The cancer eating away at the modern West is a lack of authority to which people can point to judge public policy, public debate on those polices, as well as the reactions to those policies and debates. As a result, debate has degraded into various camps striking poses, usually by signaling their unhappiness with the pose of other camps in the public sphere. The lack of an agreed upon authority means there is no way to judge the merits of any claim. Instead, it leaves force to resolve disputes.
A good recent example is the neocon opposition to Trump. These people are entirely defined by their hysterical reaction to Trump. There is no substantive issue around which they base their opposition. They are not pointing to ideological authority, tradition or even rules within the party. Their opposition to Trump rests on no authority other than their emotional reaction. That’s not an appeal to authority. It is a tantrum, the sort of thing you expect from toddlers. It is also the norm in the public space.
Now, there are two types of authority. One rises from objective knowledge accumulated over time about the natural world. An authority on engineering is someone, who has been trained as an engineer. His credentials are determined by meeting a set of objective criteria, like engineering exams, but also by remaining in good standing with other engineers. The same is true of all areas of expertise. These are the authorities on what is or what is not empirically true about their area of expertise.
In this regard, the West is in surplus. No matter the specialty, you can find someone who knows the material and can explain what is known about the topic. If you have an interest in statistics, you can find books written for every level of reader. You can find on-line courses covering just about any bit of knowledge you seek. If you have a desire to read Homer in the original, you can take on-line courses in ancient Greek. When it comes to what is factually true about the world, we have a surplus.
Where there is a shortage is in the area of what ought to be. What is true in the world is a very different thing than what ought to be true. What is true does not rely on a human authority to make it true. It does not need a supernatural authority to validate it. Two plus two will always be four as long as the universe exists. What ought to be true, however, relies on people, either as the authority or the voice of authority. This is the basis of moral codes, hierarchy, dissent and the collective action of society.
For most of Western history, religion was the authority upon which society relied to determine what ought to be. In the early Middle Ages, there was a great debate about the nature of that authority. That finally was settled and the Catholic Church was the worldly manifestation of that authority. After the Reformation, that authority was eroded, but replaced with Scripture as the source of authority. The story of the West, until the Industrial Age, was the story of Christian authority over man.
Of course, Christianity is a relatively new thing, so there have been other sources of authority in the West. The authority of blood is a universal. The great men of a people rise to the top of society. Their descendants, having inherited their great qualities, are assumed to be a source of authority. The king may not have done anything other than be born to the right father, but he has the magic blood. If it turns out that it did not take or the magic has lost its power, someone new must come along.
That’s where tradition fills in the gaps. The king’s heir may be less than the king, but the institutions that rose up around the king are now invested with authority. The reason the heir should be king, the reason he and no one else ought to have final authority, is this is how it has always been done. Tradition is probably the most powerful source of authority, as it assumes the is, as well as the ought. The custom, through trial and error, is proven to be the best, so it ought to be maintained.
In the current age, normal religion has been sidelined, not only as a source of authority, but as a legitimate part of public discourse. Fifty years ago, a public discussion of morality would have had representatives of various faiths to discuss what ought to be according their religions. A century ago those representatives would have provided authority for the current morality. Today, no public debate about moral issues, about what ought to be, includes religion, much less priests or theologians.
Tradition, of course, is by default eliminated from consideration. Much of what is passed off as public discourse is really a debate about how best to tear down the remaining traditions of society. The entirety of Progressive thought can be symbolized by the toppling over of statues on the college campus. The only thing they insist ought to be true is that truth itself must be overturned. Progressive morality, such as it is, is both the negation of moral truth and the denial of objective reality.
A world without authority, especially an agreed upon authority, is anarchy, but humans naturally retreat from anarchy. This is because anarchism is just mob rule. The ideal of anarchism is the mob mutually and magically agreeing to not murder one another, while the reality of it is the mob demanding authority to bring order. It is why democracy, which is just mob rule, is always a transition state. It is the period between the respect for natural, hierarchical authority and authoritarianism.
An example of this from history is the slow collapse of the Western Roman Empire, first into constant warfare, then into chaos and finally into the anarchy of local authority in the early medieval period. The end of the republic was not the end of a natural authority in Rome. The rulers still had to respect the gods and traditions. It is when those sources of authority collapsed that the end was clear for the Empire. The subsequent rise of the West was the rise of authority, Christian authority.
The modern West is undergoing the same sort of collapse of authority. Christianity, like the pagan faiths of the ancient world, has receded to the fringe. Tradition and hierarchy has given way to mob rule and force. What’s missing from the analogy is a new religion that provides a coherent order to the gathering chaos. Progressivism is an anti-religion, in that does not provide order to the natural world. Instead it preaches a denial of order and the denial of reason. It’s a primitive revolt against the natural order.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
interesting thoughts. very true. the West needs religion. Christianity, who knows. the Church did have heavier authority than Scripture, however eventually the burghers inspired by the Reformation did beat the agrarian Roman-Catholic order. perhaps a mix of the two should be had, the Church needed not only back landed nobles (or now, their successors, communists, NGOs, corporate slavers, bureaucrats). it is not as if without Luther the simony wouldn’t have stopped, or the vernacular wouldn’t have come. European peoples were at their best united. abandoning the Orientals and Easterners was a prelude, also. no wonder communism ran rampant there first.
true, the actual Church is an NGO. who knows what will happen under Francis and after, he stuffed the college of cardinals of allies. the Protestant world also suffers heavy losses, what’s the deal with Fallwell? Orthodoxy may be too little too late, and national churches in general eventually become a tool of the state, if a good temporary solution. the neopagans seem shallow, but they will inevitable gather followers, alongside any number of dissident churches – I expect schisms to come in the following decades… and not all will be healthy, some will be weird, others will also join the sjw causes…
maybe some secular whites will also fight, but i doubt their group will be large, if probably vocal but usually uninspiring – unless Christianity abandons itself and whites so much, it triggers such minority status for whites that they resort to fight for pure blood survival, regardless of religion. although even then, these whites would need a unifying tradition. that is the problem with the constitution and the post-enlightenment concept of the civil state – it has no roots, so long as anyone can get a job as a government tool, elected or otherwise. no natural unifying faith, no natural order, no nation, no race. you can read as much papers as you want, but without a tradition that makes you able to pray the natural Christian faith of your fathers and go to war for your country, it is worthless.
the few successful non-Westerners figured it out, albeit incorporating parts of Western thought (technologies, state apparatuses, even some Christianity and other Western values including decadence, etc) but respecting their local traditions. when Christianity spread, it precisely did because it incorporated older local traditions when it did not collide with doctrine. thus each nation remained patriotic, even if united through faith. today the third worlders have reverted to their pagan practices and want to spread the most solid of them (Islam, which in spite of its failings at least incorporates both national tradition and natural hierarchies of patriarchal elders, therefore continuing to demographically win), how will Christianity counteract? like Zman and many saints and martyrs remind us, pietism is never enough. nor will it be just making the churches brown, as the message is to be spread to every nation, not for a single Babylonian universal construct – which precisely Revelations warns about… and no, Babylon’s not the Vatican, Brussels and many other globalist cities eclipse the Holy See…
Oh bullshit. While it may be true that the reformation replaced the Roman church with Sola Scriptura, a good and necessary change, and while it may be true that the church is in a weakened state in America compared to what it was say at the time of Jonathan Edwards, it’s still true that there is nothing new under the sun. Whatever you see now has been seen in the past. The revolt of the enlightenment was a revolt against Christianity, viz. Carl Becker, “The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth Century Philosophers.”
This rejection of the doctrines of Christianity will eventually end in war of some sort, but out of it God is cleansing His church and testing and refining His people. A new reformation will come, the crap is being thrown out of it, those who would sell their doctrine for a pittance, acceptance, a good time and a cheap date.
And it’s simply not true that Christianity is a relatively new thing. The scarlet thread running through Scripture, as the saying goes, is Christ. He was there in Genesis (the so-called “proto-evangel”), He is here now, He will be here in the future, the only means of being saved. True religion, the worship of the Son of God, has been with us from the beginning of time, and revelation is progressive, known only in shadows before, known fully now.
Learn your doctrine before preaching. Fringe? Wait a few years, or a few centuries. History is linear, not circular. God is sovereign, and His will is being done, whether you see it or not.
And learn your history. And learn your philosophy.
Thank you Herschel. I KNEW there was a reason I bookmarked your blog!
Once again, the issue of moral relativism rears its ugly head. You write of “TRUTH” but you conflate logic or mathematics with morality. Now, I would say that the laws of logic & of mathematics also come from God, but they are able to fully delineated without reference to God. Empirical evidence shows us what 2 + 2 equals.
Morality is different, and although man is equipped with a moral conscience, it is also broken. Hence we need the clear revelation from God to know “ought.” Realize that “ought” implies an obligation, and as I have shown before, obligations are only owed to persons. There is no obligation to ‘mother earth’ but there is an obligation towards God that we are good stewards of His earth.
Once God is removed, man devolves into a Nietzschean hell where the powerful simply do as they please. One need look no further than Nietzsche himself at the time of his death to see where such beliefs lead. And so goes the formerly Christian West.
Well, I disagree. We do too have a religion. It is the religion of the educated class, which is to be worshipped as gods. Its idea of good and evil is that creative people, who want to bend the arc of history towards justice, are good. Helpless victims are good. Responsible people are racist sexist homophobes; they are bad. Creative people should be free to bend the arc of history towards justice in any way they please; this is called “activism.” Anyone opposing the creative people is bad, and should be named and shamed and ostracized. Or worse.
The educated class even has a millennarian prophetic tradition, about how the end of the world is nigh, because injustice, pollution, climate change, unless you, the deplorables, repent.
Our culture has been fleeing moral order and “ought tos” at least since someone first published abroad, “If it feels good, do it.” People, in many ways, are like children. Children want to do whatever they want whenever they want to do it. They dislike anyone telling them “No!”. Paradoxically, children need boundaries – firm, dependable boundaries at that! Without boundaries children become very insecure. In the absence of boundaries they have no way to know how far they can go without suffering unpleasant consequences.
I am a proponent of maximal liberty. In proper world there would be no external restraints upon actions; only internal restraints. There would be no need for a law against assault if everyone went armed and the most likely result of an attempted assault or mugging was a wounded – if not dead – assailant. That does not mean that society could not have consensus of what behaviors would not be tolerated; merely that failure to police one’s own actions could result in one’s hide being ventilated.
Laws are merely words on paper. Words on paper have never and will never modify individual conduct. Unless the individual recognizes the utility of a law (or ordinance or rule or CONSTITUTION) they will not comply for the simple reason that ALL COMPLIANCE IS VOLUNTARY.The majority will comply because they either recognize the utility of the stricture or they have no desire to experience whatever hassle accrues to non-compliance. I am old enough to remember the social engineering experiment which resulted in a national speed limit of 55 mph. I think the goal was to reduce fuel consumption on a national scale. Unfortunately, most highways were safe at speeds well in excess of 55 mph and the Interstate Highway system was built to be safe at a minimum of 80 mph. Enforcement was spotty at best (I doubt the people enforcing it agreed with the law in any greater percentages than common people) and the upstart was that you essentially took your life in your hands if you held your speed to 55 or below because very drivers complied. I would maintain that “speed limits” should be advisory at best. The law of natural consequences tends to come into play when people exceed the maximum safe speed by too great a margin. You just see what happens when you take a curve at to great a speed. Sir Isaac takes control of the vehicle and he is truly a lousy driver.
Here are the principles by which I try to live my life.
1) “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” Or in the (truly) immortal (and unimaginably profound) words of Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”
2) You do your thing in your back yard and I’ll do likewise. Until and unless what you do in your back yard slops over into mine we don’t have a problem . If what you do DOES slop over into my back yard THEN we have a problem.
3) As Teddy Roosevelt put it, “Walk softly, (see #1 above) but carry a (DAMNED) big stick.”(See #2)
(edited to correct typo)
Read the Bible particularly the last book. The new religion and the leader the world will love for 3 and a half years is in the wings as we speak; The God of the Bible is and always has been in control and He will soon be reclaiming the planet.
Just a general note, Pink Floyd is absolutely redpilled without even knowing it. They are the lefty side of truth, but still, they have created absolute truth. It probably explains Roger Waters’ behavior towards the end of his life. Listen to the lyrics, listen to the Gunners Dream or Welcome to the Machine. Understand the pain that is behind it, what created it, and know that, even though you would never guess it, he is with US. Even if he doesn’t know it. The two generational, European genocidal wars of the 20th century hurt him, and hurt him bad. And he knows the truth even though he won’t say it outright.
“Christianity, like the pagan faiths of the ancient world, has receded to the fringe. Tradition and hierarchy has given way to mob rule and force. What’s missing from the analogy is a new religion that provides a coherent order to the gathering chaos. Progressivism is an anti-religion, in that does not provide order to the natural world. Instead it preaches a denial of order and the denial of reason.”
I don’t know Zman, I think you’re being optimistic here (lol). Progressivism has a shared system of values, thinking, language, and so on that has contaminated everything (see Pope Francis). Things are chaotic because the Progressive coalition is aggressively racing forward, rather than relying on a slow transition to McWorld, with slow changes in peoples’ thinking effected over time via education and mass media. Even the radical Left is part of this shared Progressive secular religion (which is fundamentally left-liberal, and is led and driven by the left-liberal elite class which controls the West, including private institutions/business). As an example of this, here is Alain de Benoist reacting to the old militant French Communist Party (PCF) having changed its emblem to a rose:
“The Amiens Charter (1906) proposed to abolish “the wage-system and big business”. That goal has also been abandoned. When will the hammer and sickle, tools of the proletariat, be replaced by a sex toy and a TV remote-control?
“The PCF is disavowing itself in order to be “more of it’s time”, thus proving that it has no will or desire to change it.”
https://openrevolt.info/2013/03/09/alain-de-benoist-the-disavowal-of-the-french-communist-party-disgusts-me/
Everything is contaminated by its (Progressivist) thinking, is redirected so as to be brought into line with it and serve it (again, think of the Catholic Church in the distant past versus today). Obstinate opposition can be brought down via force. I think the Progressive secular religion can settle in, barring the long prophesied swift and total economic collapse which may open doors to real changes. The authority, the hierarchy, is the whole of the Western elite (which is overwhelmingly left-liberal, though with academic and street (Antifa) radical Leftists contributing/cooperating). The theology is largely produced via the output of Western academia (that which is permitted, which is only left-liberalism, radical Leftism, and a few classical liberals). The tradition is the Left view of history, such as the myths which have been created around the Civil War, World War II, or how about the recent film demonstrating that the moon landing happened thanks to black women, lol. It doesn’t need to make much sense to settle in, it doesn’t have to be objectively true, it just needs to generate sufficient power to enact and maintain itself, and this simply requires sufficient indoctrination of the mass of the population, and sufficient fear of engaging in any dissent.
To be clear, I find what I am describing terrifying, a true nightmare, a disaster largely without parallel in human history.
My apologies, it looks like I remembered incorrectly. The new symbol of the PCF is not a rose (although I believe that’s supposed to be a flower growing out of the top of the symbol):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/PCF_LOGO.svg/1200px-PCF_LOGO.svg.png
“The party (PCF) is replacing the communist emblem of peasants and the proletariat with a five-pointed star representing the European Left, a loose alliance of far-left parties, including France’s Left Front.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/10/french-communist-party-hammer-and-sickle
Did anyone here know that the PCF was anti-immigration in the 1980’s:
“In the 1981 presidential election, Georges Marchais ran a controversial campaign on immigration which was harshly criticized by anti-racism organizations at the time. In 1980, the PCF’s leadership voted in favour of limiting immigration. The same year, Marchais supported the PCF mayor of Vitry-sur-Seine who had destroyed a home for Malian migrant workers; the PCF claimed that the right-wing government was trying to push immigrants into ghettos in Communist working-class cities.[12] The Libération newspaper also alleged that PCF municipal administrations had been working to limit the number of immigrants in housing projects. However, today the PCF supports the regularization of illegal immigrants.”
Here’s another bit from wikipedia, although this part I haven’t personally confirmed from other, more reliable sources:
“Some of the most marked changes have come on individual rights and immigration. After having vilified homosexuality and feminism as “the rubbish of capitalism” in the 1970s, the PCF now fully supports both gay rights and feminism.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Communist_Party#Doctrine
Every single institution, organization, ‘place’ that provided structure, cultural enrichment/support has been corrupted, degraded, feminized and infantalized in my living memory. Church. Schools. Work. Government. Hospitals. Entertainment. Sports. There were 5 Catholic parishes in my home town. Mine was the only one that was ‘right’. Said every parish. But the differences were small. Thus ‘very’ important. Football. Parish festivals, etc.
So, how do we take them all back? When in fact they’re all Gone. ….
All at once, across the entire nation? One Institution at a time? Alphabetically? Do we start with whatever tiny bit of sand we can throw in the gears we can reach? Until we meet up with someone else to help carry the pail? Or shall we get the details of the Absolute Manifesto of (fil-in-blank) Correct before we think of best ways to communicate the current circumstances to others who might be compatible to our efforts & interests?
What ‘rules’ suit us best for now?? What are our basic values?
We need to create our own space, our own system of thinkers and ideas, values, language, and so on, and move from there. We need to contribute what we can to it, in terms of money, organization, study, and so on. We need to reach out to people with whom we may disagree, but who are a true asset in forming a coalition of resistance. We need to be open-eyed, thoughtful, disciplined, and very prudent in how we proceed.* Do these things, and see where it leads. There is no other way.
*I want to really emphasize this sentence. Our determined enemies are about to seize control of the Executive Branch indefinitely, which has at its disposal military and police might and technology the likes of which the world has never seen. To these people, Donald Trump is basically a Nazi who is to be taken down with no respect paid to rule of law, and we are not just talking about the rank and file Left fanatics, but elites in the FBI and such. If Donald Trump is a Nazi, one can imagine where that leaves us, and how we’ll be viewed 5+ years into the future. A Leftist who worships Gaia and who is obsessed with Global Warming may well advocate nuking the entire earth to defeat “Nazis”. This is the power which the Progressive coalition, the Progressive secular religion/mythology, generates, brings to the table. Resorting to violence is OUT with what we are confronted with. Ideas are what matter, and one must always be cognizant of the context in which they are speaking. I may have pushed the envelop too much in this very thread, even in our hidden back alley corner of the internet.
The religion of a society is the basis for its morality, however right and proper that morality may be. This morality, whatever it is, becomes the basis for the society’s law-order structure. This article is spot on, but I would conclude that progressivism has its morality and its law-order is being put into place as always by naturally following the religion of the people. It’s humanism, or self as a god. This is the new religion. These societies last about 5 minuets as footnotes in history. Poof, gone and done.God will not be mocked.
C’mon bro, greed is good, God is dead. The Boomer viagra lady, Ayn Rand said so. *spit*. Selfishness is the ultimate virtue. I would like to piss on that old witch’s grave.
“What’s missing from the analogy is a new religion that provides a coherent order to the gathering chaos.”
Every religion can be infused with pro-white tribalism. Recognizing this enables us to infuse into any and all religions the requisite justifications to achieve our ultimate objective: hegemony of the white races in their historic homelands.
Islam, paganism, atheism, Judaism, Bolshevism, and virtually all other religious and philosophical systems can serve simply as the raw materials to rekindle and fuel the will of the white peoples to survive and reassert dominance as distinct ethnic tribes in their historic nations. What is required is that pro-white nationalists work within each religious tradition to reshape it for this ultimate end just as the Chosen People have done for their race. The difference is that while they seek to dominate the world, we simply seek to rule within the homelands of our ancestors.
If you are a Protestant white, use the Bible to justify white nations remaining white. If you are a Roman Catholic, find and cite the Encyclicals. If you are Orthodox, cite the Church Fathers, the Tsars and the Christian emperors. If you are a white Muslim, cite the Koran. If you are a white Jew, cite the Torah and the Talmud. All these, and more, have proven adaptable enough to demonize whites; therefore, they are adaptable to empower us as well.
Remember: Christianity was successful partly because it was able to “Just tell people that their religion is really about” and it readily incorporated pagan rituals, structures, typology and paraphernalia into its worship. We whites must imitate this ability to reinterpret and assimilate.
But Roman, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian paganism had all been highly syncretic as well, and they ultimately dissipated into an unintelligible soup of empty idols. What is perhaps more important to Christian success lies in an easily overlooked verse from Acts: “All the believers were together and had everything in common.” (Acts 2:44).
It is easy to forget how powerful of an evangelical influence Christian charity has been over the centuries, but it cannot be doubted that the Gospel was spread by feeding the hungry and healing the sick as least as much as by the sword. The order provided by Christianity was as much the practical rationing of temporal gifts as it was any philosophical rationalizing of abstract arguments. Read the Gospels and you will find a highly, almost intentionally, unsystematic, yet thoroughly pragmatic, religion. Read the history of Pope St. Gregory the Great, and you will find the power of Catholic Rome built on the foundation of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.
The West has been destroyed by scientific rationalizing and dogmatism, both atheist and Christian. Nearly everyone is equally tired of rehashing the long worn out rational arguments of bygone centuries in the gridlocked trenches of religious debates. We need to stop trying to achieve hegemony of any particular religious or atheist system, and focus on organizing grassroots communities that provide real, tangible assistance to their members while reinterpreting each religious and atheist tradition to justify our right to take back our inheritance.
“If you are a white Jew, cite the Torah and the Talmud.”
You might be on wrong blog site. Jews are not White. Finding a Talmudic citation to support a pro-White sentiment won’t happen.
>”Christianity, like the pagan faiths of the ancient world, has receded to the fringe.”
Get out of your shit-tier, dindu-infested, blue-state coastal city and out here to where life is still good for the white man, and you’ll find very differently. You’ll probably also stop with all the pointless blackpilling.
Come home, white man.
When I went to Amren, I couldn’t help being reminded of going to church. With the collapse of religion, beliefs like WN fill the void (though the two aren’t mutually exclusive). That was a part of the Katie McHuge debacle—the trad religious types accused us of worshiping man instead of God. They have a point, and I wonder if making the White race into an object of worship is enough. Christian Identity fuses religion and ethnonationalism, but it will never be much of a force.
I am sympathetic to the transhumanist types who dream of achieving higher planes of existence, of conquering the galaxy. Then I look at most people and think I’d be happy if we just had a sane society. If everyone believes in Santa who cares, as long as our people flourish. But people do need something to believe in. Everyone has a religion. Unfortunately many White people who think they’re irreligious are actual fanatics with their progressive politics: anti-racism, LGBBQ madness, GAIA worship, etc, the new post-Christian morality that has been talked about here before.
These are issues I struggle with. Ultimately I’m here because what is the alternative? Shuffle off the stage and die? I won’t give our enemies the pleasure. I will speak out in my small way because the people we are dealing with are truly malevolent. I don’t know if there’s a God (I lean against it), but I do believe in the Devil. Maybe Whites carry a spark of the Divine. If so it’s up to us to resist the evil which is personified in the Jew.
Nathan said: ” I don’t know if there’s a God (I lean against it)…”
Not knowing is a good place to be.
“Wisdom is knowing what you don’t know.”
-Socrates
All I would say is, when in doubt, simply try to be the future you want to happen.
You believe in the premise – cause and effect? Of course you do. If the effect is the Big Bang, what’s the cause? God. Now, I got you this far, now you’re on your own. What attributes does this Prime Mover, if you will, have? I don’t know. Nobody knows. God only knows.
Amen Nathan!!! Burn this message in your minds fellow dissidents: TRUST NO WOMAN!!! Period. That is the first test of this thing we have. They have neither the stomach, nor the fortitude, for what is to come. And they are not supposed to. They shall be EXCLUDED from the real organizing. Or all will fail.
Johnny55 said: ” …TRUST NO WOMAN!!! Period. That is the first test of this thing we have. They have neither the stomach, nor the fortitude, for what is to come. And they are not supposed to. They shall be EXCLUDED from the real organizing. Or all will fail.”
You never want to get laid again, do you?
Sociologists and management instructors have defined any numbers of authority. Two, three, and four being the most common. I settle on two; earned and inherent.
In a traditional family setting, the father and mother have inherent authority be the nature of their role in the family. They can also have earned authority, but with the children the inherent is superior. The eldest son can gain earned authority through his behaviors and actions growing up. The younger siblings will defer to him because he earned it, not because he’ll beat them up.
Likewise the CEO of a company has authority inherent with the position. Somewhere in the company, there are like folks who have earned authority through expertise and skills.
Yet another great post. I don’t have to agree with everything to enjoy a well reasoned essay.
One quibble I have is that “anarchy” is not the same as “chaos”. Anarchy simply means no State. (or nation-State if you prefer) Years ago I wrote about one such anarchy and the link is https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/1000-years-of-irish-anarchy/
Another quibble I have is that there is a huge difference between a “nation” and a “State”. A nation is a community of people who share a common language, culture, values, traditions, ethnicity, descent, and history.
I am from the mountains of southern Appalachia. A “hillbilly” if you want to call me that. My “tribe” has not yet fallen to the deranged, perverted, evil state that most of the rest of the nation has. I am not there now due to family duties but even a short stay in east Tennessee will make my soul sing with joy. We may not be as “smart” as that so-called high IQ bunch of bigots in one blog on the net, but it is wisdom that matters much more than IQ.
Z-man, America has lost the notion of Wisdom being handed down: lost “common sense”. That would be your point in losing tradition.
For those of you who disagree with the above; perhaps the bigots are right and all the bad in the world was caused by time-traveling Boomers. Hell, time travel might be a thing, no?
As Pat Buchanan has said in the past, it will be a return to “blood and soil” nationalism, the basis of human belonging. Places like Atlanta will have to be left to the Zulu tribes.
I like a man who quotes Buchanan. But as I understand it, Atlanta has already been taken over by the Zulus.
From twitter:
“Conservatism use to be smart enough to bring a guy like Allsup under their umbrella to serve their purposes and absorb them into mainstream conservatism. Their purge mentality is leaving them with nothing but people like Kathy Zhu.”
(Found @westland_will)
The new breed of “conservatives” has no beliefs beyond low taxes, running cover for the bandit state of Israel, and owning the libs. They come out and say it! Being a conservative is reduced to wearing a rainbow MAGA hat and accusing the left of not being liberal enough.
Did you know Boinie used the N-word twenty years ago?
Today in my various newsfeeds I saw an article about how we can’t let that archaic old Constitution stand in the way of eliminating the electoral college, because nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of pure democracy. The author showed no awareness that pure democracy has been tried many times, failed every time, and that the founders understood this very well.
It’s as if there is no past to these people. They act as if their ideas are new and profound and have no interest in testing them against history, yet these are things that average school children understood a generation ago. And some of these people were raised in that generation, and older generations. I don’t understand it.
Also Peter Wehner has yet another article in The Atlantic harping on his obsession that Trump is mentally ill. It’s beyond tedious at this point, but if you read the comments on any left-leaning site, it’s accepted as Gospel. Again, I don’t understand it. Trump’s actual governance has been utterly moderate and within the bounds of what was considered, within the past generation, conventional thought. I mean, I can understand us on the far right being disappointed, but pretending a moderate centrist is a deranged crazy person is … deranged.
Vizzini, you are probably overthinking this. They want to get rid of the EC because they think doing that will give them an electoral advantage. Believe me, if they thought they had a political advantage in retaining it, they’d be singing praises of the constitutional protections provided by the EC.
All their talk about democracy is just noise. Useful until it’s not.
I am sure that is the motivation among the political movers, but a lot of the rank and file actually believe the BS they are being fed.
Exactly. The thing is, to the left, ‘democracy’ only exists to reinforce their own belief system.
If democracy produces contrary results or indicates an opposing majority belief, then “our democracy” is then threatened. The Trump election really put this front and center.
Democracy is a part of their moral authority over the rest of is. Like justice and equality. Or Progress. They believe they own it.
You can participate in it, only as long as you conform to their beliefs, otherwise you are threatening it.
It does not exist as a means to solve for policy, law, the will of the people, or civic order, but rather as an arbiter of who whom.
We see this also in how the left and their media whores frame their language.
Democracy is always framed as some sacred, mystical yet undefined thing that must be guarded from us. Thats when its not being used against us.
When a badwhite is elected or a Badlaw is approved or someone thinks that a mexican should produce legal proof of citizenship ID to vote, “our democracy” is under attack.
When their poc puppet is elected or a rogue judge in Hawaii makes law from the bench, it is Democracy in action.
The left will wax on about “OUR democracy” and “THIS country”, but never about how “OUR country” is not the same as “democracy”.
Our country is for sale, their democracy is the auction block.
“It’s always Day One for these people.”
Z-Man wrote that line in a comment thread on Sailer several years ago, and it eventually brought me to this site. As an observation it’s overflowing with wisdom; mull it over and you’ll realize it defines so much about the enemy. Day-Oners draw psychological strength from their disconnection from the past. Their blindness to the horizon makes them feel bold, conceited, assured. It’s a recruiting tool, because there’s always a new generation for whom the past is literally blank.
But its also responsible for their brittle, childish affect; their rootlessness and anomie. Their constant moving of the goalposts. Their inability to build in the long run, instead of only tearing down.
These are weaknesses that our side could exploit more creatively. There are some encouraging signs in that regard on this comment thread.
Year Zero!
What could go wrong?
I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve noticed the same. It’s like something’s been lopped off these people — they’re not whole. They display this lack of self-awareness when it comes to ideas and behavior that I find extremely disturbing. It is indeed like there is no past for them, no history. I can’t possibly imagine what the world looks like to them — do they think it came into existence when they were born? Can they possibly believe this? Are they deliberately being obtuse, and why so many at once? Talk about “Two-Dimensional Man.”
And this is to say nothing of the eternal return of the same subplots of The Trump Show. Year Three of the same stories and themes, over and over and over — now it’s mental illness again, I see, and the 25th Amendment. Is there no recognition that they keep returning to the same story, repeatedly? Will this go on for eight years? My God!
What is most disturbing is that these are not young people. As you say, they were educated before social media, even before — in many cases — the kudzu-like growth of the internet into education and the workplace. They were children in the 1980s and early 1990s. Do they not remember? Do they not see how absurd this is?
I have spent nights wrestling with this. Now I find myself in the process of losing a friend to Trump Derangement Syndrome; in the last two weeks he’s snapped in public at two people without any cause except something they were wearing (some kind of Boomer “Liberals = Stupid” sentiment on a t-shirt). This is a middle-aged guy who couldn’t have reeled off more than two facts about American politics before 2016; now he’s got a post-it laden, dog-eared copy of the Mueller Report and thinks there are Nazis all over one of the most liberal counties in the United States. He’s gone off the deep end.
I often wonder in my more conspiratorial, panic-laden moments whether it is the SSRIs. It just seems that this communal Rimbaudian derangement of the senses overlaps all too neatly with the mass introduction of these things into the bloodstream of tens if not hundreds of millions, some of whom have now been on them for 20+ years.
Whatever it is, something is deeply, deeply off out there, and I despair at finding friends in this sad, dark, forgettable time.
The same people who said “don’t trust anyone over 30” are now basically saying “don’t trust anyone under 50”. They are a revolutionary cohort and have never changed.
Power skips a generation simply based on human fertility and average lifespan. Millennials are now due to inherit power simply because of where we are in the timeline but Boomers don’t want to give it up because it means their story is over and loss of power.
The (controlled) election of Trudeau and (uncontrolled) election of Kurz were natural transitions of generational power. Both were designed to fail to discredit youth in politics. The same reason AOC is paraded in front of us.
Macron is GenX and is an unnatural successor with loyalties to an older generation which is precisely why they chose him.
Hats off and a deep bow to all involved in this capital discussion. I must blame Exile for pointing the ship in the right direction.
Real meritocracy, given rein, gifts us with true stewardry and leadership. Excellent job, gentlemen and ladies, you make me so proud of my people, the White Dissidents.
In other words, I agree with John Smith. I am unaware of any society in human history that was set up without any reference whatsoever to something supernatural. The only ones I can think of are the recent forms of the commies and we saw what nightmares ensued. Whether in Egypt, in Rome, in Sumeria, Persia, Judea, and ALL European royalty, China, Japan, the rulers all relate or hold some blood line claim to whatever supernatural authority/reference/power is of their own people. I would be very interested to hear of any human society before the commies that completely eschewed a supernatural underpinning whatsoever. Even the French revolution and Stalin saw the church restored in those countries shortly after the wholesale slaughter finally ebbed.
I’m going to disagree with you, Johnny55, as to “atheism” killing millions.
It wasn’t ‘a belief in nothing’, no, it was the influence of a very real, unseen god. Not the god who speaks through you, but a different one.
The malevolent ones who feed on pain, gods as real as your own, except in that they can only live here- and we are trapped with them.
Intelligence arose as an antibody to their influence. Your god of Life, a force beyond this world, can only use us, frail vessels, to fight this Infection here, on this ground.
Does your God deny the existence of Satan? He does not.
(The gods, the heaven, the hells, being real phenomena, can be measured- and will be.)
“Atheism” is a mask, a camouflage, a cloak of invisibilty. Actual atheists have no reason to wage a fanatic’s religious war on those who grow their crops and build their houses. (Or in mutilating their genitals or twisting physical reality, either. But demons do.)
Well, whether the religion of atheism, and believe you me, it is a religion, is avowed Satanism, etc., I leave that for another day. My comment was geared to the fact that the few governments WHICH HAVE COMPLETELY DISAVOWED THE SUPERNATURAL/ORGANIZED RELIGION, expressly and on pain of real punishment, have been the biggest slaughterhouses mankind has ever seen. A dark presage of what is to come.
Yup. And the Declaration specifically referenced “nature’s God” which was a clear indication that Natural Law was understood to be authoritative because it was “God’s.”
This column contains two fundamental errors:
1) It states: “There is no substantive issue around which [the neocons] base their opposition.” It’s very clear exactly what issue at least 95% of the neocons base their opposition around, their very clear opposition of Heritage America and their very clear opposition to anyone who thinks the USA is not simply a war machine for their own nefarious ends.
2) It also states: “It does not need a supernatural authority to validate it.” This is a fundamental error. EVERY human society from ancient times requires a supernatural authority. Or aliens. Whatever you want to call it, it has to come OUTSIDE humans and logic. Or, at least up until the Bolsheviks it did.
For those societies set up on a rejection of the supernatural, or some outside, non-human authority for their morality and social structure, the worst terrors of humanity have been seen: 1) French revolution; 2) Bolshevik Russia; 3) China; 4) Pol Pot.
Is there any need to go on???
I understand Zman may be an atheist, but is bowing at the religion of evolution (first proposed in a POEM by Darwin’s freemason grandfather) any different than what we say the lefties are doing?? Especially given the fact that it has been mathematically DISPROVEN, at least as to species evolution and is literally an affront to our senses and any understanding. Let us not throw stones at the left when we are unwilling to question our own basic assumptions with honesty and forthrightness.
Let us not panic, and view this dispassionately and objectively. There are some good things happening. Consider:
The democrats – those pillars of multiculturalism, social justice, and political correctness… are falling apart at the seams. They are a microcosm for the multicultural nation – it simply won’t work. They can’t run a political party, never mind a nation. Their lickspittles in the high tech industry won’t be able to do their dirty work for them – they can’t even do their own.
All the leftst controlled institutions are failing now too: the newspapers can’t sell a subscription, the schools are graduating morons, the courts and justices are hated by the people they supposedly serve, and the gov’t can’t balance a cheque book.
Today Donald Trump is giving the mass media the finger, and running circles around the leftist lawfare machine. Dissident hate thinkers are gaining traction and holding political leaders to account. They ‘speak truth to power’ with assurance and authority. Preliminary moves on border security, fairness in the courts, and the dismissal of political correctness are already starting. This is the START of the game, fellas – not the end.
You WILL prevail. Be positive and upbeat in the days ahead. There will be set backs and fiascos… but the Left cannot avoid the chitstorm it has brought upon itself. All we need to do is help it along.
Epic, John Smith, just bloody epic. Cheers!
Different types of societies have different central principles and the central principle of democracy is equality. Taken to its logical conclusion, this inevitably leads to the rejection of any kind of higher authority because everyone’s equal and no one has the right to tell you what to do or not to do. In today’s West, the only sin is to offend against D(versity), I(nclusion) and E(quality).
Before the 20th Century, it was difficult to find anyone who had a good word to say about democracy. The framers warned against it. They knew their history, philosophy and human nature and realized that a democracy inevitably self-destructs. There’s a rejection of external morality and demand for the massive redistribution of wealth and property, all in the name of equality. After all, we’re all equal, aren’t we?
According to Plato in The Republic, Chapter 7, democracy is inevitably followed by tyranny. The central principle of a tyranny is lust. People are a slave to their passions, Ironically enough, tyranny produces the most abjectly miserable of all citizenry.
Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America also made an astute observation about what the evolution of society into a bureaucratic despotism.
Maybe what comes next for philosophy is a major turning point in our understanding of the nature of reality? Last 25 years of quantum mechanics (double slit experiment, quantum eraser, entanglement) have raised the probability that Neil’s Bohr was right “everything we think is real, is made of things that are fundamentally not real”.
If matter is ultimately discredited (and time & space) as unreal in the underlying reality, that opens the door wide for replacing materialism with idealism. Religious thinking and practice could flourish under that kind of revaluation in understanding.
I think you guys, and especially our host here, need to read Ilana Mercer’s book, which provides a much more positive spin on the collapse of (corrupt) authority: https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Revolution-Creative-Destruction-Deconstructed-ebook/dp/B01HQN8V6I
This book is partly responsible for a increase of optimism on my part even if the Democrats win next year.
I think this book will help change your perspective on what’s going on. It certainly did for me.
Oh, and one more point. Two plus two equals four is not a “truth”, it is a tautology.
In other words it’s a ‘trivial truth” which is to say it’s always true because it’s proof is a tautology. 😉
First, “truth” is the accurate perception or conception of reality, and nothing more. “Wisdom” is the encapsulation of knowledge about what “works” for any particular group of people in a particular environment, and “works” means that it maximizes the ability of these people to survive and thrive. “Religion” is the mechanism of passing wisdom between generations and ensuring that the “people” possess the tool of wisdom to help them survive and thrive. “Authority” is a term of civilization and incorporates the various ancillary sources of wisdom that have arisen subsequent to religious practices; for example science.
Tom, well said. One must attempt to adapt from those universal truths if one wishes to establish a “new” working morality as Exile pointed out.
“What’s missing from the analogy is a new religion that provides a coherent order to the gathering chaos.” I’m inclined to think we need nothing new, primarily because I trust Solomon on this point – “there’s nothing new under the sun” when it comes to contrasting the various philosophies and worldviews. Humans are good at updating and retreading the old paths, but ultimately there’s a finite set of possible worldviews.
The necessary discussion, then, is which extant worldview makes all of human experience coherent and intelligible. Yes, there will be knowledge gaps that science is unable to answer; enter philosophy, metaphysics, and religion. Once people choose their metaphysical worldview (e.g. materialist/Marxist, Hindu, agnostic, Christian) then it’s the debater’s job to press the antithesis – to point out the hypocrisies and inconsistencies in that particular worldview. Nothing wrong with having that discussion as long as its honest, and we’re honest with ourselves about our ASSUMED presuppositions, which everyone has. There are no neutral minds. But seeking true-truth and the intelligibility of human experience is the key.
For my part I’m with C.S. Lewis … for all the unknowns that are too large for man’s finite mind, Christianity is the most coherent and intelligible of the competing philosophies. For instance, no one can lay claim to using logic without first having a worldview that explains their rationale for logic. Logic isn’t a material thing with molecular structure, so it didn’t evolve. There isn’t another religion or philosophy I’m aware of that can explain why humans are endowed with a logical mind. And science (or scientism) ASSUMES logic, so obviously unable to help explain anything about it. The honest, probing evolutionists when trying to explain human consciousness eventually devolve to conjecture and guesswork ,,, this isn’t the expertise I want to rely upon when deciding issues of moral certainty and eternal justice.
Sure, I know lots of people will want to immediately seize upon the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of Christianity, and that’s fair. But be careful in differentiating between the hypocrisies of those who claim to be Christian (error-prone humans) vs the alleged hypocrisies of Christ himself. Many an atheist has sought to prove the latter a liar or a lunatic, and eventually arrived at a decision that He was (and is) Lord of the Universe.
“What’s missing from the analogy is a new religion that provides a coherent order to the gathering chaos.”
We were progressing toward such a religion a century or so ago as Christianity was fading in the West. It was called “Scientism” and was based on observable reality and the scientific method for determining/verifying such. The conflict then was between the old religion, Christianity, and the new religion, Scientism. There were skirmishes and great battles, but a new authority was being established. A line was being draw between moral teachings and Natural law. In the end, both “isms” would be more complementary than exclusionary.
What happened? Post modernism. Post modernism’s infiltration and usurpation of Science—and Christianity! While both the great forces of Christianity and Science fought over petty concerns, they were both being subverted.
Science is a wonderful field of study, but scientism was found wanting; scientism’s bastard children were humanism and postmodernism because science couldn’t (and simply cannot) answer the great philosophical question “What is the purpose of man?” Scientism’s answer to that question is … there IS no purpose – it’s all meaningless chaos. The moral teachings of scientism? There aren’t any. When there is no purpose and nothing that transcends the material world you get the “God is dead” philosophy … the prevailing worldview of the 20th century. And that hasn’t worked out so well. So to Z-man’s original point, we definitely need to reevaluate on whose authority we have concepts of what is right, true, and beautiful.
Some good comments about truth being stated, but I still insist that’s not the taproot. If there IS a transcendent truth … WHY? And why are we endowed with logic? Why is there such a thing as natural law, or justice, or love, or any of the myriad of abstract, non-material concepts. They’re either social constructs as the progressives say, and thus malleable and changeable. Or, there’s a Prime Mover, a Divine Providence, a Power that established true-truth. Centuries of philosophy have delivered a very helpful analysis … life is completely unintelligible and pointless without an all-powerful Sovereign, yet Scientism arbitrarily rules that option out.
Z’s tugging at the toughest of roots in citing the need for a new religion. We’re fighting a religious war right now without a unified front. The Anti-White faith, animated by its founding myth of Holocaustianity, has to be countered on an existential and moral level.
Modern “Judeo-Christianity” is too doctrinally and institutionally subverted to hold the line. The other major faiths suffer from similar entanglements with Talmudry and universalism that runs counter to everything we know of human biology and psychology. We might be able to overcome the worst in ourselves, but trying to overcome our own biology is too much to ask of any mortal. Taken to their logical extremes, universalist faiths like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism seem to make life on Earth impossible. This was the carrot Objectivism dangled to lure me down Alisa Rosenbaum’s rabbit-hole – the search for something that morally sanctioned life on Earth.
As a recovering Randroid who studied Kant to “know the enemy,” I’ve also given up the quest for a “provable” morality. There’s a point where logical deconstruction and analysis simply stops working, a conceptual singularity where our methods break down. We can’t know “why the universe exists” or “what my purpose for existence is” by any means presently conceivable. We believe these things wholly on faith.
A movement predicated on mass conversion is possible (ask Mohammed) but they almost always use existing beliefs, the psycho-cultural strata laid down in childhood which Haidt has proven to be so resistant to change, his “flavors” of morality.
Given these limits, I think the most practical “new” religion is one that syncretizes the existing ones. Paganism already allows for multiple gods of multiple peoples. Our Greek and Roman ancestors believed every family had its own spirits, as well as tribes and nations. Buddhism has no problem with everyone finding their own “path” to what it sees as enlightenment – there is no “one” way.
Christianity and Islam would need some doctrinal reinterpretation to be compatible with the biological, psychological, cultural and political realities of bio-diverse human life on Earth and prevent logical over-extension of their rhetoric from turning them into a pacifisic pathologically altruistic suicide pact or a homicide pact to convert the world at gunpoint respectively.
The other Abrahamic faith provides the blueprint and historical proof of concept. To be ethnostate-compatible, Christians and Muslims need to elevate their loyalty to their tribe in much the way the Jews have, to see their tribe as Chosen, to fuse their religion with the tribe’s other expressions in culture and politics and see them as an organic wholistic expression of God or Allah’s will. They can claim to be the best faith, but not the only faith, and recognize that “have no other God before me” means you choose to be loyal to Christ or Allah, not that no other gods exist or that they’re all evil.
This would seal the theological backdoor that Talmudists and other self-appointed prophets have used to usurp the highest loyalties of a people by claiming supreme moral authority. When rabbis like Prager called on the people to betray their governments because “higher law,” Christians and Muslims could laugh at them and say “just as your people believe, I know there is no higher law than that of my Chosen people, and I live to secure our existence and the future of our children.”
Muslims have mastered the “BFYTW” of their faith. Don’t be fooled by the soft and friendly outliers. The basis of the Muslim following is extremely tribal. The tribe itself is established for the perpetuation of a low IQ people living in a place with few resources and little to sustain human life. The aggressive exercise of “enslave, tax and kill” is a logical response to such an environment. Some Muslims living in the west have given a self-actualizing and ecumenical sheen to their faith, but freely exercising such things is apostasy. The root of Muslim faith is kill the others and take their stuff. Because FYTW. The Muslim creed is not “God is great”. It is “our God is greater than yours”. Don’t be fooled. Fooling non-followers is an explicit part of their game, they call it “taqiyya”.
I read Richard Spencer’s stuff back in my neo-con days, I’m not fooled. They’re no significant threat to us if we don’t live with them though. Western Muslims are the ones who go splodey, the idea that they were hatching world domination plots in caves in A-Stan and Iraq was Jewish taqiyya.
I’m just setting ground rules for a theology that harmonizes the legitimacy and primacy of ethno-nationalism for all faiths. That’s not to say we should mix with or lay down for any foreign tribe. Let them worship Allah in their lands and stay out of ours.
You should expect a resurgence of Exploding Muhammad’s.
Now that the FBI is no longer pushing the Russiagate bullshit full-time, their super sleuths will be freed up to reestablish the supply of Burka Bombers that have been so conspicuously absent during the past three years.
Bile, two relevant news items:
“Turn empty Catholic churches into mosques, French Muslim leader says” — RT World News
“Turkey is threatening to “open the gates” to Europe, potentially unleashing a torrent of migrants who have been kept inside its borders in exchange for massive payoffs.”
Either tear down the old temples, or kill ’em, gut ’em, wear the skin.
The Red-Green alliance.
Looks like our cat ladies and girlyboys are going to get all the lethal self-assurance they can handle. As was said here, “low IQ, violent men are catnip to them.”
They have played the exploding Muslim thing out. The entrapment wing of the ADL, the FBI, is moving on to White Sooopreeemism.
Spot in Dutch.
Paganism already allows for multiple gods of multiple peoples. Our Greek and Roman ancestors believed every family had its own spirits, as well as tribes and nations. Buddhism has no problem with everyone finding their own “path” to what it sees as enlightenment – there is no “one” way.
That doesn’t seem much better than liberalism to me.
One of my problems with modern Christians is, that it seems that everybody is allowed their own, personal Jesus, a Savior who is custom-fitted to your individual moral flavor. Against gay marriage? Your Jesus just so happens to agree with you! Pro gay marriage? Jesus loves sodomy! Pro abortion, anti abortion – Jesus is a man for all seasonings.
Old school religion isn’t coming back, and new age religions are useless at best, but most often downright ridiculous. We need to find a way forward on a basis of a secular moral framework. That’s not just a philosophical observation, but a practical one: as soon as you start with the Jesus-stuff and the Bible quotes, you’ve lost 80% of your European allies.
Real theologians will probably tear apart my simpleton understanding, but modern Protestant Christianity, as it is practiced today, most closely aligns with examining the king’s turds and deciding what it means, IMO. Everything is up for grabs in some sort of debating society among the credentialed ministry. Catholicism and American Jews are following that lead. To Felix’s point, all theological roads seem to lead to a defense of the biases of any given speaker. Helluva way to try to establish authority.
Trying to impose authority contrary to the admixture of existing religion and morality is the hardest method. Adapting the religion/morality to biological and secular priorities is what I’m aiming for.
You missed my point. The point is we’re not looking for “one true faith” for the here-and-now movement. I’m talking about a secular moral framework that each of these religions has to fit into to be compatible with an ethno-state. particularly that we’re not letting religious authorities claim “higher law” over the secular powers. You’re going to lose 80% of your American allies if you start with the Asatru stuff. We can have a framework that legitimizes both and we must subordinate religion to secular tribalism and biology-first priorities of race survival. Religion serves the people.
You missed my point. I’m talking about a secular moral framework that each of these religions has to fit into to be compatible with an ethno-state.
I see. But I don’t understand why we can’t just cut out the mumbo-jumbo and go straight to the underlying, secular moral framework.
You’re going to lose 80% of your American allies if you start with the Asatru stuff.
Asatru is not a thing in Europe. Yes, we’ve got a few fart-sniffing hippies imbibing holy chamomile tea and whatnot, but the hardcore Asatru societies are in America.
The secular morals are a lot easier to push when you can use the existing religious-moral framework rather than push against it. A lot of our in-fighting starts with religion and I’m looking to adopt a framework that minimizes that friction. No matter what flavor of paganism you favor, American Christians won’t go there. I’m an exception, have a Greco-Roman view already, but when we’re talking about a moral framework we can all work within, I think it’s important to remind Christians that Germanized medieval Christianity was ethno-centric, not kumbaya, and that being dissident Right doesn’t mean you’re a heretic or pagan. Globohomo has been peeling Christians away from us with that line of argument.
That’s a rather jaded view on religion, isn’t it? Just tell people that their religion is really about whatever morals you want them to subscribe to? I’d hope we wouldn’t need biblical exegeses to explain why ethno-centric nations are better than multicultural ones.
being dissident Right doesn’t mean you’re a heretic or pagan. Globohomo has been peeling Christians away from us with that line of argument.
Fair point, but it also speaks to the divisive potential of religion.
It’s not jaded, it’s factual. How else does syncretism happen? Scripture doesn’t say what day to celebrate Jesus’ birthday. Christian doctrine on divestment of wealth piggy-backed on an existing pagan tradition of civic largesse/noblesse oblige.
The more compatible a belief system can be presented to be with existing mores, the less resistance it encounters. Like any other exercise in rhetoric and persuasion, the less “buy in” you demand, the easier the sell. Neither the transcendent beliefs of pagan-style spirituality or Christianity are profaned by this approach except to the extent that it rejects “hard monotheism,” which is itself an imperfect incomplete human interpretation of a mystical experience.
The Christians who practice kumbaya do need biblical exegesis to explain why ethno-centrism is better.
I see what you mean and I understand the utility, but I still think it’s bordering intellectual sharp practice. If I were a Christian, I’d not be prone to take moral lectures from a crypto-atheist playing the God Game for political reasons, no offense.
I consider Christians allies, but I believe they should be left to sort out their own politics. God knows the discussion always goes tits-up when I chip in.
Jung noted
“what you resist not only persists, but will grow in size.”
Since our society is avoiding entering an unavoidable collapse anyway most attempts at solutions are too complicated and on a large scale will make things worse
Trying to invent a new philosophy or a new religion rarely works
You can save you and yours , maybe a tribe and if we are able to organize remove a lot of people and close the border.
Over time, everything will work itself out and in a longer time frame, a couple of hundred years , the US will mostly be devout and back to Christian, White, Agrarian.
Jung noted: “what you resist not only persists, but will grow in size.”
Talmudic nonsense.
in a couple of hundred years , the US will mostly be devout and back to Christian, White, Agrarian.
I doubt it. Atheism is a red pill – a one-way ticket. If you’re not Christianized from birth, you’re as likely to become Christian, as a devout Christian is to convert to Hinduism, or (and I’m sorry to reproduce this hateful analogy, but it is necessary) suddenly decide to believe in Santa.
Which is to say that it sometimes happens, but that’s humans for you: not a lick of sense.
Trying to invent a new philosophy or a new religion rarely works
Just so. And every philosophy or religion is new to someone who encounters it the first time.
Talmudic or not, In the case of catabolic collapse do to complexity and cost most actions and efforts will make things worse.
Some things are inevitable just and I while I could be wrong, I suspect complexity driven collapse is a done deal
Right now though, more or less, every machine we make is one less baby born.
And note we’ve been in this cycle for around 50 years (1.8 TFR in 1973) non stop and every action has been to double down
Amusingly a friend of mine went from Catholic to Hindu having learned from a friend of ours (whose was mulatto though born to Hinduism) . He wasn’t a very good Hindu but he was at least as good a Hindu as a Catholic
This however is an anomaly and you are basically correct.
Now as for Christian vs Atheist
The Amish population doubles every twenty years
https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/plain-growing-amish-population-doubles-every-years-now-totaling-in/article_caa902dc-8fb3-11e5-b08a-c33a7cce45ff.html
The article notes than Holmes county is within ten years of majority Amish !
whereas
Atheist and secular fertility is very low, at most 2
Because high devotion high retention Christians and others tend to 3 or more children and keep enough of them (you need only keep 2.2 from secularization to grow) and the rest of the people have low fertility and high mortality do to bad choices, they will grow in numbers as a percentage
The secularists die off and the religious don’t. This process is a slower version of how the US became more Latino.
Trying to make a new religion is unnecessary, Christianity is fine and secularism though strong now is doomed.
1.6 for secularists vs 3.0 for devout along for losses on each side means in time the devout win
Collapse means the cities get abandoned as it becomes too expensive or difficult to maintain them (c.f a strong likelihood of typhus and leprosy in L.A.) the population dies back and the prepared and rural have an advantage
No one knows how bad it will be but I could see a population of under a hundred million easy
The Anti-White faith, animated by its founding myth of Holocaustianity,
Not Holocaustianity. Slavery. Have you slept through the last 4 weeks??
Everything the left promotes leads to chaos. All the way down the line from attacks on religion, law and order, the border, down to the family unit, including attacks on fathers and masculinity, and the blurring of genders and so on. When every Dem presidential candidate supports free health care for invaders and the left promotes gender choice for very young children, that can only bring chaos. Increasingly to think the US will hold together seems laughable, unless it’s held together by force.
Wolf, you are a bit backward on cause and effect. Everything the Left does promotes chaos because everything the Left does is *designed/intended* to promote chaos. To promote chaos/anarchy is to undermine the current status quo and legitimacy of the governing consensus. When the governing consensus disintegrates, the governmental authority dissolves. The Left may then take over and install a new government with themselves in charge.
Now this sounds very conspirous in nature, as if millions of people take their marching orders from a central command. But it is not. Most Lefties as they say, are useful idiots. They haven’t a clue.
Religion (in in the most general sense) is present in all human societies. As the West rejects Christianity as the organizing religion, candidate replacements are regularly being put forth. Global warming/climate change/etc., was tried, but its reliance on apocalyptic prophecies make it problematic in the long run.
The latest candidate is anti-whiteness, which provides a hierarchy of good and evil. In particular, the ultimate evil is a traditionalist white Christian straight male. As each of these elements is removed the evil gets less and goodness grows, until the ultimate good is achieved: the progressive non-white (((non-Christian))) pan-sexual non-binary.
This construct, of course, is also a non-starter in the long run, but it is proving an effective cudgel for anathematizing heritage American culture and people.
It’s hard to envision a good ending for this. Interesting times ahead…
The hysterical reaction to Trump actually can be analyzed if you break it down a bit.
1. A lot of leftists were genuinely blind to the fact that Hillary is a shrill, bitter, hideous demon-thing. They actually thought she was a Nice White Lady On the Right Side of History, And It Was Her Turn. Trump was the Grinch Who Stole Christmas.
2. Other leftists thought the demographic fix was finally locked in permanently, whites would be outflanked for good, and the presidency would be an endless conga line of Obama clones and Nice White Ladies until the rise of black Mao Zedong. So Trump ruined History for them.
3. The neocon reaction was really just the Jewish hind-brain reflexive paranoid response, which sees Hitler and Cossacks everywhere. Trump was drawing large crowds of pissed-off White people, and to the Jews, this can mean only one thing: the goyim are on the March!! It’s a Nuremberg rally!! They’re gonna put us in CAAAAAMPS! It’s happening agaaaaaiiin!
Jews have an absurdly selective, self-serving, self-pitying view of history, and at the same time, they also have a guilty conscience: they know exactly what they’ve done to this country and its people, how grievous and extensive their crimes really are, and they’re terrified that if Whites ever figure it out, White vengeance will be epic in scale. Trump came very close to turning the kitchen lights on at 4 AM and showing America just how many cockroaches there are, scrambling to hide under the fridge. And since the neocons are nothing if not cockroaches, who could blame them if they started to sweat?
Of these, I’d say that number two is probably the most important. After the Romney debacle of 2012, the Left honestly thought that they had all future elections in the bag. Like the Marxists that they are, they thought that they understood the underlying dynamic of history. Like Marx, they turned out to be mistaken.
The left thought that the Democrats would continue to rule with a succession of Obama-like authoritarians and a complicit and ever more creative judiciary. Trump temporarily snatched away the prize they were sure they had, and tjis epic tantrum ensued.
The Left always overreaches. It has been our saving grace.
Yes, this. As my Dad always said, the Devil always overplays his hand.
They actually thought she was a Nice White Lady On the Right Side of History, And It Was Her Turn. Trump was the Grinch Who Stole Christmas.
Reminds me of this brilliant meme from election day.
Since the reaction to Trump and his supporters has been so hysterical, what’s going to happen when actual white nationalism becomes more out in the open, such as when mainstream political leaders or media figures espouse it? If that day comes, the reaction will be something we’ve never seen.
Violence of course. But violence out in the open is not to be feared. It will wake people up and lend awareness to the lie within which we now live.
That would be an existential threat to their vision and way of life. They would have no choice but to react accordingly.
Considering the fact the most hysterical and loudest anti-American leftards are white, WN will be a colossal fail. As it stands even a 100% white America will continue in the same direction of the past 50 years, only the magnitude of the plunge will decrease.
Hillary was the gorilla on the stage that all the lefties refused to see:
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/jan/21/jordan-peterson-self-help-author-12-steps-interview
So if we are all monsters, how are we to be saved? The first thing is to understand how our worldview evolves. Crucial to this is a 20-year-old experiment on inattention – the famous Invisible Gorilla experiment. This involved recording two teams of basketball players and playing back the game to observers, who were asked to count the number of passes their team made. During the game, a man in a gorilla suit walks on to the court, pounds his chest and then walks off. More than 50% of the observers, astonishingly, did not notice the gorilla at all.
( http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html )
“…until the rise of black Mao Zedong….”
The left definitely hankers for a “great leap forward” in which all opponents are slaughtered.
The rabble tears it all down, in the absence of any authority, yet it wears the cloaks of authority (religion, government, “science”, the courts, and even history) as deceptive clothing. The cloaks have no meaning any more, yet the rabble parades around in them, acting as if they still count for something. The idea that the rest of us do not recognize their credentials and costumes really pisses them off. They think the costume makes the man, and because we won’t afford them the same respect we used to give others similarly costumed, it drives them nuts.
“They think the costume makes the man, and because we won’t afford them the same respect we used to give others similarly costumed, it drives them nuts.”
“I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV…” Then the actor speaks excathedra about some health issue. You’ve hit the nail on the head: the illusion is reality to them.
Well said Brother…
We have no commonly agreed upon source of truth and authority. The only things holding us together are inertia and greed. Either civil war or revolution will be inevitable, probably after the next economic downturn.
I’d add that part of the clown world glue that holds this ship of fools together is the anarcho-tyranny of state monopolistic violence and coercion that holds a certain group to a standard while exempting a growing collective of groups from not just those standards, but any standards.
One idea that gets lost in the civil war now debates is that one side is already violent and has been for a long time.
One side has undermined natural, voluntary compliance with authority grounded in truth, ie earned via competence and pro-community generative efforts, with complete submission to illegitimate authority grounded in nothing but the ether of Progress and state violence. Its a war. The occupied needn’t fight back to make it official.
Faux authority can survive a long time on the fumes of public trust and goodwill (aka white idealism and muh constitutional delusion) but those are liquidating collateral that are replaced by the absurd; which of course further undermines what remains of the truth, which then can only result in moar state violence (and its proxies like antifa) moving from covert to overt.
Just as a good family man trying to do the right thing has no authority in his own kitchen, but is under the yoke of complete responsibility for everything from his kitchen to some sloot on the casting couch, white people have been convinced that they are responsible for all of the poor outcomes, as determined by the prog overlords, past, present, and future, but simultaneously have no claim to any authority for same.
All responsibility and no authority. As a middle age man in the market, so to say, I see this shit sammy close up and personal. Why would I own all the liability without the authority? Its absurd. That is the cucks life and goodwhities are the biggest cucks going.
That is the sleeping giant. Civil war or any variant will never happen if white people cannot awaken from that slumber.
Sure we see examples of anarcho-tyrrany all the time. However most of us, myself included are too damn comfortable. Pay the occasional ticket, swallow humiliation that our ancestors would killed over, do not kick up a fuss, and we are left alone for the most part.
Things need to get worse. As long as a critical mass can insulate themselves from the worst of the poz, things will continue as they are. We need the American left to react the way the British did after the Boston Tea Party.
We then need to give our people a convincing alternative that is morally justifiable.
Agree. Along some axis of comfort/discomfort and risk/reward we choose to be held under tyranny until the pain of such is too much.
That is understandable, a natural human response – especially absent the moral and spiritual universal as an anchor.
The trick for me, and I assume many others, is to move toward an alternative in advance of extreme pain, chaos, collapse etc.
That requires not just an appetite for some measure of discomfort, but first, a large measure of awareness that (a) the risk is already greater than we think, (b) our comfort is largely a precarious facade that is going up in real costs every year, and (c) the risk of just being (white, male, Christian or any combo) is going up too.
But most importantly the real rewards await us; what we serve matters – and alignment of our lives with the truth is full of nourishment that the saccharine progressive consumer comfort rituals can never provide.
At some point my moral imperative is just that the current culture is evil and so I am compelled to cull it from my life.
In terms of building a new alternative(s), whites will have to forge a way to incentivize cooperation in the name of self-interest.
In our machiavellian free for all, this will require less ‘muh 401k’ and more ‘my people, my community’.
Both White identity and self-interest have been indoctrinated and drugged out of us.
So how then do we connect a bunch of pleasure seeking, conflict avoidant, identity averse, prog status addicts?
For now its triage. So those who are awake and able need to lock arms however we can. The rest will have to stroke out on carbs and couch time before they hit the gym.
Well boys I’m still here in my corner advocating to build Communities as well as doing my best to do so…You are welcome to join me if you’re actually serious about moving beyond just words and cyberspace…Thing is I should be the one not worried about what’s coming because I am comfortable but can see the writing on the wall and want to be able to withstand the storm that is coming…
Cuz there is none. We just have to agree on something. I think the problem we may be facing now is that boundary, the limits on success and progress imposed by our biology.
True authority is organic. It is the cultural equivalent of what ecologists term a “climax community.” It does not – cannot – spring up overnight, and while it has to be tended, it cannot be willed into existence.
But as we are up against a clock, some sort of placeholder has to be arranged. But what ought this to look like?
100% agree. Authority derived from legitimacy/consent is an emergent property. Imposed authority can become legitimized but Machiavelli spends a lot of The Prince detailing the problems usurpers face before they are both loved and feared. My ideal ethnostate order would approach authority like Rome, as pietas, a merger of honoring the gods, the state and the culture, and that takes a long time to develop. The “placeholder” would be a syncretism of existing authorities along the Jewish model – sorting our what’s required to live as Whites on this Earth and making that the new “right.”
White is right.
Those who give up Christ eventually must pay their respects to Muhammad.
Jack B, eliminating political allies due to a coincidental lack of agreement on religious faith looks like a wasteful way to pick allies.
>>>In the current age, normal religion has been sidelined, not only as a source of authority, but as a legitimate part of public discourse. <<<
One religious group is still the final authority on all matters….guess which one!
The Amish?
They pretty much own the solid wood furniture market, so it’s a natural step to assume Total Global Mastery isn’t far behind…
Excellent analysis of our present state in the west.
To me I see it in my lifetime like with the Beatles John Lennon song Imagine. The lyrics imagined a world without religion and hierarchy.
And this world was magic.
“ a lack of what ought to be” and what that means in the modern world is very insightful.
The Z Man is one of our best!!!
Well said. We are in a transitory time, and we should remember that. Our opponents have no plan beyond tearing down white society. That destruction will succeed in most white countries because whites as a whole lost their way and no longer have the will to fight back.
But that destructive process will destroy our opponents’ ability to function themselves as they have no ability to maintain a functioning society. We are not taking on an organized force with a grand plan for the future. We’re watching an emotionally-charged mob destroy and ransack the palace. There’s not much that we can do now, but when the palace is in ruins and the valuables all stolen, the mob will be lost as what to do next.
An organized and motivated force can easily carve out a spot for itself against such a rabble.
Ah, but what comes next is indeed the million dollar question. I wonder how the Japanese hold it all together (or seem to) with no religion? It certainly helps that they are not multi cultural, but so were the European countries until recently. It seems like multi racial might be doable, but certainly not multi cultural.
The Japanese have hundreds of shrines that are well maintained and millions of people visit them regularly. Japan also supports traditional crafts and customs, giving high honors to the best artisans.
The answer is that the Japanese hold it together by maintaining and cherishing the traditions of their culture. They have not needed religion in the Western sense.
Anyway, Western religion has given up on Western culture so it is no longer of any use.
I saw a piece a long time ago about the Japanese funding traditional and cultural artists and artisans. I think they were called “Living Treasures”.
Fantastic idea. If we can first stop the hordes from tearing down our statues, portraits, dedication names and generally erasing our past… first.
That is because Western religion like our pseudoscience is Universalist and Christianity in particular believes that it needs to preach to and save anyone. This dilutes its ability to serve the West by drawing away attention from our peoples and since Men of the West have different folkways than Men of the East
On the other Shinto is a Japanese religion and while occasionally others may practice it, the faith is by the Japanese for the Japanese and so still serves them
It’s a homogeneous society. There no low IQ people screaming that any display of talent is Japanese Supremacy
they don’t let any non-japanese live there.
Are they “holding it together”? I’ve heard their latest generation of ‘grass eaters’ put our soy boys to shame. They don’t pursue women, they don’t have any interests in home ownership, and live only to work, play video games and read manga comic books.
The fertility rate here is only a bit higher higher here than there (White TFR 1.6, Asian US or japan TFR 1.4) and it would not surprise me if the Gen Y US TFR is lower still
Overall practically no one is having children in the developed world, even Latinos in my part of So Cal have conspicuously less children than 10 years ago. with a TFR of 2 or less, under replacement
However Japan is safe, clean and orderly unlike our nation.
Next comes economic collapse and war. In the war new and capable leaders emerge, they form new elite and then will be western rebirth. Like it have always been. Rotten degenerate elite and institutions away and then new ones. Things come beyond repair and must replaced time to time.
Japan does have a religion, it’s a religion that has made a semi-successful transition to the modern era.
It loooks significantly different from Christianity, but that’a a feature, not a bug.
As for how they maintained it, read “Checkmating Christianity: What India Can Learn From Japan” (google)
The TL/DR is they figured out what the Christians were up to, expelled the foreigners and imposed a death sentence in the converts.
The Muslims, who our opponents so gleefully welcome into the west in large numbers will be very happy to be that organized force to fill that space the left destroyed. Be careful what you wish for, left.
Muslims are motivated but not particularly capable. Right now, Muslims look impressive because they’re marginally organized and willing to physically fight day in and day out in the streets. Whites are not.
If whites ever regain their willingness to fight back on the ground, in their own neighborhoods, we’d take Muslims out in a couple of weeks. Look at what happened to blacks in L.A. They scared away whites but have been ethnically cleansed from many areas by Mexicans, who aren’t exactly the most capable people on the planet but are willing to fight.
There’s no group on this planet that whites can’t beat – IF we’re willing to actually get dirty and fight.
There’s no question whites are the most capable, but it’s the willingness that’s in question. There’s also the question of numbers. That’s a bigger problem in Europe than the US in regard to Muslims. They may not be very capable, but at some point numbers matter and they’re still flooding the West, as almost every white person is still terrified of being called a racist.
That’s the problem with the moderate muslim neighbor everyone knows. As soon as they are in the majority, that moderate neighbor votes for sharia and the muslim brotherhood. Democracy is then extinguished by demographics.
A similar issue arises with the “nice black couple” moving into your neighborhood. They may be nice and reasonably bright, but their kids will regress to the mean and their nieces and nephews who inevitably come to live with them will already be at the mean.
It’s why you can – and should – judge an individual on the basis of race if you’re going to have any interaction with them beyond one generation. My CivNat and libertarian friends hate that example because they know that I’m right.
They don’t care as long as the white male is destroyed…
Techies are highly organized and motivated. Some of them must be getting sick of empowering the mob.
Our “opponents” – are parasites.
A parasite that kills the host and/or stops it’s chosen host from propagating is not going to be a very successful parasite.
But to your point about an “organized force with a grand plan for the future”….. I’m going to disagree somewhat.
They do seem to be organized, but for as long as I have paid attention to the Commie left – they definitely have never had any “grand plan for the future” – at least not one based in anything in the objective knowledge that Zman talked about. From my observation they have had VISIONS of a future – one that is based on a number of human foibles and faults – and one that they wish to implement as a way of aggrandizing those faults and making them acceptable.
There is a Jordan Peterson video on Youtube where he talks about this. I can’t remember what he said verbatim, but the jist of it was that we are all faulted and potential a-holes. The trick is recognize this – and do something to make life better and make yourself better. The left – especially the commie left … believes none of this. From what I can see their entire worldview is made up of blaming somebody else for all of THEIR faults – and destroying the world in order to make themselves less of a bag of losers.
It is unfortunate that there are so many millions that buy into this virus of the mind.
Calsdad. They are ideologues that believe in the infinite perfectibility of man—without of course sufficient understanding of, or belief in, the causes (Natural) for those imperfectabilities. Christianity stands in their way, Science stands in their way. So both must be destroyed, or controlled through subversion.
So Z-man asks (rhetorically) for the new authority that we can turn to when seeking truth. A century or so, that looked it might be Science—and their high priests, scientists—but today that is seen to be fruitless as so many scientists are willing to speak falsely when science conflicts with their Lefty ideology.
tearing down white society.
Don’t be naive. The opponents are also tearing down Christian society in Africa, the Middle East, and China. Maybe they don’t count because they’re not “white”?
The idea of “ought” implies that there are moral laws in the universe and that is explicitly denied by the left. I wager they will find out that they are wrong
Whitney said: “The idea of “ought” implies that there are moral laws in the universe and that is explicitly denied by the left. I wager they will find out that they are wrong.”
Whether it’s true or not. A will ran society needs most people to more or less believe it’s true.
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.”
-Voltaire
The first question is whether the “ought” is objectively true. Lewis answers “yes” in Abolition of Man, as does Ayn Rand with her objectivism.
Before you celebrate “science”, between Climate Change and Transgenderism, people are anti-science. The “is” depends on your opinion?
Just because you don’t believe there is a war between God and the Devil, Good and Evil, doesn’t mean that they and the war doesn’t exist. That is the point of propaganda, to deflect attention into trying for a futile peace or convincing us there is no war so we don’t fight when we would fight on the side of good.
The transgender movement shows the source. What if I suggest killing, stealing from, or cheating someone on the most liberal college campus. They are still as objectivst as Rand on the evil of such. But gay marriage? Contraception? Fornication? They might dislike divorce as a victim. No, they are only moral relatvists on sex. But in order to show that they are really good people they find something else to attack like a statue of someone more than a century dead. The phantoms of white supremacists, of which there is too small a supply.
I became an outhouse objectivist of sorts in my younger days, and find little wrong with the philosophy today. It wasn’t perfect, but the closest I could come with what I knew then. The problem my political enemies always threw at me was this: “By what right do you feel justified in imposing your moral and ethical code on me…?”. I had no ready answer.
Later I found that Christianity… and I believe I found an honest rebuttal to that one: “By what right do you abandon all morals responsibilities and ethics?”
Z, like so many, gets this one absolutely bass ackward. Real, honest Christianity isn’t about controlling others. It’s about controlling YOURSELF. Not only that, it is about answering for what you do, and making it right. This is why the queers, the feminists, and the welfare class hate the faith and have migrated away from it, or actively seek to subvert and pervert it. That is why the migration away from the faith took place.
We have chosen to hang separately and given the people arrayed against the dissidents and the faithful… I personally think that is an excellent call. At least I will get to enjoy their misery and see them swing first.
Christianity isn’t about controlling others. It’s about controlling YOURSELF
Yes. But ZMan did not ‘get it wrong,’ as he did NOT postulate that Christianity was about controlling others. All he said was that Christianity was the authority in moral matters.
“Real, honest Christianity isn’t about controlling others. It’s about controlling YOURSELF.”
Yes, but don’t get carried away with this. Does God have designs for society as well (e.g. the Social Kingship of Christ)? You can coerce others if their behavior harms others, including in the sense of leading people away from the Faith, leading them toward false and evil thinking that will keep them from controlling themselves and obeying God, if we’re talking about very traditional Christianity.
I remember Donoso Cortes, in one of his essays (not his book titled ‘Essays’) or speeches writing that men who will not control themselves internally (control, fight against, their lower, fallen nature), must be controlled by an external authority. When the one drops in society, the other must rise to compensate in order to preserve order and stave off anarchy. That really struck me, and stuck with me. Donoso Cortes made me leave Anglo-American political thought, including Burke, behind, and step onto the continent, and I’ve never much looked back (exceptions would be Robert Filmer and Thomas Carlyle, although the latter was heavily indebted to German idealism and literature).
Old liberalism, individualism and liberty (i.e. not “controlling others”), looks to me to have provided the opening for the Progressive coalition to rise to dominance, and now impose, coerce, using contrived argument built on top of liberalism (“Hate Speech”), their own designs on society, including overturning all things traditional Christian. In my opinion, old Christian society is dead because Christians opted to stop coercing it into existence.
Christianity is about conformity. A convert conforms himself to God and a community of believers. One born into the faith is conformed to the community but then needs to conform to God. Z Man is completely right about moral authority underlying a culture. Paganism failed, now Christianity has failed, (Scientism is rather a joke), and so what comes next out of the chaos?
I contend it can only be a new form of Christianity less dependent on Tradition and Scripture, more dependent on Experience and Faith. Perhaps the monastic experience (personal knowledge and revelation) having a wider acceptance and embrace (as somewhat seen in Buddhism) centered on Christ’s resurrection (a fact experience) rather than a sacrifice which is metaphor rather than a fact.
The crazy pentecostals are based on Experience and Faith. “God wants you to send me money so I can get another jet”.
We need to be crystal clear with our terms. When our esteemed blog host said that Christianity served as the authority for matters moral and ethical – he might have been more correct to say that the church was the authority far more so than the Scripture. The fact is that all through history – as now – the various churches veered from the Scriptures and often operated in direct defiance of them.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the faith and the church are two very, very different things. That is why you can get churches that pander to the promiscuous baby momma welfare queens and the queers – and that in turn explains the collapse of the church as a moral authority. These same parties have pretty much done in the political parties, the Donks much more so than the repubs – many of whom still pay lip service to the Scripture and the Bible.
And not to preach or put too fine a point on that… but God will not be mocked. It may not be correct to say God hates fags… but from what I am seeing… He isn’t going out of His way to intervene with them, Darwin, or Murphy.
well, this will be popular. “God is not mocked”. True. God calls homosexuality an “abomination”. Also true.I am a sinner saved by Grace. The unmerited, unearned, Grace of God through Christ.
“the various churches veered from the Scriptures and often operated in direct defiance of them”
Every one of the 100,001 and counting denominations alleges that, and nearly all really believe themselves to be correct in their views as well. I don’t want to rehash the European wars of religion and such. The division of Christianity has been central in its collapse. You have touched on the great issue with regards to Christianity: who’s Christianity, what are the true doctrinal and moral teachings, who’s the authority on this? The Ultramontanism of de Maistre and the like would have provided the clearest answer to this question, but with Vatican II and all that’s followed, the Catholic Church has quite wholly collapsed to the very liberalism which 19th century Ultramontanism was meant to battle. I have my own opinions on Christianity, both as a whole and in terms of theological debates within it, but redividing over these things is a luxury we 100% do not have. You need to reach out and embrace valuable assets when they come along. Think of the Nationalist alliance in the Spanish Civil War, but be even more open and accepting of allies still, because we do not have the luxury to do otherwise. There needs to be a rough baseline, a group of principles, by which self-described Christians can be judged friend or foe.
Here’s a great bit, which I think is relevant to this, from the incomparable TV series ‘Yes, Minister’/’Yes, Prime Minister’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nrZBtKWSfs
To clarify, I am open to alliances with any group which truly acts to weaken left-liberalism, which produces internal and/or external strain that leads to cracks in the System, which weakens the grip the left-liberal elite have over us, while also leaving us, the remnants of the West, with a future of our own. For example, I believe in entering into alliance with segments of traditional Islam who are open to it, but not in flooding the West with adherents of Islam who will simply seize the reins of power from the left-liberal elite if given the chance. The left-liberal modus operandi is: “you can say/be anything you want so long as it’s compatible with left-liberalism” (or at least serves the immediate interests of left-liberalism, as with radical Leftists in Antifa or radical Sunni Islam in Syria). I believe in inverting this.
Some people never learn. Smarter men than us have tried to use the moslem in furtherance of their designs, and all have failed. The endless troubles in the Gulf should tell you something. Betrayal and deceit are cherished, respected weapons to moslems, and invariably they turn on their allies when the circumstances permit. Any moslems you try to ally yourself with, will only try to use YOU.
When the new world order asserts itself, I will not be surprised if they don’t find themselves being death marched out of the lands they tried to conquer.
You are still confusing church with faith.
That all sounds good to someone that doesn’t understand the faith. It’s actually quite simple: there is no “church doctrine”. The reformation settled this. There is only God’s doctrine, and it exists and holds regardless of the power struggles and circumstances of men. Our blog host can be forgiven for selling the faith short, consumed as he is with them.
The faith has been under attack for over 2000 years. The Romans spared no effort trying to destroy it as they had with countless others… and then were consumed by it. The moslems, the tyrants, the communists, the fascists…all have tried to destroy the faith only fail. The church is by no means dead, or sidelined. It will survive the queers, cat ladies, atheists, and the vibrants that predominate today – those groups will destroy themselves. It will even clean up after them and pick up the pieces when the bones of today’s dissidents are turning to dust.
God will, and always will be the final authority on what is moral and what is not.
the bumper sticker:
Question Authority
only applies until they are in power
then you must genuflect before them
meet the new boss
but don’t question his Authority
same as the old boss
Nunnya Bidnez, jr. Said: “the bumper sticker:
Question Authority
only applies until they are in power.”
That, unfortunately is the nature of all politics, especially Democracy. A politician who told the crowd the plan truth would never get elected. We don’t want the truth. We want our desires fulfilled.
“How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.”
― Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
“Men are so simple of mind, and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli
“You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.”
-Mario Cuomo
“A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.”
-H. L. Mencken
“If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.”
-H. L. Mencken
Such is life.