Francis Berger
  • Blog
  • My Work

Does the Use of Pseudonyms, Aliases, and False Names Indicate Cowardice?

1/29/2019

17 Comments

 
The subject of name changing appears early on in my novel The City of Earthly Desire when a young Reinhardt confronts his mother about the possibility of changing their Germanic surname Drixler to something more Hungarian-sounding to alleviate the stigmatization and discrimination the family name was bringing upon them in communist Hungary following the Second World War.

“If we changed our name, things would be easier,” Reinhardt insisted, wincing as his mother reapplied the washcloth to his neck.

“When it comes to choosing between right and easy, you must always choose what is right, regardless of how difficult it makes things.”

“Most Swabians have changed their names.”

Gertrude pressed the wet cloth against her son’s neck with so much force it made him flinch. She said, “If we changed our name, I would turn my back on tradition. I would hate myself. And what would I have left if I hated myself?”


As I was writing the City of Earthly Desire in 2010 and 2011, I briefly entertained the possibility of using a pseudonym when it came time to publish the book. The main reason I considered doing so was to avoid possible negative consequences of having my real name attached to a work of fiction that attacked liberalism and incorporated the pornography industry in its story.

To put things in perspective, I was still working as a high school teacher back then, and I remember the newspapers were full of articles about teachers being sacked for relatively trivial matters such facebook posts, online vacation photographs, misinterpreted Twitter remarks, and so forth. And there I was working on a novel outlining the pernicious rise of the pornography industry in Budapest! I knew beyond a doubt that any negative blowback from my novel could potentially end my career and put my wife and me at risk.

As I worked on the novel, I continued to think about publishing under a pseudonym to avoid this possible danger. Strangely enough, I ended up writing the subject of name changing into the novel itself as I thought about the topic, culminating in the lines I have shared. I based the scene on real life events within my own family history.

After the war, the communists urged my grandfather to drop the family name Berger and adopt a Hungarian one instead, to which my grandfather stoically responded, “You’ve taken everything from me and my family, but I will never let you have my name.” Once I had reflected upon this and had written the scene above, I rejected the notion of publishing under a pseudonym because I recognized it would be cowardly and hypocritical of me to do so.


I am not suggesting there was anything inherently heroic in my decision to publish my book under my own name, but it at least demonstrated my willingness to confront uncertainty and danger at a time when my family’s circumstances were rather vulnerable (my son had just been born, my wife was not working, and money was tight). I knew assigning myself a pseudonym would amount to little more than an act of cowardice, that employing a false name would represent a failure of my character in the face of challenge, that I had allowed fear and self-concern override right action. In essence, I understood that I would loathe myself if I used a pseudonym for my book.

I have not regretted the decision to publish the book under my real name, and I make a point of using my real name on this blog and during my other online activities (commenting, reviewing, writing, etc.). Using my name is a declaration, my way of reminding myself that I am choosing what is right over what is easy. If nothing else, it exhibits my willingness to put myself on the line, to back up my words with my physical reality and identity, to put my skin in the game, to expose myself to the possibility of mockery, ridicule, and vitriol. If I am wrong in what I write, I must admit it. If I am right, I must stand by it. Using my real name removes any chance at secrecy or sanctuary.

This brings me to the more general topic of pseudonyms, fake names, aliases, anonymity and the like. Although I respect medieval artists who purposefully chose anonymity as a way of glorifying God, the contemporary use of anonymity and aliases by artists, writers, and bloggers troubles me. I am not referring to individuals who use aliases but whose real names are publicly known, but to those secretive writers, thinkers, and bloggers who hide their authentic identities under noms de plume.

Of course, I understand the reasons why writers and bloggers use false names; many of them may hail from the academic world or some other vulnerable sector in which they cannot openly express their views for fear of censor, or even peril to their jobs. Yet, I cannot help pause for a moment and wonder, with the exception of whistleblowers, why do writers and bloggers bother making their views public if they lack the courage or the means to stand by their words? This applies especially to writers and bloggers who express anti-liberal, anti-leftist, and Christian views in their work. Perhaps I am being too harsh with this criticism and perhaps it is not my place to judge, but I believe this refusal to identify with these expressed ideas essentially reveals an immense failure of character and moral courage.

Put simply, those who rail against the evils of our modern world and make attempts to offer hope and guidance but refuse to put their names to their ideas are cowards. In my mind, their reluctance to stand by their words points to excessive self-concern, one that overrides the good they are saying or doing.

Their adversaries show no such self-concern. The secular/leftist/progressive types not only happily affix their names to every ridiculous and evil idea they generate, but are willing to go out in public and advocate vociferously for it. At the same time, many on the side of Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Virtue are reluctant to make something as basic as their name publicly known. Instead, they fight the culture wars under noms de guerre, encouraging the rest of us to get on with it while they spinelessly cower in the shadows afraid to reveal themselves for fear of a missed mortgage payment or job promotion. And if they are in compromising positions – in circumstances in which they are curtailed, confined, and controlled – circumstances in which they have allowed the world to dominate them so utterly, are they not, essentially, nothing more than slaves, these noble brothers and sisters of ours?

Perhaps they believe they are like superheroes - incognito Bruce Waynes and Peter Parkers fighting evil through their secret identities and alter egos. It is a reassuring thought, but I offer a simple rebuttal - when Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker fight crime as Batman and Spiderman, their identities are hidden, but the individuals inside the costumes are still risking their bodies and their health. What exactly are the pseudonymous writers and bloggers putting at risk? The reputation of their fictitious names?


These pseudonymous writers, thinkers, and bloggers speak a great deal about spirit, but the cowering behind false names reveals spiritlessness to me.

Note: My criticism here may indeed be too harsh. I would welcome thoughts on the matter. 
17 Comments
imnobody00
2/9/2019 20:04:33

"The secular/leftist/progressive types not only happily affix their names to every ridiculous and evil idea they generate, but are willing to go out in public and advocate vociferously for it."

They know that they don't risk anything. At worst, their craziness will be ignored. At best, they will be celebrated as "truth speaking to power" and they can even be considered for jobs. Normally, they will virtue-signal so they will increase their status in their social circle (other leftist people).

The Left is our official religion. In the Middle Ages, why were Christian people able to show their opinions in public while Jews and heretics had to hide? For the same reason we hide and leftist people are open. They don't risk anything and we risk everything. Read Vox Day's books "SJW always lie" and "SJW always double down".

I work for an international organization and there are a lot of politically incorrect comments of mine on the Internet. If I make myself known, I will lose my job and my family will struggle. Will this accomplish anything? Will the people see the injustice and rebel against our masters when they see my life ruined? Please, don't make me laugh. Nobody knows me and, even if they knew me, they would think I am a monster (racist, sexist, etc) and that I deserve what I have got. So what is the point of revealing my identity?

In your text, you don't give any good reason to do that. You say that we are cowards but we are middle-aged men and we are way past the point that other people can make us take meaningless self-destructive actions, only because they tell us "chicken", like Marty McFly in "Back to the Future".

I really don't see any advantage in signing my comments as Mr. So WhoNobodyKnows instead of imnobody. And you don't provide any advantage instead of some trite expressions like "coward", "slave, "spineless" or "nor standing by their words" (an expression that does not mean anything but sounds great).

I chose my nick very carefully many years ago. It comes from the Odyssey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outis) but I wanted to mean that my ideas had to be considered according to their merit and not according to my person. In the Internet, as in life, we attack the person when we dislike his ideas. Confucius said. "When a wise man points at the moon, an idiot looks at his finger.".

But even Hitler can say that the sky is blue. If my ideas are true, they have to be recognized not because they are mine but because they are true. If my ideas are false, they have to be trashed (and I will be happy about that). To determine that the important thing is the intellectual discussion and not the ad hominem attacks. The truth is the important thing. I am only an insignificant human in a world with 7 billion like me. And even if I was the worst person in the world, if I said the truth, it would still be the truth. If you don't understand that and think that making a macho show will give more truth and authority to my words, you don't understand the world we live in.

Reply
Francis Berger
2/9/2019 22:56:43

As I mentioned at the end of my post, my criticism may indeed be too harsh, and I asked for thoughts concerning this, so I appreciate what you have shared here. It is obvious my thoughts have touched a nerve.

Having said that, there is nothing in your comment that has moved me to re-evaluate the position I have outlined in my post. I can empathize with your situation because I have been there myself (I am a middle-aged man and I have worked and continue to work in a sector where I am vulnerable), but I chose not to let self-concern override what I believed to be right action. You have stated that you are unwilling to do so. Fair enough, but I’d like to address some of the issues you have raised. Please understand, I am not doing so out of a malicious spirit. I do not wish to offend you or embitter you. Nor do I wish to make you my enemy.

Let me just say this - you seem overly-concerned about risk. Your observation about leftist types being less at risk and being more at liberty to freely express their views because of this is both correct and accurate. They certainly are more emboldened and enabled than we are. However, it does reveal something. You are under the impression that a person should only back up their words if there is little to no risk involved or if there is some guaranteed advantage to be gained at the end. Otherwise, you don’t see any point to doing so. You also seem bothered by the idea that some people may regard you as a monster and call you names.

No offence, but this risk/reward approach you present reeks of leftist materialist thinking. You have basically admitted that you value material possessions and physical comfort more than spiritual values. If this reflects your philosophy of life, peace be with you.

I can appreciate that it’s not just about you and that you have a family to support, and I certainly would not recommend that you recklessly endanger the well-being of your family over some blog comments posted under a real name on some manosphere blog.

But here’s the thing, you chose to put yourself and your family in a position where you are essentially allowing yourself to be controlled, confined, and contained. You have let the world dominate you. So why bother sharing anything at all on the net?

You argue that your truth is truth regardless of whether or not you back them up with a physical identity or not, and that they are true even if you haven’t taken a single risk in uttering them.

Let me ask you this, do you think His truth would have resonated as deeply as it has across time if He hadn’t revealed Himself to man, if He had not assumed any risk, if He had not challenged the authorities of His day, if He had not been willing to sacrifice himself for our sake?

Do you think what He did was some kind of macho show?

And by the way – I certainly don’t consider you insignificant. You are more significant than you realize.

Look, everything you or I choose to do or not do has consequences. I am taking risks by revealing my name, and whether you realize it or not, you are taking risks by keeping your name concealed. I know I am not safe – you seem to be under the illusion that you are.

That is the difference between us.

Reply
imnobody00
2/10/2019 16:04:23

" Please understand, I am not doing so out of a malicious spirit. I do not wish to offend you or embitter you. Nor do I wish to make you my enemy. "

I understand that. You are right that my text was also harsh. It's not that you have touched a nerve (although this topic is something that I have thought through). It's that English is my native tongue and sometimes I don't find any better way to convey an idea forcefully without being a bit harsh. But you are not my enemy (we are at the same side of the red line) and I am not angry and bitter with you. Please read the following with this assumption.

"Let me ask you this, do you think His truth would have resonated as deeply as it has across time if He had not assumed any risk, if He had not challenged the authorities of His day, if He had not been willing to sacrifice himself for our sake?. No offence, but this risk/reward approach you present reeks of leftist materialist thinking. You have basically admitted that you value material possessions and physical comfort more than spiritual values. If this reflects your philosophy of life, peace be with you [...]"

This is binary thinking and a fallacy. Even Jesus had to eat and sleep. This means that He stopped time to time from his praying and preaching to eat and to rest. This was time that was lost for spiritual endeavors. Does this mean that He valued food more than spiritual values because He didn't starve to death while praying and reading the Scriptures? No, because it was better to Jesus to eat to fulfill His mission. By the way, why don't you stop feeding your family and retire to a Hungarian monastery? You reek of materialist thinking. God will provide for your family, won't He? Saint Paul (1 Timothy 5:8) was also reeking of materialistic thinking, right?

In addition, when Jesus is persecuted by the Pharisees, He escaped, because His hour has not arrived (I have found John 10:39 but there are other quotes). Jesus escapes multiple times from the Pharisees.

Jesus, as any of their followers, when He took an action, he evaluated what were the pros and cons of any situation IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM. He escaped the Pharisees because facing the Pharisees and being killed before His time had arrived would mean that He was not able to fulfill His Mission. It was better being called "a coward" (it is likely that some of the Jews called them that) than to die in a "Look how holly I am" show without fulfilling His mission.

My mission in the Earth is to live a Christian life, to feed my children and my wife, to educate my children in Christ and away from the toxic culture, to awaken my fathers and family so they arrive to Christ (I have made significant progresses in the last 5 years). I am not the Son of Man so my mission is not to die on the cross. If I reveal my identity and lose my job, let's examine the pros and cons IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM. Pros: none. Cons: my mission will suffer.

I am not the first Christian that thinks of self-preservation. Why the first Christians met in catacombs instead of going straight to the lions? Why the Chinese Christian hide right now and the Christian were hidden in Communits Russia? Why Christian people (including Saint Paul) take precautions when they go on a journey? If their faith was strong, they should trust God. Your radicalism is unwarranted.

"But here’s the thing, you chose to put yourself and your family in a position where you are essentially allowing yourself to be controlled, confined, and contained."

This position is called "living in the West". You cannot speak freely in the West. Not in your work, not in your private life. If I said what I think about some sensitive topics, not even my immediate family will want to have anything with me. I started speaking some common sense in the family Whatsapp group(not what I really think as a Christian but something very soft and only 5% of what I really think). My cousins started leaving the group because they were offended and I ended up alone. What goal did I achieve with that? Were my cousins converted?

You tell that I chose to put myself in this position but I am not sure about that. I was born in the West. 20 years ago, I escaped to Latin America (which was more religious and not infected with the politically correct virus back then) only to see how the politically correct virus followed me. Maybe Hungary is safe now, at least while Orban resists. But this will not last and you will have to protect your family. Then you will remember me. Making a "I am holier than thou" show on the Internet against somebody you don't know is easy and cheap. When your family is at risk, we will see if your actions meet your words.

"You have let the world dominate you. So why bother sharing anything at all on the net?"

Well, you can say that to all the Christian people that live in countries that forbid the Gospel. For example, Christian people living in Muslim countries. They have let the world dominate them. Why bother

Reply
imnobody00
2/10/2019 16:07:33

I meant to say: "It's that English is NOT my native tongue". My mistake.

Reply
Francis Berger
2/10/2019 19:07:38

I thank you for taking the time to respond once again. This time around you have provided some thoughts that have made me re-evaluate or, at the very least, clarify my position.

You must keep in mind that when I wrote the original post, I had mostly bigger name pseudonymous bloggers and writers in mind. Suffice it to say, I am not one of these. I don’t know if you are.

Regardless, my criticism was aimed chiefly at them – the big fish (writers, artists, and bloggers); especially the ones who rabidly encourage the rest of us take bold action while they seem unwilling to do so themselves (other than write endless posts under pseudonyms moaning about how we must save the West, fight leftism, strengthen Christianity, etc.)

I was essentially challenging them with the same sort of rhetoric they use. In their case, I stand by my criticism. You mentioned Vox Day, whom I respect. He writes under a pseudonym, but his identity is public. Everyone knows who he is. He stands by what he says and faces whatever comes with dignity and courage. There are other bloggers, writers, and artists out there who use their real name and have considerable followings. In my opinion, the truth these writers and thinkers express is more solid and more meaningful than the truth expounded by some large audience blogger who refuses to make his identity known for fear of repercussions.

I appreciate what you said about time. I use my real name because I feel I have to. Perhaps these bigger bloggers who hide behind pseudonyms are simply waiting for their time, or more correctly, the right time. I hope and pray this is the case, because the arguments you make to state your own case does not really apply to them, in my opinion.

My criticism was not aimed at everyday people who merely post comments or do some other minor (but perhaps important) work online or elsewhere. As I mentioned in my reply to you, I can certainly empathize with people in such positions, and I would not advise them to recklessly endanger their situations by blindly posting material left, right, and center just for the sake of feeling morally superior or self-righteous. That is both foolhardy and foolish, and I agree with you on that point.

The crux of your argument, if I have understood it correctly, is that you see no point in exposing yourself to more danger than is required by good sense. I agree. I wasn’t trying to make a case for stupidity and rash actions. You cite several fine examples to illustrate the benefit of not exposing oneself to unnecessary danger. There are, indeed, times when it is best to stay hidden.

But there come times when a person, a Christian especially, must expose himself or herself to necessary danger, times when staying hidden is no longer an option. Necessary danger must be faced. Necessary risk must be taken. Refusal to do so DOES indicate a lack of moral courage and cowardice. Many bloggers, writers, and thinkers who will not stand by their words are simply refusing to face necessary danger. That is a failure of character. (I am not referring to you here.)

Let me take a moment to reframe the context of our discussion by offering the following – we all have individual destinies we must follow. There isn’t a mission, but missions. Yours sounds noble and good, and if you sincerely feel you are fulfilling your destiny and your mission, then you essentially have nothing of which to be ashamed. You shouldn’t take on unnecessary danger if it hinders your work; but there may come a time when you must face danger, when laying low becomes the suboptimal option. Perhaps you have already had several experiences like this in the past – if so, I commend you.

You keep referring to the tragic circumstances in the West, and I often wonder how much of this has been caused by people refusing to face necessary danger, by being unwilling to take a necessary and needed risk. This is what I was referring to with the leftist materialist thinking; I was not referring to becoming a monk or not eating, but rather to the inability to take right action out of fear of losing material comfort or of making unnecessary compromises for the promise of material comfort. I am not aiming this argument at you now – I am looking at the world in general.

I am sure there were situations in the past when people could have stood up to whatever evil was confronting them, but refused to do so simply because they were comfortable. They could have prevented something or stopped something, but they chose not to because they did not want to lose jobs, houses or, less severely, simply did not want to be singled-out and ridiculed.

Yes, there were times Christians had to hide, but there were also times when they were compelled to take a stand and risk everything, even their lives, for the sake of truth, or to hinder or prevent the spread of evil. It is our duty to recognize when these times come and act accordingly when they

Reply
Francis Berger
2/10/2019 19:09:32

were compelled to take a stand and risk everything, even their lives, for the sake of truth, or to hinder or prevent the spread of evil. It is our duty to recognize when these times come and act accordingly when they do. It is during those moments when spiritual values must outweigh our material concerns. And I suppose each one of us has to figure this out according to our own conscience within the contexts of our own individual lives.

The inability or refusal to take action when those times come shows ignoble fear in the face of difficulty, pain, opposition, ridicule, etc. Bloggers, writers, and thinkers who command larger audiences and purport to offer truth and wisdom should not show such ignoble fear – it cheapens their words and makes the rest of us less likely to pursue right action when confronted with necessary difficulties and opposition.

We have to let go of fear. Evil is not always as powerful as it shows itself to be.

And I wasn’t trying to make any holier than thou statements against you; I was merely stating where we differ. In all honesty, I think we share more similarities than differences. You seem like someone I would get along well with in person, and I appreciate the time you have invested into this discussion.

Reply
palintropos
2/11/2019 00:16:31

Interesting discussion and blog.

It's going to be interesting to see if traditional western art, literature, poetry one day is all deemed racist, sexist, and homophobic and uniquely oppressive. Say, anything done before 1907. And it all has to go. Sold to the Chinese I suppose. Or burned. I wonder if Europeans will even care.

The National Gallery in Washington, DC, had a revolt by the black guards. They stand around and make sure no one touches things. Everyone else is white. So, they said racist and boom the director's replaced by a feminist. Now the museum which contains only European art is now under control of people who hate European art. Pretty crazy.

Another DC museum, the Corcoran, was taken over by feminists and they wrecked it. It had the largest collection of 19th and early 20th century American art in the world, and was 125 years old. Gone.

Reply
Francis Berger
2/11/2019 05:32:35

@palintropos

I explored themes of art censorship/indifference to art/the politics of art in my novel. Scary stuff. I'll probably write some posts about this in the future.

Reply
imnobody00
2/17/2019 18:32:38

Thank you for your understanding. I have had a busy week. Since I think we agree on most things, this may be my last comment in this post (but not in your blog).

"Regardless, my criticism was aimed chiefly at them – the big fish (writers, artists, and bloggers); especially the ones who rabidly encourage the rest of us take bold action while they seem unwilling to do so themselves"

Yes, I agree with you about that. If you are not willing to take actions, you cannot encourage the rest to take actions. Needless to say, I have never told somebody to take actions against his own interests. But I know bloggers that do that.

The independentist leader of Catalonia (in Spain) ran away from Spain secretly to escape the Spanish law. He moved to Brussels. From Brussels, he constantly encourages the Catalan people to resist Spanish authorities and start the rebellion while he lives a luxurious and serene life. This is Catalonia's Bolivar.

"I appreciate what you said about time. I use my real name because I feel I have to. Perhaps these bigger bloggers who hide behind pseudonyms are simply waiting for their time, or more correctly, the right time."

Some of them are waiting their time, as I do. Read this post until the end https://bonald.wordpress.com/2018/12/15/performative-conservatism-and-honesty-with-oneself/

(Bonald is a traditionalist Christian that works in the University)

"You keep referring to the tragic circumstances in the West, and I often wonder how much of this has been caused by people refusing to face necessary danger, by being unwilling to take a necessary and needed risk."

I agree with you. I think a big part of the tragic circumstances in the West has been caused by people unwilling to take a necessary and needed risk.

Our entire discussion hinges on the expression "necessary and needed". We are not at the beginning of the battle. The battle was lost longtime ago. It was lost when our forefathers accepted that the Christian religion stopped being the official religion of the West. They accepted the "neutrality of the State in matters of religion". Of course, this neutrality is impossible because the law implies a vision of the good and the evil (a religion). So, in reality, our forefathers accepted that the Enlightenment religion (freedom, equality, human rights) becoming the official religion of the West instead of the Christian religion. All the rest is only logical consequence. The Enlightenment religion went from top to bottom, from the laws to the schools to the media to the population. It took some centuries but it was unavoidable.

The people who are aware (like you and me) are the last stand of the West. Not even the people who declared themselves Christians fight for the West. They are polluted with the Enlightnment religion and, at best, they are blind (at worst, they are anti-Christian). So the question is how should we then live? (with a nod to Francis Schaeffer). We are few and far between and we have no power at all. We are screwed.

This question implies other question: "Even if we are in dire straits, can this battle be won?". As a Christian, I think that the war will be won and Christianity will win. But the West is not Christianity. The West is not the war but only a battle. The West is only a culture and cultures go and come (ancient Rome, ancient Egypt) while God and the soul are immortal. It is good, virtuous and noble to fight for one's culture and, even more, if it is a culture founded on Christianity (I don't talk about the current West but about the historic West).

I repeat: "Even if we are in dire straits, can this battle for the West be won? Can we recover and win the battle?". For me, the answer is a big "NO". The West is completely lost. It was completely lost way before we were born. Our ancestors sold us. They sold our birthright to the devils for a bowl of lentil stew. No risk we could take can reverse that. Maybe it's different in Hungary but in West Europe, North America and South America, the battle was lost.

My love for the old West (for the cathedrals, the music, the litterature, the thought, the popular life, the piety, the folklore, the people of the past) is so big that I would be willing to sacrifice myself and my family IF THIS MADE A DIFFERENCE. I don't say that my sacrifice should reverse the tide. Only it should make a difference: for example, buy us 20 years of delay. But this is not so. My sacrifice would not achieve anything. On the contrary, my exposing will go against the West.

So, in my opinion, my risk will not be "a necessary and needed risk" but a counterproductive risk.

But this does not answer the most important question: "how should we then live?" You give some clues.


"There are, indeed, times when it is best to stay hidden. But there come times when a person, a Christian especially, must expose himself or herself to necessary danger, times when staying hidden is no longer an option. Necessary danger must be faced. Necessa

Reply
palintropos
2/17/2019 19:13:56

'It was lost when our forefathers accepted that the Christian religion stopped being the official religion of the West. They accepted the "neutrality of the State in matters of religion".'

Just throwing this out there but could it be "human rights" is a kind of god? It has surpassed the Christian god it seems. At the same time the elites play a cat and mouse game since they clearly do not believe in "human rights" when it suits them. But, they do believe, or pretend to believe, they are morally (and intellectually) superior to the racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.

Feminism, btw, would be a kind of sub-deity as it were to the god human rights.

Reply
Francis Berger
2/17/2019 19:41:39

@palintropos

That's a good point. Human rights definitely is an idol - just like during the French Revolution.

Even aetheists must worship something it seems.

imnobody00
2/24/2019 17:35:57

My comment was not complete. I did not found a copy in my computer. The gist of the part missing was this:

We should expose ourselves as an act of performance. Not because it is useful but because it is an act of personal dignity. But this only when we find the time that this does not ruin our family or our mission. As Bonald says, it is a performance.As Bonald, I also wait for my time.

I will try to get a rest of commenting in your site. I am exhausted. Hours and hours writing. Take care.

Reply
Francis Berger
2/24/2019 18:34:14

@imnobody00

Thanks once again for these valuable contributions. Your thoughts really expanded the dimensions of this post.

Francis Berger
2/17/2019 19:28:26

@imnobody00

Great observations in this response. Thank you.

"We are not at the beginning of the battle. The battle was lost longtime ago. It was lost when our forefathers accepted that the Christian religion stopped being the official religion of the West."

This is a bitter pill to swallow, but you are perfectly correct. The West truly was lost a long time ago. We really are at a terminal end stage similar to what happened before the collapse of Hellenistic Greece or the Roman Empire.

And you are also correct in that view that the survival of Christianity is not necessarily tied to the survival of the West in its current form. In fact, maybe the West needs to collapse in order for Christianity to thrive again.This crisis seems to be coming to a head, but maybe that's a good thing.

I'm not sure about Hungary. The country should just leave the EU, in my opinion, but Orbán seems to think he'll be able to turn the whole EU around. This kind of thinking, though noble, tends to end in tragedy when attempted.

I wrote about it here in you care to have a look:

https://www.francisberger.com/bergers-blog/hungarys-seemingly-eternal-tightrope-walk-will-it-succeed-this-time-or-will-there-be-another-tumble-into-the-abyss

On a side note, I also had a moment of self-reflection based on our discussion. I wrote about that here if you are interested:

https://www.francisberger.com/bergers-blog/self-righteousness-is-self-wrongness

Thanks again for the valuable contributions to this discussion. I certainly hope I will see and hear more from you on this blog in the future.

Reply
imnobody00
2/24/2019 15:26:57

@Francis Berger

Thank you. It has been a pleasure to talk to you.

@palintropos

"Just throwing this out there but could it be "human rights" is a kind of god?"

This is the crux of the issue. And this was our major fail, as Christian people. Charles Baudelaire once said: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist." But I would like to say: The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that living without religion is possible."

What is a religion? A religion does not need a God or gods (Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism don't have the concept of god). Confucianism does not have the concept of the spiritual.

A religion is a worldview that defines what is good and what is evil. (So it has a part of IS and a part of OUGHT: google "Is-ought problem")

Christianity: Jesus is the Son of God so the definition of good and evil is to be found in the Bible.
Islam: Mohammed is the last prophet so the definition of good and evil is to be found in the Q'uran.
Enlightenment religion: Spiritual things do not exist or do not matter so the good is increasing pleasure and decreasing pain (the evil is the opposite). Human rights are only methods to do that. The right, the left, liberalism, progressiveness, conservatism, neocons, libertarianism are only sects of this religion. They agree on the goal (increasing pleasure for most people) but they disagree on the methods to do that.

Every man has a religion because it has a definition of evil and wrong. Every country has an official religion, because the country has a law. The law has to allow some things and forbid other things. Obviously, this cannot be done randomly. The law has to allow things that considers GOOD and forbid things that considers EVIL. This means that the law must have a concept of morality. And this must be grounded in a concept of the world. And a worldview with morality is a religion.
Therefore, every country is a theocracy.

Muslim countries are Islamic theocracies. Islam is the public religion and the law and the public life is based on that. Other religions are tolerated in the private realm, as long as they don't enter in public conflict with Islam.

Western countries are Enlightenment theocracies. The Enlightenment religion is the public religion and the law and the public life is based on that. Other religions are tolerated in the private realm, as long as they don't enter in public conflict with the Enlightenment religion (freedom, equality, human rights).

More specifically, the sect of the Enlightenment religion currently in power is the political correctness. It is displacing the previous sect (which I call "socialdemocracy", which ruled from the end of World War II).

The 19th century was a century of religious wars. The Enlightenment religion fought the Christian religion and won. The 20th century was a century of wars between the sects of the Enlightenment religion. Fascism against socialdemocracy against communism. Socialdemocracy won and mutated in political correctness at the end of the century.

We are not opposing "the lack of religion". We are opposing other religion, which is intolerant. We were very silly as a Christian people. They told us: "The State should be neutral in matters of religion and you can practice Christianity in private with total freedom". And we believed that. We were morons (me included). The State cannot be neutral in matters of religion because it has a law. When Christianity stopped being the official religion, the Enlightenment started being the official religion. Eventually, the Enlightenment religion has penetrated society and made the practice of Christianity less and less common and more and more difficult. The Enlightenment religion went from the laws to the schools to the media to the population. This was unavoidable, as long as we have the Enlightenment religion as official religion of the West. We lost the war and the winning army is conquering the last stands of the Christian army in the West.

Reply
palintropos
2/24/2019 18:19:06

"This means that the law must have a concept of morality. And this must be grounded in a concept of the world. And a worldview with morality is a religion."

I think this is a very interesting point. I wonder though, is there a worldview that believes in nothing other than one's own ego and career? And that "human rights" or the Enlightenment is a kind of smokescreen, an illusion so to speak that one can hide behind. Wheels within wheels and all that.

"Other religions are tolerated in the private realm, as long as they don't enter in public conflict with the Enlightenment religion (freedom, equality, human rights)."

But, if people actually believed in "human rights" and equality wouldn't Christians and white men have rights too? Clearly the religion of the West today discriminates. Islam doesn't appear as much a threat it seems to me. For example, Hillary had the father of the Orlando club jihadist on stage with her one week after the massacre. No crazed poor white Christian could get away with that. And Islam certainly has some big problems with modernists.

When you get down to it, modernism and feminism are insane. There is no consistent morality today. Only the quest for power. Emptiness and irony.

This would explain why modern art has had such an amazing life span. Marcel Duchamp being its patron saint (at least in the visual arts), it's been going on for quite a spell. I read somewhere recently that modernism in literature probably began around 1870.

Reply
Francis Berger
2/24/2019 18:31:59

@imnobody00

Yes, separation of Church and State did not work out as originally envisioned. That's a good insight. Just look at the EU - the whole system has ant-Christianity built into its core. The EU's attacks against Christianity are ceaseless and seemingly endless.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    RSS Feed

    Blog and Comments

    Blog posts tend to be spontaneous, unpolished, first draft entries ranging from the insightful and periodically profound to the poorly-argued and occasionally disparaging.
     

    Comments are moderated. Anonymous comments are never published (please use your name or a pseudonym). 

    Emails welcome:

    f er en c ber g er (at) h otm   ail (dot) co m
    Blogs/Sites I Read
    Bruce Charlton's Notions
    Meeting the Masters
    From The Narrow Desert
    Synlogos ✞ Aggregator
    New World Island  
    New World Island YouTube
    ​Steeple Tea
    Berdyaev.com
    Adam Piggott
    Fourth Gospel Blog
    The Orthosphere
    Junior Ganymede

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    June 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    April 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012

    Picture
    A free PDF is also available in My Work. 
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.