

God and the West? by The Narrator There continues to be debate about the pros and cons of religion, specifically Christianity, around pro-Western and semi pro-Western blogs and sites. Does religion help? Does it hurt? Is it a bulwark against multiculturalism and diversity or is it their foundation? The following will address some of the points which often come up in this ongoing discussion. A recent article at Takimag.com put forth the (somewhat common) theory that part of The West’s problems in regards to the promotion of multiculturalism and immigration is one of fertility as it relates to theist vs. atheist influence. The theory goes that as Whites drift away from theism (usually specifically Christianity) they cease having children in sufficient numbers. Now the problem with this theory is obvious. Namely, there are actually very few atheists in the world or the West in particular. (And for the clarification of the uncertain here, a theist is not a Christian. A theist is someone who believes in a deity or deities or the supernatural in general. In other words Julian the Apostate and Martin Luther were both theists.) This article at Wikipedia sources a Eurobarometer Poll from four years ago informing us that France has the highest percentage of those who “do not believe there is a spirit, God, nor life force” at 33% (within the European Union 18% fell into this category). In America the percentage of atheists is even fuzzier with various polls suggesting somewhere around 4% to 9%. Further problems are created when agnostics are lumped in with atheists. At any rate, when it comes to numbers, theists seem to hold a firm majority. So much so that to contrast theist vs. atheist fertility rates may be impossible as the later could easily fall into the ‘margin of error’ on most polls in many Western nations. The other problem with the argument represented by the Taki article is the confusing of (highly debatable) cause with effect. Are immigrants really being shipped into Western lands due to declining birthrates? Not likely. After all, one can’t help but notice that the rate of migration into America, for example, has not lessened even as the official unemployment rate has exceeded 10%. We see a lot about replacement level birth rates, but those levels are (implied to be) measured against the current population numbers, collectively. And as most reasonable people concur that the world is just a tad bit overpopulated, a reduction in birth rates should be a welcomed change. Those who would argue about economic sustainability in regards to declining birth rates would have to look past the fact that much of Western economic policy is based on debt. Beyond that, economies (specifically in regards to quality of life) will adjust to population numbers whether they go up or down. And though that adjustment period may be rough, it will pass and the adjustment will be made never the less. The demographic problem of the West is not our numbers, but theirs (non-Whites). The presence of aliens in the West is totally unconnected to decreasing native birth rates, as a great many of those aliens are on welfare and not working anyway. Europe, at over 730 million people, could easily stand to lose a couple hundred million or more. That seemed to have been happening as a natural inclination/reaction to the growing numbers of people post Industrialization. A phenomenon, not of war or disease but through inherent instinct, in which overpopulation was being corrected with the outcome of an increase in the quality of life, was in full swing. But as usual there are forces at work against that which is natural, especially in regards to Europeans. As for the specifics of Christian impact on civilization historically, well, the text itself contradicts the claims of believers. The suggestion that a civilization was once wholly Christian conflicts with Christian scripture which describes true believers as an endlessly persecuted minority, ever at odds with the world, including their own friends and family. The bad news is that Jesus said Christians would be hated by all nations (Matthew 24:9). The “good news” is that he commanded his followers to make disciples of all those nations who he said would kill his followers (Mark 16:15). Makes sense, huh? Much of Christian political sentiment and social morality is probably native to Roman Empire era Europe. Which is to say, it reflects the cosmopolitan pragmatism of late Rome’s policy of ‘invading the world and inviting the world.’ However, the core of the hybridized doctrine, as represented in Christian religious text, monotheism (“one race, the human race” – “one god” – “all men” etc.) is distinctly Semitic and alien to Western hearts and minds. And perhaps there is no better example of Christianity’s core Semitic, and thus alien, character than the New Testament description of believers as “the bride of Christ”. In that, Jesus is essentially portrayed as a galactic sheik and Christians are his cosmic harem. As to whether or not the average European was devoutly Christian (in the biblical sense) in the Middle Ages is unknowable. They were certainly obliged to pay it lip service but they may have all been fairly agnostic on the specifics of the doctrine in their own hearts. That Christianity was heavily Germanized, and thus panganized anew, during that time seems fairly obvious. And I would add, contrary to what others have suggested, that Europe hasn’t been Christian for 1,500 years. Christianity didn’t reach all of Europe until around the 14th century. In regards to the West’s embrace of liberalism/feminism/etc. is concerned it may be telling that modern liberalism didn’t begin to truly take form until around the time of the advent of the printing press, at which point the average European was able (if they were literate) to actually read the bible. Once literacy rates increased and Western peoples started studying the holy book, an influential number of them began to incrementally appeal to its liberal and thus contradictory and self-destructive nature. Far from being a builder of the family and, in consequence, community, the teachings of Jesus are rather antagonistic to such notions. Take for example this exert from Matthew Chapter 10 Wherein Jesus informs his followers, “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”

“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

- Mathew 10: 21-39 The post-Christ world, as described by Christ himself, is one in which the believer lives in endless chaos, paranoia and trauma – at odds with their own people. That is hardly a prescription for an earthly order inducing to a semi-functional nation state or even family/community life. The Christ dominated society is one in which atomized individuals ally with “spiritual brothers” as they war with their own “earthly” kin. And that is the crux of the issue and what pro-White Christians have to come to grips with. The liberalized, pro-diversity and highly individualized West is not less Christian today but more Christian, in terms of philosophical worldviews. Does that contradict the scripture which describes Christians as a persecuted minority? Sure. But then the bible contradicts itself in fundamental ways quite often. Moving on. Of the biological family, Jesus pointedly attacked the idea of being prejudiced in favor of such relatives and instead elevated the “spiritual family” of mankind above flesh and blood. “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

-Matthew 12:50 and, “He said to another man, “Follow me.”

But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”

Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”

Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”

-Luke 9:59-62 And what’s worse is that in terms of defending yourself, your family and your community Jesus councils surrender, “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

-Matthew 5:39 and, “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven ...”

-Matthew 5:11-12 and, ” I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

-Matthew 5:44 The question will naturally be asked, “How then did The West survive throughout the centuries seemingly being under the influence of Christianity?” And the answer is, as was alluded to above, it survived by ignoring Jesus and his followers (illiteracy and few bibles helped). The West remained mostly pagan, with its elite simply adding Christian aesthetics as window dressing. Otherwise, to follow the teachings of Jesus and his followers literally would have led to the destruction of Europe long ago. But there has been, I suppose, a wearing down effect. After centuries of enduring its presence, and with the encouragement of the mighty 2%, Christianity’s “we are the world” philosophy has seeped into far too many areas of Western thought. “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

“He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”

-1st Peter 2: 18-23 The passage in Peter is truly disturbing. This claiming of superior morality from a lack of will or skill to take action is just moral relevancy sans the apathy. And it’s a popular recourse in Western Civilization today. Its adopting the attitude that, “yeah well, in the next life it will all be made right, so don’t just ignore those guys over there burning down your home, take them a cold beer and off to bring them some more gasoline.” In other words, the Christian core dogma makes courage a vice and cowardice a virtue. It makes heroes out of losers and victimizers out of heroes. It teaches that the poor, dispossessed, abused, wretched and sickly are in a blessed state of hallelujah, while the hard working, successful, prosperous, brave and triumphant are fiendish devils who, though they will continue to strive and achieve in this life, will be made fools of in the next life, should there be one. Christianity has built its alters upon the graves of slaves and “martyrs” and made idols out of cowardice and jealousy. There is something incredibly insidious afoot, when an essentially foreign, hybridized doctrine, thrust upon Western Civilization through Semitic missionaries, encourages and engenders a philosophy of physical and moral impotence within the citizenry of that civilization. Put it this way, there is nothing a conquering army loves more than an adversary whose moral underpinnings include the philosophy of “Love thy enemy.” Some will ask, “What if you are wrong and there is a God and heaven and hell?” Well, what if I’m right and there isn’t? What if you endure the hardships of this life (poverty, abuse, oppression, etc.) on the promise of rewards in the next life, only to discover (obviously to late) that there is no next life and that all of the things you willingly surrendered in this one were thrown away in vain? Will you gamble away that which you know you have (and can have) on a philosophy of “wait and see?” Will you march obligingly to your own crucifixion and the destruction of your family, nation and civilization? Or will you stand and be accounted in the here and now, claiming what is rightfully yours in the world that you know with certainty, actually exists?



Comments:











































































































































































Post a comment:



Next entry: Barack Obama, Racism 2.0, & “Enlightened Exceptionalism.”

Previous entry: House Rule no 2764