I don’t believe for one second that it is somehow our destiny to transcend Nature and our Creator. If we do, then there’s no more “we” is there, only androids.

There’s no spiritual continuity either, no Heidegger dynamic being continuity, between a machine’s maker and itself. The connection is lost if progeny are no longer birthed from the ancient chain of parent and child.

Choosing to destroy whites simply because whites, as with everything, will one day return to dust is treason. Clearly TOQ is not WN; clearly TOQ is anti-white.

What I can’t figure is, why transhumanists disguise themselves as nationalists when they’d be fully accepted by the globalists. What’s being said here is said elsewhere, e.g. Francis Fukuyama. Designer babies fully mesh with globalism.

The enemies of the globalists are nationalisms and religions which get in the way of progress. Neither of these are valued here, so why remain pariahs on “extremist” websites when you could be raking in the big bucks along with the rest of history’s winners, along with the rest of the anti-whites? Leave us nationalists to defend our archaic ties against the inevitable Ragnarök.

And it is theoretically possible for nationalists to endure for a lengthy time against some superhuman monstrosity since the nationalists would have their descent from a Creator, they’d have souls, while the biomachines would be mere cogs, lower than a class of untouchables. In a sense the biomachines would lack a spirit.

It might be inevitable for whites and everything else to be destroyed, but someone will have to strike that death blow. Progress is made by humans; it doesn’t strike on its own. Only a traitor could destroy the white races; only a traitor could destroy humanity.

I was bringing some historical facts to sustain my opinion regarding Christianity.

The Church was always close to the patriotic/nationalist cause. At least in my country. No nationalist ever felt that he should attack the Church. It is always done by the other side. So to speak it is about keeping it as it is and not regaining control. Extrapolating this was superficial, but no way with a bad intent.

Probably the situation is indeed extremely different. Few years ago I was talking with a priest in front of a church (a beautiful medieval church). A group of three gypsies came to us and begged for money. The priest asked them to mow the lawn and he will pay them if they will do the job properly. They told him that is they right to eat and the work is too hard for them. The priest told them that they will ever eat only if they will work. Otherwise… He told me that giving money to people that do not deserve it’s a sin. “Giving” while you make your family and people suffer it is a MORTAL SIN. This is my experience.

I get mad with the bigots too. I really hope that what I said didn’t put me in this category. Or what I said here is poisonous too.

“Mens sana in corpore sano”. “we need to raise children to idealize sound minds and strong bodies and no GUILT” these are really great words. Still it depends how the guilt is defined. Loving your people/race and your country is not a guilt. Not doing so is a guilt.

I remember growing up and being indoctrinated at Sunday school by conservative, maybe even racially aware, elderly ladies, but what they were teaching me was pure poison.

I don’t know what we’ll do in the long run, but for the time being, we need to raise children to idealize sound minds and strong bodies and no GUILT.

I truly think that science and objective truth are sword and armor of God. They go very well with religion. All religious people who think that the destroyer is a deceiver, and that destructive lies are a sin, must realize that when enough information is gathered (as in courts of law, or science) the truth becomes apparent. The more information we gather the harder time deception has in deceiving us. It is interesting that knowledge of the natural world also automatically allows us to overcome things that would have destroyed us and enables us to overcome all sorts of obstacles — and that this has been going on since the beginning of time since the first organism began to detect light and move toward it, or to sense chemical gradients in solution… it is maybe the primary mark of life which moved steadily forward until humans made a religion out of it.

On Page 27, Codreanu is citing a left wing journalist at a left wing/Jewish newspaper ranting in 1919 about “The Christian Church” and how the Church weakened the people (within the chapter “The attitude of Jewish press”).
In those times fighting for nation and church were still pretty much the same thing.

So, under one form or another, this argument was used by internationalists/globalists to be used by nationalists today.

What does it mean? In my humble opinion, the Church was under the control of state and forced to adapt, compromise with the state and somehow to reflect the state official ideology. The Church is a political prisoner like everybody else. But the Church when free is a formidable force that is able to shatter the state in a week.

What I want to say is that the Church and Christianity are not an enemy by default. Scaring away the Christians from the nationalism is easy but not a wise thing to do.

Sooner or later it will become obvious for the Church that trying to convert “Mayans” or “Aztecs” or some “Bantu” or “Gypsy” to a christian behavior is not only an impossibility but dangerous for the Church itself. You don’t make a Christian by lowering the standards, but some kind of a Voodoo believer or a shaman that might use some crosses and icons when doing witchcraft. The Church responsibility is not toward an abstract “humanity” but toward the nation it pretends to serve. Doing anything else the Church is making fool of itself. The “church” has to stop of being imperialistic and serve the imperialistic goals of some transient states.

Anyway, the Church is to be reconquered as anything else in our societies. And the weaknesses of the people, state and church have to be cured.

There is no doubt whatsoever from the objective evidence we have that the white race is the most truth-oriented, moral, least corrupt, has the most high vision and ideals, is the most creative, and is therefore the most god-like or divine race on Earth. If we commit suicide, the world will become a much more dark, violent, and evil place. I would go so far as to say that race and religion are synonymous.

Our decisions affect the future. Our decisions affect our social and material environment. They ultimately (and quite rapidly) affect our genes. If we follow truth, if we keep our greed and selfishness and violence down to a minimum, we can make the right choices about our social, material, and genetic future. THIS is morality — taking the long-term destiny of the individual, the environment which sustains us, and the destiny of humanity and life itself as our primary concern over pleasure or power for its own sake (or its rewards / perks) or any other selfish and degenerate pursuit. We can follow an upward path of light, truth, and the destiny of our people, or we can choose ignorance, darkness, and destruction.

It is no accident that this is a good genetic plan as well as what religions say we should do. Even our laws and penalties for selfish and violent or destructive pursuits are basically eugenic systems. I believe that religions are eugenic systems — imperfect, and pre-genetic knowledge, but nonetheless they arise from our genetic and evolutionary history in which some of us could see the eugenic paths “through a glass darkly” so to speak. It sounds odd to say it, but to me the theory of evolution is a holy thing. It not only enables us to open our eyes to our destiny, it allows us to make truly unselfish and life-affirming decisions about our long-term future. All of our science helps with this. Therefore, to me there is no difference whatsoever between science and religion.

The most perfect religion would move unrelentingly toward truth by externalizing those processes of mind by which we most perfectly and assuredly arrive at truth and ritualizing them, it would always seek to instill in people a sense of our upward path and the importance of every decision they make considering this. It would define sin more perfectly as contributing to the erosion of our culture and path toward truth and our long-term destiny. Saying it another way, sin would also be defined as selfish and blind behaviors that are a result of our more vestigial and base animal urges.

Anyway, I am not here trying to discuss perfecting the human religious impulse (see my book for more on that). I am just making a point that religion oftentimes loses all sight of its true destiny — of what human visions bring it into existence in the first place. Religion often becomes quite ossified with political or other patterns and they then lose the original spirit their founders had in their hearts. Religions get leaders who are mostly blind, but respectable and well-known eventually — sort of like the cadidates we get in the 2 main political parties here… puppets mostly, place-holders of the status quo.

Therefore from what I have said so far, you can see that the white race is the ONLY race in history that seems to have unselfishly put real truth before all else — and recognizes the importance of doing so. We invented science, and justice based on truth, etc. Though imperfect, we seem to be the one race with HOPE in overcoming darkness and evil FOREVER. We are actually doing it with our science and freedom. Religious leaders should ask themselves whether going against the white race, helping to destroy the miracle they are, is at all moral?

If you want to connect morality with racial issues in any way, it would seem the object would be to increase the power and survival of the white race, not destroy it and enforce ignorance of it — there is quite literally NOTHING religious about that. To go against the white race in racial matters is to go against the most charitable, fair, truth-seeking race on Earth. To do so is POLITICAL, not religious. Furthermore, we can trace the origins of these politics infecting the white world and it’s religions easily (see Kevin MacDonald’s books, Paul Findley’s books, Revilo Olivers books, or Walt and Mearsheimer for example). The origins of the “diversity as morality” sentiment is a completely spurious morality based on destruction, a tactic of war. A war fomented against us by Jews — who deny christ as divine or as the savior.

For Christians to follow these politics of war and destruction marks them to me as illegitimate. Maybe that is why people are leaving religions and attendance is down. Like NEO in the “Matrix” movies, they can see something is wrong… they can feel it, it keeps gnawing at their souls… it is the destroyer in the guise of religion, who has wormed in despite everything to destroy. This is the serpent in the sea I seek to slay forever. That’s why I’m here.

You value biological survival, I value spiritual survival — because it is the one thing that will guarantee the continuation of our people, even biologically.

“Should we adapt Jewish behavior and values if it were shown that this would ensure a restoration of white power?”

Yes! Why not?

“I think we should strive for power and transcendence at every level, but not at the cost of betraying who we are.”

If that is what it takes, would it be better if the Jews beat us? (And kill us!, like they are doing right now.)

“Indeed, what would be the purpose in that if we all became like those we oppose.”

The purpose would be that we beat our enemies and they do not beat us. Our race wins and survives – maybe they don’t.

“It was only when we began adopting Jewish standards, particularly in the form of capitalism, that we became vulnerable to the culture-distorters.”

Rather, it is through universalism (Christianity) we became vulnerable to the Culture-distorters. The Jewish moral is particularist – for their own people, that is.

“Early Aryan man was a world conqueror. His model, rather than Jewish transhumanism, I believe, is what will save us from our now mutilated selves.”

Right – he WAS a world conqueror, but eventually he lost. New times call for new survival strategies. The Jews have been successful so far, we have not. Who is doing the right thing?

Every person I know that identifies as a transhumanist [as their religion no less!] is a utopian socialist [and are massive sci-fi geeks, they swear by China Mieville]. That in itself is no reason to dismiss transhumanism; its incompatibility with an Aryan Weltanschauung is methinks.

It is a raceless Rationalist philosophy with a linear conception of time that stands in stark contrast to the tragic view of life our Aryan forefathers held and which we loyal few still hold.

Our ancestors were not posthuman.

Please excuse the frivolous comment I made last night, while DUI.

What I meant to say was that becoming transhuman in the sense you propose is to become something we are not.

Don’t get me wrong. I think we should strive for power and transcendence at every level, but not at the cost of betraying who we are.

If Jews seek transhumanist enhancement, it doesn’t mean we can overcome them by imitating their strategies. Indeed, what would be the purpose in that if we all became like those we oppose.

Our strength, our power, will come from being true to who we are. It was only when we began adopting Jewish standards, particularly in the form of capitalism, that we became vulnerable to the culture-distorters.

Early Aryan man was a world conqueror. His model, rather than Jewish transhumanism, I believe, is what will save us from our now mutilated selves.

The thermae of Bath in England or those at Herculaneum in Romania were not closed by Christians. When you have almost one thousands years of invasions and continuous war, I don’t think that the bath had the same importance as in the Romans’ time. More likely it was seen as a sign of feminization and decadence.

Though, it is possible that in the civilized Rome some Christians might have been uncomfortable at the thought that a bunch of naked men and women are together in a pool. Anyway, as the number of slaves was declining, the possibility of keeping a thermae running was declining too.

Talking to a friend of mine, an archeologist, he told me that the Byzantine fortifications along the Danube river had running water, drain systems and some primitive kind of “water closets.” Not only churches populated by emaciated saints. All these till 1036, when the Petcheneg invasion destroyed everything. Fighting against the Petchenegs took time and all the resources. But they were exterminated by 1091.

In the given conditions everybody would worry much more how to run in the woods, in the mountains, to regroup, contra attack and worry little to none about the bath. Because the Tatars and Turks already appeared. Surely hospital was much more needed than a thermae.

In this picture it was not Christianity playing the most important role. It was the permanent barbaric invasions shattering the last remnants of the Romans’ civilization.

It was not Christianity that destroyed Rome. It was a long row of incompetent, sadistic, psychopathic emperors. It was the constant strivimg for freedom of the occupied people, from Britain to Dacia. Providing slaves to scratch the back of the bathing Roman was not much of deal. It was the outsourcing of the army. Alaric was a roman soldier after all. It was the burden of high taxes over the farmers (the Dacians rebelled almost each and every year of Roman occupation. It was the psychopathic institution of the sycophants. Christianity was maybe the single way to keep your mind sane within the borders of the fallen empire.

But if it is to underline a weakness of Christianity it is that Christianity was never able to unite all the Christians against a real enemy. Almost all the time it was European people vs European people. Fighting the real enemy was always left for the others. And also was the cooperation with the real enemy just for a small gain against another European people. Here resides the real weakness of Christianity if you want. Started exactly with the emperor Constantine, who attacked everybody, pagans and Christians alike. For what? For the sake of Empire, not for the sake of Christianity.

Right you are! It is starting to get intolerable even around here in the Pacific Northwest. First the Murder of Rachel Corrie by Zionist Oppressors and now attempts at Jewish Censorship of anti-Zionist Pacifica Forum! ( http://tinyurl.com/yjb3tb3 )

“A Jewish baby boy also goes through the ritual of Punishment/Pain at birth, and then “showered with gifts” at 13 years old. “

Don’t forget the ritual of wearing a yarmulke. This is getting into the real esoteric area (hey it should be alright, there are articles about Baron Julius Evola on this site, right?) but some have claimed this is worn to ‘block off’ the Crown Chakra and leave Jews as imbalanced individuals!!

I would recommend Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology.”

And I would ask: Should we adapt Jewish behavior and values if it were shown that this would ensure a restoration of white power?

A transhumanist worldview may be problematic for a racialist. After all, if we accept the premise that the transcendence of our species is inevitable, why should we commit ourselves to the racialist worldview? Will our descendants, as a separate species, not be more different from us than we currently are from other racial groups? If so, what prevents us from admitting a few noble Semites or Asians into the ranks? Again, we must ask “how?”

Some believe that humans will become an uploadable and endlessly reprogrammable entity; for such people, race cannot possibly matter. Indeed, the term “living” might not even apply to such a being.

On the other hand, our intellectual predecessors believed that eugenics would lead humanity (and specifically our branch) to a golden age of enlightenment and sophistication, in which men and women would be much like ourselves but vastly more beautiful and intelligent. There clearly may be racial aspects to such a vision. And yet, how far may such a vision conceivably take us? Are there limits to such an approach that may hinder our survival? Is it not best to fully consider all of our options? Is a golden age even possible?

At this stage in our evolution, there is very little we truly know about the nature of reality. We can answer definitively few of the “big” questions with which life presents us. We do know that the tree of life adds new branches by selection and that artificial selection is the same as natural selection. Within the bounds of the things we know, we may throw caution to the wind. Yet, when in doubt, we would be wise to tread carefully, for the Universe may turn out to be a very different place than we currently imagine it to be.

No. It’s definitely not Christianity. You can not blame Christianity because the Bible is interpreted/distorted in such a way to silence or corrupt a Christian, or prove him hypocritical.

I think Christianity has been hijacked. A Christian can’t laugh at Woody Allen stunts. A teenage Christian doesn’t bed anyone. Especially someone called Nushawn. This is due to the lack of true Christianity. It is not Christianity.