|
|
‘Enlightened’ Child Abuse
Posted by Dasein on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 10:37 AM in Comments:2
Posted by Dan Dare on March 10, 2010, 03:26 PM | # The mother: “We have to learn to work in this multi-ethnic society, because it’s coming whether we like it or not.” Therein lies the rub. 3
Posted by Q on March 10, 2010, 04:52 PM | # I must give the mother credit for at least having enough good sense to get her son the hell out of that unhealthy and unwelcoming environment. But more disturbing is the fact that unwelcome environments for native Norwegian boys and girls in Norway even exist! 4
Posted by torgrim on March 10, 2010, 06:09 PM | # Mother: “We have to learn to work in this multi-ethnic society, because it’s coming whether we like it or not.” Frankly I think she likes the idea, however, reality of her son suffering this abuse has caused her maternal instincts to override the statist propaganda. Reality confronting the multi-cult, but look at the damage that is done with just this one example. No, multi-ethnic societies do not work. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on March 10, 2010, 08:56 PM | # For sheer liberal sanctmoniousness and gullibility this puts me in mind of the Belgian couple who sent their 17-year old daughter to Soweto as an exchange student:- http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060601011059991C363071
The story is from 1st June 2006. 6
Posted by Sherman Putterman on March 10, 2010, 10:33 PM | # Stupid white bunnies. Their son will likely struggle with feelings of inferiority and insecurity for the rest of his life. I hope the short-lived frisson of moral righteousness those idiots felt by thrusting their only child, guinea pig-like, onto the front-line of Norway’s “social experiment” was worth the cost of that child’s self-esteem. 7
Posted by Gorboduc on March 11, 2010, 05:43 AM | # The parents look as if they belong to the professional class. Academics, Managers? Pretty high IQ, I’d say, as such things are understood. Nice house, they have too, AND quite a few books. Mother has a frank, honest and open face - and she’s really quite handsome, a fine Nordic/Aryan racial type, I’m sure we’d agree. All that lovely blonde hair - good Viking ancestry! She’s also a gullible liberal idiot, showing that high IQ and “good genes” are absolutely NO protection against crap thinking. Why didn’t the parents pick the second school first? Because their son’s happiness (which depends on the perceived presence of his racial kin) took second place to their obsession with a lunatic experimental political ideology. There are plenty of parallel cases in the uk. In most of those, the parents have the choice of their children’s school forced on them. Even so, some of them moan unhappily “I’m not a racist, but . . “ 8
Posted by Gorboduc on March 11, 2010, 06:17 AM | # Quotes are from mother’s word in Video II: IMHO, mother STILL sees the “war” (which is also a “struggle for a better society”) as a means of getting the boy to accept his manifest destiny, which is to be a mere component of a multi-eth, multi-cult artificial imposed structure. She’s taken him out of the front line for a bit, but hopefully whwn he’s older ... Hopefully when he’s older he’ll see that there IS a war, but the banner he’ll be carrying won’t be the one his parents bought for him. Interesting, I think, that he chose to define himself as a “Christian” . It’s the natural antonym to “Moslem” in a way that “Pagan” or “Evolutionist” can never, ever, be ... 9
Posted by Dasein on March 11, 2010, 06:24 AM | # More child abuse, for the greater good:
10
Posted by Gorboduc on March 11, 2010, 09:03 AM | # Dasein, this sort of vile crime has happened before. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=53762 Look at the tone of the topmost responses - too much to be hoped that they’re sarcastic And I remember a more recent example in the UK which I’ll try and trace. The circumstances are so similar, despite the separation of the two events in time and space, that the 4-by-2’s must have issued a blueprint for this sort of horrific treatment. 11
Posted by Gorboduc on March 11, 2010, 09:20 AM | # And, further to the above, did anyone here notice this monstrosity? I’ve emphasises the predictable phrase.
12
Posted by Q on March 11, 2010, 09:34 AM | #
Ultimately the people responsible for the situation presented in the documentary lays at the feet of Norway’s Government. More specifically it’s those in government whose responsibility it is to legislate and enforce immigration policy. If it weren’t for deeply flawed immigration policy crafted by deeply flawed people, there wouldn’t be schools in Norway populated by hostile genetic pollutants who practice “The Religion of Peace.” The question arises : What motivates these people in government to force the worst sort of people onto their own? The best answer I can come up with is Globalism. The global elite, especially in the West, no longer believe in nationalism. They see borders, and by extension race, as a thing of the past. Their loyalty resides in their riches, power, and “progressive” agenda. Moreover, they see themselves as citizens of the world, not members of any particular race or ethnicity. So, as a result, they couldn’t care less about the fact their grandiose but selfish globalist paradigm is leaving the fate of the white-race hanging in the balance. 13
Posted by Alex on March 11, 2010, 05:55 PM | # I very much have to agree with that last entry, Q. Regarding the Moslems in Europe, that while to be sure they are being exploited and manipulated by a relative few at most everyone else’s great expense in that variant of slavery known euphamistically as ‘cheap labor’, or the flimsy fig leaf for the same, the easily 95% plus fraudulent asylum seeker, and that they (the Islamics, within the context of Europe) have been conditioned to believe that this is all a great thing for them, one also has to bear in mind that at present the Multi-Cult is at war with Islam, and that too be sure while at least some of the Islamics, probably yes, even a great many, if not the majority of them, think they are being part of ‘a jihad’ against Europe, it is the Multi-Culturalists who are waging the far greater war against them by their presence in Europe as part of what is broadly a divide and conquer, divide and rule tactic, for in time their people in their homelands will as well be told that their people ‘were once immigrants’, so that their places may be flooded with cheap laborers/slaves (aka ‘immigrants’) and fraudulent ‘asylum seekers’. The war the Multi-Culturalists are waging against Islam (as part of a larger war waged against all peoples and humanity as a whole), a war led by powerful elements of the Anglo-Saxon elites of the US and UK in conjunction with powerful elements of the elites of the Jewish people, is about acquiring the oil wealth of the Middle East, maintaining a presence in the environs of central Asia as part of MacKinders ‘Heartland Strategy’, and the security of the state of Israel. Going against their norms regarding ethnicity and religion which doesn’t tend to allow for much comment of substance, the advocates of the Multi-Cult are deliberately allowing for ‘the discussion’ about Islam in Europe, even for the occassional disparaging comment about Islamics (such as those cartoons about Mohammed published in Europe not so many years back), and allowing for the riots in places such as Paris with the Islamic ‘youths’ to drag on, so as to get Europeans in a fighting mode against Islam. They will even allow (and yes, encourage) European peoples to think this Multi-cult war with Islam is the same historical struggle that Europe has had with Islam, though it is decidedly not. The best thing that Islamics could do is call their people home from Europe, and the best thing Europeans could do is call their people home from the Middle East, (or for the troops to do it unilaterally even) from places such as Lebanon (amongst others), where my guess is they may well be being set up for some type of Pearl Harbor event, so as to produce a contrived cause to greatly expand the Multi-cult’s war with Islam.
14
Posted by John on March 11, 2010, 07:04 PM | # “Interesting, I think, that he chose to define himself as a “Christian” . It’s the natural antonym to “Moslem” in a way that “Pagan” or “Evolutionist” can never, ever, be ...” Bullshit! It’s a code-word for Nordic, the opposites of which are Arab and Negro. If the boy converted to Islam he’d still be Nordic. 15
Posted by Gorboduc on March 11, 2010, 07:49 PM | # John, I’m an English Catholic, therefore a Christian. I’m NOT, most emphatically NOT, a Nordic: which doesn’t mean I have the slightest objection to folks that call themselves that, although i can never take terms like that. beginning with “Western Man”, QUITE seriously. “Nordic” is, I think, a version of “Nordique”, and I don’t need to use mispellings derived from slightly odd anthropology to define myself. Elias’s mother, is, as I remarked above, a fairly “Nordic” type, but I don’t think she’s a Christian. Let the boy define his spirituality. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on March 11, 2010, 09:03 PM | # Gorboduc, “I am” is one statement, and an interesting one, for sure. You follow it with another: “an English Catholic ...”, meaning a variety of Catholic found among the English. But before you are religious you are Man, and as Man you are European, and as European you are Northern European (or Nordic) and, finally, as Northern European you are English. In other words, your race and ethnicity is of your being. Your religious affiliation defines your faith attachment. In another age you would have been equally attached to the worship of the wanderer and leader of souls. You are English. You have a faith, which is Catholic. John is right about Elias. 17
Posted by Wandrin on March 11, 2010, 11:50 PM | # In the context of the film clip the boy defined himself as Christian as an act of defiance against filthy foreign invaders. If the boy had converted to islam he wouldn’t still be Nordic because he’d have surrendered and become a slave to filthy foreign invaders. 18
Posted by Captainchaos on March 12, 2010, 12:14 AM | # Gorboduc, either you care if your race gets mongrelized out of existence or you done. And if you do care, just what are you prepared to do about it? 19
Posted by John on March 12, 2010, 05:09 AM | # Gorboduc: ““Nordic” is, I think, a version of “Nordique”, and I don’t need to use mispellings derived from slightly odd anthropology to define myself.” I don’t care how you define yourself, but I would suggest you buy yourself a good English dictionary as while faux-correcting my “mispelling” of an anglicized word, you can’t even spell “misspelling” correct. Tell you what, how about, “jeg er norsk”? Would that properly distinguish the boy from an Arab Christian convert with a Norweigan passport? Guessedworker: “John is right about Elias.” I am sick and tired of seeing elsewhere the problem of high-R immigrant hordes being framed as a “Muslim” problem (convienently ignoring the “politically correct” Bosnian Muslims who are inverted on the moral scale vis à vis the Serbs). But it really riles me to see such “thinking” in this board. Are people (other than the cynical ones for whom European and Arabs are common enemies) really stupid enough to think that if the immigrants became atheists or mass-converted to Christianity the threat to Western peoples would suddenly disappear? 20
Posted by Gorboduc on March 12, 2010, 05:27 AM | # Thank you, Wandrin. And thank you too, GW, for refining and expanding my stumbling and incoherent notions and for helping them to a fuller, more accurate expression than I was able tofind for them. And I appreciate the excursion into those parts of my history which had hitherto been inexplicably hidden from me. Always one for helping lame dogs over stiles, old GW. I’m glad you find “I am” interesting. But I hadn’t intended it as a stand-alone, being neither God nor Descartes. I really must check up on Tertullian to see if by “Anima naturaliter Christiana” he was referring to one particular soul like Virgil’s, perhaps, or whether it could be intended it to apply to EVERYONE, in the way GK Chesterton suggests in his The Everlasting Man ... Don’t know much about the wanderer and leader ... if he was just wandering about he probably wasn’t much of a leader, the blind leading the blind, and all that. I might have been “attached” to his sad procession, but perhaps not convinced by the theology ... Hope I’d have been like the famous bloke in Bede who at the feast plumped for Xtianity as it explained more… Of course, I must learn to call the Norsemen “Nordic” and to talk about “the Nordic yoke”. Still mileage in that last one, even today ... Something in the older British and Anglo-Saxon mind-sets led them to discriminate a bit, first between each other, and then between themselves and the invading Norsemen and then the Normans ... ignorant bunch, silly old Hereward! 21
Posted by John on March 12, 2010, 05:46 AM | # Q: “The question arises : What motivates these people in government to force the worst sort of people onto their own? The best answer I can come up with is Globalism. The global elite, especially in the West, no longer believe in nationalism. They see borders, and by extension race, as a thing of the past. Their loyalty resides in their riches, power, and “progressive” agenda. Moreover, they see themselves as citizens of the world, not members of any particular race or ethnicity. So, as a result, they couldn’t care less about the fact their grandiose but selfish globalist paradigm is leaving the fate of the white-race hanging in the balance.” I would add that cohesive European nations with a sense of history and ethnic pride and great in-group altruism is something they can’t control and that they fear more than anything else. Can you think of a bigger threat to their hegemony? I believe they have made common cause with elite Jews in nation-destruction who share the same fear. Without the wars of the 20th Century, including the Cold War, and without Globalism, mass-immigration and the fake terror war, we might have figured out that we really don’t even need an elite. 22
Posted by Dasein on March 12, 2010, 06:06 AM | #
Interesting article in today’s Daily Mail: 23
Posted by Gorboduc on March 12, 2010, 06:33 AM | # John, the odd typo must be expected and tolerated. If you’re going to be a stickler for linguistic decorum, how about trying “correctly” as an adverb rather than your illiterately mis-used adjective, “correct”. Your “convienently” looks a little suspect . . . I COULD have objected to CC’s odd and apparently negroid phrase “you done”, but I didn’t. The meaning was clear, and the possible ambiguity,“You done, boy!”, richly suggestive. Anyway, I wasn’t accusing you of a particular misspelling (better now?), but just drawing attention to another appearance of what some people regard as a misleading and unmeaning word. Nordic doesn’t seem to have appeared before the 1890’s, with Deniker: an interesting early usage is from no. 107 ofMan, in 1921:
and Nordicism is illustrated by an unintentionally funny quotation from Eckenrode’s Jefferson Davies (1924)
When did Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Icelanders start referring to themselves as “Nordics”? Oh, and btw, I have a perfectly good dictionary, the old older OED, the big one, from which my quotations are borrowed. I don’t keep referring to it, as I’m not too worried by a perceived inability to spell common words. Are you? I use it to check up on things like hylomorph and sevendele. Anyway, it’s by no means infallble: those who consult Notes and Queries are aware that every now and then a scholar comes up with a list of 20 or 30 earlier usages of words that the dictionary missed - and those sometimes found in one single book which you might expect to have come under the harmless drudges’ notice. I’m glad you find my self-definition irrelevant: perhaps your readers needn’t pay much attention to your emotional state, publicly diagnosed for us by means of “sick and tired” and “it riles me”. 24
Posted by Al Ross on March 12, 2010, 06:51 AM | # Never mind, Gorboduc. Think of how often you’ve got on your well-worn knees and jabbered at the Jew- invented, celestial, Jesus - infested clouds and, as usual, nothing happened? Chin up , old chap. 25
Posted by Gorboduc on March 12, 2010, 07:19 AM | # Dear Al, what the hell do you mean by “infested clouds”? And what did you suppose I thought was going to happen? Is this more “secet history” a la GW?
Tinkerty-tonk! 26
Posted by John on March 12, 2010, 07:20 AM | # Gorboduc: “John, the odd typo must be expected and tolerated. If you’re going to be a stickler for linguistic decorum, how about trying “correctly” as an adverb rather than your illiterately mis-used adjective, “correct”.” As “correct” in that context describes content and not process, it modifies a cognate null object and is thus adjectival and not at all “illiterately mis-used”. In fact, “correctly” there would be an example of overcorrection, though shallow and rule-oriented prescriptive grammarians would probably disagree. I expect and tolerate any post that is remotely readable so long as the poster doesn’t botch an attempt to correct my or someone else’s usage, spelling or grammar. Forgive me for finding correcting my “mispelling” ironic. 27
Posted by Gorboduc on March 12, 2010, 07:21 AM | # Before John gets there, “secet” shd. be “secret”. 28
Posted by Gorboduc on March 12, 2010, 07:35 AM | # Well John, forgive me for thinking that if having indignant recourse to the modification of a “cognate null object” isn’t typical of the way that
29
Posted by Angela on March 12, 2010, 07:53 AM | # What does it feel like to be a on the losing side? Ask the red Indians or the Australian aborigines. Fifty years too late they scratch their heads and wonder what happened and how did they get where they are. Losers don’t know they’re in a war. BTW, those Norwegians need an ice age. 30
Posted by John on March 12, 2010, 08:04 AM | # It’s similar to “the dam held firm”, in that case, the null (or deleted) object being a reflexive. Offering a well though-out rationale for excepting a dogmatic grammatical rule which I have always intuitively felt didn’t apply is neither shallow nor rule-oriented. (See also, “acting strange(ly)”, “think different”, etc.) I did indeed spell conveniently incorrect. 31
Posted by Gorboduc on March 12, 2010, 08:31 AM | # John, all serene-oh: - OK? There are far more important fish to fry. We don’t want to end up like Angela’s losing aborigines, so we need to exercise cooperative thought. Question is really, how/why did the Norwegians get into the state they’re in now? 32
Posted by Al Ross on March 12, 2010, 09:02 AM | # All kidding aside, Gorboduc - you’re gay as a rainbow full of Cardinals? No? Timewise, over here its about 34 degrees Centigrade or Celsius, whichever is the hotter. 33
Posted by John on March 12, 2010, 10:20 AM | #
It’s a pity the students didn’t take the “game” to its conclusion: torture a confession out of the teacher, give her a show trial and hang her for crimes against humanity. Gorboduc: “Question is really, how/why did the Norwegians get into the state they’re in now?” King Olaf’s sellout set the stage, imo: “Any religion or mythology not firmly anchored to Blut und Boden sows the seeds for destroying the former and rendering uninhabitable the latter.” -me 34
Posted by Wandrin on March 12, 2010, 04:16 PM | # @John
I understand your point of view but i think there’s two problems here, some people, especially the jews who’ve realised their mistake, try to focus exclusively on islam being the problem rather than foreign invaders being the problem. This rightly angers people. The second problem though is some people, especially WNs in places with low muslim immigration, seem tempted to make exceptions for muslims because they are so anti-jewish. This rightly angers people living in towns in Europe where muslims are rapidly becoming an existential threat. Is there a good reason for discussing muslim foreign invaders as muslims rather than as foreign invaders despite it causing these ructions? I think there is because muslims can’t be made to fit into the multi-cult because of their muslim-ness - islam is simply too invasive, domineering and aggressive. It’s not that islam is a problem and their ethnicity isn’t, it’s that islam is so obviously a threat according to the rules of the multi-cult itself. The relentless multi-cult propaganda says a multi-racial society is a good thing but things like sexism, religious bigotry, homophobia are bad things. Then along come the muslims breaking all the multi-cult rules and getting away with it. Why? To us there is no inconsistency because the multi-cult is really about our genocide and their rules are designed solely to make us lower our defences but the trance-people see an inconsistency and i think inconsistencies can help snap people out of their trance. There is a big problem with this obviously in that it could easily be turned into culturalism but in a nutshell my view is muslim immigration is especially irritating to the trance-people and therefore can be used to wake them up. I think the key is to always focus on immigration and ethnic swamping as the problem but then to use muslims as the prime example of the problem because it’s impossible for the multi-cult to defend on that ground without throwing up glaring inconsistencies. Admittedly this strategy could be one of those that make it easier at the beginning but then harder later on - time will tell. 35
Posted by Wandrin on March 12, 2010, 05:08 PM | #
I think there are two core reasons - one from the “left” and one from the “right” - and two others that spawned from the first two. On the right i think it was originally simply cheap labour - money basically, nothing more complicated than that. This is /was only part-jewish. Over time as the world economy became more inter-twined and communciation became ever easier national capitalism turned multi-national and the individuals involved in it turned into rootless cosmopolitans. They became detached and separate from their own and turned into non-jewish jews. On the left however the motivation was entirely nation-wrecking and jewish. On it’s own however i don’t think the left’s agenda could have made much progress because the unions were always against imported cheap labour. The decisive factor was the invention of cinema and television. This allowed jews in the media to effectively create a new media-based religion based on original white sin which could only be redeemed through racial suicide. There are thousands of films and TV shows which act as sermons preaching this message where there is a conflict between white and non-white and the “good” white person is the one who betrays their side. Globalism from the “right” and the multi-cult religion from the “left” would be my answers. Some of the elite are eradicating their own people for money, some are doing it because they’ve been brain-washed to believe it makes them a “good” person. Sex is natural but for hundreds of years the old religion made people feel guilty about it. Ethno-centric behaviour is natural but the new multi-cult religion makes white rabbits (and only white rabbits) feel guilty about it. No difference. 36
Posted by John on March 12, 2010, 05:28 PM | # There’s little gang graffiti in Bosnian Muslim neighborhoods. They keep to themselves and don’t have aggressive, surly or contentious attitudes towards their hosts. And they don’t rape our women at 100 times the rate of European Christians. Jews consider them allys (in part because they’re not sitting on oil and in part because they can use them against nationalistic Serbians). I see what you mean about the multi-cult. It has them turning flips to “embrace” these people. If congnitive dissonance were a negotiable instrument, Mona Sahlín (Swedish opposition leader), after donning a towel for an early morning photo-op at the Mosque in Göteborg, then flying to Stockholm to address a lesbian convention later in the day, would own the world, the moon and claims on a couple of the larger planets. 37
Posted by Thunder on March 12, 2010, 06:59 PM | # The problem is that the father is dickless. The woman appears to do all the talking and make the decisions. The boy will at least have a true understanding of how the world works. 38
Posted by Wandrin on March 12, 2010, 08:56 PM | # @John 39
Posted by Borvo on March 14, 2010, 04:54 AM | # Poor kid, I can just imagine what he went through. A MULTICULTURAL EUROPE IS AN ENSLAVED EUROPE PAN-EUROPEAN UNION IS THE ANSWER 40
Posted by Gorboduc on March 14, 2010, 06:43 AM | # Al, blood does not say,“Preserve the blood” - “Rubbish!” Seems like anyone who questions the use of the silly word Nordic gets stick pie here! 41
Posted by John on March 14, 2010, 07:30 AM | # “blood does not say,“Preserve the blood” The first needs no supernatural explanation. Even ants and bees do it. The second follows from the first. But something imposed from outside by force of arms definitely impedes those imperatives: A universalist religion founded by Middle Eastern goatherders that anyone can join, regardless of blood or soil. One that recruits for converts in Africa, Asia and anywhere else in the world. 42
Posted by Captainchaos on March 14, 2010, 02:13 PM | #
What a verbal Paracelsus you are Gorbo! You ostensibly think you have the power to render what is so not so merely by placing your preferred spin on it. And what is it that really troubles you, that racialism, more particularly Nordicism, will become a substitute for God in the life of European people? What a fragile, delicate little god the Jewish god must be if that could be the case. 43
Posted by Gorboduc on March 14, 2010, 02:51 PM | # What’s wrong with goatherders, John? Obviously Olaf’s pagan predecessors were agricultural folk too, so why should that background be a credit to them,and a disgrace to the M-Easterners? I’d like to suggest that the parable of The Emperor’s New Clothes might illuminate the situation. I was always taught that its intention was to illustrate the perils of flattering rulers. Now, though, I think ithe story is about peer pressure. I’ve often noticed that if you take the bull by the horns and state with conviction that you ARE a racialist, that you can’t see why people shoud be discouraged from voting for the NF or the BNP and that a preference for your own kith and kin is absolutely natural and healthy, and the opposite unnatural and even insane, your left/liberal neighbour may back down a bit, and even begin to agree, as long as they’re not overheard by others whom they think hold the “progressive” view. In fact it’s possible, imho, that a whole roomful of people may vote for a measure which NONE of them really believes in, simply from the desire to be “like folks” and not stand out. In other words, people who DON’T believe in something could be being used to exert pressure to bring it about, because of a sort of group dynamic of embarrassment. Perhaps that roomful could be brought to greater self-knowledge, and tactfully urged towards the tipping point? Perhaps young Elias might turn out to be the brave boy of the fable. 44
Posted by John on March 14, 2010, 03:31 PM | # “What’s wrong with goatherders, John?” In Scandinavia, nothing, so long as they’re “Nordic” and their religion comes organically from their own kind. 45
Posted by John on March 14, 2010, 03:46 PM | # “Well John, forgive me for thinking that if having indignant recourse to the modification of a “cognate null object”...” Actually, I misapplied the rule exception I came up with. It doesn’t apply in that particalar case. With “you spelled (or spelt) it incorrect”, (imo) “incorrect” modifies the explicit “it”. Compare “you spelled it quickly”. The null congnate object exception applies to verbs like think, see, etc, where the modifer modifies the (imo nominal) result or content rather than the process. 46
Posted by Dan Dare on March 14, 2010, 04:06 PM | #
Pretty sure you must have twigged right away that John was having a dig at Christianity there Gorbo. But the one thing that has always been troubling about fingering Christianity for our ills is that the universalist strain is a quite recent innovation. It’s only yesterday that the cannon fodder marched off to the front secure in the knowledge that God Is On Our Side. When did that all change? Might be time for a canter on my favourite old hobby-horse “Hitler’s Revenge”. 47
Posted by Gorboduc on March 14, 2010, 04:55 PM | # Well, actually, Dan, I thought so too, but I pretended… SI DEUS PRO NOBIS, QUIS CONTRA NOS? CHRESTIENS ONT DROIT, PAIENS ONT TORT!
48
Posted by Captainchaos on March 14, 2010, 05:09 PM | # Never let the palingenetic eugenicists take your faith gene, Gorbo, the world would be a drab place without it. 49
Posted by Gorboduc on March 14, 2010, 06:06 PM | # For the umpteenth time: The first Apostles kept no goats, 50
Posted by Guessedworker on March 14, 2010, 06:58 PM | # Gorb, “The faith gene” is just my expression for the condition of belief. I hold it, in its sincere form, to be: 1. Inherited, not learned, and a product of the higher range of emotional function. 2. Non-conditional to the traditional disciplines and methodologies of being. This isn’t to say that it is negative in itself. But it vectors negativities, ie, intolerance, fanaticism, all the weaknesses of Man generally. 51
Posted by John on March 15, 2010, 04:07 AM | #
In the first one, the direct object is deleted. But I nontheless prefer “incorrectly” for reasons that are difficult for me to explain. In the second example, “wrong” modifies “it”, imo. But I can show you the distinction I’m getting at with these examples: God created Adam well (did a good job creating him). Ferrari made his car quickly (built it in three days) Christianity neither civilized the already-civilized Western peoples nor can it civilize savages. Europeans would be better off without it. My main problems with it are its self-abnegation and guilt-induction. If it was ever a positive force, those days are long-gone, as these soul-saving, pew-warming, collection plate-filling Christians would indicate: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4916930.html 52
Posted by Captainchaos on March 15, 2010, 04:09 AM | # Gorbo, Apologies if I offended you, for speaking bluntly, as is my wont. You have recently said here, if I read you aright, everything a good man could ask of you: you are loyal to your people and wish for them life. You need not go further, your faith is your inalienable property; so too for all those like you. Here we are allowed to say what we feel we must, even though it may wound, and that is a testament to the strength and character of those who gather here. Unlike other sites in our constellation of ‘intellectual racism’. The though fundamentally decent, yet plainly to a degree vain and petty men at those other sites have in them a censorious streak; and it is not as they would contend a matter of quality control, it is more in line with protecting their all too fragile egos. None of that here, no insult to our honor or yours via what amounts to lies. We are White men, and that ought to mean something, I dare say even in a ideal sense. Let it be that what we here wish the world to be is made so, it will be a better world. 53
Posted by Gorboduc on March 15, 2010, 06:02 AM | # GW - “Methodologies”, “Vectors” are terms too difficult for me. 54
Posted by John on March 15, 2010, 02:18 PM | # John: just so. Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives describe nouns. I think Waugh was right, the test of a good English sentence is, does it translate well into Latin? “Bonum” and “bene” will suggest themselves appropriately to your meaning. Shake! (I mean, “Da mihi manum”, not “Incipe tremere”) Right you are. BTW, wasn’t it some stuffy old latinophile English lord who imposed Latin word order on English (the no ending with prepositions rule) whom Churchill lampooned (indirectly) with, “That is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.”? Actually “put up with” is a phrasal verb and “up” and “with” in such usage are particles but I appreciate his sentiment, nonetheless. Alas, that unorganic Latin word order has started to creep into modern Swedish as well. 55
Posted by Desmond Jones on March 15, 2010, 03:50 PM | #
Very true. The faith gene is a lie and those that construct the lie will always repeat it. 56
Posted by Guessedworker on March 15, 2010, 07:17 PM | # Gorb, I am looking past what you take to be rigorous, and I am synthesing the metaphysical and the concrete. This latter I do because, in my certain experience, a metaphysic which is not concrete is an illusion, albeit very often a beautiful one. If you do not understand this today it is only because your faith prevents you. This is a problem peculiar to Christianity, for Christians - even venerated ones - will not go beyond belief. In religious systems with an esoteric core belief retires before knowledge, and retires early. Knowledge, of course, is not knowledge at all unless it is of the concrete, and the esoteric in this respect is precisely the concreteness of Self, being and unity. There is nothing that is that is not concrete. Desmond, The emotional “organ notes” of piety, reverence, and devotion, for example, are not learned, not cultural. There are no learned or culturally-generated emotional organ notes. There are only learned sequences of feeling - not at all the same thing. It is alright to say that the difference is the difference between your church organ and a Bach fugue. The organ, with all its notes, is provided by Nature. Old JSB can direct your hands and feet. I know you will insist on conflating the instrument with the music. But such a view is dependent on an amorphous reading of the human brain, and amorphousness is very much the norm. Such is the still very poor understanding of how the human brain functions. Ultimately, you are resisting the possibility of conclusions arrived at simply. You do not want simplicity. It would mean that the method of general thought is wrong. But that is what I insist upon. I note that you have made two recent attacks on my thinking, first to disprove, as here, that faith is genetic in origin and, second, to disprove my assertion that the origin of associative thought lies in the grasslands theory, not the language theory. Both times you have failed to offer explanations that I have requested, while I have answered all your objections to my ideas. If that is to be the standard of debate between us I have to say, it is not satisfactory. How about you explaining now how the religious emotions are not emotions like other emotions (that is, evolved - not learned - electro-chemical activity)? 57
Posted by Gorboduc on March 15, 2010, 09:42 PM | # GW: as in Yeats, “who can tell the dancer from the dance” , I suppose. Priest;“Don’t you believe in anyhting, my child?” If you CAN’T tell us what and where the faith-gene is, other than claim its postulated existence in your mind as some kind of metaphor, then PLEASE refer us to an article in the Scientific American or Nature. I’ve got several books by Pinker, but he doesn’t help on this one. Oh, and btw, a good example of the sort of obscurity that you involve the matter is is provided by your
The GT, whatever it is, CAN’T predate thought, now, can it? It’s the result of thought, not its origin! “Clear your mind of cant!” as Johnson requested Boswell on a memorable occasion. Darwin was ever a loose and woolly thinker, and he seems to have bequeathed a disastrous legacy of incoherence to his disciples. Oh, and btw, the Bach fugue is easily distinguishable from the organ. No medium is presribed by JSB for The Art of Fugue, and you can play it on whatever you like. It’s a demonstration of how to exploit various compositional devices, and some people prefer to contemplate it from the score. As I’ve said before, the theory of Evolution can only really lead to a cosmic pessimism: IF you believe in Evolution, then the next stage in human history may very well be a sort of general racial integration resulting in a homogenous community of tall coffee-coloured bores. You DO have an alternative, one in which you aren’t forced into the sort of deterministic impasse that perpoexes you now . . . 58
Posted by Gorboduc on March 15, 2010, 09:48 PM | # Sorry, several typos, but the only REALLY silly one affects the pre-ante-penultimate word, which shd. read “perplexes”. 59
Posted by Guessedworker on March 16, 2010, 05:26 AM | # Gorb, I don’t think you have paid sufficiently close attention to what I wrote. You have a picture in your head, and you are answering that. For the avoidance of doubt, I am holding up the existence of the emotions of piety, reverence and devotion as concrete gene expressions. Would you care to offer a rebuttal? My reference here to a Theory of the Grass Horizon itself refers to the debate with Desmond at the end of this thread: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/susan_blackmore_on_the_myth_of_free_will/ 60
Posted by Gorboduc on March 16, 2010, 07:23 AM | # GW: Were you a female I’d carol with Tennyson,
I’ll offer you a rebuttal when you’ve offered a clearer statement.. So what’s in YOUR head? If it’s stuffed full of theorems, each with QED, share ‘em with us! Look, I’ll check on the Theory of the Grass Horizon or the Glass Ceiling or whatever AFTER you’ve either tightened up the thought behind your
or at least admitted that the ORIGIN of a thing MUST PREDATE any theory about it! William James discussed the phenomenon of sudden conversion to a faith position after a lifetime of agnosticism.
Mind it doesn’t happen to you! Look, your recent contribution to the current EHRC/Gfiffin thread is snappy and pertinent: but you and the good Captain get a bit confusing and arrogant when you try to psycho-analyse other folks! 61
Posted by Guessedworker on March 16, 2010, 01:48 PM | # Gorb, I’ll offer you a rebuttal when you’ve offered a clearer statement. You think that the relationship of phenotype to genotype is unclear? So where was the faith gene earlier in his life? Inhabiting other irrationalities. Religious conversion is conversion to religion, not to faith. you and the good Captain get a bit confusing and arrogant when you try to psycho-analyse other folks! I am asking you as a believer in symbols to recognise the claim of experience of (and even, in its own house, thought about) being. 62
Posted by Gorboduc on March 16, 2010, 07:34 PM | # Wha-a-a-at? 63
Posted by Guessedworker on March 16, 2010, 09:12 PM | # Gorb, OK, I will spell it out again: piety, reverence and devotion are phenotypes, just as any other emotion is. The import of this simple and obvious fact is that religious feeling and religious conviction - aka faith - are right there in the genotype. You asked that I pointed to “the faith gene”, and this is the best I can do on this side of the argument. The other side of the argument about the nature of religious esoterism is unsuited to this medium. Suffice to say that exercise of religious feeling is not a meaningful to that subject. 64
Posted by Gorboduc on March 17, 2010, 06:18 AM | # Oh the dark sense of secrecy - the Esotery of the Master Mason (yes, that’s in a volume of my collection of masonic rituals) - the Inner Sanctuary - Hekas Este Bebeloi - The Golden Dawn - The Black Rose - Evola - Guenon - The Secret Fraternity Of The Holy Aryan Blood - The Swedish Rite (which is perfectly genuine and, I suppose satisfactorily combines Jew masonry with NORDICISM). Just answer my queries, please, abt. the precedence “origin” and “theory” (Mar 16, 01.42 a.m.) and abt. which one of us, you or I, is supposed to be the “believer in symbols”, (do., 05.48 p.m.) and, those small matters ironed out, take on board the possibility that you may need to clarify, if not your notions, at least your means of expressing ‘em! 65
Posted by Guessedworker on March 17, 2010, 07:35 AM | # Gorb, As a Christian you are free individually to believe what you wish. You are free to attempt to interest other people in your beliefs. No one will lay a hand on your shoulder and order you to stop. But the throwing over of the power of the clericy half a millenia and more ago, and the long process of undoing belief as the only standard of truth, were great goods and a liberation of Mind. For now, at least, the religious have no power to enslave men and women in ignorance, though that may change as the faith gene proliferates: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tag/shall-the-religious-inherit-the-earth/ The faith gene, let it be said, is one of the two great killers of innocents. Those filled with faiths of all sorts yet consider their killings righteous and a means justified by the splendour of their ends. CC lightly berates me for venturing the opinion that we need less faith so that the innocents may live their lives sovereign and free. But the truth is that the sorrows that weigh upon history are unanswerable, and you are not, in fact, answering them. Were you to do so, Gorb, and thereby mount a meaningful moral and intellectual challenge to an analysis - evolution - that kills nobody, you would have to explain how and why killing or, at the very least, forcing people into ignorance is superior. 66
Posted by Gorboduc on March 17, 2010, 09:45 AM | # Of course “Evolution” kills people: or rather, the killers shelter behind it. 67
Posted by Guessedworker on March 17, 2010, 10:30 AM | # 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. 68
Posted by Gorboduc on March 17, 2010, 11:16 AM | # 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.
You say:
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. 69
Posted by PF on March 17, 2010, 03:44 PM | # Fascinating points, GW.
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. 70
Posted by Gorboduc on March 17, 2010, 04:01 PM | # GW. this is SORT OF what I was after . . It’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: 71
Posted by Guessedworker on March 17, 2010, 08:35 PM | # 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. 72
Posted by Gorboduc on March 17, 2010, 09:24 PM | # 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. 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 73
Posted by PF on March 17, 2010, 10:39 PM | # 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. 74
Posted by Gorboduc on March 18, 2010, 10:19 AM | # PF:I was very taken with your last sentence
as it put me in mind of Kipling’s: “The Ballad of Minepit Shaw”:
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, 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 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. 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 simply can’t see where the above excerpt fits in. 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.) [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: 75
Posted by PF on March 18, 2010, 02:38 PM | #
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?
Which in 2010 is probably asking more than state-of-the-art research can deliver.
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. 76
Posted by Gorboduc on March 18, 2010, 04:02 PM | # PF/GW Well, I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again, just the once. 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. 77
Posted by Guessedworker on March 18, 2010, 06:32 PM | # 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. 78
Posted by PF on March 18, 2010, 07:08 PM | # Gorboduc
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?
Gorboduc….. Gorboduc, Gorboduc. Gorboduc. Gorboduc. Gorboduc. 79
Posted by Gorboduc on March 18, 2010, 08:42 PM | # 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. No hard feelings, it’s just a question of where you feel at home. 80
Posted by Guessedworker on March 18, 2010, 09:13 PM | # Gorb, I just wrote:
And you wrote;
Perhaps we just find different things exciting. 81
Posted by Gorboduc on March 19, 2010, 06:46 AM | # Rubbish, GW.
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’. 82
Posted by Guessedworker on March 19, 2010, 01:03 PM | # Gorb, There are a couple of things I want to say about why you perceive the objects of your belief to be under attack. They are not under attack in any direct way as articles of faith. It is the suzereignty of faith itself and in all its guises, religious and secular, that is under attack, for faith is implicated in our decline and cannot be ignored. So ... First, I am interested in (at least talking about) creating a new thought-world in which we Europeans can locate our selves, our natures, our rights and interests as individuals and members of a racial and ethnic grouping, and in which we can base our political, social and economic expressions. So it’s a big deal. As a prospective competitor to the liberalism we see advancing in decay all around us, such a thought-world cannot, simply cannot retire before the claim, however sincere, that “Jesus saves” or that a mass return to faith in the after-life, fear of Judgement Day, and full church pews every Sunday morning is God’s answer to our crisis. We have to be more sensible than that. At the same time we have to acknowledge that faith is part of Man’s sociobiology (ie, it’s genetic in origin), and it isn’t going to go away. We do not need to deny its dicta anymore than we need to accept them. We need to declare them part of the private life, conducted between “I” and “me” and mediated by a priesthood which has no ambitions to social leadership and takes its committment to universalism spiritually, not socially. Second, Christianity has an objective value which we can place beside the values of other religious systems. We can do this because they are systems fashioned by the hand of Man, not by God or gods or possibly even very godly men on occasion. For forty years lost and confused young Europeans have been doing exactly that, and traipsing off to the nearest ashram to experience a bit of colourful mysticism and dysentery. Now, here’s the hard part to take. Let’s look ahead and consider what effect the espousing of the aforementioned ontology of nationalism would have. I foresee that it would drive the ashram tendency in a new way, that is, not from a feeling of the irrelevance of Christianity compared to its vibrant cousins far, far away, as now, but from a conviction of its wrongness compared to the rising secular thought-world at home - a thought-world with its gaze cooly fixed on the existential, on the now and on the true. Such a rebalancing of the scales on which ontology and teleology sit would raise questions about which Christianity has little to say beyond Thomas Aquinas’ fleeting assurance that the will to live and procreate is a basic human value. I don’t think that would be nearly enough to satisfy the new critics. Oh, and scientology. In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious. Which I beg you to take as a NO! 83
Posted by PF on March 19, 2010, 02:33 PM | #
I second whatever GW says about faith and all that nonsense. Your faith needs to be brought down to the level of being a hobby. Like knitting, or making 84
Posted by Gorboduc on March 19, 2010, 03:37 PM | # GW: don’t talk meaningless twaddle about “new thought-worlds” until you’ve properly learned your way about the old one. GW is ontologising again!
The second, with no words altered at all, is dedicated to PF, who seems to be getting a bit threatening and is possibly thinking of wielding the stick in the last line. He does look nice in his Inquisitor’s Hat.
85
Posted by Captainchaos on March 19, 2010, 05:00 PM | # Gorbo, I suspect your penchant for faithism has not so badly clouded your rational faculties that you are unable to recognize, and to process information consistent with the fact that, there are intractable racial differences rooted in genetics which make it unwise for us to submit to our extinguishment via mongrelization. Am I right? If so, I really don’t give a fuck what else you wish to believe, so long as you are on board with racialism. But wait, no, the people have got to be genetically engineered so they can organically perceive their being, or some such, instead of merely being indoctrinated to its importance. Sounds awfully teleological to me. 86
Posted by Gorboduc on March 19, 2010, 05:57 PM | #
No one, that is, except PF with his:
CC: I won’t object too much to your first paragraph. I am a Christian and I hope the decline of the white race can be halted and reversed. So seriously do I take this matter that I think it important to point out illogicalities and nonsenses in the way certain fellow WNs present their case for this from a materialist viewpoint. I believe that an uncritical acceptance of the materialist presentation leads to building into it a number of important inconsistencies, and a number of too-easily exploded historical mis-statements. I believe that some of generally-accepted materialist arguments have been carefully injected into the discourse by those who are no friends to the white race. (This process began many years ago). I believe that an aggressively atheistic materialist doctrine begins from a basis of irrationality and is therefore a treacherous foundation for a programme of survival. Sooner or later the enemy will appear and demand the return, with interest, of certain concepts which were too readily borrowed from him. Several times in this thread I have pointed out really serious flaws in the thought of some posters who do not bother to resolve ambiguities. And I have been non-plussed by the arrogance of one or two posters who assume that their knowledge of my own background, beliefs, motives and mental contents is more extensive than my own. As for your second paragraph, CC, I can make nothing of it, save that it seems to exhibit several of the confusing tendencies I’ve listed above. 87
Posted by Guessedworker on March 19, 2010, 07:29 PM | # CC, You are free from the deadly embrace of modernity in one important respect - you are racially-conscious. But in other respects, many of them no doubt very subtle, you are still its creature. You can’t help that. None of us can. It’s just how our personalities emerge from infancy, all the while migrating away from the true or authentic part of us. Imagine yourself born in another country, perhaps Germany or England, at another time. Imagine yourself born in ten different countries and in ten different historical periods. What in any of these CCs is truly of you, CC, and what is merely cultural product? The point is that we do not participate in how human personality accretes. We are simply enculturated, see only what is enculturated in us, believe only what is enculturated in us. So, given that we must be enculturated, how much more advantageous it would be if the culture recognised what is real in us and helped us to cognise it for ourselves, rather than floated us off on a sea of worthless artifice. The deadly embrace of modernity, which is really the deadly embrace of time and place, does not recognise what is real in you, CC. This state of cultural non-recognition has gone so far in our time and place that, collectively and individually, we are not even racially-conscious, and are too atomised, too Judaised, too ethno-masochistic and self-estranged to even desire to be conscious of the terror of the situation our race is in. Liberalism, which has been the ideational Total at all times in the American place, cannot be reformed. Even if, by some miracle, it could reflect the myth of the rugged, independent-minded American - which it can’t - this would still be an untruth. CC rugged and independent, like CC in the place of the Third Reich and the time of 1942, would be untrue, and so nothing CC did would bear his mark. 88
Posted by Captainchaos on March 19, 2010, 07:32 PM | # White Christians relate to modernity and science in its immediacy in all the ways that non-believers do. Most of them will not quibble over things like neurology, physics, the importance of preserving the environment, what have you. If they can get all that, I fail to see why they cannot also get the importance of preserving their race. And if they are on board for the latter, I call that victory. 89
Posted by Guessedworker on March 19, 2010, 07:38 PM | # CC, The problem is that the liberal age makes weakness in European men, among other things, whether that weakness believes in gods or not: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/18/immigration-evangelical-christian
90
Posted by Guessedworker on March 19, 2010, 07:42 PM | # Of course, I recognise that saying “weakness” to CC will only encourage him to miss the point, and leap to his usual SS exemplifications of “strength”. 91
Posted by Captainchaos on March 19, 2010, 08:02 PM | # GW, As you’ve observed yourself, and is verified by my own experience, most White people don’t think diversity a blessing, don’t like being lectured to in a superior tone about the alleged unique evil of their people, not one bit. They mostly do not understand the full scope and implications of the peril facing them, and otherwise feel helpless, as if their dispossession is merely a mindless force of nature which they are powerless to interdict. It is only a very few of them who actually fully buy into their indoctrination. A groundswell of muscular opposition by them would mightily sweep the existing order away. There is no way our ruling class can force a multiracial society on us, and all that entails, without the implementation of totalitarian measures. I do not think White Americans will stand for it, not with their history of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms so deeply ingrained in their conception of the goodness of the lives they lead in this nation. They will certainly eventually try to get our guns, and to stop up our mouths, but once they do, that will be the breaking point from which all other developments flow. And if we will not stand for ourselves then, we will not deserve to survive, nature having rendered its verdict. 92
Posted by Guessedworker on March 19, 2010, 08:11 PM | # Gorb, If you will kindly recall the part of this thread where we were batting around the past crimes of the authoritarian Church you should be able to see that my statement and PF’s, which you juxtapose in your last comment, are not conflicted. In my idea of a healthy European polity no one, not the Church, not the State, no one, could order the people to think, believe or act in a given way, save for the latter in the people’s own defence. Religion would belong, therefore, in the private realm, and conversation about it would be private not public.
Science and analytic philosophy (ie, philosophy based in experience rather than thought) are automatically products of irrationality? This has been claimed by our friends of the faithful persuasion before, always with a spectacular lack of success. Just saying it does not make it so.
But which of these semitic products are we employing, specifically? Again you make a statement but provide no tie-in to this conversation.
Several times you have pointed out what you believe to be ambiguities. But if you are not right there is nothing to resolve. Again, you are making a statement as if it was true and unchallengeable.
Welcome to the club. Hell, you called me a Scientologist! Seriously, though, you are free to explain where our assessment of your “background, beliefs, motives and mental contents” is erroneous. No one is stopping you. 93
Posted by Guessedworker on March 19, 2010, 08:20 PM | # CC, Inevitablism can only take us so far. If it sweeps away the elites but leaves liberalism as the Total idea the people will never live true lives, for truth is a product of authenticity. To change history, as opposed to mere governments, one must work on the scale appropriate to that end. I think you consistently fail to think on the scale of the metapolitical. You are too close to the day, and so great ideas wash over you as if they were nothing. Ordinarily this wouldn’t matter, and would not ordinarily matter to me except that I do not think you are ordinary. I think you have a capacity to think which you are not employing, and I await to see the originality of which you are undoubtedly capable. 94
Posted by aug on March 19, 2010, 08:39 PM | # Gorboduc: I believe that an aggressively atheistic materialist doctrine begins from a basis of irrationality and is therefore a treacherous foundation for a programme of survival. You’re mixing truth and lie. The lie is that materialism is irrational; it isn’t, but also doesn’t make soldiers as good as the irrationality of faith. What you want to represent here is the faithful warrior, and to do so in the best light, you lie—all Christians lie, to themselves and everyone around them—that a phenomenon characterized by rationality, which would not “exist” if not for what we call “rationality”, is “irrational”. You’d be more honest to just admit you’re irrational, and claim it is more useful to the war of culture (which, in our case, it isn’t).
I think you have a capacity to think which you are not employing, Whatever genius you think he’s harboring would seem to be thwarted by his quite lousy character. The point is that we do not participate in how human personality accretes. We are simply enculturated, see only what is enculturated in us, believe only what is enculturated in us. So, given that we must be enculturated, how much more advantageous it would be if the culture recognised what is real in us and helped us to cognise it for ourselves, rather than floated us off on a sea of worthless artifice. Now that’s beautiful, and something unique in our language. 95
Posted by Grimoire on March 20, 2010, 03:18 AM | # Sorry I missed this thread at it’s most intense moment, I shall have to be provocative to get this going again…....I emphatically agree with Gorboduc’s insight: “I believe that some of generally-accepted materialist arguments have been carefully injected into the discourse by those who are no friends to the white race. (This process began many years ago).” . Theories on evolution/adaption/mutation are based on sound observations and common sense deduction. However, ‘Darwinism’ et.al. is tabloid science in entirety. Not science, but ‘scientology’ to the degree L.Ron Hubbard should sue. . ...boggles the mind. It should be accepted that we cannot know everything. Pretend to have an explanation for human existence? Surely, if one really did have the scientific and logical viewpoint claimed, you would see the greatest truth of revealed Science is the utter vastness of what we do not know, and can barely imagine . The case that Darwinism itself is faith or social conditioning is self evident. The fact one is not mortified and shamed by an incredulous fool and utter ass like Dawkins, who must operate under the dare of how much idiotic reductionism he can shovel in front of the bourgeois babes in the woods, lapping it up, throwing away the crutches of Presbyterianism and Voodoo and actually walking again as heirs of the proto-rodent. They salivate at the thought of getting their hands on some working class church goers or peasant priest donkey riders and giving a good caning as an inheritance of the survival of the fittest. It is the absolute middle class totalitarianist conceit…. a cruel and ugly one. . If Darwin was not a jew surely his publishers and champions are. Which pseudo-science is it which guaranteed our racial extinction? Which pseudo-science redefined race in a matter to dismiss it as an irrelevancy and fable inimical to sound social policy? Genetics? Oh no! Genetics clearly points out the validity of racial distinction and environment, even without DNA….just sound husbandry. It alway has…., that is the purpose of Genetics. Lamarkism? No again. It was the neo-Darwinism once it got it’s hands on Genetic data and could apply their mothergoose reductionisms as sanction interpretation, They will explain to us what was important and what was not…as they do even here. And we, apparently turned out to be unimportant. Social policy today clearly reflects this good work. . Those who claim to be race-conscious Darwinists are under deep delusion. You think it can be rejigged it to serve this purpose? Science at it’s soundest. Think again, because you have already lost. The European race would submit to almost anything to save their people - Fascism, Communism, Monarchy, Republicanism. Anarchy, what-have-you…....but it is not worth saving if it allows itself to come under the rule and sway of mindless, soulless technocratics who think they can explain everything and eveyone’s slightest impulse with Darwinist nursery school limericks extrapolated into essay form. No one upon pain of death wants to live in this England or Europe, except immigrants who will kill you on first chance to the cheers of the left over natives. The jews will be your only life line left then….you will have done much of their work for them. . ....Europe is dying, from this mindset. Do you understand anything of what Europe is? Comic book representations of the ‘Nordic’ with his axe, swastika and horned helmet? \The church you scorn with asides to exactly the types who have surrendered to your self-evident scientific superiority - the church with all it’s faults, delusions, nepotism, avarice and politic has done more to safeguard and preserve the European people, and would be still doing so if not for the power of the tabloid technocrats - than they ever will. , You would do well, to begin to respect the church and the common faith of Europe - because this is Europe, without this Europe dies. As it is dying now under the aegis of exactly the Darwinist type of mindset. You scientific star-trek skate-park future needs men to create it and your type of technocratic faith doesn’t create men. The churches of Europe do and has for millennia….
96
Posted by Captainchaos on March 20, 2010, 03:22 AM | #
That’s right, uh, I’m an asshole, just the latest in a long line of them, whose only crime is failing gush over you with the adoration you think you so richly deserve. Truly, uh, it’s not that you are too good for this world, it’s that this world is not good enough for you. Next time you slither into a Starbucks why not this one time rip the latte out of the hands of one of those fat bitches and dump it over her melon head. You know you want to, and don’t dream for an instant that it would also render you an asshole. 97
Posted by Silver on March 20, 2010, 10:02 AM | # Aug, What you want to represent here is the faithful warrior, and to do so in the best light, you lie—all Christians lie, to themselves and everyone around them—that a phenomenon characterized by rationality, which would not “exist” if not for what we call “rationality”, is “irrational”. You’d be more honest to just admit you’re irrational, and claim it is more useful to the war of culture (which, in our case, it isn’t). Oh yeah, sure, I’ll admit that. But if you consider it from the perspective of whether it will ‘do’ for me what I want then I wonder if doubts don’t creep in. See, it’s been one existential crisis after another, everything that ever held any meaning for me having been ripped out from underneath me: Jesus isn’t real; God isn’t real; ‘Progress’ is an illusion; evolution is real; racial inequality is real; intelligence is heredity; the nazis were right (at least more right than I ever would have wanted to believe); I am just a pathetic piece of meat, ; and there isn’t the slightest possibility of any redeeming value to my earthly existence whatsoever… er, well, I never quite got that far—but I did get close enough to have to change my underwear. But then a wonder realization: a reenchantment of the world is possible—at least it has been for me. And since it is, well, screw it, I’m taking that and running with it. I loved Christianity as a child and it’s wonderful feeling to fall in love with it all over again as an adult, even with everything I know. It sure puts the rest of that yucky stuff into perspective. Now, there are still problems—the race problem and the irredeemably illiberal koranimal slime problem among the foremost (the tyrannical kike problem is a distant third for me)—but they seem vastly more manageable in this state than they do walking the streets feeling internally tortured over the mind-blowing shitidity of every other human creature you encounter, which, when you get down to it, is what racialism—at least as it motivates the gentlemen on this blog—is basically about. 98
Posted by Gorboduc on March 20, 2010, 11:14 AM | # aug: of course materialism’s irrational. GIVEAWAY BARGAINS! DADDY DARWIN’S DISTRESSING DOTAGES, DAINTILY DISPLAYED! EVOLUTION INVERTED AND RATIONALITY RAPED BY THE BEAR THAT TURNS INTO A WHALE! INTERESTED ENQUIRERS! APPLY AT MR FOR 28 NOVEMBER, 2009! 99
Posted by Wandrin on March 20, 2010, 11:57 AM | # People like having some kind of religion. Attacking and weakening Christianity doesn’t lead to scientific atheism. It leads to a hole that fills up with 101 other faiths like marxism, environmentalism or multiculturalism. The teachers in the schools inflicting multicult psychological abuse on little white rabbits are the exact equivalent of true believing priests and nuns of the past forcing Christianity on the heathens. So to me that means the only sensible options from a WN point of view are: 1) Promote and use a stripped down cultural Christianity that provides the life rituals, social bonding, supernatural luck and bereavement softening elements that people want. 2) Create some alternative belief system that better suits the Darwinist idea and promote that as an alternative. +++ As to the churchs corrupted by the genocidal anti-white religion of political correctness…
Priests are supposed to guard their flock and not harm them to indulge their own personal moral vanity. 100
Posted by aug on March 20, 2010, 01:03 PM | # Some of you guys are a bit unhinged. Attacking and weakening Christianity doesn’t lead to scientific atheism. It leads to a hole that fills up with 101 other faiths like marxism, environmentalism or multiculturalism. True, but fait accompli—as with the decline of religiosity. Fortunately CaptainChaos and Gorboduc are not the only models of atheism and faith; even the latter can be tasteful.
How many early 20th century writers whined about this. Oh existence is meaningless, oh me oh my. I’m not trying to mock you here, I had the same experience, but the literary dysphoria misunderstood as political objective has to end sometime. But then a wonder realization: a reenchantment of the world is possible—at least it has been for me. So what puts the powder back in your panties? I think it’s weird to talk about “reenchantment of the world”. Maybe committing misdemeanor assault on some hapless blob at Starbuck’s would really improve my life. 101
Posted by John on March 20, 2010, 01:52 PM | # “aug: of course materialism’s irrational.” It doesn’t follow from that that Communism’s older sister is the only alternative. Communism is non-theistic religion. Christianity is theistic Communism with a tripartite god replacing the state. No accident its elite Jewish origin—I’m talking about Paul there—without whose promotion of it to Westerners (like Marx 18 centuries later), it wouldn’t even be a footnote in history. Consider how the two are similar. 102
Posted by Guessedworker on March 20, 2010, 03:22 PM | # Grimoire, What do you mean by “Darwinism”? Do you mean the evolutionary synthesis? If you call the synthesis a lie do you also say the same of the several biological sciences which contribute towards it? Is human material progress a lie? If so, is there any evidence at all of a progress that is non-materialist? Would you, in the event of serious illness, submit your child to its tender care as the parents of the lovely Jean Harlow did? My position is that you would not, and you know you would not. “Immateriality” is a conceit, and it is apt to be a dangerous conceit. Every thing that is, is only so materially. Thoughts and feelings, too. They are contained wholly within their respectively material electro-chemical and hormonal actions (but not, unfortunately, contained by them). Gods are gods of the thought-world, for gods are thoughts. This is not the same as saying thought is god, however. The difference is rarely understood by those like Mr and Mrs Harlow who, when the chips are down, only believe. 103
Posted by Captainchaos on March 20, 2010, 03:45 PM | #
That’s right, uh, give in to the dark side. Give in to the illusory teleology of some cosmic balance of justice having been restored, at least in some small way, by a feeble act of revenge taken upon the drones who float aimlessly throughout post-modernity. At least you might feel better, temporarily. What Prozac failed to do, perhaps scalding coffee can. 104
Posted by Captainchaos on March 20, 2010, 04:22 PM | #
GW seems to think that if liberalism can be replaced the sense of dissatisfaction due to the dislocation experienced by more sensitive souls in post-modernity can at least be mitigated.
True, yet still, what a Right Honorable thing it was that perhaps the one, last force which could have crushed liberalism and all the evils associated with the filthy Jew was smashed ruthlessly. It’s enough to make an officer, drawing himself up to his full Nordic height, whilst lecturing prostrate and recently tortured Kraut, experience the religious ecstasy of altruistic punishment. There is more than one way to get high. ‘Master Race are ye? Whose the man now, bitch? Fuck with Blighty and we’ll see who gets the last laugh in this contest of achieving a teleological buzz via assertions of dominance. Only we don’t openly call it dominance, cause that’s not our preferred high. A little subtly, yes tastefulness, is in order.’ 105
Posted by PF on March 20, 2010, 09:43 PM | # Grimoire wrote:
Mischaracterization of darwinism and related sciences. To say that evo-psych, sociobiology, selfish gene theory, and other things falling under the heading of ‘darwinism’ (these all presume darwinism), is ‘tabloid science’ - is not to refute the claims of these new branches of knowledge or provide any counter argument. Rather it demonstrates that the speaker has not been able to appreciate the vast power of these new explanatory tool-sets and the ability they give us to make truth claims about life that were never before possible.
Scientists value these paradigms because they have explanatory power - they are confirmed by real observation over and over again. Selfish gene theory is confirmed in every living phenomenon one cares to inspect… the principles can be rediscovered across the board. You may have seen amateurs or even professionals artlessly trying to wield these ideas at inappropriate times and places, still if you cannot recognize the fact that these recently emerged paradigms constitute the greatest leap forward in knowledge about organic life that has occurred in human history, then you have failed to grasp their significance. Sorry I can’t say that less pedantically.
What we do not know and can barely imagine isn’t a truth, nor does it fall in the province of science, since it cannot be quantified because it cannot be known. Science does not comment on this nor have any way of acknowledging its existence. So what you have said is factually self-contradictory. I’m not being polemical nor trying to be an asshole, what you said contradicts itself:
While I agree that what we do not know is ultimately more interesting than what we presently know, using that as an argument against the sovereignty of materialist science is silly. The very statement itself implicitly acknowleges (1) that we have acquired knowledge that has real value (2) because we wish we had more of it. To curse science for not giving us enough, in a context which implicitly praises another method of knowledge acquisition (mysticism? dreaming? irrationalism? all names for imagination), is to say that we have an alternative methodology which gives real knowledge. We don’t. All thats left is Gorboduc’s dreaming, and your dreaming, and CaptainChaos’ dreaming. You dream about old German titanic heros, Gorboduc dreams about Jesus, and CC dreams about uniformed Michiganders marching in lockstep. Yet there is no process by which we can use these imaginational experiments to arrive at concrete knowledge. So the pretense to critiquing science in the name of your own imagination processes is fallacious - you could provide us with nothing better, and in fact nothing nearly as good.
Everyone who holds scientifically to Darwinism will reject it upon the discovery of sufficient evidence to the contrary. The process of evidence verification takes place scientifically, unlike in emotive/imaginational thought processes where verification occurs by subjective notion, feeling and interpretation. There can be a counter-proof to Darwinism, but there can be no counter-proof to Gorboduc’s imagination of God. Within its own framework it is unfalsifiable, at least by suggestion from without. This is because while Gorboduc may submit his God-imagination-ideas to the verification of his own feelings (“does it elevate me? does it make me feel deeply moved?”), he will never submit his God-imagination-ideas to verification by my own feelings(i.e. feels constraining, false, contrived, judaic, strongly dislike). This is why the imaginational processes you are advocating, which are pre-scientific and which are practiced to the exclusion of science by the world’s non-European peoples, never lead to an improved truth value because dreams and feelings cannot be compared by any objective standard. It is the submission to this non-imagination-based, non-feelings-based verification, which makes Darwinism scientific, and makes it not a faith. It is important that this point be understood. In submitting itself to the harsh trial of objective verification, Darwinism and any other scientific theory has gone beyond faith, and become something more, as regards its objective truth value. Emotionally speaking of course, it has become something less.
That’s a great deal of polemics and harsh rhetoric, towards a man whose oevre I daresay you could not even understand in a simplified form.
That could very well be his deeper motivation - but it would all be irrelevant, because in this realm statements about the world stand or fall on the basis of their truth value and consonance with observation. Dawkins is, to my knowledge, an unimpeachable scientist and probably a true genius, and if he were not or if subsequently something became revealed about him that made me think otherwise, nevertheless there is nothing of content in what you’ve said that motivates any change of thought, and your overall tone and bearing portrays that you are not in a position to accurately evaluate the man’s accomplishments or his character.
So you are asking me to believe that you have an accurate mental model of how the adoption of Darwinism in 21st century will affect our chances at racial survival? I don’t think you can model this situation in your head.
I have to say you seem to be mischaracterizing everything you talk about here. This is why dreamers are always painting a picture of life without their dream as being worthless and empty. As if. They have no way to experience life without their dream because it is as much a crutch and addiction as it is something they choose.
An assertion that can never be proven, since we cannot quantify historically what this “safeguarding and preserving” of Europe’s peoples is. Safeguarded and preserved against what? Our own prior religions and customs? In this case the accumulated content of European history is like many overlaid paintings on a single canvas, covered over with a layer of pure white, and you are brushing it with paint remover, marveling how your every brushstroke is so beautiful. That paint remover must be magic. Or perhaps there is simply so much thickly-layered content that any stroke was bound to reveal something. This is what becomes of transhistorical assertions about group characteristics, if they are not rigidly objectively qualified. The past has so much content that every man who wields it is an artiste, in his remembering and also, and especially, in his forgetting.
Faith creates men? Then how did I get here? My parents are atheists.
I’ll break this statement down into two statements which are factual: (1) Darwinism and the related scientific developments which assume darwinism (genetics, evopsych/sociobiology, selfish gene theory) represent the greatest advancement in human knowledge about the basis of organic life which has ever taken place. (2) Grimoire does not like what he imagines to be the social implications and consequences of a belief in Darwinism. 106
Posted by Grimoire on March 21, 2010, 12:43 AM | # @GW Do you mean the evolutionary synthesis? I’m not answering these stupid questions GW, they are self evident. Gorboduc is right. You have caught a cultural bacteria. It is next to useless to argue with you, the same as other cultural marxists. You use the same time wasting and reductive logic to maintain your ignorance as you do to baffle and frustrate those who try to make you see sense. Oswald Spengler foresaw this, it was the source of his pessimism. Heidegger also, it was his insight that the anecdote was to turn to the phenomenology of bieng itself. of self existence….where the consolations of reductive sophistry were peripheral and irrelevant to what is truth. 107
Posted by PF on March 21, 2010, 01:24 AM | # Grimoire wrote:
Darwinism’s chief innovation was a rhetorical system? Darwinism: noun; a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection What alternative mechanism besides natural selection can explain the patterns we observe in the new wealth of biological knowledge accumulated post-1900? A bacteriologist can crack open bacterial strains and tell by the noise in the non-coding regions when a mutant strain differentiated itself from its parent strain. Microbiologists purposely expose bacteria to mutagenic radiation and then screen for mutants who can survive in various environments - this is a commonplace technique. Artificial intelligence algorithms function on the basis of ‘evolution’ of nodes in a network. My point is that, for all the people who work in or with these systems, what you would suggest in place of Darwinism would be meaningless. These people would no longer be able to differentiate bacterial strains, generate new ones made-to-order, or solve complex computational problems, if the principle of evolution (i.e. Darwinism) were suddenly subtracted from their knowledge. I hope everyone realizes that the few examples that sprang to mind are truly only the tip of the iceberg. Biological science is so predicated on Darwinism that your blanket repudiation of it would leave a lot of people slack-jawed and open-mouthed. What…else….is…there? You are actually cutting the legs off of several well-established branches of science, if one would have taken you seriously.
Which is to say he joined in the same curmudgeonry that is so appealing to all older geniuses who alienate themselves with their thinking and society. For people in such a position, Jeremiads of world rejection are all they have to console themselves with in old age. They dont ever get wreathed with garlands, and turn bitter. To think that Oswald Spengler forsaw my soullessness and forsaw that it would be the death of my race - is self-deception. I’m equally qualified to dilly-dally in universities, tease out some historical theories and publish them. Und wie schwer fällt es einem, glaubste wohl, den ganzen Jähzorn in diesem Antwort auf GW durchzuschauen? Truth doesn’t sound like that, instead it makes a gentle sound like water pouring in and filling up a glass. Your post makes the roar of emotion. 108
Posted by Wandrin on March 21, 2010, 03:24 AM | # @aug
I don’t think religosity has declined - it’s just been transferred into other things. This to my mind is the flaw in being anti-Christian or anti-religion without having something else to fill the religion hole with. (Obviously this is a tactical argument and not a contribution to the philosophical one.) 109
Posted by Grimoire on March 21, 2010, 04:48 AM | # @PF Non Causa Pro Causa: You seem ignorant PF of the fact that science has practical uses and it is conducted for practical purposes. That purpose would be ‘other’ than providing ammunition for non scientists to fool themselves into thinking they have the answers for everything. A bacteriologist can crack open bacterial strains and tell by the noise in the non-coding regions when a mutant strain differentiated itself from its parent strain. My point is that, for all the people who work in or with these systems, what you would suggest in place of Darwinism would be meaningless. These people would no longer be able to differentiate bacterial strains, generate new ones made-to-order, or solve complex computational problems, if the principle of evolution (i.e. Darwinism) were suddenly subtracted from their knowledge. ———————————————————————- I suggest rationality instead of ideology. But I was not speaking of science, but society under attack by an occult horde of pseudoscientific intellectual zombies. —————————————————————————- I hope everyone realizes that the few examples that sprang to mind are truly only the tip of the iceberg. Biological science is so predicated on Darwinism that your blanket repudiation of it would leave a lot of people slack-jawed and open-mouthed. What…else….is…there? ——————————————————————————- First, you are a good example of the slack-jawed and open mouthed incapable of rational argument. All of these examples are fallacies much like the fallacy that Darwin ‘discovered’ evolution or Biological science. much less is predicated upon it. Darwinism expropriated evolution, for nationalist and political, not scientific purposes. It is nothing but a collection of tainted assumptions and expropriations, plagiarisms, buttressed through propaganda and meant to give leave to interfere and meddle in everyone else’s business. As it does today par excellence. Now I’ve only answered you out of respect PF. And I am going to ignore you in the future if you keep using these fallacious types of argument - that end with how truth sounds if you pour it into a glass. 110
Posted by John on March 21, 2010, 09:57 AM | #
The only thing so bad as Darwinism or Communism for European peoples is Christianity. “The meek shall inherit the Earth” ? “The Arabs shall inherit Europe” or “The Mestizos shall inherit North America”. Paul with the universalist, Jew-derived religion he created, did not have the interests of Europeans at heart, on the contrary, he took a page out of Sun Tzu’s book.
111
Posted by Grimoire on March 21, 2010, 05:50 PM | # John: So this argument about the meekness/weakness of Christianity is claptrap. It was not the Church and it’s ‘love your neighbour’, that opened the floodgates to degeneracy. It was the pseudo Technocracy of which the aberration Darwinism is a large part. 112
Posted by Guessedworker on March 21, 2010, 09:38 PM | # Grimoire, This blog straddles the Atlantic. Empiricism and the question regarding Jean Harlow are germaine. Charles Darwin’s great insights remain the grounding for several life sciences and cannot be dismissed for reasons of philosophical aesthetics, a la de Benoist while, at the same time, one cleaves to the benefits that acrue from such sciences. Even intellectuals have to be consistent, no? And here they have to be consistently for life, of course. In all measures the golden question is: what furthers life? It is not: what maintains the unity of the Idea. Here, we are interested in the human experience and are driven to investigate the human primus motor. As such, the American empirical tradition has something to say, and closing ourselves off from it is as self-limiting as empicirism itself is reductionist. For us, the Atlantic Ocean has to be made to go away. But just don’t ask me how today, beyond it having something to do with “what furthers life”. The underlying question means nothing to you at all…..it’s not even serious enough for you to be honest with me. This is true. But then you conclude for complexity in Man where I find absence, self-delusion, mechanicity and emptiness. That is my experience. If you could see through my eyes, you would never confuse the reduced condition of Man with the reductionism of scientistic observations about that. But you might, like me, welcome the evolutionary narrative because it provides a medium of literally truthful expression in a welter of hopeless vanity and error, not a little of it, among intellectuals, Idealistic. 113
Posted by Guessedworker on March 21, 2010, 09:43 PM | # I should add by way of an example that the whole point of my observations on this thread about the evolved faculty of faith was to reduce it from the status of a divine creation, because the latter is not true. 114
Posted by Grimoire on March 21, 2010, 10:45 PM | # @Guessedworker “Charles Darwin’s great insights remain the grounding for several life sciences and cannot be dismissed for reasons of philosophical aesthetics, a la de Benoist while, at the same time, one cleaves to the benefits that acrue from such sciences” The answer is that Darwinism is not science. Darwinism is a materialist theology. 115
Posted by John on March 22, 2010, 04:59 AM | #
The Church did a good job conquering and consolidating the West. It was a great setup for the technocrats, whom the modern Catholic Church is more or less on board if not actively in league with, using the most onerous, universalist and government-worshipping portions of the Pauline letters and the Gospels to devestating effect. Whatever negative you can say about Martin Luther, much of which I would probably agree if it didn’t depend on a monotheistic perspective, at least he ended the dysgenic practice (among Nordics, at least) of prohibiting many of the best and brightest from reproducing themselves. 116
Posted by Guessedworker on March 22, 2010, 08:14 PM | # Grimoire, I am trying hard to see your point of view. I concede, of course, that populationism has provided a foundation of sorts for anti-racism and individualism. This is very much in line with the kind of gene clinalism we have grown used to from the lying left. The ghost of essentialism has not been been exorcised yet, however. Perhaps you should speak to our Dasein about his ideas on allelic correlation structure and about changes in the approach to differentiation generally in genetics. 117
Posted by Grimoire on March 23, 2010, 12:36 AM | # @Guessedworker 118
Posted by Silver on March 23, 2010, 07:42 AM | # Aug, How many early 20th century writers whined about this. Oh existence is meaningless, oh me oh my. I’m not trying to mock you here, I had the same experience, but the literary dysphoria misunderstood as political objective has to end sometime. But it’s even worse in the 21st century, with those sentiments now informed by evo psych/sociobiology and what not. If it were just a matter of religion being demoted you might question the ‘meaning of life’ but still go on enjoying yours. I don’t usually do this, but “mark my words”: godlessness, internet and evo pscyh are going to force a lot of people to wonder well, if I can’t (or at least if my kids can’t) be the most intelligent, most beautiful and richest (and I suppose racialism would add to that ‘whitest’), gosh, why even go on living? (There were three suicides at my niece’s high school last year. I’m not saying their bodies were discovered lying hunched over their copies of Edward O. Wilson but with godlessness a concern for morality itself goes out the window and the internet means the profusion of the very worst of what evo psych describes about us.) I think it’s weird to talk about “reenchantment of the world”. Weird, is it? I say, who cares? It sums up perfectly the way I’ve come to feel about this earthly existence. 119
Posted by Gorboduc on March 23, 2010, 08:15 AM | # Silver is right. 120
Posted by Guessedworker on March 23, 2010, 10:15 AM | # Gorb:
But there is no magick. You should have written “presence in being reveals faith-religion as a mere emotional trinket and a product of the evolution of the mind.”
But they do not mean anything, beyond their reification of moral proxies for adaptive behaviour.
A quarter or so of the European population lacks gene expression for faith. We would characterise ourselves as inhabiting the same world as the faithful - the only world there is. But we live in it without illusions, relying upon other wellsprings for the making of adaptive choices.
That is half true, which is something, I suppose.
Some of us materialists might wish to redefine essence sometime. First, though, we need to answer the question: if Man evolves seemingly satisfactorily with such bad habits of consciousness and in such darkness as to what is, why does he nevertheless possess the capacity for intentional consciousness and experience of the Real?
Where I have always been, waiting to play my hand. 121
Posted by Gorboduc on March 23, 2010, 11:52 AM | # For pity’s sake, GW!
? Yes doubtless, if by some unimaginable evolutionary freak I’d become you, I b——-y well WOULD have written it: but I didn’t, and unless I suddenly suffer a disastrous stroke and am left fumbling, dribbling and burbling, I never would write anything remotely resembling it. Please stop helping my childish thoughts through delivery to maturity! Well, I’m glad that I’ve at least expressed a half-truth.
then why not remain silent? 122
Posted by Guessedworker on March 23, 2010, 05:06 PM | # Gorb,
In the sense that faith simply exists as a brain function, it is no different to being musical as opposed to tone-deaf, or comedic as opposed to humourless, I guess. But in the sense that it functions in a certain way, commending adaptive behaviours, it is obviously more interesting than musicality or humour. Its function is the same as the older scattered functions - for example, conscience, empathy, love - which do the same thing. They commend singularly, though, and they tend to be reactive. Faith contrives to package everything together right upfront, where the choice does not have to arise or the disaster befall us before the appropriate system kicks in. Faith, if constrained to religion anyway, is a continuously running programme containing everything morally required for adaptive choices to be made. That is its fitness gain.
Here we are in the realm of the illusion of self. In point of fact, silence is a condition for emergence from that illusion, albeit only fleetingly. But what I am saying, my friend, is that, faithful or faithless, we do not exist in the manner we (are evolved to) presume. The noisy, restless, struggling, vain creature who kneels before the image of Christ on the Cross is not different to any other person, and never will be, since no matter how powerful his faith may be, it does not transport him from absence to presence. Actually, he remains permanently defined by ordinary waking consciousness, like a dead butterfly pinned to a collector’s board.
The charge of intellectual arrogance has greeted my efforts at truth-telling all my life, invariably when a person realises that respect for the person’s person, which person will, naturally enough, consider himself excellent in every way and deserving of every respect, is not actually forthcoming, and cannot be forthcoming because said person does not possess even the outlines of that sublime sensibility which alone makes possible a real conversation. That is to say, a conversation about the real. You are proving yet again, Gorbo, that life is lived in misunderstanding and isolation. How fine it would be if it were otherwise. 123
Posted by Gorboduc on March 23, 2010, 06:06 PM | # I really can’t understand whether you’re telling me that you don’t respect me because I don’t possess the outlines of sublime sensibility, or that I should respect you more because you so obviously do. I can’t decide whether it’s your life that’ss lived in loneliness or whether you (sadly shaking your head) think it’s my life that’s lived in isolation, or whether everyone’s is… There’s nothing worth the wesr of winning, You may end with a whimper Sound, sound the clarion, fill the fife Do you know, Doctor Johnson, I have tried in my time to be a philosopher too, but to no avail: cheerfulness kept breaking in. (friend of Johnson as reported by Boswell) Now, my dear old chap, DO try to cheer up a little bit, and descend from the pedestal, lest you find yourself ending up like the Sphinx. 124
Posted by Guessedworker on March 23, 2010, 07:16 PM | # The withholding of respect, Gorb, shows that you are being taken seriously ... but just not for what you say, or what you think or believe. These things don’t matter. As a living being distinct from those encumbering things, of course you and your life matter, and you deserve to hear something interesting for once. Here, since you are evidently in the mood for quotes, is what Friedrich Nietzsche thought of presence (from The Will to Power):
125
Posted by Gorboduc on March 23, 2010, 08:06 PM | # “Tell Mr. Carlyle , I HAVE ACCEPTED THE UNIVERSE!” “Tell her, SHE’D BETTER!” 126
Posted by Grimoire on March 23, 2010, 09:32 PM | # “When I became a man I put away childish things, such as the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up” - C.S. Lewis, 127
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 23, 2010, 10:07 PM | # I don’t get into philosophical discussions of what is required to solve the race-replacement crisis — discussions about the nature of the “basic change” said to be needed, a change so basic it might in some respects entail turning the clock back many centuries — but here’s a tiny bit of one between Ted Sallis and Michael O’Meara over at the Occidental Quarterly Online (it made me look up the term “faustian” to try to understand what they were talking about): (Michael O’Meara) Posted March 19 “It is not biology alone, although genetic interests are paramount. It is not ethnic identity alone, or culture/civilization alone. It is all these things together, reinforcing each other.” Amen. (Ted) Posted March 20 “Amen.” Indeed. I see the dichotomy between Salterian genetic-biological race and Yockeyian cultural-civilizational race to be false. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It can be both; identity for a person or group has a foundational basis in genetic-biology, but it is built further by ethnic identity, culture, civilizational history, etc. There are many white politicians and other persons of authority who are biologically perfect specimens but who have chosen to dedicate themselves to the destruction of their race and of the West. I believe such people have forfeited any right to be considered “white” or “Western” and have forfeited any right to live amongst their genetic kin [in the event the races separate]. On the other hand, one may find in, say, Japan, someone who admires Western civilization and who supports the cause of white racial survival. This person can be a “friend” but likewise is not part of the white race and Western civilization, due to the racial gulf, the biological difference. Just as the ancient Greeks promoted “a sound mind in a sound body” so likewise racial nationalists should promote “High Culture in a European gene pool.” (Michael O’Meara) Posted March 21 Ted, Salter and Yockey — High Culture in a European gene pool — blood and heritage — that’s the WN equivalent to Heidegger’s Time AND Being. Charles Maurras wrote somewhere that the French are more than a race, they are a nation. He meant by this that race is a product of nature, while a nation is a product of history, culture, and achievement. Race, in this sense, may be primordial in laying the foundations of whatever follows, but it’s what is done with the raw materials (race) that matters most in the end. I can’t understand why so many in our camp don’t understand this. I suspect that they are still living in what Yockey called the 19th-century’s Age of Materialism and Rationalism. (Ted) Posted March 21 Michael, I may lean more toward importance of the biological race component (after all, I’m a “Salterian” “Universal Nationalist”) but we are in overall agreement in that both Race and High Culture are of importance. Perhaps the merging of these can be the doctrine of the 21st century. (Michael O’Meara) Posted March 22 Yes, the 21st century will be the age in which a new white culture (to succeed the exhausted ones of the classical and modern ages) emerges — if our line is to continue. Europe’s genetic heritage is, of course, paramount, but it will be a new culture that ensures its survival. (Ted) Posted March 22 Michael, I agree completely. Going by the Spenglerian-Yockeyian way of looking at the life cycle of a “High Culture” it’s obvious to me we’re in “winter.” The modern Faustian-Christian culture is a dried-out husk. A new “spring” awaits. The exact nature of this is as yet unknown, but we do need a fresh beginning. (Michael O’Meara) Posted March 23 Your absolute eloquence accords entirely with my view that we need now to get out of the deadening cold that comes from the late “winter” of our Faustian civilization (which has begun, quite literally, to kill us). Our genetic heritage, this absolutely irreplaceable gift of the gods, will live on in a distinct new culture — affirmative of our distinct life form — as we succeed in transcending the foul degeneracy of the existing “Zivilisation” — getting to the point, hopefully, which brings about another blooming youth: your “spring” of our peoples’ growth. ( http://www.toqonline.com/2010/03/secession-genetic-interests/#comment-7033 ) 128
Posted by Guessedworker on March 24, 2010, 08:47 AM | # But what did they say, Fred, beyond agreeing that something must be said? I’m glad that “Ted” is at least positive in his own mind about the synthesis. But Yockey? If liberalism is to be challenged it won’t be by palingenetic ideology. Liberalism and fascism fight with one ankle tied together. They are both products of the modern age. What will kill liberalism is the replacement of relative values (rooted, ultimately, in Christianity) by absolute values ... life values ... and such a revolution of the European mind would render palingeneticism utterly passé. So the first battle of the revolution must take place inside European racialism. The dominant themes of revolutionary conservative, New Right and fascist thinking, and those who cleave to them, including men we all respect such as Michael O’Meara, Mike Rienzi and Tom Sunic, will have to be challenged. There is no way around it. That’s something only MRers are aware of today. 129
Posted by D Allen on March 24, 2010, 08:50 PM | # How can absolute values, or values in general, be justified or entertained today? We attribute values to the world because our evolutionary history prompts us to do so, this is projection, therefore to search for values as a property of our universe is futile. This seems to be the end-point of my questioning certain assumptions about the nature of reasons, morality and being. Shame. ‘EGI’ posits (something near) an absolute value in genetic continuity, and this might plausibly help us achieve our goals a little, but the question is: Why should we expect people to accept a ‘reason’ that is unfamiliar to the types of reasons that they accept in normal discourse, and have evolved to accept? Two types of reason: instrumental reasons (help me, where myself is viewed as an entity of competing drives and is continuous over a lifetime, to optimise the fulfilment of my various drives in combination) and moral reasons (no necessary connection to my desires, but limited by what morality is understood to be). The ought-to-be-doneness of EGI is both unsubtle and falls outside these categories; therefore its categoricity surely causes more harm than good. Absolute values -> relative values -> no values. Change from seeking the right way to live, or the rational way to live, to attempting to manage ourselves given a certain anti-realism about the self as a unitary entity, and the consequent recognition that we might turn our attention to managing different aspects of our evolutionary endowment, for example by accepting that we need to attribute value-ness to the universe some of the time but preventing ourselves from thinking this way all of the time. How does ethnicity fit into this? Well, it is an integral part of my desiderative set. So, I attempt to acquire “powerful counter-memes” and rationalisations that allow me to harmonise this with the rational, critical part of my mind. I do not attempt to inquire into the universe for ‘values’ or ‘reasons’ that will inform my pro- or anti-ethnicity behaviour. I guess this puts me at odds with GW’s ideas (although the piece on Susan Blackmore is on the mark), but in favour of the effective memes and rationalisations that this site is working to produce. If I were to promote a foundational philosophy to accomodate this racialist thinking, then it would be this brand of nihilism enhanced by an anti-realism about the self, and a recognition that the ideological and social conditions of today demand that people take active steps to devote attention to and regulate their minds (controlling memetic inputs, restricting access to the ‘ought-to-be-doneness’ sense - including awareness of our weakness to altruistic punishment*, understanding how society can be manipulated to control our behaviour** - etc.) in order to lead fulfilling lives. The prospects for success stem from developments in philosophy and science which increasingly allow us to shed illusions of a value-filled universe, and to understand concepts of user-illusion, memes etc. * http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/PrefacePPB.pdf 130
Posted by PF on March 25, 2010, 01:27 AM | # Wow, D. Allen! You’ve got a really good handle on things obviously. Nice to see. I think the sparseness of EGI as a motivating factor is something we can address. But it will take some more thinking before I can say anything else! cheers! 131
Posted by Silver on March 25, 2010, 09:54 AM | # “Ted” said,
The ancient Greeks may have promoted it but it’s through the Romans that most of us have come to know it (mens sana in corpore sano). Great idea about the high culture in a gene pool thing. Personally, I’d amend it to “High Culture within a specific gene pool.” Or “High Culture within a limited gene pool.” Or even “A common culture within a common gene pool.” Anything that can basically accord with the concept of “enlightened groupism” stands a chance of getting a foot in the door; the alternatives are too easily seen through as a hamfisted attempt to smear some lipstick on fascism. Of course it would help—greatly—if proponents of “culture and genes” were themselves cured of the fascism bug, but if that’s too much to hope, then at least they might have the good sense to wait their turn. You first have to get genes-culture groupism inserted into public discourse and public policy, and then begin to ratchet up (naturally I and all well-meaning people would do our level best to prevent any Auschwitz redux); bopping people on the head with your fasces at best only alienates them and at worst renews their determination to resist you.
D. Allen, You’ve called cultural arguments ‘bog-standard’ based on the fact that they haven’t produced any change. Well, neither has anything else, so that in itself isn’t a reason to write them off. Whatever EGI and ‘ultimate concerns’ might have to say about it, people certainly do live their lives for culture (and not genes). The thing about culture is that it seems to require an ethno-racial basis in order to flourish—that is, even if racial genetic endowments aren’t an impediment—“dumb niggers just don’t get it”—the fact of phenotypic differentiation itself is usually sufficient to dampen (or outright kill) the desire to adopt others’ cultural forms. This enables you to argue that the race issue is forced on you; you wouldn’t be lying because for anyone beginning with culture the race issue is forced on him, evade it though he might try. Your opponent can counter that in that case we best abandon our culture, to which you can counter that’s what we’ve done, we’ve abandoned whatever we could, and ask him so how our lives now any better as a result? Secondly, you can’t completely abandon all culture, and whatever remains is still, one way or another, going to be racially particular, again leaving you with social incoherence, distrust, apathy etc etc. The only thing your mealy-mouthed opponent can do then is claim there’s nothing that can be done about any of it so you may as well get used to it, to which I hope anyone with eyes to see is going to respond bullshit nothing can be done. 132
Posted by D Allen on March 25, 2010, 12:59 PM | # Silver, in hindsight I would probably take back what I said. Like the TOQ guys are saying, it is good to stand for European genetic and phenotypic preservation - where distinctive phenotype includes a tendency to produce certain kinds of society, physical appearance but also so many things that are personal and difficult to explain. But it is possible for a person’s deep desire for (NW) Europeans not to have their existence unfairly cut short to be diverted into culturism, which is both insincere and weak. This can be part of the process of ‘awakening’ - someone like Mark Steyn can be a useful intermediary between the mainstream and *this* - but I fear that a lot of people never leave the culturist bandwagon. That was the context of my comment. So two issues, really: 1) To distinguish between ‘culture’, which is a product not only of an ethnic group and its nature but also history and the interaction between different ethnic groups - and a single ethnic population often has multiple cultures; and the distinctive phenotypes of European populations as hinted above 2) Ensure that genetic preservationism is given the attention that it deserves, since it is at least an important component of the whole. 133
Posted by Silver on March 25, 2010, 03:27 PM | # Allen, deep desire for (NW) Europeans not to have their existence unfairly cut short Great line. to be diverted into culturism, which is both insincere and weak. This can be part of the process of ‘awakening’ - someone like Mark Steyn can be a useful intermediary between the mainstream and *this* - but I fear that a lot of people never leave the culturist bandwagon. That was the context of my comment. That’s all fair enough. I was just offering a way to cash in on culturism, or to ‘redivert’ it, if you prefer. “A common culture—a shared way of life—is an essential component of human happiness. But a common culture requires a common people. If we lose our people we lose our culture. So defending our common culture requires, necessitates defending our common people. There’s no way around it.” That sort of thing. I’d look into working with too-racially-distinct ‘culturists’ and see if you can’t drum up some support for ‘eugenic procreation’ (or whatever, I’ll just use this term for now). If they really are as culturally integrated as they believe, or are otherwise tied to Britain or to British people, I can’t imagine they’ll see it as a terrible imposition to raise a white kid or two on condition of ‘inclusion.’ (Sounds more incredible than it actually is; people adopt and raise children from other races all the time, eg the recent Haitian trophy adoptee fad.) That act in itself would help put the preservation issue on the table, particularly if journalist types got wind of it and couldn’t resist breaking the story, even if their bosses would prefer to hush it up. Also, think a little in terms of what incentives might be offered to the various non-white-hating groups. My impression is that the hindoos aren’t considered a social problem. What might be in it for them for voluntary separation? If cooperation with America, Canada or Australia—who have territory to spare—could be achieved, it would help immensely. The problem is the nationalist types there all believe their territory sacrosanct and inviolable, though in reality much of it is vast, useless expanses, which only renders them wide open to attack from the influential/important arms of the ‘international community’ (CRIB—China, Russia, India, Brazil, and OMEN—the Organization of Melanin Exporting Nations) on the grounds that ‘no race takes up so much space’ (as I’ve heard it put). Or maybe cooperation with some African nations. There’s a lot that could be done, and there’s much reason to be hopeful yet. Now, maybe I’ve got it all wrong, and angry sickos like “Selous Scout” and “Al Ross” have got it right. While you’re using your own judgment to decide, you might also wonder whether you really have another twenty years to find out. Next entry: Europe’s Future: Is this what “they” want? Previous entry: My latest teleology |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. BomeDeddell commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) indernMix commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:42 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Wandrin on March 10, 2010, 12:37 PM | #
This reminds me of estates in London where there’s only one or two white kids left and they look like hunted animals. If they’re very young they can sometimes look at you with such hope thinking maybe you’ve come to take them away somewhere safe.
There are unintended consequences to this betrayal though. Kids like that will be the leaders when the end comes because they’ll have no racial guilt. All the white guilt brainwashing from the media gets beat out of them at school.