5 ms·

After being indoctrinated to hate everything about the west and Christianity for most of my life — through school, university, news media, entertainment, and th

After being indoctrinated to hate everything about the west and Christianity for most of my life — through school, university, news media, entertainment, and the administrative state — and after coming to hate the west and Christianity as a consequence of this indoctrination, I really found the following books to be the ultimate mindfucks: - Heretics by GK Chesterton - Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton - Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation against America by Mary Grabar - A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell - Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World by Tom Holland

somedude895 2y ago
A Conflict of Visions is a good one. Thomas Sowell is a true intellectual. Sure, he has strong biases, but I believe those developed out of his intense study of the facts, rather than being implanted in him before he started thinking for himself, which is sadly the case for many so-called intellectuals nowadays. If you could recommend only one of the others, which would it be?
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  Heretics GK Chesterton. By far one of the best books I have ever read, and I have read it about 10 times by now. One gem from the first chapter: "When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed."
  - stvltvs 2y ago
    Is this a valid complaint? I hear people talking about "cosmic truth" all the time. I've participated in plenty of dorm room discussions and online debates about religion and the nature of things. The upshot seems to be that we're all free to come to our own conclusions, and given the inconclusive or unpersuasive arguments, we end up with idiosyncratic beliefs rather than orthodoxy. Is Chesterton just nostalgic for a mythical time when most people believed roughly the same things?
    - flanked-evergl 2y ago
      > I hear people talking about "cosmic truth" all the time. If you, as a teacher, make some claims as to cosmic truth in Norway, you get fired. And a college dorm room is not the real world.
      - munksbeer 2y ago
        Could you give an example of a claim of cosmic truth that would get you fired?
  - munksbeer 2y ago
    I can see English, but I can't actually understand what is being said.
    - nataliste 2y ago
      Liberals valued truth's scarcity, freeing debate to meet the market's high demand. Today, truth is cheapened; free speech is abundant but ignored. Once, orthodoxy restricted discussion, preserving its value; now, "good taste" silences it, rendering it worthless.
      - munksbeer 2y ago
        I've parsed it again a few times and I think you are actually wrong in your interpretation. It says the old liberals thought that by removing barriers to debate, they would uncover more truth. You've said the opposite, they valued the barriers. And now that anyone is free to debate whatever they want, universal truths, religion, etc, not many people are interested in doing so because it has become considered bad taste. That seems to be the gist of it. It is a mystery to me why smart people find it difficult to convey meaning in a form that simpler people can understand.
Hikikomori 2y ago
Understanding our past and knowing we did some pretty fucked up shit isn't hating the west, its dealing with it and learning from it. I think you would agree that how Germany has dealt with their past is good compared to sweeping it under the rug and saying that while Hitler did some bad stuff he had some good points.
- somedude895 2y ago
  There's understanding and recognizing past errors, and then there's developing an actual negative view on the whole of something. Germany is a good example of that as well. Pride and patriotism became such dirty words that nobody dares use them, even if it's in a balanced way. And as we can see that then leads to extreme counter-movements. The West and its institutions in general definitely went overboard on painting their own countries, religions and institutions in an almost exclusively negative way, which is basically cultural suicide.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  The way Germany has "dealt" with its past is by trying to commit suicide, and they are attempting to pull the whole rest of Europe down into hell with it. After recognizing that they have done evil, they have proclaimed that nobody can do good. After recognizing there are wrong things to do, they have proclaimed that there are no right things to do. After recognizing that patriotic people can do evil things, they have proclaimed that patriotic people can only do evil things. After recognizing their reason for being was evil, they proclaimed that every nation's reason for being is evil. Germany has not dealt with its past at all, which is why all their conclusions are lies. Their conclusions are designed to erase their own culpability. If all the world is just as evil as them, if everything is a gray and there is no good and evil, then how can they bear any responsibility? Even discarding their obvious moral failings, just as a practical matter, the recent leadership of Germany has been disastrous for the European continent and has resulted in wars and economic disasters.
  - lukan 2y ago
    "After recognizing that they have done evil, they have proclaimed that nobody can do good." As a german, I have only heard this from pessimists in general. But not limited to germany. " the recent leadership of Germany has been disastrous for the European continent and has resulted in wars and economic disasters" And so because germany is recognizing past misstakes, it is responssible for russias invasion into Ukraine? That is a new one.
eddyg 2y ago
Debunking Howard Zinn⁽¹⁾ doesn’t get nearly enough “publicity” (for lack of a better word), especially considering how much A People’s History of the United States is “pushed”. ⁽¹⁾ https://www.regnery.com/9781684511525/debunking-howard-zinn/ https://www.regnery.com/9781684511525/debunking-howard-zinn/
- NotAFerret91 2y ago
  A Regnery citation is to be believed? I’m a Regnery and that side of family is alt-right lol. Now under Eagle, but the name alone makes me think Zinn was right.
FooBarBizBazz 2y ago
This "the West and Christianity" thing may reinforce dichotomies that we do not need (East vs West), while glossing over essential distinctions (Christianity vs its Abrahamic roots). Yes, much is good about Christianity, and yes, it caught on in the West -- but it originated in the Near East, and Ethiopians and Keralites had it first (and still do). Moreover, prior to the Islamic conquests, it was widespread in the countries that we now think of as Muslim. So, while it is central to the culture of Europe, it is also a bit of an adopted alien -- and it is not unique to Europe. Second, many Protestant readings of Christianity embrace the Old Testament, while underemphasizing the break from Old Testament practices and thought that it represented. You would think that Protestant culture would be more immune to this, because it emphasizes literacy and directly reading the book. But somehow that has led to an uncritical understanding of the Old Testament, instead of to a more Gnostic repudiation. Paul is best in this regard. Because it is precisely Christianity's reformist elements that made it good. Its universalism. Its New Covenant. Anyway. I do appreciate your CK Chesterton references. Some of those are also among my favorites. I very much enjoyed The Man Who was Thursday, one of his works of fiction, a sort of novel -- which, I will only say, subverts expectations, and turns out to be more than a bit philosophical!
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  The best response I can give to you is quoting Chesterton's Heretics: "Mr. Rudyard Kipling has asked in a celebrated epigram what they can know of England who know England only. It is a far deeper and sharper question to ask, “What can they know of England who know only the world?” for the world does not include England any more than it includes the Church. The moment we care for anything deeply, the world—that is, all the other miscellaneous interests—becomes our enemy. Christians showed it when they talked of keeping one’s self “unspotted from the world;” but lovers talk of it just as much when they talk of the “world well lost.” Astronomically speaking, I understand that England is situated on the world; similarly, I suppose that the Church was a part of the world, and even the lovers inhabitants of that orb. But they all felt a certain truth—the truth that the moment you love anything the world becomes your foe. Thus Mr. Kipling does certainly know the world; he is a man of the world, with all the narrowness that belongs to those imprisoned in that planet. He knows England as an intelligent English gentleman knows Venice. He has been to England a great many times; he has stopped there for long visits. But he does not belong to it, or to any place; and the proof of it is this, that he thinks of England as a place. The moment we are rooted in a place, the place vanishes. We live like a tree with the whole strength of the universe."
washadjeffmad 2y ago
I'm from the opposite world, the US, where religion, education, and the state have been at nontrivial risk of becoming the same things, depending on where in the country you live. Needless to say, those are all very different reads after experiencing an attempted ethnonationalist theocracy as a member of a non-dominant group. I'm not against religion, but I don't care for Christian apologism or its blindness to its effects; like political centrism, it seems to unify towards incumbent power and authoritarianism, only entrenching factionalization and incompatibility.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  First I have heard of an attempted ethnonationalist theocracy in the US, mind citing what you are talking about?
scruple 2y ago
I have had the exact same experience, and I would also add CS Lewis Mere Christianity and The Great Divorce to the list.
- tharmas 2y ago
  And I would add William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell to that list. After all, it's the anniversary of his Birthday today.

somedude895 2y ago

A Conflict of Visions is a good one. Thomas Sowell is a true intellectual. Sure, he has strong biases, but I believe those developed out of his intense study of the facts, rather than being implanted in him before he started thinking for himself, which is sadly the case for many so-called intellectuals nowadays. If you could recommend only one of the others, which would it be?

flanked-evergl 2y ago
Heretics GK Chesterton. By far one of the best books I have ever read, and I have read it about 10 times by now. One gem from the first chapter: "When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed."
- stvltvs 2y ago
  Is this a valid complaint? I hear people talking about "cosmic truth" all the time. I've participated in plenty of dorm room discussions and online debates about religion and the nature of things. The upshot seems to be that we're all free to come to our own conclusions, and given the inconclusive or unpersuasive arguments, we end up with idiosyncratic beliefs rather than orthodoxy. Is Chesterton just nostalgic for a mythical time when most people believed roughly the same things?
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    > I hear people talking about "cosmic truth" all the time. If you, as a teacher, make some claims as to cosmic truth in Norway, you get fired. And a college dorm room is not the real world.
    - munksbeer 2y ago
      Could you give an example of a claim of cosmic truth that would get you fired?
- munksbeer 2y ago
  I can see English, but I can't actually understand what is being said.
  - nataliste 2y ago
    Liberals valued truth's scarcity, freeing debate to meet the market's high demand. Today, truth is cheapened; free speech is abundant but ignored. Once, orthodoxy restricted discussion, preserving its value; now, "good taste" silences it, rendering it worthless.
    - munksbeer 2y ago
      I've parsed it again a few times and I think you are actually wrong in your interpretation. It says the old liberals thought that by removing barriers to debate, they would uncover more truth. You've said the opposite, they valued the barriers. And now that anyone is free to debate whatever they want, universal truths, religion, etc, not many people are interested in doing so because it has become considered bad taste. That seems to be the gist of it. It is a mystery to me why smart people find it difficult to convey meaning in a form that simpler people can understand.

Hikikomori 2y ago

Understanding our past and knowing we did some pretty fucked up shit isn't hating the west, its dealing with it and learning from it. I think you would agree that how Germany has dealt with their past is good compared to sweeping it under the rug and saying that while Hitler did some bad stuff he had some good points.

somedude895 2y ago
There's understanding and recognizing past errors, and then there's developing an actual negative view on the whole of something. Germany is a good example of that as well. Pride and patriotism became such dirty words that nobody dares use them, even if it's in a balanced way. And as we can see that then leads to extreme counter-movements. The West and its institutions in general definitely went overboard on painting their own countries, religions and institutions in an almost exclusively negative way, which is basically cultural suicide.
flanked-evergl 2y ago
The way Germany has "dealt" with its past is by trying to commit suicide, and they are attempting to pull the whole rest of Europe down into hell with it. After recognizing that they have done evil, they have proclaimed that nobody can do good. After recognizing there are wrong things to do, they have proclaimed that there are no right things to do. After recognizing that patriotic people can do evil things, they have proclaimed that patriotic people can only do evil things. After recognizing their reason for being was evil, they proclaimed that every nation's reason for being is evil. Germany has not dealt with its past at all, which is why all their conclusions are lies. Their conclusions are designed to erase their own culpability. If all the world is just as evil as them, if everything is a gray and there is no good and evil, then how can they bear any responsibility? Even discarding their obvious moral failings, just as a practical matter, the recent leadership of Germany has been disastrous for the European continent and has resulted in wars and economic disasters.
- lukan 2y ago
  "After recognizing that they have done evil, they have proclaimed that nobody can do good." As a german, I have only heard this from pessimists in general. But not limited to germany. " the recent leadership of Germany has been disastrous for the European continent and has resulted in wars and economic disasters" And so because germany is recognizing past misstakes, it is responssible for russias invasion into Ukraine? That is a new one.

eddyg 2y ago

Debunking Howard Zinn⁽¹⁾ doesn’t get nearly enough “publicity” (for lack of a better word), especially considering how much A People’s History of the United States is “pushed”. ⁽¹⁾ https://www.regnery.com/9781684511525/debunking-howard-zinn/ https://www.regnery.com/9781684511525/debunking-howard-zinn/

NotAFerret91 2y ago
A Regnery citation is to be believed? I’m a Regnery and that side of family is alt-right lol. Now under Eagle, but the name alone makes me think Zinn was right.

FooBarBizBazz 2y ago

This "the West and Christianity" thing may reinforce dichotomies that we do not need (East vs West), while glossing over essential distinctions (Christianity vs its Abrahamic roots). Yes, much is good about Christianity, and yes, it caught on in the West -- but it originated in the Near East, and Ethiopians and Keralites had it first (and still do). Moreover, prior to the Islamic conquests, it was widespread in the countries that we now think of as Muslim. So, while it is central to the culture of Europe, it is also a bit of an adopted alien -- and it is not unique to Europe. Second, many Protestant readings of Christianity embrace the Old Testament, while underemphasizing the break from Old Testament practices and thought that it represented. You would think that Protestant culture would be more immune to this, because it emphasizes literacy and directly reading the book. But somehow that has led to an uncritical understanding of the Old Testament, instead of to a more Gnostic repudiation. Paul is best in this regard. Because it is precisely Christianity's reformist elements that made it good. Its universalism. Its New Covenant. Anyway. I do appreciate your CK Chesterton references. Some of those are also among my favorites. I very much enjoyed The Man Who was Thursday, one of his works of fiction, a sort of novel -- which, I will only say, subverts expectations, and turns out to be more than a bit philosophical!

flanked-evergl 2y ago
The best response I can give to you is quoting Chesterton's Heretics: "Mr. Rudyard Kipling has asked in a celebrated epigram what they can know of England who know England only. It is a far deeper and sharper question to ask, “What can they know of England who know only the world?” for the world does not include England any more than it includes the Church. The moment we care for anything deeply, the world—that is, all the other miscellaneous interests—becomes our enemy. Christians showed it when they talked of keeping one’s self “unspotted from the world;” but lovers talk of it just as much when they talk of the “world well lost.” Astronomically speaking, I understand that England is situated on the world; similarly, I suppose that the Church was a part of the world, and even the lovers inhabitants of that orb. But they all felt a certain truth—the truth that the moment you love anything the world becomes your foe. Thus Mr. Kipling does certainly know the world; he is a man of the world, with all the narrowness that belongs to those imprisoned in that planet. He knows England as an intelligent English gentleman knows Venice. He has been to England a great many times; he has stopped there for long visits. But he does not belong to it, or to any place; and the proof of it is this, that he thinks of England as a place. The moment we are rooted in a place, the place vanishes. We live like a tree with the whole strength of the universe."

washadjeffmad 2y ago

I'm from the opposite world, the US, where religion, education, and the state have been at nontrivial risk of becoming the same things, depending on where in the country you live. Needless to say, those are all very different reads after experiencing an attempted ethnonationalist theocracy as a member of a non-dominant group. I'm not against religion, but I don't care for Christian apologism or its blindness to its effects; like political centrism, it seems to unify towards incumbent power and authoritarianism, only entrenching factionalization and incompatibility.

flanked-evergl 2y ago
First I have heard of an attempted ethnonationalist theocracy in the US, mind citing what you are talking about?

scruple 2y ago

I have had the exact same experience, and I would also add CS Lewis Mere Christianity and The Great Divorce to the list.

tharmas 2y ago
And I would add William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell to that list. After all, it's the anniversary of his Birthday today.