Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Is Christianity compatible with nationalism?

**Posted by Clinias** 3/06/2018 11:16 am

FZM wrote:
Clinias wrote:
Does the cat have your tongues?

I don't really understand what you mean when you use the terms 'race' and 'nation'. So what do you mean by race and nation? How should we differentiate between different races and different nations?

Race= is a French word meaning "Breed". It is first of all an agricultural term, an agrarian term of farmers.

Nation= is a Latin word meaning "one birth".

Ethnos= is a Greek word meaning "race", tribe. (This from Strong's concordance.)

Goyim= is a Hebrew word for "foreign nation", and applied to "troops of animals".

One must understand that the three first words moved into the English language whereas they were particular to an ancient culture and language mostly separate from one another. When these words moved into the English language, their connotations changed.

For instance, the German classicist, Karl Otfried Müller, wrote a huge volume on the Doric Greeks in 1839. The English translators used the term race. The title of the book is The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race. Now the Dorians were scattered all over the Mediterranean; they were in Rhodes, Crete, the Peloponnese, i.e. Argos, Corinth, Sparta, and in Sicily, and Calabria, the boot of the Italian Peninsula. In the English language, one can not use the word "nation" because they were not in one single unified body! One can not have The History and Antiquities of the Doric Nation because the connotation of the word 'nation' in English is one unified body. It is better to use the word "race" instead. One can slightly use the word "Doric nation" if one thinks of a multiplicity of Doric city-states unified by their dialect.

Actually "race" and "goyim" are closer together because these words are applied to both (groups of) animals and humans. People in the English language apply "ethnos", ethnicity, in an individual context and not in a group context. In a group context, "ethnos" is synonymous with "race".

Race, Nation, Ethnos, Goyim, all point to the Concept of a Group of Similars.

The definition of Race/Nation/Ethnos is a "group of inter-related families". (Steve Sailor, David Horowitz)

Ultimately, Race/Nation is Family. They are Families writ Large. They are macro-organisms.

The Peloponnessian War was first called The Doric War. It was a "race war" between the tribes of Ionian Greeks and the Doric Greeks. The Ionians of Athens went out of their way to attack Doric city states, such as Melos, and Syracuse. Language is a Familial act. Doric Greeks spoke a very distinct Greek/Hellenic dialect very different from Ionian Greek.

Nation is a Unified single body; Nation is Family Writ Large; Nation is a Macro-organism. Race/ethnos are synonyms for Nation in different contexts.

**Posted by seigneur** 3/06/2018 1:37 pm

Clinias wrote:
There is no "spiritual order". The Catholic Church has always taught the "Moral Order". And the Moral Order is God, Spirits (angels), Patrida (fatherland/nation/race), Family, Departed (forefathers of family/fatherland/nation/race). The Moral Order includes all in it, the spiritual and the natural realms.

Let's suppose so. Are both realms with all their elements equal or does one have priority over the other? And, very importantly, why?

**Posted by Clinias** 3/06/2018 3:03 pm

seigneur wrote:
Clinias wrote:
There is no "spiritual order". The Catholic Church has always taught the "Moral Order". And the Moral Order is God, Spirits (angels), Patrida (fatherland/nation/race), Family, Departed (forefathers of family/fatherland/nation/race). The Moral Order includes all in it, the spiritual and the natural realms.
Let's suppose so. Are both realms with all their elements equal or does one have priority over the other? And, very importantly, why?

I would NOT use the word "priority", that's the wrong word. Just looking at the Moral Order is in essence Hierarchical. Each has its time and place. Righteousness must be observed at all times. What guides the Moral Order, is situation. Jesus Christ said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". That is not about "priority" but about space and time. Each has its duties. Jesus Christ could've said "Render unto your nation, what is your duty to your nation". Caesar is a symbol of the Nation. If God created nations, THEN, God requires you to do your duty to the Fatherland and NOT to engage in the dissolvement of nations. You are to do your Duty. The Moral Order is about Duty. Not priority.

I wish all Catholics would read all the canons of the seven Ecumenical Councils. The canons of Gangra were all picked up by one of the Ecumenical Council and approved for the whole Church. The canons of the Council of Gangra is interesting because time and time again, they reference "pretext of piety" and "pretence of ascetism". People used these excuses to leave their spouses, or their children or do other things that disturbed the Civil Order. "Excessive piety" is not to be used to undermine, attack the Natural Order. Nowhere does piety require actions to undermine one's race/nation. The canons of Gangra show the Church upholding the Civil Order. That Christianity is NOT to disturb the Civil Order. "Excessive religiousity" is not to be used to destroy or impede the Natural Order.

The definition of heresy is taking some element of the Faith and growing it out-of-proportion. I have noticed this in the Catholic Church. I call it "Sola Gospel". Jesus said, "Love thy Neighbor" is the ***greatest*** commandment---but what I observe is that Catholics think it is the ONLY commandment. But Jesus did NOT say it is the ***only*** commandment. Jesus did say, "Man lives by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God". This "Sola Gospel" concentrating on the Greatest Commandments is using "Love" as a battering ram to destroy the Natural Order. This might be your "priority". The Catholic Church is in heresy because of the overpreaching the Gospel of Love. This Gospel of Love is a vehicle for Political Correctness and Social Justice which are a genocidal ideology; they are Cultural Marxism. It is a Heresy. Sola Gospel, or Sola Love is a Heresy.

The duties to God and the duties to Fatherland rarely clash. And it is up to one's individual conscience to order aright one duty over another to what any particular situation requires. In the Roman Legions, Christian soldiers did not bow to pagan idols owing to their duty to God. They paid the price. But in Christendom, there wouldn't have been a problem. Nowhere does the Duty to God require the dissolution of nation/race/ethnos.

**Posted by Clinias** 3/06/2018 3:45 pm

On the French Revolution and the Italian Risorgimento.

Both of these movements is part of the Modern Republican movement. The Father of Modern Republicanism is the atheist Machiavelli which clearly and openly called for the "elimination of the ancient life". Modern Republicanism is just another word for Democracy.

The German Classicist Karl Otfried Müller was very prescient when he observed:

A democracy likes a large mass and hates all divisions.

And he is describing what happened in Athens. What does that describe? The essence of Gnosticism! That was Modern Republicanism. The nationalism of the French Revolution and in the Italian Risorgimento is mixed with the Modern Republican movement. Democracy, this hatred of division is what was called by the Greeks "synoceism". (All philosophers need a classical education.)

The trajectory of Modern Republicanism is: The English Civil Wars, Oliver Cromwell's Republic---to---The American Revolution---to---The French Revolution---to---The Italian Risorgimento---to---Hitler's Revolution.

Modern Republicanism ended Western Civilization! The atheist Thomas Paine said that: The change of government is a change in civilization. Paine said that twice in his pamphlet Agrarian Justice! Of course, the nationalism of the French, Italians and the Germans (i.e. the Anchluss), is about "ending all divisions" and loving a large mass.

Modern Republicanism is the carrier of a new civilization. Machiavelli is called the Father of Modern Republicanism. He called for the elimination of the ancient regime. Thomas Paine, another Atheist, continues it. Modern Republicanism is the vehicle for a new civilization, and that of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism. The Masons were heavily involved in both the American, French and Italian revolutions. And the basic word is "unification", a Gnostic meme as in "United States", as in "European Union", as in the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". What word reappears? Cognates of "unity".

I did a study of what is a republic and it is all laid out here with over 150 references, the classical definition and its change into a different meaning: [url=https://www.academia.edu/5280564/]Classical definition of a republic 5th Rev.[/url]

All these revolutions were a mix of things. One must separate out what is modern republicanism and what is nationalism and of course they intertwined and intersected in many ways as well. Nationalism was mixed with modern republicanism which is democracy. Democracy hates all divisions---democracy is a movement of Gnosticism. That is why one sees the destruction of local and small ethnicities in these revolutions; the submergence/disappearance of provinces and local control over provinces in these revolutions/unifications.

There are many problems to be sorted out. What many people see as a "problem" of nationalism is really the workings of Modern Republicanism.

Last edited by Clinias (3/06/2018 4:46 pm)

**Posted by seigneur** 3/07/2018 1:50 am

Clinias wrote:
seigneur wrote:
Clinias wrote:
There is no "spiritual order". The Catholic Church has always taught the "Moral Order". And the Moral Order is God, Spirits (angels), Patrida (fatherland/nation/race), Family, Departed (forefathers of family/fatherland/nation/race). The Moral Order includes all in it, the spiritual and the natural realms.
Let's suppose so. Are both realms with all their elements equal or does one have priority over the other? And, very importantly, why?
I would NOT use the word "priority", that's the wrong word. Just looking at the Moral Order is in essence Hierarchical. Each has its time and place. Righteousness must be observed at all times. What guides the Moral Order, is situation. Jesus Christ said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". That is not about "priority" but about space and time. Each has its duties. Jesus Christ could've said "Render unto your nation, what is your duty to your nation". Caesar is a symbol of the Nation. If God created nations, THEN, God requires you to do your duty to the Fatherland and NOT to engage in the dissolvement of nations. You are to do your Duty. The Moral Order is about Duty. Not priority.

You display no sense of hierarchy or priority or order or duty yourself, that's why it's all a mess.

Jesus Christ said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". It's highly symptomatic that you are only quoting one half and not the other. This says all that needs to be said.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 3/07/2018 2:03 am

I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what Clinias says, but background to that verse is Christ saying that a coin is Caesar's because it has his image on it. But we, including Caesar, are made in God's image, as the Bible itself says.

Whatever the correct Christian position is on the state, it isn't one of radical dualism, where the state is ulterly outside the consideration or thought for Christians as Christians.

**Posted by seigneur** 3/07/2018 2:18 am

Jeremy Taylor wrote:
Whatever the correct Christian position is on the state, it isn't one of radical dualism, where the state is ulterly outside the consideration or thought for Christians as Christians.

This is another objection I have to Clinias - and now to you too: When I am not an enthusiastic ultranationalist, I must be a radical dualist where the state is utterly outside my consideration. Come on.

Says Clinias, ...God requires you to do your duty to the Fatherland and NOT to engage in the dissolvement of nations. Are these the only two options? When I am not doing my duty to the Fatherland (because, say, it happens to be Vaterland with Hitler on top), then I must necessarily be a Commie resistance fighter? Instead of a, say, unhappy citizen caught between a rock and a hard place? Or maybe a Christian focusing on my worship when the world makes no sense.

Isn't it so that Christians are actually required to do their duty as Christians first, and only secondarily as citizens? The two don't usually clash, but when they do, the individual choices make it evident who is a Christian and who is just a citizen. Because if things were exactly the way you say, there would be no distinction whatsoever between an ordinary citizen and a Christian.

Anyway, there's too much to object to Clinias. It should be obvious how pretty much all his emphases are misplaced.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 3/07/2018 3:04 am

I am not Clinias. In a discussion thread, one might get queries from different posters whose interpretations of one's views are mutually exclusive.

I admit I was interpreting your comments in the light of past comments from you where you most certainly have very strongly differentiated the citizen from the Christian, to the point of claiming there are different, clashing varieties of morality for each.

I don't know if the duties of a Christian and citizen can clash in theory; indeed, I'm inclined to think they can't, as that would imply one was crossing its allotted boundaries and encroaching on the other. But I agree they may in practice, and I'm certainly not saying that being a good citizen is the same as being a good Christian. I would say that being a good citizen (at least in an ideal state) is part of being a good Christian, but it certainly doesn't exhaust it, nor is it even the highest part. For every state that isn't ideal, things get more complicated.

On nationalism, I have no desire to get drawn into a deep discussion, but I'm inclined to agree that at least some of Clinias's emphasises are misplaced. Nationalism is an ill-defined term. It can mean lots of things, from the belief that, at least in some circumstances, the nation-state is the still the best place to lodge sovereignty to far stronger views on the importance of loyalty to one's nation and, perhaps, race. I agree that the Christian cannot accept the thesis that the nation should take precedence over his identity and faith as a Christian. Obviously, nothing can taken precedence over it. Similarly, I'm certainly not comfortable with too strong an emphasis on race, as is common with more hardline nationalists. But I do think that the nation-state is the best, most realistic way for Britain to be organised today, and I have nothing against a prudent and temperate affection and loyalty to one's nation

**Posted by seigneur** 3/07/2018 3:14 am

My short answer to the headline question is: No, Christianity is not compatible with nationalism. There is a straightforward logical incompatibility between Christianity and nationalism, particularly if we take nationalism in any stronger sense, the way Clinias does.

Consider, for example, the question - what is a nation? How do you pick between e.g. USA or Navajo Nation when you happen to be a Navajo? Or even between Catalonia and Spain, whichever you are? Another point, every nationality has a right to their own nationality. So, when your Fatherland calls you to fight against the neighbouring Fatherland and on the battlefield you meet a fellow Christian of the other nationality, then what do you do? Does your Fatherland take priority or your Christianity?

These are some of the ways how Christianity and nationalism are straightforwardly at odds with each other. Let's see how an ultranationalist can solve this in a Christian manner.

**Posted by Clinias** 3/07/2018 9:08 pm

I asked a question at post #24:

"The OP is “Is Christianity incompatible with nationalism?” Well, that is very similar to the Marxist phrase “"Nationalism and Marxism are incompatible." (from Marxist.org)”. The other title of Marxism is International socialism. ...If Nationalism is incompatible with Marxism and If Nationalism is Incompatible with Christianity, then they have the same goals. Then the question is, Is Christianity, Marxism? If not, what is the difference between the teachings of Marxism on nationalism and the teachings of Christianity on Nationalism?"

I would like Seigneur, and other people who agree that Christianity is incompatible with nationalism, give an answer. You have asked me questions, and I have answered them. I would like the above to be answered. What is the difference between the nation-killing of International Socialism and the Christians abandoning their race. I mean something as simple as one's racial identity is nationalism, Seigneur obviously calls into question anything to do with one's racial group is nationalism and is verboten.

----------------

FZM wrote:
I don't really understand what you mean when you use the terms 'race' and 'nation'. So what do you mean by race and nation? How should we differentiate between different races and different nations?

This thing about "race", and "nation" is only an English thing. A native Greek speaker would not be using those words! This is a sign of creating a problem that is provincial and has no bearing in other cultures. A native Greek speaker reading his Bible would constantly see the Greek word "ethnos" He has no trouble understanding that term. In the classroom or talking to his friends he would use the term "ethnos". He is NOT confused over his own language! This problem is peculiar to only the Anglosphere! So trying to make a mountain out of a molehill which only exists in the Anglo-sphere is very superficial. Russians probably don't have this problem either. They wouldn't be using Latin or French words in their academic articles either!

----------------
Prof. Keith Burgess Jackson over at his website quotes from a book about the Lakotas:

Almost three decades have passed since the Supreme Court [url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17619608569271514941&q=united+states+v.+sioux+nation&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1]upheld[/url] the Indian Claims Commission's award of $102 million to the Lakotas. Since then, the award has continued to gain interest. By 2007, the figure was close to $750 million.Over the years, some Lakotas and other Sioux have argued that the tribes should take the money. Some have suggested that funds be distributed directly to families and individuals; others that they be invested in social programs; still others that they be used to purchase lands in the Black Hills and elsewhere. The large majority of Lakotas, however, continue to believe that accepting the money would be the same as endorsing the legitimacy of the government's original taking of the Hills. "The Black Hills are not for sale" remains a fundamental tenet of Lakota nationalism.

(Jeffrey Ostler, The Lakotas and the Black Hills: The Struggle for Sacred Ground, The Penguin Library of American Indian History, ed. Colin G. Calloway [New York: Viking, 2010], 188 [endnote omitted]) {ref: http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/just_philosophy/2018/03/jeffrey-ostler-on-lakota-principle.html }

I guess the simple practice of working to one's tribal/national best interests is incompatible with Christianity?!?! How is Prof. Jeffrey Ostler using that term "nationalism"? Is it evil. Is Lakota nationalism, evil? What makes the above incompatible with Christianity? How? These people who say Christianity is incompatible with nationalism are making themselves look ridiculous, painting oneself into a corner, or maybe scootin' themselves over the cliff?

-------

Leviticus 19:19 King James Version (KJV)=12px19

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

That has nothing to do with Jewish Law. Here God is speaking to them about the Natural Order. Here God is expressing His Will. Not even breeds of cattle are to be mixed together but kept separate so their identity and purity of breed remain.

Again, God says, "Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled [diverse, in other translations] seed". As St. Paul extrapolated the verse about muzzling the oxen treading the grain to pertain to the clergy receiving recompense for their labor, this verse, connected to the second, surely can be extrapolated to condemn the propaganda of diversity and multiculturalism by the American Catholic hierarchy, right? I mean one scripture verse is as good as another one, right? When Jesus says, "Man Lives by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", isn't this verse just as valid?

That verse speaks to the Natural Law. God is speaking about the Natural Order here, and not to the Hebrews. That verse is quite salient to any culture at anytime. It speaks to what God wants. That verse is universal. And yet, the practice of the Catholic Church today, is completely abrogating that verse! Now, if one's nationalism incorporates that verse into his ideology of nationalism---how is that incompatible with Christianity? See, how the other side is becoming more ridiculous! I would think that verse is fundamental to anybody's nationalism.