What unites the Left, the "Alt- Right" and Neoconservatism is a contempt of Christianity. For the Left, Christianity, with it's regressive morality, is seen as an instrument of exclusion, creating minorities that are unable to achieve full acceptance and equality within the Christian schema. For the Right, Christianity "is cucked" especially with regard to the racial question and is seen as a source of civilisational weakness. For the Neocons, Christianity is problematic, since its civilisational triumph poses a direct challenge to the concept of man as espoused by Atheism, Islam, and Judaism. The Left and Right directly challenge Christianity, Neoconservatism tries to explain it away.
However, at a deeper level, what unites all three is a fundamental dishonesty with regard to historical fact which aims to either misrepresent Christianity or downplay its role in Western civilisation. It's not that these movements haven't any valid critique of Christianity, rather, their fundamental understanding of Christianity can be rebutted by a cursory perusal of the facts. These movements are ultimately built on lies.
By accepting the de facto framing of our current civilisational battle as being one of Right vs Left, without actually defining what these terms mean, has resulted in the Right being composed of Christian and anti-Christian elements, fundamentally crippling any resistance to the Left. For the Christian, the problem is that he has to fight not only the anti-Christian on the left but also the anti-Christian on the right. The net result is that the Left wins most of the time while anti-Christianity wins all of the time. Meanwhile the West slouches towards Gomorrah.
As I've attempted to show on this blog before, Fascism and all the other incarnations of Right modernism have more in common with the Left than the Christian Right. They are the enemy within.
Recent events have demonstrated just how destructive the modernist Right can be. The Alternate Right initially started off as viable alternative to mainstream conservatism, slowly gaining cultural traction until the movement was co-opted by the Spencer types. The resulting farce crippled the movement and politically alienated it. We're back to square one.
The reason why Spencer and his ilk were able to co-opt and infiltrate is because the nascent alt-Right did not have "purity tests" i.e. ideological standards by which to expel them. Being anti-Left and anti-GOP were not enough since it left the door open for
Once again the Left won and the Christians lost. It's almost as if it were planned.
Any fair assessment of Western identity cannot ignore the pivotal influence of Christianity on it. Attempts to deny or explain away the Christian component of Western Civilisation are quite simply lies, and incompatible with the Western conception of man or the facts of history. Sure, there were other influences which were non-Christian and there were places where Christianity stumbled but to deny its formative influence on Western Civilisation is proof of malice.
As I see it, any future Dissident Right needs to police its membership to prevent subversion by Right Modernists. The "purity tests" to be used are;
a) A commitment to the Truth.
b) A recognition of the formative role of Christianity in Western Identity.
c) A commitment to Christian social morals-if not necessarily belief.
As I see it, these three tests are our garlic, holy water and crucifix that we use to exorcise the modernists from any re-emergent Dissident Right movement.
11 comments:
I believe you exaggerate the role Christianity played in shaping Western Civilization ,while ignoring the fact that
Christianity itself was shaped by Europe's Greco- Roman philosophy, and the paganism of the Northern Europeans.
In short the collective unconscious of Western Whites created the Christianity we know.
The Christianity of Paul and Peter is different from that of Luther, Calvin, and Knox, as well as that of Michelangelo,Rubens, Bach or Handel.
The Christianity we know couldn't have developed in India, China or Ethiopia.
Nor could a Christian India, China etc. have created our civilization.
Biology is basic.
Biology creates us, we create culture.
So for me,race trumps culture.
We carry within us a precious legacy, our genes.
Precious because through us our ancestors find a type of immortality and we find this in our descendants.
We bear witness to their existence, to their struggle to survive.
Our European phenotype
distinguishes us from Africans, Asians, Amerindians, Australians.
It doesn't make us better, I'm not arguing our superiority, but unique, as each group is.
We reflect in our PHYSICAL appearance our ancestors,we're their living legacy. and I believe we ought to try to preserve that legacy.
I realize for you, this view my be too materialistic.
However for me it is spiritual.
I feel a connection to a "stream"
of people,past, present, and future.
A mighty tributary to the great river of humanity (yes this White Nationalist recognizes that non whites are my kin) that flows through time, across the generations, within its own banks, maintaining it's own integrity, and the traits which define and distinguish it.
This "stream" of people didn't begin with Christianity and wouldn't end with it.
I agree with your analysis - although the 'prescription' of Purity Tests is surely not the kind of thing that any nascent 'movement' can apply?
The Left does not apply Purity Tests - or rather, it has dozens of incompatible tests (being not-a-Christian, a woman, of colour, non-native origin, of non-normal sexual orientation, of proletarian origin, in favour of some current policy - or against soime specific person... which would, if simultaneously applied, exclude essentially everybody who has ever lived.
Under totalitarianism, there are so many regulations (duties and prohibitions both) that everybody is guilty of something all of the time. The only decision is whether or not to attack a specific person here and now; and how much to punish them.
More generally, I think we have passed the point (it was probably about 200 years ago, but at least a century ago) when we could 'save' Western civilisation (or when Western Civilisation was 'worth' saving - ours being the most evil-by-intention society ever, so far as I know) - and I think the big task is simply to become and remains Christian.
Everything else will have to be fitted-around that - and I think The System will increasingly hold our civilisation ransom to attack Christianity.
For example to support the great English Cathedrals, real Christians (including within the CofE) are currently compelled to support a massive net-anti-Christian professional social justice activism organisation (i.e. the hierarchy and organisation of the Church of England)...
Are real Christians prepared to let the jewels of our Christian architecture crumble or be demolished (due to 'safetly' issues, perhaps)?
Since English Christians are extremely few, despised and almost utterly without secular power, this is the kind of blackmail we face (at its milder level!).
@Anon
I believe you exaggerate the role Christianity played in shaping Western Civilization ,while ignoring the fact that Christianity itself was shaped by Europe's Greco- Roman philosophy, and the paganism of the Northern Europeans.
Christianity in Europe was definitely influenced by local factors. The question is, how influential was it? Any objective study of the subject will show that it was hugely influential in the generation of European values. For a long period of European history political power was only legitimatised through clerical approval.
What shits me about the whole down playing of Christianity in European history is that it in may ways is the mirror image of the liberal response to the IQ question. There is a fundamental dishonesty at play by a refusal to acknowledge the facts. The better atheists aren't this dishonest. John Gray, Professor of European thought at the London School of Economics, and an Atheist, fully acknowledges the role of Christianity in shaping European ideals while being a non believer. This isn't hard, it's a simple acknowlegement of the record. But what it reveals about people who don't accept this view is ;
a)They are ignorant of history.
b)They want to explain it away for whatever social utility it provides.
c)They deliberately lie.
It's what the Left does when it is presented with data about Racial differences in IQ. I hate the Left because it is dishonest and I won't tolerate it in the Right.
Nor could a Christian India, China etc. have created our civilization.
No, it would of been a different but similar Christianity.
Biology creates us, we create culture.
Familiarise yourself with Searle's "Chinese room argument." I puts limits on the cultural generative power of biology.
I realize for you, this view my be too materialistic.
However for me it is spiritual.
I don't think you realise just how materialistic I am. I fully acknowledge homophily and have spoken about it on the blog. But I'm not spiritual, I'm religious. Spirituality is the feelings you are left with after you've ditched the logic of religion. Female Anglican priests are spiritual, Catholic monks are religious.
yes this White Nationalist recognizes that non whites are my kin
Here we have agreement. White Nationalism which treats non whites decently is something I'm aboard with, the problem is that Natsoc is not nice White Nationalism.
@Bruce
I'm afraid it has to in order to stop the "Right" from self-destructing. One of the reasons why the Left has been so successful is because it can generate pseudo Right movements which join and ultimately undermine the Right. Neoconservatism and Natsoc being prime examples.
The first rule should be don't let people joint who are going to stab you in the back.
More generally, I think we have passed the point (it was probably about 200 years ago, but at least a century ago) when we could 'save' Western civilisation
I think it would be more accurate to say that Western Civ started self-destructing about 200 years ago. I believe it's still salvagable if God wills it.
Everything else will have to be fitted-around that - and I think The System will increasingly hold our civilisation ransom to attack Christianity.
Christianity is under attack, but the attacker is slowly imploding. The Left rubs against human nature so much that human nature will fight back. Nationalism hasn't reared it's head in a vaccuum, rather it's a reaction to left idiocy. The thing is to have a coherent alternative to the Left. Something the Right doesn't have now.
@SP - All good arguments. But from my understanding there is not a genuine 'Right' in politics, and never has been; because Right is a secualr category and the only real alternative to Left is Religion: that is, a state built on/ around religious principles.
Instead of thinking about The Right, I would have to think about Religions, and which religion? - the answer (obviously) being Christianity.
However, over the past few years I have come to believe that the destiny of Christianity is not like its past. How things would work out if or when there was a Christian revival significant enough to reverse the dominant Leftism, is therefore rather hard for me to imagine.
At present I am pretty sure we need to become Christian first, and then afterwards see how things look from that perspective. Beyond that, I don't think we can plan; because these would be just more secular plans, ie. just more Leftism.
So that is my simple and clear plan for what I should do. My 'purity test' is whether or not someone is Christian - about which I have a broad but supernatural definition - ie. something like a Christ-focused religion which recognises the divine sonship of Christ. (As you may know, I am not affiliated to a specific Christian denomination - I believe the truth of Mormon Theology, my family is quite closely connected with a conservative evangelical Anglican church, and I have quite a few heterodox convictions.)
As a matter of 'church order' rather than doctrine, I think that anybody who advocates any of the major aspects of the sexual revolution should be excluded.
I tend to call this a 'litmus test' of serious Christianity, rather than a 'purity test', because it is revealing of where somebody's heart lies.
(I would also find it hard to trust somebody who speaks only pseudonymously! Of course, my Mormon co-bloggers at Junior Ganymede are indeed mostly pseudonymous for various work-related reasons, but I know who they are privately.)
@Bruce
But from my understanding there is not a genuine 'Right' in politics, and never has been;
This is a huge problem which affects the Right. As I see it, the Right needs to be divided into Conservatives and "Rightists". Conservatism being a temperament while Rightism is a belief in the Truth. To quote Hayek;
"Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.
For me, Truth can be divided into two classes; that which is empirically verifiable and common to all men, and those which are articles of faith. Furthermore, I take a Thomistic view in that the articles of the Faith and empirical observation cannot contradict.
However, over the past few years I have come to believe that the destiny of Christianity is not like its past.
I agree with you. The Christianity that emerges from this mess is going to be a different to, yet continuous with the past, Christianity.
At present I am pretty sure we need to become Christian first, and then afterwards see how things look from that perspective.
I'm personally willing to admit non-Christians who are honest. As for Christians, there are Christians and there are Christians. The other day, someone sent me a link to news article about "Swinger Christians". Illustrating the that many people call themselves Christian while explicitly advocating behaviours which are explicitly condemned in scripture. I'm Catholic, with, like you, some heterodox beliefs, but clearly some people fail that Christian test despite calling themselves Christian. There have to be some standards.
Fascism and all the other incarnations of Right modernism have more in common with the Left than the Christian Right.
Fascism isn't Right in the modern sense. They called it National Socialism for a reason. It's a ever moving target. Is Trump "Right"? Can't decide. Nobody thinks of socialism as Right where I come from, even forgetting the whole Christian thing.
As I see it, these three tests are our garlic, holy water and crucifix that we use to exorcise the modernists from any re-emergent Dissident Right movement.
Sigh. There is no unity at all among self-described Christians EXCEPT they share the same enemy/persecutor: the Left. And thank God we have at least that because it widens the tent just enough to keep the modernist roaring lion at bay. I certainly have no illusions of winning (hell, that ship sailed post-Reformation) merely hope me and mine can survive. I'll fight alongside anyone who is firing the same direction I am.
@MK
Sigh. There is no unity at all among self-described Christians EXCEPT they share the same enemy/persecutor:
It's not enough. I think that Christianity has to clean itself up. The Catholic Church has had to do this in the past and I feel it is in one of those periods now. As I mentioned to Bruce before, not everyone who calls themselves Christian is Christian.
It's not that have some overriding urge to purge everyone who doesn't think like myself it's just that error is so easy to fall into and we're back to square one.
I'll fight alongside anyone who is firing the same direction I am.
Churchill said that he'd put a good word in for the Devil if he would help him fight Hitler, yet the pact he made with Stalin proved more problematic in the end.
SP: It's not enough.
Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously no snark) but it seems you:
1) Put your own judgement over Church doctrine when a conflict.
2) Exclude marginal allies (say alt-right, trads, progs) in a losing war.
3) Dismiss institutional tactics from leaders rather than getting to work.
Look, Christians are going to lose this war, lose it ugly, and this will fully expected and deserved due to the above points. Myself? I like to make friends.
@MK
Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously no snark) but it seems you:
Put your own judgement over Church doctrine when a conflict.
Yes. I have to obey conscience. (And no it's not a get out of jail free card. I fully understand that the liberty of conscience comes with a responsibility towards the truth.)
Exclude marginal allies (say alt-right, trads, progs) in a losing war.
They're not my allies when they're partially responsible for our continual string of losses.
Dismiss institutional tactics from leaders rather than getting to work.
Not sure what you mean by this.
MK: Dismiss institutional tactics from leaders rather than getting to work.
SP: Not sure what you mean by this.
I mean claiming "us" without "you" getting to decide who's in (and who is not). You are claiming a team with a fixed leader (bishop/pope) yet don't seem conducive to following. This ubiquitous individualism has undone political Christian influence.
Look, I'm cool with this. I'm not complaining. I'm not here to judge. I'm just here to get real: Get used to losing. It's well-earned. My soul's prepared for this loss. How's yours?
Post a Comment