The Great Replacement Consciousness Test: Part III – Religion and Diversity

The Temple of all religions in Kazan, Russia

Below is a link to the original piece I am critiquing, published on Nevermore Media:

The Great Replacement - Is it a Thing?

---

No, religious differences do not matter

No Great Replacement promo would be complete without the obligatory Islam-bashing. Henderson’s relatively short and sweet treatise on ‘Islam – Bad, Christianity – Good’, is subtitled Religious Differences Matter. The highly complex and nuanced argument offered up is that Mohammed galloped around the Arabian peninsula brandishing a sword and Jesus preached peace and healed the sick…ergo…

The old fashioned and boring way to question whether an ideology, religious or otherwise, is a reliable determinant of behavioural outcomes is to… wait for it… examine the behavioural outcomes.

The best place to start is where we are right now, because the present moment represents an accumulation of centuries of the Christian West’s will to power. It wasn’t Islam that shut the entire planet down and injected more than half of humanity with a poison. Islam is not promising to make humans data nodes in an internet of bodies and things. Islam has not brought us to the abyss of financial slavery, and a digital gulag run by the AI god. Islam actually eschews money usury, although I imagine it has its loopholes. Hilariously, it wasn’t even Islam that invented al-Qaeda and all its offshoot Islamic terror groups. It was the ‘Christian’ CIA who nurtured Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and has been using it ever since to wreak Zionist havoc in the reshaping of the Middle East.

And again, all of this is dismissed in a facile way with:

“Yes Christians have committed many crimes but you can always hold them to account with their own standard by pointing out that their behavior is un-Christlike.”

So, the Satanists at the upper echelons of every major Western institution influencing our day-to-day lives…how are we doing with holding them to account by pointing out that their behaviour is un-Christlike. Someone should have told the freedom movement much earlier that all we had to do was send 650 Bibles to the Houses of Parliament. All this crap would have been over in a jiffy.

“What would Jesus do? Is not an alarming thing to hear: What would Muhammad do? is unsettling, and rightly so”, says Henderson. If he had asked himself the question: what would Jesus do? Before he bashed away at Islam in this trite way, he might not have engaged in Islam-bashing, which I’m afraid is what he did. The proper Christian thing to do is to love thy neighbour, not tell them their religion is “unsettling”.

Now, I am not trying to argue that Muslim culture is better than Western culture. I really do like living in London and would not trade it for Islamabad or Riyad. As weird as this may sound to Henderson, I am now, for all intents and purposes, a Westerner, but I have a perspective that allows me to be a little more critical. To reiterate my position on culture – if you want to present any culture as a Good Thing, you must put both its horrors and its beauty on the scales and prove a net positive. That is an exercise in futility, but if you’re going to try it, I would suggest that Henderson’s less-than-rigorous approach is risible.

When you get right down to it, Muslims have not been any more violent than Christians, and Christians are not the peacemakers that Christ would have wanted them to be. I’m also quite sure that many readers could send me a list of crimes committed in the name of Islam that would make me weep. What I’m asking readers to consider is moving away from the zero-sum, and innately false, paradigm of: ‘my religion Good, your religion Bad’.

How religion impacts the behaviour of large groups of people is far more complex than Henderson’s simplistic thesis that “Muhammad and Jesus set very different examples.” Religious ideology, good or bad, is generally not taken at face value by religionists. It gets processed in the most complicated, sometimes-flawed, sometimes-brilliant, meaning-making machine called the human mind. What humans do, or don’t do, with religious ideas depends on their level of consciousness. The religion is (ab)used to advance whatever agendas humans find expedient in the circumstances they end up in.

This is because religion is not the same thing as spirituality or consciousness. It is therefore possible for two people with different religions to operate at similar spiritual or consciousness levels. Whether those levels are low or high is irrelevant – they will agree. Thus, the world is filled with nominally Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu peacemakers working together in a true spirit of love and friendship to solve conflict.

We have been presented with a problem – the problem of religion. Our overlords have been instrumental in stoking this fire. They want you to view the problem through the lens of religious conflict – one religion is better than the other, and so one must win. Henderson is solving the problem presented to him in exactly the way his overlords would like. If you want to please your overlords, join Qu’appelle and Henderson.

If you want to beat your overlords, you have to reframe the problem before you try to solve it. You have to operate at a different level of consciousness to the one your overlords are inviting you to operate at.

The nature of the threat, or whether there even is one, depends entirely on your own spiritual alignment and paradigm setting. That will determine your capacity to reframe the problem differently than the way it was presented to you. Voluntaryism is the reframing, and it’s tragic that Qu’appelle, a self-declared voluntaryist, has missed the point. Religious differences don’t matter if you’re a voluntaryist in spirit, not name. That’s the starting point. A voluntaryist world is one in which everyone gets to choose their spiritual or religious belief system on the understanding that they can’t enforce that system on others in any way.

Thus the public square becomes a neutral place in which we interact on the bread-and-butter things required to live – work, trade, and so on. We can even engage in entertainment and exchange of ideas in the public square as long as everyone understands that those exchanges are not an imposition of ideas on anyone. If the ideas or entertainment offend your religious principles, you make a free choice not to attend those exchanges.

Then there is religion which operates in the private sphere, and it does not matter, because the public square is unaffected. That is the ethos behind separation of Church and State. We interact in the public square on principles governed by universal principles of Natural Law which can be respected by all faiths, and we follow our separate faiths in the private sphere.

Being a voluntaryist doesn’t mean you have to ditch your religion. Instead, it gives you a paradigm to apply your religion in a way that lifts your level of consciousness.

The point I want to drive home, and will repeat, as I close my arguments is that if you view the problem in exactly the same way your enemy does, or in the way they want you to, you will end up working with them, not against them.

Diversity – a Good or Bad Thing?

Henderson tackles diversity under two subtitles: More Diversity = Fewer Whites and The Tower of Babel. The first one communicates the existential fear:

“A call for increased diversity in a white majority nation is to say that the white percentage is too high, and consequently must be lowered and replaced with “diversity” (anyone other than whites).”

The second one answers Rodney King’s famous question: “Can we all get along?” with an emphatic: No. That is my interpretation of Henderson’s words. Here are Henderson’s actual words:

“Diversity is Strength is as Orwellian as War is Peace. The more multicultural our society the more divided it is, the less common ground there is between us, the less we understand each other, the less we trust each other and the less cohesion our society has.”

In other words, Henderson fears difference and is advocating for sameness, or certainly as much of it as he can lay his hands on.

As with religion, we have been presented with a problem – the problem of diversity. Henderson sees it exactly as our overlords want him to – in a way that fractures solidarity. So, how can we reframe diversity?

We need to recognise that two types of diversity have sprung up in our societies. One has always been there – natural diversity. The other is a synthetic diversity being forced on us. It is in fact diversity’s opposite but, as evidenced by Henderson’s piece, many have fallen into the binary trap that has been set. The synthetic diversity is causing people to lash out against natural diversity as it unfolds in our communities between people. Divide and rule.

Let me be clear – I am not in favour of quotas which are a form of forced or synthetic diversity. A team of 10 people tasked with solving a problem and who happen to be all white could be far more diverse in their thinking than a multi-coloured group. Skin colour might, on some occasions, be proximal to diversity, but it is not the ultimate cause of it.

An example of forced or synthetic diversity is when you receive an email at work informing you that a certain cultural event that is perhaps important to a certain minority is being celebrated that week, and it would be a really nice idea if everyone joined in, with not joining in implicitly frowned on. That is forced diversity or synthetic diversity, and a breach of the barriers between public and private squares. I don’t have any time for this sort of nonsense. I imagine that this is where people like Henderson and I agree. But I also imagine that people like Henderson have come to view that sort of imposition as ‘multiculturalism’, and so he attacks it as ‘multiculturalism’ when in fact it should be attacked as forced or synthetic diversity.

When I think of what multiculturalism should be, and perhaps what it was initially intended to be, I see it as the simple recognition that there is a majority living alongside minorities, and we should all try to get along, à la Rodney King, in a spirit of tolerance, with the strict proviso that the public and private boundaries aren’t leaky. There are many members of the majority who might be curious about minority cultural practices, and they’re obviously welcome to satisfy their curiosity in the private sphere.

And by the way, a public and private boundary would be necessary even if there were no minorities in the Great Replacement sense of the word. I don’t think Euro-Canadians are exactly one big happy family when we take into account the cultural tensions that have waxed and waned between French Canadians and Anglo Canadians.

In defence of diversity as a principle, we must acknowledge that it is written into the fabric of nature itself. No-one in their right mind contemplates the extinction of flora and fauna as a Good Thing. Nature is greedy for difference because it offers resilience for survival. The crucial thing here is that nature does it all on its own. There is no external force, none that we can see anyway, imposing a diversity agenda on nature. Global capitalism is anti-nature and anti-human because it is forcing a synthetic consumer culture of sameness across the globe and eradicating differences in behaviour, ideas and thought. Most people have no problem recognising this, and yet lash out at ‘diversity’ because of the negative baggage that global capitalism’s synthetic diversity agenda attaches to it.

How does diversity apply in human interactions? As long as it isn’t forced, the results are generally fantastic. Different cultures (that word again…I’m trying to use it positively now) are continuously ‘stealing’ ideas from each other and making them better or adapting them to their own circumstances. The woke mob are sometimes prone to calling this natural exchange of ideas ‘cultural appropriation’, which I argue is an oxymoron, because you can’t steal something that is naturally available, in the same way you can’t be accused of stealing the air you breathe.

Culture is nothing less than the social manifestation of human thought. Cultural appropriation – the natural exchange of ideas between humans – is as human and inevitable as thought itself because no human being, whether an artist, author, inventor or individual engaging in a hobby, creates anything in complete isolation. The history of all genres of pop music is a story of how artists from diverse backgrounds fused their own individuality with different musical cultures in a process of continuous innovation. The same can be said for the exchange of ideas in all other areas of life.

Does Henderson want to put the brakes on this? I doubt he does. He wants to halt immigration. Okay, but why take a machine gun to diversity at the same time? Or is he really afraid of natural diversity that occurs within and between communities of people of different backgrounds? When I examine his attack on diversity, I see someone trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I doubt whether he really wants to impoverish his life by trashing diversity and advocating for sameness.

So, why is he trashing diversity as a principle? His journey to seeing the Great Replacement as ‘a thing’ seems to have been accompanied by an emotional attachment to his skin colour. Such an attachment leads to the interpretation of more diversity – more immigrants of another colour – as an existential threat.

Henderson appears to me to be confused about diversity because, when you get right down to it, wanting whites to “stick around” is essentially a defence of diversity – the more skin colours there are in the world, the more diverse it is. It is therefore against his own interests to veer off and attack numerous strawman proxies for non-whiteness. The best way to preserve his tribe of whiteness is to respect the tribe of non-whiteness.

In his conclusion he states: “I don’t want whites themselves to go the way of the dodo, and I wish the dodo hadn’t either”. I agree wholeheartedly with him. I don’t want a world of sameness. I want difference. Diversity is just another name for difference. Not only am I not afraid of it, but I believe we need it. Henderson, on the other hand, wants to attack diversity/difference because he feels it is attacking him. He, and we, can defend diversity and whiteness since the two are not in conflict, but there is no need to drag others down. Thinking that whiteness can only be defended by creating a conflict with blackness (Black fright crime stats) or religion (the sword-wielding Mohammed) is both contradictory and self-defeating. In short, if you’re going to defend whiteness, one of the reasons would be to preserve diversity!

As we know, the Satanists running this shit-show are inversion practitioners. They strive to make the good evil, and the evil good. That’s what they’re doing with diversity. They have weaponised something which, when allowed to occur organically in nature and human communities, is a Good Thing. And they have weaponised it by making it forced and synthetic. If you take the bait and start waging a wholesale attack on diversity without thinking carefully about it, you are doing their work for them. You are viewing the problem in exactly the way they want you to.

Diversity is another strawman. Perhaps the synthetic, forced version of it is making people construct arguments advocating for its wholesale trashing. Diversity as a principle doesn’t need to be part of an argument to object to high levels of immigration from anywhere that is not consented to by the native population. Tackle the immigration head-on.

Tackling some of the causes of immigration is a thorny subject for me because I don’t believe you get to consent to your government actively supporting foreign wars while also rejecting the blowback consequence of migration from the war zones. I recognise that we are not given a choice when our so-called democracies enthusiastically sponsor armed conflict abroad but, as I argue in the next section, that is the ultimate problem we need to focus on. We don’t have democracy in any meaningful way, and if an alleged Great Replacement turns out to be a valid problem, it won’t get solved until we resolve the primary cause – an utterly broken system that offers no meaningful avenues for people making all the choices and not politicians.

Henderson does actually mention the economic harm caused by immigration in the form of wage suppression but he devotes only a couple of sentences to it, and this brief moment of sanity is smothered by his wild strawman bayonetting.

This concludes my attempt to dismantle the strawmen erected by Henderson – indigenous people’s record of savagery, crime, Hollywood and the you-know-who’s, religion, diversity. The purpose they serve in the Great Replacement armoury is to distract attention, wittingly or unwittingly, from the core issues, which I will discuss in the final piece.