In God, As He Truly Is, We Believe!

God is one, is ineffable, has no equal, has no son, has selected Whites.

Don’t believe in God?  Good, neither do I, at least as He is thought of in just about every organized religion I’ve heard of. But, I do believe in God as that “something” that my reason now tells me really can exist. And, “from can exist”  to  “does exist” is no longer a big leap for me.

This is a big change from what my reason told me years ago.  What changed?  Well, in addition to Arman’s revelations and his reported experience with the odd  clouds and some sort of chorus in the clouds, modern scientific discoveries and especially in the fields of physics, biology and computer sciences along with some plain old belief inform me that there is a something–an entity, an intelligence, a consciousness, a living being far different from us  that can  be called God.

God is one of many names for the Ineffable Divine. He/It (just “He” hereafter) exists in the quantum level of the ground of existence and is everywhere. He can be thought of as being the bodiless  intelligence, consciousness, personality, purpose that permeates existence. He is powerful but He must obey the true, basic, natural laws of existence.  God often works through flesh and blood and evolution and nature to do as He wishes for His purposes.

He has selected Whites through the White genome to help do His will at our everyday level of existence and to make the world a better place through us.

The selection of Whites doesn’t give this people special privileges or benefits. Instead, it puts special duties and responsibilities on their shoulders that the rest of mankind does not have.

The way for Whites is not an easy way and is harder and more difficult because this people must do as God wants, not as man may want in any age. It means Whites must work harder to be good and that there are things forbidden this people and required of them that are not forbidden and not required of the rest of mankind. A few of the most important things forbidden or required of the White people are that they are commanded to remain separate and pure, to avoid as much contact with those unlike themselves  as possible, to never miscegenate, and to have as many of their kind of pure children as possible.

Even though White people are selected by God through their White genome, there are  many who are impure and who do evil and there are others whose genome  is asleep and dormant.  God speaks to those whose  genome has been awakened and He often does this in the quiet moments. Such ones must in turn use their free will to select God  to seal the bargain or their selection remains little more than dormant potential. If Whites select God and signify this by bearing His sacred symbols and living as He wishes even if they are hated and persecuted by all the rest of the world, even by Whites who are not pure, then they show thereby that  they freely choose to accept their sacred responsibility and that they love and obey God.

The main day to day responsibility of this holy people is to live righteous and good lives as rationally happy people who do no evil and no harm and who respect all of existence and who seek peace and not conflict in their personal lives and in the larger society while thinking often of God. As far as  relations with other humans go, they are told to follow the Golden Rule.  And, they are told that living right is worth more than the details of one’s beliefs and is worth more than millions of meaningless formulaic  rituals and pre-packaged, non-heart-felt prayers.

There is no one who stands  between the selected and God.  And, each person should  take personal responsibility for and they should seek knowledge and wisdom and  must try do what is right as revealed by God, not by man. If Whites do wrong (and no one is perfect), they must sincerely try to make it right in the eyes of the Lord and in the eyes of those who are wronged.

God loves existence and life and commands this people to respect both and to not harm themselves or others and to even avoid harming other things in existence except for doing what is needed for their safety, their survival, their expansion, their evolution and their happiness as good and righteous people.

They should be moderate in all things. They should seek the middle course. They should not be too indulgent and they should not be too ascetic. They should enjoy life, but they should also be moderate and balanced. They should avoid ingesting food, drink or any substances that can harm them or which can affect their thinking in negative ways and they should be informed in their health decisions by the best scientific, best medical practices and best  available information. They are commanded to try to live  long, fertile, happy lives as the good and decent people they are supposed to be.

They should be humble and not be arrogant or haughty.  They must not have too much pride.  They should be kind and polite in both word and deed. They should be fair and friendly to all and practice justice.  They should avoid anger and control our emotions to avoid danger to ourselves and others.  They must practice self-control and they must be gentle in word and deed  and have patience with others. They must speak softly and politely and show respect for others and allow them dignity. They must not vex them or make them angry or cause them unnecessary distress by their worlds or actions. They must always silently and privately know that they are different from other kinds, but that they are not superior to them and are not their keepers or helpers. They must always politely avoid mixing with them if possible for this is as God demands.

They must ask of everything: Is this good for White people?  And, in asking this question they must be able to consider both the short and long term results of whatever it they are asking this question about.

They are to mind their own business and not interfere in the business of peoples unlike them and they are to be indifferent to them. Their paths in life are not the same and must be kept separate. God does not treat all of existence or all of life the same and all that exists is His to do with as He wishes.  They must not go against the will of God as He manifests it in nature and “luck,” and whatever befalls other peoples.  It is God’s will that all distinct peoples must look out for themselves and take care of themselves and not be a  burden on other kinds or interfere in the business of other kinds.

They must seek to make more like themselves, for as they expand their genome they automatically make the world a better place as God works through their genetics and biology to further His goals.

They must not envy others for what they have or for who they are.  They too have their own problems and faults.  Material things are worth little in the long run. What matters is our DNA Code.

We must dress in comfortable and simple clothes preferably of a plain color. Clothes should  be timeless with form following function and without any unnecessary or frivolous appearance items.  If they have pockets, the pockets should be functional and be used.  So too with all other items.  As with all things, our clothes should be comfortable and functional with every part of them having some reason or function behind them. For this reason we eschew neckties unless they serve a purpose for more than just appearance. Rings and amulets with the sacred signs are encouraged as are the bearing of the sacred signs directly on the skin.

Give charity to our kind only.

We should avoid befriending those who hunt for sport, for all life is sacred and no life should be taken for sport. Hunting and fishing and even killing plants for food, for our health as the people we are must always be first in our minds and it is part of our nature that we must eat other things to live and survive and fulfill God’s will for us.  We must be healthy, strong and wise to fulfill our duty to God which requires us to do His work in our sphere of influence and on all worlds where we can live and prosper.

We are not to try to convert other kinds to our ways for this is an abomination in the eyes of God and it is impossible for them to follow our path which can only be taken by those with the genetic keys that we are born with. We must leave other peoples alone to their own fates and destinies.  We carry God within us in a conscious and intelligent form and our pure flesh and blood are needed by God. Where we go, there goes God. We are the walking Temples of God and in our Essence is He ensconced.

We must, each one of us, both male and female  expand our personal and collective DNA Code as much as possible and this must start when nature says our bodies are ready even though society at any time may have other views on this. God has put His laws, His  clock and His calendar into our DNA Code and these things are not wrong because they come from God. We must not stop expanding our personal DNA Code so long as our bodies allow.  It is the way of God and nature that males of our kind can expand their DNA Code many times during the day if they have willing female partners of our kind and it is also the way of God that our females can usually only expand their personal DNA Code once every nine months.  This is as it should be and is the design that allows us to adapt and evolve without making permanent changes in our DNA code for temporary changes in the world.   It is humans who do evil who have tried to rewrite the laws of God and Nature to suit their own  desires and views of what they wrongly believe are right and wrong and moral and immoral.

What are the Most Controversial Elements of Our Belief in this Age and Why God has Come to Us Now

The most controversial aspects of our beliefs are those related to race, genes, DNA, evolution and our purpose as the distinct and selected people that we are.

Earlier forms of life instinctively hate newer forms with newer adaptations because they sense the newer forms will replace them.  They then  instinctively act to destroy the newer forms by all means including directly killing them and also by having the newer forms lose their differences by having them blend back in with the older forms by mating with them before the newer forms evolve even further and can no longer be pulled back into the older forms.

This is why God has appeared in this at this time  to reveal more of His will to Whites to help this people survive and get on and stay on the right path that He wishes for His own sacred purposes.  We are His hands in our level of existence. As we help Him, He will help us, but we must do what we must do. He will not do for us what we must do.  He reveals His will but we must use our own free will to choose to obey God or not.

Morals

God has set His moral code and laws within nature and within us and they are holy even if we do not fully understand them, and even if some human moral codes differ, for only God can see the trajectory of existence as it flows into the far future. God’s moral code for us is designed to fulfill His purpose through our flesh and blood and this means that we must remain separate, and pure, and we must fill all places where we can live with our kind and we must help with our evolution along our sacred path as revealed by God.

By H. Millard © 2017

# # # #

JOIN WESTERN SPRING

Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:

# # # #

27 thoughts on “In God, As He Truly Is, We Believe!

  1. I take a different view of Godhood:

    “Divine law” is not an “extension” of natural law, natural law is divine law.

    On this Thanksgiving day we can be religiously thankful for material progress, not merely in the acquisitive enlightenment sense of progress in technology and consumerism, but progress in terms of our material evolution toward real Godhood.

    Religion has too often taken a very low view of human nature to the point of thinking of human nature as sinful and fallen, when the essence of human nature is the inward activation to evolve toward Godhood in the material world.

    Why would religion want to stop evolutionary progress toward Godhood? It derives from the metaphysical error of defining God and religion as non-material, and it therefore blocks the evolution of life toward real supermaterial Godhood.

    In spite of the metaphysical error, the Twofold Path conservatively retains that ancient inward path experience of God as the first glimpse of Godhood which is now transformed in the Outward Path of material evolution to real Godhood.

    The traditional Mass of Sacrifice can be transformed within the projected Mass of Joy.

    1. There is no evidence that there is anything like either divine law, or natural law. The only laws that exist are the ones we, humans, come up with ourselves, for ourselves.

      I don’t understand the meaning of being “religiously” thankful as opposed to irreligiously thankful. Perhaps you can explain what you mean? I would be interested to know.

      As I have explained several times on this site, there is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is progressing towards Godhood. Evolution is simply the phenomenon whereby selection pressure, combined with other mechanisms, tends to bring about genetics which are more conducive to survival in a given environment. The theory of evolution contains no predictions of continual “progress” towards some defined end goal.

      Evolution itself is “blind” and is not “trying” to produce anything in particular. Organisms with genetics better suited to their environment are more likely to pass those genetics on, and vice versa. Evolution therefore contains no mechanisms by which it can see the future or plan an end goal. No serious biologist will tell you that we will eventually evolve into Gods. In fact they should tell you this is simply not going to happen.

      Now, technological progress is a different thing entirely, and I predict this WILL provide us with more and more power over matter as it advances. However, it still has to operate within the bounds of the laws of physics, and as such, is probably always going to be incapable of rendering us as Gods, seeing as omnipotence or at least supernatural power is a defining characteristic of Godhood (unless of course you redefine “God” to mean something totally alien to how almost all people understand the word).

  2. “Don’t believe in God? Good, neither do I, at least as He is thought of in just about every organized religion I’ve heard of.” So right away you’re deliberately choosing to use the word “God” in a way you know most people don’t understand the term. Why not ditch the baggage and confusion that comes with that word and say what you really mean? In one breath this author seems to claim God is just some sort of life force or metaphor for DNA, and then in another breath tells us that it has beliefs and wishes and we must obey it. It seems to me that this is a cheap trick to avoid having to provide evidence.

    “But, I do believe in God as that “something” that my reason now tells me really can exist.” Well, if you’re willing to just redefine God to the vaguest of “something”s that your reason tells you can exist, you’ve defined whatever God is supposed to refer to into existence. I’m not impressed.

    “And, “from can exist” to “does exist” is no longer a big leap for me.” It really should be. The set of things which can exist (i.e., those whose existences would not violate the known laws of physics) is infinite, whereas the set of things which actually exist is finite. The subset of these which we have evidence for is smaller still. This means that something that merely can exist is by no means likely to actually exist, let alone be known to us to exist. In any case, evidence is required before a rational mind can decide that something exists. That “something” also needs rigorously defining if we’re going to be able to search for and examine the evidence.

    I find this author’s output to consist mostly of unsubstantiated, ill-defined, pseudo-scientific babble. I am also disgusted at his attempt to appropriate physics for his woo by using phrases like “the quantum level of physics” when it is clear he lacks the most elementary understanding of the topic.

      1. And perhaps if belief in ‘God’ is irreversibly and psychologically ingrained into many people on an emotional level, it is helpful to our cause to change somewhat their perception of who or what their ‘God’ actually is and what he regards as good and what he regards as evil.

        1. The modern world contains countries with secular constitutions in which belief in God has become a minority position. This proves that it is possible for the masses to escape from superstition and supernatural nonsense. If our education system functioned properly and taught science, critical thinking and philosophy as well as it should, it would become more likely that fewer and fewer people would buy into religion.

          If the goal is to co-opt existing susceptibility to religious belief, then it would seem a far easier hill to climb to hook into existing belief systems which already have currency among the masses, than to try to invent an entirely new religious cult (almost always unsuccessful, historically). It can certainly be done without appropriating parts of real science and all the confusion which comes with that.

          If people really are emotionally and psychologically bound to believe in things they can’t see (I hope not, and I don’t believe this is the case) and follow revealed notions of good and evil, perhaps we could train them to believe in the nation and the race rather than whatever mythical sky fairies, quantum fairies or whatever other fairies people like Millard can pull out of the air.

          If we had to make something up, and I don’t think we do, then we could do a lot better than this rubbish.

    1. H. Millard employs a degree of poetic license in conveying concepts that support our world view, this however does not mean that he lacks even “the most elementary understanding of the topic”, it merely indicates that he is addressing an audience comprised of people the vast majority of which do not possess a degree in Physics.
      .
      Good communication is not about the technical detail or the provability of what the writer actually writes, so much as it is about what his target audience understands and draws from what he writes. This is why Millard’s religious writings are published here and why they are also syndicated out to a number of other quality White nationalist websites around the world.

      1. A “degree of poetic license”? I’ll say. To my mind, “poetic license” is perhaps a slight embellishment of a story which nonetheless has most of the facts right, or a dramatisation of an historical event, or a device to make something more interesting for popular consumption while still getting the gist right. This stuff, however, is completely and entirely made up, and consists of commandments and truth claims about the universe and about physics which are demonstrably false.

        It is not good enough to hide under “poetic license” in one breath and then issue divine command in another. It is exactly the same trick pulled by the Christians when they tell the public not to take Genesis and Noah’s Ark literally, and then teach it to children and their congregations as fact without disclaimers.

        I understand that most of the audience will not understand the physics terms used and will not realise they are being fed nonsense. This is even more reason NOT do to it. Maybe part of the reason people don’t understand science very well is that television and charlatans like Millard mass-produce pseudoscience all the time. Millard either does lack any understanding of quantum mechanics or is knowingly and deliberately lying to readers of this site. He could just as easily find a metaphor that does not trample on known science, and he could easily make it clear to the audience that this IS a metaphor and not to be taken as fact. Instead what he is doing is tapping into existing superstitious crap which has been introduced based on misunderstandings of science, and adding to it.

        I also understand that good communication is not about technical detail. I am not complaining about a lack of technical detail. The material printed here does not just lack detail and get the gist right, but gets the whole thing wrong. I am complaining that known science is being deliberately misappropriated and pressed into the service of demonstrable nonsense. The website of a political movement is not the place for a discussion of quantum mechanics in any case, and so I would be wary of even a scientifically accurate article on the subject being published here.

        Even if it were acceptable for this kind of “poetic license” to be invoked, each of these articles should come with a disclaimer in large letters: “THIS ARTICLE IS A WORK OF FICTION”.

      2. Furthermore, I reject the reference to the publication of Millard’s articles across the nationalist Internet as an argument from popularity, and I suspect it says far more about the quality of those websites than it does about the quality of Millard’s writing.

  3. Thanks for your interest Mr. Musson.
    As to explaining the Twofold Path here is a link to my Reflections On Theological Materialism PDF — https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWS3h1K2fmbY0YxOGFFc3lZdmM/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWS3h1K2fmbY0YxOGFFc3lZdmM/view —which has been on my blog Civilizing the Beast— https://civilizingthebeast.blogspot.com/—andhttps://civilizingthebeast.blogspot.com/—and needs to somehow be published—the Introduction may be the best article to explain my view.
    —-
    Responding to Mr. Salisbury who says the only laws that exists are the ones we humans come up with for ourselves. That subjectivity sounds like what postmodernism says, which has ravaged traditional cultures with cultural Marxism, not believing there is a biologically derived human nature, so everything is malleable.
    I obviously don’t buy the standard idea that evolution is completely blind. Few science-oriented people have had the courage to claim some sort of internal direction to life, or even a development toward complexity in evolution. Francis Heylighen and Ken Wilber are two modern thinkers who have shown courage in discussing a direction in evolution. Philosopher Wilber said, “evolution is evidence of a force that is pursuing against randomness in the universe… Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory holds that all of these transformations upward were just the result of chance and randomness. But there is no way in hell that the universe went from atoms to Shakespeare out of random stabs. This is an extraordinary driven process.” (Conversation in Enlightenment, Issue 47, 2011 -p-48 ) The astrophysicist Erich Jantsch referred to evolution as “self-organizing through transcendence,” which is a good way to think about it. Francis Heylighen wrote, “ it is assumed that evolution is largely unpredictable and contingent on a host of uncontrollable factors, which may steer its course in any of an infinite number of directions. However, it is noted that directions in which complexity increases are generally preferred…” “The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution.”

    Religion does not need to have a problem with evolution, and science does not have to have a problem with religion, if life is understood as activating from within even as life is shaped outwardly by Darwin’s evolution. The activating internal force can be inserted into the outward evolutionary dynamic. Evolution is not diminished when life is activated by the entirely material Will-To-Godhood, which I have called Tirips, although randomness can still occur. Secular views of life see no real sacred goals to life and evolution other than successful survival and reproduction, which suggests only a Will-To-Power driving everything only toward amoral power rather than a Godhood goal for evolution.

    The traditional Involutionary Inward Path is the transcendental view of God and Spirit, this is nonmaterial abstraction, a word, an idea, a Logos, with no material or supermaterial objecthood, it is an experience of bliss after strict ascetic discipline in becoming unattached to the forces and desires of life. The Evolutionary Outward Path understands this Logos as an internal symbolic-experience of the real Godhood which is reached by evolution, material-supermaterial evolution.

    Ironically pagans seem to have seen nature and the material world as Divine and traditional religions tended to deny divinity to the material world. Pagans would not necessarily be at war with science, and religion does not need to be either, if the Spirit or Will or Tirips, which is entirely material, is understood as activating life from within, while life is shaped outwardly by Darwin’s evolution.

    1. The only laws that I know of are the laws we come up with in science to model reality and the laws we come up with in politics to govern states. I suppose you could argue that physical laws exist objectively, regardless of our subjective view of reality, but we still have to come up with them or at least discover them ourselves – they were not revealed to us from on high, and I see no evidence that any religious laws constitute true divine revelation as opposed to more diktats and pronouncements by human beings. I find your attempt to argue this point by trying to associate it with cultural Marxism fallacious and unconvincing.

      I believe that there is such a thing as human nature, or at least the general, average of common nature of our species – no two people are exactly alike, of course, and some groups differ wildly in nature from one another. I do not believe that everything (gender, sexuality, personality, criminality and so on) is malleable, as the liberal left would proclaim.

      “Few science-oriented people have had the courage to claim some sort of internal direction to life”. Allow me to translate: “Practically all of the experts in this field disagree with me, so I’m going to list two non-experts who don’t, and claim that the experts are simply lying”.

      There has certainly been a general trend of a development towards greater complexity, but perhaps this is expected: as with anything, the infrastructure of low-level mechanisms has to be built before more complex and emergent behaviour can arise. However, this does not show that the process will continue to give rise to more complexity ad infinitum, it does not show that there is an “end goal” in mind and it certainly does not show that we will one day be able to contravene the known laws of physics as Gods.

      There is some evidence that evolution, while once it acted to give us larger and more powerful brains, is now very much unfriendly to the development of greater human intelligence: having developed technology to remove ourselves from most natural selection pressures (and introducing some new ones), it can be argued quite convincingly that the future trend is actually more likely to be towards less intelligence rather than more, and lesser, not greater physical ability.

      Please provide evidence that there is any mechanism in evolution which could plan a linear progression towards a Godlike end lifeform, as opposed to the mechanisms we know exist which act on existing genetics and environmental factors, and no knowledge of the future.

      I would be interested if you could cite a specific quote or other source authored by the cyberneticist (note: not an evolutionary biologist) Francis Heylighen. It seems to me that Ken Wilber is a writer or philosopher, not an evolutionary biologist, and does not necessarily have any expertise in this field. I would point you to the work of Richard Dawkins who, in The Blind Watchmaker, explains this concept very well in a way the layman can easily grasp. Note also that the mainstream scientific community has not come out and denounced these ideas, as they are obviously in agreement.

      The quotation of Wilber you have provided suggests to me that he lacks even a high-school level of understanding of how evolution works. Nobody in evolutionary biology is remotely suggesting that the works of Shakespeare come from atoms via “random stabs”. There is a large element of randomness in evolution by natural selection, but it is also driven by existing genetics and environmental selection pressures which conspire to give rise to characteristics more conducive to survival.

      I would agree with you that religion does not need to have a problem with evolution and vice versa, so far as religion avoids making truth claims about the universe which directly contradict what we know about the origins and development of life. Unfortunately most religions do make such claims based almost always on no understanding of the subject whatsoever (as many of their texts were written before humanity had even the concept of science) and so religious people really shouldn’t be surprised and start throwing their toys out of the pram when experts step in to correct them. If you’re going to go about with knowledge which has been outdated since the late Iron Age, expect to run into more up to date information from time to time. It is not the responsibility of rational-minded people to avoid doing research the outcome of which makes religious people feel uncomfortable, and nor is that their fault.

      Please provide evidence for the existence of such a “life force” which is not accounted for in biology. How would this be detected and measured? If it cannot be detected or measured, would it be fair to say it exists only in your mind? This is the kind of language I object to: “force” has a very specific meaning in science, and it irks me when people appropriate scientific terminology for their pseudo scientific beliefs.

      1. This has made very interesting reading!
        .
        Although I tend to sympathise with many of John Salisbury’s views, I am also inclined to forgive the imaginative leaps and bounds of H Millard that go into his conceptualisation of God. And in fact, his cavortings are not nearly as fanciful as some of the traditional Christian ones. For instance, Christians have believed since at least the early third century AD that Jesus Christ is God and was born his own son of a virgin mother and without a biological father. (So he really was not ‘born’ at all?) Indeed, conceptualising God is necessarily a bit of a fool’s enterprise, for (surely!) we cannot ever offer proof of our claims in this area. (Indeed, the one respectable conceptualisation I know of is St Anselm’s: God is ‘than whom no-one can be greater’. That is enough reason for us to worship Him.)
        .
        However, Millard does over-reach horribly propagandistically with ‘He has selected Whites through the White genome to help do His will at our everyday level of existence’. Frankly, one has to laugh at this point: How the dickens does he ‘know’ this? He cannot even claim to have inferred it from the God concept of his own making.
        .
        I propose that for conceptualisations of God that approach a measure of respectability we should turn to the Early Christian Gnostics. The essence of their creed (and it had many twists and turns) was that the journey to God is an individual one, and one comes to know God from one’s own experience of Him.
        .
        And yet, I love Christianity at its simplest ‘love thy neighbour’ level. That Christianity is very much an integral part of White Man’s world view. It is pre-eminently worth striving towards.

  4. Mr. Salisbury, you seem to feel no need for religion, including my religious philosophy, and I doubt if I can change your mind. The “life force” you want proof for is probably an activation within every cell of the body demanding life through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. The highest success in this, which life seeks, could be defined much the way Gods are defined,.More scientific proof is needed,…the proof is probably there already if we could see it.

    1. I indeed feel no need for religion. It was probably once useful to us: it was our first attempt at many things, including morality, law, science, philosophy, and even healthcare. However, as Christopher Hitchens used to point out, as it was our first, it is also our worst. We now have better answers to all of the questions religion tries to answer, and better solutions to all of the problems it tries to solve. I think it has more recently become an enormous hindrance to our race, and has probably retarded our political, scientific and social advancement by centuries if not millennia.

      I fully understand when children play make-believe in order to make sense of the world and enjoy themselves. It saddens and disappoints me when adults feel the need to do so.

      The fact that you had to use the word “probably” suggests to me that you don’t really know what this “life force” is, and have yet less of an idea how to demonstrate its existence. You are honest and correct though in saying that more scientific proof is needed (although I would prefer the word “evidence” to “proof”, as nothing is ever really proven in science in the true mathematical sense).

      1. ‘I indeed feel no need for religion.’ John Salisbury, I must pry: When you feel the need to make sense of something significant that happens in your life, or more broadly, you wonder what the point of life is, do you not turn to the Ultimate Authority, i.e., someone to whom you pray, whom you trust, etc.? Or rather, would you concede the occasional need to seek real understanding from the Infallible Being? Is there not, in your experience, a primal need for a Higher Power/Intelligence/Mind that commands infinitely greater knowledge than does short-lived, fallible man and his science? (All I am getting at is that we do not instinctively think of the human person as the highest intellect, all be he the best intellect in the visible world. And that begets the instinct that seeks God?)

        1. What do you mean by “make sense” of something significant that happens in my life? Significant things happen in any life. In fact, significance is something we human imbue onto events. Nature sees no particular significance in the birth of a child: this is something that has happened for billions of years, usually without world-changing consequences. Such an event is only significant to us humans. The way I “make sense” of them is by asking what happened, why it happened, and what its implications are. I don’t see that significant things happening in a life necessarily imply the existence of a magical sky fairy. Who’s to say that things we find significant can’t happen in the absence of supernatural causes?

          What is the point of life? This is a very deep question. Evolution selects for combinations of genes which code for organisms more likely to pass those genes on. In that sense I suppose you could say that the “point” of life is to reproduce. However, I think that concepts like “purpose” emanate from the human psyche, rather than existing in any objective sense in the real world – any time we claim that something has a “point” or “purpose”, we are imbuing those characteristics onto things. Things in nature do not come with labels explaining what their “point” or “purpose” is. We are creatures who are able to invent new things for our own purposes. This makes us inclined to think that even things we did not invent also have purposes. I do not think this is necessarily the case.

          Since purpose is a property we imbue onto things, rather than a property which is intrinsic to those things, I think we are ultimately the choosers of our own purpose. In fact, I do not wish to live in a universe in which a purpose is chosen for us. That would be a kind of imprisonment: you are born for a particular purpose, and if you do not fulfil that purpose, you are a failure. Much better, and I think much truer, to realise that we are free to decide the purposes of our own lives.

          Even if I felt the lack of a purpose to life, I would not be able to turn to some magical sky fairy to give me one. The reason for this is quite simple: there is no evidence that such a being exists. Wishing that something were true does not make it so.

          We do not need to believe that humans are the highest possible intelligence. I think that this would be arrogance. However, since we have no evidence of any other intelligent life, we are forced to conclude that we humans are the highest intelligence we know to exist, and we have no evidence of anything greater here to give us guidance. Therefore our guidance can only come from ourselves. Even when we believe that so-called divine revelation is guidance from above, it is still really from within, as it is invariably humans, not divines, who are the authors of holy texts.

          The science of mankind is indeed fallible. However, we only know this because mankind itself is capable of demonstrating it to be so. Ultimately the only way we can improve our science is by doing more science. The fact that something is fallible does not mean it is not a useful tool, does not mean it is not capable of ultimately reaching the truth even through much trial and error, and certainly does not mean that some infallible source must exist. Our own fallible methods are all we have, and the sooner we recognise this, the sooner we can get on with the business of making the most of the mental and intellectual tools we have and answering the deepest questions of the cosmos.

          1. We have indeed enjoyed an interesting debate so far, and if nothing else, the worth of H. Millard’s writings is that they serve to stimulate such debate. What we must be careful of however is that we do not alienate others by being too harshly dismissive of their ideas and beliefs. Our aim should be to find a way to accommodate the sensibilities of as many of our White racial comrades as possible, to build the widest ‘church’ possible consistent with our aims of White revival, not to be so heavenly perfect we are of no earthly good and find ourselves the undefeated debating champion of a congregation of one.
            .
            I don’t believe Millard is advocating belief in a “magical sky fairy”, he is simply building ‘bridges’ between theists, atheists, pantheists, and cosmotheists, ascribing a name to those things that are currently beyond human comprehension, but which we strive to ‘know’ and understand, irrespective of whether we call such things ‘God’ or “the deepest questions of the cosmos”.

            1. I understand your point about alienating others. I certainly do not go out of my way to try to alienate people, but I will always respond when I think people are peddling things which are patently untrue or which trespass overtly on known subject matter of great importance. I would add that the content of Millard’s articles is known to me to have an alienating effect on several people, however, and I suspect they are not the only ones.

              Millard is perhaps not advocating belief in a magical sky fairy a la Christianity and the other mainstream monotheisms, but he is still making supernatural and scientific claims about the universe which do not hold up under scrutiny. The nature of what he is advocating belief in also seems to be ill-defined and changes from sentence to sentence, from metaphor to DNA to quantum physics to life force to conscious being.

              You do not build bridges with atheists by trying to define “God” into existence and misappropriating physics terms in doing so. I suspect that the best way to build bridges between people of differing religious beliefs, and of no religious beliefs at all, is to have a totally secular movement and move all discussion of religion (an inherently divisive topic, and one which is unnecessary for politics) to another forum.

              There are certainly many things beyond human comprehension. I have stated before, and will restate now, that there is nothing to be gained but confusion by arbitrarily deciding to call these things “God” with all the baggage that term carries. You may just as well call them “pineapple” or “fish pie”. The set of “things humanity does not understand” and what most people understand by the word “God” are two totally different things, even if religious people do often invoke God to explain things as yet unexplained (or invoke unexplained things in order to provide room for God).

              1. I understand where you are coming from John, but I think we would all appreciate it if you would tell us what “the deepest questions of the cosmos” are from your perspective, how you contemplate them without using terms that are analogous to ‘God’ or ‘life force’ in the way that Millard does, and in what ways your contemplations in this respect have practical value for the struggle for White survival?

                1. There are a lot of deep questions people ask about the cosmos, and different disciplines offer up different ones. Some of them might be “why are the laws of physics the way they are?” or “why is there something rather than nothing?” or “do we have free will?” or “what is consciousness?”. These cannot be answered meaningfully in terms of God because no God has (or perhaps can) be shown to exist, except those which contrived to exist by definition, and these essentially amount to cop-outs rather than offering any real understanding.

                  These are difficult questions, and the fact that they remain unanswered does not give anyone a license to invoke “God” as an answer. The correct answer to many of these questions is not “God” but “I don’t know – let’s try to find out”. Inserting God into gaps in our understanding has historically proven to be a poor strategy as actual explanations are eventually arrived at, and the result is that “God” simply represents the ever-shrinking area of human ignorance. It is a classic manifestation of the “argument from ignorance” fallacy – “X remains unanswered, you cannot think of any answer other than Y, therefore Y”. In this case X can be any deep unanswered question and Y is “God”.

                  I still don’t understand what it is you mean by “life force”. A force in physics is an interaction which causes objects with mass to accelerate. Why do you think there must be some kind of “force” underlying life in particular – why do you think biology is insufficient for explaining a biological process?

                  I don’t know that contemplating deep philosophical questions necessarily IS of practical value for white survival. It is certainly important for the advancement of white civilisation given our survival. I would think however that survival is far more a question of strategy than of science or philosophy.

                  Therefore while discussions of this kind are interesting, as you have pointed out, I think that a better use of this space (if we want to use it for survival as well as stimulating conversations) would be to do something like trying to market nationalism to the people by painting a picture of how their lives would be improved under our stewardship.

                2. I’m sorry John, but you have not answered my questions.
                  .
                  I asked you to tell us tell us what “the deepest questions of the cosmos” are from YOUR perspective, I didn’t ask you to suggest some possible questions that OTHER people MIGHT ask.
                  .
                  I also asked you to explain how YOU contemplate those questions without using terms that are analogous to ‘God’ or ‘life force’ in the way that Millard does, and in what ways YOUR contemplations in this respect have practical value for the struggle for White survival?
                  .
                  It is very easy to denigrate and ridicule the ideas of others, but it is another thing entirely to propose ideas of your own, as you no doubt realise and which is why you evaded answering my questions. However, since by your own assertion you apparently don’t contemplate such questions, my suggestion to you is that you leave these issues and the contemplation of them to those who do, and focus your attention on the things that you do deem worthy, such as “trying to market nationalism to the people by painting a picture of how their lives would be improved under our stewardship”. This would provide the potential for something positive to be derived from your obviously active intellect rather than the pointless and needless erosion of others faith and the comfort/inspiration they draw from it.
                  .
                  I look forward to receiving some articles for publication.

  5. John Salisbury, while my inclination is to admire logical positivism, I think the ‘sky fairy’ dismissal of theism is one of its too-weak and too-facile moves. You know, belief in a higher power does not entail the further belief that that power causes things to happen in the world, answers prayers, rewards and punishes, etc. Such beliefs do exist, but only on the simplest levels of theism. On another level, the Higher Power of Being (God/the Source/the Light) is believed to be implicit in our own being. A simple illustration of this is that as we evolve intellectually, the greater our investment in refinements of spirit such as love of another, aesthetic pleasure, artistic and pragmatic creativity, and the keener our sensitivity to what is right and good (and their antitheses) in our social behaviours.

    And I’m not sure what you mean by ‘significance is something we human imbue onto events’. (The usage template of ‘imbue’ is ‘to imbue x with y’.) Is it something like ‘we attach the label “significant” to certain events’? If you do mean something as simple as this, then my answer is that this is just too sterile to even begin to become a plausible assessment of our sense of the significant. Is it significant, for instance, that all acorns become oak trees, barring an accident that destroys the acorn? I should want to say that it is indeed significant, and becomes ever more so as we discern other rules that govern living things. And the significance is in that we perceive an order in nature, in our lives, and ultimately, in the universe. (Do you know Rupert Sheldrake’s Theory of Morphic Resonance?)

    ‘In that sense I suppose you could say that the “point” of life is to reproduce.’ Do you mean that the point of life is to reproduce the species? Now, that is a dangerous line of reasoning, not least for the fact that if I belief that the point of my life is that I reproduce, then I believe ipso facto that I have an obligation to reproduce, and that if I neglect that obligation, then my life has been pointless. Ahem! I doubt that you would want to defend such a position.

    1. Sophie Johnson – with respect, you might want to direct your admiration elsewhere than logical positivism. Even AJ Ayer described its most important defect as being that “nearly all of it was false”.

  6. Sophie: actually the term “sky fairy” isn’t perhaps as glib and dismissive as you think. Before we had a good understanding of the elements and the weather, our gods used to live in rivers, forests and storms. Then our gods moved to mountaintops, until we explored those. Then gods moved to the sky, but when we began to fly and travel into space, it became evident that no gods lived there. Now god exists “outside of space and time”. You can see the trajectory. At the time Christianity in particular was conceived, it seemed very much the belief that God was somehow “up there”.

    “You know, belief in a higher power does not entail the further belief that that power causes things to happen in the world”. To me, the word “power” implies very strongly that it causes things to happen in the world. In any case, imagine a deity which causes nothing to happen – in other words, which produces no observable effects whatsoever. Can something which does not manifest at all in reality really be said to “exist”? To my mind, existence is necessarily spatial and temporal – if something exists, it exists someplace and sometime. A deity which apparently exists outside of space and time, then, really does not qualify for existence at all, by definition.

    “On another level, the Higher Power of Being (God/the Source/the Light) is believed to be implicit in our own being”. I thought you said that belief in a high power does not entail the further belief that that power causes things to happen. How can something be “implicit in our own being” without causing anything to happen? If taking that thing away would have no discernible effect, again, can we really say we knew it to be there in the first place? “A simple illustration of this is that as we evolve intellectually…” – a simpler explanation would be that as we evolve intellectually, we further develop these concepts as well as developing the free time and resources to devote to practicing them. These human activities provide no evidence that there is any higher power involved.

    When I say that significance is something we imbue things with (I accept your correction of my grammar) I mean that something is significant TO a person, or a group of people. Significance is very much a subjective human measure. There is no objective measure of significance attached to objects or concepts in the real world in the absence of humans for those objects or concepts to matter to.

    I have come across Rupert Sheldrake. I think his ideas are whacky in the extreme and without basis in evidence (he believes in psychic telepathic dogs, as well as a huge number of other things that scientific investigation has found no evidence for – his response to this seems to be to spit his dummy out and accuse all scientists of being arrogant and dogmatic; a most childish maneuver). I recently watched a video of a talk by him in which he accuses scientists of having ten “dogmas”, most of which I’ve heard any scientist propose and the rest of which are just observed facts. I suspect this is a move to try to explain why essentially none of the scientific literature bears out his strange ideas. He also makes outrageous claims far outside the areas of his own expertise – his educational background seems to be in botany. As best as I can judge, he has no standing or respect in the scientific community, and rightly so. I read one of his papers on the supposedly telepathic dogs, and I found the quality of his writing and methodology poor – I think it would receive a low mark at an undergraduate level.

    I was not saying that the point of life is to reproduce – I was pointing out what I see as the folly of trying to work out the point or purpose of life at all. For example, if you were to go off of evolution, then that would suggest that the purpose of life was reproduction (a defining characteristic of life, something which life must do in order to continue, and the metric by which evolution “measures” the success of a genotype). My position is that the universe owes us no ready-made purpose and that it may not even be a sensible question to ask. Perhaps we make our own purpose. I find this far more liberating and useful than choosing to believe that we have a predestined purpose handed down from on high, which makes us mere pawns in some grand plan we cannot hope to understand or change.

Comments are closed.