Answer to Mr. Spog
In the thread Christianity: slave morality with a symbolic master, Mr. Spog brings up the idea of a "Christian society requiring, in the long run, a non-Christian master class".
I'm sorry, but what I connect to when I hear that is the wast formerly Christian areas of Northern Africa and the Middle East, the Monophysites and Nestorians, conquered and subdued by Islam. The Muslims as the master class, while Christianity makes its adherents perfectly suited for dhimmitude, as described by Bat Ye'or. And the same thing is underway in Europe now.
So I will have to agree with you, but not in a very optimistic way. Yes, followers of Christian ethics (secular or religious) are suited to live as a slave class under a non-Christian master class. But this is not the kind of society I would like to see. Of course, any change of paradigm would most probably require a period of time where followers of Christian ethics live under a non-Christian master class. But then only as a transitional phase, whole reindoctrinating the population into a different form of ultimate mythology. This is very different from permanenting the Christians as a secondary class (c.f. the Islamic way).
Answer to Dean McConnell
Dean McConnell wrote many interesting comments--as so many other commenters (and I'm so sorry that I'm so slow in responding, but I'll always get back to it at some point). However, I choose to bring up a thing where we disagree. Or rather, a misunderstanding.
I had written:
Christianity being the bottle, Christian ethics the genie having been let out of the bottle, and the anti-Christian secularist the one trying to smash the bottle against a rock. Likewise, now that American (Wilsonian) universalist creeds have been successfully spread and internalized in the West, the people Americanized in this way are trying to smash America against a rock. However different in nature, I think there is even a parallel to some degree in how the Roman empire fell. The fall of Rome could be attributed to a large degree to the immense success of the Romans to spread the Roman way of life to virtually all corners of the empire, in a way that rendered the city of Rome, and thereby its political structures and fundament, insignificant. Some sort of bottle/genie there too, in other words.To which Dean McConnell answered:
I agree with your observation that Rome is also suicidal.I didn't mean to say that Rome was also suicidal. In fact, I strongly disagree with that. It's in the bottle/genie analogy I compare the two. What's in the bottle eventually has to come out, and once it has come out it cannot be put back into the bottle, and the bottle is not needed anymore. But two genies are not alike. The genie of universalist Christian ethics with inversion of values is the suicidal one. This is the kind of genie that ultimately creates secular Westerners/Christians--who are pure slaves without a master, pure slaves under the stars of the universe--who actively attempts to destroy the bottle, i.e. organized Christianity. The Roman genie has never been suicidal. It's the inversion of values that makes the Christian genie suicidal. The Roman genie never had anything like that.
Any cultural paradigm goes through the process from bud to fruit to over-ripe, as I described in my letter to Lawrence Auster. They evolve organically. They move forward organically, and do not reverse. The bottle/genie analogy is another perspective upon the very same thing. Rome was bound to fall simply because nothing is eternal. But non-suicidal fruits spread their seeds so its genie will live for another thousand years or more (while suicidal fruits are more likely to be infested by parasites, Islam, and fade out.) As I wrote by the end of my letter to Lawrence:
A continuation of this allegory is to consider how over-ripe fruits that are about to rot, will spread many new seeds, and thereby continue to live in new forms. Just take the over-ripe fruit of the Roman empire that spread so many many seeds, before it rot and died, that makes us still have Roman cultural DNA within us and around us in so many places.Rome itself lasted for a thousand years. Eastern Rome--Byzantium--lasted for yet another thousand years. The Western Holy Roman empire also lived for a thousand years (800-1806)--which was also the most successful period of Christianity. But by 1806 we are in the new era of the French revolution, and then the age of Anglo-Saxon dominance. Especially since the start of the American Age (WWI), we no longer identify with our Roman heritage--at our own peril.
So what I'm saying is this: Even Rome went through the process of bud-fruit-seeds. Even Rome was a bottle with a genie in it, that got out of the bottle, eventually rendering the bottle insignificant. Rome--the strongest and most substantial civilization in the history of mankind. How could we then expect anything else from Christianity? Why would Christianity be able to turn an overripe fruit back into a fresh fruit? Why would Christianity be able to put the genie back into the bottle? I do not think so.
What would be possible however is for Christianity to enter into a new direction. As a last blooming season for the fruit. But then this is something that has to happen in America. As I said before: only the Americans could save Christianity. It's theirs now. And it's very likely that Europe at the same time would set upon a different path, reconnecting to our Roman heritage.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Answer to Mr. Spog