phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 7:37 pm
Of course, you may not care about what Jesus taught. You may only interested in the RCC as a "successful corporation" which delivered growth and profit to Europe. Some of what you write, sounds like that. So it then becomes a discussion of management rather than theology.
I have a few thoughts on that topic. You are right in a sense that I am interested in a “successful corporation” though I would put it differently. I find that I am most essentially interested in Europe, European culture & history, the people of Europe (and yes as a diverse “race” which indeed it is), and in all of that there are a few different strains: practical, spiritual, and religious.
You must take into account that along the intellectual path I traveled I exposed myself to what are now ‘forbidden texts” such as Madison Grant’s
The Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard’s
The Rising Tide of Color. These were accepted texts and ideas in the early 20th century but, in processes of transvaluation of values, what was esteemed and valued at one moment, is reviled, critiqued and excluded in another.
By disposition I have “racialist” tendencies, but this is very different from “being a racist”. So I define myself as chauvinistic in respect to Europe. (Better put: a
modified chauvinism). And I feel no shame in this. I see no reason why any people should be forced to deny their own self-unity or to accept doctrines of views that cause them to turn against themselves. And my view is that European man has undergone a process of “turning against himself”. This is a catastrophe and a crisis. So this must be considered if we are to think about “charity in the Christian sense”.
I already explained that by way of contact with Bork and Weaver (and Nietzsche) that I began a process of quite radical examination and self-examination. I forced myself to read what are the essential forbidden texts. I read Houston Chamberlain and though I tried to read
Mein Kampf I just couldn’t get through it. But more interesting was Hans FK Gunther’s
The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans. I read early Huxley and I can assure you that
Proper Studies would be condemned as ‘fascistic’ today. It is radical (Interwar) material. I guess people should feel relief he took mescaline and tripped-out on his trousers …
What I can report to you now is that in the most essentialist way, and also a hair romantically, I seem to be most concerned about the processes of both unity and of disunity in Europe. (America’s relationship to ‘that’ is complex naturally, but I am not at all a fan of
Americanism. In its present state it represents derangement and is also dangerous).
When we think of “Europe” and “Christian culture” we have to consider at least 1,000 years of complex history. It begins with Roman conquest and the establishment of civic traditions. It is all extremely gritty, tooth and nail, violent in so many ways (like all human history) but there is a process and a trajectory and the influence of Christian philosophy (how else to put it?) permeates it.
Ultimately, I would submit to an overarching and undergirding civilized and yes
Christian structure rather than any tendentious alternative as are sprouting up in our present.
I am merely
a particle spun out of a degenerate culture and civilization and long ‘causal chains’ of events that one lives through and one embodies most often unconsciously until there is a point where one can become “self-conscious” and then choose to modify oneself, recondition oneself and deliberately choose the higher and the better routes.
What are those
higher and better routes?
My closest contact with Christian ethics has come by way of Catholic moral teachings and as I say Catholic ‘social doctrines’. These are all elaborated expositions whose base is the Gospel Jesus as well as the Jewish Prophets and expressed through Greek intellectual concepts.