web analytics
Categories
Philosophy Racial right Theology

Christian nationalism

by Gaedhal

I was reading Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy (1946). According to Russel, theism died out amongst the best minds in Europe, by 1700. This is, incidentally, how we could have a secular government established in America in the 18th Century. Aron Ra put a recording of Madeline Murray O’ Hare where she claimed that all the founders of America were atheists. In my view, this is an exaggeration. However, a lot of them weren’t theists. Thomas Jefferson called himself a materialist, as did Abraham Lincoln, four score and seven years later. John Adams wondered whether God even existed at all… which qualifies him as an agnostic. If only rich land-owning white men can vote—and, remember, white aristocrats have been having outbreaks of atheism since the Ionic Enlightenment, about 500 years before the common era—then the form of government that they would chose for themselves would be a secular godless government, in no way founded upon the Christian Religion, where Religion is only referred to as a negative phenomenon that must not be imposed, by the State, upon its citizens.

The reason why I am an elitist, of sorts, is because the mob is more than 300 years behind the intellectual elite in abandoning theism. Thankfully, some countries, like the United Kingdom, are transitioning into a post-theistic age.

The Philosopher Kings who established the United States, were non-theists. There might have been some sort of Aristotelian prime mover, who got the Cosmos started, however, this God no longer tinkers with or prods his creation. Thomas Paine, although a believer in an Almighty, of some deistic sort, nevertheless categorically rules out miracles. Paine thinks it absurd that a God would fix the laws of nature… and then break these laws through performing miracles. Paine does offer some positive arguments for God, such as the argument for God through mathematics/geometry/platonic forms… however, a god who doesn’t do miracles might as well not exist.

God used to have a lot of jobs to do. Prior to Newton and Galileo, objects were said to “prefer” to be at rest. Thus God’s might was needed to push the planets about the sky. If the planets are motoring across the sky, then God must be pushing them about. However Galileo and Newton proved that objects were utterly indifferent as to their being in motion or at rest. Thus, God was no longer needed to push the planets about the sky.

The motto of the Royal Society, headed up by Newton was and is: verba in nullius, which is Latin for: “We take nobody’s word for it”. In Christianity, we believe things because a holy-man said it. This is why Saint Paul is always vaunting how holy he is… how many times he went to prison for god… how poor and hungry he is for god. How many times he got flogged by the enemies of the Christian God. The holier one was, the more trustworthy he was meant to be.

Verba in Nullius is thus an antichrist saying. Scientists don’t give a fuck how holy you are. You either demonstrate what you claim, or it is not established. The Royal Society, thus, does not really care what God says, what Jesus says, what a Pope says, what a Holy Book says… Science is only interested in demonstrable reality.

However, another job that God had was to animate living things. Living objects, thanks to a false idea inherited from Aristotle, were also said to prefer rest. The fact that living things existed at all was proof—yes proof!—that God exists. However, the Biochemistry of which living things is composed is also totally indifferent—it has no preferences—whether it be at rest or in motion. Thus, there is no need for a god to animate our bodies through a magical object called a ‘soul’—or, in Latin: ‘anima’. Thus, there is no longer any need for a Great Cartoonist in the Sky to animate Aristotelian rest-preferring biological bodies with souls.

Hell was also disbelieved in by 1700, according to Russell. Newton was a Unitarian, and so, by rights, he should be shrieking up his bloody lungs in fiery torment, in Yahweh’s superheated torture chamber. However, the idea that Newton was in Hell was too much to swallow.

To recap: the elitists who founded America had all of this sussed out by the founding. They were deists, agnostics, materialists etc.

However, 300 years later, amongst the American mob, the Christian Superstition, is still rife among the populace. America is in real danger of succumbing to Christian Nationalism.

The mob will eventually abandon theism in America, though, just as they have already done in the United Kingdom… however, the mob always seems to be centuries behind the intellectual elite.

To me, the chapter: ‘The Rise of Science’ really demonstrates the gulf that exists between the elite philosophers, and the superstitious mobmen.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s 2 ¢

In certain quarters of the American racial right, Christian nationalism is popular.

For someone who, like me, already admired pantheism since 1973 and 1974 when we were taught Hegel at school, and knew about the existence of the pantheist theologian Teilhard de Chardin, I am surprised by the atavisms that Americans still suffer from. If only the racialists would take Uncle Adolf’s after-dinner talks as their guidebook! But even before Hitler, philosophical-theological treatises had already been published in Germany, which distanced the readers from the theism that persists in the hemisphere where I live.

It is not surprising that Karlheinz Deschner’s work on Christian criminal history has been translated and published in Spanish but not published in English. And with such gross ignorance do the racialists pretend to lead their country forward?

9 replies on “Christian nationalism”

I agree with Gaedhal’s sentiments. However, I’ve been down this road before with the Christian racialist right. Their argument is always that no virtuous, traditionalist society can be built on a basis of scientific materialism and that any attempt will always be self-liquidating. And they will point to the secular left and libertarians as proof positive that atheism / disbelief leads to liberalism and multi-racialism. I was foolish enough to think I could talk reasonably on this subject with Larry Auster 15 years ago. Those discussions went nowhere.

For the life of me, I cant see how a movement that has as one of its core beliefs anti-Semitism still continues to believe in a Jewish god. If you want to return to a European civilizational order, why on Earth wouldn’t you want to re-embrace the ethos of the pre-Christian religions and mythology? The God of Abraham is the psychological product of a desert tribe of Semites. It had no place being placed as the foundation for White civilization. But we might as well be urinating upstream when dealing with Christians. In many ways they are more frustrating than leftists. And that is not easy.

I would like to say that the Christian “god” (which is a virulent mental virus) is solely responsible for the population explosion of the racially and genetically inferior in the past few hundred years. It paves the way for Aryan extinction and it requires Kalki or an exterminationist solution to remedy it.

You might have a better chance of convincing a clumsy bull to climb or fly up a high wall then convincing Christian nationalists the error of their ways. A racially-sound Aryan child or youth raised in a racially-healthy Aryan collective can easily understand the obvious contradiction of trying to preserve the biological existence of the entire Aryan collective and embracing a foreign semitic god created from the foul sands of Judea. Useless to state it again, many Christian nationalist are suffering from psychotic and schizophrenic ambiguity.

This is the precise reason it requires a systemic collapse of such unprecedented severity to weed out unworthy Aryans that are still entrapped in the snare of Christian ethics. The present status quo and the “world” as we knew it not only reinforce Christian ethics, it rewards and incentivizes them. The entire ludicrous and ridiculous notion of “last shall be first, the first shall be the last” will be proven false and illusory once iron law of racial survival is the only way.

Richard Carrier discusses Christian Epistemology in various places, and how it conflicts with Scientific Epistemology. Christian Epistemology has as its foundation arguments from authority… and the holier that authority figure has, the more trustworthy what he says is likely to be. This is why, for instance, the Pope calls himself—‘Sanctissimus Dominus’—or ‘most holy Lord’ (which is mistranslated into “Holy Father” in English), and the Pope is allegedly infallible.

However, in scientific epistemology, arguments from authority, and arguments from holy men count for nothing, hence the scientific motto employed by the Royal Society: ‘verba in nullius’, discussed above.

I provided this chapter by Bertrand Russell as a pdf, if you would like to post a link to it.

Thanks: I just received that email.

What is religion? Religion is invented knowledge fabricated by itching brains when real knowledge was impossible.

It is actually more sinister than that. That definition of religion can be applied to the noble religion of the Greco-Romans. But Judeo-Christianity is clearly some kind of creature like the arachnid-like alien implanted in the victim’s face in the 1979 film.

In general, the message of the NT as opposed to pagan religion is not just a first naiveté to quote Paul Ricouer: it is an attempt to infect the Aryan mind with a poisonous parasite.

In Latin it is “nullius in verba”, not “verba in nullius”. Nullius is nominative, which means that it is the starting word of a sentence.

You are correct: it is ‘nullius in verba’ ‘nullius’ is a genitive singular. However, word order, in this case, doesn’t really matter, as Latin is an inflected language. Placing ‘nullius’ at the beginning serves to emphasise this as the most important of the three words comprising this motto, syntactically, though. I confess that I cannot quite work out the grammar of this phrase. Literally it is: ‘of nobody[’s] unto words’. I would have rendered it: ‘nullius verbō’, ‘by nobody’s word’, if I were thinking up a motto for the Royal Society. See the Wikipedia Article on this motto.

Comments are closed.