You can't explain yourself, and one cannot hold a grudge on you for
not being able to do so : trying to explain that "premodern
Catholic-Orthodox Christianity is not hostile to Western civilization
or aristocratic and racial values" and that "premodern
Catholic-Orthodox Christianity is not hostile to Western civilization
or aristocratic and racial values" is like trying to explain that
fluids are not fluid but solid and solids are not solid but fluid. The
only world in which you could justify your thesis is in the romantic
poets'. In the meantime, you are only fooling yourself.
Your thesis is based on various confusions, confusions of planes.
Origen, Ephraim, Ambrose, Jerome and Ennodius, etc., all represent the
doctrinal mainstream of the Church, as far as their theological work
is concerned, but, when it comes to race, their views on the Negro
have not influenced in any way the teaching of the Church on these
matters, and it is this teaching which has been shaping, or rather
distorting, the brain of the Whites for two millennia. Not Origen's,
Ephraim's, Jerome's, etc, personal views on the Negro. It is important
to distinguish the official line of a given organisation, according to
which it acts positively in history by more or less subterranean ways,
and the private opinions of its representatives, which, in certain
cases, may wander from this line, but in no case influence it and
prevent it from being implemented. A second case of confusion, closely
linked with the latter and tinged with exaggeration, appears when you
tell us that Origin developed a 'racialist' teaching : authors of the
twentieth centuries such as de Gobineau, Clauss, Günther, Evola, have
all made considerations both on race and on religion. Why is it that
they are considered objectively as racialist theoreticians and not as
theologians? For the simple reason that they all have formulated a
racial theory and that, on the other hand, what they have written
about religion does not suffice to make them theologians. Our point,
here, is that it is, to say the least, exaggerated to dare to call
"racialist teachings" the personal views of a theologian like Origen
on the Negro, especially when, in the whole of his work, it's are a
drop in the ocean, overwhelmed by far more developed considerations of
the theological order which are in stark contradiction with them
(while we are at it, Origen's comments on the Egyptians of his time
sound like the comments which could be made by a Jewish educated
tourist or an even more educated Chinese tourist visiting Rome, Berlin
or Paris in one hundred year, capitals in which traces of a
degeneration due to race mixing can be seen on almost every 'face',
whether in the Jewish 'beaux quartiers', in the 'white ghettoes' or in
the 'black suburbs' : "For the Italian/Germans/ French are prone to a
degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look
at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham
(...)". Origen was manifestly not aware that early Egyptians were
Whites, and, likewise, that over-educated Chinese tourist will not be
aware that early Italians/Germans/French were Whites. Speaking of
white, there were times when it didn't have to be "idealized")
You don't realise how right you are to refer to the saying "Diabolus
Deus inversus" in this connection. We have already quoted a few
excerpts of this fundamental writing by Evola which 'La storia segreta
della sovversione' is. Your assumption that "The Pauline-Christian
equality of souls before God, along with the ultimate irrelevance of
nationality and gender, is an exclusively METAPHYSICAL affirmation"
gives us the opportunity to quote another excerpt from it, which
concerns one of the various aspects of the process of inversion to
which we referred in our previous message : "All there is to do is to
desecrate these principles [those which are only valid for a minority
of superior beings], to secularise them and to draw from them an ideal
for just any individual, whoever he is, so as to turn these principles
into subversive instruments and to come to anarchy and individualism,
that is, to attitudes and errors which were precisely to result in the
denial and in the destruction of the spiritual plane, the only one on
which these principles can be valid and legitimate". Evola takes an
example : "On the plane of nature, equality is nonsense : in nature,
there is nothing 'equal'. On a higher plane, it must be spoken not so
much about 'equality' as of 'parity'. But, once again, originally,
what we find are values of an essentially aristocratic type. It is
only among 'free men' and 'noble men' that 'parity' had a legitimate
and manly value, beyond any difference of nature (...). By
democratising and by inverting this idea, we have on the contrary the
egalitarian 'immortal principles' as instrument of worldwide
subversion". Roman aristocrats were and felt peers before Jupiter,
Mars and Quirinus : did they go and tell the populace : "we are all
equal before Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus?" Did Celsius and Roman
philosophers go and add : "We are all METAPHYSICALLY equal before
Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus'? Early Christians did go and tell the
'good news' to the populace, to butchers, to slaves, to Negroes, to
females. Sadly, you were not there to tell these : 'Hey, guys, it's
only to be understood from a METAPHYSICAL standpoint though". Assuming
that all beings are equal before a God or gods metaphysically, the
fact is that, if you tell people who don't and can't have a clue what
metaphysics is, whatever you say from this metaphysical standpoint,
they are going to take it for granted, litterally, and, in this
respect, the influence of Paul's notorious anti-racist statement on
the formation and on the development of gynaeco-democracy in the West
is unanimously acknowledged. In this respect, early Christianity, as
rightly pointed out by Evola, acted as a true ferment of decomposition
in the Roman civilisation. Its representatives, whether consciously or
not, desecrated principles which are only valid for a minority of
superior beings, secularised these principles and drew from them an
ideal for just any individual, whether Jew or Greek, whether male or
female. In other words, early Christians delivered initiatory and
secret teachings to individuals, to masses, which, by nature, were not
prepared to receive them. This is pure desecration – due to a
confusion of planes, to illegitimate applications, on a lower plane,
of principles which are only valid and positive on a higher plane.
"No where in the New Testament is material social revolution
advocated". Likewise, no where in Lenin's work is the fact that
Bolshevism is a Jewish creature mentioned.
Have you heard of what Léon de Poncins and Evola called the 'occult war'?
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "brightimperator"
<brightimperator@...> wrote:
>
>
> It's good that you forcefully rebuke as long as its good-intentioned. I
> can explain myself.
>
> My thesis: premodern Catholic-Orthodox Christianity is not hostile to
> Western civilization or aristocratic and racial values.
>
> My claim that ancient and modern Christianity are hardly identical is
> the opposite of Protestantism. Premodern Christianity obviously has
> quite little in common with contemporary mainstream Protestant
> Christianity if ancient theologians taught that the lower negroid races
> are destined for eternal slavery and saints like Ennodius can command
> young men not to mix with "hellish-visaged blacks" while in modernized
> churches the Marxist negro demagogue Martin Luther King Jr. is
> considered an essential prophet!!
>
> For empirical documentation of my thesis, study the 'racialist' teaching
> of Origen (185-284):
>
> "For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink
> to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you
> will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his
> father's nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son
> Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition
> of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit,
> therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the
> race [ Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas
> imitatur]." Homilies on Genesis 16.1
>
> Or St. Ephraim of Edessa (306-378):
>
> "Ephrem the Syrian said: When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan
> did…Noah said, `Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face
> black,' and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did of his
> father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color
> changed." Paul de Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des
> Pentateuchs (Leipzig, 1867), part II
>
> St. Jerome (347-420) considered negroids as literal and metaphorical
> fiends: "Chus in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark,
> one who has a soul as black as his body." (The Homilies of Saint
> Jerome, vol. 1, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, Homily 3, 28).
>
> St. Ambrose (339-397): "The color of the Ethiopian signifies
> darkness of the soul and the squalor which is opposed to light,
> dispossessed of brightness, covered in darkness, and more similar to
> night than day." De Noe 34.128
>
> St. Ambrose taught that Noah's curse of slavery of Genesis 9 applied
> to the darker descendents of Ham. See Jean Devisse, The Image of the
> Black in Western Art, vol. 2, part 1, trans. William Granger Ryan
> (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), p. 18.
>
> St. Augustine defended the role of slavery in our fallen world and
> associated it with the accurst dark seed of Ham: "It is with justice, we
> believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is
> why we do not find the word 'slave' in any part of the Scripture until
> righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name." (City of God,
> 19:15)
>
> "When you serve a man, under Christ's orders, you do not serve that man,
> but him who commanded you. And this is what the apostle says: 'Be
> obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling,
> in singleness of heart, as to Christ, rendering service with a good will
> as to the Lord.' Look, he did not make free men out slaves, but good
> slaves out of bad slaves. How much the rich owe to Christ, for creating
> stability in their homes! If there were an unfaithful slave therein,
> Christ would correct him and would not say to him: 'Get rid of your
> master, for you have recognized him who is your true master; he may be
> impious and hostile, but you are faithful and just; it is unworthy that
> a just and faithful man serve one who is unjust and unfaithful.' He did
> not say that to the slave, but rather 'Be a slave.'" (Enarrationes in
> Psalmos 124.7)
>
> Augustine explains "Ethiopians" in Ps 72/71:9 as "the
> remotest and foulest of mankind", linking geographic and moral
> distance (ibid., 71.12).
>
> Augustine also idealized white skin as the archetypal feminine ideal in
> his explanation of the relationship between the Church and God: "First
> he loved us and granted us to love him. We did not yet love, but by
> loving we were made beautiful. What will a deformed and facially
> distorted person do if he loves a beautiful woman? And what will a
> deformed and distorted and black woman do if she loves a beautiful man?
> By loving can she become beautiful?" (In Joannis epistolam ad Pathos),
> etc... I could cite many more from Augustine.
>
> St. Paulinus of Nola (354-431): "The peoples of Ethiopia…are not
> burnt by the sun, but are black with vice, sin giving them the color of
> night." Carmina 28.249-51
>
> Cassiodorus (484-585): "We must interpret the Ethiopians as sinning
> people, for just as the Ethiopians are covered in the foulest
> [teterrimo] skins, so the souls of transgressors are enshrouded in the
> darkness of wicked deeds." Expositio in Psalterium 71.9
>
> The Eastern Christian apocryphal text "The History of the Creation and
> Transgression of Adam", 27, says of Eve: "Even though she had been
> stripped of the heavenly light, she was nonetheless beautiful, for her
> flesh was dazzling white like a pearl because she was newly created."
>
> Do the words of Origen, Ephraim, Ambrose, Jerome and Ennodius, etc., who
> all represent the doctrinal mainstream of the Church, sound like
> proto-Marxist egalitarian utopianism to you?
>
> The book on ancient Roman racism is just one source among others. I rely
> not on the interpretations of modern scholars but the pure data
> presented.
>
> As it happens, Abrabanel's commentary on Sarah's pure white skin, which
> you criticize as the wild fantasy of a medieval Jew, actually has a much
> earlier predecessor that Abrabanel couldn't have been aware of. The
> Genesis Apocryphon found in the Dead Sea Scrolls describes the praise of
> Pharaoh's ministers for Sarah's beauty. Here too it is identified with
> pure white skin:
>
> How lovely are her eyes! How desirable her nose and all the radiance of
> her countenance ... How fair are her breasts and how beautiful all her
> whiteness! ... [S]he is fairer than all other women...
>
>
http://faculty.bbc.edu/ggromacki/deadseascrolls/bible.htm
> <
http://faculty.bbc.edu/ggromacki/deadseascrolls/bible.htm>
>
> The Pauline-Christian equality of souls before God, along with the
> ultimate irrelevance of nationality and gender, is an exclusively
> METAPHYSICAL affirmation. Only the deceived and uneducated could think
> Christianity declared a psychotic war on the natural empirical facts of
> social stratification, nationality and gender; authentic traditional
> Christianity merely gives them their proper place and context. No where
> in the New Testament is material social revolution advocated; on the
> contrary, soldiers and slaves are told to be content with their earthly
> positions and rightful governmental authority is to respected and
> praised. Social and ethnic-cultural distinctions are to be preserved but
> relativized in light of the unity of common salvation. Hierarchical
> feudalism is fully in accord with the New Testament. The only thing
> real, unmodern Christianity wages revolutionary war against is decadence
> and all-too-human wickedness in all its forms: amoralism, libertinism,
> sodomy, cannibalism, human sacrifice cults, anomic nihilism, Jewish
> this-worldliness, naturalistic hedonism, idolatrous materialism,
> self-worship, etc.
>
> Haven't you already instructed me, per Guenon, that Evil is not commonly
> pure negation but the perversion and inversion of a higher order:
> "Diabolus Deus inversus"? This is the case with the abortion of
> Protestant rationalist-egalitarian abolitionism, which falsely applies
> spiritual principles (the Pauline equality of souls) to the lower orders
> of reality...
>
>
> Did you even read Abrabanel's commentary, where he cites Plato in his
> theoretical elaboration of the caste system of races? How is this
> "zoological racism"?
>
> Seemingly the only contemporary Christian denomination to have remotely
> retained the authentic Christian doctrine on race is the Orthodox one:
>
> ORTHODOX VIEW OF INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE
> Bishop Iakovos, Prof. of Orthodox Theology, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox
> School of Theology. 1987.
>
> QUESTION: "No matter what Hollywood and the Church say, I can't believe
> God smiles on such (interracial) marriages."
>
> ANSWER: I wish to respond to the brief comment on several levels. On the
> level of the issue itself, the expression "God smiles on such marriages"
> can be understood in a number of ways. If by it, you mean that you
> believe that God does not encourage racially mixed marriages, the, I
> believe we are not in disagreement. I feel I made it very clear that the
> Church does not feel such marriages are desirable, for many different
> reasons, many of which are practical and have to do with the chance of
> success for such marriages. In addition, we should also add that the
> Church holds that races and nations were created by God. Consequently,
> the total intermarriage would destroy the races which God created. The
> Church has never advocated or encouraged racially mixed marriages...
>