By Rob Freeman | 22 Comments | 
Print
Toward a White Transhumanism of Power
Judaism — A Transhumanistic Religion of Power
How Judaism is like getting jumped into a gang:
The ritual of getting jumped into a gang goes like this: the group beats the crap out of you, then if they decide you took it well, then they are all your “gang brothers” or whatever. They’re your best friends, and I would imagine a new gang member is “showered” with congratulations.
A Jewish baby boy also goes through the ritual of Punishment/Pain at birth, and then “showered with gifts” at 13 years old. They are made to understand that “membership has its privileges.” Deep in the psyche there is a memory of the extremely painful cutting. This lets them know “who’s the boss.”
Anybody who says babies don’t feel that, and/or they don’t remember it, is deluded. It’s like saying the fish doesn’t feel the hook. It’s a typical “break you down, build you back up,” cycle, not unlike military basic training.
There is a broad concept called “trans-humanism.” I believe the reason that Jewry has surpassed Christendom in global power, is because Jewry has encouraged trans-humanist enhancements in its members, while Christian ministers have feared competition for their collection plates.
What is Transhumanism?
From Wikipedia:
Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable. Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Dangers, as well as benefits, are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.
The term “transhumanism” is symbolized by H+ or h+ and is often used as a synonym for “human enhancement”. Although the first known use of the term dates from 1957, the contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s when futurists in the United States began to organize what has since grown into the transhumanist movement. Transhumanist thinkers predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label “posthuman.” Transhumanism is therefore sometimes referred to as “posthumanism” or a form of transformational activism influenced by posthumanist ideals.
The transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives. Transhumanism has been described by one critic, Francis Fukuyama, as the world’s most dangerous idea, while one proponent, Ronald Bailey, counters that it is the “movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity.”
Arno Breker's "Bereitschaft" ("Readiness")
A very familiar example of trans-humanism is bodybuilding, or physical conditioning in general. This of course was eventually permitted by Christianity, and you had the “muscular Christians.”
My own father was a prime example. He was a YMCA director and all-around athlete, from gymnastics to soccer to skiing to swimming.
However, there was an implicit sense that there were “normal methods” of self-improvement, like the weight room, and then there were the methods of “the weirdos,” the “non-Western” styles of self-improvement, such as the housewives in the leotards doing yoga.
Power is Good, Weakness is Evil
Eventually I became so enamored of the possibility of self improvement that I lost all taboos. Anything that made me more powerful, I decided, was good.
For years I listened to Jay Hughes’ “Change Surfer Radio,” and didn’t realize to what degree I myself was a transhumanist. I dismissed the term as “for weirdos” because it sounded too much like “transsexual.” When Jay Hughes talked about the Terminator movies as extreme examples of transhumanism, it suddenly made sense.
Hughes also talked about “breeding 160 IQ perfect Nordics, and this might not be a good thing for a radically democratic society. Rich people might breed themselves into Aryan overlords.”
Don’t laugh — we already have the technology. All it takes is for someone who isn’t held back by the “implicit Christian minister” wagging his index finger, saying, “that’s too weird.”
The whole aspect of Christianity that says, “Don’t go there,” is why the Middle Ages was “1,000 years without a bath.” Bathing was considered “ungodly,” i.e., “transhumanist.” It was paganistic, unnecessary self-improvement for the pious.
If there is a trigger in your brain that says, “Nah, that’s too weird.” That’s the same impulse that told us not to take a bath for 1,000 years. Dissassemble that implanted, alien circuit and throw it away.
Turn on a new circuit, one that’s already in your brain. It’s the one that says, “anything that gives me power, is good.”
The dominance of the current order depends on “implicit Christianity” that’s been implanted in us since Sunday school. It’s that in you which shrinks from the Will to Power, from a fanatic, obsessive striving for dominance.
If words like “power, fanatic, obsessive, dominance” bother you, that’s the implicit Christian minister in the back of your head. Turn him off. Imagine in your mind that he’s wagging his finger at you. Laugh at him, and then take him like a rag doll and throw him out of your brain.
In his place, put Arnold Schwarzenegger saying in his Austrian accent, “That which makes me more powerful, is good. That which weakens me, is bad.”
Learn from the Enemy
I figured this out from studying the enemy. Leftist Jews have taken great advantage of this “implicit Christian” impulse, even while practicing transhumanism and a religion of power themselves. Their power lies in controlling us.
This doesn’t mean someone like Tim Wise doesn’t “believe” in what he preaches. He has to. To hypnotize someone, you have to believe it yourself. He’s able to believe in something, that he knows is a “beneficial fraud,” or a “noble lie.”
Let us ask what Tim Wise thinks is “bad.” From the paragraph below we see “dominance” on the part of Whites is his “ultimate evil.” Good whites will “roll over and show their belly.” Good Jews do the opposite, of course.
Good (Christian) whites avoid that “weird transhumanism” stuff. Good (Christian) whites don’t want to “dominate” because we’re all equal now. Even secular liberal types claim that seeking dominance just “perpetuates the cycle of dominance.” Well, duh. It’s not going away. Anybody who voluntary gives up striving for dominance is going to end up a slave . . . literally. Even if they are able to live all peaceful and hippie now in the woods of Oregon, if we get an ANC style colored government in the US, there will be as much peace for them as there is for the Whites of the former Rhodesia.
If Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is a bad outcome, then anything that leads to that is bad, or perhaps downright evil. Volunteering to submit is EVIL. It’s the wrong decision, in every way. The Christian minister, or the Tim Wise, telling you to “give up your power,” is your executioner.
So what is good? Let’s ask Arnold again:
“That which makes me more powerful, is good. That which weakens me, is bad.”
I watch Jews. I saw how they live in Boston. They are really into everything that Christians were discouraged from doing. Self-enhancement, selfishness, collective-mindedness. Sure they are a bunch of neurotics, but if you laugh at Woody Allen, you’re missing the Jew who’s taken over your culture. I’m sure as hell not laughing.
We can learn from the enemy, what ideals to have, by seeing what they fear. Tim Wise gave away the store when he wrote the below paragraph, my comments in parentheses:
http://www.laprogressive.com/rankism/obama-black-voters-and-the-myth-of-reverse-racism/
But for members of groups that have not been subordinated to “think with their skin” or their racial identity is quite a bit different, and more problematic. For dominant group members to engage in racial bonding only makes sense as a way to maintain dominance [to maintain a sane society where 14 year old white girls don't get pregnant or infected with HIV from black males]. It can’t be about “getting a piece of the pie,” since such persons already have access to it, and pieces galore; rather, it has to be about preventing others from getting their [pieces of white flesh], from taking parts of the pie to which the dominant group had come to feel entitled (of course. We own ourselves as a Racial Family. No other races may claim a piece of us) It is not to seek a place at the table, but to seek to secure the table you already have from the intrusion of others [just as we prevent intrusion into our own homes, so we prevent intrusion into our gene pool and the piece of the Planet Earth our race needs to survive]. White bonding, in other words, amounts to racism because it is redundant: it amounts to having those who are already largely in control, secure that control in perpetuity. It results in the maintenance of racial inequity [Blaming us for inequalities in natural endownment], unequal opportunity and massive disparities in access and life chances [Welcome to Planet Earth]. Black and brown bonding, on the other hand, is about gaining access [and sustaining Jewish Dominance as the gate-openers for the blacks and browns and rulers over whites], securing a spot, and collectively lifting up members of subordinated communities to a place where they can compete as equals with those who have always been in charge [can they compete as equals if they aren't equals?]. There is nothing supremacist or racist about that at all, unless one presumes that–as Jesse Jackson and others have long said–there is no fundamental difference between a “Welcome” mat and a “No Trespassing” sign [synagogues and Jewish yeshiva schools display the latter].
Weakness . . . in us . . . is evil. Weakness leads to Zimbabwe. It leads to Nushawn Williams infecting a dozen white teenaged girls with AIDS and impregnating 6 of them, and of course this has happened a million times over since 1997.
To overcome our implanted programming, our “implicit Christianity,” we have to kill the Christian minister in our subconscious, and replace him with a religion of power.
The Jewish rabbi in the back of the head of every Jew is always saying, “Is it good for the Jews?”
We need a new superego, a new divine-consciousness, that says Yes to power and dominance, rather than shrinking from it like a coward. We must end the vestigial “thousand years without a bath” thinking and cultivate a transhumanist religion of power.
The whole aspect of Christianity that says, “Don’t go there,” is why the Middle Ages was “1,000 years without a bath.” Bathing was considered “ungodly,” i.e., “transhumanist.” It was paganistic, unnecessary self-improvement for the pious.
This statement is laughably inaccurate, as even a cursory internet search will reveal. That the author would so casually regurgitate such an unfounded calumny against our forefathers reflects very poorly upon the quality of the piece as a whole.
In the late Roman Empire, the Christians were the ones who closed the baths (health spas) and created the first hospitals. The priorities revealed there clearly favor ebbing rather than rising life, and a preference for the morbid and sickly body (an imitation of the crucified Jesus) over the vital, healthy body became clear in art. Nudity was banished. But perhaps we should be grateful for that, for the Byzantine canon, unlike the Greek and Roman canon, drew the body out to unnatural lengths, suggesting morbidity, emaciation, and fragility–much like the bodies in the paintings of El Greco. If you stripped off the jeweled robes, they would have looked like anchorites, famine victims, or Marfan’s sufferers rather than Greek athletes. Something had changed in the world. The favorite physical type became aligned with the favored moral type–as defined by the Sermon on the Mount. From the warrior-athlete to the priest and the needy. Yes, the priests still had use for muscle, to impose their will upon unbelievers. But their preferences were definitely in control. And their voices, as Rob Freeman remarks, can still be heard in the back of all too many people’s heads today, even people who do not sit in front of them on Sundays.
Superb White Power Manifesto by Rob Freeman; scales the heights like all the rest of his articles. And an excellent antidote to AmRenThought: “Oh, please, we just want to be our white selves, just give us a little space, a little white Bantustan in mid-America all our own, please, please, JewsBlacksBrowns….”. We need to take back everything that has been taken from us, and with interest. Professional Jews to receive a one-way ticket to Zionist-occupied Palestine, Professional Negroes to the Black-ruled African hellhole of their choice, and Mestizos back to Mexico. And do not for a moment think it can’t happen: anything that can be imagined, can be done. All it will take is Leadership, Money, Organization, and a willingness to match and overmatch the day-to-day violence of our enemies.
If my grandfather, who was an orthodox priest, hated anything, it was human weakness and stupidity. If he wanted to teach me something it was that a boy has to be strong physically and mentally. From heavy lifting exercises to carpentry and gardening to good literature and history and astronomy. “Mens sana in corpore sano” was repeated all too often during the summer holidays at my grandparents’ house. If I consider myself a nationalist today it is especially due to my grandfather. He considered himself a nationalist.
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.
The question, “will ‘we’ transcend our humanity?”, is more appropriately (and logically) qualified by asking “when?” The further in time one extrapolates from the present, the more definite the trans-human period becomes. Understanding that transhumanism in this form is inevitable, perhaps we should then ask “how” such transcendence might occur.
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.
Rob,
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?
“Even if they are able to live all peaceful and hippie now in the woods of Oregon, if we get an ANC style colored government in the US, there will be as much peace for them as there is for the Whites of the former Rhodesia.
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!!
Taking a look at the icons of numerous soldiers saints of Orthodox Church I can’t imagine famished individuals. There are military saints with no other virtues than beating the Turks and Tatars a number of times. Like the Saint Stephen The Great of Moldavia who fought about 40 wars, losing only one battle against the Turks (finally winning the war). He was named by a Pope “Christ’s Athlete.” Beyond this he had a number of wives, left a number of children and when he died at an old age, an entire people wept after him. Regarded as a Saint long before the actual canonization.
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.
Greg,
Something is not right about the Christians closing the baths. John 5; 1-8 has the scene where an angel comes down to the pool at Bethesda to stir the waters so that the first cripple in would be cured. Jesus himself visited the pool and cured a cripple there. I can’t find any example in the Bible where it even hints at washing oneself as being wrong.
However, I am sure that you are quite correct ( as usual) in writing that the Christians in the time of the late Roman Empire closed the baths but perhaps it was for another reason than men washing themselves. Perhaps the men were doing something else in the baths that the Christians disapproved of, although i can’t imagine what.
No decree went out to stop bathing. But in the West the baths simply fell out of use. The new civilization preferred to build and maintain other institutions, like monasteries, convents, and hospitals. The roman baths were sex-segregated and family friendly gyms, not the sites of orgies.
Rob,
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.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. O’Meara’s latest comment.
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.
Michael O’Meara,
“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?
Ulf,
You value biological survival, I value spiritual survival — because it is the one thing that will guarantee the continuation of our people, even biologically.
The question we should ask the Christian priests is whether we should lay down before satan and let the deceiver and the destroyer take over? Should we turn the other cheek to destruction? No. That is no where in my heart. I am a sea dragon slayer in my heart (nice comment seadragonslayer..). THIS is the fundamental conflict I have with Christianity today.
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.
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. “For my legionaries”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16950206/Codreanu-Corneliu-Z-For-My-Legionaries
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.
Thanks for the expansion of your earlier comment Greg. But Steven, of course Christians don’t lie down before Christ’s arch enemy Satan and let him take over. Did not his followers ask Jesus if he had come to torment them before the time. Are not limits set on the demons kept in chains in Tartus (as a dog is chained it can bark but only go so far and no further) and did not Jesus Christ himself tell his followers to resist the devil and although it is primarily a spiritual battle Jesus also told his followers to sell their shirts and arm themselves (but not to go overboard as he said two weapons were enough for the twelve disciples).
yes you love your enemy – the grumpy old neighbour down the street that is always causing trouble – but not those who would destroy the church, the state, your family etc and etc. There is no need to wreck the community while doing battle with the enemy. I guess with the collapse of common sense these things aren’t so obvious anymore?
Excellent comments, Alexander Wolfe-Murray. Yes, I think that Christians are our friends who have been mislead in many ways, certainly not in others (such as the wages of sin is eternal death, etc.).
I especially liked this:
“yes you love your enemy – the grumpy old neighbour down the street that is always causing trouble – but not those who would destroy the church, the state, your family etc and etc. There is no need to wreck the community while doing battle with the enemy.”
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.
If the Church is so great, why don’t you get back of the control of the Church and show us what you can do with it? All I see at the churches are glossy advertisements for white people to send money to varied shades of colored people.
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.
Mr. Freeman, I was speaking from a Romanian/Christian Orthodox point of view, with a strong desire to help. It was never my intent to offend anyone, especially with maybe an unwanted, unneeded opinion.
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.
What’s the material difference between biomachines built by the Jewish team vs. biomachines built by the white team? It’s no different from Braves v. Yankees or Republicans v. Democrats.
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.
Great post, Weaver. People assume that eugenics must necessarily come out of transhumanist ideology. But long ago, it did not. Normal beings with two brains to rub together simply knew how to take care of themselves and their progeny without any nastiness such as that described at the beginning of R. Freeman’s essay above. It wasn’t called eugenics, it was doing what came naturally to secure your children’s existence.
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.