Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

So there is great danger in treating God as a sociological subject, as a cultural artifact, or as an aesthetic exercise. There is equal danger in looking into Him as a mere philosophical postulate. (1 Sam. 6:19 gives an interesting illustration of this). What one's ears hear, in the process, one will answer for. And there is no way to investigate HaShem without the corresponding response of obedience...at least, no safe way. God does not give light to those who will not act upon it. So to stand back and consider God coolly, as if He were a mere factor in a cultural landscape, is to deprive oneself of the means to learn what one needs to understand, and to invite judgment for ever single thing one does learn.

It is a difficult topic to broach yet it must be broached. If I speak of these things you will, I suppose, imagine that I am putting forward some sort of doctrine, but I am more trying to clarify and explain things. Your continual reference to HaShem always rubs me the wrong way. The reason is because of a great many things I have studied and considered. You seem to define a Christianity which is a Jewish imposition. I do understand that you say that you only extremely value and appreciate what has been revealed through the Judean traditions, and I can certainly agree with you (in so many ways). But you almost seem to make Christianity an extension of Judaism. I am coming to understand that what you fail to understand is that the European self is not the Jewish self, and the Jewish modality cannot be imposed in the way that you seem to imagine. But I really need to subtract the *you* from what I am suggesting. You are, I guess, part of a process, not an individual with an opinion.

What I am getting at, to put it in as plain of terms as I am able, is to suggest (if not to insist) that the Indo-European self cannot, and will not, accept this foreign imposition without modification. And what is this modification? Well, I made reference to WB Yeats and you, logically, took this (the general reference) to be one of aesthetics. That is a very very superficial way of seeing the issue. It is not of aesthetics but of existential-etics.

You in your way, whether you see it clearly or not, are a champion of the imposition. But the Indo-European self cannot take this on without a substantial reworking -- along lines of authenticity. Thus all of our traditions -- in poetry, in art, in philosophy, including in rebellion-traditions in all their variety which not only cannot be denied but are crucial! -- are re-modifications. Yeats is a perfect example. You cannot separate him from his Celtic matrix, nor in this sense from a self that 'communed so intimately ... with the lower creation, or believed it to have so big a share in moral life'. I use this as an example of something Indo-European that -- and here I move to controversy -- will not be conquered by a foreign spirit.

But the issue here is, of course, that you define god as a singularity; as one thing that must be *imposed* on all. I guarantee you that the Indo-European spirit cannot abide this. But that does not mean that it must then necessarily become immoral.

The rebellion then against the Christian imposition (Nietzsche is a good example) has to be examined judiciously, fairly, realistically, and also creatively, if I can put it like this.

What you propose is, in a way, an annihilation. And I assert that the Indo-European self will not abide this.

[Immanuel Can]

Your continual reference to HaShem always rubs me the wrong way. The reason is because of a great many things I have studied and considered. You seem to define a Christianity which is a Jewish imposition.

Well, the offence is not intentional. That being said, I cannot apologize for it.

I do understand that you say that you only extremely value and appreciate what has been revealed through the Judean traditions, and I can certainly agree with you (in so many ways). But you almost seem to make Christianity an extension of Judaism. I am coming to understand that what you fail to understand is that the European self is not the Jewish self, and the Jewish modality cannot be imposed in the way that you seem to imagine.

Let me suggest an alternate scenario.

Suppose it is not the "Jewish modality" that has been imposed on what was already an "Indo-European modality," (to borrow your terms) but rather that a Jewish essence became denied, negated and submerged by the institutions of the "Indo-European" religious culture, through a process of anti-semitism and supersessionist theology.

In other words, let me point out that from the very beginning, "Christianity" was Jewish. As you already know, even the word "Christ" is only the Greek translation of "Messiah." Not only the eponymous Figure at the center of the faith was thoroughly Jewish, but so was, until after the first church council, every single one of his disciples and followers. Indeed, the open question at that gathering was, "Is it even possible for a Gentile to be saved, to be a Christian?" Moreover, every doctrine articulated in the New Testament is an extension of, a building on, or an alteration of, a Jewish precedent in the Tanakh. To this day, even, Christians study Torah as Scripture coequal with any other. You cannot possibly find a more Jewish religion, at root, than Christianity...at least, in its original form.

What happened? Not merely Gentilization, but also the Jewish rejection of Messiah over the issue of the Bar Kokhba Rebellion, followed by centuries of institutional domination of the name "Christian" by a monolythic European entity with a bad, maleable, political and inauthentic Roman theology. Thus, the Jewish roots of Christianity have, in our present age, become largely invisible to the masses in the West...with the exception of those who remained faithful to the hermeneutics of Scripture themselves, who were always still present, but never a larger or politically visible entity until a considerable time after the Reformation.

So what is the false imposition on the Christian tradition? Is it Judaism? Or is it the "Indo-European modality" with which most persons today are familiar? I think you can see, it's the latter. Judaism actually has legitimate commerce with Christianity, far more than the Roman tradition ever did.

What I am getting at, to put it in as plain of terms as I am able, is to suggest (if not to insist) that the Indo-European self cannot, and will not, accept this foreign imposition without modification.

So much the worse for the "Indo-European tradition," then; for it is the "foreigner," though I understand why somebody conditioned to think of the "Indo-European modality" as the real Christianity would not instantly recognize that fact. Nevertheless, it's true.

I made reference to WB Yeats and you, logically, took this (the general reference) to be one of aesthetics. That is a very very superficial way of seeing the issue. It is not of aesthetics but of existential-etics.

No, I didn't refer to Yeats when I spoke of "aesthetics." Rather, I was speaking of your comment that there were diverse traditions. The diversity of traditions, per se, does not amount to an argument for the legitimacy of all those traditions. It only implies that there are some bad ideas around, as well as some good ones. So the intuition that people are free to choose their "tradition" aesthetically...that is, on the basis of what they find attractive...is an incorrect one, I think. (And I would say the same of the "existential" as well: however important it may remain, one's "experience" is not by itself sufficient to make a tradition legitimate.

You in your way, whether you see it clearly or not, are a champion of the imposition.

Again, only because you're presently reversing "imposition" with "original." The original Christianity is very conditioned by Judaism, not by the European tradition.

I use this as an example of something Indo-European that -- and here I move to controversy -- will not be conquered by a foreign spirit.

Well, that's a prophecy, of course...but I tend to think you're right about that. The latter tradition, the "Indo-European" is a raging rebel at heart, and antisemitic, to boot, and will not endure the recognition of Christianity as Jewish-derived. (At the same time, I realize that Jewish folks are still likely to resent the same realization, for their own reasons.) However, truth does not play politics. It matters not what the "Indo-Europeans" want, or, for that matter, what modern Judaism would prefer: the truth is that Christianity is a derivative of Judaism, and always has been.

But the issue here is, of course, that you define god as a singularity; as one thing that must be *imposed* on all.

I'm not sure what you mean here, because Christians are Trinitarians, not Unitarians. However, I think you must be referring to the Catholic habit of imposing their faith by force. It is not a taste I share, nor one I think can ever be anything but counterproductive. If truth will not convince a man, then force will not either. Freedom of conscience...and the concommitant accountability before God...are essential to Christianity. A man cannot be forced to be saved. (Locke said that.)

What you propose is, in a way, an annihilation. And I assert that the Indo-European self will not abide this.

Well, honestly, I don't think I care what the Indo-European self will "abide." The truth will be the truth. One who rejects it harms only himself. Truth will stand when the "Indo-European modality" is a long-forgotten historical oddity.

However, this is the metanoia: the willingness to give up that pride, that exaltation of self. The turning to God will take with it no smattering of human arrogance. All of that "not abiding" of truth has to stop. After all, it's mere human arrogance anyway. The belief that we can assert our preferences over and against, even in the face of, God, is surely an obvious fiction we must get beyond.

[Dubious]

However, this is the metanoia: the willingness to give up that pride, that exaltation of self. The turning to God will take with it no smattering of human arrogance. All of that "not abiding" of truth has to stop. After all, it's mere human arrogance anyway. The belief that we can assert our preferences over and against, even in the face of, God, is surely an obvious fiction we must get beyond.

A god who wished to declare itself would not have a Christian story upholding it told many years later with all the intervening contradictions contained in the narratives. That's not unlike god requiring posthumous ghostwriters for its endorsement. But one thing is certain, as you mentioned, Christianity being a derivative of Judaism. That being the case, it's clear the Christ had a purely Jewish agenda in his ministry. Certainly he would have thought Paul a traitor to the cause had he been around.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note: If I say something or other rubs me the wrong way in no sense do I (or could I) take it as an offensive act. My reactions are my own.

[Immanuel Can]

That being the case, it's clear the Christ had a purely Jewish agenda in his ministry. Certainly he would have thought Paul a traitor to the cause had he been around.

If you read the Book, you'd already know what's wrong with that theory.

[Immanuel Can]

Note: If I say something or other rubs me the wrong way in no sense do I (or could I) take it as an offensive act. My reactions are my own.

Understood.

[Dubious]

That being the case, it's clear the Christ had a purely Jewish agenda in his ministry. Certainly he would have thought Paul a traitor to the cause had he been around.

If you read the Book, you'd already know what's wrong with that theory.

Enlighten me! What's wrong with that theory which isn't a theory since Christianity is, in fact, a derivative of Judaism. Were there any gentiles among Christ's apostles or associates? I don't know of one, but I could be wrong.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Luke was traditionally believed to be Gentile. But there is strong evidence that this was unlikely.

Galilee (Jesus’ region) was said to be highly ‘contaminated’ with Gentile ideas (foreign influences) and for that reason it was asked “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?”

All the early associates were Jews. Only in the later First Century did Christianity become Greco-Christian (and both ‘anti-Semitic’ and, put another way, ‘non-philo-Semetic’.) In any case a rift definitely opened.

I see Christianity as Greco-Christian. I tend (obviously) more to the Supersessionism view. IC very much the opposite, if I understand him correctly.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

The belief that we can assert our preferences over and against, even in the face of, God, is surely an obvious fiction we must get beyond.

But it's idolatry to define what can't be defined.

It so happens I learned the moral code that was taught in a Scottish Presbyterian church. Others learn the moral codes they have learned from whatever sources. The sources of the learning are human.
Christianity as I understand it has the capability of being universally applicable and I mean universal including Advaita Vedanta.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Suppose it is not the "Jewish modality" that has been imposed on what was already an "Indo-European modality," (to borrow your terms) but rather that a Jewish essence became denied, negated and submerged by the institutions of the "Indo-European" religious culture, through a process of anti-semitism and supersessionist theology.

In other words, let me point out that from the very beginning, "Christianity" was Jewish. As you already know, even the word "Christ" is only the Greek translation of "Messiah." Not only the eponymous Figure at the center of the faith was thoroughly Jewish, but so was, until after the first church council, every single one of his disciples and followers. Indeed, the open question at that gathering was, "Is it even possible for a Gentile to be saved, to be a Christian?" Moreover, every doctrine articulated in the New Testament is an extension of, a building on, or an alteration of, a Jewish precedent in the Tanakh. To this day, even, Christians study Torah as Scripture coequal with any other. You cannot possibly find a more Jewish religion, at root, than Christianity...at least, in its original form.

Well, there is a great deal to examine, obviously. And this examination will bring us into contentious and controversial territory. As I have said numerous times I have, over the course of years now, steeped myself in these controversies, so all of this is a territory in which I am not completely but am somewhat comfortable. The reason I have sought out the controversies, and chosen to investigate them myself -- that is not to rely on the pre-digested versions which in my opinion surround us -- is simply to be able to form my own opinion based on my own thought-process. I have to make it clear that if I am concerned with 'ancient controversy' it is because of the bearing these have on immediate issues in our present. That means sociological, political, cultural, religious and all other issues that have come so strongly to the fore.

So, first controversy: the mere mention of Indo-Europeanism. I often say *it has to be stated* or *it must be mentioned* as a preface to the revelation of a contentious topic, and Indo-Europeanism is one such. The reason is because we live in the shadow of the Second World War and, of course, of the dread 'fascism', which word functions as a scary emblem of ideas which have been decided are dangerous and also evil. Again, these things have to be stated right at the beginning. These things must be understood. In this vein all right-leaning ideas, all conservative ideas, all radical right ideas, and certainly conservative, tradition-grounded religious ideas, are linked with *notions of identity* and perhaps I could say of forms of *essentialism* (if this is the right word) that some people become involved with when they seek to 1) define themselves and 2) protect themselves. The various right-leaning movements of the Interwar period (the 1930s roughly but right-radicalism goes back much farther)(radicalism in the original and accurate sense as 'root') are all defensive manoevres against other forms of encroaching radicalism, notable communism. And it does not take a brain-surgeon or a rocket scientist to notice that, as with octaval harmony, the very same tropes, and seemingly the same issues, have all come starkly and animatedly to the fore all over again.

And so the issue of Identity comes up very strongly. But Identity is problematic and the entire idea of it is tainted. At the very least all I can do here is to broach the topic.

Christianity, and I will here refer to my sense of the Christian version that seems most dear to you (and most logically supportable and thus *correct* and *right*) has very strong tendencies to operate against *local identity*. If you (you-plural) are interested in examining the modern anti-Christian or counter-Christian argument, and one much in favor of the diversity of pagan perspective, see Alain de Benoist On Being a Pagan. I read it, or most of it, and I can say I understand his argument. Christianity is, and naturally becomes, a one-size-fits-all Weltanschauung. It operates, always, as an *imposition* and as such as something destructive to self-identity -- to what one actually is, unless of course one is a Jew of the sort that founded the Christian movement, and if that is so it is *authentic*. Christianity, in and of itself, is *imperialistic* and dominating. The entire idea of 'Go out into the world and convert the world' is a prime animator within Christianity. Christianity is an argument that declares itself won, a priori. You cannot argue against a Christian because, de facto, the Christian is *right*. And Jesus Christ and God Himself back up the arguer.

“In the Bible, man is only free to submit or be damned. His one freedom is the renunciation of that freedom. He finds his “salvation” by freely accepting his subjugation. The Christian ideal, says Saint Paul, is to be freely “subservient to God” (Romans 6:22).”

“When it comes to specifying the values particular to paganism, people have generally listed features such as these: an eminently aristocratic conception of the human individual; an ethics founded on honor (“shame” rather than “sin”); an heroic attitude toward life’s challenges; the exaltation and sacralization of the world, beauty, the body, strength, health; the rejection of any “worlds beyond”; the inseparability of morality and aesthetics; and so on. From this perspective, the highest value is undoubtedly not a form of “justice” whose purpose is essentially interpreted as flattening the social order in the name of equality, but everything that can allow a man to surpass himself. To paganism, it is pure absurdity to consider the results of the workings of life’s basic framework as unjust. In the pagan ethic of honor, the classic antithesis noble vs. base, courageous vs. cowardly, honorable vs. dishonorable, beautiful vs. deformed, sick vs. healthy, and so forth, replace the antithesis operative in a morality based on the concept of sin: good vs. evil, humble vs. vainglorious, submissive vs. proud, weak vs. arrogant, modest vs. boastful, and so on. However, while all this appears to be accurate, the fundamental feature in my opinion is something else entirely. It lies in the denial of dualism.”

“Nor is there any valid reason to reject the idea of God or the notion of the sacred just because of the sickly expression Christianity has given to them, any more than it is necessary to break with aristocratic principles on the pretext that they have been caricatured by the bourgeoisie.”

Those are some de Benoist quotes. These things have to be put out on the table, they have to be carefully examined. They cannot be pushed away and they should not be vilified (in my own view).

Now, those who seek to define identity through research of what is (*authentically*) Indo-European are, at least in some instances, seeking an alternative to the imperialistic and dominating tendency of Christianity -- which cuts down the sacred groves, which invalidates ways-of-being that do not accord with, and let me put it this way for effect, Jewish cultural imperialism. Why do I say such a dramatic thing? Well, because in fact this is what your argument, IC, revolves around. You explain this, you justify it, and you even link the right and proper Christianity with modern Judaism, or at least this seems to be the case. Your position in this sense seems really quite bizarre when examined even superficially. You seem to want to be a Christian Jew. Your reference is constantly to Tanach and to HaShem -- just words to indicate what you mean, but these are the terms Jews use to define their religion. You define yourself as non-supersessionist which, I think this is plain, is a form of Christian Zionism, or at least one of its manifestations. These are not definitions of no consequence.

But what has seemed interesting to me, again I am drawn to controversy and jump right into the middle of it as a matter of practice, is to examine what Indo-European identitarianism actually means. Is it wrong? Is it *immoral*? Such simply cannot be said. Is it controversial? And does it, or can it, strengthen or weaken 'Christian commitment'? Well there lies the issue. To seek out and to define a pre-Christian identity-platform is a way to strengthen self-identity which can be, and often is, an identity of resistance. And with that said I must say, and we must all realize with extreme clarity, that identity is what is being fought over in the most overt and I would also say violent terms. The battles over identity, and identification, rage. Now, who has the presence of mind and the self-centeredness (that is, a strong position within identity) to resist the surrounding forces which seek to capture and control people (corral their identity-postures)? It becomes oddly circular, does it not? To have identity means to have a base withini oneself. But to have such a base requires (I assert) a concomitant metaphysics. Identity is power, identity is relationship to one's matrix. And that matrix is situated in the lower-world, the so-called 'lower creation'.

I can only gloss this here but Indo-Europeanism (excuse my neologism), in my own view, can best be understood when examining the Greek traditions and the Greek mind. That is, a product and a part-and-parcel of the Indo-European. What is that? How did it come about? What are its roots? But once one has given validity to this identification, one has right there taken a certain stand against the imperialism of Jewish Christianity. If Christianity is understood to be an extension of Judaism, then in this precise sense Judaism is impositional and dominating, and it must by necessity undermine any identification which stands in its way. Here I encapsulate your own argument! This Christianity then becomes an imperialistic wedge -- at least in certain senses and perhaps in many senses.

However, and with all that said, it is simply not possible to describe Christianity in any other terms but as Greco-Christian. That is to say that the idea (logos) met another people and that people *took it up* in ways that those Jewish Christians might not have conceived as possible. This Greco-Christianity is a supersession of Jewish modality no matter how the dice roll. But the issue of 'cultural imperialism' still remains and, beyond any doubt, Europe became dominated by Christianity, indeed it was conquered by Christian power. If those who read what I write believe that I, myself, am critical of this, that is not so. I simply understand that this is how Europe originated -- in conquest and also in what I call *imposition*.

[Immanuel Can]

That being the case, it's clear the Christ had a purely Jewish agenda in his ministry. Certainly he would have thought Paul a traitor to the cause had he been around.

If you read the Book, you'd already know what's wrong with that theory.

Enlighten me!

Read the Book. You'll be enlightened without my help.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Some other pretty good Alain de Benoist quotes:

“Adam and Eve, placed in the garden of Eden, find themselves forbidden to eat of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). Catholic theologians believe this “knowledge” forbidden by Elohim-Yahweh is neither omniscience nor moral discernment, but the ability to decide what is good or evil. Jewish theology is more subtle. The “tree” of the knowledge is interpreted as the representation of a world where good and evil “are in a combined state,” where there is no absolute Good and Evil. In other words, the “tree” is a foreshadowing of the real world we live in, a world where nothing is absolutely clear cut, where moral imperatives are tied to human values, and where everything of any greatness and importance always takes place beyond good and evil. Furthermore, in the Hebrew tradition “to eat” means “to assimilate.” To eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is therefore to personally enter this real world where human initiative “combines” good and evil. Adam’s transgression, from which all the others are derived, is clearly “that of autonomy,” accordingly, as emphasized by Eisenberg and Abecassis, this would be “the desire to conduct his own history alone in according to his own desire and his own word or law.”

“In fact, it is not a question of going back to the past, but of connecting with it-and also, by that very fact, in a spherical conception of history, to connect to the eternal and cause it to surge back, to have consonance in life, and to disentangle itself from the tyranny of the logos, the terrible tyranny of the Law, so as to reestablish the school of the mythos and life.”

“As only God has an absolute value, everything that is not God can have only relative value. To be created means that one’s being is not due to oneself but to something other than oneself. This creates a perpetual sense of self-loss within one’s own state of unfulfillment. It means that one is not self-sufficient but a dependent being—one’s state of existence is caged from the start inside that dependency. Creation therefore does not posit man’s autonomy. It circumscribes it, and by virtue of this, in my opinion, invalidates it.

Indeed, man has no right to enjoy this world except on condition of acknowledging that he is not its true owner but at best its steward. Yahweh alone is the owner of the world. “The earth belongs to me, and you are nothing but strangers and guests to my eyes” (Leviticus 25:23).”

“There is no need to ”believe” in Jupiter or Wotan—something that is no more ridiculous then believing in Yahweh however—to be pagan. Contemporary paganism does not consist of erecting altars to Apollo or reviving the worship of Odin. Instead it implies looking behind religion and, according to a now classic itinerary, seeking for the “mental equipment” that produced it, the inner world it reflects, and how the world it depicts as apprehended. In short, it consists of viewing the gods as “centers of value” and the beliefs they generate as value systems: gods and beliefs may pass away, but the values remain.”

This should not be taken to mean that when the New Gentile Temple is established on the site of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (despite what Israeli Jews now think about the construction of the Third Temple), and Jupiter [Jupiter (Latin: Iūpiter or Iuppiter, from Proto-Italic *djous "day, sky" + *patēr "father", thus "sky father") is finally, and properly, situated at the umbilical center of the World as Supreme Logos, that a statue of Alain de Benoist will also be established there . . .

[A wee bit of humor cannot hurt . . . ]

[Dontaskme]

Read the Book. You'll be enlightened without my help.

Hmm, I wonder if the book titled ''the Book'' written by only God knows who, knows it's enlightened. Can books know they are enlightened, hmm! Can a story be separate from the book, hmm! can a story know it's enlightened, hmm!

Can the reader see itself?.. Not really,.... so who is it that will be enlightened?..oh that's right, the book titled ''the Book'' is enlightened...of course, why didn't I think of that, silly me.




.

[Belinda]

Alexis Jacobi quoted:

“Adam and Eve, placed in the garden of Eden, find themselves forbidden to eat of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). Catholic theologians believe this “knowledge” forbidden by Elohim-Yahweh is neither omniscience nor moral discernment, but the ability to decide what is good or evil. Jewish theology is more subtle. The “tree” of the knowledge is interpreted as the representation of a world where good and evil “are in a combined state,” where there is no absolute Good and Evil. In other words, the “tree” is a foreshadowing of the real world we live in, a world where nothing is absolutely clear cut, where moral imperatives are tied to human values, and where everything of any greatness and importance always takes place beyond good and evil. Furthermore, in the Hebrew tradition “to eat” means “to assimilate.” To eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is therefore to personally enter this real world where human initiative “combines” good and evil. Adam’s transgression, from which all the others are derived, is clearly “that of autonomy,” accordingly, as emphasized by Eisenberg and Abecassis, this would be “the desire to conduct his own history alone in according to his own desire and his own word or law.”

I think that the "knowledge" means even more than good and evil, it means general reification and so on towards idolatry.

[Immanuel Can]

There's a ton to unpack here, Alexis: and I see that you're thinking-by-writing, exploring as you go...or so it seems to me...so that some paragraphs are preparatory for a main point, rather than being points in their own right. If I may, then, I will select what seems to me to be the main points you are developing, rather than trying to deal exhaustively with every subpoint. If, in that process, I miss something you consider germaine, please feel welcome to draw my attention back to it. And meanwhile, rest assured that my having passed over it in this response is a matter of brevity and relevance, rather than of deliberate avoidance.

Fair enough? Then let us move forward on this together.

And so the issue of Identity comes up very strongly. But Identity is problematic and the entire idea of it is tainted.

I think not.

I think the matter is actually very simple and basic. "Identity" simply means "to recognize a thing for what-it-is." Without a concept of identity, all objects in the world would look the same to us, and no insight would be possible. Things in the world would have for us no "object permanence" or "object specificity." We would be like brain-injured people, incapable of memory or analysis.

What we are trying to do here is recognize the term "Christianity" for what-it-is. However, this is troubled by the question of what-it-has-been-called by other people, and we are struggling between unwillingness to doubt their word and the facts of the identity as they continue to emerge to us.

Christianity has definite terms. It is not whatever a person calls it. It is not even what secular historians have imagined it to be. And I know, because I live within it, and see it both from the inside and from the outside. And I can see that the Biblical terms of Christianity are actually very clear and demanding, and that many of the sects and clubs that have appropriated that name have done so illegitmately, and utterly without warrant -- indeed, often contrary to the explict word of Scripture and indefiance of personal instructions and example of the leading Figure of the movement.

To be a Christian is actually extremely simple...so simple a child can do it. And no particular culture is required, nor attachment to any institution. There are about a half dozen things one has to understand in order to be a Christian in every sense that matters. And beyond that, one's subsequent theology may be simple or sophisticated. It may even be, on some points, errant: but that will never make a true Christian not-a-Christian. It will only make him a less-informed or misinformed Christian. However, the line he has crossed is firm and clear.

So identity here is not actually hard. It's only complicated if somebody won't look at the criteria of Scripture and the character of Christ. If one does, it becomes exceedingly easy. But some people would fain impute to the matter an obscurity that simply is not there, and that for their own purposes. We can do little about them: but we can open our own eyes.

Christianity is, and naturally becomes, a one-size-fits-all Weltanschauung. It operates, always, as an *imposition* and as such as something destructive to self-identity

That is only half correct.

Christianity does not eradicate a person's culture, language, historical location, etc. Lamin Saneh has made an excellent case to suggest that in many ways, Sub-Sahraran Africans are closer to understanding the ancient culture of the Bible experientially and culturally than are modern Europeans. The agrarian allusions, for example, are things that few moderns understand at all in an experiential way, whereas the people of Ghana or Uganda live among the same realities described in the Bible. So much for inherent Europeanness.

Christianity is not legitimately compelling of any culture. Its super-cultural and trans-cultural. (This explains how it could so easily move, for example, between Jewish and Greek culture, and how it has proven adaptable to every other world culture since.) However, Christianity does put a dire challenge to the individual's self. It demands of the hearer a response, and a decision as well -- will he remain the slave of his own passions and his own sins, or will he recognize his own condition, deny the demanding self, give himself over to that which is truly important and valuable, and live a new way? Will he accept metanoia and enter the weltanschauung of God? Or will he persist in his own way?

But Judaism is its original source and framing. And that puts Judaism in a unique position, as the Christian weltanschauung was first articulated in that culture, using its history, literature, metaphors, terms and expectations. Thus, all cultures, in drilling down on what Christianity really is, are brought back to Judaism: and if they are not, then I suggest that their understanding will be hampered by their refusal to do so.

Christianity, in and of itself, is *imperialistic* and dominating.

"Imperialism" is a political force. Christianity is inherently apolitical.

The entire idea of 'Go out into the world and convert the world' is a prime animator within Christianity.

This is true: but it's far less sinister and domineering than you are suggesting.

No Christian can force belief. This is intrisic to Christianity, as John Locke pointed out so rightly, because one cannot compel conscience, and conscience is the sine qua non of conversion. The saying might be:

"A man convinced against his will/
Remains an unbeliever still."

If any agency has ever tried to compel belief, you can be quite sure that agency is not acting Christianly. But debate and persuasion are not compulsion. A man offered a proposition and invited to consider it is not being bludgeoned, coerced or propagandized: he's free to use his own faculties to judge of the case. So we ought not to mistake evangelization, which after all, means "sharing of the good news," with coercion or force.

Christianity is an argument that declares itself won, a priori.

All people who believe they have found a truth, whether it's their faith or the Law of Gravity, begin discussion from the supposition that they are right. This is totally normal for human beings: to argue or inform means to start from a supposition that you know something worth sharing. And it is all the more necessary if what you think you know has implications for the wellbeing and safety of one's listeners. So there's absolutely nothing sinster in this.

And that's my reaction to de Benoist, as well. Like Nietzsche, he takes perfectly natural and benign (and in fact, often even salutary) elements of Christianity and tries to reframe them as imperialistic, domineering, sinister or propagandizing. If he is aware he is doing that, then it's a contemptible deception. But maybe he's not.

For example, you quote:

“In the Bible, man is only free to submit or be damned. His one freedom is the renunciation of that freedom. He finds his “salvation” by freely accepting his subjugation. The Christian ideal, says Saint Paul, is to be freely “subservient to God” (Romans 6:22).”

This is another false half-truth with a twist thrown in. You can catch this in his phrase "freely subservient to God." Whereas Scripture does contain this, it does so as a paradox: that the self-driven person is essentially enslaved to his own impulses, and that only a person who has found something much bigger and better than himself to live for can really be free. And that is both true and beneficial to mankind to know. But de Benoist frames this merely as "subjugation," as a call to slavery, because de Benoist either lacks the insight to know better or is at pains to perpetrate a fraud. I can't say which it is.

But let us continue.

"...the sickly expression Christianity has given to them"...

Here again we find the Nietzschean trope of "Christianity as sickness." It's a tired canard. And we also find the valorization of paganism...which makes me think again that the author has either no familiarity at all with the history or conduct of a pagan society, or he is being mendacious again. So again, I find such blandishments contemptible rather than challenging. They are too untrue, too reductional, too simplistic, too silly, even, to merit much response. One would expect more knowledge from a man claiming erudition on a subject.

Christianity -- which cuts down the sacred groves,

This is what I mean: think about what actually goes on in such "groves." Or perhaps you are only speaking with some kind of metaphor, the import of which eludes me at the moment.

You seem to want to be a Christian Jew.

Not at all. All I am at pains to do is to show the importance, for Christianity, of remembering one's roots. And the Bible itself has the same concern.

You define yourself as non-supersessionist which, I think this is plain, is a form of Christian Zionism,

No, the differences are substantial. I am a pro-Jewish Christian. But I am not, as in the case of Zionism, suffering any delusions as to the infallibilty of modern Israel, nor any illusions about the warmth of modern Jews toward Christians, nor have I any political ambitions. Judaism will never prosper, and Israel and the world will never be secure, without Messiah. And as He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting..." (John 18:36)

I think that you are assuming that because your own interest in Christianity is political (or so it seems) that mine must be, too. But it is not. This makes me not a Zionist. But why do I say it seems to me your interest is political? Because of things like this:

I am drawn to controversy and jump right into the middle of it as a matter of practice, is to examine what Indo-European identitarianism actually means. Is it wrong? Is it *immoral*?

The answer?

No, it is not "immoral." But is is considerably less than important. Cultural identity is a contingent and variable feature of human existence, not some essentialized, permanent quality to which one owes allegiance. It is optional. And among the features of human existence that contribute to notions like self and identity, it is secondary, at best. It is not definitive.

If Christianity is understood to be an extension of Judaism, then in this precise sense Judaism is impositional and dominating,

Again, the situation is far more simple and much less sinister than that.

Judaism is at the origin of Christianity. About that, there can be no reasonable doubt. Greek (or "Indo-European") culture entered in when the Gentiles were included in the Jewish matrix. But it is the Greek that came late. Before it was ever Greek, Christianity was Jewish.

I think that the problem is that you've chosen in your analysis only to go back as far as the Greek, and to valorize that tradition and to declare it primary -- rather the way the Catholic Church has done with Romanism. But this is unhistorical and inaccurate. One's admiration for the Greeks should not prevent one from seeing the historically obvious. That is Romanticism and historicism, not history.

However, and with all that said, it is simply not possible to describe Christianity in any other terms but as Greco-Christian.

I think it's abundantly obvious that's false.

Not only the whole Old Testament but the whole beginning of the New is also Jewish, not Greek. The use of the Greek language occurs only in the later books: and even then, the distinct Jewishness of the argument is absolutely inescapable. I cannot imagine what mental gymnastics it would require in order to see it otherwise; they must be considerable, I suggest.

Read the first three chapters of the book of Romans, and tell me its content is organized in a Greek way. Or look at the genealogies in Matthew, and deny that the audience was passionately Jewish. Or just read the book of Hebrews, at any point, and tell me a Greek would even understand...

This Greco-Christianity is a supersession of Jewish modality no matter how the dice roll.

Not at all. Not even close. The three examples I pointed to above, and the many others I could easily point out to you, will surely put that misconception to bed.

I simply understand that this is how Europe originated -- in conquest and also in what I call *imposition*.

May I ask a question?

What is the point now, aside from a historical curiosity, of us being absorbed with the question, "How did Europe originate?" Are we thinking we want to reproduce it in some form? Or are we thinking the way forward for Europe is backward? Why should we think that, if so?