/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

[Post a Reply]
[Hide]
Posting Mode: Reply
Säge:
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 5000

Files
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

  • Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more
  • Max files: 5
  • Max file size: 50.00 MB
  • Read the global rules before you post, as well as the board rules found in the sticky.

08/28/20 Come and join our Matrix/IRC servers, the info can be found here.
[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Bottom] [Refresh]

(124.10 KB 600x747 zeus.jpg)
(59.14 KB 960x638 A_Russian_Hindu_girl.jpg)
(633.35 KB 718x1050 paganpilled.png)
(107.54 KB 633x624 plato abrahamic cave pagan.jpg)
Aryan Religion Thread IV Blackshirt 03/14/2021 (Sun) 18:57:15 ID:9dc13e No. 6
This thread is for White pagan religions, or more broadly, non-Abrahamic pro-White religious and philosophical discussion
>>16310 >But Loki deserved it, he set up the murder of Baldur for basically no reason, then stopped his resurrection out of spite. He was always the nordic archetype of the degenerate, effeminate man. I wouldn't call his punishment degenerate. Same for the treatment of his children, one of which was made queen of the underworld, the other was a literal snake which represents the enemy of all aryan spirituality. I agree with the fat that Loki was a degenerate who deserved to be killed, but if I remember correctly the response of the gods to the death of Baldr was wrathful. Loki was tortured instead of being killed, as well as their being rapes and killings. It is not that Loki did not deserve to be punished, but that the gods responded in the wrong way. It could also be said tat the fact that Loki was allowed to live for all that time in the first place was wrong in itself, and they were punished because of it. > there's nothing wrong with wanting to preserve the golden age. There is when you already know that the golden age must end. Instead of facing this end head on, they cowered from it. I would say that is degenerate. >Keep in mind that the original story had no survivors to the ragnarok, no 'adam and eve' to rebuild the world. I understand that, but I didn't just take this stuff at face value. It is my opinion that the myths that come down to us will always be kiked in one way or another. The is always wisdom to glean from the practices of your ancestors, even if they are corrupted.
I never seen so much cope from an atheist cuckchanner evolutionist.
>>16307 LMAOing? No frogs? Deadposting? I never thought I'd see the day when I found it comforting to see cheetahkike
(904.96 KB 777x2777 Part1.png)
(923.54 KB 1222x3222 Part2.png)
(1.41 MB 1222x3555 Part3.png)
(1.23 MB 777x4444 Part4.png)
(1.47 MB 1222x4777 Part5.png)
>>16311 >On what level, then? Manipulating probabilities, affecting other people mentally, obtaining information, etc. It works on a very subtle level. >What's it for, if not for at least preventing oneself from being crippled for life? Not walking around in the open during the bombing run might work out better. He might have been affected himself, people like him usually have a lot of enemies, known or unknown. >Source? I had not heard about this at all. Wave-particle duality etc. Materialistic physics pretty much breaks apart when it comes to black holes and light as well. >It's clear that they believed it, but that didn't seem to do much for them in retrospective. They tend to be very pragmatic people, they would surely abandon it if it served no purpose >Buddhism seems to have an explicitly pacifying message, though. Even Evola couldn't deny Siddharta preached non-violence as a necessary step to be rid of aversion. Most contemporary schools of Buddhism are subversion and violence is not an end into itself. >But all the supernatural shit, with 'entities' and 'gods' and all that MMORPG stuff is what I take issue with. Understandable, but non-physical phenomena are not necessarily supernatural, they just cover other parts of the spectrum and extend into the non-physical sets.
(353.01 KB 301x466 ClipboardImage.png)
(190.94 KB 294x448 ClipboardImage.png)
(717.90 KB 742x938 ClipboardImage.png)
(287.80 KB 256x392 ClipboardImage.png)
>>16328 All of the info is readily available out there, but it's easier to choose to remain bluepilled, I guess.
>>16312 >as well as their being rapes and killings Got a source for that? They kill or cause the death of one or two of Loki's sons, and that's it as far as I know.
(79.07 KB 525x390 Mitanni_Warriros01_full.jpg)
>cheetaposter is here Now THAT'S a throwback from meguca.
Just delete the cheetah nigger's post. He's clearly ass-blasted that he got BTFO'd and that the idea of being monkekangz is fake and gay.
>>16394 It can be good to leave retards exposed like this so that others can be redpilled on evolution and the nature of the Aryan worldview.
>>16398 I'm talking about the spergy cheetah posting, not his actual arguments.
>>16399 Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah you're right.
>>16342 I went to a public school that made us read creationism alongside regular science, it's fucking garbage. Even here in the bible belt I only knew one fundamentalist kid who actually believed it. It's for cowards who are afraid of Nature; it's un-Aryan in essence. All those authors of the books you posted are christcucks or faggots like Moonies or Hare Krishnas. But since the rest of the field is jewish, you have to take what you can get. If you want to use arguments from Aryan religions, fine. I don't take the poems, stories, myths, eddas, sagas, etc. of our people to be -literally- true, and I don't think our ancestors did either, but whatever. Whether we evolved from some other hominid half a million or multiple million years ago (which doesn't imply it was the same ancestor as other races), or whether we sprang from Hyperborea full-grown or Rig snuck into granny's bed, probably doesn't matter as long as a hard line on race/breeding/eugenics is maintained. But if you want to argue against evolution, or some aspect of it, for scientific reasons, than ffs find real scientists. Not that 'Intelligent Design' garbage. However, all this Creationism, ayys, cosmic dualist battling, neo-platonism... all of this leaves us, White Men in general, open to all sorts of mind-fuckery like christianity, and is most likely a sign of racial degeneration as well. Y'all need Nietzsche's Zarathustra, not Zoroaster.
>>16537 >It's for cowards who are afraid of Nature; it's un-Aryan in essence. Materialism is un-Aryan. Evolution is a materialist myth, and is one of the most pernicious forces in our society today. Peddling nonsense developed and shilled by Freemasons such as Erasmus Darwin, (possibly) Charles Darwin, Francis Galton, T.H. Huxley and others is being the ultimate good goy. Evolution is a justification for progressive political ideologies and is an ideological underpinning of capitalism, especially in the 19th century, where evolutionary thought was heavily promoted and shilled by the Carnegie and Rockefeller families. > I don't take the poems, stories, myths, eddas, sagas, etc. of our people to be -literally- true, and I don't think our ancestors did either, but whatever. They clearly believed these to be real, else they would not prescribe the death penalty for impiety and made their entire lives revolve around religious festivals, activities and sacrifices. You are deluded if you think our ancestors were just materialists who didn't really believe the foundational stories of their cultures. >But if you want to argue against evolution, or some aspect of it, for scientific reasons, than ffs find real scientists. Not that 'Intelligent Design' garbage. ID is real science, and the Jews badly want it to be suppressed. The amount of resources they have dedicated to fighting it is truly astounding. Evolutionists on this board have tried time and time again to refute Aryan creationism, and they have all failed. >Y'all need Nietzsche's Zarathustra, not Zoroaster. Nietzsche doesn't even belief in truth, he deserves the bog.
>>16540 Both materialism and creationism are un-Aryan, they are false dichotomies pushed by the kikes.
>>16556 This is not even a dichotomy, what are you talking about? One could be a materialistic creationist. Also creationism is irrefutable. Jews want you to believe you crawled out of a chemical pool a trillion years ago.
>>16540 >Carnegie Was Carnegie a jew or just jew-adjacent?
>>16540 You get punished for impiety for reasons other than whether or not you believed the world was literally a giant corpse with trees for hair, and even outright denying the gods didn't always result in action. I'm not saying people didn't believe. But belief for non-spergs doesn't necessarily mean treating it like 'scripture,' which was a foreign concept. Once you stop believing in literal Santa Claus, you can still believe in it in a different way. >made their entire lives revolve around religious festivals, activities and sacrifices. And that's important. I think we should do the same. >ID is real science Compared to someone like Galton? lol When I only knew Nietzsche from quotes and Philosophy 101 type normalfags, I would have agreed with that.
>>16563 Andrew Carnegie was actually a Freemason himself, so he was definitely Jew-adjacent, as anyone who gets that wealthy is almost compelled to be outside of a few cases like Henry Ford. >>16564 >You get punished for impiety for reasons other than whether or not you believed the world was literally a giant corpse with trees for hair Anaxagoras was chased out of Athens and charged with impiety for claiming that the sun was a burning stone larger than the Peloponnese >and even outright denying the gods didn't always result in action. Diagoras was an atheist, accused of impiety as well, and was chased out of Athens. He probably would have been killed if he stayed. Socrates is another example, for while he did not deny the gods, he was accused of introducing new gods among other things, and was executed for impiety. >Compared to someone like Galton? Yes. Galton was a Freemason with ties to family ties to Darwin. He's a clear stooge / shill. >When I only knew Nietzsche from quotes and Philosophy 101 type normalfags, I would have agreed with that. Nietzsche is the first PoMo degenerate. He denies any sort of teleological metanarratives in history, he is a moral nihilist, openly denying the the existence of morality over and over, saying that there are no facts, and only interpretations, and that there is no truth. Again, he belongs in a bog. You might as well be a leftist if you are a Nietzsche <b-but muh master morality That's just an interpretation of Nietzsche's, not a fact :^)
>>16566 >if you are a Nietzsche *Nietzschean
>>16563 He married a Jewess named Hattie Carnegie, although I think he may have had big connections with them. >>16564 >You get punished for impiety for reasons other than whether or not you believed the world was literally a giant corpse with trees for hair You get punished for impiety, because that is a sign that you are transforming into a hedonist. The ideology that is non-belief of the divine is centered around the mocking their ancestors for not appealing their perspective of how they see the world and merely to fuel their egos. Your atheistic cries are not arguments, just admit you want to take dick in the ass and leave the board. National Socialism is incompatible with agnostics and atheism, so you serve no purpose being here other than crying and being a gigantic bitch who hates the idea of having to have respect a patriarch. If you don't hold firm beliefs in your ancestors (which are also the gods), then you aren't Aryan, but a materialistic loser.
>>16556 >This is not even a dichotomy, what are you talking about? One could be a materialistic creationist Yes it is, because materialist and creationist (as in religious creationism) positions are mutually exclusive unless you assume that life on earth was created by some kind of advanced alien civilization. That still needs to be based on some kind of evolution or similar process. >Also creationism is irrefutable As long as you completely abandon reason
>>16566 I never said people weren't punished. I'm saying it wasn't always punished. There's a difference. And I notice you have give ONE example of a death. Personally I think Socrates should have been killed much sooner. >>16571 What? She was just some jewess who took the name. She has absolutely nothing else to do with him. I in no way mock my ancestors. National Socialism is incompatible with your hysteria.
>>16578 >I never said people weren't punished. I'm saying it wasn't always punished. People were punished for non-beliefs and misinterpretations of the mythos. You were not able to freely disregard the guards under Athens, Rome nor Sparta and this was probably the likely case for the Germanics and Celtics as well. Being banished from your own community is humiliating and you're better off being killed in your home than getting kicked out of it. >I in no way mock my ancestors. You just did, <You get punished for impiety for reasons other than whether or not you believed the world was literally a giant corpse with trees for hair >National Socialism is incompatible with your hysteria. All you've done within this board is shown that you don't know anything National Socialism, but funny enough within the Marx thread you've never given evidence that atheism was tolerated within the NSDAP just like how you couldn't prove that objectivity or facts never existed and contradict yourself by treating things as objective rather than interpretations that Nietzsche argues as a world view not realizing that these views were never supported by Hitler or any of the Aryan leaders and that Nietzsche was respected for his will-to-power and ubermensch quotes than anything else (also with his sister editing his books to be less gay). National Socialism isn't scientism or the cosmotheistic garbage that you interpret it as, if you want that, then we have a /pol/ that's just for you.
>>16578 >evolutionist calling something hysteria
>>16572 You just don't know how to use philosophical terminology. All that materialism posits is that reality is made of physical things, i.e. things extended in space, with mass, physical properties, etc. A materialist version of creationism is completely possible. Ayylmaos could have created mankind. That's creationism. All the term 'creationism' implies is that life on Earth did not originate through natural processes. So funnily enough, in saying that the Jews had some sort of false dichotomy between materialism and creationism (which doesn't exist), you yourself created a false dichotomy. > That still needs to be based on some kind of evolution or similar process. No it doesn't. >As long as you completely abandon reason t. the person who believes the universe blew up out of nothing and that your ancestor was an amoeba, and before that a rock >>16578 >I'm saying it wasn't always punished. Proof? We have dozens of examples of people being killed or banished for impiety. You want more than one case of death? How about the twenty plus people executed for vandalizing the Herms of Athens in the Peloponnesian War? If you mocked the gods or treated them lightly, you would die. >I in no way mock my ancestors. National Socialism is incompatible with your hysteria. Atheist degenerates were not tolerated in the SS, nor were they in NS society at large. Atheism was synonymous with Communism, i.e. literal Judaism. To no one's surprise, many of the biggest atheist """intellectuals""" of even the modern times are Jews like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc.
>>16585 >You just don't know how to use philosophical terminology You fail at basic logic and no amount of pilpul is going to change that >Ayylmaos could have created mankind. That's creationism. <unless you assume that life on earth was created by some kind of advanced alien civilization You also fail to read posts that you reply to, even short ones >No it doesn't. Where did the original creator come from then? Who or what created the first life-creating ayys if nothing exists outside of matter (materialism) and if there is no evolution or a similar process (that would gradually assemble elements into complex, sentient life)? Who or what created "god"? >t. the person who believes the universe blew up out of nothing and that your ancestor was an amoeba, and before that a rock <Your only options are evolution and creationism goy! Either believe that you are a meaningless, randomly assembled dust or worship the sky kike!
>>16585 By the way, most fascist states were secular, deal with it rabbi.
>>16588 >Where did the original creator come from then? The creator was probably made by primordial deities formed from whatever happened at the end of the last cycle.
>>16588 >You also fail to read posts that you reply to, even short ones Nah, it’s just proof that I am literally operating on a higher level than you. I predicted exactly what you were going to say without even reading half of your post, typing out what I thought you would say beforehand, and then going to read it, seeing that I was 100% correct, and you essentially refuted yourself by admitting that materialism and creationism are not incompatible and that you have created a false dichotomy. >if nothing exists outside of matter (materialism) You’re assuming that we can’t posit a materialist version of God. It’s pretty easy. One just has to affirm a monistic view of nature based on the fact that it is law-governed by universal laws of nature and other constraints, seemingly stretching out millions and millions of light years in every direction. A sort of diversity within overarching unity. One could easily remain faithful to materialism by admitting a mind-element into the basic properties of matter alongside mass, extension in space and all of that. This is what panpsychists do, and they are a type of materialist. Spinoza did the same thing in saying that matter was characterized by the dual properties of thought and extension. If we are to take a holistic view of nature that has an intrinsically conscious aspect inseperably tied to all of its other properties, we can easily arrive at a pantheistic God within a materialistic framework that could be free to work creatively within itself and to express itself in any way it sees fit. This solves the creation problem too. Because ‘nothing’ doesn’t exist. It’s a word and nothing more, not something to be reified. Being cannot come from non-being, therefore something has always existed. This would be the pantheistic Whole according to this. Not saying I even believe any of this shit, but it’s defensible. Or one could take a less radical approach and say >>16590. >Your only options are evolution and creationism YesChad.jpg Either life initially came about randomly or it was designed. No inbetweens. >>16589 t. doesn’t understand National Socialism
>>16595 >Nah, it’s just proof that I am literally operating on a higher level than you. When it comes to pilpul and logical fallacies. You are next level and I tip my hat to you sir. >I predicted exactly what you were going to say without even reading half of your post <It was real in my mind >seeing that I was 100% correct In missing or ignoring the point >and you essentially refuted yourself by admitting that materialism and creationism are not incompatible and that you have created a false dichotomy Creationism usually applies to some being creating the universe (and subsequently any specific life within it). As I explained, the original creator(s) would need to spawn somehow so the whole idea of "materialistic creationism" falls apart when we trace the chain of creation to it's very beginning. If there was no actual beginning, the whole idea of creationism becomes redundant, if not an oxymoron, and any God would not be a God in an absolute sense, with the attributes usually assigned to it, but just one of many potential artificers. If everything has always existed (since nothing cannot 'not exist' by definition), it makes the very idea of God redundant and implies a multitude of gods and universes. Creationist cosmology (not the idea that one form of life has created another) and materialism are mutually exclusive because any absolute cosmokrator would need some kind of dualism to develop his creation, or at least some kind of mental domain mirroring the physical, dimensional domain, which is still insufficient. >One just has to affirm a monistic view of nature Which is false, deceptive and mathematically void. >If we are to take a holistic view of nature that has an intrinsically conscious aspect inseperably tied to all of its other properties Then you are no longer holding a materialistic position. Where does this conscious aspect come from since it's obviously not a physical property? Where did the dimensions and 'laws of nature' come from? >God within a materialistic framework that could be free to work creatively within itself and to express itself in any way it sees fit Would such God be a blank state or already fully actualized? God within a materialistic framework would be the least free being in existence. >Not saying I even believe any of this shit, but it’s defensible Not if you think about it >This solves the creation problem too. Because ‘nothing’ doesn’t exist. Being cannot come from non-being So there is actually no such thing as "creation" >Either life initially came about randomly or it was designed. No inbetweens. Maybe it's just potential forms manifesting themselves in countless variations. Like mathematical functions. Neither random nor created, but essential. Linear and stochastic processes are not mutually exclusive either. >t. doesn’t understand National Socialism NS Germany was officially a secular state
>>16585 >That still needs to be based on some kind of evolution or similar process. No it doesn't, I swear you atheists are annoying and prove that not a single one of you have read the Mein Kampf nor understand that National Socialism was based on volkich, romanticism and esotericism. To lie about what some is that it isn't suspects to me that some of you just want to degrade ideologies, so you can have sex with men, enslave niggers as you play pretend with playing God and be edgy. Your defense of sodomy is evident to lead me to this conclusion. Evolution's key points are: •The world is constantly changing at pace randomly •Both animals and humans share a common ancestor and come from one species. •The philosophy and science of Evolution are based on materialistic and secular views on gradual changes •Every species on Earth gotten their observed and known traits due to gradual changes inheirtance known as mutations. •Natural Selection is what lead to animals and humans being so diverse. If humanity came from high-tech, Godlike aliens, then the proccess wouldn't come close to being similar Charles Darwin's theory at all, but rather a entirely different procedure. A once Godly race desecends onto our planet long ago and mixing with mankind is devolution and occured as a result of mixing blood or hybridization. The question will still beckons where did these aliens come from and why are they so intelligent? Which likely cannot be answered by the scientific method. The mere existence of these beings within Darwin's hypothesis would also be completely BTFO'd if we are forced to acknowledge that mankind's birth came from a species that is already evolved and not a common ancestor from Earth. The guy is a literal fraud and there is proof that he and many others faked many sciences just to validate him and ZOG are trying to shill his nonsense hard with the BS that we came from niggers (someone on this board was unironically willing to accept that lol). If you're truly a National Socialist, then you wouldn't promote things that are false, useless and harmful against your race.
>>16704 >NS Germany was officially a secular state No they weren't, it was just that Christian prieste were not allowed to control nor work against the politics of the NSDAP and were to work accordingly with what they desired. Positive Christianity proves my point that National Socialist secularism was merely to unite all Germans rather than allowing atheist and agnostic views which the leaders have denounced and were and enemies to such groups (communism, liberalism, judaism). But your secular argument is pointless anyway, because Hitler and co-leaders were religious neo-pagans.
>>16704 >Creationism usually applies to some being creating the universe I have been using it in a restricted sense for this entire discussion. I wasn't even thinking of the entire universe, but rather just the origin of biological life, because this came out of a discussion of evolution versus creation. I feel like the goalposts are being shifted here a bit. I don't know what sense you understood 'evolution' in but I wasn't meaning it in any sense outside of biological evolution. >If there was no actual beginning, the whole idea of creationism becomes redundant, if not an oxymoron, and any God would not be a God in an absolute sense, with the attributes usually assigned to it, but just one of many potential artificers. Hinduism disagrees with you. There are infinite universes spawned out by the timeless Brahman. Brahman is the material and substrative cause of every universe in existence, and really, everything is Brahman at its core in a panentheistic sense. Brahman is Brahman, there is no other thing with the attributes and nature of Brahman. There is no other. Lesser deities exist within particular universe that organize the matter and set things straight. >it makes the very idea of God redundant and implies a multitude of gods and universes. No it doesn't. This would only stand if one thinks that the only reason to even have an idea of God is to create the universe. >Where did the dimensions and 'laws of nature' come from? Dynamic and creative self-expression of God. Even scientists are beginning to admit that the physical constants of this universe appear by no means to be 'necessary' in any way, and that even the tiniest of changes could introduce catastrophic effects that would have never allowed for any life to exist in the first place. Of course we have two explanations for this, one of them being what I said, and the other would be a more Christian-esque idea of God being the one who laid down the laws of nature and fine-tuned them for his creation. >Then you are no longer holding a materialistic position. Where does this conscious aspect come from since it's obviously not a physical property? The mental and the physical would be two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance. It can easily be classified as materialism. Materialism is only the idea that matter is the fundamental substance in the world. If it could be theorized that matter has intrinsically mental properties, then we would still be in the realm of materialism. >So there is actually no such thing as "creation" Only if you're operating on the view that 'creation' can only be applied to how God in Christianity creates, i.e. ex nihilo. A pantheistic God or similar entity could be said to 'create' out of its own self. >Would such God be a blank state or already fully actualized? I don't know what you mean by this. >NS Germany was officially a secular state De jure? Yes. De facto? No.
>>16564 > whether or not you believed the world was literally a giant corpse with trees for hair I think you would be mistaken if you interpreted this to mean that this was a physical description of reality. It was probably metaphysical and was seen to convey important truths about the world. Not to say the gods aren't real. They definitely believed they were.
(18.15 KB 250x275 putc.jpg)
>>16580 >not able to freely disregard the guards[sic] I dunno, I keep getting accused of being what I'm not, doing what I haven't, and being random fags from other threads that you sperg about. I just might be about to disregard some guards. Certainly the guards who are ayys. >>16780 Well if you give a nuanced interpretation, I'm pretty sure there's a guy who wants to kill you for impiety because you're just like the people who thought that the sun wasn't literally getting rolled along by a dung beetle.
>>16709 I'm assuming you are quoting the wrong post since the one that you replied to was a reply to: >That still needs to be based on some kind of evolution or similar process. IN REFERENCE TO OTHER ANON'S IDEA ABOUT "MATERIALISTIC CREATIONISM". To summarize, my point is that something like that is not really viable and that materialism implies evolution or a similar process. I'm not a materialist by the way. You haven't addressed a single point, but have only made baseless claims about anyone not buying into whatever Judaic pilpul you are trying to sell under the guise of National Socialism as being an atheist, homosexual, Darwinist, believing that we have descended from niggers etc. Which is exactly what christkikes, mudslimes and other Abrahamists do by calling anyone questioning their subversive retardation a heretic or a devil-worshiper. National Socialists cared about the truth, and truth fears no investigation. You are also completely off the track by attacking Darwin's theory when I didn't mention it or support it in any way, nor is it the only theory of evolution in existence. You also failed to note >or similar process Which tells us that you are looking to manufacture a false narrative and attack strawmans while completely ignoring the central point. >>16711 >No they weren't Yes they were, in every official capacity. State and church were separated and there were no laws enforcing any religion. >Positive Christianity proves my point that National Socialist secularism was merely to unite all Germans rather than allowing atheist and agnostic views which the leaders have denounced Positive Christianity was a way to deprogram people from christcuckery, not some kind of absolute state faith. If Germans were as religious as some anons here are claiming, and if the leadership was as well, then why didn't Germany turn into some kind of theocracy like Iranians did with their "Islamic revolution"? Because most of them were only nominally religious and leadership were esotericists, not some kind of priesthood >Hitler and co-leaders were religious neo-pagans Their paganism was not religious (as far as mainstream religions or common neo-paganism go), but metaphysical and occult. NSDAP tried to unite Germans of various beliefs under the same worldview (practical and metaphysical) and have them all work towards the same goals, religious/atheist divide is a D&C tactic that Jews use to poison the well and muddy the waters.
>>16713 >I wasn't even thinking of the entire universe The question of where did the original creator(s) come from remains, no matter the timescale. Creationism implies a cosmology, it's normally used in a much broader and all-encompassing sense >Hinduism disagrees with you Hinduism is highly illogical and faith-based, not reason-based. All that pilpul about Brahman is hardly coherent. >Dynamic and creative self-expression of God How can it do so without any external points of reference? How can it even recognize self from non-self? How can a materialistic god ever create something that it's already not? How can it obtain a capacity to create in the first place? >and that even the tiniest of changes could introduce catastrophic effects that would have never allowed for any life to exist in the first place That's because life is a highly specified, self-referential chain of being. That hardly an argument for creationism. >Of course we have two explanations for this Two kosher explanations >The mental and the physical would be two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance. It can easily be classified as materialism. No it can't, because you would need to empirically demonstrate the forces, elements etc. acting as the alleged mental component of matter and it's causal operations. It is a legit (albeit false) philosophical position, but it's not materialism. A more reasonable approach would be to assert that matter is just a function of mind, that everything is mind. >A pantheistic God or similar entity could be said to 'create' out of its own self Out of what? What would be it's "self" prior to creation? And into what? How could he separate his creation from what he already is? How did it assemble itself into being able to create? >I don't know what you mean by this. Did this supposed god start out as absolute god, or as formless matter? There is no creation because in such scenario it would only be transformation, which further posits questions about the causal structure of such transformation.
>>16809 >>16809 >Which is exactly what christkikes, mudslimes and other Abrahamists do by calling anyone questioning their subversive retardation a heretic or a devil-worshiper. Calling out impiety isn't Abrahamic nor did the Greeks and Romans done it the same sense as the Muslims and Christians. So you're not making point here. Your argument here is nothing more but "A-abrahamists breathe! So you shouldn't either!". >Yes they were, in every official capacity. State and church were separated and there were no laws enforcing any religion. Are you trying to bring a point here? They were secular, but not de facto. Christian and other religious institutions were excluded from the state, although personal religious beliefs can be held and they did take it over as a way to enforce and reform German society. Sooner or later the NSDAP had plans to make neo-paganism officially de facto after the war. Secularism shouldn't and wouldn't be official forever. >Positive Christianity was a way to deprogram people from christcuckery, not some kind of absolute state faith. No the main goal PC, was to keep Germans unified. Positive Christianity still contained christcuckery aspects, although it was still designated to be less Judaic and more centered on a pagan form of pan-Germanicism or at-least what the state desired for a better change for Germany, which is still a pretty naive thing to allow when you have traitors and subversives around. They were to deprogram Christian Germans was to deter them away from the Catholics and Lutherans who opposed National Socialism and protected the Jews from persecution. >If Germans were as religious as some anons here are claiming, and if the leadership was as well, then why didn't Germany turn into some kind of theocracy Maybe it's because you're so stupid that you do not understand how religion works and think that every man with beliefs of the supernatural is bound to create a theocracy? Do you think we've never had states filled spiritualists? Himmler literally wanted to establish a Vedic-style government and Hitler likely would of agreed or done something close in mind. I still would prefer being under a Hindu theocracy than a secular or Abrahamic one. I don't even what your point is, because unironically thinking the state should be forever secular and that the co-leaders are to create cosmotheistic-like morals is ignorant. Their goal was to take over and create new institutions anyway and make them official. When are you ever going to prove that National Socialism were willingly to accept atheists and agnostics? >Their paganism was not religious Yes it was, again you're just taking shit out of your ass and interpreting them by your bullshit. You don't even know what religion means nor understand piety and the perspective Hitler and other pan-Aryanists had. They were indeed religious trying proving to us they weren't, oh wait you never do or will.
>>16811 >Hinduism is highly illogical and faith-based, not reason-based. You're projecting a Christian paradigm onto a non-Christian religion. Read 'The Vedic Way of Knowing God' - >>12631 (PDF attached). Vedic epistemology accepts reason as a valid means of knowing, albeit within the realm of things that can be scrutinized by reason. Same with empirical ways of knowing. They recognize them, but recognize they are delimited within a certain domain and should not be used for spiritual, transempirical and transrational matters. You are implicitly saying here that reason is the highest form of knowledge, which is traditionally not accepted by any pre-modern thinker. To place reason as the pinnacle of knowledge only comes into the fore in the time of the so-called Enlightenment and Scientific Revolutions which are, in reality, regressions in every possible way, and an almost complete loss (in the West) of transcendental knowledge. >All that pilpul about Brahman is hardly coherent. That's because you're trying to use your intellect to understand the supra-intellectual truths of Vedic revelation. Vedic scriptures tell you how to achieve the state of realizing this. The rest of your post is essentially pilpul and a diversion from the main topics at hand, because I do not even belief in what you are trying to pick apart. The idea is hardly inconceivable as a system though. I will say again though, that you are projecting Christian and Jewish ideas of what 'to create' means onto everything. I'm not using Christian or Jewish as pejoratives here either, I'm just pointing out the obvious. What constituted 'creating' or 'existence' was very different in the pre-modern mind. The idea of ex nihilo creation is completely unique to the Abrahamic family of religions. This is indeed one of the unique claims of these religions. >>16809 >You are also completely off the track by attacking Darwin's theory when I didn't mention it or support it in any way, nor is it the only theory of evolution in existence. They're all bunk. Darwin's theory is not the same as the mainstream evolutionary theory of today, which is called the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinism. Lamarckism is of course another theory which has been debunked over and over. Darwinism, Neodarwinism, Lamarckism, Haeckel's theories, etc. They're all defective theories by materialists desperate to explain why design. >Their paganism was not religious Retarded
>>16825 >You're projecting a Christian paradigm onto a non-Christian religion. Read 'The Vedic Way of Knowing God Not him, but projection is a talmudic concept. You shills stick out like a sore thumb.
>>16830 Word-concept fallacy.
>>16815 >Calling out impiety isn't Abrahamic nor did the Greeks and Romans done it the same sense as the Muslims and Christians <Greeks and Romans used to have gay orgies, therefore you should too Your false equivalence fallacy goes both ways. They were certainly not as serious about it as Abrahamists are, not to mention that their faith has changed a lot over time and was under direct influence by Semitic religions. Inb4 you handpick a few accounts out of millions of scenarios to le prove how they were just like my Mosaic kings who genocided le idol-worshipers and other Abrahamistic fanatics. Because it's their approach to religion that you are promoting, no matter what kind of "pagan" guise you try to sell it under. Aryan heathens were more of mystics and philosophers than priests. >They were secular, but not de facto How? There was no policy giving any kind of organized religious body temporal powers over the state, no religious belief was enforced as a state policy, nor was any lack thereof penalized. You were pretty much free to believe whatever you want as long as it's not Judaism and similar poisons, and as long as your beliefs are not in contradiction with NS goals and policies. >Sooner or later the NSDAP had plans to make neo-paganism officially de facto after the war. There would be no need for it as long as the proper worldview is restored. They wanted Germans to return to their healthy, pagan roots and abandon Judaic mindset, not enforce some kind of organized religion. >Secularism shouldn't and wouldn't be official forever Theocracy is as bad as Marxism is. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any kind of spiritual guidance of course >although it was still designated to be less Judaic and more centered on a pagan form of pan-Germanicism or at-least what the state desired for a better change for Germany Exactly. They didn't seek to kill any German for "impiety" just because he didn't adhere to some kind of Mosaic law. They sought what's good for their people, not serving the interests of any religion. And their policies were such that their beliefs would advance over time, they would build a bridge between ancient myths, metaphysics etc. and proper, healthy futurism. >you do not understand how religion works I know exactly how a religion works, especially organized religion, and how subversive it can be if taken over by (((the wise men))). Checks and balances are required, which is what NSDAP implemented. >When are you ever going to prove that National Socialism were willingly to accept atheists and agnostics? You are claiming that they didn't so the burden of proof is on you. When was anyone rejected from joining NSDAP for being irreligious? >You don't even know what religion means nor understand piety and the perspective Hitler and other pan-Aryanists had Piety is a concept derived from semitic slave morality, and the perspective that Hitler had was far too will-infused to be restrained by such nonsense. Portraying him as some kind of meek hippie is as wrong as portraying him as a bloodthirsty monster, because he was neither. Pan-Aryanists were inspired by the gods, they didn't seek to grovel before them, obey a huge list of autistic laws and perform meaningless technical ceremonies typical for the semites, but to make their ancestors proud and manifest the archetypes of their gods, to BE the gods themselves, because that was in their blood. >every man with beliefs of the supernatural is bound to create a theocracy? Only if you have obsessive-compulsive disorder, like a certain inferior deity and its golems.
>>16840 >Aryan heathens were more of mystics and philosophers than priests. You have to be completely ignorant of Aryan religious history (and the history of religion in general) to not know that in Antiquity there was almost zero distinction between religious and non-religious spheres, and zero distinctions between philosophy, mysticism, science, etc. Just look at any dialogue from Plato and try to tell me that he is not simultaneously doing philosophy and mysticism, and by extension religious inquiry. The entire concept of religion is foreign to traditional societies because it is so interwoven into daily life and activities, so when cultures like Japan came into contact with the West, there was almost no distinction between Buddhism and Shinto, they were seen as essentially one, and there was no word for 'religion' in the generic sense in the Japanese language, and one had to be coined to fit the generic Western term (宗教 - shūkyō). This was the state of the entire world prior to modernity, especially in pagan cultures, which were essentially a spiritual free-for-all within certain limits, as long as certain gods were not neglected or profaned. > They wanted Germans to return to their healthy, pagan roots and abandon Judaic mindset, not enforce some kind of organized religion. This is implying that the Germanic people did not have an organized priesthood in Antiquity, which they did. Read Tacitus' description of the Germanic people. It's the same with the Gauls. The same basic trifunctional structure can be found in basically every Indo-European culture. >Piety is a concept derived from semitic slave morality Hilarious > but to make their ancestors proud and manifest the archetypes of their gods, to BE the gods themselves, because that was in their blood. "bro it's all just archetypes, maaan, you're a god! I'm a god too!' This is atheism with an aesthetic facade.
>>16867 >Just look at any dialogue from Plato and try to tell me that he is not simultaneously doing philosophy and mysticism, and by extension religious inquiry Plato was not a priest, nor a member of some theocratic political caste. Although his ideas in The Republic did endorse something similar, except that he referred to philosophers, people genuinely interested in wisdom, all-encompassing knowledge and understanding, who would be logically most competent to rule and not a bunch of rabbis usurping temporal power and declaring themselves as "god's chosen" or "spiritual authority" for the sake of having power over goyim and isolating themselves from any criticism. You are strawmanning by arguing semantics basically, it's quite obvious that I'm using the term religion as in exoteric, organized religion with a priestly class. You are using religion as "anyone who is not an atheist" sense, which is misleading. >This is implying that the Germanic people did not have an organized priesthood in Antiquity, which they did Never claimed that they didn't have priests, just that the role of such priests was nowhere close to some kind of absolutist theocratic government. Nor was their organization anywhere close to supporting something like that. Their role was auxiliary. And you should use a less broad term than "priest" in order to make a distinction between Aryan and Semitic approaches to the subject, which are based on different core principles and should not be conflated. Armanen and Irminists, not to mention earlier proto-Germanic shamans, were radically different from Mosaic priests of the temple. >Hilarious Naturally, kikes want you to prostrate and grovel before their false god, and by extension to themselves. Your only kosher options are to be a slave to your own flesh or to the cosmic kike, because those are the only two narratives that they can control. >"bro it's all just archetypes, maaan, you're a god! I'm a god too!' This is atheism with an aesthetic facade. Except that almost every theory about archetypes implies immaterial domain of some kind. It's rather ridiculous to associate it with atheism. >especially in pagan cultures, which were essentially a spiritual free-for-all within certain limits Yes, as I mentioned before, it was about worldview and not something specific or legalistic that would have basis as temporal law, other than for the purpose of eliminating subversive influences and alien cultures.
>>16840 >Your false equivalence fallacy goes both ways I didn't create any false equivalence you retard also you don't know anything about fallacies and should stop crying about something we didn't do at all, but only you've done with your constant usage of pipul, circular reasoning, and strawmans. Gods you are such an idiot and procceed to fail to make any of your points coherent or meaningful in way or form, because none of them are backed by evidence or facts. Being this stubborn and lying about the history of Aryan religion being protestant faggotry probably because you are the masturbating mossad agent. We have already established and proved that the Greek and Roman had a way of calling out impeitous beings along with the other hundreds of Aryans, and they were 100% justified because faggots like (((You))) exist. >They were certainly not as serious about it as Abrahamists are Yes they were and we proved that to you already. We gave several accounts that debunk (((You)))r assertions that they were merely a secular state and did not take insults against Zeus/Juptier seriously, the guy who is told to be the king and all-father of their nations, which is like insulting your very own patriarch. You're denying the existence of Sparta and Athens, and purpose of the Roman Pontifex or entirety of the Roman state and it's statemen and rulers who never went without talking about the Gods (Ciecro, Julius Caesar, Scipio, Cato Caligula, Nero, Hadrian). Maybe you just don't like the idea of patriarchs, because you lack one. >Inb4 you handpick a few accounts out of millions of scenarios to le prove how they were just like my Mosaic kings who genocided le idol-worshipers and other Abrahamistic fanatics. That's a big accusation that you won't prove. Also I see no reason for Abrahamics to lie about this, if anything they use this narrative against pagans to justify their take over of Greece and Rome to make them out as "demons" and them righteous for usupering what they've built from them. Also this isn't "handpicked", so this is an actual fallacy you have established here, denying and refusing to refute our attestments because it is definite proof that they persecuted and shammed the impeitous or non-believers for denouncing the Gods. Prove our ancestors did the opposite of what I said or any more of your useless sentiment is just cope and stupidity. I'll love to see you use pipul as your argument and have nothing that articulates any of what value and propose as facts about the Aryans, Protestant. Also the rest of your arguments are meaingless and further proof you know nothing about NS or history in itself as I already described the extent of the defacto and you bring more Judaic conviction and logic as if Himmler didn't shove neo-pagan ideas into the state and unironically wanted Vedic style Germania. How sad. Again just admit you want a secular state where you can masturbate to hentai and be a loser for the rest of your petty existence you call a "life".
>>16883 > Although his ideas in The Republic did endorse something similar, except that he referred to philosophers, people genuinely interested in wisdom, all-encompassing knowledge and understanding, who would be logically most competent to rule and not a bunch of rabbis usurping temporal power and declaring themselves as "god's chosen" or "spiritual authority" for the sake of having power over goyim and isolating themselves from any criticism. You're obsessed with Jews, yet you know nothing about them and just end up embarrassing yourself in posts like this. The entire nation of Israel is 'chosen' in Judaism. Ancient Israel had a priestly tribe among the twelve, i.e. the Levites. Rabbis are seen as spiritual authorities in Judaism because they are autistic enough to have spend years at a yeshiva memorizing the Tanakh and reading the Talmud for years and years on end. From a Jewish perspective, it's easy to see why their opinions of religious matters would be seen as important or valuable, because they have actually taken the time to study and learn these topics, unlike the average person on the street who has not. There is nothing wrong with spiritual authority, and again (and again) you expose yourself as a crypto-Protestant who seeks to undermine Aryan traditions by referring to them as 'Jewish', which is the number one shill tactic used on imageboards. You've yet to prove that Plato wasn't religious, wasn't a mystic, etc. He even says that the number one important goal for a philosopher is to live as if he was dead, separating his soul from his earthly body. Socrates says this in Phaedo, as he prepares to commit suicide, commenting that he will soon be judged and accepted among the gods. Philosophers were non-different from yogis. >just that the role of such priests was nowhere close to some kind of absolutist theocratic government It's almost like they were a less complex and less organized society than the Romans! And even still they had great, great power, just like the Druids. >Except that almost every theory about archetypes implies immaterial domain of some kind. It's rather ridiculous to associate it with atheism. Imagine being so dumb that you think that atheism is invariably materialistic. > and not something specific or legalistic that would have basis as temporal law You're a Christian shill, yup.
>>16902 >lying about the history of Aryan religion being protestant faggotry That's your idiotic interpretation. You are yet to refute my point that they were nowhere near whatever Judaic theocracy you are trying to pass under the guise of the Aryan Religion. >Your assertions that they were merely a secular state I was referring to NS Germany, and nowhere did I state or imply that Germans or good part of their leadership didn't have spiritual beliefs, just that it was an all-encompassing ideology accepting non-religious people as well as long as they support the party program and work for the benefit of their nation. Nor did I ever claim that ancient Aryans weren't spiritual, just that the nature of this spirituality was different to that of Judaic slave mass religions, that are not spiritual at all. Your constant attempts to ignore any points raised and twist what I wrote into something that I didn't only to use it as a strawman tells us more about your motives than anything. >calling out impeitous beings >Roman state and it's statemen and rulers who never went without talking about the Gods Again, I didn't claim that they were all atheists, but that they were nowhere near to theocratic religious fanatics where a priestly caste is above the state that you are trying to shill here. You have yet to provide any evidence of that. Something showing that it was a systematic, organized, long-term occurrence and not just sporadic, isolated incidents. Many emperors claimed to be descendants or anointed representatives of divinities and their grace, so naturally, insulting those divinities extended to them. Still nothing to do with theocracy or some proto-Mosaic rabbis ruling the nation, but with defending the honor of the rulers and the regal function. What you are trying to promote here was the position of various philosemitic shabbos goym like the Templars and the Vatican (whose leadership were crypto-kikes) before they got BTFO by /ourguys/ like Phillip the Fair. I guess you would call him a protestant as well. >as if Himmler didn't shove neo-pagan ideas into the state and unironically wanted Vedic style Germania Himmler was an occultist, hardly what one would consider pious. >Vedic style Germania MUH SCRIPTR was widely available back then, in multiple translations, so were countless Hindu texts. If they wanted, they could easily move to India and prostrate themselves in front of (((Brahmins))) and their "god". They also had easy access to Roman and Greek history, or at least it's (((official))) narratives. Instead, they organized various expeditions all over the world in search of something ELSE. What do you think that Ahnenerbe, Thule society and the like were for? They were looking for REAL Vedic wisdom and actual Aryan history. They neither wanted to be Romans, nor Greeks, nor Hindus. >and be a loser for the rest of your petty existence you call a "life". I have won where it matters. No amount of bullying can change that.
>>16914 >yet you know nothing about them I know more about them than they know about themselves >The entire nation of Israel is 'chosen' in Judaism. Ancient Israel had a priestly tribe among the twelve, i.e. the Levites. There is nothing in Judaism preventing Jews from larping as "Aryan" neopagan theocratic priesthood to have control over goyim (non-Jews). In fact, it's their signature move and how they have taken control over European societies in the first place, long before modernism and nihilist degeneracy, which were just more efficient tools concocted in the same kitchen. This strawman is completely irrelevant for discussion and doesn't refute anything. The idea of The Law being set in stone tablets and given to some kind of prophet who created what came to be theocratic caste within a theocratic nation is very Judaic in nature and not compatible with genuine Aryan spirituality. In fact, it's its antithesis. So yes, I will keep pointing out this kikery as Jewish, regardless of what kind of cultural paint you try to coat it with and regardless of many Europeans and their leaders adopting this mindset throughout history. Almost every NatSoc author emphasized the differences between Judaic and Aryan MINDSET and worldview , without focusing on any culture in particular, while you keep disregarding it. In 100 years you would apply the same pilpul to "prove" that Aryans were always gay Marxists since it's popular today. There is no reason not to assume that what happens today didn't also happen in times of Roman Empire, or that Christianity was the first subversive attempt of the tribe. Brahmanic caste is hereditary in most forms, there is no practical difference to Jews having a tribe of Levites. >There is nothing wrong with spiritual authority That's self-evident among spiritual people. Of course, a Jew will never understand that because he lacks spirit, so he needs to base his authority on arbitrary, legalistic codes and knowledge of them. >Rabbis are seen as spiritual authorities in Judaism because they are autistic enough to have spend years at a yeshiva memorizing the Tanakh and reading the Talmud for years and years on end Judaism is not spiritual. It's a good example of a completely hollow religion >You've yet to prove that Plato wasn't religious I claimed that he was not a priest or that he had such inclinations. You used him as an example, so the burden of proof is on you. Another example of you twisting my words to construct a strawman since you have zero arguments to support your position. >Philosophers were non-different from yogis Except that they used logic and didn't limit their reasoning with bullshit. >less complex and less organized society than the Romans! Didn't stop them from wrecking the Romans <You need a college of wise Phoenicians ruling your society to have civilization goyim! >that you think that atheism is invariably materialistic Not invariably, just most commonly.
>>16916 >That's your idiotic interpretation No, you've establish that clearly in this thread and did not disprove I said. You are a kike who wants to subvert NS to be a coomer. >You are yet to refute my point that they were nowhere near whatever Judaic theocracy you are trying to pass under the guise of the Aryan Religion. How canI I prove something that has never existed in any Aryan society hasn't been corrupted? I've debunked your stupid claims about muh "EVERYTHING IS JUDAIC" by noting that the Hellenics had entirely different view and reason to persecute someone for impeity. And you are still crying about and lumping all theocracies as one, because they will stop you from being a faggot. All you have are fallacies and claims. >I was referring to NS Germany No shit? >and nowhere did I state or imply that Germans or good part of their leadership didn't have spiritual belief Your entire argument is the denial of the NS being built up by spiritual beliefs and that they had no influence or co-leaders did not attempt to bring vack Germanic paganism as Germany's core traditions, because they stopped Christian churches from usupering power. It doesn't matter anyway, because the NS weren't secular by institution nor in fact, because they did not detest priesthood nor exclude having one of their own. >Nor did I ever claim that ancient Aryans weren't spiritual, just that the nature of this spirituality was different to that of Judaic slave mass religions, that are not spiritual at all. <I d-didn't say this!!! <everything i don't like is Judaic. Yeah you did. Your argument is that the Aryans were merely protestants who did things according to their own personal beliefs and emotions had merely secular perspectives where the idea of priesthood was entirely new and artifical. This was already debunked and you're never going to prove it wrong. What's even dumber is that you once again prove you know nothing about religion, because Aryan faiths such as were for Aryans and only could be practiced by them, because proselytism is an actual Judaic concept that never existed in Rome and Greece. You are once again going in circles. >Your constant attempts to ignore any points raised and twist what I wrote into something that I didn't only to use it as a strawman tells us more about your motives than anything. I did nothing of the sort you absolute moron. Just admit you have nothing to argue coherently. >Again, I didn't claim that they were all atheists, but that they were nowhere near to theocratic religious fanatics FUCKING READ MY AND ANON'S POSTS YOU LOW IQ NEGROID PRETENDING TO BE WHITE We literally gave you several examples, at this point you are coping in-denial. They were religious fanatics and there's nothing wrong with that. Any denial of being an atheist from (((You))) contradicts those counter-claims, because these are the type of arguments racist or NatSoc atheists make. >Himmler was an occultist, hardly what one would consider pious. Thanks for confirming you know nothing about National Socialism or the occult and are an average /pol/tard, also nice pipul. Occultism is the belief in the supernatural and unordinary or unworldy things to be in our universe something every pious man believes in. Himmler was also stated to have read and carried around the RigVedas and Bhagavad Gita around with him whenever he went and the SS was heavily inspired by the ideas of Kshatriyakaste. Hmmm, totally not pious huh? >MUH SCRIPTR was widely available back then, in multiple translations, so were countless Hindu texts Point? >If they wanted, they could easily move to India and prostrate themselves in front of (((Brahmins))) and their "god" No they couldn't and they didn't want to, because they were German nationalists. (((You))) know nothing about the Vedic and cannot comprehend the spirit of those you claim to admire. >They also had easy access to Roman and Greek history, or at least it's (((official))) narratives. Instead, they organized various expeditions all over the world in search of something ELSE. Ok? They also had access to what was available only to them and not anyone else and this does not exclude the fact that they've read many works of the Greco-Romans and Vedic Aryans. They sent expeditions all over the world searching for more inspirations to build up their ideal state to make it truly Aryan. But I digress, because this is more pipul. Again you never establish any evidence that proves the mentionings on punishment for impeity were non-existent. Prove that Cicero's The Dream Of Scipio or Plato's The Republic as edited or fake. They literally do not contradict any unbiased assertion of the Greeks or Roman mindset and culture. >T-then they were corrupted by the JEWS!!!!! You're going to have to prove that something that has existed prior to Judaism is Judaic, which you never will.
>>17039 >I have won where it matter Declaring yourself as the winner is when you know you have lost. Whinning with fallacies isn't a victory. >I'm being bullied!!! Lmao pathetic.

Delete
Report