Plato And Ayn Rand

The theory of moral obligation, as found in Plato’s Republic and Ayn Rand’s The Ethics of Emergencies, hinges on the idea of the self and its ethical and moral concerns within society. However, the approaches and conclusions are far from similar.

When we turn to Ayn Rand, we find a great deal of stress on the individual; in fact overly so. For her, a person’s life is the standard of moral value, and consequently, in a nutshell, happiness is each person’s moral obligation. Thus, Rand posits a cognitive/moral approach.

This means that in her philosophy, a strict moral accountability is consistently at the forefront. In effect, her philosophy is centered around man, rather than on a grander cosmology. This means that primacy is given to existence itself and the necessity for survival. However, this extreme objectivism that hinges entirely upon happiness as a moral force is ultimately self-negating.

The problem with Rand is that she consistently fails to ask what is good for society – it cannot be said that what is good for the individual is therefore good for society, since all people do not act rationally in order to eliminate inequality, for example.

In fact, each person’s happiness stems from different points of view and even different economies – and if one individual wins, another loses. This sort of disparity cannot lead to a just society (a concept that Rand is extremely hazy on), because for her people who cannot rationally determine what is good for them, can still be good people.

Secondly, Rand’s objectivism is false because she believes that a self-serving point of view will give us an undeniable and universal good. Thus, for example, slavery is perfectly rational, since it serves the needs of slave-owners, who need cheap labor in order to produce goods.

Rand would have us believe that all men act rationally (that is, in their own self-interest), and therefore every concept that is based on rationality will be universally accepted. There is extreme danger in promoting self-interest as a universal concept.

Rationality must depend on society, and the norms that it accepts. However, rationality cannot be transformed into a universal standard. It is perfectly rational to a murderer that he kills people; he may even enjoy it. But is it good? Morality cannot be relativistic.

Consequently, rationalism is based on the perception of reality; it is not the logical understanding of what reality actually is. Thus, Rand’s notion of morality does not rise above self-centeredness and therefore cannot be correct.

Plato, on the other, hand provides a far more cogent and useful definition of moral obligation. For Plato, such an obligation the description, study, and observation of morality in human action and human society.

Plato also gives centrality to the idea of happiness, as does Rand; and he calls it the highest good, which he identifies with God. Thus, moral obligation for Plato is for the individual to free himself, through his actions, and use virtue and wisdom to become like God.

However, Plato does not carried away with this mystical line of thought; he does recognize and encourage the use of logic, for in his philosophy there is no place for those opinions and pleasures that cannot be freed from passion. With a view to Rand, we find that her entire philosophy is based on pleasures that cannot be freed from passion.

It is the stress on virtue that greatly elevates Plato’s philosophy, which he considers to be essential to human happiness, since it is from virtue that important social concepts arise, namely, wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice.

Further, Plato does not reduce the idea of virtue to its practical applications (something Rand is consistently guilty of). He abandons the utilitarian view and instead attaches to virtue an independent value, which lends virtue a greater worth.

Therefore, a person should strive to be virtuous, within the context of a society that likewise has virtue for its objective – because it is through this striving (both on the individual and societal levels) that morality can be established and maintained. Next, Plato defines the state as the larger man; he models it on the individual soul. This is the complete opposite of Rand’s notion of society being the place rational self-will is practiced.

Thus, Plato’s society is infinitely more moral and just than Rand’s, because there is no room for “selfishness” in it. In fact, Plato subordinates private interests to the good of the whole. In this way, he allows room for concepts such as justice and freedom, which are not merely adjuncts of someone else’s self-interest.

Therefore, we see that Rand’s philosophy is constructed entirely around the idea of rationality, and for her morality is only a choice (implying that there are other choices).

This equivalence of rationality with morality is false, since rationality is universal. Plato, far more cogently tells us that morality hinges upon justice, wisdom, courage, and moderation, which can only function within society. In short, Plato is correct because he goes beyond self-interest in order to define morality, which he tells us the good of the whole rather than the individual.


The photo shows, “Virgil Reading the Aeneid to Augustus and Octavia,” By Angelica Kauffmann, painted, ca. 1741-1807.

Henry VIII – The Good King

When we look back at the reign of Henry VIII, the common view is that he was power-besotted man, who was fond of young girls and great revelry, and had an enormous appetite that saw him grow from a handsome, athletic youth to a bloated old man, who could barely walk.

This extreme view certainly makes for good press copy, but is rather distant from the truth of the man and his reign. It is this image that Carolly Erickson, in her biography, Great Harry, successfully explodes, and instead gives us a version of Henry that is often overlooked – that of a sober, forthright and indeed forceful man, who was not only a loyal Catholic, but a good king, who was much beloved by his subjects.

Nevertheless, there was a transition as well, which no doubt has given rise to the image of Henry VIII as an ogre, who was happily divorcing or beheading six wives. And this transition was part and parcel of the turbulent times during which Henry reigned, for it saw the establishment of the Protestant faith in England, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, and a path of independence from Rome for England.

The approach that Erickson takes is one of insight into the character of Henry, rather than any attempt on her part to either extol or destroy the “legend of Henry.”

In fact, Erickson examines the great intellectual and physical vivacity of the young Henry, as he became a king at the age of eighteen, and his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and then his slow decline into middle age and rather decrepit old age.

Thus, the contours of her book can also be seen as her examination of a great king, who declines into an ogre, desperately seeking an heir to his throne, while controlling those around him with fear.

The underlying question that Erickson seems to be asking is how does a gifted, talented young man become a vengeful executioner? There is, of course, no one answer to this question, as Erickson shows.

Indeed, the contours of Henry’s life show this transformation, as Erickson reminds us again and again. Henry was a man of “majestic childishness,… absurd mixture of naïveté and cunning, boldness and poltroonery, vindictive cruelty and wayward almost irresistible charm.”

Therefore, the actions of such a complex person need to be examined not only carefully, but also sensitively, since Henry struggled not only with internal problems, but also external ones, especially with France and Spain.

But he also saw himself as above other rulers, a mythic knight of old: “Henry appeared to incarnate all the ardent vitality of Christian knighthood, the dauntless zeal that for the right could outbrave all dangers.”

But at home, he needed to assure his subjects of the rightful claim of the Tudors for the English. The problem lay with his father, Henry VII, whose grab for the crown came only as result of a precarious win at the Battle of Bosworth, in which King Richard III was defeated. In fact, other than the victory, Henry VII had no right to the English throne at all.

The only way Henry VIII could expound the myth of the Tudors was to produce a male heir, who would not only secure the Tudor line, but also demonstrate that God was firmly on the side of the Tudors, whom He continually favored.

As well, a generation earlier, the War of the Roses had left England devastated, and Henry VIII did not want the plague of dynastic instability to run rampant in the nation.

Thus, Erickson astutely explains his relentless quest for an heir, within the context of Henry’s political reality, since this was an age in which children (especially royal ones) were seen as being gifts from God. What would it say about Henry and the Tudors, if God withheld this gift?

Erickson demonstrates that this quest became all consuming for Henry, and because of it, Henry undertook monumental decisions that would change England forever.

The problem, as he saw it, lay with his wife, Catherine of Aragon, who had not produced an heir. Henry sought for an explanation. He found one, in that Catherine was the widow of his older brother, Arthur, who had died while Henry was young, thus bringing Henry to the throne.

In his own eyes, marrying Catherine was incest, and he asked the Pope, Clement VII, to dissolve their marriage based upon this fact, which became known as the King’s Great Matter.

The Pope refused, and Henry sought other measures. Henry found resolved the Great Matter, by accepting Protestantism, and bringing about the English Reformation, and all the ensuing legal and political changes, such as the Oath of Succession, the Act of Appeals, the Act of Supremacy, the Supplication against the Ordinaries, and the Ten Articles.

Thus, Henry steered the course of England away from the rule of Rome towards a greater role, which would be realized by his daughter Elizabeth, and afterwards.

The man that Erickson presents to us is also one of great and boundless energy: “ Along with his tough, untiring physique Henry had a superabundance of nervous energy which urged him on from one diversion to another and which put a keen edge on his every movement.”

Erickson excels in this sort of description, which not only captures the true character of Henry, but also the very vitality of the man, for we see him full of life, someone reveling in the powers of his own body and mind.

It is this character of Henry that captured the hearts of his subjects, for they saw in him a king who was not only energetic, but more importantly as a man of action – and action was the most defining characteristic of the Renaissance, and Henry embodied the spirit of his age perfectly.

Thus it was that Cardinal Wolsey referred to him as the “‘prince of royal courage’” who would rather lose half his kingdom than abandon his undertakings/” It was this tenacity that marked the entire length of Henry’s reign.

Thus, the portrait that emerges from Erickson’s book if one of a man, who is both a shrewd reader and manipulator of men, and a rather moving man, who is seeking to do everything in his power to leave a great legacy behind.

In effect, Erickson takes the legend of Henry VIII, and places it side-by-side with his reality, which he documents minutely.

The result is a complete portrait of Henry VIII, as he really was, a man at once worldly and political, boyish and shrewd, playful and vindictive, loving and cruel. It is within these polarities that Erickson’s portrait of VIII greatly excels.


The photo shows, “The New Learning, Erasmus and Thomas More Visit the Children of King Henry VII at Greenwich, 1499 ” by Frank Cadogan Cowper, painted ca. 1910.

Ways Of Persuasion

Aristotle conceived of three major types of rhetorical appeal. These modes of rhetoric, otherwise known as “proofs,” were the pillars of persuasive dialogue back in ancient Greece, and their foundation still holds to this day.

All rhetorical arguments can more or less be categorized under (or prescribed as a blend of) either: Pathos, Ethos, or Logos. Regardless of whether or not an argument is conveyed through speech or writing, these three proofs are undoubtedly the most useful means a speaker has in convincing their target audience of their desired point or belief.

In other words, if rhetoric is a battle of persuasion, these are the most powerful tools in the rhetor’s arsenal. However—there is a fourth proof that is oftentimes overlooked. While it can be assumed that the majority of readers are more than likely familiar with Aristotle’s three rhetorical proofs, very few people in my experience (besides rhetorical scholars like myself) have come across the elusive fourth proof: Kairos.

My intention in the remainder of this article is to refresh readers of what the three original rhetorical proofs are, and to enlighten many of you to the fourth (and my personal favorite) rhetorical proof.



The art of persuasion, and how to effectively impact people through communication. Seeing as Rhetoric is the cornerstone of this whole piece, I figured I would provide my short definition that has helped guide me in my studies.



Aristotle categorized Pathos as an appeal to emotion. Essentially, Pathos refers to anytime a rhetor attempts to tug at their audience’s heart-strings, so to speak. When a speaker brings up a tragic story from their past, references morality or the distinction between “right and wrong”, or even if they were to cry at the podium: this is all Pathos.

However, there are other forms of emotional appeal besides sadness or guilt. A speaker who invigorates their audience to join a cause is engaging in pathos. A comedian who makes their audience laugh is engaging in pathos. The politician that tries to make their community angry or scared enough that they’ll follow them is engaging in pathos. Pathos holds dominion over any and all emotion.



This appeal is the easiest to break down in my opinion. Ethos simply refers to a speaker’s credibility. An argument that is founded upon one’s own trustworthiness or experience is grounded in ethos.

For instance, a doctor that tries to convince me my eating habits are unhealthy is engaging in ethos, as her word is rooted in knowledge and practicality. When you were learning to drive, and your father told you “listen… I’ve been driving for 40 years, I know what I’m doing so let me teach you…”—that was ethos.



Logos is the Greek word for form, meaning, and structure. Logic, in other words. Logos refers to the strength of a rhetor’s argument simply based upon its logical resiliency. If a claim is so air tight on a logical standpoint that it cannot be truthfully rebuked, it is an impervious argument in regards to logos.

When you’re going through a breakup, and your significant other breaks down all of the reasons why your partnership will no longer work—that’s logos. Any logical strong of thoughts with the intention to persuade others falls under this category.



Finally, we reach the least talked about of all persuasive proofs, Kairos. The term refers to the art of timeliness, and the actual timing of an argument.

he technique of this proof is to actually choose when your line of communication will be delivered, as a means of strengthening your argument. A man about to propose to his girlfriend waits until the sun has set and the mood is completely right before popping the question—this is an act of kairos.

Waiting until the opportune moment can secure that your point will be well received, and is thus a hugely effective move by any rhetor. While this proof is often overlooked, its rhetorical potency shouldn’t be understated.


The photo shows, “The Irritating Gentleman,” by Berthold Wolyze, painted in the 1874.

God And Science: Three Responses

In our secular world, belief in God is popularly linked with either delusion or dangerous political agendas.

In the West, it’s normal and “rational’ to say that there is no God since no scientific proof for Him exists.

How is a Christian to respond to such a foregone conclusion? Here are three to consider.



To ask for proof for all things that are essential to life in order to affirm truth or gain certainty is extremely fuzzy logic. Human beings have always understood and dealt with the world in two ways.

Through science which seeks to explain how the world works, and what kind of patterns exist in nature. And through religion which seeks to explain the meaning and significance of reality.

In other words, the minute we start looking for meaning, we have already entered the realm of religion, or the realm of God, that is, we are always in search of significance and meaning.

There are two types of knowledge in the world: naturalist (or scientific) and idealist (or meaningful).

We cannot use the logic of the one to deal with the other.

For example, science can show, prove and study life on the planet. But it cannot answer this question, which each human beings needs to answer for himself – what is the moral purpose of life?

Naturalistic logic fails immediately, and we must turn to idealist logic which alone can explain meaning.

The logic of idealism deals with things not seen, such as, love, empathy, charity, friendship, hope, and goodness.

Man does not live my bread alone.



If God continually showed Himself so people would have proof – could we really look to Him for moral guidance? No, we could not. Why? The idea of morality depends upon another essential idea – free will.

If God continually showed up on earth and stopped both moral and natural evil as a demonstration of His power, what kind of creatures would we be? Would we not be slaves only motivated by fear of being found out? Certainly, such fear lies at the heart much human belief. But fear is not part of the equation in Christianity. This is why neither Hell nor Heaven are clearly defined. Here is true wisdom.

But if God is love, then He must be invisible so that we may have the ability to express our free will without hindrance. If God keeps interfering with our expression of freedom by becoming a looming, controlling presence, He becomes a tyrant, and He cannot love us, and we are not really free.

Perfect love and perfect freedom can only exist when individual will has the opportunity to be expressed unhindered. Therefore, God is silent and seemingly absent, so that we come to understand what a moral life is to be lived, not only through teaching but through practice.



God may choose to be invisible and absent, and yet He is immediately knowable through His structure. What does this mean?

Here we can borrow the logic of science and use it to understand a crucial point. All reality is constructed in a specific way; it has a structure.

There is a grand system, or guidebook to the all life and to the cosmos – something that science is becoming mature enough to understand.

Yes, for the many centuries, science has been childish, and therefore wilful and petulant, happy to rebel and deny God as a delusion.

But things have changed – the complexity of reality, of creation, has forced science to grow up and acknowledge what it has denied – that chaos cannot create order.

There is a grand design to everything. Nothing is random, even if it may at first appear to be so.

From the atom to the largest planets and stars; they all have a structure which gives them not only form and organization but also purpose.

For example, in medical science, the structure of disease must first be mapped; only then can a cure be formulated. And what is a cure? It is a competing structure that unhinges the harmful structure of the disease.

Therefore, nothing that exists is without structure. In other words, being is structure. But notice structure has two aspects: shape and function or purpose.

All things have a shape – and a purpose; they fulfill a role. This twin characteristic of reality is a reflection of God. He has a shape (the structure in which all reality exists – the sum of all life), and He has a purpose (the reason why there is something in the universe when there could be nothing).

The very fact that there is life means that there is God, since life has both shape and function, or purpose.

In these three ways, we see that when people say that there is no “proof” of God, and therefore He is simply a figment of the imagination, they are simply reaching for an easy answer in order to affirm their own moral choices, and these choice are often just emotions. In fact, most atheists are angry at God for some perceived let-down.

The question has nothing to do with God – it has everything to do with what people choose to do with their lives. But such is God’s love that He has generosity of purpose, and room enough in His structure, to permit disbelief and denial.


The photo shows, “The Adoration of the Golden Calf,” by Andrea di Leone, painted ca. 1526-1627.

Whatever Happened To The West? Part III

Christmas, being the time of joyful celebration for the birth of the Messiah, leads also to meditation and reflection.

For some, it may involve a reevaluation of what was, or was not, accomplished. For others it might be a prayer and wish that the coming year may be a better one. For others still, there may just be full contentment for hopes fulfilled.

But this Christmas season, as 2017 wends its way into history, we might also reflect on who and what we are, what we have become. That we might consider the life of our civilization, because of which we live as we want.

Are we good stewards of our civilization? Do we know how to husband and sustain it? Or do we think things will look after themselves as they always do, why worry? We might think that life just keeps getting better, and everything is wonderful.

But it might not be a bad idea to undertake some reflect, so that we might know how we ought to live. That is the hardest part – knowing how we ought to live, because all-too-often, we live thoughtlessly, just getting through each day.

How we ought to live, and how we actually do spend our time tend to be miles apart. This isn’t some trite lecture on efficiency, or worse a feel-good pep-talk on fulfilling goals and then setting new ones. The world is too full already of all that saccharine advice.

Perhaps this Christmas, we might consider the life of our civilization – where is it headed, what are we doing in it, why does any of this matter?

Recently, I was rereading the work of the Italian philosopher, Marcello Pera. One book in particular needs to be read more widely by all those who still value the civilization of the West.

In the coming years ahead, what we still call the West will be near collapse – not because of foreign enemies, but because of apathy and apostasy of those of us who still want to enjoy the fruits of the West, without thinking how the tree that keeps on giving may be cared for and protected that it might continue to give us and our future generations the fruits that we now take for granted.

By their fruits shall ye know them,” is a good starting.

Right now, the West is at a crossroad (some may say that it’s already too late and we’ve veered into the wrong, destructive path).

But perhaps the choice is still to be made.

Shall we, as a civilization, take the broad gate that leads to destruction, because it’s a lot easier and we’re complacent and can’t be bothered?

Or, do we take the narrow gate, which is difficult and leads to much hardship, but which will lead us to redemption?

As in most things in life, there are only ever two choices. Never more – good or evil.

Likewise, we as a civilization have two choices – naturalism, or Christianity – evil or good.

All the grand promises of a technological civilization, grounded in atheism and secularism, are merely siren songs, which can harbor nothing but destruction. The Jacobins tried to build such a civilization in France after 1789. The result was relentless cruelty. Indeed, why should a rational man be kind, when kindness is deemed a flaw and then as weakness?

And what have been the fruits of naturalism? The National Razor (what the Jacobins called the guillotine), Gulags, concentration camps, the murderous “leap forward” of the Moaists, the killing fields of Cambodia, the slaughter of “revolution” in Cuba and South America.

And the fruits of Christianity? The very values and ideas we hold to be fundamental to our way of life: kindness, goodness, charity and love.

Christianity is only hated when grand lies are fashioned about it, and then ceaselessly repeated until they settle in the minds of the hapless as obvious and absolute “truths.”

But in the words of Marcel Mauss, ““Our own notion of the human person is still basically the Christian one.”

In other words, the West may try, but it cannot hide the fact that it is fully – and only – a Christian civilization.

Many try to deny this fact and try to cobble together some sort of culture without Christianity. But this can only fashion some sort of tyranny, for how can you have morality through atheism? And then how can you actually create a civilization without morality?

More importantly, without morality, human life is impossible, because people need love, goodness, charity. There is no life without it – just bestial existence.

And the morality of the West is Christianity. Without it, it’s dead.

Here the words of Simone Weill bear recalling: “…how can bring oneself to love anything other than the good?” This is essential definition of civilization. Only Christianity offers both the love and the good.

Marcello Pera explores this theme fully in his fascinating book, Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians. The Religious Roots of Free Societies. Even though this book came out in 2011, it is worth revisiting, because it has much to teach us, since the tension between Christianity and naturalism is only accelerating.

Pera is a secular philosopher.  So, why would a secular philosopher write a book urging the nations of the western world to rediscover their history and openly declare themselves to be Christian countries?

The answer to this question is clear enough – the West is the production of only one religion – and none other – Christianity.

It is because of Christianity that the West came to dominate the world. Why? Because Christianity gave it liberty, democracy, human dignity, charity, non-violence, love of others, individualism, equality before the law, education for all.

No other culture in the world was able to produce these universal virtues. Why not? Because they were not Christian.

These ideas spurred the West to advance morally, socially, economically, and politically far beyond other nations.

However, these ideas have gradually been detached from their Christian context and given a secular framework – what philosophers commonly call, “naturalism” (there is no God, no afterlife, and humans are simply another type of animal that has won dominance of the planet).

Naturalism is so deeply entrenched in the West that it is taken to be its default worldview.

Because of this pervasive attitude, Christianity is blamed and ridiculed as “unreasonable,” “unscientific”, “unprogressive,” and far worse.

These negative definitions of Christianity have led to open hostility, because it alone stands in the way of the positively defined qualities of naturalism.

But who is doing all this defining? That’s the question citizens of the West should be asking? Why are their politicians openly encouraging civilizational suicide?

Further, naturalism is allied with relativism which denies comparison of cultures, religions, worldviews – so that we can never say one religion, or even culture, is better than another.

And yet in a direct contradiction to all this, those that profess such relativism, then proceed to hold up ideas, such as, equality for women, individual freedom, and charity for all. They do not, or cannot, explain why these values are better in themselves – or why they are good for all.

Pera then presents a counter-argument: “Christianity has changed the world…it has brought about an unprecedented moral revolution of love, equality, and dignity, whose effects are still at work today…had this revolution never occurred, the world would be more savage…Christianity is of great value…it is a good unto itself.”

Still the West is intent on emptying itself of its history and culture – its Christianity – in order to build a new society that will be truly secular.

The signs of this “new society,” this “new social order” are already apparent: Limitless consumption, blind hedonism, distraction and entertainment through technology – and worst of all, the replacement of ideas with agitprop, the weaponization of sexuality, the control of language, the denial of free expression via the phantom of “hate speech,” the destruction of education until it is now indoctrination.

And naturalism is fueled by the credo: Pleasure is good; its denial is evil. The West will implode because of it.

Strangely, the most ardent upholders of naturalism are the courts. Pera explains: “The bench and high courts, in order to enhance their own influence and transform themselves into an absolute authority, have even come up with a theory…according to which the task of judges is not to interpret and apply specific laws but to enforce general principles.”

In this way, controversial practices (such as abortion, same-sex marriages, euthanasia, polygamy, the erosion of bio- medical and scientific ethics and now the rise of digisexuality are normalized, not by the will of the people expressed, say, in plebiscites – but by court rulings.

This is “judicial imperialism,” that is, judicial dictatorship, where courts are permitted to enforce ideology rather than implement the laws of the land.

They do this, because citizens of the West are now incapable of expressing any kind of a collective moral voice – they are confused by the constant legitimation of personal desires as “rights.”

Such is the West today – rootless, amoral, free-floating, empty of all historical and cultural content; intent on pleasure.

It is any wonder that internationalism is held up as an ideal, while patriotism is decried as “racism” and “hate speech?” This really is the old language of Communism – and hardly disguised. It works because people have no history whatsoever any more.

But Pera points to a solution: “If we live as Christians, we will be wiser and more aware of the dangers we face. We will not separate morality from truth. We will not confuse moral autonomy with any free choice. We will not treat individuals, whether the unborn or the dying, as things. We will not allow all desires to be transformed into rights. We will not confine reason within the boundaries of science. Nor will we feel alone in a society of strangers or oppressed by a state that appropriates us because we no longer know how to guide ourselves.”

The revolutionary Christian message needs to be bravely declared by citizens of the West who still remain Christians so that politicians will listen.

The churches that are hand-in-glove to Statism need to be destroyed (like the church of Sweden that has banned the words, “God,” “Lord,” “Father” which means the theological concept of Divine Fatherhood is deemed to be “hate speech. Thus, in the end, all heresies verge in madness). When the spirit of truth departs, so must the people.

Naturalism creates, promotes and celebrates such lunacy. Christians in the West need to wake up before they’re sucked into the spreading maelstrom (to use a Swedish word).

Only Christians can save the West from the Hell envisioned by naturalism. This is Grand Crusade of the 21st-century. We need a return of Christian manliness to even face it, let alone overcome it.

Pera’s book is a much-needed wake-up call. It should be essential reading for all who want to align western societies once more to the truth of democracy – which is Christianity.

Naturalism can only offer Gulags, concentration camps, and killing fields. Will Christians recoup their moral courage? Or will they succumb because of theur apathy? That is the stark choice that now lies ahead.


The photo shows, “Lost Illusions,” by Léon Dussart and Marc Gabriel Charles Gleyre, painted ca. 1865 to 1867.

How Pagan Is Christianity?

Every Christmas season, the usual myths are hauled out and distributed for popular consumption. You know them. We’ve all heard or read them.

  • That Christmas celebrations were stolen from the Romans
  • The Christmas tree is a pagan hangover
  • That other gods had virgin births
  • That Yule and the mistletoe are all about Odin

These falsehoods are repeated often and loudly, under the guise of being “historical truths.” And strangely they still stump most Christians, who are then filled with doubt about what they believe.

Of course, these myths were designed to elicit precisely this sort of reaction from believers.

All of them were invented in the 18th- and 19th-centuries by specific writers, who were looking for ways to finally destroy Roman Catholicism. It was, in fact, a continuation of the Black Legend (the anti-Catholic propaganda of the Protestants, which continues to this day and has now been taken up by secularists).

Three writers of such legends have had the most long-reaching influence, despite peddling in ahistorical and groundless suppositions.

The earliest is Paul Ernst Jablonski (1693-1757), who in his De origine festi nativitatis Christi (Concerning the Origins of Christmas) set out to destroy Roman Catholicism by claiming that it was all pagan superstition (a view still rather common among many Protestants).

He was the first to suggest that Christmas was nothing other than a pagan celebration for Mithras (the Persian god adopted into the Roman army, like a mascot, if you will). Until recently, in fact, Protestants tended not to celebrate Christmas, deeming it to be paganism.

Jablonski made all his claims without a shred of historical evidence. But his real legacy is the habit of mind that he created – which holds to the supposition that beneath the superficial Christian overlay, there is a jumble of ancient superstitions, myths, pagan folk customs and practices. Scratch a Christian and you find a Roman pagan.

And this habit of mind is now a thriving industry, with everyone and his uncle nursing a pet theory about how “pagan” Christianity really is.

Ernst Friedrich Wernsdorf (1718-1782) picked up where Jablonski left off and claimed that Christmas was just an adapted Roman celebration for the Unconquerable Sun (Sol Invictus). He laid out his case in De originibus solemnium natalis Christi ex festivitate natalis invicti (The Origins of Christmas in the Festival of the Birth of the Unconquerable Sun). These were the good-old days when people actually knew Latin and always wrote in it (but that’s another topic).

Wernsdorf further popularized the trend of finding ways to debunk Christianity via spurious historical references. In this view, Christians were a fraud, foisted upon the world by conniving, power-hungry lot who wanted to control the Roman Empire.

The real historical evidence points to the fact that Christians were always distancing themselves from anything pagan. So much so that they were willing to be slaughtered in the arenas, rather than agree to anything the pagans wanted them to do to fit into Romanitas (being Roman).

In fact, Christians were renowned throughout the Roman world for neither adopting nor adapting to Roman ways.

But Wernsdorf did set an influential precedent – implicating Christianity for “stealing” pagan ideas, festivals, theology, and making them their own. Again, all these assertions were made without a stitch of historical evidence – just a lot of suppositions and assumptions.

His views would find their most eloquent expression in Edward GibbonsThe History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (published in 1776, yes, the same year as the American Revolution).

This, then led to all kinds of suppositions about just how pagan Christianity was. Gibbons suggested that Christians destroyed the Roman Empire and replaced it with a terrible Dark Age, filled with superstition, ignorance and narrow-mindedness.

His explanation as to how Christians managed to do this was by a policy of adapting and adopting everything pagan, giving it a quick whitewash and proclaiming it as sound “Christian” theology – and in this way they won friends and influenced people.

We have to bear in mind that when Jablonski, Wensdorf and Gibbons are writing, there is a lot of interest in history among ordinary people (antiquarianism). Thus, there’s a great demand for books that explore and explain the past.

Antiquarianism would go on to establish history as a science, as well as archaeology, paleography, chronology. In short, the diachronic approach.

So, it’s also at this point that another modern phenomenon began to emerge – popular history, which took on a life of its own, and soon was separated from real, scholarly, evidence-based inquiries into past.

One such popularist was Alexander Hislop (1807-1865), whose life mission was to annihilate the Roman Catholic Church once and for all. He set about doing this by claiming that everything about Catholicism was nothing other than the disguised paganism of ancient Babylon.

It was Hislop who turned Constantine into the great “villain” who connived to create the Roman Catholic Church, building it entirely on the ancient Babylonian. religion.

This cartoon version of Constantine is now widely popular and taken to be the “truth” by many.

Another contemporary, Charles William King (1818-1888), who published his influential work, The Gnostics and their Remains, in 1864, claimed that Christianity was simply Mithraism whose object of worship was the sun. King knew nothing about Mithraism, other than what he could find in Latin sources. And, of course, Mithraism has nothing to do with the sun.

As the work of the historians continued to bring to light more ancient civilizations, the “paganizers” found more grist for their various mills.

The most important among these was Gerald Massey (1828-1907), who went more ancient than Rome and latched on to Egypt as the “real” root of Christianity. It’s he who is responsible for the howler that Jesus is actually Horus (the ancient Egyptian sky god, often depicted as a falcon).

Wallace the went to town as he concocted a heady brew of “proofs” – that Horus was born of a virgin mother; that Horus was baptized in a river by a baptizer named, Anup; that Horus has twelve disciples; that Horus was crucified and rose from the dead and proclaimed as savior of mankind.

None of this is true, of course. It’s all Wallace letting his imagination run amok.

So, this brief exertion into the origins of the still-vibrant Debunk Christianity industry points to something far more important

  • That Christianity is unique. It has no pagan links. All claims that assert a pagan connection are easily destroyed (it would be dull going through them one-by-one)
  • That the message of Christianity is entirely new. Nothing like ut ever existed in the ancient world.
  • That unlike the pagan gods, Jesus is a thoroughly historical figure.
  • That Christian theology is unlike any other, whose main principles (love, forgiveness, charity, and a personal relationship with God) are unprecedented in any other religion.
  • That even the Resurrection is a verifiable, historical event, entirely provable by clear evidence.

The consequences of all the attacks by the “paganizers” (who have now grown in number) are easily disproved.

This means that…

Christmas is only Christian and nothing else, and was established as a Christian feast day from the very earliest time of the faith.

Christmas trees are an ancient symbol of the hope that Christ offers. They are “paradise trees,” and symbolize the Garden of Eden, to which faith in Christ returns the human being. They has nothing to do with Germanic or Roman pagan festivals (for which we have no concrete historical evidence).

The mistletoe represents the love of God, which is why couples kiss beneath it. The Old English word, “mistel” really refers to the herb, basil, which in ancient Christian herbals (book of healing herbs), is associated with the crucifixion.

And, no, the mistletoe is not a hangover from “Germanic” paganism. We have no idea what the ancient Germanic tribes worshipped, because the further back we go, the more Roman these tribes present themselves – and the evidence of Christianity is pervasive among them. By the time, these Germanic people appear in history, they are already Christians. The connection with Baldur is spurious, since none can now say what is ancient and pagan and what is invented by Snorri Sturluson to flesh out his narratives.

As for the term, “yule,” the earliest mention comes from Bede who tells us that it was the name for the month of December among the Anglo-Saxons.

We cannot really use the Scandinavian evidence because it is much later (Snorri Sturluson dates from the 13th-century). So, Bede makes the earliest reference. And Odin is nowhere in sight! All the later mythologizing is merely neo-pagan wishful thinking.

Murdo Macdonald, in his book, The Need To Believe, summarizes all these efforts to make Christ and Christianity into anything but what it really is – the very heart and soul of the West:

“…certain authors tried to prove that Jesus, as a historical person, never existed. He was only a figment of the imagination, a fanciful creation, a mythical figure, giving expression to the religious aspirations of mere heretical tendencies of the time. These attempts have long been abandoned and no reputable scholar gives them a passing thought… It may be possible to ignore the New Testament and to misread history, selecting only those parts of it which lend sanction and support to our own personal bias, but it is difficult all the time to elude the challenge of Christ Incarnate in human character.”

Christianity is not pagan in any way. It is uniquely its own. This is what scholarly history shows us. Though the lies be many, there can be only one truth.



The photo shows, “The Triumph of Christianity Over Paganism,” by Gustave Doré, painted perhaps in 1868.

Whatever Happened To The West?

The most ancient roots of the West lie in one place.

The society in which we live, a liberal democracy, is the result not of events that happened all over the world – rather, it is the result of events that happened in just one country. ancient Greece.

We are who we are not because of what happened in ancient China, Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt or India (essential as the histories of these places are to our knowledge of the world). Despite the passage of millennia, we still live in the world invented by the ancient Greeks.

And because of the influence and spread of western technology, the entire globe has now been impacted by these Greeks of long ago.

There is a reason why we want all people to be free; why we think more democracy is a good thing; why we worry about the environment; why we have immense faith in our ability to come up with solutions no matter how great the problem; why we believe education to be crucial to building a good life; why we seek self-respect.

And this reason is simply stated: we have inherited – not created – a particular habit of mind, a way of looking at the world.

We live within a set of values that constantly encourage us to depend on reason, to seek out moderation and distrust excess, to live a disciplined life, to demand responsibility in politics, to strive for clarity of thought and ideas, to respect everyone and everything, including nature and the environment, and most of all to cherish and promote freedom.

This is our inheritance from the ancient Greeks. We need to study them in order to learn and relearn about our intellectual, esthetic and moral inheritance – so that we might meaningfully add to it so that it may continue in the vast project of building the goodness of our society.

This is why we need to study the Greeks, because through them we come to study ourselves.

And what about the Romans? They were the people that allowed Greek learning to be made available to the world.

The ancient Romans adopted the Greek habit of mind and through their empire, which stretched from the borders of Scotland to the borders of Iran, they passed on this inheritance to all the people that lived within these borders.

Thus, in studying the Romans, we come to understand how very difficult it has been for ideas, which we may take for granted, to come down to us. Whereas the ancient Greeks created the world we live in, the ancient Romans facilitated it by giving universality to the Greek habit of mind.

Thus, to study both these civilizations is to fully understand our own.

Prehistoric human settlement in the Greek peninsula stretches back to the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods. By the time of the Bronze Age, different types of pottery demarcates the various phases of material culture.

For the sake of convenience, historians have used these various types of pottery to work out a chronology of Greek prehistory. And because Greece is not only the peninsular mainland, but also the islands in the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas, the pottery is sorted out by different regions.

Thus, the Bronze Age in the mainland of Greece is classified as Helladic (from 1550 B.C. to 1000 B.C.).

On the island of Crete, the Bronze Age is labeled Minoan (from 3000 B.C. to about 1450 B.C.). And on the various islands of the Aegean, the Bronze Age is referred to as Cycladic, where it begins around 3000 B.C. and lasts until about 2000 B.C., at which time the culture of the Cyclades is absorbed into the greater Minoan civilization.

The earliest expression of Bronze Age civilization in Europe is found on the island of Crete, where a brilliant culture flourished from about 2700 B.C. to around 1450 B.C.

It was brought to light in 1900 by the English archaeologist, Sir Arthur Evans, who excavated a large complex at Knossos, which he called a “palace.”

But the “palace” he found was different from what we might imagine. It was a warren of maze-like adjoining rooms, where people lived and worked, and where oil, wine and grain were stored in massive clay jars, some as high as six feet. It was likely an administrative center, plus a warehouse.

The labyrinthine layout of the palace suggested the name, Minoan,” to Evans, after the Greek myth of King Minos of Crete, who had built a maze to hide the Minotaur, the half-man, half-bull offspring of his wife, Pasiphae, who had fallen in love, and then coupled, with a white bull.

The many wall-paintings from the palace give indication that the cult of the bull was prevalent among the ancient Cretans – the best example being the ritual or sport of “bull-leaping,” in which young men and women grasped the horns of a charging bull and leaped over its back to land behind the animal.

It is difficult to say whether this was done as sport, or perhaps even as a religious dance. We cannot know since we have no contemporary written explanation for this display.

Evans also found thousands of clay tablets with writing on them. The writing was in two versions of the same script. The first version he labeled Linear A, and the second he called Linear B.

The only problem was that he could read neither. It would not be until 1952 that Michael Ventris finally deciphered Linear B and found the many texts in this script to be the earliest form of the Greek language.

When the same rules of decipherment were applied to Linear A, however, it was found to be a curious language that was not Greek at all, nor was it a language that could be placed in any known family group.

Perhaps as further work is done on Linear A, it might disclose more of its secrets. But for now, the Minoan world is mysterious to us, because all we have are its material remains.

However, the more intriguing question that arises from the evidence we have is – how did the earliest form of the Greek language get mixed with a non-Greek language in the palace at Knossos?

This question points us northwards to the mainland of Greece, and to a city known as Mycenae.

The speakers of the earliest form of Greek were the Mycenaeans, who were given their name from the city they inhabited, namely, Mycenae, where the German archaeologist, Heinrich Schliemann, in 1876, found a well-developed civilization, with a ruling warrior aristocracy who lived in fortified towns built on hilltops.

Aside from Mycenae, the towns of Athens (a relatively unimportant place at this early time), Pylos, Tiryns, Iolkos and Orchomenus were also part of Mycenaean culture, which established itself around 1900 B.C. and endured until 1200 B.C.

Schliemann’s excavations revealed a circle of shaft-graves, in which the dead were buried standing up, and in which were found large quantities of weapons as well as gold objects, from funerary masks to goblets and jewelry.

He also found evidence for the domesticated horse and the chariot – and, most important of all, there were found clay tablets with Linear B written on them, which would be deciphered as the earliest form of the Greek language.

All these discoveries led to an important question – where did the Greeks come from because their language ultimately is not native to the land now known as Greece.

If we examine the archaeological record of the time just before the Mycenaean age, we find massive destruction that lasted about a hundred years from 2200 B.C. to about 2100 B.C.

And the material remains of the people that established themselves after the destruction were markedly different from those that lived in these same areas before.

It is to this deep destruction that we can link the “coming of the Greeks,” a phrase much used by historians.

So, where did the Greeks come from?

The clues before us are two-fold: material and intellectual culture. The excavations at Mycenae yield several essential clues: chariot parts, horse tack, skeletal remains of horses, weapons and pottery; plus, there is also the fact that these people were speakers of early Greek, as demonstrated by the Linear B texts.

The recent discovery of the Griffin Warrior from the Mycenaean Age also points to the richness of the material remains from the era, and further offers hints as to the origin of Greek culture.

These clues points to one conclusion. The earliest Greeks, that is, the Mycenaeans, came as invaders, likely from the north, and they destroyed what they found and took control and began to build their own fortified towns.

And we know that they are invaders because of their language, which is Indo-European – and this tells us that these early Greeks came from elsewhere, since the origin of the Indo-European languages is in a place quite a bit distant from Greece.

In the latter years of the third millennium, there were massive Indo-European invasions throughout Eurasia. This is evidenced by the spread of Indo-European languages, and by DNA analysis.

The origin of the Indo-Europeans is likely in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, what historians call the “Kurgan culture.” “Kurgan” refers to the grave mounds under which these early Indo-Europeans buried their dead.

From this point of origin, the Indo-Europeans overran large parts of Europe and some parts of Asia. They were able to be do this because they had domesticated the horse, had invented the chariot, and perfected the composite bow.

The languages they spoke were closely related and to this day comprise the largest family group in the world.

Thus, the indo-European languages consist of the ancient languages (and their modern-day descendants) of northern India (Vedic and Sanskrit) and Persia (Avestan and modern Persian), the Slavic languages, the Baltic languages (Lithuanian and Latvian), Celtic and the Italic (Latin and its descendants, such as, French and Italian), the Germanic languages (such as, German and English), and of course Greek (interestingly, Greek did not create any descendant languages).

This affinity between languages extends further into intellectual culture, since language is the bearer of culture, thus there is a pronounced similarity, for example, among the myths of the various Indo-European peoples – these myths explain and stratify reality.

The Indo-Europeans who veered into Greece called themselves Achaeans, who spoke a very early form of Greek, a form that has some of the closest affinities to Vedic and Sanskrit.

The Achaeans subdued the various non-Indo-European peoples that were living in Greece (the Minoans) and set up suzerainty over them.

The outcome of this process was what we call the Mycenaean civilization, which Schliemann excavated, as noted earlier. The Mycenaeans were known for their warrior culture, in which the chariot and the horse were much valued.

By 1600 B.C. they were established and thrived not only in Greece but also in parts of what is now Turkey.

Around 1450 B.C. these Mycenaeans conquered Crete and destroyed the Minoan civilization.

But they were not above learning civilized ways from the people they had conquered – for they adapted the art of writing invented by the Minoans to their own language, since the Minoan alphabet was not suited for an Indo-European language which had many consonantal clusters, whereas the alphabet of the Minoans (Linear A) was syllablic (each letter represented a consonant and a vowel together).

It is for this reason that Sir Arthur Evans found texts written in both Linear A and Linear B at Knossos, since the Mycenaeans assumed control of this palace structure after their take-over of Crete; and in time they came to use the Linear A alphabet as their own.

The rule of the Mycenaeans in Greece and in Crete was fated. It was destroyed during a catastrophic period in Eurasian history known as “the Bronze Age Collapse,” in which a total of forty-seven important cities were attacked, their inhabitants either killed or enslaved, and the places burned to the ground.

The swath of burned down cities is large and covers Syria, the Levant, Anatolia, Cyprus, Crete and Greece. From 1200 B.C. to about 1150 B.C., there were destructive raids by newer groups of Indo-European peoples, who had developed an innovative method of warfare, which gave them a greater advantage over the armies that these doomed cities could muster.

We have to keep in mind that the first Indo-European invasions, which saw the establishment of the Mycenaeans in Greece and Crete, were the result of the chariot and the composite bow.

The invasions which put an end to the Bronze Age were also successful because of a new type of warfare – the use of infantry armed with a long lance and a broad sword.

The metal for these weapons was iron. Bronze weapons were no match for these iron lances and swords, and the chariots became useless, too, since the foot-soldiers could easily disable a charioteer with their long lances by spearing the warriors that rode inside. The Bronze Age was violently brought to an end by iron weapons.

Thus, the Iron Age begins with an enormous catastrophe – a total collapse of civilization.

Once the large cities and palaces were destroyed, they were replaced by small communities of a few individuals; and these were often located not in the plains, but high in the uplands.

The Iron Age is also known as the Ancient Dark Age, because civilization, or city life, disappeared.

The new group of Indo-Europeans, who invaded Greece in the twelfth century B.C. and put an end to the Mycenaeans, are known as the Dorians; their name likely derives from the early Greek word, doru, which was the long wooden lance that they carried.

It is from the various dialects of these new invaders, plus Linear B that the Greek language developed.

The invading people destroyed civilization and did not value living in palaces or large cities. Instead, they chose to live in smaller communities that had fewer luxuries and fineries which we usually associate with civilization.

There is also evidence of depopulation since the settlements that replace the burned cities and palaces tend to be small and few. Pottery is no longer finely and elaborately decorated but has simple geometric patterns.

The Dark Age lasted from 1200 B.C. to 800 B.C. and can be summarized as a period of petty tribalism.

However, we know a lot about this period because of two significant literary works that describe the people involved in these invasions.

They are the two poems by the legendary poet Homer, namely, The Iliad and The Odyssey. In fact, the story of the siege of Troy may be a memory of the Bronze Age Collapse.

It is with Homer that we enter into recorded Greek history, known as the Archaic period.

From 800 B.C. to 480 B.C., Greece underwent revolutionary changes and began to emerge from its tribal era. This period saw the growth of cities once more, which was fueled by an increase in population and the expansion of commercial trade.

The idea of people being ruled by kings vanished and was replaced by a new form of government, the city-state, in which people sought not to be warrior-heroes, but good citizens.

As a result, there was a focus on refining city life, which led to great achievements in architecture, sculpture, art, commercial relations and trade, politics, and intellectual and cultural life.

Because of larger population colonies were established outside of Greece: in Sicily, southern Italy, eastern parts of Spain, along the southern coastline of France, at Cyrenaica in North Africa, in the Hellespont, and along the Black Sea.

All this was possible because of the growth of technological knowledge, especially in the areas of shipbuilding and seafaring, as well as developments of a new form of government, the polis, or the city-state, which came about as a result of synoecism, or the gathering of various villages into single political entities or units.

It was because of advances in the archaic period that Greek city-states prepared themselves for the maturity and perfection that they would achieve in the fifth century B.C.

And the most important of these cities was Athens, whose citizens radically and permanently changed the world around them – so much so that the ideas implemented by these men and the structures established by them are the very ones in which we still live.

Civilization would never really look back, because of what was achieved in Athens in the fifth century B.C.

This is the origin of the West.

The photo shows, “The Erechtheion on the Acropolis,” by Lancelot-Theodore Turpin de Crisse, painted in 1805.

Whatever Happened To The West? Part II

[Editor’s note: This is a two-part series that examines the character of the West, which once made it exceptional].


What is western civilization? The quickest way to access the essence of the West is to consider its lifeblood. If the West is cut off from its life-giving source, it shall die.

Certainly something will pass for a “western society,” but that society will only be a geographical designation; it will have nothing to do with the West as a civilization.

The prime example of such a barren place is Canada, which has successfully cut itself off from this lifeblood, and now rather happily stands for nothing at all, other than production and consumption – a giant mall, where everyone gets along because they have one common purpose – profit.

Such is the true crisis that the West… will it end up like Canada – unable to fashion anything of importance because it is culturally (morally) dead, because it is cut off from that which gave it life?

Why is this even true? Very simply because the West actually now believes that its lifeblood was always poisonous and must be drained away completely by all means necessary.

But what is this lifeblood? Very simply, it is Christianity, which perfectly fused Greco-Roman Hellenism with the philosophy and teachings of Jesus.

Here it is important to bear in mind that the best definition of “civilization” is a set of ideas – in that ideas define character thereby fashioning particular societies and their modes of behavior.

The West is the creation of Christianity – and nothing else.

It is the very essence of the West – the essence that made it both remarkable and exceptional. No other culture was able to enact a successful merger of Hellenism and Christianity. Only the West. Therefore, no other culture could rival the West in its unique character.

But today, as the West eagerly seeks to cut itself off from its source – what will it become? Will it be anything remarkable, let alone exceptional?

This process of emptying is what we are now witnessing throughout the western world, where anything connected with Hellenism and Christianity is to be rejected as “primitive,” “backwards,” “superstitious,” and poisonous.

Of course, such an emptying can only take place when the educational institutions works tirelessly to empty the heads of their students.

Thus, science and mathematics are now deemed “racist agendas,” and the English language and all English literature are declared to be tools of colonialism.

Of course, such wholesale destruction of young minds is abetted by technology, which conditions people to be amnesiacs, whose memory extends no further than the daily news-cycle.

The grand social experiment of building an entirely new culture may sound heady and exciting, but what is really replacing Hellenism and Christianity?

What is the real model of this new post-western civilization?

Very simply it is nihilism, brought on by a new merger – of Marxism and postmodernism.

All the so-called “thinking classes” (nurtured at every university), which extend into the media, have been primed and conditioned to become eager incendiaries, with the right commands (“trigger words”).

Their raison d’être is to to drain away the West’s lifeblood.

The apparatchiks of this new merger are feminism, presentism and intersectionality, whose duty it is to draw up codes by which society is to govern itself according to the rules of the new Marxist-postmodernist order.

The hope is that these codes (always shrouded in version of “social justice”) will fashion some sort of a new civilization – not western, not exceptional, but simply an extended version of Canada – a barren void, where nothing exists but production and consumption, with everyone lost in their own technologically befogged, private world.

The West is now filled with screams for “purity” through the destruction of all that might obstruct the Marxist-postmodernist New Man.

This new spawn is a thoroughgoing nihilist.

And what is nihilism?

Very simply it is the melancholy of atheism, in that atheism is an imagined, eteranal emptiness in which humanity has no purpose, because there is no Author. It is imagined, because atheism cannot establish itself as the truth by way of proof.

Thus, the desire of a new culture firmly grounded in atheism is a contradiction, or worse a nightmarish delusion, for how can anything be grounded in emptiness?

In the end, atheists are simply dishonest, because they claim to be freed at last from the superstition named, “God,” but still desperately cling to all that God provides – goodness, charity, love, peace, hope, forgiveness, altruism, compassion.

This is not only dishonesty on the part of atheists – it is also a grave weakness. Rosalind Murray saw through this deception a long time ago.

To cling to moral values (virtues) is to pretend that these values are good for everybody. This pretence, of course, becomes meaningless if there is no God. Why should morality be universal and timeless? More importantly, why should it be good? Virtue and morals only belong to God alone, since He created them.

If atheists are to be true to their religion (all “-isms” are religions – there is no escaping this logic), then they must finally let go of morality and live by no virtue.

And more importantly, they must demand real, fundamental change in the way society is organized.

First, they must demand that society be made truly atheistic, which means that it must be stripped of all its historical attachment (which has now become no more than an emotional attachment) to Christianity. This means no more charities, no more laws, no more education, no more nurturing of any kind.

Second, the very concept of “crime” itself needs to be made atheistic, since ultimately a “crime” is a transgression of some sort if morality. How can there be crimes when there is no God? Things like murder, pedophilia, cannibalism, cruelty, rape, even embezzlement and fraud are crimes only because they transgress Christian virtue.

In a truly atheistic society, such virtue is simply weakness, as Nietzsche very brilliantly understood. In atheism, the real crimes are weakness, pity, humility, sympathy, faith, compassion, altruism, the conscience, and justice. Atheists must continually demand that these crimes be severely punished, because they undermine power.

Third, once all morality is expunged from society and all culture dependent upon it completely destroyed, then all laws need to be eliminated as well, since the entire legal system is Christian and not atheistic.

Fourth, interpersonal behavior must be made atheistic as well. The idea of decency, kindness, charity, welfare, familial bonds, love, and so forth – have to go, because they are Christian not only in origin but in purpose. They are implementations of the teachings of Jesus.

Fourth, the only quality that properly belongs to atheism is strength of the individual.

Fifth, atheistic society therefore can only be a collection of individuals, forever engaged in perfecting and then expressing their strength in the world.

Lastly, atheism must continually extol man the beast, since man is an animal like any other. Thus, power alone marks human existence. This means that qualities, such as, pride, self-glorification, and unhindered freedom alone make an sense, since atheism can prohibit nothing.

In effect, atheism becomes the freedom to do everything in the pursuit of power, since there are no laws, and nothing can he prohibited, nothing can be denied the man who has the power to take what he wants.

Thus, people claiming to be atheists, who yet cannot bring themselves to actually follow their faith are only apostate Christians who live in a state of rebellion against God – they are free to deny Him, but they cannot live without Him (because they cannot imagine living without morality).

So, where does all this leave the West?

The West is truly at a crossroads.

Christian apostasy (what passes for atheism) is the norm, the dominant culture. It can promise nothing – because it cannot promise civilization.

Thus, the greatest lie that atheism perpetuates is its incessant demand for justice. Nietzsche described such moralistic atheists as, “the vengeful disguised as judges, who constantly bear the word ‘justice’ in their mouths like poisonous spit.”

Because most atheists have not the courage to live up to their declared convictions (which can proceed no further than the bestial human being exulting in his power), their faith is proceeds no further than to belong to the herd.

It is a very curious fact that atheism for most depends upon shallow science – that childish assumption that there is no “proof” of God in the material world.

But honest scientists themselves cannot make such assertions.

Thus, atheism for the majority is simply a matter of style, a convenience, or worse – abject conformity to what is deemed the “norm.”

Thus, if the West imagines that it can actually exist as a “post-Christian” civilization, then it in for a very rude awakening (which is already happening).

Without Christianity, the West is simply once again embracing barbarity, so that the only demand its people now have is “bread and circuses.”

Without Christianity, the West will disappear into the morass of rabid Marxism, postmodernist perspectivism, while forever harried by an ever-belligerent Islamofascism (until the West finally succumbs and converts, which is always easier when no one believes in anything – and people will always need to believe in something rather than nothing).

The writing is on the wall.

We do not see it, because we choose to be blind, since we’re all too busy enjoying our bread and circuses.

In brief, without Christianity, the West is dead.


The photo shows, “The Triumph of Faith,” by Eugene Thirion, painted sometime in the late 1800s.