Quote note (#351)

Dugin seems a little upset:

Marine Le Pen lost the elections. Globalist Macron won. Transnational (and transgender) elites defeated the People. Welcome to Hell! The fall continues. Defeat of the People is our defeat. And the blow must be taken as a blow. It makes no sense to grumble: “We said …” Life – including political life, and political life in the first place – is a war. The battle is lost, but the war is not. Everything is ahead. The world’s scum will not give up and try to drag the whole of humanity into the abyss. But we do not lose our hands. Now it is clear that Resistance with necessity must be global. After all, the enemy is global.
The old parties are virtually destroyed. There are neither right nor left. There are the People and Elites, Europeans and the global financial oligarchy. Marine performed perfectly. She is henceforth the ideological pole of the Resistance.
Since Macron fundamentally can not do anything, and the crisis will only deepen, now, without losing a minute, we must prepare for the next stage of our common struggle – for France, Europe and mankind. Our name is Marine Le Pen!

(Formatting preserved from original.)

May 8, 2017admin 40 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Ideology

TAGGED WITH : , ,

40 Responses to this entry

  • smg Says:

    Sadly, Le Pen’s loss is to our advantage. We’ll get to observe acceleration at light speed. I do pity her voters, tho.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2017 at 11:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    >”There are neither right nor left. There are the People and Elites, Europeans and the global financial oligarchy.”

    This makes no sense. It’s a deeply flawed paradigm.

    The “People” — who are, by and large, European — elected Macron in a landslide. It’s not as though The People are outnumbered by Elites and oligarchs, for that is impossible by definition. Simply put, our movement is not a populist movement… And I’d add that most genuine populist movements, like Grillo’s M5S, are solidly and unmistakably aligned with the political Left — which, of course, still exists.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    This.

    [Reply]

    grey enlightenment Reply:

    ‘the people ‘ apparently wanted macaroon, despite given a choice of someone else . Dugin doesn’t understand the flaw of his logic.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Elections are inside jobs in sham eastern “democracies”, what makes us think they are still or ever fair in western “democracies”?

    Deep State gonna Deep State, with trillions at stake. Rigging numbers is e-z. You never know what the actual votes are unless you are the handler of the votes. I don’t believe they’ve been legit counting votes in America for a long time.

    Incidentally, See the World Bank deal with France in mid-century.

    —» The first country to receive a World Bank loan was France. The Bank’s president at the time, John McCloy, chose France over two other applicants, Poland and Chile. The loan was for US$250 million, half the amount requested, and it came with strict conditions. France had to agree to produce a balanced budget and give priority of debt repayment to the World Bank over other governments. World Bank staff closely monitored the use of the funds to ensure that the French government met the conditions. In addition, before the loan was approved, the United States State Department told the French government that its members associated with the Communist Party would first have to be removed. The French government complied with this diktat and removed the Communist coalition government – the so-called tripartisme. Within hours, the loan to France was approved.[8]:288, 290–291 »

    In Britain the Deep State managed democracy harshly at times in the 20th century. This is just mainstream history.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    The British Deep State thwarted the Labour Party’s ascension in the 1920s. That’s an Apparat saying who wins or does not win “Elections.” Mind you, the1920s and 1930s are the decades of “international” labour movements. The Labour Party has long since been infiltrated and taken over, obviously. It’s only a matter of applying methodology vs any proper disruptor. Monkey politics is doom.

    —» The “Zinoviev letter” was a controversial document published by the British Daily Mail newspaper four days before the general election in 1924. It purported to be a directive from Grigory Zinoviev, the head of the Communist International (Comintern) in Moscow, to the Communist Party of Great Britain, ordering it to engage in all sorts of seditious activities. It said the resumption of diplomatic relations (by a Labour government) would hasten the radicalisation of the British working class. If true, it was a deeply offensive interference in British politics to the detriment of the Labour Party. The letter seemed authentic at the time, but historians now agree it was a forgery.[1] Historians also agree that the letter had little impact on the Labour vote, which held up in 1924. However, it aided the Conservative Party, by hastening the collapse of the Liberal Party vote that produced a Conservative landslide.[2] »

    This may be out of most readers’ league, but naturally the Deep State employs “historians.” It may sound like out of a movie but it’s very logical: people spend decades of their life as mainstream historians—for the apparatus. Deep State is all about infiltration and alteration, often lifetime projects. There are a couple in the “alt-right”. : )

    I think Iceland is only one of extremely few somewhat relatively legit democracies in the world, the others are so in name and appearance mostly—of course in different variations on the spectrum. They may have sophisticated layers & structures, but it’s the core that matters and the core is Deep State charted and navigated territory. That’s literally what Intelligence is about. Politiking for power (power includes security, wealth, etc).

    Iceland was less democratic only a few decades ago. The party which has had power mostly since the 1930s, and was founded out of the merging of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, did Deep State-like operations for decades. Wiretapping of political opponents, and whatever pressures to secure the votes. People got fired from jobs if it was heard they didn’t vote for it.

    We’re a mob animal. Fortunately growing more individualistic.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    Are you suggesting that Le Pen actually won the vote? If not, I don’t see your point. Yet suggesting that the Deep State could fake a 65% to 35% landslide, which in some regions was more like 90% to 10%, strains credulity.

    I realize, of course, that the FN doesn’t win by playing traditional politics. That’s a sucker’s game; the sort of thing that any rube who has played three-card monte with a cardshark on the Atlantic City boardwalk should recognize. One can’t win in the long term — not when one is playing against the media, and against the powerful political and intellectual establishments of France — and whatever small gains one makes are quickly reversed. This is not because the votes are miscounted, but because the people, as in Plato’s time, are not to be trusted with the responsibilities associated with voting. “The People,” en masse, are not our saviours — as Dugin will learn.

    “I know it’s crooked, but it’s the only game in town.”
    – Marine Le Pen

    There’s only one way for the FN to win: It has to establish a parallel state. It needs a paramilitary arm that can rival the French military — in numbers and ardour, if not equipment. A charity arm that supports its people and its Catholic institutions. And it needs street fighters, saboteurs, provocateurs. In short, it has to learn from the SA. It’s never going to win the vote, so it has to transcend mere politics, mere “respectability.”

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Are you suggesting that Le Pen actually won the vote?

    I’m saying I don’t rule out possibilities. This is already done in dozens of capitals around the world, why not heavily corrupted France?

    Many things indeed strain “credulity.” How they are done.

    That is the art, that is the vessel.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    My point was actually not about this specific election but as you say that to win against a Deep State you typically need a Deep State of your own. As you say, “it has to transcend mere politics, mere “respectability.””

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Parapolitics, simply.

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    “It’s never going to win the vote, so it has to transcend mere politics, mere “respectability.” – that’s how you win the vote. The vote being the resolution of a battle, and not a decision. People vote how they are told, and if you can dominate what they are told, you win the battle.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Touché, but with Ed it’s an obsession. He has to fight lawyers and traders and everyone else on the streets of Chicago.” —Andrew M. Greeley, Happy Are Those Who Thirst For Justice, 1987

    Posted on May 8th, 2017 at 12:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The main reason Le Pen’s loss is disappointing is that we hoped for a populist wave across Europe.

    But populism may be a stepping stone to nationalism, and from that, to traditionalism, which is ultimately where we need to go. Democracy is Communism lite.

    The cultural wave must redouble its effort against herd thinking.

    I sympathize with Dugin, of course, but the last thing we want is a global political movement. We need cultural, spiritual, moral and social attitude change.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    I don’t want to be on the side of any populism. Sounds.. grimy.. sooty..

    That strange person, Martin Heidegger, points the way:

    “In the age of TOTAL LACK OF QUESTIONING ANYTHING, it is sufficient as a start to inquire into the question of all questions.
    In the age of infinite needing that originates according to the hidden distress of no-distress-at-all, this question necessarily has to appear as the most useless jabbering–beyond which one has already and duly gone.
    Nevertheless the task remains: to restore beings from within the truth of be-ing.
    The question of the “meaning of being” is the question of all questions.
    […]
    The age of the complete absence of questioning tolerates nothing questionable and destroys all solitude… This age of the complete absence of questioning can be overcome only through an age of simple solitude, in which preparedness for the truth of be-ing itself is being prepared.”

    Here’s a slipshod synthesis of the Puritan hypothesis and ZOG theory from the same text (Contributions) we might contemplate in our solitude:

    “[I]nsofar as the dominion of reason in the equality of all is merely a consequence of Christianity, which, at bottom, is of Jewish origin (cf. Nietzsche’s thought on the slave-rebellion of morality), Bolshevism is indeed Jewish; but then Christianity is, at bottom, also Bolshevik! And what sorts of decisions would be necessary on this basis? …”

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Well hardy dardy, whodda thought we could add ol’ big Heidenegger to de lizt of Judeochristo-Bolshevismo noters of cogenicity.

    [Reply]

    Friedrich Reply:

    >stepping stone to nationalism, and from that, to traditionalism,

    Last time traditionalism was a thing it ended up producing nationalism. Unless you believe you have the power to unscramble eggs, entropy runs one way only if you can’t find an even bigger source of low entropy.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Fascism wasn’t an offshot of Traditionalism but of Nihilism. It’s pseudotraditionalist at best.

    Traditionalism is of the 5.000 year Indo-European, and you could include Romano-Germanic Christian tradition.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Obviously there are the thousands of years old Chinese, Japanese and Jewish traditions as well, e.g.

    http://www.xenosystems.net/mou-zongsan/

    Friedrich Reply:

    Exact genealogy is not what I’m necessarily concerned about here, what I find important is social order being a product of A)(quasi)evolutionary optimisation process whereby different units of matter organisation (from individuals to empires to tools to board games) are selected for their reproductive/survival/use potential and B)plain old entropy, neither optimisation nor entropy tend to put systems in same exact state more than once. “Going back” to tradition/nationalism/marxism-leninism/hunter-gathering society thus becomes a thermodynamical impossibility. Even if you managed to revert the system back to some state that was sufficiently close to original, isn’t every reason the “Tradition” or however you choose to designated it succumbed to its present pathological state already present within just as it was 300/500/1000/3000 years ago? Then you are looking to go “back” not to “Tradition” but to “Tradition sans its inherent potential for breakdown” which is to say something that’s not Tradition at all.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Exact genealogy is not what I’m necessarily concerned about here

    Uh-huh, you still made a historical error which I corrected. Fascism sprung out of no Tradition but was a uniquely Labour oriented response to a new techno-social situation. Traditionalism was aristocratic. Fascism attempted an appropriation of some fascets [sic] of aristocratic-religious tradition though.

    No one said anything about “going back” but yourself though. And perhaps Mr. Stevens, seems to be saying that frequently on this site as well.

    “Return to darkness and evil” he said ridiculously, recently. As soon as I saw that you weren’t even in constituents replying to my post (but possibly projecting) I went to make another cup of coffee (the highly Modern drink).

    Posted on May 8th, 2017 at 12:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Candide III Says:

    Dugin repeating retarded leftist memes? Pfui. It’s not as if I expect anything better out of him, though.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2017 at 1:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Oh yeah I’ve been meaning to tell you: your jihad in life is to be a cooler occultist than Dugin. Now that you’re off the grid it’s time to start offering young brahmins off the wall courses in demon-summoning and whatnot, I’m sure you’ll think of something.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2017 at 2:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    Indeed, the war is not lost. It is, in fact, just getting started. That is the issue to be concerned about.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2017 at 3:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • pete Says:

    on the bright side, France is now ruled by the guy who married his mom

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2017 at 6:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • ok Says:

    I don’t trust that guy. That said he happens to make some fair sentences.

    Le Pen losing is just a symptom of a larger issue in the psyche of the western world. Dugin is wrong that this is a “war” – it is more like a religious hysteria. Mass insanity. Calling it a war would be like calling the battle between Socrates and the authorities, or Copernicus etc a “war.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2017 at 7:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Marine Le Pen Aftermath « Amerika Says:

    […] Alexander Dugin writes of the nature of this struggle as global insurgency against globalist supremacy: […]

    Posted on May 8th, 2017 at 8:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hegemonizing Swarm Says:

    > Globalist Macron won. Transnational (and transgender) elites defeated the People. Welcome to Hell!

    Was the word “transgender” just haphazardly inserted into there to make this rant extra enraging to anti-trans people, or is there a specific reason to it? It just seems silly. The whole thing is. The talk of a struggle of “The People” against “The Elites” is getting old. Neither is homogeneous.

    It’s for sure Le Pen also has their share of elites (transnational and otherwise) on their side.

    Seeing class war rhetoric come from the right is interesting though. Must be his USSR roots showing. If it’s really this bad then 2022 should be great for Le Pen’s party. Or maybe at least their defeat will be more interesting:

    > Transnational (and *transhuman*) elites defeated the People. Welcome to Hell!

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >Seeing class war rhetoric come from the right is interesting though. Must be his USSR roots showing.

    What do you expect from an ideology named National Bolshevism but good ol’ Stalinism?

    [Reply]

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    @Hegemonizing Swarm Says:
    No, it was on purpose. I just finished reading Dugin’s 4PT by chance, and he covers this transgender/ transhuman angle. He considers liberalism (the 1PT) as having the individual as the historical subject, with post-modernism decomposing this further to the sub-individual. He even has an interesting chapter on the political nature of gender where he identifies the individual of liberalism as being a man (a political actor) as constituted by 17th century society. All are men now, and no one is a man. What is a voter for example? the whole premise of voting is based on this silly transgender individual.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Very illuminating comment. Dugin certainly is a good and useful theoretician. Too bad he doesn’t see the gods residing in the Illuminati Music Industry.

    [Reply]

    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    > He even has an interesting chapter on the political nature of gender where he identifies the individual of liberalism as being a man (a political actor) as constituted by 17th century society. All are men now, and no one is a man.

    From a historical point of view that makes sense.

    > What is a voter for example? the whole premise of voting is based on this silly transgender individual.

    That would have been a pressing issue before universal suffrage – an “exploit” where people switch genders to get to vote (Reminds me of the radfem lesbians that think that men become transsexual just to have sex with them. Both the left and the right have a sort of obsession with gender and sex, and controlling it, though expressed in different ways.)

    But gender has been commodified, at some point I expect it to be little more than the choice of what clothes to wear: “Does this hormone therapy make me a political actor?”

    As it becomes frivolous, I think it doesn’t answer any questions about power and control in current (let alone future) times.

    > He considers liberalism (the 1PT) as having the individual as the historical subject, with post-modernism decomposing this further to the sub-individual.

    There he has a point, with capital, aided by technology, increasingly dissolving the social structures and narratives.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I suppose he means with going to the sub-individual he means stuff like Deleuze & Guattari, which take philosophy to a very nonpersonal or machinic level. Anyone see anything else that might correlate with this description of his?

    I wouldn’t necessarily call D&G’z sub-individualism though. Incidentally, individual” literally means ‘one and indivisible, inseparable’. It is collectivism that is sub-individual, but how much overlap or co-essentiality is there in postmodernism and collectivism? Postmodernism hasn’t necessarily struck me as very much collectivist. I might be missing something.

    Is he referring Remix Culture? E.g. Vaporwave, which remixes older music to create new music. I don’t think that’s collectivist. The artists are very individualistic, not even residing in the same city or country as tended to be the case sometimes with scenes in the decades before — nor do they necessarily meet at clubs, parties or whatever like used to be the 20th-century thing. They’re alone with their laptops.

    I think it’s very individualistic to take something and make it yours. Not sub-individualistic. I’d say the factory culture of the Soviet Union was sub-individualistic. Riots are subindividualistic [I removed the hyphen]; marches are relatively so; mass meetings. These are not postmodern phenomena — unless you start postmodernity early, for whatever reasoning. The Soviet Union is rather postmodern in aspects?

    Isn’t it some of the crowd Dugin writes for that is exactly the type that goes on marches? That has group meetings like that? 20th-century style.

    And isn’t exactly a church congregation often sub-individualistic?

    Rreactionaryfuture Reply:

    @G. Eiríksson Reply:
    May 12th, 2017 at 8:44 am

    Yes he talks about D&G. It’s all part of the same systematic error as admin’s. Both are, despite the decoration, idealists. This results in a lack of understanding as to what drives ideas. This individualisation has been driven by Power, not provinance.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2017 at 5:40 am Reply | Quote
  • Shaktipat Rotorvator Says:

    The People in duginist jargon is ‘narod’, eg “volk”, that is

    >> Narod is a historical-cultural community. This is a subject of destiny and creator of history. However, not all philosophies and ideologies recognize its existence in this sense. Narod does not exist for the Liberals—there is only an aggregate of individuals. Nor does it exist for the Communists—only classes do; for the Nazis—only race exists; and for the fascists—only the state does. And, even though it sounds paradoxical, Narod does not exist for the nationalists either—for them, there is a political nation based on individual membership (the classic bourgeois nation is a product of Europe during the period of Modernity). Narod does not exist for all these ideologies—this is the complete ideological nomenclature of Modernity. But it does exist—it is the only thing that truly exists. Heidegger used to say, “Dasein exists through a People” (Das Dasein existiert völkisch). That is to say, man’s presence in the world is given to us through Narod. It provides us with language, appearance, psychological attributes, a place in time (history) and space (geopolitics). -Dugin

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    for the Nazis—only race exists

    This is not accurate. Not only race existed for the Nazis. They certainly recognised nations, among other historical-cultural entities. They were heavily focused on the German nation, which is not strictly a race of physical Anthropology but is composed or rather constituted of various races as defined by physical Anthropology which was recognized as a Science internationally before and after WW2.

    But obviously he means that the primary category of cultural-historical significance for the Nazis is race. His concept of a historical-cultural People is accurate though, but its primariness is somewhat replaced by Modern “tribes”—i.e. lifestyles. His Peoples were ruled over by inter-national aristocracies, typically, anyway.

    I say this with a Czech-American staying in my home, whom I have more in common with, so to speak, than my neighbor who may be related to me. (Because of shared interests, vision, etc.) Tribes, maaaan.

    Plus I’m heavily Americanized, so I have more in common with young Americans than most Icelanders. Yet I’ve only been to America for a few hour stopover. Miami beach was magical.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    To implicate a multiplicit project-ion here I will con-verse with “my” “self”.

    the primary category of cultural-historical significance for the Nazis is race.

    This is at least a typical Historical understanding of them. “Obsessed with the (Nordic/Aryan) race.”*
    However, its secondary arch-enemy were the Anglo-Americans. Quite a Nordic people.

    Wouldn’t it be more right to approximte the Nazis’ focus as on the race-metaethnicity complex.

    The Nazis, aside from being somewhat Indoeuro- & japanophile (e.g. their visits to Asia, such as to Tibet) were more or at least hardly any less focused on Germanicity than on “race.” They visited Iceland, in their mytho-historico-anthropological interest.

    * As if Americans, nowadays at least, aren’t obsessed with Africans.

    The Germans had Nordic studies. Nowadays Americans have “Black” studies.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Wouldn’t it be more right to approximate the Nazis’ focus as on the race-metaethnicity complex.

    To be clear, I’ve seen ‘Germanic’ used as a meta-ethnicity. The British are Germanic. Arabs are Jews are of the Semitic “metaethnicity.”

    Historiography on the Nazis has allowed itself great inaccuracies often, and small. “Obsessed with race.” America, as I said above seems obsessed with (the “Black”) race. Americans, some, often seem obsessed with their Americanness. Which brings me to say, isn’t ‘American’ a meta-ethnicity? It’s certainly hardly an ethnos anymore. Anglo-American is an ethnicity, if you are simply American of English stock. African-American is hardly an ethnicity as African is not an ethnicity, as Africa is a continent with multiple very different ethnicities. American is a nationality, but African is not.

    These terms require more precise definitions. Their disciplines’ developments have been retarded by politics and hypocritical pseudo-moralisms.

    For disambiguation we’d not say both Germanic and American are metaethnicities. ‘Germanic’ is definitely not a post-ethnicity but perhaps American is. Perhaps Germanic is a proto-ethnicity. But is African? Perhaps. Not for disambiguation though. Africa and the Americas are continents, so ‘continenticities’. Germanic peoples are a ethno-linguistic group, so ethnolinguicity or in the case that the person speaks a Germanic language but isn’t meta-ethnically Germanic : linguicity.

    Semitic is, we’ve come to see, an ethnolinguicity.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    —» Panethnicity is a political neologism used to group together related ethnic groups. The term was coined in 1992 by Yen Espiritu to refer to the group of Asian Americans.[1]

    It has since seen some use as a replacement of what used to be called race; for example, Asian Americans can be described as “a panethnicity” of various unrelated peoples of Asia, which are nevertheless perceived as a distinguishable group within the larger multiracial North American society.

    More recently the term has also come to be used in contexts outside of multiculturalism in US society, as a general replacement for terms like ethnolinguistic group or racial group.
    … Panethnicity has allowed for Asian Americans to unite based on similar historical relations with the US, such as US military presence in their native country. The Asian American panethnic identity has evolved to become a means for immigrant groups such as Asian Americans to unite in order to gain political strength in numbers. »

    What is ‘Atlantic’ then?

    Posted on May 9th, 2017 at 11:11 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    I (am just a vessel) invented ‘cogenic’ for myself to mean ‘sharing genes’, but as often is the case with my inventions someone else (fortunately) has also invented relatively the same.

    Evidently it’s a Medical term for » genetic differences between individuals at a locus. »

    Why they’d chose ‘cogenetic’ for differences I am at a loss.

    Because co (as in co-operation) is from Latin cum “together, together with, in combination.”

    However, I might have used ‘cognacity’ from cognate.

    It tickles the lil’ capitalist in me that often these weird terms have found uses in Business, as appears to me on googling. «Cognacity is a clinical workforce health & performance service. «Cogenic» are Mechanical contractors:

    —» Our company name is derived from the term “cogeneration,” meaning to perform two different types of work from one source of energy. The conservation of energy and the reduction of consumption of our non-renewable resources has been a guiding principle throughout Cogenic’s long history in the design-build mechanical marketplace. Since its beginning in 1949, we have developed … »» With nearly 60 years experience and hundreds of successfully completed projects, Cogenic is a specialist in design and installation of systems for all environmental conditions. Projects ranging from high-rise fluid coolers to rare paper storage, from broadcast sound studios to radiological laboratories have all reached successful conclusion under Cogenic personnel.

    HVAC & Refrigeration
    Process & Millwright
    Sheet Metal »

    http://cogenicmech.com/?page_id=6

    Nice logo.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 10th, 2017 at 1:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aith3oiX Says:

    We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom not merely of the latest great war but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it.

    Look back a little and see what has happened. Nineteen hundred years ago you were an innocent, care-free, pagan race. You worshiped countless gods and goddesses, the spirits of the air, of the running streams and of the woodland. You took unblushing pride in the glory of your naked bodies. You carved images of your gods and of the tantalizing human figure. You delighted in the combats of the field, the arena and the battle-ground. War and slavery were fixed institutions in your systems. Disporting yourselves on the hillsides and in the valleys of the great outdoors, you took to speculating on the wonder and mystery of life and laid the foundations of natural science and philosophy. Yours was a noble, sensual culture, unirked by the prickings of a social conscience or by any sentimental questionings about human equality.

    Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone?

    But we did not leave you alone. We took you in hand and pulled down the beautiful and generous structure you had reared, and changed the whole course of your history.

    We conquered you as no empire of yours ever subjugated Africa or Asia. And we did it all without armies, without bullets, without blood or turmoil, without force of any kind. We did it solely by the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda. We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the earth, to the countless unborn generations.

    Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents at large of our racial tradition, carrying our gospel to the unexplored ends of the earth. Our tribal customs have become the core of your moral code. Our tribal laws have furnished the basic groundwork of all your august constitutions and legal systems. Our legends and our folk tales are the sacred lore which you croon to your infants. Our poets have filled your hymnals and your prayer books. Our national history has become an indispensable part of your pastors and priests and scholars. Our kings, our statesmen, our prophets, our warriors are your heroes.

    In the midst of battle you are obliged to kneel down to him who commanded you to turn the other cheek, who said “Resist not evil” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

    In your lust for gain you are suddenly disturbed by a memory from your Sunday-school days about taking no thought for the morrow.

    In your industrial struggles, when you would smash a strike without compunction, you are suddenly reminded that the poor are blessed and that men are brothers in the Fatherhood of the Lord.

    And as you are about to yield to temptation, your (((training))) puts a deterrent hand on your shoulder and dashes the brimming cup from your lips.

    You Christians have never become Christianized. To that extent we have failed with you. But we have forever spoiled the fun of paganism for you!

    So why should you not resent us?

    If we were in your place, we should probably dislike you more cordially than you do us. But we should make no bones about telling you why. We would get straight to the point. We would contemplate this confused, ineffectual muddle we call civilization, this half-Christian half-pagan medley, and—were our places reversed—we would say to you point-blank:
    In the midst of battle you are obliged to kneel down to him who commanded you to turn the other cheek, who said “Resist not evil” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

    In your lust for gain you are suddenly disturbed by a memory from your Sunday-school days about taking no thought for the morrow.

    In your industrial struggles, when you would smash a strike without compunction, you are suddenly reminded that the poor are blessed and that men are brothers in the Fatherhood of the Lord.

    And as you are about to yield to temptation, your Jewish training puts a deterrent hand on your shoulder and dashes the brimming cup from your lips.

    You Christians have never become Christianized. To that extent we have failed with you. But we have forever spoiled the fun of paganism for you!

    So why should you not resent us?

    If we were in your place, we should probably dislike you more cordially than you do us. But we should make no bones about telling you why. We would get straight to the point. We would contemplate this confused, ineffectual muddle we call civilization, this half-Christian half-pagan medley, and—were our places reversed—we would say to you point-blank:

    “For this mess, thank you! And to your prophets and to your Bible!”

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 12th, 2017 at 5:44 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment