Gorboduc wrote:
Rubbish, GW.
PF has just been laying out what he conceives to be my responsibilities, which include my
1) accepting an enforced understanding of some “paradigm” of his,
2) having my laziness inquisatorially examined,
3) undergoing a brainwashing session based on Dawkins,
4) recanting of my beliefs,
5) undertaking a general audit, correction and regulation of my mental processes.
You then read a little lesson of your own about “freedom”, forsooth!
In the European world we wish to build, men and women must be free to think and to know themselves. That is a right fundamental to an ontology of nationalist politics.
And that’s just after PF has denied freedom to me! But then, I suppose, as I reject what GW says of esotericism, I just haven’t been able to contact and to know the inner ‘me’.
Now here’s a serious question: have you, GW, or you, PF, ever had anything at all to do with Scientology? PF seems to wish to turn me into a Hubbardian “clear”.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 10:46 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Drifter wrote:
He’s wrong. His lamentation is that of a butthurt Fukiyama fanboy in the throes of cognitive dissonance.
Furthermore, forward or crash is a false dichotomy.
This comment appeared in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 01:58 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Guessedworker wrote:
Gorb,
I just wrote:
In the European world we wish to build, men and women must be free to think and to know themselves. That is a right fundamental to an ontology of nationalist politics.
And you wrote;
after a few days I find the atmosphere is either so - very - refined - and - ah - ineffable, and the company sooo - sooo - SUPERIOR or else I find the air thick, murky and a bit fetid, and the company a bit rough.
Perhaps we just find different things exciting.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 01:13 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
cladrastis wrote:
The world is too complicated. As an apple tree becomes overgrown with age, so too, civilization possesses many dead limbs and produces copious amounts of insipid fruit. When the big storm comes (as storms inevitably do), it might just blow the whole thing over.
However, the prudent gardener will periodically prune his tree; indeed, it is necessary to do so to produce fruit of any quality (and what is a fruit, but the vessel of a seed?). If skilled, such a gardener does not randomly hack off limbs, but chooses them carefully - for some branches are already dead, some are diseased or dying, while other branches produce the best fruit.
Not only will the pruned tree produce bigger, sweeter fruit, but it may also weather the storms ahead.
Question is: who’s willing to tend to the orchard?
This comment appeared in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:59 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Gorboduc wrote:
I feel properly rapped over the knuckles by a pair of schoolmarms: or is it one schoolmarm with two hats?
GW, so, not “feeling”.
Knowledge , then.
Funny, anyway . . it was PF who made the anti-Xtian comment, GW who takes it up…
GW, you a gnostic? Smart guy. Promises, promises!
PF, “lazy”? “recant”? Bit of a disciplinarian, are we?
Why ever should I have anything to do with Dawkins, an irrational and self-contradictory dimwit who hasn’t even taken the trouble to master the simplest facts about the system he claims to have demolished?
Did you look up the book I cited above? No? Here it is again, then. People that WON’T read have no advantage over those that CAN’T.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314517
I look in here at MR from time to time as I’m a WN, and you claim to be an important exchange for WN views: but after a few days I find the atmosphere is either so - very - refined - and - ah - ineffable, and the company sooo - sooo - SUPERIOR or else I find the air thick, murky and a bit fetid, and the company a bit rough.
And, PF, if you don’t like imagination, why don’y you call to order the neo-pagans that appear here, as nothing could be more fantastic than their new-fangled religion.No hard feelings, it’s just a question of where you feel at home.
I’ll be getting along now.
No, don’t get up.
See you around, sometime.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 12:42 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Søren Renner wrote:
Thank you for your excellent question: “At what point do we ask “Who is we?"”
We don’t ask. We answer. And not only in words. Another way to look at it is this: if you have to ask who we is, IT ISN’T YOU.
Of course you, GW, don’t have to ask that.
This comment appeared in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:25 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Guessedworker wrote:
The human mind has no reverse. It doesn’t even have a steering wheel. We are built for one of two things: go forward or crash.
So “they” will crash and “we” will go forward. The only question is: at what point do we start asking who is this “we”, so we can get the ball rolling? Return of the group and all that.
Of course, this is a question for a political elite that does not yet exist. The present pre-revolutionary elite began asking the same question in secret some time after WW2, I would say, and came up with the answer “us”. The result is that they’ve made the people hate them:
American politics as a system has ceased to function, because the system has gone from representing people to representing money. And that is something that can only go well as long as the people have at least some of that money. Now that they’re increasingly shut out, the system shuts down; it’s inevitable. Which is why even rating agency Moody’s comes with an at first glance curious warning: even the credit raters now predict pitchforks.
But do they care? Do they figure things are still on track, and they can keep it that way?
This guy Iliargo is pretty good, Soren.
This comment appeared in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/18/10, 11:30 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
PF wrote:
Gorboduc
If behaviour is always gene-controlled, then a fairly quick extinction for the white race is indelibly encoded into your genes.
Genes and behavior have a relationship in all living organisms. Your responsibility, should you attempt to make a claim at having a credible intellectual position, is to understand this paradigm. If I see you have been lazy in refining your understanding on this point, what am I to do? Quote excerpts from “The Selfish Gene” at you until you recant? Or tease out in conversation where exactly you allow imagination to take over in place of knowledge, and then show you that weakness?
Your silly comment was by no means the worst I have encountered at this site: but your attempt to justify it rather than to apologise for it suggests to me that the time I spend here with you is largely wasted
Gorboduc..... Gorboduc, Gorboduc. Gorboduc.
Gorboduc.
Gorboduc.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 11:08 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Guessedworker wrote:
Gorb,
I made no assertion about the causes of your anti-Christian feeling
Feeling, no. The position is that the potential of both Christianity and faith as vehicles for exploring the double-aspect at the core of philosophical religion (expressed elsewhere as self-perfectionment and union with God) is limited in the extreme. Very sadly, all of Christianity is exoteric. The gospels contain fragments of knowledge, but these are nothing to do with the dictum of the salvation of Man through the suffering of Christ on the Cross. In the great religious systems which do have a living core of knowledge - Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism - faith is by no means contingent to understanding and advancement. I promise you this is so.
Now, this does not mean that faith is without value. It is part of Nature’s endowment. Of course it has value. But the desire of the faithful to be the sole bearers of truth, and to be under God’s command to impart that truth to others is deeply negative and undesirable. In the European world we wish to build, men and women must be free to think and to know themselves. That is a right fundamental to an ontology of nationalist politics.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 10:32 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Gorboduc wrote:
PF/GW Well, I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again, just the once.
Behaviourism is rubbish. It’s self-refuting.
Well, I’ve said this before, too, but I’ll say it again, just this once.
If behaviour is always gene-controlled, then a fairly quick extinction for the white race is indelibly encoded into your genes.
Well, I’ve said this before, too, but I’ll say it again, just the once:
You seem confused about the sequence of cause and effect.I made no assertion about the causes of your anti-Christian feeling: I merely noted that to express itself it adopted the same idiom used by spiteful Jews.
I have for well over 40 years been regretfully aware of expressions of that sort: when I started to research into Jewish polemical writing and to rub shoulders with many Jews at my work-place (some of whom were quite candid with me) I realised that some of the disgracefully calumnies (your term: and ‘calumny’ means an undeserved and unfair slight) that I had heard uttered against Christ originated amongst Jews.
A rebellion against the faith in your own family need not encourage a display of the sort of aggressive partisanship that will surely lose you the respect and sympathy of your more intelligent readers.
Your silly comment was by no means the worst I have encountered at this site: but your attempt to justify it rather than to apologise for it suggests to me that the time I spend here with you is largely wasted.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 08:02 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
PF wrote:
(saying GW doesn’t need data...)is a strange claim for a scientist to make.You match GW’s ipsedixitism, one unsupported data-free claimant championing another.
I will use an analogy. Behavior is not only controlled by genes, distally, but more proximally by neuronal processes. To look at a functioning appendage or a behavior, one can immediately know that a neuronal network underlies these things and provides them with the electrophysiological input they need to function. To someone who understands this, there can be no one without the other.
I look at a physiological structure and infer the existence of nervous system activity driving it. GW looks at human behaviors reoccuring over time in robust forms and infers the existence of genes driving a certain aspect of it. It is an inference that follows from the basic assumptions about cause and effect in these systems. The onus does not lie on GW to assert that faith, a human behavior, is controlled by genes - this assertion is simply the logical extrapolation of our understanding of cause and effect in these systems. The onus is on he who claims that it could be any different, since we know nothing about an alternative mechanism for generating robust, cross-cultural, trans-historic behaviors such as faith - without genes. Presumably, a divine voice whispers in the ears of men across time, that would be an alternative mechanism. Things being what they are, GW is giving the default position with the least assumptions, and you are criticizing it from a less parsimonious standpoint - one that assumes an alternative mechanism, about which we presently know nothing. What evidence exists for this alternative mechanism? Nothing that we could admit scientifically.
Is it not then you, who should show how the faith gene could *not* exist, and still these robust behaviors be exhibited all over the world by so many different types of men?
I asked GW for a demonstration that the Faith Gene existed.
Which in 2010 is probably asking more than state-of-the-art research can deliver.
Don’t you know that you’re obediently following the lead of the Talmudic Jews when you talk or write in this contemptuous and contemptible way? They never refer to Him by name, preferring some opprobrious nick-name: why do you feel you need to join in their nasty little game?
The mockery and calumny I have for this religion stems from a rebellion against it taking place within my own family. Your assertion about the well-spring of my discontent and influences leading to it is therefore wrong. All this derives from a very purely European falling out with this religion, to which no people of other bloodlines were a party.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 06:38 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Gorboduc wrote:
PF:I was very taken with your last sentence
At least this is how things appear at this moment.
as it put me in mind of Kipling’s: “The Ballad of Minepit Shaw”:
“Oh, what’s the roaring in our ears
That strikes us well-nigh dumb?”
“Oh, that is just how things appears
According as they come.”Now, isn’t the case mounted by GW and yourself ALSO an example of special pleading?
Actually, it’s more like a cry for help.
Your posting can be summarized thus:
“We can’t demonstrate anything to you: we’ve no proof; but please believe us, for we think that’s how things might be just now.” For a start, the statement
it doesn’t matter whether GW has actual data or not.
is a strange claim for a scientist to make.You match GW’s ipsedixitism, one unsupported data-free claimant championing another.
Does your “understanding” mean -
A) A perception that you grasp all the complexities of the issue? Or,
B) A completely watertight, inviolably secure, absolutely accurate and logical demonstration, perhaps like a Euclidean theorem [1]. Or,
C) an interpretation based on evidence which may well be tenuous, reconstructed with an unspecified amount of subjectivel bias, open to different readings or interpretations, and by no means generally accepted?If it’s A), well that’s just another bit of ipse dixit.
If it’s B) well, put the evidence on show. You have only to say something along the lines of
“The faith gene was hypothesized by ABC but he was unable to amass sufficient evidence for a full demonstration: building on those earlier researches and taking advantage of more accurate methods of measurement and improved experimental techniques, DEF refined the theory, producing promising results, but it was only with the publication of XYZ’s detailed papers on the topic in 2000 that the existence of the faith gene was conclusively demonstrated, to win general acceptance among the scientific community”.If it’s C), consider as an example, the following;
Angelo: “My understanding of the Reformation is that Mind was liberated and that an ancient tyrannical power, based abroad, was broken, allowing freedom to speculative philosophy, new scientific thought and enquiry, leading to the development of free society with a new system of rational education: in other words, the newly-liberated nation began to take its affairs into its own hands, and generate for its members a new and healthy self-respect.”
Sophron: “My understanding of it is that it ushered in a new dark age of persecution, with the pulping of the nation’s great libraries, the destruction of a fair social system, the scrapping of the nation’s cultural and artistic heritage, the pauperising or enslavement of the ordinary people, the death of many of our finest minds and the imposition of a tyrannical and inquisitorial regime, which utilized the new powers of capitalism to obtain a stranglehold on the nation”
Now we can all see what happened in this country from say, 1534 to 1623. The records are accessible.
But two sample “understandings” of what they mean are diametrically opposed: and what can fairly be alleged to “follow” from either of the two points of view? Only assumptions.
It ”follows”, I think, that Angelo will be likely to praise Abp. Cranmer and condemn Queen Mary, and that it’s a fair likelihood that Sophron will reverse those partialities.
It does not “follow” however, merely from Angelo’s stated view [+understanding], that the 39 Articles actually IS the charter of an Englishman’s liberties, although it does “follow” that a guess that Angelo thinks so will likely be right..
Similarly, it doesn’t “follow” from Sophron’s views alone, that the Catholic (Douai) translation of the Bible IS better that theAnglican Authorised Version, although it does “follow” that Sophron is likely to think so.Although the positions tentatively ascribed to the two speakers “follow” from the content of their speeches, they don’t “follow” in the sense that a corollary to a geometrical theorem follows infallibly from the main demonstration. They are likelihoods as perceived by someone else, and either speaker could indignantly repudiate the deductions that could be held to follow from their statements with cries of “Show me just where I said that!”
So nothing certain follows from your “understanding”, “materialist” or not.
I can’t say much else about the central portion your post because, to speak frankly, I don’t understand it.
I asked GW for a demonstration that the Faith Gene existed.
You are supposed to be providing, or at least pointing to, some scientific data.
GW has apparently asked your help, but the resulting double-act, with his citing you as the scientist, and your asking him for elucidation on “will-to-power”, and your admission that what you said was “tentative”, amuses me as a badly co-ordinated pantomime horse might.
This desire to acquit beauteous faithfulness from its sticky genomic origins is analog to the desire to arrange for the faith-process some special inviolate place in the world of thought, which certain philosophers try to do. It is a case of special pleading.
I simply can’t see where the above excerpt fits in.
What’s “beauteous faithfulness”?
Why “sticky”?
I am asking for a demonstration, not just a repeated and slightly varied assertion, which, you roundly admit, it is not necessary to back up with data.
Doesn’t Francis Collins, who headed up the HGP, profess Christianity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)
OK, he’s not (as I am) an ID-er, but it looks like I should approach him for elucidation.
If the philosophers are “certain” which, in this context means, I suppose, “readily identifiable”, who are they? Is Collins one? Perhaps if you are going to use the adjective “genomic” you should pay him some heed!
I’m always willing to change my mind: but I shall need more than this!Also PF, as regards the Bowden allusion, which I’ve only just seen, like you I find Bowden unilluminating.. I’ve not seen the book, but does Bowden put himself in the Camp of the Strong? It wouldn’t surprise me. It’s amusing to see how easily the Strong feel themselves intimidated by the Weak and how some of them get quite hysterical about it. (I necessarily exempt JB from this censure as I just don’t know much about him although I’ve looked online at some of his stuff, especially his deathless works of art, true summations of the Western Canon, reversions to heroic Barbarism, rejected pages from 2000AD, or whatever they are.)
Oh, btw, who is “The Mega-Jew?”
Do you refer to Jesus Christ?
Grow up a bit.
Don’t you know that you’re obediently following the lead of the Talmudic Jews when you talk or write in this contemptuous and contemptible way?
They never refer to Him by name, preferring some opprobrious nick-name: why do you feel you need to join in their nasty little game?[1] I’m assuming, what I hope you’ll allow, that here, for the purposes of demonstration, we are agreed to be living in a Euclidean Universe, and one in which formal logic is allowed to operate. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism which is a lot of fun.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:19 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
PF wrote:
holy fuck this stuff is hilarious!
This comment appeared in entry 'Romilly Jenkins: Truth and 'Ethnic' Truth' on 03/18/10, 04:10 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
PF wrote:
If I understand this argument correctly - being just about the existence or nonexistence of a gene controlling tendency to religious faith....
then it doesn’t matter whether GW has actual data or not.
It follows from a materialist understanding of human functioning that we don’t do behaviors which aren’t adaptive, or we don’t do them for long. Where we are doing unadaptive things, notice, we are in completely novel situations. Maladaptive immigration policy. But how long have we had nation states and mass transit? Less than an evolutionary second.
When something like faith emerges from the record of history, so robust a tendency in all epoches and periods - one can reach a tentative conclusion that what one is seeing is piggy-backing off of some adaptive chemical success in brain wiring, i.e. a gene. Robust tendencies - meaning holding relatively constant across time and space - are genetic. Whether we can pinpoint its cause in 2010 or not.
This desire to acquit beauteous faithfulness from its sticky genomic origins is analog to the desire to arrange for the faith-process some special inviolate place in the world of thought, which certain philosophers try to do. It is a case of special pleading.
At least this is how things appear at this moment.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:39 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Wandrin wrote:
1) Radical feminism is partly a divide and rule tactic (involving a massive disproportion of jews. As always). It’s important to always consider if you’re helping the divide and rule by sounding anti-female when discussing the subject.
I’m not saying the post does this. It’s a general point.
2) Even if that wasn’t true, wailing about feminism too much sounds weak and is bad tactics imo. Attacks on radical feminism, which in reality is anti-family-ism, comes better from females unless it’s couched in terms of anti-family-ism. The destruction of the family magnifies all the other nation wrecking forces they’ve unleashed.
3) A third aspect ofRadical feminism relates to the genocide theme.
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
This comment appeared in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/18/10, 02:17 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Wandrin wrote:
Good article.
A couple of points
- The south coast has a lot of old hotel buildings which have been under utilised since the growth of foreign holidays. Many over-stretched London councils have shipped a lot of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers out to the south coast because of this. A lot of the south coast crime is caused by that.- This process of replacing the native population a layer at a time starting with the lowest socio-economic groups seems to me the same as what occurred in the USA from 1965 onwards. I think the difference will be that there’s no room to run in countries like Britain and the Netherlands and also the lack of space makes it so much harder to keep the population in the dark. Prosperous Americans had plenty of room for white-flighting. In Britain the backs will be against the wall sooner. Hopefully.
This comment appeared in entry 'Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy' on 03/18/10, 01:45 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Gorboduc wrote:
GW - Men are men, but Man is a woman. GKC
I was just wondering whether the FG ever came under the notice of scientists, psychologists or theologians. Now I know it’s a fanciful whim, a vagary of your own.
No, the concept’s not “difficult”: just unreal and pointless.Float down from thy Parnassian peak, mate, and get real. Try something completely different:
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314517
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 01:24 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Guessedworker wrote:
Gorb,
I am not appealing to authority, scientific or biblical, to win an argument over religion. I’m giving out a little of a larger argument over Man. That argument contains many concepts that do not much feature in scientific journals. If, for example, one posits psychological mechanicity in a certain way, the reader may very well march off to search Jstor and return later armed with sheaths of stuff about determinism!
It is one of the many frustrations of life that accurate communication to one’s peers of unfamiliar and sometimes difficult concepts is often impossible. Science may not much help, because scientists do not necessarily explore the questions about existence that we do. Where scientific findings are extant, I will use them. Otherwise I can always rely on the scientists at MR, of whom PF is one, to put me straight.
PF,
It’s the goal-orientated pursuit of status by males - just a mate selection issue got a bit out of hand.
Maybe I will put up a post sometime about the conflicts rooted in our biology, because it is surely reasonable to suppose that the successful management of these would be adaptive and, therefore, would point to the optimum European life.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 12:35 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Borvo wrote:
The central tragedy of our age is the tragedy of feminism. The triumph of feminism throughout the Western world has inverted every Christian virtue and turned our society into a satanic society.
Robert Reis you must be out of your mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Christian virtues???????? What the hell, I’m proud of being an agnostic and if I ever were to aproach religion it would be the beautiful pagan religion of my European ancesters.
Christianism is an outside Non-European poison that was forced by the Roman Empire into Europe, Christianism is not European, and it shall never be.
Before Christianism came into Europe our women were much more free and happy than they are today inside this bloody “Christian values rhetoric”. European pagans would celebrate the harmony between man and women and their common brotherhood with sexual rituals that created a very strong bond in between them. Therefore the Romans decided to introduce a foreign jewish rooted religion - CHRISTIANISM.
The “peace” praised by christianism had the objective to take from the pagans their fighting spirite and break their will to fight and resist.
The “acceptance of our suffering” which is taught by Christianism was one more way to brainwash Europeans and convince them that obeying unconditionally to those in power was the perfect way to acheive heaven.
The “sexual repression” which is characteristic of Christianism was the final solution to horribly repress and inferiorize our beautiful European women and break all true notions of brotherhood in the European civil communities of that epoch. The Romans new very well that sexually open societies are much more socially united and harder to break, therefore corrupting the minds of Europeans with a middle eastern religion was the best way to smash pagan anti-roman resistance. Sparta is a great example of how a sexually open society is much more efficient, the mighty Spartans gave the Persion invadors hell at the battle of Thermopylae and that clealy shows that thet didn’t need a stupid cross to be excellent soldiers that fought to the death.
This comment appeared in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 11:44 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
PF wrote:
That may make a noisy, self-appreciative alcoholic pedant, but nothing more: and we, the culturally impoverished of the 21st century, have to listen while this apparently neckless man explains his Vision of History to us. It’s enough to make one long for the good old, bad old days of the Black Plague. I’d rather be covered in bubos than have to listen to a big red-faced bubo adoring Thomas Paine, or have to watch a bunch of old Jewish Trotskyites throwing a foam-party with the ashes of the founding fathers instead of foam. I imagine them taking hits from a beer bong, mixing jelly and cream-whip into Jefferson’s ashes, painting their naked bodies with the mixture, wrestling on a matress with the dug-up corpses of various political worthies, and building themselves together with the ash-mixture into a giant necrophiliac matza ball in which they sleep as if in a coccoon, to emerge later as Neoconservatives.
Years pass, and yet the mental picture remains laugh-out-loud funny.
This comment appeared in entry 'Diasporal Hijinks: Christopher Hitchens and the Janjaweed' on 03/17/10, 10:31 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Maximilio wrote:
Damn jews and damn palestines shouls stop their stupid fight, I mean like, come on!?
and about the Holocaust, man, I live in Europe, I’m raised as a Christian, though I have been to Auswitch, and the horrors you can see over there are just terrifying. All you sceptics about the Holocaust should come down to Poland, to Germany, to Holland, to all the places where these camps still exist to tell the tale. And you should know, they didn’t kill only Jews! My granddad, who was a resistance member, got killed in Bergen-Belsen, a concentration camp in Holland. Eyewitnesses confirmed that he had to bury other victims, and dig his own grave, before he was burned alive and thrown in a mass grave.
This comment appeared in entry 'Is Dr. David Duke, Ph.D., a Kosher Nazi?' on 03/17/10, 10:12 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Gorboduc wrote:
GW. this is SORT OF what I was after . .
.http://www.amazon.com/God-Gene-Faith-Hardwired-Genes/dp/0385500580It’s more about the God gene, though. - and it doesn’t appear to be conclusive.
I searched JSTOR for the term “faith gene” and it returned one duplicated reference, which was useless, as it came from a booklist, and went like “The Significance of Process Thought for Christian Faith” Gene Reeves.
As regards the Internet generally, there wasn’t much.
So it doesn’t feature in the fairly recent academic output (Don’t think JSTOR includes Nature, though)
As regards the Internet generally, there wasn’t much.
There are some evangelical outpourings which wouldn’t much, I feel, interest either of us… then there was THIS:
http://whisperedwordspoetry.com/MaximumImpact-Topics-Faith-Gene.htm
So please, if you think you can support your claim about the Faith Gene with ANY scientific literature that I mightn’t have had access to, do so.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 08:01 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
PF wrote:
Fascinating points, GW.
The other great killer of innocents is the will to power.
Is there any clarification for what this term describes?
One wonders how it relates to teleology, whether the “will” is real will, and what the “power” is thats being aimed for.
Jonathan Bowden wrote a book entitled Apocalypse TV, which attempts to discuss the delicate position of modern European man in a socratic dialogue between a Nietzschean/neo-pagan and a Christian traditionalist. Bowden apparently envisions these two “options” as being the forms we have recourse to if we stray from the moral imperatives of daily television programming. The Nietzschean is probably a stand-in for a philosophical form of palingenetic dreaming which it would have been politically unintelligent to spell out the consequences of, because that component of Nietzsche’s oevre which is unabashedly emphasized is all the aristocratic bloodletting, weak-must-be-ruled-by-the-strong, must-take-what-you-want, in short the zero sum component of his thinking. Interesting, that Bowden would have us working in these channels, carrying water for a crazed old dreamer in his worst moments, or bowing to The Mega-Jew. Its a shame because his fine words and intelligence really make you think there would be something more.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 07:44 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Robert Reis wrote:
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Unsex Me Here
...
The central tragedy of our age is the tragedy of feminism. The triumph of feminism throughout the Western world has inverted every Christian virtue and turned our society into a satanic society. It is impossible to exaggerate the evils of feminism. Lady MacBeth’s request that Satan “Unsex me here,” has been echoed throughout the world, and Satan’s army is filled with murderous, unsexed women who drink the blood of their own children.When a woman asks Satan to unsex her, what is she really asking? She is asking to return to her unredeemed, pre-Christian state of existence. She wants, as Eve wanted, to be as God. But Godhood is not available for a woman, or a man, in the Christian Faith. The position is already filled. One must apply to the lower regions if one desires godhood.
Lady MacBeth is a case in point. She appeals to the devil to unsex her and to give her the power that the Christian God denies her.
Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;
Stop up th’ access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
Th’ effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature’s mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry ‘Hold, hold!’
Having given herself to the devil, Lady MacBeth needs a man to do her bidding before she can gain the power she desires. This is always the case. An evil woman always needs a male to abdicate his authority in order for her evil will to triumph. Eve needed the abdication of Adam as Lady MacBeth needs the abdication of MacBeth.MacBeth wants to please his wife. He kills Duncan because he wants to please her, but does he love her? If we are not to debase love, we must assert that MacBeth’s love is a distorted, pale caricature of real love, as Satan’s kingdom is a distorted, pale caricature of God’s kingdom. There can be no love of another creature outside of God’s love. Lady MacBeth steps into Satan’s kingdom and her husband embraces her in that kingdom. The irony is that by having murdered Duncan out of ‘love’ for his wife and, by doing so, separating himself from God’s love, MacBeth is unable to love his wife or anyone else. Toward the end of the play, when MacBeth is told his wife is dead, he responds with the famous soliloquy on nothingness:
She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time:
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
It is important to note that MacBeth does not conclude “life is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing” because he loved a woman instead of God. There is no ‘either-or’ choice between the love of God and the love of a woman. If a man truly loves a woman, he will love her in the Pauline sense; he will love her as Christ loves His Church. The traditionalist sects, with their deprecation of the marriage state, support the heretical thesis that a man must love either God or a woman; he can’t love both. This notion is rooted in Manichean dualism, not in the Christian tradition. God gave Adam a woman to love and to love him, because it was good for Adam. The gifts of God are always good. But Adam and MacBeth, following in Adam’s path, step out of God’s light where love is sacred, and for the sake of their women’s evil wills they forsake God.We are a nation that has “supped full with horrors,” because we have institutionalized and declared holy the male-female relationship of the MacBeth family. Lady MacBeth wants to kill her children; Mr. MacBeth will prepare the saline solution. Lady MacBeth wants to wear army boots and drive a tank; Mr. MacBeth will let her. Lady MacBeth wants to dress like a priest and hand out communion; Mr. MacBeth will acquiesce. In the United States we have raised the satanic banner of feminism higher than any other nation has ever done before.
Why have white males abdicated their authority? Avoiding the obvious reply, “Why not?”, let’s state it plainly: The European male has no faith. There is nothing as fearsome as a confrontation with an aggressive female. Rip Van Winkle knew this. That is why he hid out with the little men in the woods for twenty years. The only way a man can face an aggressive female is if he believes that his God will sustain him in the day of battle. But if a man’s faith waivers, even slightly, he will not have the ability to oppose a woman who is completely possessed by her own will.
A woman in her unredeemed, Lady MacBeth state, represents the most powerful force in nature. A man with his superior strength and size is no match for the fecund power of a woman. From the first moment a man leaves the womb, he desires to return to it. He fears confrontations with women because failure to please a woman entails a threat of banishment. He might be denied access to the womb, but it is a fatal desire for a man to seek a return to the womb. It is a return to nothingness; it means an extinction of a man’s personality. If femininity is worshipped as pure force – “I am woman, hear me roar” – the individual woman will be consumed by it as well as the man.
This worship of femininity as pure force, as found in the pre-Christian mystery cult of Cybele, a cruel, matriarchal goddess, is diametrically opposed to the spirit of Christianity. Mary agrees to be the “handmaid of the Lord,” and by her submission to the will of God, she realizes the potential of her own femininity and allows Christ to reveal to all mankind the divine nature of their own personalities. A man does not have to give himself up to an impersonal earth goddess; he knows, through Christ, that he possesses a personality with an eternal destiny.
A true respect for women entails a refusal to submit to the impersonal feminine principle. When a woman acts as a nurturer of children and all things Christian, she should be given all the respect and love that the code of chivalry demands. But when she steps out of that role and becomes a Lady MacBeth, she should be fought to the death, preferably her own. When MacBeth refuses to oppose his wife’s demonic will, he not only loses his soul, but his wife loses her soul as well.
In his play, The Taming of the Shrew, Shakespeare good-naturedly shows us the only way to overcome a Lady MacBeth. She must be opposed every time she steps outside the Christian orbit. If she is successfully opposed, as Petruchio successfully opposes Katharina, tragedy is avoided and there is domestic and civil peace. The difference between Lady MacBeth’s statement, “Unsex me here; And fill me from the crown to the toe, top full of direst cruelty,” and Katharina’s, “Thy husband is they lord, thy life, thy keeper, Thy head, thy sovereign,” is the difference between heaven and hell. The European male prefers hell. +
Labels: feminism, true femininityposted by CWNY | 10:14 AM
This comment appeared in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 07:29 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
PF wrote:
That picture at the front of this piece is so beautiful! good choice Dasein!
This comment appeared in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 07:27 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Dan Dare wrote:
An oldie but still good for a titter.
Third Annual Nigerian Email Conference
Click through for the conference ‘Proceedings’.
This comment appeared in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 06:33 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Dan Dare wrote:
Black entrepreneurship par excellence.
Thamesmead was intended to be a vibrant, riverside community in south-east London. Forty years after being built, the area is known as a notorious hub of fraud, dubbed Little Lagos because of its association with west African criminal gangs, says Phil Kemp.
...
This comment appeared in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 05:44 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Gorboduc wrote:
As a PS to the above, this contaoins quite a bit of info on a sort of “Black” freemasonry operationg in “Black” business circles
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Vaz#Hinduja_affair
and the same source contains a funny comment on another form of business practised by da bruddaz, innit?An advance-fee fraud is a confidence trick in which the target is persuaded to advance sums of money in the hope of realizing a significantly larger gain. Among the variations on this type of scam, are the Nigerian Letter (also called the 419 fraud, Nigerian scam, Nigerian bank scam, or Nigerian money offer the Spanish Prisoner, the black money scam as well as Russian/Ukrainian scam (also extremely widespread, though far less popular than the former). The so-called Russian and Nigerian scams stand for wholly dissimilar organised-crime traditions; they therefore tend to use altogether different breeds of approaches.
Although similar to older scams such as the Spanish Prisoner, the modern 419 scam originated in the early 1980s as the oil-based Nigerian economy declined. Several unemployed university students first used this scam as a means of manipulating business visitors interested in shady deals in the Nigerian oil sector before targeting businessmen in the west, and later the wider population. Scammers in the early-to-mid 1990s targeted companies, sending scam messages via letter, fax, or Telex. The spread of e-mail and easy access to e-mail-harvesting software significantly lowered the cost of sending scam letters by using the Internet. In the 2000s, the 419 scam has spurred imitations from other locations in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, and, more recently, from North America, Western Europe (mainly United Kingdom and Netherlands), and Australia.
The number “419” refers to the article of the Nigerian Criminal Code (part of Chapter 38: “Obtaining Property by false pretences; Cheating") dealing with fraud. The American Dialect Society has traced the term “419 fraud” back to 1992.
The advance-fee fraud is similar to a much older scam known as the Spanish Prisoner scam in which the trickster tells the victim that a rich prisoner promised to share treasure with the victim in exchange for money to bribe prison guards. An older version of this scam existed by the end of 18th century, and is called “the Letter From Jerusalem” by Eugène François Vidocq, in his memoirs.
Insa Nolte, a lecturer of University of Birmingham’s African Studies Department, stated that “The availability of e-mail helped to transform a local form of fraud into one of Nigeria’s most important export industries.”
Embassies and other organizations warn visitors to various countries about 419. Countries in West Africa with warnings cited include Nigeria, Ghana Benin, Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Togo, Senegal and Burkina Faso. Countries outside West Africa with 419 warnings cited include South Africa,Spain, and the Netherlands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_fraud
Ingenious lot, aren’t they?
This comment appeared in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 05:22 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
g wrote:
Actually, quite a few blacks over here have already made resounding successes of their very own business ventures.
They do remarkably well in two related spheres of business activity: dealing drugs and running gangs.
Many individuals of colour have also performed impressively at a more humble level, displaying energy, verve, ingenuity and resource as self-employed redistrubutors of mobile phones and handbags.
Let us be proud and thankful that many native whites in the UK have laid down their lives in a selfless effort to assist our coloured brethren up life’s ladder.
This comment appeared in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 05:06 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Gorboduc wrote:
Thanks, GW, that’s a lot clearer. But I’m still not convinced by it.
I’ve no idea what syatem the abortionists subscribe to, but they’re only the footsoldiers.
Sorry, aren’t Lamarckists evolutionists? I don’t think I’d mentioned Darwin in the last few exchanges. However, i agree with your statement. And I agree with you about Liberals.
Googling Stalin Darwin comes up with 529,000 hits, compared with 12,800 for Stalin Lamarck. Googling all three comes up with this, from near the top of the page. (The URL is far too long, and I haven’t mastered the art of linking to urls by means of an underlined word or phrase, I regret to say)Initially, the Soviet regime was fascinated by eugenics, establishing a Russian Eugenic Society in 1921 and immediately proceeding to study the Jewish question. But Marxism in general was of two minds about evolution, and as noted above, tended to favor the Lamarckian side of the theory. Already in 1906, Stalin had declared himself for Lamarck. This was not a rejection of Darwinism per se but simply of the evolutionary mechanism that Darwin personally made famous, natural selection. For various reasons, Communists preferred to think in terms of environmental selection as the impersonal mechanism driving evolution. In the 1930s, Stalin beat the drum for Lamarck with increased intensity. After 1945, the official evolutionary theory of Soviet Communism was represented by a Ukrainian agronomist and scientific fraud, Trofim Lysenko. Under the rule of Lysenkoism, dissenters from the favored evolutionary orthodoxy were subject to career-destruction, imprisonment, even death.
You say:
Apologies for the grammar - I also have a day job that demands my concentration. But if that’s the best argument you have, you don’t have an argument.
and unfairly imply that my disagreement with you is based on my detection of a few typos and other small errors and that I consider my case strengthened by my detection of them.
Wrong, it’s based on something far more important.
The Faith Gene . . .
As I said above, clearer . . . but still not complete.
When I said earlier, let’s have another post, I meant : another thread.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 03:16 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Guessedworker wrote:
Gorb,
Of course “Evolution” kills people: or rather, the killers shelter behind it.
So you believe that the people running abortion clinics are evolutionary biologists? Look, Gorb, abortion is a liberal cause (usually). Liberals, you may have noticed, exploit evolutionary theory to eviscerate creationists and, in the next breath, attack sociobiologists with utterly faith-based exhortations to the effect that “Equality is a contingent fact of human history. Repeat it five times before breakfast.”
Liberals don’t play fair, but then they are fish-out-of-water faithists.
You also know that Stalin and Mao liked their oppressed masses to believe in Evolution
I don’t know about Mao, but Stalin was a Lamarckist. But let me make it clear that faithism is not just religious. Any irrationally powerful attachment to a higher future evinces the mechanism at work.
Apologies for the grammar - I also have a day job that demands my concentration. But if that’s the best argument you have, you don’t have an argument. But then faith is famously not an argument. It is a valuation. My argument, however, is that the value which faith in all its manifestations, religious and otherwise, acribes to its object energises and justifies vast wrongdoing. In its religious form it is at least properly seated. But it is not made quiet thereby.
We are punished for the faith of Germans in Adolf Hitler by Jews with faith in their pact with a non-existent G_d, and by universalists with faith in a non-existent Everyman and an all too existent MultiCult. Faith is everywhere we find a fight pressed on us. Faith is killing us. We have had enough of it.
The other great killer of innocents is the will to power.
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 02:30 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
DRS wrote:
What, pray tell, is David Cameron?
Well, I thought it was obvious. Cameron is either a jew, or a jew puppet who is out to destroy European Caucasians. Nothing whatsoever to do with economics, money or helping blacks.
It’s our fate for not “embracing” communism after the dust from WW2 settled.
This comment appeared in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 02:22 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
James Bowery wrote:
An emerging phenomenon is that the insularity of those on the government (contractor) payroll has led to a kind of imperious political activist insistent on making conditions worse so that:
1) Their sense of superiority to the rest of us is bolstered, and
2) They have more job security because the rest of us have less.Moreover, their political activisim is paid for by the government and they enjoy additional “status” by virtue of their “contacts” in government.
Although there seems nothing new here but the magnitude of the vicious cycle, a more careful observation is that it is getting to a cusp catastrophe—not merely a tipping point. I suspect the role of the old media here is similar to the imperious political activist except that instead of being directly on the government payroll, they are more and more dependent on their “contacts” in competition with the new media. (NOTE: The origin of the phrase “tipping point” in sociology was in the 1960s with regard to white flight.)
However, this is primarily a phenomenon of the “liberal”. The imperious “conservative” generally is wealthy due to rent-seeking that has extended beyond risk free returns on liquidation value, to regulatory capture of government in service of lowering labor costs (with the assistance, of course, of the imperious “liberals").
This comment appeared in entry 'Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy' on 03/17/10, 02:00 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Gorboduc wrote:
Of course “Evolution” kills people: or rather, the killers shelter behind it.
You know that already.
The Haeckelian lie that the human embryo isn’t human but is merely recapitulating a stage in its earlier (probably fishlike) phylogeny, and may therefore be violently disposed of without any moral problem, is a good case in point.
You know that too: and you know that Haeckel was a liar and a forger, and as you prate about “truth” you know that Haeckel can’t be invoked as one of its patrons.
You also know that Stalin and Mao liked their oppressed masses to believe in Evolution, and how useful those wicked men found its doctrines in their work.
Will you either accept or effectively contradict any of those statements publicly?
The sad confusion that seems to reign in your mind is exhibited by a whole clutch of unsupported inferences and non sequiturs in your most recent posting.
Exactly WHAT was the power of the clericy (sc."clerisy") that was overthrown half a millenia (sc. “millenium")...ago? Are you saying that the Reformation libarated “Mind”?
If so, in what sense, pray?
You should do a little more reading, in order to discover how a good many people felt a heavy hand on their shoulder and heard a voice saying “Stop!”
I’ve absolutely no idea as to why you regard “sorrows” as “answerable”, or apparently regard myself as having some responsibility in that direction: even making a reasonable assumption that “unanswerable “ is a typo for “unassuageable” (the likeliest editorial emendation that at present occurs to me,) I can find little meaning in your penultimate paragraph and absolutely none in your last, complicated as it is by the entirely ridiculous and unjust assumptions that I am in favour of “killing” or “forcing people into ignorance”.
I do admire the pre-emptive way in which you persistently claim to lay out for me the grounds on which you can be answered, and so kindly point out the unsurmountable difficulties which will encumber me.
As you haven’t yet answered any of my recent queries, be so good as to tell me, what is the other great
“killer of innocents” along with the faith gene?
This comment appeared in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 01:45 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
MsAnnThrope wrote:
@lurker
There were groups of what were called “Bantu” people who moved down into South Africa from central and east africa, I’m not sure about the dates though. And anyway, it shouldn’t matter who got here first really! Afrikaans people have been living in SA for over 200 years! SA belongs to them as much as it does to the “native” Africans, the Indians brought as workers and the descendents of the British.
Although I’m not sure a happy lil rainbow nation is a realistic possibility anymore. There is too much hate and anger on both sides of the racial divides. Until people truly forgive and forget we cannot move forward.
This comment appeared in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 03/17/10, 12:17 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)