It seems to be common for people to conflate, to assume the sameness of, a revival of national power and prestige with a revival of Christianity. This conflation seems to happen both on the mainstream political 'Right' as well as the Left (who bracket nationalism and Christianity under the category of 'fascism' which they bestow indiscriminately upon all their opponents).
But although de-nationalisation and anti-Christianity are being simultaneously pursued by the Leftist Establishment; the two do not necessarily go together, indeed I think they cannot (in principle) be pursued in parallel - we must choose one or the other as priority.
If it is accepted (which I argue elsewhere at length) that the Global Establishment is purposively evil, being tools of the demonic powers dedicated to the damnation of Man - then we can see that the anti-Christian agenda is primary; and the globalist agenda is a means to that end.
The Right-wing nationalist agenda sees engineered mass immigration and population replacement as a toll for destroying Western Civilisation; and the main modern problem. But from a Christian perspective this is a secondary problem, and not the main goal of those who pursue demographic destruction.
For Christians, the role of demographic destruction is to induce fear, hatred and chaos - justifying the extension and completeness of the materialist, surveillance and micro-managed totalitarian state which is already substantially in-place.
This planned totalitarian society will be used to (attempt to) destroy Christianity, and indeed all transcendental thought - by deluging the mind with constant input, by rendering the will passive, by filling thought with bad stuff, and by manipulating emotions: by burying our true free selves under layers of engineered and automatic habits and responses.
But the planned totalitarian future can only be resisted by a society that has higher goals than the modern 'utilitarian' public ethic of maximising pleasure and minimising suffering during mortal life. If our feelings and pleasures are to be the bottom line, the totalitarianism will not be resisted, because totalitarianism can sell itself as the best and only means to human 'happiness' (as with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World).
So a Christian revival is the priority; and this would be welcome from whatever source - however, to be effective against the prevalent materialism of modernity, any Christian revival needs to be spiritual.
Spiritual sounds vague - but what is needed is anything-but vague. It is indeed radical beyond anything we have yet experienced (except among a tiny minority). Recent and current Christianity (and I mean among good and sincere Christians) is very materialist - very assimilated to modernity; it is a set of beliefs, a set of assented 'fact'; rather than that different way of thinking, perceiving, and experiencing which is required.
To get back to priorities - the observable fact is that over the past twenty years the British population, hence culture, has been replaced by a variety of other people and cultures - typically non-Western. This has been enabled and facilitated by native sub-fertility; which is itself the major symptom of nihilism and despair - i.e. the British people in a deep sense, en masse, want to become extinct.
That national despair (consequent upon wholesale and near-complete abandonment of Christianity - including among self-identified mainstream Christians and especially their leaders), ultimately, is also why the British have passively-consented-to being substantially replaced; with very little discussion, indeed very little awareness of what is visibly and rapidly happening.
This analysis reveals that nihilistic despair, hope-less-ness, demotivation is the core problem for Britain (and The West generally). Also, awareness of the evil agenda of demographically-induced chaos leading to fear and hatred makes clear that the evil agenda will not be prevented, but will instead be assisted and advanced, by any nationalism based upon fear and hatred.
In a nutshell; there is only one positive option for Britain and that is a Christian awakening distinguished by a new and qualitatively-different perspective on reality; a new and spiritual way of perceiving and thinking.
Furthermore; such a Christian awakening needs to encompass regent migrants to Britain - if hate, fear and chaos are to be avoided.
In other words, National cohesion must be based on religion first, transcending cultural and racial differences. Indeed, religion (and only some religions) are the only known effective basis of long term, non-tyrannical social cohesion among people of different cultures and natures.
To put it another way; the future is totalitarian tyranny or a society based on one, shared religion; and that can only be Christianity; and an effective Christianity needs to be spiritual (non-materialist).
Unless there is Christianity and that Christianity embodies a different and spiritual (non materialist) way of being - then we will remain trapped in nihilism and despair.
(Note: The reason to be Christian, and to aim for a new and spiritual Christian way of being, is that this is true, and best, and indeed divinely destined. Above I am arguing for its expediency - which is true - but secondary.)
7 comments:
BC,
I recently had a discussion with an old friend from my "spiritual but not religious" days. What's interesting to me is that he's just as (if not, more) antagonistic to the errors of modernity as the Traditionalist is. He addressed the hedonism, ennui, frenetic agitation, alienation, nihilism, and the evils emanating from the worldview of scientism/materialism. But, not surprisingly, he identified "religion", (particularly the Abrahamic faiths) as being "part of the problem" because of their fundamentally divisive character and their emphasis on belief and not on experience. He went on to say that the notion of revelation found in many of the theistic traditions is dangerous and destructive because it logically entails a moral imperative to either convert or fight those who don't join the fold. He basically argued for what amounts to a "new religion", one that embraces the positive aspects of both modernity and Tradition..... pretty standard spirituality talk.
What do you think is the primary problem with this pov?
The British population is indeed being replaced. In major urban centres it's very plain to see. The changes in demographics since the mid-90s are staggering. Many refuse to accept the evidence of their eyes though. They choose to live in denial instead.
British society and culture is also being corroded from within from pernicious redefinitions of the family and gender identity. But you're absolutely right, Bruce. A blast of 'nativist' anger would do no good at all and only serve to further the interests of those who long for our disintegration. What's needed, in fact, is less Britain and more Logres - the inner, spiritual side of the country. Albion is another word for the same thing, of course. And that's what's required - an eruption of the hidden power of Logres/Albion into the visible 'day to day' world of Britain.
@Chris - I can't comment on specific unknown-to-me people, of course; but the seriousness and integrity of spiritual but not religious peple is usually compromised by their acceptance of the sexual revolution in one or more of its facets.
Or, if not that, then they are corrupted by one or more of the aspects of modern secualr Leftism (equality, antiracism, diversity etc). These become - whether acknowledged or not - the true bottom-line of evaluation; the true priority - and spiritual demotivation and expediency is the outcome.
Spirituality is the means, religion is the end - and you can't live spiritually on the basis of means-only, lacking a goal. Inevitably, you become corrupted.
BC,
Sorry for veering away from the subject of the post. Incidentally, I responded to my friend in a way that largely mirrors what you said in your comment. He answered with the claim that his liberalism logically flows from his spiritual worldview, "While religiousness is characterized by devotion to a specific tradition, set of principles, or code of conduct, spirituality is associated with direct experience of self-transcendence and the feeling that we're all connected. Liberalism is the political expression of spirituality by emphasizing the importance of equality and social harmony. Spiritual experiences seem to make people feel more of a connection with others- the boundaries we normally maintain between ourselves and the world tend to dissolve during these experiences. These feelings of self-transcendence make it easier to recognize that we are all part of the same ultimate Reality, promoting an inclusive and egalitarian mindset."
It seems to me that folks like my friend simply do not accept the authority of Tradition, as such, which has its source in Divine Revelation. The reason for this, I think, is a dogmatic adherence to the individualist political/spiritual anthropology of modernity. And that perspective itself was the product of the endless pre-modern conflicts between the followers of different religious traditions.
It seems to me that this is a conundrum. We don't wish to reject modernity wholesale, particularly its good aspects like classical liberalism, but we also want the fullness of spirituality that comes from Tradition. That can only be the case (I think) unless we can point to a principled and hard demarcation line between classical and "progressive" liberalism. I an doubtful if that can be done.
@Chris - I believe there is a way *forward* - indeed, that there is *only* the way forward, because we cannot go back to a previous tradition - the world has changed and we have changed (the two are inextricably linked).
(All attempts to revert to an earlier stage of human cultural or religious evolution - evolution in the sense of developmental-unfolding accrding to divine destiny - have failed completely.)
We have been stuck, for about 200 years, in a phase that was meant to be a short and swift transition between childhood and adulthood; as a society, we in the 'Western' nations were meant to be the first to reach adulthood, but instead we chose to remain perpetual, metaphysical adolescents who refuse to grow up, and consequently (generation upon generation) we have expanded the faults and failings of adolescence to an ever greater degree.
To acknowledge the above, Christians need to acknowledge fully that Time is real and Salvation History is linear - Christ's incarnation death and resurrection changed the cosmos, before is different from after and now is spiritually different from 200, 500, 1000 years ago - but until now Christians have only half acknowledged the implications.
(This perspective comes from Owen Barfield, mainly.)
“Liberalism is the political expression of spirituality by emphasizing the importance of equality and social harmony. “
I realize you weren’t saying this, Chris, but it’s a common misconception. It confuses the absolute and the relative. Yes, ultimately all is one in God (equality) but manifested reality, the world of the many, is hierarchical and must be or else nothing could be differentiated from anything else. Nor could consciousness ever evolve from a primitive state. The task of the spiritual person is to keep a balance between the one and the many, between essential equality (oneness is a better word – there’s no such thing as equality really) and hierarchical realization. The ladder of being doesn’t just have one rung.
William,
I totally agree- I think you're spot on. Some people have called the connection between the contemporary spirituality culture and leftism "spiritual humanism". I think it is noteworthy that the nondual traditions of the East (for which Western spiritualists hold in such high regard) have historically been at the antipodes of modern spiritual humanists. Those cultures have been overwhelmingly hierarchical, conservative and certainly not "progressive". Perhaps the typical modern Occidental is drawn to the pantheistic perspective because it resembles philosophical materialism by way of its essentially monistic framework? But, as you alluded to, they don't recognize "the many" because they mistake nondualism for monism.
Post a Comment