Hong Wu wrote:I guess it is pretty vague. I view western multiculturalism as sort of like a materialization of Christian progressiveness, by which I mean progress towards a judgment day or era of peace that is good for most people. Although this was originally described in spiritual/magical/metaphysical terms, modern western, multicultural utopianism seems like an attempt to make something like this into a material reality. Mixing races too much though eliminates that sense of fundamental unity that anyone can understand. The EU and to a lesser degree the US are not based upon this racial philia and in a sense they are not even really nations, they are just market zones that use the same currency as each other. The goal is also not to produce philia/tradition but to consume and enjoy themselves (which is what I mean by the term orgia; it's possible that this behavior is related to the same phenomenon that created early Dionysian cults). In going abroad and seeing places where most people are of the same race, where there's still somewhat shared art forms (or at least themes) and so-on, I believe I see places that function as nations in a subtly different way than the west does.
I. Clarification On Christianity's Lineal View of Time v. The Leftist Progressive Views of Time.Okay, so in the sense that "progressivism" here means a lineal view of history culminating in an eschaton, there is definitely a parallel with leftists dialectics of history; however, I wonder whether or not this comparison is only correlative (and here I disagree with Spengler and some others).
It seems to me, that Hegel, developing a rather non-Christian philosophy of the absolute, did not consider Christian motives when developing his notion of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, and likewise, that Marx more-or-less took his own dialectical approach to history from Hegel.
Indeed, one could argue that progressive schemas developed
independently of Christian eschatology in the 19th century. Whether or not St. Augustine's "City of God" approach to history was a subtle and unconscious influence on Hegel; and therefore Marx, I would say is highly speculative.
In fact, the obsession with "human progress" in late 19th century- early 20th century liberal "Christians" seems to be based on Marxism influencing Christianity and not the other way around, and then the obsessive pessimist eschatologies of dispensationalism (following the theological discrediting of Liberal Christian eschatology in the World Wars), came only as a reaction to these progressive views of history.
Indeed, Christian eschatology, in the main reformation, papist, and eastern churches, always played a minor theological role. The obsession with the end times in the 20th and 21st centuries is sort of an anomaly in church history (perhaps with the exception of the first century A.D.).
Historically, all of these bodies (making up the vase majority of Christians) always held to either a-millennial or a firmly theological post-millennialism; wherein, the main point of both systems was that Christ was reigning over the world in triumph from the time of His ascension until the time in which He returns to judge the quick and the dead.
A-millennialism, which most of these churches held to with the partial exception in some of the Reformed churches (about 20% of which are post-mil) held that Christ's return could more-or-less come at any time. This
is not a doctrine congruent with progressivism, progressivism
cannot affirm a potentially-immanent end at any time (the proletariat has a long way to go after all).
So, i'm not entirely sold on all the hype that a Christian linear view of history (which indeed does reject Nietzsche's eternal recurrence) is somehow a real causal ancestor to liberal progressivism and marxism. I think Hegel is the real father of that monstrosity, not Christianity. To impute modern eschatological frameworks into the historical antecedents of Marxism is anachronistic.
II. Christianity and Nationalism, Christianity and Empire.1. Christianity always taught, in Scripture, the authority of kings and caesars, and their obligation to maintain, even by force, the authority of the True Religion, against all others. (the Bible's political theology is quite anti-republican and anti-constitutional).
2. Emperor Constantine established Christianity as the state religion of Rome when such was only 13% of the population and did so out of a belief that the values of such were beneficial for Rome. Obviously scholars, then and now, have debated whether this was true and whether such a religious worldview shift led to the fall of the Roman Empire.
That being said,
I would argue that such a Christianization of Rome led to Rome's preservation in the formation of the west. Unlike other civilizations that collapsed, like the Sumerians for instance, the Roman tradition was well preserved by Christian scholars and led to the real formation of Western civilization. No greater example being that of Alcuin establishing classical education in the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne (which may be the most
underrated event in the last 2000 years).
The heritage of the Roman Emperor as absolute monarch and Christian ruler continued to be the model for what it means to be western. The two headed eagle representing church and state ended up on the flags and seals of most western nations, the titles of tsar and kaiser, were modeled after Caesar, every great empire, other than England, sought recognition from the Pope as the new Roman emperor, whether it was the Hapsburgs or Napolean.
This Constantinian attutude also has nationalist aspects, the reformation churches, over and against the pope, argued that the state had authority over its church, not the pope. This is why you have the Church of Scotland, Church of England, Church of Denmark, etc, etc., and the doctrine of
cuis regio cuis religio (if in the ruler's land, one is to follow the ruler's religion) which came in the context of the wars of religion and the peace of Westphalia, which defined the modern west and its attitudes (for better or worse).
Both the sense of "western Christendom" and "Empire" and the contrary sense of "nationalism" and "state churches" came from and were fostered by Christianity and its preservation of its Roman, especially Constantinian, heritage.Hong Wu wrote:I think one hangup the west has is that they are actually relatively late-comers to the game of civilization and the problem is that they don't know it. To some degree it's natural to attach yourself to ancient empires but the truth is that most westerners were never really Roman outside of Italy, yet the west still views themselves as a sort of apotheosis of the Romans. Another issue with this is the dichotomy between high fertility and degeneracy that seems to exists as an expectation in the west. Liberals hold it just as much as conservatives, this is why they assume that the natural outcome of "whiteness" (by which they mean white western-ness) is high fertility and attempting world domination. By the time western civilization developed into a powerful form, a lot of things had already been developed by other peoples and the human fertility rate really shot up in the west first but prior to this happening there were generative, developed civilizations that had lower or even somewhat stable fertility rates. So the dichotomy that I believe exists in the west between disappearing or reproducing a lot and conquering everything is not strictly necessary, western people just think it is because the west developed so suddenly into world powers. The truth is probably that even the Arabs are older than the west. Western people convinced themselves that they were both the scions and the originators of modernity but they were in many ways actually late adopters who can't distinguish between culture and power, so if they reject culture and power (like liberals do) they seem to presume a movement towards their opposites, something that I'm not convinced is necessary.
There is a lot to unpack here, but I want to address a few things.
I. Western Civilization in relation to others.You made the remark above that westerners were late to the game of civilization. I must ask,
late relative to what?
As Spengler rightly notes, cultures arise with their own unique prime-symbol and form language, that is, they have their own manner of interpreting reality. Thus, the arising of western civilization came whenever a people, regardless of their prior origins, developed their own unique interpretive framework for reality.
Spengler believes this came from the Nordo-Germanic conception of infinite space; regardless of whether you agree with him or not, the main thrust is this:
You cannot be late to civilization, civilization arises naturally out of cultures who successfully develop and expand their worldview inasmuch as such feeds and fuels the natural human tendency to dominate others. Nietzsche's critique of Darwinism is spot-on when it comes to this, it is not in nature
to merely survive,
but to dominate, control, expand, and destroy. The Will-to-Power. In judging western civilization, we must
(1) look at its collective accomplishments (assuming an agreed-upon definition of civilization) and
(2) see if its degree of success is unique and then
(lastly) look at its worldview and compare the tenants of that worldview with the will-to-power implicit in human nature.
II. Western Civilization's Success As Unique.
Latin Christianity espoused a strong Augustinian sense of divine providence and just-war theory as well as a call to subjugate and convert all nations, it affirmed an absolute state (whether national or imperial), women submitting to their husbands, being fruitful and multiplying, and subduing the earth, etc, etc. These were clearly inscripturated teaching (in contrast to the pagans that did not have clear and coherent "scriptural authorities" like the Abrahamic faiths did).
What we see is this, Western Civilization, by every metric, was and is the greatest civilization in human history. Period.The accomplishments of the British Empire alone, barring every other empire that came from the west, ALONE would confirm this as a FACT.
The West's success as a civilization comes from a natural vitality of the Germanic peoples combined with the teachings of Christianity, and the intellectual tradition of Rome (which was preserved and transmitted by Christians in the West).
This combination created a perfect storm that created the west and its ability to conquer, not just by land, but by sea, that further helped it to expand and preserve this civilization in a manner that is unprecedented.
This is not progressivism, this is superiority. A superiority coming from a combination of virtue, values, and vitality held together by a worldview that upheld such.
Leftist globalism is the skeleton of western conquest that has been co-opted by a godless class of self-loathing parasites, who use money to make this skeleton dance on the stings it pulls.
(This is why it seems like we are only market-zones. This is how the elite, like in Davos, want to define "their" territory. This is why I call them parasites. They have co-opted something tangible and glorious and have tried to define it as mediocre, immoral, and undefinable beyond the social contract and the mighty dollar.)
Those of us traditionalists, who remain, are like pieces of old flesh that still cling to the ribs of this skeleton, begging the puppet-masters to not let the ants in to devour whats left of the mighty muscles of a once mighty civilization.
How did we get here?
Let me explain in response to your critique of the classic Dichotomy.
III. A Critique of Your Critique.the dicotomy of decadence & decay v. reproduction and conquest, is valid and here is why:1. Man is motivated by domination, not merely survival, this is the core of his human nature.
2. Man's domination, when successful, results in prosperity.
3. When man lies in his prosperity, without continued conquest and expansion, he becomes weak, sick, and self-loathing, just like a former athlete who becomes rich will die from obesity, drug-abuse, and depression once he stops his athleticism.
All civilizations have done this, I don't know where you get this idea that they didn't.
They begin with high fertility, religiosity, and militarism, and not long after these actions stabilize, they decline and fall.
J.D. Unwin acknowledges this in his work
Sex and Culture: He argues that within four generations from the political enfranchisement and expansion of the sexual opportunity of women,
a civilization will collapse. All civilizations have done this.
Likewise, he notes, of every recorded tribe, that the ones that were the most sexually decadent, were the least developed.
Women could vote in 1920 and 1973 marked the opening of all sexual opportunity for women in the United States.
The clock is ticking. If Unwin is correct, there is no turning back. We will fall to a more patriarchal, reproductive, religious, and conquering people. There have been no historical exceptions to this trend.
Unless we are special (which I believe) and we reverse this thing, somehow.