|
|
|
The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction A proposed collaborative effort to construct a new religion exclusively for persons of indigenous European extraction Balcony at Vernonnet and St. Michel d’Aiguilhe, upon a former Roman temple to Mercury, This post will be built primarily though interaction and feedback with commentators. Thus, it will change as it may be improved with feedback. Jon has been inspirational in his highly logical refutation of arguments that Christianity can be sufficiently reconciled with White interests, and his belief, which I share, that a religion which serves people of European extraction, exclusively, is both necessary and possible to articulate and commence. He is concerned for Northern Europeans and that is not highly problematic. On the contrary, it is important to recognize that normal European people will want to preserve their distinct kinds. Hence, the religion will promote something like chapters devoted to particular kinds and ways of European peoples. I believe that knowledge of the kind that Bowery has of husbandry can be instrumental in determining what will be necessary to maintain the purity of certain kinds. For example, it has been noted that some Scandinavians have zero percent African admixture in 41,000 years of differentiation from Middle Eastern and African populations; they should be able to maintain that purity. Of course, we ought to allow for chapters for the less pure (those Europeans having a tiny percent of non-European admixture) and the more European mixed, but it will be for Bowery and Dasein types to help determine what levels of separatism are necessary and what levels of intermarriage are benign. While we may work out suggestions as to how they might function in coordination. We will seek symbiosis between our various communitarian interests. There is no conflict in this view for chapters that are devoted to the exclusivity of native English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish…for all native European peoples, including Russians who would be derived of European stock On the contrary, the maintenance of these distinctions will be encouraged, as will their cooperation and symbiosis be encouraged to function toward the mutual aim of survival against non-European impositions and natural catastrophes. I have given some thought to these matters and anyone at all familiar with me will know what a few of my suggestions would be. That Jews are not to be considered native European, not even those with a considerable amount of European admixture. What amount is too much is a matter to discuss. My experience tells me to be wary even of those with just one Jewish grandparent out of four. That there is no transcending the social negotiation of moral rules, but at the same time, there is a measure of agency in their social negotiation: Nevertheless, there will always be things that you are obliged to do, things you are prohibited from doing and things which are legitimate but optional, which you might elect to do or not. One of the things I would propose as obligatory would be the legitimization of voluntary enclaves of singular sex partner for life hopefuls. This would be optional, but respected as a necessary option among the religious system. With the hermeneutic turn, we may avail ourselves of the recognition that we may indeed, co-construct our religion – in fact, we do anyway. Therefore, let us construct a religion that serves our interests as European folk given what we know now about our needs, our antagonists and our susceptibilities. The hermeneutic turn, borrowing its name from Hermes, the messenger god, moves in informational, non-Cartesian orientation and corrective process from closer readings of brute facts, microscopically, if need be, and then avails itself of broader, narrative orientation in determination as to how those facts may count and function in the context of European interests, as need be. It has come to consciousness that the 14 Words serve well in facilitating both a necessary transcendent function along with palpable, practical concern, including concerns that readily include White women and children. That semi-transcendent function will be necessary for getting above the terrible imperfections we have as individuals and as a people, a transcendence in service of fostering and advancing our excellent qualities as individuals and as a people. That is not to abrogate a reasonable measure of accountability of course (though we may suspect that communism created a system where there were too many accounts requested), but to provide enough latitude to allow people to avoid utter cynicism, total abandonment and antagonism of their people. With regard to non-Europeans, a marked difference from Christianity would be to emphasize the silver rule as a matter of practicality and normal course. In other words, do not do to them that which is unnecessarily harmful. Do not do to them that which you would not want done to your own providing they are not imposing upon you. That is in contrast to the obsequious and toxic golden rule. However, just as we are concerned for the ecology of our own people and habitats, we must be concerned with how other people effect our common ecology of the earth and how they effect our people. In fact, an exclusively White religion, once its narratives are widely known and held, would provide the means by which White people would act in their own interests without having to be explicitly guided in specific acts of White self interest. Integrating some of Jon’s suggestions Three part deity: Our White people - Our religion - Our god
Jon sees comfort in the number three for those who have lingering Christian memes, thus would propose the option: Our White people, Our god, Our habitats In addition to adding Our necessary habitats to Jon’s list, I would suggest changing White to Our Indigenous European people to make it more normal and broadly appealing. However, the number four is powerful also, so I would leave that option for those who prefer: Our White people, Our god, Our religion, Our habitats
Sins: Ultimate Imperatives: 1. Be White 2. Reproduce yourselves exclusively with other White people and raise your children to do the same, in order to ensure that Our god continues to live.
Graham Lister says: “Why not make beauty our ‘ultimate concern’ - the beauty of environment (built and natural), the beauty of our characters, the beauty of our relationships, the beauty of concrete particulars over universal abstractions, the beauty of our nations? A revolt against ugliness in all of its multifarious modern forms. Yes - I’m a romantic at heart.”
Bonnard Graham, though I do think the religious form of Our people can ethically coddle the craggy imperfections of Our evolutionary processes, provide some necessary sublimation and perspective of the aesthetic whole, along with Our finer manifestations, if I can upload some images of beauty and artwork, I will do so, to emphasize your (rightful, I think) concern for aesthetics as they are indicators of health, good sensitivity, (European) forms and some heaven on earth. Aesthetics display radical judgment of ethical premises. I would upload some images of Our lands as well.
It seems the matter of ontologically sorting out who “we” are and who our enemies are has much to do with what Jim sees as a necessary endogenous premise prior to any elaboration of a religion for European peoples. Some important details of his argument are provided just before the comments below.
“I will put together something on the ontologies of Judaism, Christianity and paganism that might help to set this post in the context of the comment at 18 by James. At the risk of over-simplifying, it seems to me that an authentic expression of the faith instinct has (at least) six major characteristics, and without all being present it cannot stand: 1. It discriminates for reality. 2. It expresses being. 3. It has a highly discriminative, expressive core fitted with a knowledge of Mind and life that is not readily accessible beyond. 4. It applies this knowledge within the core through a programme of perfectment of the self. 5. It applies it without through a narrative of perfectionment of the self. 6. In the absence of knowledge, this narrative is formulated for adherence through faith and morality. There is then a series of rough-hewn forms which religions tend to exhibit, most obviously deity, prophets, a reward system, and so on; none of which are meaningful without these six (or so) characteristics. It follows that a religion cannot be coddled together simply because it would be a good idea to have one. But it is interesting to discuss the issue, and I will try to carry the discussion forward in a few days.
Self-perfectionment is (said to be) a staged process of human verity resulting from a struggle against internal forces of truly gravitational power and constancy. Its end is permanence. It has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or sin in Christianity or any notion of “personal development” or “self-liberation” within the general domain of the personality. Not one person in a thousand fully grasps its nature, and that is especially true of those who, for whatever reason, become attracted to (only very superficially) related “spiritual” struggles. “Perfecting” does no justice to its formidable difficulty or its requirement of lifelong dedication. There is not only nothing automatic about the process, as “perfecting” would imply, but the chances of coming into contact with real information about it are very slight in the West. Nevertheless, this is the esoteric core of all meaningful religious systems - which do not include Christianity, btw. If one is going to discuss a religious genesis it is here, with the enshrinement of this process, that one must start.
English Housing
Bonnard
The Palouse, land coveted by Robert J. Mathews
Kallelan
Your problem with this appears entirely based on the fact that the racialism is implicit rather than explicit. I do not, as does Jon, define my race to be “god”. My race is superior to other races not because it is my race but because it furthers, through biological selection by artificial criteria—culture—the manifest direction of creation by recognizing the value of the individual. I am fortunate to have been born into this race even if it is destroyed by the races born of cultures of group integrity that naturally act as group organisms and therefore see that as moral. That would be the twilight of the gods indeed. My loyalty to my race and its survival is incidental to my loyalty to Creation and the Joy thereof. I will not stand silent and see sacrificed the essential godhood of the individuals of my race on the altar of mere power.
But neither do I tend to look upon my race as god. In fairness to Jon, he has shown some flexibility on that, has argued for the race as god so as to animate god, make god a part of us and something that can die - thus, instilling the respect for imminence and urgency. Whereas I, on the other hand, look upon my race as my religion. It is not god, but it is a semi-transcendent cause of devotion, a whole with many features for consideration. Jon’s concern for instilling imminent manifestation would seem to correspond with my “project of sacralization” as likely to be highly important features. I don’t know or care if my race is superior to other races in all respects. But I am particularly concerned for our defense where we are more moral (more symbiotic, less violent and imposing), creative and where our women and men are of types whose preservation strikes me as eminently worthy. I think our subjectivity and individualism are critical features of our race and our humanity indeed; but by the same token these features can be over-abstracted in valuation; with that, individualism can be blinded to its negative sides and necessary relations. If this individualism is valued to the extant that it destroys the very process that facilitates that individualism and the coordinated reservation of what individual choices might hope to realize then it is not so fatalistically fortunate. We might hope that some of that individualism might be used to help the systemic survival of a process of those who are not quite so developed in their individuality just yet - like White children - those who are losing the systemic roots of what would foster their individuality.
I do not, as does Jon, define my race to be “god”.(Bowery) That is a mischaracterisation. I talk of Our sacred People, (i. e., concrete, not abstract like “my race”). The characteristics of “Our god” are not what’s traditionally considered divine. It’s more a conceptual device to bring him (common gender) closer to us. You may think of it as the equivalent of the use of the word in this context: “money is my god”—obviously if I said that I shouldn’t mean by that that money created the heavens and the earth. Our god does not demand anything, especially “worship”. Those White people who could characterise their feelings toward their people, “Our sacred People is my god” don’t think of him in the same sense as people of traditional religions think of their divinities. Generally, if I may be so bold as to speak for them, they just want him to live, or, “the 14 words”. “Our god” differentiates him from “yóur god(s)” or “your God” or more important, “the Israelites’ God” and makes Our religion unique to us.
Human: A moral individual. Culture: the artificial selective pressure based on transmissible morals. Tribe: A gang related by consanguinity and congeniality. Nation: Individuals related by consanguinity and congeniality. The present context is all pervasive perpetual war. There is no peace. There is no place for individuals. All individuals must submit to if not join a gang, or perish. A race of individualists in the present context is doomed if they do not consciously recognize this and act accordingly. Other races have the advantage that they are more prone to act without conscious thought toward this kind of group selectionist end. The essence of Euroman’s greatness is his integrity as an individual. This integrity demands a formal declaration of war—an oath if you will—for him to temporarily form a contractual relationship with others until the object of the declaration of war is achieved. I have, in Sortocracy, clearly defined a declaration of war: If you oppose, even if by incidentally rendering impractical, the sorting of proponents of social theories into governments that test them, you are not human and are only an “enemy” in the sense that you are a component part of a force of nature that may be dealt with in any manner required by humans acting alone or in groups using whatever means are economical. Their one moral restraint is that they must do everything within these means to neutralize your opposition. They may kill, torture or even tell bedtime stories to you in their war against your opposition. This has the necessary characteristics to unite Euroman in precisely this way and, in so doing, identify the enemy to be destroyed—utterly destroyed—for the individuals so bound to once again be free—that is to say, to exist in peace which is to say they can fully express their integrity as individuals including natural duel as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing. I will not stand silent and see sacrificed the essential godhood of the individuals of my race on the altar of mere power.
Let’s not mince words here: In overcoming this subversion there is the natural temptation to denigrate that nobility. I will not stand for this. The asexual multicellular design pattern is an accomplished Creation achieving its ultimate expression in sexual being. Sexual being is required for moral being—a new Creation involving conscious appreciation of prior Creation. Humans are capable of moral being, but we are struggling for it.
Noble - I would not try to undo it as a category of that which is to be honored and protected. But I’m afraid it must be protected since, as Darwin says, the most sophisticated organisms do not always survive. J. Bowery: This is the role of culture, Daniel. This is why I say that seeking an appropriate response to JudeoChristianity must be a natural outgrowth of the ontology project. DanielS: You are not only insulting people who might serve with honor and decency, even the interests of the more self sufficient kind, but in the end, insulting the noble act of willing, cooperative decency on which we all depend. Thus, you would be insulting all of us, as dwarfs, for those acts of cooperation as we recognize our interrelation and enjoy the beauty of living amongst, watching and helping our attributes to flourish. That is, we are all dwarfs by that definition to some extent. The last thing we need at this point is to besmirch our interrelatedness. I don’t know if it is a related metaphor (maybe), but rabbits have been “girdling” (gnawing the bark all around the trunks of) some of my saplings. The veins which go just underneath the bark, from the roots to the leaves, are removed from circulatory connection and the tree will die. Maybe you are honoring only one part of a full evolutionary process and system and that may be residual Cartesianism, perhaps a buried meme of Christianity, cold war era loyalty to American civil rights, or some similar “transcendent” focus. . J. Bowery responds: I will go beyond this to say that not only are we all Dwarves “to some extent” but that we are all sexually perverse to some extent. We cannot experience salvation ourselves until we confess the depths of our sin and degradation. Which brings me to the ontology of “sin” within the context of answering JudeoChristianity: Sin: Silencing the Holy Spirit. The words of my ontology point to that moral sense. Recapitulating the joy of multicellular cooperation at the expense its ultimate expression in our sexual being—in its ultimate expression in our individuality—is immoral. Our conscious recognition that serving us to be individuals requires temporary measures be taken that may result in such recapitulation gives rise to moral outrage when individuals who lack the integrity thereof bear false oaths in pursuit of those necessary measures. The joy of battle in war is the joy of life at the level of the presexual organism’s eat or be eaten stage of existence. It is a degenerate joy that evil would see made perpetual much as it would see the use of opiates during surgery made perpetual so as to turn humans into zombie slaves. Holy Spirit: That heritable living moral sense passed down to us by the Creator/Creation Being in us and in whom we are Being.
There is a huge focus here on the making white children. Growing a religion through emphasizing the virtues of childbearing is a well established strategy. Orthodox Judaism for example has a lot you could pull from. I’m curious though whether the main proponents of this plan have done their parts. Do you have kids Daniel, or Jon, or GW? DanielS on June 17, 2013, 01:56 PM GW and Jon do; I do not have kids yet, but would like to.
I have done my part in helping others. I got a lady friend together with a man she was about to break up with as they loved each other and she needed a chance to have a baby: which she did, at age 41 (!). The baby and family are healthy and happy. I managed to do the same thing with a lady friend of mine (pictured) in the U.S. Her psychiatrist had strongly advised her not to have kids and I encouraged her to have a child with her husband despite that (what I thought was bad) advice. Kim, her husband and child (of Anglo-Saxon descent), are healthy and happy. The child turned out very well to the psychiatrist’s surprise.
Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:01 | # That Jews are not to be considered native European, not even those with a considerable amount of European admixture. What amount is too much is a matter to discuss. My experience tells me to be wary even of those with just one Jewish grandparent out of four.
3
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:23 | # Tripartite deity: Afterlife: Underworld: Sins:
5
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:39 | # Excellent Jon, I find myself in remarkable agreement with you. Let me take a closer look at your suggestions:
Afterlife: Yes, agree, absolutely, have been thinking in agreement with that for decades.
I’m not sure about this one, because multiculturalism at first blush, seems to have been proposed as a post modern notion to preserve and respect differences. Of course it has been perverted by Jewish academics to mean integrationism in effect. So, perhaps it is some term for the integrationist process of blending away Whites with others should referred to as the underworld.
very good. There are probably more sins to add, but that is an excellent start, particularly the insight that people who do not sin are our members, whether they know it or not.
Ok, we will work on integrating this to the main post when its ready.
Seems we have some inspiring figures, and not only from recent WN history..but amongst our long history
6
Posted by UFO Phil on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:03 | # Congratulations, Guessedworker. Majorityrights.com has just hit a new low-water mark. 7
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:08 | # Don’t worry, UFO Phil, there is a Christian church for you. 8
Posted by Fr. John+ on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:27 | # Oh, puh-leez. You don’t need a new religion, you need the OLD Religion, stripped of its heresy! Caesaro-papalism is to blame, as is protestantism, for adhering to the ancient heresy of subordination of the godhead. And Christianity IS the ‘White Man’s Religion,’ if only people would WAKE UP! http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/the-truth-is-right-between-your-eyes/ 9
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:30 | # Creation myth: We don’t pretend to know how we got here (other than through our ancestors).We only know we’re here, we’re us and we want to stay that way. 10
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:11 | # Bowery’s tenet likely should be included, that those who will try to force associations upon White ecologies and deny their freedom from association, be looked upon as evil, not subject to human regard.
11
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:56 | # “Any suggestions for saints and martyrs?” No saints or martyrs, just manifestation of our (not your if youre not us) god. These would qualify as angels if we had them, though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXBXlJYKTNI 12
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:14 | # Actually, it has been called to my attention that the elevating status of martyrs serves a powerful function. That is, when the enemy forces the ultimate sacrifice, killing one of ours, they only make us more powerful by transforming that person into one of epoch proportion and rallying inspiration to our cause against them as our antagonists.
13
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:39 | #
Intend to stay that way, I should have written.
Bowery may or may not disagree but I see that as a purely political rather than theological question. I am working on the bits for the uninitiated masses, though, and I would certainly appreciate any input from deeper thinkers than myself for the esoterica. Thinking about it some more, I don’t see any moral questions about us or about others as important. We are our morals and our morals (based upon honour) are inherent in us. It is up to us to discover or rediscover them. Good and evil (except what’s good for us—that left to the individual) are not a part of it. Sin either, now that I think about it. It should be so unobjectionable to anyone of any religion (or none) as possible, even the three Middle Eastern arse-lifting ones. Neophytes can think of it as an add-on to correct software bugs in their present religion. God said (I only have this second-hand) that He was jealous of other gods. There should be nothing here for Him to be jealous of. We don’t worship or praise the People, we are the People. There are some morphological and functional characteristics of our god (always written in lowercase because it is not “the God” that vastly differentiate it from the arse-lifting religions and are closer to those of our previous organic gods that I will go into later when I have the time. 14
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:48 | # Not officially recognised martyrs, imo. Members should be free (in just about every way except for the Commandments) to consider anyone they want a martyr or not rather than given edicts or proclamations. “So unobjectionable to any member (white non-miscegenators—they’re already members, they just don’t know it yet) as possible”, I believe, is an indispensable rule. 15
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:51 | #
Shoulda picked one of their happier covers, I guess. 16
Posted by Drongo Fruitcake on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:17 | # This entire article is a complete joke. “A proposed collaborative effort to construct a new religion exclusively for persons of indigenous European extraction”? Don’t make me laugh. Read this: http://eng.kilden.forskningsradet.no/c52778/nyhet/vis.html?tid=77776 17
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:25 | # An important morphological characteristic before I comment on the other ones: Non-eternality Immortality is potential only This theistic quality potentially ties political questions to religious ones but I am in favour of keeping a bright line between the two so as to make our religion so unobjectionable as possible to the most people. 18
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:31 | # DanielS, what you really want is the exoteric presentation of the esoteric output of GW’s ontology project. You’ve got the cart before the horse. Melvin Gorham in “The Six Discipllines of Man’s Being” phrased “The Problem” (page 7) thusly:
19
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:32 | # I’m not sure I see your point regarding the feminist/mysogyny link. Not sure what your point is at all Drongo Fruitcake, but if you got a laugh out of it, at least that’s something positive.
Some people may be so freaked out that we evolved from monkeys and negroids that they will imagine the most fantastic ideas (e.g., Orion’s belt star origin) in order to underscore the importance of our differences. However, that underscoring - of our important differences - is one of the chief purpose of this exclusivist religion which you rightly call for. 20
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:42 | # Jim, I sense yours and Gorham’s points in 18 are good ones, and I have a clue as to what you mean. I began to recoil as I was setting down some words. ..god, necessary territories.. Perhaps it’s not gone too far yet. let me reflect a bit more on what your saying there… 21
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:48 | # Call us ‘racist’ if you like, Tm Wse, but what we are is people who don’t like people trying who are trying to kill our god. 22
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:52 | # Posted by Jon on June 05, 2013, 10:51 AM | # ..good angels smile Shoulda picked one of their happier covers, I guess.
and to add a smile (the word got written out). Sorry for the misunderstanding. 23
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:32 | # Sorry I’m doing the morphology thing in bits and pieces but I don’t have much time to devote to this, what with having to take care of the kids. Our god is not anthropomorphic, he is rather meta-anthropic. I use he, him, etc. to refer to our god as common gender pronouns. “It” would make him impersonal when he is highly personal to us. My unique common gender use of masculine pronouns other than to refer to unspecific antecedents such as “everyone”, unfortunately, will piss feminists off but then again, nearly any feminist, even if he (common gender) acts in accordance with our imperatives, would never consider joining us anyway. Our god is not hermaphroditic, but rather, his constituents are men and women. Our god is not omniscient. His knowledge is limited to what white people, collectively, can know. His knowledge waxes and wanes along with ours. Our god is not omnipotent, and his power waxes and wanes as well. It is at a low ebb right now. What we do (and to an extent what non-members (those who aren’t White or who miscegenate) do) will have an effect on his power Our god is not all good. Not all bad, either. He is, to put it in Christian terms, God and Satan rolled up into one. Our god’s name is “our god”. To distinguish him from “your god”. Not being anthropomorphic, he has no capacities such as caring, wanting (praise, worship, etc.), jealousy, fits of anger, etc., like his constituents do.
If there is another quality you’d like me to discuss, please let me know. 24
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:06 | # UFO dude:
You mean we’ve surpassed the record set by mindweapon’s post on collectively hating people through the ether? Bitchin, dude. I’m like so honoured. And stoked. I’m sure Daniel is too. Never mind his gruffiness, he’s that way with all thread derailers. Django:
They laughed at L. Ron Hubbard, too. Oh, wait a minute, they’re still laughing at him. Never mind… ...then again, they’re laughing at him (and talking about him) 50-odd years later. 25
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:02 | # Religion after the ‘death of God’. I’d go with Wallace Stevens - see http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/wallace-stevens Some pertinent quotes from Stevens: “After one has abandoned a belief in god, poetry is that essence which takes its place as life’s redemption.” “Art, broadly, is the form of life or the sound or color of life. Considered as form (in the abstract) it is often indistinguishable from life itself.” “The relation of art to life is of the first importance especially in a skeptical age since, in the absence of a belief in God, the mind turns to its own creations and examines them, not alone from the aesthetic point of view, but for what they reveal, for what they validate and invalidate, for the support that they give.” “A dead romantic is a falsification.” “Religion is dependent on faith. But aesthetics is independent of faith. The relative positions of the two might be reversed. It is possible to establish aesthetics in the individual mind as immeasurably a greater thing than religion. Its present state is the result of the difficulty of establishing it except in the individual mind.” “It is the belief and not the god that counts.” “There is nothing beautiful in life except life.” Why not make beauty our ‘ultimate concern’ - the beauty of environment (built and natural), the beauty of our characters, the beauty of our relationships, the beauty of concrete particulars over universal abstractions, the beauty of our nations? A revolt against ugliness in all of its multifarious modern forms. Yes - I’m a romantic at heart. 26
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:50 | # Graham, I believe your emphasis on aesthetics is great. But I wonder, why not have that conform to specs of European beauty? After all, mere aesthetics becomes a slippery slope to objectivism. Moreover, by reverence to those beautiful European forms to which most of us fall short from time to time in ourselves and the aesthetics of our productions, we are protected, our integrity is coddled, in the process of those aesthetics which are authentically ours, as Europeans.
Talk about aesthetic! .ok, I had a Bushmills. 27
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:36 | #
Such questions are the domain of science (not scientism, btw) and imo can’t be known absolutely because we weren’t there (unless we with or without non-members’ help develop technology and/or remember how to get “there”). I think saying that we come from our ancestors keeps in the spirit of our forebears’ organic myths (which were comprised in large part of tales of their ancestors). Questions of the origins of the universe are beyond the scope of Our religion. The pretentious arse-lifting religions answer such questions but their answers make our fairy tales seem realistic by comparison two of them borrow wholesale or almost from the third. Our ancestors had creation myths but I believe they are misunderstood—taken as literal by people who were hostile toward our forebears’ organic myths through whom they survive when they were meant as metaphors. Christian: my God is better than your god. He knows everything, sees everything, created what you call “Our god”, is more powerful than infinity plus one of your gods would be if such existed. The White Religion member: Maybe that’s true but I can prove Our god exists. 29
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:51 | # Our god is not omnipresent or pantheistic. He is immanent in us and we in him and part of him is present wherever in the universe any of us finds himself. @lister: What’s this talk of god being dead? Our god is not dead. Because I love Our god and the very real possibility that he might die some time in the future, I am through (not exactly literal) divine inspiration from him and founding Our religion. 30
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:54 | # Y’all should be worshipping GW for providing you kiddies a sandbox to play in. 31
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:01 | # It is Christianity, Islam and Judaism which are childish, Thorn. We are just started: Nascent is not the same as childish. 32
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:22 | # Traditional religions have filled important needs (for all peoples, not just us) providing us with ways to deal with the cycles of life: birth, coming of age, marriage, midlife (not so much) and death. As Jim points out, these things among other cultural stuff have been “j***y-rigged” (I prefer another offensive, racist expression but don’t want the SLPC after me 33
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:43 | #
“Worship” is an alien concept in Our religion. Part of why we don’t worship us is because we are us. Some would say that we’ve made ourselves God. We haven’t. We have been Our god since we existed, whether we have known it or not. This fact neither affirms nor denies the existence of any other (possibly far greater) god(s). Personally, the words “worship” and “praise” offend my religious sensibilities. But I certainly acknowledge GW as a part of Our god as I do you (assuming you are a de facto member who hasn’t miscegenated). 34
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:57 | # Another thing on making our people Our god. The White Religion approaches it straightforward, rather indirectly than through covenants with and intermediate deity. I personally think the direct approach reflects our character as a people. 35
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:03 | # Another thing on making our people Our god. The White Religion approaches it straightforward, rather than indirectly through covenants with an intermediate deity. I personally think the direct approach reflects our character as a people. Made some mistakes that it was impossible to correct. Can someone fix the hanging problem? 36
Posted by Ryan on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 04:02 | # If the goal is white nationalism and universalism, and getting whites to view all other whites as members of the in-group and to view all non-whites as members of the out-group, is religion necessary? Wouldn’t science and political nationalism be better? Consider the rise of the nation-states. They were able to get people from different regions, towns, villages, etc. to identify with each other as members of the same in-group, and to identify people from other nations as members of the out-group. This was done through secular means and via the promotion of science against religion. 37
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:59 | # Ryan said: “If the goal is white nationalism and universalism” Lets say White nationalism (and regional or communalism for those who prefer or who are justifiably suspicious of these larger units, as almost all separatisms are welcome which are amenable for Whites among Whites) and cross-contextualism, but not universalism - that’s deservedly become a bad word.
It would equip us with religious grounds and conviction of our own to fight the theological war that we are up against with Judaism and Islam, against Christianity for that matter, where it is antagonistic to Whites. As you note, it can function as an organizational means cross-contextutally for Whites. On the other hand, I have found it to be parsimonious to organize Whites conceptually by designating Whites as the White left, that is to classify them as a social whole group of people. Organizational sub-classifications are not hieirarchically ordered, but distinctions would be according to qualitative kinds (note that is not about inequality/equality, as those who are better suited for some tasks would do them; and very equal reward is not the goal, but rather some respectful common grounds) but the overall process - life span and evolutionary - of the classification is recognized ecologically, as it is symbiotic. That is to say, I do believe it is possible to organize Whites in other ways than religion, and I am not overly optimistic about the prospects of generating a White religion agreed upon by vast consensus here, anytime soon - but it is awfully nice to consider. In fact, these matters of which we speak are held religiously, anyway. It can work for others. It is not only nice to be able to say to a Thorn or a Haller, hey, this is my religion, but it is good to be able say that to the Muslim (I’ve had the pleasure to say that to one - it worked!), to say it to Jews, to say it to the self righteous secular liberals and the institutions they’ve taken over - with their de facto, quasi religious convictions that are so destructive to Whites, so ineffectively opposed in the popular consensus and so ineffectively opposed by Christianity. 38
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 06:11 | # In fact, an exclusively White religion, once its narratives are widely known and held, would provide the means by which White people would act in their own interests without having to be explicitly guided in specific acts of White self interest. 39
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 06:48 | #
Judaism and to a lesser extent, insofar as race/ethnicity is concerned, Islam give members a sense of identity. Jews arguably are their religion and that arrangement has worked well for them. Judaism and Islam, insofar as their practice among consitituents of Our god is concerned, are not really problems. The mind virus of Christianity, OTOH, is very unhealthy for us, whilst at the same time it is very much intertwined into politics. Man is a spiritual animal. Our Religion meets the spiritual needs of Our god where politics can’t. Our god, like Jews’ counterpart (in effect if not explicit) can die. That fact, if we can get our people to realise it, is a far more powerful motivator than any politics ever could be. Also, marriage is the domain of both politics and religion. A given reigning political arrangement can be more or less restrictive in a given area than a religious one. Our religion has only one restriction. The (revised) Second Imperative of Our religion commands, Reproduce yourselves, exclusively with other white people. When we follow this Imperative, we are literally re-creating something very important to most religious people, Our god, and thus ensure his future existence. 40
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:19 | # Graham, if I can upload some images of artwork, I will to emphasize your (rightful, I think) concern for aesthetics as they indicators of health, good sensitivity, form and some heaven on earth.
41
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:46 | # By proclaiming our people Our god, or in religious terms, restating something that has been true since the first of us walked the earth, rather than doing so through divine contracts entered into by dubious representatives, we are cutting out the middleman. What’s not to like about that? 42
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:54 | # Good point, Jon.
It has rather been the fifth column for our enemies, hasn’t it? I suspect that is one of the reasons why it is so encouraged by people who are fundamentally against us. 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:58 | # I will put together something on the ontologies of Judaism, Christianity and paganism that might help to set this post in the context of the comment at 18 by James. At the risk of over-simplifying, it seems to me that an authentic expression of the faith instinct has (at least) six major characteristics, and without all being present it cannot stand: 1. It discriminates for reality. 2. It expresses being. 3. It has a highly discriminative, expressive core fitted with a knowledge of Mind and life that is not readily accessible beyond. 4. It applies this knowledge within the core through a programme of perfectment of the self. 5. It applies it without through a narrative of perfectionment of the self. 6. In the absence of knowledge, this narrative is formulated for adherence through faith and morality. There is then a series of rough-hewn forms which religions tend to exhibit, most obviously deity, prophets, a reward system, and so on; none of which are meaningful without these six (or so) characteristics. It follows that a religion cannot be coddled together simply because it would be a good idea to have one. But it is interesting to discuss the issue, and I will try to carry the discussion forward in a few days. 44
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:23 | # Two Imperatives: 1. Be White All we need, imo. The extent we go into the politics/culture/economics/moralising/&etc;. business, is the extent we lose our appeal so that we can convert so many de facto members to de jure members as possible. Our people are smart enough to figure out and come to consensus on such matters without a Friend in the Sky holding their hands. 45
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:29 | #
The continued existence of White people is a more than sufficient reason to found a religion. Pardon my impertinence, but WTF did Paul do but “coddle together” a religion? 46
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:33 | # Adding those imperatives to the post, and am fairly persuaded of your advice to not let religious matters blend too much into irreligious realms but am willing to let things go a little too far at this brain storming stage. In creative process there is an imaginative phase, where many things can be Then there is a rigorous stage, where you try to eliminate the counter productive aspects. 47
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:57 | #
I am in favour of re-defining religion and taking a minimalist (perhaps too minimalist) approach, primarily aimed at weaning our people off moribund Christianity. I care if it’s “meaningful” only insofar as its “meaningness” doesn’t interfere with it being useful and popular. Our meaning is us, or in religious terms, Our god. But the way, can I read “perfecting” for “perfectment” and “perfection” for “perfectionment” above? Otherwise, I don’t pretend to understand what you’re getting at with your (to me) superfluous nominalisations. 48
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:17 | # Jon, if I may suggest, I can agree that it is necessary to have a very simple core: only for European peoples, betrayal means likely expulsion (at merest punishment). I don’t believe elaborations have gone too far yet. Where they have gone too far for a particular White individual or White community, they might opt for another chapter of the religion.
49
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:22 | # Nowadays, a far more powerful and sinister religion than Christianity we’re competing with among our people is the ersatz, non-theistic religion “cobbled together” by Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, et. al. I must admit, we’ve got our work cut out for us, as judging from its popularity and the fact that it’s now the unofficial state religion in nearly all White home- and diaspora lands, they are religion-cobblers par excellence. 50
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:35 | #
Take our Our religion, then. I suggest an “Holy Trinity” to make recovering Christians comfortable with the transition. Our habitats and sacred Homelands and feels better to me. Also, in other contexts, I like Our sacred People. Capitalising “Our” in certain phrases meant in religious context underscores the importance of Our sacred People in Our religion. 52
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:55 | # The advantage we have over the Frankfurt School-inspired Multicult is that they had to by covert means at first slowly insinuate themselves and get people to unconsciously act as members (and they did this very well). We consider any White person a de facto member (though we frown upon miscegenators, as they are killing Our god), just as a pork sandwich-eating Jew for Jesus is just as much a Jew as an Orthodox Rabbi named Cohen. Or course, the latter has higher status in the religion, though I prefer to keep such things unofficial. 53
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:45 | # Multiculti is replete with ersatz gods (e. g., “people of colour”, LGBT or whatever they call it now), objects of veneration (Holocaust), dark gods (their talismanic DWEMs, “breeders” (if they’re White), Christians (mostly White ones)), saints (Anne Frank, Martin Luther King et. al.) I would argue that it’s functionally indistinguishable from a religion. It should be clear to all but the brain-dead that Christianity was clearly not up to the task to protect Our god and to defeat this competing religion. We are, in part, because Our god is the only thing Our religion concerns itself with. 54
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:26 | # Jon, regarding the Frankfurt school, I think that what you’ll find by and large, is that they have taken European ideas, usually very good ideas, and have twisted them to an equation where they impose liberalism on Whites and classificatory unity on groups potentially antagonistic to Whites. The appeal is in the fundamental goodness of the idea: diversity and multiculturalism, for example. These are ideas which could easily be used to our ends but as we know, they are reversed in the effect of reality to mean globalist, monocultural integration and assimilation of Whites into brown. The essential appeal of the ideas that are being deployed against us, however, can and should be used in our interests. That is, we can undo the perversion of these ideas and deploy them to our best interests. We will have the advantage of making sense, being honest and honestly compassionate - much of what grabs people is the compassion of these ideas which is misplaced, of course. But that compassion can work to our ends. It will be a fundamental aspect of our religion. 55
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:19 | # Jon said: All we need, imo. The extent we go into the politics/culture/economics/moralising/&etc;. business, is the extent we lose our appeal so that we can convert so many de facto members to de jure members as possible
56
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:01 | # I also wonder what you think about paying ancestral respects on a special holiday, as they do on November 1rst in some Scandanavian and Slavic countries? That seems like it could be a meaningful White holiday. 57
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:43 | #
I was talking doctrinally there. If we ever should get to the stage of having meetings of members, of course—Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. doing that kind of thing for each other is not necessarily related to the theology. Remember, too, that we, as a fundamental (I’m a fundamentalist, lol) spiritual principle consider any of Our People a member, even if he would recoil at our existence. I borrow this from some of the Protestant sects of Christianity that believe something similar (we just broaden it that there’s no matter of accepting Our god as Our god and narrow it to Our People). That’s how I envision it, anyway. It’s premature to talk of function and organisation, imo. One other thought I had to bounce off you. As a rule, to make our exoteric theology, wherever possible consistent with our theological aim of survival of Our god, above any ridicule or criticism. To where any such thing would just not stick and be easily dismissed with, “what are you on about, mate, did you read their ‘bible’?” 58
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:03 | # Judaism was “constructed” with exactly similar racial purposes. In real life, the Temple Priests ==never ever succeeded== to stop ordinary Israelite folk to stop marrying shiksa women, who usually put up little pagan alters in their private homesteads and often in public squares, directly against the Law. Even Kings David & Solomon ran hundreds of shiksa hotties in their harems. We can look at any other religion in the world, and see how effective rule-enforcement is: always “barely”. Even the mullahs in today’s Iran can’t even stop young couples from making out in public parks. I have no moral opposition to your idea to construct a “White Tribe” religion. I merely think that its priests will spend as much time taking confessions from elderly Scandinavian women who can’t find it in themselves to stop flying down to Kenya and run African boy-toys at the beach resorts (quite a common flavor of “sex tourism” in today’s world)..... as Catholic priests today do with un-married catholic girls who fuck the brains out of their boyfriends. And even that pre-supposes that you can shame your white-religion-adherents to feeling guilty about doing this or that. It’s quite easy for old people who construct a new religion to be enthusiastic obey-ers of the rules. The track record of convincing the succeeding generations into feeling the same is…. not very good. But go ahead, spend your money on this project. I’ll find a way to make money selling you the accouterments. 59
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:17 | # There is no investment, Hymie. Regarding for sex, we will allow for celebrative attitudes as well (with our own), not only monogamy. As for race traitors, they are out, expelled from the realm to the best of our ability. In the case of mixed breed children, that would be quite easy to enforce. 60
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:20 | #
I’d prefer not to pretend to allow or disallow anything other than that member follow the First Imperative.
I’ve thought about this some and concluded that there’s no need to enforce the Second Imperative. Almost anyone who violates it is unlikely to wish to be a member or would disavow membership themselves and if he showed his face at any gatherings, would be snubbed and shunned by other members or if they hid their behaviour, would hopefully be wracked with guilt. If we get this thing off the ground, we have far more to worry about with malign-encouraging infiltrators and disrupters than with violators of the Second Imperative, imo. If you´re talking politically expelled, I prefer to keep Our religion out of politics. 61
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:40 | # I think best way to doctrinally to deal with infiltrators is to keep the it incorruptible, at least the exoteric bits (the secret handshake people can vet the higher orders). This dovetails with keeping it unobjectionable and uncritisable but might affect popularity. 62
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:50 | # Church heirarchy 1. Our People. Since each one of us is a constituent of Our god, there is no need for any intermediaries. 63
Posted by Hipster Racist on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:59 | # I made this suggestion over at MindWeaponsInRagnarok when someone asked about a “Pro-White, non-kooky kind of Scientology.” Instead of science fiction about body thetans, it’s science fact about genetics. Instead of fantasies of an afterlife on a spaceship, it’s the glimpse of your own face in the face of your child’s; that’s the brush with immortality you need to feel connected to something “bigger than one’s self.” Instead of auditing with an e-meter, it’s the gamut of self-improvement, from martial arts to hypnotism/game to tradecraft. Instead of studying Hubbard’s fiction, it’s STEM and a classical education. Instead of the Religious Technology Corporation, it’s the decentralized, independent cell structure (like FreeZone Scientology!) Instead of copyrights on religious doctrine, it’s open source. Instead of billion year contracts with the Sea Org, it’s genetic profiles of two prospective parents with an eye towards eugenic reproduction. Whitenology
64
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 00:19 | # Jon,
Nothing is superfluous. Everything is sparsely stated, that’s all. I am endeavouring to use language accurately in an area that is both commonly unknown and cannot be spoken of with any confidence because, overwhelmingly, those who come to it lack the data to associate the thoughts to one another. All efforts therefore lead back into the known, where lies failure. Nothing is hidden in plain sight more effectively than information bearing on the dichotomy of human being and personality. Ordinarily, this would not matter, because human personality does not, of itself, matter. The world turns. Men and women live their lives. History is unimpeded. But when people start talking about creating a new faith system, then grasping the esoteric nettle is unavoidable. Self-perfectionment is (said to be) a staged process of human verity resulting from a struggle against internal forces of truly gravitational power and constancy. Its end is permanence. It has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or sin in Christianity or any notion of “personal development” or “self-liberation” within the general domain of the personality. Not one person in a thousand fully grasps its nature, and that is especially true of those who, for whatever reason, become attracted to (only very superficially) related “spiritual” struggles. “Perfecting” does no justice to its formidable difficulty or its requirement of lifelong dedication. There is not only nothing automatic about the process, as “perfecting” would imply, but the chances of coming into contact with real information about it are very slight in the West. Nevertheless, this is the esoteric core of all meaningful religious systems - which do not include Christianity, btw. If one is going to discuss a religious genesis it is here, with the enshrinement of this process, that one must start. 65
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 04:51 | # G.W. sounds good, but the air is thin for me up there.. I imagine that is something like Aristotle’s thought on the matter, which would be good.
Regarding sex, we will allow for celebrative attitudes as well (with our own), not only monogamy. I’d prefer not to pretend to allow or disallow anything other than that member follow the First Imperative. I am convinced that the church has to recognize the importance of the option of single sex partner for life hopefuls. It is an option. It doesn’t matter entirely if the percentage of folks who opt for these clubs is very small. That is the only option that is imperative, not other ways of looking upon sex, other that it be between European adults if it is not to be rejected outright by the church. Some chapters probably should reject homosexuality entirely. And it is probably not something that should be ‘celebrated’ or flaunted in any church.
66
Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 05:09 | # We don’t necessarily need to construct a new religion. We need to make ourselves receptive to the old gods. The old gods haven’t gone anywhere. We’ve simply cut ourselves off from them. They’re here, waiting for us. 67
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 05:50 | # Daniel, You might find the ideas of Traditionalists such as René Guénon, Frithjof Schuoun, and, to some extent, Julius Evola relevant to this discussion. The New Right has approached the issue from neo-fascist and anarchist directions, but always with a loading of faith. There is some (oblique) discussion pertaining to the question in this post: 68
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:22 | # Heretical sects and blasphemy: Excepting anything inconsistent with the Imperatives, there is none possible. If someone comes up with something that violates the Imperatives, it is not an heretical sect but rather another religion. 69
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:22 | # GW: Robert Anton Wilson said, “Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us.” I understand the root of the words you use (which root could be broken down further), perfect, when used as a verb and and adjective. If there existed a 100-point 1959 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz show car that were not discernibly different in any wise from one that rolled off the showroom floor in 1959, excepting perhaps, unobtainable original parts subject to deteriorating in pristine condition such as tyres, it can be said to be “perfect” or have been “perfected”. I could go my whole life and never need to use the word, “perfection”. If someone talks of the “perfection” of the Cadillac, I parse that as “it’s perfect”, or “they perfected it when they restored it”. Talking of “perfection” itself, not connected to any object to me is somewhat absurd. General linguistics-wise, “perfectionment” takes this one step further. It’s an abstraction of an already tenuous abstraction. 70
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:23 | # GW, as I make my way through the article that you linked, on Jung, European and American Right etc, there is a first observation that I’d like to clarify. That I do not dispute Darwinism as factual. However, deliberate ecological concern, among other factors, can function on higher, modulating levels, to some extent in humans - and should, I believe. 71
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:58 | # GW, I may be totally off the mark here but I feel intuitively that part of the problem you’re having in effing the ineffable might lie in the somewhat arbitrary linguistic distinction between subject and object, an unfortunately necessary artifact of any human language. Therein lie the subjects and objects, not in us spiritually and not what you’re investigating. 72
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:50 | # There is no possibility of constructing a new religion; what you are doing is manufacturing yet another cult, the most successful of which historically has been Islam. There is only one religion: Christianity. Everything else is false. But let’s say one doesn’t believe in the set of metaphysical claims comprising Christianity. All ultimate belief systems are matters of probability, not proof (not yet anyway). The next most likely metaphysics is naturalism or ‘physicalism’. I contend that no religious (‘higher’) meanings can be derived from brute physical and biological facts. All larger claims of a seemingly moral nature are not moral claims properly understood, but merely expressions of personal preferences. The WN ‘moral’ imperative to promote the 14 words is no more moral in fact than the liberal’s desire for maximizing individual choice, extending out to the ‘right’ of miscegenation - or than the criminal’s desire for strictly personal gain. Even from a non-Christian, WN-preferential standpoint, you’re project is hopelessly misconceived. Revilo Oliver, a neo-Nazi atheist, recognized this decades ago, holding that, for white men, there simply is no religious alternative to Christianity. If Christianity is unpersuasive, then atheism (well, at least a noncommittal agnosticism) is the default position. But can there be any higher meaning for the atheist? I argue no. What is the higher meaning of life for a plant, an insect or an ape? How much more intelligent it would be for white preservationists to demonstrate that the West’s traditional faith is completely compatible with WP! It is simpler to renovate a house than to rebuild it from scratch. 73
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:33 | #
Our religion (of which you are a member but in religious vernacular that you understand, a “sinner”) is a religion because we say it is. Feel free to call it what you want.
What evidence would be necessary to disprove your claim? 74
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:46 | # Every religion starts out being called a “cult”. The same is true of Saint (sic) Paul’s zombie-worshiping religion. One marker of a cult that I will strive as best I can to have no trace of: brainwashing. Our sacred People don’t need any. They just need deprogramming from other cults, primary, the Multi-cult, including its intractable manifestations within Christianity. 75
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:03 | # Leon, I invite even you, my brother, to give up the “sins” of “the strange” and join us as a de jure member. Your God might be jealous of other gods but there is nothing here for Him to be jealous of. We don’t “worship”, praise, offer sacrifices (at least in the religious sense) or build icons or idols to Our god. He’s just there and we want him to live. Certainly being White and reproducing yourself with other White people do not offend Yahweh, do they? 76
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:32 | # Etymology of the word is instructive when one considers whether to apply “religion” to us. Broken into its morphemes, we get the affix, “re” (again) root “lig”, (root of verb “to bind”) and affix, “ion” (action of). We act, to bind Our sacred People to themselves, once again, as their Old Religion arguably did. How can you not call that a religion? 77
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:00 | #
You ignore a problem with your house even worse than it being hopelessly termite-eaten and the foundational problems: José, Jamal, (and even Achmed his appropriately-named sister, Raghad) can move in at will. 78
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:12 | # Honestly, what many White Nationalists evidently do not understand is the nature of the culture war we are embroiled in. Those WNs I speak of haven’t a clue as to why whites are losing so badly in said war. Moreover, WNs don’t understand why the tactics of the Left are succeeding (or should I say have succeeded?). In fact many WNs are stupidly playing right into the hands of the cultural Marxists. Hidious Hiedi Beirich is smiling upon you. Question: What is the Left’s main tactic? Answer: The subversion of Christianity. All things detrimental to white families flow from there. The Ghost of Antonio Gramsci 79
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:42 | #
I should rephrase that: we act to bind individual consituents of Our god (White people) to their People once again. When I write, Our sacred People, I mean sacred to us, certainly not in a universal sense. I would question the sanity of anyone who isn’t one of us to whom our People, particularly, was sacred, just as I do that of anyone of us who doesn’t hold his People sacred. 80
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:07 | # I’ve got to have a look at the posts since Jon’s #66 but first: Jon, interesting comment: Posted by Jon on June 07, 2013, 03:58 AM | # GW, I may be totally off the mark here but I feel intuitively that part of the problem you’re having in effing the ineffable might lie in the somewhat arbitrary linguistic distinction between subject and object, an unfortunately necessary artifact of any human language. Therein lie the subjects and objects, not in us spiritually and not what you’re investigating. I’m eager to see how GW responds. GW, I’ve read the link and I think that I am beginning to clue in on some of the things that you would hope for in better preparation for a religious discussion. From that discussion, in regard to Jim’s suggestion that I put the cart before the horse, this statement of yours seems to emerge:
As well as this: He couldn’t get away with it today. Sorry, Gwendolyn, it’s a crock.” That is, before setting-out, you would be looking for refined and better specs on adaptations selected for evolutionary fitness acknowledgment and acceptance of predetermined aspects, particularly of the two older parts of the tri-part brain and difficulties in reconciling it with adaptive agency and consciousness and the newer brain (your thinking is a bit complicated there, but that might touch on some of the problem as you see it). That is, generally speaking, you might want “selected for fitness” and “innate proclivities” to precede an exogenous religious classification. I may not possess the scientific rigor to pay sufficient respects at that alter, but neither do I see any necessary conflict with its priests. ...anyway, some considerations like that (and undoubtedly more) seem to be among your misgivings as Jon and I have taken our little praxis boat on a charter voyage. 81
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:23 | # .er, since GW’s # 66 and noting some interesting posts of Jon since then.. especially 67 and 70. 82
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:48 | # Jon, I agree with you about Haller’s arbitrary claim that a new religion cannot be chartered and that renovating Christianity is an answer. It is ridiculous to say that “There is no possibility of constructing a new religion” and that “There is only one religion: Christianity” - those are arbitrary claims and simply false. That is the deepest blasphemy to intelligence and to European people, a threat to Our capacity for selection of variations adapted to survive and thrive. /. 83
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:54 | # I contend that no religious (‘higher’) meanings can be derived from brute physical and biological facts. “Who we are” goes stratospherically beyond whatever referent you have in mind when you utter the word, “fact”. 84
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:45 | # Daniel:
To extend his metaphor a little, the cheap Middle Eastern desert concrete was not made for and the Middle Eastern contractors who constructed it were not experts in building a foundation that would survive the extreme temperature changes, extremely cold winters and rainy, humid climate of the Northern soul. Because he is so extremely attached to it, he negatively hallucinates the park-your-car-sized-in-‘em-sized cracks that began appearing centuries ago, as Nietzsche pointed out. On top of that, the framing is eaten so thoroughly by the multi-culti termites that illegal immigrants have begun to steal all the copper tubing and wiring that once comprised the plumbing and electrical system and to spray-paint its facade with gang graffiti (literally happening to many centuries old churches here). Consequent to its manifold problems, most inhabitants of its European wings left years ago. The Americans are somewhat more attached to it but even most of them are only pretending to live there. 86
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:48 | # Still have hope for your Middle Eastern mud religion, Harry? There are a couple links posted on this very thread where you can go. Here, we pursue the truth, the light, the exclusive way of Europeans. That is not Christianity, which reaches out and embraces mud and lies.
87
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:30 | # I don’t go into the mainstream media so much nowadays, but my goodness has it gotten even worse. It is unbelievable. NPR is supposed to be America’s public radio, funded by taxpayers. Listen to it and a huge percentage of its programming is about Black people supporting Black people, respect for Angela Davis, Martin Luther King’s letters from jail on and on with Marxist advocacy of Blacks and LLatinas (they have this obnoxious way of pronouncing the L “LLatinas”) The presenters come across taking for granted as normal everything destructive to White men. Here they are talking about the cheerios commercial: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176239049&m=176239042 http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=1022&date=06-06-2013&p=151 It is hard to believe that the media could have gotten even more offensive to Whites in these last 20 years, but it has - it is unbelievable!
88
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:38 | #
Hey, we’ve had a 100% increase in de jure membership in the past week (all White people who follow the Imperatives are members, they just don’t know it yet.) Wanna bet at evens that Christianity’s membership has increased during the same period? 89
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:19 | # GW: “3. It has a highly discriminative, expressive core fitted with a knowledge of Mind and life that is not readily accessible beyond.” Are we not are by design (i. e., our nature) ill-equipped to know Mind, having only minds for the task? Is it not a bit like trying to drive a nail through an hammers own handle? 90
Posted by Jon on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:58 | # I think of the major Middle Eastern/Western religions, what with their sheep metaphors and parables and demands for supplication and sacrifice to and worship and praise of their deities as mere models for the masses of attitudes to be taken toward their earthly authorities. That’s why I call them all the “arse-lifting religions”, whether their members literally pray that way or not. As a romantic in spirit, I’d like to think that the ancient ones were different but fear that it’s been that way since the first man rubbed two sticks together and caught them on fire. 92
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:24 | # No Harry, most of us think this way. You are like Thorn the retard - “well, its been two minutes and you’ve not established a new religion, so I guess I can tell my Jew employers at the FBI that we’ve succeeded in dumping Christianity on Whites.” You lose Harry. So does the F.B.I. - forever. Sorry guys, the Jews have put you on the wrong side. 93
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 23:37 | # Glad to see I’m on the mind of the mental defect that calls himself daniels. 94
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 23:43 | # Honestly, what many White Nationalists evidently do not understand is the nature of the culture war we are embroiled in. Those WNs I speak of haven’t a clue as to why whites are losing so badly in said war. Moreover, WNs don’t understand why the tactics of the Left are succeeding (or should I say have succeeded?). In fact many WNs are stupidly playing right into the hands of the cultural Marxists. Hidious Hiedi Beirich is smiling upon you. Question: What is the Left’s main tactic? Answer: The subversion of Christianity. All things detrimental to white families flow from there. 95
Posted by Harry on Fri, 07 Jun 2013 23:53 | # I have to agree with Thorn on his last comment. By the way I’m English and if you’d even bothered to study any of the links I gave you you’d see that none of it is in anyway supportive of the ‘Jews’. 96
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 03:31 | # Thorn my unknown internet friend, There is a sense in which Daniels may be correct about us (and those who think as we do). I have never had the slightest interest in being Christ’s “Apostle to the White Nationalists” (I suspect this is not your ‘trip’, either). I’m here at MR (as I used to be elsewhere, before being mass-banned) to discuss the plight of whites, which is that our treasonous leaderships everywhere have set us on a path to racial extinction, which in turn, I believe, will result in the obliteration of both Western Civ and the historic “American Way of Life”, both of which I’d like to conserve (and, indeed, the conservation of which is what I consider to be the heart of ‘conservatism’). Of course, I’ll defend Christianity when it is attacked (especially by the ignoramuses and hatemongers much in evidence here), but my primary concern is white, not Christian, extinction (in part because I highly doubt Christianity will ever go extinct; I think that eventuality is a foregone conclusion for whites, however, at least as things stand). At some abstract level I know I’m supposed to care about saving the souls of the benighted, but I have enough problems and ambitions in my life such that I really don’t. These are fools, but not idiots, and as Chesterton once opined, by age 30, a man is responsible for his own face. In other words, the salvation of individual WNs is their own responsibility, not ours. Given that WN, even in its broadest interpretation, is not remotely sufficient by itself to save the race, perhaps persons like us really do belong explaining the WP agenda to the Christians (and conservatives and secularists etc), rather than wasting our time defending Christianity against the WNs. Daniel can play with his new cult all he wants, but we know perfectly well that this is just an idle parlor game wrt the real world. A “new religion” is never going to attract more than an infinitesimal number of adherents (most or all of whom will be genuine weirdoes). No major new religion has arisen since the Darwinian revolution. [I happened to have saved up to here. I wrote a few more paragraphs, which were lost when I tried to post. This site is fucked. It has a bug of some kind. Fix it.]
97
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 06:34 | # Haller says: “I’m here at MR (as I used to be elsewhere, before being mass-banned”....Our misfortune that you came here. “I wrote a few more paragraphs, which were lost” Our god spared us that..
“Posted by Thorn on June 07, 2013, 06:43 PM | # Honestly, what many White Nationalists evidently do not understand is the nature of the culture war we are embroiled in. Those WNs I speak of haven’t a clue as to why whites are losing so badly in said war. Moreover, WNs don’t understand why the tactics of the Left..” Stop right there. What “left” Thornblossom? It is not “the left” it is the tactics of Jewish academics and YOU fall/attempt to guide Whites right into starting the moment you called them “the left” and steer people into the illusions of the “right” such as the invisible hand behind Hayek’s economics, Ayn Rand’s objectivism, scientism, Darwinism.. casting us on the side of big time capitalist oligarchs, the Zionist military industrial complex (if not didactically with Nazism), and of course, the mind thwarting fall back of Christianity.
” are succeeding (or should I say have succeeded?). In fact many WNs are stupidly playing right into the hands of the cultural Marxists. Hidious Hiedi Beirich is smiling upon you.” THAT’S RIGHT YOU ARE PLAYING INTO THEIR (Jewish academics and planners)HANDS, EXACTLY!!! Having didactically reversed the meanings, making WN’s rebel and argue against “multiculturalism” when we are against monoculutralism, against “diversity”, when we are against assimilation, against “post modernism” when we are against modernism (and its blind destruction), against “social constructionism” when we are against the causal determinism, against the organization of “leftism”, when we are against the fiction of pure, liberally created individualism, against our nature which you call “defective” and then trying to impose the utter defect of Christianity. Thornblossom is playing/steering right into it, when he says: “Question: What is the Left’s main tactic? Answer: The subversion of Christianity. All things detrimental to white families flow from there.”
98
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 06:47 | # Another reason why the Jews want us to adopt their altercast of “the right” is so that we fall in line with the inhumane, sheer “might makes right” thinking; so that they can seem like the compassionate and caring ones. 100
Posted by Jon on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:33 | # “Jon, your post 23 is interesting too..” All-powerful, all-knowing, all good, eternal, transcendent, self-existent gods are so first millennium. Our god can create a rock the he himself can’t lift, so he’d better be careful. 101
Posted by Jon on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:44 | #
That assumes implicitly, that without Christianity, healthy White families would be impossible or at least “detrimented”. There were healthy White families and great White civilizations before Christianity and there will be healthy White families and great White civilizations long after it has returned to the cult status it had before Paul foisted it upon the West and long after the last baptism rites take place. If you want to blame anyone for Christianity’s demise, blame Darwin (who, by the way was a dyed-in-the-wool race realist and would most likely be sickened at “the left’s” actions, including their attacks on Christianity). There is much about Christian culture for a leftist to hate, no doubt about it, just as there is much about Paganism for them to hate. But absolutely nothing that leftists hate about Christianity belongs solely to Christianity. Take out the bits that leftists don’t hate and you’re left with the mind-virus that the leftists of 17 centuries ago carefully crafted and the parts of it that I have problems with. If Christianity were racially exclusive, lefty hate for that bit would pale in comparison to the other parts they hate. 102
Posted by Jon on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:41 | # GW, Our First Imperative, “be White”, at first blush appears as a mere membership requirement. I intend it to function as such but had I intended that as its only meaning, I would have rendered it, “you must be White”. Its meaning is ultra-condensed. I believe you could, if you wished and felt the way I do about it, write a 1000-page book, chock full of polysyllabic, five-affix nominalising nouns that only the elite philosophers amongst us could begin to pretend to understand. @Thorn: The left is motivated not by their hatred of Christianity but by a certain subset of Christians, whom I happen to love as manifestations of Our (imperfect but capable of improvement) god. 103
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:11 | #
Leon, You’re right, it isn’t. And as far as the rest of your comment, I’m walking in lockstep with you. I couldn’t agree more. —————————————
Jon, Nah, too many Christians beleive the Theory of Evolution is good science. It is compatible with Intelligent Design—which of course is not at all the same thing as Creationism. Marxism/global socialism is to blame. Antonio Gramsci and the Jewish intellectuals at the Frankfort School are much more responsable for the erosion in the influence of the Church than Darwin. It’s not even close. That said, the reasons are many as to why the pews are not being filled by people of European descent; but the culture war being waged by the Left, I beleive, is by far the most powerful cause. Mainstream conservative Bill Whittle does a good job explaining the origins of cultural Marxism and political correctness. If waking up the masses of whites is at all possible, it’s men like Bill Whittle and Paul Weston that can do it. They set the standard. Their style and approach is the correct one. The History of Cultural Marxism & Political Correctness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fo5jLdJlgI
104
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:34 | # See what happens when you give a disingenuous sort like Thorn an opening for his Jewish/Christian advocacy, by allowing him to blame “the Left” ...as opposed to Marxism, Jewish left and the Jew-thinking right? It is a foregone conclusion that they are just going to keep preaching Christianity even to those adults who do not want it and those children not capable of how much damage is being done to them by it. Thorn, Jon may be attempting to persuade Christians to consciously adopt our White religion, I am not. Though I agree with him that so long as Christians are not sinners against Whites, that they are de facto members. Coming back to my point, however, Thorn, Haller, Harry and other Christians have to understand that I, anyway, am not addressing this conversation to them, but to those Whites who do not believe in Christianity, who do not want Christianity, but might consider viewing Our race religiously, Our race as Our religion. Jon’s commentary is excellent. 105
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:38 | # I have not investigated Paul Weston beyond the posted speech, but I imagine that the reason why Thorn and Haller are so big on him is because he does not name the ... 106
Posted by Jon on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:48 | #
If Islam were the religion of the West and Christianity that of the Middle East, it would be a paper maché model of Mohammed stuck in the jar of piss exhibited in museums and lauded as edgy, avant garde “art” and Christianity that was beyond criticism. It’s White people, particularly the men, they’re attacking, not just their religion. The one thing about Christianity they’re silent on and indeed have in common with it: its universalism 107
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:47 | # Here is a comprehensive video covering the subject of Cultural Marxism and its “long march through the institutions”. CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=gIdBuK7_g3M&NR=1 Here is another, it’s only thirteen minutes long: What Is Cultural Marxism? 108
Posted by Jon on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:53 | #
I have no doubt that if in the future, intelligent, off-planet beings were to come back and demonstrate incontrovertibly that they seeded the planet with its original flora and fauna aeons ago, your lot, if there are any left (after a centuries-long fight, of course, like you did with Galileo and are still doing with Darwin) will find some obscure reference in the first Book of Moses and ad hoc adjust the creation myth such that your Yahweh created the aliens, rendering the rest of the text, of course, incoherent (as do heliocentrism and evolution). 109
Posted by Jon on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 15:24 | #
One of the few things we agree on. It lies in the security, I believe. I wish they’d go back to captcha strings. Try reloading the page when you get the white screen. That seems to work most of the time for me. 110
Posted by Jon on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:21 | #
Come on, David, can’t you tell the difference between proselytising and taking the piss? But you do allude to a powerful difference between Our religion and Christianity. With Christianity, to gain a new member, they have the unenviable task of convincing him to believe that he’s a damned “sinner” and only a guy who might or might not have been conceived without a sperm cell fertilising an ovum 2000 years ago, died on a cross and then been reanimated by his Father in the Sky and floated up there to join Him can save him from burning under the ground forever and being tormented by a guy with horns and a tail. In Our religion, everyone we wish to reach is already a member and doesn’t have to believe or do a single thing to merit that. Of course, since we want Our god to continue to live, we prefer that they reproduce themselves and do so exclusively with other members but even that is not an absolute requirement for membership. Miscegenators are merely equivalent of what Christians call “lost souls”, their counterparts among Jews being people like Benjamin Freedman, Mayan Fagan, Norman Finkelstein, David Cole and others. 111
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:53 | # I like your ideas Jon. I’m waiting for GW to respond to you some more, then will try to integrate more of your thoughts into the main post.
112
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:55 | # Perhaps incentives for participation should be considered as well. 113
Posted by Jon on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 20:05 | #
I argue for modeling what seems to work from Judaism rather than Catholicism, with its confessions, penances (read: guilt induction) and excommunication rituals. The nearly entire gene lines of the Conquistadors are the “fruits” of Catholicism. I give alot of credit to the Jews. Theirs is a better model for us on such questions, imo. If David Cole had gone on Donatel, announced he had married a Schwartze and burned the Israeli flag, arguing that the state was founded on false premises, even the hardest-core Hasidic Rabbi leader of the JDL would have still considered him a Jew. Whatever he would have done in response would have been not religious but rather political, just as it would if David Duke had done it (though a different response, for sure). The problem of evil is beyond the scope of what I have in mind. We don’t have to tell Our sacred People that murder, theft, rape cuckoldry, etc. are wrong. Any of them who has a soul knows that. Beyond that, everybody has his own ideas of what constitutes it and my big problem with most religions is that they lay every member on a Procrustean bed. We should have an exoteric part and an inner core and I’ve got no problems with Procrustean beds there along with the discussions of Evola and Heidegger. 114
Posted by Jon on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 20:11 | #
Sorry, didn’t answer that one above. What better incentive than “Our god will die if the last of us dies”? 115
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 21:57 | # Well, Regarding evil, I think for what has been done through academia, finance, media, politics, religion, the law and business, that evil is not too strong a word in many instances. The way our women have been trained to be pitted against us..of course the way other races are imposed upon us, the way we are prohibited from defending out interests - that’s pretty damned evil. I still believe help in matching-up White people with appropriate partners could be a good program - a side activity for the church, so to speak. Perhaps proposed partnerships in other endeavors as well, building houses, mentoring etc. I guess you think those things kinds of things should come later, but I don’t think it would hurt, rather it would help. 116
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:00 | # Being forced to accept Blacks and other non-Whites into our communities, businesses, educational processes, into our gene pool, and taking our co-evolutionary women, even - that’s evil. 117
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:12 | # Among the reasons that I would mention explicitly that rape and pedophilia are strictly forbidden is that it should be one of our more appealing features to White women. And White men have an easier time abiding by those rules than do muds. 118
Posted by Jon on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 09:23 | # A couple of problems: You’re getting into moral universal territory there. Rape is not just wrong for us, it is wrong for a Chinaman and it’s wrong for an Eskimo. And it is self-evident that it is wrong. Contrary to what arse-lifting religions say, we don’t need God to tell us that. The desert peoples whom such religions arose among might have but we don’t (on the whole, anyway). The second one is standing (in a legal sense). The arse-lifting religions approach this problem by creating an anthropomorphic all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, etc. creator god. He has standing to lay down rules. Our god doesn’t give pronouncements. He just is (conceptually). 119
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 09:52 | # Posted by Jon on June 09, 2013, 04:23 AM | # A couple of problems: You’re getting into moral universal territory there. Rape is not just wrong for us, it is wrong for a Chinaman and it’s wrong for an Eskimo. No, it is not going into moral universal territory, because we will have a less forgiving attitude toward it. Blacks, for example, will necessarily need to be more forgiving of it, because they are so prone to it. Moreover, by emphasizing our rejection of rape and pedophilia and our protection against it, we are underscoring the fairness of the deal for women that they not miscegenate, a sin that they are more capable of.
So, that’s my answer. Rape may be self evidently wrong to you and me as White men, but it is not quite so wrong to muds and liberal women, and especially not its comparison and equivalence to miscegenation: which if you think about it, really is horribly destructive to Our evolution, comparable to rape.
Its public relations to promote our good qualities. Obviously awareness and consciousness is lacking in public narrative so poisoned by anti-White male propaganda, that to emphasize Our care and decency, Our advocacy of women, not only Our rejection of negative inclinations.
We shouldn’t care what they need, unless it impacts Ours and the overall ecology, it’s their problem.
Our rules are determined by the relative interests of Europeans and Our ongoing evolutionary process.
If it is so evidently wrong that rape and pedophilia are wrong, I cannot see the harm in articulating the fact. However, I do see the potential of scaring people away with rejection of miscegenators. That is part of why I would want to make explicit our rules that are more kind and less hard on women. I would make beating women unacceptable as well. I would also discourage degrading talk of them and talk that they should simply stay put in the home, etc. Although some of that stuff can be regulated chapter to chapter. Some advise having a jubilee for miscegenators: That is, providing they do not have children, forgiving them at this early stage, given that the brain washing and anti-White pressure has been pervasive. And then, as the narrative of Our religion takes hold, we might more strictly enforce banishment for miscegenators who grew up with Our system which taught them better - thus they really have no excuse to have not know why they should not do it. I’m concerned about that approach. It is a slippery slope. I listen to someone like Matt Parrott and that appears to be an in to gate keeping. In a conversation on The White Voice, the moment another person suggested some interracial couples who don’t take drugs (as if that’s the important factor) are ok, he agreed instantaneously. That is, White men are too used to pandering to female gate-keepers about this issue in order to prove what studly liberals they are as required by the Judeo/feminist/liberal zeitgeist. 120
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 10:18 | # Daniel @ 78,
As Jon’s host, I don’t wish to be inconsiderate to him.
The monotheistic deity is the ultimate imperative which Man has fashioned for his faith. But Life - Nature’s being - is the real ultimate imperative. Everything flows from Nature’s boundless will to subsist in the teeth of Time/Entropy. She learned some tricks over the millions of years of the cycle of ignition and extinction, including (i) the division of the fates of genotype and phenotype, the former put beyond Time, the latter given in whole to it; (ii) the capacity to transmit the former by reproduction, asexual then sexual; (iii) the capacity to perceive beyond the individual organism; and (iv) the capacity to ameliorate environmental factors through selection for adaption. In and about us, throughout Nature, is this vast will to be which is so abhorred by the physical universe. Blindingly obviously, it is of this that men’s lives and being are constituted, and to which all care is, ultimately, given. There is literally nothing else. We do not care for inanimate objects whirling through time and space except in that they serve living things.
There are no physically or emotionally cognised truths of Life that are not also intellectually cognised truths. Truth is consistent or it is not truth. It is speculation, it is supposition, it is presumption. But it is not truth. Any proposed new macro-system for our time, be it philosophical or religious, must be truth-bearing throughout.
I would be looking for the development of an ontology that unites eso- and exoteric in truth (without which, I might add, no further progress can be made - at least, this is the only way to a remaking of the world of European Man that I can see). This post refers: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/preamble_to_a_nationalist_ontology
121
Posted by Jon on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 10:21 | #
One reason not to make specific moral conduct rules (other than standing) is we don’t need to. The summum bonum of Our religion is the continued existence of Us. Our entire culture supports such ideas. I seriously doubt they’re going to take the malum in se crimes off the books any time soon. I would not be opposed to adding the clause, “and act always consistent with the continued survival of Our god” or some such language, but not pretending to judge what might constitute such behaviour. In most cases it is obvious. Leave the “Thou shalt nots” to the arse-lifting religions. 122
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 10:57 | # I’ll tell you what though, in your chapter you might refrain from explicit articulation of the prohibitions of rape and pedophila whereas in my chapter I would not emphasize the “god” talk, as the word does nothing for me but remind me of disingenuous people, looking for an excuse, and I scarcely can trust people who do use it ( though the way you use it is acceptable to me). 123
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 11:15 | # Making Our race our religion (if not the god- term) should be one significant aspect of uniting the esoteric and exoteric. 124
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 11:26 | # Daniel @ 78, I’m eager to see how GW responds [to Jon] GW says: As Jon’s host, I don’t wish to be inconsiderate to him. Although, it could help us to clarify how your hopes for ontology differ from what Wittgenstein sought in the “Tractatus Logico Philosophicus” f you would answer that:
GW, I may be totally off the mark here but I feel intuitively that part of the problem you’re having in effing the ineffable might lie in the somewhat arbitrary linguistic distinction between subject and object, an unfortunately necessary artifact of any human language. Therein lie the subjects and objects, not in us spiritually and not what you’re investigating. In other words, why is it that no progress can be made in a European religion without words that perfectly and in all ways correspond with all aspects of lived nature? I can see the point of pursuing rigorous understandings, but to call a halt to religious defense in the meantime, seems even more perilous.
125
Posted by Jon on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 11:33 | # GW:
I don’t consider disagreement inconsiderate. I do consider a patronising attitude such. 126
Posted by Jon on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 11:53 | #
Revised Second Imperative: Reproduce yourself and act always, consistent with the continued survival of Our sacred People. There is a a mile-long list of implicit “sins” in that terse command, some obvious, like those of the Lit Crit professor who wrote that she hated her white skin because it reminded her of the oppression of her ancestors and others controversial like the actions of Breivik. I use “god” conceptually. I no more “believe” in Our god (notice which element I capitalised) than than I do in metaperfectionismentationness. It’s more become something I feel intuitively, though. Our god is just a way of seeing Our sacred People and since most every religion has some kind of deity, what better to deify than that? I mean it more in the sense of, “money is his god”. Our sacred people is a god to you in that sense isn’t it? But I can certainly understand recoiling from the word because of how charlatans have used it. Our god’s morphological and functional characteristics, I believe, render charlatanry, when kept to my narrow definition, all but impossible. 127
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 11:57 | # I don’t consider disagreement inconsiderate. I do consider a patronising attitude such. You are not disagreeing with me. You are trying to disagree with me. Disagreement would require a certain discriminative understanding of the distinctions involved between inner and outer. You are standing proudly in the outer circle, proclaiming the universality of your view. 128
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 12:20 | # .................................................. hmm, interesting remark by GW to Jon. Jon, perhaps you should see a little more utility in the various chapters having different emphases?
129
Posted by Jon on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:06 | #
I disagree that a “coddled together” language like English is anywhere near adequate to express the intuitions you’re trying to express such that any but an infinitesimal few can understand and act upon them. German is not much better, as Heidegger wasn’t successful in coming up with an ontological “theory of everything”, either. I disagree that using state nouns to nominalise what must be a dynamic process (process itself is a nominalisation, as is nominalisation—it’s impossilbe or nearly impossible to avoid them in any language) is the right approach. A simple example, which more accurately points to reality? “I have a need for some nails” “I need some nails” I don’t have any “needs”. I either have or don’t have nails. I see us being distinct practical/theoretical-wise more than inner/outer-wise. And I’m not going to wait for the architect’s approval to build a house when my family is about to perish from exposure. 130
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 14:16 | # From my perspective it is as if Jon could be too averse to nominalization - not differentiating of and between different Whites quite enough, as if articulating some rules is so problematic when after all, they can be revised if impractical; in fact, as I’d said there can be advantages to those choices, it can broaden our appeal. As if different chapters cannot have different emphases and degrees of articulation. Failing that, nobody has to agree with this religion, they can get another one for ” ” sake. With that, personally, I’d rather not try to appeal to Christians at all. Let them come to us if they like, but I will not try to persuade them; and I don’t want them to be able to say that I am seeking out Christians to convert them to a new, indigenous European religion. Regarding different chapters, I do anticipate a problem in that some may provide a bridge to antagonistic forces if they are too lax - Miss Egenator just goes to another chapter and spreads on her liberal corruption, or that some chapters may be didactically too strict, as may concern Jon. On the other hand (and I am about to back-off, because I had not sensed the degree of underlying tension here), I do understand Jon’s sense of urgency and his not really seeing reason to delay in considering our race as our religion. I.e. conversely, maybe GW seeks a rather turgid fine tuning of language, words and distinctions. There is no reason to doubt there will be some worthwhile yield there. But of the general terms of treating our race as our religion and recognizing the prerogative of different kinds to maintain their distinction amongst, why should anybody disagree with that? Nevertheless, I do realize that these are matters which GW is in the process of writing about. And I do understand (graphically, through my experience with Joe), what it is like to be in the process of considering things carefully only to have others hop on stage and start playing things their way. I think that GW’s consideration of the tri-part brain, for one thing, is going to yield some insights. It seems to be a problem for Europeans that they are so damn logical (new brain), that they are detached and talk themselves out of the rightful fear of the reptile and the relational needs of the mammal.
131
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 14:37 | # Jon, I might add something in regard to your sense of urgency - which I understand and think is correct, if the larger view is correctly taken, but… Where I am now is extremely White - easily 99% White out there today. It is discouraging in the sense that because of that, there is often a lack of the sense of urgency and danger that there should be, really, in broad view. On the other hand, it is a reality, it is a large White population which is not going to be extinct in 20 years and which has an ethnocentric streak and familiarity with fighting for its existence that is not lost to its national consciousness. That is probably not going to be much comfort to you where you are now (America, I guess), not only inundated with its demographic hell, but also overlaid with torrents of anti-White media/narrative 24/7. That’s a hell that I simply had to escape. It could make any sane White man crazy. Having said that, you are not crazy, you are in a crazy system and seeing things correctly - a White religion is required - the people in White places like this are not seeing things right either, they probably think it cannot happen here. I’d bet my right arm people in France and Holland once said it can’t happen there - but it did. 132
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 14:48 | # The Political Cesspool is talking about getting back to the bible and The US Constitution - oh brother. “I fought for all Americans, so long as they abide by the constitution” one at the Political Cesspool said. How he expects those rule structures - bizarre, objectivist, largely irrelevant to White concerns - to work out in White people’s interests with the demographic make up and trajectory that they have there…that kind of talk could make a grown White man cry, if he had to live in the US. 133
Posted by Jon on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:42 | # “Self-perfectionment is (said to be) a staged process of human verity resulting from a struggle against internal forces of truly gravitational power and constancy. Its end is permanence.” That sounds Jungian. I believe he called it individuation and the internal forces, the shadow, the anima/animus and the archetypes of the collective unconscious. 134
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:03 | # It sounds Greek too, for better (Aristotlian actualization) or worse (teleological), but one of my hesitations about talk of perfectionment is the Greek, immitative theory of beauty, which I don’t think is always the answer. The romantic, affective theory of beauty holds something as well, I believe not only for me, subjectively. I’d like to revisit the idea of asymmetry being the evolutionary advance, something that Whites have and can lose in a bad idea of perfection - in too much symmetry, which would correspond with atavistic primitivism. It was part of my reason for putting the Bonnard up there, to difference from the immitative theory; and to show the affective theory as a part of the distinctly European. 135
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:58 | # A very simplistic, tabulation of exo- and esoteric…
Sexual selection…inherited traits with no adaptive function. http://www.evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2013/06/just-for-show_1.html 136
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 10 Jun 2013 02:12 | # A simplistic tabulation of exo- and esoteric… http://www.kheper.net/topics/esotericism/esoteric_and_exoteric.htm
Sexual selection is the selection of inherited traits with no adaptive function. http://www.evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/06/just-for-show_1.html 137
Posted by Jon on Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:41 | # A simplistic tabulation of exo- and esoteric… Here’s an interesting quote from that,
In light of that (does anyone substantially disagree?), I argue that Guessedworker misnames what he goes on to define. I call Islam the religion and Sufi a spiritual practice arising therefrom based upon far deeper intuition. And whilst some Sufis might have problems with the requirements to stick his butt in the air five times a day, completely submit to Allah, etc., what Sufi could possibly object to the dogma of, “Be Persian (or Arab)” and make Persian babies and conduct yourself so that Persians continue to exist.
It is we who are the people of colour. 138
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:35 | # This passage from Darwin as astutely culled by Desmond Jones, indicates how Darwin may accord surprisingly well not only with moral concerns, not only matters of agency, but quite well with social constructionism.
How can evolutionary theory be pre-determinist when it is fundamentally random in nature? A belief in evolution is a fundamental denial of God. it removes the concept of free will from humans, On the contrary, Darwin writes in Chapter XXI of the Descent of Man; A moral being is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and 139
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:18 | # [GW or Lurker: could you put the following as a Main Post? It should go up immediately, even though it is a parochial matter for Americans. Thanks. LH] FOR AMERICANS: On Tuesday June 11, 2013, at 2:15pm EST, the United States Senate is going to begin the process of destroying America as we have known it. At this time, the Senate will be voting on Senate Bill 744, which is the first step in granting a “path to citizenship” to the estimated 30 MILLION illegal aliens (99%+ nonwhite) occupying our country. Given horrendous other provisions in the bill dramatically increasing legal immigration, in addition to the insanely generous “family reunification” provisions already present in American immigration policy, this is the first step in what will be the white minoritization of the US (with this bill, by 2020-25), soon to be followed by the collapse of the USA into brutal white persecution (starting 2030-35) if not actual genocide (by 2040-45, and no later than 2050). Think Rhodesia/South Africa as our White American future. [Of course, the Fall of White America is going to be an event of world-historical import for all the European peoples, esp in light of the economic as well as domestic racial (and indigenous demographic decline) problems in Europe today. Given how European governments are idiotically slashing their defense budgets in desperate attempts to avoid the day of reckoning with their own failed socialist welfare states, who will defend Old Europe when the young, fecund and ideologically radicalizing Maghreb rises up and looks northward, and America has disappeared?] To move forward S.744 needs 60 “Yes” votes. WE CAN DEFEAT THIS AMNESTY TOMORROW! There are 45 Republican Senators. At least 4 are traitors on the scale of Judas Iscariot (McCain, Graham, Flake and of course Rubio). But if the others hang tough, or if we can augment their number with a few rural state Democrats, we can stop this treason cold! It depends on the plain people of America showing their patriotism - NOW!! Call as many Senators (esp Republicans) as possible, telling them to vote NO tomorrow/today on moving forward on the S.744 amnesty bill. I have called 31 so far (not to mention past email messages), along with my two worthless CA Democrats. Toll free number for Capitol switchboard (they will connect you to whichever Senate offices you ask for) is: 1-888-978-3094
List of current Senators (in order of seniority):
It’s time for white preservationists to stop whining and start doing. NOW. 140
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 01:59 | # Coherent and effective action on behalf of Whites (whether anti-immigration, political or social action) is going to require a coherent organization, which means some sort of soft leftist nationalism (whether its acknowledged as leftist or not) and/or a new White religion. The White race and its discreet subcategories is our religion. 141
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:29 | # Imagine standing before the congregation at The White Church and asking them: 1. How is it possible to like Quinton Tarantino movies? Doesn’t one experience immediate revulsion at his films? I do anyway: Prior to the misfortune of attending to “Pulp Fiction”, based on an understanding of the Hollywood zeitgeist, I told the man who recommended it to me that the movie would be promoting miscegenation and he was quite surprised that I anticipated that. Even more fully manifest of the zeitgeist, in Pulp Fiction, Tarantino shows White men as they “should be”, robotic, hypnotized zombies serving Negro interests.
2. How could White people devote money and effort to curing A.I.D.S.? How about suggesting to people that they should have an idea about the person that they are screwing? And that those who are quite so indiscriminate with our evolution just might deserve to die. 142
Posted by Fr. John+ on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:53 | # Leon Haller- Thanks for asking that the US Senate list of names to be posted here at MR. As for the rest of the comments, I stand by what I wrote earlier. You cannot be a White Man, you cannot be European, unless you are a Christian. Hungary’s explicit Constitution of 2010 (and the subsequent cries of ‘anti-[sic] semitism’ only proving the validity of my point); Russia’s nascent Orthodoxy as the ‘glue’ that holds the nation together (with their expanding birthrate of indigenous Whites, and their naming nuclear subs after great Saint-heroes, such as the Alexandr Nevsky, and the imprisoning of the Pussy Riot bitches, where they belong); Golden Dawn’s naming the ‘joo’ and joining their ethno-centric Hellenism to their Orthodoxy (while rising in the polls, daily!), are just three examples, that you avoid at your peril. St. Paul put it plainer- ‘thinking themselves wise, they became fools….’ Hilaire Belloc (when Rome was something worth holding up as a model) wrote it best: You can- you MUST have a faith to counteract the Deicides and the Hagarenes- but it can only be Trinitarian, authoritarian, catholic Orthodoxy. Rome is finished. Geneva and Canterbury are irrelevant, and Augsburg’s accomodationism to the powers that be, damned it four centuries ago- ‘this is most certainly true!’ No, Gents. You need to bow the knee and submit to a valid Episcopacy, and ‘return to your first love’... or be damned. 143
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:24 | # You cannot be a White Man, you cannot be European, unless you are a Christian. Fortunately, most European peoples do not agree with you and never will. The ones who ‘believe’ your nonsense are dishonest with themselves or others by definition. Your religion, Fr. John, is fake, was started by Jews and is in service of Jews. You already live in the hell of your dishonesty, whilst I, and others, have the eternal happiness of honesty and unaninimity with our European interests. 144
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:47 | # Orthodox Christianity is a regional dialect blending appropriations from the nonsense of new and old testament as its resident shamans see fit to keep it unintelligible to European neighbors. It gains popularity primarily for those who hate, wish to dismiss and to destroy their European neighbors. 145
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:10 | # Thanks Desmond and GW for the links which make a little more clear to me what you seek in ontological preparation. From preamble to a nationalist ontology, GW says: “We can know as an idea that what is real and true of, and permanent in, our race are the present elements: the European nature, being, and mind. There is nothing else, and no other foundation. But to know them as a fact is only possible if they are emergent forces in the lived European life, and that would already be a revolutionary condition from which change at the social and political level must cascade.” http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/preamble_to_a_nationalist_ontology
I had thought Jon’s question was valid (about the necessary disparity between language and subject/object) and posed politely enough, also his sense of urgency (to get on with a religion and not wait for a blue-print of the utmost detail as we are besieged), but there was perhaps a significant conflict between Jon and GW about which I was unaware. Though this particular expedition may stall right there, I am far from discouraged: the basics for a new religion for European peoples seem to be there, along with brain power for it, rivaling those people who created Christianity. 146
Posted by Jon on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:41 | #
I will agree 100% with and undersign in blood that statement the very day the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and every major Protestant sect explicitly make a statement inverting its elements. I will attend Sunday services the week the announcements and beg Jesus’ forgiveness. That’s a statement that you would not be willing to make as it would be heresy. Until a leader from every Christian denomination does just that… you may… bugger off! 147
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:35 | # Jon, GW, whomever might like to answer. I tried to think of matters from the perspective of one who has a daughter and the issue looked a little different to me. Let’s say that I am being too universalizing with the prohibition of miscegenators. What if there were some chapters of the White Church which would be forgiving of former miscegenators? Do you think that would be the right move? Would there be risks with that? How would you handle the matter to perhaps keep it from being too forgivable and therefore a transgression easily followed by others, eventually perhaps not much of a problem at all? Would you perhaps have testimonials on bad experiences in such relationships? Perhaps discussing effects that these relationships are having on society, on other Whites, their psychology, their esteem, justice and incentive structure? On what it means to our evolution, ecology and future? What it adds to the perhaps venal efforts and ways of antagonists to Whites?
148
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:06 | # That is, it would seem to follow as with other moral concerns within the “relativists paradox”, that if you are to have freedom, sufficient choice, autonomy and liberty that there should be more radical chapters which prohibit miscegenation altogether but perhaps also others which might forgive and specialize in more rhetorical means of reform and dissuasion.. perhaps offering positive incentives for behavior conducive to White interests as well. It had been such a battle against Jewish liberal rhetoric as it had normalized and even heroicized miscegenation, vilified those opposed to it, that I had taken a rest at the compromise of agreeing with Bowery and Renner that perhaps banishment would be sufficient punishment. I.e. that had occupied the parameters of my initial “hypothesis” of the Church. That’s why I had rather blindly and perhaps stubbornly settled there. Now I am thinking perhaps more of “concenetric rings”, with stricter and reform chapters, If the reform chapters really are expert in dissuasion, reform and creating behavior conducive, redemptive of White interests.
149
Posted by Fr. John+ on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:34 | # Part of the reason someone wants a ‘new religion’ is because the ‘old-time religion’ has changed. In light of that (and acknowledging where, and by whom, it has been changed!) Here’s a voice from the past, telling we Evangelical Catholics why we have ‘erred and strayed’ in believing (as Martin Luther said) ‘the Jews and their lies’- “I am glad to commend Stephen Sizer’s ground-breaking critique of Christian Zionism. His comprehensive overview of its roots, its theological basis and its political consequences is very timely. I myself believe that Zionism, both political and Christian, is incompatible with biblical faith. Stephen’s book has helped to reinforce this conviction.” Revd John Stott, Rector Emeritus, All Soul’s, Langham Place, London, the principal framer of the Lausanne Covenant (1974) and founder of the Langham Partnership International.” 150
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:52 | # Here is arch Christian Zionist John Hagee being interviewed by the kosher NPR/Terry Gross http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90508742 This kind is a big problem indeed. 151
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:45 | # I must be clear, however, that no, I do not believe that Christianity is merely practiced incorrectly. Neither I nor the people addressed with this thread are looking for a ‘proper’ Christianity. Jon’s comment number 46 was fine.
152
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:57 | # 146, rather
Posted by Jon on June 11, 2013, 04:41 PM | # You cannot be a White Man, you cannot be European, if you aren’t a Christian. I will agree 100% with and undersign in blood that statement the very day the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and every major Protestant sect explicitly make a statement inverting its elements. I will attend Sunday services the week the announcements and beg Jesus’ forgiveness. That’s a statement that you would not be willing to make as it would be heresy. Until a leader from every Christian denomination does just that… you may… bugger off! 153
Posted by Jon on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:43 | # “Part of the reason someone wants a ‘new religion’ is because the ‘old-time religion’ has changed.” 1492 is not “old-time”? 200.000.000 Mestizo Christians would disagree that anything has changed. The slave morality elements are problematic to me. Darwin and Nietsche caused a few problems as well as Gallileo before them. I would only agree to undersign your assertion because I know my conditions cannot and will not be met. The religion changing in the unfortunate ways Christianity has might give one an inkling that it simply wasn’t fit to fight the new heretical Christian sect, which btw borrows liberally from the thoroughly Christian doctrine of metaphysical equality and interchangeability of all human beings. The current Zeitgeist is Christian in many ways and has part of its origin in 19th Century New England Protestantism. The only major ways the new religion differs are that it threw out Jesus, replaced sin with racism/sexism/“homophobia” replaced the saints with people such as MLK and Anne Frank and replaced Satan with White men (who are the only members of humanity who aren’t equal). A robust religion fit for White people would not have allowed an upstart like the church of Holocaustianity to replace it. On-its-face unfit. Christianity lost. It’s not coming back. Better move on. Christianity wasn’t there for me or Our sacred People when we needed it to save my neighborhood and my race. It has sinned. It would need to repent, ask forgiveness for its sins and most important start excluding everyone but White people before I would ever consider it as a viable option. 154
Posted by Curious George on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:53 | # There is a huge focus here on the making white children. Growing a religion through emphasizing the virtues of childbearing is a well established strategy. Orthodox Judaism for example has a lot you could pull from. I’m curious though whether the main proponents of this plan have done their parts. Do you have kids Daniel, or Jon, or GW? 155
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:56 | # GW and Jon do; I do not have kids yet, but would like to. 157
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:04 | # I have done my part in helping others. I got a lady friend together with a man she was about to break up with as they loved each other and she needed a chance to have a baby: which she did, at age 41 (!). The baby and family are healthy and happy. I managed to do the same thing with a lady friend of mine in the U.S. Her psychiatrist had strongly advised her not to have kids and I encouraged her to have a child with her husband despite that (what I thought was bad) advice. Kim, her husband and child (of Anglo-Saxon descent), are healthy and happy. The child turned out very well to the psychiatrist’s surprise.
158
Posted by Bill on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 07:51 | # I started this morning fishing the Internet. I plead not to shoot the messenger. David Icke*. Politics never was intended as a vehicle to advance the interests of the people is the theme of this Icke video. David Icke can hold my attention but I am not seduced by him. For him, this video is the straight forward stuff, it’s his vibrational base construct consciousness thingy where he loses me. Icke (and his ilk) have a world wide following (Occupy?) that cannot easily be dismissed. This video is just over half an hour duration, and finishes on an interesting note. No doubt to be followed up with the the punch line sequel. To us it is all straight forward stuff, but how is it received by the masses out there? In the jargon of the moment, is it raising ‘the consciousness of the people’? David Icke is the other half of the global agenda, IOW’s the United Nations new Age future. The impending new religion. Is David Icke deliberately muddying the waters with shape shifting lizards, and the moon is made of cheese, or has he got something more important to say? Is he aiding or disrupting the cause of nationalism? Icke* (As in Eisenhower) 159
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:03 | # Hi Bill, As with popular conspiracy theory, I have an aversion to speculative theories. I am with Dr. Lister on this one. I prefer the ordinary and verifiable when it comes to explanation, and classic trained scholarship when it comes to the means of understanding. From what I know of “New Age” (not much) it borrows a little from some valid scholarship, e.g. on matters of ecology and mixes it in with highly speculative notions - more dubious even, than speculative. Hence, in proposing a religion for Whites, the matter here would be a religion concretely for Whites, not about some abstract and universal ideas, let alone highly speculative ones to be shared by just anybody. I am not familiar with David Icke and had never heard of him until Dr. Lister spoke mockingly of him. Then you called attention to a short video of his on another occasion. As I recall, I guessed that he was probably being used as misdirection of the masses, similar as Alex Jones. I doubt that either are going to name Jewish elite and patterns as a highly ethnocentric organization, which, while not alone in power, are among the most important, if not the most important in setting the agendas, greasing the palms and taking the initiatives. In the clip you recommend, Icke refers to Perle, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Emmanuel, Soros, but he does not name them as ethnically governed, but rather as acting at the behest of some secret cabal of elites at the top of a cryptic pyramid. “Democrat/Republican, they answer to the same masters” This “cabal” is responsible for the military industrial complex (it was not Israeli interests via Operation Clean Sweep/Project for a New American Century as the plan behind the Iraq war, as well as the recent happenings in Egypt and Libya, etc?)
160
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:46 | # Well the ‘universalism’ of David Icke is by far the least of the problems with his ‘methodology’. People with above room temperature IQs and the common sense they were born with can pick-up on that. One’s bullshit detector should be tingling. And I did give chapter and verse on why Icke and his type represent enormously egregious examples of ‘critical thinking’ (the very opposite in fact). Look up my posts on the matter. I did go into some detail as to the truly dreadful ‘general methodology’ of such types rather than the specific content of their claims. And I’m not inclined to repeat myself on that topic. The heart of the matter is this: Icke wants rubes to buy his books, DVDs and tickets to his lectures - nothing more. He’s a showman - half the audience know this but, in spite of or even because of it, reveal in the zany antinomianism on show (they ‘enjoy’ the act). Half the audience are ‘true-believers’ thus are cultural spastics of some sort. Sadly there are far too many willing to provide Icke and other people of that type with a very comfortable living. There is a world of difference between intelligent, well-reasoned skepticism towards what the political powers that be tell you to ‘believe’ and the asinine pseudeo-skeptism of the Icke’s, Alex Jones’ etc., of this sorry world. Whoever coined the phrase “the customer is never wrong” was actually profoundly and totally mistaken. I’m sure it must have an American. 161
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:05 | # If the fate of European politics rests in any way whatsoever on the drivel of David Icke then the game REALLY is up. Seriously Bill read ‘Machiavelli for Beginners’ or whatever it’s called these days. http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Machiavelli-Patrick-Curry/dp/1848311753/ It has cartoons. Fuck me that’s shocking news - powerful people (Princes in Machiavelli’s terms) and groups of powerful people frequently have their own self-interest at heart, often are not 100% honest in discussing their true motivations, intentions etc., and often wrap up their agenda in other terms in order to to mislead and misdirect the public - with something called ideology or even good old fashioned propaganda. Really? Well as I say fuck me that is a new one on me. I’m shocked. I mean Tony Blair, Ronnie Reagan et al., the people that run Goldman Sachs, would not mislead the public or lie about an important issue would they? If you can’t trust a modern day Prince who can you trust eh? Obviously (one would hope) the ‘issue’ of space lizards adds nothing to the above account now does it? 162
Posted by Bill on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:09 | # In another thread, ‘The Cultural Becomes the Racial’, the issue was raised of the enemy of of my enemy….. I think it was Wobbly who opined that beggars couldn’t be choosers and nationalists should garner support from whomsoever. This was within the context of the anti Jihad bloggers and the EDL. In a later comment I agreed by saying nationalism couldn’t afford the luxury of spurning a help in hand from whichever quarter. As I watched Icke’s video it crossed my mind here was a man who in one evening in a packed hall can influence hundreds to inquire and think outside the box, and in doing so encourage countless other to do the same, add to this the possible millions around the world with access to his books, videos, and his own website, he has the potential to raise a vast army of inquiry among young people of how the world works. I get the feeling he is resonating with the younger people among us - but I could be wrong. This is obviously happening already. The question of who is David Icke can garner a million replies from around the world, ask the same people who is Graham Lister and the answer is Graham Who? The fact that Icke may not give a damn about what we’re about and is ploughing his own furrow is not the issue here, the territory that Icke (and his fellow travellers) traverse in their gospelspeak in many areas encompasses what we discuss here. It really is a case of it’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good. As I find usual in many instances with what we’re dealing with here, whole swathes of persuasion and inference is shaped by omission, what they don’t tell us speaks volumes. I note Icke very rarely speaks of immigration for instance in any context. The BBC is a past master at this brainwashing by omission. The United Nation’s website spells it out all too clearly, David Icke must spend a lot of his time there. Obviously Icke is a showman and entrepreneur, call him a snake oil salesman if you like, you can fuck him from here to eternity (hey I can swear) but he’s got the attention of millions and that’s more than we will ever have. You will note I have not opined of where I think Icke is going with his spiritual adventures, he loses me with his mumbo jumbo vibrational base construct stuff, it is here I bow out. Suffice to say it’s the United Nation’s brave new world in the form of the the New Age is what’s on offer, where we all will learn to love our servitude. 163
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 20:00 | # Bill, we might have an interview with Ellen Brown coming up. She’s got quite a popular audience. I found out (to my mild horror at what Graham might think) after contacting her for an MR interview, that she’d been interviewed by David Icke. 164
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 20:49 | # Icke is a symbol of the dangerous irrationality (nay, anti-rationality) of the modern world (a world, I might add, no longer spiritually and intellectually disciplined by a public Christianity, and the much worse for it). People hunger for ‘meaning’, something larger than themselves in which to believe, place their hopes, etc. Remove the rationality of Christ, and you get any number of swindlers, from Marx to Icke (hey, a great book title). That said, if the addled white masses can be reached by Icke and encouraged to form nuclear families and oppose immigration, then WNs should attempt to reach and educate Icke. I suspect that endeavor will prove unsuccessful, but what have we got to lose? Note, all points on the metaphysical spectrum can shout what they will, but even if God is dead, I will forever believe that the only hope for the West lies in the mass return to a racially reformed Christianity. Making the case for that approach is fast becoming my life’s work (especially once I finish my current program, despite the sham some think it to be). 165
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 21:18 | # Well, coming back to the theme of this thread: It is to circumscribe a new religion which is explicitly of and for White people. I agree with Jon that it exists because we say it does. Moreover, it is something that I have felt and believed prior to this thread. Perhaps we are not going to see Christians and Christianity go away anytime soon, but neither are they going to make those who do not believe in Christianity go away. It is to those who do not believe in Christianity and who do not want it that this thread speaks. Those who will not accept “the rationality of Christ.” Nor do I see David Icke type of speculation as commensurate with this thread and the tenor of MR. I.e. I would not try to talk to him or try to persuade him of anything. 166
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 23:51 | # Last word on the Icke fellow from me. The only thing David Icke could do to benefit the future of Europe would be to organise a mass suicide of himself and the small group of retards/fuckwits/true believers in space lizards that hang on his every word. He could use Jim Jones and the events of Jonestown as his guide. Drink the Kool-Aid folks. I’m sure the average IQ level of the UK population would improve considerably if such an event occurred. Well OK ‘considerably’ is a bit optimistic I grant you. One can have perfectly sane, reality based, cogent (and indeed analytically far sharper) critiques of “the powers that be” minus all the utter garbage Icke et al., bring to the party. Seriously Bill (and other Icke fans) buy just about any book from the Verso catalogue for starters. For fucks sake. “Liberalism: A Counter-History” by Domenico Losurdo, or “Victors’ Justice: From Nuremberg to Baghdad” I’ve mentioned all of those book previously. They are not very difficult books to read. If you’re an adult that can read a newspaper those books are all perfectly ‘accessible’. Even Adam Curtis and his films are million times plus the quality of any of Icke’s output. Seriously the notion that Icke (or someone like him) represents the cutting edge of political insight into the territory and dynamics of late modernity is too silly for words. Such a view is foolishness in the extreme. There are many very sharp and astute people that think something has gone badly wrong under what we call neo-liberalism (which itself is not an aberration within liberal modernity but merely its latest phase). And such people, if one knows where to look, can be seen all across the non-liberal ideological firmament saying interesting and thought-provoking things. Some of them are even serious religious thinkers (not many it has to be said). The most fundamental aspect and key starting point for political thought today is the dividing line between liberals and non-liberals. NOT the rubbish about ‘left’ and ‘right’ WITHIN the liberal spectrum - let alone creatures from outer space. David Icke, Alex Jones and their ilk., are either hucksters with an act looking for rubes to fleece or genuine buffoons. They have nothing to offer other than being turds in any conversational punch bowl. Or heroic figures to the terminally ‘hard of thinking’. 168
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:26 | # Posted by Spiritualist on July 13, 2013, 10:28 PM | # This is an incredibly stupid ‘religion’. Where do we go wrong, Spiritualist? It is all stupid? I should think that you are either not White or not caring about Whites. 169
Posted by Spiritualist on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 02:34 | # >>“Where do we go wrong, Spiritualist?” You went wrong in trying to construct a religion. Religion is based on truth, you don’t get to make one up as you see fit. >>“It is all stupid?” Yes. >>“I should think that you are either not White or not caring about Whites.” You are retarded. 170
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 02:54 | # Posted by Spiritualist on July 14, 2013, 09:34 PM | # >>“Where do we go wrong, Spiritualist?” You went wrong in trying to construct a religion. Religion is based on truth, you don’t get to make one up as you see fit. >>“It is all stupid?” Yes. >>“I should think that you are either not White or not caring about Whites.” You are retarded. Spiritualist, you are retarded. The religion we take is based on truth.
171
Posted by Spiritualist on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:46 | # “Spiritualist, you are retarded. The religion we take is based on truth.” No it isn’t. It’s just made-up nonsense (“God is race”, etc) that you pretend to believe for pragmatic reasons, and hope other white people will believe as well, because you think it will have desirable social and political consequences if lots of people believed it. Religion doesn’t work that way. Religion is based on metaphysical truth, not political or social concerns. 172
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:55 | # Someone said: “Religion is based on metaphysical truth, not political or social concerns.” Oh really? Are these metaphysical ‘truths’ and how do you know (not guess, not hope, not have faith in, but know) they are true? Are the metaphysics of Voodoo (actual Voodoo) ‘true’? If not why not? “The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.” One of my favourite quotes. By one of those space-lizard folks but still worthy all the same. Of course others will disagree and then have an argument as where the burden of proof lies.
173
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:19 | # Posted by Spiritualist on July 15, 2013, 04:46 PM | # “Spiritualist, you are retarded. The religion we take is based on truth.”
174
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 03 Aug 2013 06:22 | # That’s a good one by Greg Johnson: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/08/racial-civil-religion/ 175
Posted by DanielS. on Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:57 | # . http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/08/the-importance-of-ritual/ He goes into some things that I’ve been considering as well for long while, in regard to sacralizing the ordinary and elevating routine. He makes a very good point here: “The demarcation between the sacred and the profane is arguably at the root of all cultural identity, and the very definition of what separates one people from another.”
Must they use extreme methods? Why not the calm of easing into comforting ritual? A second problem has again to do with my reservations about idealizing “community.”
This requires real experience – real, authentic practice either as a solitary apprentice or, preferably, as part of a kindred or tribe. To rebuild organic culture means creating a shared experience as a community. Heathenism can not be limited to books – or, worse – to the internet. It is to be lived through blood and sweat, the frenzy of inspiration, the toil of shared physical activity, the comradeship and community of shared practice.”
More power to those who wish to try. but it might not work out so ideally and it might not need to.
Thus Spake Zarathustra. It is not whites as they are that we defend, but whites as they could become, and that process of transformation and folk creation has to begin with the establishment of the sacred. ...it veers into toxicity. As we ought not punish and alienate the accidental and imperfect to the extent that we can determine that these things are benign.
“To the authentic pagan, every social interaction, sexual relationship, meal, creation, struggle, or accomplishment is fraught with meaning, and open to ritual and magic” He is confusing the word sacral for ritual; or rather he is using ritual in the kind of place that I have used sacral. Ritual rather, is a means to capture the essence and deepen appreciation of important organic Routine - as such, it is a means to connect the ordinary for the sacred. The ordinary must not be besmirched, as that is one of the problems with say, with American influence as it emphasizes Actualization; its continual transformations through over-emphasis on achievement; founded on the modernist assumption that Actualization is implicated through transformation. On the other hand, we must preserve and appreciate the specialness of achievement, actualization as distinct, without crushing and demoting the importance of ordinary Routine and tyrannizing the imperfectness of our organic forms, viz. their Being. And foremost, it must not contradict its protective housing in the Social. In all of this, I guess there are better, more reliable prospects within the notion and scope of the White Social than in community. It is there that people who are concerned to preserve individualism and the negotiation of a variety of communities will have recourse - in the social. Again, for people who want to strive after some sort of ideal community, fine with me. ..... 176
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 09:20 | # In response to a WN Christian There are other possible moral orders and one which is better, more authentically suited for European peoples is possible - to rearrange the incentive, loyalty and power structure - that is what I am and have been interested in. Yes, it would be a new religion on behalf of European peoples, to stand up to Judaism, Islam and sundry moral destruction of our peoples
Really? Let me start with this: There is no transcending moral concern. It is ubiquitous. No matter where you go and whom you deal with, there will always be things that are obligated, legitimate or prohibited. Once you accept that moral concern is pervasively human and yet different people may have different emphases, different moral orders to suit their consensus, you can begin to consider that there may be different ones for Europeans, probably more authentically suitable to our needs. Christianity has had us bound in Jewish inauthenticity. Central is this: If you say that you are not a Christian, then you are “an agent of Jews”. And if you practice Christianity, then you are an agent of Jews, worshiping a Jew, a Jewish narrative and Jew thinking. You are fascinated and frightened into belief by things like its saying you will go to hell and be denied heaven if you do not believe, spooked by the cryptological code language (666 = Nero) meant to subvert Rome (“the new Babylon”) because it was oppressing Jews; which they could not fight openly - hence they learned the covert war that you observe. Christianity preserves some Christians for a while as a host to the parasite, and it kills some of the parasites from time to time, but ultimately it binds the parasite to its host, the Christian. It is not the religion of Europeans. It is a Jewish trick. It did not matter so much when European traditions and people were strong enough to function despite Christianity’s absurdities. People could make use of fanciful interpretations and ironic, selective use of sundry verses. However, now the parasite has infected its White host too deeply, and the partial immunization that Christianity once offered no longer suffices. It is not nice and not easy to accept that we were fooled. But I did it and so can others. One key is to realize that this has been the traditional moral order for Whites for the last thousand years or so (a long enough time so that no conscientious European person would summarily dismiss it without serious consideration, but not very long in the grand scheme of things), and that enacting a moral order with others is imperative (we were trying to do the right thing). However, the moral order of Christianity is, ironically, disordering to us - because it is not really about European peoples and our interests. Though one might and can stretch for interpretations as such, it is vastly insufficient on balance. Authentic moral orders for Europeans are at hand as the water in which we swim, the air we breathe (or we die); they require some uncovering from the obfuscation and pollution of Jewish tricks and ignorance, but they must exist of necessity or we would not exist. 177
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:02 | # ..spooked by the cryptological code language (666 = Nero) meant to subvert Rome (“the new Babylon”) because it was oppressing Jews; who could not fight openly - hence they learned the covert war that you observe. 178
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 05:33 | #
It is clear that the Greek concept of Logos influenced later Jewish and Christian philosophers. Is Logos authentically European? Is Stoicism, the father of individualism, equality and cosmopolitanism, a Jewish trick? 179
Posted by Bowery's proposal for a new religion on Fri, 08 Jul 2016 10:59 | # James talks to Red Ice about his plan for a new religion 180
Posted by Reactionary Expat on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 23:54 | # Reactionary Expat on why he believes Christianity can’t save the West. 181
Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:16 | # “Reactionary Expat on why he believes Christianity can’t save the West” maybe but then again… When it was put to “Expat” that Christianity would be a “major factor” in a restored Europe, his reply was.. “I don’t know…it might well be…you could very well be correct..or..I mean…these European nations..they might throw off these other threats but they might be forever altered by that process…..in the same way that…erm….people from the past if they were to look at Europe now or even one or two hundred years ago might find it completely unrecognizable (no shit?)....err…it might be the same in another two hundred years. Maybe it will get through its troubles…and….maybe that will involve Christianity maybe it won’t….I don’t know…err .... I mean certainly in Christianity’s infancy if…if anyone had…had suggested that one day it would be what it eventually became in terms of power…er…they might have been mocked for…I don’t know maybe it is going to be instrumental maybe it isn’t ... erm… I don’t really know”. Earlier “Expat” suggested that Latin America is having problems, not because of Catholicism (or even corporate exploitation) but rather it’s because the population is “not very smart and a dead weight on the (Catholic) religion”. Now, to me, it’s always seemed that the pueblos nativos were doing rather well until the Spanish turned up with the Bible and syphilis then imported their ultimate weapon of biological mass destruction, the African slave. All endorsed by the Church, in the name of love, of course. Well, that was fifty one minutes and four seconds of my life I’ll never get back. So in the spirit of revenge, here’s Tito & Tarantula. Alt-Right reactionary’s will love this.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p0ShXsdZhU “Burning burning in the flame Solve et Coagula. You know it makes sense.
182
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:29 | # Also, JF was playing some kind of strange Alt-Right tenosphere footsie with Todd Lewis - with his outrageous proclamation that Christianity is the foundation of Western Science (see comment just below) .... JF barely challenged that and the validity of Christianity as a cultural institution in the West. ....says Christianity is good for birthrates. It has the aura of Regnery circus kosher about it. 183
Posted by Jesus changed symbolic ancestry (blood) to faith on Sun, 02 Sep 2018 05:08 | #
Re = kingdom (a peoplehood and their territorial realm represented by the king and his family) Ligia = the ligaments attaching and re-attaching the people to the king’s family and the other relatives in his kingdom). Related at Majorityrights: 184
Posted by Sutton Hoo on Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:02 | # Episode 1/6 The story of the discovery and subsequent restoration of the Sutton Hoo treasure. 185
Posted by Light Your White Light Saint Lucia on Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:43 | #
Light Your White Light, Saint Lucia 186
Posted by Bowery's latest take on religion on Sat, 23 May 2020 05:09 | # Post a comment:
Next entry: Stopping Senate Bill 744
|
|
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 DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:49 | #
I am aware in a second hand sense that Ben Klassen’s “Nature’s Eternal Religion” has some things right regarding a White religion.
However, I suspect that Klassen would be susceptible to a scientistic application of Darwinism to White interests, which would be one thing among others to cause it to justifiably lose compellingness as a religion; another negative being the reverence for Hitler that he apparently held.