When Christianity blossomed from its inherent seed of feminism, it became morally vacuous enough to be a type of Nihilism. Placing hopes in sentiment and faith without works.
As I’ve quoted a few times before, the Wikipedia article on Nihilism ▬ » The term nihilism was first used by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743–1819). ]…] A related but oppositional concept is fideism, which sees reason as hostile and inferior to faith. »
I wouldn’t say fideism is oppositional to nihilism, but that it’s a type of the same. It nihilizes rationality, places it as opposed to faith, when in fact correctly they go together. Faith, works and rationality. I.e. it says “rationality is nothing before Faith.” That strictly goes against the Roman conception, in which bonum fide is harmonious with rationality. The idea that Romans, the builder of aqueducts, roads and superior rationalities of laws, techniques and even war, were not rational is pseudo-intellectual. Fides was a Roman virtue, but it took dissolution to divorce it from Auctoritas, Veritas and Gravitas.
▬» The use of the Latin word in the Western form of the Nicene Creed, to indicate that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (as opposed to the Eastern churches which believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone). »
Individual psychological experiences — including the experience of setbacks and disillusions — in the realm of aspiring to inspiration have played an enormous role in the catastrophic upheavals which have taken place in the history of Christianity. Thus, an Augustinian monk of the sixteenth century ardently desired inspiration. To this end he practised the rigorous asceticism of fasting, mortification of the flesh, and vigils of prayer. He believed that effort would procure inspiration for him; but… he had none. Then, disillusioned as he was, he advanced the doctrine of the vanity of work, of all effort. Faith alone suffices for salvation. Here lies the origin of Lutheran Protestantism.
This is the right.
If atomisation is a breaking-down
into down to the elementary, it is not a breaking-off, nor a breaking-through up levels (such as increased intelligence is). A breaking-down is a dissolution, fragmentation without a reverse. If atomisation is not a breaking-off (meaning here self-proliferation), or a breaking-through (meaning here self-improvement) it is not capitalism.
There are two modernities conceived. A Left-modernity and a capitalistic modernity. The former is miscalculation of living standards, and the proliferation of anything but healthy living. The latter is an increasing of the useful, the sane, the rational. The former is a chemical cancer causing bath, while the latter is the health spa that improves your health.
Capitalistic Modernity is only making provisional (providential) use of destructive tendencies, per case: from an over-view : ad-hoc — for a building-up. Leftism is making use of destructive tendencies for a tear-down. Capitalism proper increases wealth and social health. Capitalism subservient to leftism, is a non-factum
Primarily Identifying capitalism with the dissolutory—rather than the constructive, generative aspect—is simply falsifying capitalism as Yin over yang.
There’s nothing that equates capitalism with a death-spiral downwards to the sub-human elementary (inorganic strata) — except a tendency for over-individualisation.
A well-run business is a business with a healthy balance betwixt innovation and fortification.
If you see anyone blinded by the illusions of his empty and Calypso-like imagination, seized by the desire of scratching and delivered over to the senses, it is a brute, not man that you see.
If you come upon a philosopher winnowing out all things by right reason, he is a heavenly, not an earthly animal.
If you come upon a pure contemplator, ignorant of the body, banished to the innermost places of the mind, he is not an earthly, nor a heavenly animal: he more superbly is a divinity clothed with human flesh
~ Pico della Mirandola, Orations on the Dignity of Man
We take trouble with this phrasing. Was not the Pharoah, the God-King, divinity clothed with human flesh? Why does life-abnegation have to be more divine? It doesn’t except from a gnostic perspective. Christianity and Buddhism are para-gnostic strains.
A look at the world of Tradition, predating Christianity and Buddhism, shews divinity clothed in human flesh, as kings, as emperors. Hardly banished to the innermost places of the mind, “ignorant” of the body.
Mark Citadel spuevvs utter thwarp:
▬» Why was it that in his quest for a spiritual warrior elite, Heinrich Himmler modeled his SS on the Teutonic Knights? Precisely because no such thing existed in Germany’s pagan past. It was a Roman import taken up with stunning efficiency by the martial Prussian character, but was not itself German in its metaphysical origins. Because Northern Europe was late in emerging from barbarism, it lacked a sophisticated understanding of the superior and inferior. »
Firstly, “no such thing” is inaccurate. An order of knights is a mannerbund, a thing in North & Central Europe’s “Pagan” (Heathen) Past. Secondly, the SS was modeled on Pagan cultures as well. Third, the Germanic Varangian Guard predates the Teutonic Knights!
The Rus’ provided the earliest members of the Varangian Guard. They were in Byzantine service from as early as 874. The Guard was first formally constituted under Emperor Basil II in 988, following the Christianization of Kievan Rus’ by Vladimir I of Kiev. Vladimir, who had recently usurped power in Kiev with an army of Varangian warriors, sent 6,000 men to Basil as part of a military assistance agreement. Basil’s distrust of the native Byzantine guardsmen, whose loyalties often shifted, with fatal consequences, as well as the proven loyalty of the Varangians, many of whom had previously served in Byzantium, led the Emperor to employ them as his personal guardsmen.