Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Donnadogsoth last won the day on December 5

Donnadogsoth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

57 Excellent


About Donnadogsoth

Recent Profile Visitors

1145 profile views
  1. Let's discuss transgenderism

    I mean that this tension must exist in general. I don't have any sociological statistics on it, but I'm confident it exists. I disagree. Given than the mind enfolds the body and not vice versa, it is the mind that is primary, not the body. The body and other physical experiences are just elements in the mind. Which means that we are “standing invisibly” next to everyone that ever lived. Without ultimate justice and mercy my concern for man flags. If it all ends in death anyway then what was the point. . . https://twitter.com/ZJemptv/status/881284028548173824?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fgregp-3534%2F2017%2F07%2F02%2Fits-part-of-her-body-trans-activist-tells-straight-guys-to-start-dating-trans-women%2F Why is heterosexuality a coercive evil? You're telling me that males in traditional male roles and females in traditional female roles is equivalent to rape and slavery? A friend of mine talks about “transcendental degeneration,” the concept that the human body is the perfect form in the universe and that all other forms descend from or are degenerations of the human form. Man did not rise from ape, metaphysically speaking, ape descended from man. In this Platonic sense then the human mind is ideally adapted to the human body, though in some cases this isn't a perfect connection. Still it gives us the inkling of a “divine human form” that should not be deformed or mutilated.
  2. Poetry and Quotations Thread

    "Our continent is wracked by guilt, tiredness, existential exhaustion, a whole range of things that means we're very vulnerable to anyone who says it's all our fault." --Douglas Murray
  3. Poetry and Quotations Thread

    "Cultures that do not progress, die, because they cease to be human." --Jason Ross
  4. Eugenic

    No. I mean the anti-white nature of modern Christianity, that either ignores or actively promotes non-white colonisation of the West. I'm asking about today, how does the EU go against the British imperial interest? Aren't all of these political factions essentially one at the top: the IMF, World Bank, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group. CFR, Wall Street, London, Davos, and probably etc—they're all linked together, so it's unreal to suggest that the EU is a fully independent body that can defy British interests. They're all in bed together. Are they all Jewish controlled? You're presuming the Alt Right is in direct opposition to British imperialism. Suppose it's not, and it's tolerated the way Hitler was tolerated (and even helped into power by London bankers), in order to set up a gang/countergang between Left and Right and so help destabilise society? Also, if some British aristocrats care, then why are there only the few outliers who are doing something about it? Have Jewish-British oligarchs got a complete lock on power? I'm not prepared to believe the entire gentile oligarchy is helpless before the might of the Jews. You seem to be saying that is the case. If the Jews as a race or quasi-race, a people if you will, are like this, are you arguing they are all like this, or that a few of their least scrupulous and most intelligent members are taking advantage of their immunity to criticism, their group solidarity, their invisibility, their group identity as victims, their wealth, and their organisational acumen, to promote an anti-Western agenda? Why are those members like this? I appreciate that. My recommendation for you is the geometry detector. That the history of the West, one that in large part defines it, is between the republicanism of Solon versus the oligarchism of Babylon. That these two philosophies, which hold competing and mutually incompatible definitions of man, one of man as made in the image of God, the other of man as being as a beast of the field, to be controlled and bred and culled by master-beasts, intertwine through the centuries like snakes. Here's a video, unfortunately with very low volume, which addresses the British Question. A better presentation of the same material: Lord Palmerston's Multicultural Zoo
  5. Eugenic

    Yet religion and race appear to conflict. I am unwilling to sacrifice either for the sake of the other. Can they not be reconciled? The British attack on scientific fundamentals, on the nature of man, and on classical art, all subcontracted through scientists, philosophers, and artists. Science has been reduced to mere empiricism and irrationalistic dogmas like statistical quantum probability and climate hysteria/ecologism (Prince Philip and the World Wildlife Fund), propaganda and popular entertainment and philosophy has reduced man to animal-like status, and art has been ripped free of its mooring of the good, the true, and the beautiful and so drifted into dark waters of weirdness, eros, whim, the interesting, and the ugly. All this has to do with London and Wall Street money. Is the EU functionally separate from the British empire, or is it like a weaker Siamese twin?--in other words, in what way does the EU go against the desires of the British empire? The British imperialists don't care about displaced white minorities. As you said, follow the money: Who financed Lenin and Trotsky?
  6. Eugenic

    What rights and duties do God's chosen people have? Must we sacrifice bulls to Jehovah? Smith and Marx were encouraged and used by the British as part of their war on civilisation. Smith's purpose was to destroy American sovereignty by preventing it from putting in place protectionist measures to allow it to transform from being merely a backwater resource pool to an industrial power. Marx was deployed to destroy continental unity in Europe. These ideologies got splashed around and came into conflict, but the essential was there: damage the sovereign nation-state and especially destroy America as a world power and stop the unification of Europe as an economic entity, both of which were threatening the economic hegemony of Britain. Do the Jews of Aristocratic lineage even think of themselves as Jews? Do they think and act in any way resembling how "commoner" Jews think and act?
  7. Eugenic

    I mean God. Did God create the white race only to have it die—or even to have it be sacrificed on the altar of international brotherhood? What kind of God would do such a thing? Surely it's not a coincidence that both of the greatest philosophical influences on the Twentieth Century came from Imperial Britain? Consider also: “Whatever else Trier's Karl Marx represented, Marxism, as an ideology and doctrine, was, in its cultural characteristics, an outgrowth of the emerging British Empire whose power, established in the Paris Treaty of February 1763, had been consolidated by the outcome of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars. Marxism as a doctrine was a phenomenon whose axiomatic features had been pre-shaped by the British Foreign Office's Jeremy Bentham, and, more immediately, by Bentham's successor and British asset Marx's actual owner, Lord Palmerston.[3]” and, “Whereas the development of what London asset Marx came to recognize as a system of British political economy, occurred chiefly under the impetus of Britain's notorious Lord Shelburne, after the February 1763 Treaty of Paris, with Shelburne's assignment to his lackey Adam Smith: to scour France for intelligence on economy which might be used against the already significant development within the North American English colonies, and in France. Hence, Adam Smith's 1776 tract against the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Smith's so-called Wealth of Nations, was largely a work of plagiarism, by Smith and others, of the doctrines of the French Physiocrats Quesnay and Turgot.” Discussed further here. How the Liberals Tried To Make Engels' Monkey Into a Man And also, The "Jewish" Conspiracy is British Imperialism There are no wealthy Europeans?
  8. What I Learned in School and the Battle for Western Civilization

    You know, there is a Delete key. You don't have to repost Moore's entire essay in order to respond.
  9. Could the incest taboo be merely Darwinian? Let's redpill ourselves [theoretically] by thinking that incest is gross because it leads to genetic ill health. Paedophilia is gross because it represents an infertile union. Sex with old people is gross for the same reason. Doesn't it all revolve around breeding, psychologically, in terms of what we would call normal, well-adjusted human beings of breeding age?
  10. Have the rainbow brigade added this "I" to their alphabet soup yet? There is nothing in [popular] principle stopping incestual unions. Even if the children had a higher chance of developing a disease or deformity, so what? Do we bar dwarfs and hemophiliacs from marrying, too?
  11. Let's discuss transgenderism

    Suppressing chaos is what principles do. The general welfare principle suppresses the criminal chaos of the government existing for its own benefit. The principle of beauty suppresses the chaos of modern art. The principle of the star-map suppresses the chaos of the ocean as we find we are no longer lost. We discover these things, which are akin to Platonic forms, and we use them to reorder society. Hierarchical polygamy is the natural state of man as beast; monogamous heterosexuality is the natural state of man as man. Just as we have overcome slavery, so should we overcome polygamy. Promiscuity, lack of formal relational structure, yes, and this is most common in homosexual men. Lesbians tend to go the other way. This is the result of men being men; if women were as willing to have sex with men as men are with women, heterosexuals would be as promiscuous as homosexual man, and if men were as unwilling to have sex with women as women are with men, heterosexuals would be as sexually conservative as Lesbians. Your point about sexuality without tradition is taken. Yet the differences between men and women, regardless of sexuality, impose themselves on homosexual relationships causing disruption. Another example of this is in homosexual culture as such, which has the following problem. Heterosexuals can, if they choose, migrate to a social group of the same sex, which is mostly free of sexual tension. If they want to experience sexual tension they must enter a mixed sex or opposite sex group. Generally speaking, homosexuals cannot “hang out” with each other outside of sexual tension. If a homosexual wants a tensionless group he must hang out with women, but this has the problem that only one homosexual can attend, because the moment there are two or more, the tension returns. Homosexuals probably envy the heterosexuals' ability to easily move in social circles free of sexual tension, yet among their own sex. You have nicely summed up the division in Christianity and in all religions and philosophies, one that causes me some trouble. The problem with dispensing with your first way, is that with it goes all hope of mercy and justice. If all there is is helping the future, then those lives lived in misery will never obtain recompense. Similarly, those crimes committed with impunity will never obtain vengeance. This is a demoralising loss to humanity, to think so, don't you think? As you like it: Zinni Jones in her glory Not just polymorphous perversity but sexual bullying by trying to induce heterosexual men into having relations with transsexual women. Or a thin girl versus a fat girl become thin? If in your example they're both biological females with a virtually identical mind, then it's a toss up. I'm not against orthodontics or plastic surgery, in principle. he disgust felt by the conservatives, including Leftists and Centrists who simply breathe through a straw while submerged in the dominant ideology, strikes me as arising from the idea of mutilation. Mutilation is disgusting: someone missing an ear or a nose or a hand is repulsive on that count, no matter how well we try to hide our disgust. Homosexuals are people with a mutilated sexuality, and transsexuals either mutilate the dress code or else themselves through transition surgery. This doesn't give us an excuse for beating them up or insulting them, but does explain the persistent antipathy they face that can mutate into hatred. The wounded animal is often prey. Is this fear? Fear of disease to self, disease to the tribe. And as forestated, this isn't an unfounded, irrational fear. It doesn't matter whether it's a remedial therapy or not, it's what it looks like. Giving a biological girl breasts is like giving her braces. Similarly, administering chemotherapy to someone may (arguably) be helping them, but that “help” still looks like mutilation with hair falling out and horribly sick. A transsexual woman is defying the biology built into her body; her entire body is in a sense the enemy that needs to be wrestled into submission with medical procedures and drugs. That's a world away from helping a girl grow breasts. On men and women and hierarchies, the question isn't whether men are more dominant than women, it's what our response to that natural fact should be. The feminist response is to, depending on whether the given feminist is a pawn or a queen, either abolish the hierarchy or invert it. Their friends the Muslims would reinforce it and add polygamy back in. The conservative position would be the acknowledgement that men and women are different, that creating equality of opportunity is good but creating equality of outcome is not. This leads us to a situation such as I've heard about in Scandinavia, the most gender-equal place on Earth, where men still overwhelmingly make up engineering classes and women still overwhelmingly make up nursing classes. Bingo. Emphasis added. I would not describe the hierarchy as being a better/worse, but just active/passive. A transwoman is taking on, symbolically, here, a passive persona, seen in impractical clothing choices like high heels or what have you, she's symbolically (and perhaps literally) depleting the tribe's warrior-base. I think the great advantage transsexual have here is not feminism's critique of the sexual hierarchy, something which I think exists for natural reasons AND has a Platonic principles foundation to it that will and should resist attempts to sweep it away in favour of feminist New Soviet Man, but rather the medicalisation and bionic augmentation of the human body. As long as the heterosexual paradigm continues to define society, transsexualism will be seen as just another procedure, oh I'm taking drugs for this what are you taking drugs for?, oh I had my transition last year, does it show?, no, I'd've never guessed, keen, would you like some blue apple?, my husband raves about it. . . But it's written in the stars And every line in your palm We are fools to make war On our brothers in arms Of course we are at war with the entire Universe, which wants to degrade us and kills us, so yes we are at war with what Vladimir I. Vernasky called the Lithosphere, and the Biosphere which has supplanted it. Humanity's proper mission is to build and expand the Noösphere, the sphere of human cybernetic interaction which can and should extend infinitely into Outer Space. But this idea is taken by the so-called transhumanists to think that we should deform ourselves beyond all recognition in a quest for higher IQ and longer lifespans. This is where it gets dangerous, just as genetically modifying our food supply is dangerous. I don't believe we should have blue apples, for example, though we might have red apples with Vitamin B, or something. We should strive to preserve as much of the principled order as possible, including heterosexuality. We should not land on Mars and have three arms. I have a friend with whom I disagree about transsexuality. He thinks transsexuals are “delusional” about their mental sex, and I think they are metaphysically true. My question in general is, if transsexuals were correct in what they think they are, how could they possibly prove it more than they already do by acting and talking as they do?
  12. Let's discuss transgenderism

    Responding soon...
  13. Perspective is relative. If I have a hamster, I wonder, what's it like to be my hamster? Well, to the hamster, being a hamster is normal, just as to me, being a human is normal. So, regardless of what accidental differences the hamster and I have, we share the commonality of feeling that we are normal, respectively. The only way that we might differ, it seems, is in the degree to which our desires are fulfilled. My hamster may be very fulfilled and therefore very happy, or it may be unfulfilled and unhappy. The same goes for me. So, in this sense, we can see there could be a difference between myself and my hamster. But, this is not a difference in principle. It is not radically different to be a man compared to a hamster. Or is it? Plato's Socrates in The Republic spoke of how a rational man is superior to the courageous or the merely appetitive sorts of men, because being rational he can compare the three types and judge among them, whereas the latter two types have no understanding of the rational and therefore cannot judge. In this sense, then, I as a man can judge that I am superior to my hamster, because I possess the reason allowing me to judge the matter, whereas it lacks this faculty and exists purely in the determination of its instincts. So, we see that there is a comparative quality that differs between us, even though we remain equally normal, and this quality is only viewable to ourselves as reasoning beings. The hamster exists in invincible ignorance regarding the mental-emotional difference between itself and myself. I see that we are different, even though my feeling of normality is the same. I am conscious of my superiority to the hamster in this regard.
  14. Eugenic

    I don't disagree that it's a significant pattern you describe, but I do disagree that it's the top of the pyramid. I think the Jews are being manipulated by the chiefly British oligarchy, the same oligarchy that produced both Karl Marx and Adam Smith, the one which has been trying since the Revolutionary War to retake America, first militarily until the end of the (British-backed) Confederacy, then financially through the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. The Jews may seem powerful, even gloating, but the real underlying emotion with them is fear: fear that the white elephant will roll over and crush them again. Thus, they've done everything in their power to cement themselves into Western society, by working to criminalise or at least make taboo criticism of the Holocaust, by getting their fingers in the financial and professional and government and media and educational pies, and by promoting coloured colonisation of white countries so they can disappear in the multicultural/racial crowd. The Alt Right's problem isn't ballsiness, it's that they don't think big enough--Faustian enough. The world is increasingly connected and needs to be more connected if it is going to lift itself up to a higher economic platform than before. Just as the American railroad building program created the America as we know it geographically and economically, so the world needs a worldwide program of infrastructural development of the type currently being worked on by China with its $4 to 20 trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative. The Alt Right doesn't know or doesn't care about this, and yet it is Faustian in its nature to the core. If we want to migrate into Outer Space, if we want to turn off the colonisation taps by giving people a reason not to abandon their own countries, if we want to save our economy and prevent a general breakdown crisis, these sorts of megaprojects and development of the wastelands and interiors of Earth are the way to go. However, the people (including many Jews) on board with this vision man: as dedicating himself to the economic and high cultural development of the planet, don't care about the white race. Which leads me to question: does the white race matter? Does the Universe care if we go extinct? I have a thought on this but would like to see what you think.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.