Discuss religion and spirituality topics.
15 posts • Page 1 of 1
Right now the state religion in the West - post Christian secular humanism, or what ever you want to call it - is about the worst religion possible and is guaranteed to bring about our actual physical extinction if we don't rid ourselves of it. It is basically all the bad bits of the slave/feminine death cult of Christianity without the advantage of any unifying belief in a cause outside of ourselves. All of the evils of the current Western mentality - feminism, passivity, multiculturalism, moral universalism, self-hatred, the setting up of the worthless and tearing down of the worthwhile etc. - are really just the logical upshot of Christian teaching. What we want is a religion that is a gets talented people (white men, generally) to do useful, creative stuff in their daily lives, while instructing less talented people to act in supporting roles or stay out of the way.
Since I don't know of any ancient religion that fits the bill, I thought I would try to start a new one. Lets call it Extropianism. I propose the God of this religion should be the male creative principle personified who seeded the passive feminine void with harmonic vibrations, thereby bringing order out of chaos. Though pure idea in nature, some of these harmonic vibrations manifest themselves to us as solid objects. In this way the mind of God permeates the entire universe. He seeded the void in the past on our perceived timeline and the universe is proceeding to a perfect harmonic endstate in our perceived future. In this way God becomes self-aware in the act of the endstateâ€™s creation and, having created the Universe, is himself created by the Universe. (Versions of this interpretation have been expressed by various mystics and cosmologists).
The anti-principle to God is the feminine Chaos Spirit or entropy personified or whatever you call it. Entropy is constantly trying to pull apart Godâ€™s creations and restore chaos, and so is what we would call evil. On the other hand, its existence is necessary to act as a substrate for creative seeding and it can be useful in pruning back slightly misplaced creativity in preparation for more successful attempts, thereby doing Godâ€™s work (the duality of opposites and such).
It therefore follows that the process of intelligent creation is a sacred act, whether it be in creating an aesthetic body, healthy children, computer programs or cohesive families. Intelligent white Aryan men were made in the image of God, in the sense that we embody His creative energy. Other races have taken the creative process as far as they can, but now the baton has been passed to us. It follows that in order to fulfill our sacred duties we are entitled to claim any resources we need, which lesser mortals must duly relinquish, and that others owe us all due support.
When we discover stuff doing science or whatever we are not merely discovering what is already there, but we are changing the nature of the universe and bringing it to a more cohesive state. Even if our creations seem not to last physically, we have updated the database that is the Universe, thus making it easier for other similar creations to be brought about later (which explains "morphic resonance").
Time is a subjectively imposed ordering which we perceive due to the fact that we are gaining complexity on our perceived timeline. The Universe is fixed in a timeless instant, and hence the battle against chaos has already been won and the perfect harmonious endstate (God) already exists. Hence from our point of view we are fated. However, it is also true to say that what we do in our perceived present determines our fate. If we do stuff that adds to the cohesion and elegance of future states then we make ourselves integral to the future cohesive endstate. Hence the information we call "us" is carried forward and we do not experience death. Defective and non-creative individuals can't be integrated into future harmonious states and so their information is pulled apart and recycled, and they cease to exist.
Women are part of the background substrate for the creative energies of men, and as such they should shun all active roles (which, as we know, they perform very poorly) and focus on providing a suitable substrate for menâ€™s creative energies, particularly by birthing healthy male children. By thus being indirectly creative they can, over generations acquire a soul, be made male and thus experience immortality. Men should strive to keep control over women since, as inherently chaotic beings far removed from God, they are the weak point in society prone to destructive, entropic behavior at the slightest provocation.
Regarding social organization, the position would be that it is a case of biological vs. coercive organization. Hunter-gatherer tribes enjoyed a form of perfect harmonious biological organization. However, they represented a local maximum in terms of extropian development, since they lacked the scale and incentive to develop necessary to bring further order to the Universe. Then came coercively imposed agricultural society (the Biblical Fall), which is basically when the rulers force dysfunctionality and dissonance on a group of people in order to parasitize them. Though undesirable in and of itself, this was a necessary part of Godâ€™s plan to overcome the local maximum.
What tends to happen is that society oscillates between some degree of biological and some degree of coercive organization (with modern Western society being at the extreme pole of the latter). In general, whenever a surplus is created this is used by the elite to further erode the biological basis of society in order to grab more power and control for themselves. This in turn eventually undermines the productive potential of society leading to collapse and regression. What we should be doing is attempting to have the best of both worlds â€“ have a harmonious biologically integrated society where it is still possible to organize on a large scale and generate a surplus to spend on further creativity. This involves basing society on a network of extended families that share a resource base and enjoy some degree of autarchy. These in turn would be linked by intermarriage to form local communities, which would in turn be linked to form larger communities, which in turn would form nations. The ethos within a nation would be that as literally one big family we are all in this together and should all play our part in bettering the whole. In this way the Marxist idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", which is obviously the most efficient setup, would be somewhat implementable.
For folklore, this religion could make use of the more esoteric Christian teachings such as the Gospel of Thomas (which could be interpreted as supporting the same world view) as well as the heroic literature of winner cultures like the Norse, ancient Greeks and Anglo-Saxons.
But why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Charlemagne succeeded where Napoleon and Hitler failed. Charlemagne was a Christian, and as a matter of fact a Catholic saint (and a polygamist, too, as I recall). Warrior Catholics stopped the Saracens, liberated Spain, and stopped the Turks. Yet pagan Whites in places like Albania and Circassia got folded into the Muslim cult. Aryan polytheism, and even Aryan Zoroastrianism, were not such survivable cultures in the long run.
I've read all that Norse, Anglo-Saxon, and Greek stuff. All of it. Bleak, bleak, bleak. Ennobling perhaps, but full of hopelessness and helplessness. And cannibalism, incest, torture, jealousy, tantrums... No wonder British "public schools" were fertile breeding grounds for homosexuality. I suspect Wagner's melodramatic retelling of those legends influenced Hitler to fatalistic recklessness.
At least Hinduism teaches victory. Check out the first chapter of the Bhagavid Gita if you want to see what Aryan ideals were like at the height of their pagan phase in the East. Beautiful stuff. But Hinduism at a societal level is a disaster. Brilliant people in India, but who would want to live there? Perhaps the cruel caste-apartheid of the past worked better, but I doubt it. For an attractive post-Aryan-conquest state, you would have to give props to Catholic Mexico, over Hindu India, wouldn't you?
Still your original point is correct. We need to re-learn what has faded. Modern Churchianity has lost many things which we need to graft back in. A few examples:
Putting (as Jesus taught!) our own family's needs ahead of charity to strangers. Hindu-style meditation and energy healing (as Jesus practiced).
Muslim-style deference by women toward men.
African-style (Patriarchal) polygamy.
Medieval Catholic rationality and philosophy.
The religious commitment of folks like Puritans and Jewish Maccabees.
Hearing the voice of God, like Adam, Noah and Abraham et al.
Old testament belief that money and wealth are good.
Understanding that we are descended from forefathers, not from apes.
I would suggest that if you just read for yourself the actual Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you will get a very different picture of Christianity from the post-hippie picture that is prevalent:
Violent when appropriate.
Ready to use a whip.
Armed with swords.
Vigilant when dealing with evil.
Able to see through a woman's half-truth.
Able to say no to a woman.
Skilled and knowledgeable in trades.
Tough and exacting in business.
Ready to host a wedding or a holiday party - drinks included.
Knowing how to dance.
Europeans were the builders of the Millennium - the "Christendom" that more or less existed from Charles Martel roughly until the so-called Enlightenment. (So from 700 to 1700.)
Jews certainly WERE the Chosen People back in the day, till their leaders murdered Jesus, but it is mostly Europeans who built Christendom, stopped slavery, stopped incest, invented international law, and made rules for war. And non-European Christians around the world, and here in America, still wait for the day when Whites stand up and throw off the opiate corruption that sedates them.
It's tempting to synthesize a new belief system, there was a lot of that (some from a racialist viewpoint) in the 1890 to 1920 period. Waldorf Schools, Rosicrucians, New Thought, Frances Scovel Shinn, Ouspensky and Gurdjieff... A lot of truth and good to be found in these teachings. Most of this stuff, though, never creates stable families or societies. It is all "great thoughts for great thinkers". Or at best "personal change". Not societal change.
Unlike the other great monotheistic religions - Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, a couple of others - only Christianity gives the common man something to latch onto - the Body and the Blood of Christ. It is inherently hands-on, not mysterious. A religion for carpenters and home-builders, fishermen and farmers, not ascetics, priests or wizards. It is this hands-on, Biblical Christianity that delivered a satisfying and effective foundation for civilization.
So my suggestion:
Keep Christ, and throw out the Christians.
Meet Him for yourself, and you decide who He is.
I agree that the West needs a new or modified religion. But so does China. China lost Confucianism under Mao. Given the general need for a good religion throughout the world, why would you want to restrict your religion just to whites? The Chinese, for example, have been just as productive historically as the Europeans, so what do you have against them?
I agree with Jester that it is very hard to start a new religion. It is easier to start with an existing religion and try to improve it. In the West, Christianity is an obvious choice. Christianity today obviously needs a lot of fixing, but it did work in the past, so there is a possibility that it could be fixed. Any worthwhile religion must have a clear set of commandments that tell people how to behave, and a commandment against adultery (sex with another man's wife) must be included. The Old Testament provides a pretty good set of commandments, especially the Ten Commandments. So the easiest way to start fixing Christianity is to find a way to add back the Old Testament. For more, see:
Your idea of basing things on the extended family definitely doesn't work. Most backward societies are structured this way. The extended family competes with broader commitments. This is something that Muhammad understood and fixed with Islam.
On order versus chaos, the insight of monotheism is that chaos is simply found in human instinct, no separate god required. The monotheistic god represents the alternative to chaos, found by following the unifying principles embodied in God. In addition, the Sabbath gives people a practical exercise in order, forcing them to order their week in a coherent way.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Interesting, I had not heard of this particular group. It seems to accurately reflect what Christianity was like, when Jesus taught on erarth. I.e. "Pre-Crucifixion Christianity". An interesting feature of this time was that all of Jesus's miracles (except the Resuurrection) were performed then. Healings, walking on water, exorcism, raising the (recently deceased) dead.
I would agree with most of their general thrust about the early pollution of the Church by Roman legalism and Greek philosophy. I would add Eastern dualism and asceticism to the mix of suspect imports. I don't "reject" Paul, I just dislike him personally, and don't consider myself his follower. I see him as a major theologian and evangelist, but not one of the "Twelve Apostles". Whereas the Church's major theologians like Jerome and Augustine, I consider to be obsessive and overeducated crackpots. They may say some profound things, but hell, so did Gore Vidal.
The most interesting thing about the Ebionites article was their point about how God is dealing with men's hearts to return to what has been lost. This is certainly manifest all over. Polygamy. Jewish roots. The Commandments. Living as a people apart. All sprouting up multiple places, seemingly independent.
One example of this is the so-called "emergent Church". I assumed it was New Agey, but no. It seems to reflect a desire among Evangelicals to get away from non-Scriptural or extremist positions like Endtimes sensationalism, and apparently includes being open to the idea of Christ incarnated in the bread and wine at communion. Catholics would be free to attend evangelical churches. This would unify Christians worldwide. Most under-60 Cathoics feel very little loyalty to the current Vatican-based hierarchy, I think. I realize that this has nothing to do with Ebionites, except the desire to take a fresh look. Doctrine without being dogmatic and doctrinaire.
For someone like FSchmidt, who does not believe in Resurrection or afterlife, the Ebionite viewpoint would seem to be an easier fit than Catholic Christianity.
I was curious to see if they were around in a community, and what their community life was life - since this is what the OP was about. But alas it seems that they too seem to be just an isolated voice on the web at this point.
Each candle gives hope.
I have sensed for a few years that a new spiritual explosion, a new and vibrant manifestation of Christianity, will arise in Northeast Asia. Even years ago, reading the words of Asian preachers, their Scriptural exegesis was from a totally different and fresh POV. Like a European arthouse film versus an American movie like "Die Hard".
I think it will be big.
I also sense something new will arise or is arising among ex-Muslims, who want to keep the traditional culture, but want to worship Jesus and/or change their lives.
Whites, after all, kept some pagan stuff that was harmless, like wreaths on doors for Christmas, and also for births and deaths. They also seem to have kept Easter eggs. I guess that this was because these particular pagan traditions didn't seem connected to sex orgies, prostitution, drugs or human sacrifice as some other Roman, Greek and Nordic holidays and traditions did. So it would seem that ex-Moslems could also keep traditions that are shared with Christianity and Judaism, or which are harmless. Fasting, prayer times, prayer beads, greetings, shariah family law, etc.
Cornfed, you're a brilliant guy, hilariously dyspeptic and politically incorrect on steroids (which is splendid). I read everything you post with great interest. But I'm having trouble getting down with your genetic theories.
I'm guessing you're not an American. The fact that you read was the first clue, spelling defense with a c the second, and finally, if you were an American it's hard to imagine how you could be so impressed with white males. I'm an American white male, as have been most of the people I have ever known. We're pretty much a bunch of hamburgers, from what I've been able to tell. Granted, we've been victimized by a debilitating culture, but I'm not seeing a lot of great spirits out there yearning to break free of the cultural oppression. Just a lot of willing conformists.
While the culture of ghetto thugs is abominable, I don't see where American whites have anything on middle-class American blacks. While most women are dutiful slaves of the powers-that-be, some seem to be remarkably intelligent. Take a look at the Massachusetts Senate race and tell me the white male running is a superior being to his female opponent.
I'd be happy to believe that we're superior in some significant way, but I'm just not seeing it. I'd certainly be willing to look at any material you recommend. I'm in the bizarre position of reading you and publicduende, and thinking you're both right.
Regarding the idea of restoring Christianity, maybe some form of Christianity could be rehabilitated, but it would be necessary to completely rewrite many elements of its doctrine. The New Testament seems to be a strange mixture of Asiatic mystery cultism, apparent anti-civilization and Buddhist-type teaching, apocalyptic endtimes stuff and some probable outright sabotage. There isn't really any obvious positive message the average person could base his life around. I would tend to agree with Nietzsche that the overall effect was to establish a slave/feminine mindset.
Arguably where Christianity jumped the shark was with Protestants encouraging people to actually read the scriptures and form their own opinion of them (as well as letting women into the churches etc.) which made the decline into what we have now inevitable. Previously Europeans had been practicing Germanic morality with a Christian slant. Now most Western Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, is essentially political correctness as a religion and must be aggressively cleansed from the Earth.
This religion would be intended as an antidote to the cultural poisons currently plaguing white Westerners, such as nihilism, self-loathing and feminism, thus the emphasis. Furthermore, any cohesive society is at least partially based on race. It is only by a shared biological connection that you get genuinely altruistic behavior, and this is much more efficient than purely commercial interactions of atomized individuals who don't care about each other. Other races would be able to practice this religion. They would just have to accept a supporting role, in the same way that women have to accept a supporting role in any non death cult religion. It would perhaps be better though if most non-white people in the West went and formed their own societies where they could practice whatever religion they wanted.
The reason for this is that it is the most efficient system and "backward" societies are too poor to afford the decadent alternatives.
Nietzsche is exactly the kind of intellectual-for intellectuals thinker who is highly enlightening - and essentially useless. An eccentric, misanthropic syphlitic, he is not the antidote to social decay. "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, ain't gonna cut it anyhow." Yes, asceticism has been a problem since the first centuries. No, it is not fundamentally what the religion is about. Jesus didn't preach celibacy, he poured drinks at a wedding.
The Protestant reformers were courageous, devout, and manly, but arrogant to the point of being satanic, small s. Yes, that was the beginning of the end of Christendom. Within a couple of centuries, for example, "Christian" England was supporting the Turks. Protestants, though often "better Christians", seem to have a predilection for accepting hogwash - Zionism, Darwinism, Endtimes crap, etc. The freedom that American Protestants enjoyed till recently was pioneered by Anglo-Saxon Catholics, based on Germanic tribal traditions and the Old Testament.
Yes, exactly. You state it elegantly, but this was my point, posted above, about Charlemagne and so on.
Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.
And one way or another, it will be. May it be done by us, and not TO us.
Re Catholicism, it varies wildly from one congregation to another. There are cells of unflinching faithfulness here and there. Kind of like gun owners, organic gardeners, preppers, or homeschoolers. A million points of light.
Really, the West could just return to Christianity. Not churchianity or megachurchism, the consumerist gospel, or manginanity.
Truth doesn't appeal to the masses though. Lies, delusions, profits, and egos have to be protected at all costs. Even if the cost is the human soul.
Any "new" religion wouldn't really be new anyway. It would be something old made new again. Recognizing the truth and living in accordance with it instead of hiding in the darkness of arrogance and the love of money and power.
Political correctness, feminism, statism, corporatism...these form the real, practiced religion of the West. When it all burns out, goes broke, and fails, perhaps the true will return.
a mass recognizing of the truth is the only thing that can work. religion is purely deception, nothing good can come from it in the long run. we are in this world under the impression we personally have something to gain, even though all we posess is awareness and very subtle pleasure senses. we cannot possibly ever in any way fulfill our desires as they are purely illusory, existing only out of our imagination. the only thing we can hope for in relation to having our desires fulfilled is to find things in the outside world to offer us enough mental stimulation as to briefly distract us from them. this is what has caused the chaos and greed in the world today. the only real satisfaction comes from ridding our desires by recognizing them for what they truly are, and the only real pleasure comes from being as we are after desire has been gotten rid of from our minds.
But the task is not to save the masses overnight. Which as you point out, they ain't ready for, yet.
The task at hand is to identify what core beliefs and practices will serve those of us who are aware, in building some kind of community.
May I ask, do you attend church? What is your plan for your family?
I get where you're coming from, but it all seems a little fatalist. If you can avoid the influences, why can't you raise a family to avoid them as well? Of course there's a fear and I'd be aghast if any son of mine were a feminized p***y or daughter a man hating slut. But masculinity is about facing these fears head on. So I don't want to just give up. Besides, starting a family and having lots of children is a much greater factor than conversions for the spread of ideas. I always thought to write a memoir or some work if I reach sixty. So many artists only gain recognition after death, so even if such a work were unpopular in my own time, I'd be happy knowing I put ideas out there. I wouldn't want to be like Lao Tzu, who was forced to write down his teachings before he wandered off.
I'm happy so many people here can be intellectuals and still see the importance of religion. It's certainly a rarity. Most intellectuals are atheist and also liberal pussies.
15 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests