The perfect, impregnable fortress, with oceans for moats. Colonised by the Anglo-Saxon stock at the peak of the European culture, during the Enlightenment era. Bestowed upon a century of peaceful expansion, of acquiring its own boundless Lebensraum in the West. Its tragedy, however, was in the total triumph of the Christian moral system in its midst, with not a single competing ideology in sight.
The first bell of impending doom was the American Civil War. No matter how modern racists may cope, it was neither a war about state rights, nor did any Jews give any recognisable impetus to the conflict. No, as Dr. Robert Morgan points out beautifully on the Unz Review, it was the first tangible sign of Christian dominance in the American cultural life. If the martial, pagan Romans had to wage a civil war not to grant citizenship rights to their traditional allies in war (the Social War, 91-87 BCE), the American Christians went on to bloody civil struggle in order to equalise the most debased foreigners with themselves—precisely the heart of the Christian message of love (‘the last shall become the first’, earthly strength is evil, Galatians 3:28, etc.).
My next bullet point will be about the conduct of the Americans in their colonies. In my view, an attentive observer would have been able to see already in the 1930s the ephemeral nature of the Western-style empires. Let’s take the Philippines, conquered by the Americans in 1898, and Poland, vanquished by the Germans in 1939.
• Philippine population (1903-1939) = 7.6 mil. > 16 mil. (+8.4 mil.)
• Polish population (1938-1946) = 34.8 mil. > 23.7 mil. (-11.1 mil.).
Thus, using this undisputed statistic, we can deduce that all the Christian American Empire has ever done is increase the population of foreign nations wherever it went. This same pattern would continue in Japan, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Sure, the initial conquest may employ excessive violence—after all, American military might is astronomically supreme. But during peace-time, the Christian mercy of the American culture will do its work, undoing all the visible successes of their material capability.
This, in a nutshell, is my view of the world and my response to anyone talking about ‘American interests’. Geopolitics is moot if a given subject of history does not act in its own self-interest—not merely making honest mistakes without a perfect knowledge of future outcomes, but with an outright sabotage of its place under the sun. Again, an intellectual experiment—would Adolf Hitler als Führer Amerikas have ever been able to lose world supremacy as America enjoyed it in 1945? Would America have allowed China to industrialise in the 1980s, at America’s cost? Hell, would America have allowed the Japanese to live on their archipelago, instead of colonising it for itself?
And so comes the end of the American Empire, the most illustrious one, quelled by its own hand.
______ 卐 ______
Read Adûnâi’s entire article: here.
Gaedhal’s text was sent by email:
______ 卐 ______
One thing that you might develop when contemplating the problem of evil is survivor’s guilt. Think of hens in battery cages. Think of donkeys in third world countries who are forced to carry heavy loads, even though maimed. This planet is a colossal engine of horrendous suffering. It is a pyramid scheme where only the organisms at the very top have a halfway decent time. I could have come into being as one of those hens! I could have come into being as one of those donkeys! I could have come into being as one of those billion people who are starving, but not to the extent that it kills them.
I find myself, somehow, as a white man in a first-world country, and I am extremely glad about this. I am having an extremely pleasant time. However, I do kinda feel guilty. I have survived this Hell Planet when most organisms do not. Man is a virus with shoes, as atheist comedian Bill Hicks once correctly said, and we make this planet intolerable for wild animals. We hunt them. We leave nets lying about. We send hounds after them. We shoot them. We eat octopuses alive. We starve tigers to death in Chinese tiger farms. We clutter up the oceans with plastic.
I know that my good pal, Cesar Tort, thinks a lot about stuff like this, as well. Cesar, although an atheist, (or ‘panentheist’ as he styles himself, these days, which is simply to say that reality itself is necessary, uncreated and self-existent, or, to put it a little more romantically: ‘numinous and transcendent’ as Christopher Hitchens might have it) says that the devils are real, and we, humans are they. Hell is real and this planet is it. We devilish humans torture the poor defenceless animals for sport.
Even though I am not a vegan, I kinda wish I was. Vegans, to their credit, are bravely attempting not to add to animal suffering.
Whenever the imago-dei delusion from Christianity dies out, and we realise that so far from being made in the image and likeness of God, humanity is, instead, a virus with shoes, ‘consuming and destroying everything in sight’, then we might attempt to make this planet a little more tolerable for the animals.
 Atheist activist, Aron Ra.
4 replies on “Comments by Gaedhal & Adûnâi”
I would like to clarify something about the word panentheist.
Rarely, I have been using it on this blog for more than 10 years (see for example the lead paragraphs of this 2011 post, and even my exchange with Brandon in the comments section).
But as I recall I was already using the word, albeit only in my soliloquies, since the second decade of the 1980s when I lived in San Rafael, California.
What is the difference between pantheist and deist? Weikart tried to differentiate between the two but his explanation was gibberish and didn’t stick in my brain.
The deism of the enlightened philosophers was kind of nebulous. But the difference is that the deists were still to some extent theists. Pantheism breaks with the view of God as a personal being and makes it impersonal.
Have you commented on this site before (if not send us an email please)?
(If you let me.) It’s the question as to what might be viewed as divine. Implicit in these particular systems is their monotheism – imo, panentheism could be viewed as dualistic (our world: one god, beyond: another god). Polytheistic systems in this regard will probably be equalled to atheism because their gods and goddesses, local and global, will not fit the definition of divinity.
My personal view – closer to polytheistic/atheistic, with Nature as an arbiter of the battling race-gods as to who inherits the planet and becomes the new humanity.
I have started a discussion defending my blog post on a subreddit TheMotte, which seems fairly high-IQ.