/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Politics, News, History

Posting Mode: Reply Return

Max message length: 5000


(used to delete files and postings)


  • Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more
  • Max files: 5
  • Max file size: 50.00 MB
  • Read the global rules before you post, as well as the board rules found in the sticky.

11/25/19 Just launched Formerly Chuck's, an imageboard dedicated to television and film! Come check it out and quality post.
11/23/19 Donations can now be made via PayPal, thank you for all of your support!
11/21/19 We have successfully migrated to LynxChan 2.3.0, to see all of the changes to 16chan, click here.
08/15/19 The 16chan Android app is now live! Instructions on how to download it and set it up can be found here.

[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Bottom] [Refresh]

(149.29 KB 1015x1200 Enlightenment.jpg)
Enlightenment Anonymous 12/18/2019 (Wed) 08:55:17 ID:fe17c8 No. 18585
I wonder what does /pol/ think about it, was it based or not. I would say it was in many ways based, especially Voltaire and his philosophy regarding morality, religion and other things such as Freedom of Speech.
A lot of people have a negative view of the Enlightenment. Yet the Enlightenment was not only a rediscovering of our European culture before it was vandalized by Christianity, but it led to some of the greatest technological and cultural achievements of our race. Many claim that the Enlightenment was jewish but I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this claim is accurate. I do not deny that jews did benefit from the end of the middle ages. Just like they benefited from the middle ages and their protective laws. The Enlightenment was the darn of what we would call "modern nationalism". Before the Enlightenment, people were certainly tribalistic. All mentally healthy men are tribalistic. However, the Middle Ages saw a period, unique in all of history, where national origin became less important for government. Add to this the egalitarianism (interchangeability) of Christianity, the feudal system, and the lack of ability of the peasants to exert their will upon the government. This, I believe, more than anything else stifled the natural development of nationalism and forced the peasants to live as nation-less peasants on land ruled by foreign aristocrats. The Enlightenment changed this. The Enlightenment smashed the feudal system and re-introduced the concept that government is not legitimate if it does not represent the interests of the people. This naturally led to more true manifestations of the nation-state. Indeed, the Nation-State is an Enlightenment concept. Before this, states and nations (peoples) were merely the personal possessions of rich aristocrats who ruled through the support of the parasitic priest class. So while I may hold a minority view here, I am very much in support of the Enlightenment. I like the concept that states should adhere to nations and governments should represent Peoples.
>>18594 I agree with you in many ways, the only reason people say that Enlighghtenment was Jewish is because of anti religious propaganda, and significant number of people here thinks that religion is important in our society, even though based Voltaire disproved that long time ago.
>>18585 I think it was a meme movement then and it's a meme movement now.
>>18594 >Yet the Enlightenment was not only a rediscovering of our European culture before it was vandalized by Christianity And the larpan shows his true colour, supporting the very thing that landed us in the state we are in now. Who supported the enlightenment? Masons and jews. The middle ages were the height of natural hierarchy and christendom. The enlightenment saw the primacy of the middle class, and with it came secularism, democracy and liberalism, the most poisonous vectors of infection to ever come into contact with humanity. Remember america was an enlightenment state, and has the been the most horrid bane to the traditional order. The french revolution was an enlightenment effect. Capitalism and communism are both daughters of the enlightenment. You literally support a movement that DESTROYED THE ARISTOCRACY. kys.
>>18599 >Voltaire "disproved" religion Lmfao.
>>18585 The Enlightenment was early-onset senility that led to the lunacy we see across the West today. Contrary to being a rejection of Christianity, all it did was secularize Christian ethos and make it even more fanatical and militant. "More people have been imprisoned for Liberty, humiliated and tortured for Equality, and slaughtered for Fraternity in this century than for any less hypocritical motives during the Middle Ages." -Roy Campbell
>>18585 It was a time of history that we're free to learn from without need to oversimplify as a good thing or a bad thing. We should view it just like we view the scholastic period or other centuries old era; take the good, leave the bad. I'm happy that the enlightenment happened. I do not believe it was a cause of secularism and post-christianity, even if it is related. >>18594 >European culture vandalized by Christianity Why are atheists and larpagans so obsessed
(18.74 KB 276x300 brb-jesus-sq.jpg)
>>18674 >larpagans so obsessed You would be butthurt too, if your ripped hammer-wielding god of thunder and lightning got his ass kicked by a 90 pound jewish kid dressed in a bathrobe
>>18624 >enlightenment destroyed the aristocracy Aristocracy was cucked even before the enlightenment. Half of these faggots were prancing around Europe and not giving a fuck about their people whatsoever, a shitload of them were masons themselves. They also didn't give a fuck about their lineage, they were breeding with kikes as long as it was beneficial to them financially and politically. The so called "aristocracy" of that time mostly consisted of spoiled hedonistic subhumans, who weren't even worthy of the title their ancestors left for them. There was barely any order in my opinion. Same with the kings, a lot of them were cruel incompetent retards, who couldn't make their own people happy and manage the countries properly, hence why uprisings happened and Lord Dickbutt was stabbed with a pitchfork. Enlightenment did bring some good things, I'll agree with the >>18594. The feudal system was cancer and the catholic priests back then were very materialistic and forced peasants to give shit to them, while they should've been spreading the word of Christ and explaining Bible to the peasantry, fighting with jewery and injustice instead of going after "witches" and scientists like Kopernik.
>>18624 >The middle ages were the height of natural hierarchy and christendom. Natural hierarchy? That's bullshit. The Middle Ages was a time where slavishly Christian rich boys extracted wealth from actually deserving people, supported jews, and stifled development and cultural growth. You may like the idea of a system where the best and brightest are legally prevented from rising to the top, but most people do not. >america was an enlightenment state Yes. And I'd rather live in America than in some feudal shithole. >The french revolution was an enlightenment effect. And I'm sure that the vacillating fop of a ruler is your idea of "natural hierarchy" >"I should rule because my jewish cult's priests say that Yahovah says that I should rule." No. That's not a reason why anyone should be loyal to you. I don't trust pedophile priests or jewish cults. >>18674 >Why are Nazis and fascists so obsessed with race? Because I like truth.
>>18671 This
>>18683 Indeed. These idiots who claim to want to suck the cocks of some rich, inbred loser who can't even speak the language of his so-called nation would be the very first people to break down and cry in a real feudal society if they ended up being anything other than the aristocracy. I don't want to be a fucking peasant. Nor do I like the idea of a bunch of masonic, pedophile priests stealing the food that I grow and then selling it back to me while they diddle my son in church.
>>18585 >what does /pol/ think about x? newfags testing the mods
>>18706 >>Why are atheists Nazis and larpagans fascists so obsessed (with race)? >Because I like truth. good job patting yourself on the back by asking yourself an entirely different question You are exhibiting the same partisan worldview reshaping that you're trying to criticize. Literally "orange man bad" and "wrong side of history" tier.
>>18813 You think that my interest in the truth is obsession. Liberals think that too. You argue like a liberal. Full of projections and ad hominids with no substance. Liberalism arose out of Christianity. >You are exhibiting the same partisan worldview reshaping that you're trying to criticize. Again, this is projection.
>>18818 >Ad hominems That's weird. I spelled it this way originally and it was flagged as an incorrect spelling so I clicked it and it changed to the wrong spelling. Then, rereading it, I noticed that. Polite sage.
>>18624 >Masons Where did this meme even come from? Freemasonry was skilled craftsmen in guilds. There's fuck all else to it. I once tried to sell windows to a bunch of them. Wasn't happening.
>>18683 >mason Can you actually explain what masons are, in this context?
>>18818 This is not an argument. You have a victim complex about Christianity. I noticed it and you're accusing me of being a race denier opposed to "truth". You're deranged because you're engaging in this shit. An adult would have replied with justification for the claim "Christianity vandalized European culture", but then agan intelligent people don't engage in these oversimplified talking points. just stop
>>18822 There are a lot of young people on this board. Don't exhaust yourself with them. God bless.
>>18822 >Literally nothing but ad hominems >Not even one solitary argument This is why I despise Christards. You hate truth and, like liberals, accuse those who don't share your delusions of being "obsessed" with "denying" your realities. But your little fictional universe doesn't actually exist so I am not denying anything. You are the one in denial. Now fuck off back to Israhell and worship your kike there. Christianity vandalizes European culture by suppressing natural European religions and replacing them with jewish cultish practices. 0% of the Torah takes place in Europe. Thus it is not a European religion. The Torah and anything based upon it is not European.
>>18851 You may have confused the Christian's here with adherence to ((judeo-Christian)) beliefs. There is a difference. If you havent taken the time to discover said differences you may just be a little faggot from 4chin attempting division. It wont work here. Go back.
>>18852 >But it's okay because that wasn't real Christianity >So we try it again >And suddenly jews run society and we give 50% of our paycheck to fund IsraHell and liberal activism >But it's okay because that wasn't real Christianity >So we try it again >And suddenly jews run society and we give 50% of our paycheck to fund IsraHell and liberal activism >But it's okay because that wasn't real Christianity Christianity gave Europe literally nothing of any value. We already had science, philosophy, military prowess, cultural sophistication, artistic supremacy, and imagination. Christianity gave us a pedophile priest class that worshiped Israelis and opened the door to foreign exploitation by jews. Oh and it also gave us the tradition of sitting in a stuffy building being lectured by a literal pedophile on the "glorious" exploits of Israel and Yahovah. Europe without Christianity is glorious. Christianity without Europe is a shithole. We don't need your shitty cult. We already have everything we need.
>>18855 Nice digits. You're still a heathen faggot.
>>18594 But you're WRONG, faggot. The Feudal System was not a dark age. Stop opening your skull and pouring in hollywood liberal memes.
(92.87 KB 768x959 075923.jpg)
>MUH LIBERTY Even Mises Institute knows the truth of the superiority of the feudal freedom. https://mises.org/wire/feudalism-system-private-law One more book attached, that actually illuminates Social Organization in Feudal era.
>>18599 >significant number of people here thinks that religion is important in our society, even though based Voltaire disproved that long time ago. It is important. All people work according to religious principles in all domains of their existence, whether this religion has spirituality or not. You rule by and through religion.
The enlightenment ideas were the justification for the developing system of capitalism, in a similar way to how Christianity functioned as the justifying system of Feudalism.The ideas underpinning the French revolution were not invented by peasants, the most oppressed group in French society, but rather by the emerging middle class of traders, merchants and small business owners. They were the ones who did a lot of the fighting during the revolution and they became something like the new ruling class once feudalism had been overturned. The enlightenment ideas cannot be looked at in a vacuum. With the growth of technology and the emergence of global trade, more efficient farming and small scale manufacture, ideas to justify this system, which was constrained by the feudal guild systems, the lack of free moving workers and Christianity's view on greed, the enlightenment ideas were the inevitable justifying ideas, the new priests of capitalism, greed and free movement of labor. This can be seen similarly in the way that organized religion was first invented and popularized, at around the same time as organized sedentary farming, which it justified.
>>18897 you say "even" the Mises Institute as if they're not the best critics of the current system
>>18671 It's a bitter consequence. Initially the terrible philosophy of Christianity was encapsulated within this religion. But I believe it was a necessary process. We got freed from Christianity but we still applied its vilest tenets. Now we have experienced it all, we know where to go. >>18683 >They also didn't give a fuck about their lineage, they were breeding with kikes as long as it was beneficial to them financially and politically. Quite true. It's an embarrassing "secret" that so many of them had some Jewish blood mixed into their lineages. We get into the Semitic Gotha. There were already suspicions about William the Conqueror/mamzer. https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/history-ideas/2016/05/did-william-the-conqueror-have-a-jewish-mother/ https://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2014/10/william-conqueror-and-jews.html http://historyreviewed.com/index.php/william-the-conqueror-brought-large-groups-of-jews-to-england-in-1066/ "Blue blood" huh. Good news is that it took a little more than two centuries to remove the kikes from England. Sad news is that the revolution helped them return (no need to guess who gained most from it so therefore who was somehow behind it).
>>18918 Ah, but they are usually anti-feudalist. I think the main thing that confuses people are the ideas of self-ownership, guilds and the fief. Pretty much none of these are understood properly or explained honestly outside history books. I seriously recommend Bloch's Feudal Society i&ii for these, or even just i.
>>18820 When it became speculative, business oriented and networked for people absolutely not related to masonry and guilds at all. It was a progressive change. The shitty version we know today, kiked and all that, is a rather late thing, sometimes coming from totally reconstructed lodges, made up, unconventional yet powerful, etc. At some point, the knowledge freemasonry possessed surely allowed them to understand the universe in a more esoteric way and, as usual, with Christianity in panic mode and burning people, part of the Freemasonry most likely brewed softcore dissenters. The fact that esoterism also meant looking further into Semitic lore, coupled with the advent of the Kabbalah, this gave the Jews an opportunity to get in. Besides, back then, being anti-Christian in a way or another added to the risk of Jewish infection. When money and not knowledge and skills defined who was "worthy" in many lodges, Freemasonry was for the most part largely corrupt. Nevertheless, the topic is complicated since it also varies from one country to another. Some Masons were racists (observe the Founding Fathers' own personal opinions and yet...), some were (((tolerant))), but we know which ones won in the end, overall. Today many lodges are full of larpers who understand little to the rituals they usurped, do it for the style, you'll find faggots, hardcore leftists, businessmen, civil kikes a galore, different ethnicities, obviously sometimes a small percentage of pedos and nasty people, etc. Just like for the society at large, a purge is needed and the Nazi had understood it perfectly.
>>18896 >The Feudal System was not a dark age. >Stop opening your skull and pouring in hollywood liberal marxist memes. I hope you won't mind.
>>18897 >Indeed, every society has had some type of civil government, but not every society has used states as part of its system of civil government. Law can exist in an anarchic system, and we see this everyday in the international sphere which is anarchic and yet also governed, however imperfectly, by law and third-party arbitration. (People who scoff at this system as too violent naturally ignore the daily reality of civil war and strife that occurs continually within states.) What a failure of analogy. The international anarchy only exists because countries at large are self sufficient, they form their own cohesive units, with their hierarchies. The world is not a sum of billions of people with no organizations and hierarchies. <"Institute">>18897
>>18929 Sure, to a degree. Even Marx has nicer things to say about Feudalism than Capitalism. But yes, Tankies and AnComs tend to do that. I know you're reclaiming Liberal for Classical Liberals, it's just that the majority of them still shit on Feudalism for propaganda and ignorance reasons.
>>18909 >The enlightenment ideas were the justification for the developing system of capitalism, in a similar way to how Christianity functioned as the justifying system of Feudalism.The ideas underpinning the French revolution were not invented by peasants, the most oppressed group in French society, but rather by the emerging middle class of traders, merchants and small business owners They were so hot on "Reason" but how much did Jews have a hand in this? They would obviously welcome any attack on Christianity and push for it, not to free Aryans from an ill begotten religion, but because it still maintained a power which they considered obsolete. The French Revolution saw the emancipation of Jews, with the bourgeoisie launched against the weakened nobility. The destruction and rampage was immense and served as a precursor to the Russian Revolution which would do without spirituality, nobility, (white) bourgeoisie and (white) intelligentsia altogether. Yet the Bolsheviks were unable to remove Orthodox Christianity whereas in France, Catholicism found itself so weakened that anti-clericalism literally became a part of ((French)) culture.
>>18931 >>18931 >I know you're reclaiming Liberal for Classical Liberals Could be. Economical Liberals are all for the 1% and super mergers. They love their kiked economy. It's just that the marxist filter became more and more obvious as I tried to remember the anti-feudalism kids were more or less fed with. Like with most structures, there are good parts and bad ones but our judeo-states made sure the criticism was as grotesque as absolute, with no will whatsoever to find any redeeming feature to this. Packing nobility with feudalism is a convenient process too for the defenders of the chandala/merchant class that is degenerate. To me mind comes the 75th Precept: ''The function of a merchant or salesman is to provide a method of exchange. A merchant who promotes unnecessary consumption and materialism must not be tolerated.''
>>18930 He's not saying that. He literally is saying there is no anarchy in the Webster's sense you're using. He's saying that church, nation, business or family or guild, it's all social organization. You're saying what he is.
>>18935 It may be noted that Usury and other extortion is why kikes got killed, and Templars becoming usury-gangsters is what got THEM killed in the end
>>18924 Right they're anti feudalist because they're proposing an alternative that's better still. Same situation as with Hoppe's "Democracy: the God that failed" arguing the superiority of monarchy to democracy
>>18955 I will concede that *they* think it's a better alternative. People also tend to think that Feudal proponents are anprims or technologically regressive, but I don't think that unnecessary coupling *should* need dispelling
>>18939 He is way too vague on the concept of law and the efficiency of its enforcement. Law within discrete and relatively autonomous organizations (units) is bound to be much more efficient than any meta-law argued over and partially shared between different units of different functions, to the point you can really wonder if there's any real government at all. He talks of a government but wouldn't he mean governments? How a system with relatively autonomous units is meant to work on the long term without an overarching state-like system, when certain units can easily abuse certain forms of power, notably through military or banking's usury (even greater than military), which will sooner or later prevail on other units focusing say, on agriculture? I find this view very naive. The only way for the overall picture to work flawlessly is for all units to agree on enough similar laws so they have their own checks and balances between each other, to the point no unit becomes too powerful. Wishful thinking imho. Also, if one really gets there, with so much harmony between all units, we have an implied state system that's only two lines of administrative work from being a factual state. Human nature is too predictable. Power struggles will ensue. I think some people wouldn't mind a monarchy/empire/NWO if it were Aryan minded.
>>18941 Frankly I'm annoyed by this hypocrisy: They all enjoyed a certain amount of usury as it gave an incentive for money holders to actually share it temporarily in exchange of revenue in some way later on. Templars were taking a split on the high premium service they provided across their entire geographical sphere of influence.
>>18923 >There were already suspicions about William the Conqueror/mamzer. Kikes have a tendency to insert themselves in history even if they have nothing to do with it,so i would take that claim with a grain of salt some kikes also claim to have been ancient Spartans and that they were Phoenecians. And for the 1/5 population jewish in Normandy that sounds as legitimate as them being 1/5 of the population of Spain before the Inquisition.
>>19057 The fucker got tons of kikes following him to Albion and most likely mounted his forces with their shekels. Whether he had a (((mother))) or (((father))) is something to clarify.
>>18585 Keep in mind that even Voltaire, who very much believed in free speech, was still banished by the king, and it basically broke him.
>>18585 Used to hate it but now have come to accept it as a net positive.
>>18671 >Roy Campbell The South African poet?
>>19098 >Voltaire He also wrote this about the Jews: >All of the other people have committed crimes, the Jews are the only ones who have boasted about committing them. They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race. >Lettres de Memmius a Cicéron (1771)
>>18710 >Nor do I like the idea of a bunch of masonic, pedophile priests stealing the food that I grow and then selling it back to me while they diddle my son in church. The masons were the ones pushing democracy you ignorant faggot.
>>20046 He actually cites a much older letter (1st c. BC). Which tells a lot about this, some people were quite aware of the JQ. Cicero definitely was but by his time it was already difficult for Romans to recover enough power out of Jewish hands (who were, around this era, already accused of hoarding gold). https://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/07/cicero-on-jews.html >Cicero's reference in 'Pro Flacco' to the happiness of the gods at the defeat of the jews is reinforced by his point that his friend; Pompey the Great, had not touched the jewish temple or been infected by the ideas of Judaism as they were at odds with everything that the Roman Empire stood for and believed in. As Goodman observes this was quite correct: (7) as Judaism was the most extreme of all current barbarous faiths to the Romans with the only historical comparison being the vicious religion of Carthage. So dangerous were jews and Judaism considered that they were outlawed from becoming citizens during Cicero's time and for a while afterwards: (8) a view that Tacitus suggests was due to their wholly alien nature and religious intransigence. (9) >In essence Cicero was saying; in relation to Pompey, that any possible positive association with the jews was a significantly negative thing as the jews were classed as the lowest of the low by the Romans (ergo his comment about the jews being a 'nation of slaves'). >This is both due to the fact that large numbers of jews had recently been sold in Rome as slaves and also because it was Cicero's own view. We know this because Cicero refers to the jews as active agents attacking senatorial and republican interests in Rome rather than just pawns of larger and more powerful interests. This is interestingly supported by Suetonius' assertion that the jews were very supportive of Julius Caesar (10) who Cicero was ideologically opposed to and regarded as a tyrant. >That Cicero saw the jews as a powerful interest group is suggested in 'Pro Flacco' when he asserts that the area chosen for the trial of Flaccus by the prosecution was chosen specifically so as to allow large demonstration by mobs of jews. (11) The problem with suggesting that this is a rhetorical trick is that in order for Cicero to have made the assertion: it had to be credible as otherwise its use was pointless. If the assertion was credible then there would have to be significant numbers of jews in Rome who were able (i.e. not slaves) to actively oppose a trial of this kind. Jews during the 1st c. BC. >Further to this Cicero makes clear that he is making two points not one here: in so far as he states that the jews export gold out of Italy (and other provinces) to Jerusalem every year to pay their tithe to the temple in Jerusalem (i.e. enriching themselves at the cost of Rome). In doing so Cicero is telling us that jews had enough money to be able to do this (i.e. they were not slaves or among the poor) and there was a community of jews who were free and active proponents of their religion. The surest way to hurt a Jew is to take his money away from him and force him to use a shovel instead. He may therefore encounter death because of such unjust torment. >This then makes sense of Cicero's assertion (as it tells us why he mentioned it and also why it was plausible to the listeners) as well as his known strongly pejorative comments against the jews in so far as Cicero even went as far in 'Pro Flacco' as to call the jews: 'our enemies'. Or put more simply: the eternal enemies of the Roman people. >We may further note that Cicero's teacher was the anti-jewish Greek thinker Apollonius Molon: who wrote a whole treatise; which has sadly been lost, attacking the jews and had had a lot of experience with them on his home island of Rhodes. If we understand that Molon almost certainly taught the young Cicero about the jews and then Cicero; in the course of his public life and pro-republican advocacy, came into contact with jews doing precisely the same things his old teacher had described then his reaction would have been both as strong and as brutal as it seems to have been. >In essence Cicero took no prisoners when it came to jews and took every reasonable opportunity to attack the jews when chance presented itself and his anti-jewish comments in 'Pro Flacco' should not read as a purely rhetorical exercise, but rather as an expression of fundamental beliefs that Cicero held about jews. >Or put simply: Cicero didn't like the jews or Judaism one bit.
>>20051 They were doing what Greeks had been victim of two millennia before: a form of degeneracy with secular reason and feminization of values. This phenomenon seems to have at its time been spreading from India to Greece. One wonders why... The Enlightenment's Reason wasn't doing any better, repeating the same issue. After the French Revolution, the reaction to centuries of seclusive confiscation of true spiritual knowledge replaced by a terrible god-fearing routine in lieu of true illumination, paved the way to the enthronement of Reason against all possible beliefs and superstitions. Therefore the intellectual "bourgeois" atheism of old was renewed.
>>18896 >You're wrong! >Read this book/watch this 10 hour video >No, I'm not going to formulate an argument. What do you take me for?
The lesson is never surrender your nation's money powers to private banking.
>>18855 Hey fucking retard, Christianity created the modern university system and turned western philosophical thought away from Aristotle with St Aquinus, claiming it’s was Christianitiy’s duty to explore the natural world and find its natural laws, and that’s exactly what Christians did. All of the major branches of modern science and studies today were founded by Christians. In fact the Enlightenment was the rejection of the power of Christianity. Christianity created and justified the divine right of Kong’s given by god. The French Revolution explicitly challenged and ended that with the ideas of human equality. They torn down the power of the church and ended religious power in France. Marxism was the rejection of Christianity and when they got in power killed millions of Christians and destroyed cathedrals and the religious rule. Jesus is not a Jew. He was a Semite, but not a Jew. Jews today are the people that rejected Christ and then killed him. Fucking dumb retard Christianity gave use the family unity, high birth rates, no degeneracy, loyal and monogamous woman etc. the Christians are the ones who banned porn and pornographic images in movies. It was jews who overturned that. Jews hate Christianity
>>20643 all the achievements of europe were due to europeans. the introduction of a desert religion matters far less than the genetic stock. look at nonwhite areas with huge christian influence and, surprise, they’re still shitholes
>>20643 Christians in the US really need to stop being zionist faggots. Literally nobody supports jews and Israel now more than White Christian Americans. Fuck the 1600s, how about banning porn today? Nah, too many pornmakers are Jewish people and only evil inbred nazis go after Jewish people. Time to focus on Islam in 3, 2...
>>20643 >Christianity created the modern university system No. Europeans did. White men would have sought the truth of the universe regardless of which invisible gods they worshiped. See this >>20644 > the Enlightenment was the rejection of the power of Christianity. The Enlightenment also saw the advancement of the very things you just accredited to Christianity. Thus refuting your original point. >Jesus is not a Jew. He was a Semite, but not a Jew. This is cope since Jesus was absolutely a kike. But even if he was magically not a kike despite having two jewish parents, his non-European origin makes him a shitty character to base a cult around. Arabs, kikes, and other semites can worship him if they like. I don't care what non-Whites do in their own lands. But there is no fucking reason at all why White people should worship anyone who is not White. End of story.
>>20643 >Christianity created the modern university system and turned western philosophical thought away from Aristotle with St Aquinus, claiming it’s was Christianitiy’s duty to explore the natural world and find its natural laws Anything a sane Aryan society would have done outside of the cult of Yeshua, with the added advantage that true Natural Laws would have been understood because approached outside of the Christian burden. What Christianity added to this vast endeavor was its own academical weight, its concentrated financial and political power, allowing certain projects to happen faster and in a more organized way than if they had been realized locally, with more limited local means. Yet, none of which an Aryan empire would have not managed, quite the contrary, since it would have happened free of strange Christian ideals and fears of a Middle Eastern god made Creator of all. Christianity is in a way an acrid tale. It is akin to White today working in Hollywood; just imagine what would have happened if all these talented Whites had instead been working for an Aryan industry producing valuable works of art. It is easy to understand how a Christian, a sane and traditionalist one, can find pride and delight in such an institution, considering its power, age and claimed purpose. But its flaws and poisonous nature shall not be ignored. It will have to be replaced nevertheless. >All of the major branches of modern science and studies today were founded by Christians. Maybe but it's often forgotten that Christianity didn't instantly spread all over Europe. It is also disingenuous to claim these are Christian achievements when Christianity was forced on Europeans by a corrupt empire with influential strangers at its core.
It was a mistake, I can't think of a postive aspect other than the breakdown of Christanity. It's a good lesson on why you shouldn't tie your moral code to a relgion. People questioned the religion and then assumed the morality was bunk as well. Leading to plauges like "Individualism" and Liberalism.
>>20832 With a proper religion you actually can tie your morals to it. You make the mistake of using Christianity as the only frame of reference.
>>20863 What's the point of "tying" my morality to a religion. The gods in it don't exist so what's the point? And it will make it harder to convert people as again the gods don't exist. And when people are converted; Making their belief in God the only reason they follow National Socialism. They won't truly follow it and will be lead astray. We don't need this cultism in our movement, National Socialism can be a religion in of itself but it doesn't need to be tied to a religion. That can only weaken it. Maybe we can reform Paganism as people can't be seperated from religion. But while it can re-enforce the truth it should always be at an arms length away from the state. To prevent that mystic bullshit from seeping into the ruling party. We can instead enforce our moral system through the state and educate people through logic and groups like Hitler's Youth. Because at the end of the day our movement is based on nothing but truth. We don't need a religion based on lies to push it through.
If anything religion should be destroyed as it's a lie and secular National Socialism pushed instead. We don't get stronger by watering our truth down with a lie, we get weaker.
>>20866 >>20868 >Thinking NatSoc was atheistic. Again, you make the mistake of using Christianity as the only frame of reference.
>>20866 Esoteric vs Exoteric Orders, anon. Esoteric for the philosophically mature intelligent people, and Exoteric for the legions of superficial people who aren't suited. You should really read some philosophy and get around these superficial and basic concepts of the numinous.
>>21018 Esoteric does not mean religious. Even Hitler warned about cultism in the movement. It's really only Hess and maybe Hans Frank who were cultists and were the only ones who were actual member of the Thule society. Alfred Rosenberg was invited to speak but that's about it. Hitler would later sever ties with the Thule Society after reforming the DAP into the NSDAP. And had "...little time for the esoteric" even. Read/Watch Hitler's Nuremberg Speech of 6 of September 1938 where he speaks out against occultism. tl;dr: Hitler didn't approve of the occult in the Party


no cookies?