Dr. E Michael Jones;

Re: A Simple Question: Can We Save Our Church?

Dr. Jones;

I know your time is precious. But our people’s time is precious and short. And there are few traditionalist thought leaders. As far as I know, you’re the most competent among the thought leadership, and regretfully I appear to be a rarity among what we might call scientists. So, I’m asking for your counsel in part because of your expertise, and partly out of desperation at the scarcity of peers – but largely out of fear for our people.

I have a simple question for a not-simple matter. That is, can we save our church? And by Church, I mean Christianity as a whole, the catholic church and its dogma as an institution, and the religious community regardless of sect as a population.

Premise

  1. There was a good reason for the admixture of Athens and Jerusalem, if for no other reason than the aristocracy thought of and often treated the peasantry as domesticated animals. And less obviously, that European traditional military, political, social, familial, and tradition were universally eugenic, suppressing the reproduction of the unfit – just as if they were farm animals.
  2. Jerusalem gave the common people without ability, families, education, resources, wealth, or power, access to lateral rather than hierarchical status by accessible virtues, self-confidence, self-image, social organization, and eventually political influence.
  3. But, instead of seeking compatibility with European aristocratic thought and culture the Christians systematically destroyed the arts, letters, schools, and traditions of the aristocratic classes. Replacing it with a cheaper more benevolent method of theological state given the increase in the scale of the empire beyond their own people.
  4. In response to the conflict between religions and philosophies, Augustine provided the first synthesis.
  5. In response to the reintroduction of classical thought, Aquinas performed the second synthesis.
  6. By the height of the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the scholastics had all but united natural law and European traditional law. By Blackstone …
  7. In response to the empirical revolution, unfortunately, the French created a utopian literary philosophy to replace scripture, the germans created a secular rationalist philosophy to replace it.
  8. By 1830 the Anglo civilization had divorced from its parent germanic civilization partly because of the divergence between french literary utopian, german rational reformation, and anglo legal-scientific models of modernity – and partly because of the difference in geographic constraint and economic opportunity. By that time the scientific revolution had left England and moved to Germany.
  9. Darwin came along and the Darwinian movement remained humanist in intention right up into the second world war.
  10. And unfortunately, the German attempt at classical restoration including the romantic movement failed. The stipulation being that (a) Napoleonic France’s ambition was to destroy the holy roman empire and fulfill the french dream of dominating germanic Europe by the transfer of Latin Rome to Latin France. (b) Democracy promoted by France under the french revolution was not empirical as in the English revolutions but utopian, and they sought to destroy the monarchies, and that resulted in the accidental destruction of the search for excellence in arts, and high culture. (c) the rapid changes of the industrial revolution opened the opportunity for the replacement of an ascendant middle class to whom economic dependence had transferred, with an ascendant labor class that could take advantage of democratic institutions designed for majority middle-class populations.
  11. And unfortunately, as the empirical restoration spread throughout Europe, through different European peoples’ thought leadership, the Ashkenazi took their turn and created a secular pseudoscientific body of thought to replace our theological religion – not augment it: beginning with the first wave of  Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Bohr and Einstein, then the second of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, then the third in the French Postmodernists, and then the  Fourth in the PC to Woke to Anti-Whiteness  movement in fulfillment of the Frankfurt grand strategy of conquest of the west by the ‘war against the institutions of cultural production.”
  12. Conservative theorists (myself among them at the time) assumed that with the demonstrated failure of communism, by 1980, the ‘hopeful’ conservatives assumed that the left would ‘learn’, and the ‘skeptical’ conservatives, assumed that the left-dominates state would bankrupt the middle classes if we didn’t use the financial sector to bankrupt the state first. What we didn’t understand was that the tipping point had passed with the hart cellar act opening our doors to immigration. So that the left could achieve (as Russians had achieved, as Mongols had achieved, as many dozens of empires had achieved) by population relocation what could not be achieved by ideas.
  13. The demographic tipping point then was prior to 1992.

Theory

  1. The church failed to produce a synthesis in the pre-war period because it failed to produce an intellectual cast capable of the synthesis because the intellectual caste had found more opportunity and dynamism in the arts, sciences, and commerce. Worse, the organization of the church was entangled with the aristocratic families. Worse, that the economics of the church, dependent upon renting agrarian land and the foundation of the economies increasingly moved to trade, which requires empiricism, literacy, accounting, and specialized technical knowledge in every field instead of general social knowledge among relatively equal agrarian (largely peasant) farmers.
  2. The Vatican II attempt at reform was the worst of all possible options of appeasement. It neither preserved traditional ritual as had the Orthodox, Fundamentalism as the American Protestants, or a meaningful value proposition to informal traditionalists who were increasingly the majority of those who desired the social construction of the church in opposition to the secular and commercial state.
  3. The rather obvious solution to the synthesis could have been:

    1. To teach that God speaks to us in the language we can understand at the time. And has spoken to us in different languages over time, with increasing precision over time. But that regardless of language, the natural law is gods word,  and that the church had been right all along, and that under the church the Europeans had produced natural law in science,  n philosophy(Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Hume, Darwin, Maxwell, et all, and most importantly, Blackstone and the founders), and in theology (the catholic system of dogma culminating under the late scholastics is an expression of natural law).

    2. To teach that if we reduce Christianity to the Jeffersonian Bible to limit it to what Jesus said (whether he existed as presented or not) and we ‘science’ his words, we find that there are five behavioral rules that advance on strategy:

      1. The prohibition on the imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. (ten commandments)
      2. the eradication of hatred from the human heart.
      3. the extension of kinship love to non-kin.
      4. the demand for personal acts of charity and personal cost,
      5. the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before boycott, shunning, or punishment.

      And that our reward for those costs will be: 6. That the psychological and emotional cost of that burden of forgiveness passed onward, as either a debt payment or a gift to the commons in the form of Jesus and/or God. Producing mindfulness by insulation from approval-disapproval, status signal competition so that we may bear that cost. 7. That we will live better lives, create a better circumstance, contribute to the commons – and live forever in peaceful eternity for having done so. 8. And that the science says very clearly that this set of rules is the optimum solution to human cooperation at increasing scales: the only solution to the prisoner’s dilemma: exhausting forgiveness.

    3. To teach that the laws of God are written in God’s language in the very fabric of the universe from that which is too small to see to that which is too large for us to see or too complex for us to understand – yet. That this law is something we no longer need to  – or really even can honestly debate. And that it’s … spiritually fulfilling that between Athens and Jerusalem we discovered both those laws and how to live well under them, despite that it appears that god spoke only one word to create the universe, and it was ‘evolve’.

    4. To teach that the laws of God are immutable. That people are subject to them. That people cannot change them but can attempt to subvert them with the cost being suffering. That it is suffering that is an inescapable aspect of the laws of God, but that Jesus was a Stoic in the sense that he bore that suffering and took responsibility for his inevitable suffering with valor and honor, and never abandoned his people, never sacrificed truth, never forfeited faith, never shirked god’s laws. This understanding permits teaching Stoicism within Christian teachings.

    5. To teach that the tragedy of God’s laws is that, while everyone is equally subject to them, the benefits and costs are not equally distributed. Said differently, God’s laws—the laws of Nature/nature—-are equal in application, but result in unequal outcomes for God’s people. Therefore Inequality in outcome is an immutable aspect of the laws of God, and Nature.

    6. To teach that while Europeans discovered the word of god in the natural laws rather than preaching that they were ‘given’ them, that these laws said that life under gods laws was tragic, and that Jesus was sent to tell us the only possible means of solace, comfort, happiness, and joy under god’s laws: the Christian love of one another.

    7. So that Jesus’s teaching is the solution – and the only solution – to the natural law of peaceful and prosperous cooperation, and the natural laws of the universe. Worse, that all other civilizations failed to discover this accommodation between the laws of the universe and the nature of man.

    8. To teach that as the natural law and the teaching of Jesus that the word of god in the natural law is the same whether we use the measurements of science, the reason of philosophy, or the wisdom of theology.

    9. To teach that just as God spoke to us in different languages over time, he may speak to each of us in different languages at the same time – and that as long as these languages communicate the same behavior under his laws to all of us then is … pretty sinful to presume God does not have a good reason for doing so.

    10. That scripture can be taught as parable along with natural law, thus justifying scripture – and disabling atheistic and pseudoscientific attacks on the church.

    11. To teach that whether God exists outside of the universe, as the universe, or manifests from within the universe does not matter for producing Christian behavior.

  4. All that would be necessary is to reform the quality of church leadership and reform the economics of the church by restoring voluntary education and funding the churches as educational institutions once again. (And yes, this is possible.)
  5. The church is the only formal institution – meaning professional organization with revenues, assets, intellectual property, and historical legitimacy. The church and church members have a compelling interest to save the church as the primary opposition to the ‘forces of evil’ so to speak.
  6. All civilizations must, at least in modernity, train the individual in all dimensions that produce Mindfulness:
    1. Physical Fitness and Competitive Teamwork
    2. Intuition and Impulse Control: mindfulness, manners, ethics, morals, rituals(costs), and oaths(Promises) ) and the tools of social cooperation.
    3. General Knowledge of the Laws of the Universe (God) and the tools of calculating with them (Education)
    4. Specific Knowledge of applied laws of the universe (God) and the means of economic cooperation with them.
  7. The absence of mindfulness, or the false promise of false mindfulness, are impossible for humans to bear without terrible psychological, emotional, social, behavioral, economic, political, and military consequences.  ANd this is what “The Enemy” has done. And our church has lost the battle against the enemy who has modernized their tactics using pseudoscience – when God’s laws are pretty clearly evidently the result of our scientific and logical investigation. They’re just quite a bit harder to understand.

Problems

(Warning: This might hurt)

  1. The “Enemy” (so to speak) seeks to undermine natural law and undermine the faith, and undermine the mindfulness provided by our faith, in order to create friction in our social order – and replace it with a new pseudoscientific cult replacing god with elites and the state that promises freedom from gods laws including his laws:

… i. of Logic (Formal Laws) – The Postmodern Movement,

… ii. of Nature( Physical Laws) – The Marxist Movement

… iii. of Mankind (Human Cooperation: Natural Law – admittedly confusing term) – – The NeoMarxist Movement

… iiii. of Evolutionary Laws (accumulation of mutation, class hierarchy that results, the necessity of natural selection, the necessity of constraining reproduction of those we can’t ‘supply’.) – The PC-Woke-HBD-Anti-Whiteness Movement. 2. The enemy uses the false promise of freedom from God’s Laws to bait people into the hazard of disobeying God’s laws – and the consequences from doing so: suffering, poverty, decline, dysgenia, and the despotism necessary to manage the suffering, poor, declining, and dysgenic. –

These false promises Include the four great lies:

… i. Freedom from scarcity by the false promise of endless growth.

… ii. Freedom from the nature of man as amoral and rational and only as moral as institutions both informal and formal cause him to be.

… iii. Freedom from the immalleability of man by the false promise of genetic equality, potential, and outcome – vs the normal distribution of the classes by relative genetic determinism.

… iiii. Freedom from inequality, class, status, self-image, and the unavoidable associative, spiritual, cooperative, reproductive, commercial, political, and military value we have to one another – and worse, the freedom from the accumulated defects that evolve in every single generation and multiple with our numbers, only exacerbating the problem. 3. The problem: Jesus taught what we know today was science, as wisdom using narrative and parables of the time. Christianity as a religion systematically adopted the same strategy above, by the promise of freedom from God’s material laws in the afterlife if we obeyed Jesus’ advice in material life. 4. In other words, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, just like today’s Islamism, Marxism, Postmodernism, make the same promises of freedom from the laws of the universe (God) – the only difference is that the Christian dogma promises reward in an afterlife and the Marxist-Pomo-Woke movement promises it ‘after whiteness’. 5. So to stop the enemy’s victory over our civilization, church, state, and people, appears to require either:

i) creating a competing false promise of freedom from God’s laws – which is admittedly pretty hard to do, since they’ve exploited the false promise in every aspect of life.

ii) trying to persuade a population that increasingly understands god’s laws in non-theological terms – which given the church’s record – or even the entire theological record – since 1600 (including my own theological ancestor) has been a catastrophic failure.

iii) Unifying the languages of god, the laws of God, and the laws of man, rather than allowing the three languages of god to divide us into factions that cause our defeat.

Challenges

  1. The traditionalist side of the secularist to atheist movement does not appear to be hostile to Christian ethics – just the opposite. Instead, they are hostile to the argumentative use of theology, rather than limiting theology to wisdom literature. There is a substantial market demand among traditionalists who are not fundamentalists for the unification of science, logic, law, philosophy, and theology.
  2. There are large factions among the faithful that are willing to see the church continually undermined, depopulated, and defunded if it means any compromise on fundamentalism. This is a rational response to the utility provided by the mindfulness that results in the study of scripture (of any kind). We know why fundamentalist produces an addiction response. That said a good Christian tends to be a good person especially as the demand for mindfulness increases due to natural variation in our genetics along the empathizing to systematizing spectrum, and its multiplied by the countersigning produced by the social class spectrum (associative and reproductive market value).
  3. There is a large – especially male – fundamentalist faction that is as destructive to the unification of our people as is the enemy because they use their theology as a bludgeon and the enemy’s use of undermining opponents instead of arguments. This group dominates the social media sphere. And they appear to dominate nearly every Christian local group that does not simply leave the discourse when approached.
  4. At the present rate of defection, the only remaining church will be the protestant fundamentalists, as an outcast minority of around a quarter to a third of the ethnic European population. This means that their primary political function will be little more than an opportunity for the enemy to act under the pretense of an ongoing threat to their false promises just as the enemy has used the Black demographic as the lever to undermine the morality of ethnic Europeans.

Question

  1. Can you imagine that it’s possible to produce a reunification of Athens (Military and Aristocracy) and Jerusalem (Priest and Peasantry) so that the church can survive?
  2. Can you imagine fundamentalists tolerating a unification (a compromise)?
  3. Can you imagine that the church can survive without a reform?

 

Background

Raised in the Catholic intellectual in tradition. Church of England in natural inclination. I’m not an atheist. I talk to god every day. I do what God tells me in his own way. But I do not need to know his constitution. Because I have faith, and because I am not afraid of the word of god I see written in the fabric of the universe. So It’s not a conflict for me. It’s my suspicion that anyone who cannot perform that same act of faith doesn’t have it. And I see a vast ocean of fundamentalists who cannot bear the thought of their own uncertainty or relative powerlessness in this world, claiming faith that they do not have because they are more afraid of uncertainty than they are desirous of god.  And for this cowardly vanity, they will sink our church, our people, and our civilization. The compassionate may forgive them. But we are out of time for the luxury of such forgiveness.

 

Thanks for your attention.

Thanks for your works.

CD

 

NOTES FROM TQ (ADDED):

  1. By “church” do you mean the formal church? Or the religion including doctrine and dogma? Or the religious community of people?  CURTD: I mean all of them but most importantly I mean Christianity as a whole, the catholic church and its dogma as an institution and the religious community as a population.
  2. Also, I believe your epistemological approach to reform via the laws of Nature/nature as being the way we know God, is exactly the approach. (CURTD: Good. Thanks.)
  3. I would add something to teach: That the laws of God are immutable. That people are subject to them. That people cannot change them but can attempt to subvert them with the cost being suffering. That it is SUFFERING that is an inescapable aspect of the laws of God, but Jesus was a Stoic in the sense that he BORE that suffering and TOOK RESPONSIBILITY for his inevitable suffering with VALOR and HONOR, and NEVER ABANDONED HIS PEOPLE, NEVER SACRIFICED TRUTH, NEVER FORFEITED FAITH, NEVER SHIRKED GOD’S LAWS. This permits teaching Stoicism in Christianity.(CURTD: Brilliant, thanks.)
  4. One last thing is this: The tragedy of God’s laws is that, while everyone is EQUALLY SUBJECT to them, the BENEFITS and COSTS are NOT EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED. Said differently, God’s laws—the laws of Nature/nature—-are equal in application, but result in unequal outcomes for God’s people. therefore Inequality in outcome is an immutable aspect of the laws of God, and Nature. (CURTD: Brilliant, thanks.)