GRAMMAR IS TAUGHT AS JUSTIFICATION, NOT CRITICISM
But the problem of our era is the elimination of pseudoscience and deceit put forth by Marxists, Socialists, Feminists, and Postmodernists.
So there is no reason we cannot teach grammar as not just ‘the good manners of victorian expression’, but as ‘the art of preventing the pollution of the commons by those who would produce deceptions in vast numbers with ease.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The ‘Good’ In Religion Is The Civic Ritual. Not The Content
There is nothing in the bible that made the church good. They could have read greek legends and done good with them. It’s the ritual that matters, not the content. What the church spread was literacy, and diplomacy, and eventually natural law. The rest was a bucket of catastrophic lies. What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing The Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, were invented to defeat the aristocracy using false promises to rally women and proles. Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media were used to defeat aristocracy, by using false promises to rally women and proles.
Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism are nothing more than an attempt to use secular language as ancients used mysticism: for deceit. The western tradition consists is in heroism, empiricism, the oath (truth and non parasitism), the common judge discovered law, the jury. We have been attacked in our duress (post our european civil war) by the same method that the romans were attacked: invasion, new ‘mysticism’ in the form of pseudoscience. And attacked the same way the byzantines were attacked after their war with the Persians by islam. Christianity ushered in a thousand years of ignorance. Islam has ushered in nearly a thousand, and has no sight of stopping. Is there any greater evil than the false book of Abraham? -
The ‘Good’ In Religion Is The Civic Ritual. Not The Content
There is nothing in the bible that made the church good. They could have read greek legends and done good with them. It’s the ritual that matters, not the content. What the church spread was literacy, and diplomacy, and eventually natural law. The rest was a bucket of catastrophic lies. What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing The Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, were invented to defeat the aristocracy using false promises to rally women and proles. Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media were used to defeat aristocracy, by using false promises to rally women and proles.
Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism are nothing more than an attempt to use secular language as ancients used mysticism: for deceit. The western tradition consists is in heroism, empiricism, the oath (truth and non parasitism), the common judge discovered law, the jury. We have been attacked in our duress (post our european civil war) by the same method that the romans were attacked: invasion, new ‘mysticism’ in the form of pseudoscience. And attacked the same way the byzantines were attacked after their war with the Persians by islam. Christianity ushered in a thousand years of ignorance. Islam has ushered in nearly a thousand, and has no sight of stopping. Is there any greater evil than the false book of Abraham? -
We Already Had The Second Coming…
WE ALREADY HAD THE SECOND COMING, AND IT WAS AS CATASTROPHICALLY TRAGIC FOR MANKIND AS THE FIRST TIME AROUND. **What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing.*** The difference is one of technological sophistication. The great lies of Jewish and Christian Mysticism, and the great lies of Secular Pseudoscience.
They feared the truth of Jupiter, Aristotle and Roman Law. They feared the Truth of Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche. They created great lies to compensate. The great lies in the hands of women and proles are as powerful as the great truths in the hands of the aristocracy. -
We Already Had The Second Coming…
WE ALREADY HAD THE SECOND COMING, AND IT WAS AS CATASTROPHICALLY TRAGIC FOR MANKIND AS THE FIRST TIME AROUND. **What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing.*** The difference is one of technological sophistication. The great lies of Jewish and Christian Mysticism, and the great lies of Secular Pseudoscience.
They feared the truth of Jupiter, Aristotle and Roman Law. They feared the Truth of Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche. They created great lies to compensate. The great lies in the hands of women and proles are as powerful as the great truths in the hands of the aristocracy. -
The Failure of Traditionalists
THE FAILURE OF THE TRADITIONALISTS TO UNDERSTAND OUR OPTIONS. At present we have traditionalists that don’t understand the content of their traditions, only that through mandatory indoctrination and ritual do we behave aristocratically – in the western tradition. The Patriarchy for example, is popular primarily by appeal to traditional (aristocratic) aesthetics. Under the assumption that the church was the originator rather than the recipient and beneficiary of the aristocratic tradition.
The Traditionalists do the same. But the church is just a temple for the weak side of the aristocracy. It’s not that we don’t need our great temples, and that we don’t need our great artistic achievements, but that My point is not to demean the church or advocate for atheism (individualsm) rather than a civic religion (familialism). Nor is it to deny that commercial empires have been as damaging for western civilization as has been our great wars, and our invasion by christian mysticism. My point is that we can create a civic religion out of truthful content rather than lies. Why? We do not need to appeal to a fantastic utopia that may be the home of false gods. WE MADE THAT UTOPIA EXISTENTIAL BY OUR ANCESTORS ACTIONS. We need no gods. Only heroes. And we have legions of them. COMMENTS
Monotheistic Religion requires submission and submission is incompatible with sovereignty. And the experience of Liberty requires existential sovereignty.
I don’t reject natural law. I don’t reject extension of kinship love. I don’t reject prohibition on inbreeding. I don’t reject aristocracy and paternalism. I do reject mysticism. I do reject the great babylonian, egyptian and jewish lies. and most importantly I do reject submission. And furthermore, so does the vast majority of the population. One need not respect or propagate mysticism in order to extend kinship love, reject prohibition on inbreeding, or reject submission. One does need natural law, common law, and civic rituals. No one requires civic rituals that include mysticism. The feeling of spirituality occurs whenever a body of people move, speak, or think in unison. That’s where it comes from: running with the pack. The church as it stands is the enemy of europe and the european peoples. It is not that we do not need a church, nor to to reform the church, it is that the church has failed us since the reformation. And continues to fail us. Why? Because enlightenment and literacy and knowledge make mysticism not only no longer possible, not only unnecessary, but it’s antagonistic to the population. So, how should the church reform?John Kersey: Most traditionalists I know also reject the Reformation, being either traditionalist Catholic or Orthodox. The Church did not fail us until it fell victim to secularism. Also, mysticism is not all there is to the church, indeed mysticism has generally been very tightly controlled by the church. Submission is characteristic of some religious beliefs, and is integral to Islam. But it is not the basis of Christianity, which rests not upon compulsion but on a voluntary, free-will relationship between God and man created in His image. That relationship is nothing more than drawing ourselves closer to the essence that made us and that governs and knows our every impulse.Putting aside submission to the will of God, and putting aside the failure to adapt to secularism (science)… Then if you cut all the nonsense out of Christianity what would you teach from the pulpit. My view is that the church can teach from its history without the need for superstition. The catholic encyclopaedia is a pretty good canon. -
The Failure of Traditionalists
THE FAILURE OF THE TRADITIONALISTS TO UNDERSTAND OUR OPTIONS. At present we have traditionalists that don’t understand the content of their traditions, only that through mandatory indoctrination and ritual do we behave aristocratically – in the western tradition. The Patriarchy for example, is popular primarily by appeal to traditional (aristocratic) aesthetics. Under the assumption that the church was the originator rather than the recipient and beneficiary of the aristocratic tradition.
The Traditionalists do the same. But the church is just a temple for the weak side of the aristocracy. It’s not that we don’t need our great temples, and that we don’t need our great artistic achievements, but that My point is not to demean the church or advocate for atheism (individualsm) rather than a civic religion (familialism). Nor is it to deny that commercial empires have been as damaging for western civilization as has been our great wars, and our invasion by christian mysticism. My point is that we can create a civic religion out of truthful content rather than lies. Why? We do not need to appeal to a fantastic utopia that may be the home of false gods. WE MADE THAT UTOPIA EXISTENTIAL BY OUR ANCESTORS ACTIONS. We need no gods. Only heroes. And we have legions of them. COMMENTS
Monotheistic Religion requires submission and submission is incompatible with sovereignty. And the experience of Liberty requires existential sovereignty.
I don’t reject natural law. I don’t reject extension of kinship love. I don’t reject prohibition on inbreeding. I don’t reject aristocracy and paternalism. I do reject mysticism. I do reject the great babylonian, egyptian and jewish lies. and most importantly I do reject submission. And furthermore, so does the vast majority of the population. One need not respect or propagate mysticism in order to extend kinship love, reject prohibition on inbreeding, or reject submission. One does need natural law, common law, and civic rituals. No one requires civic rituals that include mysticism. The feeling of spirituality occurs whenever a body of people move, speak, or think in unison. That’s where it comes from: running with the pack. The church as it stands is the enemy of europe and the european peoples. It is not that we do not need a church, nor to to reform the church, it is that the church has failed us since the reformation. And continues to fail us. Why? Because enlightenment and literacy and knowledge make mysticism not only no longer possible, not only unnecessary, but it’s antagonistic to the population. So, how should the church reform?John Kersey: Most traditionalists I know also reject the Reformation, being either traditionalist Catholic or Orthodox. The Church did not fail us until it fell victim to secularism. Also, mysticism is not all there is to the church, indeed mysticism has generally been very tightly controlled by the church. Submission is characteristic of some religious beliefs, and is integral to Islam. But it is not the basis of Christianity, which rests not upon compulsion but on a voluntary, free-will relationship between God and man created in His image. That relationship is nothing more than drawing ourselves closer to the essence that made us and that governs and knows our every impulse.Putting aside submission to the will of God, and putting aside the failure to adapt to secularism (science)… Then if you cut all the nonsense out of Christianity what would you teach from the pulpit. My view is that the church can teach from its history without the need for superstition. The catholic encyclopaedia is a pretty good canon. -
Religious Submission Is Incompatible with Sovereignty and therefore Liberty
Monotheistic religion requires submission. Submission is the opposite of, and incompatible with sovereignty. And existential sovereignty is required for the experience of Liberty. All else is neither liberty nor sovereignty but permission under submission. Ergo no religion that demands submission can produce a condition of Liberty.
-
Religious Submission Is Incompatible with Sovereignty and therefore Liberty
Monotheistic religion requires submission. Submission is the opposite of, and incompatible with sovereignty. And existential sovereignty is required for the experience of Liberty. All else is neither liberty nor sovereignty but permission under submission. Ergo no religion that demands submission can produce a condition of Liberty.
-
The Liberal Blind Spot
(SOMEONE ASKED ME TO REPLY TO THIS ARTICLE) THE LIBERAL BLIND SPOT http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-liberal-blind-spot.html NICHOLAS 1) Groupishness and Clannishness are empirically existent, universally demonstrable, human behaviors. These should be taught in academia because teaching universalism is a lie. In other words, the academy lies. 2) We teach marxism, socialism, almost all philosophies, comparative religion. So why not teach ‘hindu science’ or whatever? Well, because those people use those arguments to resist competing groups and clans. We teach all sorts of lies – in particular that democracy is a ‘good’. 3) Most of our history in every culture is constructed largely of lies, and one of the greatest innovations of the past generation has been the use of genetics, archaeology, anthropology, and brain science to demonstrate that these things are lies. But the purpose of those lies is to preserve groupishness against competitors. So a great deal of historical revisionism is necessary. The current narrative that man was oppressed by aristocracies rather than domesticated, and that upward redistribution of reproduction was a good, has been suppressed. So has the fact that the west’s advantage is largely the result of 3500 years of eugenic reproduction, with aggressive hanging from 1100 forward. 4) Religious scholarship is certainly useful, but religions argument is not. However, the purpose of religious argument is to rally the classes to resist invaders. And in a time where the west is being invaded by peoples with higher densities in lower class distributions, this is a rational tactic to take under democracy. All ideologies are false. That’s why they ‘work’ to inspire. Religion is just an pre-democratic ideology from when classes needed to be rallied against the state. It’s still effective. General intellectual consensus is that the USA resisted the secular state more effectively than europe because (a) we had neither aristocracy nor church to dispossess land from, (b) we are more religious and religion is the most successful means of resisting a state and establishing the limits under which a state may govern. (c) we did not have the european civil wars (ww1/2) or the prior (30 Years War), – just the opposite: we had the american civil war in which we lost trust for the state. So we have the opposite experience from Europe. ***So the universalist left lies to advance its impossible and undesirable utopia in advance of academy, media, and state, and the particularist right can’t tell the truth as to why they created the extant utopia we call the west: eugenics – the upward redistribution of reproduction to the middle class rendering all europeans descendants of the middle class.*** So why should the academy lie so fervently in support of it’s ideology that it creates a reactionary resistance to its lies? The only problem has been that the conservative strategy (persistence of family, tribe, nation, and eugenic hierarchy) is not sellable under democracy. Furthermore, what separates today’s “Academy and Diploma” from Luther’s “Church and Indulgence”? Nothing really. We can tell from the data that all universities do is sort. Nothing is taught that is of value in the economy. I’s just boot camp for white collar workers – it answers the question: do you have the endurance? That’s all. Furthermore, what separates the sale of indulgences to fund St Peters and the sale of diplomas to fund university infrastructure, administration, and savings? Nothing at all. In fact, the intergenerational economic damage done by the academy system since 1963 has been the greatest redistribution of wealth since the military industrial complex. The university media and state have nothing but universalist commercial incentives which they profess are moral ideals. When in fact they are demonstrably immoral in that they are self interested, against the interests of the body politic, and by reversal of eugenic reproduction, destructive to mankind. The net is that we either practice eugenics and end up with the northern european model, or we end up with the castes of India, and south america, or in the worst possible case – by extensive down-breeding – we end up with the muslim world, and the pervasive ignorance of the muslim world. Why? Because the people at the bottom are worse for a polity than the people at the top are good. It is not that great civilizations have such great leaders. It is that one can only be a great leader in an advanced economy if one is not overly burdened by dependent and disutilitarian underclasses. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine