This got me thinking about the book _Black Sea Sketches_ I got from “Chronicles” a few years back. The author, William Mills, mentions in passing that the bottom of the Black Sea is still fresh water (I’m going from memory). The first I’d ever heard of this was in some of Zecharia Sitchin’s stuff. He mentioned it as proof of the validity of “great floods,” particularly THE GREAT FLOOD. I didn’t make much of it at the time, but immediately took notice when Mills made the same comment in a “respectable” publication. (I suppose there are different levels of respectability, eh?) Anyway, Sitchin also makes a big deal in his cosmology about Mount Ararat. I actually couldn’t find it on the map until I read him–not that I’d been looking. I forget which one, but the view of Ararat from one of the Caucasus capitols is one of the most beautiful scenes on Earth. The picture is on the net somewhere. I wish I had a page reference from Mills’excellent book, but alas it has no index.

A Black Sea home is consistent with a lot of things, including the well known arrival of European peoples from the nebulous “Central Asia.” It also squares with the “Chinese” mummy discoveries. It never made sense to me that we would all and only have gone west.

Comment by CL — 12/20/2006 @ 10:32 pm | Edit This

To continue this stream of consciousness, let me also observe that when the Central Asia exodus is mentioned (which isn’t often), along with a complete lack of specific starting point (and thus complete lack of archeology, which is inexplicable) is a complete lack of reason. What passes as “explanation” is that we were run-out by some nasty pre-historic Ghengis Khan types. This is nonsense not just in retrospect, but in light of the logistics necessary to carry out such a move.

The Black Sea would fit all of this to a T.

Comment by CL — 12/20/2006 @ 10:45 pm | Edit This

Re Black Sea freshwater–

It’s the salt water at the bottom with some freshwater at the top (density, duh). I now think Mills was saying that there are freshwater fossils aplenty there–and that’s what was news to me.

Comment by CL

ME:

This is the kind of thinking that makes me happy. What I said reminded CL of some BASICS that had not geled in his mind.

I have a special problem here. If I were a Wordist trying to leave my WORDS to you, this would be easy. I would just quote Chapter 5, Verse 2 of Whitakerism. But hwat I really want is exactly what your entiure education has been dedicated to making you reject as a reflex action.

COMPLETE that line of thinking that you didn’t complete. Tie together things that do not tie together.

It was called THINKING FOR YOURSELF, and I am honestly terrified that it will die out with me.

And that last sentence made me tie two things together that others would not think of. We have been speaking of ourselves as a wolf pack. When my time as lead wolf is over, I want to be sure this pack is ready to he sicced on the “intellectuals.”

I want all the mental predation back in you that they leached out. You will be looking for the truth, the whole truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth. You will smell the stink in Truth. When you hunt the truth you hunt down our enemies.

Not Spam
Not Spam

This is absolutely fascinating. For one thing, no I’ve never come across it before. Things that I have been mulling over are these. St. Paul, we are told, was planning on going to Asia, but in a dream, a man from Macedonia appeared to him saying come over here and help us, so he went west. Acts something. I think there are reasons why history has gone the direction it has and it was Europe that became Christendom. And the Jews have always been trying to find a way there but stay apart.

Comment by Shari

ME:

Yes, I remember a short statement that the disciples were not to go to the East, but I read it when I did not know what “The East” meant to every literate person in that age and to no theologian today. You reminded me of it.

Paul was specifically forbidden to go where his own thinking came from!

And this, Paul B. should explain why I study THE GENERAL OUTLINES of religious thinking so closely. The theologians are lost in the forest, and the other people study tree bark and lichen. They discover a piece of lichen and build a church on it.

But if you step back and look at the general outline, you will see that St. Paul was considered a blessing by the Apostles, especially by Peter, when he first appeared, and for a reason that is straight out of AD 2007. Peter had heard the words of Christ, but here was a SCHOLAR, a Roman Citizen, who would attest to the truth.

And with Paul the intellectual came the disease that comes with scholars. Jesus had even cut the Ten Commandments down to two, but Paul imposed what whole intellectual Wordism of his day in the name of Christ. From absolutely NOWHERE he brought in the ideal of sterility from the dying and degenerate Zoroastrian faith. He took the infant Christ and turned him into a bitter old man.

Which, as I say, is news straight out of 2007 AD. Academia is carrying the poisons of Wordism to each new generation. If Christ had wanted book-fed, sophisticated Pauls to teach Intellectual Truth, he would not have said, “For thou art PETER, and upon THIS rock I will build my church.” Jesus’ Palestine was crowded with Scribes and Pharisees and every other version of Paul you could imagine.

Jesus hand-picked his disciples, carefully chosen men not one of whom was a scholar. He told them “I can make you fishers of men.” He said over and over and over and over and over to them the same words Doctor Bob, co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, said on his deathbed to Bill W: “Keep it SIMPLE.”

Jesus said again and again and again, “Keep it SIMPLE.” Be good. Love God. Be as good to your neighbor as you would be to yourself, which meant you should treat yourself well. As Pain points out, nobody can apply this today, least of all the churches.

A century after the death of Christ, men were out in the desert starving and thirsting and whipping themselves in his name. It never occurred to them that, if that was right and Jesus’ teachings were right, then they should be out torturing others.

According to a combination of St. Paul and the Golden Rule, the greatest “Christians” in history were Ghenghis Khan and Mao-Tse Tung, with Pol Pot getting big honors for how much he did with less.

But who is going to COMBINE the self-torture that began with St. Paul’s intellectual disease caught from degenerate Zoroastrianism with the Golden Rule? Where would you PUBLISH it?

OF COURSE you haven’t heard it before, Shari. Do you think I find this stuff in books?

Now some crotcheting from a crotchety old man to the rest of you: Don’t sit around grousing about whether or not you are a Christian. I don’t CARE. I am not a priest of any religion, least of all Ayn Rand’s militantly atheistic Objectivism.

That kind of stuff is a big deal with priests and followers of Ayn Rand, but I am not trying to give you a Wordism, I am trying to get your nose to the intellectual grindstone.

Don’t bitch at me about bringing up old ideas you aren’t interested in because you are enlightened. I don’t mind those comments, but they mean your mind is in a RUT.

My kind of thinking will die with me unless you folks get to BASICS.

KEEP IT SIMPLE.

1. NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
So Bob,
Have you noticed an increase in wordism among the people? or a rise in loyalty to institutions instead of what the institutions are supposed to do? or a loyalty to institutions as a distraction from the one issue of the age: race?
I some of my relatives claim loyalty to Jesus while turning a blind eye to the genocide our race faces — as if Jesus would approve of genocide. These people would say following Christ leads them to believe that thieves should be behind bars. But the far bigger problem of race has them running away in fear.
I think this means that their faith is weak. They think that there is nothing good they can do, so they do nothing good. They forget that Jesus came into our history to make things right, now. They know that Jesus commanded them to do good and to resist evil, but they somehow think this does not apply to the big issues.
But the big issue — race — is far more important than stopping thieves.
Comment by Pain —

ME:
“These people would say following Christ leads them to believe that thieves should be behind bars. But the far bigger problem of race has them running away in fear.”

Peter, you hit your second homer, and this is critical to me. You are reflecting the WAY OF THINKING that I have to give you. This is such a basic way of looking at things:
“But the far bigger problem of race has them running away in fear.”

That no one would see it in a hundred years. We end up arguing with anti-white religionists, but we always recognize them as representing religion because on the lesser issues they are obsessive and they wear those collars.
But, as C.S. Lewis said in “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” the best way to take a soul to Hell is a way with no turnings, no big decisions. The road to Heaven, to quote another source, is strait and narrow. The road to Hell down which these religionists are marching is wide and easy. Those 1940s bishops who started pushing interracial marriage knew very well what they were doing to future generations. But since they were preaching all the other good stuff, and they couldn’t be bishops unless they went along with it, they had no decision to make. The other people wearing miters were in the lead, so the road must lead where they should go.

So when Peter points out “Christians” cannot apply one of the grand total of two commandments Jesus gave them to the most important issue, they are NOT sincere Christians. They just believe, and I am NOT joking here, they just believe that God won’t NOTICE.

This is the WAY OF THINKING I am desperately trying to inculcate here. I am ridiculously delighted when someone states it this way and avoids the comments on today’s headlines.

Not Spam
Not Spam

Somehow the idea of choosing your children sounds so cold, although I’m not sure that’s what you mean. I have an idea that more white women will choose to take time to breastfeed because they WANT to rather than rush to a very important job. But not like the ninnies who try to make some political statement that they ought to act like the third world.

Comment by Shari —

ME:

The future always sounds cold. The idea of our sitting here talking to people we have met out of intellectual interest instead of lifelong town acquaintance or family ties would sound very odd to our forebears. The idea of having an instrument in your house on which anybody could ring a bell at you and demand your attention at any time was considered a major intrusion for a long time.

In the future, the idea of a couple of people having kids because they didn’t take precautions and having the boys half-castrated in our time will give us the kind of look bear-baiting gives the Middle Ages. The concept of two people determining their future children, not for the children, but because they are “in love” with each other will look childish crap it is. In other words, the future will begin to look at SOMETHING, at least ONE OR TWO things, from the future CHILDREN’S point of view.

Life is not just nurture. The children’s point of view also includes GENETICS. That is what the Traditional Values clowns absolutely refuse to discuss. At least a bigotted father gives some considertion tot he fact that his grandchildren could be ugly, unnatrural looking mulattoes. No Traditional Values type could care less about that. All that matter is that the coupel thinks it’s In Love and get a church ceremony.

Cold? There is nothing more deep freeze than what passes for a heart in Traditional Vlaues advocate. They love their rules and they couldn’t care less about humans. Anyone who gives a moment’s thought to the Golden Rules is labelled a Humanists because these Traditional Values types are too stupid to tell the difference between Wordist humanists who care as little about people as they do and people like me.

Right now the entire choice of children depends on how two people get along together, what kinds of “feelings”
they have for each other. That is all that matters. The children get no consideration at all except as a by-blow of a romance. And this is true even if the romance has a man in a dress waving his hands over the couple.

“Warm” and “cool” relations today have this thing that if a guy wears a dress and waves h is hands, it’s all good, and the “marriage” can be a sterile one, sterility agreed on by both parties.

One good that may come from all this gay marriage business is that we FINALLY begin to realize that one rigid, single kind of marriage will not do in a society if it plans to produce another generation.

I saw a pretty white girl and just one more black guy holding hands the other day and I was thinking that all that mattered to anybody but the children would be the guy that put on the dress and waved his arms. The children and their children and THEIR children and THEIR children must live with BEING the results that make no difference at all to somebody whose only concern is Traditional Values.

In earlier times a man had every right to beat his OWN wife at will. In our time, everybody has the right to have a relationship and, yawn, drop some kids if they feel like it.

Shari, if you saw today’s wonderful Traditional Values world as I do, “cold” would be a mild word for it.