Donnadogsoth

How can I pin down raw spinal fluid? You're not really interested in solving problems, you're interested in your doctrine, which is based on your false principle of self-ownership. If you created something would you own it? Now, did you create yourself? So you are owned by Whatever created you. Your mind and body are on loan to you, they are not absolutely yours. I've already made my response to the essence of defending the West, which you evaded and ignored and willfully misunderstood because of your doctrine. Drop the Nietzschean act for a minute and try to understand what I am saying. Hammering away at the NAP is not the cure-all for the West's ills.

Evasive as usual. Do you think there is anything worth saving in Western civilisation? If so, what?

If your way of thinking hasn't caught on here of all places, which is more or less a bastion of pro-Trump thinkers from the top on down, for the sake of saving the West that you deride and degrade, what hope do you have for it ever catching on?

We should be trying to preserve our entire civilisation, not just our race. Our civilisation comprises culture, both material (race, sculpture, architecture) and immaterial (courtesy, language, religion). Other races here can and do participate in some of these things, but in sufficient strength alien races tend to displace them, including displacing the biological-artistic material culture of race. So in that sense destroying the White population is destroying the civilisation because the former is so deeply associated with the latter. Virtue is that which promotes the survival and happiness of Man. Promoting White survival promotes Western civilisation which promotes the survival and happiness of Man. So promoting White survival must be virtuous, if anything is virtuous. Promoting the false white guilt principle is directly opposite to virtue—it is a sin against the civilisation. Call that White Nationalism or call it being Conservative, so long as the Civilisation and its component elements are not destroyed by unlimited and hypocritical worship of Diversity.

Luke gives the account of the chief priests and the scribes testing Christ: 20:22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? 20:23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? 20:24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. Christ's interrogators lacked the wit to ask the obvious next question "What things be God's?" To which Christ would have answered "Whose image is on you?" These passages must be viewed in context. Caesar was to be served uncritically because Caesar was absolute power over which common men could do nothing. The Christian response was "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12) In other words, take over the Empire from within through converting the populace to Christianity. Up against the modern American State, thanks to Christianity we have much more liberty, but not total liberty. Arguments can be made that total liberty is a danger because it threatens to destroy all order and replace it with chaos, which in turn will lead to a yearning for order which will destroy all freedom. So we must be exceedingly careful about dismantling or worse ripping apart those structures that our Society is deeply interrelated with. The State needs limits, and democratically voting is one of those limitation mechanisms. To abstain from voting on principle of self-ownership, when no one created himself and therefore no one owns himself, is to forego all possibility of altering the course of leadership through the leader himself. Voting can become a game, a distraction from other efforts to delimit power, but it is not useless--if changing the opinion of the masses is possible then it is possible to change it through campaigning. And it is not immoral to help guide the Ship of State through voting.

Imagine you're in a Navy which has a culture of abuse extending all the way to the highest levels. You are promoted to Captain of your own vessel. Should you resign or should you do everything in your power to make your particular ship the best, most philosophically kind and rational in the Navy? You know that every other potential Captain is brutal at best, wicked at worst. Shouldn't you stay at your post and try to help the hapless sailors who are under your command? Did Snowden help make America great? Trump is flexible. He might come around to the understanding that WikiLeaks, and Snowden, helped him win.

The primary components of the alchahest taste BITTER and so, in order for it to be successfully administered from the loving spoon of the oligarchy it needs to be sweetened. And how sweet is our society? I argue it is the sweetest that there has ever been. We've got drugs beyond drugs, opiates, psychedelics, empathetics, stimulants, depressants, painkillers, you name it. We've got funny sex, 23 new types are developed every day. We've got social media to let you access all the funny sex. We've got advertisements salaciously selling hyperreal products as deftly as any glib-tongued Baghdad merchant. We've got unlimited music in such quantities, with such convenience, with such fidelity, with such quality of skilled craftsmanship and cleverly dripping hooks. We've got NASCAR Perfume and Haute coutoure Gewgaws and Billboards and Automobiles. We've got art galleries and Museums Colourful maps and Unlimited options for interior decorating. We've got bubblegum and Comic books and Silver screen and Multicultural cuisine. We've got cheap education We've got roll the dice We've got the death of God And the luxury of Summer ice. We've got lights in our massive cities We've got cameras in our hands We've got action on our screens We've got the luxury of being clean. We've got it so good our poor people are the fat ones, our rich the skinny. Imagine what the Royalty of olde would have paid for a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Why I heard once that a single pineapple could be had in Europe in the 17th Century for approximately $10,000. Now imagine how much meat Westerners eat, how many delicacies from around the World. It's amazing and what's more amazing is how used to it all we've become. We just accept that pouring sugar—or cocaine—on our already sugared cereal so we can pop an insulin pill and keep our blood sugar level down is normal. And we wonder why we aren't getting more out of life, we wonder how deep this fabulous goodie box is. But sugar rots the teeth, and pleasure rots the soul. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” says Jeremiah. Pleasure numbs the pain of lacking the higher pleasures in life, the happiness-creating pleasures like Family, Nation, and Creativity. So in a sense we are a Civilisation addicted not to a healthy sweetness, but to a kind of artificial oligarchal sweetener. Guilt + Illogicality + Shock + Base Sweetness = ALCAHEST, the Universal Solvent

“Aeternal” is a predicate. “Nothing” in an absolute sense, is that which lacks all predicates and therefore is not real, does not exist, cannot be pointed to, etc.., and therefore cannot take the place of the aeternal substance. As you say, it is completely inaccessible—and therefore is just a mental illusion like a circular square. The idea of love is a conception. It therefore has conceptualness.

Actually I was referring to the Solar system.

“Order to the spider is chaos to the fly” Whose order? Let's consider Natural Law as order. Natural Law is seen in two realms, the celestial and the mortal. Celestially, Kepler showed us that the spheres are harmonically organised, such that the differing planetary orbits are necessary orbits, that planets could not have “randomly” taken up orbits between them, as between Venus and Terra, for example. Kepler successfully predicted the existence of an “exploded planet” between Mars and Jupiter, a realm of discord we now know as the Asteroid Belt. The harmony of the Solar system is the harmony of Natural Law unfolding without interference. The mortal realm has Natural Law as its guide, but such law is violable, albeit with consequences. Natural Law here is in the form of IF/THEN. The “should” or “ought” of this situation applies when we consider what the nature of Man is, what his highest pleasures are, and how to go about obtaining those pleasures. So, a man “should” seek after his highest pleasure, his highest happiness, if you will, every bit as a living body “should” (if it had a will) seek to attain maximum health. Men should eradicate evils every bit as a living body should eradicate cancers. The order of the Nation-State is to create “a more perfect union” in the defense of the “general welfare” for the sake of the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” of its citizens. It goes beyond this into the Concordianta Catholica of Leo XI, that all Nation-States should work together to achieve maximum prosperity and happiness for each other, which is derived from the Treaty of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years War of 1618-48 what states that Countries should work to the “advantage of the other,” which of course is a Christian conception going back to Christ teaching that one must love one's neighbour as oneself, and forgive if one is to be forgiven. Thus in the highest statecraft grounded in the highest religion we have the foundations for a world order based on love, liberty, and order. The specific order does not come from laws or authority, but from principle and progress. What does Man need to progress? Truthful principle, derived from Science (physical) and Art (moral), and the goal of life is not to merely accumulate material goods or live a long life, but to contribute to Humanity as a whole, in an immortal way. “Freedom” is not an end in of itself, any more than “wisdom” is or “reason” is. Freedom, wisdom, and reason are tools, just as are pieces of Classical Art, or Scientific discoveries. They are treasures to be gathered, counted, and spent on achieving the highest Order, the immortality of Mankind, its happiness and survival. If you would have freedom, you must realise that freedom is not random or disorderly or liberated from all constraints. Pure freedom is death. Cancer is pure freedom in the cells of the body—there are many ways to be sick but only one way to be healthy. That way must conform to Natural Law or else history will crush it out of existence and replace it with something even worse than what was initially galling you.

Yes, self-defense, knowing that any attempt at this juncture to jump from zero to absolute freedom will be met by an impregnable wall. Almost as if the State is the destiny of the Nation. Anyone who wants to increase human freedom would be well to understand that without order there is no freedom. In other words, "When freedom destroys order, the yearning for order will destroy freedom." --Eric Hoffer

Any commonality with other elections is superceded by the once-in-a-lifetime nature of the Trump phenomenon.

The Freak, Soon to Die Written in May, 2016. Somewhat different meaning now. Have you seen the loveliest bird of all? Have you seen the white peacock? Did you know it is blue? The purest, icy shade of blue. Men have come for it, To wrest it from its forest glade In the midst of the mist-covered mountains In the Northern climes. These men laugh at its song; They pluck at its feathers; Its beautiful tail is ruined, And its eyes do not know how to weep. And it will be taken away To the great God of the desert, Caged, like a sacrificial dove... Caged, like my love. I know nothing of war, Yet I find myself amidst one. I love the white peacock And would reconsecrate its glade. Yet the bird itself attacks me When I come to help; It would rather be blue Than be impolite to its molesters. Its beak is sharp, its toes have claws; It is a magic bird, could shrug away all foes should it wish. Yet its gossamer prison binds its mind And it yearns now only for distraction. Who will help me break the spell? Unvex this bird of birds? Without it my tongue, festivals, arts fall to naught. Without it I shall grow old and blue. Will you grow old and blue too? Will you stay so polite? Will you care when you wake up in the desert And find yourself caged, like a dove? My love must love what I love Or how can I love her? Without the precious bird of birds My life is merely empty words.

Right now, Trump has half the Country against him. If he doesn't do what he promised, he will have the whole Country against him. That is not an encouraging position for any President to be in.

A better way to explain the matter is this: Take the sentence, "What reason is there for there being anything rather than nothing?" This sentence avoids the "why" problem of intent, and the "how" problem of physics, and instead situates it firmly in metaphysics. The thing to realise is why this problem is so slippery: the word "nothing" is ill-defined. What is "nothing"? You might say "emptiness" or "absence" or "vacuum," to which I say, give me an example in real life of "nothing". You point to an empty can of beans. I say, "That's filled with air". You point to the night sky, and I say, "It's filled with black." You give me a vacuum tube and I say, "It's filled with space." So go ahead, point to anything that we can say is "nothing" at all, with no qualities, no predicates, nothing. What we face here is a word that is a square circle. Just as the term "square circle" refers to a composite of two ideas, "square" and "circle" merged into a single incoherent jumble, so "nothing" refers to an intuition based on the experience of lack of some quality replaced by another quality. The spaces between my fingers are, in a sense, empty, but they are not nothing, they have shape and dimension and purpose. I would find it hard to manipulate many objects if I lacked these spaces. So, nowhere is there anything utterly lacking in substance. If we can't point to it, even in principle, even if we were God, then it doesn't exist. It cannot be real. It cannot be the subject of a fact. Thus, there cannot be "nothing." There can only be "something". And as discussed previously, "something" can be either contingent or aeternal. But since contingent things by definition lack justification for their existence, there must exist something which is aeternal substance, and this is the Something that exists rather than "nothing".

There was an article in this month's Scientific American: "...In 2006 there were a handful of ibogaine clinics operating worldwide; today, by some estimates, there are around 40. Clinic operators claim that a dose can curb addictive behavior, as well as depression, in about 70 percent of patients." "...Overall, in 2014 7.1 million Americans had some kind of serious drug problem, according to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health. Many seek help but do so in vain. For example, 40 to 60 percent of treated substance-abuse patients will relapse. About 80 percent do so if they stop taking methadone, the most common opiate replacement therapy." "...Published medical reports tie ibogaine to 19 fatalities in 3,500 treatments between 1990 and 2008. Because informal clinics such as the one in Guatemala may not track all adverse events, the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the U.K. estimates that the fatality rate may be even higher, reaching one in every 300 treatments. Animal studies suggest that the substance, when it does not kill, produces lasting brain damage..." "[ibogaine treatment clinic] Envision has treated more than 1,000 addicts during the past five years, Kogan says. . Just like Mallek [addict], these people initially get several small doses to look for problems such as arrhythmias, followed by the high dose intended to produce addiction-curbing effects. Kogan and Prueger have charted patient progress through voluntary phone calls and e-mails over moths and even years, and they say that this regimen can cure 75% of the people who come to them." "There are a few studies by outside researchers that support the notion that ibogaine is therapeutic. In November 2014 research led by neuroscientist Eduardo Schenberg of the Federal University of São Paolo in Brazil looked back at the histories of 75 addicts a year after they took a large dose of ibogaine. (Schenberg reports that he conducted pohone interviews and corroborated data with doctors who saw patients during periodic checkups.) His study, he notes, found that only about 39 percent relapsed into drug use and that those who had a single treatment remained abstinent for 5.5 months on average. That could indicate an improvement over methadone: as noted earlier 80 percent of methadone patients relapse if they stop taking it. Schenberg's study found addicts who received multiple ibogaine treatments remained off drugs for even longer: a median period of 8.4 months." And more to your other comment: "Despite Mallek's disparaging remark about 'talk therapy,' Brown thinks ibogaine cannot work well without it. Counselling helps patients identify addiction causes such as emotional trauma or physical pain, and ibogaine, he says, interrupts physical cravings and stems withdrawal symptoms. This double effect can, according to Brown, 'greatly strengthen people's resolve to live sober, honest lives again."

Does Trump know who Stefan even is? Not everyone knows of everybody.

That was quoted from David Brooks on how the Trump effort was a "campaign of hate". This got me thinking. Was it a campaign of hate? The campaign's pillars were: ECONOMY: we hate the process of deindustrialisation caused by free trade. SECURITY: we hate horrible killers and slavers both abroad and home caused by bad foreign policy. IDENTITY: we hate being submerged in alienness, especially illegal alienness, caused by multiculturalism. In all three areas Americans are being threatened, white America all the more so, and especially white middle aged men. I predicted privately a wave of white male suicides should Trump lose, and happily I will never know if my prediction would have panned out. The common denominator of hatred here is that free trade, bad foreign policy, and multiculturalism are all traceable to the Establishment government. Whether that government is incompetent, insane, or conspiratorially malicious is, in a sense, moot and fungible. It remains an evil and evils by their nature are hated to the degree that their victims are aware of what those evils are doing to them. So, I would agree that Donald Trump ran a campaign based on hate, but a hate that is predicated on love for one's self, one's family, and one's countrymen. Very bad forces have been doing very bad things to America and to the world, and that renders them hateful. Trump is the only candidate with the balls to name it for what it is and lead a movement to stop it. Sometimes the only way forward is to negate the negation.

A goodly percentage of narcotics addicts can be treated successfully through the administering of ibogaine, as one example out of several psychedelic drugs that can have similar effect. There can be a "soft landing" to drug addiction, for some. There's no principled reason why there might not be an analogous "soft landing" for society in moving from hegemony to liberty.

You write interestingly but I'm not sure I grasp what you're saying in its entirely. Let me treat with your objection to my sentence: Thank you, it was an ill-phrasing. Let me restate in my second attack on this slippery beast. Nothing lacks substance, by definition. That which lacks substance lacks predicates. That which lacks predicates cannot be said to be aeternal or contingent. This leaves substance as the only candidate for aeternity. When you say, “Nothing is. It's attached to the last eyelash on your right eye. Tell me how its not,” I say, there is nothing to nothing. We derive our notion of “nothing” from mere gaps, absences, pining for something. But all of those gaps are filled with something: space, tears, blank paper, or what have you. Contrariwise, the sort of nothing we are talking about here is a rarefied dishonest sort of imaginative thing like a square circle that collapses into mere no-thing. It can't be visualised, because it has no reality. Only substance has reality. Nothing is not attached to anything. In the beginning there was the aeternal substance which spoke the world into being, creating the contingent substances. Nothing had nothing to do with it.

His being elected was one Black Swan. Why can't there be another that would allow the Titanic to avoid sinking? Think positive, dude!

Interesting article, Graham. Thanks for posting it. I view race in terms of the Solar system. The different races are like the planets, each in its own orbit, each with its own constitutional makeup. Interracial people are like the exploded planet that Kepler successfully predicted should occupy the gap between Mars and Jupiter. The only solution to the niggling fact that "ome people are still not comfortable with interracial relationships, or at least they're a lot less comfortable than they would appear to be," is to destroy the races by combining them, exploding them, and making them all the Asteroid Belt. Since destroying the Coloured races is not an option, the social doctors will have to settle for destroying the White race in particular, and they are well along with that goal. Unfortunately for them a large nationalist Black Swan appears to have manifested and made its nest at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...

Not theology or physics, but metaphysics applies here. Ontologically we're either dealing with an aeternal or a contingent substance. A contingent substance cannot explain or justify itself. We are therefore left with an aeternal substance. Nothingness cannot be aeternal because nothingness is not a substance and therefore cannot explain itself, cannot justify its own nonexistence. Nothingness is thereby merely a kind of distortion. The realm of contingent things like you or I thus experiences a kind of mental "optical illusion" that generates the idea of nothingness as a positive thing, a substantial thing, something that could be aeternal. Hope this helps.

I mean of course choice in a contracted sense. Dsayers has been loaned the ability to choose and the consequences of his choice.