Christian Nationalism vs Pagan Nationalism: There's Both Conflict & Common Ground.

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

Christian nationalism is just gigantic flop in the making, not even the Christians support it lol, and Pagan nationalism isn't relevant factor yet, it's nonexistent as a political ideology.

People need to stop bringing religious shit into the political realm and need to focus on material world more. There aren't that many believers out there in the first place and these fights are just D&C over fantasy worlds.

Like the description says, they want you gone regardless of your faith, this religion/philosophy stuff is useless until the main problems, which are of material character, are solved. Religious institutions just offered copium to the masses for centuries, and those days are numbered in my view.

[–]bug-in-recovery 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hit the nail on the head.

It's the system's last ditch attempt to prevent ethnonationalism from taking hold.

[–]Mr9to5 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Gosh, it’s been a while since I’ve even seen one of these. I started to write a comment to someone yesterday to illustrate how the Dissident sphere has improved about how in 2005, Pagan vs. Christian Nationalism speculative political theology was the quality of all you’d find.

“Which is better, if we’re all Wotanist or we’re all Identity? Don’t forget Creativity! Only one can win.”

Visceral psychological pain

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The really strange thing about the Christian-pagan polemics is that neither the Christians nor the pagans are actually religious. Right wing "TradCaths" are for the most part extremely cynical people who only use Christianity as a tool for owning the libs, and right wing neopagans are generally "biocentric" materialists who only promote paganism because they think of it as an ideology suitable for funnelling people into ethnonationalism. The result is that it actually becomes much harder for an authentic spirituality to emerge on the right.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

If the religion isn't a thing, what stops you from get an high paid job and just live the most materialist life you can get? Drugs and sex are actually fun by their own. I honestly don't get how one can be nationalist and not religious, liberalism is the best system if you accept atheism.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Goebbels said what DHR is referring to best here

[–]Mr9to5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Maybe it’s because my political beliefs coincided with a crisis of faith but I’ve certainly never had that hang up. I 100% see the Liberal worldview as the final product of Protestantism, manipulated and distorted by bad actors.

Flip it on it’s head and you have pretty much my credo. Why would you waste time with life shortening drugs and alcohol if you only live one life? Why wouldn’t you be as physically fit as you can be? Why wouldn’t you be tribal, so you and your group can survive and they will exist as the closest thing to your afterlife after you are gone? Why would you be politically correct, ever?

“Liberalism is the best system if you are an atheist” is unfortunately the kind of thought people have when they don’t realize how much the current state of things direct them. Take a hypothetical tribe devoid of modern liberalism where people have never felt separate from their group and have had offspring that their biological instincts tell them to care about - you won’t have to resort to the supernatural to explain a thing to them. They’ll defend, they’ll reproduce, they’ll know who they are.

Over the course of my life, I’ve passed from a childhood in goofy American Protestantism that borders on decadent (little higher values, Jesus will save, so don’t worry what you do), to teenage Odinism where I began to grow into understanding community and how I’m part of a whole, to reading Might is Right and understanding life is materialist (metaphysically) and I have to interact with the material to save my kind. Each step was more materialist (in both the metaphysical and practical sense), I see each step as a step up.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you are erroneously assuming that your experiences are universal. Do you really think that no one would prefer destructive pleasure over eudaimonia? Hedonism has been documented thousands of years ago in the context of traditional, heroic societies that are vastly superior to anything merely biologistic that history has known. If that could not prevent hedonism, why do you think that people will naturally avoid it if you restore some form illiberal tribalism?

In my opinion, the reason why you seek to define and pursue some form of higher life for yourself is precisely because you have internalised spiritual principles despite your rejection of Christian and pagan theologies. Pursuing these principles is not a given for most people. Your second paragraph essentially confirms the voluntary character of your beliefs - "I can, therefore I must" is not a convincing line of argument for most, and those who find it convincing typically do so because of deeper, personal reasons.

I think you make a good point when you say that a socially healthy, tribalistic society will not need supernatural explanations for anything in order to function. With that said, it is important to be clear about what we mean by "function" and "supernatural" in such context. Resorting to theistic, creationistic and other such explanations is probably indeed not necessary and maybe not even desirable, but it should be noted that even higher principles such as self-possession, self-control, honour, and virtue are all "supernatural" principles - they can not be explained by or reduced to nature. Nature is concerned with the blind survival of the individual organism in any way, and at any cost. It does not exclude shameful or pathetic forms of existence. What makes these intolerable to us is precisely the "supernatural" or spiritual element, and the more prominent this element is, the more intolerable we find them. This element is not the same thing as materialistic rationality, because rationality can be used to justify anything, including the acceptance of the most intolerable forms of existence. Consequently, the element that interests us is something else - the spiritual element. Without this element, a tribalistic society could certainly survive, but it would not be a pretty sight at all, and would probably not look too different from what we have now.

If what I have been saying so far sounds agreeable to you, then I think that you will also agree with me when I say that the real issue today seems to consist not in embracing materialism, but in arriving at a true, correct and complete definition of spirituality, and then articulating a practical form of it that is suitable for the current circumstances.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I 100% see the Liberal worldview as the final product of Protestantism, manipulated and distorted by bad actors.

I concur. All the liberals did was give Jesus the boot, just as the Protestants dropped the pope. They never abandoned the distorted ethics, they just came up with their own interpretations of it.

Flip it on it’s head and you have pretty much my credo.

Does your creed include the principle that struggle is a necessity? Should war be encouraged and welcomed?

[–]Mr9to5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think struggle of some kind is unavoidable to reap the reward of a good life. Ironically, the more I’ve embraced that, the better life has been. I don’t know if I’d say war should be encouraged - but if you said something like “including war by other means” (outdoing potential rivals in commerce, technology, health, etc.), I’d totally agree.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think struggle of some kind is unavoidable to reap the reward of a good life. Ironically, the more I’ve embraced that, the better life has been.

Agreed. The struggle principle is perfectly valid in all known, physical forms of life. The question is, whether it is necessary for development of consciousness. Like newborn human infants, freeborn animals gradually develop their consciousness by absorbing impressions from their environment. Children thrown into war don't necessarily grow up to be the best people, that only holds true for those who already had a warrior within them. Instead, it might incline them towards pacifism.

I don’t know if I’d say war should be encouraged...

"In perpetual peace, man's greatness must decline." Hitler was in favour of instigating small wars each time a decade had passed. Not internecine conflicts between Europeans obviously. Rather, a campaign directed towards the East*. This measure would've 1) stabilized the population, 2) as a incentive to produce many children, 3) as a stimulus for artists, and 4) as a constant reminder of the horrors of war. A minor natural disaster prevents a large-scale natural disaster! One is reminded of the periodical fire suppression in California: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/14/california-fire-suppression-forests-tinderbox

*However, it seems like an integration of Nordic and Slavic peoples (mainly Russians) would be better suited for our times, insofar as the latter are not fiercely nationalistic (i.e. Polish, Ukrainian) or simply foreign (Czech).

Btw I'd like to hear about your views on Hitler, what do you suppose were his religious beliefs? What do you believe "Providence" meant to him?

But if you said something like “including war by other means” (outdoing potential rivals in commerce, technology, health, etc.), I’d totally agree.

Well, judging from what I've seen in gaming, whether competition is benign depends largely on the game mode and conditions fostered by game design.

In speedrunning, competition is very wholesome, a community-driven initiative, and often results in the discovery of new skips, exploits, strats, etc. Sensible game developers should always make provisions for it and even sponsor it. But in a multiplayer environment (i.e. For Honor), competition can quickly degenerate into toxicity.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Protestantism is a fake and Jew religion. About the rest, makes little sense.

There are plenty of people doing everything they want, that's the point of liberalism. Do you want party and drugs? Go on. Want big money? Sure, work as tech eng. Do you want to change sex and fuck with men? No problems. You're even allowed to have a family if for some reason you prefer that to party and drugs - even if doesn't really makes sense, because if there's anything except from the material life, you only have the present in which you live, and sniffing blow is way better than dealing with a kid, but wathever. You want to exercise power? Just get into politics with the democratic party. You can hate niggers and trans, you can just lie to people. So honestly, given the absence of an afterlife, a God, a superpersonal principle, what's really keeping you from living you best purely materialist life, except from yourself and your own limitations?

Of course that doesn't apply if you believe in spirituality. You are then required to conform to higher principles, which change everything. But otherwise we are just speaking of people unable to get rich enough to fulfill their desires and now blames niggers and Jews for their own failures, not differently from the niggers that hates on white people for being poor.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Martin Luther started protestantism. Did you ever read what he had to say about the Jews?

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I study the reformation for living, so probably I know early Protestantism better than Catholicism itself. Protestantism is Jewish because of the emphasis on the covenant, which admittedly wasn't in Luther but rather in Calvin. Luther however is extremely unclear on a lot of stuff.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Luther on Jews:

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
"Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …"

So jewish

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I know that you are Protestant, I know that you think to have all the reasons to stay protestant and i actually don't even think you should just turn Catholic, because as far as I understand you are from s country of the reformation and as a general rule I don't like people who betray their traditions.

However this piece is after he annuciated that the Jews were surely going to turn protestants now that he showed the true religion to the world. Since the Jews weren't interested he decided to hate on them pretty hard. The covenant emphasis in Calvinism and the rejection of the hierarchy still stands.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you agree that Luthers protestantism wasn't "jewish" like you previously said?

We could call protestantism fundamentally anti jewish

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lutheranism is mostly based on the new testament so it's not Jewish but rejects the hierarchy.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Calvin was a Judaizer and Luther became senile and angry after realizing Jews used him. The Catholic Church is and will always be the true Church, even if the anti-Pope today is a Jew.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Luther was used and abused and became senile at the end of his life. It was already too late for him to do anything about the Jews who used the reformation to destroy their number 1 enemy: the Jesuits, who were infiltrated by Marranos in the 16th century and an anti-coverso lobby was convened to bar any deemed Jewish member. Nevertheless, Jews continued to infiltrate the military order of the Church utilizing the reformation.

The Catholic Jesuits used the Blood purity laws as a way to prevent Jewish subversion, despite encyclicals denoting that Jewishness wasn't as much racial as it was a misanthropic, subversive ideology constructed by rabbis. Judaism and crypto-Judaism, were and are the causes of gentile backlash, as there are no redeeming qualities in Judaism whatsoever.

Neither Jew, nor Greek nor Roman in Christ. We renounce these designations and follow Christ. To relinquish Judaism as a Jew, is to relinquish being a Jew, thus that person is not a Jew. If a 'Christian' masonic cabalist Jew like Dr. Michael Brown, who convenes with the head f Mossad, says he's a 'Christian' Jew, he's not a Christian, he's a Jew.

As for Calvin, I can't post the sources right now, but, indeed, Calvin came from a marrano Jewish family and his father was friends with many Jewish merchants and cryptos.

[–]Mr9to5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I told you the principles and you said it didn’t make sense. The wisdom of Nature is based on investigation and experience, I know what to believe from repeated experience, the same principle by which I know multiculturalism is hell and most the things you listed are not things to want. Why not name the religion that prevents and cures this list of near universal social “ills” (I don’t even agree they are all ills) that you describe? You are keeping your premise universal to the point of obfuscation but if you name one, it starts to get very clear, very quick.

As someone who lives in a multicultural hell that still has plenty of conservatives, you show me someone being loud they’re a Trad Cath, I’ll show you someone who’s probably going to marry a Mexican because they can’t find a white woman who wants to hear about it - and they’ll be gone to Western civilization completely within a couple generations. Same with our local Evangelicals, same even to a degree with Mormons now because less and less whites are willing to join them. Non-Western religions ultimately produce absorption into other groups. There is little to no religious based premises that will not end in us no longer being us, much less that will prevent idiots from being idiots.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, this was a very interesting read.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The wisdom of Nature is based on investigation and experience, I know what to believe from repeated experience, the same principle by which I know multiculturalism is hell and most the things you listed are not things to want.

The entire point of relativism was that we eventually discovered that not everyone was living accordingly to the same standards we regarded as naturals. So you either says that this is irrelevant because we order our lives accordingly to superior principles which are not to be discussed, or you end up with trans and race mixing.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What I'm saying is that religious stuff is secondary to political stuff. We have material problems to deal with, they're of higher priority. The times of people flocking to churches out of desperation are over, people are leaving the Catholic Church at all-time high rate because the church just isn't there for you, neither materially nor spiritually.

Infighting and driving irreconcilable wedges over stuff which ultimately you cannot prove is like fighting over whether Depeche Mode or Iron Maiden should be official band of the alt-right.

Also, I don't subscribe with the premise that you can't be non-religious and live by honor and virtue. Most religious people don't either, so again, why drive the wedge?

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree with the fact that religious infighting is stupid, even if given that people are born inside traditions, they are not supposed to question them. That's the whole point of the tradition, it's bigger than you and you are required to just accept it. But wathever. Truly pagans will at least have a spirituality.

Also, I don't subscribe with the premise that you can't be non-religious and live by honor and virtue. Most religious people don't either, so again, why drive the wedge?

I don't agree with that for the simple fact that it's impossible to define in an incontrovertible way "virtue and honor" without resorting to some kind of spirituality. So yeah there can be honourable atheists, that's just because they accept to live like if they were religious without any real reason.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't agree with that for the simple fact that it's impossible to define in an incontrovertible way "virtue and honor" without resorting to some kind of spirituality. So yeah there can be honourable atheists, that's just because they accept to live like if they were religious without any real reason.

I think it is inborn for some people. To put it another way, it is possible for someone to reject religion "ideologically", but still conceive of his self and his personality in an integral way that encompasses not only the material self, but also the spiritual self and higher principles. Honour and virtue are valued not because of this or that reason, but because of a given nature and an affinity for those things. The danger in these cases is the possibility of eventually adopting ideological materialism and being affected by that outlook in the long term.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's a faulty premise which originated with the anarchistic Dostoevsky. "If god doesn't exist, everything is permitted." Nobody poses the question: Did he really mean what he said? What was his idea of god?

Taken at face value, the phrase is merely church apologism for theocracy. Crime is legally and officially sanctioned as long as it doesn't conflict with church interests. For centuries, the Church was perfectly willing to overlook wars, plunder, slavery, etc. committed under its auspices and with its blessings, instead warring against human instinct and sexuality and undermining man's biological foundations.

Rousseau rightly recommended expulsion for such people:

Anyone who ventures to say: ‘Outside the Church is no salvation’ should be driven from the state, unless the state is the Church and the prince the pope. Such a dogma is good only in a theocratic government; in any other it is fatal. The reason Henry IV is said to have had for embracing the Roman religion—namely that the Roman Catholics did, while the Protestants didn’t, say ‘Our faith is the only possible route to heaven’—ought to make every honest man leave it, especially any prince who knows how to reason.

Source: Social Contract

If the religion isn't a thing, what stops you from get an high paid job and just live the most materialist life you can get?

What stops you from taking up a job for livelihood is an enthusiasm for a hobby. What stops you from living a hedonistic life is the realization that the pleasure of drugs and sex are temporary and these are causes of societal woes (i.e. sexually transmitted disease). In other words, a sense of duty, a sense of responsibility.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah but why duty and responsibility should be compelling without an higher principles? You can say "well, for ME they are compelling because I don't like the other options", and that's just another offering in the vast range of ways of life offered by the liberal society. But we are speaking about politics, not about personal lifestyles.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, but why should duty and responsibility be compelling without higher principles?

Who said anything about a need for compulsion?

According to Hitler, we live in a world where millions accept the principle of celibacy of their own free will, without being obliged or pledged to do so by anything except an ecclesiastical precept. (Celibacy isn't a higher principle, of course.)

Then he proposes dropping such demands and just appealing to common sense by means of reason and persuasion: "Why should it not be possible to induce people to make this sacrifice if, instead of such a precept, they were simply told that they ought to put an end to the original sin of racial corruption which is steadily being committed from one generation to another."

Duty and responsibility are not forced onto people by Nature, but rather, by artificially designed civilization. In the natural order, labour is never looked upon as burdensome and is embraced as a necessity and delighted in. If animals start to exhibit laziness, that's usually due to them being spoiled by humans.

Of course that doesn't apply if you believe in spirituality. You are then required to conform to higher principles.

Higher principles are not confined to a belief in hereafter and god, but include reverence for higher worlds, for natural territories, for laws of nature, for parents. There are many more skeptics who abide by their principles than there are religious believers and ascetics.

These latter deceive themselves into believing they conform to principles. When it's actually a matter of policy for appearance's sake (i.e. politeness, virtue signalling).

Higher principles also become corrupted from the weight of external constraints (conformity, compulsion, conventionality), in a word: dogma. That you value such constraints so highly indicates to me that you're not really acquainted with the inner life.

Even if there was no god and hereafter, instinctive striving and reason would still exist. The animals (birds excepted) know neither god nor hereafter, that doesn't prevent them from exercising restraint in their breeding.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In the natural order, labour is never looked upon as burdensome and is embraced as a necessity and delighted in.

We are speaking about anarcho-primitivism here? That's the plan?