During the French Revolution, radicals made no bones about attacking the Church as a source of oppression and an obstacle to progress. Marxists, of course, were hostile to religion of all types, but they really hated Christians. In America, direct attacks on Christianity started in the early 20th century, as progressives abandoned the Social Gospel, in order to bring Jews into their movement. The point being, the Left has always had it in for Christianity.
We no longer have Jacobins. We still have a few Marxists kicking around, but they are mostly museum pieces. Exactly no one in a position of authority in the West embraces Marxism or communism. As for progressives, we have plenty of them in America, but their thing has morphed into a weird identity cult that hates white people. Of course, there are precious few Christians around, at least in the ruling classes. In fact, it is hard to find any Christian leaders in the West.
The West is post-Christian now. Leaders of all Western countries agree that Christianity has nothing to offer, in terms of public affairs. You never hear any of them make appeals to the deity or make references to Christian teaching. Every Western nation embraces some form of liberal democracy. Some nations lean toward social democracy, while others embrace neo-liberalism. American leaders will occasionally mumble something about freedom of religion, but otherwise, we are ruled by non-Christians.
The thing is, Christianity brought together certain cultural and political elements that made liberalism possible. There is a reason that things like equality before the law and representative government never took root in Africa. The Roman Republic and ancient Athens had some features of liberal democracy, but they were largely ruled by a collection of families of equal rank. While the Greeks were produced great genius, they did not produce liberal democracy.
To understand this, we need to start with God. The ancients were sure the gods picked sides, played games with man and did so without a grand plan. That means the gods did not see all men as being equal. Jews, of course, were really sure God picked sides, their side, as they are the chosen people. It was the Christians that refined the idea that all men were in equal in the eyes of God. That is the foundation of equality before the law and egalitarianism, at least as far as natural rights.
Another idea, essential to liberal democracy, is the concept of an ordered universe with fixed rules. This was a concept borrowed from Greek philosophy and carried through Europe by Christianity. Not only is an orderly universe essential for the development of science, but it is also essential for the development of rational government. If God has created an orderly universe, governed by immutable and discoverable laws, human society should follow those rules.
You cannot have a free society without contracts. The bargain between men certainly predates Christianity, but it was the Jews who produced the idea of a covenant, a contract that even God would abide. Christians inherited this. The idea that making a contract and sticking to it, because it would displease God to do otherwise, makes it possible to enforce contracts. You cannot have anything resembling liberalism without contract law.
Finally, morality without the divine is just a set of man made rules. Christians were certainly not the first to ascribe the moral code to the supernatural, but they expanded on the Jewish concepts to create a whole body of morality that elevated humanity in the eyes of God. Doing the right thing by your fellow man, even when no one is looking, because God will judge you in the afterlife, allows for the development of the hidden law, a moral code. It allows orderliness to spring forth organically.
That is an extremely broad overview, but the point is that what we take for granted about liberal democracy, has its roots in the Christian past. Within one lifetime ago, Western people expected to be ruled by Christian men. Even when the rulers were not very Christian, they kept it to themselves. It was just accepted that public character tracked with Christian morality. Now that we are ruled by post-Christian women, how long before all of these ideas wither away?
We certainly see some unraveling with the modern notion of egalitarianism. We have gone from men being equal before God, to all people being equal to each other. Lacking the limiting principles that come with religion, progressives are a click away from demanding that all of us pretend we are exactly the same. The story Harrison Bergeron has gone from satire to divine scripture. The Christian regard for the complexity of God’s creation has been completely lost in the post-Christian age.
We are seeing the return of occasionalist magic in the modern era. When the Left talks about “institutional racism” or “white privilege”, they are not talking about definable things that one can measure. These are mystery forces acting on man in the same way Old Scratch used to play the role of trickster. The difference is they assume humans lack the agency to resist these mystery forces. In many respects, Norse pagans were more empirical than the modern progressive.
This is a big topic, but it is something that is worth examination. It is assumed that the stock of human knowledge is always growing, but that does not mean nothing is lost. Western people have abandoned a large chunk of knowledge that had been formalized in Christianity. Some of it can be replaced with science, but the parts underpinning civil morality and our moral philosophy are not easily replaced by secular alternatives. Like the game Jenga, we may have removed a vital peg from liberalism.
West is so post christian that the missionary industry is still huge & a cornerstone of its foreign policy।।
I think the discussion has gone all the way ’round a central part of the thesis: Removing Christianity not only removes moral context, it effectively removes the primary organized source of about 2,000 years of human behavioral & societal history. With no referable history to guide human moral choices, what is the alternative? That’s right: Listen to the man on the television.
Aggie;
An excellent summary of the central point. To which I would add that, in addition to providing critical politico-economic underpinning to the West and to human society, Christianity can be of great personal satisfaction and benefit. A number off commenters above have stated that.
That’s certainly been true for me: I’m far from perfect, but I’m certainly a better man than I was, and I’m very likely a better man than I would have been. And my relationships are better too.
And besides that, unlike the many Prog slanders, you are *not* required to give up science-the-process or critical thinking as Issac and others above point out. As with most things Progs say, the truth is pretty much just the opposite. As a Christian, the more you know about this world, the more amazing it becomes.
Now, the question is how to incorporate this knowledge into a new political synthesis that is effective in restoring the West: Solidarity in the essentials but with liberty in the non-essentials. Christianity should be a welcome preference but by no means a requirement.
I believe your site is being blocked by Comcast, I cannot access it that way, but I can via 4G. I guess they’ve labelled you a hate site.
You are blocked by the censorship app “Websense” at my place of employment.
Everyone on every side is currently in search of the central set of organizing principles for whatever comes next. I still think Liberals mainly believe Government is their god. As Obama demonstrated, it is a vengeful god when disobeyed. It is a benevolent god when buttered up with the “correct” words. It has chosen people and the outcasts; saints, sinners, priests, prophets and kings; lots of real estate and plenty of disposable cash.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of commissions and of boards;
They are trampling out the faithful like some ancient Persian hoards.
They hath loosed the fateful lightning through the sowing of discord;
What’s truth but what we say?
Glory, glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, glory! Hallelujah!
What’s truth but what we say?
I think Steven Pinkers new book “Enlightenment Now: the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress” is an attempt to make a rationalist liberal religion -without Christianity and religion. The philosopher; John Gray has a cruel review of is here where he writes “that Judged as a contribution to thought, Enlightenment Now is embarrassingly feeble. With its primitive scientism and manga-style history of ideas, the book is a parody of Enlightenment thinking at its crudest. A more intellectually inquiring author would have conveyed something of the Enlightenment’s richness and diversity. Yet even if Pinker was capable of providing it, intellectual inquiry is not what his anxious flock demands. Only an anodyne, mythical Enlightenment can give them what they crave, which is relief from painful doubt.
Given this overriding emotional imperative, presenting them with the actual, conflict-ridden, often illiberal Enlightenment would be – by definition, one might say – unreasonable. Judged as a therapeutic manual for rattled rationalists, Enlightenment Now is a highly topical and much-needed book. In the end, after all, reason is only the slave of the passions.” https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon
I have not read the book, but the enlightenment is at its peak right here and now. The world you see today is the kind of world enlightenment brings. If we allow it to go further, it will destroy humankind as we knew it.
That is not to say that we should reject science. But we should reject scientism as a religion. Religion, a real religion, tells us about ourselves and our place in the world. The relations we have with everything. Who cares about evolution theory or quantum gravity. Its about the relationships we have (with everything) that science cannot answer.
Oy. I could argue this at length, but I will simply suggest that an abundance of science is not what gives rise to the enlightenment progressive religion and it’s desire to use grapeshot. The hallmark of progressive fervor is in-fact pseudo-science. Observe that long established biological theories are being discarded and even physical sciences like meteorology are bent double from progressive perversion.
Embrace the G-d of your people but do not become a dolt who rejects empirical reality because you’re convinced that holy mother church has taught all you ever needed to know.
Human morality can be seen on a scale from No-Indvidual rights & Maximum collective rights to Maximum Individual rights and no-collective rights.
Religion, christian religion did something unique: It provided a peg in between those two extremes. Something morality could gravitate to whenever it got out of whack. It provided a point of stability.
Without christianity, we will slide either to full collectivism or to all-out individualism.
However, note that neither of those two extremes is stable.
IMO a very good observation. I would add that the purveyors of collectivism have done a great job of subverting Mainline Christianity to their cause. If you are not encouraging the use of the assets of the state and the denomination to alleviate the ills or hard circumstances of strangers on the other side of the world, and saving them from themselves and the predations of their own, through some sort of collective “solution”, then you don’t count. If you are not encouraging the use of the assets of the state and the denomination to “help” the females, the gays, and the dusky ones (the most privileged of all, in the eyes of what used to be an impartial body of law), through some sort of collective “solution”, then you don’t count. What ever happened to personal salvation and reaching out to the one praying next to you?
“I would add that the purveyors of collectivism have done a great job of subverting Mainline Christianity to their cause.”
Yes, and they have done so by concentrating on the ‘love’ message. They have relentlessly driven home the message that christianity can only be defined through unconditional love of everything. And the christians fell for it. (Most of them anyhow)
As you may be aware, love in christianity is not, and never has been, unconditional.
Collectivism is a poor choice of words. Most of the pressure driving this phenomenon is selfishness and liberal individualism. Progressives don’t donate to charity at the same rate as cons and much less than evangelicals. They love state charity because it costs them nothing and burdens future genrations that they care nothing about.
What’s more, you might expect a Collectivism problem to intensify the feelings of kinship to fellow community members. Not so. Progressive families are the first to estrange anyone who defies their selfish belief sytem. They are the first to flee behind high walls when the piper comes to collect on their mistakes.
The great mistake of the western right was to become a caricature of individualism when their people needed solidarity against an onrushing hoard of progressive induced problems. Do not continue this mistake. Be collectivist for your people. They don’t need another lecture about self-help Jordan. They need one another.
Sin, punishment, repentance, redemption, salvation, these were at the core of Christianity for 1900 years. Now that sin has been eliminated as being too harsh and judgmental, Christianity is dead. The church did this to itself.
James;
Agreed; But it’s *liberial* Christianity that has no antibodies to neo-liberalism. Once you pull out the Jenga block (or Jackstraw) of any concept of sin against a holy God having any consequences (because that wouldn’t be ‘nice’), the whole pile collapses.
Thing is, this idea seems to me to be based on infantilism (or feminism, BIRM). If there is no god/dad or one that can be offended with impunity using ‘meaning well’ as the all-purpose ‘mommy-fix’ defense, then what’s the point of worrying about external standards of behavior. Once ‘playing well with others’ is enshrined as the supreme good in mommy’s world, it’s the liberal-church *mommy* who makes all the rules based on not making any of the other kids feeeel bad. Hence ever-faster-moving anarchy governed by those kids with the shrillest scream.
However, there *are* non-liberal individual churches and even denominations who have not fallen for this apostasy.
I get down voted every time I state the obvious here, but here it goes: Christianity sowed the seeds of its destruction when it left its European cradle to become a Universal faith. The intellectual compromises necessary to adapt the Christian faith to Africa and to a lesser extent Asia stripped Christianity of any significant values.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and into the void slouched the twin beasts of feminism and humanism. Exactly what is to be learned by sitting in a pew in an Episcopalian church listening to the lesbian Pastor rant about equality?
We have a thing or two to learn from the Jews. They don’t recruit. Ergo, 5000 years and going strong.
I don’t believe Christianity got watered down to adapt to Africa and Asia. It got watered down in the heart of those European nations that were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment of the 18th century & following, e.g. Germany & Britain. Today the Anglican Communion is riven between the liberal churches of the West (i.e. the Church of England, the Episcopal Church here in the USA, the Anglican Church of Canada etc.) and the Anglican Churches in places like Nigeria, Uganda etc. which are quite theologically conservative. Generally the missionaries who went to Africa and Asia in the 19th & 20th centuries were not theologically liberal. Liberals generally do not feel the need to missionize foreign lands – they tend to think all religions are pretty much the same in that they all lead to God, in denial of historic Christianity.
“If God has created an orderly universe, governed by immutable and discoverable laws, human society should follow those rules.” Spend an hour or two watching the National Geographic Wild channel. Crocs eating zebras, lions dismembering buffalo, cheetahs chasing down antelope, wild dogs tearing apart baboons, etc., etc. The Creator established this pain and carnage, humans have emulated it reasonably well, so far.
D C N;
The ‘law of the jungle’ is a fixed *physical* rule. Even vegans have to kill to live, after all.* The ‘law of the jungle’ only matters as a *moral* rule if animals and plants have immaterial souls and were not put here for our use, as the Bible says they were.
A great deal of malicious mischief is at hand when you see the two being deliberately conflated. It is true that the physical laws of the universe don’t care about me and you. It is *not* true that the God of the universe, who made those laws (and they cannot have made themselves) has no moral care for me and you.
Why this is so is a mystery but the sense of it is imprinted in us all. Some act on this and some do not. The safest thing is to accept the explanation He provided even if we don’t totally understand (and never will, at least on this side).
_________________________________
*I have no close friends who are vegans because I like to tell them that the soybean plants had other plans for their precious offspring than becoming their tofu.
Seems to me an omnipotent creator might have devised a more humane scheme. Vegetarianism for sentient creatures, photosynthesis, just sayin’.
Yes, it’s a difficult question. Even vegetarianism involves killing, as Al noted. There was an article some years ago in Playboy, of all places, by Alan Watts entitled Murder in the Kitchen. “One of Watts’ most surprising and refreshing positions is his critique of vegetarianism. For Watts, vegetarianism is simply an attempt to evade the fact that life feeds on life, that the universe is a vast web of creation and destruction. A vegetarian is just a person who spares his own feelings by killing creatures that can’t scream.”
https://www.counter-currents.com/2010/12/the-spiritual-materialism-of-alan-watts-a-review-of-does-it-matter/
It used to be in downloadable PDF for free, but I can’t find it anymore. This video will give you an idea of Watts’ style, if you’re interested.
https://youtu.be/F4nGuEVs-JA
Rather reminds me of the Cold Mountain quote, “See, I think there’s a plan. There’s a design for each and every one of us. You look at nature. Bird flies somewhere, picks up a seed, shits the seed out, plant grows. Bird’s got a job, shit’s got a job, seed’s got a job. And you’ve got a job.”
I have a vague recollection of watching some of Watts’ PBS appearances with my mother, back in the mists of time.
D C N;
In principle you’re right: God might have done so but didn’t. Nobody knows why. OK, now what_?
I don’t mean to slag you for your light-hearted answer which you’re hopefully not too serious about. But there is a serious point to be made. There actually are people who see themselves as great thinkers who suppose that they can put God in the dock to answer for what He did or didn’t do.
I mean, if punk humans like me and you can put him in the dock, he’s not much of a god. So, there’s no point in respecting him, much less worshipping him. OTOH, if He *is* who He says He is, He’s certainly not obliged to answer to me, or you, or anybody else. That’s one of the main points of the Book of Job.
BTW, plants *do* kill each other through over-shading, ‘unfairly’ stealing the nutrients, poisoning the soil against their rivals, etc. They just do it slower and with less obvious mess than animals do. In every forest the winners own the crown and the all-critical sunlight. And those winners also indirectly feed on the dead bodies of their losing competitors as the local fungi and bacteria decompose them. Not a pretty picture when you really think about.
But if they didn’t do this we couldn’t eat.
Al – “Now what?” Bunny thinks I’m an atheist. I’m not. But what we do now is adjust our perception of the creator. If he doesn’t give a shit because his sentient creatures suffer pain, why should I? Starving in Africa? Murdering in Detroit? Not my problem, not my fault. Screw ’em.
D C N;
What people are trying to tell you is that, since ‘judgement’ implies calling a person to account for their conduct with some implication of coercive power (else ‘judgement’ is a meaningless expression of personal preference), man *cannot* judge God. Most particularly man cannot judge God by human standards, which are, after all, ephemeral. This much is logical.*
IOW, if The God of the Bible is who He says He is in the Bible, He is *entirely* ‘other’ to humanity, though he He made humanity. And if he is not like that, then he is not God, but rather is a figment of human imagination**, at best, or a powerful, malevolent, supernatural being at worst.***
The latter case of there existing a powerful, malevolent, *unchecked* supernatural being, yet humanity continuing to exist as is, seems unlikely, to say the least^: Such an entity would tire of just toying with us at some point and just exterminate us all.
The Greco-Roman view of the gods being arbitrary, capricious, powerful, supernatural beings *who check each other* and who have mostly human moral attributes, fits somewhere in between.
_______________________
* To presume to judge God by God’s standards (and what other standards can be known but God’s or man’s) makes no sense at all from the human perspective: An arrogant, dangerous, stupid exercise.
**’god’ being a figment of human imagination is the basic atheist position, after all.
***’A powerful, malevolent, supernatural being [malevolent = who hates mankind and seeks to destroy it]’ is the Bible’s definition of the devil.
^ The Bible is clear, from Job to Revelation, that God *checks* the devil yet allows the devil to operate here on earth. So much so that the devil is described as ‘the prince of this world’. We do not know why. Yet the Bible is also clear that the devil will not prevail in the end.
I always smile when someone cites the food chain as a rationale for atheism. It’s so simple. Animals eat animals. Where is your God now, bwa ha ha?!
“In America, direct attacks on Christianity started in the early 20th century, as Progressives abandoned the Social Gospel, in order to bring Jews into their movement.”
In order to bring jews into THEIR movement? I don’t know how far back you want to go, but the jews have been involved in the “Progressive” movement since at least 1694, when they created the Bank of England. Their financing of William of Orange to overthrow the Stuarts following the “legal” readmission of jews into England by Cromwell, gave them financial control of what became the most powerful nation of the world after they created the bank. The “Progressive” movement has always been a Trojan Horse to maintain control of what the jews have stolen and anything else they consider worthy of their attention. And when you think about it, its what any group with no conscience would do if they had stolen the birthright of entire populations. What’s good for me and mine. Screw everybody else.
If we’re playing that game, Christianity was a sneaky Jewish conspiracy hatched during the Roman occupation of Israel to one day unhorse the European. Those crafty Jews!
Except there was no such thing as a jew in the first century AD. What became the modern day “jew” were Pharisees in the Messiah’s time. As Rabbi Louis Finkelstein wrote:
Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, one of the leading authorities on Judaism asserted:
“Phariseeism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name…THE SPIRIT OF THE ANCIENT PHARISEE SURVIVES UNALTERED.”
You seem to be a student of history Z. Research when the first use of the word “jew” occurred. And if you can find it, see when the first use of the word “judaism” occurred. And remember, its an English word. I’m pretty sure they didn’t speak English in Judea. I’m also pretty sure they didn’t speak English in first century Britain.
By that reasoning, there were no elephants in the first century, as there was no English word for “elephant” at the time, mostly because modern English did not exist.
But, you, like most people of today, have made what you consider a logical leap by assuming that todays ‘jews’ are not the Pharisees of the Messiahs time. In fact, you consider Jesus a ‘jew’, don’t you? You make the mistaken inference that Jesus was schooled in the Talmud. Not only that, you have assumed that these same ‘jews’ are identical to the ancient Israelites. They are not, but they have claimed the mantle so that they can claim the mantle of “the source of Christianity”. If you will research it, you will see that the term that is translated ‘jew’ in the New Testament merely means someone living in the land of Judea. Judea was the name given to that area by the Romans. It had no religious connotation. It was a geographic location. Now, if, as I claim, the modern ‘jews’ were the Pharisees in the first century AD, this opens up a new can of worms. What did the Messiah say about the Pharisees? How about Matthew 23:33. How about John 8:13 – 44. How about John 11:45 – 54. You might want to consider Revelation 3:9, which says “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.” I’d be willing to bet you’ve read that and wondered what was being talked about.
Actually, I don’t care in the least about any of this. I was simply making a joke about Christianity being a Jewish plot to undermine the honky.
Gee, and all this time I thought you were interested in history.
Nice talk, AWM. It’s always worth a try to educate people about this—I would say—most important issue in the world. But Z-man isn’t a Christian and he was being brutally honest when he said, “I don’t care in the least about any of this. I was simply making a joke about Christianity…” I found his post to be a bit odd, myself, coming from an avowed unbeliever. Maybe even a bit disingenuous. While most of what Z-man said was true, it is evident none of it matters to him. So why write it?
But I’ve been round and round the mulberry bush with this subject of “who, or what, is a jew” with many people (went a few times around with Z-man also) to no avail. Most, if not all Christians erroneously conflate the “jews” with Israel, being shamefully ignorant of their own Bibles in not even recognizing that the “Jew” (biblically) represented only ONE tribe of Israel—Judah! …And only then, when the context was a literal descendant of Judah. Most of the NT references to “jews”, in fact, (as you well described) bear no reference to actual Israelitish Jews, but rather to the Edomite usurpers and other Talmudic Babylonian acolytes. Jesus was most certainly not a “jew” in that sense, and is never in fact called a “jew” in the Bible. He did, however have plenty of enemies. They were all Jews.
Z-man, like many ‘non-believing christians’ is as ignorant of our Israel history as they are of our own White identity. They love being white, but have no genuine interest in discovering what exactly that means. Who our ancestors are is who WE are. For anyone truly seeking, the launching point is this Biblical admonition: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.” (Isaiah 51). Follow the bread crumbs…
The hard cold fact is that not everyone seeks the Lord nor is genuinely interested in history. And they never will. Some just play the role to get what they want from life, or as a means of amusing themselves and their “friends”.
My best advice for you is Paul’s to Titus: “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject…” Too many times around the mulberry bush is just unprofitable and foolish. And I should take my own advice more often.
The problem with modern day Christianity is the pathological altruism that pervades the modern day church. Most of my young colleagues that seem to have a faith look at you like an unfeeling monster when you talk of some sort of boundary. Why wouldn’t you invite the world? That’s who we are, haven’t we always been a nation of immigrants? It’s not their fault they grew up without a father! Cut them a break. The church use to be about personal responsibility, not anymore, that ship has sailed.
We still have a few Marxists kicking around, but they are mostly museum pieces. Exactly no one in a position of authority in the West embraces Marxism or communism. As for Progressives, we have plenty of them in America
Marxists are only “museum pieces” in terms of labeling. The only difference between Marxists, Socialists and Progressives is velocity of change. And as we’re seeing in the past few years, the velocity of change is revving up for progressives. They’re steaming as fast as possible toward a Marxist future.
There is a vast chasm between Marxism and Progressivism. Marxism is a utilitarian and material cult. It’s a philosophy of the Industrial age that assumes that the measure of a man is the value of his goods. Progressivism is a spiritual movement that adopts economic arguments as means to an end. It’s why Progressives have embraced global capitalism.
Our side wastes far too much time trying to stick the bogeyman of Marxism onto the American Left.
Progressives are a bit harder to pin down. The Marxists had some really logical ideas that disregarded human nature and could never work in the real world.
Progressives are all over the place and usually depend on faith rather than logic or wisdom. I mock my Progressive relatives for shedding their Christianity for faith in bad government and bad ideas. That seems to hit home.
Progressivism is a spiritual movement that adopts economic arguments as means to an end. It’s why Progressives have embraced global capitalism.
But that end they’re striving for, the economic system that will encompass it is Marxism. Global capitalism is, as you say, a means to an end — it is meant to economically destroy the Western middle class and empower a global elite, who will then implement their ideas of global egalitarianism, which will look suspiciously similar to global Marxism, with the elite installed as the “experts” who will manage it “for our own good.”
ETA: I’ll agree that the rank-and-file progressives are not Marxists, but as always, they are simply useful idiots for the globalist elite — kind, progressive aunt Sadie didn’t think up these ideas on her own.
Progressivism is the cause, marxism (or post-modernism or whatever) the reason du jour.
Who has a greater religious impulse than the militant atheist? But if Karl did not intend his message to be taken as a spiritual movement, his fans never got the message.
Marxism and Socialism have the same goals. Marxists use revolution to achieve them whereas Socialists use the strike.
I’m being beaten about the head by a 2 inch diameter stick or a baseball bat – does it really matter what you call it?
Seems like people are getting hung up on technicalities.
Corbyn and his hard left mates are within a gnats tadger of power here and their communism is pretty pure in its form.
The architecture of the western mind is inherently Christian, it’s no wonder as we lose our Christianity that the loss of our minds ability to function in a western society follows.
“God will judge you in the afterlife, allows for the development of the hidden law. It allows orderliness to spring forth organically….”
————————————————————————————
I might be full a beans here. I am a struggling late comer to the faith, and there are elementary school children that know more about God and the bible than I do. Like you, I used to think the bible and God were just a pantload off superstitious boojum that evolved to control men and allow them to work together.
This is just me talking for myself, but when I found the faith it hit me entirely differently: the faith is about YOU controlling YOURSELF. Be a better man, strengthen your brother, be humble, and honest. God does not threaten, he forgives and we must do likewise.
People that think like that are all of a sudden a threat to proggies. They will care not only for themselves, but others too – which will put them in a competition with The State through which the progs want to rule.
I was raised by progs who hate the faith with the heat of 1000 suns. Today my wife and I go to church and get involved in the events with the nicest people. Our former families are falling apart at the seams – our parents are nasty liberal geriatrics that only care about themselves as seniors, the kids (my age) are all divorced at least once with estranged wives and kids. My nephews are soy-boys and my daughter is a militant lesbian SJW jerk.
When I go to church or their social events – there is a real and honest community. I get mugged by old world seniors that invite us over for suppers. I get hugged by little old ladies that have lived lives and seen things I never knew existed. I trip over happy toddlers and rug rats that are growing up right – without a care in the world because that is what adults are for.
The faith is far, far more than you think it is, Z. I would never have known that had it not been for the progs that were hellbent on putting me through the same wringer they put themselves.
The dumb Progressives don’t think it consciously – but your faith in God is a threat to them. They want that faith to be placed in the State and the Cloud People.
Is it the faith in God – or the the honesty that they’re really threatened by?
I don’t believe these propositions are mutually exclusive, though I wouldn’t call any religion a pant load. The argument I’ve always made is that your ancestral faith is your rosetta stone to ancient wisdom. Whether or not you feel it in some transcend way is neither here nor there and the wisdom, like that of wizened family elders, isn’t always a perfect fit for your situation or environment. At the end of the day, whether g-d made you or your ancestors made g-d, there is a remarkable incompleteness to lived experience if you don’t take in the region of your people.
As always I remind the readership that individualism is the acid that dissolves vastly more meaningful organisms. Religion is not there to make you better, it is there to make your family and community better. It is wisdom you pass on not because you believe it has all the answers but because you can’t be sure that future generations won’t need the reference material.
Excellent comment.
Re:
” This is just me talking for myself, but when I found the faith it hit me entirely differently: the faith is about YOU controlling YOURSELF. Be a better man, strengthen your brother, be humble, and honest. God does not threaten, he forgives and we must do likewise. ”
Never having read the Bible – or having spent much time in any form of church – this is EXACTLY the way I have felt for a very long time.
The total lack of personal control that I have seem from the vast majority of people I have come into contact with in my life who self described themselves as “religious” – is a good part of what has completely turned me off to religion.
So here’s a question: if you ALREADY self control – without every having needed to have a whack across the back of the head with a Bible – does that make you part of the faith?
I have had this same basic discussion in the past with people who seemed to want to attack me for my lack of “religion”. My non-PC response has always been : ” you know what – I don’t need a priest or a book and a bunch of stories to let me know when I’m being an a-hole or teach me how to lead a moral life. I figured it out for myself. Maybe you ought to think about that and stop berating me about religion, because despite all the applied guilt and church attendance – you still can’t seem to stop being an asshole on a regular basis. I suggest working on your own problems – and leave me alone”
Considering that the seven sins are in fact common character flaws, I think you’re spot on about the faith being about self control, and overall betterment for one and one’s own through self control.
The thing about Christians being equal in the eyes og God, I would have to say rather :They are born with equal “spiritual potential”, because people will be judges by their actions, and since you cannot definitely know someones lifespan, nor what they can manage to accomplish during that vaguely specified time span, in regards to good/contract fulfilling deeds, the spiritual potential remains equal for all despite their deeds differentiating them in the eyes of God.
The open borders/pro migrant crew might just as well be buying indulgences to compensate for their own whiteness. Instead they get absolution through migration quotas.
This is one of your best blog posts ever. I do think progressives hate Christians in particular, though.
It’s because intraspecific competition is always more ruthless than interspecific competition. Progressivism and Christianity are trying to stake out the same niche.
Case in point: Nazis vs Commies
Vonnegut was prescient with his Harrison Bergeron story because as a liberal he knew where progressivism takes us.
Poland and Hungary being the exceptions to the post-Christian “West”- although both countries are more of a unique Central Europe born of 1918, 1945, and 1989.
That Slavic/Magyar Catholic version is ethno-Christianity, and maybe that version has potential to retake Europe, after the collapse or Islamization of the dead carcass of the EU.
Don’t forget these countries were under Communism. In a weird way, Communism froze the traditions in those countries due to the Eastern Bloc keeping out decadent Westernization. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are actually more of a generation behind in cultural mores due to this freeze. They may catch up or they may keep up the reaction based on observing how insane the West is now.
Church attendance among Poles has collapsed among the youth. Just as Wodinism never stood a chance against Catholicism, Christianity has no antibodies to neo-liberalism. In remains to be seen how pan-European liberalism will hold to Islam.
Hear! Hear!!
Another thing that Christianity emphasized was the concept of inherent guilt. We were all sinners from the Original Sin and thus fallen. Only through grace could we be saved. This is another thing that distinguishes Christianity from Judaism in that Judaism doesn’t have this nature of guilt.
The concept of Original Sin morphed in various incarnations, first with the rise of Protestant sects. Puritans believed we were extremely despicable, that God was mad at us, and through only showing public acts of piety were we shown to be saved.
Marxism was another later mutation, which when you look at it, also had Christian elements. In this case, the Original Sin was class and unless you were helping the working class or formenting revolution, you were a despicable bourgeois. It accounts for some educated bourgeois becoming Marxists to show how good people they were.
Finally, the concept of progressivism today has been morphed by guilt into its present state, with white people in the role of the devil today and the use of guilt to shame people for “racist” thoughts. Progressives today in fact weaponize this guilt to shame people into accepting policies they otherwise don’t want, such as importing refugees by the boatload.
This concept of guilt had a role in keeping people modest, plus the ability to self-criticize Western civilization and find ways of improving it. It is also a double-edged sword in that it can go overboard into the self-loathing that we see today. Philosophers such as Nietzsche saw this coming, hence his attempt to create an alternative philosophy with the Ubermensch.
Judaism doesn’t have this nature of guilt
Really? What were all those sacrificial lambs about, then? Rain-dances?
And the scapegoats.
did not remove guilt,,,as the BOOK sez,,only the blood of the Lamb of GOD can perform that,,,the lambs were a preview to the ultimate blood sacrifice,,any jew sacrifices today???? done did once and for all,,,
Growing up in an area and around a LOT of Irish and Italian Catholics – I’ve come to believe that the whole guilt thing is responsible for much of what is wrong with (at least) this country. I’m largely Scottish/English – and my raised-Catholic wife is always telling me ” you never feel guilty about anything”
Which is mostly true. Except maybe when I *actually* do something wrong.
Seems like the Catholics and Marxists use guilt as a weapon to subjugate – instead of concentrating on actually being moral. Again – growing up around an awful lot of Catholics – they talked a good game – but were largely some of the most immoral people I have known. I still distinctly remember in middle school noticing which kids were proceeding on to Catholic high school. Pretty all the biggest trouble makers.
The whole “do a few Hail Marys and get a free pass on the nasty shit you just did last week” – has always been another example of hypocrisy IMHO. Fits right in with the behavior I’ve seen from some older men I’ve run across in my life. Spend the better part of your early years doing all sorts of nasty things – get older and get worried about “getting right” with God – and then start telling everybody else how to live their lives once they realize there’s a way to get absolution for their sins right here on Earth.
The Catholic / Communist nexus that ZMan mentions – is something I have seen talked about in other places. Douglas Hyde talked about it here: https://www.garynorth.com/Hyde.pdf – where he mentions that while in the Communist Party he came across an awful lot of lapsed Catholics.
I am certainly not an atheist, but the problem with the restoration of any of the old religions is the faith/wishful thinking/escape into fantasy aspect of all of them. People have noticed a lack of divine feedback. Some Altright figures are never more patronizing than when they advocate the return of A-Religion-Which-Shall-Remain-Nameless because of its utility for social cohesion.. They invariably start speaking about ”the masses” or ”the proletariat.”. I always expect one of the Monty Python guys to pop up and say, “nudge, nudge, wink, wink.”
It’s pretty hard to make a case for your religion when all the religious leaders on one side have spent centuries telling the masses – to love their fellow man. And all the religious leaders on the other side have also spent centuries telling the masses to love their fellow man.
Then – when the political leaders finally screw up big time and get a war started that is killing people off by the millions – the leaders representing those very same religious institutions (which are in many cases the SAME religious institutions on both sides) now tell you to die for king and country (or Kaiser and people)
Then – when it’s all over – everybody looks around and asks themselves – WTF was the point of all of that?
Pat Buchanan has made the point that the West fatally shot itself in the nuts during WW1. Christianity did too. Seems like the people actually believed – witness the Christmas Truce of 1914 – but the leaders can’t have that happening – can they?
I mentioned in the earlier post I grew up (and still live in) a heavily Catholic area (MA). I distinctly remember what I perceived as a teenager to be complete and total hypocrisy coming from the vast majority of Catholics I knew. This was before the whole kiddie diddler thing became known publicly. Although my wife will tell you that as a child – she was told by her older brothers – which priests to stay away from. It was a KNOWN thing – at least among the male teenagers – that certain people in the “church” were not to be trusted.
Re: Your alt right observation about comments of “masses” and “proletariat”.
I agree. I’m starting to detect a red rat smell coming out of a not insignificant portion of the “alt right” stuff I come across. Like character in Men in Black – they can’t hold the disguise in place forever. Every now and then it cracks open and they reveal themselves. I’m starting to wonder if alt-right isn’t neoconism for the new century.