Donnadogsoth

Boldfaced isn't true. Stefan very much appears to personally believe in his goals, and his agapic emotion (Christly love) is involved in what he does. He is starting even to refer to culture (and perhaps Christianity) as the "noble lie" that is needed to bridge the chasm of nihilism and reach Philosophy. So he's closer to Christ than you might think, closer to being self-aware of being an "objective" Christian than you might think.

I'm afraid you're losing me. I can consider a bi-level religion consisting of a salvation game and a progress game, and even that the general application of force needs revision in light of Christ's sacrifice, but I can't accept that all violence for any reason is evil. That's against the Church, that's against human goodness, that's against my love of man and of myself and my family, and I will not counsel it. I have a right to defend myself and my family from rapists and murderers. If that means religion goes in the toilet, then I will happily flush it myself.

A God who would deny man the right to self-defense, defense of his wife, his children, from murderers and rapists, is the Devil.

I have to agree with shirgall here. Deducting the right to self defense is immoral. But junglecat, do you agree that Christianity is a bi-level religion, in that it has the salvation game, and it also has the progress game? By "salvation game" I mean the plan of salvation whereby humans are reconciled with God through Jesus, thus attaining Heaven. But this game cannot be Christianity's only purpose, and I'll prove by citing one thing: people who die without knowledge of Christ. Whether through young age or physical distance from evangelists, millions of people live and die not receiving the gospel. Either God is fair or unfair. If God is fair, they will be given the chance to repent after they die. If God is unfair, He is not worth the time of day. If everyone is given the chance to repent, then why should Christians spread the gospel? What difference does it make? Why take the effort? So, Christianity must have a second purpose, which involves the concept of progress, of improving the material and spiritual conditions of man on Earth. Girard's theory fits into this second category, which justifies Christianity's evangelisation on the grounds that it will help mankind survive more effectively. Realising that we are in a phase of massive sacrifice of European lives, culture, and (mostly women's) sexual integrity--facilitated by godless cultural Marxism--is an example of how Christianity can be yoked into serving a practical, Earthly purpose.

I'm not sure how you don't see that all the things I mentioned are sacrifices on the altar of historical redress--or should I say envy, malice, ugliness, and short-sighted stupidity. Would you prefer to call it a punishment, or a judgement, on whites, heteros, males, Christians? It seems to me that those groups are being sacrificed to the devil, on the premise that their destruction will bring peace to the world. Isn't that exactly what you and Girard are talking about?

Let's say I believe you and Mr. Girard that society is defined by a sacrificial direction. If so, that directionality should be shot through the society like veins in marble. And if the sacrificial system is no longer efficacious, we might expect society to h eap sacrifice on sacrifice. We might expect to find epic sacrifices. So isn't that what is happening in the West today? You speak of sacrificing soldiers and brown people, but what about the ongoing suicide drive by white people, who have a fertility rate below the needed replacement rate of 2.1 per women? Aren't we sacrificing our fertility, not to mention our millennia of culture and our education system, our holidays and even our relationships with our fellows in favour of cybernetic interaction? Europe, through a misguided "love of neighbour" is even sacrificing its territorial integrity into the hands to unassimilable people who will forever change the cultural and racial and linguistic and religious nature of Europe. Aren't men being sacrificed by the increasingly feminist-influenced family courts system, quota systems for jobs, and lack of redress for men's issues like job fatalities and homelessness? Isn't Christianity itself going the way of the cross around the world, getting erased from Moslem countries and increasingly from Christendom, too? Are we not seeing the biggest sacrifice in history as the potent, once-glorious West bites the multicultural bullet?

Why do you think Campbell missed this? Then we agree on this. Are you suggesting that Christ is psychologically/spiritually necessary even to those who lived and died before he was born? In other words that a good man, for example in ancient India, dies implicitly believing in Jesus, even if he'd never heard the Name nor could explain his belief to anyone around him or even to himself, isn't that the basis (what the Church calls the Baptism of Desire) for Christ as universally necessary for the manifestation of agape? In other words, recognising we live in a sacrificial system, no matter what period in history that is up to today, and recognising human nature for what it is (being convicted by the Holy Spirit), is to anticipate the existence of Spotless Victim who exemplifies agape? Does that follow? Modern society doesn't sacrifice the unwilling. Our heroic soldiers are all volunteers. That's very different from a system that murders unwilling victims. And I don't think Bill Cosby, for example, is being sacrificed so much as self-immolating. And even if I grant your point, how much does the “sacrifice” of celebrities matter? Or are you submitting that as an example of how sacrifice-culture echoes throughout a society?

Yes, there should be a funeral. Catholics should hold funerals for miscarried zygotes. Is it wrong to kill an adult to spare him a life of misery? I'm sure there is an organisation or two dedicated to making children's lives better. Don't you suppose? If using force to stop adults from murdering other adults, leads to a greater loss of life than would otherwise be, should we stop using force to stop adults from murdering other adults, and just let Nature take its course?

Let's jump to the end. If they can destroy sexual "Type" (expression and sexuality) they will feel they can do anything to human beings. They are creating a nation of slaves who will submit to government's total control of their lives, no matter how painful, unnatural, crazy or evil, and which will move from the sexual arena up into the foreign policy and economic arenas as well. You don't think the sexual revolution is OVER do you? Get ready to send your preadolescent kids to "sleepovers" with Mr. Bentley--or else they'll sue for their emancipation and move out of the house. The government is the real parent, now. And let's be clear: One day you will be told that you can't not kiss or sleep with someone you don't want to, because of their race, or sex, or disease status. Law? Doesn't need to be law when political correctness rules the land. You'll have to twist and snake yourself around trying to come up with femiblob-valid reasons why you don't want to fuck Joe the Plumber or Jeanine the Transsexual.

You're talking like Joseph Campbell now, delaminating the the metaphysics from the psycho-anthropology. Joseph Campbell didn't like Christianity and thought it was useless except as yet another iteration of the hero myth and the sacrifice theme. If Judaism, or whatever it was called in Abrahamic times, was moving away from human sacrifice (Isaac) towards the revelation of the Spotless Victim, that's understandable. But if we want to convince people of the veracity of this psycho-anthropological process generated by said Spotless Victim, then we have to really--pardon the phrase--nail it to the cross. I am not against a bi-level mystery. I am against an attempt to de-metaphysicalise the Religion by submitting that God, Heaven, and Hell don't matter in an eternal sense, but are just tinsel decorating a temporal psycho-anthropological process. So, if I read you right, you're saying that the happenstance sacrifice of a Spotless Victim, whom everyone knew was so, revealed to the world the unjust nature of the sacrificial-mentality system that consumes victims, as for example the global village consumes itself in war? And that this Sacrifice called into question, based on agape, the validity and morality of these invalid and immoral sacrifices? I speak from the perspective of one who has lived all his life in a particular society and not once seen or heard of anyone being sacrificed. Am I just not paying attention? Love is the endpoint of human psychology, and the beginning of human endeavour. It is the highest pitch our emotions can be raised to, and the quality of emotion needed to overcome the devil, whether devil as transcendent or the devil-in-the-world.

Hi junglecat, Minuses? Faults in my presentation and knowledge I'm guessing. This board has some Christianity-hatred, accusations that Christians adhere to their faith out of a desire to see their enemies burn in Hell, that kind of thinking, so my defense of the Faith probably earned me some minuses, too. The Catholic view is that sin causes metaphysical damage demanding blood to repair. This metaphysical damage is indeed reflected in the operations of an unjust society. I see no conflict between believing both things. Christ's sacrifice as innocent victim is not absurd, it only appears so to the ignorant. If it has the added effect of increasing our moral clarity with regards to the operation of harming the innocent, that is good. But I don't see a scapegoat mechanism at work in contemporary society or in history. There is, almost universally, sacrifice, but sacrifice need not necessarily be of human beings. The Torah lists the exacting requirements for satisfactory sacrifices of animals and food to Yahweh and this has nothing to do with human sacrifice unless you count the odd adulterer or Sabbath stick-collector to be stoned to be human sacrifices, but such sacrifice is incidental, never continual. Any innocent human can avoid being sacrificed simply by obeying the Mosaic Law, so there is no scapegoat mechanism in ancient Judaism. When you talk about Jesus as if he had a sense of socially-transforming mission beyond the salvation game, and also the wheat and the weeds, however, I sense a depth that I do not want to paint as being shallow. I have to situated these things in terms of a second metaphysical operation that parallels the first, which reduces to a single answer to the following two questions, one from the Old Testament, the other from Star Trek (TOS): If “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” what is its end? If “Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not its end,” what is its end? The answer is, of course, agape, Christly love of man. Fear and logic are not ends but means, agape is the goal that transforms and renders all sacrifices meaningful. So, to tie this onto Stefan, we see that he is operating (a) in terms of agape, (b) in terms of opposing the Mammonic system of the world, and (c ) in terms of justice. So we know he believes in the essential emotion and motivation of Jesus, which extends to the Holy Spirit as convictor, motivator, and drive to curiosity. He's a Christian in your terms, and what I would call a righteous pagan. His only flaw here is that he has intellectualised his way out of literal belief in Christ, but there may be ways around that.

(1) "Type” refers to sexual behaviour not just sexual dress. It's more comprehensive than the overhyped and left-slanted word “gender”. In fact the word “gender” never even occurred to me as I was writing that post. (2) I'm not sure Chinese patriarchy descended from the Middle East. Patriarchy appears quite widespread and pinning it on Biblical cultures seems like a stretch. (3) The problem isn't isolated relatively benign deviants who merit treatment as human beings, the problem is when deviancy merges with the norm and generates a deviant total culture. That's LGBT&c's goal, not just to be “tolerated” like a load on a pillar but to remake all of society in its image. “Do what thou wilt" refers to a mystical True Will that all purportedly possess. It comes from a religion designed to help overthrow Christianity and replace Christian charity with Yoga. I'm not saying Crowley didn't have anything worthwhile to say, but his views (which were not a libertarian “Do as thou whim” which is what you've mischaracterised it as) are part of a general thrust toward the Hinduisation of society at the expense of the wisdom of the Church which I do not take without challenge or inquiry. Your suggestion of collapsing school administration into local districts sounds like an option that should be considered. But your suggestion that conservative teachers are not pulling their weight is untrue. Conservatives are pushed out of schooling, life is made hard for them and no matter their convictions this policy will eventually expunge most of their influence from the school system, as it already has. And yes, I complain about liberal teachers who are serving the femiblob. No, I mean racial as in human subspecies, breeds, like cat breeds. This is yet another dimension where humans are being atomised and their heritage dismantled. In particular this means white people are being erased, or, to be perfectly clear: genocided. Critical thought should challenge everything, including tendencies toward scientism and the sterile intellectual zone of atheism. Saying sexual Type is “as strong or as weak as your hormones, brain chemistry, and psychology and beliefs make it to be,” doesn't really say anything besides listing strength factors. It's saying “a thing is as strong as it is.” But you do complement this by suggesting it might be broken in a decade or more by playing against it chemically and electronically. Thanks for you answer. Don't you find this possibility chilling?

What do you mean?

How is that separable from the action of almighty Culture?

Hi junglecat, As a Christian of the Catholic persuasion I'm unsure what to make of your theory, but it interests me because I like to drill down to the bedrock of my faith and see what's down there. In line with but beyond C.S. Lewis, I'm seeking the "merest" Christianity possible. So I can accept the possibility of a person being Christian implicitly but not explicitly. This smacks of intelligent ecumenicism. The specific question I have for you is, what are we to make of the Atonement? Christ on the Cross atones for the sins of man, by repairing the primary metaphysical damage caused by sin, and so opens the way for all men to avoid eternal punishment for their respective sins. You seem to be suggesting the mechanism of the Atonement particularly and possibly exclusively has to do with the temporal war against Satan, and I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that essential Christianity is nothing other than a defeat of temporal violence using methods of peace, something other cultures have groped towards?

Recently I participated in a charity walk attended mostly by Grade 9 co-ed students walking their grandparents and other elderly patients. In a group of 50 there might have been one youth coloured, and none of the relatives were. I noticed the girls all had long or longish hair, the boys had shorter hair. Nearly everyone wore teeshirts and some girls had things written on them such as LIVE L O V E DREAM contrasted with the boys wearing Punisher and Ozzy Osbourne. Clothing was light or mixed colours, with nothing colour-coordinated, but no boys were wearing pink or obviously girlish patterns of colours. Nobody dressed particularly attractively, but this is 2016 after all. I bring this up to sound a faint note about Type. Feminism would have us believe that either (a) there are no Types and anything resembling it is a product of legacy culture, or (b) men have negative, dangerous Type and women have positive, healing, wise Type. From this spills forth patriarchy theory. My first question is, IF human populations naturally bifurcated into male and female Types, HOW would we know? Would it be by men and women persistently favouring different professions? Would it be by boys and girls favouring different toys and play-styles? Would it be by youth affecting different complementary clothing styles, however vestigial? Would it be a male tendency toward the mechanical advantage, and female toward the "flowy"? Would it be a male aggressivity and a female preference for violence by proxy? Would it be by sex-divided entertainments where the men humour their girlfriends and wives by screening romantic comedies with them, and where women humour their boyfriends and husbands by screening action movies with them? Would it be the persistence of heterosexuality and heteronormativity itself? Or is there another “tell” we should be looking for? If we're dealing with Types, that doesn't mean society can't play against Type strongly enough to negate it. If human soul and behaviour are 0.5 nature and 0.5 nurture, it should be possibly to redeploy that 0.5 nurture to squash that 0.5 nature, leaving us in a malleable null-state. I believe that is what is happening now. Straight women affecting lower facial hair (wait for it), depilated (or not) straight men sporting winsome breasts ("transgender" or not), LGBT&c expansion of its alphabet soup of sexual deviation (and demanding it not be tolerated but embraced and celebrated and given a large amount of lime light), an increasingly Satanic, “do as thou wilt” attitude, and marching liberalism and feminism with their lock on the school teachers and post-secondary professors, the mainstream press, and all but a few politicians, combined with multicultural disorientations, the general delapidation of culture, religion, racial consciousness, linguistic competency, and critical thought, is blasting at the sexual Types like Saudi Arabian demolitions experts spiritually reeducating an Afghani stone Buddha. A thigh here, a chunk of belly there, and the thing is starting to look in sad shape, and yet still heteronormativity persists. My next questions are, What does it take to destroy it? If there is Type, how tough is it?

Let's jump to the end: legal paedophilia and child blood sacrifice. That's where all this is heading. The paedophiles want to be "liberated" too--like Mohammed. And sooner or later a "liberated" woman will insist on her right to sacrifice her living, extracted fetus to Satan, the Great Mother, or the King of Rock and Roll. "Then, whispered Castro, those first men formed the cult around small idols which the Great Ones shewed them; idols brought in dim aeras from dark stars. That cult would never die till the stars came right again, and the secret priests would take great Cthulhu from His tomb to revive His subjects and resume His rule of earth. The time would be easy to know, for then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom. Meanwhile the cult, by appropriate rites, must keep alive the memory of those ancient ways and shadow forth the prophecy of their return." --H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Gaining the Oval Office will be a feather in Trump's cap. And maybe he actually wants to help the country. What I don't understand is "conspiracy people" who are totally pessimistic, every election is rigged, every candidate is bought, etc.. Why do they bother reading about this stuff if there's no hope? Just hobbyism I guess.

You would also agree that Sweden has a closer proximity to ancapism, just by virtue of being sweet and nice and all that?

Don't ancaps find this a difficult issue to address, given that according to them all "state territory" is illegitimately owned and thus subject to appropriation by whatever groups decide to claim ownership, police, and maintain their own borders?

I think your cat is deaf. Blue-eyed white cats are usually deaf. Thanks for the post, will get to it later.

It's good that you explained yourself better. Thank you. Yet to pursue your ideal of contesting all evil, at all times, one had better find allies, friends, and spouses to refresh and encourage oneself. The loner is at risk of burning out if he spends his life in endless disputation. It may sharpen his rhetorical skill but it can also drain his soul.

Do you personally know any children who have been taught how to think, rather than what to think? Do such children exist?

I think he's being metaphorical. Unfortunately I don't understand what he metaphorically really means.

"...and Western women are now deciding who will take it away from them."