Posted by Tanstaafl on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 01:31 | #

Because the other options are less appealing.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:01 | #

Simply ‘to be’.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:03 | #

Who is this “we”? Each man fights for his own reasons, which range from theological and ethical, to psychological and personal (or, more usually, some multiple combinations thereof).

Every serious WN could write a lengthy essay is response to this query. I’d like to hear why YOU (esp as an atheist) fight.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:37 | #

Is that comment directed at GW Mr. Haller?

Personally I’m an agnostic on ontotheological matters.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:57 | #

I’m getting into the poetry of Wallace Stevens.

This is a good one

The Death Of A Soldier (by Wallace Stevens)

Life contracts and death is expected,
As in a season of autumn.
The soldier falls.

When the wind stops and, over the heavens,
The clouds go, nevertheless,
In their direction.

The key line is about the absoluteness of death. Individually we cannot avoid this fate but via our collective life (personally via family and socially via our community) we can carry on. Why should we commit collective suicide?

If we, as a group, go into the dark night of history then we go forever.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:39 | #

Leon,

I am not this thing “an atheist”.  I am a man.  You are a man with a theistic prompting inside your head.  Regardless, both us have the same interest in life.  We do not actually require deities in order to take or even to moralise life-choices.  If you did not have the theistic prompting inside your head you would still make the same essential choices.  You would not be incapable of finding what is.  You would not be a less good man.  You would not go to hell.

Posted by Fred on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:08 | #

It is simply preservationist?  Or is it distant, glorious and aspirational?

Both work for me.  Then again, I’m simple.

Posted by Andy on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:08 | #

I despise lies, hypocrisy, and double standards, and nowhere is this disgustingness more prevalent than in race-relations.  I don’t think it’s as noble as fighting for kin, but it’s what fires me up more than anything.  I simply cannot stand the bullshit that the whole anti-white regime is built upon.

Posted by Snow Walker on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:20 | #

Because we (white men of Germanic / Celtic heritage) have always been fighters by our very nature. That has made our culture possible.

Our attempted re-education over the past 60 years has taken away most of the fighting spirit in most men and some of the spirit in some of us. But there is still a tireless minority of white males who still have the spirit and who will re-ignite the FLAME!

Posted by Guest Lurker on Sun, 17 Jul 2011 02:04 | #

Every serious WN could write a lengthy essay is response to this query. I’d like to hear why YOU (esp as an atheist) fight.

Leon, I’m curious, even though this might not be pertinent to this thread. If you’ve already addressed it elsewhere, please post the thread link. I’m wondering, do you as a Christian really literally believe the Jesus tale, or are you a proponent of Christian metaphysics solely for its ethical ramifications because you perceive it as being the ethical foundation of Western Civilization?

Thanks

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:05 | #

GW - I cannot believe the sneering idiocy you encountered on that forum. We really are the serious one - aka the ‘grown-ups’ among a population of children.

Posted by anon on Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:41 | #

I, too, was shocked by the utterly teenage tone of that bunch. That forum is a liberal pit. Do they really call themselves nationalists, this assortment of twats, prigs and believers? No different from the outbreak of leftist rabies that engulfed Dawkins not long ago.

In fairness, it is a perfectly lame question to ask. As of now, we resist; the right to actually fight must be won.

Posted by Selous Scout on Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:01 | #

Because I love the West.

Because I love White people.

To exact revenge.

To escape the humiliations.

To be able to kill for a meaningful, righteous cause.

To become what I was meant to be.

For many of the same reasons our people have always fought.

But mostly, for revenge.

Unlike a lot of men in the ‘movement,’ I have enormous blood-lust that I hope and pray will be satisfied in my life-time.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:31 | #

Mr. Haller - stumbled across this and thought of you.

No use crying over spilt milk

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 17 Jul 2011 23:18 | #

If the ‘rational’ liberal life leads to the nihilistic life, what are the consequences of a life-world with the organising ‘principle’ of nothingness? What would it mean, in brute, concrete terms, to live a ‘so-called’ rational life according the insight of the nihilistic liberal? What would be the ultimate consequence of applying the hypothesis of non-meaning to every belief, every thought, every action, every emotion, every purpose, and every goal? To nausea, to fear,to love, to terror?

Death and non-being is its endpoint. Liberalism is ultimately a collective death-cult. But our being in the world is precious and worth fighting for both individually and collectively.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:36 | #

Graham,

I suppose it is conceivable that some kind of non-attachment rather than nihilism is the estate that liberalism seeks, out of which the “free liberal” would emerge through self-authorship.  Or something like that.  Of course, it cannot work because non-attachment is not a permanent process of denial of Nature but a rather temporary withdrawal from what, psychologically, is acquired unconsciously from the world at large - something liberals have never twigged because they are stuck with Lockean thinking and its 20th century Jewish attenuations.

One should bear in mind, meanwhile, that nihilism is a more direct product of forces which, during the 20th century, have used the cover of the liberal thought, left and right, to dispossess, de-Nature and dissolve European Man.  Those forces can be tribal, working through the usual channels, or they can be globalist, working through not only those but through supranationalism and through the secret state.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:30 | #

This is not bravado speaking ...

Know what’s funny? I feel much more in tune with Selous Scout (and to a lesser extent, Andy) than with those with more exalted motives. I’d like to think my Christian commitment would overpower hates, and allow me to remain just even in wartime (not that I wouldn’t exterminate a mob of feral savages without thought or conscience; I’ve always been brutal and beyond moral conventions where my sense of cosmic justice is offended). But I’m really not sure ... I question my motives. In theory, I am moved by a love of the moral virtues, and a perfectly rational and righteous sense of victimhood. Our race is the truly oppressed one, and that it is also objectively superior, and therefore ethically possessed of superior rights and prerogatives, only adds to my outrage (I have no time for the “multiculturalism-of-the-Right” meme, the one where we protest that we really only want equality for whites who are in fact treated as second class citizens in their own homelands; true, but not the issue).

But in practice, I can barely stand the presence of nonwhites in any physical proximity to me (unless attractive and female) when I am in any Western land (Orientals in HK, Hispanics in Mexico, etc, obviously don’t bug me, unless they’re personally rude to me).

Certainly, all my intellectual work in the future will be in part an exercise in revenge, as well as a pursuit of fairness for my people. I am a prisoner under a totalitarian regime, and seeking to undermine that regime’s philosophical foundations is my small way of resisting and hurting it.

Note, however, that my dislike of nonwhites pales next to my extreme hatred for white race-liberals. I’ve always been perfectly serious when I have called for (here, but especially in years past at Amren, Chronicles and takimag) post-revolutionary trials for race-traitors. Those who maliciously sought to destroy our race and civilization must be tried, convicted and painfully executed. I absolutely see no contradiction between such righteous revenge and necessary (for the population at large) and instructional extirpating of PC sentiment, such cleansing of the culture, and my commitment to the compassionate Christ. Justice must be served; we will be merciful Christians insofar as only the guilty (and not per pagan practices, their families) will suffer.

On another note: should I respond to Guests Worker and Lurker? I’d like to, but am afraid I’d be writing for an hour. I have some other internet stuff to do, and will think in the meantime about how I can provide short answers.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:24 | #

Leon,

I am not this thing “an atheist”.  I am a man.  You are a man with a theistic prompting inside your head.  Regardless, both us have the same interest in life.  We do not actually require deities in order to take or even to moralise life-choices.  If you did not have the theistic prompting inside your head you would still make the same essential choices.  You would not be incapable of finding what is.  You would not be a less good man.  You would not go to hell. (GW)

So much could be said.

Speaking only for myself, the answer is “not really”. That is, I am a far more ethical person because of my religious belief than I would be otherwise.

While I am not by nature cruel, neither am I particularly kind. I have to force myself to be so. I’m essentially very selfish, can’t stand being bothered by others, and am largely indifferent to the plight of the suffering. Without what Vonnegut mocked (I forget where - Sirens of Titan? Cat’s Cradle?) as the “Great Eye in the Sky”, why should I ever do anything truly moral (that is, an act which is self-sacrificing)?

I do not believe in the possibility of effective morality without God. Yes, morality exists independent of God, as does math, but it is not compelling in His absence. (“Without God all is permitted”, as Dostoyevsky had it in The Grand Inquisitor section of The Brothers Karamazov, if memory serves.) I think murder can be shown to be wrong in itself, quite apart from its violation of divine command. But tell that to a savage; what does he care? In the absence of God, why should I not be a savage? At the very least, and of relevance to MR, why not exterminate the Other (if we had the capacity to do so)? Please don’t feed me that anthropomorphizing genetic interests stuff. You and I both know that our individual as well as racial GI would be massively improved if the African race were eliminated. They survive because God would be hurt if we exterminated the lot of them (which does not imply a positive duty of any kind to increase the African GI, say by advancing their reproductive fitness through aid and vaccination programs, which I, even as a Christian, staunchly oppose, at least in the absence of countervailing, mandatory contraceptive measures).

What you don’t seem to recognize, GW, is that your fundamental moral attitudes, which you strangely seem to think your own (how very liberal of you!), are really the residual products of your ancestors’ Christian heritage. But how quickly those residues evaporate! A couple of generations without the metaphysical reinforcement and its attendant cultural conditioning, and all is lost. Just look at England. Formerly, one of the most civilized of nations (I remember the many old English people my family knew back in the 70s, very proper, stereotypically ‘old-school’, would be horrified at Britain’s decline if still alive); today, following a half-century or more of active and passive de-Christianization, and the typical Englishman, esp below a certain age, is either a vicious prole, or a pusillanimous foreign-race ass-kisser (note how rare is the non-Christian, yet still patriotic and civilized and humane Westerner; wait until the next generation, and the one after that worse yet!).

You are a dying specimen, one not being replaced (culturally, but increasingly literally). Without God, without divine command, your nationalism is just another preference, like being liberal or queer, or supporting nationalized health care or Manchester United. Thus, in very partial answer to Guest Lurker, I would say that the white race will not survive apart from a return to a racially-renovated Christianity. I truly believe that demonstrating the compatibility between Christian moral commitment and white preservationist policies is the major theoretical task facing intellectual nationalists. (In furtherance of that end I am shortly renting out my home, moving across country and returning to school to pursue a doctorate in Catholic Theology, with a heavy philosophical course load, however.) I would assert this even if I rejected all supernaturalism. But I do not. That is (if possible, I will expand on this tomorrow), I do actually believe in the historical/empirical facticity of Christ and His resurrection. I’ve discussed why I believe so here at MR at an earlier time (sorry, I don’t know how to find the thread). I will try to do so again tomorrow, though I’m very busy arranging my move, etc.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:34 | #

I posted this at several places in specific response to Graham, but failed to catch his attention. It seems relevant here as well, and thus I re-post:

Dr. Lister,

I just don’t have time to respond adequately to your post, except to say that I perceive no contradiction in my position. Where have I stated that God is absolutely omnipotent? Can God make logic illogical, or 2+2=5? No, He cannot. I have never held or stated otherwise.

That morality exists independently of God’s will does not mean that He cannot violate it (only that He does not), nor that any being other than God can fully comprehend it. That is, morality exists independently of God, but only God in His omniscience can fully recognize the moral ‘totality’ inherent in any particular situation. Humans can only approximate perfect knowledge of morality, though to a higher degree in some instances (like a savage raping and strangling a young girl) than in others (eg, should we ‘pull the plug’ on terminally ill people for reasons of cost, even if they might be artificially prolongued in life for some short additional period?).

Nevertheless, God is the ground of morality because only His existence makes it meaningful. With God, man becomes something other than merely a “hyper-social primate”, and his actions thus take on metaphysical/moral significance. Without God, man’s actions are nothing more than an animal’s, and animals act by instinct only, not by reason. If a lioness tends to her cubs, it is not a freely chosen act of personal sacrifice, but a genetically programmed instinct which compels such behavior.

There is no morality or purpose in nature, and without God, there is no ontological distinction between humans and other animals. Why be moral then? At best, we could agree out of enlightened self-interest to submit to a Hobbesian despotism in order to forestall the “warre of all on all”, and thus win for ourselves the benefits of social cooperation and division of labor. My following the law would be based likewise on enlightened self-interest.

But that is moral mimickry, not morality, the essence of which, as intimated, is not simply following authoritarian rules whose purpose is to facilitate human material advance and conflict avoidance, but rather, personal sacrifice for the good of another. Without God as Judge, such sacrificial action would be merely ridiculous (indeed, evolutionarily maladaptive). I would never rape a woman because rape is deeply repellant to me (and not just for Christian reasons: I also would personally recoil from such behavior as a matter of my own, genetically programmed instincts - which, however, do not extend in all directions: I would lose not a minute’s sleep over exterminating enemy combatants, especially if they were nonwhite - as well as hurt pride, which also precludes my ‘renting’ whores (ie, I shouldn’t have to steal it or ‘pay’ for it, in my self-estimation)). But without God, I would not desist from embezzlement or any other crime which suited me, and which rational calculation considered prudent (greater than 50% chance of escaping detection).

Morality, like math, is independent of God, but without God, and unlike math, it would be drained of meaningfulness, something only for the weak or superstitious.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:57 | #

Deeply unimpressed I’m afraid Mr. Haller.

You simply assert the independence of morality (logic, maths etc.)  from God, do not demonstrate why or how this state of affairs could be, let alone ‘pay the price’ for your position by addressing the possible objects and implications that arise from it.

If that were an essay by an undergraduate on the the topic of analytical onto-theology it would not really be a satisfactory one.

As understand it traditional concepts of theism state that God and only God is a ‘necessary’ phenomena and everything else conditionally exists at his will (if God decided not to exist would logic still hold - after all its an ‘independently existing part of reality’ according to your answer).

Apparently a whole series of things which theists find difficult to answer questions upon such as those about like logic and morality and the tensions, to put it mildly with omnibenevolence and omnipotence.

Better in my judgement for theists to say that the reality of God is deeply mysterious and goes beyond our human ability to fully comprehend. Then in the spirit of Wittgenstein a period of humble silence might follow on behalf of the theist.

However, what I think is more damaging to your position Mr. Haller is the sociological ‘post-modern’ and post-religious nature of the world we actually live in (God is sociologically not theologically ‘dead’) and secondly the very diverse, multivalent ‘readings’ of Christianity that historically inform this very ‘plastic’ religion. Why and how would your version of take on it become the ‘common-sense’ of the age?

Difficult issues, I’m sure you would agree, that go beyond simply asserting that you are ‘correct’. Even with Christianity there are many strains and views that would dispute your take on things let alone how the wider, non-religious, world views the issues at hand.

Just a reminder to Americans almost no-one is actively religious in Europe let alone those of us in the ‘educated’ classes that might possibly shape public opinion in some small way (I say this as having had a couple of articles published in minor newspapers).

Aristotle and virtue ethics seem a pretty good starting point for the non-religious in my view.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 19 Jul 2011 03:34 | #

Deeply unimpressed I’m afraid Mr. Haller.

You simply assert the independence of morality (logic, maths etc.) from God, do not demonstrate why or how this state of affairs could be, let alone ‘pay the price’ for your position by addressing the possible objects and implications that arise from it.

I’m afraid I’m deeply unimpressed with your response, Dr. Lister.

What you ask for (in tossed off comments on a website?!) has been the subject of huge analysis in densely written books and articles. It would take pages and days for even a professional academic expert in this area to fulfill your expectations.

If that were an essay by an undergraduate on the the topic of analytical onto-theology it would not really be a satisfactory one.

But your comments in reply would be? I really don’t think you have demonstrated the intellectual acumen proving that you are capable of passing such judgments on me. For what it’s worth, two decades ago, I was independently nominated by four professors (I think only three nominations were required) at one of the consistently rated top five universities in the US to serve as a student writing tutor, one of a tiny handful of paid tutorial positions. To this day, I have several essays maintained on file in the main library’s ‘reserve’ section, to serve as examples of proper student writing for future generations.

Incidentally, one of those professors, now deceased, who nominated me was a famous name in classical philosophy (his specialty was Plato).

As understand it traditional concepts of theism state that God and only God is a ‘necessary’ phenomena and everything else conditionally exists at his will (if God decided not to exist would logic still hold - after all its an ‘independently existing part of reality’ according to your answer).

Apparently a whole series of things which theists find difficult to answer questions upon such as those about like logic and morality and the tensions, to put it mildly with omnibenevolence and omnipotence.

Aside from this comment’s illiteracy, perhaps due to haste, it fails to recognize that I was offering my opinions and beliefs, not an attempt to resolve analytically some of the deepest and thus most difficult questions of existence. Why do you demand of me what you yourself do not submit?

And what you say cannot be stated comprehensively, as if encompassing all believers. Some have held that nothing exists apart from God; others that even God is in part finite (as, eg, in not being able to render nugatory the law of identity). And the Christian God could not decide not to exist (there’s a whopper, at least to the theologically knowledgeable).

Better in my judgement for theists to say that the reality of God is deeply mysterious and goes beyond our human ability to fully comprehend. Then in the spirit of Wittgenstein a period of humble silence might follow on behalf of the theist.

I have not actually contradicted this sentiment, though this is not the traditional position of Catholicism. The reality of God is indeed deeply mysterious, and not fully comprehensible by the (unaided) human intellect. But a great deal is also thought to be known about God, and not only as a function of revelation, but of ongoing ratiocination, too.

However, what I think is more damaging to your position Mr. Haller is the sociological ‘post-modern’ and post-religious nature of the world we actually live in (God is sociologically not theologically ‘dead’) and secondly the very diverse, multivalent ‘readings’ of Christianity that historically inform this very ‘plastic’ religion. Why and how would your version of take on it become the ‘common-sense’ of the age?

Several issues are conflated here. If God is sociologically ‘dead’ (perhaps you should be more circumspect in extrapolating from your own, parochial experience: Britain is known among sociologists of religion to be the least ‘churched’ country in the West), it is ultimately because He is no longer intellectually tenable (though I suppose it is possible that the sociological situation could be reversed: intellectuals could become persuaded of new arguments for God, while the idiot masses remained mired in benighted unbelief).

Belief and unbelief have sociological and political consequences, however, one of which for unbelief seems to be the death of the West (though whether that necessarily follows from unbelief, not logically, of course, but psychologically and sociologically, I’m not sure - another of the great questions of the age). When the West was substantially Christian, it was confident, fecund, expansionist, and racist. While I am not here asserting a necessary causal relationship between those qualities and Christianity, their mere correlation alone ought to give pause to atheist WNs (especially in light of the equal correlation between the decline of public Christianity / rise of European secularism and the contraction of the West - geographically, demographically, and, most stridently and strikingly, psychologically, ideologically and politically).

You seem to assume, like every other secularist, that secularism is the ‘wave of the future’; that is, that once societies reach a certain level of intellectual and economic ‘modernization’, religion will gradually retreat into a purely private realm, accordingly declining into public insignificance. This state of affairs is then myopically and unquestioningly assumed to be permanent. (How mid-twentieth century this all is! I feel like I’m being lectured to by Bertrand Russell.)

This attitude reveals a very limited knowledge of the issues at hand.

First, it is untrue. Countries can go through periods of greater and lesser and then greater religiosity. Moreover, different denominations also wax and wane at different times and rates. The US is a case in point. We have had many famous revivalist episodes or ‘awakenings’ throughout our history. Some scholars claim we are in such an awakening period now (allegedly, this is the fourth). China, a country that has rarely hosted the kind of religious intensity seen across most of the rest of the planet, and which suffered until recently under a regime characterized by the most appallingly brutal totalitarian atheism, is now home to a very rapidly growing Christian population, one especially concentrated among the middle and professional classes.

There is no necessary reason to assume that God’s alleged ‘sociological death’ will be, or need be, permanent. That is mere secularist triumphalism, which Britain’s own prolific and very distinguished scholar/theologian Alister McGrath considers already rather dated.

My argument (the broader one, to which you implicitly refer, though I’ve not made it in this particular thread) has always been that 1) religious conservatives, both theological and political, increasingly outnumber religious liberals; 2) secularists seem to be, for reasons I cannot account for, but only observe, mostly on the political and especially racial left; 3) it is a fact that, at least within the US, there is a strong correlation between self-styled religious conservatives, and opposition to (what is now widely understood to be nearly exclusively nonwhite) immigration, and immigration can be used as a proxy for a range of issues associated with, if not WN, at least white preservationism; 4) while many highly motivated and explicit WNs are atheists/secularists, the base of voters they need to reach are mostly not; 5) the core conservative voters that WNs everywhere need to convert to white preservationism are hesitant to embrace WN because they value ethicality, and (wrongly) assume WN violates it; and 6) it is more useful to discern and explicate the compatibility of Christian ethics and (some versions of) WN, than to try to construct a non-Christian WN, given the correlation between secularism and liberalism (especially race liberalism).

It seems you’re arguing with Britain in mind; I, with America.   

As for the second portion of this criticism, your concern wrt the interpretive elasticity of Christianity, and how my own ‘take’ on it could become the era’s ‘common-sense’, well ... that’s a rather large ambition, don’t you think? A Christian theology 99+% based on traditionalist interpretations, whether Catholic or Protestant doesn’t matter (as I think a moderate, defensive WN is compatible with either), which merely seeks to elucidate the very simple proposition that concern for preventing white extinction, and the requisite legislative measures to effectuate that concern, do not violate Christian moral understandings - this to you is less likely to have mass appeal than a very nearly unintelligible (and quite possibly incoherent), atheistic neo-Heideggerian ‘ontological nationalism’? Are you quite serious? “The world we actually live in” ... indeed.

I’m not seeking to invent a new Christian theology, but rather, to identify and expunge the race-liberal elements which have improperly infected the faith as currently understood. This is often how intellectuals operate. They present their understandings of truth, and hope that others are persuaded. Are you suggesting I need some kind of marketing campaign, once I have produced the requisite scholarship?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:31 | #

Mr. Haller

Fair enough the issues around modality and God et al., are very complex but as a scientifically trained person I can help but feel that some of the problems are self-generated by philosophical theology. All so much ‘language gone on holiday’ tackling endogenously generated ‘pseudo-problems’. Did not Aquinas reach a view that nothing more could be usefully stated on the topic? Maybe I have misremembered that?

As an aside that God could not make a choice not to exist, well this does not strike be as being a ‘radical’ insight. Is it not implied in him being a ‘necessary’ entity that his own existence is 100% brute and inescapable? God cannot be ‘at risk’ so to speak. Of course there are ‘process theologies’ and the like but they are not the traditional view as I understand it.

OK I’m not some simple-minded quasi-Bertrand Russell ‘secular’ person. I am intellectually agnostic about theism in its most basic form, however my emotional response to various forms of organised religious is another matter (generally not a fan). But I’d make some points.

(1) Any person mildly familiar with Christianity can build a quite robust case for its universality and inclusivity as a world-view. It is not radically particularist in scope. If American Christianity has became acculturated with some secondary political values that is OK but hardly a fundamental core element of the world-view.

I have talked face to face with many ‘ordinary’ American Christians and to be brutally honest when asked, even quite gently, about their theological beliefs they are nearly all totally vacuous. American Christianity as lived experience is, yes, a mile wide, but about an inch deep. The real religion of America is Americanism and the social experiment in an inorganic axiomatic liberal order.

(2) Christianity is not completely dead – well I didn’t know that! Remember I mentioned in a previous comment that for the first time ever global Christianity will be, if not already, a majority non-Western phenomena very shortly.

What is the fastest growing area of Christianity? The Pentecostal movement. A rag-bag of ideas and practices many of which are truly bizarre – such a people literally, not just metaphorically, spouting gibberish (speaking ‘in tongues’). From the outside it seems like the self-parodying end-point of Protestantism – it is very, very individualistic in orientation (the only theological relationship is between the individual and God) yet also universal in that ‘everyone’ can and must get this individual relationship sorted out, so to speak.

What does it matter if there is the rise of a quasi-Protestant middle-class in Brazil or China to the issues we think are afflicting our European homelands? I mean if there was a new ‘Cargo-cult’ in the Congo next week so damn what?

What I would say however is that as an unchallenged and hegemonic ‘organising narrative’ for European societies institutional Christianity is indeed long dead.

(3) Onto-nationalism is something I think is interesting. It is a work in progress and I look forward to seeing how it develops and helping if I can.

Again you attack it as being not relevant, not accessible, not practical and so on. It is not meant for ‘activists’ nor is it a ‘how to’ guide for political day to day issues. Rather it is about the need for a strata of ‘organic intellectuals’ that can get a grip on these deep and fundamental issues and by doing so start to correctly orientate themselves with regard to issues of political phenomenology.

It’s about grounding a radically anti-liberal world-view as deeply and cogently as possible (and no libertarianism or Republicanism are not ‘deep’ critiques of anything substantive about liberal modernity, its well-springs or its core structural features).

Why should Aristotle, Heidegger, and Darwin be such a terrible trio to start ‘thinking’ with, as opposed to the banality of Austrian economists and Pat Robertson et al.?

Posted by anon on Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:42 | #

China, a country that has rarely hosted the kind of religious intensity seen across most of the rest of the planet, and which suffered until recently under a regime characterized by the most appallingly brutal totalitarian atheism, is now home to a very rapidly growing Christian population, one especially concentrated among the middle and professional classes.

Insomuch as that is true, it is more of an alignment with the West against their country than it is so many millions of Chinese being struck low on the road to Damascus. You qua Christian can’t lay claim to this. And as a Catholic and WN you can’t lay claim to the far more rapid and exponential growth of Brazilian Charismatic Christianity, I suppose.

There is no necessary reason to assume that God’s alleged ‘sociological death’ will be, or need be, permanent. That is mere secularist triumphalism, which Britain’s own prolific and very distinguished scholar/theologian Alister McGrath considers already rather dated.

Well, meine guten Herren anderer Meinung, I would not hold my breath for religious revivalism in Evropa, at least. America’s another story; they are idiots like my compatriots. In Belize you may, after a few years, succeed in finding someone who has even heard the name Charles Darwin; but you will be disappointed, for they were told of such “crazy tings” by their preacher, and will laugh at you like the village madman. The SWPLs in America may even come around to Christ as they’ve done to meat-eating and raising children. Here’s hoping they become still MORE loathsome by falling on their knees before the archetypal household god of ?ydokomuna.

Posted by anon on Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:42 | #

Let me swing this back to topic. HERE is an admirably succinct answer to the Big Question from a commenter at Counter-Currents.

People in OUR Racially Conscious Community have spent the last century saluting one false flag after another, barking up one wrong tree after another, chasing the (receding!) tail of The Enemy Of The Week. Like the Eloi in “1984,” we have been told this is The Enemy, that is The Enemy, all the while missing the same basic conception the Enemy uses to their advantage, in all times, in all places.

One, the Enemy is anyone that opposes the fulfillment of our metapolitical goals.

Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

Two, their metapolitical goal is the genocide of the White Race.

Most people who start to come to Our Side are put of by the (planted) useful idiots, who use the language and symbols of the Past to gain validation for themselves, mostly by gaining attention for themselves, as tales told of sound and fury, signifying impotence, both personally and politically.

Our Enemies intend to destroy us, at the Racial level. They intend to commit genocide upon us. And, we have been discussing issues with these people, we have made the fatal error of being rational with the irrational. Given a chance, they will talk to us all day – we can’t Do Anything while we are talking to them – and then, they will follow us down a dark alley and slit our throats.

THIS is the Prime Motivation that guides all of their thoughts, words and deeds – how to commit genocide on the White Race.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:07 | #

The country with the highest rate of church attendance in the world is Nigeria (89%). 

Weekly church attendance statistics (country/attendance %)

Austria   18%
Belgium   7%   
Canada   20%
Denmark 3%
Cyprus   25%   
Czech R.  11%   
Estonia   4%   
Finland   5%
France   12%   
Greece   27%   
Hungary   12%   
Iceland   10%
Ireland   54%   
Italy   31%   
Latvia   7%   
Lithuania   14%
Malta   75%   
Norway   3%   
Poland   63%   
Portugal   29%
Slovakia   33%   
Slovenia   18%   
Spain   21%   
Sweden   5%
United Kingdom 10%   
United States   43%

So is the ‘religious’ USA really doing better on the ethnic question than say secular Norway?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:52 | #

Why fight? Well I prefer a world with leggy blondes in it

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:28 | #

I am not this thing “an atheist”.  I am a man.  You are a man with a theistic prompting inside your head.

GW, we both know that you are indeed “an atheist” per your intellectual, moral and emotional convictions that would cause you to press forward in arguing for atheism though you were in a particular instant confronted with an argument or bit of evidence for theism which gave you pause as you had no good answer to it in that moment.  In that moment, it would not be reason alone which was your guide but the atheistic prompting in your head, i.e., your faith in atheism.

Regardless, both us have the same interest in life.

But which interest in life is to be disprivileged?  Shall the power of the state be brought to bear on curtailing the interest in life the faithful have?  And if so, why should not the faithful fight with all power at their disposal to destroy the power or potential power of that state?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:39 | #

CC,

GW, we both know that you are indeed “an atheist” per your intellectual, moral and emotional convictions that would cause you to press forward in arguing for atheism though you were in a particular instant confronted with an argument or bit of evidence for theism which gave you pause as you had no good answer to it in that moment.  In that moment, it would not be reason alone which was your guide but the atheistic prompting in your head, i.e., your faith in atheism.

It is in the nature of faithlessness that a proof of God would be enough.

But which interest in life is to be disprivileged?  Shall the power of the state be brought to bear on curtailing the interest in life the faithful have?  And if so, why should not the faithful fight with all power at their disposal to destroy the power or potential power of that state?

This is a better question.  It is in the interest of European Man that faith should play a less dominant part in his life.  This is because real faithlessness makes a closer alliance with genetic interests, that is to say, less one uncertain intermediary.  The faithful, of course, do not have to agree.  But then, since all wars are between the faithful, faith itself will never agree on what it must defend.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:56 | #

It is in the interest of European Man that faith should play a less dominant part in his life. (GW)

It is in the interest of Euroman that he should recover the correct faith, the one under which he attained his greatest power and extension of his civilization, and divest himself of the false/idiot creeds to which he has lately fallen prey: marxism, multiculturalism, Holocaustomania, general egalitarianism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:42 | #

Leon,

It was not Yahweh who caused the European to cross the oceans in a tall ship, to go the moon in a tin-can, to capture the heavens in a mirror, to find the double-helix, to invent modernity, and to cause all Mankind to follow him in awe.  The power of our civilisation comes from our own minds.

And Yahweh Himself is not our natural god, but one imposed upon us, whose effects for good or ill, compared to what was there before and what was killed in His name, cannot be judged.  Humility should be the watchword of your faith.

As for faith itself, I would prefer much less of it.  I think, in evolutionary terms, it has got well out of hand.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:53 | #

GW,

It is in the nature of faithlessness that a proof of God would be enough.

Yet in the absence of a proof of God’s nonexistence you say that God does not exist.  When you do that, it is either an honest statement of what you believe or it is not.  Now, for what it possesses of honesty it can correspondingly be said to lack of faithlessness.

It is in the interest of European Man that faith should play a less dominant part in his life.

Well, foregoing another sip of the cup of palingenetic fury or the inauguration of Parrot’s christarded theocracy I think it is safe to say that in a modern technological-industrial democracy in which the rights of individuals to which western Europeans have become accustomed are respected that those occupying positions of authority will be of a secular bent.  And so long as those of a (genetically) secular bent can be encouraged to reproduce themselves at replacement level (apparently they do need some encouragement), then what’s the big fuggin’ deal?