Charles Giuliani: A Nihilist Saboteur of the Truth Movement?

[VikingSails]

Go on his show you big Pussy. To bring up Great men like Ernst Zundel to further your BS, is pretty much the last straw for me. Fuck You and this stupid site.

[sullivan]

Go on his show you big Pussy. To bring up Great men like Ernst Zundel to further your BS, is pretty much the last straw for me.

If you can't get your point across without name-calling then you don't have much of a point. Having said that, Timothy has failed to answer any of the posts where he was encouraged to go on Giuliani's show and debate him, which says a heck of a lot too.

Fuck You and this stupid site.

If you don't like this site, then feel free to leave. Nobody is forcing you to post here.

[Rockclimber]

And do you know why they get along Shiksa Rage? Because they don't discuss the topic--they are united in their fight against the jewish elite. Religion need not break their bond against the worst enemy mankind has ever seen.

So you recognize that:
Christians and Non-Religious can get along.
It is not necessary to insult the Christian Religion in order to fight criminal Jewry.
That it is far more important to focus on the criminal acts committed by the Jewish cabal.  

RC, maybe YOU should debate Giuliani and make him come to his senses.

I have mostly kept my opinions about my beliefs to myself, no doubt.

From Charles perspective, Christianity is a criminal act of the Jewish cabal, that is to say an extension of Judaism and that it is wicked at it's core. He's makes a pretty strong case for that. What people will do with that information is not up to me. This is what Charles will debate.

And personally, If I had my way we wouldn't enter into these discussions. As I said there are no winners and furthermore it just brings out a lot of ugliness.

Nevertheless I still look forward to the debate. May logic and reason win, coginitive dissonance sucks.

[Rockclimber]

And do you know why they get along Shiksa Rage? Because they don't discuss the topic--they are united in their fight against the jewish elite. Religion need not break their bond against the worst enemy mankind has ever seen.

 It would be better, in this fight, if people kept their religious convictions to themselves as it is merely causes division.

 :clap:  :up: We agree

[Christopher Marlowe]

Awesome post, Timmy!  Your points are well chosen and substantiated. I would have liked to hear this spoken on G's show, but I will respect your decision not to go on the air. People who are expert in media can use it to their own advantage.  e.g. DBS (he who shall not be named) recently was talking about how he refused to go on CNN(?) to talk about 9/11 unless they met his demands.  He knew they would misuse his words and image.  

This still make a very strong reference for Michael, if he wants it.  

I was kind of disappointed to read Mr Sullivan's response to this.  It is completely lacking in substance.  Really, Sullivan, did you even read this?    

Now, Giuliani can downplay my accusations and simply claim not to be an atheist but, instead, some kind of agnostic thinker. He makes a point of not saying exactly to what belief he subscribes.

Does he have to subscribe to a particular belief? Where is that mandated?

No, but if a person is critiquing the Bible and Jesus Christ as the source of morality, then it becomes incumbent upon them to show the source of their morality. Otherwise, they lack any authority.

Certainly a person has a right to their own opinion, but why should anyone care about anyone else's opinion? Who cares if G thinks 2 and a half men is "filth"? What is that opinion based upon? Someone might think 2.5Men is "genius" or "inspired".  Someone might think that Beethoven's 7th Symphony is filth. And the same person might think that Snoop Dog is religious music.  Who cares what anybody else thinks?  What makes one person's opinion better than another person's.  

My point is that no one has authority over morals. Without God, there is no such thing as Good or Evil: there is only someone else's opinion.  Western civilization has been fooled into thinking that there is just some "default morality" that will substitute for Christianity, but they are mistaken.  People who watch too much TV think that there is some common morality resource that everyone understands and agrees upon, separate from the Bible; they think that it is okay to cite moral opinions as long as your don't cite the Bible; that act AS IF there is some understood universal standard of morality outside of the Bible!  

Timmy refers to this mistaken belief:

So, Giuliani rejects the Bible but accepts the Christian concept of evil.

They have not recognized that any true concept of virtue or goodness is merely a remnant of Christian morality.  

This same sort of mistaken belief can be seen many times in your response:

Giuliani continually talks out both sides of his mouth.

Whatever happened to "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", eh?

Here you are citing scripture, but we are left to wonder: where Timmy has done this?  The rhetoric involved here is to cite the rule, (or in this case, the parable): explain the rule: and then to analyze the essay and show that the author has done something contrary to the rule (parable).  Properly done: T is saying that G talks out of both sides of his mouth; S compares this to casting a stone; S explains why casting a stone is appropriate to this situation (I assume that Sullivan means that T is accusing G of something that T has also done); S gives examples where T has also spoken out of "both sides of his mouth".

And why do you rely on scripture to make your point?  If the Bible is so bad, then why do you use it to make a point?  You use it because you are relying on the audience understanding the MORALITY behind the story and the parable. You are relying upon that standards of MORALITY that are set by Jesus Christ and the Bible.  You are relying on the very same Bible that you applaud G for condemning?  But if the Bible is bad, then you should not use it. For example, I would never cite the Talmud to make my point, except to give an example of how the Talmud is wicked and evil.  

He calls the Bible evil while denying the validity of Christianity or religion at all.

That is his right, as it is yours to believe the contrary.

Yes, but what does G use to replace the Bible?  G's opinion? This is another instance of relying upon some unknown source of morality. What is the sum and substance of this source of morality that G can freely extract from parts unknown?  Do I have to listen to G's show to understand what is good and what is "filth"?

Meanwhile, Christianity is arguably the foremost religion to define evil and establish a standard by which to measure it.

Are you serious? Do you honestly think humankind would have no concept of evil were it not for the Bible?

If you are properly REFUTING what Timmy said, then you have to provide some substance.  This answer only PRETENDS to do this. Your pretend refutation is merely misstating Timmy's claim and then providing a question mark. Timmy did not claim that "humankind would have no concept of evil were it not for the Bible" but rather that "Christianity is arguably the foremost religion to define evil and establish a standard by which to measure it."  

I used to have a car where the gas gauge was broken. I understood the concept that the car would run out of gas eventually.  I knew that the car would need more gas sometime.  But after the gauge got below half a tank, I had to GUESS how much gas I had left.  If I remembered the mileage when I gassed up, I could make an educated guess as to how much fuel remained, but otherwise I was clueless.  

Perhaps people of other faiths might have an idea that evil exists in the world, and they might, on occasion, be able to spot it.  But we are witnessing the rapid decline of morality in Europe and the Western world because we no longer rely on Christianity to show us when we are doing evil.  Would you honestly claim that morals today in Europe and America are better than they were 100 years ago?

Christianity, like that gauge, is the best way to understand and recognize evil.  Christianity defines "evil" more clearly than any other religion, and so enables us to fight against evil. Society is running down because we lack a moral compass.  

We need God to tell us what "sin" is because we are sinful creatures. Do you expect a fat man to know when to stop eating? Do you expect an alcoholic to stop drinking? Left to our own devices we will always err in judging sin because that same sin distorts our reasoning.    

For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. [15] For that which I work, I understand not. For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate, that I do.

Anyone with a brain knows that there is right and wrong.  And any honest person will admit that he has done that which he knows to be wrong. Therefore, we know that we are sinful creatures. And do we rely on every sinful creature to decide what is right an what is wrong?  We need a better GAUGE to judge what is good and evil.  The BEST GAUGE is Christianity because through Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit can live in us and help us to live our lives the right way.

So, Giuliani rejects the Bible but accepts the Christian concept of evil. And he, nor his followers, see the contradiction in this?

You can't see a contradiction in a statement that at best is misinformed and at worst is disingenuous. I hate to break it to you, but the concepts of good and evil are pretty much universal.

Of course.  That is why people all agree on abortion and homosexual marriage and war and individual liberty and education and social welfare and the environment.  These ideas are completely unquestioned and universal and everyone always agrees. At least we are in agreement on this issue.    

Regardless, his anti-religious rhetoric sprinkled with cheap critiques of International Jewry ("Elite Jew Pigs! Elite Jew Pigs!") reveals that he is a dedicated nihilist walking in the tradition of Jewish Bolshevism, what is today called cultural Marxism.

So when you are criticising International Jewry your critiques are not equally cheap?  So anyone who is anti-religious is now a nihilist and cultural Marxist? Do you realise exactly how daft this sounds?

He attempts to cloud his audience's perception of this by raising random shades of morality. On a recent Truth Hertz show, he criticized the television show Two and a Half Men for promoting "filth."

Ah, the old "atheists and agnostics can't have morals" line. I haven't seen that one in quite a while. Thank you for digging it out and dusting it off. Now that you have, can you put it back in its box where it belongs?

Do you see how this lacks any substance? You are not refuting what Timmy said. Not at all.  

Timmy is saying that G is a nihilist because he tears down the SOURCE of morality without providing anything to replace it. Timmy gave several examples of nihilism being promoted to replace Christianity: the French Revolution; the Russian Revolution; and modern western decline.  All promoted by Jewish or Masonic atheist/agnostic/nihilsts. Timmy is saying that G is essentially doing the same thing and is therefore a nihilist.  That is a substantive argument.  Telling Timmy to put it into a box is not a refutation.  

Everyone having their own opinion is NOT MORALITY.  That is anarchy.  People do not naturally do good on their own.  Parents have to instill good behavior in their children. A person can also teach their child to be wicked: that he is the best; that everyone is worthless; that he can steal as long as he doesn't get caught; that wearing a yarmulke on your head at on the Day of Atonement will make up for stealing the rest of the year...

You do not provide a counter-example to refute Timmy.  Give us an example of a revolution where a Christian nation was sacked and replaced with a nihilist ethic, and where goodness flourished thereafter.  You can't do that because that is a Jewish fairytale.  

Nihilism is fundamentally utilitarian and agnostic. For Giuliani to deny that, as a nihilist he has much in common with socialist and radical leftist Jews, is deceptive or self-deceptive.

I think you are the one being deceptive here, to be honest.  Just look at the twisted logic in the above sentence for a good example.

Timmy gave examples of Jewish revolutions that threw down Christian establishments, and which promoted nihilism.
Timmy said: that G is attacking Christianity and promoting nihilism; that G's actions are essentially the same as those of the Jewish revolutionaries; that if G denies this obvious common action and effect, then G is either deceiving himself or us.  How is that twisted logic?  

Example 1: Saul breaks a store window with a brick. Pierre loots the store. Store owner Jacques is sad.
Example 2: Chaim breaks a store window with a brick. Ivan loots the store. Store owner Nikolai is sad.
Example 3: Charlie has seen the aforementioned examples, and then proceeds to break a store window.  

Are we to believe that Charlie should not expect a similar result?  Is it "twisted logic" to expect a similar result from the same action?

For them to criticize Christianity as being a Jewish subversive organization is highly inappropriate and hypocritical.

Not when it is accompanied by a reasoned analysis it is not, you know, the sort of reasoned analysis you have failed to present, for instance. What I have seen here is an entirely emotional reaction to his criticism of something you hold dear, but it is sorely lacking in any sort of reasoning.

Sullivan you really need to go back and read this essay again. Timmy makes several points and backs them up with facts:
1. If Christianity were the crypto-Jewish plot Charles Giuliani and his ilk claim it is, why then didn't the Jewish Bolshevists use it instead of atheism-nihilism (materialism and naturalism)?
2. Christianity was suppressed under Jewish communists; Judaism was raised up and/or tolerated.
3. Judaism promotes atheism/nihilism.  
4. G's actions have much in common with Jewish nihilism, marxism, atheism, psychoanalysis, etc...

You have not provided any substantive answer to ANY of his points.  You have failed to make a reasoned analysis of Timmy's essay.

[Christopher Marlowe]

And do you know why they get along Shiksa Rage? Because they don't discuss the topic--they are united in their fight against the jewish elite. Religion need not break their bond against the worst enemy mankind has ever seen.

So you recognize that:
Christians and Non-Religious can get along.
It is not necessary to insult the Christian Religion in order to fight criminal Jewry.
That it is far more important to focus on the criminal acts committed by the Jewish cabal.  

RC, maybe YOU should debate Giuliani and make him come to his senses.

I have mostly kept my opinions about my beliefs to myself, no doubt.

From Charles perspective, Christianity is a criminal act of the Jewish cabal, that is to say an extension of Judaism and that it is wicked at it's core. He's makes a pretty strong case for that. What people will do with that information is not up to me. This is what Charles will debate.

And personally, If I had my way we wouldn't enter into these discussions. As I said there are no winners and furthermore it just brings out a lot of ugliness.

Nevertheless I still look forward to the debate. May logic and reason win, coginitive dissonance sucks.

Over and again I run into this belief that there is a solid wall where religion and morals end, and where everything is rational and universally understood.  That is a false belief that has been promoted by the Jewish media.  

You say that you have kept your opinions to yourself, but you just clearly expressed them. I summarized them here because they formed a perfect argument for why G should stop attacking Christianity.

Timmy just gave several strong examples for why G's perspective is utterly ridiculous. But you gave a clear argument for why G's arguments are not necessary.  Further, everyone recognizes that G's argument divides us.

It does no good to pretend that we can discuss everything and leave out "religion" and God.  If I express the same religious views, but I don't cite the Bible, what difference does it make? And if someone expresses Jewish views, but doesn't cite the Talmud, same difference.  We have been programmed to believe that it is acceptable to have moral values and beliefs, just so long as they are not identifiably Christian.  But that is a positivist fallacy.  

Try it with any moral value.  Essentially you will be creating a dogmatic paradigm of your own. Call it whatever you want.

X has his values, and Y has his. Living in common with others they invent rules of behavior, but whose values do they use?  X's or Y's?  It does no good to say that X's are a "religion" and that Y invented his.  Y's are just as much his own "religion".  Does Y "believe" there is no God?  Does Y "believe" that one cannot know if there is a God?  We can just kick the word "belief" around the block a couple times and we can see that everything Y believes is his religion, even though Y made it up himself.  

Let's say Y's personal "religion" is very much like the set of values that he grew up with; i.e. that he learned from watching TV and the movies.  
What does Y find shocking? To hear someone speak of the "holocaust" with irreverence.  
Who are the most abused people in the world? Jews and homosexuals.  
What is the meaning of life? To enjoy yourself and have as many experiences as possible.
How can we create a better world? By letting everyone do whatever he/she wants.
How do we learn about Truth? By being exposed to art.
How have people been repressed in the past? By religion.
Etc...  

So now Y has his belief system that he THINKS he made up, but he really hasn't thought it through. It's really the result of TV and movie PROGRAMMING.  But Y thinks that his beliefs are not a "religion" because he doesn't belief in God or the Bible.  

But Y has an opinion about whether homosexuals should marry, and whether abortion should be legal.  Y might even have a very strong opinion.  Y might think that his opinions are outside of "religion" and God, because he made them up himself, while he was watching TV.  But Y fails to see that his opinions are based on his own [programmed] morality.  

And there are no lines to cut off morality from decision-making.  Even our concept of order is based on a sense of internal morality.  Positivism is a fallacy.

[GordZilla]

Well said, all of it, bravo Christopher Marlowe!   :clap:

 

[LordLindsey]

Sam's Club is having a special on Depends and Kleenex; make sure to stock-up before Charles blows these attacks on him out-of-the-water, and; furthermore, exposes the issue of organized-religion to a level that will have those worshipping that vengeful and schizophrenic "God" un-able to make it to the bath-room before their bladders blast.

Facts are facts, and when the issue of what that SHIT-BOOK the Old Testament is responsible for creating on our planet is concerned, if ANY OF YOU can not see the ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTIONS contained with-in, then we are NOT ON THE SAME SIDE.  I will be God damned if I waste any of my precious time arguing with someone who is too fucking brain-washed not to see that the Old Testament was written BY jews, FOR jews, and is nothing but a terrific trick and trap laid-out for the stupid Christian zionists and ignorant non-zionist Christians to take.  

I can not WAIT until Charles puts this issue, and similar issues, to-bed once-and-for-all.  If it were not for those fucking zionist Christians working with these God damned demons walking-on-two-legs, THEY WOULD NEVER, EVER HAVE REACHED THE POSITIONS THAT THEY HAVE, AND SURE AS FUCK WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BRING OUR PLANET TO THE ABSOLUTE BRINK OF A PLANET-WIDE DEVASTATING WORLD WAR.

If the religious NUTS can not see-through all of these deceptions, then it is already too late to take our world back from the demons walking-on-two-legs; I am NOT saying this rhetorically because I am fucking serious.  If the human-race can not see that religion has been the second greatest tool--the first being the tool of money--ever employed by these psycho/sociopaths, then we deserve what these usurpers of the human-race have planned for us because we have shown ourselves to be a lost-cause.

I have nothing more to say until Charles exposes this fraud once-and-for-all.

LINDSEY

[GordZilla]

lol.


Yeah Charles wont approach anything that Chris was just saying there, no worries on that. That seems to be the problem here, no one is actually arguing the same things, all of our biases are getting in the way. Charles will attack from the angle he knows, Tim from his, me from mine, Lindsey from his etc. But I got to say Christopher has nailed it as far as I'm concerned. Matthew Raphael Johnson over at Voice of Reason Radio looks at these topics -often- and in a very succinct and intelligent way, listen to his show on "René Guénon" for example...just incredible;
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120315/ ... ene-guenon

Again well said Christopher.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Well said, all of it, bravo Christopher Marlowe!   :clap:

 

 I agree. That was an epic refutation of Sullivan. Couldn't have said it better myself. I even had to print that one off.

Lindsey, I think you are under the misapprehension that what Charles Giuliani puts forth has never been put forth before by anyone on the planet. It's like he has a gnostic cult-like appeal to you guys. What "smoking gun" do you think he is going to reveal that is absolutely going to stymie Michael K? In reading his material and listening to his laborious shows, I can assure you, there has been nothing new under the sun presented by Truth Hertz. But go ahead and continue being over-confident it it makes you feel better. And remember that it was Jewliani and his followers here that started this infighting.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Well said, all of it, bravo Christopher Marlowe!   :clap:

 

  Well said indeed CM!  We are not merely animals on the Discovery Channel.  :up:

[LordLindsey]

The bottom-line is that I have lied to myself about the Christian-culpability of this shit that is happening to our world for far, FAR too long.  I have made excuse-after-excuse, but those days are over.

I narrated The Protocols, so I know fully-well what it says about the destruction of religion, but exposing the lies of Christian-zionism and ESPECIALLY THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IF THE HUMAN-RACE IS GOING TO WIN THIS FIGHT FOR ITS VERY SURVIAL.

I just do not think that people understand that this is not a joke and the longer that people spin-their-wheels thinking that some "Old Man-in-the-sky" is going to fucking come-down on a cloud and save the human-race, the longer this nightmare is going to continue and ENSURE THAT THE HUMAN-RACE IS DESTROYED BY THESE DEMONS WALKING-ON-TWO-LEGS.

I am so fed-up that each day I have to convince myself that I am not wasting my life and wasting my time in this "movement" THAT HAS NO MOVEMENT GOING ANYWHERE IN ANY NOTICEABLE WAY.  Christians do not want to work with Muslims.  Too many Whites hate Blacks.  Most Blacks can not trust Whites.  I KNOW that too damned many Asians live in a fantasy world.  Hindus are the jews of Asia.  The House of Saud are crypto-jews and MUSLIMS ARE UN-ABLE TO FACE THAT PAINFUL REALITY THAT THEIR HOLIEST CITIES ARE IN THE HANDS OF jews.  Canadians and Australians are LITERALLY HELD-HOSTAGE BY THE ADL HATE-SPEECH LAWS.  The "Fighting-Irish" are now completely broken as a people and un-able to save themselves because their country has already been fully taken-over by the same "bankers" who destroyed their nation by using the tool of destructive-financing IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!  *LOL*  God damn, people, when will enough ever fucking be enough for you before you see that the ONLY reason that these demons walking-on-two-legs has all-but sealed the deal for their Utopia is because they WORK TOWARD THEIR MAIN GOAL WHILE THE REST OF THE HUMAN-RACE IS NEVER, FUCKING EVER ABLE TO SEE-THROUGH THEIR TRICKS AND TRAPS AND WILL ALWAYS INEVITABLY FALL FOR THE DIVIDE-AND-CONQUER STRATEGIES EMPLOYED SINCE THE OLD TESTAMENT?

This is far bigger than just bitching about religious-nuts; this is about making people understand that unless and until we ALL work together toward a single goal of exposing the crimes and INEVITABLE TARGET-GOAL OF DESTROYING THIS WORLD TO RE-CREATE IT IN THE 'jewish-UTOPIA," we are fucked as a species.  I hear nothing but bullshit day-in and day-out from Muslims bitching about White Christians and from White nationalist-types who have no respect for anyone but Whites, and from Asians who are just so fucking clue-less that it would make anyone just throw-in-the-towel, going full-circle to atheists who just do not give a shit about anyone or anything but their immediate pleasures and day-to-day existence.  I can go on and on, but I do not feel like wasting my time.

People, get your shit together and start making this "MOVEMENT" move somewhere in a direction instead of the spinning-the-wheels shit-pile that is is now.  I am sick of it.

I am too pissed-off to say anything else.

LINDSEY

NB:  Charles Giuliani was NOT referring to Mark Glenn when he said that he was a zionist; he was referring to Jesus the Christ as a zionist but made a big mistake by not making it clear about whom "he" was in-reference to being a zionist.

[Rockclimber]

Over and again I run into this belief that there is a solid wall where religion and morals end, and where everything is rational and universally understood.  That is a false belief that has been promoted by the Jewish media.  

You say that you have kept your opinions to yourself, but you just clearly expressed them. I summarized them here because they formed a perfect argument for why G should stop attacking Christianity.

Timmy just gave several strong examples for why G's perspective is utterly ridiculous. But you gave a clear argument for why G's arguments are not necessary.  Further, everyone recognizes that G's argument divides us.

It does no good to pretend that we can discuss everything and leave out "religion" and God.  If I express the same religious views, but I don't cite the Bible, what difference does it make? And if someone expresses Jewish views, but doesn't cite the Talmud, same difference.  We have been programmed to believe that it is acceptable to have moral values and beliefs, just so long as they are not identifiably Christian.  But that is a positivist fallacy.  

Try it with any moral value.  Essentially you will be creating a dogmatic paradigm of your own. Call it whatever you want.

X has his values, and Y has his. Living in common with others they invent rules of behavior, but whose values do they use?  X's or Y's?  It does no good to say that X's are a "religion" and that Y invented his.  Y's are just as much his own "religion".  Does Y "believe" there is no God?  Does Y "believe" that one cannot know if there is a God?  We can just kick the word "belief" around the block a couple times and we can see that everything Y believes is his religion, even though Y made it up himself.  

Let's say Y's personal "religion" is very much like the set of values that he grew up with; i.e. that he learned from watching TV and the movies.  
What does Y find shocking? To hear someone speak of the "holocaust" with irreverence.  
Who are the most abused people in the world? Jews and homosexuals.  
What is the meaning of life? To enjoy yourself and have as many experiences as possible.
How can we create a better world? By letting everyone do whatever he/she wants.
How do we learn about Truth? By being exposed to art.
How have people been repressed in the past? By religion.
Etc...  

So now Y has his belief system that he THINKS he made up, but he really hasn't thought it through. It's really the result of TV and movie PROGRAMMING.  But Y thinks that his beliefs are not a "religion" because he doesn't belief in God or the Bible.  

But Y has an opinion about whether homosexuals should marry, and whether abortion should be legal.  Y might even have a very strong opinion.  Y might think that his opinions are outside of "religion" and God, because he made them up himself, while he was watching TV.  But Y fails to see that his opinions are based on his own [programmed] morality.  

And there are no lines to cut off morality from decision-making.  Even our concept of order is based on a sense of internal morality.  Positivism is a fallacy.

  With all due respect,      

You guys go on and on and on and win over nobody, in fact it is you who continue to divide people but you point your bony fingers at everyone else. Is that "god' working in mysterious ways? :lol: You're stuck in your dogma and cognitive dissonance and I know I can't help you with that. I would have more luck talking to a wall and you know it. Nothing i say will change your beliefs so what is the point?

Meanwhile, and as I said I look forward to the debate.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

With all due respect,      

You guys go on and on and on and win over nobody, in fact it is you who continue to divide people but you point your bony fingers at everyone else. Is that "god' working in mysterious ways? :lol: You're stuck in your dogma and cognitive dissonance and I know I can't help you with that. I would have more luck talking to a wall and you know it. Nothing i say will change your beliefs so what is the point?

Meanwhile, and as I said I look forward to the debate.

The atheist's cognitive dissonance

Imagine an atheist who believes—against religious dualism—that there is one world, not two, and that it runs on determinate physics (or on perfect quantum probabilistic randomness, which amounts to the same thing). Now also imagine that he (or she) believes in free will.

Free will, of course, is a religious concept. It is a concept that derives from religious dualism. Atheism is a monism—a philosophy of one world that reduces to atoms and void—and if an atheist believes that the universe goes on mechanistic laws then that same atheist must (logically) think of free will as ultimately an illusion. If the universe is physics and chemistry, and there is no second world, then what is going on at the level of human free will is not primary or determinative of anything that is happening in the universe. It just appears to be so.

Of course, very few atheists face monistic determinism (or its practical equivalent, quantum statistical randomness) squarely. Most are in cognitive dissonance about it. They expect the courts to continue to apportion blame, and they expect their wives and husbands to choose them freely over other lovers. They expect, in other words, a ghost in the machine to still move things around, and still be responsible for moving things around.

For an atheist, free will functions like redemption does for a Christian: it is a comforting thought with no empirical basis. It is nice to believe, and reduces your subjective anxiety, but if monism is true then free will is almost certainly not true.

But if someone out there can explain to me how, in a monistic universe that otherwise "goes" by either determinate or quantum probabilistic atoms rustling in the void, human free will nevertheless can be efficacious—and not just appear to be so—I'd love to learn. I'm an agnostic. I think that God is either dead or not talking. So I'm open to a really good free will argument on monistic assumptions. I want to believe in free will, so set me straight about this.

Source: http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/201 ... issonance/

[Christopher Marlowe]

With all due respect,

You guys go on and on and on and win over nobody, in fact it is you who continue to divide people but you point your bony fingers at everyone else. Is that "god' working in mysterious ways? :lol: You're stuck in your dogma and cognitive dissonance and I know I can't help you with that. I would have more luck talking to a wall and you know it. Nothing i say will change your beliefs so what is the point?

Meanwhile, and as I said I look forward to the debate.

How did you know I have bony fingers?

I hope Lindsey records the whole debate; then you can listen to half of it.

Matthew Raphael Johnson over at Voice of Reason Radio looks at these topics -often- and in a very succinct and intelligent way, listen to his show on "René Guénon" for example...just incredible;
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120315/ ... ene-guenon

I just got finished listening to your recommendation.   :up:  :up:  Great stuff!  I love the orthodox nationalist.

[Shiksa Rage]

Rockclimber, when I suggested that people in this movement keep their religious convictions (or like of them) to themselves, I was referring to the likes of Giuliani as well as such as Texe Marrs.
Sorry, that should read: (or lack of them)

[Rockclimber]

With all due respect,      

You guys go on and on and on and win over nobody, in fact it is you who continue to divide people but you point your bony fingers at everyone else. Is that "god' working in mysterious ways? :lol: You're stuck in your dogma and cognitive dissonance and I know I can't help you with that. I would have more luck talking to a wall and you know it. Nothing i say will change your beliefs so what is the point?

Meanwhile, and as I said I look forward to the debate.

The atheist's cognitive dissonance

Imagine an atheist who believes—against religious dualism—that there is one world, not two, and that it runs on determinate physics (or on perfect quantum probabilistic randomness, which amounts to the same thing). Now also imagine that he (or she) believes in free will.

Free will, of course, is a religious concept. It is a concept that derives from religious dualism. Atheism is a monism—a philosophy of one world that reduces to atoms and void—and if an atheist believes that the universe goes on mechanistic laws then that same atheist must (logically) think of free will as ultimately an illusion. If the universe is physics and chemistry, and there is no second world, then what is going on at the level of human free will is not primary or determinative of anything that is happening in the universe. It just appears to be so.

Of course, very few atheists face monistic determinism (or its practical equivalent, quantum statistical randomness) squarely. Most are in cognitive dissonance about it. They expect the courts to continue to apportion blame, and they expect their wives and husbands to choose them freely over other lovers. They expect, in other words, a ghost in the machine to still move things around, and still be responsible for moving things around.

For an atheist, free will functions like redemption does for a Christian: it is a comforting thought with no empirical basis. It is nice to believe, and reduces your subjective anxiety, but if monism is true then free will is almost certainly not true.

But if someone out there can explain to me how, in a monistic universe that otherwise "goes" by either determinate or quantum probabilistic atoms rustling in the void, human free will nevertheless can be efficacious—and not just appear to be so—I'd love to learn. I'm an agnostic. I think that God is either dead or not talking. So I'm open to a really good free will argument on monistic assumptions. I want to believe in free will, so set me straight about this.

Source: http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/201 ... issonance/

Pretty worthless post. Who said I was an atheist? You "Chrisitans" are so presumptuous and 'judgemental'.  

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Good work, Michael K. You are holding Giuliani in his place pretty good. The only thing I might have answered different to his question about why God chose the Jews specifically is that its plausible to argue that had God given any given group the national ambition that he gave the Jews, that group, too, would have become corrupted. And the proof of that is in history with absolute power corrupting absolutely.

I think Giuliani and his ilk thought it was going to be a cake walk, because G has selectively chosen Christian Identity adherents as targets of his nihilist tirades in the past. But here we have Michael K, and Orthodox believer who is solid in the Bible giving solid answers. Good work, brother!

[Rockclimber]

With all due respect,

You guys go on and on and on and win over nobody, in fact it is you who continue to divide people but you point your bony fingers at everyone else. Is that "god' working in mysterious ways? :lol: You're stuck in your dogma and cognitive dissonance and I know I can't help you with that. I would have more luck talking to a wall and you know it. Nothing i say will change your beliefs so what is the point?

Meanwhile, and as I said I look forward to the debate.

How did you know I have bony fingers?

I hope Lindsey records the whole debate; then you can listen to half of it.

Matthew Raphael Johnson over at Voice of Reason Radio looks at these topics -often- and in a very succinct and intelligent way, listen to his show on "René Guénon" for example...just incredible;
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120315/ ... ene-guenon

I just got finished listening to your recommendation.   :up:  :up:  Great stuff!  I love the orthodox nationalist.

I can listen to half of it? I will listen to all of it but that sure would be the pot calling the kettle black.    You "Christians" kill me, you're tactics are very childish and you celebrate victories that haven't been won. Clearly nothing Giuliani is going to say will change your opinion one bit. It's a fruitless effort and you guys will still ramble on not winning anyone over and pushing them away with your childish tactics.  

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Pretty worthless post. Who said I was an atheist? You "Chrisitans" are so presumptuous and 'judgemental'.  

Actually, I never presumed that you were an atheist. I was merely pointing out that religious persons are not the only humans capable of suffering cognitive dissonance.


Here is today's show:
Giuliani vs. Michael K, March 27, 2012 http://mp3.oraclebroadcasting.com/Truth ... 27_16k.mp3

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Regarding Giuliani's first Bible difficulty question to Michael K on the Baptism chronology:

What did Jesus do after encountering John the Baptist?
Mark 1:7-13; John 1:27-40

After His baptism, Jesus spent some time with the disciples and then went into the desert. John the Apostle's account of the baptism of Jesus is not a focus on chronological events. Instead, it is focusing on the ministerial aspect of Christ's mission. John focuses on the issue of baptism and the commission of Christ and the blessing of the Father. Mark simply states that Jesus went into the wilderness after His baptism. Each account is about the same thing, but each addresses the issue in a very different manner and extracts different information from the events. Mark is succinct and mentions events several more events than John. There is no contradiction because there is no conflict in what is said.

Side by side comparison of Mark and John at http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matt ... hn-baptist





If Giuliani is so unhappy with the way God handled fallen mankind in the Old Testament, why wouldn't he be so kind as to tell us how God should have handled the constant situations His creation faced? Giuliani, should God have let the nephilim and pagan practices wipe his creation out of existence? Would that have been just? Would you even be here today if that is how God had handled it? BAnd Giuliani completely failed to demonstrate how Christianity serves Jewish evolutionary strategies. He provided no evidence of this.

[sullivan]

I was kind of disappointed to read Mr Sullivan's response to this.  It is completely lacking in substance.  Really, Sullivan, did you even read this?    

Now, Giuliani can downplay my accusations and simply claim not to be an atheist but, instead, some kind of agnostic thinker. He makes a point of not saying exactly to what belief he subscribes.

Does he have to subscribe to a particular belief? Where is that mandated?

No, but if a person is critiquing the Bible and Jesus Christ as the source of morality, then it becomes incumbent upon them to show the source of their morality. Otherwise, they lack any authority.

Of course I read it. And my response is no more lacking in substance than the statement I was responding to.

Certainly a person has a right to their own opinion, but why should anyone care about anyone else's opinion?

I don't. Some people do, however.

Who cares if G thinks 2 and a half men is "filth"?

His loyal listeners, I suspect.

What is that opinion based upon? Someone might think 2.5Men is "genius" or "inspired".

That's the great thing about opinion, it doesn't have to be based on anything.

What makes one person's opinion better than another person's.

I've never said that, so we can skip that one.

My point is that no one has authority over morals. Without God, there is no such thing as Good or Evil: there is only someone else's opinion.

A fair point, but there are those who would contend that what is posited as God's word is nothing but the opinion of men who lived thousands of years ago.  

Western civilization has been fooled into thinking that there is just some "default morality" that will substitute for Christianity, but they are mistaken.

Is that an opinion, or is there some empirical proof for that claim?

People who watch too much TV think that there is some common morality resource that everyone understands and agrees upon, separate from the Bible; they think that it is okay to cite moral opinions as long as your don't cite the Bible; that act AS IF there is some understood universal standard of morality outside of the Bible!

You contend there is no universal standard of morality outside of the Bible, I beg to differ. I say that the Bible is in part at least, a codification of that universal standard.

Timmy refers to this mistaken belief:

So, Giuliani rejects the Bible but accepts the Christian concept of evil.

Yes, I know he referred to it as mistaken, but it is written as if it was fact, not just an opinion.

They have not recognized that any true concept of virtue or goodness is merely a remnant of Christian morality.

If you want people to accept it, you have to provide proof that it is. That proof has not been forthcoming, at least so far.

This same sort of mistaken belief can be seen many times in your response:

Giuliani continually talks out both sides of his mouth.

Whatever happened to "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", eh?

Here you are citing scripture, but we are left to wonder: where Timmy has done this?  The rhetoric involved here is to cite the rule, (or in this case, the parable): explain the rule: and then to analyze the essay and show that the author has done something contrary to the rule (parable).  Properly done: T is saying that G talks out of both sides of his mouth; S compares this to casting a stone; S explains why casting a stone is appropriate to this situation (I assume that Sullivan means that T is accusing G of something that T has also done); S gives examples where T has also spoken out of "both sides of his mouth".

Yes, I am citing scripture. It is, after all, the standard by which Christians claim to live. I think you are missing the nuance of that piece of Scripture I cited. It doesn't say "let him who has done exactly the same thing", it says "let him who is without sin".

And why do you rely on scripture to make your point?  If the Bible is so bad, then why do you use it to make a point?

Why do I use scripture to make a point? Because I decades of living with it. I know it inside out.  

You use it because you are relying on the audience understanding the MORALITY behind the story and the parable.

That is your assumption, and it is false. I am using it because T seems to regard Christian beliefs as very important (as is his right), so what better yardstick is there to use in this particular instance?

You are relying upon that standards of MORALITY that are set by Jesus Christ and the Bible.  You are relying on the very same Bible that you applaud G for condemning?

I am not relying on any standards. I am simply reflecting back standards that a Christian is supposed to live by in a response to a person who claims to be a Christian. If T was a Muslim, I wouldn't do that, as there would be no point.

But if the Bible is bad, then you should not use it.

Oh, so is there some rulebook containing these rules on what I should and shouldn't use?  

Yes, but what does G use to replace the Bible?  G's opinion?

Perhaps. What makes it less valid than the opinions in the Bible?  Don't bother saying that they are not opinions, but God's word, as that doesn't wash with someone who simply doesn't believe in God.

This is another instance of relying upon some unknown source of morality. What is the sum and substance of this source of morality that G can freely extract from parts unknown?  Do I have to listen to G's show to understand what is good and what is "filth"?

Yes, if you want to know. If G's opinions don't matter to you, then it is probably not so important.

Meanwhile, Christianity is arguably the foremost religion to define evil and establish a standard by which to measure it.

Are you serious? Do you honestly think humankind would have no concept of evil were it not for the Bible?

If you are properly REFUTING what Timmy said, then you have to provide some substance.  This answer only PRETENDS to do this.

You appear not to have noticed that my answer was further question requesting confirmation that my reading of T's statement was correct.

Your pretend refutation is merely misstating Timmy's claim and then providing a question mark.

That is your opinion. It is not mine.

Timmy did not claim that "humankind would have no concept of evil were it not for the Bible" but rather that "Christianity is arguably the foremost religion to define evil and establish a standard by which to measure it."

Ok, point taken. But where is the proof for T's statement? There is none. It is just his opinion. Yet it is presented as fact.

Perhaps people of other faiths might have an idea that evil exists in the world, and they might, on occasion, be able to spot it.

In my opinion, the presumptuousness and arrogance of that statement is nothing short of astounding.

But we are witnessing the rapid decline of morality in Europe and the Western world because we no longer rely on Christianity to show us when we are doing evil.  Would you honestly claim that morals today in Europe and America are better than they were 100 years ago?

I didn't make that claim.  However, I would dispute the claim that the decline in morality has anything to do with reliance on Christianity. Correlation, after all, is no proof of causation.

Christianity, like that gauge, is the best way to understand and recognize evil. Christianity defines "evil" more clearly than any other religion, and so enables us to fight against evil. Society is running down because we lack a moral compass.

That's your opinion and while I respect your right to hold that opinion, it still is an opinion and not fact.

You have not provided any substantive answer to ANY of his points.  You have failed to make a reasoned analysis of Timmy's essay.

When Timmy presents evidence to back up his opinions (which are written as if they were fact), I will happily provide a more substantive answer. Until then...

[sullivan]

I think Giuliani and his ilk thought it was going to be a cake walk, because G has selectively chosen Christian Identity adherents as targets of his nihilist tirades in the past. But here we have Michael K, and Orthodox believer who is solid in the Bible giving solid answers. Good work, brother!

As the one who initially started attacks on him, why didn't you take him up on his challenge to go on his show?

[scorpio]

I haven't listened to the debate yet, but I do commend Michael K for at least having the courage to go onto Giuliani's show and debate. TF, I've never had a beef with you or your religious viewpoints, but shouldn't you be the one to go onto the show and debate, since you are the one who stirred up this shitpot? Instead, you write part II of your article. It makes you look a little bit like a whining pussy and a keyboard commando. I don't mean to be insulting, but it does look that way, and I'm sure others here have had that very thought.    :up:

[zapoper]

Christians Good. Other people BAD. LMAO

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I haven't listened to the debate yet, but I do commend Michael K for at least having the courage to go onto Giuliani's show and debate. TF, I've never had a beef with you or your religious viewpoints, but shouldn't you be the one to go onto the show and debate, since you are the one who stirred up this shitpot? Instead, you write part II of your article

Nope. I am not easily provoked by schoolyard taunting. And no, Part 2 was promised from the get go, not some cop out. Go back to part 1 and look at the very top of the article. It clearly says Part 1 of 2 and at the bottom even described what part 2 would entail. And I never asked MK to go on the show. He volunteered. But more importantly, I said everything I needed to say in my two articles. And since when is it a rule that writers must go on talk shows after writing an article? I have no responsibility or obligation to explain or defend my articles. They speak for themselves. They are there for those interested in reading them. If you don't like what they say, don't read them. Someone who is in the spotlight like Jewliani better get used to facing criticism. If you can't handle, don't do it.

[Rockclimber]

All my respect to Michael for having the balls to do what he did. I did mention to Charles that Michael was a real gentlemen and he was.

If I had to summarize it In short--Mike is relying on faith and even he had to admit that the Bible is full of inconsistencies/inaccuracies. Logic would conclude that if that's the case then it cannot be the 'inerrant' word of God. I heard many rationalizations from Michael when Charles presented problematic scripture but nothing that really convinced me to swing the Christian way.  I would suggest that all listen to it and don't count on my opinion or Talmud Timmy's (that was his name on Demonid :lol: )

'talmud' Timmy will declare 'victory' though. You all listen and decide for yourselves.

Charles did invite Michael back so maybe 'Talmud' Timmy will grow a pair and join him?    

[GordZilla]

Just got done listening to the show, Michael you did good, and good on you for stepping up. I would, but it takes me a good while to formulate any response - i.e. I need to type it , re write it etc, I'm not so quick on the feet as I used to be. So on a live radio show I wouldn't have done half as good as you did.  At the same time I must concede Giuliani did a good job too, I could not find fault with his approach, he was fair and polite, and the fact he conceded that Christianity -historically- has been a big thorn in the Jew's side was also very big of him.... in short he earned some up votes from me.

 I would have answered a few things differently (20 minutes after Giuliani asked of course  :lol: ).  For one; "what can you point to that would help me believe your God is the right God?" First I'd return with "as opposed to what God/creator you believe in? " Then ask him to explain, I mean if he admits there's a 'creator', then what does he/she/it have to say? . Secondly you could have answered simply ; 'the Jew's themselves' ...they are testament to Christ and what He had to say about them. This point is what brought me back to the faith in the first place, the point of Christ's opposition to everything the 'Jew' is. The fact that what He foretold about them is coming to pass ..etc. Other religions faiths beliefs etc , apart from Islam, have little mention of this demonic and very real force we share this planet with. However Christ knew, and even pointed it out for us (Which, by the way, is the main reason this faith of Christianity has been the main thorn in the Jew's side, and also the main reason I believe in Christ ---as it bugs the HELL out of them ).

The Old Testament, I can never really speak for, nor do I try. Personally I think Christ came to fulfill that testament and by doing so He laid it to rest, so-to-speak, for it is AFTER Christ that the religion of Christianity is formed, and the God they worshipped is hardly the God of the OT. As witnessed, they (the Christians) followed Jesus (past tense , unfortunately) . And it was that faith that has done so many good things for civilization, and man in general, ever since. (You may be thinking 'Yeah right; wars, slavery etc etc" but remember two things; One;  lots of these crimes are told to us out of the mouth of Jews -so of course we're the bad guys, and of course they completely ignore the good parts/deeds. And two; they were present all that time too ...and like today , they do the crimes then place the blame elsewhere [usually on White gentiles]...Slavery, Spanish Inquisition, Communism, world war 2 etc etc.).

The faith has done many good things, but most importantly it has historically brought to us a 'rallying point' in which to get behind, that actually comes with a watch list of what to look for to spot the cockroaches within our midst.  This was my personal bone of contention with Giuliani in the first place, don't let that just fade away with NO contingency plan and certainly do not help in  that process (the 'process' of the destruction of this faith lies solely in the hands of the Jews.  Anything that they put a massive push behind you will find me pushing the other way -not helping!).

You believe in a creator? What has it shown you about the Jew? What guidance does it offer to first recognize the Jew, then shame his behavior and lastly eventually beat them?  And why do you think throwing away Jesus will somehow make it easier to do so? Tell us your creator's name so we can all rally behind him/her/it.  Cause under that banner we will all- at some point- need to agree.  

Or alternatively; do not burn your boots with no contingency plan. Yes by all means throw away today's modern western Church, but do not write off fellow 'Jew wise' Christians in your approach, they are the closest link to yesteryear's 'Jew defeating' Christians that we have left. At least don't write them off till we have a new platform to stand on. A new platform that is also completely detestable to the Jew- so much so that it wards off any infiltration, for thousands of years at least. A platform in which we can unite under, and they will not want to. A platform  that is 'Jew wise' and ready to right the many wrongs. That is what we lose, please have a replacement ready.  

This is not just wishful thinking on my part, there were indeed many old world Christians who were' Jew wise', I knew some personally, but these numbers are dwindling fast as the last of them are now in their 90's (for the most part) or already dead.  There used to be way more of them. Way before underground internet, radio, or even publishings somehow - still -there were way more than we have today. The fall of the true church has indeed happened virtually proportionately to the decline of numbers of 'Jew wise' folks. Do you not see the value this faith had for our general and collective cause??

I don't know about others, but I certainly see the value in what we had, and what we -for the most part-have lost. Good news is; it can be regained .... but that's not the question here, the question here is; Can it be replaced? Giuliani, describe your envisioned creator? Will it fit this bill? Can we rally behind he/she/it? And most importantly, will it call out the Jew for what he is and at the same time hold his utter contempt, and repulsion, for what new found strength it gives back to us?

Ok sorry I ranted a bit, but those were some of the thoughts I had listening to this show. Also; I do have to commend Giuliani, he surprised me ...I must admit. He was a gentleman throughout the whole interview.  And Michael too, you both did good.  


   to ya both!

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Just listened to the show. Awesome job Micheal, you really stepped up!  Well done. I think Charlie had a few good points as well.
Anyways, good show!  :clap:

[ada]

I always was of the opinion that non-religious Gentiles could effectively cooperate with Christians and Muslims but I think now that it was just wishfull thinking on my part.
As Cristopher Marlowe expressed in the post above, it's not possible to be honestly critisizing ones religious faith because it is always seen as insulting or ''blasphemous''.So it is impossible to be completely open and honest between the two camps.And how will anything constructive be accomplished with this state of affairs?

I feel a ''split'' in the ''movement'' is coming up and although it might be painfull, and good for the enemy initially because of all the infighting will take the spotlight a bit off them, but in the long run it will be positive because we have to have open and honest communication within our own group.

There is no need to be divided for religious reasons.
If you can't stand religious establishments i fully understand this.
But if you think being an agnostic or an atheist is not religious, you are mislead.

Don't you know that the enlightenment movement is also established by the jews for political control?
All the universities today are an offspring of a masonic sediment!
We are living in an occupied technocratic world of arrested development,saturated with a celluloid smokescreen of a social engineered,manipulated self, far away from reality!
Don't you know that sexual liberation and unconditional self-fulfillment is also a jewish twister against the true church of hope,to move your eyes away from forgiveness and salvation only
for having faith in HIM and his will to free mankind from materialistic enslavement.

Jews became revolutionaries on the foot of the cross. Do not enter their sinking ship.