Tuesday, 12 July 2016

Anyone for Christian Ethics?






Written by geebee36-6.







It is axiomatic that the rise of what is known as the ‘Alt-Right’ coincides with the increasing numbers of people in what are the traditional White Lands, who are immensely unhappy about what has become of them. It is also the result of a Great Awakening among the indigenous populations of those lands. While any summary of the nature of this unhappiness risks stating the obvious, there are angles to the overall situation which I believe require a greater awareness. The perceived problems, their origins, and the way forward in terms of addressing them, are worthy subjects for examination, if for no other reason than to provide an Aide Memoire. I shall therefore deal with these matters, in the hope that I might shed some light on them.


On any Alt-Right blog it will be uncontroversial to note that white people – what some would term the White Race – stand on the brink of the abyss. That they stand there largely owing to malign influences that wish to see them topple headlong into it. That those influences might be described as inspired and led by Jewry. And that the great majority of white people today have been brainwashed into not only accepting, but actively collaborating in their own demise.
We are depressed, if not entirely surprised, when we hear European Commissioners opine that “Immigration is a moral necessity”. When the German Chancellor announces that “Islam is welcome.” When a French President predicts that "Arabic is the language of the future". When a Pakistani Muslim becomes Mayor of London. When it becomes clear that the EU ruling elite is not merely welcoming, but actively soliciting an Islamic invasion, that will succeed where it previously failed at Tours, Lepanto and Vienna. When Europeans who wish to assert their own ethnic identity and interests are condemned as ‘far-right racists’ who are ‘fueling hate’.

We look across the Atlantic, and we see a country seemingly hell bent on self-destruction, through its foolish naïveté concerning human nature and the world itself. Its mulatto President – ‘the leader of the free world’ – is content to see its wealth redistributed to the African-American “community”, and avers that the root of all its manifold ills may be found in ‘white privilege’ and ‘racism’. The Republican candidate for the forthcoming Presidential election is reviled and castigated by his own party for suggesting that it might be wise to implement strategies for preventing Islamic terrorism, and for limiting immigration from people who are likely to represent a net burden on its economy. The ruling American elite has so far lost its connection with sanity that “minorities” will soon make up more than half of its population.

We ask, when we consider these things, why it is widely believed to be not merely unreasonable, but ‘hateful’, merely to want to preserve our own ethnicity and culture, just as all other peoples do. We ask, but in truth we already know the answer to our question: two generations of Westerners have been so effectively brainwashed that the majority of whites today, and especially the young, celebrate “diversity” (which is to say their own peoples’ forthcoming extinction) as their core value.

So much for the problem. But what should we call it? And what are its origins? As to the first part, it is known by many names. Progressivism, Cultural Marxism, Left Liberalism, Secular Universalism, Political Correctness. Let us call it Left Liberal Progressivism, or LLP for short. As to its origins, I shall adopt what I realise will be in many quarters a controversial paradigm. Never the less, I am utterly convinced of its veracity. Let us first work backwards in stages.

Since WWII the agenda for White extinction has been promoted and implemented with ever increasing vigour by almost all mainstream politicians; it is beyond doubt that they came to this position owing to Jewish influence. Prior to WWII, we might ‘finger’ the so-called Frankfurt School (an entirely Jewish phenomenon) and its ‘Critical Theory’ approach to culture and civilisation. In the nineteenth-century, Liberalism, and its antecedent Radicalism, ratified in law the core principles of freedom and equality (without which LLP cannot function), starting with the Great Reform Act of 1832.  In the late seventeenth- and the eighteenth-centuries, the Enlightenment saw the rise of those same principles, promoted by influential thinkers and writers, especially Locke, Rousseau and Voltaire. It would lead to two great revolutions, first in Britain’s American colonies in 1776, and even more climactically in France 13 years later. In the sixteenth-century, the Reformation led to a renewed fracturing of the Christian Church after 500 years, and its result was the disastrous religious wars, especially the Thirty Years’ War, in Europe and beyond. The English Civil War of 1642-51 was among the most important of these, pitting Catholic against Protestant and King against Parliament, and culminating in the execution of Charles I. Out of this arose the concepts of popular sovereignty, an extended voting suffrage, religious tolerance and equality before the law. After the Restoration, when the Stuart monarchy returned to rule in 1660 with Charles I’s son Charles II as king, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 saw James II exiled, and the system of constitutional monarchy installed.

Before these events, the Roman Catholic Church had kept the lid on the explosive and revolutionary nature of the Christian gospels for over a thousand years, by the simple expedient of banning any translation into local languages from the Latin texts on theoretical pain of death. The Reformation arguably owed its origins, in part at least, to the scriptures becoming available in German and English [1], so that ordinary people could read their dangerous message of the equality of all men before god. Indeed it is very the nature of the gospels themselves which compels us to consider them as being the source of our ills; to identify Christianity itself, in fact, as nothing less than the First Cause of our present woes.


Sacred and Profane: Adoptive Christian Ethics 


In Season 1 of the popular American T.V. series Breaking Bad, Walter White agonises over how to deal with his prisoner ‘Krazy 8’, whom he has tied up in the basement, having earlier unsuccessfully tried to gas him in order to avoid being killed himself. He writes a list of pros and cons, helping him decide whether to kill him or not. On the ‘Against’ side, he writes that it would be ‘contrary to our Judaeo-Christian values’. On the ‘For’ side, he writes that if he lets him go, Krazy 8 will kill Walter and all his family. He eventually strangles Krazy 8, but only because he discovers the necessity of the latter option in time: Krazy 8 has managed to conceal a weapon with which he plans to kill Walter. What would a true Christian have done? That scene, in its way, is a metaphor wherein the capacity for Christian ethics to destroy itself, in the name of ‘saving’ others who might ultimately do them harm, is graphically exposed.

What might surprise many, however, is that modern LLP philosophy derives more or less intact from Christianity, and more especially from Christian ethics. As blogger ‘Conservative Swede’ wrote: ‘We are witnessing the historical demise of Christianity. When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant, it is devoid of a core; it expands a thousand-fold, but it is losing its substance and is about to die.’ 

While the various Christian churches are all on board this train to perdition, it is in the modern, secular manifestation of Christian ethics noted above, whereby the traditional faith has been stripped of God and Jesus, that we see its most ruthless and efficient destructive power. In its older, sacred form, it is a given that man is a fallen, wretched creature, whose sins are redeemed by the sacrifice on the cross. In effect, his shortcomings are topped up free of charge by Jesus’ sacrifice. Within the Secular Church of Protestant Christianity (as we might term LLP political philosophy), however, no such redeemer figure is at hand. It therefore falls to the individual to make good those shortfalls himself, and in whatever way possible. Too often this means sacrificing his own interests and people in order to implement policy consistent with Christian ethics. Little wonder that elevating others’ ‘suffering’ above their own is seen as an ideal way of signalling their virtue to others of the ‘in group’, who have, in effect, usurped the judgement seat formerly occupied by the Christian deity. 

Thus ‘Pathological Altruism’ is the order of the day. And since people of the Third World must be equal to us in every way (not only in accordance with Boasian anthropology, but also through the originally Christian notion of Universalism - the idea that all are eligible to be saved), the fact that they fall behind and are disadvantaged can have nothing to do with any inherent or innate shortfalls in terms of their own human capital. Rather it must be our fault, and blame must be laid at the door of ‘white privilege’ and ‘racism’.

As for that part of Christianity that remains sacred, unlike many of his predecessors, the present Pope is totally on-message regarding Christian ethics, and is thus an abject menace. He wishes to see as many brown people as possible swarm into our lands, in order that we all make sacrifices and do our Christian duty. In the Church’s case, of course, this same idea is driven by eschatological considerations: this earthly life counts for little, and we must look instead to the eternal. Well I’m sorry, but many of us understand full well that the eternal is just another bit of propaganda, and especially so with regard to the stick element, rather than the carrot. The doctrine of eternal damnation is surely the most pernicious notion in all the long annals of human history. It is salutary to consider that few today really understand what it was like to live under that system and that threat; to dwell among Christians who taught that although the soul was spirit in nature, it could still experience the physical pain and suffering of eternal hell-fire. The mental anguish and fear this must have caused, in the days before the Church decided to soft-pedal that particular element of faith, can scarcely be imagined. As for the carrot part, I think that Adolf Hitler was onto something when he wryly observed that here on earth we could listen to the music of Richard Wagner, while after death we could only look forward to the endless strumming of harps![2]

He, in fact, was one of the first to recognise the link between Christian ethics and the potentially destructive elements of secular liberal political philosophies. He remarked that: ‘The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.’ [3]

He went on to add to this in a most interesting vein when, on 21st October 1941, while at dinner at Obersalzberg, he remarked to his guests: ‘The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation…On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God—and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, that man would possess boundless power…St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to conduct his struggle against the Roman State. Nothing has changed; the method has remained sound.’

He went on to say that St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a means of propaganda. If the Jew succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire, it was because St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition into a supra-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. 

Hitler continued: ‘It’s striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St. Paul’s efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle’s teaching. But in Rome St. Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people. Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revolt. Rome was Bolshevised, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia. Yesterday, the instigator was Saul: the instigator to-day, Mardochai. Saul has changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx.’[2]
It is indeed striking that the Athenians wanted nothing to do with Saul of Tarsus, who was clearly embarrassed and belittled by those mighty intellects. So much so that he aimed a petty barb at them in 1 Corinthians 1:19: ‘: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”  That he succeeded mightily in this endeavour should afford us little comfort today: a thousand years of Catholic suppression of ‘the wisdom of the wise’ would follow Constantine’s adoption of Saul’s proto-Bolshevism in the early fourth-century.

What is it that makes Christianity ultimately so dangerous to us today? It is Christian ethics, with its exhortations to ‘love one another’, to ‘turn the other cheek’, to ‘love the sinner’, and its belief that ‘the last shall be first and the first shall be last’, and that ‘the meek will inherit the earth’. These preposterous notions undergird a formula whose practical result is to punish success and to reward failure – exactly as with socialism. Christianity thus promotes the absurd idea of equality; one that is rooted nowhere in nature, and which is thus contrary to nature. Indeed, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed more than 150 years ago: “The desire for equality becomes more and more insatiable as equality increases.” Without this debilitating and corrupt lie, there would have been no Enlightenment, no religious wars, and none of the barbarism and brutality that followed, whereby Christian society set about the business of ‘exterminating its adversaries in the name of love’. 

Hierarchy is the natural condition of human societies, and has been so since the beginning of civilisation. The modern notion of equality is the natural enemy not only of quality, but of the societal recognition and acceptance of quality that hierarchy presupposes. Thus the worship of equality, just like Saul’s teaching, is that of a false god. It is ultimately aimed at the simple, the gullible and the feeble. It is the enemy of advancement and true progress, and sounds the death knell of all societies that bow down before its malodorous feet.

We who are aware of these things constitute just the latest of those adversaries so lovingly targeted for extermination by means of Christian ethics. Because of its entrenched doctrine of Universalism, the whole of Christian ethics, in both its original sacred and in its modern secular forms, is race-neutral. It is therefore impossible to make any headway in terms of race without first jettisoning Saul of Tarsus’ Jewish propaganda, as Hitler and the National Socialists did. Only by doing so, and by rediscovering the true glory and origins of Western thought and civilisation, which is firmly fixed in Graeco-Roman purity and nobility, might we make any significant headway. 

The ‘Jewish Problem’


In The Culture of Critique, Professor Kevin MacDonald advances a powerful thesis. That Jewish influence, especially by means of certain twentieth-century intellectual movements, designed consciously or unconsciously to advance Jewish interests, changed European societies in fundamental ways. As Stanley Hornbeck noted in his review of MacDonald’s work: ‘These movements were presented as universalistic and even utopian, but the increasing dominance of their ideas has had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews, but caused great harm to Gentile societies. [MacDonald’s] analysis, which he makes with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people generally thought to be more sinned against than sinning’.

Perhaps the best known of these twentieth-century intellectual movements is the so-called ‘Frankfurt School’ previously mentioned. In its original manifestation it was known as the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research, founded during the Weimar period by Jewish Marxist millionaire Carl Grünberg. Once the NSDAP came to power, most of its members de-camped to the United States, where it coalesced around the University of California at Berkeley. It was headed by Max Horkheimer, and other influential members were Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, Otto Kirchheimer and Herbert Marcuse, all of them Jews, with a strong sense of Jewish identity. Horkheimer made no secret of the nature of the institute's activities, writing that: ‘[Our] research would be able to transform itself directly into propaganda.’

MacDonald claimed that In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that would transform them, a core aim of organised Jewry, it was first necessary to discredit racial solidarity and commitment to tradition. He cites Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality and Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder as works promoted and funded by the American Jewish Committee, and taken up with enthusiasm by Jewish academics. Their message was that all group affiliations were a sign of mental disorder. Loyalty to religion, family and especially to race were signs of a dangerous and defective "authoritarian personality." Because drawing distinctions between different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties - even close family ties - were "prejudice." Christopher Lasch thought that they led to the conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy -- by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum." 

But according to MacDonald, what Horkheimer and Adorno considered as mental illness in gentiles was precisely what Jewish identity was built upon. Or in other words, the Frankfurt school postulated the notion that behaviour central to Jewish identity should be conceptualized as pathological in gentiles. They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews, and that anti-Semitism was of itself a sign of mental illness.

In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and sexual perversion, including homosexuality. MacDonald felt that: ‘"Certainly many of the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism.’ 

The very existence of this Jewish Problem, however, derives from Christianity’s nature. It is a foreign, Levantine religion, which irrevocably establishes Jews and Judaism at its heart, and espouses Saul’s bogus ethical code. As Cesar Tort observed: ‘the Jewish Problem can only be understood as the consequence of a deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfilment of universal Christian values’. Secular fulfilment, note: LLP philosophy in all its fully blown pomp.
There is an entire essay to be written concerning Jewish influence on the American involvement in, and its prosecution of, the Second World War. Space precludes any detailed examination of this subject here. Suffice it to say that the dystopian, shallow, deracinated world we are now condemned to inhabit was brought about by the defeat of what might be thought of as Europe’s one chance of true salvation from these malign, parasitic influences crouching on its back. To that brief flowering we might give the name German Ethical Socialism. It was eradicated with a brutality on the part of the Allies never before seen in any war waged by the white race. Indeed it was as if it the foe being crushed were scarcely human, yet all the while, the Allied propaganda machine spewed out tales of ‘German brutality’. Allied war aims, as then claimed, fall away and are revealed as the flimsy propaganda they are, when viewed objectively. The real cause of American manoeuvring to wage war on Germany (which Roosevelt began in October 1937, long before any ‘aggression’ on the part of the Third Reich) lay with the fact that it posed a mortal threat to that monster with a Jewish head and an American body that now bestrides the world. ‘Judea Declares War on Germany’ ran the headlines of the New York Times in 1933. No, that’s not a typo: 1933. That year Hitler came to power, and had had the temerity to establish his own sound currency, and thus cut his people free from the Jewish system of usury that had brought the price of a loaf of bread in Weimar Germany to half a million Deutschmarks. That was his real crime: to threaten Jewish financial power.

In this post-war world, Jewish-American Big Business culture stands triumphant, and Homo economicus, the wretched creature it has brought into being to serve its ends, crawls abjectly in its loathsome shadow. As for European political power, it ceased to exist in any meaningful sense in 1945.


Democracy - The Greatest Scam of All


It is no use deluding ourselves that our present system of governance, which is to say liberal democracy via universal enfranchisement, offers any meaningful solution. I first came to my current political philosophy via the movement emerging some ten years ago, known as Neo-Reaction. It is part of the so-called ‘Dark Enlightenment’, and among its ‘Grand Sith Lords’ was a blogger calling himself Mencius Moldbug. In real life he is Curtis Yarvin, a young Jewish computer programmer from California. Although he is, unsurprisingly, not on board with the Jewish Question, he is incredibly clever and well informed for one so young. He certainly enlightened me as to four key points, the first of which was the theme I have already outlined, by which modern LLP philosophy is really a secularised form of Protestant Christianity, retaining most of the latter’s core ethical structure. The other three were the inherently destructive nature of democracy, the tendency of the political zeitgeist to move inexorably leftwards, and the existence of a matrix of power, far more potent than, and acting independently of actual politics. This last he calls ‘the Cathedral’. It comprises the entire academic establishment, the media-entertainment complex, the apparatus of justice and law enforcement, several large NGOs and international charities, the trans-national political organisations, such as NATO, The UN and the EU, and last but not least, the literal cathedrals themselves; the Protestant and Catholic Churches. ‘The Cathedral’ performs the role of ‘manufacturing consent’ for its projects and agenda among the people; or to employ a rather plainer term, ‘brainwashing’. 

The crucial fact is that, as Moldbug put it, ‘politicians live downstream of the Cathedral’. In other words, the Cathedral, having manufactured consent, then enforces its agenda as policy, and the politicians can do or say nothing that has not been given the Cathedral’s imprimatur. To do so would mean instant career suicide. Thus, thanks to the Christian ethics driving ‘Cathedral’ policy, we dwell in a political climate where professional politicians must kow-tow to ‘the zeitgeist’ so dictated by ‘the Cathedral’. It need scarcely be pointed out that one effect of this is that any meaningful discussion of race and immigration is, quite simply, off limits. Moreover, ‘the Cathedral’ is winning its battles to enforce its agenda by placing any questioning of it, much less any challenge, under the sanction of law.
As the Cathedral moves leftwards, professional politicians of the left wing ‘legacy parties’ happily follow. Conservative politicians, however, can only survive by also moving in step with the ever leftward zeitgeist, albeit at a respectable distance of about a decade. Thus today’s ‘conservative’ is indistinguishable from the left wing politician of the first years of the 21st-century. Conversely, left-wingers from the 1980s appear to be ‘far-right’ by today’s standards. 

When I first read of Moldbug’s rationalisation as to how and why LLP philosophy was actually Protestant Christianity without God, I was amazed. It seemed incredible, but after studying and thinking I began to see that it was a sound analysis. I Later found that Cesar Tort was saying exactly the same, and at around the same time (2007-8), but I didn’t know of his blog’s existence until recently. 

Taken together, the four key elements of Moldbug and Tort’s thinking lead, by relentless logic, into two stark conclusions: that neither democracy nor Christianity are our friends. Democracy is in fact a cancer that dictates that politicians are not merely disinclined, but effectively forbidden from serving the best interests of their country. Because their sole concern is obtaining power, which can only be achieved through attracting votes from an electorate largely brainwashed by ‘the Cathedral’, they are severely limited to parroting its Progressive mantra. Thus, if the Cathedral dictates that immigration is essential, then immigration is what politicians of whatever stripe will deliver. Good governance thus flies out of the window, and is replaced by policies tailor made to expedite our demise. Our much vaunted Democracy is, as British philosopher Nick Land observed, not merely doomed, but rather it is doom itself. Perhaps an even better summation was provided by Francis Parker Yockey, who in 1939 described democracy as “the corruptibility of the government by private wealth”. Democracy is rightly condemned by history as being ‘the graveyard of civilisations’.

There are no prizes for guessing which minority component of European and American society holds sway within ‘the Cathedral’. But although the old quip ‘is the Pope a Catholic?’ is popular, it is becoming less than entirely certain that it is literally true. Because the Cathedral is both Jew-dominated, yet espouses Christian ethics, it has become impossible to separate the Progressive left hegemony from the Christian religion itself. The Pope is overtly pursuing policies favoured and promoted by the Jews, including mass immigration from Muslims. These policies are deliberately aimed at ending the hegemony of the White races, in order that Jews might not only ‘avoid another holocaust’, but continue to run the show for their own profitable ends.

It was always going to end this way of course. Christianity might be likened to the HIV virus; it opens up Western civilisation to attack. Essentially, HIV was contracted by Western civilisation in the early fourth-century, when we abandoned the Glories of our Graeco-Roman heritage. It then lay dormant until full blown AIDS presented in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, and its offshoots Liberalism and Progressivism. With AIDS in control, it merely remained for other fatal infections to take hold. Jewry came first, in the late nineteenth-century. More recently we have contracted a tertiary infection called Islam. Unable to repel its attack, as we successfully did on previous occasions, we are now at its mercy.

So this is where we are. In effect, the whole of Western polity can be likened to a train called ‘Christian Ethics’, built and maintained by Jews, and speeding along a track towards a carefully planned disaster. Progressives are blind to all risk, and are actually urging the driver to increase speed. So–called conservatives are on the same train, but despite being vaguely aware that disaster awaits, they are content merely to try and touch the brakes a little from time to time. But here is the strangest part: those on the Alt-Right, including many White Nationalists, recognise full well the disaster that lies ahead, and have jumped off the train. But they are still walking along the track in the same direction!

It is perhaps mildly ironic to finish by quoting Milton; a mighty force of the Enlightenment and a passionate advocate for freedom. Furthermore, in invoking his great dramatic poem Paradise Lost, we may indulge ourselves in a little mischief at Christianity’s expense; its subject consisting entirely in that element of eschatology we should most revile.  We who now stand on the brink of the abyss might well empathise with the situation of the fallen Arch-Angel Satan. Cast down from Paradise, he finds himself instead the ruler of Hell. Is he downhearted? Yes. Does he give up? Certainly not. As Milton wrote:  

‘Into this wild abyss the wary fiend stood on the brink of Hell and looked a while, pondering his voyage; for no narrow frith he had to cross.’ 

We might surely take some inspiration from Satan’s words, on first realising the implications of his fall, and his new circumstances:

'Farewell happy Fields, where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrors! Hail Infernal world! And thou Profoundest Hell, Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings a mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time. The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n.’


[1] In Germany, Martin Luther had issued his translation of the New Testament in 1622, and the Old in 1634. William Tyndale is often credited with producing the first English version of the bible in the early sixteenth-century, although John Wycliffe had done so two hundred years earlier. This, of course, was before the age of printing, and circulation of the text was severely restricted. Earlier translations in English vernacular existed, notably those of Bede (670-735).

[2] Mein Kampf

[3] Table Talk, 1941.

No comments:

Post a Comment