web analytics

Category: Axiology

Categories
Ancient Rome Axiology

Christianity:

The communism of antiquity, 7th and last

by Alain de Benoist

Editor’s note: I didn’t invent the term ‘neo-Christianity’.
Remember that this essay was published in French
almost… half a century ago!:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

In his essay on The End of the Ancient World (op. cit.), Saint Mazarin rightly recalls that, until recently, the culture of the Late Empire has always seemed to us ‘qualitatively inferior to that of the great civilisations that preceded it’. But today, he says, this is no longer the case: ‘All the voices of the “decadent” Roman world, between the 3rd and 6th centuries, have become accessible to us’. Conversely, ‘we can say that decadentism, expressionism and other modern categories of literary or artistic criticism are so many ways of understanding the world of the Late Empire… The kinship between our age and that world is a fact on which everyone can agree’. And he finally asks: ‘To what extent can we extend this revaluation of the poetry and art of the Late Empire to manifestations of social and political order?’

Curiously, Mazarino, for whom we probably live in the best of all possible worlds, draws from this observation the moral that the idea of decadence is illusory. At no point does he think that if the Late Empire seems more worthy of appreciation to our contemporaries, it is because they find stigmata familiar to them in it. After all, the current period refers like no other to the image of the tenebrae that Erasmus spoke of, and it is this similarity that has put us in a position to appreciate what previous generations, in better health, could not see.

Indeed, studying the conditions in which the Roman Empire died is not only of historical and abstract interest. The kinship between the two conjunctures, the parallel often drawn between those conditions and those that prevail today, makes it profoundly relevant. Moreover, many admit, with Louis Rougier, that ‘revolutionary ideology, socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, derive from the pauperism of the prophets of Israel. In the criticism of the abuses of the old regime by the orators of the Revolution, in the prosecution of the capitalist regime by the communists of our days, the echo of the furious diatribes of Amos and Hosea against the course of a world in which the insolence of the rich oppresses and flays the poor resounds; as do the harsh invectives of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature against imperial Rome’ (op. cit.).

Celsus would not find it challenging to identify even today ‘a new race of men, born yesterday, without a country or traditions…, united against all institutions… and glory in common execration.’ Once again, in the Western world, the fanatici, sometimes living ‘in community,’ truly stateless, hostile to all ordered structures, to all science, hierarchy and borders, to all selection, separate themselves from the world and denounce the ‘Babylon’ of modern times. Just as the first Christian communities proclaimed the abolition of all natural categories for the exclusive benefit of the ecclesia of believers, today, a neo-Christianity [Editor’s emphasis] is spreading, which announces the imminent advent of a new Parousia, of an egalitarian world unified by the overcoming of ‘old quarrels,’ the socialisation of Love and the flight forward in the delay of the ‘social.’ On December 30, 1973, Brother Roger Schutz, Prior of Taizé, declared: ‘Above all, there must be Love, because it is Love that gives us unity.’

Ancient Christianity rejected the world. The Church of classical times distinguished the order above from that of here below. Neo-Christianity boldly transferring its secular hopes from heaven to ‘here below’, secularises its theodicy. It no longer celebrates the solemn marriage of converts with the mystical Bridegroom but the marriage of Christ and humanity through the intercession of the universal Spirit of socialism. It too rejects the world, but only the present one, affirming that it can be ‘changed,’ that another must succeed it, and that the messianic union of the ‘disadvantaged’ can, through its intelligent intervention, fulfil on earth the old dream of the biblical prophets: to stop history and make injustices, inequalities and tensions disappear.

‘Today more than ever, the Greek Spirit, transformed into a scientific spirit, and the messianic spirit transformed into a revolutionary spirit, are irreconcilably opposed. The existence of cold-blooded sectarians and fanatics to whom subjective participation in a body of revealed truths, in gnosis, gives, in their own eyes, rights over everything and everyone, the right to do everything and to allow themselves everything, persists in posing a question of life or death to a society that is on the verge, not of a war of religion, but of something close to that historical plague: the war of civilisation’ (Jules Monnerot, Sociology of the Revolution, Fayard, 1969).

Certain critics repeat against European civilisation and culture the words of Orosius and Tertullian against Rome: today’s setbacks are the punishment for its past faults. It pays for its ‘pride’, wealth, power, and conquests. The barbarians who come to plunder it will make it atone for the sufferings of the Third World, the impotent ambition and the humiliation of the poorly endowed. On its ruins, the Jerusalem of the new times will be built. Then, we will see the disappearance of ‘the veil of mourning that veiled all peoples, the shroud that covered all nations’ (Isaiah XXV, 7). We are once again faced with the same moralising interpretation of history. But neither history nor the world is governed by morality.

The world is mute: it gravitates in silence. In his essay on The Jewish Question, Marx stated that only communism could ‘fulfil in a profane way the human foundation of Christianity’, thus pointing out the ‘revolutionary inadequacies’ of Christian doctrine (‘religion of the slaves, but not a revolution of the slaves’) and the affinities between the two prophetic systems, the spiritual and the terrestrial. Roger Garaudy clarifies these words by recalling that Christianity was ‘an element that disintegrated Roman power’. He adds:

The hostility to the imperial cult, the refusal to participate in it, and even more so the prohibition of Christians from serving militarily in the Empire at a time when recruitment was becoming increasingly difficult and when the number of Christians was increasing daily, a prohibition which persisted until the 4th century, had a clear revolutionary meaning. Moreover, there is in the character of Christ, magnified by the collective imagination of the first Christians, and heir of numerous messiahs similar to the Essene ‘Lord of Justice’, an undeniable revolutionary aspect (Marxisme du XXe siecle, La Palatine, 1966).

Engels, who reminds us that ‘like all great revolutionary movements, Christianity was the work of the popular masses,’ also noted the kinship between the two doctrines: the same messianic certainty, the same eschatological hope, the same conception of truth (well perceived by O. Tillich).

In early Christianity, he sees ‘a completely new phase of religious evolution, destined to become one of the most revolutionary elements in the history of the human spirit’ (Contribution a l’histoire du christianisme primitif, in Marx and Engels, Sur la religion, selection of texts, Ed. Sociales, 1960). And in his eyes, Christianity is the non-plus ultra of religion, the ‘consummation’ (in the sense of Aufhebung) of all the religions that preceded it. Having become the ‘first possible universal religion’ (Engels, Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity) it is also, by the force of things, the last: every end marks a caesura, which implies another beginning. After Christianity, assuming that there is an ‘after,’ there can only come its overcoming.

Joseph de Maistre said: ‘The Gospel outside the Church is a poison,’ and Father Daniélou: ‘If we separate the Gospel from the Church, it loses its temper.’ These words have their whole meaning today, when the Church, the new catoblepas[1], seems to want to abolish its history and return to its origins. Throughout the two millennia, structures of order were established within the Church which, while adapting to the European mentality, allowed it to put into form and reason the dangerous evangelical message; the ‘poison’ having been softened, the faithful had become Mithridatic.

Today, neo-Christianity wants to put these two millennia in parentheses to return to the sources of a genuinely universal religion and give a more significant impact to its message. So, if it is true that we are living through the ‘end’ of the Church (not, indeed, of the Gospel), this end takes the form of a return to a beginning. The Gospel (pastoral ministry) increasingly separates itself from the Church (dogmatics). But this is simply a repetition: the tendency is to bring Catholics back to the ‘revolutionary’ conditions in and through which early Christianity was created. Hence, the interest of this historical overview which, while showing us what happened, tells us at the same time what awaits us.
 
___________

[1] The animal of which Pliny the Elder speaks, slow and stupid in appearance and which killed with its gaze (Translator’s note).

Categories
Axiology Racial right

Neonormies

Or:

On Old and New Tablets

A passage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ‘On Old and New Tablets’, inspires me for this post. But before I continue with the routine of this site (perhaps my next post will be one more passage from Irving’s book on Himmler), I would like to clarify something about today’s previous post.

The pair of four words, Gens alba conservanda est (White people must be preserved) and ¡Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario! (Let us eliminate all unnecessary suffering!), define the two commandments, or new conception of right and wrong, in our new Tablets of the Law.

The second commandment is given because of the colossal hells that some abusive humans inflict on their children, or the defenceless animals at their mercy.

That doesn’t mean that only those who already have these two commandments as their religion can be my comrades. Although Hitler was surprised when Himmler confessed to him that he still practised hunting with other Nazis, Uncle Adolf couldn’t have formed a political movement if he repudiated them. But it is obvious that a priest of the holy words has already taken his vows to fulfil both commandments (vows that non-priests aren’t yet capable of fulfilling because they lack the compassion we have developed).

Another thing I would like to say today is something else about my eternal quarrel with the American racial right. Yesterday I saw a video by Jared Taylor about the recent attacks in Germany perpetrated by a sandnigger. Taylor mocks the fact that the Eurocrats have been ‘speechless’ and ‘stunned’ after the massacre of civilian Germans. However, as a good Christian or secular neochristian (Taylor has never confessed whether he still believes in the religion of his parents) he fails to realise that these Eurocrats have taken Christian morality to its ultimate consequences (forgive your enemies, never allow yourself to hate them, turn the other cheek if they attack you, etc.).

While I watched the entire Taylor video, I didn’t read the recent Counter-Currents article on the massacre. I merely read the first two comments in that thread, where the first thing a couple of commenters did was say ‘Merry Christmas’.

Apparently, neither the commenters nor the author of that article are aware that it was precisely that Christianity that they still celebrate at Christmas that caused not only the massacre, but the previous massacres perpetrated by the jihadis that Taylor mentions in his video, and the massacres that other sandniggers will perpetrate in the future! Just as George Washington and the other Founding Cucks enabled Jewish infection in their brand new country, so the religion that conquered the Aryan soul has imposed on whites Semitic commandments diametrically opposed to the two commandments of our Tablets of the Law.

No, there was no point in reading either C-C’s article or the rest of the comments. The only thing to reiterate is that those on the racial right are neo-normies, not 21st-century National Socialists who have woken up to the real world.

Categories
Axiology Correspondence Kali Yuga

A concerned reader

Three recent comments by a commenter motivate me to quote, in a single post, all his comments since last year, including recent ones:

Eradicating non-Aryan elements from the planet is a legitimate, sensible and practical strategy for continued existence for Aryankind. People captured by Neo-Christian morality condemn such actions as evil. But what greater evil is the complete extinction of Aryankind and degeneration into an Untermenschen cesspool.

—posted last year in the thread ‘Black Bread’.

In any given future Aryan Ethno-state, societies or communities, Christian-related materials will be only be available to those who are extremely racially sound and immune to the Christian poison. Such materials are only to be used for historical or academic research or evaluation. Individuals who are able to access such materials should be as ruthless as Heinrich Himmler and fiercely racially loyal or unpolluted as SS members.

—posted in the thread ‘On John Milton’.

In Adolf Hitler: The Ultimate Avatar by Miguel Serrano, (Miguel Serrano was one of Savitri Devi’s companions and compatriots), it reveals that Yahweh and its supposed son Jesus are the demiurge. Yahweh is the evil “god” of the world and it is demonic. Whether this hypothesis is true or not, Aryans are the true stepping stone for the next stage in human evolution. As time and the Kali Yuga advances, the forces of decay and disintegration at work as described by Savitri will accelerate their actions against the true divine spark and chosen race of humanity which is the Aryan. The ultimate endgame is the devolution of humanity back to the ape and Neanderthals.

—posted in the thread ‘Moloch = Yahweh’.

Yes, the Serpent, Molech, Baal, Satan and Yahweh are one and the same, this is true of all Semitic entities. Yahweh symbolizes the entirety of the forces of decay in our present age that bring Aryans to their final doom, it is the prime mover of the Kali Yuga. The day of salvation will finally arrive for the Aryan once Christian ethics are extirpated from the world forever. I am shocked that there are no rigorous and supportive reactions from Aryans to this post. [emphasis added by Ed.]

—posted in Ibid.

I just hope the seed planted will blossom into an even mightier tree than the poisonous weeds that are Christianity and Neo-Christianity. Racially healthy Aryans in any future Aryan civilization or society will look back on Christians and Christianity as abhorrent and ridiculous as dunking your face or body into a pool of pig swill. If all Aryans in the entire world start burning bibles in bonfires and smashing the last stones of these very last churches into the ground, we knew that we had finally won.

—posted in the thread ‘Crusade’.

The near perfect comtemporary antithesis of the Christian poison are Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and members of the SS. The relentless and pathetic slander on Heinrich Himmler and the SS shows how afraid the racial enemies of the Aryan man are. It shows us a glimpse when Christian “values” and “ethics” (I would call that poison) are completely repudiated. Once the Christian poison is totally expunged from the soul of Aryan man, he is completely healthy again and it will be gameover for racial enemies, traitors and the world we known today.

—posted in the thread ‘Might is Right, 8’.

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 the iron law of racial survival is the only way.

—posted today in the thread ‘Christian nationalism’.

I would like to say that the Christian “god”, which is a virulent mental virus [emphasis added by Ed.], 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.

—posted in Ibid.

You might have a better chance of convincing a clumsy bull to climb or fly up a high wall than 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 nationalists are suffering from psychotic and schizophrenic ambiguity.

—posted in Ibid.

Categories
Axiology

Two factions

I recently said that I don’t talk about news on this site unless we use a news story to discuss metapolitics. From this angle, I can use the recent American election to illustrate one of the ideological pillars of this site.

Everyone knows what Christianity is. But those who have read Tom Holland will understand what we mean by atheistic hyper-Christianity, which we sum up in one word: neochristianity. In short, all Western atheists are neochristians since Christianity has not only the dogmatic side but also an axiological side. To give just one example. In my previous post I mentioned The Turner Diaries: a novel that ends when the Aryans exterminate the non-Aryans on the whole planet. Since that novel is never mentioned on white nationalist sites as the blueprint for what needs to be done, we could label them all as Judeo-Christian or Neo-Judeochristian. Why? Because the proclamation of human rights in the time of the French Jacobins, as Holland saw in his book, is at heart a proclamation of Christian ethics, albeit stripped of its religious trappings.

In his book Dominion, Holland included this image that imitate Moses’ commandments.

So there are no authentic apostates from Christianity in the West, except those who think as the late William Pierce thought in his novel—and in his history of the white race, where he said that all Aryan conquests failed because they failed to exterminate the natives. (This Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich did plan with their Master Plan East because, unlike the American racialists, they did dare to cross the psychological Rubicon: transvalue all Christian values.)

Once the POV of this site is understood, it becomes clear that the recent American election was a contest between the basically Christian values of those who voted for Trump and the neochristian values of those who voted for the mulatta. The problem is that both factions are two sides of the same coin. It was clear from Biden’s inaugural speech, from the Woke vocabulary he used, that whoever wrote it had already left traditional Christianity behind in pursuit of neochristianity: which takes the principle of Christian equity to its ultimate consequence (those who have not yet read Dominion should read it, abridged by me here).

Which faction is worse, the new or the old? It is very common among the American racial right to say that the new one is worse, but an accelerationist who has in mind the metaphor of the frog gradually burning out without noticing it would reply that maybe the old one is worse.

I don’t know which is worse. It is irrelevant. What counts is that the Pauline principle that there will be no more distinction between Greeks—that is, whites—and Jews came, in its secular transmutation in the 1960s, to be metastasised so that we would see blacks as brothers and ‘liberate’ our women. In our century Wokism took that principle to its ultimate consequences with homo ‘marriage’ and transgender empowerment. The latter may seem grotesque but it is grounded in Christian ideals, as I said in my 2019 post ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’, where I talk about the Franciscans of the 14th century.

The conservative revolution that is causing so much excitement among those rejoicing at Trump’s victory has to be understood from this meta-political angle. It is not a genuine revolution, as was the German NS. Rather, it is two Christian factions fighting each other: one very liberal and the other conservative. But salvation lies in abandoning Christian ethics altogether: which is why I changed the subtitle of this blog today from ‘Gens alba conservanda est’ to ‘Post-1945 National Socialism’.

Unlike today’s racialists Hitler understood Xtianity.

Categories
Axiology Might is right (book) Painting

Might is right, 10

by Ragnar Redbeard [1]

The Golden Rule by Norman Rockwell (oil on canvas). Fifteen years after WW2, The Saturday Evening Post relaxed its stance on the depictions of races other than white people. One of the first multiracial images to grace the cover of the Post was Rockwell’s The Golden Rule.

Is the Golden Rule a rational rule? — Is it not rather a menial rule — a coward rule — a best-policy rule? Why is it ‘right’ for one man to do unto others as he would have others do to him and, what is right? If ‘others’ are unable to injure him or ‘do good’ to him, why should he consider them at all? Why should he take any more notice of them than of so many worms? If they are endeavouring to injure him, and able to do it, why should he refrain from returning the compliment? Should he not combat them, does not that give them carte-blanche to injure and destroy him? May it not be ‘doing good’ to others, to war against them, to annihilate them? May it not also be ‘good’ for them to war against others? (Again, what is ‘good’?)

Is it reasonable to ask preying animals, to do unto others as they would be done by? — If they acted accordingly would they, could they survive? If some only accepted the Golden Rule as their guiding moral maxim, would they not become a prey to those who refused to abide thereby?

Upon what reasonable and abiding sanction does this ‘Rule’ rest? — Has it ever been in actual operation among men? — Can it ever be successfully practiced on earth — or anywhere else? — Did Jesus Christ practice it himself upon all occasions? — Did His apostles, his ‘sons of thunder’ practice it? — Did Peter the boaster do so, when he ‘denied Him’ for fear of arrest at the camp-fire? — Did Judas the financier, when he sold him for net cash? Also, how many of his modern lip-servants actually practice it in their daily business intercourse with each other? How Many?

These questions require no formal answering. They answer themselves in the asking. And here it must be remembered that the best test of a witness, is cross-examination. ‘Do unto others as you would have others do to you.’ No baser precept ever fell from the lips of a feeble Jew.

It is from alleged moralisms of this sort, and fabulous ‘principles’ that our mob orators, our communards, revivalists, anarchists, red-republicans, democrats, and other mob-worshippers in general derive the infernal inspiration that they are perpetually hissing forth. Even the subversive pyrotechnic watchwords of their mephisto-millennium, are to be found in the ‘holy gospels.’ Is it not written, ‘and God sendeth angels to destroy the people?’ — Behold! these men are the ‘angels’ that He sends: — politicians and reformers!

‘Love one another’ you say is the supreme law, but what power made it so? — Upon what rational authority does the Gospel of Love rest? — Is it even possible to practice, and what would result from its universal application to active affairs? Why should I not hate mine enemies, and hunt them down like the wild beasts that they are? Again I ask, why? If I ‘love’ them does that not place me at their mercy? Is it natural for enemies to ‘do good’ unto each other and, what is ‘good’? Can the torn and bloody victim ‘love’ the blood-splashed jaws that rend it limb from limb? Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?

‘Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and despitefully use you,’ is the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back, when kicked. Obey it, O! reader, and you and all your posterity to the tenth generation shall be irretrievably and literally damned. They shall be hewers of wood, and carriers of water, degenerates, Gibeonites. But hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, smash him down; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law.

He who turns the ‘other cheek’ is a cowardly dog — a Christian dog.

Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom, with compound interest liberally added thereunto. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, aye four-fold, a hundredfold. Make yourself a Terror to your adversary and when he goeth his way, he will possess much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself respected in all the walks of life, and your spirit — your immortal spirit — shall live, not in an intangible paradise, but in the brains and thews of your aggressive and unconquerable sons. After all, the true proof of manhood is a splendid progeny; and it is a scientific axiom that the timid animal transmits timidity to its descendents.

If men lived ‘like brothers’ and had no powerful enemies (neighbors) to contend with and surpass, they would rapidly lose all their best qualities; like certain oceanic birds that lose the use of their wings, because they do not have to fly from pursuing beasts of prey. If all men had treated each other with brotherly love since the beginning, what would have been the result now? If there had been no wars, no rivalry, no competition, no kingship, no slavery, no survival of the Toughest, no racial extermination, truly what a festering ‘hell fenced in’ this old globe would be?

_____________

[1] According to Wikipedia it was Arthur Desmond (1859-1929) who wrote under the pen name ‘Ragnar Redbeard’.

Categories
Axiology Christendom Deranged altruism Tom Holland

Secular Christianity

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’.

Categories
Axiology Gaedhal (commenter)

Sieg Heil!

by Gaedhal

Remember what the opposite of this is, white man. It was “academic literature” such as this that was burnt by the Hitlerjugund. Karl Andersson studies in England. England would be free of such pests had they not defeated themselves at World War 2.

Both the American Civil War and World War 2—both of which were the biggest, deadliest, most technologically sophisticated wars of their day—were really just the White man going to war to defeat himself. Only the negro won the American Civil War, and, as Alex Linder puts it: only the Jew won World War 2.

However, Christian axiology has convinced us that we win when we lose. The New Testament is full of enigmas like the last being first, the meek conquering the earth through their meekness; whores and tax-collectors (i.e. traitors and collaborators) being more heavenward than scribes and Pharisees; I am weak when I am strong.

That one wins when he loses is very much in this vein.

This is why I love: ‘Sieg Heil’. Christ tells us that we win when we lose. Hitler tells us that we win when we win. There are no oriental paradoxes, or enigmas or headscratchers from Herr Hitler. Nope: Hitler gives us the “straight dope” as a negro might phrase it in his ebonics.

Categories
Axiology Liberalism

Slave

(Connections, 2nd Season, Episode 20).

I’m not finished with James Burke, and I’d like to add to what I said about him in the comments section on Tuesday.

I have just watched episode 20 of the second season of Connections. I draw the viewer’s attention to what Burke says about the German concept of Lebensraum from this point until the end of the episode.

What impresses me about Burke, as what impresses me about two other Britons of whom in previous years I have spoken much on this site—Kenneth Clark and Tom Holland—is that, while I admire their intelligence and penetration in their observations—artistic and western history (Clark), religious, axiological and historical (Holland) and scientific, technological and historical (Burke)—, all three are prisoners of Christian morality.

If it were possible (obviously no BBC or similar TV service would fund my project) I would make a series of thirteen programmes explaining what Holland says: how the morality of the contemporary atheist, even the radical one, is still dominated by Christian ethics. But I would film that series from an opposite scale of values to that of the neochristian Holland.

In the segment linked above, for example, Burke reproves the doctrine of Lebensraum, which some Germans planned to implement in Africa or Latin America. Because of that scale of values that seems so natural to Burke and virtually all contemporary Britons, I live in a horrid world, and in a Latin American city at that.

What good is brilliance in explaining technological inventions that have revolutionised mankind if Burke remains a slave to Christian morality? Obviously, he has never asked himself this question because there are no transvalued men on his island.

Or are there?

Categories
Axiology Science

James Burke

The Day the Universe Changed: A Personal View by James Burke is a television documentary series produced by the BBC in 1985, written, produced and hosted by science historian James Burke. Its theme is the social impact of the development of science and technology. It was televised from 19 March to 21 May 1985. Although I saw some episodes that year, I am now trying to watch all the episodes (the first one can be seen here).

Yes: Burke is a normie. Although he is a secular humanist, he ignores some chapters of Christianity’s criminal history and, naturally, he also ignores race realism. Nevertheless, it is fascinating to see how science didn’t accept meteorites for a long time because it seemed absurd to think of stones falling from the sky. In another episode, he used Galileo’s paradigm to illustrate a great truth: ‘Experimentation itself depends on what’s official and what’s not’. Later he says: ‘Today’s version of the truth about the world is irreconcilable with the previous version’.

The big mistake of the proponents of race realism in the US is that it is impossible to convince Christians or atheistic neochristians of the goodness of scientific racism without first transvaluing their values. Whatever Burke’s limitations, his thesis is fascinating for understanding the fool’s errand if we limit ourselves with the tools of science to attack a medieval mindset.

Despite technological developments, the Christian mindset from which atheists still suffer is basically medieval. Think for example of how Charles Darwin predicted the extinction of the Negroes because he believed that the white man of the future would think in exclusively scientific terms. What happened was the diametrically opposite because of the absolute DOMINION of Christian morality in today’s secular world (those who haven’t read Tom Holland’s book by that title should read it now).

Although I might add something in the comments section in case there is something important to say about the next episodes, I would like to end this short entry with some words from Burke taken from that TV series: ‘The so-called voyage of discovery has as often as not made landfall for reasons little to do with the search of knowledge. Science, like all other human activities, is a product of what society at the time thinks it is important’ (emphasis added).

Categories
Axiology

He is back!

by Robert Morgan

Editor’s Note: I am pleased to report that, after a half-year absence, Morgan has returned to discuss with the conservative commenters at The Unz Review. In the comments section, I will quote a couple of more recent comments in other discussion threads by Morgan on that webzine whose commenters—except for Morgan and a few others—exemplify the deficiencies of the racial right, incapable of realising that the root of all evil is what Morgan points out in the article below:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

In his 1927 essay The Future of an Illusion Sigmund Freud took up the question of religion generally, not just Christianity, and put it in a Darwinian context, characterizing man’s religious inclinations as evolutionary adaptations needed to socialize him and make him more amenable to the requirements of civilization. That much seems true, but at the end, he concludes that the advance of science will eventually eliminate the illusion, and indeed, even in his time it looked as if it were already starting to do so. Interestingly enough, Adolf Hitler expressed a very similar opinion in his after-dinner talks with his subordinates. He expected Christianity to wither away under the relentless assault of science, eventually dying out completely. The great Aryan and the great Jew may have been in agreement, but both forecasts were wrong.

The much-exaggerated ‘death’ of Christianity is only appearing to take place because technological civilization is sucking out its essence. Christianity’s obsession with human equality and human rights are the moral codes that are at its core [emphasis by Ed.]. They have now been distilled into law, made into principles upon which that civilization is re-organizing itself, while at the same time the primitive parts, superstitious mumbo-jumbo such as the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, miracles, angels and demons, the belief in the existence of a soul, and the value of faith in a personal God who watches over mankind, etc., are discarded as dregs for which it has no further use. So Christianity isn’t dying at all, and shows no sign of doing so.

Far from having been killed off by the ‘progress’ of science, it has merely changed form. Preferences in law, academia, and finance for the negro and other lowly groups is the legal expression of Jesus’ prophecy that the first shall be last, and the last first. Through taxes and re-distribution of wealth the Christian admonition to give to the poor has become both secularized and compulsory. The system’s intense hostility to white racial survival and patriarchy, already codified into law in a thousand ways, are its embodiment of the notion of human equality as expressed in Galatians 3:28. Consequently, what further need is there of old-time forms of this religion? It may well be that they’re dying out, churches being abandoned and sold off, but this makes no difference when the racially poisonous core of Christianity—its ‘soul’, as it were—is immediately re-incarnated in the form of technological civilization itself.