Posted by Pro-White Socialist on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:50 | #

Great post.  The following quotes especially resonated with me:

We have achieved this blessed state of material bounty, lets just enjoy it.  Enjoy it.  Nothing more profound than that: an injunction to partake of the bounty of the white man’s accumulated wealth.

As you say, we have largely solved the problem of production - we Whites live in a societies where it is totally within our means to create environments where people shouldn’t have to worry about the basics like food/water/shelter/clothing/transportation/etc, yet still we persist in this likely long ingrained (as a result of evolution?) mindset that we are all on the verge of starvation and thus we must keep accumulating and consuming and pressing forward at all costs or else all is going to completely fall apart.

If only the basics (like food/water/shelter/etc) were at least covered people would be freed up A LOT more - but we live in a fairly cruel and greedy world (a world where Jewish-inspired hypermaterialism and greed is ascendant) where it is seen as OK to gain massive amount of profit from people for the BASICS of life. If the producers and merchants wish to charge a ton of money for very cool cars, huge TVs, very nice clothes, fancy jewelry, whatever that’s OK but for so many people to struggle in all of these very advanced White countries (like North America, Western Europe, etc) for the basics of life when we have solved the problem of production is just patently ABSURD. In some countries these basics are provided for (like some Communist or socialist-oriented countries), but they still have problems despite that. 

It is my conviction that the majority of people are massively insecure in many countries because they STILL have to stress themselves out so much over the very bottom portion of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg -) when it is well within the capability of most modern human societies (especially White societies) to quite easily meet these needs because of the amazing productive capacity of our advanced techno-industrial societies - thus, if we started to provide these basic needs for people they would feel much more free and less stressed about merely staying alive, and thus Earth would be an all around better place.

I myself am a socialist (of some sort or another, not quite sure yet), since as I say we have largely solved the problem of production goods/services/wealth - but now we need to solve the problem of distribution of that wealth.  I would like to see a version of true pro-White, non-Jewish dominated socialism rearise, similar possibly to National Socialism in some respects though minus the belligerence that seemed to be partly inherent within that ideology due to a multitude of reasons.

Posted by Lord Nengwen on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:36 | #

Why bother being Intellectual when you are just going to be discriminated against by Affirmative Action anyway??

Western Civilization most likely perished in 1945 and we obviously are in a steep decline (prophesied by Spengler) so outside the occasional reading of Yockey or Evola there really is no reason to be so smart and it is better to just wait for The Collapse and then become a Reactionary when one has the chance (it is good to try and create Organic White Communities at this time though since they are mutually beneficial and there are Hard Times coming.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:32 | #

PF,

Yes, very good and provocative post.  Needs saying (and happens to connect to my current two-parter, which is very convenient).

Well, all highly intelligent people like you take their pleasures in mentation.  It’s preferable, of course, to be in this demographic.  But there’s no particular virtue to it.  It just is.  But you are only 5 to 10% of any European population.  Those who are biased for the exercise of emotion constitute maybe 20 to 25%, and those who are neither, but contact life through the senses, constitute the majority which is somewhere between 65 and 75%.  That’s just the way the European group has evolved.

The privilege of the thought-biased is that you make and re-make the world.  Thinking people have made the emotionalists and sensates consume garbage like a pig at the trough because they stopped caring about their souls.  They cared instead for what the masses newly freed from cold church pews might like to do with that freedom.  “Happiness” - a huge failure of the intellectual imagination, in my view - is the result.  And it is so well before it is the result of freedom from labour, Jewish degredation of the culture, etc.  It’s been that way since 1787 at least.

So ... the intellectual imagination.  What, in contra-distinction to happiness, can the thinker propose?  Will you venture into that in your follow-up post?

Posted by Appropriate Quote on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:58 | #

Thus the whole liberal-democratic ideology, with its “individualism” that is a mere negation of everything superpersonal, its “happiness” ideal that encourages every weakness and self-indulgence, its erotomania which distorts the whole sexual life into a barren disease of the will, its “tolerance” which seeks to break down the cohesion of the race by denying its existence, its materialism which denies all spiritual values, all higher significance of human life, its pacifism which values weakness above virility, its ideal of Mediocrity by which it opposes every creative man and the Idea he represents in History, its cult of the proletarian as the highest element, its total renunciation of the Soul of Man — this is the great enemy of Race.

Part of this degeneration is organic — more of it is deliberately spread abroad within our Civilization by alien distorting elements which either belong to, or sympathize with, Asia in the annihilation battle for Western survival that will take up this century and the next. It is quite obvious that anything that undermines the will-to-power and the virility of the West ripens it for Asiatic slaughter. It should be equally obvious that the world-outlook that is thus eating away at the Western soul must be ruthlessly eradicated wherever it lurks by whatever means necessary. Thus even if one may have clung to his little ideal of “freedom” or “happiness” during the 19th century — the century of security, of comfort, of money-making and money-spending — he must renounce it now in the century when the very foundations of the life of our Culture are under attack from below and without — an attack in each case that means to destroy everything. To retain such ideals is to become the inner enemy of the West.

- from Yockey’s IMPERIUM: pgs. 306-07

Posted by danielj on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:20 | #

In our hedonistic society, coordinating dionysian rhythms is the basis of all social life: high IQ people represent a problem because their rhythms are too idiosyncratic to be coordinated with the pulsing mass.

The history of the 20th, and the first few years of the 21st century utterly smash any illusions one might hold that we are “ruled by philosopher-kings” whose “Dionysian rhythms are too idiosyncratic to be coordinated with the pulsing mass.” It is the history of the decline of the nobility and their conversion to demagogues.

Posted by Whites Need ACTION, Not Intellectualism on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:28 | #

The raceless, rootless-intellectual attitude has no inner imperative — it shrugs its shoulders and says “So what?” Such an attitude is that of finished men — they are used up before they start. They can insist on nothing, compel nothing, perform nothing. A hundred men of race without particular intellectual qualifications can accomplish more under the same leader than a thousand intellectuals from the pavements of the great cities. A man of race is not yet finished — he offers material for performance.

An intellectual cannot be inspired — enthusiasm he regards, quite seriously, as pathological, as mania. He prefers to sit in his cocktail lounge or his sidewalk cafe, sipping his alcohol and preserving the degagé manner. The talk is of pathetic ideals of social and sexual atomism, of “new artistic tendencies,” of “the subconscious,” of “democracy” — but over it all is the perfume of decay. It is a world of boredom, a blase degeneration, the casual bumpings and connections of grains of sand — in one word, the sarcophagus of the race. Baudelaire, with his preoccupation with corpses, is its perfect expression: the world of the intellectual is the putrescence of the superpersonal soul. Where this sort of material has influence, the barbarian has easy conquests.

Western policy must recognize these facts. Education policy, propaganda, public life, must form the race away from this charnel outlook. To keep away from all these forms of decadence is to safeguard the strength of the race. To allow them is to promote the death of the race.

- from Yockey’s IMPERIUM, pgs. 307-08

Posted by Retew on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:25 | #

Pro White Socialist says;

“As you say, we have largely solved the problem of production - we Whites live in a societies where it is totally within our means to create environments where people shouldn’t have to worry about the basics like food/water/shelter/clothing/transportation/etc, yet still we persist in this likely long ingrained (as a result of evolution?) mindset that we are all on the verge of starvation and thus we must keep accumulating and consuming and pressing forward at all costs or else all is going to completely fall apart.”

Not true. sadly. Our societies are almost wholly dependent on oil. Not only transport but plastics, pharmaceuticals and agriculture rely on copious amounts of it. And we don’t have anything like a satisfactory replacement for it when - and it is when rather than if - it starts to run short.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency

Posted by Armor on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:22 | #

I myself am a socialist (...), since as I say we have largely solved the problem of production goods/services/wealth - but now we need to solve the problem of distribution of that wealth. (—Pro-White Socialist)

In that case, we could say that everybody has become a socialist, since everybody in the West now lives in an environment where production is no longer a problem. What is it that makes non-socialists different from you?

In fact, production is still a problem. In many families, more often than was the case 50 years ago, both parents need an outside job to be able to pay for the house and the children, while a part of their earnings are “redistributed” to the administration and the welfare industry. I think we already have a fair amount of socialism, and it does not work very well.

In a socialist system, a plumber will receive the same wages paid by the state every month, whatever the quality of his work. In a capitalist system, he will only receive adequate pay if he works correctly. I think there is still room for some capitalism even in this time of abundance.

But maybe your definition of “socialism” is something else. Maybe you think that a socialist is someone who cares for the common well-being, whereas a non-socialist is someone who cares only for the investors? I think we should always try to improve the system, but you cannot just say that we need more “socialism”. You need to be more specific.

Posted by ATBOTL on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:55 | #

That post is a load of crap.  It doesn’t make any kind of important point at all.  Amren is a joke.  So many of the comments that make it through the heavy censorship are anti-white that you have to wonder what the agenda is over there.

Posted by exPF on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:18 | #

Re: Intellectualism in European peoples

I was so involved in unfolding and explicating the theory of my last post that I didn’t state
with sufficient force and clarity the new ideas which I was actually trying to offer. I’ll remedy
that in the course of answering these replies.

GW wrote:

“Well, all highly intelligent people like you take their pleasures in mentation.  It’s preferable, of course, to be in this demographic.  But there’s no particular virtue to it.  It just is.”

Disagree. I think intellectualism has value in itself and is a virtue in itself. It clearly isn’t so simple so that one could say “it just is” because one spends years discovering and cultivating these abilities and
tendencies in oneself, even if they come naturally to some extent.

I think intellectualism isn’t free from the suspicion of moral unregeneracy which in our modern era has
to be applied to everything. Morally unregenerate is that which doesn’t acknowledge itself as flowing
from and subordinate to a higher principle—which aggrandizes for itself more significance than it deserves. The only higher principle which survives our various analyses, investigations and critiques is the “superorganism” i.e the European nation(s) from whom we all spring (unless you believe in God). So intellectualism still has to be tested for ‘heroicism’ - i.e. does it understand itself well enough to go under the knife and even pass away in order to support that from which it is sprung and from which it can only ever again spring?

GW wrote:

“Thinking people have made the emotionalists and sensates consume garbage like a pig at the trough because they stopped caring about their souls.  They cared instead for what the masses newly freed from cold church pews might like to do with that freedom.  “Happiness” - a huge failure of the intellectual imagination, in my view - is the result.  And it is so well before it is the result of freedom from labour, Jewish degredation of the culture, etc.  It’s been that way since 1787 at least.”

I refuse to believe that ‘intellectuals’ can be described in such monolithic terms
going back hundreds of years, as if they were people who all shared common cause and sprung from
a common root - such as, for example, the leftist Jews. Just generalizing about ‘thinking people’ is
kind of unfair in my view, because men with brains spring from all classes and come from different
regions and different corners of the British tradition. So how can ‘thinking people’ be blamed
as a group for our spiritual difficulties post-1787?

I used myself as an example in the essay but I think all readers and participants at MR are ‘high IQ’.
So GW, I see you as an intellectual even if you don’t see yourself that way.

Here’s a point which I failed to get across in my original post:

One of the reasons why I think its important who wins the battle for society - the purveyors of hedonism
or the purveyors of intellectualism - is because there are many people in the upper middle IQ range
who could go either way. People from 115 to 130 could really go either way. A man with a 120 IQ can
go really far with hard work, if he lives in a culture that views intellectualism positively.
He can learn calculus, he can learn digital signal processing, he can learn the history of European thought -if he lives in a culture which gives him the space, the air, the room to breathe, and gives these things the respect they need to be ingested. There is no reason why a 120 IQ guy cannot go really, really far.

A real world demonstration of this? Asian culture. I’ve worked with asians and I know they are, for the most part, not that brilliant. (Clearly, some are.). But they respect intellectualism, so they always listen, copy down what is said to them, and study it at night. They don’t yet have all the screaming hedonistic cultural influences that we have - so there are people behind them urging simplicity, hard work, silence, and temperance.

A 120 IQ guy can be a video-game playing stoner working a dead end job, or he can be an engineer
who does well for himself and is respectful and well read. Hedonism will make him one way,
a pro-intellectual culture will make him another way.

GW wrote:

So ... the intellectual imagination.  What, in contra-distinction to happiness, can the thinker propose?  Will you venture into that in your follow-up post?

I’m going to address that in my follow up post, great suggestion.

Danielj wrote:

The history of the 20th, and the first few years of the 21st century utterly smash any illusions one might hold that we are “ruled by philosopher-kings” whose “Dionysian rhythms are too idiosyncratic to be coordinated with the pulsing mass.” It is the history of the decline of the nobility and their conversion to demagogues.

I just called them philosopher kings because all men who achieve power, whether they consider themselves intellectuals or not, do believe that they understand the world enough to run it. So one is a philosopher king whether one wants to be or not. One rules according to a philosophy whether one is consciously aware of it or not.

Unless you are using a non-traditional definition of “nobility” I think what you wrote is 200 years too late. The influence of nobilities in America, Canada and Australia clearly was never truly there to begin with, in western Europe that influence has been on the wane since 1800 (I can only refer you to a general reading of european history here, no references). The importance of nobility lasted longer in central and eastern Europe (Germany and Russia) but those places are not actually the subject of this essay, so don’t come into consideration.

Hedonism and the Dionysian rhythms (which is really just a fancy-pants metaphor for ‘gut appetites’) and their purveyors DO have a huge and formative influence on modern culture, for example:

- The enormous stir caused by prohibition showcases the importance of alcohol consumption, a dionysian rhythm
- Pornography is used by something like 80%+ of the male population and changes in the most intimate and unknowable
ways a man’s relationship to his own sexuality, yet it is now become universally accepted
- The 5+ or 7+ hours of television viewing consumed each day map out the mental universe of many of our lower classes
- The use of cars, ‘bling’ and other stuff as status symbols and in the mating game
- All the other thousands of hours of music, video games, DVDs which also are allowed to control peoples minds.

So who are the purveyors of dionysian rhythms and hedonism? Murdoch, Redstone (still around?) and anybody else who becomes a mogul in any of the industries dedicated to “masses of people getting their grooves on”.

I wanted to underscore in this essay the conflict between a society that viewed the satisfaction of its dionysian needs as being its foremost priority (getting stuff, getting laid, getting entertained, eating tasty things), and a society that suborned the dionysian needs to the pursuit of intellectual things.

Because in order to really learn things one needs to put women, cars, porn, video games, etc. etc. behind oneself.

Well, our society clearly cannot do this. Their masters want them to have this stuff on the brain 24/7 else it is not “freedom”.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:36 | #

According to GW, one problem is our new elites (media, businessmen…) and their influence on society, and another problem is that most people are not really intellectuals. But I think the fact that half the people have less than average intelligence was not a problem until the leftists took over our institutions and Europeans began to be replaced by non-whites. The entertainment media spend a huge amount of time simply disparaging our European identity. There is a cannibalistic dimension to the way they will present European young girls as a consumer commodity. But normal Europeans do not think that way at all, even if they behave that way occasionally.

It always struck me as patently absurd the degree to which people in America are encouraged to enjoy themselves and take pleasure in life -because this is actually something which people need no encouragement to do. Enjoying life and pursuing pleasures are things that one does naturally.

It shows that most of us are naturally very superior to the models that are given us by the leftists. The trouble is that European models have been eliminated entirely. There is no independent institution left that can give a moral, European model. I think we are programmed by our genes to be conformists and it is natural that we should turn to what is commonly accepted by our peers as a normal form of entertainment when we decide to have fun. Unfortunately, there is no longer a popular model, there is only the official model given by the media.

The idea that we have to fight against our natural distastes to enjoy ourselves makes me think of clowns. The leftists will claim that only spoilsports do not like clowns, when in fact clowns put every normal person ill at ease, and everyone hates them. The idea that everyone should be cool, young, beautiful, and a hedonistic extrovert sounds generous and idealistic on the surface, but is also contains the idea that uncool people should be cast aside, in the same way that capitalist and white male oppressors should be dealt with.

one need merely insert a DVD, and a compelling reality is displayed on a plasma screen. The irony is that the zombies of hedonism, when they get together, don’t have the spirit to actually have any fun or party or be silly! They ultimately discover that their friends are boring when compared to their favorite video game and their favorite show - and their friends think the same of them!

It shows how the media are able to influence our relations with other people, what behavior we expect from each other, what we think fun should be, and so on. By the way, fretful teenagers who seem to be fleeing from themselves and want to be untertained by cool people have been described in many films. There is not necessarily something wrong with them, but they need to be given another model than the media’s consumerist, cannibalistic propaganda.

Posted by Kievsky on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:50 | #

I have to constantly take away my daughter’s cell phone, IPOD, get her off the computer, and make her read Charlotte Bronte or practice piano or go for a brisk 2 mile walk, or work in the garden.  She hates my guts for it, but it makes her a better kid.

When she spends time at my mother’s house, she gets a massive overdose of television and luxury, and comes back a little monster.  It takes several days to detoxify her.

Her peer group apparently, at the tender age of 11, spends all their times eating junk food and getting some form or other of mass media stimulation.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:14 | #

PF,

Obviously, I will except nationalists, certain philosophers of both traditions, Bishop Williamson and good old Enoch from the charge of having expressed the progressive zeitgeist in one or other way.  As to the rest, you know I am not a believer in free will.  Man’s suggestibility makes many a monolith - show me the tide of anti-liberal intellectualism coursing through the academic world.  But, of course, it isn’t there.

For the avoidance of doubt, nobody who despised knowledge as heartily as I did all through my school years could possibly lay claim later to the mantle of the intellectual.  That may not be the same thing as having a functioning intellect, btw.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:18 | #

Armor: It shows that most of us are naturally very superior to the models that are given us by the leftists.

That is a beautiful thought.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:17 | #

but I think all readers and participants at MR are ‘high IQ’.

If you count 120 as “high” than most of us are.

One of the reasons why I think its important who wins the battle for society - the purveyors of hedonism
or the purveyors of intellectualism - is because there are many people in the upper middle IQ range
who could go either way. People from 115 to 130 could really go either way. A man with a 120 IQ can
go really far with hard work, if he lives in a culture that views intellectualism positively… There is no reason why a 120 IQ guy cannot go really, really far.

I won’t quibble about the details of what constitutes going “really far” but I agree with the general point and you are definitely hitting on an important point here. It is battle for the middle to upper-middle of the bell curve that is the key to winning the war.

I just called them philosopher kings because all men who achieve power, whether they consider themselves intellectuals or not, do believe that they understand the world enough to run it. So one is a philosopher king whether one wants to be or not. One rules according to a philosophy whether one is consciously aware of it or not.

I see.

Unless you are using a non-traditional definition of “nobility”

I am.

I am using it the same way you used “philosopher kings.” I just meant the modern nobility - actors, policy wonks, politicians, federal agents, policemen, businessmen, etc.

My point was that everybody from the top to the bottom engages the pop culture with delight. They are all ensnared. No one is exempt and the history of the last century and a half is the history of the destruction of the last vestiges of nobility proper.

I wanted to underscore in this essay the conflict between a society that viewed the satisfaction of its dionysian needs as being its foremost priority (getting stuff, getting laid, getting entertained, eating tasty things), and a society that suborned the dionysian needs to the pursuit of intellectual things.

And you didn’t fail miserably in doing just that.

Bang! Spot on mate. Keep it up.

Posted by exPF on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:02 | #

GW,

I didn’t understand part of your reply.

Obviously, I will except nationalists, certain philosophers of both traditions, Bishop Williamson and good old Enoch from the charge of having expressed the progressive zeitgeist in one or other way.  As to the rest, you know I am not a believer in free will.  Man’s suggestibility makes many a monolith - show me the tide of anti-liberal intellectualism coursing through the academic world.  But, of course, it isn’t there.

I don’t understand the issue of free will versus non-free will. Could you perhaps explain your position on it?

For the avoidance of doubt, nobody who despised knowledge as heartily as I did all through my school years could possibly lay claim later to the mantle of the intellectual.  That may not be the same thing as having a functioning intellect, btw.

OK, I accept that.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:02 | #

“Does that rile your ressentiment? Then you aren’t in the target. Go back to sleep.”

Lay off coach.  This one’s a genuine blue chipper.  The one we thought we were getting with Diamud.  I got a feeling.

“They won’t even notice our conversation.”

If they don’t read the blog, no.  If they do and still don’t, damn, that’s sad. 

The lemmings, gotta fill up the arena.

Posted by exPF on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:04 | #

Responding to the implicit critique contained in the name “Whites need ACTION, not Intellectualism”:

What the Amren article
from which I cited a comment was actually about was the takeover of high-tech firms in Silicon Valley
by Asian (Chinese and Indian) information technology workers. This indicates a coup which some
commentators may not be aware of: namely, the replacement of American whites in high positions
in Academia and industry. Many of the most prestigious positions in scientific and intellectual institutions are being taken over by non-whites.

Not only has there been a coup on the ground level, i.e. we’ve lost the inner city and the neighborhood,
but we’ve also lost an area almost equally important - we’ve lost the biotech lab; the polymer chemical testing facility; the grad school biophysics lecture hall. Scoff this off at your own risk: to me these represent serious losses and they make me deeply sad. Not only do they deprive whites from influential and rewarding positions, they make our highest-tier infrastructure dependent on a network of Asian scientists who really always have one foot in their home countries anyway. This might become strategically important for you if you consider the development of new weapons technologies and information/surveillance/security technologies as being important for the existence of a nation.

Whites will never, ever compete on these higher planes without a return to intellectualism in the culture generally. Intellectualism is a prerequisite for entrance. I mean of course productive intellectualism i.e. scientific, quantitative, precise thinking. But I don’t see these as seperable from intellectualism generally.

The semantic problem in this debate is that some commentators are using “intellectualism” to refer to the degenerate strain of faux thinking which dominates postmodernism and leftist critiques.
Yockey’s quote attacks a certain kind of intellectual; Yockey himself was an intellectual. Anyone who occupies themselves with ideas is an intellectual in my opinion.

I think its necessary to be delicate when discussing these things, lest one disparage the act of thinking generally—thinking is a good thing.

Posted by Valerian on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:48 | #

All you have to do is look around you and see how your fellow countrymen have become like sheep towards the ideas and values that are replicated by the masterminds at the top. The media, the inherent defects in the immigration policy, inherent defects in the government structure itself, mass media, and mass “factory cultures” have contributed or had an influence in shaping the world-views of the American masses and to a certain amount of extent into the European peoples. The combination of all these factors contributed, deliberately and not deliberately, to the “popular” American conception of intellectualism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:45 | #

PF: I don’t understand the issue of free will versus non-free will. Could you perhaps explain your position on it?

Here and here is science, mediated by me, on the issue of free will.

And here is my essay on free will from back when I still thought that re-instilling the conservative attributes of a successful Euro-society was enough.

In brief, I advocate the view that Man is mechanical more than he is self-willed.  But the opposite of “autonomous” is not “automaton”.  We have possibilities of choice, say, between adaptive and maladaptive life-choices.  It’s just that the entity we understand as “I” may come at the end of the process of decision-making rather than the beginning.

Another way of putting this is that the very ancient autonomic aspect of Mind, the aspect which learns muscular control, and the emotions - all systems evolved for survival long before the thinking aspect - are much faster in operation than thought.

“I”, if it exists at all, is not in the restless thinking mind, and neither, therefore, is free will.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:52 | #

One key. There are others.

I agree.

But this one is a skeleton key.

Posted by gorboduc on Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:42 | #

What’s all this about IQ?

In my last year at school I joined Mensa.

My IQ was measured by them at 168.

I went to quite a few local meetings.

never have I met such a bunch of smug ignorant “liberals”.

They were all scoffing atheists of a particularly hide-bound and self-satisfied variety, and it seemed to require a surgical operation to get it into their silly heads that defining with number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin never HAS been a pre-occupation of any orthodox Christian believer.

I adopted the old motto “Be good, sweet maid, and let who can be clever” and stopped going.
No regrets.

Some posts on this site remind me of those meetings ...

Posted by gorboduc on Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:48 | #

Oh, and btw, I think it was Stanley Baldwin who said “The difference between the intellectual and the man of intellect is precisely that between the gent. and the gentleman.”
I suppose we will all be claiming to be the “intelligentzya” next.
Then we shall all be old-fashioned reds, who ALSO believed in evolution.

Posted by skalkaz on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:32 | #

Some posts on this site remind me of those meetings ...

Yea, but you do it too. You denounce “ABSTRACTIONS” and with the next breath it’s poetry & allusions. I enjoy watching Frasier but I don’t think racialism should talk with a phony Oxonian accent.