web analytics

Anthropoid vermin

A comment by Gaedhal

You said, C.T., that mankind are the devils upon the earth who torture innocent animals. Watch the trailer of Seaspiracy. If Rosenberg had won the war, the animal and plant kingdom would be far less tortured and exploited than it is today.

From a theist’s perspective: the argument from animal suffering is a powerful argument for atheism. Thus Christianity creates to a large extent the atheism of our times. Why are we breeding up an infinite number of subhumans, ‘anthropoid vermin’—Revilo P. Oliver—, life unworthy of life, as the National Socialists rightly said. You breed up unfit featherless bipeds, who, because they are unfit, can only suffer.

Nature tells us that human life is verminous. Semitism tells us that human life is sacred.

Nature tells us that the supply of human life exceeds the demand for it. Semitism tells you to breed up an infinite number of subhuman souls to praise Yahweh in Heaven.

People become atheists… and yet they usually cling to the notion that human life is sacred.

I want the best of white mankind to flourish. I want the best of white mankind to eventually become the benefactors of animal and plant life and not their destroyers and implacable persecutors.

It is the Semitic axiology, the notion of ‘image-bearing’ and ‘souls of inestimable worth’ that is fuelling the population explosion and destruction of the natural world.

It is not just that the doctrines of orthodox Christianity are slightly wrong, slightly misguided and slightly mistaken—it is that they are diametrically opposite to the truth of the matter on many occasions… and cause huge destruction.

Christianity is not just a religion from the desert: it is a religion that creates deserts.—Acharya S.

16 Replies on “Anthropoid vermin

  1. ” Christianity is not just a religion from the desert: it is a religion that creates deserts”, I would beg to differ on that. The end product of christian axiology is an overcrowded filthy and disgusting planet wide slum inhabited by worthless bipeds, Haiti is the prime preview and microcosm of what is to come if the aryan does not detoxify and cleanse himself completely of the jesus poison ( an alternative name for christian axiology), and other jewish mind viruses.

    1. Indeed. Haiti is still Catholic… however funnily enough, when the White French were all murdered off they didn’t built any more gleaming marble Cathedrals.

      By ‘desert’ I mean an uninhabitable wasteland… and if we continue to breed up blacks abroad… then that is precisely what this planet will become.

      We have a Bayesian prior probability in excess of 99% of going extinct… and instead of Christianity improving our odds it worsens them.

      1. Mathematics cannot be used to predict future human behaviour (the so-called ‘psychohistory’ in the novels of the Jew Isaac Asimov is pure rubbish).

        But the coming dollar collapse along with the bursting, later in the century, of the biggest of all bubbles—the population bubble due to peak oil—will open a window of opportunity for whites, as long as they abandon Christian ethics: the poison that has been killing them.

      2. I am glad you think so. You seem to reject an eliminative materialist view of the human mind, which I also believe is destructive of good mental health. Psychiatry seems to be predicated on this eliminative-materialist paradigm.

        By prior probability I mean:

        In excess of 99% of species are extinct.
        Humanity is a species.

        Therefore humanity has in excess of a 99% prior probability of going extinct.

        Prior probability is just a starting point; a rough idea; before we factor in other things.

        However, if we begin with prior probability and factor in Christianity then our odds of going extinct increase.

        That is all I am saying.

      3. Ah! Now I understand you. Linder is the one who said those things (‘prior probability’). I am not so concerned about humanity becoming extinct. What worries me is that, if only whites were extinguished, they would leave the planet to the colored ones.

        In other words, the Neanderthals must be exterminated, not the nymphs of my sidebar.

      4. Yeah, I was speaking in taxonomic terms. The white race is a subset of the human species.

        Unfortunately blacks and whites can reproduce and produce fertile offspring… which means that technically, taxonomically, we are of the same species.

        Nietzsche is correct: White homo sapiens sapiens is a transitional form. In Thus Spake Zarathustra the white race must cross the chasm to homo sapiens sapiens superior… and then cut the rope bridge once we have crossed… sending sub-humanity into the chasm of extinction.

      5. In Thus Spake Zarathustra the white race must cross the chasm to homo sapiens sapiens superior… and then cut the rope bridge once we have crossed… sending sub-humanity into the chasm of extinction.-gaedhal

        Another way of putting it is that the goal is for the planet Earth to be inhabited by Aryans only, in which all Aryan Men will be superior non-goyim Aryan Supermen like Adolf Hitler (the inferior unthinking goyim peasent herd/sheep Aryan males being phased out of the gene pool by means of eugenics etc.).

        In TSZ, when Nietzsche said “Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman” that statement can equally apply to the Negro being a rope tied between the ape (or monkey, chimp, gorilla etc.) and the Aryan. Also Nietzsche’s statement “What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.” can be made to read “What is the monkey to the Negro? A laughing stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall the Negro be to the Aryan: a laughing stock, a thing of shame” or also “What is the nigger to the Aryan? A laughing stock, a creature of shame. And just the same shall the modern Aryan be to the Aryan Superman: a laughing stock, a thing of shame”. When Nietzsche wrote ‘Man’ he was most likely thinking primarily of his fellow German men being a bridge to something higher. This makes sense as, amongst Nordics, the Germans were probably the highest quality Nordic nation amongst all Nordic nations. Thus, if the Ubermensch is going to emerge from the Nordic-Aryan, then it is within the logic of human evolution that the Superman would appear from out of the Germans. Appear he did in the form of Adolf Hitler. Nietzsche’s sister told Hitler in 1933 that she thought he was the Ubermensch her brother had prophesied.

        As the National Socialist struggle for the survival of the Nordics will reach its climax and conclusion later this century, humanity will soon be able to determine whether Hitler was the last gasp of the Aryans who closed the book on the Master Race, or whether Hitler was a stepping stone, a foreshadowing of the race of Ubermensch to come, paving the way for a much higher Nordic-Aryan species than that which exists today, in the 2020s.

      6. Yeah, I made Nietzsche explicitly racial.

        Richard Dawkins thought that it would be fun to try to breed niggers and chimpanzees… it would destroy the Christian doctrine of Yahweh especially creating us as something distinct from Animalia. According to evolution, niggers are humanities most basal form, and chimpanzees are our closest relatives… so perhaps chimpanzee nigger hybrids might be possible.

        Humans are a part of nature and not apart from it. Humans are a oart of the animal kingdom and not apart from it.

        Linnaeus wanted to classify humans as apes… but the Christian clergy wouldn’t let him.

        Dawkins also said on twitter that eugenics would work… it is just that it is unethical and immoral—thanks to residual Christian beliefs in soul equality—to try it.

        I am no atheist, but Dawkins at his best is a charming fellow, and some of what he says and does is hilarious.

      7. gaedhal, what do you mean you are not an atheist? Aren’t you a biological materialist, a darwinist, a racist? What schizo entity do you believe in?

      8. I guess I am like Niell de Grasse Tyson. Although I privately believe in a God—although I make no factual claims about him—even if I did not, I would not call myself an atheist. I would call myself a non-theist… because I don’t like the atheist movement.

        I make no theodicies for God. If God exists, then he can make his own theodicies.

        If any God exists—and I don’t claim to know that one does—then he does not appear active in our world. Some atheists draw the distinction between theism and deism. A theistic God is active in our world, a non-theistic God is not.

        Perhaps there is a theistic God active in our world… but he cannot be relied upon. And so, in this sense, I am a deist and not a theist. I think that Copernicus and Galileo disproved theism—in this sense—once and for all when they scanned the heavens for the gods cultivated by thousands of years of priestcraft… and none were to be found.

        Like Cesar Tort, I think that eliminative materialism is harmful to mental health… which is why I like Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas… I like notions of cosmotheism… that this universe is God in embryo…

        Like Acharya S., I don’t like to be pinned down on this issue. I like to go back and forth. I am a freethinker.

      9. “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.

        Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

        -Nikola Tesla

  2. gaedhal, I have no idea why you would even know what a mongrel nigger like Tyson believes in, no less compare your views to his.

    The term species is arbitrary in some ways. There are many different views of what qualifies as ‘species’ but for most, the fact that we can create fertile offspring is not enough to require us to be the same species, as looking at many examples among other animals show. Pierce’s “Who We Are” on the sidebar has a few.

    If we were the same species but different subspecies or races only, then color would truly be only skin deep, or there were be only one or two minor behavioural or anatomical difference between us. But there are many, many more. IIRC, this has quite a few.

    link

    The ‘Anthropoid’ in the title may be a good way of looking at it. It means manlike. Though probably not in this case, the -oid root often implies an incomplete or imperfect resemblance to the thing indicated.

    What better way to describe non-whites (and sadly, all too many whites) but something that resembles Man, but isn’t?

    1. Oliver was fluent in Greek. ‘eidos’ means ‘form.’ ‘anthropos’ means ‘man,’ ‘human.’ ‘Anthropoid’ therefore means: ‘having the shape/form/appearence of a man/human.’

      I was listening to the atheist Aron Ra. Taxonomy is not an exact science. I am not a taxonomist. I was simply looking for a superset term that includes all anthropoids… a superset in which the subsets: whites, blacks, Jews Asians etc. are members.

      As regards Tyson: Cesar quoted Aron Ra in a post. I think that Ra has some American Indian Ancestry, So does Dan Barker. Does that mean that we should dismiss everything they say?

      Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, [Variety]… these are manmade distinctions. Life is continuous. It cannot easily and perfectly be discretely classified. And then there is hybrid theory. Hybrid Theory Site

      I remember I saw a black man on TV once as a child, and my instinctive reaction was that it was not human. Semitic religions: Sunday school and Monday school, exist to brainwash us out of these instincts. Were it not for Christianity, the notion that blacks were the same species as us; the notion that blacks are human; would never have occurred to us.

      1. I forgot that you referenced Oliver. I’m sure that he meant it that way.

        I don’t recall those people, but I mostly expect CT to mention if someone is not white where known or relevant. I would say we should dismiss what nonwhites say if there are whites who have already said it better, at least among ourselves. Outsider views are really only useful for bypassing the ‘racist’ defense of normal people, or getting an idea of the mindset of someone different from ourselves.

        My point is that when asked about religion you specifically picked out a media-created zambo? not sure what term fits best, to compare yourself to. If a black man once seemed alien to you, why would you compare yourself to one now? Once someone is racially aware, I can’t imagine doing such a thing.

        I don’t seek perfect classification, but I do think there are divisions created by generations over time, and by Nature, and by our choices as well. I also think such divisions are necessary for us mentally for our own survival, as much as physical space or barriers. This is one of those cases where the best propaganda is the truth.

        Our instincts have been subverted for too long so we need every other weapon. Tell average people that life is just a spectrum (as might describe some much lower forms of life), and you’ve made it that much harder for them to know where they are on it, or why it matters that they not breed with something further away.

        If we had done what Darwin expected and wiped out anything closer to us than baboons, it wouldn’t matter whether that was natural or based on manmade distinctions.

      2. I only chose Tyson as I don’t know any other non-theist who dislikes being called an atheist as he dislikes the atheist movement.

        Aron Ra claims to be a fellow huwyat man. I think he is an anti-white democrat. However in one of his videos he shows a photo of his ancestors and it was an Indian reservation. One of his talking points is how he is in an interracial marriage with an Asian called: Lilandra… however, I have no problem with this, as in my view he is a Mongoloid Indian anyway. Cesar probably didn’t know this. However Ra is a genius… very quotable… He knows how to troll and piss off the Semitically deluded. His series disproving the Noachic deluge—I think Bishop Williamson believes in this stupid fable—is priceless. However Ra seems monolingual… a criticism leveled by Cesar at Alex Linder. It is the nature of true geniuses that they think truly original thoughts never thought by anyone before. The opposite of NPCs. Which is why I cannot help quote geniuses like Ra and Barker and even Tyson.