[Hong Wu]

I've noticed a trend wherein "New Right" or "Alt-Right" individuals will try to win arguments through teleology instead of through tradition. What I mean by this is if someone makes arguments that are synonymous with what I'm going to call the "new left", for example "white people need to die" the response is often something like "wanting to live is rational, right?" Or if the slightly more moderate "white people need to stop breeding" line is used, the response might be "wanting to continue to exist is rational, right?"

I think these are teleological arguments because they extrapolate our behaviors and desires (or, at least, a justification for them) from basic observations about the way the world works and what conclusions a person can draw from those observations. I think following such a thought process is both normal and reasonable (those on the "new left" might disagree) and the similarities between different traditions are probably attributable to the fact that teleology is a common starting point for philosophy or religion of any kind.

At the same time, we might ask ourselves why teleology matters. Does it matter because of a presumption of a divine mandate or intentional design (which is the traditional presumption), does it matter because we want to understand people's intent (and therefore identify the existence of selfishness or malice, the latter concept barely being distinguishable from normal behavior today) or does teleology matter for some other reason? Although teleological arguments are useful from the perspective of trying to win an argument, which when dealing with the alt-left can unfortunately be synonymous with defending your basic goals of probity and survival, I think it is also useful for someone to ask themselves why they are interested in teleology and perhaps also what kind of teleology they find most fulfilling. To elaborate there, a teleology which takes Christ's resurrection literally might come to slightly different conclusions than one which builds a personal philosophy upon different presumptions.

This next part will be a bit of a tangent but bear with me: lately I have been thinking about "mindfulness" meditations and "revolutions" of thought. Some of us are aware of the fact that the original definition of the word "revolution" didn't mean a transfer of power into a new order but referred to a circular motion. To provide an example of this circular motion in modern day, right now in the west it is popular to say #metoo about something like being sexually assaulted or raped. Those of us who are part of the "new right" movement will point out that telling people you were sexually assaulted is sometimes not constructive. This may be an example of a revolution of thought because these people are deluding themselves into thinking that sexual assaults can be ended or something, or that their hashtags are empowering or whatever. Eventually the reality will set in for them and they may go in the opposite direction, expecting that being quiet about it is the best recourse against sexual assault or is the more empowering choice but this may not be true either. People who can't accept that imperfections exist always look for a final solution and this leads them into "revolutions" whereas other people may see what is going on and seek a "center" that makes them immune to the percolations of these revolutions.

What this has to do with mindfulness meditation is that being "mindful" of yourself is really just a starting point. Just as people or the masses go through revolutions of thought, I think it is possible for individuals do the same thing on a smaller scale. Once you are mindful of yourself you might start to recognize your own revolutions of thought and learning to intercept, redirect or otherwise recognize such things might be a route towards real happiness. This is also what can make teleological analysis useful because it can give a person insight into what they really value as a human being instead of merely accepting whatever the television or liberal arts professors told them they should value.

[ness31]

Hong Wu, I tried, but I simply do not understand what you’re saying

[Potemkin]

That's because you're reading it wrong, ness31. Once you accept that Hong Wu isn't writing any sort of rational discourse about a shared reality, then you can read his posts as what they really are. Hong Wu has created his own fictional world, populated by exotic creatures from myth and legend such as "liberals" or "SJWs", and he has woven a rich and fascinating tapestry out of his own fantasies about these mythological creatures. There is Tolkien's Middle-earth, there is George R.R. Martin's Westeros, and there is "Hong Wu World".

[SolarCross]

That's because you're reading it wrong, ness31. Once you accept that Hong Wu isn't writing any sort of rational discourse about a shared reality, then you can read his posts as what they really are. Hong Wu has created his own fictional world, populated by exotic creatures from myth and legend such as "liberals" or "SJWs", and he has woven a rich and fascinating tapestry out of his own fantasies about these mythological creatures. There is Tolkien's Middle-earth, there is George R.R. Martin's Westeros, and there is "Hong Wu World".

Liberals and SJWs do exist though. They are certainly more real than the fantasy characters that populate your imaginary mindscape.

[Hong Wu]

That's because you're reading it wrong, ness31. Once you accept that Hong Wu isn't writing any sort of rational discourse about a shared reality, then you can read his posts as what they really are. Hong Wu has created his own fictional world, populated by exotic creatures from myth and legend such as "liberals" or "SJWs", and he has woven a rich and fascinating tapestry out of his own fantasies about these mythological creatures. There is Tolkien's Middle-earth, there is George R.R. Martin's Westeros, and there is "Hong Wu World".

I wrote this for a different audience than most of PoFo and I think in some ways, including SJW hate muddled one of the messages I was trying to send.

A vice I have that I've struggled with is computer game addiction. I believe that through observational meditation and recognizing the cycles of thought and behavior that I go through, I've made headway against that kind of addiction, which is a subtle one since it isn't the same as a drug addiction. In doing so I noticed something else that's really interesting and I may rewrite this later so that is clearer; if I don't play computer games in an obsessive, compulsive, borderline neurotic way, I don't enjoy them very much. This lead me to a very interesting realization: it may be the addiction itself that I like and not even the games all that much. I think that says something very interesting about me (and therefore perhaps people in general) from a psychological or metaphysical sense (in the context of mania).

[johndogooder91]

I think this is the key characteristic of naturally obsessive people. Their way of functioning in life is based on obssesively performing tasks, pursuing ideals or achieving goals (whatever those may be).
It's not that something may or may not be addictive in itself, it's the very brain of the subject that functions through obsession.

[Hong Wu]

I think this is the key characteristic of naturally obsessive people. Their way of functioning in life is based on obssesively performing tasks, pursuing ideals or achieving goals (whatever those may be).
It's not that something may or may not be addictive in itself, it's the very brain of the subject that functions through obsession.

Does sound like me

[ness31]

I wrote this for a different audience than most of PoFo and I think in some ways, including SJW hate muddled one of the messages I was trying to send.

A vice I have that I've struggled with is computer game addiction. I believe that through observational meditation and recognizing the cycles of thought and behavior that I go through, I've made headway against that kind of addiction, which is a subtle one since it isn't the same as a drug addiction. In doing so I noticed something else that's really interesting and I may rewrite this later so that is clearer; if I don't play computer games in an obsessive, compulsive, borderline neurotic way, I don't enjoy them very much. This lead me to a very interesting realization: it may be the addiction itself that I like and not even the games all that much. I think that says something very interesting about me (and therefore perhaps people in general) from a psychological or metaphysical sense (in the context of mania).

Lol, well this is all very different to you OP. This I get I think johndogooder pretty much summed it up. Maybe you’re addcited to the feeling of achievement? Ambition is a double edged sword

[Hong Wu]

Lol, well this is all very different to you OP. This I get I think johndogooder pretty much summed it up. Maybe you’re addcited to the feeling of achievement? Ambition is a double edged sword

It certainly is

[Victoribus Spolia]

I've noticed a trend wherein "New Right" or "Alt-Right" individuals will try to win arguments through teleology instead of through tradition. What I mean by this is if someone makes arguments that are synonymous with what I'm going to call the "new left", for example "white people need to die" the response is often something like "wanting to live is rational, right?" Or if the slightly more moderate "white people need to stop breeding" line is used, the response might be "wanting to continue to exist is rational, right?"

I think these are teleological arguments because they extrapolate our behaviors and desires (or, at least, a justification for them) from basic observations about the way the world works and what conclusions a person can draw from those observations. I think following such a thought process is both normal and reasonable (those on the "new left" might disagree) and the similarities between different traditions are probably attributable to the fact that teleology is a common starting point for philosophy or religion of any kind.

I will be speaking mostly of the "Alt.Right" when talking about the "New Right" as you mentioned, since your example which implies an objection to "White Genocide" seems more fitting to this group.

I would say the new right clings to teleology instead of tradition for its ethical justifications because it is a comparably irreligious movement that is sadly ignorant of its own tradition (pun intended). Likewise, they feel, deep-down-inside, that they can appeal to the better nature of the dominant left by an appeal to what they think the left sincerely subscribes to as a universal value: the right to life, or to exist.

The problem is that nihilism is no respecter of values, especially those claimed to be universal. The Left never really held to any universal values, it only ever invoked them for pragmatic purposes, but the less Christian the west becomes the less useful an appeal to a universal-anything likewise becomes.

The unfortunate thing is that the New Right is part of this rootless, post-Christian, nihilistic west. Its members don't recall any robust traditions or traditionalism. Many of the members of the new right are or were atheistic or non-religious and many of them are former-libertarians (which is a very anti-traditional philosophy).

Ultimately, though there is a degree of ignorance and stubborness on the New Right that poses for it problems that I don't see being easily resolved.

1. They are ignorant of the spiritual theories of race and being espoused by some of the greatest thinkers of the Far-Right, such Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler. Rather, the New Right has got itself into a paranoid tailspin about Jews that ultimately shifts the blame from the decadence of westerners to the god-like power of this particular demographic (a similar paradigm to that used on the left, only in their model the world-oppressor is white not Jewish).

Further, they have subscribed to a purely genetic theory of race that not only creates problems for themselves (logically speaking), but does not allow for any possibility of racial redemption.

Under such conditions, they preclude the possibility of grappling with the question of how to justify, morally, their political philosophy other than by teleology. Tradition is NOT a defining characteristic of the existence of man in general and peoples in particular for the New Right, Race is. This is the problem.

2. They are ignorant of what qualifies as a traditional justification and disagree on which tradition ought to stand as an ultimate authority.

the problem with this is that the New Right is utterly schizophrenic. It cannot decide whether to be atheist, neo-pagan, catholic, protestant, or pantheist. AS soon as one alt.right guy argues for one tradition as a metaphysical foundation for his ethical claims, another alt.right guy will get pissed off and start a rant about how Odin was white and Jesus was a Jew, so thats that.

Ultimately though, teleology cannot be sustained as the method of justifying one's political movement today. Only by tying oneself to Tradition as a necessary metaphysical starting place in light of relativism, can only justify ones ethical positions in the context of the Far-Right.

On this strain, I believe the New-Right could learn a lot from the school of Presuppositionalism in Christian apologetics, which argues that a Christian worldview as presented in its Holy Texts, serves as the transcendental precondition of all intelligbility and morality. They would argue that without believing in their presuppositons (Christian theism) that no one could believe anything (relativism).

This sort of reasoning could be expanded to include tradition in general, and would serve as a much stronger and more sophisticated argument than the current teleological justifications currently in vogue.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

[Hong Wu]

I will be speaking mostly of the "Alt.Right" when talking about the "New Right" as you mentioned, since your example which implies an objection to "White Genocide" seems more fitting to this group.

I would say the new right clings to teleology instead of tradition for its ethical justifications because it is a comparably irreligious movement that is sadly ignorant of its own tradition (pun intended). Likewise, they feel, deep-down-inside, that they can appeal to the better nature of the dominant left by an appeal to what they think the left sincerely subscribes to as a universal value: the right to life, or to exist.

The problem is that nihilism is no respecter of values, especially those claimed to be universal. The Left never really held to any universal values, it only ever invoked them for pragmatic purposes, but the less Christian the west becomes the less useful an appeal to a universal-anything likewise becomes.

The unfortunate thing is that the New Right is part of this rootless, post-Christian, nihilistic west. Its members don't recall any robust traditions or traditionalism. Many of the members of the new right are or were atheistic or non-religious and many of them are former-libertarians (which is a very anti-traditional philosophy).

Ultimately, though there is a degree of ignorance and stubborness on the New Right that poses for it problems that I don't see being easily resolved.

1. They are ignorant of the spiritual theories of race and being espoused by some of the greatest thinkers of the Far-Right, such Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler. Rather, the New Right has got itself into a paranoid tailspin about Jews that ultimately shifts the blame from the decadence of westerners to the god-like power of this particular demographic (a similar paradigm to that used on the left, only in their model the world-oppressor is white not Jewish).

Further, they have subscribed to a purely genetic theory of race that not only creates problems for themselves (logically speaking), but does not allow for any possibility of racial redemption.

Under such conditions, they preclude the possibility of grappling with the question of how to justify, morally, their political philosophy other than by teleology. Tradition is NOT a defining characteristic of the existence of man in general and peoples in particular for the New Right, Race is. This is the problem.

2. They are ignorant of what qualifies as a traditional justification and disagree on which tradition ought to stand as an ultimate authority.

the problem with this is that the New Right is utterly schizophrenic. It cannot decide whether to be atheist, neo-pagan, catholic, protestant, or pantheist. AS soon as one alt.right guy argues for one tradition as a metaphysical foundation for his ethical claims, another alt.right guy will get pissed off and start a rant about how Odin was white and Jesus was a Jew, so thats that.

Ultimately though, teleology cannot be sustained as the method of justifying one's political movement today. Only by tying oneself to Tradition as a necessary metaphysical starting place in light of relativism, can only justify ones ethical positions in the context of the Far-Right.

On this strain, I believe the New-Right could learn a lot from the school of Presuppositionalism in Christian apologetics, which argues that a Christian worldview as presented in its Holy Texts, serves as the transcendental precondition of all intelligbility and morality. They would argue that without believing in their presuppositons (Christian theism) that no one could believe anything (relativism).

This sort of reasoning could be expanded to include tradition in general, and would serve as a much stronger and more sophisticated argument than the current teleological justifications currently in vogue.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Excellent post, I agree with you almost completely and I was beginning to worry there was no one left on PoFo who would even understand what I was trying to say.

Although I agree with your analysis, the problem is that we have no idea how to attach to a tradition that (for most of us) is not there, the mere discussion of which brings the left's wrath down upon you. I think tradition is clearly superior but sometimes a teleology that deconstructs the left's claimed values from the inside is all we have to work with.

The alt/new right's teleology is probably flawed if we paid enough attention to it but no one does because in doing so, they would have to deconstruct liberalism as well. As a result it puts the left into a defensive crouch, where all they can really do is shout about racism and this gives some people breathing room and a sense of probity that might otherwise have been denied to them in the more liberal/leftist environments.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Although I agree with your analysis, the problem is that we have no idea how to attach to a tradition that (for most of us) is not there, the mere discussion of which brings the left's wrath down upon you. I think tradition is clearly superior but sometimes a teleology that deconstructs the left's claimed values from the inside is all we have to work with.

Well, like i said, part of the problem is that the new right needs to have some real self-reflection about what represents the "unifying tradition" of western civilization. I have been fairly transparent that it should be Latin Christianity at the very least (which includes both protestantism and catholicism). Until the movement can make this decision, it is going to be stuck in a very self-destructive whirlpool of its own making.

I would personally identify as the New Right as it is currently manifested and have broken with Alt. Right for the reasons i outlined and more because they could not tolerate my views any longer and not so much because I wanted to leave.

The alt/new right's teleology is probably flawed if we paid enough attention to it but no one does because in doing so, they would have to deconstruct liberalism as well. As a result, it puts the left into a defensive crouch, where all they can really do is shout about racism and this gives some people breathing room and a sense of probity that might otherwise have been denied to them in the more liberal/leftist environments......"the problem is that we have no idea how to attach to a tradition that (for most of us) is not there, the mere discussion of which brings the left's wrath down upon you."

as far as the left's wrath, and flaws in our teleology, I have started to notice that they have adapted quite well to the "white genocide" "white lives matter" "right to national self-determination" arguments and quite quickly.

1. For the former, they have accurately labeled this as being of mostly of own device (something the Alt.Right blames exclusively on the Jews). If we bring up white genocide or the disappearance of white peoples, they respond with: "well why aren't you having more babies then?" or "why do your women prefer kebab cock" etc, etc.

2. They respond to the middle argument by turning the snowflake accusation against us, and to be honest, some alt.right commentators had warned this would happen if we started to use leftist tactics back at them with our own victim narrative, and ultimately, this white-lives-matter kind of argument is based on a misunderstanding of marxist thought and therefore does not impress anyone of the left, for, at the end of the day, they would say that: "no one contends the value of white life, your being a little bitch, and there is no comparison between your privelage and your oppressor-status and the status and victim-history of blacks etc., so fuck you." We have seen this manifest on "Is It Okay To Be White" Poll.

3. Regarding the latter argument, they seem less prepared, but we have not thought it out ourselves. if we advocated for a campaign for all whites to move to Antarctica, death valley, or the Falkland islands (at best) we might actually get a hearing, but anyone advocating for a white or western homeland is advocating for it in the west and therefore the debate devolves back into talks of immigration and refugees and stalls out.

The problem with going to arguments about tradition is that they go back to philosophical arguments regarding the nature of morality and society, as well as even the existence of God and the spiritual vitality of human beings, and I just don't think there are enough people on either the right or the left that have been educated enough to go down that road, never mind the disunity on those questions that exists on both sides.

This is partly why I have begun to blaze my own trail based on my unique takes (though I do think they are the most historical).

[Hong Wu]

Well, like i said, part of the problem is that the new right needs to have some real self-reflection about what represents the "unifying tradition" of western civilization. I have been fairly transparent that it should be Latin Christianity at the very least (which includes both protestantism and catholicism). Until the movement can make this decision, it is going to be stuck in a very self-destructive whirlpool of its own making.

I was thinking earlier that although Christianity uses a tripartite definition of man, the vernacular western conception is of a more simple soul/body dualism. This has persisted and even been called Christian but I think that as Evola somewhat discusses, western Christianity as it is employed by most people is not really doctrinal Christianity, it is a hybrid that incorporates various western traditions into what is essentially a Jewish/Byzantine text. Once this tradition is lost, there is no contextual basis that can provide for a totally similar reconstruction of the western Christian tradition. Catholicism might present this since Jesuit logic is thorough but in a society that doesn't believe in souls in the first place, a soul/body or mind/body dichotomy is just not very relevant. Modern western society basically merges the mind and the body into one entity, which might have been okay in theory but obviously isn't working well in practice.

I would personally identify as the New Right as it is currently manifested and have broken with Alt. Right for the reasons i outlined and more because they could not tolerate my views any longer and not so much because I wanted to leave.



as far as the left's wrath, and flaws in our teleology, I have started to notice that they have adapted quite well to the "white genocide" "white lives matter" "right to national self-determination" arguments and quite quickly.

1. For the former, they have accurately labeled this as being of mostly of own device (something the Alt.Right blames exclusively on the Jews). If we bring up white genocide or the disappearance of white peoples, they respond with: "well why aren't you having more babies then?" or "why do your women prefer kebab cock" etc, etc.

2. They respond to the middle argument by turning the snowflake accusation against us, and to be honest, some alt.right commentators had warned this would happen if we started to use leftist tactics back at them with our own victim narrative, and ultimately, this white-lives-matter kind of argument is based on a misunderstanding of marxist thought and therefore does not impress anyone of the left, for, at the end of the day, they would say that: "no one contends the value of white life, your being a little bitch, and there is no comparison between your privelage and your oppressor-status and the status and victim-history of blacks etc., so fuck you." We have seen this manifest on "Is It Okay To Be White" Poll.

3. Regarding the latter argument, they seem less prepared, but we have not thought it out ourselves. if we advocated for a campaign for all whites to move to Antarctica, death valley, or the Falkland islands (at best) we might actually get a hearing, but anyone advocating for a white or western homeland is advocating for it in the west and therefore the debate devolves back into talks of immigration and refugees and stalls out.

The problem with going to arguments about tradition is that they go back to philosophical arguments regarding the nature of morality and society, as well as even the existence of God and the spiritual vitality of human beings, and I just don't think there are enough people on either the right or the left that have been educated enough to go down that road, never mind the disunity on those questions that exists on both sides.

This is partly why I have begun to blaze my own trail based on my unique takes (though I do think they are the most historical).

I think blazing your own trail is what it has to be right now.

Regarding your numbered arguments, I think regarding (2) the deconstruction of SJW leftism has been much more thorough than calling people snowflakes. If some of them want to call us snowflakes back, I have yet to see anyone get offended about that, whereas SJWs do get offended when someone calls them a snowflake and that says everything about that argument.

Regarding (1), the answer is probably to try and have more babies. In truth think there are lots of potentially good reasons for people to choose to not have children, the SJW's reasons just aren't among them.

Regarding (3), the creation of a white homeland is still generations away before it could be taken seriously. It might be taken seriously some day but at that point it would probably just involve moving further east into white countries that haven't accepted immigration. The difference for now is that eastern European and Russian "white" people are part of the Byzantine tradition, which is subtly different from the western white tradition but as the western white tradition continues to disappear, this distinction will probably fade as well.

[Rich]

Am I proud of our Medieval, Renaissance and Reformation history? Am I proud of the Arthurian ideal, the First crusade and Richard the Lionheart? You bet I am. Who can not be moved by the Cathedrals, the music, the piety? It was a great culture that could only have been produced by a great people.

But here's the problem, through Christianity we projected our greatness on to the Jewish God and we projected the evils of the Jews (Jerusalem was a den of corruption in the first century AD and even a lot of Jews recognised that) and Judaism back on to ourselves. We bought the lie of original sin. A lie invented by a jewish homosexual called Paul in order to justify his inability to live up to the Jewish law and allow him to spiritualise his homosexual sado-macsochistic fantasies by contemplating a naked man on a cross. The loin cloth was an anachronistic iconographic innovation introduced by a later heterosexual Christian man. And that has left us open to Cultural Marxism which is nothing more than a secularised version of the dogma of original sin.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I was thinking earlier that although Christianity uses a tripartite definition of man, the vernacular western conception is of a more simple soul/body dualism.

I am going to go ahead and clarify this, I don't think you are a theological guy, so don't take this as instigating an argument, but as someone heavily trained in theology, I just wanted to set the record on this.

Latin Christianity does not, on the whole, hold to a tripartite definition of man (technically called trichotomy in theological circles), that view has been presented mainly in mainstream evangelicalism through charismatic theological traditions such as Pentecostalism, especially since such mystic groups believe in a "spirit" nature of man that is supra-rational. Calvinism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism (the big three of historic protestant bodies) and traditional Catholics are all dichotomous:

Augustine's immense influence on the history of Western Christian thought, in form and content, swayed decisively the decision for the dichotomous view of man. Heard says, "the authority of Augustine decided the course of the Western Church in rejecting the distinction as mystical, and tending to deprave the doctrine of man's fall and corruption." [54] George S. Hendry in a chapter entitled, The Holy Spirit and the Human Spirit, concludes that "the denial of a created spirit in man, both in ancient and in modern theology, is bound up with a one-sided, Augustinian conception of grace."[55]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_(theology)

Here is also a great theological introduction to the Christian view of humanity, that also discusses other issues such as the origin of the soul, I think you will like it.

https://www.theopedia.com/humanity

This has persisted and even been called Christian but I think that as Evola somewhat discusses, western Christianity as it is employed by most people is not really doctrinal Christianity, it is a hybrid that incorporates various western traditions into what is essentially a Jewish/Byzantine text.

To be honest, much of Evola's "bones" with Christianity stem from the Papacy's clear consolidation of power during the investiture controversy and his critique of Protestantism (mainly Calvinism) stems from the fact that such was rationalistic (anti-traditional) in many ways and adopted a merchant-class mentality over-and-against a support of natural hierarchy (I am a former Calvinist as well as formerly Alt. Right. I am now Lutheran and New Right) . Both of these criticisms are valid ones, just as Nietzsche's critique of late Victorian Christianity's tendencies towards glorifying weakness for weakness-sake (the roots of liberalism in Christianity) were also valid in their time (though Christians began to see these issues too, see J Gresham Machen's classic work: "Christianity and Liberalism")

Once this tradition is lost, there is no contextual basis that can provide for a totally similar reconstruction of the western Christian tradition.

I tend to agree with this, but see some optimistic predictions coming from Far-Right thinkers. Firstly, Evola would argue that we are going through the Kali Yuga (the age of Kali), he is referring, obviously, to Hindu thought here, but argues that the time of demonic "feminine" is upon us and that out this night, will arise the sun and a return to a masculine age of traditionalism.

Oswald Spengler likewise makes this argument, but his cyclical model is slightly different, he is arguing that there will be a "second religiousness" arising contemporaneously with Caesarianism. With the fall of democracy there will be second religiousness that will coincide with the imperial system's attempt to revive traditionalism in order to revive imperial power. There was a pagan revival, for instance, in ancient Rome, under the Caesars as well as traditional morality, but these were somewhat state-initiated and enforced. I think Spengler is right that this will occur in the west, but the traditional religion that will be revived in the west will undoubtedly be Christianity just as it was paganism in ancient Rome.

There are already signs that Christianity is moving towards a questioning of the Catholic-Protestant divide even among conservative Christians who tend to be the most sectarian on doctrinal points. For more on these trends see: Peter Leihart's The End of Protestantism. Likewise, it has been the very conservative Christian population in the United States that has embraced the full-quiver movement of opposition to birth control (I myself oppose contraception on biblical, historical, and logical grounds----see my thread I recently started in Ethics.)

To me, there is evidence that people are losing faith in scientific authority as an ultimate authority for all of life and are returning to an interest in religious dogmatism. Science cannot compel people to have children or not have children, science cannot tell us whether butter or margarine, coffee, wine, or carbs are healthy or not-healthy (this seem to change every couple of years), the lay person does not know whether to believe in climate change or not), you have bill nye arguing for a scientific basis for many genders contrary to the common sense of most folks, people are confused and exhausted by being lead every which way and like the sheep most people naturally are, they are looking for an authority. Nihilism does this to people because people must have something to rule their lives. Democracy and irreligious individualism are unnatural to man.

There will be a coming strong-man and there will be a coming second religiousness that will almost invariably be a form of post-denominational and Traditionalist Latin Christianity. We just need to prepare for it.

I think blazing your own trail is what it has to be right now.

Thanks. I hate being on my own though, in some ways. But hey, gotta Ride The Tiger somehow right?

Regarding your numbered arguments, I think regarding (2) the deconstruction of SJW leftism has been much more thorough than calling people snowflakes. If some of them want to call us snowflakes back, I have yet to see anyone get offended about that, whereas SJWs do get offended when someone calls them a snowflake and that says everything about that argument.

Regarding (1), the answer is probably to try and have more babies. In truth think there are lots of potentially good reasons for people to choose to not have children, the SJW's reasons just aren't among them.

Regarding (3), the creation of a white homeland is still generations away before it could be taken seriously. It might be taken seriously some day but at that point it would probably just involve moving further east into white countries that haven't accepted immigration. The difference for now is that eastern European and Russian "white" people are part of the Byzantine tradition, which is subtly different from the western white tradition but as the western white tradition continues to disappear, this distinction will probably fade as well.

Good points, I agree completely with #1 and am practicing it myself (got five so far), and #3 is not out of the question, and as far as #2, I just think we should avoid victim-narratives, they are dumb and project weakness. I just think we are better than that.

[Victoribus Spolia]

But here's the problem, through Christianity we projected our greatness on to the Jewish God and we projected the evils of the Jews (Jerusalem was a den of corruption in the first century AD and even a lot of Jews recognised that) and Judaism back on to ourselves. We bought the lie of original sin. A lie invented by a jewish homosexual called Paul in order to justify his inability to live up to the Jewish law and allow him to spiritualise his homosexual sado-macsochistic fantasies by contemplating a naked man on a cross. The loin cloth was an anachronistic iconographic innovation introduced by a later heterosexual Christian man. And that has left us open to Cultural Marxism which is nothing more than a secularised version of the dogma of original sin.

This pile of uniformed crap is the reason the alt. right is fracturing as all far-right movements have fractured.

I have personally been of the opinion that Far-Right Christians have been too tolerant of neo-pagans, but neo-pagans have zero problem punching right and acting intolerant towards Christians in the movement which shows a weak commitment to the common cause (if there is even a common cause anymore) and usually ignorance towards Christianity in its orthodox manifestation. Perhaps Christians should start rethinking the virtues of burning-at-the-stake.

1. The Greatness of The West was intellectually not possible without the Christian Worldview. This worldview gave greater theological justification to the expansive energy of the nordo-germanic tribes than they had in themselves and also served to preserve the greatest elements of Roman thought as well as encapsulated as dogma the doctrines of Just War and the divine right of kings. This has been noted by far right thinkers like Oswald Spengler himself in the Decline of the West, volume one, where he argues that it was doctrines like original sin and the doctrine of Eucharist (which is tied to the doctrine of original sin) that represented the prime-symbol of infinity implicit in western epistemology.

2. The Greatness of God is grounded in His Power and His Necessity ( I will be posting my proof for the existence of God in the future on PoFo). The Trinitarian God of Christianity was rejected by the Jews and the Jews are being punished for this (Romans 11), Indeed, the hardening of the Jews and their hostility towards europeans is because the Europeans have been uniquely blessed by Christianity. This interpretation of Romans 11 was the most common in the early and medieval church and was well articulated by Martin Luther himself in his work "The Jews And Their Lies." The fallenness of the Jews stemming from their apostasy from the true faith, (which according to Scripture is pre-Jewish and was universally common before the corruption of the fall) is a theological dogma of orthodox Christianity . Christianity has been the traditional religion of the entire west for over a thousand years and over 1500 years for many place and to say that Christianity or the God of Christianity is fundamentally Jewish is asinine. The Pro-Israel Christians in America are part of Dispensationalism which did not exist until John Nelson Darby in the 19th century. Historic Christianity views the gentiles of the faith to be the true and only true people of God.

3. The doctrine of Original Sin was developed in the Old Testament in Genesis 3. St. Paul argued from this Old Testament doctrine for the universal evil of all mankind. St. Paul was opposed to Homosexuality. He argued that it was a vile and unnatural abomination in Romans 1 and reiterated the Old Testament view that such was worthy of death in the same chapter. To say he was pro-homosexual is an absurdity of the highest degree and not based on any element of rational argument from scripture. Likewise, St. Paul's own celibacy was for the purpose of advancing Christianity in a dangerous climate, not because of any sexual orientation. Indeed, he himself argues that he has a right to take a Christian woman as a wife (as other apostles had wives, such as St. Peter) and this notion of abstaining from women for a greater cause is reflected in Far-Right thought as a virtue (See Julius Evola's The Metaphysics of Sex).

4. That Marxism and Cultural Marxism, appropriated traditional Christian concepts has less to do with any flaws in Christianity and more to do with the fact that men cannot help but conceptualize in light of those prior concepts that under-gird the form-language of their civilization. For instance, late pagans who were decadent and immoral were rarely atheists and others invoked paganism to support their immorality and pedophilia etc., does this mean that Paganism is inherently decadent? Not necessarily, it just means that people use the cultural language of their civilization to justify their wickedness. Similarly, climate change is justified as an eschatological event not unlike Christianity's end of days and I also agree that "white-privilege" is used as an original sin concept, but this is because man can never be truly original and adopts and appropriates concepts for his own ends. This does not mean, however, that the appropriated concept is wrong or that it is the logical source of the new concept that is generated from such an appropriation? No.

If Far-Right thinkers like Spengler and Evola are to be believed, and if reproductive trends continue as they are, than any future of the European west will not and cannot be had without a revived orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Latin Christianity is the ground of nearly all western traditions and ideas, it has been the historic faith of Europeans for between 1,000 and 1,500 years, and the only white people in the west that are reproducing, as groups, beyond the replacement level, are religious Christians, especially bible-believing evangelicals.

Attacking this group is destructive to a Pan-European Nationalism, not constructive. Remember that.

[Hong Wu]

Sometimes I hope that the current pope is only playing nice in order to make it clear that this has failed. A more unified Latin Christianity is certainly an appealing idea and I can imagine it possibly taking within a few more generations due to reproductive trends being what they are.

Something I used to point out a lot is that for all of the anger directed by the left against the "old white people who need to die", most SJWs are white and once they are old, childless and incomprehensible to a new generation that will exist decades from now, they'll probably get to hear the same things they've been saying to other people.

Having never had a family life, having no young and vital people interested in what they have to say, after a lifetime of refusing debate, their reactions will be pretty cringe-worthy in the rare cases where we'll see them.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Sometimes I hope that the current pope is only playing nice in order to make it clear that this has failed.

I think he is a genuine cuck and I am not a fan of the papacy anyway.

A more unified Latin Christianity is certainly an appealing idea and I can imagine it possibly taking within a few more generations due to reproductive trends being what they are.

Something I used to point out a lot is that for all of the anger directed by the left against the "old white people who need to die", most SJWs are white and once they are old, childless and incomprehensible to a new generation that will exist decades from now, they'll probably get to hear the same things they've been saying to other people.

Having never had a family life, having no young and vital people interested in what they have to say, after a lifetime of refusing debate, their reactions will be pretty cringe-worthy in the rare cases where we'll see them.

Agreed. The time is coming, as long as they don't exterminate us first. I heard some pretty nasty stuff on PoFo that shows that some even on here want to banish me to the netherworld:

Tainari88 wrote:
Godstud, I already know that Vic character is a woman hater/insecure man. He is mean too. And with a huge ego. He is never going to be a 'better' human. He claims to be a Lutheran minister. If he is? Has a double life. Those kinds of men? I have a low bar of tolerance for them.

Religious, crude, mean, egomaniac, mysoginistic, racist tendencies if not outright racists, never want to read anything that contradicts their world view. Loves belittling people. No, Godstud, what they need is a good verbal thrashing by many many posters on PoFo all ganging up on him til he violates some rule and gets banned.

They don't quit with their tripe. Mrs. V. Spoila? If she has five kids she has her hands full keeping them clean, fed, bathed and on task. And her husband on the puter giving her orders? Who knows? Bad scenario. She is uneducated. I don't care what she types and what they claim. She has a style of just repeating what her husband says and she doesn't question anything. Sabra Dios lo que hay ahi? Who knows what there is there.

I really found it not nice that he talks about sexual activity that a woman does to a man...with such crudity and lack of respect. Especially with his wife posting. For me? That is a red flag of the worst sort.

Contraception thread? That whole scene was about the 'power' of his sperm. He never talks about how difficult it is for a woman to carry a fetus to term and have to watch her diet, what she takes for medicine if she gets sick while pregnant, the swollen hands and feet, and the effort and the patience and the problems. All she does to bring forth a new life. All he knows is the male bullshit thought of doing the heavy lifting. No, the male doesn't do the heavy lifting if he not aware how hard it is for women not only giving birth but the months afterward dealing with infants.

A sensitive caring husband does what Godstud does. He helps out and tries his best. He is respectful and involved and doesn't see her as inferior.

Godstud, those men are worthless as true partners in life. Maybe he makes money but who knows if she has to tell him all that she does with it and stroke his ego everyday about many things to get along. No one knows what happens in marriages Godstud. Only the two involved. One can only go by all that anti-woman hate speech Anarchist23 posted.

[Rich]

St. Paul was opposed to Homosexuality. He argued that it was a vile and unnatural abomination in Romans 1 and reiterated the Old Testament view that such was worthy of death in the same chapter. To say he was pro-homosexual is an absurdity of the highest degree and not based on any element of rational argument from scripture. Likewise, St. Paul's own celibacy was for the purpose of advancing Christianity in a dangerous climate, not because of any sexual orientation. Indeed, he himself argues that he has a right to take a Christian woman as a wife (as other apostles had wives, such as St. Peter) and this notion of abstaining from women for a greater cause is reflected in Far-Right thought as a virtue (See Julius Evola's The Metaphysics of Sex).

Exactly my point he turned a vice into a virtue. Look there are a very small number of people who are genuinely asexual. there's also a very small number of people who have strong sexual desires but are able to contain them and be chaste. Note Gandhi was not a member of the latter group. Those that claim to abstain from sex for the sake of the cause / spirituality should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

Its the oldest homosexual trick in the book. The best liars are those that can convince themselves. There was a reason Maxim Gorky said "Exterminate the homosexuals and fascism will vanish". Oh dear you only have to look at the top of our modern far right movements, they're overrun with homosexuals. That's probably why the far right has been such a failure in Britain, the anti establishment right was led by hetero-sexual (Nigel Farage).

Paul like his proto Christian for-runners and contemporaries believed in a Jesus who had been sacrificed in the heavens. This is most explicit in Hebrews (not a genuine) Pauline. Even the genuine Paulines it should be noted are not in their original form but have been cut and pasted together to produced the letters we have now. Paul's innovation was crucifixion, still in the heavenly realms. Later Christians emphasised Jesus' suffering Paul emphasises Jesus' humiliation. Later Christians inverted crucifixion into a glory from a humiliation. Hollywood created the same effect with Kirk Douglas in Spartacus.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Exactly my point he turned a vice into a virtue. Look there are a very small number of people who are genuinely asexual. there's also a very small number of people who have strong sexual desires but are able to contain them and be chaste. Note Gandhi was not a member of the latter group. Those that claim to abstain from sex for the sake of the cause / spirituality should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

He never claimed to be asexual, he claimed to be heterosexual and that his abstaining was for the purpose of ministry. And Just as Evola has argued, abstaining from sex is spiritually healthy to create a truly manly form of virtuous self-control. It is a lack of self-control that has led to men becoming enslaved to women by their wielding of their sexuality as a weapon. Heterosexuality is a virtue, and homosexuality is both damnable and a capital crime, ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL.

Its the oldest homosexual trick in the book. The best liars are those that can convince themselves. There was a reason Maxim Gorky said "Exterminate the homosexuals and fascism will vanish". Oh dear you only have to look at the top of our modern far right movements, they're overrun with homosexuals. That's probably why the far right has been such a failure in Britain, the anti establishment right was led by hetero-sexual (Nigel Farage).

What a bunch of unverifiable rubbish.

Paul like his proto Christian for-runners and contemporaries believed in a Jesus who had been sacrificed in the heavens. This is most explicit in Hebrews (not a genuine) Pauline. Even the genuine Paulines it should be noted are not in their original form but have been cut and pasted together to produced the letters we have now. Paul's innovation was crucifixion, still in the heavenly realms. Later Christians emphasised Jesus' suffering Paul emphasises Jesus' humiliation. Later Christians inverted crucifixion into a glory from a humiliation. Hollywood created the same effect with Kirk Douglas in Spartacus.

The authorship debate for Hebrews has good arguments for and against Pauline authorship, I would argue there is good reason to believe that Paul wrote it because of various Greek grammatical constructions used in the work. The emphasis of Hebrews is heavenly because it discusses the fulfillment of the temple and priestly system with the ascension of Christ to the throne at the right hand of the Father.

Christ's humiliation and glorification must both be emphasized in His work on the cross and they are in both historic theology and the Scriptures. The doctrines of penal substitution and Christus Victor emphasize both.