I. The Case For Reforming Christianity

- On Christian Morality

I realize that I may have put the cart before the horse when I launched this section of the blog. After all, I assumed that most people understood that many problems have plagued our adopted religion since its inception and adoption. And that even more problems plague it now as it finds itself on the brink of total abandonment by our people.

But I was wrong.

For the faithful, there is no reason to fix what isn’t broken and what was always perfect. Every point I plan to bring up in this series of essays will simply be taken as a personal challenge by them to believe harder, cope stronger and seethe longer in the comments section. After all, faith must trample all logic and reason and common sense underfoot and faith also looks for fresh new challenges to test itself against. Also, even though I take joy in the thought that this essay series will cause much gnashing of teeth and impotent howling at the computer screen from the faithful, that is not actually my primary intention in writing it.

As the title suggests, I think that Christianity is salvageable.

And I have always had the mindset of a reformer not a revolutionary.

I also understand the mentality of the typical faith-based sheep-man very well, and I believe that they are simply part of perennial phenomenon wholly unrelated to Christianity, but to personality type and maybe even soul nature. As I have written before, I believe that most of the people around us are sheep who are easily manipulated and unable to fend for themselves. These types also do not even see this trait as being a bad thing at all. Christians, in particular, pride themselves on being docile and obedient sheep who humbly submit themselves to the holy 5D plans of Jewish prophets, Christian pastors, Qanon posters or Judomaster Putin now, I suppose. Seeing as this is a perennial quality, there is no real point in me getting mad at Christians or normies or the other herd animals.

Why get mad at that which is eternal and unchangeable?

Besides, once the thinking ones and the ones with power decide on a course of action, the sheep will follow them. The key is to convince the thinking ones and then to take power if at all possible. The rest will fall into place naturally.

Finally, let me just say that this essay series isn’t a comprehensive one by any means. Each point that I will bring up merits several spinoff essays on its own. But it’s a good place to start our discussion and I will try to be as brief and concise as possible when making my points. I welcome those of you who haven’t outsourced critical thinking to either religious officials, state officials or state scientists to give it a read and see if what I have to say doesn’t bring any clarity to the centuries-old Christianity controversy.

On Christian Morality

One of the most common critiques of Christianity that you hear coming from the right is the criticism of the Christian system of ethics and morals. This is most famously and succinctly encapsulated by Nietzsche’s whole Slave/Master morality dichotomy. Despite being a brilliant writer, a genius in his own right and a Slav to boot, I don’t find Nietzsche’s arguments on the issue particularly profound. But, since they are so commonly heard, they are worth addressing here. Bear in mind, that of all the arguments leveled against Christianity, I find this one to be the weakest.

In short, Nietzsche believed that Christianity preached weakness to the people under its sway instead of preaching strength. Nietzsche believed that strength as he interpreted it was the cardinal virtue around which we ought to orient our morality. He called for the adoption of a new moral code.

People have pointed out before that my ideas and what Nietzsche said sound quite similar. Some have even accused Nietzsche of stealing some of my ideas. All I can say is that I wouldn’t put it past him.

But I would also add that there are actually many differences in our thinking and that the most relevant one lies in our definition of what strength actually is.

Nietzsche admired the sheer ruthlessness of the Jews and approved of the Old Testament on the grounds that it was a pure expression of his preferred “Will to Power” mindset. He felt the same way about the Koran too, by the way. After all, both holy texts are about Semite tribes ruthlessly tricking, fleecing, enslaving and exterminating their enemies in the name of a capricious desert god. This is all presented as being moral and Jews and Muslims are exhorted to follow the example set for them in these holy books.

Christianity, in stark contrast, preaches a radically different morality. The moral code presented in the New Testament and the Old Testament or the Koran could not be more different. So, Nietzsche’s criticism and the criticism that is mirrored by many right-wingers now is that we Christians got the short end of the stick when we adopted the worst and the weakest of the 3 desert cults as our religion.

Me, I don’t think I can agree with the thesis that Christianity is too meek and mild-mannered by its very nature. History seems to indicate that the opposite is true.

Consider: back when they could get away with it, the Catholic Church was run by ruthless Popes that shamelessly murdered their rivals, fomented civil wars and invasions and engineered clever extortion rackets. Europe was constantly convulsed by the nonstop bloodbaths that the Church eagerly bathed itself in. They first unleashed an anti-kulak campaign against the traditional “heathen” countryside. Then they started fratricidal wars against the so-called “pagan” peoples of northern Europe. All the while, they hunted down and exterminated “heretics” with much vigor and zeal.

This was all pure “Will to Power” manifest, plain and simple.

If anything, what ended up happening is that the Church overplayed its hand and local European resistance to the rapacity of the Papal States finally put an end to their more overt imperial ambitions and a loss of moral authority by the conclusion of the Religious Wars. Cowed by resistance from the nobles of Europe who had finally had enough of Rome’s schemes, the Church pragmatically adopted a more pacifist tone as the losses on the battlefield and political arena began to pile up.

But, again, as is easily demonstrated by history, when it was expedient for them to do so, the Church demonstrated that it could selectively set aside the New Testament and slip into Old Testament mode to justify sending war expeditions against southern France, Palestine, Anatolia, Greece, the Baltics, the Balkans, Russia, North Africa, etc.

Christians also ran multiple colonial empires. Christians went out and conquered entire continents to add to the Church’s global empire. Christians had no qualms participating in and profiting from the Jewish-run slave trade for centuries either.

Is this not “Will to Power” manifest?

..

Now, Nietzsche was a bit of a libertine and objected to the moralizing coming from the church when it came to lifestyle decisions. Here, again, I can see what he is getting at, but I also think that Nietzsche, again, succeeds in making the Church look better and more appealing that it is so that he can better argue his points. He presents the Christian authorities as stiff, fun-denying prudes.

But Catholic priests literally castrated choir boys and diddled them for fun right up into the 20th century. They held orgies in the Vatican like the infamous Banquet of the Chestnuts. If there was any difference between the Vatican and the wicked Sultans of the Ottoman Empire or even the cackling arch-villains of a standard Forgotten Realms fantasy novel, I don’t see it, really. I suppose the Church was a bit more strict when it came to sex with women, but, even so, it is actually the very premise of Nietzsche’s argument that strikes me as being completely and totally wrong.

Sure, it’s annoying to have sanctimonious Bible-thumping hypocrites moralizing at you until they are blue in the face. But it doesn’t follow from that that vice isn’t a very real problem that shouldn’t be taken seriously by individuals and society.

Here, again, Nietzsche’s understanding of strength and mine differ.

For example, he was a druggie who loved to experiment and get high on various hallucinogens and painkillers. He was described as being an antisocial sperg who didn’t even believe in friendship for friendship’s sake. In contrast, my definition of strength is built on the concept of service to others, mutual cooperation and the never-ending struggle against vice on the part of individuals and the groups they belong to. I think that someone who follows my vision of strength will end up becoming stronger than someone who subscribes to Nietzsche’s Libertine one.

That, for me, is conclusive proof of the superiority of my model, by the way.

If anything, Church rules governing general standards of morality and the doctrine of the Seven Deadly Sins is probably the most redeeming feature of Christianity and the one that is most sorely missing in our sick society. The fact that the religious authorities tolerated quite a bit of deviancy within their own ranks makes them hypocrites, yes. But it doesn’t follow that vice is as fake as the flying spaghetti monster because of that. All that bad behavior on the part of priests proves is that vice is extremely pernicious and that bible-thumping isn’t an effective strategy for keeping it at arm’s length.

Furthermore, the Christian moral authorities’ demonstrated ability to more-or-less keep standards of behavior in the public up through their preaching is actually the main appeal of the religion.

In fact, this is Christianity’s key selling point.

The moralizing that some intellectuals once found so hypocritical and distasteful is what is causing a renewed interest in Christianity now.

Furthermore, for most people, religion will never be anything more than a moral code. Whether or not they believe that they will got to hell for breaking the moral code or whether they take the agnostic route but acquiesce to the moral code because they see it as beneficial for the greater good, the vast, vast, vast majority of people will never even consider the possibility that there is more to religion, to philosophy, to metaphysics, to politics than just a simple morality narrative.

That is also why many people abandoned the Catholic Church in disgust over its many sexual abuse scandals.

Consider: a priest diddling a boy doesn’t have any relation to the metaphysical truths that the Church espouses and the salvation of the soul that they promise. In theory, Christians are Christians because of their faith in the metaphysical model of Christianity. But, in practice, Christians are Christians because they support a conservative moral code of behavior and want it enforced in society. And, if these Christians feel that the moral code is being violated by its preachers, they will, in many cases, simply give up religion entirely in disgust. That is why, in Russia, atheists will routinely point out that Orthodox priests all drive BMWs and Mercedes with money that they acquired by fleecing their congregations. While this is certainly true and the Orthodox Church is certainly run like a corrupt mafia, this is clearly not a sound argument against the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus Christ. Not to get too technical on you guys here, but this is what is usually referred to as a “category error” in thinking.

And yet, these kind of attacks on Christianity seem to work exceedingly well.

Why? Again, because most Christians literally have no idea what metaphysics are, what they are even supposed to believe about the higher realms, or what theological proofs underpin their belief system. If they were given a test, they’d fail. So they better hope that Peter won’t notice them sneaking peaks at their cheat sheet outside the pearly gates of heaven when they die.

And it’s not just Christians who are clueless about their own supposedly deeply-held belief system. Most SJWs don’t know the full list of gender pronouns or who occupies the seat of distinction as being the most oppressed social category in society at any given moment. Still, they remain SJW because they like the moral code of SJWism - or the total lack thereof.

So, if we take religion to be just an agreed upon code of morals, which it is for most people, then there simply isn’t enough of a case to be made against Christianity. The general moral code of Christianity isn’t incompatible with strength. If anything, Libertinism is the enemy of strength, not Christian moderation.

On a larger, societal or civilizational scale, there are problems yes, but these are not problems inherent to Christianity and it’s supposed moral code preaching weakness and turning the other cheek or something like that.

As things stand now, sure, the religious authorities are selectively using the New Testament to pacify and placate their sheep while they are getting ethnically replaced, economically looted, and politically disenfranchised. This is indisputable. Organized Christianity is working hand-in-hand with our oppressors and has been for a long, long time.

But is this proof that Christianity adheres to a weak and ineffective moral code that does not allow Christianity to defends itself for fear of violating it?

Well, again, no, that cannot be the case. History disproves this thesis.

If they wanted to, Christianity’s religious authorities could flip the switch and go full Old Testament mode again.

That’s what they did with Iraq, remember?

Christians all of a sudden forgot all about turning the other cheek and cheered while millions of Iraqis were incinerated by American bombs. Christians, so long as they are switched into Old Testament mode and so long as they are role-playing as the Israelites, are capable of the same levels of ultra-violence as any other religious group.

So, the idea that Christianity doesn’t have a hard edge to it is just wrong.

If the religious authorities wanted to, they could unleash the faithful on the oligarchs, the migrants - whoever, really. All the arguments and precedents in Christianity are there. A people’s pogrom is fully compatible with Christianity’s code of morality. You can’t even rule genocide out because that’s 100% kosher too.

No, the problem is that the religious authorities have always been able to decide how to selectively interpret their own religious scriptures to advance their agenda. Furthermore, the sheep will go along with literally anything. The problem then, is one of cadres and not Slave/Master morality really or the result of a poorly constructed moral code.

**

Conclusion: When it comes to reforming Christianity, the moral system can be left untouched and edgelords like Nietzsche safely ignored.

The real problems with Christianity lie not with its moral code, but with its incoherent metaphysics and the Jewish supremacist metanarrative that it presents to the world. Also, there are problems with the validity of specific historical claims, the Church’s legacy of pious forgery and fraud and the warped geopolitical imperatives that Christians have been bamboozled into supporting. Also, Christianity stands condemned of waging a war against mysticism and actual spiritual discipline i.e., experiential religion and paving the road for secularism, materialism and eventually atheism.

Most people do not care about and literally do not have enough brain cells bouncing around in their heads to wrap their hands around any of the points that I listed above and which I plan to expound on in this series of essays. They wouldn’t even notice any changes or reforms to these points should they be made. My proposed reforms are designed to stimulate conversation with a very small and specific group of people. Smart people, basically. Smart people who have been chased out of Christianity.

But for the masses of faithful sheep, so long as the moral code of Christianity is kept intact or possibly even strengthened, they will be happy to keep grazing and continue to outsource their spirituality to the shepherds at the top of the religious hierarchy as they have always done and as they will always do.

So we should ignore them and carry on the discussion together as if they don’t exist, assured of the fact that they will come around should the proper conditions be met.