Archive for May 1st, 2006

Loyalty is not Economically Rational

Never try to teach an anti that he should be loyal.

I remember a sitcom where he parents were appalled to find that their son was psychopath. They suddenly discovered that he couldn’t CARE if he hurt somebody.

What I loved was his common sense reply:

“You are saying I should feel bad when I hurt somebody? Why should I WANT that?”

This was statement of pure economic rationality, the position Ayn Rand took.

He was perfectly correct.

If one is born without loyalt in a society where loyalty is a mortal sin, why on earth should one want to be otherwise?

The anti has no feeling for his own race whatsoever.

He certainly has nothing to GAIN by having any such loyalty.

You can never persaude anybody that a feeling for the survival of your kind is something they should WANT.

A conscience is a burden.

If they don’t have this burden, why should they WANT it?



Race-Based Education

I talk about the heredity industry below.

There is another one developing which will provide us with an invaluable source of support.

Right now, sex-based education is gaining a great deal of ground. Sex-basd education calls for the segregation of male and female children in school.

One of the articles essential for salvation in the faith of Political Correctness since the 1970s has been that what we call “girls” are just children who were forced to play with dolls as children and what we call “boys” were the children who were forced to play with toy guns.

I wish this were an overstatement, but it isn’t.

They BELIEVED that crap!

But sex-based education isn’t just a theory, it’s a BUSINESS. Like education and welfare, it is becoming an INDUSTRY. Those in this industry, whether it is professors writing articles advocating it or teacherws specializing in it, constitute a major and increasing force for heresy inside Political Correctness.

Premise Checker, who knows all this, introduced me to a new potential industry: RACE-based education.

The reason “There is no such as race” is statement required of all professors is because the old idea that everybody is the same under the skin is just plain GONE.

Lately reviewers have noticed that Jensen and Rushton are published in major journals and not a peep of protest is made. The fundamental innate differences between races has ceased to be a matter of debate.

So the innate differences are now at least tacitly admitted, so all that is left is to say that it isn’t really RACIAL because race doesn’t exist.

By the way, since they lost the battle over the importance of heredity versus the important of environment, Politically Correct people today also insist that there is no scuh thing as heredity or environment.

When they had a case, they debated the relative importance of heredity and environment. Now that they’ve lost the debate, they say that the idea of heredity and enviroment is “simplistic.”

Normally when the Poliically Correct establishment admits it has lost a debate by saying that the debate never existed, everyody just lets that sleeping dog lie.

But race is now understood to be real. This would not matter so much if there were not articles to be written on it. This would not matter if there was not MONEY to be spent on it.

Buit blacks learn differently from whites, and there is now room for specialists to address that reality.

For one thing, as anybody who has heard Rap “Music” knows, blacks learn by ear, whereas whites tend to learn more by eye.

This has been pointed out repeatedly by Evil Racists, but now educators who want a job and a speciality are beginning to notice its importance.

Race-based education is not really segregation by a different name. The fact is that we segregated blacks because we assumed that “black education” was an oxymoron and any money spent on educating blacks was a waste of the miniscule amount of money the South had to educated whites.

To give them credit, those who want race-based education are really interested in black education.

But in my world this is not important. Now that we are richer, I don’t mind if blacks get education money as long as “black education” is not used the way the NAACP used it, as an excuse to destroy the white race.

If I were black and I thought that blacks were actually equal, I would think that anyone who was using them merely as a weapon against white gentiles would be about the nastiest insult anybody could come up with.

But it never surprised me in the slightest that blacks never thought of this, because it never occurred to me that blacks were CAPABLE of thinking that way.

Their leaders obviously agree with me. And blacks worship their leaders.

If you think black education is important, race-based education makes sense.

And here we have a whole industry dedicated to the proposition that race is important. Here we have an whole industry dedicated to the proposition that blacks are not just a weapon to use against the white race, but a group with its own characteristics.

In fact, race-based education says that blakcs are not only NOT just little white people whose job is to Harry Belafonte the white race out of existence, but a group with its own contribution to make.

Which makes race-based the enemy of the enemies of our existence.

Which makes them, though they wouldn’t want me to say so, makes them my friends.



The Heredity Industry

My first book in my own name was, “A Plague on Both Your Houses.”

One of the basic themes of “Plague” was that liberalism was based on the biggest industry in America, what I called “the education-welfare establishment.” So social science professors who teach about heredity and environment belong to an industry, education, sociology, psychology, etc., whose only product is environment VERSUS heredity.

When the education-welfare establishment first got started it was the pet puppy of the capitalist ruling class. Camuses were conservative because that is where their money came from. When William Jennings Bryan ran on an anti-capitalist platform in 1896 the students at Hearvard tioted when he tried to speak on campus, just as Mommy Professor’s pet “revolutionaries” riot to keep Jensen or anyone else who talks about heredity off of their campuses today.

Today there is another industry devloping, the HEREDITY industry. Right genetic study on campus is the pet puppy of the social scientists. Just as professors at the turn of the century swore their loyalty to big business, the geneticist who wants to be allowed on campus swears that there is no such thing as race, that the programs of social science make perfect sense.

But it will not be long before people begin to CHOOSE the genes of the children they have. Power and money will flow to the new HEREDITY Industry.

Just as the social scientists did to businessmen, the pet puppy in their lap will bite social scientists in the crotch and become their enemies.


1 Comment

Mere Christianity

I stole the above title from the title of a book by CS Lewis that I have read several times.

I don’t mind stealing it from him because he stole it from Queen Elizabeth I.

Queen Elizabeth, who spoke fluent Latin, French, Welsh and a couple of other tongues, proudly referred to herself as “mere English.” Only if you understand the historical context do you understand what a radical statement this was.

All the other monarchs thought of themselves as monarchs first and monarchs only. The King of Spain was a King who happened to be in Spain. The King of France was a King who happened to be in France. Butit was taken for granted that the monarch was OWED loyalty fromt he state he ruled. He OWED a fellow Frenchman no more loyalty than he owed his subjects in Haiti.

Queen Elizabeth said she owed LOYALTY to the English because SHE was English. They responded by being fanatically loyal to her.

So when CS Lewis used the term “Mere Christianity” he did not explain it. He expected that those who could understand WOULD understand.

Peter and I have been discussing the difference between Christianity loaded down with all the baggage every church puts on it and the belief that Christ arose from the dead and gave us salvation.

So what if we cut all the crap and looked at what Jesus said. When I was young in the Bible Belt, the words of Jesus were in red.

Most of what Jesus said is lost. But what we have comes from a very carefully written first-century text, lost or burned, called “The Sayings of Our Lord.”

First, what if we cut the crap and read what he SAID.

Second, what if we cut the crap and read what he said for what he MEANT.

First of all, you don’t have to drive yourself nuts worrying about the fact that most of us are 99% atheist. Jesus kept urging us to have faith. When St. Thomas, the originial Doubting Thomas, had to stick his hand into the wound on Jesus’s side to believe in the Resurrection, Jesus didnot say, “Thomas you are damned for your doubts.”

Jesus said that Thomas was an Apostle, a SAINT, but that those who believed without putting their hand into their wound were even MORE blessed.

If I doubt, and I can’t put my hand into Christ’s wounds, am I therefore damned?

Not according to Christ. I am trying to be better than a saint. You don’t haev to be better than a saint to be saved, or Jesus will be very, very lonely up there.

Then you read the text for the things that Jesus HAD to say.

All the Old Testament fanatics keep quoting Jesus when he said he believed in the Old Testament.

When I point out that if he hadn’t said that, he would have lynched onthe spot, theologians say, That’s true, meanwhile….”

There is no “meanwhile.”

All my life in professional politics, in fact, all my life in society, I have had to repeat things that I either did not believe or did not care about. Seldom did I face people who would kill me onthe spot if I DIDN’T say those things.

So I sift through Jesus’s sayings, discounting what he HAD to say.

I get the idea that he wanted me to have SOME faith that he said I needed to follow TWO commandments.

There is absolutely nothing else THERE.

Jesus tried to tell us to be decent people and he wold save us.

If there is more to Christianity then I reject it totally.

Today in order to do unto others as I would have them do unto to me, there is nothing even vaguely in the same category as saving my race.

Not fetuses, not The Immaculate Conception of Mary, not Feeding the Hungry, who, UNLESS YOU USE WHITE TECHNOLOGY, we have with us always.

I am a Mere Christian.

If you ask for more, I will not give it.

If you ask for more, you do not understand the Faith.



Peter on Marcion

I hope that Peter understands that I agree with every word he says.

But I made the mistake of stating my doubts on the Traditional Christianity thread, and I got blasted for it with no answers.

Here are a couple of Peter’s comments, followed by my reply:

“Peter, when I say that, I am accused of both heresy and blasphemy.”

I don’t have any position to lose.

But actually your formula is wrong that God the Father = Jehovah.

The Septuagint (LXX) does not use the word Jehovah. LXX is the version of the Old Testament that is quoted in the New Testament. The manuscripts currently used in the West are about 1000 years newer (they’re Medieval). So any equation of God the Father is tentative and a modern innovation — at best .

All Christians do make a difference between Old Testament religion and the Christianity. Read Leviticus and find all the laws and commandments that Christians do not follow!

Groups that try to revive Old Testament religion and combine it with Christianity are rightly called “cults,” and they are typically controlling and psychologically harmful. Think about the Jehovah’s Witnesses. (You won’t find any of them in a pro-White site either, so don’t worry about offending them.)

Think about St. Paul’s virulent attacks against the “Judaizers.”

Even Biblical literalists are not literal with the Old Testament. For example, in the numerous passages stating that the enemies of the Israelites must be killed to a man, they say that the enemy must have committed some grave sin. But that is not what the passage says. That is a rationalization. And this rationalization becomes difficult when the Israelites are ordered to slay even the women and children, and sometimes the animals.

The same standard of literalism that can be applied to the New Testament is not applied to the Old. (Besides, even the Old Testament itself says that the Old Testament was lost or destroyed four times, which is why Ezra had to revive it — so, no one has the original Old Testament Urtext anywhere.)

The upshot is that the nature of deity in the Old Testament is not the same as the loving God in the New.

No one denies this.

Further, strictly speaking, God the Father in the New Testament is equivalent to El. El is cognate to Arabic ‘allah, meaning “god.”

Jesus equated God the Father with El on the Cross: Elohe, Elohe, lama sabachthani. Indeed this means “My God, my God…” In Christian theology, Jesus was speaking to God the Father.

Why did he not say “Jehovah” instead of El?

The answer is this. In the mythology of the Levant, Jehovah was a lesser being than the father god El and is an adopted son. Moreover, in the Old Testament, in the oldest Greek and Qumran Hebrew texts of a passage in Deuteronomy, Jehovah is again of lower status than El. This conclusion has become the consensus among Biblical scholars. There are many articles online on this.

By the way, this does not suggest any Christian polytheism (although it does suggest an ancient polytheism in the OT where there are still more names of other gods). To Christians, Christ was begotten of the Father before all worlds and is himself God.

The most that I have ever heard said is that “Jehovah” is an old Hebrew name for God. But there is more scholarship conflicting with that than what I refer to here.

To assume that all Christians equate God the Father, the first person of the Holy and undivided Trinity, to Jehovah is not right.

Comment by Peter

By the way, it may be time to reconsider the details of why Marcion was a heretic and blasphemer.

Marcion said a whole lot more than just that Jehovah was evil. Among this lot, he gutted the New Testament to just the Gospel of Luke, which he justified as being the one author that had never converted to Judaism before converting to Christianity. He also said that Jehovah was a Demiurge that created the world, in other words the world is inherently evil, not corrupted as in Christianity, and that God the Father is not the Creator.

Writers such as Elaine Pagels also note that early Christians likewise condemned Jehovah.

Roman Catholic heresiology is normally very reliable. But the acceptance of “Jehovah” as an old Hebrew name for God for Christian use came about only after Jerome replaced the ancient Septuagint Old Testament with the Medieval Masoretic texts that use the name prolifically. The eastern Church retained the Septuagint.

“Jehovah” does not appear in the texts that Jesus and the Apostles used. Origen included alternative Jewish texts that used “Jehovah” in his Hexapla in order to convert Jews by proving them wrong. Those texts using the word were examples of what Christians were not to hold as true.

Comment by Peter


Peter, I cannot imagine that you believe that Jehovah = The Father is MY position.

I have bored readers half to death here insisting that that is NOT my position.

Your description of Marcion is accurate. In fact, he even declared some of hte text of LUKE to be invalid, too.

It is correct that Marcion took the position that all life was evil. He wanted people not to reproduce at all.

But it never occurs to anybody to ask WHERE that concept came from. Like St. Paul Marcion could not have gotten that idea from the Old Testament or from Luke.

But nobody ever wants to discuss WHERE he and St. Paul got that “this world is entirely evil” Manicaean concept.

That concept was all around the Roman world when Paula nd Macion were alive. It was the position of degenerate Zoroastrianism.

How many professional theologians know ANYTHING about Zoroastrianism?

How can you be a professional theologian and NOT know about it?

I am stunned when people tell me this is somehow off our subject. The Christian-Zoroastrian hatred for life itself is exactly the problem we face today. It is basic to two thousand years of Western history.

And this leads us directly into the same problem we face today: How can a race that has evolved to the point that it questions the value of life itself survive when Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrian all devolved into methods of ending life itself?

The suicide complex we face today can be viewed as something new and alien. That approach negates the lessons of thousands of years of lessons from history.

Learn from history or repeat it.


1 Comment