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?
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?”
Pingback: George Soros-Backed Conservative Evangelicals Lobby for Amnesty | Occam's Razor
Pingback: The 2013 Anti-Progress Report | Radish
Pingback: 2.7 Heroes of the Dark Enlightenment | Radish
Pingback: Christianity becoming more left-wing | Occam's Razor
Christianity is more spineless than left wing. What ever happened to Onward Christian Soldiers? Here we have religious cleansing of one of the world’s oldest Christian communities in the world by ISIS in Iraq, and the best thing the US Presbyterian church can do is boycott Israel. Well, it has always been easier to beat up on a defenseless civilian minority. Ditto for the Christian response to Boko Haram in Nigeria.
The Jeebus cult–I also call it the Dead-Jew-on-a-Stick cult–is at the root of our problems in the West. It combines superstition with a maudlin mythology of self-sacrifice, a worship of the defective and the weak, and offers us a God who was willing to sacrifice his own blood kin, his firstborn son, as a model to emulate. It is insane and sickening.
If scientific atheism is not palatable for the masses, then we must at least devise something that will satisfy the values of our people and our culture in a way that weak, effeminate, castrated, lobotomized, “inclusive,” Casper Milquetoast Christianity cannot. I would recommend starting by taking a long, hard look at the gods our pagan European ancestors worshiped–gods who valued strength, valor, cunning, purpose, and loyalty–before the Jews’ Jeebus-cult was crammed down their throats to castrate them and make them accept savage, vicious IQ-55 African apes as “brothers.”
The real problem is even deeper. Although the Golden Rule originated in Christianity, it now has a life of its own, propagated by social control. Social control has to be broken before we can even discuss developing ideologies (which could even include interpretations of Christianity) that try to abolish the Golden Rule.
We should also consider the difference between strength and suitability. Obviously, Christianity nowadays has far more strength over Paganism than in the days of Charlemagne. However, religions get their strength not just by virtue of the ideology itself, but also by the number of adherents. There are far more Christians than Pagans. But if these Christians would chose another religion the same persons could become a lot more effective. As long as Christianity is hard-wired to consider any Atheist, Pagan, or Agnostic to be worse than any “Monotheist” (Muslim, Jew, but oddly enough not Freemason or Theistic Satanist), even (or actually, precisely) the most militant and intolerant varieties of Christianity are useless to deal with Islam. E.g. Walid Shoebat hates Hinduism just as much as Islam.
Christianity defeated Paganism in Europe for several reasons. Firstly, Christians were recently converted Pagans and had a good grasp of Paganism, while Pagans didn’t have full understanding of Christianity. Secondly, related to this, Christians knew Germanic, but Pagans didn’t know Latin (the same effect is even stronger this day with Islam using Arabic). Thirdly, the full consequences of Christianity weren’t understood because they took time to develop.
Christians who want to revive the religion of Charlemagne stumble on the problem that it is very hard to ignore religious teachings on purpose. You cannot simply say to another Christian: “Killing heathens is fine, Charlemagne did it too!”, because you cannot say either: “Abortion is sacred ground, Nancy Pelosi said so, she is a good Catholic!). And if you do, I guarantee you your faith cannot be as strong as that those who didn’t realize they were acting contrary to their own doctrine.
However, Paganism has its own difficulties. Paganism leads to feeling religious kinship with other Pagans, especially against non-Pagans, which can override blood as well. In Pagan times, the difference between Africans and Europeans in development wasn’t so clear either. Ethiopians had advanced medicine, while Finns didn’t even have metal for arrow heads, so had to use bone(Strabo).
And ironically, the very feature that makes Paganism extremely effective against Islam, that is, the possibility to convert and impregnate enemy women, assimilating them in patriarchal, polygamous households, makes Paganism unacceptable for those who care about racial purity.
Pingback: Tricotomia – Outlandish