The 14 Words

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

Problems of Abrahamic Morality: religion as race

By John Londen


One of the points I touched on in my previous essay (The Nervous Jew: deconstructing Peter Hitchens), is the way that the intellectual elites in the West have turned away from materialist explanations of society and have returned to a kind of primitivist idealism. In this climate, genetic and economic explanations for what happens in society are ignored in favour of superficial explanations that attribute human behaviour to second-rank ideologies and ‘bolshie’ behaviour: be it ‘man-hating feminists’, ‘fanatical Muslims’, ‘angry white racist men’, ‘decadent liberals’, or whatever.

There is strong peer pressure among Western intellectuals – almost an ‘ideology of ideology’ – not to allow society to be explained rationally, i.e. in racial/genetic and economic terms. A great deal of the mantra we hear on socio-cultural issues reflects this. Relevant to us would be: “Islam is not a race, it’s a religion.” “Judaism is not a race, it’s a religion”. “Britain has been ruined by trendy liberals”. And so on. At the moment, Islam is the most popular target of this intellectual frenzy. We are expected to believe that radical Muslims are just a random bunch of religious fanatics with no particular motive other than a belief in a Sky God. Of course, many, if not most, radical Muslims will indeed be sincere in their faith and religiosity, but the real fanaticism is about race. These Muslims are pursuing a racial survival strategy. That most of them don’t fully realise or understand it themselves is of crucial importance. In fact, the strategy depends on the unconsciousness (and fear) of most of those who pursue it, because to question religious purpose would be akin to questioning race, which is but a short step away from undermining the genetic advancement of the racial group. To question, or unintentionally challenge and undermine the very tenets of a racial and group survival strategy is genetic suicide. Hence the continuing usefulness of Sky God Worship for Muslims, despite its transparent absurdity. Religion, which is inherently faith-based and lends itself to fanaticism and irrationalism, fits the bill well as an ideological vessel for chauvinistic racial conquest.

Religions are political ideologies. That is their true purpose. They rely on faith and not questioning things. You will note however that ‘doubting’ the Sky God is fine, even necessary. It is important for the racial group to maintain its intellectual vitality and criticality, therefore a theological dialectic as well as sympathetic interaction with science and other rigorous disciplines is encouraged. However, a climate of fear and submission is also necessary so as to ensure that ordinary Muslims do not stray from the core racial survival strategy. Let us also observe that race is about genes. This is not openly acknowledged by intellectuals in the West (it is elsewhere, but that’s another story), who prefer to encourage the misconception that race is just skin colour – the classic ‘idealistic’ perspective. The syllogism is: race is just skin colour, your colour of skin doesn’t matter much, and so racists are just unreasoned fanatics and can be ignored or treated as criminals. One of the reasons this narrative is crucial to the elites is that genes are not conscious actors. Once this is grasped, a great deal becomes clear. The most successful populations are those that consist of blind vessels: the unthinking herd is important for survival. Hence we get back to the political importance of religions. If Muslims were to begin rejecting their religious faith, in effect they would be abandoning their unconscious genetic destiny and supplanting it with an idealist destiny of ‘race as skin colour’, race as something that does not matter. Then the racial strategy would begin to fail. This is why, although it is not uncommon to come across Muslims who are quite secular and even atheistic, it remains a rare thing to encounter a Muslim who rejects his cultural identity altogether and has detached himself from Islam. Partly this is due to certain special features of Islam – among which are its legalism and its practical communalism. A key feature of Islamic legalism is the concept of apostacy: a Muslim who openly renounces his faith, in word or deed, might face severe consequences in his community or generally. We can also observe that Muslims place a high importance on community and value hierarchy, compliance and submission, which discourage informal dissent. What Muslims mean by ‘peace’ – a word they often use – is submission, through silence and the suffocation of dissent, both within and without.

The ‘religion as race’ idea can be applied almost-universally, and Judaism is no exception. In fact, the Jews are an exemplar of the model and I would have normally begun this essay with them. I didn’t for three reasons. First because it is important to deconstruct the present, counter-productive obsession with ‘radical Muslims’. A sizeable number of nationalists, and many more with views broadly sympathetic to us, seem to think that if only Islam can be reformed or the radical Muslims can be sent away, then a key part of the national problem will be solved. It won’t. We need to understand that the problem is racial. All Muslims are radical, it’s just that some are more honest about it than others. This is the case because Islam is a racial strategy. Second, the Jewish problem is complicated. At the moment, it is easy for influential Jews, and their white collaborators, to dismiss anyone who points to the Jewish racial strategy and pro-Jewish racism as a krank or nut. Most people will accept the slur implicitly and not question further. It’s a little bit like when a dog looks at the finger rather than what its owner is pointing at. We are all ‘dog-brained’ in this sense. I began by staring at the finger (radical Muslims). This is what the media owners wanted me to bark at. In time, I began to realise that the finger was pointing somewhere – at the Jews. But it took me a long time.

The third factor is perhaps the most interesting and important. The racial relationship between Islam and Judaism is a topic that is currently not widely discussed but deserves serious attention. Islam, an anti-white, racial chauvinist creed, is the Jews’ little pet. One thing that needs to be understood about Jews is that they thrive on conflict, provocation and antagonism. I mentioned in a previous essay (The Smiling Jew and other clever wiles) how whites are primarily social rather than intellectual. Jews are the opposite, in that they tend to emphasise the cerebral and intellectual over the social and thrive on conflict and hatred, both between each other and against outsiders. It’s how they have survived tribally, and from a group evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense. You survive by hating. However, Jews need reasoned justifications for this survivalist mentality, and so they co-opt the notional concepts of the host population. For example, in the West, this meant that Jews corrupted racial equality, which was a nameless materialist and natural concept that – to our modern understanding – meant simply the equality of people of similar capability, i.e. within the same racial group. The Jews turned this ‘materialist equality’ into an idealistic concept of inalienability and unattainability, based on religious mythology, in order to engineer conditions more favourable for their own survival, and thus implicitly less favourable for whites. Jews use Islamic fundamentalism similarly as a tool to pressure and divide whites and create Israelised societies in the West that are favourable to Jews. Christianity also serves a purpose for Jews, just as Islam does, as do the major Jewish secular responses to the Western Enlightenment: liberalism and industrial capitalism.

This brings us to one of the central problems of the West. Whites no longer have their own successful racial survival strategy. Instead, our lives are directed towards the interests of a minority – capitalists, who own society’s resources. Instead of thinking as a racial bloc, whites think as selfish self-interested individuals and live and work in a competitive society, in which their relationship to production is as wage slave and in which they have no real economic stake. The capitalism system is anarchic and unplanned and its productive forces take no account of the needs of the community, resulting in needless waste and antagonism, which are the basis for most of the social problems – including many of those that are simplistically attributed to racial differences. The capitalist class is influenced and dominated by Jews. Capitalism – both its so-called ‘free market’ model and its statist model of ‘communism’ – is a Jewish slave system. Its subsidiary ideologies, such as [Judaised] Christianity and secular liberalism, help the elites govern populations by providing moral ballast for the inherent contradictions in the capitalist system and by furnishing ethical rationalisations for the blatant unfairness and injustice we see in our own societies and elsewhere.

Christianity is an extension of Judaism into the West – the legal, moral and economic system of Jews imposed on whites. As the scientific method and reason became the more acceptable basis for explaining the physical and social world, Christianity and other organised religions went into gradual decline in the West and so the Jews required a different justificatory ideology for capitalism: liberalism. The liberal notion of equality is a moral gospel used to justify inequality. If people believe that the elites are interested in making society more equal, then they will not be interested in pursuing genuine equality, a social condition that does not have a name since it would simply be the natural state of affairs among people of similar capabilities: i.e. among a racial community. Since the Jews cannot allow racial communities to exist among whites, it is necessary to deconstruct the natural and obvious concept of equality as an essential social component of race, and as a materialist reality that is not opposed to racial integrity but in fact an integral part of it – racial socialism, in other words – and replace it with a fictitious ideal of equality that is not achievable and serves its purpose in fragmenting white racial consciousness.

There is one additional problem I should mention. Some Nationalists and conservatives make the mistake of thinking that it was the decline of Christianity in the West that prompted the decline of white racial unity and consciousness, and that we need only restore institutionalised faith to bring back a sense of national and racial cohesiveness. This error is of course understandable and forgivable. I myself have always been atheist, but I do like old churches and I admire the softness and tolerance of Christianity, especially the Church of England – which, after all, is my culture. And which of us doesn’t hark back to earlier times, actual and imagined? The problem lies in the fact that we have a culture that is not fit for purpose. To explain, let us approach the problem comparatively. The Chinese Revolutionaries did not waste time worrying about the preservation of false gods and obscure mumbo jumbo in the interests of ‘cultural preservation’. It may be attractive to do so, but the Chinese - like the Bolsheviks - were entirely ruthless and unsentimental in their recognition of the national interest, which is what their movements are really about. The Bolsheviks and the Maoists industrialised their economies and re-engineered their peoples culturally. Whether what they did was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is a separate issue. The point is that there was no room for teary-eyed liberal sentiment, for remembrance of halcyon bygone days and mythical cultures except to the extent that such would help assist national objectives. To preserve their race, they first destroyed or re-engineered the culture that had not been serving the race. That is the point about culture that conservative types often do not grasp. Culture serves the race. It is an expression of the genetic interests of the dominant group and escheats to blood. Replace the blood, and you replace the interest served. To the dim reactionary Tory, someone like Chairman Mao might be a dirty commie and really rather caddish. In reality, Mao was simply someone who pursued the economic and racial interests of a particular group, in the same way that regular people do. He was just particularly successful at it. Conversely, the dim left-winger rails against Thatcher, as if she was some kind of demon personified rather than simply an ordinary person who did what ordinary people do: which is pursue the interests of one’s own group, in this case the Jews and capitalists whom she chose to make common cause with. As for the Labour Party, its social democracy is simply a strategy for managing capitalism, i.e. the interests of Jews and their white collaborators.

What conservatives see as the decline of religion – and other idealist forms of social and political thought – was, in my view, actually a civilised and necessary advancement for the West. The problem is not that religious nonsense was replaced, but in what replaced it. To argue that whites should seek their salvation in a return to some kind of primitivist Middle Eastern mumbo-jumbo just because the secular ideologies that supplanted it have been found just as wanting is a poor analysis. If anything, what whites need is their own ‘Maoism’. We need a conscious racial ideology free of poisonous Abrahamic morality, free of Jewish influence.


No comments:

Post a Comment