The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
If God Is Dead...
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In a recent column Dennis Prager made an acute observation.

“The vast majority of leading conservative writers … have a secular outlook on life. … They are unaware of the disaster that godlessness in the West has led to.”

These secular conservatives may think that “America can survive the death of God and religion,” writes Prager, but they are wrong.

And, indeed, the last half-century seems to bear him out.

A people’s religion, their faith, creates their culture, and their culture creates their civilization. And when faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, and the people begin to die.

Is this not the recent history of the West?

Today, no great Western nation has a birthrate that will prevent the extinction of its native-born. By century’s end, other peoples and other cultures will have largely repopulated the Old Continent.

European Man seems destined to end like the 10 lost tribes of Israel — overrun, assimilated and disappeared.

And while the European peoples — Russians, Germans, Brits, Balts — shrink in number, the U.N. estimates that the population of Africa will double in 34 years to well over 2 billion people.

What happened to the West?

As G. K. Chesterton wrote, when men cease to believe in God, they do not then believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

As European elites ceased to believe in Christianity, they began to convert to ideologies, to what Dr. Russell Kirk called “secular religions.”

For a time, these secular religions — Marxism-Leninism, fascism, Nazism — captured the hearts and minds of millions. But almost all were among the gods that failed in the 20th century.

Now Western Man embraces the newer religions: egalitarianism, democratism, capitalism, feminism, One Worldism, environmentalism.

These, too, give meaning to the lives of millions, but these, too, are inadequate substitutes for the faith that created the West.

For they lack what Christianity gave man — a cause not only to live for, and die for, but a moral code to live by, with the promise that, at the end a life so lived, would come eternal life. Islam, too, holds out that promise.

Secularism, however, has nothing on offer to match that hope.

Looking back over the centuries, we see what faith has meant.

When, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the West embraced Christianity as a faith superior to all others, as its founder was the Son of God, the West went on to create modern civilization, and then went out and conquered most of the known world.

The truths America has taught the world, of an inherent human dignity and worth, and inviolable human rights, are traceable to a Christianity that teaches that every person is a child of God.

Today, however, with Christianity virtually dead in Europe and slowly dying in America, Western culture grows debased and decadent, and Western civilization is in visible decline.

Rudyard Kipling prophesied all this in “Recessional”:

“Far-called our navies melt away; On dune and headland sinks the fire: Lo, all our pomp of yesterday/Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!”

All the Western empires are gone, and the children of once-subject peoples cross the Mediterranean to repopulate the mother countries, whose native-born have begun to age, shrink and die.

Since 1975, only two European nations, Muslim Albania and Iceland have maintained a birthrate sufficient to keep their peoples alive.

Given the shrinking populations inside Europe and the waves of immigrants rolling in from Africa and the Middle and Near East, an Islamic Europe seems to be in the cards before the end of the century.

Vladimir Putin, who witnessed the death of Marxism-Leninism up close, appears to understand the cruciality of Christianity to Mother Russia, and seeks to revive the Orthodox Church and write its moral code back into Russian law.
And what of America, “God’s country”?

With Christianity excommunicated from her schools and public life for two generations, and Old and New Testament teachings rejected as a basis of law, we have witnessed a startlingly steep social decline.

Since the 1960s, America has set new records for abortions, violent crimes, incarcerations, drug consumption. While HIV/AIDS did not appear until the 1980s, hundreds of thousands have perished from it, and millions now suffer from it and related diseases.

Forty percent of U.S. births are out of wedlock. For Hispanics, the illegitimacy rate is over 50 percent; for African-Americans, it’s over 70 percent.

Test scores of U.S. high school students fall annually and approach parity with Third World countries.

Suicide is a rising cause of death for middle-aged whites.

Secularism seems to have no answer to the question, “Why not?”

“How small, of all that human hearts endure, That part which laws or kings can cause or cure,” wrote Samuel Johnson.

Secular conservatives may have remedies for some of America’s maladies. But, as Johnson observed, no secular politics can cure the sickness of the soul of the West — a lost faith that appears irretrievable.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2016 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Birth Rate, Christianity 
Hide 71 CommentsLeave a Comment
71 Comments to "If God Is Dead..."
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. First, IDEOLOGY, in their semantically pure concept, is not like many people think.

    Ideology is only the study of the ideas, like geology and psychology.

    Ideology is a domain and not a multitude of pseudo-philosophical cults, the (d) evolution of the ”religion”.

    I’m ideologue, a academic leftist is likely to be a cultist pretend to be a well-paid ‘thinker’.

    Second, the end of obscurantism should be being celebrated.

    Great part of the weaknesses of white people’s are exactly because their (pseudo) meta-physical dependence to navigate morally in the world. If you like your people so why you want they to continue as mental slaves *

    White people, on avg, is showing very lower capacity to adapt in stressfull situations, fundamentally about preserver their own bio-message.

    Exotic species tend to be vulnerable to the pragmatic lifestyle and agressiveness of the simple ones.

    Conservatives still think that ”the past” was absolutely wonderful. Indeed, the human story had been the story of exploitation of man ( and non-human animals) by man and specially by people who has lived in complex societies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    Word salad
    , @nickels
    Marxism.

    Next.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. mcs_in_ny says:

    To say that religion creates culture is far too simplistic. Religion and culture are inextricably intertwined and the impact of culture on religion is at least as great as that of religion upon culture. Much of what we today call Christianity derives as much from the Greek and Roman culture in which it was reared than from the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. That Christianity is still alive two millennia later is evidence of its malleability under the influence of cultural change and that is a good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Religion and culture are inextricably intertwined and the impact of culture on religion is at least as great as that of religion upon culture.
     
    It's much simpler than that. Religion, as practiced, is a component of culture. Culture is never, ever a subset of religion. Always it's the other way around.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Rurik says:

    A people’s religion, their faith, creates their culture, and their culture creates their civilization. And when faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, and the people begin to die.

    I beg to differ (slightly)

    A people’s religion; their faith and their culture are a direct consequence and reflection of their spirit. (Or at least should be) And Western man’s spirit, his nature.. had found a complementary religion in Christianity that suited his religious needs for a long time.

    But today, that same Christianity that used to give hope and meaning, has been corrupted and usurped at the top by Christianity and Western civilization’s enemies.

    Just look at the Vatican, sir. Look at the unspeakable rot and corruption. The near Satanic demands being put upon Catholics to abase themselves and embrace being “overrun, assimilated and disappeared”- in just the manner you describe of the tribes of Israel. It is none other than the Pope who is demanding such defiling away of Western man.

    In fact all the things you rightly lament as catastrophic for the West are a consequence of the rot and corruption of the Christian church. They (Mammon’s minions) have used lucre to buy the Christian leadership to foist their agenda of wars in the Middle East- and the murder, rape and genocide of Christians in the holy land. How much more proof of the rot of the Christian church do you need? If it’s the Christian leadership who, more than anyone else is demanding that the West commit suicide, then where exactly is a Western man to turn for religious truths?

    I agree we humans generally need some kind of spiritual connection to more than just what we can touch. But all I can see from the Christian church is moral cowardice and corruption. The entire edifice of the Church looks more like they worship Moloch than the Christ.

    Perhaps there’s more hope in the Orthodox church of Russia. I just read something here on the Unz review from Israel Shamir on how the Orthodox are less hierarchical. Perhaps that’s what we need, because what we’ve got today is worst than secularism. It’s a religious fealty to the devil him$elf.

    the faith that created the West

    the West was created in Greece, and thrived in Rome, before it became Christian, and foundered

    When, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the West embraced Christianity as a faith superior to all others, as its founder was the Son of God, the West went on to create modern civilization, and then went out and conquered most of the known world.

    I’d say you have this backwards. Rome, (and Greece before it) created Western civilization, and when Rome fell, Christianity brought us the “Dark Ages”. Where “heretics” were burned at the stake. The true greatness of the West was realized after the Age of Enlightenment and the Renaissance.

    There’s no walking back science, and so we need spiritual truths that transcend the dogmas of the past and align with modern understanding. We need a religion that can not be bought or bribed.

    I wish I had the answers, but anything is better that a religious fealty to your enemies. They’ll have you licking their feet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Horzabky
    If it’s the Christian leadership who, more than anyone else is demanding that the West commit suicide, then where exactly is a Western man to turn for religious truths?

    I am a Western man who converted to Theravada Buddhism in 1995, and I am very glad I did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @mcs_in_ny
    To say that religion creates culture is far too simplistic. Religion and culture are inextricably intertwined and the impact of culture on religion is at least as great as that of religion upon culture. Much of what we today call Christianity derives as much from the Greek and Roman culture in which it was reared than from the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. That Christianity is still alive two millennia later is evidence of its malleability under the influence of cultural change and that is a good thing.

    Religion and culture are inextricably intertwined and the impact of culture on religion is at least as great as that of religion upon culture.

    It’s much simpler than that. Religion, as practiced, is a component of culture. Culture is never, ever a subset of religion. Always it’s the other way around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear JJ Smith,

    I would definitely agree with this statement from a logical point of view. But I believe the point that was being made is; does one's culture influence one's religion to a greater degree or does one's religion influence one's culture to a greater degree - or is the symbiotic relationship equal?

    From my perspective, the answer depends on the religion in question since they are not all built on the same principles.

    May God preserve you and yours and the future of the people of Europe and her tributaries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Religion = connect with the divine….

    Reality

    religion (tool for) = politics = exploitation of man and other beings by other (psycho)man,

    simpler than that.

    White schizoid is like the ”guinea pigs” that are used in ” ethical ” tests in psychology departments. Students learn that after addict them, they need to ”’eliminate”’ them.

    christianism = connect with … the story of the divine jewish royal family, a virgin-mother made pregnant by another man (extramarital betrayal, but ok, he’s the guy, people !! he’s the guy !! he can), with little stories in the border of mental dementia, such as ” proof of your love for me = sacrifice his own son ”, almost preaches the same nonsense that rival religion, islam, that most of the devotees never read even the half of the ”sacred” book but they believe that from this book emanate whole truth, this cult never did nothing for his people only for his retarded elites.

    People think that modern Christianity of the Argentine people is a deviation from the path it has followed. No, it’s just the natural evolution of a ordinary cult, which feed on the ignorance of the masses to thrive indefinitely, its ‘eternity’ in the Earth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. It came to pass that:

    When, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the West embraced Christianity as a faith superior to all others, as its founder was the Son of God, the West went on to create modern civilization, and then went out and conquered most of the known world.

    It came to pass Pat. You are an historian. Did you think the Christian West was the end of history? I admire your passion and your mastery of our language. I read somewhere that “we are the people of the parenthesis”. It is ours to witness the decadence that precedes the passing of a dominant culture. We are in this world but not of it Pat. This world is not our home.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. I read this – “The truths America has taught the world, of an inherent human dignity and worth, and inviolable human rights, are traceable to a Christianity that teaches that every person is a child of God. – in the context of your defense, a couple of days ago, of Andrew Jackson and a couple of other Christian gangsters and belittling of Harriet Tubman. And then I read: “All the Western empires are gone, and the children of once-subject peoples cross the Mediterranean to repopulate the mother countries, whose native-born have begun to age, shrink and die.” Not a word about the constant American (= Christian?) wars that are causing people to cross the Mediterranean. I’m amused. You’re a sick fuck, Pat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neprof
    Buchanan was one of the rare Republicans vocally against the Iraq war. " The constant American wars" you refer to is the very subject of Pat's column. Secular conservatives, a.k.a. neocons, are the problem he's addressing since they no longer factor the dignity of the individual into their policies. Policies like frivolous wars and free trade which put economics above people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. mtn cur says:

    A belief in a super daddy is very useful in reminding the infantile majority of the golden rule, since juggling multiple systems of interacting causes and effects is even beyond most of the bright ones. Meanwhile, being unable to imagine “a god that created everything out of nothing, yet thinking that nothing created everything out of itself” is a marvelous form of self contradiction. If this alleged nothing thought itself and all other things into existence, then upon the demise of this thoughtful nothing, it would stop thinking and we would stop existing. I gave up on comparative religion when I accepted that no matter who devised a system of belief to encourage responsible behavior, when a child is raised by the brain damaged, brain damage is the result. While I can imagine a first cause as creator, being a moron surrounded by delta sub morons, I very often suspect that hell is my current address, since creating a species of crazy apes and then burning them in hell forever is almost as retarded as we are, which may account for the theory that we really are created in Gods image, since only something as silly and perverted as a human would deliberately cause something to be flawed and then torture it because of its’ imperfection.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    The golden rule isn't actually much use without belief in the super daddy, so to speak, and willingness of the collective to enforce daddy's law and/or belief by everyone that he will ultimately enforce it himself.

    Taken alone, rather than as a brief summation of a transcendent moral order enforced by a deity, the golden rule is politics, not ethics. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" becomes in that context not a command from one's maker, as part of a cosmic law, but rather advice that one should follow to prevent one's own ox getting gored, and that only so long as one assumes everybody else follows it.

    And there is also the matter of what one is willing to accept from others in order to free one's own hand to act in one's own interest. If you consider life a competition for wealth, power, fame, whatever, and are willing to consider yourself a player in the game of pursuing those ends, and accept whatever price comes of it if you lose, then why not do anything it takes to get them? That would also be applying the golden rule.

    And those who believe themselves strong enough, rich enough, whatever, will always play the golden rule that way, hoping to evade consequence, and the weak will have no grounds for complaint. And the aforementioned strong, if strong enough to actually eliminate their enemies, will pay no price in this world for violating the golden rule and will not anticipate paying one in the next, or indeed anticipate such a next world at all.

    It's fortunate we have positive law and can legislate whatever punishments we want, but the absence of universally shared morals does mean that positive law is a function of majoritarian power only, and there is no particular reason for us to back those laws with our customary, hypocritical moral outrage or for anyone seeking to evade the laws we have put in place to feel the least guilt for doing so.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Klokman says:

    Only a True Believing Christian, ignorant of world secular and religious history could come up with such nonsensical correlation and causation.

    The first fallacy is equating the decline of religiosity with a disbelief in God.
    The second fallacy is the attribution of moral virtue solely to religious devotion.
    The third fallacy is assuming that Christianity was created by the “Son of God.”

    “The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.” Allegedly, this came from an Assyrian tablet, ca. 2800 BCE.–Religious Tolerance.org

    After having endure over 50 years in a religious cult I have to say that nowhere is hypocrisy, and the opposite of moral virtue more extant than among devoutly religious people. If people are abandoning religion it’s for the same basic reason I had to–I got tired of the piety, priestcraft, and willingness of the Believing to screw over their neighbor whenever they thought they could not be held accountable. If people leave it’s because they know that Christianity was a concoction of Constantine, who amalgamated the various religions within the empire into a Catholicism riddled with contradictions, falsehoods, and mythology.

    Pat should know better just from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine alone. From my recent foray into the US Revolutionary period it is abundantly clear the corruption and lack of moral virtue today was just as prevalent then. The rise and fall of civilizations has nothing to do with a belief/disbelief in God.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. For a time, these secular religions — Marxism-Leninism, fascism, Nazism — captured the hearts and minds of millions. But almost all were among the gods that failed in the 20th century.

    Not including zionism in the list of -isms demonstrates stunning ignorance of the history of the last century.

    zionism was and is a key factor in the destruction of Christianity in Russia, France, Britain, Germany (Nazism was not anti-Christian, it was anti-Hebrew bible) and USA.

    zionists have infiltrated the Vatican itself and keep Francis on a short leash.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Good point!

    Pat?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. woodNfish says:

    If you take the statistics at the end of Buchanon’s article and apply them only to whites, the numbers are much, much lower. Lumping white’s in with the blacks and latinos is a classic fraud. Shame on Pat for using it to try and make a point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. SysATI says:

    So much bull… in so few words….

    I have only on religion and it is “bookism”, i.e. READ, learn and try to understand what’s going on around you. Then decide if it is good for you or not. Not because you are told to or because the society you live in has decided that it was the “normal” thing to do.

    None of the existing religions can give you the understanding that a free and open minded spirit will give you.

    And it is only when all the religions are dead that humans will (maybe) become something but a bunch of sheep believing in anything they are being told, being sacred or not.

    We don’t need more religion, we need none !

    Read More
    • Agree: Realist
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. If you believe in anything (DWTS, Kardashians, Housewives of XYZ), you stand for nothing, and you will exert no great effort to preserve your way of life when you think the fun will go on forever. The West went looking for God and found the iPhone.

    The only way the West as we know it will survive has little to do with birthrates … we can soldier on with a stable population at current levels or even a bit less, but it means developing the resolve to give the teeming masses the reasons they need to stay where they are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. @SolontoCroesus

    For a time, these secular religions — Marxism-Leninism, fascism, Nazism — captured the hearts and minds of millions. But almost all were among the gods that failed in the 20th century.
     
    Not including zionism in the list of -isms demonstrates stunning ignorance of the history of the last century.

    zionism was and is a key factor in the destruction of Christianity in Russia, France, Britain, Germany (Nazism was not anti-Christian, it was anti-Hebrew bible) and USA.

    zionists have infiltrated the Vatican itself and keep Francis on a short leash.

    Good point!

    Pat?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. The Earth, polluted, heats and dies;
    The Christian for his Christ now cries:
    Thy Second Coming must be near!
    But Jesus never does appear.

    Leave Christ to rot in linen shroud
    And moth to feed on miters proud.
    The ancient wafer lacking yeast
    Has lost all taste and long grown stale.

    Let forest gods return from dale,
    And Western man revert to beast,
    Play Game of Thrones with pagan feast.
    His daughter doffs her dress, and whores
    And Dionysos now adores.
    His son forsakes his craft and toil;
    Why drive the plough through barren soil?

    Omega rises like the son:
    O, Western man, thy day is done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Haven't quite made up my mind about all the sentiments therein, but the nihilist spirit is appealing and as a poem that's not bad. Better than anything one might see in a poetry workshop or from Maya Angelou, at any rate. whose is it? Or your own work?
    , @Talha
    Dear ETn,

    Great poem - post more as comments to other articles if you have any more like this.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. I thought our entire culture was base on “Freedom” wtf is this religious dribble? focus on freedom and individual rights please. Even if they are lies, just like all ideologies, why bring up the worst lie of all, religion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Qasim
    AstuteobservorII:

    I thought our entire culture was base on “Freedom” wtf is this religious dribble?

    It is drivel, not dribble.

    And wouldn't an astute person know how to spell observer?

    The only reason I even bring this up is that articles like Mr. Buchanan's always seem to attract these sorts of intellectually lazy, stock put-downs, this thread being no exception.

    It is common for atheists to offer their pop-psychological analysis for why people believe, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am increasingly convinced that a lot of the snarky "new-atheist" types on threads like this one are people in the 115 IQ range for whom insulting believers and "seeing through religious dribble" offers a sense of intellectual superiority that otherwise eludes them.

    Let's see now if some people respond to my post and inadvertently prove my point :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Horzabky says:
    @Rurik

    A people’s religion, their faith, creates their culture, and their culture creates their civilization. And when faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, and the people begin to die.
     
    I beg to differ (slightly)

    A people's religion; their faith and their culture are a direct consequence and reflection of their spirit. (Or at least should be) And Western man's spirit, his nature.. had found a complementary religion in Christianity that suited his religious needs for a long time.

    But today, that same Christianity that used to give hope and meaning, has been corrupted and usurped at the top by Christianity and Western civilization's enemies.

    Just look at the Vatican, sir. Look at the unspeakable rot and corruption. The near Satanic demands being put upon Catholics to abase themselves and embrace being "overrun, assimilated and disappeared"- in just the manner you describe of the tribes of Israel. It is none other than the Pope who is demanding such defiling away of Western man.

    In fact all the things you rightly lament as catastrophic for the West are a consequence of the rot and corruption of the Christian church. They (Mammon's minions) have used lucre to buy the Christian leadership to foist their agenda of wars in the Middle East- and the murder, rape and genocide of Christians in the holy land. How much more proof of the rot of the Christian church do you need? If it's the Christian leadership who, more than anyone else is demanding that the West commit suicide, then where exactly is a Western man to turn for religious truths?

    I agree we humans generally need some kind of spiritual connection to more than just what we can touch. But all I can see from the Christian church is moral cowardice and corruption. The entire edifice of the Church looks more like they worship Moloch than the Christ.

    Perhaps there's more hope in the Orthodox church of Russia. I just read something here on the Unz review from Israel Shamir on how the Orthodox are less hierarchical. Perhaps that's what we need, because what we've got today is worst than secularism. It's a religious fealty to the devil him$elf.

    the faith that created the West
     
    the West was created in Greece, and thrived in Rome, before it became Christian, and foundered

    When, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the West embraced Christianity as a faith superior to all others, as its founder was the Son of God, the West went on to create modern civilization, and then went out and conquered most of the known world.
     
    I'd say you have this backwards. Rome, (and Greece before it) created Western civilization, and when Rome fell, Christianity brought us the "Dark Ages". Where "heretics" were burned at the stake. The true greatness of the West was realized after the Age of Enlightenment and the Renaissance.

    There's no walking back science, and so we need spiritual truths that transcend the dogmas of the past and align with modern understanding. We need a religion that can not be bought or bribed.

    I wish I had the answers, but anything is better that a religious fealty to your enemies. They'll have you licking their feet.

    If it’s the Christian leadership who, more than anyone else is demanding that the West commit suicide, then where exactly is a Western man to turn for religious truths?

    I am a Western man who converted to Theravada Buddhism in 1995, and I am very glad I did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)


    The question Buchanan poses is akin to that posed by the famous Puzzle of Nine Dots. In his case, one may pose the problem: "Come up with a religion that gives modern man a reason to live and preserves a basis for human morality without an omnipotent Creator Deity." Buchanan can't do it! All the King's thinkers and all the King's priests cannot make this "paradox" cease.

    To those such as (I presume) yourself, or a Taoist sage watching the mists eerily flow past his mountain retreat at dawn, or a Yaqui Indian shaman, supine in the Sonoran sands at 3:00 a.m., totally absorbed in the effulgence of the Milky Way, or a child playing with his new puppy for the very first time, such "insoluble" "problems" do not even present themselves. But here sits Western man, tied up in knots of his own devising.

    One might wish for an ancient sage to take compassion on poor Modern Man, and ask him, "Who told you you had to stay within your self-imposed square to solve the puzzle? Who told you that the path to your personal liberation lay in obeying the 'commandments' of an ancient Semitic faith which its own inventors now openly mock? Who told you that another's sacrifice and struggle (that of 'God's' 'only-begotten son' Jesus) can set you free?"

    Christians are taught that Christ's sacrifice on the Cross saves them from their sins. One supposes Buchanan agrees. But then he quotes Lord Byron: "Who would be free must themselves strike the blow." That they can strike a blow for their own spiritual freedom simply by paying undivided attention to one sip of green tea as it flows, hot, bitter, and soft, over their awakened tongue seldom, if ever, occurs to them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Russian population will be able to sustain itself if the current total fertility rates hold. After 2030, once the cohort born during the nadir in births have finished their turn at reproducing, we’ll see a noticeable uptick in population growth particularly in the younger age brackets.

    As for this article, the point is Christianity is an anthropological necessity. Religion triangulates culture, a personal aesthetic, and a meta-narrative. Can’t function without it. The West was informed by Christianity very deeply in ways many secularists here are ignorant of. It’s true Greek and roman thinking also had an impact, but Christianity complimented and subsumed them, rather than rejecting them. Certainly it has had its excesses and foolishness particularly institutionally, but it is an indispensable generator of our culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Well stated. I think this what Mr. Buchanan was aiming to convey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Santoculto
    First, IDEOLOGY, in their semantically pure concept, is not like many people think.

    Ideology is only the study of the ideas, like geology and psychology.

    Ideology is a domain and not a multitude of pseudo-philosophical cults, the (d) evolution of the ''religion''.

    I'm ideologue, a academic leftist is likely to be a cultist pretend to be a well-paid 'thinker'.


    Second, the end of obscurantism should be being celebrated.

    Great part of the weaknesses of white people's are exactly because their (pseudo) meta-physical dependence to navigate morally in the world. If you like your people so why you want they to continue as mental slaves *

    White people, on avg, is showing very lower capacity to adapt in stressfull situations, fundamentally about preserver their own bio-message.

    Exotic species tend to be vulnerable to the pragmatic lifestyle and agressiveness of the simple ones.


    Conservatives still think that ''the past'' was absolutely wonderful. Indeed, the human story had been the story of exploitation of man ( and non-human animals) by man and specially by people who has lived in complex societies.

    Word salad

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Good for eat
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Talha says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Religion and culture are inextricably intertwined and the impact of culture on religion is at least as great as that of religion upon culture.
     
    It's much simpler than that. Religion, as practiced, is a component of culture. Culture is never, ever a subset of religion. Always it's the other way around.

    Dear JJ Smith,

    I would definitely agree with this statement from a logical point of view. But I believe the point that was being made is; does one’s culture influence one’s religion to a greater degree or does one’s religion influence one’s culture to a greater degree – or is the symbiotic relationship equal?

    From my perspective, the answer depends on the religion in question since they are not all built on the same principles.

    May God preserve you and yours and the future of the people of Europe and her tributaries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    But I believe the point that was being made is; does one’s culture influence one’s religion to a greater degree or does one’s religion influence one’s culture to a greater degree – or is the symbiotic relationship equal?
     
    Talha, I suppose there are always venues, and good reasons, where and for which one may wax lyrical about "religion" and "culture". That's all well and good, albeit more a vehicle for poetry and historical fiction.

    Religion is a subset, a component of culture. Religion influences/shapes culture. Culture does not influence religion. The tail does not wag the dog. Culture is a cookie-jar, not a cookie. Religion is a Christmas tree ornament, not the Christmas tree.

    My analogy engine tires. Believe as you like.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Congo says:

    The decline in birth rate, and perhaps the decline in faith too, are caused by improvements in the living standard. Culture affects economy, but it is usually the other way round. If you reduce the per capita income of Europe to that of Russia some religion will return. But, why do you want to do that? It is better to improve living conditions in Africa and Asia so that population growth declines there too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. KenH says:

    Well, Rurik stole most of my thunder but I need to add that contemporary Christianity is not a bulwark against anything that threatens the survival of white European man or Western nations. In fact, a strong case can be made that many Catholic and Protestant leaders are actively furthering some goals of the radical cultural Marxist and ultra left wing/anti-racist agenda most especially the race replacement program (via mass third world immigration) and mongrelization program (via interracial dating & marriage) that is in full swing throughout the West. Moreover, I’ve spoken with several fundamentalist Christians who seem to worship and revere the Jewish people and Israel instead of Jesus.

    The bloody conflict between Catholic and Protestant caused the Thirty Years’ War which claimed the lives of nearly 40% of the German population. While the massive bloodletting and fratricide of world wars I & II were not religious in nature, they were primarily wars between Christian states and in which Christian leaders did little to stop, discourage or prevent the carnage. Both world wars can be considered the Thirty Years’ War writ large and it’s still an open question whether the defeat of Germany in WWII sealed the fate of Europe and perhaps all of the West.

    Christianity may have served Western man for a time, but that time may have passed. James Russell convincingly argues that Christianity is now returning to its universalist, pacifistic and Levantine roots in The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity and shedding the Indo-European folk values that were injected into it by the Germanic tribes.

    Western people will not survive the onslaught they’re facing by turning the other cheek or inherit the earth by being meek or submitting to their mortal enemies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. AndyBoy says:

    Pat always came close, but would flame out in his analysis because he had to say EVERYTHING can be explained by Faith & Values.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Realist says:

    God is not dead. He still lives in the imagination of many people.

    Religion is used to control people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Ever heard of Strauss, Bohr, Feurbach? If you're going to regurgitate things, please please at least understand the ideological lineage of your post Enlightenment philosophy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Every time I read an article about religion Steven Weinberg’s observation always comes into my mind.
    ” With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things that takes religion”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. @Lemurmaniac
    Word salad

    Good for eat

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Talha
    Dear JJ Smith,

    I would definitely agree with this statement from a logical point of view. But I believe the point that was being made is; does one's culture influence one's religion to a greater degree or does one's religion influence one's culture to a greater degree - or is the symbiotic relationship equal?

    From my perspective, the answer depends on the religion in question since they are not all built on the same principles.

    May God preserve you and yours and the future of the people of Europe and her tributaries.

    But I believe the point that was being made is; does one’s culture influence one’s religion to a greater degree or does one’s religion influence one’s culture to a greater degree – or is the symbiotic relationship equal?

    Talha, I suppose there are always venues, and good reasons, where and for which one may wax lyrical about “religion” and “culture”. That’s all well and good, albeit more a vehicle for poetry and historical fiction.

    Religion is a subset, a component of culture. Religion influences/shapes culture. Culture does not influence religion. The tail does not wag the dog. Culture is a cookie-jar, not a cookie. Religion is a Christmas tree ornament, not the Christmas tree.

    My analogy engine tires. Believe as you like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Rehmat says:

    If Pat Buchanan had studied his Catholic theology from some objective source – he would have known that his God JESUS Christ was ‘hanged to death’ over 2000 years ago.

    White population is declining because there are more gays and lesbian in the West than the population of Iraq and Syria put together.

    Originally, there 12 tribes of Israelites – based on 12 sons of prophet Jacob aka Israel. They were not ethically cleansed like American Natives by non-Israelite races – they accepted other religions, such as, Christianity or Islam or became communists and atheists. But, good news for Buchanan, these lost Tribes were replaced by Persians, Turks and Greeks.

    On March 3, 2016, the Oxford Journal published a research article, entitled, Localizing Ashkenazic Jews to Premeval villages in the ancient lands of Ashkenaz.

    The study was conducted by four renowned scholars of Genome Biology and Evolution, Ranagit Das (University of Sheffield, UK, and Manipal University, India), Paul Wexler (Tel Aviv University), Mehdi Pirooznia (Johns Hopkins University), and Eran Elhaik (University of Sheffield , UK).

    The Study concludes that the Ashkenazic (European) Jews don’t belongs to the so-called Semite (Israelite) tribes from the Middle East but originated from ancient Iranian, Turkish and Greek lands – and converted to Judaism after the fall of Khazarian empire.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/04/23/new-study-ashkenazic-jews-originated-from-iran/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Talha says:
    @Lemurmaniac
    Russian population will be able to sustain itself if the current total fertility rates hold. After 2030, once the cohort born during the nadir in births have finished their turn at reproducing, we'll see a noticeable uptick in population growth particularly in the younger age brackets.

    As for this article, the point is Christianity is an anthropological necessity. Religion triangulates culture, a personal aesthetic, and a meta-narrative. Can't function without it. The West was informed by Christianity very deeply in ways many secularists here are ignorant of. It's true Greek and roman thinking also had an impact, but Christianity complimented and subsumed them, rather than rejecting them. Certainly it has had its excesses and foolishness particularly institutionally, but it is an indispensable generator of our culture.

    Well stated. I think this what Mr. Buchanan was aiming to convey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @mtn cur
    A belief in a super daddy is very useful in reminding the infantile majority of the golden rule, since juggling multiple systems of interacting causes and effects is even beyond most of the bright ones. Meanwhile, being unable to imagine "a god that created everything out of nothing, yet thinking that nothing created everything out of itself" is a marvelous form of self contradiction. If this alleged nothing thought itself and all other things into existence, then upon the demise of this thoughtful nothing, it would stop thinking and we would stop existing. I gave up on comparative religion when I accepted that no matter who devised a system of belief to encourage responsible behavior, when a child is raised by the brain damaged, brain damage is the result. While I can imagine a first cause as creator, being a moron surrounded by delta sub morons, I very often suspect that hell is my current address, since creating a species of crazy apes and then burning them in hell forever is almost as retarded as we are, which may account for the theory that we really are created in Gods image, since only something as silly and perverted as a human would deliberately cause something to be flawed and then torture it because of its' imperfection.

    The golden rule isn’t actually much use without belief in the super daddy, so to speak, and willingness of the collective to enforce daddy’s law and/or belief by everyone that he will ultimately enforce it himself.

    Taken alone, rather than as a brief summation of a transcendent moral order enforced by a deity, the golden rule is politics, not ethics. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” becomes in that context not a command from one’s maker, as part of a cosmic law, but rather advice that one should follow to prevent one’s own ox getting gored, and that only so long as one assumes everybody else follows it.

    And there is also the matter of what one is willing to accept from others in order to free one’s own hand to act in one’s own interest. If you consider life a competition for wealth, power, fame, whatever, and are willing to consider yourself a player in the game of pursuing those ends, and accept whatever price comes of it if you lose, then why not do anything it takes to get them? That would also be applying the golden rule.

    And those who believe themselves strong enough, rich enough, whatever, will always play the golden rule that way, hoping to evade consequence, and the weak will have no grounds for complaint. And the aforementioned strong, if strong enough to actually eliminate their enemies, will pay no price in this world for violating the golden rule and will not anticipate paying one in the next, or indeed anticipate such a next world at all.

    It’s fortunate we have positive law and can legislate whatever punishments we want, but the absence of universally shared morals does mean that positive law is a function of majoritarian power only, and there is no particular reason for us to back those laws with our customary, hypocritical moral outrage or for anyone seeking to evade the laws we have put in place to feel the least guilt for doing so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear RO,

    Another excellent analysis! I would agree with everything you are saying (though maybe not in the same words). You have put down in writing the thoughts I've had in my head for a while, but could not put them to pen so well. Permission or forgiveness is sought in advance if I plagiarize some of your words in another context.

    Keep them coming - the comments here are definitely getting the brain juices flowing.

    Peace.

    , @mtn cur
    With respect to my remark about being mindful of interacting causes and effects, a guy wrote a book about " How To Tell Right From Wrong " which cleverly avoided the swamps of morality by summarizing, "do you want to get hurt, then don't do that." Perfectly simple for simpletons despite all the debate intended to evade or divert consequence.
    , @Sam Shama
    'God, King, Country and the Hangman's noose' always works.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Talha says:
    @random observer
    The golden rule isn't actually much use without belief in the super daddy, so to speak, and willingness of the collective to enforce daddy's law and/or belief by everyone that he will ultimately enforce it himself.

    Taken alone, rather than as a brief summation of a transcendent moral order enforced by a deity, the golden rule is politics, not ethics. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" becomes in that context not a command from one's maker, as part of a cosmic law, but rather advice that one should follow to prevent one's own ox getting gored, and that only so long as one assumes everybody else follows it.

    And there is also the matter of what one is willing to accept from others in order to free one's own hand to act in one's own interest. If you consider life a competition for wealth, power, fame, whatever, and are willing to consider yourself a player in the game of pursuing those ends, and accept whatever price comes of it if you lose, then why not do anything it takes to get them? That would also be applying the golden rule.

    And those who believe themselves strong enough, rich enough, whatever, will always play the golden rule that way, hoping to evade consequence, and the weak will have no grounds for complaint. And the aforementioned strong, if strong enough to actually eliminate their enemies, will pay no price in this world for violating the golden rule and will not anticipate paying one in the next, or indeed anticipate such a next world at all.

    It's fortunate we have positive law and can legislate whatever punishments we want, but the absence of universally shared morals does mean that positive law is a function of majoritarian power only, and there is no particular reason for us to back those laws with our customary, hypocritical moral outrage or for anyone seeking to evade the laws we have put in place to feel the least guilt for doing so.

    Dear RO,

    Another excellent analysis! I would agree with everything you are saying (though maybe not in the same words). You have put down in writing the thoughts I’ve had in my head for a while, but could not put them to pen so well. Permission or forgiveness is sought in advance if I plagiarize some of your words in another context.

    Keep them coming – the comments here are definitely getting the brain juices flowing.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    I gather from recent posts you are Muslim? Or at least come from a Muslim upbringing.

    I come from a position that exists somewhere in the netherworld between atheist/agnostic/lingering Christian/vaguely pagan [not that I believe in those gods- just in the sense that my foci of loyalty are state and tribe, so respectively the classical Greco-Roman and the Celto-Scandinavian [for me] ways of looking at things]. More or less, and not too thoroughly thought out.

    I grew up attending a Presbyterian church [in Canada- it was always fairly liberal] on occasion with my parents, but it was partly Scottish-ethnic habit for them and only my mother I think really believes. It was Canada in the 1970s-80s, so it was still habit for many people. More than now.

    In life I actually seem to live by vaguely late-Christian behaviours, except for the moral universalism, and only to the somewhat pro-forma degree that most North American Anglo people were "Christian" when I was born.

    When these issues come up in discussion, I'm torn.

    I don't actually want to live in a society whose moral principles would be recognized by a first century Roman or German.

    I also don't want to live in a society whose moral principles are purely Christian- I'm a creature of late 20th century ways of living even if my version is fairly conservative, and I do fine without simon-pure love-the-world universalism, or bible-thumping creationism, or what have you. [I appreciate I'm trading in stereotypes, but both of those do tire me out.]

    On the other hand I don't want to live in a society that actually tries to derive its moral principles from science or nature [as distinct from the highly religiose 'natural law'], because I can't see any moral principles in those sources.

    As more personal and less analytical as all that is, perhaps it gives some idea of where I am in middle age. We'll see how things go.

    I find that for me the most troubling aspect of these things today is the absence of thinking it through that I see when I see a regular-joe or jane atheist up here writing letters to the editor, in response to some piece about Christianity or moral philosophy, about how easy it is to be "good" by "choice". No effort to define "good" or for that matter "choice", to consider that "good" is a concept in more or less constant dispute, to debate how society is to pick a definition of the "good" and enforce it on those who disagree on any basis other than majoritarian power. [I'd be willing to accept that if presented honestly, but we like Americans live in a culture that claims to believe in abstract rights, individualism, and to oppose majoritarianism.] Or any awareness of these questions' very existence.

    Everybody just assumes that the moral values of contemporary liberalism, which in the west rely on derived Christian assumptions about the nature of the world, man and society, are somehow both universally accepted and valid on some kind of indisputable basis. They can't actually be derived rationally from the observation of nature, from the laws of physics or chemistry, or from pure math so far as I am aware, at least not without the prior assumption that these reflect some sort of predefined divine order, and even then a lot of content has to be assumed into existence.

    The golden rule, or for that matter Kant's idea of the categorical imperative, always come to mind for me in that context. Plenty of people in every place and age would respond with something like the Melian Dialogue in Thucydides- The strong do what they can, and the weak endure what they must.

    I don't want to live in that world without legal and ethical mediating forces, but as ethical codes go it is more consistent with the observation of the natural world than the way we usually understand Jesus' words or Kant's, and it is actually consistent with Jesus or Kant provided one is ready to accept the consequences if one ends up on the losing side. In other words, if you are willing to accept getting killed as the result of defeat in a political dispute, the golden rule or the categorical imperative grant you the right to kill if you win. I am sure that's not what Jesus meant. But if he wasn't God, who cares?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    The Earth, polluted, heats and dies;
    The Christian for his Christ now cries:
    Thy Second Coming must be near!
    But Jesus never does appear.

    Leave Christ to rot in linen shroud
    And moth to feed on miters proud.
    The ancient wafer lacking yeast
    Has lost all taste and long grown stale.

    Let forest gods return from dale,
    And Western man revert to beast,
    Play Game of Thrones with pagan feast.
    His daughter doffs her dress, and whores
    And Dionysos now adores.
    His son forsakes his craft and toil;
    Why drive the plough through barren soil?

    Omega rises like the son:
    O, Western man, thy day is done.

    Haven’t quite made up my mind about all the sentiments therein, but the nihilist spirit is appealing and as a poem that’s not bad. Better than anything one might see in a poetry workshop or from Maya Angelou, at any rate. whose is it? Or your own work?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Talha says:
    @Eustace Tilley (not)
    The Earth, polluted, heats and dies;
    The Christian for his Christ now cries:
    Thy Second Coming must be near!
    But Jesus never does appear.

    Leave Christ to rot in linen shroud
    And moth to feed on miters proud.
    The ancient wafer lacking yeast
    Has lost all taste and long grown stale.

    Let forest gods return from dale,
    And Western man revert to beast,
    Play Game of Thrones with pagan feast.
    His daughter doffs her dress, and whores
    And Dionysos now adores.
    His son forsakes his craft and toil;
    Why drive the plough through barren soil?

    Omega rises like the son:
    O, Western man, thy day is done.

    Dear ETn,

    Great poem – post more as comments to other articles if you have any more like this.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Marcus says:

    I think the shift to postindustrial economy, with women probably the majority of workers now, make a fertility decline inevitable. Then there’s feminism which encouraged women to go beyond economic “empowerment” by putting themselves first at the expense of family, the pill didn’t help, and there’s also the change to easy divorce laws. BTW Albania is largely secular, and among the nominally religious, many are Christians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. neprof says:
    @Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften
    I read this - "The truths America has taught the world, of an inherent human dignity and worth, and inviolable human rights, are traceable to a Christianity that teaches that every person is a child of God. - in the context of your defense, a couple of days ago, of Andrew Jackson and a couple of other Christian gangsters and belittling of Harriet Tubman. And then I read: "All the Western empires are gone, and the children of once-subject peoples cross the Mediterranean to repopulate the mother countries, whose native-born have begun to age, shrink and die." Not a word about the constant American (= Christian?) wars that are causing people to cross the Mediterranean. I'm amused. You're a sick fuck, Pat.

    Buchanan was one of the rare Republicans vocally against the Iraq war. ” The constant American wars” you refer to is the very subject of Pat’s column. Secular conservatives, a.k.a. neocons, are the problem he’s addressing since they no longer factor the dignity of the individual into their policies. Policies like frivolous wars and free trade which put economics above people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. mtn cur says:
    @random observer
    The golden rule isn't actually much use without belief in the super daddy, so to speak, and willingness of the collective to enforce daddy's law and/or belief by everyone that he will ultimately enforce it himself.

    Taken alone, rather than as a brief summation of a transcendent moral order enforced by a deity, the golden rule is politics, not ethics. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" becomes in that context not a command from one's maker, as part of a cosmic law, but rather advice that one should follow to prevent one's own ox getting gored, and that only so long as one assumes everybody else follows it.

    And there is also the matter of what one is willing to accept from others in order to free one's own hand to act in one's own interest. If you consider life a competition for wealth, power, fame, whatever, and are willing to consider yourself a player in the game of pursuing those ends, and accept whatever price comes of it if you lose, then why not do anything it takes to get them? That would also be applying the golden rule.

    And those who believe themselves strong enough, rich enough, whatever, will always play the golden rule that way, hoping to evade consequence, and the weak will have no grounds for complaint. And the aforementioned strong, if strong enough to actually eliminate their enemies, will pay no price in this world for violating the golden rule and will not anticipate paying one in the next, or indeed anticipate such a next world at all.

    It's fortunate we have positive law and can legislate whatever punishments we want, but the absence of universally shared morals does mean that positive law is a function of majoritarian power only, and there is no particular reason for us to back those laws with our customary, hypocritical moral outrage or for anyone seeking to evade the laws we have put in place to feel the least guilt for doing so.

    With respect to my remark about being mindful of interacting causes and effects, a guy wrote a book about ” How To Tell Right From Wrong ” which cleverly avoided the swamps of morality by summarizing, “do you want to get hurt, then don’t do that.” Perfectly simple for simpletons despite all the debate intended to evade or divert consequence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Maybe so, but there are plenty of situations in life in which it's not a matter of, "if you do that, you'll get hurt, so don't do that".

    There are those situations in which "if you do that, you might get hurt or you might not, depending on whether you are stronger or smarter than the other guy, but the reward to risk ratio is pretty high and you are probably the smarter/stronger" so you go ahead and take from the other guy, push him around, whatever. You're taking a calculated risk, and the weaker the people you prey on the smaller that risk.

    Then there are those situations in which the possibility of getting hurt oneself approaches nil but other people might be greatly hurt by your actions, and will have no capacity to retaliate or perhaps even to know who has hurt them.

    Under those circumstances, there is no "moral" argument against the exercise of strength in self-interest, if we are to take your line or what I would characterize as the "political" interpretation of the golden rule.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Talha
    Dear RO,

    Another excellent analysis! I would agree with everything you are saying (though maybe not in the same words). You have put down in writing the thoughts I've had in my head for a while, but could not put them to pen so well. Permission or forgiveness is sought in advance if I plagiarize some of your words in another context.

    Keep them coming - the comments here are definitely getting the brain juices flowing.

    Peace.

    I gather from recent posts you are Muslim? Or at least come from a Muslim upbringing.

    I come from a position that exists somewhere in the netherworld between atheist/agnostic/lingering Christian/vaguely pagan [not that I believe in those gods- just in the sense that my foci of loyalty are state and tribe, so respectively the classical Greco-Roman and the Celto-Scandinavian [for me] ways of looking at things]. More or less, and not too thoroughly thought out.

    I grew up attending a Presbyterian church [in Canada- it was always fairly liberal] on occasion with my parents, but it was partly Scottish-ethnic habit for them and only my mother I think really believes. It was Canada in the 1970s-80s, so it was still habit for many people. More than now.

    In life I actually seem to live by vaguely late-Christian behaviours, except for the moral universalism, and only to the somewhat pro-forma degree that most North American Anglo people were “Christian” when I was born.

    When these issues come up in discussion, I’m torn.

    I don’t actually want to live in a society whose moral principles would be recognized by a first century Roman or German.

    I also don’t want to live in a society whose moral principles are purely Christian- I’m a creature of late 20th century ways of living even if my version is fairly conservative, and I do fine without simon-pure love-the-world universalism, or bible-thumping creationism, or what have you. [I appreciate I'm trading in stereotypes, but both of those do tire me out.]

    On the other hand I don’t want to live in a society that actually tries to derive its moral principles from science or nature [as distinct from the highly religiose 'natural law'], because I can’t see any moral principles in those sources.

    As more personal and less analytical as all that is, perhaps it gives some idea of where I am in middle age. We’ll see how things go.

    I find that for me the most troubling aspect of these things today is the absence of thinking it through that I see when I see a regular-joe or jane atheist up here writing letters to the editor, in response to some piece about Christianity or moral philosophy, about how easy it is to be “good” by “choice”. No effort to define “good” or for that matter “choice”, to consider that “good” is a concept in more or less constant dispute, to debate how society is to pick a definition of the “good” and enforce it on those who disagree on any basis other than majoritarian power. [I'd be willing to accept that if presented honestly, but we like Americans live in a culture that claims to believe in abstract rights, individualism, and to oppose majoritarianism.] Or any awareness of these questions’ very existence.

    Everybody just assumes that the moral values of contemporary liberalism, which in the west rely on derived Christian assumptions about the nature of the world, man and society, are somehow both universally accepted and valid on some kind of indisputable basis. They can’t actually be derived rationally from the observation of nature, from the laws of physics or chemistry, or from pure math so far as I am aware, at least not without the prior assumption that these reflect some sort of predefined divine order, and even then a lot of content has to be assumed into existence.

    The golden rule, or for that matter Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative, always come to mind for me in that context. Plenty of people in every place and age would respond with something like the Melian Dialogue in Thucydides- The strong do what they can, and the weak endure what they must.

    I don’t want to live in that world without legal and ethical mediating forces, but as ethical codes go it is more consistent with the observation of the natural world than the way we usually understand Jesus’ words or Kant’s, and it is actually consistent with Jesus or Kant provided one is ready to accept the consequences if one ends up on the losing side. In other words, if you are willing to accept getting killed as the result of defeat in a political dispute, the golden rule or the categorical imperative grant you the right to kill if you win. I am sure that’s not what Jesus meant. But if he wasn’t God, who cares?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear RO,

    Yes, you guessed right; I am Muslim.

    Definitely a confusing time that we live in - one that Nietzsche foresaw as the ground of being is removed from under man's feet. I really appreciate you thinking these things out - like you said, most people don't do that and I find much of their arguments to be glib - far less sophisticated than the arguments of say the 19th century atheists. At least people like Nietzsche were quite aware of the consequences of a society that looks only to science or nature to derive morality.


    They can’t actually be derived rationally from the observation of nature, from the laws of physics or chemistry, or from pure math so far as I am aware
     
    Agreed - even if one can point to altruistic genes, those are only utilitarian insofar as is useful for genetic propagation and can be selected out when no longer necessary.

    The strong do what they can, and the weak endure what they must....In other words, if you are willing to accept getting killed as the result of defeat in a political dispute, the golden rule or the categorical imperative grant you the right to kill if you win.
     
    That is definitely a scary thought, but, I believe, solid in its logical moorings. The frightening thing is when someone operates on that assumption of the 'golden rule' and literally have no one to hold back their hands - if the Hutus were to have successfully eliminated the Tutsis, could that have been deemed morally wrong in the framework of science, natural selection, etc.? Why couldn't we just say - 'Oh well, a genetic dead line, let's put a wax figure next to the Neanderthal.'

    Thanks and may God bless you for sharing your wisdom.

    , @Rehmat
    Anyone who is interested in find the true message of Jesus - he/she must stop believing in the New Testament. the book of written by a Pagan Roman King and a bunch 'royal servants' in 325 CE. Not a single chapter of the 27 books of the New Testament was written by Jesus.

    “How very profitable this fable of Christ has been to us through the ages,” – Pope Leo X (1521 CE) – Eric Russell Chamberlin in ‘The Bad Popes’.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/01/10/searching-for-jesus-as-eh/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @mtn cur
    With respect to my remark about being mindful of interacting causes and effects, a guy wrote a book about " How To Tell Right From Wrong " which cleverly avoided the swamps of morality by summarizing, "do you want to get hurt, then don't do that." Perfectly simple for simpletons despite all the debate intended to evade or divert consequence.

    Maybe so, but there are plenty of situations in life in which it’s not a matter of, “if you do that, you’ll get hurt, so don’t do that”.

    There are those situations in which “if you do that, you might get hurt or you might not, depending on whether you are stronger or smarter than the other guy, but the reward to risk ratio is pretty high and you are probably the smarter/stronger” so you go ahead and take from the other guy, push him around, whatever. You’re taking a calculated risk, and the weaker the people you prey on the smaller that risk.

    Then there are those situations in which the possibility of getting hurt oneself approaches nil but other people might be greatly hurt by your actions, and will have no capacity to retaliate or perhaps even to know who has hurt them.

    Under those circumstances, there is no “moral” argument against the exercise of strength in self-interest, if we are to take your line or what I would characterize as the “political” interpretation of the golden rule.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    I have yet to be given a convincing argument from a purely materialist basis why torturing a stray kitten by tearing off its legs is morally wrong.
    1) One is doing society a service - eliminating a stray cat and more cheaply than manufactured chemical compounds.
    2) One can do so in a sound proof basement - if one's neighbors will be annoyed.
    3) One can claim it is even cathartic for dealing with stress and keeps them from harming others.
    4) One can even agree to be GPS monitored (24/7) if society fears he may inadvertently develop and act on further impulses.

    Everyone seems to know it is wrong, but can't give a good logical reason why we can't make exceptions for the ones that don't have the same moral compunction.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Talha says:
    @random observer
    I gather from recent posts you are Muslim? Or at least come from a Muslim upbringing.

    I come from a position that exists somewhere in the netherworld between atheist/agnostic/lingering Christian/vaguely pagan [not that I believe in those gods- just in the sense that my foci of loyalty are state and tribe, so respectively the classical Greco-Roman and the Celto-Scandinavian [for me] ways of looking at things]. More or less, and not too thoroughly thought out.

    I grew up attending a Presbyterian church [in Canada- it was always fairly liberal] on occasion with my parents, but it was partly Scottish-ethnic habit for them and only my mother I think really believes. It was Canada in the 1970s-80s, so it was still habit for many people. More than now.

    In life I actually seem to live by vaguely late-Christian behaviours, except for the moral universalism, and only to the somewhat pro-forma degree that most North American Anglo people were "Christian" when I was born.

    When these issues come up in discussion, I'm torn.

    I don't actually want to live in a society whose moral principles would be recognized by a first century Roman or German.

    I also don't want to live in a society whose moral principles are purely Christian- I'm a creature of late 20th century ways of living even if my version is fairly conservative, and I do fine without simon-pure love-the-world universalism, or bible-thumping creationism, or what have you. [I appreciate I'm trading in stereotypes, but both of those do tire me out.]

    On the other hand I don't want to live in a society that actually tries to derive its moral principles from science or nature [as distinct from the highly religiose 'natural law'], because I can't see any moral principles in those sources.

    As more personal and less analytical as all that is, perhaps it gives some idea of where I am in middle age. We'll see how things go.

    I find that for me the most troubling aspect of these things today is the absence of thinking it through that I see when I see a regular-joe or jane atheist up here writing letters to the editor, in response to some piece about Christianity or moral philosophy, about how easy it is to be "good" by "choice". No effort to define "good" or for that matter "choice", to consider that "good" is a concept in more or less constant dispute, to debate how society is to pick a definition of the "good" and enforce it on those who disagree on any basis other than majoritarian power. [I'd be willing to accept that if presented honestly, but we like Americans live in a culture that claims to believe in abstract rights, individualism, and to oppose majoritarianism.] Or any awareness of these questions' very existence.

    Everybody just assumes that the moral values of contemporary liberalism, which in the west rely on derived Christian assumptions about the nature of the world, man and society, are somehow both universally accepted and valid on some kind of indisputable basis. They can't actually be derived rationally from the observation of nature, from the laws of physics or chemistry, or from pure math so far as I am aware, at least not without the prior assumption that these reflect some sort of predefined divine order, and even then a lot of content has to be assumed into existence.

    The golden rule, or for that matter Kant's idea of the categorical imperative, always come to mind for me in that context. Plenty of people in every place and age would respond with something like the Melian Dialogue in Thucydides- The strong do what they can, and the weak endure what they must.

    I don't want to live in that world without legal and ethical mediating forces, but as ethical codes go it is more consistent with the observation of the natural world than the way we usually understand Jesus' words or Kant's, and it is actually consistent with Jesus or Kant provided one is ready to accept the consequences if one ends up on the losing side. In other words, if you are willing to accept getting killed as the result of defeat in a political dispute, the golden rule or the categorical imperative grant you the right to kill if you win. I am sure that's not what Jesus meant. But if he wasn't God, who cares?

    Dear RO,

    Yes, you guessed right; I am Muslim.

    Definitely a confusing time that we live in – one that Nietzsche foresaw as the ground of being is removed from under man’s feet. I really appreciate you thinking these things out – like you said, most people don’t do that and I find much of their arguments to be glib – far less sophisticated than the arguments of say the 19th century atheists. At least people like Nietzsche were quite aware of the consequences of a society that looks only to science or nature to derive morality.

    They can’t actually be derived rationally from the observation of nature, from the laws of physics or chemistry, or from pure math so far as I am aware

    Agreed – even if one can point to altruistic genes, those are only utilitarian insofar as is useful for genetic propagation and can be selected out when no longer necessary.

    The strong do what they can, and the weak endure what they must….In other words, if you are willing to accept getting killed as the result of defeat in a political dispute, the golden rule or the categorical imperative grant you the right to kill if you win.

    That is definitely a scary thought, but, I believe, solid in its logical moorings. The frightening thing is when someone operates on that assumption of the ‘golden rule’ and literally have no one to hold back their hands – if the Hutus were to have successfully eliminated the Tutsis, could that have been deemed morally wrong in the framework of science, natural selection, etc.? Why couldn’t we just say – ‘Oh well, a genetic dead line, let’s put a wax figure next to the Neanderthal.’

    Thanks and may God bless you for sharing your wisdom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Talha says:
    @random observer
    Maybe so, but there are plenty of situations in life in which it's not a matter of, "if you do that, you'll get hurt, so don't do that".

    There are those situations in which "if you do that, you might get hurt or you might not, depending on whether you are stronger or smarter than the other guy, but the reward to risk ratio is pretty high and you are probably the smarter/stronger" so you go ahead and take from the other guy, push him around, whatever. You're taking a calculated risk, and the weaker the people you prey on the smaller that risk.

    Then there are those situations in which the possibility of getting hurt oneself approaches nil but other people might be greatly hurt by your actions, and will have no capacity to retaliate or perhaps even to know who has hurt them.

    Under those circumstances, there is no "moral" argument against the exercise of strength in self-interest, if we are to take your line or what I would characterize as the "political" interpretation of the golden rule.

    I have yet to be given a convincing argument from a purely materialist basis why torturing a stray kitten by tearing off its legs is morally wrong.
    1) One is doing society a service – eliminating a stray cat and more cheaply than manufactured chemical compounds.
    2) One can do so in a sound proof basement – if one’s neighbors will be annoyed.
    3) One can claim it is even cathartic for dealing with stress and keeps them from harming others.
    4) One can even agree to be GPS monitored (24/7) if society fears he may inadvertently develop and act on further impulses.

    Everyone seems to know it is wrong, but can’t give a good logical reason why we can’t make exceptions for the ones that don’t have the same moral compunction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    Everyone seems to know it is wrong, but can’t give a good logical reason why we can’t make exceptions for the ones that don’t have the same moral compunction.
     
    Hey Talha,
    In this case I can't claim scientific evidence or logic, but for what its worth, speculate that amongst various species pain felt by others is perceivable and diminishes with the inter-species distance between any two, observer and recipient. So pain or consequence appears to be the key.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Art says:

    It is rational to believe that there is a God. Believing in God is not only a matter of faith. There are logical reasons to believe that there is a God.

    It is NOT rational to believe that God plays an actual role in the individual events of the universe. Science has never ever recorded a super natural event. With every advance in human observational skill, science finds a logical answer as to the how and why things work. There is an explainable natural progression of natural organization from atoms to human culture.

    From a Western perspective, notions of god have evolved. First was our native thinking that god was nature, that animals and rivers and winds had god like attributes. Then the Greek notion of multiple gods with different human attributes appeared. Then came the monotheistic Sun god. Then the Old Testament god of fire and brimstone that played with mankind. Then came the hopeful forgiving can-do optimistic Christian god. Our thinking has progressed. We are on God 5.0, going to God 6.0.

    God 6.0 is – God the Creator. Our mind tells us that there is a beginning to everything. Science tells that there is a beginning to the Universe. Our mind logically tells us that there is a cause behind everything – science agrees. Why not call that cause God?

    For all of human time, three institutive notions have been held by humanity as valid. The first is that we each are unique individuals. Second is that we all are connect together in some way with nature. And thirdly that there is a God. Science has proved the first two to be absolutely true. Why not go with the third notion also?

    This God 6.0 created a universe that fostered us – he created a universe with consistent rules that we can begin to understand. We have used those rules to advance our species. The notions propagated by the Christian God 5.0 are bearing fruit. God 6.0 is a natural progression of human thinking.

    Believing in God 6.0 is both rational and productive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Eustace Tilley (not) [AKA "Schiller/Nietzsche"] says:
    @Horzabky
    If it’s the Christian leadership who, more than anyone else is demanding that the West commit suicide, then where exactly is a Western man to turn for religious truths?

    I am a Western man who converted to Theravada Buddhism in 1995, and I am very glad I did.

    The question Buchanan poses is akin to that posed by the famous Puzzle of Nine Dots. In his case, one may pose the problem: “Come up with a religion that gives modern man a reason to live and preserves a basis for human morality without an omnipotent Creator Deity.” Buchanan can’t do it! All the King’s thinkers and all the King’s priests cannot make this “paradox” cease.

    To those such as (I presume) yourself, or a Taoist sage watching the mists eerily flow past his mountain retreat at dawn, or a Yaqui Indian shaman, supine in the Sonoran sands at 3:00 a.m., totally absorbed in the effulgence of the Milky Way, or a child playing with his new puppy for the very first time, such “insoluble” “problems” do not even present themselves. But here sits Western man, tied up in knots of his own devising.

    One might wish for an ancient sage to take compassion on poor Modern Man, and ask him, “Who told you you had to stay within your self-imposed square to solve the puzzle? Who told you that the path to your personal liberation lay in obeying the ‘commandments’ of an ancient Semitic faith which its own inventors now openly mock? Who told you that another’s sacrifice and struggle (that of ‘God’s’ ‘only-begotten son’ Jesus) can set you free?”

    Christians are taught that Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross saves them from their sins. One supposes Buchanan agrees. But then he quotes Lord Byron: “Who would be free must themselves strike the blow.” That they can strike a blow for their own spiritual freedom simply by paying undivided attention to one sip of green tea as it flows, hot, bitter, and soft, over their awakened tongue seldom, if ever, occurs to them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Qasim says:
    @Astuteobservor II
    I thought our entire culture was base on "Freedom" wtf is this religious dribble? focus on freedom and individual rights please. Even if they are lies, just like all ideologies, why bring up the worst lie of all, religion?

    AstuteobservorII:

    I thought our entire culture was base on “Freedom” wtf is this religious dribble?

    It is drivel, not dribble.

    And wouldn’t an astute person know how to spell observer?

    The only reason I even bring this up is that articles like Mr. Buchanan’s always seem to attract these sorts of intellectually lazy, stock put-downs, this thread being no exception.

    It is common for atheists to offer their pop-psychological analysis for why people believe, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am increasingly convinced that a lot of the snarky “new-atheist” types on threads like this one are people in the 115 IQ range for whom insulting believers and “seeing through religious dribble” offers a sense of intellectual superiority that otherwise eludes them.

    Let’s see now if some people respond to my post and inadvertently prove my point :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    you don't even know the point of my name :P
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. nickels says:
    @Santoculto
    First, IDEOLOGY, in their semantically pure concept, is not like many people think.

    Ideology is only the study of the ideas, like geology and psychology.

    Ideology is a domain and not a multitude of pseudo-philosophical cults, the (d) evolution of the ''religion''.

    I'm ideologue, a academic leftist is likely to be a cultist pretend to be a well-paid 'thinker'.


    Second, the end of obscurantism should be being celebrated.

    Great part of the weaknesses of white people's are exactly because their (pseudo) meta-physical dependence to navigate morally in the world. If you like your people so why you want they to continue as mental slaves *

    White people, on avg, is showing very lower capacity to adapt in stressfull situations, fundamentally about preserver their own bio-message.

    Exotic species tend to be vulnerable to the pragmatic lifestyle and agressiveness of the simple ones.


    Conservatives still think that ''the past'' was absolutely wonderful. Indeed, the human story had been the story of exploitation of man ( and non-human animals) by man and specially by people who has lived in complex societies.

    Marxism.

    Next.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    what do you believe in? and why do you believe in it? you know your religion/ideology/stuff :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. nickels says:

    Today there are three choices:

    Christianity

    Secular Judaism (Marxism, Pragmatism, Multiculturalism, etc…, atheism)
    Orthodox Judaism (I guess)

    Muslim

    I like how all the dope intellectuals think they are smarter than Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gustave Le Bon and pretty much every other intellectual that understood the sheer bankruptcy of atheism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Qasim
    HAA, your secular judaism quip is fantastic!!!

    I had written you once thanking you about introducing me to Le Bon in a different context (was it monarchy or race?), I guess he had a lot to say on a lot of topics!
    , @Corvinus
    Actually, there are several more choices--Buddhism, Sikhism, Hindu.
    , @Marcus
    I choose Greco-Buddhism
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. nickels says:
    @Realist
    God is not dead. He still lives in the imagination of many people.

    Religion is used to control people.

    Ever heard of Strauss, Bohr, Feurbach? If you’re going to regurgitate things, please please at least understand the ideological lineage of your post Enlightenment philosophy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "If you’re going to regurgitate things,..."

    You mean like Pat does....over, and over?

    Enlightenment is the farthest thing from religion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Qasim says:
    @nickels
    Today there are three choices:

    Christianity

    Secular Judaism (Marxism, Pragmatism, Multiculturalism, etc..., atheism)
    Orthodox Judaism (I guess)

    Muslim

    I like how all the dope intellectuals think they are smarter than Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gustave Le Bon and pretty much every other intellectual that understood the sheer bankruptcy of atheism.

    HAA, your secular judaism quip is fantastic!!!

    I had written you once thanking you about introducing me to Le Bon in a different context (was it monarchy or race?), I guess he had a lot to say on a lot of topics!

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Le Bon's angle here is basically just the observation that no society has ever been built on straight reason.

    Reason:
    You will live, probably (statistically) be miserable and die.

    Not very inspiring.

    Perhaps the closest is Christianity with the concept of Logos (Reason, order) melded with the transcendent theology of the Trinity and eternal salvation.

    Judaism parades in a crypto guise, but If it isn't Christ (at least in the West) its most likely some variant of Judaism.

    Best wishes!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Realist says:

    “All the Western empires are gone, and the children of once-subject peoples cross the Mediterranean to repopulate the mother countries, whose native-born have begun to age, shrink and die.’

    Pat I thought you were against empires…..which is it?

    Religion is anti individual (the Borg if you will), it is against free thought. Individualism is what allowed our civilization to grow and evolve. The human condition would not have improved under religious dogma. Religion has never sanctioned independent thought in fear of losing control of the people.

    All the cultural maladies you describe happened in an America where 89% of the people say they believe in God

    “For they lack what Christianity gave man — a cause not only to live for, and die for, but a moral code to live by, with the promise that, at the end a life so lived, would come eternal life. Islam, too, holds out that promise.”

    Only the weak need fear a God to be moral.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Corvinus says:

    “For a time, these secular religions — Marxism-Leninism, fascism, Nazism…”

    Talking points memo from conservatives and paleoconservatives. They are NOT secular religions. It is an oxymoron.

    “Now Western Man embraces the newer religions: egalitarianism, democratism, capitalism, feminism, One Worldism, environmentalism.”

    First, what average American looks at themselves from the lens as a “Westerner”? Second, again, these philosophies are NOT religions. Assuredly, they have their adherents, their doctrines, their acolytes. But they do not meet the strict definition of religion.

    “When, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the West embraced Christianity as a faith superior to all others, as its founder was the Son of God, the West went on to create modern civilization, and then went out and conquered most of the known world.”

    How does one measure one faith as “superior” compared to another faith? Also, interesting how the word “conquered” is used here. Bartolomé de las Casas, a Spanish theologian, 16th-century Spanish historian, chronicled the first decades of colonization of the West Indies and focus particularly on the atrocities committed by Christian “conquerors” against the indigenous peoples.

    OR, is “conquering” used in a different context? Would non-Christians appreciate being “conquered”?

“Western culture grows debased and decadent, and Western civilization is in visible decline.”

    Again, who uses this term “western”? Why is it applicable in modern society?

    “Vladimir Putin, who witnessed the death of Marxism-Leninism up close, appears to understand the cruciality of Christianity to Mother Russia, and seeks to revive the Orthodox Church and write its moral code back into Russian law.”

    What is this fixation, this fascination with the former head of the KGB who used his clout to bilk his fellow countrymen out of billions, who proposed to pay men and women to have children, who is using the Russian Orthodox Church as the conduit for Russian nationalism…to keep himself in power! Must we be reminded that under Soviet authorities, at least 200,000 members of the clergy were murdered, according to a 1995 Kremlin committee report, while millions of other Christians were persecuted while Putin was a member of that intelligence community.

    Moreover, what about those citizens who are not Orthodox? What about their religious liberties? Why should the Orthodox Church receive any official sanction from the government?

    Further, for what reason would the Orthodox Church come out to praise Stalin’s successes in industry and its sphere of influence, without even mentioning about the gulags or purges? Interesting…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. Corvinus says:
    @nickels
    Today there are three choices:

    Christianity

    Secular Judaism (Marxism, Pragmatism, Multiculturalism, etc..., atheism)
    Orthodox Judaism (I guess)

    Muslim

    I like how all the dope intellectuals think they are smarter than Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gustave Le Bon and pretty much every other intellectual that understood the sheer bankruptcy of atheism.

    Actually, there are several more choices–Buddhism, Sikhism, Hindu.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Realist says:
    @nickels
    Ever heard of Strauss, Bohr, Feurbach? If you're going to regurgitate things, please please at least understand the ideological lineage of your post Enlightenment philosophy.

    “If you’re going to regurgitate things,…”

    You mean like Pat does….over, and over?

    Enlightenment is the farthest thing from religion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Qasim
    AstuteobservorII:

    I thought our entire culture was base on “Freedom” wtf is this religious dribble?

    It is drivel, not dribble.

    And wouldn't an astute person know how to spell observer?

    The only reason I even bring this up is that articles like Mr. Buchanan's always seem to attract these sorts of intellectually lazy, stock put-downs, this thread being no exception.

    It is common for atheists to offer their pop-psychological analysis for why people believe, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am increasingly convinced that a lot of the snarky "new-atheist" types on threads like this one are people in the 115 IQ range for whom insulting believers and "seeing through religious dribble" offers a sense of intellectual superiority that otherwise eludes them.

    Let's see now if some people respond to my post and inadvertently prove my point :)

    you don’t even know the point of my name :P

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @nickels
    Marxism.

    Next.

    what do you believe in? and why do you believe in it? you know your religion/ideology/stuff :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Christ.

    It built the west, its the only wall against commienism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Snippet says:

    God either exists, or He does not. We are not talking about the existence of God, something over which we have no control whatsoever. We are talking about belief in God.
    This belief may have any number of benefits, and may even be crucial, but if He does not exist, the belief cannot last forever, especially in a society that has developed a jones for empiricism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. bondo says:

    pb,

    had to reference dennis prager, a lying, demented, zionist jew whose small, incomplete g-d is jewry/satan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Marcus says:
    @nickels
    Today there are three choices:

    Christianity

    Secular Judaism (Marxism, Pragmatism, Multiculturalism, etc..., atheism)
    Orthodox Judaism (I guess)

    Muslim

    I like how all the dope intellectuals think they are smarter than Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gustave Le Bon and pretty much every other intellectual that understood the sheer bankruptcy of atheism.

    I choose Greco-Buddhism

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Rehmat says:
    @random observer
    I gather from recent posts you are Muslim? Or at least come from a Muslim upbringing.

    I come from a position that exists somewhere in the netherworld between atheist/agnostic/lingering Christian/vaguely pagan [not that I believe in those gods- just in the sense that my foci of loyalty are state and tribe, so respectively the classical Greco-Roman and the Celto-Scandinavian [for me] ways of looking at things]. More or less, and not too thoroughly thought out.

    I grew up attending a Presbyterian church [in Canada- it was always fairly liberal] on occasion with my parents, but it was partly Scottish-ethnic habit for them and only my mother I think really believes. It was Canada in the 1970s-80s, so it was still habit for many people. More than now.

    In life I actually seem to live by vaguely late-Christian behaviours, except for the moral universalism, and only to the somewhat pro-forma degree that most North American Anglo people were "Christian" when I was born.

    When these issues come up in discussion, I'm torn.

    I don't actually want to live in a society whose moral principles would be recognized by a first century Roman or German.

    I also don't want to live in a society whose moral principles are purely Christian- I'm a creature of late 20th century ways of living even if my version is fairly conservative, and I do fine without simon-pure love-the-world universalism, or bible-thumping creationism, or what have you. [I appreciate I'm trading in stereotypes, but both of those do tire me out.]

    On the other hand I don't want to live in a society that actually tries to derive its moral principles from science or nature [as distinct from the highly religiose 'natural law'], because I can't see any moral principles in those sources.

    As more personal and less analytical as all that is, perhaps it gives some idea of where I am in middle age. We'll see how things go.

    I find that for me the most troubling aspect of these things today is the absence of thinking it through that I see when I see a regular-joe or jane atheist up here writing letters to the editor, in response to some piece about Christianity or moral philosophy, about how easy it is to be "good" by "choice". No effort to define "good" or for that matter "choice", to consider that "good" is a concept in more or less constant dispute, to debate how society is to pick a definition of the "good" and enforce it on those who disagree on any basis other than majoritarian power. [I'd be willing to accept that if presented honestly, but we like Americans live in a culture that claims to believe in abstract rights, individualism, and to oppose majoritarianism.] Or any awareness of these questions' very existence.

    Everybody just assumes that the moral values of contemporary liberalism, which in the west rely on derived Christian assumptions about the nature of the world, man and society, are somehow both universally accepted and valid on some kind of indisputable basis. They can't actually be derived rationally from the observation of nature, from the laws of physics or chemistry, or from pure math so far as I am aware, at least not without the prior assumption that these reflect some sort of predefined divine order, and even then a lot of content has to be assumed into existence.

    The golden rule, or for that matter Kant's idea of the categorical imperative, always come to mind for me in that context. Plenty of people in every place and age would respond with something like the Melian Dialogue in Thucydides- The strong do what they can, and the weak endure what they must.

    I don't want to live in that world without legal and ethical mediating forces, but as ethical codes go it is more consistent with the observation of the natural world than the way we usually understand Jesus' words or Kant's, and it is actually consistent with Jesus or Kant provided one is ready to accept the consequences if one ends up on the losing side. In other words, if you are willing to accept getting killed as the result of defeat in a political dispute, the golden rule or the categorical imperative grant you the right to kill if you win. I am sure that's not what Jesus meant. But if he wasn't God, who cares?

    Anyone who is interested in find the true message of Jesus – he/she must stop believing in the New Testament. the book of written by a Pagan Roman King and a bunch ‘royal servants’ in 325 CE. Not a single chapter of the 27 books of the New Testament was written by Jesus.

    “How very profitable this fable of Christ has been to us through the ages,” – Pope Leo X (1521 CE) – Eric Russell Chamberlin in ‘The Bad Popes’.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/01/10/searching-for-jesus-as-eh/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)


    "How very unprofitable these fables of Mahomet have been to us through the ages." -- Schiller/Nietzsche (2016 AD).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. nickels says:
    @Astuteobservor II
    what do you believe in? and why do you believe in it? you know your religion/ideology/stuff :)

    Christ.

    It built the west, its the only wall against commienism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    so, in your opinion, this country was, is, and should be a christian country? going as far as a theocracy?

    I had to google commienism, ahahaha.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. nickels says:
    @Qasim
    HAA, your secular judaism quip is fantastic!!!

    I had written you once thanking you about introducing me to Le Bon in a different context (was it monarchy or race?), I guess he had a lot to say on a lot of topics!

    Le Bon’s angle here is basically just the observation that no society has ever been built on straight reason.

    Reason:
    You will live, probably (statistically) be miserable and die.

    Not very inspiring.

    Perhaps the closest is Christianity with the concept of Logos (Reason, order) melded with the transcendent theology of the Trinity and eternal salvation.

    Judaism parades in a crypto guise, but If it isn’t Christ (at least in the West) its most likely some variant of Judaism.

    Best wishes!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @nickels
    Christ.

    It built the west, its the only wall against commienism.

    so, in your opinion, this country was, is, and should be a christian country? going as far as a theocracy?

    I had to google commienism, ahahaha.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    We are True-Sexuals.

    The truth has come out of the closet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. Sam Shama says:
    @random observer
    The golden rule isn't actually much use without belief in the super daddy, so to speak, and willingness of the collective to enforce daddy's law and/or belief by everyone that he will ultimately enforce it himself.

    Taken alone, rather than as a brief summation of a transcendent moral order enforced by a deity, the golden rule is politics, not ethics. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" becomes in that context not a command from one's maker, as part of a cosmic law, but rather advice that one should follow to prevent one's own ox getting gored, and that only so long as one assumes everybody else follows it.

    And there is also the matter of what one is willing to accept from others in order to free one's own hand to act in one's own interest. If you consider life a competition for wealth, power, fame, whatever, and are willing to consider yourself a player in the game of pursuing those ends, and accept whatever price comes of it if you lose, then why not do anything it takes to get them? That would also be applying the golden rule.

    And those who believe themselves strong enough, rich enough, whatever, will always play the golden rule that way, hoping to evade consequence, and the weak will have no grounds for complaint. And the aforementioned strong, if strong enough to actually eliminate their enemies, will pay no price in this world for violating the golden rule and will not anticipate paying one in the next, or indeed anticipate such a next world at all.

    It's fortunate we have positive law and can legislate whatever punishments we want, but the absence of universally shared morals does mean that positive law is a function of majoritarian power only, and there is no particular reason for us to back those laws with our customary, hypocritical moral outrage or for anyone seeking to evade the laws we have put in place to feel the least guilt for doing so.

    ‘God, King, Country and the Hangman’s noose’ always works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. I wouldn’t blame the decline of birth rates on the decline of religion. I’d blame it on the rise of feminism. With women expecting and demanding a role in society indistinguishable from men, the inevitable consequence is that women delay childbirth to further their professional career. Delayed childbirth means fewer children.

    The other problem is that immigration pushes up the cost of housing, the cost of education, and pain of taxation. A higher cost of family formation leads to a delay in family formation.

    The solution is to halt immigration and to promote family formation with propaganda and tax exemptions. Make having big families cool again. Commercials for household products should feature big families with 5 and 6 children. Movie should feature families with lots of children. Also, increase the per-child deduction, with the deduction for each successive kid even greater. (Importantly, these should be deductions, not tax credits. We don’t want to pay the poor to have more kids. We want successful people to have more kids.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Your post could be tongue and cheek. In the event you are serious...

    "I’d blame it on the rise of feminism."

    You can blame it all you want, still not going to matter in the long-term. Women's suffrage and the liberties granted to them by American society, specifically a large majority of men, is embedded.

    "With women expecting and demanding a role in society indistinguishable from men, the inevitable consequence is that women delay childbirth to further their professional career. "

    Men and women have the freedom to pursue their own endeavors. They certainly do not need an old scold like yourself to whine and complain.

    "Delayed childbirth means fewer children."

    How do you coerce today's women into having offspring? Moreover, how does their decision personally impact you?

    "The other problem is that immigration pushes up the cost of housing, the cost of education, and pain of taxation. A higher cost of family formation leads to a delay in family formation."

    Immigration has been a long-standing part of the formation of families here in the states.

    "The solution is to halt immigration..."

    If the American people collectively desire this goal, yes.

    "and to promote family formation with propaganda and tax exemptions."

    That's called socialism. No thanks.

    "Make having big families cool again. Commercials for household products should feature big families with 5 and 6 children. Movie should feature families with lots of children. Also, increase the per-child deduction, with the deduction for each successive kid even greater."

    Why don't you go to Hollywood, became a pitchman, and direct advertisements geared toward your goal?

    "(Importantly, these should be deductions, not tax credits. We don’t want to pay the poor to have more kids. We want successful people to have more kids.)"

    Define "successful people". What criteria are you employing here?
    , @nickels
    Traditional, Patriarchal Christianity was always the best defence against the rise of feminism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Eustace Tilley (not) [AKA "Schiller/Nietzsche"] says:
    @Rehmat
    Anyone who is interested in find the true message of Jesus - he/she must stop believing in the New Testament. the book of written by a Pagan Roman King and a bunch 'royal servants' in 325 CE. Not a single chapter of the 27 books of the New Testament was written by Jesus.

    “How very profitable this fable of Christ has been to us through the ages,” – Pope Leo X (1521 CE) – Eric Russell Chamberlin in ‘The Bad Popes’.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/01/10/searching-for-jesus-as-eh/

    “How very unprofitable these fables of Mahomet have been to us through the ages.” — Schiller/Nietzsche (2016 AD).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Thanks G-d for not making me a Gentile, a Woman or a Slave," Talmudic prayer for the racist Jewish males.

    “Under the commander of Joshua, son of Nun, the former slaves of Egypt, ferociously attacked the land of Canaan and conquered city after city. At the command of their G-d they then massacred all the inhabitants, men and women, old and children – in some places, even the domestic animals. At the happy end, they proceeded to divide and parcel out the land which had been emptied of its inhabitants,” says Adam Keller, Israeli Jew author and anti-war activist.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/04/28/passover-the-truth/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Sam Shama says:
    @Talha
    I have yet to be given a convincing argument from a purely materialist basis why torturing a stray kitten by tearing off its legs is morally wrong.
    1) One is doing society a service - eliminating a stray cat and more cheaply than manufactured chemical compounds.
    2) One can do so in a sound proof basement - if one's neighbors will be annoyed.
    3) One can claim it is even cathartic for dealing with stress and keeps them from harming others.
    4) One can even agree to be GPS monitored (24/7) if society fears he may inadvertently develop and act on further impulses.

    Everyone seems to know it is wrong, but can't give a good logical reason why we can't make exceptions for the ones that don't have the same moral compunction.

    Everyone seems to know it is wrong, but can’t give a good logical reason why we can’t make exceptions for the ones that don’t have the same moral compunction.

    Hey Talha,
    In this case I can’t claim scientific evidence or logic, but for what its worth, speculate that amongst various species pain felt by others is perceivable and diminishes with the inter-species distance between any two, observer and recipient. So pain or consequence appears to be the key.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear Sam,

    I agree that this would explain the natural queasiness from a materialist standpoint. This does not give a logical reason to legally proscribe someone from torturing said kitten if they claim to find lizards more appealing. There are a bunch of things we would balk at doing due to unease, but we don't restrict the freedom of others nonetheless; why is this different?

    Don't get me wrong...I'm not advocating this....

    "Fear God in your treatment of animals." - reported in Abu Dawud
    "If someone kills a sparrow for sport, the sparrow will cry out on the Day of Judgment, 'O Lord! That person killed me in vain! He did not kill me for any useful purpose.'" - reported in an-Nisai

    May God bless you and your family.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Corvinus says:
    @Great Again
    I wouldn't blame the decline of birth rates on the decline of religion. I'd blame it on the rise of feminism. With women expecting and demanding a role in society indistinguishable from men, the inevitable consequence is that women delay childbirth to further their professional career. Delayed childbirth means fewer children.

    The other problem is that immigration pushes up the cost of housing, the cost of education, and pain of taxation. A higher cost of family formation leads to a delay in family formation.

    The solution is to halt immigration and to promote family formation with propaganda and tax exemptions. Make having big families cool again. Commercials for household products should feature big families with 5 and 6 children. Movie should feature families with lots of children. Also, increase the per-child deduction, with the deduction for each successive kid even greater. (Importantly, these should be deductions, not tax credits. We don't want to pay the poor to have more kids. We want successful people to have more kids.)

    Your post could be tongue and cheek. In the event you are serious…

    “I’d blame it on the rise of feminism.”

    You can blame it all you want, still not going to matter in the long-term. Women’s suffrage and the liberties granted to them by American society, specifically a large majority of men, is embedded.

    “With women expecting and demanding a role in society indistinguishable from men, the inevitable consequence is that women delay childbirth to further their professional career. ”

    Men and women have the freedom to pursue their own endeavors. They certainly do not need an old scold like yourself to whine and complain.

    “Delayed childbirth means fewer children.”

    How do you coerce today’s women into having offspring? Moreover, how does their decision personally impact you?

    “The other problem is that immigration pushes up the cost of housing, the cost of education, and pain of taxation. A higher cost of family formation leads to a delay in family formation.”

    Immigration has been a long-standing part of the formation of families here in the states.

    “The solution is to halt immigration…”

    If the American people collectively desire this goal, yes.

    “and to promote family formation with propaganda and tax exemptions.”

    That’s called socialism. No thanks.

    “Make having big families cool again. Commercials for household products should feature big families with 5 and 6 children. Movie should feature families with lots of children. Also, increase the per-child deduction, with the deduction for each successive kid even greater.”

    Why don’t you go to Hollywood, became a pitchman, and direct advertisements geared toward your goal?

    “(Importantly, these should be deductions, not tax credits. We don’t want to pay the poor to have more kids. We want successful people to have more kids.)”

    Define “successful people”. What criteria are you employing here?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Talha says:
    @Sam Shama

    Everyone seems to know it is wrong, but can’t give a good logical reason why we can’t make exceptions for the ones that don’t have the same moral compunction.
     
    Hey Talha,
    In this case I can't claim scientific evidence or logic, but for what its worth, speculate that amongst various species pain felt by others is perceivable and diminishes with the inter-species distance between any two, observer and recipient. So pain or consequence appears to be the key.

    Dear Sam,

    I agree that this would explain the natural queasiness from a materialist standpoint. This does not give a logical reason to legally proscribe someone from torturing said kitten if they claim to find lizards more appealing. There are a bunch of things we would balk at doing due to unease, but we don’t restrict the freedom of others nonetheless; why is this different?

    Don’t get me wrong…I’m not advocating this….

    “Fear God in your treatment of animals.” – reported in Abu Dawud
    “If someone kills a sparrow for sport, the sparrow will cry out on the Day of Judgment, ‘O Lord! That person killed me in vain! He did not kill me for any useful purpose.’” – reported in an-Nisai

    May God bless you and your family.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. nickels says:
    @Great Again
    I wouldn't blame the decline of birth rates on the decline of religion. I'd blame it on the rise of feminism. With women expecting and demanding a role in society indistinguishable from men, the inevitable consequence is that women delay childbirth to further their professional career. Delayed childbirth means fewer children.

    The other problem is that immigration pushes up the cost of housing, the cost of education, and pain of taxation. A higher cost of family formation leads to a delay in family formation.

    The solution is to halt immigration and to promote family formation with propaganda and tax exemptions. Make having big families cool again. Commercials for household products should feature big families with 5 and 6 children. Movie should feature families with lots of children. Also, increase the per-child deduction, with the deduction for each successive kid even greater. (Importantly, these should be deductions, not tax credits. We don't want to pay the poor to have more kids. We want successful people to have more kids.)

    Traditional, Patriarchal Christianity was always the best defence against the rise of feminism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Traditional, Patriarchal Christianity was always the best defence against the rise of feminism."

    Do people even have a choice in this matter? That is, what about Christian men and women, or non-Christian men and women, who oppose "traditional, patriarchal Christianity"? Do they have the liberty to create a society, or desire one, that is other than what you propose?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Rehmat says:
    @Eustace Tilley (not)


    "How very unprofitable these fables of Mahomet have been to us through the ages." -- Schiller/Nietzsche (2016 AD).

    Thanks G-d for not making me a Gentile, a Woman or a Slave,” Talmudic prayer for the racist Jewish males.

    “Under the commander of Joshua, son of Nun, the former slaves of Egypt, ferociously attacked the land of Canaan and conquered city after city. At the command of their G-d they then massacred all the inhabitants, men and women, old and children – in some places, even the domestic animals. At the happy end, they proceeded to divide and parcel out the land which had been emptied of its inhabitants,” says Adam Keller, Israeli Jew author and anti-war activist.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/04/28/passover-the-truth/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Corvinus says:
    @nickels
    Traditional, Patriarchal Christianity was always the best defence against the rise of feminism.

    “Traditional, Patriarchal Christianity was always the best defence against the rise of feminism.”

    Do people even have a choice in this matter? That is, what about Christian men and women, or non-Christian men and women, who oppose “traditional, patriarchal Christianity”? Do they have the liberty to create a society, or desire one, that is other than what you propose?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. […] another article entitled If God is Dead…, Pat Buchanan echoes Prager, noting, in a rather selective interpretation of history, […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?