Sunday, August 30, 2015

What is a Race Realist, HBD-Acknowledging, Agnostic to Do in a World Filled with Fanatics?


Re: “Atheists Win an Argument!”, and “So What Else is New? Department: Lesbian Media Activist Sally Kohn Lies About Typical Responses to Interracial Murder.”

What is a Race Realist, HBD-Acknowledging, Agnostic to Do in a World Filled with Fanatics?
By Stan d Mute

Both atheists and deists are suspect in my mind. How can you *know*? Answer: You cannot. Old books aren't proof. Ancient people knew far, far less about their world than we know today. And today, there are far, far more unanswered questions than there are known answers. Look at physics for example. Theory after theory based on the slimmest of evidence. Science doesn't disprove the existence of some greater power that "created" Man. Nor does any religion come close to explaining the known laws of science. So either way one must believe based on what? A hope?

What's especially troubling to me is all the people who will kill for their belief in a deity, or for science. That is fanaticism of the same sort underlying the negroes' maniacal hatred for whites. They *know* that whites are the cause of all negro problems, and only by ridding the world of whites will they ever be free of said problems. Ergo, "white Devils."

Fanaticism. Muslims, who believe they must kill or convert infidels. Jews, who believe they and only they are Chosen, and that goyim are no different from cattle. Christians, who believe only those who are baptized and accept Christ as Savior will go to Heaven, the rest doomed to Hell for Eternity. Etc. Fanatics.

What is a race realist, HBD acknowledging, agnostic to do in a world filled with fanatics?...

Liberalism is an almost perfect inversion of reality. And liberals are as fanatical as any jihadist or evangelical or ultra-orthodox or monk. Reality never sways their position. It is terrifying, really, for anyone who bases their worldview on reason. If they can completely ignore reality, they can support ideas like "post-birth abortion," just like the jihadist supports suicide bombing.

If only we could convince all (ALL) the world's fanatics to go marching off cliffs together...


Anonymous said...

Personally, I always thought that being an agnostic was simply the coward's way out of NOT offending someone. Splitting the difference so to speak.

I heard something a couple of years ago concerning intelligence: that it couldn't exist without residing somewhere. Can deists reconcile belief with that? Just curious.

jeigheff said...

I imagine that the idea of being a saved Christian seems foolish, even fanatical, to most of the world. It even seemed strange to me too, until it happened to me in 2000.

Anonymous said...

You can't possibly lump Jews and Christians in with Muslims as being dangerous fanatics. Jewish and Christian extremist wackos are generally despised by their co-religionists. In Islam, being an extremist wacko is the baseline, it's the whole point of the enterprise. Personally believing that someone will go to hell because they don't follow your religion can in no way be regarded as equivalent to the stonings, beheadings, hangings and similar things that Muslims do every single day.

Stan d Mute said...

This is stunning news. Apparently the U.S. is paying guides to solicit and transport "migrants" from Africa into Europe. Broken by an Austrian news outlet then published in France. Crickets in the U.S.

Obama is trying to inflict genocide on Europe.

Stan d Mute said...

RE: the "agnostics as cowards" comment - I think I stated the case pretty succinctly originally, but here goes..

Is it cowardly to demand proof? Before I condemn a man to death for murder, shouldn't I demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Or should I take it on faith that the "authority" is correct? Is a book from antiquity, written by men we don't know with motives we cannot guess, really proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Likewise in science, there are so many unanswered questions. The CERN experiments were thought by some to recreate the conditions of the "Big Bang" which would have obliterated the Universe. Not mindless drones watching Oprah, but serious men of science were afraid we might destroy the Universe by playing with subatomic particles we do not fully comprehend. Is this beyond a reasonable doubt?

One might play games of chance for fun in Vegas (I don't), but to do so with the tenets of these old religions? Seriously, I must wonder if the believers ever read their foundational texts. The ISIS guys have it right. They are following the dictates of their book. Do any Christians follow their book? Really follow it? Some of the fanatic Jews I think are pretty close if not following to the letter. But I've never met a real Christian - that's why I abdicated (that and my own doubts about the truth of the matter).

Rather than being a coward, an agnostic is an anti-hypocrite. Christianity is chock full of hypocrites who ignore the dictates of their Messiah just as they ignore the dictates of his faith (Judaism). They go to church on Sunday then spend the rest of their lives violating *every* directive of Christ and Judaism. Meanwhile they insist they are true believers and commit the most atrocious acts in the name of their "faith." I suspect moderate and reform Jews are much the same. Honesty demands agnosticism for none of us has proof. But frankly, if one insists on the veracity of his old books, I have much more respect for the ultra-orthodox, the Amish, the ISIS Muslim, than I have for the weekend warrior Presbyterian, Episcopalian, or Evangelical. If you are a true believer then give away all your wealth and earnings to the poor, spend your days washing the feet of prostitutes, and obey your God. If, like me, you entertain serious doubts, then admit them and live a moral life of your own definition without being harangued from the pulpit by another hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

To Stan
Obama is simply executing US policy, an economic plan that went into action when Europe signed on with NATO, ostensibly a military defense pact but is really an economic deal designed to mold Europe into American style capitalism, backed up by American military presence. Mass immigration is a vital part of the American model of economics, the UK and France, two of America's closes imitators are embracing mass migrations wholeheartedly, the countries that drag their feet are coerced politically. So yeah, no surprise American money is being used on the sly to encourage mass migration into Europe, wouldn't matter what President is in charge, policy is the same. I doubt that Trump would act any differently if elected, we'd never hear about it in the news so his surface opposition to unbridled immigration wouldn't appear to be a contradiction. jerry PDX

Stan d Mute said...

@Jerry - NATO was created 16 years before America embarked on the course leading to unlimited immigration. So I fail to see how NATO leads to the U.S. poisoning Europe with millions of Africans and Arabs. If Germany wanted these invaders (Germany has always preferred Turkish invaders) she could have sent her own agents to solicit and guide them. Likewise for England and France. Sweden seems the only nation in Europe that genuinely wants to genocide its native population and still we see no evidence even it is sending agents to encourage the barbarians to come. And the story was *leaked* to a news outlet in Austria, not the NYT or WaPo (preferred partners for Obama leaks).

Anonymous said...

"Personally believing that someone will go to hell because they don't follow your religion can in no way be regarded as equivalent to the stonings, beheadings, hangings and similar things that Muslims do every single day."

The Christ-insane need only permission from authority to kill agnostics/atheists/Muzzies/etc., especially from an altitude of 32,000 feet.

Nicholas said...

Sorry, Stan, but that screed is some pretty thin gruel: 11 paragraphs of polemics and speculation, sandwiching one paragraph that claims in one language that an article in a second language recounted what an article in a third language exposed? My b.s. meter is exploding.

Anonymous said...

Immigration has been a part of American expansion since the US was founded, mass emigrations to America designed to increase labor pools far preceded the timeline you outlined, it may not have been codified at that point but it was still an essential part of the growth of the American economy. Who's to say what NATO's secret objectives were in the early days, how do we know a plan for increasing immigration wasn't part of the plan even back then? I think policy makers and "think tankers" of the day had some clear objective in mind. Of course, why did it even have to be specific plans re immigration anyways? just the idea that NATO was a way of increasing American economic influence would mean European countries would have American policies forced on them, increased immigration eventually being one of them. You can argue timelines of policies all day but what we see now are results, an explosion of 3rd world immigration and a relative acceptance of it by the powers that be, average citizens have no say. I'm not saying that European countries weren't using immigrant labor already, it's the idea it was no longer an individual choice for countries to set their own levels, instead they now have external pressures to accept more than they may want, I'm also pointing out that mass immigration has been increasing exponentially in all European countries since the end of WWII (with the advent of NATO and the EU for that matter) and I don't think it's coincidence. Now all Europeans countries are being forced to accept mass migration (though for some countries it's an out migration), foot draggers are pressured until they finally concede. Who knows about this "agent guides" story, sounds kind of weird to me, might just be a false story planted for god knows what reason. I don't know about that but I stand by my comment that America has been exerting tremendous pressure on Europe to follow it's economic model. Jerry pdx