From the point of view of Traditional True Morality, leftist or rightist, you do not exist.
Those who call themselves Pro-Life aren’t. They have not the slightest interest in future generations. Their interest is total and it is concentrated on the moment the sperm hits the egg. St Paul stated flatly that there shouldn’t BE any future generations.
So if you are wondering what the early Christians thought we should do, now you know.
Our established religion today has come to a similar conclusion. Traditional Morality said we produced sin. Political Correctness says we produce carbon. But the conclusion is the same.
The official British government report which recommended childlessness for all whites added, that it was the best thing we could do for our grandchildren, which is standard rhetoric on environmentalist propaganda.
Somehow I felt that there was something oxymoronic in there.
But when it comes to what I call genetic morality, of which no present religion has any, there was the one case where I completely withdrew from any further discussion right here in our own seminar. I had quoted St. Paul’s’ advice to unmarried women. He said that it would be best if they, like him, never engaged in the sexual act at all.
But, said Paul, if a woman is not strong enough to do what she should and be totally sterile, marriage was the only alternative: “It is better to marry than to burn.”
By “burn,” no one knows whether he was referring to the flames of desire or the flames of Hell. But the Church inherited the concept of Zoroastrianism in its degenerate phase that all sex was sinful. In fact, the present Pope and John Paul have restated that doctrine.
I got a bit of a surprise when SEVERAL of our blog people stated flatly that St. Paul was simply restating Traditional Family Values. If his advice were followed, there would be as few traditional Families, or ANY families, as there would be if the British Government’s environmental sterility program were carried out.
When a discussion really slips off the edge of sanity it is best to leave quietly.
#1 by Dave on 01/01/2010 - 7:24 pm
A white man’s tale:
Lucifer, the Angel of Light and the worshiper of silence and the greatest of all the Angels attempted to seduce Eve, the Angel of the Perfection of the Body.
But Eve chose Michael, the Angel of Creation, and Lucifer was thrown into an eternity of torment and loneliness.
Lucifer could not abide this abomination, this half-animal, half- Angel that Michael and Eve forged and he could not abide the shattering of silence.
Why exclaimed Lucifer to God, why this eternity of suffering, why this destruction of the beauty of silence?
There is no other way to create a race of Angels, answered God.
Angels cannot be created whole, for the only means to become an Angel is by learning what it means to yearn for the light. If it takes an eternity suffering for this abomination, this half-animal, half-Angel to learn what it means to yearn for the light, so be it. For one becomes an Angel only by learning what it means to yearn for the light.
Notice the tale doesn’t say: “One becomes an Angel by shedding one’s animal nature.”
The tale says: “One becomes an Angel by learning what it means to yearn for the light.”
Big difference.
That’s Odin and knowledge, not God and Knowledge. That is respect for truth, not Truth.
A non-white race could never embrace this distinction.