 09:40 | #

Well said, Jon, very articulate.


Posted by Jon on Wed, 08 May 2013 09:52 | #

The big problem with Christianity as a basis for white survival is that Christians’ priorities are inverted. No only do Christians want Christianity to survive more than they do white people, they want all white people (so well as everyone else) to become Christians! (and yet many Christians talk as if us atheists, deists and Pagans who are fully committed to white survival were the problem—I suppose from their twisted perspective, we are.) If Christianity were racially exclusive, then, by definition this wouldn’t be such a problem. But because of Christianity’s universalism, it is a problem of huge proportions.


Posted by Thorn on Wed, 08 May 2013 11:13 | #

Nobody is talking about Christiany as the BASIS of white survival.

Look, we are in the midst of propaganda war in which the David Sirotas and Noel Ignatievs of the world are sucessfully demonizing the entire white race. They love to cast anyone who hints at being pro-white or pro white preservationists as ignorant bigots. Don’t make their job any easier for them.

Jon, if you hate Christianity so much, I suggest you join the cause of Micky Weinstein. Or should I say you and Danny should continue to support Micky Weinstein?

Rabid Anti-Christian Bigot Mikey Weinstein Called in by Pentagon to Repress Christianity

Huffington Post provides a sample of Weinstein’s anti-Christian bile:

Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.

Breitbart has more on the Pentagon’s “religious tolerance” consultant:

Weinstein decries what he calls the “virulent religious oppression” perpetrated by conservative Christians, whom he refers to as “monstrosities” and “pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers,” comparing them to “bigots” in the Deep South during the civil rights era.

He cites Dr. James Dobson — the famous Christian founder of Focus on the Family — as “illustrating the extremist, militant nature of these virulently homophobic organizations’ rhetorically-charged propaganda.” Regarding those who teach orthodox Christian beliefs from the Bible, Weinstein concludes, “Let’s call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters.”

Weinstein then endorses the ultra-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), who publishes a list of “hate groups.” Alongside truly deplorable organizations like the KKK, the SPLC’s list includes a host of traditional Christian organizations (for their support of traditional marriage) and Tea Party organizations (for supporting limited government). Weinstein says SPLC correctly labels them all as “hate groups.” …

Weinstein also supports Lt. Col. Jack Rich, the Army officer who wrote to subordinate officers that soldiers who hold traditional Christian beliefs agreeing with organizations on SPLC’s “hate group” list are incompatible with “Army values” and should be carefully watched and excluded from military service



Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 May 2013 11:44 | #

You are the one who is making it easy for Jews, Thorn. You would have MR be a tabloid neocon site.

There are plenty of sites which insist upon Christianity. You are welcome to go there. Please take Haller with you. You can both maintain your dedication to Zion as the last hope.


Posted by Jon on Wed, 08 May 2013 13:50 | #

If Mr. Weinstein has a problem with this, I would consider joining him. Somehow, I doubt he does.

Look, there is much about traditional Christian morality for liberals to hate (though many Christians would have us believe that before Christianity none of its elements existed among Europeans—that sexual family morality are Christianity’s wonderful gifts—that before mass conversion, Europeans lived like savages).

The day the Pope proclaims that Christ’s salvation is exclusively for Europeans and none others are welcome in the Church is the day that I confess my sins, take communion, get baptised and beg Jesus for forgiveness. Every day until then I will, as an honourable and moral man, oppose it.


Posted by Thorn on Wed, 08 May 2013 14:12 | #

I don’t ‘insist’ on Christianity, Danny. I insist on sanity and objectivity and white racial solidarity.

Secondly I just got through attacking Jewish supremacism and you respond by accusing me of wanting to turn MR into a “tabloid neocon site”? What kind of logic is that? Or I should say your logic is conspicuously absent.

Pentagon consults with Jewish extremist who calls Christians “monsters” and “enemies” to develop tolerance policy


Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 May 2013 15:14 | #

Thorn, just because some Jews, perhaps a majority even, hate Christianity doesn’t mean that it is good for Whites and it does not mean that clever Jews and Jew thinkers cannot and do not use it against Whites.

That is like the teenager who does something just because his parents object to it.


Posted by Thorn on Wed, 08 May 2013 16:32 | #

Danny, most white people are inherently defective WRT racial solidarity. They simply don’t have what it takes to fend off the “anti-racist” ideology. Christianity, or belief in God, is not the cause of that defect. I contend our defectively rooted in our DNA. As the theory goes: over the course of history, the evolutionary process imbued whites with genetically based behavioral traits that are not adaptive in a multiracial environment. If you can figure out how to overcome that collective inherent weakness, I’ll start to take your opinions more seriously.


Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 May 2013 00:04 | #

Posted by Thorn on May 08, 2013, 04:32 PM | #

Danny, most white people are inherently defective WRT racial solidarity. They simply don’t have what it takes to fend off the “anti-racist” ideology. Christianity, or belief in God, is not the cause of that defect. I contend our defectively rooted in our DNA. As the theory goes: over the course of history, the evolutionary process imbued whites with genetically based behavioral traits that are not adaptive in a multiracial environment. If you can figure out how to overcome that collective inherent weakness, I’ll start to take your opinions more seriously.

Thorn, I do not respect your opinions.

Yes, Christianity is a large problem in creating racial solidarity.

Your belief that the defect is in White DNA is exactly Illana Mercer’s Jewish argument.

Thorn, you are not to be trusted.




Posted by Jon on Thu, 09 May 2013 01:51 | #

Thorn: “Danny, most white people are inherently defective WRT racial solidarity. They simply don’t have what it takes to fend off the “anti-racist” ideology.”

If that’s true, it’s a good reason to reject universalist religions in favour of an exclusive one.


Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 May 2013 02:36 | #


Yes, absolutely correct.


Posted by Thorn on Thu, 09 May 2013 05:51 | #

“If that’s true, it’s a good reason to reject universalist religions in favour of an exclusive one.”—Jon

Which exclusive one did you have in mind? ...... and if you decide on one,  good luck in your attempt at herding the WN cats.



“Yes, Christianity is a large problem in creating racial solidarity.”—Danny

It’s not a problem for Negroes! In fact the black church strengthens racial solidarity in their community. Hence, the white DNA defect theory stands.

BTW, I was totally unaware Ilana Mercer arrived at the same theory as I.

Ilana is one smart lady!



Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 09 May 2013 13:50 | #


I have actually had a quick read of all of the comments in the thread.

I think one of Eagleton’s points was about the impossibility of the double-truth stance. That is we elites - Matthew Arnold and the like - aren’t really Christians in any meaningful sense but think it would be lovely if the plebs would be for functional reasons. For the stability of the social order etc.

Now that’s not too far from Leo Strauss and his doctrine of noble or great lie upon which stands or falls the authority of the few over the many.

The difficulty in all of this is thus - if there is too large a gap between what people say and what they do - then the ideological edifice of a social order quickly (in historical terms) discredits itself. Appearance and reality have too large a gap.

Consider Soviet communism - which barely managed to be around for the span of one average human lifetime - part of the reason it collapsed was that no-one within the society could sincerely believe in it by the end. No-one could be that dumb to be a ‘true believer’ anymore. Not the elite. Not the plebs. Everyone was in on the ‘secret’ that all the ideological tropes, lofty rhetoric etc., was all so much insincere cant.

Read Zizek on this.

And btw communism is a really dumb idea - that all antagonisms and potential for conflict within collective human life and affairs will be - by political will and fiat - removed is very silly. The wolf and the lamb will not peacefully sleep together. Only the dead have seen the end of war. We can reduce the possibility for violence in human affairs but never eliminate it even with ‘clever’ ontologies. Leszek Kołakowski (if I recall correctly) suggested that communism (which is not quite a synonym for Marxism) is deeply shaped by a Promethean humanism mixed with a re-worked, transcribed, Christian eschatology and soteriology.

So the point is that to think Europe’s legitimating narrative of itself can be couched in terms of magic tricks (transubstantiation) and old virginal men, dressed in frocks, telling people about the sin of having a wank etc., is to be delusional. There is too much of a credibility gap. In Eagleton’s terms - the double-truth model - will simply not work as expressed in that idiom (or perhaps any) including all of our putative alternatives to God.

One of the key components of modernity is liberalism - in its widest sense - and is a key part of its legitimating narrative. But it’s an open question as to liberalism’s relationship to Christianity (as a set of ideas and concepts). Is liberality a secular version of certain key concepts within Christian, especially Protestant thought? Catholicism has always been more comfortable with the double-truth/dissimulation model but even so that hardly means it will still ‘work’ in the modern age. Protestants and liberals of course are charged with providing our self-generated/autonomous/endogenous forms of delusion and dissimulation. Liberal modernity is rather ‘Protestant’ in that sense. Of course people aren’t all that good at such radical acts of self-authorship, so we tend to have rather crazy, misguided and ersatz forms of ‘individualism’. But nor are they passive ‘empty vessels’ to be merely filled with blatantly insincere propaganda or baloney.

But on top of all that is the question of the egalitarian ‘moral plateau’ and universality. Some quite serious people (from both left and right, religious and non-religious) suggest this universality and egalitarian ‘moral plateau’ is at the very heart of Christian thought. Here we are not discussing economic matters/arrangements but the very starting ground about which the moral and ethical concepts of a world-view flow from.

Compare non-liberal, communitarian. forms of political philosophy which have a strong form of moral particularism at their core:

To quote myself quoting Michael Sandel:

For the philosophical communitarians, then, it is the cultural and historical heritage of individuals, their identities as “bearers of a tradition”, which provides the moral particularity essential for an authentic life. In MacIntyre’s account, it is the roles and attachments of one’s family, one’s profession, one’s city or nation, which incur “a variety of debts, inheritances, rightful expectations and obligations” that “constitute the given of my life, my moral starting point”.

This theme is taken up by Sandel, who rejects what he refers to as liberalism’s depiction of a ‘deontological’ self whose identity is never tied to its aims or attachments. He writes:

“We cannot regard ourselves as independent in this way without great cost to those loyalties and convictions whose moral force consists partly in the fact that living by them is inseparable from understanding ourselves as the particular persons we are.

... Allegiances such as these ... go beyond the obligations I voluntarily incur and the ‘natural duties’ I owe to human beings as such. They allow that to some I owe more than justice requires or even permits, not by reason of agreements I have made but instead in virtue of those more or less enduring attachments and commitments which taken together partly define the person I am”.

A person without such constitutive attachments, Sandel continues, would be lacking in moral character and depth:

“For to have character is to know that I move in a history I neither summon nor command, which carries consequences none the less for my choices and conduct. It draws me closer to some and more distant from others; it makes some aims more appropriate, others less so”.

Now that’s the starting point for a non-liberal/communitarian politics - not its end-point (after all is not the ethnic part of what make me and draws one closer to some and distant from others?). But the underlying ontology of any intellectually serious communtarianism is a dispute over the legitimacy of the universalistic ‘moral plateau’ as a starting point for the construction of both ethical and political subjectivities.

Within liberal ontology, any ‘particularist’ distinction between friend and foe is thought to be evil itself, as in serious versions of Christianity.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew (5:38-48)

We might call this the infinitely demanding, theological/political, commitment to the ‘other’ - even the other that would kill you in a heartbeat. Or an ethics of suicide. I don’t think individual, nor collective suicide, is a moral good.

Perhaps the injunction to become like God – like our prefect heavenly Father, even at the expense of death, does reflect a kind of moral nihilism? A revolt against our animal natures and creaturely life as such?

As Kirilov the nihilist says in ‘The Devils’:

“It makes no difference. Deception will be killed. Everyone who desires supreme freedom must dare to kill himself. He who dares to kill himself has learnt the secret of the deception. Beyond that there is no freedom; that’s all, and beyond it there is nothing. He who dares to kill himself is a god.”

Could the Christian twist be that it is deemed that a passive suicide constitutes the right and ‘moral’ method of killing oneself - and in so doing not become merely a god but rather God himself - as opposed to a more pro-active ‘Kirilovian’ approach to the deed?

As for do I believe Jesus was ‘real’ and so on. Is that really a matter of any importance?


Posted by Jon on Thu, 09 May 2013 13:56 | #

Thorn: “Which exclusive one did you have in mind? ...... and if you decide on one,  good luck in your attempt at herding the WN cats.”

For most who reject Christianity and are spirtually inclined, some derivative of the organic Old Religion, aka Neopaganism seems to be the most popular. Pre-Christian European peoples revered their ancestors (their myths based on tales of their flesh and blood), had no need to “spread the good news” to alien others and never allowed them in their holy places.


Posted by mike on Thu, 09 May 2013 15:03 | #

Here’s the neocon/Jewish-supremacist, pro-Christian Zionist view of Christianity straight from the horse’s mouth - David P. Goldman aka “Spengler”:

Ethnocentrism is the snake in Christianity’s garden, and last week it slithered into the Church of Scotland. It took the form of a screed denying the special claim of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.


We observe eruptions of unabashed Jew-hatred in the European nations most likely to become extinct, notably in Hungary, where the ethnic Hungarian total fertility rate is just 0.83 per female, barely a third of the replacement rate. The third-largest party in the Hungarian parliament, Jobbik, wants to list all Jewish officials of Jewish origin as a national security risk and blames the country’s economic problems on a “Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy”. The party demonstrated on May 5 in Budapest to denounce the World Jewish Congress, which held its annual meeting in the Hungarian capital.

Hungary’s demographic disaster and Jobbik’s Jew-hatred are extreme cases, to be sure, but existentially challenged nationalities elsewhere in Europe evince a special animus against Jews and the Jewish State.


Christian friends from the Reformed tradition in America point to a specific bee in the Church of Scotland’s bonnet, namely the autumnal resurgence of Scots nationalism. The Scottish National Party, the region’s largest, launched a campaign for Scots independence from the United Kingdom in May 2012, with prominent support from Sean Connery and other celebrities. Patriotism might not be the last refuge of a scoundrel, as Dr Johnson said, but tribalism surely is the last refuge of an existentially challenged ethnicity.


Like so many other European nations, the Scots are failing as Christians while they fail as a people. Failing Christians cling all the more passionately to their national identity.

Nationalism is the mortal enemy of Christian faith.


As Christianity sloughs off the declining peoples of the West, some of them cling instead to ethnic identity. Rosenzweig wrote that once Christianity taught the Gentiles the Hebrew promise of eternal life, they abandoned their ancient fatalism about the inevitable extinction of their tribe.

“Salvation is of the Jews,” said St John: the God of Israel first offers eternal life to humankind. But the newly converted never abandoned their predilection for their own ethnicity. After Christianity taught them about the election of Israel, the Gentiles wanted the same kind election for themselves. In some cases that can lead to philo-Semitism – for example, among the Scots Calvinists of the past century. In other cases it leads to what one might call Election envy, Jew-hatred inspired by jealousy.

What makes America unique, an “almost-chosen people” in Abraham Lincoln’s quip, is the absence of ethnicity. As a nation founded on a covenant rather than an ethnicity it absorbs folk from every ethnicity, and despite the sin of slavery and ugly episodes of racism and xenophobia, America remains less polluted by the original sin of ethnic hatred than any land on earth. That helps explain why Americans instinctively sympathize with the State of Israel.


As a Jew, I do not tell my Christian friends how to read the Bible (although it is always instructive to compare notes). But there is something else on which we can agree. Every Christian knows that each day, battle is joined afresh against an inner pagan. That is what Christians mean when they say that they must renew their conversion each day.

The inner pagan is not an abstract entity: it is the residual of the nation out of which the Christians believe they were called to the Ekklesia, what Eusebius (quoted by Henri de Lubac) called “the tribe of Christians.”

For Christians to acknowledge the special status of the Jewish people is to attest that no other nation may be chosen in the flesh, for God did that at Mount Sinai once and never again. Other nations can aspire to be Children of Abraham of the spirit, as Paul wrote, but not children of the flesh. I elaborated on this in a 2008 essay for the monthly First Things.

The national life of the Jewish people in its historic homeland stands guard as it were on the flanks of Christianity. The Election of Israel keeps the snake out of Christianity’s garden. Christians who tire of the demands of Christianity and prefer to worship their own ethnicity will rage against the Jewish people as an obstacle to idolatry, while the most devout and self-confident Christians view the continued presence of God’s people as a blessing.


Posted by Thorn on Sun, 12 May 2013 08:29 | #

I spotted this over at Laura Wood’s blog The Thinking Housewife and thought it is very appropriate for this thread.

Abandoned Homes in Europe

KARL D. writes:

I thought you might appreciate this article [ ]  from the Daily Mail. A Dutch photographer has taken a series of photos of abandoned homes in the Netherlands and Europe. What I found most striking about the photos was the amount of Christian objects in the homes. It leads me to believe that the former owners were probably elderly and passed away without any relatives to speak of, or relatives who couldn’t be bothered with the property. After all, how many Europeans under 50 do you think would be observant Christians, let alone have religious artifacts in the home? The photo series in my opinion is very symbolic of the disappearance of Christianity in Europe, along with the cultural collapse we now see in its wake. The new Europe where man is an end in himself. Until Islam comes in and changes that by force of course.



Post a comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me

Next entry: UKIP after Eastleigh
Previous entry: A Conspiracy Theory of A Conspiracy Theory to Divert From White Male Dasein

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


Captainchaos commented in entry 'A crisis in the custody suite – part 1' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 22:20. (View)

Morrakiu, dubious character behind merchant minute commented in entry 'These Are White Nationalists? What Is Behind TRS And The Alt-Right's Gushing Effusion For Trump?' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 22:10. (View)

a clue of Islam’s Jewish origins commented in entry 'Jews Created Islam: Ideological capture as a response to constraints of Jewish ethnic exclusivism' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:59. (View)

Katie Hopkins panders to Israel commented in entry ''Western man, stand up for your wives, daughters', Kate Hopkins tweet investigated as inciting hate' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:28. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Hungary and Slovakia Must Admit Refugees as Part of EU Relocation Program, EU Court Rules' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:52. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry '"Miss Grand Myanmar", Shwe Eain Si, stripped of her title for telling truth about crisis in Rakhine' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:31. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Cernovich daggers and shields for the Alt-Right' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:34. (View)

pennine commented in entry 'Kevin Crehan, 35, jailed for leaving bacon in front of mosque then executed by Muslims in his cell' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 07:34. (View)

Rutgers prof in trouble for posts on Faceberg commented in entry 'Merkel and Zuckerberg are teaming up to attack you on Facebook' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00. (View)

On the Rise of Mixed-Race Britain commented in entry 'Harry engages old colored woman, threatens to adulterate Royal line's representation of 41,000 years' on Sun, 10 Dec 2017 09:00. (View)

Shamychel commented in entry '“Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players."' on Sun, 10 Dec 2017 06:11. (View)

Ukwuachu commented in entry '“Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players."' on Sun, 10 Dec 2017 05:59. (View)

Shawn commented in entry '“Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players."' on Sun, 10 Dec 2017 05:38. (View)

Chafin commented in entry '“Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players."' on Sun, 10 Dec 2017 05:05. (View)

The Nation: The Alt-Right Looks Left commented in entry 'White Left Imperative to defense, systemic health of European peoples' on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:35. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Jez on great form' on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 04:34. (View)

National-Satanist commented in entry 'Jez on great form' on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 04:23. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Netanyahu Concerned Race-mixing to Destroy Liberal Jews and American support' on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 01:42. (View)

Merkel seeks 390,000 Family Reunification Visas commented in entry 'EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.' on Fri, 08 Dec 2017 04:23. (View)

Flynn, "we're going to rip-up those sanctions and" commented in entry 'Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion Already Exists, Watergate Prosecutors Say' on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:44. (View)

(((Lauren Southern))) commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:28. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.' on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 12:20. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.' on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 11:34. (View)

Schulz calls for United States of Europe commented in entry 'EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.' on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:24. (View)

Russia likely Israeli match-maker commented in entry '"Israeli Defense Minister: 'I Prefer ISIS to Iran on Our Borders"' on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 03:10. (View)

Russia cheated at Sochi, banned at S Korea commented in entry 'N.Korean threat/capacity, shows both determinism & social construction by contrast to southern twin' on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 02:52. (View)

Lyon Christmas market cancelled by cost of terror commented in entry 'Berlin terror attack: 12 dead, 49 injured as truck ploughs into crowd at Christmas market' on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 01:22. (View)

Islamic plot to kill PM Theresa May foiled commented in entry 'Weston disbands Liberty GB in favor of backing Anne Marie Waters For Britain' on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 01:08. (View)

Cernovich daggers & shields for the alt-right commented in entry 'Cernovich seeds FireMcMaster hashtag propagated by 600 most active Russian Twitter operative handles' on Tue, 05 Dec 2017 20:22. (View)

Iceland's green feminist PM commented in entry 'Occupy Hambach forest, another step toward pervasive ecology' on Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:17. (View)

Trump plans to move US Embassy to Jerusalem commented in entry '"Israeli Defense Minister: 'I Prefer ISIS to Iran on Our Borders"' on Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:08. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Tue, 05 Dec 2017 11:51. (View)

McCarthy hassled by Roosh V. et al. commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Tue, 05 Dec 2017 09:28. (View)

Didess42 commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Mon, 04 Dec 2017 22:29. (View)

Response to last minute, dark of night tax bill commented in entry 'The populist mask is slipping for Trump and the GOP' on Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:24. (View)