|
|
|
The Tribe and Me by Trainspotter I’ve had a recurring vision for some time now, and I’m no longer certain as to whether it is a dream or a fantasy. I only know that I cannot forget it. In this vision, we have won. Victory is complete and total, our own land for our own people. The tribe, our tribe, is free to breathe with deep lungs. There are pretty girls to be admired, songs to be sung. Our songs, the way only we can sing them. Great vistas open up before us, and there is the inescapable feeling that thousands of years have somehow been won. The past, present, and future, the call of the stars. The magnitude of it all is, quite simply, staggering. Yet, in this vision, I am drawn away from the joy, in fact I don’t feel it at all, at least not for long. No, that’s not right. Not at all. There is a task at hand, something that has been weighing upon me for a long time, no longer to be ignored. There is a grave to visit, a grave from another world. A world now mercifully dead and buried, but a world that still leaves its stain, its mark. Channon and Christopher’s graves. I go to the grave site, but what can be said? Do I not fancy myself as something of an orator? Yet, in this vision, words fail me, they tire me, they embarrass me. They seem so utterly ridiculous and patronizing, and most anything that I could say would be a preposterous lie, dishonoring me and them. Yet I know what has to be said, that and nothing else. The words are inescapable, they force themselves upon me. “We came too late.” That’s it, but now again. “We came too late.” Those words, those four words, are the only ones spoken in this dream of mine. I find that these four words impose themselves upon me, one way or another, all too often these days. I look at my nephews and nieces, and I can’t help but smile. Really great kids, I think the world of them. It’s not too far from the truth to say that they worship me; I’m by far their favorite uncle. I think they feel about me the same way that, in my own childhood, I felt about an older cousin. He was a God walking on earth, a hero among mere mortals, as far as I was concerned. Yet, what does the future hold? These children will be, in fact already are, subjected to daily assault by our most dedicated enemies. One niece in particular, not even three, is the Nordic archetype. A truly beautiful child, striking to strangers. I know that every effort will be made to separate her from her people, to make her despise them, or at least instill indifference. A mere ten or so years from now, she could be gyrating to the most noxious Negro music, her head filled with the most repugnant thoughts. This child, and millions more like her, innocent and by all rights entitled to a sane world governed by her own people, stands as sheep ready for the slaughter. Is it my fate to become the weird uncle, the crank, the strange symbol of a dying people that the young can only look at with derision and wonder? Is that it? Is that where this is heading? I feel something similar whenever I see young white children these days. Can we win in time? Without thinking, I do the simple math, it’s automatic now. “O.K., let’s see, this child has about ten years left before being thrown to the wolves. Can we win by then? Will we be too late?” The bottom line is that we are running out of time. The body count keeps growing, the river of blood continues to rise but is never sated. Our people are being destroyed in countless ways, great and small. For how many more victims, for how many more families, must we say, “We came too late?” I have made no secret of my conviction that, in order to win, the cultural ground must be prepared first. Until street activists start reporting real success and a true resonance with our message, we will know that we must do better. Ultimately, that’s the proof that we need, the only proof that matters. It is our job to do what we can to develop appealing, winning white nationalist ideas, and spread them to the best of our ability. We must develop ideas that are capable of challenging the status quo and existing norms, and we must do it soon. To that end, I propose a project, namely one post a week for fifty weeks. Each post will cover a distinct topic, each building upon the last. The “50” should, to the extent practicable, be comprehensive, dealing with everything from ontology to economics, from first principles to strategy and tactics, from evolutionary psychology to political systems. I realize that is a lot for 50 topics, which is why the single most important part of this project is at the beginning, coming up with the “50” questions or propositions. Then, unleash the carnivores of majorityrights, hammer it out, and move on to the next topic in the following week. I realize the limitations of handling things this way, and it will only work with meaningful collaboration. But we’ve got to impose some sort of structure on ourselves, and some type of time limit. This project, by its nature, imposes both. I am not proposing “philosophy by committee,” though it might seem that way at first. Whoever hosts this will, ultimately, have to make the final call. Personally, I believe that others may be better suited for this task than I. Certainly guessedworker and Greg Johnson come to mind, just for starters. I understand that Haller is working on something, so maybe he would be interested. However, I am willing to do it. The first task is to come up with the comprehensive “50.” If there is interest in this project, please submit any ideas for the list on this thread. Feel free to offer just one, or your entire list of 50. The more the merrier. If I’m doing this, I will synthesize the suggestions, and come up with the final 50. Again, the idea is that the 50 topics should provide a comprehensive overview of who we are, where we are going, and ultimately how to get there. We’ve only got 50, so we’ve got to make them count. I’m stronger in some areas than others, so if the list were left entirely to me, I think some important areas will find themselves neglected. I hope to avoid that. Let’s do this, for all that have come before us and for generations yet unborn. Let us at least try, for even if we fail in this particular task, it will only free us up for another approach. We will not quit. For many victims of the butcher, we will never escape the stain of “We came too late.” What’s done, most tragically, has been done. Our losses, while already grievous, compare as nothing to the good that we may accomplish. Just as our past stretches back into the primordial mists of time, so too may future generations of our tribe journey into worlds distant and far. It is up to us to see that they will have an existence at all. So much is at stake here and, though we did not choose it to be so, all signs point to our fate largely being determined in the years ahead. Like it or not, it’s our fight. Perhaps we are, or can be, what the Germans once called a “community of fate.” Let’s make the most of it, for the good of the tribe. For Victory In Our Time, Trainspotter Comments:2
Posted by PF on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:33 | # This ain’t Wittenberg, and this doesn’t look like a church door, but all the same….
by PF Each of these contains a one-sentence elaboration on the direction the thinking goes towards. PRELIMINARIES 1. Why white nationalism? - sales pitch 2. What is white nationalism? 3. What are white people? 4. What are white people? 5. What are white people? EGI 6 Can groups of individuals have competing interests? 7 What interests do ethnically related people share? 8 Why are EGI-related conflicts between groups considered in some cases to be illegitimate? ANTI-RACISM 9 What is anti-racism? 10.What is the intellectual history of anti-racism? 11 What does anti-racism assume? 12 How does anti-racism influence public policy? JUDAISM 13 Why is Israel not subject to the dictates of anti-racism? 14 What role have Jewish intellectuals played in the development of anti-racism? 15. What role have Jews played in leftist movements? 16. To what extent do Jews enjoy the practice of covert and over ethnocentrism in white societies, while vilifying this practice among gentiles? WHITE MORALITY 17. Do white people have a special relationship to morality? 18. What are some examples of unique manifestations of morality among whites? 19. In what sense do the moral proclivities of whites leave them open to manipulation by other groups? 20. Examples of moral arguments against white ethnocentrism. BOWERY’S VIRULENCE/PARASITISM ANALOGY 21. Are there examples in nature of organisms benefiting at the expense of their benefactor? SOREN’S DISCOURSE AS WAR PARADIGM 22. Can patterns be detected in the voluminous discourse of the 20th century which indicate that the marketplace of ideas, while ostensibly dedicated to truth, was actually dedicated to social-signalling by expressive individualists and psychological warfare by self-deceived EGI-defenders? 23. How was the objective, dispassionate discussion of ideas a uniquely nordic white phenomenon, and how has it passed away over time? 24. Is honest discussion possible in a society with multiple underlying EGI conflicts? PF’S MORALITY CRITIQUE 25. Is there a sense in which moral judgments are not true? 26. Is morality true in its own terms, or is it an adaptive evolutionary strategy? NAZISM 27. Should whites struggling for ethnic self-determination acknowledge a historical precedent in Nazism? 28. What is problematic about Nazism? 29. What is problematic about palingenetic nationalism?
30. What is teleology? 31. How does teleology conflict with Being? 32. What teleological ideas seduce white nationalists? 33. How does teleological nationalism deny the truth of the nation? CHRISTIANITY 34. Is Christianity the proper vehicle for White European man to know himself, govern his society, 35. How can we come beyond Christianity and downplay it as much as possible in everything we do? PAGANISM & AESTHETICS 36. Is there a consolidating source of imagery, symbols and stories which is purely of European derivation and thus, for those who are very susceptible to these, can be used in the creation of culture? ONTOLOGY 37. Is absence the default state of man? 38. What are white people? 39. What conceptual space do we intend to demarcate with the word ‘Being’? 40. Is there a real Self beneath what we commonly think of as our self? 41. How can an understanding of Being benefit nationalism? 42. In what moment does the nation inhabit its authentic self? 43. How can we foster these moments? RELATIVISM 44. Does absolute truth exist? What is a truth gradient? RELIGION OF THE AMELIORATION OF SUFFERING 45. What evidence is there that the decline of Christianity has left in its place a religion of HISTORY 46. What entities are the proper subject of history? 47. How does a historical narrative serve or militate against the interests of a nation? 48. How does the inclusion of foreign perspectives give history an anti-majoritarian bias in UNIVERSALIST MORALITY 49. If morality is an evolutionary strategy, why might moralities which posit contractual obligations between genetically different groups, be unsustainable? WHITE ETHNOSTATE 50. What policies are essential to the existence of a white ethnostate? 3
Posted by Bill on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:14 | # What are they doing to us? Why are they doing it? Who? How are they/we going to learn and find out? 4
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:49 | # (re-posted from an earlier thread) [Excellent list from PF!] Just wanted to note here, after a cursory examination of some past years’ posts, that the cognitive quality of the site seems to be ascending, in terms both of the posts and especially the comments. It would seem that a genuine intellectual community of the Far Right is coalescing around MR. Many excellent insights have been proffered, albeit unsystematically. At some point it might be worthwhile to try to tap that community formally to develop some sort of ideological manifesto for what is clearly a growing global New Racial Right. I would be interested in hearing from others whether this has been done (at least in recent decades). One problem our movement faces is, I believe, this lack of a formal document describing our political aims (this is especially true in the US, insofar as we lack any nationalist political movement or party; rather ironic, given that the masses of our (white) people are more broadly rightist than at least West Europeans). There are now many excellent scholarly resources (eg, Race, Evolution and Behavior, On Genetic Interests, Why Race Matters, The Culture of Critique, The Occidental Quarterly, 20 years of American Renaissance, etc), not to mention a proliferating number of race realist websites, from the more intellectual, like MR, to the more plebeian, like Stormfront. What is needed is a work of scholarship which can act as a movement unifier, or at least ideological baseline which can then serve as the foundation for a political program, and activist agenda. Think of the American conservatives. For decades (perhaps even now), if one wished to know what a conservative was, the intellectual could be pointed to The Conservative Mind, the common man to Up From Liberalism or maybe The Conscience of a Conservative. Kirk’s book, despite its veritable baroque eschewal of ‘ideology’, nevertheless did serve as the springboard for the creation of modern conservatism, and it did so less by offering up its own original philosophy, than by serving up digestible summaries of the thought of famous (as well as forgotten) conservatives from history, out of which various (alleged) core conservative principles could be discerned, upon which in turn a political agenda could be (and was) fashioned. We do have one great synthetic work that I’m aware of: Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority, a magisterial tome way, way ahead of its time (pub 1972). [I hope to God everyone here has read it - if not, do so, even if the book must by now be a bit dated; my edition was from the late 80s, which meant, however, that the Cold War was still a big issue.] From what I remember of my reading of it, nearly two decades ago, it is very much focused on the racial situation in the US, however, containing long discussions of which ethnic groups were assimilable to America’s Nordic founding majority, and detailing how virtually every major institution in American life had by that time (1972!! - same year I think that The Camp of the Saints was published - another book to rank high in the estimation of any true conservative/Occidentalist/nationalist) been turned ‘anti-majoritarian’ by an unholy combination of white race traitors and minority racists. But we need something like these books now. Or, really two things: first, a major work of nationalist political philosophy, equivalent to The Conservative Mind, one synthesizing the moral, political, and historical justifications of nationalism with the relevant findings of the modern life sciences; and second, an ideological racialist tract or manifesto detailing our grievances, goals and perhaps strategies, in language accessible to common persons. The MR community is wonderfully suited to carrying on the conversation(s) that can form the basis of at least the latter project. I think the site owner should start something like a separate area of the site devoted just to developing such a manifesto, perhaps located within the “Of Note” area (upper left-hand side of the screen). After, say, a year, I bet there would (or could) be a sufficient volume of responses to enable someone culling through them for optimum insights to obtain the basis for just such a tract, which in turn could constitute - who knows? one thing I’ve learned from the Jews is Think Big - the first volume from the forthcoming Majority Rights Press. 5
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:27 | # PF: ridiculous notion to build upon imaginary paganism. (I suppose it’s the word Nordic that’s the giveaway. I’ve remarked on this word here before: what’s wrong with Northern?) Fat lot anyone REALLY knows about it: the whole field is wide open to fantasy, invention and downright fraud. And by the time the Norsemen left us any real writings (apart from a few runic inscriptions) they are in the Roman alphabet and are written by Christian scribes. Already sword-and-sorcery notions invade you: Please don’t link white nationalism explicitly to Kai Murros’s gay/horror comic combat-wear fetishism. Am I the only one here to find the prospect of yet another series of clunkingly boring round-and-round exchanges about ontology and teleology a real turn-off? The modern materialist scientific world-view comes ultimately from positivism and the so-called enlightenment. These two things DESTROYED many of the then-surviving mediaeval features that you appeal to (oh, well, I suppose a certain amount of ancient costume survived, no, I mean WAS REVIVED in Illuminated neo-Druidic cults, or in cadres like Templar freemasonry). It seems you want to present a fossilised archaism - a fossil is something that preserves an outward appearance, but whose inner core has been replaced by something alien. I love the bit about the hygienic de-infestation of Greco-Latin imagery. Not MORE little Cds with Roman arches, a title (like IMPERIUM EUROPA in sheer dog-latin) and the Trajan type-font supplying some of the letter-press? If the latter, well I hope it’s no related to thet the incoherent self-aggrandising fantasies of Norman’s IMPERIUM EUROPA It’s not at all clear whether you think seduction (your no. 32) a good or a bad thing. As regards your No. 34, well, Europe was made by the faith and that’s it. But I don’t think you’re going to be very “dispassionate” (your No. 23) in any discussion of this. And I can hardly believe that you seriously mean that a main problem with Nazism (No.28) is its lack of “sexiness”. Can’t you think of anything else? Noticeable that you devote No.13-16 to questions about Jews. I have no idea as to how suggestible or gullible you are in these instances, but perhaps you need to consider the status of the following, taken from the second section of a well-known (although, as regards its origins, problematical) document that apparently surfaced over a century ago:
And your nos. 25 & 26 remind me of an overlap between Darwinisn and Marxism (not the only one!), which is seen in something they both proclaim, that justice and morality are NOT absolute but relative, and adaptable in terms of whatever struggle’s to hand. Isn’t the teleology/ontology debate getting a bit futile? Can moral judgments (No. 25) can be “not true” or even “true”? Don’t you mean valid, or just? 6
Posted by John on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:48 | # Hmmm, fossilised paganism or fossilised old time “true” Christianity. What’s our third option? A few things you can say for paganism: it doesn’t concern itself with the feeding, care or “souls” of Bantus, its (Southern Baptist, even) leaders aren’t calling for amnesty for US illegal aliens or welcoming them as members, and its white nationalist/white advocate/race realist priests aren’t drummed out of paganism, in fact, just the opposite. It’s an easy choice for me (if those are the only two choices). 7
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:53 | # Well, yes, John. But the spectacle of GW and PF wearing inquisitorial black robes and Odinic birettas and presiding as heresy hunters over the new Index Librorum Prohibitorum and related Collegia is, to my simple mind, very comic. I’m almost tempted to try a Bismuthian evocation of a hapless little schoolteacher being grilled: “What! You let the children sing ‘Away in a manger’ at Christmas, I mean, ahem, YULETIDE? Don’t you know that’s a FORBIDDEN LEVANTINE INCANTATION: and it might leave harmful and ineradicable MEMES in their minds which could permanently disable their ontological function? - and you haven’t distributed the copies of Dawkins’s ‘Liturgical Invocations of Thor’ that we sent you, nor the copies of ‘Newton, Nature, Norman and the Nordic’! - What do you mean, you don’t believe they’re true! What’s truth got to do with it? How did you get through the genetic screening? -And there’s another thing - old Loeb editions of Virgil and Homer have been found in your cubicle. Don’t you know that all texts from the Loeb Library have been banned, called in for incineration - the firm was established by Jewish money! Why didn’t you buy our revised Nordicised editions? They’re much shorter and all non-politically-useful references to the supernatural have been taken out, and we’ve made adjustments for the fact thatAeneas, Hector and Achilles have no self-awareness by cutting out all their speeches. WHAT! She had a BIBLE! Now SHE must be reduced to a state of total non-self-awareness! You will be an ABSENCE KINDLE THE FIRE OF FAFNIR! -By the way, GW, I liked the way you changed the greasy Greek’s ‘wine-dark sea’ to ‘shimmering fiord’” 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:13 | # Gorb how do you answer John’s comment of 12:48? I’m a Christian (I’m Catholic) but have exactly the same view as John expresses there of what makes official Christianity as presently available worse than unacceptable: intolerable and evil because destructive of societies and nations and genocidal of peoples. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:15 | # I want Christianity to be mended. Can it be? If it can’t, it is untrue as a religion and must be sloughed off accordingly, as goes without saying: any religion found out to be untrue must be sloughed off. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:20 | # We are dealing with genocide here, namely our own. This is for real and will be permanent. This is not a joke, not a dress rehearsal, the hour is late, it’s five minutes to midnight. If Christianity can’t recognize that and do the right thing it is evil, is not Godly but is run by Satan, and nothing is more true than that it must be jettisoned the quicker the better. Never was there a more serious matter in ten thousand years but official Christianity acts like a braindead corpse connected to life-support, of zero help whatsoever when we turn to it. Well, we don’t intend to become a corpse connected to life-support along with it. 11
Posted by John on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:38 | # Gorbo: I never suggested anything like an inquisitorial process to deal with the decaying vestiges of moribund Christianity, nor has anyone else. Your ridicule of that straw man might be amusing but it is non-responsive to the problems I brought up. 12
Posted by John on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:57 | # I want Christianity to be mended. Can it be? If it can’t, it is untrue as a religion and must be sloughed off accordingly, as goes without saying: any religion found out to be untrue must be sloughed off. I obviously don’t think it can. A better question (to me): we’ve been saddled with it and as many race realists, WNs and potential “converts” are Christians, how do we deal with it? That it claims to contain the only true cosmological and metaphysical truth and demonises anyone outside of it complicates things considerably. Fortunately, it is not so much a problem in Europe as in America. 13
Posted by John on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:04 | # Fred: Have you read Revilo Oliver’s “By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them”? 14
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:37 | # Scrooby and John, The West only has two options from which to draw its worldview in Christianity and Scientism. In both of them you will find plenty of Europeans that are either deracinated or self-hating, such is the era in which we find ourselves. With respect to all this neo-pagan talk amongst the intellectual Right, I find it cute. It can only be driven by aesthetics, which is fine, but it’s not something that can produce a serious post-Enlightenment worldview. 15
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:14 | # PF, On the whole, it’s a pretty good list you’ve there.
Oh, come on now. Surely you know that the statement “There is no absolute truth!” is self-defeating. 16
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:31 | # Folks who denounce neo-pagan thought (and by neo-pagan I don’t mean anything resembling The Ring of Troth let alone Starhawk and Margot Adler) as well as the so-called “enlightenment” fail to recognize the Achilles heel of the “enlightenment”: “Observation” can be of internal as well as external states because, ultimately all observation is subjective. This means the entire edifice of materialism—consciousness as “emergent” from matter—is scientifically invalid. Here we get not so much into “neo-pagan” thought as neo-scientific thought. If one “indulges” in neo-scientific thought, and tries to rehabilitate thought about our ancestral cultures in neo-scientific terms, one is smeared by those who—ultimately—hate their heritage. 17
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:08 | # I’m not so sure Christianity is the problem we face, or even a problem.. If it was it would have been a problem pre-twentieth century, or pre-television era, and it wasn’t. Rightfully so, most WNs get confused when they see white Christians acting like a bunch of nauseating race-traitors. In actuality what they are witnessing is white-Christians behaving just like ALL brainwashed whites. Do not the vast majority of secular whites reject racism as defined by the Ruling Class? As I see it, the problem with Christians today is not due to their belief in the Gospel; the problem is too many of those who teach and preach and practise the religion bent to the will of political correctness (mainly a jewish invention) and have allowed themselves to be corrupted by the influence of (jewish) pop-culture. Thus its traditional message has been perverted in order to suit and support the prevailing (jewish) anti-white worldview. 18
Posted by John on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:37 | # “The West only has two options from which to draw its worldview in Christianity and Scientism. In both of them you will find plenty of Europeans that are either deracinated or self-hating, such is the era in which we find ourselves.” Should a religious option not be particularist and exclusive (pan-European)? If so, that rules out Christianity. If not, where does that leave us, as Christianity has become no less globalised than corporate trade and labour markets, with nary an “isolationist” sect to speak of? 19
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:40 | # James,
I just want to be clear that I think our ancient pagan heritage is something to be profitably mined for nuggets of truth about our own nature but not to be resurrected as a worldview. For better or for worse, any attempt at the latter would now look hopelessly ridiculous.
This is the kind of philosophical statement that is true but only in a very technical way. If our [seemingly] external observations weren’t so highly correlated perhaps we would take it more seriously. 20
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:00 | # John,
“Should” is a tricky word that is not relevant in this context. The revolution of thought that was the Enlightenment prevents us from resurrecting the pagan tradition as a serious metaphysical worldview; we are no longer capable of believing that a star can be made by Thor snapping off a frozen toe.
Your two options are still Christianity and Scientism. The many institutions that lie behind these systems of thought are either to be reclaimed or rejected one by one. In my opinion, those are the only choices we can make. 21
Posted by John on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:02 | # “If one “indulges” in neo-scientific thought, and tries to rehabilitate thought about our ancestral cultures in neo-scientific terms, one is smeared by those who—ultimately—hate their heritage. “ One of (evil genius) Paul’s great coups. 22
Posted by John on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:19 | # “I just want to be clear that I think our ancient pagan heritage is something to be profitably mined for nuggets of truth about our own nature but not to be resurrected as a worldview. For better or for worse, any attempt at the latter would now look hopelessly ridiculous.” So people wouldn’t take it serious. But in your opinion what specifically is it about Christianity that makes it suitable as a basis for Western world view other than its (waning) popular acceptance? And what is it about paganism (other than the fact that it’s marginalised at the present) that disqualifies it. 23
Posted by John on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:29 | # “The revolution of thought that was the Enlightenment prevents us from resurrecting the pagan tradition as a serious metaphysical worldview; we are no longer capable of believing that a star can be made by Thor snapping off a frozen toe.” You’re joking, right? Shouldn’t that disqualify stories of water into wine, raising the dead, etc? Neopaganistic stories are not meant to be taken literally. Read some Karl Jung and Joseph Campbell. I don’t think even in ancient times people literally believed such. Myths are a way of speaking psychological truth. 24
Posted by John on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:53 | # “As I see it, the problem with Christians today is not due to their belief in the Gospel; the problem is too many of those who teach and preach and practise the religion bent to the will of political correctness (mainly a jewish invention) and have allowed themselves to be corrupted by the influence of (jewish) pop-culture.” Christianity is a Jewish creation as well. The seeds of Communism and racial egalitarianism are contained therein. 25
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:33 | # John,
If you can’t appreciate the aesthetic difference between miracles in the Christian tradition and Thor making a star out of a frozen appendage then that’s your problem.
Believe what you will but know that the moderns are one thing and the ancients another. According to the accounts of Ahmad ibn Fadlan, the Norse took their mythology quite seriously.
Prove it. If the doctrines of Christianity truly supported communism and racial egalitarianism then why did it take almost two millennium to figure this out? If communism really came from Christianity then why did communist governments try to stamp out religious belief once they came to power? Please tell me why your conspiracy is more true than what seems obvious. 26
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:22 | # I had said:
Notuswind critiques:
The problem is in not taking it seriously enough. If we take _very_ seriously internal observations we discover that our “subconscious” is indeed “collective” albeit structured, and that “unconscious” is an invalid concept. Only phenomenal abstractions of the universal structure are available to conscious observation. From this perspective of hierarchical identity and consciousness, we should expect unity in observation from various perspectives represented by the various identities. Yes, Jung did dabble around this in his work on dreams but there are more direct approaches more consistent with science. The so-called “physics” cannot deal effectively with identity, perspective and sub/consciousness without a radical paradigm shift from the so-called “enlightenment” denial of consciousness as primary. Ye are gods. Children of the most high. When we mourn at funerals, it is over our lost pagan heritage that recognized our familial relationship with matter—our self-imposed separation from our father who art in heaven and the living hell resulting from such separation. 27
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:30 | # @ Fred Scrooby on August 11, 2010, 02:13 PM
Well, some time ago - possibly even at your request - I did a little tiny sketch of what had happened to us Catholics since Vatican II. @ John on August 11, 2010, 02:38 PM
I wasn’t making you a straw man: I was actually responding to PF’s point No. 35
28
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:38 | # James,
Yes but aren’t all of these concepts at least somewhat invalid and primarily used as descriptive mechanisms?
I am inclined to agree with this as well but perhaps for different reasons. Hopefully there will still be something of interest for you in my ongoing series on the mind. And what is this talk of physics denying the primacy of consciousness, am I detecting a fellow admirer of the good Bishop? 29
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:44 | # NW: thanks for the link to the good bishop’s Wiki. It’s interesting to note that as Dr. Johnson’s stone was just an idea in the Dr.‘s mind, it managed to be present as an idea in the mind of Boswell (or whoever observed the anecdote) as well! Other philophical stories that make me laugh include the one related by, I think, Bertrand Russell. ” I have been a solipsist for many years now,” she said. “It seems such a satisfactory system that I’m surprised there aren’t more of us!” Sorry if I seemed rude t’other day. Look, have a read of this article. It’s a century old, it’s necessarily short, and word goes that when the Pope in 1910 received up his complimentary set of all the volumes of the Encyclopedia he began to condemn it, stamping cursing and saying “E troppo liberale e modernistico!” or something similar. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm I really think you - and GW too who is cordially included in the invite - will find something rewarding. The links in the article are to other articles in the Ency. But here’s one more: ONTOLOGY. 30
Posted by Trainspotter on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:51 | # Everybody, thanks for the comments…but more is appreciated. The most important, and difficult, part of this project is how to frame it. I’ll have some more thoughts on this within the next few days, when I have more time to digest what’s been written. I’m a bit at a loss for time at present. PF, that’s a fantastic list. I’d like to get in contact with you by e-mail if you care to. Do you have a blog, or some sort of public contact information? If not, Soren can give you my e-mail. I suppose I need to go ahead and create an account for this sort of situation, but I haven’t done so yet. I don’t want my existing e-mail hit with spam and what not. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:20 | # Trainspotter, I will make sure PF has your email. 32
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:42 | # Gorboduc,
No worries, your charms are starting to grow on me as well.
Thank you for the link. 33
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:03 | # I’m not sure if I understand the goal of this project… is this supposed to be an eventual platform for Western survival or merely an attempt to shed light on the key issues? Some topics of discussion: I. How We Define Our Race. 1. What, if any, is the ultimate genetic boundary between Aryans/Europeans/Westerners and other races? II. The Decline of Western Man. 3. What cultural/religious practices contribute to the decline of Western Man? III. The Survival of Western Man 8. What cultural/religious practices will contribute to the survival of Western Man? 34
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:51 | # If Western men declined, how did they rise? What made Europe great, and for a time secure? Was it the Catholic Church. building on the groundwork of the Roman Empire? Or was it pirate raids from the Northmen? The pirate raids can hardly be re-started (well, they HAVE been, but not from the North!) but can Catholicism? 35
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:32 | # So many interesting posts on MR, It’s hard to keep up with them all…
Europeans. .
Illiteracy and unavailable texts. With the invention of the printing press and increased literacy rates, Christians began to read bibles. Then they began to implement what they read. Then our civilization died.
Ask any tired-and-true Christian and they’ll tell you that there is a difference between religion and the “one true faith”.
The complete and total removal of all non-Whites from said ethnostate….....For starters.
36
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:20 | # Narrator: what WERE the identifiable and uniting factors of European civilisation in your Europe? Were they in place before Europe became a term in all mens’ mouths? - was there a common tongue? - was there a common belief? How did the illiteracy - for which it seems you harbour some nostalgia- promulgate and preserve the wholesome factors? There were plenty of bibles around in the European vernaculars - not just the Latin vulgate - well before the invention of printing. I will agree with you to the extent of saying that when printing made it easy for folks to read easily available but very likely mistranslated texts, and to misinterpret them further by applying private judgment - something as available to the peasant as to the rulers of the State - then we lost our culture. Anyway, there’s a circular argument. What made Europe? Europeans. Where are the Europeans? Europe. So there’s no definition of where Europe begins or ends. Next stop, Eurasianism!!! 37
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:52 | #
The culture-bearing strata of the Germanic peoples.
The Germanic aristocrats.
Why do you want to credit the Catholics for all the achievements of Western man? I’ll give it its due: It patronized most of the early cultural developments in Europe. But it was hardly the sole reason for culture in Europe; Europe was in benighted anarchy following the fall of Rome (which ceased being Rome - in all but name - around the 3rd cent AD) until the Germanics restored order via feudalism, which allowed for the development of your “Christian civilization.”
The Vikings were in part a response to the developments in Europe vis-a-vis Christianity, i.e. Charlemagne. Every revolution has its reaction.
That seems a tall order considering what Catholicism has become. 38
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:12 | #
Race!!! We share common lineage, aka blood. This gave us a common appearance, disposition, IQ, temperament, personality types and, by extension a basic starting point to a view of the world.
a. Yes, well, I certainly wouldn’t have educated Africans and Injuns. But that’s just me. b. what are “the wholesome factors”?
Just no public libraries….. and most people were illiterate.
Nobody expects the Protest Reformation!!! Is it possible not to?
No, that’s Christendom. Europe is a geographical location bounded by the Mediterranean Sea and Ural and Caucasus Mountains. European (Western) Civilization exists wherever Europeans reside. ... 39
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:44 | # the Narrator,
So communist revolution came to Russia first because of the vast literacy of its peoples relative to that of other European countries at the start of the 20th century? And what about the Jewish vanguard that took part in the Bolshevik Revolution, were they motivated by Christian universalism as well? And then there’s the matter of the Chinese peasantry, did they also develop a hankering for communist revolution after reading the New Testament? But this is all so ridiculous and you should stop embarrassing yourself. 40
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:12 | #
Um, your original quote was,
.
They were certainly motivated by the fact that there was a large population of Russians adhering to Christian universalism. Nothing a conquering army loves more than an adversary who adheres to a doctrine of “love thy enemy.”
Completly different race of people. The ‘how, why and what’ of their actions or motivations are irrelevant to this discussion.
41
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:48 | # the Narrator,
I thought we were engaging in a dialectic (of sorts) but it appears you’ve fallen off the bus. Let me nudge you back on. If what you’re saying is correct then Russia would be one of the last European countries that I would have expected to experience a communist revolution. England, Germany, and Italy have a Christian heritage that goes at least as far back as that of Russia (actually farther) and, as societies, were more literate and industrialized than Russia at the start of the 20th century. So, using your theory, if were to retrospectively predict which countries would experience a communist revolution and which ones would not we get it completely backwards. Hence your theory is garbage as it can’t make sense of what actually happened in the 20th century.
Let me remind you that I laid down this gauntlet at John’s feet (who seems to have abandoned the scene) and you have picked it up - that Christianity is the source of communism and racial egalitarianism. And with respect to this claim the matter of communism in East Asia is highly relevant to this discussion because East Asia saw multiple communist revolutions in spite of the fact that it doesn’t have a Christian heritage, in contrast with say England or the United States. If you defend this idea that Christianity is somehow responsible for communism then you have to explain why communism came to non-Christian societies. 42
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:56 | #
Which is the more beautiful vision? White-robed pagans worshipping their gods in a sacred grove? Children dancing around a Maypole? Or John the Baptist wearing a hairshirt, living alone in the wilderness, and eating bugs?
1. The early Christians lived in a state of primitive Communism and called for the abandonment of wealth and family ties.
Because the gentiles turned Christianity into a weapon against the Jews. History is beginning to repeat itself. The far-left was supported by the Jews so long as it was useful in destroying Europe’s power. It was all fine and good for the left to criticize European imperialism and racial supremacy. But now that Europe is effectively neutered the left has moved onto Israel. Thus, the Jews are again engaged in a struggle with something they helped to create.
...it is my understanding that the bible did not become widely translated until after the Protestant Reformation, which itself occurred after the development of the printing press. 43
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:03 | # Narrator: you put; So there’s no definition of where Europe begins or ends Posted by Gorboduc on August 12, 2010, No, that’s Christendom. Europe is a geographical location bounded by the Mediterranean Sea and Ural and Caucasus Mountains. European (Western) Civilization exists wherever Europeans reside. * * * * * * * Like I said, circular argument. Yes, but was there an identical awareness of Europeanness within that enclave? What percentage of your old Europeans could have named either of the boundaries cited? Don’t understand your protestant/protest joke. And “private interpretation” is a technical term. Sorry. It will be hard for you to undo the fact of mass literacy, and no point at all in regretting it. Your nostalgia for a bookless and uneducated Europe reminds me of that of the late David Thorn (Thorne?) who in a face-to-face conversation took me to task for using the term ‘philosophy’. “It’s a Greek word” he said, “and no true Nordic would ever use it.” We settled for ‘lore-love’. It also reminds me of the story of my 199xgreat-uncle Drodbo, who missed the noon ox-cart for the Samhain festival at Stonehenge in 2000.B.C., had to catch the next one, and as a result got into the wrong enclosure and was sacrificed! We still laugh merrily about that round the winter turf-fire as we raise the clay mead-beakers! 44
Posted by PF on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:16 | # James B, I’m very interested to see you enter the discussion of Mind and consciousness and scientific truth. 45
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:17 | # Sam,
Yes, there are many attractive aesthetic qualities in our pagan heritage, we should use these and leave behind the story of Aurvandil’s frozen toe.
It’s ironic that you bring this up as I am usually the only person trying to spread awareness of the role that the leaders of these utopian-socialist movements played in the writing of the reconstruction amendments (particularly, the dreaded 14th). Regardless, your three bullet points don’t explain why it took Christianity two millennium to discover communism. Narrator’s theory about literacy at least tries to answer this question.
So, the Christian essence of communism made the ideology anti-religious so that it can be used as a weapon against the Jews. It take it this can somehow be reconciled with the fact that communism had a Jewish vanguard. 46
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:18 | #
No, actually, I’m kicking the ball, you’re moving the goal posts.
What I’m saying is that Christian doctrine fundamentally supports Marxist ideology.
Well, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but England, Germany and Italy…...and Holland and Belgium and Sweden and Norway and Denmark and Spain and well, all of them, have in fact embraced Marxism. All of Europe, not just Russia, went socialist way back when. America even underwent such a revolution post WWII. So,
No, dear fellow, I do not.
What motivates Asians has nothing to do with the discussion. They are a different race: different temperaments, moralities and so on.
Really, who cares. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. 47
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:28 | #
Well they didn’t call themselves homo sapiens or know they were on the third planet from the sun either. Your point?
Monty Python. Spanish Inquisition. Any bells?
Please don’t misrepresent what I write. It’s just plain irritating and makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously. ... 48
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:50 | # the Narrator,
As I said to John, prove it. Cite Christian doctrine and explain to me how it is responsible for racial egalitarianism and communism, no one in this thread has attempted this yet.
This is a cute to thing to say. Regardless, the radical egalitarian doctrines of socialism came to dominate societies in Eurasia and East Asia before it did so in the West. Your theory would have expected the opposite to happen - for communism to spread from the West into these other societies - as it claims that the combination of Christianity and literacy is primarily responsible for the spread of communism.
We’re having a debate about the factors that are responsible for the spread and development of communism and radical egalitarianism. It follows as a matter of common sense that whatever those factors are we should be able to identify them in societies that experienced communist revolutions. Asia experienced multiple communist revolutions. Therefore, we should be able to identify these factors in Asia as well, hence making the region highly relevant to this discussion. Your protestations to the contrary are nakedly self-serving. If you were to admit that Asian societies are relevant to this discussion then would have to admit that you are wrong, which is very to hard to do in a debate, because Asian societies are fundamentally non-Christian and whatever the consequences of Christian doctrine happen to be we shouldn’t seem them in Asia. 49
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:54 | # I am typing so fast that I am making mistakes, the last sentence in my previous comment should read as follows:
50
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:12 | #
Alright. I’ll do that and respond to the rest of your post tomorrow. I’ve gotta go places and do things now ... 51
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:12 | # John, Narrator, Sam, There is a Far Rightist perspective that is critical of Christianity because it is a world religion (like Islam) and not a blood-and-soil tribal religion, that latter being better suited to the fostering of an exclusive ethnic identity. My recommendation is that you advance this kind of argument as it at least makes sense. Spinning wild ahistorical theories is always less effective than a good common sense argument. 52
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:28 | # Just to get in another barb before I go about my own business. The only intellectually serious blogger that I’ve read who has advanced this idea that communism and socialism are secularized forms of Christianity is a Jew. Personally, I think he does this because he’s uncomfortable with the idea that his tribe is fundamentally responsible for the evils of communism and socialist egalitarianism. Anyone who parrots this kind of argument ought to know the company he’s keeping. 53
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:30 | #
I agree.
Really? That’s interesting. Who in particular?
But, as I said, Christianity was always ‘communist’ in a general sense. It laid the groundwork for modern egalitarianism.
No, look at it this way… Christianity was originally a Jewish cult. It grew, spread, and changed forms. As the Europeans developed Christianity they adapted it against the Jews, who were moneylenders, infidels, etc. Thus Christianity had changed from a foreign cult into a traditional part of European culture. The Jews created this movement and then watched it turn against them. Their solution was to create a new social movement, Marxism, that incorporated anti-religious sentiment into its doctrines. 54
Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:34 | # So many interesting posts on MR, It’s hard to keep up with them all… What made Europe great….? Posted by Gorboduc on August 12, 2010, 09:51 AM | Europeans. . Posted by Notus Wind on August 11, 2010, 07:33 PM Illiteracy and unavailable texts. With the invention of the printing press and increased literacy rates, Christians began to read bibles. Then they began to implement what they read. Then our civilization died. There is a logical error here. If Europeans made Europe great then it can only be true that Europeans have lessened her shine. You can blame her destruction on the masses access to Christianity all you want but then you must blame her greatness on the nobility and church’s access to Christianity and the texts they uncovered and tried to synthesize with their religion. And with respect to this claim the matter of communism in East Asia is highly relevant to this discussion because East Asia saw multiple communist revolutions in spite of the fact that it doesn’t have a Christian heritage, in contrast with say England or the United States. If you defend this idea that Christianity is somehow responsible for communism then you have to explain why communism came to non-Christian societies. They had an unarmed peasantry with no literacy and no skills. The revolutions in East Asia were forced on the people from above. In societies that had an industrial and military revolution force on them by European imports before a true and homegrown agricultural revolution we see communism. 55
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:48 | # Alright, for anyone out there who is enjoying my rhetoric this will truly be it for now. Sam,
Robert Dale Owen wrote the first draft to the radically egalitarian 14th amendment. He is the son of Robert Owen who is one of the founders of English socialism. Together, as father and son, they co-founded at least one utopian-socialist community in Indiana but I am sure that they were involved in others. The very powerful Thaddeus Stevens turned to these sorts of people when it came time to write the reconstruction amendments.
I disagree with this but I do see where you’re coming from. Unfortunately, I am out of the time and energy needed to argue the point further.
In my opinion, the history of how these socialist egalitarian ideas were developed and spread is not nearly so simple as you’re making them out to be. There was definitely a Jewish vanguard but I would not say that the whole affair is just one big Jewish conspiracy, that would be too simple and wouldn’t explain the likes of Owen and Engels. 56
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:51 | # danielj,
Explaining why communism came to non-Christian Asia is only difficult if you think that communism is a Christian phenomenon, which is what Narrator has been arguing. 57
Posted by LEW on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:07 | # This is a great idea. I would suggest there might be value in considering these two questions before proceeding to the 50 questions/topics. 1) Who is your primary audience? Other WN? Some other subset of White people? Potentially any White person? People very advanced in thier learning (like the writers and posters here on MR)? Or just the well informed lay person? Someone else? If the final deliverable is going to be something people will read, attention to audience is important. 2) What do you want your readers to get out of reading the 50 questions/ topics? Imagine the question/topics are done and someone reads them. What do you hope is their main takeaway? This answer probably depends on the answer to # 1. Now, perhaps the answers to those two questions are already clear to everyone here. If so, that’s great—you can skip the rest of my post. If not, it might be helpful to spend a little time up front identifying your audience and objectives, and your project definition, with a bit more specificity. The most common reason projects fail or don’t realize their full potential for success is because of inadequate or unclear project definition. Maybe it’s just me, but I am already seeing what appears to me to be some lack of clarity and focus on this thread. Please don’t get me wrong—the comments have plenty of food for thought as usual—but TS said the first task is to identify the 50 topics. With that in mind, is the purpose of this thread to identify a pool of good questions/topics, or is it to debate the issues around each question, or is it both (since the issues probably have to be debated to some extent to identify good questions/topics)? For example, examining the role of religion and Christianity seems to be important to most here, which is fine—there is so much disagreement around this issue it probably needs to be addressed head on in one of the 50 for sure. But is it necessay to hash out the details and particulars now, or should debating the particulars wait until this specific question/topic comes up for examination in its own separate thread? When I read Trainspotter’s proposal at the top, I was expecting more comments with concrete suggestions for specific topics/questions like PF’s above. Anyway, those are my thoughts. And just to be absolutely clear, my comments are not meant to be critical of anyone who has commented; I want to say that explicitly so there is no misunderstanding of my intent. Best of luck. - LEW 58
Posted by John on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:13 | #
Communism: Racial egalitarianism: 59
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:24 | # @ Narrator Aug 12 2010 03.28 pm: Well I remember being called by my flatmates into our dingy-sitting room in Hammersmith to watch the first ever Monty Python show on the telly in ‘69, or was it ‘70? MARTY FELDMAN??? Wh-a-a-a-at? Ye Gods! it’ll be Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In next. “Here come de judge”. No, I’m sure I’m right when I mentioned the dangers of the wrong sort of nostalgia. What books, then, apart from the Latin and Greek writers, who were preserved by the Church? So where did I misrepresent anything you said? SAM: not a fair comparison by any manner of means! The druids were performing a sacred rite. They were, apparently, secure and dominant in their culture. John the Baptist was not performing a sacred rite, more a survival exercise. He was NOT secure in his time - remember what happened to him? I wonder hown long the druids’ robes remained white. “Chyndonax, how many more times? This is your BEST WHITE LINEN ROBE, the one for Beltane chanting, and you’ve got the captives’ blood all over it AGAIN! Eugh pooh, it’s really stinky: I shall have to boil it in stale urine. “Uh, sorry, dear.” It’s funny to think that the Holy Man of Canterbury, Rowan Williams is a neo-Druid! His robes are stay-pressed crimplene. 60
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:43 | # I shall leave this thread now for a bit; Some folks will remember GW’s brilliant list of questions a few months back the ones about the Tibetans’ and the Khoisan’s right to survival and self-determination. (Can anyone reference this? gotta go in 5 mins.) It made a stir and lots of folks praised it, imho, MOST deservedly. I’ve been putting it about a bit: and at least one MP that I know is contemplating it. But here it’s on the back burner. Is there some way of keeping things like this open - like a little window with a counter and someone at HQ looking in and presenting a weekly precis? Oh and Narrator (03.28 pm) of course they didn’t call themselve homo sapiens. They weren’t 19th. c. scientific anthropologists. 61
Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:39 | # Explaining why communism came to non-Christian Asia is only difficult if you think that communism is a Christian phenomenon, which is what Narrator has been arguing. He has been arguing that for many years. We’ve went round and round about it. 62
Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:41 | # Matthew’s Beattitudes
He who hath an ear… 63
Posted by John on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:06 | # “The only intellectually serious blogger that I’ve read who has advanced this idea that communism and socialism are secularized forms of Christianity is a Jew.” Paul was a Jew but I doubt you would want to decanonise his epistles. And are you sure? I remember reading on his blog that he was raised an Episcopalian WASP. No matter. If Moses Maimonides said the earth revolves around the sun making one complete revolution approximately every 365 days, I’d be inclined to agree with him. BTW, I should have written communism with a lowercase “c”. I didn’t mean that the later political movement came direct from Christianity, only that some underpinnings of it already were there, and in the Christian consciousness, particularly through the Gospel of Matthew. 64
Posted by John on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:21 | # There is definitely a narrative theme of guilt and redemption going on in the non-theistic ersatz religions of Holocaustianity, Frankfurt Schoolism and Anthropogenic Global Warming, though it perhaps wasn’t unique to Christianity before those usurper faiths arrived. 65
Posted by John on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:54 | # “The Beatitudes are describing spiritual traits. Blessed are the poor IN SPIRIT says the Spirit. Matthew 19:24 is speaking of the rich who is spiritually rich in his own eyes. “ The meek inheriting the earth is unambiguous. 66
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:12 | # I don’t know about brilliant, Gorb, but these were they: 1. Do any ethnic groups or peoples - Tibetans, say, or Khoisan or Palestinians or Ashkenazic Jews - exist within the family of Man? If not, why not? 2. If Tibetans, Khoisan, Palestinians and Ashkenazic Jews exist, do they severally possess a natural interest in their own survival? If not why not? 3. If Tibetans, Khoisan, Palestinians and Ashkenazic Jews exist, do they enjoy the natural rights to survival accorded in principle by the UN under its 2007 Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? If not, why not? 4. If Tibetans, Khoisan, Palestinians and Ashkenazic Jews exist, do European peoples also exist? If not, why not? 5. If European peoples exist, do they also severally possess the aforemented natural interest and rights to survival? If not, why not? 6. Do you recognise that all peoples have value to themselves and to humanity, and the loss of any people is a loss to all humanity? If not, why not? 7. Do you recognise that European peoples throughout the West are declining demographically and are enduring a process of physical dispossession in their ancestral lands and living spaces? 8. If you are a self-proclaimed believer in the absolute sovereignty of the individual, and have nothing to say yourself about (7), why are you agitating against the choice of others here to stand with and support European peoples in this time of stress? Aren’t you either a hypocrite or a liar? 9. What is your ethnicity? 67
Posted by danielj on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:30 | # The meek inheriting the earth is unambiguous. Yes it is. We just disagree about what it means. 69
Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:40 | # John, I am so glad that you were able to get yourself back into this thread.
Yes, I am sure. Mencius Moldbug has repeatedly advertised the fact that his parents were members of CPUSA and were capable of talking about “the Party” over dinner without any sense of irony. I am afraid that you don’t understand what is at stake here. Socialism is responsible for the political deaths of many tens of millions and the daily torment of many more hundreds of millions; the regimes that its ideas created were so oppressive that even common folk were denied the freedom to voice their displeasure without fear of looking over their shoulder. And when these ideas weren’t literally tormenting human souls in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and East Asia they were destroying our societies in the West. Western societies are now, in many respects, unrecognizable from what they used to be just a short while ago and are in steep decline. You have the radical egalitarian doctrines of socialism to thank for the inversion of our values and the growing presence of alien peoples in our respective societies. If you listen to Jonathan Bowden’s oral presentation on the Frankfurt School you will hear him recount an exchange where someone informs the famous Marxist existentialist Jean-Paul Charles Sartre about the horror that is the reality of the Siberian concentration camps and Mr. Sartre responds to this unpleasant news by muttering something to the effect, “Yes, but it is all for love.” For love! How do you think history will view the likes of Mr. Sartre and his accomplices? If we are willing to crucify National Socialist Germany over and over again for almost seven decades what kind of punishment do you think will be meted out against the likes of Mr. Sartre and an ideology that did so much more than National Socialism even dreamed of doing. Neither you nor I can imagine. Now let me tell you what Mr. Moldbug understands - clever fellow that he is - that you do not. He is one of the very few who understands that at some point in the not too distant future the bill on all this failure will come due. And because he knows this he is keen on the idea that the many evils that were done in the name of socialist thought (e.g. the brotherhood of man, equality, social justice, working class) should be laid at the feet of Protestant Europeans and not at those of his ancestors. On his view, the same people who played the role of revolutionary Leftist vanguard for much of the 20th century were just going along with the plans of their European neighbors. Do you get it now. He’s making his argument in the service of his tribe and he won’t mind if you play the fool for him. 70
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:53 | #
To acknowledge said is only to acknowledge the truth; to not acknowledge said is to not acknowledge the truth. The constant theme of railing against the Treaty of Versailles and the “November criminals” in National Socialist propaganda during the Years of Struggle, and the resonance of that with supporters of National Socialism, was hardly a coincidence.
Even critics of National Socialism on the left (e.g., Richard Evans) attest to the youthful profile of its supporters and its perceived dynamism, a major source of its appeal, in the 1920s and 30s. And even now, what little there is of a racialist youth subculture is heavily accented by Nazism. Rebellion against the existing, and ossifying, order born of idealism: that is sexy to those who like that kind of thing at least.
What is problematic about non-palingenetic nationalism? Arguably that it has no emotional resonance, and therefore no traction, with the White masses. And without those, there is nothing doing. Merely because National Socialism as allegedly historically manifested would not offer a congenial life for its critics as set against their bourgeois sensibilities and their perception of it being an aggressor against English ethnic interests is no refutation of the argument that a nationalism shorn of all teleological striving would find no resonance with the masses. Revolution is ill-disposed to being a gentlmanly pursuit as it is about winning and not how you play the game. 71
Posted by danielj on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 03:00 | # Yes it is ambiguous, or yes it is unambiguous? Yes it is unambiguous. Some people hear but cannot hear. 72
Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 03:11 | # John,
Is this some kind of joke? Did you even read Matthew 19 before you put this verse up? What is Jesus saying here. Is Jesus saying something to the effect that economic inequality is a sin and that people should not have wealth? No. What Jesus is saying is that it is very difficult for a rich man to enter into heaven. Why? Because people who have spent their lives getting rich usually end up valuing their own wealth more than their relationship with God (or even other human beings for that matter). Hence when Jesus told the rich young man that if he wanted to be perfect that he could leave behind his possessions and follow him the rich young man, with some sadness, chose his possessions. If you don’t believe me you can see the same lesson in the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21). The consistent message of the gospel on this matter is not that riches are bad but that riches accrued at the expense of a relationship with God is bad. If you can get communism from any of this I’d like to know how.
Unfortunately, you’ve given me very little to go on here so all I can say is the obvious, which is that Galatians has nothing to do with the modern cultural Marxist concepts of racial egalitarianism. 73
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 03:35 | #
In what sense does the “special relationship to morality” Whites have give them the potential to be potently inoculated against “manipulation by other groups”? The question is answered here:
Even if morality viewed from a thoroughgoing materialist perspective “isn’t”, it effectively “is” in that the proclivity to be galvanized by a conception of it has tremendous motive power. I see no reason to attempt to conceal what you yourself believe to be true behind your favored perspectivist shell-game. And really, isn’t just this the implicit theme of Trainspotter’s comment which recently garnered so many plaudits, that is, his muted assertion of the utility and necessity of teleology in forming a effective group strategy for Whites? Of course. 74
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 03:56 | # By way of concrete example: The English and their extended-phenotypes are noted for their propensity to be mobilized en masse behind the idea that they are fighting atrocities on behalf of their competitors - atrocity propaganda which portrays their competitors as committing atrocities out of some native pathology - and as a result of which the former themselves commit atrocities in vanquishing their competitors. This is an effective group strategy, or at least it has been in the short-term. Let us leave morality out of our analysis as we are bidden and ask, Is it not so? 75
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:31 | #
This just does not reflect the opinion of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora, including Americans, particularly in the South, (where there were few Jews) at the time.
more than one answer.
Under the editorial direction of HADLEY CANTRIL Prepared by Mildred Strunk PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 1951 Overwhelmingly, the Anglo-Saxon and its diaspora believed they were fighting for freedom and democracy. They were fighting to preserve and further a meme. They were fighting for a cultural construct founded upon language. Bizarre, maybe, but clearly they identified with a belief evolved in a unique environment; a belief system that was unmatched on the face of the planet. It wasn’t about fascism or gangsterism or atrocity. It was simply about a fervently held belief. 76
Posted by Bill on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:05 | # Desmond Jones on August 13, 2010, 04:31 AM
Or was it what Hollywood (MSM of the day) was telling them they were fighting for. Fighting for the meme of their time was their war on terror. 77
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:06 | #
That’s not what I’m saying. Christianity cultivates the ground that lets an ideology like Marxism flourish in its midst. As well as feminism, multiculturalism and equality in general. Christianity puts forth the proposition that all people have a basic intrinsic value or worth. (Which is flat out false.) Christianity insists that the poor, infirm, widows, mentally-sick and so on be afforded rights which they can’t acquire for themselves. It makes it a moral issue. (Which it is not). Christianity fundamentally attacks class. The story of the rich man and Lazarus could have been written by Marx himself. It attacks nationalism and promotes equality (Good Samaritan, the Great Commission, Neither Greek nor Jews). It consistently attacks wealth and prosperity in often bizarre rants (see the tale of the wise farmer in Luke ch. 12) And so on and so forth. It does all of this casting such things under a moral weight. Not only that, it goes the extra mile and implies a universal moral standard through which to apply them. Thus, equality. Now, if I were a pagan Russian farmer circa 1910, raised in a society that never knew Christianity, what appeal could communism make to me? Likewise, it’s doubtful if multiculturalism (which is Marxism pt. II) would rule the roost without a Christian foundation. .
That makes not sense. Asians also have a custom of one wife per man, and they’re not Christian. Again, different races, different reasoning.
Okay. I agree. Europeans made it and unmade it. Where’s the problem?
I don’t much care for most of it. But over here (in America) they show a best-of kind of thing on TV every now and then. The ‘Spanish Inquisition’ skit is one of their more famous ones.
You implied I lamented past illiteracy in Europe.
Was there a singleness of aim?
78
Posted by John on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:14 | # Notus Wind and Danielj: A scriptural basis for the “social gospel” is in the text. It’s irrelevant to me that those who don’t use your interpretation aren’t “real Scotsmen”. The Southern Baptist leader who called for amnesty for US illegal aliens (throwing his formerly highly ethnocentric congregation under the bus in the process) would probably cite Galatians chapter 3 verse 28. If you disagree with Mr. Land’s interpretation, please cite me the scriptural basis to deny Mestizos membership in the Southern Baptist Church or US citizenship or at least tell me where in Christendom these people may turn to go to a church whose membership is solely comprised of their coethnics. With arab, bantu and mestizo Christians (certainly you wouldn’t argue they’re not Christians) present among them, there is not scriptural basis for denying “brothers in Christ” membership to a Christian church. It’s an inherent problem of Christianity’s universality. A Christian on another board argued with me that merely because of his political opinion, Mr. Land is not a “real Christian”. 79
Posted by danielj on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:53 | # Where’s the problem? You place the blame for on it Christianity when you should just say it is Europeans. If societies are racial constructs then there is nothing more to say than Europeans have destroyed Europe. Full stop. It’s irrelevant to me that those who don’t use your interpretation aren’t “real Scotsmen”. So the text doesn’t matter? Ok Derrida. Is the actual history of the world irrelevant too since Marx starting preaching that it was headed ultimately toward class warfare and a worker’s paradise? Gal 3:28 also says there is neither “male nor female” in addition to saying there is neither Jew nor Greek. Do you think the passage is justification for sex change operations? If you are really concerned about it, read the material at the Kinism website. 80
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:39 | # Narrator; I don’t think I implied that you lamented past illiteracy in Europe - ie, that Europe was largely unlettered and that you regretted it. My reading of what you said was that literacy - leading to bible-reading - was to be regretted. In other words, you were lamenting,k I thought, not our ancestors’ illiteracy of the past, but the passing-away of that illiteracy. Singleness of aim - so was your past Europe a harmonious whole or a chance conglomeration of more-or-less mutually hostile and disorganised groups? Was the fact that most of the folks living in it had white skins of any more significance to them than the fact that most of them possessed two legs? What period are you talking about, anyway? Don’t wish to sound offensive, but living in America you are more of an observer of European transactions than a participant in them, perhaps. I can’t see how a TV joke about the Spanish Inquisition - a much maligned body now happily being subjected to a revisionist critique in the same way as the perpetrators of the “Holocaust” are - can help us much. Especially if Marty Feldman was in on it… 81
Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:59 | # Narrator,
Communism promises the empowerment of the working class and the creation of a new system that will eliminate the divide between rich and poor and where all the common folk may enjoy the abundance of their labor. No longer must poor laborers [such as yourself] struggle for their daily bread as the new communist system will end the process of exploitation by which the ruling class robs you of a better life. Notice that this appeal has nothing to do with Christianity and is easily understood by even the thickest peasant.
(1) True. (2) False. The Bible doesn’t speak of “rights” but does speak of charity. (3) False. The text reads that the rich man is in torment because he didn’t repent and not because he’s rich. (4) False. The Bible doesn’t talk about how nations are to be organized. The gospel message is for all peoples (both Jew and Greek) but this has nothing to do with matters of citizenship. (5) False. See my response to John here. 82
Posted by John on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:00 | # “So the text doesn’t matter? Ok Derrida. Is the actual history of the world irrelevant too since Marx starting preaching that it was headed ultimately toward class warfare and a worker’s paradise? “ The effect is more important than the intent. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. You never answered my questions about a New Testament basis for racial exclusivity or a modern church that practices such. If the terms of this equation were reversed, I would not be so nearly critical of Christianity as I am: Arab/Negro/Mestizo brother in Christ > Heathen/atheist ethnic brother 83
Posted by John on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:28 | # “Gal 3:28 also says there is neither “male nor female” in addition to saying there is neither Jew nor Greek. Do you think the passage is justification for sex change operations? “ I wouldn’t be surprised if the Christian leader Mr. Land thought so or at least would welcome Chaz Bono into his fold, so long as s/he “repented of his/her sins”. Who needs a fairy tale book to justify of be repelled and disgusted by buggery, etc? Christianity cannot defend itself against deracination, feminism and communism and its text is even used to defend such things. You cannot name a permutation of it that today would refuse to marry an Englishman and a Negro. That is why I say the “true” interpretation doesn’t matter. 84
Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:44 | # To everyone who has suffered through these comments about religion you have my sincerest apologies. Out of respect for Trainspotter (and MR’s focus) this will be my last comment on the subject in this thread. Narrator and John,
To suggest that Christianity cultivates the ground for feminism only demonstrates your perfect ignorance of the subject, even leftists know better than this. In order to successfully argue the claims that you’re making you will have to learn a lot more about Christianity, which means seriously engaging both its texts and its history.
If taken at face value the scriptures don’t support anything even remotely close to socialism, and I would think that in order to make your argument you would have to show at least this much. But it is true that a sufficiently creative mind can reinterpret them to mean a lot of different things. By the way, this problem of interpretation is not limited to historical material but also occurs in empirical science. A scientist might interpret experimental data one way while another sees the opposite, can both be right? No. 85
Posted by John on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:19 | # “If taken at face value the scriptures don’t support anything even remotely close to socialism, and I would think that in order to make your argument you would have to show at least this much. But it is true that a sufficiently creative mind can reinterpret them to mean a lot of different things. “ Tell that to Christian leaders (virtually to a man). “By the way, this problem of interpretation is not limited to historical material but also occurs in empirical science. A scientist might interpret experimental data one way while another sees the opposite, can both be right? No. “ What the Bible means or doesn’t mean is not amenable to scientific investigation. Since we can’t ask Paul or the author of the Book of Matthew what they meant, it is a matter of opinion and in light of current church practice and doctrine, a moot point. If the Pope or any leader of any other major Christian sect agreed with your interpretation and excluded from membership or segregated members based on their race, I might be inclined to agree with you. 86
Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:47 | # John,
If you push this point of view too far then you end up rejecting all forms of forensic knowledge because of the difficulties of interpretation, evolutionary theory included. Consider this, do the bones and other artifacts that archaeologists dig up speak to us about how they got there? Can archaeologists go back in time and witness the settlement of those artifacts in the dirt? The answer to both of these questions is no but that doesn’t mean that archaeology is a hopeless subject. 87
Posted by John on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:13 | # “If you push this point of view too far then you end up rejecting all forms of forensic knowledge because of the difficulties of interpretation, evolutionary theory included. “ I’m not sold on evolution, not the inter-species anyway. It doesn’t seem possible, for example that a worm that evolved a tendency to wrap itself in silk would do anything but die. Or other examples of developing complex physiological and biochemical apparatus where any stage of the process would tend to be fatal or useless for any niche advantage (a bird’s wing or eyesight, which requires a very complex eye to evolve along with a very complex nerve and thalamus system to send and process the signals and a complex occipital lobe to interpret them. But evolution and Christianity aren’t the only two options how we got here. I think every scientific and religious priest who has ever talked about it, (other than some metaphors, mostly from disinterest parties), doesn’t know what he’s talking about at the least and most of them are full of shit. Dawkins is more religious than Tertullian ever was, imo. 88
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:37 | # Something to consider in the creation vs mechanism war: Turing machines are mechanisms. Most who deny “creation” also purport Turing machines to be capable of creative acts and if not they, then their quantum information counterparts. Some would go so far as to claim that we must, at some point, proclaim such “machines” to not only be “sentient” but to have “rights”. But if the “mechanical” universe can degenerate into such a “living” machine, what does that say about the “mechanical” universe itself? Why do we presume it is “merely dead matter”? It only makes sense that the “mechanical” universe is a mere abstraction of what is first, and foremost, a mind that possesses within it the potential for all “emerging” from it. 89
Posted by danielj on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 04:42 | # John, in light of his last comment - if nothing else - is one hell of an interesting character! 90
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:25 | #
Screw that! Again, I’m a Russian pagan circa 1910. The last thing I want is an even share with the assholes next door. Here are the commandments that form the moral code I live by,
So, again, what possible appeal does Socialism have to me?
Thank you. Nuff said.
Yeah.
So you’re saying feminism is big in the Islamic world? Asia? India?
The mighty roar of the Christian as he meanders out of the room as soon as actual text and passages are mentioned or brought up. ... 91
Posted by John on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:48 | # “John, in light of his last comment - if nothing else - is one hell of an interesting character!” It only seems unusual as an attack on Scrooge from the right because of the Hobson’s choice of evolutionary theory and Abrahamic religions. 92
Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:37 | #
I’ve been perfectly willing to get into the details of what some of these texts say and don’t say as indicated by these comments. To the extent that you’ve had anything specific to say about them I’ve argued the point in good faith.
How many people out there are Far Right, anti-Christian, and don’t accept evolutionary theory? It’s a rare combination. 93
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 08:32 | #
Yes, and you conceded my point (though ignoring my question) and I thanked you for that. But, I’m on vacation and have some free time, so what the heck! You wrote, in response to me,
Your concurring with number one agrees with my premise.
.
Repent?
Don’t be lawyerly now. I wrote that Christianity attacks nationalism and promotes equality. You commented on another matter. The Bible’s promotion of a universal brotherhood IS an attack upon nationality. The passage I was referring to,
In case you missed Jesus’ talking point here, lets review… 1. Farmer tills ground. The Moral: God hates wise Farmers and loves the re-distribution of wealth!
... 94
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:20 | # @PF Good list. Cultural marxists were right. We need to copy them in reverse and it can’t only be a return to the earlier cultural hegemony because it didn’t contain some elements that were neccessary to defend itself. @Christianity and Communism Marxist Communism has nothing to do with Christianity except in its marketing which uses egalitarian and Christian ideals as bait. Marxist Communism is a secular wrapper on a supremacist talmudic tradition designed to get non-jews to help jews into a position of totalitarian power. There’s also a completely separate and completely natural version of communistic and egalitarian ideals which pre-date but are reinforced by Christianity and which were mixed in with aristocratic elements in the social forms of all the early European tribes and which have cropped up persistently ever since. If you observe small group behaviour among white people the default seems to be a mixture of egalitarian and aristocratic. Homogenous populations with an economic surplus will always generate some kind of welfare system because it makes perfect sense to do so if everyone who is part of the group are genetically part you. You’re supporting welfare for disconnected bits of yourself. The reason it’s so different in America is because Americans aren’t homogenous enough for this to kick in. Also some element of political egalitarianism would seem inevitable in high average IQ societies based on unifying moral codes. I’d also say some combination of aristocratic and egalitarian elements is probably the most efficient social form in high average IQ populations if you can get it to work right. If it worked properly democracy would be a time limited aristocracy. Post a comment:
Next entry: Diary of an Ant-Racist (Part 2)
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:06 | #
Try state machine teaching where each state is a vector of bits with each bit representing a proposition the person agrees with (1) or disagrees with (0). The output to the person is a proposition that provides the most information about the propositions not yet presented. The person responds with “agree” or “disagree”, thereby rendering the next state. This is related to a questionnaire creation system proposed during the last Presidential election. Political scientists can’t bring themselves to do something like this because it will be too enlightening.
Some states represent internal contradictions, which can be pointed out to the person by proposing something along the lines of “Do you agree that both X and not X are true?” and present them with their historic answers demonstrating such and offer them the opportunity to correct their answers.
Too “cold blooded”? To “logical” for normal people?
OR just too much work for the teacher?