Vanguard News Network

No offense, but I already knew what Mister MacDonald wrote. Why didn’t he cut to the chase and say that Jews believe in racial and intellectual equality. Boaz and Mead and all the others insisted that cultures were different because of their environment LOL! How smart are Jews…? They depend on Great White learning institutions for their educations. You must build civilization to have that. Let me give one good example out of hundreds: All the Jews in the world could not build an offshore oilfield if their lives depended on it. But that was accomplished with relative ease by the boys from the South. It was carried out by our collective genius and deep rooted culture of unmatched communication. We didn’t look refined, but our White intelligence shined through. And that’s the difference. We already had a culture — we didn’t need a host nation or victim to accomplish our goals. Our work was carried out with spirit and courage and skill. When has god’s elect illustrated themselves in such a manner?

One of MacDonald’s best. Pulls together a mess of different data and illuminates it brilliantly. No one else could destroy Stein’s Jeboo movie on so deep a level, while also explaining the direction of the whole history of modern Western civilization. In the general league of E. Michael Jones and even Alex Linder in jew-understanding.

The time has come to get rid of the jews.

MacDonald would do well to stick with a subject he knows, like Jews. He should read a book countering evolution and then see if Darwinism makes sense. Darwin himself admitted before his death that he had no proof for that crap he was peddling. The Jews have been stuffing Aryan heads with this ‘evolution’ nonsense for decades, look at the result.

“Darwin himself admitted before his death that he had no proof for that crap he was peddling.”

Err, no. A serpent-tongued whore of a Christian – aren’t they all – claimed that he had recanted to her. Darwin didn’t even see the bitch.

This makes me recall Eric Thomson’s “Darwinism: Another unwieldy tool of the ZOG”

http://www.faem.com/eric/2000/et074.htm

Freud was a Lamarckist? That is a very useful bit of info, and it explains a lot.

MacDonald writes well and he seems to have become a bit more radicalized than I recall. Maybe it is the confluence of advancing age and getting slapped around by the hateful jews that has made him a bit more feisty.

As for his contention that jews dislike Darwinism, I have to say I think he is wrong about that. Most jews, in my experience, are the biggest boosters of Darwinism.

People like Ben Stein and Elliot Abrams are anomalies.

In my view, jews attack creationism as part of their larger war against Christianity, not out of fealty to reason or the scientific method.

Indeed, as I have pointed out before, jews have been quite willing to discard Darwinism when the implications for racial reality have become evident. It is after all, contrary to their ‘equality’ program.

-Brian

Monk-woodworker — yes, Lewis and other Christians accommodated evolution to Christianity. However, his version posited direct intervention of God in the process according to a design plan; whereas, Darwinism properly understood is based on random variation. Indeed, the function of randomness, and how this leads to an unplanned telos, is really the essential genius of Darwin’s vision. And that is, quite simply, incompatible with the Biblical view. Lewis was offering something other than true Darwinism.

The materialist-Darwinist model of the universe is provably false, or at least unknowable, as Lewis also argued. If matter and energy is all that exists, then what we call “thoughts” are nothing but twitchings of gray matter, no different in principle than an itchy knee. Thinking “2+2=4” is one way for gray matter to twitch, thinking “2+2=5” is another way. But you can’t say one twitch is “true” and another twitch is “false.” All twitches are equal.

Once you realize that there is no criterion for truth and falsity (which are abstract, universal, and non-material categories) on that view, then you must conclude that the entire theory of Darwinism could also not be known to be true, and would indeed have probability 0 of being true. It is self-refuting.

One of his main points wasn’t to prove or disprove Darwinism, but to point out that many Jews like Ben Stein are motivated by Jewish ethnocentrism, “what is good for Jews,” a self interest, rather than purely seeking truth.

“Thinking “2+2=4? is one way for gray matter to twitch, thinking “2+2=5? is another way. But you can’t say one twitch is “true” and another twitch is “false.” All twitches are equal.”

You are absurd. “2+2=4” is an attempt to describe reality. “2+2=5” is an error. To equate the two would mean that all propositions are equally valid. One thought, one opinion, one belief, would be just as good as another. If this were true, then all RACES are equal, and what the hell are we bothering about? Why don’t you try breathing from a bottle labelled “CO” rather than one labelled “O2” and let us know how that works out?

The principles and methods used to verify evolution are exactly the same as those used to verify physics. The findings of both have been applied to do things like build radios, bombs, computers, breed animals, create new forms of seeds, etc.

“Once you realize that there is no criterion for truth and falsity on that view, then you must conclude that the entire theory of Darwinism could also not be known to be true, and would indeed have probability 0 of being true. It is self-refuting.”

Whatever is real is true. What THINKING men do is try to get as close to that as possible, in their thoughts, even though absolute congruence is impossible, due to distortion

There’s a reason that Darwinian models, and the undestandings of science in general, are “incompatible with the Biblical view”. It’s because the bible, and any other “holy book” you would care to name, is BULLSHIT.

ANGL0-CELT Says: “MacDonald would do well to stick with a subject he knows…He should read a book countering evolution and then see if Darwinism makes sense. The Jews have been stuffing Aryan heads with this ‘evolution’ nonsense for decades, look at the result.”
– – – – – – – – – –

That’s utterly ridiculous. Pull your head out of the sand! Marxism and Darwinism are opposites, Marxism is the deathly enemy of Darwinism, and it’s obvious which side of the issue the Jews have overwhelmingly been on.

The Second World War was an ideological struggle — kind of a religious war — between the followers of Darwin and the followers of Marx.

Marx and the Jews won. But only militarily, not intellectually. People like AngloCelt haven’t a clue and can’t even get the issues straight. No wonder our people are so messed up when they can’t even figure out what’s what.

Sándor Pet?fi —Hey! You said it better than I could! I hate you.

The term “genocide” was invented out of thin air by a Jew named Lemkin in WWII. Prof. MacDonald should refrain from using Jewish terminologies, unless he wants to discuss the Jews’ very real “genocide” against the Palestinians.

jim donaldson says: Sándor Pet?fi —Hey! You said it better than I could! I hate you.
– – – – – – – – – –
I thought you BOTH did a great job ! You spared me the trouble of having to bother. I would have been proud to have said it half as well as either of you.

I also agree with Zarathustra that we should (ideally) refrain from using the opposition’s terminology. Unfortunately, much of it has become so ingrained in the language that we have no other words available to express our own point of view. Hearing and seeing these words (such as “racist”) on daily basis all our lives, they come to the tongue automatically without our even being aware of it.

Admittedly, Jews and the Left have been very inventive in this matter of terminology. Control the terms and you control the dialogue! This idea was, in fact, one of the goals of the Frankfurt School – Adorno, I believe.

“…how does it produce a creature who can then turn around and look at that universe, be conscious of it, and produce mental representations, such as mathematics, about what he sees happening in that totally material universe?”

Uhh–through evolution.

“Where would a totally material creature even get the abstract notion of truth and value, and why?”

Uhh–a)through observation, b)because it helps him to survive, c) those capable of it survived to reproduce.

Do you know anything about compound interest? Evolution is like that…

“Therefore, if a materialist says, “I believe that matter is all there is.
Truth? I know only the truth of manmade systems, symbolic in nature , like mathematics. 2 + 2 = 4, pure, simple and true. You don’t need any sort of god for that.”

Are you saying that our brains and the electro-chemistry by means of which they operate, are NOT material things?

“manmade systems, symbolic in nature”–
1) Ideas, etc, are in fact, the ARRANGEMENT of neurons, and whether particular chemical signatures and electrical impuses are present/absent. Do you know how a computer works? A computer mimics the brain, on a vastly simplified level.
2) Are you saying the pen and ink, and the sound waves, we use to communicate “symbols” are not material things?

The ONLY thing that is non-material is the “soul”. That’s because it’s BULLSHIT.

“Where do you get the rationality to create these mental systems? ”

Oh, and some of us, apparently, DON’T have it.

“The ancient theory of “Progressions” is, I think, applicable here.”

No, it isn’t. The only thing “added” is increasing complexity. Life is a function of increased material complexity of a very particular kind. “Conciousness” is a function of the complexity of the (very material) brain. It is not a separate “element” at all. The same goes for self-comciouness.

Evolution is like compound nterest in that each increase in complexity forms the base for the next increase, as an increase in interest, added to the principle already extant, forms the new base for the next interest period. Don’t go looking for exactitude in analogies; they are for illustrative purposes only, and are of necessity simplified.

“What is added in the next progression (assuming there is such, which the Church has always proclaimed) beyond the human?”

Beyond the human–increased complexity, possibly resulting in a creature capable of reasoned social interaction. The question there would be, which species of human will be its progenitors?

The “Church, as assinine as it is, managed to get this wrong as well. Probably contemplating some sort of “spiritual” infusion.
Give up being a monk. Have lots of children. It’s the only possible immortality. Dying “holy” is just as absurd as trying for the most toys. The only thing that matters is how many DESCENDANTS you have. Everything else (especially “spiritual matters”) is BULLSHIT.

This is not the place for extended discourses about ontology.

Jim Donaldson says that everything is matter, some of it more advanced than other forms of matter, because of increased complexity.

I would agree.

Monk-woodworker says that there is a god, that he apparently created by directed or influencing evolution, and that there are hierarchies of being.

I would agree.

How can I agree with both? The ancient Vedic wisdom says that the whole cosmos is God. The whole scheme is spiritual energy, some of it expressed as matter, but that matter is still God or divine energy . But there is no break between energy and matter, or between God and both–it is all a continuum. In this low-energy world, matter predominates. The Vedic saying is that God sleeps in the minerals, awakens in the plants, walks in the animals, and becomes conscious in man.

And how does the ancient Vedic “wisdom” know?

Could the Ancient Vedic Wisdom change the oil in my 1979 Trans Am?