Donnadogsoth

Great video, J.D., thanks for posting it. I see racial consciousness as following Kubler-Ross's five phases of grief: 1 - denial (I'm not reading/thinking about this!) 2 - hostility (You're a Nazi!) 3 - bargaining (Maybe I can just be part of "white flight"...) 4 - depression (We're doomed...) 5 - acceptance (The more white people are aware, the more options we will have. If Japan can keep herself whole, so can we.)

The word racism itself is a terroristic word. It's used to instill fear of attack, whether physical or social, in anyone who activates for white self-interest. It could be argued complementary-wise that the word terrorism itself is a racist word. It's used to justify physical and social attacks on nonwhite "freedom fighters." "Terrorists" are simply non-whites attacking the West. "Racists" are simply Westerners attacking terrorists.

What about your children? You're not free to "create whatever rules you like" regarding them, are you?

We can't know exactly, but we can whittle it down to a ballpark estimate. How many bullies are there in a school? 1 in a 100? 1 in 10? In my experience of Junior High there were two bullies out of hundreds of kids. Let's split the difference and call it 4%. The Terrible 4%. That gives 288 million terrorists in the world, low grade or high grade. A high grade terrorist, one who actually picks up a real weapon, not a toothpick or a pin or something but a real weapon like a machete or a gun, and intends to use it, seems harder to figure, but if the 4% number is correct than we can expect a warlike religion such as Islam would encourage, by hook or crook, that 4% of natural bullies (low grade terrorists) to become, or at least become-in-waiting, high grade terrorists. Out of a population of 1.6 billion, that gives 64 million high grade terrorists. All they all tapped? No. But they're present and vulnerable to transforming into Jihadis given sufficient incentive. /ballpark

I agree with your lucid presentation, and thank you, and submit that "good" hinges purely on principle, or on ideas. The concept art parodies the ideas of the master painters, which are akin to the musical ideas of the classical masters. These ideas or principles relate uniquely to the human mind as capable of discovering them, rather than exhibiting monkey-cleverness. I think you will run into a lot of static from your idea because of its "blasphemy" against the new church of multiculturalism, which invades art and declares truth, beauty, and goodness the unholy trinity once used by Eurocentric colonialists to oppress the rest of the world, etc.. Multiculturalism is based on vengeance for real and perceived European crimes, against any European targets vulnerable enough to warrant the effort of destroying. In defending "good art" you are defending the towering WTC (Western Traditional Civilisation) from the winged messengers of postmodern nihilism, hedonism, and suicide.

I would define a terrorist as anyone committing immoral acts of violence designed to instill fear into a person or persons. This would include Jihadis, but also gangs and schoolyard bullies. A moral act of violence designed to instill fear would be, for example, beating an intruder off your property.

Given the low-birthrate trend is across the board in the white West, excepting outliers like the Mormons, I don't think rich whites alone can account for the low birthrate. Middle class people have below-replacement fertility as well, in my experience. I don't know anyone with more than 2 kids. As a friend put it, "People just aren't having kids anymore, for some reason." This has something to do with feminism, encouraging women to have a career and have children later, if at all. And children are more of a strain to bear when you're older and have less energy, so you stop at 1 or 2. And feminism has driven a wedge deeply between the sexes to the point that marriages aren't that stable any more, which demoralises people who otherwise would like children. Also affecting it is consumerism and hedonism and a general delayed development resulting from a collapse in culture or a breaking of chains to older wisdom, the "youth revolution" and the "sexual revolution" that inculcated a despising of the nuclear family as the core of the social universe. Can anyone think of any more reasons why the white birthrate is suicidal? Possibly because of self-hatred, we actually want to die at this point? Schooling has something to do with that, methinks.

We continue to almost agree. Man is not merely an evolved creature. Just as his brain does much of its growing outside the womb, so does his evolved nature develop through culture. So Men and Women are not merely evolutionary impressions on otherwise undifferentiated wax, but products of cultural development. When a boy grows up, and joins a society of men (men qua men), even if that society is solely influenced by aforesaid evolutionary impression, he will encounter instinctive external pressure to conform to the archetype of masculinity. In that context, not guiding him towards that archetype will be doing him a disservice. The same goes for girls. We don't need to abuse them, but guidance without abuse is possible, and, indeed, is a pillar of good parenting. Otherwise, I agree with your definition of individualism, and of the unnecessariness of abuse. "...it becomes a war over which group's feelings have primacy as we are seeing." Excellent line.

On Porches, I thought about pointing that out and discarded the notion. You said it better than I would have. My defense of Western civilisation could be considered a massive Terror Management project, of which defending Christendom is a part, though not the only part. I fear that all that is green and good in the world that I have inherited from my ancestors will perish. Since outside of that project is the chill of hedonism, postmodern intellectual bankruptcy, and apathy as Western civ is erased from history, and I fancy myself noble enough to hate that prospect, I lend myself to the battle. Just because it's Terror Management doesn't mean it isn't true. Terror Management is just how humans cope with a loss of meaning, but to say that no meaning is the right one detonates TMT itself.

1 - How do you define eternal justice (which should include a definition of injustice as well I think)? That every sin is paid for. Sin is injustice, a violation of natural law. 2 - Do you think a world with life without your definition of injustice is possible or desirable? Given God as the sole source of life, no, it's not possible. Its desirability is therefore realistically unimaginable. 3 - If you believe in Heaven or Hell does that mean you believe in eternal life (no possibility of death)? Yes. 4 - Do you view 'eternal life' as a contradiction or no? No. 5 - Is the 'justice' of heaven and hell eternal while the 'injustice' (as you see it) on Earth eternal or not eternal? Heaven and Hell's justice is eternal, yes. Temporal (Earthly) injustice can receive either eternal or temporal punishment, so whether it is eternal or not eternal depends on human volition, if you see what I mean. 6 - If an injustice, by your definition, occurs on Earth, and then the murdered person (if that can meet your requirements) goes to heaven, forever, and the murderer goes to hell forever, is that or does that seem like justice to you? It seems awful and unimaginable simultaneously. It certainly counsels against suicide. 7 - Do you believe in Hell (regardless of whether or not you've given sufficient reason to here)? Yes. 8 - Do you have more reasons to believe in Hell than you've given or does your belief or possible belief in Hell rest or hinge upon your thinking eternal justice is desirable and Hell is the only way to provide it? I don't know if Hell is the only way to provide eternal justice. Nor am I satisfied that Hell is what popular religious and cultural depictions show it to be. My understanding of Hell and eternal justice flow from two sources within Western civilisation. One, the Church, which emphasises that Hell is real and eternal and utterly undesirable, but which has never described it officially except that it is, to paraphrase, “an apartness from God.” Two, the wisdom of Lyndon LaRouche, in his description of the immortality of the human soul as achieved through Agape, in terms of man being in the image of God and thereby capable, at least in theory, of participating in Creation. In this latter sense, to squander one's life by remaining outside of Christ is to buy “apartness from God”. So the two merge.

I'm not trying to needle you or anything, but individualism can be taken too far and has made childrearing more difficult by instilling "special snowflake" syndrome. This relates, I think, to the "triggering" and like concepts that have come down the University effluent pipe to us. Children should at some point be exposed to the idea that there are roles to be fit into. We don't have to be dicks about it, there are going to b outliers who need accommodation, but the tenor of the times is to accommodate everything as if there were no "biological and economic constraints" and as if heterosexuality and childrearing were akin to one fad of many, rather than being the centre of the social universe. So, I think other than my above statement, we agree.

What you say sounds optimistic and realistic. But I don't wish to sacrifice the ideal on the altar of absolute individualism. We can think of the sexed populations as bell curves. Most boys are going to benefit from a traditional boy-centric upbringing, just as most girls are going to benefit from a traditional girl-centric one. We are not a wild collection of people all over the graph in equal distribution, we are predominantly MEN and WOMEN. So I fear damaging people by ignoring our sexed natures, and in so doing damaging the culture, which in turn damages yet more people as national confidence and wisdom go down. I'm referring to them as ends for their own good. I could be a doctor administering a drug and asking the same form of question.

Sickening. I was never lied to about Santa Claus when I was a child and I have a healthy sense that lying to children is wrong. Delimit detail, try to avoid making them cynical and bemused, but outright telling a child that worthless straws are potent weapons is despicable. I don't care if the guy was struggling himself, you should be clear about these kinds of things before you become a dad.

There was a fantasy novel by Piers Anthony, in which the innocent fauns danced and capered and made love all day in their paradisical garden. Everything was perfect, except that every now and then, these giant, vicious, carnivorous birds would swoop down and take one or two fauns away to eat. The other fauns screamed and panicked, running about mindless with fear for many minutes...until they calmed down, and then they completely forgot about the raptor birds, and went back to dancing and making love. Ain't love grand?

Either Christianity is true or false. If false, it is either useful or useless. If it is false and useful, as by promoting a certain morality and economically valid worldview, then the possibility of separating the useful kernel from the nut of falseness arises and should be tried. If it is false and useless, eradicate it. If Christianity is true, and literally promises hellfire to the unrepentant sinner, then it should be believed and obeyed. Nothing, by definition, is worth going into hellfire for, certainly not the momentary satisfaction of making a stand on principle against the Almighty. (I'll add that atheists often hold God to be unjust, and if that were so, their pointing out that injustice would, although still vain, be correct. But if God is in fact just, then that changes the equation and no longer makes Hell a horrible statement about God, but just a horrible place that deserving sinners are sent.) If Christianity is true, hellfire may be misunderstood as not a punishment from God as such but as a condition of the soul that has misled its life. This requires a revision of the understanding of immortality as the concept of a soul's efficacy at contributing to human society and therefore placing itself like a brick in a cathedral upon which further bricks rest on in the quest for height. In this view, hell is the condition of the soul that has contributed nothing, and is to be burned up like garbage in Gehenna.

"Do you think women would respond as well as men do to being told "don't be so sensitive," etc.?" Here, I am using "well" to mean "efficacious."

I appreciate your concern, but I think I am being misunderstood. I haven't given any reason to belief in Hell other than a belief in eternal justice, which I have not justified, but simply taken as a starting point. If eternal justice exists, then it is possible Hell exists as well. And for anyone not to believe in eternal justice, is for them to believe in the universe as almost wholly a tragedy. Does that explain it or am I missing a subtlety?

Hmm. Do you think women would respond as well as men do to being told "don't be so sensitive," etc.? Or, is telling a man to "man up" playing to his type, and comforting a woman playing to her type? If we tell men to bawl freely and tell women to stop being pussies, would we end up with women with compartmentalised thoughts and feelings as much as old-fashioned men had, and men seeking emotional validation as much as old-fashioned women had? Or would the sexes completely equalise? My questions come down to whether or not there are psychological/emotional types that men and women tend to express respectively.

And if I didn't have genuine hope for the entirety of the universe I wouldn't believe in eternal justice.

No, I am positing that the absence of eternal justice is a mortal blow to human hope.

So, I've noticed something about the women around me, that I've met in life or are related to, and it's that they tend to visibly cry more often than do the men in my life, including myself. I gather, that feminism's patriarchy theory explains this by saying that women are encouraged by the culture to cry, and men are encouraged to suppress crying. The problem with this is, how to do you encourage anyone to cry? That is, to cry more often than otherwise? Crying is sort of an all-or-nothing thing. Either you cry or you don't. How can propaganda encourage this? I suppose you could perceive a tear-jerking movie or listen to sad songs, but will this really foster in someone a tendency to cry at other times? Do mothers and fathers really instill in their daughters an expectation that they should cry more often than their sons? How could this possibly instill the necessary emotional responses needed to weep? Could the explanation simply be that women are more emotionally volatile than men, and this explains their tendency to cry more often visibly than men?

What will implement your universal justice? Including for all those who lived and died wretchedly, unfairly, and without hope. There are many alternatives to eternal justice, yes. But either there is eternal justice or there's not. What's your point? Why don't you give me a negative point? That'll learn me!

I believe in Hell not because of the reasons you list, but because I believe the universe is ultimately just. To believe otherwise is to believe that the universe is mostly an eternal tragedy, of almost limitless scope and depth, with no remedy. It is a cornered, mousy belief in the eternal supremacy of cats. "Plato would have agreed with Leibniz that 'in order to satisfy the hope of the human race, it must be proved that the God Who governs all is just and wise, and that He will leave nothing without recompense and without punishment. These are the great foundation of ethics.' " --Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy

#4 is wrong. "It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker." The capacity of a maker to make a finite mass of rock heavier than he can lift, is an arbitrary association. It's like saying that fruit trees must produce cherries. No, they don't need to produce cherries. They might produce lemons, or apples, or silver trumpets. It is not logical that boiled water turns to steam. It is not logical that silk worms produce silk. The fact that humans have been observed able to produce a thing they cannot lift is not logical at all, it is simply a fact, which pertains to humans. It does not necessarily or logically apply to God.

I continue to agree that "radical" Islam, really traditional Islam, as Islam has a tradition of Jihad extending back to its beginning, is very dangerous, and in a way that Christianity is not. Christianity's "terrorist" condition may be judged one of four ways: (1) Christianity is false, and just another worthless or worse-than-worthless hellfire religion (2) Christianity is false, and a politically useful hellfire religion (3) Christianity is true, and therefore accepting its doctrine of hellfire is rational (4) Christianity is true, but the hellfire component is misunderstood.