If you'd like to republish any of my articles, you are welcome to do so. Please add a link to the original post on my blog.

Tuesday, 9 June 2015

Moral Universalism, Christianity, Whites, the West

Rome, St Peter's Basilica

Prima facie, there is a number of observations that appear obvious.

Given that the part of the world inhabited by Whites - first Europe and then the West - is the only part to have embraced universalism, and one particular expression of it - Christianity -, and given that this is the part of the world that has made immensely greater progress in every aspect than the rest of the world, the first question to ask ourselves is whether and how the two phenomena - Christianity and progress - are in a causal relationship with each other.

This is of paramount importance, as there are signs that the West and the Whites are on their way to abandon Christianity, and some among them are even considering the next step - abandoning moral universalism in general -, which shouldn't be surprising, as Christianity is the supreme embodiment of moral universalism.

This seems to confirm the idea held by many philosophers and thinkers: that renouncing God is the first step on a slippery slope towards renouncing morality.

Abandoning moral universalism seems prima face to defeat the object. This seems to be the reasoning: we Whites are the only universalist humans; our countries are the best in the world; the particularists, ie all other races, want to take advantage of our generous universalism, invade our lands, displace us; therefore we should become particularist too, in order to defend ourselves and stop them doing that.

It may defeat the object if embracing particularism will make us similar to other races. So, in the end, the West would become like the Third World, one way - by invasion from it - or the other - by our becoming like it. Is a White Third World a desirable objective?

I say no.

Those who think that Whites, universalist and Christian or not, would never create conditions like those of the Third World should be able to explain in concrete terms what are, if not universalism and Christianity, the characteristics of Whites throughout history that produced a civilisation so superior to any other on the globe.

The barbarians that invaded Rome were Whites. What was so good about them that could have produced Europe's subsequent glory?

Who saved Europe in the Dark Ages caused by the Slavic and Germanic hordes that destroyed the Roman civilisation?

It was the Christian Church.


  1. I'm afraid you are fighting a rear-guard action - or you're trying to make alliances with the wrong people. Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents and the folks over at Occidental Observer like Tomislav Sunic, and someone like Richard Spencer or the heavily tattooed rough-trade Donovan (a former Church of Satan "priest") - all of these types are avowedly Nietzschean and atheistic - at best. Johnson is a homosexual who supports gay marriage and eugenics. Sunic is a straight-up Balkan Nazi Apologists whose father, a Catholic dissenter under Tito, gave good ole "Tom" a chance to become an American. The New Right hates Christianity as much or more as the Left. Their fantasies about being "pagan" are laughable, of course.

    I agree with you entirely about the Church - io sono mezzo italiano, mezzo austriaco - but I also know that the Church cannot be defended if it is unwilling to defend itself. You cannot fight someone else's battles. They really have become men in skirts welcoming Africans into the Uffizi.

    The issue of universalism is not so cut-n-dry because the very Western thinker Aristotle, who influenced so many theologians like Aquinas, did not hold a Manichean view of morality. For Aristotle vice-virtue run on a continuum - and everything is predicated on the use of phronesis (practical wisdom), which tells us when to apply certain ethical standards and when not to. The madness of Universalism came with Kant and the Categorical Imperative, which yielded a philosophy that made it immoral to lie to a murderer who is hunting a victim if you know where the victim is hiding. Aristotelian practical wisdom tempers universalists delusions. But the New Right, grounded in Nietzschean rancor and macho-man posturing (Nietzsche was a wimp and coward) has no time for Aristotle, mired as they are in obsolete 19th century ontology and epistemology (Darwin). In other words, there are two sets of Barbarians: the Left (and NWO-types), and the reaction to them. Either we find a way to synthesize these competing strands, or we fall apart separately.

    You may be interested in these websites, as they offer a much broader interpretation of our decline the usual Neo Reaction:

    1. I'm not fighting a rear guard battle, but an avant-garde one.

      It's difficult, but I do what I believe in.

      Since your comment is so personal, why does your avatar links to a YouTube video instead of a profile or blog of yours?

      I know that universalism is a complex issue, and easily misunderstood. This is not the only thing I've written about it.

    2. I should not have written the top part of the message. My apologies for replying to your post over the course of 4 hours while trading stocks. It'd be great if you deleted it.

      I enjoy your work and the direction it appears to be headed.

    3. All comments are good even though if they are shot from the hip.
      I do not agree with Enza at all but enjoy different opinions and welcomes me it in order to see what would save the white civilisation.

  2. How then do you account for the success of ancient Greece? The superiority of European civilisation was already apparent then. While the rest of the world was still immersed in superstition, Europeans became fascinated by the world as it was, giving birth to scientific inquiry. And Rome achieved greatness when it was still pagan. Christianity was adopted only shortly before the end. Indeed, some have argued that this was a precipitating factor. It is the classical pagan heritage that served as precursor to the Renaissance and scientific revolutions.

  3. Ti scrivo in italiano, spero non ti dispiaccia. Una volta soltanto.
    La tua fede è una cosa, piegare la storia per farne una specie di tua mistica è un'altra. Ma chi ha salvato cosa?
    Il mondo antico arriva alla sua fine perché aveva sue macroscopiche ragioni di debolezze e alla fine i conti si pagano. Il peso di un enorme parassatismo urbano (le città romane consumavano ricchezza, non la producevano), l'assenza di una rivoluzione in agricoltura che portasse su le rese, il costo troppo alto dell'apparato burocratico e militare romano rispetto alla sostenibilità determinata dalle risorse a disposizione.
    Stai in Inghilterra, e a proposito di Medio Evo inglese, potremmo dire due parole su Beda, per esempio. Non è che avesse perso il sonno perché Roma non era più una potenza imperiale, né si scomodava a considerare Bisanzio. Gli bastava sapere che ad un'istanza universale politica, l'impero romano, ne era subentrata una religiosa, la chiesa romana. A leggerlo è difficile non dare ragione a Gibbon quando accusava i cristiani di non avere attaccamento alla romanitas, in fondo venire a patti con barbari convertiti non era questa tragedia. Più che salvare, hanno aggravato la rovina.
    Né un greco, né un romano, né un germano potevano diventare semiti, ma buoni cristiani sì. In quel calderone c era posto per tutti.
    Quanto a oggi, guarderei volentieri ai cristiani se dessero una mano a evitare la catastrofe dell'islamizzazione, a me sembrano abbiano nel complesso più paura della secolarizzazione. Il papa poi, con il timone tutto a sinistra, è il migliore di tutti. Se l'argine è il cristianesimo, allora è finita davvero.

  4. Hi Enza, I get what you are saying, but ironically, the Roman empire was actually holding Europe back. Why did the Barbarians invade Rome? They had superior weaponry as Rodney Stark pointed out in his book "How the West Won", and many of their generals were former Romans who felt betrayed and decided to turn against Rome.It was not until Christianity had begun to replace Roman ways, and Greek thinking, that the West began to develop modern science and technology. Roman society was largely based on slave labor, and thus lacked the motivation to build machines that utilize wind or water power. Romans roads were worthless, it was better to travel off of them, then on them once they began to break down. Greek thought was soaked in animism as the historian Robert Jacobus Forbe put it "in reality the ancients always based science on animism ... The ancient world did not dream of man's harnessing these supernatural powers until Christianity, by its opposition to animism, opened the door to a rational use of the forces of nature. The last obstacles to the introduction of prime-movers had fallen, when by the forth century A.D. the Roman Empire became officially Christian".