The Washington Post decided to run an article where they laid out a case against the historical existence of Jesus. On Christmas morning. It is quite a statement, I suppose. A sharp thumb into the eyes of Christians around the world. Or it attempts to be. But I wonder, do any Christians really care? Yes I'm sure there is annoyance at such deliberate provocation from what is supposedly a respectable news outlet. I'm annoyed and I don't even go to church. But does anyone really care about their analysis? Do Christians, at least the more thoughtful ones, really care if there is a case against the literal existence of Jesus? Maybe he is, after all, a fictional character, an archetypal depiction of the ideal spiritual being, leading his followers toward peace and inner salvation. Who cares? If the Washington Post could absolutely prove, beyond a doubt, that Christ never actually walked the Earth (or on water for that matter), do you think it would stop even a single Christian from practicing their faith? Certainly it wouldn't be enough to matter. Christianity is much deeper than a story about a guy.
Here's what gets me about people who make these kinds of arguments, and I probably used to be one of them. Some of the most annoying conversations I've ever had are with people trying to logically or empirically disprove the literal word of the Bible. The arguments go something like this: the Bible can't literally be true because [reasons], therefore those who believe in the Bible are unsophisticated rubes. They assume that the least sophisticated interpretation of the Bible is the literal and verbatim interpretation. Fair enough. But then they denounce the Bible using that same interpretation! They are making the least sophisticated critique of the Bible possible, then they strut around putting on airs like they're enlightened intellectuals. They call themselves progressive, and the rest are backwards. These people are worse than useless, not because they're ignorant, but because they don't realize they are professing the exact same ignorance they pretend to be against.
So there's that, but who cares? Of course the Dunning-Krueger effect exists; that is nothing new. Even more profound is the deliberate display of hatred towards western traditions. You don't get much more western traditiony than Christmas. But that's nothing new either. The modern left and their media mouthpieces are hotbeds of anti-Western hatred. We know that. Everyone reading blogs like this is doing so for a reason. You literally trust strangers on the internet to give you social analysis more than you do the lying media. What is most extraordinary to me is the sheer level of cowardice that such a piece reflects, given the context. Trashing Christians, there's a dangerous route. Has anyone in the western media ever been killed for saying bad things about Christians? What about for saying bad things about Islam? This doesn't need to be explained. It's the reason they'll drive past 6 Muslim bakeries to "shop" at the Christian baker. Here's a prediction: you will never ever ever ever (ever times infinity) read an article out of a major mainstream outlet that makes the case against the existence of the prophet Mohammad on the first day of Ramadan. They would never dare, out of ideology sure, but more out of fear. If it ever happens, I will renounce this blog and shut it down forever, because I will have been proven as wrong as possible. But it won't happen. What's most striking is that, just like how these Christophobics think they're very sophisticated, they actually believe they are very brave! I guarantee you that all associated with the article are proud of how they bravely stood up to oppressive Christianity on its most holy day. They think they're brave. But they'd never do the same against Islam. Because they don't want to end up on the wrong side of a Charlie Hedbo-type of massacre.
I call this post Megacowards because I don't know of a proper term to describe these people. They're a mix of cowardice and treason. But it's bigger than normal individual cowardice. That is micro-cowardice. What's going on here is more like macro-cowardice; a civilizational fear to confront the obvious enemies. Treason isn't quite the right word either, if only because it conveys an element of strength. I think treason gives them a bit too much credit. And it doesn't convey that they are ironically cowardly. (Damn hipsters!) Megacowardice will have to suffice for now.
There is one fault in Christianity exposed by all this. It has made us too nice. It's the New Testament that has done it. It taught us to see the good in everyone. Not a bad lesson, particularly because the Bible is meant as a lesson in spiritual salvation, not a treatise on political theory. It is beneficial for us spiritually and emotionally to see others as sharing the spark of divinity, rather than as "others" who must be always treated as a threat. But there must be some balance. Yes, being afraid of everyone is exhausting and is no way to live a meaningful life. However, we must also strike against evil wherever it exists. That was more the theme of the Old Testament. (Growing up with my Children's Bible, I was only ever interested in reading the Old Testament stories.) The Christian world has taken the New Testament into domains for which it was never intended, and discarded the Old Testament entirely.
The concept of evil in the world, the works of Satan, have drifted from their original meaning. The common notion is of intentional malice, the deliberate infliction of harm and pain. That is certainly the ethos of the left! Their constant cries of oppression and injustice are just a modern version of those who used to see the works of Satan everywhere they looked. But Satan wasn't really a major player in the Bible, and the forces of evil weren't deliberate malice, but the winds of chaos. God is order, Satan is chaos, and Jesus is man's struggle between those forces. If there is one thing that could rope me back into being a church man, it would be the resurgence of that old idea. Entropy is evil, disorder is the devil. And in fact, not to get too grandiose, but that is the one missing piece of the puzzle that could restore the west. If we had the religious conviction that equates disorder to the devil, we would have no choice but to take the proper actions. This Washington Post article isn't just annoyingly unsophisticated. It's evil! It really is, in the sense that it is the seductive song of disorder. It is the serpent in the garden. Western society is the most ordered civilization to ever exist, with all flaws considered. We've tamed nature, solved countless mysteries of the universe, scattered the fruits of our victories over entropy throughout the world. And these people want to destroy it and everything it stands for. They side with Muslim foreigners over us, an ideology that knows only conquest and submission, and has hardly a thing in its long history to be proud of.
The problem with Christians these days is they are weak. They don't know what evil really is. Only a cartoonish version similar to what the left believes in. And they never name the devil when they see it. The word “devil” means “false accuser” or “slanderer". Need I say more? If Christians today can't call the devil for what it is, then what is the the point of their faith at all? They are not being even slightly pious and soon will be destroyed by the biggest cowards to ever walk the Earth. None of this is very righteous. I think we're about due for a prophet.
Love your blog, been reading it for months. We finally hooked up our blog links so.......
ReplyDeleteYour "Muslims kill Liberals" series is wicked; your posts on dollar as world reserve currency and its role in the empire has been very useful to us.
As a neoreactionary, we disagree with your take on why liberals join forces with Muslims.
It is not "cowardice" or, strictly speaking, "treason" but strategy.
The logic is High and Low against Middle or what we in our blog refer to as the conflict between Elites, Essentials and Expendables.
Essentially, the High use the Low to degrade, diminish, defeat and destroy the power of the Middles in order to secure and expand their own power.
Christians in America - the "Christian Right" - are a political threat (though mostly an obstacle) to the High/Elites (Liberals) getting their way. However, the High cannot (usually) defeat Middle in open battle or just "fire" them. They must take an indirect strategy. In this case, it is immigration and diversity.
Muslim immigration means that Liberals can de-fang Christianity from power and influence AND keep it from getting any power and influence in the future.
The Muslims who do come in will be mixed, however. Some will be very loyal and join the Elite (Fareed Zakaria) and some will turn terrorist (Major Hidal); some will be ordinary, but each have their place in the system.
This is the essence of the theory as it applies to this phenomena (which is very old - see Jouvenel's On Power.) While, this may sound counter-intuitive, we in Nrx have been doing a lot of theory-building on it.
So, our theory is neither economic or cultural, genetic or ideological: it is structural - it is about the structure of power and the security of Elites.
For more, see:
https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/36/
https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/the-steel-cameralist-manifesto-part-5-the-minotaur-of-war-the-power-selection-theory/
https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/19/philosophy-praxeology-and-power-1/
Thanks for the comment. I'm glad someone is getting some use out of this blog. I'm especially pleased you mention the Global Reserve Currency post by name, as I consider it to be the most substantive post this blog has produced. I keep wanting to return to the subject, but I'm not sure what else I might be able to say about it.
DeleteI will take a look at your blog. I like the name. I'm strongly considering re-branding this one.