web analytics

Tag: Gaedhal (commenter)

Categories
Theology

“god”

and the problem of Evil

by Gaedhal

That nasty article that I linked to yesterday—which, unfortunately, is behind a paywall—confirms something that Sam Harris used to say:

‘Religion allows people to believe, in the billions, that which, if believed alone, would render one a lunatic.’

Forsooth, yea, and verily! Let us institute an International festival in honour of a mythical peasant preacher’s Jewishness. An insane idea. However, because it is in accord with the Zeitgeist of the world’s biggest religion, it is an idea that is taken seriously.

Let us call foreskin amputation—and especially the pain caused thereby—a “beautiful” thing. This is what the sicko, Margaret Hebblethwaite wrote yesterday.

There is a video of Christopher Hitchens and he was smoking a cigarette, and saying that Catholic lunatics such as John Paul 2, mother theresa—and I have no doubt that he would include Frankenpope and Hebblethwaite in this list were he still alive—are the ‘real enemy’.

And it brings us back to what John Loftus writes in Horrendous Suffering. Ironically, Christianity—it ideally should be called: ‘Judeochristianity’ as Christianity is merely a denomination of Judaism—has added, greatly to horrendous suffering.

Here we have Hebblethwaite, the Catholic, adding to the horrendous suffering of this world by advocating for this vampiric rite of child-abuse.

Ironically, the history of religion, and the horrendous harm caused by religion, is in and of itself an argument against the existence of god.

The logical problem of evil says that an Omni god would never have to resort to any sort of evil so as to accomplish his will. If God needs to resort to the allowance of evil, then he is either not all good, or not all powerful. Evil exists. QED. Quod erat demonstrandum: God does not exist. The logical problem of evil is a deductive argument for the non-existence of god. If the premises are true: an omni God would not need evil to accomplish his goals; evil exists; then the conclusion necessarily follows: God does not exist.

Despite Apologists showboating and saying that the logical problem of evil is dead, I think that it is sound. Even if an omni god did need to allow evil to accomplish his creative purposes, then he could always choose not to create. This, according to Doug is the true problem of evil. If God is a perfect and complete world unto himself, then why create a world at all, that He would know, with certainty, would bring about evil. In my view, such a god, faced with either creating a world with evil in it, or choosing not to create a world at all, would simply choose not to create.

However, the evidential problem of evil is an inductive argument. We collect data relating to horrendous suffering, of which there is a superabundance on this Hell-planet, and then we ask ourselves the question, which hypothesis best explains the data: the God hypothesis or the non-god hypothesis. And, in my view, to sincerely and honestly grapple with the problem of horrendous suffering as laid out in Horrendous Suffering by John Loftus is to arrive at the non-God hypothesis as the best explanation for the presence of so much horrendous suffering in our world.

‘James Sterba resurrected the logical problem of evil. It’s impossible that a theistic god exists. Look him up.’ —John Loftus

Yeah, apologists like to pretend that the logical problem of evil is no longer taken seriously in academic philosophy. This is just simply another lie of the apologetics’ profession.

In William Lane Craig’s debate with Christopher Hitchens, he reverses the burden of proof on the logical problem of evil: it was up to Christopher to prove that a god, whom he does not believe in, does not have morally sufficient reasons to permit evil. This is why I take the view of Venaloid, Carrier and Prophet of Zod in saying that William Lane Craig is a conman. A PhD philosopher should be able to wrap his brain around the logical problem of evil. In my view, the hypothesis that Craig is a conman is much more likely than the hypothesis that Craig is incompetent.

But even if a classically theistic god had morally sufficient reasons to allow evil, that same god, by virtue of his omnipotence, could achieve those same ends without allowing evil. The classically theistic god’s omnibenevolence would here kick in: I have two approaches available to me to achieve some end or goal. One approach allows for evil—which I supposedly hate—and another approach does not allow for evil. Well, my omnibenevolence kicks in and necessitates that I choose the approach that does not allow for the existence of evil to achieve my ends. However, evil exists. Thus, a classically theistic god does not exit. If gods there be, then that god is lacking in some omni property. That god is probably less than omniscient, or omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. QED. A deductive proof of the non-existence of a classically theistic god.

However, lest we drift into some sort of atheistic Thomism, or scholasticism, where we simply sit on our philosophical armchairs and a-priori reason all day, we also have the inductive argument against the existence of god from our gathering data as regards instances of horrendous suffering, in our world.

I am sure that William Lane Craig understands all of this very well… Indeed, better than I do. I only have a high-school/secondary-school education. Craig has two PhDs. However, Craig is a dishonest conman.

And thunderf00t—before Elon broke his brain—points this out: Craig isn’t really an academic philosopher, at all. He got two PhDs so as to employ them as props. In academic philosophy, he is a nobody.

Craig, in his own way, is as crazy and as dishonest as Ken Ham. Ken Ham similarly hires PhDs so as to deny evident reality.

Similarly with Wes Huff. Davis points out in that reality rules video, I linked in a previous email, that even though Huff is essentially a thesis and a viva voce away from a PhD, nevertheless, he spends all of his extracurricular time on apologetics, and not, you know, publishing in academic journals. Huff is the new apologetics superstar. However, it is the same modus operandi as Craig’s and Ham’s. Get a PhD. Use it as a prop so as to lie for Jaysus.

Categories
Bible New Testament

SBL

by Gaedhal

Thanks for responding! [Gaedhal refers to Richard C. Miller’s email]

I think that you once described the field of biblical studies as the last holdover of the dark-ages. The New Testament is obviously Hellenistic Graeco-Roman mythology. However, instead of the SBL [Society of Biblical Literature] studying it as such, it erects barriers to studying it as such. I think that you shared recently that members of the guild tried to censor some of your writings, or the writings of some PhD students that you have influenced. You and your students were simply studying and critiquing “the New Testament”—or as you like to call it: ‘earliest Christian writings’—and the guild tried to censor all of you for “going too far in this direction”.

Biblical studies is still, as Avalos points out, an apologetic enterprise. The teleological ‘end’ of biblical studies is to convince the world at large that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a force for good in the world. However, to suggest that Christianity is essentially no different to other Greco-Roman mystery/missing-body cults, is to puncture this entire apologetic empire. And Big Bible is Big Business. I think that the guild has been treating you so rottenly of late that you have suspended your Facebook page.

It is as you said on Mythvision: Christianity is a ladelful of the stew that is Greco-Roman Hellenic mythology. Big Bible takes this ladelful of stew and studies it in splendid isolation from the larger stew of Greco-roman Hellenic mythology that Christianity was drawn from.

You mention that travelogue from Corinth, written in Greek—the language of the New Testament!—and written at about the same time that Paul was writing to the Church at Corinth… and how practically no SBL school instructs its students to read this ancient travelogue.

I have a very short fuse when it comes to obvious cynical con-artists such as Wes Huff. It amazes me that Kipp Davis could call this guy a “budding scholar”. But this is the problem of Old Atheism. The likes of Kipp Davis and Bart Ehrman want to be thought well of by the likes of Huff and Licona for reasons which totally escape me. With Avalos it was not so: he wanted to burn the guild to the ground, and, indeed, you yourself have criticised him for not divorcing himself completely from SBL…

[In another communication Gaedhal informed us:]

This could be why the SBL guild is treating Richard C. Miller so badly. If Christianity is but Hellenistic Greco-Roman mythology—and it is!—then it is bad for Jews if this be found out. If Yahweh be as fictitious as Zeus, and if Jesus is as mythical as Hercules, then the Jews go from being “the Chosen People” and “a great monotheistic Faith” to simply being a gang of religious swindlers and hucksters who have been duping and swindling the Goyim with their religious bullshit for about 3,000 years.

And we cannot have that! (indeed, David Skrbina writes of this in his Jesus Hoax).

Categories
Theology

Myth vision

Editor’s note: I feel compelled to include this recent communication from our friend Gaedhal because on this site, in promoting the work of Richard Miller, I have been using Derek Lambert’s interviews of Miller (Derek vlogs at MythVision Podcast). Miller’s New Testament scholarship is impeccable, but young Derek still has much to learn from the older folks. Gaedhal wrote:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
I include Derek from MythVision on this thread, although I removed him over the Robert Price thing. The Zionist video he released with his ex-military father in the wake of October 7th removed any doubt in my mind that this was the correct choice. Also, on MythVision, some theisms—i.e. The Orthodox Judaism of the likes of Tovia Singer—seem to be more equal than others. I think that even Kipp Davis—arguably an “apologist enabler” himself—recently called Tova Singer’s “scholarship” deplorable. I like Tovia, and, indeed, I learn a lot of Hebrew vocabulary from him, as he can slip seamlessly betwixt English and Ashkenzic Hebrew. Tovia will regularly, from memory, quote the Tenakh in Hebrew from memory. Although I like Tovia, nevertheless, orthodox Judaism is every bit as false and harmful as every other theism.

My view is that all apologists are cynical conmen. I would love to believe otherwise, though. I would love to believe that they were simply the other side of the argument; that there were good sensible reasons to believe in Classical Theism, even if I personally disbelieved in it; that there were good sensible reasons to believe in Christianity, even if I personally disbelieved in it.

However, this is not the case. Of all the theisms, Classical Theism is the most untenable. Of all the revealed religions, the claims of Christianity are extremely untennable indeed. At best, there is no better reason to believe that an Undead Jesus Christ floated off into the sky than that Mohommed flew to Jerusalem on a wingéd horse.

As Pocket locker 86, linked here, points out: there is no honest way to defend something that is untrue.

Thus the grifters, psychotics, psychopaths, morons and fraud-artists who make up the rogues gallery of Christian apologists. I do not, in the slightest, hate Christians or theists. Indeed, I remain a secular Catholic who is uncomfortable with the label: atheist.

Now, to be clear, one can be intelligent, empathetic, sincere, etc. and have a sincere religious faith. However, in my view, the field of apologetics itself being intrinsically fraudulent, it is impossible to be an honest apologist. An honest apologist is, to me at least, an oxymoron.

The fake credentials of some Christian apologists, such as “Doctor” Stephen Boyce—billed as a doctor by MythVision, in its description, at the time of writing!

I linked to Chrissy Hansen’s article questioning Boyce’s doctorate and my comment was deleted.

Pocket locker 86 would say: “whose side are you on!” i.e., are you on the side of us counter-apologists who wish to expose scam artists like Boyce, or are you on the side of the scam artists who are trying to conceal their scam?

And this brings me to another point that Pocket Locker 86 points out: Apologists will only pretend to be your friend, and will only agree to go on your channel, if you pull your punches, and play nice with them. If you point out that their credentials are at best dubious, they will probably demand that such a comment be deleted.

It is interesting that Hansen, a transgender Norse polytheist, has retreated from the limelight following the election of Trump.

Categories
Christendom

Apologetics

Excerpts from Gaedhal’s latest communication:

Apologetics is for Christians. It is a Christian product, and the target demographic is Christians—and, in particular, those Christians who have an IQ in excess of 90, who are beginning to doubt Christianity.

Apologetics is not for non-believers. To non-believers, Apologetics is a pseudo-discipline that merely serves to infuriate us and to confirm us in our disbelief. To a non-believer, Apologetics is every bit the pseudoscience that Astrology is. In the same way that Celestial bodies do not influence earthly events, dead Jewish carpenters usually stay dead—and certainly don’t float off into the sky. This is really the end of the matter for us non-believers. Apologetics is a product—it is intellectual property—and its consumer base is almost exclusively Christian…

Without the threat of Hell, then Christianity really does fall apart [emphasis added by Editor]…

If we heed William of Ockham and throw out God, Heaven, and inscrutable morally sufficient reasons [that try to solve the problem of evil—Ed.], then we are left with the vulgarity: “shit happens”. In a godless swirl of cause and effect, such as this planet seems to be, then we would expect to see the quantity of horrendous suffering that we do in fact see upon this planet.

Categories
Philosophy Racial right Theology

Christian nationalism

by Gaedhal

I was reading Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy (1946). According to Russel, theism died out amongst the best minds in Europe, by 1700. This is, incidentally, how we could have a secular government established in America in the 18th Century. Aron Ra put a recording of Madeline Murray O’ Hare where she claimed that all the founders of America were atheists. In my view, this is an exaggeration. However, a lot of them weren’t theists. Thomas Jefferson called himself a materialist, as did Abraham Lincoln, four score and seven years later. John Adams wondered whether God even existed at all… which qualifies him as an agnostic. If only rich land-owning white men can vote—and, remember, white aristocrats have been having outbreaks of atheism since the Ionic Enlightenment, about 500 years before the common era—then the form of government that they would chose for themselves would be a secular godless government, in no way founded upon the Christian Religion, where Religion is only referred to as a negative phenomenon that must not be imposed, by the State, upon its citizens.

The reason why I am an elitist, of sorts, is because the mob is more than 300 years behind the intellectual elite in abandoning theism. Thankfully, some countries, like the United Kingdom, are transitioning into a post-theistic age.

The Philosopher Kings who established the United States, were non-theists. There might have been some sort of Aristotelian prime mover, who got the Cosmos started, however, this God no longer tinkers with or prods his creation. Thomas Paine, although a believer in an Almighty, of some deistic sort, nevertheless categorically rules out miracles. Paine thinks it absurd that a God would fix the laws of nature… and then break these laws through performing miracles. Paine does offer some positive arguments for God, such as the argument for God through mathematics/geometry/platonic forms… however, a god who doesn’t do miracles might as well not exist.

God used to have a lot of jobs to do. Prior to Newton and Galileo, objects were said to “prefer” to be at rest. Thus God’s might was needed to push the planets about the sky. If the planets are motoring across the sky, then God must be pushing them about. However Galileo and Newton proved that objects were utterly indifferent as to their being in motion or at rest. Thus, God was no longer needed to push the planets about the sky.

The motto of the Royal Society, headed up by Newton was and is: verba in nullius, which is Latin for: “We take nobody’s word for it”. In Christianity, we believe things because a holy-man said it. This is why Saint Paul is always vaunting how holy he is… how many times he went to prison for god… how poor and hungry he is for god. How many times he got flogged by the enemies of the Christian God. The holier one was, the more trustworthy he was meant to be.

Verba in Nullius is thus an antichrist saying. Scientists don’t give a fuck how holy you are. You either demonstrate what you claim, or it is not established. The Royal Society, thus, does not really care what God says, what Jesus says, what a Pope says, what a Holy Book says… Science is only interested in demonstrable reality.

However, another job that God had was to animate living things. Living objects, thanks to a false idea inherited from Aristotle, were also said to prefer rest. The fact that living things existed at all was proof—yes proof!—that God exists. However, the Biochemistry of which living things is composed is also totally indifferent—it has no preferences—whether it be at rest or in motion. Thus, there is no need for a god to animate our bodies through a magical object called a ‘soul’—or, in Latin: ‘anima’. Thus, there is no longer any need for a Great Cartoonist in the Sky to animate Aristotelian rest-preferring biological bodies with souls.

Hell was also disbelieved in by 1700, according to Russell. Newton was a Unitarian, and so, by rights, he should be shrieking up his bloody lungs in fiery torment, in Yahweh’s superheated torture chamber. However, the idea that Newton was in Hell was too much to swallow.

To recap: the elitists who founded America had all of this sussed out by the founding. They were deists, agnostics, materialists etc.

However, 300 years later, amongst the American mob, the Christian Superstition, is still rife among the populace. America is in real danger of succumbing to Christian Nationalism.

The mob will eventually abandon theism in America, though, just as they have already done in the United Kingdom… however, the mob always seems to be centuries behind the intellectual elite.

To me, the chapter: ‘The Rise of Science’ really demonstrates the gulf that exists between the elite philosophers, and the superstitious mobmen.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s 2 ¢

In certain quarters of the American racial right, Christian nationalism is popular.

For someone who, like me, already admired pantheism since 1973 and 1974 when we were taught Hegel at school, and knew about the existence of the pantheist theologian Teilhard de Chardin, I am surprised by the atavisms that Americans still suffer from. If only the racialists would take Uncle Adolf’s after-dinner talks as their guidebook! But even before Hitler, philosophical-theological treatises had already been published in Germany, which distanced the readers from the theism that persists in the hemisphere where I live.

It is not surprising that Karlheinz Deschner’s work on Christian criminal history has been translated and published in Spanish but not published in English. And with such gross ignorance do the racialists pretend to lead their country forward?

Categories
Revilo Oliver

Primary cause

by Gaedhal

I seem to be one of a few who pay attention to ‘real Christianity’, and what is abroad in this declining movement.

Thus, the Riemenschneider[1] vs. Joel Webbon situation has probably not been analysed from a Team-White perspective.

Generation Zyklon is mostly ‘none’, and so now, on the White Side, we can criticise Christianity as the Jewish psyop it always was to our heart’s content. Revilo P. Oliver and William Luther Pierce, privately, came to the conclusion that Christianity was antiwhite, but, at least initially, they were extremely reticent in attacking it. Oliver released a pamphlet, under a pseudonym, in which he said that not only was Christianity anti-white, it was the primary cause of the white demographic eclipse that we are currently enduring.

In this video, James White says that you should love black believers more than white non believers. Indeed, if your daughter rejects Jesus, James White tells you to hate her. The Jewish Messiah came to sow division amongst gentiles:

Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division (Luke 12:51).

Also, you should hate her.

If any one comes to me without hating his father* and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (* NRSV CE).

Christianity is Jewish psychological terrorism against whites. Cesar and Kyle Hunt understand this, and their respective websites, West’s Darkest Hour and Renegade Tribune, understand this.

James White quotes these two vile verses. White is a true believer in Christianity. Speaking of White’s version of Christianity, Foote, the leader of the secular society said:

‘a hateful creed in its true colours’.

By this, he meant that Christianity is a hateful creed of threats and empty promises, and that White’s version of Calvinist Extremism is in all likelihood, the truest expression of Christianity. This is not to say that Christians ought to be hated. I do not say this at all. Christians have a persecution complex, and hating them only plays into this. As I said before: the best response to Christianity is to politely ignore it. In a recent pieville slice, Linder said that Christianity should be banned in the white ethnostate. I disagree with this. However, I absolutely do agree with him that any antiwhite preaching by Christian ministers should be a death sentence.

Christianity is dying of itself as the KJV puts it. We should just leave it alone and allow it to die a natural death. I think that this was Saint Adolf Hitler’s attitude in his table talks. Hitler could be quite liberal—in the true sense of this word, i.e. tolerant and generous to opinions that were not cynically subversive—when he wanted to be. Liberalis in Latin means: ‘free’ or ‘generous’, and Hitler was an admirer of the true liberality of the Classical world. This, of course was replaced by the Inquisitions, witch-hunts and book-burnings of the Christian Dark Age.

A funny thing is happening in Calvinist Extremism. A lot of the younger Calvinist Extremists are experiencing a racial awakening; are discovering what they naively call ‘the Jewish Question’—when, in reality, it is the Jewish Problem—and they are beginning to question World War 2 Allied Propaganda. They are beginning to reject the Post War Consensus. Hey, maybe that the Jews and the communists won the greatest war ever fought might not be a good thing. As Cesar might put it: they are beginning to dip their toes in the Rubicon… And then Boomer Christians like Doug Wilson and James White come in to attempt to gatekeep, and to attempt to corral these men back onto the Con-servative reservation. Christianity—just as with Sicut Judaeis Non—is a gatekeeping operation. When the Jews get into trouble, they ring up the Christians so as to gatekeep, and to provide controlled opposition, and to propose non solutions such as throwing Holy Water over them or exiling them… so that their luckless descendants will again fall prey to them in a century, or so.

With this ‘Antioch Declaration’, we see that Christianity is still working as it was set up to; as it was intended to. Christianity is both a control grid for the Jews, and it is also a buffer zone between Jews and whites.

As Urban Jungle Girl put it: boomers such as James White must take their vile anti-white creed with them when they die.

__________

[1] Riemenschneider is German for: ‘strap cutter’ i.e. a maker of leather straps. German surnames are an excellent way to build up vocabulary in the language of the Fatherland.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note:

Oliver released a pamphlet, under a pseudonym, in which he said that not only was Christianity anti-white, it was the primary cause of the white demographic eclipse that we are currently enduring.

In six instalments I’ll post it the following days.

Categories
Richard Carrier

Marcan myth

by Gaedhal

This is an excellent article by Richard Carrier on all the impossible and magical events in Mark’s Gospel. And remember: Mark’s gospel is really the only historical ‘evidence’—if such it be—that this Jesus character even existed. The other Gospels are really only fictitious elaborations of Mark; novels plagiarised from the Marcan source-text. If a Jesus incident occurred, and Mark doesn’t relate it, then either Matthew, John or Luke made it up so as to advance a theological agenda.

The above is a slight exaggeration. I actually do believe in hypothesised sources such as Q; however we have zero historical, archaeological or documentary evidence of Q. Mark is the only source of the alleged life of Jesus that we have any empirical evidence for.

The German-rationalist view was that the magical events in the gospels actually occurred, but that their cause was natural [Editor’s note: see the classic 1906 work of Biblical historical criticism The Quest for the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer]. Jesus walked on a puddle, and this was misconstrued as his walking magically on water. However, this view was ultimately destroyed by David Friedrich Strauss. Strauss proved that the magical events in the gospels are completely mythological or ahistorical.

It simply will not do to delete the magical lies of the Gospel of Mark, and then claim that the remaining mundanity actually happened historically.

In my estimation, there is zero history in the New Testament.

However, the likes of Mike Licona tell us that the Gospels are sober history that give us the ‘gist’ of events that actually occurred, albeit embellished by special effects like zombie-uprisings, earthquakes, and Temple veils’ being split. However, the problem with the con that Licona is trying to pull is that Jesus’s resurrection from the dead, the conversation that the disciples had with magical disembodied beings called ‘angels’, and Jesus’s levitation into the sky followed by his magical disappearance could likewise be classed as ‘Apocalyptic special effects’. Remember: Licona is a con-artist, just as all apologists are. He is just slightly less of a con-artist than the likes of Gary Habermas and J. Warner Wallace. YouTube atheists should stop patting Licona on the head, for this.

Aubrey Plaza once described Acting as ‘lying for money’. This also describes the Apologetics’ profession.

David Madison recently wrote a blogpost about the article from Richard Carrier.

Categories
Kali Yuga

Contra atheismum

by Gaedhal

As much as I criticise Christianity, atheism is probably worse. At around the 1:06 mark [of this YouTube video], objectively Dan—who has a nose piercing, even though he is a man—says that he is ‘unironically antinatalist’.

Steve Shives appears to be another atheist antinatalist. He has no children, and got a vasectomy.

Pine Creek Doug, although he has two children, by IVF has expressed antinatalist sentiments.

Veneloid, Rachel Oates, Captain Cassidy, Rationality Rules all appear to be antinatalists, at least practically.

And so if you find the atheist movement distasteful—and I do— then, demographically, it probably won’t be around for much longer.

The reason why I personally reject antinatalism is because I do not positively affirm materialism.

Transgenderism is also, arguably, a form of antinatalism, as is homosexuality, and we know how frequent these pastimes are in atheism.

Richard Carrier also had a vasectomy and is childless, I think. He is ‘polyamorous’.

Matt Dilahunty is going out with a tranny, and has no children. Seth Andrews has no children. MGTOW seems to be an antinatalist cult that many atheists on the right subscribe to.

Such behaviour, in my view, is wholly consistent with atheism. The sun will eventually explode, its protons will eventually decay, and the universe will eventually be a uniform temperature. As Bertrand Russell says: this is a philosophy of unyielding despair. Russell though claims that the soul of the atheist will eventually adjust to such circumstances, and hope is then possible, again. Atheists claim that we quote Russell out of context when we quote him as saying that atheistic materialism is a philosophy of unyielding despair.

As I said before: I disbelieve in the gods of revealed religion and the gods of classical theism. However, there is still a wide gulf between this and atheistic materialism. And I think that if you are an atheistic materialist who believes in proton decay and eventual heat death, then you should be an antinatalist. You should not bring new sentient beings into what is ultimately a collapsing and dying system. The universe, as Bertrand Russell puts it, is fated, under atheistic materialism, to be a heap of ruins. As Benatar puts it: you are giving birth into quicksand, and this is immoral.

However, given the heap of ruins that, anon, the universe is fated to become—The Atheism of Astronomy calls this: ‘drift’—then why not neuter oneself and dedicate one’s life to orgy and fetishes?

The Atheism of Astronomy’s image of ‘drift’ is certainly a dreadful one. We are all slowly drifting into non existence. It is like there is a malevolent god, with a rubber eraser, rubbing us out, and thus erasing us.
 

Editor’s two cents:

That is why I don’t consider myself an atheist and why Hitler and Himmler also repudiated ‘atheism’. Instead, I respect the archetypes represented by the Aryan Gods, and there is a category on this site (genuine spirituality) which shows that it is possible to reject the god of the Jews and, at the same time, intuit a kind of panentheism in the universe.

Categories
Axiology

Sieg Heil!

by Gaedhal

Remember what the opposite of this is, white man. It was “academic literature” such as this that was burnt by the Hitlerjugund. Karl Andersson studies in England. England would be free of such pests had they not defeated themselves at World War 2.

Both the American Civil War and World War 2—both of which were the biggest, deadliest, most technologically sophisticated wars of their day—were really just the White man going to war to defeat himself. Only the negro won the American Civil War, and, as Alex Linder puts it: only the Jew won World War 2.

However, Christian axiology has convinced us that we win when we lose. The New Testament is full of enigmas like the last being first, the meek conquering the earth through their meekness; whores and tax-collectors (i.e. traitors and collaborators) being more heavenward than scribes and Pharisees; I am weak when I am strong.

That one wins when he loses is very much in this vein.

This is why I love: ‘Sieg Heil’. Christ tells us that we win when we lose. Hitler tells us that we win when we win. There are no oriental paradoxes, or enigmas or headscratchers from Herr Hitler. Nope: Hitler gives us the “straight dope” as a negro might phrase it in his ebonics.

Categories
Free speech / association

Free speech

by Gaedhal

Thank Yahweh, that instead of a Gestapo, we have a Stasi/s.[1]

Unless protest and speech have within it the potential to provoke violence, at least in the abstract, then one does not possess the freedom of speech. Indeed, this is American Jurisprudence… at least for the time being. This is why Alex Linder was not sent to prison for his praise of Hero Bowers. Sancte Bowers, ora pro nobis. So, in the United Kingdom, one does not possess either the freedom of effective speech, or the freedom of effective protest. Despite the lofty baroque refrains of Rule Britannia, Britons are, thanks to their defeating themselves in World War 2, slaves.

If Hitler had won, we would not be free… however, we would be free-er. Regardless of the political system, absolute liberty is a delusion. We would be free of negro subhumans from Rwanda stabbing our little girls to death, for one thing. We must constantly remind people of that alternative universe in which the good guys—as opposed to the Jews, Christians and Communists, i.e. the Allies—won World War 2.

One can be deeply critical of National Socialism, as Linder and I are, and still maintain that ’twere[2] better if the axis had won World War 2. I take Tom Metzger’s position. I would have been sent to Dachau, a camp for political dissidents, for being more based than the Nazis.

Is é an tSláinte an Buaidh!
Victoria Salus!
Victory is Salvation!

__________

[1] Stasi – Communist East German Secret police. (Also ‘/s’ is an internetism that means: the preceding was sarcasm.)

[2] twere – An old-fashioned form of: ‘it were’, an English subjunctive. It were better means: ‘it would have been better’.