Editor’s note: TOO is committed to posting authors with different perspectives. We have posted several articles defending the viability of Christianity as a religion capable of mounting a viable ethnic defense. (See, e.g., here and here.) Nevertheless, it is clear that many contemporary forms of Christianity are problematic from the standpoint of ethnic defense. Here Rob Lonaker discusses Christian Zionism.
Jewish organizations beguile Christians in various ways, including leading them (1) to ignore Jewish mistreatment of Palestinians; (2) to believe Israel’s interests are more important than America’s and are morally sufficient to wage unprovoked wars; and (3) to pay Jews’ travel expenses for aliyah, their immigration to Israel.
Christian Zionists believe that Jews are the primary chosen people of God, Christians being the secondary, and that the elevation of Israel’s interests above all else is a prerequisite to the occurrence of wonderfully desirable end-time events: Armageddon, the “rapture,” the Apocalypse, and the second coming of Christ.
In Matt Parrott’s interview of Kevin MacDonald, both gentlemen lament (at 30:00) the exploitation of Christian Zionists by the Israel Lobby. If indeed the Old Testament represents a blueprint for a Jewish group evolutionary strategy based on a return to worldly power in a Jewish state, it is not surprising that it would contain passages that support Jewish interests. Elsewhere, MacDonald has noted that
there is a fascinating history (see, e.g., here) that suggests but falls short of proof that early Zionists like Samuel Untermeyer were important in promoting and publicizing the work of C. I. Scofield, whose annotated Bible, published by Oxford University Press in 1909, is the basis of Christian Zionism. In any case, the above source discusses footnotes to the Scofield Bible added in 1967 that emphasize Zionist aims. For example, “For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgment.” ”God made an unconditional promise of blessing through Abram’s seed to the nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever.” “It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew, well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.” (Footnotes to Genesis 12:3)
Mr. Parrott raised the idea that Christians may be the most effective persons to convince their Christian Zionist brethren, on theological grounds, that they are wrong to be co-opted by Jewish interests.
But that approach is problematic.
Other Christians who would attempt to show Christian Zionists the error of their ways say essentially this to them:
You are correct to believe that god, heaven, and hell exist; that the Bible is God’s holy word; and that he must be obeyed. But you need not assist Jewish efforts to hasten the end of the world and Christ’s return.
The problem is that quibbling over acceptance of a thousandth Biblical fantasy, while indulging the delusion that the first 999 such fantasies are true, is like saying, “Hobbits exist, but they wear red fairy boots, not the blue ones Tolkein asserted.”
Through his fantasy novel, Tolkein invented hobbits, so he gets the final word on what they wear. If you believe in the world of The Hobbit, you are stuck with their blue boots.
Similarly, the Bible really does declare that some events involving Jews will occur at the alleged end of the world before Christ purportedly returns to Earth. Assuming the Bible is truly the word of God, in many respects Christian Zionism stands on solid doctrinal ground.
But so what? Rather than argue that Christian Zionists have misinterpreted certain Bible passages, why not take a critical, rational approach? Based on its tales of impossibility, its contradictions, and the lack of evidence for all its supernatural claims, the Bible is false. Its historical narrative is replete with inaccuracy, anachronism, and unadulterated balderdash.
The sooner we recognize the Bible’s falsity and its use to enthrall gullible masses, the sooner we can face with open eyes how Europeans and Americans are misled by Jewish interests in myriad areas, such as media, finance, immigration, multiculturalism, suppression of free speech, and yes, religion.
Sure, the Bible contains nice poetry, elegant prose, and occasional moral lessons. But it is also filled with descriptions of a vengeful, jealous, arbitrary, and capricious god who condones slavery, genocide by Jews, and child murder and rape by Jews, for starters.
Of Poseidon, Thor, Zeus, and Apollo, Richard Dawkins wrote, “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
My parallel: Most Christians are suckered by many Jewish myths in the Bible. Christian Zionists just go a few paragraphs further.
Rob Lonaker (email him) is a pseudonym of a lawyer and scientist.
Benzion Netanyahu: Jewish Activist and Intellectual Apologist
Keep the Beltane Fires Burning!
Synagogue of Satan? The Theological Significance of the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, Part 2
Synagogue of Satan? The Theological Significance of the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, Part 1
I don’t think you will persuade many Christian zionists if you come at them roaring, like some eighteenth-century rationalist, about the “Old Jew Book of Lies.” For some reason people grow less receptive when we mount frontal assaults on their core beliefs. Atheists are no exception. Parrott is clearly correct. This job must be left to other, non-Zionist Christians, who can speak to Christian Zionists on their own terms. Tell them you hope to improve their faith and they might listen; tell them you hope to remove it, and they won’t.
JMSmith said:
“This job must be left to other, non-Zionist Christians, who can speak to Christian Zionists on their own terms. Tell them you hope to improve their faith and they might listen; tell them you hope to remove it, and they won’t.”
There’s a third option: tell them the truth. This can be done with compassion.
That truth could ever be based on divine revelation is an unverifiable proposition.
It seems that every pro-white article discussing Christian Zionism speculates about the contents of Canfield’s book. After so many years it begins to appear as deep mystery like the contents of the Ark of the Covenant resting in the Most Holy Place.
Here’s a radical proposal. I suggest that no more writers be permitted to cite this book without providing convincing evidence they’ve read it. Then we’ll know with reasonable certitude about this, rather than speculating endlessly based on hearsay sources posted on the internet.
http://www.amazon.com/Incredible-Scofield-His-Book/dp/1879998440
Starting from $12 used.
Off topic here, it repeatedly occurs to me that the reason American white nationalism keeps failing is due to sheer laziness and incompetence on the part of its proponents.
Several points should be made here.
1. Interpretation is a logically essential phase of the understanding of scripture. It cannot be avoided. It is pointless to criticize scripture itself when it is a particular interpretation that should be criticized. (Christian Zionism is an interpretation of scripture, not scripture itself.)
2. The Bible is metaphorical. Christ himself spoke in allegories and other figures of speech; why deny that the Bible does the same?
3. Even if the bible weren’t metaphorical, miracles cannot be ruled out by science. Science, and the scientific method, have no power to exclude any miracle that does not violate the laws of logic (a much more basic criterion than “not violating the laws of science”).
4. The message of the New Testament, which is largely separate from the Old Testament, is anything but Jewish-supremacist in the modern sense. In particular, it clearly states that the Jews of Christ’s day have sorely offended God, and that their leaders are “of their father, the Devil”.
In effect, Christ redefined “Jew” to mean “one who truly loves and obeys God” (the so-called “Jews” of Christ’s day did not qualify, nor do they now). Thus, any promises made to “the Jews” were, in light of the New Testament, made to followers of Christ, not to future Ashkenazi usurpers or other pretenders to God’s favor.
This is all pretty obvious.
In effect, Christ redefined “Jew” to mean “one who truly loves and obeys God” (the so-called “Jews” of Christ’s day did not qualify, nor do they now). Thus, any promises made to “the Jews” were, in light of the New Testament, made to followers of Christ, not to future Ashkenazi usurpers or other pretenders to God’s favor.
This is all pretty obvious.
Well, it certainly was to everyone in the West until very recently.
That explains why Christian Zionism is so recent an invention.
I agree with Mr. Lonaker–once you venture into that tar-pit, you get stuck. Stay out of it!
It doesn’t help that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not even know things like the most common events in the New Testament, much less the priestly or Eloistic influences on the Old Testament.
Most people, I think (and based on my experience), believe in Christianity because it tells them they will live forever. Also, it has a sexual morality that supports the family.
Well, other religions (and philosophies) have those things, too.
But Christians sign on to such things as Christian Zionism because they think that it is part of the whole package of eternal life and sexual morality.
“But Christians sign on to such things as Christian Zionism because they think that it is part of the whole package of eternal life and sexual morality.”
They sign onto it because their leaders sign onto it.
Replace the leaders or undermine the leaders.
Since most Christians today, and the vast majority of Christians over the past 2000 years, have not believed that Christianity entailed Zionist foreign policy, it is obviously possible to separate Christianity and Christian Zionism. Politically it makes much more sense to attempt this separation than it does to attack Christian metaphysics. You will built the largest coalition by arguing that Christian Zionism is wrong, whether or not Christianity is wrong. Since that argument can be made, why not make it? Or is Christian Zionism just a stalking horse in a completely different political project?
-Ragnar Redbeard Might is Right
Rob,
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
Traditions and institutions in the secular realm are no less vulnerable to subversion. What do you make of Freudian psychology, Marxist economics, Frankfort School sociology, Lysenkoist biology, Japhetic linguistics, and countless educational fads?
I propose that you purge the hostile out-group influence from the Western traditions and institutions you cherish, and I’ll do likewise with the ones I cherish.
You go on believing that a fertile and confident nation can exist in a spiritual vacuum, and I’ll go on believing my own superstitions.
Don’t expect a Christian of one one denomination, e.g., Presbyterian, to persuade a Christian of another, e.g., Baptist, that his Zionist beliefs are invalid. The Baptist already regards the Presbyterian as only a nominal (if not fallen) Christian because he does not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and other doctrinal differences. Thus, no appreciable progress against Christian Zionism will be made in this manner. You cannot reason someone out of what they were not reasoned into, and Christian Zionists of course accept their (pastors’) interpretation of the Bible on faith not reason. When one contemplates the innumerable spires of rapture-believing churches around this country (Baptist, Assemblies of God, many non-denominational mega-churches, etc.), one must realize that the battle against Zionism must be fought elsewhere.
“When one contemplates the innumerable spires of rapture-believing churches around this country (Baptist, Assemblies of God, many non-denominational mega-churches, etc.), one must realize that the battle against Zionism must be fought elsewhere.”
How about Neo-Christian churches whose pastors have been trained in a higher level of religious discourse?
This wouldn’t be at all difficult – I could train them myself using sufficiently intelligent candidates from the major denominations.
As usual, the barrier is funding.
Christian Zionist support of Israel might be breached by calling more attention to Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinian Christians, many of whom constituted the upper and middle classes and have left Palestine rather than suffer the indignities imposed by the Israeli occupiers.
The irony of all of this is that there’s a subtext to Christian Zionism that I’ve heard many White nationalists explicitly appeal to as well, going something along the lines of this: “Israel and the Jewish people are essentially in the same position as Whites — under siege from the dusky hordes — and White nationalists can learn from the Jewish people about how to survive long-term in a hostile environment.”
In this formulation, White nationalists and Jewish nationalists are all “teammates,” just as Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists are teammates.
The reason all of the above are completely deluded, misguided, and possibly suicidal is that Whites have prospered to their highest levels within the embrace of Western civilization, which always was a multi-cultural enterprise grounded in consciously Jewish-antithesis Christianity…MORE…LINK:
http://www.judeofascism.com/2010/11/christian-zionists-white-nationalists.html
“The Baptist already regards the Presbyterian as only a nominal (if not fallen) Christian because he does not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and other doctrinal differences. ”
But a literal interpretation of the bible has Jesus OPENLY displaying anti-semitism. He Himself calls them hypocrites, den of thieves, synagogue of Satan. Don’t the Baptists even *read* their bibles?
I’ve got relatives who are certain that they’re going to get Raptured out and that “standing with Israel” is following God’s will. They donate to “Christian-Jew Fellowship” charities. How to reach them? I’ve noticed that my relatives who think thus, and most others who do, too, get their ideas from televangelist programs. I think THIS is the root of the whole problem.
Finding a way to expose how Jews have abused the goodwill and trust that Christians have offered could only help. Their lack of reciprocation is easy to point out.
I was once on a yahoo blog that discussed the NYC Mosque issue and I brought up how Jewish leaders were often helping Muslims and hurting Christians – that didn’t seem to go over well at first. But then I changed the argument and said something like “it would be wonderful if influential Jews in Hollywood and the media would stop bashing Christianity and realize that we have done so much to help them and Israel”. That got a very positive response. Appealing to the “good work that Christians have done to help Jews” seems to make Christians feel morally entitled to criticize them.
So I don’t know what the best approach is for sure, but just getting thick-headed Christians to stop reflexively defending all things Jewish would be a good start. And at least getting them to have an open mind about how the same Jews they have given so much to, have spent generations and huge amounts of capital to denigrate and destroy Christian culture might be a start.
If you wish to change the minds of Christian Zionist, You must do it with Scripture. If you are not willing to learn enough about the book they have acquired their beliefs from, you will never change their minds. The place to start is around the question of, Why did God destroy the Jewish Nation and send them into exile. Answer, It was because of their injustice, self-righteousness, hardheartedness and distortion of his commandments. { see Micah 6:8 “He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God”.} The nation of Israel continues until this day to ignore Justice, show scorn for Palestinians and arrogantly proclaim themselves righteous. So, the question to ask is how can you support what God has condemned ? Look at what they are doing in the West Bank and Gaza. Use film of the IDF behavior toward women and children in occupied areas. start with , Occupation 101, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty20C0OUJVw I hope this helps. I too was once a Christian Zionist.
Christian Zionism is a phenomenon restricted to western, especially American, Christianity. It has no cognate in any eastern church.
I am a Christian, and also was a Zionist until recently. The best way to de-program our coreligionists is to point out that Jews hate our guts, are in no way our allies, and that our first allegiance should be to our own people, not another.
Matt Parrott said:
“Traditions and institutions in the secular realm are no less vulnerable to subversion. What do you make of Freudian psychology, Marxist economics, Frankfort School sociology, Lysenkoist biology, Japhetic linguistics, and countless educational fads?”
Agreed.
“I propose that you purge the hostile out-group influence from the Western traditions and institutions you cherish, and I’ll do likewise with the ones I cherish.”
Matt, no offense intended. I was a Catholic and a born-again Christian at alternate times over several decades. I was also a Christian Zionist (CZ) for years. For me, the argument that proper Biblical exegesis ought lead one away from CZ was unpersuasive, because the same interpretation methods applied to Gospel doctrines many Christians find mandatory, like the virgin birth and resurrection, was used to derive CZ principles. Once I finally realized that much in the Bible was untrue, I was no longer compelled to believe many such doctrines, and I could be logically consistent about abandoning CZ beliefs.
“Most people, I think (and based on my experience), believe in Christianity because it tells them they will live forever. Also, it has a sexual morality that supports the family.
Well, other religions (and philosophies) have those things, too.”
That is right! Better a rationalist Jefferson Bible ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible ) then some Zio-con-job Scofield Bible!!
Rob Lonaker: “Of Poseidon, Thor, Zeus, and Apollo, Richard Dawkins wrote, “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
My parallel: Most Christians are suckered by many Jewish myths in the Bible. Christian Zionists just go a few paragraphs further.”
The problem with Chrisitianty isn’t Zionism, it’s Christianity itself. It has Judaized the White man, replacing his formerly healthy attitudes with sick ones. Trying to cure it with critical thinking will be in vain, not least since Christianity celebrates faith, not reason; it values the Bible, the so-called “Word of God”, more than truth. It values meekness, not strength; it values forgiveness, not vengeance; atonement for sin, not virtue. It is the spiritual cancer of the West. Every Christian virtue contributes to this sickness of spirit. More than any other single cause, the Christian mythos has poisoned the White man’s soul.
Of course, this will set off the usual baying of the curs about how Christianity was an historically great unifying force for Whites, and still could be so, had it not been corrupted by those nasty old Jews. Let’s dispose of such nonsense summarily. How did it unify Whites? Unity as shown by the destruction of pagan temples and ancient civilization generally? Hmm. No, not that, obviously. Unity as shown by the Reformation, or the Thirty Years’ War? Nope. That wasn’t exactly a very unifying experience either. The American, French, or English Civil Wars, which were all fought with White Christians filling the ranks on either side? No, I’m afraid those, too, aren’t very good examples of solidarity. Well then, perhaps they mean the tremendous racial unity displayed by White Christians in WWI, or WWII, where the White Christian Allies crushed the White Christian Germans, all in the name of God and country? Ah wait, come to think of it, there yet again the rabbi Jesus’ adherents were at each others’ throats. Yes, Christianity has indeed been a great force for White racial unity, if by unity you mean division and endless strife, the wasting of White strength in quest of the approval of a Jewish God. Plainly, anyone who would even think such a thing is living in some kind of alternate reality, a good candidate for a mad house, if there still were any madhouses; but perhaps they’ve just changed the name. Nowadays they must be called churches. “No, the problem isn’t Christianity itself. How could it be? What could possibly promote the health of the White race better than worshipping an anti-racist Jew as God?”, wail the inmates. Yes, these Christians are all quite insane.
But what to do about it, since reasoning with such madmen is impossible? Of the replies so far, I think Wandrin comes closest to stating the right course. Replace the leaders. Yet how can that be done, except with the greatest of bloodshed? The short answer is: It can’t. Yet even a trapped mouse will gnaw its leg off to be free. After twenty centuries of Christian poison slow-dripped into his veins, does the White man have left even so much heart as a mouse? We shall see.
Matt Parrott said:
“You go on believing that a fertile and confident nation can exist in a spiritual vacuum ….”
Matt, I, too, worry about that issue. Would large numbers of nonreligious Americans, currently about 15% of the population, lead to a decline in morality, fulfillment, or social cohesion?
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#North_America :
Morality does not emanate from, or depend on, religion. Well-developed moral systems exist in both religious and nonreligious persons and groups. Aspects of morality, such as altruism, have evolved in humans.
Without resort to faith, science can be used to answer moral questions, as Sam Harris discusses here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OPwJaB7A6c
Churches indeed provide Christians with social support and networks that nonbelievers haven’t traditionally had. The internet seems to be changing that a bit. But even if nonbelievers never obtain the social cohesion believers enjoy, one may ask whether the price of this cohesion — professed certainty in supernatural phenomena that are in fact unknown — is worth it.
Cohesion around other goals, such as ethnic interests, can transcend religious differences, one hopes.
Rob,
It would seem advisable to wait until actually demonstrating that a tribe can function devoid of tradition and transcendence before moving on to the next step and arguing that the baby Jesus be thrown out with the bathwater of Christian Zionism. Why abandon a vehicle that recently broke down in favor of a sketchy blueprint of an experimental vehicle?
I think the biggest problem that secular Americans have is their low fertility. It’s been shown over and over again that more religiously fundamentalist people of all religions are more fertile. In a healthy ethnostate, this problem would care of itself, but, since there is no White ethnostate on the horizon, the fertility of highly religious White people is an important asset.
Rob Lonaker: “Morality does not emanate from, or depend on, religion. Well-developed moral systems exist in both religious and nonreligious persons and groups. Aspects of morality, such as altruism, have evolved in humans.”
There’s quite a bit to dispute here. That moral codes exist among “non-religious” humans means nothing, if the moral code is upheld by threat of punishment, or if those who embrace it tacitly acknowledge that reality has metaphysical structure (but simply haven’t developed it as a religious or philosophical system).
I suspect you may be talking, at least in part, about so-called “ethical atheists”, a phrase which properly translates to “atheists who pretend to be ethical in order to avoid censure or punishment while making God appear inessential”. The Internet is full of atheists who pretend to be ethical, but if one argues with them, they rapidly turn into gutter scum who will gladly lie, cheat, steal, and try to get one fired from his job rather than lay down their hatred of religion or even lose a theological argument.
Similarly, the evolution of altrusim in humans may well have required psychological support in the form of intuition of metaphysical structure. To show that altruism is evolutionarily rational, one must show that there exists a meaningful form of continuity connecting the altruist to his/her beneficiaries. The simple sharing of genes won’t do it; genes have no minds, and thus no self-interest in the biological or decision-theoretic senses. Continuity of interest applies only if genes somehow nucleate it, which entails metaphysical structure, which can be systematized as religion, which can be codified as ethics.
Whether or not a given primitive culture has merely intuited this structure without developing its content is quite beside the point.
You do understand this, right?
Just two recent experiences of my own in trying to get these deluded Zionist Christians to see the light were disastrous. I will share my first experience and try to reconstruct the 2nd ordeal in a separate piece with the Christian organization “Oathkeeper’s” website since all three of my strongly worded posts were deleted by the coward who moderates the blog, and I only saved one of them.
I think the best thing we can try and do is to get them to former-Jew-turned-Christian Brother Nathanael’s critically important website, and his devastating truths will do the rest. Brother Nathanael’s blog has many “regulars” – predominantly Christian bloggers (I’m one of the few secular posters there) who are very Jew-savvy and I have learned much from them. Thus, it serves as proof that there is hope for these suicidal, myopic Christians blindly supporting sheer wickedness. What follows is my email to Brother Nathanael:
Brother Nathanael:
I’ve been following the news of your trip to Jew York City (smile) and find your accounts so heartening and uplifting. Thank you, my dear Brother, for all that you do. You are truly a one-man tour de force, and you make me so proud to be a part of the truth movement.
I try to post on other (especially those devoted to financial/investment news) blogs as much as possible and lure people to both your’s and Jeff Rense’s critical websites.
I wrote on your blog back in May (copied and pasted below as a postscript; my comments as “Voir Dire” – http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=499) about the prominent Christian and conservative book writer, Dr. Jack Cashill whom I (once) greatly admired as a writer/investigative journalist for his detailed exposures of our Imposter-in-Chief, President Obama, but who’s credibility I demolished after (he denied it in an email; see quote below) he removed my fact-buttressed commentary from the conservative website “American Thinker.” Even worse, I believe I’ve since been banned from posting there as my password no longer works. Either the site is owned/controlled by a Jew or a rabid Zionist Christian who can’t permit irrefutable truths.
I emailed him and asked him why my commentary which abided by his lengthy rules for posting commentary was removed especially since I’d given a link straight from their own publication, “The Chicago Jewish News” which you’ve also written about whereby Jews’ were caught red-handed boasting of having “put Obama into power.” I also sent my entire expose of HIM I’d posted on your website in the hopes of drawing Dr. Cashill to your blog as a fellow Christian/former Jew desperately trying to awaken Americans/Christians as to how organized Jewry are destroying our Western countries and are hell-bent on criminalizing Christianity. This is the pathetic response I got back, but really WHAT could he say? There was no justification other than wanting to cover for those Chicago Jews’ brazenly bragging about nurturing and grooming Obama for the presidency which totally undermined his whole “investigative project.”
“Stephanie: I do not have any control over any of that.
Sorry Jack”
In a 2nd email, I also went into detail (again with fact-based links) of how Jewish Communist agitators had recruited, funded and organized Black Marxist tyranny over on South African Whites and consequently, were/are responsible for the ongoing genocide of Whites – few of whom have any excape (unlike the Jewish Communists who, of course, having done their dastardly deeds largely fled to Israel and the always welcoming West. And that international Jewry had used our Western governments to threaten Whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa with armed WARFARE had they failed to succumb to Black, Marxist rule. Not surprisingly, I never heard back from him, but at least I didn’t get the email with a “mark as unread” and deleted. I guarantee you my words haunt him at night and rightfully so.
He may be a lost cause though because not only does he derive his paycheck from Simon & Schuster publishers, he has also produced a film perpetrating lies about the mostly embellished “holocaust” and even worse, wrote a piece defending that despicable holohoaxer Rosenblatt after he was exposed as a piece-of-crap liar.
Nevertheless, I exposed HIM as an intellectual fraud by the fact that he
apparently allowed my post to be deleted after initially allowing it to stand.
I told him too he needs to start concerning himself with
anti-Gentilism instead of obsessing over anti-Semitism as they absolutely intend our complete destruction.
As we know all too well, Brother Nathanael, there are none so blind as Zionist Christian fools.
No need to write back; I know how incredibly busy you are. I will try to keep in touch more often, and I do always read and comment on your awesome blog whenever time permits.
P.S. Original post from May:
There is a Zionist Christian and prominent conservative writer here in the U.S., Dr. Jack Cashill, who has written damning exposes on our carefully crafted, charlatan-President Obama’s widely hailed “biography” – “Dreams from my Father” which is properly credited with launching Obama’s rising political career.
He has proven, I’m convinced, by thorough scientific dissections of comparisons of the written passages and key words of that “biography” and Ayers other works that it was indeed ghostwritten by radical Marxist William Ayers, one of Obama’s whitewashed mentors.
One of the persistent burning questions by Cashill’s devout and hungry-for-explanations followers was why a publisher, Simon & Schuster, willingly contracted a 150,000 dollar advance to a NOBODY still in law school to write a book regarding his (Drip! Drip! Sarcasm) earth-shattering (non) accomplishments.
And then when Obama, showing his real lack of character squandered the money and came up empty with the promised manuscript, he was promptly forgiven and eventually given yet another advance by the Jewish-owned “Times Books.”
Like most Americans, Cashill’s eager-beaver followers don’t know that ALL of the major book publishers in the West are Jewish-owned. It was at this point that it is believed he desperately approached Chicago neighbor/mentor/terrorist William Ayers who then produced the pivotal “memoir/autobiography” catapulting his “fame.”
Obama had no skills as a writer, no sterling achievements behind him, and was indeed cultivated the entire length of his affirmative-action-buttressed, illustrious “career.” One can’t pen one’s riveting memoirs if one has NONE, is living a monstrous series of lies and has to totally reinvent oneself as someone who ACTUALLY mattered.
Anyway, under this expert dissector’s knife, the theme is rife by his avid followers on his blog: “Who created this nonentity,” “Who funded Him?” and all other sorts of intriguing and inexplicable questions regarding this masterful fraud/creation.
I responded to another poster (in quotes) with the following commentary and fact-based link straight from the usual culprits’ own publication, the “Chicago Jewish News” which pulled the rug right out from under the latest unfolding drama on Cashill’s “BARACK OBAMA’S MISSING GIRLFRIENDS” article.
(See following link:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/barack_obamas_missing_girlfrie.html):
“I know he was surrounded by Marxists most of his life; so were lots of people. How did this one man become POTUS? I believe he is a puppet, hand selected, his past reconstructed by people with power, money, influence, and control of the media. I think the plan to promote him was in the works for a long time.” — KR
His mentors were all Marxists, but only one self-identifying group of people typically grew up with card-carrying-members-of-the-Communist-Party as parents or “surrounded by Marxists” as was candidly admitted by Jewish neo-con writer David Horowitz in his biography.
The answer to your puzzle and quest has been out there all along for those who don’t mind letting the truth take them wherever the facts may fall. Jack Cashill is one gifted investigative writer, but he’s fears treading or discussing WHO put this Manchurian Candidate into power.
Who indeed would offer a no-talent, lackluster, greenhorn $150,000 for writing a book about his purported accomplishments whilst attending law school?
Well, WHO OWNS Simon & Schuster and chillingly every bit of the entire Western media apparatus for that matter, Mr. Cashill?
How many of you who rail against the “mainstream media” have ever pulled back the veil on oligopolistic, Zionist media ownership that is fully arrayed against Western interests?
They openly brag about grooming Obama for the Presidency to serve THEIR interests and self-aggrandizement in THEIR countless publications meant for THEIR eyes only, but some prefer staying mired in a mystery.
For those who subscribe to Thomas Jefferson’s “there is not a truth existing which I would fear or wish unknown to man,” please read the following “Chicago Jewish News” deeply troubling yet revealing article:
“A look at why some Jews love him and some don’t trust him; and at the key role Chicago Jews played in getting him to where he is”
http://www.chicagojewishnews.com/story.htm?sid=212226&id=252218
Voir Dire
Dr. Cashill initially posted my damning commentary until the full import of how his “investigative research” had come to a screeching halt by the fact that typically subversive, Israel-firsters, wealthy, Chicago Jews were chronicled boasting in elaborate detail of having put this probable sociopath/fellow-Communist into power solely to advance Jewish/Israeli interests.
He pulled the commentary in no time. When I looked into who had published this willfully blinded Christian fool/Jewish apologist’s books… You guessed it… – Simon & Schuster.
“Bingo!” as Dr. Cashill would proudly proclaim.
I had unwittingly exposed a charlatan of my own.
KMD: “I think the biggest problem that secular Americans have is their low fertility. It’s been shown over and over again that more religiously fundamentalist people of all religions are more fertile. In a healthy ethnostate, this problem would care of itself, but, since there is no White ethnostate on the horizon, the fertility of highly religious White people is an important asset.”
Then again, while one might carve out an exception for such groups as the Mormons and the Amish, this is probably overall reflective of the correlation, noticed by Galton, that the mentally inferior outbreed the superior, and is in any case offset and swamped by the high fertility of non-White Christians, who have been encouraged to flood into America and Europe owing largely, though not exclusively, to Christian sentimentality and incitement. It would be interesting to see a study confirming what I suspect is a great disparity between the average IQ of self-identified atheists and agnostics contrasted to that of religious fundamentalists. I’d guess that the average IQ of the latter is much lower, perhaps as much as a standard deviation or more. How many religious fundamentalists are in high-IQ occupations such as professor or scientist? And instead, now many in those occupations are atheists or agnostics?
But everyone already knows what that chart would look like, don’t they? In our modern world, as religious belief rises, IQ drops. Further, the more fundamentalist the religious belief, the lower the IQ. Case-in-point: Christian Zionists.
Religious belief is rising, eh?
Few disagree that America’s cognitive elite have moved on from traditional religions and on to material ones. I’m not so sure that it’s a promising development. Some of the West’s most prolific innovators have been deeply spiritual. Newton is the ultimate example, though a survey of Murray’s Human Accomplishments completely devastates your unnecessarily verbose attempt to claim that Christians are stupid.
Let’s not change the subject. KMD was talking about the fundamentalist Christians of today, and so was I.
If Newton had been born in 1942 instead of 1642, I highly doubt that he would have been either Christian or especially, a fundamentalist. It’s possible that he might have developed some esoteric form of Christianity for himself, much like a number of the posters on this forum, who claim that 99% or so of people calling themselves Christians aren’t REAL Christians like they are. But I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have been a fundamentalist, demanding the teaching of intelligent design and claiming that the Earth was only 5,000 years old, or that it was created in just 7 days. Your saying that elites have moved on from traditional religions to more material ones would seem to grant that point.
BTW, if you compare the lists from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe
you will see that the realtionship generally holds. With one or two possible exceptions, the stupider, less prosperous countries have fewer atheists and more Christians; and conversely, the wealthier a country is, the more its citizens tend to be atheists, and the higher its average IQ.
“I think the biggest problem that secular Americans have is their low fertility.” – KM
One of my favorite quotes for demonstrating the common contempt these historical mass murderers/pillagers/population control obsessives (for OTHERS’ of course) routinely demonstrate to their host societies follows. Can anyone even fathom a White advocating such blatantly hateful policies? Especially since it certainly wasn’t aimed at his fruitful brethren. But this Jewish scumbag not only got away with such outrageous and despicable advocacy, he was of course rewarded with plum positions apparently as an influential bureaucratic “demographer” and later, a “director” at a college. I don’t think anyone can deny he lived to see his sick fantasies put into play in the dying, former empire.
“[To lower the birth rate, we will] “…squeeze consumers through taxation and inflation; make housing very scarce by limiting construction; force wives and mothers to work outside the home to offset the inadequacy of male wages, yet provide few child care facilities; encourage immigration to the cities by providing low wages in the country and providing few rural jobs; increase congestion in the cities by starving the transit system; increase personal insecurity by encouraging conditions that produce unemployment and by haphazard political arrests.”
—E. Grebenik, “On Controlling Population Growth,” in Biology and the Human Sciences. (ed.) J.W.S. Pringle, Herbert Spencer Lectures, 1970, Oxford 1970
Eugene Grebenik CB, known as “Grebby” (20 July 1919, Kiev-14 October 2001, Oxford) was a central figure in the development of demography in Britain and the first director of the British Civil Service College.
Well, WHO exactly was this Eugene Grebenik (emphasis mine)?
Grebenik was the only son and elder child of Schulim Grebenik (1887–1972), estate agent, and his wife, Lea Helene, née Lopatizkaya (1894–1985), a qualified lawyer, both JEWISH. He had a sister, Renata Rosalie. The family moved to Danzig in 1920, then to Berlin, and finally, after the rise of Adolf Hitler, to England in 1933. Grebenik could eventually speak eleven languages but none like a native. –Wikipedia
eurodele said:
“That moral codes exist among “non-religious” humans means nothing, if the moral code is upheld by threat of punishment, or if those who embrace it tacitly acknowledge that reality has metaphysical structure (but simply haven’t developed it as a religious or philosophical system). ”
I assume you refer to personal moral codes as opposed to social ones. Social moral codes imposed on populations by governments, religions, and gangs, through law, policy, or alleged revelation, virtually always implement threats of punishment: monetary fines and damages, imprisonment, labor, physical injury, or fires of hell or purgatory.
It’s probably unfair to say that a moral code among the nonreligious means nothing “if those who embrace it tacitly acknowledge that reality has metaphysical structure ….” By representing thoughts through language, for example, the human brain can be viewed as assigning a metaphysical structure to reality: objects, symbols, and time become ordered to form syntax and grammar, for example. This implies an inherent ontology, or categorization of things that exist, and therefore a metaphysics, that inhere in brains capable of language.
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Brain-Representation-Foundations-Neuropsychology/dp/0123042607
In a 2008 paper, anthropology professor James Dow (Oakland University, Rochester, MI) ran a computer simulation to investigate how religious belief could have evolved through natural selection. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/2/2.html
Of Dow’s findings, CUNY philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci notes that there are “several theories out there about the evolution of religion, falling into two broad categories: either religion is somehow advantageous and is therefore the result of natural selection, or it is a byproduct of other characteristics of the human brain and social organization.
“The first possibility comes in two main flavors: the advantage could accrue to religious individuals (standard individual-level natural selection) or groups (invoking the more controversial mechanism of group selection). Dow’s study explores the possibility that religious belief spread because of an individual advantage of some sort.
“The first interesting result from the simulations is that under most tested scenarios religion actually does not survive! This is presumably because there is an obvious cost (in terms of sheer Darwinian fitness) to buying into fanciful notions about how the world works. How is it possible, then, that practically every human society has gotten the religious virus? The most surprising result of Dow’s study is that religion spreads only if non-religious people help it by supporting the religious!
“How is this possible?
“The simulation’s structure was not designed to address the question of what mechanism could induce non-religious people to help religious ones, but some possibilities have been suggested nonetheless.
“According to Dow, “if a person is willing to sacrifice for an abstract god then people feel like they are willing to sacrifice for the community” (the so-called “greenbeard” effect). This is a social version of a well-established evolutionary idea known as the “handicap principle,” where males who can parade useless and costly attributes (be they peacock’s feathers or Ferrari sports cars) are more likely to attract females because they are sending the indirect signal that their genes are so good that they can waste energy and resources just to please the female. It attempts to induce the female to imagine what sort of offspring they might be able to produce if only the female would consent to …
“As bizarre and irrational as this sort of scenario may seem, there is independent empirical evidence, for instance from studies of Israeli kibbutzim, that religious people do tend to receive more assistance than less religious ones from the rest of the community, again perhaps because they inspire trust.”
http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/thank_god_atheists_and_vice_versa
Kevin MacDonald explains how group selection can occur through culture: people are encouraged to mate with those having desired heritable traits, like intelligence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Nf_n27mpQ&t=1m33s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDFK_jXXQMU
Presumably, this culturally guided group selection has played a role in the transmission of religion, particularly Judaism.
Visiting the National Art Museum of Catalonia in Barcelona, right at the beginning of the Romanesque period gallery, a big painting called “The siege of Mallorca” just shocked me. The Christian army displaying a flag with a cross on it was attacking the city walls defended by two groups one displaying a green flag and the other one a flag with a hexagram.
Almost eight hundred years ago nobody in his right mind would coalesce Zionism and Christianity. That beautiful painting should be explanatory enough. In those eight hundred years Christianity changed so much to become unintelligible for somebody like Jaume el Conqueridor. Who was a real Christian? Jaume the First or some fat televangelist? Speaking about “old time religion”.
Searching for a way to explain some things to the more or less Christians has nothing to do with the atheistic arguments. There is a huge risk to push those toward the other side. Smart or not, rich or poor. Be them dumb and poor Christians, you don’t want a large mass of these against the Nationalist and Racialist idea.
People easily forget an argumentation. They mostly don’t care about your arguments. They like to solve the difficult questions by dumb slogans. If they would really care they would discover by themselves, still they don’t. Many will think that they don’t need your argumentation. They think they are smart enough to figure out by themselves and you are some kind of freak, smart, good looking but still a freak. They are not stupid, they are incredible tired, lazy and limited (especially the “open minded” kind).
I still think it’s about winning hearts not arguments. Because giving them that warm hopefully they will have the power to think beyond the next dues. You need to create that precious “learning moment”. From this point they will feel the need to think and understand.
Atheism, the White man’s alternative to Christianity, leads to narcissism, depression, and suicidal tendencies. No wonder post-Christian Whites are so infertile; who wants to bring a child into a faithless world on a Hobbesian trajectory? Not coincidentally, Jewry, through its various intellectual movements, has been promoting atheism in the West for centuries. Yet another example of attempted eradication through silver-tongued subversion.
@ Rob Lonaker
Rob, it’s important to avoid confusion regarding the meaning of “metaphysical structure” and why it is essential to ethics.
First, consider the worldlines of organisms with utility functions, i.e., the graphs of those functions through physical space. These functions can cross and entangle, but they are basically separate. Their separateness presents endless opportunities for “defection”, game-theoretic lingo for “cheating”. Because physical surveillance and coercion are physically limited, the risk of physical punishment can always be reduced or eliminated; thus, an ethical system enforced by physical surveillance and coercion alone will always break down (and make life miserable for all concerned along the way).
The endpoints of each utility function represent the birth and death of the organism. These terminal points mark absolute physical discontinuities, gaps across which physical utility functions are physically unbridged. Where they end, physical utility ends, along with the possibility of shared interests and mutual benefit. (The mere survival of genes across such gaps means nothing, as genes lack utility functions, unless they nucleate those functions by some ulterior, read “metaphysical”, mechanism.)
Thus, physical spacetime or “nature” is a place where the utility functions of organisms are inevitably characterized by defection and termination. The idea behind an ethical code is to sustain the coherence, or connectivity, of the group utility function on various levels despite constant divergences and breakdowns of the physical topology, i.e., despite the physical separation and termination of individual utility functions.
This requires an extension of physical space in which utility is continuously shared, and the topology can be reconnected. The parameters of this extension can then double as psychological parameters of human behavior, and therefore human evolution.
Remember, although the biochemical processes governing the reproductive behavior of, say, bacteria can be adequately modeled with computers, human psychology, behavior, and evolution cannot, because there are additional layers of causality to consider including human social dynamics and (even more importantly) the intuition and conscious intentionality of human minds. (Hence the phrase “evolutionary psychology”.)
Metaphysical structure is what the human mind, as distinguished from the human brain which nucleates the mind, requires in order to extend its utility function to other human organisms and thus reconnect the group utility function. It is absurd to think that a computer is capable of determining this structure, because a computer is a mere physical object which ontologically requires that structure in order to exist.
Now let me reiterate: “No metaphysical structure” implies “no continuity of utility functions beyond the physical boundaries of the individual organism” implies “no durable psychological parameterization for ethics” implies “unavoidable ethical breakdown”.
Therefore, if one wants a durable system of ethics that doesn’t break down at the drop of a hat, one needs metaphysical structure which can be religiously systematized and codified as ethics. Q.E.D.
Rob Lonaker said:
“Mr. Parrott raised the idea that Christians may be the most effective persons to convince their Christian Zionist brethren, on theological grounds, that they are wrong to be co-opted by Jewish interests. But I have no confidence in that approach.”
I do. Christian Zionists often simple minded people, so simple explanations may work the best. A very straightforward approach would be to list all the notable Christians and great Americans who held opinions about jews that would today be considered “anti-semetic.”
Martin Luther wrote the book “On jews and their Lies.”
Thomas Aquinas didn’t trust jews.
Thomas Jefferson said:
“Those who labor in the earth are the Chosen People of God, if ever he had a chosen people.” [in reference to jews]
Mark Twain said:
“Protestants have persecuted Catholics — but they did not take their livelihoods away from them. Catholics have persecuted Protestants — but they never closed agriculture and the handicrafts against them. I feel convinced that the Crucifixion has not much to do with the world’s attitude toward the Jew; that the reasons for it are much older than that event . . . I am convinced that the persecution of the Jew is NOT in any large degree due to religious prejudice. No, the Jew is a money-getter. He made it the end and aim of his life. He was at it in Rome. He has been at it ever since.”
U.S. Grant and William Tecumsah Sherman disliked jews.
George Washington said:
“They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in… It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.”
Ben Frtanklin said:
“I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.”
And if any president did took even one-quarter the stance that Eisenhower did in mid-east foreign policy, they’d be labeled as another Hitler today.
—
The rank and file Christian Zionist is a follower, not a leader (or critical thinker, as Rob put it.) You may be surprised at how exposing them to the TRUE beliefs of our great spiritual and political leaders may influence them.
Just ask them this: Do you really think John Hagee is greater than all/any of the men listed above?
eurodele said:
“The endpoints of each utility function represent the birth and death of the organism. These terminal points mark absolute physical discontinuities, gaps across which physical utility functions are physically unbridged. Where they end, physical utility ends, along with the possibility of shared interests and mutual benefit. (The mere survival of genes across such gaps means nothing, as genes lack utility functions, unless they nucleate those functions by some ulterior, read “metaphysical”, mechanism.)”
Genes encode the proteins and epigenetic machinery that produce brains, which constitute and animate minds, which produce human utility functions. This may mean that genes “nucleate those functions by some ulterior, read ‘metaphysical,’ mechanism,” as you put it, if by “metaphysical” you mean ontological, treating of the nature of existence and the categorization of entities.
But if you mean “metaphysical” in the sense of the nonphysical, or “spiritual,” that’s more problematic. There’s no evidence that genes, residing in cells that interact with their environment, require any such nonphysical property, if one exists, to provide all the information necessary to propagate and sustain life, and even to lead to the world’s greatest human accomplishments.
eurodele: “Metaphysical structure is what the human mind, as distinguished from the human brain which nucleates the mind, requires in order to extend its utility function to other human organisms and thus reconnect the group utility function.”
We can agree on this. The human brain thinks through language, which involves representing concepts semantically with grammar. This implies that neurons fire in a patterns that instantiate a metaphysical structure, an ontology, corresponding to perceived reality. This metaphysical structure is a model the brain uses for cognitive processing; it is not something other-worldly or supernatural.
eurodele: “Therefore, if one wants a durable system of ethics that doesn’t break down at the drop of a hat, one needs metaphysical structure which can be religiously systematized and codified as ethics.”
Why can’t one drop the “religiously systematized” part and say just that “one needs metaphysical structure which can be codified as ethics”? Certainly, religions have more adherents than skepticism does, perhaps due to a combination of reward promise, punishment threat, and social support. But that does not make the supernatural beliefs of religion true. And doesn’t truth matter?
Kevin MacDonald, Stephanie Smith, and Chris Moore rightly point out a significant problem: secular Whites have fewer children than White Christians. I suspect the reason for this is not selfishness or a bleak worldview, but a lack of group support. Mormons and Orthodox Jews have great support networks for families, not allowing their members’ children to go hungry or lack clothing. Hispanic Catholics have similar networks within families.
For Whites who lack faith in unprovable, contradictory phenomena like gods, angels, and devils, but who want to raise strong families, what is the solution? It seems better that they create similarly strong social-support networks than that other Whites tell them, “Force yourself to believe in the logically impossible, and only then will our churches help your families.”
Assuming the Bible is truly the word of God, in many respects Christian Zionism stands on solid doctrinal ground.
It’s sad to see bromides of this caliber make it onto this Web site.
That sentence was a spectacular example of self-discrediting.
About this quote:
George Washington said:
“They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in… It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.”
Just to be clear, George Washington did not use the term “the Jews” when making that comment. He was talking about currency speculators. I’m sure some of them were Jewish, but he never made any statements about Jews in general. I just point this out so we don’t go around making a statement to others that can be easily disproved.
Rob Lonaker: “Genes encode the proteins and epigenetic machinery that produce brains, which constitute and animate minds, which produce human utility functions. This may mean that genes “nucleate those functions by some ulterior, read ‘metaphysical,’ mechanism,” as you put it, if by “metaphysical” you mean ontological, treating of the nature of existence and the categorization of entities. But if you mean “metaphysical” in the sense of the nonphysical, or “spiritual,” that’s more problematic. There’s no evidence that genes, residing in cells that interact with their environment, require any such nonphysical property, if one exists, to provide all the information necessary to propagate and sustain life, and even to lead to the world’s greatest human accomplishments.”
You apparently mean to imply that the entirety of human existence and accomplishment supervenes on the physical, in particular on molecular structures called “genes”.
Philosophically, this is not an option. There are numerous insuperable arguments against the complete supervenience of mind and sensory phenomena on matter and material processes, including the existence of qualia and other “pure” content-independent abstractions; quantum mechanics, in which coherent wave functions lack empirically accessible material properties; the fact that laws of nature are not fully expressed in physical objects alone; and so on.
Perhaps the best argument is this: because physical reality alone does not constitute an explanation of the existence of physical reality, the scientific quest for a purely physical explanation of nature is unsatisfiable. (Hello, metaphysics.)
Rob: “We can agree [that “Metaphysical structure is what the human mind, as distinguished from the human brain which nucleates the mind, requires in order to extend its utility function to other human organisms and thus reconnect the group utility function.”]. The human brain thinks through language, which involves representing concepts semantically with grammar. This implies that neurons fire in a patterns that instantiate a metaphysical structure, an ontology, corresponding to perceived reality. This metaphysical structure is a model the brain uses for cognitive processing; it is not something other-worldly or supernatural.”
Obviously, the existence of a brain cannot be accounted for by its own neural firing patterns; these are secondary to its existence, not primary. Ontologically, a deeper level of “syntax and grammar” are required.
This “depth” or ontic priority dimension is indeed supernatural, or metaphysical, in the precise sense that its expression requires a logical metalanguage of natural law. That is, the existence of natural law cannot be explained by natural law alone; a higher-level language and syntax are required, and logically, they are “metaphysical” in nature.
Rob (re my statement that to have a durable system of ethics, one needs metaphysical structure which can be religiously systematized and ethically codified): “Why can’t one drop the “religiously systematized” part and say just that “one needs metaphysical structure which can be codified as ethics”? Certainly, religions have more adherents than skepticism does, perhaps due to a combination of reward promise, punishment threat, and social support. But that does not make the supernatural beliefs of religion true. And doesn’t truth matter?”
Of course, truth is ALL that finally matters in science. But when it comes to connecting utility functions in ways transcending physical limitations, the hard mathematical truth is this: if it can be done at all, then it is only because there exists a higher form of utility that is not interrupted by physical separation or physical death.
On this form of utility, we can naturally define the following construct: “that metaphysical entity to which this coherent utility function belongs”.
Guess what this entity is called? That’s right…it’s called “God”. The Jews realized this long ago; that’s why they defined God synonymously with their own group utility.
We’d be wise to stop fooling around, and do the same.
Rob: “Kevin MacDonald, Stephanie Smith, and Chris Moore rightly point out a significant problem: secular Whites have fewer children than White Christians. I suspect the reason for this is not selfishness or a bleak worldview, but a lack of group support. Mormons and Orthodox Jews have great support networks for families, not allowing their members’ children to go hungry or lack clothing. Hispanic Catholics have similar networks within families.”
Let’s stop here for a moment. From the viewpoint of an individual White person, why bother to have children at all?
Yes, yes, I know – they make us feel good, they give us a sense of fulfillment, they help around the house and yard, they “carry our genes”.
But regarding the last, a question inevitably arises: so what? What do you get out of the fact that your kids “carry your genes”? You will surely drop dead some day, and at that point, your physical utility function will stop dead right along with you. It will not physically travel on to the next generation, or to the one after that. It is a temporal construct that physically ends with the death of your brain.
The fact that “genes encode your psyche” is irrelevant, because you won’t be around to read or reflect that code, and even if you were, it would not precisely match your own (having been adulterated by mating). That code will belong to some other psyche, and to that other psyche, you’ll be just a moldering pile of bones … unless, of course, there’s more to it than that.
Obviously, the “more to it” of which we are speaking is not merely physical. To show otherwise, you’d have to perform the impossible, and trace the journey of a disembodied human psyche through “physical space and time” to one or more of its close genetic relatives.
Regarding evolutionary psychology – to claim that the human psyche merely supervenes on the physical process of evolution is to demote human psychology, and science in general, to a mere epiphenomenon of the physical process of evolution. “Evolutionary psychology” would then devolve to an atomic explanation of human evolution from which the human psyche could be subtracted in its entirety … the ghost finally exiled from the machine, the meaning of it all finally summing to 0.
Don’t you think you’d better ask Dr. MacDonald if that’s what he means by “evolutionary psychology” before assuming as much on his behalf?
Rob: “For Whites who lack faith in unprovable, contradictory phenomena like gods, angels, and devils, but who want to raise strong families, what is the solution? It seems better that they create similarly strong social-support networks than that other Whites tell them, “Force yourself to believe in the logically impossible, and only then will our churches help your families.”
I’m afraid I don’t quite see why you think that the existence of metaphysical structure is “logically impossible”.
In fact, physical reality is logically impossible without it. The reason is obvious: physical reality does not comprise or even “encode” a self-sufficient ontology. Ontology refers to nature as content, and must therefore consist of more than nature alone.
On the other hand, if you think that physical reality is ontologically self-contained, then why not try to prove it?
Apply enough effort, and I’m sure you’ll see than any such “proof” could be easily dismantled.
Rob Lonaker: “secular Whites have fewer children than White Christians. I suspect the reason for this is not selfishness or a bleak worldview, but a lack of group support.”
I believe the lack of group support is not so much a matter of social or economic support as it is intellectual and cultural — a manifestation of misanthropic and anti-White Jewish intellectual movements, and a generally negative view of family life imparted to society through Jewish dominated popular culture via mass media. But there is also a powerful materialist component, wherein atheist-materialist societies produce generally self-absorbed individuals who are either too self-involved to have children, or when they do have children, impart a dysfunctional or negative family life on those children, who then don’t go on to have children of their own.
Jews are allegedly supportive of their kin, but they have a tiny overall world population despite their mature age. Why is this? I believe it is because they are largely careerists, money worshippers, intellectual racists and misanthropes, who go to extravagant lengths to feed their personal and group Molochs, which ultimately ends up diminishing their population. Modern Whites are now on that same path, minus the racism (because they have been programmed to be “tolerant” at the behest of Jewry.)
There is no quick-fix to any of this, but Christianity provides both an intellectual and metaphysical framework for understanding both the problem and the antagonist, whether one wants to attend church or not.
Understanding why any society is malfunctioning is the first step to solving the problem. Jews might even find Christianity instructive, in that they may be materially successful, but they are again quickly becoming world pariahs on a group level; and on an individual level, they are largely festering time bombs prone to gnashing their teeth no end with seething hatred of the goy.
eurodele said:
“Don’t you think you’d better ask Dr. MacDonald if that’s what he means by “evolutionary psychology” before assuming as much on his behalf?”
Unless I missed something, I don’t think anyone in this thread has assumed anything about Dr. MacDonald’s definition of evolutionary psychology.
eurodele: “I’m afraid I don’t quite see why you think that the existence of metaphysical structure is ‘logically impossible.’”
I was referring not to the existence of metaphysical structure, which evidently exists and whose characteristics and boundaries show intersubject variability in their apprehension. Rather, I meant that many supernatural religious beliefs are logically impossible. Such beliefs include, among others, the existence of miracles (defying physical or biological laws); an immutable god having a plan, or speaking to people, or speaking through bushes, or changing his mind; and the reconciliation of theodicy while assuming the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god.
eurodele: “From the viewpoint of an individual White person, why bother to have children at all? Yes, yes, I know – they make us feel good, they give us a sense of fulfillment, they help around the house and yard, they “carry our genes”. But regarding the last, a question inevitably arises: so what? What do you get out of the fact that your kids “carry your genes”? You will surely drop dead some day, and at that point, your physical utility function will stop dead right along with you. It will not physically travel on to the next generation, or to the one after that. It is a temporal construct that physically ends with the death of your brain.”
True, you cannot enjoy your descendants after you’re dead. But while you’re alive, you can have desires about the future. Just as you can say, “I want to eat pancakes tomorrow,” you can say, “I want my great-grandchildren to grow up in a better world 50 years from now.” Humans on average have a built-in psychological tendency to want children. But point taken; not everyone sees value in having children.
eurodele: “Obviously, the ‘more to it’ of which we are speaking is not merely physical. To show otherwise, you’d have to perform the impossible, and trace the journey of a disembodied human psyche through ‘physical space and time’ to one or more of its close genetic relatives.”
Yes, intention, desire, knowledge, mood, emotions, and planning for the future, in their conscious perception, are not merely physical. But they do have physical, neurobiological correlates, the products of evolution. And in some cases, those correlates have proven causal. For instance, by affecting brain function, drugs can alter or destroy intentions, memory, sexual desire, etc.
eurodele: “On this form of utility, we can naturally define the following construct: ‘that metaphysical entity to which this coherent utility function belongs.’”
Granted.
eurodele: “Guess what this entity is called? That’s right…it’s called “God”. The Jews realized this long ago; that’s why they defined God synonymously with their own group utility. We’d be wise to stop fooling around, and do the same.”
Defining God “synonymously with their own group utility” is a doubtless a good evolutionary strategy for Jews. But it seems you wish Whites to do the same not because any supernatural being actually exists who has plans for Whites à la the Jewish god’s plans for Jews, but because such a religion may improve cohesion and fertility among Whites, thereby improving their chance for survival.
We agree on the goal of White survival. My concern with your religious strategy is that Whites who later come to disbelieve in gods may become disillusioned with White religious leaders they perceive to have misled them, sort of like the child who gets upset with her parents when she discovers Santa Claus is fake, despite his admitted value as a symbol, a metaphysical construct.
Many Christian or Jewish Zionists are intelligent people, but it is their belief system that gets them in their way from intelligent analysis. In general, I have found overly religious folks to have persona’s that come across as having a sort of an “arrested development” …if you know what I mean.
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
ReporterNotebook@gmail.com
Chris Moore said:
“I believe the lack of group support is not so much a matter of social or economic support as it is intellectual and cultural — a manifestation of misanthropic and anti-White Jewish intellectual movements, and a generally negative view of family life imparted to society through Jewish dominated popular culture via mass media. But there is also a powerful materialist component, wherein atheist-materialist societies produce generally self-absorbed individuals who are either too self-involved to have children, or when they do have children, impart a dysfunctional or negative family life on those children, who then don’t go on to have children of their own.”
Chris, anti-White Jewish intellectual movements and Jewish dominated popular culture indeed harm family life, including through mass-media influence, as Dr. MacDonald discusses here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyNqA7MoFHQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_qs5j2rBWw
But this does not necessarily imply that atheism, or scientific skepticism generally, has played a role in that harm, regardless whether Jews advocated it. Jews like Tim Wise who spread an anti-White message may also recommend that people wear shoes, but we ought not stop wearing our shoes because of it.
In fact, disbelief in gods can help a person develop a greater moral sense. This may be because in the holy books of monotheism, the god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam exhibits horrific, sometimes unfair vengeance and bloodlust, causing the faithful to conclude that religious morality is inconsistent and incomprehensible, its demands impossible and its judgments terrifying.
Wikipedia notes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Atheism_and_morality
@ Rob Lonaker
Fair enough regarding Dr. MacDonald. It’s just that you mentioned his remarks on low white birth rates in advancing the notion that lack of group support is the main reason. My point is that there may be even deeper reasons for the phenomenon, and that these may bear heavily on the field of evolutionary psychology (in which Dr. MacDonald is obviously a leading authority).
In particular, White people may no longer see the percentage in maintaining or encouraging a high birth rate because, in the assumed absence of metaphysical structure in reality, it has no obvious bearing on their own personal utility, especially when balanced against (e.g.) the costs of raising children and the legal risks of taking responsibility for other peoples’ children as part of a family support network. My point is that the erosion of religious faith may be at least part of the reason for this, and that this possibility – and the general intuition of metaphysical truth – is highly relevant to human psychology and behavior, and thus to the field of evolutionary psychology in general.
You write that the “characteristics and boundaries [of metaphysical structure] show intersubject variability in their apprehension … many supernatural religious beliefs are logically impossible. Such beliefs include, among others, the existence of miracles (defying physical or biological laws); an immutable god having a plan, or speaking to people, or speaking through bushes … and the reconciliation of theodicy while assuming the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god.”
First, metaphysical truth, like any kind of truth, is objective truth in every legitimate sense of the word; subjective variability applies to particular metaphorical constructions based thereon, not the core truths themselves. Secondly, just a single one of the things you list is “logically impossible”: God “changing his mind”. If God exists, then His basic existence is ultimately timeless, and because time is change, this precludes essential changes in teleology. Thirdly, the phrase “physical or biological law” is to some extent a misnomer. There is no such thing in any knowable sense, unless you tacitly acknowledge that such “laws” are open to exception (as I do when I use that phrase).
This is due in large measure to the problem of induction, which prevents us from conclusively identifying universal laws of nature by empirical induction alone (i.e., by application of the scientific method). Absent direct perception (which is never universal), proof and certainty are limited to direct perception or logicomathematical deduction. Unfortunately, most empirical scientists naively deny, without being able to prove it, that pure logical deduction can be safely applied to the external world. In fact, I think that many scientists, and for that matter you, might be astonished at what we can know about the natural world by applications of pure abstract logic … and what we can’t. One of the things that we can’t know is whether a given phenomenon is or is not “impossible”. A better word would therefore be “unlikely” … but of course, this lacks the force of “impossible”, doesn’t it.
While one can have dreams and desires regarding the future, one needs logical support for the idea that one actually has a physical stake in those dreams. Similarly, while neurobiological correlates of mood and emotion can indeed affect causality, they do not do so exclusively. Moreover, it cannot be stated with certainty that the physiological correlates of mood and emotion always have ontologically priority over the moods and emotions themselves, or the thoughts and intuitions with which they correlate. (As you probably know, correlation alone does not always entail causal dependency, especially in a particular direction.)
You write that “‘Defining God synonymously with their own group utility’ is a doubtless a good evolutionary strategy for Jews. But it seems you wish Whites to do the same not because any supernatural being actually exists who has plans for Whites à la the Jewish god’s plans for Jews, but because such a religion may improve cohesion and fertility among Whites, thereby improving their chance for survival.”
I’ll grant that it may at first seem that way. But if you look closely at what I wrote, you’ll see that it’s a little more complicated than that. We have certain people in this forum who think that Whites can have their cake and eat it too…that we can enjoy the effects of religious faith on White fertility, but “in the spirit of science”, refuse to acknowledge that it has valid metaphysical content. For the sake of intellectual honesty, we’re not really allowed to do that.
Either it is decision-theoretically rational for Whites to survive as a race, or it isn’t, and this statement is perfectly equivalent to the following: “Whites either have a coherent group identity capable of transcending obvious physical limitations, or they don’t.” This question is essentially metaphysical in nature, and cannot be answered by summarily dismissing the metaphysical content of religion as “impossible”.
I agree strongly with your final point: that “Whites who later come to disbelieve in gods may become disillusioned with White religious leaders they perceive to have misled them, sort of like the child who gets upset with her parents when she discovers Santa Claus is fake… .”
Many purveyors of religion are indeed dishonest, as we see very clearly in the case of so-called “Christian Zionists”. But people who lack the intelligence to distinguish between tent-show grifting and the valid metaphysical content of religion, even with remedial philosophical tutoring, are of no real value as breeders; they’re too stupid for that. Obviously, this includes the brand of convicted atheist who suddenly “awakens” to the discombobulated “realization” that “religion is complete hokum and God is an impossibility!”
That kind of stupidity we can obviously do without.
Jeff Maylor said:
“I just point this out so we don’t go around making a statement to others that can be easily disproved.”
Thanks for pointing that out, Jeff. If our main problem with the media and modern society is that they squelch/alter the truth about race to fit their agenda, then we should be held to a higher standard than they are. I didn’t put the parenthetical reference in that statement, however. That’s how I got it.
In light of this, it makes Ben Franklin’s statement rather curious:
“I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.”
It seems that statement is myth, too. Probably from the Franklin prophecy.
I might add to all this debunking that the Mark Twain quote appears to be from his essay on the Jews, which was on the whole philo-Semitic, although because of Twain’s wry sense of humor, a few statements in it can be taken out of context and seem anti-Semitic. Twain wasn’t an anti-Semite, and if you try to represent him as one, it will be easy for an adversary to prove you wrong. He did sincerely hate injuns though, and wasn’t afraid to say so. Read his hilarious piece on the noble red man in Roughing It sometime if you want a good laugh.
Der weibe Engle,
I believe this is one of those instances where there may be legitimate arguments on both sides of the discussion. Twain genuinely disliked the categorical mistreatment of any group of people, as stories like Puddin’ Head Wilson imply, yet incidentally said things that could only be taken as critical of jews. For example, he said they had the had the unpatriotic disinclination to serve in the military. Unfortunately, Twain’s sarcasm and sense of irony make his intentions hard to decipher at times. It seems he may have held one view earlier in life, then decided such views were unbecoming for someone of his literary stature.
But your point is well taken, I got all of the quotes in my original post from one site that was less than accurate and didn’t verify. Won’t do that again.
I dunno there, jim. That one seems to be sourced.
From “CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION” at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, as supposedly recorded in the dairy of delegate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina:
“I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.
In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.
For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.
If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.
If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.
Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American’s, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.”
Benjamin Franklin
Even if not genuine, it’s a pretty good “quote”.
But it’s not genuine, so it sets us up to make asses of ourselves.
It’s not as if our case is so lacking in evidence that we need to indulge ourselves with transparent forgeries. It’s inconsistent with Franklin’s philo-Semitic gestures and his “voice”. Additionally, the prophetic components match up a bit too conveniently to when it was “discovered”.
A couple years ago, I was making a pretty convincing case to some people I was corresponding with, and I underscored it with the assertion that “goyim” means “cattle”. My attempt to underscore it ended up undermining it, as it was shown to be an “anti-Semitic canard”.
Ok. But please tell me that you’re not getting your information from “The Wikipedia Jews”, who perch on that kind of article like buzzards around roadkill.
I would actually go so far as to assert that perception is reality, erring on the side of caution even when we believe we have the truth. We’re innately on the defensive in terms of credibility, so even if the “Wikipedia Jews” are distorting matters, we have to play it safely.
It’s not so much that they lie all that often, but that they omit and spin. For example, the Lavon Affair article soothes and caresses the matter, but does explicitly declare that the State of Israel attempted to slaughter Americans in a false flag operation. The USS Liberty incident article does explicitly declare that the State of Israel mounted a military attack on our Navy.
The Frankfurt School article does not contain the phrase “Jew”, but its links to Notable Theorists certainly do. Cases like that can actually play into our hands if handled correctly, because people are innately miffed by being misled or offered half-truths. “At first glance, you wouldn’t know it was a Jewish movement, but click over here…”
I think there would be added value in a credible academic who’s sympathetic to our side assembling a simple list of “canards” to avoid. Better, yet…a list of canards to avoid and a simple list of credible sources for the extraordinary (but true) claims we can and should be making in daily discourse.
The idea of atheism replacing Christianity as the spiritual dimension for whites is a joke. Atheists don’t build nations or families.
All of those brilliant atheist European countries you mentioned, do not reproduce. They import millions of hateful non-whites to do the labor required by Socialism, which, like atheism, is a sterile mode of life. The result is their country is stolen from them, and they do nothing to stop it. Further, how many atheistic Europeans are out there supporting the White race?
The biggest European atheist I know of is Richard Dawkins. This genius probably hates white nationalism, since he supports Labour, and spends his time hawking incredibly stupid ideas like “SPECIESISM”.
If committed atheism is our way out of this nightmare, why are the most committed atheists promoting the maximum level of Darwinian UNfitness among their host populations?
Finally, Christian Zionists, however stupid and dangerous, did not get us into this mess. For that we can thank the atheist Jew Trotsky, and his money-god called “Racism”.
KH: “All of those brilliant atheist European countries you mentioned, do not reproduce.”
Of all European countries listed, Italy is one of the most Christian, and also has the lowest reproduction rate.
KH: “Further, how many atheistic Europeans are out there supporting the White race?”
Hitler and his entire regime were pretty much atheists, which pretty much speaks for itself. Also, in an interesting link posted above, it turns out the Catholics in Germany didn’t care for Hitler or the NSDAP very much. Some bulwark against the Jews, that Catholic Church!
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/07/catholics-and-nazi-vote-1932.html
KH: “why are the most committed atheists promoting the maximum level of Darwinian UNfitness among their host populations?”
Not true at all. There are quite a few atheists among the posters on this blog, if I judge correctly from the comments here.
From what I’ve read of Hitler, I’m not sure if he can be described as an “atheist”. He did certainly allude to “Providence” quite a bit though.
We should all go at each others’ throats about religion, but we probably ought to wait until our common enemy is defeated and we have ourselves a sovereign haven upon which our posterity can throttle one another over this issue. I’m unconvinced by the arguments that Christianity is the root cause of our problem and I’m unconvinced by the argument that atheism is the root cause of our problem.
And even if that were the case, the intelligent way to win the argument would be to do a better job than the other at pushing back the enemy.
If we Christians can rally together and push back our enemies, then we win the argument. If the skeptics can rally together and push back our enemies, then they win the argument. Game on!
I am an atheist who is pro-Christian because of friends and family. Think in terms of EGI and its implications.
Christianity is not for me personally, but it is for many of the people that I care about. And, in general, Evangelical Christians, Catholics and Mormons are some of the finest people I have ever met. Most of bias against Christians in our circles is akin to gay bashing — barnyard level prejudice.
You anti-Christians are determined to push guys like me to the other side, aren’t you?
Because look, let me make it clear; although I am about as pro-White as you can get, I have no desire to share a homeland with Whites who don’t have enough basic decency to leave other White folks alone to worship as they see fit.
Some of you seem determined to start the next fratricide while we are still on the path to genocide.
LEW: “Think in terms of EGI and its implications. … in general, Evangelical Christians, Catholics and Mormons are some of the finest people I have ever met.”
They may be people who are personally agreeable to you, but they also have bought into an anti-racist doctrine, as promulgated by officially anti-racist organizations. In fact, I believe it is the case that worldwide, most Catholics are now non-White, or will soon be so. Same with Mormonism. (See link and commentary here.) And how does the importation of non-Whites into White lands, of which these churches are heavy sponsors, serve the EGI of Whites? We can overlook only at the cost of failure the prominent role played by Christian churches in the suicide of the West. Cf. Sunic’s essay here:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/02/the-camp-of-the-holy-ghosts/
“They may be people who are personally agreeable to you, but they also have bought into an anti-racist doctrine, as promulgated by officially anti-racist organizations. ”
Yes, and this dynamic applies to every institution subverted by our most fundamental enemy.
What about the anti-racism in the Fortune 500?
The Universities?
The US Congress?
The United Nations?
Your local police department?
The FBI?
Hollywood?
Big Media?
The US Law Schools?
If we can’t overlook the role that various prominent institutuions have played in the suicide of the West, then why aren’t we looking at the role played by all of these institutions in the suicide of the West?
Maybe we should do away with the law itself since the US law schools have been stacking the legal system for decades with anti-racists and since influential Jewish jurists have been responsible for most of the damaging case law.
The problem with the churches is institutional subversion, not the faith itself.
LEW: “The problem with the churches is institutional subversion, not the faith itself.”
I disagree. The problem is indeed “faith itself”. Reliance on faith in an anti-racist Jewish rabbi instead of reason is the ultimate subversion of the White spirit. If an enemy wanted to render a whole race blind, there would be no better way than that. Credo quia absurdum – that’s the Jewish mind virus of Christianity in its purest, most distilled form. It is the mother of all the other subversions you mention.
LEW makes a very good point.
Clearly, the Universities, the US Congress, the United Nations, local police departments, the FBI, Hollyweird, Big Media, and the US legal establishment have been subverted in spite of Christianity, not because of it.
In fact, if it weren’t for Christ, at the cost of his life, having identified the Jewish elite as children of the devil and immunized Gentiles against them by exposing the insidious pyramid scheme at the core of Judaism, White culture would probably have been overrun long ago.
Credit where credit is due. That the virus inevitably focused its evil energies on the vaccine is no surprise whatsoever. What remains of the vaccine can still be salvaged.
And as those of us not blinded by hatred can see, it had better be salvaged.
Idk. Christian zionists secretly believe that, while jews are important to the end times, only a small handful of them will be saved (Revelation names the number from each tribe). They will be there to carry them to Jesus. A few of the jews are salvageable. That’s the root of the zionism, not so much the apparent surface of pro-Israel activity, but the end, when a couple of them are souls that should be saved, (of those listed in Revelation). That’s all. It’s most surprising that Jews aren’t mortified by the christian motivation.
“It’s most surprising that Jews aren’t mortified by the christian motivation.”
They are. That’s why they hate them so much despite them being such big supporters of Israel.
“The problem with the churches is institutional subversion, not the faith itself.”
I’d agree up to a point but i think we need something more crack-proof as a shiled in the future – science, EGI, diversity kills, race realism etc.
shield*
We had an argument about Christianity at MajorityRights. Ultimately, I think the WN Christians are in error. But as long as we agree on race, it’s a non-issue. I really wish I had more time to write about this topic. Right now I’m too busy with everyday work and my research on the JQ in apartheid South Africa. Perhaps TOO would be willing to publish some articles on this topic when my research is completed?
Let’s certainly hope so, Sam, go for it.
LEW said:
“[A]lthough I am about as pro-White as you can get, I have no desire to share a homeland with Whites who don’t have enough basic decency to leave other White folks alone to worship as they see fit. Some of you seem determined to start the next fratricide while we are still on the path to genocide.”
LEW, I hope I did not convey that as the intent of the article. Many of my beloved friends and family are good Christians, too.
A few years ago, when I was a devout Catholic, I attended a CATO Institute conference where George Smith, author of “Atheism: The Case Against God,” was a featured speaker. He was one of the first admitted atheists with whom I ever spoke. I read his book, and although it was perfectly logical, I shuddered to consider giving up my religion. The implications were enormous: family disapproval, recognizing some relationships as unfruitful, possible eternal damnation if I were truly shunning salvation through lack of belief, even without intending to offend any invisible god.
It took me a few years to lose my faith. One can’t expect people to do so easily, if ever, when they are deeply indoctrinated. The rewards are significant, however: a rational, coherent approach to living; the acceptance that much is unknown; the realization that we should make the most of this life, our only one; the freedom from fearing a god who turns people into a pillar of salt if they innocently look over their shoulder.
I deeply appreciate the straight-talking skeptics who had the courage and kindness to confront me, when I was a hardcore Christian, about the irrational aspects of belief that runs contrary to evidence. That’s one reason I wrote the article.
Rob: “I read ["Atheism: The Case Against God"], and although it was perfectly logical, …”
It is only logical if explicitly predicated on a naïve form of transcendentalism, the idea that God exists “outside the universe”.
The problem, of course, is that naïve transcendentalism – which incorporates the unsupported assumption that the universe at large is merely physical – is neither logically consistent in itself, nor an essential (or even allowable) ingredient of monotheism.
You seem like an intelligent guy to me, Rob. There’s a pretty clear IQ cutoff in theological reasoning. Most of those with average intelligence can rely on faith over reason, while most historical geniuses have either believed in God, or at least known enough to shun atheism in favor of agnosticism.
Hardcore atheists occupy the gap between average and extreme intelligence. Don’t fall into the trap of assuming that they are the smartest people out there, when the truth is that they’re not even close.
eurodele said:
“Most of those with average intelligence can rely on faith over reason, while most historical geniuses have either believed in God, or at least known enough to shun atheism in favor of agnosticism.”
Many today like Dawkins use the term atheism to mean “lacking an affirmative belief in any god,” which includes agnosticism, if one defines agnosticism as “being uncertain whether any god exists.” The is the sense in which I used “atheism” here.
I agree that atheism, if defined as “certainty that no god exists,” goes beyond standards of evidence and may be logically untenable, depending on how one defines “god.”
Rob Lonaker: “I agree that atheism, if defined as “certainty that no god exists,” goes beyond standards of evidence and may be logically untenable, depending on how one defines “god.””
Or defines certainty. For example, when dealing with a schizophrenic who believes that the world is the creation of little green men from the planet Zontar, I would say that we can be approximately as certain that he is wrong as that God does not exist. There are better explanations for either belief.
The overwhelming majority of historical Christians were incredibly hostile to organized Jewish predators for centuries. It’s only modern “progressive” Christianity and Christian Zionism — impacted by atheists, Marxists, Bolsheviks, Jewish Zionists, money-worshippers and government worshippers (including post-Christian Protestants and “prosperity gospel” charlatans) — that Christianity has softened its stance towards wealthy and statist-connected Jewry, and consequently its stance towards the Judeofascist predators.
In short, large factions of modern Christians sold their souls, and Western civilization is now paying the price.
The vast majority of atheists are putty in the hands of hostile factions of organized Jewry, just waiting to be shaped into whatever golem is most useful to them. There is no way in hell that institutionalized atheism — which always has been a Marxist goal and was a murderous Bolshevik project carried out in the Soviet Union — is going to result in anything but the death of Western civilization and the vast majority of Whites.
Certain White ideologues think that’s a good thing, favoring culture over civilization, as did Hitler. But they’re cranked-up fanatics and pied pipers, beckoning their followers to an inevitable death because they insist on making the good the enemy of “the perfect.” In their last breaths, as the Bolshevik grim reapers close in, they’ll end up cursing the White race, as did Hitler, for being too “unfit” to carry out their fanatical delusions. Either that, or they’ll burn their Nazi uniforms and change into Bolshevik ones.
Why not? They share the same atheistic belief system. Atheists have no honor, nor principles. The German soldiers who died honorably in WWII were probably nearly all Christians, to a man.
Hitler, on the other hand, took the atheistic cowards way out, and committed suicide, which speaks for itself: never trust an atheist in a pinch.
Chris Moore: “Hitler, on the other hand, took the atheistic cowards way out, and committed suicide, which speaks for itself: never trust an atheist in a pinch.”
Of course, if Hitler had not committed suicide, then these Jews and Jew-worshipping hypocrites would have reproached him for being “too cowardly even to commit suicide.” From Nuremberg to Selma, from the post-war executions to forced racial integration, how often the twisted logic of the Christian religion has provided a haven for the spineless, and given weak, inferior men the license to heap abuse on their betters.
Hitler could have gone down fighting, per the great traditions of Christianity (Jesus himself and tens of millions of martyrs over the centuries willing to die for their beliefs) and the other crucibles of Western civilization.
Good point. Let’s not forget that rabbi Jesus allowed himself to be executed when he could have prevented it, at least if he was even half the God his worshippers claim he was; therefore, in effect, it was a suicide of the worst sort, a cowardly “suicide by cop” as it were. If his death alone were sufficient to redeem mankind, he could have just gone and hung himself like a Judas. But no, he had to be a drama queen and gang press everyone else into his little Passion play. Of course, that was the only way he could pretend to be an eternal victim. A typical Jew to the last! And people are still falling for it!
“the Christian religion has provided a haven for the spineless…”
Der weiße Engel implicitly declares the millions of German Christians who died fighting Bolshevism “spineless” and “inferior.” Do you see what I mean about the dangerous atheist mentality which turns vicously on the “weak and inferior” rank and file when some delusional ideal doesn’t pan out?
I meant Hitler could have literally gone down in a hail of gunfire by physically attacking the advancing Soviet troops, as he had ordered so many of his men to do over the course of the war.
His “the rules I dictate don’t apply to me” pompousness smacks of Jewish double standards.
“I meant Hitler could have literally gone down in a hail of gunfire by physically attacking the advancing Soviet troops,”
Not a realistic suggestion. Hitler was by that point a physical wreck racked by physical tremors.
“His “the rules I dictate don’t apply to me” pompousness smacks of Jewish double standards.”
Thus says a simpleton. And accordingly, it escapes you that the transcendent hierarchy you think must rule men for excellence and justice to reign need also be applied to the secular. Neither men, nor peoples are equal. For civilization to obtain, the better men, indeed the better peoples, must have the prerogative of rule, and for them to rule they must preserve themselves.
Btw, Hitler as a younger man bore all the sacrifices for Germany that he asked the young men under his command to bear. Command, and again for command to obtain, the preservation of those who do command, is rightly the prerogative of older and wiser men. That is if nihilism will not reign. I see no indication that in effect you do not wish it to.
Pull your head out of your ass.
It is no surprise that those who most despise Christianity know the least about it. Lonaker may or may not be a “lawyers and scientist” – so far as I know, his existence is a fairy tale and his credentials are mere fiction created in service to the priestly servants of the Law God.
In other words, I am to accept as factual, let alone relevant, this pompous ass and his pronouncements without a shred of evidence but I am somehow deluded for believing that Christ walked on earth and he broughtr with him Good News that the ISRAELITE laws of the Old Testament were replaced by a New Testament, “Love the LORD with all thy heart and all thy mind, and love thy neighbor as yourself.”
I get it. I really do. More fly-over country Amerikadeutche Bundism disguised as what? White nationalism?
The facts are these: Christianity is more than Jewish propaganda beleived only by neonazis and those that love them.
My ancestors — the actual Puritans that invented America and the concept of modern religious freedom — believed something quite different from the confabulations of Herr Lonaker. Below is the second collect from the Good Friday service from the Book of Common Prayer. Considering this was written after the time of Luther and his Zionistic tendencies, it speaks volumes about the belief system of actual Anglo-American Christians which, being an Anglo-American, are the only ones that matter to me:
O MERCIFUL God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live; Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.
Joe of the Mountain, are you sure that the Puritans created this country and especially the concept of religious freedom? They did not. The Puritans put people in the stockades for failing to perform the religious duties they prescribed – that is not religious freedom. The Puritans wanted to be “free” to practice there own religion but they were not for religious freedom in general. They also closely regulated every aspect of personal and economic life.
It was really the people in places like Virginia that came after the Puritans that built America. People like Thomas Jefferson were from Virginia. Andrew Jackson was not a descendant of Puritans, he was Scotch-Irish. The literal descendants of the Puritans today are likely to be far Left totalitarians living in places like Connecticut and Delaware.
Justin Huber: “From what I’ve read of Hitler, I’m not sure if he can be described as an “atheist”. He did certainly allude to “Providence” quite a bit though.”
Based on a few pieties uttered for political reasons, sometimes Jews and their sympathizers will even claim he was a believing Catholic. But in Table Talk, his position on Christianity in all its forms was made clear:
“We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.”
-Adolf Hitler, op. cit., p. 631
Also, at greater length:
“In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. … The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.”
-Adolf Hitler, op. cit., pp. 12-13.
However, you do make a supportable point. There’s plenty of evidence that Hitler did have a kind of natural piety, a wonder at the universe that had nothing to do with the Bible. If you want to say he wasn’t an atheist for that reason, fine. But even Richard Dawkins expresses such wonder. The fact remains he was anti-Christian in a very Christian environment, and was quite hostile to religion and religious belief, since he regarded religious institutions as subversive of state authority. This probably would have been widely regarded as atheism had it become generally known; which of course is why he concealed it.
Der Wienerschnitzel, luckily we have people of a higher intellectual caliber than Der Fuhrer to draw from. We have Jefferson, Adams and Benjamin Franklin. We have Adam Smith and Darwin. Let’s have individual rights and rule of law! Not some silly mob cringing under a dictator. No Caesars, no Hitlers.
Hitler did have some interesting takes on things but neither National or International Socialism is a good plan for the future. I would also remind everyone that Hitler made some pro-Marxist statements at times.
It amazes me that an intellectual non-entity like Mr. Maylor here would presume to disparage Hitler’s intellectual calibre. But of course, all that takes is arrogance, not brains. BTW, the only other “Maylor” I’m familiar with was Norman Mailer, who is a Jew. It’s apparently a common Jewish surname. Coincidence? I suspect not.
Yes Der Wienerschnitzel, I’m totally using my real name. And on a site that discusses Jewish influence I’m using my real Jewish name. Look up “irony” in the dictionary.
For all the others I would say this: If you want to promote White interests and freedom, do not go in the direction of Hitler. That’s insane and suicidal. It is interesting to read things Hitler said (just like Caesar or Napoleon) but if you embrace Hitler you will destroy your own credibility with the public. Granted, Hitler has been turned into the very symbol of evil in a way that is not quite fair, but nonetheless he isn’t some great genius and the negative baggage is way to heavy.
In fact, I would say that while fascinating, Hitler made a number of major mistakes that only a narcissistic temperamental artist would make.
Perhaps the key was his failure to utilize what he believed to be “Jewish science” with regard to atomic weapons. Science is science – no such thing as Jewish vs Aryan science.
In addition, we don’t need dictators, period. Strange that those who want to fight the “conformity” of technology seek salvation in jackbooted dictators.
Der Wienerschnitzel are you actually saying that Hitler should be put above Adam Smith, Charles Darwin and Thomas Jefferson?
Jeff Maylor: “… on a site that discusses Jewish influence I’m using my real Jewish name.”
So the truth finally comes out! :-) How much is Foxman paying you to steer what should be a racial discussion off into an anti-racist libertarian never-never land? You don’t really believe all that Ayn Randian nonsense you’re spouting, do you Shlomo?
“… are you actually saying that Hitler should be put above Adam Smith, Charles Darwin and Thomas Jefferson?”
As a defender of the White race, most certainly.
Der weiße Engel, yes I’m all for capitalism and individualism, although I realize what most White men in the 19th century realized – it doesn’t work well with those less evolved (Africans, Latinos, etc.). Which in a sense is what Clark’s evidence shows.
So again you ignore the issue of how it is a 17 year old kid in 1965 America had more freedom and individuality than anyone in Egypt 3,000 years ago could dream of. Technology and “technique” didn’t hurt the kid driving along the Pacific highway one bit.
And I would say most 18th and 19th century politicians had a pretty idea that Whites were a superior race. In fact, what original ideas did Hitler ever come up with? He mainly reflected the ideas that were common in Germany at the time. Which is fine, but hardly genius.
“…disparage Hitler’s intellectual calibre.”
Hitler was clearly at least a 150 IQ guy.
Chris Moore,
Nary a peep from you after the decisive thrashing I administered? Figures. And look at it this way, it is not as if you didn’t have it coming.
There will be a place for Christianity within the White world once separation is achieved. The realization of racialist aims need not entail the extirpation of Christianity. Indeed, such an attempt would be self-defeating in its needless invidiousness. That is, clearly, what you are worried about. Fear not and rest assured.
I don’t waste my time debating Nazis, Zionists and Communists. Poor, deluded souls that they are, their minds are filled with unshakable certitude that their own ideolgies will inevitably prevail, hence engaging them is usually wasted energy. Sometimes it’s simply wiser to just sit back and watch them bang their heads agains the wall.
Libertarians as well.
Joe of the Mountain said:
“The facts are these: Christianity is more than Jewish propaganda beleived only by neonazis and those that love them.”
No one suggested otherwise. The article suggests that Christianity includes lots of Jewish propaganda, not that Christianity is nothing more.
An example of such propaganda is Romans 13:1: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
Jewish influence in governments worldwide is rarely questioned by Christians who think God must have put the Jews in charge who are there. In America, this has helped lead to a stranglehold on the congress and presidents, to foreign policy that may result in economic destruction, and to immigration policy leading to the displacement of western culture and White people.
The article suggests that Christianity includes lots of Jewish propaganda, not that Christianity is nothing more.
An example of such propaganda is Romans 13:1: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
You’re really missing the historical context of that quote.
It’s from a time when Jews weren’t powerful at all, when in fact the most powerful Government had just won a brutal war against the Jews.
Jewish influence in governments worldwide is rarely questioned by Christians who think God must have put the Jews in charge who are there.
I’ll give you that the European Christian countries have averaged out to allowing Jews much more real power than they’ve ever been allowed in the Islamic World.
Obviously the inclusion of the unedited Torah into the Canon of Christendom, and the exclusion of the unedited Torah from the Canon of Islam, may be a factor here.
I am not a scripture scholar. I read no ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, but if I were a teacher and someone wrote a paper similar to so much of what in the books of the Old Testament, I’d be forced to think that there were at least two authors for several of the books supposedly authored by a single man.
For example, Read Jeremiah. First God talks about smoting Israel and then he says something to the effect, but you are mine, chosen before all time and are mine forever [I'm paraphrasing]. Reading with a critical eye, I’d be forced to say that the first passages of said book were by one author and the other passage inserted at a later date. Reading with a critical eye, I’d have to say that with so many similar passages contained in other books, with it abrupt change in tone, that those books had been edited for public consumption at a later date.
The supposed anti-Jewish Ben Franklin quote is not real, it was created in the mid-1930′s by American Fascist William Dudley Pelley to convince Americans that dislike of Jews was a traditional American attitude. The quote was debunked by American historian Charles Beard in 1937 in a New York Times article which I read online a few years ago. Beard later opposed Roosevelt’s efforts to get America involved in WWII so he could not be considered as “doing the bidding of the Jews” or anything like that. The Franklin anti-Jewish quote is not real, and people in the White Rights movement should stop using it.
”I’m a spiritual & secular religious agnostic however grew up in a Evangelical household and whose family are still very much believers. At least with them and most evangelicals I know, it’s not effective to point out the Bible’s contradictions and or to question the faith. However regarding the second coming I have used Matthew 24:36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows”
If if Jesus (the Son) does not know time for his own second coming why is it, as mere humans, you think you can accelerate, create conditions or have any control over the events of a all powerful being? I have found at least temporally that you can trip them up a bit.
Fyi – I define a secular religion as the likes of; multiculturalism, universal free trade, global warming etc. Basically a skeptic of all.
Romans 13:1: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
Reginald said:
“You’re really missing the historical context of that [Romans 13:1] quote. It’s from a time when Jews weren’t powerful at all, when in fact the most powerful Government had just won a brutal war against the Jews.”
Regardless of how and when Romans 13 arose, it is used today by heavily Jewish-influenced groups, such as Homeland Security and the Army, to trick people into going along with illegal actions by the government, including torture, indefinite detention without charges, and targeted assassinations without due process.
Here’s an example of FEMA’s use of “clergy response teams,” ministers and priests instructed to use Romans 13 to corral citizens into sheep-like compliance:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/160807_quell_dissent.htm
Why are they no Christian Zionist like they are in America?
These Christians are just trying to get Jewish political support. They will decline after the public realize that the only benefactor of Jewish political activism is Jews. Muslims also believe in the coming of Christ and Armagedon yet they don’t see that this should mean supporting Israel. I think that Christian Zionism is a Jewish movement meant to appeal to Christians. It should be seen the same way as we see the Necocons. The decision was made to support Israel and then argument were created to make it appear American or Christian for public support and to hide the hands of Jewish activism.
_____________________________
“Based on its tales of impossibility, its contradictions, and the lack of evidence for all its supernatural claims, the Bible is false. Its historical narrative is replete with inaccuracy, anachronism, and unadulterated balderdash.” Ron Lonaker
After over 35 years of studying Scripture, all the way from using the deceptive Scofield Reference Bible to Dual Seed Line Christian Identity, I challenge you to provide a single alleged inaccuracy or contradiction. There are none. In fact, it’s accuracy is nothing less than supernatural, for the person who has eyes to see and ears to hear.
Neither do I believe the jews are Yahweh’s “Chosen.” Anything but. The 12 Tribes were and are. Those Tribes comprise what we know today as the Anglo-Saxon-Germanic-Scandinavian-Keltic peoples – aka Caucasians.
I can be reached at keruxx@gmail.com if you’d like to suggest one or more of your “inaccuracies.” I’m quite confident I can refute any such alleged mistakes. Ditto for any of your anachronisms.
Further, Christian Zionism is an oxymoron, as is Judeo-Christian which I address here: http://keruxreplies.blogspot.com/2010/06/judeo-christian-is-oxymoron.html
Here http://keruxreplies.blogspot.com/2009/12/scofield-reference-bible-deception.html
I discuss the Scofield Reference Bible Deception
Here http://keruxreplies.blogspot.com/2008/09/was-abraham-or-moses-jew.html
I address the mistaken idea that Abraham or Moses was a jew.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Kerux
Kerux said:
“I challenge you to provide a single alleged inaccuracy or contradiction. There are none. In fact, it’s accuracy is nothing less than supernatural, for the person who has eyes to see and ears to hear.”
Thanks for your comment. Here are but a few contradictions:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
There has never been any reliable scientific evidence for the supernatural, paranormal, or miraculous. As best we can tell, they exist only in men’s imaginations. Best wishes.
_____________
Not going to post my reply I see.
____________
I spent quite a bit of time on a comment that did not get posted. Suffice it to say – I respectfully requested that you bring an alleged contradiction here, not a link to some professional doubter who lists a series of out of context one liners and labels them “contradictions.” Worse, he then says he finds it amusing that we point out the fact that the alleged inaccuracies are indeed taken out of their context, as if context doesn’t matter.
The fact is, there are hundreds of translation errors and out deceptions in the many English translations. Heck, read my missive or any other on the deception of the Scofield Reference Bible http://keruxreplies.blogspot.com/2009/12/scofield-reference-bible-deception.html
and that should tell you what lengths the jewish influenced publishing houses will go to to ensure their propaganda gets promoted.
I did in the previous unpublished comment go into detail to refute this one supposed contradiction, as it is appropriate for white nationalism:
Which first–beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
___________________
According to Scriptural accounts in Genesis 2 – only Adam had the breathe of life breathed into him. Adam – Hebrew “awh-dam” – was the first white man. That is why there was not found a “help fit for him” he was white as opposed to the other creatures, i.e non whites. Eve was then formed from Adam’s side “bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh.”
Yahweh has been working with the Adamic race since that time. That is one reason we find all those genealogies in Scripture. Yahweh is concerned with race and very much opposed to race mixing.
Also, understanding Genesis 3:15 is the key to understanding both Scripture and world history. Too much to go into here.
The Bible was written about the white race, (ie. the 12 Tribes of Israel, aka Anglo-Saxon-Germanic-Scandinavian-Keltic peoples of the world, aka Caucasians), for the Israelites, by the Israelites and to the Israelites.
Any other perspective, when reading and studying Scriptures, only leads to confusion, confusion such as yours.
One more point. As an example of how translations are used to deceive, the word Gentile should not be in Scripture as a translation of the Hebrew word goy or the Greek word ethnos, both of which mean nation, or peoples, not Gentile, which is a Latin word for which we have been given a definition by the jews, as meaning “non-jew,” which the word Gentile does not mean.
There is more, much more. I would suggest you use some of that critical thinking you want the Christian Zionist to utilize when you approach Scripture, rather than letting those at the links you provided do your thinking for you.
Best regards, Kerux
“Eurodele”, you were awesome on this thread, my White Christian brother! Are you on FB? I want to have you as one of my friends. This is NOT spam or virus or any crap like that! I’m “Joshua Walter Seymour” on FB; even if you’re not Christian, if you want our race to survive, I’m GLADLY your friend brothers.
God bless H A Covington, his Northwest quartet of books, & ‘Ogilvy’s Crew.’ A “christian” who rejects their white brother/sister because they’re not “saved” etc is an idiot that doesn’t deserve to survive. I’m really tired of the tolerant people like myself being among the first to be excluded by (“loving”) “christians”.