Another major deception by the Left

Every one either praises or blames the Enlightenment for the enshrinement of equality and cosmopolitanism as the moral pillars of our times. This is wrong. Enlightenment thinkers were racists who believed that only white Europeans could be fully rational, good citizens, and true cosmopolitans.

 

_____________________________

Read the rest of this scholarly article at Counter-Currents.

Published in: on May 14, 2013 at 12:01 am  Comments (9)  

9 Comments

  1. In the 19th century until 1945 we had eugenics in the West.

  2. Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    Read “The RACIAL contract” by Charles W. Mills.

  3. The Enlightenment was in many ways a reaction to tradition. Politically, thinkers began to view “man” as less organically tied to family, clan, kingdom, and God through obligation, and living in an hierarchical order imposed from top down. Instead, thinkers began to see “men” as individuals, not necessarily tied to any particular social order–an order that was in any case viewed as contingent, or in the words of Hobbes, artificial and based upon rational contract, or covenant. This represented a decisive break from what had gone before. For instance, Classical philosophy never spoke of the “rights” of man, but had much to say about what constituted a citizen.

    In any case, it was understood by Enlightenment thinkers that the ground of it all was European civilization. But once men became individual autonomous actors possessing right, and essentially interchangeable actors because of equal right, it was only a matter of time before all the rest appeared.

    • That’s fascinating. Do you think that ultimately the Enlightenment was a major factor, or at least an important factor that eventually produced today’s suicidal zeitgeist? I ask you this from the POV of these days that I’ve been advertising (the articles by Manu Rodríguez).

      It seems to me, and this is only a hypothesis, that after whites accepted a Semitic faith the West in general took an extremely wrong turn. And the secularization process of the late eighteenth century did not actually revert western civilization back on the right track. Instead, they felt guilty for having abandoned their parents’ religion and the new “apostates” only reinforced Christian axiology as a compensatory defence mechanism. In other words, both Enlightenment and contemporary western atheists and secularists are still infected with Semitic guilt.

      I’ll develop these ideas in a coming post about Albert Schweitzer.

      • Sorry for the longish post. To answer your question, I could sound Hegelian and reply that the Enlightenment was the necessary expression of historical circumstances, but that says nothing. To tell you the truth, I am frankly mystified at the West’s self-immolation.

        As far as the Enlightenment goes, from the standpoint of certain hard sciences there is no doubt that this new era saw the rise of unique empirical and practical knowledge. All the while, much was lost for human understanding, and for the social order.

        Next point: Christianity is very much a mystery to me. Or rather I should say that Christian feeling, faith, is a language I just don’t understand. I have never been close to its doctrines, and have never understood its broad appeal. From an historical standpoint the origins of Christianity are not, strictly speaking, solely Semitic, as there was obviously overlap from the farther East, and a certain fusion of Greek and non-Jewish Egyptian sources. Also, among early Christians there was much disagreement over doctrine. In a way it is similar to the early Marxists, and perhaps what is going on today within White Nationalism. Often times it seems that doctrinal in-fighting obscures commonality, but that is another question.

        Back to Christianity: the Pauline material makes it is clear that he was not familiar with any of the synoptic Gospel matter. Paul always hearkens back to the the Old Testament, but never the “historical” Christ. In other words, Paul’s Christ is really spiritual, and not a “man of the flesh”. And it is Paul who is really responsible for Christianity. Jesus could never be the author of a popular religion, nor did he ever seem to be inclined to do as much. He spoke in riddles, spurned his family, understood the crowd to be fools, and hid out in the desert. The teachings of Jesus as “transcribed” in the Gospels, and even more so, those of his precursor, John, would never appeal to anyone today, and it is only the various softened church interpretations making Jesus out to be some kind of liberal social reformer, that make any of it possible.

        It cannot be denied that we don’t even have a good idea where it all came from, due to redactors and interpolations. Some, such as the German scholar and theologian, Hermann Detering, argue that the Gospel material consists of much later doctrine, composed as late as the mid second century. One early sect, Marcionite Christianity, was decidedly anti-Jewish, but for whatever historical reasons never survived. Is it not the case that it was only in the 20th century that Christianity and Judaism were ever seen as generally compatible, or even partners? The Google n-gram viewer that shows the words “Judeo-Christian” became part of the literature after the Second World War, I’m sure due to Jewish media influence.

        My non-scholarly opinion is that Christianity doesn’t have much to offer Whites as Whites, these days. But whatever the case, inasmuch as Christianity partakes of Jewish thinking, it must be considered a hindrance. You are right. Guilt is pervasive, and misplaced among many White folk.

      • I agree with much of what you say.

        Appealing to the poor and the outcast must have been a powerful drive in the increasingly mongrelized cities of the Roman Empire by the time of Jesus, and especially in the next centuries. (By the way, do you know the WDH entries on the historical Jesus?)

        My guess is that it was slave morality what could have galvanized these mongrelized whites and non-whites by the time of Constantine.

        Present-day Christians on the other hand are immature enough insofar as they fail to question their parental “introjects”. That’s why I am starting a new series on The Yearling. I believe that depth psychology can offer some answers to the West’s self-immolation: a thoroughly unknown country for white nationalists.

  4. I suspect that Gospel Jesus, as an actual character, was merely a formulation. That is, a romance created from gathering multiple like but also disparate sources, and then weaving them into a written narrative. The Gospel stories are quite divergent in certain places, and were written by different groups of Christians who had a basic storyline they then embellished in different ways. There could well have one person upon whom the stories were originally based, but due to the vagaries of historical documentation now available from back then, it is impossible to know for sure. In any event, from reading the Pauline letters it is clear that the author(s) knew little, if anything, of these “historical” Jesus stories, but rather relied upon the Old Testament for the foundation of his teaching.

    • Paul does not mention the Virgin nativity stories (what we read in Mathew and Luke) nor the Ascension (Luke). It’s a long time since I don’t reread my books but if I remember correctly, he does not even recount Jesus’ miracles. What is worse, Paul did not even mention the Empty Tomb story!

      The New Testament is arranged in a deceiving way. Chronologically, Paul’s letters were written much earlier than the gospels. Since the Pauline epistles were written first and he fails to mention the major stuff, one can surmise that the gospel narrative stories are plagued with legends, myths, fictions and outright literary invention.

      • Most certainly.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: