______________________________
This thread will be dedicated principally to the rather radical, but very interesting, ideas of Houston Chamberlain, viz. the historical figure of Jesus Christ and in contradistinction to the confusing edifice known as Christianity. Although for some, or most here, no part of this material will be understood, I am fairly sure that there are others who will take the time to read some of the material that will be posted to this thread, and benefit from it. In any case, the effort to write out ideas is always a benefit and I enjoy it.
I suggest it is crucial to understand historical Christianity, both to be able to unravel the deep superstitions that permeate it - obscurantism of the worst sort - and also to be able to grasp a quintessence that can be found there: a mercurial, perhaps 'suprarational' expression of truth. Essentially, this thread and my endeavor here will be a continuation of the thread I began quite sometime back now: Christian Apology by a Non-Christian. I find that the attack on Christianity, though I am certain an aspect of this is justified, reveals itself more as a destructive project than one that will or could result in productive understanding. If this is so, then the 'animus' of destructiveness can be examined and critiqued.
But I am pretty certain of the following: Only a person who has a grasp of 'what Christianity is' would be qualified to critique it - or to work to destroy it. My experience so far, and especially here on PM, is that the overall desire (the animus) is blindly destructive. This reflects a trend in culture that can and should be exposed and talked about.
The following are from Houston Chamberlain's book "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century", a two-volume work of amazing depth and breadth, yet not an uncontroversial book in that he is critical of the Jewish-Semitic influence on European culture. Coming myself from a Jewish background - more accurately a mixed family - I have some issues with his essentially anti-Jewish stance. Especially since the antisemitic formulations did evolve and result in the European catastrophe. In relation to this I have various levels of thought: I am certain that the Holocaust is greatly exaggerated, and so I fall into the camp of Jewish Revisionist. I know that that in itself will create insuperable fireworks on many fora and in all public conversations. So be it. The other aspect is that I am completely certain that Judaism as a trend in religion, and as a metaphysical trend, can indeed be critiqued. And - obviously - the conflict can roughly be delineated as a Christian-Jewish conflict. What is the essence of that conflict? That takes months if not years to understand.
The difficult word is 'antisemitism' and I suggest that it is one of these words that is so charged, and so convoluted, that it is almost impossible to use it. I think it is wise though to note that if one can define 'antisemitism' one must also be able to define 'philosemitism'. Put another way, if you love the Jews or the Jewish influence, or the presence of Jewish culture within host cultures, or the Judaism which is said to be the foundation of Christianity, then you should be able to speak about this convincingly and knowledgeably. But that will mean that one will have to have historical knowledge that is far more than superficial. [Hello Lacewing: How are you?
] And too if one is going to define an antisemitism that is more than simple hatred or projected anger because some blind sentiment dominates your perception, then this too would have to be grounded historically. And with that you will find yourself in the middle of the 'ur-culture-wars': the most salient wars of culture and idea that operate in 'our world'. To say 'our world' means the totality of what we are.Only a certain aspect of Chamberlain's work deals on Jewish critique and the rest of it is - and articulately and with amazing erudition - an outline of the value of the European attainment: Indo-Europeanism, the foundation of our culture. An amazing and unprecedented attainment of a very high order.
So, people who have read my writing understand that I do not shy away from controversy. In fact, I think we need to put on the table all ideas, all declarations, all idées reçues, and similar to chugging down an impossible concoction that might kill us, make the effort to 'process' it all, and out of that struggle and that crisis, arrive at a surer metaphysical platform. It has to be said: anyone who now chooses to go in this direction - to penetrate to the very cores of ideation and belief (and I include those who, as here in this forum, assume erroneously that they undertake such a work when they are captured by received ideas and outright conventions of thinking), will find their project, and their ideas, shunned. Today, the mere mention of certain hot words, results instantaneously in a shutting down of the mind.
With that preamble, I submit some pages from the second volume of Chamberlain's book, and the chapter titled Religion - Christ and Christianity. To help you: his contention is that there is little connection between Jesus Christ and the mad and delirious superstitions of early Christianity.
I will attempt some interpretation of these first pages in other posts. Enjoy ... and if you can avoid it don't melt down!
