|
|
|
Notes for an MR Radio interview with Matt Parrott Vestiges in Christianity of Jewish thinking about the gentile have produced the following pathologies in the European religious life: a) the replacement of the subject’s relation to tribe and kind with a relationship with “God”, b) the related turn away from existenz (consciousness) in nature and life and to belief and proposition (salvation for an ever-lasting life after death), c) the related notion of the immortal soul as the focus of concern. All three leading directly to the liberal, ie, post-Christian, focus on “the individual” as a deracinated, sexually ambivalent agent busily “breaking all the bounds” of Nature to be “free”. d) In the absence of relation to tribe and kind, the related notion of (non-possible) boundless love for all men and, specifically, non-reciprocal altruistic works. These, of course, operate to drench the subject in a sense of “Christian righteousness” and self-sanctification (which equate in the liberal teleology to narcissism and feelings of moral superiority). e) The imposition of a hyper self-critical moral regimen of uprightness (particularly in regard to religious piety and devotion, dogma, sexual repression, the aforementioned charity to the Other, etc) that is perfectly unrelated to the experience and knowledge of consciousness. It is not the object of Christianity that the subject should experience the liberative process: absence ◄ habituality (mechanicity) ◄ immersion ◄ negation ◄ reverie ◄ sloth ◄ passivity ◄► intent ► attention ► stillness ► detachment ► affirmation ► appropriation ► presence ► non-ascription of identity ► self-annihilation ► Being ... but that he/she should busily concern his/herself to shape his/her life and actions in accordance with Jewish millenarianism. The Christian gets eternal life after death, the tribe of the Jews gets G_d’s gift of the world in life. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 10:29 | # The interview went well. It was long so it will have to be posted in two parts. Matt was open and eloquent and Kumiko comprehensive in her questioning, which was very well grounded in research, but also tactful. Notwithstanding the fact that this was an opportunity to do so, at no time did she push Matt against the high wall of his faith (which is how I myself have always treated the faithful on this site). My thanks to them both and apologies to Matt for keeping him away from his family on a Saturday for quite such a long time. Substantively speaking, Matt’s confirmation that, for him, faith trumps his genetic interests in his family and his people was the single most revealing statement of the interview. Not surprising, of course, from the Christian (or, no doubt, Moslem) perspective, it is still a very strange state of affairs for those, like myself, who simply do not possess the ability to connect the nexus of high-energy emotions which constitute the “notes”, so to speak, of faith itself with the facility of belief. Indeed, for me belief is not a final position at all but a best guess and, therefore, an admission that all the facts are not in, and the full picture is yet to be established. There is a qualitative difference between certainty and certitude, the latter, I think, requiring a definite verity that seals the matter. It is this distinction which has, over the centuries since the early Middle Ages, progressively pegged back the realm of certainty and extended that of certitude, for belief shrinks away from demonstrated truths. It may rail against them - Matt made the assertion that the atheist is even more dependent on belief than is the Christian - but it still shrinks away. Action in that regard perhaps speaks louder than words. In our time, we can calculate genetic interests and establish them within a cool, detached system of human priorities. Belief is left to assert that divine priorities stand apart. They would, of course, if they existed. But it is still shocking to hear a son of Europa, charged with the obligation to defend his kind at any and all costs, declare that the god of another tribe is his sine qua non, and must become so for all of us. 3
Posted by Matt Parrott on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:24 | #
You’re not giving her enough credit. I believe she was more aggressive with her critique than you’re giving her credit for, and I suspect she accurately anticipated the fruitlessness of some of the lines of questioning you’re suggesting.
It’s not as substantive as you presume. While the statement is factually correct, it omits the fact that my Faith accounts for my genetic interests (I even noted our tradition of ethno-martyrs) and family. It seems paradoxical at first glance, but a similar phenomenon plays out quite well in Traditionalist Christian marriage, where loving God more than one loves one’s spouse makes for stronger and more durable marital bonds.
To clarify, I asserted that the secular humanist “atheist” (a misnomer, as he defines himself as a god) believes in more unverifiable propositions than the Christian. A consistently nihilistic atheist would certainly believe in fewer things, though he would be unlikely to be a stakeholder in this conversation, since believing in defending family and folk from a perfectly materialist perspective is a more complex philosophical exercise than it appears to the unreflective secular humanist. The Humanist understands his Enlightenment faith in the same way Medieval Christians understood their faith, ...a faith so deeply held that they struggle to comprehend holding an alternative conviction.
People aren’t going to make the sacrifices necessary to save Europa over a superstitious claim that their genetic data has moral pathos of some kind. Even the people promoting that don’t actually believe that. If you woke up tomorrow as an Indigenous Australian, you wouldn’t suddenly begin doggedly defending your new genetic interests. You’d find a new way to rationalize fighting for the White heritage and identify you’ve come to love and identify with on an abstract level, not as an instinctive genetic imperative.
The god of the Christian faith is the god of all tribes. He’s not exclusively, or even primarily, the god of the Jewish tribe. In fact, the Jewish tribe is more set against Him and His teachings than any other tribe. But this all cancels itself out, since the early Greek scholars actually borrowed the foundations of their literacy, logic, and reason from Egyptian priests. Let’s both drop all of our beliefs which have pre-European antecedents and influences. You first. 4
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:48 | # christards (no balls) <—- English middle-class (just the right amount of balls?!?!?!)—-> Krauts hopped up on palingenesis (too much balls) lllozzzzzlllllllzzzzolllzzzzzzzllllllozzzzz 5
Posted by Matt Parrott on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:47 | #
A. Christianity doesn’t replace a subject’s relation to tribe, it merely places it on a firmer metaphysical foundation. Given how easily organic instinctive tribal bonds are dissolved by Modernity, it’s imperative that a Tradition reinforce that, which Traditional Christianity does.
B. A transcendent orientation is critical, as there can be no martyrs when there can be no meaning beyond the flesh. Try as you might, you can’t pretend that all of this struggling and sacrificing for our extended family is adaptive for the contemporary individual in this life.
The truly mortal soul would do well to enrich and pleasure himself, rather than make mortal sacrifices. Prioritizing the immortal over the mortal enhances the ethno-patriot; it’s a feature, not a bug.
D. The fact that these contemporary defects are indeed demonstrably contemporary leads one to the parsimonious conclusion that the root cause is a contemporary subversion of both Christian and secular thought, rather than an insidious trojan horse which hibernated in Christianity for millennia before making itself manifest.
E. Ultimately, we intend to directly demonstrate precisely how effective Christians and their Christianity can be in defending and uplifting the European peoples, both at home and in the colonial Diaspora. 6
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:42 | # Oh God as one might say. It strikes me that one can be a serious Christian - with all the attendant moral universality/fundamental equality (before God) stuff - or a serious ethno-particularist/ethno-communitarian with its attachments to specific people and places aka serious differentiation and moral particularity that ultimately reflects the friend-enemy distinction. Do Christian’s ultimately have any genuine enemies? One cannot be coherently both in my view. Tactically maybe, but not intellectually/ideologically nor indeed emotionally can the holy triangle fit through the genetic square. 7
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:35 | # It’s a bit early to talk about the interview, as it hasn’t even been posted onto the site yet (it will go up in about 7 days). That said, I’ll talk about it anyway, since this thread exists and people are talking. I’ll do a small amount of recap here for the newcomers out there who might have missed the invitation that made the interview happen. I think that in the comments it’s a bit of a false dichotomy being created here by Matt, where it starting to look like Matt Parrott was facing off against atheism. Or that he was somehow arguing against only materialism in the most basic form. That’s not so. Matt Parrott’s conception of spirituality is about a god that claims to be radically transcendent (ie, ‘Holy’) and gives out personal salvation and rewards in the afterlife, whereas on the other hand my conception of spirituality is about gods of this world and experience taking place in this world, along with collective gains or losses in this world (ie, ‘Sacred’). The ‘Holy’ and the ‘Sacred’, are irreconcilable from the start. Not only that, but those whose conception is based on the Sacred, would always be inclined to believe that gods which claim to be ‘the one god’ and ‘radically transcendent’ are up to some kind of scam. If the Jewish god makes the claim to be the ‘only real god’ and then tries to ban people from eating from the tree of knowledge, my immediate and first thought is that some kind of scam is going on. I think that all three Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Islam, and Christianity—which are sharing the same Jewish root and the same Jewish god Jehovah, are part of a cosmic-level scam. The way I see it is that the Jews and their god can come out with a new trick every day, and Christianity is a big part of that. Much like a game of chess, I know that Parrott knows to some extent what I’m going to say before I say it, and I know what he’s going to say before he says it, so that’s why it seems like both he and myself were being totally calm about all this, it’s that we were looking several steps into each other’s arguments. Assuming that he reads right through all my articles, he’s already seen me say things like this, so he knew what was coming:
So there is that. If there’s a long war taking place which partly intersects with ‘the world we can’t see’, it follows—although I had left it unstated—that there are also commanders ‘in the world we can’t see’. Matt wants to stand with Jehovah, whereas I want to stand against Jehovah. With that being the case, the radio show definitely turned out to be one of the most civil conversations between totally and completely diametrically opposed people that ever happened. It really is a rare thing. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:30 | # Matt, I will try to reply in as near a religious context as I can manage, in an attempt if not to bridge the gap between us, at least to gesture towards some of its arches. There is, very obviously, a distinction between the objects of belief and the nature of the capacity for faith itself, and there is a distinction between the exercise of that capacity in the common psychological state of human absence, in which all of us - you too - ordinarily live and breath, and in the most uncommon and particular state of human presence. I am deeply uninterested in the statements people make when exercising their capacity for faith in the former state. They may as well be breathlessly intoning the baseball scores or the playlist of some downhome C&W radio station in flyover country, for all the relation their words have to the real. The depressing thing is that they, and you, will never understand, never even seek to understand, that the mere exercise of faith, however pious or inspiriting or sincere, however traditional, however expertly fitted to the (allegedly) correct nostra, is not some kind of magic highway to light and truth. You do not connect to anything at all just through belief. Whatever may be possible is possible solely through the exercise of the consciousness (which is manifestly not defined by belief). All that otherwise is happening inside your brain is that the faith capacity is elbowing its way, as it always does, to the head of the queue to remind not just you but everybody - yet again - about its one and only idea. That is its behaviour. The fact that its seat is in the emotional mechanism ... the fact that all emotions, never mind the nexus of powerful, higher-order emotions associated with faith (also with conscience), are invasive, insistent, quicksilver things ... makes not the slightest difference to the leaden, earth-bound quality of the process. Now, this does not automatically condemn every single person with expressed genes for faith to a life of error, naivety, and delusion. Christianity does not possess a formal esoteric core, but even in Christian orders there are people - invariably men and women of high intelligence living in seclusion under a strict devotional regimen - who manage to acquire not just a refined understanding but a (rather unguided and tortuous) consciousness-based method (discipline) as well. That method, Matt, commences with the devotee’s relinquishment of everything acquired from life. But that relinquishment is psychological and momentary in character, not material and permanent. It is not enough that the devotee enters seclusion as a very religious personality, with a deep craving for poverty, humility, and the life of the spirit; and puts away all his or her past worldly life. It is precisely that religious personality which must be sacrificed, and the sacrifice occurs not as some fateful, quivering life-decision but in the moment, as a psychological exercise (specifically, an act of the attention). Of course, the faith instinct continues to attend proceedings, supplying its customary narrative; and in consequence the upper reaches of the ontological transit are rather frequently interpreted in the religious context. But those who do not have the possibility of faith do not encounter the divine anywhere. Well, what am I trying to tell you here? That you are wrong, certainly. That you are not self-aware. That you are not thinking subtly and intelligently, or asking the right questions of yourself, or indeed any questions. You are relaying the noise of your faith instinct. But it is probably too powerful for you to do anything differently. Nonetheless, that is what I call upon you to do. 9
Posted by Matt Parrott on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:50 | #
I was arguing against GuessedWorker there, who’s not exactly an atheist. He worships at the altar of “emergence,” an unfalsifiable deity rivaling God himself in its capacity to create human consciousness, imbue the human experience with meaning, and anchor it with moral weight.
It’s the Tree of Knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL. Anti-Christians always leave out that second half. It’s critical. Possessing knowledge of good and evil kicks off the moral human struggle. In natural terms, it’s what sets us apart in a critical sense from the rest of Creation. More importantly, it kicks over the familiar canard that Christianity commands ignorance, rather than celebrating knowledge and wisdom throughout.
We would’ve had more fun with the theological speculation if I weren’t second-guessing how the anti-White “Christians” out for my scalp will be poring through this interview for openings.
I cannot get angry at sincere self-proclaimed Satanists. And I don’t believe we’re diametrically opposed. To arrive at the intellectual position of outright “Satanism” and defiant outspoken hostility to God requires a seriousness in the pursuit of truth which is lacking in all but a few. The opposite of a Christian isn’t a Satanist at all, but rather the prideful, corrupt, dishonest, and resentful. In short, the opposite of the Christian is the ancient Pharisee and the modern Jew. I’m hopeful that you’ll keep up doing exactly what you’re doing, seeking the truth, ...and will eventually find Him. 10
Posted by Matt Parrott on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:25 | # GW,
Skeptics such as yourself get stuck on the whole “faith” thing, and contemporary Christians don’t assist the matter when they assert that it’s all about “faith.” It’s not. It’s about the specific faith being held, in its fullness. Your unthinking conviction that there’s meaning and direction in a strictly material world is vulnerable to the same condescending and dismissive rejection. Just as I cling to my Christian faith, you cling to an unfalsifiable bundle of arid abstractions and arational dodges to avoid peering directly into the abyss. And that’s okay. Just as one cannot manage to look directly into the midday Sun, one can’t help but instinctively avert his gaze from the abyss. For me, we’ll call it “miracles.” You can call it “emergent phenomena,” but that’s really just a code word for “miracle,” now isn’t it? There’s nothing predictive, descriptive, reproducible, or falsifiable in your blind faith in the capacity of chemical reactions and electrical pulses generating the qualia we masterfully storyboard together into the illusion of simple consciousness we all construct for ourselves.
I never asserted that faith is a magical highway to light and truth. I’m asserting that faith in the Christian God is the proper foundation for those seeking light and truth; as He is light and He is truth. There’s nothing noble in having faith in something that one can’t prove. After all, it’s an inescapable aspect of the human condition. Many humans just believe the first thing they’re told and lack the curiosity or temerity to challenge it. Many humans, like yourself, falsely believe that they’ve somehow cleverly worked around the fact that human consciousness, the cogito ergo sum, can’t really be explained in a strictly material manner. That there’s a transcendent intelligence we cannot begin to fathom the nature of from whom our own intelligence is imparted is no less absurd or magical than the inverse proposition; that there’s there’s a fathomless lack of intelligence in the Universe from which our own intelligence…emerges. And, no. I’m not trying to “prove” God. We’re both standing atop a tortoise, working from a foundation of unfalsifiable presuppositions. Mine is singular and He has a name, whereas you’re conjecturing tortoises all the way down, or just beyond the limits of your cognitive ability, ...albeit an impressive stack of Heideggerian turtles.
Whether Saint Paul had a heartfelt conversion the road to Damascus or concocted a clever scam, the best way to preserve and perpetuate the idea—be it wisdom or falsehood—is in what we see with the organized religions. He would need an institution to perpetuate it, a canon of material to guide it, allegories and stories and so forth. The fact that Christianity functions as an efficient and effective viral memeplex neither confirms nor condemns it. That ideas can be analogized to propagating and competing biological forms is, like all biological reductionism, both useful and dangerous. The fact that I have endorphins and testicles doesn’t negate my romantic love, and the fact that grandmothers are made up of innards doesn’t make their pancakes and hugs any less sweet.
If your navel-gazing neo-gnostic fixation on thinking about your thinking is the alternative to error, I’ll take error. Whether one believes in God or not, it’s quite clear from the brain’s nature that it was meant primarily for engaging the world around it. It’s got all those nerves reaching every single micrometer of the flesh, eyeballs jutting out of it, ears sticking out the side, and such. While there’s perhaps utility in reflecting on the nature of the brain and consciousness as a means toward an end, it’s certainly not a likely candidate for the implied purpose of life, any more than a hammer would be for ornamentation and reflection. It’s quite obviously a tool.
The man with a priestly disposition will never understand the men of martial, mercantile, nor menial dispositions. Here I am wasting my life with struggle when the purpose of life is obviously grappling with the nature of being in time. What a maroon am I, for failing to be you.
This rubbish about the “faith instinct” is especially unconvincing for me, as I converted to Christianity from childhood and young adult atheism. There’s no habit, gene, or childhood brainwashing going on in this particular case.
You keep on counting away at your infinite regression of turtles between yourself and where ethnic genetic interests are imbued with transcendent purpose absent a transcendent creative force, where your journey of self-discovery has some point to it, and where everybody who isn’t crippled with inane philosophical introspection is a hopeless jackass. Perhaps you’ll get lucky and arrive at a magic number of turtles somewhere along the way down which will be the emergent number of turtles necessary for the stack of reptilian abstractions to miraculously take on the quality of objectively proving the meaning of life within the material world. Me? I’ve got my turtle, he’s armored for battle, and I’m following him into battle for faith, family, and folk. 11
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:12 | # Savitri Devi euthanizes the christ-rabid doG.
12
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:15 | #
13
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:17 | #
14
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:20 | #
Written in Méadi (near Cairo), 18 June 19575 https://www.savitridevi.org/paul_trans_english_fowler.html 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:15 | # Matt,
Please try to get away from your model of the Universal Religious Man long enough, at least, to comprehend that those like me who walk unencumbered by expressed faith genes do not “worship”. We simply do not understand the concept, or why it should be any part of the human experience at all. What we do is to find, or seek to find, truth, according to the data at hand and to our intuitive or intellectual capacities. Finding is quite a different psychological process from believing, albeit one of which, apparently, you can conceive no more than we can conceive of your needful belief. (Interestingly, “finding” is also a central thesis of Islamic esoterism, ie, Sufism; so perhaps there is a way to approach the matter there, without having to give up on religion entirely.) It is odd, btw, that someone like you who is pretty squarely interested in aetiology would find the working out of properties in the unitary whole to be of no relevance. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 18:42 | # Matt,
That is a faith statement. Where is there a world which is not material?
No, that is a faith statement.
Consciousness is not an illusion. It is a property of mind.
No, that’s, erm, a faith statement.
No, we are not. Karl Popper at least got that right.
Come on Matt, this is desperate stuff. Surely you can respond to a comment about the natures of ordinary waking consciousness and, well, let’s call it holistic consciousness and their respective relation to truth and belief with something that isn’t drawn from the The Cosy Churchgoer’s Anti-Darwin Scrapbook, 1905. You must have something to say that is better than that.
Well, not “meant” as such. It is mere function. But yes, mind has the fitness gain of facilitating adaptive life-choices. Or, indeed, maladaptive ones. The optimum circumstance for the former is the maximum awareness of the organism in the world; the least is the minimum awareness of same. Thought and genes, mind and the material.
There you go again with the stuff about purposivity as a first order consideration. There is only function at that formative level. OK, it is a universally extant behavioural phenomenon, so I guess it could possibly appear randomly as a late-order effect of, for example, predictability, associativeness, communication, and what-have-you. Daniel will put me straight.
And now I will leave it to Kumiko to explain about the long history of martial practise in her beloved Japan. But really, Matt, I am not talking about contemplatives as exemplars, though many may be such, but as proofs that the life given a man, or a people, by Time and Place (which means the actions of power, philosophy, religion, culture and mores, etcetera, etcetera) ... everything that acts upon and marks the organism from the outside and does not belong to it ... all of that can be transcended in very quick time with an appropriately revolutionary appeal. Collectively speaking, it last happened in Europe, as I have said many times, in Germany between the wars. Why did it happen? Because a movement that was vulgar, cruel and ignorant of human psychology, and which had little truly intellectual understanding of identity, being, and difference (and which even threw out Martin Heidegger rather than talk to him) nonetheless hit enough buttons for something electric to happen in the self-awareness of an abused and sullen people. I am interested in that electricity, and in that transcendence. I am not offering a political key to it, at least not today. I am describing the mechanics of willed change within the parameters available to mind and consciousness.
By my estimation, fully two-thirds of Europeans have an expressed faith gene. It is something quite specific. It has nothing to do with the object of belief or whether this is religious. You were always a man of belief, Matt, even when you thought you weren’t. Millions of European people who have, over the centuries, worn away the pews of their churches, and took care to make the necessary observances, were never such, nor could be. 17
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 01:07 | # First, a few words in critique of GW’s statements: 1. There is a difference between how the nature of physics and biology determine fitness and how the social world of praxis, affording a bit more agency through interactive reflexivity, might ascribe fitness. There is certainly merit in trying to match-up, say, the practices of English people with that which will accord best and most accurately to the biological and physical parameters of their distinctive kind. I suppose that inquiry can be close to a science, but to treat it strictly as such would, after a point, certainly rupture the very essence you seek to characterize - if the variegated and motley social input were ignored as not being a part of that essence. Surely natural selection is more wily than to put all of its resources at risk in availability to conscious inspection, exploitation and death upon the episodic judgment of one or a few - let alone the puerile. Genetic value, at least a part of it, must remain unavailable somehow to the puerile, who have not the experience to know the value of the broader pattern…this need for appreciation of the fruits of sublimation would be especially necessary in European and Asian populations… it is either that education, instruction, enforcement as need be, of the benefit of the doubt in our broad social group upheld - innocent until proven guilty - in broader social consensus to ascribe value… or allow the absurdities of the likes of Matt’s religion, heretofore the usurper to the throne of Europe’s moral order, which ultimately serves to paralyze the genetically, socially sensitive to the sublime reaches of our social capital, sends them meekly, defenselessly to their grave, with illogical, magical promises, personal introspective condemnation, instead of social criticism, while “forgiving and excusing” the crass bully, the brutally destructive - that is “just the way it is”: here Christianity and Darwinism (as popularly understood) share much in common as crass, liberal forces as opposed to human, social ecology. There is one particularly good practical criteria to determine those who merit conscious attention as signifying the essence of a people - those who will fight for them (us), and if not, at least take flight to save themselves where fight can achieve no practical consequence. 2. With all that, I doubt that your idea that a maximization of consciousness as optimal is correct, if not the outright contradiction that it appears to be (between maximization and optimization). Wouldn’t we prefer to have relegated to habit those cognitive processes and behaviors which will be most conducive to our fitness and reserve consciousness for special cases, details and occasional recalibration of the broad pattern of fitness - in fact, the broad recalibrative process is surely where we are at, and why you perhaps mistake the need to turn our attention to that which we would normally take for granted as automatically calibrated group survival functions, as “the need for more consciousness”... “more” being instead of the qualitative turning to where it would not usually be - the normally taken for granted and the heavy calibrative gears of our group survival. Recalibration of the western philosophical and moral/religious outlook, if you will, even Heidegger’s not yet fully articulated project, properly understood in its proper goal, means taking the conception of the relationship of knower to known from what has been the Christian-Cartesian realm of theoria - empirical as divided from nouminal realm - back into the social world of praxis. There, in the care of address, is the fund of consciousness. Ultimately, even emergentism occurs within interaction, well arguably within the social world. And in one’s relation to the social world, a good person should be able to find all the meaning, value and cause that they need whereas a bad person will not… not having taken of the apple which Kumiko offers us to devour. ....................... Which brings me to Matt… just kidding, though he is capable of remaining a bad man and yielding terrible results if he does not decide to turn his attention more to responsibility to our race in its reality (as opposed to leaving it in gawd’s hands). ...even though his capable thought applied to the study of the Judeo-Christian texts resurrects some of the good ideas that passed through its scribes. That the fruit was of the knowledge of good and evil - a distinction of man’s capacity for moral judgment, separating us from the rest of creatura is an important point; as we are burdened with that knowledge, we would be separated from innocence, wouldn’t we? Still, I don’t see whereas we are forever sinful, punishable and damnable for having the agency that he and others might like to ascribe to gawd alone, but the hell with it. My point with Christians is quite the same as with Nazis. Just because there was some correct thinking going-on there, that doesn’t mean that there were not enough serious mistakes to reject the program on the whole; let alone that we must be beholden and ascribe to the whole thing as if we cannot think for ourselves anew. If some ideas that the Christians had can correspond with our well being, fine; but we are not beholden to its promise of the hereafter in lieu of a conscious and agentive recalibration of our moral order and what it takes to fight those who burden and threaten our space, life and sovereignty. I don’t agree with Matt that consciousness and faith is an infinite regress or that consciousness cannot be attributed to material causes. Both faith and consciousness are handled quite well in the hermeneutic process. Is value unprovable and requiring something like “faith”? I suppose, but I’d rather have faith in the guidance of survival instinct, intelligently guided survival instinct by those with a good aesthetic and practical grasp of the biological, historico-social system and its social capital. Its hereafter would be in our children’s world, its future prospects upheld in social rule structures that promise a better world for ourselves and them; a better understanding for our/their moral order and our/their realization carrying forth our social capital in those rule structures. 18
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 03:04 | # Those who are inclined, concerned and kind hearted enough to give my comment (17, just above) a second look, I’ve corrected it. It had been posted initially before it was sufficiently proofed. I believe it is worth a second look. 19
Posted by Matt Parrott on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:01 | # GW,
Please read more carefully. This is not a faith statement. I challenged you to defend your own faith statement that there’s meaning and direction in a strictly material world.
Once again, a careless reading comprehension error. I wasn’t arguing for “miracles,” but rather mocking the pseudo-intellectual habit of taking actual emergence (wetness emerging from H2O molecules, and such) and substituting it for magic in order to bound over insurmountable philosophical challenges. You’re the one trying to push a faith statement, here.
The illusion is of simple consciousness. Our minds construct a linear, simplified, and standardized storyboard narrative for our waking lives which is entirely removed from the actual nature of our conscious experience, which consists of a patchwork of jumbled sensory information which is haphazardly and irregularly (and usually not) consciously considered by our conscious minds. Whether or not that unsteady spark of consciousness is actually a property of mind lies outside of empirical consideration and must necessarily be a faith-based determination. After all, it may very well be that everyone else operates much like a computer, with no subjective conscious inner world, and my solipsistic experience is the one singular human experience. Prove me wrong.
I didn’t make a “faith statement.” I insisted that you have not, as you imagine, worked around the problem of consciousness. You’ve simply inverted the Christian supposition that intelligence is derived from a transcendent source up above with an unfalsifiable and biological reductionist supposition that intelligence is “emergent” from below. Your head’s buried so far up your nineties Internet atheist talking points against bewildered Baptist Creationists that you don’t even see my words on the screen.
Explain.
Heh. Yep. Canned nineties Internet atheist talking points, all the way down to the Creation/Evolution Wars and the Janeane Garofalo sarcasm. Creationism has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of this, though I’ll go ahead and reveal, off-topic, that I’m an evolutionist. What’s desperate is your dancing around the fact that you’re as guilty of relying on unfalsifiable presuppositions (you call them “faith statements,” implying—falsely—that it’s only a problem for theists) as I am. If your current philosophical enterprise doesn’t work out, Ctrl-F on “emergence,” replace it with “vril,” and make it a great neo-nazi sci-fi read.
Heck, even that’s false. The optimum circumstance is for the human organism’s mind to be infected with the most adaptive viral memeplex. Having several children hurts tremendously and is often thankless and grueling compared to the childless life. The world over, the humans who are gathering up the most of this precious “knowledge” are paradoxically among the least adaptive by your own self-refuting metrics of ethnic genetic interests and so on. Most importantly of all, the very traditions you hiss and spit at are themselves…emergent, ...adaptive, adapted, and evolved over the centuries to ensure the survival of their genetic hosts.
Japan has nothing to do with this. You’re predisposed to sitting around all day in your tweed jacket reflecting on things, so you presuppose that innate imperative of yours as universal. The rest of us who are more action- and resource-oriented are wasting our precious lives being disoriented, from your myopic perspective. If God had intended for everybody to sit around and brood over idle abstractions all day, he would’ve made more Englishmen. You keep poking around for the Excalibur sword to save our peoples in the musty old attic of dry philosophical riddles. Best of luck with that.
Faith seems like an awfully subtle and complex thing to be embedded in the genome, and in a specific gene, no less. Wait, don’t tell me. I know… It’s EMERGENT! 20
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:42 | #
As I understand it, GW didn’t say that there is a value, meaning and direction other than that which provides survival to the fit and recognition of what expands their interests as such. If you note my comment just above, I believe that an addition to that satisfactory answer would be to grasp those interests even more comprehensively, i.e., of our biological, historico-social system, its social capital and to set it on proper course of the hereafter - which is our children’s world, a physical world.
GW was not substituting emergentism for magic, it is a fact of nature - evolving from the bottom upward, the wholes are greater than the sums of their parts.
Nonsense. After the 99th person corroborates your sensory experiences that is proof enough for any sane person/public… the one person who disagrees is likely insane, but certainly not a proof of gawd…..at best showing the way to a better alternative socio-conceptual paradigm. 21
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:40 | #
I think you’re being unfair to GW there, he didn’t ascribe any kind of personality to ‘emergence’ at all. From what I understand of it—and the others seem to have said as much already—the thing that is referred to as ‘emergence’ is basically evolution. The world is not something that could have been designed or created by anyone. In most cosmological stories, the world is described as having arisen out of chaos. My view is that the meaning of existence is what we decide that we want it to be, and that we make choices in circumstances that are not of our choosing. Perhaps the universe itself as an integrated ‘thing’ wants something, but I could only speculate as to what that is. An individual human, or even a society as a whole, cannot really know what the universe as an integrated whole would ‘want’, because we are too small to know it. One of the great mistakes in human thinking has been to look for a personal god, a personal god which will claim to have jurisdiction over everything by nothing other than its own boastful claim. Some people seem to want to find a personality in everything, because people are used to personalities. There is no personal god that could simultaneously be master of everything in the universe. By being capable of being defined at all, a god is subject to limitations in time and space. To even think of an all-encompassing personal god, is to open the door to hijacking. Hijacking occurs when a tribal god—for example, Jehovah—starts claiming to be ‘personal god of the whole universe’. Once you start claiming that there is an all-encompassing god that has ‘a personality’, then any scheming and unscrupulous spirit would be able to falsely claim to be that supposed ‘personality’, as everyone has seen happen in the disturbing case of Jehovah doing precisely that. The supreme all-pervading reality (ie, ‘The All’ as described in the texts of Hermeticism and Rosicrucianism, or ‘The Basis’ as described in the texts of Vajrayana Buddhism) itself is not a person that can be met anywhere. It’s a process. It doesn’t have one single personality that we could go out and find one day and pinpoint somewhere. It’s a process and that process is open-ended and has nothingness as its substance, which is to say, it has no attributes that are inherent to itself.
It’s crucial that the full name of the tree be known, yes, but the implication behind ‘knowing good and evil’, is that a person who ‘knows’ this simply has agency and can make moral judgements. By saying that humans ‘should not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’—or as it is rendered in some traditions ‘should not consume the wheat’—what Jehovah was trying to do was discourage Eve from acquiring agency and being able to make decisions for herself, which is the bedrock of what intelligence requires in order to flourish. Also, the reason that the ‘fruit’ is sometimes depicted as an ear of wheat rather than as an apple, is because the ear of wheat depiction is supposed to symbolise the emergence of agriculture and the relations of production surrounding it. It’s no coincidence that in the Legend of Tubal-Cain, for example, that the next step was for the figure they called ‘Tubal-Cain’ (who has the same attributes as the god Vulcan), to ‘invent’ metalwork and ‘all things wrought with fire’. Which Jehovah of course opposed. All developments were consistently opposed by Jehovah. Fast-forwarding to the Legend of the Tower of Babel, it shows the same kind of allegory too, where Babylonians are depicted as having their empire destroyed by Jehovah because they dared to try to elevate humanity ‘to heaven’. The story makes it seem like becoming really awesome is somehow ‘a bad thing’, and that it somehow deserves punishment. Generally speaking, one only has to look at the behaviour and the inclinations of Jehovah in all the books that originate out of the Levant and Arabia, to figure out pretty quickly that whenever people want to do anything to raise their own station, Jehovah is there with his pack of Jews; or his pack of Christians; or his pack of Muslims; to tear it all down to the ground if they can. The world has been facing that threat in various forms for centuries, from multiple angles. Right now the main threat seems to be the threat of getting raped to death by a pack of Muslims while a pack of Jews make money off the spectacle, but that doesn’t mean that the threat of the pack of Christians went away. It just means that Europeans were really beating up Christianity as of late, and so the deck was reshuffled with Muslims at the top instead. Abrahamic monotheism is like a giant battering-ram which is repeatedly used to try to knock down dynamic and productive pagan societies. The more Promethean a people become, the bigger the intellectual guilt-ridden petty-moralist battering-ram that the semites will bring to try to knock it all down. Why? Because that is the nature of the eternal semite. And if they can’t smuggle the battering-ram up to the castle gate using intellectual means, then they’ll literally migrate the battering-ram to the gate by migrating themselves bodily there. In 2015, the Muslims are like, “Hi, this is a gigantic battering-ram, is that your gate?” And Christians and Jews are all like, “Yes, but no need to use that thing, we’ll open the gate for you from the inside. Long live Angela Merkel, the pastor’s daughter!”
Well, that’s not my fault. I contended that Christianity itself is inherently and ultimately against your EGI, and I used the divergence between ‘the Promethean spirit of the British Empire’, and ‘what Christianity is doing now, practically all over the planet’, as a way of illustrating that white people want to be Promethean; they want to push the boundaries and develop themselves, but that Christianity places this outside the law and inveighs against it. Of course Christians would be coming for your scalp, they will accuse you of heresy whenever you come anywhere near to agreeing with me on anything, or even when having conversations about these issues at all. But you have to consider why that is. It’s because most of your co-religionists in the organised churches are not going to want to let you say things that ethno-nationalists would want you to say. Also, it’s worth noting that on the flipside there is no one from my own side coming for my scalp. That’s a significant difference between us.
What? My Luciferianism pretty much indicates a direct opposition to Jehovah. That definitely places us on opposite sides. I’ll accept the compliment though, but glossing that over as ‘seriousness in the pursuit of truth’ and saying that this is a shared quality between us doesn’t mean that we are somehow not diametrically opposed. In fact, your colleague Matthew Heimbach would probably like to kill all people who believe what I believe, if he can, and he has said as much on the TradYouth website himself. From Heimbach’s perspective, most religious people from the East who adhere to the old traditions that were basically founded by polytheistic spirit-channellers, would be getting killed by Heimbach. When we interact with the Western tradition we invariably satisfy the criteria for being labelled ‘witches’ (Exodus 22:18), ‘spirit channellers’ (Deuteronomy 18:10-11), etc. Particularly if you look at the text of Deuteronomy 18:10-11, you can see that it’s pretty comprehensive and that it bans basically every element of pagan religion in both the East and the West. You can’t claim that we’re not opposed when you’d be literally commanded to kill me in a case where Christianity was ascendant over the world. From my perspective, Lucifer is just one of many spirits out there which have different stories and have different attributes. It is an important one though, to be sure, and one which we would of course have an immediate affinity with if we put any thought into it. In the Middle East you can also find in Northern Iraq that the Yezidi recognise that same figure as their main deity, under the name ‘Tawuse Melek’ or ‘the Peacock Angel’. For this reason they are being attacked over and over by ISIL and by Muslims in general who call them ‘Satanists’.
Aren’t those precisely the qualities that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all assign to the figure of Lucifer, to the other solar angels that chose to ‘fall’ to earth, and also to the various pagan groups that you all clashed with? Islam even develops the charge further, because Islam makes even more explicit what was already being said by the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Hadiths, the stories about Muhammad classifying racism as ‘a sin’ based on ‘pride’, and the stories of him fighting and killing other tribes-people who refused to give up paganism, shows monotheism taken to its logical conclusion.
Not if you ask virtually any Christian church in the world. They’ll attest that Jews are with you at least on supporting the same deity and that you are all worshipping the same exclusivist god named Jehovah, because you are. If the Jews turned up by your door tomorrow morning and promised to support all the political positions that you wanted them to, then the only problem you’d have with them after that would be that they don’t recognise the progression from Mount Sinai to Calvary, and they’ve thus committed in theory a form of ‘deicide’ by discounting the significance of Jesus of Nazareth’s alleged embodiment of the saviour consciousness, and etc. That’s ‘Christian anti-semitism’, but it’s the weakest form of anti-semitism because the Book of the Revelation to John still promises that they will be ‘saved’. In fact, here’s a whole list of verses in which you are told that Jews are special: 1. Everyone would go to Jerusalem to entreat favours from Jehovah, and would be begging the Jews for guidance. (Zechariah 8:22–23) 2. A remnant of Israel will be saved. (Romans 9:27) 3. The covenants, the giving of the law, and the temple service rituals all belong to the Jews. (Romans 9:4) 4. Jehovah promises that even though a mother may forsake her child, Jehovah will never forsake the Jews. (Isaiah 49:14–16) 5. No matter what the Jews do, Jehovah will always defend them. (Jeremiah 31:36–37) 6. Jehovah’s ‘people’ are the Jews, and he has not rejected them even after the events at Calvary. (Romans 11:1–2) 7. The place of Jehovah’s throne is in Israel. (Ezekiel 43:7-9) 8. Jehovah will show grace and supplication to Israel. (Zechariah 12:10) 9. If some do not believe, their lack of belief will not nullify anything. (Romans 3:1–4) 10. Who can stand when Jehovah appears? Malachi explains with great flourish that it’s the Jews. (Malachi 3:2–4) It seems pretty dire. The Jews get extremely special treatment in that setup.
Well, that’s just the flipside of what I’d also say to you. I think that everyone needs to avoid Jehovah, because Jehovah is seriously bad news. 22
Posted by Matt Parrott on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:59 | # Daniel,
Terrible results?
What about NSDAP ideology, aside from its insensitivity toward Poles, do you actually disagree with?
GW wants to fixate on the “faith” thing, but everybody who’s not a nihilist is operating on some sort of superstitious presupposition. All of the stuff about EGI, emergence, hermeneutics, or whatever is a shell game of increasingly elaborate abstractions to obfuscate around this fact. Your suggestion that it’s about our instinctive consideration for the welfare of our children—fourteen words—is useful, though intuition and experience suggest that we White folks, especially our more intelligent kinfolk, are too abstraction-oriented for an instinct-oriented anti-ideology. Fourteen words is, for me, the touchstone we can all agree on regardless of creed, which makes us allies to a profound extent, despite profound ideological differences. It’s not a creed in and of itself, at least not for me. 23
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:13 | #
Indeed, The universalism, the extension of Christianity’s inextricable links to Judaism, the impervious Cartesianism, the racial interchangeability of individual souls, the foregoing of concern for this earth in exchange for the promise in the hereafter.. just to name a few items that have already proven disastrous wherever these ideas spread - these ideas have left us vulnerable to destruction when taken at all seriously.
Are you such a “moral” Christian that you would try to isolate me as “a Christ hating Pole” who stands alone while you fantasize that a Nuremberg rally sprawls before Andrew Anglin and flanks of TradYouth? It is apparent that Orthodox Christians and Hitlerists cannot make the same claim, but I like all European peoples and fight for their nations and our regional sovereignty. That’s why I continue to prod you about your character, Matt. That you would seriously try to make it seem like it is only Nazi “insensitivity” toward Poles, and merely my narrow subjective interests as such that could apprehend anything objectionable there. You’ve tried this before, calling me a “Christ-hating Pole”, when in fact, my father was Italian American, my mother Polish American. But Hitler was rather “insensitive” to Ukrainians, to the Russians that your TradYouth find so kindred, to the Belarusians, to the Czechs…do we go on? It wouldn’t be hard to find objections from many French, English etc. etc…. anybody who isn’t an asshole, really. Like me, they don’t like the supremacism of Hitler and his designs to lord over other Europeans. His flimsy, “natural” (scientistic) excuses for war, really war mongering, territorial aggrandizement at the expense of neighboring Europeans. How about the 56,000 million White people dead because of his ambitions to outdo his idol, Friedrich the Great, in Eastward aggrandizement? ... at the expense of cooperation..and with the sob story that he lost three small cities to Poland while Gdansk became neutral. Poor AH. It was but an excuse for the tactless imperialism that was obvious in Mein Kempf. That tactless imperialism coupled with missing a huge opportunity to cooperate in the expulsion of Jews from Europe, other European nations which had a good idea that the Jews were their enemy as well. Instead, for his overcompensation, nobody has even been able to exercise normal “anti-semitism” and “racism” for these last devastating 70 years; for the “nerve” of those who read Mein Kempf before the war and were left no choice but to defend themselves and those who read Table Talk afterward, to have their worst suspicions only confirmed that they didn’t really have a choice. But your defense of him is not really so much in conflict with Christianity - like Nazism, it is largely a reflection of Judaism. Instead of working collaboratively with ethno-nationalists, you advance imperialistic agendas which are necessarily divisive of anyone who has the sense to recognize that their interests are not defended in these platforms. You may hope that what appears to you, in your American demographic, as so overwhelmingly popular and well founded, really is that way outside of your Internet bubble, such that it ought to be necessary for all to agree; and that anyone who doesn’t agree should be required to comply, because they are unimportant. But it won’t work that way - and what is more foolish is that there is no need for it - you are rousing antagonism, inter-European fighting by means of Nazi apologetics where simple ethno-nationalism is a reasonable requirement sufficient for cooperation all around.
I’ve said as much - that is roughly true enough so that I don’t need to argue with it - I am satisfied to repeat: I’d rather have faith in the guidance of survival instinct, intelligently guided survival instinct by those with a good aesthetic and practical grasp of the biological, historico-social system and its social capital. Its hereafter would be in our children’s world, its future prospects upheld in social rule structures that promise a better world for ourselves and them; a better understanding for our/their moral order and our/their realization carrying forth our social capital in those rule structures.
Wow. Stop right there. I don’t talk a great deal about emergence but it is more than valid to focus on that at one end of the hermeneutic circle. Hermeneutics is no shell game, it is means of ongoing surveillance, especially necessary when looking after a protracted historical and temporal system such as our EGI - no shell game there either.
No obfuscation.
Hermeneutic method does not at all suppose that we rely on instinct alone: instinct can be there as one point, sure, but it is socially and conceptually engaged among a myriad of concerns surveyed in an ongoing process. You might take heart that Church fathers partook of hermeneutics at times as well. Perhaps it will bring you to your senses (that is half of the idea) and out of Christ insanity.
It is not a fully articulated creed, no, but we can agree on the 14 words as a touchstone.
24
Posted by Matt Parrott on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:47 | #
Didn’t mean to poke my finger right into your soft spot, dawg. Muh bad. 25
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:10 | # My Soft spot? Soft-spots, sausage and beer: Matt Heimbach of Matt Parrott’s TradYouth Your great white Russian hope might not take your humor lightly.. 26
Posted by Robert on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:26 | #
This really isn’t accurate at all, as even a cursory acquaintance with Classical, Hellenistic, and medieval and early modern Western thought should make clear. Jewish thought has little to do with Christian theology. Scholasticism is essentially Greek philosophy for example. 27
Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 23:16 | # Will you ever interview John DeNugent on MR radio? 28
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 00:52 | # JamesUK: No.
Robert: The implication is that we should study the Greeks as sincere, rather than study Christianity and its Judeo-Christian texts with its ostensible narratives as sincere effort to represent the best interests of Europeans. At best, Christianity is decoded as some Judaic tapestry brought back from Eastern travel. As commissioned, the tapestry was furtively interwoven with some unoriginal Buddhist texts, etc, to tell an irrational story for the masses to inspire the overthrow of Rome, martyring its Jewish heretics and any other suckers it could on behalf of the Jews; while smuggling back into Europe, beneath its stories, a Pythagorean message for a select few which was wholly different from the ostensible message of Christianity.
29
Posted by The Chemistry of White Guilt on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 04:10 | #
30
Posted by Hitler was insensitive to Ukrainian nationalism on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 06:15 | #
Hitler was rather “insensitive” to Ukrainian nationalism as well, to the Russians that your TradYouth find so kindred, to the Belarusians, to the Czechs…do we go on? It wouldn’t be hard to find objections from many French, English etc. etc. Regarding Ukrainian Nationalism in particular:
I.e., Hitler’s ideology was opposed to Ukrainian National independence. Nazi Germany wanted Ukraine for its own. 32
Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:47 | # It is permissible to feel guilt-in-advance for the disappearance of the Pacific island of Tuvalu and to pay for it but it is forbidden to fight for the survival of the white race: “Anthony Hobley, the group’s chief executive, said these companies still have time to adapt to the new world order and take the lead in renewable energy, storage technology and carbon capture – and some, such as Shell, are doing so - but they cannot avoid the issue. “They face the potential of massive value destruction if they try to fight the transition,” he said. “ Adapt to the new world order: don’t try to fight the transition. 33
Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:15 | # My father is a firm proponent of “evolution” and “emergence” and to be fair to him, he does understand both concepts and can argue his side excellently. I suspect that there is more creation and conspiracy in our reality than he and most other people will allow for. I found it a leap to believe in Salterian EGI but I made that leap. I now find it a leap of faith to believe in Darwinian evolution. I think that it’s possible to believe in EGI but not believe in Darwinian evolution. The discovery of DNA killed the tabula rasa as it doesn’t make much sense to believe in a blank slate that is “written on” in detail. But the discovery of DNA does not convince me that Darwinian evolution is true. Whether one believes that our intelligence is God-given or the result of billions of years of evolution, it is a travesty to waste it. Likewise with race. 34
Posted by uh on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:52 | #
Yo is it too late to bring back Constantin von Hoffmeister and Potential Frolic?
Oh Christ — Matt Parrott the convenient presuppositionalist. “We’re both necessarily wrong, therefore Christianity. By the way I’m an evolutionist.” The presuppositionalist method is basically trapping duller sorts into apparent logical entanglements then concluding that anyone who can’t think their way out is really Christian, because thinking itself is Christian (which isn’t a presupposition, naturally). But this isn’t a logical problem at all; it is a biotic strategy in which one animal employs logic as a means to exact submission from other animals. That said, “EGI” is crude group selection rubbish.
It’s almost like life aims at overcoming itself, and not objectivity or truth. I think someone wrote about that once, right? Let’s just reinvent the wheel since we all have so much free time.
Possible — more like convenient.
Races, like species, are not eternal. But you sacrifice the ability to appreciate that when you (believe that you have) tossed out Darwin. When you recover your senses, you’ll understand the tragedy of being mortal and belonging to an ephemeral ethnic radiation out of Europe. EGI serves one purpose: to “scientize” away the uncomfortable implications of Hamiltonian selection for the more learned White Nationalists. When they reach that point, anything becomes permissible in the court of justification—Heidegger, Christianity, Evola, Guenon ... 35
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:08 | # According to the October 24th, 2015 edition of The Moscow Times, Christ-insanity is continuing to wage its age-old war against Traditional Youth.
Inasmuch as the war against Halloween is a proxy war waged by christians against Traditional Youth, it is little wonder that metaphysical mercenaries would attempt to distort the meaning of that name and use it as spiritual camouflage. Their masters have taught them well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC7CpI1UjS0
36
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:59 | # Jimmy, while defending the enjoyable pagan sourced holiday of Halloween against the Orthodox Church, we might also take occasion to note that the Christian Church has arrogated what is the most sacred holiday to our ethnic genetic interests (E.G.I.), which is the day following - November 1rst - in Eastern Europe and Russia it is still a day when European folks commemorate their forefathers, visiting the cemetery to pay special respects. It is practiced there in cloaked manner. But the reverent respect that should be directed toward our ancestors has been largely diverted by the Church and back into its Judeo-religion; worse still in the west, where the “All Saints Day” (Nov. 1) diversion has been taken so far that our ancestor reverence is but the vaguest remnant, a phantom holiday, somehow indicated on some calendars, but not observed - merely alluded to very indirectly for those who care to look into the history and etymology behind the name, “Halloween” (all hallows eve). 37
Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:01 | # I think Halloween is being turned into perverted paganism and that it is part of the whole “weaponized anthropology” campaign. Not to mention that it’s “cultural appropriation” for non-whites to celebrate Halloween. I would support the official ban of Halloween as a temporary wartime measure and allow it and Christianity back when the Jews and non-whites have been defeated. 38
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:21 | # I didn’t know that you were a Christian, Mick. Sorry to hear that after all the years of discussion as to just how alien and destructive that Christianity is to Europeans, that you’d favor letting it back in. Andy Nowicki has made a bewilderingly nonsensical defense of Christianity (and Negro-ball attendance) over at AltRight. Maybe you can make sense of that for us. So far as I can tell his three “heresies from ‘the Alternative Right” are: 1. He doesn’t think that Christianity has anything to do with non-White immigration and race-mixing, “because it didn’t happen for thousands of years and not until recently, since Christianity has gone into decline.” Most people that I respect intellectually think that the accomplishments of Europe and the defense of Europe in those times were a result of impetus from pre-Christian times and the inertia of Judaism’s theoretical prescriptions setting in through Christianity; viz., it took time to fully bind our hands behind our backs and for its universal prescriptions to set in. More, the Jews were being integrated all the while. I’ll put Nowicki’s third point second, since it is the quickest to dispose of: 2. Hitler treated the black athlete (Owens) well at the ‘36 Olympics, therefore said Germany would not have a problem with being like present day America where stadiums are packed with White people attending to black Athletes with multi-million dollar contracts, celebrity adulation and harems. 3. The third bizarre claim that Nowicki makes is that there is no evidence that anti-racism came along with Allied victory. That it could have happened with a Nazi victory as well. That is a ridiculous construing of the history, of course: Nazi Germany’s tactless overcompensation and attempted aggrandizement at the expense of potential European Allies is what stigmatized normal racial nationalism and allowed our enemies to successfully turn association with the normal defense of racial nationalism into a taboo. But, Matt Parrott tries put the onus on me:
Matt Parrott, apparently because he is dishonest, and wants to pander to broader base than his Christard religion will allow, tries to shift focus on what he thinks is a minority perspective, “my sore spot” - he wants to say that it was only Poles and only me who has an ethno-nationalist complaint with Nazi Germany; and not a serious complaint, at that - it’s “funny”:
I am genuinely surprised at how low Matt is to argue like this, to try to make it seem like mine is an isolated and marginal opinion, so narrow as to be just a personal position of mine, I’m “just being over-sensitive about Poland”: Isn’t it funny, Matt(s)? Its just me and Poland aye? Is this funny too? Regarding Ukrainian Nationalism in particular:
I.e., Hitler’s ideology was opposed to Ukrainian National independence. Nazi Germany wanted Ukraine for its own. Just MY soft-spot? Matt Heimbach of Matt Parrott’s TradYouth Your great white Russian hope might not take your humor lightly.. 39
Posted by Robert on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:06 | #
I understand trying to develop a narrative for political and practical purposes aimed at promoting the best interests of Europeans. But anyone who reads, say, Plato’s dialogues can see that the focus on belief and proposition and concern for the immortal soul in Western thought does not come from Jewish thinking. 40
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 01:16 | #
I think it is not right to say that ‘it would have happened anyway because of Platonism’. Plato was instructed by Socrates, and the Socratic method would have allowed for the idea of the mind-body divide to come under appropriate scrutiny and undergo modifications quite a lot earlier than it did. The influx of Judaic thought encased Platonism inside a wall of ‘no-criticism’, took it away from the Socratic method by making it an unchallengeable article of faith, removed it from its context, and surrounded it with other things that made it extremely harmful. 41
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 02:37 | #
Weaponised against who, though? The ‘weaponisation’ of anthropology is when research of the culture and history of an ethnic group is used by belligerent groups to facilitate their mission objectives. However, our mission objective as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists is to: 1. Defeat those who try promote mass mestizaje; 2. Promote viewpoints which would enhance people’s willingness to reinforce national and regional borders; 3. Promote regional integration and common security perimeters on the basis of shared ethnic and cultural heritage, as well as shared economic interests. In order to prevent our enemies from occupying positions of cultural power, it’s necessary to get everyone to quit looking to churches for guidance, because the churches are opposed to everything that we stand for. There is probably nothing more that the churches would love to do in their own form of ‘weaponised anthropology’, than to re-colonise the minds of the people through some form of renewed culture war, and thus disarm them mentally before anything even gets off the ground.
You can’t just place a temporary ban on culture because it’s ‘inconvenient’ for you to have to fight on that level. The enemies are not going to suspend their own culture war against you to be ‘fair’ to you in the meantime. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and the whole liberal media combine that is arrayed against you, are not going to call truce on you if you promise them that you’ll stop celebrating Halloween. They’d just have liberals and Jews hollow it out into a purely commercialised holiday with no content at all, and Christians and Muslims would then bash it and present themselves as a false opposition to such ‘commercialism’ as part of their own recruiting drives. Retreating from the sociocultural domain has never produced good results, not ever. In the conflict that is going to come later, these kinds of arguments that are occurring in the sociocultural domain are going to form part of the crucial groundwork that will determine the way that conflict will manifest, how it will be fought, and what the outcome of that conflict will be. Dealing with laying that groundwork can’t be put off until later. The content of the conflict and the ideas around which that conflict is fought, determine the nature of the outcome of that conflict in the event of victory. That is part of why I am never interested in advocating collaboration with Christianity in the pre-conflict environment, not even as a cynical play. That is a losing game, because firstly, Christianity cannot be trusted to maintain a martial posture or to adhere to the ethno-nationalist or ethno-regionalist principles. In the aftermath, if collaboration with Christianity resulted in a Christian-dominated outcome, then it would mean that everything was done for nothing. The religion issue is not a side-issue, it’s not a mere ‘question’ that is asked and answered in a little policy book somewhere. It’s a core part of the problem in the North Atlantic. Getting rid of Christianity is a necessary pre-condition to the survival of the peoples of the North Atlantic. 42
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:30 | #
The question wasn’t directed toward me, but I want to jump in on this a bit too, since I feel like the question was directed toward Majorityrights as a whole. So I want to give my perspective as well: People shouldn’t have to be answering questions about NSDAP at this point, the topic of what NSDAP did or did not make crucial strategic mistakes on, is something that has been discussed to death already. 43
Posted by Going full circle on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:45 | # ... with their anti-German circle jerk, Daniel S reliably ends with insulting one of the rare interview partners who are still will to give this decrepit website their time of day. 44
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:21 | #
Are you literally fucking retarded? 45
Posted by Willis Carto on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:13 | # Willis Carto passes away
46
Posted by uh on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:02 | # Shit. I remember reading Carto like fifteen years ago. Wasn’t he a contributor to Instauration and IHR? 47
Posted by uh on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:10 | # Will someone explain to me who this Kumiko Oumae creature is? Is it really Japanese and just ... why? It’s weirder than when DanielS took over. 48
Posted by omegas can comment here? on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 02:07 | # Uh, are you still cashing that monthly welfare check? Did you remember to take your lithium today? 49
Posted by uh on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 04:40 | # Use your real handle tough guy. Otherwise sod off yeah? 50
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:35 | # That was Captainchaos who rendered that assessment, uh. But his is a respected opinion around here. 51
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:40 | # Well, it seems that now UH is referring to me as ‘a creature’, which is actually not as bad as the kind of thing that white liberals have called me in moments of frustration. The worst thing I’ve been called was something like, ‘a cunning and truly sociopathic bitch who dreams only of atrocities’. So he still has some ways to go if he wants to catch up with the liberals! That said, rather than continuing to provoke him into coming up with more colourful descriptions, I should actually give some explanation. UH thinks that it’s ‘weird’ that an Asian would stand with Europeans and deliberately try to help them to not get overrun by a mutual enemy. There is no reason why that should be seen as ‘weird’, given that it has happened so many times before. In every conflict there is a ‘third party’, why should this time be any different? Here’s a list of times it has happened, one which is of course incomplete as I’m writing it just off the top of my head: # Central Europeans actually collaborating with the Mongols to more comprehensively destroy the Baghdad Caliphate. (Good and wholesome fun for everyone except the Arabs who were utterly destroyed!) # Britain working with Jatt Sikhs from India in the war in Peshawar against Russian-backed Muslims during the Great Game. # The Dutch Empire working strategically with Filipino tribes and with the Kingdom of Siam (Thailand) against the Malacca Sultanate, and against other Islamic puppet regimes that had been sponsored by Arab merchants in South East Asia. # Britain working with Central Asians during the Great Game against Russia. # Poland supporting the Caucasus, Central Asia, Korea, and Japan in organising against their mutual enemy Russia. # Britain working with Japan to help foment the Russo-Japanese war in 1904, which Japan won. # Britain working with Indian ‘sepoys’ against the Ottoman Empire during 1914 - 1918. # The existence of the Gurkha rifles in almost every war Britain has fought. # Pacific islanders overrepresented in the British SAS. # Britain sponsoring the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic against the Soviet Union in the 1920s. # NS Germany working with Crimean Tatars against the Russians and against the Jews in Crimea. # NS Germany and Fascist Italy literally allying themselves with people in: Japan, Korea, the Burmese National Army, the Indian National Army, Indonesian National Army, Young Malays Union, Thailand, the Philippines, Formosa (Han in Taiwan and Taiwanese aboriginals), Mongolia, Hmong tribes, Khmer Issarak (Cambodian and Khmer), Cambodia, Laos, Cochinchina (later part of Vietnam), Annam (later part of Vietnam), Tonkin (later part of Vietnam), Manchuria, Tibet, Assam, Bengal. So I guess having third parties aligned to your side and helping to stir up change when and where we can, is only ‘weird’ if it was ‘weird’ all of the other times that it has been happening in the past, right? It’s apparently so ‘weird’ that it’s never happened except for all the times that it has happened. Regarding this constant complaining that others have been making about the so-called ‘anti-German’ stuff, there is no anti-German stuff here at all. Asking people not to venerate the tactical and strategic mistakes in Central and Eastern Europe that were made by Germany during the Second World War, is not an ‘anti-German position’. It’s just friendly advice. There is correctness and error mixed together in everything. It always strikes me as strange, that the same narrow-minded people—who more often than not are from a misguided clique of German-Americans—who are constantly complaining that Majorityrights ‘is anti-German’ even though it is not, and the same people who are interested in single-minded veneration of NS Germany, are also the same people who seem to think that Axis was some kind of whites-only saviour structure or something. It was not, nor should it have been. Rather than asking me what right I have to opine on the presently disastrous situation in Europe even though I’m living in that disaster, maybe all the smarmy German-Americans should ask themselves whether that question ever made sense in the first place. Seriously. We should all be on the same side here, we’re all striving for the same thing. I don’t know UH and I have nothing against him really, I just wish that people would stop being needlessly divisive. It’s not helping. 52
Posted by uh on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:46 | # Of course it was, Daniel. Ever the cheap shooter that guy. It’s unfortunate because just the other day, clearing out some notes, I found one I had saved by that punk, and was deeply impressed by its profundity ... I guess it’s the common tragedy of white men not to “get” each other in spite of all we have in common. Whatevs. I guess it’s my fault overall. 53
Posted by uh on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 06:03 | # Yea ok I was just wondering. So you’re Asian and a chick, weird. Are you that one I read about on Encyclopedia Dramatica? Ah who cares. I dunno, I’m not German-American, and historically I’ve been excoriated for that fact. I don’t care about Germans at all anymore. 54
Posted by uh on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 06:05 | # Ps - I know waaay more about the Bad Guys than you (in five languages) and you’re overselling their commitment to Asians by a wide margin. They could barely bring themselves to support good earnest Slavic partisans ... stupidass krauts .... Guys I’m sorry, I’m wasted and I just miss our old drama - PF, Scrooby, Captain, Hunter “drumstix” Wallace, Kane/Iceman/Metal Gear/Daryl, Soren, Leon, Silver ... wait f that I don’t miss Silver lol ... 55
Posted by uh on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 06:14 | # For the curious, here’s the quote: “Nature is the totality of the material and how that material acts. Conducting oneself according to Nature could be done consistent with is what adaptive for the continued life of human beings or consistent with the general pattern of entropy that will eventually sweep away all life. Only the former avoids nihilism; homosexual marriage and child-rearing are not adaptive and therefor embrace nihilism.” Damn! I still can’t believe that was CaptainChaos. An uncomfortable non sequitur there but overall, how many men attain to this level of consciousness about humanity, life, and the whole fucking universe? 56
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 06:36 | #
Enjoy being wasted, it can be fun and sometimes helps to tap-into some deeper thoughts, older parts of the brain and all that - its one of the perks of being a guy and being forsaken… you can go there more readily. As for the old crew, let me see: PF was one who GW looked upon as precocious and a potential protege, but apparently would not abide a racialist position and so abandoned MR (that is my understanding of what happened with him). Scrooby is dead. Captainchaos as you just experienced, with a two by four, is still here (when he wants to be). Hunter Wallace is in a completely different scene as the new head of the Council of Conservative Citizens. It is not as if I would refuse his commenting here, but I don’t foresee that happening much: he’s a traditional American Southerner, Christian, all that coming apparently before race for him. Kane/Iceman etc. - I don’t know who that is. Soren was here until recently and I did not want him to leave but he reacted sensitively to my ridicule of Andre Anglin, Uncle AH, and Weev, in particular, for joining forces with Anglin and the AH idealists. Soren and Weev are welcome here but they might have a problem with our platform. Leon, forget about it. I can’t believe that you would miss him. Are grammatical sentences worth that much to you? Silver was a Semitic, middle-man troll. It is very good to be rid of him. 57
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:07 | #
Yes. My first post at MR was: [LINK: Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights, ‘North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet’, 11 July 2015] That was effectively my ‘introduction post’.
I am not in any wiki article written anywhere. I am basically nowhere on the internet, because I’ve never been doxxed, nor have I ever done anything that would induce anyone to try to dox me. On that note though, I should also talk about design philosophy in that context. The present configuration of the Majorityrights website is set up in order to help people who think they may be at risk, to reduce the attack-surface that they present when posting or browsing here. I explain (alongside cheeky imagery) some of the measures taken in the maintenance category: [LINK: Majorityrights Central > Category: Maintenance] With the situation as it is, Majorityrights satisfies the conditions for secure browsing over Tor if you are a Tor user (since Tor + SSL = the exit node or relay can’t spy on your browsing habits even if it’s one of the infamous Russian FSB exit nodes and relays). Also, all comments are held here at Majorityrights and not on Disqus, because Disqus has problems. So for anyone who is wondering why we didn’t migrate our comments section to Disqus, it’s because I basically don’t trust it in light of the fact that the Swedish ‘anti-racist’ group Researchgruppen has exfiltrated people’s personal info from it before, and I’m not satisfied that it couldn’t occur again. My philosophy on web design is different to that of say, TradYouth or Daily Stormer, because I prefer more secure so-called ‘decrepitude’ over less secure trendiness. That is why my updates to Majorityrights have been relatively austere on the front-end.
Basically it’s like archery, just shooting straight at the target. One of the next things I’d like to demonstrate is the use of full-length audio watermarking, since I’d like to demonstrate to the ethno-nationalist community that you can prevent misuse of your final audio mix by political adversaries (who might cut up your radio clips to change the context of your words), by writing a pattern that would show up in spectral view while being inaudible to the listener, so that altered audio clips could be detected if they were to occur. To some extent we’ve already been demo-ing this on recent podcasts.
I shouldn’t imply that you are part of that clique, then. Sorry about that ambiguity. However, you shouldn’t give up on them. 58
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:12 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: What if Sweden were to be criticised from the left? What would that look like?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) |
Posted by G.W.'s countenance on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 00:59 | #