|
|
|
Soren Renner at VoR Tom Sunic interviews Soren here. Run-time 35min 28sec. Tom gets Soren to expand, somewhat, on his adoption of the Gramscian dictum “pessimism of the intellect - optimism of the will”, on religion in our present woes, on the concept of the enemy, and on civilisational collapse. Probably the best interview Soren has given. Still some dark areas for me, but much to think about. Comments:2
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:23 | #
No, he didn’t. He tried to get Søren to “contract”, and, fortunately, his attempt was unsuccessful. Søren indicates a direction, and we have a strong tendency to want a point, which, of course, he will never give us. It’s as if he were rising against the enemies of God. 3
Posted by Skeptik on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:49 | # @ Kievsky
No it wasn’t. Renner was an arrogant SOB.
Correct. But it was because: 1. Renner does not know what the hell he is talking about.
A little advice: Cut the pretentious B.S. and learn how to speak to the (white) layman. 4
Posted by Skeptik on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:55 | # @ passerby
Actually, I thought it was very rude of him to accuse Dr. Sunic of not understanding him. And Dr. Sunic was the bigger man for politely putting up with Renner’s arrogance. And For the record, Renner sounds like a jew; you, know, the nasal-whiny type of voice. God, I couldn’t stand it. 5
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:04 | # ROTFLMFAO! I know I shouldn’t laugh; I know it’s rude, but this interview reminded me of ‘The Al Sharpton and Lou Farrakhan Comedy Hour’ comedy skit. Whereas renneR plays the part of Lou Farrakhan and Sunic plays the part of Fat Al. See for yourself: 6
Posted by Rurik on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:27 | #
There was a moment where Sunic seemed a bit exasperated and appeared to be calling Renner out and suggesting that he thinks Renner might be bullshitting. 7
Posted by Rurik on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:38 | #
Especially with Sunic’s annoying greaseball accent. 8
Posted by lolzlzlz on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:39 | #
That’s understating it. After some painfully long and awkward minutes of confusion, he totally loses patience and likens Soren’s blather to the “mickey mouse words” of Soviet theorists! Hey, MAYBE the reason is that Soren isn’t the oracle he imagines himself to be?? lolzolzozlzoz I don’t know who arranged this, but I guarantee you Sunic regrets it. Renner is a confused man unworthy of a serious platform; his “profound” ideas have all been said by real ecologists, and on the right, by Linkola, whom Renner used to idolize. There are like three dozen personalities worth interviewing. Ever listen to the Iranian for Aryans interview at VoR? Solid performance, a man with a clear head and even voice. 9
Posted by Rurik on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:18 | #
I was trying to be polite, but yes.
Yes, he intimates that it’s very profound and esoteric, but it just seems to be warmed over Malthus and ecological collapse stuff. I don’t see why he doesn’t just explain it clearly and lay out his case. It’s not advanced physics or anything. Laymen should be able to follow it. 10
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:01 | # Is this Renner blight a National Socialist? If not, he is as much use to the generality of Whites as the House Rabbi at Goldman Sachs. 11
Posted by MOB on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:44 | # I found the interview stressful. Sunic’s mission and, in fact, responsibility, was to give his listeners a broadcast experience of substance, by way of an intelligent and knowledgeable exchange between him and his guest. For Sunic, it was all about his listeners. Renner’s mission was to be intentionally, irritatingly obscure and esoteric; for Renner, it was all about his own exceptionality. A long time ago I listened to another Renner broadcast. I considered it a complete waste of time. Then I watched Renner at the London meeting, and I was more favorably impressed. It’s possible that, knowing he was being taped and standing before real, live people, he tailored his words more carefully. Renner seems to make only a few basic points, each of which could really be expressed much more simply than he does; for example, millions will die, we will live, could be seen as a variation on the them, it has to get worse before it gets better. The refusal to get anywhere close to putting a face on who or what Us and Them could conceivably be was awkward, I thought, in the face of such a dire forecast. I strongly favor plain speech, as did Martin Luther, I was pleased to learn years ago. Assuming that our purpose in speaking or writing is to transmit information that we deem to be worthy, even vital in the case where civilizational collapse and millions of lives are at stake, we have a vested interest in making our words as comprehensible as possible. Luther’s goal as a proponent of education was to arm people with the ability to rebut error. That aspect has become increasingly important in these days of perpetual propaganda. Not long ago, researching web development, I came across the web site of a woman who has made a successful career out of plain language in the context of Usability. It suggests that making oneself understood is something that can be learned. If you, Soren, would like to give up your present persona as one who is so off the charts in uniqueness as to be past the understanding of all save a rare few, then possibly you’d like to peruse it: http://www.redish.net/ If you were to be understood by many, that wouldn’t imply that were were only average. It would only demonstrate that, besides your gift for brilliance, you also have a gift for conveying your pearls—nay, diamonds—to all who yearn for enlightenment. : ) If what I’ve written sounds sarcastic, then I’ve failed to apply my own standard of plain speech, because that’s not my intent. I’m only addressing the style of presentation, not the value or worth of the presenter. 12
Posted by Bill on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:12 | # This for me was a match of two halves, it was stultifyingly frustrating in the first half and I felt like going home. In fact I switched off and washed my hands of it. Later, curiosity got the better of me and my cursor wandered back for the second half. From the restart it was a different game, maybe the coach had gone in at halftime and given them both a rollicking, Soren became coherent and Sunic less frustrated, progress began to be made. Soren’s pessimism is taking shape here in Britain as I type, how bad it is is difficult to gauge, personally I think it is in its infancy, but the trend is clear, here in England it’s getting worse by the day. I’ve posted before that before anything really kicks off this country will implode into dysfunction, again, how bad the the dysfunction will become is difficult to call, but if it continues unabated as it is now, then the dysfunction will become ungovernable. I say this even though the mass of the people do not yet understand what is taking place. Soren’s train is already careering out of control in slow motion, how long are we talking here months or years? I don’t know. If pushed I would say sooner rather than later, this thing has gained a momentum all of its own. As an aside, am I seeing Britain punch way above its weight in this globalisation mullarkey? Some say America is the junior partner in all of this, can this be true? I doubt whether the political gofors here have the necessary ability to see this thing through, (does that make sense?) that’s why I think it will all come apart before they’re ready. The situation here (and in Europe) is Alice in Wonderland, Cameron is more like Blair than Blair and is piling on the coals of this runaway train. All of this has been theory so far, now we’re approaching the nuts and bolts, it’s beginning to look messy, the monkey is looking puzzled. 13
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:14 | # Hate to sound bitchy but if that’s focused what the hell is his unfocused mode like? Pretty insubstantial fluff in my view. And all this ‘waiting for the collapse’ stuff sounds awfully like old time Trotskyites always predicting the next crisis of capitalism that will be ‘the one’ to bring it down. Now of course there are serious ecological and environmental issues at hand, but they may or may not be disastrous in the medium term, so I would NOT base an entire political strategy around their alleged near certainty. 14
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:02 | # Radical despair suggests it may lead to overconfidence in the bleakest picture being the true reality. Or perhaps hands to Cassandra an overclocked watch. 15
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:15 | # Extreme predictions and poses of ‘radical despair’ are easy. Actually offering realistic assessments and strategies requires hard research and wise reflection. “What can be said, can be said clearly.” - Wittgenstein 16
Posted by MOB on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:46 | #
Imperfect choice. Lots of Jewishness in Wittgenstein’s ancestry which assures his genius at least in part, but aside from that, he and Soren appear to manifest similar symptoms:
17
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:17 | #
WTF?! Yes, Witt was a Jew. Does anyone deny that? Are you meaning to doubt or deny the historical significance of Wittgenstein?! I skimmed the wiki article. Had never seen it before. Amazing how talented and successful Jews are. I have no beef with Soren. May he flourish! I have not listened to his interview, but I doubt seriously that he (or I, or anyone else I’ve read here) bears any type of comparison to Witt. Sorry. 18
Posted by Papa Luigi on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:29 | # Let me start by saying that in my view Søren Renner is a great guy, he’s obviously not everyone’s cup of tea, but that’s because he’s misunderstood. In the interview Søren talks about his inability to make himself widely understood and he refers to this obvious handicap as a blessing. This is his biggest error - as an inability to be widely understood cannot be anything other than a handicap for someone who aspires to be a leader of men. The good news for Søren is that his condition is able to be corrected. The interview was difficult, almost painful to listen to, and I almost stopped listening at least a dozen times, but out of respect for both Søren and Tom Sunic I persisted and listened right through to the end. While the interview was difficult to listen to, it did however contain some interesting and valid points, which seem to have eluded most of the people who have commented above. Tom asks Søren who he thinks the enemy is and Søren avoided giving a simple answer, which may have seemed frustrating to many, but his reticence enabled a better answer to emerge than might otherwise have been the case. In addition to identifying our racial adversaries, who Søren refers to as the ‘international rodents’, the Malthusian issue also emerged and this was very important. People are too simplistic in their identification of rival racial groups as the primary threat to our people. These are obvious threats, but we Europeans as a race would still face the Malthusian problem even if the other races were no threat to us politically or demographically. Furthermore, their place would be taken by elements from within our own race, even if other racial groups ceased to exist entirely. In fact, our racial competitors are only a threat to us because of the universalism that pervades Marxism, liberalism and Christianity and most of Western political thinking in recent times, and which exacerbates the Malthusian threat. Universalism asserts human equality and a common destiny for all mankind and it is the aim of raising all mankind up to the level of material prosperity that we have achieved in the West that equates to ‘the monkey, the nuts and the log’ analogy that Søren describes. The extent of the malthusian problem is that the population of this planet is already so large that it is impossible to achieve a Western level of material propserity for the whole world, unless of course someone magically invents a machine that is capable of fabricating vast quantities of food and resource materials out of thin air. In fact, we have reached a point already, beyond which the only way to raise the living standards of the Third World is by reducing the material wealth of the West. Thus we see manufacturing plants and whole industries being exported from Western nations to the Far East and other parts of the Third World. This is the redistribution of wealth that Communists used to talk about thirty or forty years ago, but it is happening today through the auspices of global capitalism, and it is happening with the blessing of the not just crypto-Marxists, but social-democrats, liberals and Christians as well. The impact of Western impoverishment on the living standards in the West has been disguised and deferred somewhat by the credit boom that has now resulted in not just individuals, but corporations and governments in the West carrying arguably unsustainable levels of debt. The increasing prosperity and the industrialisation of the Third World will consequently, gradually grind to a halt in the years to come, as Western governments are now realising that the redistribution of the wealth of the world and the manufacturing capacity of the world cannot continue to be disguised by the continual issue of credit to the West. Any further loss of manufacturing capacity by the Western nations will result in either a sudden or progressive economic catastrophy of the sort that will go beyond anything that the Western peoples would be prepared to tolerate without civil violence and the possibility of revolution. All that current governments across the world can do is to attempt to manage the problem in the hope of averting violence and/or revolution. The problem will inevitably worsen however as Third World nations have now had their appetites for Western living standards well and truly whetted and their populations are still growing. The world is now full up with people and it is now impossible to meet the aspirations of the present population from the reources that are available. Furthermore as the population of the world continues to grow, it will in future be impossible to prevent a worldwide decline in material prosperity measured on a per capita basis. This is why governments are decreasingly concerned with arming their military in order to protect their nations from attack by hostile nations, as other nations will decreasingly have the capacity required to wage war on that scale. Instead governments are now primarily concerned with the suppression of the civil rebellion that they expect will come as living standards decline. This is why legislation is being passed all over the world in the guise of anti-terrorist measures and systems are being implemented that will allow government to monitor through surveillance networks the increasingly unhappy and unruly populace under their jurisdiction. As Søren predicts, and I appreciate that he has not been alone in this, a ‘train-wreck’ is approaching, which current world governments are unable to avoid. They are caught like the monkey with his fist firmly gripped around the nuts in the log, by the universalism that pervades their belief systems, whether they are liberals, social-democrats, Marxists or Christians, belief systems that will not allow them to do what is necessary to put matters right, because the action required involves a desecration of their core value, the belief in human equality. When asked by Tom Sunic what needs to be done and how we can overcome the reticence of Christians to act in our racial interests, Søren prescribes the correct solution which is the formation of a new religion, “It is the only thing that will work”, he asserts, and Tom concludes that , we have to figure out how to make it acceptable for Christians to believe in something else. This must be done by first making Christians aware of the full extent of the problem, because this has a spiritual or metaphysical dimension and not just geopolitical, economic and demographic dimensions. Even if we suppose that world leaders are able to juggle the resources of the world and to slow population growth to levels that the Earth can just about sustain, we would have a world in which the evolutionary pressures are such that; people who are small in stature would fare better than larger people; people who are able to survive on smaller quantities of food and lower quality foodstuffs would fare better than people who require a nutrient rich diet; people who are content to have their physical living space reduced to the absolute minimum would fare better than those who prefer wide open spaces; those who are able to tollerate a dull and grey existence with few opportunities would fare better than those who thrive on opportunity and challenge; those who are able to thrive in a dirty, contaminated and boarderline toxic environment would fare better than those who thrive on cleanliness and freedom from contamination; and lastly, those who are willing and able to reproduce in unfavourable conditions would come to dominate the earth. In short the kind of planet we would have is one in which the prevalent evolutionary pressures would lead to what I call ‘Cockroach Man’, i.e. a race of human beings adapted to life of a kind that has direct parallels with the life of a cockroach. Furthermore, even if Christians were able to create the Kingdom of God on earth so that the earth was like the paradise that is portrayed in those illustrated leaflets that Jehovah’s Witnesses distribute, you know, the ones that depict people of all races frollicking in sunlit woodland glades with fruit growing on the trees, toucans and a lion playing with a lamb in the background, what then? Wouldn’t life in such a utopian paradise be incredibly dull? Where would be the challenge in life that gives life its achievements and makes it all worthwhile? Wouldn’t life resemble that depicted in the film ‘Groundhog Day’? Wouldn’t life in a world in which nothing of any note ever happened, in which nothing ever changed, in which everyone agreed with everybody else, in which everybody had everything they ever wanted, be incredibly, mind-bogglingly mundane to the point that it would soon become a Hell on earth and we would find ourselves doing anything in an attempt to break the monotony? In this latter respect, it is clear that all universalist and utopian ideologies are flawed by the childishness of their conception. They require a childishly impractical mentality in which ‘we wish it could be Christmas every day!’, when in fact as adults we know it can’t be. Furthermore, all of the universalist and egalitarian ideologies are those promulgated and foisted upon the European peoples by Jews, and the way to make it acceptable for Christians to believe in something else is to show them that the one true God, the God that they have been worshipping all along, does not have anything to do with the Bible, the Jews or Christianity and that we have for two thousand years been led astray by the Jews and their Bible full of childish fairytale nonsense. The one true God, who has been patiently waiting for Europeans to regain our grip on reality, is the God of Nature and the Universe, the God, belief in whom is consistent with all of the known laws of science, the Creator of all things described by William Pierce in his Cosmotheism Trilogy. 19
Posted by Papa Luigi on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:10 | # NB. For more on Cosmotheism see an interesting website that is still under development at: Cosmotheism Now! 20
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:36 | # Papa L, Can you prove the existence of God? More specifically (and reasonably), can you provide a rationale for thinking that a Cosmotheistic God is more likely to exist (I mean ontologically, not merely in terms of human psychology; by ‘God’ we ought to mean something which exists independently of man) than the Christian God? My own belief is that God is either the Trinity, or a myth. 21
Posted by Papa Luigi on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:15 | # Leon Haller @22
In Cosmotheism, man, the universe around us and everything in it, are the physical manifestation of the Creator. I can go to great lengths to convince you that mankind exists together with the universe and everything in it if you like, but I don’t think that is really necessary. We can see the physical manifestation of the Creator all around us, we can touch it, feel it, and taste it. How does this compare with the Christian God? The Christian God is in reality the Jewish God and Jews and Christians claim that the Judaeo-Christian God is supernatural and exists independantly of not just man but the rest of the Universe (Creation) as well. Unfortunately for them there is no evidence to substantiate this. The Judaeo-Christian God is alleged to be an anthropomorphic, conscious, sentient, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God. Unfortunately for Jews and Christians, there is no evidence to support this assertion. Jews and Christians, and Muslims for that matter, claim that their God made all of Creation in just six days and apparently he/she/it did this in order that mankind might love him and sing his praises throughout eternity. That’s nice, but unfortunately there is neither evidence to support this assertion, nor is there any logical reason to support such a hypothesis, and nor is there any reason why any adult person would want to worship a God who is so vain that he’she/it would create a whole world/Universe just so that a race of men might worship him/her/it throughout eternity. Science shows us that the Universe is expanding and that at a point in time approximately 13.8 billion years ago all of the matter that now forms the universe must have been compressed into one point, a ‘singularity’ as they call it. If we consider the development of the Universe from singularity to where we are today, we see that the Universe is a massive chaos engine that facilitates evolution through blind iteration, and that none-the-less matter has evolved from raw energy particles through ever more increasingly complex states, passing from inanimate matter across the threshold to animate matter, i.e. living things, and that these have evolved from single celled organisms to man. If the process of evolution continues, then logically, man will evolve into higher man and higher man will eventually evolve into a being or beings with transcendental consciousness, knowledge and power. In short, the Universe is the mechanism by which ‘God’ is self-created through a process of iterative metamorphosis of the complex energy relationships that evolve within. Nothing so twee as the ‘Trilogy’ of God in three persons could possibly be true. I hope this answers your question. 22
Posted by lolzlzlz on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:31 | #
Actually, he took that from Selous Scout’s comment in another thread. Unbeknownst to you, Soren scours threads look for usable memes — like danielj’s “radical despair”, of which he made predictably asinine use. Soren “predicts” nothing. You ever heard of Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb?
This is you projecting coherence onto a completely incoherent, clumsy ass who stumbles his way through sentences. In fact, the very programmer of theinterview page was obliged to project the same coherence in describing the contents of the show:
Now, that’s clarity of thought. But it isn’t Soren Renner’s work! How is it acceptable to anyone to poach ideas and memes, fumble with them like a spergie, and claim credit for being “exceptional” and “profound”? Good God you Brits are gullible!
You do know that such talk goes on at Stormfront every day of the week, 365 days per year? And the evident contradiction of haphazardly running danielj’s “radical despair” with a “new religion” really ought to be obvious to a “member of the British MENSA”, but alas, ‘tis a struggle to see what is right before one’s nose.
LOLZOOZOZOZOZZZ And I thought Soren is the mythomane. Look at this rot! 23
Posted by lolzlzlz on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:38 | # Imperfect choice. Lots of Jewishness in Wittgenstein’s ancestry which assures his genius at least in part, but aside from that, he and Soren appear to manifest similar symptoms: Clarity of thought and originality not among them. Wittgenstein wrote the Tractatus, which I assume you have not read, “MOB”, as only ignorance begets such officiousness as you exhibit; when Soren learns to correctly pronounce “Gramscian” and stops pretending his sources are his own, we’ll have someone to talk to, and not a philosophical genius. By the way, Gramsci’s actual words: ” Sono pessimista con l’intelligenza, ma ottimista con la volontà. “ “I’m a pessimist with intelligence, but an optimist with the will.” — Meaning that despite all his pessimism he still managed to get up in the morning. 24
Posted by lolzlzlz on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:42 | #
Of more utility to poor Soren: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man scwheigen. 26
Posted by lolzlzlz on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:53 | #
Just in case anyone thinks I’m teasing, I have just found the full quote, half-remembered from my student days: — “Il mio stato d’animo è tale che se anche fossi condannato a morte, continuerei a essere tranquillo e anche la sera prima dell’esecuzione magari studierei una lezione di lingua cinese per non cadere più in quegli stati d’animo volgari e banali che si chiamano pessimismo e ottimismo. Il mio stato d’animo sintetizza questi due sentimenti e li supera: sono pessimista con l’intelligenza, ma ottimista con la volontà.” being englisced, “My state of mind is such that even being condemned to death, I go on being tranquil, and even on the night of the execution am able to study a lesson in Chinese so as to not fall into those vulgar and banal states of mind called pessimism and optimism. My state of mind synthesizes these two sentiments and overcomes them: I am a pessimist with intelligence, but an optimist with will.” Anyone can just grab sayings from real thinkers and fling them about with a semblance of applicability. The trouble is demonstrating it. Soren, of course, being a total intellectual impostor, failed to do so — though he succeeded in aggravating Sunic and giving me some truly profound belly-laughs. zozoozozozoz 27
Posted by Re Lollzlzlz on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:16 | # “Here’s an interview at VoR with a real man.” Does macho homosexuality fulfill the definition of a real man? 28
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:30 | # Søren reminds me of someone telling jokes that most of his listeners don’t “get”. We listeners object, and are frustrated when no explanation is forthcoming. Knowing that a joke’s explanation is its undermining, Søren moves on to the next. We become irate, because he will not deprive us of our satisfaction. 29
Posted by Papa Luigi on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:48 | # lolzlzlz @25 The fact is that as a member of British Mensa good ideas flow in and out of my mind so often and with such regularity that I feel no need to get all possesive about them. All that concerns me is that if I incorporate an idea into my beleifs that it presents a coherent whole. Perhaps you don’t share this experience and feel the need to whinge about others stealing your ideas. I can sympathise with that point of view, as I have in the past known a number of other dumb people who feel exactly the same way. You feel the need to denigrate the teachings of Dr William Pierce, yet you offer nothing in their place. Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us all what beliefs underpin your racial nationalism? 30
Posted by Re: Papa Luigi on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:14 | # “The fact is that as a member of British Mensa good ideas flow in and out of my mind so often and with such regularity that I feel no need to get all possesive about them.” LOL! Then in future it would be great if you can try to capture in your the net the salmon for any public displays and not the catfish. Pierce’s views on Cosmotheism and the whole futurity, Beyondism area is a limited approach, not a religion or modus to motivate or be held by all, particularly the bottom half of the population. No doubt you will be the L Ron Hubbard of Cosmotheism with a C-Meter for potentiality audits. re Donovan - OK 31
Posted by lolzlzlz on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:24 | # @ Papa Luigi loozozozozzzz You mouthy MENSAns.
No, but he rakes in the adulation lavished upon him by you English dolts. He doesn’t have to claim to be original. He appropriates memes, casually passes them off as the latest brilliant Rennerism, and you lot provide the echo chamber. So simple, a MENSAn could grasp it. Aren’t you supposed to be especially adept at pattern recognition? Do you see a commonality in your, Guessedworker’s, and Bill’s reaction to Soren’s utterly embarrassing display of self-important, confused unoriginality? You seem to be doing all the fill-in work for him. Soren says something vague and mostly uninspiring, got from someone else, and in you trot to fill it out as some profound sign of the age or ethnic strategy. This is playing to someone’s vanity, nothing else.
You almost hit your eyeball thrusting your nose in the air that way. Point is that Soren is a poseur. Selous Scout uses an arresting metaphor to describe what we’re going through, and suddenly it is “Soren’s train”. It is a way of speaking that surrounds Soren that makes him appear to be precisely what he is not — a coherent thinker with something to say — as the interview reveals. He’s just this clumsy programmer who’s gotten you all to believe he’s an “ecologist” or something. Um, recognizing hard truths does not make one anything. I’m glad Graham Lister spotted the silliness of it.
I see being a worthy of the British MENSA does not keep one from wild ad hominem, zozllzlozozz.
The “rot” to which I referred was not Pierce’s ideology, but your foisting of Pierce’s Sinn upon Renner’s demonstrated and very painfully elementary Unsinn. And as a matter of fact, graybeard, I find that this resonates with me:
32
Posted by MOB on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:51 | # I actually have a personal interest in the Cassandra complex; I first read about it last July. A friend and I were talking (emailing) about hypnotism which led to alchemy which led me but not necessarily him to Jung, to individuation, and then to these paragraphs on the Cassandra complex (I didn’t save the URL, but I believe I captured the extent of it on this particular page). I didn’t send the individuation / Cassandra material to my friend; I feared he wouldn’t be receptive to it—he knew of my relationship difficulties. (lolzzlozzxx calling me “officious” when I feel uncommonly reasonable is an insignificant example, though that’s explained now (Jack Donovan, feminism) by simple relativity. Here’s what I saved on the Cassandra complex; it seems to relate to females, but Soren may know more about it than me. Laurie Layton Schapira dysfunctional relationships with the “Apollo archetype” Layton Schapira views the Cassandra complex as resulting from a dysfunctional relationship with what she calls the “Apollo archetype”, which refers to any individual’s or culture’s pattern that is dedicated to, yet bound by, order, reason, intellect, truth and clarity that disavows itself of anything occult or irrational.[5] The intellectual specialization of this archetype creates emotional distance and can predispose relationships to a lack of emotional reciprocity and consequent dysfunctions.[4[ She further states that a ‘Cassandra woman’ is very prone to hysteria because she “feels attacked not only from the outside world but also from within, especially from the body in the form of somatic, often gynaecological, complaints.”[6] Addressing the metaphorical application of the Greek Cassandra myth, Layton Schapira states that:
33
Posted by lolzlzlz on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:09 | # Truly, the only thing worse than a Mensan, is a menstruating Mensan.
You are officious because you believe yourself entitled to pass judgement upon Ludwig Wittgenstein, and what’s worse, reduce him to Soren Renner’s level. But you have demonstrated this tendency before in questioning the loyalty of men like Kevin MacDonald. “Relationship difficulties” — no kidding? I wouldn’t have thought. High-IQ broads are always exceptionally lovely and make fine housewives. I have an ex-girlfriend who likes to crow that she feels “uncommonly reasonable”. Are you my ex, MOB? Ты говоришь русский язык??? zozozozzlozozozlz
There. You’ve just done it. You have imputed to Soren a depth of understanding he does not possess. The truth is that he knows much less than any of you. You are projecting — all of you. Now, let’s get back to the J Richards Show. 34
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:17 | #
Interesting choice of words. Judging by his bearded appearance, Renner is the House Rabbi at MR [someone has to fulfill this role]. Renner’s not anything close to a national socialist [in case Antonio Gramsci et. al. aren’t a clue]. Papa Luigi @24 Thou shalt not mock Christianity by talking of the “Judeo-Christian” oxymoron as Judaism and Christianity developed as antagonistic religions… Christ condemned the Pharisees, who were the precursors of Jews, and you should read the Talmud for the attitudes of Jews toward Christians and Christianity. Jesus in neither Jewish as in a Jewish creation nor of Jewish descent. I’ve already pointed this out to you, starting here: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/tony_lecomber_on_the_future_of_nationalism#c120064 [scroll down for the rest of the conversation between us] It’s also interesting to note that Haller, who claims to be a Christian, and one studying theology in depth, has no problems with such grotesque characterization. 35
Posted by Papa Luigi on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:23 | # Hey you lot, it is evident that some of you are far more concerned with denigrating each other than you are with forging a future for our children. We live in an age where we have not time for ego stroking. So what if Søren Renner adopts someone else’s idea and uses it in the future in a context whereby someone else might think it was his idea? I didn’t come into nationalism in order to earn royalties off my ideas and if someone like me can adopt a care free attitude I don’t see that there is any justification for you lot to savage someone who is just doing what he can for the cause. The fact is that if Søren or anyone else wants to adopt my ideas as their own and go around repeating my views, albeit presented as if they are their own, it does not worry me a jot. If I can go to my deathbed with the sound of my own ideas ringing and resonating in my ears from ten thousand or a million different sources, then I will be able to die happy knowing that I have succeeded in educating and enlightening my people. So cut Søren some slack and let’s concentrate our fire on the truly evil people that are destroying our nations. BTW thank you for the 25 or so people who have visited http://cosmotheism.wordpress.com since I posted the address, I hope you found it interesting. 36
Posted by lolzlzlz on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:32 | # Papa Luigi, This had nothing to do with your ideas, so I don’t know why you’re going on about it. You seem to have just inserted yourself into the matter of Soren’s posing as the Oracle of Wicker Park and the rather naive encouragement he receives for it. I guess with the passing of Birdman Bryant, Mensa has taken a turn for the worser, loozz. Ta. 37
Posted by Papa Luigi on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:56 | # J Richards @38
I was not mocking Christianity, just pointing out its illogicality and absurdity.
Unfortunately, thats not what the Bible indicates. Why don’t you try countering the criticisms of Christianity that I have expressed, i.e. with regard to why God was supposed to have created us and his apparent vanity? Also, you might like to tell us what you envisage when the Kingdom of God comes on earth? Will there be lots of fruit and toucans in the trees? I know you have pointed out your unsubstantiated opinions to me JR, but you haven’t pointed out any apparent truths as yet. I realised that Christianity is a crock when I was just five years old and I’ve seen or heard nothing to change my mind since. If you want to argue religion with me you are welcome, but I warn you that you should be prepared to see Christianity utterly and completely discredited if you do. 38
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:23 | # Papa Luigi @42 I’m not here to promote Christianity. I also don’t care about what you find absurd and illogical in Christianity. My issue is with your portrayal of the Christian God as Jewish.
I gave you peer-reviewed journal citations that you’ve yet to refute. The Bible doesn’t indicate anything close to the Christian God being Jewish. It’s a mistranslation to regard Judean or Judahite, the things the Bible talks about, as Jew, which scholarly review unambiguously shows. The Biblical passages you come across weren’t originally written in English. You need to keep this in mind next time you encounter a reference to Jew in the Bible as there’s only one group in the Bible that refers to the precursor of Jews [no people were known as Jews at the time of Jesus], and this comprises of the Pharisees and the Edomite community they descended from. 39
Posted by IV on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:24 | # Renner rarely seems to post anything other than Youtube videos and cryptic one-liners. He appears to have had more substantial posts in the past, though nothing truly expansive or explicative. In all seriousness, and if it’s not too much to ask, it’d be interesting if he could make a substantial post or two expounding his thesis. 40
Posted by asdfjkl on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:44 | # Soren’s whole Rasputin persona is built around presenting himself as intellectual mystic. He is in love with his pretentious self image as a mantic genius. MY ... GOD ... JUST ... TOO ... PROFOUND ... FOR ... OUR ... LIMITED ... HUMAN ... LANGUAGE ... MY BRAIN IS BURNING!!! 41
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:46 | #
I wish I had a pound for every time that Papa L has reminded us of this, it seems to feature in almost every other post. On the other hand it is refreshing to note that one Englishmen, at least, has managed to cast off the self-limiting constraints of false modesty and self-deprecation that have been national characteristics for so long. And to think that we mock Americans and Germans for their over-earnestness! We have much to learn but with Papa L in the van there is hope for us yet.
42
Posted by anon on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:48 | # I always imagine Mr Renner wanting to express ideas using allusions only Jonathan Bowden would get which is a bit of a hurdle. I think that would be a very entertaining not-really-an-interview even if i didn’t understand most of it.
I think universalism is a side-effect of outbreeding which is (ironically) a problem because it’s not universal. If true, there’s nothing can be done about it in under 4-5 generations which is too late so it’s either go vanguard or work with the grain (long-term, break up into swiss style cantons with an optimal max pop. maybe). 43
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:19 | #
Yes, this is precisely the opportunity Søren presents for us. In addition to being impossible, his compliance with the demand to explicate his views would destroy the possibility of our using them as a means of self-discovery. No’m sane? 44
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:27 | # IV @44
We may have to rely for that on one our number who ‘gets it’ and is less given to Delphic pronouncements. I do agree, it is entertaining but baffling. British readers may be reminded of Professor Stanley Unwin. Here is the great man answering questions on BBC’s cerebral quiz-show “Mastermind”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY-PEeX5xYY
45
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:56 | # Regarding outlining specifics defining who the enemy is and discussing countering them: “efforts underway at the MITRE Corporation that could help make a Social Radar real. For instance, there’s the “Forum and Blog Threaded Comment Analysis (FABTAC)” project, which analyzes online discussions “for intelligence and operations.” ” Wired 46
Posted by Papa Luigi on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:28 | # Richards @43
Is not the God of the Bible a God that the Jews worshipped prior to the Christian adoption of that God? Yes? My case made.
Except that the journals in question were not independent journals, they were journals written by happy, clappy Christian fundamentalists. Its independent peer review that carries weight not the word of some crazed Christian zealot. Nice try, JR. :p 47
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:50 | # Papa Luigi @51
No. The concept of the trinity didn’t exist at the time of Jesus, just as no people then were describable as Jews, and the ones who were closest to what we today understand as Jews, the Pharisees, were most strongly condemned by Jesus.
This is a revealing answer. If you bothered to take a closer look at the citations, you’d notice that one of them is to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, which isn’t an outlet for happy, clappy Christian fundamentalists or crazed Christian zealots. The other citation is to the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, but the title of the article says that Jesus was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Would a happy, clappy Christian fundamentalist or crazed Christian zealot say that Jesus wasn’t a Christian and also add in the article that Christianity didn’t exist at the time of Jesus? You didn’t bother looking at the citations, forget about reading the articles to see what kind of scholarship is in there. To hell with you! And you even add a note on independent peer-review! What is independent peer-review? That a physics journal article submission is reviewed by sociologists? 48
Posted by anon on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:07 | # After listening i don’t think it was that bad. The interviewer keeps trying to drag things back to stupid cliches all the time - which is okay usually as you have to assume there’s always new people who haven’t heard them - but pointless if someone doesn’t want to go that way, so that wasted a lot of time. Radical despair, how bad the situation is etc. If enough people were convinced of how bad things were then they’d be acting accordingly already - a kamikaze pilot has optimism of the will because they’ve already gone through the pessimism-despair phase. All true although there’s more than one way to skin a cat in getting from A to B. “Billions will die - we will win.” Big threat. Who is we. God is not us isn’t “Yahweh is alien God foisted on us blah blah” cliche. Religion was originally ancestor worship. God very specifically was “us” for each of the many “us” there was. It’s practically gene worship. The interesting thing about ancestor worship is it’s both ethno-nationalist and universal as everyone is worshipping their own ancestors. (I’m not saying that was his point but it’s mine.) The non-religious can’t create a religion for the religious - which is unfortunate now i’ve thought of the ancestor worship thing. However if you say something like “Rise against the enemies of God” in a particular context - and it’s the right moment - then the religious will create a suitable religion for themselves for that context. (It may get hijacked and diverted after that point but that’s a separate question). Catalyst. If there’s a way to win it’s in / through a collapse. The enemy (whatever definition) is so dug-in that getting to the point of winning without a collapse would cause a collapse anyway. So yes, survival goes through the a collapse bottleneck no matter what, preferably partial as a i don’t think anyone will get back up if it’s total. Enemy’s weak points. They’re locked into a pattern of behavior they can’t stop. True imo. They need to be hated to give them the cohesion that is the secret of their success and if they’re not hated enough then sooner or later they’ll do something that forces people to hate them. 49
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:23 | #
I’ve noticed this point, and I think it makes pretty good sense. It also aligns well with attitudes attributable to Jesus, although not with his driving of them from the temple, although I guess that may qualify under the category of “if they’re not hated enough then sooner or later they’ll do something that forces people to hate them.” 50
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:31 | # Seriously I did listen to that interview again and it’s almost painful (sorry). Sunic obviously gets very frustrated with the obfuscation hence his citing of communist propaganda and rhetoric as a medium of non-communication. Now obviously Wittgensteinian clarity is to be preferred over Derridean incomprehensibility, however not all topics or ideas can be expressed in simple language, but really did that interview contain a single ‘difficult’ idea? Hardly a seminar concerning Bhaskarian ontology or quantum field theory was it? Just for balance Sunic was hardly dazzling either. Just as a side note Wittengenstein’s background has nothing do with his philosophical achievements/project – he was not some 5th rate hack like Ayn Rand. Only vulgar ‘know-nothings’ would argue otherwise. As has been pointed out “The Population Bomb” predicted that everyone in the world would be starving right now. Equally, Malthus came up with his ideas in the late 18th century. It was no merely theoretical projection for 200 years in the future, but rather an issue which was of the uppermost concern and of immediate priority to him. Guess what – it hasn’t happened yet. Now as much as I loathe extreme ‘free-market’ ideology one must acknowledge the systematic genius of capitalism – its extraordinary flexibility and plasticity which has transformed the world in so many ways and continues to do so. As a system it is rather good at solving practical problems. It is, in my view, still an open question if we are (or are not) coming up to the buffers with regard to ecological and environmental services/resources. And, in turn if we are, are there possible technological fixes awaiting to be invested in/developed/invented once the economics suggest they could be profitable? Economic discounting anyone? Furthermore, even if a collapse occurs would it matter if by that time Rome and London are already Muslim cities? I mentioned the structural similarities between old Trots telling constantly themselves that the collapse of capitalism is just around the corner – might this also apply to the Malthusian prospect? This brings me to the more general idea of ‘political religions’ as developed by Eric Voegelin. He suggested that many ideologies are in fact ‘theological’ discourses and have deep structural similarities to religion. For example, Marxism reflects a number of theological themes. The first is the belief that the disorder of the world can be transcended by extraordinary insight, learning, or knowledge, called a ‘Gnostic Speculation’ by Voegelin (the Gnostics themselves referred to this as gnosis). In Marxism, the implicit gnosticism is of the revolutionary vanguard that have access to special and privileged ‘elite knowledge’ that is permanently unavailable to the hoi polloi (dictatorship of the proletariat etc.). Secondly in Marxism there is the wish to overcome the evil of the world in an revolutionary act that serves as the final denouement of history. This desire is given expression in an attempt to implement and/or create a policy to actualize the speculation, or in Voegelin’s terms ‘Immanentize the Eschaton’, i.e., to create a sort of ‘heaven on Earth’ and to end the messy complexity of human history as such. I would add my own observation that in Marxism the post-revolutionary utopia is one in which the problematic of Aristotelian mereology has been abolished. The political balance between the parts and the whole has been radically solved in favour of the whole (the proletariat) and the pesky ‘external’ source of all problems (the bourgeoisie) has been permanently eliminated. Hence in the realm of the political a form of ‘ontological fusion’ between the parts and whole has been enacted. The collective subject of the proletariat is everyone and everyone is the proletariat. The idea that the individual part or subject could be legitimately at odds with the whole or collective subject is forbidden and inexpressible (and let’s not have any thought-crimes – four legs good, two-legs bad). Liberalism goes to the other extreme and ‘answers’ the mereological question in favour of eliminating any legitimate collective whole – the individual part is the ‘event-horizon’ of the social. At its most serious, beyond mere hyper-reactionary conservatism, fascism is also a radical ‘political theology’ sharing many of the feature of Marxism. Instead of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie we alternatively have ‘the volk’ and rootless cosmopolitans etc., the nation as site of ‘ontological fusion’ as opposed to the working class, and deluded emotionally teenager-like ‘Neitschzean supermen’ as the far-seeing antinomian ‘elite’. As a side note I wonder also why so many senior Nazi’s seemed spellbound by every wacky and deeply irrational ‘esoteric’ idea they could find (from the Thule Society onwards). It certainly smacks of a self-understood ‘transcendent’ or quasi-religious project - even if it is a bad joke. OK so let’s return to the Malthusian prospect (or being a ‘Deep Green’ if you like). Could not this itself also be a form of political theology? An self-understood ‘elite’ of informed people can see our collective folly (over at the ‘Oil Drum’ or other such places) and warn that the Malthusian prospect will punish us for our hubris and the evils of radical superficiality and banality of consumerist culture etc. Gaia will have her revenge. The collapse however is not wholly evil – just like the events in the Book of Revelation - the terrible suffering that is unleashed is but the birth pangs of a new order in which all the toxicity and evil has been purged from the system. A bright future on the other side awaits (in the Malthusian version it might not quite be ‘heaven on Earth’ but it would be a new Panglossian ‘best of all possible worlds’). Of course any social order – even the most homogeneous and well-ordered - will inevitably have fragmentation, differentiation, forms of tension and disharmony. Yes they can be minimized and managed but they can never be fully and finally eliminated. Why? Because they are a feature of the individual ‘parts’ – the human subject which itself contains many forms of tension and contradiction – we both desire excitement and danger yet also want security and safety – we cannot simultaneously optimize all of our wishes and desires – many of them are simply incommensurate. Any political viewpoint which explicitly or implicitly suggests otherwise (that is ‘ontological fusion’ is a political possibility) is a non-reality based fantasy. A sober, reality-based, evidence-driven approach can be the only serious way to think about complex real-world issues and problems; not idle wish-fulfillment (either utopian or dystopian) as political analysis. There is no world purged of and without any liberal ideas or values – it’s a question of putting them back in their proper place within our collective hierarchy of values – that is very much as a secondary phenomenon and not as the foundational premise. I didn’t really hear anything of substance in Mr. Renner’s ponderous musings. Perhaps as people have suggested he could expand in an essay as to what his hypothesis or analysis actually is – unless of course he feels we would all be too dumb to get it. Finally on cosmotheism – isn’t that boring and warmed-over Spinoza? (You do know – shock horror - he was one of those J-lizard beings, yes?). Joking aside, I do think there is a majesty to the natural order (I have written comments on that here at MR and about the brute ‘mereness’ of things, Wallace Stevens et al.,) but frankly I’d rather become a Catholic than some unwashed superannuated hippy at Stonehenge pretending to be a druid ‘communing’ with the sun or whatever. And if anyone of you doesn’t know I utterly loathe Popery! Just ask Leon Haller. 51
Posted by anon on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:32 | #
I’d say Jesus was an expression of the exact opposite. He was a way for them to break out of that cycle of behavior.
It’s not about waiting. People should have been spending the last 30 years trying to create one. The sooner it happens the more partial it will be. The longer it takes the more total. 52
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:47 | # Graham Lister @55
It might be, however some aspects of ‘Malthusianism’ - or what is sneeringly referred to as ‘eco-fascism’ by modern-day bien pensants in The Guardian and elsewhere - such as epidemiological transitioning, eco-footprinting, EROEI and the hard limits to CO2 absorption without artificial sequestration are scientifically well-attested.
53
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:55 | # Pursuant to #57, I’m taking the liberty of re-presenting a brief item which originally appeared at the Phora. It is written in quite crude terms, intentionally so.
The 2011 census is expected to confirm that the black and minority ethnic population (BME) of the UK has risen to 6.2 million, or around 11% of the population, up from 4.6 million (8.6%) in 2001. One of the little discussed aspects of this dramatic demographic transformation - which has happened entirely within the last fifty years - is the environmental impact of having so many people crowd into what is essentially a small and already densely-populated island. One consideration is the sheer amount of food which has to be imported to sustain the BME population; assuming a nominal per capita consumption of 500g daily, this amounts to 180kg per person annually or around 1.1 million tonnes for the BME population as a whole. In simple terms, this equates to eighty large truckloads every day. 54
Posted by Ivan on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:14 | # Just wasted half an hour of my life reading Wikipedia page on Jew Wittgenstein. He comes across as an infertile bum and fruitless, vain, futile, unsecured philosopher - a Jewish philosopher, in a word. Leon Haller is to blame for wasting my precious time. I am going to take this SOB to the court and seek compensation for the moral damage inflicted by reading all that garbage. I agree with MOB: Soren appear to manifest similar symptoms. And I’m using here Soren as a benchmark to express my disgust with Wittgenstein, not the other way around. 55
Posted by anon on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:16 | #
I’d call it more tactical than substantive in the sense people would assume from the beard. The radical-despair thing is more or less a tautology. There’s no point talking about solutions unless there’s enough people who are at the radical despair point. So it should all be about getting enough people to that point rather than arguing what you do with them when they are. I think “billions will die, we will win” and “rise against the enemies of God” are good bits of subliminal messaging although the latter might require a more obviously collapsey context to take root. If subliminal messaging is the aim then it probably is best to not explain too much.
56
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:19 | #
Yes, that is what I meant to say. Having learned of Leon dragging his Austrian texts into a religious institution, I conducted search for visual evidence of books in early artistic portrayals of Christ driving the moneychangers from the temple. This is the only one I found that seems even vaguely appropriate:
57
Posted by Stan on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:27 | # The scientist James Lovelock, originator of the ‘Gaia’ hypothesis or theory, is a prominent global warming believer and has perhaps the most dire and extreme forecast for the near future, including things like mass human mortality, the Sahara reaching up to Paris and Berlin, etc. Lovelock has absolutely no difficulty explaining his views clearly and cogently to regular people. He appears on mainstream media outlets to do so. Lovelock has written in The Independent that, as a result of global warming, “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable” by the end of the 21st century. Renner may have lifted his “billions will die” catchphrase from this. He’s said that, by 2040, the world population of more than 6 billion will have been culled by floods, drought and famine. In The Guardian he has said that 80% of humans will perish by 2100, and that this extreme climate change will last 100,000 years. He has appeared on the BBC, on TV interviews, various documentaries and specials feature him prominently, etc. You can look it up on Youtube. There’s no reason this kind of thing has to be vague, mysterious, and obfuscatory. It can be explained and discussed in clear language to regular people. It has been in regular, mainstream media. So what’s the big deal? 58
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:00 | # @Stan
The big deal is that perhaps rising temperatures are maybe not such a big deal. A lot of the global catastrophe climate warnings appears a little over warmed their self and some of their leading experts have also been caught cooking the books. I do find the theories around peak oil of interest though, so much so that I wonder at purchasing 5+ acres of land in a couple of years time (i.e. smallholding), well away from leading urban centres in 98%+ white territory. That or Perth if the little woman wins the debate.
59
Posted by lolzlzlz on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:06 | #
You must have been listening to a different podcast. In the one I heard, Re**er refused to call Jews “Jews”, instead calling them “international r*******”. Now this hints at one thing. Because he demurred to call them by name, he does not want to be tied to the naming, which means he is compromised somewhere — or fears being so. Of course with a “tactic” like that, what use substance? Does he imagine no one could figure out that awesome bit of code? Hum, here’s this guy Renner on a notoriously anti-Jew website, talking to an anti-Jew intellectual, referring to “our enemy” whom he chooses to call “international r******”. Really covered your ass there, *******. 60
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:19 | # J Richards @52
Just because the Jewish God is assumed by Christians to acquire two further facets to his personality following the birth of Christ, this does not mean that the God of the New Testamant is different to the God of the Old Testament and in any event the Bible claims they are one and the same.
That’s a bit like saying that the British people didn’t exist in antiquity because they called themselves Angles and Saxons. They did, just as the Jews did, they were simply called by different names in those days. As for your citations JR, peer review by people that have a vested interest in supporting a predetermined conclusion is of little value, especially when the documents concerned simply contain convoluted arguments in which obviously prejudiced individuals perform all manner of semantic contortions in order to avoid admitting that Jesus (if he actually ever existed) was a Jew. Its about as valuable as citing the words of one of the Old Testament prophets as proof that the Jews really are God’s chosen people.
No JR, but it is an outlet for Jewish zealots - people who practice the religion from which Christianity originated.
I did read enough of the citations in order to establish their lack of credibility.
Oh yes, where’s that then?
No JR, its where for example, one physicist will publish his work on a radical or controversial matter so that other physicists, who have no vested interest either way, can subject his ideas to unbiased scrutiny and critical evaluation. A citation from a biased source has little or no value. It would be like me claiming to be a good person and saying, if you don’t believe me, just ask my mother. Naturally, unless I was a complete bastard, she would, as any mother would, confirm that I’m a good person, but her opinion in this respect would not carry much weight would it? 61
Posted by Stan on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:36 | #
No. I meant that if extreme forecasts can be explained and discussed in clear language to regular people and have been so in regular media, why is Renner so vague, mysterious, and obfuscatory regarding such ideas. 62
Posted by passerby on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 02:04 | #
Because he is incompetent to discuss them. QED per interview. That urine business is ... discomfiting. 63
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 02:17 | # Papa Luigi @65
You assume what you’re supposed to make a case for after reading the journal articles, but you can’t be bothered to read and refute!
Sorry, but religious beliefs are different from history. I cited historical works, not a religious argument, and it’s clear that the concept of the trinity was lacking during the time of Jesus. When you talk about one and the same, you’re talking about people’s religious beliefs.
That’s a bit like saying that the British people didn’t exist in antiquity because they called themselves Angles and Saxons. They did, just as the Jews did, they were simply called by different names in those days.</blockquote> No it isn’t. Before the Angles and Saxons moved into Britain, there were no Angles and Saxons there and whereas the Celtic people and Anglo-Saxons both became British, the Celts didn’t become Anglo-Saxon. Now what of the past? You have Edomites move into Judea, which had Judahites, and the Judahites forced their ways upon the Edomites, which the Edomites adopted superficially. With time, both Edomites and Judahites appear to be Judeans to outsiders but the Edomites don’t become Judahites. The Edomite priests known as the Pharisees evolved their beliefs into Judaism, whereas the Judahite Essenes evolved their beliefs into Christianity, and Jesus was born to a Judahite mother. So does this mean that we could describe Jesus as a Jew or Judahites as Jews? I’ve already pointed this out to you on the page originally linked.
And what may this vested interest be? Gee, you started out with Christian religious nuttiness, and now pretend as if you didn’t make this argument because why would such an individual say that Christianity didn’t exist at the time of Jesus and even add that Jesus wasn’t a Christian? And why would the Jewish source want to make arguments that undermine Christian Zionism, a phenomenon that’s central to support for Israel?
This is a religious argument that has nothing to do with historical facts, which is what the citations are about.
Again, Jewish zealots would undermine Christian zionism? You simply know nothing about where Judaism comes from.
So you judge credibility from reading the cite, not the article or even its summary!
It’s right here: http://www.majorityrights.com/trash [that’s where retarded treatment of scholarship is going if you keep it up; you’ll be in good company, with Haller and other detritus]
Most scientific work isn’t radical or controversial, and if it is, then it’s submitted to peers, most of whom don’t harbor the views. The authors in the present case did the same, and convinced their peers.
Your stated bias, Christian religious zeal, turned out to be grossly mistaken and you’ve proven yourself to be a fool. Who other than a fool would determine a specific bias without making an attempt to look into the matter? 64
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:02 | # Papa Luigi @65 I forgot to add that you would’ve noticed that I didn’t comment on Renner’s interview. I didn’t listen to it and I don’t care to listen to it. So how reasonable would it be for me to not only comment on the interview but to bullshit him without listening to it? And you bullshit things you haven’t read! 65
Posted by zalmoxis on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:02 | # Soren Renner’s an idiot pretending to be an intellectual, and evidently he’s not fooling many people here. People who have something worth saying endeavor to make their ideas as clear and easy to understand as possible. Anyone deliberately obfuscating his own ideas is just a bullshit artist. 66
Posted by zalmoxis on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:36 | # The Bible makes it perfectly clear that Yeshua (Jesus) was of Hebrew descent, and that Yahweh is the god of the Hebrews. It’s also clear that Hebrews wrote the entire Bible (both old and new testaments) and promoted Christianity. Pretending that the Hebrews of the Old Testament weren’t “Jews” based on some technical definition of “Jew” is just silly and not likely to fool many people. J Richards, you’ve written about how Ron Paul is controlled opposition. Think of Jesus as the Ron Paul of 2000 years ago. 67
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:20 | # Soren’s desired end-goal is the realization of an all White world, with that world being populated by only the genetically best Whites. He’s counting on civilizational collapse to do most of the dirty work of laying low our racial competitors and sloughing off the genetic detritus from our own gene pool. However far-fetched such may seem at this time, there is nothing muddled nor esoteric about it. It has all the simplicity of a sledgehammer. 68
Posted by salmon on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:07 | #
What makes him think that he isn’t part of our genetic detritus? Has he ever seen or heard himself? Most White males would dispose of him quite handily. 69
Posted by Bill on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:12 | # Re. No 58.
Hmm? Maybe someone somewhere knows something we don’t. (Drums fingers speculatively on desktop.) I was only saying the other day, Britain’s establishment doesn’t seem overly concernered millions of new homes are needed to house new arrivals. One new house per every 7 minutes apparently. We live in a world that certainly ticks the complex society box. I read somewhere complex societies are/could be vulnerable to swift collapse. How refreshing it is to see points being raised on this thread that are usually noticeable by their absence, maybe we should have more Renner interviews. (Cue for speedy exit) It’s seems a few spectators have been enticed to dip their toes in the water. 70
Posted by Norman Lowell on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:39 | # An interview that at times is confused, confusing and confounding. Needed: Pessimism of the Intellect – Optimism of the Will. We don’t need to fawn or pander to Christians - We need a new Spirituality, a new “Religious Revival”. Who is the Enemy? - Soren says that even without the “International Rodents” in our history, we would still be in the same situation, facing the same collapse. It is the Jews who poisoned our chalice - the Rodents who deviated, corrupted industrial growth: the launching pad for progress, space exploration etc.,
Soren is convinced:Our Win will come during the collapse. 2012: This Year of galactical significance. Behold: The Golden Dawn. A transition: from this Jewish world of treachery and deceit: In December 2012, on a specific day and hour, at a Sacred Spot: Nothing, but nothing can stop this IDEA. 2012: Anno Zero! 71
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:43 | # J Richards @68 Instead of your interminable wrangling over insignificant details; in an attampt to differentiate the New Testament God from the Old testament God; in an attempt to prove that Jesus (if indeed he ever lived) was not a Jew; that the Israelites were not Jews; and in an attempt to hide the fact that you are an ‘in the closet’ Christian, why don’t you address the fundamental issues, such as why anyone would want to worship such a vain God as the God of the Bible? Such as what the point of Christian belief is? To create a ‘utopia’ in which we join the angels in singing ‘Holy, holy, holy, praise be to the Lord God almighty’ throughout eternity? To live in a state of addle-brained quaisi lobotomised bliss, enjoying multracial picnics in wooded glades, surrounded by toucans, with grapes hanging from the trees and with lions frollicking with lambs in the distance? To wish it could be Christmas every day? Just what is the point of it JR, because if you can’t tell me, then arguing about whether the Isrealites are the same as the Samaritans, or the Judeans are the same as the Jews is a fatuous waste of time. 72
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:55 | # I like Norman Lowell. I really do. I’d like to hear more speeches and interviews from/with him. That said, this
had me laughing out loud at my screen. Sounds a little too close to the Mayan nonsense, no? I thought MR was strictly empiricist, materialist, rejected all mysticism, even that of the ancient faith of the West, etc. Let us never seek to replace Christianity with some idiotic paganism, thereby reducing ourselves to irrelevance. We have clear and measurable goals, like mobilizing the masses to demand an end to immigration-colonization. Let us stick to them, feet firmly planted on the ground.
73
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:14 | # @Stan Then I stand corrected and am suitably penitent. 74
Posted by Dasein on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:53 | #
Given his intent and style, maybe John the Baptist is more fitting.
I agree. 75
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:53 | # Leon Haller @77 Norman of course is not a Christian and professes a form of Cosmotheism that is interwoven with a certain romanticism and quasi-Pagan mysticism. My feeling is that as long as the mysticism doesn’t detract from the fundamental Cosmotheist message, if it enables Norman to make his politics and religion more entertaining and engaging than it might otherwise be, then good luck to him. Personally, I can’t wait to see what Norman’s got planned for next December - it may be the dawning of a new age - who knows, but one thing’s for sure, whatever Norman does will be rich with drama, it will be fun and will undoubtedly do much to enthuse and brighten the lives of those around him. Imperium Europe: Will it set Europe ablaze? Lets hope so! 76
Posted by GoyAmongYou on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:59 | #
At last a bit of sense… You could learn a thing or two from the Popists: 77
Posted by Mixiplik on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:35 | #
Nah. Renner isn’t an artist of any sort ... not even a bullshitin’ one Me thinks there is a much simpler explanation: Renner’s ‘Renner-speak’ is confusing because Renner himself is very confused and misguilded. Could anything be more obvious?
78
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:00 | # GoyAmongYou - Thanks for that Pinay blogspot! Excellent! I’d never heard of it, but have added it to my blogs file. Any other Hard Right Catholic Trad sites you’d recommend? 79
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:09 | # This looks like a potentially very important book, which might bolster Richards’s case re Christianity and its relation to Jewry: Do you need a Kindle for a Kindle e-book? I don’t own an e-reader, ipad, etc. Can you just read these ebooks on a normal computer? 80
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:43 | # And another dynamite work I’ve managed to overlook: http://www.culturewars.com/Reviews/JRSAd2.pdf On the Revolutionary Jew. 81
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:25 | # Bill @74
Well, I for one have suggested on more than one occasion that radical environmentalism focused on the population explosion in the third world, especially the heightened aspirations for western levels of material consumption, would be a more productive avenue for nationalists to pursue than cherchez le juif. Or even more so than what seems to be in current vogue here, the chimerical clarion call for nationalists to ‘take back control of the money supply’. 82
Posted by passerby on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:36 | # Dan Dare, If that’s true, why post a big photo of a Nazi rally and bid discussion? Do something else with your privilege. All, I know he was hated here, and I am sure none of you lacks examples of real cynicism, but I would ask you to review the comments of “godless capitalist” at Two Blowhards. Miss Cassandra Renner comes not within a mile of that guy’s pessimism. My point being there is no shortage of pessimists around, and they all out-think this pitiable joke Renner. If whites survive some peak event, it won’t be white nats, it will be white trash with hefty servings of Toltec, and the high bourgeoisie a la Johannesburg. As ever: the mudsill and the rich. 83
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:44 | # “passerby” is almost certainly not legit: ie, he is probably either “uh” or “danielj”. I suspected the latter before he even mentioned danielj. Just to figure out what is going on I;m actually going to have to subject myself to this interview. Still, I dislike the way WNs ‘pile onto’ each other. Sadly, WNs do not it seems tend to be good, moral people - or at least we attract a lot of less than morally stellar whites who probably, secretly, don’t really care about the white race or Western Civ, but just want whites to be tougher in order to get more ‘street cred’ (I understand that mentality, and share it to some extent, despite my intellectual commitment to God and Christian morality), or who otherwise have the kind of anti-authoritarian dispositions that make being PinC enjoyable. Remember the 11th commandment:” Anyone fighting for the white race who’s not a real criminal should be supported by other WNs”. I heard a talk given by Soren once that I thought contained some interesting ideas, esp about the growth of civilization through war (or war as the essence of the evolutionary process). 84
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:53 | #
It wasn’t obvious? 85
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:53 | # BTW, I read everything, and I wish I had more energy to comment. The odious Richards is starting to wear me down. His mere presence is ‘deflationary’. Like having an inflexibly determined shrew forever hovering. (You’re not a crabby old spinster, are you Richards? Why do we assume Richards is male?) Excellent comment from Lister @55; good comments from Papa Luigi, at least until he gets into the cosmotheism (which is not Spinozistic pantheism at all, at least a far as I understand PL’s description - more like ‘God’ will develop out of the evolutionary process; FYI: mankind will almost certainly exterminate itself aeons before that happens). Papa Luigi, Doesn’t this
contradict this
? In speaking to Western men, if you use the word “Creator” that necessarily implies or conjures up an existent, conscious agent. How is cosmotheism not atheism? And why is atheism unsatisfactory to you? Lister and Luigi, It’s really too bad you gentlemen aren’t Christian believers, as you both clearly have very traditional conservative sensibilities (and real conservatism grows out of Christianity). In different ways, you are both embarked on a mission to salvage something of the old culture or old sensibility - one through ontological nationalism, the other this cosmotheism. But I think that project will come to grief, as it has with liberalism, which is similarly an attempt to salvage something of the past order - the more ‘enlightened’ aspects of Christian morality - sans belief in God. Sorry, but as with poor Renner, I know what I mean, but am not articulating it with optimum clarity. 86
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:07 | # passerby - did you read post #26 and on? I will concede that the discussion did not fully develop along the lines I was hoping, but that was because a number of the more prominent and srticulate monocausalists failed to put in an appearance. 87
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:15 | # passerby, No, I think Renner’s idea was more sophisticated. Of course, agriculture is the basis of civilization; everyone knows that. I don’t think he meant literal “war”, either. I think he was contrasting the Christian vision of the pursuit of what is finally an endpoint of divine harmony (actually, contemplation; rather similar to Aristotle), with a neo-Heideggerian understanding that it is through conflict (inherent in or expressed by the evolutionary process) that man becomes more god-like. In other words, the essence of the human is not that we have fallen from a point of original harmony through the embrace of sin/conflict, as per Christianity, but rather, that it is through conflict itself that we have arisen. Or something like that. I’m not very articulate today. 88
Posted by Arma on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:39 | #
“War” generally refers to mass war. Aside from humans and eusocial insects, most organisms don’t engage in mass war. Some primates engage in smaller scale gang type fights. The males in most species fight against each other one-on-one. Like passerby suggests, mass war comes after agriculture and civilization 89
Posted by Silver on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:52 | # Leon,
I think he runs the site femininebeauty.info Much of the content of that site is virtually identical to the threads Richards used to post on MR (circa 2006—before he went off the deep end) and the blogger’s style is strikingly similar. I’ll eat my hat if that’s not Richards. (Some very interesting information on that site, btw. Worth your while wading through some of the BS—mostly other commenters (for once!)—to get to the good stuff.)
You must be referring to his passion. Unfortunately, that’s about all he has going for him. After all, it wasn’t for lack of passion that NF types failed utterly to connect with their people. Indeed, too much passion and insufficient and tremendously poorly articulated substance only succeeded in driving their people away (or so I think). This point seems completely lost on passionate WNs. Haven’t they ever had the experience of “coming on too strong” with a woman (even one that displayed all the classic signs of attraction and interest level) and turning her off? (Actually, avid WNs tend to be so removed from life as everyone else knows it that it’s entirely plausible that they have not. Maybe they should ask some of their friends. Then again…)
90
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:15 | # I’m sure Norman Lowell is a jolly chap and good company. However, as a political ‘thinker’ he strike me as a ludicrous buffoon and that’s being kind. 91
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:04 | # I should make it clear that I am an environmentalist (with a small e) and think any responsible politics must absolutely incorporate concerns about sustainability etc. But environmentalism and green politics can very easily slide from a rational and reasonable set of concerns into a political theology. I did a masters degree in ecology/environmental science and many of the people on the course were ‘deep greens’ and ecology was not a science but rather a form of theology to them. I remember in one lecture the smug hippy lecturer was directing a discussion about the intrinsic value of biodiversity etc., and nearly every one of the students were in total agreement. So I made the following points: (1) most species that have ever existed on Earth are already extinct - extinction is an entirely natural and normal phenomenon in the general order of things. (2) animal rights or a species ‘right to exist’ is nonsense. Imagine a world without humans where precisely is this right to be found? In nature itself? The notion that we have moral duties to say nematode worms is simply too absurd for anyone to take seriously. (3) even if many extant species did disappear we would still have more than enough left to fully study both ecology and evolutionary biology. Well let’s put it this way I was not Mr. Popular afterwards (I was from then on dubbed an ‘extreme right-winger’). The reaction was not a cool and detached discussion of the issues I raised, but more one of an angry incredulity somewhat akin to someone at a fundamentalist Christian meeting bringing up Hume’s argument against miracles. I was a heretic in the Chapel of Ecology. I even called bullshit on all of that hippy Gaia pseudo-scientific crap (read John Maynard-Smith on the topic if you don’t believe me). So returning to the ‘Malthusian prospect’. Of course ecological/environmental collapse is a possibility but how likely is it? Let’s take the next 100 years as a reasonable time-frame to assess the topic. The probability of such an event or series of events is unlikely to be zero but it is not one either. The problem is that the ‘deep green’ people almost will that it should be a certainty as such an event is central to their version of political theology. Mr. Renner seemed at least to be in the vicinity of that territory in his interview. Building a political strategy on the ‘certainty’ of such an event in the near future is both extraordinarily passive and lacks creditability. If the past is a guide capitalism is remarkable at solving practical engineering/technological problems. Why should this capacity have suddenly been radically attenuated? I’ll give a real-world example. One of my best friends from university is now a fairly high-powered person in the oil business in the UK (on the engineering side of things). Now ever since North Sea oil was discovered certain people have predicted it will run out in ten years time, or twenty years etc. According to many the oil resources from the North Sea fields should have been depleted long ago. Yet as my friend informs me there is a constant effort to improve all aspects of finding even the smallest pockets of oil and constant improvement to drilling technology thus making it both feasible and profitable to drill in previously ‘unthinkable’ locations. The oil men are not planning to leave Aberdeen any time soon. In a dynamic business/system (with feedback loops etc.) it can be quite foolish to take a static picture and then simply extrapolate from that point without regard to the changing nature of the system and accounting for all of the relevant variables (and the changing inter-relationships of such variables over time) of the phenomenon under consideration. Indeed new variables and factors might emerge in such systems over time thus making ‘easy’ predictions of near certainty somewhat difficult. Scientists and others can make honest but incorrect predictions. Why? Because not all of the relevant evidence is available to them or their understanding of the evidence is incomplete and incorrect. In science the hypothesis must always be open to revision as new evidence becomes available. Black swans might exist, even blue ones! But equally we also have ideologues in life that are biased and dishonest in their pronouncements – they have vested interest in their version of issue at hand being true (instrumentally or/and expressively so). I think the question of anthropogenic global warming is nothing like as certain as the ‘ideologues’ on this topic think it is. We have a mix of dishonest ideologues and honest but possibly mistaken scientists. It’s an open question not a closed one. This spectrum from the honestly concerned to the ideological driven certitude of ‘political theologians’ is seen in the green movement. Obviously ‘the tragedy if the commons’ and the generation of externalities are not myths – there are amongst some potentially very serious ecological/environmental issues but that properly formulated concern is qualitatively different from the assertion of the totally certainty of the Malthusian prospect and its ‘purging’ and ‘vivifying’ qualities. The latter isn’t serious political thought; it’s a very threadbare and flimsy political fantasy. 93
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:11 | #
Bon appétit, Mr Silverstein.
The Good Doctor is right on target with his neat diagnosis. 94
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:37 | # Of course, I never endorsed Lowell’s thought. Merely that he’s very likable. Silver, you might be right re Richards and that site. Same browbeating tendentiousness (“too many masculine looking women as models due to dominance of gay fashion designers”; my only response is “like I wouldn’t sleep with Cindy Crawford or Brooke Shields, even at their current ages, let alone when they were in their twenties”; I don’t think Shields was chosen as extremely pretty for fashion and acting in her youth because of queer preferences, but rather, because she really was hot; I know, I remember, being around the same age myself). Another good comment from Lister. No disagreement. In fact, I often use a similar argument myself with anti-development types. “We are told, by snarky liberals, repeatedly, that 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, and that this constitutes some death blow against Christian fundamentalism [which it well might; I’m absolutely not an anti-science fundamentalist]; why then must we move mountains in economic development planning to ensure some tiny fish, or worse, insect, doesn’t go extinct?!”. 95
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:38 | # Leon Haller @93
The inference to be drawn from the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions is that ‘God’ is, and always has been, a fully-formed, conscious, sentient, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, anthropomorphic entity. However, once we recognise that the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions are simply folk tales written by a bunch of ancient Jews, there is no need to make this assumption and logic suggests that if anything, the opposite is true. If God exists, it is unlikely that he suddenly ‘pinged’ out of nowhere, fully-formed, as science and Nature tell us that all things are born, grow to maturity, exist for a while in their prime, then decay and die. Why should we assume it would be any different for a God? Wouldn’t it be more likely and consistent with everything else we know, if God started as a ‘seed’, then grew to maturity, enjoyed his prime, and then decayed and died? The notion that God simply ‘pinged’ out of nowhere fully-formed, always begs the question, ‘but who or what made God?’ And it does so simply because the idea of something like a supreme being ‘pinging’ out of nowhere is incongruous to the human mind. Abrahamists counter this question by advancing the argument that God has always existed; that he has existed since the beginning of time itself. This then begs the question, ‘so why did he spend eons idly doing nothing before suddenly, about 4,000 years ago deciding to create a universe?’ What was he doing for all those billions of years? It doesn’t make sense! Science on the other hand tells us that our universe is expanding and scientists have calculated that approximately 13.8 billion years ago all of the matter forming our universe was compressed into a single point, a singularity. No-one knows what came before the ‘Big Bang’ that caused all of the matter to explode out from that singularity, but science explains that a process of evolution was set in motion by that explosion, and that through a process of blind itteration involving the constant shuffling, building and destruction of matter within the universe, the planets formed, life formed on our planet and the life forms in question evolved through various intermediate forms, eventually producing mankind. This brings us to the counterpoint to the earlier question that I posed with regard to the Abrahamic God, if the universe suddenly ‘pinged’ out of nowhere, something must have caused that phenomenon to occur and so isn’t whatever that was, that creative force, God? My answer to this is ‘possibly’, but there is no reason to believe that this ‘God’ was the fully-formed, conscious, sentient, all-seeing, all-knowing, all powerful, all-loving, anthropomorphic entity that Abrahamic scholars assert. In fact it is almost certainly not. If a God such as the Abrahamic scholars envisage existed just prior to the Big Bang and instigated that explosion, then where is it now? Why is that God completely absent from our lives? Why does he sit on his hands and watch new born babies die of horrible diseases? Why does he sit on his hands and allow innocent children to be physically and sexually abused by lust crazed beasts? Why did he sit idly by and watch hundreds of thousands of innocent young men go to their slaughter on the fields of Flanders? I’m not the kind of person who revels in notions of supernatural entities and yet I know that something existed just prior to the Big Bang and was the trigger for that explosion, but it does not exist as a conscious, sentient, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-loving God today. No such God could be ignorant of the needless suffering of innocent people if it was all-knowing; no such God could fail to see that needless suffering if it was all seeing; and no such God could fail to act to end that needless suffering if it was all-powerful and all-loving. No, the entity that triggered the Big Bang does not exist in the form that Abrahamic scholars maintain, it was none of the things that they claim and it didn’t need to be. When man splits the atom, we need only split one atom in order to cause a massive chain reaction in the form of a colossal atomic explosion. Therefore whatever caused the Big Band did not need to be all-powerful, it simply needed to have the power necessary to trigger a chain reaction. I am not suggesting that the Big Bang was an atomic explosion as we know it, because at the point of the Big Bang no atoms existed in order for one to be split. Furthermore, as I am not a nuclear physicist nor a particle physicist I cannot explain precisely what happened to trigger the Big Bang, but I know enough to believe that something analogous to what I am about to explain took place. First let us turn our minds to the nature of matter. The matter around us and from which we are ourselves formed is composed of molecules and these molecules held together by energy. The molecules are in turn composed of atoms and the atoms are held together by energy. The atoms are composed of a neutron, electrons and protons and these components are composed of even smaller sub-atomic particle such as quarks and neutrinos and bosons and these are held together by energy. Furthermore, these tiny ‘energy’ particles are so small and unstable that they are barely perceptible and when one reads about them they have a quality that is described as ‘spin’ and which means that they have ‘the same mathematical properties as an object that revolves around an axis’. Also they are described as having ‘no rest mass’, which I interpret as meaning that if they come to rest, i.e stop spinning, they cease to have any mass, i.e. they effectively cease to exist. Now I quite expect that my brief, ‘potted’, account of particle physics will cause some particle physicist somewhere to give himself a hernia laughing, but I am doing my best here to present an argument that a lay person can grasp, but which is still broadly consistent with what science can demonstrate. If there are any particle physicists out there who believe that I am completely wrong, then you have the opportunity to respond to this post and I will be pleased to read what you have to say. I believe however that when the Higgs Boson is identified and the true nature of matter is fully understood, something analogous to what I am writing here will be found to be true. If a quark for example, effectively ceases to exist once it stops ‘spinning’, then one could conceptualise a quark as a tiny pinch of ‘nothing’ that someone or something has made to ‘spin’. Furthemore, once one quark has been made to spin, thereby creating an elementary particle out of nothing, it is perfectly conceivable that a chain reaction might result causing all of the adjacent tiny pieces of ‘nothing’ to spin also, thereby causing the sudden formation of millions of energy particles that would explode outwards as they gain mass. If we turn our attention back to the moment before the Big Bang, the act of creation of the universe would not require a God in the form described by Abrahamic scholars, it would have only required some miniscule, possibly almost non-existent entity that need not have even been conscious or sentient in any way, but simple possessed a primative Urge to exist, that was powerful enough to cause a tiny pinch of ‘nothing’ to spin. The nature of this miniscule, almost non-existent entity, may never be known and I am sure that for it to have occured naturally, rather than supernaturally is far more plausible an explanation for the creation of the universe than the explanation proffered by Abrahamic scholars. Furthermore, as the universe is shown to be a vast entity which facilitates the upward evolution of matter through ever more complex stages, acquiring ever higher states of knowledge and consciousness, it is logical to believe that the end result of all that upward evolution will eventually be the emergence of a being or beings of trancendental consciousness, knowledge and power, something analogous to God(s). The universe, i.e. the Cosmos, is revealed to be akin to a vast ‘chrysalid’ incubating the life force that will pass through millions of mutations and metamorphoses on the way to becoming God. What lies beyond the attainment of ‘Godhood’ one cannot even begin to guess, but the hypothesis that I have outlined in this post gives meaning to mankind’s existence that is consistent with all known science and which is adult in its conception. It places the responsibility for continued human progress squarely upon our shoulders and gives us a clear direction in which to travel and which is consistent with our instincts as thinking men. Therefore, in answer to your question Leon:
And Furthermore:
An entity that causes something else to form can rightly be described as its “Creator”, however the act of creation does not need to be conscious as I have explained above. Cosmotheism is differnet to Atheism because we believe in a ‘God’, albeit only currently an evolving entity that probably won’t attain Godhood for a very long time to come. Atheism is unsatisfactory because it fails to give our lives purpose. If life has no purpose and no meaning, then nothing is right and nothing is wrong and all we need do during our short lives is to indulge our sense of personal gratification through the abuse and exploitation of those around us. The universe however is an enormous ‘sign post’, that has existed for billions of years and which extends further than our imaginations can conceive. A ‘sign post’ demonstrating the evolving chain of life and pointing us along the path of life, along which we can rise to as yet unimaginable achievements through self-directed evolution.
96
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:46 | # This of mine from a recent post seems apposite here: I was an economics/history double major in college. Unfortunately, a lot of my core econ was a Keynesian waste. I didn’t discover the Austrian School until shortly after college graduation, though I had long been a Friedmanite monetarist, both as a matter of economic theory and preferred free market policy. Once I discovered the Austrians, I quickly came to accept their economic (and for a time, libertarian political) doctrines, even though (as I have pointed out here on several occasions, long predating Soren Renner’s recent discussion of Malthusian concerns), I was always uncertain about the proper relationship between Austrian microeconomics and ‘holistic’ scientific ecology (and in terms of political theory, I never accepted the libertarian open borders position, or other untraditional views on questions of both national security and the importance of public, legislative commitment to the maintenance of Christian and patriotic/national virtue). Methodological individualism, most perfectly developed in the catallactic sphere by Mises and his school, is the appropriate starting point for microeconomic study, and, as a corollary, I argue that free exchange is the most efficient wealth-allocating mechanism, for reasons to which I have variously alluded (economic calculation, dispersal of knowledge, correct or realistic incentives). I am less certain at the macroeconomic level, where I tend not to agree that what best explains behavior at the level of individuals and firms necessarily best explains large-scale effects, at least in relation to the scale of industrialism when set against the absorptive capacity of the natural environment, whether particular ecological niches, or the biosphere as a whole. The classic illustration of this is an overweighted boat. A boat can sink from two causes: a hole in the hull, which I suppose is most common in sinking cases, or simple, excessive weight placed in the boat. In terms of maximizing allocative efficiency at the microeconomic level, the free market cannot be improved upon. But is it possible to “overweight the boat”? That is, might the sheer scale of human economy reach a point where, despite constant wealth maximization between individuals, the economy as a whole threatens human survival, considered in ecological terms? I don’t know the answer, but the ecological economists’ questions cannot be readily dismissed (as notions of “Keynesian stimulus”, the alleged ability of central banks to direct monetary policy more efficiently than the ‘uncoordinated’ free market, various industrial policies, and similar interventionist nonsense, can be). 97
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:00 | # Papa L, I’m about to leave for dinner, and cannot do justice at the moment to your comment immediately above. I will only say now that these are indeed the deepest questions of all - why does anything exist? which is less rational: that the universe has always existed, or that God has? what is God? what is time? etc. I don’t think they can be answered of themselves, and considering them on their own terms, I think the only intellectually respectable response would be an open-minded agnosticism (perhaps leaning towards a weary or resigned atheism). Thus, for me, insofar as I do not think these questions about ‘ultimate things’ admit of definitive answers, the really interesting question is “What is morality in light of cosmological scepticism?”; more particularly, “How ought a sincere agnostic to behave in an apparently godless cosmos, in order for his soul to be saved, if in fact there is a God [secondary questions pertain to His nature and requirements for man, if any], and man is ‘ensouled’?”. I’ve always had a practical bent, you see. 98
Posted by lzozlzlzlz on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:12 | #
I hope you go eat shit faggot lzozlzlz 99
Posted by lolzlzlz on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:22 | #
100
Posted by lolzlzlz on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:40 | # I wonder what malicious toad is working behind the scenes selectively deleting comments, hmmmm? Haller - though my pseudonym be a joke, the above was not me. Won’t say it again. 101
Posted by Skeptik on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:25 | # @Rurik
I’d rather listen to an intelligent Croatian with a “greaseball accent” who speaks with crystal clarity to the common citizenry, rather than a swaggering, overbearing dictator with child-like delusions of God-hood who speaks to the pseudo-intellectual elites like yourself. :rolls-eyes:
102
Posted by Skeptik on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:27 | # Back on topic, I hope Dr. Sunic scrutinizes his guests more thoroughly in the future. Preferably ones that can relate to “regular” people like us. 103
Posted by Skeptik on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:32 | # @Rurik
Since you seem to think Renner wasn’t bullshitting, perhaps YOU can enlighten the rest of us as to what EXACTLY Renner was talking about…..
104
Posted by Helvena on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:10 | # Soren gives us direction but we must think the issues through ourselves, that’s the only way we can really internalize the message. Good job Soren. 105
Posted by daniel on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:01 | # I agree, Helvena. I think comment number 60 is accurate as well. I actually enjoyed the turbulence of the interview. I think that Soren did know what he was talking about and was deliberate in his strategy. I enjoyed Sunic in this interview too. Though there were small peaks of self and other over and underestimation that were going back and forth - e.g. Soren somewhat arrogantly attributing outlooks and misunderstanding to Sunic that were probably not accurate - it didn’t bother me much. These small mistakes will happen in a real time, vital conversation. 106
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:02 | # God might simply be the underlying brute reality or perhaps super-strings are - otherwise we get into a Hegelian bad infinity. Whatever is genuinely ‘brute’ doesn’t have another cause behind it. Something must be brute. As for God being open to change there is a whole school of Christian theology/philosophy devoted to it called ‘process theology’. Major concepts of process theology: God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. “Persuasion” in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control. Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. These events have both a physical and mental aspect. All experience (male, female, atomic, and botanical) is important and contributes to the ongoing and interrelated process of reality. The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God’s will. Not even the outcome of the NFL play-offs despite what many of our American friends believe! God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism, not pantheism or pandeism). Some also call this “theocosmocentrism” to emphasize that God has always been related to some world or another. Because God interacts with the changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid. Charles Hartshorne believes that people do not experience subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have objective immortality because their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was. Other process theologians believe that people do have subjective experience after bodily death. Dipolar theism, is the idea that God has both a changing aspect (God’s existence as a Living God) and an unchanging aspect (God’s eternal essence). Anyway I’m an agnostic. No-one knows why there is something rather than nothing - anyone saying they know with certainty the answer to that question is seriously deluded or ignorant of the question and its attendant subtleties. I doubt such questions of philosophical theology are directly relevant to political concerns. 107
Posted by Papa Luigi on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:35 | # Graham Lister @115
It would appear Graham that ‘Process theologians’ are conceding ground and declaring that God is neither omnipotent, nor all-seeing or all-knowing. If God is not ‘omnipotent’ in the coercive sense as well as every other sense, then God cannot be regarded as all-powerful. Furthermore, if I were all-seeing I would very quickly become all-knowing and if I was all-seeing and all-knowing I would very quickly become all-powerful. Therefore if God is not all-powerful he cannot be either all-seeing or all-knowing, in short, just as I have said, he cannot be the God described in the Bible.
So they claim that God evolves in response to the evolving universe? That sounds remarkably like my perception of Cosmotheism.
It the universe is the entirety of Creation, then there can be nothing outside of the universe that would make a God conceived in the way that you describe different from the Universe. If God is not the same as the universe and instead equals the universe plus ‘X’, then ‘X’ must equal nothing, as the Universe contains all of Creation. If the universe equals everything and God equals the universe plus nothing, then God and the universe are the same thing. You see, there are many hypotheses regarding the nature of God and the nature of reality, but nothing I have encountered as yet can discredit or undermine the Cosmotheist hypothesis that I expound. 108
Posted by Silver on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:34 | # Luigi, That sort of “schoolyard bully” atheism can be very helpful to people upset with their religion (or what it has done to them) and looking for a way out. Beyond that, though, you’re clearly out of your depth. I’m sure it won’t come as any surprise that I don’t much like you, so I hope you keep talking because you’re doing a better job of discrediting yourself than I ever could. 109
Posted by Papa Luigi on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:29 | # So, me explaining my beliefs and pointing out the absurdity of Christianity is suddenly interpreted by some poor, highly sensitive soul as the actions of a “schoolyard bully”? As a reality check perhaps Silver should attempt to cross swords with Lee Barnes. Furthermore, in attempting irony in the writing his short missive, Silver fails to appreciate the obvious truth, that I would do a better job of just about anything than he would. 110
Posted by daniel on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:57 | # Correction: With the editing of this commentary, apparently what had been comment 60 has become comment number 57. At any number, it is this remark that I thought accurate. Posted by anon on January 20, 2012, 07:16 PM | # “I didn’t really hear anything of substance in Mr. Renner’s ponderous musings.” I’d call it more tactical than substantive in the sense people would assume from the board. 111
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:16 | # Would really enjoy continuing this philo of religion discussion, but work is piling up at a rapid clip. In fact, I think this time JRichards will get his wish - time for me to be disciplined, and depart MR (at least for a few busy months). Out of curiosity, are there other, well-trafficked intellectual nationalism sites? What are they? Personally, I’d like eventually to find one that is moderated with a much heavier hand, but with an eye on behavior, not ideology. If I were overseeing such a site, anyone from any ideological or philosophical background would be welcome to contribute, but ‘lowbrow’ comments would be routinely deleted. My objective would be to attract only the ‘cream’ of the movement to save Europa. Come to think of it, that might be a useful project at some point ... (I’m sure that was the original vision of MR, but a “come one, come all” indulgence has led it astray, it seems). 14 words. Leon Haller
112
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:47 | # @Papa Luigi I don’t really want to get into this issue but the logical sequence of being all-knowing to being all-powerful really isn’t a gimmie. I might know lots of things but be unable to act upon them. So God might be or act with self-limititation in the sense of you cannot create beings or a universe with beings in it that have genuine moral autonomy and choice yet cancel the exercise of that capacity if you dislike what is being done with that autonomy. Forgive me but your tone strikes me as that of a semi-clever teenager that think if we asks the question “Can God made a burrito that’s too hot for him to eat?” has in one fell swoop destroyed the basis for Christianity. Sorry you haven’t. The Christian might say God is as all-powerful as it is possible to be without incorporating logical paradoxes and/or God’s reality is so radically different from ours so is it any wonder it looks strange and bewildering to us. After we are finite beings acting within time and space etc., God is infinite, outside of time et al. God’s radical otherness means that even the finest MENSA minds might not be able to fully comprehend him in his totality. Equally to assert that ‘nothing’ could be real beyond this universe not only is in conflict with certain interpretations of quantum mechanics etc., but I would suggest as an assertion is pretty worthless. What is your evidential basis for such certainty? All you are doing is saying you don’t believe there could be but that’s hardly the same as the issue being settled is it? I only mentioned ‘process theology’ to show that the idea of God being in some ways open to change is not that ‘radical’ a thought even with Christian philosophical theology. I used to be a hard-line atheist but a friend of mind (a Professor of religious studies) once suggesting that in arguing against the creationist/fundamentalist version of Christianity I was merely picking the low hanging fruit and perhaps I should test myself against the best in the tradition of religious philosophy and theology (not the worst). I have to say reading more deeply into the subject I’m now a confirmed agnostic. Serious philosophy can be very good for the reassessment of glibly held ‘certainties’. I could suggest perhaps reading these for starters: “The Infinite” (Moore) - very good on various aspects of the philosophical, mathematical and theological issues of the infinite. If you think the ‘paradoxes’ of God, ipso facto eliminate the possibility of the divine as traditionally understood, you’re going to have a hard time with all those very real and well established set-theoretical paradoxes. “Persons: Human and Divine” (Van Inwagen & Zimmerman eds) – collection of essays that give an excellent snapshot of contemporary analytical philosophy of religion. “Why there is Something rather than Nothing?” (Rundle) – gives an analytical ‘deflationary’ account of why it is non-question but his reasoning is so poor it does quite the opposite. Question begging in a north Oxford style. “Faith, Reason and the Existence of God” (Turner) – gives a modern defence of Aquinas on why there is something rather than nothing and why the rational answer is God. I’m not convinced but the arguments are about x100 more subtle and interesting than Dawkins and his embarrassing attempts at philosophy. “Transcendence: Critical Realism and God” (Archer et al.) - Theology examined through the prism of Bhaskarian ontology. But perhaps amateur theology hour should end now as it is rather ‘off-topic’.
113
Posted by SortaKinda on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:48 | #
114
Posted by Papa Luigi on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:09 | # Graham Lister @114
No, it isn’t a “gimmie”, whatever that is, it is as you admit, a logical sequence. ‘Knowledge is power’, as they say, and absolute knowledge equates to absolute power. How could one be ‘all-knowing’ and not know how to overcome the obstacle that might otherwise prevent one from intervening in the way that one would want?
But “knowing lots of things” is not the same as being ‘all-knowing’, is it?
But God supposedly made us, didn’t he? Therefore, if we have flawed characters that cause us to commit acts of evil, it must be; either because God accidently made us imperfect, in which case God is not all-knowing or all-powerful; or because God intended us to have those character defects, knowing that we would commit acts of evil as a consequence, and therefore cannot be an all-loving God. Either way he is not the God described in the Bible.
That’s interesting, do you usually get your butt kicked in a debate by “semi-clever” people?
Sorry Graham, it is not possible to be “as all-powerful”, or as all-knowing, “as it is possible to be” and still be subject to logical limitations, one is either all-powerful and all-knowing, or one is not. These are absolutes, not qualified attributes.
However, Graham, since we only know of the Abrahamic God through what is written in the Bible, and we know the Bible was written by primative semitic tribes people, the intellectual default position is not one of accepting the reality of this God in the absence of absolute proof that he does not exist. The intellectual default position is in fact the opposite. What you are doing is akin to selling someone a very expensive car on the basis that it is the most wonderful car in the world. Then when your customer complains because the car won’t start, you say, “This car is working properly, but it is so utterly wonderfully engineered that someone such as you cannot even begin to understand how it works or whether its working properly or not”.
Did I claim that it was an astoundingly ‘radical’ idea?
In other words, you didn’t understand the issues, couldn’t see through the ‘fog of debate’ and have now resigned yourself to being ‘confused’.
In other words, you don’t know how to begin to argue effectively against what I say, but emotionally you can’t admit that I’m probably right , and so you suggest that I bury myself under a heap of contradictory verbiage in the hope that I will be permanently distracted from exposing the inadequacy of your position? If you can’t summon an effective argument against me Graham, then at least be honest enough to admit it. Don’t insult us all by pretending that you haven’t the time or inclination. If you lacked these prerequisites, you wouldn’t have started arguing with me in the fiirst place. 115
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:41 | #
Yes. I’m afraid Greg Johnson, whom I imagine as depicted in red dress, may take it particularly hard (no pun intended). 116
Posted by Rural_Atheist on Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:51 | # What a train wreck of an interview! If William Pierce could take the time to organize and clarify his thoughts to communicate them effectively, so too should Soren. soren has little respect for his audience. What a shame. 117
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:03 | # Zalmoxis @68
I didn’t use “Hebrews” in my replies to Papa Luigi above or even at the link where I addressed his reference to a Jewish God. If you can’t be bothered reading the citations, just let it go instead of calling it silly. Papa Luigi @73
This isn’t the fundamental issue. I haven’t been engaging in Christian evangelism here. The fundamental issue is your arrogance and stupidity, recorded for anyone to see that you’d strongly dismiss peer-reviewed arguments without reading them, assigning the authors motives they couldn’t possibly possess. And now that your stupidity is exposed, you try to shift to something that is completely irrelevant.
...to an ignoramus like you. To me, whether the Jews have any claim to Palestine is relevant, and one must refer to history to shed light on this issue. Silver @91 As far as I know, MR is the only website I run or work at. Leon Haller Nice to see you acknowledge @87 that I’m the reason why your MR output has been down lately instead of work and studies. @98 you repost a comment from elsewhere, something I’ve asked you not to do, to appear educated, but it’s a digression and yet another promotion of the Austrian School. You needed to show your education/zeal pertaining to the Catholic you claim to be, yet your response @99, to a theological challenge, was that you need to go eat dinner [and presumably will be back to address the matter], and you come back two days later @113, saying you’ve got too much work to discuss the matter further! I hope the “work” keeps you too busy to comment here, permanently. 119
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:51 | # The Sunic Journal: Søren Renner - Malthusias and other challenging processes outflanked, evaded and unnamed 2. God being on “their side not ours” a recent, maladaptive development 3. Necessary theocratic realignment may be allowed for in outflanking 4. Possibility emerging through declarative unanimity in anticipation of a “partial collapse” for which the enemy is unprepared. 5. The enemy tactically unnamed, the punishment and reward - separatism 120
Posted by plumber mathis presents on Sun, 03 May 2015 22:10 | # AH founder of Israel http://www.resist.com/war_network/radio_station/war_radio_2015/20150106-TT.mp3 121
Posted by Hogan's heroism erased Soviet style on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 06:24 | # I believe this is Soren’s Twitter: clever one liners and appealing aesthetics - from the sublime to the funny -
Post a comment:
Next entry: Betrayal, Lawrence, and the English working-class
|
|
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— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Kievsky on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:23 | #
Very entertaining, Soren!