Donnadogsoth

1. True. 2. There is no infinite regress of causality if the Creator cannot conceivably be preceded without simply postulating an identical being. Since there cannot be two identical beings, the Creator cannot be preceded. 3. (a) I'm saying that time has to elapse and there is no way an infinite amount of time could ever have elapsed. Similarly, space has to expand and there is no way an infinite amount of space could have expanded. (b) The "material universe" can be indefinitely extensible, but it can't be infinite because nothing material is infinite. Everything material is a projection in the minds of the respective monads having that experience. It's like videogame: how many things are there in game-space? Answer: as many as can fit on the screen.

1. This is pantheism, if you're looking for the technical term. 2. "Eternal Universe" is an oxymoron. The Universe cannot be infinitely old, because an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed prior to the present. Try counting backwards to infinity. Can't do it, right? Therefore the Universe couldn't count forwards to infinity, either, to reach the present. The Universe had to have been created at some point. It may continue to exist forever, without reaching infinity, but it cannot have existed for infinity.

Essentially, rich men who "understand" each other, so confident in their divine right and their knowledge of "how the world works" that they view their lessers as children: easily manipulated. They are the "tax farmers" Stefan talks about, though they are not passive, they take a hand in cultivating (and culling) the "herds" under their purview. They talk, they make deals, they use their influence, and they are not stupid. They rise out of the ranks of the financiers, politicians, aristocrats, old and new money, and corporate heads. They form themselves into circles like the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, Davos Group, etc., filled with groomed and picked people, and they deploy propagandistic agencies like the mass mainstream media and the education system, besides their levels of power like national political, economic, and military machinery, the United Nations, NATO, and the Federal Reserve. Everything under them that serves them whether willingly or unwillingly, wittingly or unwittingly, comprises the femiblob. The oligarchy is the nucleus of said blob.

"As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase." --Aldous Huxley The Sexual Revolution is a shock machine. It progresses by shocking the public, transforming what was formerly viewed as perversity, into normalcy. The baseless assumption today is that, once we've freed the transsexuals and have gender neutral washrooms and Gays get on Dancing With the Stars, we're done! Everything is finished, and we just have to watch out for that pesky homophobia or sexism or transphobia or polyphobia from now on in, but otherwise the castle of freedom is secure. I don't think the shock machine is finished. I think it wants to keep going, and to do that it will think up new shocks to the system to work at. So our choices appear to be zoophilia, paedophilia, and incest. Care to take bets? Cannibalism, too, maybe. Eventually, sacrificing living fetuses on an altar whilst performing a ritual orgy for Astarte. Whatever will add a few alphabet letters to the LCBGT &etc.. Why is this happening? It's an operation designed to help wreck Western civilisation by shocking the system. Adult homosexuality itself may not, as it naturally and quietly occurs, damage society, but "Gay Pride" in-your-face S&M dancers waving their junk for the cameras is intended to shock heterosexuals. This is welcomed by the Sneak Rulers as a way to disgregate and demoralise the population.

I've listed two components in a "deadly potion" the West has been induced to drink to cause its demise: 1. Guilt and 2. Illogicality But there a third component at work, namely 3. Shock: social trauma leading to social insecurity The West has suffered multiple profound shocks in the past century, starting with The sinking of the oceanliner Titanic The Great War The Great Depression The Second War, including particularly .....the razing of European cities .....the atomic holocaust of Japan .....the Nazi ethnic holocaust The Cold War .....the detonation of the Hydrogen Bomb .....the Cuban Missile Crisis Desegregation The assassination of John F. Kennedy The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy The assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The Vietnam War The Communist holocaust The Ecological holocaust The Sexual Revolution The 9/11 terrorist attacks Third World immigration These shocks have never been fully recovered from, leaving us in a state of disorientation, making us insecure and vulnerable to injections of guilt and illogicality. The West's social capital of the Greek intellectual tradition, the material culture of race, art, and architecture, the spiritual engine of Christianity, the procreative nuclear family, ligamental organisations (Legion, Lions Clubs, 4H, Bowling Leagues, etc.) and national boundaries themselves was, and is being, pushed aside by the agents of the oligarchal usurpers using guilt and illogicality, placing us in a state of collective “psychosocial dislocation.” Psychosocial dislocation is the mental equivalent of the roof collapsing after the walls are removed. Its symptoms are addictive behaviours: drugs, gambling, sex, television, videogames, food, shopping, hoarding, fighting, sunbathing--anything obsessively pursued, often to the detriment of the pursuer. This dislocation renders us vulnerable to the many “pushers” our society is filled with, filling our heads with fantasies of unlimited pleasure, violence, and consumption. With nationalism an object of ignorance, contempt, and shame, the globalists' dream of world empire finds little opposition. Shocked, guilty, and illogical people are no match for the secure, self-righteous, and smart world elite. GUILT + ILLOGICALITY + SHOCK = DESTRUCTION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL = PSYCHOSOCIAL DISLOCATION = ADDICTION AND DEPENDENCY = SLAVERY

Let's say good and evil are limited to our interactions with beings capable of suffering. I counter that a principle is a substance that leads to an effect. The principle of universal gravitation leads to the effect of elliptical orbits of the planets and other bodies around Sol. The (false) principle of oligarchism leads to human beings degraded, demoralised, and dominated. Its opposing and true principle of republicanism leads to humans organising their affairs on the basis of a true understanding of the nature of man. The ends of justice are happiness and survival, so we could call them ideals, but “sweets to the sweet, piss to the bitter” is a principle, just as is the (what you call false) prison principle. The principle of justice may be tempered by the principle of mercy, and by other concerns, but it remains a principle. Superstition is believing if you step on a crack you'll break your mother's back. The idea that man is created in the image of the Creator is scientific fact. If you're an Atheist, it doesn't matter, treat “Creator” as an Archetype. We are made in the image of that Archetype. It is the most powerful Archetype conceivable and we are in its image. We must be wary of moving away from this concept, to thinking we are merely clever apes. Being an ape is not a noble thing, it is depressing to human ambition. Most people believe in some sort of religion because they refuse to relinquish the symbolic power those religions hold that refer, to better or worse degrees, to the humanistic definition I have given. There is a reason Christendom, and not China, or Africa, or South America, went to Luna. There is reason the science of Christian economy, to the degree it is practised, dominates the world. The proper conception of man is what is needed, to inspire. Trying to level the playing field by appealing to our love and wonder and sense of fair play is putting cart before horse. The horse is human identity, creativity, the passengers are human goodwill and the like.

I believe I essentially stated the same thing. Empathising, and hence internal rewards/punishments regarding good/evil behaviour, depends on neural anatomy which psychopaths lack. So I think we are on the same page here. What's the difference between a principle and an ideal? Nationalistic caveats aside, I'm inclined to agree, but all of that is in vain unless humanity can agree on a common definition of man, viz., being made in the image of God, capable of discovering and acting on principle rather than merely on beast-like sensuous instinct. That is the basis for sound ecumenical efforts aimed at transcending crime, division, differences, and wrongs, and it acts so through the media of classical art and science, the one intended to educate the emotions, the other to discover ways to optimise our survival power as a species. Art and science, and their corollary, economic development, supply tangible ways for people to work together on common, constructive goals. Absent this, we have disruption and anomie in the population, easily bested by the oligarchs and their agents, and all the best and most noble-minded efforts towards peace, reconciliation, unity, and the like will be swept aside in a new Dark Age. All rewards I refer to are brain-rewards. An external brain-reward in my parlance is the brain-reward an actor receives in response to some kind of tangible object (an increased bank balance, a sexual encounter, a new Corvette, the robes of office) that the actor obtains by a particular activity. An internal reward is when there is no tangible object obtained (saving a turtle from destruction on a road), but the actor experiences a brain-reward regarding the activity anyway. Psychopaths specifically lack the neural anatomy needed to supply them with empathically-based internal brain-rewards.

Compassion is an internal reward: one does good, one feels good--without need for external rewards like praise, gifts, status, or money. You contended that you are "...fairly sure that you also do good for the same reasons, ie external rewards or penalties. I doubt anyone is good just cos they are good. Any internal rewards are just thoughts about external rewards." Do you still think this, that all internal rewards are "just thoughts about external rewards," or do you agree with me that internal rewards can sometimes suffice to motivate an individual to perform a good act?

Cultural authority is missing. We lack leadership, have only relativism, which corrodes the human identity. From the perspective of classical humanism, art is beautiful when it explains, orders, and uplifts the human spirit. Modern art for the past hundred-twenty years has entailed increasingly intense explorations into confusing, depressing chaos. It obscure man's nature rather than revealing it. This is highly disorientating to the populace who, demoralised, exchange hard beauty for mere easy interestingness, which is often, and increasingly, indistinguishable from outright ugliness. Why do you think the republic is failing to counteract the Liberal poison? We have arrived very close together. But I do not think Ethics and Aesthetics are independent of Reason. Rather, all three are bound up in the nature of humankind as the Promethean species, as embodying the Universal principle of Creativity. Man is the one capable of harnessing fire and understanding both himself and the Universe in terms of discoveries of universal physical and cognitive principles. Aesthetics serve this self-interest of man by helping him understand his own mind. Ethics is the rational extrapolation of what is needed to serve Creativity. All boils down to the imperative to Survive!--both individually and as a species. We must survive first, then be happy; survival is the proximate goal, happiness the final. It is here Christianity reenters as the basis for Ethics, Aesthetics, and Reason, combined into service of Creativity as the engine of survival and happiness. The image of the Crucifixion of Christ embodies absolute injustice, the best person suffering the worst death. In this we locate the depths of human love, of passion for creativity, without which the human race will inevitably self-immolate.

I am saying psychopaths lack internal rewards for doing good (e.g., "doing good is its own reward") and, so, only do good for the sake of external rewards like prestige, money, or sex. A psychopath will never save a wounded animal out of sheer compassion, to gain the satisfaction of an internal reward, for example, because the psychopath's "compassion circuits" don't exist. They may enter into a love relationship because of the external rewards that brings, but those rewards don't include love, because the psychopath's "love circuits" don't exist. And a psychopath may support justice, but only out of sadism or self-interest in having a safe society, but not because he believes in justice as a principle.

Indubitably. Do we agree that without rewards of some kind, no-one acts good?

Others' approval is external, but feelings of doing good are internal. I don't see why a person could not be motivated solely by internal rewards with regards to any given act.

True. "Witch" also refers to powerful feminine irrationality, which is naturally fearsome. It originates with the idea children have about their mothers from an earliest age, wherein they view their mothers as a kind of sorceress, able to produce food and take away waste and comfort fears through magical rituals and incantations. To the prerational child, this is magic. And that face of magic, the mother image, stays buried in the mind on into adulthood. The archetype "witch" refers to this irrational, knowing feminine, often old, often a curdled and malevolent form of femininity because of the individual's fear of infantilisation.

What external reward is one thinking about when one is feeling benevolent towards a wounded bird?

Au contraire, the problem of inability to discriminate has been with us for at least a hundred years, with the liberal arts world extricating the Good, the Beautiful, and the True from each other. Good-True-Beautiful used to be understood as something together, associated, even identified with each other. But now Art's motto is "art for art's sake" and it has devolved away from telling truths, from encouraging the good, and from pleasing us with the beautiful, into becoming merely the snotty highbrow equivalent of what I mentioned before: television. Television is merely "the interesting" and is hard to resist and ignore for that reason. How many principles has anyone learned from television?--or from Art? The "don't discriminate" principle--also known as the false white guilt principle--is when the potion was administered in earnest, leaving us with the inability to tell the difference in anything that matters except perhaps rat poison versus Parmesan for our salad. In other words, Science is all that's left. Everything else is "diversity is good, but all cultures/religions/races/languages are the same deep down".

I read once about what happens when you give LSD to chimpanzees. Pan troglodytes, as you know, are highly genetically similar to homo sapiens sapiens, and also have highly hierarchical societies encumbered by politicking. The chimp given LSD, “dropped out” and went off by itself staring into space, oblivious of the need to “fit in” to the political structure surrounding it. I don't recall if it busied itself by staring at its hand, but nevertheless it basically became the chimp analogue to a hippie. I suggest that Western Civilisation has been given something of the sort, that has caused it to “drop out” of its own racial, cultural, and religious identity. The “potion baneful” is partly the alcahest which I describe here, and partly something else: a taboo on “discriminating”. Our own native good will spurred us to all agree that “discrimination” was a bad thing. So why is this a problem? It's a problem because to “discriminate” is to “tell the difference”!--Which is the fundamental law of Logic: A=A, the law of identity. Without being able to tell the difference racially, religiously, or culturally, we set up a confusion in our minds that--because we naturally seek to avoid cognitive dissonance, and because the exit toward “discriminating” has been barred by the guilt club of the alachest--slowly drives out logic entirely and replaces it with the metaphysical equivalent to an LSD landscape: interesting but counterproductive for our survival both individually and socially. How many people do you know live by principle? How many even know of principles, or could say what a principle is? Whatever principles are, they're certainly not central in Western society anymore. And that's because the potion has largely driven logic out out of the public and private spheres, into an underground state of “intuition” which the Witchlords can more easily suppress and guide. Without logic, principles begin to blur into frustrating patterns. Trying to pin them down without logic is like trying to shoot a bullseye target whilst high on Acid. Eventually the “shooter” gives up and just settles down by himself (on a couch) staring into space (tv screen).

Even if the differences between whites and coloured are purely cultural, of which I'm not convinced, this doesn't change his thesis that white culture per se is being displaced and destroyed by alien racial immigration, the cultures of which persist. In the case of black culture, we see this particularly perniciously as they have nursed a culture of grievance and in many cases barbarism and violence. Also, of course, the white genotype--a form of material culture from Europe--is also disappearing, so in that regard coloured immigration will inevitably destroy white culture.

People like Bill Nye tell otherwise. I'm sure his analogue exist in terms of believing the sexes exist. http://bigthink.com/think-tank/bill-nye-race-is-a-social-construct That my children would be (a) repulsive, (b) prone to adopting “black” culture based on what they see in the mirror, and (c ) that they would be inherently non-white psychologically in the manner that Frank Raymond talks about in his interviews about the psychological differences between coloured and whites. Frank Raymond - The Caucasian Mind: Transcending Biological Needs - Hour 1 See the interview with Raymond, above. I'm not so sure the races are virtually identical psychologically. The cultures they have created for themselves, while various and intermingling with each other, can be seen as expressions of an essence, rather than an external force creating an essence. Perhaps you haven't noticed any commonalities because you haven't been looking for them.

"According to the display, even though microaggressions are “not the same thing as hate crimes or overt bigotry,” they still affect victims “physically, emotionally, [and] behaviorally,” placing them “more at risk for illness & decreased immune system.”" "The board warns students that failing to follow these guidelines could lead them to commit a microaggression, which include “microassaults,” “microinsults,” and “microinvalidations.”" Rutgers: to avoid microaggressions, only speak when 'necessary' http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8081 The femiblob's blubbery pseudopod wraps a little tighter (microtighter?) around the throats of students in Maryland. Which students? Guess who?--white, hetero, male, conservative/alt-right/libertarian, and legal citizens. Don't offend your new masters (mistresses?) by giving them cancer-by-microaggression! Kneel before the femiblob! Ain't the Multicult grand? And the next step is?.....don't look them in the eye! Nothing more aggressive aside from speech and touch than eyesight.

If it's not racist to believe that races exist, what is it? Alright you've got me there, I agree it's prejudice against any new people. If someone had kicked me in the shins before though, my taking defensive measures upon meeting them again would be postjudice. What defines race in the moment is phenotype, what defines it in the future is genotype. I might find her appealing if she looked white, but would not want to have black children by her and so would be repulsed on that count. My repulsion extends beyond appearance to behaviour, language, dress, and subculture. But while a perfectly mannered, well-spoken, nicely dressed, and cultured black girl might appeal to me on those counts, it would still not be outweighed by my aversion to her appearance. I know that if we got married I would always rue waking up to a black girl instead of a white one. Fair enough. Is it racist to preserve Christmas and pig culture by denying entry to your society to people who will not help preserve them?

Why would you "exterminate those that do not fit into our bloc"? Is this related to your thesis that only whites are made in the image of God?

Yes, we judge in temporal things, necessarily for our own survival and the survival of society. No one is disputing this. "Judging" refers to final judgements of a person's value before God. Re: the boldfaced text: we have free will but the only reason we don't always use our free choices for evil is because we have the right neural architecture. Psychopaths have free will, but they have zero reason in their brains in terms of emotional rewards and penalties to choose to be good. If they choose good it will be a result of external rewards/penalties making choosing good seem worthwhile. Ergo, we should not boast about our own moral superiority because it is just by the grace of God or his substitute Evolution that we have our psychopathic desires suppressed.

I'm not talking about the need to judge people in practical terms, such as someone attempting to murder you. I'm not trying to vilipend your need to judge in those situations. I'm referring to judgement in the final sense, of having your worth judged by a God in aeternal terms. In that sense we cannot boast of our morality, because it is grace that allows us to have it in the first place. Without our morally-germane brain structures, we would all be psychopaths and therefore all subject to judgement by those men who boast about their own moral superiority. Does that make it clearer?

As a Christian, I notice that the doctrine of Original Sin and Jesus's commandment not to judge others is confirmed by neuroscience. The brain's structure and activity is related to everything we do. In a very real sense the brain forms who we are personality-wise. Case studies of catastrophic brain injury or brain damage due to maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy all show this fact, which I'm sure you're all aware of. Beyond this, neuroscience shows that psychopathic brains differ markedly from neurotypical brains, or in the given study of 121 medium-security US inmates, relatively neurotypical. These psychopaths are people who lack the neural architecture needed to spur the development of moral, empathic personalities. One may differ with the term, but neurotypicals are in a sense merely benefitting from grace. You can use "fate" or "chance" if you like. But, the point is, you are moral only because you have been given the right neural architecture, like startup-capital for one's morality-enterprise. Lacking this architecture, you would do as psychopaths do. How then can anyone condemn them? This intrinsic potential for psychopathy which underlies all human beings' minds and which is a universally inherited tendency, flows like a dark river beneath the psyche and can be associated with the Freudian "id," continually plashing forth wicked thoughts into the ego. For those blessed with grace, these thoughts can be be opposed by the superego or developed conscience, but the individual cannot take full credit for these victories, which are always the result of initial brain structures and patterns given to him by God (or "fate" or "evolution" as you prefer). This is not to say that humans do not freely make moral choices, only that the only decisions we make require the grace of a particular brain structure that suppresses our psychopathic natures which we inherit from our earliest ancestors. Thus no man can judge another finally, lest he be judged by the same yardstick and condemned. Our ultimate moral choice is to align ourselves with the incarnate Good and so survive the ego-stripping that a final Judgement would involve.

Yes, it's racist to determine anything based on race, including determining that race exists at all. But it's also postjudice to the degree one knows any facts about that race, including what they look like. If everyone you ever met kicked you in the shins, are you justified in taking precautions against being kicked in the shins by the next person you meet? That's postjudice. If every black girl you ever saw repulsed you, are you justified in declining a blind date with a black girl? Again, postjudice. I just happen to find the gestalt of their appearance unappealing, so I suppose I'm racist. Fine. I suppose if a black girl had smooth skin, that would not be revolting in the abstract, but I would still not wish to touch it; smooth skin is only desirable to me on white girls. If that's racist, then it's also homophobic as I wouldn't care to touch a man's skin no matter how smooth. The Left controls most of the mainstream media and the schools, especially the Universities, which are a breeding ground for political correctness. That's all postjudice based on your knowledge of the facts of a given neighbourhood. But sometimes we don't have time to gather all the facts. Sometimes we need to make a snap judgement: do we drive at night through the black neighbourhood or the white one? Quick, make a decision! There's more to a job than qualifications, though. If I value my white workplace culture, I have to realise that the more coloured people I hire, the more coloured the workplace becomes. Not just in the sense of physical presence, but in culture. If I have a workplace of ten white people, and over time I replace half of them with Pakistanis, then I have just lopped the white culture there in half and created a piece of Pakistan. Is this fair to my white employees? Maybe they like everyone participating in Christmas and don't like the new employees praying to Mecca five times a day, and maybe they have pig figurines and have an annual company pig roast on the 4th of July. The culture is eroding with every new coloured hire, until the point where the remaining whites flee if they can, and then we're left with a little outpost of Pakistan, and then they're calling the shots, and there are no more Christmas parties, no 4th of July celebrations, the whites start absonding their ceramic pigs, and there is certainly no pig roast. So, no, “non-rational” means of classifying applicants aren't necessarily non-rational, provided one values one's culture as it is. Here we agree.