>>2993>You mean, the grandeur that Christianity fundamentally denies and rejects? The grandeur that a Jew loses the moment he converts to Christianity?
The Jew's supremacist mentality carried itself to the Christians, so instead of ethnic supremacy you've got religious supremacy, with all sorts of Christians, from St. Paul to Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas, bashing everyone under the sun for even the most minor theological disagreement, never mind their disdain for everyone who isn't a Christian.
And it's not like the Jewish supremacist element is completely gone from Christianity. Ask any of the mainstream Protestant denominations and they'll tell you that the Jews are still YHWH's chosen despite their hostility to Christ.
>You seem to be just kvetching about how you don't want anything that comes from the Jews, as if different peoples could only possibly see greater planes of existence through exclusively local lens.
That's not it at all. My view is that if
Christianity is indeed the one truth that the creator of the Universe bestowed on Mankind, it would not be so culture-specific as the Judeo-Christian mode of thought and philosophy. Its mode of thought, its parables, its teachings and its attitudes are uniquely middle eastern in general outline and Jewish in particular. Whether that Jewishness is a good or bad thing is entirely up to the opinion of the observer, but it is nonetheless present.
>One of these is not like the other. "My Kingdom is not of this world" is an important assertion, because it means wordly political activities won't save the world.
It is nonetheless the spiritual equivalent of the two secular philosophies. Or rather, the two are the secular equivalent of Christianity. We've been waiting close to 2000 years for Christ to return and it still hasn't happened. Just like we could wait for 2000 years for Marxist or Globalist goals to come into fruition and it still won't happen, because like Christianity, those two fail to grasp how the world actually works. They misunderstand (or consciously misrepresent) world history and the nature of Man.
Abrahamic philosophy starts out with an ideal which is impossible for Man to practice and then castigates Man for failing to live up to said ideal. It starts with the premise that Man is guilty at birth and must then beg for forgiveness for the sin of the first man which happened long before he was born. Much like Marxism and Globalism, Abrahamism insists that its ideal is good but that Man's nature is not good enough to practice it. So whether one advocates for the engineering of a New Socialist Man or for submission to Christ to absolve oneself of sin, one offers a solution for a problem which does not inherently exist, but a problem one has created oneself by presenting an unrealistic ideal for Man to follow.
>fascism's promise of utopia through mass murder
Fascists, or at the very least, National Socialists are indeed misguided in their mode of thinking. Plus, I don't condone the mass murder of Jews if that's what you think. I only wish them luck in their Middle Eastern homeland, where hopefully all of them will return one day and fully re-establish their ancient nation and reconstruct their temple.
>If you think they don't have any roots in the Enlightenment, 19th century thought and Western philosophy in general you're completely ignorant.
The Enlightenment came from a Christian context. Uniquely European pre-Christian philosophies were indeed influential in the Enlightenment, but were largely limited to the three major Greek ones - Socratism, Aristotelianism and Platonism. Enlightenment philosophy never really strayed from Christian metaphysics that much. For example, egalitarianism (which is more or less the key feature of Modernism) is a largely Christian concept even if modern day atheists, liberals and leftists have adopted it into their ideologies.