The modern world is in a state of total peril because humanity has lost its way. Our movement is merely one small piece of a giant puzzle that paints a very disturbing picture as the pieces come together: the picture of an entire planet teetering on the edge of total disaster. The reason is that man has no goal; we are running around like ants in a colony, building up massive, energy-consuming cities that suck the life out of the earth yet serve no purpose beyond blindly serving the dictates of our most basic impulses.
Stumbling forward, lost in a wasteland with no map or compass, the Man Among the Ruins is seeking answers from his past in order to put his future into perspective. In the words of Edmund Burke, “He who does not look backward to his ancestors shall not look forward to his posterity.”
It is our sincere hope that in the wisdom of antiquity, we will find meaning in our lives, and from there a goal and a purpose that will collectively inspire our people to make sense of the modern world of chaos before it consumes us entirely.
Our society is comprised of unhealthy, unhappy people, blindly scurrying around in the tunnels we call our lives. We can speak with pride about the accomplishments of science, but in reality we use this knowledge solely to build more complicated colonies for ourselves. The more complicated our societies become, the more lost we feel, as greater demands are put on our time to serve the machine, while the rewards that we think will satiate us turn out to be little more than the chemical prize that the Queen feeds us to keep us working.
“This present “civilisation”… has brought to all strata of society and to all races the following “gifts”: restlessness, dissatisfaction, resentment, the need to go further and faster, and the inability to possess one’s life in simplicity, independence, and balance. Modern civilisation has pushed man onward; it has generated in him the need for an increasingly greater number of things; it has made him more and more insufficient to himself and powerless.” – Julius Evola
For all of our talk of having evolved so highly, the reality is that we are shockingly primitive and stunted in terms of both our genetic development and spiritual wisdom.
Ultimately, all of this boils down to One Question: why are we here?
Most of human discourse revolves around what actions, policies, laws, or principles will help us to build more efficient colonies; however, the One Question still stands above it all, begging to be answered. Why are we here?
Looking down at your hands, your stomach, your legs, what you see is an animal — a conscious, sentient life form essentially trapped inside a biological shell that is guaranteed to terminate soon. The flesh and bones built around you come from the earth, and will return to the earth. One day, not long from now, everyone reading this post will be food for worms. While most of us will return to the oblivion of the ancestral totem from which we sprung, there is another path available to the heroic man. Those who carve their names deep into the Eternal Stone, whose great deeds resound in the hearts and minds of their kinsmen for generations, pursue Dheva-Yana (the path of light/the gods) and shall become part of the immortal body of light that is Brahma/God/the Absolute. Any other pursuit is fleeting in comparison.
When you push the mind to its limits, there is a voice inside you that begs you to return to more conventional thought. It tells you that you need to serve the machine, that the colony is what is important, and not the vague ideas you have about why we are here and the sorrowful longing of your soul to escape the confines of its shell.
The society around us is a theatre of tragedy, and only by answering this One Question can we be free from the pain of contemporary existence. I do not claim to know the answer to that Question. However, I firmly believe that everywhere in the cosmos that life exists, that same Question burns in the minds of all who are able to ask it.
Traditionalist thinkers, and particularly the works of the Baron Julius Evola, have assisted me greatly in expanding my horizons, compelling me to go beyond mere biological positivism in my analysis of world-historical problems. It is worth noting that Evola fell into disfavour with some National Socialists and Fascists of his era, for he was arguing that the biological race of the individual is not nearly as important as the soul-type, and that although the soul-type is relative to the racial type, it goes far beyond it.
In the esoteric edicts of old are to be found the most lucid and penetrating attempts at answering the mystery of existence — answers that are strikingly consistent with what the science of astrophysics and quantum mechanics have taught us. That is why many NASA physicists — once the realm of clinical atheism — are returning to ancient spirituality.
All of the races of the world are caught in the same conundrum, on the precipice of an abyss, as the greed of our genetic makeup propels us to perpetually accumulate more wealth in preparation for the impending winter. The fact that we have conquered the elements sufficiently to satiate the survival instinct is a fact that seems to have been missed by the drones on Wall Street, who needlessly accumulate ever more resources while their children are raised by strangers in daycare and their souls are withering in materialistic vassalage.
How did the NASDAQ do today?
We can ask that question daily, but waiting in the back of our minds is the Greater Question that still demands a response.
WP,
Thanks for the feedback. I’m glad you enjoyed the post.
Revolt Against the Modern World is definitely the right place to begin reading Evola. I recommend this book to friends very often and they are seldom disappointed. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the book and your insight on these matters in general.
A few years ago, the short lived Guild of the Grail produced an excellent reading list, which is devised into numerous sub-categories and contains a summary of each one from a Traditionalist perspective. I have done some updating to this list, and it could use some more updating; perhaps I will post it here on OD at some point. If anyone would like a copy, get in touch with me by e-mail or contact me here.
Robert,
Have you had a chance to read Guenon’s “Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines”? It’s my favored introduction to the traditionalist perspective. The title as a bit misleading, as the majority of the book is dedicated to deconstructing modern Western assumptions.
Sam said:
“Most of the time when it looks like Whites are “giving up” or “committing racial suicide” its actually being forced upon them by an internal enemy.”
That might be the case today, but was it so in, for example, Ancient India where the Indo-European Aryans ultimately became extinct? I think whites are quite the self-destructive bunch without external help.
I’d like a copy of the reading list please Robert.
Guest Lurker,
In my opinion, it’s a testament to the rigor of the caste system that the racial differences lasted as long as they did. They maintained something approximating Whiteness for millennia, while we’ll burn out in mere decades without some sort of dramatic change.
I agree with GL. There are mass examples like ancient India, ancient Egypt, the Arab countries and Latin America. These happened under the leadership of the white or Caucasoid ruling caste.
It’s just that Celtics and Germanics require an outside force to destroy our heritage. Proving that not all whites have the same nature or sense of racialism. Like intelligence, behavior is partly heritable.
Mark, I don’t think the liberal Scandinavian Germanics need any outside force to destroy themselves. I do believe you are correct with regard to the heritable nature of much behavior. I’ve considered for a while now that white liberalism is a defect, akin to masochism. Only we exhibit racial masochism. Everything from political white liberalism and self-loathing, to white males fawning over black athleticism, to hardcore interracial porn (southern white males being the biggest consumers), to interracial swinger cuckold parties, suggests that a significant percentage of our population has a strong tendency towards self-abasement which simply doesn’t exist in other populations. They seemingly get a sick charge out of being submissive to non-whites. I tell you, as a racialist, I have no illusions about whites or any sort of alleged innate “superiority”. Sure we’ve got inventors at the high end, but the masses have some weird character defects as well. I guess I’d like to see my white extended family survive just a I would like to see my immediate family survive- simple instinct for my own. Pierce used to say that he loved his people not for what they are, but what they could become. But in the end, through a massive eugenics program, this can be said of any tribe.
GL: “Pierce used to say that he loved his people not for what they are, but what they could become. But in the end, through a massive eugenics program, this can be said of any tribe.”
I think what most pro-whites want, deep inside, is not to preserve the white race, but just the opposite, to transform it, eugenically. I’m going to re-package my white breeder promise keepers idea into creating a master race of mutant whites that will take over the world and see if I get any interest.
Guest, where do you get this information about adult entertainment consumption in the South?
I found articles that use online pornography purchase data to show that red states use more, but not necessarily the South, and no data on what kind of porn. Utah is the biggest consumer.
If you look at the results based on online porn buyers per 1000 people, you see the top 10 list being:
Utah 1.69
Hawaii 1.37
Alaska 1.15
Maryland 1.11
Nevada 1.11
New Jersey 1.08
Massachusetts 1.07
Florida 1.05
Connecticut 1.01
Virginia 1.00
Which is 8 blue states in the top 10, and only 2 red states.
He gave you his answer: to kill and be king.
Utah ranks #1 or did in households with personal computers. They have more online access to it.
Mark, a while back I was attempting some online research into the psychology of these damage cases in the porn industry. One link led to another, and it stated somewhere that earlier in the industry’s history white porn sluts had been admonished not to do blacks because it might ultimately hurt their appeal to white consumers. Yet according to the article, it mentioned that this wasn’t the case and that in fact southern white males are supposedly interracial porn’s most avid consumers. It didn’t provide any stats as I recall, so I don’t know how they arrived at the conclusion.
If there’s no evidence to support it then why do you report it as the truth. It’s nonsense.
The top 10 consumers by state above are probably also the top 10 consumers of that genre and others.
Dr. Kevin MacDonald reiterates how Southerners are crucial to the white nationalist movement. He also mentions OD. Oorah! http://libertynewsradio.com/shows/tpc/tpc20100109a.mp3
My only criticism of their show is they need to stop referring to Whites in the negative, as gentiles. Apparently they find it necessary since they consider Jews White, due to their friendship with Jews like Gottfried. No, they are just light-skinned Semites. Race is more than skin color.
NeoNietzsche,
“There is a higher power, there is a purpose in life, and there is an afterlife, because there has to be. Do you mean more than that we must believe this to be so? Or do you pretend to a proof of God, as your phrasing suggests?” I mean that humans need this to be so. There are 2 possibilities:
1) There is a God. In this case, we are beings with souls, and so of course we should have religious beliefs.
2) There is no God. In this case, we are semi-advanced hominids, yet we still have powerful spiritual needs that come from deep within our brains, as part of our survival drive. Extensive research has been conducted into this by evolutionary psychologists that would elucidate this.
In either case, spirituality is important/essential for our psychological health. I do not presume to prove the existence of God, which I am not capable of (neither can others prove his non-existence).
“When a person (like Robert Campbell) asks what the purpose of life is, he is expressing a need that just about every normal human has – to understand what life is all about, which is closely connected to spirituality. Your answer, “there is none” is a generous helping of spiritual poo, in my opinion.
What nutritious fiction do you prescribe for his ingestion?” The message should match the needs of the listener. From reading Robert’s recent posts, my guess is that he is about 24, a graduate student at some elite university, with an IQ of 150. Unfortunately, it seems that his high IQ parents in their wisdom did not inculcate him with any deep religious belief, thus leaving him anchorless, his spiritual needs unmet, unsure of life’s purpose and wondering if Paganism is the answer. If I could go back in time, I would recommend that his parents gave him the same religious upbringing that the greatest men in our civilization had, which was based on (at the risk of offending many and uttering a blasphemy against nihilism) Christianity. At this point, I would recommend that he at least keep an open mind toward the religion of his ancestors. But for the purpose of life, I would refer you back to my comment#16, which is in regard to raising children. This aligns with both Christianity and our biological imperative to procreate.
If I may, I would also like to say that I am unimpressed with Nietzshe. For one thing, his ideas seem to be in contrast with many principles of evolutionary psychology. Correct me if I am wrong, but he rejects altruism as a motivator of human behavior, and suggests that peoples’ desire for power is even more important than our survival drives? Altruism is evident in a lot of human behavior, such as parents caring for offspring, while the desire for power is a survival strategy.
In any case, I question the wisdom of adopting Nietzshe’s philosophy. A scientific mind would attempt to study the happiness and success of those who adopted this philosophy compared to the happiness and success of those who followed Christianity. Ideally we would have a double-blind study with a large sample size, etc. From my understanding, Nietzshe’s life was not particularly happy or successful, and I would be surprised if people with a Nietzshian “dog eat dog” mindset end up happy and successful either. In contrast, we do know that devout White Christians live longer than the average, and do better than non-believers on a range of measures (for example, they report that they are generally happier).
Many evolutionary psychologists, including Kevin MacDonald, appreciate the positive aspects of Christianity, even though they themselves are probably atheists/agnostics. MacDonald has affirmed on a number of occaisons that he sees Christianity as a very positive element in our culture, a healthy thing for families that also functions as an ethnic defense mechanism (churches are highly segregated in our nation).
My earlier post on “Aggregate Correctness” could be taken to imply the same kind of argument that Andrew appears to be making. It’s one in which we should believe the belief which proves most functional, regardless of what logic or research demonstrates. My point was that traditions are embedded with functional aspects, and may be inappropriately dismissed or overlooked as a source of information due to their having been organically rather than scientifically produced.
I believe that logic, empirical observation, and tradition should reconcile, and I refuse to partition the concerns. I believe that sharper logic, access to more information, and a greater understanding of tradition will result in a complete synthesis. I refuse to allow either the scientists or the priests to force me to settle for their incomplete chunk of a unified understanding.
This will doubtlessly result in appearing to be confused, as I keep abreast of the latest in anthropology and genetics while regularly attending a church in direct conflict with that information. That’s fine, as both exceed in some facet that the other lacks and the dissonance is well worth what I gain from dipping into both wells.
Guest Lurker @#60: “…[T]his wasn’t the case and that in fact southern white males are supposedly interracial porn’s most avid consumers. It didn’t provide any stats as I recall, so I don’t know how they arrived at the conclusion.”
“They” canvassed 1,000 Jew scribblers and pornographers in Hollywood for their opinion of who they thought liked to watch Mandingos defile their women the most. That’s how.
Inter-racial porn is the symptom, Jews the disease.
Dr. Pierce’s executor Fred Streed once wrote that the experience of working at the WV National Office with Dr. Pierce, Kevin, Joe Pryce, and Joe’s wife, Patty, back in the beginning, was to him almost like a religious calling. Working at The Cosmotheist Church Community was a religious calling…back then. “Voice of our Ancestors” by Sörensen was one of Dr. Pierce’s favorite works, and, therefore, a work we on staff understood was like required reading. Such works could never resonate with a Xian. Heathenism was not a dirty word on the mountain…back then. Christianity was. Most National Alliance members, back then, grasped the implicit spiritual aspect of our Alliance and the primacy of race over belief in the Semitic tribal god.
Thanks for posting that link to “Voice of our Ancestors,” Robert. Here are some other Stormfront links where Dave Pringle put up what should be more required reading for race realists: Dr. Pierce’s series, Who We Are.
1. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…3&postcount=32
2. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…7&postcount=38
3. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…0&postcount=40
4. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…6&postcount=64
5. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…2&postcount=70
6. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…8&postcount=71
7. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…2&postcount=72
8. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…1&postcount=73
9. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…6&postcount=75
10-11. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…5&postcount=77
12. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…7&postcount=78
13. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…4&postcount=79
14. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…9&postcount=80
15. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…6&postcount=81
16. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…8&postcount=82
17. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…6&postcount=83
18. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…4&postcount=84
19. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…7&postcount=85
20. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…8&postcount=86
21. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…0&postcount=87
22. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…4&postcount=88
23. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…6&postcount=90
24. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…9&postcount=91
25. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…9&postcount=92
26. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show…3&postcount=93
George,
You’ll need to be more clear about whose feelings that post was intended to hurt.
@Andrew,
I do not presume to prove the existence of God, which I am not capable of (neither can others prove his non-existence).
“Others” are not so burdened in order to maintain a position on the question. The default position is “no god,” in the absence of some verified specification as to the characteristics of a purported deity.
Do you understand why this is the case?
I would recommend that his parents gave him [RC] the same religious upbringing that the greatest men in our civilization had, which was based on (at the risk of offending many and uttering a blasphemy against nihilism) Christianity.
That of Yeshua of Nazareth or Saul of Tarsus – of Arius or Athanasius – Western or Orthodox – Catholic or Protestant – Inquisitorial or Sectarian – liberal or conservative – Deist, Theist, or Evangelical? Perhaps your own version is what you have in mind. May we have your summary of its essence?
If I may, I would also like to say that I am unimpressed with Nietzsche…I question the wisdom of adopting Nietzsche’s philosophy. A scientific mind would attempt to study the happiness and success of those who adopted this philosophy compared to the happiness and success of those who followed Christianity.
I believe that a reading of his mature work indicates that he had larger objectives and expectations than prescriptions for personal “happiness and success”. In those larger terms, he found Christianity culturally, collectively “poisonous,” if I may borrow your own terminology.
Wikitopian,
I wasn’t addressing you (or anyone on this board), sorry about the confusion. I just meant belief is unrelated to what one would like to believe, or what is in one’s best interests to believe.
Wiki,
No, I have not read that yet. Of Guenon’s work, I have read “Reign of “Quanity,” “King of the World,” and “Crisis of the Modern World.”
I have been reading John Michell lately (“View Over Atlantis,” “Centre of the World,” and “Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist”) and enjoying his stuff immensely. I highly recommend all three.
I find that I get along far better with Christians (such as Wiki or Andrew) than I do with radical atheists, whose vapid empiricism I find both myopic and absurdly pretentious.
I have several friends who are Radical Traditionalist Catholics, and I can definitely see the appeal in that world-view; there is an undeniable potency in the Tridentine Mass, and few institutions can provide the sort of social cohesion engendered by the Church. However, while I am deeply sympathetic to some elements of it (namely, those hieratic aspects of the Church which are remnants of the Olympian Solar Tradition), it feels profoundly alien to me, and I feel that my Dharma is best served by attempting to reconstruct Germanic heathenism.
Andrew, did you read the essay on Nietzsche by Evola (link in post #41), which was quoted extensively by NN in this thread? I tend to view Nietzsche in those terms, for the most part. There is no doubt that I have a certain ambivalence toward him, particularly regarding his feelings on the JQ (as NN noted earlier, Nietzsche deliberately cultivated this ambiguity), but his contributions certainly outweigh his “all too human” foibles.
Witzgall,
I deleted most of your inane jabbering.
Please keep your comments substantive, or tactful at the very least.
WordPress likes to eat comments sometimes.
Some good comments (including one by my good friend, Michael Bell), were caught up in spam filters, but have been restored. Sorry about that, folks!
S,
Thank you for your comments in #22. I’m sorry they got caught up in the spam filter and I hope you’re still around.
The Indo-European Brahmanical religion that gave rise to Hinduism does appeal to me (I’ve spent many hours pouring over Müller’s translations of the Vedas, and this material resonates deeply), as does Buddhism to a lesser extent (of the Theravada not Mahayana variety, obviously). Evola’s “Doctrine of Awakening” completely changed my view of the subject. The original Pali canon has much to offer.
I won’t be following Guenon down the Sufi path; it just isn’t for me, although I recognise much value in it. One could cite your “impedance mismatch” problem here, I suppose.
What I am looking for, ultimately, is a natural religious community: a “Heathen Amish” way of life, if you will.
Why wasn’t my comment approved?
The forum really needs to be reopened. Moderation is totally arbitrary.
Robert,
I agree that the Catholic Church feels fundamentally alien, despite retaining many of the initiatic and hierarchical characteristics. That’s why I participate in the initiatic and hierarchical priesthood which is thoroughly American in character, explicitly racial in doctrine, and more implicitly White than a polar bear whistling Johnny Cash tunes in a blizzard.
Wiki,
Haha, good for you! I got your e-mail and found it quite interesting. Thunderbird is being a bit buggy on me, but I’ll reply when I can.
Mark@63,
Not to belabor this sick issue because it’s not really in keeping with the thread topic, but I located where I found that statement. It was from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_pornography#cite_note-12
and you can cross reference it to the link note provided which states:
“a white woman pornography producer interviewed for this book said that her biggest orders for ‘interracial’ porn come from white men living in the US South.”
In all fairness, I did a bit further research and found this as well from the AVN Feb. 2009 issue:
http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/display_article.php?id=107562
“According to Fairvilla’s in-house research, roughly 75 percent of interracial porn is consumed by black men; white males tend to rent interracial titles rather than purchase.”
So here it indicates black men are far and away its biggest consumers, yet if you read the entire article, it focuses mainly on the titles appealing to white consumers. I was not able to find a breakdown state by state as you have. Take it for what it’s worth.
@NeoNietzshe,
““Others” are not so burdened in order to maintain a position on the question. The default position is “no god,” in the absence of some verified specification as to the characteristics of a purported deity. Do you understand why this is the case?” For the purpose of debate, according to the rules of logic established for debating societies, then yes, the default position is “no god”. But there is an assumption here, that humans are completely rational creatures capable of completely rational thought, overcoming their deepest emotional needs with reason. Humans are limited creatures. Our sensory apparatus can only sense a tiny fraction of our environment. We are driven by emotions and drives that come from deep within. If our car wont start in the morning, our day is ruined. If our girlfriend breaks up with us, we get depressed. We constantly forget things on our shopping list and make mistakes. We rationally know that the beautiful girl in class is an evil b-word, but cant stop fantasizing about her. Naturally, in spite of being a relatively fragile, hairless hominid, we are of course convinced beyond doubt of our vast powers of reason, capable of denying profound ideas in the supernatural that we are programmed to believe in.
Is it truly reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no God? We have no evidence whatsoever that there is life on other planets in the universe. But is it reasonable for me to therefore conclude that there is none? This is something that I really cannot know. The most reasonable position would be that I do not know, but am open to the idea. Likewise, the universe is incredibly vast, much of it is not understood (such as whether there is dark matter, or what that is). It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the universe was designed by an intelligence. In any case, it seems presumptive for a limited hominid to declare that this is impossible.
“That of Yeshua of Nazareth or Saul of Tarsus – of Arius or Athanasius – Western or Orthodox – Catholic or Protestant – Inquisitorial or Sectarian – liberal or conservative – Deist, Theist, or Evangelical? Perhaps your own version is what you have in mind. May we have your summary of its essence?” The greatest men in our civilization, in my opinion, had a generally Protestant Christian upbringing. I refer to the typical Christian upbringing that didnt change that much from the time of the Puritans to perhaps the 1950’s (when most people were racialists, before the US had been Judaeized). There were basic common elements, whether they were Methodists or Calvinists, whether their minister was a preacher or pastor, or whether he wore a black or white coat. These elements are such things as being kind to others, obeying the ten commandments, believing that there is a loving deity who requires that certain morale codes are adhered to, and that there is a glorious afterlife for those who lead righteous lives.
I do not believe that my own religious ideas should be imposed on others (although I do recommend ways of living and thinking that I see as beneficial for a happy, successful life). From my own upbringing, and what I see around me, it is obvious that Christianity is overwhelmingly positive and healthy. Certainly we can find criticisms, but the big picture is that we have a good thing here, which our ancestors knew very well. My own upbringing is in the Mormon church (I have glorious ancestors who were polygamous pioneers that I am quite proud of), and in my view, the optimal form of Christianity is something very close to the old Mormon religion (which was explicitly racialist, rejected decadent culture and centered on having very large families. Note though that my ideas are not typical of Mormons).
“I believe that a reading of his mature work indicates that he had larger objectives and expectations than prescriptions for personal “happiness and success”.” Would you concede then that for your average joe-sixpack, whose goals are to just lead a generally happy, humble and successful life, that Christianity will meet his needs better than Nietzshe’s philosophy or atheism/nihilism?
“In those larger terms, he found Christianity culturally, collectively “poisonous,” if I may borrow your own terminology.” I have not read very deeply into Nietzshe. Correct me if I am wrong, but my interpretation of the main idea of his philosophy was that a person can greatly empower himself by abandoning Christianity/Religion and its moral scruples. Without these restricting limitations, we are free to exercise our “Will to Power”, which is our desire to rise in the world, to dominate, to exert our influence over others and make things happen. We should do whatever is necessary and take what we need, in order to achieve our goals, as did the Vikings of old. I believe that in your proposal about there being no particular purpose in life, you suggest this is a good thing, as it frees us to create our own purpose, related to exerting power as per our “Will to Power”. If I understand you correctly, you would suggest that this is a philosophy recommended not for your Joe-Sixpack with his petty concerns, but rather for those who would be the leaders and brokers of power in this world. Please clarify if this is not what you meant or if I misinterpret Nietzshe.
Do you believe that our race benefits from leaders that have few moral scruples, who will do anything necessary to gain power?
“I was also puzzled to read some of this material about ’spiritual race’ in Evola — and I am interested in learning more about it.”
There is certainly something to the notion of ‘spiritual Race’. One needs only to witness the differences between how a White Christian Church worships (usually quite and in peace) compared to a Negro Christian Church (loud, wild gesticulating, running up and down the aisles…)
However one would be remiss to not point out that Baron Evola and Yockey may have been attempting to utilize ‘spiritual Race’ as a weapon to combat some Biological Determinists sub-racialists who one alleges took things to far. The whole Nordic vs. Med. thing. Germanics vs. Slavs and other types of FRATRICIDAL INFIGHTING. Evola and Yockey may have been trying to keep Europeans together instead of splintering them like many other Racialists wanted to!! (Of course Evola and Yockey were both Imperialists, not Nationalists proper, so they wanted bigger groups, not smaller particularist smaller groups as a general rule.)
Guest Lurker,
Like Wikitopian said, the caste system of India is probably the only reason why there are a few “White” Indians today. The caste system was based upon the idea of “varna” which means “color.” The caste system was criminalized in the 1950s with the Protection of Civil Rights Act. Hmm, just like the ones created in the United States.
India’s Civil Rights Act: http://nrcw.nic.in/shared/sublinkimages/173.htm
American & South African “civil rights”:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/11/23/jewish-activists-and-white-institutions/
All over the world the Jews led the charge against Whites. It might be true in India, but I don’t know. I’m tempted to say that it was largely foreign cultural influences that led to the backlash against the caste system, but who knows? Everywhere I look there is always a Jew working against us. Remember the Mumbai attacks from 2008? The terrorists were targeting Jewish buildings. There were Israelis in India! Who knew?
Now, Scandinavia, like other places with overwhelmingly White populations, makes the mistake of assuming that “everyone is fundamentally the same, everyone is human.” It’s easy to believe this when you’ve had no contact with other races for thousands of years. It’s even easier when the global media is pushing the lie and ostracizing anyone who disagrees. This is why it’s easy for kids who’ve grown up sheltered from the reality of race so easily buy into today’s dogma. They live in White neighborhoods, go to private schools, and eventually enroll in a university that repeats the same racial nihilism. Then they get a job as a journalist exposing “institutional racism.” There’s nothing wrong with these people – they are making the best conclusions they can with the information they’ve been given. Unfortunately, the information is all biased.
I hate to sound like a “Single Jewish Cause” person, but in reality the more you dig at these questions the more you find that Jewish organizations are responsible. The Jews will bring out mentally defective White people as their spokespersons, but these are a small minority.
@Wikipedian,
I think we are on the same page in believing that there is great value in Christianity, and that there should be some type of synthesis between racialist ideas and religious ones (we need to re-infuse Christianity with racialism).
@Robert,
I am unable to find the link regarding Evola’s essay, it would be helpful if you would include it again. Regarding your interest in Germanic Paganism, are you interested in this for developing your personal belief system, or as a possible replacement for Christianity in for WNs? In the case of the latter, what makes you think that this would be an attractive/fulfilling belief system for people? If you are trying to find a religion that people will actually believe in, does a primitive Pagan belief system (worshipping trees or Thor or whatnot) really fit the bill? It is very difficult to successfully “invent” a religion that people will actually want to follow. There is a reason why some religions are popular – they meet people’s spiritual needs. One could make a comparison to businesses. There is a reason that some businesses are successful – they meet a need in the marketplace, and thus attract people. Through the ages, people have had all kinds of choices in religion. The Roman Empire had an extensive marketplace of religious beliefs, but one religion won out, in spite of aggressive attempts to suppress it. Why? Because it felt right to most people, it made sense, it made their lives better. It is not some strange coincidence of history that this religion survived the barbarian invasions then conquered the barbarians themselves. Why? Because these ideas are so powerful. I would also argue that Christianity was a major force in the continued development of Western Civilization, helping to establish an atmosphere of increased social cohesion and the rule of law, where learning, prosperity and the sciences could develop. Could this have happened in nations with Pagan Germanic belief systems centered around Woden and warfare? What makes you so willing to reject Christianity? This seems to me to be motivated more by a “pet peeve” or a “the grass is always greener” attitude than logical analysis.
Andrew
The greatest men in our civilization, in my opinion, had a generally Protestant Christian upbringing. I refer to the typical Christian upbringing that didnt change that much from the time of the Puritans to perhaps the 1950’s (when most people were racialists, before the US had been Judaeized). There were basic common elements, whether they were Methodists or Calvinists, whether their minister was a preacher or pastor, or whether he wore a black or white coat.
No white country fell so easily to the jews as the Protestant United States did. That’s circumstantial evidence against Protestantism, which is also culpable in the matter of allowing the jews back into England.
Wikitopian
My point was that traditions are embedded with functional aspects, and may be inappropriately dismissed or overlooked as a source of information due to their having been organically rather than scientifically produced.
Which is why the United States, born of a rebellion against most traditions, is so dysfunctional. The traditional barriers protecting us from the jews — monarchy, a state church, religious requirements for holding office and testifying in court — were carelessly discarded by the deist and Protestant revolutionaries in their attempt to build a New Order.
@Andrew,
For the purpose of debate, according to the rules of logic established for debating societies, then yes, the default position is “no god”.
It is the case for more than the purposes of debate. A rational perspective (scientific epistemology) holds that proof of the non-existence of something is obviously a pointless exercise, unless it is first shown that the allegation that something exists has ostensible evidentiary support, is a meaningful proposition in the first place, and has some implication for other phenomena. Thus the skeptic has no burden pending the fulfillment of the proponent’s burden, above, and the proponent is barred from preemptively leaping and bounding off into the adoption of cartoonish inventions and extrapolations of his imaginative exercise in wish fulfillment, however hallowed by tradition. Thus the claim that “the ‘existence of god’ cannot be disproven” does not have status equivalent, as you would have it, to the proposition, “the existence of ‘deity’ (whatever that is generally supposed to mean) lacks confirmation in phenomena from which further implications may be legitimately drawn,” in rational thought.
Is it truly reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no God?
It is not a conclusion so much as the absence of the preliminaries to a conclusion, as explained above. As you said, the reasonable position is being open to the idea – but this does not imply license, in rational thought, for preemptively adopting a merely imaginative construct (whatever it may be) and drawing (questionable) implications therefrom, as is done in theological “reasoning”.
We have no evidence whatsoever that there is life on other planets in the universe.
Of course we have such evidence. There is life on this planet, which is composed of the elements observable in the light spectra of other bodies, which are “astronomical” in their number. This is very substantial evidence, lending itself to an approximation of proof in terms of probabilities.
But is it reasonable for me to therefore conclude that there is none?
No – because your premise is faulty – not because the cases are comparable.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the universe was designed by an intelligence.
In the sense that anything is possible. But the vastly more probable explanation (generously granting that “designed by an intelligence” means something in this context) – is that the universe is not an artifice, it is not analogous to anything that sentient beings create other than art depicting tragedy. So, if you wish to worship as a rational grown-up, address yourself to the God of Tragedy – but don’t expect a response. He/she/it is the deity of tragedy, after all.
There is a reason why some religions are popular – they meet people’s spiritual needs. One could make a comparison to businesses. There is a reason that some businesses are successful – they meet a need in the marketplace,…
The business of creating and selling narcotics successfully meets a need in the marketplace, and “aggressive attempts to suppress it” have failed.
The Faustian Pact is a variant of the drug deal. It started with Christianity – a potent narcotic with several modern derivatives.
And aggressive attempts to suppress it have failed.
I would also argue that Christianity was a major force in the continued development of Western Civilization, helping to establish an atmosphere of increased social cohesion and the rule of law, where learning, prosperity and the sciences could develop.
By imposing such a regime prematurely, artificially, and to the ultimate detriment of the West. This is to say, a Faustian Pact.
Could this have happened in nations with Pagan Germanic belief systems centered around Woden and warfare?
It happened in nations/empires (Aztec/Maya/Inca) where the heights of ordered existence and culture were attained and attended by comparable, if not even more martially-oriented, pagan beliefs.
@NeoNietzsche,
I feel that I am on the verge of convincing you that there is a God, and I anticipate you will be baptized very soon. No, just kidding, its obvious that trying to convince you that one should keep an open mind to the existence of a deity/higher power/creator is probably futile. In fact, you argue very strongly using a rational perspective that the most rational thing to do is assume that no God exists. Your arguments are sound, your logic impeccable, your words very persuasive. One is tempted to become an atheist.
What I am interested in though, is what is going to help me, benefit my life, help me to achieve my goals, make me happier. Likewise, I am interested in a belief system that benefits my race and nation. I dont care how silly the belief system sounds on the surface, I am interested in results and outcomes, regardless of what philosophers have to say about it. Lets use an example as illustration; Primal Scream therapy. On the surface, it sounds absurd. Hypothetically, lets say that Nietzsche condemns it as inane, laughable, and overall just crappy, which is brilliantly argued using exquisite logic in a famous treatise. However, I am not really that interested in Nietzsche’s theoretical judgement. I am much more interested in looking at the lives of the people who use this therapy, and asking, “does this work?”, “does this benefit them?” “how do their results compare with people who dont use it?”, and so forth. I would attempt to use the scientific method, gathering relevant data to help make a sound judgement. If there is an obvious benefit to this therapy that significantly improves my life (Im not saying there is, this is hypothetical), then I would be very interested in adopting it, regardless of the sneers of others or Nietzsche’s brilliant critique.
In regard to Christianity, I cannot really comprehend or wrap my mind around the idea that there is just nothing after this life. I try to imagine my body laying in a grave decaying, and then my being/soul not existing. I just cannot envision or accept this, and I believe its the same way for the great mass of humanity. Likewise, I also cannot wrap my mind around the concept of infinity, I try to imagine something going on forever, with no end, and its just not really comprehensible. I believe that for most people, these concepts are just not within the capacity of the brain to assimilate, understand and grasp cognitively. Its one thing to say it or take a position for the purpose of debate, but another thing to really have a conviction about it. Of course I dont know what goes on inside your head, maybe you can do that. For those like me who have a need for spirituality (and that is most of us), atheism deleteriously affects our standard of living. It turns our life, which should be full of joy and optimism, into a dessicated husk, full of despair and pessimism.
I guess that from the standpoint of “what works”, we should evaluate Christianity on different levels:
1) Is it good for our personal lives (helping us achieve happiness and success)? You didnt respond to my previous post on this (regarding Joe-Sixpack), so according to the rules of scientific epistemology, ostensibly extrapolating theological implications from physical phenomena, I think the default position is yes.
2) Is it good for our race? The most important factor for this level is demographic. In other words, is it encouraging Whites to raise larger families than they otherwise would, and raise their children to do the same? Perhaps you can point to studies showing that atheists tend to have very large, happy families with well-adjusted kids. The evidence says that Christian families are larger, and in secular Europe, the White populations are dying off (nations such as Germany almost halve their White population each generation).
3) Is it good for our nation/civilization? This is probably the area that is hardest to prove or disprove, as the subject is so vast, I wont attempt to do so here.
You compare Christianity to a harmful drug, I suppose in your view it is the “opiate of the masses”. On which of the above levels do you see it as harmful? Do I presume correctly that you feel atheism would be better than Christianity for these levels? You also didnt respond to my attempt to paraphrase Nietzsche’s main idea or whether you think it would be better for Whites if we had leaders that had few moral scruples and were willing to do whatever was necessary to gain power.
“Could this have happened in nations with Pagan Germanic belief systems centered around Woden and warfare? It happened in nations/empires (Aztec/Maya/Inca) where the heights of ordered existence and culture were attained and attended by comparable, if not even more martially-oriented, pagan beliefs.” I suppose you are suggesting that the Central American empires, ruled by natives with an average IQ below 90, achieved this level of civilization on their own. You might find Thor Hyerdahl’s research interesting. He points out the striking similarity of the White “guanche” culture of the Canary islands, with their mummies and step pyramids, as well as the Aztec murals of blonde warriors. Blonde mummies have been discovered there as well. Even more interesting is the fact that when archeologists dig, they find more advanced levels, not the less-advanced levels you would expect (which suggests civilization arrived there from elsewhere, and was in a long period of decay). In fact, there was a long period of stagnation there for centuries, even by 1500 AD they certainly were below the level of civilization that the Egyptians had achieved 3000 years earlier.
Would you suggest that a Europe without the rapid development of science and technology (especially with weapons) would have been able to withstand over time the asiatic hordes of invaders that periodically struck against its borders? Would you also reject the importance of Christianity in keeping learning alive, helping to rediscover the work of the ancients, building universities and so forth which was critical to the advancement of the sciences? Would you deny the importance of Christianity in organizing and developing the large kingdoms and nation states in Europe?
It is noteworthy that there were many nations in Europe who didnt adopt Christianity. These pagan groups (such as the Baltic tribes) were easily wiped out by Christian states. What would have happened when the Mongols had struck against the gates, if Europeans were living in such low-level technology Pagan societies? Nations at the level of your Aztecs/Mayans certainly would not have been able to stop them.
If there is an obvious benefit to this therapy that significantly improves my life (Im not saying there is, this is hypothetical), then I would be very interested in adopting it, regardless of the sneers of others or Nietzsche’s brilliant critique.
I one’s belief system is nevertheless complicit in perpetuating a regime that is ultimately productive of national disaster that will predictably overtake you and yours, you would be well advised to re-evaluate your position.
For those like me who have a need for spirituality (and that is most of us), atheism deleteriously affects our standard of living. It turns our life, which should be full of joy and optimism, into a dessicated husk, full of despair and pessimism.
Short-term benefits at the expense of the long term. Hence narcotics and Faustian Pacts. Why “should” your life be “full of joy and optimism”? What law of nature declares this the natural estate of humanity?
Is it [Christianity] good for our race? The most important factor for this level is demographic. In other words, is it encouraging Whites to raise larger families than they otherwise would, and raise their children to do the same?
Why add to the stockyard population? The Cowboys do not run the old Circle K by virtue of their number superior to that of their cattle. I would say that the most important factor is, rather, a qualitative one.
You compare Christianity to a harmful drug, I suppose in your view it is the “opiate of the masses”. On which of the above levels do you see it as harmful?
The civilizational (3).
Do I presume correctly that you feel atheism would be better than Christianity for these levels?
No.
You also didn’t respond to my attempt to paraphrase Nietzsche’s main idea or whether you think it would be better for Whites if we had leaders that had few moral scruples and were willing to do whatever was necessary to gain power.
It would be better to have leaders not misled by misconceptions of reality consequent upon “moral” misapprehensions thereof.
“If one’s belief system…”
I suppose you are suggesting that the Central American empires, ruled by natives with an average IQ below 90, achieved this level of civilization on their own.
Since the “native rulers” were exterminated, no longer to be available for testing, and were obviously gifted races in view of their sustained contributions to their cultural evolution whatever the origins thereof, one must reject your qualification of my ‘suggestion”.
You might find Thor Hyerdahl’s research interesting. He points out the striking similarity of the White “guanche” culture of the Canary islands, with their mummies and step pyramids, as well as the Aztec murals of blonde warriors. Blonde mummies have been discovered there as well.
Which represents, at best, a historically momentary acceleration of cultural evolution. If a time-traveler had introduced a flint-lock rifle and other anachronistic innovations to 13th-century Europe, the subsequent development would nevertheless have been consequent upon the qualities and capabilities of the native population.
Even more interesting is the fact that when archeologists dig, they find more advanced levels, not the less-advanced levels you would expect (which suggests civilization arrived there from elsewhere, and was in a long period of decay).
You’ve been reading racist propaganda on the point. This is simply a false interpretation taken from examination of the terminal period following the post-classic in the Yucatan.
In fact, there was a long period of stagnation there for centuries,…
As there was in Europe during the Dark Ages, and for the same reason [the Nahuatl intrusion from the North, slowly making its way southward].
…even by 1500 AD they certainly were below the level of civilization that the Egyptians had achieved 3000 years earlier.
Marginally so, but nevertheless magnificent in their achievement. And one cannot compare isolated cultures by their position on the calendar. Europeans were primitives in 1500 BCE.
Would you suggest that a Europe without the rapid development of science and technology (especially with weapons) would have been able to withstand over time the asiatic hordes of invaders that periodically struck against its borders?
No. But this is not to the credit of Christianity and is rather the product of contact with Islam. And Western Europe was spared the Mongols merely by the death of Genghis.
Would you also reject the importance of Christianity in keeping learning alive, helping to rediscover the work of the ancients, building universities and so forth which was critical to the advancement of the sciences?
Credit where credit is due. On balance, however, the outcome of this precosity has been unfortunate in the extreme, in the culture-wide cultivation of a hypocritical, antithetical, anti-civilizational slave morale in various guises, terminally undermining that which you tout as its very achievement.
Would you deny the importance of Christianity in organizing and developing the large kingdoms and nation states in Europe?
I vigorously affirm it as the illustration of the ultimately destructive effect of prematurely erecting administrative structures under the influence of an alien agenda (the Norman Duchy/Norman England and the Holy Roman Empire, most prominently).
[I overlooked this concluding parargraph:]
It is noteworthy that there were many nations in Europe who didnt adopt Christianity. These pagan groups (such as the Baltic tribes) were easily wiped out by Christian states.
Big states tend to prevail over little ones. The big states were the product of Faustian Pacts with the Church, which supplied treacherous intelligence on enemy tribes and dual-loyalist ecclesiastical knights at the command of the Pope.
What would have happened when the Mongols had struck against the gates, if Europeans were living in such low-level technology Pagan societies? Nations at the level of your Aztecs/Mayans certainly would not have been able to stop them.
You again make the ludicrous mistake of imputing the level of European technology to Christianity (Byzantium and Islam due the credit for such enhancement as was enjoyed), which level was neither responsible for, nor capable of, halting the Mongols (as was responsible the death of Genghis and the competition for his legacy that drew the westward forces back to base). And the New World peoples would have gained no technological advantage from some form of Christian worship. In general, you need some more instruction in Spenglerian perspective and less Christian propaganda in your curriculum.
There is no credible reason to believe that Germanic civilization would not have achieved the same or similar development under pagan belief systems. Was the Classical Greek and Roman cultural development hampered by their pagan system which was in fact very similar to that of Germanics? No. There is no reason to believe that had Germanics remained pagan they would have stagnated. High Cultures don’t work like that; in fact even in the early days of the Germanics all the signs for a build of momentum were there prior to, and separate from, the introduction of Christianity.
@NeoNietzsche,
“I one’s belief system is nevertheless complicit in perpetuating a regime that is ultimately productive of national disaster that will predictably overtake you and yours, you would be well advised to re-evaluate your position.” This seems to be the crux of the issue. You would appear to agree that spirituality does offer people something beneficial for their lives (in the terms of happiness/success), and that Christians do have more children than atheists, thus it is more beneficial demographically for a nation (at least for the bovinid dullards of the population, according to your analogy of cattle). Your main criticism of Christianity seems to be that you feel it offers a civilization/nation with short term benefits (we are measuring time in centuries), but at the price of ultimate destruction or at least a host of ruinous effects.
I dont know exactly what you mean by the disaster that you believe Christianity is bringing/will bring upon the West. My guess is that you are mainly referring to the Jewish Question (I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but rather trying to understand your viewpoint). In your view, if I am correct, you would suggest that the current predicament in the West (being hijacked by our Semitic masters) is due primarily to Christianity. Christianity promotes universalist attitudes and reveres the Jews, helping to open a civilization to Jewish conquest. There is probably more to it than this, Nietzsche had many criticisms of Christianity, and having not read very deeply into his works, I can only guess at those (perhaps such things as causing religious wars, taking away from the martial spirit of Europeans, taking away the will of the West to survive, all of which Tom Sunic talks about).
In response to the above, an important question is, “Does Christianity help a Civilization grow and prosper?” It is noteworthy that Europe and the US have thrived as Christian states for centuries, up until the beginning of the 20th century. By that time, most of the non-White world had been conquered and colonized, learning and science were advancing rapidly, new inventions were revolutionizing life. Kevin MacDonald has pointed out that most people were racialist, and had strong beliefs that Europeans were a distinct, special and priveleged people. They had a strong sense of their heritage, eugenics movements were beginning to become popular, and books such as Stoddard’s “The Rising Tide of Color” were influential in determining emigration policy (which was very restrictionist). All in all, it is difficult to argue that the West was not doing very well after the barbarian Europeans adopted Christianity several centuries earlier. This was of course before the process of Judaisation, which has completely transformed the West a century later.
In regard to the idea of a “Faustian Pact”, where Christianity offers benefits to a civilization at the price of eventual disaster, there may be some truth to the idea that a Christian nation is more succeptible to Jewish domination. This was an unforeseen possibility for the founding fathers of the US, and obviously whatever ethnic defense mechanisms were in place were inadequate. Although you would probably blame Christianity as the main factor in the disaster, it could be argued that democracy and a free society are major culprits. MacDonald has pointed out the lack of ethnocentrism in Europeans and desire for “fairness” that also played a large part.
At any rate, I cannot see how you can argue that Christianity itself has some fatal flaw that inevitably brings disaster to a Christian nation. There are universalist messages in the bible, but the Old Testament is filled with racialist doctrine, talking of bloodlines, destroying foreigners, some peoples being cursed as the sons of Cain, etc. Jews are lambasted in the New Testament. This doctrine can be, and has been, used selectively in the past. The old slave-holding Southerners were very religious, and used the bible to support slavery, then the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War. Theories of the racial superiority of Whites thrived during the age of Imperialism. Although modern Christianity has been hijacked to some degree by Zionists, history tells us that this is not necessarily the natural state of this belief system. A vast array of organizations have also been hijacked, but does this mean that they are likewise fatally flawed? Although the New York Times is currently a Zionist media instrument, it was not always that way, and there is nothing inherent about the newspaper that made it inevitable that it would transform into what it is today.
I think that before you can suggest that Christianity be dismantled, you need to have a proven replacement. If you would advocate Paganism or a different religion, or atheism, you need to have strong evidence that it works. It is not enough to have a theory, however rational and well articulated it is. Many theories sound fantastic in writing, but are failures in practice. Your replacement belief system must be convincing to some degree (so that people will adopt it), and be fulfilling to those who follow it (so people will stick with it). In addition, your replacement should be shown to promote a stable population (its members are having children). What is your suggested replacement? If you suggest Atheism, you should be able to point to a group of successful atheists that have prospered over time. The same holds true if you suggest Paganism, etc.
Andrew,
Can I ask you why you turned away from the faith you were raised with?
NeoNietzsche,
I propose that Christianity itself was an emergent reaction to Jewish power and that Christ’s teachings are themselves a systematic approach to protecting a society against their influence. If the elites within a society are above corruption and committed to stewardship, they’ll be difficult to subvert. If the masses are both loyal to those elites and resistant to temptation and greed, then they’ll be difficult to subvert.
This all worked well until the printing press and the Reformation led to a general rebellion against Catholic authority and its stewardship. For fear of being sheared by the shepherd and having seen through his white lies about invisible super-shepherds patrolling the perimeter, the sheep wandered into the wilderness and into the jaws of the wolves.
The Catholic Church today is no more powerful than the European aristocracy or modern Freemasonry. They’ve been subverted, gelded, and turned against those they once served.
I believe that many lose Christ’s message in all of the mystical and Pauline additions, which is why I’ve performed a translation of the Jefferson Bible into contemporary English. In my opinion, this makes it much easier to identify and understand his core message.
http://www.hoosiernation.us/abc_bible
“Since the “native rulers” were exterminated, no longer to be available for testing, and were obviously gifted races in view of their sustained contributions to their cultural evolution whatever the origins thereof, one must reject your qualification of my ’suggestion”.” In regard to their sustained contributions to their civilization, perhaps you can name some technological innovations that were developed in the 1500 years before the arrival of Europeans? Assuming that they were a gifted race (and had not intermarried with the natives enough to water this down), one would expect continued developments, such as the wheel and perhaps metalworking, among other things (these cultures had millenia to develop these things).
“Even more interesting is the fact that when archeologists dig, they find more advanced levels, not the less-advanced levels you would expect (which suggests civilization arrived there from elsewhere, and was in a long period of decay). You’ve been reading racist propaganda on the point. This is simply a false interpretation taken from examination of the terminal period following the post-classic in the Yucatan.” I don’t regard Thor Hyerdahl as a racist propagandist. Do you suggest that there is evidence of the development of pyramids, from small step pyramids to larger ones over time, as we see in Egypt? Is there evidence of language developing in a manner similar to the Sumerian culture, which goes from primitive marks to a more advanced form?
“…even by 1500 AD they certainly were below the level of civilization that the Egyptians had achieved 3000 years earlier. Marginally so, but nevertheless magnificent in their achievement.” The achievement would possibly be less magnificent if the civilization arrived in an already advanced state and made little progress, as Hyerdahl believed.
“It is noteworthy that there were many nations in Europe who didnt adopt Christianity. These pagan groups (such as the Baltic tribes) were easily wiped out by Christian states. Big states tend to prevail over little ones. The big states were the product of Faustian Pacts with the Church, which supplied treacherous intelligence on enemy tribes and dual-loyalist ecclesiastical knights at the command of the Pope.” But the point is that the Church made big states possible. Having an educated clergy, the same scriptures and practices, etc. were essential for the development of large cohesive states. Pagan religions offered much less potential to create this.
“What would have happened when the Mongols had struck against the gates, if Europeans were living in such low-level technology Pagan societies? Nations at the level of your Aztecs/Mayans certainly would not have been able to stop them. You again make the ludicrous mistake of imputing the level of European technology to Christianity (Byzantium and Islam due the credit for such enhancement as was enjoyed)”. I apologize for being ludicrous, but I think that attributing a great deal of the West’s progress to Christianity is generally supported by historians. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the West was divided into a disunited conglomeration of barbarian tribes, speaking different languages and following different religions. A great deal of what had been known was lost. The Church played a vital role in preserving knowledge and spreading it. Virtually all the educated were taught by the clergy. The knowledge of engineering and architecture used for warfare was based on Roman works, spread through the Church. The development of much of the advances in warfare were made possible by large states, which were in turn made possible by the Faustian Pact that you refer to. The relative political stability of Europe was in large part due to a universal religion that taught rulers about brotherly love and peace (certainly there was warfare, but it was tame compared to the Dark Ages). This stability encouraged innovation. I am not saying that the Church operated R&D facilities. However, Christianity affected the civilization of the West in a number of very significant ways, and thus was a major factor in the development and spread of knowledge and technology that would otherwise probably not occurred at the relatively fast pace that it did.
“which level was neither responsible for, nor capable of, halting the Mongols (as was responsible the death of Genghis and the competition for his legacy that drew the westward forces back to base).” In my opinion, it is quite unlikely that the Mongols could have conquered the heavily fortified West (in contrast to the wide steppes of Eastern Europe). They lacked siege equipment, as well as sustained fodder for their animals. My point was that had Europe remained a paradise of Pagan states, we would have been looking at a large number of small, warring petty kingdoms, which could be conquered much more easily. I would also guess that if I were to trace the development of European fortifications to this date, I would find that the required learning was transmitted through the Church.
@Kasimir,
“There is no credible reason to believe that Germanic civilization would not have achieved the same or similar development under pagan belief systems.” I assume you understand the very warlike nature of Germanic paganism, similar in many respects to that of the Norse. Warriors were esteemed, education was held in low regard. Although the Germans are a gifted race, there was little innovation for centuries in the Ancient world. One of the reasons for this is that there was a lack of peace and stability, which encourages innovation. Another reason was the rarity of learning and educated individuals. Such a society is much less stable, there is no 10 commandments, and going to hell if you break them. Instead, there is only the Nietzschian “Will to Power”, which is rewarded by a warrior god. Thus, the rule of law is much more precarious. Without Christianity, it difficult to imagine some universal pagan religion that the West would have been unified under. Instead, we would have probably had dozens of different religions, helping to keep the West splintered into small warring states. Compared to the rate of innovation in Pagan societies, the developments made in Christian Europe came along very fast. It really accelerated after the printing press came along, the impetus for this was the need to print the Bible.
@Wikitopian
“Andrew, Can I ask you why you turned away from the faith you were raised with?” For the purpose of the discussion, I have theoretically accepted the premise that there is no God, because otherwise the discussion would flounder (with the rules of scientific epistemology, as it were). Outside of this discussion, I have a strong sense of spirituality, logically I dont know if God exists or not, but emotionally I cant imagine or accept there being no God (most of the people I am around are true believers with complete faith). As I mentioned, I was raised in the Mormon church (LDS). I havent turned away from my faith though. I still attend church, do my best to follow the commandments, dont drink or smoke, etc., and its a very positive thing for my life.
Andrew,
Email me: wikitopian at gmail dot com