Politics can change, certainly. But I would maintain that the Christian worldview, with the characteristics I listed below (a belief in universal brotherhood, free will, equality of sexes and races, life as fundamentally a moral contest between Good and Evil, and all the rest, such as the supposed value of repentance and forgiveness mentioned by Alain DeBenoist), hasn’t changed. You can find all of these ideas in the gospels, and they didn’t exist before Christianity.
Their implementation in politics is subject to change, but these changes will in most cases be only superficial. The implementation can in fact be quite different (for example, monarchy vs. democracy) without changing underlying beliefs. Even Hitler, who actually was a proponent of a radically different worldview, had to pretend to be a Christian. You might want to think about that and why it was necessary. If worldviews could change so easily, such subterfuge wouldn’t have been needed.
If the Third Reich had been victorious in WWII, it would have gone a long way towards fostering the rejection of Christianity and its associated worldview, and introducing a different one with quite different politics:
• It seems safe to say we would definitely have gotten rid of the extreme philo-semitism that is part of Christianity.
• A belief in free will would probably also have been a casualty (Darwinism is deterministic), and the Christian faith in universal brotherhood would have been completely abandoned.
• The Nazi belief in eugenics would have taken them in quite different directions.
That this Nazi worldview was rejected by the rest of the white race meant that the political trajectory would remain unchanged.
11 replies on “On the transvaluation of values”
Previously on that thread Frost had said: “What is the political process but an implementation of a preexisting worldview, anyway?” which explains why Nietzsche wanted a “transvaluation of all values.”
See also the last pages of Nietzsche’s The Antichrist.
Jack Frost isn’t describing Christianity as it existed in history; he is simply fabricating his own notion of what Christianity is, and then constructing a false idol of Christianity, and then imputing the ills of the modern West to this idol. Politics has changed fundamentally over the past 2000 years, and regarding the changes as “superficial” is non-historical.
Christianity is foremost a soteriology, and not a social policy, or concrete legal code. (There is no Sharia or Torah in Christianity). So he is wrong to say that Christianity is about the equality of the races, the sexes, free will, universal brotherhood etc. His comment that Christianity brought a new vision to the world as a moral contest between Good and Evil is ridiculous. The Aryan prophet Zoroaster also brought this vision to the world, and it is probably even stronger in Zoroastrianism than in Christianity, and also made free will a central aspect of this struggle. Whether Christianity developed independently of Zoroastrianism or not isn’t the issue; just that in Christianity these ideas did exist and they are not contrary to earlier Aryan doctrines.
Universalism — and I suppose we do need to be careful with this word because it can has very different meanings — existed in Stoicism and developed after the conquests of Alexander, and during the Roman empire. As I’ve tried to point out before, Empire is the real enemy of the White race, or any race for that matter. Empires by their nature have a tendency to develop universal doctrines because they rule over various peoples, and they tend to promote amalgamation because local population centers lose their sovereignty, and are exposed to various races and peoples.
You did not digest what I said in the other thread: Constantinople started as a mongrel city because of Christian doctrine.
Ibidem.
Ibidem & idealising the downtrodden did not exist in the West before Christian takeover.
It certainly marked a paradigm shift in the Ancient World–did you read The Antichrist’s last pages?
The Byzantine empire was a continuation of the Roman Empire and Rome didn’t restrict citizenship to the Latini people, so the principle of mogrelization had already been established. Empires are breeding grounds for mongrels, and happen in non-Christian empires also e.g. Mongol, Ottoman etc. Christianity doesn’t demand the equality of the races or sexes, or cultures or anything else. It is a soteriology for individuals, and it applies outside of and independently of temporal governments.
Christianity did change human consciousness in important ways, but the ideas of the modern world that we all condemn did not come from Christianity, nor are they derived from it. Jack Frost has just invented his own Christianity. Yes, I’ve read Nietzche. Has Jack Frost never heard of Zoroastrianism outside of Nietzche?
It’s true that the process of mongrelisation began in imperial Rome before Christianity, but when Constantine handed over the empire to his bishops, the miscegenation process escalated. I would recommend your visiting The Occidental Observer and take issue with Frost there.
Honestly, I’m increasingly believing Christianity and Judaism are just knock-offs of Zoroastrianism. But while I like Zoroastrianism a little better than its derivatives, I don’t think it would be sufficient for a racial state in an industrialized world.
What you need is formal, explicit racism. You must be racist. You must exterminate anti-racism. Otherwise the huge mass of coloreds will bury you. Christianity is dying and should die, but hoping that with Christianity gone you’ll just so happen to back-step into racism isn’t good enough.
Frost’s point is the same of Conservative Swede’s: neo-Christians are the secular sons of our parents’ religion. But their Christian moral grammar has not only been maintained but, paradoxically, increased.
Remember the Nietzsche quote in “Schweitzer niglets” that you have read more than once. In our times the elites and even the proles are behaving like Albert with his pickaninnies—all crazy “holier than thou” pseudo-apostates trying to compete who has, over their heads, St Francis’ shining halo.
I agree, but the ethos of the Roman empire still wouldn’t save us with modern transportation available. They’d levy a bunch of slaves from China or something.
Obviously.
Only something like NS could do the trick.
“.I have made every land dear to its dwellers, even though it had no charms whatever in it 4: had I not made every land dear to its dwellers, even though it had no charms whatever in it, then the whole living world would have invaded the Airyana Vaêgô.”
— Zend Avesta
It is historically risible to say that the secular world is simply the bastardized offspring of Christianity. That makes about as much sense as saying that the European Union is just a knock off of the Third Reich. Besides, you could just as easily argue that pre-Christian doctrines, like neo-Platonism, are enemies of the White Race because Plotinus developed the concept of the One. And this One means that we are all brothers, and we should partake in universal goodwill. Such an historical claim would be widely denounced as ridiculous by scholars because Plotinus’s doctrine is metaphysical, and doesn’t pertain to political or social policy.
You are not arguing honestly: neither Zoroastrianism nor the noxious Plotinus’s doctrine made such an impact on Western civilisation as Christianity.
Update of August 3
I am glad that Frost responded directly to you on The Occidental Observer (that I excerpted: here).