RSS

The Enemies of Christendom and the Muslim Question

18 Feb

We paleoconservative reactionaries know that we, Christendom, are fighting a multi-pronged war. Against Liberalism, against Jihad, and according to the paleoconservative Rockford Institute, against Neo-Paganism(I personally do not believe this to be a viable threat).

I personally believe that Liberalism is the greatest threat. It is a spiritual cancer eating away at the soul of our civilization, Christianity. Islam is more of physical threat. It is true that Liberalism, in it’s suicidal frenzy, supports the invasion of Islamic populations into the West even though the Muslims hate them more than they do us and are mostly likely to exterminate them if they were to gain power while keeping the rest of us as dhimmis.

I do wonder, my beliefs aside, which of these are the biggest threat? Is it possible to turn these threats against one another? Is neo-paganism a viable threat?

Advertisements
 
64 Comments

Posted by on February 18, 2012 in Religion of Peace, The Kulturkampf

 

64 responses to “The Enemies of Christendom and the Muslim Question

  1. Svar

    February 18, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    Also, what is to become of our brethren in the Balkans and the Middle East? How can we secure their survival against the onslaught that they are facing? These people are getting slaughtered.

     
  2. Prinz Eugen

    February 18, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Liberalism by far is the greater threat. Liberalism is already waging an all out war against Islam- and it is largely winning. This is done by way of disseminating liberal culture through the media and through popular culture. Even in Europe very few of the 2nd generation Muslim immigrants actually practice their faith or are really distinguishable from the native liberals.

    Of course CONservatives like Gert Van Wilders and the foulmouthed feminist Ann Barnhardt want us to die fighting Muslims in the name of sodomy and Womyn’s rights. Sadly most American Christians (especially evangelicals) have bought into this. That and dying for the secularist sodomite supporting state of Israel. It is a ironic since Protestants have always accused Catholics in this country of having a duel loyalty. There is simply no president in this country’s history in how American evangelicals have become an arm of Israeli foreign policy.

     
  3. Pounders

    February 18, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    Liberalism is a slower threat. Its more of a slow cancer then a knife to the ribs. Liberalism is more dangerous in that by the time you face the problem it is too late. Liberalism subverts, than attacks. Islam attacks more openly. Liberalsim, due to its.nature is harder to crush. Not so with Islam.

     
  4. Chris

    February 18, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    LIberalism is the long term risk, but the Islamists are killing our brothers on a daily basis.

     
  5. Will S.

    February 18, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    @ Svar, Prinz Eugen: I agree with Prinz, that liberalism is the bigger threat, being internal, and converting Muslim immigrants’ children to their cause. The Muslims abroad may hate us / fear us, but I think like a hornets’ nest, if we leave them alone, don’t go poking them with a stick, stirring them up, they’ll keep to themselves and ignore us. It’s our backing of Israel and the Saudi regime and back in the day, the Shah, that has gotten the West in trouble with the Islamic world. Leave them alone, they should leave us alone. Stop knee-jerk supporting Israel – but at the same time let Israel do whatever they wish – and trade with whomever. Get the militaries out, stop telling them how to live their lives, we can get along with them.

    Liberalism is a cancer permeating ourselves. Insofar as our societies are afflicted with it, we really have little business lecturing to Muslims how to behave. We have to fix our own troubles in that regard, first. That means identifying it, and all its strains and related movements, like feminism, and setting about opposing them, as strongly as possible.

    As for neo-pagans, I agree with Svar, I too think Chronicles is too easily spooked by a few internet wackos. Neo-pagans are not a threat to anyone; there’s too few of them… The internet ones, like that ‘neo-Odinist’ (in quotes because not a real practitioner of Asatru) Stephen McNallen at AltRight, are a joke; he doesn’t even believe in the Norse gods; he just likes the idea of them, and hates Christianity. {Yawn} When neo-pagans actually start worshipping and praying to Odin, Thor, Loki, or Zeus, or Huitzilopochtli, etc., then I’ll worry. Till then, nothing to worry about; they’re an slightly amusing / mildly annoying sideshow, is all. A joke.

     
  6. Will S.

    February 18, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    @ Pounders: Good point; the whole frog-in-boiling-water effect…

    @ Chris: Indeed; an important point there to remember.

     
  7. samsonsjawbone

    February 18, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Liberalism by far is the greater threat. Liberalism is already waging an all out war against Islam- and it is largely winning. This is done by way of disseminating liberal culture through the media and through popular culture.

    That’s right. As implied in the other thread, our military has basically become a means of forcing non-liberal cultures to adopt Western media and consumerism – which guarantees Western mores later. Islam does threaten Europe, but that’s because of a small core of extremely dedicated individuals.

    I don’t know how this ends. I do know that the thing to do is build the church, always, everywhere. God is a master chess player, and he always works things out for good.

     
  8. Will S.

    February 18, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Well said, Samson; so He is, and does.

     
  9. Carnivore

    February 18, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    Liberalism, by a long shot. Islam would not be a threat were it not for Liberalism. Christians have lived in the Middle East for centuries with little to no problems. Without Liberalism, Christian birth rates would have been high and there would have been no need to import Muslim “guest workers”. Islam is “invading” Europe and will conquer it without a shot being fired, simply by a higher fertility rate.

    Due to the nature of Islam and the culture in the Middle East, the type of government we had in the West will never exist there. It was under the Muslim dictators that Christians were able to flourish.

    While I don’t excuse it, I can easily understand how a Muslim would want to target anger at local Christians when what he identifies as the “Christian” West wages constant warfare in Muslim lands.

    It is a ironic since Protestants have always accused Catholics in this country of having a duel loyalty. There is simply no president in this country’s history in how American evangelicals have become an arm of Israeli foreign policy.

    Yes, it is ironic. The impression I have (which could be wrong) is that evangelicals would be willing to sacrifice America in order to save Israel.

     
  10. Svar

    February 18, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    @ Prinz and Carnivore

    “It is a ironic since Protestants have always accused Catholics in this country of having a duel loyalty. There is simply no president in this country’s history in how American evangelicals have become an arm of Israeli foreign policy.

    Yes, it is ironic. The impression I have (which could be wrong) is that evangelicals would be willing to sacrifice America in order to save Israel.”

    Agreed. Ironic. It really pisses me off at how gung-ho evangelicals are about Israel. Who the fuck cares about the future of the Jews? I, a gentile, sure as hell don’t. I DO care about the future of the Christians in the Middle East. That bothers me. Israel being taken over doesn’t.

    Every time some dumbass Prots brings up Catholics whenever I talk about the dual loyalty(actually as Joseph Sobran(RIP) said, dual loyalty would be better, considering how they’re solely loyal to Israel) of the Jews, I just want to slap the dumbshit in the face.

    @ Will S.

    Yes, I really do not find Neo-Pagans to be all that threatening. They are a small, small minority and they don’t even believe in what they say they believe in. They just think it’s cool(which to be honest, it is), but that’s not enough.

    @ Chris

    You’re right. That is the problem: How can we secure the survival and future of our brothers and sisters in the Balkans and in the Middle East? In both cases, Amerika, thanks to Israel and the Jewish lobby, is causing Christians to be slaughtered.

    @ Pounders

    Very true. But how do we deal with Liberalism? How do we crush it?

    @ Samson

    Well, Samson, we all know how it ends: Christ returns. We just don’t know what happens before that(minus what it says in Revelations).

     
  11. Pounders

    February 18, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    Liberalism relies on cowardice. Its dependent on people allowing things they disagree with to slide past them. So you draw a line in the sand, get underneath the snarky sacrasm and emotional responses, and hope to God that after the near constant smackdown of their bullshit something clicks

     
  12. RICanuck

    February 18, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    For now liberalism is the greater threat. As Islam grows in power and influence, liberals will convert and be more Islamic that the Grand Mufti.

     
  13. Will S.

    February 18, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Hey fellow Canuck; what does the ‘RI’ in your handle stand for?

     
  14. Svar

    February 18, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    RICanuck, I disagree. Liberalism is a soft ideology, for as Pounders said, cowards. Islam may be Satanic parody of Christianity, but it, just like Christianity takes dedication and sacrifice. How many liberals are willing to do either? None. Nope, the Muslims will exterminate them while they enslave us, IF and only IF, they win. We need to make sure that they don’t.

     
  15. Will S.

    February 18, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    @ Svar: “They just think it’s cool(which to be honest, it is), but that’s not enough.”

    Exactly, it certainly isn’t.

     
  16. Steffen

    February 18, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Liberalism (or is it libertinism these days?) corrupts, hollowing out from the inside. Threats that could have been countered more easily in the past become intractable.

    Our governing bodies make any moves but the correct ones, playing for today at the cost of tomorrow. No doubt we will reflect on our situation looking for the time when we might have averted disaster, and find it long past.

     
  17. Will S.

    February 18, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    @ Steffen: “Liberalism (or is it libertinism these days?) corrupts, hollowing out from the inside. Threats that could have been countered more easily in the past become intractable.”

    Kinda like how Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome weakens the immune system, rendering it vulnerable to diseases that healthy people’s immune systems would normally fight off, no problem.

    IOW, liberalism is like AIDS. 😉

     
  18. Svar

    February 18, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Yes, Will. I have often referred to secularism(a form of liberalism) as “spiritual AIDS.” Liberalism hollows out the government, but it hollows out the soul as well.

    “Our governing bodies make any moves but the correct ones, playing for today at the cost of tomorrow. No doubt we will reflect on our situation looking for the time when we might have averted disaster, and find it long past.”

    Unfortunately, Steffen, you’re right.

     
  19. Pounders

    February 19, 2012 at 12:23 am

    Also worth noting is that without an over bearing central government Liberalism cant stand. And when it takes power the government.invariably collapses. Now that I think about it Liberalism is pathetically vulnerable

     
  20. canecaldo

    February 19, 2012 at 1:58 am

    I think it’s a mistake to bisect Liberalism and Neo-Paganism. To be sure: there is no danger of a true cult of Odin, Zues, etc. However, Liberalism IS the new paganism. Abortions are nothing less than child sacrifices for wealth. Environmentalism is Gaea worship with better nomenclature. Feminism is the cult of the goddesses; wrathful as Hera; libertine as Venus. Just as the priests were once the scholars and scientists, so now the scholars and scientists are priests.

     
  21. Svar

    February 19, 2012 at 11:13 am

    @ Pounders

    That is very true. Liberalism needs big government and big media. The internet has been a Godsend(I think so literally) allowing individuals like those on this site and those in this comment thread to meet and discuss and form a reactionary consensus. The internet has also exposed the stupidity of Liberalism and has caused that ideology to lose much credibility. I’ll be honest. I;m a young man, only 18. I was taught in school, in a Texas school btw, that feminism and liberalism(of the NeoCon variety) were good things. and I believed it. I would have stayed deluded if it weren’t for the Manosphere and the Tradosphere.

    All that being said, I’m susceptible to logic. The masses, from what I’ve seen, are not. They are susceptible to libspeak and NeoCon prattle. As long as the evil masses vote for the Evil Party and the stupid so-con masses vote for the Stupid Party, we’re not going to get anywhere. We need to reach out to the NeoCon masses and proselytize the Paleocon message. We’re right and we know it. Hopefully, with God on our side, we will prevail.

    @ Cane Caldo

    You do bring up a great point. Liberalism does resemble paganism. That being said, I disagree that they are the same. Liberalism is just pure suicide while paganism, it’s numerous flaws aside, has created glorious civilizations. All of the classical civilizations of antiquity(most importantly Rome and Athens) were pagan. I suppose that Liberalism is a Satanic mockery of paganism, because as C.S. Lewis has noted, that there are some elements of the Truth in all pagan religions; I do not see this to be the case with Liberalism. Also, like all advanced civilizations, the old pagan classical civilizations were patriarchal.

    You see, what the Rockford Institute is mainly referring to when they say “Neo-Pagans” or “Neo-Vikings” are mainly the anti-Christian Neo-Nazi and White Nationalist types that show up in the comment threads angered that Chronicles isn’t racist enough and too Christian. I find these individuals to be a minor threat, for now. That, as Steve Sailer has noted, might change if mass immigration and anti-white laws are not remedied.

     
  22. Cane Caldo

    February 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    I’ve never heard of the Rockford Institute, but from what you’re said, these overt Neo-Pagans have simply followed the logic of modern Liberalism, and taken that next step–in a Nietzsche-ian/Wagner-ian pose.

    By the by: Do they carry ferrets in a bowling bag?

    I, too, am sympathetic to the old pagans, but let’s keep perspective and recognize that they were just as suicidal as Liberalism is during their respective downfalls. After all, there are no more sacrifices to Odin. And there are elements of truth in Liberalism as well. For example: concern for widows and orphans is good. Paganism largely lacked that, and considered them as cursed.

    Lastly, not all overt paganism is dead. Hinduism is alive and well. Ever noticed how popular karma, chakras, and yoga are among Liberals? See? There is no great divide…

     
  23. Svar

    February 19, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    “I’ve never heard of the Rockford Institute,”

    It’s the institute behind Chronicles Magazine. It’s president is Thomas Fleming who is also the main editor for the magazine.

    “but from what you’re said, these overt Neo-Pagans have simply followed the logic of modern Liberalism, and taken that next step–in a Nietzsche-ian/Wagner-ian pose.”

    Exactly(and you’re right, they definitely love Nietzsche and Wagner). The Neo-Pagans are basically pretend-pagans, because they’re actually nihilists and material reductionists. The deep Christian understanding of the world is lost on them as is the pagan one.

    “By the by: Do they carry ferrets in a bowling bag?”

    Hahaha, I had to look that up. Yes, in the end, they are nihilists.

    “And there are elements of truth in Liberalism as well. For example: concern for widows and orphans is good. Paganism largely lacked that, and considered them as cursed.”

    Eh… I don’t think concern for widows and orphans comes from Liberalism. It comes from Christianity.

    “Lastly, not all overt paganism is dead. Hinduism is alive and well. Ever noticed how popular karma, chakras, and yoga are among Liberals? See? There is no great divide…”

    G. K. Chesterton: When people stop believing in God, they do not believe in nothing-they believe in anything.

    “After all, there are no more sacrifices to Odin.”

    Yes. And that brings up an interesting point. Dr. Fleming has talked about how no one believes in the “Great God Pan” because he is dead. After the Truth of Christ spread, Great God Pan died. That’s why Neo-Paganism is not a genuine movement: these people do not believe in what they say they do and if they did, it would be as ridiculous as if you or I started to believe in the Tooth Fairy again.

     
  24. Cane Caldo

    February 19, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Eh… I don’t think concern for widows and orphans comes from Liberalism. It comes from Christianity.

    Quite true. For the record, I did say it is “contained in” Liberalism; not “from” it. At the source, every good thing comes from Christianity in the sense that Christianity is about Christ, Christ is God, and all good things come from God. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to learn that Hinduism has some teachings about caring for orphans and widows. Regardless, that was just an example that not every Liberal principle is wrong just because Liberalism as a whole is. God’s good is so good, so potent, that it cannot be entirely shut out or ignored.

     
  25. Pounders

    February 19, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    Theres a lot of propaganda here in Memphis too. Im 19 and wish I hadnt been lied to so much through school. The best thing for the future is to avoid the University system. It truly is anti-God. Im leaving school in May to be an airplane mechanic. Unless your.going for.engineering or.medicine dont go. There are.better things to do

     
  26. Svar

    February 19, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    @ Cane

    “God’s good is so good, so potent, that it cannot be entirely shut out or ignored.”

    Very true. That’s what C.S. Lewis noticed in all of the pagan traditions he analyzed. I suppose that you’re right with Liberalism as well.

    @ Pounders

    I agree. I’m going to college this year because I want to be a doctor. I am going to a Christian college, but I doubt that means anything anymore. Could you tell me exactly how the University system is anti-God?

    So how did you come across the Manosphere and the Tradosphere? How old were you? I was only 16 when I learned that most of the things I’ve been taught was shit.

     
  27. electricangel1978

    February 20, 2012 at 12:54 am

    @Svar

    “Who the fuck cares about the future of the Jews? I, a gentile, sure as hell don’t.”

    Great Catholic writer Walker Percy once offered up the following observation that I paraphrase: “Does it never amaze you that you can meet a Jew on the street? There were many groups in history that have disappeared: when was the last time you met a Hittite? The continued existence of the Jews, God’s chosen people, is a living testimony to His presence in the world.”

    Now, the deracinated liberal Jews are to be avoided. Being of high intelligence and Godless, they are at the vanguard of liberalism. Observant Jews, however, are Patriarchal and our natural allies against the demons who are predominant in the modern world, Mammon (the exhausting demon of “more” who leaves us exhausted in trying to worship him) and Moloch, who has claimed 50 million incinerated children in the USA alone. Observant Muslims are also effective allies against these demons, who are the unacknowledged worshipped deities of modern liberals.

    Remember: the most religious country in the world is India; the least, Sweden. The USA is a nation of Indians, ruled by Swedes. Any Indian is less of a threat than a Swede.

     
  28. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 3:01 am

    “Observant Jews, however, are Patriarchal and our natural allies against the demons who are predominant in the modern world, Mammon (the exhausting demon of “more” who leaves us exhausted in trying to worship him) and Moloch, who has claimed 50 million incinerated children in the USA alone. Observant Muslims are also effective allies against these demons, who are the unacknowledged worshipped deities of modern liberals.”

    That’s true, that they could be ‘natural allies’, both of them – Jews and Muslims.

    However, in practice, are they? Or are they too busy doing their own thing, and in the case of the Muslims, still wanting to see the dar-al-Islam stomp out the dar-al-Harb, if they could? In which case, they will favour liberal immigration policies because they let more of their own kind in, and so will vote for parties that favour higher immigration levels. This is in fact what we see. Even though the Jews have not shown as strident a desire to take over, surely the Orthodox Jews see themselves as more righteous and deserving than the ‘goyim’ in whose countries they have chosen to settle.

    So, I’m not so sold that our fellow patriachalists who happen to be of different religions, are as much our natural allies as we might like them to be. They still have different interests, surely, than us.

     
  29. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 3:02 am

    Now, Mormons from Western countries, are more likely to be natural allies; they are typically so-con in politics in America and Canada, albeit sadly in the neo-con version more often than in the paleo-con version. I think we’d do better targeting them, to invite them to join our, ahem, crusade, than the non-Western Jews and Muslims.

     
  30. Svar

    February 20, 2012 at 9:32 am

    @ EA

    I’m not sold. The Old Covenant is gone and the Church is Israel, not the Jews. The Jews are and always were the enemy of Christ and of the Holy Mother Church(if I Am Not Spartacus is to be believed, which he is). I do not give a damn about the Jews or about Israel. I do care about future and survival of our Chaldean and Assyrian Christian brethren who are being murdered in their own churches.

    @ Will S.

    Exactly. Even Muslims could be our potential allies. But are they? How times have they slaughtered Christians, raped them, took their children, burned their churches? Same thing with Jews. How many times have they tried to undermine Christ and the Church? They have, from the very beginning. They are not our allies. I saw what the Jews did in Russia and in Eastern Europe. That’s more than enough to know that they are not to be trusted. Some Jews like Paul Gottfried are okay, but the vast majority? Uh-uh.

    Mormons. Their theology is founded by a Freemason and liar. Yes, they are decent folk and yes, they are so-cons and I suppose they could be our natural allies, but we have bigger fish to fry.

    We’re missing the bigger point: even amongst real Christian(i.e. true believers and so-cons) there is no consensus. Especially with our more wayward brethren, the Evangelicals. We need to reach out to Evangelicals and keep them away from fads and bring them back towards Old, Strong, Religion and Paleoconservatism. We need to convert (gentile)neo-cons towards our views.

    Just because a religion is patriarchal(the vast majority of them) doesn’t mean it’s adherents are our allies.

     
  31. Svar

    February 20, 2012 at 9:46 am

    Some articles on the antagonist relationship between the Jews and the Roman Catholic Church:

    http://southernvermontcrank.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-jews-were-booted-out-of-spain.html
    http://southernvermontcrank.blogspot.com/2012/02/pope-seeks-friendship-while-jews.html
    http://southernvermontcrank.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitalism-and-jewish-question.html

    And then there are the writings of Hillaire Belloc, one of the greatest Catholic thinkers.

     
  32. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 10:50 am

    @ Svar: “We need to reach out to Evangelicals and keep them away from fads and bring them back towards Old, Strong, Religion and Paleoconservatism.”

    Exactly.

    “Just because a religion is patriarchal(the vast majority of them) doesn’t mean it’s adherents are our allies.”

    Hear, hear!

     
  33. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 10:57 am

    @ Svar: “Their theology is founded by a Freemason and liar.”

    A Freemason, indeed. But was Joseph Smith a liar, or a kook? I think he actually believed his own nonsense, making him a kook, rather than a liar. Either way, though, I get your point; I was just emphasizing that Mormons from North America they don’t hate the West, mostly from Western lands themselves. So in that sense, they could be natural allies, more easily than those who are true outsiders – Jews and Muslims. Heretics before apostates / heathens. Though ideally, neither.

     
  34. ElectricAngel

    February 20, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    @svar,

    I live in the NYC area. I spent my youth with the nightly news forever focused on the latest crisis in Israel. Got a little sick of it myself.

    The funny thing about Israel for a person interested in the survival of the Jews is what a fundamentally BAD idea it is in the age of nuclear weapons. They are paranoid about Iran for this reason, but there is a simple solution: leave.

     
  35. ElectricAngel

    February 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    @will, @svar,

    To what extent do you think that Christianity is the cause of liberalism? all that equality in the sight of God and all. Like Christianity without God; Jefferson with his deracinated bible with all the miracles removed. Jesus as a good guy and great teacher.

     
  36. ElectricAngel

    February 20, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    @Svar,

    I only started reading Belloc about four years ago. I think we should buy Will a copy of the book How the Reformation Happened.

    Zmirak writes like a modern Chesterton; he and Belloc were known as ChesterBelloc.

     
  37. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    @ EA: Of course, liberalism is a deformation of Christianity, once God has been removed from the picture. Grace to the supposedly ‘oppressed’, where the ostensible ‘oppressors’ atone for their sins, and are sacrificed, i.e. punished legislatively / punitively taxed, in order to supposedly boost the position of the others.

     
  38. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    @ EA: “I think we should buy Will a copy of the book How the Reformation Happened.”

    Not interested. I already know what / how ChesterBelloc thinks, having read Chesterton. Don’t need to read the other half of that composite twin mind (how unfortunate, BTW, that even beloved, well-respected, revered Papist intellectuals are incapable of independent thought). 😉

     
  39. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    (And before you accuse me of trying to start a fight, it was you who acted all Team-Rome-y first. 🙂

    Notice, BTW, that I haven’t tried to convert you to Protestantism. Not sure why you feel the need to proselytize me. We did previously ban a commenter here who couldn’t stop with the “Rah rah, Team Rome! Boo, others!” schtick; it annoyed and bored us. Just so you know.)

     
  40. Svar

    February 20, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    @ EA

    We’ll get to them after we deal with the Muslims and the Jews and convert the Evangelicals. THEN, we’ll convert them to the One True Church. Have patience. One thing at a time.

     
  41. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    @ Svar: 🙂

     
  42. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 10:51 pm

    All I can say, in the words of my Ulster Scots ancestors: No Surrender!

     
  43. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    And William of Orange’s motto: Je maintiendrai!

     
  44. rayy

    February 21, 2012 at 1:10 am

    neopaganism by far worst threat, the spirit behind it (rebellion) is much older than mere politics or religion

    the rites are now so seamlessly woven into popular culture that theyre almost invisible

     
  45. rayy

    February 21, 2012 at 1:25 am

    I think it’s a mistake to bisect Liberalism and Neo-Paganism. To be sure: there is no danger of a true cult of Odin, Zues, etc.

    not as such of course, but the bible asserts an endtimes global cult that’s already largely in place — as you identify

    obama is probably at least a precursor (precurser?) of the final cult

    However, Liberalism IS the new paganism. Abortions are nothing less than child sacrifices for wealth. Environmentalism is Gaea worship with better nomenclature. Feminism is the cult of the goddesses; wrathful as Hera; libertine as Venus

    feminism is the reigning global religion, with liberalism its politics and humanism its creed

    mainstream western religions obey woman, while not worshipping her overtly . . . God’s not too confused tho :O)

    neo-paganism is a kind of catch-all term for various “archaic revival” practices and beliefs — inclusiveness a la babylon

     
  46. Will S.

    February 21, 2012 at 7:14 am

    @ ray:

    Liberalism IS the new paganism. Abortions are nothing less than child sacrifices for wealth. Environmentalism is Gaea worship with better nomenclature. Feminism is the cult of the goddesses; wrathful as Hera; libertine as Venus

    feminism is the reigning global religion, with liberalism its politics and humanism its creed

    mainstream western religions obey woman, while not worshipping her overtly . . . God’s not too confused tho :O)

    neo-paganism is a kind of catch-all term for various “archaic revival” practices and beliefs — inclusiveness a la babylon

    Indeed, all true. And yet, unlike old pagans, the neo-pagans in contrast to the old ones who worshiped fertility, now forbid it.

    There were throughout antiquity, both in its first stage and its last, modes of idolatry and imagery of which Christian men can hardly speak. “Let them not be so much as named among you.” Men wallowed in the mere sexuality of a mythology of sex; they organised prostitution like priesthood, for the service of their temples; they made pornography their only poetry; they paraded emblems that turned even architecture into a sort of cold and colossal exhibitionism. Many learned books have been written of all these phallic cults; and anybody can go to them for the details, for all I care. But what interests me is this:

    In one way all this ancient sin was infinitely superior, immeasurably superior, to the modern sin. All those who write of it at least agree on one fact; that it was the cult of Fruitfulness. It was unfortunately too often interwoven, very closely, with the cult of the fruitfulness of the land. It was at least on the side of Nature. It was at least on the side of Life. It has been left to the last Christians, or rather to the first Christians fully committed to blaspheming and denying Christianity, to invent a new kind of worship of Sex, which is not even a worship of Life. It has been left to the very latest Modernists to proclaim an erotic religion which at once exalts lust and forbids fertility. The new Paganism literally merits the reproach of Swinburne, when mourning for the old Paganism: “and rears not the bountiful token and spreads not the fatherly feast.” The new priests abolish the fatherhood and keep the feast — to themselves. They are worse than Swinburne’s Pagans. The priests of Priapus and Cotytto go into the kingdom of heaven before them.

    – G. K. Chesterton, The Well and the Shallows (1935).

     
  47. rayy

    February 21, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    if chesterton thinks the priests of priapus are going into the kingdom, he should have read 1 kings 18 again

    also — And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers . . . . (malachi 3)

    sex-magickal “priests” (sorcerers) are the FIRST targets on the list

    fertility rites in the ancient world were always under the power/control of the “goddess” (lucifer) and the reign of jezebel is illustrative

    we are not commanded to “worship life” as chesterton advises as a lesser evil, but to worship God and reject/overcome the world (worship of life = worship of satan, it’s still his world)

    the modern pagans (by far most of the population, including “christians”) by no means forbid fertility; the “progeny” has simply been shifted from the corporeal world to the spiritual world, so the barren-ness is only seeming (“as it was in the days of noah so at the coming of the son of man” etc)

    agree, tho, as you infer — the modern pagan cults, usualy presenting as “belief systems” or “ideologies,” are indeed death-cults (skull and bones, for example, is not a myth)

    new paganism or old paganism, same “advisor” and same result

     
  48. Will S.

    February 21, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    “the modern pagans (by far most of the population, including “christians”) by no means forbid fertility; the “progeny” has simply been shifted from the corporeal world to the spiritual world, so the barren-ness is only seeming (“as it was in the days of noah so at the coming of the son of man” etc)”

    I’m not following your meaning, ray, can you expand?

    Chesterton was simply saying that the old pagans were not as bad as the new ones. Only Christians are saved, so no, we won’t see old pagans there, nor new ones. He was simply speaking in metaphor.

     
  49. rayy

    February 22, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    christ’s “days of noah” referred not just to the general wickedness of humans antediluvially as “revived” in the endtimes, but to the spiritual “creations” epidemic to both ages (for which mass disaster was the only cure)

    the “giants on the earth” werent merely physical specimens, like goliath, but beings with heightened psychic and psychological power, demonic crossbreeds

    eg — satan is prince of the power of the air

    so, where is he? can you image him? no, like his collaborators he’s beyond the human sensorium

    but it’s possible to see him, with the right eyes — christ did, falling like lightning

    the epitome of modern paganism are the various “magickal” rites that attempt to incarnate physical or quasi-physical entities . . . to bridge the abyss, so to speak, and re-create the demon-infested antediluvial world

    the babalon and amalantrah workings were the most infamous of these, but by no means isolates

    this is a v complex subject, and there is detailed info elsewhere for those interested

     
  50. Will S.

    February 22, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    I see.

     
  51. electricangel1978

    February 22, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    @will,

    I think you’d like Belloc’s book. He is obviously writing to correct the record of pro-Reformation propaganda in Britain. But he does not seem too stern towards the reformers themselves, except for the German princes who met in the town of Speyer and went for Luther because of the profit in seizing Church lands. He writes the book as an effort to understand the whole process of the Reformation, what it must have FELT like to an ordinary person living in that time.

    One conclusion that seems obvious in retrospect: Protestantism owes a LOT to Islam for its success. The Holy Roman Emperor would have overwhelmed the forces of Protestantism, but he couldn’t spare the troops after the Turks took Hungary in the Battle of Mohacs in 1529.

    I think you might take an impish delight as Belloc details the corruption that created the dry tinder that Luther set alight. Overall, a worthwhile book for Catholic and Protestant alike. The Orthodox can relate, too.

     
  52. electricangel1978

    February 22, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    @Will

    “even beloved, well-respected, revered Papist intellectuals are incapable of independent thought”

    I know you were kidding, but there is another thought here. I am reminded of John Donne’s poem “No Man is an Island.” Donne, though a “prot” (if you can call the Anglicans that) was raised a Catholic. It’s a more communitarian faith, with its claims towards universality. So independent thought is probably NOT valued as much in the Catholic tradition.

    Reminds us too much of those people who had to blow away existing societies and erect a new one on the remains, like Lucifer, Marx, and Calvin. Luther, I think, like Henry Tudor, wanted to keep most of the existing faith and change a couple of things. So I can see Anglicans and Lutherans rejoining the Church, but Marxists and Calvinists, never.

     
  53. Will S.

    February 22, 2012 at 11:59 pm

    @ EA: Really? Hmmm. Sounds potentially interesting.

    I don’t like the stupid, liberal arguments against the Catholic Church and in favour of the Reformation, just because they think it ultimately led to the secularism of today. Have you read Herbert Butterfield’s “The Whig interpretation of history”? Butterfield tears apart the stupidity of Whigs reading history through their ‘Progress’-oriented lens. The same kinds of arguments can be marshalled against those fools today like Irshad Manji who argue that Islam needs a Reformation, so it can become secular.

    Of course, they can also be marshalled, conversely, against those who unfavourably view the secularism of the West today as the inevitable ultimate outcome of the Reformation. It wasn’t inevitable. Calvin and Luther were not secularists in the least; had Protestantism not splintered into Methodism and other sects, and the Radical Reformation concurrently happening leading to the Baptists, etc.; had the Reformation stayed true to the paths of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc., we would not have gotten the secular world of today.

    The fact is, the Enlightenment was a separate phenomenon (though it unfortunately got mixed in); it, and other factors such as the development of the printing press, and the Industrial Revolution, all played a role, in creating the modern world.

    So, I am wary of any arguments that posit that all the ills of the modern world can be laid at the feet of the Reformers. I don’t deny that they helped set in motion, a chain of events which, along with other factors, did lead to the modern world – but it didn’t have to be that way. Reactionary Calvinists like myself, and Lutherans, reject the Enlightenment and its attendent ills, for one thing.

     
  54. Will S.

    February 23, 2012 at 12:03 am

    @ EA: Indeed I was kidding. 🙂

    Yes, Anglicans and Lutherans were not as ‘revolutionary’ in their break with Rome, as were Calvinists, certainly. Oh well! Too bad for them, says partisan Calvinist I. 🙂 (The Anglicans could have been; the Thirty-Nine Articles are quite Reformed, and unlike the Lutherans, who hold to the Real Presence in the Lord’s Supper, the Anglicans rejected that in favour of the Reformed view.)

     
  55. Will S.

    February 23, 2012 at 12:39 am

    @ EA: “Reminds us too much of those people who had to blow away existing societies and erect a new one on the remains, like Lucifer”

    Pardon? I don’t recall the Devil directly intervening in human history.

     
  56. electricangel1978

    February 23, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    (Sorry but no ability to use blockquotes)
    “@ EA: “Reminds us too much of those people who had to blow away existing societies and erect a new one on the remains, like Lucifer”

    Pardon? I don’t recall the Devil directly intervening in human history.”

    Umm, I guess all that folderol about heaven and Satan’s revolt against God and the society of heaven just passed you by. “Princes, potentates, warriors: the flower of Heaven, once yours, now lost…”

    Did Satan not tempt Eve and thus directly intervene in Human History?

     
  57. electricangel1978

    February 23, 2012 at 10:28 pm

    @Will,

    Do you at least own the book “Drinking with Calvin and Luther?” It’s a good tome to help with the anti-drug and anti-drink zealots.

     
  58. electricangel1978

    February 23, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    “Of course, they can also be marshalled, conversely, against those who unfavourably view the secularism of the West today as the inevitable ultimate outcome of the Reformation. It wasn’t inevitable. Calvin and Luther were not secularists in the least; had Protestantism not splintered into Methodism and other sects, and the Radical Reformation concurrently happening leading to the Baptists, etc.; had the Reformation stayed true to the paths of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc., we would not have gotten the secular world of today.”

    I wonder about this. Recall the old jibe that “a man who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t believe in nothing: he will believe in just about anything.” In the same way once unity in Christendom was sundered all those sects and dissension were inevitable. Something like UAA AAA and the Otters in Go God Go! in South Park.

    But you have just reminded me to post a link to a review of a book about the lost history of Asian Christianity.

     
  59. Will S.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    @ EA: Oh, I understand. Certainly, obviously, yes, the Devil did directly intervene then there, before the Fall, indeed – bringing about the Fall. I thought you were meaning something post-Fall, the way you lumped him in with Marx and Calvin. Hence my puzzlement, and not following your meaning. The Devil hasn’t intervened directly ever since then, his damage done. It was weird seeing a fallen angel lumped in with human reformers, hence another reason for my puzzlement at your phrase.

    And yes, I do own “Drinking with Calvin and Luther”, and “God Gave Wine”, two excellent books. How much they will help with anti-drink and anti-drug zealots, depends on their zeal. I once loaned “God Gave Wine” to a girl I was dating who was trying to pressure me to quit drinking; she read it, but remained inflexible. So I broke up with her.

     
  60. Will S.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    @ EA: Well, I know you will, as a trad Cath, believe that “once unity in Christendom was sundered all those sects and dissension were inevitable”, and obviously as a trad Prot I’m going to disagree, but nevertheless, consider this: unity had already been sundered with the Great Schism, and, compared to the Protestant Reformation, only a handful of different national Orthodox churches arose, far fewer than the Reformation gave rise to. An indictment of Protestantism? It can be taken that way, I’ll grant. But also an example of what might have been, had we simply ended up with local national Protestant churches. The splintering didn’t have to be. It happened, but it needn’t have. The fact it didn’t in the East, shows it wasn’t necessary.

    I look forward to your review of that book about Asian Christianity. The Mar Thoma and Japanese churches in particular, fascinate me.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s