Darkening Age, 2


 
INTRODUCTION

Athens, AD 532

‘That all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims.’

— St Augustine

This was no time for a philosopher to be philosophical. ‘The tyrant’, as the philosophers put it, was in charge and had many alarming habits. In Damascius’s own time, houses were entered and searched for books and objects deemed unacceptable. If any were found they would be removed and burned in triumphant bonfires in town squares. Discussion of religious matters in public had been branded a ‘damnable audacity’ and forbidden by law. Anyone who made sacrifices to the old gods could, the law said, be executed. Across the empire, ancient and beautiful temples had been attacked, their roofs stripped, their treasures melted down, their statues smashed. To ensure that their rules were kept, the government started to employ spies, officials and informers to report back on what went on in the streets and marketplaces of cities and behind closed doors in private homes. As one influential Christian speaker put it, his congregation should hunt down sinners and drive them into the way of salvation as relentlessly as a hunter pursues his prey into nets.

The consequences of deviation from the rules could be severe and philosophy had become a dangerous pursuit. Damascius’s own brother had been arrested and tortured to make him reveal the names of other philosophers, but had, as Damascius recorded with pride, ‘received in silence and with fortitude the many blows of the rod that landed on his back’. Others in Damascius’ s circle of philosophers had been tortured; hung up by the wrists until they gave away the names of their fellow scholars. A fellow philosopher had, some years before, been flayed alive. Another had been beaten before a judge until the blood flowed down his back.

The savage ‘tyrant’ was Christianity. From almost the very first years that a Christian emperor had ruled in Rome in AD 312, liberties had begun to be eroded. And then, in AD 529, a final blow had fallen. It was decreed that all those who laboured ‘under the insanity of paganism’—in other words Damascius and his fellow philosophers—would be no longer allowed to teach. There was worse. It was also announced that anyone who had not yet been baptized was to come forward and make themselves known at the ‘holy churches’ immediately, or face exile. And if anyone allowed themselves to be baptized, then slipped back into their old pagan ways, they would be executed.

For Damascius and his fellow philosophers, this was the end. They could not worship their old gods. They could not earn any money. Above all, they could not now teach philosophy. The Academy, the greatest and most famous school in the ancient world—perhaps ever—a school that could trace its history back almost a millennium, closed.

It is impossible to imagine how painful the journey through Athens would have been. As they went, they would have walked through the same streets and squares where their heroes—Socrates, Plato, Aristotle—had once walked and worked and argued. They would have seen in them a thousand reminders that those celebrated times were gone. The temples of Athens were closed and crumbling and many of the brilliant statues that had once stood in them had been defaced or removed. Even the Acropolis had not escaped: its great statue of Athena had been torn down.

Little of what is covered by this book is well-known outside academic circles. Certainly it was not well-known by me when I grew up in Wales, the daughter of a former nun and a former monk. My childhood was, as you might expect, a fairly religious one. We went to church every Sunday; said grace before meals, and I said my prayers (or at any rate the list of requests which I considered to be the same thing) every night. When Catholic relatives arrived we play-acted not films but First Holy Communion and, at times, even actual communion…

As children, both had been taught by monks and nuns; and as a monk and a nun they had both taught. They believed as an article of faith that the Church that had enlightened their minds was what had enlightened, in distant history, the whole of Europe. It was the Church, they told me, that had kept alive the Latin and Greek of the classical world in the benighted Middle Ages, until it could be picked up again by the wider world in the Renaissance. And, in a way, my parents were right to believe this, for it is true. Monasteries did preserve a lot of classical knowledge.

But it is far from the whole truth. In fact, this appealing narrative has almost entirely obscured an earlier, less glorious story. For before it preserved, the Church destroyed.

In a spasm of destruction never seen before—and one that appalled many non-Christians watching it—during the fourth and fifth centuries, the Christian Church demolished, vandalized and melted down a simply staggering quantity of art. Classical statues were knocked from their plinths, defaced, defiled and torn limb from limb. Temples were razed to their foundations and burned to the ground. A temple widely considered to be the most magnificent in the entire empire was levelled.

Many of the Parthenon sculptures were attacked, faces were mutilated, hands and limbs were hacked off and gods were decapitated. Some of the finest statues on the whole building were almost certainly smashed off then ground into rubble that was then used to build churches.

Books—which were often stored in temples—suffered terribly. The remains of the greatest library in the ancient world, a library that had once held perhaps 700,000 volumes, were destroyed in this way by Christians. It was over a millennium before any other library would even come close to its holdings. Works by censured philosophers were forbidden and bonfires blazed across the empire as outlawed books went up in flames.

Fragment of a 5th-century scroll
showing the destruction of the Serapeum
by Pope Theophilus of Alexandria

The work of Democritus, one of the greatest Greek philosophers and the father of atomic theory, was entirely lost. Only one per cent of Latin literature survived the centuries. Ninety-nine per cent was lost.

The violent assaults of this period were not the preserve of cranks and eccentrics. Attacks against the monuments of the ‘mad’, ‘damnable’ and ‘insane’ pagans were encouraged and led by men at the very heart of the Catholic Church. The great St Augustine himself declared to a congregation in Carthage that ‘that all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!’ St Martin, still one of the most popular French saints, rampaged across the Gaulish countryside levelling temples and dismaying locals as he went. In Egypt, St Theophilus razed one of the most beautiful buildings in the ancient world. In Italy, St Benedict overturned a shrine to Apollo. In Syria, ruthless bands of monks terrorized the countryside, smashing down statues and tearing the roofs from temples.

St John Chrysostom encouraged his congregations to spy on each other. Fervent Christians went into people’s houses and searched for books, statues and paintings that were considered demonic. This kind of obsessive attention was not cruelty. On the contrary: to restrain, to attack, to compel, even to beat a sinner was— if you turned them back to the path of righteousness—to save them. As Augustine, the master of the pious paradox put it: ‘Oh, merciful savagery.’

The results of all of this were shocking and, to non-Christians, terrifying. Townspeople rushed to watch as internationally famous temples were destroyed. Intellectuals looked on in despair as volumes of supposedly unchristian books—often in reality texts on the liberal arts—went up in flames. Art lovers watched in horror as some of the greatest sculptures in the ancient world were smashed by people too stupid to appreciate them—and certainly too stupid to recreate them.

Since then, and as I write, the Syrian civil war has left parts of Syria under the control of a new Islamic caliphate. In 2014, within certain areas of Syria, music was banned and books were burned. The British Foreign Office advised against all travel to the north of the Sinai Peninsula. In 2015, Islamic State militants started bulldozing the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud, just south of Mosul in Iraq because it was ‘idolatrous’. Images went around the world showing Islamic militants toppling statues around three millennia old from their plinths, then taking hammers to them. ‘False idols’ must be destroyed. In Palmyra, the remnants of the great statue of Athena that had been carefully repaired by archaeologists, was attacked yet again. Once again, Athena was beheaded; once again, her arm was sheared off.

I have chosen Palmyra as a beginning, as it was in the east of the empire, in the mid-380s, that sporadic violence against the old gods and their temples escalated into something far more serious. But equally I could have chosen an attack on an earlier temple, or a later one. That is why it is a beginning, not the beginning. I have chosen Athens in the years around AD 529 as an ending—but again, I could equally have chosen a city further east whose inhabitants, when they failed to convert to Christianity, were massacred and their arms and legs cut off and strung up in the streets as a warning to others.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://chechar.wordpress.com/2018/06/12/darkening-age-2/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

26 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. This is just about half of Nixey’s intro. In the next page, she explains why she won’t use the Newspeak word ‘pagan’ in the book.

    In the next entries, I won’t quote so many paragraphs from The Darkening Age but will try to comment on its content.

    P.S.

    Isn’t this site becoming the foremost anti-Christian site of the pro-white blogosphere?

    • >Isn’t this site becoming the foremost anti-Christian site of the pro-white blogosphere?

      It seems to be one of the more well-grounded racially conscious sites. Rightly anti-Christian, but not leaning too much towards paganism or atheism.

      But to be sure, what’s your assessment of the following: Alt-Right and affiliated sites (i.e. dailystormer, breitbart, counter-currents), Donald Trump, Islam, Jesus.

      Richard Spencer was mentored by a Jew. Trump is no Hitler, who wouldn’t have tolerated nepotism or considered building a physical wall. NS was compatible with Islam and post-WW2 NS survivors tried to foster good relations with the Islamic, Arabic world. Jesus, if he existed, was certainly not a Jew.

      • >Trump is no Hitler, who wouldn’t have tolerated nepotism or considered building a physical wall.

        He would advocate extermination.

        >NS was compatible with Islam

        Aside from its tolerance of mongrelization. Hitler was ignorant on Muslims anyway.

        >Jesus, if he existed, was certainly not a Jew.

        Tell us more on a man who lived in modern day Palestine, was from all evidence from the same stock as other ancient Levantines (who weren’t European) and maintained the laws of Moses wasn’t a Kike. Judaism is a matter of blood, not just faith.

      • My inquiry was directed at the owner of this blog, but I’ll address your points nonetheless.

        >He would advocate extermination.

        By he, I take it you mean Hitler. It’s true that people use up a lot of energy trying to counter the popular notion that Hitler was a mass-murderer and that there are plenty of people who wish Hitler really had gone for it, but Hitler was not the kind of man who would call for a systematic genocide, especially of the only people in the world to affirm only physical reality.

        In Mein Kampf, he repeatedly emphasized the necessity of idealism, he viewed idealism as a condition of man’s existence. While his mentor Dietrich Eckart identified the world affirmation embodied by the Jewish community as a condition of man’s existence. It follows that both are necessary to the maintenance of the world order. What we need to recover is balance between materialism and idealism. That means putting Jews and Aryans in their rightful places. The Jews have a providential role by giving stimulation to the non-Jewish world.

        What Hitler wanted was to contain the Jewish community in a “world ghetto” after securing European unity, a front against Bolshevism. Madagascar was desired for it’s tropical climate over Siberia.

        >Aside from its tolerance of mongrelization. Hitler was ignorant on Muslims anyway.

        Don’t mistake the modern Islam for the one Mohammed proclaimed. The Arab delegation he received wasn’t the only thing that influenced Hitler’s view on Islam and Speer is not the only one to mention his amiability towards the Arabic world. Otto Ernst Remer (the man in the very center of the July 20 plot, who helped prevent it) inclined himself towards Islam and Leon Degrelle also talked about it in interviews. The Waffen-SS even made room for Islamic divisions.

        >Tell us more on a man who lived in modern day Palestine, was from all evidence from the same stock as other ancient Levantines (who weren’t European) and maintained the laws of Moses wasn’t a Kike. Judaism is a matter of blood, not just faith.

        The Jews themselves said he was the son of a Roman soldier and a whore. Their greatest advantage is that they speak truths. They’re myth makers, not liars. In The Track of the Jew, Alfred Rosenberg devotes a section of their book to tracing their thousand year old contempt for Jesus in the Talmud and tradition.

        If Jesus lived today and he had seen the Jews involved in Alt-Right, who denounce the Talmud but emphasize the morality of the Old Testament, would have delivered this one message to them, “And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.” (Matt. 23:30-31).

      • >Hitler was not the kind of man who would call for a systematic genocide

        Revisionism. Hitler himself in his own writings noted that struggle for living space is rooted in nature and predictated a rejuvenated Europe would conquer the world. And even if he didn’t, it’s been demonstrated by both archaeology and genetics that cleansing of not just ethnicities but also species (see the fate of Neanderthals despite attempts to deny this) has been practiced well before recorded history.

        >In Mein Kampf, he repeatedly emphasized the necessity of idealism, he viewed idealism as a condition of man’s existence. While his mentor Dietrich Eckart identified the world affirmation embodied by the Jewish community as a condition of man’s existence. It follows that both are necessary to the maintenance of the world order. What we need to recover is balance between materialism and idealism. That means putting Jews and Aryans in their rightful places. The Jews have a providential role by giving stimulation to the non-Jewish world.

        Yawn. More of the old Cuckservative Style Multiculturalism. Sorry, every the European crushes the Muds or the Muds will crush him through war and rape. That’s how it was then and will be now.

        >What Hitler wanted was to contain the Jewish community in a “world ghetto” after securing European unity, a front against Bolshevism. Madagascar was desired for it’s tropical climate over Siberia.

        And yet the Jews would not leave.

        >Don’t mistake the modern Islam for the one Mohammed proclaimed.

        Name a single example of Mohammad opposing mongrelization with no doubt. And Islam is a religion for Niggers and Sandniggers when striped of influences from non-Arab/Muslim societies (see Islam in Persia).

        >The Arab delegation he received wasn’t the only thing that influenced Hitler’s view on Islam and Speer is not the only one to mention his amiability towards the Arabic world. Otto Ernst Remer (the man in the very center of the July 20 plot, who helped prevent it) inclined himself towards Islam and Leon Degrelle also talked about it in interviews. The Waffen-SS even made room for Islamic divisions.

        Hitler also spoke dismissively of Sandniggers for whenever he praised Islam in private contexts. He did not see them as “equals” who could migrate into his country in swarms as your modern German believes today.

        >The Jews themselves said he was the son of a Roman soldier and a whore. Their greatest advantage is that they speak truths. They’re myth makers, not liars. In The Track of the Jew, Alfred Rosenberg devotes a section of their book to tracing their thousand year old contempt for Jesus in the Talmud and tradition.

        Current Judaism traces descent from the mother (no doubt a tactic formed to account for when Jews were dominated by gentiles and cuckoldry by gentile men was a significant danger). His mother being Jewish with his father Roman doesn’t make him European, but a mongrel. And like other mongrels (see Barack Obama), was filled with hatred from his tainted blood.

        >If Jesus lived today and he had seen the Jews involved in Alt-Right, who denounce the Talmud but emphasize the morality of the Old Testament, would have delivered this one message to them, “And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.” (Matt. 23:30-31).

        Jesus wasn’t European and neither is Christianity.

      • And like other mongrels (see Barack Obama), was filled with hatred from his tainted blood.

        This was brilliant, Maldo.

        For a long time I’ve thought that mulattoes are far worse than negroes, as they use their higher IQs against whites.

        As to Jesus, if he ever existed he was obviously a Jew, as Mary was Jewish. Only racist Christians invent ingenious theories to claim otherwise.

      • >His mother being Jewish with his father Roman doesn’t make him European, but a mongrel. And like other mongrels (see Barack Obama), was filled with hatred from his tainted blood.

        You do realize that practically everyone is at risk of becoming a mongrel, right? Not just physically, but mentally and emotionally. Racial purity doesn’t mean shunning mixed peoples from the community or putting down other races. Teaching them to refrain from intermarriage/procreating and instead encouraging them to go with sterilization and adoption was desired.

        It’s not even remotely possible for a Jew to renounce his Jewishness of his own accord (the only “decent” Jew acknowledged by Hitler was Otto Weininger and he killed himself) nor can a Jew be rescued from his upbringing (cramming methods), which would suggest that Jesus gave over his body to a higher being. This is not out of the question if one takes into consideration Hitler’s Rienzi experience which was attested to by both of his architects Speer and Giesler, as well as his friend Kubizek.

        >As to Jesus, if he ever existed he was obviously a Jew, as Mary was Jewish.

        You take the gospel narratives at their word? We know absolutely nothing about his actual life.

        >Only racist Christians invent ingenious theories to claim otherwise.

        So Hitler, Rosenberg, Ley, Chamberlain, Haeckel, etc. were racist Christians? Hardly. I was doing nothing more than following their line of thought. It can’t be all propaganda, Jesus is acknowledged throughout the table talks.

      • You take the gospel narratives at their word? We know absolutely nothing about his actual life

        I stand corrected. I should have added ‘…according to the gospels’. But then, are you claiming knowledge that he was non-Jew?

      • Yes, mostly based on a compilation of quotations I’ve been gathering. https://hitlerianhylozoics.wordpress.com/jesus/ At times, I utilize a propagandist narrative aimed at Christians, but I’m not even remotely Christian. Apologies if I came off that way.

        I take into consideration three factors: 1) Jesus’ teachings weren’t unique, 2) the Jews have never produced a great man, and 3) the Jews never conceived of a knowledge order which had a share with the non-Jewish world. The Essenes order was merely an imitation and an attempt to further inaugurate Judaism as a “religion”.
        I want to deprive the Jews of one of their trump cards, “But Jesus was a Jew! You owe us, you needed us.”

      • Wanting to deprive Jews of kinship to Jesus is not sound historiography: it is wishful thinking. Are you CI or something analogous?

      • CI never has had an influence on my view on Jesus. Besides, they see race in a nonexistent setting (the epistles of Paul) and are still tethered to the OT. Actually, I don’t identify with any existing religion.

        My point is, the NS made an attempt to wean Germans off of Christianity. You can even see it in Hitler’s speeches. Gradually, he dropped Christian propaganda (i.e. image of god, original sin, temple cleansing, Revelation 3:16) for his own private philosophy. The attack on Christianity need not be confined to the purely negative side (of bashing and persistent criticism). That makes people no different from Marxists.

      • Not attacking a religion that is one of the main causes of white decline (non-Jews Celsus and Porphyry attacked it long before Jew Marx)?

      • I’m saying there’s more than one way to go about doing that and to be reserved in attacking a dominant religion when there’s currently no viable substitute available for it. Those writers attacked Christianity by attacking Judaism, as did Julian (as seen in his essay).

      • I wonder if you have read the masthead of this site (‘Judea vs. Rome’) or the main essays demonstrating that Christian ethics is behind the fall of the West, linked on the sidebar?

        Point is, if whites, even secular whites, don’t give up Xtian ethics they will go extinct.

        WNsts, for example, are doing everything wrong because they are still imbued with love for non-whites, including Jews (Richie Spence for one saying that he supports Israel and wants something similar for whites, Dave Duke saying on videos that he virtually loves that other races thrive in their own countries, etc.).

        This love was absent before the hostile takeover by Christian zealots of Rome. See my comment in the comments section of my latest article quoting Heisman✡.

      • I haven’t read it, give me some time.

        I’m well aware that Europe is steeped in Christian morality, which is Jewish. Kalergi made that clear for me in his book.

        Spencer and Duke don’t represent all white nationalists, furthermore they aren’t truly nationalists if they try to justify their ethnic state using Israel as an example. The Jews never had a state of their own. In the ancient world, they had no complete autonomy except for that one time where they tried to massacre the Canaanites before the Assyrians, Persians, and Babylonians intervened.

        The socialist idea wasn’t at all absent before Christianity, it was originally taught in all truly noble religious systems, transcending differences between race (all individual souls have the same worth), but without paving the way for intermarriage like Christianity does. Race was still recognized as an important distinction.

        “What links one human being to all humans: not blood, or birth [seed, Gr. sperma], but mind. And… that an individual’s mind is God and of God.” – Aurelius

        “I have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own—not of the same blood or birth [seed, Gr. sperma], but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine.” – Aurelius

  2. >The work of Democritus, one of the greatest Greek philosophers and the father of atomic theory, was entirely lost.

    And unironically, the father of Marxism, if Georgi Plekhanov’s assessment of Marxist philosophy can be relied on. It’s no coincidence that Marx inclined himself towards Democritus in his doctoral thesis, who was acknowledged in the ancient world, but whose teachings has come down to us misunderstood or incomplete. Plato is said to have desired to burn all his books, supported by the fact that Plato never once references Democritus in his writings. It has resulted in an one-sided materialism dominating over science and religion. In Christianity, this is manifested in the dualistic artificial division between matter and spirit. They only conceive of a physical world and a spiritual world, nothing beyond that.

  3. Yes, Nixey is a Liberal, Christians persecuted the poor jews. But notwithstanding that and her avoidance of the JP, her expose of Christianity’s trail of destruction of the Greco-Roman cultural heritage is well documented; but not as good as Soberana’s. However, I expect WNst’s would reject her account as another left-liberal attacking Christianity as a proxy for attacking Western Civilization. WNst’s, Christ-tarded or not, still regard Christendom as the (((faith))) and it was Christendom which defended Western Civilization from the Moors, Mongols and Ottomans. So they defend Christianity. They exhibit little understanding that (((Christianity))) was not European, but an alien religion imposed on the European peoples.

    • Which is why only Soberana’s essay is the masthead of this blog.

      Like Nixey, Deschner also wrote that Christians persecuted poor Jews. But even so, I am tempted to gather the excerpted translations of his Vol. I and make a book available (though I am a little nervous about copyright issues).

      American racists have no excuse. Instead of their purple pill, they could start awakening by taking Pierce’s Who We Are, who also had a good grasp of Xtianity. But they continue to refuse the redpill and stick to a Semitic cult that is moving them toward ethnosuicide (as even the kike Heisman saw).

      In the other thread on Heisman today, I mentioned the commenter Stanton. Even post-Christians like him continue to swallow the Semitic poison that hate is bad for the goyim. From my POV, American nationalists are committing suicide because they are unable to see the psyop of the Semitic and philo-Semitic writers of the New Testament. Very few, if any, has transvalued his values as Pierce did.

      • The denouncement of ordinary hatred could indeed be a sign of an attachment to christianity. But it doesn’t make sense for another reason. Anyone who cannot hate also cannot love and lives in some sort of lobotomised state of being.

      • What is bothersome to me are those monos who constantly preach their monocausalism here and, at the same time, have no insight whatsoever that their moral code is the product of a Semitic brainwashing. (Obviously, only by hating our enemies to the point of exterminating them can the race be saved.)

  4. “Anyone who cannot hate also cannot love and lives in some sort of lobotomised state of being.”

    In pre-Christian civilization the ideal was ἀταραξία, to achieve calmness. To perturb oneself inordinately with either hate or love was considered unwise. Besides this, on the basis of modern science, it’s clear that both hate and love are reducible to a matter of genetic self-interest. For example, a parent loves a child because it carries its genes. Romantic love likewise indicates a desire to reproduce one’s genes. We hate those things that interfere with or threaten this reproductive instinct. Dr. Frank Salter’s work on racial genetic self-interest translates these basic facts into the political arena.

    • Which makes it rational to hate Jews and want to kill them all. They want to destroy Aryan genetic self-interest. It is the same with White Race-mixers and politicians who want to import as much non-Whites as possible.

      • Maybe, maybe not.

        Science can explain the emotions of love and hate in terms of “selfish” genes attempting to perpetuate themselves, but it doesn’t (and can’t) prescribe any definite course of action; still less can it say whether such actions are good or not. To take the latter part of this first, to say that genes perpetuating themselves is good is to commit the philosophic error of deriving ought from is, the so-called naturalistic fallacy. As to prescribing a course of action, unfortunately it can’t be known in advance whether any particular plan or method for securing gene perpetuation will succeed, and so it’s really impossible to determine genetic self-interest prospectively. For example, is it rational for Jews to want to control non-Jews in order to amass wealth and enhance their own reproductive success at others’ expense? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not if it provokes a successful attempt to exterminate them. The most that we can say on a scientific basis is that everyone is always attempting to promote his own self-interest. That’s just the structure of our reality. It seems to me that love, particularly, is just an illusion; while if there is a single word that could characterize this world in which all war against all, and most creatures die being torn apart while still alive, that word is hate. God is not love; that’s a Christian fiction born of the Jewish gift for antiphrasis. It’s hatred and lies that power the universe.

      • The base reaction of hateful emotion is a rational reaction to what is perceived to be the destruction of one’s Race as it destroys genetic self-interest. In this case, hatred is natural, even if it doesn’t lead to any actual resistance.

        Romantic love is essentially a way of evolution to get a partnership together for the long-term so they can have a larger family. It is only nowadays do we have Feminism, birth control, and Race-mixing propaganda, which works against the intended purpose of Romance. I think that this emotion is primarily a Human thing, but I am not sure. It is probably more common for the more “K” type of species, like most mammals.

      • A reaction can be natural without being rational, and conversely, can be rational without being natural. For example, you have a natural aversion to death, but there are some circumstances and premises that might lead you to rationally conclude that suicide is the best option, and overcome that reaction. This is what happened to Hitler, and to Heisman. Or again, when Magda Goebbels poisoned her own children with cyanide because she didn’t want them to grow up in a world without NS, she was acting rationally, but not naturally.

        As for romantic love, I should have said sexual love. That would have been less confusing. “Romance” is another topic altogether. For my part, I believe Mencken had it about right when he said that love is the delusion that one woman differs from another.

  5. @Janus

    “attacking a dominant religion when there’s currently no viable substitute available for it.”

    It is like how doctors try to treat brain tumours despite the fact that there is no viable substitute available for such a malaise.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: