Theme: Civilization

WHY ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS COMMENTARY?

—“I’ve been following John Mark for some time now and generally agree with your observations on politics, the media and the way our country is headed and what conservatives need to do about it. However I find you venturing into religious commentary analysis disconcerting especially when it is viewed more as a way of controlling the masses and devoid of any spiritual truth or meaning. This reminds a great deal of the way Karl Marx viewed religion bad “an opiate for the masses.” It worried me also in that you are ignoring the fact this country which you want to save was founded in Christianity, put “In God We Trust” on our money and whose great founders and leaders prayed often and diligently for guidance and wisdom for the course of our country. If you try to turn our country around without a true belief in God you will have not saved this country but perhaps create a different sort of democracy devoid of God and all the foundations that have made this the greatest nation in the world and it will fail miserably. I would hope you will stay out of the theology business that most of the true Patriots of this country believe in and stick to the more obvious analysis of politics and trends in general. Otherwise you can count me and perhaps many others out of your “Winning Right.”—Joel Rhodes

Going to answer two points you’ve made:

1) —“I find you venturing into religious commentary analysis disconcerting especially when it is viewed more as a way of controlling the masses and devoid of any spiritual truth or meaning.”—

My objective is to end the undermining of western civilization by the use of the abrahamic method of deceit, upon which were built the first system of anti-religious-market lies of judaism, christianity, and islam, and the second anti-political-market lies: marxism, postmodernism, feminism – and the continued durability of judaism, christianity, and islam as monopolistic totalitarian religions. So I struggle with reforming christianity so that the teachings of Jesus are retained, but the abrahamic method of deceit by which christianity is justified is removed. At present we must make excuses in the constitution for the preservation of a single method of lying using the abrahamic method of deceit to preserve the good in christianity and the tolerance of the christian center.

In other words, the only problem we face today is that christians use the jewish means of lying to justify christian religion, instead of reforming the church so that it is – as we see in some protestant churches – a continuous lesson in psychology(mindfulness) – where jesus’ teaching is the most primitive and effective method of using group therapy to program individuals into mindfuless. the stoic method is not as effective for common people because it is requires intellectual exercise. So it is of its nature a middle and upper class means of mindfuless. Yet evidence says that we can like our ancestors or japan combine multiple traditions to achieve our ends. And that is part of my work

To produce a social order free of the abrahamic method of deceit, so that we are no longer vulnerable to the abrahamic method of deceit.

2) —“you are ignoring the fact this country which you want to save was founded in Christianity”—

This country was founded by men who were members of the enlightenment, for who god varied – just as today – between (a) a euphemism for the laws of the universe and god the anthropomorphic character we attribute to it, (b) the uninvolved abstract god of deism while maintains that there may be some abstract force we anthropomorphize as god, (c) jesus as a philosopher of speaking in religious prose under one of those gods, (d) jesus as a prophet, and god as existential. (e) full dogmatic fundamentalists who believe everything is determined by god and the bible is the literal word of god. And that, just as I go to church recite words, and just as Jefferson did, that does not mean that those of us who are secular and philosophical are merely performing a ritual for the benefit of all of us across that spectrum, and whose of us who are theological are doing it for the god and prophet for which we hope to benefit ourselves and the polity.

So, I’ll give you the opposing theory: that for aristocracy, christianity was an excuse for Aryanism (superiority), and religion is a means of controlling the vast ignorant underclasses. For the priesthood that came from the nobility or middle classes it was a means of earning income from administering a vast illiterate ignorant underclass by false promise and pacifying them. And that by and large – just as postmodernism is practiced by the academy and urbanites and traditionalism by the rurals, through almost all of the dark ages, the church was as corrupt as we know perceive our state, only the city dwellers gave it lip service, and the people were christian only at church, and the rest of the time maintained their traditional germanic paganism.

So if you mean ‘the people were ignorant and illiterate farmers and laborers who were administered into christian pacifism and tolerance for one another, and that the aristocracy was always practiced war and law and property just as those of us today with agency and recourses practice property, economic warfare, political warfare, and organize the laboring classes to conduct war” then yes. But do not for a moment confuse the fact that in western civilization, we practice Tripartism intellectually and trifunctionalism institutionally, and that the military, judicial, and theological priesthoods were all present at all times, and we allied with the most important to us at any given moment – just like today.

The warning I am giving you is one that only a few thinkers give in each era, with sun tzu and machiavelli the most well known. That is: (a) do not confuse that your primary framework for understanding the organization of western civilization isn’t just a class framework (b) that all three frameworks are always and everywhere present, (c) that what binds them together isn’t any one of the three, but sovereignty, and the three possible methods of coercion force trifunctionalism, which forces tripartism. We are all european if and only if we are the people of who use markets in everything – and this is why the church failed here and only succeeded in the (underclass) middle east – almost everyone was at the bottom, and so religion brought them there. In the west we have classes and we move between them as needed.