My [Positive] Reply to “After the Darkness”

Cecilia Davenport has written an excellent piece at TPC on why nationalists should choose Christianity over paganism. Uncertain whether my comments will be approved there, I’d like to publish them here.

Cecilia Davenport writes:

Neo-paganism is politics become religion, in the purest way. But it is also (perhaps noble) savagery. That is what Gregory Hood means when he looks for something to “save” us: he wants a political religion, something to wipe away the ugliness of the world we find ourselves in now.

Perhaps it could be approached from the opposite side, religion become politics: We require a traditional polity to save souls and glorify God. I like how the Catholic distributists sometimes argue their system isn’t an ideology; it’s Catholicism.

I enjoy reading some pagans of the past: Confucius and Cicero come to mind. Authentic paganism tends to revere ancestors. The son is lower than the father, the grandson even lower, and so on. I want to say I’m recalling St. Francis on this character of paganism.

Darwinism turns paganism on its head. Rather than cherishing life and honouring the past, the modern pagan wants progress. For him, the son is superior to the father, or should be. Modern pagans too often seek Salvation in science and seek to “become gods” rather than to preserve heritage and identity. And to be blunt: They often don’t care about being white even if proclaiming to. They want genetic engineering.

Their calling for aristocracy can simply be a call for genius scientists to be given charge. I think of an old master with a brutally rigorous education meditating for a day before deciding a matter vs. a brash “genius” fresh out of school (where he’s learned little) deciding something revolutionary on a whim.

Recently Jerry Salyer put it well:

If, as we are told, the universe itself is the artifice of a Divine Craftsman, then “human behavior must be founded on cosmic order, which is dependent upon divine intention.” That is, the cosmic order itself provides a model for mortal technê. Of course knowing how to apply this model is easier said than done, which is why both Plato and Tolkien believed power could be responsibly wielded only after a long and arduous apprenticeship in virtue.

To put it clearly: We cannot become gods. We need to serve something higher. Worshiping technology and progress is not a higher god. Even if there’s nothing higher, man requires a life-giving delusion. Technology falls to relativity; We’re left with chaos pursuing that route.

Lewis is such a master on this topic: Till We Have Faces, Space Trilogy, Abolition of Man. You do well to quote him.

One quibble: Paganism is not a single religion.

I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m lecturing. I simply wish to share my comments on Cecilia Davenport’s profound and necessary article.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

30 thoughts on “My [Positive] Reply to “After the Darkness”

  1. aware

    Paganism is the largest religion on earth, and always has been. It IS a single religion, but manifests itself in differently. Its “gods” go by many names but behind is the same Prince of this world. It even does a good job pretending to be Christianity.

    It is the deception Jesus warned about becoming so pervasive that even the Elect are in danger of falling for it. It is the antediluvian world religion carried by Ham and passed to Nimrod to become the Mystery religion of Babylon. It is what is described in Ezekiel 8 and what Paul meant when he said wolves would come among the Church. It is the Mystery Babylon world system seen in Revelation.

    It is the religion of the Freemasons(read Morals and Dogma by Pike if you can get your hands on it) and of the Essines and Gnostics before them. Julius Caesar was grand Pontiff(yep, that’s where that title came from) of the Babylonian Order in Rome before he was Emperor.

    It is behind the Bilderburgers and globalism. It controls the world you live in. It is a very sophisticated system that appeals to the sophisticated. This is what Jesus meant when He said He was a light in a dark world. Never underestimate its power of deception and understand why Jesus said that if the light you think you have is really darkness, it is dark indeed.

  2. Kirt Higdon

    If you define paganism as anything evil in the world, including any evil hiding out in Christianity, then you have a definition too broad to be useful – sort of like racism. You might as well not use the word pagan at all and simply say evil.

  3. John14:6

    This sums it all up.

    “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

    John 14:6

    Any “religion” that denies this is false.

  4. thaddeus

    Kirt is right (can’t believe I wrote those three words together in a single sentence). Using “pagan” as a synonym for “bad” is sloppy thinking. Leftists lump every brand of conservatism/traditionalism in together this way, and it’s just as useless.

    The Davenport article is pathetic. It was first published at Alt Right, where it was ripped to shreds. This line is laughably juvenile:

    “The gods of paganism are sheer fiction, but Christ is real. ”

    Well, sure; I could just as easily say, “Santa Claus is sheer fiction, but the Easter Bunny is real.” It’s nothing but argument by assertion, the most childish type.

    “True” based on what? Longevity? That’s a Darwinian argument! Given that Liberalism seems to be chugging along at a good clip and crushing traditionalism, does that make Liberalism “true”?

    The best, indeed the only reasonable entry, in this discussion so far has come from Greg Johnson, also at Counter-Currents:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/08/racial-civil-religion/

    At least he addresses the problems we actually face and how religion, of whatever variety, dovetails with them.

  5. Weaver

    I don’t follow counter-currents, but I’m told [by Thaddeus] Johnson’s is the leading article against Devenport.

    Johnson writes:

    I have no doubt that the indigenous European folk religions can be revivified through studying the fragments that have come down to us, accessing traces of living traditions, and having direct experiences of the numinous.

    Johnson needs a Numa, and something so material and thus base as race can’t itself be the focus of a religion. A religion could be set up to benefit a race, but it can’t put the material as highest good, especially not in this age of technology where we can analyse the material.

    But for me, my race is not just my nation, it is my religion as well.

    A strong feeling of reaction against the death of a people is only temporary. It won’t endure under different circumstances. Faith endures.

    Johnson’s argument sounds good, but I don’t think he’s familiar with the depth Christian traditionalists possess.

    It’s not so easy to found a religion unless someone copies Christian traditionalists replacing “God” with “Thor”.

    Christianity has two thousand years of tradition behind it, plus pagan tradition. Paganism is a restart. We’d have to repeat the same errors again, learn from them, hope we survive long enough to create a similar tradition.

    To put it bluntly: a religion of race would destroy a race. A traditional Christianity, however could preserve it.

  6. Weaver

    SoCal Patriot,

    you should post a link to Nil Desperandum’s article at TPC!

    There are so many sites I should be caught up on but am not. I’ll read it and see if I can translate some point from it to post at TPC, where it will likely be read by no one. Some articles like that the authors I think intentionally write so that few can follow. I don’t yet know that’s the case there ofc.

    Mormonism is weird. Kabbalah I’ve read encourages the same. I obviously haven’t studied it…

    I wish someone would go through the different sites, gather all the points and post a complete website. The Promethians (transhumanists) are whom I always think of myself as opposing. And it’s really the same, or a very similar, spirit as others.

  7. thaddeus

    Johnson’s argument sounds good, but I don’t think he’s familiar with the depth Christian traditionalists possess.

    To put it bluntly: a religion of race would destroy a race. A traditional Christianity, however could preserve it.

    In fact, if there’s anything that Xianity, traditional or otherwise, has proven to be, it has proven to be completely ineffectual at stopping the slow-motion triumph of Cultural Marxism.

    And it’s not like traditionalists have any control or even influence over Xianity, Catholic or otherwise. Even if traditional Xianity were our ally, it’s not like it’s about to become a force in any major Church, let alone in politics.

    Look at Liberation Theology and what’s happening to Latin America. And here in the U.S, the Catholic Church is flagrantly promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, as VDARE has documented.

    The problem is, Xian churches are, by their very nature, universalist, which is ever going to be the enemy force to ethno-nationalism (and ethno-nationalism is what we need). In fact, this was part of what the Reformation was about in the first place — a revolt of Northern European proto-nationalism against a globalist, universalist power. Sound familiar?

    The only places where Xian churches have ever managed to do any good is when they have been almost explicitly nationalist churches, as the Catholic Church in Poland and Hungary was under the communists, and as the Orthodox Church is in Russia today.

    But given that the odds of Xianity taking on ethno-nationalist dress here in North America, or in Western Europe, are nil to none.

    Therefore, something stronger is needed to supplement it. Xianity clearly will not lead us out of this mess, a mess it was powerless to prevent in the first place, even when it was a thousand times stronger than it is today.

    As for Johnson, I don’t see him particularly promoting paganism at the expense of Xianity (though he does support it). I read him to be saying that all religions are welcome, if secondary, in achieving etho-nationalist goals: i.e., the one point that religions must concede is that ethno-nationalist interests must come first. If they don’t (as in the cast of Catholic or Evangelical promotion of amnesty and the race-replacement of whites), then they become an enemy force.

  8. Weaver

    I didn’t say he would persecute Christians. I don’t personally have cause for warring with him so long as he doesn’t embrace some stance that’s dangerous. I doubt, lacking Christianity, he’d be able to find a path that wouldn’t ultimately be destructive and thus anti-white.

    Anyway, I appreciate that he’s relatively open with his arguments. I think with complete honesty and openness an understanding could at least be reached.

    Reg. your claims about Christianity, I’ve witnessed how readily nationalists throw away their race when confronted with Darwinism and genetic engineering. Lacking faith, they only pretend to be nationalists. This doesn’t apply to all, but it does reveal how weak they are. Nearly every “nationalist” site and magazine has hosted multiple transhumanist articles this decade. They don’t seem able to recognise how destroying a race is not the same as preserving it. Lacking a religion, they’ve lost their ability to judge. Darwinism blurs what race is, throws in notions of races improving, changing. If you embrace change as your identity, you no longer have the race.

    The US South, Afrikaaner Calvinismt, old Anglicans, and supposedly Prussian Lutheranism are all conservative Protestant traditions. And there are of course many active Catholic Trads today. I tend to read the Catholics, because they’re the most together. You also have kinism and whatever Faith and Heritage classes itself.

    I agree that some change is needed, but I don’t believe Christianity need be broken for that. There is clearly a flaw, a weakness, existent. It simply needs to be corrected.

    The nonracial Trads tend to declare one cannot establish a new tradition as near-sacred such as that a society will not accept in further immigration (not the same as rejecting foreign residents which is fine provided numbers are low and political activity nonexistent). And yet we have easy transport today, and they admit the negatives of cosmopolitan societies.

  9. Weaver

    All I have to do is browse counter-currents to see why paganism is not easy to establish. Perhaps a Numa will come along to offer something constructive, but for now the pagans are only arguing hypotheticals. Hypothetically something could be gathered together. Well, find your Numa.

  10. Weaver

    I do intend to, myself, gather pagan material. I think the tendency of Christians to attack anything clearly pagan has led to something even more sinister arising with this scientific humanism or whatever you’ll call it.

    And we tend to assume the pagans of the past were more degenerate than they were, because they’re demonised. It’s better to have people fall into something less degenerate when their faith wanes.

    Some of the pagans are very similar to Christians. Rome appears to have been fairly degenerate from what I’ve seen, but maybe that’s only from certain periods. Anyway, Cicero is a Stoic, and he’s worth reading. The Zoroastrians are interesting, but their religion is in pieces.

    Isn’t Johnson gay? One difference I think I have with him is sexual morality. It is simply pro-life to oppose sex outside marriage. It leads to children out of wedlock and disease, it leads to a pleasure-obsessed weak society, and it undermines the institution of monogamous marriage which gives children identity and place. You can approach these things rationally, but there’s not going to be agreement. Christianity declares what is right, and it’s so.

    When Lycurgus instituted his reforms in Sparta, he’s said to have used his popularity as well as troops. He sanctified things at the oracle at Delphi. We haven’t such an oracle, though possibly a church could do the same?

    Numa supposedly took advice from a water nymph, as well as gods I want to say. I certainly have no desire to create something new and utterly false. I fully believe there’s a God. Whatever errors I’ve made over the years, I’ve always believed there’s a God; and I’ve never wanted to lie to people with a newly crafted religion. I’ve tended to view the destruction of Europeans worldwide and especially in the Southern USA as semi-religious admittedly, but I’ve never actually worshiped race.

  11. thaddeus

    I doubt, lacking Christianity, he’d be able to find a path that wouldn’t ultimately be destructive and thus anti-white.

    Well, given that pro-whiteness is his one explicit tenet, to which he subordinates all others, I don’t see how that’s possible.

    I’ve witnessed how readily nationalists throw away their race when confronted with Darwinism and genetic engineering.

    To be more precise on my part, whenever I use the term “nationalist,” I mean, “ethono-nationalist.” Nationalism without an ethnic basis practically doesn’t exist; that’s something that I would call mere “patriotism” — a defense of a state, not a nation.

    Darwinism blurs what race is, throws in notions of races improving, changing. If you embrace change as your identity, you no longer have the race.

    I don’t necessarily see how that follows. E.g., (and I bring this up strictly as a hypothetical,) if there’s miscegenation in a race, one can mitigate this by purposeful opposition to miscegenation, in a variety of ways. This can broadly be termed “Darwinist,” but it is not racially destructive, but rather, the opposite.

    As for the other idea, to be honest, I think “transhumanism” is such a small phenomenon as to be hardly worth noting.

    I agree that some change is needed, but I don’t believe Christianity need be broken for that. There is clearly a flaw, a weakness, existent. It simply needs to be corrected.

    Now, with that, I do agree — hence my point that “something stronger is needed to supplement it” (note that I did not say “supplant it”).

    “Nonracial Trads” is, IMO, a contradiction in terms. If you’re non-racial, you’re not traditional, whether you call yourself such or not.

    What’s the Numa? Does it have to be metaphysical? I’m not so sure it does. Instead of “numa,” I would say, “What’s your ideal?” I think ethnic identity has the potential to be the ideal for our time. Indeed, it was gaining popularity early in the 20th century, but of course, it was derailed. Yet the underlying premise has validity.

  12. thaddeus

    Oh, and yes, Counter-Currents is appallingly indifferent to homosexuality (i.e., perversion). It’s the one black mark on that site.

    It seems like every traditionalist organ has one blind spot: CC with its insufficient condemnation of homo degeneracy, American Renaissance with its sickening philosemitism, Alternative Right (for a time) with its dismal acceptance of aspects of feminism.

    I fail to understand how these organizations can’t seem to simply reject every modern poison, from homo supremacism to Judaic supremacism to female supremacism, and embrace tradition as a whole.

  13. thaddeus

    The Occidental Observer still has the best editorial policy of any online dissident-Right site, IMO.

  14. SL Toddard

    As was pointed out in the comments section at Alt Right, Dr. Fleming wrote extensively (and in my opinion argued conclusively) about this subject not too long ago:

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/10/09/the-sin-of-humility/

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/10/24/athens-and-jerusalem-ii-a-religion-for-sissies/

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/11/02/athens-and-jerusalem-iii-why-rome-fell/

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/11/17/athens-and-jerusalem-iv-medieval-christian-wimps/

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/11/17/athens-and-jerusalem-iv-medieval-christian-wimps/

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/11/19/athens-and-jerusalem-v-the-germanization-of-christianity/

    The position of the neo-pagan right with regards to Christianity reminds me very much of the WN critique of paleoconservatism, which can be summed up as “Instead of continuing with a program (paleoconservatism) that has had little success, we should instead adopt one (WN) that has had none at all.”

  15. Weaver

    Thanks SL Toddard!

    I’ve also attacked “paleoconservatism” in the past and, like Francis, I’m not sure I’m a true paleo. I want a more ethnic approach, among other similar things. Since Dr. Fleming is one of the two who came up with the term, I’ll leave him to defining it. And I’m pretty sure he’d define me out of it :)

    That said, I haven’t fallen into insanity!

    I’m going to read all of these links, thanks again.

  16. SL Toddard

    Weaver, I use “paleoconservative” in a more inexact way than some, I guess. I’m not sure I’d fit the strict definition either. I use it as a catch-all to describe the traditionalist American-style Right (to differentiate between us and the neoconservatives, Conservative Inc and also European-style rightists).

  17. thaddeus

    Of those three, it’s unquestionable that the European-style rightings, i.e., the “New Right,” as they call it, has had the greatest success. It actually holds seats in government in several European states, and in Hungary, one would even assert that the governing party is of its kind (let alone Jobbik).

    Interestingly, it also has the most explicitly ethnic component. This is not a coincidence.

  18. SL Toddard

    Of those three, it’s unquestionable that the European-style rightings, i.e., the “New Right,” as they call it, has had the greatest success

    Not in America it hasn’t. And unfortunately that’s where most of us need a right-wing movement to succeed. I agree that appeals to ethnicity are more productive than appeals to something as reductive as race, but unless the idea of defining Americans as an ethnic group becomes widespread then appeals to ethnicity will divide rather than unite American whites.

    I do think, however, that defining American as an ethnicity would be extremely productive for the dissident right. When asked “what is an American” or “who is an American” we can reply that an American can be defined as “a descendant of the original British settlers of America, or one who’s ancestors came after but who has assimilated to the degree as to be indistinguishable from the descendants of said settlers” (just as an Englishman might be defined as a descendant of the Anglo-Saxons settlers of Britain or one whose ancestors came after but who has assimilated to the degree as to be indistinguishable from the descendants of said Anglo-Saxons).

  19. Matt Weber

    A race-based definition of American won’t work, because of blacks and others who won’t fit but are obviously American. America will never be an ethnostate, though an America which fractures balkan-style could produce some ethnostates.

  20. SL Toddard

    A race-based definition of American won’t work, because of blacks and others who won’t fit but are obviously American

    They are obviously [i]not[/i] American. Just ask Eric Holder or Ta Nehisi Coates or Al Sharpton who they are referring to when they say “my people”. Is it the American people? No, it (quite obviously) is not. They are referring to the African-American people, an ethnicity with its own dialect and mores and standards.

  21. SL Toddard

    Although I do agree with you, Matt Weber, that a race-based definition of American won’t work. It must be based on ethnicity, which takes into account a lot more than just race.

  22. SL Toddard

    Although I should point out that I am not proposing an ethno-state in any case, but a conservatism that seeks to protect and promote the interests of the American people.

  23. SoCal Patriot

    OT,

    ALERT!

    Big happenings this coming Thursday,August 21st in Nashville,TN:

    “Tennessee Reasserting It’s Rights Under The Tenth Amendment,Establishes Committee,First Order Of Business Refugee Resettlement”

    https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/tennessee-reasserting-its-rights-under-the-tenth-amendment-establishes-committee-first-order-of-business-refugee-resettlement

    Spread the word!

    All who can go,GO!

    Let’s hope this sort of thing spreads across the country like a raging wildfire!

  24. Matt Weber

    Blacks really have no conception of themselves as being anything other than American. They might play at being “African” but it is only a show.

    That said, they definitely view black and white as distinct groups of people. Not surprising, since blacks have always been treated differently and set apart.

    Most of our confusion here comes from treating the US as a nation when it is more like an empire. This means, for example, that we envision a politics that will work for all people while also promoting a set of “well-being” metrics designed to make the US resemble a homogenous country like Norway or Japan. Unsurprisingly it doesn’t work–America is too large and too diverse.

    America could go forward by promoting a federalist vision that allows different groups to congregate in different places and govern themselves accordingly, while economic integration is established at the top level. In other words, something like what the US was intended to be originally. It’s a hard sell in the best of times though, not to mention inherently unstable, and in any case now all the groups hate and distrust each other too much to allow anyone else at the reins (and controlling the piles of cash). So we war over the central government interminably as though it were the mayorship of a town of 1000 where everyone knows everyone else.

    This model is failing as we speak, but who knows when or if it will ever “tip over” into something more sensible. If it did, then “American” could splinter into definable ethnic groups while retaining the collective but much weaker sense of the term, akin to Roman citizenship. Without that separation of the two senses of belonging, ethnic redefining is a non-starter.

    Maybe it is separating though. Whites of my generation (I’m 31) don’t care about integration anymore, especially not of blacks. We get our diversity from high-IQ immigrants. America is generally big enough that whites can get by without ever interacting with blacks, and blacks can get by without interacting with whites at any more than a superficial economic level. I have no black friends and don’t care to have any, and I suspect I am not an oddity in this respect.

  25. Weaver

    Matt writes: “Not surprising, since blacks have always been treated differently and set apart.”

    They set themselves apart too, and they treat others differently. In my area, it’s the white churches that are diverse, perhaps as you say “high IQ immigrants”. The black churches are nearly all black, though they welcome whites to visit there I suppose.

    Blacks know they can’t “return to Africa” easily, because Africans there look down on 1. their mixed heritage 2. their descent from slaves. That’s what the blacks locally tell me anyway, and I don’t benefit from making that up.

    Perhaps things are different in a state like Liberia. I have no idea about such things. Come to think of it, the blacks who’ve told me that have likely never been outside the US; so it could well be a myth or condescension from the few Africans who visit/move to the States.

  26. Weaver

    ” I have no black friends and don’t care to have any, and I suspect I am not an oddity in this respect.”

    I do, but I’m fearful what some might do if Al Sharpton started preaching I’m a racist. The black hate industry, e.g. the NAACP, Nation of Islam, etc., makes it difficult to live with them.

    You also have movies like the recent Ooga Booga (2013). Amazon description:

    Revenge is served on a spear when dirty cops murder an innocent African-American med student.When his soul is transferred into the body of a popular toy, Ooga Booga, the bodies pile up as he kills every racist in the city, while trying to clear his name.

    That is just messed up. I sent CofCC a heads-up on it, but thusfar no one’s covered it. So, I suppose I will. It’s free to watch with Amazon Prime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>