The Meek Inherit the Dirt: It is Time to Reject Christianity Entirely

Occidental civilization is characterized by its achievements. If the men of Europe so esteemed by historians and so reviled by Marxists feared anything, it could be said they were afraid of mediocrity. Caesar was a conqueror, Caligula a political genius, Aurelius a philosopher: and these are only the Romans. Arminius proved that any army can defeat a force many times its size simply with strategy, preparation, and furor. Alaric saw Rome, in all its Italic glory, and made it become Gothic, making his people like the Phoenix, fading to obscurity only to rise more powerful and splendidly than before.

Still I speak only of the ancient world. Love him or hate him, Philip Le Bel did what nearly no other ruler had done throughout history: he conquered God. Before him, all the nations of Europe bowed before the Vatican, as every monarch had honored the priests in his empire across the globe. After King Philip, the Popes knelt to kings as if the curtain had been lifted, and their weaknesses were forever exposed. The philosophers rose, Spinoza paved the way for Voltaire, Voltaire for Rousseau, and these writings, passed down through centuries, inspired Jefferson in America and in France, they called to action one Robespierre.

With Revolutions came the concept of the citizen, and with the concept of the citizen, the idea of Nationalism, and with that came the Age of Empire we are all now taught to hate, though even the most Marxist among us secretly admires this time.

Through this, I only named names which were recorded. Caesar accomplished so much by the bravado of his legions; King Philip by the might of the French Knights and Robespierre by the willpower of the French people. Napoleon is famously quoted “Generals do not win wars, soldiers do. But all too often, Generals get the credit.” Indeed, it is not the general, but the soldier who conquers. It is not the philosopher, but the reader who idealizes. The concept must be realized by the mass, not just developed by one. Civilization is advanced only by those who say “I can make this happen.”

Unfortunately for the Occident, it has been dealing with a disease, a cancer, for the past two millennia. This cancer metastasized from that catalog of lies told by Jesus of Nazareth. It then was added to by his disciples of the twenty centuries which followed his existence. This lie is called Christianity, and we will concentrate on this lie for this essay.

Dear reader, if there is but one trait Christianity prizes among all others in the individual, it is meekness. Even more so than charity, Christians instill in their offspring the characteristics of timidity, passivity, and tolerance that compose those meek in character we find ourselves simultaneously pitying and despising. I intend to demonstrate, over the following pages, that meekness is not a virtue, as modern society, and Christians in particular, would have you believe. I contend that meekness is the cause of nearly all of the world’s ills.

Meek Are Slaves

A master expects but one mode of behavior from his slaves: he expects them to be meek. He expects not only subservience but grovelling respect. This is so much true that in the feudal ages of European civilization, peasantry were forbidden from making eye contact with their superiors. Instead, these unfortunates were to speak only when spoken to, and to keep their heads bowed, their eyes facing the earth. In feudal Japan, the peasantry was expected to be even more meek, accepting a sentence of death on the mere whim of some passing noble, going so far as to willingly expose their necks for the blade.

And slaves, having lived their whole lives in bondage, know no other mode of being other than meekness. The courage to rebel is beaten out of them, the ingenuity to escape is strangled with the fear of brutal repercussions meted out on the families of a few past escapees. The people of North Korea, who live a miserable existence under an oppressive regime, are slaves. There exists no normal citizen in the Hermit Kingdom on the Korean Peninsula; rather it is a small class of masters and a large class of slaves. The slaves could overpower the master, if they did rise as one, but the cost in flesh blood is too great to each individual, and their meek personalities, ingrained into them from birth, make them cowards happy to accept things as they are.

Any aspiring despot desires a meek populace because he desires an enslaved populace. Inheriting a throne might achieve these goals without effort. Such a dreamer that is first-born to a successful despot under the practice of primogeniture will inherit a nation of slaves. The Kim dynasty of North Korea, again, serves as one such example. However, one cannot philosophize in a bubble. The Dynastic Cycle applies to the modern day just as much as it did when it was first theorized in Ancient China. 

A despot inheriting a throne may find that thousands, perhaps even millions, of slaves come with his crown. However, he also must make concessions to a ruling class. This ruling class, composed of military officers, court officers, and other such accomplished individuals can easily make a slave out of their king. Utilizing the trivial joys of life, the licentious nature of each individual, a clever enclave of government officials can tame the throne, acting as if they were the man behind the curtain. Such was the case of Tiberius. But this goes beyond the scope of this written piece.

An aspiring despot, who wishes to gain his throne without having to appease and instead prefers to be appeased, must be seen as brutal and ruthless. Those he wishes to subjugate must have meekness thrust upon them, denying them the alternative of death so many claim to be preferable, yet so few would actually accept. Julius Caesar did break the Celts of Gaul in both battle and then under the yoke of bondage. A once terrifying and proud people were reduced, within a generation, to beasts of burden.

And this was not only done with the aim of enslaving the Celts, but with the even more ambitious aim of enslaving the whole of the Roman Republic. Showing himself a capable and vicious general, Julius Caesar did return to Rome. His return violated Senate orders, and this violation may not have explicitly said he would to the Italian Peninsula and the Eternal City what he had done to the Gauls, but at the very least, such a fate was implied. It cannot be shocking then, that Roman Senators afraid of being themselves put into the same chains they had legislated for others, did assassinate the dictator before the final blow could be struck.

A civil war ensued and Augustus Caesar claimed the position of Emperor. Roman History from that point on remained a tug of war between the tyranny of one man, and the tyranny of several in the Senate. Once again, this leads to beyond the scope of this written piece, so I will say no more regarding Roman politics.

However, Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, and breaking the Gauls, shows us something. He was a capable general, had devoted legions at his command, and was not stingy on crucifying his enemies. His main rival, Pompey the Great (who called himself that and whom history has forgotten so much that his only real significance now is his inspiration for the word “pompous”) did as Caesar did in Anatolia, Syria, and Palestine. He, too, expanded Roman borders and stocked Roman brothels with beautiful slave girls. However, he was stopped in Egypt when he met with the very unfortunate inconvenience of being outwitted and having his head removed from his neck. Julius Caesar was only one miscalculation, at all times, from meeting a similar fate – which he eventually did.

This should tell us something. A proud people, a people ready to do war, will not readily accept meekness as a virtue. Julius Caesar had to wage war and commit a genocide in order to get the Gauls to become meek. People will naturally resist becoming a slave. Only a meek man is a slave. A man who is proud but in chains will only connive some way to use those chains against whatever fool claims to be his master. And should this chained man fail, he will be killed, and so be it. At least he did not one thing for the fool.

So, dear reader, how does an aspiring despot, knowing the fates of those like him such as Pompey or Julius, claim his nation of slaves without risking his own head?

This is the question I hope to answer satisfactorily in this piece.

Pagan Heroes Contrasted With Christian Heroes

I should like to present you with an anecdote, dear reader, if you will so permit me and not discontinue reading. I do know how some cringe at personal anecdotes.

I believe my earliest and regular readers will remember that I once mentioned I spent my youth in indoctrination camps known as Catholic schools. And I have always had a love of reading.

As one would expect, I was somewhat enthralled with the stories of the ancient world. From Egypt to Greece, I took great pleasure in reading about the feats of their heroes, both real and mythological. Heroes here range from Horus to Hercules, from Achilles to Spartacus.

Whatever these men’s actions, both good and bad (for example, for those unaware, Hercules was cursed with madness by a jealous Hera and killed his whole family), they are not heroes because of their adherence to virtues, but because they changed the course of society, politics, and indeed, history. They were not meek men who “gave unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” or turned the other cheek as that insidious bastard from Bethlehem commanded men to do. Spartacus was expected to be made meek, and yet waged such a war against his masters, with such pride unbecoming his class did he break his chains, that despite the inevitable failure of his stand, his name echoes through the centuries and even still today inspires the downtrodden and oppressed.

Or even my own ancestry, the Germanic who were so barbaric and violent that the Germans regularly failed to conquer them. Arminius is a hero from the forests of Germania, belonging the Cherusk tribe. West and South of the Rhine, he was considered a traitor and a villain. North and East of that river which today divides France and Germany, he was considered a patriot and a hero. Both Roman and German recognized one thing about this man: he was a unifier and a capable commander. He did not exhibit the virtues of meekness, but instead demonstrated why this Christian ethic is actually a vice. He demonstrated that defeat is a decision, and the Germans, though vastly outnumbered by three Roman legions, made not this decision and successfully annihilated these would be conquerors. In this, they accepted not the chains Spartacus sought to break. They chose to either kill, or at least die on their feet.

Contrast this with the Christian saints I was forced to read and repeat their “accomplishments” to my Catholic teachers. In the Roman era, we had to venerate and celebrate people who went happily to gruesome deaths, who offered no resistance because of their meekness. They did not overthrow Nero or avenge their loved ones. Rather, they died; and they did so not with a bang like Spartacus, but with the whimpering of a cow to its slaughter. Their names were not venerated by their enemies, as Spartacus’ or Arminius’ – men who had earned the respect and even the admiration of the opposing side – but instead their names were quickly forgotten. The only reason their names live on is because the Church preserved them, forcing children to memorize these annals of weakness instead of learning about great philosophers, brilliant generals, and powerful soldiers. 

Being a child and not knowing any better, I feigned my smile as I read and recounted the Catholic saints who had gone to their deaths without the courage to fight. A saint, St. Blaise, is the patron saint of sore throats. Why? Because on his way to martyrdom, it is said he healed a child (of his oppressor) from choking on a fishbone. He was meek, and a slave of his enemy so much he valued his enemy’s life more than his own. I had to look him up to recall his name because outside of some silly Catholic ritual, it means nothing. He was, in truth, a coward, despite all the blabbering by Catholics to the contrary. 

Yet every young boy knows the name of Spartacus. They know the name of Achilles. These names perpetuate through the ages due to their heroism.

In addition to being forced to celebrate such cowardly supplicants as Blaise, I was also forced to learn other saints who had, in truth, done nothing but been pious. Locking themselves away in a monastery or convent, making up stories about seeing Jesus or Mary, and sometimes going as far as to mutilate themselves, my classmates and I were forced to look at these obvious examples of mental aberration and not only say that this was good, but proclaim our own desires to emulate such idiocy and insanity. Is it any real wonder that so many people brought up with these Christian virtues are so conflicted?

In Catholic schools, the campaign against real virtue also existed. Heroes like Spartacus or Arminius were barely mentioned. The Goths who took Rome weren’t even a footnote in the history classes. It was thought more important for young boys and girls to memorize the lives miserable do-nothings who contributed nothing to their societies, because they were venerated as saints.

One egregious example was that of our being forced to praise that international conartist Mother Teresa. Not unlike the fictional villain Carmen San Diego of the same decade, this nun would jet about the world in search of funds. However, unlike her computer game counterpart, the Albanian money grubber made no efforts at keeping a low profile. She instead ate at fabulous banquets, accepted gifts and awards from powerful prominent people of the day, and sold grown idiots in the West all the poverty porn they could ever want. 

Despite the evidence of her criminality, her lack of concern for those she adopted as her patients, and her cruel treatment of those she claimed to care for the most, we were kept totally unaware of these stark realities. We could not be exposed to the fact that such a saintly woman was a fraud, lest we start to question other saints, and possible even Mother Church!

Another example was Catholic star John Corapi, who fabricated a backstory about being a drug addict who, despite having not a penny to his name most of the time, rubbed elbows with those sinners in Hollywood and the devils of the Rock n Roll scene. The obvious lie was happily accepted by many Catholics because it showed the redeeming power of Jesus’ word. My family, being good people but obsessed with the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings to a point it negatively affected their child, would make it a point to watch this charlatan’s circus every Saturday, so we might indulge our fantasies with the fibs and fabrications he’d tell. Of course, it should come as no surprise, dear reader, that John Corapi raked in millions of dollars with this song and dance. Does it surprise you that he kept a private fleet of motorcycles as well as a mistress?

My point being that we were forced to celebrate the lives of the saints. Yet how many of them were frauds like Teresa or John? How many of them invented tales about seeing Jesus, selling some trinket they made, such as the rosary, telling idiots that this was the divine gift of the Lord of the World? Yet we could not question this, for to do so would be unmeek and proud. In fact, often any questioning of such idiocy was deemed to be stemming from pride. Worse yet, being excited by Celts or Germans or Greeks or Romans was condemned. It was seen as having a tendency towards violence, and violence is not the tool of the meek.

Saints Further Considered

With the exception of a select few, like Joan of Arc, the majority of Catholic saints were individuals who wasted their time engaged in prayer, wasted their resources on charity, and wasted themselves on being meek. I think it should be unsurprising that these are so heavily pushed as heroes onto youth so in need of heroes by power-hungry money grubbers like the Pope. 

Those select few are always those who, in some manner, improved the standing of the Catholic Church. Joan of Arc, for example, expanded the power of the Holy See back into the geographical region of France which was, at that time, owned by the English. However, similar men, even those who accomplished far greater feats, are ignored by the Church. Men who led rebellions against tyrants did so knowing full well it caused some decline in the intake to the Papal coffers. Thus, they are bad. 

Philip Le Bel, who made France a formidable power in the 1300s is not considered a saint for, among other, legitimate reasons, it was he who castrated the Roman Catholic Church when he set up the Avignon Papacy.

Vlad Dracul, sometimes called Vlad the Impaler is not considered a saint even though he defended Catholic Europe from Seljuk invasion for virtually the entirety of his life. His methods were undoubtedly violent, but was Joan of Arc’s military campaign somehow peaceful?

Let us not forget the Vatican’s condemnations of justified rebellions and revolutions throughout history. The same pope condemned the French and American revolutions. Others like him have condemned popular movements against established tyrannical authorities, ranging from the Lateran Accords to the current pope’s condemnation of America’s nationalist revival and the popular will that the United States should determine her own destiny, for her people, and not be subject to the will of invading migrants – who mostly happen to be Catholic.

So we see that the Church wishes for its youth not to idolize the brave or daring, but the weak and submissive. It is dangerous if the majority of the underclasses have pride in themselves, for then they will lose the meekness required of them to be good slaves.

Thus we see the applause demanded of young boys, who wish to grow into heroes and scientists, philosophers and tycoons, men of accomplishment, for St. Blaise, who is said to have meekly healed a child of his persecutors. Thus, it is not the hero that the boy is being conditioned to wish to be, but the slave who, on his way to being butchered, cannot help but kiss the feet of his master once more. I think of the reports that some survivors of Gulags have made, that party members, devout Communists, who were to be executed by the Communist Party, on their way to their death, sang praises for the Communist Party and proclaimed their adherence to Communism. Is it any wonder then, that I cannot see a distinct difference in the effects of Christianity and Marxism on societies?

As a child in Catholic schools and in a deeply Catholic family, I was forced to memorize prayers in the same way that a young man entering into some secret society is expected to memorize its creeds. Unlike the wording of those creeds, which will have some meaning to the those who recite them and with that intellectual meaning some emotional impact so that the weight of the words is felt, the prayers children are forced to learn for Christianity are little more than shitty poems. What’s more repugnant is that the child is not given the choice between learning them or not. He cannot miss a week of church, less he lose the meek cloud which obfuscates his worldview and renders him an idiot. So he must learn these ridiculous hymns of praise to dead morons. 

Yet there is another reason, one more sinister which acts as a failsafe should any child escape Christianity’s clutches and become proud of his own accomplishments.

Rousseau tells us that the Goths allowed their Roman subjects games and literature which survived the fall of the Western Empire. The reason being that people distracted by the mirthful pursuits of play were less likely to engage in serious martial training, and thus presented an even less threat to the Germanic conquerors. Christianity likewise (and the Roman Catholic Church is particularly guilty of this) forces children to learn prayers to take up their time so that they may not engage in intellectual thinking which might drive them to one day challenge the ideas of Jesus of Nazareth, or, at the very least, the authority of Mother Church. A child engaged in prayer is not reading Spinozist texts or scientific explanations for things his simple mind would otherwise attribute to an almighty god.

Games and such, allowed to the Romans by the Goths, are not permitted to the child. The Goths cared very little about whether or not the Romans were proud, only that they remained impotent on the battlefield. The Church, not having an army at its disposal, wages an entirely psychological war which resembles in almost every way the one some say the CIA wages upon the American populace. They must keep the child from rebelling, and since they are bereft the use of force, they must make certain he remains too meek. Thus any game in which he might make himself a hero, any pursuit in which he might make himself proud, is strictly controlled. Prayer is the tool to prevent any pride from leaking into the blank mind of a child held captive by Christendom.

Furthermore, to prevent him from gaining any kind of capital which might set him apart from his peers and thus risking some developing sense of pride, he is told that charity is a virtue. He is told in no uncertain terms that he is responsible for taking care of those who are victims of poor decisions. To some extent, usually implicitly but often explicitly, he is told that he is responsible for their poor decisions, despite his not being present at the time. Thus he must punctuate his prayers with alms-giving. 

He is not told to be proud of his abilities, or to capitalize on them, but that he owes his abilities to those who refuse to develop their own set of skills, and, of course, for the Church. If he is strong, he expected to protect the weak, not to be an example of strength and fortitude to them – because then he might become proud. Rather, he is expected to put himself in harm’s way for those who could and would not risk themselves in the opposite scenario. If he is smart he expected to tell his knowledge to the stupid, not be an example of study and fortitude to them – because then he might become proud. Rather, he is expected to lose his intellectual edge so that all may be made equal, and thus equally worthless. If he is frugal his savings are said to be unearned, and thus he is expected to give to the impulsive and wasteful.

What’s even more cruel is that these abilities are never called honed skills. That would imply that the child undertook some endeavor and succeeded, which is something of which one should be proud. Rather, they are mockingly called gifts. This is to instill into the praying child, in his youth when he is still to stupid to separate sweet lies from stark truths, that God gave him those skills and thus he is undeserving of them. He is to repent by being charitable with those skills to those who are without them. Hence, Christianity justifies its upside-down social pyramid by setting up a hierarchy in which the resourceful, strong, intelligent, and artistic are indebted to the impulsive, weak, stupid, and dull.

And this is why, dear reader, I so often accuse Christianity of being the seed of Socialism.

It is Said Socialist Men Are Weak

I say Christianity is the seed of Socialism because both ideologies, despite being so often at odds with one another, affirm in an extreme version of inherent human value that is absolute equality. The Marxist Communists take this idea of absolute equality to the extreme, in that everyone’s share in life should be the same, regardless of actual contribution. However, the flawed idea of equality can be seen in Christianity and Socialism, and it is from Christianity that Socialism inherits this idea.

To demonstrate this, I think it necessary to work backwards, from Socialism to Christianity, rather than forwards.

If we consider how Socialism demands, in their words they so often say, “dignity for all”, the not only fail to define the word “dignity”, but they also do not say why this is good. The do not say what exactly they want, beyond universal healthcare and some constantly increasing minimum nominal wage. The excuse often given is that there are things people need, as if “need” and “deserve” are synonymous terms. But, dear reader, consider what they say: that everyone is deserving of dignity, not just those who earn it. As the saying goes, “when everyone is special, then nobody is”. Ultimately, we see from Socialist thinkers that everyone deserves to be provided for because of some inherent entitlement that comes with simply having been born.

We see this mirrored in modern Christianity, as the idea that people are inherently deserving for just showing up is a cornerstone of Christian thinking. The pro-Life movement, which is ironically the very topic on which American Christians and American Socialists will battle the hardest, is proof of this. A child is conceived, not even born yet, and finds itself totally deserving of protections that will render itself a burden onto its mother and quite possible a burden onto the State.

If a woman finds herself pregnant, knows herself unable to financially or otherwise care for the child, is forced under penalty of law to give birth, that child will, whether put up for adoption or kept by the mother, almost undoubtedly become a burden onto the rest of the citizenry. The only exemption to this is those newborns who fall victim to pedophiles.

The Christians, if they be true adherents to their faith, will collect or demand charity for every child in such a case. This is because the child exists, and is thus deserving to exist simply because of its existence. So not only the child, but its whole family are supported, a reward for failure. This is ironic, I think, as that Christianity has conducted more campaigns to demonize sexuality than any other religion in human history. Even Islam, Christianity’s closest cousin, allows for varying levels of licentious behavior. Yet Christianity has always condemned sexuality, with the notable exception of the Cromwellian Puritans, and done so with a fervor that outweighed virtually all their other efforts.

It is ironic because by supporting single mothers, they encourage female promiscuity, which is the more difficult of the two sexes to control. However, the Christian demand for charity, rooted in its fetishization of meekness and weakness, has caused it to incentivize what would be called toxic feminity, in the parlance of our times.

This turns every Christian man who donates to his church’s charity drives into a cuckold. He is not a lover of this slovenly woman, and he is not her sibling or father. He is not obligated to her in any way otherwise universally recognized. Yet he supports her, and by supporting her, he enables her. She continues her behavior that rendered her in need of charity in the first place, which is to say she behaves in a way that is most unChristian. Yet, in this case, and often in this one case (as that the alternative is abortion), the Christians refuse to consider a cessation of charity, even though that might serve to begin the founding of their virtuous society more than any of their televised programs or threats of fire and brimstone possibly could.

Christianity’s views on charity were taken by Socialism. It was decided by Socialists that everybody was obligated, indebted as it were, to the idle and the stupid. Though some Socialist systems, notably the Communists and Fascists, have simply eliminated those deemed to be societal leeches, most modern systems, especially those proposed in the United States, have applied the Christian virtue of charity to the science of economics.

It follows the justification for this mandated charity, that men are indebted to women they have never fucked and who would likely never fuck them, is founded in adopting meekness as a virtue. By demanding people to be meek, they remove pride and self-respect, and thus make the mandated charity a much easier pill to swallow.

Taking from Christianity the concept that the haves are in the debt of the have-nots, that people are entitled to the things they need, to things deemed essential to dignity. They do not have to earn these things, the way the haves have done, but are simply entitled to them. Indeed, many Socialists may proclaim themselves to be Atheists, but they very much are Christians. In America, most have simply disregarded any aspect of personal discipline, keeping instead the focus on entitlements and meekness.

And perhaps this is why so many researchers are finding that Socialist men are physically weak. The reason is twofold. Of course they are egalitarian, so they do not believe they need to improve. Much like the dreaded incel communities, who refuse to work out, improve themselves, or even gain meaningful employment, Socialist men do not wish to make themselves stand out in any way. They see there is not a reason for standing out, since their entire philosophy revolves around equality. They are just as good as those they envy, according to them. The alternative, the reality, is rejected in favor of fantasy.

This comes with the paradox of meekness. They do not have self-respect, as they have never accomplished anything. Indeed, they are quite pompous, but so are many Christians whom these Socialists emulate. However, they are extraordinarily meek. Over the course of 2020 and 2021 we watched them celebrate a reduction in their own personal rights. They never speak truth to power, often instead doing everything they can to exhibit some socially acceptable state-sanctioned virtue. Quite often, this virtue is some variant of obedience. If you remember the beginning of this essay, I explained how masters desire meek slaves because meek slaves are obedient. Thus, this obedience exhibited and flaunted by socialists is nothing but their meekness. And indeed, thanks to their actions, American cities burned. Thanks to their actions, America is experiencing the highest inflation rates in decades. Thank to their actions, the world now teeters on nuclear war.

It is time to reject meekness.