The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Announcements
Open Thread #1
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A Dedicated Open Thread.

 
• Tags: OpenThread 
Hide 116 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Please try to add Caitlin Johnstone to the columnist roster.

    • Agree: Biff
    • Replies: @Adrian
  2. anonymous[357] • Disclaimer says:

    I want to challenge to what seems to be mainstream opinion on this site regarding land development in the United States.

    Arguably the dissident right should approach land use policy with two goals: A) minimize diversity, and B) promote family formation among the historic American population. The problem, which some posters here don’t seem to fully appreciate, is that the current means used to achieve (A) detract from (B). In the current political climate, finding the best policy is therefore an optimization exercise which does not fully maximize either of the two individual variables.

    Goal (A) is to minimize diversity. There are three main ways to achieve this:

    1) Ethnostate. Diversity is minimized throughout the country. A number of countries have situations approaching this, but barring some dramatic change, it is not a viable option in the United States.

    2) Apartheid. This can be acheived in a number of ways, including law, as in pre-1990 South Africa, and restrictive convenants, as in the United States of the past. This also is not viable in the present U.S. political climate.

    3) Zoning. This is what is actually used. The idea is to restrict development by erecting onerous approval processes and mandating things like low density, large setbacks, and large minimum lot sizes. This decreases the local supply of housing which increases its cost. But if white people earn more than other groups, they will be disproportionately able to afford this expensive housing, which makes areas with restrictive zoning disproportionately white. “Our prices discriminate so we don’t have to.”

    Some posters on this site seem to consider restrictive zoning an unqualifiedly good thing, and attack people who push for changes (like the growing “Yes In My Backyard” movement). The reality is more complicated. Even in a best-case scenario, restrictive zoning is a very crude tool that produces many unintended, negative consequences. And, from a diversity-minimizing standpoint, its effectiveness is declining steadily.

    One obvious problem with restrictive zoning is that the bell curves for different groups overlap considerably. So expensive housing will price out a huge number of white people along with minority groups. And as Steve Sailer discussed in his classic Value Voters essay, whites appear to be more price-sensitive regarding family formation than other groups. So restrictive zoning does a lot of damage.

    Another serious problem with restrictive zoning is that it weakens community ties by geographically isolating the generations. Detached, single-family homes are ideal for only certain periods of life. Young people without children and the elderly are better-suited for apartments, but if their towns contain only large (so as to be expensive) houses, they will have to move away. And momentum often takes over, making planned “temporary” moves permanent. The result is that towns are filled with transient people who lack deep community connections.

    Finally, the restrictive zoning strategy is becoming outdated because it is ineffective in the face of high-skilled immigration. In fact, it actually makes the situation worse, since East and South Asians tend to pool their resources and live with multiple generations under the same roof, allowing them to outbid white suburbanites for expensive real estate. In my expensive Blue State region, a number of pricey suburban areas with good schools are rapidly changing from white to Chinese or Indian.

    There are no really good solutions here, but ultimately we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot if we don’t permit a certain amount of additional housing. I fully concede that there are many pernicious policies out there; each situation needs be addressed on a case by case basis. I welcome the thoughts of others here.

  3. When we get “free” college education, will we finally be able to keep the climate deniers and racists out of higher education?

    • LOL: jim jones
  4. My humble suggestion would be to even out the political balance. As things stand, the site publishes viewpoints which are overwhelmingly right-wing, often far-right. It is true that from a Western media PoV, these viewpoints are the most stigmatised (and thus those often most excluded).

    Nevertheless, I strongly believe that censorship against the genuine left is an underappreciated issue. Many anti-war leftists got censored in the aftermath of the Soleimani attack, their posts deleted arbitrarily on major social media platforms. I’m pleased that Mr. Escobar has joined the roster but there is room for more. Not only foreign policy people but also domestic politics. Basically, left-wingers who move beyond petty ‘woke’ identity politics in favor of real left-wing policies.

    There are some on the site like Michael Hudson but with all due respect, I believe that there are higher-caliber people out there. Someone like Branko Milanovic would be a dream, though someone of his stature would probably think twice before allowing himself to be published on a site where people with frankly neo-Nazi views are published.

    I for one have been distressed that very few mainstream liberal publications have covered the escalating attacks on Glenn Greenwald in Brazil with any empathy, partly because he has criticised them so harshly. A much bigger scandal is the ongoing blackout on the unconscionable and arbitrary arrest (and frankly torture) of Julian Assange. Many of these issues deserve more attention. There is a wealth of left-wing perspectives that many on the right are unable to differentiate. They incorrectly believe the ruling class is “cultural marxist” and other tripe. The ruling class is neoliberal imperialist.

    • Agree: Kali
  5. It’s obvious that Trump had Kobe killed to take the focus off of impeachment. Is there no end to what the Orange Monster will do?

    • Replies: @Hail
  6. @Thulean Friend

    My humble suggestion would be to even out the political balance

    My not so humble suggestion is to ignore those who force car-salesman false binary choices on people.

    “Will you be paying with Visa or Mastercard?”

    “…Fuck you, I’m paying cash, and I’m paying somewhere else.”

    • Thanks: Mr McKenna
  7. A lot of people seem to be directing their comments towards Mr. Unz himself. I’m not so certain he’s actually going to read any of this. I thought it was just for entertainment.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  8. Hail says: • Website
    @Ozymandias

    I went to InfoWars for the latest theorizing on Who Killed Kobe; they didn’t disappoint, but the theorizing is still in the process of formation.

    Current InfoWars headline:

    STAR-KILLING IS A REAL PHENOMENON & KOBE BRYANT’S TRAGIC HELICOPTER CRASH SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED

    As if the normal procedure is to not investigate, to ask no questions, to close book ASAP.

    Alex Jones explains how Kobe Bryant’s tragic death warrants an investigation given the establishment has a track record of killing stars who buck the system.

    Millionaire, celebrity, ultimate insider, Obama crony, Kobe Bryant “bucked the system”?

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  9. @Hail

    “Millionaire, celebrity, ultimate insider, Obama crony, Kobe Bryant “bucked the system”?”

    Well the people on TV are telling me that he was a HERO, and the world will now go into mourning. You’ve got to admit there aren’t that many rapist heroes, so he’s kind of bucking the system.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  10. “Tears in rain”…

    Bartenders always seem to know the truth.

    RIP Rutger.

    • Thanks: Talha
  11. @Ozymandias

    Now, if he killed them as well, then he would be Ed Bucking the system.

  12. Ron Unz says:
    @Thulean Friend

    My humble suggestion would be to even out the political balance. As things stand, the site publishes viewpoints which are overwhelmingly right-wing, often far-right.

    Actually, I don’t think that’s correct. For example, consider our list of regular columnists who are currently active. Excluding me, they number 28.

    Of those, I’d say 15 would be generally considered on the Left: Gilad Atzmon, Kevin Barrett, Pat Cockburn, Stephen Cohen, Jonathan Cook, Linh Dinh, Pepe Escobar, C.J. Hopkins, Michael Hudson, Ted Rall, the Saker, Israel Shamir, Andre Vltchek, Whitney Webb, and Mike Whitney.

    Meanwhile, only 9 would be placed on the Right: Pat Buchanan, John Derbyshire, Guillaume Durocher, E. Michael Jones, Trevor Lynch, Ilana Mercer, Ron Paul, Fred Reed, and Eric Striker.

    The remaining four probably wouldn’t be as clearly situated ideologically. So the Left outnumbers the Right 15-to-9.

    However, I’d certainly admit that all four of our bloggers would clearly fall on the Right, and I’d also say we do publish considerably more outside articles from the Right than from the Left. So these additional factors do outweigh the Left-leaning columnist ratio.

    But while I’d probably agree that on balance, that our website provides more content on the Right than the Left, I don’t think the ratio is anything as extreme as you suggest.

    • Agree: Blinky Bill, gsjackson
  13. Nodwink says:
    @Thulean Friend

    It’s hard to pigeonhole many UR contributors. Gilad Atzmon has some sympathies with the Left, but some other views which would put him somewhere on the Alt Right. The true distinguishing ideological feature of UR writers is that of the Dissident, which of course applies to Ron Unz himself.

    One person who no longer belongs in the Dissident category is Pat Buchanan. I used to read Buchanan’s work at Antiwar, and he is one of the more bearable conservative writers; but his apologetics for the current occupant of the White House make him very much an Establishment figure these days.

  14. Kali says:

    Where the US/”israel goes, the UK follows.
    And whist we quarrel and fight over immigration, skin colour and IQ test scores, “our” “israeli” governments are destroying all that is beautiful and sacred, and doing so in the name of “democracy” and “freedom”

    Just one example out of possibly hundreds:

    Guantanamo’s indelible legacy

    [MORE]

    https://mondoweiss.net/2020/01/guantanamos-indelible-legacy/

    Here are eight ways in which the toxic policies of that offshore facility have contaminated American institutions, as well as our laws and customs, in the years since 2002.

    1. Indefinite detention: The first item on any list of Guantánamo’s offspring would have to be the category “indefinite detention.” In the context of U.S. law, until that long-ago January, the very notion was both foreign and forbidden. Detention without charge or trial was, in fact, precluded by the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process, a reality that had been honored since the founding of the republic. Though the detainees there were eventually granted access to lawyers and the right to have their cases reviewed, for only a handful of them has that right of being charged or released been realized.
    […]
    2. . A new legal language for the purpose of bypassing the law: From the very start, Guantánamo challenged the normal language of law and democracy. The detainees there could not be called “prisoners” as they would then have been considered “prisoners of war” and so subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The cages and later prefab prison complexes (transported from Indiana) could not be labeled “prisons” for the same reason. So the government invented a new term, “enemy combatant,” derived from “unlawful enemy belligerent,” that did have legal standing. The point, of course, was to create a whole new legal category that, like the offshore prison itself, would be immune to existing laws, American or international, pertaining to prisoners of war.
    […]
    3. Legal cover: While a new language was being institutionalized, the Department of Justice offered its own version of legal cover. Its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) was enlisted to provide often-secret legal justifications for the policies underlying what was then being called the Global War on Terror. The OLC would, in fact, devise farfetched rationales for many previously outlawed policies of that war, most notoriously the CIA’s torture and interrogation programs whose “enhanced interrogation techniques” were used at the Agency’s “black sites” (or secret prisons) around the world upon a number of high-profile detainees later sent to Guantánamo.
    […]
    4. The sidelining and removal of professionals: From its inception, Guantánamo’s supervisors shoved aside any professionals or government officials who stood in their way. Notably, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appointed individuals to run Guantánamo who would report directly to him rather than go through any pre-existing chain of command. In that way, he effectively removed those who would contradict his orders or the policies put in place under his command, including, for instance, that prisoners on hunger strikes should be force-fed.
    […]
    5. The use of the military for detention operations: In the fall of 2002, General Tommy Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command, complained to Rumsfeld that his troops were being wasted on detainee operations. Hundreds of prisoners had been captured in the invasion of Afghanistan that began in October 2001 and Army personnel were being asked to serve as guards in the detention centers set up at the new American military bases in that country. Though many of those detainees would subsequently be transferred to Guantánamo, the military was not off the hook. A joint task force of all four of its branches would be deployed to Guantánamo to serve as guards for the arriving detainees. Some of them insisted that it was not a task they were prepared for, that their previous service as guards at military brigs for service personnel who had broken the law was hardly proper preparation for guarding prisoners from the battlefield. But to no avail.
    […]
    6. Secrecy and the withholding of information: When it came to Guantánamo, Pentagon officials discussing the number of detainees there would usually offer only approximations, rather than specific numbers, just as they would generally not mention the names of the prisoners. Journalists were normally kept from the facility and photographs forbidden. Meanwhile, a blanket of secrecy shrouded the prior treatment of those detainees, many of whom had been subjected to abuse and torture at the black sites where they were held before being transported to Guantánamo.
    […]
    7. Disregard for international law and treaties: In characterizing the Geneva Convention as “quaint” and “obsolete” as part of its justification for the detention and treatment of prisoners in the war on terror, President George W. Bush’s administration began to steadily eat away at Washington’s adherence to international treaties and conventions to which it had previously been both a signatory and a principal moral force. What followed, for instance, was a contravention of the Convention Against Torture, both in the CIA’s global torture program and in Washington’s toleration of the mistreatment of detainees it rendered to other countries.
    […]
    8. Lack of accountability: Although some of the newly legalized policies of the Bush-era, including the use of torture, were ended by the Obama administration, there has been no appetite for holding government officials responsible for illegal and unconstitutional conduct. As President Obama so classically put it when it came to taking action to hold individuals accountable for the CIA’s torture program, it was time “to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

    There’s plenty more gory detail at the link, but I’m sure you get the picture.

    All of those immigrants and refugees are VICTIMS of of “our” governments, even more so than we are!

    And unless we can pull out shit together to overthrow those evil entities the entire planet may well be fucked for a very long time to come!

    Stop squabbling and start organising!

    With love,
    Kali.

  15. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Buying into a binary, Left/Right characterization can lead to rationalizing cutout Progressive(tm) lightweights like Mr. Rall, the apparent replacement for Mr. Engelhardt.* Their views are largely orthodox, boxed into Red/Blue Washington politics and issues du jour like the ClimApocalypse. While on the “Right” you seem to have a soft spot of loyalty for the 100% Beltway Mr. Buchanan, and others such as Mr. Derbyshire who keep people thinking that the Establishment will be cured of its self-serving nature if enough of its political puppets are GOP.

    A more important distinction than Left/Right is whether the ideas being expressed are condoned elsewhere. The writers and their readers who need TUR and who I learn the most from include Linh Dinh, Philip Giraldi, C. J. Hopkins, Michael Hudson, Paul Craig Roberts, and Mike Whitney. Not merely coincidentally, they are among those who you probably struggled to categorize.

    Please focus on quality and true dissidence.

    ———

    * It would be interesting to learn for certain why Engelhardt, Lang, and Napolitano left the roster. I suspect that each was receiving more sound, negative comments than he had bargained for, but proffered the excuse that he no longer wanted to appear alongside those crimethinkers too heterodox for mainstream publication.

  16. No Jo says:

    A big win for Unz would be publishing G Maxwell’s emails.

  17. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ozymandias

    Wrong. Again.

  18. Rurik says:

    I love the idea of an open, free speech thread. (thank you Mr. Unz).

    And in that vein, this is one of several comments that Steve Sailer finds too ‘whatever’ to publish on his blog. Specifically, this thread:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/profiles-in-courage/

    I responded to another commenter

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/profiles-in-courage/#comment-3682479

    The rape case is actually quite compelling.

    And the following is my censored comment:

    I remember it. An accusation of rape, and then a tsunami of outraged basketball fans howling that she should keep her mouth shut! This was Kobe! Who the f’ did this little bitch think she was?! She should feel honored that Kobe! raped her. How many other little no-body girls get raped by Kobe?!

    It was sickening to listen to all these white men I know, basketball fans, defending Kobe and calling her a lying gold-digger- without a shred of evidence. ‘She went to his room’, ‘what the f’ did she expect?! Blah, blah..

    The evidence indicated that she was brutally raped, as you mention. And that she went to the authorities.

    And then the pile-on. It wasn’t enough that she was raped by a basketball player, then she got raped by the media and sport fans of America.

    From what I remember about the case, she finally said she wouldn’t press charges (either criminal or civil), so long as he admitted what he did, so that the media and sports fans would st0p demonizing her. So Kobe admitted publically that ‘It wasn’t consensual”, and they both moved on.

    But I’ll never forget the way sports fans (black and white men) reacted to a young woman being brutally raped, so long as it was a (black) sports ‘hero’ that did it.

    ‘F that bitch’ was their attitude, and I remember remembering why I was never a sports fan.

    If they could teach a gorilla play football, and to be gentle with the other players, and not break their bones and rip their arms from their sockets, the gorilla could make a touchdown almost every time you gave him the ball.

    ‘Toby’ the gorilla would soon become a sensation, and male sports fans would be dressing their daughters in jungle attire to try to get Toby’s attention.

    Now, is that too hurtful for the ears or eyes of Steve’s readers?

    Will their tender sensibilities suffer irreparable damage by that opinion?

    Or, does my shiv ~ aimed at a certain type of (white, male) sports fan;

    Steve: [with comment by Rurik]

    Kobe was a 3-digit IQ [Wow!] guy from the nice suburbs of Philadelphia and who’d lived in Italy when his dad was wrapping up his pro career there, who would have gone to Duke if he hadn’t gone straight to the NBA out of high school.

    Oddly, though, I once made up a list of the best centers in basketball history up through about 2008 and only Moses Malone came up as low IQ

    ~ cut a little too deep?

    Is there any irony at all, at Steve censoring my (innocuous and gentle by Unz standards) comment, on a thread about:

    Profiles in Courage: Washington Post Suspends Reporter for Tweeting Link to a #MeToo Story About Kobe Bryant

    ?

    • Replies: @Hail
  19. Talha says:

    Whoa!!! The Saudis are letting non-Muslims into Madina al-Munawarra! This is potentially huge and overturns centuries of local practice. Yes, the guy was not allowed in the mosque itself, but that may change (since the Hanafi school is OK with that also):

    I did not expect to see this within my lifetime.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
    , @Art
  20. Bertrand Russell: the best laid plans…

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    , @Adrian
  21. @Talha

    Amazing good news.

    May East, Middle East, and West finally talk with one another in love.

    Be well.

    • Replies: @Talha
  22. Hail says: • Website
    @Rurik

    Your comment was not censored and was published, eventually:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/profiles-in-courage/#comment-3682768

    I think what happens is this:

    Any time a comment has one or more of a list of certain trigger words, it is put on the backburner into a low-priority, “spam”-like folder, and approved only hours later. Yours has a word that rhymes with ‘witch,’ which I think did it. Other ways to trigger it: use of any ethnic slurs or posting more than one link at a time, maybe some other things too.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  23. Talha says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    Amen! You as well!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  24. Biff says:
    @Thulean Friend

    There’s a growing number of us that simply don’t do the left/right dichotomy much anymore. It’s more often the ruling elite “them” vs the rest of the population “us”.

    It’s the rubes and dupes think they are on some sort of winning high ground in their diametric opposition to “the left” “the right”.

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
  25. iffen says:
    @Talha

    We’ll see how it plays after Mossad slips a suicide bomber inside.

    • Replies: @Talha
  26. Rurik says:
    @Hail

    was published, eventually:

    yes, once it’s so far up the page as to be invisible.

    a comment has one or more of a list of certain trigger words, it is put on the backburner into a low-priority, “spam”-like folder, and approved only hours later. Yours has a word that rhymes with ‘witch,’ which I think did it. Other ways to trigger it: use of any ethnic slurs

    I don’t think so. I once replied to someone who wrote ‘England has been conquered’, and I simply replied ((conquered)), and it wasn’t published, at least that day.

    I don’t go to Sailer’s blog often, but I’m so disgusted at how people gush over rapists like Polanski or Kobe, that I felt compelled to shove it in their faces. They seem to worship these animals like they’re demigods or something. (Kobe has a three digit IQ!)

    How would they feel if it was their daughter being raped? And you know what? I don’t want to know. I’m afraid of the answer.

  27. How courageous of you to speak out when you’ve nothing to lose.

    PS: You may wish to explore the #new comments feature.

  28. Talha says:
    @iffen

    Mossad wants to play nice right now with Saudi so it’s likely not a concern, but yes; any non-Muslims applying to visit the city (and especially should the mosque be opened up for them for visitation – something I actually support) should be thoroughly vetted and have their background checked.

    Peace.

  29. @Biff

    That viewpoint is too simplistic. Right and left does not go away just because both sides can be further subdivided into insiders and outsiders.

    What you’re referring to is when ‘normal’ people being caught up in partisanship so they don’t realise that they cheer for two controlled sides. But I am saying that even among the non-controlled opposition, there is internal ideological diversity. That’s not a bad thing. Variety is the spice of life.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Brás Cubas
  30. Andrew Peek, son of Liz Peek, and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs at the National Security Council, was escorted off of the White House compound the Friday before last. He was placed on administrative leave. Peek succeeded Fiona Hill and Tim Morrison, both of whom testified in the House Impeachment trial.

    John Bolton, before his upcoming book release, was required to have that manuscript submitted to the NSC for review. Bolton claims that this is the only copy that was released. All the same, it was leaked to the New York Times to be strategically released while the Trump legal team was putting on its defense.

    Peek is now under investigation. Am I the only one connecting the dots here?

  31. Miro23 says:

    An interesting article by Robert Bridge on RT:

    Sanders storms ahead as Democrats confront their worst nightmare – and it’s not Donald Trump

    “As Sanders gains in the polls, Democratic leaders are getting nervous, arguing the ‘democratic socialist’ has no chance against Trump. The reality, however, is that they are terrified of their radical fringe gaining power.”

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/479399-sanders-democrats-trump-polls/

  32. Adrian says:
    @anonymous

    I second that but I fear that she will be put off by the white nationalist side of it. Also she has never been outspoken on Israel probably fearing that that would make her less welcome in some other publications. But yes, she is great.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  33. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adrian

    Your take sounds right, in light of the hasty vaporization of her one column that was published here months ago. OTOH, my several requests for an explanation – including this one – were moderated, then merely ignored.

    I would have even higher regard for Mr. Unz if this were made clear, and for Ms. Johnstone if she would take the FREE speech position of C. J. Hopkins and allow her columns to be published anywhere.

  34. David says:

    Here’s an open thread comment. There’s a video of Job Biden saying some odd things (“go vote for someone else” while actually pushing the guy away) to a voter seeking a picture with him. The weirdest thing about it is that Biden, while talking, fiddles with the mans jacket zipper or buttons. If I were talking to an old man and he started adjusting my coat zipper, I would assume he was generally insane.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  35. Carl Sagan on Humanity…

    • Thanks: Talha
  36. Tusk says:
    @David

    Trump vs Biden would be amazingly funny so I definitely hope he gets the nomination.

  37. Adrian says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    That interview with Russell.(or rather his monologue) was quite interesting. When he spoke about the time before the First World War as a time of stability and settled verities about politics he was generalizing his British upper class point of view. I have just been reading the correspondence of the distinguished Swiss nineteenth century historian Jacob Burckhardt. His view of the world differed quite considerably from that of Russell. Even in the 1880’s he thought that a general European war was imminent and he wondered about the fact that they were alll continuing their daily lives as if there was nothing to worry about. He thought that the outbreak of the French Prussian war of 1870 confirmed the views of “the philosopher” (by whom he meant Schopenhauer) that the underlying principle of worldly affairs was a non-rational will rather than Reason (as that “charlatan” Hegel assumed – “charlatan” was Schopenhauer’s term for him, not Burckhardt’s).

    Another surprising thing in this correspondence was B’s obvious animus against the Jews – surprising in so moderate a man whom Nietzsche called the ‘wise and knowing’ one. He must have had his reasons but that is for another letter.

    • Thanks: utu
    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  38. I’m a big fan of the article here – https://www.unz.com/article/coronavirus-the-dark-side/

    Please ask Mr Robets to look into the Attention Grabbing Social Media Professor who is behind most of the hype and panic over this Corona Virus.

    Some interesting highlights of his apparent career in this article here (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wors-panicdemic-part-2-r0-r-naught-charlie-%E5%A9%B5%E5%A9%B5-liu-%E5%88%98-/) and also interesting to note the patterns of the development of his Wikipedia Page. Aside from most of the “content” coming from accounts that don’t exist, there was an explosion by “bots” in many subtle changes over the last few months – see for yourself, check the edit history on the Wikipedia Page. His Linked In page has so few connections for such a massive figure in his apparent fields of expertise….and not a single recommendation made to him. Hmmmmm.

    Something isn’t quite right………

  39. iffen says:
    @Thulean Friend

    Categories and labels are just that.

    As to this site, the main lump, right and left, is the blame America first group. The 2nd biggest lump is blame America first because the “wrong” people are calling the shots. The remaining lump is tiny.

  40. Art says:

    The Jews are making their move – it is 99% certain that Bloomberg will be the Dem nominee.

    DNC overhauls debate requirements, opening door for Bloomberg

    The committee is eliminating the donor threshold, which had functionally barred Bloomberg from the stage.

    The Democratic National Committee is drastically revising its criteria to participate in primary debates after New Hampshire, doubling the polling threshold and eliminating the individual donor requirement, which could pave the way for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to make the stage beginning in mid-February.

    Candidates will need to earn at least 10 percent in four polls released from Jan. 15 to Feb. 18, or 12 percent in two polls conducted in Nevada or South Carolina, in order to participate in the Feb. 19 debate in Las Vegas. Any candidate who earns at least one delegate to the national convention in either the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary will also qualify for the Nevada debate.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-shifts-debate-requirements-opening-door-for-bloomberg-110017

    You can be sure – it is Trump vs. Bloomberg – in 2020

  41. Art says:
    @Talha

    Talha — could not help but see the overwhelming wave of Arab Sunni humanity, condemning Kushner’s “deal of the century” – that is being forced on Palestine — Art

    • Replies: @Talha
  42. iffen says:

    The Jews are making their move

    But Sanders is … and Kushner is …, oh, never mind.

    • Replies: @Art
  43. Klaatu on 100 Seconds till Midnight…

    “The Day the Earth Stood Still” 1951

  44. Kali says:

    Gandhi (love him or hate him) said, “No-violent, non-cooperation becomes every mans sacred duty when the state is lawless and corrupt.”

    Given that all government is by concent, and that, as the old saying goes, we get the government we deserve, I feel it’s time to stop cooperating and stop consenting to globalised tyranny in the name of “democracy”, “freedom” and “zion”.

    That said, I guess it’s more than a little ironic that I publish the above (Unz willing) on a website where so much outstanding argument, information, opinion is posted anonymously for fear of reprisals and retribution from said lawless and corrupt state(s).

    Kali.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    , @Art
  45. @Thulean Friend

    That viewpoint is too simplistic. Right and left does not go away just because both sides can be further subdivided into insiders and outsiders.

    I agree with you that right and left are, when taken in their appropriate meanings, permanent concepts. But I also agree that there is a problem because those words have ceased to be understood by the people, partly because the institutions which claim those concepts have not been proper embodiments of them. So, those who say that left and right are no longer valid concepts may have the practical upper hand, as long as they can push new concepts that function better and achieve satisfactory results.

    If one were discussing abstract philosophy, one could make a solid case for the concepts of left and right. But in politics, theory cannot exist without praxis. So, you have to use words that work. What those words are is still open to debate, and it is possible that they are not going to be sweeping generalizations as right and left were. Maybe one will have to deal with a multiplicity of concepts and combinations thereof to make sense of new political realities.

    The case of this website provides ample exemplification of what I have just said, beginning with its owner Ron Unz, who has at least in one occasion defined himself as a very conservative man. I have no elements to conclude that he has changed his self-classification, but the fact that stands out is that he has donated to (and, one presumes, voted for) the most leftwing candidate in the last presidential elections, Bernie Sanders. He also has been on record praising George Soros for donating to the Democratic Party against George W. Bush, which leads us to conclude that he has been misaligned with official “conservatism” for quite some time. It is obvious that when too many people begin to dissent from the mainstream of one movement, claiming that his own system of beliefs is the more “authentic” version of it, it may be time to scrap that movement altogether. Beyond a certain level of repair to be done in a house, it is better to build a new one.

    Another phenomenon that is observable in general is how geopolitical considerations tend to trump the individual categorization of left/right as applied to countries. For example, leftwing governments tend to align with Russia and China in detriment of the U.S.A.. They (and their journalistic allies) will come up with a million rationalizations about those countries (e.g., they are less aggressive toward others than the U.S. is; or, they are not strictly democratic in the ‘bourgeois’ sense, but their populations are majoritarily happy and so are not oppressed; etc). But I would bet that what really drives those governments is the simple strategic geopolitical reasoning that, the U.S.A. being the major Capitalist country in the planet, its weakening as a hegemonic global power is the first step to be achieved in order to bring down Capitalism as a hegemonic system. This may go terribly wrong, of course, at least for the leftists. As for dissenting journalists of a conservative persuasion, I do not know what their reasoning would be for wishing the U.S. weakened; maybe in their case those rationalizations I cited are real beliefs.

  46. Art says:
    @iffen

    The Jews are making their move

    But Sanders is … and Kushner is …, oh, never mind.

    Jews here Jews there – Jews lead everything!

    Bernie is an old-world socialist Jew – a kubutz type – who Bloomberg mocks.

    95% of US Jews would support Bloomberg over Bernie. The pressure to elect Bloomberg, put on the American people, would be overwhelming.

    If Bernie does not win on the first convention ballot – Bloomberg will be a shoe in.

    p.s. What would Fox’s Hannity do – support the Jew or Trump?

    p.s. Bloomberg gave the DCN 300K, just days before he entered the race.

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3bmjx/mike-bloomberg-gave-the-dnc-dollar300000-two-days-before-he-entered-the-race

  47. Art says:

    https://theweek.com/articles/892890/mitch-mcconnell-does-again

    Major kudos to Mitch McConnell – he has saved the republic again – impeachment is off.

    The first time he saved us, was when he kept the Jew judge off the Supreme Court.

    The next thing he has done is get all those conservative judges appointed.

    Thanks!!

    • Replies: @Nodwink
  48. Talha says:
    @Art

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Lot
  49. Art says:
    @Talha

    Talha —- Touché — Peace — Art

  50. @Ron Unz

    What intrigued me until recently was that you just don’t seem to care whether the people whom you publish diverge from your own views, sometimes to a large degree. I kept trying to figure out what your goal is in publishing people with whom you explicitly disagree. Why would you want to publish those “Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media” and, most importantly, why do you consider them “interesting” and “important”?

    I still don’t know what your ultimate goal is, and in fact I don’t even know whether there is such an ultimate goal. But your immediate goal became fairly clear to me after I read a piece you wrote about a guy named Dauman who claimed his IQ was enormous. That article apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with anything you were writing at the time. As my first guess, I supposed it to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to your own IQ. I was entertaining that silly notion when I came upon the answer, not out of any brilliant insight of my own, but simply because, after you noticed that readers were clearly not getting your point, you explained it in not one, but two comments. Your purpose was exposing the amazing ability of the press to conceal, deceive, and fabricate. That’s when the whole agenda of your website became clear to me (you see, I am more than a little daft): to expose the extreme corruption and the lies of the mainstream press. To achieve that, you don’t have to publish exceptionally uniform views, and not even 100% sensible opinions. Your immediate goal is a destructive, or to use a less shocking word, deconstructive one. You aim primarily at producing doubt, not certainty. If you succeed at instilling doubt about what the hegemonic press says, your goal has been achieved. I am not saying that you prefer to publish lies over publishing the truth. In fact, the more truthful everything you publish is, the more effective you will be, that goes without saying. Also, those categories appertain to facts, not to opinions; and even with regard to facts, they are problematic. The decision whether something that occurred 50 years ago is true or false is, more often than not, a matter of opinion.

    That of course explains why in fact the ideological make-up here is almost balanced. Since you apparently don’t care in the least whether you publish rightwing or leftwing pieces, the balance will tend to be more of less even-handed, and a little skewed to the side which is most rejected by the mainstream media. So, it falls a little to the right.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @iffen
  51. Ron Unz says:
    @Brás Cubas

    Your purpose was exposing the amazing ability of the press to conceal, deceive, and fabricate. That’s when the whole agenda of your website became clear to me (you see, I am more than a little daft): to expose the extreme corruption and the lies of the mainstream press. To achieve that, you don’t have to publish exceptionally uniform views, and not even 100% sensible opinions. Your immediate goal is a destructive, or to use a less shocking word, deconstructive one. You aim primarily at producing doubt, not certainty. If you succeed at instilling doubt about what the hegemonic press says, your goal has been achieved.

    Sure, that’s a pretty reasonable summary of a major aspect of my effort. I also laid out the strategy pretty explicitly in one of my American Pravda articles from a few years ago:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-breaching-the-media-barrier/

  52. @Kali

    Gandhi (love him or hate him) said

    Based Ghandi also said:

    “Your Petitioner has seen the Location intended to be used by the Indians. It would place them, who are undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs, in close proximity to the latter”

    “I venture to write you regarding the shocking state of the Indian Location. … There is, too, a very large Kaffir population in the Location for which really there is no warrant.”

    “Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension”

    “Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly.”

    “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals. … The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company!”

    “Some Indians do have contacts with Kaffir women. I think such contacts are fraught with grave danger. Indians would do well to avoid them altogether.”

    • Replies: @Kali
  53. Nodwink says:
    @Art

    In the short term, McConnell’s undermining of the rule of law has played out very well for him and the GOP. I frankly wonder why it took so long for the Republicans to work out they could take the country, with only token resistance from some winemoms in pussy hats.

    In the long term, this gambit may backfire. If the hard Left continues its infiltration of the Democrats, then they will encounter a more formidable foe. Take this headline, for example:

    Bernie Sanders Leads Trump, All 2020 Candidates in Donations From Active-Duty Troops

    One suspects that the troops see Bernie as something of a peacenik; and with the exception of the Rambo types, I assume that most would rather be home with their families, rather than some Middle East dustbowl. It is possible, though, that quite a few are sympathetic to the movement that Bernie is building, and the next iteration of that movement is likely to be far more radical than Sanders.

    • Replies: @Art
  54. iffen says:
    @Brás Cubas

    Your purpose was exposing the amazing ability of the press to conceal, deceive, and fabricate.

    Assuming that you are correct, and I do, most “normal” people who land here will be put off by the bizarre conspiracy mongering, the Jew baiting, the racist ranting, etc. and move on, noticeably with the idea that the MSM is likely “right” about neo-Nazis, racists, etc. Many of the writers and most of the commenters already distrust the MSM. So exactly how does providing neo-Nazies, etc. a playpen bubble where they can back-slap each other, but which scares the hell out of the “normal” reader (the very person that is supposed to be reached) advance “the cause”?

    • Replies: @Art
  55. Art says:
    @iffen

    So exactly how does providing neo-Nazies, etc. a playpen bubble where they can back-slap each other, but which scares the hell out of the “normal” reader (the very person that is supposed to be reached) advance “the cause”?

    Those “normal readers” will for the first time hear something they never heard before – of course they will reject the anti-Jew notions.

    BUT – it will start them looking and thinking. If one looks, one cannot but see the truth of Jew coercion in our culture.

    Peak Jew is coming – a crash – then healing.

    Think Peace

    • Thanks: iffen
  56. Art says:

    American Oligarchs – by Andrea Bernstein — the Trump and Kushner families. CSpan2 Book TV

    Every voter should see!

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?467980-1/after-words-andrea-bernstein

    This raises many questions about Trump!

    At a minimum, he is a master manipulator of government.

  57. Kali says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Your quote, Hippo’drome, is why I placed the “love him or hate him” caveat with my quote.

    It was the quote itself I was sharing rather than any endorsement of the man himself.

    The notion of non-violent non-cooperation with a lawless and corrupt state as a means to bring the state back into line with the people it is supposed to serve or to bring it down entirely if need be.

    It’s undeniable that all across the Western world, politicians and governments serve their own self-interests over and above the interests of the people/nations they are “elected” to serve, and that they place themselves above the law and use the state as a shield against prosecution..

    There is no obligation for any people to bow to such entities. – In fact there is arguably a moral/ethical responsibility for us to bring them down before it’s too late.

    Non-violent non-cooperation is one means by which we might do that,

    Regards,
    Kali.

  58. Art says:
    @Kali

    Gandhi (love him or hate him) said, “No-violent, non-cooperation becomes every mans sacred duty when the state is lawless and corrupt.”

    Given that all government is by concent, and that, as the old saying goes, we get the government we deserve, I feel it’s time to stop cooperating and stop consenting to globalised tyranny in the name of “democracy”, “freedom” and “zion”.

    Hear hear!

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Do No Business — with the morally inferior Jews.

  59. Art says:
    @Nodwink

    Bernie Sanders Leads Trump, All 2020 Candidates in Donations From Active-Duty Troops

    One suspects that the troops see Bernie as something of a peacenik

    Absolutely – Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard are the lone voices for peace.

    The elite 20% led by the Zion Jews hate them both. Tulsi has been pushed out and ignored by the elite. They are trying to do the same to Burnie. Jew ownership of the media controls what we can hear.

    Sorry but our military has become a mercenary killing machine for the Jews. There is NO glory in that.

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Do No Business — with the morally inferior Jews.

  60. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    Luke Ford’s loss can be Unz Review’s gain.

    Kevin Michael Grace has been let go by the Luke Ford Show.

    Kevin Michael Grace has journalistic experience, erudition of history/politics, and wide-ranging interests in culture, from high art to pop culture.

    It might be a good idea to create a corner for him on Unz Review where he post videos and writings about various topics.

    KMG’s contact email: [email protected]

  61. Anonymous[320] • Disclaimer says:

    Mr. Unz,

    Could you please delete my comment history from unz.com. Further, could you also prevent my username from making further posts.

    Thank you.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  62. Ron Unz says:
    @Anonymous

    Could you please delete my comment history from unz.com. Further, could you also prevent my username from making further posts.

    Existing comments can’t be removed without severely disrupting old threads. But your the comment-archive for your Handle has now been hidden, which has much the same impact. It may take a little time for the change to propagate across the Internet.

    • Replies: @iffen
  63. Paul Craig Roberts’ latest article, “As the Democratic Party Hates ‘Trump Deplorables,’ How Can It Represent White People?” is a perfect description of the current State of the Union.

    Since Mr. Roberts doesn’t allow comments, I am using this open thread to make this statement. If you want to know what this American is thinking right now about life for him in his own country, and for others like him in countries like his, read the article.

    Every word of it is true.

    • Thanks: Art
    • Replies: @Tusk
    , @Colin Wright
  64. iffen says:
    @Ron Unz

    Existing comments can’t be removed without severely disrupting old threads.

    Could I just get my obviously stupid comments deleted? There shouldn’t be more than 10 or 12.

  65. Tusk says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    PCR does have some good articles. The commentary on his WW2 article, which was opened surprisingly, was a fantastic thread full of good discussion.

  66. Swan Song to a Millenium…

    “Dreams” The Cranberries Paris 1999

  67. Anon[970] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thulean Friend

    My humble suggestion would be to even out the political balance. As things stand, the site publishes viewpoints which are overwhelmingly right-wing, often far-right. It is true that from a Western media PoV, these viewpoints are the most stigmatised (and thus those often most excluded).

    This site needs mo ho’s. Where are the ho’s? Too many fellas.

  68. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Of those, I’d say 15 would be generally considered on the Left: Gilad Atzmon, Kevin Barrett, Pat Cockburn, Stephen Cohen, Jonathan Cook, Linh Dinh, Pepe Escobar, C.J. Hopkins, Michael Hudson, Ted Rall, the Saker, Israel Shamir, Andre Vltchek, Whitney Webb, and Mike Whitney.

    They are more left-of-left or exiled left, that is most current mandarin ‘leftists’ consider them as renegades.

  69. @Buzz Mohawk

    ‘Paul Craig Roberts’ latest article, “As the Democratic Party Hates ‘Trump Deplorables,’ How Can It Represent White People?” is a perfect description of the current State of the Union…’

    The comic bit is that now the party appears to be considering nominating a homosexual for president.

    Blacks are notoriously homophobic, and Hispanics aren’t too crazy about homosexuals either; the Democrats will wind up representing nobody at all.

    • Replies: @Talha
  70. Another succinct statement of truth from Paul Craig Roberts was published yesterday, here in the Unz Review: The Consequence of Globalism Is World Instability.

    Our leaders in business and government have brought us to a point at which a plague in China will destroy our livlihood in America — even if Americans don’t get sick. If the coronavirus, or some other illness in the future, becomes serious, the globalist system of which we are a part will suffer.

    He explains that Americans, like Citizens of many other counties in the supply chain, would suffer an economic crash if China were unable to produce the parts and finished products it exports. Employment, sales, supplies, would all fall.

    The title of Mr. Roberts’ essay is a true statement.

    Greedy fools pushed us to this point! What ever happened to the idea of redundant systems? Independence? How stupid it is to force Americans and everyone else to toil in a single industrial system, where if any one (Chinese) part fails, we all fail. How insane.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  71. Perhaps the science-minded readers of this webzine will find this article as interesting as I did:

    Are noncommunicable diseases communicable?
    B. B Finlay1,2, CIFAR Humans, the Microbiome2
    See all authors and affiliations

    Science 17 Jan 2020:
    Vol. 367, Issue 6475, pp. 250-251
    DOI: 10.1126/science.aaz3834

    Summary
    The past century has seen a profound decrease in mortality rates across the world, accompanied by a marked shift from communicable diseases (caused by infectious microbes) to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and respiratory diseases. NCDs—defined as diseases that are not transmissible directly from one person to another—account for more than 70% (41 million) of all deaths globally (1). The definition of NCDs rules out microbial involvement and instead focuses on genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Data increasingly show that the microbiota is dysbiotic (altered) in individuals with various NCDs. In animal models of NCDs, transplantation of dysbiotic microbiota into healthy animals results in disease, and microbiota composition is shaped by close contact with others. Therefore, we propose that some NCDs could have a microbial component and, if so, might be communicable via the microbiota.

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6475/250

  72. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    What became of the Video pages of those squelched by YouTube? Weren’t they to be accessible here?

    • Replies: @Talha
  73. Talha says:
    @anonymous

    Extremely high-yield post on useful meta-concepts to help sift reality i(in our information age) from the detritus:

    Peace.

  74. Talha says:

    Also, I have not laughed this hard in years, so I thought I would share:

    Peace.

  75. Steve Bannon vs. Bill Maher…

  76. @Adrian

    Thank you renewing my interest in that once out-of-season historian, Jacob Burckhardt, who had little faith in progressive democratic institutions and technology. Years ago I read parts of his “Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy.” Hate to say, I did not really appreciate its brilliance. He wrote of the whole person, whose need for and love of beauty placed him next to divinity, and gave life and strength to his culture and nation. Now that governing bodies and institutions are in many ways disintegrating, his conceptions seem to be more timely than ever.

    Burckhardt did not believe modern rationalism was sufficient to sustain the person or society. Russell, on the other hand, sought truth in mathematics. It was touching to hear him describe as you say, “the time before the First World War as a time of stability and settled verities about politics….” Those times held fast to family and religious traditions. After the War, the center lost its hold. Humanity was cast adrift in a sea of doubt and questioning. Even Russell’s great protege, Wittgenstein, questioned whether mathematics was truth or merely a human construct.

    Burckhardt foresaw the crisis of metaphysics and culture that was to come upon Europe. It was realized in the War and in our own day by countless wars springing up everywhere like mushrooms. The “Letters of Jacob Burckhardt” by Alexander Dru is on order; hope to read the profound challenge our time fleshed out by this master of cultural history. Thanks again.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  77. @SeekerofthePresence

    Thanks for elevating Burkhardt’s ideas of art-family-religion. I’ve read a bit of his history of Italy and found it balm for the spirit.

    I don’t know much about Russell, but your comparison was instructive.

    Motivated by Phil Giraldi’s article on the billionaire backers of Pete Buttegieg, with Seth Klarman taking the lead role, I’ve been reading materials that our children are force-fed by an organization Klarman heads.

    Klarman is Chair of the Trustees at Facing History and Ourselves, an extensive collection of courses in (history) with holocaust and countering antisemitism as the centerpiece, that is taught to middle-school students in dozens of US states as well as internationally.

    The program started out a holocaust education program in one school in Klarman’s hometown in 1976; it now reaches over 100,000 public, private and charter school kids each year, and also conducts special programs, seminars and trainings for educators.

    The Facing History program on Weimar Germany offers a stunning contrast to the world Burckhardt admired: Facing History viewed Weimar as an outstanding period of cultural development that is important because it was a transition point to a fully democratized political, material, and artistic culture that sadly, claims the author, Paul Bookbinder, the German people were not able to navigate successfully. Bookbinder hopes that by studying the possibilities but failure of Weimar, young people can learn how to adopt the modern forms of art and social being Weimar envisioned, in a fully democratic way. (Klarmen fully endorses the varieties of re-gendering now in vogue).

    Bookbinder does not mention that Weimar was also a period when ordinary German people were forced to prostitute themselves to eat; when children were used and abused shamelessly; when the literature, painting, performing arts and popular culture of the period were considered degraded and decadent by many Germans.

    Germans were Burckhardtians being forced into a world not of their own making or preference — not at all “democratic.”

    I don’t know if Ron Unz is amenable to using this platform to attempt to organize to this extent: a full critique of the large body of material Facing History produces, and that our kids have been taught for over 40 years, is more than I can manage alone. But if several Unz participants agree to coordinate efforts to study the Facing History material and analyze it in comparison with, for example, Pravda articles on holocaust, on antisemitism, and the like, perhaps we could combine forces to produce at least a pamphlet that could be distributed to parents at school conferences, and to Boards of Education and school councils.

    The material Klarman’s group is teaching America’s children is nothing short of psychological warfare.
    We need to confront it and reclaim our own children.

  78. Lot says:
    @Talha

    Jerusalem was conquered, not purchased.

    Like Istanbul and, more recently, northern Cyprus.

    • Replies: @Talha
  79. Talha says:
    @Lot

    It was actually a negotiated surrender from the Byzantines to the Rashidun. They simply didn’t have the resources to put up much of a fight after the blowout at Yarmouk.

    Peace.

  80. @Truth3

    A little over two weeks ago:

    Israeli settlers torch Palestinian school in latest ‘price tag’ attack
    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-settlers-torch-fifth-grade-classroom-palestinian-village-south-nablus

    Palestinian mosque torched in Israeli settler ‘price tag’ attack
    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/east-jerusalem-mosque-burned-israeli-settlers-price-tag-attack

    • Replies: @bjondo
    , @Rurik
  81. bjondo says:
    @AnonStarter

    Israeli settlers torch Palestinian school in latest ‘price tag’ attack

    Palestinian mosque torched in Israeli settler ‘price tag’ attack

    Jew killed all olive trees.

    But,

    Jew must be Jew.

    5ds

  82. Rurik says:
    @AnonStarter

    The more relevant question is this: If God is The Creator of all that is, why wouldn’t He take an interest in us? Even the smallest blade of grass usually gets everything it needs to grow and flourish for its typical lifespan. Same is true with insects, birds, and other two and four-legged critters. So God takes an interest in His creatures far lower on the food chain, but not the one at the top?

    The problem, as I see it, is that even for humans, for a God, (or God, Himself) their antics really must seem painfully mundane. What act of significance has any human accomplished in a thousand years? Yes, we have spaceships in orbit, but they’re used more as weapons or spying, than for anything else. Where are our great spiritual epiphanies, that uplift mankind from the primitive sludge, of war and hate?

    Civilizations ebb and flow. The Zeitgeist seems more circular, than linear.

    As far as I can see, the most critical event of the last millennium is the looming destruction of the Earth’s ecology. Due to the blind greed and fecundity of God’s ‘special creature’.

    Why is it, almost none of the world’s religious or spiritual leaders seem to have any concern for the world’s oceans or myriad species, on the verge of extinction, for all time. What does that bode for us as a moral beings, when we’re indifferent to handing this formerly lush planet to the next generations, bereft of many of its miracles, because it suited the current stewards of this planet to stand by idly as they’re wiped out. With more shekels clinking in their pockets, who has time to care about sea turtles?

    The Islamic perspective is profoundly different. Adam’s sin is not the cataclysmic event that shoulders the entirety of humankind with the burden of “original sin” and precludes him from return to the garden barring a patently idolatrous declaration.

    I know I’m blending things a bit, but for me, mankind’s original sin, is his willful destruction of the planet. (and I’m not talking about the ‘Climate Change’ idiocy). Humans have been slaughtering other humans since the beginning of time, but now we’re on the verge of taking our infinite greed and bloodlust planetary, and not just slaughtering each other, but driving thousands of species extinct, in our damnable, solipsistic megalomania. One day soon, children will be born into a world with poisoned oceans, (already, you don’t eat too much fish, because of the ubiquitous mercury), and they’ll say, ‘did African elephants and mountain gorillas really share this world with us, as freely roaming fellow creatures of God? And we’ll have to answer, ‘why yes honey, but that was before we humans wiped out all their habitats, to make room for billions of more consumer units and tax payers and cannon fodder. What are a few elephants, when you can have a few more billion people buying Walmart plastic things made in China and eating McDonald’s Big Macs?!

    We do know, however, about the history of Israel in relation to God because we have a written record which, even in its corrupted form, provides evidence of it.

    Why is it so easy, (incredibly easy), for me to consider Israel’s written ‘relation to God’, as nothing more than the written word of men, trying their best to interpret a God. I suspect my Mohawk, at the edge of his realm, watching an eagle soar, would have been just as close to the Eternal One, as he was uplifted by God’s beauty and grace. As a Jew two thousands years ago, wrestling with the texts of his ancestors, trying to divine the will of God. That those words were written, while the Mohawks were not, is hardly more reason to assign them divine origin, at least as I see it.

    Truth is, we’re all entitled to the fruits of God’s Kingdom, without any need to demonstrate descent from an allegedly superior bloodline.

    Here, here!

  83. Miro23 says:
    @Rurik

    Why is it, almost none of the world’s religious or spiritual leaders seem to have any concern for the world’s oceans or myriad species, on the verge of extinction, for all time. What does that bode for us as a moral beings, when we’re indifferent to handing this formerly lush planet to the next generations, bereft of many of its miracles, because it suited the current stewards of this planet to stand by idly as they’re wiped out.

    This really is a question – empathy with the natural world seems to be very rare.

    Nature has always been something to exploit (kill, harvest, burn, mine, cut down etc.) so I agree that there’s room for “spiritual leaders” to care about the human – nature interaction – maybe not to sanctify it – but to care about it.

    Also , this is something that is easily personalized in an anonymous atomized society. The regular “consumer” turns into something else when he/she spends time with, and develops a feeling for plants and animals.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Rurik
  84. @Rurik

    Prophetic scene from “The Graduate”…

    Especially when humans become plastic with a tissue endoskeleton.

    • Thanks: Rurik
  85. Miro23 says:

    Putin rejects same sex marriage in Russia and the adoption of children by homosexuals.

    https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/14/vladimir-putin-russia-same-sex-marriage-gender-specific-language-anti-lgbt-gay/

    Liberal outrage in the West but for my part congratulations to Putin. I’ve got nothing at all against homosexuals but it’s a minority thing and it should basically be ignored – not fetishized by the media/state and given special rights.

    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  86. @Miro23

    How unWoke! Time to drag Putin before the Hague.

  87. Miro23 says:
    @Miro23

    Chris Maser wrote an interesting book, “Harmonizing Culture and Nature”

    This is a review that I wrote in 2016:

    “Firstly, Chris Maser has written a very valuable book about the natural world and its problems which are worse now (2016) than when the book was published in 1992.

    “He’s concerned with habitats and species and says (P33), ‘… the notion is that species continue to evolve until they at last occupy all available habitat niches in the biosphere, which keeps changing, so that species must continue adapting.’

    “Some habitats offer more possibilities than others and he highlights the extraordinary richness of the world’s tropical rain forests quoting biologist Louise Emmons, with regard to the Gabon African rainforest; ‘You can stand anywhere and be surrounded by hundreds of organisms that are all ‘doing something’, going about their living in countless interactions—ants carrying leaves, birds dancing, bats singing, giant blue wasps wrestling with giant tarantulas, caterpillars pretending that they are bird droppings, and so on.’

    “Then he shows how humans are destroying natural habitats at an accelerating rate, becoming the principal cause of extinctions and evolutionary leaps. Like he says (1992), ‘Each year, an area 80% the size of the State of Oregon burns in the Brazilian Amazon alone’, and this is a lot, considering that tropical rainforests are one of the world’s oldest ecosystems, occupying only 7% of the Earth’s surface but home to more than 50% of all the Earth’s species.

    “His point is that human beings approach nature in a manner formed by their past. For most of their history they were an insignificant part in its vastness, and actually threatened by it—hence the memes of ‘carving out the new frontier’, ‘taming nature’ etc. which are all wrong now that the tables have turned.

    “Maser shows that intensive chemical based agriculture is seriously removing fertility from soil around the world as green cover is removed along with he natural cycle of dead organic matter returning to the earth (also covered in Peter Andrew’s excellent book ‘Beyond the Brink’).

    “He does show a growing awareness of the problem and engages in a very interesting argument (P186) contrasting Ethos with Law. Ethos is something that puts down deep roots into society and moulds it from the bottom up (in other words it IS society). In contrast Law is much more superficial concept that without Ethos it is easily circumvented, as for example with dead letter Environmental Laws routinely ignored by special interests. Like he says, ‘This is not the doing of the scientists, foresters, rangers, and others at working levels the agencies.’ It reflects decisions made by higher authorities in the executive branch of government i.e. They know they can get away with it because most of the population don’t care.

    “Maser could have suggested how to internalize (build an Ethos) of sustainability in the general population, but it’s a difficult problem and this is still a great book. Five stars so far and I have decided to ignore the negatives.”

  88. @Rurik

    The problem, as I see it, is that even for humans, for a God, (or God, Himself) their antics really must seem painfully mundane.

    This is but a projection of your imagination, and God tells us that He is to us as we regard Him, so that is what God is to you: someone for whom the antics of human beings must seem painfully mundane.

    But this is not what God is. Nor is God what I think of Him, He transcends my imagination. Yet He is knowable, the Necessarily Existent One. This is an apparent conundrum, but only if we suppose that imagination and knowledge are one and the same.

    They are not.

    What act of significance has any human accomplished in a thousand years?

    Why stop at one millennium? What act of significance has any human ever accomplished?

    Without acting to prove otherwise, the ultimate destination of such query is despair — not an ingredient conducive to acts of significance.

    Where are our great spiritual epiphanies, that uplift mankind from the primitive sludge, of war and hate?

    I’ve found mine. I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for, but if you’re doing your best to refrain from war and hate, I’d say that’s a good start.

    The crimes that others more powerful than us have committed in our name are far too numerous to list here. We’re not accountable for them, no matter what some folks might say. It’s enough to know that the perpetrators will be compensated for what their hands have brought forth sooner or later. Just be grateful you’re not them. That, of itself, is a tremendous blessing.

    Civilizations ebb and flow. The Zeitgeist seems more circular, than linear.

    “Seems” is the operative word because fundamental aspects of human nature have not changed since the dawn of man; as such, it appears that history repeats while, in truth, familiar patterns of human behavior manifest themselves in novel circumstances.

    As far as I can see, the most critical event of the last millennium is the looming destruction of the Earth’s ecology.

    A significant problem, no doubt.

    Why is it, almost none of the world’s religious or spiritual leaders seem to have any concern for the world’s oceans or myriad species, on the verge of extinction, for all time.

    You’re being a bit presumptuous, expecting documentary proof or evidence in hyperlinks and sound bites while the vast majority of the world doesn’t even have a web connection.

    We could easily discuss what Islam says about “The Trust” that God gave to man, which includes proper care for the earth and everything in it — flora to fauna to mineral. I neither hunt nor fish solely for sport, nor do I raze woodland for any but the most practical purpose, and despoiling the environment at the cost of my humanity is simply not an option.

    One of my brother Muslims insists on a holistic, organic diet. He is exceedingly conscientious about his own habits as they effect the larger environment. Given his circumstances, his way is ideal.

    But there are many subject to circumstances in which such practice is essentially impractical, be they limited in their options as a consequence of poverty, their environment, or a combination of both. If we can afford organics and avoid plastic waste and reliance upon toxic chemicals, that’s great. Unfortunately, the vast majority of humankind cannot.

    Want to join Greenpeace? Go for it. The average world salary is ~ $42/day. Sure, you can stretch it out longer in many parts of the world, but try it on for size and see how it fits with a wife and children to boot. You’d be surprised how easily you’d forget those concerns you once had the luxury to entertain.

    I can’t blame religious leaders for these problems because most of them would, at the very least, be no worse than others, and furthermore, they’re more likely to find reason somewhere in their faith tradition to be better in their own practices and habits.

    It’s those who lack any manner of moral or ethical guidance that produce such problems.

    Why is it so easy, (incredibly easy), for me to consider Israel’s written ‘relation to God’, as nothing more than the written word of men, trying their best to interpret a God.

    Even if you perceive it as such, it does nothing to diminish the scope of its influence.

    I agree in part with what you write, but not because I regard the record as a pastiche of ancient fairy tales; rather, I agree with it because, as a whole, the record was provided by men who weren’t “trying their best to interpret a God” so much as presenting an account of history that served to present Israel as the terminus of salvation. To say that the sum of it is fictive is to miss the point. That record made one of the most significant impacts on human history — and particularly that of western civilization — than any other. This fact is undeniable and until it is acknowledged and understood for what it’s worth, not a single individual delving into the “Jewish Question” will ever be able to answer it satisfactorily.

    I suspect my Mohawk, at the edge of his realm, watching an eagle soar, would have been just as close to the Eternal One, as he was uplifted by God’s beauty and grace. As a Jew two thousands years ago, wrestling with the texts of his ancestors, trying to divine the will of God. That those words were written, while the Mohawks were not, is hardly more reason to assign them divine origin, at least as I see it.

    You’re entirely correct, of course.

    But where is the influence of the Mohawk now? And where is that of Israel?

    Here, here!

    You’re halfway home.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  89. Rurik says:
    @Miro23

    Thank you Miro23,

    This really is a question – empathy with the natural world seems to be very rare.

    Sadly, it’s by design.

    I remember growing up with Jacques Cousteau’s videos, and his heartfelt campaign to protect the oceans from man’s blind greed. At some point, man’s blind greed simply decided that such videos and sentiments didn’t suit their agenda, and so all the profound longing of so many people, to protect our natural world from the ravages of greed, were swept under the rug, and replaced with Global Warming! And Climate Change! They took the movement, and perverted it into a scheme to make them richer than their wildest dreams.

    We didn’t have to worry about species or habitats, or exploding numbers of humans in the Third World, no! All we have to do it tax the fuck out of Bubba the redneck in his F150, and the people of N. America and Europe and Australia! That was the solution. Don’t worry about China and India and Indonesia and Africa and Brazil, they can breed and burn their forests and pump gargantuan levels of carbon into the atmosphere and all will be wonderful, so long as we castrate whitey with carbon taxes.

    That’s the whole motivation for the Yellow Vests in France. They were told they had to pay massively higher taxes, to save the planet, as France became flooded with super-prolific people from the Third World. (Oh, and they had to pay taxes to pay for that, as well). It’s a wonder they didn’t bring back the guillotine for Macron. (who deserves it, if anyone ever did ; ).

    So they squashed Jacques Cousteau’s earnest and sublime message, and profaned it into an abomination so serve their eternal agenda.

    And I say God damn them for it.

    The regular “consumer” turns into something else when he/she spends time with, and develops a feeling for plants and animals.

    The depths of our souls, are like the depth of the oceans, full of wonder and possibilities and infinite mysteries. When children are exposed to nature, you’re so right, it changes them. And not just children, but adults too.

    Often it’s hunters, who start out wanting to kill magnificent beasts, but who learn to love and respect those beasts, who then become some of the most passionate defenders of our natural treasures, the unspoiled wild places on earth.

    This is a review that I wrote in 2016:

    “Firstly, Chris Maser has written a very valuable book about the natural world and its problems which are worse now (2016) than when the book was published in 1992.

    Doesn’t it sort of ripe your heart out, that this critical issue has been coopted by the scumfucks of the world, as an excuse for them to have unlimited power to tax every breath, while encouraging billions more people (to tax), as the “solution” to it all?

    There seems to be literally no depth to the depraved, sinister, literally infinite greed in the blackened and putrid human heart. They would sell out Earth itself, for a few shekels more.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  90. Adûnâi says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    “Our leaders in business and government have brought us to a point at which a plague in China will destroy our livlihood in America — even if Americans don’t get sick. If the coronavirus, or some other illness in the future, becomes serious, the globalist system of which we are a part will suffer.”

    This has been the case at least twice throughout history – in the Bronze Age collapse of the 12th ct. BCE, and during the fall of the degenerated and Christianized Roman Empire in the 3d-5th ct. CE. Our turn seems to be up, especially considering the failure of Hitlerism.

  91. Rurik says:
    @AnonStarter

    This is but a projection of your imagination, and God tells us that He is to us as we regard Him, so that is what God is to you: someone for whom the antics of human beings must seem painfully mundane.

    I can understand how you could interpret it that way, but I don’t agree.

    A man, (or woman) could live the most explosive life, full of wonders and experiences to fill tomes. Marco Polo meets Thomas Aquinas. And yet, their lives and aspirations, would be all known, down to the last whizzing atom of their DNA – to God Himself, for who there are no mysteries, or curiosities. Just His creation, as He created it. No more, and no less.

    I don’t engage in the vanity that I have the power to upset or surprise God. He (It, Whatever) knows all. And as profound and intriguing as some human’s lives no doubt are (to other humans), I still imagine that everything going on in the vast universe, is rather more wonderous and encompassing (taken on the whole) than the (occasionally enigmatic) antics of humans, on planet Earth.

    I’m not pooh-poohing our lives and the depth of our experiences, just doubting that God would consider them as profoundly significant as we do.

    But this is not what God is. Nor is God what I think of Him, He transcends my imagination. Yet He is knowable, the Necessarily Existent One. This is an apparent conundrum, but only if we suppose that imagination and knowledge are one and the same.

    They are not.

    But there’s a potential logical fallacy there. Since I consider what’s ‘knowable’, as far more elusive than what’ ‘imaginable’. I appreciate your eloquence, but would simply prefer to consider God as far more ‘imaginable’, than ‘knowable’. The latter being as aspiration, whereas the former is perhaps mortally achieved.

    Why stop at one millennium? What act of significance has any human ever accomplished?

    Exactly!

    From the perspective of God.

    Humans accomplish wonders daily, hourly. From the perspective of other humans.

    From a human perspective, Jeff Bezos or Richard Branson, flying around in outer space, must seem significant. But do you imagine that God thinks so?

    Without acting to prove otherwise, the ultimate destination of such query is despair — not an ingredient conducive to acts of significance.

    Oh, but I disagree. It’s because we’re not expected to rise to the expectations of a God, that our antics are all the more magnificent. We don’t have to impress God, with our humble efforts, we only have to impress ourselves, and hopefully our loved ones, to feel perfect happiness and fulfillment. Richard Branson may have always wanted to go to space as a little boy. And now that he’s on the cusp of his dreams, it isn’t because he’ll impress God, by doing so, but just that he’ll impress himself.

    By setting our goals to things that are earthly, and human, we avoid the despair we might otherwise feel when we fall short of God’s demands (as interpreted by men) for our lives.

    Where are our great spiritual epiphanies, that uplift mankind from the primitive sludge, of war and hate?

    I’ve found mine. I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for, but if you’re doing your best to refrain from war and hate, I’d say that’s a good start

    Right back at you, Sir!

    Why is it, almost none of the world’s religious or spiritual leaders seem to have any concern for the world’s oceans or myriad species, on the verge of extinction, for all time.

    You’re being a bit presumptuous, expecting documentary proof or evidence in hyperlinks and sound bites while the vast majority of the world doesn’t even have a web connection.

    I’m not talking about the vast majority, I’m talking about those who’re so obsessed with their narrow agendas, that even as they know, that Brazil’s rainforests (for instance) will not survive the unsustainable growth of human numbers in Brazil, that they DON”T CARE.

    The important thing for them, is to exploit the rainforests for the maximum benefit to themselves, right now! And damn all the millions of people, current and future, (with or without web access), in order to use the natural ecology and their teeming poor, as a means of exulting themselves and getting richer and more powerful – with ever more millions of the teeming poor, who’s suffering is exploited for the benefit of the elites. And that’s true from Brazil to N. America to Europe and Africa and South America to Asia and the Middle East, and everywhere in between.

    Human greed. For lucre and power.

    I’m not always sure there’s a God, but I am sure there’s a devil. And he resides in that damnable, intractable, human imperative for domination of his fellow humans. Power. At all costs.

    despoiling the environment at the cost of my humanity is simply not an option.

    If humanity could learn what you’ve learned, then perhaps I’d wonder if there’s isn’t a God out there somewhere. Failing that, all I see is a baboon-like ape, consumed with an insane greed for more and more and more power, (over other humans). And I can’t bring myself to imagine that a God would create such a species. (not on purpose, at least ; ).

    If we can afford organics and avoid plastic waste and reliance upon toxic chemicals, that’s great. Unfortunately, the vast majority of humankind cannot.

    It’s not the vast majority that are the problem. It’s the demonic elites, that are the problem. The ones who simply WILL NOT mention over-population, because from the Catholic Church, to Third World governments, to greedy cocksuckers like the Koch brothers, [one down…], our elites LOVE masses and masses of poor people to exploit, for their own nefarious agendas.

    The average world salary is ~ $42/day. Sure, you can stretch it out longer in many parts of the world, but try it on for size and see how it fits with a wife and children to boot.

    I’ve lived on less. I’ve lived on the streets dude, and out of my car, and come up from the bottom of society, so I know what it’s like. I know what it’s like to arrive at the day labor spot, and you arrive at 5:00 am, and then at about 6:00 am, maybe some guy arrives and says he needs three or five guys, and you work all day at some menial task, and you’re given (back then) $20.00 for your trouble.

    Still, a hell of a lot better than most of the poor people in the world, but hardly a trust-fund person’s lifestyle. (that was a few decades ago, but you don’t have to lecture me on hardship ; ).

    I can’t blame religious leaders for these problems because most of them would, at the very least, be no worse than others,

    I can. All day long. Because for one, spiritual leaders are supposed to be better than the rest. But more to the point, my problem with ‘spiritual leaders’, is that it seems to me, that their all-consuming obsession, is always, always, ALWAYS to want and demand a bigger flock.

    How many spiritual leaders, are fine with the relative size of their flock?

    How many spiritual leaders, are not interested in the ascendancy of their particular bent on spirituality?

    How many of them would tell the poor and desperate women of their devout, that they need not bring more poor and desperate children into the world, when they can’t feed the ones they have?

    How many spiritual leaders are out there, that recognize what it’s like to try to raise a family on $42.oo a day? (or less, in many, many cases).

    Where are the world’s spiritual leaders, who understand what crushing poverty is like? And how the despair (you want despair, try living on nothing, but an empty belly, and no prospects for work, with children to feed. That is despair, and it is felt by billions of desperately impoverished people the world over. And what do their spiritual leaders tell them? Do they say, here’s access to family planning, or we spiritual leaders, will not eat one bit more than the poorest among our flock?

    Or do they say be ‘fruitful, and multiply’! For that is God’s prescription for all poor women of the faithful.

    nothing more than the written word of men, trying their best to interpret a God.

    Even if you perceive it as such, it does nothing to diminish the scope of its influence.

    .. in the realm of man.

    That record made one of the most significant impacts on human history — and particularly that of western civilization — than any other. This fact is undeniable and until it is acknowledged and understood for what it’s worth, not a single individual delving into the “Jewish Question” will ever be able to answer it satisfactorily.

    Well, I have to acknowledge the truth of what you’re saying.

    The Abrahamic religions are a reality, both historic and current. And I’m not even opposed to them, per se. Except insofar as I consider them destructive, and counter-productive to human (and beyond) happiness and posterity.

    Insofar as Islam and Christianity, and Judaism are conducive to peace and general prosperity and happiness, and the future there of, then I’m a proponent. Insofar as they’re not, then neither am I.

    I measure my spirituality against real world results. If it brings suffering and despair, then I find it wanting. If it brings fulfillment and a soul, ebullient with truths and a longing for higher understanding, then it’s on to something.

    We each have to follow our own paths, and as they intersect, we learn and grow, and are occasionally edified, and enlightened.

    Thank you for taking the time to enlighten my path, with your deep knowledge of Islam (and humanity), and beyond.

    Salaam.

  92. Adûnâi says:
    @Rurik

    “That’s the whole motivation for the Yellow Vests in France. They were told they had to pay massively higher taxes, to save the planet, as France became flooded with super-prolific people from the Third World. (Oh, and they had to pay taxes to pay for that, as well). It’s a wonder they didn’t bring back the guillotine for Macron. (who deserves it, if anyone ever did ; ).”

    Then why are they not murdering the immigrant Negroes? Why are they letting the swarthy-skinned inhabit their sacred temples? I believe you to be sorely mistaken. No Aryan in his right mind wants to exterminate the Neanderthals of this world, or to preserve Nature. All he wants is lower taxes, higher pay, and peaceful death when his daughters mingle with foreigners.

    • Troll: Rurik
  93. Adûnâi says:
    @Rurik

    I don’t engage in the vanity that I have the power to upset or surprise God. He (It, Whatever) knows all. And as profound and intriguing as some human’s lives no doubt are (to other humans), I still imagine that everything going on in the vast universe, is rather more wonderous and encompassing (taken on the whole) than the (occasionally enigmatic) antics of humans, on planet Earth.

    Is this logical, however? How do you infer that big JEW cares little for every human life from the dogma that he knows everything? In our society, there are people that devote their lives to ants (and those are even less relevant to us than microbes). I would posit the opposite – if big JEW outside & above Nature exists, he would care for every little life even more than the living themselves.

    I’m not always sure there’s a God, but I am sure there’s a devil. And he resides in that damnable, intractable, human imperative for domination of his fellow humans. Power. At all costs.

    If Aryans of America had been greedy for power enough, they would have long since nuked the Third World, and thus there would have been no overpopulation. But of course, that’s a blind spot of yours. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg has mixed his precious Jewish blood with a Chinese… They are destroying themselves just like the USSR right in front of our eyes, and you are still afraid of White man’s [suicidally ever weaker] desire for power!

    P.S. “The important thing for them, is to exploit the rainforests” – Could you stop putting commas between the subject and the predicate?

  94. Miro23 says:

    The current Munich Security Conference (Feb 14-16th ) shows that the globalist NWO feels an internal threat.

    https://www.defensenews.com/smr/munich-security-conference/2020/02/10/munich-report-nato-funding-quarrels-mask-a-more-sinister-threat-to-the-alliance/

    COLOGNE, Germany – As Western leaders continue to squabble over military contributions to NATO, a new report warns that the true threat to the Alliance lies in the rise of anti-democratic leanings in its own ranks.

    According to the authors, the threat inside comes in the form of “illiberalism” that prizes ethnic, cultural and religious unity over the rules-based order that has guided the West for decades.

    Such tendencies are on the rise in Europe, with far-right parties gaining steam or having secured some power already.

    The smear is the term “far-right” – a catch-all term for anyone who doesn’t want open frontiers, uncontrolled outsourcing, multiculturalism and the whole “Progressive” package.

  95. Kali says:
    @Rurik

    Excellent comment Rurik (as is the vast majority of your input on this website – I’d give you a gold star in a heartbeat if it were up to me).

    I’ve just, a few minutes ago, posed a question on Rons’ MOSSAD Assassinations thread, which I’d have posted here had I read through these latest exchanges first…

    Yesterday I asked AaronB why it is wrong to condemn someone’s religion.

    It’s a serious question for me.
    Though I was brought up in a Christian family, and remained a Christian myself until the age of 18, I never did understand why societies protect religious beliefs.

    Of course, now I see more clearly that organised, dogma-based religions are an intrinsic tool for maintaining social control and cohesion. So from a purely political perspective, I can answer my own question.

    But I fail to understand why religious individuals feel their beliefs should be respected and protected. – Particularly given the bloody battles for religious domination which have characterised human history under the predominant “big three”. And given that the words “I believe” literally mean “I din’the know”.

    I’m not an atheist by any means. My own spiritual practices [edit to add: meditation, not taking anything, real or imagined, personally, coming to know “god” by coming to know myself – specifically coming to know what I am not (I am not my ego, my ideas, my feelings, my thoughts, my body, my reactions, my beliefs…] are the foundation of my being. – And freed from religious dogmas, I can explore further and deeper than I ever could as a practising Christian.

    But I’d like to (at the risk of going off topic) pose that same question to others here, to anyone who feels religious beliefs and ideologies should be protected and held as sacrosanct.

    I really would appreciate some of your thoughts and insights on this question.

    Thanks,
    Kali.

    [Just retrieved from the moderation queue.]

    • Replies: @Rurik
  96. Tusk says:

    Of course, now I see more clearly that organised, dogma-based religions are an intrinsic tool for maintaining social control

    Horse in front of the cart. People religiously fast because it follows from their beliefs, not because any religious institution says so. People who recognise certain truths live in certain ways. A doctor might say “don’t rub poison ivy all over your body or you’ll get sick” to protect your health, in the same way religious leaders may say “don’t commit murder or your soul will get sick”, but yet is the medical industry a tool of social control? No, it is recommending to you what is good for you based on their accepted truths, you can rub it on your body, just as you can murder someone else.

    If religions were tools for social control, how did you escape from them? They let you leave and apostatize so very clearly they’re not exerting control.

    I never did understand why societies protect religious beliefs.

    Why does society protect any beliefs, religious or otherwise? Your political, economic, and social views are all protected too. If you think people should not be protected based on their religious beliefs then what’s the difference to people not being protected due to their political? Your line of thinking leads straight to tyranny and despotism.

    I’m not an atheist by any means. My own spiritual practices…meditation

    If you’re focusing on yourself (“my ego, my ideas, my thoughts, my body”) that’s not spiritual at all. You’re purely humanist and profane, there can be no spirituality without something Divine to focus on.

    There is also plenty of evidence of religion being true, because many people have attested to miracles and other acts of God. As G. K Chesterson writes:

    If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the [Christian’s] story about the [supernatural] either because the man is a [Christian] or because the story is a [supernatural] story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy [trusting testimony], or you affirm the main principle of materialism– the abstract impossibility of miracle.

    You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence–it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle.

    If I say, “Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,” they answer, “But mediaevals were superstitious”; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles.

    Though Chesterson was writing on Christianity I believe he was right about other religions tool.

    And the effects of this skeptical materialism as plain to see, which sagely, these two understood:

    Only in the West did a philosophy develop that was not only no longer the love of wisdom but went so far as to deny the category of wisdom as a legitimate form of knowledge. The result was a hatred of wisdom that should more appropriately be called ‘misosophy’ (literarily hatred of Sophia, Wisdom) rather than philosophy.
    – Seyyed Hossein Nasr

    “When people want to be rid of Heaven it is logical to start by creating an atmosphere in which spiritual things appear out of place; in order to be able to declare successfully that God is unreal they have to construct around man a false reality, a reality that is inevitably inhuman because only the inhuman can exclude God. What is involved is a falsification of the imagination and so its destruction.”
    ― Frithjof Schuon

    • Thanks: Talha, SeekerofthePresence
    • Replies: @Kali
    , @Rurik
    , @Kali
  97. Kali says:
    @Tusk

    Thanks for your reply Tusk. I do appreciate the opportunity to flesh-out my own perspective and, hopefully, reach some conclusions together.

    I don’t have time to give a considered response just now, but hopefully will have either later today or tomorrow.

    Ate ja (until soon)
    Kali.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  98. Tusk says:
    @Kali

    No worries. If you ever have the time G. K. Chesterson’s book Orthodoxy, which I referenced in my previous comment, is available to read here on Unz through the HTML books section. It’s a pretty light read but I think he makes some good points fairly outside mainstream religious perspectives so it may be worth a look if you are interested.

    Looking forward to your response whenever it is.

  99. Rurik says:
    @Kali

    Thank you Kali,

    You’re very kind and very generous. I’m honored that you’d consider me worthy of a star, but I’m not cut out for that kind of respectability. And being more on the fringe, kind of suits me.

    Of course, now I see more clearly that organised, dogma-based religions are an intrinsic tool for maintaining social control and cohesion.

    Yes, they are.

    But I fail to understand why religious individuals feel their beliefs should be respected and protected

    Because all people’s beliefs should be respected and protected. Unless they’re advocating harm to others. If people’s religion or philosophy is ‘live and let live’, then I for one respect that. If, on the other hand, their religion or philosophy states that others- of a different religion or philosophy; have no right to self-determination, and that they must be subjugated, then all bets are off.

    to anyone who feels religious beliefs and ideologies should be protected and held as sacrosanct.

    I think I just answered that.

    People’s beliefs, (just as their lack there of), should be considered sacrosanct, so long as they’re not hurting anyone. But I suppose a lot of nuanced arguments could be made about the potential harm to a child when you fill his little head with erroneous notions of his place in the world, intended to keep him subordinate and obedient to the PTB.

    There’s a fine line between Jim Jones, and John Hagee.

    • Thanks: Kali
  100. Rurik says:
    @Tusk

    A doctor might say “don’t rub poison ivy all over your body or you’ll get sick” to protect your health, in the same way religious leaders may say “don’t commit murder or your soul will get sick”,

    Where are these religious leaders saying ‘don’t commit murder, or your soul will get sick’ ?

    Are they in the Christian churches of America? Where mass-murder is the order of the day, and America has murdered over a million innocent souls, since 9/11. Where are the religious leaders exhorting their flocks to repudiate all this murder?

    Are they, perchance in the synagogues?

    Even in the Mosques, it seems to me that Saudis are murdering Yeminis. And Turks are murdering Syrians. And rogue Muslims in Morocco are hacking the heads off of Norwegian girls, apparently to please Allah.

    So I wonder if a little more self-reflection might be in order, before we get a little too smug about our religious proscriptions against murder, when few are more bloodthirsty than those caught up in the fanatical religious zealotry of our times.

    Iceland is generally secular, (and even has a nascent paganism movement), and yet to my knowledge, not one Icelandic man has ever hacked the head off an Icelandic, (or any other) girl.

    And I can promise you, that it’s not because a religious leader had to tell them not to.

    They simply don’t do so, because it’s not in their hearts to do so. No religion or religious leader had to scare them away from the daily desire to hack girls heads off. The motivation simply does not exist. Quite the contrary; they love their womenfolk, and want to see them proper, and no religion or religious leaders were in the slightest way necessary for that state of affairs.

    Some religious proponents would have us believe that were it not for religious proscriptions against murder and rape and theft, that people would be running around hacking and raping and stealing wholesale.

    This is pure balderdash.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  101. @Rurik

    I don’t engage in the vanity that I have the power to upset or surprise God.

    No, but you do engage in the vanity that your imagination of God is somehow more reasonable than that of others without any certainty that this is so. ; )

    I’m not pooh-poohing our lives and the depth of our experiences, just doubting that God would consider them as profoundly significant as we do.

    A father knows that his baby son will soon take his first steps. It’s a profoundly significant milestone to the father, but hardly surprising to dad that this will inevitably happen. Dad also delights at his first words, but it’s not an earth-shattering phenomeon. It’s something the father expects.

    Of course, there are a few fathers who find these events to be mundane, anodyne, and trivial — those who lack the requisite love.

    God’s relationship to man is not less intimate than that of a father to his son. After all, God created him. It follows that, in so doing, God will take an interest in him.

    I appreciate your eloquence, but would simply prefer to consider God as far more ‘imaginable’, than ‘knowable’. The latter being as aspiration, whereas the former is perhaps mortally achieved.

    Well, to the extent you insist on this presupposition, it will always be so for you.

    Knowledge is by degrees, but the latter degrees are unattainable without reaching the first, which is affirmation. You don’t reach it because, by your own admission, you remain in doubt concerning Him.

    From a human perspective, Jeff Bezos or Richard Branson, flying around in outer space, must seem significant. But do you imagine that God thinks so?

    It depends on how we define significance.

    God has knowledge of even a leaf falling in the forest. Is it significant to Him? In a sense, it is. Everything is because He willed everything to be, but nothing is significant to Him in the sense that it surprises Him because He already has knowledge of it.

    If you affirm God’s omniscience and omnipotence, you also have to affirm that everything is as He has willed it, which means that nothing is without higher purpose. This is the conclusion we arrive at applying fundamental logic.

    By setting our goals to things that are earthly, and human, we avoid the despair we might otherwise feel when we fall short of God’s demands (as interpreted by men) for our lives.

    You’re presuming that God demands we shoulder a burden that is too great to bear, which is evident in your reference to “the expectations of a God.”

    God doesn’t expect us to be like Him. The very notion is absurd on its face. Nor does He even compel us to keep faith with Him (regardless of what the priests among us may decree).

    But He has created us in such a way that our action invariably yields consequence. Setting one’s goals to “things that are earthly and human” includes far too subjective a range of action that could easily incorporate what is essentially detrimental to us.

    It is earthly and human to pursue one’s desires, but what distinguishes the good desire from the bad? Without an objective criterion, you can’t draw the distinction.

    The faithful with God understand both His prescriptions and proscriptions as beneficial to their well being in this life and the next, and not a one of them constitutes a burden too great to bear. They certainly don’t necessitate being like God, since nothing and nobody can be like Him.

    you don’t have to lecture me on hardship ; )

    Not my intention, Rurik. Just keeping things in perspective.

    Insofar as the hypocrisy of religious leaders is concerned, I won’t contest its existence, but it’s enough for me to be vigilant where my own actions are concerned. I needn’t decry others’ hypocrisy while the potential for my own is all too proximate. Such is the nature of any effort to do what is good in the eyes of God.

    You might be interested to know that there are such leaders who understand crushing poverty and hunger and do their best to alleviate it among others. You’re not going to see a lot of news about them, but they certainly exist, thank God.

    Even if you perceive it as such, it does nothing to diminish the scope of its influence.
    .. in the realm of man.

    Where else would we be? ; )

    Insofar as Islam and Christianity, and Judaism are conducive to peace and general prosperity and happiness, and the future there of, then I’m a proponent. Insofar as they’re not, then neither am I.

    Would you be an opponent of fire simply because it can be used for destructive purposes while the weight of its benefit far outweighs those?

    We each have to follow our own paths, and as they intersect, we learn and grow, and are occasionally edified, and enlightened.

    Thank you for taking the time to enlighten my path, with your deep knowledge of Islam (and humanity), and beyond.

    You’re welcome, and I thank you for your patience, empathy, and willingness to receive me with an open mind and open heart.

    Ma’as-salaamah.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  102. Tusk says:
    @Rurik

    I’m not American Rurik so unfortunately I cannot adequately speak on American religious life, though I will say it seems quite the anomaly. I would say any issues of American religion come down to Protestantism simply because Americans are free to interpret the Bible themselves instead of through the Tradition of the Church. This ultimately leads to people cherry picking quotes to back up their inane and material choices, exactly the same way an open borders advocate may pick a quote about Jesus saying let there be no neighbours in order to push their position. This is purely a humanist interpretation and ultimately is incorrect because without the divinity of the Church and the knowledge of the priests you are easily led astray by earthly thoughts.

    But once again I’m not American so I don’t really know, those are just some random thoughts on the matter.

    Where are these religious leaders saying ‘don’t commit murder, or your soul will get sick’ ?

    I don’t know why you think this isn’t the case. Go to any Church (or perhaps any religious institution but I won’t speak for others) and ask them ‘Can I murder someone?’ and see what their response is. I guarantee you it won’t be “go for it”.

    You also confuse church and state. Despite their being wars and murder they aren’t directed by the Pope or the Church for instance (at least currently) so I don’t see what the church has to apologise for post 9/11. I certainly believe you have a point, and it is true, that the fanatical pro-Zionist Evangelicals have certainly enabled this behaviour, but once again it’s entirely profane and their humanist Jew loving that allows the state a willing mass of support.

    Even in the Mosques, it seems to me that Saudis are murdering Yeminis. And Turks are murdering Syrians. And rogue Muslims in Morocco are hacking the heads off of Norwegian girls, apparently to please Allah.

    Well I can’t speak for the Islamic world so I’ll leave that to Talha or anyone else to cover if they wish to, though I’m sure it is probably the same thing that generally Islam doesn’t sponsor those activities. I think you should also note there is a racial component to religion as well. A White muslim is definitely preferable to an African one, and certainly I’d prefer an athiest White to an athiest African.

    And that ultimately leads into what you said about Iceland. I don’t think that it’s secular or pagan society necessarily has anything to do with their functional society largely, but instead the fact that they’re Icelandic does. It’s the same as the Japanese, it isn’t that Shinto caused a homogenous and safe society but instead the Japanese who created such a society found solace in the Shinto/Buddhist traditions. So by the same token I don’t think it is God that forms (or should form) our morality, but instead it is our morality that leads to God. All points on a circle when going inward reach the centre and that is the reason.

    I would certainly agree with you that those who say religion caused people to be well behaved are wrong. Religion can’t make a man not murder only guide them, that’s why they don’t have total control because we live (generally) in secular states that are separated from religion. The church doesn’t take part in the mundane aspects of this world but only the divine. This is pretty much what Locke argued for in his Two Treatises of Government and it is what we have received. So it makes little sense to praise secular states and then say religion didn’t help them, because of course that’s true, they’re necessarily separated. I do think it’s hard to tell the difference between effects though. How can you possibly tell when religion caused someone to rethink their actions and provided a good to the world? So I think overall it’s a bit ridiculous to blame religion for things it has nothing to do with (state affairs) while condemning them for not doing more, and at the same time denying they do any good at all.

    • Replies: @Kali
    , @Rurik
  103. If religion does not preach love, no point in having it.
    If it does not lead to God, might as well sleep for eternity.

    Life is void and cold nothingness without Him.
    With Him, coruscant sun and spring-scented bloom.

    • Agree: Tusk
    • Thanks: Talha
    • Replies: @Kali
  104. gsjackson says:
    @Rurik

    I’m not sure what an open thread is, but presumably it can accommodate points that might be tangential on another thread. In one you mention “experiments” that (by implication) undergird your belief in a vast universe. Can you name one such experiment, preferably replicable but not necessary. Two would be splendid.

    I have been under the impression that experiments in the actual physical realm have played no role in the formulation of this view. Rather, the entire area of inquiry has been entrusted to a clerisy of very smart people with magical telescopes kept under lock and key and incomprehensible mathematical equations that purport to describe reality. They do “thought experiments,” like Einstein’s theory of relativity, but not, to my knowledge, testing of anything that can be grasped with our senses.

    Anything come to mind?

  105. Rurik says:
    @AnonStarter

    No, but you do engage in the vanity that your imagination of God is somehow more reasonable than that of others without any certainty that this is so. ; )

    what irony.

    What you’re accusing me of, is exactly what I’d accuse the religiously devout of.

    A certainty that their respective take on God, is correct to the exclusion of other people’s beliefs, (or lack there of).

    I have no such certainties. All I can tell you for certain, is that I don’t know. I don’t know what God’s name is. I don’t know if He exists. He may, or perhaps, She may. I simply don’t know.

    I don’t think that is ‘engaging in the vanity that my imagination of God, is somehow more reasonable than others’, except insofar as I consider my beliefs far more humble, because I consider my faculties, for ‘knowing’ or ‘imagining’ the infinite, to be woefully lacking the capacity.

    I can’t know or even really imagine God, because for me, that would be a leap of arrogance that I simply would prefer to avoid. The difference between myself, and the devout, is one of humility. I’m far too humble, (when it comes to God), to presume to have the kind of mind that could connect to the infinite. My mind is very finite. I can contemplate God, or the Gods, but imagining that I can know of Him, or imagine what His designs or intentions for me are, (or anyone else) is beyond my mortal capabilities.

    God’s relationship to man is not less intimate than that of a father to his son. After all, God created him. It follows that, in so doing, God will take an interest in him.

    Well, this is of course the rote motivation people like Freud concluded that man created his Gods. As a kind of father figure- a protector and safe harbor from the exigencies of a tumultuous and foreboding world. I don’t say such a God exists, and I wouldn’t presume to say He doesn’t. It is for each of us, to figure that particular question out, for ourselves. (IMHO).

    If your God, has a father-like interest in our well-being, (considering the events of the 20th and 21st centuries), then I might point out that He sure works in mysterious ways.

    But what if you’re wrong? What if there isn’t a father-like God, benevolently watching over us all? What if the Eternal Wars and decimation of the environment, are all a direct consequence of man’s all too mortal appetites? And that if we’re going to find solutions, to things like the Eternal Wars, then we’re going to have to rely on our mortal selves, from which these problems arose.

    If it was man who created the conditions in Gaza, (and not God) then maybe it’s man, who must seek ways to redress those conditions. Yes? No?

    Well, to the extent you insist on this presupposition, it will always be so for you.

    Knowledge is by degrees, but the latter degrees are unattainable without reaching the first, which is affirmation. You don’t reach it because, by your own admission, you remain in doubt concerning Him.

    Sine qua non

    Yes, I know.

    God has knowledge of even a leaf falling in the forest. Is it significant to Him? In a sense, it is. Everything is because He willed everything to be, but nothing is significant to Him in the sense that it surprises Him because He already has knowledge of it.

    If you affirm God’s omniscience and omnipotence, you also have to affirm that everything is as He has willed it, which means that nothing is without higher purpose. This is the conclusion we arrive at applying fundamental logic.

    This is all fine, but I don’t see why we couldn’t replace God, with providence, (or fate, or ‘the universe’ or nature) and be in perfect agreement.

    IOW, why does there have to be a agent of the leaf falling? Why can’t it just have succumbed to the forces of gravity, having grown on the tree, and lived and died, all without even so much as a God to supervise it?

    You’re presuming that God demands we shoulder a burden that is too great to bear, which is evident in your reference to “the expectations of a God.”

    Yes, you’re right. Growing up in a religious household, I feel there were some burdens that came with being religious, that were too great to bear. Perhaps the most glairing one was the demands to suspend one’s reason, and accept that a man could live in the belly of a whale, for three days. Or that the dinosaurs existence was kind of an anomaly, that one shouldn’t contemplate too earnestly, vis-a-vis the account of earth’s history, as told by the Holy Bible.

    If God endowed me with anything more precious than my reason, I’m not aware of it. Creating me with reason, and then demanding that I stifle it, was for me, a burden too great to bear.

    God doesn’t expect us to be like Him. The very notion is absurd on its face.

    I guess you weren’t raised a Christian. Our whole raison d’être, was to conduct ourselves in the manner of living as demonstrated by God, when He assumed His mortal self as Jesus Christ, to show us all how to aspire to live. The point is to be as much like Him, as we are all capable.

    Nor does He even compel us to keep faith with Him (regardless of what the priests among us may decree).

    You have a very liberal understanding of the Abrahamic God(s), I would posit.

    It is earthly and human to pursue one’s desires, but what distinguishes the good desire from the bad? Without an objective criterion, you can’t draw the distinction.

    ‘Do no harm’.

    And if you want to go one farther, to sainthood, you can add ‘be kind’. They are their own reward.

    The faithful with God understand both His prescriptions and proscriptions as beneficial to their well being in this life and the next, and not a one of them constitutes a burden too great to bear.

    Well, I guess since we are splitting hairs here, when you mention ‘the faithful’, I couldn’t help think of our mutual friend on the other thread, for who- ‘keeping the faith’, means treating the people of Gaza as less than human. How do you reconcile that for one person, (Christian or Jewish Zionist) ‘keeping the faith’, is to another- genocide and death?

    How can members of the respective ‘faithful’, all be in God’s good graces, when the fanatically religious IDF bulldozer driver is destroying yet another mosque in Palestine?

    You seem loath to ever admit, that Judaism and Islam are at times, mutually exclusive. And that a Jewish God that demands the death and genocide of Arabs, can still be considered legitimate.

    I suffer no such contradictions. For me, a “Christian Zionist’, is a deluded fool, (and far worse).

    A Zionist, Jewish supremacist, is as close to God, as a crocodile’s droppings. I don’t even pretend, that they’re entitled to respect as a religion. Their religion (Zionism, as it’s practiced today) is the religion of jackals. So at least I’m not bound up in contradictions, where one person’s god demands the wholesale slaughter of the adherents of another people’s God. ‘But they’re both legitimate Gods- or even more perversely, (at least for me) one and the same God’.

    Insofar as the hypocrisy of religious leaders is concerned, I won’t contest its existence, but it’s enough for me to be vigilant where my own actions are concerned. I needn’t decry others’ hypocrisy while the potential for my own is all too proximate. Such is the nature of any effort to do what is good in the eyes of God.

    Well said.

    You might be interested to know that there are such leaders who understand crushing poverty and hunger and do their best to alleviate it among others. You’re not going to see a lot of news about them, but they certainly exist, thank God.

    That is true, and it’s also true for utterly non-religious people.

    Charity is not the sole purview of the religious.

    .. in the realm of man.

    Where else would we be? ; )

    Imagining that the heavens and earth, and entire universe were all created for our personal benefit?

    That God created earth and the heavens, so that He could inhabit it with His special project, to heap praise upon Him, and to worship Him?

    I find such a God as a bit vain, no?

    Where are the Gods that have no use for man’s homage and fealty? But are satisfied simply to have put it all in motion.

    Why are such Gods, (in need of supplicants and paeans to their greatness) so perfectly aligned with how I see the id of mortal man?

    Indeed, for much of recorded history, there wasn’t even a line drawn between the Pharos or Caesars and such/ and God Himself. They were considered virtually one and the same.

    Would you be an opponent of fire simply because it can be used for destructive purposes while the weight of its benefit far outweighs those?

    I would reject the use of fire for harmful purposes, and hail it for beneficial purposes.

    I would reject religious beliefs that I consider harmful, and hail those that I consider beneficial.

    I would reject the genocidal, murderous hatred of Zionism, and hail those parts of Judaism and Christianity that give hope and meaning to people’s lives.

    Much like I think most Muslims reject the murderous hatred of Daesh, while embracing the tenets of Islam that are sublime and beneficial.

    I thank you for your patience, empathy, and willingness to receive me with an open mind and open heart.

    It is my distinct pleasure. Thank you.

    Fii Amanillah

  106. Kali says:
    @Tusk

    Hello Tusk,

    Allow me to re-invert the horse/cart positions, or try to…

    Horse in front of the cart. People religiously fast because it follows from their beliefs, not because any religious institution says so.

    Whilst there are definate spiritual and physical benefits to fasting, I do doubt that millions of people all around the planet would spontaneously decide to fast at exactly the same time every year if it weren’t for the religious institutions which guide/shape/determine this pattern of behaviour. It’s “the institution” which decides the holy days.

    (For the sake of clarity, I’m not suggesting here that the combined energy of millions of people engaged in a sacred, spiritual endeavor (be it prayer, meditation fasting or something else) is not a very powerful thing. I “believe” (I. E. I don’t know) it certainly could be.)

    People who recognise certain truths live in certain ways.

    I would suggest that the recognition of certain “Sacred Truths” is not the sole preserve of the Religious Practitioner, that is to say someone who seeks those Truths pimarily from the perspective of a given Authodoxy. – Again, that’s not to say that ‘Truths’ cannot be found there, but those Truths may be found in many unauthodox ways.

    A doctor might say “don’t rub poison ivy all over your body or you’ll get sick” to protect your health, in the same way religious leaders may say “don’t commit murder or your soul will get sick”, but yet is the medical industry a tool of social control? No, it is recommending to you what is good for you based on their accepted truths, you can rub it on your body, just as you can murder someone else.

    […]

    If you’re focusing on yourself (“my ego, my ideas, my thoughts, my body”) that’s not spiritual at all. You’re purely humanist and profane, there can be no spirituality without something Divine to focus on.

    I’m gonna take these two together and invert them if I may. Because it’s in addressing this second point that I answer the first.

    Your second point here, to me, is screaming of the profane. A profanity which is inherrent in “the big three” Religions. That is the externalisation of the Divine -“Religion” says “a universal God, Creater of all things exists, but exists as something wholly external to You. That You were born “sinful” in the eyes of this Almighty external “God”… You may have a relationship with this “God”, through His self-appointed priest class, if you behave the way they say He says you should.

    This is misdirection. Isn’t that one of the first rhings we learn when it comes to “the power-brokers” in the establishment media – What aren’t they telling you? – That the Divine is intrinsic to Your Being. There is No Separation between you and God.

    Of course the controllers of the universe don’the want You discovering this Existential Truth, so they point to the external only.
    And, surely, The Divine may be perceived in the external,
    It is the Divine in You that perceives the Divine in Creation.
    But until you know Yourself, until you perceive the Divinity which is your essence, you cannot fully know God. – Jesus knew God. St Francis of Assissi knew God. Rumi knew God. And so many others besides. But the priest class has interpreted the teaching of Jesus, called him Christ, nailed him to a cross because You are “sinful”… they have taken the Divine and used it to simultaneously psychologically torture you and offer you either real (St Francis) or imagined (absolution) relief from that torture.

    Crucially, and to come to your first point, quoted above, it is
    when I (and I/went come to explore my/our True Nature, the Essence of my/our Being, I/we discover the Divine Loving God which “Surpasses all understanding”, to be my essential nature, seated at the heart of my being. That which would not murder or harm anyone. (This refusal to harm another extends to the infant, whose genitals do not serve as any kind of “divine covenant” with some external “god”. I don’the say that to be shocking, or to provoke, but to illustrate the insanity which is committed under the “codes of conduct” devined by the priest class and disseminated through the generation after generation of Religious Practitioners. )

    I don’t require a “law” (be it “God” Given or “devined” by some proxy parliament – same thing really ) which tells me to behave according to my Nature.

    Conversely, I will not obey any “law” which requires me to act against my nature. Conscription, for example. – I’m sorry but “onward Christian soldiers” for God, Queen and … errr. .. nation state?
    Nor would I ever bring even potential harm to a child by having them vaccinated, regardless of what the “law” (handed down by the priest class) says.

    I realise that the idea of a “no-law” society (which is essentially what I’m talking about here) must sound quite outlandish to anyone who has never taken the time to examine their own nature. You’ve been told you were born “sinful”, and anyway, just look around at the way people behave, obviously we need “laws” … And certainly, in any society which externalises God, utterly divorced from our own Essential Divinity, divorced from the opportunity to “know thyself “… probably needs codes to tell them how to be.

    But removing the priest class (including politicians and judges) does not remove us from God, nor from our inbuilt yearning to know God. Nor does it remove the teachings, the books, the tomes, the scrivings of the wise (or the unwise) which may guide us on our way.

    The removal of the priest class (and its Religious and state institutions) does not mean the death of God, but it does mean the death of tyranny (whilst I also accept your answer, below) regarding my own thinking/questioning leading to tyranny).

    We are born seeking God, seeking Meaning, Understanding. That the priest class inserts itself in our culture and stands directly between You and the Divine does not make your own Divinity just stop. Remove the priest class in all its forms and the possibility opens up for a Direct knowing of the Divine as it exists at the center of our Being.

    (I do hope I’mel not getting preachy at all here! My intention is only to give an insight into my – not exactly “mainstream” – perspective.)

    If religions were tools for social control, how did you escape from them? They let you leave and apostatize so very clearly they’re not exerting control.

    This presupposes that all methods of social control are authoritarian.

    It also neglects the role of Religious Institutions in shaping societies, providing the basis of “Rule of Law” (specifically codes of “law” to be imposed on the masses) whilst diseminationg “codes of conduct” and various ‘behaviour modification” techniques, inculcating the people with various superstitions. -That the miraculous indeed does exists, notwithstanding.

    Why does society protect any beliefs, religious or otherwise? Your political, economic, and social views are all protected too. If you think people should not be protected based on their religious beliefs then what’s the difference to people not being protected due to their political? Your line of thinking leads straight to tyranny and despotism.

    Fair point. Well taken.

    As for Chesterton, I won’t argue with him until I’ve read him. – Thank you kindly for the recommendation. I’ve been at a loss to find something to read that isn’t JQ related … if I have to read one more account of the evil mascinations of the original (OK, not quite “original”, but you get the point) evil priest class, I think I might weep. I’ll gladly read Chesterton instead. 🙂

    Kind regards,
    Kali.

    • Thanks: Rurik
  107. bjondo says:

    The Fed doesn’t allow audits.

    What prevents the Chairman, others
    from enriching selves and friends.
    Blessed accounts hidden, of course.
    Billions go each day to who knows
    where and for what reason(s).

    5ds

  108. Kali says:
    @Tusk

    I think overall it’s a bit ridiculous to blame religion for things it has nothing to do with (state affairs)

    Hello again Tusk.

    I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the role of Religion within the state.

    I would suggest that, as one of the primary functions of the state is the codifying and enforcement of Law. To this end the state has adopted one of the primary functions of “the priest class” which is the recieving, interpreting and codifying of “God’s Law”.

    In times gone by these functions were performed jointly by priests and Kings, today “the state” inherits the mantle of the priest class in determining the acceptable behaviour of its population, but only within the framework of “rule of law” already institutionalised by the priest class. One (the state) is an extention of and a continuation of the other. – In the state called “UK”, offices of state are called “ministries, and members of government are called ministers. And though secularised now, the origins of the power of the state as it manifests today lies entirely within the relms of Religion and the assumed Divinity of the priest class.

    Queenie is the head of the state and the head of the Church of England. The Arch Bish of Canterbury, her director of all things ecleasiastical, makes it his business to lead the CoE, and his flock, to bend before the Chosenest of the chosen, whilst queenies government finds ways to codify that submission to Jewish Power into law for the rest of us to obey, as if commanded by “God”.

    Catholic states pay financial tribute to the Vatican. Because, I would argue, the state (not the nation or the people) derives it’s underlying authority, and quite possibly it’s very existence, from Religion.
    Secularised or not, Religion lies at the very heart of the state.

    Kali.

  109. Kali says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    If religion does not preach love, no point in having it.
    If it does not lead to God, might as well sleep for eternity.

    Agree.

    Life is void and cold nothingness without Him.
    With Him, coruscant sun and spring-scented bloom.

    And here also, I agree, except that I would alter the terminology to not externalises God. “Him” is an unattainable “other”, not intrinsic to my being, unlike God or the Divine, which is always present.

    Boas noits gents,
    Kali

    • Agree: SeekerofthePresence
  110. Rurik says:
    @Tusk

    leads to people cherry picking quotes to back up their inane and material choices, exactly the same way an open borders advocate may pick a quote about Jesus saying let there be no neighbours in order to push their position. This is purely a humanist interpretation and ultimately is incorrect because without the divinity of the Church and the knowledge of the priests you are easily led astray by earthly thoughts.

    Few people I know of are more committed to open borders, (only for white Christendom) than the Pope. He seems more like Barbara Spectre on that issue, than Barbara Spectre.

    And as for going astray, there again, I think of ‘those priests’, and what was tolerated in the Catholic Church, for so long, going all the way up the hierarchy.

    Go to any Church (or perhaps any religious institution but I won’t speak for others) and ask them ‘Can I murder someone?’ and see what their response is. I guarantee you it won’t be “go for it”.

    No, not when you put it in those terms. But go to any church, and tell them that you’re joining up to fight the ‘war on terror’, and your assignment is going to be a CIA drone operator, and you’re going to be taking the fight to the bad guys, because if ‘we fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here’.

    And then check out the approval from all of those Christian faces. Beaming with pride at your bravery.

    You’re not stupid, so it should be pretty obvious that the Eternal Wars are all based on obvious lies.

    And, I suspect that most Christians, and certainly most ministers and pastors and priests, are not stupid either. So it should be monumentally obvious to even them, by now, that all of these wars, are all based on obvious lies. Duh. (I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way, but just that it’s all ‘duh’ obvious).

    So, what that means to me, is that every single Christian minister or priest, who knows that America (and France and England and others), have been engaged in illegal wars against innocent nations, (Libya, for instance, or Syria today), but refuse to speak out about it, are just as guilty as the men pulling the trigger on the Hellfire missile, and ‘bug-splatting’ another village.

    They’re just as guilty as Bush and Blair and Clinton and Obama, because it is cowardly silence, that is the main catalyst for all these wars.

    Nothing betrays the soul of a man (or Church) than the sound of crickets, at the sight of evil doings.

    I just heard that the Boy Scouts of America is declaring bankruptcy, because thousands of little boys were raped, by a pedophile scandal that went on for decades.

    And all to the thunderous sound of crickets, from the leadership ranks.

    Just like Jerry Sandusky, and the entire athletic Dept of Penn State, they all knew, this monster was raping little boys, and they said nothing.

    They’re just as guilty.

    And it’s the same with the Eternal Wars for Israel. These wars are an abomination upon our nation’s souls. And not just America, but France too. And many others.

    And yet where are the voices of Christian leadership, demanding in the most strident terms available to them, that illegal and immoral wars of aggression fought against innocent nations and people, (that have harmed no one), MUST STOP!!! In the name of Jesus Christ, we must stand up as one, and demand ‘not one more child’s innocent life is going be laid at the ledger of America’s soul.

    But instead, I hear the Pope talking about ‘Climate Change’, and I cringe.

    What the &^%$ does the Pope think adding millions more super-prolific people are going to do to help Climate Change in Europe?

    so I don’t see what the church has to apologise for post 9/11.

    How many quotes are there out there, about ‘for evil to prevail, all it takes is the silence of cowards’.

    A Church does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in a society. And if that society is engaged in wholesale evil, then for that Church to be other than evil itself, it MUST speak out against the evil.

    When the NYT sent a ‘journalist’ to the Ukraine in the 1930s, to report on the famine, it was his job as a journalist and human being, to point out that there was a deliberate campaign of genocide underway, and the state was systematically starving to death millions of men, women and children.

    But instead, he didn’t mention the state-sponsored starvation, because doing so would have been inconvenient to his career. The result was millions murdered horrifically, and a ‘journalist’ that won a Pulitzer Prize.

    Some people would like to delude themselves, that if they stay silent about things like murder or rape, or contrived aggressive wars, based on lies, that they’ll be immune from any guilt, so long as they simply stay silent, and cower in a corner, and don’t mention a word about it.

    They’re wrong. And their silence, (and therefor guilt), should and will damn them.

    fanatical pro-Zionist Evangelicals have certainly enabled this behaviour, but once again it’s entirely profane and their humanist Jew loving that allows the state a willing mass of support.

    Can’t argue with that.

    A White muslim is definitely preferable to an African one, and certainly I’d prefer an athiest White to an athiest African.

    Oh my goodness. This is a breach of decorum, for many here at the Unz. The ultimate faux pas.

    But I think being white, you’re entitled to prefer your own kind, just as an African is free to prefer his own kind, as well. (not that there aren’t plenty who would disagree with that simple truth).

    So by the same token I don’t think it is God that forms (or should form) our morality, but instead it is our morality that leads to God

    I’m good with that.

    But I’d take it one farther, and suggest that our morality (or lack there of), is a consequence of our DNA. A mother does not need to be told to love her babies, she simply does. Men treat the extended members of their tribe, with devotion as a rule. And, he treats his rivals and enemies as he should, depending on what is prudent for his and his posterity’s survival.

    It is this survival that is at the heart of our moral codes, and hopefully, the spirituality that guides them. If your religion or morality does not result in your survival, then it is a failed and destructive religion and/or morality.

    So I think overall it’s a bit ridiculous to blame religion for things it has nothing to do with (state affairs) while condemning them for not doing more, and at the same time denying they do any good at all.

    Well, I certainly would never deny that religion has done, and continues to do some very good things. Giving people a meaning to their lives, that is critical for their happiness, for instance.

    Providing parameters, in many cases, as people require them for a harmonious society.

    But since our religions, also are the fount of our spiritual truths, I do demand that for a religious leader, to be worthy of the name, he is bound to repudiate evil when it’s widely practiced by his society.

    Maybe too many people are so bludgeoned by the tropes of ‘wokeness’, these days, that they can’t recognize that telling a six year old that they might be a different gender, than they were born, is a moral atrocity. OK, fine. They’re in a daze.

    But when it comes to Eternal Wars, based on obvious lies, slaughtering and maiming and displacing millions upon millions of innocent people world wide, as it mortgages the future of America’s children, to the tune of untold trillions of unpayable debt, plus interest, then I can’t abide the cowardly silence of our spiritual leaders. As the Pope rails about open borders, (for all white nations, and only white nations), and blubbers about ‘Climate Change’ idiocy, I tend to get a bit cynical.

    Cheers.

    • Agree: Kali
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...