|
|
|
The Christianity Question
Dr Tomislav Sunic writing under his heading of “American neo-paganism in his book, Homo americanus. Now, I’ve put together this quote because it contains both halves of what I suppose we must call the Christianity Question, namely:- 1) The role of the Bible in communicating the Jewish materialistic worldview, out of which came the obsessive 20th Century drive for world improvement. All liberalism’s children, including communism, democratism, predatory capitalism, even anti-semitism in Tom’s view, are just secular offshoots of this strange, borrowed Levantine faith. And there is no end to it as long as we draw water from that well. 2) The desirability and grave difficulty of recovering mythological value for Europeans (which Tom qualifies as “the quest for their ancestral heritage”). I am going to make a few observations about both issues. I do so with some nervousness about treading on hallowed ground. I am a stranger to faith myself and would not, even if I was able, wish to follow Richard Dawkins’ tasteless precedent. I am not, therefore, making a case against faith. My case against Christianity is the case against the leaden characteristics of the Jewish god. With that caveat then, here goes. As a matter of fact, a worrying psychological excess was noted in the Jewish god just the other day.
I don’t think one has to be a renowned, evangelist-bashing, dog-collar gayboy to agree. I remember even as a young man being reduced to a tactful silence by the startling conviction with which religious folks insisted that theirs was a loving god. What could one possibly say? It would have been very poor form to point out that Jehovah looked like a mad old Jew in the sky ... wrathful, vengeful, selfish, demanding, resentful, envious. Where was the love? I mean, he had power. He had a practical mind. So what am I missing here? What I did not understand til much later, when my “antennae” worked a bit better, was that this rebellious thought was no way to approach the Christianity Question. For one thing, its harsh, condemnatory tone was His, hardly a sign of the objectivity I might have liked to recommend. It reflected the ascendency of the Jewish materialistic analysis over the older products of Indo-European creativity ... at its essence, the replacement of the native poetic tradition by the recording of Jewish history. For another, it overlooked the extraordinary power of the Nazarene Heresy to process Judaism into a monotheist model of the universal God of humanity. In Deuteronomy 6:4 we read, Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one. But in Mark 12:29-31 this is opened out tellingly to: And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. It is plain that from a memetic point of view the power and success of the Christ cult facilitated and was mirrored by its distant, secular progeny, liberalism. The same universalism is there ... the same insistence on “One God!”, now “One Politics!” ... the same quest to save man. For the greater part of the history of our civilisation these would have been alien ideas to the European mind. They are as dangerous and destructive as any weapon of war. How we might survive them, though, is too deep for any normal man or group of men to strategise. The best we seem able to do is to catch one or two sometimes hopeful straws in the wind ... For most of the life of Christianity, God’s universal love was not at the centre of affairs. The rancorous and momentous debate on 30 June 1860 between Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and T H Huxley saw the good Bishop and his helpers defending Genesis: the Biblical “fact” of God’s creation. Love seems to have been, along with the “mawnkeys” and Evolutionary Theory, the victor that night. Even during my lifetime I have come across the writings of contemporary Christians who abhor the modern concentration on the loving God. There are orders of monks in England for whom the very idea of a loving, personal God strikes down all sacred meaning. In other words, love took a long time to come to its utterly dominant place in the sun, and even then only did so, like the fittest meme, because the opportunity arose after 1860 to exploit a niche. It was a large niche, to be sure, and it became All - which also helps to explain the synergy between modern Christian belief and leftist political ideas. But what it means is that Christianity today pays a dwindling return on the investment of faith in the same way that liberalism, by no longer serving the ethnic and general interests of the European peoples, pays a dwindling return on the faith of the electorate. So the question arises: if universalist liberalism is approaching a point of crisis, will its parent, universalist Christianity, prove to be the immovable bulwark or the well-sappered castle watchtower? The Very Rev Jeffrey John may already hold the key to that. If, in the second half of the 20th Century, European Christianity could not survive the fashion for change it certainly cannot survive the result of that change, which is decadence, today. Now, to return to Tom Sunic’s quote at the top of this article, he is commending the construction of a new civilisation, no less. In that, he is without doubt the ultimate revolutionary. What an ambition! But, of course, he doesn’t tell us how to do this small thing. One aspect of it, I guess, is the reification of some new recepticle for faith. And that, sadly, cannot happen. As it sits upon the pages of the three synoptic gospels and St.John, the Christ cult is most strange and fragmentary. But one cannot say that in its beginnings it was anything other than a genuine transmitter of sacred knowledge. At their core, occluded from our curiosity, great religions possess in common a certain knowledge of Man and the eternal. In this regard, faith is an ancillary proposition. Thus, it is immaterial whether faith exists as the evolved “god box in the brain” as Dawkins dispagingly calls it or as his viral infection of the weak and susceptible. The common notion - the fixing of knowledge in ways somehow accessible - is what marks a meaningful system from an evangelistically successful, perhaps, but barren cult. In other words, great faiths arise intentionally, and possibly from the same ancient source. Or they do not arise at all. Comments:2
Posted by stari_momak on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:04 | # The sacrifice of Christ, in some sense displays an Hellenic theme And a Nordic one. I believe that it was Odin who hung on the tree of the world, offering himself to Himself and thereby gaining, not everlasting life, but Wisdom. I think some of CS Lewis’ writings on Christian and myth (he calls it the ‘True Myth’) would help those who believe the religion is alien to European thought. I would also point to experience , the hardcore semites rejected Christianity , too polyform. Europeans accepted it. 3
Posted by Torgrim on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:26 | # I believe that it was Odin who hung on the tree of the world offering himself to Himself, thereby gaining not everlasting life but Wisdom. With this brief glimpse of pre-christian Europe, one can observe the gulf between the monotheists of the Abrahamic cults with their ridgid orthodoxy and the polyform of thought, that values wisdom. The Nordic cults were/are, experiencial, individualistic and shamanic. To exist in a northern clime required the ability to reason and hence the “religion” of the pre-christian Nordic was not an orthodoxy but experiencial, be it poetry, shamanic experience or in group acknowledgement of the numinous. These were very practical people. “The insistance of ‘One God’ now, ‘One Politics’.... is another way of granting authority to the secular, from God, just as the new religion, a millenia ago, persuaded the indigenous European to accept, “King by the Grace of God”, which made the King, Peter’s annointed authority and all the ill that comes from such unrestrained power, in the hands of a few. 4
Posted by James J OMeara on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:52 | # “David Sloan Wilson suggests Christianity provided a fitness benefit. Christians cared and fed those of the great plague of the Roman era and many survived. The emphasis brought by Christianity to monogamy, family investment , more K-selected, and discouragement of non-reproductice sexual activity ultimately led to a higher rate of survival.” Given the well-known Christian contempt for hygiene [baths were the first things Romans built and Xtians torn down] and science, I would think it hard to argue that they *improved* health and survival. I seem to recall that their approach to the plague was to herd everyone into giant cathedrals for prayers, leading to maximal spread of disease. Self-help societies and guilds, with corresponding banquets, were invented by the Greeks [remember Plato’s Symposium] and were merely copied, like everything else, by the barbaric Jews. See Smith, D. E. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. As for monogamy and ‘discouragement of non-reproductive sexual activity,” I am sure that the Greeks and Romans knew how to reproduce without any help from Father O’Bubblegum [to quote Auberon Waugh]. A blanket ban on ‘same sex’ activities is hardly necessary for reproductive success. In case you haven’t noticed, women can only have one pregnancy at a time; if you require monogamy as well, then what difference does it make if I have sex with boys while the wife’s pregnant? The question of how Xtianity took over is actually very simple and well know. Roman tolerance [contrary to centuries of Xtian propaganda] allowed the cult to survive; when they gained control, they immediately set about exterminating the opposition. See most recently Gerd Ludemann, Intolerance and the Gospel [Prometheus, 2007]. Ever notice how the ‘heretical’ books are always just little scraps hidden away? Poor quality paper? No, they were BURNED. Same with the heretics themselves. Some survival strategy. Using ‘fitness’ to explain how Xtianity conquered makes as much sense as explaining the remarkable decrease in the number of Jews in Poland by invoking their lack of environmental fit. You Darwinists really should learn when to stop making up ‘just so’ stories off the tops of your heads, especially when their are centuries of scholarship that have already provided the answers. 5
Posted by James J OMeara on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:05 | # “I believe that it was Odin who hung on the tree of the world offering himself to Himself, thereby gaining not everlasting life but Wisdom. With this brief glimpse of pre-christian Europe, one can observe the gulf between the monotheists of the Abrahamic cults with their ridgid orthodoxy and the polyform of thought, that values wisdom. The Nordic cults were/are, experiencial, individualistic and shamanic. To exist in a northern clime required the ability to reason and hence the “religion” of the pre-christian Nordic was not an orthodoxy but experiencial, be it poetry, shamanic experience or in group acknowledgement of the numinous. These were very practical people.” Excellent point. Note, for one thing, that Odin sacrifices himself ‘for himself’ rather than ‘for us’ as the weepy Xtians say. For more on this comparison, from a modern pagan point of view, see Michael Moynihan’s article ‘Reflections on Disparate Myths of Divine Sacrifice’ in TYR 2 [where it appears right after ‘On Being a Pagan 10 Years Later”, an interview with de Benoist], as well as, of course, the main literature he cites, E. O. James’s Sacrifice and Sacrament [which nicely delineates the types of sacrifice, and pinpoints the odd nature of Christ’s ‘dying for others’ ], Murphy’s The Saxon Savior and Russell’s The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity [the latter generally relevant to this thread, as it treats of how paganism influenced Xtianity as much, or more, as vice versa]. “Natural Law does not guarantee a positive evolution in the societies of man”. (approx.quote from “kampen om Norvegen” Indeed. As Evola was at pains to point out several times [Italy having gone through a typical Fascist panic about ‘underpopulation’] to demand an increase in the population is, logically, to demand an increase in the largest part of it: the scum. And this benefits society how…...? No society, or religion, survives or triumphs over others by numbers. It does so by WILL. 6
Posted by James J OMeara on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:11 | # “As it sits upon the pages of the three synoptic gospels and St.John, the Christ cult is most strange and fragmentary. But one cannot say that in its beginnings it was anything other than a genuine transmitter of sacred knowledge. At their core, occluded from our curiosity, great religions possess in common a certain knowledge of Man and the eternal. In this regard, faith is an ancillary proposition. Thus, it is immaterial whether faith exists as the evolved “god box in the brain” as Dawkins dispagingly calls it or as his viral infection of the weak and susceptible. The common notion - the fixing of knowledge in ways somehow accessible - is what marks a meaningful system from an evangelistically successful, perhaps, but barren cult. In other words, great faiths arise intentionally, and possibly from the same ancient source. Or they do not arise at all. “ What is that ‘ancient source’? The best answer I know [full disclosure: I had a tiny role in its composition] is “The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death” by Michael S. Hoffman [Salvia Divinorum, Issue 4, 2006] which is available online at http://tinyurl.com/34bx2o The .article and the website address all the issues of Xtian origins, the meaning of Christ’s peculiar sacrifice, etc., will full documentation for those wanting to follow up. Contents 7
Posted by Peter Jones on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:25 | # The emphasis in Christianity is on the image of Christ as the ‘gentle, bearded left-winger (as so many black-hearted hippies in the early ‘70s tried consciously or unconsciouslly to imitate), and not on propriating Jehovah. 8
Posted by James J OMeara on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:42 | # “The emphasis brought by Christianity to monogamy, family investment , more K-selected, and discouragement of non-reproductice sexual activity ultimately led to a higher rate of survival.” From this morning’s New York Post, some insight into how Xtianity teaches these excellent memes in my own neighborhood: NEW RAPS ON ‘PERV’ TEACHER April 28, 2007—A biology teacher at a Roman Catholic prep school, already accused of sexually assaulting two of the school’s students, has been charged with raping or molesting three others, prosecutors said yesterday. Richard Ali, 27, was arraigned Thursday for the second time in a month. The former instructor at Manhattan’s Cathedral HS was charged with rape, criminal sexual act, endangering the welfare of a child and sexual abuse. The attacks all occurred around Queens outside school hours on girls under the age of 17, prosecutors said. [Ha! Bet you thought they were boys!] In the charges filed last month, Ali was accused of having sex with a female student in January in his car, which was parked near Long Island City HS in Queens, prosecutors said. He also assaulted another student in February while they were at a movie theater, prosecutors said. He rubbed the girl’s legs, put his hand up her shirt and rubbed her stomach and breasts, they said.” Of course, I will be told this is an aberration, or the result of ‘modernism’, but surely priestly celibacy is not a modernist idea [unless you take Guenon’s point of view and think everything since the Kali Yuga has been downhill]. It certainly didn’t come from the Semites, and the Moslems were quick to put a stop to any such notions and return to the Jewish set-up. One really has to ask, what sort of men would design this system? Who would it attract? One has to wonder whether the whole ‘women should have one child a year until they die in childbirth, and these children are to be given to us to educate’ system [the historical reality behind the vague sentiments about K-selection et. al. above] isn’t simply a mechanism to produce victims for pederasts. And then one must ask further, ‘and this represents an evolutionary advance over Athenian pederasty how…........?’ 9
Posted by Bo Sears on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:10 | # Let me just disagree, without being disagreeable, about the notion of a “Judeo-Christian monotheism.” I understand how it crept into American political discourse, but does anyone really believe that there is any such thing? Neither religion is truly monotheistic, and both religions are deeply corrupted by the worship of various material objects and earthly concepts that push aside a clean, pure worship of a single God. In short, “Judeo-Christian monotheism” as a category of discourse is far more misleading than we expect to find in intelligent discussion. 10
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:45 | # A guessed worker I thought this site is about “EGI”. What does Ethnic Genetics have to do with Christian bashing? So you think that boy buggery is a Christian clerical speciality? Well, for your edification, Cretan pagans developed the myth of Ganyemede in order to promote buggery! Zeus, the Greek God was a boy buggerer! How about that kind of myth recreating—shouldn’t all greeks go back and worship the Butt fucker Zeus!!!! All Hail the Butt Fucker Zeus!!! 11
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:49 | # So this site has turned into Atheism central? And which pagan God is responsible for Creation? The Crocidile God of Egypt? How about Ganesh? Yes, I should worship Ganesh. Ganesh is just as good as Odin. How about the Butt Fucker Zeus? Or Jupiter or Minerva? Yes, we should all be adherents to a female God. Excuse me while I go worship a Tree! 12
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:25 | # I seem to recall that their approach to the plague was to herd everyone into giant cathedrals for prayers, leading to maximal spread of disease. “The willingness of Christians to care for others was put on dramatic public display when two great plagues swept the empire, one beginning in 165 and the second in 251. Mortality rates climbed higher than 30 percent. Pagans tried to avoid all contact with the afflicted, often casting the still living into the gutters. Christians, on the other hand, nursed the sick even though some believers died doing so. The results of these efforts were dramatic. We now know that elementary nursing—simply giving victims food and water without any drugs—will reduce mortality in epidemics by as much as two-thirds. Consequently Christians were more likely than pagans to recover—a visible benefit.” Self-help societies and guilds, with corresponding banquets, were invented by the Greeks “Tertullian wrote that while pagan temples spent their donations “on feasts and drinking bouts,” Christians spent theirs “to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined to the house.” Similarly, in a letter to the bishop of Antioch in 251, the bishop of Rome mentioned that “more than 1,500 widows and distressed persons” were in the care of his congregation. These claims concerning Christian charity were confirmed by pagan observers. “The impious Galileans support not only their poor,” complained pagan emperor Julian, “but ours as well.” As for monogamy and ‘discouragement of non-reproductive sexual activity,” I am sure that the Greeks and Romans knew how to reproduce without any help from Father O’Bubblegum [to quote Auberon Waugh]. Monogamy is not just about sex. Roman tolerance [contrary to centuries of Xtian propaganda] allowed the cult to survive; when they gained control… How did they gain control if not through larger numbers? One has to wonder whether the whole ‘women should have one child a year until they die in childbirth, and these children are to be given to us to educate’ system [the historical reality behind the vague sentiments about K-selection et. al. above] isn’t simply a mechanism to produce victims for pederasts. “...in the empire as a whole, men vastly outnumbered women. There were an estimated 131 men for every 100 women in Rome. The disparity was even greater elsewhere and greater still among the elite. Widespread female infanticide had reduced the number of women in society. “If you are delivered of a child,” wrote a man named Hilarion to his pregnant wife, “if it is a boy, keep it, if it is a girl discard it.” Frequent abortions “entailing great risk” (in the words of Celsus) killed many women and left even more barren. The Christian community, however, practiced neither abortion nor infanticide and thus drew to itself women. More importantly, within the Christian community women enjoyed higher status and security than they did among their pagan neighbors. Pagan women typically were married at a young age (often before puberty) to much older men. But Christian women were older when they married and had more choice in whom, and even if, they would marry.” 13
Posted by cladrastis on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:58 | # i’m throwing my two cents into this conversation… first of all, i really dislike christianity. it’s mostly nonsense (as scrooby once wrote “a bunch of jewish fairytales”) and can easily be perverted into a system of non-thinking that puts a vice on otherwise intelligent people’s minds. a professor of mine recently told me that ~70% of americans don’t believe humans and apes have a common ancestor! in my opinion, this is a problem. how can white americans (or europeans or australians) accept egi without simultaneously accepting that human populations diverged in the past (which is why they exhibit different collective behaviors/levels of intelligence now) and will/should continue to take separate evolutionary courses into the future? maybe i’m missing something, but isn’t this in large part the core of mr? - that each population has a different [evolutionary] destiny (which can only be reached in isolation from other populations) and that by pursuing these, we engender cultural/genetic diversification. PLEASE, correct me if i am wrong. also, during my childhood, i distinctly remember my minister making it very clear that christianity began as a reform to judaism, and that ALL the original christians were jews. so, for all of you who talk about how much you hate judaism and all things jewish, how do you reconcile this (not to mention your very jewish messiah) with your ethnic sentiments? what do you tell your jew-hating children when they point out this obvious discrepancy in your beliefs? finally, i grew up in a fundamentalist congregation in the south, so i feel like i have a license to criticize “the church”—i know it well. i can’t speak for more “traditional” denominations, but my experience so far has been [high church = superficial belief in religious texts + high propensity to support liberal causes] and [low/evangelical church = fundamentalist interpretation of the bible + high propensity to support conservative values]. also, in my fundamentalist upbringing, most people had strong sentiments favoring zionism/judaism - esp. the younger folks. we do not need christianity anymore. what we need now are a common set of values, a “church” (or social gathering space), a support group, and an explanation of how things came to be and where we are going. 14
Posted by James J OMeara on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:14 | # Self-help societies and guilds, with corresponding banquets, were invented by the Greeks Reply: “Tertullian wrote that while pagan temples spent their donations “on feasts and drinking bouts,” Christians spent theirs “to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined to the house.” Well, this is not the place to dispute such historical topics, I only want to refer readers to a very large and very scholarly book, From Symposium to Eucharist, which discusses the issue fully. But just for these quotes, I might note that (a) Tertullian, like all the Xian ‘Fathers’ or ‘Apologists’ is completely unreliable, dishonest, and likely quite mad by today’s standards of health [supposedly, standards promoted by Xtianity, per this discussion]; (b) I’m talking about Greco-Roman-Semitic self help societies, not temples, although of course some were attached to temples; [c] the shuddering reference to ‘feasts and drinking bouts’ shows the complete incomprehension by the Xtian rabble of the role of such activities in creating and maintaining the state, as well as its religions [the Mysteries], thus confirming the Roman belief [and later, Evola’s] that Xtians were impious and a danger to the state; [d] I never said Xtians didn’t help the poor, only that they didn’t invent the idea, but rather created their own little societies in imitation of the Romans. Further reply: How did they gain control if not through larger numbers? Ever hear of Constantine? The Emperors were constantly trying to unify the empire through ‘one faith’. [That’s the problem with empires: note to you one-worlders]. Commodus was initiated into the Mithras mysteries; Mark Anthony identified with Dionysus; Clau-clau-Claudius took to Attis; Elgabalus tried to impose the monotheism of Helios. Constantine gave Xtianity a try. That’s what you can do if you’re emperor [as Geo. Bush has observed to Bob Woodward]. Xtianity may well have been the largest single cult, but it was *imposed* from above, not from below by its numbers, with its size being one, and only one, reason for the Emperor *choosing* it. Another was its well known totalitarianism [brooking no dissent] and lack of any intellectual content [a religion of women, slaves and other illiterates] which meant no pesky ‘intellectuals’ to bother the state [cf. Henry VIII]. Marlowe, The Golden Age of Alexandria, 1971: “There is no doubt that Constantine’s conversion was a political one…But the unity of Christianity was more apparent than real. Almost as soon as it had been released from the pressures of persecution, almost as soon as its leaders were able to contemplate the prospect of power, its latent dissensions, exacerbated by personal, regional, and racial rivalries, nearly tore it asunder and in, the process, engulfed the whole Mediterranean world in controversy and bloodshed. (p262). And again, this was an evolutionary advance, how? “within the Christian community women enjoyed higher status and security than they did among their pagan neighbors” Does this include the murder of untold numbers of women for ‘heresy’ both then and in later centuries? Was the murder of Hypatia [her bones scrapped clean by clam shells and the corpse dragged through the streets by monks) indicate the level of ‘security and higher status’ afforded by Xtianity to women [her ‘sin’ of course was being smarter than the bishop, so I guess she was too uppity]? I’m puzzled by the curious syntax of “the Christian community, however, practiced neither abortion nor infanticide” Do ‘communities’ practice anything? Who, concretely are we talking about? I suppose if you mean, Xtian males did not forcibly perform abortions on women, that would be a plus, [and don’t tell me abortion was ‘dangerous’ because (a) primitive, i.e. pagan, tribes have known about safe methods of inducing abortion for millennia until they were stamped out by missionaries and ‘health workers’ and (b) any medical advances in abortion were in the teeth of Xtian opposition, like anesthesia] but I think, like modern American right-wingers, you really mean ‘Wise Christian men prevented women from obtaining abortions they foolishly and selfishly wanted and forced them to bear as many children as possible until they died.” Some status. I don’t think your platform of ’Respect the rights of women by banning abortion” would be too successful these days. And if, per argumentum, infanticide was reducing the numbers of women, and that was a bad thing, then the answer, of course, is to recognize that and modify the practice. This is called science, which Xtians know little of and despise what they do know [read your precious Tertullian on the ’vanity of curiosity’, meaning knowledge of any facts other than salvation history. Yup, better burn those population studies of yours, before the priests take care of that for you]. The Xtian solution, of course, is just ban it, like they ban everything they don’t like or, really, understand. In general, I am puzzled by the whole argument that ’Xtianity conferred an evolutionary advantage on West. Civ.” since [1] Xtians hate science, especially evolutionary science, and [2] Xtians oppose all the known methods of eugenics, such as birth control, abortion, infanticide, immigration control, etc., thus allowing [in fact, encouraging] inferior races to overwhelm us. This helps how? In conclusion, I will stick with H L Mencken’s dictum. Just ask yourself: which is the summit of Western Civ: Athens, or Kansas City? 15
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:06 | # An interesting anecdote. During the Italian-Abysinnian war of the 1930s, the English novelist Evelyn Waugh worked as newspaper correspondent covering the war, his experiences were fictionalised in the novel ‘Scoop’. 16
Posted by jimbo on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:09 | # xtianity isn’t the ‘prblm’: the prblm is the fckn kikes! no more kikes….no more prblms! prblm solved! 17
Posted by Tommy G on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:07 | # “xtianity isn’t the ‘prblm’: the prblm is the fckn kikes” Here here jimbo!!! Thank the Lord for MR because you would never be allowed to post a comment like that at Mr. Taylorwitz’s AmRen. First the kikes perverted the culture then the perverts from that culture entered into the Priesthood thereby perverting the religion and transforming it from what it originally was to a religion of “egalitarianism.” 18
Posted by Tom Sunic on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:56 | # Tom Sunic’s comments: I am glad that the passage on monotheism and its derivatives, quoted from my book “Homo americanus,” is stirring such a heated blog debate. This is catching me off guard because I myself do not know the answer. Should I lose my sense of introspection I might turn into a monk, or better yet into a levitating fakir. Me thinks any belief, be it of theological or ideological nature is a matter of genetic predisposition. A true believer always needs to venerate something, regardless whether it is sexless angels, the theology of human rights, the dogma of market democracy, or for that matter the postmodern ideology of the Auschwitz body count. These are famous psychological “residues,” so aptly described by Vilfredo Pareto, which in the course of centuries result in different “derivatives” – with cohorts of their disciples, enforcerers, commissars, and of course their victims… All gentlemen and especially J. O’Meara display remarkable erudition. I agree that the eye-bulging, round- faced, balkanesque Constantine in the late Roman Empire accepted Christianity more for pragmatic and opportunistic reasons than due to his sudden discovery of Yahweh’s grace. Same thing happened with countless European rulers, including Charlemagne, or Henry IV in France, for whom “moving to Paris was worth a Catholic mess.” In addition to its promiscuous simplicity Christianity was the best field of solace for rootless multicultural masses in the dying Roman Empire. There is nothing strange about this. Two thousand years later Christianity, in its secular communistic and liberalistic transposition, found ardent followers among sixty-eighters and the divine campus left preaching Freudo-Marxian scholasticism. All of this eventually had to open up the gates for the post WWII and Post Vatican II non-European immigration. This did not happen overnight: the Catholic Church, until 19th century, was strictly opposed to liberalism and democratism (the encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus Errorum). But as a new antifa-lib-dyke-Zeitgeist started popping up on the Euro-American horizon, the Church became frantic in assembling pronto its strayed flock. It had to water down it paleo-medieval and pagano- syncretic discourse – and move back to its original preaching of multiracial conviviality. America, in the late 19th century, had a good opportunity to strike a new socio-political path based on the discoveries of plethora of human genotypes. Yet the legacy of monotheism - which as a rule always excludes the Other - and which goes back to Calvin and later or to New England, could not allow this to happen. No wonder that today’s American Christian Zionists are more Jewish than the Jews themselves, whereas modern American and European Catholics are more papal than the Pope. They stare in disbelief when watching floods of Africans and Cholos coming to Paris or Albuquerque – yet they gladly open up basilicas and cathedrals in lieu of third world shelters. 19
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:15 | # All very interesting, however, none of the above disproves Wilson’s thesis that Christianity provided a fitness benefit, i.e. higher birth and survival rates and the greater furtherance of Christian rather than pagan genes, thus advancing the genetic interests of Christians. As Mr. Bowery points out above, followers of the Church of Latter Day Saints, and the state of Utah has a growing population not dependent on migration. Utah has the highest birth rates and lowest abortion rates in the US. It is not a great leap of logic to suggest their faith encourages this behaviour. Is there a cost to genetic fitness? Sure. It’s paid by men, children and women. Do we honestly expect it to be a “freebie”?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400480.html 20
Posted by shoop the ultimate whoop on Tue, 01 May 2007 11:22 | # The Emperors were constantly trying to unify the empire through ‘one faith’. [That’s the problem with empires: note to you one-worlders]. Commodus was initiated into the Mithras mysteries; Mark Anthony identified with Dionysus; Clau-clau-Claudius took to Attis; Elgabalus tried to impose the monotheism of Helios. Constantine gave Xtianity a try So then, why did Constanine manage to (obviously) Christianize the Empire while the other Emperors you mentioned failed to make everone a follower of Mithras, Dionysus, et. al? I’m not trying to troll, but just sayin,’ this begs the question—if Christianity really was so maladaptive, it was apparently less so than the alternatives, if Constantine managed to succeed where his predecessors had failed. :X 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 May 2007 12:01 | # Shoop, Adaptive strategies do not have to remain adaptive for all time. That isn’t how it works. It is quite possible that the old religion ceased to offer fitness gains for some if not all its adherents. Likewise, it is possible that at its inception Christianity offered a better strategy. It is also blindingly obvious that it is maladaptive today. 22
Posted by Shoop the Ultimate Whoop on Tue, 01 May 2007 12:13 | # Perhaps so—arguing for (or against) Christianity’s present-day usefulness is a bit more than I’m qualified to bite off at the moment. I was mainly asking the question which James J Omeara seemed to beg—if pre-Christian religions were so great and so much better (adaptively) than Christianity, why did Constantine meet with more success than the religious Claudius, Commodus, Mark Anthony et. al espoused? Like I said, not trolling, just genuinely curious. I look forward to Mr. O’Meara’s response :X 23
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 01 May 2007 20:44 | # Not so blindingly obvious if you’re a Mormon. Or is it really Christianity that we’re calling maladaptive? Or is it some, to use the words of the very erudite ones, pagano- syncretism? 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 01 May 2007 21:24 | # Completely off topic: I’m calling a time-out in order to do some really annoying but richly deserved niggling. “Shoop the Ultimate Whoop” said the following two things in separate comments:
and
MR.com regulars will spot Shoop’s error immediately in both those excerpts. They will also, in the interest of getting on with the thread’s substance, forbear to niggle over details. I’m an exception to that. Sorry, Shoop ... Please disregard my gouchiness and name-calling in that comment at the link above (I must’ve been in a rotten mood that day). Alternatively, to see your mistake explained by a far nicer person, go here then scroll down to “Contested Modern Usage.” 25
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 01 May 2007 22:55 | # Mein Kampf Book by Adolf Hitler; Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939 pages 84 118 266 601 610 912 920 ” Therefore, I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator: By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” “By this the State for the first time receives an inner higher goal. In the face of the ridiculous slogan of a safeguarding of peace and order for the peaceful possibility of mutual cheating, the task of the preservation and the promotion of a highest humanity which has been presented to this world by the benevolence of the Almighty appears a truly high mission.” “Should not the same renunciation be possible if it is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them?” ” Then, from the child’s story-book to the last newspaper in the country, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, “Lord, deliver us,” which our patrinotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be transformed into an ardent prayer: “Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. Be just, as Thou hast always been just. Judge now if we deserve our freedom. Lord, bless our struggle.”
The same duty espoused by the medieval Christians Louis of France and Edward I of England. 26
Posted by Matra on Wed, 02 May 2007 19:49 | # Desmond, it’s a shame francophone Quebec did not remain Christian. The astounding drop in the province’s birthrate that accompanied secularisation is the main reason it is still part of Canada - something that is bad for both English Canada and Quebec. (Imagine Shane Doan not being the big issue in Canadian politics!) 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 02 May 2007 22:02 | # Resisting defamation, Matra. If only Anglos were so vociferous, maybe the multi-culti clowns at the Star, NICHOLAS KEUNG, PRITHI YELAJA AND SAN GREWAL, wouldn’t be so free with the term “whitebread”. You’re bang about Quebec. If you look at Trudeau’s and the Catholic Church’s writings in the 1930s, it’s amazing. Then a righteous gentile, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, arrived on the scene and the whole world was turned upside down. 28
Posted by Fr. John on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:56 | # There is so much misinformation and outright hatred on this thread, I didn’t even want to log in. Sigh. First, Christianity is not related to modern Judaism. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “Judeo-Christian religous tradition.” As Michael J. Hoffman makes clear in his masterful books, modern Jews are talmudists, and only the historic Catholic faiths (which, nowadays, means only Holy Orthodoxy, as Rome at Vat. II abandoned all that she had previously held to, mutatis mutandi) are the legal, moral, and legitimate heirs of OT Hebraic faith. Thus, only in Orthodoxy are the place before the altar known as ‘bema,’ (a term misappropriated by the faithless and apostate jews [John 8:44, Rev. 2:8,9] and the area behind the ikonostasis known as the ‘Holy of Holies.’ (cf. Davidic temple nomenclature) Secondly, without the Holy Spirit, even though you may THINK you understand the Church’s Scriptures, you cannot discern them, so everyone’s ‘verse quoting’ amounts to NOTHING. It’s a variant on the “It’s a Christian thing, you wouldn’t understand’ mentality. Sorry to be blunt, but it’s true. Without the PNEVMA, you ain’t even comin’ close! Third, these ‘fables’ as you state are only thought of so, in the West, because the West, via her apostasy from the Catholic faith in 1054 (the “Schism” as it is known) SUBSTITUTED themselves into the place of the Holy Trinity, when Augustine’s filioquism became the ‘law of the land’ via the non-Roman (ethnic) popes who usurped the office of Patriarch of Rome from the ETHNIC hierarchs who had ruled their ‘national churches’ just fine, until the advent of the heretical Franks. The replacement institution that resulted, was the FIRST ‘multicultural empire’ known in ecclesial circles, and it had more in common with the PAGAN Roman EMPIRE, than the KINGDOM of Christ. Bp. Photios Farrell, in his “God, History, and Dialectic” clearly spells out (in over 1100 pages!) the outworking of that false philosophical substitution. IF you are a Westerner, thinking with western, Rationalist, filioquist paradigms, you just don’t ‘get’ what the Church is about, because the ‘Church’ has been a-dying in the West for over 1000 years! Mr. Sunic, as an Eastern European (and, possibly Orthodox Chrisitan to boot!) touches on the PATRISTIC, and EASTERN view of the Church and State, and no one here, except for perhaps DanielJ, has understood an iota of what he was alluding to! Thus, Sunic’s not-so-subtle slap in the face to American ‘Evan-jelly-goo’ attitudes in this sentence: “Modern individuals who reject Jewish influence in America often forget that much of their neuroses would disappear if their Biblical fundamentalism was abandoned” is less about losing ANY Faith, but losing the WRONG (i.e., Western, rationalist, dead filioquist faith) in order to adopt the ONE, the ONLY, the TRUE in it’s place: “It means forging another civilisation or, rather, a modernized version of scientific and cultural Hellenism, considered once as a common recepticle of all European peoples.” That ‘modernized Hellenism’ as the Editor of the GrecoReport has made clear time and time again (ignoring his hyper-Greek racial views) is the unified faith and life of an Orthodox, truly Catholic Civilization, imbued with PATRISTIC- and not protestant or roman aberrations - conceptions of Christ and Culture. That none of you got it is merely corroboration of Farrell’s and my thesis. The West is clueless, when it comes to understanding the God they once professed. Orthodoxia ki Thanatos! 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:19 | #
I never wrote that. Dunno whom you’re thinking of. (Great thread, by the way! Well worth re-reading!) Post a comment:
Next entry: Ethnic and Economic Characteristics of Fastest Reproducing Cities Over 5,000
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:13 | #
In European culture, polytheistic beliefs began to dwindle with the rise of Christianity.
Unfortunately, the question Sunic does not address, even from an evolutionary perspective, is why? Why did Christianity ascend and paganism decline? As discussed with Alex previously, David Sloan Wilson suggests Christianity provided a fitness benefit. Christians cared and fed those of the great plague of the Roman era and many survived. The emphasis brought by Christianity to monogamy, family investment , more K-selected, and discouragement of non-reproductice sexual activity ultimately led to a higher rate of survival.
The Visigothic Code is clear evidence of a group strategy developed around Christianity to deal with Jewish competition.
KMac, in Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism outlines how elites like St. Francis, Louis of France and Edward I of England felt a moral and religious responsibility “that [the Jews] may not oppress Christians through usury and that they not be permitted, under the shelter of my protection, to engage in such pursuits and to infect my land with their poison” (in Chazan 1973, 103).
Even Wilborforce’s altrusim, whether he knew it or not, was aimed at enhancing the fitness of his people. He appropriated a section of land in Africa, now called Sierra Leone, for the repatriation of blacks who wanted to go back. Ultimately, by ending slavery, which is fundamentally about cheap labour, it lessened the looming threat of insurrection, ended mass migration of Africans to North America and allowed an opportunity for repatriation.
The racial awareness of ‘Christians’ did not change until after WWII. Even the most extreme humanitarians did not believe in race-replacement up until that point.
The sacrifice of Christ, in some sense displays an Hellenic theme; the resolution of Antigone to surrender her life rather than leave her brother’s corpse unburied, “in favour of the conviction that human ordinances must give way to the divine promptings of the conscience. “