Christianity became a mask for Aryanism; now the mask is being removed, and the painful choice faced, between Universalism and Particularism. When major TV documentaries, such as 500 Nations, portray the European coming to North America from the point of view of the native tribes and civilizations, it raises the problem of reconciling this conquest with the universalism which came through Christianity.
The native peoples are now recovering their dignity, their religion and their beauty, while “White Christians” are losing theirs. Now that the West has a multiracial, multicultural society, “White Christians” are not sure what to call themselves, how to think of themselves: as “Whites” (particularist) or as “Christians” (universalist).
Some on the Far Right seek to jettison Universalism for that reason, blaming it as a Jewish plot. Wrong! Universalism is very important; we should try to preserve it by identifying where it has gone astray. On the other hand, we can’t be utopians.
The Far Left, which has been exposing “our” sins, has been disproportionately Jewish, so we should also explore the same problem there: reconciling an alleged universalism, with the facts of the USSR, and also with the Bible’s own genocidal accounts of the original conquest of Palestine.
This dilemma, of particularism vs. universalism, is something we all have to deal with.
The universalism attributed to ancient Judaism originated, not within Judaism — which is quite particularist (e.g. see Israel’s Law of Return) — but from a multiplicity of sources mingling in the Hellenistic culture of Athens, Alexander’s empire and its 3 successor-states, and the Roman Empire.
Specific sources were:
- the Zoroastrian religion.
- the Ahimsa (self-abnegation) religions of India (including Buddhism).
- the philosophy of Socrates, the Cynics, the Stoics, and the like (see here).
The faction of Judaism which most absorbed the universal ethic was the faction that became Christianity.
Both Zoroastrianism (in Persia) and Buddhism (in India) were revolutionary movements against Aryanism.
American Nazi Dr Revilo P. Oliver wrote: «The Zoroastrian cult and all the cults derived from it can be summarized in one sentence. They replace race with a church» (The Origins of Christianity, Historical Review Press, England, 2001, p. 152).
The First Persian Empire was seen as an enemy by Athens, but as a saviour by Second-Temple Judaism. Zoroastrianism was the religion of the Persian elite, a universal religion open to all races and levels of society. Provincial religions, e.g. the Egyptian and the Jewish, were tolerated and fostered, so long as did not challenge the Empire: this was universalism without iconoclasticism. Nor was Buddhism iconoclastic. The ancestry of Jewish & Christian iconoclasticism can probably be ascribed to Akhnaten, who did destroy “pagan” images (of the traditional Egyptian religion) in the name of Monotheism; Sigmund Freud portrays him as the originator of Judaism, in his book Moses and Monotheism.
But the Jewish religion fused two kinds of monotheism (Akhnaten’s and Zoroaster’s, the latter really a dualism), and Jewish tribalism. Today Jews are split, once again, into universalists and particularists, and this split is now present among all the peoples of the world.
White Christians adopted the Jewish Bible for their worldview, the basis of their culture, what they pass on to their children, what keeps them together. Now many see it as man-made. They can’t pass it on to their kids, and haven’t got time to develop new philosophies etc, which they might pass on to them. Hollywood steps into the breach, stealing their children, turning them into strangers; until, only through suffering born of erroneous ways, they come partly back.
China and Japan are not vulnerable in the same way, because they didn’t build their worldviews on mythologies to the same extent: theirs were more philosophical than theological.
Before the Roman Empire became Christian, there were many philosophies to choose from; Christianity, abandoning its universalist origins, destroyed them all. Now ex-Christians like me can look back and try to pick up some of the pieces, or we can look to other cultures for inspiration; but it takes time to construct a new worldview, and we haven’t got time.
The fundamentalist Jews still believe in their superstitions; they shield their wives and children from modern influences and information, as the fundamentalist Christians do. They preserve their cohesion, but at the cost of shutting the truth out.
The secular Jews preserve their cohesion, in part by perpetuating an ideology of victimhood (looking to the past), in part through a new secular variant of their religion (a social program looking to the future). These two provide a common bond; without a religious or ideological bond, there would be no Jews. Judaism resides primarily in the mind, not in the genes; yet since its mindset is caste-oriented, and since there has been little conversion to Judaism in recent centuries, it also functions as a “racial religion”, like its Aryan imitation, Nazism.
“Whites” no longer have a worldview to bind them together; that’s why they are facing a terrible existential crisis, why they are suiciding, and their families are breaking up. American Indians and Australian Aborigines have had a similar problem - they could no longer believe in their gods (spirit ancestors); after all, these gods could not prevent their displacement, could they?
Unlike many other displaced peoples, Jews kept believing in their god — they blamed themselves, and their god became a god of the future: “we will know our religion is true, when we have proved it in the future”, along the lines of the Marxist slogan, “help to create the inevitable”. But what of the secular Jews — why don’t they have an existential crisis? Because there is a secular version of their religion, as articulated by Karl Marx, Harry Waton and the like. Secular ex-Christians can’t adopt this secular Judaism without abandoning Jesus, or at least turning him into a zealot or Marxist, which doesn’t fit the gentle, pacifist figure of the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps a secular derivative of Christianity might yet be developed, but would it reject Judaism and its Bible? Would it portray Jesus as a Cynic wandering philosopher, a Taoist? Would the similarities with Buddhism be emphasised? What would be its sexual ethics? So many questions; so little time to provide answers.
Some whites are now saying, if only we were more like the Jews, we’d be OK. The Jews are racist, so we should be racist and separatist like them. Wrong! The problem is in the mind, not the body.
White Christians threw out the heritage of Egypt and Rome, and adopted that of a small tribe whose only claim to fame was Solomon’s kingdom — barely known in the ancient world, if it even existed. Judaism is a religion of the future, based upon a largely invented past. Why did they do this? Because they accepted the Jewish Bible as true; they didn’t notice that the conquest of the “holy land” was a genocide, which could not have been promoted by the supposed universal God, creator of all people. God, if there is a God, must be a Universalist, whereas Judaism is a Particularism.
Aryanism is also Particularist. When the Vikings invaded Europe, they brought that Particularism with them, and it was blended into Christianity. When Christians launched the Crusades, and went to the New World, they brought a Universalist religion of a loving God, but they slaughtered the indigenes and destroyed their culture in the most Particularist way — they combined both Aryan racial Particularism, and Jewish ideological Particularism. How confused the “savages” must have been, reconciling the “God of Love” with the barbarism before their eyes.
Jews and Communists have pointed out these inconsistencies. Nazi antagonism to Jews had one good motive and one bad one. The good motive was to protect people from the cruelties of Communism; their bad motive was to prevent Jews from liberating the coloured peoples.
Jews are great liberators, but dominate those they liberate. In effect, only the Ruling Class changes from Whites (Aryans) to Jews; the coloured peoples remain colonised. Jews perhaps look down on non-Jews because they are so intellectually dominant.
There is one irony: nearly 2500 years ago, when the Jewish leaders were captives in Babylon, they absorbed the Zoroastrian religion (the religion of the Persian Empire) into their minds. Much Jewish “software” is in fact Zoroastrian; only, they no longer are aware of it, just as Christians are not aware of the Jewish “software” in their own minds. Jews now claim to be the originators of many Zoroastrian features, such as the sacredness of the number 7; but these myths can’t stand up in the light of historical investigation. The number 7 was sacred in many ancient civilizations, primarily for astrological reasons, because there were 7 “planets” visible in the sky: the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
David Ben-Gurion admitted such Zoroastrian influence:
… it can be said that the Persian period — which lasted over 200 years — was a period of internal consolidation in Judaism, and the spiritual image of the Jewish people was modelled and refined in this period perhaps more so than at any other time, although even then the Jews could not avoid the Persian influence which was subconsciously absorbed by Judaism.