I liked Pierce's broadcasts myself. He sounded pissed off, and with good reason.

However, I got my wife to listen to some of KAS's broadcasts in 2003 and 2004 (Haven't listened to any more recent). She likes his voice, and thinks he sounds "soothing". Maybe it's subliminal propaganda. ]

I've run into the same thing. Most women that listen to DP find him to be "angry" and women do not like that. When I first brought up the subject of VNN radio way back in the day, I recommended that Linder do a half hour broadcast just like DP used to do. Linder is the right mix between DP and KAS.

 

Paul Gellar would sound great doing the ADV messages. He has an excellent voice for it.

"I'm Paul Gellar, this is American Dissident Voices, and here is what's been on my mind..." :cheers:

NV should make an effort to contact Paul and get him, since they missed their opportunity to get Hal, which was a large mistake. Regarding that, Hal is right in that The Turner Diaries is more violent than anything that's been written on Hal's blog.

At least I have the balls to come out and say Santa does not exist.

He doesn't? You heretic!

What the fuck is going on here? God, it's way past my bed time!

... I just want to point out that atheism is NOT based on faith, nor it is a religion.

When someone says they're an atheist, that usually entails that they believe in Darwinism (or some spin-off thereof) and have embraced the world-view of scientific materialism. I've found that Darwinists and materialists can be every bit as stubborn, irrational, preachy, and downright vicious as the religious fundamentalists when it comes to their beliefs.

When you ask these people why humans are self-conscious and have a will if all they are is pre-programmed biological robots, they usually reply that it's an illusion, a "bug in the program", some accidental side effect of our brain chemistry (Darwinists believe in accidents).

All intelligent human beings need some sort of a metaphysical creed or outlook that answers the question "why am I here?", and science seems to have become that creed for a lot of people. Don't get me wrong - I am not anti-science. Science does a good job of answering the "how" of things, but I find it less than satisfactory at answering the "why".

I don't expect to find out the "why" in my lifetime, and I'll probably stick to being agnostic 'til the end of my days.

It is the LACK of belief in a god.

I think agnosticism shows a greater absence of faith than does atheism (for the reasons stated above).

(@ Mike: I just noticed after posting this that you had brought up the same points earlier in the thread. No plagiarism was intended! My views on this subject are obviously similar to yours.)

Perhaps Linder is the "manly" everyman counterpart for that. :cheers:

Right on! :cheers:

No more projects for Linder. VNN sits stagnant while he does all these other things.

No more projects for Linder. VNN sits stagnant while he does all these other things.

There's not enough of him to go around!

When someone says they're an atheist, that usually entails that they believe in Darwinism (or some spin-off thereof) and have embraced the world-view of scientific materialism.

Science has nothing to do with materialism, nor does Darwinism. Nor do Darwin's theories and work suggest that there is no God, that morality is unnecessary, or anything else.

I've found that Darwinists and materialists can be every bit as stubborn, irrational, preachy, and downright vicious as the religious fundamentalists when it comes to their beliefs.

If you are referring to scientists who insist on keeping science pure, they have a duty to do so. Scientists don't "believe" scientific laws or theories, they "accept" them.

When you ask these people why humans are self-conscious and have a will if all they are is pre-programmed biological robots, they usually reply that it's an illusion, a "bug in the program", some accidental side effect of our brain chemistry (Darwinists believe in accidents).

A Darwinist is a nonexistent animal, nor does Darwin's theory of natural selection believe in "accidents" or that life came about by "chance" or "random". Nor does Darwin's theories deal with human self-consciousness and will, and it certainly does not say that humans are pre-programmed biological robots.

All intelligent human beings need some sort of a metaphysical creed or outlook that answers the question "why am I here?", and science seems to have become that creed for a lot of people.

Nobody "needs" to question as to the reason they are "here". Nor does science have anything to do with that concept.

Don't get me wrong - I am not anti-science. Science does a good job of answering the "how" of things, but I find it less than satisfactory at answering the "why".

Perhaps because science was never intended to explain "why" of metaphysical issues. Science is a method, not a belief system. When people ask why or how about something, science is one possible method of determining the answer or at least the best possible explanation through controlled conditions and objectivity.

The only "reasonable" position is agnosticism.

'Agnoticism' just means you don't like being called atheist, the slur commonly used by Buhlievers to describe the sane position on the nonentity they call god. The existence of 'god' is like any other claim that is asserted without evidence. The burden lies on the believer to persuade the rest of us. Does he do this? No. He slurs the sane as 'atheists,' and takes refuge in the crowd of idiots, where he feels at home. The atheists laugh at the religoids because they amuse us, like clowns.

What's the word for those who don't believe in Easter Bunny? Santa Claus? Before you say, everybody knows they don't exist, remember that there's every bit as much evidence they do as that 'god' does.

'God' is for morons and their fleecers; always was, always will be. The West was built on doubt and daring, the best that can be said for godism is serves as a baby's pacifier for sobbing moron 'adults.'

No more projects for Linder. VNN sits stagnant while he does all these other things.

True, I apologize for that. I have a big backlog and will be getting to it soon.

I think a large part of the struggle to get humanity out of the muck is that most people(most Whites included)have no desire to get out of the mud;people like shit and mediocrity and misery,as it reinforces their resentment of the higher types,and it caters to their laziness and weakness as well.

Nietzsche was dead on accurate when he identified the prevailing instinct at Christianity's core to be resentment;resentment against all that shows up the small,pitiful man for what he is,so he wishes to destroy that which puts him to shame.Modern Leftism and egalitarianism wouldn't exist without this underlying Christian psychology gone to seed and resprouted a 1,000 times more poisonous.
Think about the fact that millions of Christians have spent the last 100 years in Africa feeding and breeding hundreds of millions of more niggers,an evil and disastrous undertaking that will eventually result in millions of these same niggers overspilling into White countries,while turning the beautiful African continent into a wasteland.Have the "do-gooders" done this out of the goodness of their hearts,or is it resentment and a desire to destroy that which is higher cloaking itself in a guise of do-gooderism?
I vote the latter.

Pascal's wager repulses me. I dont believe in a Moloch-like Jewish-hateful God that would send people to hell for a reasoned disbelief. St Thomas Aquinas took the question of faith and reason serious enough to devote his life's work to reconciling the two. What he achieved I could not, and if people find his work less than convincing, not much could I say to add to it.

I read the early part of Summa Theologica, and I was not impressed with Aquinas "proof" that theology is a science. It's an instance of what I'd call a decorated assertion, an assertion around which a convoluted but circular argument is built.

Jerry Abbott

Science has nothing to do with materialism...

I said "scientific materialism". I don't believe that all science deals strictly with material things. Examples of some that don't deal strictly with material things would be mathematics, certain branches of psychology, even physics to some extent.

Nor do Darwin's theories and work suggest that there is no God, that morality is unnecessary, or anything else.

I was addressing Darwinism, not Charles Darwin per se. How many Darwinists have you met who also "accept" the theory of intelligent design? As for morality, you're familiar with Social Darwinism?

If you are referring to scientists who insist on keeping science pure, they have a duty to do so. Scientists don't "believe" scientific laws or theories, they "accept" them.

My point, of course, is that some have substituted science for religion. Some - dare I say, many? - of them have definitely crossed the line from "accepting" a given theory to "believing" it. Try criticizing Einstein and see what happens (hint: you might become persona non grata like Nikola Tesla) .

And scientists have no "duty" to keep science "pure" from what I presume would be "scientifically incorrect" ideas, any more than Jews have any business keeping the mass media free of politically incorrect "hate speech".

. . . science was never intended to explain "why" of metaphysical issues.

If, as you stated, science has nothing to do with materialism, then why couldn't the scientific method be applied to metaphysical matters?

Science is a method, not a belief system.

It's a belief system to those who believe in it.

When people ask why or how about something, science is one possible method of determining the answer or at least the best possible explanation through controlled conditions and objectivity.

How would one go about setting up those controlled conditions to explain something non-physical like "objectivity"? Is "objectivity" a phenomenon? Is "objectivity" a phenomenon that can be scientifically explained? Can it be scientifically proven that the scientific method is the best way to explain a phenomenon like "objectivity"?

I'm being serious when I ask these questions. I would like a convincing scientific explanation for why the scientific method even exists.

'Agnoticism' just means you don't like being called atheist, the slur commonly used by Buhlievers to describe the sane position on the nonentity they call god. The existence of 'god' is like any other claim that is asserted without evidence. The burden lies on the believer to persuade the rest of us. Does he do this? No. He slurs the sane as 'atheists,' and takes refuge in the crowd of idiots, where he feels at home. The atheists laugh at the religoids because they amuse us, like clowns.

What's the word for those who don't believe in Easter Bunny? Santa Claus? Before you say, everybody knows they don't exist, remember that there's every bit as much evidence they do as that 'god' does.

'God' is for morons and their fleecers]
This depends. The notion of God as a body of laws governing the universe goes back as far as Plato. I think you probably believe in that. The anthropomorphic entity is for the mob.

Agnosticism is from the Greek word agnosis, which means lack of knowledge. Like Socrates, however, the person who claims agnosis may be nearer to the truth than those who claim gnosis, so there is some irony in the label agnostic.

[color="Blue"]Anti-Nazi is a codeword for anti-White.
http://www.national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
http://www.noncounterproductive.blogspot.com
http://www.williamlutherpierce.blogspot.com