As neomasculinity is refined and polished, can we look to history to see if a new masculine and patriarchal religion may also arise for future kings to claim authority by?
The background needed to answer this question came to me in reading a book by an author that started the gay rights movement in the 60s and 70s. Yes, a gay man may have inadvertently written the very book that predicted the coming patriarchal renaissance in the West.
The God Of Ecstasy: Sex-Roles and the Madness of Dionysus was written by Arthur Evans, an early gay rights advocate who is best known for his book Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture. The God Of Ecstasy is the Bible, in my opinion, of the entire Western feminist and SJW attack on Christian patriarchy and heterosexuality. If read with those eyes, one cannot help but agree with the author’s conclusion by the last chapter.
Planet earth has a male problem.
Arthur Evans – The God Of Ecstasy (1988), p 176
Which is to say, a male HETEROSEXUAL problem.
If you read this book and replace patriarchy with heterosexuality, the author’s entire argument would still be valid. This book confirmed for me my theory that it is not patriarchy, but heterosexuality that is the real enemy of SJWs, and yes, perhaps even the gays themselves. (A gay man saying there is a male problem is pointing directly at himself. Thus, his logical argument must be a male problem of a SEXUAL nature, i.e. heterosexuality.)
While Arthur Evans, a militant atheist, did an extraordinary job of tracing the historical, religious and political rise of “patriarchy,” he failed to realize that if viewed from a religious conservative lens (God – truth – justice), what he has also done is trace the history of the rise and triumph of the heterosexual moral world view. Which, not surprisingly, gave rise to a heterosexual religion: Christianity. Thus, Evan’s book is also a history of religious development in the West.
In short, what Evans has to say about patriarchy is as follows:
- There was a time when the mother goddess was worshiped going back to the stone age
- The mother goddess had a king, consort, or son who just happened to be an effeminate, gay, transvestite
- Everyone partied, got drunk (wine) and got high (drugs were added to the wine, not in this book but another I have read)
- Suddenly, these “war lust” patriarchal men came down from the north
- Over time, these aristocratic patriarchs first absorbed, them sublimated, then eliminated the loving mother goddess and her effeminate Son of God Dionysus (in many forms) from society and culture (No, I am not making this up, this is history.)
While Evans blames the destruction of the peace, joy, ecstasy and happiness of the mother goddess and her effeminate son on the war loving patriarchal invaders from the north, I believe the truth is far more simple than that.
The growing truth of male paternity, and thus of natural sex defined gender roles and identity
Thus, a new religious-political framework emerged to match the new, and scientifically accurate, understanding of the procreative process. Very quickly, children and wives became the property of the father under his protection and supervision. It took awhile, but in time, Christianity was the salvation religion that summed up the growing knowledge of man and God at the time.
- There is a single power in the universe
- This power governs over all humanity with truth and justice
- Man and woman are the foundational unit of society (i.e. children and family in heterosexual marriage)
- The state was created for the protection of the family unit
- Anything that threatened the family unit was to be eliminated (i.e. anything counter to the discovery of the male role in procreation)
This is what they gay author Arthur Evans truly laments about the patriarchal oppression of humanity.
The rise of heterosexual moral views on sex and gender
Paternity, to heterosexuality, to patriarchy.
In reading this fascinating book, I question popped up in my mind. Was there a religion for pure, heterosexual men in the past?
While there does not seem to be any evidence for this in Greece, Rome is another story. Evans points out that Rome and the Roman Empire was particularly patriarchal.
The absence of such a thrust [a patriarchal God, Zeus, legitimizing Dionysus to be accepted by Greeks] on Shiva’s part [the Dionysus equivalent in The East] and his [Shiva’s] demand to be accepted as a god on his own terms imply that the victory of patriarchal [i.e. heterosexual] religion in India has not been as extensive as it was in Greece.
Arthur Evans – The God Of Ecstasy(1988) p 134, my notes in braces and emphasis added
I have always wondered if there was something particularly unique about the West. There is. It is an acceptance and elevation of the masculine, heterosexual man, something you just don’t find in eastern culture to the same degree. If this was the case, where did these men find religion, find salvation, in the culture of their time in history?
Mithraism
Mithraism was a unique and short lived mystery cult in Rome that was subscribed to mostly by the Roman soldiery. Its basic beliefs and practices were:
- A single God, Sol Invictus (the sun), the invincible one that never dies (life everlasting)
- Mithras born from a rock, not a God or Goddess
- Ritual meals of good food and drink
- Members were “united by the handshake”
- Met in underground temples apart from mainstream society
- A secret mystery cult open to men only
- Rome was its centre
While Mithraism draws on Persian origins, the debate is still on as to whether it is a direct copy. Much evidence does seem to hint that the Roman version is a distinct variant in the West and I would support this with the above observation by Evans that patriarchy (i.e. heterosexuality) was distinctly greater in The West than The East.
Evans does reference Mithras in his book (p 161), but makes the completely incorrect assessment on what the bull represents. Evans believes that the bull sacrificed by Mithra is yet more evidence of a past goddess and bull (i.e. Dionysus) religion being everywhere worshiped in the past. Technically, he is correct, but he is not able to connect worship of Mithra to worship of the bull because he can’t. He is merely trying to point out similarity to Christ’s birthday with that of Mithras (Dec 25th). Thus, he is arguing that Christ or Mithras is yet another form of Dionysus worship since the bull was sacred to Mithraism and the idea of a life after death salvation was central to Dionysus worship (especially the Orphic version).
What Evans fails to see, or does not want to, is that the bull, the symbol of the god Dionysus, is SLAUGHTERED by Mithras. Everywhere else, the bull is worshiped and if not, those that deny the bull god Dionysus are themselves driven mad and ritually slaughtered as punishment (cue Euripides Bacchae).
In Mithraism, the bull or Dionysus symbol is NOT worshiped, only Sol Invictus, the invincible one is. Another fact of separation is the birth, death, and re-birth cycle is broken completely, rejected, and a new everlasting life after death mystery takes its place.
Perhaps what we have here in Mithraism is reference to an underground male heterosexual revolution and rejection of the entire alcohol and drug crazed, goddess-and-homosexual worshiping nonsense of mainstream society?
In ancient times, where does a pure, 100% heterosexual man go to temple?
You really had only two options if you were not a Jew, hinting at an explanation for why Christianity was so widely embraced when Paul preached to Gentiles:
1) Some variant of a female goddess (usually a militant virgin), or a male god that merely took over the role once assigned to a goddess
2) The effeminate transvestite god running around dressed and acting like a woman demanding you worship him or get ripped to pieces for denying his divinity or his homosexual advances. (Evans skirts around this issue but I believe it is to be found if one reads closely enough.)
These were your religious options as a male heterosexual in ancient Rome. Is it any wonder the Roman soldiery came up with their own religion?
Thus, what we appear to have in Mithraism is:
- A bunch of heterosexual men (my hypothesis)
- Who fight in the army to protect their families and increase their ability to provide for them
- Who believe the state is the best form of protection for the family they are responsible for
- Meeting in secret
- To worship a single God or power that is never defined in any written orthodox scripture to get into arguments over
- Who greet each other as members with a simple and distinctly masculine handshake (So, just friends then right? You don’t want to butt-fuck me do you?)
- Then go about eating, drinking, socializing, carousing and having a grand old time without any women or faggots pestering or nagging them
Does that sound familiar at all to anyone here? As a Roman heterosexual male soldier, would you want to join that kind of mystery cult?
While the idea of a new patriarchal religion arising out of neomasculinity may sound absurd at first read, it is not when you look to the past 2000 plus years of patriarchal history.
Jesus Christ came into the picture at the time of Rome’s collapse, when Dionysus worship was increasingly being practiced and women were gaining economic and political power and independence in Rome.
The Roman Senate’s banning of the Bacchanalia thus took place in the context of a patriarchal [i.e. heterosexual, my note not Evan’s] and militaristic society at a time when it’s official values were being undermined by new belief systems and practices originating from it’s conquered neighbors and when power relations between the sexes in the ruling classes were changing due to economic causes.
Arthur Evans – The God Of Ecstasy(1988), p 125
If that does not send a shock through your brain knowing the venomous and divisive rhetoric around feminism, LGBT, SJW’s, ROK and the online masculine movement and Muslim immigration, nothing will.
While the banning of the Bacchanalia did not stop the collapse of Rome, what is clear is that the rise of Dionysus worship (i.e. homosexuals) and women in politics and economics (i.e. feminism) was a leading indicator that Rome’s days were numbered. The irony is that instead of liberation from the patriarchal yoke of the Roman Empire, the pagans got an even MORE patriarchal system with the rise of Christianity.
Will neomasculinity usher in such a new patriarchal religion in the 21st century? If history is any guide, the future will be even more patriarchal than the Christian era of the past 2000 years.
And Return of Kings, the obscure rantings of a bunch of small penis, sexless, dateless, losers who advocate teaching men to rape while living with their mom in the basement, may go into the history books as the intellectual genesis for a new patriarchal religious and political system of thought for man for the next 2000 years.
If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.
Read More: Does Life Have Inherent Meaning Without Belief In God?
I totally agree. The West must be refounded and a new Patriarchal religion is needed. Christianity is for hippies.
Excellent article. The conflict between a solar, masculine, transcendent theology pitted against the lunar, feminine, and earthly is something that has existed since the beginning of time, which seems to be expressed in Christianity with God against Satan.
Modernity exemplified in the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment (which continues to this day) is the rebirth of the materialistic, lunar theology which is rebranded in scientism, rationality, utilitarianism, equality, free-love and liberalism.
It makes sense that it is a battle of two diametrically opposed worldviews, which is why the Catholic Church banned books by the decadent pagans in Lucrecius, Epicurus, and there reincarnation in Voltaire, Montaigne, and the entire Enlightenment co.
Leftism comes down to hatred of authority, hatred of the Father is the overarching principle and prime theme of everything they do. This is why the hyper-paranoid Leftists in SJW’s, homosexuals, feminists, and bureaucrats see anything remotely masculine as the evil “patriarchy.”
So we can see a unity with the effeminate hipsters and the media/journalist class who grew up with single mothers and embracing the mother goddess worshipping in environmentalism and global one-earth nonprofit movements, with the inner-citty ghetto criminal class who grew up in a feral matriarchy, completely absent of any fathers.
I do not see how they are diametrically opposed.
And I don’t see how embracing one’s masculinity has to come with a belief in authority. I fucking hate authority, too.
Nicely put Danny.
Appreciate it!
Thanks for the positive comment Danny. I did not go into the whole Illuminati/Satanism conspiracy theory about the elites running our world, but if you take the very long history view, we can postulate that a lot of these pagan/goddess/dionysus worshippers went underground and secret (cue Roman dionysus purge) and still exist today.
Have you seen the Switzerland Tunnel Opening Ceremony? It is all on video, and our world leaders such as Merkel and Hollande attended, it is a blatant satanic ritual and has plenty of ancient pagan/goddess type of pomp and rituals. They seem pretty open about it!
I saw it. Incredible. The externalization of the hierarchy as expounded by Alice Bailey is now. What about the arches of Baal being erected in London and New York? These people know exactly what they are doing and they’re serious about their demonic beliefs. People laugh it all off; funny how the ultra-elite aren’t laughing… they’re practicing these things, now openly.
What’s wrong with Montaigne? Just wondering.
“What do I know?” It’s a common phrase that people toss around that Montaigne originated. It is the mentality of nonjudgmentalism and moral/cultural relativism. The spirit of skepticism and the renunciation of any absolute affirmation is seen as a virtue, something that is a good which continues to this day.
Maybe if people actually read the Bible instead of relying on 2nd and 3rd hand interpretations they’d stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
1 Timothy 2:11
I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them … For I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to usurp over a man, but she should be quiet;
Exactly.
Man is the teacher. Woman is not to teach. Why? Because there ain’t no joy for an uptown boy whose teacher has told him goodbye. Translation, an ‘experienced’ woman is a whore, not LTR material. It is THE MAN’S job to teach the woman. You put the law down on her, never vice versa. NEVER is it vice versa. It’s YOUR job to teach HER. You take a virgin woman, break her to your routine and house rules. You teach her how YOU like and prefer it, how YOU wish to be serviced. As virgin, you claim her as your loyal servant and beau for life. You taylor her and she corresponds to YOUR moulding. She doesn’t teach you nothing and she doesn’t walk on you and hire some shitstick jew attorney or mangina women’s advocate hack to do a blood money hit job on you. Upon the dawning of the new age of patriarchy, the old enablers will have all had their heads jammed onto poles, cutting short their last finale run and wrecking job on this earth. In the coming glorious AGE OF THE MAN, patriarchs and HE-MAN kings will make the world-go-round by wrapping around and turning mother earth on her axis like a bicycle chain.
There was a song in the ’80’s that described the pitfalls of succumbing to a ‘teacher’ woman and grovelling at the feet of a whore called ‘One More Try’ by George Michael. It sold 20mil copies and was #1for 12 weeks in 1988. It must have contained some sort of ‘triggering’ message to sell that many copies:
1 Corinthians 11:7
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
We really don’t need a new patriarchal religion.
Proverbs 31:3
Do not give your strength to women,
your ways to those who destroy kings.
There are tons of stories in the Bible of what happens when man goes against God’s appointed order, which is the man being the head of the household. It tells you not to let women teach or have authority over men. The problem is, like the rest of society, over time people stop reading for themselves and deviate from the original precepts.
How about this verse. Is it not fitting of the modern day?
Ecclesiastes 7: 28
while I was still searching but not finding– I found one upright man
among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.
The story of samson tells you not to tell your secrets to women, lest they betray you, which is another hugely important lesson. The story of adam and even tells of what happens when a man follows under the leadership of a woman and a woman’s nature to be easily deceived.
None of this is preached in the modern church because the modern church doesn’t represent God. I have even seen some articles about ‘awesome Christian tattoos’ floating around. The modern church has been corrupted and a major part of that is that the men refuse to stand up and take control over their God given role as leaders. I
Marx is the messiah of the modern Christianity.
No more religion. Time for the human race to drop the training wheels and face reality. Wisdom, enlightenment, virtue, ethics, and morality do not require the belief in hocus-pocus fairy tales.
Atheism does not have a single powerful civilization to its name, yet we are to believe atheism is the solution to society’s problems?
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
The Roman Empire was pagan and great.
The Mongol Empire was polytheistic and great.
The Akkadian Empire.
The Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great.
The multiple Greek Empires.
The multiple Egyptian Empires
The multiple Persian Empires.
The multiple Chinese empires.
The multiple Indian empires.
The multiple Malay Empires.
The multiple empires in pre-Columbian Latin America.
Your lack of knowledge about the world should embarrass you.
He said atheist.
When he says atheist, what he means not believing in the Christian God.
Everybody is an atheist except for the God that they believe in.
No I think atheist means atheist.
No one calls the other religions atheist, even if they’re considered false.
So there have been multiple religions with multiple God heads since the dawn of civilization, who are you to know which is the right one and the wrong one, and which is true or not true?
Tell me what gives you those powers of discernment and enlightenment to know what is false or not.
Regardless, there have been multiple great empires on this Earth that had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.
The facts are indisputable.
It’s another debate you’re starting, in order to try to make forget the fact that you don’t argue the point. You disregard what people write and can’t debate like an adult.
“Regardless, there have been multiple great empires on this Earth that had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.”
Where did he or I said the contrary ?
I’m done with you.
Fair winds.
He said
“Atheism does not have a single powerful civilization to its name”
and you answer with
“there have been multiple great empires on this Earth that had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity”
Obviously you’re responding to a statement that you made up in your mind, and not the one that was actually given.
And I answered everybody is an atheist except for their own religion which is a fact.
The truth is multiple great empires on this Earth have existed without anything do with an Abrahamic God or religion.
Do you dispute this is or not? Or will you deflect again?
Of course you are done with me because you don’t have any evidence or rationality to back up what you believe.
I don’t know what definition of atheism you use, but I think the wikipedia one is ok:
“Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.”
I do not know of any definition of atheism that would specifically refer to an abrahamic god – it’s only you who tries to insert this into the discussion.
Also, if as you say, “everbody is an atheist except for their own religion”, then the wikipedia definition must be wrong in your opinion, or not? What would your definition be?
Thank for proving once again how irrational most atheists are. Not only that, they are as solipsistic as women if we go by your example.
Calling me irrational and an atheist is not an argument.
Tell me what religion you believe in.
The arguments were put forward already other commenters and you failed to answer them. You cannot even cite anyone who had stated that Atheism is “anything not Christian”, not even iliterates are that stupid.
All the civilizations you mentioned were theist, even though they had nothing to do with Christianity and anyone who dared to declare himself atheist would have been treated let’s just say…badly as in having his limbs lopped off or exiled if the populace and the Government were compassionate that day.
Your argument is the one that is stupid.
Do you acknowledge the Gods of others not your own? Do they exist or not?
Plus, you distorted what I said. I said everybody is an atheist except for the God they believe in. Not everybody believes in the Christian God or the Abrahamic religions, so where is your evidence that the Abrahamic religions are correct and the others are incorrect?
Lastly, you have no evidence that every single civilization known to man persecuted the people of the dominant religion.
Just off the top of my head, the Mongol Empire embraced religious diversity.
The Chinese, the Russian, the Persian, the Indian, the Malay, the Khmer, the British and American empires all have had religious diversity.
Even the Muslim empires had religious diversity.
You are just talking out of your backside.
If that’s the case it’s still bullshit which shows your ignorance of history.
I should have said most of them. Unless living like a 5th category citizen and having no rights sounds good for you (Muslim world). Mongols had no culture when they got their empire, they were behind everybody when it came to culture or any other sign of advanced civilization. The Chinese, the Persian, The Indian regarded as inferior anyone who wasn’t from their civilization and didn’t share their beliefs, even to this day. British Empire was a secular empire where religion had no bearing in the policy decisions, the same for the U.S. where the dominant religion is not Christianity and hasn’t been for a long time.
In a nutshell you are the one talking out of his backside. Bye.
Thanks for demonstrating your shameless ignorance of basic world history.
This notion that every single empire since the dawn of human civilization persecuted the religious minorities that lived within its jurisdictions is verifiably false.
The Mongols had religious diversity. Fact.
The Chinese had religious diversity. Fact.
The Greeks had religious diversity. Fact.
The Macedonian Empire had religious diversity. Fact.
The Russian empire had religious diversity. Fact.
The Indian empires had religious diversity. Fact.
The Malay empires had religious diversity. Fact.
The Khmer empires had religious diversity. Fact.
The tribes in pre-Columbian America had religious diversity. Fact.
The empires in Africa had religious diversity. Fact.
Pre-Christian Europe had a multitude of cults. Fact.
Discussing with strawmen must be really funny, however it gets boring when one reads your arguments and they are arguments against what you think I said instead of against what I said. Bye.
This what you wrote:
“All the civilizations you mentioned were theist, even though they had nothing to do with Christianity and anyone who dared to declare himself atheist would have been treated let’s just say…badly as in having his limbs lopped off or exiled if the populace and the Government were compassionate that day.”
Those civilizations were religiously diverse and people were not exiled and had their limbs chopped off for not believing the court religion.
You are a total ignoramus.
Your feelings are not facts.
source: http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/religions.htm
Source Wikipedia
I could go on all night but it would be useless since feelings are the reality for you. I already explained that most, if not all did have religious persecution against religious minorities. Good night irrational atheist.
What is utterly sad and pathetic is that you deny thousands of years of human history just because you believe in your personal feelings more than evidence and facts.
Every major empire had indigenous cults that co-existed along with the cult of the court.
You are such an ignorant dweeb that you actually think court religion was the universal religion within the territories of the empire.
Every empire had various religions within its jurisdiction that thrived and survived.
The Jews existed 2000 years after exile, didn’t they?
Have you been to India or Africa?
Guess what? Multitudes of cults have survived.
China is not a one-religion state. Chinese cults and various religions still exist in China.
Atheism does not mean everything except abrahamic religions, it has never meant that. Are you redefining words in the english language?
I choose to believe that “Caesar Knight” means “so far up my own ass that I forgot what light looks like”, does that mean it does?
You are so moronic that you don’t even understand what I wrote.
Tell me which Gods you believe in.
Paganism isnt atheism dickweed
No, paganism is a religion. Atheism is not believing in religion at all
Thats not the definition if atheism fuckwit
So christians can be atheists because they don’t believe in other gods? Atheism means no god. So christians are atheists. Riiiiiiggggghhhhttt
Right, so tell me how many of those pagan Gods do you believe in as real?
Right, tell me about this pagan religion that you believe is true.
So tell me about all those pagan religions that you believe as true.
So tell me about all these other pagan Gods you believe to be true.
YOU JUST CITED THOSE EXACT EMPIRES AS BEING ATHEIST. Atheism is to not believe in god even as a concept. If you dont make that distinction, then everyone is an atheist and no one is an atheist. Thats why the meanings of words are important.
Youre just talking out your ass.
Right, and how many of those Gods and religions from those civilizations do you believe exist as truth?
Why are you such a coward that you can’t answer a simple question?
I don’t believe in any particular god, I am simply a deist, I believe in God but I do not know exactly what that god is. Maybe it is multiple gods, but one god originally starting creation makes the most sense because, by what the human mind is able to fathom, it doesn’t make sense that anything could exist, and one god makes things less complicated, and then there aren’t multiple gods fighting over the laws of physics.
And what you said was “The truth is multiple great empires on this Earth have existed without anything to do with an Abrahamic god or religion”
I fully agree, nor do I see anyone else disagreeing with your statement, but you act as if someone said that no empire has existed without christianity,or abrahamic religions. When noone has said that. You are arguing against a strawman as untergang007 said. Considering that seems to be your primary argument, could you provide any proof that when kevm3 said “atheism” he meant all non-christian based societies as you insinuate? Oh wait, you can’t, it’s impossible, so you’ll just continue to insinuate something which has no evidence.
Not sure why I’m jumping in here, but I think what everyone else is saying that a pagan believes in his gods, so even though a Christian wouldn’t believe in those same gods, the Christian would not call the pagan an atheist, because the pagan believes in some gods/or a god. Atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods. I’ve never heard a Christian call, for example, a Muslim, Hindu, or even an ancient follower of Zeus, Odin, or Baal an atheist. Have you? Maybe you have and that’s where you’re getting your misunderstanding of the term.
First of all, not all pagans believe in God or the way God is defined in the west.
Buddhists don’t believe in God or they believe God or Gods are irrelevant to enlightenment.
The other religions you mentioned, Christians don’t acknowledge those Gods exist at all. Explain how a Christian can simultaneously believe in the God of Abraham and the pantheon of Gods in India.
There is no misunderstanding.
I stand by my statement: Everybody is an atheist except for the God he believes in.
I have yet to meet a Christian who says that the ancient Greek Gods, the Roman Gods, the Hawaiian Gods, the Chinese Gods, the Hindu Gods exist, ever. They are considered myths.
So what makes your myth superior to another myth?
What makes the Jewish-Christian myths more verifiable than the other myths other than personal belief?
That is the point I am making.
Yes, but you’re using a definition of atheism that neither I nor anyone else here has ever encountered. Can you point to any other source that uses your definition? I mean, if you want to call a horse a cow I suppose you have a right to your eccentricity, but it’s going to create a lot of confusion down on the farm.
What are you confused about? I have explained myself multiple times.
Tell me which Gods you believe in.
There is certainly a lot of evidence that people all over the world have believed in certain Godheads throughout history.
You tell me who is right and who is wrong.
I’d call myself a non-Nicean Christian with some Norse pagan and agnostic leanings, but my personal beliefs don’t have anything to do with the definition of atheism. I’m not trying to be mean, but you seem mentally impaired. I realize that it’s also possible that you’re just trolling.
You are the one who is mentally impaired because you are intellectually incapable of answering a question or even understanding what I wrote.
Which are the real Gods and which are not?
Insulting me is not an argument.
So try again and try not to get flustered this time.
You tell me which is the correct religion and why.
Just look at Atheism’s history. It becomes abundantly clear that having this ideological fundament for your world view leads to destruction.
Atheism has the most kills of any ideology and that in just a fraction of time and people. Nietzsche said it perfectly. The age of atheism will be the most bloody and brutal.
You can’t build something, and even less something good, on nothing.
When you can justify anything due to your ideological fundament to be good; ultimately nothing is.
That is the point here. When you are the one to judge what is good or bad all your “values” will be egocentric and thus completely meaningless. Ultimately you will just do whatever you like and as such values will not be driving you to become more than you are.
As such no civilization has ever been built on atheistic principles nor ever will.
Knowing which religion is “correct” (whatever that means) has nothing to do with the meaning of atheism. I’m not insulting you. I’m pointing out that you appear to have some kind of mental defect that causes you to obsess about your personal definition of atheism, much like a madman who has decided that the sky is green and will debate endlessly anyone who points out it’s easily provable that it’s blue:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t
Hey Caesar Knight, you sound like a reasonable neopagan, Add me on twitter @qorachius.
All empires based on faith, not atheism. Even Genghis Khan had a God, the Great Blue Sky. Polytheistic the Mongols may have been, but only because they believed their faith was supreme, and thus tolerated others and had no fear of them.
While the Roman Empire may have been pagan, the way of life was absolutely barbaric. No one wants to go back to living as the pagans did pre Christ, but that is what is happening now in not just the west, but much of the world.
Religion is declining everywhere and rightly so because there is no single faith anymore that can answer the spiritual needs of man in this time and context. What was truth is still truth, but the wording, the practices, need an update.
Christianity appealed to the pagans, as I point to in this article, precisely because it incorporated and unified almost ALL goddess/pagan belief/worship of human history to date.
What we got was 2000 years of humanity striving to love one another, albeit imperfectly.
We can see already where going back to a pagan/atheist world view is going to take us. Just look at the many articles on the decline of The West in our times. The decline, and speed of degeneration, is directly proportional to the increase in atheism and pagan ways of living (i.e. do as thou wilt).
I don’t know what the future of religion will be, but as we can see even in the current US election cycle, the line in the sand is being drawn.
On one side, you have atheist, SJW, LGBT, safe space, pansexual, gender fluid, anything goes, I’m special worship me not God.
On the other… you have people who believe in TRUTH (i.e. God) and JUSTICE (i.e. moral law, right and wrong).
Truth will always win. What God will look like in 100 years is my question.
I like your reasoning. What I would ask is to not look so much at Christianity per se (singled out to show other nations were great without it), but look at it from the simple societal perspective of truth.
Truth… all great empires had a truth (God, religion, spirit) that they lived by.
When you lose truth in your society, you lose your society, Christian or not.
Very good point. No matter what faith one might be, the true dividing line is a man of faith from a man of none. Those with no faith seem to be the most angry (in my experience) and the most insistent that those with faith are ignorant and have no intelligence, arguing with anyone they can to prove there is no reason to believe in anything.
I watched a Muslim scholar recently that made me laugh. He said atheists are people who actually think about God more than believers! The reason they hate God is because they have such high expectations. They feel God has failed to deliver as promised and thus, rage and rail against anyone who still believes in a God they wanted so much but rejected do to disappointment with Him. Truly an insightful comment when you think about it.
Quote: “When you are the one to judge what is good or bad all your “values” will be egocentric and thus completely meaningless.”
Wow… could you encapsulate our times any more perfectly?
The point I have been making and maybe not in the best way since a lot of people don’t seem to understand is the fact that there was never a unifying God, religion, spirit that they lived by.
Within those great empires, there was religious diversity.
There were local, regional, and cults of the crown or ruling class.
People seem to look at the ancient world through a modern lens. It was much more complicated than we think.
Ancient peoples were part of tribes and many tribes became parts of larger empires, who had their own cults, but local and regional identity remained despite what the court did and believed.
Europe was once composed of multitudes of tribes but their identities have been wiped out. They are now extinct because they later were integrated into the hegemonic power and given a national identity.
But these tensions still remain.
Spain is the perfect example because you have various regions that are not Spanish but Celt in Galicia, Basque in Basque Country, Catalans in Catalonia, and so forth.
The US is another example.
The US is composed of native peoples who still retain their local identities and cults, plus you have protestants who practice various forms of Christianity, you have a disparate group of Roman Catholics, you have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, and within those groups, you have sub-groups.
“I watched a Muslim scholar recently that made me laugh. He said
atheists are people who actually think about God more than believers!”
That’s an excellent point. Not all atheists are bitter pseudo-intellectuals of course. Umberto Eco and Arthur C. Clarke come to mind. Staunch atheists both of them, but able to respect that believers can be true intellectuals. Eco actually co-authored a book on faith and the lack thereof with the Archbishop of Milan. Clarke has believers as characters in his novels and is able to get into their heads and explore their faith in a way that is vastly more profound than the inane “believing in an invisible man in the sky” mockery you see from run-of-the-mill Internet atheists nowadays.
Excellent article btw.
Be careful Atheists get very upset when you mock their religion.
I don’t believe in atheists.
Atheism has always been severely punished by the religious hierarchy throughout history in order to maintain control under that particular religion. It is hard to build a society free of superstitions when the leadership and mass populace have their noses so far up some imaginary deity’s ass.
Sounds fine in theory. In practice… every soul ends looking for something to calm their spiritual void. Call it an ideology, a culture, even a sports club. There’s no such thing as a true atheist, there are just people who don’t use the words “god” and “religion” for what they worship.
The only true atheist is a nihilist.
Nothing damn it !
This is false. I am for example an atheist, but not a nihilist.
That’s because you’re not a true atheist, you stil adhere to Christian principles, this is my point. Most atheists are Christians without the God.
Which is why SJWs and feminists are so fanatical. Their religion is “progressivism, ” feminism and liberalism, which like all religions, are based on some very dubious premises and myths. When we critique feminism and progressivism using reason, facts and science, we get the same kind of fanatical and hysterical responses from SJWs that those who critique religion get.
Pretty much. That’s a perfect example of why dropping religion for good is futile.
Ah yes Enlightenment… rationalism worked so well, that they had to slaughter entire regions of France to keep it running. They lighted gun powder in women’s vagina and drowned priests and nuns en masse in boats.
And then there is the mighty Atheist soviet union…
Agreed. Religion is bullshit, but so is atheism.
You German-Czesh nutjob.
I’ll take it as a compliment.
That’s how I look at it too, all beliefs systems are ridiculous. The Christians make the best women as far as I’ve seen, so points to them for that.
NB: Relax, guys with yellow fever. I haven’t been to Asia and can’t comment on its women.
Heh. It is my intuitive impression that they also make the biggest whores. Princess for daddy and society, to impress anyone, and dirty slut for the one who looks through all her bullshit.
Nah. Well, some Christian girls are hypocrites, but there are good Christian girls out there, especially in Latin America. That’s where your best chance for finding a good wife and mother are, in my opinion.
I would never marry. And I would never be able to be with a religious girl, I think. I dislike rules.
No problem with that. In fact, if you would never be with a religious girl I would strongly advise you against marrying. Christian women believe adultery is a mortal sin. Godless women believe it’s a fun activity for when they are bored or angry at their husband.
Yeah, I def. would not want to be with some moralizing cunt. The thought disgusts me.
You say “moralizing cunt” I say “loyal, traditional wife and mother,” I suppose.
Heh. One of the wonders of the mind is that it is able to view almost anything from two distinct perspectives.
Yet you ignore all the Christian based imperialism over the last 2000 years that had no problem slaughtering people in the name of Jesus.
Terrible comparison. More people have died, under atheistic regimes, than any other political system. Moreover, atheistic regimes killed more human beings in half a century than religion did in hundreds of centuries.
What does one thing have to do with the other?
Is it true or not true that Christian republics and kingdoms have invaded other countries not their own and subjugate and murdered the people of those native lands?
Yes sometimes people do the wrong things for the right reasons 😉
At best, that’s a non sequitur. Atheism kills its own people, in significant numbers. That is the topic of discussion. I’m not sure what imperialism has to do with any of this.
You sound like a chick.
What does atheism have to do with murder?
Not believing in God has nothing to do with murder.
There is no connection between me declaring no belief in your God and me going out and murdering somebody.
Muslim terrorists murder everyday and they are the most devoted to God.
Strong correlation with official atheism, and if everybody does it you can’t single out Christianity.
Christian empires STOPPED slavery. Most Christian empires were religiously diverse. How is it that when atheists murder people there is no connection but when Christians do it there is a connection?
Additionally, tolerating some Sufis in the Balkans and tolerating human sacrifice by the Aztecs isn’t comparing apples to apples.
Official atheism? The US is an official atheist country and so is every other liberal democracy that has a separation of church and state.
Liberal democracies stopped slavery.
Do you know how incredibly ignorant you sound?
Name all the countries that are Christian and don’t have slavery.
Name all the countries that are not Christian and have slavery.
Name this world-wide scourge of slavery in the non-Christian world.
What is even more ridiculous about your statement is how many Christian countries practiced slavery to begin with?
If Christians are so opposed to slavery, why they have slavery in their countries to begin with?
Every country had slavery. Only Christian countries ended it. History =/= modern day.
No state religion =/= atheism
Incidentally the UK, the prime mover had and has a state religion. “Liberal democracy” doesn’t really cover Wilberforces England. More accurate in the US sense but still off base a bit.
Logic isn’t a catchphrase to sling around dude. Go to the logic daemon at the Texas A&M website, plug your arguments in and see if they make sense.
First of all, where is your evidence that every country had slavery?
Secondly, where is your evidence that the Christian religion ended slavery when Christian nations were practicing slavery in the first place.
If you think the end of slavery was caused by Christianity, then why were they practicing slavery in the first place?
Tell me how long did slavery exist in Christendom before it was abolished.
Slavery was a universal institution, most of us learned this before we were out of short pants.
“But that’s not evidence!” Look it up. Wilberforce, look him up. History of slavery in Western Europe look that up too.
You demand evidence and give none, you demand argument and give none, you demand respect and give none.
I feel like I’m being cruel at this point because you might be on the spectrum. I’m truly not saying this to be mean and you may not believe it but if that is the case I’m truly sorry.
If not however, why do you think this how men argue?
Where is your evidence that slavery was universal and that Christianity ended slavery?
Your feelings are not facts and you refuse to cite one piece of evidence to back you up.
Real men demand evidence and you refuse to provide any.
Women argue as if there feelings are facts.
Are you a woman?
Gave it to you, read it again.
You have no evidence that slavery was universal and that Christianity ended it.
I know you’re literate because you’re writing.
I think you’re human but if an ape ever typed something that stupid, scientists would euthanize him. So hold on I may be saving your life.
Google. Wilberforce. Get. Banana.
You must definitely be a woman because you think your feelings are facts.
I’m still waiting for your evidence that slavery was universal and that Christianity ended it.
I doubt you will ever provide it with all the estrogen running through your system.
Atheism means moral decay.
Your natural nihilism/hedonism is the most destructive setup there is.
Your oft-repeated characterization of the Soviet Union is convenient to the smug theist, but it is not quite accurate. Though the Bolsheviks targeted Christianity and repurposed and razed churches, they oddly spared the synagogues and rabbis. Marx, Ulyanov, Bronstein, and other high-ranking Soviets had something else in common beside an apparent devotion to state atheism.
You do not get to wave (((those people))) over your head as representatives of all nonbelievers while your other hand, extending out of a dandyish white cuff, gives the dismissive French wave at every other variable.
This is a massive red herring in the first place because no one was ever slaughtered in the name of disbelief or apathy.
More to the original point, let us accept that original argument that all past civilizations required religion to survive, as well as that all but one of those religions are false. Therefore, you are espousing the misanthropic and defeatist view that people must be lied to in order to build a stable civilization.
Those societies also had real, flesh-and-bone militaries, police, judges, governors, and so on who did the worldly dirty work of keeping law and order without supernatural help. Nor is there no precedent for a secular government which tolerates all creeds which do not militate against the nation.
Bottom line: Whatever did or did not create the universe, your argument is absolutely not sufficient to move anyone’s heart or mind to believing in your particular faith. As we all know, only a heavy dose of violent coercion and emotional manipulation can do that. All you accomplish in your argument is to flip the bird at a large portion of white people and Western civilization, whose beginnings were neither Christian nor Semitic.
We should demand patriarchy like true, square, straight-shooting men, because we know it to be right and choose not to threaten people with a swindler’s phantasms.
Did I try in that comment to motivate people to believe in my particular faith ? Nope.
I just pointed out that atheists slaughtered more people in a few years in the name of Reason than every religious government in France ever did. It’s just facts. Probably the first real ethnic cleansing in Europe too.
Also, not true about Synagogues being spared, Jewish believers were persecuted too.
In the rest of the message you’re just arguing points I did not made.
why did you mentioned Ulyanov – along with Marx and Bronstein – instead of Lenin? you think that Ulyanov is some kind of Jewish last name? lol.
No. He is correct. Synagogues were for the most part spared.
“I just pointed out that atheists slaughtered more people in a few years in the name of Reason than every religious government in France ever did.”
Correction. Atheism has the most kills of any ideology worldwide with just a fraction of the time and people.
Within just 90 years of wide spread.
just like churches and mosques, most of synagogues were closed for religious services. many synagogues buildings were not destroyed, unlike many churches, for the following reason:
churches didn’t look like regular buildings. even if you close them for religious service, they still look like obvious temples, that is symbols of faith. communists couldn’t tolerate it therefore they destroyed many of those buildings.
on the other hand, most synagogues look like ordinary buildings. after you close them for religious service, you can still use them for other purposes: schools, theaters, warehouses, horse stables etc. they don’t stick out as obvious temples and symbols of faith. that’s why many of them weren’t destroyed but converted into something else for practical reasons.
just like churches and mosques, most of synagogues were closed for religious services. many synagogue buildings were not destroyed, unlike many churches, for the following reason:
churches didn’t look like regular buildings. even if you close them for religious service, they still look like obvious temples, that is symbols of faith. communists couldn’t tolerate it therefore they destroyed many of those buildings.
on the other hand, most synagogues look like ordinary buildings. after you close them for religious service, you can still use them for other purposes: schools, theaters, warehouses, horse stables etc. they don’t stick out as obvious temples and symbols of faith. that’s why many of them weren’t destroyed but converted into something else for practical reasons.
Quote: “Whatever did or did not create the universe, your argument is absolutely
not sufficient to move anyone’s heart or mind to believing in your
particular faith.”
I think this comment is a good example of exactly why I wrote my article. We have reached a point where faith/religion/God is broken, but another system has not be created.
Neomasculinty is a simple framework, but I don’t see it succeeding without a reason to believe in more than simply using Game to live life well. After enough pussy, enough money, a man is going to look up in the sky and ask “Is this all there is? Really?”
These discussions, while usually aimed at a niche audience on ROK, I think will build something and it will be global this time, not just local.
It is truly fascinating times we live in… assuming we survive to see the result!
spoken like an illuminati
I know people around here laugh at the idea, but I advocate spirituality without religion. The divine is not to be approached through rules and rationalizations, but through an open heart.
IN other words women spirituality, aka atheism and solipsism to the max in practical terms am I right?
No, not atheism. Just the absence of religious beliefs.
But sure, if you want to call it women spirituality, be my guest. I care little about your labels.
Women spirituality is spirituality without content, that was the idea. What you spouse is the same thing we have to endure with women and their “spirituality”, just with different wording but as empty as the former. Sentimentalism and fake courtesy instead of discipline and respect.
Heh. I do not see how that follows. Firstly, define “sentimentalism”, then I can tell you whether I would identify with that. I am guessing I wouldn’t. Secondly, I care little about courtesy; I really don’t. If spirituality doesn’t allow me to be angry and mean, well, fuck it.
Discipline and respect … meh. I do see that those are two things that can enrichen one’s life. But I also see that many pursue them as a form of “principle”. Fathers demanding to be respected solely on the basis of being fathers are like mothers who demand to be loved solely on the basis of being mothers.
Respect, if it is to be valid, comes from the inside. It is not something that is owed, but something that is given to those who are valued by an individual.
Discipline, to make any sense, must be the devotion of a confident man to his own chosen craft – but not the discipline of a slave sheep working away at a cubicle job without perspective and joy.
And you are right. There is no content. To me, the very essence of spirituality is to be free of content. To transcend the mind.
You may dislike it when I call it spirituality, but if I simply called it meditation, alertness and mindfulness, would you still protest? The thing itself would not change, only the name would.
Sentimentalism: Prevalence of feelings over any other consideration, even reasoning.
False courtesy: I used the phrase to talk about all the false platitudes women say to each other and have permeated any activity they are in. In the case of religion or spirituality, all the self-esteem B.S. falls in that category.
Meditation is a different thing. It doesn’t require any kind of spirituality, it’s just a mental exercise, to focus, that’s at least how I understand it.
Ah. Well, as for sentimentalism, I am very fond of feelings. To me, they are the essence of life. I think that even a man who pursues reason does this because it is emotionally satisfying. Some men say that this intellectual satisfaction is not emotional in nature. I disagree. Be it as it may, I can very well see the benefits of logic and reason (I am a reasonably good programmer), but I also see its limits. In my eyes, logic without feelings is completely unable to make even the simplest kind of normative statement (a “should” statement or personal decision). Now, if you have personal values (which are emotional), you can use logic to deduce how to best satisfy them, but the values in themselves are hardly logical.
False courtesy: I agree, that is fucking annoying. Self-esteem is nonsense and I do not advocate it in the least. I advocate confidence, which is quite distinct, as it does not require lies.
To me, the two are closely entwined. When you meditate, you inevitably end up meditating on the deeper questions and feelings of existence that pop up in your head and body. Meditation helps disidentify from the mind and get in touch with the body and thus, with the divine. I think it is a deeply spiritual practice, but I accept it if some disagree.
And you spew BS without it being supported by facts and reason.
Women have nothing to do with your lack of rationality.
Why are you so afraid of telling us your religion?
I’m curious as to what chick-like beliefs you subscribe to since you think your feelings are facts.
Quote: “No, not atheism. Just the absence of religious beliefs.”
But this then bring up the question – What do you believe in?
Nothing? I don’t think that would be your answer as you gave us yours (spirituality without religion).
The problem is, belief requires justification. Justification requires reasons to believe. Those reasons have to be consistent with living a life that is “moral” on some level (the famous do no harm to others comes to mind).
I would suggest that you have a problem with religion because it imposes a set of beliefs (rules) for right living. When I say right living, I mean living a life based on truth, reasoned to be the best/optimum way for man to achieve happiness while living in this life.
As others below have stated, the problem we have now is not that people don’t believe in god or that religion is in decline, the problem is this:
Everyone is living by a singular (ego centric) belief system that they justify not by truth, logic or reason, but simply “faith” that what they believe is the true and best way for THEM to live.
Which would not be a problem… but for some reason, the ones that claim there should be no rules seem to be very loud and vocal that those who claim there are rules are the ones with the problem.
I work with an atheist. He is one of the most angry guys I have ever met. Angry… at everyone breaking the rules!!! Traffic laws, tax laws, etc. Everyone is a law breaker, an idiot, a moron, except for him
I have not met a lot of atheists, but one thing that does stick out for me is that they are obsessed with rules… so long as they don’t apply to them. And those rules, of course, are personally derived and thus arbitrary.
So I would suggest… try to look at religion more from a perspective of:
1) People who wish to live a good and happy life.
2) Those people coming together to agree on what the rules are to achieve this life.
3) Enforcing those rules, with respect for differences.
When you think along those lines, the entire history of religious and political thought makes a whole lot more sense.
Which is why I believe we are starting that process again with Neomasculinty on ROK. Not everyone will agree, but history does not favour a future society, civilization or happiness and peace without a common set of agreed upon rules on how to live and respect one another.
When you have no God, thus no belief in truth, you have no rules, no law. Cue Hillary Clinton.
I see you are coming from a more Zen/Buddhist perspective. I was very much of this way of thinking and it still holds a lot of appeal for me.
Here is my thinking on it.
1) This quiet/enlightened state seems to be particularly singular.
2) That singular state of enlightenment is universal.
3) Enlightenment transcends material time and space.
4) What is this state? Why does it exist?
I love living in the moment. But this quiet state of spiritual peace does not answer some of the most fundamental questions of life.
Why are we here?
Purpose. I think the dividing line between those who are religious (i.e. a belief in a God/afterlife/morality) from those who who declare to be spiritual look more to purpose and why they are here, needing answers that spiritualism does no answer.
A transcendent state does not answer the question of why we live, and why we die. Even the Buddhists had to formulate some kind of response to this question, so it is not just pure spirituality/meditation as many believe.
Can religion answer the question of why we are here? Can there ever be a true answer?
Many religions do seem pretty clear that there is a moral reason for our being here and it is to live a moral life (as best we can). I.e. Those hated rules of religion.
That was my biggest hurdle with Buddhism. Meditation is great, but there is no answer for why I am here other than that I am a random collection of “skandas” (bad karmas) that have been collected into a material body that “suffers”.
And when I meditate on Big Mind… you can’t escape asking the question “What is this Big Mind?” To me, Buddhists skirt around calling what they meditate on God for no other reason than to simply deny that is what it is. But they do believe in it, thus, they would be considered religious in my view, despite their aversion to be referred to as such (i believe).
Hmmm… that’s odd. All of Zen I have read (and practiced) says that enlightenment in deep meditation begins when the body FALLS AWAY… and the mind is now clear from all sensory inputs (hence the quiet sitting, to still the BODY in order to free the MIND).
Well, if you assume that the absence of beliefs is a belief in itself, I guess I do have a belief. I don’t see it that way, though. That’s like saying that an empty glass is “filled with nothing”.
I am nothing like your atheist co-worker, although I used to be, when I was still an atheist. As it is, I mostly just get angry when people are being prosecuted for some petty “crimes”. I applaud those who break rules that they never agreed to heed.
As it stands right now, I despise rules, whomever they apply to. I have a strong disdain for police bullying people with ridiculous laws etc. You could say that this disdain for authority is a belief. I assume you would be right. But I fully intend to let that one go too, eventually. It’s simply that I carry a lot of anger inside myself and cops are a good place to project it onto, considering they made my life miserable a couple of times.
People coming together to agree on rules to live “happy and good”. I can’t argue it to you, but intuitively, I just don’t see a reason for that. Life knows no rules. And when you are a confident person getting together with other confident people, I don’t see why you would need rules. The need to create rules implies in itself a distrust in the other people’s capability to make moral choices on their own.
Heh, nice comment.
Well, to be frank with you, I do not feel any more need to answer the question “why are we here?”
It becomes more and more sufficient for me to simply state: I am here.
Why? What does “why” even mean? Does “why” look into the past and how we came into existence? Or does it look into the future to say where it leads?
How about another question: Why is it not enough to simply exist / be here?
You referenced Buddhism. I like the direction of Buddhism, but I do not subscribe to it. I even wrote an article called “Buddhistic bullshit” on my blog, as a lot of their belief systems are as puzzling and illogical to me as those of other religions.
Perhaps closest to my idea of the whole thing is the book “The Power of Now”.
But yeah, I mean, when I truly am in the moment, those questions stop being relevant to me. One of the aspects of meditation is to feel into your motivations and intents and when I asked “why am I here?” in the past, it was mostly out of some form of inferiority complex / narcissistic injury that made me want to be “important”. But see, “important” and “meaning” are just words. These words have no inherent “meaning” in and of themselves.
Many define the meaning of their life through their plans and aspirations and goals. Some define it through their sins / their past.
I would simply say: The meaning of life is to live.
I do not really subscribe to any particular belief system.
But I do believe that I basically mean the very same thing – but use different words.
“I basically mean the very same thing – but use different words” Yup. So why is everyone arguing again? LOL 🙂
Beats me. 🙂
The meaning of life may be to live… but what happens when you die?
THAT… is the other “uncomfortable” question no one asks or thinks about anymore.
Death… is the line that makes a man question if “just to live” is all there is.
What are we living for? Just to die? Why?
While I can respect your belief that asking why means not much of anything, I would ask you this.
What happens to a society that no longer asks WHY?
No longer asks why we are here. Or why we die.
I am going to die. You are going to die. “I am here”… will now be replaced with… what?
Can we ever answer this question now? Nope. I was not surprised (not being insulting I hope) to learn you don’t ask why and just live. There is some very good reasons for living life this way.
But death man… just think about death for a minute. The problem with just living is that it is a hedonists mantra… it avoids the question of death, denies it completely. Which to my mind, says it is the SINGLE most important question a man must answer for himself because man will do anything, ANYTHING, from thinking about his death.
This… is what religion (as opposed to new age spiritualism) answered for many people. It gave some plausible and rational explanations for a) why we are here and b) what happens when we die.
I would also leave you with this question.
You say the meaning of life is to live.
Ok.
How does one live?
What actions does one take? To what end is “living”? Living to just live? Money and sex don’t seem to satisfy this no matter how much a man attains.
The whole problem in the west right now is that the Christian/patriarchal answer to “How does one live?” has been completely rejected by the vast majority and replaced with “just live”.
Not saying Christianity is better for living or not… just stating a fact. The West had an answer to why we are here, where we go when we die, and how we are to live.
Now the west has… trannies in washrooms.
I am just pointing out dots.
Quote: “The need to create rules implies in itself a distrust in the other people’s capability to make moral choices on their own.”
It is not a question of people being able to make moral choices… it is a question of KNOWING a choice is a moral one or not. Think on this deeply.
That is what religious rules define… morals, right and wrong. If you don’t have morals, rules, you have anarchy. Do as thou wilt becomes the whole of the law.
Religious rules are not a straight jacket. They are more like gravity and all that implies. Natural moral law exists. You can deny it, but there it is. Don’t like it? Too bad. Step off a roof top and tell me you defy the rule of gravity because you don’t believe in rules!!!!
To a religious mind, that analogy makes perfect sense. To someone who chafes at religious rules, they will balk at such a statement of belief.
I agree with you that rules should not be imposed on anyone, especially arbitrary and self-interested ones.
But I am not talking about rules man has made, but what God has made.
If God made a law of gravity, would he not also have made a law of right living?
We are not perfect. No human being is going to die and lived his whole life according to the law of God or the universe. But to deny that there are rules that govern humanity as much as the center of a star, is to live in serious denial of reality.
Death. Heh. Without death and pain, I doubt I would have ever stopped being an atheist.
Now, the following is conjecture (because who has ever died and come back to tell about it?), but I think the truth is somewhere along these lines:
Death does not exist. Only fear of death exists.
That is not to say that the physical body does not die. But I think that the consciousness (the YOU) can never die. But we are identified with our physical body and mind and hence we fear that we may stop existing. While that can never truly happen.
Also a thing meditation is great for. I will not go ahead and claim I have absolutely no fear of death anymore, but it has significantly reduced. I had / have some serious karma (?) which caused me a lot of pain and no religion, however optimistic, appealed to me or made any of it better.
Anyhow, you can kinda apply the same to fear of death that I have said about the “why”. If you are in the moment, death does not matter. Death is somewhere in “the future”. Why should it matter in the moment?
I did experience one or two situations where I was close to death. But when I really feel into it, the worst thing is really not “death”. It is fear of death.
Know how they say that the fear of rejection is worse than being rejected? I think it is the same with death.
How to live? Well, if you are in the moment, all decisions flow from that. There is no need to be concerned about a “how to live”, because you just act out of the flow. Again, I am not fully there, but I have had moments of clarity and I am pretty sure that that is where you end up. Literature about enlightenment confirms me in this assumption.
As for trannies in washrooms … why should I care? If they want to have that experience, I let them. Who am I to be concerned about other people’s lives? If they want a civil war, I let them have it. If they want a dictator, be my guest. If they want to be ran over by Muslims, well, their fucking choice. Who am I to become angry about a mass of people that, let’s be honest, has no real connection to myself other than perhaps sharing the ego identity of “the country”.
I think religion is denying reality.
I actually brought up the analogy of gravity to another commenter here just yesterday.
Here’s the thing: You say you can not act as if gravity does not exist.
I agree.
But if moral laws, as religion has them, were true laws of God, like gravity, you would not be able to act as if they did not exist.
In other words: If God’s moral law was to prohibit murder, murder would be impossible.
If murder is not impossible (all evidence suggests this), then you can not maintain that “you shalt not murder” is a valid moral law comparable to gravity.
If you want to not deny reality in this case, you must logically conclude that such a law can not exist. Or, that it exists, but not in the form you assumed.
In this regard, Buddhism is a step ahead. It does clearly acknowledge that on an absolute level, nothing is “good” or “bad”. The concept of non-duality.
And yet, that does not seem entirely accurate, does it? That is where karma comes in.
So the more precise rule would be: You are not prohibited from murdering, but karma necessitates that all the pain you dish out comes back to you.
Now, you could say that this is a rule of God. That God thinks you did “wrong” and inflicts “justice”.
I think this is false. I think of Karma as something like Newton’s third law of motion. In other words: When you apply a force to something, the exact same amount is applied to yourself as counter-force.
It could work completely without interference of a God-entity, if you interweave this with a belief in the law of attraction, or, “thoughts manifest reality”. In that sense, if somebody hurts you, an amount of hatred and bad wishes that is proportional to the inflicted pain, is sent towards the person who inflicted the pain. The universe will manifest this negative energy in the perpetrator’s life in the form of “karma”.
Of course, that is probably not the perfect theory to explain it all, either, and may have some weaknesses. But it is a far more accurate “law” than the moral law you described.
If your moral law was a true law of God like gravity – you would be unable to bypass it.
IQ is distributed normally.
You gotta prove that philosophy can work with average and below average thinkers.
I’m not dissing religion, I’m saying philosophy can only work as a substitute for some.
I think philosophy does it’s best job when it works both in support of a faith (defining its terms and justifying its authority based on man’s knowledge at the time) and in critique of it (when those defined terms are no longer valid in a given context or when it’s authority can no no longer be supported when new knowledge comes to man).
This is the time we live in. And strangely enough, ROK is actually a sign that both these aspects of philosophy are in full force right now.
Turbulence you say? You betcha!
I think a successful religion will need to offer something to the different kinds of people. Christianity has Enough in it for philosophers and lay-people.
Or you can just go for straight up cult/secret society..
Any successful religion is based not on what people need, but on truth. Pagan practices were the truth of the goddess worshiping past. Judaism came along to challenge this, but it was exclusive to the tribe. When Rome was collapsing (over 100s of years, not over night), pagans began to despair as life was becoming more and more unlivable (sound familiar?).
Paul came along and, after being rejected by the Jews (he went to a synagogue first in ever town he entered), he turned to the Gentiles who, knowing of the one God exclusive to the Jews, TOOK TO THE SALVATION MESSAGE OF CHRIST LIKE A MAN TO WATER IN THE DESERT.
My reading Augustine’s City Of God has opened my eyes wide as to WHY Christianity was such a hit with the general public. It was revolutionary compared to the traditions on hand, despite many pagan competitors.
And all I can think of as the winning hand that was Christianity in Europe for the next 2000 years was… the argument of truth.
God, Christ’s salvation, life after death, a moral way of living that produced happiness and a good life based on the oneness (truth) of a divine power in the universe.
It is still an appealing and revolutionary appeal, but an appeal whose pagan past has undermined the core message, which Islam is now reminding the world what that was.
Regardless of anyone’s current faith choice or rejection of it, TRUTH… is what is bubbling up from the stinking pile of lies that is not just the 21st and 20th century, but perhaps the past 2000 years or more.
The future will not be the past, but the past is going to have a large impact on what the future will look like.
Interesting ideas.
I’ll check out city of God.
Man cannot leave without religion, hollywood, the star system will fill the void.
The “new” oldest religion in the world transmitted from generation to generation for ten thousand years is:
Wotanism (it’s only for whites). Google David Lane, the 88 precepts and the 14 words.
http://images.memes.com/meme/2784.jpg
…
MY EYES !
The real cause for emasculation of men is technology not religion. Masculinity thrives in adversity, technology provides the opposite, comfort.
Yes… I would up vote this a million times if I could.
Christianity is the cause in the decline of men.
See: The History and Fall of the Roman Empire. Edward Gibbon.
The entire notion of outsourcing all your deeds to a dead 2000 year old Jewish rabbi is an effete philosophy. The invisible man is not going to save you from yourself. Reality is in the here and now.
How is Christianity the cause of decline in men when the Christian nations are the most powerful in the world? Feminism only took a deeper and deeper hold as America became more secular.
Name the Christian nations.
The vast majority of the western world
Thanks for not answering the question.
Predominantly Christian Nations and nations and who have traditionally Christian populations include: The Russian Federation, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Moldova, Serbia, Croatia, The Vatican city, San Marino, Monaco, Greece, Slovenia, Andorra, Italy, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, every country in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and pretty much all of Africa south of horn. There. Want Historical Countries?
Right, and how many of those countries are powerful or even Christian?
Most of those countries don’t have Christianity as a state religion.
Of all those countries you named, name the powerful states, tell me which ones where the people practice Christianity and go to church on a regular basis, and where the state religion is Christianity.
What do you define as powerful? Almost all of these countries could kick any sand people country if given enough time. Being that war hasn’t really happened on a significant scale in more than 50 years, I don’t even know if that is an important metric. Also,even the countries that are not currently Christian majority, certainly gained their power or significance while they leaned very Christian.
The other poster said that the Christian countries are the most powerful in Earth despite the evidence to contrary.
Right, go have Denmark invade China, India or even Iran and see how long that will last.
Why can’t you answer my question?
Of all these countries you named, tell me which ones where the majority of people practice Christianity on a regular basis and/or where the state religion is Christianity.
Define the Christian nation for me using actual evidence.
Denmark isn’t compatible in population. Could France (60m) take on Iran (80m)? I think so. Could the European Union and Russia (900m) allied together take on India (1.2b) or China (1.3b) given enough preparation and cohesion? Certainly.
Nice goal post moving.
I see that you avoided the question about which countries are officially Christian and/or where the population practices Christianity on a regular basis.
Official Christian? That is moving the goalpost two. Stopping projecting, you are literally doing exactly what you accuses other of.
Yes, some states have Christianity as a state religion.
Name them.
I also said and/or state where the population practices the Christian religion on a regular basis.
I have noticed something about you.
You know nothing about the Bible and you know very little about Christianity, in general, especially how it is practiced in the modern era.
Sorry to break it to you, but Christian’s generally don’t try to force their religion on other people like Muslims.
Right, I guess you never heard of the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades.
You are an intellectual joke.
Start naming all these great powerful Christian countries.
Why are you deflecting?
The Crusaders just killed everybody, including the Christians, it didn’t have to do with religion. The Spanish Inquisition simply told them to leave, and it’s pretty overblown. Those are TWO examples, both over 500 years old.
This is what you wrote:
“Sorry to break it to you, but Christian’s generally don’t try to force their religion on other people like Muslims.”
Again, you are moving the goal posts.
There is plenty more evidence of where Christians forced their religion on people.
European history is one of religious war..
European imperialism and colonization is a history of religious war.
Who are you trying to fool?
The more you write, the more you reveal you know very little about world history.
I am gonna follow what the rest of the people on here have done and stop debating you. You can’t be reasoned with, you build strawmen, you move goalposts, and are generally one of the worst debaters I have met. I am not sure if you are trolling or just incapable of arguing.
This book talks about a “Fall” that never actually happened…Roman Empire did not fell in 476 C.E as it is stated in the official history and in this book. This is completely false. Roman empire changed its capital from Rome to New Rome aka Constantinople in 330 C.E. and became the first christian empire. Later on it was administrated by two emperors, one on the east and one on the west (but it was never divided in western and eastern parts as many historians claim). Then the western part of the empire gradually fell to the goth,celtic,anglosaxon and vandal barbarians but the eastern part (the later falsely coined “Byzantine Empire”) remained for over 1.000 years before it finally fell to the Ottomans. These 1.000 years it was the most powerful, advanced, prosperous and sophisticated empire of its time (Up until the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204). There is a lot of bias in history in relation to the Roman Empire of the middle ages. This is because the westerners that wrote the history want to think that they are desendents of the (western) roman empire and the Roman empire of the middle ages is something different (aka “Byzantine Empire”), which of course is absolutely false. This falsification of history stared in the year 800 C.E when Charlemagne, a frank illiterate ruler united most of western europe (france, germany and northen italy) and was Crowned illegaly i must add the king of the Romans by the Pope.
Very good points. I need to read more on the divide of west from east roman empire in history.
But… I was wondering if we could start a patriarchal movement by going BACK to the OLD way of dating history – i.e. AD.
The replaced A.D. with C.E. (common era) in yet another attempt to kill history and any reference to the truly first global patriarchal system of real merit, Christianity.
Irony is… C.E… could also stand for CHRIST EVERLASTING!!!
Am I the only one who noticed this?
Actually It was never divided to eastern and western parts. It was merely administrated by two Co-emperors one in the east and one in the west (This had happened many times in the early years of the empire, sometimes they where four Co-emperors at the same time). Even the “Fall of Rome” does not make sense, because Rome was not even the administrative Capital of the western part (It was Ravenna from 402 A.D until the collapse of the west). If you admire the Roman Empire, you should definitely check out the history of “Byzantine Empire” which is basically is the Christian Roman Empire of the middle ages.
I totally agree with you on this. It is clear to me that there is an effort in all western countries to devalue and diminish Christianity for favor of Scientism and other new age BS
By the way you used a great feature picture for the article!
Thank you for the information on Rome. Your words are a reminder that there is a huge gap in my knowledge of
the west. I have not studied Roman history at all except for cursory TV
documentaries and the odd skimmed book or blog post here and there.
I wish the photo was mine but it was not. It was the editors choice and I understand why they swapped out mine. This was the original feature pic I had submitted. A quote simply would not show well on the thumbnail in the feed page of articles.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/00195a024097bc1ee38cca7eecfd7757e04519538698cc8ff1bc443ab473b86f.jpg
As one man said “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” I love studying history especially the Hellenistic and Roman Period which shaped more or less our western culture (before the sexual liberation and cultural marxism of course). Too bad that there are a lot of misconceptions about many historical events and periods (most of them on purpose ).And i thank you for the great article you wrote. It is a good quote nevertheless!
Nope. It’s already there. It’s just forgotten and willingfully neuteured by its enemies. But I guess it would be easier to worshipp Batman, than to get our head in the Scriptures and philosophy.
Right, who neutered you?
There was a long infiltration process from Freemasons, among others.
Thus the philosophy of humanism entered the Church, and thus it lost its strength.
More victim and crazy conspiracy talk.
Plus, you are historically inaccurate.
By the way, you can’t be a freemason unless you believe in God.
And ? You can believe in a deity and be a humanist, a satanist or whatever.
You can even believe in the christian God and be completely wrong philosophically and theologically.
Plus not all of them require that, for example the Grand Orient de France, a historically major one in Europe is adogmatic.
In 1941, the Vichy government registered all the Freemason priests in France : 50% of the French priesthood were in it.
There have been attempts of infiltration of the Church since it exists, by diverse heretics, by Freemasons and by Marxists (gramscian passive revolution concept). Denying that is denying history.
you kind of revealed yourself in that comment
I revealed nothing except what I wrote in the comment.
Tell me what you know about me for certain because of the comment I made.
Some could argue that your defensiveness is circumstantial proof that you have something to hide.
I think it’s bullshit.
But it’s a nice cliche.
You are just babbling incoherently now.
Tell me who controls you and your life right now?
Tell me who you are a victim of.
I don’t think asking questions has anything to do with defensiveness.
“I revealed nothing except what I wrote in the comment.”
That was a rather unnecessary and reactive counter to michaelmobius1’s comment.
It was a perfect response to somebody who was inferring something about me that he refused to state plainly.
No, the point is: Why would you even feel the need to point that out?
If someone makes assumptions about me, I usually say “Well, you are free to think whatever you want.”
Except when they hit a nerve, then I usually get angry.
it’s not bullshit that he has something to hide. Its absolutely certain….based on my gut feeling
Certain? What place has certitude in an internet comments board. You revealed yourself by reflexively resorting to an allegation of ‘conspiracy’ – a very establishment thing to do. You also mounted a defence of freemasonry. That doesn’t tell us you are a freemason or whatever, but it does tell us a little about where your sympathies do and do not lie
I was very taken aback! lol
what was I implying / inferring. Why are you so prickly
Heh. I respect gut feelings.
Thee only thing revealed is that Monsieur has no evidence for his posts and I called him out on it.
Your feelings are not facts. What are you, a woman?
As far as normative statements go, feelings are kinda the only valid facts.
Great, that is you and not me.
No, they are not. Feelings are ephemeral.
you are a very dull person
so in your world only women can have gut feelings?
So are thoughts.
Well, I can only make assumptions about you based on me.
Besides, I already made a little disclaimer above where I said that I think it is bullshit.
The only thing that is dull is your inability to make a rational argument.
You make assumptions based on the text I wrote. What is the point of inferring things about me that I haven’t written? You and I are not the same person.
Gut feelings have nothing to do with reality other than you might be sick or hungry or have psychological problems to cause you that discomfort.
There is no evidence that any rational thought comes from the gut.
Well, people make assumptions about each other all the time, in an attempt to empathize and understand. Naturally, these assumptions are not always correct.
When a man says “homosexuality is a mental illness”, he takes himself as a reference point. When a man postulates a religion or system for the masses, he takes himself as a reference point. When an artist creates an artwork, he expresses what moves himself. Etc.
I just referred you to Kahnemann and Tversky. So stop farting and start reading
Jesus, you sound like a chick with all your feelings are facts nonsense.
Sorry, but there is something called evidence.
The case against homosexuality can be made simply: Does it lead to pro-creation and the passing one’s genes?
We are animals. We have sex to pass on genetics. Gay sex leads to what in the end? The discontinuance of your genetics line.
So what can one conclude from that? Either genetic aberration that causes homosexuality or mental disorder that justifies the extinction of one’s genetic line.
Appealing to experts is a fallacy.
If you can’t defend what you believe in your own words, you are hopeless.
So where exactly does the “should” come from in your (paraphrased) assertion “Sexuality SHOULD lead to procreation and passing one’s genes”?
Without feelings, there is no normativity. There is no purely logical reason to procreate. Because logic in itself is not normative. I think this is fairly straight-forward.
You may say that it is the “natural” way. Or the way things just are. Or what every organism aspires to.
If you argued like that, I would point out logical fallacies, like “is-ought fallacy” and “appeal to nature”.
But even if I – without any logical backing – accepted your idea that whatever animals do is somehow a measure for what ought to be done, I could still argue this:
Some 99% of all species that ever existed went extinct.
If only 1% of all species that ever existed have indeed survived, how can you say that it is the natural thing to do?
How can you claim that, if not out of your own instinct that tells you to procreate and survive? At which point you stop being strictly logical and start being normative and start being emotional.
I believe it is a fallacy to assume hopelessness based on his unwillingness or inability to defend his beliefs in his own words.
Non-sequitur, I think.
It is pretty customary in debate to do just that, to appeal to the work of those who have provided evidence for the argument you are making. That’s why at the end of a journal article etc there are references.
1. Are human beings animals?
2. Do human mammals engage in sexual reproduction?
3. What is the point of that sexual reproduction?
I asked you for empirical data to back up your assertions and you have offered none.
Article and book references are perfectly acceptable evidence in debate. With respect to secondary literature most academic articles / books will meet very high standards of empirical evidence and are therefore perfectly acceptable to adduce as evidence. Re. Blavatsky etc, these are primary sources, and are provided as evidence on that basis.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. There is none. It just happens. Unless you derive the “point” from the subjective desire of the animal that is doing this. Which is an emotional argument. The universe does not care. And the universe does not judge sexual reproduction vs. sex for pleasure.
In a way, you are using circular reasoning here. You are saying “what is the point of that sexual reproduction”? Well, if you already assert that it is “reproduction”, the point is kinda self-evident. But if you simply asked “what is the point of that sexual intercourse”, the answer might be another one totally.
Why are we here except for sexual intercourse? None of us have been immaculately conceived.
You are right, the universe does not care. The universe doesn’t care that 99% of the species are now extinct.
The universe exists and we are products of it and evolution.
We have instincts to survive and reproduce because of evolution.
It is observable and scientifically tested.
Feelings have nothing to do with it.
If I have a feeling that evolution doesn’t exist, that isn’t the reality.
All you say is true. But this instinct is still just a feeling. There is no “natural law” that demands that you somehow “continue the heritage of evolution”. If you now decide to sit down and die, nothing will protest. No God will cry out. The only thing that will likely happen: Your instincts (your feelings) will demand you to stop the nonsense.
What do you think you are a product of other than evolution?
What do you keep on about feelings and instincts about?
You are talking apples and oranges.
I may have a thought, feelings or instinct that exists inside of me as a human being but that has nothing to do with the outside world. It is my reaction to the outside world.
People may be deluded, insane, and under drugs and having psychedelic dreams, but that has nothing to do with the world as it exists.
It has to do with the chemicals firing off inside the brain.
Yes, and the outside world does not care whether copulating animals produce offspring or not. This “necessity” only exists as a subjective thought in your head. The outside world does not objectively posit “homosexuality is bad”. That is your interpretation of your observation of objective reality (assuming it exists).
In continental freemasonry you absolutely can.
Monsieur I think I can predict the sequence I wrote this earlier I the thread had no idea it would keep on.
CK: Show me evidence
AnyoneElse: Evidence
CK: No! other evidence proving a straw man!
AnyoneElse: I’m not going to defend a straw man
CK: Yay! I win!
http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/atheism-freemasonry.html
Not. Continental. Freemasonry. Dumbass.
Seriously, you could have googled it. They hedge about stupid atheists as a workaround.
Your feelings are not facts.
Freemasons have to have religious belief and it started as a Christian fraternity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Freemasonry
Assertion! Gamma rage! Reading incomprehension! Shouting “fact” like a magic totem!
The Regius Manuscript, the oldest known Masonic document dating from around 1425-50, states that a Mason “must love well God and holy church always.” James Anderson’s 1723 Constitutions state that “A Mason is oblig’d by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law, and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine.”
Keep. Reading. Dumbass.
Continental freemasonry got rid of the requirement it’s in the next paragraph.
I love how you deny the earliest documents of freemasonry because of your feelings.
Who started freesmasonry?
Read. The. Whole. Article. Dumbass.
Fuck Batman
You guys are still mad at each other ?
I hope not. Religion is fucking brainless.
But if we were to subscribe to a religion, why choose between God and Goddess? The male and the female are just two aspects of the same thing. Neither is more sacred than the other.
Sounds a bit like occultism. You’re not going to tell us about the Shekinah are you?
Had to Google that … a dwelling place of God? The idea sounds ridiculous to me.
As I like to say: Why should I go to church to worship God? I can worship it in this dirty brick right here on the road.
Church is the very last place I’d expect to find you. A great deal of occultism though, including the kind of male/female spiritual dualism is actually highly compatible with atheism or thereabouts. The feminine principle, tends to be associated with the earth, with nature and the material
Well, as you know, I am a sucker for those chakra ideas. As it is, the lower chakras (root / sacral) are traditionally considered to be more feminine / satanic (?). While the third-eye/crown chakra are the seat of Ra and that weird Hindu god.
I also read that the awakening of Kundalini basically happens when you manage to align both the masculine and feminine aspects of your self.
And if you think of it, it kinda makes sense. We consider women to be rather sensual and men rather rational. The sensual is rather low in the chakras while the intellectual/rational is rather high.
It also corresponds with that article of Jon Anthony’s and with Maslow’s pyramid of needs.
But neither is really complete without the other. An intellect cannot flourish without nourishing from the lower levels. But a well-nourished body with a broken mind may likely turn you into a psychotic maniac as well.
yeah, that stuff is interesting, although I still don’t know that much about it. I wonder what any Jezibel readers will think of your reference to “the feminine / satanic (?)”
The Maslow connection is interesting. Maybe there’s a tree of life connection here – the basic / material needs – rooted in Malkuth or whatever heading up to the Kether or whatever? I always get confused about that stuff
So shakras but no Vishnu. Got it.
Well, as I always say, I am no pro either. Just telling you what intuitively makes sense to me.
The feminine/satanic bit is interesting. Consider that the root chakra is kind of a deep glowing red, like fire or blood. Hell?
On the level of the root chakra, we have this good/bad distinction in the sense of life/death. Existential fears lie there. While the crown chakra is really more of a kind of “everything is one and death does not even exist” kind of thing. That would also explain why Christians and male-focused religions are very focused on an eternal heavenly life, often bordering on asceticism and denying and shaming sexuality.
But there is another interpretation regards the satanic. Carl Gustav Jung asserts that The Shadow Archetype (basically the devil) contains all the parts of our personality that we repress. Since Western culture (Christianity?) did shame and repress femininity, sexuality and violence and that kind of stuff a lot, while favoring rationality and that kind of stuff, it makes sense that these sensual/feminine aspects would seem to be represented as the devil in our subconscious.
Mind you, when I say repression of femininity, I do not necessarily mean repression of femininity in general, but rather repression of femininity in ourselves – men. The Shadow is individual to the person.
The devil is basically that which we fear in ourselves. Hence, when we get confronted with feminine aspects, we get an uneasy, perhaps eerie feeling that is “devilish”, because it reflects back our fear of our own Shadow.
So while the devil may not be inherently feminine, The Shadow typically takes a female form in the male psyche. (C.G. Jung also called this the “anima”)
I guess!
very interesting and nicely explained. I’ve always intended to read more Jung as I’ve long been interested in his ideas of the shadow self etc. I seem to remember you purchased his big red book which I think is full of the most strange and beautiful images. Do you believe in the individual or the collective unconscious? I think I may believe in synchronicities, although the mind is very clever at showing us what we want. Also have you heard of Jung’s notion of Abraxas. Which is a quite dark idea in itself. There is a Christian side to Jung, which it seems became a little uncomfortable with the Jewish side of Freud, but there is also a sense of a more dualistic quality to some of his religious thought. I don’t know much about this to be honest, but I’ve always intended to read up more.
PS do you think ROK is at one with its anima?
Honestly, I have not read the Red Book very far. I kinda always go with my gut as how far to read or what to read. I end up reading very little. Most of what I know about Jung’s Shadow is basically from Wikipedia and some articles on the www.
Heh, collective or individual unconscious. Now, the interesting point here would be: How do you distinguish whether something is collective or individual? Especially if it is unconscious?
I don’t feel ready to answer that question yet, but let me take a very wild guess: I’d say that as humans, we get a kind of “download” of ancestral knowledge through our DNA. In that sense, it is both collective in origin and individual in manifestation.
I do think, though, that on higher levels (the “all is one” kind), the individual hardly exists and everything is just this one big Divine intelligence.
Mind you, these are not beliefs. Just conjecture.
P.S. Well, ROK is not a single author, so it is impossible to answer. I think some authors are more than others. But generally, I do get a very strong head-focused vibe, which is also what initially attracted me here. I am only starting to see the limitations of the mind. But that’s not a bad thing, of course. Still a lot better than contemporary femicunts. 🙂
You can, by the way, probably safely assume that The Shadow in femi-cunts is quite male in nature. Just look how bitches sometimes attack men for being “cruel” with their “logic”. 🙂
I don’t think the Red Book is meant to be read like a conventional book. In fact, although I’ve only really looked at it quite briefly, I’m not sure it could be read that way. It seems more like something one experiences and takes in, a bit at a time. I have a massive pdf of it somewhere, but it’s not that easy to get to grips with.
“I’d say that as humans, we get a kind of “download” of ancestral knowledge through our DNA. In that sense, it is both collective in origin and individual in manifestation.”
If you haven’t seen it you might like an old 80s film starring Jeff (the guy from the big lewbowski) called Altered States, which is kind of about the idea that we contain all our previous states. I think it was also based on the – now discredited – triune brain theory : the idea that we’ve got a human brain, wrapped around a (dumb) mammal brain, which is in turn concealing something close to pure ID / instinct – the lizard brain. I’m not sure but I think the idea was mapped onto the notion of the ID, Ego, Superego too.
Re. individual vs collective – yes, it might be like wave vs particle, or the individual might be the minor term to the collective’s major. The problem though perhaps is that if you believe in the collective unconscious it may be difficult to back up – is there proof of synchronicities etc, esp, etc. People like Rupert Sheldrake, and some in the paranormal world might say there is, but for the most part it is just a question of belief
It does seem like a pretty solid idea. I imagine Arthur Evans had a strong sense of Anima
Gee, I am such a big fan of Big Lebowski. I can’t even begin to tell you how much I love that movie.
Remember that scene where he says “You think you can do anything to me just because I am a bum nobody cares about.” – “Well, aren’t you?” – “Well, yeah? But…”
This guy, to me, is the definition of confidence and absence of ego. The whole movie is basically his unashamed innocent self getting in confrontations with strong egos. And the egos just crash, because he jsut doesn’t give a fuck!
From that movie, I have my favorite drink.
Yes, that brain mapping thing kinda makes sense. But I guess it is a simplification, too.
I’ll check out the movie.
As for collective vs individual: Does it really matter? Thing is, if I am in the moment, just perceiving, there is no need to even ask the question “Is this me or is this others?”, because it just is.
Was Arthur Evans a wuss?
The thing is, you would probably not say that that he had a strong sense of Anima, as the Anima is what Jung calls the non-integrated feminine shadow. When it is integrated, it is logically no longer a shadow, hence you would likely not call it anima.
When a man is very effeminate, it is likely more valid to say that this man’s shadow is more like an Animus.
But it’s really just word play, I guess.
I must watch it again. Jeff Bridges – remember his name now – is always great
Definitely check out the movie – it’s a very trippy 60s / 70s style affair
“As for collective vs individual: Does it really matter? Thing is, if I am in the moment, just perceiving, there is no need to even ask the question “Is this me or is this others?”, because it just is.”
Spoken like a hippy! Maybe ultimately it doesn’t matter. But being on a plane where you’re really above it all is probably something of a luxury for most of us. As a sense-making enterprise its an interesting point of departure
Not at all above it all. Deeply immsersed in it.
The thing is: If you had no language, no words, would the concept of “me” and “others” still exist in your mind?
Maybe it would! Who knows.
Yes that makes sense. I think it’s a very useful conceptualisation actually – not mere word play. I think there is certainly a danger that within the manosphere we end up over-emphasising the hyper-masculine. Although in fairness there have been a couple of article on Jung on ROK as I remember
According to the article Arthur Evans was very very gay. There is a Sir Arthur Evans who was an archeologist as well, but in the previous century. He excavated Troy and went looking for evidence of Achilles and Patroclus so he was probably gay too
I think that this naturally follows from the fact that this whole neo-masculine “crap” (pardon moi) is kind of a reaction to the deeply moronic depths of today’s feminism and betrayal on masculinity. In a way, this shooting-over-the-top is likely just what it needs to be. If it were moderate and reasonable, it would not be what it is, neither would it likely be as successful in appealing to such big audiences and canalizing the collective anger that men feel in our Western societies.
I mean, there is stuff out there that is moderate and that I actually agree much more with. But I know from my own experience that it did not appeal to me until a while back. I needed a strong anti-dote, you see. I needed to distance myself from that effeminate horror as far as possible, so another extreme was quite welcome. Now, slowly, I am becoming oversaturated with it and I think I will end up somewhere in between.
No, I don’t think there can be private languages (c.f. Wittgenstein on the subject). What you may have though – in a non/pre-linguistic form is a pragmatic sense of self-hood. A deer running from a predator as some idea that its interests differ from the big toothy clawy thing steaming up behind it. There’s a nice passage in Freud in which he describes an animal as discovering the distinction between inside and outside by trying to run away from an internal stimulus like hunger…..it’s more of a thought experiment than anything, but is quite believable. If you try and run away from an unpleasant stimulus that is within you, eventually you’ll discover that it isn’t helping (or you might not: people often go walkabout trying to escape from pain / or behaviour that is personal to them rather than situated in their environment). The point is though that there must be some genesis of the sense of selfhood by defining oneself against an environment that is external to you. When you describe some kind of oneness – of overcoming boundaries between self and universe – you are in a sense trying to reverse that process of individuation.
Heh, good points. But then, do you think that a confident and healthy individual would even think of running away from hunger? I think that this is basically human escapism. An unhealthy fixation/addiction.
When a dear runs from a hunter, does it have a conscious thought of “Poor me, I am hunted, the hunter is evil, I must run”? Or does it all simply flow? What if the consciousness of a deer simply, without judgment, perceives the fear, then perceives how its body automatically starts to run away, and then perceives either escape or death, without taking a personal stake in it and without identifying with it? Just like a spectator in the movies.
As for the boundaries … hm, it is not that, I think. Or, I would say these two concepts are fundamentally separate. Boundaries are a necessary thing for a healthy human being, I am convinced of that. The oneness does not mean that I, as a human being, discard my boundaries and accept any kind of abuse or stuff like that. Rather, I think it means that you realize that YOU are NOT the human being which has boundaries. In other words, you see that the human being needs boundaries, but you also see that you are not the human being. Does that make sense to you?
“this whole neo-masculine “crap” …… Sacrilege. Careful now!
I think neo-masculinity makes good sense as a response to what you’re describing as it quite self-awaredly so. In terms of ‘shooting-over-the-top’ or being extreme or anything – I’m not sure I’d agree with you there – but there’s a sense that that’s how things work dialectically. Interestingly Roosh is very aware of the dialectic nature of argument and of movements of history. Whether neo-masculinity is as such anti-thesis or synthesis (???) remains to be seen.
I get where you’re coming from. I have always held quite moderate and reasonable views. Sometimes there is a need for an anti-dote to that. It is about progressing things a little bit quicker than might otherwise be the case
Oh, I don’t mind a sacrilege every now and then. 🙂
I think it is over-the-top in the sense that it favors masculinity over femininity. Sometimes this is more exaggerated, sometimes less.
One important aspect of spirituality, to me, is to never put one thing above another, on an absolute level. It may sound silly, but yes, this means that you would not put a beautiful woman over a piece of turd even. Because in the end, all is God. Jesus, for instance, kinda said that his listeners are his family and his brothers and mothers and sisters just as much as his “real” family. That is the whole idea of unconditional love.
So you’re suggesting that the deer has no sense of individuation but does what it does because of learned behavioural responses, or some equivalent instinctive response? Freud was actually very good at writing thought-provoking stuff, but without really backing it up with any kind of experiment (probably for the best given the nature of what he was suggesting – just imagine him starving those deer to try to prove they have a sense of inside / out). Actually I can’t remember where I saw the passage, and seem to remember it wasn’t clear whether it was a human or an animal he was talking about. My feeling is that a sense of self (even in a very primitive form) is something that can be enjoyed without the benefit of some kind of language (maybe dolphins I don’t know). In fact self-hood as a concept (and practice) probably has quite recent origins – in John Locke etc. I remember Charles Taylor discussing classical greeks for instance as not having quite the same sense sense of self-hood – the gods would inspire the hero’s arm or leg or something but not necessarily the self in the modern sense as separate and discrete.
I think I get where you are coming from re. boundaries as limited to one’s humanness. You seem to edging back towards the expansive human godhead. I usually pull back from that, but yes it makes sense
“One important aspect of spirituality, to me, is to never put one thing above another, on an absolute level”
But I think the point here is that this is not ‘an absolute level’ even if it might sound as though we’re talking about it as such. Aurelius Moner articles aside ROK mostly addresses the social level, and problems of social order and engagement. You could also see the ideas advanced in ROK as seeking to re-habilitate femininity. One of the problems with the nature of the back and forth on here is that it tends to get cast as pro-masculine. But ROK always argues that this is in fact a defense of the feminine; that the feminist is in fact the opposite of the feminine. There is actually very good reason to think that feminism reflects an anti-feminine reification of the masculine insofar as in nearly all that it does, it seeks to encourage women to emulate masculine behaviour. How is that achieving balance? The fact is that the balance between masculine and feminine is achieved through differentiation, and by substantialising those very boundaries that lie between the male and female and which feminism (and a great deal of occultism) seeks to explode and negate. It is not a co-incidence that hermaphrodism is central to the occult, for it at root it is about merging the masculine and the feminine. If we return to Jung’s notion of the animus / anima that amounts to a recognition that there is a masculine and feminine side to all of us, but it does not amount to an attempt to collapse the difference.
Feminism is getting all of this very wrong, and right now however odd it may seem we are the solution of the moment
Well, let’s imagine for a second that we could install an electro-telepathic device on that deer and transfer all its thoughts and emotions onto us. But it would be a one-way street. That is, we would not be able to influence what happens, but we would fully experience it. That is, we would fully experience this deer’s thoughts (if it has any), emotions, muscle contractions, pain, etc.
Meanwhile, we would also be fully aware that we are NOT the deer and that all those thoughts and emotions and movements are NOT who we are, but simply perceptions.
So, as a spectator, we would very well perceive the things that you could say are “the deer’s”. And yet, we would not necessarily think of that deer as to be more “us” than some other person the deer sees, perhaps the hunter. We would know “I am not the deer.” and “I am not the hunter either.”, realizing “I am just a spectator observing the inevitable.”
Which leads to the point I made at the end: Are we really the “authors” of our thoughts and decisions and emotions? Or are we (our true selves) just spectators watching our human machines without any real meaningful control?
And what if we stayed electro-telepathically connected to the deer long enough? Sooner or later, we would forget our humanness and may start to identify with the deer, unless we are very enlightened. We would start to identify with its emotions, losing the awareness of those perceptions being seperate from who we are.
Oh, but I agree. ROK has probably some of the healthiest ideas about femininity out there. And yet, it is dogmatic. There is nothing that many here would like more than to go back to a system where women are just a man’s property. I just don’t think that this is what femininity means. I don’t think that a woman’s typically feminine/passive/submissive role is the same as being someone’s property. The difference is that a confident woman will give herself to a man out of free choice, because she loves him. Not because it is “right”, or because her father says so.
Roosh especially often infantilizes women. Well, guess what, from what I guess, his typical “prey” is very insecure.
I don’t fucking want that. Yes, I want a woman to be feminine and yes, I want her to give herself to me. Because she WANTS to.
I do NOT, however, want her to be a fucking baby that I need to make every single decision for and who will leave me if I show weakness and where I have to be some caricature of a patriarch all the time. So fucking tiring.
Yeah, those relationships are fine, of course. But that’s not what I want. I used to like the idea, but not anymore. I want a girl to be feminine, but I don’t want her to be a fucking slave. (remember that article about co-dependent bitches?)
You raise some interesting points
“Well, let’s imagine for a second that we could install an electro-telepathic device on that deer and transfer all its thoughts and emotions onto us. But it would be a one-way street. That is, we would not be able to influence what happens, but we would fully experience it. That is, we would fully experience this deer’s thoughts (if it has any), emotions, muscle contractions, pain, etc.”
There is an interesting and quite famous essay by Thomas Nagel called what is it like to be a bat. I think the point is that it is unknowable. We can’t experience what it is like to be something else (or to a lesser extent – even someone else), although we may have a capacity for empathy / identification. The point here is that a bat (or a deer) is very different from another person, who is still very different from oneself. Language, literature etc can do a great deal to overcome that difference, but when it comes to the experience of other creatures it is highly questionable whether we can ever have that kind of experience.
Except I’m aware that post-Ayahusca Tom might have had shaman like experiences that might contradict that feeling. Do we have a spirit animal or something, can our aetheric bodies ‘possess’ another beings, like a deamon or spirit? I don’t know the answer to that question, but if we could and we could do so in the way you describe I’m still not sure that we would really learn a great deal about hat it is to be a bat / deer etc. Maybe though I’m wrong
There’s another aspect in this, which is of great interest in psychiatry / psychology perhaps and that is the ‘meta-cognitive’ aspect which language in particular furnishes us with. Some theorists such as Christopher Frith have argued that this is an aspect of human linguistic experience that is essential to understanding the difficulties schizorphenic patients (amongst others) may suffer – there is an impoverish ability to function meta-cognitively – to understand for instance that there is not merely a tree, for instance, but that “I am looking at a tree”. In the case of our deer or our bat, one ‘possesses’ the deer/bat one with an intact sense of the meta-cognitive. Or if one does not, if one ‘forgets’ – in anamnesis – that one is a human experiencing what it is to be like a bat or a deer – then how can one remain human, or have such a sense of being separate from the bat or deer?
Oh well, then let’s say we install that device on another human and transfer that human’s ideas onto us. Same concept, without the – by me unforeseeen – objection that we may not be able to understand an animal-like experience.
I had this sense, during a trip, lying in my bathtub, that my face was transforming into something wolf-like or bear-like or orc-like. Really strange. It was not “really” happening, but it felt like it was happening, if you get what I’m saying. It kinda freaked me out, but also fascinated me. Underneath, there is so much common DNA. It may not even be that becoming a wolf would change much of what we are. It is that the mere THOUGHT of becoming a wolf scares the shit out of us, because we are attached to our current human form. As if there was something particularly “normal” about our peculiar human form. 🙂
To be honest, I don’t have so much regard for language these days. I was very fascinated by it for a while and this fascination was kind of enough to learn enough about language to realize that language is just that … sounds and noises uttered to communicate some experience to someone else.
In the end, what language does is simple. It brings up associations. That’s pretty much it. There is no magic “true meaning” to words. Words simply make us recall the context when we last or first heard the word. And then we end up fighting over which context is right – e.g. “what is GOOD”, “what is RAPE”, “what is FAIR”. blah blah.
Language and the logical mind, is, in a certain way, incredibly limited. We don’t even realize how much so, often.
The thing here is. If you have not personally experienced something or something similar, no amount of skilled wordsmanship will allow me to relate my experience to you. The only way words can relate experience is by bringing up similar associations in the reader/listener.
But even that is much more abstract than we may think. For instance, I used to read Harry Potter or some Dan Brown novels. I projected my own associations onto the words. I had my own images inside my head. Then the movies came out and were totally different from what I expected. I was disappointed. So much for objective language.
To clarify about that trip: It may have been less of a sense that I am transforming into a wolf than becoming aware of the fact that I AM one. That the distinction between me/human and that/wolf is purely linguistic and imaginary.
“There is nothing that many here would like more than to go back to a system where women are just a man’s property.”
There are certainly some. But you could ask whether they truly want that. I certainly would have no interest in that. I don’t hold with the idea that women should not vote – however its meant, I treat it – wilfully rather than interpretatively – as pragmatic position at a time when men are losing their rights, and in many ways effectively disenfranchised. I agree with you absolutely on this one. Nothing has value unless it is freely chosen. You might find that as neo-masculinity matures, or its off-shoots mature, it will slough off those parts that are no longer useful. Rhetorically though pulling the rug from under progressive / feminist feet may be precisely what society needs – or a good wake up call in other words. The whole of society / civilization is a bubble of unreality. Better we can a gentle wake up call than a rude one. Progressive ideology is a house of cards that is built on very shakey foundations. The fact that Roosh and neo-masculinity are prepared to deny the very fundamentals – the sine qua non of equalitarianism – is a very good way of testing the metal of thing itself. Progressives are often profoundly incapable of arguing their case, and the reason is simple; one layer of unreality is built upon another. I would rather like to keep the better parts of western civilization, including womens rights and gay rights to the extent that it doesn’t involve the collapse of everything that has been built over the last few hundred years. Roosh and ROK are the corrective right now. It’s just one stage in an ongoing argument.
But it’s all good. We cannot know what it is to be masculine or feminine, a real man, or a real woman, unless we have been alienated from those subject-positions so to speak
You’ve been reading too much Hermanne Hesse Tom
I guess I can agree with that. I personally hold no big stakes in it, as I am coming to realize that most of the evil that I wanted to fight in the world was just inside myself. As I am coming to grips with my inner demons, the problems of the outside world seem less and less like real problems.
No more feminine women? Fine, what do I care. So I’ll just be single. No problem.
No free speech? Fine, so I’ll shut up. Why should I force my opinion on those who don’t want to hear it anyway?
Yeah, I think that feminism in its start had good ideas and I like what it has done. But I think it stopped doing cool stuff maybe 50 years ago. (Not a historian, don’t beat me to it)
I don’t mind gay people. I am fucking disgusted by it, but that should not be their problem. I mean, I can easily make the choice to just stay away from them – as long as there are no homo quotas, that is.
We will see whether neo-masculinity sheds its nonsense and matures or whether it radicalizes against a fierce and mad opposition.
As for “what it is to be masculine or feminine”, I think that the whole point of confidence is to not have to ask that question. If you have to be thinking about what a man would do, you are not a man, so to speak. Life should not be about following ideals and rules. It should be about living. And yes, I bet there are women out there who genuinely have kind of a masculine core and vice versa. They should not have to bow down to ideals of others.
Hahaha. Steppenwolf? Never read it, but a friend of mine also brought that author up once.
“WIt is that the mere THOUGHT of becoming a wolf scares the shit out of us, because we are attached to our current human form.”
I’ve not really had any experiences like that, so it’s hard to empthise with them. I was briefly and quite superficially interested in Shamanism for the while a long time ago (very superficially actually) and did try to imagine myself in to an eagle or something (I’d visited somewhere where they had shamans and animist religion) but it didn’t really work for me. Re. wolves, of course, that’s a slightly different tradition from other forms of animal spirit guides / possession etc. I was actually quite surprised to find there is actually a quite extensive literature on lycanthropy out there – and by that I don’t mean Stephanie Meyer or something – or an American Werewolf in London the movie – but manuals – how tos etc. So far I’ve given that a miss.
I know what you mean about language – it was something of a 20th century obsession. Obsessing over language led us into also sort of linguistic games, and with it into linguistic knots. I think it’s still important for understanding mental illness etc, but equally the solution to such things – mindfulness, meditation etc may be as you’ve suggested before – anti-linguistic.
Thanks for the debate Tom, that was interesting.
Thanks a lot, Michael. Good night.
“No more feminine women? Fine, what do I care.”
Not sure I can agree with you on that. I’d be sad if feminism succeeds completely in its quest to destroy the feminine.
It will be interesting to see how neo-masculinty progresses, or what other ideas are thrown up in the process.
As for ‘waht it is to be masculine or feminine”. I’m not sure its just a question of confidence. It’s difficult growing up without having adequate role models, education or advice. Sure you don’t want to get locked into being there’s only one form etc. But there are a lot of basics that a site like this can provide for young men etc. It’s just a framework, which young men can take up or put down as they like. No need for anything to be compulsory, or for anyone to be forced/shamed etc into behaving one way as opposed to another
thank tom. good night
The thing is free will. If women decide to buy into feminism, I consider it their free choice. I find it too tiresome to try to change other people. I rather simply choose those who fit me.
Well, I personally think role models are overrated. They may be a fine thing insofar as a father may be able to teach you how to love your masculine sides and vice versa with the mother. But in the end of the individuation process, I think that all of these things are shed away to reveal your unalterable true self.
“to reveal your unalterable true self” The self is mostly composed out of the rag and bone stuff of our social world. Yes, there may indeed be a truer and higher personality that reveals itself to us one day, but, I don’t think that’s the important concern. You’ve got to live every day fully with warts and all, that’s the way God/Divine seems to have wanted it played out.
Sorry Tom but Genetic engineering at that scale is still far in the future.
Well, thats what meditation is there for. 🙂
Ever heard of confirmation bias?
Hmmm Yes. But I rely on observations. What is your point?
My point is that we are usually attracted to a distinct kind of sexual partners. That involves psychological make up. Say, for instance, that you are only attracted to stupid women. You end up only seeing stupid eomen as ‘real’ women, concluding that all real women are stupid.
“That involves psychological make up.”
BIOLOGICAL make-up…
Yes, that too.
Well the brain is a physical, biological thing, so psychology is best described as biological unless there’s a specific reason to diffrentiate… but I don’t know why I’m pulling you up on semantics, so never mind! Carry on…
You might be right…up to a point. Are you really going to argue women are not naturally dumber and far more likely to just flake on you on average than men?
Heh. I do not subscribe to physicalism, but its not relevant in this case. 🙂
Oh, no, heh, not at all, I wouldn’t. But just because a certain kind of thing is prevalent does not mean I have to make it my personal choice. Of course, it would hardly matter for a quick fuck, but I do want to have a girlfriend at some point and as I know myself, I just couldn’t handle some dumb bitchy cunt. Seriously … if she tried that passive-aggressive shit a la “I am fine” with me, I would just kick her out. I have zero nerves for that kind of thing. Rather be single than wreck my brain with such a whore.
Generally speaking you can’t change people. You can perhaps force them but generally speaking that doesn’t produce very good results. If women want feminism, that’s their business. They won’t like it much down the line.
Re. role models, I think early on role models are important, whether to follow or reacto to. Down the line you develop more independently. Unalterable true self, sounds a bit Crowleyian though
Hm. Well, I am not sure what to think about kids. Are they born without an ego? Or are they the epitome of ego, which must be shed in the “second birth”, a man’s spiritual birth. If the latter is true, role models could have a positive effect indeed.
Maybe they are just desiring machines in the baby/breast nexus. The awareness of the (possible) abscence of teat might help generate the proto-ego. I’m not sure
You’re the guy who believes in chakras and magical energy, but you claim religion is brainless? Truly, you are a wonder…
Well, its less of a belief than a plausible system. I am not tgat much attached to it. If I find a better model, I will not hesitate to replace it.
I honestly cannot see that chakras are real. It’s fictional.
I really used to be into the idea too, so I get where you’re at. I did Wing Chun Kung Fu, which started me on a roller-coaster of weird Eastern shit. Yet I think you’ve got to get out of it.
Focus on health and self improvement grounded in science and nature instead. That’s what I do.
I train Muay Thai now, which is way better and just involves making myself awesome, and my philisophical views are grounded in science (evolutionary theory).
As for religion, I don’t think it’s wise to dismiss the idea of gods out of hand. In truth, there’s no evidence that gods don’t exist. Yes, brainlessly following organized religion isn’t wise, either. Yet it cannot be considered wise to give up on the subject. Life is a very strange thing – existence in itself has no logical explanation. The concept that there may be a higher purpose at stake is very plausible.
I disagree on the chakras. I dont see hiw the idea hurts me, anyhow. Science us limited, too. Evolutionary rheory is often misused.
Yes, exactly. Existrnce has no logical explsnation. But hthat does not require religion, only God.
“Perhaps what we have here in Mithraism is reference to an underground
male heterosexual revolution and rejection of the entire alcohol and
drug crazed, goddess-and-homosexual worshiping nonsense of mainstream
society?”
The connection between religion, society and gender is truly fascinating. I imagine Arthur Evans had read Fraser’s (long and impenetrable) Golden Bough or Robert Grave’s the White Goddess (or maybe the Greek Myths). I’m not that familiar with them but in that tradition, there is a great deal about how prior to – in particular – Greek civilization one had what may have been mother goddess oriented societies (although the extent of matriarch vs patriarchy is I think highly contentious and a few fat goddess venus statues or whatever isn’t necessarily proof of goddess worship in itself. Graves (and I think Fraser too) made a great deal about the sacred kingship, which was also ironically sacrifical kingship. I’ve not heard the theory that the kings in times of goddess worship were effete as such, but if this is the same mythos then those sacrificial kings would be king for a year or so and then at harvest time ….things would get all wicker man.
With Graves potted history of Greece you have the Hellenes I think riding down from the north to lay waste to these girl and gay goddess worshipping cults – things get a bit orderly after than and with it you get civilization etc, but part of the legacy perhaps is a wariness of what happens when primitive societies forget that its the men who impregnate women and that there’s nothing virgin birth about it. Of course the bacchic / Dionsyian orgies continue down the ages and one of the strange things about ancient greek civilization, with its patriarchal values (often highly dismissivie of women and the feminine) is this perseverence of the bachannalian mysteries – of drunken madness and occultism.
It is increasingly clear that what we have seen over the last couple of centuries – again strangely in tandem with a superficial focus on the rational and scientific – is a growth in goddess and nature worship, and with it occultic anti-abrahamic religion and spirituality.
But damn it, we’ve had enough of the age of Aquarius already. Its crap and gay, and we need to replace it with something better
Oh, and in case you thought you had to head over to Amazon for all your gay literature needs here is a link to Arthur Evan’s book on gay witchcraft which I just discovered (that’s me pointing out that I did not have it in my reference library before that point):
https://new.vk.com/doc219942603_437365718?hash=93af68d61ef8c80e17&dl=a597f7ce74c476cce3
So humans worshiped nature and non-Abrahamic religions for most of human history with every single one of those civilization based in a patriarchal social system yet you think all of human history just became feminized over the last 200 years since the enlightenment?
Your thesis doesn’t make any sense.
I wasn’t aware I was advancing a thesis. I was describing what I understood Fraser and Graves to believe. As far as I’m aware both of them were sympathetic to Goddess Worship.
The point Roosh made though is that if goddess worship was as widespread as it seems to have been it may have been based on an impoverished understanding of how reproduction worked. Talking about ancient history is profoundly speculative, and what little I’ve read suggests that most of the divides are ideological in nature – usually progressive archeologists trying to establish like you that goddess worship is some kind of default. Are you perhaps a devotee of the old religion?
I am a devotee of evidence.
you made assertions based on assumptions about what you thought I was saying. Don’t see much evidence of evidence in your comment
This is what you wrote:
“It is increasingly clear that what we have seen over the last couple of centuries – again strangely in tandem with a superficial focus on the rational and scientific – is a growth in goddess and nature worship, and with it occultic anti-abrahamic religion and spirituality.”
Right, no evidence. There is nothing clear about it and you have no evidence to back up your statement, only your feelings.
well am I supposed to know that’s what you’re referring to if you don’t say?
Are you asserting that we have not seen a growth in goddes and nature worship, or are you merely challenging me to provide evidence for this?
It’s fine for you to dispute that it is ‘clear’ but how can you know that I have no evidence to back up my statement simply be I did not state it. Is it because you know that there is no such evidence, and it is wrong? Which would itself have to be evidenced, and how exactly does one provide evidence of a negative? And where exactly do my feelings come into it? If I advance an opinion and it is in good faith, why would you conclude that that is based on feeling rather than observation, and indeed do are ‘feelings’, our intuitions, not work with our observations. Does it even make sense to speak of a complete separation of feeling and judgement further to the work of Kahneman and Tversky on the way people make decisions and form judgements: both our consicous and unconscious minds are in play.
As for evidence, of goddess worship, there is an abundance of evidence of the rise of occultic and nature worship. Read Joscelyn godwin on the theosophical enlightenment. Read any theosophical literature, from Blavatsky to Alice Bailey and beyond. Amongst Blavatsky’s works you’ll find ‘ISIS unveiled. Moving to the 20th century read up Crowley and sex magic, on Wicca, Gerald Gardner, Sanders and the witch revival in England in the 50s. Here there is a more explicit focus on nature and spirituality, and often a more explicit linking of the occult to the feminine. The literature on this stuff is massive, the fact that you are denying could be ignorance but is more likely suggestive of a more intimate relationship with the Age of Aquarius, an age which the witches and warlocks would like to believe heralds the end of the abrahamic religions. Again, Blavatsky, Crowley are all quite clear about this.
I’m sorry but you are completely full of shit
You just said a whole lot of nothing.
Fact: Humans have been worshiping nature for millennia and in patriarchal societies, which is all if not most societies that ever have existed on Earth.
Fact: You opinion is just that, an opinion, and that opinion has nothing to do with reality now or in the past.
Where is your evidence that any nature or goddess worship has any bearing on modern society as a whole?
Where is your evidence of nature and goddess worship?
“Where is your evidence that any nature or goddess worship has any bearing on modern society as a whole?
Where is your evidence of nature and goddess worship?”
I just gave you evidence and you dismissed it. Go online and do a search for witches covens. There are loads of them. I know of one quite local to me. I know where they meet. No big deal. They all seem to be middle class ladies and slightly nationalistic pagans who’ve rejected Christiantiy, but they describe themselves as witches, they have facebook pages with hundred and hundreds of members and they meet and do witchey things in the middle of a local forest. I don’t have a problem with it. Good luck to them, but they are exactly what you’re talking about – nature / goddess worship (although the individual beliefs vary).
As for goddess worship, it’s not just 19th century occultism / theosophy, it’s feminism – goddess movements became hugely popular in the mid twentieth century. You have historians like Bethany Hughes presenting programmes about Goddess worship, with a clear feminist agenda in play. You get attempts by female church of england (it could have been another denomination) trying to incorporate the goddess into the christian liturgy (to make it more inclusive). Have you read Dan Brown’s the Da Vinci code – what do you think the sacred feminine is? It’s all goddess worship.
Your anecdotes are not evidence.
Give me the empirical data of what religions women believe in the US and how that affects family relationships and society as a whole to the point it turns the patriarchal social system upside down.
“Give me the empirical data of what religions women believe in the US and
how that affects family relationships and society as a whole to the
point it turns the patriarchal system upside down.”
What are you smoking. Why should I try to evidence an assertion I have not made. What I did assert was a rise over the last two centuries of goddess / nature worship, and I have just evidenced this. The anecdote about the witches coven on facebook is for an area in the South of England. I am not going to be more specific than that, because this is the internet.
Do you know what is so laughable about your statement?
It is the fact that all those so-called nature cults and Wiccan religions existed long before the advent to Christianity.
There is nothing new about it.
Christianity is not the indigenous religion of Britain and you know it.
I don’t think he denied their existence. He said there was a rise. Quite a simple statement really.
First, I asked him to state the empirical data proving it, which he refuses to do.
Secondly, he has refused to provide an evidence that these women who practice nature cults have had an affect on the patriarchal social system as a whole. Again, no evidence.
All those nature cults and Wiccan religions etc have looked to past varieties of paganism to flesh out their creeds. But is there actual continuity? You ask me for evidence, which I provided, so lets see if you could deliver the same?
Provide some evidence that the pagan / nature / druidic Wiccan cults / religion of the 19th, 20th and 21st century are the same prior to Christianity etc.
Yes, I am fully aware that Christianity is not indigenous to Britain, but can you prove any kind of continuity between the pagan practices of Christian Britain and the post-Christian paganism we have described? You may find demonstrating that is as difficult as a knights templar free-mason proving descent from Jacques Molay. These are not authentic movements, they are re-constructions from those who are revolting against the abrahamic religions
Fair enough, I guess. I’ll leave you two to it then.
What is it about you people who deny that an entire world has existed since humans have evolved and none of it had anything to do with Christianity?
The fact is that Christianity is an imported Asiatic religion .
It is not the indigenous religion of white people or Europe. Christianity is a Jewish human sacrifice cult.
What do you think white people were doing before Christianity came along? They were pagans with a multitude of cults similar to what you would find in India or in pre-Columbian Latin America or in Asia or in Africa.
All those societies were patriarchal societies.
The notion that paganism or cult worship feminized the cultures is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard since paganism and patriarchy have been the norm since humans evolved.
In the fall and decline of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon argued that Christianity caused the decline of the empire.
How long did the Roman Empire exist pre-Christianity and how long did it last post-Christianity.
Europe was in the Dark Ages until the enlightenment.
You dodged your assignment.
“What is it about you people who deny that an entire world has existed since humans have evolved and none of it had anything to do with Christianity?”
Nobody’s denied anything of sort. You asserted that the pagan world existed in continuity from pre-christian era to the present. I asked you to prove it. You – Mr Evidence – failed and have provided no evidence
You are so myopic that you believe your reality is the only reality when you have a multitude of countries and nations that were pagan and non-Christian since the dawn of man.
You don’t think the Americas, Africa, Asia and elsewhere were just doing nothing as Europe went Christian? You think all those people were just sitting arounf twiddling their fingers waiting for white Christians with their Asiatic Jewish Death cult to come to the rescue?
India and China thrived for thousands of years without Christianity or monotheism.
Another universe exists outside your Christian world inside your head.
now you’re just having a big rant. None of that has anything to do with what we’ve been talking about
“All those societies were patriarchal societies” Yes, I tend to agree with you on this. In Ireland and Scotland for example the wonderful stories that we learned in our windswept outposts of schools as children through Gaelic demonstrated a rich and heroic patriarchal past. There were powerful female characters like Queen Meave, but, their plotting and scheming were instructive lessons in understanding the distilled wisdom that men must know about females.
The truth is pre-Christian Europe was incredibly diverse.
There was no universal religion or cult.
And all the cults were patriarchal just like 99.9% of every other society on Earth.
Christianity was an imported Asiatic religion that had nothing to do with the indigenous societies of Europe.
I don’t understand all these white guys so committed to Asiatic Christianity as if that was always the norm when the truth is it was always outside the norm of who we are.
There it is, waiting for the inner Aryan to finally come out.
Christianity provided the height of civilization, you’re living in it now.
My Northern European ancestors were as barbaric as anything in Africa before Christianity. It is no accident of history that Christianity thrived in the Roman Empire, stoicism and Greek philosophy paved the way.
On your arguments, before we start let me write the thread for you
You: Show me evidence
Them: Evidence
You: No! other evidence proving a straw man!
Them: I’m not going to defend a straw man
You: Yay! I win!
You’d have better luck trying to reason with a bunch of stones than with “Caesar Knight”.
The English nation didn’t exist before Christianity, Brittania was populated by a bunch of tribes that used to go naked into battle and had no culture worthy of mention before the Romans got there. What was your point again?
Thanks for proving more ignorance.
Civilization and culture existed in Europe long before Christianity.
And how do you know they were barbaric? Were you there?
I find it absolutely fascinating and self-hating that you think a Jewish Asiatic Death Cult is the source of your white male civilized behavior.
There were empires, cultures, and civilizations in Europe before your Jewish Asiatic Death Cult, and for you to say that all of Europe’s greatness comes from that is not only insulting but ignorant of basic world history.
If the Roman Empire hadn’t adopted Christianity as the court religion, do you think Europe would have ended up like sub-Saharan Africa?
Give me a break.
The evidence says otherwise.
And what makes you look even more ridiculous is that Europe suffered under the Dark Ages for a 1000 years under Christian rule until the enlightenment.
Europe was not a fun place after Christianity.
It was war, famine and disease.
Every development in Europe that you are so proud of came recently.
Even then, the last 160 years proves with both World Wars and imperialism and colonialism that Europeans were not very civilized at all under your beloved Christianity.
The English, the Anglo-Saxons, were German invaders.
Or otherwise known as Sassanachs by the native population.
The Romans preceded the Sassanachs by centuries.
Thanks for playing.
My point still stands, Britain didn’t exist. thanks for playing.
Britain did exist because that is what the Romans called it long before your beloved German invaders arrived.
Outrage! French Revolution talking points! Vikings were civilized! Constantinople proves nothing! Assertion! Woman! Cuck!
Joooooooooooooooossss!
Not an argument.
Try making one.
I have nothing against Jews.
I just think it is silly that you think European civilization didn’t exist without Judaism and its Christian sub-cult.
Romans called the “territory” Brittannia, not the bunch of barbarians without culture that used to live there. You’d better read again. They were tribes, not nations.
Why? You haven’t responded to any arguments so far. Any evidence against your point you just rail against, trying to say Christianity isn’t related to western civilization is astounding. You accuse others of being ignorant of history but that beggars belief.
You could try calming your ass down and trying to see both sides but if you can’t see the irrational rage in yourself WHY shouldn’t I mock you? You haven’t shown any respect to anyone else.
Thanks for admitting that Britain did exist.
Britain was a province of the Roman Empire.
Julius Caesar went to Britain and he wrote about it.
He wrote about the culture and customs of the people.
I guess, according to you, he imagined it all, and nothing existed there until the German invaders arrived centuries later.
Pretty impressive your strawmen. Must be really funny to twist the meaning and try to engage the arguments out of your backside, not your opponent’s. Bye.
You are a shameless liar. I have made multiple arguments today none of which you have refuted.
I never said that Christianity isn’t related to western civilization. Nice straw man argument.
No straw man argument.
You wrote this: “My point still stands, Britain didn’t exist. thanks for playing.”
You can’t deny your own words, genius.
Britain did exist long before your beloved German invaders arrived.
Well you would know, and bullshit you have.
Logic daemon, seriously, it will unbugger your thinking although I can’t do anything about the reading comprehension.
Still not an argument.
I am not denying anything twat. Britain didn’t exist, just Brittannia, a big island of the Coast of Europe. That was all there was when the Romans got there. You seem to confuse the terms nation with territory.
Are you really this stupid?
The notion that nothing existed in Britain before the Germans invaded hundred of years after Julius Caesar set foot on the island has got to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.
Anybody can visit any major museum in the UK and prove you are fool.
The very existence of the Welsh and Cornish languages proves you to be a fool.
Millions of people visit Stonehenge every year. I guess, according to you, that was built by aliens.
Neither was yours.
Yeah. Ancient Britan was an awesome place full of small, hill-fort run kingdoms. It would’ve been a fun place to live.
You are dumber and far stupider than I thought. List their great accomplishments then. There is reason Romans consider them barbarians and not their equals…Otherwise shut up idiot.
What is stupid is that you actually believe that Britain was empty until the German invaders came hundreds of years after Julius Caesar set foot on the island and described the people living there.
There are pre-Roman ancient artifacts all over the British isles.
Plus, there are Roman artifacts all over the island as well that pre-existed the German invasion by hundreds of years.
I guess the aliens must have built Hadrian’s Wall as well.
I love how you deny reality of pre-Roman and pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain when the evidence is there for anybody to see.
Hadrian’s wall was built by Romans. I never said Brittannia was empty. You just distort whatever any other commenter says.
This is what you wrote:
“I am not denying anything twat. Britain didn’t exist, just Brittannia, a big island of the Coast of Europe. That was all there was when the Romans got there. You seem to confuse the terms nation with territory.”
Your own words do you in again.
What did Hadrian’s Wall do, genius?
What was the purpose of it?
If Christianity caused the fall of the empire in the western half, why didn’t it do the same in the eastern half? Which was in fact more Christianized than the west…
That is probably the greatest quote of all time…
Patriarchy doesn’t exist. Patriarchy is code word for sexual dimorphism, which is UNIVERSAL in every single society that ever has existed.
Right, and where is the Byzantine Empire now?
It was slowly absorbed by Islamic countries, but still, it took 800 years for that process to happen, and there was still a 200 year period before Muslims started invading where the Eastern Empire thrived.
So your beloved Byzantine Empire is now Muslim.
Well, so much for your strong Eastern Christian Roman Empire.
If you ever get a chance to visit those former Byzantine lands, I hope you enjoy all those mosques than now sit upon churches.
No actually, Large parts of it’s former territory remain Christian, and even some of the Muslim areas have sizeable Christian minorities. Like all countries though it collapses. That is something INEVITABLE of life.
Christianity certainly didn’t keep it manly and strong and there was no feminism back in the day.
“if goddess worship was as widespread as it seems to have been it may have been based on an impoverished derstanding of how reproduction worked”
BINGO!!! Occam’s razor, but no one wants to cut themselves with the truth when it is THAT simple.
Quote: “they are re-constructions from those who are revolting against the abrahamic religions”
And they (LGBT feminists) are revolting against Abrahamic religions because patriarchy (i.e. heterosexuality) is not normal.
Normal… was random sex with anyone (anything?) that felt good to you and children just came out of the Mother Goddess, the mother of life (and death!!!) who conceived the child from “the river” or “the west winds.”
Can we not see this now? A return to a matrilineal line of child descent (baby daddy anyone) where women get knocked up by ANY guy they desire to have sex with and THE COMMUNITY pitches in to “raise” them?
Oh… you pure heterosexual men. Yes, you must labour for us. No, you don’t get to have sex (unless you worship pussy). Yes… the gay guy is our best friend (cause he will have sex with girls if he fancies it and does not push for it). No… you are not allowed, in ANY way, to approach, talk or try to choose a female to mate with.
Sound familiar?
It does seem to be heading that way. Certainly the communist project does appear to involve the communalisation of women and sex, as specified in Plato’s republic. What couldn’t have been anticipated though was that this takes a specifically matriarchal and ultimately hypergamous form that is profoundly antagonist to the interests not only of men, but of women, children and family too. The state gradually supplants the family, including with respect to the education of children
Hmmm… going to have to dust of Republic again. My eyes were MUCH younger when I first read it 17 years ago. Should be an interesting 2nd time round. I don’t remember much of it but your comment has me curious now to look at the whole argument again now that I am much more mature and red pill awake.
I’ve never more than read bits of pieces of it myself. Have mainly relied upon the secondary literature. I’ve been trying to locate my copy for ages, but it’s in the garage somewhere. I do remember being quite surprised to learn that there were aspects of communism in Plato
Precisely. I don’t remember communism myself as I have heard others say it is more fascist if anything. Try and get an Oxford translation or the one by Bloom I believe (my philosophy professor recommended them)
Thank you for your comment. Someone has done some reading of the same line of thought as I have. I have not read the Golden Bough as you mentioned buy I believe Evan’s did. Your comments reflect what happens when a man “goes deep” to the core of why the West, feminism, and now LGBT is raging and destroying all we hold dear. It’s by design, political design, and it is all about going BACK to “nature” as you say… to the ways of the GODDESS and her effeminate son/king/consort.
And by the way… here is the rest of the paragraph I quoted above on what happens to “the king” under the command of the goddess.
“In fact, this seems to be the case [i.e. older dionysus type worship], for Danielou claims to have personal knowledge of existing Shivaite religious cults that still practice the oldest of rites on their own terms, INCLUDING HUMAN SACRIFICE AND CANNIBALISM. (Danielou pp 169-170)” ~ Arthur Evans, The God Of Escstasy p 134
Yes… let’s go back to “nature” and cannibalism. So much better.
I’ve only dipped into the Golden Bough, it’s a big read, and was I think very influential in its time. I’ll have to check out the Arthur Evans when I get a chance. I really don’t know whether human sacrifice / cannibalism still goes on, but even if it doesn’t, those ‘sacraments’ are foundational to a lot of religion – Rene Girard (in a fairly mainstream way) looks at how central those ideas are in our culture. Primitive religion does tend to go back to goddess, phallic and fertility rites, and sacrifice seems to have been a pretty universal (?) aspect of the that from Moloch in the near east (and clearly also India if your example above is accurate) to the celtic human sacrifices a la wickerman etc. It’s also strange how sex as a kind of cosmic principle often appears to involve specifically the sacrifice of the heterosexual union and its product. There is a ‘sex magic’ aspect to this as well in some cases, where energy is redirected from (the natural purpose of) reproduction.
Coffee my friend… although I don’t know how much we would actually drink. I found the Golden Bough in a local uni library. It is a massive undertaking (I think two or three volumes or more) and have not cracked it yet. Don’t know if I want to cause I bet I am going to find just more and more evidence all pointing to the conclusion you yourself are already looking at. Golden Bough is the kind of daring “this is what I have concluded from the evidence” kind of authorship that is just no longer written with so many people being nazi’s about “reference” and “sources”.
I was also curious about the cannibalism/human sacrifice bit. Greek myth aludes to it everywhere – animal being eventually substituted for human. I think the modern mind of man simply cannot fathom that back under the goddess, a man was literally killed to renew the earth and human fertility. Everything I am reading is pointing to it. The quote from Evan’s in my above reply was mind blowing – an actual link to current (1988) practices that goes all the way back to Dionysus and thus goddess/phallic/fertility rites once again being wholly and completely barbaric. If some obscure cult of Shiva in the late 20th century is STILL sacrificing humans and eating them under a pagan/goddess understanding of the universe, just IMAGINE what it was like 10,000 years ago.
I don’t think it is so much a sacrifice of the heterosexual union as a simple DENIAL of men to have ANY say in procreation. My body my choice is just the modern day version of kill the man that wants to “rape” me to have a baby of his own. The majority of the human population is heterosexual. If they all began to pair off and have kids of their own, they would be looking after THEIR OWN and not the elites (by divine authority of the goddess and her tranny king/son/consort). Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
When we look today at how many woman are CHOOSING… consciously choosing… to chase a career and NOT have children (i.e. remain the Artemis virgin forever)… it is mind blowing to think what it must have been like 5000 or 10,000 years ago for a hetero guy who wants to get laid. If the goddess said no, you got nothing for your whole life. She will sex play with the gay guys, MAYBE have actual sex with the top alpha (assuming she can even get his attention), but other than that, most women TAKE THEMSELVES OUT OF THE GENE GAME BY CHOICE. Thus you are left with a lot of guys on the sidelines didling with themselves as they watch the elite gorge on the food they bring for them and orgy themselves every night drugged and drunk out of their minds (sound familiar?)
I think the sex magic business was nothing more than a way for men to trick women into having sex with them. Tell a woman it is “spiritual” and sex becomes something “deep and meaningful” for her. It is, and it can be, but most women and men who practice “deep” spiritual sex magic practices are new age dolts who believe an orgasm is some kind of divine gift when it is really nothing more than the most base, material and pagan response to sheer unadulterated lust. (Which is fine with me, just don’t believe it is something it ain’t babe.)
Thank you for your comments. I had no idea ROK was going to publish this until I checked today after watching all week for a publish date. Glad to see it get many positive comments despite the sidetracking atheists love to do in derailing any talk of religion/God into everyone-is-an-idiot-who-can’t-reason/provide evidence. LOL
Would be good to compare notes. Yeah I know what its like waiting for an article to appear on the website…not fun really.
Sacrifice is a very powerful idea, and that’s true of both pagan and Christian (& Judaic religion) as well of course….the blood of christ shed for you. There is of course a huge difference between one who sacrifices his / herself (for others) and someone or some thing (an animal etc) who is sacrificed in place of another etc. In both instances there is a sacred aspect. Sin is absolved, or cast out / projected (as in the ‘scape-goat’ where sins are directed into an animal to be sacrificed’). Probably all or most cultures have engaged in sacrifice of some or other kind, whether to propitiate the Gods / seek favour or to ritually obliterate a part of the community (Girard points out that the sacrificed thing has an almost holy character as something that by virtue of the sacrifice, brings the community together in renewal)
The issue of human sacrifice – and the substitution with animals etc – is a complex one. Judeo-Christianity (and monotheism) is founded on the condemnation (by Yahweh) of the Moloch-worshippers who would ‘pass their children through the fire’ – in the tophet etc. As far as I understand the old testament may record both the end of this (heathen) ritual and the occasional back-sliding – though usually the backsliding involves a reversion to idol-worship.
Clearly human sacrifice gave way to animal sacrifice (Abraham substituting the Ram for Isaac) etc. Obviously animal sacrifice still occurs but rumours of human sacrifice still abound. I think one has to be careful about this. I’ve never heard of the evidence provided in the Evans book but it isn’t beyond possibility. Whether any kind of sacrifice of human beings goes on today in the West is another thing (obviously there are cases of Muti etc in Africa, and cannibalism in Papua Ginuea). Beyond the possibility of a few murders committed by teenagers dabbling in satanism, its quite possible this is mostly urban legend etc. At least unless there’s strong evidence that there’s something more (I was fairly unconvinced by Maury’s The Ultimate Evil for instance which suggests that satanic murder is widespread) I am inclined to think there is something more prosaic going on but which is in a sense still somewhat perverse.
I mentioned sex magic, because there’s an aspect of this idea of sacrifice in Crowley’s Magick: Crowley apparently sacrificed a handful of unfortunate animals but didn’t go beyond that. WHat he does do is make some veiled references to (human?) sacrifice (I’m afraid I don’t remember what he actually says) which if we accept the more prosaic interpretation is probably a reference to ‘spilling his seed’ (i.e. sacrificing potential lives). This is consistent with his dabbling with / and preference for anal sex (with both genders) and the idea that the sexual energy of the orgasm (or the orgasm withheld and redirected / sublimated) may have some kind of magic(k)al function. There is a theory which I take quite seriously (although I’m not sure its that easy to evidence) that abortions work in this way. So the sex magic(k) side of things is quite serious: it both does and does not involve actual human sacrifice. It is highly likely that there are no actual babies / or virgins being sacrificed on satanic altars etc (who knows maybe there are few) however there is nonentheless a redirection of (sacred) sexual energy from its natural reproductive function towards a ‘magickal’ aim. Whether there’s anything to all of that i.e. it is in any sense magickally efficacious may depend on your view, but it doesn’t necessarily requires a belief in magic in the superstitious sense – it may just be about acting and influencing the human psyche, both individual and collective. That’s the less sensational version. Crowley did also claim to be responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania (which had catastrophic ramifications well beyond the loss of life involved in the disaster itself), so in a sense he could be seen as suggesting something much darker and deeper. Personally I think half the time though he was full of shit
Tell me if I’m wrong but I always thought Judaism was a more masculine religion than Christianity. As a Christian you have to submit yourself to a man.
Since when is that not masculine? Is no man masculine who isn’t the king?
Tribe doesn’t work without hierarchy.
It would be fine if you were just followers of Christ. In the same fashion that the Israelites followed Moses. But Christians are called to give their hearts over to Jesus. GAY!
Fun fact, courage comes from the Norman French word for “heart”.
Jesus let the Romans kill him. Moses destroyed the Egyptians with his powers. Look, I like JC but he is just not as manly as the OT patriarchs.
According to the NT Jesus didn’t “let” the Romans do anything. It’s pretty explicit on his point. The Ressurection proves that he always had control. He died to wipe away every sin and failure of mankind. He’s not an overpowered man, He’s the man that calls in an air strike on his own position to save His comrades.
According to the NT.
Cool article. No time to read it now but just even the title is ambitious
“Mithraism was a unique and short lived mystery cult in Rome that was subscribed to mostly by the Roman soldiery. Its basic beliefs and practices were:
• A single God, Sol Invictus (the sun), the invincible one that never dies (life everlasting).”
In the book, “The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold”, author Acharya S (aka Dorothy Milne Murdock) brings forth a mountain of evidence which would make even the most devout Christian have second-thoughts about the validity of the actual existence of one Jesus H. Christ.
The author makes an extremely strong case that the story of Jesus Christ is actually the story of the Sun of God (i.e. Sol Invictus, the Sun-Son of God), as it makes its way through the heavens.
From the 12 apostles representing the 12 signs (or 12 houses) of the Zodiac, to the myriad other, too-numerous-to-mention mathematical “coincidences” between significant biblical numerology and astrological/astronomical numerals of significance, Acharya S demonstrates with clarity that the whole story of Christ is nothing more than an elaborate hoodwink, designed with malice aforethought, in order to control the beliefs and behavior of much of the world’s denizens.
You will notice, in the Leonardo da Vinci painting of St. John the Baptist, found below this comment, that St. John is pointing at something…
Look closely at the top right portion of the painting, and you will see a cross. And you will also see St. John’s index finger pointing at a specific area of that cross. Now, if you take his index finger and visualize a straight line axis, emanating from the tip of his finger, upward, superimposing it against the backdrop of the cross, you will clearly see that “St. John” is pointing at a specific house of the Zodiac. Which house is it?. Hmm…why, he is pointing at the house of Aquarius.
Isn’t that interesting; St. John the Baptist, pointing at the house of Aquarius, Aquarius being the water-bearer (or the baptizer of the sun/son). Quite a coincidence there…or is it?
Leonardo da Vinci was an alleged member of the secret order, the Priori de Sion (Priory of Sion – literal English translation: “the House of the Sun”). Another coincidence there, eh? – wink wink.
By the way, it looks like St. John is smirking a little bit, in that painting, doesn’t it. Like he knows something some of us don’t…
Maybe a religion will be based off someone like Tom Lykes. Instead of the 10 commandments the boys will learn his 101 dating tips …..
Tom Leykis certainly has more wisdom than anything in the bible.
“Mithraism was a unique and short lived mystery cult in Rome that was subscribed to mostly by the Roman soldiery. Its basic beliefs and practices were:
• A single God, Sol Invictus (the sun), the invincible one that never dies (life everlasting).”
In the book, “The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold”, author Acharya S (aka Dorothy Milne Murdock) brings forth a mountain of evidence which would make even the most devout Christian have second thoughts about the validity of the actual existence of one Jesus H. Christ.
The author makes an extremely strong case that the story of Jesus Christ is actually the story of the Sun of God (i.e. Sol Invictus, the Sun-Son of God), as it makes its way through the heavens.
From the 12 apostles representing the 12 signs (or 12 houses) of the Zodiac, to the myriad other, too-numerous-to-mention mathematical “coincidences” between significant biblical numerology and astrological/astronomical numerals of significance, Acharya S demonstrates with clarity that the whole story of Christ is nothing more than an elaborate hoodwink, designed with malice aforethought, in order to control the beliefs and behavior of much of the world’s denizens.
You will notice, in the Leonardo da Vinci painting of St. John the Baptist, found below this comment, that St. John is pointing at something…
Look closely at the top right portion of the painting, and you will see a cross. And you will also see St. John’s index finger pointing at a specific area of that cross. Now, if you take his index finger and visualize a straight line axis, emanating from the tip of his finger, upward, superimposing it against the backdrop of the cross, you will clearly see that “St. John” is pointing at a specific house of the Zodiac. Which house is it?. Hmm…why, he is pointing at the house of Aquarius.
Isn’t that interesting; St. John the Baptist, pointing at the house of Aquarius, Aquarius being the water-bearer (or the baptizer of the sun/son). Quite a coincidence there…or is it?
Leonardo da Vinci was an alleged member of the secret order, the Priori de Sion (Priory of Sion – literal English translation: “the House of the Sun”). Another coincidence there, eh? – wink wink.
By the way, it looks like St. John is smirking a little bit, in that painting, doesn’t it. Like he knows something some of us don’t…
The Horus, sun god, Christ theory has been debunked.
Yes, I was going to say, it’s more accurate to see it the other way around. A pagan perversion and counterfeit of the Truth it fears and despises.
Exactly. This is also known as the kundalini spirit. The serpent seed; it is prevalent in all cultures around the world in every age. The kundalini third eye chakra, the naga spirits of buddhism, the staff of caduceus, the sephirot kabbalic tree of life (same as the kundalini serpent seed), ouroboros, all the way to the skull and bones (the favorite club of the beloved neocons). A lie brought forth by the greatest liar in the creation, a perversion of the truth, which sprung forth many false teachings including the prometheus, gnosticism masonic “truths”
Why would that happen though? How would you get so much religious change in a short period of time?
Nice to see optimistic articles every once in a while. And using the enemy literature against them, too.
All the shit that’s happening today in western civ can NOT be addressed until the patriarchy is restored. Men allowing women a voice and respecting it???? All the shit that’s so easily solvable but men can’t do it because they have muddied minds or bitch brains that won’t see it logically. Men don’t see that the very first enemy is laying next to them at night. If white men cannot control their women they sure as fuck ain’t going to handle Muslim invaders. And a fuck ton of men are ready to vote in a woman to lord over them. When I run into them I simply mock them. I actually tell that “You should go get your testosterone levels checked….they must be low.” I used to be critical of scriptures because God would literally treat women barely above cattle and would wage genocidal wars on peoples. Not anymore……I get it.
Seriously, what kind of American man would let a girl become President and order us all around? Only queers, cucks and pajama boys.
Truth dat dude.
The bible is the first written document in history to call for decent treatment of women.
Only if you believe rape and incest are calls for decent treatment of women.
He didn’t say decent treatment of ALL women, did he? Incest is a personal thing, anyway. Some women enjoy it. It isn’t mistreatment.
Try to be original if your going to make things up
Shall I go through all the Bible verses about rape, incest, and where woman are considered chattel property?
Tell me about the great liberated woman in the Bible.
Where in the bible is rape and incest said to be good?
Yes, please enlighten us sir…
Genesis 19:31-36
Genesis 34
Exodus 6:19-20
Deuteronomy 22: 28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-29
Deuteronomy 22: 23-24
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Numbers 31:15-18
Judges 19:22-26
and 2 Samuel 13:1-14
2 Samuel 13:11-12, 14, 20
Kings II
Abraham married his half sister Sara in Ur
Abraham screwed his servant.
Genesis 19:31-36 is not condoning anything, it’s simply stating that something happened. Nowhere does it show god saying “yeah, that was the right thing to do girls…”
Genesis 34 is about some people killing somebody in a rage, I don’t understand what this has to do with anything, and it is not about rape or incest. Again, it is not condoning this behavior either.
Exodus 6:19 talks about someone living to 137 years old, either there was some mistranslated, or that was completely fabricated.
Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 is so that the woman has someone to marry, as most men at the time wouldn’t want to voluntarily marry a “defiled” woman.
2 Samuel 13:1-14 is again, not condoning the rape, it is discussing it.
As for the other ones, I can agree, the are kinda fucked up.
What’s wrong with screwing servants? It sounds fun.
Who said it was wrong?
Oh maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying. So no, there’s nothing wrong with screwing your servants. Agreed!
Christian sanctimony is what is wrong, screwing is fun!
Please do try and prove your point
Recording & endorsing are two separate things.
Firstly, what th heck is a liberated woman? Please define.
Secondly, the bible is the new testament and yes please do so.
Looks like someone got lost on the way to reddit.
Funny since the only time I have ever been on reddit is to check out the Trump interview.
I can’t believe men would vote a woman to lead them, either. I can tolerate a female queen (Elizabeth 1 and 2 are both okay), but that’s because it’s mostly a ceremonial position. Yet a war commander… fucking HELL!
I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to post this for months. It really explains a lot.
Europe is a fucking joke right now. Brexit shows there might be a shred of hope, but I remain skeptical. If there’s a war with Russia and Iran or such then Europe will finally fall and it will fall hard and permanently.
Yep, there’s your problem. I saw a clip of the German legislature, whatever it is they call it I don’t know, & there was nothing but mean faced clipped hair dyke looking women to be seen. One of them was giving a lecture about how Germany becoming less German was a good thing…hopeless. They’re doomed.
That is great!
And that is why sweden is being over run with muslim invaders.
Fuck. I mean, fuck. Fuckin’ ay.
I’ve recently adopted a similar approach. A rational, logical argument is lost on feminized men, which is to say most men in the US. Its time for triage. A swift delivery of unapologetic shaming to sort through the walking dead from those who may just yet grow beyond their blunted manhood.
Just as it makes no sense to ascend the mount of intellectual discourse with a woman, a feminized man has had his rational capacity gelded, so the disease must be addressed at its root; it’s all base, emotional.
The protracted rhetorical discussion is fine but I’ve found it is just not worth the effort – and often just leads into a downward spiral into their self-loathing firmware. The cultural marxist programming has just been too robust. Got to get into the hardware. With a hammer.
So instead I’ve taken to immediately descending into the damp roots of emotion, dropping nuggets of herbicidal truths with the same kind of compassionate spank that I would deliver to a 4 y/o marking the walls with his crayon.
It may not be fast acting, but over time it just might create some room for them to grow. And its good for me too. I don’t have to couch everything in their frame or think about which of the pathological tendrils of the Narrative is in play.
Nope, subtle (and occasionally not so subtle) shaming and demonstrative behavior. The “Low T”, the “she’s not going to bang you” approach is the best.
A lone woman must not and cannot speak rightfully with ‘voice’ of her own. She has ‘voice’ in the world through her man and master. It is representative form of governance that men must maintain over their women. If woman is in need or has been wronged, she petitions to her man first. Man MANSPLAINS HALLALUJHA and translates his woman’s womanspeak to the quizzing board. Only HER MAN knows her personal quirky mannerisms of speech to translate her bedroomspeak domestic code, her personal pidgeon chirping into the Greek and Latin formal prose that can be comprehended by the leagues of patriarchs. YOU MAN wouldn’t hold a microphone up to your wife’s pussy and telecast the indecipherable orca squealing to the world would you?? Well that’s exactly what ocurrs in a family feminazi courtroom or at a sjw march when woman grabs a megaphone. It’s pussyspeak blasted to the rooftops. Only man can speak in truth and lucidity.
Sadly our women have escaped like domestic pets loosed, like bands of roving abandoned k-9’s on the mesa. The collective woman’s feminist ‘voice’ is snowballing and is as expected a predatory ravaging cry for mutiny. We’re looking at our species taking on an insane post apocalyptic ‘voice’ of woman that is from the bowels of every uncontained rogue woman. We must silence this burning inferno of screeching womanvoice death durge. Silence this collective womanvoice AT ONCE. They must speak THROUGH US to God and to the world.
Hail the patriarchy!!
Women and spirituality are two worlds apart.
I was practicing zen in a dojo, and some women were there mostly newbies, in the end we started chanting sutras in an old japanese language that no one understood except the priest, and at some moment this women started laughing. well I don’t want to explain further. the sacred dimension is sealed for women.
and in addition to this article those who are familiar with evolian literature know that solar religions are male warrior religions in opposition to the mother earth telluric chthonic cults. Solar cults are all about the father figure or the super consciousness, the undefined god or principle. mother and earth cults all about unconsciousness and drunkenness, Apollo vs Dionysus …. Logos vs Sentimentality.
Dionysus is a male though, that isn’t a a mother cult either.
yes but the practice of it’s mysteries were earth-like. in opposition to mithraic school which was about spiritual and intellectual realization. like free maconery they had ranks with symbols and attributes
The attributes of the final grade (the father)
I was wondering about this when I very briefly researched Mithraism. It really does look like an early version of free masonry. Thanks for the info.
It was Mithraism that was going to take on the ancient known world, but instead Christianity took the lead because it allowed women, slaves and everyone to be a part of the kingdom of the heavens. In that times they were many Initiation currents, Christianity was a part of them, like the mysteries of Isis or Orphism.
but Mithraism was more about earning your right to immortality by right conduct, right livelihood and so on. it was either gaining transcendence among the gods or go back to oblivion from where humans came.
I wonder who the men from the North were meant to represent? I know in Sufi literature the cosmic North is the most spiritual direction. It’s strange that I’ve always had a profound draw towards that direction. I love the cold pure air that comes down from the poles.
The one point I don’t understand in this article relates to the propagation of families and clans in early matriarchal societies. Surely, these societies must have had warriors or at least huntsman to go out into the world and get food and supples for the matriarchal group? All the males couldn’t have been effeminate, soft, girl-boys who hung around the women gossiping all day?
Yes but the priesthood was assumed by women.
men were fighting but women commending, but I think it’s also somehow related to race.
there are races that are more prone to the transcendental and the absolute others are drawn to self-annihilation.
I like the evolian concept of race, as being biological and spiritual.
the feminine paradigm is all about showing off and narcissism, but the male solar paradigm is all about what is beyond. as man is something beyond a female, a female is receptive a man is active.
and we also have to separate tradition from religion.
for instance : sufism, christian mysticism, zen, buddhism .. are all tradition, as they imply the direct experience of the divine.
religion is simply form, a cultural manifestation of higher principles.
lunar is the return to the womb, to be swallowed by the vagina of the earth goddess and to disappear .. the conqueror is destroyed.
solar religions : to join the gods at the top of the mountain, to enter Elysium, Valhala, Paradise, Jannah, Nirvanah … etc
and the manifestations of the lunar cults are still seen in actual primitive societies in africa and the amazons.
It’s interesting the way the transcendental is predicated by race and ethnicity in some measure. Mythology and its symbols are perhaps the lowest realms of the divine that makes sense to a particular race, but, further on the differences seem to converge and disappear as we move towards the divine mystery itself.
I don’t think that women are suitable as priests or conduits to the divine, although in primitive clans the shaman who is generally male can have pansexual qualities about him. The problem with women is that they are too literal minded when it comes to this type of knowledge and they become engrossed by their sense of social power when in this position, which ends up with the most ridiculous demands which they read literally from above.
The solar symbol for masculinity, God and the Divine is almost universal and preexists Christianity. It’s the stable, constant light of the world that makes everything possible in the first place. It also represents form, intelligence and power in the male psyche. The lunar as you say, locks you into the endless cycles of birth and death and runs on and on dispassionately like a clock, and doesn’t unlike the solar principle compel the mind and spirit to reach onwards their true destinies.
thus the need for a new Sol.Invictus.
QUOTE: “The lunar as you say, locks you into the endless cycles of birth and death and runs on and on dispassionately like a clock”
You just summed up the ENTIRE intellectual depth of ALL mother goddess pre-historic religion. The birth death cycle is all they cared about. It is also why there was so much blood back then!!! (sacrifice sacrifice sacrifice… must keep the blood FLOWING for life to continue, yes? No bleeding… no more life is that not so?)
The author is full of shit. None of these Matriarchal groups existed. Didn’t you notice how he didn’t actually have any citations, historical events, or people he could actually pinpoint too? It’s like all the feminist historical revisionism, but even more bullcrap.
For your reading pleasure.
The Greek dark ages
The great mother : an analysis of the archetype
Beyond power : on women, men, and morals
Her share of the blessings
Religions of the ancient Greeks / Simon Price.
Mysteries of the snake goddess
Everyday life in ancient Greece
The myth of matriarchal prehistory
The daily life of the Greek gods
The goddess and the bull
The oracle : the lost secrets and hidden message of ancient Delphi
The early Greeks
Cities of God
The mysteries of the oracles : the last secrets of antiquity
Zeus : a journey across Greece in the footsteps of a god
Controlling desires : sexuality in ancient Greece and Rome
Ancient Greece : from prehistoric to Hellenistic times
The Greek myths / Robert Graves
The joy of sexus : lust, love, & longing in the ancient world
The dawn of genius : the Minoan super-civilization
Precisely! They did. Us heteros did all the real work then, as now. The difference was, BEFORE wide spread acceptance of paternity, most men when along with the all powerful goddess. When paternity was fully accepted, the goddess was dethroned and civilization got its start.
There was good evidence in Evan’s book to suggest it was the harsh living conditions of the north that created the patriarchal setup as well (not just paternity). You have to be strong to survive. In the south (middle east) where survival was technically easier (no winter), the goddess could live in a society of plenty with simple labour (yoked by her divine authority).
This… as we are seeing now, the women and the gay/trans men who BOWED to the goddess… were allowed access to the top of the pyramid.
Also… since women did all the choosing, these men would think they were Gods and should be worshiped.
This all goes back so many, many, many thousands of years. It has taken me ten years of reading just to wrap my head around the beginning of why we are where we are now in the west… and it is no surprise at all once you understand.
Just as then, so it will be now. The patriarchal societies will be the ones that dominate and survive. Those societies that elevate women and gays/trans, are on their way out.
The problem today is that it has now become so universally easy to survive in the west, there is ZERO patriarchal spirit left to overcome the destruction wrought by women living the high fantasy feminist life.
Give it 50 years, maybe even less… and Islam will be the dominant faith and peoples. All of this shit… will simply disappear with a God fearing, and patriarchal, religious system.
Many here may not want to here this, but demographics is politics.
The West is not reproducing… so the west won’t survive.
But that begs the question, what is there left of The West to fight and survive for anymore anyway?
“I have always wondered if there was something particularly unique about the West. There is. It is an acceptance and elevation of the masculine, heterosexual man, something you just don’t find in eastern culture to the same degree.”
What the fuck is he talking about? Western culture is sissy liberal shit. Does he have his head buried in the sand or something? There’s plenty of Eastern cultures that wipe the floor with the West.
Let me ask you: Honestly, which is more masculine and patriarchal culture? Saudi Arabia or France? The answer is clear.
Russia trumps all
Modern or historical? I honestly don’t know much about historical Russia, but in modern times it’s worth pointing out that Russian men are losing control of their women the same as the West is. Russian women are becoming sluttier and having less babies. This is a direct symptom of Russian men’s cultural degeneration masculinity-wise. It wouldn’t be happening if Russian men were more satisfying to their women.
Actually the Russian birth rate has gone back up. The decline in birth rate is due to something called birth control though, and it has nothing to do with any lack of satisfaction.
Women who don’t get pregnant don’t stay married. This is a consistent trend. It doesn’t matter if the cause is “birth control”, a low fertility rate always coincides with cultural degeneration, sluttiness, and failed marriages.
It’s not that people aren’t just getting pregnant, it’s that they just are having less kids and later, and I do know people without kids with perfectly successful marriages.
Women are having more sexual partners and turning total slut in their teens. Don’t you realize that? And don’t you know why?
I think he’s looking at the west over time. It’s like showing up at the end of the movie to call Western man a pussy, he wasn’t until the last five minutes.
Honestly Saudi Arabia is only masculine in a limited sense, like dumb redneck masculinity (NB for my fellow Southerners, I don’t mean working class white I mean RedNeck). Men are in charge, but they mostly cover their women in tents because they can’t trust them, abandon excess males, are functionally retarded philosophically, and still go in for sodomy like you wouldn’t believe (prison rules for who is considered gay).
Don’t get me wrong I understand your point, but I just took what he said in a different sense.
Dumb Rednecks fought off the United States when they were outnumbered and did surprisingly well for how bad their odds were. Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries on earth, came crying to the US for help when Iraq, much poorer country with a slightly smaller population attacked.
“Don’t get me wrong I understand your point, but I just took what he said in a different sense.” Little Bo Peep is confusing too things. He is confusing Caucasians with Westerns. True Western Culture is not a “pussy culture”, it’s just that we don’t have Western Culture anymore, we have Cultural Marxism.
Quote: “I think he’s looking at the west over time.”
Yay!!!! Someone used his brain. Give this man a gold star!
“The answer is clear”
It sure is, it’s very clear you didn’t read the article. He’s talking about the Occident in the past, not the present. And yes, Saudi Arabia has France by the balls, or is that the ovaries?
Please, I did read the article, and it wasn’t clear he was referring specifically to the past.
It’s just this claim has been recurring, you know, the concept of Western culture supposedly ONLY referring to traditional Christian culture, but this is false. I’m a Westerner, and my culture is very real: A boy raised by a single woman – a feminist – and given Barbie dolls to play with and so on. It isn’t masculine, but this is what Western culture is for many people. That’s what I mean by “liberal sissy shit”.
However, if we ARE talking about the past then it’s still not precisely accurate statement, anyway. I do consider Vikings to be the most masculine culture, yes.
Yet the East also has some very masculine cultures – Japanese Samurai culture is notable, as were the Mongols under Genghis Khan.
The Samurai were utterly fearless, ruthless men. There’s absolutely no way they could make their culture more masculine no matter how hard they tried.
Likewise with the Mongols. They were true warriors, and a shade more strategic and intelligent than the Samurai (despite being more barbarous). They venerated masculine arts of horse-riding and archery. They fought to capture women (which is damn awesome). They were excellent team players who watched each other’s backs – I mean, if you could choose a race of medieval warriors to fight alongside then the Mongols would be a great choice because the men formed a tightly knit warrior community that kept each other alive.
These are just some examples. There are plenty more. The statement that the West is more masculine simply isn’t true. It’s a fantasy; a fairy-tale. The West has some great cultures in its history, but so does the East. And if we’re talking modern times then the West is sadly the pussiest culture in the world (on average, that is – there are still pockets of masculine Western culture to be found, but they’re slowly dying out).
What did the Vikings do particularly masculine over any other culture? There war tactic was doing raids and avoiding engaging the enemy head on or breaking any defenses. Once western Europeans built up defensive infrastructure in and around their cities, the vikings stopped their raiding. Genghis khan never invaded anywhere of significance, and the Samurai never invaded anywhere, period.
Japan was an island. It makes sense that, in an age where travel wasn’t easy, the Japanese were inward-focused. When travel became easier, the Japanese did wage one particular Hell of a war…
Genghis Khan was born in a tent. He established the second largest empire ever built, second only to the modern English empire. His empire was larger than Alexander the Great’s empire and the Roman Empire put together. At the time of conquest, China was the oldest and most technologically advanced civilization on the planet. I say again, the man was born in a fucking tent. He then went on to conquer Persia, parts of Russia, and Eastern Europe.
If you don’t recognize how magnificent this conquest was then you’re an idiot. Genghis Khan was also the most sexually successful man who ever lived, and it’s unlikely he’ll ever be out-done. He has more surviving descendants this day than anybody else.
The Vikings were very masculine. They liked to drink, collected harems of women, and when Betas like you opened their mouths to criticize their masculinty they threw a noose around his neck and hoisted him up a tree in sacrifice to Odin. Remember that. These men would kill you in a fucking blink of the eye for what you just said, so shut your mouth.
Genghis Khan never conquered anywhere of significance. It was basically uncivilized. I mean that literally, there were still nomadic people where he conquered, Russia and Eastern Europe included.
The vikings, well like I said, wont do shit if you have this thing called a wall, or even well, a standing army. They couldn’t fight anyone besides villagers without serous arms or protection.
Can I ask, what was your IQ score? Above 75? Or just a few points below? Or did you get lost on the way to the testing facility?
I tell you, the Mongol empire is second only to the British. Yet the Mongol empire is the achievment of a single man. Genghis Khan is the most successful warrior who ever lived. That’s a fact.
http://acsmongols.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/4/2/16423624/596295_orig.png
As for the Vikings, their skills in arms shocked Europe. They were daring, brave, and fearless. They went places nobody had ever been before, and they terrified the locals immensely. They won many great battles in the field thanks to their highly effective shield tactics. They displaced huge populations of Europe – France and Britain included. I’m an Englishman, but I’ve got equal parts Viking blood in me. Do you understand what that means? Vikings colonized and kept their land. They won.
I love how you think your personal prejudices are facts.
You evidently know nothing about world history.
What was the state of Western Europe when Ghenghis Khan and Kublai Khan were extending their empires?
You act as if Western Europe was advanced in the 12th century as if it was the modern era.
“That’s a fact.” Yeah, it’s a fact that they conquered a shitload of land, but they never did anything useful with that land. They could hardly even administer it! And like you even say: the Mongol empire is the achievment of a single man. It wasn’t an achievement of a successful culture it was an achievement of ONE MAN.
“As for the Vikings, their skills in arms shocked Europe.” They shocked Northern France, Britain, Ireland, and Ice people in Greenland and Canada. Besides that, they were of no consequence, and once the French realized to build walls, well, they, like the rest of Europe, had no issues dealing with the vikings.
“They won many great battles in the field thanks to their highly effective shield tactics.” No they didn’t. There tactic was to specifically avoid great battles. A great battle against any organized, trained, army would have resulted in a slaughter against them.
Back to their conquests, here is everything they ever conquered: Normandy, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, and England. Of these, in England they ended up being absorbed and merged into English culture, in Normandy the same thing happened, they became part of France. So their legacy of conquership is left in some nomadic Ice people who didn’t even have bronze weapons.
“What was the state of Western Europe when Ghenghis Khan and Kublai Khan were extending their empires?” Well, it had several smaller to medium sized kingdoms at that time. Including France, England, Scotland, the Moorish control of Spain, The papal states were being formed, yeah, stuff. Lots of stuff.
“You act as if Western Europe was advanced in the 12th century as if it was the modern era.” No, but they could have kicked Genghis Khans ass.
You’re a dumb as shit white supremecist, aren’t you?
Let’s ram a fistful of your own bullshit down your throat, shall we? What do the Germans do with their great nation? Hand it over to Arabs and cover up the rape of German women by Arab men. That’s white supremacy at its finest.
You want the truth? The Caucasian race is full of dumb, liberal shit-heads who are destroying the oh so great empire they built, aborting their own babies, poisoning their fertility, and culling their own future and then working very hard to import foreigners to take over the work-force and future of their countries because, well, Caucasians are simply too fucking useless and infertile to do it themselves. Now that’s empire!
How dare you down-play the achievements of Genghis Khan – a ruthless and successful Alpha male, greatest man who ever lived – in the face of Western self-loathing culture that teaches little boys that they’re a girl if they like to play with Barbie and dress in skirts, never mind the cock between their legs because it’s not like Western culture has a use for balls anymore, anyway. Westerners don’t fight back. That’s a policy. Thank your dumb German swine for electing Angela Merkel, a woman, to lead them for that. They are truly dumb fucking swine.
You know, in France if your wife gets pregnant by another man and then divorces you you still have to pay child support for that somebody else’s baby until it’s 18. That’s how masculine French men are. I tell you, Frenchmen obviously fucking hate masculinity. What would an Arab man do if his wife was fucking somebody else? I don’t even want to think about it, but I can assure you that Arab men have more balls than any Frenchman who submits to his nation’s own culture and laws.
That’s the West – useless, weak, transgender, and without a fucking future. So fuck off with your dumb arguments. I’m a Western man, you dumb shit. I know what the West is like. I know what my culture was growing up – it’s something to be ashamed of. I’m not proud to be raised in the West. It’s laughable. Westerners are destroying their country, their culture. There’s absolutely nothing great about that, so don’t pretend it is. Don’t look at Asian men who actually do have their cocks screwed on and then compare your culture to them and say you’re better, because you’re not. You belong to the pussiest, sissiest, most effeminate and spineless culture in history, and your culture is going to die and be inherited by Arabs. So fuck off.
Thanks for proving that you are too stupid to argue with.
Europe was a hodge podge of principalities and you think it could have beaten the Mongol Empire in the 12th century.
You are so ignorant that you don’t even know that the Crusades failed and that Jerusalem was under Muslim control.
Yet you think these principalities could have defeated Ghenghis or Kublai Khan where they couldn’t even keep Spain out of the hands of the Muslims or keep the Holy Land in Christian hands.
“You’re a dumb as shit white supremecist, aren’t you?” Nope.
“What do the Germans do with their great nation? Hand it over to Arabs and cover up the rape of German women by Arab men.” Nope. Actually (((the chosen people))) are doing that, not the German men.
“You want the truth? The Caucasian race is full of dumb, liberal shit-heads who are destroying the oh so great empire they built, aborting their own babies” Actually white countries have the lowest abortion rates in the world, and the people who are getting the abortions? Mostly non white women.
“How dare you down-play the achievements of Genghis Khan – a ruthless and successful Alpha male, greatest man who ever lived” Now you say he is the most successful person at reproduction ever, but actually it was Y chromosomal Adam.
“in the face of Western self-loathing culture that teaches little boys that they’re a girl if they like to play with Barbie and dress in skirts, never mind the cock between their legs because it’s not like Western culture has a use for balls anymore, anyway.” That isn’t western culture, that is Cultural Marxism (note, this is not the same thing as Marxism either). (((Cultural Marxism))) wasn’t even created by true Europeans but a (((certain group of chosen people))).
“Thank your dumb German swine for electing Angela Merkel, a woman, to lead them for that. They are truly dumb fucking swine.” Actually they didn’t. They voted for the Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands, which then in a parliamentary vote, made Merkel the Chancellor. But still, who do you think controls the elections? Hint: It’s not the German populace.
“I’m a Western man, you dumb shit.” No your not. Western men follow western values, and self hate isn’t one of those. You are part of the (((cultural Marxism))), as self hate by whites is one of its central values. You may be a Caucasian man, but Western Culture is not a synonym for Caucasian culture.
“Now you say he is the most successful person at reproduction ever, but actually it was Y chromosomal Adam.”
Oh that’s just priceless. So you’re a creationist. Thanks for confirming how dumb you are!
“Actually white countries have the lowest abortion rates in the world, and the people who are getting the abortions? Mostly non white women.”
Caucasian women are having a Hell of a lot more abortions than Middle Easterners or Africans, that’s for sure. In any case, Caucasian women remain the least fertile and most sluttiest on the planet.
“That isn’t western culture, that is Cultural Marxism (note, this is not the same thing as Marxism either). (((Cultural Marxism))) wasn’t even created by true Europeans but a (((certain group of chosen people))).”
So now you’re asking me to believe that the culture I was raised in by an English family living in Australia isn’t Western culture? You’re in total denial.
WAKE THE FUCK UP: If it’s practiced by Westerners then it’s Western culture. That’s what Western culture is – the culture practiced by Westerners. Instead you’re insisting Western is actually in fact a culture most Westerners have never even experienced. Don’t you realize how stupid this sounds?!
“No your not. Western men follow western values, and self hate isn’t one of those. You are part of the (((cultural Marxism))), as self hate by whites is one of its central values. You may be a Caucasian man, but Western Culture is not a synonym for Caucasian culture.”
So Western-born, millionth generation Western men aren’t Westerners? Got it. I guess that means the West is even smaller and weaker than I thought! Because the majority of Caucasians who live in the West have my culture – not the bullshit you’re preaching. I guess the West will be extinct even sooner than I thought! That’s white supremacy for you – dumb as shit guys like you who insist they’re superior even as they shrink into exctinction!
Well done, man. Those were the dumbest come-backs I’ve ever seen!
Tell me how Genghis Khan would have breached the walls and gotten into cities and castles of Europe. Tell me how his shock tactic horse archers would have worked in the alps, or against solid steel armour used by knights, or how he would have gotten though the grand walls of European cities and military installations?
“Yet you think these principalities could have defeated Ghenghis or Kublai Khan where they couldn’t even keep Spain out of the hands of the Muslims” Muslims took over Spain in 8th century, we are talking about the 12th century, a lot of military tech changed by then, including the development of Knights and Castles. Both of those would have rendered the Khan’s tactics ineffective.
You are dumber than a box of rocks and a waste of time.
“Oh that’s just priceless. So you’re a creationist. Thanks for confirming how dumb you are!” Umm no, you are just scientifically illiterate. All human males have a common ancestor, we know this because all human males have a Y chromosome that is similar enough that we had a common ancestor 200-300 thousand years ago.
“Caucasian women are having a Hell of a lot more abortions than Middle Easterners or Africans, that’s for sure. In any case, Caucasian women remain the least fertile and most sluttiest on the planet.” You don’t know that. The statistics are going to be pretty unreliable for Africa and the middle east.” As for how slutty, so what? I am not really effected by that. You yourself seem to promote the idea of having multiple partners as good. So what? And unlike African women and Middle Eastern women, we put some effect into each child we raise.
“So now you’re asking me to believe that the culture I was raised in by an English family living in Australia isn’t Western culture? ” Yes.
“If it’s practiced by Westerners then it’s Western culture.” No, it’s the other way around. People who practice Western Culture are westerners.
“Instead you’re insisting Western is actually in fact a culture most Westerners have never even experienced. Don’t you realize how stupid this sounds?!” No. You just aren’t a westerner. Western Culture could pretty much be said to be an extinct culture. It basically doesn’t exist anymore. What you live in is Frankfurt School based Cultural Marxism or Marxist Culture. I assure you that anyone living from 4000 bc to 1965 would could be brought to the present would not recognize this as western culture, in fact, they would be put in a state of cultural shock from it being so different.
“So Western-born, millionth generation Western men aren’t Westerners?” Once upon a time North Africa was part of Western Civilization. Muslims took it over, forced everybody to convert to Islam and learn Arabic, now it’s part of Islamic Culture instead. A culture isn’t bound to a group of people, a group of people adopt and follow a culture.
“That’s white supremacy for you – dumb as shit guys like you who insist they’re superior even as they shrink into exctinction!” 1) I’m not white supremacist. 2) Again, Western Culture is not dependent on white people. You are the racist, you seem to believe that culture is tied to genetics, when it is not.
Well, I guess you just can’t argue with me. I win by default!
“All human males have a common ancestor, we know this because all human males have a Y chromosome that is similar enough that we had a common ancestor 200-300 thousand years ago.”
The Y chromosome predates humanity by hundreds of millions of years. Animals have it. The common ancestor you’re talking about was some fuzzy critter way back when. So his name was Adam, was it? I don’t think it’s me who’s scientifically illiterate.
“No, it’s the other way around. People who practice Western Culture are westerners.”
In that case, the West is truly tiny and weak and nearly dead! As I said, well done!
“What you live in is Frankfurt School based Cultural Marxism or Marxist Culture.”
Yes. As I was saying, you claim that the Mongols didn’t doing anything great with their empire, but now you admit that Westerners did even worse – they created modern Western culture that’s so foul you utterly disown it. all hail the great wise Westerners!
“Once upon a time North Africa was part of Western Civilization. Muslims took it over, forced everybody to convert to Islam and learn Arabic, now it’s part of Islamic Culture instead. A culture isn’t bound to a group of people, a group of people adopt and follow a culture.”
Nah. There’s a lot of Christian countries in northern Africa, like Ethiopia. Not that it really matters, but whatever.
“You are the racist, you seem to believe that culture is tied to genetics, when it is not.”
Excuse me?! I live in what is called “the West” and I was raised in what is called “Western culture”. How does that make me racist? And the fact that you disagree that I’m a Westerner has nothing to do with this point. I’m talking about the word “Westerner” as everybody else uses it. You know, in the English language the word “Westerner” is used to refer to me. In your language, it might not refer to me, but I’m speaking common Western English.
Yeah, the west is so sissy that they took over the entire planet and landed on the moon, right?
Saudi Arabia isn’t eastern, Saudi Arabia is Muslim. Muslims practice Islam, a Abrahamic Religion. Thus, Saudi Arabia has much more in common with Western than Eastern cultures. Besides that, the Arabs are a bunch of manginas. They, one of the richest countries on the planet, needed the US to assist them in fighting Iraq, a country still beaten up from a war with Iran a few years before. Why was Saudi Arabia unable to fight them? Because they are a bunch of Manginas…
The people who conquered HALF the planet are all dead. No living Westerner has established a colony on foreign soil.
Getting to the moon was cool, but you’re only telling half the story (which is the specific problem I keep pointing out): The West also gave us feminism, trans-gender ideology, female presidents/prime ministers, so on.
Don’t forget it – Angela Merkel is as much a facet of Western culture as a space program or an atomic bomb. Don’t forget it, or you’re deliberately chosing to ignore half of the West.
Half the planet? http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4659723/Screen_Shot_2014-06-23_at_5.07.38_PM2.png
That looks like a bit more than half to me.
As for “us feminism, trans-gender ideology, female presidents/prime ministers, so on.” None of those a really products of the west, they are products of certain (((coincidence))).
Bullshit. “European” is not an empire, it’s a collection of individual nations that constantly warred with each other through-out history and especially during the time this map was relevant (i.e. the French and British weren’t allies, you idiot – they have no joint conquest), and “control” is not conquest.
EDIT: Moreover, Russia is marked on the map as European. It’s not European.
Why is Thailand and Japan not listed as “controlled” by Europe? Japan surrendered to America unconditionally, and Thailand had its strings pulled by Britan. Although, I suppose the US isn’t “Europe” either, which presents more problems to the map’s narrative.
“Bullshit. “European” is not an empire” I know that. Europeans do happen to share a common culture and religion though.
“and “control” is not conquest.” Okay, point out an example on that map where it is not conquest, but control.
“Moreover, Russia is marked on the map as European. It’s not European.” Lol okay. They are genetically Caucasian, they speak a European Language, they generally practice a religion (Christianity) that happens to dominate almost all of Europe, what more European can you get?
“Although, I suppose the US isn’t “Europe” either, which presents more problems to the map’s narrative.” The US is a European colony. A true “colony” is actually a group of people who create a new branch of that culture or Society in another physical location. This is why it says “controlled OR colonized”. So for example India was controlled, but Australia was colonized.
I’m sorry. You’re trying to compare the conquest of a single man – Genghis Khan – and his unified empire he built in a single life-time with the scattered achievments over the course of centuries of various different countries who mostly hate and war with each other. That’s fucking retarded.
Genghis Khan did impressive things but this tops everything.
Yes… the East has one HELL of a man in Khan.
Why do you think that’s a big accomplishment? The African continent was literally in the stone age during that time, so it was not difficult to conquer their lands. The Americas were more advanced and warlike, but they didn’t have weapons of steel and gunpowder. Countries in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia were ruined by Muslim invasions or under the rule of incompetent Turkics/Arabs and thus open to foreign invasions.
Besides, only a few European countries were mighty, like the British, French and Spanish. The rest of them were copycats, trying to get a piece of the action. Also, most of them were only Christian by name. Only learned people knew the Bible. Common people and merchants only knew the stuff that was preached to them.
Do you even know what we are talking about about? Me and Little Bo Peep are in a debate about white people being “pussies”.
Thank you for your comment. I was speaking of the ancient past, Greek and Rome specifically.
While your below references to Samurai are excellent, what I am talking about is a SPECIFIC culture of heterosexuality that you only find elevated in the west. Many samurai were gay and the gay lifestyle, while frowned upon, is still FAR more widely accepted and tolerated in the East than in the West (yes, even today). To be gay in Asia is simply not a big deal to anyone over there.
It is in Greece and Rome where we begin to see, despite both cultures having homosexual activity, the elevation of the patriarchal masculine standard as Arthur Evans denounces in his book – strong, fit, confident, capable and most importantly, HETEROSEXUAL.
While Evan’s cites many Greek documents to prove homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted in ancient Greece, what those documents also prove was a culture that was MOVING AWAY from such relationships and relegating (or should I say elevating them) to some kind of more pure and moral level.
I.e. A greek man could only love a young male (and must NEVER be the receiver, like a woman) and that love must be for elevation of moral and intellectual development of the young man. Further, Plato get’s Evan’s biggest hatred against all things heterosexually masculine because Plato wanted male love to be… wait for it… PLATONIC!!! I.e. love that was NOT sexual in nature.
The book I cite, if you can find it, is an eye opener. It is literally a bible of SJW feminist thought, and now I believe gay thought as well.
The problem… is heterosexuality… and the West (Greece/Rome) elevated it like no other peoples on earth.
I don’t think homosexuality is tolerated more in the East. It’s about the same. The West had an anti-homosexuality period with Christianity, but now it’s full of gay bars, gay pride, and gay rights. The Middle East is much more intolerant, anyway.
Yet why is this important? You sound like a closet homosexual with the way you whine on about how important heterosexuality is to masculinity.
Homosexuality is frankly something worth ignoring. It simply doesn’t matter, and only sexually insecure faggots venerate heterosexuals.
Not until after the next global war will we see the patriatchy again.
Priest kills two fornicators on one spear, one a pagan woman; saves the camp.
While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. 3So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.
4The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.”
5So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.”
6Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.
(Numbers 25)
Never put your hand in an old woman’s box.
Dune is one of the greatest SciFi books ever written and is unapologetically patriarchal.
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1Co 11:3)
I wonder if Philip Longman was influence by Evans when he wrote this:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-return-of-patriarchy/
Very interesting article. Thank you for sharing this.
From the link: “As governments going as far back as imperial Rome have discovered, when
cultural and economic conditions discourage parenthood, not even a
dictator can force people to go forth and multiply.”
What is parenthood today? THAT… sums up the whole question of WHY we are where we are, and WHEN, not if, patriarchy returns.
This article is the masculine equivalent of Feminist revisionist history. By that, I mean it’s bullshit. Ill extract a few things I’d like to point out:
“As neomasculinity is refined and polished, can we look to history to see if a new masculine and patriarchal religion may also arise for future kings to claim authority by?” The author seems to not have a grasp on the purpose of religion. Religion is what you believe about the Nature of the world, it’s part of you, you don’t just have a religion because it pushes your values.
“There was a time when the mother goddess was worshiped going back to the stone age” Actually this goes back to pre-history. Even before the stone age and civilization.
“The mother goddess had a king, consort, or son who just happened to be an effeminate, gay, transvestite” This is the first thing I truly object to in this article, mother goddess religions didn’t have very big pantheons, they were very simplistic and basic, they really were out of the picture pretty much by the time the civilizations developed writing. Not one major civilization or empire had mother goddess religions as far as I know, they all either had pantheon-polytheistic religions such as Hinduism on the Indian sub continent or Dodekatheism/Hellenism/Olympianism in lots of the Mediterranean coastal areas. On the other hand, a few regions and civilizations such as Persia and Palestine adopted Monotheistic religions, being Zoroastrianism and Judaism, none of these religions were or are mother goddess religions.
“Everyone partied, got drunk (wine) and got high (drugs were added to the wine, not in this book but another I have read)” I don’t understand who, when, or where the author is talking about.
“Suddenly, these ‘war lust’ patriarchal men came down from the north” I still don’t understand who, when, or where the author is talking about.
“Over time, these aristocratic patriarchs first absorbed, them sublimated, then eliminated the loving mother goddess and her effeminate Son of God Dionysus” Okay, so I understand finally that he is speaking of the Hellenic peoples, however, this is blatantly wrong. For starters, Dionysus/Bacchus was still to an extent, part of the Hellenic/Roman all the way until it was evaporated and replaced by Christianity, it was not destroyed by an sort of “nordic peoples”. In addition, the mother of Dionysus was generally taught to be a mortal woman named Semele, and his father Zues, so no, he does not fit this mother goddess myth.
“anything counter to the discovery of the male role in procreation” Discovery? It has been known for longer than we have had writing!
“Was there a religion for pure, heterosexual men in the past?” Well, there were lots of them. In fact, I would say all religions promote heterosexuality.
“Perhaps what we have here in Mithraism is reference to an underground male heterosexual revolution and rejection of the entire alcohol and drug crazed, goddess-and-homosexual worshiping nonsense of mainstream society?” That didn’t exist! There was no acceptance of homosexuality in these cultures. Ever.
“These were your religious options as a male heterosexual in ancient Rome. Is it any wonder the Roman soldiery came up with their own religion?” Actually there were a great number of religions in Rome. Rome had the Egyptian religion, Mithraism, Christianity, Judaism, and of course, the Hellenic Pantheon along with hundreds and hundreds of “cults” or offshoots with their own focus or variation on the pantheon.
“Jesus Christ came into the picture at the time of Rome’s collapse” Nope, actually it wasn’t even close to the decline, Rome was just getting started with it’s power.
“what is clear is that the rise of Dionysus worship (i.e. homosexuals) and women in politics and economics (i.e. feminism) was a leading indicator that Rome’s days were numbered.” This NEVER happened. The emperors had most of the political power, and there were no female emperors in the Roman Empire until after the collapse of the western half had already happened. In the eastern half they had one or two here and there, but they were all Christian.
This article is clearly wrong as you point out, check my comment above.
Seriously, ROK, let Europeans write articles about history and religions. Let Americans write the ones about lifting weights and getting laid.
Well… thank you for your rebuttal. I am glad you have taken an interest in history, but, with respect, I would suggest you have not read enough.
QUOTE: “There was no acceptance of homosexuality in these cultures. Ever.”
Yes… there was. Greece was full blown homosexual. Less so in Rome, but it was still there. Read St. Augustine’s City of God and his denouncing of the effeminates of the pagan worshippers (i.e. Dionysus cults)
QUOTE: “I don’t understand who, when, or where the author is talking about.”
Here is a good list of books for reference on the above article. Yes, I have read all these books. Yes, this is what you have to do in order to find the truth.
I won’t refute your claims because the entire comment is rife with clearly less than educated knowledge of history from a wide range of authors and perspectives.
These are excellent books. You can find them on amazon and in your library as I did.
The Greek dark ages / V.R. d’A. Desborough.
The great mother : an analysis of the archetype / by Erich Neumann ; t
Beyond power : on women, men, and morals / Marilyn French. —
Her share of the blessings : women’s religions among pagans, Jews, and
Religions of the ancient Greeks / Simon Price.
Mysteries of the snake goddess : art, desire, and the forging of histo
Everyday life in ancient Greece / by C. E. Robinson. —
The myth of matriarchal prehistory : why an invented past won’t give w
The daily life of the Greek gods / Guilia Sissa and Marcel Detienne ;
The goddess and the bull / Michael Balter ; illustrations by John-Gord
The oracle : the lost secrets and hidden message of ancient Delphi / W
The early Greeks / R. J. Hopper.
Cities of God : the real story of how Christianity became an urban mov
The mysteries of the oracles : the last secrets of antiquity / Philipp
Zeus : a journey across Greece in the footsteps of a god / Tom Stone.
Controlling desires : sexuality in ancient Greece and Rome / Kirk Orma
Ancient Greece : from prehistoric to Hellenistic times / Thomas R. Mar
The Greek myths / Robert Graves ; introduced by Kenneth McLeish ; illu
The joy of sexus : lust, love, & longing in the ancient world / Vicki
The dawn of genius : the Minoan super-civilization and the truth about
TL;DR: this article is wrong. Christianity is not the main factor of the patriarchy in the west + there are plenty of wrong references.
I disagree with the interpretation that the author does on Christianity. The original pagan and roman law system was formed around the idea of paterfamilias. Praising christendom as a patriarchal world is not correct. Where did all the feminist shit come from? From anglo-saxon protestant cultures, not from the former Roman Empire countries. I would pass Catholic countries belonging to the Roman Empire, but Anglo-Saxon countries have been the worse has ever happened to patriarchy and masculinity in the West.
Throughout history feminism always comes with the success of a nation.
The countries you mentioned to be so feministic are also the countries who achieved a state of degeneracy first due to their success.
The Spanish empire or Japan were also successful and never led to any feminism.