On prescriptive ontologies – Part One, Judaism and Christianity
I’ve always been a bit of a petrol-head, and I thought I would write something about motoring.
A short while ago I came across an arresting photograph of a 1940’s Dodge Delivery Panel Van sitting sphinx-like in some late-spring North American field. Time and the irresistible will of Nature had turned it into an inverted flower-pot. It invited interpretation (some of which could even turn out to be relevant to Daniel’s recent exploration of new religious potentials, you never know).
Discounting the usual romantic allusions to decay and the fragility of Man’s design, what I saw there is a statement about mediation. At the most obvious level, the image could be taken to represent the will of Nature to establish herself and remain established in a world of constant disorganisation, pushing through all obstruction, all negation, but having to be opportunistic, having to adapt to do so. As such, it is a figure for all that we can say for sure – that is, free of religious creation myths and other speculative theories - about Source and subsistence.
But if I adjust the lens a little a second interpretation of this curious marriage of Nature and a delivery van hoves into view - this time nothing so abstract, so removed from the human experience. As I look I see something very like a dream-image of the two elements of the psyche. One, then, is a work not of Nature but artifice, something pulled together from a thousand places and given form and meaning strictly by its own time and circumstance. It is visible but impermanent - it does not truly belong to the earth on which it stands. It has a negative, entropic energy. It direction of travel is always downward. It is heavy and inanimate but maybe perceives itself otherwise, in quite a shining light. It is maya, illusion, exile. If we could directly give it the name of human personality, we might see how, as a vehicle, it enworlds the other element. That is its function in Nature. That other element, of course, is (or had been – the tree in the picture is bare) a living truth drawn upward from the ground-source. It is essential to us and natural in kind. Its energy is positive, and its character emergent and unchanging. It is the only thing it can be. There is intertwining between the two elements, but no mixing of substance.
Of course, these are interpretations – not too rambling and attenuated, I hope - strictly reflecting my own not very interesting views about the life of Man. Someone else will come up with something entirely different. A Christian evangelical might find a meditation on the primal power of faith coursing through the worldly mind, re-ordering everything and generating a new, heaven-bound impetus. A Lurianic Kabbalist might be put in mind of the cosmic drama of the shattered vessels of Sephirot, and the introduction of evil into the world. A race-realist WN, on the other hand, might read into it a wry comment on the graceful, sad passing of that spirit of optimism and industry which animated a 90% white America, and which has its genesis in a Promethean relation to Nature quite unknown to other races. It’s a picture, that’s all, and it holds different meanings for all of us. Everything is pregnant with meaning. Life is full of competing claims and competing visions as to what we are and how we became so. There is no social darwinian moral law that weeds out the erroneous and lays a scourge upon the plain evil - would that there were.
But ideas have consequences, and ideas about the life of Man, obviously, have human consequences. If such ideas hold powerful sway and yet tell us that Man is (or could be) different in some way to what he truly is as a whole and moderately conscious being, their effect on the lived life will always be to take something away. Man, individually and collectively, cannot be more than his own truth. Whatever greatness or insignificance attaches to him attaches there. Model him otherwise ... shape his behaviour and belief and the life he lives accordingly, and you shape the mediating component, the clay which is his personality. And because your model excludes his existential truth he will only be that clay, and will never know the freedom and unity and will that issue from that truth alone. He will know only the image in which you had the power to make him, so that, while he is reduced, you make yourself like a god.
Judaism and supremacism
The totality of ideas impacting formatively upon European Man today has its deepest root in the claim of one people to a semi-godlike or, at least, High Priest-like status. Judaism begins in the First Covenant, by which the natural man - Nature’s finest work - was perfected through the barbarism which is circumcision. Having granted Abram land and descendants ...
The total conviction of this perfectedness has remained an ever-present in post-biblical Jewish identity, combining with the chosenness of Deuteronomy 7:
… and of the Mosaic Covenant :
… to form the basis in faith of the millenarian ambition of an entirely literal and permanent Israelite, then Jewish tribal supremacy. But it happens that this not unnatural ambition has run up everywhere against the ordinary, all too real-world hegemony of the gentile Other - at different times Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Persian, Arab and, in the modern era, Ottoman, imperial Russian, and northern European in western Europe and North America. Of necessity, therefore, supremacy awaits its historical moment. What abides meanwhile is Jewish supremacism, impelling and colouring a project of overthrow in which the character and status of the gentile in the end-times is imposed surreptitiously and progressively upon the Other.
More than once I have heard it said by Jew-aware Christian faithists, free of all evidence, that the Hebrew faith of Torah was foundationally different to the Talmudism which inherited the name of the beast. I don’t buy that. Judaism absolutely must have been a project this tribal, this radical and ambitious, this insolent from the first:
But, as is the way when faith systems disappear, Judaism’s forms of observance prior to the Babylonian intervention are lost. We can never know for sure. We don’t even know very much about the Essenes and Sadducees who died out around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. We know that as the Christ cult of the Apostolic Age became universalised it also became anathema to Jews, and that it was the Pharisees who survived to water the earth of modern Judaism. Accordingly today, Judaism takes its observance from the 613 behavioural requirements of Halakha and the Mishnaic call for justice (tzedek) and charity (g’milut chasadim), the latter two seated within the wider narrative of repair of the world (tikkun olam), which in our age has become synonymous among secular Jewry with open borders and the radical egalitarian agenda. Of this, the late, stubbornly Jewish Catholic convert Lawrence Auster wrote, in concluding his flawed 2004 Frontpage Magazine article Why Jews Welcome Muslims:
The consequence for you and me and our white brothers and sisters - for our race is the hegemonic power which Jews experience and must overthrow – is that it is our world, our culture, our norms, our morals, our lives and loves and meanings, our behaviour, our psychology which has to be re-formed, our land which has to be browned, and our ethnicity which has to be blended away to deliver the world unto Olam Ha ba. Jews are already perfected, after all. G-d has made His Covenant and the mohel does the rest with his knife and his mouth. So they suffer no requirement for spiritual and psychological reform. Theirs is an exercise in substituting the European truth, from which flows “whatever greatness or insignificance attaches to us”, for a wholly negative critique impressed into the clay of personality. It is a completely amoral, intolerant, coercive exercise in our collective consciousness.
The two worst trespasses in our era have been the outrageous blood libel of the Holocaust narrative, with its implicit expansion of guilt to all European-descended people in perpetuity, and the agitation for racially alien immigration into the West, with the accompanying promotion of racial equality. The list, though, is long. There are various alienating political “gifts” authored wholly or largely by Jews in the language of human liberty or rights, for example Classical Marxism, revolutionary internationalism, Critical Theory, postmodernism, second-wave feminism, second-wave libertarianism, neoconservatism, LGBT Rights, American Civil Rights, anti-racism, and promulgation of hate speech law. Additional academic “gifts” include Freudianism, academic race denial, and the ultra-racist faculty poisons of White Privilege and White Abolitionism. Cultural “gifts” are too numerous to list, but the whole Hollywood thing after about 1963 – the relegation of conservative values, the reification of the anti-hero, ridicule of the European male as father and husband, the crass and copious encouragement for white race-mixing, the presentation of the African male as a source of leadership and reliance, the dehumanisation of white ethnocentricity, the 250+ mostly loss-making Holocaust-themed movies – together with the whole San Fernando Valley thing and the broadcast and print media thing testify to the extent and assiduity of the Jewish attendance to our cultural formatives.
The repaired gentile
Taken as a whole, this extraordinary philosophical, political, social and cultural output is staggering in its invention and brazenness. Yet its tribal competitive motive and its modus of the existential relegation of the European are never noticed outside nationalism, let alone examined or explained in the way they deserve. They are, instead, secreted away in the tabernacle upon which no European eye may rest, less the priests of anti-defamation who stand guard wield their word-weapon. However, one question above all others - one ancient, seminal question - aches for an answer. Is Jewish labour in the cause of endless immigration into European living spaces, and the dispossession and dissolution of racial Europe which it guarantees, not simply the final repair of the European problem but a struggle to make ethnicity itself the sole preserve of Jewry, at least in the Western context? In other words, is the claim to chosenness on the basis of Jewish ethnicity alone impossible to uphold morally and intellectually in a tumult of other, competing ethnicities:
but their gene-killing, their differential annihilation:
... and re-ordering as this alien creature of the world to come, sans ethnic bounds, sans points of resistance, sans anything to identify, love, value or defend in himself, and no more sense or purpose than to lovingly serve his Jewish creators?
After all, what true nationalist, Jewish or non-Jewish, religious or secular, does not consider that simple ethnicity, Nature’s signature of collective existence, is life’s defining and therefore most precious asset and proof positive of the people? There is no question that Jews believe this, notwithstanding the great genetic variation they exhibit - more than any European ethny – and the fact that fully ninety per cent of Jews are not of Palestinian origin:
But if the genes change, the psychology – the millenarian destining, the hyper-ethnocentrism and its expression as hyper-nationalism – remains remarkably constant. The psychology, so to speak, advances its case regardless of the genetic fact; and as it entertained no prospect of peaceful cohabitation, no fundamental human equality with “the first of the nations” which was Amalek, so it does so with racial Europe today.
And the porn king shall be a priest. And the guys from Goldman too.
In their own defence thinking Jews often proclaim that, far from being a racist paradigm, Judaism is simply concerned with the role of Jewry at the end-times as the race of newly revealed priestly persons who understand G-d directly, near enough, and serve Him by carrying this understanding to the rest of humanity.
That would be this humanity:
… which, naturally, will have no desire but to receive such enlightenment from the wondrous new priestly caste. Apparently, all Jews will be religious supermen just by dint of their (questionable) ethnicity. So they wouldn’t indulge in this supremacism schtick for their own material interests:
And they wouldn’t do it just so that the gentiles will serve them for eternity:
No, no, it’s a sacred duty, you see. These and the many similar Talmudic curios are unimportant, and today nobody but a few fanatics really believes in them. They say.
For us, of course, the ontology would be the same regardless of whether Jews are a benign future priesthood, or parasitic, elitist millenarians, or something in between. It would be encountered in the transformation between the state of European Man as he is in himself and the impoverished condition of the gentile in the Age of Mashiach. It would be the ontology of a being who is ceasing to exist, but one doing so because he has been told most insistently to embrace the way to die as the way to live, and let himself be carried along with it.
One might now expect an article covering such matters to move on to the interesting question of the relation of Judaism to Jewish nationalism, sociobiology and trait selection. But this is not an essay about Jewish identity and evolutionary strategy. It is an essay about the prescriptions for European racial and ethnic identity, of which there are a multiplicity. All but one of the important ones, however, have their roots in the Jewish struggle of the late biblical period, and therefore in the same tribal perspective. Arguably, none of them has had a more radical formative influence over the centuries than Christianity.
The Christian means to the Jewish end
The original Christian ontology, the one that went out out into the world with the first Christian missionaries, who were all Jews, was, in most of its salient details, the Judaic prescription for the gentile. The post-Qumran debate about whether Christianity is rooted in the Pharisaic tradition or in the Zadokite tradition represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls is immaterial. The same tribal generalities apply. Christianity was fashioned by Peter, James, Paul and the early apostles as a syncretic cult that equits Jew and non-Jew for the completion of the Jewish struggle. From Acts 17:
Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee and, while his Phariseeism was renounced, he remained firm in his Jewishness all his life. He was born in the Hellenised city of Tarsus, in what is now south-central Turkey. Living as a member of a minority in another’s land, his attitude towards non-Jews may have been more nuanced and less uncompromising than that of his co-ethnics suffering Roman occupation in Palestine. In any event, he believed that he had physically encountered - and been commissioned by - the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, and his subsequent treatment of the Messianic eschatology reflected that. Pauline Christianity placed no great weight on Christ as Messiah (which was fair, since Jesus Christ had not made the Messianic claim). Rather, he was the redeemer of men’s lives, saving them from a life of sin and the wages thereof. Thus the Messianic action was both temporalised, stretched forward from the end-times, and individualised. It conflicted in content with Jewish millenarian tribal ascendency in the Messianic Age and with the personal Jewish conviction of perfectedness. The Jewish estate being said perfection, the notion of sin (chet) appeared and appears in Judaism only in terms of shortcomings in behaviours towards other Jews. The notion of redemption is collectivised, associated historically with escape from exile and eschatologically with the Messianic Age.
This eschatological conflict extended into the respective positions on the immortality of the soul and the nature of resurrection (tribal in Judaism, individual in Christianity). While these were clear articles of faith for the early Christians, both Pharisees and Sadducees responded with characteristic disputatiousness, simply ignoring scriptural precedent like Isaiah 26.19 on the afterlife and Daniel 12.2 on Judgement Day.
These crucial distinctions must have made it almost impossible for early Christians to face both ways and minister to Jew and gentile alike. The tensions seem to have come to a head in the Incident at Antioch when Peter, who had acceded to demands from Jewish Christians to cease eating with non-Jews in the new faith, was upbraided by Paul:
From Galatians 2:
After this Paul left Antioch never to return. He dedicated his ministry to non-Jews, writing in Galatians 2 of a syncretism in which “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter”. The syncretic element in their ministries was the substitution of novel concepts for narrowly Judaic ones. Thus the doctrine of love was substituted in place of Jewish law:
Likewise, universalism was substituted in place of Jewish particularism, redemption for perfection, baptism for circumcision, the Christian afterlife for a some-time Jewish suzerainty in this world, God’s grace for G-d’s Covenant, and belief in the redeeming power of Christ for Jewish blood.
Ontologically, perhaps the last is the most interesting. That phrase from the Antioch passage “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” is a clear claim for faith as a way to the momentary experience of being. But in fact it goes some way to explaining why faith alone does not and cannot generate that moment. It can only represent it in terms of its own emotional triggers. The phrase calls the present “I” (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה) by the name “Christ”. Naming is a classic prescription, the reductive nature of which is demonstrated in the next line from the passage, which reads,“and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me”. The truth-bearing impetus is lost, and Paul takes a step backwards into pure faith. Ontologically, he should sustain the reference to the binary of presence in being or absence in ordinary waking consciousness (perhaps something like, “and though the life which I had hath fallen from me, yet shall I fall and in that hour my faith in the found life shall be as my faith in the Son of God, and in his love, and in the giving of his life that I might find him again in mine own”). But, of course, this idea of a paradise lost but remembered through faith in absentia gets crowded out by the (essentially pointless) will to genuflect. It is an inherent characteristic of the faith trait that it operates mechanistically, that is, without attentionality. It leads, therefore, not to the present moment but away in the mist to ordinary waking consciousness and the personality which intones the name of the divine over itself for purely mechanical evolutionary reasons.
We should not be surprised at this non-association of faith and being. It is a constant in the history of the human mind. If they do not address it (ie, in the familiar exoteric and esoteric concentric form, the latter concerning practic), religious systems can offer their adherents little more than analogy and genuflection. Further, religious systems cannot be created extempore as Christianity was, and be whole. Credo is not enough. Mystery is not enough. Morality is not enough. Prayer is not enough. All four together are not enough. But this is all Christianity is.
Without an esoteric, existentialist sheet-anchor, exoteric religion can drift anywhere, and its ontology with it. As a jumping off point, the Jewish opinion of and use for the gentile, for example:
… is already a disaster, rendering the European personality open to manipulations of the kind already discussed. But whatever solely exoteric system had replaced the authentic religious expression of Europeans - about which we know so little thanks to the efficiency of the process - the result would always have been self-estranging. Authenticity is a property of emergence. It does not come from prescription. No amount of subsequent nativisation could change that (and Europeans certainly have nativised the faith of the early Christians).
So we are back to that image of the Dodge Delivery Panel Van dumped on the pregnant soil. For a number of reasons it is inevitable that Europeans have, as Christianised peoples, become disassociated from the things of the blood. It is equally inevitable that our blood has sought to express itself through Christianity anyway, and has perhaps had some advantages in doing so from the hellenised context of the early Christian world, and in particular from Stoicism and Neoplatonism, providers of self-abnegation and a notionalised Source respectively. The ontology, therefore, is complex (and is further complicated by the fact that, especially in the Germanic north, we know relatively little of the other religious life, the one natural to Europeans, which was made before conversion).
However, we can say that there are four principal characteristics in the Christian ontology which are broadly negative for our race, the first of them the prescription of belief itself.
A European life?
The fundamental requirement for participation in the Christian life is belief in the redeeming power of Christ. It is the central psychological component of Christianity (as blood is the central physical component of Judaism). It has a most pure and abstract quality, without the propositionalism that commonly attends religious belief. As Soren Kierkegaard famously put it in The Sickness unto Death:
So, the Christian faith in salvation is not a guarantee of salvation. There is no guarantee. Neither can salvation be purchased with good deeds, nor by repentance, nor by confession, nor by baptism. It is the unearned gift of God’s grace, and if is to be forthcoming, it will be through the conduit of faith alone that it passes. Faith, then, is an enabling medium in the Christian model. The active principle is the deity.
From our standpoint as investigators of ontology, we can say that there are two things going on here. First, the focus on faith, unlike the Jewish focus on law, disconnects Man from agency and renders him passive. Kierkegaard was right, no doubt, about sin and grace as a Christian but wrong as an existentialist. “Sin” - the wrong word altogether, actually - is the state of being given over to or consumed by appetites or events arising in ordinary waking consciousness. The opposite of sin is the purity of detachment, ie, freedom in the truly conscious state, and that is not a matter of faith, indeed, just not in the nature of faith at all, as we have already discussed. The conscious state does not come through passivity but through attention and experience.
Certainly, an acute religious observer might make the claim that this state of free mind is freely granted by the deity as an act of union … “I am that I am”. But the existential bird has already flown the Christian coop. If one is without faith, being-as-ground resolves as an essentially religious interpretation. A conscious encounter with being (which is the only type of encounter possible) is not an encounter with the ground of identity, but with the action of identity. Life is fluid, and therefore being is pure action. In such a turn, deity itself is completely superfluous, and faith’s ministrations amount to nothing more than the giving up of oneself to a beauty frozen as in a portrait. Seductive though that may be, it is not the human truth. It is another sin.
Second, the role of belief in Christianity represents a huge inflation of the prior norm of mere religious affiliation. It is one thing to identify with one particular god (or goddess) as one’s guide, protector and ruler, to whom one must make sacrifice on certain days and can appeal in times of peculiar stress. But it is another to make faith an all-consuming necessity and the primary determinant of human worth. The difference between the two is quite literally that between the ethnocentrism of European peoples and the hyper-ethnocentrism of Jews. This completely inappropriate, inverted Jewishness will always visit upon non-Jews the marks and measures of its authors, witness of which was borne from the beginning:
Of course, I only speak for the generations of quietly puzzled Englishmen and women who, while they might have been able to participate in the old faith ceremonially, never had the possibility to enter Christianity’s private faith club, and who gazed in silent incomprehension upon the mania about them each Sunday morning as the sermon reached its fiery culmination, or sat in wonderment at the efforts of otherwise subtle and intelligent thinkers to advance and advantage their own faith-conclusions. Some such sceptical folk doubtless paid for their emotional continence with their lives, but perhaps not many. Faith is more intolerant of itself than ever it is of the lack of it.
The other three (connected) principal characteristics in the Christian ontology I will cover only briefly because I have said quite enough already in this first instalment of this post.
We cannot know exactly how pre-Christian religion in Europe addressed sexual and social morality. It will, though, have been much more expressive of the European nature than the Christian prescription. Social mores reflecting the obligations and mutuality that attended defence of the group very likely entered into the moral requirements of the old faith. There will have been no doctrine of Original Sin, which only saw the light of day with Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century (in development of Paul’s comments in Romans and Corinthians). It is also quite likely that there was none of the atomisation that the doctrine of personal sin, confession, penance and forgiveness implies. This is important. The spiritual purpose of the man who goes to the house of his god to atone for sins against kind is social as much as it is spiritual. Religion enters into relational life thereby. The gods are engaged with the unfolding life of people in the group and of the group itself. But the man who seeks a private forgiveness in some on-going cosmic struggle with personal moral imperfection or some failure of faith is sealing himself away in a relationship with the deity, with only a faux-idealistic, notional outreach to “humanity” for social consolation. The context of the blood is gone, and with it the fitness of the religion itself.
What is left is an internalised model of the conflictual posture of the Jew towards the gentile, from which the European self finds no respite and must withdraw. Judaism, a religion of the blood from Abraham to eschaton, has never entertained the concept of ancestral or inherited sin although, of course, it has a concept of the brokenness of the world. Sin and brokenness both refer to the non-Jewish world alone.
Operating over and above this tendency to withdrawal is the Christian teleology itself. As a supposed atoning process, it transits from sin and, by implication, enmity towards God, via righteousness and then holiness to the three gifts of God’s grace of redemption, reconciliation, and salvation. Because it is an exoteric project and a faith project, and not a process of the consciousness (or even a serviceable proxy for it) … because it does not turn to being but works, therefore, within personality (albeit a very spiritual-seeming personality) … because it is an artificial struggle for the individual believer … because it reconciles the believer to the Jewish god at the cost of estrangement from his nature and identity … because Nature is non-purposive and functional, and the gods of men must comply with her or they will herald pathologies … because of all these things the Christian teleology cannot add to the sum of man. It may sacrilise appearances, which may be beautiful to the eye (the inner eye especially). But none of this is done in the presence of the real.
Last of the four principal characteristics of the Christian ontology is its eschatology, to which I shall now return.
Christianity is an apocalyptic religion. Norse mythology, too, had its Twilight of the Gods. Our nationalism has its vision of the end-times – the loss of our power, our land, our very race through the political, philosophical, social, cultural, economic, and demographic disaster now overtaking us. Eschatologies do not have to be religious, much less Messianic. They all deal in the destiny of Man. But within their own terms of historical reference, religious eschatologies rely upon Man’s lack of agency. The moving hand writes, but it is not Man’s. He is caught up in historical processes from which he cannot break free if he wanted to. To do that, to be an historically free being, he would have to be capable at all times of saying no to the word of God. Of course, when men do assert their will and make their own destiny, they do so not as isolated individuals or mere atoms of humanity but as members of a group with a common cause. To be a people, to have ethnicity, is to have also the possibility of destining independently of all prescriptions, and title to the name Man.
So we come back to that same Judaic denial of the ethnic nature of the gentile’s humanity, as proclaimed by Paul in Act 17 to the Athenian Epicureans and Stoics:
To be a nationalist in these end-times is to be a man of Athens and know that in the Christian life, in the Christian ontology, the motive power of the European identity is simply not affirmed or truly expressed, and that can be by no means sufficient.
Post a comment: