Search
  • 738

Jesus Christ



A commonality between Enoch Powell and Jordan Peterson is that both men—both conservatives—decided to identify themselves with Jesus Christ on the cross. I think this situation arises because conservatives tend to be conscientious masochists; they enjoy that sad twilight feeling where everything is in decline and decay—though they, they, still hold true to the good old values. They gather with their companions around a few light ales and lament, “What can you do? What can you do? The tragedy…” The attitude is not dissimilar to the long-suffering suburban dad who patiently drives 250 miles to recover his son from a music festival where he was found, two days after the event ended, semi-comatose after his “friends” dosed him up on LSD and left him for dead. There are no recriminations, dad climbs back up on the cross without complaint.


Powell explicitly said that he saw Christ’s message as being that you have to crucify yourself—and Peterson says very much the same thing. These men want to be whipped. Powell himself wanted to die in WWII and, much to his wife’s chagrin, later said as much. When you understand this personality feature you realise that Powell always wanted to lose, he found gratification in it—as does Peterson, who repeatedly trusts the media even when it is obvious they will fuck him over every time. Refusal to learn that they are the enemy can be attributed to his view that to follow Christ means to be crucified—the idea being that other people (real men?) will then pity you and intervene on your behalf, or perhaps simply that there is a reward for the self-mortification you inflict on yourself (yet such men rarely seem to hold heaven is literally real).


My view is that Jesus Christ died for our sins—and I always thought that was the Good News; Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected, ergo we do not have to crucify ourselves—Jesus died for us and that is why we worship him, we are thankful for what he did. I think the Powell-Peterson Christ emerges from men who are very rigid intellectually—conscientious conservatives—who do not think Christianity is real but come to the conclusion that they “should” believe for rational reasons.


In their attempt to square the religion’s absurd irrational claims with their rigid intellectuality they settle for an autistic-mimetic Christianity where Jesus might not have been metaphysically “the son of God” but was a great example to follow—they then autistically crucify themselves in their own fashion, perhaps through excessive work or through giving speeches about immigration that make them hated by the media and the establishment (yet they gently insist, as Christians, that this not a racial matter).


Powell was reported to be a vain man—it was said to be his chief fault; and I think Peterson is egotistical as well, if you look at his career he popped up on TV long before he became a YouTube hit—he had been gagging for celebrity for a while before he got it. Basically, these men are so vain, egotistical, and proud that they cannot say “Jesus died for me” and instead they say, “I must do what Jesus did and crucify myself.” In other words, they really want to be Jesus—and this is partly why they are such miserable bastards, since being crucified is no fun at all. Yet they grind on in their rigid and proud intellectual frame, even though it does them no good at all.


What was Christ’s message, anyway? I don’t think it was that we all need to crucify ourselves—nor do I think, as with some progressive liberal pretend Christians, that his message was that we need to be lovey-wovy and terribly nice to everyone. I’m not a Christian, but I think that the message that runs through all Christ’s teachings is that people need to be loyal to the spirit, not the letter, of the law. This theme crops up with the man who offers loud prayers in public as opposed to the more humble supplicant, and it also appears in the parable of the good Samaritan (i.e. there are particular laws about whom to be charitable towards, but if there’s a bleeding man right in front of you just get on with it).


As such, Christ’s message is anti-bureaucratic, anti-journalism, anti-lawyers, and anti-pedantry. Bureaucrats works to the letter of the law—hence, “It’s more than my job’s worth” (to bend this obviously stupid rule); journalists tend to quote people selectively and literally so as to be immune from libel law, while still distorting the truth; lawyers notoriously stick to the letter of the law—part of why law professors joke to their students that anyone interested in justice should head over to the theology faculty instead (think about Clinton and his letter-perfect “depends what you mean by sexual relations” dodge—pure lawyer-speak, purely anti-Christian). Finally, pedants are just annoying.


People who follow the letter of the law tend to think they’re perfect and clean because “you can’t touch me”—technically, they’re innocent. Hence the Morrissey lyric “educated criminals work within the law” and the resentment less-educated street thugs feel towards the middle class, who they intuit somehow also break the law but in such a way so that nobody can touch them (i.e. the virtue-signalling higher classes are the deepest criminals, the most in need of Christ).


You point out that Alcoholics Anonymous helps people because participants pledge themselves to a “higher power”. “It’s not Christ, though. We only follow Christ here,” someone sneers—such a comment is pure anti-Christian sentiment. Christ would say the spirit is to rescue someone from alcoholism; if it works without Christ’s name that is all that matters—to impose the letter of the law, Christ’s name, and destroy everyone who cannot accept Christ is against the spirit of the thing. To follow Christ is to see and bear witness to what is.



195 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All