Other forms of unity, or, revolutionary religious socialism

I'm on a roll with new topics right now!

Here's another question: what are your opinions on revolutionary socialist groups that achieve solidarity on a non-ethnic basis, e.g., religion? For example, the Ba'athists and the Labour Zionists are both unified around religion as well as race, and the vision of anarchocommunism set out by Shane Claibourne in Jesus for President and by the Jesus Radicals at jesusradicals.org rejects even left-wing nationalism as idolatry, but replaces it with similar solidarity on the basis of faith.
That's pretty much the only alternative to national solidarity I can think of right now (I saw a 'Queer Socialist' on the internet somewhere but he was a disgrace to white people, gay people, socialists, and humans in general). Given that many people identify more strongly with their religion than their race (and have for a while: an Eastern European in a border region asked in 1919 by Paris Peace Conference officials who he was, replied that he was Catholic), might revolutionary religious socialism be a valid alternative to revolutionary left-wing nationalist socialism?

I've never been of the opinion that ethnicity is the sole characteristic with which people identify themselves. The left-wing nationalist (or National Communist, if you prefer) hypothesis is that ethnocultural homogeneity generally fosters solidarity within populations. In certain nations, religion is obviously a very prominent part of the national culture.

However, like Karl Marx, I happen to believe that religious sentiments are proportional to the degree of poverty a population is experiencing. For example, if one analyzes the relatively prosperous Scandinavian welfare states today, a very low frequency of religiosity will be observed. In the Appalachian region of the Southern United States, conversely, the area is rife with religious fundamentalism; and it happens to be one of the most impoverished regions in the nation. I don't think the notion of an afterlife will ever be abandoned by humanity, but I do believe that organized religion will diminish over time.

Regardless, I don't believe that religion should be opposed by socialists. For certain peoples, religion can greatly assist in the development of proletarian revolution. Many of the earliest socialist and communist movements were religiously inspired, and, in the global south, liberation theology continues to promote progressive activism.

Well since my Religion is mixed up in the very collective Identity of my nation im not to botherd.How ever Id certainly be supportive of the set up of autonomus communitys set up along religious lines similar to the ones already established in America like the Amish and Mennonites have done.

Baathism does not seem to be ethnocentric. There is no Arab race. Assad and many other Arabs look like Europeans but most Arabs are darker and look non-European. Correct Celtiberian, Nationalism is ethnocultural. Some Nationalists states have been more ethnocentric then others but all focused heavily on culture.

I am an oculist Pagan yet secular. I am perfectly happy to tolerate people with different religious opinions. It is imperative that religiously diverse and atheistic nations should try to be secular. Religious conflict needs to be avoided. Religious socialism sounds like a good idea for nations that are religiously homogeneous. Religion is populist and can unite a nation. Take Venezuela 92% of people are Catholic. Hugo Chávez promotes Christian socialism. He says Jesus was a socialist, which is correct. I think very Christian countries have a good opportunity to become socialist states but using religion and preaching the socialism of Jesus Christ. Iran has a mixed economy and they are a very Muslim country. Ahmadinejad is apposed to capitalism and communism. However I am apposed to religious chauvinism. The problem with many communist states such as Mao's China and Lenin's/Stalins Russia is they are not secular but militantly atheist, this causes unneeded religious conflict. This is a mistake socialists can learn from. I see religion not as "the opium of the people" but a pillar of civilization, this does not mean it is above criticism. I am apposed to militant atheism just as I am apposed to religious chauvinism.

Well, I for one am a Christian National Bolshevik, or National Communist, and I advocate the creation of a "Third Rome" mostly in the region of Russia, which I believe should be an officially Christian (mostly Orthodox) nation, despite that Im Catholic. Sure, racial solidarity is very important to the unity of the Proletariat, but so is religion. I figure that a nation which can unite its people on both of these lines will be immensely powerful, and thus will be more able to spread the utopian socialist ideology (mostly through propaganda and cold war style efforts, as a Christian socialist nation would obviously be pacifistic) Im all for religious toleration, but the State would have to officially advocate a sort of general Christian faith for the people.
In the end I believe there will come a nation that will have a synthesis of racial, religious, cultural, and economic solidarity, and that this nation will be the one to prove to the world that true socialism can create a paradise on earth. (in my opinion, the Third Reich was working towards this goal but miserably failed in the end due to its poor management of the political situation at the time and its insistence on focusing on the racial element. I believe Hitler should have allied with Stalin to defeat the capitalists, and of course neither of them should have tolerated such barbarism in war, but I digress..)

ChristNatCom wrote:Well, I for one am a Christian National Bolshevik, or National Communist, and I advocate the creation of a "Third Rome" mostly in the region of Russia, which I believe should be an officially Christian (mostly Orthodox) nation, despite that Im Catholic.

[...]

Im all for religious toleration, but the State would have to officially advocate a sort of general Christian faith for the people.

I'm well aware that, considering your Christian faith, you and I may never see eye to eye on this particular subject. But why do you believe the state should officially uphold a particular religion, as opposed to remaining secular and simply allowing the citizenry to possess the freedom to practice whatever faith (or lack thereof) they wish?

in my opinion, the Third Reich was working towards this goal but miserably failed in the end due to its poor management of the political situation at the time and its insistence on focusing on the racial element. I believe Hitler should have allied with Stalin to defeat the capitalists, and of course neither of them should have tolerated such barbarism in war, but I digress..

I don't want to sidetrack this thread too much with a discussion of the Third Reich, but, having studied the history of National Socialism and Fascism quite closely, I can unequivocally state that Hitler had no interest in establishing a genuinely socialist republic. He never would have allied with Stalin, as it was Russia which he wished to invade to implement his lebensraum policy. Hitler was an imperialist and an authoritarian, and he held no particular animosity toward the concept of the bourgeoisie per se—provided, however, that this bourgeoisie conformed with the traditional definition of the term (i.e., one who owns and manages their enterprise) and obeyed state ordinances. Had the war ended favorably for Germany, it's conceivable that the government may have eventually resorted to establishing a state socialist system à la North Korea, simply due to the significant difficulty there would have been in attempting to coordinate autonomous enterprises along the strict plans established by the state, but that's pure speculation on my part. Anyway, I've addressed this topic in great detail elsewhere, so I'll refrain from discussing it further here.

I understand your thoughts on the Reich. Of course I disagree with your opinions on the Fuhrer's nature with regards to whether or not he was a real socialist (I think it was his naively optimistic plan to eliminate the bourgeoisie sometime after the war), but yes that is for another discussion I suppose. I believe that the new socialist state should, if there is at least a 55% majority of believers, embrace Christianity officially, but it should also tolerate practically any other faith, even Judaism. I only want the state to promote religious solidarity by choosing a religion of peace and social justice, such as first century Christianity (but Im not opposed to eastern socialist nations being officially Buddhist or Hindu) to promote for its citizens, not enforce, as that would naturally be a breach of the tradition of separation of Church and state.
For instance, China is officially an atheistic nation (or at least the government is) yet it has also sanctioned 5 world religions to tolerate (which in my opinion is not enough, and even now they are too zealous about their atheism). So in the "Third Rome", general Christianity would be the official religion, yet the state would allow pretty much any other faith as well. (as it was with Emperor Constantine for a time)
I also think that officially secularist nations tend to crack down on all religion, which in turn leaves the people disillusioned towards their own government. It should never be a crime or even a stigma for a government official to say "God bless you" in the senate or parliament. I see this as a form of appeasement to the weaker nature of some people, who cannot tolerate certain phrases, images, etc. that they do not believe in themselves. (I know that same argument could be used against me) Right now Im working in a sort of "think tank" on the possibility of a national general religion that any citizen could adopt along with their own faith, but I fear such speculation is vastly too utopian for any real-world implementation.

ChristNatCom wrote:I also think that officially secularist nations tend to crack down on all religion, which in turn leaves the people disillusioned towards their own government. It should never be a crime or even a stigma for a government official to say "God bless you" in the senate or parliament. I see this as a form of appeasement to the weaker nature of some people, who cannot tolerate certain phrases, images, etc. that they do not believe in themselves.

The rationale behind separating church and state is not only that it prevents the danger of religion interfering with matters of state, but that it also prevents the state from interfering with religions. Given the conflictual nature of religions toward differing interpretations of their own doctrine, or worse, entirely separate faiths, I think elevating the status of religion in society is a dangerous proposition. And the history of the crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, stonings, etc. aren't very reassuring. I realize that your particular interpretation of Christianity is that it's fundamentally a religion of peace, but I've met numerous Christians in the past who take a decidedly more extreme interpretation of the bible.

Even though I am an atheist, I staunchly oppose state enforced-enforced atheism. Most secularists aren't so hypersensitive that they would favor someone being arrested for something as trivial as uttering "god bless you" in a government institution. Of course there are such people (especially since the outbreak of the "new atheism" pioneered by Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins), but they're as numerically insignificant as the religious extremists who would favor the imprisonment of atheists and agnostics, if not more so.

Enforcing a state religion would cause conflict within the nation between religious groups and would inhibit the growth of spirituality within the nation. I am an Odinist - but for a completely secular state. The beautiful thing about our people is that they have a lot of different religious influences in our deep history, Ancient Pagan religions, Catholicism, and a whole bunch of different branches of Christianity which grew from that. Spirituality should be protected and encouraged but not any single one in particular. For those who choose no spirituality, that is fine too, people can believe whatever they want as long as it does not harm the nation.

Well, naturally I oppose the fanaticism that has been carried out in the name of the Church of Rome, though I believe the Crusades were justified (at least in concept), as well as the inquisition (again, if only in concept). Often I find I am split between my ideal religion (one of peace, tolerance, and social progress, such as Siddhartha practiced) and what comes out of Rome and all the other Christian churches, and at times I imagine that a secularist society that is truly "libertarian" in that it does no war against any faith, but solely exists to elevate the nation as a whole, would be superior, and it is for this reason that I am officially a Nazbol, and only unofficially a Chris-naz-bol. I suppose you look at Christianity the way Engels did then?

The kind of religious state I would prefer is rather like what the U.S was going to create, which would be very tolerant towards all the different faith traditions, but would on paper be basic Christian, in that it accepts Yashua as God or Great Teacher or whatever you want to call Him. It would not be enforced in any way, only recommended. But of course when the state begins to embrace all the different faith traditions, it will inevitably go the way of Masonry, and then were back where we started...
Id also like to note that such a conversation would be very nearly impossible on the reactionary forums, as they would automatically see it as a conspiracy to strip from the people their Christian Identity or their paganism, which is one reason why I left the right wing. (theyre all a bunch of totalitarians when it comes to religion, divided up between the pagan Serrano/Devi types and the militant Christian/Aryan Nations types. So again Im definitely glad to be here where I can "breathe" "In Soviet Russia, we let you theorise!"

ChristNatCom wrote: (theyre all a bunch of totalitarians when it comes to religion, divided up between the pagan Serrano/Devi types and the militant Christian/Aryan Nations types. So again Im definitely glad to be here where I can "breathe" "In Soviet Russia, we let you theorise!"

HAHA, I have made that same observation. The esoteric Hitlerists (what a term ) and militant pagans want to destroy Christianity and the Christian Identities insist on going on witch hunts and cleansing pagans. And don't even get them started in on the debate of "What religion was Hitler"

Pantheon Rising wrote:HAHA, I have made that same observation. The esoteric Hitlerists (what a term ) and militant pagans want to destroy Christianity and the Christian Identities insist on going on witch hunts and cleansing pagans. And don't even get them started in on the debate of "What religion was Hitler"

In my opinion he was a Darwinist all his talk of natural selection and things dieing becuse they did not fit into his survial of the fittest scenarios he was fanatical about.He and many others tolerated christianity only for its "opium" effect and even then they would have changed it.

I think history shows most of the Hitlerite leadership disliked any religion apart from Hitlerism.Protestants,Catholics,Heathens,Lutherans and probably every religious flavour ended up in in trouble.But the funny thing about it all is Himmler sourounded Himself with a gang of Estorics of diffrent flavours Hind,Buddist,Heathen and Templar like christians so all in all a odd bloke even Hitler and the rest of them thaught he was abit odd.

Oh, yes, Himmler was a strange character. I, being a member of the Church of Rome, like to think the Fuhrer was at least lightly faithful, but I admit he mixed elements of paganism, Darwinism, Lutheranism, and slapped heavy emphasis on the racial aspect of it all. (similarly, I like to see Comrade Stalin as keeping his Orthodox faith) Now Himmler and all those esoterics just fascinate me to death, but Im sure Ill never understand what they were really up to, such is the reason they call it the MYSTERY religons.. and now its safe to say weve gotten off-topic.

ChristNatCom wrote:I suppose you look at Christianity the way Engels did then?

I hold somewhat of a Marxian interpretation of religion.

The kind of religious state I would prefer is rather like what the U.S was going to create, which would be very tolerant towards all the different faith traditions, but would on paper be basic Christian, in that it accepts Yashua as God or Great Teacher or whatever you want to call Him.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to claim the United States was en route to becoming a nominally Christian nation. The Founding Fathers held radically different views on the matter, some of which recommended someone along the lines of what you propose, while others (notably Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine) were adamant about need for the country to be secular.

So again Im definitely glad to be here where I can "breathe" "In Soviet Russia, we let you theorise!"

Hahah Indeed. We're glad to have you here, as comradely debate is always welcome.

TheocWulf wrote:In my opinion he was a Darwinist all his talk of natural selection and things dieing becuse they did not fit into his survial of the fittest scenarios he was fanatical about.He and many others tolerated christianity only for its "opium" effect and even then they would have changed it.

That is probably true and Strasser refers to him as an atheist and besides Table Talks I think that is the only glimpse of his religious views (beyond spouting stuff about Christianity to the masses) we have. I have heard so many different claims from a wide variety of different people that I have just given up caring about the debate especially with the Christian Identity types as anyone in European history they like they claim was a devout christian with absolutely no historical evidence to support their claims. Luckily you are from Britain and Christian Identity is mainly concentrated in the USA.

I think history shows most of the Hitlerite leadership disliked any religion apart from Hitlerism.Protestants,Catholics,Heathens,Lutherans and probably every religious flavour ended up in in trouble.But the funny thing about it all is Himmler sourounded Himself with a gang of Estorics of diffrent flavours Hind,Buddist,Heathen and Templar like christians so all in all a odd bloke even Hitler and the rest of them thaught he was abit odd.

I have found Himmler's racial theories flawed and way too Aryanist/Nordicist as well as chauvinist but he was certainly the most INTERESTING character from the Reich cabinet. I, personally, would have liked to view first hand the ancient pagan rites that went on in Wewelsburg.

Pantheon Rising wrote:...but he was certainly the most INTERESTING character from the Reich cabinet. I, personally, would have liked to view first hand the ancient pagan rites that went on in Wewelsburg.

Indeed, I first "saw" one on "Fullmetal Alchemist: Conquerer of Shamballa, and that directed me down another rabbit hole

Pantheon Rising wrote:I have found Himmler's racial theories flawed and way too Aryanist/Nordicist as well as chauvinist but he was certainly the most INTERESTING character from the Reich cabinet. I, personally, would have liked to view first hand the ancient pagan rites that went on in Wewelsburg.

I doubt there was anything ancient about it the characters Himmler kicked about with were Estorics who used a north west european framework on top of eastern (mostly Hindu) style of spiritual undersdtanding.See charcters like the Thule Society and the mixed Greek/Italian estoric Savitri Devi who was married to an Indian Hindu.

The Use of Germanic and Celtic symbolism was simply a way of getting tapping into the masses folk consciousness.The Hitlerite leadership and infact the majority of the of the entire western world had very little intrest apart from a few Estorics,writers and opraists in a "dead barbarian religion" Hitler himself was especially hostile.Many true Heathens ended up in work camps.

From AH himself
On the contrary, it is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of the nation to keep harping on that far-off and forgotten nomenclature which belongs to the ancient Germanic times and does not awaken any distinct association in our age. This habit of borrowing words from the dead past tends to mislead the people into thinking that the external trappings of its vocabulary are the important feature of a movement. It is really a mischievous habit; but it is quite prevalent nowadays

TheocWulf wrote:I doubt there was anything ancient about it the characters Himmler kicked about with were Estorics who used a north west european framework on top of eastern (mostly Hindu) style of spiritual undersdtanding.See charcters like the Thule Society and the mixed Greek/Italian estoric Savitri Devi who was married to an Indian Hindu.

The Use of Germanic and Celtic symbolism was simply a way of getting tapping into the masses folk consciousness.The Hitlerite leadership and infact the majority of the of the entire western world had very little intrest apart from a few Estorics,writers and opraists in a "dead barbarian religion" Hitler himself was especially hostile.Many true Heathens ended up in work camps.

From AH himself
On the contrary, it is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of the nation to keep harping on that far-off and forgotten nomenclature which belongs to the ancient Germanic times and does not awaken any distinct association in our age. This habit of borrowing words from the dead past tends to mislead the people into thinking that the external trappings of its vocabulary are the important feature of a movement. It is really a mischievous habit; but it is quite prevalent nowadays

True, and it is a shame that Hitler held such a view towards real heathens. I, still, have always had an interest in the Orient religions and far Eastern Occultism though.

Pantheon Rising wrote:True, and it is a shame that Hitler held such a view towards real heathens. I, still, have always had an interest in the Orient religions and far Eastern Occultism though.

Well luckily (not for those who sufferd of course) becuse of Hitlers persicution people cant really accuse our religion as linked to Nazism.The Folk Mother Else Christensen herself (she was also a Danish Syndicalist activist aswell) ended up on the wrong side of the Hitlerites and her husband ended up in camp.If she had perished our faith may never have made it into modern times.

The reason I think many Europeans have an Intrest in Eastern spiritualism is the lack of a European spirituality due to over a thousands years of Christianity.

TheocWulf wrote:Well luckily (not for those who sufferd of course) becuse of Hitlers persicution people cant really accuse our religion as linked to Nazism.

Current reactionaries today seem to be doing quite a good job at that though, using Odal runes and other images while at the same time singing praise to Hitler. Shame really.

The Folk Mother Else Christensen herself (she was also a Dutch Syndicalist activist aswell) ended up on the wrong side of the Hitlerites and her husband ended up in camp.If she had perished our faith may never have made it into modern times.

I have a deep respect for Else Christensen.

The reason I think many Europeans have an Intrest in Eastern spiritualism is the lack of a European spirituality due to over a thousands years of Christianity.

I agree. For example the concepts of Jihad and Martyrdom found in Islam appeal immensely to me, these are concepts which can not be found in Christianity, but can be found in our Folkish religion. (Sacrifice for the folk - dying in battle, a warrior's death). That is not to say Christianity is devoid of any noble aspect either though. I think Christianity brings out the humanitarian and good will side of Europeans, for example - the Missionaries. While most sects of Judaism were only concerned with themselves and THEIR pact with God certain Christian missionaries really did think that they would be bringing salvation to people.

You mean due to over a thousand years of distorted, erroneously interpreted, and exploit-based Christianity? (thats how I see it. Real first century Christianity was so communalistic and so similar to paganism that almost all believers today would condemn it as heresy or idolatry of some kind) Even the Gnostics dont fully capture the spirit of the original movement... Theres a fella on Youtube by the name of Julian Lee who has some excellent videos on the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism/Hinduism.

ChristNatCom wrote:You mean due to over a thousand years of distorted, erroneously interpreted, and exploit-based Christianity? (thats how I see it. Real first century Christianity was so communalistic and so similar to paganism that almost all believers today would condemn it as heresy or idolatry of some kind) Even the Gnostics dont fully capture the spirit of the original movement... Theres a fella on Youtube by the name of Julian Lee who has some excellent videos on the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism/Hinduism.

You might enjoy these videos as well then:

Pantheon Rising wrote:I agree. For example the concepts of Jihad and Martyrdom found in Islam appeal immensely to me, these are concepts which can not be found in Christianity, but can be found in our Folkish religion. (Sacrifice for the folk - dying in battle, a warrior's death). That is not to say Christianity is devoid of any noble aspect either though. I think Christianity brings out the humanitarian and good will side of Europeans, for example - the Missionaries. While most sects of Judaism were only concerned with themselves and THEIR pact with God certain Christian missionaries really did think that they would be bringing salvation to people.

Well ill disagre with there the abrahamic faiths are not relly intrested in any folkish issue they are universalist in nature.If you take Islam as an example there is no aspect of dieing for the folk just for Islam itself Infact many populations in the middle east and asia have ancient folkish tribal codes that are still observed that to an extent condtradict Islam for example the Pashtunwalii code of hounour of the Pahtuns in Afghanistan was/is a major thorn in the side of the Taliban as it is impossible to iradicate and contadicts radical Islam on issues such as womens dress and women working in the fields as youngsters and older married ladies .

As for the missionaries I take no joy in Europeans going to places Africa and destroying the local populations folk religions no matter how humanitarian they belived it was.I see no diffrence between that and the conversion of those Europeans by the Romans and later by there own kin in the name of humanity but in reality in the name of power.

Judaism is a strange example of a Folk religion its good in the sense that its restricted in most traditional sects to those of its peoples blood but other sects allow non Jews to take part in Kibbutz and other activites but never really let them be one of the Tribe.

ChristNatCom wrote:You mean due to over a thousand years of distorted, erroneously interpreted, and exploit-based Christianity? (thats how I see it. Real first century Christianity was so communalistic and so similar to paganism that almost all believers today would condemn it as heresy or idolatry of some kind) Even the Gnostics dont fully capture the spirit of the original movement... Theres a fella on Youtube by the name of Julian Lee who has some excellent videos on the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism/Hinduism.

No doubt real Christianity practiced in the middle east certainly looked like many other Folk religions all over the world.The Romans are the people who turned it into what we have today,but regardless its still a pretty alien system for Europeans.

Oh, yes, very much so. Of course there will be little sprinkles of "heresy" here and there when dealing with such radically unorthodox interpretations of the Christ, but again I take the stance of open discussion on the subject, and love to hear gurus and eastern teachers' opinions on Him. We cant grow our spiritual understanding if we sit in the corner, fearful of the inquisitors. That is a form of totalitarianism and under most circumstances should be discouraged. Thanks for the vids, comrade!