Saturday, October 11, 2008

The Back End Of The Target...

An interesting question today for modern man is whether Christianity is beneficial or detrimental to Western Civilization.
Some say it is.
Some say it is not.

There are various manifestations of the pro-Christian crowd who champion their faith.
(CI) Christian Identity and (TC)"Traditionalist" Catholicism (being pre-Vatican II doctrinally) are a couple of examples.

A new movement in this field is called Kinism, which essentially tries to marry CI and TC philosophically.

Does it work?

No.

(Setting aside the fact that science renders theistic faith DOA)

The truth is that there is just no way to defend The West using Christian doctrine.
You might be able to cobble together an argument from the text in its favor, but someone else can just as easily cobble together an opposing argument with the same text.

This is the (accidental) genius of Christianity, and the reason for its prolonged existence.
Christian doctrine and biblical texts are so watery and indecisive (in other words, lacking a substantive point), that anyone, anywhere, can set down their own preferences right on top of the existing texts with little effort through the magic of exegesis.

And for those who don't know what exegesis is, it is the art of internal interpretation of religious texts.
In other words, a pseudo science.
Applied to a secular collection of works, it once gave some cause to believe that Paul McCartney had died and was replaced by The Beetles with an impostor.

The following is an example of the Kinist attempt at using Christianity to defend The West.
The Writer, writing at this blog, makes several fundamental mistakes that are common to this movement.

He writes,
The white, right wingers’ fatal flaw is their lack of a religious vision. Now, I know the white, right wingers talk about our Germanic, Celtic, Greco-Roman, Christian heritage, but that kind of combo-sandwiching of traditions indicates the problem.
The Europeans have only one tradition and one faith.

I can only assume his use of the word 'tradition' here is reflective of a catholic upbringing.
But the "Only One" proclamation sounds strikingly similar to the motto of the "Diversity" crowd.
I'm not saying that is the intent of the writer, but simply pointing out that that is where Christianity inevitably leads its adherents.

He continues,
It is ahistorical to ignore the white man’s Christianity. The New Age white leaders act as though they woke up one morning and discovered they were white. Hence, they prefer the white to the colored race, but they have no appreciation of the white man’s heritage, because they don’t place any great emphasis on the only thing that ever mattered to the white man, his faith.
....The antique European, the Christian European, who took seriously our Lord’s injunction to “Seek ye first the kingdom of God... and all these things shall be added unto you,” was able to build Western civilization because his hope was not in this world only.

The above represents the main problem with the Kinist worldview. They deny the biological roots of civilization.
In their apparent take on history the White man was hatched out of an egg by Christian missionaries in the forests of Germania around the seventh and eighth centuries A.D.
For them there was no Western Civilization prior to the arrival of Christianity throughout Europe a little over a thousand years ago. Greek, Roman, Celtic and Germanic cultures are all nil and void.
In their eyes Alexander, Aristotle, Cicero, Caesar, Vercengetorix, Arminius, Hengest etc, etc.. are all non-Westerners. Non-White.

For them, the volumes of literature, artistic accomplishments and feats of architectural triumph such as the Parthenon or the Colosseum, are all the works of non-Westerners.

In other words, Kinism takes a knife to Western history and cuts about half of it out.

The Kinist continues,
...the ‘this world only’ devotees. In this world only there is nothing but despair. Grim statistics are final and unalterable in such a world, barbarian hordes are invincible in such a world, and white and black, good and evil, are meaningless abstractions in such a world.

The above quote gets close to my earlier reference to Christianity's wateriness.
Christians, be they Kinist, racialist or mainstream corporatist, like to claim that atheism is at the root of The West's problems today.

The main problem with this postulation?

The majority of Westerners are still Christians.

Of course you'll get a 'No true Scotsman' type of argument to the above fact, yet a fact it still remains.

And it proves to be an inconvenient realty that it is the Christianized West that gave birth to modern radical liberalism and is now in decline, as opposed to the decidedly un-Christian and upwardly moving east-Asia.

The Kinist continues,
But by so urging, the right wingers are asking the Christian European to walk away from his heritage. This he cannot do. The reason there is such a disconnect between the white leaders and the white Christian remnant is because the remnant senses the right wing leaders are just as lost in the slough of modernity as the liberals are.

So, at once we learn that the European has fatally abandoned his Christian heritage, yet now we learn he in fact can not leave it.
And of course if today's Christian "remnant" looks back at his heritage, he'll find his ancestors were Evangelical Christians. And before that Fundamentalist Christians. And before that, Old World Anglicans or Methodists. And before that Catholics and before that, Pagans. And before that Pagans still. And before that, yet still, Pagans.

Continuing,
There is another aspect of the ‘respect other cultures’ issue. In the modern, decadent social sciences, such as anthropology, we are informed it is wrong to say that someone or some group has no culture. “Everyone has a culture,” we are told. But in the non-anthropological sense, there is only one culture.

Once again the creed of the multiculturalist un-ironically espoused by a Christian.

Again,
Only the Europeans made the attempt to weave faith, hope, and charity into their culture. From a Christian standpoint, it would be morally wrong to respect the “cultures” of the colored races. Did the Spanish respect the Aztec culture? Did the Brits respect the Hindu culture? No, they respected their God, who called all men to abandon heathen idols and come to Him, and they respected Him too much to leave individual heathens in perpetual darkness. To subdue and convert, to the extent that such a conversion was possible, was the way of the non-democratic, pre-20th century European.


And there it is.
One Worldism, Globalism, Multiculturalism, "One race, the human race" etc... are all being pushed onto the whole world by force by one group of people, the Christianized White man.
No one else espouses such notions. Not blacks, not hispanics, certainly not jews, not asians, not Hindus, not heathens...no one else. Only Christians.

Once the phrases, "one God" and "all men" enter your philosophical construct, you have become, to use Christian vernacular, the anti-Christ.
You are now a proponent of One Worldism.
But I hope some European leader at the conference will dare to link Europe and Christ and denounce anyone who tries to tear them asunder in either word or deed.


We'll I'm just an 'Average Joe', yet I'll still go ahead and give the proper contextual link between Christ and Europe.

Jesus and his followers were orientals (of the near-east persuasion) who were both reared in oriental thought, and immersed in Western (Greek and Roman) culture.
They absorbed Western inclinations towards altruism, yet attempted to base it on the Semitic notion of monotheism.

The perfect contrast being the Pagan European Empire of Rome, verses the Christian European Empire of Christendom.
The former allowed its conquered masses the right to continue in their native culture, language, law and tradition, while the latter pursued a policy of enforced monolithic sameness in the same categories.

Brought into the 20th and 21st centuries, it is not difficult to see how the Christianized Western man has so readily accepted multiculturalism.

Can one make an argument in favor of Western Civilization based on Christianity.
Yes.
But not a permanent or stable one.

And that is the problem with Christianity. Ultimately, it stands for nothing.
It leads nowhere and openly revels in its irrelevancy.

If the Bible could talk it would be screaming, "Don't take me seriously!"





(note: The use of the words Multiculturalism and Diversity above are used in the Orwellian context that their promoters intend. In other words, multiculturalism actually means monoculturalism and diversity means everyone is brown.)
.