Thank you. As a Buddhist, I find your position to be completely acceptable to me. I wish that more conservative Christians were like you. I find that bible-thumpers often saturation-bomb comment sections with their beliefs, and it makes me annoyed, but maybe by always expressing my annoyance, I’m not helping.

In Buddhism, we believe in certain realms where the beings can wish for a lot of things and have them simply materialise. These beings are called “devas” but could be called “gods” in western parlance. The mythology states that they are in a continual struggle with another class of beings called the “asuras”, which could be called “titans” in western parlance. Whatever gods are, they don’t appear to play much direct role in human affairs, but maybe they maintain cosmic order by fighting off chaos, but I don’t know if we have to thank them for that, because whatever they are fighting appears to be as much an existential threat to them as it would be to us, were it to prevail. If the conflict is actually real, it would be interesting to know what sort of technology is involved and why the gods cannot pursue the titans into their realm.

That all Gentiles critical of Christianity are either Jewish or somehow incentivised by Jews is a case of projection. You won’t admit that Christianity began because Gentiles (like you) were seduced by the lies of Jewish charismatics.

Many Christians want to deny certain things about Jews. Some of them prattle on about how present day Jews are “fake Jews”. This is false. There is a thread of continuity binding modern day Jews to ancient ones and, if it’s true that some of today’s Jews are genetically far apart from the ancient ones, they are still the “spiritual descendants”, in that they have inherited the culture, the mentality and the group identity.

Other Christians keep calling today’s Jews “Talmudicists” implying that the Talmud is some sort of deviation from the Torah. It is not. It’s an elucidation of Jewish thinking. It doesn’t contradict the Torah in any way. Something that actually *is* a deviation from the Torah is the New Testament. The prophecies in the Old Testament do not presage the advent of Jesus in any way, and the values of the Old Testament sometimes manifestly contradict the values encouraged by the New Testament.

Other Christians keep referring to Jews as “The Synagogue of Satan”. This assumes that Jews don’t understand their own religion. Once again this is false. Jews do understand their own religion, but Christians are in denial about it. If synagogues are “of Satan”, then Judaism, the root religion of Christianity is, by implication, also “of Satan”.

Dr. Guyenot. Please compose an essay dedicated to establishing that the origin of the anti-social and anti-enlightenment aspects of Judaism arise from the founding documents: the Torah. NOT from the Talmud, which is derivative. This is a common excuse given by disingenuous Christians seeking to explain away the obvious. It also results in a metaphysically unsound position within Christianity and I think much insanity from its adherents. If the true god of the universe gave commands to slaughter innocents (for example) at any time in eternity then he cannot be a just god.

It seems that Ron Unz doesn’t weigh on these subjects much, but when you say “stop shitting on this page”, you seems to by implying that he is in your camp. Is he? I’m not saying that he is in mine either. It’s just that you have a smug attitude of assumed agreement. A lot of bible-thumpers appear to share your mentality.

It’s not as though the Catholic church doesn’t want to admit women into their clerical ranks. They’re just stalling because they know it’s going to be controversial with their votaries. But it’s inevitable. Christianity was always just Marxism in clerical drag and it’s not going to fight against the forces it already sympathises with, even as those same forces supplant it.

I have mixed feelings about it, but you can make the case that it wasn’t a case of double jeopardy because civil cases have weaker standards of proof required for finding of guilt/fault than do criminal cases, so one trial outcome didn’t contradict the other. Still, it raises questions.

Um, no.

Jews didn’t “turn demonic” in the first century. All the hatred and genocide and general weirdness was right there in the Torah.

Honest Christians, like Marcion, discarded it for that reason.
Dishonest Christians, like EMJ, try to keep their “divine word” by “reinterpreting” it as merely “symbolic”. To the Jews, this is just as demonic. It’s certainly childish.

Reasonable people try to stay as far away from all these bafoons as we can.

I think that in spite of the tales of America’s glorious founding, it’s true that a lot of the founding stock were really selected for ultra-conformism and piety, because the Christian religious nuts left Europe because they wanted to form ideal Christian utopias, when mainstream Europeans viewed them as a bunch of degenerate freaks (which they truly were and have proven themselves to be). BTW being a degenerate freak in no way in contradiction with the state of being ultra-conformist and pious. The two conditions are perfectly harmonious.

The song lyrics lie. The second phrase of the first line is “where at least I know I’m free”. The implication is that if you lose everything you can use your vaunted freedom to rebuild. (I.e. you can still gainfully pursue happiness even if you don’t currently enjoy it.) In America, the road to happiness (for White males especially) has been cut right off. America is now increasingly being ruled by non-White ethnic blocs. They have a huge game-theoretic advantage because of group solidarity. Whites are continously told in the most strident terms possible, that for us to act as an ethnic bloc is the ultimate evil, and enough Whites imbibe the poison to make it the dominant morality of Western society.

And FWIW all of those assholes “serving” in the military have been fighting for their own disposession, although they suffer from mental retardation to the extent that they cannot see what’s right under their noses.

“God Bless the USA” is embarrassing – the epitome of song for dumb fat Walmart-shopping goyim.

Americans are naive doofuses – good-natured, high-trust and gullible – lorded over by cynical Machiavellian misanthropes – the kike mafia.

“The Jew is not smarter than we are, rather only cleverer and craftier. His system cannot be defeated economically — he follows entirely different moral principles than we do. It can only be broken through political means.” – Joseph Goebbels

Perhaps that’s a flawed translation: “smart” and “clever” are roughly synonymous in English. Thus Goebbels’ statement comes across as incoherent and self-contradictory.

A better translation is, perhaps: “The Jew is not smarter than we are, rather only more Machiavellian. His system cannot be defeated economically — he follows entirely different moral principles than we do. [like gypsies do.] It can only be broken through political means.”

Gypsies also trick and take advantage of their high-trust white Christian hosts – but that’s not due to Gypsies being “smarter” than them but merely because they operate by different moral principles – the principles of dual-ethics – of an unscrupulous and itinerant parasite.

Actually, ecologically speaking, most parasites are less intelligent than the organisms that they feed on. Viruses and bacteria are perhaps the most common such parasites that we encounter in our daily lives – and they don’t even have brains – but despite their vastly lower intelligence humans nevertheless regularly succumb to infection by them: they’re, still, humanity’s greatest natural foe.

As a rule of thumb, parasites, like Jews, Gypsies and tapeworms, are less intelligent than the organisms that they parasitize, but one doesn’t need intelligence when one has a good strategy – a strategy which often relies upon the trust and carelessness and even good-nature of one’s host.

One also sees this with Indian call-center scammers who find white American Boomers to be particularly easy marks – and not just because Boomers are senile but also because they grew up in a high-trust society where such a thing was unheard of. Thus the scammer easily deceives and emotionally blackmails – takes advantage of their best instincts. The Jews do the same but on a vastly larger scale with the Holocaust industry fraud and their even more malevolent scam of morally blackmailing the Boomers into giving their countries away to the Third World hordes of “refugee/immigrant” invaders rather than leaving these countries as a rightful birthright to their own children (as their own parents had bequeathed to them a generation before.)

It’s one thing for one Boomer to mortgage his house and wire-transfer the proceeds to a Nigerian prince – leaving his children without inheritance; it’s another for an entire generation of Boomers to give the whole country away to foreign “immigrant” invaders because some Jews on TV said they’d be “Nazis” less they did so (even as these same Boomers underwrite the Jews’ own bellicose apartheid-state in the Middle East).

Yes, this hellish and dystopic reality – absurd, dark and surreal, I’m sure, from the perspective of an alien observer, a nation dispossed and ruined by preying upon its citizens best instincts – is exactly what we find ourselves living in.

Perhaps I am nitpicking, but was Jesus chasing out money-lenders or money-changers? Money-changers aren’t necessarily lending anything, and Jewish law forbids Jews from charging each other interest (as we both know), so if any lending was going on in the temple, it wasn’t the usurious kind anyway.

Money changers supposedly did business in the temple because Jews from outside Judea would roll up in the temple with foreign coins, and they needed Roman coins in order to purchase animals for the priests to sacrifice on their own behalf. Jesus’ bone of contention was that some of his fellow Jews were engaged in crass commercial activity in the temple. It wasn’t about “money-lending”. Once again I am of the opinion that this was an internecine Jewish quarrel which I, a Gentile, am sometimes expected to take sides in. I don’t think that the question of what activities are acceptable inside a Jewish temple is really any of my business.

When I read the New Testament, I get the impression that Jesus is trying to re-interpret Jewish religion to make it more like Buddhism. As a Buddhist, part of me approves, but then another part of me disapproves, because, when I read the Old Testament, I get the distinct impression that the Old Testament simply does not admit to a Buddhistic reinterpretation. What we end up with is a thoroughly debauched Buddhism, which cannot escape Judaism’s gravitational pull.

Evil cannot win, it’s against the laws of the universe.

Good cannot win either. You can’t have one without the other.

I don’t care how much you enjoy Jews killing everyone that get’s in their way, back then, or right now.

I don’t enjoy it. I think that any population exhibiting this type of fanatical and murderous behavioural pattern ought to be marginalised and heavily scrutinised.

What I believe is that merely being a target of Jewish hatred shouldn’t make one holy in Gentile eyes. *Because* Jesus crossed swords with the Jewish leadership is insufficient reason to invest him with hero status or deify him. Of course it was wrong of the Jewish leadership to attempt (successfully) to get him killed, and the Romans should have punished the attempt. Those agitating for his death should have been given stiff punishments working in the salt mines, just as Gentiles were right to protect Spinoza from his would-be killers.

Christmas was originally a Pagan tradition that Christians incorporated. Some sola scripture Christians have actually repudiated Christmas for this reason. Why do you need me to take away Christmas, when you’ve already got some of your fellow Christians doing the job for you?

Traditionally, Jews would kill their heretics, or they would attempt to have them killed, as in the case of Spinoza. If it is true that his death was due to the agitation of Jewish authorities, that does nothing to validate his teachings. It just means that he was an unexceptional heretic. You are asking me to pick a side in an internecine battle. Just why are you asking me to do that?

You could make the same argument that I should adopt the religion of the golden-calf worshippers, (whatever it was), because Jews killed them.

One of the Roman historians said that women and slaves were drawn to Christianity. I think that Christianity originally functioned much like modern day feminism. Powerful men, who could afford a financial hit, converted in order to increase their sex appeal. It’s similar to how wealthy men (celebrities especially) often present themselves as “male feminists”. The suffering of lesser males required to support the edifice doesn’t matter to males at the top.

The ancient world women liked Christianity, because women are natural hypergamous, and the church became, essentially, a surrogate husband, much as the modern state has now become.

This also partly explains why the church is withering away. The state is taking it’s place. Reverting to Christianity is no solution, since the underlying ethos is already Christian.

An excellent deep dive into the simple fact that Christianity has dominated the West for 14 centuries, during which the Jews have not only survived but gone from strength to strength, until today, when they not only dominate the world but even the Christian churches themselves.

Yet with this example of unprecedented, indeed slapstick level failure, the “Christian anti-Semite” claims that his religion has always really been anti-Semitic, and we need it now more than ever, to resist the Jews.

Nothing exposes the Christian’s Jewish soul more than his chutzpah.

Why does an omnicient being wish to test me? If any human behaved like this entity is said to, said human would incur much hatred from a great many. Why can’t I judge Yahweh the way Christians say he judges me? Wouldn’t that be a fair application of the “golden rule”?

I was internally debating whether or not you’re worth replying to, but if that’s all you’ve got, then AFAIAC, that’s all Yahweh’s got too. Petty schoolyard insults are all he’s got left when his followers don’t have the strength to persecute and murder.

Why would anyone want to spend eternity with *you*? Judging by the company Yahweh keeps, saying “no” to him is an easy decision.

I have never heard that Crowley kidnapped and killed anyone ever. If he had done that he would have most likely been hanged for his crime. He was an occultist who believed that he was some sort of prophet. Although I’m sure he got a rise out of being called “the wickedest man alive” and infamy in general, as I said, for designations like that, he wasn’t even in the running. Contemporaries like Churchill, who damned England forever, were a thousand times more wicked than Crowley.

Anyway, I do not believe what you are saying. I do believe that his writing is highly entertaining. Whatever his faults were, he was never guilty of the sin of being boring.

I think you are missing the point. The point was that he was classed as damnati for wrongthink, and you, with your viteperative language, sound like you would do the same thing to him for a different kind of a wrongthink. I think that Hua Bin’s overarching point, is that people who believe things you that don’t believe should be argued with, not furiously denounced. BTW, I would like to live in such a world, even if it’s pie in the sky.

which is the recurring theme in 99.9% of his comments

And claiming that Crowley’s a jew hasbarat or some uneducated neurotic dolt is the recurring theme in 99.9% of your and your christ-insane butt-boy cheerleaders’ comments. None of you assholes can disprove anything he says with a cogent rebuttal. It’s all smug invective.
You fail again Inbred Jed!

Of course, as a Buddhist, I disapprove of bloodsports, especially when unwilling slaves or innocent animals are involved. OTO, if two free men choose, of their own volition, to fight to the death, then I guess it’s not my place to stop them, in spite of my disapproval of such activities. Therefore, I maintain that the Christian’s curtailment of that sort of activity was a good thing, to the extent that Christians really were responsible for that. OTO your argument is has a heavy element of whataboutism. You are saying that the early Christians lived in an environment where barbarism was normal, so it was understandable that some of that would become part of their own identity. I call that a fail, and it does not exonerate the early Christian theologians in any way.

For all the virtues of the Romans, their love of spectacle (especially bloody spectacle) was one of their failings. Not only was it barbaric, but it was low-brow. Just about everything that went on in the colliseum was entertainment for the worst and most crass sort of people, like spectatator sports are today. Some aspects of Roman society were weaknesses that the Christians were able to exploit.

Not that I’m a huge fan of Crowley, but whatever evil he did is completely insignificant in proportion to the evil being done in real time by Zionist Christians. Crowley was an English eccentric who got mired in silly occult stupidity, but he did have a lot of pithy things to say and most of his criticisms of Christianity were on the button. Christianity is a load of shit. Just the other day I was reading a post by some other poster wherein he told us why St. [sic] Augustine favoured protected status for Jews, but death for pagans. Augustine said that it was so Christians could witness Jews being punished by God or something like that. So he was essentially saying that ethnically alien wild tigers should be allowed to roam among us, but co-ethnic pagans should be anihilated. What a fucking brain-dead shitbag that man must have been, and to think, Christians still revere him as one of their foundational thinkers. The other great Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, said that Christians would take sadistic enjoyment in watching non-Christians enduring the torments of hell. All of the supposedly great foundational Christian thinkers were actually total shitbags.

I’m amazed that western civilisation lasted as long as as it did under the heel of Christianity. Anyway I ask that Christians keep their religion to themselves. If you believe that you are going to heaven and non-believers are going to hell, that’s ok, but since the rest of us don’t care what you believe, please stop telling us about it, and please top presenting Christianity as some kind of solution to the west’s problems. Christianity is not doing any good for us at all. Thank you.

Thank you. As for being anti-Christian, I certainly did misread, or confused you with one of the many anti-Christian posters on this site. I am quite sure that many or most of the latter, even when presenting themselves as some kind of nationalists, are usually hasbara or jews.

What evidence have you got for this? Do you even have a single proven data point consistent with your belief? Or are you telling yourself (and your co-religionists) a comforting lie?

I know that you are generally anti-Christian, but if Christianity was so bad, why did jews spend so much time and effort subverting both Catholic and Protestant forms for many years, and then set up ‘holocaustianity’ as a perverted copy of Christianity?

Maybe they did it because they could, which doesn’t speak well of Christianity at all.

Of course the holocaust narrative is mostly just projection, in the sense that it’s the Jewish revenge fantasy projected on to Gentiles. Not only that, but the story of how the holocaust came into being, is itself a case of projection. Jewish historians claim that the genesis of the holocaust was a “mass meeting of minds”, and no official order (or orders) was given. Of course the Germans didn’t operate like that, but that’s exactly how Jews operate. In fact the idea of a “mass meeting of minds” describes exactly how the holocaust myth was born.

I suspect this is an area where we will unfortunately never agree. My problem with Islam and Christianity is that they fundamentally rely on Judaism for spiritual validation. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans rightly regarded the Jews as a tribe of odious misanthropes (see Tacitus and Diodorus for example).

The root of Christian and Muslim antipathy towards Jews OTOH is not the latter’s vile conduct, but because the Jews refuse to recognize Jesus and Muhammad.

The great irony of the Enlightenment — an age usually synonymous with shrugging off the yoke of superstition — is that it culminated in a world where both of these major religions were essentially subordinated to a political hierarchy that did more to facilitate the rise of Israel than any theocracy preceding it.

I disagree. The anti Jewish sentiments of pre enlightenment Christianity were the result of a church that severely restricted scriptural access to lay folk. But the printing press changed that. Once that judeo centric dumpster fire laced with genocidal fantasies (otherwise known as the bible) was mass produced, support for Israel became inevitable. And that’s where we are today. Christians fellating a people who literally spit on them.

Any heaven with you in it would be hell for just about everyone else.

Mark Gullick comparing a Mamdani mayoralty with Sadiq Khan’s London:

https://www.amren.com/features/2025/10/muslim-mayors-will-new-york-join-london/

Muslims and other “nons” are inside the gates of the West (Christian European civilization) because of the post-WWII hegemony of the human rights/civil rights/ multicultural worldview, which has rendered Europeans unable to defend themselves. They cannot recognize the threat, let alone where it is coming from. Anything associated with blood and soil nationalism can only be condemned as evil and racist (Jonathan Bowden’s “The European Grammar of Self-Intolerance”).

The primary architects of this worldview are well known to us. They cloak themselves in an attitude of moral superiority and claim to be “healing the world,” “welcoming the stranger,” etc. ad nauseam. The actual agenda is to destroy European culture, by dispossessing the European peoples, using any and all non-Europeans to do the work of destruction. They condemn all questioning and criticism of this agenda as morally evil. And thus New York and other cities are effectively conquered by groups of nons, fighting each other for territory and resources in their wonted 3rd-world ways, united only by their hatred of Christian Europe (as Trump said, “Paris isn’t Paris anymore….”).

The Kalergi Plan is real; White Europeans are to be put out of the way. The “victories” of the USA in the 20th-century are turning out to have been utterly disastrous defeats in their long-term consequences, and Americans are now being shown the ugly reveal. We were warned, but like Cassandra, those who spoke up were ignored and/or attacked, and sometimes killed. Our nation is based on the consent of the governed…or so we were taught. That’s been dead and gone for a long time now.

Whether Mamdani himself is “bright and articulate” as P. Lawrence says here (“I do not like the thought that this man of integrity may be subverted… It will speak very badly of America’s capacity for the kind of change its own people and the rest of the world desperately need to see”) doesn’t ultimately matter. There are many more Mamdanis, full of zeal to seize power and use it. The world they want is one where White Europeans are a diminishing and fearful people, the beauty and power of their culture no longer even a memory.

Since the Jews conquered the West…

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/how-the-ashkenazi-jews-conquered-the-west/

…Christianity, the source of true beautiful inspiration, has been stifled by them.

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/the-war-on-christianity/

Therefore, we need a renaissance through the renewing of the mind and heart.

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/about/how-to-become-a-christian/

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/the-heart-adjustment/

Right. So, the song, albeit inspired by a Burroughs book, isn’t really necessarily about anything at all, and the video being derivative of the song may have even less claim to be about anything than the song. Often people say that, when it comes to art, “all interpretations are correct’, which I largely agree with. So judging a song based on vague connections to things in the history of the song’s provenance, is probably not a productive use of your time. I say, if you a song, listen to it. If you don’t, listen to something else.

Just like I asked you before, can you stop refering to Jesus as *our* saviour, and *our* lord. Non-Christians do not consider Christ to be either their lord or their saviour. I ask that you, instead, refer to Christ as *my* Lord, and *my* saviour. That’s accurate and won’t be offensive to non-Christians such as myself.

So this is what you believe. It has a certain childish appeal. What would you do in the name of bringing this ideal into existence? Would you blind the sighted to make them equal with the already-blind? Maim the able to make them equal with cripples? Where would it end?

Don’t forget there is no clean distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. People with better genes are born with better opportunities because their more intelligent parents are better able to create opportunities. You could decree that all children should be removed from their parents and raised by the state to try to create equality of opportunity. Once again, where would it end?

No. I’m not going to engage in any needling about the “true” meaning of “anti-Semitism” any more than I’m going to argue about who is is a “true” Christian”, who is a “true” Jew etc. When the term “anti-Semitism” was first brought into existence, Jews defined it to mean opposition to them, even if it wasn’t particularly scientific. It is certainly remarkable that they have that sort of power, people won’t take me seriously if they see me playing labelling games. You say you do this when arguing with Jews. I guarantee you that not a single Jew will be in the least bit moved by this kind of argumentation, and very few Gentiles will be. In fact I think it sets us makes us look weak, so this type of activity only harms us.

It reminds me of a Doctor who episode where one of the Doctor’s teenage -protoge companions says he’s going to take on a Dalek, and the Doctor (then played by Christopher Eccleston) says:

“What’re you going to do, throw your A-Levels at ’em?”

Who really gives a shit. It’s the term Jews invented to mean opposition to them. It’s also a sort of Jewish dog-whistle word, by which they communicate to one another who needs to be opposed. My inclination is just to use the word and get on with it. Games are a waste of time. It’s not as though using some other term is going to fix anything.

FWIW, I think that saying that some other term should be used, may be interpreted as some kind of stance implying that Jews should *not* be opposed. So don’t do it.

What do you mean by “our” lord. Christians regard Christ as their lord; Non-Christians do not. Being non-Christian does not make me Jewish or pro-Jewish.

The idea that Christianity is some sort of antidote to Jewish influence is the complete opposite of the observed truth. It’s Christians that incorporated Jewish scripture into their canon. Non-Christians never did this. Any time their is talk about reigning in immigration, we hear “church groups” telling us that we are aren’t respecting the infinite worth of the immigrants, therefor sinning against God. The Christians doing this are fully aligned with Jewish groups.

If you want to believe that your religion is the true and only path to salvation, that’s up to you, but when you say that your religion is some sort of bulwark against Jewish influence, I do a spit take. When you Christians claim to be counter-Semitic, you remind me of those “conservative” congressmen sneaking in and out of bathhouses while claiming to be pro “family values”. (Not that I really care about the gay issue, but sometimes the hypocrisy of “family values” conservatives can be a bit much to take.)

What do you mean by “our” lord. Christians regard Christ as their lord. Non-Christians do not. Being non-Christian does not make me Jewish or pro-Jewish. Only a tiny fraction of humanity is Jewish.

Our brains exist in a “state of superposition” — until we make a decision, i.e., measure — then alternate possibilities are moot. Our decisions collapse the superposition but only for that decision.”

Any experimental evidence for this? I don’t think so. For example, how does a brain in a “state of superposition” differ physiologically from one that isn’t?

Although you weren’t asking me, FWIW, I don’t think that any mainstream physicist believes this. I think that mainstream physicists would say that ultra-microscopic parts of the brain are in a state of super-position, but this will be true in all regions of space, where the process of interderminacy followed b y collapse is happening all the time. I didn’t want to get into an argument about that, because I’m out of my wheelhouse. I don’t believe in real indeterminacy, though, as I was saying.

I’m not going to get into an argument about the details of QM since I’m admittedly not qualified to do that. I perceive that you are giving me a the standard account of QM, but that requires “true randomness”. It still doesn’t require “free will” in order to work. All that can be said is that it provides a space in which free will can operate.

There are other models of QM that are both causal and deterministic. Once such model is the “Bohmian” model, but I think that this was scientifically disproven.

I, on the other hand, believe in something that is a radical departure from all of the above; I believe that the quantum world is *both* deterministic and acausal, and some of models of this type do exist. Some of them employ an idea called “retrocausality”. Under this type of interpretation of QM there is absolutely no more room for free will. This makes me happy because the idea of free will has become a cancer on civilisation.

Also, as an example, in our legal system there is a presumption of free will. What you are saying with respect to determinism would render all legal proceedings meaningless. For how could someone be guilty of any crime when the act was completely predetermined and thus unpreventable through any intervention of their own will?

I know that your post was not addressed to me, but I’ll answer anyway:

1) We should think of law as existing in order to preserve and protect society and not concern ourselves with how it may or may not relate to cosmic justice.

2) We need not believe that there is any cosmic injustice. For instance, I believe that every good person has been an evil person in past lives. They had no choice then, just as the have no real choice to be good now. All of reality exists in a state of perfect balance. Therefore, the punishment given to an evildoer is not unfair to the evildoer, in spite of his not having any free will. It’s approximately the same experience of sinning and being punished that everyone had, or will have. If you believe that what I believe is just some stupid nonsense, that’s OK. I freely admit that I cannot prove what I’m saying using scientific techniques, but the fact that what I say is possible is proof in itself that cosmic injustice isn’t *necessarily* real. The trick is to zoom out, and imagine how everything that happens fits into the bigger picture.

3) Even though free will should *not* underpin our belief systems we should behave as though free will were real. We should not adopt a fatalistic attitude even if all is fated. Very often the people who claim to know everything about the future, get it *spectacularly* wrong. (Be very wary of those sorts of people).

Science is based on the assumption that everything that takes place has an explanation in terms of cause and effect, i.e., laws of chemistry and physics.

It may be that the “scientific method” requires this, but science per se doesn’t make this demand. QM acknowledges that causality is an illusion that breaks apart once we examine reality in fine enough detail. However there is still an underlying mathematical structure. If anything, an acausal, but mathematically structured, universe makes free will even less tenable than it would otherwise be. There is no place for rogue elements that are somehow “free” from the rest of reality.

No,
that’s not a problem. “Free will” is a problem for civilisation because it ascribes human evil to choice, instead of nature. Widespread belief in the Christian “free will” doctrine was one of the preconditions for Marxism with it’s man as “blank slate” doctrine. One idea inevitably lead to the other, and now we’ere fucked.

They are on average smarter than us IQ-wise, and the traits you are describing, if successful, could be characterised as “street smarts”. I don’t think that we White Gentiles should attempt to mimic Jews but we should have had sufficient street smarts to counter them. Alas we did not.

They did force me to pay taxes.

I am constantly told Christianity is anti-Jew and the only possible salvation from Jewish control, but let’s evaluate the evidence:

• Muslims can’t stand Jews and physically resist them.
• Pagans are mostly Nazis and reject Jewish cultural intrusions.
• Shintos fought with Hitler.
• Atheists are mostly leftists and they are significantly more likely to oppose Israel, even if they believe other Jewish lies.

Yet here in Amerifatistan, all the good little Christcucks knelling to their kike on a stick dutifully vote for whichever pro-Israel, pro-war political puppets that Israel dangles in front of them. Christians, especially Catholics, actively resisted Hitler’s attempts to purify Europe.

Christcucks have wiped out countless cultures around the world, yet not once have they even attempted to evict Jews from Europe. The few cases where Christcucks did evict Jews from localities can mostly be explained as internal power struggles within the Jews themselves. Much to the opposite, Christcucks dutifully opened new markets in those conquered lands for the Jew to profit from.

The only religion even close to the level of subservience Christcucks always display are Hindus. It is not surprising then to see a sudden influx of Hindus into Christcuck-zionist regimes, like Bobby Jindal, Rishi Sunak, Kash Patel and Usha Vance.

Being resolutely anti-Jew on the macro-scale doesn’t entail a necessity to oppose and despise all individual Jews. It is merely a cogent, warranted, and generally sanctifying recognition that Jews are, at whatever level of analysis one selects other than individual (i.e. as anthropological clade, as religion, or as cultural niche), de facto enemies of practically everyone who isn’t a Jew, as a consequence of their specifically Jewish nature, which preconditions an idiosyncratic separateness from non-Jews in numerous ways.

Childish twaddle. One of the reasons why Jews are always victorious is because they are hard-nosed realists. That doesn’t mean that we have to mimic them to win, but we do have to abandon Christianity.

Hitler, peace be upon him, said that Christianity was just Marxism with metaphysical tinsel. I agree with that assessment and I also think that Marxism is just Christianity with some pseudo-scientific tinsel sprinkled about. That’s why it was so easy to sell Marxism to the already Christianised masses.

The events of WWII didn’t change the Jewish mentality. At all. Jews were always marinating in the victim narrative since the time of their inception. They still talk about the siege of Masada and Titus’ pillaging of their temple like it happened yesterday. For that matter, their story of captivity in Egypt is a victim narrative (be it true or imaginary). Their victim mentality imparts them with a sense of license to wrong others. This idea that it started with the events of WWII is a *Big Lie*.

In general there are serious problems arise from believing that others hate you and that you can, therefore, wrong them, and I’ll describe one of them here: You can end up hurting people who *don’t* hate you, just because you think they do and you will eventually cause these same people to *start* hating you, even if they didn’t to begin with, because you wronged them.

Why are Jews so obsessed with all things “hate” related? Partly because it’s all they know, and partly because hate is associated with killing and murder. They are trying to cast all their opponents as on the same moral level as murderers even though we’ere all witnessing Jews gleefully killing and murdering in Israel every day now. Linking everything they don’t like to “hate” is demonisation, pure and simple, and if we fail to present a counter-narrative to the public (hard for us since we are so marginalized) we will be completely shut down.

What happens when the supreme court changes its mind? All the power is now in the imperial centre, and I mean *all* of it, and the thought that free speech only exists because some arm of the imperium (i.e. the SCOTUS) says it does, doesn’t actually bode very well for it’s continued existence. Just saying.

Fk chris hedges. He’s a clueless fool like most White gentile western leftists.

When the:
jewish adl
jewish world jewish congress
jewish aipac
and other jewish groups started demanding ALL pro White advocates be banned from youtube as being “racists”, and banned from all the other platforms in 2016 and 2017,
leftists like hedges were cheering it on.

“Down with the racists, death to the notsees” chanted the retarded White gentile leftists that call in group preference “wonderful” for non Whites, but hypocritically label it “hate, notseeism, and racism” if White gentiles EVER dare to engage in in group preference.

I knew that once those same short sighted White gentile leftists crossed the jews, they would be next on the censorship chopping block.

Here we are, roughly 9 years later, and the same jews that demanded censorship of TRUE right wingers are now demanding the left wing get censored as well.

Moronic White gentile left wingers dug their own graves.

You should have listened to the Alt Right, you morons. They knew what was going on, and what was coming.

FREE SPEECH for all….notsees, commies, socialists, racists, fake “anti racists”, everyone

If we allow censorship of anyone, who will be in control the levers of censorship are the rich and the powerful. Not us!!! Not the working class, the middle class, or the poor.

Too bad those on the left especially, can’t figure this out.

FWIW I don’t absolve the Jews of anything. My track record as an anti-Semite is impeccable. I think of Jews as an infectious agent. They still need a weak host in order to succeed. America began with untested ideas that hadn’t proven themselves in nature. The much ballyhooed “constitution”, on the cursed day when America was founded, immediately became more important to American national identity than history or shared culture. It was a “credal nation” (i.e. nothing resembling a real nation) from the outset.

Since Robinson confessed to doing it, I lean strongly in the direction that he did it. This doesn’t rule out Israeli/Jewish involvement. Shadowy Jewish persons that hung out on message boards and chatrooms with Robinson could have given him encouragement and helped with planning, sent him some bitcoin for gas money, with a promise of more money for success, and they could have had other useful idiot (or willing executioner) operatives creating a distraction when Robinson did the shooting. That guy Zinn may be one such operative. Zinn didn’t do the shooting but he did say he did. This may explain why. Maybe Zinn was encouraged and helped to do what he was doing by the same people who encouraged and helped Robinson or he was in on it in an even deeper way.

It may not be that hard for shadowy Jewish entities to identify and exploit useful idiot Gentiles. We know that these entities already infiltrate everything already. It reminds me of how televangelists will say that God is telling them that someone who god wants to help is female has cancer, is approximately 75 years old. There’s actually a lot of people in this demographic group and sometimes one of them will think that God really was really talking to the televangelist about her specifically. If you have a large enough audience you can always find someone who will take you seriously.

The original version of America (a “constitutional republic”) may be been so completely artificial that it’s complete collapse was inevitable. You can think of the civil war as the tap on the glass that resulted in the crystallisation of the anarcho-tyranical order that we now live under.

The conspiracy theory isn’t necessarily wrong, but I need more evidence before I consider it to be the best theory. If the conspiracy theory is true, then the alleged shooter’s being alive to tell tales, is a threat to the conspirators, and he hasn’t been unalived….yet. Anyway I’m keeping an open mind. The timing is definitely very suspicious, if what we are hearing about Mr. Kirk’s gradual change of heart concerning Israel is true.

And why? Because when Jews chose to to reject the Christ it was a total inversion of what they were supposed to be.

Why did this supposedly omniscient god you Christians worship fail to anticipate what Jews would do?

‘[Jonathan Cook] writes an entire essay about Jews without saying “Jews”. ‘ — Fourth Horseman

Ain’t it amazing? As Dr Johnson said, it is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.

A consistent hobby horse of Jewish myth making is that they are just one innocuous ethnic minority among many, doing their democratic thing in a big, melting-pot country. To pursue this line, Jonathan Cook darkly invokes straw-man abstractions — ‘billionaires;’ ‘the West.’

Cook even goes so far as to imply that these shadowy external forces browbeat Israel’s simple, good-hearted Jews into committing gross acts of genocide, all to secure vital oil supplies for the insatiable capitalist West. Jews as victims … tell me if you’ve heard this one before!

If this essay had been written by Charlie Kirk in fourth grade, we would say that the kid has potential as a commentator. But for a sixty-year-old man such as Cook, this desperate, damp-squib scribbling to earn thirty greasy shekels is simply pathetic.

Hate to break it to you, Johnny, but you’re just not panning out as an indoctrinator. As of next week, we’re transferring you to the Lifestyle section. Your first assignment is to write an article about kitchen gadgets; maybe throw in a couple of spicy falafel recipes. Bon appetit! 🙂

What am I supposed to do? Just inform the government that I’m opting out? More than once, my biggest annual bill has been a tax bill. I don’t recall ever having a choice in the matter.

we are still accountable

I respectfully disagree

what would you have us do, all become Aaron Bushnells? [RIP]

I do what I can, in my own meager way, to educate friends and family and others, and also attempt to reach as many as I can on the Internet.

Most of us are utterly powerless. How can we be accountable, for things we strongly oppose, any more than a child? If we have as much power to change things, as a typical child has.

Yes, for all the people who support Israel’s atrocities in Gaza, then they, (no matter what nationality or race they are), are all very much accountable, and I’d like very much for them to experience up close and personal, what the people of Gaza are experiencing.

But I don’t blame every American, (presumably of every race and creed), for all the crimes of America under ZOG’s occupation, any more than I blame the Israeli Arabs, living in Israel, who oppose the horrors against their kin in Gaza, but are utterly powerless to stop it.

sorry if that’s a bit off-topic.

If only I could choose not to pay taxes. A lot of us aren’t willingly living here. We have families and what not that tie us to here. I’m going to leave as soon as I can, and I object to being blamed for things I have opposed for my entire life.

Fentanyl has killed police that merely touched it.

Bullshit. Where’s the proof that this ever happened? You once made this same assertion in the past, and were called out on it. Now you are doing it again. Are you retarded or something?

One addendum to my previous comment. Although I’m down on Jesus sometimes, I don’t approve of how he was treated. As a Buddhist, and a believer in free speech, I don’t approve of killing heretics, or intentionally killing anyone, or any sentient being for that matter. I especially don’t approve of gruesome execution methods. What I won’t buy into, is that suffering is ennobling. If you get crucified, it’s because you have the accumulated bad karma that results in that eventuality, and that bad karma will thereby be exhausted, but getting crucified won’t give you any good karma.

he Canaanites were idol worshipping folk. Jesus was telling her that ALL were able to receive HIS blessings, He was speaking to the women as a Kike rabbi would have spoken to her, he was showing racist Kikes that everyone is EQUAL NOW because of the Son. It was a metaphor, a test of faith, etc…

These “Jesus was playing 3D chess” explanation lack parsimony, and supposing that he was going around testing people, why would that reflect well on him, in general?

It was a test a faith for an idol worshiping Canaanite to accept Jesus as her Savior and a lesson for the haughty Jewish Supremacist rabbis who thought only they were to be rewarded by God’s blessings.

I think this is a cope. It’s the only interpretation available to whereby you can avoid being offended, so you have adopted it.

You can surely tell why a people like the Jews (most) would reject Christ’s teachings.

But was the argument he had with the temple priests really about his teachings, or was it just that Jesus didn’t accept their authority and defer to them? For instance, rabbis will generally tell you that Jewish doctors are actually allowed to heal people on Saturday. Anyway the gospels imply that Jesus clashed with the priests, which was a really bad idea. The priests would consider any such person a heretic and attempt to get such a person killed. Jesus was just one of many unexceptional heretics.

I know I’m being hard on Jesus. There is some value in some of what he said, but it’s all contaminated with Jewish baggage which makes Christianity unsuited to Gentiles.

Spamming us with more scripture doesn’t solve anything. The fact is, in one part of the New Testament, Christ asserts the primacy of Jewish law, and in another part he asserts that altruistic considerations can sometimes trump the law, and he’s probably talking exclusively about Jewish in-group altruism, because he did call a Gentile girl a “dog” after all. The thing is is that saying that every part of the law applies at all times, while also saying that Jewish law is sometimes superseded by other considerations is contradictory. However, these contradictions allow Christians (such as yourself) to pick and choose their interpretations of Christianity.

At any rate, he may just be saying that “What’s good for the Jews” is the real law. So he was very modern in his outlook.

But Christ, the Jew, said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Christ, the Jew, didn’t say that he wanted to replace Jewish law. He said that it still applied.

Honestly, I don’t know much about Indian religion, or how Jews may have influenced it over time. Parts of it are very old. Google gemini says:

he consensus among historians and linguists places the composition of the earliest Vedic hymns between 1500 and 1200 BCE.

This religious literature predates Christianity considerably. I’m not a huge fan of anything Indian right now. Perhaps my outlook has been poisoned by observing Indian behaviour. I think that Indians are a huge international PITA with a superiority complex and their religion, with its caste system, encourages that, just as Judaism encourages Jews to see themselves as superior. I believe that people should be treated the way they deserve, and not be treated in accordance with their demands, which puts me at odds with the majority of Jews and Indians right now, as well as many fundamentalist Christians (who quote Genesis) and many White liberals (for whom “anti-Semitism” is intolerable crime-think).

So the bottom line is that I don’t know much about religion. Obviously, although it was the birthing-ground of Buddhism, Buddhism has departed from it significantly. No “souls”. No caste system. No God……, although supreme truth could satisfy some of the requirements for “God”.

I cannot speak for all Buddhists of course. Most Buddhists don’t believe in souls, although many believe in storehouse conciousness (which is akin to RAM for karma). So, rather than a soul reincarnating, our thinking is more analagous to the idea of a successor being inheriting the karma of a predecessor being. Between lives (apart from the persistent imformation contained in storehouse conciousness), there will be times when death is absolute with no surviving soul. This doesn’t rule out the possibility of NDE’s or anything like that, but if NDE’s are real, to the Buddhist way of thinking, the NDE body would be a new body that inherited the karma of the previous body, and at some point even that body will die absolutely and there will be periods of absolute individual death between the death of that body and the birth of consciousness in the new body when rebirth takes place.

I really haven’t take a poll of most Buddhists. My own view of liberation is that the enlightened being does not go on to any kind of permanent existence. Once a Buddha is dead, he is dead, and there is no return to anything or merging with anything. In a way you can think of reality fulfilling it’s own purpose, and the individual is no longer needed. The enlightened are happy to be a part of this process, having no selfish desires.

Some Buddhsits believe that there is more to the picture, so I keep an open mind.

Since I believe that the Buddha taught the truth (albeit not fully unerringly, since that isn’t possible), I am not left with any choice except to be a Buddhist. To my mind, the Torah is the earliest version of the protocols of the elders of Zion, and the new testament is the earliest version of the communist manifesto.

There isn’t even a commandment against killing in general. I think the Torah actually stipulates that you can’t murder your fellow Jew. Gentiles are in the same category as livestock, and there isn’t any indication in the Torah that you should be a respecter of life in general. You don’t want to be an animal in a Jewish dominated world, and we already know what happens in a Christian dominated world; it automatically ends up as a Jewish-dominated world. That’s what happens when you revere Jewish scripture as holy.

One thing that interests me a lot about the Rosenblatt case is how, after the truth came out, some of his fellow tribespersons were talking about making movies (packaged as historical fiction) based on his books. What actually interests me about this phenomenon is that, after he was proven to be a liar, he was still commended by some, and received no serious punishment. Contrast that treatment with the treatment given to a typical holocaust denier. If Jews really believed in the holocaust, wouldn’t they view someone like Rosenblatt as a traitor and want him punished more severely than any mere denier? Their own actions tell us everything we need to know about where their actual beliefs really lie.

This soul-self stuff that Anglin is propounding is really weak. Christians weren’t the first to believe in this stuff but it’s sad that they got mired in it and never saw past it.

I think it depends on how one defines enlightenment. We Buddhists are on a quest of sorts. The goal is to end suffering, not just in the future, but in the here and now. To accomplish that, one needs knowledge, so the acquisition of the knowledge has to be incorporated into the goal. Then what happens after the goal is accomplished, people ask? On this question, people don’t agree. Some say that nothing remains of a Buddha except whatever imprints he or she leaves on history. Others seem to think that this answer fails to capture some deep truth that I don’t comprehend. I contend, however, that the answer doesn’t matter. The enlightened shouldn’t care one way or another about their continuance. For them, the forces that bind consciousness and drive individual rebirth will have died.

Yes. David Gilmour’s wife (Polly Samson) is an openly pro-Zionist Jew. She co-writes lyrics with Gilmour. IMO, Samson is not a particularly talented lyricist and Gilmour isn’t a particularly talented independent song-writer, but I have yet to convince the rest of the world of my opinion.

I think you are thinking of a different David Gilmour.

To keep the courts off their backs, as much as possible, they will need to pretend to be religious, even if they aren’t. The courts let churches have a male-only priesthood, supposedly because they are religious, for instance. The religious exemption is really a way to give Jewish organisations cover for their hypocrisy, but Gentile Whites will have to learn to play the game.

Nah, most of them don’t really believe in the second coming stuff, even if they pay lip service. They will never bet real money on it. Ask them to bet, and they will run like scared rabbits. I can only infer that they think they are receiving Yahweh’s blessing right now. In fact they think they are the Jew’s pet curs and are being doted on and lavished with favours in real time by Yahweh, in spite of the fact that the Jews have nothing but contempt for them. Sometimes the little boy points out that the emperor has no clothes, but for a fundy Christian there may be more immediate losses than gains from accepting the truth. They take comfort in being part of a club along with the other believers. Accepting the truth would mean losing that comfort and losing family and friends.

Most of the people who say this sort of thing aren’t actually willing to bet real money on any of it. So when will this avenging Jesus come back, what testable predictions can you make that will come true in your life time, and are you willing to bet the value of your house on any of this? Surely that wouldn’t be a big problem for someone who really believed what he was saying.

BTW I am willing to bet everything I own that nothing you say will come true in my life time.

The Old Testament “God” is a vengeful “God” who has to constantly remind “his people” “who is boss”. Punishment was always a part of the equation.
Contrast that with the New Testament “God” who is a “God” of mercy and forgiveness…two different animals, indeed.

The God of the New Testament is prepared to throw the majority of humans into hell forever simply for failing to believe in him (even inadvertently). If you believe in that god, then it makes sense to torture non-believers, because it would be for their own good, and if not, for the good of everyone else. Christian theology makes intolerance an inevitability.