|
|
|
Why European Christianity cannot ever accumulate to potency by PF
2. Texts have to be ‘translated’ mentally by those reading them into European thought forms, making “our” sacred texts essentially a form of Orientalist scholarship from the beginning. However, scholarship is often critical of its sources, whereas our sacred traditions view these oriental texts as completely authoritative and really the last word on spirituality. 3. The text alienates the common reader because the unique mindset for culturally co-opting this oriental religion is only shared by a few, who become priests. There is little or no resonance for the common man in the stories of the Bible. Unlike the Homeric stories, which we know to be widely disseminated and enjoyed in ancient Hellas, the sources of our religious tradition have belonged from the beginning to the few Orientalists who would submit to their foreignness and teach it authoritatively to the rest of us. Those who viewed the adoption of oriental thought forms as the purest access to spirituality became the fathers of our traditions. 4. The alien nature of our Jewish religious texts means that they cannot be added to in a similar style; there was necessarily a complete stylistic break when they were imported. This means that we cannot add to them or treat them as living documents, but rather as relics to defer to as over and above ourselves. This kills the possibility of building a pre-rational, living tradition within our own lands. The most a British man can hope for, spiritually, is to become an obedient antiquarian for the inspired Jews of the Hellenist Levant. 5. No way is given for uniquely learning about one’s own spirituality, because one has to use deadened ancient texts as a ‘tissue of interpretation’ between oneself and all higher things. No way is preserved by which British man could ever know god, except through scripture and prayer to the Jewish God, which is a way historically novel to him - a way by which no pre-Christian British person ever arrived at any sacred knowledge. The whole of ancient British spirituality is dismissed - and what cannot be found in the Book or experienced in the Church, is written out of existence. Whether British people are even capable of experiencing spirituality through prayers to the Jewish God, is a long shot. 6. There are no adequate practices of Mysteries or sacred ceremony which flow from the British experience of spirituality. Had they been preserved, these might have taken the form of Druidic mystery cults or Odinic/pagan rights, which are known to us as cartoon images but were an authentic expression of European spirituality. 7. Following from point 6, there is no way to manifest a pre-rational social bonding process on the basis of Mysteries or sacred traditions. This means that there is no ‘organic society’ because there is no way to join together pre-rationally in the experience of something higher. There is no experience of group essence, because no experience can take us beyond mental categories in a shared way. This means there is no ‘initiation’ - and in this we can seek the origin of our fragmentary, atomized culture, and its inability to build. This is the origin of our desire to co-opt and imitate foreign cultures and escape from our own. We cannot respect it, because it did not activate that part of us which we innately perceive that it should activate. Great minds of prior eras have felt this emptiness and sought to flee from it - Byron, D.H. Lawrence, T.E. Lawrence, and many others. The desire of Europeans for something ‘exotic’ expresses this felt emptiness. If they had the druidic cults, or something uniquely British and pre-rational to fill this void for them, they would realize that British spirituality is an exotic, exciting elixir which answers their needs better than foreign misadventures ever could. If this spirituality ever found any expression. 8. British spirituality has no freedom to develop or re-grow within the Church framework. This is because the Church has always been an authoritative, imitative atmosphere where one had to struggle to ‘get it right’ - i.e. conform to the foreign Book. Whereas the real nature of spirituality is not conformist and outward-looking, cannot be. After so many centuries of trying to ‘get it right’ - i.e. fit ourselves into ancient Jewish spiritual practices, we only know spirituality as obeisance to incomprehensible fantasies, and of course, The Book. 9. Most developments in European society have been against or in contradistinction to the Christian tradition. The Minnesingers, the Reformation, the Renaissance, Romanticism, Neo-Hellenism, and Nationalism, were all movements which reflect the European soul adrift outside the bounds of Scripture, the European soul demanding more room for itself. Essentially, asserting European man’s right to exist in a spiritual world dominated by authoritarian Jewish religion. Everything positive we know of in the European tradition happened outside of Churches, and half of our thinkers and artists have been in some way at war with the encroachments of this foreign religion. 10. This explains the schizophrenic aspect of post-Classical European civilization, which has only grown more schizophrenic in its American variant. To yield to foreign cultures and to try to co-opt them is natural for us, because our fundamental spiritual and religious culture is likewise not an expression of our own. Therefore European man is profoundly good at putting on different hats, and experimenting with different things, all the while himself being strangely adrift and homeless. This can be seen in everything: Shakespeare’s foreign settings for plays, 19th century German Neo-Hellenism, Schopenhauer’s interest in the Vedas, Byron’s Hellenic journeys, the Beatle’s trip to India, the middle-classes adopting black music first as Motown and then as Rap. Given rational food only at home, we naturally set out looking for a deeper experience of life elsewhere. It isn’t even cultural treason: one cannot betray a tradition which is already based on profound betrayal. Our Churches are monuments to a Jewish God. It is not therefore surprising to see the Beatles dressed in Indian garb, or turbanned Lord Byron, or the wiggers sporting gold medallions: what is European culture at its core, if our own spiritual space is occupied territory? 11. The dimensions of this Hebrew House do not successfully enclose our nature - experientially, we feel constrained by it. That is the verdict of thousands of others, who chafe under its restrictions. 12. The dead, imitative nature of our ‘spirituality’ makes it a tool in the hands of status-seeking whites, which they can use to flog anyone not submitting to Judaized social customs. Some percentage of whites will chafe under the restrictions of it, while others will seek to prove themselves by being goody-two shoes and submitting to it most thoroughly. One group then wars on the other using the Book or established social custom as a truncheon. It is this permanent inner battle between the more Judaized whites and the less Judaized whites which contributes to our schizophrenia and fragments our culture even more. 13. The militaristic nature of European society is completely defaced and destroyed by the advent of this religion. Formerly, there existed a culture where men went to war every summer since time immemorial. The new tradition completely ignores this fundamental spiritual aspect of European life. There is no God of war in the Book, whereas we know that the prior Germanic religion had multiple gods of war; there is no warrior’s code; the spiritual aspects of warfare are not enummerated because they were not acutely experienced in Levantine culture during the writing of those texts. Thus a profound and meaningful part of European man’s life was effectively written out of existence. Furthermore, in the New Testament there is the seed of what would become an anti-militarist, struggle-renouncing hippy morality based on ‘niceness’ and relief of suffering. 14. The texts do not understand how to seduce the European mind; instead, they have to be forced and shamed onto us as a kind of duty. 15. The importation of a foreign religion makes essentialism impossible, because the human essence can only be pointed to by metaphors, adumbrations, and various clues which are given as pointers to align man with his essence. These do not translate culturally, or do so poorly. Religions become externalist when moved from one soil to another. 16. Spiritual atavism is rendered impossible by the obvious foreignness of the text and tradition. There is no way to escape time by imagining oneself as united with past figures, or as incorporating aspects of them which are transmitted in the essence (i.e. blood). There is no possibility of ancestor worship, or of forging a connection to these ‘inspired foreigners’ in the Book. One cannot legitimately view oneself as a reincarnation of past figures or feel their spirit within oneself, such as is possible with one’s own traditions. One cannot legitimately claim descent, and thus cannot lay claim to similar spiritual knowledge, since one does not have within oneself the same blood that received those revelations. The idea of an essence being preserved across time is lost. Summary: Our ancestors thought they could ‘borrow’ spirituality from foreigners. Our unraveling civilization shows how much of a non-starter that idea was. Choosing to become imitators in life’s most sacred aspects, was to become hypocritical in the things which most matter. Here lie the origins of our anaemic bloodless abstraction, our schizophrenia, our xenophilia, our lack of rootedness, our inability to wield our own scientific apparatus without killing ourselves through exploratory criticism, and probably also that strange lack of ethnocentrism which has been decried as an unfortunate part of our blood-and-bone essences. Nietzsche had this to say about it: “The fact that the strong races of northern Europe did not repudiate this Christian god does little credit to their gift for religion—and not much more to their taste. They ought to have felt compelled to make an end of such a moribund and worn-out product of decadence. A curse lies upon them because they were not equal to it.” Our culture is based on an ancient and ultra-profound act of self-betrayal. Comments:2
Posted by h.kalervo on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:30 | # Hi PF, I admire Nietzsche as a thinker and even more so as a writer, but he didn’t have the advantage of seeing what parts of Europe and United States would become without Christianity, especially what would happen to our liberated women, who no longer are interested in having children since after all we live only once, etc etc, and having fun now is much more important than anything else you could think of. This ties in with the idea that the reason Caesar didn’t fly to the moon was that we used the fifty-thousand years before him to have fun now. You can pretend that you know elevating the State to godhood and worshipping it as a god will be a good substitute for God, but what you’re actually proposing is replacing something proven to work with something rather dubious at best. And you still haven’t explained why Sparta, a State worshipping State if there ever was one, doesn’t now have colonies on the moon. Another problem I have with Nietzsche is that he didn’t seem to be aware of the existence of biological sociopaths, i.e. “humans” without the capacity for conscience. I doubt he really understood what people liberated from traditional morality as well as any tendency for it would truly be like. This is the problem with abstract and speculative philosophy: easy to make huge errors without quite understanding you have. P.S. Being knowledgeable about Nietzsche, you ought to know that he wanted to marry but was rejected. He often complained about loneliness, and not just of the intellectual sort. I think you may have missed something about Nietzsche: he was a male human being, and not very careful with facts either. 3
Posted by danielj on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:15 | # Your problem is that you are comparing the rational and true Christian faith to Druidic nonsense based on an argument of psychological utility. You explicitly rejected that tactic as honest and helpful criteria in your last comment on a previous post. You’re inconsistent. The triune God of the Bible is the only God that makes sense of the intelligibility of the universe, the uniformity of said universe and the laws of logic and other universals. Repent and be saved PF. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:20 | # A very good essay in parts; in parts certainly debatable. I want what’s best for the European races and the Ancient Nations of Europe. That of course includes their survival into the future racially intact. If Christianity can deliver a product that serves those ends best, I’m for Christianity. If not, Christianity is almost by definition a false religion for the Euro-race peoples, and whatever alternative religion can better serve those ends should be adopted in its place. Right now, mainstream Christianity is fully on-board with the Jews and crony capitalists in ordering Euro-race peoples to go extinct racially by submitting to be turned into other races. All mainstream Christian denominations participating in that crime surpassing the ability of words to describe are by definition false religions which should be ripped out root and branch by the people they are trying to genocide. 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:24 | # DanielJ, can we agree that any religion that actively helps to force racial extinction on its flocks is by definition a false religion as far as those flocks are concerned and should be rejected? 6
Posted by danielj on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:56 | # DanielJ, can we agree that any religion that actively helps to force racial extinction on its flocks is by definition a false religion as far as those flocks are concerned and should be rejected? I’d go one further and state that such a system of belief isn’t entitled to the appellation of religion and is nothing but mere nihilism disguised as spirituality. 7
Posted by h.kalervo on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:02 | # “Right now, mainstream Christianity is fully on-board with the Jews” Funny how Christians are the only ones bearing white children in excess of the pathetic below-replacement levels of other whites. Christianity is winning, as James Joyce predicted, while we’re discussing whether to support Christianity or to mock it like rebelling teenagers. And while what you say is, to some extent, true in the U.S., it’s not true in Europe. Another point: our translations of the Bible have rather little to do with the tribal rule-book of the Jews. When Jews wrote down that “thou shalt not kill”, they merely meant that you aren’t allowed to murder other Jews of the tribe. Everyone else? Fair game. And that’s just one example for you. Haven’t you noticed how religions, ideologies, philosophies, all take their unique forms depending on the genetic soil they are planted in? Western Christianity, in its essence, has nothing to do with the Jews. You don’t even know what you don’t know if you think it does. And let’s not pretend that everything can’t be used as a tool by hostile elites. Even as a tool of American Zionist Jews, Christianity is still healthier for our genes than the alternative, which is death. 8
Posted by sirrealpolitik on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:52 | # Am I alone in feeling more of a spiritual connection to the Ainulindalë than to Leviticus? I mean, c’mon. Leviticus? Really? We don’t need the old ziggurat dogmatists of any stripe. We never did. We aren’t some Babylonian priestcraft cult. We need no brazier warmth. We need no brazier melted cheese. Sweet Cheeseus never had a monopoly in Europe. It was more of a Swiss Cheeseus. Wholly hole-y. By the time the Scandinavians or Icelanders were duped, coerced, cajoled into toeing the party line by the 12th cent, the Minnesingers and Troubadours and Florentines were already emerging from their popery poppy-slumber. We are scientist-poets. We need scientist-poets. Where are my poets, my fearless poets a la E.P.’s Cantos?
P.s. Neil Armstrong: “That’s one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.” 9
Posted by sirrealpolitik on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:12 | #
You think Euros were never prolific than through some juden lube? FLDS aren’t considered Christians, and yet they have bursting broods. The Germano-Celtic tribes had large families. The population boom in pagan Scandinavia was what led to the Viking raids. I mean, come on sir. Where’s your history? 10
Posted by h.kalervo on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:16 | # “Where’s your history?” Notice how you managed to start reading my post, then lost attention and forgot the context of my response by the time you finished reading the first half of my first sentence. I wouldn’t try to take part in solving humanity’s problems if I were you. Seriously, you might want to focus on your open shoe laces first. 11
Posted by Frank on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:44 | # PF writes:
Heliand is curious. I haven’t read it yet (I’d read the linked version if I knew Old Saxon…), but I’d like to. I was going to link to a comment by Chamberlain (fan website) in the Aryan World-view, but it’s MIA… I’ve linked to it before anyway - he thought Jesus was an Aryan, though the Old Testament Jewish. I don’t buy into that… but it’s interesting how he thought Christ mirrored traditional Aryan hero tales. sirrealpolitik, what is a scientist-poet? Go have some children. 12
Posted by Frank on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:52 | # Where does non-Christian Euroman go from here? Hinduism? Archaeology? (better stop the Jews at their war games). Asatru? 13
Posted by Frank on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:55 | # Dangit, Chamberlain had another comment that was perfect for this. Can I just blame Jewish hackers for the MIA page? Most hackers are from Israel and China anyway… (I joke about blaming Jews without knowing the reason…) 14
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:29 | #
Which is entirely contradicted by MacDonald:
The only reason nationalism, non-kinship based reciprocity, arouse in the West, is because of the Christian emphasis upon monogamy, that undermined extended family kinship. The fragility of the nation state is blindingly obvious in the ME, SS Africa, and on the sub-continent. 15
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:23 | # Paragraph 6: please define AUTHENTIC. What doesn’t exist - and perhaps never did - can not sanely be described as AUTHENTIC. I suspect that you are projecting into these hypothetical vessels a newly-made brew of your own, which can then be srtificially aged by some mechnical process. Byron and the Lawrences possessed interesting minds, not great ones. Pity they were all sexual freaks. Quite a few Shakespeare plays are set in England herself, although the one we don’t mention is set in Scotland.” “Cymbeline” takes place largely in Milford Haven. What about the Forest of Arden? I look forward to “The Merchant of Potters Bar” and “Timon of Knightsbridge”. You can always produce something AUTHENTIC along these lines. Thank God for the “still-vexed Bermoothes” of “The Tempest” which I suppose would be more magical if set in Battersea, thank God for the sea-coast of Bohemia, and whose heart does not leap up for joy whwn he hears the exchange in “Twelfth Night” - Inferior playwrights of the time left us “The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green” “The Merry Devil of Edmonton” and “The Isle of Dogs”. Bring on the book-burning! plenty of THAT in the English Reformation. This movement, which is so ignorantly lauded here, seems to have destroyed great tracts of old English lore that the Catholic Church in its generous wisdom left untouched! Stop pontificating on cultural histories that are closed to you by your own short-sightedness, and have a wee read in R.M.Wilson’s The Lost Literature of Medieval England. it wasn’t the Catholic Medievals that lost it - it was the ignorant louts and oafs of the Reformation and the intellectual snobs of the Renaissance that did that! 16
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:52 | # Oh, and Sirrealpolitik, if you want scientist-poets, there’s Erasmus Darwin, grandad of the sainted Charles with his “The Loves of the Plants”, a biological or botanical exposition in heroic couplets. Canning or someone parodied it aptly enough; “The feathered tribes on pinions skim the air - Otherwise stick wih Lucretius, but now I remember that Humphrey Davy left some verses. I’m afraid that your post isn’t very coherent, and if we are talking of science, clarity is all-important. Hear, be warned by, and apply to your own profit, before it be too late, the words of Merlin addressed to a rabble of mad scientists in the great finale of CS Lewis’s That Hideous Strength: QUI VERBUM DEI CONTEMPSERUNT, EIS AUFERETUR ETIAM VERBUM HOMINIS {THEY THAT HAVE DESPISED THE WORD OF GOD, FROM THEM SHALL THE WORD OF MAN ALSO BE TAKEN AWAY) 18
Posted by Frank on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:29 | # Were the American Catholics not so bent on genociding America, they might be more popular. Not to say the cultist “Evangelicals” or Zionist / “JudeoChristians” are any better - they’re all pretty much the same. 19
Posted by Frank on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:35 | # You can’t expect people to flock to a Church when it’s attacking you. A man runs out stabs you in the gut, “join us”. And even if you join, he’ll keep stabbing you. It might not be official policy to genocide America, the ruling on American nationalism is misunderstood I assume (unless Catholics hate whites?), but what we see done here is what we see as representative of the Vatican. - The great sin of the Reformation: to have faith, to actually believe rather than only pretend. 20
Posted by PF on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:35 | # Gorboduc
This is a chilling assertion. What you are saying is that there is no authentic, native British spirituality. There is only the revelations to the Jews in scripture. I think if the reader takes a step back, its possible to realize how horrifying the implications of that statement are. I will spell these implications out: we have no higher knowledge that comes from ourselves, our ancestor’s traditions either did not exist (now that they have been sufficiently burned/excoricated by prior generations of Christians to achieve plausible deniability) or those traditions were worth nothing, and JC is our only path to the higher knowledge. As such, this is basically the Christian reply to any native assertion of spiritual independence, which has ever been expressed, for the last 1,500 years of our history. Its profoundly humiliating and as I’ve said, I think its for this reason that whites themselves foreswear and deny the legitimacy of their culture. I think you prefigure spiritually those acts which when you see them in the flesh, playing out on our modern streets, you view as degenerate and disgusting. Listen closely to what is being said here: who is it who condemned European man to worthlessness?
The epistemological critique of spiritual knowledge which you aim at me is universally applicable. Just like “Uh” came on here and was blandishing a psychological critique which applies to all political groups, yet viewing it as uniquely pertinent to white nationalism, or modern grad students in English literature write papers about how our forebears had insufficient knowledge of the “Other”, whereas they are merely articulating the impossibility of perfect knowledge generally in human affairs - you come at me with the uniqueness and thus supposed idiosyncratic flawedness of my own spiritual knowledge. Not bearing JC’s stamp it supposedly has no relevance or lacks the highest relevance. We articulate these things poorly, and its difficult for people to know who has experienced what. This is why its possible to lose something so precious - because spiritual experience doesn’t translate directly into rhetorical power, allowing those who see less than others the ability to silence them with unconscious Groupthink, with the bystanders present not having the ability to properly adjudicate the matter. This is the same dynamic that effected all of what I’ve described above and it is the reason for Englands soullessness. 21
Posted by PF on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:06 | # Re: Authenticity Authentic = non-imitative. i.e. not being done in imitation of someone with authority who is seen to be doing it ‘right’. 22
Posted by Frank on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:28 | # PF, there might still be records in the ground. Did you see this: [url=http://www.ansamed.info/en/top/ME12.XAM19105.htmlSPANIARDS DISCOVER FORGOTTEN EUPHRATES CITY[/url]?
23
Posted by Frank on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:31 | # Err, corrected link: SPANIARDS DISCOVER FORGOTTEN EUPHRATES CITY. It doesn’t have to do with Britain, but it’s an example of lost information found. And who wouldn’t be surprised were these early cities inhabited by people who resemble Europe more than the ME? That’s not to say the original Jews were Aryans… But early civilisations seem to all be Mediterranean and Nordic. 24
Posted by h.kalervo on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:53 | # “What you are saying is that there is no authentic, native British spirituality. There is only the revelations to the Jews in scripture.” Let me ask you a question. Is it a foreign cultural influence that transforms a people? Or is it the people that transforms foreign cultural influences to reflect their own nature? A corollary question: What is the stupid dichotomy you are trying to frame the discussion with? Shouldn’t you be reading books such as Those Terrible Middle-Ages! by Regine Pernoud? Just to get started? Thinking on your own doesn’t seem to be working too well for you. You might want to leave that thinking business to others. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:11 | # PF’s very impressive effort at putting some flesh on the bare bones of my comments in the interview with Alex Linder deserves a response. We know almost nothing about the ascession of Christianity or the Old Faith that preceded it. That alone tells us that this was a Year Zero enterprise. The loss it visited upon our forefathers ranks only second in extent and finality to the loss of genetic distinctiveness which our elites are inflicting upon us now. The Christian faithful here who cleave to the belief that it, being progress out of Darkness and the sin of ignorance, is all somehow to the good have to answer why their much more numerous brothers in faith who claim the same of multiracialism are wrong. Why should a trespass against the European mind be acceptable while a trespass against the European genome is not? The customary answer is that the one is Christianity while the other is liberal universalism masquerading as Christianity. Well, it’s hardly news that extract of Christianity, when heated by revolutionary war and regicide, and passed through a rational filter for three centuries, emerges as the political faith known as advanced liberalism. Even if the war on the European genome is not Christianity as she is spoke by the present shepherds-in-chief, the old girl is fingered by her parentage of the political bastard. I must admit I am attracted by the notion of applying this same sleight of hand to the long-departed Old Faith and the likewise absent ontological nationalism - the politics of peoplehood - that, rightly, should be ours. It would be pretty neat to be able to show that the child of the barrow and the oak and all the symbols of a faith of the natural world is just such a politics of our blood. Note, a politics of blood, not of the sentimentalities of 19th century romantic nationalism brought into being only because the French peasantry had to have some kind of national focus now Louis was gone, and not of the subsequent fascist ascent to a life of ruthless “honour” and “glory”. But we know almost nothing. As PF says, the idea of essence being preserved across time is lost. Without that a politics to preserve our blood is going to be a very hard sell to the faithful. 26
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:29 | # Honestly, I’m beginning to think Friedrich (elsewhere, recently) might have had a point. Pot, kettle: Tweedle-Dum, Tweedle-Dee. Sorprised anyone’s bothered here about the Inca records. Europe and the Jews are under discussion here. There was no faith on show in the Reformation: only ignorant oikish loutish fanaticism: witness the destroyed abbeys, the gutted libraries. Moore and Fisher had faith; it was that quality that the “reformers” hated and feared: hence the scaffold and the axe. 27
Posted by Frank on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:58 | #
You don’t know why I’m interested in the Incas? Take a gander, lol. The Spaniards say their leaders were __, mummies found were __, their religion says they learned from ___ Gods. Spaniards? Burn, burn, burn. - You’re cheering on about Catholics and dismissing the Reformation like a hooligan at a soccer game. Too much did get cut away - that much is clear. But were the Church not already idolatrous and corrupt it wouldn’t have been needed. - I don’t want to get into a religious debate, I’d lose anyway; but just as you have to instinctively stick up for Catholics I have to butt in when the Reformation is being senselessly attacked. You mention blaming Jews - I can’t help it they’re currently involved in so many things. In America it’s plain as day. I don’t care anymore about proving how unbiased and fair I am. They’re at war. I’ll be nice when they cease. Just today a Cannabis shop opens in Oregan. The owner? Jewish. Small case, yes, but it’s ridiculously predictable now. Goldman Sachs makes the news today about apologising for fleecing tax payers, etc. It’s just constant… And the MidEast wars? Who is primarily behind those? Believe what you will, but it’s amusing how readily people join in against Muslims relative to Jews. Pavlov says bark, but I don’t have cable anymore. 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:59 | # Can you answer GW’s question, Gorbo?:
You do agree, don’t you Gorb, that they can be shown to be wrong, these Christians “who claim the same of multiracialism” (namely that multiracialism is “progress out of Darkness”) and can be shown to be wrong by invoking entirely sound Christian and Catholic doctrine? If you agree this is so (namely, that an honest Catholic theologian can, anytime he wants, show, based entirely on perfectly sound Catholic doctrine, that in order to be a good Christian or a good Catholic it is not necessary to embrace the race-replacement of one’s traditional communal or national race), why is no theologian doing precisely that in this time of unprecedented demographic crisis which the Catholic priests can see because they have two eyes like the rest of us? Are Trotskyists in control at the Vatican, the end result of conscious infiltration and Gramscian Long March planned many decades ago? If not, what in the god damned fuck is going on, Gorb? 29
Posted by Frank on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:00 | # Admittedly it does feel good to look down on others and say “bigot”. I miss doing that… 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:04 | # I won’t even talk about Lambeth Palace — that’s a complete loss but also a blatantly political one in that the list of two names the Prime Minister presents to the Queen is compiled based on purest politics, so who winds up being Archbishop is not wholly Anglicanism’s fault. 31
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:13 | # This is for PF and GW
PF: Chilling? brace up man! Don’t step back, appalled! Come in closer! Honestly, you’re a bundle of nerves! I’m merely suggesting that we CAN’T know ANYTHING for certain about an ancient spirituality which has left hardly any pre-christian records. We CAN entertain a lot of wish-fulfilment dreams, and we can weakly infer from the lack of evidence that a great deal of evidence was wantonly destroyed. We can re-invent it to our own satisfaction, but we can save ourselves the trouble by letting the designers of snazzy new Tarot packs and the folks who write for the occult/prediction colour magazines do it for us - “Discover the inner Celtic Goddess within yourself! Consult the dark Cauldron of Cernunnos with Running Deer, and release the Inner Warrior Woman! Only £450 for course of 10 on-line lessons! Log on at etc. etc.etc.” Oh, you can read up the few ancient mentions of Druids and look up Strabo or Tacitus & co., but WHERE are the documents? WHERE’S the evidence for an authentic British spirituality? Is it among the earliest written documents of our land - Gildas, or a few ogham stones, a few simplistic runic inscriptions, a few Romano-Celtic names chipped on old tombstones? When you say British, do you mean Welsh - in which case try the Triads. If you know an AUTHENTIC text, has it been handed down from mother to daughter through age to age? in which case, suspect the intervention of man-witch Gerald Gardner, or a buried memory derived from a reading of Arthur Machen’s “The Secret Glory”, or go and interrogate the Wiccan crew. Do you mean the Anglo-Saxons? Now we’re getting somewhere, for they soon developed a fully Catholic culture and the priests taught them to write. But I fear the whole thing may just be rooted in late 18th. century neo-druidical antiquarian fancies. Look, I love and respect Stonehenge and Glastonbury and stone circles and oak groves and barrows and all our ancient landscape as much as anyone, and was once heavily into ley-lines and alignments and Tors and Tots and dragon-lines, and I still treat all these things with the utmost respect, almost bordering on superstitious awe, and I still add when I can to my collection of books on Druidism and folklore, and I respect what I know of our ancient literature. It is of the greates importance to know about the Mithraic underground temples that lurk beneath some of our old churches. Here I’d like to quote the Catholic writer, Fr. Cuthbert, O.S.F.C. whose book Socialism or Democracy (London, 1926) which received the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat - and which contains three brilliant and sympathetic chapters ‘Nationalism’, ‘Literature and Religion’ and ‘Literature and Life’, which I wish, in the most friendly way, that you could all read here.*) I subjoin, in order, short quotations from the latter pair:
* * * * * * * * * * *
I know nothing about your spiritual knowledge. I suppose some like GW may claim that it speaks through the immemorial tongue of the blood, the voiceless certainty of our rooted being, the shared consciousness of the ancient awareness. the sense of tribal drawing togetherness, the underlying land from which flickers forth all our soul-consciousness ...( and all that sort of thing) - and I can go on inventing nonsense phrases like that till the cows come home, and so can he, especially if he is well up in the German Romantics; - and I can say that my OWN experience teaches me that all the ancient stuff falls into place in the Christianised soul, and creates doubt, frustration and unhappiness for the other sort! 32
Posted by Frank on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:17 | # Fred, the Catechism has something about nations and the Pope has frowned on mass immigration… but there doesn’t seem to be any valuing of race itself from Catholics, that I can gather. At best it’s not idolatrous. 33
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:54 | # Dear Scrooby, And Frank - WHERE did I mention “blaming” Jews? Oh, and GW: I’d hoped, prayed, nay BEGGED for a moratorium on “ontological”. And there’s an “epistemological” from PF. There might be a “hermeneutical” lurking somewhere - I always get it it mixed up with “Euhemeristic”, and then there’s always more trouble ... I’ll think about the Incas later. I got into trouble here for posting up a few Youtube vids of baroque music from Peru and Mexico; stuff about mestizos. This one’s fun; 34
Posted by Frank on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:04 | #
Ah, oops I did misread didn’t I? You were defending Christianity from the accusation of being Jewish. To my defense, you threw in a reply to me just below, but considering the source and clearly reading the post… my mistake. 35
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:23 | # Sorry Frank, I can’t tell who misread whom: it’s late and I’m tired and I can’t see much now. 36
Posted by Rob Smith on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:25 | # It’s the inclusive nature of Christianity which makes whites vulnerable. Find a religion which gives the white man the ability to link his past to his present and his future will be bright. 37
Posted by PF on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:47 | # Gorboduc, I think you do a good job of replying to the points raised, I’m not in a position to reply directly to what you are saying until I’ve elaborated on some things, possibly in another blog post. I think this has to be placed in a larger frame than what you or I imagine to be true or knowable about ancient British spirituality. Making this about my imagination of my ancestor’s religion, is falling back on an epistemological critique which applies to all spiritual knowledge. There is no way of knowing rationally and proving on a blog that when the Catholic shakes and quivers reciting Psalms, whether he has achieved timeless Knowledge or simply a reverie: you have to take his word for it, if you trust him. For the moment I want to make a larger point about the progression and potency of spiritual traditions generally, not (1) what you or I got from this or that tradition, nor (2) whether my attainment has any connection to that of my ancestors, or is merely a child’s imagination. I’m not trying to sell anyone on English blood mysticism, militarism & ancestor “worship” - that happens to be a description of some elements present in my upbringing and subsequent interior life, and surprise surprise, these things can be criticized!!! The larger question is: what works for the British, and what do they have a right to? 38
Posted by PF on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:21 | # Danielj wrote:
This is an interesting point; you’ve hit something with it. The difference between these two instances is that the prior context was political and cultural expediency - i.e. “Christianity is good/bad for white survival in 21st century” or “was good/bad for white survival throughout history”. Although I touch that point tangentially in the above post, the central topic is whether Christianity is metaphysically expedient for British man, i.e. whether British people can actually legitimately acquire higher spiritual knowledge through this borrowed religion. What I am arguing are the very same *deeper reasons* for adopting/accepting/validating a religion which I said it was ingenuine not to discuss in the prior comment. 39
Posted by h.kalervo on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:32 | # Guessedworker wrote: “it’s hardly news that extract of Christianity, when heated by revolutionary war and regicide, and passed through a rational filter for three centuries, emerges as the political faith known as advanced liberalism.” What is this “Christianity” you speak of ? Surely it’s not the tribal exclusivist laws of the Jews, which were later mistranslated as universalist laws by the Europeans. So what is it ? Is universalism in our genes, as MacDonald argues, or is it not ? Try to decide which one you want to believe. Our individualism-universalism certainly wasn’t the product of any JEWISH religious influence. If you can’t keep the basics straight, how are you going to make the world straight ? Serious question. 40
Posted by PF on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:57 | # h.kalervo wrote:
There are many ways to interpret texts; anything that isn’t a cake recipe can take on 100 shades of meaning, religious works can take on thousands. As we are having this conversation in the context of European history, I take GW to mean that particular dispensation of Christianity which Europeans practiced. It sounds like you are alleging that Christianity didn’t fail us, we failed it, by interpreting it the wrong way, is that accurate?
With specific regard to this question, until we can have another 1,500 years to develop absent Jewish influences, we can’t really claim to having a control group. An authoritarian foreign religion could close European man’s spiritual window and force him into the world of materiality. In this frosty place, full of reason and explanations, the illusion of separateness looms all the more large, and people dont wax poetic about social bonds which they perceive rationally. So forcing them to either accept the authority of foreign access routes to pre-rational realms, which to them are no access routes, or live enclosed in rationality, they do the latter. Consider it this way: Rationality splinters. And, rationality is all we have, if you instinctively reject/accept JC the way most Englishmen do, i.e. accept it nominally/authoritatively/imitatively and reject it spiritually. 41
Posted by h.kalervo on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:33 | # Either you believe in evolution and the decisive influence of many millenia of Germanic wandering in the resource-scarce North, or you believe that a Jewish fairy tale tamed the Germanic tribes in a couple hundred years because fairy culture has the powers of a fairy lord and genes don’t matter. If the former, then you must admit that the Germanic tribes adopted Christianity either because it appealed to their instincts, or because they actually transformed it and made it a religion of their own. You think we have been corrupted. But actually nothing has changed. The vast majority of whites aren’t miscegenating. Our mainly Jewish media elites promote miscegenation. There’s a difference here. The vast majority of whites retain their distaste for racial mixing both in instinct and deed, and even the feet of liberals reveal the racial allegiance of even their instincts. Nobody has been deeply corrupted. There remains a vast disconnect between the real wishes of the masses and what their hostile elites would prefer the masses to wish. The U.S. had to be nine-elevened into Iraq. No one would’ve gone otherwise, except Paul Wolfowitz with his own private UFO (kidding). Mass immigration is popular NOWHERE (not kidding). It’s the elites who are facilitating mass immigration. They are doing so because they are paid to do so. The majority of us are not reacting very strongly to that, because we never react very strongly to collective threats that aren’t OBVIOUS and perceived as GREAT. That’s because we are individualist, as per MacDonald. This doesn’t stop us from preferring the white face in our private dealings. OBVIOUS threat. How to make slow boiling an obvious threat? Is there any great threat to begin with? War would be an obvious threat, and this is why war always brings out our latent nationalism. In normal times, we are simply too individualist to give a fuck. Don’t you get it? The problem isn’t miscegenation, since almost nobody is miscegenating. Liberals aren’t having children in the first place, how could they miscegenate? Sorry, the problem is our low birth rates. Sure, there are many people who date people of other races because they are losers and can’t get anyone of their own race to date them, but they rarely get far enough to reproduce themselves, which can hardly be a bad thing. The problem is low white birth rates. Christianity is taking care of that, even as we speak. Churches began to promote “tolerance” (not quite the same as race mixing, mind you) in the U.S., because the U.S. government used every financial and tax trick in their book to force them to. I wouldn’t worry too much about that, since people have this ability to talk whatever rubbish is socially acceptable while telling the truth with their feet. Christianity remains a white religion of whites who make white children. Humans are social animals. They speak and smile whatever is expected of them. They keep doing what their instincts expect of them. 42
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:52 | # “Advanced liberalism’ is a canard. Any ideology that embraces anti-discrimination cannot be reconciled with a liberal view of society. Anti-discrimination is a doctrine designed to promote a particular group’s EGI and since they believe Christians are idolaters, who worship a dead Jew, it is hard to belief a learned man would issue such a missive. Universalism, as defined by Gandhi, for one, is the belief that “the fundamental Truth of all great religions…is God given”. Christianity, however, was discriminatory. In order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you must believe in Christ. For those who do not believe will be denied to His Father. However, groups like the Unitarians,
who trace their history back to Arianism, for whom Christ is a prophet but not divine, are quite happy to embrace Gandhi’s fundamental truth. It is, however, difficult to see them as Christians because they deny the divinity of Christ. 43
Posted by h.kalervo on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:23 | # Just to clarify… When I speak of universalism, I usually mean moral universalism. “Thou shalt not kill” is universalist, because it applies to everyone on two levels. It’s a law everyone should follow, and it doesn’t exclude anyone from its protection. In contrast, “thou shalt not murder anyone of your own tribe”, is no longer universalist. It applies only to members of the tribe. When I speak of liberals, I rarely mean to speak of any sort of classical liberalism, which is now more or less extinct. Real libertarianism wouldn’t be anti-discriminatory, because a community has a right to decide what kind of people they want to live with. There are prices, and not just the obvious ones. Needless to say, even America is not free-market liberal. The U.S. government is IMPOSING “tolerance” on everyone, including Europe, as it happens, and FORCING independent institutions, such as churches, to impose it on others in turn. You want to know your enemy? Then learn to know the U.S. government. Once you’ve dealt with that enemy, dealing with the Jewish finance and media hegemony is a cakewalk. And once you’ve dealt with THAT, no JQ remains. Actually, the best you can do is promote Christianity and decentralization and have children. 44
Posted by Frank on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:00 | # British liberalism = suicide American liberalism = assisted suicide 45
Posted by danielj on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:44 | # When I speak of liberals, I rarely mean to speak of any sort of classical liberalism Me too. I think most of us have an excellent understanding of the distinction Desmond but are used to using the term in the manner in which it is widely and presently understood. Universalism, as defined by Gandhi, for one, is the belief that “the fundamental Truth of all great religions…is God given”. In my opinion, this is really some kind of relativism, or nominalism if you prefer. Also, mind-blowing-ly hypocritical since Gandhi was pissed off about having to make way for whites in South Africa but had no qualms about the caste system in Indian. This is why I find the other definition of universalism to be more accurate and ‘utilitarian’. Although I touch that point tangentially in the above post, the central topic is whether Christianity is metaphysically expedient for British man I’m not British so I suppose I shouldn’t really give a shit. To me, what the issue seems to be is what the truth is and not whether it is metaphysically expedient. To me, there is no metaphysical system aside from the one promoted in the Bible that can account for rationality, the laws of logic, the validity of sense perception and the uniformity of the universe. There is much to say and no time. Perhaps, I’ll make it back today. 46
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:37 | # hk: spot on mate. 47
Posted by SUCH on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:19 | # Gorboduc: Was Jesus a brown communist? Do you speak Aramaic? Do you believe in Hell? Was Abraham an Aryan? Is Heaven full of white liberals? Is Hell full of social programs for the oppressed? 48
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:38 | # SUCH a pity. But I didn’t return here for such lugubriuos lucubrations, but to make the claim that protest, resistance and rebellion and reconstruction are somehow MORE FUN with Catholic support. Chesterton’s two warlike masterpieces are THE BALLAD OF THE WHITE HORSE, the tale of Alfred’s heroic battle against the Danes, and LEPANTO, the tale of how an unwilling-to-fight Europe, worn out by the Reformation, was saved by the Catholic fleet from the Moslem sea-power. THey are full of high spirits and tragedy: GKC refers to the Prophet as MAHOUND which will get the Moslems spitting as they don’t like dogs. Also, they assume as a sort of implicit, a sense of spirituality: GKC supposes a sort of pagan pessimism on the part of the Danes (before their conversion) and also of the Moslems (then, and for ever and ever, Amen) Belloc’s THE REBEL is a great hymn of hate and also puts forward, as GKC remarked, a strategy. 49
Posted by h.kalervo on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36 | # SUCH, You seem to have stuck to a stage of intellectual development which people like me passed while still in the cradle. I remain confident that a healthy baby could babble an answer to that: “At worst, Jesus is what you make of him. Your Bible was written in English. Hell is the dustbin of God. It’s where the genetic lines of failed experiments will go to spend an eternity. Oh yes. It’s really quite simple: no God, no future.” A related point: when the Romans had played conquerors long enough, they got bored and stopped having children. R.P. Oliver wrote about that. They didn’t even need the pill for it. They had found a way to have fun without having to bother about that pesky thing, future. And so the future was taken from them. Our non-Christian whites seem deadly bored, too. Futureless, one might say. Are you sure, O SUCH, are you sure you genuinely want the white race to survive and thrive? I MEAN, could it be? Have you yourself suspected it? You’re playing an Edgy Godless White Nationalist - out of boredom. Seriously, if you really wanted the whites to thrive, you would support Christianity. The math isn’t difficult: Christianity makes white women want to have children instead of good plus careers “and maybe one sick child when I’m forty-five and ready to spoil my body”. The numbers are easy: fifty thousand years without God, we spent it waving around our dicks; then came Jesus and soon after we started sending men to the moon. Anyone can do the calculus: over 90% of all the major geniuses we’ve had so far were all Christian. Then a couple of decades without God, and we’re back to waving around our condom dicks, mocking family life, and waiting secretly for death. Good plan, that. Except it’s not a plan. 50
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:37 | # This is really what I came on above for, until distracted by SUCH’s questionnaire. Three books on English spirituality as it was experienced here before, during and to some extent after the Reformation are by Eamon Duffy. 1) adopts a highly revisionist approach to the Reformation, and is highly critical of the “Whig” view of history. 51
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:42 | # hk, if I’d seen your post before beginning mine, I’d have said a prayer of thanks and asked a blessing for you. I do so now. 53
Posted by Divine Julius on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:23 | # Jesus Christ, the God who became man. Julius Caesar, the man who became god. Jesus Christ, betrayed by Judas, Julius Caesar, betrayed by Brutus. Jesus who predicted the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, Titus, the Son of God (Vespasian Caesar) who destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Constantine, Vespasian and Titus’ descendant who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. The version of the Old Testament in Greek was read far more than any Hebrew source, and of course the New Testament was written in Greek. The New Testament is considered by Jews to be the ultimate origin of anti-semitism. By the time Vespasian and Titus had conquered Palestine, Jews were known around the world as the race that killed God. The Church kept the Jews separate from Europeans for the next 2000 years. Christianity is the Eastern version of the cult of Divine Julius, specifically adapted to ruling the people in Near East, only a minority of which were Jewish. Christianity is so European and so anti-Jewish it’s a surprise to this day how people can’t see it; the Jews certainly recognize it which is why they hate Jesus. Christianity was invented to inoculate Europe from Judaism, it’s worked surprisingly well up to now. 54
Posted by GoyAmongYou on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:05 | #
At least the Catholic Church knew how to deal with the Hippies:
Just saying. 55
Posted by GoyAmongYou on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:07 | #
Paul had the idea of displaying moving pictures for group audiences, rather than just to individual viewers, and invented a film projector, giving his first public showing in 1895. At about the same time, in France, Auguste and Louis Lumière invented the cinematograph, a portable, three-in-one device: camera, printer, and projector. In late 1895 in Paris, father Antoine Lumière began exhibitions of projected films before the paying public, beginning the general conversion of the medium to projection (Cook, 1990). They quickly became Europe’s main producers with their actualités like Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory and comic vignettes like The Sprinkler Sprinkled (both 1895). Even Edison, initially dismissive of projection, joined the trend with the Vitascope within less than six months. The first public motion-picture film presentation in Europe, though, belongs to Max and Emil Skladanowsky of Berlin, who projected with their apparatus “Bioscop”, a flickerfree duplex construction, November 1 through 31, 1895. That same year in May, in the USA, Eugene Augustin Lauste devised his Eidoloscope for the Latham family. But the first public screening of film ever is due to Jean Aimé “Acme” Le Roy, a French photographer. On February 5, 1894, his 40th birthday, he presented his “Marvellous Cinematograph” to a group of around twenty show business men in New York City. 56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:35 | #
Good point. The problem is, the Catholic Church are now become the hippies. What do we do now? Answer: secede from the Hippie-ridden Catholic Church. Those who do will be the True Catholic Church. Of course, Gorbo doesn’t want to hear that. 57
Posted by ChristianPowerLight on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:10 | # Let’s get together and promote side-hugs. White power! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Oj0-splZw&feature=player_embedded 58
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:26 | # The Catholic Church is doubtless something of a curate’s egg for those fortunate enough to know its operatives on a first hand, residential basis : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6932430.ece http://markcoughlan.com/thy-brothers-keeper/ In the words of the Jagger and Richards song ‘Start Me Up’ - “You make a grown man cry”. 59
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:20 | # Dear Al, and then consider the true situation as revealed at: then - even if only 10% of it is true - it’s still a shocking indictment of the behaviour of the Catholic Church today. Be advised, the whole thing is post Vatican II- it starts in 1975. That’s some years after spirit of the modern world, the spirit of liberalism (private judgment) or Protestantism, that sways some of the more aggressively secular contributors here, began seriously to infect the church. 60
Posted by danielj on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:06 | # To me, as a Catholic, it’s a dreadful reminder of what can easily happen when the Church loses her way and becomes infected with liberal values, ultimately stemming from the Reformation. Everyday I thank Christ for the Reformation that pulled men out of the darkness of Catholicism although sometimes, I imagine a cheap indulgence would be so much easier than actually having to know the Scriptures and live a life reflecting the commands contained therein. I feel like it might be easier to just unthinkingly bow to the “authority” of the church instead of the authority of the Scriptures. You and I know those “liberal” Protestant values are really consist of values like reading, owning a Bible, proper administration of the Sacraments, covenantal theology, etc. Still, it must be that silly fucker Calvin that is responsible for unleashing that awful torrent of modernity exemplified primarily by the sickly ethic and endorsement to work, the overturning of the oh-so-successful Catholic “laws” against usury, hyper-rationalism and the destruction of authority predicated by his emphasis on individual faith. It has to be Calvin even though we in the Protestant camp have no Vatican II to speak of - no great liberalizing of our faith. It is the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity that make sense to me and fortunately I can accept Aquinas and Augustine in my tradition without too much trouble. However, we mustn’t indict the church for its unreasonable insistence that the invented and unscriptural office of priest be manned by horny young men forced into celibate service of our Lord. The church is still Catholic and still invisible but it isn’t Roman Gorbo. 61
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:46 | # danielj - we of course have a lot of common ground, as CS Lewis pointed out, and for that we should be grateful. Still, what is it that allows you to speak of the authority of the Scriptures? Or of the “proper administration” of the Sacraments? Whom do you respect more, Abbott Whiting or the butchers that ripped up his guts? Still, the main question is prompted by the original essay at top - do you believe there’s a gene, possession of which makes for an infallible determinination without any argument at all that a religion that’s supposedly “Oriental” has to be rubbish? 62
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:12 | # Actually PF’s original title is a bit mind-boggling. When he’s demonstrated that it can’t, then he can go on to account for this failure. It’s a bit like my calling an essay “Why GW and PF must always be wrong”. They would feel a bit short-changed if I then produced a series of variations on the theme, “Well, they’re Darwinians!” with the unspoken and therefore unexamined assumption that Darwinians can never be right on anything… 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:16 | # do you believe there’s a gene, possession of which makes for an infallible determination without any argument at all that a religion that’s supposedly “Oriental” has to be rubbish? The faith gene is one argument, Gorb. The alienness of the Abramic is another. The one is not connected to or dependent upon the other. 64
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:28 | # What an idiotic posting by PF. PF you certainly don’t know anything about Christianity, Europe or history or race. You have written a flim-flam article of shallow observations of the current state of affairs. Most of the problems of today is because of Freemasonry and not of Christianity. The Catholic Church has always taught the suppression of the Jews. It was Atheists and haters of Christianity that gave the Jew free reign and it is this multiculturalism and liberalism which is fueled by the Jews and their offspring of freemasonry that is destroying Europe and races. Not Christianity. Don’t you know PF that the Church is infiltrated by practicising Socialists and Freemasons? No, you don’t target these groups but you hate what you don’t know. It is the Atheists and christian haters that released the Jews, destroyed the Church that unleashed the powers that are destroying you! What do you think the American and French Revolutions were? Christian? They were Masonic! They were all About the Novus Ordo! You, PF, are complaining about the wrong things. First off the Official Old Testament of the Christian Church is the Septuagint written in Greek! Last time I checked, Greek is an European Language. The New Testament was solely written in Greek! How can the New Testament be Jewish? The Trinitarian concept of God is Jewish? Jesus Christ as God/Man is a Jewish concept? Christianity is a Greek religion. If anything the real founder of Christianity is Plato and the last time I checked Plato was a Greek! Even Christ said to his own tribesmen, that the faith will be taken away from you and GIVEN TO ANOTHER RACE. Christianity is not a Jewish Religion but a Greek religion. PF you don’t really know anything. You are an ignorant ass spreading lies and atheistic paganistic lies for your agenda. Your pagan forefathers all left your pagan Nordic religion for a true religion that offers salvation, purification and union with a real God. None of your pagan religions do that. And who just who drove the Muslims out of Spain, PF? Who drove the Muslims off the sea? Remember the Battle of Lepanto? Adolf Hilter rejected Christianity and who killed more people? Socialists and Communists have. Europe voted to remove Christianity with the American and French Revolutions!!!!! It was the European Elite and Peasants that divorced themselves from Christianity and adopted the tolerance and Diversity of FreeMasonry. You changed religions, freed the Jews!!! You adopted a New religion of “”“FREEDOM”“”“. YOU MADE YOUR BED——Now lie in it——AND STOP BLAMING CHRISTIANITY—-you ignorant peeon. 65
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:42 | # GW: I’m aware that you treat the “faith gene” as an argument. Now looky here - all short words, no more than three syllables. If you’re going to answer - and this thread has been around for a bit - PLEASE don’t use EPISTEMOLOGY or even ONTOLOGY or PHENOMENOLOGY. Please. Does alienness convey a moral quality? 66
Posted by danielj on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:18 | # danielj - we of course have a lot of common ground, as CS Lewis pointed out, and for that we should be grateful. Indeed we do and I am. Still, what is it that allows you to speak of the authority of the Scriptures? Or of the “proper administration” of the Sacraments? I’m not saying the church has no authority. Why is Catholicism “dark”? That isn’t what I meant. That was ‘loose’ and imprecise talk and I should be more circumspect but the medium doesn’t exactly encourage that. Whom do you respect more, Abbott Whiting or the butchers that ripped up his guts? The Abbott. Still, the main question is prompted by the original essay at top - do you believe there’s a gene, possession of which makes for an infallible determinination without any argument at all that a religion that’s supposedly “Oriental” has to be rubbish? Of course there is no “faith” gene. I spend a majority of my time here disputing the idea of genetic determinism and physicalism. 67
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:56 | # I am listening to the Kai Murros interview by John Giles who I am supposing is “PF” because the same reasonings of PF is spouted by John Giles. Giles interupts Kai Murros with “the Christian preachers here all preach this ‘all men are equal’” stuff. I really wonder—-do you guys know what is going on? This “All men are equal” of Thomas Jefferson is NOT a biblical teaching—-but a Masonic teaching! It is NOT Christianity. It is not Biblical either. What has happened is that Masonic teaching has corrupted Christianity. Christian leaders either knowingly or not have adopted Masonic/Marxist teaching! So why are you blaming Christianity—-when you should be blaming Jews and Masons? Judiasm and Masonry go together. That is why when you read traditional Catholic texts they attack “Judeo-masonic-bolshevism”. It is all the same “Jews, Masons, and Commies”. It’s all Jewish! Even Protestantism is a Judiazed version of true orthodox Christianity! Catholicism is an European religion. Who has kept all the old European traditions of a tree, easter egg, halloween? Protestants—-or Catholics? All those old European traditions are European ensconced in an European religion called Catholicism. Protestantism is a heresy—a Judiazed version of Christianity. “To Judiaze” is anathemitized by all the early church councils! “All Men are equal” is a Judeo/Masonic/Bolshevist error/lie/untruth. Instead of attacking Catholicism that built Western Civilization and Culture—-start defending her! And attack Judiazing Protestantism, Freemasonry and Liberalism. 68
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:41 | # Despite what ignorant Roman Catholics believe,Freemasonry’s tenets and its adherents do not claim that every man is equal. The claim is of equality between ‘men of worth’- quite different altogether and, as a classification, unlikely to include the many Roman Catholic child abusers from both clergy and laity. 69
Posted by danielj on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:44 | # Despite what ignorant Roman Catholics believe,Freemasonry’s tenets and its adherents do not claim that every man is equal. The claim is of equality between ‘men of worth’ Which would include people of all kinds of races. 70
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:16 | # Yes, danielj, that is correct. Although this Masonic precept cannot, in and of itself, be interpreted as an understanding that race does not exist or that nations should not protect their people from racially alien interlopers. Ask Nick Griffin’s father, who is one of the top members of the Craft in the English Constitution, if he opposes the BNP stance on immigration and you are likely to receive a dusty answer. No White Freemason would abase himself before a ‘brother’ of another race in the disgusting manner of Barack Obama when he bowed long and low before both the Japanese Emperor and the Saudi Arabian monarch. 71
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:39 | # Gorboduc, the whereabouts of the ‘faith gene’ is certainly a three pipe problem, a bit like the location of the much vaunted ‘soul’. 72
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:27 | # Gorboduc, I owe you a reply to your post which ended with your “emphasis upon the need to follow” the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings. This may be all well and good, at least for believers in the Supernatural. Unfortunately, for ordinary, rational Brits like myself who read The Telegraph and are confronted with the sheer evil of senior Roman Catholic clergy at the apex of the Jesus business, whose knowledge of RC lore ( masquerading as theology) must surely dwarf your own, an optimistic exhortation seems an inadequate response. It should be obvious what is happening here, viz., the hierarchy of the RC Church don’t believe a word of what they teach but are acutely aware that their power, prestige, pleasure and profit all depend on the ovine flock who turn up on Sunday to be blessed by a spiritual lollipop from the local priest. 73
Posted by danielj on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:44 | # Gorboduc, the whereabouts of the ‘faith gene’ is certainly a three pipe problem, a bit like the location of the much vaunted ‘soul’. There is no problem with the location of the soul. In fact, it is right where it has also been in an immaterial realm just where all the other forms are. All kinds of other things exist there too; trianularity, the laws of logic, geometric proofs, etc. It is basic Aristotlean metaphysics Al and if you need to get better acquainted with them I can send you some books. 74
Posted by danielj on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:46 | # Ugh. Sorry. where it has also been = where it has always been trianularity = triangularity 75
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:02 | # Good Lord, your sort read books, danielj? How extraordinary. I suppose the Christian shaman dropped them off at the prison library for you. 76
Posted by danielj on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:20 | # Aristotle wasn’t a Christian Al. Ad hominem is a fallacy Al. Yes, I did read lots of books in prison Al. 77
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:39 | # Al Ross, do you speak with authority on the tenets of masonry? 78
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:51 | # Sound chap, Aristotle. Perhaps he still believes in immaterial stuff. His shade will appreciate your posts then. All that the statement of “ad hominem is a fallacy” is meant to do, in this case as in so many others, is to avoid the obvious necessity of considering the source. It is Marxoid in nature, being related to “don’t be so defensive” when one counters a Leftist lie. Autodidactism, even of the compulsory, taxpayer - funded variety, has its admirers, no doubt, but one can sympathise with the intelligent observer who succinctly remarked, “A self taught man has a fool for a teacher”. 79
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:53 | # Al, I’ve just seen your reply to danielj. And yes, I know it’s Melanie ...so what? 80
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:08 | # Daniel: Of course there is no “faith” gene. I spend a majority of my time here disputing the idea of genetic determinism and physicalism. Genes are themselves determined by natural selection. Natural selection biases for fitness gain. A bias that regulates for adaptive life choices and maximises intra-ethnic trust into the bargain is itself a substantial fitness gain. Hence that bias has been genetically coded, and its phenotypic expression emotionalised as faith-feeling. It is an evolved faculty of the human brain, produced in the pre-frontal cortex (higher emotional complex). It is not a pre-requisite for the witness of being, ie higher “religious” or “spiritual” function. I will repeat that because it is important: Faith is NOT a factor contributing to the capacity of men to witness being through presence, perception and consciousness. Faith is also as sticky and stubborn as hell, and nobody who has an expressed faith gene, so to speak, will accept this certain testament. But that is exactly why faith is a human faculty ... to pressage adaptive behaviour no matter what. I can’t complain. And, anyway, I don’t want to destroy anybody’s faith-feeling. 81
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:08 | # Oh, and BTW, Al, your “succinct” and “intelligent” observer was stating a prejudice, not a fact. Doubtless GW and PF have got their PhDs: if not, away with them! 82
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:09 | # Gorboduc, I spoke with authority on one tenet, viz., the ‘man of worth’ qualification. The Grand Lodges of various Constitutions in mutual amity would consider this a prerequisite. If you do not believe this then look up your local UK Yellow Pages (like all Secret Society venues, Masonic Halls feature in such directories) and call, speak to a Lodge officer and enquire whether or not this is so. If I had written “intelligent Roman Catholics” what would you have inferred from that phrase? Then do likewise, please. 83
Posted by G on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:24 | # GW, on the principle that “what I say three times is true” could you please say it once more and then the scientific proof should be quite clear: but please could you say it in English as the polysyllabic orutundity of the externalised innate expressiveness of the notionallistically-derived integrity of the intellectualised conceptually-orintated expressiveness of this particulate portion of genetic theorisation is somewhat obnubilated by the obfuscatory sesquipedalian verbiage impressively manipulated at the present location 84
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:33 | # At risk of breaking my own injunction to refrain from direct challenge to religious belief, I will make a short addition to my last comment. Among all advocates of theism, and especially among monotheists, the final argument in reason for God, before all falls to faith alone, is that a mechanical process such as evolution cannot produce a moral universe. This is a fundamental, perhaps wilfull misreading not only of “good” in evolutionary terms, which is very plainly delineated and is not different to the good in common moral systems, but of the human condition itself, and human potential also. The real final argument in reason for God, which I have made many times, should be this: Why does Man possess the potential to witness being if this is not contingent on and to the evolutionary process? I have not found a satisfactory answer to this riddle. Not yet. 85
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:36 | # Al, yes, yes, I know. 86
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:40 | # Sorry, Gorboduc, I forgot to explain the lollipop reference. All children are encouraged not to bite such comestibles, but rather suck them.. So, it necessarily follows that Roman Catholic Communion attenders, who wish to gain admittance to Yahweh’s multi - racial, celestial retirement community had better sheath their teeth during the proffering of the host and not bite old Jesus’s posterior or automatic entry may not be a given. 87
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:42 | # GW, I’m not surprised that no-one can answer your riddle: no-one can understand it. Can you? 88
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:47 | # Al. 89
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:49 | # Gorb, So, I am pilloried for not being able to specify at which frequency the complex of genes expressing as faith resides - something no lab technican or grand genetic theorist can do today. Yet, in acknowledgement of that, my attempt to speak as precisely as possible is mocked! I could as easily ask you to apply yourself more energetically (and more rigorously) to what I wrote. 90
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:15 | # Gorb, In a recent post - part 2 of an as yet unfinished trilogy - I noted that:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_2/ This is as close as I can get to answering the riddle of why we are sensate, and I think it is fit for purpose. However, there are degrees of calibration, if you will, in human sensory capacity, and these are, at the same time, degrees of difficulty and of scale and of transcendence. The problem for evolutionists is how to stretch the above answer to cover the capacity, rare though it may be, to sense the most recondite and transcendent “thing that is”, which is pure being. Now, with a few philosophical exceptions faithists - particularly Christian faithists - don’t generally address this knotty issue, and don’t have to because, as I said before, faith is not a pre-requisite for sensing, or witnessing, being. Faith is believing in “good”, which is quite a different, lighter and more social proposition. That said, I do not wish to abuse or belittle your belief in “good”, so I will not pursue this conversation further. 91
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:16 | # I have given it close attention and have looked at it from every which angle; one problem that it poses is that it seems to enshrine an illicit assumption, which is that I, as the riddle’s potential solver, must believe in the evolutionary process. I don’t. So I needn’t accept the terms of the riddle. 92
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:30 | # Well I’m gratified, Gorboduc, that you derived some humour from what must surely remain a serious religious dichotomy. We have heard much lately of the Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchy’s propensity to pedophilia. Some media fairness should be gained by Roman Catholics pointing out that the vast majority of their number evince little sexual interest in children and are, in fact, in love with a somewhat elderly Jew called Jesus ,who is, at best estimates ,around the age of 2000 or so. So, obviously the gerontophilia of the laity should act as a counter balance to the pedophilia of the clergy who, one suspects, might actually know what their strange deity requires of them. 93
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:49 | # Gorb, I know people and cats and trees, but I don’t know Man or Humanity, Cat or Felinity No, but I wrote, “there are degrees of calibration, if you will, in human sensory capacity, and these are, at the same time, degrees of difficulty and of scale and of transcendence.” genes for belief? Religious belief is a behaviour. Many behaviours are gene-expressions. Look, Gorb, perhaps you have not noticed that I am explaining the limitations of your worldview, based in faith, and of mine, based in reason, and I am showing what they have in common. I am trying to be emollient, for Chrissake! At any rate, I really do not wish to press this further, because then I would have to address the faith language endemic to the eastern transcendental tradition and, eventually, come back to attack your belief structure from two sides, not one. All of that I want to avoid. 94
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:21 | # Al: more Jewish Bolshevik humour. Or perhaps it’s R.P.Oliver. Gosh, you know Greek like GW knows Latin! Good old Hilaire Belloc coined one of those too, “Tuptophilist”, or.one who likes to strike. From tupto. You can supply the paradigm yourself. GW:Belief is not a behaviour. 95
Posted by 67only on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:35 | # This is nutty—a believer having to argue against the “faith gene”. Like J. de Maistre arguing for linguistic sanity sub specie ecclesiae. Despite the absurdity of his beliefs he can’t bring himself to believe in a gene determining those beliefs, and who can blame him? 96
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:36 | # Gorb, Belief is not a behaviour. Not the belief but the act of believing. My belief structure is not noticeably dented We are testing the accessibility of reason to your mind. I’m sure there is quite a bit really. I do not mean to be condescending, btw. Apologies for that. 97
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:38 | # A bit off topic: Phil Rushton here, 98
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:08 | # Of course, Gorboduc the best Roman Catholic truths comes from Ireland. Father O’Flynn is driving down Dublin’s O’Connell Street on a friday lunchtime and he’s late for a very important meeting with the Archbishop. There are no parking places so he decides to start praying: “Oh Lord, you know Oi’m late so would you ever foind me a parking place, please?’ Nothing doing, so the priest raises his eyes heavenward and says : “Oi promise if you foind me a parking place, Oi’ll give up me visits to Sweeney’s Tavern”. Still nothing doing. “Ah well, Oi’ll give up me visits to Paddy Powers betting shop”. Zilch again. “OK , if that’s the way of it I’ll give up buggering the little ones if you find me a parking place”. Immediately,as if by magic, a parking place appears and Father O’Flynn says : “Ah sure, never mind, I’ve found one”. 99
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:26 | # Thank you for that post, FB. Back to the real world again. 100
Posted by Frank on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:14 | #
That’s certainly where I stop, and I don’t see anything “beyond” this. If faith seems like a joke, then perhaps a more Hedonistic approach is in order: play the game of warrior to see whether or not you can save your people. I’m adding in a suggestion I’d prefer as tongue in cheek not to actually lead you… There are no answers outside of faith and attachment.
If we’re to bring the Creator down to our level by personifying Him: perhaps He was lonely or wanted His work to be appreciated. Is there anything more to ponder? 101
Posted by Frank on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:42 | # What’s more likely than a faith gene is that people in general tend to believe under certain circumstances, e.g. they have to struggle against some difficulty. They then seek out the reason for their struggling against the difficulty, and faith is the answer. It was paraphrased of Nietzsche in here earlier that the weak tend to be more spirited: struggle makes people desire something (dog competing for a tennis ball) or believe deeply. It might also be the seeking of euphoria as pf had mentioned elsewhere. Faith does grant euphoria… One has but to look on the peaceful eyes of the devout to know this. So, people who are prone to moderation and less bipolar might then be less prone towards faith. I’m assuming those prone to extremes are the ones who are most enticed by euphoria, though I don’t have any training in this area… That’s not to say the Holy Spirit doesn’t seek to save people, but faith resulting from struggle is a better explanation (more likely to have a higher correlation) than “faith gene”. - Darwinism looks at life and says “the strong survive”, but is this the ultimate purpose or merely the quality control and slight adaptation ability? It has yet to be explained how man made such a complex change from ape to man, but that belief issue aside (whether to put faith in Darwin’s theory): we don’t know the ultimate purpose of anything outside of faith which provides a foundation in what’s otherwise a void. Darwinism provides answers just as does Christianity, etc. A person could of course remain agnostic… 102
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:57 | # Frank, I don’t think you are a million miles away from where I would expect the truth to reside. Faith IS an evolved behaviour rooted in our genes, but I expect that the genes responsible for it are highly epigenetic - they can be switched on or off according to environment. Struggle, especially seriously life-threatening struggle, may well be a strong epigenetic influence. These genes are also absent in some people’s genotype, I believe, and you will find whole family lines where scarcely anyone is religious, beyond the norms for social acceptance. These folks may account for 20% or so of the northern European population this side of the water. The US figure is likely lower than that. The faithful majority includes all those who believe in teleological political theories, too - just another expression of “the gene”. Darwinism, btw, asserts that the “fit” pass on their genes. There is no purpose in this, only process, and you are not required to believe in it. Just to live is enough. 103
Posted by danielj on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:57 | # All that the statement of “ad hominem is a fallacy” is meant to do, in this case as in so many others, is to avoid the obvious necessity of considering the source. It is Marxoid in nature, being related to “don’t be so defensive” when one counters a Leftist lie. The source was Aristotle and the source of the logic is pretty much Aristotle too. No Jews involved really. Autodidactism, even of the compulsory, taxpayer - funded variety, has its admirers, no doubt, but one can sympathise with the intelligent observer who succinctly remarked, “A self taught man has a fool for a teacher”. Do you think Aristotle was a fool? Plato? Do you have a better metaphysic than either of theirs for me to subscribe to? Genes are themselves determined by natural selection. How do you know that? Only by begging the question I would submit. Natural selection biases for fitness gain. It doesn’t “bias” for anything really. You’re stealing concepts here; teleological ones. A bias that regulates for adaptive life choices and maximises intra-ethnic trust into the bargain is itself a substantial fitness gain. So not only is the gene “selfish” but the ‘intra-ethnic’ gene pool is selfish? Hence that bias has been genetically coded, and its phenotypic expression emotionalised as faith-feeling. You shouldn’t use the word ‘coded’ either since it also implies final cause. Faith ‘feeling’ is just another kind of qualia and not reducible to the material either. It is an evolved faculty of the human brain, produced in the pre-frontal cortex (higher emotional complex). It is not a pre-requisite for the witness of being, ie higher “religious” or “spiritual” function. Yes it is. You’ve just suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. I will repeat that because it is important: Faith is NOT a factor contributing to the capacity of men to witness being through presence, perception and consciousness. A testament to the goodness of God since now he can rationally condemn you by predicating his judgment upon your rebellion against his revealed creation that you so irrationally observe in your dispassionate and faithless way. Faith is also as sticky and stubborn as hell, and nobody who has an expressed faith gene, so to speak, will accept this certain testament. Stubborn genes?! Tango foxtrot? But that is exactly why faith is a human faculty ... to pressage adaptive behaviour no matter what. I can’t complain. And, anyway, I don’t want to destroy anybody’s faith-feeling. Then let us banish the subject. Stop letting people attack my rational faith behavior and I’ll stop responding. So, I am pilloried for not being able to specify at which frequency the complex of genes expressing as faith resides - something no lab technican or grand genetic theorist can do today. Sounds like science of the gaps to me. Among all advocates of theism, and especially among monotheists, the final argument in reason for God, before all falls to faith alone, is that a mechanical process such as evolution cannot produce a moral universe. My argument is that can’t produce a universe. Full stop. Why does Man possess the potential to witness being if this is not contingent on and to the evolutionary process? I have not found a satisfactory answer to this riddle. Not yet. Who are you to reply against God o man? That is the only answer you’ll get. The faithful majority includes all those who believe in teleological political theories It is the only rational thing to do. Even the non-sentient matter in the universe displays teleology. Acorns after all, sprout into oak trees and not rose bushes. Enough of this. Let’s move on. 104
Posted by PF on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:57 | #
PF sequesters the nugget. 105
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:46 | # Charles Darwin - Descent of Man [ 1871 ] Chapter III - Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals
The Faith gene notion is buncombe. 106
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:00 | # It’s a faith gene, Desmond, not a God gene. I mentioned the Khoisan on a recent thread. Their religion is centred wholly on personal advantage ... on petitioning the spirit for favours, often revenge. But for all that it is still a religion. Isn’t that what the old boy says. I really don’t see how you reach your ringing conclusion. Or why. 107
Posted by Frank on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:22 | #
I know that much, but the addition that man evolved from ape tends to be added in. That’s what I was referring to. I know the ideas but maybe not the proper lingo for discussing Darwin and evolution. Darwin himself mentioned the complexity of the human eye. Jumping from a “lower” being to man is a problem. An answer might one day be found, but the best that can be given is that it’s “most likely” and thus “reasoned”. 108
Posted by Frank on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:35 | # I don’t have the book on hand, but google provides:
109
Posted by Frank on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:57 | # GW, I don’t say this just to be polite, but I’ve enjoyed your discussions on this topic. You’ve carefully written each reply I think. I’m not siding against Daniel and Gorb, just pointing out that the effort is evident, and appreciated. 110
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:09 | #
What’s the difference?
Not at all.
High consciousness begets religion which puts you back at square one and that is “Darwinian evolution is inherently incompatible with the existence of human consciousness”. 111
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:12 | # Frank, Thank you for your kind words and for your fairness of mind. Desmond, What’s the difference? It does not have to reify divinity. It works with any notionally purposive element available. High consciousness begets religion What do you know about “high consciousness”, Desmond? Can you explain the process by which it is supposed to “beget religion”? If old Charles said that, btw, he was sadly mistaken. Look, Desmond, a moment’s serious thought should tell you that there are degrees of, let us say, reconditeness (or purity) of the object under investigation - to the extent that subject/object disappears. The witness of being can mean witness of the existent, of existence or, finally, of pure being. And alongside this there are degrees of emotional engagement in the act itself. Most men who perform this act are religious men, and they describe their experience in religious terms. Religion, therefore, can supply the terms of reference. But it is not in itself a religious act. That is an important distinction which I would expect a man like you, who is normally careful about such things, to respect. In any case, I recommend you to follow the thought-line for yourself and leave the quotes from Google Books for others. The birds, perhaps. The other day you conjured up a quote from a book on Anglo-Saxonism that was written by a real bunch of libbo anti-essentialists. You didn’t know it at the time because you hadn’t bothered to actually read the book you were quoting from. Think for yourself. 112
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:59 | # The protestations are transparent. It is apparent to anyone with eyes to see that it is imperative you establish this tomfoolery of the existence of a faith gene. Without it, you belief system collapses like a house of cards. In which case you are left with explaining, like Auster, why high consciousness is contra evolutionary theory. If consciousness is not adaptive, it does not find it’s origin in evolution, then from whence does it arise? It’s where you started five years ago, evolution if necessary, but not necessarily evolution. Have you actually read any of Darwin’s works? Guessedworker searching for God. 113
Posted by Gorboduc on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:24 | # Let’s have some more from Darwin on the eye.
I submit this gem as an instance of Darwin’s puny powers of reasoning, and of his sad lack of scientific method. I am not quoting from a text supplied by Google books ( concerning which you’ll find a much wider spread of (frequently downloadable) facsimiles of original editions at:
to which I can only add: “Really? why on earth not?” (This blatant evasion of responsibility is found on p.217 of my edition)
(Dawkins, ‘The God Delusion’ Black Swan, 2006: p.149.) Look it up in Dawkins. Only fair to him and you!
I just love GW’s pettish admonition that we naughty boys should leave the sacred texts to those who REALLY understand them, and that only approved quotations may appear here. 114
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:28 | # Desmond, Have you actually read any of Darwin’s works? I read some Darwin in and around my early twenties (Beagle and Origin), but not with due care - I was devouring literature in those days, and sometimes had three books on the go at the same time. Have you read Salter? He speaks of “some evidence” which “points towards an evolved psychological predisposition for producing religious commitment, perhaps explaining why athiests tend to embrace ostensibly secular ideologies with religious fervour”. There’s more, which I can unearth if you really want. When I must I think from scratch, however, and it isn’t my preferred method to build an intellectual career on footnotes, like you. 115
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:33 | # Gorb, I seem to recall that a year or so ago someone here - possibly Desmond - sunk the godly eye-theorists with some recent research findings. I’m not going to go searching through all the comments for it. But I do commend you to entertain a sliver of doubt. 116
Posted by White Preservationist on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:02 | # This was a great post. Do note though that large portions of the ‘Hebrew Bible’ are actually ancient Aryan scriptures co-opted by Jewry for their own religious and cultural enrichment—portions of the Biblical ‘wisdom literature’ especially like Ecclesiastes, Job, Proverbs, parts of Isaiah, and other books of the standard OT canon were outright stolen by Jews from ancient Aryans. A Jewish journalist back in the 1930s wrote an article entitled “A Real Case Against the Jews” explaining that Judeo-Christianity is a Jewish-imposed religion that has been used to weaken and subvert Western culture:
117
Posted by White Preservationist on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:18 | #
It is only one source, but an interesting 1889 book I am reading entitled Aryan Sun Myths: The Origin of Religions says throughout that worship of a Sun-like messianic figure always has been common amongst Aryan peoples the world over:
118
Posted by Gorboduc on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:26 | # I shall look forward to finding that. It’s actually Darwin’s skill as a scientific expoaitor that I’m querying, and Dawkins’s possibly unthinking desire to act as his fugleman that I’m attacking.
(Darwin, op. cit., p.215) No difficulty, by God! 119
Posted by Gorboduc on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:40 | # GW: I love the footnote gibe. You would love Anthony Grafton’s ‘The Footnote’ (Seuil/Faber, 1997) lots of informed comment on the rhetorical/propagandistic uses that sly twisters like Hume and Gibbon put the footnote to. Grafton is brilliant elsewhere on Renaissance forgeries of earlier ‘texts’. great on scholarly dishonesty, as good as Sokal and Bricmont. 120
Posted by Gorboduc on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:51 | # WP: Marcus Eli Ravage isn’t really all that devastating. Read C.S.Lewis ‘The Abolition of Man’ and you will find that the precepts MER picks up on - peace-making, fair treatment, avoidance of greed and cruelty - are all components of The Tao, or The Way, a code subscribed to by Buddha, Confucius, the ancient Egyptians, the makers of the Edda, Christ. They aren’t specifically Jewish at all, neither do they enfeeble the followers of the Tao! 121
Posted by Frank on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:52 | # Aryan World-view available at archive.org!! Quotes soon to follow. 122
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:52 | # Guessedworker, Agreed. It is an evidential based approach which yours is not. Your thought process, starting from scratch as it does, cares little about a lifetime of empirical study from which arose a scientific theory which for the past 150 years has not been falsified. No doubt it has served you well. However, in this instance you do not apply it. You continually acknowledged that religion is adaptive. How then, if faith is genetically based, some nebulous quasi-memetic psychological tendency, or a solid correlation with a VMAT2 type gene, that it is, in the European world, in decline. Thinking from scratch, it doesn’t, like the gay gene theory, make sense. Faith is adaptive, it produces a fitness benefit and thus produces more children with the gene. Why then, is faith in decline in the European world? 123
Posted by h.kalervo on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:09 | # You’re all off-topic. No Christianity = death. 124
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:18 | # Possibly it was the barbiplease thread where she illuminates the radically new approach called “Altitude”, no doubt originated from scratch by original thinker Ken Wilber and published in his newest book, Integral Spirituality.
Wilber is just another creationist. The only thing that keeps his religious cosmology breathing is the paucity of the fossiliferous record. There is no record. The whole process of evolving a wing from a leg by minute gradual random mutations is so far fetched as to be impossible to believe. Further, the intermediary mutations (half-wing) are not adaptive, neither can it run or fly, then, logically, some sort of explosive transformation took place. Thus the only miracle maker, taking a lowly land based reptile and making it Sky King, is the big guy upstairs. Now he pawns it off as some sort of pseudo-science that links metaphysics and science. The problem is it falls down because 1) it’s not falsifiable and 2) the fossil record betrays him.
Silver’s comment was pertinent.
125
Posted by danielj on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:35 | # The problem is it falls down because 1) it’s not falsifiable and 2) the fossil record betrays him. No it doesn’t. By your own admission there is practically no fossil record to begin with. Things don’t fossilize generally. If you hang your entire argument on that kid’s “find” you are bound to be disappointed. The only thing that keeps his religious cosmology breathing is the paucity of the fossiliferous record. The same fossil record that should annihilate your system of belief. Even without a consideration of philosophy, the evidence doesn’t lead to macro-evolution. 126
Posted by h.kalervo on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:15 | # Read Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps. 127
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:42 | # New signs of dignity, of backbone, of intelligence, of honesty, and best of all, of actually standing up to the Jews and to one of the most egregious moral criminals of the past two thousand years, Abe Foxman, instead of the hitherto standard Catholic policy of bending over on command and grabbing the ankles? Most refreshing Catholic news indeed reported today by Pat Buchanan: http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/091125_church_militant.htm . If this new Catholic attitude continues I may actually start showing up at mass on Sundays for a change! Why oh why oh why did the days of Father Coughlin have to end? Well, at least we have Bishop Richard Williamson today to guide us, teach us truth from falsehood, and lift our spirits! And if this new Catholic attitude persists, maybe we’ll have more like him. Look for an all-out Jewish counteroffensive. And if the Catholics are made of the right stuff, this time instead of cringing before the Jews they’ll let the egregious bigot and hater Abe Foxman and the ADL have a blast from the other barrel. Post a comment:
Next entry: Questions for Dan Roodt
|
|
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 SUCH on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:17 | #
I accept scriptures except when they use ethnographic studies or cite real magic to edify their claims.
This is to say nothing of Hare Krnsas running around chanting Occidentalist hymns and perpetuating eternal suffering or Steven Segal, buddhist pony-tail ass lord or Bahais.
Let’s all join a mystery bath-tub non-monotheistic heathen-unitarianist religion and damn the Abrahamic hordes to their own hell/personal Jesus.