Were Fascism and Nazism actually modernist-egalitarian movements?

[Petr]

From my "New Right" OD thread:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20621&page=5


This earlier citation of mine on this thread (about Julius Evola) made me think further about this issue: were Fascists and Nazis really genuinely "anti-modernist" or were they actually more egalitarian than most people think, more dependent on the Jacobin tradition than their "New Right" admirers today would like to admit?


http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/downloads/books/aid.htm#Chapter1Section1SubSection6


"Though a declared racist, (Evola's) views were at odds with those of most White racists, e.g. he glorified Asian cultures because of their hierarchy and traditionalism, esp. the martial virtues as preserved (or so Western romantics thought) in imperial Japan. (22) He professed a premodern aristocratic “horizontal racism”: the European aristocracy was one “race” bound to intermarry, the common people were the other “race”, with national borders and identities being less important.

...

"Those who have been duped by the dominant Marxist discourse into classifying Fascism as Rightist would do well to study Evola’s Rightist critique of Fascism. He attacked Fascism on the following points: its anti-traditionalism and zest for newness and youth (as exemplified by its term Duce/“leader”, i.e. one who takes the people to a distant goal, a utopia, as opposed to the premodern “ruler” who merely maintains the existing order); its superficial modernist optimism (best seen in Fascist, Nazi, Stalinist and Maoist visual art); its equalizing “Jacobin” nationalism which minimizes class differences; its totalitarianism, as opposed to premodern culture’s sense of measure and division of powers; its secularism, which creates an opposition between the political and the sacred; its socialism; its personality cult (one ought to revere the institution of kingship, not the person of the king); and its natalist policy based on the vulgar cult of numbers, neglecting quality for the sake of quantity. (23)



I have seen before this famous citation from Hitler on the purposes of Hitler-Jugend, and it stroke me how egalitarian Hitler's rhetoric indeed was - it sure would seem to confirm Evola's aristocratic critique:


"This youth learns nothing but to think German and to act German. When these boys enter our organization at the age of ten, it is often the first time in their lives that they get to breathe and feel fresh air; then four years later they come from the Jungvolk into the Hitler Youth, and we keep them there for another four years, and then we definitely don't put them back into the hands of the originators of our old classes and status barriers; rather we take them straight into the Party or into the Labor Front, the SA, or the SS, the NSKK [motorized corps] and so on. And if they are there for another two years or a year and a half and still haven't become complete National Socialists, then they go into the Labor Service and are polished for another six or seven months, all with a symbol, the German spade. And any class consciousness or pride of status that may be left here and there is taken over by the Wehrmacht for further treatment for two years, and when they come back after two, three, or four years, we take them straight into the SA, SS, and so on again, so that they shall in no case suffer a relapse, and they will never be free again as long as they live."

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/hitleryouth/hj-prelude.htm


Nazis often expessed their contempt for traditional monarchies and aristocracy, and one of the main purposes of Waffen-SS was to eventually displace the Wehrmacht that was dominated by aristocratic officers, and who were actually often conspiring against Hitler.


Btw, most of these modernist traits listed above were present from Italy and Germany, but they were lacking in imperial Japan. For instance, Japanese did not venerate emperor Hirohito's personality, but the emperor-institution itself. The emperor was also considered to be divine, "Son of Heaven," and not a mere secular Duce or Führer. Japanese society was also fiercely traditionalist, whereas to Fascists and Nazis, "reactionary" was a mock word (Goebbels used it on Francisco Franco in a despising manner in his diaries).

The difference was, of course, that Japs were authentic pagans whereas their Italian and German counterparts were mere "neo-pagans," wannabee-heathen who still couldn't shake off their Christian traits so easily.


Petr

[Petr]

Okiereddust made an interesting comment to this post of mine:

These tensions, between conservatism and national socialist/Hitlerian pragmatism were always present in the Third Reich, from the "Night of Long Knives" to the 1944 coup attempt. There was an interesting article on the 44 coup attempt in Chronicles last year. One of their points was that the coup attempt, which originated from the aristocracy/army (in Prussia they were pretty much identical) wasn't supported by the west in part because of its aristocratic basis, and because it did not comport with the egalitarian vision for Germany the west envisioned.

This alignment makes sense to me. I read about how SS intelligence in Berlin reported that the counter reaction to the coup had engendered wide sympathy for Hitler even (or really "especially") among those quarters of Berlin (i.e. the workers portions of Berlin - East Berlin etc.) who had historically not been National Socialist supporters. Obviously the Red portions of Berlin viewed this as a battle within NS which had gone in their favor.

Petr

[OVERWATCH]

There was undoubtably an egalitarian component, but I don't think that a reasonable amount of egalitarianism is bad.

What we have today is extreme egalitarianism, which goes far beyond anything previously known, and in such excess to be a ridiculous liability.

National-Socialism certainly couldn't be described as an egalitarian movement per se.

[Petr]

There was undoubtably an egalitarian component, but I don't think that a reasonable amount of egalitarianism is bad.
Neither do I. One of the fundamentals of Western culture has been equality before the law (not the equality of condition), and Christianity had been the essential factor in making that concept sink into our skulls.

We must find a golden middle way between elitist snobbery and egalitarian resentment, and only Christianity can help us do it. See here:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19177&highlight=rushdoony


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

We must find a golden middle way between elitist snobbery and egalitarian resentment, and only Christianity can help us do it.I suppose this 'we' would include the millions of nonwhite Christians within our borders.

[Vindex]

Evola wanted to remodel White society around the model of the Japs alright. His version we would all be in a Aryan ant heap like the Asian society, our postion fixed from birth to death, in a odd way he was the worlds frist wink.

[Vindex]

The religion of christianity is dogmatic egalitarianism. That laid the way for all the secular egalitarianism of today.

[jcs]

Our position already is fixed from birth to death, whether we dress it up with silly ideas of change or admit its fixed state.

[OVERWATCH]

The religion of christianity is dogmatic egalitarianism. That laid the way for all the secular egalitarianism of today.

All religion has a metaphysical component, and thus is partly egalitarian. I don't think Christianity is significantly, inherently more egalitarian than any other major religion.

[jcs]

All religion has a metaphysical component, and thus is partly egalitarian.
Metaphysics finds its direct consequence in universalism, not egalitarianism, the latter being a degenerated form of universalism.
To illustrate, let's just look at metaphysical authority, and say that we have some sort of god-king. This god-king, due to inherent metaphysical authority, has sovereignty over all. Does this reduce all people to equal status as his subjects? Nope. In fact, he probably favors some subjects over others.
This applies too with gods up in the heavens and universal morality and so forth. Unless the morality or authority or what-have-you declares egalitarianism to be the law (or what is right, whatever), you don't have egalitarianism at all.
So egalitarianism is the misunderstanding of the god-king's declaration that he is king of all--some subjects, motivated by spite, decide to use this declaration for their own benefit.

Perhaps, though, you meant that metaphysics taken to certain levels results in non-differentiation. As for that, see my response to Fade and Petr in the 'Okierredust and Paleocons' thread. To apply that here: with non-distinction, one can still affirm distinction. All values amount to nothing absolutely, lacking any grounding (or amount to absolutely everything, lacking nothing to keep them to the ground...); all values have relative value when observed within the realm of value-judgements. Consequently, metaphysics could affirm the value of distinction as much as it could embrace egalitarianism--sort of like how our god-king could suddenly tell us to be egalitarians.

[jcs]

We must find a golden middle way between elitist snobbery and egalitarian resentment
I didn't know you were a Buddhist. :p

Most often, when people propose a 'middle way,' they're creating a false dichotomy, placing one end on the left of the continuum, the other on the right, and saying that an intermediate (even if dead-center, this isn't 'middle') state is preferable. "Balance" and "moderation," they say, not knowing that they have bastardized those words as they have bastardized the notion of a 'middle way.'
Nice linear thinking. And, of course, when you use ad hominem against those things you characterize as extremes within your dichotomy, this linear thinking really begins to make sense...

[Thomas777]

Nazism was essentially racialist bolshevism...and its irreconcilable with Christianity.

I always found the CI types to be completely insufferable (from a philisophical standpoint) for this reason...you cannot simultaneously harbor unconditional faith in the Christ and the Fuhrer.

[Vindex]

Looking at the ancient ones they where not egalitarian, there was not even a eqaulity of souls, let alone people. Old saul of marxus was just spreading jewish dogmatic marxism. The jews never really change.


All religion has a metaphysical component, and thus is partly egalitarian. I don't think Christianity is significantly, inherently more egalitarian than any other major religion.

[Fade the Butcher]

Neither do I. One of the fundamentals of Western culture has been equality before the law (not the equality of condition), and Christianity had been the essential factor in making that concept sink into our skulls.Selections from the Decree of Gregory VII, March 7th, 1080

That the Roman church was founded by God alone,
That the Roman pontiff alone can rightly be called universal.
That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house as with those excommunicated by him.
That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
That this is the only name in the world.
That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
That he himself may be judged by no one.
That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter.
That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

[Petr]

Selections from the Decree of Gregory VII, March 7th, 1080

Papacy is an illegitimate and un-Christian institution:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/five.htm



According to the First Vatican Council and other authoritative Catholic sources, a papacy with universal jurisdiction has existed and been "ever understood" by the Christian church since the time of Peter (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/jasonte1.htm). However, the following five facts of history make this claim of the Catholic Church untenable:


1. There are no explicit references to a papacy in the earliest centuries of Christianity. Catholic apologists often suggest that a papacy is alluded to in Matthew 16, John 21, First Clement, Against Heresies, and other early documents, but all of these documents can reasonably be interpreted in non-papal ways. There are explicit references to the church offices of bishop and deacon, as well as doctrines such as Christ's deity, the Trinity, and the eucharist, but there aren't any explicit references to a papacy.

2. Many of the words and actions of the earliest Christians contradict the concept of a papacy. The disciples repeatedly argued about who was the greatest among them, even after the words of Matthew 16:18-19 were spoken (Luke 22:24). The disciples don't seem to have had any concept of Peter having been established as their ruler. Paul wrote about apostles (plural), not a Pope, being the highest order in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28). He also wrote that, in terms of apostolic authority, he was in no way inferior to any other apostle (2 Corinthians 12:11). Many events in early post-apostolic church history, such as Polycarp's disagreements with the Roman bishop Anicetus and Cyprian's disagreements with the Roman bishop Stephen, also contradict the concept of a papacy (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials.htm).

3. The earliest non-Christian sources who commented on Christianity said nothing about a papacy. Though Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Lucian, and other early non-Christian sources wrote about the eucharist, Christ's deity, and other Christian doctrines, they didn't say anything about a papacy. If one man was viewed as the ruler of all Christians on earth, the "Vicar of Christ" and "Bishop of bishops", he would have been an ideal object of criticism. None of the earliest non-Christian sources seem to have any concept of a papacy, though.

4. The earliest interpretations of the scripture passages most often cited in favor of a papacy are all non-papal. Tertullian (On Modesty, 21) writes that Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 in the sense that he played a major role in founding the Christian church. He identifies the usage of the "keys" of Matthew 16:19 not as papal authority, but as the preaching of the gospel and the exercising of church discipline. Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 10-11) writes that everybody who confesses the faith Peter confessed in Matthew 16:18 is also a "rock". He emphasizes that Matthew 16:18 doesn't apply only to Peter, and he says nothing about this passage applying in any exclusive way to the bishops of Rome. Cyprian (Epistle 26) writes that all bishops, not just the bishop of Rome, are the successors of Peter, so that Matthew 16:18 applies to all of them. The Apostolical Constitutions (6:5) refers to Luke 22:32 as a passage about the faith of all Christians, and says nothing of a papacy or of this passage referring to papal infallibility. Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and other church fathers also interpreted Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21 in non-Roman-Catholic ways. Some church fathers even applied multiple interpretations to these passages of scripture, but the earliest church fathers never applied the Roman Catholic interpretations to these passages.

5. Men like Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata), Cyprian (On the Unity of the Church), and Augustine (Sermons) wrote entire treatises relating to church government and Christian doctrine without mentioning a papacy. Offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned over and over again, councils are discussed, and the authority of scripture is referred to again and again, yet nobody in the earliest centuries of Christianity writes about papal authority. There are treatises instructing Christians on how to interpret scripture, explaining how to view doctrines like the incarnation and the Trinity, and encouraging Christians to obey bishops and other church leaders. There are no treatises devoted to a papal office, though, nor is a papacy even mentioned. For example, the influential bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, wrote a treatise on church government and unity (On the Unity of the Church) that not only doesn't mention a papacy, but even contradicts the concept.


In light of these five realities of history, the Roman Catholic Church's claims about the papacy are historically untenable. Catholics are encouraged to believe in transubstantiation, Purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and other doctrines because of papal authority, yet that authority is without foundation.




Here's something you can share with all Roman Catholics: in his quarrel with John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, pope Gregory "the Great" (the effective founder of the medieval papacy) made some interesting comments. Oh, the things we say when we get hasty...


http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/papal.htm#Universality


No Pope before Gregory the Great (590-604) claimed "Universality".

For, as your venerable Holiness knows, this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve(2). But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this, far be it from the mind of a Christian, that any one should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honour of his brethren. While, then, we are unwilling to receive this honour when offered to us, think how disgraceful it is for any one to have wished to usurp it to himself perforce.

Wherefore let not your Holiness in your epistles ever call any one Universal, lest you detract from the honour due to yourself in offering to another what is not due.

Source: BOOK V, EPISTLE XLIII: TO EULOGIUS AND ANASTASIUS, BISHOPS from Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), online at EWTN. (You will need to scroll down to find the document)


Pope Gregory the Great renounces the title "Universal Pope".

Your Blessedness has also been careful to declare that you do not now make use of proud titles, which have sprung from a root of vanity, in writing to certain persons, and you address me saying, As you have commanded. This word, command, I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I did not, then, command, but was desirous of indicating what seemed to be profitable. Yet I do not find that your Blessedness has been willing to remember perfectly this very thing that I brought to your recollection. For I said that neither to me nor to any one else ought you to write anything of the kind; and lo, in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For as for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. But far be this from us. Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.

And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors(1). And yet not one of them would ever use this title, that, while regarding the honour of all priests in this world, they might keep their own before Almighty God.

Source BOOK VIII, EPISTLE XXX: TO EULOGIUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA online at EWTN. (You will need to scroll down to find the document)


Pope Gregory the Great criticizes use of the title "Universal Bishop" and denies Peter was a "Universal Apostle".

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep (John xxi. 17). To him it is said, Behold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that they faith fail not. And thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (Luke xxii. 31). To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matth. xvi. 18).

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!

Source: BOOK V, EPISTLE XX: TO MAURICIUS AUGUSTUS from Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), online at EWTN. (You will need to scroll down to find the document)


Pope Gregory the Great calls the title Universal "pestiferous".

Be it known then to your Fraternity that John, formerly bishop of the city of Constantinople, against God, against the peace of the Church, to the contempt and injury of all priests, exceeded the bounds of modesty and of his own measure, and unlawfully usurped in synod the proud and pestiferous title of oecumenical, that is to say, universal. ...

I exhort and entreat that not one of you ever accept this name, that not one consent to it, that not one write it, that not one admit it wherever it may have been written, or add his subscription to it; but, as becomes ministers of Almighty God, that each keep himself from this kind of poisoned infection, and give no place to the cunning lier-in-wait, since this thing is being done to the injury and rendering asunder of the whole Church, and, as we have said, to the condemning of all of you. For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops. ...

Source: BOOK IX, EPISTLE LXVIII TO EUSEBIUS OF THESSALONICA from Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), online at New Advent. (You will need to scroll down to find the document)


Pope Gregory the Great declares title "Universal Priest" to be Antichrist.

Whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.

Source: Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), Letter to Emperor Mauricius Augustus (against assumption of title universal by Patriarch of Constantinople) in his Epistles, bk. 7, letter 33, trans. in NPNF, 2d series, Vol. 12, p. 226 (2d pagination).

Here is the above BOOK VII, EPISTLE XXXIII: TO MAURICIUS AUGUSTUS online at EWTN. (You will need to scroll down to find the document)



Quod erat demonsdrandum...


Petr

[Jimbo Gomez]

Fade: I see no problems with that Decree.

[Vindex]

Talk about a police state just change the pope names to Stalin. Say you love big brother.lol


Selections from the Decree of Gregory VII, March 7th, 1080

That the Roman church was founded by God alone,
That the Roman pontiff alone can rightly be called universal.
That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house as with those excommunicated by him.
That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
That this is the only name in the world.
That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
That he himself may be judged by no one.
That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter.
That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

[Petr]

I didn't know you were a Buddhist. :p
I don't think that's necessary. Jesus Christ commands us to walk a straight and narrow road in this life, and what else is a road than a thin line between two extremes.

Here's an example of Biblical "golden middle way", a middle class ideal:

Proverbs 30:8-9

Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:

Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.


Likewise, the art of making righteous judgments is primarily an ability not to fall into unrighteous extremism on either side:

Leviticus 19:15:

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

(You don't see "liberation theologians" quoting passages like this, right?)


Petr

[Jimbo Gomez]

Taking the middle road is even older than Christianity, even the Greeks already knew that it was the most sensible approach to most dilemmas.

[jcs]

You don't see "liberation theologians" quoting passages like this, right?
No, but the deeper meaning of those quotes passages is basically the same thing said by more intelligent Buddhists. The superficial meaning--the bastardized meaning, the meaning you seem to find--is the same meaning dumb Buddhists found in the intelligent Buddhists' teachings.
Implication: there are smart Christians and dumb Christians. Start looking into esotericism, lest you remain in the latter category.

Taking the middle road is even older than Christianity, even the Greeks already knew that it was the most sensible approach to most dilemmas.
Taking the 'middle road' means, on one level, avoiding extremes, and there is wisdom in that. It also means something a little deeper...
But it certainly does not mean that one should create false extremes and place oneself in the middle, as if this middle were inherently greater. That seems like a fallacy of reason.

I'm going to quote myself, because this is highly pertainent, hasn't been addressed, and I question whether anyone read it:
Most often, when people propose a 'middle way,' they're creating a false dichotomy, placing one end on the left of the continuum, the other on the right, and saying that an intermediate (even if dead-center, this isn't 'middle') state is preferable. "Balance" and "moderation," they say, not knowing that they have bastardized those words as they have bastardized the notion of a 'middle way.'
Nice linear thinking. And, of course, when you use ad hominem against those things you characterize as extremes within your dichotomy, this linear thinking really begins to make sense...
When one thus constructs a 'middle way,' they are deluding themselves into a sense of justification. "My views are right because I can imagine it in the middle of this continuum!"

[Petr]

Start looking into esotericism, lest you remain in the latter category"
Christians don't do esotericism, Pharisees do. Go talk to Kabbalists.


Petr

[jcs]

Christians don't do esotericism, Pharisees do. Go talk to Kabbalists.
Pseudo-Dionysius, Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, Jan von Ruysbroeck, Angelus Silesius, Jacob Boehme (that may be controversial, though), Dante, Blake....
need I go on? What does 'esoteric' mean? Do you even know anything about your own religion?

[Petr]

Pseudo-Dionysius, Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, Jan von Ruysbroeck, Angelus Silesius, Jacob Boehme (that may be controversial, though), Dante, Blake....
need I go on? What does 'esoteric' mean? Do you even know anything about your own religion?

Do you think I care what those papistic heretics and near-heretics said?

They got bad influences from neo-Platonic philosophy that intentionally blurred the eternal distinction between the Creator and creatures like you and me.

Abandon your foolish Luciferian quest, that is indicated in your Silesius (pantheistic heretic) quotation: you will never be a God.

Here's some interesting reading for you:

"Christoplatonism's False Assumptions"

http://www.epm.org/pdf/Heaven/14_Appendix_A.pdf#search='Christoplatonism'

"Rushdoony, Neoplatonism, and a Biblical View of Sex"

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1373


From The Institutes of Biblical Law by Rushdoony: (pg. 449)


"A radical deformation of the gospel and of the redeemed man's calling crept into the church as a result of neoplatonism. Dominion was renounced, the earth regarded as the devil's realm, the body despised, and a false humility and meekness cultivated. Dominion was regarded as a burden of the flesh rather than a godly responsibility."


This pagan mysticism also encourages delusional pseudo-spiritual elitism, as is evident in your case.


Petr

[jcs]

I actually agree with much in that piece on 'Christoplatonism,' given that I've never liked Platonic body-soul/mind duality. Neoplatonism moved somewhat beyond the Platonists in this regard. Thank God for Blake and Nietzsche, in whom we find the full overcoming of Platonism.

Abandon your foolish Luciferian quest, that is indicated in your Silesius (pantheistic heretic) quotation: you will never be a God.
I either already am/know God, or God is of no importance at all.

[Fade the Butcher]

Taking the middle road is even older than Christianity, even the Greeks already knew that it was the most sensible approach to most dilemmas.It comes from Aristotle.

[Fade the Butcher]

Papacy is an illegitimate and un-Christian institutionI think Catholics would beg to differ.

[Petr]

I think Catholics would beg to differ.
:rolleyes:

Do you know that more and more traditionalist Roman Catholics are thinking that all the popes after the Vatican II have been illegitimate anti-popes?


"Has Rome Become the Seat of the Antichrist?"

http://www.the-pope.com/dimond.html


Petr

[jcs]

Do you know that more and more traditionalist Roman Catholics are thinking that all the popes after the Vatican II have been illegitimate anti-popes?
Well, you did say 'papacy' and not 'post-Vatican II papacy.'
But the popes after the Vatican II are pretty much illigitimate, insofar as they set their affairs mostly on politics (and the mass-conversion outreach to third-world lands is the most political of these affiars, though the Church has always done this) rather than matters of the spirit. I like Benedict, but he's no bridge between man and God, just a conservative politician with some religious training.
But we digress!

"Has Rome Become the Seat of the Antichrist?"
So you can misinterpret Revelations, too, I see.

[Uberberserker]

Nazism was essentially racialist bolshevism...and its irreconcilable with Christianity.

That is certainly true, National Socialism of the Hitler/ Rosenberg variety has a near Materialist obsession with Biological Race. The only part that is not egalitarian about this though is that they advocated Eugenics. It should be pointed out that the reason National Socialism resembles bolshevism in many ways is that they were trying to convert many to their cause and survive, in fact they even went so far as to have their flag Red to try and 'fool' some bolshevists to coming over to their side. This was a bloody struggle for survival though, recall a Soviet had been formed in Bavaria, and is fully understandable to me.

There were other strains of thought though, such as the Paganism of Himmler, that had other viewpoints about Race (Ariosophy) but at the end of the day the Hitler/ Rosenberg version is what was made 'Official Doctrine'.

As far as being irreconcible to Christianity, that is not true and please remember that to this very day Hitler has not been excommunicated from the Catholic Church and even Mormons have given Hitler a 'posthumous' baptism which is one of their strange christo-rituals: http://nowscape.com/mormon/hitler_temple_records.htm

I always found the CI types to be completely insufferable (from a philisophical standpoint) for this reason...you cannot simultaneously harbor unconditional faith in the Christ and the Fuhrer.

Sure you can if you just declare him just another prophet, but just not on the level of Christ.