Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Geza: "The Austerites value Christianity over Europe"

[This ended up as a rather long post. Make sure to read all of what I have written after Geza's comment.]

Lawrence Auster has made this and this post in comment to my expositions in the famous long GoV thread. Here is Geza's reaction to those posts by Auster. My own comments follow below.

Geza:

I grow tired of the paranoia over at VFR. According to Auster you are on the path towards Nazism! Well, to be more specific, M. Mason is saying that but Auster apparently agrees with him. After reading his post and comments, I now realize that European self-hatred cannot be blamed entirely on liberalism, it has deep roots within Christianity. Pre-Christian Europe is seen as something as evil, something of little to no value with pagan Germans obviously being the worst of the bunch because they are Germans of course. This is reminiscent of jahiliya in Islam but with a Christian traditionalist twist. To Auster, the original religion of the Germanic race, that foul cult that sees a cosmic significance of the Germanic people as opposed to the multiracial paradigm of Christianity, would have been better off if it never existed because according to Auster it is Christianity that defines us, all else is bunk. Auster used to make a big deal about how liberals would bemoan America's non-liberal (in their minds) past and indict pre-60's America as evil. Well, he is doing the same thing here, he is indicting pre-Christian Europe, and by extension, Europeans as evil. Europeans in his mind need Christianity in order to be not-evil and due to his Abrahamic bias, he might even prefer a Muslim future for Europe over an organic pagan one.

Now I would like to spend some time with some of the comments Auster's peanut gallery have made concerning Germanic paganism.

"A person who truly embraces the old pagan Norse and Germanic gods and that cosmology is also going to gravitate toward some level of involvement in the pagan rites and practices associated with it, which includes occultism, spiritism and magic. Which isn't merely "weird" or "icky"--it's far worse than that. From an evangelical Christian perspective, it cannot be overly-stressed that any connection to this sort of thing is extraordinarily dangerous spiritually."

This is rich coming from a fundie. Speaking in tongues, "miracle" healings, and exorcisms are somehow not considered magic because it's Christian magic and therefore good. Meanwhile, non-Christians, specifically Nordic pagans are somehow conjuring up demons and sacrificing little animals or something. M. Mason needs to drop the whole "evil magic" pretense because it is quite obvious that he would find define any pagan practice as evil due to his bias as an evangelical Christian.

"I would argue that the telos of such a revived, volkish ideology rooted in the old paganism and incarnated on a national level will be absolutely sinister. We've already seen how this plays out. It was early Romanticist interest in the Old North that gave rise to Germanic neo-paganism, mysticism and occultism in the 19th and early 20th centuries; other sects centered around Theosophy and Ariosophy also began to proliferate and these esoteric societies had a massive influence on Hitler and the theoreticians of National Socialism."

Hitler was interested in a wide variety of non-Christian and non-Jewish traditions ranging from Hinduism to even, yes, Islam. His spiritual guru was a white woman who converted to Hinduism and saw him as the reincarnation of Vishnu. To say Germanic paganism is an important part of the "mystery" of why Germany went down the dark path of Nazism is ludicrous when its contribution to Nazi ideology was negligible at best.

"It's even more shocking when we consider that those Germans, taken as a whole, were very intelligent. Many of them were well-educated and well-versed in the arts and high culture; in fact, they seemed to typify just the sort of individuals that non-Christians could point to with pride and say: "See, we told you man was inherently good, and that, if you educated him, exposed him to the better things of life and gave him a philosophy of enlightened self-interest, he would naturally evolve and progress toward human perfection". They were very sure of themselves in that assessment. Over one hundred million casualties in two bloody world wars and the horrifying evidence of Belsen and Buchenwald proved otherwise."

I particularly like how he begins with a compliment. Germans are intelligent... intelligent monsters! It is really difficult to determine what he sees as evil here, secularism or paganism. Well, I doubt that it matters, as long as Germans fail to become evangelical Christians, M. Mason will continue to see them as a fallen race.

"Paganism (in all its various manifestations) is now the fastest-growing religion in the Western world. The widespread embrace of an occult worldview has become an acceptable social position. Sometimes in the endless discussions at VFR about the all-pervasive liberalism, menacing Islam and the fringe (but very vocal) proponents of militant atheism it's easy to overlook this"

It's easy to overlook because there is no pagan threat except in your fevered imagination and I find it particularly disgusting how you would equate Germanic paganism with the threat of Islam. One religion is foreign and will destroy Europe forever while the other will not.

James P. wrote:
"we should note that Christianity was once a central force in the defense of the West (along with the educational system and many other institutions that have been subverted) and even the "offense" of the West, i.e. spreading Western ideas throughout the world."

Yes, Christianity once was a defender of the West, but those days are gone because once it left the confines of Europe, it ceased it be a European religion any longer. Spreading the gospel to the Third World did not help Europe, it castrated it and Europe became beholden to the world. This is now irreversible because as Conservative Swede has said, your Christian ethics demand you to love the Christian Nigerian, Christian Mexican, and Christian Indian as you would love your fellow Christian Americans. Since the Austerites have made it clear that they value Christianity over Europe and since there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christianity, then their racialist complaints about Nigerians, Mexican, Indians are irrelevant and I might even say evil. Their living standards will inevitably decline but that is okay because you can comfort them by telling them they are imitating Christ in their suffering. I'm sure that will make them happy.

I agree with much of what you say here, Geza. The sad thing with the discussion over at VFR is that it is entirely based on a distorted image of what I said, given by M. Mason, by use of snippet quotes out of context, and his consistently twisted characterization of what I said. There's too much twisting and distortion to bring it up all. But I will take up a few. The best way to get a fair idea of where I stand is to read the long thread at GoV.


My supposed denigration of Christianity

In his second post, Auster characterizes what I have written, by using M. Manson's words, "Conservative Swede called Christianity a silly 'myth' along with its ethics that you must let go of in order fully to embrace ConSwede's glorious 'New Paradigm.' "

First of all I'm not describing Christianity as a "silly myth". Unlike most people I take myths, and their importance for human societies, fully seriously, in fact my whole reasoning is based on that! To miss that is to miss entirely what I'm saying. Here is an example of how I see things:

- - - - - - - - -
The Western Christian civilization is what happened when Germanic people met Christianity. But nothing lasts forever. Quite as the Roman Empire it can be compared with a fruit, going through all the stages: bud, flower, incipient fruit, green fruit, ripe fruit, overripe fruit, rotten fruit. With this I'm saying: i) indeed Western Christian civilization has meant many good things, and ii) it's all over now.
(Read this and the several following comments to see what I mean by that.)
So what I'm saying is that Christianity has blossomed in Europe, and lead to many good things. But that those days are over. But even so I'm not the one throwing away hundreds of years of tradition, since I take our historical legacy seriously. Thus I persist that our Christian legacy should be treated with respect. E.g. here when my thoughts had been compared with Nietzsche's anti-Christian attitude:
Mussolini was much wiser. He treated Christianity with respect. We cannot erase our history, we must treat our traditions with respect. In Sweden 90% of cultural history buildings are churches. Imagine a lunatic anti-Christian leader who would tear them down, what would be left of our historical memory?

I would use the churches for Pagan ceremonies. I understand that would not be considered respectful in the view of some Christians, but that problem is in their head.
In another exchange Roman from Poland says:
Anyway, it is also imaginable that some hybrid crusader Christianity version arises, something like new Reconquista spirit burning in the hearts of Northern Avengers?
My answer to this shows how I look widely for possible solutions. How I'm not against Christianity as such, it still serves the Russians well. It's the Christianity taken through the Enlightenment by the Germanics that I find problematic, which is today a rotten fruit:
Well, anything that solves the problem is fine. But after Western Christianity went through the Enlightenment etc. I cannot see this happening. Christianity cannot even affirm it's position within the Western societies, it effectively excuses for itself. How could it then be used to affirm anything externally?

However, in the case of Russia they do not have this problem. They can still use Christianity in this way.

Maybe we will all be taken over by the Russians, and remain Christians in that way? That's another thought...
And regarding my supposed "glorious 'New Paradigm'". Anyone who reads what I have actually written knows that I see this whole thing as the greatest tragedy. There's nothing glorious about it. The Western Christian civilization (which I define as "Germanics meet Christianity") has reached the end of the road. The situation is most dire for the Germanic people. The only thing we can know for sure is that there will be a major catastrophe and trauma, and from this there will necessarily come a paradigm change. I'm merely speculating about what it could be. There's nothing glorious about it. In fact, most of our advanced industrialized society will fall at the same time. No one will perceive this as glorious. What I'm speaking of is the most fundamental matter of live or death for us as a people. This will become our focus once the Western Christian civilization has fallen.

So we need a functioning great mythological narrative to make things work for us. Is it really impossible to use Christianity? No, it's not. As I have already pointed out:
First of all, White Nationalism is a stance of people who feel victimized. And it's something white people would turn to while still inside the mental box of Christian ethics, and the weakness it implies. Also White Nationalism is more typical of Americans than Europeans, but that is another discussion.

White Nationalism is a weak concept for weak and defeated people. What we need is something strong. To find what that is we should look at Russia. Russia is a multiethnic country, but still entirely Russian. This since Russian culture is dominant, normative and nobody questions it, and it does not blink. Therefore the different peoples within Russia (and the old Russian empire) do not question this, not any more than most Westerners today question their quest for "universal goodness". As described at this site by e.g. Russkiy, Khazars, Tartars, etc. obey and submit to this. Even Muslims find it natural to convert to Christianity in this context.

That's the way!
I.e. it still works for Russia. But for Germanic people it's way passed expiry time, for reasons I have expleined at lenght in the long thread. Western Christianity has turned into a rotten fruit. And there's no return after having let the genie out of the bottle.


The Nazi association

Indeed it is not only at VFR that the idea of Europeans returning to a European ethnocentric religion is associated with Nazism. This is an idea deeply rooted and animated by the post-WWII mythology, and thus ranging all the way from the left-wing and into VFR. But this view is upside down. Hitler was to Germany what Stalin was to Russia, both putting their horrific ideologies at the center, without any regard for their own people. Hitler essentially tried to conquer the whole world. He was not acting in the interest of the German people. Instead he destroyed for them at a pyramidal level. And that was not due to "bad luck". His actions were reckless by design. As I have written in the long thread:
I cannot help but thinking of Joseph Goebbels when I saw the Untergang. How he killed himself and his whole family, since without National Socialism there was no longer anything to live for. The fact that Germany and the German people (his own ethnic group!) were still around didn't mean a thing to Goebbels. In fact this was never important to the Nazis in the first place. Their adulation was for Hitler and National Socialism. Germany and the German people were just expendable tools for their ideological escapades, quite as Russia was for Stalin. There was no love or respect for their ethnic group.
Something that strikes anyone watching the Triumph of the Will from 1934, is how the whole show is an idolization of Hitler and National Socialism, but not of Germany and German people. By the end of the movie we hear Rudolph Hess saying "Hitler is the Party, Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler". It cannot be put more clearly than that.

Any responsible leader, with the slightest shred of love for his own country and his own people, would have negotiated peace with the Russians in 1943 or at least in 1944. But Hitler had no such concerns. Even in 1945 when the Soviet tanks were just outside of Berlin, he was prepared to sacrifice millions of German lives in the name of his ideological quest. He didn't care the least if the result of his war meant to utterly destroy Germany and German people. And it did. Any responsible leader, with love for his country and people, would have made sure Germany had not been overrun by Soviet tanks, and their women raped. But Hitler didn't care for his country or his people. It was all about him and his National Socialism.

Had I lived in Germany in 1934, seeing where things were going, I would have felt the same sort of despair as I feel today. Due to where things were going (which could be clearly seen from the start), and the blindness of the people (combined with how they had been scared into silence). The reaction by the true German nationalists (as in loving their country and people) was to try and assassinate Hitler. There were 17 such attempts. Very much to our regret, these failed. And in today's situation there is not even such a simple solution in reach.

With the post-WWII mythology, everything that could be associated with Nazism was considered evil. In this way of thinking, European nationalism was the root of the problem. That's why any form of European ethnocentrism is considered evil. These myths are the root and the core of PC mythology. The demonization of the Germans is the blueprint for the demonization of European and white people in general. As I have written:
Funny thing. In the liberal mindset, the Muslims are seen as the first victims of Islam (for those liberals who's woken up about Islam). But the Germans are never seen as the first victims of National Socialism, even though the situations are exactly parallel. Instead ethnic Germans get demonized (and by extension all people of European descent).

These sort of things are at the very fundament of the current paradigm. And it's not until these knots are untied that the paradigm can fall over. People think that they can get anywhere with combining an anti-Islam position with hate/despise/fear of Germans, in accordance with the great mythological narrative since WWII, that our current paradigm is built upon. They can't. By their hate/despise/fear of Germans their feet are still firmly stuck in the mud of the current paradigm. And furthermore, hate of Germans is the blueprint for hate of white people in general in this prevailing mythology. So by continuing to hate/despise/fear Germans, the Westerners continue to gravitate towards white guilt and self-hate. These myths strike people at the sub-conscious level, which makes them defenseless against this gravity. It's not until the Westerners thoroughly revise their view on WWII that a change of paradigms can take place. Another trauma is required for this to take place.
These Nazi associations are at the core of the PC mythology. All such Nazi associations has to be evaporated, like a Gordian Knot, before we can be free. This is the very hang-up that makes us all march into our living hell. Indeed there are even people who cling to neo-Nazism. They are of course the greatest losers (and not only for explicitly adhering to the big loser in WWII). However, the point is that they are animated by the very same post-WWII mythology of all the rest, i.e. that European ethnocentrism equals Nazism. It's only that they have opted for the "bad side" of the equation, which makes it even worse. This is not a matter of choosing sides, given the theater presented by the mythology. It's a matter of scattering this mythology into pieces. And as I said, this will only happen through a major trauma.


On race-based Christianity

I'm not fond of race-based identity. In fact it's a trap that could even lead us into the arms of Islam (cf. also Hitler). As I write in my exchange with Takuan Seiyo:
Some race-obsessed people (and often antisemitic) think that we should adapt a narrative about the Arabs instead of the Jews, i.e. Islam. In their view this would boost the white race, with breeding and fighting spirit. However, what would be the point of the survival of the white race if it has lost its soul? Race isolated is completely uninteresting in my view. To me it's all about ethnicity (of which race is integral, of course). Islam is a peg that would effectively erase our ethnicity, and make us into pseudo-Arabs. Compare with Christianity, which indeed makes our ethnicity unimportant, but does not erase it for us.
In the long thread, Baron Bodissey wrote one of the most important things:
Part of the modern Liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition.
I.e. life as we know it is based on millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. But not only the liberals, but also many anti-liberals, who see the fall of the current world order, and fear that it will be the end of all, have forgotten that these things cannot be erased. Neither the rise nor the fall of liberalism can take away millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. It can only happen if we literally perish as a people (and how to avoid that is very point, the only point, that I tried to address in the long thread).

Especially in America, where the ethnic experience is weak, different sorts of ideologal positions based on white race are common as opposition to the current order (while ethnic identification is the common thing in Europe). Race takes the millions of years of evolution in account, but might miss the thousands of years of culture and centuries of tradition, so we find White Nationalists falling into neo-Nazism, and even, in some extreme cases, Islam.

VFR is promoting a race-based Christianity, and thereby takes the centuries of tradition in account. But by rejecting our traditional Pagan religion and customs, much of thousands of years of culture is also rejected. And we get a big hole in our existential pyramid, as described by Baron Bodissey. As I have already described, the Western Christian civilization has respected most of our thousands of years of culture. But a race-based Christianity, so hostile against our traditional Pagan religion and customs, is a bigger threat to these thousands of years of culture. It becomes hostile to a vital part of our identity.

22 comments:

PRCalDude said...

This is rich coming from a fundie. Speaking in tongues, "miracle" healings, and exorcisms are somehow not considered magic because it's Christian magic and therefore good. Meanwhile, non-Christians, specifically Nordic pagans are somehow conjuring up demons and sacrificing little animals or something. M. Mason needs to drop the whole "evil magic" pretense because it is quite obvious that he would find define any pagan practice as evil due to his bias as an evangelical Christian.

Isn't Auster a Roman Catholic. Actually, I agree with your point here. Pentacostalism and much of Evangelicalism bears more resemblance to paganism than Protestant Christianity. There's a book called "Pagans in the Pews" that makes this very same point. Really, the idea of speaking in tongues, healings, and miracles should have disappeared with the passing of the apostolic era. That has always been the Reformed/Protestant position, at least.

I think we're going around in circles with much of this, ConSwede. I've tried to demonstrate that postmodern liberal Christianity of the Protestant type is no Christianity at all. You seem to be asserting that it is. Did you read through Machen's book yet?

I think a racialist Christianity is silly and needlessly complicated. Cultures and peoples have the same rights of self-defense as individuals according to the sixth commandment. Just war theory (developed by Christians, btw), would argue that different groups of people have a right to defend themselves. Why does it need to be made more complicated than that? Why do we need another form of Christianity to tell us this?

Conservative Swede said...

PRCalDude,

Isn't Auster a Roman Catholic.

No, he's Episcopalian if I remember correctly.

I've tried to demonstrate that postmodern liberal Christianity of the Protestant type is no Christianity at all.

Well, most people would disagree with you. And nevertheless, "postmodern liberal Christianity of the Protestant type" was not brought to us by extraterrestrials. It was something Christianity developed into by itself. By being washed through the Reformation, the Enlightenment and subsequent American distillation by the descendants of the Puritans and the Quakers, who removed the final Roman components making it purely Hebrew.

Just war theory (developed by Christians, btw), would argue that different groups of people have a right to defend themselves.

How does the the Christian theory of Just War help us to handle a situation of mass immigration, and its ensuing ethnic civil war, which we have inflicted upon ourselves, based on a deranged version of Christian ethics?

Most of theses Muslims etc. now have citizenship, and are therefore part of our people. How does the Christian theory of Just War help us fighting them then? Doesn't the Christian concepts of judicial rights become an obstacle here?

And even so, I don't expect any politician of importance refer to the Christian theory of Just War anytime soon, as and answer to our dire situation.

One of the main functions of religions is to provide answers and comfort for the great questions which are of the most concern for the people in the times they live. Christianity provided answers and comfort regarding the issue of the afterlife. But in ten years or so, we will have faced a catastrophe of apocalyptic magnitude. The main concern of people will be the very survival of their ethnic group. For these things Christianity does not provide any guidance or comfort. However, ethnocentric religions do.

PRCalDude said...

No, he's Episcopalian if I remember correctly.

That's the most liberal of liberal denominations.

Well, most people would disagree with you. And nevertheless, "postmodern liberal Christianity of the Protestant type" was not brought to us by extraterrestrials. It was something Christianity developed into by itself. By being washed through the Reformation, the Enlightenment and subsequent American distillation by the descendants of the Puritans and the Quakers, who removed the final Roman components making it purely Hebrew.

The Reformation didn't do anything to cultivate liberalism. If you've read Calvin and Luther, you'd know that. The Reformation was about returning to the "faith once delivered to the saints" and handed down by the apostles. The Reformers were big students of the church fathers of the pre-Romanist era. In fact, the only liberalism that existed prior to the Reformation was of teh Romanist type. They're the ones that invented sola ecclesia, not us. We stick to sola Scriptura, where SCripture is the immutable, inerrant standard of faith and practice. Christian liberalism was a fundamental departure from sola Scriptura. It's all about the "experience," not the immutable, inerrant standard.

How does the the Christian theory of Just War help us to handle a situation of mass immigration, and its ensuing ethnic civil war, which we have inflicted upon ourselves, based on a deranged version of Christian ethics?

What do you mean? We have a right to defend ourselves collectively under just war theory. Really, only a small fraction of us foisted mass immigration on the rest of us.

Most of theses Muslims etc. now have citizenship, and are therefore part of our people.

Muslims, by their own standards, can belong only to the Ummah. On paper, they may have some alternative citizenship given to them by people they consider to be outsiders, but that doesn't change what they themselves believe. Sometimes, you've just got to hold people to the standards they set for themselves.

It's like the American/hyphenated-American distinction. Did we create that, or did they?

Christianity provided answers and comfort regarding the issue of the afterlife. But in ten years or so, we will have faced a catastrophe of apocalyptic magnitude. The main concern of people will be the very survival of their ethnic group. For these things Christianity does not provide any guidance or comfort. However, ethnocentric religions do.

The desire to perpetuate one's ethnic group, fundamentally, IS a hope for the afterlife: you get to live beyond the grave as long as your ethnic relatives still exist to perpetuate you after you die.

That may be your desire, and mine to a lesser degree, but my main desire when I grow older is to not burn in hell for eternity.

Ancient kings, pharoahs, etc, built themselves huge pyramids and statues and things of that nature for the same reason: so they could live beyond the grave by everyone remembering them. But your ethnic group will probably not remember you or me after we're gone.

Philosophically, if you believe in such things as "right" and "wrong," then there is no other way for "right" and "wrong" to exist without a benevolent Creator God from whom such things can originate. If God is to be good, then he must punish evil. And that is what I worry about: that he must punish evil. I'm not really going to care how my ethnic group is doing if I'm being punished for an eternity in hell.

Conservative Swede said...

PRCalDude,

Sometimes, you've just got to hold people to the standards they set for themselves.

And thus is the Western Christian civilization held to the suicidal standards it has ended up setting for itself. There's no way out of this mental maze, with less than a major catastrophe. Even Auster agrees about this.

If God is to be good, then he must punish evil.

I'm not going to put my hope in something like that.

And that is what I worry about: that he must punish evil. I'm not really going to care how my ethnic group is doing if I'm being punished for an eternity in hell.

Thank you for this. You are making my point for me better than I could do myself. Anyone can see the big problem of Christianity in what you write here.

PRCalDude said...

Swede,

I'm trying to get you to understand the history of Christianity in the West, and it's becoming obvious that either a) I'm failing or b) you don't care.

If you want to worship Thor and Odin because you think that sort of thing will fire up the troops for a grand purge of the West, go right ahead. I don't think, based on how the Germanic tribes acted when they worshiped Thor and Odin, that such a thing will be successful at all. I also don't think Thor and Odin exist and that their religion provides a useful means of understanding the world and our place in it and our telos. I likewise deny that Christianity requires one to be a deracinated liberal. The Bible is pretty clear that we're citizens of 2 kingdoms until we die or until the day of judgment, whichever comes first.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't join you in your new religion, however.

Conservative Swede said...

PRCalDude,

I'm trying to get you to understand the history of Christianity in the West, and it's becoming obvious that either a) I'm failing or b) you don't care.

I think the issue is that I didn't come to a conclusion that you like.

If you want to worship Thor and Odin because you think that sort of thing will fire up the troops for a grand purge of the West, go right ahead.

Purge of the West? Why would anyone do that?

I don't think, based on how the Germanic tribes acted when they worshiped Thor and Odin, that such a thing will be successful at all.

The same argument would apply about Christianity, with reference to how Medieval Christians behaved. What sort of argument is that? Using the same argument anyone could claim that your or Auster's wish to restore traditional Christianity would take us back to Medieval ways.

However, when the Indians restored their nationalist religion, Hinduism, in the face of the existential threat from Islam, after almost a millennium of Buddhism dominance, do you think they at the same time jumped a 1000 years back in social development? Why would they do that? Why do you think they would do that? Why would we do that?

Conservative Swede said...

continued...

I also don't think Thor and Odin exist and that their religion provides a useful means of understanding the world and our place in it and our telos.

The main point is not about the specific gods, but about an ethnocentric mythological narrative. Moreover, in a polytheistic religion based on long cultural traditions the gods do not hold this pivotal position as the Christian god does for Christianity, being the basis and guarantor of truth, morality, goodness, justice, etc. And upon which the belief in all these things and the belief in the religion as such stands or falls. A concept which is, by the way, made for creating serious doubt, which is the parent of secularism -- which we have also seen Christianity develop into, as the unique among religions.

As I wrote in my exchange with Takuan Seiyo: "Christianity is defined by a set of doctrines. But traditional polytheistic religions aren't. There is no Asatru doctrine which says you have to do bloting. Hinduism is a good example in this category. Hinduism is by no means based on any set of doctrines. Hinduism is best defined as the collection of thousands of years of Indian spiritual history. From this one can pick and choose. In fact within Hinduism one can be atheist, monotheist or polytheist. That's how broad it is." (read the whole thing here)

The importance of the gods come and go in Pagan religions, and not all gods are acknowledged in all places at the same time. Nevertheless, such traditional religions are organically hold together. Odin, Thor and Frej are considered the most important gods in what is known as Asatru, that is the frozen image of our traditional religion, as presented by the Christians. But before it had been Njord and Ull who were more important. It changes.

And the important thing in a religion is not that the people metaphysically belief in the existence of the gods, but that the religion is manifested in the most pivotal aspects of the society. Some will take it metaphorically, some metaphysically, but that's not what's holding it together. However, at a funeral ceremony, many more people will take these myths seriously.

In addition to this. Did you know that in the end of the story of Ragnarök, Odin and Thor will die. No, these gods cannot be compared to the Christian god. And since they do not make the preposterous claims of the Christian god, to be the source of truth, goodness, justice and everything, it will be easier for people to believe in them. They don't have to be perfectly good for people to believe in them (the Theodicy problem have had many Christians falling away from their belief). They don't have to be perfect or omnipotent in any way, they are just "our guys". And our belief system does not stand or fall with their individual existence, so there is little reason to make it into a sport to question their existence, as in Christianity.

However, regarding the understanding of our place in the world, our traditional religion (hinn forni siðr, i.e. the Old Tradition) will serve us much better in the dire situation we'll be, as an ethnic group, in 10-20 years, than Christianity (hinn nýi siðr, i.e. the New Tradition).

I likewise deny that Christianity requires one to be a deracinated liberal.

That's not necessary since a non-liberal Christian such as yourself claims that "I'm not really going to care how my ethnic group is doing if I'm being punished for an eternity in hell."

The Bible is pretty clear that we're citizens of 2 kingdoms until we die or until the day of judgment, whichever comes first.

Yes, that's exactly the problem that I started from. That story is not about us, but about the Jews. We, as a people, are of no importance in that narrative whatsoever.


You'll have to forgive me if I don't join you in your new religion, however
.

That's okay. I believe in mutual respect between civilized religions.

Conservative Swede said...

As I just wrote:
That story is not about us, but about the Jews. We, as a people, are of no importance in that narrative whatsoever.

And the point here is how the people of a society are ultimately controlled in their behaviour and priorities, by its myths. So if the mythology tells us that we are not important as a people, then people will act accordingly. The consequences of which we see around us today.

This is the one important thing. The rest is negotiable. E.g. many of us will maintain our admiration for Jesus.

geza1 said...

"Isn't Auster a Roman Catholic."

I was actually referring to M. Mason who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and made it clear that anything that deviates from Christian practice is evil. The fact that he's associating Germanic paganism, which has thousands of years of history, with the occult from the 70's and 80's proves his bias.

As for my position of Christianity, I do not think it should hold any political sway in European society because of Christianity's logical conclusion which inevitably leads to liberalism and multiculturalism. Part of this is the fault of Christianity in the West and its universal nature and part of it is the inevitability of technology that speeds up the process of Western suicide. I do not think that Christianity should be done away with, it is a part of Europe but so is paganism and I would like for Christians to accept that some Europeans find Christianity lacking in the ethnic department and would like something more meaningful for their ethnic group, hence the option of paganism.

I would also like to mention that I oppose athiesm as an ideology for society. Individual atheists I have no problem with but athiesm even if combined with HBD I find to be too reductive in nature. Preserving the "white race" misses the point because we will never all come to an agreement on who is white and it is also another form of multiculturalism but with a narrower scope. I don't expect Finns to really care that much about the survival of the Scot-Irish eventhough they are both Nordics. Finns care about Finns and Scot-Irish care about Scot-Irish. Cooperative nationalisms would be more conducive to a healthy Europe rather than white multiculturalism.

Theo said...

Geza:"I now realize that European self-hatred cannot be blamed entirely on liberalism, it has deep roots within Christianity."

Yes. But remember that it's not just 'Christianity' but rather 'Judeo-Christianity' -- Christianity is a Jewish invention, a 'child religion' or offshoot of Judaism...thus it is not of The West because it is not indigenous to it.

According to Nietzsche, Christianity is a product of Judaism, the primary "Chandala-religion". By this he means that Judaism and Christianity after it are the morality born of the hatred of the oppressed (like the Chandala) to their oppressors; Nietzsche wrote:

"Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege:—it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity, the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against "race": the undying chandala hatred as the religion of love..." - http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7203

The religion of Judeo-Christianity is also a religion of PITY, which is worthless in terms of human advancement; to again quote Nietzsche:

"Christianity is called the religion of pity. Pity stands opposed to the tonic emotions which heighten out vitality: it has a depressing effect. We are deprived of strength when we feel pity. That loss of strength which suffering as such inflicts on life is still further increased and multiplied by pity. Pity makes suffering contagious. Under certain circumstances, it may engender a total loss of life and vitality out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause (as in the case of the death of the Nazarene). That is the first consideration, but there is a more important one.

Suppose we measure pity by the value of the reactions it usually produces; then its perilous nature appears in an even brighter light. Quite in general, pity crosses the law of development, which is the law of selection. It preserves what is ripe for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect.

Some have dared to call pity a virtue (in every noble ethic it is considered a weakness); and as if this were not enough, it has been made the virtue, the basis and source of all virtues. To be sure—and one should always keep this in mind—this was done by a philosophy that was nihilistic and had inscribed the negation of life upon its shield. Schopenhauer was consistent enough: pity negates life and renders it more deserving of negation.

Pity is the practice of nihilism. To repeat: this depressive and contagious instinct crosses those instincts which aim at the preservation of life and at the enhancement of its value. It multiplies misery and conserves all that is miserable, and is thus a prime instrument of the advancement of decadence: pity persuades men to nothingness!" - http://dailynietzsche.blogspot.com/2008/06/nietzsche-on-pity.html

PRCalDude said...

Swede,

We're now discussing this on my blog if you want to participate.

Félicie said...

Conservative Swede: "Preserving the "white race" misses the point because we will never all come to an agreement on who is white and it is also another form of multiculturalism but with a narrower scope. I don't expect Finns to really care that much about the survival of the Scot-Irish eventhough they are both Nordics. Finns care about Finns and Scot-Irish care about Scot-Irish. "

What then should ethnically mixed white Americans do?

Conservative Swede said...

PRCalDude,

Thanks for telling me. There's nothing interesting said there though. It's the typical reactions of Christians who believe in hell-fire. Not unlike the VFR crowd.

Conservative Swede said...

Felicie,

What then should ethnically mixed white Americans do?

You need to pay attention to who wrote what. The question of yours is for Geza.

In any case, what do you think yourself that "ethnically mixed white Americans" should do?

geza1 said...

"What then should ethnically mixed white Americans do?"

Organize among regional lines: Scot-Irish in the south, German Catholics in the midwest, and Anglos in the north east, etc. Of course you don't have to be 100% of either ethnicity group but you have to atleast identify with the prevalent culture of that region. A man with some Polish ancestry living in the south can still retain his Catholic and Polish identity but he would have to accept that his culture is dominated by the major ethnic group, the Scot-Irish, and he should work to preserve that way of life if he still wants to be considered an American. If that is not suitable for him and he values Polishness over Americaness then he should become a Polish nationalist and maybe move to Poland instead of rallying around white "nationalism" in America because he will find that ideology lacking since he values Polishness more than whiteness.

Pedigree is not important since culture and race are closely intertwined. You will feel more comfortable in a culture where there are people who closely related to you. There are obvious exceptions such as Westerners going native in Third World countries.

Racially conscious Americans are a long way from seeing themselves as ethnic Europeans in America instead of "ethnic" Americans so we will not see this development for quite some time. The Switzerland model will not work in America because the only recognized "ethnicities" are white, black, and Hispanic with the whites receiving no special rights. Much like how HBD-enthusiasts recognize the differences and political aspirations between various non-whites, they need to recognize the same for whites and begin to see them as different competing European groups instead of a monolith.

Félicie said...

"What then should ethnically mixed white Americans do?"

- "Organize among regional lines: Scot-Irish in the south, German Catholics in the midwest, and Anglos in the north east, etc. "

By the way, there are a lot of Lutherans in the Midwest. I haven't heard of Catholicism being so prevalent. Maybe it's my ignorance.

But, anyway, I don't think this would work. It's too patchy and too mixed throughout the U.S. Entirely mixed. My ex, for example, had English, Scots, Irish, Scandinavian, German, and even French ancestry. None of the ancestries dominated. And this is a typical example. If he chose one ancestry - German - because he had a German last name, it would be kind of meaningless for him. And how would the U.S., as a country, survive with so many European ethnicities asserting themselves? I don't see how this mish-mash of confusion would contribute to the strength of America as a nation.

This is why a race-base notion of identity for a country like the U.S. makes more sense to me. One could go on and continue to forge and consolidate a new European ethnicity, called "American," which is genetically an ethnic mix of the European DNA, with predominant strands being North-West European, and culturally, again, has roots in the North-West European Protestant mentality. In the future, one could calibrate the immigration policy accordingly, giving preference to European immigrants from this region.

geza1 said...

"It's too patchy and too mixed throughout the U.S. Entirely mixed."

I understand that hence my focus on the region and the most prevalent ethnicity/culture of that region. Obviously there is a difference between southern whites and north eastern whites and they each have different interests. It's by no means a perfect solution but I think it is the least bad solution because it sounds less overt than white nationalism and pedigree is not emphasized but it is implied that each American ethnicity is white.

"One could go on and continue to forge and consolidate a new European ethnicity, called "American," which is genetically an ethnic mix of the European DNA, with predominant strands being North-West European, and culturally, again, has roots in the North-West European Protestant mentality."

Okay. There are many problems with this approach.

1. My first objection is that American whites are too diverse to agree on a culture. The racial spoils system will only accelerate with increased immigration and AA but even so, I do not see American whites standing together on this issue and asserting their rights.

2. America used to have a NWEP mentality but that is not the case anymore. Firstly, the white Catholic population is rather large and it doesn't fit into this mould. Another problem is that Protestantism (any stream) is not the official religion of America. I think that was a critical mistake and part of the reason why many liberals and conservatives give so many allowances to Muslims.

3. It takes time to forge a new ethnicity and America doesn't have much left considering the demographic trends. But if it did, it could pursue that goal. Boers can be considered an ethnic group and they are not all Dutch either, there is a significant amount of mixture in there.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

It's too patchy and too mixed throughout the U.S.

I fear that the US will go the way of the former Yugoslavia eventually. Viewed from outside the ethnicities and languages in former Yugoslavia were largely interchangable. Indeed, many folks there thought of themselves as generic jugoslavs, or jugoslav of x and/or y extraction, but it took the balkan wars to define their identities - whether they wanted to or not. If not, then other folks defined it for them the hard way.

And how would the U.S., as a country, survive with so many European ethnicities asserting themselves?
It wouldn't. To continue the Yugoslavia case, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia etc may only be lesser fragments of the former Yugoslavia but they seem happier that way ... despite the nastiness of the process the results could be worse. Most of those cooperate far better today as new countries now that differences have been settled and borders drawn (but of course would be more so if so much blood hadn't been shed).

In the US it would be better seen as the expression of regional identities (based on entities with shared heritage sharing something approaching majority consensus to cultural issues), identities which would eventually entrench as different American nationalities. A patchwork of cooperative but seperate American sovereign subnations is hardly the worst eventuality that can be imagined - its the road from here to there that may get horrible.

Félicie said...

I don't think that coexistence of Protestantism and Catholicism should be a problem. They've coexisted side-by-side peacefully in Germany for a long time. As for regionalism, I am still not convinced. Maybe specifically American regionalism would work (American South, American Midwest, etc.), but not regionalism based on prevalent European ethnicity, because there aren't strong prevalent ethnicities the way I see it (even though, most whites are majority North-West European; the percentage of Mediterranean and Slavic blood is, on the whole, smaller). Of course, I could be wrong.

H. B. Palmaer said...

Thank you for an enlightening text, CS.

I believe in collaboration between all good forces to save Europe and the West, which means that we Catholics must stop behaving like naive, blind universalists with no natural ties of solidarity, no natural fidelity. Immanent, utopian universalism is not Catholic.

The Church fathers and St Thomas admired Aristoteles and other Pagans. Nor did the missionaries who arrived to Scandinavia ever pretend to root up natural attachments to soil and blodd. Quite the opposite.

Conservative Swede said...

H. B. Palmaer,

I agree with you about wide cooperation, and I do indeed cooperate with Christians who are so inclined to do. Most actively with Gates of Vienna. And if you add Serge Trifkovic to that equation all of Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity are covered.

I saw you linked to this article and expanded upon your own with my part about "The Nazi Association". I'm glad you share my view about Hitler and Nazi-Germany. Too few people do, or even thought about the issue in such a way.

In fact we share more views than you might imagine. E.g. it is impossible to be a true conservative without having understood and embraced Weston A. Price. Some day I should write an article about it. There's no better way to illustrate the conservative principles -- how they became overrun by liberal industrial society, and why they are so little understood today, but also how they can be reconstructed -- than the lessons learned from Weston A. Price.

And we share the view about the impending dollar collapse, resource collapse etc.

It's a pity, Palmaer, that the Second Vatican Council came between us in such a way. But it was not my fault. I was not even born then :-) Are you by the way Aloysius under a new name, or a new friend of Florestan?

I read by the way at your blog about how Oskorei let himself be interviewed by Mohammad Omar. And I share your disappointment and disgust over it. Westerners are weak, weak, weak. So much sickness going around, so much pathological confusion. And in so many flavours.

But then again, your post about Dieudonné goes in the same general direction, as I see it (and I'm frowning).

And we have completely opposite positions regarding Tommy Hansson as the new editor-in-chief of the Sweden Democrats magazine. I think he's a great choice.

All in all, you remind me of one or two of my best friends. In this group of friends the positions are very diverse regarding certain issues, to say the least. But the point is that we can talk about it in a civilized way. You would fit in perfectly in this group. I'm convinced that if we meet, we would become very good friends.

But on the Internet we could bang our heads into each other over the sometimes very strong differences (which seem insurmountable) that we have. But I choose not to, and neither do you I see. Right now it's much more inspiring looking at the things where we share the same views, especially since some of them are very rare (also outside of Sweden!)

rebelliousvanilla said...

It's funny because I read this about giving value to Christianity over Europe here:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/03/civil-rights-chivalry-golden-rule-and.html#readfurther
Actually, I was disappointed because I was expecting a proper debate about things, which sadly failed to happen. I'm glad I have a really good friend in person with who I debate these things rationally and we never get pissed off. The problem is that we both think similarly because we influence each other. lol. Anyway, the comments by EV actually prove what you said here - that Christianity is valued more than Europeans.

Anyway, I agree, the preserving the European people thing shouldn't fall into the racial purity thing because that's a mistake. Most of the problems would be solved just by Europeans having a more or less exclusive, not inclusive culture and admit that we are different. Still, I won't go into this because I just wanted to tell ConSwede that in my country Christianity is very Romanian in nature. We have holidays that are only in my country and we even have food associated with Christian holidays that are exclusive to my country. This is why being Christian in my country is different than as seeing Christianity as the salvation of Europe.