I know that I know nothing

BulgarianFrench. MagyarSerbian.

Today we laugh when we think about our forebears, who believed in religious nonsense and the people behind it. Let me tell those who come after me then, that I at least did not believed in the religious nonsense of my own age, or the people behind it. Instead I see that what we call ‘science’ today is mainly (yes: mainly, not exclusively) just a new foreign religion, created for the same purpose as the old foreign religion: to enslave the minds of men, and to ensure that they don’t think for themselves, and under no circumstances ask questions. Instead they are to accept the new religious theories as axioms. “How can you even question these theories?!” They tell us that the Moon is gray, even when we all can see that it is white, and we still believe in them!

Rather than think you can always:

keep-calm-and-have-faith-60

Big Bang = God’s Creation

Evolution = The 7 days of Creation

Moon rocks = Religious Relics (a piece of some Saint or even of Jesus himself)

Man/robots on the Moon/Mars! = Miracles!

Scientifically proven = ‘God wills it’ (Deus vult)

Scientific theories = Bible

Scientific method = Religious tradition/rites

Diploma = Decree from the Pope

Nobel prize winners = Saints

Layman = Heretic

Lectures = Mass

Scientist = Priest

Albert Einstein = Jesus/God

Dissident (alias a person questioning the official theories) = Infidel

Disbeliever = possessed by the devil

Taxes = Church taxes

The average man in the street = believer

In the past they were not allowed to choose their religion: there was only one option for them: Christianity or death! Today we only have one science to choose too. There are no other alternatives for anybody who wish to be anything. It’s science or ridicule, shame, poverty and scorn.

To those who believe in Moon rocks, or that Man walked on the Moon or robots on Mars, I can ask you a few simple questions, before you start to ridicule and attack me: do you know if these rocks really come from the Moon? Do you know that man walked on the Moon or robots have been on Mars? Or do you just trust that the evidence some scientists (priests) have provided to us about this is real? If so, what is the difference from this faith and the faith your forebears had in angels, miracles and ‘God’?

If you still think you know, then all hope is lost for you. Your descendants will laugh at you and your ignorance.

Question everything. Trust your gut feeling more than the easily fabricated evidence presented by others. Ask questions also about things you thought you knew. Think for yourself.

What most people think they see:

Diversity Speaker 3/27/01 Caleb Redfield/THRESHER

What they actually see:

christian-preacher

 

For a relevant documentary (on Daily Motions) click here.

Related post here

 

“I know that I know nothing”

(Socrates)

Advertisements

139 thoughts on “I know that I know nothing

  1. i agree that many things in science are politically charged and sensationalised in such dogmatic ways as religion, the core idea of science and the scientific method is that all theories and such are able to be tested and observed (not much different than the sorcery of old). of course the average person would not have the tools to do many such tests, but to write off all science as dogmatic and religious might be a slight mistake. With regards to the moon landing that seems to be such a hot topic of debate: what does it matter whether it happened or not? the “space race” was the result of competition between the soviets and the U.S. half a century ago. No doubt highly politically motivated, and possibly fake, but i neither know nor care whether it was or not.

  2. Pingback: Tudom, hogy semmit nem tudok | Magyar Thulean Perspective

  3. You’re pushing the analogy way, way too far.

    I can agree with some of the comparisons you use here (particularly the idea of Einstein as scientific ‘messiah’) but saying that something like the theory of evolution is “biblical” in nature is ridiculous. That analogy is just the result of you being overly paranoid about Christianity’s incursions into secular life. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; Nietzsche for example recognized that the modern human rights religion has Christian origins. But your whole mindset is completely clouded by this hypervigilant attempt to see Christianity in everything.

    • Except that I don’t do that…

      I just compare it to Judeo-Christianity. The examples are to science what the things the examples are compared to are to Judeo-Christians.

  4. Pingback: ¿Por qué hablar sobre el Neandertal? | Hermandad Pagana

  5. Pingback: Why talk about the Neanderthal? | Thulean Perspective

  6. Pingback: Аз знам че нищо не знам | Езичество

  7. Very interesting reading this post. Science in general tends to be a bit dogmatic regarding long established theories, but it’s kind of inevitable: those theories are developed by people, and people love to be recognized and hate to be refuted. Also, it takes a brave person to dare doubt a scientific “fact”, most people are afraid to be ridiculed.

    I’d like to know your opinion on (non-applied) math. Just because there is a fundamental difference regarding mathematical theories: once they’ve been constructed and proved… you cannot refute it (unless of course there are logical fallacies). Meaning there’s no experimentation or room for error, just “small” and provable steps. Also, there’s no intent on explaining natural/physical/real world phenomena, often leading to counter-intuitive results.

    In simplistic terms, math theories are mostly based on a few Axioms (which are assumed to be true, imagine “there exists an empty set” or “Things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another”) and a few Definitions (names given to objects with certain properties). The rest is basically deductive reasoning.

    tkz for reading,

  8. Hahaha. First off, Jens speaks of a movement. What movement? The “white” (inter)nationalist movement (which seeks to amalgamate all distinct European ethnicities with total disregard to their individual histories and cultures) wherein the vast majority of the members are too much of a poltroon to emerge from their mother’s basements so as to be able to meet the other members? Well, I’m proud to proclaim that I have no part in that asinine and, perhaps most importantly, non- existent- in- reality, movement. Withal, there’s ample suspicion that the “White Nationalist” “movement” is controlled opposition at any rate. Nevertheless, I can will the preservation of my bloodlines without forums and imaginary proselytization.

    Also, on a totally unrelated note, Vårg. You said that soap was totally unnecessary with respect to showering and personal hygiene. Would I smell of excrement if I didn’t use soap subsequent to defecation? This is a very imperative matter as I wouldn’t want to be out and about, smelling like a Negroid.

      • As long as I don’t smell like a Congoid subsequent to defecation, followed by a (cool or cold) shower (apparently, cold water dousing and cold baths are beneficial to your immune system and physical hardiness) of course, that will be another 7,00 USD saved. You’re the guiding star 🙂

  9. Yes, well the authorities in two different countries have investigated the matter, with numerous psychiatrists, and they all came to the conclusion that I need no diagnosis whatsoever.

  10. Back in the golden era of christianity, the rulers (pope, cardinals) could fed their subordinate as well as general population with whatever bullshit they fancyed. The same is going in the muslim world today ! Because no one could verify the info except for those who made it up ! Today it is a bit different and they can’t simply spread lies for the sake of it. They can only use it as a joker and have to carefully use this option where it truly matters. A good example of this is how they avoid anyone from offering an alternative to fossil énergies while MANY MANY MANY alternative exist. It is all way more subtle than that.

    As to walking on the moon, I can’t be 100% sure but I’d say that too many people were involved in the apollo program for it to be a fraud without ANYTHING ever leaking. Not only that but the same amount of people (if not the double) was involved in surveillance program in the soviet union. The point is that, faking the moon landing was actually way more complicated and expensive than actually achieving it and offering that “wonderful miracle of science” to the brainless sheeples !

    P.s. Nazi science makes a lot of sense, it is really intresting to study what remains of it although it has certainly be altered by the non-goyim postwar overlord that I won’t name 🙂

  11. I see your point. But I think that science is more open to new theories and ideas. They are not based only on faith, but on what fits better. So, if you have some new theory that makes more sense, you can submit to the scientific community without being judged as a traitor or something.

    Besides, science have the premise that you can always reproduce some theory using the same resources in order to see by yourself that this theory is true.

    I think that what you mean is that we cannot believe in what we can’t reproduce and see by ourselves. Things that some ‘entities’ just say to us and we have to take as being true. But I disagree about comparing science and religion.

    • Actually, the fact that the “scientific world” sounds more open and “kind” than christianity (back in the days) make it even more dangerous !
      Do you remember that nobel prized british biologist who published a study that literally PROVED african people Evolved differently than white people. The “scientific world” called him a racist, took his nobel prize away and no one had anything to say about it because “the scientific world” is open minded and kind 🙂

      At the end of the day, it makes it an even more dangerous entity !!!

  12. Pingback: Sobre la religión y la ciencia | Hermandad Pagana

  13. Scepticism should be applied to the pre-Christian/”Pagan” world as well.

    -Sokrates was appalled by the lack of reflectiveness of his fellow Athenians (and the Athenians did vote to execute Sokrates in the end, albeit it was also politically motivated).

    -Yet even Sokrates was inconsistent with his maxim “I know that I know nothing”. Assuming that Plato recorded some of Sokrates’ conversations accurately, it is amazing how tenuous Sokrates’ logic often was – see for example the Phaidon, and in particular Sokrates’ analogy of snow vis-a-vis the soul.

    -Further back in time, Herodotos wrote in amazement that, despite the Athenians seeming to be the most critically-minded people in the world, they nevertheless so willingly believed that Peisistratos came with Athena on a chariot to Athens (even though Peisistratos had merely dressed up a tall, local girl to look like Athena).

    -One of the most impressive examples of lack of critical thought, and lack of rigorous testing, was the ancient Greeks’ view of medicine and human anatomy.

    The list goes on an on. Aischylos was almost prosecuted for revealing too much of the “Mysteries” in one of his plays. And one should be sceptical of the format of having “Mysteries” at all: why so secretive? The rest of Hellenic religion was very open and civic. Having secretiveness was a breeding ground for subversion. There is evidence that sinister elements (in particular “you know who”) infiltrated some Mystery cults, gaining influence, for example, in the Orphic cult at an early stage in history.

    Even Homer appears to be sceptical about the nature of the gods. He hints that the gods are not really the physical beings that they are typically described as. This is obvious in a passage of the Iliad with Aphrodite in relation to Helen.

    …Anyway, the masses are asses. And just because something is ancient it doesn’t necessarily mean it is true or healthy.

    …And yet, ignorance is relative. The ancients appear incomparably healthier and more enlightened compared to the followers of Christianity! With Christianity came a complete filter of ignorance – everything interpreted through a book and the priests. And even worse, it was aggressively intolerant: forcibly converting, or killing, anyone “Pagan” (yet, strangely enough, leaving “you know who” relatively unmolested)…

    Here is a parody of the “Messiah” (and the answer to the quiz question below):

    • Correction:
      *albeit Sokrates’ execution SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN (also?) politically motivated*

      (And judging by Sokrates’ reported behaviour, it seems that he wanted to be a matyr-like figure, pushing the court case to the extreme limit, even though the Athenians don’t seem to have wanted to execute him.)

    • Yes, I agree.

      Some of the examples you give can easily be explained though: dressing up a local girl as Athena made her Athena. She was impersonating a deity, and thus became that deity. That was common custom (I am sure) all over Europe. You can find a lot about that here on this blog.

      Also, the mysteries were secretive, because they were supposed to test the candidate — or rather his psyche. If he already knew what was coming, it would not come as a surprise, and then (of course) the whole surprise (and the following honest reaction) would be spoiled. There was nothing sinister of subversive about this. Well: until “they” became involved, of course.

      Monthy Python’s Life of Brian is fantastic. I love it. Possibly even better than The Quest for the Holy Grail. 🙂

      • Very good points! (I thought you’d have a good counter-argument to the point about the Mysteries and I wasn’t disappointed!) 🙂

  14. Pingback: About Religion & Science | Thulean Perspective

  15. “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
    Nikola Tesla

  16. “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
    Nikola Tesla

    Maybe he knew something that modern “scientists ” don’t.

  17. I’ve been about to write a comment here a few times.. only to realize what I was going to say was wrong.

    First I was going to say that there would be no benefit for them to fake the moon landing, and then I watched the video which explained that.
    Then I was going to write that the moon landing, real or not, isn’t really relevant anymore… but then I thought of all the people my generation who go on about ‘if we kill the planet we will just move to another one.’ Being confronted with the fact we never really went to the moon would make them realize how far out that idea actually is. Maybe they would actually care a bit?

    Either way and off topic, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what you(Varg and Marie, you have both written on it) wrote on modern Europeans being like Neanderthal adolescents. Or even like children. I think the answers to a number of questions lie in that point. So much in our culture/life is about ‘playing’ a role or following an idea for curiosity’s sake, etc. I think we need to put more thought into this idea as a means to understand how to reach our people. The average white(or person of any race) will never care for critical thought and I feel many have always disregard the truth if something more interesting comes about.

    I got a taste of the later when I stumbled upon one of those new-age mystic videos on youtube. The guy was going on about how people ‘see things’ when he talks and he had very clearly edited in orbs of light/shooting streaks of light into his video. It was so clearly edited in but a lot of people in the comments were playing along or discussing ‘what it might be.’ Many also insisted they were the only ones to have seen it. Some very interesting psychology at work here…

    • Also if anyone knows about developmental psychology, around the age of 6-7 children learn to separate reality from fiction. Before then even cartoons are perceived as reality(though not necessarily directly involved with our world.)

      I remember myself when I was that age I had wanted to meet the characters in a cartoon. And one night I had a dream where that happened, except in the dream they were people dressed in costume breaking it to me that those characters were not real. I’m guessing my brain had just reached that point of development as no one else had pointed it out to me.

      What I wonder is how the brain makes that separation with visual media, especially in the modern age. And especially with edited content where real life is overlapped with fiction. I also wonder how it works with shows with real actors. Many seem to offload things from the movies they watch into reality(case in point all the ‘conspiracy’ movies Hollywood creates that indirectly promote nonsensical Illuminati conspiracies) and ‘reality shows’ and ‘sitcoms’ that promote outright degeneracy. I know myself that people will tell you these shows are obviously staged sometimes(reality shows I mean) and then other times get so into it that they forget.

      • And the point was made. I think Varg wanted to present us all with something that very few of us had ever looked into that was of a similar sort to some of our interests. Just as a way of saying, “all you may think you know about xyz… here’s something else you know nothing about.” It’s often where I’ll get comfortable with a subject and then march into something new(especially when it’s something similar to something I do know) with the same arrogance only to get buried under a sea of new information.

    • And like I have said a few times already: we simply don’t KNOW whether or not they landed on the Moon. They might have done so, but most evidence suggest they didn’t (the existence of the Van Allen belt alone would make it extremely unlikely).

    • The whole mentality behind interspace travel and colonization of other celestial bodies has always irritated me. So now we are supposed to neglect our home planet just for an idealistic vision of living on another planet? Are we meant to destroy our own world just to prove a “scientific theory?” That is, that there is other inhabitable planets in the universe? What is wrong with our own planet? I think you are correct in your critique. If the masses learned that life wasn’t hospitable on other planets then they would actually have to show some responsibility for their own living space and stop exploiting our Mother Earth.

      • My most recent former/ ex girlfriend was obsessed with the concept of space colonisation (due to listening to, almost strictly, Dubstep and other variations of obnoxious man- made noise and playing video games and watching movies in which the plot implicated space travel, colonisation, and warfare) and when I pointed out the flaws in colonising Mars (apparently, there’s this project that she was ecstatic about by the name of Project Mars (I can no longer find the website that she presented to me. This was back in late 2011 and/ or 2012) where one can, at first, actually travel thereto and vacation for a few days to get a feel of “the red planet” once the funds were invested and the work done. Thereafter, they were going to have some 100.000 people sign up for relocation to Mars to be the first colonials thereof), she would get pissed off as she would have loved to visit Mars and, eventually, relocate thereto. She still didn’t understand, let alone grasp the fact that life on Mars is impossible at this time and if it was viable, life thereupon would be miserable. First off, the planet’s lakes are frozen with no known edible material about the place and even if there was, the soil (sand) is corrosive and requires chemical treatment. As for the atmosphere, everyone is going to have no other option than to live in bloody domes, drinking recycled urine and eating Hel knows what. Moreover, the protective layers of the atmosphere (or lack thereof).. There are none. The radiation would annihilate us mercilessly. Nay. I’ll stay here on my native planet, breathing (relatively) fresh air and eating clean food that I grew on my lonesome. These asshole humans need to realise that we have only one home. We can’t leave. Not now, not ever.. and I wouldn’t have it any other manner.

      • Post Scriptum: Her obsession with space travel and colonisation used to enrage me. Thankfully, I’m cutting back on useless shit such as the utilisation of toothpaste and deodorant and growing my own food and, adequately soon, harvesting my own water (distilled/ pure).

        • I stopped using toothpaste and shampoo some months ago and have only had positive results. I had a dentist look at my teeth some time ago last year and was told that they were in perfectly healthy condition since I stopped using toothpaste. The only time I’ve had a cavity in my life was from when I ate candy and processed junk. Toothpaste is really only for the taste. Yes, we have become so entertainment/comfort obsessed that we need to have pleasure when performing basic hygienic practices.

          I never have used deodorant, save for a few occasions. Whenever I did my armpits felt sticky, sweaty and extremely uncomfortable. Deodorant will reduce the body’s natural odor which is used to attract a mate and leaves a completely artificial smell. I have actually received a few compliments from women about my odor who thought I was wearing cologne!

          Natural abilities and processes will always prevail over modern garbage.

          • My teeth do feel tougher and, of course, cleaner since I ceased the utilisation of even the natural types of toothpastes (the only time that I’ll ever use toothpaste again is to, as intended, freshen my breath). Good on you, William. I’m glad to hear that your dental health is ideal though. I cannot wrap my head around as to why just about everyone feels as though they must smell like a bloody fruit salad (besides, would it not be easier— and cheaper— to just dump a bowl of watermelon juice on yourself?). As for shampoo and deodorant and smelling like some fruity nauseatingly sweet female bodyspray, my mother, more often than not, hassles me over my hair smelling “dirty” despite the fact that I utilise this natural soap when I shower: http://browneagle44.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/olpe32ea.jpg. She’ll also nag and tell me that my body “odor” drives me to “smell like a Hindu Indian.” The only occasion upon which I will use deodorant is when I’m wearing my Bathory- Blood Fire Death tshirt, Odroerir- Götterlieder tshirt, a tshirt with a Celtic theme to it that depicts a wizard at a table and a dragon before him, my Spain fútbol/ fußbol tshirt, my Es Lebe Deutschland tshirt, my Assassin’s Creed tshirt, and my US Marine Corps tshirt and only due to not washing the aforementioned clothing items often as I wish to maintain them in the condition in which I had received them. If you live here in “the states,” you’re, more than likely, well aware of how expensive the deodorant is and living in this manner will conserve a boatload of money. As far as my body and hair are concerned, half of the time, I wash my whole corpse with the Dr. Bronner’s Peppermint Castile soap, however, as of late, I’ve only been washing my posterior, family jewels, armpits, and hair (and not even the hair as much anymore) therewith. Withal, I’ve been taking cold showers and, simply, rinsing in the mornings with means of removing any sweat from the previous night’s sleep. Now, I don’t recall as to whether or not Vårg stated so, but apparently, soap is unnecessary. If I were to shower without soap subsequent to having done a number 2, would I smell of excrement? This is the only matter that I’m concerned about. I would imagine that a cold shower would facilitate this as heat tends to make things smellier.

            I concur. We ought to not fight nature. We can’t win at any rate. We would lose every single time even when we thought that we have won.

            HailaR NaturA.

    • One thing. You can check as many pictures of the American Flag on the Moon and you will always fail to find one where there is the shadow of the flag on the Moon…

  18. I think that the point about this article is not really about the moon landing and similar, even if many are discussing it. It is not important. The point is that all the people which sees in Science an alternative to Religion (Christianity) have the same identical attitude and approach towards it, the “Religious” attitude. They blindly believed before and they blindly believe now. Only names and terms are changing.

    So, EVEN IF Science was not partially controlled by Judeo-Christianism but totally free, it is still a Religion.

  19. The argument against the moon landings seems altogether rather convincing, but I have one query – if they were all a set up, why did Apollo 13 fail it’s mission? I mean, if it was fake, would the not tell us that it was all a complete success?

    • The oxygen tank probably exploded in orbit around the Earth, where the astronauts were and not halfway between the Earth and the Moon as they claim. It’s that simple.

      • Yeah, I guess that’s a possibility. I can’t help but think of the episode of Blackadder where they’re pretending to be explorers.

  20. I generaly agree with this post. I’d say that at least 50% of what an average modern mongrel believes to be “scientificaly proven”, is in fact a pile of BS. More importantly, every time he hears something like that on the radio/TV/mail, he believes it, no matter how retarded it sounds, as long as it is “scientists have discovered…”, he will believe it.
    But going as far as a moon landing thing, i have to agree with Jens.

    • But what makes you think you KNOW that they landed a man on the Moon?

      Did you see the interviews with the astronauts in the video linked to in this post?

      • I don’t know. But I believe they were on the moon.
        I watched that documentary.
        So KGB, probably the most powerfull secret service in history, that ran on HUGE amounts of money was unable to see the ‘obvious’ evidence that everything was fake?
        And then a fat American gum-chewing reporter (actually a taxi driver, according to Wikipedia) came up with some supposed secret tape and tried to prove he is right.
        Does not convince me.
        I do believe that portions of that mission were in fact filmed in studio, to dramatize the event. But I believe they did successfuly land on the moon anyway. :>

        • Aye that is the American way. “The moon is too boring, just come home and we’ll film something with pissaz!” Or perhaps cameras don’t even work well on the moon? Landing or hoax, I’d be surprised if Hollywood was not heavily involved in the media coverage.

        • Actually, there are plenty of Russian scientists who say that the Americans never went to the Moon.

          • I also noticed how everyone focuses only/mostly on the first Apolo landing. There have been 5 more, after the first one. Faking 6 landings?
            But we best stop here I think. I support the idea of questioning (or denying) many things, of course, as long as it’s inteligent (no fucking reptilians and aliens). But everyone draws a line for himself about what to question (deny) and what not.

            • So why have we not seen much film from these landings? I mean: if they were there, and filmed it, then there should be hundreds of documentaries showing the footage! Where are they?

              Yes, everyone draws the line, but I think we should cross that line every now and then.

          • The world saw what happened when America nuked japan. With the assistance of Albert Einstein.

    • Ah, me and evidence….

      Well, I just tell the truth and then those with a brain can easily find the evidence themselves. 🙂

      The others… well, who cares about them? 😉

      PS. I did link to a documentary proving some of my points.

    • In your defence you never said that man didnt land on moon but you cant just say the “truth” and provide no evidence whatsoever no one will take you seriously and thats the last thing you need not just parts of this post but speaking in general 🙂

      • When I write I trust that people who don’t understand the truthfulness of what I say can Google it and find out that way instead.

        But: what good is providing ‘evidence’ when we can not trust the sources anyhow?

        • Providing evidence is important to prove points and back up your “storys” i didnt speak for this case/post because you can use common sence to see that modern science is manipulated by politics. Everyone base their knowledge and belief on something, you cant claime anything without evidence or proof otherwise people might think that you are making things up 😛
          P.S. This “discussion” is unimportant ^^

    • Funny, because I’ve seen the piece of moon-rock that President Clinton “accidentally” stole (it was eventually returned to Arkansas and one of its museums). Doesn’t look anything like this piece of junk they sent Holland. They wouldn’t even need to run tests on the thing to know it wasn’t the same as the rest of the pieces.

  21. “They tell us that the Moon is gray, even when we all can see that it is white, and we still believe in them!”

    I believe we see the moon as white because of solar reflection. If it wasn’t for the reflection effect, we wouldn’t be able to see the moon at all.

      • Well, the sky is of different color depending if it is dusk, dawn or during the middle of the day. It is also true for the sun. The moon is highly exposed to the light of the sun and it gives you a very bright grey (white). And you can still see the dark “seas” of the moon. They are of a darker grey. A very bright red is still red (and Mars is much more far away from us).

  22. I’m not an expert in photography, astronomy or spaceflight, but some of the Apollo XI pics really look fake to me, too clean, too bright…. they obviously failed to use a light source (some claim they even used many of them) as powerful as the sun (many pics are poorly lightened), and a vast enough area to simulate the moon ground, the horizon seems also very close… who knows…..

  23. I can understand being skeptical of the moon landing, but comparing evolution to the creation of the earth in 7 days is just asinine. Evolution is a reasoned scientific theory, whether you believe it or not it’s still a far more credible theory than what you find in the bible or any creation myth. Creation myths serve a different purpose a symbolic purpose, evolution is there to try and explain why things materially exist and how they came to be. If things didn’t evolve from simpler matter then what? What realistically can we otherwise theorise? Simple matter evolving into complex matter makes far more sense than every simple to complex species coming to be all at once from some unknown source. I’m not an atheist, but I accept what to me is self evident when looking upon the world. I remember Varg you once accepted evolution, I don’t know what changed really. Evolution in many ways explains why the human races are different, why we differ in intelligence and creative ability. I hate how evolution is now being politicised and taken advantage by the left, but it used to be an inherently “racist” theory which separated the races and argued for the first time that we aren’t equal under god.

    • I believe in micro evolution, but still have not seen any convincing evidence supporting the theory of macro evolution.

    • It’s almost the same thing. Just because the theory of the seven days was no longer entirely possible, they have changed a bit the history to make it more modern. In the same way today, the Apollo astronauts have… maybe… actually seen flashes in the Van Allen belt … Their story has changed. This is also a monk who is in the origin of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is in fact even better: in less than seven days, the whole universe was created.

    • Yes thank you, the robots are also (very expensive) fake they would have been destroyed by the radiation from the sun. It is also unlikely that they have a sufficiently developed technology, when they do not even have robots to work in nuclear power plants.

      • I apologize for my lack of knowledge or insight on this particular subject, I haven’t really looked into it so far, but:
        If the mars and moon landings were hoaxes (And according the the video above, the Mars one has me convinced it was faked), why fake it? I see no point other than to make people believe and have faith in the politically correct pseudo-sciences even more than they already do.

        Unless that’s the point entirely.

        It’s late where I am too so my question may be stupid and induced by sleepiness.

  24. Pingback: Je sais que je ne sais rien | Thulean Perspective Français

  25. By posting crap like the “moonlanding hoax” theories, you are really doing us all a huge disfavour. Not only because they are theories that are thoroughly baseless, but because anyone coming here to see what the man who is famous for being persecuted by the Jew controlled regimes has to say is going to get all their prejudices about “right-wingers” being conspiracy nutjobs confirmed. This is exactly what they want, you know. And it sticks to anyone who has similar views.

      • I didn’t say I *know* in the sense that the opposite is utterly irrefutable. Science is about conjecture and then raking that conjecture over the coals to try to falsify it. You never prove your knowledge definitely in science – it’s all about the methods used to achieve that knowledge.

        However, my opinion is that it is crap that is not worthwhile, and I think that is rather obvious even without going into details. It’s a theory that hardly contains any hard evidence at all, but rather *arguments* that point out alleged irregularities such as shadows not lining up correctly or dust not spreading the way they claim it should. If this gigantic conspiracy had in fact happened, it must have involved thousands of people and produced a mountain of evidence. And it doesn’t make any sense for any government to do this, simply because it would be impossible to conceal.

        Let’s face it – the people who put forth these theories really are conspiracy nutbags. What will be the next – David Icke and his lizard theory?

        If we want to achieve some credibility in the fight for the European race, we need to stop associating ourselves with crap like this. Even if there is always a “what if” in science and there is a slight possibility that it’s true. The enemy is notoriously using this against us, trying to paint anyone who opposes them as mentally ill conspiracy theorists, and lumping theories like this together with sound science such as Holocaust revisionism. Let’s not give them any free points in this process, shall we.

        • Well, I never even said that man never landed on the Moon. Besides, you completely miss the point with this post. I just say that we don’t really know if they did or not. And that we should question everything, especially when we cannot know for sure if what they tell us is true or not. Also, you should question even the things you THOUGHT you knew. Maybe you have been wrong all along, and never even looked for the truth because you were — so full of yourself — convinced that you already knew the truth. Like you are so bloody convinced that the story about landing men on the Moon is true — although you have no reason whatsoever to think you know anything at all about that.

          I provided you with a link to a video about the Moon landing, and you obviously didn’t even see it. No, it doesn’t really deal with shadows and stuff like that, although they do mention it in the beginning, but almost exclusively about the astronauts, and their contradictory and some times idiotic explanations to what happened — and their irrational, violent and extremely aggressive reactions to those who question their truthfulness.

          One of them even said that they — on the Apollo 11 mission — didn’t react to the Van Allen radiation belt “because it had not been discovered yet” (!). Well: it was there all the time, even if it had been discovered by man or not, and it would have affected them just as much as those who came after them.

          Oh, and by the way: do YOU know about the Van Allen belt, Jens? And you still believe blindly that they just went through it sans protection, and lived to tell about it? No equipment failure? No cancer? No effect whatsoever? And yet our satellites 1100 km below the Van Allen belt have problems, because of the belt. But, I guess they didn’t put anything about that in the script for the Moon landing hoax, because it had not yet been discovered in 1969.

          So we can not drive a robot into a nuclear reactor, because of the radiation messing up the whole thing, but you believe that they can — and even in 1969 could — fly through the Van Allen belt without even taking notice that they have?

          It would be impossible to conceal? Would it? How can you be so sure about that? What do you know about that? They sure cover up a lot of other hoaxes, from democracy to banking, vaccines and you name it, and not many seems to take notice of that.

          Giving them free points? Well, again: what do YOU KNOW about the landing of men on the Moon? Get off that high horse; you don’t know anything about this, save what your teachers and popular magazines have told you about this. So why don’t you investigate it a bit before you start throwing ‘crap’ at me? You sound like a normal person being confronted with the lies about “you-know-what”.

            • Oh, please, stop pretending you haven’t promoted (and heavily suggested that you believe in) this theory. You have also posted some rather crazy stuff about prevention pills, if I remember correctly. Stuff that makes you look stupid. And as a public figure, you looking stupid will taint the rest of us who fight for our race. I am so sick and tired of being associated with David Icke/Tore Tvedt/Alex Jones every time I say something negative about the Jews or talk about some other politically incorrect topic.

              And the association is not without merit. In fact there are a lot of crazy people in the movement who harbour the ideas of these people. People who will cite the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ without hesitation, even though they have been shown to be totally fake. Please don’t be that nutbag. If things like the moonlanding is not important to you and our cause, then stop speculating about it. Because it *is* damaging. Jews like Michael Shermer have made a fortune from this, and in Norway we now have half-a-dozen media-proclaimed “experts” (marxists like Terje Emberland, Øyvind Strømmen, Tor Bach and a bunch of others) that exploit the link between “right-wing extremism” and conspiracy nutbaggery. There is absolutely no reason to fuel that fire.

              • First of all, David Icke and Alex Jones are not in our movement. They are not ‘right-wing extremists’ either, as far as I know. Why do you even talk about them? (Alex Jones is married to a Jewess, by the way.)

                Secondly; you attack me for telling the truth about P-pills, and for questioning the truthfulness of the official Moon landing story. Why don’t you at least try to learn more about these subjects instead of attacking me for talking about them? You might be surprised by what you learn.

                What you say about the Protocols unveils extreme ignorance on your part too. A total fake? How do you *know* that then? Have you even read the Protocols?

                You should worry less about your image and instead spend the energy to work for the truth.

                And you have not answered my question. How is it you think you KNOW what is right and what is not?

                • I already answered that in the first paragraph of my second post. I have read the protocols and I have also read the book they are plagiarized from. As a historical document, they have zero value. I have also studied conspiracy theories like the moon landing hoax theory and several others. This is besides the point I was trying to convey to you, however.

                  You attacking me for not knowing is just paradoxical. How do you *know* that I don’t know, then? You are simply making assumptions from the fact that I have a different opinion than you on these matters. You should be more consistent in your approach to knowledge, because on the one hand you seem to talk about some Truth™ (which coincidentally is on your side) and on the other hand, you mix epistemological nihilism with the negative epistemology of the Greeks(which the title of your blogpost stems from). Odd.

                  There is nothing the matter with discerning between good and bad theories, and this has nothing to do with the negative epistemology which you are advocating with this blogpost. I agree with you that there is no certainty in science, and that science is about questioning, not knowing. I’m simply disappointed that you, and many people in the movement, seem to swallow anything that goes against the current system.

                  • I assume that you don’t know anything, because you give that impression. And anybody can say that they have read this or that. It doesn’t mean anything, when you follow up the “have read the Protocols” line with “they have no historical value”. What planet do you live on? Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-xjLa9xrOo

                    If you have read the Protocols and still claim that they have no historic value, then why on Earth do you even think we are in the same movement? And you seem to think that Alex Jones (!?) and David Icke is in ‘our’ movement too.

                    Well, I am sorry, but I am not in that movement you seem to be talking about. I am not even remotely connected to that movement.

                    Odd? The only think odd here is your inability to grasp that what others say can be taken out of context and used in other contexts to mean something else. I do that quite often, in fact. Here, all I do is to use that quote (by Socrates, we assume) to make it clear that I don’t know the truth in this context.

                    And no, I don’t talk about The Truth here, In fact I humbly make it perfectly clear that I don’t know the truth in this context, and also that I don’t think the two mainstream ‘Truths’ are in fact true. The Truth is not on my side, but I am on The Truth’s side, whenever I can find it.

                    • David Duke takes the stance that the protocols are fiction – how is that supposed to show that they have *historical* value? Looks to me like you are just touting propaganda without actually looking at (or understanding) the content.

                      No, I have never said that Alex Jones and David Icke is in our movement. What I said was that I was tired of being compared to those loonies. You seem to have some basic problems with comprehension, or else you are deliberately trying to twist my words.

                    • No, that would be you doing that.

                      I know perfectly well what David Duke says about that book. Try watching his entire video before you — again — claim they have no historical value. I guess you also see no other value in that book?

              • What “us”? It is said that the group removes freedom, and unfortunately we have here a striking example. Why should you choose what a person can write or not just because you are reading what that person is writing?

                • He can write whatever he wants; I’m simply saying my piece. As a public figure representing a group or a line of thought, however, he should be careful with what he writes, because it can easily be used against all of us.

                  That big media outlets such as TV2 and VG actually link to his blog should be a warning sign (not saying that the blog is totally bad; I find most of what I’ve read here so far to be interesting).

                  • What ‘group’ am I representing then? Please do tell me.

                    A warning sign?

                    And what is it you do then for “our” movement, besides complaining on blogs like this whenever you don’t agree 100% with everything on the blog?

                    • I was hoping you were clever enough to understand that working in a group is necessary to make a difference. I understand that I was wrong, and that you are just another individualist promoting himself and his image. Have fun taking pictures with your SS helmet and jagged knives.

                    • Actually, my SS-helmet was stolen from me (by the police) in 1993. I have not had any jagged knives either, since 1993.

                      Maybe you should try a little update for yourself?

                  • Assuming you mean a movement that aims to preserve Europeans and their way of life, which famous figures do you think better represent you? Pierce? I wouldn’t trust a man that married five times to tell me what day it is. Varg seems the only one with consistency between his writings and actions. He is also the only one -as far as I know- persecuted for his beliefs alone, which shows much.

                    • Well, then your knowledge of the current situation is severly limited, which is also a problem in the movement, I guess.

                    • Why don’t you answer my questions instead of just talking shit here?

                    • Maybe it is. The sure thing is that you are not helping by not answering my question.

                    • It all boils down to this: he didn’t like that I questioned official stories about e. g. the Moon landing, or that I made it clear that we don’t actually know what is the truth and what is not in that context. Now he is trying to find excuses to attack me because I didn’t do as he told me to do (i. e. stop writing about things that will ruin my image, and thus also his image, because he is some times associated with me).

                      Ironically now he claims that I am writing only to build my image….

              • What if the conspiracy is real , what then ?
                Maybe “reality” is more weird than reality ?
                Do you go and hide in fear of being called a nut , or a “troll” ?

  26. In case I understood it the correct way: what makes you think the moon landing/moon rocks are forged? What would be the point to it? Just to establish the “new religion science”? Also, wasn’t it possible to see the flag they are supposed to plant on the moon via a telescope from earth?

      • They even can’t get an image of resolution good enough to recognize a human or an object of human dimensions with all their ultra-hi-tech multi-billion telescopes flying around the Earth. Considering this seeing a flag on the Moon with your personal telescope for private use sounds really strange. The associative imagination is a great thing.

        • True and also they do the same with Mars, the Moon and our own planet, covering zones with blurry patches (in fact huge patches of many square kilometers..) like in google earth, you can also check out Antarctica, there’s a huge white patch coinciding almost with the south polar center, this might sound as conspiracy theory but is really not…

  27. M.: “You’ve got to think for yourselves! You’re all individuals!”

    *Reply together:* “Yes, we’re all individuals!”

    M.: “You’re all different!”

    *Reply together:* “Yes! We’re all different!”

    M.: “You’ve got to work it out for yourselves!”

    *Reply together:* “Yes, we’ve got to work it out for ourselves!”

    😉

    50 points to anyone who can guess where that is taken from (there’s a clue in the post below this one). 😀

  28. I really enjoy and appreciate the posts made by Mr Vikernes, but some of the community comments (mostly American) are straight out of Monty Python! I often wonder if I am hallucinating LMFAO! 😀

  29. Nice Discussion! Only the Chosen Ones will be allowed to enter The Hall up High!!! The fact is, you have religion (spirituality in other words!) which is based upon universal energy and the ancient belief in a world beyond! On the other hand, you have science and the theory of evolution which is only based upon what you can dig out of the ground or observe in the universe. Therefore it can only go so far and remains a theory. A new theory states that as the universe grows older and continues to expand outward, Einsteins’ speed of light is actually slowing down and decaying over time. If this were true then it would mean that everything we know is actually wrong. Our carbon dating methods would be completely invalid as the universe is aging and decaying. We all are aging and decaying as a human race. This would also mean that Stonehenge is older than we thought as well as the human race (because evolution is only based on what you can dig out of the ground.) The neanderthals left africa much longer ago than anyone originally thought. The evidence for this has long rotted away in soil. and these neanderthal / cromagnon hybrids established a civilization in the middle east towards the end of the ice age. It is very likely that the Egyptians were white indeed. If you go to the middle east today there are still plenty of blue eyed people! Those neanderthals that never left the north, they left behind the most neanderthal DNA in West and North Europe. We are the oldest age of mankind ( here and now.) Our star system has recently completed a revolution around the center of the universe and THIS IS THE AGE OF AQUARIUS! 2012-2013 approximately we made a revolution around the center of the universe!!! Our sun and we are not getting any younger and another ice age may well be upon us in generations to come! Please reply and discuss 🙂 See y’all in the Great Hall 😉

  30. As a scientist, I can tell you that your reasoning is very scientific.To question everything, not to believe everything you are told is the basis of science. Science is not truth but the better explanation available. And in a lot of fields, you have sometimes two or even more good explanations (especially in cosmology) until someone proves that his explanation is the only good one (until someone else does the same etc.) And once again, “good” only means “the best we have now”
    Science is based on three things: Theory, modelling and experience. Most of the time, you have all of them (a theory that explains well your experience fitting well with your calculations). Sometimes you just have experimental results waiting for a good theory explaining them. Some other time, you will just do modelling to fit with a theory that still needs experimental results (very fundamental physics).

    My point is that science is not a problem within a religious society. But in our modern (atheist) societies, science is the only explanation avalaible (authorized). So the best explanation for the sensible world is seen (presented) as the truth. And as science is left to scientists, the are seen as priests.We don’t want to be recognized as such.

    Scientism comes from rationalism which come from freedom of thought. And freedom of thought from the right to choose to believe or not in one god (reason). Well, I think you see the pattern… I guess that science was not a problem for our forebears as they could not deny the existence of the gods (as they are their forebears). Then a whole new pattern was available. Their metaphysics was based on perfection and not infinity (like christians) as Dominique Venner said. Perfection means that you want to preserve and not exploit your environment. Perfection means that science is one explanation with its own limits when infinity leads to the frenetic search for a unique law (god).

    And if i remember well, there were no european god with only science as an attribute. And most of the time, it was knowledge and not only science.

    • Precisely Esras,

      Most “scientists” from a time past were not JUST that. However, many “modern” scientists like to claim just that. I think that says something very profound about what science used to be and what it has morphed into. Note that I do not say “good” or “bad” because in this case there is no such “black” and “white” denomination possible. True scientists as you say, question themselves. I can extend this to the wisest of men. The more he thinks he knows something, the more he realizes he hasn’t even scratched the surface. The “wisest” men in history have proven this in their work. They were not just interested in this or that, but a plethora of things This can almost be likened to a game of chess. You know there is a pre-quantified amount of pieces(theories). You know that there is also only specified ways that they can move (rules or maybe even “laws of nature”). Then, enter in strategy which can be likened to “real life”. Once you enter in the element of strategy, a whole new world is opened up you begin to realize the pieces (theories) can move in an endless amount of ways. You begin to visualize the “Pandora’s box” which you have opened up. Most than after this point cannot quantify beyond a few “moves”. Most people don’t have the ability to see beyond themselves. It is only a few(very few) players that can see “many moves ahead”. They can also see at the same time that the other player has weaknesses (holes in their theories). They use this to their advantage to see the bigger picture and move beyond just the initial picture they had. They visualize what the other person may or may not do. They plan ahead, but also maintain a sense of what is going on (intuition) to guide their movements in case of some unexpected move (a change in theory). It is not until they get into the “thick of the game”…that they begin to see it is not what it first appeared to be. The best players also know that nothing they do must be based off of emotion (irrational theory) but must be based on the “laws of nature” (rules) and only then can their real game begin.

    • This^^^ Science is great until the political elite turn it into an alternative religion. While many governments are not allowed to use religion to make and enforce laws, they can use science, so to do so, they make science religion and treat certain science as infallible. One of the reasons that Americans are so fat is that old outdated nutritional science told us that lots of carbs were better than fat and protein, so the government told everyone that they should eat lots and lots of grain and carbohydrate, and taught everyone that eating fatty foods was bad for you. Turns out that it’s grain that makes you fat and some fatty foods helped keep you from getting an inflamed cardiovascular system.

  31. Pingback: Знам да ништа не знам | The Call of Thule

  32. Makes me think of how the church enforced the ideas about Geocentric model, that the sun revolved around the Earth. The church enforced this idea even when it was proven that by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. That it was in fact Heliocentric, which I believe even the ancients knew and was even postulated by the Greeks and I’m sure the Egyptians knew as well although there is no ‘evidence’ to support it. Many other cultures are known to believe this too.

    So how many more ideas are indefinitely repressed by those in power? How many ideas will never see the light of day, it’s difficult to even know.

  33. Another famous maxim from Socrates is “Gnothi seauton” or better known as “know yourself”. At first glance, they might seem at odds with another. How can one know himself and know nothing. But they are both aiming for towards the same wisdom — a man must know his limitations.

    • Just a clarification: “know yourself” was one of the inscribings at Apollo’s temple in Delphi.

      Though, I think Socrates didn’t mean that he knew nothing literally. It’s just that the first step to learn is to admit you don’t know. So, by admitting he knew nothing, he was ready to learn everything.

  34. The problem is that REAL scientists and REAL science are not the promoted by the mass-media and educational system. They promote the lie-propaganda religion called “science” instead.

    • Of course not Varg…the truth will more than likely “set people free”…
      Therefore…as history has shown us, most will never listen until it is too late. Most will live a life of lies contrived by THEMselves. The truth will always be there, but will most people have the ability to see. NO. Because we are our own worst enemies and history has proven that it will repeat itself…once again this “blood memory”.

        • Therefore “science” will also evolve to some other form…we have yet to see what this will be. Although if you truly doubt all, then perhaps even “paganism” is a stretch. For what most people “know” really means they “know nothing”. They only think it so. Question everything right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s