EGALITARIANISM.
“From a sociological perspective, hierarchy and egalitarianism ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Organizations that are hierarchical are, by definition, the opposite of those that are “egalitarian.””
Christians are always lost 'IN THE AFFAIRS OF OTHERS'; that is why 'they have never understood anything about the Bible/and the New Testament'.
THESE IDIOTS think that THERE IS GOD, and do not “understand THE UNITARY PRINCIPLE OF THEIR OWN NATURE”. IT'S HOPELESS!
From Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies by David Bentley Hart:
“The picture MacMullen presents of pagan philanthropy is positively enchanting, even idyllic, but—alas—the evidence he cites from Libanius betrays him: if anything, it reflects only the rather restricted and occasional almsgiving practices adopted by pagan temples during the Christian era, as a result of the emperor Julian’s attempts to force the pagan PRIESTHOOD TO IMITATE THE CHURCH’S AID TO THE POOR.”
This is why the Christian's 'Savior Complex.'
“Again, I will happily stipulate that the rise of Christianity did not miraculously transform ancient society from the ground up, or for that matter from the top down; nor did it rid that society of its immemorial injustices.
To begin with, it is more than a touch perverse to credit the pagan cults with a religious egalitarianism greater than—or even comparable to—that of the early church. With some rare exceptions, such as the Bacchic mysteries, most organized religious societies of the ancient world admitted only one sex (GENERALLY MEN) AND STRICTLY EXCLUDED SLAVES from their memberships.”
“The Christians, by contrast, admitted men and women, free and bound, to equal membership and obliged them to worship together. This was, in many ways, the most radical novelty of their community: that it transcended and so, in an ultimate sense, annulled “natural” human divisions.”
From Christianity Without God: Moving Beyond the Dogmas and Retrieving the Epic Moral Narrative by Daniel C. Maguire:
“This sociopolitical egalitarianism in Israel put it at odds with the hierarchic centralized rules of neighboring city-states in that general area, and this often led to war. So protecting this EGALITARIAN SOCIETY [...].
SEEDS OF DEMOCRATIC THEORY.
THIS SYSTEM YAHWEH WAS TO PROTECT WAS A FIRST GLIMMERING OF DEMOCRATIC RULE.
It “depended greatly on consensual understanding of and commitment to COMMON INTERESTS requiring, as it were, the ancient tribal equivalent of ‘an enlightened and publicly active citizenry.’”
The feisty tribes of Yahweh were enlightened enough to know that UNLIMITED WEALTH wreaks “violence” (Micah 6:12) and is always shielded by lies and deceit, an insight that stands out in its enduring contemporaneity.
Yahweh and the people who crafted him were stubborn pioneers in early democracy.
As Gottwald asks: “What other instances do we possess from the ancient Near East OF THE UNDERCLASSES FROM A FEUDAL SOCIETY overthrowing their lords and living in an egalitarian social system over a wide area of formerly feudalized land for two centuries” before succumbing to monarchy?”
MARX BEFORE MARX.
“So, is God brutal? Or is God egalitarian and progressive? It all depends on the society’s shifting needs. For Tacitus, the gods were with the mighty. That made good imperial sense to the Romans.
When the early tribes of Yahweh pioneered an EGALITARIAN SOCIETY THAT FAVORED THE POOR OVER THE RICH [...] , their god became a “God of justice” (Isa. 30:18), described by Judith as a “God of the humble … the poor … the weak … the desperate … and the helpless” (Jud. 9:11). Strange credentials indeed for a god, but perfectly REFLECTIVE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY MOOD OF EARLY ISRAEL.”
What makes me laugh is the congenital hatred of the Jew by the Christian, whereas it is he the Christian, who carries the Jewish mentality in the West.
Hence the problem we have with the Christian, and how to get rid of him “politically”.
“In sum, the Hebrew gods show two things: (1) the people make the gods, not the other way around; and, (2) those gods have social functions. They can have a long shelf life and can be invoked centuries after their creation to prod folks to evil as with the Crusaders or Christian anti-Semites.
These prophetic movers and shakers put words like these into the mouth of God: “I remember the unfailing devotion of your youth, the love of your bridal days, when you followed me in the wilderness, through a land unsown,” when we pioneered together an EGALITARIAN JUST SOCIETY AND DREAMT DREAMS OF PEACE unparalleled in history (Jer. 2:2).”
From ,Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays by Murray N. Rothbard:
“WHEN EGALITARIANISM IS MEASURED BY THIS COMMONSENSE CRITERION, THE RESULTS ARE DEVASTATING. EVERYWHERE IN NATURE WE FIND INEQUALITY.
Attempts to remake human beings so that everyone fits the same mold lead INEVITABLY TO TYRANNY.”
From Third World to First: The Singapore Story – 1965-2000 by Lee Kuan Yew:
“Ostentatious egalitarianism is good politics. For decades in Mao’s China, the people wore the same-style Mao jacket and trousers, ostensibly of the same material with the same ill-fitting cut.
IN FACT THERE WERE DIFFERENT GRADES OF MAO JACKETS. A provincial leader in charge of tourism explained to one of my ministers that while they might look alike, they were of different quality cloth. To emphasise his point, he unbuttoned his jacket to show that it was fur-lined.”
From Jesus Is Dead by Robert M. Price:
“Christianity turned the norms upside down and said that birth, ethnicity, gender, and wealth — that which determined a person’s honor and worth in this setting — MEANT ZIPOLA.”
From The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—-How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer:
“Hierarchical social structures are almost UNIVERSAL.
EGALITARIANISM WORKS (BARELY) ONLY AMONG TINY BANDS OF HUNTER-GATHERERS IN RESOURCE-POOR ENVIRONMENTS WHERE THERE IS NEXT TO NO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Egalitarianism works (barely) only among tiny bands of hunter-gatherers in resource-poor environments where there is next to no private property.”
In the following preface, THE WHOLE EGALITARIAN THOUGHT IS LAID DOWN, and you will understand to what extent our modern societies are just that:
From Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm:
“To one who is living one’s life as a democrat, egalitarianism is a topic that affects not only the head, but the heart. My heart was in this book, not only in the research that underlies it, but in its writing. For egalitarianism, as opposed to actual equality, is intrinsic to the democracy that many people on this planet enjoy and often take for granted. We democrats live in societies that define us as political equals, and in spite of voter apathy and predatory lobbies we continue to wield our votes: the collective voice of the people continues to be, ultimately, powerful. It is this essential political leverage in the political decision-making process that keeps alive human freedom and human rights as we know them, and I shall argue that this type of political stance is quite ancient.
To a democrat the power of centralized government, be it national or local, is a perpetual threat to the personal autonomy of its citizens [...].”
Democracy is precisely that which removes “autonomy of the citizens”, by practicing majority voting. For a collectivist, the majority and the individual; it's a bit the same thing. But individualism is still 1.
“Our earliest precursor, in this respect, may well have been an African ape living some 5 to 7 million years ago. This vanished ancestral hominoid was likely to have formed political coalitions that enabled the rank and file, those who otherwise would have been utterly subordinated, to whittle away at the powers of alpha individuals whose regular practice it was to bully them. Our direct evolutionary precursor was a human physically just like ourselves, who lived in the Late Paleolithic and possessed an egalitarian ethos and an egalitarian political order similar to those of present-day hunting bands who have remained nomadic.”
These idiots are 'fantasizing about an egalitarian world that never existed' and never will.
Always from the same idiot:
From Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame by Christopher Boehm:
“[...] egalitarianism can stay in place only with the vigilant and active suppression of bullies, who as free riders could otherwise openly take what they wanted from others who were less selfish or less powerful.
It’s here that my work on the evolution of hunter-gatherer egalitarianism comes in, namely, the emphasis on the active and potentially quite violent policing of alpha-male social predators by their own band-level communities. I’m speaking of large, well-unified coalitions of subordinates and their aggressive and effective control of selfish bullies, whose predatory free rides at the expense of less powerful or less selfish others could otherwise be easily taken by force. In the next chapter, we’ll see that 45,000 years ago very likely almost all the humans on this planet were practicing such egalitarianism.”
“Their aggressive and effective control of selfish bullies” EXCEPT that it WAS COLLECTIVIST IDEOLOGIES THAT KILLED OVER 100 MILLION PEOPLE in the 20th century.
EGALITARIANISM HAS NEVER WORKED; AND WILL NEVER WORK.
In any group, LEADERS TAKE CONTROL.
The “egalitarian model” HAS LITERALLY KILLED EUROPE SINCE ITS INCEPTION; BY CHRISTIANISM.
As long as the West DOES NOT RETURN TO THE TRADITIONALIST MODEL, THEN THERE WILL BE NO WEST.
And the good thing about idiots is that they contradict themselves all the time, their doctrines being the wrong ones. Further 'in the Book':
“Indeed, egalitarianism itself is based on competition between A FEW STRONGER INDIVIDUALS AND THE SUBORDINATES WHO UNITE TO OPPOSE THEM.”
So, we need to know:
- The hierarchy, THE TRADITIONALIST MODEL works or does not work?
THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN DEMOCRATIC, EGALITARIAN MODELS.
EVERY TIME THIS ONE IS IMPLANTED, 'HIERARCHIES ARE RE-FORMED'.
When you look at it, HISTORICALLY, it's always the leaders “WHO TAKE CARE OF THE WEAKEST”, never the weakest who take care of the weakest.
Moreover, TO SAY THAT THERE ARE WEAK AND STRONG, nullifies this egalitarian argument.
BUT HOW STUPID THESE IDIOTS CAN BE!
From The Know Your Bill of Rights Book: Don't Lose Your Constitutional Rights—Learn Them! by Sean Patrick:
“NEW RIGHT VS. OLD RIGHT.
What is “new” about the North American New Right, and how does it relate to the “Old Right”?
Before I can answer that, I need to clarify what the Old Right and the New Right have in common and what differentiates them from today’s phony Right: namely the present-day center-Right parties and all forms of classical liberalism.
The true Right, in both its Old and New versions, is founded ON THE REJECTION OF HUMAN EQUALITY AS A FACT AND AS A NORM.”
“The true Right, in both its Old and New versions, is founded on the rejection of human equality as a fact and as a norm.
The true Right embraces the idea that mankind is and ought to BE UNEQUAL, that is DIFFERENTIATED.
MEN ARE DIFFERENT FROM WOMEN.
ADULTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM CHILDREN.
THE WISE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FOOLISH, THE SMART FROM THE STUPID, THE STRONG FROM THE WEAK, THE BEAUTIFUL FROM THE UGLY.
We are differentiated by RACE, HISTORY, LANGUAGE, RELIGION, NATION, TRIBE, AND CULTURE.
These differences matter, AND BECAUSE THEY MATTER, all of life is governed BY REAL HIERARCHIES of fact and value, not by the chimera of EQUALITY.
THE TRUE RIGHT REJECTS EGALITARIANISM ROOT AND BRANCH.
EVERY TRADITIONAL SOCIETY KNOWN TO MAN IS INEGALITARIAN.”
It is for this reason that the Christian, EGALITARIAN BY ESSENCE, rejects Tradition.
“All forms of traditional society have been destroyed—or are in the process of being destroyed—BY MODERN, EGALITARIAN, MASS SOCIETY.
The New Right and the Old Right share the same goal: a society that is not just hierarchical but also organic, a body politic, a racially and culturally homogeneous people, a people that is one in blood and spirit, a people that is politically organized and sovereign and thus in control of its OWN DESTINY.”
This is what the 'CASTE SOCIETY' PROVIDES, organized from above, and fundamentally 'anti-egalitarian'. And if the West 'wants to survive modernity', it has no choice but this: Reject democracy en masse/and let itself be ruled BY AN ELITE.
“I believe that America today is very much like Eastern Europe in the 1980s: a totalitarian system committed publicly to another version of the lie of egalitarianism. Like Communism, the American system is becoming increasingly hollow and brittle as more whites decide, in the privacy of their own minds, THAT EQUALITY IS A LIE, diversity is a plague, and the system is stacked against them. But they do not act on these convictions because they think that they are basically alone. If they slip, they know they will be persecuted, and nobody will come to their defense.”
THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO 'HAND OVER TO LEADERS': Something that 'the Westerners' are not yet 'ready' to do.
From Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism by Mark R. Levin:
“PROGRESSIVISM IS THE IDEA OF THE INEVITABILITY OF HISTORICAL PROGRESS AND THE PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN—AND HIS SELF-REALIZATION—THROUGH THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY OR COLLECTIVE.”
Yuck!
“Moreover, Croly, like many before and since, tied historic progress and the modern state to the idea of MATERIAL EGALITARIANISM, a central tenet of Marxism.
Let us remember, for the progressive, historical progress is said to be a process of never-ending cultural and societal adjustments intended to address the unique circumstances of the time, the ultimate goal of which is economic egalitarianism and the material LIBERATION OF “THE MASSES.””
Yuck! Yuck!
“Moreover, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE if the GOVERNING GOAL is the PURSUIT OF ECONOMIC EGALITARIANISM AND SOCIAL SAMENESS.”
Yuck!
“For the Founders, EQUALITY MEANT EQUAL JUSTICE AND EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, NOT THE UNIFORMITY OF MEN AND CONFORMITY TO CENTRALIZED PLANS AND RULES.”
NOT REALLY WHAT YOU HAVE IN AMERICA. BUT YOU WANT DEMOCRACY AND YOUR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE.
“Hayek explained: “[O]nly because men are IN FACT UNEQUAL CAN WE TREAT THEM EQUALLY.””
From Rubicon Last Years of Roman Republic by Tom Holland:
“FOR A CITIZEN, THE ESSENCE OF LIFE was competition; wealth and votes the accepted measures of success. On top of that, of course, the REPUBLIC WAS A SUPERPOWER, WITH A REACH AND PREPONDERANCE quite new in Western history.
A few decades ago, in the late 1930s, the great Oxford classicist Ronald Syme saw IN THE RISE TO POWER OF THE CAESARS A ‘ROMAN REVOLUTION’, A PREFIGURING OF THE AGE OF THE FASCIST AND COMMUNIST DICTATORS.
[...] Yet parallels can be deceptive. THE ROMANS, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING, EXISTED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES – PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, INTELLECTUAL – PROFOUNDLY DIFFERENT FROM OUR OWN.
OFTEN, IN FACT, THE ROMANS CAN BE STRANGEST WHEN THEY APPEAR MOST FAMILIAR.
A poet mourning the cruelty of his mistress, or a father his dead daughter, these may seem to speak to us directly of something permanent in human nature, and yet how alien, how utterly alien a Roman’s assumptions about sexual relations, or family life, would appear to us.
So too the values that GAVE BREATH TO THE REPUBLIC ITSELF, THE DESIRES OF ITS CITIZENS, THE RITUALS AND CODES OF THEIR BEHAVIOUR.
Understand these and much THAT STRIKES US AS ABHORRENT ABOUT THE ROMANS, ACTIONS WHICH TO OUR WAY OF THINKING ARE SELF-EVIDENTLY CRIMES, CAN BE, IF NOT FORGIVEN, THEN AT LEAST BETTER UNDERSTOOD.
The spilling of blood in an arena, THE OBLITERATION OF A GREAT CITY, THE CONQUEST OF THE WORLD – THESE, TO THE ROMAN WAY OF THINKING, MIGHT BE REGARDED AS GLORIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
Periodically, waste from the insulae would be wheeled out in barrows to fertilise gardens beyond the city walls, but there was always too much of it, urine sloshing over the rims of fullers’ jars, mounds of excrement submerging the streets.
IN DEATH, THE POOR THEMSELVES WOULD BE SUBSUMED INTO WASTE. NOT FOR THEM the dignity of a tomb beside the Appian Way.
Instead their carcasses would be tossed with all the other refuse into giant pits beyond the easternmost city gate, the Esquiline. Travellers approaching Rome by this route would see bones littering the sides of the road. Degradation on such a scale was something new in the world. The suffering of the urban poor was all the more terrible because, by depriving them of the solaces of community, it denied them everything that made a Roman what he was. THE LONELINESS OF LIFE ON THE TOP FLOOR OF AN APARTMENT BLOCK REPRESENTED THE ANTITHESIS OF ALL THAT A CITIZEN MOST PRIZED.
TO BE CUT OFF FROM THE RITUALS AND RHYTHMS OF SOCIETY was to sink to the level of a barbarian.
THE LONELINESS OF LIFE ON THE TOP FLOOR OF AN APARTMENT BLOCK REPRESENTED THE ANTITHESIS OF ALL THAT A CITIZEN MOST PRIZED. TO BE CUT OFF FROM THE RITUALS AND RHYTHMS OF SOCIETY was to sink to the level of a barbarian.
To its own citizens, as to its enemies, the Republic was unyielding.
IT GAVE UP ON THOSE WHO GAVE UP ON IT.”
You wanted your freedom, people of modernity, abandoning the City. And you have lost everything:
- Your real INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
and your soul.
“It was no wonder that life in ROME SHOULD HAVE BEEN A DESPERATE STRUGGLE TO AVOID SUCH A FATE. COMMUNITY WAS CHERISHED WHEREVER IT WAS FOUND.
THE POTENTIAL ANONYMITY OF BIG-CITY LIFE WAS NOT ALL-CONQUERING. VAST AND FORMLESS THOUGH THE METROPOLIS APPEARED, THERE WERE PATTERNS OF ORDER DEFYING ITS CHAOS.
TEMPLES WERE NOT THE ONLY REPOSITORIES OF THE DIVINE. Crossroads, TOO, WERE BELIEVED TO BE CHARGED WITH SPIRITUAL ENERGY.
Shadowy gods, the Lares, watched over the intersection of all the city’s high streets.
These streets, THE VICI, WERE SO SIGNIFICANT AS A FOCUS FOR COMMUNITY LIFE THAT THE ROMANS USED THE SAME WORD TO DESCRIBE AN ENTIRE URBAN QUARTER.
Every January, at the festival of the Compitalia, inhabitants of a vicus would hold a great public feast. Woollen dolls would be hung beside the shrine of the Lares, one for every free man and woman in the quarter, and a ball for every slave. This relative egalitarianism was reflected in the trade associations that were also centred on the vicus, and were open to everyone: citizen, freedman and slave alike.
It was in these ASSOCIATIONS, THE COLLEGIA, rather than on the broader stage of the city, that most citizens sought to win that universal goal of a Roman – prestige. In a vicus a citizen could know his fellows, sit down to supper with them, join in festivities throughout the year, and live confident that mourners would attend his funeral. In a patchwork of communities across the metropolis, the intimacies of traditional small-town life still endured.
[UPPER CLASSES] scorn for ‘the mob’ was unvarying. It embraced not only the wretches starving on the streets or crammed into insulae, but also traders, shopkeepers and craftsmen. ‘Necessity’, it was assumed, ‘made every poor man dishonest.’
Such contempt – unsurprisingly – was much resented by those who were its object.
Plebs was a word never spoken by a nobleman without a curling of the lip, but the plebs themselves took a certain pride in it. A description once spat as an insult had become a BADGE OF IDENTITY, and in Rome SUCH BADGES WERE ALWAYS HIGHLY PRIZED.”
Christianism that is egalitarianism: the Negation OF “THE SENSE OF SOCIAL CLASSES”, which obviously ends up “uprooting this idiot” “WHO NO LONGER BELONGS TO ANY GROUP”.
“Of all Rome’s seven hills, however, the Palatine was the most exclusive by far. Here the city’s elite chose to cluster. Only the very, very rich could afford the prices. Yet, incongruously, there on the world’s most expensive real estate stood a shepherd’s hut made of reeds. The reeds might dry and fall away, but they would always be replaced, so that the hut never seemed to alter. It was the ultimate triumph OF ROMAN CONSERVATIONISM – the childhood home of Romulus, Rome’s first king, and Remus, his twin.
THERE WERE NO SUBTLE GRADATIONS OF WEALTH IN ROME, Nothing that could approximate to a modern middle class.”
That's why I always say; “that the advent of the bourgeois-merchant class”, was the end of the tradition.
This bourgeoisie class “that always WANTS TO BE THE ELITE”. The mentality “IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE JEWS”, but all “MIDDLE CLASSES” HAVE THE SAME ATTRIBUTES. POLITICALLY, THE “MIDDLE CLASS” IS ALWAYS TO BE PUT DOWN.
“For all the gulf that yawned between them, the ideal of a SHARED COMMUNITY STILL HELD FIRM FOR MILLIONAIRE AND PAUPER ALIKE. BOTH WERE CITIZENS OF THE SAME REPUBLIC.”
I repeat:
“For all the gulf that yawned between them, the ideal of a SHARED COMMUNITY STILL HELD FIRM FOR MILLIONAIRE AND PAUPER ALIKE. BOTH WERE CITIZENS OF THE SAME REPUBLIC.”
And we have abandoned this for EGALITARIAN MONOTHEISM in the West.
“Blood in the Labyrinth.
THE CENTRAL PARADOX OF ROMAN SOCIETY – THAT SAVAGE DIVISIONS OF CLASS COULD COEXIST WITH AN ALMOST RELIGIOUS SENSE OF COMMUNITY [...].”
Difficult for a 'modern to understand this', who lives in an 'EGALITARIAN FANTASY'.
“Indeed, in the early years of the Republic’s history, Roman society had come perilously close to ossifying altogether. The plebeians, however, refusing to accept they BELONGED TO AN INFERIOR CASTE, had fought back in the only way they could – by going on strike.
Gradually, over the years, the class system had become ever more permeable. The old rigid polarisation between patrician and plebeian had begun to crack. ‘What sort of justice is it to preclude a native-born Roman from all hope of the consulship simply because he is of humble birth?’ the plebeians had demanded. No justice at all, it had finally been agreed. In 367 BC a law had been passed that permitted any citizen TO STAND FOR ELECTION TO THE GREAT OFFICE of the state – previously a prerogative of the PATRICIANS ALONE.
IN PRACTICE AS WELL AS PRINCIPLE THE REPUBLIC WAS SAVAGELY MERITOCRATIC. Indeed, this, to the Romans, WAS WHAT LIBERTY MEANT. It appeared self-evident to them that the entire course of their history had been an evolution away from slavery, towards a freedom based on the dynamics of perpetual competition. The proof of the superiority of this model of society lay in its trouncing of every conceivable alternative. The Romans knew that had they remained the slaves of a monarch, or of a self-perpetuating clique of aristocrats, they would never have succeeded in conquering the world. ‘It is almost beyond belief how great the REPUBLIC’S ACHIEVEMENTS were once the people had gained THEIR LIBERTY, such was the longing for glory WHICH IT LIT IN EVERY MAN’S HEART.’
Just as the Roman streets formed a labyrinth, SO THE BYWAYS THAT A CITIZEN HAD TO NEGOTIATE THROUGHOUT HIS PUBLIC LIFE WERE CONFUSING, OCCLUDED AND FULL OF DEAD ENDS. YET THEY HAD TO BE FOLLOWED.”
THAT'S WHY DEMOCRACY IS CHAOS, because there are NO RULES OF SOCIETY in democracy. Everyone is free 'in a democratic society'; WHICH ALSO MEANS by definition; “NO ONE IS FREE”.
'IT IS CONSTRAINT THAT MAKES ONE FREE', that is in esoteric terms; 'TO BE FREE FROM MATTER'.
For freedom is not in 'MATERIAL PLEASURES'.
“FOR ALL THE RUTHLESSNESS OF COMPETITION IN THE REPUBLIC, IT WAS STRUCTURED BY RULES as complex and fluid as THEY WERE INVIOLABLE.
TO MASTER THEM WAS A LIFETIME’S WORK.”
Hence the “active character” of the Republic and of the citizen, and Contrary “to the passive character” of Democracy and of the democrat.
“AS WELL AS TALENT AND APPLICATION, THIS REQUIRED CONTACTS, MONEY AND FREE TIME. The consequence was yet further paradox: meritocracy, real and relentless as it was, nevertheless served to perpetuate a society in which only THE RICH COULD AFFORD TO DEVOTE THEMSELVES TO A POLITICAL CAREER. INDIVIDUALS MIGHT RISE TO GREATNESS, ancient families might decline, yet through it all the faith in hierarchy ENDURED UNCHANGING.
Inequality was the price that citizens of the Republic WILLINGLY PAID FOR THEIR SENSE OF COMMUNITY.”
I repeat “for your modern ears”:
“Inequality was the price that citizens of the Republic WILLINGLY PAID FOR THEIR SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
The class-based agitation that had brought the plebeians their equality with the patricians was a thing of the long-vanished past – not merely impossible, but almost IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE.
THAT THIS WAS THE CASE REFLECTED AN IRONY TYPICAL OF THE REPUBLIC. IN THE VERY HOUR OF THEIR TRIUMPH THE PLEBEIANS HAD DESTROYED THEMSELVES AS A REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT.”
From The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed by Helen K. Bond:
“[...] all ancient societies were patriarchal, and there are no examples of egalitarianism as we would understand it in any contemporary context, whether Jewish or Graeco–Roman.
Tempting as it might be to see Jesus as a ‘FEMINIST’, the evidence cannot support SUCH A CLAIM.
Women play a role in his movement not primarily because of Jesus’ radical social views but rather because Jewish society of the time allowed them to act in these ways.”
From The Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament by Hughson T. Ong:
“I do not intend to enter into this debate over gender equality in the New Testament nor do I want to argue against any particular view, especially since I acknowledge that there are in fact many views within a particular view’s camp.
BUT BASED ON THE GOSPELS’ EVIDENCE, IT IS MOST LIKELY THAT JESUS DID VIEW THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS AN EGALITARIAN COMMUNITY [...].”
From The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian but Family-oriented by John Elliott:
“A close examination of texts of the authentic Jesus tradition alleged to attest Jesus’ creation of a “discipleship of equals” reveals that the egalitarian argument is fatally flawed in several respects. Most of these problems also plague egalitarian interpretations of the New Testament [...].
- Egalitarian theorists have left undefined the key terms under discussion; namely, “equal,” “equality,” “egalitarian,” “egalitarianism.”
Consequently the nature of the equality proposed is left unclear and the idea of equality is often confused with its concrete economic and social manifestation, a manifestation never demonstrated by the theorists.
WHEN THE FAMILY OF TERMS IS CLARIFIED, HOWEVER, THEIR APPLICABILITY TO THE SOCIAL REALITIES OF THE BIBLICAL WORLD IS IMMEDIATELY OPEN TO QUESTION.
“EGALITARIAN,” IS DEFINED AS MEANING “ASSERTING, RESULTING FROM, OR CHARACTERIZED BY BELIEF IN THE EQUALITY OF ALL PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, OR SOCIAL LIFE.”
THIS CONCEPT THAT ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL IN RESPECT TO ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND POLITICAL DOMAINS IS OF MODERN, [...].
The equality celebrated in the American and French revolutions, has little, if anything, in common with the comparatively rarely discussed concept of equality (MORE FREQUENTLY “EQUITY” OR PROPORTIONAL EQUALITY) IN THE ANCIENT WORLD.
ACCORDINGLY, SEARCHING FOR INSTANCES OF EGALITARIANISM in the New Testament communities, indeed in the ANCIENT WORLD on the whole, IS AS POINTLESS as hunting for modern needles in ancient haystacks.
- EGALITARIAN THEORISTS HAVE SUCCUMBED TO THE “IDEALIST FALLACY” of regarding assumed visions, ideas and ideals of equality as concrete economic and social realities.
There is no cogent evidence that Jesus ever did or ever could reject the patriarchalism of his time and establish a “discipleship of equals” during his lifetime.
A key feature of the Jesus movement in the Pauline period, scholars agree, was its household orientation:
its mission focused not on individuals but household groups; believers assembled in houses for worship; and the household or family (oikos) provided a chief metaphor, as it did for Jesus, for characterizing relations and responsibilities within and among the believing communities.
On the other hand, to what extent these house churches were “egalitarian” communities is a highly debated issue.
Some scholars claim that the house churches were divested of their patriarchal features and were thoroughly egalitarian in structure and spirit like voluntary associations were assumed to be.
Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, for example, imagines that in the Pauline period the house churches were structured not like patriarchal families but like religious associations, which, she claims, were “associations of equals” presumably structured along egalitarian lines.”
It always amuses me when I hear this, because whatever the organizational structure “patriarchal families versus religious associations”, THERE IS ALWAYS A LEADER 'FORMING' IN THIS GROUP.
So it's not a male/female problem, but the negation of the presence of the reality of a leader in the group: WHICH PROVES “EVERY TIME THAT THE EGALITARIAN MODEL IS A CRAZY DELUSION”.
“House churches, like associations, had certain persons who performed supervisory and leadership functions that distinguished them from, and ranked them above, the other members. PATRON BENEFACTORS OF THE ASSOCIATIONS, LIKE PATRON HOUSEHOLDERS OF THE HOUSE CHURCHES, WERE EVEN MORE DISTINGUISHED IN THESE GROUPS than the hoi polloi and enjoyed even HIGHER PRESTIGE AND STATUS THAN THE GROUPS’ functionaries. From a sociological perspective, HIERARCHY AND EGALITARIANISM ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE HIERARCHICAL ARE, BY DEFINITION, THE OPPOSITE OF THOSE THAT ARE “EGALITARIAN.”
IN SUM, ALTHOUGH SEARCHING FOR TRACES OF EGALITARIANISM, Schmeller has proved only that both associations and HOUSE CHURCHES WERE STRATIFIED OR “HIERARCHICAL” IN STRUCTURE.”
No. no kidding.
“In a cogent critique, Karl Olav Sandnes (1997) has shown that household and brotherhood models are not alternative models but rather converge, as, it might be added, is clearly evident in 1 Peter; see Elliott 1990, 2000. Sandnes justly concludes that the New Testament shows NOT EGALITARIAN GROUPS REPLACING OR BEING REPLACED BY PATRIARCHAL STRUCTURES BUT RATHER “THE BROTHERHOOD-LIKE NATURE OF THE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP in the making, embedded in household structure” (1997:151, 162-63).”
WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
1 Corinthians 11:8, Lamsa Bible:
“For the man was not created from the woman; but the woman was created from the man.”
NO. THE BIBLE IS NOT EGALITARIAN. Never has been “and never will be”.
“Not one New Testament text points to an instance of actual economic or social equality among the house churches of the Pauline period. This alone is a fatal blow to the egalitarian theory. Compounding this fatality is the further fact that the house churches of Paul and of later time were stratified along conventional lines and marked by a plethora of economic and social disparities.
Paul’s proposed solution in every case was not to criticize or condemn the inequities, but to encourage those of superior status not to scandalize and rather respect brothers and sisters of inferior status.”
This is the Aristocratic Ethic.
“[…] as already noted above, females were considered inferior, not equal, to males and believing wives were expected to continue to subordinate themselves to their husbands.
[… Paul] but never advocated MANUMISSION OR THE ELIMINATION of slavery altogether.”
It's not very socially egalitarian, because the Bible is not egalitarian but traditional.
It may piss off 'many Christians', but nowhere in the Bible is the concept of social equality written.
“As another example of inequality, Paul reckoned Israel, the recipient of God’s promise, to be, as “stock,” prior to— and thus superior to—the Gentiles, though both were recipients of God’s grace.
The house churches of the Pauline period were not groups of equals but were stratified economically, socially and culturally.
The Post-Pauline Period.
Families and households, PATRIARCHALLY STRUCTURED, remained the focus of mission and the locus of assembly as the messianic movement continued its spread across the Mediterranean world.”
Where is the Equality?
“There is no incontestable evidence of a supposed egalitarian phase of the Jesus movement prior to Paul and hence no evidence that Paul and his successors undermined and reversed this egalitarianism. To the contrary, after Jesus’ death the movement was marked by the same social, economic and legal inequalities that prevailed earlier.”
From Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia by Mary Ann Beavis:
“[John] Elliott trenchantly asserts:
“The currently-advanced theory that Jesus was an egalitarian who founded a “community of equals” is devoid of social and political plausibility and, more importantly, of textual and historical evidence. More over, it DISTORTS THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL NATURE OF THE NASCENT Jesus movement and CONSTITUTES A GRAPHIC EXAMPLE OF AN “IDEALIST FALLACY.” The biblical texts to which proponents of the EGALITARIAN THEORY appeal show Jesus and his followers engaged NOT IN SOCIAL REVOLUTION, DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, EQUALITY, AND THE ERADICATION OF THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY, BUT IN ESTABLISHING A FORM OF COMMUNITY MODELLED ON THE FAMILY AS REDEFINED BY JESUS and united by familial VALUES, NORMS, AND MODES OF CONDUCT.””
From Jesus Was Not an Egalitarian. A Critique of an Anachronistic and Idealist Theory by John Elliott:
“As a preliminary observation, it is necessary to note that if there is New Testament evidence of EGALITARIANISM and social equality within the Jesus movement, THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE A UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANCIENT WORLD.”
L.O.L..
I AM WAITING FOR “FEMINISTS” to show me 'historically' a non-traditional society, that is “WITHOUT LEADERS”.
They will find 'none', because NATURE 'LIKES ORDER'.
Otherwise, it would make men and women of 'EQUAL INTELLIGENCE', which is not the case.
From The Oxford Handbook of Global Studies by Mark Juergensmeyer (Editor), Saskia Sassen (Editor), Manfred B. Steger (Editor), and Victor Faessel (Editor):
“After four decades of reforms, China—which was once one of the world’s most egalitarian societies—had become one of the most unequal societies, its Gini coefficient being higher than that of the United States .”
Because it's the Way of the world; this Fantasy of MATERIAL EQUALITY IS, AS ITS NAME 'INDICATES IT', MATERIALISM.
AND MATERIALISM 'IS NOT ORGANIC'.
Which means sooner or later, THESE EGALITARIAN DEMOCRATIC POLICIES CREATE MORE DIVERSITY, WHILE THEY SEEK TO DO THE OPPOSITE. What the simpletons have 'still not understood', INEQUALITY IS ORGANIC, to think that it's not is inorganic.
From Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age by Tomislav Sunic:
“Regardless of the fact that millions of Americans adhere to various Christian and non-Christian sects and denominations, or even belong to anti-Christian tribes or cults, the mindset of the majority of Americans is shaped by the Bible. The same Biblical fanaticism that had accompanied the Civil War in England was to be detected in the English colonies overseas—in what was to become America.”
You find the same fanaticism today in all Right-Wing Circles in America. And my reason, why 'I can't stand them'.
There is not an inch of reason in these groups, JUST BLIND FAITH. And you don't build 'a daily life on Fanaticism'.
“PURITANISM WAS AN IDEAL RELIGION for American pilgrims as it fostered social discipline and hard work, urging avoidance of violent rhetoric, while promoting a remarkable degree of civic decency.”
Yuck!
“The American way of life and the so-called “have a nice day” mentality, which Europeans wrongly deride as a form of hypocrisy or a capitalist facade, are direct behavioral products of early Puritanism.”
And you don't build a nation on Puritanism.
“Although America prides itself on a high degree of social tolerance and rejects in practice political interference of any organized church, its obsession with moralistic preaching borders on mass delirium.”
This is the Hypocrisy OF THE RELIGIOUS;
Saying one thing
he Does another.
“Most Americans are hardly aware of it and usually take their moralistic stance as something desirable for all human beings.”
No. Dear americans, moralism 'IS IMMORAL AND ANTI-SOCIAL'.
“The former president Ronald Reagan used to say that “the prosperity and might of America are the proof that America is blessed by God.””
Dah! What does this have to do with anything?
“The country which is closest to God must also be Gods’ representative on Earth with the three godly characteristics; omniscience, omnipotence, and generosity.”
“Therefore, it is questionable to what extent America can be a free country for all if the Biblical moralistic framework, however secular it appears, is a precondition for professional success.”
AMERICA IS NOT A FREE COUNTRY.
Religious people “think they are free but are slaves to their minds and therefore 'as far from God as possible'.”
“[Emma Goldman] realizes that Puritanism inevitably leads to the “stifling of free speech and creates a culture of mediocrity. Modern American heretics are summarily dismissed as the “enemies of democracy” or “racists,” or “right-wingers.” The new neo-Puritan offspring advocate now “safe and clean sex,” “safe and clean politics,” affirmative action,” et cetera.
The ideology of political correctness, which was described in the previous chapter, also originated in America in the 80s as a form of intellectual self-censorship. Yet it also represents the postmodern version of the old Puritan mindset.”
Hey, what is the difference between DEMOCRACY AND PURITANISM?
No difference.
“Today this political correctness ruins the careers of independent American and European free minds and makes intellectual inquiry into modern American taboos VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.”
Not virtually impossible, impossible.
I have always said “that it was the Christians who were the main obstacle to getting my ideas across and in 50 years, that has never changed. On the Contrary, IT HAS GOTTEN WORSE.”
I have no problem TO COMMUNICATE WITH ASIANS but Westerners, and Americans in particular, it's impossible. They are completely OSSIFIED.
“American founding myths drew their inspiration from Hebrew thought. The notion of the “City on the Hill” and “God’s own country” were borrowed from the Old Testament and the Jewish people.”
It pisses Christians off to hear this, but no mystic could have written such crap as “God's own country”. And religious TEXTS ARE ESOTERIC IN NATURE.
“Sombart further writes that “the United States is filled to the brim with the JEWISH SPIRIT.”
Even American Christian anti-Semites are subconsciously enamored with the Jewish idea of predestination, while at the same time harboring anti-Semitic sentiments.”
There is nothing MORE DUMB THAN AN ANTI-SEMITE.
“In fact, American anti-Semitism can be described as a distorted form of hidden philo-semitism which, while not able to materialize itself on its own American choseness, projects its would-be supremacy through its hatred against Jews.”
I spend my TIME REPEATING IT, a kind of Oedipal complex.
“Americanism is designed for all peoples, races and nations on earth.”
Hence the American Civil War, and the Refusal of the South “TO SUBSCRIBE TO THIS DEMOCRATIC IDEAL.”
Appearances in the USA:
“In a country whose ideological principles are entrenched in an aggressive rhetoric about free speech, only few authors dare critically address the issue of Judaism in America.”
“American Neurosis: Love or Hate for the Jews?”
Both.
It is the permanent fight against THE ESOTERIC BY THE MATERIALISM ('EXOTERIC').
The religious “wants to awaken”, but he's always in the complex as to quote above, oedipal. He's always Attached to this identification 'with Matter'(body/mind). He wants to awaken but cannot; 'HENCE THIS STRUGGLE'; and the Jew is “World Champion in this internal neurosis”.
The Christian has only followed this example, and does not understand in any case the Esoteric Texts that He Repeats.
So Basically a tool.
EGALITARIANISM #progress #Egalitarianism #western-societies #West #Western-Society #Esotericism #Esoterism https://bittube.tv/post/e6dfc7c3-31f9-44fc-9881-790d27eb177f https://odysee.com/@periodic-reset-of-civilizations:c/EGALITARIANISM:d https://tube.midov.pl/w/ubgxzikgEHdvX4Xww71Luz https://www.bitchute.com/video/J6bETRBubfqL/
All the platforms I Am on: https://steemit.com/links/@resetciviliz/link-s
▶ BITCOIN 34c3XCeSyoi9DPRks867KL7GVD7tGVcxnH ▶ ETHEREUM 0xAc1FBaEBaCc83D332494B55123F5493a113cE457 ▶ TEEPUBLIC https://www.teepublic.com/user/periodic-reset-of-civilizations ▶ TEESPRING https://periodic-reset.creator-spring.com