Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

After last weekend’s “unite the kingdom” march in London, a new challenge should be added to the list. Christian nationalism is already a force in the United States, and has played a defining role in European culture wars in countries such as Poland and Hungary. At last Saturday’s rally the striking proliferation of wooden crosses and flags bearing Christian slogans suggest an ominous and rising influence on the British far right. From the speakers’ platform in Whitehall, crowds were led in chants of “Christ is King” and participated in public prayer recitals, while being urged to defend “God, faith, family, homeland”.

The secular co-opting of Christian identity to incite racial intolerance and Islamophobia has a track record on these shores. In 2009, the archbishops Rowan Williams and John Sentamu publicly admonished the British National party for using the language of faith “to foster fear”. But it used to be a relatively fringe pursuit. The rise of Reform, and the embedding of the far right within a broader revolt against mainstream politics, suggests that we are in new territory.

There is a book out now: The Return of the Strong Gods. I recommend it -- that is if you wish to understand an important aspect of the shift occurring right before your eyes.

Islam must be resolutely driven out of Europe. It must be suppressed. Excluded. And millions of the newer immigrants must be given tickets back to their homelands.

Having studied Christianity, Catholicism in its traditional/original forms, I definitely recommend that it be revivified, resurrected as it were. A culture needs a religious foundation and though Christianity has numerous defects, it is still the core religion of Europe.

These assholes at the Guardian, how tiresome are their complaints.

You have to start with strong definitions: This is OUR country. We built it. We are the owners of it. You adapt to US or you get the fuck out. It is, to be truthful, an expression of sternness and with underlying violence (or let me say aggressiveness).

I suggest examining the work of Rev. Denis Fahey (The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism) if you wish to understand the *battle* as it were on metaphysical levels.

If you wish to understand the current now manifesting I also suggest The Sword of Christ (Giles Corey) and Catholic and Identitarian -- From Protest to Reconquest (Julien Langella).

Beyond any shadow of a doubt the thinking and the thinkers of the Dissident Right (as the Guardian alludes) have had and are having a great deal of influence on the present. Ideas Have Consequences. You have to define and understand the strong ideas first, and then begin to help people to understand why they are important and reasonable.

The rise of Reform, and the embedding of the far right within a broader revolt against mainstream politics, suggests that we are in new territory.

Amen to that.

Do you remember, Belinda? I made all this entirely plain years ago!

[Belinda]

Sorry, I forget.
I have met a few very nice Catholics one of who was my great friend, I also met an Anglo -Catholic priest who enlightened me as to the history of theatre and its roots in religion such as Catholic ritual.I have never met a Catholic such as you describe. Nor an Anglo Catholic such as you describe.

Alexis, you are not a Franciscan then!

I guess you are not a follower of the late Pope Francis peace be upon him.

Your version of Catholicism at this moment seems so politicised as to be far from that of Jesus of the Gospels

[Belinda]

After last weekend’s “unite the kingdom” march in London, a new challenge should be added to the list. Christian nationalism is already a force in the United States, and has played a defining role in European culture wars in countries such as Poland and Hungary. At last Saturday’s rally the striking proliferation of wooden crosses and flags bearing Christian slogans suggest an ominous and rising influence on the British far right. From the speakers’ platform in Whitehall, crowds were led in chants of “Christ is King” and participated in public prayer recitals, while being urged to defend “God, faith, family, homeland”.

The secular co-opting of Christian identity to incite racial intolerance and Islamophobia has a track record on these shores. In 2009, the archbishops Rowan Williams and John Sentamu publicly admonished the British National party for using the language of faith “to foster fear”. But it used to be a relatively fringe pursuit. The rise of Reform, and the embedding of the far right within a broader revolt against mainstream politics, suggests that we are in new territory.

There is a book out now: The Return of the Strong Gods. I recommend it -- that is if you wish to understand an important aspect of the shift occurring right before your eyes.

Islam must be resolutely driven out of Europe. It must be suppressed. Excluded. And millions of the newer immigrants must be given tickets back to their homelands.

Having studied Christianity, Catholicism in its traditional/original forms, I definitely recommend that it be revivified, resurrected as it were. A culture needs a religious foundation and though Christianity has numerous defects, it is still the core religion of Europe.

These assholes at the Guardian, how tiresome are their complaints.

You have to start with strong definitions: This is OUR country. We built it. We are the owners of it. You adapt to US or you get the fuck out. It is, to be truthful, an expression of sternness and with underlying violence (or let me say aggressiveness).

I suggest examining the work of Rev. Denis Fahey (The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism) if you wish to understand the *battle* as it were on metaphysical levels.

If you wish to understand the current now manifesting I also suggest The Sword of Christ (Giles Corey) and Catholic and Identitarian -- From Protest to Reconquest (Julien Langella).

Beyond any shadow of a doubt the thinking and the thinkers of the Dissident Right (as the Guardian alludes) have had and are having a great deal of influence on the present. Ideas Have Consequences. You have to define and understand the strong ideas first, and then begin to help people to understand why they are important and reasonable.

The rise of Reform, and the embedding of the far right within a broader revolt against mainstream politics, suggests that we are in new territory.

Amen to that.

Do you remember, Belinda? I made all this entirely plain years ago!

I looked at your "entirely plain" link and copied this:-

Whatever beliefs you may otherwise hold, please ask yourself this: Is it immoral to identify with your own group and its past? If so, is it equally immoral for everybody else? If not, why not?

It is not immoral but is an understandable human reaction to fear. There is a large body of peer reviewed literature on in-group and out-group theory.

You must understand the Christian message at its most basic is the choice between fear and love . I hope to God when push comes to shove I have the courage to choose love.

Ethno nationalism is indeed immoral.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sorry, I forget.

I have met a few very nice Catholics one of who was my great friend, I also met an Anglo -Catholic priest who enlightened me as to the history of theatre and its roots in religion such as Catholic ritual. I have never met a Catholic such as you describe. Nor an Anglo Catholic such as you describe.

Alexis, you are not a Franciscan then!

I guess you are not a follower of the late Pope Francis peace be upon him.

Your version of Catholicism at this moment seems so politicised as to be far from that of Jesus of the Gospels.

I appreciate very much that you continue in the conversation on this thread. I continue to get a lot out of it.

What brought me to the study of Catholicism, and also of Christian metaphysics and principles generally, was something René Guénon said. He said that still, in traditional Catholicism, there were strong traces of far older, or perhaps more original, metaphysics. So I jumped over post-Vatican ll Catholicism and went straight to the original pre-Vatican ll forms.

Now, you are wondering how it is that these radical elements enter in? For example Denis Fahey. This man, and there are numerous like him, is a Christian/Catholic radical. His 'doctrine' turns around the conflict between the Kingship of Christ and that of 'organized naturalism'. That is, an entirely philosophical and existential posture that flows out of our modernist perspective. You are largely situated in that perspective. And so are most of the *opponents* of metaphysics and of Christianity on this site. You operate from a set of adamantine tenets and these determine what you can see, and what you cannot see. In my case, understanding how essential ideas determine understanding has been the greatest lesson I have received from my time here. We live in a time of the ascent and the domination of 'organized naturalism'. It is an ideology, it fosters a 'worldview', and has all manner of different ramifications.

The principles of opposition to 'organized naturalism' do not have much to do with the ideal of 'being a nice person'. The object is not the creation or the fostering of such exterior manifestations of 'niceness', but rather the demands that a strict set of metaphysical principles imposes on a person. The object therefore is to define those principles. I cannot prove it to you here, but I will state with certainty that genuine Catholic principles as expressed in Catholic social doctrine, would never hold multiculturalism or some sort of 'organized naturalism' blending of peoples and cultures as an ideal. Never. And for sound an obvious reason. Organized naturalism will destroy and undermine necessary hierarchies and it will break down all categories determined by metaphysical principles.

Francis is, taken largely, a clown' like figure and an example of corrupted principles. I could present you with very critical expositions and you could better understand why I say this.

I have never met a Catholic such as you describe.

This does not surprise me. We have been in a time where the *Weak Gods* have had power and influence. Essentially feminine, sentimental impulses that veer away from strong, demanding definitions. It is a metaphor of course but we are in a time of a return of Strong Gods. I take that to mean demanding metaphysics, demanding Logos, with clearly defined principles.

Alexis, you are not a Franciscan then!

It would be wrong for me to present myself as being of any specific denomination. I do not think I am necessarily even a 'Christian' as it is commonly understood. It is more likely that my metaphysical principles are more Vedic, or at least in Vedanta a great deal more is explained.

Your version of Catholicism at this moment seems so politicised as to be far from that of Jesus of the Gospels.

Our present is dominated by entire sets of politicized principles! Left-Progressivism, as an expression of 'organized naturalism', is thoroughly political! I think this is where you are somewhat blinded by your perspectives and these are determined by your predicates, whether you are aware of them or not. There has to be a political pushback when metaphysical principles again become operative. Take the very idea of waving a flag with the image of the St George cross. This is actually a radical declaration. But who can actually set out, clearly, what is meant? It conjures a rather murky set of ideas that are henid-like and not fully formed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You must understand the Christian message at its most basic is the choice between fear and love. I hope to God when push comes to shove I have the courage to choose love.

Do you really think you are one qualified to make the ultimate assessment? You are involved in a non-Christian touchy-feely, non-metaphysical and certainly anti-supernatural political interpretation of Christianity! I am often surprised that you cannot see yourself clearly.

I think the topic *What is love*? or what should be *love* in a demanding metaphysical system is a good subject. It is just not the right word, too contaminated with sentimentalism.

I hope to God when push comes to shove I have the courage to choose love.

In my view, if you were to actually choose love, you would take up the banner of St George and those who are motivated by the spirit it refers to.

[Belinda]

You must understand the Christian message at its most basic is the choice between fear and love. I hope to God when push comes to shove I have the courage to choose love.

Do you really think you are one qualified to make the ultimate assessment? You are involved in a non-Christian touchy-feely, non-metaphysical and certainly anti-supernatural political interpretation of Christianity! I am often surprised that you cannot see yourself clearly.

I think the topic *What is love*? or what should be *love* in a demanding metaphysical system is a good subject. It is just not the right word, too contaminated with sentimentalism.being masculine.

I hope to God when push comes to shove I have the courage to choose love.

In my view, if you were to actually choose love, you would take up the banner of St George and those who are motivated by the spirit it refers to.

I like your narrative about Xianity of Jesus Christ being feminine, and devotion to what you think is realpolitik . Your simile is Taoist, where the eternal feminine is basic and the masculine is a superstructure.

Conceive of love as that which is the opposite of fear .

* Curiosity is a species of love.

* Love asks questions of the natural environment(i.e.scientific endeavour).

Love seeks to be informed about the human condition.

*Love tries to be objective to see and feel how the Other sees and feels.

*Love does not give way to lies and self seeking but endures and fights back.

*Love is not apathetic but is lively and courageous.

*Fear is afraid to seek the better truth

*Fear takes refuge in lies.

* Fear is impulsive and does not reason and reflect

*Fear is not objective but disdains to understand others' points of view

*Fear opposes science and the arts especially comedy , as we saw yesterday



The very best of heuristics is the love and fear heuristic which overarches your preferred 'masculine ' narrative.

By the way, when you refer to St George's Cross are you aware that this once glorious national emblem has been hijacked in the UK by those who fan natural fear of strangers.That is to say by rowdy agitators like Tommy Robinson.

I looked up "pre- Vatican 2, and I found that not only Catholicism but also Protestantism are, before the 1960s, pre-modern. There is perhaps intellectual sloth involved in adhering to pre-modern metaphysics, and perhaps fear of social change. So before you blame me for my anti-supernatural preference you might take the plank out of your own eye. (Matthew 7: 3-5) not that you are a hypocrite! However you are misled and following a dead end when you adhere to premodernism.

I like ritualism, as long as the flock is not superstitious about it,

Which higher - class person would you recommend to make my decisions for me?
I ask because you wrote "Do you really think you are one qualified to make the ultimate assessment? "

[Alexis Jacobi]

By the way, when you refer to St George's Cross are you aware that this once glorious national emblem has been hijacked in the UK by those who fan natural fear of strangers.That is to say by rowdy agitators like Tommy Robinson.

The “strangers” you refer to were imported against the will of the people. Once one recognizes and respects this fact, then the right attitude toward that, and them, can be worked out.

I know this is not now nor will it be easy. But it is going to happen Belinda.

Tommy Robinson is a troubled man, and unclear on certain levels, but he is responding properly to the social engineering. That is my view anyway.

I looked up "pre-Vatican 2, and I found that not only Catholicism but also Protestantism are, before the 1960s, pre-modern. There is perhaps intellectual sloth involved in adhering to pre-modern metaphysics, and perhaps fear of social change. So before you blame me for my anti-supernatural preference you might take the plank out of your own eye. (Matthew 7: 3-5) not that you are a hypocrite! However you are misled and following a dead end when you adhere to pre-modernism.

Metaphysics is “pre-modern” when you think about it. I agree that former Stories have to be reevaluated. I am a revisionist in this sense. I also believe that if there is to be an Avatar held in esteem (Jesus Christ is an avatar figure, thus a complex metaphor) he must be depersonalized. And reconfigured.

I like ritualism, as long as the flock is not superstitious about it

Flocks are always superstitious.

Which higher - class person would you recommend to make my decisions for me?
I ask because you wrote "Do you really think you are one qualified to make the ultimate assessment? "

I only would recommend sources who put forth their ideas and convulsions. No one should make decisions for you.

You are not a Christian believer. You are one raised in and influenced by a late pre-modern cultural Christianity which seems to have left a strong impression on you.

But you are also a woman, and women cannot be counted on nor expected to make the right decisions. Nor feminized men.

The time of return of Strong Gods is upon us. It will be messy. It is messy.

Please, Belinda, put up the St George’s cross flag! Be willing to support those ready and willing to slay dragons …

[Belinda]

By the way, when you refer to St George's Cross are you aware that this once glorious national emblem has been hijacked in the UK by those who fan natural fear of strangers.That is to say by rowdy agitators like Tommy Robinson.

The “strangers” you refer to were imported against the will of the people. Once one recognizes and respects this fact, then the right attitude toward that, and them, can be worked out.

I know this is not now nor will it be easy. But it is going to happen Belinda.

Tommy Robinson is a troubled man, and unclear on certain levels, but he is responding properly to the social engineering. That is my view anyway.

I looked up "pre-Vatican 2, and I found that not only Catholicism but also Protestantism are, before the 1960s, pre-modern. There is perhaps intellectual sloth involved in adhering to pre-modern metaphysics, and perhaps fear of social change. So before you blame me for my anti-supernatural preference you might take the plank out of your own eye. (Matthew 7: 3-5) not that you are a hypocrite! However you are misled and following a dead end when you adhere to pre-modernism.

Metaphysics is “pre-modern” when you think about it. I agree that former Stories have to be reevaluated. I am a revisionist in this sense. I also believe that if there is to be an Avatar held in esteem (Jesus Christ is an avatar figure, thus a complex metaphor) he must be depersonalized. And reconfigured.

I like ritualism, as long as the flock is not superstitious about it

Flocks are always superstitious.

Which higher - class person would you recommend to make my decisions for me?
I ask because you wrote "Do you really think you are one qualified to make the ultimate assessment? "

I only would recommend sources who put forth their ideas and convulsions. No one should make decisions for you.

You are not a Christian believer. You are one raised in and influenced by a late pre-modern cultural Christianity which seems to have left a strong impression on you.

But you are also a woman, and women cannot be counted on nor expected to make the right decisions. Nor feminized men.

The time of return of Strong Gods is upon us. It will be messy. It is messy.

Please, Belinda, put up the St George’s cross flag! Be willing to support those ready and willing to slay dragons …

Metaphysics is my favourite part of philosophy. Plenty of great philosophers are early modern and modern.

Great Metaphysicians: Early Modern & Modern
Early Modern (1600–1800)

René Descartes (1596–1650) — dualism, substance, mind-body problem

Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) — monism, God/Nature as substance

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) — monads, sufficient reason

John Locke (1632–1704) — empiricism, identity, “something I know not what”

George Berkeley (1685–1753) — immaterialism (“to be is to be perceived”)

David Hume (1711–1776) — skepticism about causation and the self

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) — transcendental idealism, limits of metaphysics

Modern (19th–21st Century)

G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831) — absolute idealism, dialectics

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) — the world as will and representation

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) — critique of metaphysics, will to power

Henri Bergson (1859–1941) — duration, metaphysics of time

Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) — phenomenology, essences, intentionality

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) — being, time, ontology

Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) — process philosophy, events

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) — logical atomism, analytic metaphysics

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) — language and the critique of metaphysics

W.V.O. Quine (1908–2000) — ontology, naturalized epistemology

Saul Kripke (1940–2022) — necessity, possible worlds, modal metaphysics

David Lewis (1941–2001) — modal realism, counterpart theory

ChatGPT

------------------------
There is not the slightest chance I would associate with the Tommy Robinson lot.

You are daft to found your politics upon a world view that was of its time and place when the church was a real authority. You must know what the RC Church did to Galileo .
Galileo Galilei was tried by the Roman Catholic Church in 1633 for teaching that the Earth moves around the Sun. He was found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” forced to recant his views, had his book banned, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His punishment was directly tied to asserting heliocentrism as physical truth after the Church had prohibited teaching it that way.

[seeds]

But you are also a woman, and women cannot be counted on nor expected to make the right decisions.

As a primary stockholder and board member of the...

"Alexis Jacobi, 34-Week Email Course"

...I am going to call for a meeting with the other board members to discuss your ouster from the company.

Your over-bloated ego has turned you into a loose cannon where you, just now, in a single sentence, lost approximately 4 billion potential subscribers to "The Course"®.

Clearly, the fame from the overwhelming success of "The Course"® thus far, has gone to your head and turned your brain into mush.
_______

[Belinda]

But you are also a woman, and women cannot be counted on nor expected to make the right decisions.

As a primary stockholder and board member of the...

"Alexis Jacobi, 34-Week Email Course"

...I am going to call for a meeting with the other board members to discuss your ouster from the company.

Your over-bloated ego has turned you into a loose cannon where you, just now, in a single sentence, lost approximately 4 billion potential subscribers to "The Course"®.

Clearly, the fame from the overwhelming success of "The Course"® thus far, has gone to your head and turned your brain into mush.
_______

Yes, half the world's population are women.
Alexis should not have mentioned his fear of women which makes him laughable.
Kinder, Küche, Kirche Alexis is that it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are daft to found your politics upon a world view that was of its time and place when the church was a real authority. You must know what the RC Church did to Galileo .
Galileo Galilei was tried by the Roman Catholic Church in 1633 for teaching that the Earth moves around the Sun. He was found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” forced to recant his views, had his book banned, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His punishment was directly tied to asserting heliocentrism as physical truth after the Church had prohibited teaching it that way.

Belinda, you’ve not been reading well. I am not here to represent or sell the Catholic Church. I have clearly indicated that it a point of reference.

As to Robinson, fine, you are certainly within your rights to hold any view you wish. Ny point would be: major sections of the population of England are tight now responding to the message of TR and people who articulate similar ideas.

You will not, I do not think, be able to stop it or them. My suggestion? Become more familiar with their arguments and WHY they hold the opinions they do.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, half the world's population are women.
Alexis should not have mentioned his fear of women which makes him laughable.
Kinder, Küche, Kirche Alexis is that it?

It is not a ‘fear of women’ and much more an apprehension of, and a suspicion of, women’s tendency to operate through sentimental filters and lenses.

Your apprehensions about the movement now forming in England, and in numerous places, is (as I see it) not based in sound reasoning, judicious reasoning, but emoted reasoning more rooted in feeling. The word you use — love — seems inflected with sentiment.

It is not “love” that is needed but clarity and intelligence. If those are in place, well then “love” surely has a role.

Obviously, there are women who have reasoned things through and take a position defined (perhaps) by “love”, but genuine and practicable love of their nation, culture, people and history.

But you are right in a sense: I do hold to more traditional views of both men and women’s roles. Without a restoration in these areas I do not think things will turn out well. And I am not here selling my own view, rather I am trying to line out what is going on in our present.

[Belinda]

Father Jack, who was taught to parrot the phrase : "That would be an ecumenical matter"

[Belinda]

Yes, half the world's population are women.
Alexis should not have mentioned his fear of women which makes him laughable.
Kinder, Küche, Kirche Alexis is that it?

It is not a ‘fear of women’ and much more an apprehension of, and a suspicion of, women’s tendency to operate through sentimental filters and lenses.

Your apprehensions about the movement now forming in England, and in numerous places, is (as I see it) not based in sound reasoning, judicious reasoning, but emoted reasoning more rooted in feeling. The word you use — love — seems inflected with sentiment.

It is not “love” that is needed but clarity and intelligence. If those are in place, well then “love” surely has a role.

Obviously, there are women who have reasoned things through and take a position defined (perhaps) by “love”, but genuine and practicable love of their nation, culture, people and history.

But you are right in a sense: I do hold to more traditional views of both men and women’s roles. Without a restoration in these areas I do not think things will turn out well. And I am not here selling my own view, rather I am trying to line out what is going on in our present.

As I have often quoted, "The meaning of a word is its use"

'Love' has a great many meanings : I love little babies. I love ice cream. I love linguistics. I have been in love . I love the idea of freedom. I love loyalty. I love endurance. I love to do better. I love to know more. I love future possibilities . I love courage. I love ordinary human kindness.

I fear what is going on at our present time. I fear unkindness more than I fear immigrants . It is important to rehabilitate the word 'love' to refer to agape.

As for the so called supernatural way of being ; Plato's theory of Forms suffices. The human is the only measure, not an interventionist whimsical God who must be propitiated with prescribed rituals.

I do agree we must understand and allay the fears of Tommy Robinson supporters. Public relations expertise is lacking. Maybe the lead will come from the liberal, modern churches you deplore. I do hope so. There must be quite a few social psychologists at the disposal of church authorities.

[seeds]

As I have often quoted, "The meaning of a word is its use"

That's a good rule of thumb, Belinda.

How about trying to remember that quote the next time we get into a tussle over the meaning of the word "eternity."
_______