Other forms of unity, or, revolutionary religious socialism

Altair wrote:Acknowledging the fact that Caucasian males "ruled over everything" (I figure this is an exaggeration on your part, PR) is not being anti-White...it's being fairly precise.

Of course it is being precise. It is the manner in which it is acknowledged, over and over again while ignoring countless moorish invasions and other enslavements of white Europeans with the purpose of instilling white guilt in young white males.

Celtiberian wrote:I never suggested that we should only focus on the slavery and genocide imperialism was responsible for. It is, however, entirely justifiable to emphasize it. The history of imperialism should serve as a lesson to humanity regarding the horrors which can be unleashed when competition is allowed to eclipse reason; political decisions are made by an unaccountable elite, as opposed to the people themselves; and national self-determination isn't respected.

You have suggested that in other words. You brushed off the accomplishments as nothing more than a wrongful product of imperialism while nonetheless you feel it absolutely important to dwell on European imperialism.

Absolutely not. I've never suggested that people be ashamed of their ethnicity or culture. However, self-deception isn't advisable either. All nations have engaged in dishonorable behavior at some point in their history. This history should be approached honestly and learned from.

It is within a multi-racial/multi-cultural setting. There is a difference between honestly reflecting on wrong doings in our history amongst ourselves and some liberal female teacher standing in front of the class harping on "old white men ruled everything; didn't give the natives a say, killed all these people, typical of the British, blah blah blah" and quite frankly embarrassing our race.

It's obviously inaccurate to claim that it was their being European or male which led to imperialism. I realize that's somewhat of a popular claim amongst Afrocentric historians, but I've yet to encounter a high school teacher propounding such a view.

Obviously, but it is what is implied. It is how they teach it that instills white guilt. Do you not acknowledge, especially amongst young kids and college students, that a good portion of white guilt exists?

I've taken many of these "liberal artsy" courses myself and very rarely have I witnessed anti-Caucasian sentiment.

Okay, I know a woman who has to take women empowerment courses at Rutgers and hates it. Alls it is is about evil white males. Imagine trying to make a white male empowerment course, yea right! Colleges are filled with these types of courses. Just ask Noel Ignatiev. A fellow marxist.

Modern economies are heavily interdependent, and while this can be scaled back to an extent under socialism, I see no reason why a policy of fair trade cannot be implemented. Many nations simply do not possess the natural resources required to sustain their populations, let alone provide them with a humane existence.

Honestly, that is not our problem. If a country became dependent on European goods through the rise of international capitalism they should work out their own way to get things after capitalism just like they did before and just like we will do. They survived before and they can survive after and so will we.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Of course it is being precise. It is the manner in which it is acknowledged, over and over again while ignoring countless moorish invasions and other enslavements of white Europeans

The Moors themselves were Caucasian, many having not very distant European ancestry.



Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud being one such example.

The Europeans have a very brutal history of oppressing each other, and we've also been abused and enslaved by the likes of the Huns and Turks. I'm certainly not suggesting that this history be omitted from textbooks, quite the contrary.

with the purpose of instilling white guilt in young white males.

That may be an unfortunate and unnecessary by-product of an honest approach to history, but it's not the intention of any serious academics (a few anti-Caucasian imbeciles, notwithstanding).

I find many of the Catholic Church's teachings (Social Doctrine of the Church) on social justice, the universal destination of goods, the principle of solidarity, principles of the common good, etc. to be extremely interesting. Having recently read Caritas in Veritate, by Benedict XVI, I have a greater respect for the Church itself. Many of the points mentioned in this work and in numerous other religious works resonate with many of the opinions expressed on this forum.

The Church itself takes no definitive side in terms of politics or economics, though it is obvious of one were to read Catholic Social Teaching that if they were to eventually pick a side, it would not even be even remotely near to the side of capitalism.

Catholics in particular, true Catholics (of which there are few today) are called to deny the existence of multiple races and instead acknowledge only once race, the human race. This is why I always find it amusing that there are people of the Catholic religion on Stormfront.

The Church denies the existence of multiple races because if it were to say otherwise, it would render many of its other principles null. In Genesis, when God gave dominion and stewardship to man, he gave it to the entirety of mankind, not just particular races. It is also a fact according to the Church that all of mankind is equal in dignity (due to our possession of a soul and being made in the image and likeness of God), and as such we must all have the same rights.

I think you can gather how these principles can trickle down into religious economic theory, and how these principles also serve to enforce their other core beliefs.

On a less serious note, I must show my respect for an entity that never fails to piss off both the left and the ride side of the political spectrum at the same time.

Celtiberian wrote:The Moors themselves were Caucasian, many having not very distant European ancestry.

Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud being one such example.

Many of them are mixed, due to their geographical location, and Islam and European"ness" are almost direct opposites (though I respect many Arabs and parts of the Islamic religion.)

That may be an unfortunate and unnecessary by-product of an honest approach to history, but it's not the intention of any serious academics (a few anti-Caucasian imbeciles, notwithstanding).

I just think it is rather liberal, and ignoring all the accomplishments (not accusing you of wanting to do that; but it is what they do today) is certainly not honest in itself.

Altair wrote:Catholics in particular, true Catholics (of which there are few today) are called to deny the existence of multiple races and instead acknowledge only once race, the human race. This is why I always find it amusing that there are people of the Catholic religion on Stormfront.

I have always found that funny too, many want a monarchy and feudalism beyond what any Fascist or Radical Traditionalist could propose. The one fella takes his inspiration from Joseph de Maistre, the catholic monarchist.

Pantheon Rising wrote:You have suggested that in other words. You brushed off the accomplishments as nothing more than a wrongful product of imperialism while nonetheless you feel it absolutely important to dwell on European imperialism.

I didn't 'brush them off.' The focus of my attention was on imperialism, not the positive developments which accompanied it. I specifically focused on European imperialism because that's the issue you raised; Middle Eastern, Asian, and Amerindian imperialism were equally objectionable. However, unlike some individuals, I don't excuse imperialism simply because it also led to positive innovations and discoveries.

It is within a multi-racial/multi-cultural setting. There is a difference between honestly reflecting on wrong doings in our history amongst ourselves and some liberal female teacher standing in front of the class harping on "old white men ruled everything; didn't give the natives a say, killed all these people, typical of the British, blah blah blah" and quite frankly embarrassing our race.

The only question you need to ask yourself is if this "liberal female teacher" is stating facts or not. You may disagree with her delivery, but that has nothing to do with the validity of her statements. If a teacher should include their personal value judgement in their lecture, you have every right to challenge them.

Obviously, but it is what is implied. It is how they teach it that instills white guilt.

I disagree.

Do you not acknowledge, especially amongst young kids and college students, that a good portion of white guilt exists?

Not at all amongst kids, in my experience. As for college students, there's a small percentage of those who do.

Okay, I know a woman who has to take women empowerment courses at Rutgers and hates it. Alls it is is about evil white males.

Remember our cultural context. Females were systematically held to an inferior status in this country until relatively recently by Caucasian males. Sexism is still rampant in our society, though it's hardly unique among Caucasian males (if anything, it's far worse among minorities). I cannot comment further, as I don't know precisely what is being taught in such courses.

Colleges are filled with these types of courses. Just ask Noel Ignatiev. A fellow marxist.

Interesting you should bring Marxism into this discussion, as your interpretation of imperialism is far more consistent with orthodox Marxism than is mine. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels staunchly defended European imperialism because they viewed it as necessary to industrialize the Americas, East Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

As for Noel Ignatiev, he may consider himself a Marxist, but his historiographical theories have nothing to do with Marxism. Nor does he enjoy a popular reputation among historians. If you're interested in serious Marxist historical scholarship, consider the work of E. P. Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm.

Honestly, that is not our problem.

It will quickly become our problem when American consumers learn that many of the products they value most (computers, cellular telephones, etc.) require resources from other continents. By drastically reducing the standard of living people have become accustomed to, you put socialism itself in jeopardy.

Many of them are mixed, due to their geographical location

Now they are, but we're discussing the Moroccan people between the 8th and 15th century. If you study the anthropology of Carleton S. Coon, you'll find that many, if not most, of the Moorish populace of that era were Caucasian (some of which directly descended from Suebi and Vandal colonists).

many want a monarchy and feudalism beyond what any Fascist or Radical Traditionalist could propose.

On the contrary, one of the "Radical Traditionalists" most cherished philosophers, Julius Evola, did, in fact, propose returning to feudalism and monarchism.

Nietzsche famously said that "God is dead", and yet he also wrote "only the moral god has been refuted". I do not see why we as Socialists should surrender from religious discourse, as Nietzsche also wrote, God is only "shedding his skin". The projected religious consciousness has expressed profound knowledge of human experience, and whilst I won't deny religion has been used to justify tyranny and oppression, I think it is wrong to abandon its revolutionary and healthy aspects.

For example, the March 1st Uprising was carried out by Christians, Buddhists, and Chondoists; their religious faith was intertwined with their desire for liberation.

I cannot speak for other religions, but a truly Christian society is based on communalism, anti-materialism, anti-usury, and social justice. When put into practice correctly, it leads to social nationalism and communalism. There have been examples throughout history of this occurring e.g. The Diggers, Amish, Mennonites, the early Christian Church, and the Russian Obshchina and Sobornost. However, present heretical and heredox "Christian" leaders have led their flocks as far away from that as possible. I believe this is why many revolutionary thinkers were so opposed to religion, because corrupt religious leaders were so influential in leading people into oppression. However, I think their opinion would not be the same had they experienced true Christian economics and society on a large scale.

Whether people like it or not, religion makes up a big part of the national character. Doing away with it just alienates people and disrupts the whole national fiber. Also, it is evident that the further traditionally Christian nations have move away from the Faith, the more decadent, materialistic, and socially oppressive they become.

I believe it is imperative that people wishing to live in a religious society be allowed to do so. I think this can be best achieved by decentralizing nations into confederations, so that each individual community can decide on what religion to follow, if any.

easttnskin wrote:I cannot speak for other religions, but a truly Christian society is based on communalism, anti-materialism, anti-usury, and social justice. When put into practice correctly, it leads to social nationalism and communalism. There have been examples throughout history of this occurring e.g. The Diggers, Amish, Mennonites, the early Christian Church, and the Russian Obshchina and Sobornost.

Though I'm an atheist, I do believe that the political philosophy which follows from a proper interpretation of the Christian texts is indeed communism. José P. Miranda has been writing about this very subject for decades, and even reactionary Christians are occasionally willing to concede that his thesis is persuasive.

However, present heretical and heredox "Christian" leaders have led their flocks as far away from that as possible. I believe this is why many revolutionary thinkers were so opposed to religion, because corrupt religious leaders were so influential in leading people into oppression. However, I think their opinion would not be the same had they experienced true Christian economics and society on a large scale.

It varies. Many pre-Marxist socialists and communists were in fact theists, but anarchists and Marxists are generally philosophical materialists. That is not to say that Marx and Engels's sociological theories necessarily preclude theistic adherence, however. As David Schweickart explains,

"It should be noted that, anticommunist rhetoric notwithstanding, historical materialism implies nothing whatsoever about the existence of God. Marx, it is true, was an atheist, influenced by Feuerbach and other militantly atheistic young Hegelians, but the 'materialism' of historical materialism refers to social and economic structures, not to a denial of divinity. Historical materialism is not metaphysical materialism. Historical materialism does imply that the particular form a religion takes at a particular time is shaped by the economic structure and class configuration of the period, but as to whether the socioeconomic progress historical materialism posits is part of God's plan or simply the result of unaided human effort, it has nothing to say. (Anticommunist ideology has always stressed the atheism of 'godless Communism,' since the abolition of religion is far more threatening to most people's sense of self than is the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. The dominant economic class has always feared—as well it should—that the latter proposal, to most people, who in fact own no means of production, might seem worth a try.)"
David Schweickart, After Capitalism, 2nd ed. (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011), pp. 10-11.

Whether people like it or not, religion makes up a big part of the national character. Doing away with it just alienates people and disrupts the whole national fiber. Also, it is evident that the further traditionally Christian nations have move away from the Faith, the more decadent, materialistic, and socially oppressive they become.

Religion does constitute a component of national identity, but I would contend it's to a lesser degree in developed countries. Moreover, there are nations where religious pluralism and civic secularism are part of the national fabric, e.g., the United States. As wrong as they were on other issues, I believe the Second International's position on religion, as outlined in the Erfurt Program of 1891—i.e., that religious practice is a private affair which shouldn't divide the working class—is essentially the correct approach for radical activists to take today.

I believe it is imperative that people wishing to live in a religious society be allowed to do so. I think this can be best achieved by decentralizing nations into confederations, so that each individual community can decide on what religion to follow, if any.

While I'm fully in favor of nations having the right to self-determination, I disagree with notion of permitting religion to have a role in public life.

Yes, I too believe that religion shouldn't divide the working-class, nor need it. As you said, many pre-Marxist and pre-Anarchist (by label) socialists were theists and were still influential to Marx, Proudhon, and Bakunin (all militant atheists).

As a former atheist I know why you would disagree with permitting religion to have a role in public life. However, we merely replace spiritual deities with humanistic ones i.e. political/social ideologies. If a nation, tribe, community, etc. finds their foundation for social equality in a spiritual god rather than a humanistic one, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use it as a role in their public life any more than those using their humanistic deity.

easttnskin wrote:As a former atheist I know why you would disagree with permitting religion to have a role in public life. However, we merely replace spiritual deities with humanistic ones i.e. political/social ideologies.

You write that as if it's an immutable fact of human nature. It's certainly true that there were moments in history which reflected such a phenomenon, e.g., the excesses of the French Revolution and Maoist Cultural Revolution, and occasionally one will witness "new atheists" treating science as dogmatically as a religious zealot does his/her sacred texts, but this doesn't represent some sort of iron law of psychology.

Since religion is fundamentally an issue of personal faith, it shouldn't be allowed to influence public policy since the latter is meant to address worldly issues in an impartial manner. If a specific religion had a significant role in the establishment of the national consciousness, that fact should be presented in the country's history curricula. Elevating it beyond that level, however, threatens societal harmony and even has the potential to cause international conflict.

If a nation, tribe, community, etc. finds their foundation for social equality in a spiritual god rather than a humanistic one, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use it as a role in their public life any more than those using their humanistic deity.

The source of one's egalitarian ethos shouldn't be regarded as exempt from analysis or criticism, and in a free society it wouldn't be; theists and atheists are perfectly capable of disagreeing on the matter without that necessitating a geographical separation. As a left-wing nationalist, I believe the people should and will democratically decide the manner by which to demarcate territories following the proletarian revolution, and I doubt religion will figure prominently in their decision. You may think otherwise, and both you and I will have the opportunity to present our case before the people, should socialism materialize within our lifetime. Proselytizing that the working class should fight to establish the formation of religious communes today, however, is counterproductive. The dictatorship of capital can only be overthrown by a unified national proletariat, not an ideologically fragmented one. Thus, the primacy must be on the class struggle now—the national question can only be successfully resolved when the working class is liberated anyway.