Amerika

If you adopt a foreign religion, you are a conquered people. If you tolerate it among you, or tolerate foreigners, you are also a conquered people.

This constitutes the sum total of necessary arguments against Abrahamism in the West, but we can offer others: a religion based on pity makes people weak; a religion that tries to make people “universal” or identical is destined to erase the exceptional and promote the mediocre.

Combine the pity with the universalism and you end up with xenophilia, or love of the foreign: in order to make all people equal, it must lift up those who are not doing well, which includes any foreigners it encounters.

This pathology converted Europe from a rising civilization to a diseased and moribund one and then took on a new life as pathological Leftism. (Side-note: per Crowdism, human populations do this naturally unless managed by the 0.01% who can be enlightened aristocrats).

Egalitarianism, which rises from the boundless self-pity of the job-bound functionary, disconnects the individual from the consequences of his actions by inserting an intermediary judge which assesses how well he complies with approved methods. Religion does the same.

This creates in the individual a culture of reactive behavior, responding to society or employers as he would to a parent, with mixed resentment and compliance. From this comes a pervasive self-pity because he is never in command of his destiny.

Self-pity becomes pity generally because in human societies, you cannot have anything without extending the same to others, since the crowd hates nothing more than one who rises above. Pity leads to an obsession with martyrdom:

New research from the Kelley School of Business shows that people across the United States consistently view self-sacrificial actions as more heroic and inspiring—even when they lead to the same outcome.

Christopher Olivola, associate professor of marketing at the Kelley School of Business in Indianapolis, refers to this phenomenon as the “martyrdom effect.”

The findings point to a deeper tension in how people interpret sacrifice: Admiration often centers on dedication itself, rather than whether that dedication serves the right goal.

Not surprisingly, this generalized pity leads to a focus on those who are not thriving, and from that, to egalitarianism. If people suffering is a problem, the obvious solution seems to be to declare us all equal and to force others to subsidize them.

Eventually this extends to xenophilia, or love of the foreign. If your culture is not equal, maybe another one (a different quantity) will be. They will lie to you, and you see the “grass is greener” because you actually know nothing about most of what happens there.

In the end, the person afflicted with pity also becomes obsessed with weakness and death. They fear strength because it imposes order upon them, and they hate nature because it is inherently unequal. This makes someone dedicated to fantasy.

Within religions, this xenophilia and self-pity quickly translates to submission to the foreigner in the name of the moral deity:

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. – Exodus 23:9 (ESV)

You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. – Deuteronomy 10:19

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. – Leviticus 19:33-34

If you pity yourself, you identify with others who are pitied, like the sick, poor, foreign, prostitutes, ugly, crazy, and sad. This also makes you identify with martyrs, and aspire to be one, because you have fundamentally given up on life ever being good.

This xenophilic pity leads people toward self-destruction of their tribe. They hate their own people for thriving and being happy, and therefore develop a strategy of revenge by replacing them with foreigners:

This fundamental regard for the resident alien, and call to solidarity with the “outsider,” came to full realization in the teaching and practice of Jesus of Nazareth. An oft-cited verse that captures this is Matthew’s last-judgment parable, in which Jesus commends those who welcome him in the guise of a stranger—and condemns those who do not (Matthew 25:35–46).

Three archetypally vulnerable groups are commonly named in almost formulaic fashion: widows, orphans, and strangers. Because YHWH “watches over” them (Psalm 146:9), they have intrinsic rights to sustenance (Deuteronomy 14:29, 24:19–21, 26:12–13) and to human rights (Deuteronomy 27:19; Psalm 94:6). And the prophets measure the health of the nation by how widows, orphans, and strangers are treated (Jeremiah 7:6, 22:3; Zechariah 7:10; Malachi 3:5).

We can go further: the God of the Bible is consistently portrayed as “stateless,” and we can reasonably add undocumented. This is in stark contrast to the patron-gods of the empires that surrounded Israel, who lived comfortably in the temples of the king.

They admit as much here: they hate those living comfortably, they hate kings, and therefore, they want to give human rights to foreigners in order to obliterate those living comfortable under the kings.

Christianity is a religion of envy and resentment because it posits the virtuous martyr as superior to those who simply enjoy life. It is anhedonic by necessity, and makes a virtue of destruction of all healthy traits in the individual in order to induce conformity.

Xenophiliac megalomania of this sort quickly leads to subversion for no purpose except to help the individual with his emotional dysregulation:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. – Ephesians 6:12 ESV

He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. – Deuteronomy 10:18 ESV

You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. – Ezekiel 47:22 ESV

Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts. – Malachi 3:5 ESV

God hates those who thrive in his creation, and loves those who are suffering because they are presumed to be “oppressed,” since the self-pitying individual feels oppressed. Christianity mirrors human unhappiness back to the unhappy as a virtue, which explains its popularity.

People often ask what the meaning of life is, and the only sensible response is a tautology: the meaning of life is to live. In other words, to survive, and maybe to thrive, and if you want to persist, to reproduce. There is no other meaning.

This offends those who want to be important for having moral views, since there is no utility for morality beyond “do not hurt others” in survival, and no one needs religion to realize that. Christianity is only relevant if it invents a battle between “good” and “evil.”

Part of understanding this requires accepting that the world is not “fair”; fair is a human concept, and the world is consistent, but has no interest in trying to be “fair” because this requires a judgment on events after the fact, not cause-effect logic leading to consistent results.

Xenophilic abrahamists and others suffer from the Just World fallacy:

A just world fallacy is the implicit idea that the world is fair. The assumption is that good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people (Humbyrd, 2021).

Schools, workplaces, and society often encourage this with celebrations of achievement and messaging that if you work hard enough, you can be successful. Similarly, crimes are assigned penalties by our justice system.

An excessive sense of accountability usually underlies a core desire for control in a situation wherein we feel powerless. Being able to separate what is and is not within our jurisdiction is essential for healthy coping.

At first glance, the Just World idea seems positive: punish crimes, reward good people. However, this causes a problem because if someone is suffering, Just World demands that this either be a crime or the person be seen as not a good person.

It is not just the Puritan or Protestant work ethic outlook; these are your two options. If the world is just, and someone is suffering, we have to rationalize their behavior as bad to be consistent with the world being just, or see the world as unjust in this case and therefore, something to be corrected.

Christianity consists mostly of the latter: someone is suffering, so we embrace suffering through martyrdom, and then martyr ourselves to end their suffering. It is a recipe for sacrificing the productive to momentarily lift the struggling.

In a broader view, however, the Just World is just another social fiction that we can employ to make people like us:

The just-world belief overvalues the role of individuals in controlling their fate and undervalues the importance of societal structures. The belief in a just world can drive positive behavior — we choose to act in a positive manner to be equivalently rewarded. But it can also lead to justification of another person’s suffering. No matter how great the person’s misery, it must in some way be deserved. Believing in a just world is comforting — it creates order and predictability, rather than acknowledging the capricious nature of things.

When you tell people that life “is as it is,” this gives them little reason to socialize with you for purely social reasons, so unless you have a work relationship or strong cultural bond, you will not find much compatibility.

Christianity uses its Just World thesis as a method of seducing others into socializing. If you want to be powerful, you need lots of Useful Idiots who do your bidding. It comes from an Asiatic theory of tolerance in exchange for allegiance:

Weatherford shockingly argues that Genghis Khan’s religious tolerance during his rule over the Mongol Empire served as an inspiration for America’s founding fathers, who enshrined that ideal in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This article will examine the plausibility of Weatherford’s claim, comment on its significance, and reflect on some of its broader implications.

Weatherford’s radical theory draws inspiration from a footnote in Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–89). Gibbon, contrasting the Mongol Empire’s religious freedom with Europe’s religious fanaticism, argued that a “singular conformity may be found between the religious laws of [Genghis] Khan and Mr. [John] Locke.” America’s founding fathers drew heavily on Locke’s political philosophy, and Weatherford discovered that Thomas Jefferson read The History of Genghizcan the Great (1710), an authoritative biography written by the French scholar Pétis de la Croix.

Religious freedom does not sound so bad until the bill arrives: you need a nation willing to defend that, and to die for it, which means that you are now a footsoldier in the question for equality as a replacement for nature.

Much as he championed religious tolerance, Genghis Khan favored diversity much like the Christians did:

Like other conquerors of the ancient world, Genghis Khan (a name he didn’t adopt until middle age) was known for his fearsome military tactics and ruthless bloodshed. Entire cities were burned and those left alive were incorporated into the Mongol’s growing population.

This gave Khan’s empire an incredibly diverse population for the time and one that was made up of multiple faiths and skilled artisans of various trades.

To him, diversity of race and religion was important to replacing your allegiance to your tribe with allegiance to his much like Christianity wants you to replace loyalty to a culture with dedication to an internationalist organized religion.

Not surprisingly, this Asiatic liberalism infested the West and created a mentality of victimhood and resistance to success as a means of defining our own political system:

Fourth, the writings associated with the reformers of the Protestant Reformation emphasized individual liberty from civil and religious oppression. Most Americans at the time of the Founding were members of some denomination of Protestant Christianity — especially after the First Great Awakening, the revival movement of the 1730s and 1740s. Protestant ideas of resistance against tyranny were generally consistent with the other three strains of republican thought and shaped thinking when they were preached from the pulpit and written about in religious pamphlets.

In this way, we left behind the beliefs that made us great, and replaced them with the philosophy of the third world, which involves gift-giving warlords who demand allegiance for their tolerance. Anarchy, but with nannies.

Our original societies focused more on binding morality than the morality of individualism, which allowed people to have culture and work together to build things; this got replaced with a purely individualistic focus:

Individualizing values focus on fairness, equality, and preventing harm to individuals. Binding values emphasize group loyalty, respect for authority, and protecting purity or sanctity. Past research indicates that liberals tend to prioritize individualizing values almost exclusively, while conservatives tend to endorse both individualizing and binding values more equally.

The findings indicate that liberals are less likely to publicly support a cause they agree with if the messaging relies on values typically associated with conservatives. In contrast, conservatives appear to focus more on the underlying cause itself and share messages consistently regardless of the moral phrasing used.

“We expected both liberals and conservatives might be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but the effect was much more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the specific moral framing used.”

Asia may be the most individualistic place on Earth. You focus on what you are thinking right now, do what is relevant to you at the moment, and ignore things like the crumbling of ancient buildings or decay of social institutions.

This is why Asia needed to develop substitutes for binding morality: their morality of working toward a goal in the external world had died, so they needed something like militarization or religion to unite people, and found it in a theory of tolerance-with-loyalty.

Christianity offers the the same. The deity holds back not so much death, but oppression and victimhood, in exchange for worship of his nationless, cultureless, and unnatural self:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. – Ephesians 6:12 New International Version (NIV)

As always, it is easier to destroy than create. Unite the Useful Idiots and you can replace the kings with tyrants, the expensive goods with cheaper knockoffs with higher margins, and the behavior of sanity with anything-goes liberlaism.

Tags: abrahamism, christianity, Just World fallacy, morality, self-pity, xenophilia