web analytics
Categories
Axiology

Narcos

I read the below post here:

The NS Worldview rejects Christianity as racially universalist and fundamentally foreign to the Germanic way of life.

The Christian fundamental laws, which were forcibly imposed on the Germanic people, stand in stark contrast to the Nordic-Germanic worldview. The Church teaches the equality of all people. It also puts this into practice within its sphere of influence. Anyone can become a Christian, whether Aryan, Jew, or Black. Thus, a unified humanity was to be created by eliminating all racial differences between peoples.

The dogmas of the Catholic Church originated in the Orient. They were shaped under Byzantine influence. The Germanic way of life, which alone corresponded to the German national character, had to give way to an unnatural Christian dogma.

The dogma of the Catholic Church states that human life on earth is filled with sin. The better afterlife is supposed to redeem them from it. “Love your enemies,” “Thou shalt not kill” are fundamental tenets of this faith. Motherhood, for the Germanic woman the fulfillment of her existence, is sinful.

The unnatural seclusion in a monastery or convent is pleasing to God. With all these beliefs, Christianity was alien to the nature of the Nordic-Germanic people. Through the doctrine that all people are equal before God, the Church destroyed racial consciousness. The Jewish blood element penetrated and weakened the peoples.

Only Adolf Hitler’s various laws for the preservation of the purity of Germanic blood and the elimination of foreign races from the national community put a stop to this.

I’d like to change the subject slightly.

I don’t want to talk about all the torture in this Mexican prison related to the cartels. But I do want to mention that in one type of execution, the victims had their eyes and feet taped, were wrapped in plastic, and put alive into a freezer meant for livestock. After a couple of days, the Mexicans were frozen solid. They called a butcher and cut them into small squares, which were later fed to the pigs.

This was a common practice around 2011 or 2012, not too far from the US.

Incredibly, many of these felons who had belonged to cartels are already free because, regarding the sanctity of human life, Mexican criminal law follows Christian mandates (“Love your enemies,” “Thou shalt not kill”). There is no death penalty in Mexico (these freezing were apparently done under the orders of the cartel, not the Mexican state).

In an ethnostate the ethical way, according to our scale of values, would be to kill them all. There wouldn’t be any prisoners, not even those like the gigantic penitentiaries Bukele built in El Salvador. These kinds of criminals would simply be wiped out.

Considering that many cartel members are free (I’ve most likely run into them on the street) and wield enormous power in this country—veritable states within a state!—do you grasp our concept of transvaluation of all values? Human life has no value except the value our internal ethics assign to it.

Heil Himmler!

Categories
Axiology Gaedhal (commenter)

Renée

by Gaedhal

I didn’t want to comment on the killing of Renée Nicole Good. First off, it has nothing to do with me. The only link Good has to Ireland, is that she was a missionary in Northern Ireland.

And the people who are shooting your ideological enemies in the face, today, are the same people who could very well be shooting you in the face tomorrow. Hence, the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis (R) actually came out against this shooting. As I said before: one probably has to have a personality disorder to join either the police or the army. Perhaps police forces and armies are necessary in this world; however, in my view they are necessary evils.

In Northern Ireland, we have an anomoly. We have a police force that is secret; we have a police force that is armed; we have a police force that allows its officers to carry weapons, whilst off duty.

Now the police service of Northern Ireland is not ICE, not by a long shot; however, there are parrallels. All of the other police forces in the British Isles are mostly unarmed.

However, the term “U.S. Citizen” has suffered from hyper-inflation, due, in large part to immigration. When the U.S. was a white racial republic, the term “US citizen” actually meant something. The founders were explicit: the republic was founded for their posterity. However, a citizenship that anyone can claim; well, that becomes sorta worthless. If anyone can become a U.S. citizen, then U.S. citizenship is sorta worthless.

Liberals—those to the right of Leftists, in this context—largely turned a blind eye to non-citizens being denied constitutional rights, even though the courts said that the norms of the U.S. constitution applied everywhere that the U.S. was the sovereign or de facto sovereign power. Obama never shut down the concentration camp at Guantanamo bay. Although he did attempt cosmetic changes in an attempt to bring some of what goes on there in line with constitutional norms.

Also, in a polarized society, one’s political opponents no longer inhabit the same moral universe. At the beginning, the Left and Right, in America, had a shared vision of what America is was and should be, however, they differed on the issue of federalism or antifederalism. Today, there is no agreement between Left and Right on just about anything. Thus appeals to Renée Good’s being a “U.S. citizen” from the Left are utterly worthless, given the polarisation of America.

I really only have an expressable opinion on this one aspect of this controversy: appeals by Liberals and Leftists to Renée Good’s being a U.S. citizen, and why they are likely to fall upon the radical right’s deaf ears.

In Ireland, “Irish citizen” is actually a sarcasm, describing some invader who was magically alchemised into his/her becoming Irish by way of a magical piece of paper, to wit, an Irish Passport.

And, of course, as my good friend Alex, who has since gone to be with the ground, “magic paper” such as passports are merely the secular version of “magic water”. Indeed, the idea of a birth certificate might have actually come from the Roman Catholic Baptismal certificate.

Catholics believed that magic water could turn the inhabitants of Africa into Christians—i.e. civilized white men, but with a different skin tone—and Liberals believe that the alchemy of magic documents, such as passports, can more or less accomplish the same thing. Catholics believed in the magic of catachesis, and, as Revilo P. Oliver points out: Liberals believe in the magic of education. Education, very often, to Liberals, is a snake oil that will cure whatever ails society.

Thus, we are still under the tyranny of Christian axiology; of Christian assumptions; or, as Oliver might have put it, the reformed Church of Marxianism has superceded the unreformed Catholic and Protestant Churches.

Categories
Adam Green Axiology

Damn

Christians!

White nationalists are completely nuts: they have the enemy right in front of them, the big elephant in the room, and out of sheer pride they refuse to see it: they are wicked people.

Adam Green has demonstrated this forcefully in this video.

I’ve been talking about Joel Webbon because of his interview with Nick Fuentes. Green’s video begins with Webbon saying that he would give his daughters away to a black and a hispanic as long as they are Christians!

Then Green shows clips of other notable Christians…

After watching Green’s video, do you understand why I feel alone among so-called American “racialists”? Who among them has a blog like mine that openly says that the Christian Problem is the primary cause of white decline (the JQ is merely a secondary infection, as it is Christians who worship the god of the Jews)?

At the end of Green’s video, we also see some rabbis. But what really matters are the whites who have a xenomorphic parasite attached to their faces—Christianity—and don’t want to tear it off. On the contrary: they have amalgamated their psyche with the xenomorph!

From this angle, anyone who doesn’t reject Christian ethics—and I mean both atheists and Christians—is a subject who has allowed the Jew to stick his dick down his throat and doesn’t even realise that he has an alien creature at the core of his being!

Forget the forums of the “dissident” right!

Down with white nationalism, the scam of scams!

Down with Judeo-Christianity!

Let’s implement Nietzsche’s Law against Christianity!

Only Hitler—or rather Kalki—saves!
 

Categories
Axiology Richard Carrier

Repudiation

I recently listened to an entire debate between Richard Carrier—whose scepticism about the historical Jesus I admire—and a Christian nationalist. The debate highlighted the big ideological differences between secular humanists and Christian nationalists.

I was greatly surprised that, when it comes to the 14 words, although the Christian nationalist is not a Nazi like us, he is much closer to our side because he is concerned about mass migration to the West. On the other hand, Carrier approves of the mass migration of coloureds that metamorphosed Canada and Sweden! Carrier also doesn’t care about the sexual dissipation that has been destroying the white race in recent decades.

I believe that Gaedhal, whose text mentioning Carrier I published on Saturday, is right to speak of “atheistic hyper-Christianity”. Folks like Carrier have abandoned belief in God and the historicity of Jesus—at the cost of hypertrophying suicidal Christian ethics: what I have been calling neochristianity on this site. Do you recall this passage from a seminal article on this site by a Swedish blogger?:

Secular Christianity has thrown out God and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values, etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity (I have written much about that in my blog).

With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect, and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice.

In Secular Christianity, each person must be like Jesus himself, practising self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realise Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

It is incredible the damage that Christianity still causes to so-called freethinkers, agnostics, atheists and secular humanists—all of them clueless of the fact that their scale of values is a secular embodiment of the Gospel message.

Racialist Christians aren’t much better. Nick Fuentes recently responded harshly to Vivek Ramaswamy, an Indian living in the US. However, he added that if the Indians’ grandchildren wholeheartedly accepted American culture, Nick could consider them for entry into his country. This contrasts with the priests of the sacred words who desire a far more extreme outcome—one resembling the ethnic cleansing described in William Pierce’s novel.

The priest repudiates both atheists and Christians, and if he had the power, he would replace the Christian/secular humanist paradigm with Hitlerism.

Categories
Axiology Exterminationism New Testament

Thanks Tucker!

In this video uploaded today, Megyn Kelly appears accompanied by Tucker Carlson at a public event to talk about his decision to interview Nick Fuentes.

Tucker proves the whole point of this blogsite, The West’s Darkest Hour! He used the term “Christian ethics” to explain why he isn’t an anti-Semite; said that a Jew, Paul the Apostle is “my personal hero” and regarding neochristianity he added: “That’s where the idea of human rights comes from”!

He also explains that when such Xtian ethics are removed from the Aryan collective unconscious, exterminationism arises (which he calls “genocide”).

Thankyouverymuch!

Categories
Axiology Nick Fuentes Racial right Real men

On Nick Fuentes

Something that strikes me about mornings is that it’s the time when inspiration strikes. For example, I went to bed and woke up planning to spend the morning reviewing the chapter against Sigmund Freud in my Hojas Susurrantes, which I’m translating into English. But inspiration struck while I was getting ready, so I decided to write this post instead.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
I’d like to clarify what I have said in my two previous posts, about the movie The Village and Nick Fuentes (here and here). The crucial phrase doesn’t appear in the articles, not even in the question I posed in the last one (“Does such 21st century American film exist…?”), but rather in the comments section and even in parentheses: “Who needs Jews when we have white nationalists?”

I will explain it in this entry.

I’ve been reading the recent articles about Fuentes published on Counter-Currents. I think we’re all missing the main point.

Fuentes is like the kid who says the emperor has no clothes. At 27, he doesn’t have my maturity, or the erudition of the authors of C-C. Compared to me or my mentors William Pierce and Savitri Devi, Fuentes seems like a child. But it’s important to remember that it’s precisely that naive cry to a cowardly public—that the emperor has no clothes—that’s the first step in making them see the obvious.

In racialist forums I’m ignored for taking the message of white nationalism to its logical conclusion: violent revolution à la Third Reich. And I’m not just referring to the question I asked yesterday, which was left hanging (although I admit that only a film expert could answer it). I’m referring to the fact that regarding those crucial words conflating my last posts (“Who needs Jews when we have white nationalists?”) I haven’t received any response on X either, where I tweeted them a day ago. Of my 259 followers on X, nobody has said a word yet. As I was told in an email yesterday, they leave me talking to myself “because increasingly—silently, clandestinely—their egos are bruised by the scolding truth brings, and they are otherwise in distaste, having disagreed silently in the background but without the balls to add more.”

But let’s return to Fuentes, who, unlike my followers in X and here, is always willing to discuss important issues with great frankness. He’s like the kid in the story because he speaks the truth—as far as he understands it—about the ethnocidal levels of migration and feminist ethnosuicide: the cancer in the Aryan collective unconscious of our times (cf. what I said yesterday about The Village).

In fact, young Fuentes is far more mature than the veterans Jared Taylor and those of VDARE, insofar as he has already awakened to the JQ (see this clip). On the other hand, by obeying the Christian mandate to love all human beings (remember that from our POV most are exterminable Neanderthals), Fuentes falls into a great contradiction (see, for example, this other clip).

At the end of Tucker’s interview, he asked Fuentes if he would run for president in the future, and Fuentes said perhaps. Tucker asked him what he would do in power, and Fuentes replied that, since the Left wants to crush us (remember that if Harris had won, the First Amendment would have been at her mercy), the Right should crush the Left as a prophylactic measure.

Fuentes is right. Trump promised a Wall in his first term, and there’s nothing of the sort. In his second term he has promised to destroy Antifa, and the same thing happened: there aren’t thousands upon thousands imprisoned like Nayib Bukele is doing in El Salvador, or much better: what Hitler asked Himmler to do in Dachau, a place I love with all my heart and which I visited this very year!

César Tort, the Editor of The West’s Darkest Hour in Dachau Camp, Germany (see my report on that trip here).

Fuentes’s humanitarian sentiments in the second clip are that American whites must resign themselves to the fact that 100 million non-whites will be residing in the US, even though the Enemy imported them without any plebiscite. This represents a major contradiction with what he told Tucker, the same contradiction as Trump’s unfulfilled promises. Tellingly, both Tucker and Fuentes concede in that interview that it is precisely Christian scruples that compel them not to solve the problem (as Himmler was solving it before the deluded Anglo-Americans intervened).

This said, the adolescent way in which Fuentes speaks, shattering post-WWII taboos, is the right one. He speaks out in a crude manner, like an innocent child with no self-consciousness surrounded by adults under the delusion that the emperor has clothes. It doesn’t matter that compared to us, the 21st-century National Socialists, Fuentes seems like a kid. He uses the exact tone that the Aryan collective unconscious needs to awaken!

Let’s compare Fuentes’s most controversial statements in the clips the Left has been circulating with the boring C-C articles or those published by Jared Taylor and VDARE. Alex Linder compared them to those gatherings of posh people who eat crustless sandwiches and speak in politely low voices. With those bourgeois types we’re not going to get anywhere! We need classy thugs. We need an archipelago of Dachau camps throughout the West! Linder spoke with the right tone—the way potential revolutionaries speak.

Since Linder is no longer with us, I think that for the American collective unconscious, a voice like Fuentes’s is the first baby step across the psychological Rubicon in our direction.

Categories
Axiology Tom Holland

Dominion

Editor’s Note: According to Tom Holland, Christian ethics surround us, even atheists, like water surrounds fish. Although Wikipedia is dominated by our ideological enemies, their article on Dominion is informative, so I’ve reproduced it in abbreviated form below.

Although, unlike us, secular humanist Tom Holland subscribes to Christian ethics, and is therefore also an ideological enemy, anyone who understands the thesis of his book will understand the POV of The West’s Darkest Hour.

The racial right pundits I criticised yesterday are like fish in the axiological ocean that Christianity bequeathed us. They haven’t been able to venture onto dry land but, like the normies, have always been surrounded by the sea. After 1945, among the very notable racists in the US, only William Pierce dared, like the first fish to use its humble fins to venture onto the beach, to take his first steps out of the ocean. The rest remain wrapped in that matrix that prevents them from seeing the water from the dry land.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind (published as Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World in the United States) is a 2019 non-fiction history book by British historian Tom Holland.

The book is a broad history of the influence of Christianity on the world, focusing on its impact on morality—from its beginnings to the modern day. According to the author, the book “isn’t a history of Christianity” but “a history of what’s been revolutionary and transformative about Christianity: about how Christianity has transformed not just the West, but the entire world.”

Holland contends that Western morality, values and social norms ultimately are products of Christianity, stating “in a West that is often doubtful of religion’s claims, so many of its instincts remain—for good and ill—thoroughly Christian”. Holland further argues that concepts now usually considered non-religious or universal, such as secularism, liberalism, socialism and Marxism, revolution, feminism, and even homosexuality, “are deeply rooted in a Christian seedbed”, and that the influence of Christianity on Western civilization has been so complete “that it has come to be hidden from view”.

It was released to generally positive reviews, although some historians and philosophers objected to some of Holland’s conclusions.
 

Background

Tom Holland has previously written several historical studies on Rome, Greece, Persia and Islam, including Rubicon, Persian Fire, and In the Shadow of the Sword. According to Holland, over the course of writing about the “apex predators” of the ancient world, particularly the Romans, “I came to feel they were increasingly alien, increasingly frightening to me”. “The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night [emphasis by Ed.], were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more.” This led him to investigate the process of change leading to today, concluding “in almost every way, what makes us distinctive today reflects the influence over two thousand years of the Christian story”.

 
Overview

In Holland’s view, pre-Christian societies and deities, such as in the Greco-Roman world, tended to focus on and glorify strength, might and power; this was inverted with the spread of Christianity, which proclaimed the primacy of the weak and suffering. Humanism, instead of springing from ancient Greek philosophy or Enlightenment thinking, “derives ultimately from claims made in the Bible: that humans are made in God’s image; that his Son died equally for everyone; that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” The concept of human rights and equality, as well as solidarity with the weak against the strong, Holland argues, ultimately derive from the theology built on the teachings of Jesus and Paul the Apostle.

The success of what he calls the “Christian revolution” in changing our sensibilities, Holland argues, is evident in how complete its central claims now are taken for granted by “believers, atheists and those who never paused so much as to think about religion” [this includes white nationalists—Ed.]. Holland also argues that many of those who most clearly recognized the “radical” implications of Christianity, and its departure from earlier morality, were those fundamentally opposed to it—including Friedrich Nietzsche and the Nazi Party.
 

Reception

Terry Eagleton, writing for The Guardian, described the book as “an absorbing survey of Christianity’s subversive origins and enduring influence” and an “illuminating study”, concluding “Holland is surely right to argue that when we condemn the moral obscenities committed in the name of Christ, it is hard to do so without implicitly invoking his own teaching.” Philosopher John Gray, writing for the New Statesman, called Dominion “a masterpiece of scholarship and storytelling”. Gray wrote that “Dominion surpasses Holland’s earlier books in its sweeping ambition and gripping presentation… Holland comes into his own when he shows how Christianity created the values of the modern Western world… What makes the book riveting… is the devastating demolition job it does on the sacred history of secular humanism”.

Other reviews were more mixed. A review in The Economist described Holland as a “superb writer”, though also writing that “his theory has flaws”, and that “correlation is not causation”. Samuel Moyn, writing for the Financial Times, similarly stated that “Holland shines in his panoramic survey of how disruptive Christianity was for the ethical and political assumptions that preceded it”, while criticizing how “the illustration of the conquest of the west by Christianity risks becoming so total that it explains everything and nothing.” The scholars James Orr G.R. Evans and Samuel Moyn all regarded the book’s earlier sections on Ancient history as stronger than its later sections on more modern history. Evans writes that “The third section on “Modernitas” is perhaps the least successful, because of the degree of compression which it attempts”.

Peter Thonemann, writing for the Wall Street Journal, called Dominion “an immensely powerful and thought-provoking book”, stating “it is hard to think of another that so effectively and readably summarizes the major strands of Christian ethical and political thought across two millennia”. At the same time, he criticized its argument as selective, writing “Mr. Holland postulates a golden thread of Nice Christianity… this argument—that everything Nice in our contemporary world derives from Christian values, and everything Nasty in the actual history of Christendom was just a regrettable diversion from the true Christian path—seems to me to run dangerously close to apologetic”. The Los Angeles Review of Books stated that “Dominion’s most important contribution is in emphasizing how terms we take for granted, even concepts seemingly as fundamental as ‘religion’ and ‘secular,’ come ‘freighted with the legacy of Christendom'”, stating that his argument about the Christian origin of “human rights, socialism, revolution, feminism, science, and even the division between religion and the secular” is carried out in a “mostly convincing way”. Mendo Castro Henriques praised certain aspects of the book, but noted that the book omitted certain key figures such as Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas More and Erasmus and failed to pay attention to the profound importance of art and music throughout Christian history.

Many reviewers noted the distinctive approach used by Holland, centred on the lives and personalities of figures in history, as opposed to an in-depth history of ideas or theological analysis. Moyn described how “Holland brings the past to life through his characters, which are always vividly drawn”. Eagleton wrote how “Holland has all the talents of an accomplished novelist… Rather than unpack complex theological debates, the book gives us a series of vivid portraits of some key figures in Christian history”. Daniel Strand similarly wrote that “As opposed to intellectual history, which too often floats above historical events, Holland focuses on historical actors and their motivations”. Mendo Castro Henriques wrote, “Dominion is not a history of ideas, but of the body and soul of humanity.”

It was also favorably reviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald, The Critic, the New Yorker, and Kirkus Reviews who called it “an insightful argument that Christian ethics [emphasis by Ed.], even when ignored, are the norm worldwide.” In a mixed review, Gerard DeGroot, writing for The Sunday Times, wrote that he “[had] to commend the originality of this book” but disagreed with its thesis, writing “the values described as Christian seem more like simple human nature… The idea that charity and tolerance are evidence of Christian influence seems too ethnocentric”.

Philosopher A. C. Grayling has rejected Holland’s interpretation of Christianity’s influence on modern morality, meeting Tom Holland for a debate on the subject.
 

Influence

Despite being intended as a work of history and not apologetics, the book has since publication been cited as both an influential contribution to recent debates on “cultural Christianity”, and, for some, as a path to conversion in its own right. As such, this has in certain Christian milieus been described as the “Tom Holland train” to the Christian faith.

It was featured in The Atlantic as one of “Five Books That Changed Readers’ Minds”, where it was listed by Derek Thompson. American right-wing activist Charlie Kirk stated that reading Dominion helped convince him that the “canon of Western values” were rooted in Christianity.

Categories
Axiology Them and Us (book)

All values

As returning visitors know, our seminal essay, published since The West’s Darkest Hour was hosted by Blogger, is “The Red Giant” which collects comments from a blogger who used to comment under the pen name Conservative Swede (Eric).

In 2009, before discovering white nationalism, I used to argue with Eric on Gates of Vienna: a pro-Western, anti-jihadist forum. One of the things Eric said stuck with me. This “Nietzschean of the North”, as Larry Auster who also used to comment on Gates of Vienna called him, said that he would transvalue some of the values of the 21st-century West to the values of the 1950s; others, to the 19th century; but still others ought to be transvalued to the times of ancient Rome.

As we can see even now, sixteen years after my interactions with Eric, the American racial right only wants to transvalue the decadent values of our century back to the 1950s: these racialists are de facto conservatives. Eric realised that some other values should be reversed to before the 50s. For example, the interaction between men and women was infinitely healthier in the world of Jane Austen, before the first wave of feminism took hold of the Aryan collective unconscious. However, as Eric believed that the primary cause of white decline was Christian axiology (after all, over time that axiology would give rise to feminism), other values would have to be reversed to pre-Christian times, Nietzsche’s ideal.

All of this seemed very logical to me when I discussed it with Eric in July and August 2009. Now that I have discovered a great book about our prehistoric past, I would add something to it.

Since reading Danny Vendramini’s Them and Us changed my worldview, as to re-evaluating some things back to the 1950s, others back to Austen’s time, and others back to the values of the Greco-Roman world, I would now add a final touch. In our interaction with the Other, it is not enough to behave like tough citizens of the Roman Empire. Let us remember that they committed the sin against the holy spirit of life: mixing their blood with mudbloods. We must re-evaluate much further back in time: to the values of prehistory, when our Cro-Magnon ancestors exterminated the ape-like Neanderthals.

This transvaluation of all values perfectly portrays the subtitle of this site: “National Socialism after 1945”, and contrasts dramatically with those who remain stuck on Mein Kampf as if it were similar to the Christian Bible. In reality, NS is a living philosophy that, over the years, has developed and rediscovered itself.

Eric would disagree with me that some aspects of our notion of good and evil need to be re-evaluated back to prehistoric times. Despite the nickname Auster gave him, “Nietzschean of the North”, he still subscribed somehow to Christian ethics, which forbids us from fantasising about genocide, let alone exterminationism, as if it were something good and noble.

Our Cro-Magnon ancestors would not agree with the Swede. Nor with Auster. Nor with white nationalists. Either our ancestors exterminated the evolved apes, or the genetic foundations for the Nordic race to flourish wouldn’t have been laid.

Umwertuung aller Werte!

Categories
Axiology

“Souls”

Alex Linder

was right: the equality of souls
courtesy of Christian ethics
really does pave the way
for the equality craze
we see in the Neo-
Xtian West today.

Categories
Axiology Correspondence

César,

I was worried about you, there, but it turns out that you had taken a trip to the Vaterland.

Here is an interesting short from woke atheist, Rebecca Watson.

‘When I lost belief in God, I didn’t loose belief in anything else.’

I.e. the Christian axiology.

She says, further, that as soon as she lost belief in God she immediately became a humanist. As Revilo P. Oliver points out: humanism is merely atheistic Christianity.

When someone believes in the Christian god, their equalitarianism is anchored to the mores of the 1st-century C.E. Their equalitarianism is tethered to the conservative Jewish culture that gave us Saul and Jesus. However, when one stops believing in the Judeo-Christian god, “but not anything else”, then this equalitarianism remains and goes hyper. It is no longer tethered to the Conservative Jewish society that spawned Saul and Jesus. It thus goes hyper. Your “red-giant” analogy is brilliant. Woke atheism is merely a godless Christianity that has lost its supernatural core. In the same way that a red giant goes hyper, so does Neo-Christianty. The equalitarianism of Christianity slips away from its 1st-century Jewish moorings, and becomes a monster, or red giant, or red ogre, perhaps!

Sincerely,

Gaedhal