Monday, August 31, 2015

Just to clarify

When I wrote that I considered Armenians one of the Greater European Christendom peoples whom I consider White, I did not mean the Kardashians.

As I mentioned, genetics is the basis of race, but not all of it.

Kanye's Kim & Kompany brood are definitely Beyond the...Pale.


Pravda Radio West

On my way to JFK, African driver has NPR on. 

Smugness and faked objectivity flow out like methane from a herd of cows. 

"Public" radio my ass. 

I need coffee. 


Sunday, August 30, 2015

Speaking of "myths"

My brother, a guy who has been terrifically supportive of me, is an atheist. Over dinner he was talking about the superiority of the scientific method over "faith bias," which allows people to rejects facts that do not cohere with their "faith" narrative.

And yet, love the man though I do, he is a dyed-in-the-wool Obama-loving, Trump-hating liberal.

So he believes in the "myth" of human group equality.

For which there is not only no evidence but against which the evidence is massive.

Faith bias.

One man's myth is another man's... myth.



Religious pluralism is an enduring fact. There never has been, is not and, IMHO, cannot ever be a single religion for the whole race of homo sapiens.

Trying to prove that one faith is true while all the others are false is an important part of real belief, but in terms of outcome is only ever partially successful. Yet, a lackadaisical attitude masquerading as "tolerance" surely signs a belief to a small segment.

Culture and religion are bonded together. I cannot think of a successful culture which was not bonded by a sacred myth. And culture cannot be significantly detached from kinship. Funny how the same people who are always going on about organic this and holistic that deny absolutely that something like Western culture has anything to do with the race of the people who have created it...unless of course they are condemning it. Then it's clear: Western = White. And male.

At one point, there was in fact "only one race, the human race," as silly liberals sometimes shout when they get uncomfortable. But that was many long ages ago. And apparently the restlessness in (some) humans that made for distinct tribes made for the eventual diversification of humanity into notably different races and other kin-based groups.

If you really like diversity, then you accept this fact. Not only accept it, but protect and promote it.
And that is the direct opposite of the destruction-through-homogenization strategy that our masters have ordained for the Sons of Europa.

I don't finally subscribe to the Perennialist notion of "deep unity" in world religions, although there is a lot of insight there. And I certainly don't think that "all religious teach the same thing in different ways." Buddhism and Islam? Christianity and Jainism? Come on.

I do interpret the language of ultimacy and finality in religion not as a "literal" truth but as the natural expression of valuation that people give to the myths by which they live and move and have their being. No small value. That is a problem for a more consciously mythic faith which is not interested in having apologetic debates to "prove" that the Ancestor, the Warrior and the Sage are the real God, as opposed to Allah or The Trinity or the Sikh Waheguru.

In a post-Christian world, where for 1000 years, the truth of religion has been asserted to be as factual as the truth of (unnamed) gravity or basic math, how does one become enmeshed into a mythic life that does not so "literally" assert itself?

One of the remnants of this cultural bias is the use of the word "literal." It mean, "as written," which, I suspect, comes from the identification of the written words of Scripture with factuality. So now a thing is "literally" true precisely if it is not written, but experienced as undeniably factual and measurable.

To say  nothing of the endless popular use of "literal" to mean its exact opposite, "metaphorical," as in "Dude, I was literally blown away by that song."

How can a sacred path be mythic and real even if it is not "literal?" How can it be engaging if people say that it is "just poetry?"


Saturday, August 29, 2015

Enjoying this

Are Republicans For Freedom Or White Identity Politics?

Are Republicans For Freedom or White Identity Politics?:

One Trump doth not a GOP transformation make, but it's fun to watch the Decent Conservatives tie themselves in "non-racist" knots as he continues his unapologetic march through the polls.


'via Blog this'

Playing with God(s)

What the sons of Europa need is a religion that is as tribal and survivalist as Judaism, as masculine, terrestrial and tough as Islam and as intellectually and aesthetically creative as Christianity...with a dose of the unflinching realism of the ancestral ways of the Greeks and Romans, Germans and Celts.

And for the larger Indo-European frame, something of the Indian capacity to combine an ultimate and philosophical realization of The One with a robustly mytho-poetic religion on-the-ground. Oh, and some of the psychological acumen of Buddhism.

Should be easy to imagine, no?

On the role of the feminine and of human females: All world religions are the creations of men for men. Women follow these religions because they follow their men. There are certain aspects of female life that would be well served, I think, by a female-only secondary priesthood, one whose activity was limited to other women (like the Relief Society in LDS) and to their concerns.

I was thinking especially in sacramental terms of female initiation rites on coming into puberty, around childbirth and on rites of healing. There is no compelling reason why the female mysteries should not be recognized and solemnized among women by woman.

The connections of the feminine consorts with the Thrice-Male (a nice Gnostic term) are in play for me. Given my minority experience, I claim no expertise. The Warrior Prophet and the Wise Lord might switch? The hetaira with the Prophet and the virgin sister with the Sage? Hmmmm. Seems a bit too congruent. But if there is one thing about the feminine that strikes me, it's fluidity.

If my theology of God and gods remains more or less as is, these three great modes of divinity --Ancestor, Prophet and Sage-- will both reflect and attract all sorts of images, themes, narratives from the various religious imaginings of the race's archetypal history. All sorts of kinship should emerge and shift. Echoes, resonances, etc. Mythic boundaries are often fluid.

The realm of darkness, to shift focus, need not always be demonic, as it tends to be in Christianity. I would distinguish between the demonic --supranatural powers which hate mankind and even the creation itself-- and Shadowgods, divine powers of the necessary shadows cast by light in the world, or of the Underworld, of death, of chance, of disorder and destruction...which play a necessary role in the world's unfolding.

All this, of course, as with the whole "project", is a kind of play. And as serious as play always is.


Friday, August 28, 2015

Musing on an archetypal White Godhead

The major metaphor that I have discovered as regulating my personal preferences in theology is the prism.

Light is itself invisible to human eye, although it is that by which we see at all. When it strikes a prism, the spectrum of visible hue --and its invisible extremes of ultra and infra-- appears. That is how I basically see God and the creation: a single energy beyond our sense and mind and which must express itself in a multiplicity of forms in order to communicate with us.

The Godhead is revealed to us in three "books," the Book of Nature, the Book of History and the Book of the Soul.  Although not isomorphically, these three correspond to the ancestral, prophetic and sapiental paths.

(The rainbow and the LGBT rainbow flag are, of course, entirely and unfortunately coincidental.)

Henotheism is an appealing alternative to strict monotheism and to Fate-dominated polytheism. And modalism, the old Trinitarian heresy, also appeals as an explanatory theory: the One Godhead, not knowable in itself, is revealed/expressed in a variety of images and modes within a finite and multiple creation. Trinitarianism, while rightly at the heart of orthodox Christianity, distracts from the focal points of what I am imagining. The choice between mono and poly is one I do not think --today, anyway!-- we have to make.

This allows for a more frankly mythical language in religion that does not rely so much on a particular set of historical events as directly managed by God (although it cannot be, for Westerners, a mere set of allegories).

My Christian background remains strong. The deity I sketchily imagine is expressed as a Triad of male divinities, but each with a feminine "helpmate".  The Triad corresponds to the three great streams of human religion: ancestral, prophetic and sapiential.

There is a Father-God, the Patriarch Creator and his spouse, who carries the Mother.
They generate Twin Sons, a Warrior Prophet and a Sage. (The Father, Son and Spirit background is quite clear, no?) And very likely these two God-Brothers are provided with feminine companions --how and in what realm I am not sure-- a Virgin Sister for the Warrior and a Hetaira for the Sage.

The Father's symbols are the rod/staff and the bull, the Prophet's are the sword and the lion, and the Sage's are the pen and the eagle. The connection of the FatherGod's bull with Europa is not fact, that is the name I would give to his GoddessWife: Europa, the Mother of the Sons of the West.

Although not taking the ancient Apostolic Christian doctrine of theosis/divinization in a concrete and polytheist frame like the Mormons, I would make the incarnation of this Godhead in the members of the Sons of Europa as the fundamental trajectory of the faith. Not simply declaring that Whites are gods --all too obviously and embarassingly untrue!-- but that some kind of mutual sharing of life, the uncreated and the created, has a lot to do with the reason for creation in the first place.

You Bible scholars might notice the bull, lion and eagle of Ezekiel, Revelation and the evangelists; the fourth symbol, the human face, is for the Kinsmen...the religious name I have given to the Sons of Europa.

And so Jung's strictures on a Threefold divinity would be answered by making the Sons of Europa and their women and families the Fourth Realm.

My anthropology forbids any kind of pollyanna view of people as originally pure and innocent. That is a mythological theme, not a description of empirical man. Homo sapiens, as a race created by descent from earlier primates, never new an actual historical moment where a deathless and perfect Garden-world existed. We have always been required to engage in competition and violence in order to live and so these things cannot be inherently wrong. But we are in the equally real position of having consciousness and conscience along with the rest, so while we are not, in the Christian sense, "fallen," we may as well be! We are complex and flawed species who is yet --at least in part-- ordered toward, in St Peter's words, participation in the Divine Nature.

My career as heretic continues apace.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Two religious points

One of the hardest things about assimilating Christ into a new religious frame is that he was certainly in favor of forgiving your enemies and I am not. At least not across the board. I am in favor of a case by case approach, and my motives are far less high-minded.

Aside from his sinlessness, what makes Christ problematic as a moral exemplar for what Jung calls "empirical man" is that he was never anyone's fellow-equal for a lifetime. Among his disciples, he was always The Master, even --or especially-- when serving them. With his opponents he was a relentless opponent and never had a kiss and makeup with the Pharisees. And when he was betrayed and murdered, his forgivenss was a one-time event. Jesus did not have to live with other humans in groups for a whole lifetime where he had no special status. We do. 

Part of the folly afflicting the Sons of Europa is that we have lost the capacity to do what Samuel Huntington --who may be one of the Soul Doctors of the new faith-- reminded us about: how to accurately assess relationships with Others. Despite Will Rogers' wisdom about many things, the stupidest thing he ever said was that "A stranger is just a friend you haven't met yet." Maybe in the comparatively idyllic White America of his time that mighta been true, now in Obamaworld, it's insanity. The inability to name an enemy as an enemy --especially if he's Brownish-- is part of our immorally foolish "ethics."

A wisdom-based faith would give up the high-minded ideals that do not match actual terrestrial life. Or at least relegate them to monastic practitioners who have no control over other peoples' lives.

Second, the phrase Sons of Europa well captures the intent of what I am about: this has to be a religion for men. For all its flaws, Islam has a great survival advantage in that it appeals to natural manliness. Even traditional Judaism, which fostered intellectual power over physical strength, was a male religion. Christianity, even though pilloried by feminists as a patriarchal power structure, introduced a powerful and eventually fatal dose of the feminine. It is totally common to see a church pastored by men but populated --and hence emotionally dominated-- by women.

What is true in religion is true in the larger society: a great many of the indignities and pathologies we endure --from Clown Masses to the Kardashians--would be unthinkable if men truly ruled.

Even at the risk of making non-conventional males like myself more unwelcome, I'd like to see a faith that men would not be embarrassed to embrace and practice. Christianity was once a faith like that. Witness its history. But those days, at least in the Catholic/Protestant West, are over.

How can a White Man now live through the Churches' double betrayal of his people and his sex?


Images of White Foolishness

Two recent movies about brave and noble but deeply foolish White People:

Captain Phillips, with Tom Hanks, where the crew of an unarmed merchant vessel are held hostage by Somali pirates.

Lone Survivor, with Mark Wahlburg, where US troops behind enemy lines decide to save the life of a local boy, who then reports their whereabouts, and 19 of their fellow countrymen die.

I am talking about the movies, --which were very good, btw--not the actual men. And there are differences between what happened and what the movies made of it, but basically both stories are true enough for my point.

I have remarked about Captain Phillips and Lone Survivor before, but the point can't be overstated.

In both cases, the noble and ethical rules of The Most Foolish People On The Planet (C) caused the deaths of many of these same people in order not to harm people who are our enemies.

Liberalism, a toxic and cancerous perversion of Christian morality practiced by people who loathe Christianity, is the reason for the self-destructive hubris that leads other people to die. The egalitarian disease of "universal human rights" is status-signally fraud which allows evil men to flourish. Note: the effeminate men who make these rules do not have to live with them.

And in the case of Lone Survivor, not only did they have to live with Rules of Engagement designed much more for the enemy's comfort than ours but they chose the suicidal path in order to avoid being mobbed by the most loathesome creatures on earth, Western journalists, and painted as child-killers.

For a refreshing alternative, --minus the soundtrack*---courtesy of commentor Hugh, check out how unprincipled Russians handle African pirates....

A perfect example of border control, which President Trump might make into universal policy.

*Although the sight of Africans being blown to smithereens while other Africans "sing" is not without its attractions.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

So many people

need to be drowned. So many...


The Sons of Europa

I have been reading through, once again, cultural astrologer (!) Richard Tarnas' 1991 The Passion of the Western Mind. He gives a pretty good outline of the dualism at the heart of Western culture, which is well symbolized by the pairing of Plato and Aristotle in the center of Raphael's School of Athens. 

There is the empirical, skeptical, rational side and there is the universalizing, mystical side.

Raymond Nogar, a Dominican who worked in the field of evolution and theology, pointed out the Western and indeed the universal conundrum of how to endure "the terrors of history" without emptying them of meaning by escape into a myth of cosmic harmony.

Ancestral religions focus on kinship, so that suffering and death are simply accepted as an inevitable part of the flow of family history. A tragic vision of life is normal, with no alternative seriously considered. The horizon is very modest and very realistic. Being honorably gathered to the ancestors in some form is the most that most could hope for, with the hero being more closely associated with the gods...who are themselves, in all ancestral faiths that I know of, subject to Fate. 
Dharmic and sapiential religions make history a mere means to an end, which is Indic or Taoist dissolution into the Original One or, in the atheist paths of Gautama and the Jains, dissolution altogether. History can have no meaning, really, since extinction of history and its illusions is the goal. 
The prophetic religions of the Middle Eastern prophets --Zarathustra, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed--are the ones who ramp up the history problem the most. Ethical monotheism is where the issues of suffering, evil and loss become most psychologically acute. In a world created freely and purposefully by a Single Beneficent Will, and where humans have only a single lifetime to determine their eternal estate, the contradictions of death and blood are magnified. This crunch creates Gnostics...and atheists.

What kind of post-Christian and post-imperial faith can avoid the "pretty lies" of so much spiritual yammering and yet provide a robust sense of hope and purpose for this life while not being limited to this life alone?

Empiricism and rationality vs mysticism and cosmic meaning...Nihilism vs Utopia*.

*Secular Humanist Liberalism --our current ascending religion-- offers the worst of both worlds, being fundamentally nihilist and rabidly utopian. When you ponder on it for more than a minute, a world of universal equality really becomes a kind of hell through boredom.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015


The human psyche is multiple and we are built so as to not let our left hand know what our right hand is doing.

I am absolutely not immune at all to the influence of money.

Women are fundamentally insane and love to play the victim. What men find sexually alluring about them continues to escape me.

Blacks are incapable of building...anything much. (Contrary evidence?) And speaking of contraries, their primary gift --aside from sports and music-- seems to be the opposite: dismantling whatever we have built. And them blaming us for their self-created plight. They deserve none of the sympathy they have been sucking out of Whites for the last half century. On the contrary.

And as a matter of inquiry, why do #BlackLivesMatter?

If Lincoln and his succeeding presidents had been able to re-patriate or ex-patriate the great majority of Africans after the War of Northern Aggression, this country's Achilles Heel would have been healed and that horrific war might have been worth it.

Pope Francis remains, IMHO, a dangerous buffoon.

Systems of religion and philosophy and politics contain insights which are not necessarily bound to the systems.

The two World Wars were actually White Civil Wars on a global scale.

If it is true that there are three basic kinds of ethics: virtue, consequence and duty, a workable ethics might try to include all three of them, depending on the issue.

The deepest fissure among men who are aware about the perilous position of the White race is about religion: the Nietzscheans and the Germanic neopagans vs the Christians, whom they utterly loathe.

At present, despite my misgivings, the only way I can see to carry over anything of the Bible into a new Euro post-Christian sacrality is to treat it only as metaphor, with just the barest interest in its historical assertions.

I continue to be impressed with the intelligence of many Christian theologians but am taking more seriously the notion that, at least for the White West, it is a sinking sun nevertheless.

If I have anything to offer for our spiritual future, it might be a transvaluation of Gnosticism into a terrestrial frame...which sounds like transvaluing Islam into a polytheist frame.

Whatever the heart of this enterprise turns out to be, its Sign of the Cross, or its Shema or its Shahada or its Triple should be recited every day in the languages of the six great European families:
in Greek, Latin, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic and Uralic...


Worth repeating

A post from Jan 2014

A avidity with which White liberals and cuckservatives both get caught up in "caring" and "being concerned" about hostile strangers --both domestic and foreign-- continues to amaze me.

It is sickness, the disease of Christianoid decline, pathological altruism...based on ethnomasochism.

For the sake of people who would never in a million years do the same for you, you condemn your own to death. Cruelly painful to watch.


Monday, August 24, 2015

Confirmation bias

Everything I see or hear or read confirms my current assessment, that a society which tries to combine multiraciality and egalitarianism is completely unworkable. Even one which tries to be multiracial without egalitarianism (like the Ottomans) is in for trouble.

And let me repeat, racially and culturally homogeneous societies are no utopias. Not by a long shot. I am not imagining some Caucasian Kumbaya. History makes this superabundantly clear. WWI is just a single example. But it's a choice between the tragic limits of human life vs catastrophic apocalypse (acute or chronic.)

The basic culture of American Whites is northern European and the basic culture of Blacks in America is west African. Who in their right mind would ever think that these two utterly different groups could live together amicably, in a state of --as the lying phrase goes-- "racial reconciliation?"

Today's crazy idea is tomorrow's Law of the Land. Check this out.

In the end, there can be only one.


Sunday, August 23, 2015

In praise of folly

Every religion has a name for transgressions of the sacred. In Christianity it is called sin.

During my most active Gnostic period, I came to see the divine-human relationship in Christianity as primarily political one: resolving the legal problem of a separation from and enmity between the human race and the Divine over rebellion and disobedience. Sin is failure to comply with the primary directives of an overlord by his underlings.

In this context, Christ --and his cross and resurrection-- becomes substitutionary atonement, the payment of a fine in blood and pain...And in the Augustinian and Anselmian West, this requires the blood and pain of a divine being to match the offense against an infinitely divine being...

How could the life and death of Christ be assimilated and uplifted (the Hegelian Aufhebung) if the real issue in the divine-human relationship were located elsewhere?

In line with my sense that we have become The Most Foolish People On The Planet (c), the primary form of transgression against the sacred in a future Euro faith might very well be not sin but foolishness...folly.

Our religion's task --well, one of them-- is to cure us of our folly more than, or even rather than, to cleanse us of our sins. Every religion must deal with both moral transgressions and ritual impurity, but not every religion places its center of gravity in the same field.

The work of Gnosis, the centerpiece of the Gnostic religion, is a new consciousness, a transformative awareness, that cures the three symptoms of our fallen state: exile, bondage and illusion. To transfer these ideas from a strictly Gnostic frame to a Euro faith frame, these would be alienation from one's true self and home, compulsive action and lack of freedom, and believing the lies of a regime founded on lies. These interacting defects leave us divided within and among ourselves, diminished both in possibility and in actualty, and deluded as to the truth of our situation. Together, they constitute folly, disconnection from reality and good sense.

(My praise of folly, with apologies to Desiderius Erasmus, is obviously not of folly as such, but of folly as the fundamental negative moral category of a new faith, displacing the centrality of sin, especially as Western Christianity has framed it, a theme only magnified and exacerbated since the Reformation.)

Third World, This World

If the aiports in Toronto and LaGuardia are any indication, North America is already a Third World country overrun by Muslims and Chinese and Indians.


Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Science and the sacred

One of the revolutions in the West that a Western sacred way would have to face head on is the explosion of the physical sciences, especially in the completely hegemonic theory of evolution and the jaw-dropping vision of the 14.7 billion year old universe.

One of my critiques of Christianity is that while its major branches have accepted evolution as the likely mode of creation, they have not sufficiently contemplated what such a mode might indicate about the character of the Creator. The current scientific view is much more congruent with, say, the Kabbalistic deity of Isaac Luria, which his violent rhythms of contraction and expansion and serial creations and destructions of worlds prior to this one than to the serene classical deity of Plotinus, Aquinas or even the Book of Genesis. The creator in the Book of Job, basically amoral and unapologetically awesome, might be a better model, too.

The classical deity --perfect, impassible, omniscient, omnipotent, eternally uncaused, simple-- has always rubbed up against the personally quirky but intensively involved Biblical God. So the problem is not a new one. But the psychological gap between the classical One as the maker of a universe of increasingly dumbfounding size and complexity --both outward and inward-- and a God whose obsession is with one species on a speck of dust in the outlying neighborhoods of a one-in-a-hundred-billion-plus galaxies...well, that puts another spin on it.

One advantage that the classical God has here is that for Him, size and distance are of absolutely no consequence whatever. Our mammalian and primate radar for size and height, etc. are completely human. An anthropomorphic deity --which most of us have to imagine, after all-- might seem to be either too far away (the clockmaker fallacy of deism) or too trivial (the projected human fallacy of Engels). The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation of God in a human, for all its complexity --or perhaps because of it-- is a brilliant and unique mythos. My personal temptation is to try to smooth out all the rough edges.

This is an old Western problem: our minds are capable of imagining perfections that make our minds seem irrelevant. And yet we live, not in the infinite, but one foot in front of the other on this planet, and for Greek-taught post-Christians, while a god too like us invites disinterest,  a god too perfectly distant from us leaves us cold.

To be fair to my several readers

I made a FB comment that I feel it would be unfair of me to deprive you of. A conservative site trumpeted a Chinese immigrant woman's praise of America as the only country founded on universal values. The conservatives swelled with pride at this token of Third World appreciation.

Respondeo dicendum quod:

I have recently concluded that being founded on "universally accepted values" is not a strength but a flaw. Why? Because there are no such things. And also because the Founding Fathers never in their wildest dreams imagined or would have fought for the kind of racial/cultural Tower of Babel being foisted on us precisely in the name of these "values." They do not "unify," they dilute and dissolve.

Nations are extended tribes and tribes are extended families. Holding them all together is a combination of blood and culture. Not some abstract ideology, but real biological and cultural commonality. If you read the Founders, you can see that they were not really "universalists," but limited their interests and vision to men of their own European stock, whose dominance they, unfortunately, just took for granted rather than clearly asserting. The so-called "universal values" are in fact extremely Eurocentric and existed nowhere but in western Europe.

The result is that we are now supposed to believe the completely a-historical idea that America has always been "a creedal nation" for whom race and culture are irrelevant, to the direct detriment of the very people who created the place.

"Unversal values" creates the bizarre situation now where a new arrival to America --even one who broke the law and invaded illegally-- cannot be rejected because he is an alien from an alien culture. To say that immediately makes the native-born American a "racist" in his own homeland.

That is the logical outcome of "universal values," that those to whom the country actually is home and belongs can be instantly rendered illegitimate in it by the latest foreign arrival. This is not George Washington's America; this is Nancy Pelosi's and Barack Hussein Obama's.

Observing globally, rooting locally

In sketching a future religion for the West --aka the Europeans, both in their ancient homelands and in their farflung dominions overseas-- I am not restricting my visions simply to the West. I have been a student of world religions my whole life, so I know too much to do anything like that. Whether I know too much to do anything with it all, well that is the question. I do get distracted easily.

I have divided the religions of the human race into three basic categories --ancestral, prophetic and sapiential--and have found much to admire in all three of them as well as, of course, problematic features. This is the sublunary condition.

One of the strengths of ancestral religion is also its weakness: the virtual inseparability of blood-kinship, soil and divinity. Even in its tribal form, religion performs a crucial social function; it binds together in familial-like bonds people whose genetic relationships are looser than actual kin bonds.
But if the tribe or culture loses its land, its religion is wounded as well. Ancestral religion is highly adapted to its particular ecological niche but faces real challenges in adapting to change.

Jews had an ancestral religion which then developed a strongly prophetic cast, and later a sapiential one. But it centered in a particular territory, a Holy Land. And once Jerusalem was named as the national and cultic center and the temple built, they were stuck with it. But, being the clever and adaptive fellows that they are, when they lost the Temple, the city and the land in the 1st century, they converted this blood and soil religion into a portable book-based faith. It transformed the land into a symbol, used the already-existing institution of the synagogue to replace the single Temple, but, crucially, kept the blood-kin foundation intact.* And lo, after 2000 years of exile, the Jews still exist. The Norse and the AmerIndians have not been so lucky.

While the Jewish race still flourishes (pace the National Socialists), Jewish religion is a minority occupation.  Very few Jews actually believe in, much less practice, any kind of actual Jewish religion anymore, having taken advantage of their secular emancipation to go a-whoring after the strange gods of utopia, just as their ancestors did in their scriptures. And that, we read, never turns out well for them.

Outside of Israel, what Jewishness now mostly means is an unstable combination of anxious identification with and anxious alienation from their environment, repeatedly shown in organized Jewish hostility toward their host nations' identity as an expanded kinship group and a deep resentment of Christianity.

I once attended a "Kung Pao Kosher Kristmas" in SF, where Jews gathered on Dec 24th for Chinese food and Jewish comedy, taking refuge from the barage of Christmas surrounding them. Underneath the laughter I detected a sense that the antics of the sea of goyim around them were on some level deeply offensive to them, an insult to their chosenness...even though the great majority were clearly un-religious. And a famous Canadian Jewish columnist once described her father's attitude toward waking up in a white-covered world on December 25th as, "Ugh. So they've got snow for their Christmas." 

So, one strategy for the new faith is to link it, like Judaism, with blood, European blood. Blood and culture are part of the spectrum. To make it portable but biological, genetic and hematological. Because if demographic and political trends continue, we are in for some very hard times indeed. The people who are invading and increasingly dominating us pretty well all resent the hell out of us, even if they say they only want to "participate". The Goths who destroyed Rome said the same thing.

Another irony here is that anyone who is even mildly familiar with those White men --and they are virtually all men-- who feel the catastrophe, one thing you learn quick is that often they don't like Jews very much at all. So to adopt a Jewish strategy to serve the Euros is pretty amusing. At least to me.

And the prophetic universalism of Christianity has show itself to be defenseless against the rising tide of color. Like its alliance with the royal state (Throne and Altar), the faith of Christ's identification with Europe appears to have been an accidental and contingent one. First, separation of Church and State, then separation of Church and Race. After all, what was Paul's project but the complete un-linking of his Gospel with Jewish blood?

For the time being, and given their separate history, the Eastern faithful remain stubbornly attached to a nationalist version of the Gospel. But in the West, there is now a positive celebration of the dis-identification of Christianity and Euroness. On the contrary, with the blessing of the Clown Pope in Rome, weeping over the drowned invaders at Lampedusa, it welcomes our demise with open arms, just as Jesus would.**

And that is one of the primary reasons ---along with its apparently imminent shrinking unto virtual death in its homelands-- I am driven to imagine an alternative.

*The seeds for this were sown in the first exile, hundreds of years earlier, but the definitive break with the land only came with Rome's loss of patience with Jewish resistance.

**Gosh, this is getting long. Jesus is now entirely submerged, even for conservative Christians, under the liberal narrative of radical inclusion. I merely note two things. First, for all his table fellowship with sinners and outcasts, these were Jewish sinners and outcasts. He cured and exorcised Gentiles but never sought them out as disciples. So there was a racial limit to his mission, "the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Second, race mixing was problematic in the earliest Christian groups. Peter was ambivalent about mixing with Gentiles and the office of deacon was created precisely as a Greek institution to address the neglect of Gentiles in the distribution of charity.

Monday, August 17, 2015

A pleasant diversion

Eric Dane, captain of The Last Ship
The PC stuff finally made me give it up, but it was tempting to watch it just for Captain McSteamy, one of the few men I've seen who looks as good without facial hair as with it.


Christians and Homosexuals

Reading yet another sentimental plea from a Christian about the suffering of the poor homosexuals in their congregation as a reason for ditching their inherited sexual morality and embracing gay marriage. Which, btw, the Supreme Court has imposed on the whole country, making the White House turn into a rainbow colored billboard. So marginalized, these gays.

These are the same paradigms that get churches to become comfortable with abortion (a suffering woman), or multiple divorce and remarriage (suffering spouses), or unwed mothers (a suffering woman...again) or women's ordination (surprise! a suffering woman) or communion for the unbaptized (a suffering unbaptized visitor), well, it goes on and on. The ultra-PC gay 'church' MCC stopped using wine and wheat in their communion services so as to accomodate alcoholics and the gluten-allergic. Someone is unhappy, expresses themselves as "suffering" and voila! the "loving" Christians jettison one plank of their tradition after another.

This is the heart of liberalism: utter capitulation to anyone who can convince you that they are the suffering victim of...well, you. They get to be themselves, as they are, and you have to take them, no questions ask and above all, no demands made. The end results must be suicide, the culmination of the fraudulent morality of ahimsa, where you can no longer harm anyone because you no longer exist.

Although it was decades ago, I was once a suffering homosexual in the Church. So I am not being cavalier about this. But with the perspective of years, having seen how it all unfolds over time, I am --amazingly!-- affirmed in my decision to depart rather than spending the last 30 years trying to make a 2000 year old tradition that (once) helped build one of the great civilizations of planet Earth turn itself inside out so I would feel better.

One of the structural flaws, though, in simply designating homosexuality as a sin is that you have to maintain, with only a little window dressing about avoiding "unjust discrimination", a static stance of rejection which, if eventually, softened into acceptance, leaves you completely at the mercy of the group you formerly rejected. Your options are either staunch resistance or abject surrender.

Because when a church or synagogue or other traditional institution drops its rejection, what it is bringing in is the gay culture, the world of LGBTism. The same is true with feminism, etc. Having gained the superior moral status of victim, it cannot be questioned and indeed becomes a gold standard. And so we have the further dissolution of the organism.

In my current musings about a post-Christian faith for EuroWhites, it dawns on me that if you accept the overwhelming centrality of the male-female character of humanity and make marriage-and-family the centerpiece of most people's lives --as I think you must--- but still wish to make a place for the tiny numbers of homosexuals, you should develop a specific and separate status for them, one that combines acceptance with a set of conditions, just like for straight people and marriage.

Marriage is not a homosexual institution, but the pre-eminent heterosexual institution, ordered toward the creation of a family. Same-sex attraction and love has its own inner logic, IMHO, and it would be wiser and kinder for all concerned to make a secondary form for them, not unlike the alternate forms created for vocational celibates such as monks.

I am not talking about celibate homosexuals, but those who wish to make a same-sex bond. That way you can keep marriage at the center and in its traditional form, you can find a place for gays or lesbians in your community so that they do not get to lay down the rules for you, as "suffering victims", but have a path for them that contains them within, offers them an honorable life and avoids the chaos of being ruled by victims who, whatever their subjective intentions, are vectors of an ideological decay and chaos.

Societies that made conscious public room for same-sex folks always created structures in which to contain them --as they did for everyone. The ancient Greeks, either in the military comrade mode or in the erastes-eromenos mode, channeled same-sex male eros into a form that served the culture rather than undermined it. Granted that I have a personal interest, but it seems wiser in the long run to institutionalize same-sex eros in a form that matches its own reality (not the heterosexual drag of marriage) and yet provides a support to the whole group or culture or faith.

Protesting Themselves To Death

Stuff Black People Don't Like - SBPDL:

Black mothers march against young Black men killing each other.

These are the women whose breeding practices create the very situation
they are protesting.

And a killing happens right where they were marching.

How, tell me please, does this cycle get fixed?

(That was rhetorical.)

'via Blog this'

Gnosticism was easier

Gnosticism, having no this-worldly purpose and being provided with a plethora of forms, was easier to navigate and shape than my current project: imagining the outlines and lineaments of a post-Christian faith for the EuroWesterners.

Lacking --so far!-- any validating revelational experience as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator in this respect, I plod around like a theologian. Not encouraging. So far, Joseph Smith has no competition in me.

Speaking of Mr Smith, my gay Mormon pal was here for several days. He is both devout and honest, making our discussions of religion worthwhile. Although I clearly do not consider the LDS religion to be The True Church, I do admire much about it. (If I lived among Mormons in their majority culture, I am sure I would feel differently; it's my character to seek the margins eventually.)

The Apostles Peter, James and John
conferring the lost priesthood of Melkizedek on Joseph Smith.
Although now committed to racial universalism,
the history of the LDS faith, its hierarchy population,

 and especially its iconography make plain
that it is a religion primarily for White men
and for their woman and children.

Some things that the Latter Day Saints have achieved that are worth considering in a future alternative for the sons of Europa.

  • Their frank appreciation of the this-worldly and physical character of the spiritual life, as befits a householder religion.
  • Their inclusion of all their men, and only men, into their graded priesthood, making it both democratically available to all males while keeping clear hierarchy and organizational control.
  • Combined with the males-only and all-males priesthood, the focus on marriage and family as the center of life and the heart of their cultural identity as a people, as well as making binary sexual differentiation key to their religion. Mormon families are large and functional.
  • Although they now press their commonality with Christian tradition, the stance of Smith's project as a complete restoration, not a reform, of a wholly lost faith, allowing maximum use of biblical material as well as maximum freedom in re-working it and adding to it in a new scriptural canon (although he kept the Bible).
  • Requiring behaviors of their people that both allow them to function within the larger society, but demarcate them from the "Gentiles,": eg, strictures on alcohol, smoking, caffeine and "hot drinks," times of fasting, plus the 2-year mission initiation structure for the boys. Tithing. 
  • Their synergistic both/and attitude toward the interplay of divine grace and human effort, in line with the Catholic and Orthodox, rather than the obsessively monergistic Calvinist/Lutheran, attitude.
  • The double worship structure of low-church Sunday sacrament meetings open to all and then the closed high-church Masonic rites of the temples. (Although they handle the transition badly.)
  • The concretization and centralization of the ancient Christian doctrine of theosis in a kind of somatic Gnosticism, allowing them to maintain the realistic sense of man as needing to aspire to something better than his normal condition, while pressing his inherent destiny as godhood, allowing both realism about human nature and a fundamentally affirmative attitude toward it.
  • Their concretization of the teaching about divine sonship in the New Testament, so that both the individual Mormon and Jesus the Christ are different in degrees of achieved sonship, but not kind. Indeed the kinship between men and the Mormon God, who was once a man and became a god, invalidates much of the guilty self-hatred produced by orthodox Christianity.
  • Relatedly, their reading of Genesis' Adam and Eve story as a kind of kenosis, felix culpa et certe necessarium Adae peccatum, a happy fault, Adam's certainly necessary sin, the move from static innocence into dyamic experience of life as gateway to divinity.
  • Continuing revelation in a clearly established authority structure as a way to handle the problem of continuity and novelty.


Sunday, August 16, 2015

Sunday eve remarks in August

The sudden appearance of Donald Trump has been a pleasure to watch. I attach no hopes to him but I certainly enjoy watching him break the rules, discomfit the enemy and continue to surge in the polls.
He was asked what he would do with families who were partly here illegally. He said he'd keep them all together and send them all back home together. I feel like genuflecting.

Wandering through YouTube, I found a stirring video of part of a Russian Orthodox liturgy. Very masculine, grandly hierarchical and majestically hieratic, entirely chanted, both monodically and polyphonically.

Whenever I see an Orthodox liturgy, I feel that the rites of the West, even Rome at her best, suffer by comparison. Two things related things stand out: the Western addiction to books and booklets, and the presence in solemn liturgies of a Master of Ceremonies, a kind of director who runs around and makes sure everyone is doing the right thing at the right time. In the East, they have no such interloper; everyone knows the script and the choreography without being shepherded around like idiot children who have to turn the page to find out what to say or do next. A real ritual is known mostly by heart, both in gesture and in word, like a tribal dance or a royal court event or even an opera. It possesses the performers and is possessed by them. Anything else suggests an unengaged lack of seriousness.

It's high summer and I am still enjoying the afterglow of our week in the Sierras. So I am trying to focus more on the future religious paths open to a post-imperial White West and pay less attention to the politics.  Been ruminating and writing about that a bit.

The spiritual traditions of the West, like the West itself, are unruly and restless: the tensions between Plato and Aristotle, Athens and Jerusalem, the Mediterranean and the North continue everywhere. I am trying to see what will emerge from me if I set myself the task of laying the outlines of a religion for the sons of Europa, one that combines the ancestral, prophetic and sapiential dimensions, both incorporating and transcending Christendom, one both mythically rich and intellectually coherent. An arrogant project, of course, but as much self-discovery and respite as anything else. After all, as a Gnostic, I've already re-edited and re-written the Bible...

Potemkin Village Stats

Why Black Men Are Making No Progress in Medical Education | American Renaissance:

Next time you see a brilliant Black doctor on TV or in a commercial or in a Republican presidential "debate", remind yourself that he is just one shade less rare than a unicorn.

'via Blog this'

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Potemkin Unicorns

Another movie with the hyperbrilliant Ebonic scientist, noble and brave...and in this case, he introduces his very blond "daughter" and no one bats an eyelash.


As Jeb Bush says

Immigration is an act of love.

Fox Women

One leftover thought from last week's jaunt through the California wilderness.

Mr B decided that we should watch the Republican "debates." I was uninterested, but we wound up looking at part of them until I said it was time to eat and that was that.

Fox News' Megan Kelly started off with her now famous sexism question to Mr Trump. It stirred the smoldering cinders of my misogyny and reminded me of the very quick-and-dirty description of what has happened to us in the last 50+ years: after Blacks convinced White America that we were guilty of the worst of crimes and we surrendered our moral status to them, the White women of America a) took their chance at liberation or b) reacted with revulsion at our submission and, turned on their men and joined in the party by stabbing them in the back, aka, feminism.

So here is Ms Kelly, the blonde's blonde, in a position of power. On a supposedly conservative media, while the nation is dying, she brings up a question which exhibits some of the worst traits of the female. First, she is the embodiment of what feminism has accomplished, celebrating the "strong and independent" --masculinized-- woman. But then she brings up this whiny and trivial, utterly girly and adolescent accusation that Mr Trump says true unkind things about unattractive women.

And, importantly, she frames this as a problem that he has with "women" and that "women" don't like it because it is so hurtful and reduces them to their looks (note Ms Kelly, coiffed and makeup'd and dressed into space).

This is the double message --a classical female literary form-- that woman are both powerful godesses and abject victims of the male gaze.

The agglutinated female victim collective, composed of strong independent women, is really concerned, when you get right down to it, with being considered hot by men. Suggesting that they are the shallow and vain creatures that millennia of males have described them as being...until they are redeemed by motherhood. See I Timothy 2:15.

Ms Coulter is correct: Of course they should never be allowed to vote.

Or anchor a news program.

This raises the misogynist question for ExC: can even conservative White women be trusted not to join their fembot sistahs in stabbing their men in the back?

PS  In their favor, a huge outcry against Kelly by lots of women indicates that she is not their spokes...person.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

I feel left out

Wouldn't it be loverly?

Bring it! Trump threatens to fight Black Lives Matter protesters, and they respond | BizPac Review:

I'd love to see a White male presidential candidate deck some ghetto rat.

Lack of pushback violence has been the problem for a long time. Certain people, like these Ebonic savages, only understand force, nothing else.

Imagine how quickly the border problem, for example, would be solved with a few gunshots?

As Mr Donovan reminds us, Violence Is Golden.

'via Blog this'

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Ready to rant

Back from a really nice vacation and ready to rant.

Mr B has two and a half minor quirks, but otherwise is Mr Super Easy for travelling. And he puts up with me very graciously, so we had yet another fine week in the California wilds. Great weather, wide spaces, we cook our own food on the grill, simple but comfy accomodations. I am always awed by the staggering engineering achievements of our ancestors, who built civilization for us, so that we can comfortably enjoy nature without worrying that it will kill us: the road systems in rural California are quite the wonder. 1200 miles in 8 days.

And as for the National Parks, when I become Consul of the PostAmerican Commonwealth, I will certainly shut down the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and the EPA. But I will fund the National Parks for as much as they want. Really wonderful places, which I discovered --thanks to Mr B-- far too late in life. My new knee brace and trekking poles made a big difference, so hiking was challenging but always fun.

Cooney Lake, at 10,200 feet

Although Ken Burns, the mop-headed documentarian, may have exaggerated when naming his series on them America's Best Idea, it was certainly one of the best.

And with the exception of Lassen Volcanic Park, which was full of kids from summer camps, the easternmost counties from Mono to Plumas are delightfully free of vibrant diversity. Caucasianity reigns, with the consequent ease and friendliness that homogeneity engenders.

Ranting resumes tomorrow!

Thursday, August 06, 2015

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

Off in the wilds

Happily in the Sierras for a week with Mr B. Ranting suspended til then. 

Saturday, August 01, 2015

Wayward Pines

As I shake my head yet again, watching the Brits and other Europeans who, having lost their Christian faith, now act like Christians are supposed to act and are making themselves martyrs to their unhinged suicidal obsession with guilt and goodness. Africa is pouring its savages into Europa and the mewling abortions masquerading as men are shaming their ancestors, who built the greatest civilization the world has ever seen.

I sometimes think that I am crazy, because I cannot believe they could be so crazy. But both they and we are doing the same things.

What is required is balls. The balls to make it clear that invaders are invaders. That they will be repulsed with lethal force. And then boats need to be sunk. Waves of men need to be mowed down.
Again and again until it stops.

But they are captive to the toxic dogmas of their groundless faith and care about the opinions of "the world community," which only holds them in contempt for their weakness.

I am watching Wayward Pines (spoiler alert),

a TV drama starring the amazingly well-preserved Matt Dillon, about the last group of humans to survive a planetary catastrophe. Yet even here the writers want us to sympathize with the very people who put the whole species at risk* and cause death, fear and misgtery because they are not severe and authoritarian, like the egoistical bad guy who saved the whole race single-handedly and is a bit harsh when people threaten to allow the last of the race to be destroyed...

(I will spare you the racial and sexual ideology, which you can imagine...)

*Like The Jewel In The Crown, where we are supposed to think that the women whose female privilege, transgressive egoism and highminded ethical superiority are the causes of all the deaths and pains of the very people they assert that they are nobly in sympathy with.

God, I hate moralists. I really hate them.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...