Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian?

Regarding the recent discussions about the Dark Enlightenment, the positioning of traditional Christianity has come up, in particular, how unrelated it apparently seems to the rest of the nodes.  Does it fit in?

Of course, it can.  For instance, as I note in the comments here, the findings of HBD / evolutionary psychology often support and justify a traditionalist worldview.

Many Christian commenters, however, incorrectly state that the Dark Enlightenment is inherently leftist while  Christianity is not.  Many historians would disagree with the latter claim.  As argued by Nietzsche, Spengler and de Benoist, there is a strong case to be made that Christianity is the fons et origo of all egalitarian / leftist thought.  De Benoist has argued that it is the Christian concept of the “universal brotherhood of man” that perhaps is the origin of all egalitarian thought and political correctness.  Right-wing skeptics of Christianity have argued that the step from Christian “universal brotherhood” to The Cathedral and Cultural Marxism isn’t very far, if the circumstances are right.  (Of course, traditionalist Christians, like Thomas Fleming in the Morality of Everyday Life, make a strong case that this is not so. And James C. Russell has argued that Medieval Christianity was more manly and closer to Germanic paganism than the current more universalist Christianity in the West.)

I often wonder whether it is the pretense of this egalitarian “universal brotherhood of man” that makes it so hard for many Christians to accept HBD.  (Of course, the more clear-thinking ones who aren’t afraid of inegalitarian truths, like the Generation5, Bruce Charlton, Orthosphere, Chronicles, Faith and Heritage, Thinking Housewife, or Pro-Western Christianity crowds, are the exceptions to the norm.)

Regardless, Christianity today is not only inherently egalitarianian but even maladaptive, at least as it’s practiced by Westerners.  Look around.  The vast majority of conservative Christian leaders support the mass Third World invasion of Western countries.  You have major Christian leaders, like Russell Moore and Sam Brownback, telling whites to forgo their own inclusive fitness and, instead of having that extra white child, adopt orphan Haitians or Africans.  People like John Piper have declared war on the biological family.  (So much for ethnic genetic interests.) You even have Trotskyite conservatives who have invented a pseudo-science called “Intelligent Design” because they feel evolution is “too racist.”

This is the sad state we’re in, folks.  Let’s just hope that Dark Enlightenment ideas catch on among influential Christian leaders.  They need us more than we need them.

Of course, some Christians will attack me for delivering this message, instead of, say, attacking Christian leaders for supporting the mass dispossession of Westerns through Third World immigration.  Imagine that?

I am not anti-Christian.  In fact, although I’m not particularly religious myself, I think that the vast majority of people cannot live without religion and that religion is necessary for the proper ordering of society.  I just wish we had an adaptive, pro-Western manly religion instead of our current sissy, sell-out form of Christianity, which, by the way, is quickly becoming a non-Western Third World religion (a cause of celebration for all our pathological altruist Christian leaders).

Here is a modified version of a previous poll.

What is the best way forward for Westerners?

Atheism / Agnosticism, Explicitly Pro-Western Christianity, Neo-Paganism, or our Current Politically Correct Christianity?

Updates:

Here’s a little nugget of HBD truth: ethno-religion is probably the strongest group identity that one can have.  It’s done wonders for Ashkenazis.

Blowhard Mark Shea is not a fan of this post; Shea is an allegedly conservative Christian whose greatest worry is that the demise of Christianity will lead to the demise of egalitarianism.  Notice how he criticizes this post and the commenters here instead of addressing the actual problem; for instance, criticizing all the Christian leaders that support the Third World invasion of Western countries.

Nick Land discusses the Trichotomy.

Foseti links to randoms from the Dark Enlightenment.

The blog Traditional Christianity references this post.

Mark Shea dislikes a comment that a Catholic left on this thread.  By the way, Mark, race is real.

“Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?”

“Primer on Immigration and Human BioDiversity“

What are characteristics of the Dark Enlightenment?

Regarding the recent conversations on the Dark Enlightenment (here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), I’d like to offer a few comments.  (If you’re unfamiliar with the Dark Enlightenment, read British philosopher Nick Land’s series “The Dark Enlightenment“.)

As I’ve noted previously, the Dark Enlightenment, largely an American phenomenon notwithstanding Land, has much in common with the European archeofuturist or identitarian movement, although the later is less influenced by libertarianism (perhaps for the better).

But what are these underlying characteristics?

Here are some:

– A rejection of sociological universalism, and a preference for particularism.

– An acceptance of human biodiversity.

– An acceptance of Darwinian evolution, shunning egalitarian political correctness both from the left and from the Trotskyite right.

– On religion, if not agnostic or atheistic, then a preference for ancestral neopaganism or a form of Christianity that is ethnocentric and particularist.

– An acceptance of science and futurism as a means to improve at least some peoples’ lives while not rejecting one’s ancestral folkways (i.e. archeofuturism).  And a recognition that ‘progress’ will be available only to some, and not the entire human population.

– A rejection of The Cathedral (or whatever other names it goes by, such as Universalism or Political Correctness).

– The recognition that there is no single best political order.  As Aristotle notes in the Politics, some ethnies are better suited for monarchy; others, for aristocracy; others, for a limited form of politea.

– Skepticism about mass Third World immigration and the realization that human populations are not fungible but unique.

– A realization that liberty is incompatible with democracy, and that democracy leads to mediocrity.

–  A realization that terms like ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘feminist’ are beyond their expiration date.

– A concern with bio-politics, oriented to a particular people’s biological and demographic imperatives.

– A rejection of egalitarianism.

Please leave other suggestions, or commentary, below.

Updates:

Radish Magazine provides a list Dark Enlightenment articles.

Education Realist discusses his placement in the Dark Enlightenment.

Nick Land warns (me) that Darkness will never be popular.

“Primer on Immigration and Human BioDiversity”

“The Laws of the Cathedral. Obey or Perish!”

Are distributist economic policies dysgenic?

Among many Trad Catholics, distributism seems to be the thing.  At a happy hour the other evening, some guy was yammering on about distributism and how it would cure all our ills.  It’s held up as the great panacea.

Now I can understand one’s dislike of the modern corporate-capitalist system in the West.  Corporate-capitalism (1) fosters transnational loyalties, resulting in things like corporations supporting mass Third World immigration into Western countries, (2) is ugly, as attested by the WalMart aesthetic, (3) is often environmentally unfriendly,  (4) is short-sighted, operating only in short business cycles, and (5) is itself dysgenic by its support of Mass Third world immigration into Western countries.

But is distributism any better?  Has it historical precedent?

Many distributist advocates point to Medieval Europe for precedent, but this is doubtful.

My recent exchange with Ron Unz on eugenics highlights a historic fact: much of Western history has been eugenic (see here, here, here, here and here).  Medieval England, in fact, was highly eugenic, as demonstrated by Gregory Clark’s findings in Farewell to Alms: the English upper classes reproduced at at 2:1 ratio over the lower classes, which resulted in the upper classes eventually replacing the lower classes through downward mobility and which resulted in a downward drift of genes and affiliative behaviors, such as decreased violence, and increased average IQ and innovation.

So, in reality, Medieval Europe was not the equitable distributive paradise that many distributists make it out to be.

But that aside, even if distributism were to be implemented today, how would it not be dysgenic? By redistributing wealth through welfare like practices, how would it not resemble the modern open-borders welfare state, which is itself highly dysgenic? Can distributists assure us that distributism would not be dysgenic?  How would it encourage the reproduction of the productive members of society and discourage the reproduction of the dregs?  How would it keep out the Third World hordes?  How would it safeguard one’s genetic interests?

Updates:

My tone above might seem to be a little harsh. I am not wholly opposed to distributism.  Who knows, it probably would be better than our current globalist regime of leveling corporate capitalism.  Nonetheless, I wanted to register some concerns.

“Primer on Immigration and Human BioDiversity“

Networks of the Dark Enlightenment / Alt Right

The blog Habital Worlds provides this network map of the Dark Enlightenment:

(Click on above map to enlarge it.)

If Occam’s Razor were to be included, I’d  make it a part of the networks HBD, Neoreactionary Political Philosophy, Ethno-Nationalists and Secular Traditionalists.

A glaring absence from the map is VDare.  A separate anti-immigration sphere should be created, which would include VDare.  VDare could also go under HBD or Ethno-Nationalists.  Probably 1/3 of the bloggers listed on the map have written for VDare, so it should definitely be included.  VDare is also probably the most popular clearing house for many of the ideas promulgated at the other blogs.

Updates:

Updated version of the map.

Must read:  “Characteristics of the Dark Enlightenment”

“Are Christian leaders today a bunch of girly men?”

.

The Ancient Greeks & Romans, Beauty and Human Biodiversity

“The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo [monster in face, monster in soul].” ~ Nietzsche

As many others have noted, pre-Christian Europeans unified the concepts of beauty and morality into a single concept.  The Latin bonus, as well as the Greek agathos, can imply good but also noble, good-looking, well-bred, brave, etc.  For instance, in Book II of the Iliad, Thersites taunts Odysseys and questions why the Greeks must remain at Troy:

But a single man kept on yelling out abuse—
scurrilous Thersites, expert in various insults,
vulgar terms for inappropriate attacks on kings,
whatever he thought would make the Argives laugh.
Of all the men who came to Troy, he was the ugliest—
bow legged, one crippled foot, rounded shoulders
curving in toward his chest. On top, his pointed head
sprouted thin, scraggly tufts of hair. Achilles hated him,
as did Odysseus, too, both subject to his taunts.

Shortly thereafter, Odysseus beats Thersites to a pulp and is cheered on by the soldiers.  One warrior comments:

Before now Odysseus has done good things
thinking up fine plans and leading us in war.
But that’s the best thing he’s done by far
to help the Argives, shutting up that rabble-rouser.

Thersites was seen as a flawed man — flawed to question the wisdom of Odysseus and Thersites’ mental flawedness is mirrored by his physical ugliness.  The two went hand in hand.  In modern evolutionary terms, beauty was seen as a fitness indicator of mental, moral and physical superiority.

While early philosophers, such as Socrates / Plato, began to unpack the combined concepts of beauty / morality / nobility / bravery, their combined tendency continued through the classical period.  Aristotle, in Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics, writes regarding the prerequisites of eudaimonia (contentedness or human flourishing):

“…and there are some things the lack of which takes the luster from happiness [eudaimonia], as good birth, goodly children, beauty; for the man who is very ugly in appearance or ill-born or solitary and childless is not very likely to be happy….”

Again one sees beauty as an indicator of potential human flourishing.

Regarding the Romans, Plutarch, in his biographies, often juxtaposes physical descriptions of Romans and their temperaments.  Many of the upper-class Romans he describes as quite fair.  For instance, Cato the Elder (although somewhat of a miser was the exemplar of upper-class Roman virtue) is described as having red hair and grey eyes.  Virgil (or whoever the author was) in the poem “Moretum” implicitly contrasts Europeans with African blacks, providing a description of blacks that would probably satisfy current norms in human biodiversity.  Like the Greeks, the Romans saw physical appearance as closely tied to the way one behaved.

What was the standard of beauty?

For the ancients, as well as Medieval Europeans, the upper-class standard of beauty was an aristocratic standard:  the upper classes tended to be taller and fairer than commoners.  This standard of beauty was so engrained that wealthy women who didn’t meet these standards would try to lighten their skin or purchase blonde or red-haired wigs.

Was this standard of beauty taken as a fitness indicator for other behaviors? Is this why beauty / morality / nobility / bravery are grouped together?  As  markings demarcate certain breeds of dogs and their affiliative behaviors (e.g. hunting skills), so certain phenotypes demarcated desirable upper-class behaviors?

One might  speculate that a type of selection was taking place at this time.  The Greeks openly advocated eugenics.  As with Peter Frost’s account of the Roman state, Clark’s of Medieval England, or Unz’s of China, the ancient Greeks and Romans probably had their own unique selection pressures.  It might not be improbable to think that Greco-Roman upper classes reproduced at a greater rate than the lower classes and thus spread their phenotypes, which were linked in popular thought of the day to favorable behavioral characteristics.

Updates:

Peter Frost: “Puzzle of European hair and eye color”

Gregory Cochran:  “Biology of Slavery”

John Harrison Sims:  “What Race Were the Greeks and Romans?”

E. Christian Kopff: “History and Science in Tenney Frank’s Scholarship”

Sarich & Miele:  “The Ancient Concept of Race“

Human Nature vs. Hollywood Political Correctness

Frank Salter’s recent series of articles on the war against human nature got me to thinking about Hollywood’s undeclared war against human nature and reality.  It often seems to be the case that if reality is X then Hollywood’s prescription will be not X.

Traditionally, stereotypes are in accordance with reality.  Like oral epic poetry, traditional stereotypes are the accumulation of generational wisdom of various folkways. Unhappy with the reality of the stereotypes, however, many Cultural Marxists began in the mid 20th century to try to reverse these stereotypes, the idea being that if the stereotype is reversed, so reality will be reversed.  Hollywood has  followed suit.

Examples of Hollywood representations contrary to reality:

– The dumb blonde.  This really goes back to post-WWII anxiety.  Unfortunately for Hollywood, countries with high percentages of blonds, such as Sweden or Norway, have some of the highest average IQs on the planet.

– Evil Germans.  Perhaps no single group has been more denigrated by Hollywood than Germans or people of German ancestry.  The epitome of falsehood of this fiction is the creation of the “German terrorist” in movies such as Die Hard.

– The wise negro.  In this fiction, whites are lost and without guidance but along comes a “wise negro” to give advice and direction.  Morgan Freeman has made an entire career out of this character.  Has anyone ever met a white person in real life guided by a “wise negro”?

– Widespread miscegenation.  Although miscegenation is now more common than it was 50 years ago, it’s still statistically rare in reality but extremely overrepresented in movies.

– Violent white criminals.  Although there are violent white criminals, blacks make up 13% of the US population but commit around 59% of felony homicides.  Violent whites are overrepresented and violent blacks underrepresented in movies.

– The evil rich WASP.  Although there still are rich WASPs, WASPs are no longer the elite in control of the USA; Ashkenazis are, yet they’re never vilified.

– Over-representation of non-whites in period pieces.  In the 1960 census, the USA was 90% white.  But from period pieces of the early 20th century, one would infer that the USA was around 50% non-white.

– Smart black judges and doctors putting dumb whites in their place.  Given the average IQ of blacks, this is comical.

– Whites sexually taking advantage of  blacks. Odd considering: “In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”

– Peaceful Amerindians.  As discovered by Lawrence Keeley, many Amerindians were committing genocide against each other prior to contact with Europeans.

– Peaceful Muslims misunderstood by violent Westerners.

– Swarthy females, such as Kim Kardashian, peddled as the epitome of female beauty, when, as Peter Frost has shown, the overwhelming preference is for fair females.

– Pathologically altruistic beta males getting the ladies.  Chateau Heartiste can show you this is not true.

– Nordic-looking dumb villains, outsmarted by swarthier-looking smarter outsiders.

– Too uptight whites (exercising good impulse control?) who need to follow more free-flowing (poor impulse control?) blacks in order to loosen up.

– Third World immigration enriching Western countries (although in reality ruining Western countries).  This is a relatively new representation but one that will continue to grow.

While these false representations created by Hollywood won’t overturn human nature, they can certainly do damage and confuse many people.  For instance, many Americans and foreigners, when asked the percentage of the USA they believe to be black, will answer around 50%, which is probably due to the over-representation of blacks in movies.

Please add other false representations in the comments below and I’ll add them to the list.

Updates:

– “Multiracial gangs, or at least multiracial criminals working together (like, one burglar is white and his buddy is black). In reality organized crime tends to be segregated.”

“Are Women Who Tan Sluts?”

Video: Henry Harpending on the reality of race

Video: Henry Harpending on the reality of race:

Linkfest: In the News

Dennis Mangan on immigration driving down American wages

Greg Cochran on the difficulty of math and summarizing recent human evolution

Margaret Thatcher: “Mexicans Will Be The Ruin Of America”

Jared Taylor on Philippe Rushton And Arthur Jensen

White South Africans have set up three embassies

Audacious Epigone: Married mothers are smarter than single moms

Sailer on Darwin: Are The Races Of Man Separate Species Or Merely Separate Subspecies?

Daily Caller: Student sought man on Craigslist to beat her up and have sex with her, then reported it as rape

HBD Chick: Arabs and genetic violence

George Will: Schools pushing Orwellian anti-white self-annihilation propaganda

Gregory Hood on a new mantra

Kevin MacDonald on monogamy

Pat Buchanan on record unemployment in USA

John Derbyshire on hot girls at the AmRen conference

Brenda Walker on Catholic priests wanting to flood USA with mestizos

Another reason for the religious to reject intelligent design

Here’s another reason for the religious (at least the smart ones) to reject intelligent design.  When I first came across Ray Comfort’s viral blunder, I figured he was small potatoes; I had never heard of him. But according to Wikipedia, Ray Comfort is quite prominent among evangelicals and seems to be a major player in the creationist / intelligent design camp.

Anyway, he apparently got into an argument with someone on Facebook, where he threatened to ban all bibliophiles from commenting on his Facebook page.  It seems the guy does not like books or thinks that bibliophiles are Darwinian-atheist pedophiles.  It’s all quite amusing.

As If

As if the Republicans could ever outbid the Democrats when it comes to sucking up to “Hispanics” – giving citizenship on the cheap to the millions who are already here illegally, importing as many more millions as possible, upping welfare benefits for legals and illegals alike, ramping up the “affirmative action” policies that privilege “Hispanics,” no matter how recently arrived, over native born whites, etc. etc. etc…

Oh, yeah. That’s gonna work.

I mean, it would never even occur to the Democrats to offer them *even more* freebies.

* * *

“But,” reply the G.O.P faithful, “Hispanics are natural conservatives! They’re Roman Catholic family-values types when it comes to the social issues! We just need to get our message out to them!”

I.e., what the Republicans need to do is to encourage the “browning of America” *even more* than the Democrats – and then play up their opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage.

And then all those anti-abortion, fag-hating “Hispanics” will start voting Republican.

* * * * *

Well, gee – what could possibly go wrong?

Seriously: anybody who *still* buys the line that the key to Republican salvation is to do a better job of “reaching out” to Hispanics is too stupid to live.