In his latest essay, MC examines the replacement of our traditional religious heritage with a shallow, irrational, feelings-based substitute that has brought modern socialism into being — and which bears a strange resemblace to Islam.
Touchy-feely-ism the new religion of Europe.
Those people who are non-Muslims and who support the so-called ‘religion of peace’ tend to be of a secular humanist strain of belief themselves, which does not of course exclude those who are nominally of a religious persuasion.
In this context, ‘Equality’ is a religion in itself, as is ‘Social Justice’, but they are not necessarily stand-alone religions. They tend to come as part and parcel of a package of beliefs that make up either a political religion or a traditional religion.
In the mid nineteenth century, Charles Darwin proposed a route by which organisms may have evolved from unicellular lifeforms to intelligent lifeforms, thus removing scientific dependence upon the metaphysical. In the minds of many, he did away with religion. In reality he founded a new tranche of secular/political religions, and the accompanying hybrids of both.
For the first time it became intellectually possible to view man as ‘god’ without being laughed out of court.
The consequence to the established churches was to de-mystify the holy scriptures, to see them as secular rather than as divinely inspired, and so leaders of churches decided that they had the right to ‘modernise’ belief. If we take the Church of England/Anglican/Episcopalian tradition for example, God and Allah are now deemed to be the same entity, just different shades of the same spectrum of belief. And, yes, they are in this sense: ‘God’, who is an utterly mystical entity hiding behind a very human ‘Jesus’, and whose teachings may be bent, twisted and distorted by anybody with the appropriate and approved divinity degree. But although this is the rather simplistic view of the CofE elite (the synod), there remain many real believers in the grass-roots pews on Sunday.
God disappeared two thousand years ago and has not been seen or heard from since. Allah, on the other hand, is only 1400 years defunct, but both are viable brand names that can be exploded on a gullible public, a public that has been taught to believe almost anything it sees or hears on a TV screen.
School is an agonizing experience for most people. It is so unpleasant that many people rebel against it. When they leave the excruciating agony of enforced education, they never want to open another textbook. So it is contrived that our semi-literate society is not capable of forming an opinion for themselves; and must rely upon the erudition of their ‘betters’ in the media or the pulpit. But when the media is blind, or worse, malignantly religious, then does not the ditch await?
We are binary beings. Each of us has an intellect and an animal instinct, and in each of us these two things form a balance. The point of balance however varies, and the cerebral control over the animalist body can swing on an hour to hour basis.
Emotions are animal. If we get emotional about a subject, then our rationality suffers; we become feral. Western culture used to count rationalism over emotionalism. We went to temple on Sunday and let our emotion run a bit wild so that we could live sane lives for the rest of the week. That temple might be at a football stadium or a ball park, but we could let off steam.
Then came television.
Television toys with our emotions over and above our rationality. It is instrumental in the reduction of Western culture to the banal and trivial. It renders emotion as transcendent over logic.
The superior Western culture, evolving over centuries of rational thought, has been dumped and a driven ‘knowledge’ of good and bad forced upon us by the ever-present media forces. Modern religion tends to be both man-made and emotional, and TV supported by other media has now defined its own religion: a religion of peas (in a pod) where all must be in conformity and sweet as the moment when the pod went kerplonk. One can no longer exclude the bad apple; one must sit quietly alongside the stink and take it home with one. One must watch benignly while the whole family festers and becomes stinky too.
When the group is promoted at the expense of the individual, then that sense of responsibility which is so essential to self-control is immersed by the group responsibility. In the pre-TV age this did not matter so much, because the groups were miniscule and without influence. As the singularity of influence blossomed through the growing and evolving machinery of mass media, so the balance of intellect over emotion moved towards the emotional over the rational.
Thus grew the very dangerous and malignant religion of socialism.
At the heart of socialism is the belief that theft (or anything else for that matter) is OK as long as it is done by the state, and that the state is the god of the socialist nation and can do no wrong. Socialists also believe that capitalism is wrong, and set up a state cartel to take its place. Cartelism is the hallmark of the advanced socialist state. In the communist model the state cartel is owned and controlled by the
people state, and in the Nazi model the state cartel is controlled by the state. In either regime not one nut or bolt is produced without state sanction, and not one wage paid without state sanction. Enemies of the state are enslaved or are executed.
At the heart of Islam is the belief that theft (or anything else for that matter) is OK as long as it is done in infidel lands, and that the prophet is the god of the Ummah nation and can do/did no wrong. Muslims also believe that capitalism is satanic, and so set up a Shariah cartel to take its place. Shariah cartelism is the hallmark of the advanced Islamic state. In the moderate model the cartel is owned and controlled by the
Ummah Caliphate, and in the Islamist model the Sharia cartel is controlled by the Caliphate. In either regime not one nut or bolt is produced, and not one wage paid without submission; enemies of the state are enslaved or are executed.
Does it work? Not really; both regimes are too destructive of human reason. There is in a human a very fragile dominance of mind over matter; our bodies are physical and animal with rampant lusts and desires. This animal should be controlled by consciousness and rationality, which is delicate and elusive. Consciousness cannot be explained in terms of the physical and animal, and for society to prosper it must always support the rational over the emotional/animal. Only consciousness can rationalize the good from the evil. When this ability is compromised, then the animal/emotional takes over.
So primal idiocy takes over from rational thought. We welcome our murderers into our house because we are no longer capable of the rational, and must abide by the emotional. We think we are displaying ‘humanity’ by harbouring and nurturing wild animals, but those whose animal is dominant are no longer human; they are feral creatures seeking the primal needs of food, warmth and sex at the expense of the benign societies around them.
Do we think animals are grateful? Do we think that animals like us? Do we think they will not turn and bite the hand that feeds them if so motivated? Are we deluded?
Socialism is a religion defined by men, just as surely as Judaism is a religion defined by Rabbis. But where is the wisdom of socialism? Is it in a book that goes back thousands of years? Or is it in an as yet unproven manifesto less that two hundred years old? Where is the glowing example that shows us that socialism is the way forwards? Does it lie with Stalin and 100 million dead, or Hitler with only 20 million dead? Or maybe with Mao with 70 million and rising?
Islam is a religion defined by a dead prophet, a religion frozen in time and centred upon the outrageous behaviour of a man devoid of humanity. A man-wolf leading a pack of rabid dogs to all excesses (and here I am insulting the wolf in the comparison). Do the 60 million dead in India rate as progressive?
“Oh, I like human beings — all kinds. It’s my profession to study them, for without that the practice of the law would be a lean affair. There are hordes of people like the Giffens — only not so good, for they really have hearts of gold. They are the rootless stuff in the world to-day — in revolt against everything and everybody with any ancestry. A kind of innocent self-righteousness — wanting to be the people with whom wisdom begins and ends. They are mostly sensitive and tender-hearted, but they wear themselves out in an eternal dissidence. Can’t build, you know, for they object to all tools, but very ready to crab. They scorn any form of Christianity, but they’ll walk miles to patronize some wretched sect that has the merit of being brand-new. ‘Pioneers’ they call themselves — funny little unclad people adventuring into the cold desert with no maps. Giffen once described himself and his friends to me as ‘forward-looking,’ but that, of course, is just what they are not. To tackle the future you must have a firm grip of the past, and for them the past is only a pathological curiosity. They’re up to their necks in the mud of the present… But good, after a fashion; and innocent — sordidly innocent. Fate was in an ironical mood when she saddled them with that wicked little house.”
— From “The Runagates Club” John Buchan (1928)
It is interesting reading pre-WW2 literature, written at a time before intellect was poisoned by the need to appear to be non-Nazi. Writers like John Buchan could express their opinions in a non-toxic environment, an environment where self-expression was more important than following the politically religious straight and narrow.
Now we cannot use the n-word unless we are ‘n’ ourselves, or the ‘c’ word if we personally have a ‘p’. But on the other hand, Jooos, a.k.a Zionists, a major victim of Nazism, are fair game, and Israel, the Jewish/Zionist state, is to blame for all evil. Like Twain, Buchan (from Scotland) uses the n-word in its context as describing a skin colour and without malice, he uses the term “Polish smoozer” in exactly the same way that a Litvak (Lithuanian Jew) might. There was no venom in the usage.
Riligion (sic) changed all that, based upon the hypothesis that all wars have been caused by religion (white supremacy/Judeo-Christianity). The socialist group of riligions, the main warmongers of the 20th century, were able to advocate ‘peace’ by removing religion from the intellectual mainstream.
However, along with of the removal of Judeo-Christianity went the removal of those religious traits springing specifically from Judeo-Christianity, the “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, faith and temperance” (see Galatians 5). But the biggest baby to be thrown out with this bathwater was trust.
Western Civilisation was built upon trust, a trust that made self-service supermarkets work. One hears that the Aldi supermarket chain in Germany is finding it difficult to deal with the high levels of theft from migrants in small towns. To stay in business they will have to punish their indigenous client base.
We allow our 10-year-olds to go to the swimming pool because we trust that they are not sexual targets, and that if they are assaulted, then there will be serious consequences for the perp. For violating that trust. These things are our cultural norms, the assumptions that underpin our everyday life in the West. But these are not the cultural norms further East.
In a metaphysical religion, it is the duty of God to apply correction as He sees fit independently of mankind, but in a physicalist religion, the man-god must apply any corrections himself. Islam falls into the latter group, because Muslims believe that they have to fight god’s (Mohammed’s) battles for him. So we get gulags and gas chambers, chop-chop squares and stonings.
The socialist religion brings to bear the full irrationality of human ‘touchy-feelyism’ but enforced with a rod of iron. To be non-touchy-feely is to be a dangerous, war-mongering demon worthy only of damnation and isolation. Real people are ‘in touch’ with their emotions and just know that we all have to lurve one another and make up for many centuries of white oppression.
The religion of socialism thus believes that skin colour alone is of primal importance.
This begs the question of course, was Western culture superior because of Judeo-Christianity, or was it superior because of white skin colour?
I don’t think anybody really doubts that there has been and still is a ‘white superiority’, but the big question is what was its causality? To believe that there is superior merit in having a white skin is somewhat naïve, and one should be looking more deeply for another factor.
Could it be the Judeo-Christianity? If so, the Marxist religious war against Judeo-Christianity would cause the end of civilization and a return to barbarism.
Is this what we are observing?
MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.