105 Comments

"There is a huge difference between Jesus the man and Jesus of the church."

Sure, and how did you figure out who "Jesus the man" is? Oh, you read the Bible? Written by his followers and read in the Churches? The Scriptures which were compiled by the Church? Let me guess, next you'll say "parts" of the Bible are true (his earthly ministry and teachings) while others are "fake" or not reliable (the resurrection, ascension, and post-pentecost events)?

This trope of "the Church (the people actually following Jesus) misunderstand who he *really is*" is so tired and worn out. When will it end?

Expand full comment

The most influential family member of my adolescence was a devout Catholic so by cultural transmission I have some German Catholic aspects to my worldview, but aside from that I was raised agnostic and I’ve not read the bible lol.

Expand full comment

>talks about Jesus and "who he is"

>hasn't read the Bible

Look, you really shouldn't be trying to speak with authority on matters you know very little about.

Expand full comment

You read a Wikipedia article on NSDAP lol to critique my last article. There are tons of commonly known historical fact surrounding the man and events that took place, even Nietzsche wrote on the inconsistency of narratives in the Bible regarding Jesus. The Lifegiver has come many times before Jesus and will many times come again. Your assertion that all that can be understood about it is in the Bible is recursive idiocy. Go cry somewhere else.

Expand full comment

And can you show that the basic historical facts about the NSDAP I gave were wrong? No, you can't...because they're just facts: dates and people.

As for everything else you said, it is too hysterical and ignorant to even properly critique, since there isn't much substance to it at all

Expand full comment

I never said in the argument that he would take over NSDAP, I said that his interwar writings are what they should have been based on and many of their concepts were taken from the conservative revolution (many of its writers far previous to Jünger like Spengler and Sombart). That has nothing to do with timelines.

Expand full comment

You made the argument that Jünger personally failed because he didn't take leadership of the NSDAP over Hitlee and others, and because he didn't become a polician and lead Germany lol, which, besides missing the whole point of Jünger’s writing and completely ignoring his personality and character, is also just historically implausible and silly.

Expand full comment

Funnily enough, while you've replied several times to me, you haven't once seriously contended with my actual criticism. It is clear at this point: You don't understand Jesus, you don't understand Christology, and you don't understand the Church. Someone who doesn't understand these things shouldn't be yapping about how the Church has gotten Jesus wrong (you don't even know who he is or what the Church actually believed).

Expand full comment

You have no criticism regarding the actual points in the article. You keep repeating that my not having read the entire Bible means you don’t have to make an argument about anything in this.

Expand full comment

I never once suggested you need to have read the entire Bible. So you are pulling that out of nowhere (like most things you say). But I would at least consider moving on to some other points if you could show even a miniscule level of understanding of the person of Christ and what the Church actually says about him. But you can't, and you won't.

Expand full comment

What are your problems with the understanding of Christ presented in the article? Scholarship on Christ is fairly contentious and it is agreed that there are several different revisions of the synoptic gospels. In this article we refer to Christ as represented by an archetype, and the intent and Will of that archetype presented through the small number of historical actions and statements agreed on in both Christian and Jewish scholarship.

"The Church" is an absurdly broad statement and one that has consistently changed with time and location. Which Church? The Modern Catholic church has very little to do with the one under Pius V, for example.

What understanding of Christ would you like to discuss?

Expand full comment

Do you believe the first seven ecumenical councils promulgated true doctrines concerning Jesus Christ?

Expand full comment

Do you?

Or more importantly, where do you weight the particular ecclesiastical treatments of Christ over the past two millenia? Are Islamic, Jewish and Mormon treatments of Christ equal in your eyes?

Expand full comment

I'm not Christian, but even I can see why this upsets you.

I have the same view towards neo pagans and Christians when they try to speak on traditional pagan religions without actually having done any work at trying to understand them beyond YouTube videos and Wikipedia articles.

Expand full comment

I am not a neo anything nor I new to any of this. I’ve put extensive work into reading and learning on historical and right wing subjects for the past 15 years.

I’m not criticizing Christians. This is not a post about Christians. They don’t own Jesus and they don’t do this with Muslims, Mormons or anyone else discussing him. This post isn’t even about Jesus, it’s about archetypes. I don’t need to read the entire Bible to discuss Jesus just because Christians place value in it. Though I believe reading is important, there are many other ways to learn (not Wikipedia), like interactive (this is literally how philosophy originated), cultural transmission, and much more.

What do you think the point of this article was? Why should Christian’s being hysterical over it matter? Not one of them has said “ah this point you made is wrong because of this part of my scripture” then it could be addressed, especially since Chilon the author actually has read the entire Bible and done much more Christian theological work, hence the point of collaborating.

You have never read my work and get on here to defend their hysterics.

Expand full comment

He’s the one who literally cited a Wikipedia article. This post isn’t about the Bible. None of you seem to have any reading comprehension. It’s about archetypes.

Expand full comment

I understood it was about archetypes, and your other comment also seems to insinuate that you think I'm defending him, but I'm not.

I just think all this semitic stuff is silly. I also understand why they would find offence to your views, or mine for that matter. You are discussing their holy figure.

I'm sure if you talked about the European Gods in this manner then I'd get upset. Because these are our gods.

It's like saying "I don't need to read the entire Havamal to speak about Odin."

That's what you are doing here. And your buddy who is more learned should have been aware of this aspect when you collaborated with him.

Expand full comment

It is telling that they do not care that Muslims discuss their holy figure.

It is not at all just Semitic. The Lifegiver appears many times in every aryan group or groups with aryan peripheral ethnogensis I should say. The same archetype comes into many ages and in many ethnos. Distinguishing between the two is for the purpose of showing how a savior doesn’t come, they are made through actual rooted efforts. It’s not just a matter of reincarnation, but the actualization requires an integrative rooted culture for self knowing, will, and sacrifice.

I have read the entire Havamal many times. I’ve read all the eddas. If you understood it’s essence you would know that wisdom is not found in a book. I don’t need to know every detail of every aspect of the Bible (and I was mostly trolling because by their very Catholic tradition plebs don’t read the Bible, they follow orders of their priests) to be able to distinguish archetypes.

Odin didnt read a book to gain the runes or foresight.

Expand full comment

Wait lol do you think I’m a Protestant? I’m 100% polytheistic.

Expand full comment

You should read more concerning ancient religions and even recent history, rather than just Wikipedia

Expand full comment

The only person in here basing their arguments on wiki is the retard you’re defending.

Expand full comment

I highly doubt you are truly aware of deeper intricacies of the religions you write about. From this article and others of yours, I find it dubious at best.

And you mentioned reading Wikipedia in your discussion with him, it's here in the comments.

Expand full comment

That was mocking his comment referencing his reading of NSDAP from Wikipedia. Ah how many of my articles have you read? Why don’t you point out some of those deeper intricacies I’m missing, young man.

Expand full comment

I’ve read very little of the Bible, but I understand the essence of the Lifegiver and it is not unique to Christianity. In fact, the church holding the archetype in a Stasis that is preventing its continuation… riding out on his sacrifice into a simulacrum of Being that prevents his becoming back into being. There will be a follow up article on these concepts. You seem to think everything is found in a book or within the church, purely recursive thought. It’s no different to how materialists think. Lol were you the one in my last comment section complaining about sources without giving any for your own comments?

Expand full comment

You admit to being highly uninformed on the subject of Scripture and theology, yet you attempt to tell *me* about who Jesus "really" is? Give me a break.

Expand full comment

I talk of the Lifegiver, something I termed Lycurgus long before I ever thought about Jesus. I also am not the only one who wrote this article. I coauthored it with the most brilliant man I’ve ever known who very much has.

I’m sure he will comment when he sees this. Cheers!

Expand full comment

As for the complaint about my not citing sources (funny you only now bring that up), besides just giving super basic historical facts which anyone knowledgeable on the subject would know, my sources are/were Alain de Benoist's *Ernst Jünger: Between the Gods and the Titans* as well as the Wikipedia article on the NSDAP (free information that anyone can access).

Expand full comment

Lol Wikipedia

Expand full comment

Womp womp

All I did was pull somes names and dates to show how they corresponded to Jünger’s activity. If your response is just to whine about the use of Wikipedia rather than come up with something substantial, I think that shows about the level of reasoning you're capable of

Expand full comment

>substantial

>crying because I haven’t read the entire Bible instead of coming up with something substantial in response to the concepts in this actually presented

Expand full comment

Never said you need to read the whole Bible, and we can't get to concepts which are backed up by nothing. Time and time again I make one simple point: you don't know what you're talking about when you criticize Christians or the Church, or when you talk about "who Jesus is." If you don't know this stuff, what you say doesn't *deserve* to be considered.

Expand full comment

I don’t have any source for my last article on Jünger because I created the concepts from reading all of his work and considering it in context of the times by reading others work from the conservative revolution pre and post ww2. No one else yet made the connection of seeing him as a Lifegiver that didn’t actualize hence the idea is sourced from me.

Expand full comment

Would LOVE to have you quote me anywhere saying or implying that "everything is found in a book or within the church."

I merely make the very humble assertion that the followers of Christ know him better than you do. That is all.

Expand full comment

You seem like the epitome of humble. “Followers of Christ” and by that do you mean people who read the whole book lol? Like the co-author of this article (I didn’t write it alone and it was through lots of discourse with him that I realized Jesus was a Lifegiver archetype like Lycurgus).

Your first comment assumed I was a Protestant. Now you take a different direction of “followers of Christ unite” lol.

Expand full comment

"Followers of Christ" is a pretty straightforward idea: people who take Jesus seriously, who believe what he said and what his apostles said about him, and who obey his commands and teachings. You claim those people know less about Jesus than you do. I claim that is a stupid thing to say.

Expand full comment

Once again, even Nietzsche has written on the inconsistency and contradictions in the Bible about Jesus. Also once again I wasn’t the only person to write this. Once again that’s not an argument lol.

Expand full comment

"Um acktually Nietzsche said" man I don't care lol, are you not able to think for yourself or do critical research on your own? Apparently not, if your only reply is "well I don't know anything about what I'm talking about but this other guy said this so gotcha."

Expand full comment

I didn't assume you were Protestant; I wouldn't dare accuse a Protestant of not knowing their Scriptures or of discarding portions of it. No, you're far worse than a Protestant

Expand full comment

Shifting goal posts.

Expand full comment

Define "worse"

Expand full comment

A heathen pagan rather than a Christian. Hope that helps!

Expand full comment

When Christians decide to join the rest of us in reality.

Expand full comment

You'd think an article with a title like this would actually... you know... quote some of Jesus' words to make an argument. What is freely asserted may be freely denied.

Expand full comment

If we thought that quoting scripture would have improved the article we would have. The interest is in Christ as a living symbol and a metaphysical Entity, not a discussion of academic theology.

Expand full comment

So... you tried to discuss Jesus Christ as a "living symbol" without any reflection on His life or words as they are recorded? You are interested in Him as a "metaphysical entity", and you gave no attention to who He said He is? Why is He even the subject of this article?

Expand full comment

Christ is the subject of this article because His sacrifice was the root of a now dying Empire. This Empire was characterized by the some of the greatest growth in population, technology, and culture that that Europids have had in recorded history.

The interest here is purely in the metaphysical aspects of this event. The point being that this event is historical, but more importantly represents an enormous release of energy that was fundamentally transformative for 100 generations. We are interested in that process, and ideally the renewing of it. Christ is undeniably the most important figure in the last 2,000 years and so we need to discuss Him.

If I added scripture here, the discussion would have centered around the scripture, which any Biblical scholarship will reveal is highly edited over the millenia. Precise statements are ultimately unimportant here and this article is not written for the highly Churched. It is seeking fundamental transformative ground upon which interest in Christ can be renewed amongst those that consider Him uninteresting.

Expand full comment

You use the word 'metaphysical' in the sense that there is a 'metaphysics' section in most bookstores (with books about the 'hidden message in the water molecule' and the like).

How is what you've said not the other end of the horseshoe from leftoid, "deconstructed Christianity"? You say "Christ's death released an enormous amount of energy, He is undoubtedly the most important historical figure", but then you go on to say "we seek to renew interest in Christ among those who find Him uninteresting". How is this different than saying "Christ lived during a patriarchal, oppressive era, and can have nothing to say to us now that we've developed beyond that, we must make His message palatable to modern sensibilities". Do you see how insincere that might sound? Do you understand how it might come across as mercenary to someone who cares about the truth of Jesus Christ?

Expand full comment

You assume that everything exists in a dialectic of past states in a Stasis or alchemical modern detachment from reality that is the left. That’s what our next article is on and we are just about finished with it. Just because you only see reality in a dialectic doesn’t me our stances are part of it. They will unfold with time and I cannot convince you of anything in a comment section.

You dislike the article and don’t even try to understand it… if you want to discuss the Lifegiver archetype it is within a framework not reducible to simply arguing over Jesus or this dialectical framing of the world.

I would expect you give us the same level of ability to talk of Jesus as a Muslim or a Mormon. Do you go argue with them about it?

Expand full comment

Renewing interest in Christ is of course a laudable goal; to do that requires one to show one's hand in what they believe Christ to be.

Expand full comment

Since you actually seem to interact in good faith. I have two questions.

What do you think the point of this article is? Is it to talk of Jesus as man? There are plenty of people who argue over that.

What do you think of Muslims and Mormons understanding of Jesus?

Expand full comment

Well I find Lycurgus more of a fully actualizing lifegiver. We could always do a discussion on the lifegiver archetype. In fact I wrote a poem on it, that I can’t publish until it either wins the Antelope Hill contest or not. This article is about conflated archetypes.

Expand full comment

I would also like to point out that I have no animosity towards Christians. I have tons of Christian family that I do not force my opinions on nor would I stand for someone targeting them for their beliefs. As a pagan, I don’t see myself as some type of victim of Christianity nor do I discount the contributions of Christianity to European history… or what came before.

Nothing in this article is against Christians or Jesus. Paganism is simply the primordial fire of creation and it’s full expression of the Life cycle into the destruction of an old dying form into a new Life. That is what the Lifegiver is, the full process of Dharma and which is why Shiva is the complete process of Brahma’s creation.

Expand full comment

Its wincingly obvious both of them sat in a sacred grove and disnt think this out

Expand full comment

Didn’t think what out? The purpose of this post is about the conflation of archetypes, not Jesus as a man. You Christians already argue enough about that.

Expand full comment

This is not the own you think it is.

Expand full comment

You would think!

Expand full comment

yep

Expand full comment

Herman… is this the same one that just blocked me on Facebook after talking about how he loved Muslims and hoped they submit the west and Western Europe (I saved the screen before you deleted it)?

What makes you different than a globalist again?

Expand full comment

They will submit you . You aren't polytheistic, or spiritual, you're liberal 100%

..all westoids are liberal . You need to leave , kill your inner yarmulke wearer, consumer, whatever it is that damaged your person. Why are the pagans in Russia much more admirable, genial? They're absent of Semitic sarcasm that permeates the west, esp it's females.Hail Christ!

Expand full comment

Ah yes anything different than you is liberal… as long as the skin is light enough. Muslims interpretation of Jesus doesn’t matter to you. You like a brown proxy strongman to attack those similar to you, just like globalists. Your definition of what is liberal is itself a dialectical Stasis.

Expand full comment

My Gott, this is just hilarious. You are hilarious.

Expand full comment

He’s ghey for Muslims submitting Western Europe and the west.

Expand full comment

could be you are just a cunt?

Expand full comment

Pagans in Russia are not reactive because Orthodox never forced conversion. I’m against such reactivity, Herman. I have nothing but love and respect for my Christian family members. My brother in Christ, why are you so mad?

It is very clear that you are not culturally Russian. Your evangelical transmission is showing. Both Orthodox and Pagans in Russia still have a folkish essence so the don’t squabble over forms.

Expand full comment

There is nothing sarcastic about this post.

Expand full comment

Yeah,,kind of , maybe,,But more simply, Christ was a martyr who conquored a world after His death, which is where His Kingdom is.

The dichotomy between state and clergy is unique in the Western World. The Caliphate joins clerical and secular into one. I think Asian rulers are more like that. But not the Christian West. I doubt the Nordic nor Helenic West was much different.

Not even divine right resolved the temporal from the eternal.

An aristocracy bred of Gods and mortal mistresses still haunts us: the obcession with IQ.

But we always need a leader. There is no spontaneous rising or will of the people ever. This is always called out by some charismatic figrue and the Gods usually bless him with a catchy nom de guerre if not his real name, however transitory his appearance.

Economy is a simple matter the Rerum Novarum called out in 1891

Encyclical. Money represents labor. When labor cannot afford to buy what tey need to live, the economy collapses.. Greed and the "money changers" are the major culprits.

Expand full comment

It has to be read within the contextual framework of the rest of my writing.

Expand full comment

First Jünger is shot by her for not taking control,or some wishywashy bs...now Jesus is a symbol,but hey, Im not attacking him, and why aint you Christyens not attacking the musselmen,the mormons...im just a traditional polytheistic girl who thinks Shiva is a diva. And,me and Charon, we tag teamed the symbol called Christ, hims smart and me too,and w

Expand full comment

Saying Jünger didn’t fully manifest to his potential destiny, isn’t shooting him. I know reading comprehension is a bit low in this thread.

What do you think of how Mormons and Muslims see Jesus?

Expand full comment

You have a few polytheistic warblers with trad beards praising your skill but in the real world the skill is seen for what it is: inanity dressed in four syllable words

Expand full comment

What's your erection for Mormons and musselmen? You must be from the pale of settlement, shalom

Expand full comment

They have different understanding of Jesus from you, but you don’t seem to clutch pearls with them. Keep being a reactive mess. The next article is about that.

You can tell this actually hit something because if it didn’t you wouldn’t be so mad.

Expand full comment

Lets put this to rest. Your caustic,schizophrenic and very American ( read superficial) outlook on life, your mixture of proletarian lingo with high balue words,used as a sort of currency to make yourself look more intelligient, all of this is poisonous. Your appeal to " our white people", your jibes that are apparently meant to attack my person-- why aintchyew fighting?You aint no russkie, you is still murkan,you ran away...sounds like the valium and vodka ruined epithetvokcano of a nagging ,rural housewife.

You assume to know so much about Russia and me and our relationship,based on what? Like your assumption in knowing Jünger,taint nobody made these connectins afore me, and Jesus Christ, myself...for a terrible writer from bucolic America, you make a lot of assumptions.

Ive been to special forces training, gun training for a film, in Novorossisk and seen men who would destroy your mind hiding in the shadow of a snowpea, men with a crucifix on one arm and a kolovrat on the other, the pagans here, usually ,have nothing in common with their murkan counterparts.

The Muslims here arent " under" Russia. They have their regions,their republics,krais etc and do as they see fit. They are not the enemy. Nor are worshippers of Perun. Nor the pagans of Mari El,the dual religionists of other Trans Volga regions,too...the Buddhists of Kalmykia,Sakha etc..the enemy is America and her satrapies,her poisonousliberalization of everything,her fetishization of the individual. America has never been my nation,ever. Younwerent with me in my eighteen arrests,were you? Nyet. American whites,whites in the West...mostly lazy ,mostly preening,submissive to desire and their own ideas. Islam would be a welcome rescue. You love white babies, Islam would make sure your whores pop em out. Your degenerates would fly off buildings,little rainbow colored Batmans. Islam might just save you--- why? Because you are a say everything,do nothing people. Islam is all action.

Some advice, edit,rewrite,edit,rewrite,ad infinitum, ...read other authors,esp writers who are succinct,even if you disagree with their opinions.

Ive wasted enough time on this entity calling iself Rose Sybil.

I really wish you and yours luck, health,wisdom.

Inshallah

Expand full comment

Tldr Herman you’re the one who assumes that’s why you deleted that thread and then come on here with Alts like a hysterical fool.

I’m straight edge.

Expand full comment

Go write another deep article about sniffing Russian women’s hair you creepy old man…. Pat your self on the back some more while you spaz out on my thread.

The next articles will give you an aneurysm… old man take a nap.

Expand full comment

"Consider the material hyperfocus of the age as a cancer: a consumptive, spreading disease that kills its host and destroys its substrate."

I've thought about this a lot. If the microcosm is macrocosm and nature works fractally, one endpoint for our terminally misguided society is radiation therapy. The nuclear question can't be contained indefinitely, and Gaia may use it as a last resort to save itself

Expand full comment

You are mad. Reading comprehension could be improved if one's writing were even at the 8th grade level and followed basic rules of articulation, instead it sounds like a panoptic shrew shrieking in her debilitated verbosity about things she hasn't any idea about

Expand full comment

Stay mad. You clutch pearls with other whites, but never would with Muslims over beloved Christ. They take away his “godness” and this most definitely doesn’t. Like Globalists, you hope for a brown proxy strong man. Cry me a river.

Expand full comment

they are the same person in a psychical maimed person

Expand full comment

No.

Expand full comment

God and devil are joined by the him, you can't have one without the other

Expand full comment

What do you mean by this, precisely?

Expand full comment

the reason Gods live is because the they never existed

Expand full comment