web analytics

Author: C .T.

Categories
Christendom

Christianity

is a trillion-dollar corporation

by Gaedhal

Martin Luther and the Scriptures

I find that oft I must needs remind myself of this: Christianity is a trillion-dollar corporation, or, rather, Christianity is a cluster of corporations whose aggregate sums to about 1 trillion dollars. Some of these component corporations, like the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are worth billions all by themselves. The Church of England were paid reparations when their slaves were set free. This debt contracted by the UK government to the Church of England was only paid off in the last few decades. It is ironic that slaveholders were paid reparations, but not the slaves themselves.

And so the Churches are vast storehouses of ill-gotten wealth. The Vatican was built on the backs of the purgatory scam. Christopher Hitchens mentions this as a reason why he never finds himself enjoying the splendid art and architecture of the Vatican: it was built on the backs of scamming peasants with Pugatory.

The corporate nature of Christianity must needs be remembered by us. Answers in Genesis, for instance, is not Ken Ham. When Ken Ham goes to be with the ground, AiG will be unaffected… because AiG is a corporation… and it is that corporation that demands that its employees adhere to a ridiculous Statement of Faith that includes inerrancy.

We could deconvert 99% of all Christians, and Christianity, as a corporation would hardly be affected by this at all. This is something that Cardinal Pell discovered. The Church in Australia was all but dead, which is why Pell schmoozed the politicians, and campaigned for the Roman Church to win government contracts. This, incidentally, is also why the Catholic Church is taking over the American Healthcare system. In Ireland, most schools and hospitals are still owned by the Catholic Church… but the government pay the salaries of the Catholic Church’s employees. I am amazed that outrages such as these are suffered to continue. One would think that in a Catholic theocracy like Ireland, that there would be a strong and vibrant secular movement. If there is, I haven’t run into it, yet.

I tell myself that long after I go to be with the ground, there will be psychotic lunatic apologists and clergy lying for Jesus.

We cannot decommission the good ship Christianity in our lifetime. No. The counterapologetic movement is more like a weak acid: like acid rain. Century after century we rain upon and wear away this edifice of fraud and cruelty.

We have achieved a lot, over the centuries. Europe is firmly post-christian. The United States of America will be majority atheist in the next century. However, it will take centuries. And this is where Stoic thinking comes in. I love my fate. I love that I have been fated to fight a battle that is ultimately unwinnable in my lifetime, but will, in about a thousand years, be firmly settled on the side of secularism.

Eventually, when we do get to a 99% deconversion rate, centuries into the future, then Christianity as a corporation would then need to be dealt with. Its ill-gotten assets ought to be seized and distributed amongst the people.

And we must also remember this when battling, in the field of ideas, with apologists such as Michael Jones: they are employees of a corporation. Their salary depends on their never ever ever conceding a single point!

What amazes me about this video is that Dr. Josh Bowen and Derek Lambert seem shocked—yes shocked!—(I’m not that shocked!) that apologists such as Jones and Manning act as they do! It is almost as though Christianity is a nasty totally intellectually bankrupt damnation cult; a nasty planetary-destruction cult; a nasty human-sacrifice cult; a nasty genital-mutilation-and-animal-abuse cult and that its cultists—its clergy and apologists—are, similarly, nasty people.

Now, again, there are plenty of salt-of-the-earth Christians with whom I have no problem. Their Christianity is a personal private thing, and with this, I have no issue.

However, evangelists and apologists are another thing entirely. They promote the lie that Christianity is veridical, and liars don’t tend to be nice people. As I said before: facility in lying is a symptom of sociopathy. This is why Pinecreek Doug is correct that neither money nor vulnerable people should be left alone with clergy or apologists.

This is why, these days, I simply ignore apologists. I have rooted them out of my YouTube algorithm. Go thou and do likewise!

Categories
Autobiography

These…

days, the days of my move to another town, are going to be very crazy. Don’t be surprised if I don’t post many entries…

Categories
Psychiatry Psychology

Membrane

This is a postscript to what I said yesterday.

Mexican intellectuals, whether Jewish or white Iberian, are not the only narcissist intellectuals whose ‘semi-permeable membrane’ prevents them from the most elementary cognitive dissonance (only the media narrative enters their minds, not the bare facts about the Ukrainian war). Europe is also plagued by narcissistic pundits, who are now in a state of great bewilderment due to the start of negotiations between Putin and Trump. Since their membrane allows only positive feedback all they can do, as Alexander Mercouris said yesterday, is to fall into a level of ‘anger, rage, hysteria and panic’. After all, the Americans and the Russians, at last, begin to resume diplomatic relations! (this was never a war between Ukraine and Russia, but between the US-led NATO and Russia).

I reiterate what I said yesterday. Understanding psychosis in the most severe psychiatric cases, even if we are talking about schizophrenia, is fundamental to understanding the membrane of ‘normal’ people.

Categories
Psychology

Arieti

Last month I was talking about some Mexican intellectuals, referring to white gentiles, whose ideology sometimes seems close to the American Woke. Now I would like to say something about another Mexican intellectual, a Jew, about whom I have already said something in The Occidental Observer.

These Mexican Gentiles, and the Mexican Jew, think much the same. That is why a National Socialist of our century must see the Christian problem (or neochristian in the case of these gentile intellectuals) and the Jewish problem as two sections of the same iceberg.

I must confess that in the 1990s, before my awakening, I was a fan of the magazine Vuelta, founded by Octavio Paz, whom I considered then as a kind of mentor. As Paz invited Krauze to direct Vuelta, when I was a normie I didn’t distinguish between Jew and Gentile, so I also became an admirer of Krauze. One of his books, published in 1992, Textos Heréticos, collects very lucid essays, critical of the Mexican leftists. (I now have that book in one of my countless boxes because next month I will be moving house.) Naturally, after discovering the white nationalist intellectuals, and later Savitri Devi, my distancing from both the neochristian Paz and Krauze was total.

However, I recently saw Krauze retweet a couple of silly things about Zelensky (here and here). Like Mexico’s gentile intellectuals, it’s remarkable that Krauze is so blind about what’s going on in the world, specifically Ukraine’s upcoming surrender.

Yesterday I watched an interview on YouTube with a veteran Spanish intellectual, much saner than all these Mexicans. This Spaniard, having listened to what John Mearsheimer and others say about the Ukrainian war, sees the dynamics between states from a sane viewpoint. By contrast, the Mexicans alluded to, Gentile and Jewish, are as narcissistic as my old friend Marco: that poor devil whom I stopped seeing for decades and when I saw him again I found him in a state of narcissistic psychosis (this time I won’t link to the six entries I devoted, on this site, to the ‘Marco case’).

The point is that both a narcissist in a psychotic state and the intellectuals alluded to have something in common. Their mental system of perceiving the world can be understood as a sort of hemi-permeable membrane that only lets in positive feedback. No negative feedback, which would challenge the narcissists’ worldview, enters their minds. That’s why they say such extraordinary things, as linked above in the posts Krauze retweeted.

Of my readers, only Benjamin Power has been interested, as I have, in Silvano Arieti’s book about schizophrenia, which I quote in Day of Wrath. One of Arieti’s sentences that most impressed me was that, by studying specific cases of psychosis (say, like Marco’s), it is possible to understand why non-psychotic people (say, Mexican intellectuals) use identical defence mechanisms. The only difference is that in the case of the psychotic, his madness has already marginalised him from society, which is not the case with those ideological narcissists perfectly adapted to society, even if their worldview is also lunatic.

Midday Update:

Compare the semipermeable membrane of the Mexicans mentioned with the interview with another sane Spaniard that I saw today, Juan Antonio Aguilar.

Categories
Ovid Theology

Ovid

Editor’s note: Gaedhal’s latest comments to us by email strongly reminded me of what in 2011 I said—and still say—is my metaphysical position: panentheism, something almost identical to what Uncle Adolf believed. Gaedhal wrote:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Antitheism in Ovid?

This was the original title of my previous email, but I went down so many sidetracks, that I abandoned it.

The comparative, ‘melior’ seems to modify ‘natura’ or ‘nature’. Hence the usual translation: ‘better nature’, or, more idiomatically: ‘kindlier nature’.

However, Metamorphoses is an oral poem. Perhaps in the telling, ‘melior’ might be sounded similar to ‘melius’—it is a linguistic phenomenon that ‘r’s tend to mutate into ‘s’s in Latin. Hence: Melius est [cogitare] naturam [quam] deum litem dirimere. ‘It is better to think that nature rather than a God created’. The ‘m’s at the end of words could be silent, and slurred into the following words in recitative Latin. Like Shakespeare, there is what is written down, and what the audience is likely to hear. If Shakespeare could thus pun to a largely illiterate audience, then so could rhapsodes like Ovid, in a public performance of his poem.

However, if we take the text as written, then nature is somehow kinder than a god in creating the world. This struck me.

I have been on a bit of a deep dive, these days as regards Pessimism, Antinatalism and EFIL-ism. I disagree with these philosophies, however; unfortunately a commenter on a blog I frequent kept dragging me into this stuff.

PineCreek Doug once said on his show that he would not press the abiogenesis button on an earthlike planet, because of the horrendous suffering that would ensue. This is EFIL-ism. This is what Schopenhauer describes in Studies in Pessimism. Twere better if the earth, just like the moon, were sterile and still in a crystaline state.

Is Ovid making a similar point? Blind nature can be excused for creating a world full to the brim with horrendous suffering, but a god cannot be excused. Hence, blind nature would be kinder in creating the world than a conscious omniscient god.

This is why translation is such a fascinating topic. For me, I only see the above, and what was described in my previous email in the original Latin. In a translation, one gets a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional text. And given that 2d objects don’t actually exist in nature, this 2d translation becomes a 3d text all its own. If there is some passing resemblance between the original 3d text and the 3d text that is the translation, then the translator has done well.

And remember, the Renaissance humanists were reading works such as Ovid, and unlike myself, they were actually fluent in Latin. They could read and write Classical Latin as easily as I can read and write English.

* * *

Marxism posits that creativity arises from the strivings of opposing forces… just like what Ovid does. In Ovid, the opposing forces are at a stalemate, and then a god or nature swoops in and breaks the stalemate, and the creation of the world from a primeval atom begins. Marxism posits that strivings between opposing social forces, such as the strivings between the bourgeoise and the Proletariat brings creativity.

Translating a Latin text might seem to be very esoteric. However Ovid described his Metamorphoses as a perpetual song, and in this he has thus far been proven correct. Methinks his “carmen perpetuum” will last till the crack of doom. Texts like De Rerum Natura and Metamorphoses are really the foundational texts of Modern Europe, if we trace Europe’s modernity to the Renaissance, and to enlightenment thinkers such as Spinoza.

Categories
Quotable quotes

Adolf quote

‘How fortunate for governments that
the people they administer don´t think’.

—Hitler

Categories
Axiology Film

Iceberg

by Gaedhal

I watched the 2014 film, Still Alice, yesterday.

One of the things that I liked about it was its treatment of the stages of grief. The denial stage is well treated. Alec Baldwin just openly denies that Alice has Alzheimer’s. Alice is quick, almost immediate, to acknowledge verbally that she has Alzheimer’s, but she still lives in denial. She still believes that she can go running, go on holiday, lecture Linguistics at college etc. And also, we kinda get a subtle hint from a neurologist who looks uncannily like Lawrence Krauss that Alice was late in seeking a diagnosis. It was only really when Alice could no longer disguise her memory problems that she sought a diagnosis.

Alice has familial early-onset Alzheimer’s. This is caused by a mutation in the genome.

I remember, in the grand old days of yore, I used to install television satellite dishes with my father. The set-top box, for to decode and unencrypt the digital television signal had a forward error correction rate. The set top box had an algorithm that could correct some errors received from the Satellite. Do not ask me about the engineering wizardry behind this. To me, digital satellite television is a technology sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic.

However, where is the forward error correction in our genome? Unintelligent design strikes again. This is why, in my view, Paley’s watchmaker argument fails in our day. In Paley’s day, technology was still, very much, in a crude and primitive state. However, in our day, the process of technological manufacturing is so refined that the organs—organum in Latin means: ‘tool’ or ‘instrument’—produced by nature are wholly deficient when compared to the tools, and instruments produced by humans. We humans can contrive forward error correction, whereas biology and nature, thus far, cannot.

And this, incidentally, is why I am pro-abortion.

One of Alice’s children has the gene for early-onset Alzheimers. She swiftly conceives twins by IVF. The embryos in the petri dish are screened for the familial-Alzheimer’s disease, and the embryos containing this gene are destroyed, and only the healthy embryos are implanted. In essence, a woman’s uterus does the same thing: it screens sperm and embryos for nasty genetic material, and if it discovers any such nasty genetic material, then it either kills the sperm, or it kills the embryo or foetus. Thus, naturally, a woman’s uterus has its own contraception and abortion mechanisms. Contraception and abortion is merely the augmentation of a natural process. And if you believe in God, then God ultimately designed these contraceptive and abortifacient faculties that a woman contains in her uterus.

Evolution explains this. Evolution wants a woman to give birth to offspring that will reach adulthood, such that they too will either give birth to or sire offspring. Evolution does not want a woman to either accept defective sperm or to incubate defective embryos. Thus, evolutionarily speaking, the contraceptive and abortifacient faculties that a woman already possesses makes sense. And if you want to defy Ockham’s razor and add a god to the mix, then go ahead. If you do so, then contraception and abortion become divine.

Anyhow, another pro-death position that I hold is euthanasia. There is a scene where Alice tries to commit suicide by ingesting an overdose of Rohypnol. I, of course, was cheering her on, because Alzheimer’s is a fate worse than death. At this point of the film, she was only ½ Alice, by my reckoning. Unfortunately, Consuela from Family Guy, her nurse and housekeeper, gives her a jump-scare, knocking the tablets out of her hand, dooming her to become a human vegetable.

If I ever get diagnosed with dementia, I will book a trip to Switzerland and ingest some Pentobarbital at a Dignitas facility. However, such a service, ideally, ought to be available in Ireland. Evangelical Protestantism prevents euthanasia from being a reality in the North—although it is becoming a reality on the British mainland—and the vestiges of a Catholic theocracy prevent euthanasia from becoming a reality in the South. Again, why I am an antitheist. On the Island of Ireland, Roman Catholicism and Calvinism—the two biggest brands of Christianity, on this island—still have way, way, way too much power. There are no good secular arguments against euthanasia, just as there are no good secular arguments against abortion. Which is why the atheist British mainland is far in advance of Ireland, North and South on these issues.

My grandmother was not still my grandmother after about a year and a half of dementia. However, she lived on as a human potted plant—a mockery of her former form—for about two years after. I was glad, for her sake, when she died. In the words of Saint Thomas More, in his Utopia she outlived herself. Annie Bessant quotes the Utopia in her essay in favour of euthanasia.

 

______ 卐 ______
 

Editor’s 2 ¢

Since I studied the fraudulent profession called psychiatry in-depth, I realised, in reviewing its 19th-century origins, that psychiatrists were simply pathologizing behaviour such as suicide, a ‘sin’ considered lèse majesté divine, dogmatically declaring it to be a disease of unknown biomedical aetiology (and the same with the other diagnostic categories ‘of unknown aetiology’!).

Like me, Benjamin Power has spotted a tremendous error in the racial right, for example, in the comments sections where hundreds of commenters opine in The Unz Review. None of them seem to notice the pseudo-scientificity of psychiatry. Neochristianity, as we understand it on this site, means that the axiological tail of Christian morality persists, foolishly, in today’s secular world. What Gaedhal mentions above is only one example.

I would add that the negrolatry (BLM, mixed couples, etc.) that so afflicts today’s mad West is another example of Christian morality exponentially exacerbated in the secular world (from this site’s seminal essay, ‘The Red Giant’, a Swede noted that secularism exacerbates Christian morality big time).

White nationalists shouldn’t ignore us. They should realise that rather than our paradigm (CQ) competing with theirs (JQ), our POV expands the latter as with the iceberg metaphor. They only see the iceberg’s tip but we know that the Jewish Problem is supported by the huge mass of Christian ethics that lies underneath. Dr Robert Morgan agrees with us in the post from a couple of days ago.

Categories
3-eyed crow Arthur Schopenhauer

Schopen

by Art of Thinking

Why did some of the brightest brains in history prefer to be alone? Why do outstanding intellectuals stay away from social life? For those who possess great intelligence is seclusion a privilege or a curse? These issues were addressed by Arthur Schopenhauer, one of the 19th century’s most gloomy and visionary philosophers who was anything but benevolent towards society.

Schopenhauer believed that the world was full with shallow individuals with small-minded goals and engrossed in pointless discussions and amusements. A natural talent had to distance himself from this unimpressive performance. According to his own words, all great spirits end up alone. Was he correct or is this disdain for social life only a sign of a lack of interpersonal connections? Think about notable individuals who were renowned for their brilliance and their seclusion. Are they merely misunderstood and destined to roam alone, or are they examples of intellects that are superior to common souls?

Let’s examine Schopenhauer’s theories. As the world around him moves forward, picture a genius who is totally absorbed in his ideas and lost in intricate theories. He wonders about the future of humanity [e.g., will Parrish-like Nordids survive?—Ed.]. While everyone else is preoccupied with discussing the weather, he inevitably isolates himself as he attempts to comprehend the nature of being [e.g., the whys of the fair race’s darkest hour—Ed.]. Others engage in frivolous conversations.

According to Schopenhauer this distance is an unavoidable result of intellectual superiority rather than a decision. He believed that the more a person stood out for his intelligence, the harder it was for him to find peers on the same level, with whom he could share his thoughts and emotions. Schopenhauer believes that a natural barrier between the individual and society is created by superior intelligence, because those who have a broader perspective on the world have very different interests and concerns than the majority.

Only in solitude can a man be himself since he can only be genuinely free when he is alone. He cannot enjoy freedom if he does not love solitude. Schopenhauer saw isolation as both a burden and a necessary haven. According to him, social norms and the petty interests of the majority frequently suffocate intelligence. He noted that people with higher levels of intelligence frequently felt uncomfortable interacting with the general public because they were able to see beyond the obvious and comprehend truths that were not readily apparent to them.

Friedrich Nietzsche was another thinker who cherished isolation. But seclusion comes at a cost: a strong sensation of alienation might result from deviating from societal norms. Schopenhauer was aware of this and thought that, although it could be freeing for brilliant thinkers, solitude could also be a weight because they have a deeper perspective on the world than most of us will ever be able to understand. So many of the greatest thinkers in history experience periods of worry and sadness. This is not because they were weak. The crucial question that follows is whether loneliness is a good thing or a bad thing.

For Schopenhauer, it was obvious great thinkers welcome their solitude as a blessing. Their greatest achievements might be possible if they are isolated, enjoy silence, and are free from social mediocrity.

Categories
Free speech / association Videos

Germany

Like the British and the French, the German government is bent on replacing Aryans with Orcs. To do so it has to suppress freedom of expression in an overwhelming manner, as even the media controlled by Jewry is beginning to recognise (see e.g., the 60 Minutes program, ‘Policing the internet in Germany’). It’s funny to compare this with Vance’s recent speech in Munich!

Categories
Judeo-reductionism

Contra…

by Robert Morgan

…MacDonald, I maintain that Jewish propaganda is far from the only force shaping the culture of the West. I’m not even convinced that ethnic rivalry between whites and Jews plays much of a role at all. What MacDonald casts as Jewish evolutionary strategy due to its destructive effects on the white race is better seen as the destructive effects of technological “progress” in the socio-political sphere; the transformation of America from a republic to an empire.

For reasons we’ve previously discussed, for example, I see lots of technical reasons for the re-writing of America’s immigration policy in 1965, MacDonald’s signature issue. For one thing, it was part of America’s push towards empire, an attempt to incorporate the entire western hemisphere into its body politic. The Cold War with the Soviet Union demanded that America prove its anti-racist bona fides, and letting in more brown people was one way to do it; it extended the country’s global influence and let it enrich itself at the same time. The Jews may have thought it helped them too, and maybe it did, but if so, they were allowed to do it by whites because it also helped grow American power. True, it can be seen as bad for the white race, but Empire has always been bad for racial purity, and was so even in the time of Caesar Augustus or Alexander.

Caesar Augustus visits the tomb of Alexander the Great.

Whites have always been unfazed by this drawback and grow their empires anyway. Likewise with MacDonald’s other issues. Franz Boas’ anti-racist message was accepted by whites because it better accorded with their Christianity-derived wishful thinking about race than a Darwinian view. The Jew-backed push for nigger “civil rights” and racial equality was for something that white America had already granted in principle after the Civil War and so could not credibly be opposed. All governments try to minimize their internal conflicts, so although it was bad for white racial purity, it was a necessary thing from the point of view of the state for purely technical reasons.

On the other side of the coin, where Jews have opposed the popular will, as they did twice in the election of Trump over the virulent objections of the Jewish media, Jewish Hollywood, the largely Jewish legal system, and heavily Jewish academia, they have been defeated, and all their propaganda came to naught.