Toward a North American New RightGreg Johnson
This is the Editor’s Preface to North American New Right, vol. 1, which will be published in June 2012. I wish to thank F. Roger Devlin, Derek Hawthorne, and Matthew Peters for their helpful comments.
To plant a field or build a house, one must first clear a space. The same is true of an intellectual movement. North American New Right was created as a space for dialogue in which a new intellectual movement, a North American New Right, might emerge.
This journal began on June 11, 2010, as the “webzine” of Counter-Currents Publishing Limited (https://www.counter-currents.com). But from the very beginning, we also planned a print publication, an annual volume showcasing the best of the online journal as well as new material in a format better suited for appreciating our longer, more scholarly pieces. With this, the first volume of North American New Right, that project has now come to fruition.
Our entire project is motivated by consciousness of an existential threat. European peoples, both in our mother continent and scattered around the globe, now live under a cultural, political, and economic system that has set our race on the path to cultural decadence and demographic decline. If these trends are not reversed, whites will disappear as a distinct race. The incomparable light we bring to the world will be extinguished, and the greatness of our achievements will be preserved only in fragments, like the scraps of literature, shards of pottery, and shattered artworks that survived the wreck of pagan antiquity.
We aim to halt and reverse that process here in North America, but we also wish to learn from and contribute to the struggle of our comrades for white homelands around the globe.
The North American New Right is a “metapolitical” movement modeled on the European New Right, but adapted to our own circumstances. The goal of the North American New Right is to lay the metapolitical foundations for the emergence of a White Republic (or republics) in North America.
“Metapolitics” refers to what comes before the political, i.e., the foundations of politics, including (1) the intellectual case for a new political order, and (2) a concrete community that embodies those ideas in the present and will serve as the seed of a new political order to emerge in the future. As a journal of ideas, North American New Right naturally focuses on the intellectual dimension of metapolitics, which centers around three issues: identity, morality, and practicality.
If we are to defend the idea of a White Republic, we must first answer the question of identity: Who are we? Then we must turn to the moral question: Is it right to create a society for our people alone? And if so, we face the question of practicality: How might a White Republic be feasible?
The question of identity includes such topics as: the inadequacy of “propositional” forms of identity, e.g., the dedication of a society to abstract principles like liberty and equality; existing European regional and national identities; the problem of petty nationalism; the deep roots of our common European identity, including biological race, European history and prehistory, and the cultural diffusions revealed by comparative linguistics and mythology; the concept of collective destiny; occasions for collective pride or self-criticism, i.e., the strengths and weaknesses of our people; the Traditionalism of René Guénon and Julius Evola; the problem of identity in colonial societies like the United States and Canada, where the blending of European stocks is almost universal; and the relationship of the North American New Right to the Western political, philosophical, and cultural tradition.
A corollary of the question of who we are is the question of who we are not: the “others.” Unavoidably, this includes the Jewish question. In an ideal world, it would be possible to be for oneself without being against anybody else; but as Carl Schmitt so cogently argues, the political realm is constituted by the friend/enemy distinction, rooted in the potential for existential conflicts between groups.
Yet who and what we are for must take priority over the question of who and what we are against. Some would prefer to avoid discussion of our own identity as “divisive,” but no successful political movement can base itself exclusively on opposition to other groups.
The key moral question is whether it is right to prefer one’s own kin over others. Whites, and only whites, have become convinced otherwise. Strict ethnic impartiality would not be destructive of our race if all other races abided by the same principle, but they do not. Moreover, all contemporary Western governments reward non-white appeals to ethnic solidarity. This puts whites at a systematic disadvantage which in time will be sufficient to dispossess us of our homelands.
Indeed, our situation is far worse, for many whites consider it virtuous to prefer other groups to their own. They practice what Guillaume Faye calls “ethnomasochism” or “xenophilia.” Such attitudes, of course, accelerate white dispossession.
When whites no longer control homelands of our own, our destiny will pass into the hands of other groups, many of which have deep-seated grudges against us. We will, in effect, be a conquered people, and we will share the fates of conquered peoples, most of whom disappear from the pages of history.
Note that the question of ethnic partiality is not the issue of moral “universalism.” Partiality to one’s own people is a completely universalizable principle. So is ethnic impartiality. So are ethnomasochism and xenophilia. The reason that ethnic impartiality and ethnomasochism/xenophilia are destructive to whites is simply that they are not practiced universally and reciprocally.
Another moral issue is the question of utopia. Whites are willing to maintain racially destructive moral attitudes like ethnic impartiality or ethnomasochism/xenophilia because they believe that they are making sacrifices to bring about a better world, a world without ethnic enmity and conflict. We have to destroy this illusion before it destroys us. We need to establish that enmity and conflict are ineradicable.
But we also need to advance our own, more realistic vision of utopia: a peaceful world in which the causes of quarrel are not eliminated, but simply managed. Ethnic diversity in and of itself need not cause conflicts. Ethnic strife is, however, inevitable when diverse groups try to occupy the same living spaces. Therefore, the best way to avoid ethnic hatred and conflict is universal nationalism, i.e., giving every distinct people a country or countries of its own. A durable foundation for world peace is the recognition that all peoples have an interest in preserving the principle of national self-determination. (There is also a common interest in preserving our planetary environment.)
Dream and Reality
Before the White Republic can become reality, it must first exist as a dream, a vision of a possible world. Yet to be realizable, even a vision must be realistic. So the North American New Right has the dual task of encouraging both visionaries and realists.
To cultivate our vision, we maintain a strong focus on the arts. Art is an indispensable tool of communicating ideals, for it can reach more people, and stir them more deeply, than mere rational argument. Indeed, imagination is the fundamental source of our ideals themselves.
To encourage contemporary artists, we seek to reconnect them with our tradition. Many of the greatest artists of the last century were men of the Right, and one does not have to go back too far in history before the principles we defend were the common sense of virtually every great creative genius. We also seek to offer contemporary artists constructive criticism, publicity, and opportunities to network and collaborate.
To cultivate realism, we explore the questions of whether a White Republic is feasible and how we might get there from here. These questions can be approached from two complementary angles: theoretical and historical. Philosophy and the human sciences can tell us a good deal about what is possible or impossible, likely or unlikely. History, by contrast, is based on the actual. And if something has actually happened, it is ipso facto possible.
The examples of the Irish and the Spanish, for example, show us that European peoples who have been conquered and colonized for centuries can preserve their identities and reconquer their homelands. More recent history also gives us examples of how large, multinational, multiracial empires have collapsed, allowing their constituent nations to free themselves and create ethnically homogeneous states. History thus provides us with a vast store of examples and analogies that can help us shape our ideas and guide them toward realization.
Theory and Practice
To achieve our political aims, the North American New Right must understand the proper relationship of social theory to social change, metapolitics to politics, theory to practice. We must avoid drifting either into inactive intellectualism or unintelligent and thus possibly counterproductive activism.
Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism offers many important lessons for our project. Chapter 1, “An Assessment of the Nouvelle Droite,” is Faye’s settling of accounts with the French New Right. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Faye was among their leading thinkers and polemicists before quitting in disillusionment. After twelve years, he returned to the battle of ideas with Archeofuturism (1998), which begins with an explanation of his departure and return
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Nouvelle Droite, led by Alain de Benoist, was a highly visible and influential intellectual movement. It published books and periodicals like Nouvelle École and Éléments; it sponsored lectures, conferences, and debates; it engaged the intellectual and cultural mainstreams. The Nouvelle Droite did more than receive mainstream press coverage, it often set the terms of debates to which the mainstream responded.
The Nouvelle Droite was deep; it was highbrow; it was radical; it was relevant; and, above all, it was exciting. It was based on the axiom that ideas shape the world. Bad ideas are destroying it, and only better ideas will save it. It had the right ideas, and it was increasingly influential. Its metapolitical strategy was a “Gramscianism” of the Right, i.e., an attempt to shape the ideas and ultimately the actions of the elites—academics, journalists, businessmen, politicians, etc.—as envisioned in the writings of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci.
However, according to Faye, as the 1980s came to a close, the Nouvelle Droite became less influential: “Regrettably, it has turned into an ideological ghetto. It no longer sees itself as a powerhouse for the diffusion of energies with the ultimate aim of acquiring power, but rather as a publishing enterprise that also organizes conferences but has limited ambitions” (pp. 24–25). The causes of this decline were based partly on objective conditions, partly on the movement’s own weaknesses.
Whether fair to the Nouvelle Droite or not, two of Faye’s criticisms contain universal truths that seem particularly relevant to our project in North America.
(1) The rise of the Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen caused a decline in the visibility and influence of the Nouvelle Droite, whereas one might have expected the Front National’s good fortunes to magnify those of the Nouvelle Droite. After all, the two movements share much in common, and there can be little doubt that the Nouvelle Droite influenced the Front National and brought new people into its orbit.
Faye laments the “airlocks” sealing off different circles of the French Right. In particular, he claims that the Nouvelle Droite never engaged the Front National, because its members fundamentally misunderstood Gramsci, whose cultural battle was organically connected with the economic and political struggle of the Italian Communist Party.
The Nouvelle Droite, however, treated the battle as entirely cultural and intellectual. Thus they were not really Gramscians. They were actually followers of Augustin Cochin’s theory of the role of intellectual salons in paving the way for the French Revolution. Unlike the men of the old regime, however, we do not enjoy the luxury of ignoring party and electoral politics.
The North American New Right aims to change the political landscape. To do that, we must influence people who have power, or who can attain it. That means we must engage organized political parties and movements. No, in the end, white people are not going to vote ourselves out of the present mess. But we are not in the endgame yet, and it may still be possible to influence policy through the existing system. Moreover, parties do not exist merely for the sake of elections. They provide a nucleus for the new order they advocate. Finally, there are other ways to attain power besides elections. Just look at the Bolsheviks.
We know that the present system is unsustainable, and although we cannot predict when and how it will collapse, we know that collapse will come. It is far more likely that whites can turn that collapse to our benefit if we already have functioning political organizations that aim at becoming the nucleus of a new society. Yet we will not have such political organizations unless we engage the presently existing political institutions, corrupt, sclerotic, and boring though they may be.
(2) Even though the Nouvelle Droite did not engage with organized politics, it was organized according to “an outdated ‘apparatus logic’ of the type to be found in political parties, which was not appropriate for a movement and school of thought . . . which led cadres to flee on account of ‘problems with the apparatus’” (p. 27). By an “apparatus logic,” Faye seems to mean a hierarchical organization in which an intellectual and editorial “party line” is promulgated.
Although Faye does not say so, the inability of the Nouvelle Droite to interface with the Front National may in fact be based on the fact that they shared the same structure and thus naturally perceived each other as rivals promulgating slightly different “party lines” and competing for the adherence of the same constituency. If this is true, then the North American New Right can avoid this problem by configuring itself not as a hierarchical apparatus with a party line but as a lateral network that cultivates dialogue on a common set of questions from various viewpoints.
A Pluralistic Movement
The North American New Right is an intellectual movement with a political agenda, but it is not a hierarchical intellectual sect or a political party. Instead, it is a network of independent authors and activists. We do not have a rigorous and detailed party line, but we do share certain basic premises, questions, and aims. These leave a great deal of latitude for interpretation and application. But that is good.
As an intellectual movement, we embrace a variety of opinions and encourage civil debate. We believe that this is the best way to attract talented and creative people who will advance our agenda. We also believe that debating different perspectives on these issues is the best way to arrive at the truth, or a workable approximation of it.
We collaborate where collaboration is possible. Where differences exist, we seek to build consensus through dialogue and debate. Where differences persist, we agree to disagree and either change the subject or part ways. Because we are a loose network, we can overlap and interface with any number of hierarchical organizations without competing against them.
Just as we reject “apparatus logic,” we also reject “representation logic.” Because we are a pluralistic movement, there should be no presumption that a given author speaks for me or any other authors who are published here. Every author speaks only for himself.
This is important to understand, because part of every issue of North American New Right will be devoted to translations of articles from European New Right thinkers whose positions and aims differ from one another and also from those of the North American New Right. These works are offered for discussion and debate. In their breadth, depth, and originality, they are also exemplars of the kind of work we wish to cultivate in North America.
Even though the North American New Right is a metapolitical movement, and everything we do bears in some way on politics, there will be times when the connections will seem remote and tenuous. Thus we will surely be mocked as pointy-headed, ivory-tower intellectuals or apolitical dandies and poseurs. That is fine. A vibrant and effective intellectual movement has to be exciting to intellectuals, and intellectuals get excited by the oddest things. Besides, bullet-headed pragmatists who see no value in ideas that do not cause an immediate change in poll numbers tend to give up or sell out anyway.
What does that mean for the editorial policy of Counter-Currents Publishing and the journal North American New Right? It means, first of all, that those of you who share our concerns but may be holding back because you imagine you diverge from an unstated party line can relax. There is no party line beyond the questions and concerns outlined above. Second, it means that we encourage civil debate and commentary on our articles, interviews, and reviews, including this one. We welcome the challenge.
1. The rest of this article is adapted from Greg Johnson “Theory and Practice,” Counter-Currents/North American New Right, September 30, 2010, https://counter-currents.com/2010/09/theory-practice/
2. Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age, trans. Sergio Knipe (London: Arktos, 2010).
3. On Cochin, see F. Roger Devlin, “From Salon to Guillotine: Augustin Cochin’s Organizing the Revolution,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer 2008): 63–90.
Notes on Strauss & Husserl
The Honorable Cause: A Review
Remembering Oswald Spengler (May 29, 1880-May 8, 1936)
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 2: „Věčný nacista“
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 1: Política y Metapolítica
Remembering Richard Wagner (May 22, 1813-February 13, 1883)
Remembering Dominique Venner (April 16, 1935–May 21, 2013)
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 150
“…the North American New Right can avoid this problem by configuring itself not as a hierarchical apparatus with a party line but as a lateral network that cultivates dialogue on a common set of questions from a plurality of different viewpoints.”
I might add that another dimension to be addressed is disruption of the anti-White construction of social “facts”. This is not just a “political” battle, it’s a battle over construction of social “facts”, their dissemination, and dominance/presence in channels of dissemination. We can have discussions among ourselves about “what we are”, but at the same time we must create controversy in the enemy “fact camp”. This is done by disruption of the smooth flow of their propaganda, replacing it with discursive “things” which create cognitive dissonance in the viewers/readers/listeners. This Cog. Diss. serves to destabilize the “facticity” of their propaganda, and puts the hearts and minds of onlookers “in play”, even if subliminally, by finally seeing “facts” challenged with other versions. As Wandrin has noted, “Zombies can’t be reasoned with, only shock-treated with applied cognitive dissonance.” This shock is administered by DISRUPTING any and all possible anti-White discourse streams.
While the NANR can avoid shooting its own foot by avoiding a hierarchical apparatus that forces everyone under the same tent (can this be called a rhizome model?), the much-sought-after “clearing” also requires disruption. Tastefully done, of course!
There is so much to say that I find it difficult to write anything.
I have no opposition to the NANR project. The problem is that it wants to accomplish something fundamental and sweeping but I doubt we have either the resources or manpower to do it.
Yes, but we have to start sometime, someplace, somewhere. And I say that this is it.
I lived in West Germany in the late 1980s. It was clear to nearly every (except the communists) that Soviet socialism was destined to fail over the long term, that the division of Germany could not last, and that eventually Germany would be reunited. Nobody, however, thought that they would live to see it. Just a couple of short years after I left, the Soviet Empire collapsed, the Wall came down, and the GDR was tossed into the ash heap of history.
Looking back, it should have been clear to everyone who was paying the slightest bit of attention that collapse was imminent.
So here we are in 2011, and we are watching the American Empire in decline. We watch, we study, we prepare, we train, and we seek out others who likewise appreciate the dangers that beset our volk.
If you have integrity and you understand the 14 words, then I can count you as a friend or at least an ally.
Greg is correct that we “have to start sometime, someplace, somewhere. And I say that this is it.”
What’s the alternative? Give up? Commit either physical or spiritual suicide?
Not me. I will do what I can. Sometimes I even donate money, albeit anonymously.
Marxism, or communism, is endlessly identified as oppressive and unacceptable. But the supporters and source of funds for continuity is ignored. Jacob Schiff of Wall Street invested $20 million in the Bolsheviki Revolution to establish communism in the USSR. His reward was 600 million gold rubles from the Czar’s hoard. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was brought to the US on a speaking tour to castigate communism. When he told the Columbia University audience that it was Wall Street that repeatedly rescued the USSR from bankruptcy and destruction, his tour was abruptly terminated. A Soviet defector told congress in 1946 that if Moscow’s response to government inquires was not timely received, she had a Manhattan telephone number for more timely answers.
Why is the Wall Street factor in oppression so consistently ignored ?
The previous post suggesting nefarious acts by Wall Street was allowed. I’ll press my luck.
The century of WS using the government to implement their economic gains from warfare and international domination are briefly mentioned at https://thedailycoin.org/2020/09/17/none-dare-call-it-sedition/. Douglas Valentine in CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME identifies the MO as invading the U.S.
The analysis of the Federal Reserve system concludes the funds from auctions of deficit spending Treasury securities identified by TreasuryDirect Institutional tabulations as ‘New Cash’ and exclusively handled by FRBNY, as fiscal agent for the government, mysteriously vanish from public records. The funds amount to >$12 trillion annually and have never been audited. The only feasible destination appears to be to WS covert owners of the FRBOG, Inc. Ref. https://thepriceofliberty.org/2019/05/06/the-bizarre-relationship-between-the-fedgov-and-wall-street/ FEDERAL RESERVE FOR DUMMIES
The utopian goal of global rule by financiers was clearly elucidated by David Rockefeller in MEMOIRS as presaged by Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE.
It is suggested the purloined monies, which as profit belong to the government, fund the international chaos and domination conducted by Wall Street and is now visible in the United States
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Sam Davidson in blockquote:
Well, THAT was a start, wasn’t it? Just keep adding to it.
Here’s an Idea I have often used to stimulate thinking, and only two people, have remotely begun to explore it.
Start by defining the world outside your bedroom window in 2050.If you need to, include reincarnation in there! What does it look like, what SHOULD it look like, and what did do or fail to do to make it better? “Dear Diary, today I went to the Military Academy in Sandpoint to watch the pre-flight testing of our first starship. The thorium reactors are performing as planned, and the use of Supercrete for our replacement dams (SuperMicroHydro) took the load of industrial power away from The Project…”
I agree we do not “have either the resources or manpower to do it,” but we are $16,635 closer to the first goal of $25,000. That’s $16,635 more than we were, and those dollar votes are coming from people who have few enough dollars to begin with.
And that’s how true revolutions work. The wealthiest and most powerful to the buggy whip manufacturers awake one morning to see a rickety, barely able to get out of its own way, Model “T.” They laughed. this exotic toy required lots of maintenance, parts, and could not feed itself.
Things change very quickly in politics, as well as economics.
Movement Past was essentially a Controlled Opposition, useful as a lightning rod to attract potential members of the Racially Conscious Community, and make sure they went no further than passively watching and listening. Their Dreams, save for Rockwell, was to be better Republicans, or what Democrats SHOULD have been. The System they sought to join really didn’t want them at all, absent a few figureheads. Remember, if memory serves, Pierce wanted our own radio stations, Linder our own newspapers, Weltner our own television stations. Only Bill White saw the importance of having our own ISP. Remember Bill?
We have rarely dreamed, and if we did, we have always dreamed too small. Worse, we dreamed in the Terms Lucy gave to Charlie Brown. Little wonder we were always flat on our back, laughed at by our Enemies, and, at best, studiously ignored by those we are trying to save from The System.
Exactly TWO of our guys actually saw the need to break the mold.
First, Rockwell, who wanted our own political party, a topic that his acolyte, Pierce, assiduously avoided.
Second, Harold Covington, who wants our own nation-state, the Northwest Republic, a topic that Pierce only peripherally addressed in subpotent microsm – “White Zion.” Pierce’s Way seemed to literally avoid the obvious conclusion, either building Rockwell’s political party, or laying the foundation for its logical extension, our own nation-state, for the Racially Conscious Community, founded explicitly on a Positive Theory of Race.
Notice the difference?
If I had asked Rockwell, or Harold Covington, or Robert Mathews, or David Eden Lane, what they would see outside their bedroom window in 2050, ALL would have defined the surrounding community in exquisite detail.
None of them were afraid of OUR Potential.
Everyone else IS, including too many of us.
We can – we MUST – DO SOMETHING about that, starting where we are.
Contributing to counter-currents is easy, and if you can’t afford ten dollars a month, you need to turn the computer off and talk with a bankruptcy lawyer, and/or get a job – or another job, if need be.
NOTHING says “thank you” like cash, and, if you remember what it was like as a child to open a birthday card from Auntie Em or Uncle Bill, with money inside, not once did you complain that this wasn’t as “thoughtful” as a “real” gift. It’s the thought that counts, and the deed that proves the strength and integrity of the thought.
This is politics, where we are dealing with people who intend to commit genocide I repeat genocide upon us. I repeatedly ask the 2050 Question to see if anyone can comprehend that. That, alone, should be a call to action. We will not defeat them individually, and they know it.
We will defeat them collectively, with better Ideas, better Ideals, and better organizations.
That starts with cash, sent to counter-currents monthly.
In time, you might be in a position to “Take The Gap,” starting with yourself, starting where you are – which is a very good place to start.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
It would be better to view the project of the North American New Right as a challenge rather than a problem. Our lack of resources and people should not be seen as a insurmountable obstacle. There will never be an ideal starting point. As a Spanish proverb puts it, “Wayfarer, there is no road. You make the road by going there.”
However, if we are to rise to this challenge, we will need more than voluntarist platitudes, we will need a lucid understanding of what we want to do and how we can do it. This understanding must inform all of our work.
I think that what will determine success or failure is the metis that is applied to this project. Metis is a Greek term that is hard to satisfactorily define, for it is a highly dynamic and protean form of practical intelligence. Metis synthesises many qualities of character and intellect, including will, intelligence, imagination, cunning, prudence, wisdom, skill, and experience. Andrei Kievsky’s term “mind weaponization” is appropriate here.
We need to weaponize our minds in relation to metapolitics. We need to practice cultural contestation. We need to create an arsenal of thought and media that serves our metapolitical work effectively. We need to exercise metis so that, among other things, we use our resources to optimal effect, we exercise real influence on our target audiences, and we show others the way to do things and thereby multiply our efforts. We need to realize that literary, scholarly, and publicist work by itself is not enough and that it often amounts to vanity publishing, pedantry, or careerism.
There are many things I should elaborate on regarding the definition of metis, its application to metapolitics, and the discipline that metapolitics requires. There is a lot to elaborate on. As James C. Scott observes, metis is a context-laden discipline and there is not one but many metises. This is especially true of metapolitics, which involves exercising cultural influence through a variety of structures, media, and methods.
You should target disaffected Christians who are fleeing the Episcopal Church et al because they still retain enough Christ-dignity that they can refuse agreeing to submerge themselves under the rule of Diversity and Inclusion. The churches simply are unhealthy for self-respecting members in good standing of our White Humanity.
Episcopal Church leaders are constantly suffering through more anti-racism training so that they will agree that their unearned White privileges put an obligation upon them to hire more black staff and priests, and put more “outreach and mission to troubled and at-risk communities” into their already failing budgets.
Anti-racism training is a tactic of softening up the opposition in advance of the Affirmative Action offensive. But Whitey Episcopalians just love to be told how evil they are for being born White in a world that forces blacks to suffer for the sake of Whitey White’s Whiteness.
We look to the day when the Episcopal Church is finished with its Slavery Repentance and Racial Reconciliation “healing” services at the local cathedral or plot of unmarked negro graves.
Then, they can get on with the urgent business of holding Repentance services where we all lament that our White mothers were such racists they actually refused to make their babies with negro bucks, and thereby cursing us with the stain of racist White privilege by shamefully giving us White fathers.
The Episcopal Church demands we feel the sickness of the sin of Whiteness, so what more can they do than to lead us in a religious ceremony in which we damn our own mothers? It’s coming to that, you can be sure.
Just as Greg Johnson could lead his movement a few steps forward in an instant just by writing and posting review of the last two chapters of Anthony Jacob’s White Man, Think Again!, he also could do good by analyzing the Episcopal Church’s obsession with vile, toxic, poisonous, pernicious, and ugly negrophilia. The church which once carried the heart beat of the White Christ now worships voodoo MLK and priestess Rosa Parks.
What does the future hold for a church that preaches evil for good?
“Finally, to end the training, the Rev. Canon Chip Davis, who was instrumental in organizing and setting up the entire event, led a healing Eucharist.”
After Whiteys confessed their White Privilege at the latest anti-racism training in West Tennessee, they were allowed to approach “healing,” but not before.
“While I had already heard much of what they presented, principally since my ordination, it became clearer than ever to me that I had been shielded, for much of my life, by a society that worked diligently to hide its oppressive actions.”
“Fr. Andrews opened the eyes of many to the oft-overlooked and unrealized benefits of white privilege in society. The initial reaction to both teachings is often, ‘Who, me?’ But, no one in the room was unmoved by something they heard.”
“The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other through Jesus Christ. Opening our eyes to the lack of unity, its long-term effects, and our place in it is the holy work of the Church. Antiracism training is an essential first step.”
In other words, Episcopalians can’t be good Christians unless they begin with 14 hours (really, the training lasted 14 hours!) of complaints from blacks, i.e. “holy work”. That’s the black liberation theology made infamous by Glen Beck when he showed videos of jivey James Cone saying that Christians can’t be authentically Christian until they start giving back to blacks all we’ve stolen from them. (How about their giving us back our language, schools, technology, medicines, government, nation, etc, in exchange for us giving them back to Africa?) Which means, White Humanity can only know Christ if his work in their lives is directed by blacks.
And the Episcopal Church hierarchy wrings its hands over the declining membership and donations while insisting that only through blacks are we given our identity in Christ.
Greg Johnson should consider Episcopalian his next missionary field for the North American New Right recruitment drive.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment