Donnadogsoth

I mean God. Did God create the white race only to have it die—or even to have it be sacrificed on the altar of international brotherhood? What kind of God would do such a thing? Surely it's not a coincidence that both of the greatest philosophical influences on the Twentieth Century came from Imperial Britain? Consider also: “Whatever else Trier's Karl Marx represented, Marxism, as an ideology and doctrine, was, in its cultural characteristics, an outgrowth of the emerging British Empire whose power, established in the Paris Treaty of February 1763, had been consolidated by the outcome of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars. Marxism as a doctrine was a phenomenon whose axiomatic features had been pre-shaped by the British Foreign Office's Jeremy Bentham, and, more immediately, by Bentham's successor and British asset Marx's actual owner, Lord Palmerston.[3]” and, “Whereas the development of what London asset Marx came to recognize as a system of British political economy, occurred chiefly under the impetus of Britain's notorious Lord Shelburne, after the February 1763 Treaty of Paris, with Shelburne's assignment to his lackey Adam Smith: to scour France for intelligence on economy which might be used against the already significant development within the North American English colonies, and in France. Hence, Adam Smith's 1776 tract against the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Smith's so-called Wealth of Nations, was largely a work of plagiarism, by Smith and others, of the doctrines of the French Physiocrats Quesnay and Turgot.” Discussed further here. How the Liberals Tried To Make Engels' Monkey Into a Man And also, The "Jewish" Conspiracy is British Imperialism There are no wealthy Europeans?

You know, there is a Delete key. You don't have to repost Moore's entire essay in order to respond.

Are you an incestiphobe? One day we will be called paedophobes.

Could the incest taboo be merely Darwinian? Let's redpill ourselves [theoretically] by thinking that incest is gross because it leads to genetic ill health. Paedophilia is gross because it represents an infertile union. Sex with old people is gross for the same reason. Doesn't it all revolve around breeding, psychologically, in terms of what we would call normal, well-adjusted human beings of breeding age?

Have the rainbow brigade added this "I" to their alphabet soup yet? There is nothing in [popular] principle stopping incestual unions. Even if the children had a higher chance of developing a disease or deformity, so what? Do we bar dwarfs and hemophiliacs from marrying, too?

Suppressing chaos is what principles do. The general welfare principle suppresses the criminal chaos of the government existing for its own benefit. The principle of beauty suppresses the chaos of modern art. The principle of the star-map suppresses the chaos of the ocean as we find we are no longer lost. We discover these things, which are akin to Platonic forms, and we use them to reorder society. Hierarchical polygamy is the natural state of man as beast; monogamous heterosexuality is the natural state of man as man. Just as we have overcome slavery, so should we overcome polygamy. Promiscuity, lack of formal relational structure, yes, and this is most common in homosexual men. Lesbians tend to go the other way. This is the result of men being men; if women were as willing to have sex with men as men are with women, heterosexuals would be as promiscuous as homosexual man, and if men were as unwilling to have sex with women as women are with men, heterosexuals would be as sexually conservative as Lesbians. Your point about sexuality without tradition is taken. Yet the differences between men and women, regardless of sexuality, impose themselves on homosexual relationships causing disruption. Another example of this is in homosexual culture as such, which has the following problem. Heterosexuals can, if they choose, migrate to a social group of the same sex, which is mostly free of sexual tension. If they want to experience sexual tension they must enter a mixed sex or opposite sex group. Generally speaking, homosexuals cannot “hang out” with each other outside of sexual tension. If a homosexual wants a tensionless group he must hang out with women, but this has the problem that only one homosexual can attend, because the moment there are two or more, the tension returns. Homosexuals probably envy the heterosexuals' ability to easily move in social circles free of sexual tension, yet among their own sex. You have nicely summed up the division in Christianity and in all religions and philosophies, one that causes me some trouble. The problem with dispensing with your first way, is that with it goes all hope of mercy and justice. If all there is is helping the future, then those lives lived in misery will never obtain recompense. Similarly, those crimes committed with impunity will never obtain vengeance. This is a demoralising loss to humanity, to think so, don't you think? As you like it: Zinni Jones in her glory Not just polymorphous perversity but sexual bullying by trying to induce heterosexual men into having relations with transsexual women. Or a thin girl versus a fat girl become thin? If in your example they're both biological females with a virtually identical mind, then it's a toss up. I'm not against orthodontics or plastic surgery, in principle. he disgust felt by the conservatives, including Leftists and Centrists who simply breathe through a straw while submerged in the dominant ideology, strikes me as arising from the idea of mutilation. Mutilation is disgusting: someone missing an ear or a nose or a hand is repulsive on that count, no matter how well we try to hide our disgust. Homosexuals are people with a mutilated sexuality, and transsexuals either mutilate the dress code or else themselves through transition surgery. This doesn't give us an excuse for beating them up or insulting them, but does explain the persistent antipathy they face that can mutate into hatred. The wounded animal is often prey. Is this fear? Fear of disease to self, disease to the tribe. And as forestated, this isn't an unfounded, irrational fear. It doesn't matter whether it's a remedial therapy or not, it's what it looks like. Giving a biological girl breasts is like giving her braces. Similarly, administering chemotherapy to someone may (arguably) be helping them, but that “help” still looks like mutilation with hair falling out and horribly sick. A transsexual woman is defying the biology built into her body; her entire body is in a sense the enemy that needs to be wrestled into submission with medical procedures and drugs. That's a world away from helping a girl grow breasts. On men and women and hierarchies, the question isn't whether men are more dominant than women, it's what our response to that natural fact should be. The feminist response is to, depending on whether the given feminist is a pawn or a queen, either abolish the hierarchy or invert it. Their friends the Muslims would reinforce it and add polygamy back in. The conservative position would be the acknowledgement that men and women are different, that creating equality of opportunity is good but creating equality of outcome is not. This leads us to a situation such as I've heard about in Scandinavia, the most gender-equal place on Earth, where men still overwhelmingly make up engineering classes and women still overwhelmingly make up nursing classes. Bingo. Emphasis added. I would not describe the hierarchy as being a better/worse, but just active/passive. A transwoman is taking on, symbolically, here, a passive persona, seen in impractical clothing choices like high heels or what have you, she's symbolically (and perhaps literally) depleting the tribe's warrior-base. I think the great advantage transsexual have here is not feminism's critique of the sexual hierarchy, something which I think exists for natural reasons AND has a Platonic principles foundation to it that will and should resist attempts to sweep it away in favour of feminist New Soviet Man, but rather the medicalisation and bionic augmentation of the human body. As long as the heterosexual paradigm continues to define society, transsexualism will be seen as just another procedure, oh I'm taking drugs for this what are you taking drugs for?, oh I had my transition last year, does it show?, no, I'd've never guessed, keen, would you like some blue apple?, my husband raves about it. . . But it's written in the stars And every line in your palm We are fools to make war On our brothers in arms Of course we are at war with the entire Universe, which wants to degrade us and kills us, so yes we are at war with what Vladimir I. Vernasky called the Lithosphere, and the Biosphere which has supplanted it. Humanity's proper mission is to build and expand the Noösphere, the sphere of human cybernetic interaction which can and should extend infinitely into Outer Space. But this idea is taken by the so-called transhumanists to think that we should deform ourselves beyond all recognition in a quest for higher IQ and longer lifespans. This is where it gets dangerous, just as genetically modifying our food supply is dangerous. I don't believe we should have blue apples, for example, though we might have red apples with Vitamin B, or something. We should strive to preserve as much of the principled order as possible, including heterosexuality. We should not land on Mars and have three arms. I have a friend with whom I disagree about transsexuality. He thinks transsexuals are “delusional” about their mental sex, and I think they are metaphysically true. My question in general is, if transsexuals were correct in what they think they are, how could they possibly prove it more than they already do by acting and talking as they do?

Responding soon...

Perspective is relative. If I have a hamster, I wonder, what's it like to be my hamster? Well, to the hamster, being a hamster is normal, just as to me, being a human is normal. So, regardless of what accidental differences the hamster and I have, we share the commonality of feeling that we are normal, respectively. The only way that we might differ, it seems, is in the degree to which our desires are fulfilled. My hamster may be very fulfilled and therefore very happy, or it may be unfulfilled and unhappy. The same goes for me. So, in this sense, we can see there could be a difference between myself and my hamster. But, this is not a difference in principle. It is not radically different to be a man compared to a hamster. Or is it? Plato's Socrates in The Republic spoke of how a rational man is superior to the courageous or the merely appetitive sorts of men, because being rational he can compare the three types and judge among them, whereas the latter two types have no understanding of the rational and therefore cannot judge. In this sense, then, I as a man can judge that I am superior to my hamster, because I possess the reason allowing me to judge the matter, whereas it lacks this faculty and exists purely in the determination of its instincts. So, we see that there is a comparative quality that differs between us, even though we remain equally normal, and this quality is only viewable to ourselves as reasoning beings. The hamster exists in invincible ignorance regarding the mental-emotional difference between itself and myself. I see that we are different, even though my feeling of normality is the same. I am conscious of my superiority to the hamster in this regard.

I don't disagree that it's a significant pattern you describe, but I do disagree that it's the top of the pyramid. I think the Jews are being manipulated by the chiefly British oligarchy, the same oligarchy that produced both Karl Marx and Adam Smith, the one which has been trying since the Revolutionary War to retake America, first militarily until the end of the (British-backed) Confederacy, then financially through the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. The Jews may seem powerful, even gloating, but the real underlying emotion with them is fear: fear that the white elephant will roll over and crush them again. Thus, they've done everything in their power to cement themselves into Western society, by working to criminalise or at least make taboo criticism of the Holocaust, by getting their fingers in the financial and professional and government and media and educational pies, and by promoting coloured colonisation of white countries so they can disappear in the multicultural/racial crowd. The Alt Right's problem isn't ballsiness, it's that they don't think big enough--Faustian enough. The world is increasingly connected and needs to be more connected if it is going to lift itself up to a higher economic platform than before. Just as the American railroad building program created the America as we know it geographically and economically, so the world needs a worldwide program of infrastructural development of the type currently being worked on by China with its $4 to 20 trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative. The Alt Right doesn't know or doesn't care about this, and yet it is Faustian in its nature to the core. If we want to migrate into Outer Space, if we want to turn off the colonisation taps by giving people a reason not to abandon their own countries, if we want to save our economy and prevent a general breakdown crisis, these sorts of megaprojects and development of the wastelands and interiors of Earth are the way to go. However, the people (including many Jews) on board with this vision man: as dedicating himself to the economic and high cultural development of the planet, don't care about the white race. Which leads me to question: does the white race matter? Does the Universe care if we go extinct? I have a thought on this but would like to see what you think.

The government is elected by the voters. If sufficient numbers of voters want real change (e.g., an orange president), they'll get it. It's the mental fog most people are in that indicates the real power, for now, is in the legacy media and educational institutions. How do we cut that fog?

I'm not aware of city states "popping up" though there seems to be more regions like Scotland, Catalonia, Basque seeking independence. Do you see fragmentation as helping the West survive, or is fragmentation a nonevent with regards to the Third World colonisation program currently underway? Why can't nation-states be tiny? Isn't federalism empire by another name? Why couldn't a world empire easily vacuum up tiny nation-states, if no big ones exist to oppose it?

No, quite the contrary. Nations are our best defense against world government. We have been taught from the earliest ages of comprehension, to believe that nationality, nations, and nationalism are illegitimate, supported by the stupid and wicked. And, of course, this issue revolves around whites, because they constitute the majorities in the Western countries and therefore are the biggest impediment to dissolving the nation-state. The only allowed collective interest for whites is seen in something like the grotesque "We Day" cult. Whites do not have a place at the table. Whites, it is said, do not even exist, except when it is convenient for them to menstruate once more for their historical crimes. Save white people and we save the nation-state. Save the nation-state and we stop world government.

Do you notice every mustard seed being crushed by your teeth when you eat a sandwich?

I mean that there is a term "nation-state" which refers to a nation, or people with a common heritage, typically by blood, language, culture, and the like, which has a state or government which exists, theoretically, for the nation's benefit. Another term for a nation-state is a country. If we devalue nations, as seen in the widespread hostility to and vituperative denunciation of nationalism, then we are saying that nations are illegitimate and should not be considered when constituting a country. This is denationalisation, saying the wishes of the majority of a nation-state don't matter and that the state does not exist to cater to those wishes, but rather for some other purpose. If nations are illegitimate, then there's no sense talking about nation-states, now is there? We must deduct nation from state. This leaves only a random population and the state ruling over it. This sort of nationless state I call a null-set state. Another word for a state ruling over multiple nations is an empire. So it seems there is only a political barrier to all null-set states becoming a single empire. There is no natural barrier to it if nations have no claim to sovereignty and the use of their own respective states.

. . . Why not roll the whole group of null-set States into a single World Empire? Isn't that the natural conclusion to the denationalisation of nation-states?

According to this we all should be underwater or starving ten times over by now. http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/

I don't see why you would disagree with heterosexuality as a principle. The idea of complementary bodies and complementary minds marrying and producing offspring seems just about the pinnacle of creation. Is there any nobler pursuit? Pure mathematics maybe? Noting the existence of homosexuals, we should remove from their number the number of homosexuals who break down into a kind of pseudo-hetero pairing; the “butch and femme” stereotype which I think is a stereotype for a reason. And also remove the transsexuals who attempt to adhere as closely as possible to the hetero mould. So, heterosexuality is just about a universal concept, even down to most people not wanting to marry a clone (or a sibling) but someone somewhat different from themselves, and the existence of marriage as an institution which is based on the idea of a fruitful hetero union. I wouldn't be so sure that rainbow sexuality can't damage heterosexuality. Much of the homosexual interaction is toxic, for example the whole “cruise culture” and VD rates. Heteros are being “converted” to this kind of thing through computer “hook ups” and porn. From a distance the one scene looks very much like the other: entropic. Part of this comes from what the Catholic Church calls the “intrinsically disordered” nature of homosexual congress; the Sexual Revolution wasn't just a movement against prudishness, it represents a war on Nature—wait for surgical-grafting of multiple organs, incest, necrophilia, etc etc. The Traditionalism I have mentioned, though even most people involved in its defence don't know this, revolves around the principles that includes heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is a good in the way that blood is a good. Spill someone's blood and that blood isn't good anymore. All that said, there seems to be a popular view that rainbow people can be “talked out of it”. The best the Catholic Church can offer (as an alternative to suicide, we might imagine) is celibacy, to view the condition as a cross one must bear, in the hopes of glory in the next life. We are rather deep in the Fall at this point for this option to appeal to any more than a tiny minority. The fake conservative-Right, well, the sooner that implodes the better, just as the sooner the Left implodes the better. So, I'm hoping it all self-destructs and real conservatism wins, but an enlightened conservatism that is willing to not “make life hell” for the rainbow people. Pipe dreams? I'm not really interested in where the article was hosted or what the author says so much as Ms. Jones damning herself with her own words. The Sexual Revolution is not over by a mile, and it leads to Marcuse's “polymorphous perversity” including everything that is currently considered perverse being tolerated-then-normalised-then customary (how many young women are giving in to their pseuo-boyfriends' demands for anal sex in return for a hug or whatever?). We're dealing with the magnified spectre of De Sade, of total freedom, as the fallen human organism seeks total rejection of God. We're headed towards Sodom, in other words, and atheists or not we will feel the wrath of the Universe as it obliterates that which it has no need of. I can envison a time when heterosexuality is illegal, just as I can imagine a time when cisracialism (strictly marrying only within one's race) will be illegal. First these things will be marginalised, then condemned. Given the crap that's come down the pipe these past several decades, I put nothing past society, it is capable of anything, and history bears that out. So one day hetero men and women will be told it's politically correct to “examine” their sexuality and “question” and “experiment” and anyone who doesn't will be ostracised. I've noticed a toggle effect with transsexual visages. I've seen well-formed androgynous faces and when I think of one as a woman, I'm attracted, and when I think of that same one as a man, I'm repelled. This is very simple: I'm not just attracted to bodies as found objects but to the whole package of body and mind, a natural body and a natural mind. Odds are that won't be good enough for the Leftists, no way José. The disgust felt by the conservatives, including Leftists and Centrists who simply breathe through a straw while submerged in the dominant ideology, strikes me as arising from the idea of mutilation. Mutilation is disgusting: someone missing an ear or a nose or a hand is repulsive on that count, no matter how well we try to hide our disgust. Homosexuals are people with a mutilated sexuality, and transsexuals either mutilate the dress code or else themselves through transition surgery. This doesn't give us an excuse for beating them up or insulting them, but does explain the persistent antipathy they face that can mutate into hatred. The wounded animal is often prey. Is this fear? Fear of disease to self, disease to the tribe. And as forestated, this isn't an unfounded, irrational fear. I too appreciate the engagement; you must find the Internet as hostile as I do. I would recommend Jordan Peterson to anyone interested in religion, he's a positive force and brave, too. Taking Christianity bit by bit might be a bit misleading, through. One should look for the big Idea that the Bible and its associated works is trying to convey, something typified by how difficult Jesus's words were to collate and mentally grapple with. The sense that there is a Story being told, rather than just debating how snappy any given one-liner from Jesus is, has lead me to consider there are really two different Christianities, the literal one and the metaphorical one. I lead towards the latter (and hopefully I don't fall off the latter). This approach views the different Christian sects not as defining Christianity but as representing different disciplines of Christianity. Homosexuals, Bureaucrats And bullyboys Increase before Each fall into darkness --Frank Herbert

I would have to emphasise that man is made in the mental image of God in a very real sense. It's not a metaphor. The Creative Potency that generated the Universe generated us, generated the principles we work with, and we are capable of following in Its footsteps, to “think God's thoughts after him” as Kepler once said. It's important to think of it this way in order to give us the proper sense of self-importance and dignity we merit, the reason reason and caring matters other than just being an animal reflex. We are the Gods on this planet, to the degree that we (a) reason in terms of principle, and (b) care for other human beings as sacred. So reason and agape are sacred in this sense. Through this we discover the universal principles by which we reorganise the world into being a more nurturing environment for ourselves, preventing collapse, war, and other ills. If we're dealing with people who don't want to reason such and/or don't care so, we're facing dangerous people—the morally insane! The morally insane can't be reasoned with because either they don't understand or they use the occasion for flippancy or the sadism of the kind common to Internet and other political discussions. Such people should be minimally contacted, just given the odd barb of wit where possible, but always playing for the undetermined audience, not with the intent of earnestly trying to convert the crazies. So, yes, it's wise to establish, or learn to detect, when people are principled in this way, before engaging them. Not always easy to do, sometimes it's tempting to just make a display of principled thought for the sake of “representing” in a battle, again, for the sake of the undetermined audience, in the hopes of irradiating them with rationality/agape. If we agree on the (a) and (b) given above, then the matter turns on the specific principle directly relevant to the issue of transsexuality: the principle of heterosexuality as such. Now, there are problems with this, because it's an ill-defined, hitherto “intuitively” defined thing in society, that few have questioned, but, now we're at the stage of questioning it because of certain anomalies that appear embedded in it, such as transsexualism and homosexuality, and so the question revolves around the question of whether or not these things are going to dissolve heterosexuality as the basis for the basic reproductive unit. In this you appear to agree that heterosexuality is a good, and that you wish to fit within it rather than destroy it. And not having transsexuals killing themselves or otherwise be wasted is a good thing. But, I'm not convinced the “movement” associated with transsexuals and other sexual and other minorities is not dead-opposed to the heterosexual paradigm and is dragging transsexuals along with it or brainwashing them into thinking their best interest lies in this movement to destroy Tradition—to destroy whiteness, to destroy Christianity, to destroy masculinity and heterosexuality, and to pervert, vandalise, destroy and scatter to the winds all the culture associated with these groups. This is a total culture war we're in and I would like to have the transsexuals on the right side of it. So, that's my reservation, that transsexualism as co-opted by the general cultural Marxist movement leads to things like this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/trans-man-believes-heterosexual-males-who-reject-him-sexually-are-prejudice

Good thoughts. However it shouldn't be called meta-politics since it is not above politics but beside it. Call it para-politics instead.

Nevertheless, the West is defined by Christ as Logos and the Holy Spirit flowing from him. In other words, Christianity assimilating Greek thought was no accident, but was where the Logos found its more full expression. Logos and Agape are the glories of the West. Other civilisations partake of them, because all people have them to some degree, they form the inner conscience and the faculty of discovery, but the West put these ideas into practice like no other through their relatively high degree of assimilation of Christianity. Minus Logos and Agape and we are not worthy to exist, and Providence will soon erase us. Bill Warner PhD: A Civilizational Manifesto

Consider these two paradoxes. 1.From a Christian perspective, should we pursue Heaven or should we work to develop the world? 2.From a Classical humanist perspective, should we pursue pleasure or should we work to develop the world? To the first, it appears that they are one in the same: we should act in such a way as to develop the world, which, if we are sincere, will lead to Heaven. To the second, it appears that they are incompatible. However, if the individual can educate his emotions just so, he can find developing the world to be a pleasure. Thus, pursuing Heaven and pursuing pleasure converge in terms of developing the world. Ergo, we have reason to refer to Christianity (and all religion) in terms of world development, and to educate our emotions such that we promote such development.

Was whoever spoke those words wise or not wise?

In other words your senses are the necessary gateway to your conception of wave functions, both in terms of seeing words on a page and in terms of visualising a wave function. Minus your senses, you have no access to "wave functions".

And how do you read books?

You can know what wave functions are without using your eyes and/or ears? Really? You have telepathy?