As may you.

I do like Mencken, he's hilarious -- actually I once wrote an article for a small-press magazine on the fascinating tete-a-tete btwn him and John Crowe Ransom re/ religion.

However --religion aside-- Mencken's dismissal of poetry as a means of grasping truth represents a fundamentally problematic blind spot.

"You can imagine the response of my classmates, much less my instructor."

I see.

You may change some of your views as time goes by.

"My impression that nominalism denotes a denial of language’s connection to transcendent truth comes primarily via the lens of Richard Weaver. Having read Lucretius, I feel safe in assuming that I understand materialism at least as well as yourself."

Look up an essay by H.L. Mencken on Veblen Thorstein. (Hint, it's about your writing style.)

This is an interesting point.

However, it might be worth considering how much better off Americans would be today, had less energies been spent during the Cold War on defending the country from Communism, promoting the conservative movement, or any other sort of worldly activism, etc., etc., ...... and more energies expended instead upon "angels dancing on the head of a pin" - type questions.

Such as, say, the definition of words such as patriotism, which has today come to mean loyalty to a government vice loyalty to a culture, people, and homeland.

One of the reasons this society is in the state it is in, is because people have spent too much time on activism and not enough time on knowing who they are and where they come from -- the sort of knowledge one only gets from songs, poetry, and literature. Not studying Machiavellian politics and various strategies for acquiring power.

In many cases what has happened is that the activist -- whether Republican, evangelical, or WN -- no longer has a clear or holistic idea of what he is "defending".

Trying to defend and revive the white race by disdaining 2,000 years of Christian tradition -- a la Oliver -- is akin to the New Southerner telling his brethren that the South will be better and stronger as soon as it drops its backwards ways and adopts those of the Yankee. Hey, you can "win" -- just so long as you're willing to morph into something your ancestors would have found abhorrent.

"Unfortunately, since you and many other “cultured” men are petrified of being called a racist..."

Actually I have been called a racist, on numerous occasions -- though I can't say anybody has ever mistaken me for being cultured.

At one point during a college seminar I responded with "So what?" to another student's repeated assertion that a certain position was racist -- not because I was sympathetic to racism then, either, but simply because it was thought-policing.

You can imagine the response of my classmates, much less my instructor.

Not to be provocative on a dead thread, but I don't think I need lectures from you about willingness to take abuse for one's convictions. It might be worth considering that the reason we don't promote your views is not because we are too timid to, but simply because we don't share them.

My impression that nominalism denotes a denial of language's connection to transcendent truth comes primarily via the lens of Richard Weaver. Having read Lucretius, I feel safe in assuming that I understand materialism at least as well as yourself.

He was smart enough to know that you have to use religion to appeal to most people, hence cosmotheism.

As for your continuing assertion about WN's not having interest in science literature or White people, etc., the reason this may seem to be the case is because you guys who like Beowulf and such evidently cannot be bothered to take the time to defend your loves, hence someone else has to take up your slack and doesn't have the time.

While you guys have been pondering a few literary passages, our enemies have essentially eliminated study of these great works. The result is they are being forgotten by most White people. Unfortunately, since you and many other "cultured" men are petrified of being called a racist or NAZI, you only meakly if anything speak out.

I think you get my point.

Your ranting on materialism sounds like you just came from a hick preacher's sermon, himself not understanding the meaning of words he has been taught to rail against.

Tell me, if a thief steals your wallet, do you automatically allow that your wallet is now his? I point this out because so many allow journalists and others to "steal" words and give them improper meanings, and from then on, everyone assumes that is the correct meaning of the word.

"Materialism" and "Humanism" are examples of such stolen words. Much like the word "gay" was long ago hijacked and given a new meaning.

When a person who is not a Liberal, respectable Conservative like Bill O"Reilly, or a preacher uses words like Materialism and Humanism or Humanist, they mean something quite different. Humanism, for example, is essentially what was once known as a Classical education i.e., study of literature, classical languages and literature, some science and math, history, etc. It WAS not what modern Liberals and respectable Conservatives say it is. Just because San Francisco homosexuals say they may be "secular humanists" doesn't mean they are. Some of them say they are Christians. So, using your logic, they must be, right?

A more illustrative & properly parallel generalization would be, "In short, the white nationalist doesn’t really give a damn about white people, any more than the Marxist really gives a damn about the working man."

I wouldn't use cosmotheism, *The Turner Diaries*, or an academic who subscribed to materialism (surprise, surprise) as examples of WN interest in science, literature, and deep pondering of the human condition. It's poor salesmanship.

For my own part, I have become very concerned with the USA's most recent efforts to merge church and state wherever possible. I do not believe in a god of any type. Sure, Jesus existed, but he was just another person who needed to believe in something unseen. Is it plausible that in early development of human society 'religion' was an easy method to systamatize a group's efforts, decisions, time and thoughts? I believe human beings are now capable of doing those things without a framework heldover from less elevated times which metes out how to 'be good' or face the consequences.

Obviously, governments also seek to organize a given population's efforts, time, etc. The advantage of a government such our own, as opposed to a religion is the adherents are free to change the system. This is why the constant undertone of christianity in our government is so awful to me. Religions take generations to develop meaningful change and that is starting to be true of the US government as well. There are other contributing factors to America's stagnation but perhaps this is the one not enough people acknowledge.

However our habits and ethics came to be, why is it so hard to believe that we are capable of developing our own system of ethics without the organized hand of religion? How much nicer a world to live in would ours be if we valued the reality we can see - there is no higher power, we are all dirt and responsible for ourselves and each other?

If you wish to discuss literature and science, philosophy or religion, start the discussion, many will oblige you.

Even Stormfront has sections devoted entirely to the subjects you claim NO racialist ever talk about. I noticed they even had a thread devoted to astronomy pictures.

Are you saying that William Pierce had no interest in science? Revilo P. Oliver was ignorant of history and literature?

It is true that quite a few "rednecks" have no interest in these subjects, just as a high percentage of devout Christians are totally ignorant of science or literature. True?

However, I would not make so sweeping a generalization as "In short, Christians don't really give a damn about science, any more than the Moslems really give a damn about women. "

What was that you were saying about the ignorant shooting their mouth off?

Yes, that is annoying when the ignorant shoot their mouths off.

Some time back, (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=409) a fellow named Leon Haller made the claim that treating "the Other" as human was a pathetic weakness "derived from Christianity, NOT classical antiquity…”

and I responded with:

*The Illiad*, Book XXIV.

Strangely enough Mr. Haller had nothing more to say.

Were I cynical I would suspect Mr. Haller is the kind of person who enjoys invoking classical antiquity more than he enjoys studying it.

"I’m curious why none of those so passionately enthusiastic about the white race took any interest in the *Beowulf* thread."

Well, G.S., my hypothesis is that while white nationalists sometimes like to talk *about* "science" or even "the arts", they have zero interest *in* these topics -- zero, nada, zilch -- aside from the delicious, vicarious feeling of power that ensues from invoking such subjects as proofs of the genetically predestined greatness of the European race.

Newton, Copernicus, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Virgil, Dante, Michaelangelo, etc.... the point of these men's lives is not to be found in the aspirations to which their lives were dedicated. Oh, but no.

Rather, the point of the lives all these "white men" is that they provide a useful reservoir of names for the white nationalist to draw upon, when seeking to reinforce his self-esteem.

Should a paleoconservative (or anybody else) show excessive interest in what any of the aforementioned philosophers, poets, or scientists actually did, actually said, or actually thought about the world, then he will be attacked for (in the words of Mr. Haller) "engaging in lots of jesuitical arguing" and discussing questions which are "ridiculously unimportant."

Hence the white nationalist's attitude toward the truths expressed in Anglo-Saxon heritage is ... similar to how a modern Marxist "gets off" on talking about scientific progress -- yet feels no awe when gazing upon a starry sky, nor any desire to learn about the beacons which illuminate it.

No time for relativity theory, or the Big Bang -- there's a political rally to go to, and a manifesto to compose, and Power to be slobbered over.

In short, the white nationalist doesn't really give a damn about white people, any more than the Marxist really gives a damn about science.

"to take at face value what other Christians have parroted down through the centuries..."

Note that those contemptible Christian parrots are the very ancestors whom racialists claim to hold in such high, blood-bound esteem.