On Friday I posted a 13-minute segment of a video under the title ‘Transvaluing Cross’ about a recent interview with Tom Holland. Now I’d like to embed the full interview, which lasts more than an hour:
At minute 11 Holland says something that explains secular Christianity:
‘If you are hostile to Christianity in the West, almost certainly you will be hostile to Christianity because of deeply Christian reasons’ (my emphasis).
Now that I’ve watched the full interview, I’ve noticed something that Holland fails to notice. When he talks about Roman sexuality during the Roman Empire he says that it was ruthless compared to our morality. But like any normie, Holland doesn’t know he’s talking about the decadent Roman Empire, not Republican Rome. Anyone who wants to learn about Aryan customs and habits when it comes to marriage should read what Tacitus said about the ancient Germans, or what Eduardo Velasco wrote about Spartan marriage.
Quite apart from that flaw, the interview is excellent for understanding the POV of this site, The West’s Darkest Hour. Holland explains admirably how Christian ethics transmuted into the civil rights preached by Martin Luther King, and the sexual ‘liberation’ that reigns today including the ‘rights’ of transgender people.
Nevertheless, ‘although progressives are deeply Christian’ says Holland, ‘for the first time in American history they are not acknowledging that’.
12 replies on “Secular Christianity”
There is a corollary to what Holland says in the interview: that Christians and Secular Christians have dug trenches in the ideological war against each other where there is no possible dialogue on earth between them.
This is also what those belonging to the racial right have done with me! Instead of trying to argue with me (for example my eternal argument of mestizaje in Latin America) they dug a trench between us where they only dialogue with themselves. They are even capable of arguing with people on their left (remember those blood sports before YouTube cancelled many accounts) but never dare to argue with someone on their right…
Thank you for such great articles! For our “permanent” Western religion, we will use this present “christian” infra/structures , change these to Greco- Roman, instead! For example, these churches will be turned into Roman temples, as the Vatican is built upon a temple to Mithras. Instead of the “Baltimore Catechism”, we will substitute, Marcus Aurelius’, “Meditations”.
We will ship our parasitic $$$-changers to their ancestral home, and western man can ( at least) be free to plot his own destiny, without “purse strings” attached!
Amen.
According to this website
https://www.unz.com/article/how-fake-is-roman-antiquity/
the works of Tacitus (and Aurelius) are fake.
For other works of Tacitus, such as Germania and De Agricola, we don’t even have any medieval manuscripts.
They were plagiarizing Byzantine chronicles.
If Tacitus is removed from the list of reliable sources, the whole historical edifice of the Roman Empire suffers from a major structural failure.
I don’t know if you’re a troll or a sockpuppet, but The Unz Review is not a reliable source. The Jew Unz believes every conspiracy theory one can imagine, like that Mossad did 9/11, or that Oswald didn’t act alone. One should study the consensus among classicists regarding Tacitus. Unlike other areas of academia, the study of classics isn’t yet contaminated by ideology as many other areas are.
He is right on 9/11 and Oswald though.
The Jew Unz didn’t invent this “conspiracy theory”, it is argued by Europeans and Russians like Fomenko, Heinsohn…
In this case, the contamination goes back to the 17th century when Scaligeran chronology was invented. Scaligeran chronology took as basis Biblical chronology from the Old Testament.
Tacitus probably existed, but his works were rewritten and either he lived in much later times, or he was a Byzantine historian.
You may not agree with all their arguments, but there is a strong argument that Scaligeran chronology is wrong.
A critic of Christianity and the Bible should criticize all Biblical contamination, including the fake chronology.
Only crazy or arrogant people who haven’t read Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy or the critics of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (CTs) believe in such things. Here we repudiate CTs as the worst prolefeed with which the System feeds the alienated proles.
And as far as Tacitus is concerned, I prefer to believe the scholars than the nonsense that Unz publishes.
The UR articles on this are thought-provoking, however, much of what we know about Roman and Greek history comes from inscription, statuary, coinage, etc… so the idea that EVERYTHING rests on a tenuous textual records (or interpretations/interpolation) is a bit overblown in Guyenot’s summation. In some cases our view of certain eras comes down to surviving manuscript, but only inasmuch as that manuscript agrees with the archaeological record and corraborating records of neighboring cultures. No doubt, there was much interpolation and outright forgery between 400-1100 AD. Christianity (or whatever the initial movement was called in the 4th to 8th century) destroyed much but much survived by accident which substantiates the contra view and which the Christians preserved unintentionally. I think there is an argument to be made for revisionism, but not the type of grand revisionism espoused by the Russian/Guyenot view, that Romanians are the “true” Romans, etc… which is actually quite in line with other academic Slavic claims to extreme antiquity or preeminence, for example the modern Macedonian claims that Alexander the Great was actually Slavic, etc… After all, what survived in the historical record was written by “the victor” and often in hindisght at the behest of a patron, after all. And in a rare disagreement with CT, he is our gracious host after all, I do believe that much of what gets passed around in today’s conspiracy theory culture contains kernels of truth. I don’t write it off wholesale, however, he is absolutely correct in pointing out that a paranoiac view of history simply leads one down into the labyrinth, and is often intentionally deployed to demoralize us in telling us we can never know the truth in front of our eyes.
Of course, many so-called conspiracy theories (Wikipedia classifies the racial replacement of the West as such) turn out to be the absolute truth. But not things like the ‘fact’ that Hangar 14 has alien ships, or the so-called fake Moon landing. These and many other similar nonsense only discredit the movement. For example, Ron Unz boasts that he will never, ever read Bugliosi’s book while, at the same time, he believes books that promote the conspiracy theory about the assassination of JFK.
Anyone who leaves the courtroom when the prosecutor or defence attorney speaks, because he is already dogmatically positioned, has the delusion of being the possessor of the Truth.
“But not things like the ‘fact’ that Hangar 14 has alien ships, or the so-called fake Moon landing. These and many other similar nonsense only discredit the movement.”
This is the problem with the Dissident Right (DR) in general; the excesses with which they approach conspiracy theories. Take for example the current hurricane Helene. There are already conspiracies circulating in the DR that Helene was caused by the US government using energy disruption weapons to destroy White Rural American cities to prevent them from voting for Kamala Harris. They did something similar with the Maui fires. This is Alex Jones tier idiocy on steroids.
Now there are legitimate conspiracies but there are also just regular events (most of the time). Knowing which is which takes maturity and intelligence and emotional grounding; all lacking in the DR. I get frustrated all the time reading Dissident commentary because I can’t stand immature bulls**t.
I was cursing every day during Covid because the DR thought that both the disease and the vaccine were a deliberate attempt at killing off billions of people to satisfy the “depopulation agenda” of the “elites”. The only people the Left and their Jewish financiers want to “depopulate” are Whites, and they’re doing that by immigration not by James-Bond-esque bio weapons. I don’t need conspiracy theories to explain gain-of-function research gone awry or regulatory capture and corporate greed resulting in toxic vaccines.
CT, you’re sanity on this subject is refreshing.
Thank you, and thanks also for your support elsewhere!
I would also add, if you have an appetite for it, there is some excellent scholarship on Christianity and Judaism’s interpolative/reinterpretative lens. Jan Assman, of course, probably dealt the most substantial blow to Abrahamist cosmology, ethics, etc… through his work on early Hebrew cooption of Egyptian and near Eastern myth and history. I think it goes further than that though, and figures like Philo likely fabricated a great deal of Jewish antiquity in hopes of garnering position with the new Roman patrons in the east c. 100 BC. I know CT posted a link the other day regarding current discussions on Youtube related to what we reliably know about early Abrahamism. The other works I would recommend for understanding interpolation/reinterpretation would be Algis Uzdavinys work on Neo-Platonism (Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth) and Siniossoglou’s work on Byzantine clerical historical subversion (Radical Platonism in Byzantium) to understand what kinds of ideas were concealed in Christian history and how they were concealed by figures within the church.