The fraud proven wrong once again.
But there’s minimal daylight between his own position and Durocher’s, when you get down to the brass tacks.
Now, I believe that I’ve already outlined the glaring daylight – the solar mass – between my position and that of Durocher, but more data are always welcome. So, let’s see some more on how Silver is – as usual – completely wrong.
All militant atheists should be given Darwin Awards.
I am a militant atheist. Now, I’m not offended by Durocher’s comment, any more that am offended by Captain Chaos’ retarded yapping at Majority Rights (“Michael Ravioli”). Nevertheless, can it be admitted that Durocher’s comment, coupled to my extreme scientific-materialist atheism, means that there is indeed a very wide gulf between our respective worldviews?
Logically, all this ends in either World-Judaism and/or Islam or esoteric Hitlerism.
So, if not Judaism or Islam, we all need to believe in gnostic esoteric fantasies, that Saint Adolf, The Man Who Can’t Tell Time, is piloting a flying saucer through the ruins of Atlantis – or is it in the “secret Antarctic Nazi fortress?” – “Hyperborea or Ultima Thule?” – “Mars?”
The advent of agriculture led to a spiritual crisis and religious change, as must the advent of modern technology. We need a new religion. Fascism was an attempt, smothered with hate-filled fanaticism. Late liberalism is a half-orgiastic/half-life-fearing effeminate death cult.
Fascism, according to Durocher, is bad, “smothered with hate-filled fanaticism.” We must have religious esoteric Hitlerism instead. I am a fascist and an atheist who thinks “esoteric Hitlerism” ranks among the most stupid horseshit imaginable. Can a normal and honest person (a category which necessarily excludes Silver) therefore conclude that there is in fact an enormous gulf between the Sallis and Durocher worldviews? Yes.
But one should not limit oneself to a profane scientific approach.
According to Durocher, science is “profane.” I endorse the scientific approach. Does anyone still listen to Silver?
Eliade is astonishingly optimistic in the film. I guess those 1980s New Age movements and Westerners’ dabbling in Buddhism were hopeful signs? Eliade is convinced that a return to sacred convictions would lead to great existential improvement and to cultural creativity, from poetry to the sciences. (I think he is absolutely right.)
I think Eliade is absolutely wrong. Tell me again how there is virtually no difference between Sallis and Durocher?
Women have a much stronger intuitive sense of health and the good life than men…
I agree with the gamesters that women are child-like, indulging in deception and self-deception; women are in large part responsible for the degeneracy of the modern West. Thus, I 100% disagree with Durocher.
Hence, your modern yuppie gal — though raised on Sex and the City — will go to yoga and earnestly chant an “ohm!” of surprising power. Health and spirit are calling her.
Can anyone familiar with my work and worldview think I would endorse the laughable lunacy of the preceding two sentences?
Obviously men should be coming forward to found a new faith.
Yes, but not a religious one.
We salute you Mircea Eliade, Aryan mystic, loyal in a dark age to the faith of your forefathers.
I laugh at you Mircea Eliade: childish buffoon, loyal to pathetic fantasies because you are too weak-minded to face harsh reality, betraying your forefathers by burying your head in the sand of imbecilic esoterica while race and civilization collapse around you.
Durocher? My opinion of him – rather, the specific Durocher incarnation – is well known, and my critiques are based on an utterly incompatible worldview, not “insanity.”
Readers of this post may agree with me, or they may agree with Durocher, but I would hope that none agree with Silver, who once again is exposed as a liar, a fraud, a mendacious twister of facts, an obvious distorter of reality.