The True Word

"Celsus was only one writer in a long tradition of Roman writers and philosophers who wrote and spoke out against Christianity, feeling that their doctrines were either inscrutable or downright foolish."

"Most Romans could not understand the Christians' insistence on their own superiority and their insistence upon their apparently exclusive path to salvation. They could also not understand Christianity’s claims that they were a unique religion with a long history reaching back to antiquity, when the Roman philosophers knew that Christianity had broken off from Judaism relatively recently and still used ancient Jewish texts both to formulate their theology and to support their religious claims."

 "Celsus’ first main point in his True Word was to refute the validity of Christianity. In his opinion Christian theology was based on an amalgamation of false eastern philosophical ideas hastily tied together. He stated that Christians would “weave together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources and trumpet them aloud”.[6] Celsus gave a point by point critique of Christian doctrine, and why it should not have been believed by anyone."

 "what now makes up the Christian Bible- Celsus found very insipid and unappealing compared to Greek and Roman legends of powerful and colorful gods. Celsus also found Christian philosophy lacking when compared to secular philosophy, and declared that “things are stated much better among the Greeks”.[7] Celsus used Plato as the representative for Greek philosophers and, according to him, when comparing the two philosophical traditions Christianity appeared far worse, as "Plato is not guilty of boasting and falsehood",[8] a crime which Celsus obviously feels is a trademark of Christian theologians. The only connection Celsus made between Greek philosophy and Christianity was when he asserted that “Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher”[9] (i.e. Plato)."

 "In his opinion, the main tenet of Christianity was “Do not ask questions, just believe” and “Thy faith will save thee".[13]"

 "Celsus complained that Christianity was a phenomenon limited primarily to the lower class. He claimed that Christians actively sought out and converted the ignorant, uneducated, and lower class, as they were the only people who would believe in such a ridiculous theology and blindly follow its doctrines.[14] If an individual was from the upper class, and therefore well educated and naturally of good character, they would not be converted because they could not possibly believe in the absurd assumptions one had to in order to be considered “Christian”."

"Celsus declared that Christians convert by “lead[ing] on wicked men by empty hopes, and to persuade them to despise better things, saying that if they refrain from them it will be better…”."

"Celsus’ main argument against Christianity, and why he attacked it with such vigor, was that he considered it a divisive and destructive force that would harm both the Roman Empire and society."

"Celsus listed many reasons for how his Roman readers could easily deduce that Christianity was endangering their unity and the stability of the Empire. Christianity originated from Judaism, whose adherents, although living within the Empire, had already revolted against Roman rule several times. The Christian community then became further divided amongst themselves, and Celsus complained that “matters are determined in different ways by the various sects”.[18] This dissension between different factions within Christianity proved to the Romans that Christians who could not even draw together under their own shared beliefs were naturally a divisive people and not only caused friction within their own philosophy but would disrupt the unity of the Empire. Finally Celsus and other Roman writers believed that “Christians are dangerous precisely because they put the advancement of their beliefs above the common good and the welfare of the state”"

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Word

Chaos is a regenerative force, Civilization is degenerative.

To my mind, nature is chaos. It doesn't plant in straight lines, life is simply survival in the animal kingdom. Not being eaten. Constant change. Chaos. Chaos is not inherently bad. Chaos is bad if you fear chaos and how you perceive chaos. It's all about perspective. Chaos is a regenerative force in my opinion, while civilization is degenerative. Chaos is the only thing that keeps a being, an object, a collective, in constant upward motion. Evolution.

I used to be a staunch National Socialist. Then I took a break from the internet and found a lot of what I thought was important simply wasn't. To me, civilization itself is the chaos (the thing I perceive as bad). Nature is order. Nature is immutable, irrefutable, infinite and invincible. Civilization is not. Civilization is bound to fail. It has been shown to collapse numerous times around the globe throughout history. It's delicate, it's vulnerable, it's finite. For the number of people wanting to control it who share your worldview, there are an equal number of those who share the opposite worldview. Endlessly tugging and pulling in the direction they want it to go until cracks appear along the seams which grow into fissures, which grow into deep, dark holes, until it is torn asunder. Civilization is maybe thousands of years old. Nature is billions of years old.... Billions.

 Just because we are living at the most advanced time humans have lived in does not exclude us from the reality of civilization being a finite and vulnerable 'social construct'.

Channel 4's Jordan Peterson Hullabaloo

Channel 4, an English television station had an interview just days ago with a Canadian professor of Psychology, on their news program, who gained notoriety years ago from making what the politically correct crowd considered controversial videos on YouTube in the format of recording his lectures and debates he has had in public with people ideologically or at least topically opposed to him.

You can watch the video for yourself, but it was what one might expect from a left leaning, that is to say, mainstream, television station conducting an interview with someone they'd disagree with on issues of the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism. The interviewer is Cathy Newman. She used the typical tactics of trying to put words in his mouth and cutting him off before fully elucidating his points. There is nothing new or groundbreaking in this video suggested by Peterson, especially to no one who is right of center, or at least intellectually honest enough to amend held beliefs based on factual evidence presented to them.

The station, and Newman in particular have copped a lot of heat for her debating tactics, as one might expect, though none of it shocking, it's par for the course with the media these days. Channel 4 has said that as a result of the sheer amount of abuse and threats she has received that they have had to call in security experts. Evidence of these threats and abuse remains to be seen, among the well reasoned critiques as well as the admittedly harsh retorts to the debate and how Newman conducted herself.

They claim that the debate resulted in a torrent of abuse and threats, yet when people, as well as myself, have checked on YouTube, there is little to no commenting that could be construed as threats or abuse, certainly there is harsh critiques, but nothing that should make someone fear for their safety. Of course, the messages could be sent to Newman privately, but without them showing evidence of such there can be no certainty.

Personally I think they are just doing what a mainstream television station is wont to do when one of their talking heads is resoundingly made to look a fool as a result of their own actions of trying to wrangle someone who is practiced and more intelligent, into positions they neither hold nor entertain through their own ideological lens of the world.

Is this an important story? Maybe not. It is trending though, and the consensus tends to be on the side of Peterson. Showing that at least people are jaded of the politically correct social justice causes endlessly paraded in peoples faces day in and day out on television and on other mediums.

Europes loss of introspection

I think, one of the biggest reasons Europe has gone so dooladdy, is that Europeans have seemingly completely lost the will to take serious long hard looks at their mental and emotional states. Europeans have become slaves to external stimuli and motivations rather than being introspective and calculating as in the past.
What I mean by this is that Europe, or at least the general citizenry (TPTB know exactly what it is that they are doing!), for the most part, does not examine their actions or really understand why it is they do the things that they do. I am of course referring to the things that would threaten European demographics. Pathological altruism to out groups and the holding open of borders to enable the dumping of human trash lesser nations are all too delighted to be rid of.

There are some Europeans who you'd swear if the sun shone a certain way, you could see the strings of the puppeteer glint if you watched closely enough. There seems to be absolutely no thinking brain or persona to speak of in a lot of them, and it's why I've more or less stopped being so invested in the outcome of what will happen in or to Europe. That's not to say that I want Europe or more specifically the European people destroyed. I just think a large portion of people, globally, have to die out. To allow natural selection to reassert itself. The laws of nature don't care about traditions or generations. Nature only cares about who is fittest for survival. When you have a lot of people threading the streets, oblivious to their surroundings, who are more akin to prey animals than predators, well then, the predators will circle. The fox will get into the coop, just as much for sport, as for food.

White nationalists insist that a person is worth the colour of their skin and worthy of protection. I say that's nonsense. A vast quantity of Europeans are as worthless as anyone else those White nationalists despise. No one is safe from the laws of nature, myself included, and without civilization there to keep everyone threading water, a lot of us would, and will, drown. It's for the best. Humanities numbers have become far too numerous and they are only increasing more and more, thanks in no small part again to "Western Civilization" and it's foreign aid for so called third world nations. Without that aid, their numbers would naturally regulate.

No one can predict the future but unless Europe and Europeans re-evaluate themselves and become introspective, then they will remain the plaything of the predators.

Political Pointlessness

As I've mentioned previously, I've taken a prolonged break from politics and all associated activities online for going on a couple of months now, if not three.

When you take a break from the internet and political internet discussion in particular, you come to a few realizations. You come to the realization that just as much as anything else under the label of bread and circuses, politics is a means of control and deception. A method of keeping the people distracted. I mean, it's hardly anything new, I'm sure plenty of people think the same way.

It's especially apparent when you see internet comments of people debating political parties and the tactics and policies of those parties. It just strikes me as .... infantile? or facile? Without them meaning to be of course, and that might sound condescending as anything else you're likely to encounter. Yet, how many times has someone, somewhere else raised the same arguments and reasoning when debating political parties and their modus operandi? To me, from what I observed for the last few years of following politics especially identity politics closely, is that the battle, or rather, the war, has already been won. 
The people on the opposition have already taken the institutions and the governments, and have created the policies. They've already let in vast multitudes of people to "diversify" and create their utopian multicultural nations, with no apparent end in sight to the stream of people to come. They like to talk about how the population of Africa is heading towards an explosion, insinuating that all those poor Africans will have no choice but to emigrate to Europe. There is so much wrong in that insinuation I won't bore you with a long diatribe on the matter.

I'm not against people trying the political route, but personally, I don't see it as a viable solution. Of course, the retort would be to question me on what solutions I offer. I offer none. I have none. Simply put I'm just a man online who sees that things are simply not as they should be. I see the entire system as a corrupt entity wielded by people who innately hate the people they are supposed to be governing for, and through that contempt, methodically and systematically working towards the destruction of the varied European people and identity, through a myriad of methods already discussed ad nauseum online.

Is it really important?

I've taken a prolonged break of about a month from everything political online. It changed my perspective on things. I could feel a change of my views coming on even before I decided to take the break. The break turned into a complete abandonment of views I thought were necessary.
I've been a subscriber of Vargs (ThuleanPerspective) on YouTube for years now and taking that break has shown me what is truly important or better put, what isn't important.

It's not nations. It's not ideologies. It's not even the great mass of "whites" or more appropriately, Europeans that matter.

A mindset has infected the European people for centuries now, that is possibly not even of our own doing initially, but has been propagated willingly into further generations. The "enlightenment" ideals. Civilization itself is a part of this dysgenic effect that only serves to further degrade the quality of Europeans.

Most people on the right are fighting for he continuation of this malady named civilization. When what the world needs, and not just Europe, is a total collapse of civilization. It might sound 'larpy' or unhinged or something, but the simple fact is that the comfort afforded to the masses, if left intact, will only work towards bringing that same degeneracy and degradation back into effect as it has time and again throughout history.

Not to mention that the people in control of the system are in control of at least 50% of the worlds wealth. It's irrational to expect political change at this point. If I control that much, why would I allow slave upstarts to 'vote' me out of power?

There can be no creation without destruction.

Ancient Europeans were rapists?

"Varg, I would like to hear your theory on why rape is such a broad stereotype for our ancestors. Is this an attempt by invaders to strip the natives of their honor by demonizing them with the reputation for raping?"

"Yes. There was e. g. not one single contemporary source claiming the Vikings raped anybody. This is something Christians made up 100+ years later."

"Ibn Fadlan has several accounts of rape by the Volga vikings in the journal of his travels."

"Ibn Fadlan talks about "Vikings" who are as tall as trees ... it's nonsense from A to Z."

"Several rapes took place in monasteries, including of children. You have to remember these people were responsible for registering births and burying the dead. It's a well known fact that monks butt-raped each other, and did other sorts of abuses and sacrifices... Monasteries had to be fortified, or else the people there would end like several 6th century frankish "saints", who were "martyred" by local "bandits"..."

"+ThuleanPerspective ... you mean they didn't spit in cups and communally washed their faces in bowls of eachothers drool either? Or that they didn't have tattoos from head to toe, or that they didn't gangbang slave women before slitting their throats and sacrificing them in honor of their chieftain? Who would have thought Ibn Fadlan could be so disingenuous, given how honest and upstanding the muslims usually are, what with Taqiyya and all..."



 "+Danneskjold Ha ha. And notice how reliable that Muslim Arab suddenly becomes in the eyes of Christians, because he talks nonsense about Pagans... anything else coming from his mouth though... they will not trust!"

"+ThuleanPerspective Well, given how much cognitive dissonance they can have in regards to their 'own' religion, why not extend that to everything else! I don't even understand why the christians and muslims aren't allies yet anyway, since they are almost identical in their moral-nihilism, and their desire to watch the world burn."