Not Religion but Ethno-Religion
The most obvious example of this is the Jews. Are the Jews a biological race, an “ethnicity”, or a religion? Well, like the Hindi, they’re all of those things, and a language. Yes, there are beliefs about God, and those beliefs are somewhat separate from the group identity of Jewishness.
A universal trait about old polytheistic religions is that each self-identified group had their own patron diety. For example, the people of Eridu in Mesopotamia had the God of their people, Enki. The patron diety of Babylon was Marduk.
Athens and Syracuse’s patron diety was Athena, Elis and Olympia’s diety was Zeus. Thespiae’s was Eros, The patron diety of Larissa and Thebes was Dionysus, Corinth’s was Poseidon. The patron diety of Megara, Eretria, Miletus and Epidauros as Apollo. Argos and Samos worshipped Hera. Rhodes’ diety was Helios. The patron diety of Ephesus was Artemis, the patron diety of Cnidus was Aphrodite. Sparta had two patron dieties – Athena and Apollo.
Rome had three patron dieties, the “Capitoline Triad” of Minerva, Juno and Jupiter.
In Egypt, Amun was the patron diety of Thebes, Ba’alat Gebal the patron diety of Byblos, Banebdjedet the patron diety of Mendes, Bast teh patron diety of Bubastis, Khnum the patron diety of Elephantine, Neith the patron diety of Sais, Ptah the patron diety of Memphis, Ra the patron diety of Heliopolis, Wepwawet the patron diety of Asyut.
Some patron dieties in Mesopotamia are Marduk of Babylon, Enki of Eridu, Bau of Lagash, Lulal of Bad-tibira, Nu Mus Da of Kazallu, Entil for the cities of Nippur, and Ishtar with the city of Arbela. There was also Shakka, who wasn’t a diety of any particular city, but of herdsmen, and Shamash the patron diety of travellers.
Ashur was the patron diety of the city of Assur, but also of the Assyrians.
In China, they had Chenghuangshen, which translates to “god of the moat and the walls” or “god of the boundary”, but the generally accepted transliterated meaning is “city god”. Most large towns and villages had a city god.
In India, there are Kuladevata, which are derived from Kula – meaning clan, and Devata, meaning diety. They are “clan dieties”. The patron dieties all over India are described here. It appears that there are literally thousands of patron dieties in India.
There are also all sorts of little patron dieties among the Mayan, Aztec and Inca.
Sorry for belaboring the point, but this is very important; for most of human history by time and space, religion – and all of the beliefs that go into it – WAS the group.
It may be hard to imagine the two being conflated, and one may think that it’s inappropriate to conflate the two. Sure, group identity may influence religious beliefs, and you can recognize this as a brute fact, but believe that religion is ESSENTIALLY different from group identity.
But this is NOT how it was seen for most of history.
A bit of a tangent, but the thinking of the anarchists was a product of viewing private property and the state as one and the same. Now most people in “the west” today see them as distinct; sure, the state and private property can influence each other, be “in bed” with each other, but they are, to most modern people in “the west”, essentially separate things. In the 1850s in England, it was most certainly NOT seen this way. Private property was seen as much a function of the state as you see police and courts as being an essential state function.
However, medieval Ireland and Iceland can be seen as states where the courts are independent of kings, and so they certainly did not see the law and the kings as part of the same organization, but as two distinct things. In the US, you have separate “branches of government”, but they are all part of the same state.
That digression is just meant to illustrate that the boundaries of “things” is not some clear, obvious and uniform line. You see private property and the state as distinct, the original anarchists didn’t. Abolish private property, abolish the state. Private property to them being one of the most odious aspects of the state.
The medieval Irish and Icelanders saw the law and the kings as distinct, you see law and the state as one uniform thing – the state IS law. To separate the two is, in the minds of most today, to separate water from wet.
And so you see religion and group identity as distinct; well, that’s a way to look at it.
Yaweh was originally just another patron diety. He was the God of the Hebrews. Only when the Hebrews left Egypt did they decide that Yaweh was the one and only God.
Then came Jesus, and he had a “new covenant”, and what started as a Jewish reform became a universal religion; the one and only religion delivered by the one and only God.
And so Peter, one of Jesus’ disciples, went to Antioch and more importantly, Rome, and founded the Universal Church, or in latin, the “Catholic” Church.
And the success of the Universal Church should not be poo-pooed. And there are plenty of places you can read about the Catholic Church.
But there were always divisions. Regional differences within what was on paper the same religion and the same organization running it, and the West, East and Orthodox divide.
The first schism was when the churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople split off from the church of Rome. Both the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches called themselves the one true Christianity, but the church of Rome is called “Catholic”, and the Church of Constantinople is called “Eastern Orthodox”.
Later still, at the Council of Chalcedon, the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria split off from the church of Constantinople. This is commonly referred to as the “Oriental Orthodox” Church. They were the brown people. They’re Muslims today.
So the Catholic Church had the “Western Europeans”, the Eastern Orthodox had what are today called Turks, Greeks, people of the Caucasus and Slavs – the Slavs being less important back then. And the Oriental Orthodox had the Levant, Mesopotamia, Egypt and North Africa.
Eventually the lands of the Oriental Orthodox Church became a totally different religion, Islam, through conversion and conquest.
For all history following the fall of the Roman Empire, the areas of Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia and Romania were a sort of “transition zone” between “the west” and the civilizations of the Oriental Caucasians. The Ottoman Empire exemplified this, a country that wasn’t quite European, but well ahead of the Orient.
In terms of religion, it was also a transition zone.
Ultimately Islam’s expansion was checked by geography. While the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic empire, pushed all the way to the city of Vienna in Austria, they weren’t able to convert many of the peoples in the Balkans to Islam; a few Serbs, and the majority in Albania and Bosnia. The rest remained Eastern Orthodox despite Ottoman rule.
Coincidental with the invention of the printing press and population growth of Europe north of the Mediterranean, was their schism with the Church of Rome known as the “Protestant Reformation”.
As a rule, more “nordic” peoples went protestant, with the more “Mediterranid” peoples remaining Catholic. Exceptions being the Irish, for whom being Catholic had to do with having a distinct identity from the English, and the Polish, for whom being Catholic had to do with having a distinct identity from the Eastern Orthodox Russians and later the Protestant Germans.
Latin America, being around 40% Mediterranid by admixture, is overwhelmingly Catholic among theists. The two most Catholic countries in Latin America are #1 Paraguay, and #2 Mexico, which is 81% Catholic, compared to 55% for US Hispanics and 50% for Guatamala. In addition, Catholicism in Mexico has been more resilient to decline than in the rest of Latin America, and in my opinion this is due to Catholicism being part of a Mexican identity distinction with the more protestant United States. Other Latin American countries don’t share a border with and didn’t fight two major multi-year long wars against the United States.
I will also proclaim with confidence that were you to investigate African Christianity, even those who call themselves “Catholics” and “Lutherans”, you will find radical deviations from how European Catholics and Lutherans practice it. Same with African Islam.
East Asians I would predict to be doctrinaire if Christian; and if they wanted to ethnically distinguish themselves from white Europeans, they would just not be Christians, which is what most of them do.
So, religion started as something tied to clans and groups. Then came the attempts at universal religions. Most failed, but a few succeeded past any secular empire, and eventually the montheisms crack-up, back along group lines. The cracks exist early, and only grow with time.
The success and persistence of the Catholic Church is legendary. But even they couldn’t hold back the ethnic crack-up forever. It always comes. In their case 1,500 years, but it came. Smaller cracks before then.
The Race of Islam
George Galloway actually hit upon some reality when he said that while Islam isn’t technically a biological race, Muslims tend to be browner. Opponents of Islam tend to be white, and the Muslims tend to be brown. Looks like a proxy race… conflict, to me.
But then what about anti-Jewism, or “anti-semitism”? Is that opposition to a religion, or what?
Another thing that goes together is Christianity in the United States and “waving the murican flag”. Atheists tend to be less nationalistic, or maybe it’s more appropriate to say that people who are less nationalistic become atheists.
Here’s another thing; there’s a growing set of “atheists” who don’t talk about atheism, who don’t signal hard against Christianity. They support Trump. They just happen to not believe in God. What is this? Why is this different from the other class of atheists who are overwhelmingly “liberal” and against group identity?
A Whole New Game?
So along come the anarchists and German Historical School, who greatly influenced Karl Marx. The anarchists on antagonistic classes and opposition to private property, and the Historicists on their belief that “economic law” was mostly a function of the psychology and cultural conditioning of people to value things. Put em together and you have a big bag of shit.
Convincing poor people that they were put upon and exploited was, predictably, very easy to do. What was more difficult to do was convince them that the Russian or the German was just like him, and to convince him to work 10 hours a day with as much vigor as if his pay or job security depended on it, even though it didn’t at all.
But what is telling is that, even in the USSR, up to the very end, there was a Ukranian Communist Party, a Georgian Communist Party, an Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Estonian, Moldovan… they never went away.
After 46 years of Communist education, the next generation of Poles, Hungarians and Romanians in the Warsaw Pact countries were still just as eager to break off from Soviet rule as when they started.
Sure, they were probably convinced of a few “socialist” sentiments, but not to end their group identity.
China, with the help of the Soviet Union handing over Manchuria to Mao, became “communist”. But Mao eventually wanted to somehow separate China from Russia. For China to “chart its own path”.
To the rational observer – what the hell could that possibly mean? Nothing in substance, except that China was not Russia. Originally, North Korea was a “communist” country, but, like China, they never eschewed their ethnic identity. Now, the state doctrine of Juchei has no reference to Marx or Marxism.
The “Communism” in Vietnam, who have a long history of antagonism with China, is called “Ho Chi Minh Thought”, and is meant to be a philosophy specifically relevant to Vietnam.
When talking about the Soviet Union during the Cold War, people in the United States would regularly go back and forth between “Soviets” and “Communists” and “Russians”. Russians / Communists. Was the US competing against the religion of Marxism or the people of Russia? Anti-communist or anti-Russian?
I dunno, is an antisemite against the Jewish religion or Jewish people? Is an “Islamophobe” against the religion or against Oriental Caucasians? Is someone who hates “conservatism” really that animated about 10% lower taxes, or does he just hate a certain kind of rural white person, especially if they are “southern”?
This happens all the time, when organizations go around and swap the positions of the candidates. Examples being Obama and Romney, and Obama and McCain. And the black voters said they supported Romney’s positions on everything when they were assigned to Obama. Same thing happened with Trump vs. Hillary; a majority of Republicans will support single-payer healthcare when they are told Trump supports it.
And I have to ask, how much more intense do you want the universal one-world brainwashing to be? How hard core and how long does it have to be to finally create the nation-less man?
Monotheism and Monoideologism
Conservative whites will say “I don’t think along racial lines, I’m purely about values and beliefs and…” whatever. Whites who move out of areas because they become too “urban” or have “bad schools” will also tell you “race has nothing to do with it”.
And no doubt a bunch of them believe to themselves that it’s not about race, damn the correlations.
But look at the behavior of all people, including white people, in their history; it’s always groupish, against other Europeans and certainly against non-Europeans.
You have these crazy people running around saying they’re going to make identity politics gone, the world will be post-racial, post-ethnic, but only after the grievances of the wronged groups are redressed. Of course that is never defined, and can never be satisfied. The reality is that these whites are just dupes for a grievance narrative, just as they were dupes for the communists.
God damn, people form groups around stupid sports teams, around animes, around video game systems. They form around political parties when they don’t have a clue what the party even says! And white people, even after being gaslight into thinking that “racism” is just this horrific demonic evil responsible for all the bad things, STILL self-segregate and commute two hours a day just to avoid blacks.
But oh yes, we’re going to end group identity and group conflict. I’ll set my watch to never. The dirty little secret is that we’re pretty close to the high-water mark of “post-racialism”.
Meanwhile these universalist whites can only win elections about half the time by aligning with blacks and hispanics who are all about group identity, and who are on track to make up over half of the Democrat Party as they slide into irrelevance, and the main opposition is the implicitly white Republican Party. It used to be that the democrats were universalist whites with some black and hispanic support; now the universalist whites are clearly the junior partner in the democrat coalition.
Their thinking may constitute half the Democrat Party right now, that’s debateable. But that segment is falling as it becomes more and only about race, first implicitly, then explicitly. North Korea was “communist”, then they deviated in doctrine (implicit rejection of universal communism), then explicitly removed any reference to communism.
And once it’s no longer white people in the Democrat party, the total racial nature of US and soon continental European politics, which it was all along, will become manifest. It’ll be a lot harder to believe when it’s no longer white faces promoting black and brown grievance narratives.
You think white nationalism is a million miles away? It’s right there, it’s always been there, and turning the implicit explicit is like crossing the street. You will be shocked at how quick it happens.
A lot of high IQs like to separate race and ideology, but that’s not how this is going to go. That’s never how this goes.