National Religion
Americans are a people of deeply held religious conviction. If any has doubts, let him look on the most serious of our sacred holidays and believe.
Naturally, it is a federal holiday, but that fact alone does not convey the magnitude of this special day. For, unlike other federal holidays, this one carries with it a gravitas—a holiness—that says it is special. You can tell, because we don’t mark the day with fireworks and pop music, or the pardoning of a turkey, but by a singular devotion to the very words of our national religion’s founder. There’s no public debate over it. No one says, “Hey, it isn’t fair to the x’s and the y’s and the z’s if we focus on one tradition and ignore the others.” This is our tradition, and we are not ashamed.
In the former days, when we were weak and ignorant, we had to be taught to be ashamed of our Old Religion. At first, when the bigoted (“one who is obstinately convinced of the superiority of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions”) nature of our Old Faith was exposed, we attempted to sand down all the rough edges, especially when it came to our Former Big Day. We hired some members of another religion to write us some new songs, and we transformed our Former Big Day into a celebration of shopping. This, of course, would not do, because, despite what Milton Friedman had taught us, shopping alone could not serve as the basis of a truly national holiday, let alone a national religion.
It was only then that the Third Great Awakening dawned and we realized that we already had a new religion. The transition has been so smooth that many of us probably still do not notice the difference. The parallels, indeed, are striking. The prophet of our new religion came as a preacher of the Old One—and, like our Old Prophet, he preached revolution. Just as the Old Rabbi’s qualifications were called into question (“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”), so, too, have some criticized our doctor’s credentials. And what did the new prophet get for his selfless efforts? The same thing the Old One got!
One of our earliest hymnwriters, St. Bono, revealed the similarities between the two religions’ founders in a song—“Pride (In the Name of Love)”—that is now sung in a few of our old/new churches: “One Man come, He to justify; one man, to overthrow!” Yes, the Former was the “One Man, betrayed with a kiss.” But concerning the one who followed after—well, as St. Bono and every anchorperson, schoolteacher, president, and candidate of either party will confess to you boldly, not one of us is worthy to loosen his shoelaces.
Early morning, April 4,
a shot rings out in the Memphis sky—
“Free at last!” They took your life,
but they could not take your pride
In the name of love!
We knew that the Former Big Day had lost all of its meaning when most of us refused to call it by name, preferring to say “Holiday” instead. Our leaders still recognize Holiday, along with other minor festivals of different religions, but it is only when you look at the federal holiday of our new religion that you can see how a faith held in common by an entire nation is celebrated. Our President even set up a website devoted to it—mlkday.gov. (Imagine the reaction of the American people if they were to discover a dot-gov devoted to Holiday!)
Last December, the presidential candidates fiercely debated whether it was appropriate for one among their number to make use of a mysterious floating symbol of our Old Religion in connection with our Former Big Day. Then, in January, they lined up to proclaim, with one voice, their devotion to the new prophet. One called the prophet his “hero, . . . because [he] practiced the libertarian principles of civil disobedience and nonviolence.” Another, standing in the very pulpit where the fallen prophet once stood, showed he was the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the antitype of Moses instructing the people of God how to bring down the walls of Jericho. The prophet, said he, is an “icon.”
Such thoughts were echoed by the clergy of the Old Religion. One Catholic bishop proclaimed that the prophet “gave his life for the Gospel values of non-violence and peace for all.” A popular conservative Protestant pastor encouraged all of his followers, if they had the time, to rewrite their sermons in order to “make something” of the federal holiday, to celebrate the work of the prophet. If you need to “find a good word” to say about him, just “Google his name.” But please, “You need not belabor his sins.”
As all of this unitary devotion was occurring, we received confirmation that, thank godamighty, we are at last free of the Old Religion, when sports network ESPN announced its punishment for host Dana Jacobsen. While throwing a drunken fit on stage at a celebrity gala, she accidentally hollered “F--k Notre Dame” and “F--k Jesus,” too.
Now, ten days’ suspension with pay is more than sufficient a punishment for inveighing against our former Deity. I mean, it’s not like she stood up, in the bleak midwinter, and cried, “F--k Morehouse, and F--k Martin Luther King, Jr.!”
Aaron D. Wolf is the associate editor of Chronicles.
This article first appeared in the March 2008 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Entries(RSS)
Flavius, you still miss the point about agnosticism. By saying that "I am a mortal man with limited ability to see into the great beyond," you are making a truth claim that is just as forceful as theism or atheism; you are just making it within the realm of epistemology.
You also accuse me of "going all to pieces." This is obviously untrue. I have addressed everything you said in an attempt to counter your implicit idea that religion and morality have no connection. You still have not answered this claim. You have just merely asserted the opposite without justifying yourself. So I ask, who is assuming something to be true?
My argument was not an appeal to tradition. I was telling you to think twice before you so arrogantly dismiss an idea that has been among us for so long with such sophistry. I have not assumed anything to be true, but you have assumed that I was speaking of Christ. I did not mention His Name. Any Christian who knows his faith knows that morality pre-existed before Christ literally walked the earth. In thinking otherwise, you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of Christianity.
Finally, you cannot figure out what is ethical by yourself. You are relying upon a tradition just as much as anybody else is, you just haven't realized it.
To Flavius and Brutus,
Christ is Risen!
And He still wants you. You have the knowledge of the divine written in your hearts. Come to the foot of the Cross and know who God is. Come in humility and be all that you were created to be. Come and share in our joy at Christ's victory today.
Christ is Risen! Halleluia!
To John Rutowicz,
What if I don't want him? How could I humble myself to a god that can't tell time? Isn't he a little late for the second coming? My patience only extends so far...
Happy Easter!
Brutus @48 and lemon @50:
It might expose the divisions there are between us regarding the different sects and denominations of Christianity. I assume there are Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. assembled here to lament America's "national religion", as Aaron Wolf put it. In fact, we even have a non-believer, Mr. Julianus, posting comments. So, answering your question will start a whole new debate, one that belongs on a list of comments on a Billy Graham post, not an Aaron Wolf or Clyde Wilson or Tom Fleming post.
#54 If you are white, it doesn't matter whether you are a Catholic , Lutheran, Baptist, etc. or you have given up on religion, because what we are facing is anti-white racism aimed at genocide of our race. Every white country and ONLY white countries are being flooded with non-whites. We are expected to assimilate,i.e. intermarry with all those non-whites. If anyone supposes that Christianity in any form will survive that, it will not survive anywhere at all. "Why do the nations rage and imagine a vain thing? "
42Brutus
“Many of these atheists often take the next step and decide that they don’t believe in any rules passed down from the past and descend into nihilism.”
Yes, just last night I had to stop myself from going on a murder and rape spree.
The point I was making is that although many atheists have rejected the existence of God they still maintain the Received Morality they were given by their culture. Some atheists go further and reject even that and as such no longer have 2000 years of Christian history or 3000 years of Western history to guide them. The best example I can think of is John Walker Lindh who was raised by people who rejected Western history and looked for guidance in Islam.
"How about this: Many of these Christians take the next step and decide to make a big show of professing Christianity and then go about doing what they will."
I agree that many people are Christian only to keep up public appearances.
lemon @55
I don't disagree with you. Race is an important issue, a very important issue, and I don't wish to minimize your concern. But I think a Paleoconservative is where Pat Buchanan is on this when he says, "Race isn't everything, but it's not nothing." You are right about the threat we are facing. But here (at least in my own mind), is where Paleocons and Racialists part ways. My race, my genetics, cannot be the ultimate meaning for me. Man must be more than his race. My ultimate identity is as a Christian and I believe that I will live with Black Christians, Jewish Christians and Mexican Christians in eternity, and even commune with them at the altar. As a Christian I cannot deny that. Having said that, I don't want my blonde-haired, blue-eyed daughters to become racial outsiders in their own land, living museum exhibits of what America used to be. It seems to me that a Paleoconservative must figure out how to bring together love for one's own race, language, and culture, with Christianity. If I must choose between my race and Christ, I will choose Christ. But I believe the learned men who write for Chronicles and elsewhere are trying to work out a position where that is not a choice that needs to be made.
"My ultimate identity is as a Christian and I believe that I will live with Black Christians, Jewish Christians and Mexican Christians in eternity..."
Where is your Biblical authority for this?
"If I must choose between my race and Christ, I will choose Christ."
A doctrine put into practice that produces an imagined glory "up yonder," after death, and folly here on Earth.
Brock H. @ 54,
The context of this thread is clear. We are not here interested in obscure religious interpretations, only those convictions that concern nation and race and culture.
For example, is one of your convictions a faith that demands that Europe and America become continental "Camps of the Saints?"
Is it your conviction that Jesus would feel that it is a sin for a young White woman to spurn the advances of a "minority" male?"
Would it be OKAY with you if Western Civilization ceases to exist so long as Christianity survives?
Do you believe Christianity can survive without Western White men and women, e.g., could it be the same faith with only Asians, Mestizos, Negroes or some integrated "mix" left on Earth?
#57 I find it pretty preposterous to suppose that Christ might care nothing for the genocide of the white race.
As for those in heaven, what black country has even maintained civilized standards without whites, ever? Would Christianity remain? Nothing suggests that it would. What brown country would not be hoplessly mired in poverty, without whites? So much for people getting to heaven of non-white races, without whites.
You may wish not to choose, but you will have chosen anyway.
Brutus @59:
"The context of this thread is clear. We are not here interested in obscure religious interpretations, only those convictions that concern nation and race and culture."
Thank you for explaining that, I'm ashamed that I forgot. Then again, I'm young and still learning. My answer to questions 1, 2, and 4 is no. Those are the convictions that our elite rulers wish to instill in us, convictions most of them hypocritically do not themselves hold.
As for number 3, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I were the last man on Earth who drew his ancestry to non-Hispanic Europe, then Western Civilization would still be alive and kicking. I would be its proud but last-remaining representative, and a Christian one, at that. I would continue to practice the customs and embrace the traditions my parents and grandparents taught me, God bless them all. When the good Lord then took me home, the West would finally be dead, and Christianity on Earth, after a millenium and a half of shaping and careful interpreting by the West, would be left to its third-world inheritance. No doubt, in that situation, the peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America probably would twist Christianity into something unrecognizable to us, and probably repugnant to God Himself. But would you and I CARE, Brutus?? No!! We will be in a place where our earthly nation, culture, and traditions no longer MATTER.
To Brutus @58
“My ultimate identity is as a Christian and I believe that I will live with Black Christians, Jewish Christians and Mexican Christians in eternity…”
Where is your Biblical authority for this?
“They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God.” Luke 13:29
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.” Matthew 28:19-20
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:26-29
“Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.” Colossians 3:9-11
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:13
“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you”. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
Would you like more? Did you really think I didn't have Biblical authority for my statement? You may disagree with me, but do you also think I am stupid?
To lemon@60
I did not say Christ cared nothing for the genocide of the white race. And I believe we should care as well about our seemingly impending extinction. But I don't need to believe in some Darwinian and Nietschean philosophy of supermen and sub-humans in order to care about my own. I want my race and my culture to survive because they are mine. I want my children to inherit what my ancestors have built, and I want my children to look like my ancestors. I need no other motivation.
To John Wutowics @ 62
Quoting from Luke chapter 13, huh?
I doubt but that few have ever cast their eyes over that particular chapter and come away with the authority you claim. An admonition to the Pharisees translates to Chinamen populating Heaven?
I urge the good readers here to read Luke themselves and decide if you agree with John Wutowics.
As a matter of fact, I again urge all readers here to peruse The New Testament and decide if you agree with John. I also ask the readers here to ponder John's convictions while keeping in mind what I said about a Marxian Reformation of Christianity.
I noticed a good article on Western Christianity that deals with the problem we are here discussing:
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/oliver.html
"I want my race and my culture to survive because they are mine. I want my children to inherit what my ancestors have built, and I want my children to look like my ancestors. I need no other motivation."
But you also say:
"My race, my genetics, cannot be the ultimate meaning for me."
I don't believe your heart is really in this struggle we face to preserve and inherit what our "ancestors have built." And with your embracing of multiracialism as it is and your teaching of it as a religious doctrine as you obviously do in your own house, do not be surprised if your "blonde-haired, blue-eyed daughters" take it to heart and produce grandchildren who look NOTHING like your ancestors.
John Wutowicz @ 62
This man is using the Bible to justify a One World Order, the flooding of the United States with Third World nonwhites, Liberal ideology, and the extinction through interracial marriage of whites.
I see no reason why he would be against the deification of Martin Luther King Jr and our adoption of the King Holiday. It is a great tragedy that our own religion has been perverted into a weapon and turned against us by people like John Wutowicz.
What on Earth went wrong? Why are our own people turning against us like this? He claims he loves his country and people, but cannot with such blasphemous ideas. His true loyalty is to the present status quo.
To Jay @ 66,
I shall tell you what went wrong…Europeans stopped acknowledging their superiority. Subsequently, Europeans lost their superiority. We became meaningless cogs in the modern economic machine. The offspring of Europeans are now little better than their minority rivals. Stop conquering—get conquered. That’s how the world works. Thank the ‘jew’. The one next-door to you or the 2000 year old one in israel.
We are all proselytized to believe some variation of the great jew from Galilee story. Turn the other cheek and all that baloney. Honor, Loyalty, Family, Work-ethic—these are the values we should aspire toward, not meekness—not forgiveness. Most Europeans today (no matter where their home on the globe is) are weak. The reckoning we shall receive is of our own making. Once, we were great. Politics, economics, science, the arts, athletics—all invented by and perfected by the European race.
The worst mistake ever made by Europeans was to trust and embrace the jew. The second worst mistake was to end colonial rule. The third worst mistake was to end slavery. I could continue, but I gather my point has been made.
I'm curious why none of those so passionately enthusiastic about the white race took any interest in the *Beowulf* thread.
Just a note to say that it is my experience even the Catholic Church itself is well filled with left thinking people that are willing to accept any one, while Jesus himself was very selective about who he healed or helped. He never helped just anyone. They had have a change of heart or a faith that would draw his attention. If all were welcome he would have just rid the world of all sin and disease.
@FCJ: The discussion has pretty well ended now that you have exposed yourself, although I will just make the observation the rational Enlightened philosophy on which you quite rightly assert American polity (NOT society and NOT culture) based its original form has not served this country well. As in Europe it quickly degenerated into egalitarian bloodthirst and over the course of the last century has ravaged the formerly Christian society and culture as well.
If you wish, you can go romanticise a pagan Roman utopia that never existed. I, however, have to live in the rootless agnostic hedonism called modern society, and I find it quite loathsome.
The discussion has "pretty well ended" because new articles have been posted and this one is now "old."
The Christian society you mention readily embraced egalitarianism and has been in the forefront of agitating for bloodletting. The "Civil War" is an excellent example of Christianity going the way of bloodthirsty hedonism.
You, of course know nothing of this since you have never bothered to learn much about which you speak, preferring instead to take at face value what other Christians have parroted down through the centuries while demonizing all critical views of your favorite mythology and its effects on society.
"You, of course know nothing of this since you have never bothered to learn much about which you speak.."
Yes, that is annoying when the ignorant shoot their mouths off.
Some time back, (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=409) a fellow named Leon Haller made the claim that treating "the Other" as human was a pathetic weakness "derived from Christianity, NOT classical antiquity…”
and I responded with:
*The Illiad*, Book XXIV.
Strangely enough Mr. Haller had nothing more to say.
Were I cynical I would suspect Mr. Haller is the kind of person who enjoys invoking classical antiquity more than he enjoys studying it.
"I’m curious why none of those so passionately enthusiastic about the white race took any interest in the *Beowulf* thread."
Well, G.S., my hypothesis is that while white nationalists sometimes like to talk *about* "science" or even "the arts", they have zero interest *in* these topics -- zero, nada, zilch -- aside from the delicious, vicarious feeling of power that ensues from invoking such subjects as proofs of the genetically predestined greatness of the European race.
Newton, Copernicus, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Virgil, Dante, Michaelangelo, etc.... the point of these men's lives is not to be found in the aspirations to which their lives were dedicated. Oh, but no.
Rather, the point of the lives all these "white men" is that they provide a useful reservoir of names for the white nationalist to draw upon, when seeking to reinforce his self-esteem.
Should a paleoconservative (or anybody else) show excessive interest in what any of the aforementioned philosophers, poets, or scientists actually did, actually said, or actually thought about the world, then he will be attacked for (in the words of Mr. Haller) "engaging in lots of jesuitical arguing" and discussing questions which are "ridiculously unimportant."
Hence the white nationalist's attitude toward the truths expressed in Anglo-Saxon heritage is ... similar to how a modern Marxist "gets off" on talking about scientific progress -- yet feels no awe when gazing upon a starry sky, nor any desire to learn about the beacons which illuminate it.
No time for relativity theory, or the Big Bang -- there's a political rally to go to, and a manifesto to compose, and Power to be slobbered over.
In short, the white nationalist doesn't really give a damn about white people, any more than the Marxist really gives a damn about science.
"to take at face value what other Christians have parroted down through the centuries..."
Note that those contemptible Christian parrots are the very ancestors whom racialists claim to hold in such high, blood-bound esteem.
Give it a rest, G.S.
If you wish to discuss literature and science, philosophy or religion, start the discussion, many will oblige you.
Even Stormfront has sections devoted entirely to the subjects you claim NO racialist ever talk about. I noticed they even had a thread devoted to astronomy pictures.
Are you saying that William Pierce had no interest in science? Revilo P. Oliver was ignorant of history and literature?
It is true that quite a few "rednecks" have no interest in these subjects, just as a high percentage of devout Christians are totally ignorant of science or literature. True?
However, I would not make so sweeping a generalization as "In short, Christians don't really give a damn about science, any more than the Moslems really give a damn about women. "
What was that you were saying about the ignorant shooting their mouth off?
It has been interesting to read this thread. Quite a lot of the posts made at least one good point. I intend on reading more articles and threads here in order to understand this brand of conservatism.
For my own part, I have become very concerned with the USA's most recent efforts to merge church and state wherever possible. I do not believe in a god of any type. Sure, Jesus existed, but he was just another person who needed to believe in something unseen. Is it plausible that in early development of human society 'religion' was an easy method to systamatize a group's efforts, decisions, time and thoughts? I believe human beings are now capable of doing those things without a framework heldover from less elevated times which metes out how to 'be good' or face the consequences.
Obviously, governments also seek to organize a given population's efforts, time, etc. The advantage of a government such our own, as opposed to a religion is the adherents are free to change the system. This is why the constant undertone of christianity in our government is so awful to me. Religions take generations to develop meaningful change and that is starting to be true of the US government as well. There are other contributing factors to America's stagnation but perhaps this is the one not enough people acknowledge.
However our habits and ethics came to be, why is it so hard to believe that we are capable of developing our own system of ethics without the organized hand of religion? How much nicer a world to live in would ours be if we valued the reality we can see - there is no higher power, we are all dirt and responsible for ourselves and each other?
What I actually said was "the white nationalist doesn’t really give a damn about white people, any more than the Marxist really gives a damn about science." -- and perhaps this *was* a flawed statement.
A more illustrative & properly parallel generalization would be, "In short, the white nationalist doesn’t really give a damn about white people, any more than the Marxist really gives a damn about the working man."
I wouldn't use cosmotheism, *The Turner Diaries*, or an academic who subscribed to materialism (surprise, surprise) as examples of WN interest in science, literature, and deep pondering of the human condition. It's poor salesmanship.
G.S. no real offense, but you really don't have a handle on things you speak of. For example your statement on Ocam's Nominalism, in the Beowulf thread, shows you have a poor grasp on material you tell of.
Your ranting on materialism sounds like you just came from a hick preacher's sermon, himself not understanding the meaning of words he has been taught to rail against.
Tell me, if a thief steals your wallet, do you automatically allow that your wallet is now his? I point this out because so many allow journalists and others to "steal" words and give them improper meanings, and from then on, everyone assumes that is the correct meaning of the word.
"Materialism" and "Humanism" are examples of such stolen words. Much like the word "gay" was long ago hijacked and given a new meaning.
When a person who is not a Liberal, respectable Conservative like Bill O"Reilly, or a preacher uses words like Materialism and Humanism or Humanist, they mean something quite different. Humanism, for example, is essentially what was once known as a Classical education i.e., study of literature, classical languages and literature, some science and math, history, etc. It WAS not what modern Liberals and respectable Conservatives say it is. Just because San Francisco homosexuals say they may be "secular humanists" doesn't mean they are. Some of them say they are Christians. So, using your logic, they must be, right?
By the way, the academician who wrote "Turner Diaries" was a physicist.
He was smart enough to know that you have to use religion to appeal to most people, hence cosmotheism.
As for your continuing assertion about WN's not having interest in science literature or White people, etc., the reason this may seem to be the case is because you guys who like Beowulf and such evidently cannot be bothered to take the time to defend your loves, hence someone else has to take up your slack and doesn't have the time.
While you guys have been pondering a few literary passages, our enemies have essentially eliminated study of these great works. The result is they are being forgotten by most White people. Unfortunately, since you and many other "cultured" men are petrified of being called a racist or NAZI, you only meakly if anything speak out.
I think you get my point.
#63 If you point out what goes on in the world you are considered a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
"....because you guys who like Beowulf and such evidently cannot be bothered to take the time to defend your loves, hence someone else has to take up your slack and doesn’t have the time."
This is an interesting point.
However, it might be worth considering how much better off Americans would be today, had less energies been spent during the Cold War on defending the country from Communism, promoting the conservative movement, or any other sort of worldly activism, etc., etc., ...... and more energies expended instead upon "angels dancing on the head of a pin" - type questions.
Such as, say, the definition of words such as patriotism, which has today come to mean loyalty to a government vice loyalty to a culture, people, and homeland.
One of the reasons this society is in the state it is in, is because people have spent too much time on activism and not enough time on knowing who they are and where they come from -- the sort of knowledge one only gets from songs, poetry, and literature. Not studying Machiavellian politics and various strategies for acquiring power.
In many cases what has happened is that the activist -- whether Republican, evangelical, or WN -- no longer has a clear or holistic idea of what he is "defending".
Trying to defend and revive the white race by disdaining 2,000 years of Christian tradition -- a la Oliver -- is akin to the New Southerner telling his brethren that the South will be better and stronger as soon as it drops its backwards ways and adopts those of the Yankee. Hey, you can "win" -- just so long as you're willing to morph into something your ancestors would have found abhorrent.
"Unfortunately, since you and many other “cultured” men are petrified of being called a racist..."
Actually I have been called a racist, on numerous occasions -- though I can't say anybody has ever mistaken me for being cultured.
At one point during a college seminar I responded with "So what?" to another student's repeated assertion that a certain position was racist -- not because I was sympathetic to racism then, either, but simply because it was thought-policing.
You can imagine the response of my classmates, much less my instructor.
Not to be provocative on a dead thread, but I don't think I need lectures from you about willingness to take abuse for one's convictions. It might be worth considering that the reason we don't promote your views is not because we are too timid to, but simply because we don't share them.
My impression that nominalism denotes a denial of language's connection to transcendent truth comes primarily via the lens of Richard Weaver. Having read Lucretius, I feel safe in assuming that I understand materialism at least as well as yourself.
G.S.,
"You can imagine the response of my classmates, much less my instructor."
I see.
You may change some of your views as time goes by.
"My impression that nominalism denotes a denial of language’s connection to transcendent truth comes primarily via the lens of Richard Weaver. Having read Lucretius, I feel safe in assuming that I understand materialism at least as well as yourself."
Look up an essay by H.L. Mencken on Veblen Thorstein. (Hint, it's about your writing style.)
"You may change some of your views as time goes by."
As may you.
I do like Mencken, he's hilarious -- actually I once wrote an article for a small-press magazine on the fascinating tete-a-tete btwn him and John Crowe Ransom re/ religion.
However --religion aside-- Mencken's dismissal of poetry as a means of grasping truth represents a fundamentally problematic blind spot.