Heisman’s suicide note, 12

Editor’s note: This is the hatnote of the blogger Eximius, presenting eight pages of still another Heisman chapter on how ‘Normanity’, the historic English belief in the superiority of those descended from the Norman conquerors, affected the Anglo-Saxon psyche, including the US:

This is an excerpt from an online eBook by Mitchell Heisman called Suicide Note. It is taken from pages 1601-1609. The title of this subchapter heading is counter-intuitive, along with perhaps the title of his whole book, as the Suicide Note could be taken to represent the Suicide not just on an individual, but of an entire biologically determined nature (of which white European suicide and consequent genocide by opportunistic aliens is a subset). His predictions may be strange but his analysis of the evolutionary history of liberal democracy are fantastic. I implore people to have a good look through his eBook for the merit that it deserves, as it operates at a very broad spectrum that cross pollinates between otherwise irreconcilable world views.

Read it all: here.

Published in: on June 20, 2018 at 11:23 pm  Leave a Comment  

On Heisman’s (((book)))

I will not read beyond page 500 of Heisman’s book. Although what I reproduced in my extracts is very interesting, it is irritating that, throughout his book, Heisman hides the obvious: that all this universalism and love of the neighbour of other tribes he writes about is not practiced by his own tribe!

Throughout what I’ve read of his book, Heisman does not even mention that the Bible reduced to a nutshell means ‘ethnocentrism for me’ (OT) ‘but universalism for thee’ (NT).

The omission is not innocent, as the thesis of Suicide Note is that Judaism will lead technological humanity to the creation of Artificial Intelligence. After detecting its main omission—that Judaism does not impose miscegenation on the Jews—it is easy to see that all the sci-fi theodicy of his book is a big smokescreen.

That the philosophy of Heisman is self-serving from the Jewish point of view is also noted in the fact that he puts monotheism as high as if it were the forerunner of A.I., thanks to capitalism. It is so false that analogy that it is enough to remember a sci-fi film that I saw as a teenager: in which two countries separately created their own A.I. If something resembles the artificial intelligences that supposedly capitalism will create, it is polytheism, not monotheism.

Heisman is not only a sophist. There is poison for the Aryans in his book, even though we can use his Suicide Note here and there, which I have been quoting this month. Consider his words:

Auschwitz and the Singularity [his futuristic Golem-A.I.] are two diametrically opposite final solutions to the paradox at the core of Judaism. [page 99]

When I read it in due context, it suggested to me that his philosophy is a prophylactic trick to prevent a second Auschwitz. And by the way, from what little he says about racists, it is clear that Heisman had not read the most substantial white nationalism that could be seen on the Internet before his suicide in 2010.

Heisman was not an honest author. All his book looks like a psyop. The advantage of printing a text, as I did with the first 500 pages (which I did not read all of), instead of reading online, is that at the bottom of the pages one can fill the paper with critical notes: what I did. I could easily write a five-thousand-word book-review but will not; I prefer to say only the essentials.

On page 322 Heisman confesses: ‘Speaking as a Jew, I believe that…’ It is significant that in his book of almost two thousand pages, he does not mention the Golem except in a non-Jewish context when referring, on page 1278, to the restoration of 1660 by William the Conqueror. (A golem is, in Jewish mythology, an animate being made from inanimate matter.) My chosen extracts do not denote the poison hidden in Suicide Note. In my opinion, Heisman was a champion of evil. Like the medieval folkloric tale, he wants to create a sort of Yahweh in the real world: a Golem with the technology of our century.

The funny thing is that from the first pages of his book, Heisman explained very well the meaning of the star of Israel. He says that the normal triangle represents the Egyptian pyramid; the inverted triangle, the Jewish subversion in that society, and that if we interpose the two triangles, we have:

The Star of David, the symbol of Judaism:

▲ + ▼ = ✡

This conceptual inversion of Egyptian social order is at the very heart of Judaism’s monotheistic revolution.

The objective of the priests of the 14 words is to put the pyramid back on its solid base, instead of putting the niggers up, which is what the Judeo-Christian inversion of values did.

Heisman’s suicide note, 10

Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that modern morality and modern democratic, egalitarian ideas are superficial secularizations of Christian values. His masterful philosophical and psychological analysis of Jesus and his movement is the starting point of any significant discussion about Christianity’s relationship to modern values. Christianity, he claimed, was a slave morality, and modern egalitarianism rests upon the underlying victory of value revolution Christianity initiated.

Yet the secularization thesis is not an exclusively elitist insight. As popular historian Thomas Cahill put it in The Gift of the Jews, “There is no way that it could ever have been ‘self-evident that all men are created equal’ without the intervention of the Jews.” No matter which way one looks at it, whether elitist or populist, Jews, including Jesus, have been decisive in molding the evolution of civilization in the West through the inordinate influence of Christianity.

Contra Nietzsche, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, takes the diametrically opposite view that “modern” morality does not come from the Bible. One of the greatest failures of Dawkins’ book is that he fails to even mention Nietzsche; he fails to mention the most relevant and potent challenge to his belief that the morality of modernity has nothing to do with the Bible. Among the reasons that Dawkins did not confront Nietzsche, perhaps this is the most obvious: if Nietzsche is right, Dawkins is wrong…

Dawkins believes in an ever-moving Zeitgeist. This spirit of the times is a spirit of progress that moves away from prejudices such as racism, sexism, and homophobia, and towards some form of political equality. This politically leftwards shift, he claims, has no connection with religion; it even marches on despite religion. But if modern egalitarianism does not come from the Bible, then where does it come from? Dawkins explained:

The onus is not on me to answer. For my purpose it is sufficient that they certainly have not come from religion.

That is an explanation? How can religion be ruled out if he has no substantial alternative explanation? While his atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods, he is unable to offer a positive scientific explanation for the modern Western values he has faith in. Dawkins accepted the premise that morality is ‘not necessarily constructed by reason’. But if reason cannot determine fundamental values, then liberalism and the mysterious modern Zeitgeist of progress rest on fundamentally irrational foundations.

Dawkins apparently believes in a spontaneous generation or special creation theory of modern values. In the special creation theory of modern political equality, Christianity has nothing to do with its quick and sudden evolution. “Progress” thus progresses from a spontaneous generation of modern egalitarian values. Dawkins writes almost as if modernity did not evolve out of the Christian world that preceded it…

Jesus turned the ancient world upside down. Either Roman/Jewish war would tear him apart, or Jesus would tear Roman/Jewish war apart by attacking the kin selective nepotism that polarized both Roman and Jew in opposition to Jesus himself. Jesus reversed kin selective values through hatred of the family. Dawkins apparently prefers the Old Testament on this point, and criticized Jesus for his “dodgy family values.” But if Dawkins is going to criticize Jesus’s anti-kin selective values, he should really criticize the values of modernity. What “modern moralist”, Dawkins asked, would follow Abraham? Yet Abraham’s willingness to kill his own son in the name of God is a theological root of Jesus’s hatred of the family. God was not to be confused with pure family values…

To reverse kin selection is to destroy the human family. This is how Jesus attempted to bring the world-rule of the selfish gene to an end. In standing as an individual against kin selective, Jesus acted as the supreme monkeywrench in the gene machine that undergirded modern individualism.

Dawkins hypothesized that indiscriminate altruism in the modern context, along with sex with contraception, are misfirings of former genetic adaptations. Since Dawkins subscribes to some form of the liberal egalitarian Zeitgeist, this means that Dawkins values this misfiring of ancient genetic adaptations. Dawkins thus believes that these forms of genetically maladaptive behavior are good. Why does Dawkins value genetically maladaptive behavior?

Jesus represented a social problem and his innovative ethics represent, in a sense, a kind of solution. Jesus’s ethics are fundamentally selfish in the sense that, in attacking kin selective altruism with an incompatible standard of anti-kin selective altruism, he opened a place for the half-breeds… Christianity, an antidote to genetically adaptive hatred, is probably the deepest source of the implicit modern valuation that the nepotism of kin selection (i.e. Christ killing Nazi racism) is evil.

Jesus was a mutt, but not just any kind of mutt. Jews and Romans were considered political opposite—and often spiritual opposites. Romans considered themselves the alphas of their world, and the Jews the omegas of their world. Jews considered themselves alphas in the eyes of God, and the Romans as the moral omegas of their world. Jesus combined these incompatible alpha/omega conflicts within himself. Jesus could be conceived as both the alpha and the omega his social order. All previous “social” boundaries were broken in his individual being. His very existence implicated the breaking of all social boundaries. All the seeds of modernity, as a break with the ancient world, are latent within the existence of Jesus…

Being a bridge of the gulf between gentile and Jew in life, Jesus was a bridge of the gulf between gentile and Jew in death. Gentile assimilation of Christianity over a thousand medieval years gradually engendered the modern idea of humanity. The assimilation of Jew and gentile in Jesus is what opened assimilation of Jew and gentile in the modern West.

If reason, in itself, cannot determine fundamental values, it becomes clearer that Christianity provided the ethical ends, while modernity bridged the chasm between the real and ideal by providing the technological means to realize those ethical ends. Modernity was bred out of a struggle between the real and the ideal in the form of a struggle for moral superiority…

The path towards self-destruction through moral superiority can be discerned in Matthew 5:38-39:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

When Jesus say “But I tell you”, he is upping the ante above Judaism’s upping the ante above paganism.

Non-violent resistance is not a modern invention; it was practiced by first-century Jews against Rome. Jesus’s political powerlessness, however, became the limitation that grounded his theological innovations. Jesus’s innovations with Judaism mirrored the origins of Judaism itself in paradigmatic Egyptian slaves. The less powerful one is, the higher one’s ethic may be—at least in principle. Christianity is more evolved than Judaism in that it has even lower or more forgiving standards of what a good human being is than Judaism…

Jesus’s death as a gene propagator, and resurrection as a meme propagator, can be understood as a supernatural defiance of the “natural law” of natural selection. Bodily death was not the final word.

The sanctification of human life in opposition to natural selection was Biblically expressed through the notion of the human soul, and especially mind/body dualism…

Modern liberalism has not been inclined to acknowledge its historical debt to Christianity anymore than Christianity has been historically inclined to acknowledge its Jewish parentage. Yet one cannot fully understand the secularization of Christianity except as a development with roots in the preceding paradigm of Christianity’s separation from Judaism.

When rootless West moderns trace their roots to Christianity, they are led to Christianity’s roots in Judaism (this is surely a formula for rootlessness).

[pages 488-500]

Heisman’s suicide note, 9

Judaism for the Gentiles?

When Christian social conservatives reach for their cultural roots, they embrace the uprooting force of Christianity. Christianity began a long process of uprooting gentiles from their pagan past. Monotheism substituted an alternate past and an alternate view of themselves as heirs of Hebrew ancestors. In some sense, Christianity brought non-Jews to serve in what was originally a Jewish mission. Has Christianity molded Christians in a Jewish moral image?

In The Anti-Christ, Nietzsche declared:

Jews are the most catastrophic people of world history: by their aftereffect they have made mankind so thoroughly false that even today the Christian can feel anti-Jewish without realizing that he himself is the ultimate Jewish consequence.

Christian antisemitism is a kind of Jewish self-hatred. In worshipping a Jew named Jesus as their God, and dedicating themselves to essential Jewish values, Christians have dedicated themselves to a form of Judaism.

Because Jesus’s preaching of hatred for the family must be subverted in order for Christianity to function as a normative, societal religion, there must be cases where the ambiguity between the alpha altruism and omega altruism becomes so obscured and perverted that Christianity becomes a vehicle of racism.

Take, for example, white American Christian racists. They hate blacks. They hate Mexicans. They hate Jews. And, incidentally, they worship a Jew as the son of God. It is only natural that such Christian racists should pray to Jesus to save them from the Jews.

The fact that modern Christians tend to be associated with the conservative values of the family is a product of Christianity as a societal tradition, not Christianity as an implementation of the words of Jesus. What would happen if a Christian took Jesus’s message seriously? The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, in Attack Upon “Christendom”, wrote:

And this in my opinion is the falsification of which official Christianity is guilty: it does not frankly and unreservedly make known the Christian requirement—perhaps because it is afraid people would shudder to see at what a distance from it we are living… when Christ requires us to save our life eternally (and that surely is what we propose to attain as Christians) and to hate our own life in this world, is there then a single one among us whose life in the remotest degree could be called even the weakest effort in this direction?… let us not wish to gloss over the Christian requirement, so that by suppression or by falsification we may bring about an appearance of decorum which is in the very highest degree demoralizing and is a sly death-blow to Christianity.

American politician Patrick Buchanan, by contrast, has attempted to resurrect Jesus just enough to achieve his racist, politically Darwinistic goals. It would appear that the conventional Christian virtue Buchanan admires most is hypocrisy. He laments the loss of the good old-fashioned Christian hypocrisy in which a thinly veiled pagan morality edified the slaughter of a Christian’s fellow men under the banner of Christian love.

If Buchanan were to examine himself with Kierkegaard’s eye, it might dawn upon him that he is attacking the Christian churches for being Christian: “We were wrong to accompany the old conquistadors, wrong to impose our faith on native peoples, wrong to be handmaidens of empire. We confess, we beg forgiveness from those against whom we and our fathers have sinned.” He then points out, “Now this may be the way to heaven, but it can lead to hell on earth.” Buchanan and other likeminded Christian racists made it their mission to ensure that the meek do not inherit the earth.

Much of what Christian conservatives are trying to conserve is actually pagan, not Christian. Christianity did not invent the family. Christianity became guilty by association with that kind of social conservatism.

An authentic Christian conservatism would amount to the conservation of the subversion of family patriarchy. Christianity fundamentally redefined the horizons of what became “conservatism”, closing the extreme horizons of the gentile political right represented by Rome, and thus pushing normative Christian ethical horizons towards Jewish norms. A real conservative can be witnessed in the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate (c. 331-363 AD), the enemy of Christianity who converted to the paganism of his ancestors in 361.

Every single accusation of the defamation and dethroning of gods and heroes that Buchanan hurls at secular leftists can be slinged with more profound justice at Christianity. Buchanan himself portends what he calls the “death of the West” precisely because the solution he posits is Christian. His solution to the “problem” is the cause of the “problem”. What Buchanan criticizes is ultimately rooted in Christianity’s spiritual revolution over Rome.

Christianity inspired gentiles to deracinate themselves from their original pagan gods, naturalistic values, and ancestral traditions. Liberalism continues this deracination. The political left casts out those final surviving remains of politically pagan sentiment in the name of radicalism almost akin to Jesus’s attack on normative Pharisaic Judaism.

Christianity decontextualized and recontextualized patriarchy and altruism, subverting the pre-Christian assumptions and social conditions they evolved and originated in. Jesus’s influence effected a softening of the kinship core of patriarchy. From this softened core, liberal social dismantling took administrative control over the hypocrisy industry that Christianity launched. Pat Buchanan himself demonstrates the great reaping of what Christianity has sown: neutralization. Buchanan’s racist cause was effectively neutralized by the victory of Christianity’s melting of racism’s kinship core.

Christianity disempowers and disenfranchises kinship relations. It does this by radicalizing the logic of altruism beyond its sociobiological foundation in kinship, subversively making kinship appear inferior in comparison with its higher, more “universalistic” concerns. In secularized terms, this makes kin selective values, which can include racist values, appear inferior in value.

The Christian moral attack against hereditary social relations is at the root of the modern Western social project of systematic kin selective insanity, i.e. the modern idea of leftward social progress. It was liberalism’s Christian inheritance that made a virtue of kin selective insanity. Genetic self-preservation is immorality when genetic suicide is morality. To literally follow Jesus’s example is to follow the example of celibate priests and implement the extinction of the biological human race.

Mixed marriages between Christianity and racism persist nonetheless. Perhaps the most famous product of the union of Christianity and racism is the bastard child known as the Ku Klux Klan. Caught between white supremacism and Christ supremacism, the Ku Klux Klan has solved the problem of incompatible ethical commitments through a hybrid creed that offers the worst of both worlds. Their greatest feat of all has been to corrupt both the Christianity that they profess to believe in and their own racist cause in one stumbling stroke.

Heisman’s suicide note, 8

Americanism is really a form of Judaism

Years after the death of his comrade, Karl Marx, and only about a year before his own death in 1895, Frederick Engels, co-founder of the communist movement, published an essay called “On the History of Early Christianity”. It began:

The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement.

Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society.

Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory absolutely certain.

Engels thus believed that a form of socialism “did in fact, as far as it was possible at the time, exist and even became dominant—in Christianity.” Christianity had a “class” appeal comparable to monotheism’s earlier storybook appeal to a “class” of Pharaoh’s Hebrew slaves.

Of all the attempts that have been made to link Christianity and communism, this is among the most significant. Written soon before his own death, it was like Engels’ final confession. Yet one point that Engels avoided, a point that would have been impossible for him not to take mental note of, was the Judaic origins of both Jesus and Marx. This unspoken theme was handled by downplaying the significance of the Judaic background of Jesus, and thus seemingly implying that the same held for Marx…

Whereas Roman values synthesized the good with the virtues of the soldier, Biblical monotheism disassociated the good from the virtues of the soldier… While Caesar presumed god-status as the highest among humans, Jesus on his crucifix attempts to demonstrate a way in which the lowest can be highest… Christian values turned the political arena from the arena of highest human virtue to the arena of the lowest human virtue…

Jesus, like Marx, takes aim at an entire system of perceived injustice. The Kingdom of God represents Jesus’s “system”. The Kingdom of God is Jesus’s equivalent of Marx’s imagined successor to the capitalist system. Just as Jesus claimed that he came, not to abolish, but to fulfill the laws of Moses (Matt. 5:17), Marx saw communism, not as the absolute negation of capitalism, but as the fulfillment of the logic of history. In both Christianity and communism, taking the most leftward logic to the extreme led to the production of something new and ultimately opposite.

In his papers on the Jewish Question, Marx wrote:

Christianity sprang from Judaism; it has now dissolved itself back into Judaism. The Christian was from the start the theorizing Jew; the Jew therefore the practical Christian, and the practical Christian has once more become Jew.

The classic “practical Christian” is the American. Americanism, then, is really a form of Judaism, not a form of Christianity. This implies that the capitalist age is a Jewish age, and that Karl Marx was a theorizing Jew who prophesized a new Christianity called communism.

Christianity collapsed into capitalism, in part, because Christianity attacked the patriarchal virtues of duty and family that override selfish individualism. Above all, it was the Christian valuation of a form of altruism that subverts kin selective altruism that helped pave the way towards capitalist individualism. In a sense, Christianity led the modern West to a state more like Jews. This means that Christianity inadvertently helped produce the capitalist world criticized by Marx.

Marx’s relatively superficial conception of “class” warfare has deeper roots in a more fundamental form of internal warfare—Jesus’s attack on the family:

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.

Jesus’s sword was poised to divide kin, to divide the family, and to divide generations against themselves. This is a historical root of the Marxist “class” warfare that divides society on a higher level…

Jesus’s attacks on the Pharisees may have influenced Marx’s anti-Jewish tracts. Although Marx himself was born a German Jew, he was converted to Christianity at an early age. Just as Jesus was formally a Jew in an anti-Roman culture, Marx was formally a Christian in an anti-Jewish culture. But was Jesus treated as a full Jew? Was Marx treated as a full Christian? Just as Jesus became, in a theoretical sense, more Jewish than the Jews, Marx became, in a theoretical sense, more Christian than the Christians. For both Marx and Jesus, then, the issue of assimilation by law, but discrimination in fact, may have been a common impetus for world shattering prescriptions.

As Walter Kaufmann put it, Marx’s “impassioned interest in the salvation of wretched humanity made him the second Jew in history to be accepted by almost half of humanity as a messiah”…

Modern leftist causes would not have taken deep root without the fecund soil prepared by Christianity. The “Good News” of secular leftist revolutionary liberation was, in part, a reaping what Christianity had sown.

Hitler showed what can happen when the assumption of Christian influence is profoundly questioned. The difference between Roman altruism and Christian altruism is like the difference between National Socialism and Marxist socialism. The Nazis brought back the ancient pagan way that preceded Christianity as a corollary of bringing back the primacy of biological evolution.

[pages 463-470]

Heisman’s suicide note, 7

The Christian Collapse into Capitalism

If the Trojan Horse of Christianity successfully injected its moral-behavioral code into a given host, what would the aftermath look like? Theoretically, one would expect that the frequency of kin selective based behaviors would decline. Individuals would be freed or even barred from self-organization on the basis of kinship. It follows that the most thoroughly Christianized nations would be the most susceptible to the breakdown of kin selective altruism over time. In short, if a people succumbed to the holy virus of Christianity, one would expect it to look something like America.

The very survival of liberal democracy through two world wars was made possible by the involvement of an America remarkable for both its ethnic diversity, and its unusually high level of religious commitment among developed nations. America’s ethnic diversity and America’s Christianity are directly related to one another. After all, genetic miscegenation is a practical logical fulfillment of love against the law. Conventional Christianity itself represents the cultural miscegenation of Jewish and gentile moral civilizations (i.e. the gargantuan adoption project known as American immigration is partially an inheritance of Constantine’s adoption of the foreign God of the Jews). Jesus himself was spiritual miscegenation of Jewish and gentile moral civilizations as a fulfillment of love against the law.

The secular West inherited from Christianity a moral or spiritual attitude that associates goodness with the inverse of the logic of kin selection. The entire idea of modern egalitarian progress is a logical continuation of the anti-kin selective logic of Christianity in action. It is a measure of the success of the mutated Christian meme-virus that Westerners do not even need Jesus to further perpetuate the logic of his attack on kin selection.

Yet the specific mechanisms of Christian influence on kin selection require clarification. For argument’s sake, let us say that Christianity tended to attract the most altruistic members of the population. Let us say, furthermore, that the minority of superlative altruists contains, on average, a greater proportion of genes for altruistic behavior than the majority population. If the most highly altruistic inclinations originally evolved through kin selection, and learning the discipline of Christianity tends to divert such altruistic behaviors into channels that are either indifferent or detrimental to genetic adaptation for the highly altruistic minority, then Christianity, over many generations, will tend to decrease the genetic fitness of the population. While this is only one scenario among many, the seditious genius of Christianity (a.k.a. Christian goodness) is that it may attract individuals with the greatest share of genetically based altruism within a population while serving to subvert its original genetic basis.

If everyone followed the superlative example of a chaste Catholic priest, it would lead to the extinction of the human race. Catholic priests that cheat by having children and propagating their genes, however, may perpetuate any possible genetic basis for their hypocrisy. I use the superlative example of a Catholic priest only to illustrate a far more general phenomenon: Christianity can very literally breed “hypocrisy” relative to the honest Christians who restrain themselves. Through this pattern, over a period of generations, Christianity may have literally helped breed the modern bourgeoisie on a both a genetic and cultural level. Generally speaking, Christianity breeds a bourgeoisie simply by chipping away at the advantages of the stronger to the advantage of the weaker, and undoing the correlation of reproductive success and military-political success (i.e. of kings and aristocracy).

Christian memes impacted Christianized genes by making the highest the lowest, the first the last, the alpha the omega and, in general, rewriting the rules of the social game. Christianity literally helped to breed the progressive left by gradually altering the social status of certain human types. It made conventional Darwinian winners moral losers and enshackled the genetically adaptive function of pagan virtues in its moral snares.

Within the hypocrisy industry that Christianity created, those inconsistent with general ideal principles tend to be the ones that survive. To be fully consistent would be as biologically suicidal as dying on the cross. The ethically honest ones tend to be selected out of the population. The cheaters of these ethical principles tend to multiply. In short, the supremacy of Christian ideals tends to breed a bourgeoisie; egoists who follow the moral letter in a practical sense while trampling over ideal spirit. This is why Pharisees survived to become the ancestors of most Jews while Jesus got the cross. This is how Christianity helped to create the modern world.

Machiavelli could be considered the first mature philosophic representative of the twilight zone between the ancient political world and modern liberalism. Machiavelli attributed the decay of duty to fatherland to Christianity. By socializing men in faith in the higher fatherland of God’s Kingdom, his contemporaries betrayed the fatherlands of the Earth. Yet something changed that made Machiavelli’s advice something other than a return to ancient Roman ways. In Machiavelli one can discern a breakdown of a certain kind of altruism; a breakdown of a level of political duty that was taken for granted by the Romans. While Machiavelli criticized the Christian corruption of political duty, he himself exemplifies the consequences of the Christian corruption of kin selective altruism.

In a manuscript dating from 1786, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote:

It is axiomatic that Christianity, even the reformed kind, destroys the unity of the State: (1) because it is capable of weakening as well as of inspiring the trust which the people owe the representatives of the law; (2) because, such as it is constituted, Christianity contains a separate body which not only claims a share of the citizens’ loyalty but is able even to counteract the aims of the government. And, besides, is it not true that the body [the clergy] is independent of the State?… Its kingdom is not of this world. Consequently, it is never civic-minded.

Yet, in a letter to the bishop of Como in 1797, Napoleon also concluded that “[t]he morality of the Gospels is the morality of equality and, by that token, the morality best suited to the republican form of government.” On one hand, Christianity promotes a morality of equality. On the other hand, Christianity poses a permanent potential fifth column that is inherently enervating of political authority. Liberalism inherited both characteristics from the fifth column character of Christianity. (Islam, incidentally , is another variation on the Semitic way of empire that is currently exploiting the fifth column ground that Christianity prepared in Europe and is thus poised to take its place.)

Napoleon followed Rousseau in acknowledging the destructive power of modern liberal-individualism upon civic virtue. However, if the origins of modern democratic morality are Biblical, then why is it destructive of altruism? The answer is to be found in the neutralization of kin selective altruism achieved by the Christianization of pagan naturalism. Modern political equality is the cumulative neutralization of the extreme kin selective paradigm of Roman Empire. Neutralization of paganistic kin selective altruism was effected by the radical opposition party of the Christian Kingdom of God. Kinship bonds that classically culminate in the patriarchal duties of alpha altruism were neutralized by the omega altruism of Christianity and the net result is modern political equality.

The early Christians were considered antisocial. They would not make sacrifices to the Roman gods. The early Christians would not do their duty. Christianity proved a dangerously preemptive of Roman virtue because it formally addressed gentiles, not primarily as members of a group, but as individual souls.

Edward Gibbon concluded that Christianity’s valuation of private salvation over the public good contributed to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. This Christian inheritance is immediately recognizable in liberalism’s valuation of the private rights of individual as the foundation of politics. “Rights” counter duties and grant freedom from duties. Freedom has a tangible meaning only if one is as free to be wholly self-absorbed as to dedicate one’s life to others.

There is a common belief or misunderstanding that the opposite of Christian altruism is individual selfishness. This is incorrect. The diametrical opposite of Christian altruism is not individual selfishness. The opposite of Christian omega altruism is the kind of group selfishness represented by Roman alpha altruism.

After all, from the viewpoint of those conquered by Rome, what was the problem? Were the Romans too individualistic? Was that the problem? Was the problem that Romans were too likely to put their individual interests before the interests of the Roman state? No, the problem was exactly the opposite. The problem was that Romans were all too dutiful to their state. Roman virtue was what made Rome: a race of conquerors. The problem was Roman virtue itself.

Christian “virtue” was an attack on Roman virtue. The ultimate target of Christian omega altruism was not individual selfishness. Christian omega altruism targeted Roman alpha altruism. Christianity fought altruism with altruism, and the long-term result of this clash of virtues was the corruption of both forms of altruism and the rise of the middle ground of modern, Western, equal individualism.

Christianity led to capitalism by canceling out, neutralizing, and delegitimizing extreme expressions of kin selective altruism. As omega altruism broke kinship bonds down, the premise of the individual human soul began to build up. As the idea of altruism so radical that it transcended kinship became socially legitimated, the kinship social shackles encumbering individuals became illegitimated. By reversing the evolutionarily normative prioritization between kinship and altruism, Christianity corrupted the kinship foundations of altruism and stimulated the rise of capitalistic individualism.

Torn between the irreconcilable opposites of alpha altruism and omega altruism (that the Crusaders vainly attempted to unite), “the individual” became the logical social solution. In consequence, the West landed in the middle ground of the moral mediocrity of the middle class. The cumulative waste product of this process of secularization is commonly called liberalism. Alpha altruism and omega altruism cancelled one another out, and the cumulative result of this neutralization is political equality.

A classic verification of this theory can be found in a small-scale repetition of the very same process during the social revolutions of the late 1960s. Leftist social movements of that time reaffirmed the egalitarian aspirations of liberal revolution, launching attacks on the social remains of kin selective organizations and its classical, quasi-Roman, patriarchal, warmongering corollaries. The ultimate result of these social movements was another collapse of “we” into “me”. 1960s socialism collapsed into the greed of 1980s individualism. In terms of its underlying sociobiological basis, this baby boomer episode was only a repetition of the original collapse of Christianity into capitalism.

Heisman’s suicide note, 6

Darwin helped clarify the ethics underlying pagan worship of the warrior. The social Darwinian notion that death itself is a vehicle of goodness means the more death of the weak and the unfit, the more natural selection. The more natural selection, the more goodness and progress towards biological aristocracy. The natural justice of natural selection is progress through death. From this point of view, the soldier represents the human with the greatest virtue because the soldier is a killer.

This was the Nazi way of progress, the Nazi way of virtue.

From this point of view, it is easier to see what liberalism and traditional Judaism have in common. When liberals and traditional Jews give charity to help the poor, they are working against the natural justice of natural selection. Instead of leaving the poor to die in accordance with natural justice, they advocate a supernatural justice of preserving all life. While modern liberals and leftists tend to be more consistent than traditional Jews, both have taken the decisive step towards progress through life. [pages 153-154]
 
Success is Disaster

However, to follow this logic to its extreme, to consistently choose and value the weaker, is to value weakness itself. To overthrow the strong, in principle, ultimately leads one to overthrow what is strong within one’s self. In this way, radical moral integrity through rational moral self-consistency leads to rational self- destruction…

For the Zionist state to consistently empower the disempowered Palestinians at their own expense would be political suicide. Being Goliath is a problem when the moral of the story is that David ultimately wins.

The internationalism of Christianity laid the common ground for a world that has a place for the nationalism of the Jews. Just as Roman conquerors penetrated the territorial-sociobiological boundaries of the ancient Jewish state, the Jewish-based God memes of Christianity penetrated the ancient Roman world.

Christianity began a process of blunting and mollifying the deepest ethical-cultural gulfs between Jew and gentile. The penetration of Jewish genes into the modern gentile West is only a continuation of the anti-kin selective logic that began with Christianity. In other words, Jewish assimilation as individuals in the modernistic West is only a continuation of gentile assimilation to the sociobiological impact of Christianity. Both as individuals and as a Zionist state, Western assimilation of Jewish bodies was founded upon Western assimilation of a Jewish “spirit”. [pages 165-166]
 
The Elimination of Selection

People are material things, too, according to Darwin. To place the principle of equality at the top of a hierarchy of values is a formula for rational biological deconstruction.

The death march to the land of no egalitarian hypocrisy leads to a general trajectory of evolutionary “regression” because it leads to equality with the most simple and “primitive” evolutionary forms. It is almost like “descending” from Homo sapiens to apes, to primates, to mammals, to amniotes, to tetrapods, to vertebrates, to animals, to eukaryotes, etc., until we are lead to the very origins of life itself out of nonbiological, physical matter…

Modern equality began by dismissing the importance of biology. Ultimately, it leads to the removal of all biological factors from the equation of life until the achievement of death. [pages 184-186]

Equality would seem to implicate an ultimate trajectory of evolutionary “regression” because equal rights imply the beginning of the end of Darwinian selection. A genuine, progressive implementation of universal equal rights implies the artificial end of natural selection; the systematic unraveling of the mechanism that made the evolution of life possible in the first place. The principle of equality can thus be look at as the principle of the elimination of selection.

The opposite of the modern idea of individual rights is the right of the stronger. Individual rights tend to defend the weaker, while natural selection tends to eliminate the weaker. From some points of view, then, equal rights can be looked upon as the “progress” of genetic maladaptation.

Kin selection, for example, leads to discrimination against kinship outsiders and altruism towards kinship insiders. The moral logic of egalitarian universalism works in precisely the opposite direction, with moral preference given to outsiders over insiders. Western institutionalization of the elimination of discrimination ultimately means the systematic elimination of selection. Eliminating selection ultimately leads to internationalism and trans-species universalism. It also implies the elimination of the political as an active means of evolutionary, eugenic, biological self-control.

Insofar as Jews have contributed disproportionately to Western egalitarianism, and the end of discrimination on biological grounds, Jews have contributed to the elimination of biological selection…

Are Jews leading the entire human race towards an evolutionary dead end? Are Jews, for the sake of their own biological survival, leading the human race as a whole towards rational evolutionary self-destruction? [pages 189-190]

Heisman’s suicide note, 5

People of the Media

Jews prominent in the media industry tend to have a leftist bias that implies that race is not important. Goebbels and other Nazis that took direct control over Germany’s media propagated the message that race is more important than environmental conditioning. Yet if environmental conditioning were not important, then it would make no difference who controls the media or what its message is, since media memes would be powerless to overcome the power of the genes. After all, Jewish media influence provided empirical verification that control over the cultural environment can overpower the influence of genes…

The very obsession with Jewish media influence demonstrates that Nazis and other extreme racialists have somehow been the most radical believers in the power of media and memes to overpower the influence of genes…

The inordinate concentration of Jews in highly influential media positions does require an evolutionary explanation. Jews may have an inclination to control human behavior with words and other media forms because Jews owe their very existence to their ancestor’s ability to control Jewish behavior with the media technology commonly known as the Bible. Modern Jewish media control is only an extension of ancient Jewish media self-control. Jews may have a genetic ability to influence human behavior with “nurture” because first, foremost, and fundamentally, Judaism was founded through the nurturist ability to overpower their own genetically maladaptive tendencies. Jews exist because they embody this paradox of a genetic inclination to correct genetic inclination with “nurture”, i.e. the laws of Moses.

Consider the significance of Deuteronomy 20:17-18, a passage now considered one of the most morally problematic sections of the Bible for its sanction of genocide. Even this action was justified on the basis of corrupting cultural behaviors: “…you shall utterly destroy them…so that they will not teach you to act according to all their abominations that they performed for their gods, so that you will sin to Hashem, your God.” Genocide was justified with memocide.

While the Jewish religion began with the correction of Jewish behavior, its ultimate implication is social change; the correction of the entire world. While it is not conventional to describe “social engineering” as a form of technology, it is really the most powerful way in which non-biological evolution has mastered biological evolution. [pages 140-144]

Heisman’s suicide note, 4

Editor’s note: To better understand Mitchell Heisman✡ yesterday I printed the first five hundred pages of Suicide Note, and I have been reading it carefully. Although he shot himself after finishing his book, committing suicide does not mean he was aware of the Jewish Problem.

Suicide Note is a labyrinth full of traps for the unsuspecting reader. Even before I printed the first 500 pages, I told Spahn Ranch that getting into that book reminded me of Bacon’s criticism:

Francis Bacon said that philosophers love to spin webs. You can imagine the care one must have with this large web [Heisman’s book]. I feel like Frodo crossing Shelob’s tunnel with no more help than the Phial of Galadriel!

But this light is enough for me to orient myself in such a tunnel. In fact, in about fifteen minutes you will see, as my first entry about this new Otto Weininger, my excerpts from his extremely long-winded book. [comment link: here]

More than long-winded, Heisman reminds me of ‘Sartre’s verbosity diarrhea’: what an American visitor observed when visiting Sartre in Paris. Just compare this with the laconic way in which the Spartan spake (see the series on Sparta that these days publishes The Occidental Observer, for example: here).

Although I’m not going to read all of Heisman’s Suicide Note, in the comments section I also told Joseph Walsh the following:

If I understand the kike correctly, he’s saying that through Xtianity the Jewish memes have won the battle over Aryan genes; and that the creation of ‘God’ thru A.I. will even take that victory further, obliterating race altogether and even the human species. [comment link: here]

The triumph of the Aryan would be the triumph of white genes over Jewish memes. Recall in Evropa Soberana’s essay that, when the Jews realised that they could not defeat the Romans through conventional wars—genes—they resorted to the subterfuge of confusing them by means of an ethnosuicidal theology—memes. Heisman✡ is good to see this theology. He wrote:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Jesus radicalized a form of altruism. But here one must be very careful about precisely what kind of altruism Jesus radicalized. At first glance, it would appear that Jesus radicalized “love your neighbor”. Jesus did praise loving your neighbor, but “neighbor” can be ambiguous; somewhere between family and enemy. Insofar as “loving your neighbor”, in practical terms, amounts to loving your kin or your tribe (as opposed to enemies of your kin or tribe), radicalizing the love of kin or tribe would amount to advocating radical Jewish nationalism. Was this Jesus’s defining innovation, a morality of exclusive Jewish nationalism?

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matt. 5:43- 44)

Jesus’s reversal implied not only loving your enemies, but hating your neighbor—insofar, that is, as “neighbor” is connected with family in opposition to enemy. Jesus did not radicalize the corrective of the Jewish kinship paradox; Jesus radicalized the Jewish kinship paradox itself. This is one reason why Jesus’s innovations contradicted Jewish law at its traditional root. Instead of preaching “love thy neighbor” as a correction of “causeless hatred”, Jesus radicalized causeless hatred itself: 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. (Matt. 10:21-23)

In place of the Old Testament commandment, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart”, Jesus preached, in effect, you shall hate your brother in your heart. This necessarily broke Jewish law. And this is why the kind of “love” Jesus advocated worked against Jewish “nationalism” and towards human internationalism. This extreme compelled the genesis of Christianity out of Judaim. Unqualified radical altruism leads to the negation of family values…

The core innovation at the heart of the Five Books of Moses is the Exodus paradigm; the inversion of the Egyptian pyramid-hierarchy; the first revolution. From Judaism to Christianity to the neo-Judaism of liberal democracy to neo-Christianity of Marxism, all of these revolutions share in common the fire started by Moses: the decisive triumph of nurture over sociobiological nature. Like waves that ripple from a singular stone plunged in water, all share reverberations of the first revolution. Like a miracle, the ripples are gathering back to their singularitarian source, humanity’s last revolution. [pages 126-128]

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note:

‘And this is why the kind of “love” Jesus advocated worked against Jewish “nationalism” and towards human internationalism’ wrote Heisman✡ above. This is one of the dozens of traps I have found in Heisman’s book. What this guy astutely omits is that Jesus’ message is not really directed at the already ethnocentric Jews but at Romans.

At this point I differ radically from both commenter Arch Stanton and Heisman✡. The trick of the Jewish psyop is to make us believe that a wise individual said such and such, that eventually the evangelists recorded and now good Christians try to use as a new golden rule.

There is no historical evidence of this, as Joseph Hoffmann saw in the primal essay of this site to understand the so-called historical Jesus. What can be verified with certainty is that the authors of the New Testament were either Jews or Judaised gentiles. That is what concerns us.

The trap of Heisman✡ and of every Christian or neo-Christian is that they continue to sell us the idea of a historical Jesus who fought for such and such ideal, when ultimately the only thing that matters is the so-called New Testament itself: its message to the Romans; who wrote it, and the motivation of the authors.

When one reads the passages quoted above by Heisman✡ the motivation is obvious.

____________

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Heisman’s suicide note, 3

Rupture: How Christ hijacked
the moral compass of the West

The English word “virtue” is derived from the Roman word virtus, meaning manliness or strength. Virtus derived from vir, meaning “man”. Virilis, an ancestor of the English word “virile”, is also derived from the Roman word for man.

From this Roman conception of virtue, was Jesus less than a man or more than a man? Did the spectacle of Jesus dying on a Roman cross exemplify virtus; manliness; strength; masterliness; forcefulness? Consistent with his valuation of turning the cheek, it would seem that Jesus exemplified utterly shamelessness and a total lack of the manly honor of the Romans.

Yet the fame of his humiliation on the cross did, in a sense, exemplify a perverse variety of virtus, for Jesus’s feminine, compassionate ethics have mastered and conquered the old pagan virtues of the gentiles. Jesus’s spiritual penis has penetrated, disseminated, and impregnated the West with his “virtuous” seed. And it is from that seed that “modernity” has sprouted.

Jesus combined the highest Roman virtue of dying honorably in battle with highest Jewish virtue of martyrdom and strength in persecution. This combination formed a psychic bridge between pagan and Jew, i.e. between ideal cruelty in war and ideal compassion in peace. This is one way in which Christianity became the evolutionary missing link between the more masculine ethos of the ancient pagan West and the more feminine ethos of the modern West.

The original Enlightenment notion of revolution reflects a quasi-creationist view of change that makes the sudden rupture between the moral assumptions of the ancient and modern world almost inexplicable. However, if we take a more gradualistic view of social change wherein modern egalitarianism evolved from what preceded it, then the origins of modern political assumptions become more explicable. The final moral-political rupture from the ancients became possible, in part, because Christianity acted as an incubator of modern values.

Christian notions of “virtue” were not an outright challenge to pagan Roman virtue by accident; these values were incompatible by design. To even use the Roman term “virtue” to describe Christian morality is an assertion of its victory over Rome. The success of the Christian perversion of the manliness of Roman “virtue” is exemplified by its redefinition as the chastity of a woman.

A general difference between ancient Greco-Roman virtue and modern virtue can be glimpsed through the ancient sculpture, the Dying Gaul. The sculpture portrays a wounded “barbarian”. Whereas moderns would tend to imitate Christ in feeling compassion for the defeated man, its original pagan cultural context suggests a different interpretation: the cruel defeat and conquest of the barbarian as the true, the good, and the beautiful.

The circumstances of the sculpture’s origins confirm the correctness of this interpretation. The Dying Gaul was commissioned by Attalus I of Pergamon in the third century AD to celebrate his triumph over the Celtic Galatians of Anatolia. Attalus was a Greek ally of Rome and the sculpture was only one part of a triumphal monument built at Pergamon. These aristocratic trophies were a glorification of the famous Greco-Roman ability to make their enemies die on the battlefield.

A Christian is supposed to view Christ on the cross as an individual being, rather than as a powerless peasant of the despised Jewish people. If one has faith in Jesus, then one “knows” that to interpret Jesus as the member of a racial-religious group is wrong and we “know” that this interpretation is wrong. How do we “know” this? Because we have inherited the Christianity victory over Rome in that ancient war for interpretation.

Liberalism continues the Christian paradigm by interpreting Homo sapiens as individuals, rather than members of groups such as racial groups. If it is wrong to assume Jesus can be understood on the basis of group membership, then the evolutionary connection between Christianity and modern liberalism becomes clearer. Jesus was a paradigmatic individual exception to group rules, and his example, universalized, profoundly influenced modern liberal emphasis on individual worth in contradistinction to assumptions of group membership.

Love killed honor. The values of honor and shame are appropriate for group moralities where the group is valued over “the individual”. Crucially, such a morality is inconceivable without a sense of group identity. Jesus’s morality became liberated from a specifically Jewish group identity. Once it dominated gentile morality, it also eroded kin and ethnic identity. The Christian war against honor moralities became so successful and traditional [that] its premodern origins were nearly forgotten along with the native pagan moralities it conquered.

Jesus’s values implicated the end of the hereditary world by living the logical consequences of denying the importance of his hereditary origins. This is a central premise underlying the entire modern rupture with the ancient world: breaking the import of hereditary origins in favor of individual valuations of humans. In escaping the consequences of a birth that, in his world, was the most ignoble possible, Jesus initiated the gentile West’s rupture with the ancient world.

The rupture between the ancient and the modern is the rupture between the rule of genes and the rule of memes. The difference between ancient and modern is the difference between the moral worlds of Homer and the Bible. It is the difference between Ulysses and Leopold Bloom.

On Nero’s persecution of the Christians, Tacitus wrote, “even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.” The modern morality of compassion begins with Christianity’s moral attack on the unholy Roman Empire. Christianity demoralized the pagan virtues that upheld crucifixion as a reasonable policy for upholding the public good.

If, as Carl Schmitt concluded, the political can be defined with the distinction between friend and enemy, then Jesus’s innovation was to define the political as enemy by loving the enemy, and thus destroying the basis of the distinctly political. The anarchy of love that Christianity spread was designed to make the Roman Empire impossible. The empire of love that Paul spread was subversive by design. It was as subversive as preaching hatred of the patriarchal family that was a miniature model for worldly empire.

Crossan and Reed found that those letters of Paul that are judged historically inauthentic are also the ones that carry the most inegalitarian message. It appears that their purpose was to “insist that Christian families were not at all socially subversive.” These texts “represent a first step in collating Christian and Roman household ethics.” For these historians the issue is “whether that pseudo-Pauline history and theology is in valid continuity with Paul himself or is, as we will argue, an attempt to sanitize a social subversive, to domesticate a dissident apostle, and to make Christianity and Rome safe for one another.”

What could be more ridiculous that the idea that Jesus’s attack on Roman values would not need some “modification” before making themselves at home in Rome? Jesus and Paul were heretics of mainstream or Pharisaic Judaism and rebels against Rome. Since the purity and integrity of the internal logic of Christianity is hostile to purely kin selective values, there is no way whatsoever that Christianity could survive as a mass religion without corrupting Jesus’s pure attitude towards the family. Jesus’s values subvert the kin selective basis of family values.

That subversion was part of the mechanism that swept Christianity into power over the old paganism, but it was impossible that Christianity maintain its hold without a thorough corruption of Jesus’s scandalous attacks on the family. If not this way, then another, but the long-term practical survival of Christianity required some serious spin doctoring against the notion that Jesus’s teachings are a menace to society.

These, then, are the two options: the pure ethics of Jesus must be perverted or obscured as models for the majority of people or Christianity will be considered a menace to society. The very fact that Christianity did succeed in achieving official “legitimacy” means its original subversive message was necessarily subverted. State-sanctioned Christianity is really a joke played upon on a dead man who never resurrected to speak on his own behalf.

Official Christianity was making Jesus safe for aristocracy; falsifying Jesus; subverting Jesus. Rome subverted his subversion. Jesus attempted to subvert them—and they subverted him. (Bastards!) Yet without this partial subversion of subversion, Christianity would never have taken the deep, mass hold that is its foundational strength.

This insight, that pure Christianity must be perverted in all societies that wish to preserve their kin selective family values, is a key to understanding the process of secularization. Secularization is, in part, the unsubverting of the evidence for Jesus’s original social program from its compromised reconciliation with Rome. The first truly major step towards unsubverting Rome’s subversion of Jesus’s message was the Protestant Reformation.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy contains elements of a last stand of the old Roman pagan virtue, a reminder that it had and has not been subdued completely. The Reformation begun by Martin Luther was directed, in part, against this last stand. While Luther partially continued the containment of Jesus by checking the advance of the idea that heaven should be sought on earth, this German also continued the work of the Jewish radical he worshiped in attacking the hierarchy of Rome.

Secularization is the unsubverting of Jesus’s message subverted by Christian practice. Modern liberal moral superiority over actual Christians is produced by unsubverting the subversion of Jesus’s message subverted by institutional Christianity. There is an interior logic to Jesus’s vision based on consistency or lack of hypocrisy. Liberal arguments only draw this out from its compromises with the actual social world. In this role, Protestantism was especially influential in emphasizing individual conscience over kinship-biological imperatives based on the model of the family.

The average secular liberal rejects Biblical stories as mythology without rejecting the compassion-oriented moral inheritance of the Bible as mythology. That people, still, after Nietzsche, tout these old, juvenile enlightenment critiques of Christianity would seem to be another refutation of the belief that a free and liberal society will inevitably lead to a progress in knowledge. The primitive enlightenment critique of Christianity as a superstition used as a form of social control usually fails to account that its “social control” originated as a weapon that helped to bring down the Goliath of Rome.

Still, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, this old enlightenment era castigation of Christianity for not being Christian endures without realization that this is actually the main technical mechanism of the secularization of Christian values. When one asks, what is secularization?, the attempt to criticize Christianity for its role in “oppression”, war, or other “immoral” behaviors stands at the forefront. Liberal moral superiority over actual Christians commonly stems from contrasting Christian ideals and Christian practice. This is what gives leftism in general and liberalism in particular its moral outrage.

Secularization arises as people make sense of Christian ideals in the face of its practice and even speculate as to how it might work in the real world. Enlightenment arguments for the rationalization of ethics occurred in the context of a Christian society in which the dormant premises of the Christian creed were subjected to rational scrutiny. To secularize Christianity is to follow Jesus in accusing God’s faithful believers of a nasty hypocrisy:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. (Matt. 23:27-28)

To charge Christians with hypocrisy is to relish in the irony of Jesus’s biting charges of hypocrisy against the Pharisees. Jesus’s attempt to transcend the hypocrisies inherent in Mosaic law’s emphasis on outer behavior was one germinating mechanism that produced Christianity out of Judaism. The same general pattern generated modern liberalism out of Christianity. Just as Jesus criticized the Pharisees for worshipping the formal law rather than the spirit of the law, modern liberals criticize Christians for following religious formalities rather than the spirit of compassionate, liberal egalitarianism. It was precisely Christianity’s emphasis on the spirit that helps explain how the spirit of liberal compassion evolved out of the spirit of Christianity even if the letters of the laws are different.

To recognize hypocrisy is to recognize a contradiction between theory and action. The modern ideology of rights evolved, in part, through a critique of the contradictions of Christian theology and political action. Modern ideology evolved from Christian theology. Christian faith invented Christian hypocrites, and modern political secularism seized upon these contradictions that the Christian hypocrisy industry created. Resolving these moral contradictions through argument with Christians and political authorities is what led to the idea of a single, consistent standard for all human beings: political equality. The rational basis of the secularization process is this movement towards consistency of principle against self-contradiction (hypocrisy).

Modern ideas of political rights emerged out of a dialogue; a discourse; a dialectic in which Christianity framed the arguments of secularists, defining the domain upon which one could claim the moral high ground. The “arguments” of Christian theology circumscribed the moral parameters of acceptable public discourse, and hence, the nature of the counterarguments of “secular” ideology. Secular morality evolved by arguing rationally against the frame of reference provided by the old Christian Trojan Horse and this inevitably shaped the nature of the counter-arguments that followed. Christianity helped define the basic issues of secular humanism by accepting a belief in the moral worth of the meek of the world.

The Roman who conquered Jesus’s Jewish homeland could feel, in perfect conscience, that their conquest should confirm their greatness, not their guilt. Roman religion itself glorified Mars, the god of war. Pagan Roman religion did not automatically contradict the martial spirit—it helped confirm the martial spirit.

Chivalry, the code of honor that tempered and softened the warrior ethos of Christian Europe, is the evolutionary link between pagan virtue and modern virtue. Yet the imperial vigor of the Christian West was made, not by Christian religiosity, but by Christian hypocrisy. Christianity planted in its carriers a pregnant contradiction between Christian slave morality and Christian reality that was just waiting for the exposé of the “age of reason”. Christianity made the old European aristocracies “unjust” by dissolving the prehistoric and pagan assumptions of its existence.

Jesus himself contrasted his teachings with the ways of pagans:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 24:25-28)

To reverse the high political development of kin selection represented by Rome leads towards sociobiological primitivity; to an immature stage where human ontology is closest to a more primitive phylogeny; when humans are closest to our common evolutionary ancestors; when humans are biologically most equal to one another since genes and environment have not yet exacerbated differences.

Christianity reached a state of fruition called “modernity” when a kind of justice was reaped for the ancestral betrayal of a Christian’s pagan forefathers. The pagan values that genuinely supported an ancestral chain of sacrifice for their kin kind and the patriarchal kingdoms of this world were betrayed.

A war of generations broke Christianity from Judaism, and left wing humanism from Christianity. These are only peak points that matured from the gradual kneading of cultural dough; from change guided by visions of the moral high grounds in heaven or on earth. Out of a conflict between generations that Christianity helped leaven, the modern social idea of progress rose.