I came for more of your excellent Marcionite meditations, and got this as a bonus.
The appeal of Nietzsche to the "right" -- from Mencken to Spencer and BAP -- has always puzzled me, for your reasons and others. He's pro-Jewish and anti-nationalist, specifically -- and sneeringly -- anti-German nationalism. So, of course, he would appeal to neo-nazi antisemites. Goyishe kop!
Hitler himself, of course, preferred Schopenhauer, whose books he carried in his knapsack during WWI. "I can do nothing with Nietzsche" he said to Leni Riefenstahl. But the myth is too useful for the Left and Right to die.
I think it's a combination of "owning the Left" (who have canonized N. as the patron saint of postmodernism), personal hubris (Spencer and BAP as crap supermen), and jackboot sniffing fetishism (costume Nazis). It's sort of like when the Right welcomed the Jewish Trotskyite intellectuals, because they were "anti-communists (actually, they just hated Stalin) and were so "schmart" they would add badly needed intellectual weight and respectability; as a result, they took over and turned the Right into Israel-first "neo" conservatism.
Nietzsche loved Jews, hated Germans, taught that "there is no truth" and, consequently, all that matters is the "health" of imposing your will on others. That's why he's lionized by the PC Left.
Admittedly, he didn't produce unreadable gibberish like the Left, but apart from being stylish there's really nothing there philosophically. He was an incel with the emotional stability of a 13 year old girl, and when he wasn't getting enough praise himself, as their disciple, he decided Schopenhauer and Wagner were big stupid heads and sucked, and the "truth" was exactly the opposite: instead of compassion, ruthlessness; instead of denial of the will, the Will to Power; oh, and Bizet's Carmen is better than Wagner's Ring. He did keep some ideas: both the Superman and the Eternal Return are plagiarized straight from Schopenhauer, just distorted or misunderstood. In short, there's nothing there.
The truth lies more on the side of Schopenhauer, both in metaphysics and morality. Even if you think something is wrong, "turning it upside down" is never productive. Marx said he did that with Hegel, which just turned metaphysical gibberish into economic gibberish.
Nietzsche's popularity on the academic Left is a sign of their intellectual vacuity and lust for violence. On the Right, it may be a case of, as Nietzsche said, when you gaze into the abyss (obsess about the Left) the abyss gazes back (you acquire their worst traits).
All you have is a Jew giving a speech in the 1930s behind your theory. You accept it so willingly because you want to defend the Jews of the Old Testament by saying that they are different from the ones of today.
Also, that's not really a better explanation, and yes: Ashkenazim are not of the tribe of Shem, they are of Indo-Turkic origin, and converted. This isn't really in dispute. OT Jews don't really require defending.
Given the vaccination rate in Israel the KM theory only looks better, absent a world war, chaos is needed to cover their escape.
Yes it is. The DNA says that they're Italian and Middle-Eastern. But I repeat myself.
No such thing as Turkish DNA anyways so idk what you're on about. But I see right through Torah apologists and this is their favorite go-to cope theory.
For a treatise on religion's role determining the courage of a nation there is oddly none better than one written by a British war correspondent covering Britain's subjugation and colonization of Burma in 1902, at the turn of the last century: H. Fielding-Hall's "The Soul of a People," London: Macmillan, 1909. It's an obscure, rare book - permit me to quote a few relevant paras:
"I think it is evident" Hall wrote, "that there is no quality upon which the success of a nation so much depends as upon its courage. No nation can rise to a high place without being brave; it cannot maintain its independence even; it cannot push forward upon any path of life without courage. Nations that are cowards must fail.
"I am aware that the courage of a nation depends, as do its other qualities, upon many things; its situation with regard to other nations, its climate, its occupations. I wish to take all such things as I find them, and to discuss only the effect of religion upon the courage of the Burman people, upon [their] fighting capabilities. That religion may have a very serious effect one way or the other, no one can doubt.
"We know what religion can do. We have seen how it can preach war and resistance and can organize that war and resistance. We know what 10,000 priests preaching in 10,000 hamlets can effect in making a people almost unconquerable, in directing their armies, in strengthening their determination. We know what Christianity has done again and again; what Judaism, what Mohammedanism, what many kinds of paganism, have done. And yet, for all the assistance [Buddhism] was to [Burma] in this war, the Burmese might well have had no faith at all.
"Truly, this is not a creed for a soldier, for a fighting-man of any kind. The Burmans have never made a cult out of bravery; it has never been a necessity to them; it has never occurred to them that [courage] is the prime virtue of a man. You will hear them confess in the calmest way, `I was afraid.' We would not do that; we should be much more afraid to say it. And the teaching of Buddhism is all in favor of this. Nowhere is courage--I mean aggressive courage--praised. Therefore the inherent courage of the Burmans could have no assistance from their faith in any way, but the very contrary: it fought against them.
"If such be the faith of a people, and if they believe their faith, it is a terrible handicap to them in any fight: it delivers them bound into the hands of the enemy."
I submit all the above as an aside, given your interest in the dynamics of power, and your modest desire to reform Christianity,
Great essay. Looking forward to more on this topic. I'm sure many will try to engage in historical and theological debates, but it appears that the intention of the series is to not get bogged down in that manner. I applaud your approach and downloaded Substack Reader expressly to follow.
This one I need to think about for a while (I sometimes wonder if it might be a good idea to disable comments for 48-72 hours after a post?) - but as to "castrated choir boys" - you know, don't you? - that that was done so their voices would not change - and they became male sopranos as adults - the combination of a large male chest cavity and a high pitched voice produced singers with remarkably powerful, agile soprano voices the likes of which we can barely imagine; the most famous singers of the 18C were "castratos" and some became hugely wealthy after opera stage careers in London and Italian cities. The original motivation was to avoid having females sing soprano parts in church music. In all - the "didling" issue is entirely distinct; the practice was discontinued before the mid-19C - and by the mid 18C it was widely considered to be abhorrent (see e.g. contemporary comment by Charles Burney). Still, I would say it did produce humans with remarkable abilities to create beautiful sounds - and as such is much less abhorrent than contemporary child mutilation practices done in pursuit of a demented, evil gender theory.
I'm not really sure about this take on Nietzsche. He wasn't much of a libertine - to the contrary, he was extremely abstemious in diet, avoiding alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine, and very particular and careful about what he ate to the point of obsession - he wrote about that extensively, suggesting that much bad philosophy was just indigestion. Despite having been cursed with a weak constitution, he overcame this with a program of rigorous exercise, building an impressive physique; his idea of a good time was going for a hike for several hours in the Italian alps. One should never trust a thought that came when sitting still, he believed.
His characterization of Christianity as a slave religion wasn't that it got in the way of diddling toddlers and dude weed, it was that it held up as an ideal the meek, the sick, the poor, and the physically weak. In the pagan understanding, 'good' meant strong, vigorous, ferocious, overflowing with vital energy; 'bad' was everything sick, weak, twisted, malformed, unhealthy, and poor in spirit. The revaluation of values that occurred with the rise of Christianity was essentially 'good' being recast as 'evil', and 'bad' inverted to 'good'. Christianity is a slave religion in this view precisely because it is morality from the viewpoint of those at the bottom of the natural hierarchy, who experience those at the top as oppressors; by inverting good and bad into evil and good, and getting the masters to accept this, the priestly class are able to displace the warrior nobility who would otherwise occupy the societal apex.
Given that, there isn't really a contradiction between the triumph of the priestly class and widespread use of choirboytoys. I suspect Nietzsche would have said it was inevitable, because the essential thing isn't the surface teachings of a priestly philosophy - which is merely the will to power of the priests - but the inner nature of the priests themselves, and what they secretly desire to do once they've taken power.
If Nietzsche were to berate modern LGBTQ fags that would just make him a hypocrite. Have you read Dostoyevskys Demons novel? Would highly recommend if you havent as its the best deconstruction of muh superman ever which is remarkable seeing as how DandN never met and D never read N. Back in the day Muslims had their way with pre pubescent Christian slave girls (and sometimes boys) all the time. Did that make them pedo degenerates or Ubermensch? If you choose the former congrats on displaying your slave morality. If you choose the later than your objection to raping kids is more about aesthetics than the act itself. If its a modern LGBTQ rainbow flag waving Biden supporter than its degenerate but if its a respectable conquering army its an expression of Olympian Promethean vitality.
In short you cant build an actual non arbitrary moral system on Nietzsche's thought which he all but admitted.
Christianity on the Jews: "... Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men" 1 Thessalonians 2
My error, Jimbarino: I only read as far as 1 Thessalonians 2:2. Of course, I have the right to question the validity of anything Saul wrote. In defense of my integrity, I must ask you whether the Jews killed Jesus or whether Rome killed Jesus. Did Pontius Pilate have the authority to kill Jesus for claiming to be the son of God? Did he take orders from the Jews?
I am a gnostic Christian that doesn't believe in the Egyptian myth that a virgin can give birth. That rings as false as those trannies who believe a man can have periods and drop a baby out of its ass. I believe that Jesus, whose mother and father both were from royal families, was a radical that many hoped would end Roman rule over Israel and that's why he was crucified. Saul, the Christ-hating Roman, created a new religion that defied the teachings of Jesus, the rabbi who said he came to fulfill the law. I suspect he had no intention of being worshipped and, as a disciple of John the Baptist, simply believed in a strict interpretation of the Scriptures.
While I have known some very decent Christians, the fruit of a poisoned tree can't be healthy to eat.
That is unfortunate, Rolo. As one who has lived the Acts experience, I can't imagine life bereft of the gift of the spirit of God. It is the culminating point of the Gospel message: a reborn life. As another reader commented, differences in the various forms of Christianity practically render them separate religions. I am a little familiar with Russian orthodox Christianity (there is a small Russian church in Jacksons Point, Ontario - one of two such in Canada, the other being in Montreal, Quebec). I attended an Easter Mass there once and found the ritualistic formality of the service similarly akin to a Jewish Orthodox service I once attended. Both were beautiful but alien to my own experience. I might as well be from a different planet. This may ultimately be Christianity's strength -- the ability to deliver a resonating message to very different people over time. Where you see it offering up a codified morality for the sheep-like masses, which may from time-to-time be co-opted by the ruling class (priests or monarchs) for their own uses (Crusades anyone?), others receive a promise of an individual walk with God and the responsibilty of each man "to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling". Definitely not for the faint of heart!
I do agree that Christian morality plays a greater role in keeping society cohesive perhaps than any other faith. Adaptation to new situations is an important strength for survival and the text of the faith -- both the old and new -- speak to this very cycle of decay and renewal.
Who said anything about reading Acts? I mentioned the Acts experience - when the Spirit fell on the day of Pentecost. The 'priesthood of all believers' the cardinal doctrinal principle of the 16th C Reformers elevated the individual relationship with God through Christ absent a priestly mediator. Quite different from both Jewish and Christian Orthodoxy, was my point and that of another reader here. That is an example of how Christianity continues to be reformed. About a half a billion believers now around the world, particularly in the global south and east, and who are literally dying today for their faith just as Christians did in the first century (China, Pakistan, etc.). They are not sheep and should not be dismissed out of hand.
A couple points: Bronze Age Pervert would argue vigorously against your statements regarding Nietzsche's alleged degeneracy. This is an important historical point which I hope gets resolved eventually, but the ideas should be considered on their merits regardless of their origin, impugning the character of the source is literally fallacious argumentation (Hitler's Autobahn and Stalin's punctual trains worked regardless of moral failings).
Christianity's morals and ethics are derived from Judaism and Greek philosophy/culture, both of which faiths conveniently ignore for political expediency. Ignoring those leads to moral degradation of society, which results in it's eventual downfall. The question of virtue is something I've been exploring recently and will publish on soon (not all behaviors promoted as virtues are necessarily so, some are good for the individual, some good for community, and some only benefit the rulers).
The metaphysics of Christianity is fucked because history in general is fucked. Islam has been trying to correct Christians on Christ as a prophet but not God (they make good logical arguments from the texts), but they don't take it far enough because then they have to admit their dogma is only slightly less fucked. To get an idea of what is arguably a more accurate history, read/listen to Mauro Biglino, listen about/read the Codex Aurea Linda, and listen about/read the Nag Hammadi codices.
Personally, my takeaway from all that is the historical Jesus did perform miracles (healing, etc.). This was because he had managed a high level of self-mastery in the tradition of the Hermeticists (or Kung-Fu, which literally means self-mastery), and the man known as Yesus also spawned the myth of the Buddah (same person). But, I am a heretic of the highest order, and only voice such things b/c I'm well armed and old enough to have disposed of nearly all of my fucks.
Evidently only about 30-50% of humanity has an inner monologue (a voice you debate with internally or use when forming ideas, I think the lower number is more accurate). This means more than 2/3rds of the population are NPCs/sheep, and should be recognized as such. Plan accordingly.
Assuming anything you read in ancient texts is true (modern discoveries of ancient texts are more credible than ones found earlier, esp. during the time of great demand for ancient texts), then Jesus was an actual historical figure.
The his nature and deeds have been embellished and re-written to the point where things like the NT Bible can be mostly dismissed, however.
The Nag Hammadi writes of him, and the Codex Aurea Linda describes a figure called Yesus... Who was also known as Buda.
IMO his actual history (what little I know) is far more interesting than the myths of him.
"Nietzsche's alleged degeneracy" - yes, that assertion I have not encountered. The standard biography has it that N was the classic incel - after a single encounter with a prostitute in his student days. And a recent claim by a forensic MD is that he did not even have or die of syphilis - the claim is that the symptom set (which he describes meticulously in his writings) is not consistent with syphilis - his premature cognitive decline and death are rather (in this account) attributed to a slowly growing for decades benign brain tumor.
There's a picture of Mustache Man where he's blindfolded and playing a not-at-all-degenerate game of what looks like Marco Polo with a bunch of naked blond girls too.
Maybe everybody needs to meet their heroes just to beat that shit out of them
(a) Nietzche's biography and character certainly and maybe even "theories" are relatively tangential to your post (which I am still thinking about) and (b) your claims about his biography diverge radically from the standard biography in which he led a very reserved, solitary, scholarly life until ill health forced an early retirement, mental incapacity at age 45 and death at age 56; and he enjoyed a very few, well documented, friendships with other scholars or literary hangers on; a single proposal of marriage (to a jewess) was rejected. Still "standard" biographies have often been shown to have been crafted to deceive. And for sure, if you have any reasonable sources for a revisionist biography I would examine them with great interest.
It looks like Neetshe (lol) was way to spergy to manage that.
That noted, IMO men need periodic solitude, both to prove they are competent and can be alone, and to think things through absent the opinions of others.
According to BAP he suffered from a congenital defect which eventually killed him and was quite robust until late in life (evidently he spent hours each day hiking mountains). I wish BAP would write more and provide the receipts, but perhaps he's too busy increasing his vitalism.
Well, that I disagree with. He did suffer at least long periods of ill health for most of his adult life. The torture is described in detail in his writings: terrible headaches, digestive complaints; severe fatigue and more. But there were periods of recovery (and he did walk much in the Italian alps during such). A wonderful phase appears in one of his prefixes: "the intoxication of convalescence" - so there was that side of him (but only that sort - he was teetotaler) - but "quite robust" in the sense of consistently so is not true. Speaking of hiking - the story is that circa 1935 his sister (aged 90+) presented his fine wooden walking stick to Hitler during his famous visit to her in effect, Nietzsche shine (she died shortly after); what a fake! - the guy likely read not a word of Nietzsche!
Pretty sure BAPs read a lot of Nietzsche (and he mentioned something about a doctor saying his dead body was fit), but as I noted, I'm hoping we get some accurate history about him. Who knows, maybe some new primary source will emerge...
Can’t comment with any certitude on the genius part, but a brilliant writer you sure are!
💬 Libertinism is the enemy of strength, not Christian moderation. 🔥
The ‘turn the other cheek’ command applies exclusively to matters personal; it’s irrelevant in Schmittian (geo)political realm 🤷 To extrapolate beyond concept applicability domain = ‘what is usually referred to as a “category error” in thinking’ 😉
Even worse: It's probably intentionally misinterpreted.
Turning the other cheek is a reference to *turning your attention somewhere else*. This is because Jesus was likely a student of the works of Hermes Trismegistus, and knew that in order to create a new condition, you must turn your focus from the unwanted condition and onto the desired condition (when you turn your cheek, you turn your gaze).
There's a few glimpses of truth elsewhere in the Bible, e.g. "As you think, so shall you be" and the parable of the mustard seed.
Thank you for a fine introductory essay, Rolo, and looking forward to the series.
Some very astute comments so far: let's hope debate remains worthy of those who recognise that we are all (hopefully) in a common cause. I am a Christian who has abandoned churchianity in toto, have some residual respect for C.I. Marcion also.
I have spent over 20 years in Buddhist and Islamic countries. Both are imho excellent for their people, and we should meet them as friends.
But Christianity is our European belief. The bloodless transition from Celtic Druidism for example is fairly remarkable, and was fine (more or less) until Rome pushed in. We also perhaps need to resolve the foolishness of two calendars, perhaps revert to Julian ?
The bible said that the Aryan Vedic God Ahura Mazda was YHWH. This is because Ahura Mazda was the God of the Persians. The Persians use to pay for sacrifices to YHWH at the Jerusalem temple because He was their God.
Ill admit i havent read your other blog post on metaphysics because Im more or less just here for your russia takes so if you have addressed my question here in another post forgive me. But from prior interaction your primary critique against Orthodox Christianity besides the OT being jewish and not fit for Euros is the problem of evil. But how does Marcions model fix that?
If Marcions benevolent deity couldnt stop the demiurges plans he just isnt a capital G God. If he isnt powerful enough to stop the demiurges activities than is he fit for worship even? What guarantee do we have that he can save our souls when he is unable to stop the demiurge from making this material realm of evil in the 1st place? If the benevolent God could have stopped the demiurge but didnt than you have arrived full circle back at the problem of evil.
Marcions system cuts out Yahweh but as for the big metaphysical question I dont see how it cleanly resolves anything. You either still have the problem of evil or a lower case g deity thats more just like some benevolent spirit who is very limited in what he can do and this leads to serious question about whether its worth worshiping him at all. I mean we are like gods compared to ants but if ants were capable of worship ought they worship us?
>If Marcions benevolent deity couldnt stop the demiurges plans he just isnt a capital G God. If he isnt powerful enough to stop the demiurges activities than is he fit for worship even? What guarantee do we have that he can save our souls when he is unable to stop the demiurge from making this material realm of evil in the 1st place? If the benevolent God could have stopped the demiurge but didnt than you have arrived full circle back at the problem of evil.
Your questions are retarded and assume so much about the nature of higher realities that they reveal a serious lack intellectual depth on your part. That being said, I'll try to answer them.
The gnostic model is predicated on the fact that we are (well some of us are) capable of spiritual evolution. This place is like a test. Evolve or continue to be reincarnated and tortured again and again.
There is no point in worship. Why worship anyone? Can you really not conceive of an approach to religion that doesn't involve kneeling in front of some picture and begging for help?
The benevolent all-source god didn't create this world. The evil one did. So we're in his closed video game level now. Help is available, and does sometimes come down to us.
I mean, you basically say that you want to worship the baddest, meanest SOB god out there and that Marcion's higher god seems too weak and not in your best interests to worship. Your metaphor with the ants is hilarious. You think its a good thing that the ants worship the foot that has no concern for them and which might stomp them at any moment just because?
Apparently, you do.
So keep at it. You're not even disagreeing with me, really. Your temperament seems to be OK with slavish worship of anyone bigger and stronger than you, so Yahweh's your best bet.
Perhaps my assumptions are retarded but "this place that the evil demiurge created is actually a spiritual proving ground where we evolve and become better" is assuming that it takes an evil demiurge for you to be able to find yourself spiritually. So why are you so mad at him? You ought to be thanking him for giving you the chance to evolve if you really believe what you wrote there.
Anyway its not that I cant even imagine the universe be like it do as per your metaphysical system but the conclusions you draw from your own system dont add up. Worship really is pointless in your system but isnt spiritual evolution equally pointless? Your benevolent spiritual entity is a more or less impotent passive observer in a universe of endless pointless suffering. You would advocate a life of harsh aesthetic discipline so that one day you to might be a more enlightened and evolved observer thats powerless to prevent evil in a brutal and violent cosmos? Whats the point? What great virtue is there in this?
Dont Alex and his droogies have a much more pragmatic and harmonious approach to life if your metaphysical system is true? Milk the old ultraviolence for all its worth, give all the girls the old in out in out and rinse repeat for a whole eternity of rape and plunder. This is a lot more honest than acting like there is something admirable about simply aspiring to be some spiritually enlightened powerless observer with a big brain and no actual authority or power in a brutal and ugly universe that needs to be brought to order.
If someone could demonstrate to me that your system was true far from wanting to be like Marcions kind but ultimately impotent god I would conclude its better to go full Kratos and just burn the world down and kill as many of the lower case g gods as possible. If the cosmos is as you as say you than it really ought to be done away with because its a disgusting place of endless pointless suffering for eternity. No amount of big brain gnostic knowledge will change that so what good is this knowledge?
Seraphim Rose wrote in Nihilism that the lawless Cosmos really is a ridiculous and absurd place that shouldnt exist therefore those that have that presupposition and accordingly declare war on God are correct. Your cosmos strikes me as being lawless simply because the benevolent spirit cant enforce any laws and only offers some secret knowledge to the big brained. In that case I would agree with Niander Wallace that far from trying to emulate this impotent but kindly spirit its better to outright storm Eden and take it by force in whatever fashion that might be possible. Knowledge without some kind of power and authority behind it is nothing to aspire to imo.
What Christendom needs to turn the 'based' switch back on, what is lacking in all the Churches that has their moral authority serving the interests of the Atlantic Regime of Usury?
An Emperor. Without the Solar Warrior Sword of Martial Authority, the Lunar Priest Sword of Moral Authority is unbalanced and unprotected from being seized and suborned by the unworthy.
I came for more of your excellent Marcionite meditations, and got this as a bonus.
The appeal of Nietzsche to the "right" -- from Mencken to Spencer and BAP -- has always puzzled me, for your reasons and others. He's pro-Jewish and anti-nationalist, specifically -- and sneeringly -- anti-German nationalism. So, of course, he would appeal to neo-nazi antisemites. Goyishe kop!
Hitler himself, of course, preferred Schopenhauer, whose books he carried in his knapsack during WWI. "I can do nothing with Nietzsche" he said to Leni Riefenstahl. But the myth is too useful for the Left and Right to die.
I think it's a combination of "owning the Left" (who have canonized N. as the patron saint of postmodernism), personal hubris (Spencer and BAP as crap supermen), and jackboot sniffing fetishism (costume Nazis). It's sort of like when the Right welcomed the Jewish Trotskyite intellectuals, because they were "anti-communists (actually, they just hated Stalin) and were so "schmart" they would add badly needed intellectual weight and respectability; as a result, they took over and turned the Right into Israel-first "neo" conservatism.
Nietzsche loved Jews, hated Germans, taught that "there is no truth" and, consequently, all that matters is the "health" of imposing your will on others. That's why he's lionized by the PC Left.
Admittedly, he didn't produce unreadable gibberish like the Left, but apart from being stylish there's really nothing there philosophically. He was an incel with the emotional stability of a 13 year old girl, and when he wasn't getting enough praise himself, as their disciple, he decided Schopenhauer and Wagner were big stupid heads and sucked, and the "truth" was exactly the opposite: instead of compassion, ruthlessness; instead of denial of the will, the Will to Power; oh, and Bizet's Carmen is better than Wagner's Ring. He did keep some ideas: both the Superman and the Eternal Return are plagiarized straight from Schopenhauer, just distorted or misunderstood. In short, there's nothing there.
The truth lies more on the side of Schopenhauer, both in metaphysics and morality. Even if you think something is wrong, "turning it upside down" is never productive. Marx said he did that with Hegel, which just turned metaphysical gibberish into economic gibberish.
Nietzsche's popularity on the academic Left is a sign of their intellectual vacuity and lust for violence. On the Right, it may be a case of, as Nietzsche said, when you gaze into the abyss (obsess about the Left) the abyss gazes back (you acquire their worst traits).
I myself am with Jeeves: "You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound."
Please research KHAZARIAN MAFIA.
no such thing.
Too lazy to look it up or you can't read.
What's a better explanation then?
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/12/11/more-jewish-genetics-the-weak-khazar-hypothesis/
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/11/30/on-the-khazar-theory-again/
All you have is a Jew giving a speech in the 1930s behind your theory. You accept it so willingly because you want to defend the Jews of the Old Testament by saying that they are different from the ones of today.
All you have is cope. It's the same group.
I know not of this 1930's tribesman's speech.
Also, that's not really a better explanation, and yes: Ashkenazim are not of the tribe of Shem, they are of Indo-Turkic origin, and converted. This isn't really in dispute. OT Jews don't really require defending.
Given the vaccination rate in Israel the KM theory only looks better, absent a world war, chaos is needed to cover their escape.
Here's the best OG research on the subject I've been able to easily find http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trindx.htm#The%20Thirteenth%20Tribe
There's others, but that's the best referenced one I know.
>This isn't really in dispute.
Yes it is. The DNA says that they're Italian and Middle-Eastern. But I repeat myself.
No such thing as Turkish DNA anyways so idk what you're on about. But I see right through Torah apologists and this is their favorite go-to cope theory.
TY!
everyone who matters will get there eventually, heheh
Stop noticing things
James, I liked your articles very much when I used to read counter-currents in the 2000s. Are you still writing?
But of course! You'll find my articles and books at Counter-Currents, as per usual. Thanks for reading them!
For a treatise on religion's role determining the courage of a nation there is oddly none better than one written by a British war correspondent covering Britain's subjugation and colonization of Burma in 1902, at the turn of the last century: H. Fielding-Hall's "The Soul of a People," London: Macmillan, 1909. It's an obscure, rare book - permit me to quote a few relevant paras:
"I think it is evident" Hall wrote, "that there is no quality upon which the success of a nation so much depends as upon its courage. No nation can rise to a high place without being brave; it cannot maintain its independence even; it cannot push forward upon any path of life without courage. Nations that are cowards must fail.
"I am aware that the courage of a nation depends, as do its other qualities, upon many things; its situation with regard to other nations, its climate, its occupations. I wish to take all such things as I find them, and to discuss only the effect of religion upon the courage of the Burman people, upon [their] fighting capabilities. That religion may have a very serious effect one way or the other, no one can doubt.
"We know what religion can do. We have seen how it can preach war and resistance and can organize that war and resistance. We know what 10,000 priests preaching in 10,000 hamlets can effect in making a people almost unconquerable, in directing their armies, in strengthening their determination. We know what Christianity has done again and again; what Judaism, what Mohammedanism, what many kinds of paganism, have done. And yet, for all the assistance [Buddhism] was to [Burma] in this war, the Burmese might well have had no faith at all.
"Truly, this is not a creed for a soldier, for a fighting-man of any kind. The Burmans have never made a cult out of bravery; it has never been a necessity to them; it has never occurred to them that [courage] is the prime virtue of a man. You will hear them confess in the calmest way, `I was afraid.' We would not do that; we should be much more afraid to say it. And the teaching of Buddhism is all in favor of this. Nowhere is courage--I mean aggressive courage--praised. Therefore the inherent courage of the Burmans could have no assistance from their faith in any way, but the very contrary: it fought against them.
"If such be the faith of a people, and if they believe their faith, it is a terrible handicap to them in any fight: it delivers them bound into the hands of the enemy."
I submit all the above as an aside, given your interest in the dynamics of power, and your modest desire to reform Christianity,
С Рождеством!
Damn, Rolo... You have the best comments section on Substack. You sure know how to stir the pot!
Great essay. Looking forward to more on this topic. I'm sure many will try to engage in historical and theological debates, but it appears that the intention of the series is to not get bogged down in that manner. I applaud your approach and downloaded Substack Reader expressly to follow.
This one I need to think about for a while (I sometimes wonder if it might be a good idea to disable comments for 48-72 hours after a post?) - but as to "castrated choir boys" - you know, don't you? - that that was done so their voices would not change - and they became male sopranos as adults - the combination of a large male chest cavity and a high pitched voice produced singers with remarkably powerful, agile soprano voices the likes of which we can barely imagine; the most famous singers of the 18C were "castratos" and some became hugely wealthy after opera stage careers in London and Italian cities. The original motivation was to avoid having females sing soprano parts in church music. In all - the "didling" issue is entirely distinct; the practice was discontinued before the mid-19C - and by the mid 18C it was widely considered to be abhorrent (see e.g. contemporary comment by Charles Burney). Still, I would say it did produce humans with remarkable abilities to create beautiful sounds - and as such is much less abhorrent than contemporary child mutilation practices done in pursuit of a demented, evil gender theory.
I'm not really sure about this take on Nietzsche. He wasn't much of a libertine - to the contrary, he was extremely abstemious in diet, avoiding alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine, and very particular and careful about what he ate to the point of obsession - he wrote about that extensively, suggesting that much bad philosophy was just indigestion. Despite having been cursed with a weak constitution, he overcame this with a program of rigorous exercise, building an impressive physique; his idea of a good time was going for a hike for several hours in the Italian alps. One should never trust a thought that came when sitting still, he believed.
His characterization of Christianity as a slave religion wasn't that it got in the way of diddling toddlers and dude weed, it was that it held up as an ideal the meek, the sick, the poor, and the physically weak. In the pagan understanding, 'good' meant strong, vigorous, ferocious, overflowing with vital energy; 'bad' was everything sick, weak, twisted, malformed, unhealthy, and poor in spirit. The revaluation of values that occurred with the rise of Christianity was essentially 'good' being recast as 'evil', and 'bad' inverted to 'good'. Christianity is a slave religion in this view precisely because it is morality from the viewpoint of those at the bottom of the natural hierarchy, who experience those at the top as oppressors; by inverting good and bad into evil and good, and getting the masters to accept this, the priestly class are able to displace the warrior nobility who would otherwise occupy the societal apex.
Given that, there isn't really a contradiction between the triumph of the priestly class and widespread use of choirboytoys. I suspect Nietzsche would have said it was inevitable, because the essential thing isn't the surface teachings of a priestly philosophy - which is merely the will to power of the priests - but the inner nature of the priests themselves, and what they secretly desire to do once they've taken power.
Fine, I changed the part about sex. Dont know enough about the man and should have done more research
But the stuff about drugs is true. And his individualism.
I think the point still stands.
If Nietzsche were to berate modern LGBTQ fags that would just make him a hypocrite. Have you read Dostoyevskys Demons novel? Would highly recommend if you havent as its the best deconstruction of muh superman ever which is remarkable seeing as how DandN never met and D never read N. Back in the day Muslims had their way with pre pubescent Christian slave girls (and sometimes boys) all the time. Did that make them pedo degenerates or Ubermensch? If you choose the former congrats on displaying your slave morality. If you choose the later than your objection to raping kids is more about aesthetics than the act itself. If its a modern LGBTQ rainbow flag waving Biden supporter than its degenerate but if its a respectable conquering army its an expression of Olympian Promethean vitality.
In short you cant build an actual non arbitrary moral system on Nietzsche's thought which he all but admitted.
Ask me how I know you've never actually read Nietzsche.
As to Dostoevsky - Nietzsche read him, extensively, and considered him the greatest psychologist of all time.
Yeah thats a good point.
Christianity on the Jews: "... Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men" 1 Thessalonians 2
Why spread antisemitic lies, Ziggy. There is no version of the Bible that says what you claim.
Look it up, Charles: 1 Thesselonians 2:14-16. Why lie about this?
My error, Jimbarino: I only read as far as 1 Thessalonians 2:2. Of course, I have the right to question the validity of anything Saul wrote. In defense of my integrity, I must ask you whether the Jews killed Jesus or whether Rome killed Jesus. Did Pontius Pilate have the authority to kill Jesus for claiming to be the son of God? Did he take orders from the Jews?
Let's not argue. It's stupid.
I am a gnostic Christian that doesn't believe in the Egyptian myth that a virgin can give birth. That rings as false as those trannies who believe a man can have periods and drop a baby out of its ass. I believe that Jesus, whose mother and father both were from royal families, was a radical that many hoped would end Roman rule over Israel and that's why he was crucified. Saul, the Christ-hating Roman, created a new religion that defied the teachings of Jesus, the rabbi who said he came to fulfill the law. I suspect he had no intention of being worshipped and, as a disciple of John the Baptist, simply believed in a strict interpretation of the Scriptures.
While I have known some very decent Christians, the fruit of a poisoned tree can't be healthy to eat.
I dont take Acts seriously.
There is more of a case to be made that Paul was Simon and the original gnostic.
"I don't take Acts seriously."
That is unfortunate, Rolo. As one who has lived the Acts experience, I can't imagine life bereft of the gift of the spirit of God. It is the culminating point of the Gospel message: a reborn life. As another reader commented, differences in the various forms of Christianity practically render them separate religions. I am a little familiar with Russian orthodox Christianity (there is a small Russian church in Jacksons Point, Ontario - one of two such in Canada, the other being in Montreal, Quebec). I attended an Easter Mass there once and found the ritualistic formality of the service similarly akin to a Jewish Orthodox service I once attended. Both were beautiful but alien to my own experience. I might as well be from a different planet. This may ultimately be Christianity's strength -- the ability to deliver a resonating message to very different people over time. Where you see it offering up a codified morality for the sheep-like masses, which may from time-to-time be co-opted by the ruling class (priests or monarchs) for their own uses (Crusades anyone?), others receive a promise of an individual walk with God and the responsibilty of each man "to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling". Definitely not for the faint of heart!
I do agree that Christian morality plays a greater role in keeping society cohesive perhaps than any other faith. Adaptation to new situations is an important strength for survival and the text of the faith -- both the old and new -- speak to this very cycle of decay and renewal.
Acts is just more pious fraud. The spirit of God dioes not enter people just because they read Acts.
Who said anything about reading Acts? I mentioned the Acts experience - when the Spirit fell on the day of Pentecost. The 'priesthood of all believers' the cardinal doctrinal principle of the 16th C Reformers elevated the individual relationship with God through Christ absent a priestly mediator. Quite different from both Jewish and Christian Orthodoxy, was my point and that of another reader here. That is an example of how Christianity continues to be reformed. About a half a billion believers now around the world, particularly in the global south and east, and who are literally dying today for their faith just as Christians did in the first century (China, Pakistan, etc.). They are not sheep and should not be dismissed out of hand.
where are these millions dying for their faith?
Why do you believe neocon lies about China mass-murdering Christians?
You're going to love Mauro Biglino and the Codex Aurea Linda. Use Brave search to avoid censorship of the good stuff.
Thanks, Dave. I always use the Brave search engine if I don't want to read what the government wants me to read.
I've made it as far as the Aurea Linda Foundation. My mind is officially blown.
Primus - Wynona's Big Brown Beaver - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYDfwUJzYQg
heheh you're welcome
Good observations.
A couple points: Bronze Age Pervert would argue vigorously against your statements regarding Nietzsche's alleged degeneracy. This is an important historical point which I hope gets resolved eventually, but the ideas should be considered on their merits regardless of their origin, impugning the character of the source is literally fallacious argumentation (Hitler's Autobahn and Stalin's punctual trains worked regardless of moral failings).
Christianity's morals and ethics are derived from Judaism and Greek philosophy/culture, both of which faiths conveniently ignore for political expediency. Ignoring those leads to moral degradation of society, which results in it's eventual downfall. The question of virtue is something I've been exploring recently and will publish on soon (not all behaviors promoted as virtues are necessarily so, some are good for the individual, some good for community, and some only benefit the rulers).
The metaphysics of Christianity is fucked because history in general is fucked. Islam has been trying to correct Christians on Christ as a prophet but not God (they make good logical arguments from the texts), but they don't take it far enough because then they have to admit their dogma is only slightly less fucked. To get an idea of what is arguably a more accurate history, read/listen to Mauro Biglino, listen about/read the Codex Aurea Linda, and listen about/read the Nag Hammadi codices.
Personally, my takeaway from all that is the historical Jesus did perform miracles (healing, etc.). This was because he had managed a high level of self-mastery in the tradition of the Hermeticists (or Kung-Fu, which literally means self-mastery), and the man known as Yesus also spawned the myth of the Buddah (same person). But, I am a heretic of the highest order, and only voice such things b/c I'm well armed and old enough to have disposed of nearly all of my fucks.
Evidently only about 30-50% of humanity has an inner monologue (a voice you debate with internally or use when forming ideas, I think the lower number is more accurate). This means more than 2/3rds of the population are NPCs/sheep, and should be recognized as such. Plan accordingly.
I don't think that there is a historic Jesus, really.
Some people say its the story of Cesar. Others, like myself, that Mark was writing about Paul/Simon.
Assuming anything you read in ancient texts is true (modern discoveries of ancient texts are more credible than ones found earlier, esp. during the time of great demand for ancient texts), then Jesus was an actual historical figure.
The his nature and deeds have been embellished and re-written to the point where things like the NT Bible can be mostly dismissed, however.
The Nag Hammadi writes of him, and the Codex Aurea Linda describes a figure called Yesus... Who was also known as Buda.
IMO his actual history (what little I know) is far more interesting than the myths of him.
What ancient texts? There are no accounts of Jesus the Jew all.
I guess I haven't commented (one of these) these directly to you yet, amazingly.
Jesus is mentioned in the Nag Hammadi codices and the Codex Aurea Linda (as I mentioned in the comment you responded to directly before this one).
I never said he was a Jew, btw. Wouldn't surprise me if he came from some other people.
The Koran mentions him as well, but that text is probably as fucked as the OT and NT with regards to monks mendaciously meddling during copying.
Gnostics don't believe in a corporeal, circumsized Jesus.
Some do.
You're commenting as a Gnostic?
"Nietzsche's alleged degeneracy" - yes, that assertion I have not encountered. The standard biography has it that N was the classic incel - after a single encounter with a prostitute in his student days. And a recent claim by a forensic MD is that he did not even have or die of syphilis - the claim is that the symptom set (which he describes meticulously in his writings) is not consistent with syphilis - his premature cognitive decline and death are rather (in this account) attributed to a slowly growing for decades benign brain tumor.
There are literally pictures of him posing naked with a woman and another man at what appears to be a swinger's party.
But maybe I don't know enough about his sexual proclivities, to be fair. I think it's beyond the point.
There's a picture of Mustache Man where he's blindfolded and playing a not-at-all-degenerate game of what looks like Marco Polo with a bunch of naked blond girls too.
Maybe everybody needs to meet their heroes just to beat that shit out of them
(a) Nietzche's biography and character certainly and maybe even "theories" are relatively tangential to your post (which I am still thinking about) and (b) your claims about his biography diverge radically from the standard biography in which he led a very reserved, solitary, scholarly life until ill health forced an early retirement, mental incapacity at age 45 and death at age 56; and he enjoyed a very few, well documented, friendships with other scholars or literary hangers on; a single proposal of marriage (to a jewess) was rejected. Still "standard" biographies have often been shown to have been crafted to deceive. And for sure, if you have any reasonable sources for a revisionist biography I would examine them with great interest.
NEETshe literally looked down upon friendship for the sake of friendship.
Friendships in his mind ought to be utilitarian.
Maybe in practice he was normal though.
If you want friends, then act like a friend.
It looks like Neetshe (lol) was way to spergy to manage that.
That noted, IMO men need periodic solitude, both to prove they are competent and can be alone, and to think things through absent the opinions of others.
Well, if that's a real photo... As they say: "Never meet your heroes".
According to BAP he suffered from a congenital defect which eventually killed him and was quite robust until late in life (evidently he spent hours each day hiking mountains). I wish BAP would write more and provide the receipts, but perhaps he's too busy increasing his vitalism.
Well, that I disagree with. He did suffer at least long periods of ill health for most of his adult life. The torture is described in detail in his writings: terrible headaches, digestive complaints; severe fatigue and more. But there were periods of recovery (and he did walk much in the Italian alps during such). A wonderful phase appears in one of his prefixes: "the intoxication of convalescence" - so there was that side of him (but only that sort - he was teetotaler) - but "quite robust" in the sense of consistently so is not true. Speaking of hiking - the story is that circa 1935 his sister (aged 90+) presented his fine wooden walking stick to Hitler during his famous visit to her in effect, Nietzsche shine (she died shortly after); what a fake! - the guy likely read not a word of Nietzsche!
Pretty sure BAPs read a lot of Nietzsche (and he mentioned something about a doctor saying his dead body was fit), but as I noted, I'm hoping we get some accurate history about him. Who knows, maybe some new primary source will emerge...
Shouldn't it be called "inner dialogue"?
If you suffer from MPD, sure. But I only hear myself debating with myself, it's the same personality.
Can’t comment with any certitude on the genius part, but a brilliant writer you sure are!
💬 Libertinism is the enemy of strength, not Christian moderation. 🔥
The ‘turn the other cheek’ command applies exclusively to matters personal; it’s irrelevant in Schmittian (geo)political realm 🤷 To extrapolate beyond concept applicability domain = ‘what is usually referred to as a “category error” in thinking’ 😉
Even worse: It's probably intentionally misinterpreted.
Turning the other cheek is a reference to *turning your attention somewhere else*. This is because Jesus was likely a student of the works of Hermes Trismegistus, and knew that in order to create a new condition, you must turn your focus from the unwanted condition and onto the desired condition (when you turn your cheek, you turn your gaze).
There's a few glimpses of truth elsewhere in the Bible, e.g. "As you think, so shall you be" and the parable of the mustard seed.
Thank you for a fine introductory essay, Rolo, and looking forward to the series.
Some very astute comments so far: let's hope debate remains worthy of those who recognise that we are all (hopefully) in a common cause. I am a Christian who has abandoned churchianity in toto, have some residual respect for C.I. Marcion also.
I have spent over 20 years in Buddhist and Islamic countries. Both are imho excellent for their people, and we should meet them as friends.
But Christianity is our European belief. The bloodless transition from Celtic Druidism for example is fairly remarkable, and was fine (more or less) until Rome pushed in. We also perhaps need to resolve the foolishness of two calendars, perhaps revert to Julian ?
Happy Orthodox Christmas.
Agnosticism might be the best religion.😁
Would have commented on your latest post but I'm a poorfag.
You asked a question: "The Bakhmut attacks make no sense and are costing both Russia and Ukraine dearly"
Answer: Some unknown militarily important stuff, either that or the dwarves dug too deep and awakened something old and best left asleep and both sides really want it https://sonar21.com/what-is-ukraine-hiding-in-the-bakhmut-salt-mines/
One thing for sure, whatever's down there is really important, because they may be crazy/incompetent but they're not that crazy/incompetent.
The bible said that the Aryan Vedic God Ahura Mazda was YHWH. This is because Ahura Mazda was the God of the Persians. The Persians use to pay for sacrifices to YHWH at the Jerusalem temple because He was their God.
Ill admit i havent read your other blog post on metaphysics because Im more or less just here for your russia takes so if you have addressed my question here in another post forgive me. But from prior interaction your primary critique against Orthodox Christianity besides the OT being jewish and not fit for Euros is the problem of evil. But how does Marcions model fix that?
If Marcions benevolent deity couldnt stop the demiurges plans he just isnt a capital G God. If he isnt powerful enough to stop the demiurges activities than is he fit for worship even? What guarantee do we have that he can save our souls when he is unable to stop the demiurge from making this material realm of evil in the 1st place? If the benevolent God could have stopped the demiurge but didnt than you have arrived full circle back at the problem of evil.
Marcions system cuts out Yahweh but as for the big metaphysical question I dont see how it cleanly resolves anything. You either still have the problem of evil or a lower case g deity thats more just like some benevolent spirit who is very limited in what he can do and this leads to serious question about whether its worth worshiping him at all. I mean we are like gods compared to ants but if ants were capable of worship ought they worship us?
>If Marcions benevolent deity couldnt stop the demiurges plans he just isnt a capital G God. If he isnt powerful enough to stop the demiurges activities than is he fit for worship even? What guarantee do we have that he can save our souls when he is unable to stop the demiurge from making this material realm of evil in the 1st place? If the benevolent God could have stopped the demiurge but didnt than you have arrived full circle back at the problem of evil.
Your questions are retarded and assume so much about the nature of higher realities that they reveal a serious lack intellectual depth on your part. That being said, I'll try to answer them.
The gnostic model is predicated on the fact that we are (well some of us are) capable of spiritual evolution. This place is like a test. Evolve or continue to be reincarnated and tortured again and again.
There is no point in worship. Why worship anyone? Can you really not conceive of an approach to religion that doesn't involve kneeling in front of some picture and begging for help?
The benevolent all-source god didn't create this world. The evil one did. So we're in his closed video game level now. Help is available, and does sometimes come down to us.
I mean, you basically say that you want to worship the baddest, meanest SOB god out there and that Marcion's higher god seems too weak and not in your best interests to worship. Your metaphor with the ants is hilarious. You think its a good thing that the ants worship the foot that has no concern for them and which might stomp them at any moment just because?
Apparently, you do.
So keep at it. You're not even disagreeing with me, really. Your temperament seems to be OK with slavish worship of anyone bigger and stronger than you, so Yahweh's your best bet.
Perhaps my assumptions are retarded but "this place that the evil demiurge created is actually a spiritual proving ground where we evolve and become better" is assuming that it takes an evil demiurge for you to be able to find yourself spiritually. So why are you so mad at him? You ought to be thanking him for giving you the chance to evolve if you really believe what you wrote there.
Anyway its not that I cant even imagine the universe be like it do as per your metaphysical system but the conclusions you draw from your own system dont add up. Worship really is pointless in your system but isnt spiritual evolution equally pointless? Your benevolent spiritual entity is a more or less impotent passive observer in a universe of endless pointless suffering. You would advocate a life of harsh aesthetic discipline so that one day you to might be a more enlightened and evolved observer thats powerless to prevent evil in a brutal and violent cosmos? Whats the point? What great virtue is there in this?
Dont Alex and his droogies have a much more pragmatic and harmonious approach to life if your metaphysical system is true? Milk the old ultraviolence for all its worth, give all the girls the old in out in out and rinse repeat for a whole eternity of rape and plunder. This is a lot more honest than acting like there is something admirable about simply aspiring to be some spiritually enlightened powerless observer with a big brain and no actual authority or power in a brutal and ugly universe that needs to be brought to order.
If someone could demonstrate to me that your system was true far from wanting to be like Marcions kind but ultimately impotent god I would conclude its better to go full Kratos and just burn the world down and kill as many of the lower case g gods as possible. If the cosmos is as you as say you than it really ought to be done away with because its a disgusting place of endless pointless suffering for eternity. No amount of big brain gnostic knowledge will change that so what good is this knowledge?
Seraphim Rose wrote in Nihilism that the lawless Cosmos really is a ridiculous and absurd place that shouldnt exist therefore those that have that presupposition and accordingly declare war on God are correct. Your cosmos strikes me as being lawless simply because the benevolent spirit cant enforce any laws and only offers some secret knowledge to the big brained. In that case I would agree with Niander Wallace that far from trying to emulate this impotent but kindly spirit its better to outright storm Eden and take it by force in whatever fashion that might be possible. Knowledge without some kind of power and authority behind it is nothing to aspire to imo.
What Christendom needs to turn the 'based' switch back on, what is lacking in all the Churches that has their moral authority serving the interests of the Atlantic Regime of Usury?
An Emperor. Without the Solar Warrior Sword of Martial Authority, the Lunar Priest Sword of Moral Authority is unbalanced and unprotected from being seized and suborned by the unworthy.