Why Do Fascists Hate Christianity? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14467832
Pod - That Europeans can practice any religion they wish does not make the question of what religion they should practice any less interesting. There's a huge difference between the freedom to make a choice and making the right choice. Arguably the latter is more important than the former.

It also needs to be said that, in fact, individuals are not free to practice any civil religion (at least not in any well-functioning society). The State, and if the people are loyal, the society, force individuals to practice the reigning civil religion. In the past, civil religion and spiritual religion were typically the same, with the government forcing subjects to practice the State religion or, if not that, to submit to its hegemony (hence the Roman Empire's crushing of the Jews or Islam's dhimmitude concept). With the Reformation (in some places) and especially the bourgeois Enlightenment, spiritual religion retreated to the private sphere, and instead "secularism" and "human rights" progressively became the new hegemonic civil religion.

Anyone who deviates from the civil religion of the day will be ostracized and suffer varying degrees of persecution for not following "the rules" society broadly agrees need to be abided by to function. For example, before the 1960s, Bolsheviks and Stalinists in the United States suffered for their political beliefs and activities, as this was not compatible with the reigning Americanism. Since the 1960s, a new civil religion has been put in place throughout the West, leading to similar consequences for ethno-nationalists and Islamists. Practically the new civil religion of secularism-multiculturalism entails relegation of spirituality to the private sphere (hence why Islamists get in trouble), rejection of ethnic identity on the part of the majority (hence the troubles European ethno-nationalists face), and condoning of ethnic identity on the part of minorities (hence the apology for Israeli nationalism and multiculturalism). An interesting question is: Why how and why did this new civil religion emerge?

Image

Americanism is (was?) quite obviously a civil religion with its apostle-like and deified Founding Fathers and sacred texts (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Gettysburg Address..).

Further reading:
* Robert N. Bellah, "Civil religion in America," 1967. (The classic text on the topic.)
*Greg Johnson, "Racial Civil Religion," 2013. (A contemporary far-right perspective on Christianity.)

PoD wrote:No. If socialists had shoveled Jews into ovens by the millions, you might have a point.

But you don't.

My God we have a holodomor-denier. Why do you hate so much PoD? Freud says it has to do with unresolved psychosocial issues as opposed to any legitimate grievances..
#14467836
Ombrageux wrote:Pod - That Europeans can practice any religion they wish does not make the question of what religion they should practice any less interesting. There's a huge difference between the freedom to make a choice and making the right choice. Arguably the latter is more important than the former.


It sure does make it less interesting. Once we have agreed that they should not follow any specific religion, (i.e they can do what they want), the question is moot.

It also needs to be said that, in fact, individuals are not free to practice any civil religion (at least not in any well-functioning society). The State, and if the people are loyal, the society, force individuals to practice the reigning civil religion. In the past, civil religion and spiritual religion were typically the same, with the government forcing subjects to practice the State religion or, if not that, to submit to its hegemony (hence the Roman Empire's crushing of the Jews or Islam's dhimmitude concept). With the Reformation (in some places) and especially the bourgeois Enlightenment, spiritual religion retreated to the private sphere, and instead "secularism" and "human rights" progressively became the new hegemonic civil religion.


I thought this paragraph was going to be interesting, but you just ended up using "religion" incorrectly at the end to mean "prevailing cultural mores".

Ombra wrote:My God we have a holodomor-denier.


Please note that Ukrainians are not Jews,and it was Ukrainians killed in the Holodomor.

Also Stalin was not a socialist, he was an authoritarian communist.

Why do you hate so much PoD? Freud says it has to do with unresolved psychosocial issues as opposed to any legitimate grievances..


Lol. Do you think I hate someone? If I knew it would be this amusing, I would not try to discourage these comments about me.
#14467875
Ombrageux wrote:Since the 1960s, a new civil religion has been put in place throughout the West, leading to similar consequences for ethno-nationalists and Islamists. Practically the new civil religion of secularism-multiculturalism entails relegation of spirituality to the private sphere (hence why Islamists get in trouble), rejection of ethnic identity on the part of the majority (hence the troubles European ethno-nationalists face), and condoning of ethnic identity on the part of minorities (hence the apology for Israeli nationalism and multiculturalism). An interesting question is: How and why did this new civil religion emerge?

That is an interesting question. I don't have a comprehensive answer but I think it is broadly a degenerate form of Socialism which itself is a degenerate form of Protestantism. By the 1960s the socialist alternative to capitalism was already looking like a non-starter so ideologues looking for a meal ticket peddling socialism realised they had to do something else so they altered their ideology to suit the interests of international business corporations.
#14468268
Ombrageux wrote:Practically the new civil religion of secularism-multiculturalism entails relegation of spirituality to the private sphere ...


Spiritually has always been part of the private sphere. The public face of religion was embodied in the power politics of the Church and in theology for setting down the true dogma.

Why how and why did this new civil religion emerge?


Traditional religion lost credibility: the power politics of the Church was considered disreputable and the Church was no longer able to play the role of custodian of knowledge as in previous ages. Therefore, traditional religion was relegated to the realm of superstition. But this process was set in motion long before the 60s.

Unfortunately, most people threw out spirituality together with the aspects of traditional religion that no longer corresponded to the reality of the modern world - leaving a void. In the West, this void is filled with consumerism and other forms of materialism.
#14469526
Ombrageux wrote:Among the common criticisms from the far-Right:
* Christianity is originally a Jewish religion, not a European one.
* Christianity is a universalist religion (equality of souls, universal proselytism) and therefore tends to dissolve nations (although some argue Christianity was de facto ethnocentric and kind of folkish when it was Germanized by the Franks, lasting throughout the Middle Ages).
* Christianity is too goody-goody, self-effacing and world-rejecting (turn the other cheek, etc), what Nietzsche called a slave morality.


In the context of of historical fascisms the latter two were probably more essential (since in Italy anti-Semitism was never pronounced, at least until 1938, and something of an ad-on). I've done a lot of reading on those things and one of the more interesting aspects was how, despite said anti-Christianism, they still had to find ways to ideologically negotiate with this legacy (weakened throughout XIX century, yet still strong then), which sometimes resulted in incorporating the Christian vocabulary in a 1:1 manner into the nationalist idea.

In Nazism there appeared Positive Christianity with the virile Germanic/Celtic/Greek Jesus, whose genius was supposed to have lain in rejecting Jewishness. In Italian Fascism the effects were often also kind of hilarious :


The Credo Fascista wrote:Q: What is the Credo of Fascism?

A: It is the Credo given to us by Apostles of Italy and Fascism.

Q: How many articles does it consist of?

A: Twelve, in the following order: I believe in Eternal Rome, mother of my Fatherland, and In Italy, her first son – Who was begotten from her virginal womb by the grace of God – Who suffered under the barbarian invaders, was crucified, died and was buried – Who descended into the grave and rose again from the dead in XIX century – Then ascended to heaven in the years 1918 and 1922 – And sits on the right hand of Mother Rome – From whence it shall come in glory to judge the quick and dead – I believe in the genius of Mussolini – And in our Holy Father Fascism – And in the communion with the martyrs – And in the conversion of the Italians – And in the resurrection of the Empire – Amen.


-------------------------------------------

taxizen wrote:[...] a degenerate form of Socialism which itself is a degenerate form of Protestantism.


Why would you say so, tax ? I believe it's rather the Catholic countries that typically had more robust and hard-line Socialist parties than the Protestant ones (with the exception of Germany).
Last edited by Orestes on 27 Sep 2014 19:05, edited 1 time in total.
#14469542
Orestes wrote:Why would say so, tax ? I believe it's rather the Catholic countries that typically had more robust and hard-line Socialist parties than the Protestant ones (with the exception of Germany).

Yes, but what else is Protestantism but a degenerate form of Catholicism? So the people of Catholicism who had not succumbed to Protestantism had no where else to go when they degenerated but to the next step into Socialism.

Catholicism is a rebellion against kingship, protestantism is a rebellion against the hierarchical church, socialism is a rebellion against any hierarchy, liberalism is a rebellion against everything.
#14469579
Well, you see a sequence of degeneration, I see a sequence of improvement.

Do you consider yourself an Evolian ?


liberalism is a rebellion against everything


I like that, makes me feel like James Dean.
#14469665
Orestes wrote:Well, you see a sequence of degeneration, I see a sequence of improvement.

Do you consider yourself an Evolian ?

I have only recently discovered Evola, but I can say my views have landed in broadly the same ball park as he.
#14474193
Rei Murasame wrote:Fair enough. That's one of the most honest and forthright defences of Al-Qaeda and of Islamists in general, that I've seen in a while. You guys are not usually that direct about it, so I don't have anything else to add.

That line is where we meet the impasse.

Since I support Buddhists, you can see that we will be on opposite sides here, and that it is quite rational and logical that it would end up that way.

It hasn't simply been a matter of conflict between supposed Buddhists, and Muslim militants though. The Christians of the Karen people have also been involved in a long term struggle against the Burmese military junta, due to alleged reprisals, and atrocities committed against them by the Burmese military regime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_National_Liberation_Army As Pants of a Dog posted, if you're part of a persecuted religious minority, you'll want to declare independence from the presiding political power.
#14475000
Probably because the church sways peoples hearts and minds in their favor and fasicist governments want absolute obedience. In exchange for other worldly deities, they get "great leaders" with cults of personality.
#14475052
spodi wrote:Probably because the church sways peoples hearts and minds in their favor and fasicist governments want absolute obedience.


They certainly don't want the church competing with them for the allegiance of the masses, and christian values are far different from theirs.

In exchange for other worldly deities, they get "great leaders" with cults of personality.


Just as I said. Leaders may not be "great" in every way but at least they're real world instead of entirely delusional.

Hitler USED Christianity


If the nazis had really had their way they'd have gotten rid of it altogether. They used it or paid lip service while slowing laying the groundwork for its elimination.
#14475099
^I'm not saying religious figures are superior to dictators, they're both fake in my opinion and screw peoples hearts and minds.
#14475398
spodi wrote:^I'm not saying religious figures are superior to dictators, they're both fake in my opinion and screw peoples hearts and minds.


At least modern dictatorship is better attuned to reality and has the potential to accomplish many vital or great things.
#14475459
starman2003 wrote:At least modern dictatorship is better attuned to reality and has the potential to accomplish many vital or great things.


Maybe the elusive benevolent dictator but even in that case no gods, no masters. If your being sarcastic, sorry I can't sense sarcasm through a screen and if your being serious my response still stands.
#14475541
Political Interest wrote:I noticed that historically most fascists, including National Socialists were not keen on Christianity. Look at Mussolini who was anti-clerical and only tried to approach the Vatican out of political expediency. Then there was the Nazis who had many anti-Christian ideas held among their ranks. Notable among them was Heinrich Himmler who was anti-Christian and flirted with Buddhism and Islam. Hitler also lamented the fact that Germanic Europe had become Christian because he felt it was too meek.

Today a lot of fascists, including those on PoFo are anti-Christian.

Compassion for the weak is anti-racist. Fascism of the Nazi variety was to eliminate genetic weakness in sociaty. Eugenics is literally directed evolution and selective breeding for humans. So if offspring are defective, sterilizing or killing them is key.

Rei Murasame wrote:Fascists wanted to return to the gods of their ancestors, and the enemy wanted to reimpose the Jewish god onto Europe.

Yeah, but monotheism comes from Egypt, not the Levant. Christian myth is essentially derived from Osiris--an Egyptian who ostensibly died, was resurrected and ascended into heaven to judge the quick and the dead. How? Some strains of the myth are that Osiris' wife Isis restores his body and conceives Horus--not unlike the virgin Mary?

Rich wrote:So called social Darwinism was the almost universal belief system of humanity. All peoples understood the need to protect their genetic health of the tribe even if they had no understanding of the mirco biology and DNA mechanisms that underlay genetics. Its modern liberal leftie fantasy that evolution has stopped.

Right, and that was a big part of Nazism, and certainly late imperialism.

Ombrageux wrote:* Christianity is a universalist religion (equality of souls, universal proselytism) and therefore tends to dissolve nations (although some argue Christianity was de facto ethnocentric and kind of folkish when it was Germanized by the Franks, lasting throughout the Middle Ages).

That's another reason that anti-Christianity is a bit strange for the modern left, as they still have universalist pretension to equality before the law and global government, which comes straight out of Christianity.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Westerners/Europeans can already practice whatever religion they want. There is no religion they should have to follow.

So are you ready to acknowledge that "...endowed by their Creator" is where the idea of human rights came from and that rejection of that idea doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity goes away, but human rights somehow stay?


Pants-of-dog wrote:Why are we supposed to believe that a certain percentage of people in Burma would somehow seize control of the gov't and kill everyone if they weren't oppressed, when roughly the same percentage of people in Canada were not oppressed and yet did not do anything even remotely dangerous?

Oh boy... more Canada as Anglo-Saxon heaven... See Rei? There are virtually no social problems in Canada. If the world just adopted the Canadian model, we'd have universal peace and prosperity.

Terrorism in Canada
The Canadian government has banned nearly 40 native organizations, including Al Qaeda, the Armed Islamic Group, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Palestine Liberation Front, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah,[1] Kahane Chai, the Taliban, the Blackfoot, International gourd of Islam, Westboro Baptist Church, and Mujahedin e-Khalq.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Canada also exists, and has better economy, more social cohesion, a distinct lack of mass rapes, a distinct lack of bloody rioting, more rights for women, a distinct lack of Buddhist monks being attacked, and is generally doing better.

Canada is overhwelmingly white, with a small Asian population too. Try importing the population of Haiti to Montreal, and see what happens...

Ombrageux wrote:It also needs to be said that, in fact, individuals are not free to practice any civil religion (at least not in any well-functioning society).

Well... you can't practice religions that require human sacrifice unless the human sacrifice is a foetus or an elder seeking physician-assisted suicide. As long as you wrap it up in something acceptable to the liberals, you can practice a religion with human sacrifice too. I imagine animal sacrifice would be problematic for them, unless of course you get a hunting license first.

Atlantis wrote:Unfortunately, most people threw out spirituality together with the aspects of traditional religion that no longer corresponded to the reality of the modern world - leaving a void. In the West, this void is filled with consumerism and other forms of materialism.

Yeah, but you also have full on weirdness like homosexuals demanding that their sexual relations be celebrated as on par with traditional religion while at the same time bashing traditional religion.
#14475666
1. The holomoder was a famine based on economics. If you call this a holocaust, which I'm not saying you shouldn't, then you should also place the various famines caused by forced changes in economy in the appropriate place. Which would mean that George III in his policies regarding India and Ireland is the greatest killer in history. It would also mean that capitalism has killed far more people than any other system. But, of course, it only counts in Russia or China. I would ask people be at least consistent.

2. Omb's hysterical ranting and raving about preserving white culture in the United States is somewhat diminished by his insistence that white culture from everywhere but England be actively destroyed.
#14475674
Rei, the 'Jewish god' that you're critical of is simply 'Macrocosmic Man', or eternal mind (embodying and manifesting the highest ideals and potential of Man). It is a personal God inasmuch that men are personal beings and that the Word of God (logically) took on the shape of a person, so you cannot negate the 'Jewish god' without negating one's humanity. The tetragrammaton was an achievement in the spiritual history of humanity and it gave us the Paschal Lamb in Christ Jesus, the creative impulse of the 'new heaven and the new earth'.

Image

If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! (2 Corinthians 5:17)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]