Majorityrights Central > Category: Christianity

A dozen years ago I published a pair of essays on prescriptive ideologies, the first of which examined the behavioural forms required of us by Judaism and Christianity, stating:

Had I written from a more evolutionary perspective it would, of course, have been a different essay, more given to cause than effect.  This is it, or its first of two parts, at least.

Segment of an illustration from Phillip Medhurst Collection depicting Joshua fighting Amalek (Exodus 17)

An ancient and alien ambition lays over the West, and for its sake a web woven of words have been spun, not for decades or even for centuries but for two-and-a-half thousand years or more.  Today that web lays over the whole spiritual, intellectual and socio-political substance of western life.  In operation, it overlays our very nature, exploiting both our innate love of freedom and our sense of fairness, and consistently defining us as something we are not.  We can call it Judaism.  We can call it Jewish ethnic activism.  But it is a house of many mansions, one of which we think of it as our own system of faith, though it is not our system.  It is an impost inducting us into a life that serves that same ambition.  How, though, did this extraordinary situation come to pass?  What is its meaning for us?

In abstract philosophical terms it is a selective war for universalism conducted against the particularism of Nature.  The starting point in this struggle for the Universal Gentile is unpromising.  The ethnocentric, tribal, endogamous group living alone on its ancestral land is “in” Nature, of course.  But, then, so is the contrary dynamic of human migration for reasons of ecological failure or war or expansion.  The latter is as old as the first wave Out of Africa.  Yet the balance between these forces powerfully favours trait-fitness to environment and, with it, human difference (irrefutably manifesting in our technological age as the gene clusters of population genetics).  Particularism outstrips universalism.  Any engineered attempt to reverse that order necessarily does violence to Man and Nature.  Yet in the west today a battery of universalist moral, religious and political dicta do just that, having held sway since the end of World War Two in some instances and for many centuries longer in others.  In this essay we shall outline the evolutionary and philosophical fundamentals of those dicta, and explain why, even as the politics of the west shifts to the right, they will continue to contest for dominion over our lives.

Let it be acknowledged that there are causal factors for universalism in the advance of modernity and techne and in the phenomenon of empire, the role of money, and trade.  Such considerations bear on the political world in fundamental and formative ways, commending to it a political culture of openness, multiplicity, abstract values, materialism, and so forth.  But, tellingly, they are open to interrogation of their historical and methodological fact, and to the free exchange of academic and lay opinion.  No one is propagandised into the “self-evident truth” that discussing them is just terribly, terribly wrong.  No one is afraid of the social and professional costs of discussing them.  No one is accosted by secretive political activists for doing so, and accused by police of the blood libel of a monstrous, irrational hatred supposedly ever-present in the European heart and ever-ready to burst into terrifying life.  No one is then charged under novel laws that codify that libel, in practise rescinding the presumption for innocence.  No one is put before the kind of judge who finds no such hatred in his own heart yet he does not hesitate to impute it to another’s.  So no one is forced through a judicial process under which a guilty verdict is, for all intents and purposes, inevitable from the outset.  No one is then handed down a prison sentence many a career criminal will never receive.  Yet neither the judge nor the prosecutor nor the police need suffer a moment’s bad conscience.  For that would require a free and informed moral judgement, while all this drab conformity only makes automatons of everyone involved. 

No one suffers a single part of that for proposing that modernity or techne or empire are parents of universalism.  But then there is the Judaic universalism, which abides also in Christianity, and there it is a different story.  Through the Christian influence it becomes formative not only of the political culture but of all culture and of the European mind itself.  Whether we can discuss that without a Jewish political activist seeking to ascribe “hate” to us is a nice question.  But as allegedly free men and as Europeans we must clearly try.  We must make our start-point earlier in this baleful history, however.

READ MORE...

Can a European people, or the greater part of it, find the Truth of itself today ... its living, unchanging ethnic person, its relational wholeness, its belonging to the land and to past, present and future? Even at this hour, filled with error and confusion and rampant wickedness as it is, can such an awakening … some might call it a rebirth … be achieved?  Or sufficiently achieved to, at a minimum, preserve our existence?  Those are the questions with which Part 1 of this series concluded.  A century ago Germans faced another ethnic crisis – not the same as ours or so acute, but very urgent in its way.  So the precedent exists.  What can it teach us?

THE WAGES OF CONFECTION AND IMITATION

Once upon a time in a land far away (or these days about 1 hr 40 min from London by passenger jet) the great mass of a defeated and despairing people gave their love and their allegiance to a messianic little man with a toothbrush moustache.  They believed in him and in his power to lift the heavy moral and economic burden on them, give them inspiration, bring them light.  They believed as no other European people believed before or since.  But it was not an irrational belief.  There were reasons for it.  Among other things, he had a plan to Macht Deutschland wieder groß, and he made good on it.  He spoke to the people as his people, his blood.  He spoke of belonging and uniqueness, and of honour, heroism and destiny.  He did it with a near religious fervour, and in an oddly histrionic but mesmerising way which gripped all who saw and heard him.  It was easy to believe in the messianic image which he had himself carefully engineered over many years.  Everything from his table talks to his set-piece public appearances and pronouncements was calculated and theatrical, nothing more so than those at the stupendous and dramatic parade ground that his party had built in Nuremberg.

An image not lost: the Cathedral of Light at one of NSDAP’S Nuremberg rallies.

On top of all that he had a highly competent Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda.  And his Reichsminister had a sophisticated understanding of how to sway and inspirit the Volk.  The inspiriting part still hold a general truth for racially European peoples today, much-abused as we all are.  But too much of what was said and done in the NSDAP years was not true at all.

For example, the little man with the toothbrush moustache opined that:

The efficiency of a truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy.

Just by that choice of words we can infer that he identified attention as the means to ethnic self-awareness, and grasped at least something of its polarities and dynamics.  Of course, he did so not as an ethnic nationalist and identitarian but as an “Aryan supremacist”, German imperialist and hammer of the Jews, each of which array negatively against someone somewhere.  But, with the possible exception of Jews, a group identity which reifies and defines itself against an Other, even in part, will always be distorted by some or other non-essential element.  Indeed, in general sameness is a stronger reference and rallying point than difference – ask any identical twin.  More specific to race and ethnicity, what is shared is stronger than what is unshared, and that is true whether we are speaking of peoplehood, genes, land or any other shared natural interest, the defence of which is always more necessitous than is the attack upon the being and interests of an Other.  In other words, defensive or life-preserving interests possess a greater import and urgency than expansive or resource-acquisitional interests.

READ MORE...

17th century English coins, from an entry on coin-clipping at Collectors Universe forum

We nationalists have a lot to say about many things.  But the freedom of the individual is not generally one of them.  We do, of course, necessarily reject the liberal philosophy as the ruling Idea of our age.  Famously “beyond left and right”, nationalism exists in a state of permanent and total hostility to it, which posture is fully reciprocated by the liberal Establishment.  In consequence, our focus is only really group-based.  That natural and inevitable individuality which so characterises our race becomes altogether too much identified with the liberal pursuit of individual-ism, and all possibility of a fitting identitarian paradigm is lost.  One can’t help but wonder whether, in consequence, our politics is fatally weakened and incomplete.

That said, let us agree that human freedom is a lodestar of the mind, and a primary value of the European mind and thus the European sociobiology.  Obviously, there is no denying the uplifting and inspiring effect of its clarion call.  Of course, there are clarion calls and clarion calls.  At the ethnic and/or national level, the principles of independence (ie, a negative freedom) and autonomy (positive) are valid even when, at an intermediate, constitutional level, principles such as pluralism (negative) and democracy (positive) are absent.  At both levels (ie, national and constitutional), the various principles are valid even when, at the level of the individual man or woman, personal liberties are absent.  A captive or slave society might, therefore, still be ethnically and/or nationally independent and autonomous.  Equally it might be, to a greater or lesser extent, pluralist and democratic.  Even while Stalin’s Terror was in full flood, elections were held to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.

From this we may ascertain that, notwithstanding all the noise that national liberation struggles create, and the noise about “liberal democracy”, secret ballots, and so forth, freedoms at the collective levels have a clear universality to them that goes beyond the specifics of the liberal philosophy.  Among other races with other evolutionary strategies and, perhaps, more naturalistic political systems, those freedoms may even be sufficient unto the day.  The individual’s needs may be met in the main elsewhere, by non-political culture and religion.  But the European evolutionary strategy of individuality injects a different energy at the level of the individual.  It accentuates the value of the individual life, and imbues our truths and meanings.  It cannot be contained, but bursts forth as the political.  It is no small part of what we are.  Its action in us is responsible for the whole of the liberal analytic since its mid-17th century inception.

READ MORE...

The following exchanges occurred today at The Conservative Woman.  TCW is a Christian conservative site which is quite restrictive on what it allows to be said about Christianity.  One is free to say all manner of things that would earn an instant dismissal on any pee-cee/woke liberal-left medium.  But critique Christianity at TCW and it’s curtains.  Which raises the interesting possibility that, actually, it is faith which does not brook falsification.  Anyway, I seem to be getting better, or maybe less clear, at speaking to Christians since this time I haven’t been banned.  Though, as the final remark shows, obscuration brings its own problems!

The exchanges were on this thread, which happily combines the Church of England, education and anti-racism.

Roger Bennett

I think it would go a long way to solving many of our problems today if true Christians could regain control of the C o E, it feels the time is fast approaching when that must happen or a new religious group will be founded. Perhaps when they ban the bible will be the necessary catalyst.

Guessedworker : Roger Bennett

Christianity has its ideational roots in Second Temple Judaism. The radical universalism that plagues us on our own ancestral soil today originates there.

Roger Bennett : Guessedworker

The branch can grow a long way away from the roots and its seeds may grow a new tree always influenced by the original roots as different as necessary to suit the new times for its healthy survival.

Guessedworker : Roger Bennett

But not in this case. Matthew 5: 17 & 18:

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Christians have a duty to follow Christ’s teaching in regard to the prophets of Israel as in all things, and Israel in this respect holds out only sameness for the Other. However, the truth of peoples is not that sameness but the worth and uniqueness that is the gift of aeons of human descent, and which marks all peoples, Jew and gentile alike. The produced gentile, be he saved from sin by G-d or not, and the natural man under the singular obligation to protect and preserve his kind will always struggle to coexist in one Christian body.

No doubt, it is a dichotomy which demands a terrible judgement upon one or the other. Today’s Church is making that judgement upon our ethnic kind. I would prefer to judge the Church instead.

Roger Bennett : Guessedworker

It all depends on what your personal interpretation of what God is which decides on how you view the bible, whether it is a collection of the best ideas for the time of its creation to be taken as a guide to inform and consider or whether it’s an inviolable work of some omnipotent being.

Guessedworker : Roger Bennett

I agree in part. Obviously, the faith system which is best fitted to a people is the one which emerges over time from its own sociobiology.

At that point a critical (I think, female) voice entered the exchange.

Moonsphere : Guessedworker

And yet we find that Jesus performed acts of healing on the Sabbath, which was considered a breach of the Law. So you can’t hang the entire weight of the OT on passages which don’t have the tensile strength to support your argument.

We find that the Old Testament has within it Laws of Reciprocity - “an eye for an eye”, etc. These are Silver Rule formulations (so-called as they mirror the relation between Moon and Sun).

Does a Golden Rule abrogate a Silver Rule? Or does it bring it to a higher level of perfection?

Guessedworker : Moonsphere

What is more important to a tribe made hyper-ethnocentric by repeated existential crises ... the formal command to rest on the seventh day or the preservation of a brother’s life? Is a man to refuse to help his brother because of the formal law? What did the early oral and written Law say? Given the nature of Halacha as it has emerged in Rabbinic Judaism, this question must have been considered and resolved. I put it to you that the resolution would have been for tribe over scripture.

At this point in the Roman occupation the tribe’s religious life was in total ferment. There were hostile and competing sects seeking to inherit the religious future from Second Temple Judaism (which was dying, and was finally sundered by the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD). However, all of them carried the ideational imprimatur of Second Temple Judaism. Peter’s Jewish aspect of the Christ Cult is lost to us now. But it had been harsh enough on the question of breaking bread with the gentile for the Incident at Antioch to cause a schism. So one might speculate that tribalism was, as now, the central value, and that value was expressed in early Christianity, including Pauline Christianity, as the recruitment of the gentile in working for, and making himself subject to, the tribal cause. This is the essence of the Christian soul seeking not the good of his tribe but salvation from a great weight of sin by the grace of the Judaic G-d. This is how liberalism’s universalist dicta come down to us.

I am not a Christian. I am an Englishman. I have no faith potential. I have a portion of intellect. I can plainly see that universalism is a curse on my people. I cannot see how Christianity can be reformed to exclude it, but perhaps that is the path English Christians must explore at this time of the designed death of our people.

Redthommo41 : Guessedworker

Your last paragraph - Bravo

I can identify with much of your last paragraph in that I am a Christian (Catholic) and a very proud White Englishman. Sadly, on intellect, you have the beating of me. Although I have an MBA and can manage the kant with the cleaner the same as I can with Senior Board and the titled.

We, the White English are a hardy breed and IMPO White English and Christianity are intertwined into our fabric.

I would read more of you but I must admit (with the greatest respect) I cannot understand 75% of your posts. Word salad.

Guessedworker : redthommo41

Thanks for the response, Tom. I keep getting told off for obscurantism (basically). When thinking Christians - a demographic not unknown for its past interest in angels and pinheads - tell me likewise perhaps I should try to be more concise.

It remains difficult to impossible to debate the objects of faith.  What is one to do?  Well, we know that debating with the believing radical left is fruitless.  But the believing right has commonalities which ought to count for something.  These do occasionally bear on the faith question.  Perhaps I’ll continue to get better at talking to these folk and even explaining to them where a non-trivial part of their plaints actually originate.

Canterbury, the old surviving English cathedral

James Bowery has raised a question about the cognitive verities of our being-in-the-world, characterising it as a point on a faith continuum.  In a comment on “The final question” thread he writes:

Every decision is an act if not leap of faith.  All our decisions are informed by our limited knowledge and limited intelligence to act on that knowledge.  While we may remain true to ourselves in our phenomenal perceptions, we are on shaky ground the moment we begin to interpret them - yet interpret them we do without so much as a prayer that we may “bracket” them to attain the elusive transcendental attitude.

So we are creatures of faith.

Now, you may wish to interject a qualitative distinction between the kind of faith it takes to, say, interpret a collection of sensations as an object of our world, vs faith it takes to believe in a big hairy thunderer who intervenes in our affairs based on what rituals we engage in, but I would assert that these are on a spectrum of faith.

Well, I do wish to “interject” some qualitative distinctions; or at least to set forth the meaning and relation of things as I understand them.  So, to that end ...

I will not spend too much time on the first, which is the human brain’s rendering of a representative reality from the raw data of the world beyond the organism.  Obviously, the brain stands at the apogee of three and half billion years of evolution, from the first simple cells which sensed light in darkness and succeeded in transmitting that capacity to other cells.  Figuratively speaking, God was light.  Non-figuratively, the whole, limitless noumenal truth is le soleil absolu, but the form in which we limited beings re-cognise it is strictly shackled to planet earth.  My favoured guide Martin Heidegger accepted the Cartesian subject-object duality but placed human being in the “there-then”, which is a human-scale objectification of that whole truth.  But the whole question of how we are evolved to “sense light” therein, how we autogenetically construct from the input of our five senses a sublime simulacrum limited to our own cortex, and how we then filter it through the great external-facing, associative systems, remains; and it is, of course, that most important and ancient mystery which is the Mind-Body problem.

There are many theoretical solutions, the most populous among academics being species of physicalism and emergentism.  With so much post-Christian, blue planet, Gaia thinking prevalent in the West it is perhaps not a surprise that pan-psychism is making a bit of a comeback.  Beyond formal academia, in the badlands, Chris Langan’s CTMU appears to be both pan-psychist and a mathematical proof.  Even by the standards for pan-psychism, it is not taken seriously by academics outside his own immediate high-IQ cohort.  It is at least complete, or claimed to be.  Not one of the other theories are claimed by anyone as adequate at this stage.  All are problematic.  All are contested.  No one has anything even close to a definite and provable account of brain function. 

This is true even of accounts of how the sleeping brain conjures into existence its dream-world.  We know in our waking hours that dreams are brilliant, strange fictions.  But however improbable or fractured a dream may be, once the brain chemistry flows we are totally immersed and certain of the dream’s material reality. One would think that this contradiction might help in the formal search for a solution, but it hasn’t yet.  Anyway, in my distinctly informal estimation, certainty speaks of an evolutionary attention to survival and continuity which is so needful that all that is Mind derives from it and serves it, and so constant that no moment of human experience escapes it, not even what we dream.  The mechanics of it are absolute.

READ MORE...

The polity is shaped towards our race-replacement by its own deep history of ideas but also, of course, by the history of events which are inextricably linked to those ideas.  The sum of them all constitutes an enormous bulwark against change, pressing us, as people interested in change, to the inevitable conclusion that any serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power must mean a revolution on no mean scale.  A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces.  Many, and quite possibly all of them, would have to be swept away, too.

I’ve made some rather slipshod efforts in the past to draw up a chart supplying some relational context to these forces.  This time, as part of the working up of a new article for PA’s site, I’ve tried to get everything in, including the elements aiming at control of the future of all humanity.  Doubtless, it’s always possible to keep expanding the range of entities, and I might have missed something important.  Anyway, if there is improvement to be made, do please say where.

The following is an extended reply to a conversation with Thorn and a question from him on the matter of faith and conversion.  To answer that, I am not going to answer that.  I am going to contextualise my non-answer by talking a little instead about the parallels between spirital liberation and the beatific on the one hand and the nationalism of ethnicity and awakening on the other, and about both of these and authenticity.

For all of us as human beings, an awakening consciousness of our own Being assorts as either a spiritual or ethnic liberation according to its character and content.  Both question that which is formed in us quite mechanically from the world around us.  Both seek the freeing, conscious experience of the essential.  But the way to that estate is narrow.

A spiritual liberation properly commences with an individual’s detachment from the voiding psychological mechanicity of his ordinary inner functioning.  As a human event, this liberation is esoteric in nature, and its understanding and undertaking is really only possible for men and women with the most remarkable dedication to and discrimination for truth.  Luck also plays its part.  Just to have the psychological grounding to generate the required epiphany (that “the problem” lies in our enworldment and its powerfully habituating effect upon certain mind-functions) is rare and remarkable in itself.  That alone makes a searcher of the subject, and brings him or her to the boundary of the esoteric.  For a Westerner then to go on and (a) find and (b) gain entry to a source of the necessary, extremely carefully curated technical (not religious) knowledge is akin, chance-wise, to a non-trivial win on the lottery.

Fragments of that knowledge ... just strings of words ... appear in the New Testament, but nothing can be reconstructed from them.  Likewise, odd references appear in formal Christian belief and rite, but they are lost to other familiarities.  There are reportedly surviving elements in the spiritual devotions and exercises of the dwindling roster of religious orders.  But this knowledge is preserved to a much greater degree in Sufism, Hindu mysticism, and Buddhism.

READ MORE...

After the closing of comments at Klondrive, The Crows Nest is the second site to operate as heir to Morgoth’s Review, allowing the commentariat to continue its labours.  Its owner Gentleman Jim posted a fine podcaste from Morgoth, which I now embed here; with some comments below which give my reaction:

The initial comment is from a decent poster Tsnamm:

tsnamm • 4 hours ago
The age old question postulated by Milton, “is it better to rule in hell, than it is to serve in heaven.”
On the flip side from the gospel of Matthew “where your treasure lies, there will be your heart also. “
As it stands today we’ve been indoctrinated to believe the former at the expense of the latter. The corruption of the west has been sold as “choice”, “free will”, and “individual rights”. Yet all of these things have been perverted to the extreme so that what passes for our treasure today is the celebration of destruction of the core of our being spiritually, as a good. All of this being done concurrently with the physical contamination of our lands and replacement of our peoples by outsiders. It’s beyond an existential crisis.

My first reply:

Guessedworker  tsnamm • 2 hours ago
Very good formulation. I am cautious about the words “spirit” and “spiritual”, which do not have a precise meaning, and which tend to be used to indicate something that is just hovering about with which everybody is familiar anyway. They are attractive to people, not infrequently liars and rogues, looking for a mechanical agreement to an agenda, perhaps religious, perhaps philosophical, cultural or political, without feeling the necessity to explain in what, precisely, that agenda is constituted.

For me, anyway, the problem of “spirit” is resolved by the concept of emergence of properties which are in and of our nature, and from which we cannot resile. Where there is genetic expression there is phenotype, and in this case the phenotype is behavioural. We are always seeking its application to the world. That might be denied by the dictates and circumstances of the day but it does not change.

We are not East Asians. Conformism as a herd behaviour to centralise and harness group power is not our evolutionary survival strategy. Authoritarianism does not belong to us in that sense. The authoritarian Christian g-d is not our true god, and release from its authority only supplies us with release into the notions of liberalism because liberalism is also a Judaic model, albeit one in which Man the Creator dispenses salvation by self-authoriality ... by the same breaking of the bounds of our nature.

So, yes, while I like Morgoth’s presentation I do not agree with the central dichotomy. We do not have to live forever inside the Jewish mind. We do not have to be in this cage of authority contra hyper-individualism. Neither are emergent properties of the European mind.

And my follow-up

Guessedworker  Guessedworker • 36 minutes ago
There is an article at TCW this morning by a doctor - the subject is Covid, as usual for TCW - but she had this to say about the supinity of her colleagues before the government Covid juggernaut:

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-have-we-doctors-been-silent/

It is typically those of us most conditioned by the expectations of society, utterly obedient and deferent to authority, who gain entry to medicine. One can see the path: we were good, compliant children and then good, compliant students. Now we are good, compliant doctors. I’m beginning to understand that goodness is measured in a different way, and obedience is not a virtue.

Obedience is learned through fear, threat and intimidation; it is in fact trauma programming and achieved through small control gestures when we were young and helpless. Now we are adults but still operating under these childhood programmes of beliefs and fears. We still feel helpless and beholden to a higher authority. We still submit to an authoritative decree even when it overrides our inherent moral compass.

Our inherent moral compass.  That is what is true of us, or a non-trivial part of it.  That is what belongs neither to the Jewish g-d nor the self-authoring individual.

In other words, our liberation from liberal modernity is also a liberation from Christianity’s Judaic content.  What there is in Christianity that is not Judaic is another matter, and one probably best explored by nationalists with religious sentiments.