Bye bye 1st Amendment

In his latest article Andrew Hamilton wrote: “I recently had the experience of accessing the Internet at a public library and being blocked from reading Counter-Currents—and my own work—because it constituted ‘Intolerance and Hate’.” He added that besides C-C the other pro-white blogsites that have been blocked from state-run facilities are “The Occidental Observer, DavidDuke.com, Vanguard News Network, The West’s Darkest Hour”—this very blog.

Later in his article Hamilton said that VDare is the only dissident website whose editor has asked readers to let him “know when they find VDARE.COM is blocked… With reader help, we have already identified four commercial filters that blocked us; all have backed off after receiving a lawyer’s letter.”

Alas, I cannot afford a lawyer. To boot, my Mac broke down a few days ago and I cannot afford to fix it either. (In the country where I am presently living fixing a broken Mac is like purchasing a brand-new computer.)

As visitors may appreciate, until my financial situation stabilizes The West’s Darkest Hour will take a break. But before I take my leave let me share a revelation.

Long before I became aware of racialist literature I had been interested in the snares of language. Since one of my purposes has been to translate back to Oldspeak our enemy’s Newspeak, I have always wondered what would a proper retro-translation of the word “racism” might be.

I’ve concluded that, just as “pagan” was coined in the 4th century to turn into a second-class citizen the adept of the pre-Christian Greco-Roman culture, for analogous reasons “racist” was coined in the century when we were born.

Retro-translated to Oldspeak “racist” simply means pro-Caucasoid people, or more accurately pro-Nordish people—pro-white for short. This is why “Anti-racist is a code-word for anti-white,” as the mantra crowd likes to say over the boards. But I much prefer a mantra defined in positive terms than one defined negatively:

“Racist is a code-word for pro-white.”

That is, those who advocate the pre-liberal, traditional Western culture for the white peoples of Europe, North America, Australia and New Zeeland.

Apparently the de facto rejection of the First Amendment that blocks this site and others from public facilities in the US means that in North America you won’t be able to be pro-white anymore.

Don’t forget to keep the best articles you see here (and on the addenda) in your hard-drives as a prophylactic measure of still more totalitarian times…

Enemy mine

Make no mistake: Wikipedia is our enemy.

I was officially retired from the wiki but now that I tried to say something in the talk pages of the wiki articles on Aztec and child sacrifice I followed the recent contributions of one of the editors with whom I had a terrible discussion some years ago, which led me to the wiki article “Racism”.

WikipediaYes: most wiki editors are real goners and we know it is useless trying to discuss with them. The Judeo-liberal trick of their site lies in what they call the “reliable sources” policy, which means that you cannot quote alternative media or even the intellectuals, scholars and historians that the anti-white establishment marginalizes. While trying to edit wiki articles you got to stick to the sources that had obtained the System’s imprimatur, especially articles dealing with race, ethnic conflict or the subversive tribe.

Metapedia, which I quoted here, has nailed Wikipedia. But I would love if a contributor of The Occidental Observer deconstructed, point by point, the ridiculous wiki article on racism.

Hellstorm: still taboo after 70 years

“I have only been able to read the first two chapters [of Hellstorm]. Truly it is a book that would shorten your life expectancy if you read it to completion.

What was done to the German Volk during and post war was an EVIL that can only be justly avenged on the Day of Judgment. My heart bleeds for the relentless and savage oppression that they had to endure, especially the women and girls. And for what?”

—A commenter

 
banned sculpture

News note of 14 October:

A statue which shows a Soviet soldier raping a pregnant woman as he holds a gun to her head has been removed and the artist arrested by authorities in northern Poland.

The statue, entitled Komm Frau (Come Here Woman), appeared on Gdansk’s Avenue of Victory on Saturday evening.

Artist Jerzy Szumczyk told Polish Radio he had researched the subject of rape by the Red Army as it made its way across Eastern Europe between 1944 and 1945 towards Berlin. The fifth year student at Gdansk’s Academy of Fine Arts was so emotionally affected by what he read he felt compelled to express his feelings through art and created the sculpture.

But the Polish artist’s attempt to pay tribute to the victims was short lived and the statue was removed this morning. Police spokeswoman Aleksandra Siewert said: “The artist was detained and released after questioning. The matter will now be taken up on Monday by the prosecutor’s office.”

Before Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Gdansk was a free city and more than 95 per cent of people living in Gdansk at the time were German. But millions of German women were raped by Red Army soldiers between 1944 and 1945 during the dying days of Nazis Germany.

Source: here

A rant from London

In the thread “Stubbs on anti-Nordicism” a woman, Maggie, tried to post a comment that, instead of discussing it there, I better use it as a separate entry:

This blog is a disgrace and should not be on the internet. Who are you (and any of these ridiculous writers that you are so fond of quoting) to decide which race is more superior to another, and to decide that only Aryans should be preserved? People like you are the Tom Buchanans of the 21st century, spouting utter drivel about race and the minute distinctions between races.

Can I just say – who actually cares? Race is a foolish notion introduced by people like yourself to discriminate against others because of the colour of their skin. It is true that in the years to come there will be wars about food and land – because there are too many people on this planet. I accept that. However, removing people from “Nordic” (what a ridiculous term) countries to the countries of their ethnic origin will most probably cause even more fighting, unrest and disruption in this already flawed world.
And by the way, your views on women are completely outdated and shameful. Women have done so much to help this world when the pigheadedness of men has almost ruined everything.

Looking back over what I have written, I admit it is flawed, slightly incoherent and does not address the arguments you made in the article. But I am just simply disgusted and angered that a website like this, promoting bigoted, clearly racist views, is allowed to exist in the 21st century.


BookWiseMy response. Maggie: Before a mere knee-jerk reaction based upon decades of anti-white propaganda, I would recommend a little of owl wisdom. Please read the most elemental articles linked on the sidebar:
 

BASIC (A, B, C):

The fourteen words

Blood and soil

A very brief manifesto

 

BEWARE OF THE NEWSPEAK:

The “mantra”

The word “hate”

The word “racism”

Published in: on October 15, 2013 at 4:29 pm  Comments (18)  

The new Babylon

babylon


Michael O’Meara, the first white nationalist author I ever read, has said that the United States, as the architect of the prevailing world system, is the source of all evil. But a humble book by Tomislav Sunić is even more focused on the subject. In fact, to me it is the key to understand the West’s darkest hour.

Here there are a few quotes:

“America is the least homogeneous country in the Western hemisphere… But there is one common feature which is characteristic for all Americans, regardless of their social and racial background or status; namely their rejection of their previous roots.”

Homo Americanus, pages 1-2


“The American species, Homo americanus, exists all over Europe now…

Following the Second World War, hundreds of European and American authors were removed from library shelves on the basis of their allegedly extremist, racist and unscientific character.”

Homo Americanus, pages 5, 7


Lawrence R. Brown, in his magnum opus The Might of the West… acknowledges that the Declaration was a form of political theology, compatible with the spirit of the time of Enlightenment, and therefore replete with platitudes and “self-evident” truths. The Preamble of the Declaration could very well fit into the Middle Ages.

Homo Americanus, page 17


“Not a single politician will ever admit that America is a theocratic system with a peculiar political theology.”

Homo Americanus, page 3


“Ethnic or racial discrimination, let alone charges of anti-Semitism, are viewed in postmodern Americanism as the ultimate intellectual sin… Certain dogmatic views, particularly those regarding the sacred Jewish question and inherent goodness of non-European races, are imposed by force and must be accepted by all…”

Homo Americanus, page 14


“However, there seems to be a contradiction in their [white racialists] analyses regarding the waning of the Euro-American world. While they bewail the passing of the white race, they fail to critically examine the economic foundations of Americanism, i.e. an ideology that is fully propitious for low wage non-European immigrant workers… Why should one worry about the passage of the great white race if that race has only been involved in endless economic transactions? This seems to be a feature of many white American racialists who stubbornly refuse to criticize capitalism…”

Homo Americanus, page 23


“It must be recalled that the passionate American desire to make the world safer for democracy also led, after World War II, to the creation of the Nuremberg Tribunal whose legal structures make up the judicial framework of the postmodern European Union, including the European Criminal Code… They opened up, long ago, a Pandora Box.”

Homo Americanus, page 60


Both the American and the Soviet experiments were founded on the same principles of egalitarianism… At the beginning of the third millennium, the immense egalitarian meta-narrative, encapsulated in Americanism, is very much alive… Both Homo sovieticus and Homo americanus herald the slogan that all men are created equal… All academic discussions about genetic or racial differences are quickly neutralized by the all-encompassing words such as “racism” or “hate speech.”

Homo Americanus, pages 55-56


Hunter – 4

dr_pierce




Excerpted from
William Pierce’s novel
Hunter, which depicts one man’s attempt to right the wrongs in society by murdering interracial couples:



First and foremost was his study project… Was it an intrinsic flaw in Western civilization, was it the Jews, or was it a combination of things?

One could always find the facts about the extermination of the kulaks in the Ukraine or the slaughter of the Polish officer corps in the Katyn Forest in the libraries, in scholarly works and government reports, but never in anything that might affect public opinion. Now that’s out in the open—but none of the mass-circulation materials about those things being published today mention the Jews’ responsibility for them. The one exception, perhaps, is Solzhenitsyn’s treatment of the gulag system, but I’m not sure how many people have really read that. And even there one has to read between the lines to get the message… It’s very frustrating. It’s as if the issues have been deliberately muddied, so people like me would have a hard time getting at the truth.

David Friedrich Strauss, 1

The following is excerpted from Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus, published in 1906: a scholarly yet readable introduction to the field of New Testament studies from a modern viewpoint. Schweitzer’s seventh chapter is titled “David Friedrich Strauss – The Man And His Fate”:

DF Strauss

In order to understand Strauss one must love him. he was not the greatest, and not the deepest, of theologians, but he was the most absolutely sincere. His insight and his errors were alike the insight and the errors of a prophet. And he had a prophet’s fate. Disappointment and suffering gave his life its consecration. It unrolls itself before us like a tragedy, in which, in the end, the gloom is lightened by the mild radiance which shines forth from the nobility of the sufferer.

After being for a short time Deputy-professor at Maulbronn, he took his doctor’s degree with a dissertation on the apokatastasis (restoration of all things. Acts iii. 21). This work is lost. From his letters it appears that he treated the subject chiefly from the religious-historical point of view.

In October 1831 he went to Berlin to hear Hegel and Schleiermacher. On the 14th of November Hegel, whom he had visited shortly before, was carried off by cholera. Strauss heard the news in Schleiermacher’s house, from Schleiermacher himself, and is said to have exclaimed, with a certain want of tact, considering who his informant was: “And it was to hear him that I came to Berlin!”

Strauss felt himself called upon to come forward as an apostle of Hegel, and lectured upon Hegel’s logic with tremendous success. “In my theology,” he writes in a letter of 1833, “philosophy occupies such a predominant position that my theological views can only be worked out to completeness by means of a more thorough study of philosophy, and this course of study I am now going to prosecute uninterruptedly and without concerning myself whether it leads me back to theology or not.” Further on he says: “If I know myself rightly, my position in regard to theology is that what interests me in theology causes offence, and what does not cause offence is indifferent to me. For this reason I have refrained from delivering lectures on theology.”

Considering its character, the work was rapidly produced. He wrote it sitting at the window of the Repetents’ room, which looks out upon the gateway-arch. When its two volumes appeared in 1835 the name of the author was wholly unknown, except for some critical studies upon the Gospels. This book, into which he had poured his youthful enthusiasm, rendered him famous in a moment—and utterly destroyed his prospects. Among his opponents the most prominent was Steudel, a member of the theological faculty, who, as president of the Stift, made representations against him to the Ministry, and succeeded in securing his removal from the post of “Repetent.” The hopes which Strauss had placed upon his friends were disappointed. Only two or three at most dared to publish anything in his defence.

Towards the end of the ’thirties he became conscious of a growing impulse towards more positive views. The criticisms of his opponents had made some impression upon him. The second volume of polemics was laid aside. In its place appeared the third edition of the Life of Jesus, 1838-1839, containing a series of amazing concessions. These inconsistencies he removed in the next edition, acknowledging that he did not know how he could so have temporarily vacillated in his point of view.

For a moment it seemed as though his rehabilitation would be accomplished. In January 1839 the noble-minded Hitzig succeeded in getting him appointed to the vacant chair of dogmatics in Zurich. But the orthodox and pietist parties protested so vehemently that the Government was obliged to revoke the appointment. Strauss was pensioned off, without ever entering on his office.

About that time his mother died. In 1841 he lost his father. When the estate came to be settled up, it was found that his affairs were in a less unsatisfactory condition than had been feared. Strauss was secure against want. The success of his second great work, his Christian Theology (published in 1840-41), compensated him for his disappointment at Zurich. In conception it is perhaps even greater than the Life of Jesus; and in depth of thought it is to be classed with the most important contributions to theology. In spite of that it never attracted so much attention as the earlier work. Strauss continued to be known as the author of the Life of Jesus. Any further ground of offence which he might give was regarded as quite subsidiary.

And the book contains matter for offence in no common degree. At the end of the second volume, where battle is joined on the issue of personal immortality, all these ideas play their part in the struggle. Personal immortality is finally rejected in every form. It is not the application of the mythological explanation to the Gospel history which irrevocably divides Strauss from the theologians, but the question of personal immortality.

At the very time when Strauss was beginning to breathe freely once more, had turned his back upon all attempts at compromise, and reconciled himself to giving up teaching; and when, after settling his father’s affairs, he had the certainty of being secure against penury; at that very time he sowed for himself the seeds of a new, immitigable suffering by his marriage with Agnese Schebest, the famous singer. After some years they procured a divorce, custody of the children being assigned to the father. The lady took up her residence in Stuttgart, and Strauss paid her an allowance up to her death in 1870.

What he suffered may be read between the lines in the passage in The Old Faith and the New where he speaks of the sacredness of marriage and the admissibility of divorce. The wound bled inwardly. His mental powers were disabled. At this time he wrote little. Only in the apologue “Julian the Apostate, or the Romanticist on the throne of the Caesars”—that brilliant satire upon Frederic William IV, written in 1847—is there a flash of the old spirit.

He had no practice in speaking without manuscript, and cut a poor figure as a debater. When, subsequently, the President of the Chamber called him to order for asserting that a previous speaker had “concealed by sleight of hand” (wegeskamotiert, “juggled away”) an important point in the debate, he refused to accept the vote of censure, resigned his membership, and ceased to attend the diets. As he himself put it, he “jumped out of the boat.” Then began a period of restless wandering, during which he beguiled his time with literary work. He wrote, inter alia, upon Lessing, Hutten, and Reimarus, rediscovering the last-named for his fellow-countrymen.

At the end of the ’sixties he returned once more to theology. His Life of Jesus adapted for the German People appeared in 1864. In the preface he refers to Renan, and freely acknowledges the great merits of his work.

His last work, The Old Faith and the New, appeared in 1872. Once more, as in the work on theology published in 1840-1841, he puts to himself the question. What is there of permanence in this artificial compound of theology and philosophy, faith and thought? But he puts the question with a certain bitterness, and shows himself too much under the influence of Darwinism, by which his mind was at that time dominated. The Hegelian system of thought, which served as a firm basis for the work of 1840, has fallen in ruins. Strauss is alone with his own thoughts, endeavouring to raise himself above the new scientific worldview. His powers of thought, never, for all his critical acumen, strong on the creative side, and now impaired by age, were unequal to the task. There is no force and no greatness in the book.

To the question, “Are we still Christians?” he answers, “No.” But to his second question, “Have we still a religion?” he is prepared to give an affirmative answer, if the assumption is granted that the feeling of dependence, of self-surrender, of inner freedom, which has sprung from the pantheistic world-view, can be called religion. It was a dead book, in spite of the many editions which it went through, and the battle which raged over it was, like the fiercest of the Homeric battles, a combat over the dead.

The theologians declared Strauss bankrupt, and felt themselves rich because they had made sure of not being ruined by a similar unimaginative honesty. Friedrich Nietzsche, from the height of his would-be Schopenhauerian pessimism, mocked at the fallen hero.

Before the year was out Strauss began to suffer from an internal ulcer. For many months he bore his sufferings with quiet resignation and inner serenity, until on the 8th of February 1874, in his native town of Ludwigsburg, death set him free.

He was buried on a stormy February day.

Hermann Samuel Reimarus

The following is excerpted from a classic in Christological studies, Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus, published in 1906: a scholarly yet readable introduction to the field of New Testament studies from a modern viewpoint. Schweitzer’s second chapter is titled “Hermann Samuel Reimarus”:

Hermann_Samuel_Reimarus

“Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Junger.” Noch ein Fragment des Wolfenbuttelschen Ungenannten. Herausgegeben von Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Braun- schweig, 1778, 276 pp. (The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples: A further Instalment of the anonymous Woltenbiittel Fragments. Published by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Brunswick, 1778.)



Before Reimarus, no one had attempted to form a historical conception of the life of Jesus. Luther had not so much as felt that he cared to gain a clear idea of the order of the recorded events. Speaking of the chronology of the cleansing of the Temple, which in John falls at the beginning, in the Synoptists near the close, of Jesus’ public life, he remarks: “The Gospels follow no order in recording the acts and miracles of Jesus, and the matter is not, after all, of much importance. If a difficulty arises in regard to the Holy Scripture and we cannot solve it, we must just let it alone.”

When the Lutheran theologians began to consider the question of harmonising the events, things were still worse. Osiander (1498-1552), in his “Harmony of the Gospels,” maintained the principle that if an event is recorded more than once in the Gospels, in different connexions, it happened more than once and in different connexions. The daughter of Jairus was therefore raised from the dead several times; on one occasion Jesus allowed the devils whom He cast out of a single demoniac to enter into a herd of swine, on another occasion, those whom He cast out of two demoniacs; there were two cleansings of the Temple, and so forth. The correct view of the Synoptic Gospels as being interdependent was first formulated by Griesbach.

Thus there had been nothing to prepare the world for a work of such power as that of Reimarus. It is true, there had appeared earlier, in 1768, a Life of Jesus by Johann Jakob Hess (1741-1828), written from the standpoint of the older rationalism, but it retains so much supernaturalism and follows so much the lines of a paraphrase of the Gospels, that there was nothing to indicate to the world what a master-stroke the spirit of the time was preparing.

Not much is known about Reimarus. For his contemporaries he had no existence, and it was [David Friedrich] Strauss who first made his name known in literature. He was born in Hamburg on the 22nd of December, 1694, and spent his life there as a professor of Oriental Languages. He died in 1768. Several of his writings appeared during his lifetime, all of them asserting the claims of rational religion as against the faith of the Church; one of them, for example, being an essay on “The Leading Truths of Natural Religion.” His magnum opus, however, which laid the historic basis of his attacks, was only circulated, during his lifetime, among his acquaintances, as an anonymous manuscript.

In 1774 Lessing began to publish the most important portions of it, and up to 1778 had published seven fragments, thereby involving himself in a quarrel with Goetze, the Chief Pastor of Hamburg. The manuscript of the whole, which runs to 4000 pages, is preserved in the Hamburg municipal library.

The following are the titles of [some] Fragments which he published:

• The Passing of the Israelites through the Red Sea
• Showing that the books of the Old Testament were
not written to reveal a Religion
• Concerning the story of the Resurrection
• The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples

The monograph on the passing of the Israelites through the Red Sea is one of the ablest, wittiest, and most acute which has ever been written. It exposes all the impossibilities of the narrative in the Priestly Codex.

To say that the fragment on “The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples” is a magnificent piece of work is barely to do it justice. This essay is not only one of the greatest events in the history of criticism, it is also a masterpiece of general literature. The language is as a rule crisp and terse, pointed and epigrammatic—the language of a man who is not “engaged in literary composition” but is wholly concerned with the facts. At times, however, it rises to heights of passionate feeling, and then it is as though the fires of a volcano were painting lurid pictures upon dark clouds. Seldom has there been a hate so eloquent, so lofty a scorn; but then it is seldom that a work has been written in the just consciousness of so absolute a superiority to contemporary opinion. And withal, there is dignity and serious purpose; Reimarus’ work is no pamphlet. This was the first time that a really historical mind, thoroughly conversant with the sources, had undertaken the criticism of the tradition.

[Chechar’s note: Because the Christians destroyed all copies of Porphyry’s book, we don’t really know if Porphyry’s anti-Christian polemic was also “thoroughly conversant with the New Testament sources.” From a few fragments discovered by the end of the 20th century I believe it was. One could barely imagine the revolution in thought that could have occurred since the later phases of the Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages had Porphyry’s biblical criticism been allowed to survive 1,300 years before Reimarus…]

It was Lessing’s greatness that he grasped the significance of this criticism, and felt that it must lead either to the destruction or to the recasting of the idea of revelation. He recognised that the introduction of the historical element would transform and deepen rationalism. Convinced that the fateful moment had arrived, he disregarded the scruples of Reimarus’ family and the objections of Nicolai and Mendelssohn, and, though inwardly trembling for that which he himself held sacred, he flung the torch with his own hand.

Reimarus takes as his starting-point the question regarding the content of the preaching of Jesus. “We are justified,” he says, “in drawing an absolute distinction between the teaching of the Apostles in their writings and what Jesus Himself in His own lifetime proclaimed and taught.” What belongs to the preaching of Jesus is clearly to be recognised. It is contained in two phrases of identical meaning, “Repent, and believe the Gospel,” or, as it is put elsewhere, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”

Jesus shared the Jewish racial exclusiveness wholly and unreservedly. According to Matt. x. 5 He forbade His disciples to declare to the Gentiles the coming of the Kingdom of God. Evidently, therefore, His purpose did not embrace them. Had it been otherwise, the hesitation of Peter in Acts x. and xi., and the necessity of justifying the conversion of Cornelius, would be incomprehensible.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are no evidence that Jesus intended to found a new religion. In the first place the genuineness of the command to baptize in Matt. xxviii. 19 is questionable, not only as a saying ascribed to the risen Jesus, but also because it is universalistic in outlook, and because it implies the doctrine of the Trinity.

The “Lord’s Supper,” again, was no new institution, but merely an episode at the last Paschal Meal of the Kingdom which was passing away, and was intended “as an anticipatory celebration of the Passover of the New Kingdom.” A Lord’s Supper in our sense, “cut loose from the Passover,” would have been inconceivable to Jesus, and not less so to His disciples. Miracles have no basis in fact, but owe their place in the narrative to the feeling that the miracle-stories of the Old Testament must be repeated in the case of Jesus, but on a grander scale. It is useless to appeal to the miracles, any more than to the “Sacraments,” as evidence for the founding of a new religion…

For [a] popular uprising, however, He waited in vain. Twice He believed that it was near at hand. The first time was when He was sending out the disciples and said to them: “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matt. x. 23). He thought that, at the preaching of the disciples, the people would flock to Him from every quarter and immediately proclaim Him Messiah; but His expectation was disappointed. The people in Jerusalem refused to rise, as the Galilaeans had refused at the time when the disciples were sent out to rouse them.

All this implies that the time of the fulfilment of these hopes was not thought of by Jesus and His disciples as at all remote. In Matt. xvi. 28, for example, He says: “Truly I say unto you there are some standing here who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” There is no justification for twisting this about or explaining it away. It simply means that Jesus promises the fulfilment of all Messianic hopes before the end of the existing generation.

Thus the disciples were prepared for anything rather than that which actually happened. Jesus had never said a word to them about His dying and rising again, otherwise they would not have so played the coward at His death, nor have been so astonished at His “resurrection.” The three or four sayings referring to these events must therefore have been put into His mouth later, in order to make it appear that He had foreseen these events in His original plan.

Inasmuch as the non-fulfilment of its eschatology is not admitted, our Christianity rests upon a fraud.

Such is Reimarus’ reconstruction of the history. We can well understand that his work must have given offence when it appeared, for it is a polemic, not an objective historical study. But we have no right simply to dismiss it in a word, as a Deistic production, as Otto Schmiedel, for example, does; it is time that Reimarus came to his own, and that we should recognise a historical performance of no mean order in this piece of Deistic polemics. His work is perhaps the most splendid achievement in the whole course of the historical investigation of the life of Jesus, for he was the first to grasp the fact that the world of thought in which Jesus moved was essentially eschatological.

In the light of the clear perception of the elements of the problem which Reimarus had attained, the whole movement of theology, down to Johannes Weiss, appears retrograde. In all its work the thesis is ignored or obscured that Jesus, as a historical personality, is to be regarded, not as the founder of a new religion, but as the final product of the eschatological and apocalyptic thought of Late Judaism. Every sentence of Johannes Weiss’s Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (1892) is a vindication, a rehabilitation, of Reimarus as a historical thinker.

Even so the traveller on the plain sees from afar the distant range of mountains. Then he loses sight of them again. His way winds slowly upwards through the valleys, drawing ever nearer to the peaks, until at last, at a turn of the path, they stand before him, not in the shapes which they had seemed to take from the distant plain, but in their actual forms. Reimarus was the first, after eighteen centuries of misconception, to have an inkling of what eschatology really was.

The sole mistake of Reimarus—the assumption that the eschatology was earthly and political in character. Thus theology shared at least the error of the man whom it knew only as a Deist, not as an historian, and whose true greatness was not recognised even by Strauss, though he raised a literary monument to him.

The solution offered by Reimarus may be wrong; the data of observation from which he starts out are, beyond question, right, because the primary datum of all is genuinely historical. He recognised that two systems of Messianic expectation were present side by side in Late Judaism. But what matters the mistake in comparison with the fact that the problem was really grasped?

The attitude of Jesus towards the law, and the process by which the disciples came to take up a freer attitude, was grasped and explained by him so accurately that modern historical science does not need to add a word, but would be well pleased if at least half the theologians of the present day had got as far.

Further, he recognised that primitive Christianity was not something which grew, so to speak, out of the teaching of Jesus, but that it came into being as a new creation, in consequence of events and circumstances which added something to that preaching which it did not previously contain; and that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, in the historical sense of these terms, were not instituted by Jesus, but created by the early Church on the basis of certain historical assumptions.

Still more remarkable is his eye for exegetical detail. He has an unfailing instinct for pregnant passages like Matt. x. 23, xvi. 28, which are crucial for the interpretation of large masses of the history. The fact is there are some who are historians by the grace of God, who from their mother’s womb have an instinctive feeling for the real. They follow through all the intricacy and confusion of reported fact the pathway of reality, like a stream which, despite the rocks that encumber its course and the windings of its valley, finds its way inevitably to the sea. No erudition can supply the place of this historical instinct, but erudition sometimes serves a useful purpose, inasmuch as it produces in its possessors the pleasing belief that they are historians, and thus secures their services for the cause of history.

In truth they are at best merely doing the preliminary spade-work of history, collecting for a future historian the dry bones of fact, from which, with the aid of his natural gift, he can recall the past to life. More often, however, the way in which erudition seeks to serve history is by suppressing historical discoveries as long as possible, and leading out into the field to oppose the one true view an army of possibilities. By arraying these in support of one another it finally imagines that it has created out of possibilities a living reality. This obstructive erudition is the special prerogative of theology, in which, even at the present day, a truly marvellous scholarship often serves only to blind the eyes to elementary truths.

Reimarus’ work was neglected, and the stimulus which it was capable of imparting failed to take effect. He had no predecessors; neither had he any disciples. His work is one of those supremely great works which pass and leave no trace, because they are before their time; to which later generations pay a just tribute of admiration, but owe no gratitude.

Thus the magnificent overture in which are announced all the motifs of the future historical treatment of the life of Jesus breaks off with a sudden discord, remains isolated and incomplete, and leads to nothing further.

Oh idiot Swedes!

Silly boiled frogs…!

husbyrioter

From Gates of Vienna:

A third night of rioting has engulfed the suburbs of Stockholm, spreading from Husby to Tensta, Kista, Rinkeby, Jakobsberg, and other culturally enriched neighborhoods. The Swedish and Norwegian media are covering the events—assiduously avoiding saying anything about the ethnicity or immigrant status of the perpetrators.

Commenter said…

Elect crazy people, take away border controls, feed the population with pc kook aid and voila! We don’t seem to respond to wake up calls anymore.

Commenter said…

Let it burn. Don’t send in Fire Rescue, Police or Paramedics. Let them burn down their homes and then be smart. Tell them they have no homes to put them in. They can live on the streets in the ashes they made or go back to the Hellholes they came from.

That is what sane people do. These idiots will cave in to the Muslim demands immediately.

Commenter said…

Burn down the whole city. When a country reaches the point that fathers would rather bow to political correctness while their own daughters are being sexually taunted, abused and even raped…. Swedes don’t deserve Sweden anymore.

_______________

See also what John Martínez commented about it here at WDH.

Heresy!

The Richwine IQ affair



sci-am-logoScientific American said

Clarification: Some readers may wonder what I mean by “ban,” so let me spell it out. I envision a federal prohibition against speech or publications supporting racial theories of intelligence. All papers, books and other documents advocating such theories will be burned, deleted or otherwise destroyed. Those who continue espousing such theories either publicly or privately (as determined by monitoring of email, phone calls or other communications) will be detained indefinitely in Guantanamo until or unless a secret tribunal overseen by me says they have expressed sufficient remorse and can be released.

DennisManganDennis Mangan said

Genuinely, unironically shocked. Cynics like us reactionaries aren’t usually shocked easily, but the Richwine affair has left me aghast. The swiftness with which Richwine and anyone and anything associated with him, including Harvard, have been denounced as beyond the pale of humanity, was stunning. We now have calls demanding that Harvard investigate—or be investigated for, one isn’t really sure—the PhD that it granted Richwine. It’s not terribly surprising that the Heritage Foundation fired Richwine, since we already knew that conservatives, especially those under the Republican brand label, were mostly useless. But will we see Harvard itself make a move toward somehow punishing Richwine’s graduate advisers, or putting an end to all IQ research, or some other action? Stranger things have happened…

The resemblance between what the Church did to Galileo and what society is doing to Richwine has not escaped the notice of some observers…

Things are getting bad out there.

murrayCharles Murray said

I have a personal interest in this story because Jason Richwine was awarded a fellowship from my employer, the American Enterprise Institute, in 2008-09, and I reviewed the draft of his dissertation. A rereading of the dissertation last weekend confirmed my recollection that Richwine had meticulously assembled and analyzed the test-score data, which showed exactly what he said they showed: mean IQ-score differences between Latinos and non-Latino whites, found consistently across many datasets and across time after taking factors such as language proficiency and cultural bias into account. I had disagreements then and now about his policy recommendations, but not about the empirical accuracy of his research or the scholarly integrity of the interpretations with which I disagreed.

In resigning, Dr. Richwine joins distinguished company. The most famous biologist in the world, James D. Watson, was forced to retire from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 2007 because of a factually accurate remark to a British journalist about low IQ scores among African blacks. In 2006, Larry Summers, president of Harvard, had to resign after a series of attacks that began with his empirically well-informed remarks about gender differences. These are just the most visible examples of a corruption that has spread throughout American intellectual discourse: If you take certain positions, you will be cast into outer darkness. Whether your statements are empirically accurate is irrelevant.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers