(re: criticisms that I am anti-religion)

Hey guys. Thanks for the mention, and it’s fine to disagree.

Um. I am not anti religion. (a) I treat religious texts as wisdom literature, not science or history, and as such meaningless in argument. I do not state that religion is unnecessary, or that it is bad. Only that anti-western religion is unnecessary or bad; (b) like Nietzsche I view christianity as an attack on western civilization that we have not fully saved ourselves from, but that we can reform our church to be pro-western – but the church has followed the money into the third world and abandoned us; (c) That the French and the Jewish cosmopolitans developed a new pseudoscientific set of arguments creating another false religion with which to attack the west, and that this pseudoscience is our current secular ‘cult’. (d) That by the application of (technical) natural law it is possible to make these pseudosciences illegal at the cost of making islam, unreformed christianity, judaism illegal in public speech – the same way we have made fraud illegal in the sale and distribution of goods and services; (e) that the only means of saving ourselves is the organized application of violence to impose this law, and to prosecute these liars by the organized application of violence.

Mostly this group argues against me because (1) I do not believe the 1930’s can be recreated, (2) I advocate nationalism for everyone, not just my kin, (3) I blame our people for not using violence to defend ourselves, rather than blaming others for exploiting our weaknesses. (4) I don’t have a lot of patience with stupid people – and I doubt that I ever will. And this group can attract stupid people. Not that they aren’t my kin, and are wrong, but I have nothing to say to them. (Sorry).