top of page
  • Writer's picture738


This is the difference between belief and critical distance. User m. anjé believes in whatever version of Christianity he believes. Just as with all believers this is “the truth” for him—people who watch this interchange might nod along and think “yeah, yeah BLM isn’t a real religion—they don’t think there’s an afterlife or anything” but what they don’t realise is that people like m. anjé will swing round and say equally as happily “Islam isn’t a religion”, “Buddhism isn’t a religion”, “Catholicism isn’t a religion”, “Methodism isn’t a religion”, “paganism isn’t a religion”.

They’ll have tenuous reasons for this—they’ll say to pagans “pagan gods didn’t create the whole world like the real God.” This is usually based on a refusal to engage in an open-minded way with the other person’s side—because you do find creation ideas in paganism too. But that doesn’t matter to people like m. anjé because they’re believers, fanatics—they’re the people who burned down the pagan temples, and they’re just like the progressives who pull down statues of white men today.

To them “religion” is what they happen to believe—which is obviously the truth. Can there be degrees of truth? Can Methodism be somewhat true? Can Marxism be religious in some respects and not in others? No—because the rabbi, whether Jesus or Marx or Freud, says this is the truth (and if you don’t follow it you’ll go to Hell—or never get over your neuroses, anyway; and then where would you be?). m. anjé has just been infected with v 1.0 of intolerant Semitic fanaticism—naturally, v 2.0, Marxism, is equally total evil to him (just as he has false consciousness to the Marxist).

That’s just how Semites think—Mohammad as well, not just the Jews. And m. anjé has been infected by a Semitic mindworm—it has blinded his third eye (he can’t use his own intuition, he just has to follow…someone). But it makes him feel good and smug, of course, to cast everyone else into the pit—Marxists, BLM, Nick Land, Methodists (perhaps), pagans…Just like with that intolerant rebbe Freud, you’re damned, damned, damned—unless you…serve him (and the tribe). I expose my buttocks to you, you frauds—Jesus, Marx, Freud.

Sure, they say some true things—but they never allow that, nor do their followers. You can’t say “well, yes there’s some Oedipal aspect to family relations”, you have to swallow the whole thing or else you’ll never be “saved”—sorry, “get over your neuroses”. From the strictly scientific perspective, which is what Land takes, it’s obvious that Freudianism, Marxism, Christianity, paganism, Buddhism, BLM, and so on all fulfil the same function for people—but for the believer, the true believer, on his smug and self-satisfied power trip it’s obvious that only Christianity (sub-branch, whatever I’ve latched onto) is real religion.

If you’re not a believer, it’s obvious that Marxism is a religion—in fact, if you really think there’s a spiritual world then the reality is that man is a religion-making animal. To say man can step out of religion is like saying he can stop his blood circulation—to be spiritual is what man is.

If he comes up with Marxism, it comes from somewhere—it comes from the mind, and where do ideas come from? Nobody knows. You can say ideas correlate to the activation of certain parts of the brain—but that’s not the idea. Actually, if the idea is anything it’s a rhythm, perhaps instantiated in the rhythmic activation of the neural connections in the brain (that fire like piano keys depressed by spread-eagled fingers to recall certain information). Ideas come from daemons—the daemonic rhythm.

The idea that politics and religion can be separated is an Enlightenment liberal idea—the separation of Church and State (thought up by…Freemasons, who believe in a single religion of mankind and strictly claim not to be a religion—despite worshipping a deity and having ceremonies).

The religion of America is Freemasonry—it’s embedded in its very currency and monuments; and Freemasons believe in a single religion of all mankind that unites all extant faiths and somehow doesn’t “interfere” with them as it does so (except it does, that’s how it replaces them)—the fact a progressive Muslim, a progressive Christian, and a progressive Jew say the same thing just shows they practice Masonry (the religion of the brotherhood of all mankind). Of course, it’s an illusion—you can’t separate Church and State, and there is always a state religion.

What m. anjé is really doing is playing a stupid language game where he elides “religion” and “true religion”—he conflates the normative and descriptive. What he really means to say is “BLM is not a true religion”, but because he wants power and control not truthfulness he presents this as “BLM is not a religion”—it’s negation and double-bind. Actually, even theologians, even Christian theologians, will say “Islam is a religion, but it’s not the true religion”. It’s only when playing rhetorical power games people say “it’s not a religion”—it’s about total negation to destroy another person’s identity or sense of reality.

What is “religion” anyway? It’s a means to bring a person into relation with harmonious higher powers. It’s about harmony, it’s about being in harmony with a more perfect harmony. The Latin root means something like “to bind”—so you bind yourself into a certain harmony. Okay—well, there’s a rhythm to Marxism; it’s the rhythm of history, of historical materialism, you align yourself to the higher vision that is Communism. Where does “Communism” exist? It’s a vision in Marx’s head and he wants you to harmonise yourself with it—sure, it has rational justifications but so does Christianity; yet, in the end, it’s a vision of a harmonious higher state.

Now, the Marxist is a materialist so he can’t admit that this is actually idealism; he believes in something that is non-material, this vision of Communism that is just a vision—a pattern in Marx’s mind. Well, that’s his dogma—Marx operated amidst high Victorian scientific positivism, so his religion uses scientific dogma “scientific socialism” to support the vision.

It’s just the same as a Christian saying “Buddhism isn’t a religion, it’s materialistic dissipation, it has no deity—no all-loving, all-forgiving God”. Sure—if your vision of cosmic harmony is a giant sky-father then Buddhism is not a religion; but if my vision of cosmic harmony is liberation from desire then your religion isn’t “religion” either, since you’re inflamed by desire for God.

“And that’s a good thing! And that’s a good thing!” you hastily scream in reply—because you’re a believer and a fanatic and you have to be right; and, in the end, you’ll kill anyone who ruins your “vision” and its supposed total correctness (because you belong to an intolerant faith—that, naturally, claims to be the most tolerant faith, when “truly understood” of course).

If you’re not roped into a particular harmony, the similarities between religions are obvious—just like a Buddhist, unaffected by the narcissism of minor differences, can see that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are practically the same thing (whereas the believers in the respective faiths claim to be completely different—just like twin sisters vociferously insist they are completely different).

And what about you? What religion do you subscribe to, then? Why, I subscribe to the religion that says you can’t not be religious—the religion of the stars, the religion of Alkaid destroyer-of-nations, the religion of harts. The religion that says there are as many gods as there are stars in the heavens—and that these diamonds are spread over a mystery that is the night sky.


Recent Posts

See All
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page