Print this post Print this post

The Musings of a Self-Confessed Insider


Carroll Quigley, 1910–1977

3,231 words

Where do you come from white boy, what is your land
Everybody else knows where they come from
You don’t know your place, you never did, you never can
You can’t find a place in this land

 –“White Boy,” Paul Kanter and Grace Slick

The Dilemma

Professor Kevin MacDonald, who is seldom stuck for words, was stumped when asked how to take our message to “those who think in fundamentally religious terms.”[1] The moment occurred when during a radio talk show he was unable to suggest how to bring those “50 million more people on our side.”[2] The dilemma is where to begin, for as Doctor Greg Johnson said, “If you become too enthusiastic about the Bible, the chances are that you would be worse than a non-believer.”[3] The dominant religion of the West is still Christianity and before the North American New Right (NANR) can consider seriously reaching out to the 50 million Christian Conservatives mentioned by Professor MacDonald, “people who are evangelicals”[4] a basic understanding of that broken religion is required.

Seeking an Answer

A possible useful dispassionate introduction to Christianity and what it means for America today would be the late Georgetown University professor and self-described insider, Carroll Quigley. Given access to the insider’s records for two years in the early 1960s, he published his findings in his 1300 page tome, Tragedy and Hope.

Quigley viewed Christianity from the old Catholic ideal of social organization rather than from today’s ideal of individual salvation. He was in agreement with the insiders’ goals, and thought they should be less secretive. Thus he was surprised when after only a few hundred copies were sold the Macmillan publishing company suppressed the book. The insiders were not as enthusiastic for recognition as the good professor was. Incidentally, the Tragedy in the title is you, the middle class, while the Hope is our overlords.

Quigley wrote that the return to the tradition of the West is evident in many aspects of our lives. This turnabout came because the Americans have “tasted the fleshpots of affluence, are increasingly unselfish, community-conscious and non-material in their attitudes.” Quigley described this attitude as, “a kind of practical Christianity.” He then went on to describe this further and the older reader would grasp how this could work in a closed society but in the multi-cultural society of today is a death sentence for the betrayed, deracinated, white youth. In the words of Quigley,

a growing emphasis on fellowship and interpersonal relations and an increasing skepticism toward abstract power, high-blown slogans, old war cries and authority. There is a reaching out to one another, seeking to understand, to help, to comfort. There is a growing tolerance of differences, an amused attitude of live and let live; and above all, there is an avid discussion of values and priorities that include more spiritual items than a generation ago. There is an almost universal rejection of authority, of rigid formulas, and of final or total answers. In a word there is a fumbling effort to rediscover the tradition of the West by a generation that has largely been cut off from that tradition.[5]

The Strength of the West

Quigley claimed that the new Christian Civilization of the West began with the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and, having replaced the dying Classical Civilization, may itself be dying. Our civilization has saved itself before by turning to “inclusive diversity” which “has been happening since 1940.”[6] The problem however, with inclusive diversity is that of “the problem of relationships,” with “God and Caesar or to self and to fellow man.” The typical Western solution, wrote Quigley, for “these relationships which have become disrupted and discordant” was to be found in the idea of hierarchy for “diverse elements are discordant only because they are out of place.”[7] They can be reestablished by “discussion and testing,” by relying on experience and by linking up with tradition which is “the most therapeutic action in which any society can engage.”[8] Quigley broke this outlook down to six parts and further elaborated that the strength of the West is our methodology which “is basic to the success, power and wealth of Western Civilization.”[9] This methodology which has suffered repeated attacks has always reasserted itself and is described as:

  1. there is a truth,
  2. no person or group has the whole truth,
  3. every person of goodwill has some aspect of the truth,
  4. through discussion we can form a consensus closer to the truth than those who contributed to it,
  5. once made, it is reformulated and we move closer to the truth,
  6. Western man’s picture of the truth advances by successive approximations closer and closer to the whole truth without ever reaching it.

Ever insightful, Quigley cautioned the reader that the benefits of Christianity can be “contradicted by the narrow intolerance, rigid bigotry and relentless persecutions that have disfigured so much of the religious history of the West,”[10] but that no matter how far we fell, Western man has always come back and marched on “to other victories.” He follows this statement with a nod to Aquinas who wrote that issues have to be worked through and who in his sonnet declared that both individuals and communities, if they are to survive like other living organisms, must adapt “to a changing environment of history, ideas, and social pressures.”

Because Quigley regarded Christianity as a philosophy that affected the very foundation of society, and because he viewed America as an extension of Europe, he could trace the middle-class outlook from its birth in “the Netherlands and northern Italy and other places in the medieval period.”[11] Today’s middle-class first appeared “chiefly in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries” when into this Evolean paradise the upstarts forced themselves between the large peasant class which supported the very small nobility and upper clergy. The emotional security possessed by the old upper class and the peasants with their ties to the land was lost to this new “commercial peoples concerned with the exchange of goods, mostly luxury goods, in a society where all their prospective customers already had the basic necessities of life provided by their status.”[12]

Describing the America of today – the world’s first middle-class nation – Quigley wrote that this new insecure and precarious class “had no law (since medieval law was largely past customs, and their activities were not customary ones) in a society that highly valued law. Quigley gave Antonio from The Merchant of Venice as an example for how a single venture could make or break a man. The insecurity of the new class was exacerbated by the fact that “the prevailing religion of the day disapproved of what he was doing, seeking profits and taking interest, and could see no way of providing religious services to town dwellers because of the intimate association of the ecclesiastical system with the existing arrangement of rural landholding.”[13]

Most importantly this insider instructed his reader that “psychic insecurity became the keynote of the new middle-class outlook.[14]” Thus to reach Professor MacDonald’s 50 million it is important to be cognizant “that the only remedy for the insecurity of the middle-class seemed to it to be the accumulation of more possessions that could be demonstrated to the world of the individual’s importance and power.” With the “commercialization of all human relationships”[15] one challenge for the NANR is convincing the “acquisitive society” of the necessity to repossess their family and country if they are to maintain their middle class prestige.

The contradiction Quigley pointed out was that while so many claim to be Christian, their life actually denies the fact. In today’s world where credit is more important than intrinsic personal values “the established values of the Christian outlook, such as love, charity, generosity, gentleness or unselfishness” are displaced by the “middle-class qualities (that) included decisiveness, selfishness, impersonality, ruthless energy and insatiable ambition.” The middle-class outlook “had a considerable religious basis, but it was the religion of the medieval heresies and of Puritanism rather than the religion of Roman Christianity.”[16]

William Bender, Chairman of the Harvard Admissions Committee summed up the problem by stating that the student who comes first in his class may be genuinely brilliant or may just be a compulsive worker or even have overly focused on his grades as a way of compensating for his inadequacies in other areas. Sadly, the more imaginative boy with a desire to explore and read the unrequired books will be seen by his teachers as troublesome, undisciplined, and rebellious. The system “rewards the glib facile mind at the expense of the questioning, independent, or slower but more powerful, more subtle, and more interesting and original mind.” As Quigley wrote regarding the aristocrat, “the aristocrat plays for the sake of the game or the team or the school. He plays whether he is much good or not, because he feels that he is contributing to a community effort even if he is on the scrubs rather than a star.”[17]

MacDonald’s Difficulty

If Quigley really did have access to the establishment’s records then understanding his idea of Christianity is essential if the West is to survive; and here we see Professor MacDonald’s difficulty in finding a way to reach the 50 million. According to Quigley, “very few people, even highly regarded experts on the subject, have any very clear idea of what is the tradition of the West or how it is based on the fundamental need of Western Civilization to reconcile its intellectual outlook with the basic facts of the Christian experience.”[18] Quigley summed up the difference between the Orthodox Christianity of the medieval two tier Europe beloved by Evola and the new Puritan middle-class that fully flourished in America as follows [19]

Orthodox                                                         Puritan

Evil is absence of good                                Evil is positive entity

Man is basically good.                                 Man is basically evil.

Man is free.                                                     Man is a slave of his nature.                   

Man can contribute to his salvation      Man can be saved only by God. 
by good works.

Self-discipline is necessary to guide      Discipline must be external and total.
or direct. 

Truth is found from experience              Truth is found by rational deduction revelation, and interpreted from revelation.
by tradition. 

The Puritan strain of Christianity which reigns today led Professor MacDonald to say on Radio Free Mississippi that “White People have to believe that their cause is ‘moral,’” and “We have to have a sense that what we are doing is morally OK, is legitimate. Without that White People are easily intimidated.” To further complicate the matter, Quigley wrote that the influence of the middle class became so pervasive that the word “morality” came to mean sex in spite of the fact that Catholic doctrine regarded pride as the worst sin.[20] But that is a knot I am happy to leave to others.

The Strength of the West

Where Western society “has done better than any other” was “in its ability to develop mature and responsible individuals prepared to stand on their own two feet, make decisions, and be prepared to accept the consequences of their decisions and actions without whining or self-justification.”[21] This was the ideal that Christian tradition established long ago and which Quigley was keen to maintain, with or without the Christian Faith.

Traditionally, Christians have regarded human nature as being essentially good and that “it can be formed and modified by social pressures and training.”[22] Man is created in the image of God, and with God at the top of the social hierarchy acting as a higher reference we are “fundamentally free creatures able to move, at their own volition toward God or away from him.”[23] The hope of course was that the goodness of human nature would blossom as it moved towards the full goodness of God.

Opposed “to this Western view of the world and the nature of man” was the Persian influence that came in during the “Babylonian Captivity of the Jews” but more fully through Greek traditionalism and finally through “the Arians, the Manicheans, Luther, Calvin and the Jansenists.”[24] A view that sees man as intrinsically evil and that control is preferable to freedom.

Interestingly, Quigley believed that without the influence of St. Augustine these heresies might have died away. America as a whole missed the Catholic experience and went straight into the world of Golding’s Lord of the Flies in that “the world and the flesh are positive evils and that man, in at least this physical part of his nature, is essentially evil.”[25]


The theme of Counter-Currents is not yet taken seriously by the comfortably affluent, but Tom Wolfe, America’s best known trend spotter wrote in his latest novel, Back to Blood:

it’s back to blood! Religion is dying. . . . Why keep pretending . . .  that leaves only our blood . . . the bloodlines that course through our very bodies, to unite us. La Raza as the Puerto Ricans cry out. ‘The Race’ cries the whole world. . . . All people everywhere , you have no choice but – Back to blood?[26]

Blood is also a theme found in The WASP Question where Andrew Fraser toyed with the idea that the American Revolution “suppressed the ethno-religious loyalty owed by all British colonials to the blood and faith of Old England.”[27] He is suggesting that the old “Orthodox Christianity of the Anglo-Saxon era had fused blood and spirit,”[28] but fears that, “Lost altogether is the primordial understanding that Anglo-Saxon identity is inseparable from the blood faith of a Christian People”[29]

The subject of blood becomes extremely uncomfortable for most people when approached from a Christian perspective. We have all rattled off the old songs, here and here but our toes still curl when are asked if we are washed in the blood or even simply, “Are you saved?”

The evangelicals have grasped the importance of a blood contract,[30] but they have failed utterly to realize the importance of blood in the creation and the mandate not to adulterate the separate streams.

How to Bell the Cat

Quigley discussed a Christianity upon which the social order was built. Conversely, the evangelicals are dedicated to individual salvation to the exclusion of the social order. Professor J. I. Packer, who is considered to be one of the most influential evangelicals in North America, described the evangelistic message as the Gospel of Christ and Him crucified, sin and grace, human guilt and divine forgiveness, everything except the social order.

E. Raymond Capt, an Identity Christian wrote in his book, The Stone Kingdom, that the word salvation appeared in the New Testament 45 times while the word Kingdom appeared 205 times. Jesus Christ himself only spoke of salvation twice.[31] Canfield’s The Incredible Scofield gave 139 references to the Kingdom. The challenge for the NANR is how to influence the 50 million evangelicals into taking an interest in “the kingdom” – the reward given to the faithful servants in the parable of the talents[32] – while not offending them in their drive to save souls.

One approach would be to bluntly remind them that their God halted the plague which had already killed 24,000 Israelites before Phineas killed the Israelite prince while in the act of mixing his blood (sperm) with an alien.[33] A kinder, gentler approach is that of the nonviolent Counter-Currents method of slowly raising cultural standards back to their historical heights in which only the indigenous population are comfortable. The approach best suited to answer Professor MacDonald’s dilemma of not knowing what to do is best answered by Jesse Livermore, the greatest stock operator of all time, who would basically agree with him and advise him not to do anything. After spending many years in Wall Street and after making and losing millions of dollars Livermore said,

I want to tell you this. It was never my thinking that made the big money for me. It always was my sitting. Got that? My sitting tight. It is no trick at all to be right on the market. Men who can both be right and sit tight are uncommon. I found it one of the hardest things to learn.[34]

An example of the results of sitting tight and allowing the enemy to do our work for us would be the Anglican priest, the Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser who “is especially averse to evangelicals. For some reason he seems to harbour a deep contempt and publicly sneers about their belief in ‘Cheesus.’”[35]

Quigley did not envision a return to our Christian past but instead hoped to recapture its ability to raise mature and responsible individuals. This present weakness of ours to transmit our culture “can be remedied only by some reform in its methods of childrearing.”[36] The other alternative that Quigley envisioned was a “new despotism to preserve, by force instead of conviction, petty-bourgeois values in a system of compulsory conformity.”[37] This failure of society to share its symbols of continuity with its youth Quigley would describe as a “rupture of tradition.” A rupture that has today’s philosophers “babbling” and the younger generation “fumblingly” looking for meaning in Christ’s message of love not realizing that “the meaning the present generation is seeking can be found in its own past.”[38]

Evola was another who suspected that the Christian Age was ending. The aristocratic Evola did not lean to Andrew Fraser and his Patriot King but agreed with Quigley that the Christian Age was over, “Nowadays things have deteriorated in the sense of a rapid, disturbing collapse of every valid element in Catholicism.”[39] Unless the evangelicals take an interest in the social order Christians will not have a say in the resurrection of the West.

In the manner of sitting tight the habit of the Christian God is to make an offer and wait. The Contemporary English Version translated Deuteronomy 30:15, “Today I am giving you a choice. You can choose life and success or death and disaster.” In a similar manner, Counter-Currents, stands knocking at the door of society. Will the Christians get involved? Perhaps, perhaps not, but either way the future shape of the country will be decided. Whether the 50 million participate or not a process is in motion which in the words of Carroll Quigley:

Once this process has been established, the adults thus produced can be relied upon to adopt from our western heritage of the past a modified ideology that will fit the needs of the present as well as the traditions of the past. And if Western culture can do that, either in Europe or America, it need fear no enemies from within or from without.[40]


[1] Kevin MacDonald,, December 10, 2012.

[2] Kevin MacDonald,, December 7, 2012.


[4] Kevin MacDonald,, December 10, 2012.

[5] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (Toronto: Collier-Macmillan Canada, 1966), 1233.

[6] Quigley, 1228.

[7] Quigley, 1233.

[8] Quigley, 1228.

[9] Quigley, 1229.

[10] Quigley, 1230.

[11] Quigley, 1237.

[12] Quigley, 1235.

 [13] Quigley, 1235.

[14] Quigley, 1235.

[15] Quigley, 1236.

[16] Quigley, 1236.

[17] Quigley, 1271.

[18] Quigley, 1276.

[19] Quigley, 1239.

[20] Quigley, 1242.

[21] Quigley, 1278.

[22] Quigley, 1238.

[23] Quigley, 1238.

[24] Quigley, 1239.

[25] Quigley, 1239.

[26] Tom Wolfe, Back to Blood (New York: Little Brown & Co., 2012), 22.

[27] Andrew Fraser, The WASP Question (London: Arktos Media Ltd., 2011), 237.

[28] Fraser, 277.

[29] Fraser, 301.

[30] Genesis 15.

[31] Luke 19:9, John 4:22.

[32] Luke 19:12-27.

[33] Numbers 25, Psalms 106:30.

[34] Edin Lefevre. Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, 2nd ed. (Toronto: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), 68.

[36] Quigley, 1276.

[37] Quigley, 1252.

[38] Quigley, 1278.

[39] Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist, trans. Guido Stucco, ed. Michael Moynihan (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2002), 210.

[40] Quigley, 1278.



  1. rhondda
    Posted July 31, 2013 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    The link to note 35 does not work, but I found it anyway at TOO.
    One left wing Christian who is not a nutbar, but has not made the ‘blood’ connection is Chris Hedges. He is the social gospel sort of guy and makes passionate pleas for many causes and is very political. I regard him as kind of a holy fool. He at least takes a stand.

  2. Donar van Holland
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    I am convinced that Puritanism is indeed the root cause of the weakness of Western civilization, and that liberalism is in fact Puritanism without God.

    However, it is a (Marxist) mistake to describe Puritanism as middle class. Puritanism is not about economic ambitions, on the contrary. The essence of Puritanism is self-righteous piety, the “holier than thou”-attitude, with an accompanying claim to power based on that supposed holiness. This attitude can trace its origin back to the Pharisees, which might explain why the Jews are so successful in exploiting this attitude in their war against the gentiles.

    Together with the egalitarian message of the Gospels, the Puritan attitude drives the range of acceptable (non-heretical) discourse ever more leftward. Ever more heretics need to be burned at the stake. Like in the Geneva of Calvin the leftist movement is bound to lead to terror and madness. The French Revolution has its origins in the Gallic Confession, drafted by Calvin.

    This insight into Puritanism was brilliantly developed by a blogger who calls himself Mencius Moldbug, on his blog “Unqualified Reservations”. Being a Jew, he denies any active role of the Jews in the demise of white civilization, but his analysis of the undermining role of Puritanism seems quite convincing.

    Moldbug advocates the kind of Christianity that was enforced after the terror of Cromwell. The Restauration created a state religion that forbade anyone to make a claim to power based on being holier than the present rulers. Anyone who wanted to approach to power had to be a member of the state religion. The Restauration aimed to keep the power in the hands of the aristocracy, and out of the hands of the “holy men”. In this way the subversive message of Puritanism/Phariseeism was contained.

    Old time Roman Catholicism did the same by subjecting all claims to holiness (and therefore to power) to a judgment by the Papacy. Holy madmen were safely confined to their convents. Unfortunately, Luther escaped.

    In both instances, hierarchy kept the subversion at bay.

    Interestingly, in Islam we may observe movements similar to Puritanism. Islamic states are notoriously unstable because any holy man can claim the right to rule based on being holier than the present rulers. As Islam lacks a central authority like the Papacy, these tendencies are running amok all the time. If we in the West do not easily discern these tendencies it is because Islamic holiness is very different from Christian holiness. Blowing up infidels is not quite the same as taking care of lepers.

    So how to connect to the 50 million Christian Conservatives? It seems the essential hurdle is their Puritanism, that is to say their Christianity-informed moralism.

    Chances of imposing a hierarchical solution seem rather slim, unfortunately. A mass conversion to Roman Catholicism is unlikely, and besides, the Church of Rome is herself completely caught up in the creep leftward. A pope who names himself after one of those holy madmen is not to be trusted. The better alternatives of mass conversion to the Russian Orthodox Church or a true Monarchy are also highly unlikely. This leaves us with three options.

    The first option is to try and prove, with Kevin MacDonald, that White Nationalism is worthy of Puritan moral endorsement. The mistreatment of whites should give us ample ammunition. The problem however, is that in doing so we have to appeal to an essentially egalitarian idea of justice. And it is precisely this idea that is the cause of our troubles. After all, Puritan moralism has brought forth liberal moralism. Furthermore, it is subject to the leftward creep too. So even if we would succeed in the present, we are bound to become heretics/immoralists/devil worshipers in the long run.

    The second option is to change the Puritan moral standards, so that our idea of holiness becomes more like Islam for example. Fighting for your collective, your people, your religion, becomes the standard of holiness. Again, this does seems not realistic. If the standards of Puritanical moralism change, it is in the direction of more egalitarianism.

    The third option is to undermine the importance of moralism in Conservative Christianity. An example could be the Roman Catholic Church that views itself as a collective that will be saved as a collective because of the grace bestowed on it by God, in spite of all individual sinners. This saves the believers a lot of anxiousness.

    The last two options mean actually changing Conservative Christianity. The chances of White Nationalism succeeding in this endevour are negligible. But more importantly, this hardly fits the description of “connecting” or “reaching out”. It also means that Conservative Christianity in its present form is a hopeless case.

    Maybe the only way to reach people is despite their Christianity, despite their Puritan/liberal moralism. We have to appeal to their ‘irrationality’, to their ‘guilty’ preference for their own, for their family, for their people. So that they may say, like Stephen Decatur, “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!”

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted August 1, 2013 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

      I think quite a lot of Calvinism is merely a desire to give a theological rationale to meanness and unbounded material accumulation, e.g., getting rid of Christmas and wassailing, not adorning Churches with wealth that could be invested instead, etc.

      These are all valuable thoughts. I think it is pretty much a waste of time to reach out to Christians qua Christians. Fortunately for us, most nominal Christians really do not believe in Christianity or know what real belief would entail.

      Christianity is pretty much a dead religion, even in America, for the simple reason that in any society there is really only one thing that is holy. I do believe that every society, insofar as it is unified at all, is unified by a common worldview including ideas of the moral and the holy. The West does have a unity, because it does have something sacred, and Christianity is not it.

      What, then, is the true religion of the West? Liberal Universalism, which even the Churches worship and in the image of which they try to reshape themselves.

      How did liberalism become the de facto religion of the West? How did it win the hearts and minds even of people who think that Jesus is their lord? Through metapolitics: Liberalism was formulated by philosophers and disseminated by publicists and educators and the whole cultural establishment, shaping the minds of generations from the cradle on. It defeated all anti-liberal institutions through outright war and revolution or through infiltration and subversion, e.g., through Freemasonry and other very concrete conspiracies. Even Jews pay lip-service to the civil religion of liberalism, which has worked to their advantage, although their power is now so great that the mask is slipping and their pure ethnocentrism and selfishness are showing.

      The battle, therefore, is not between Christianity and Paganism, but between White Nationalism and Liberal Universalism (and the inner party, the ethnic hard core that benefits most from it, namely Jewry). White Nationalism will win only by defeating Liberal Universalism and replacing it as the de facto religion of the West, meaning that our race will not just be our nation but our religion. In such an order, the remnants of Christianity will accommodate themselves to Racial Nationalism in the same way that they accommodate themselves to Liberal Universalism today. Racial Nationalism is already the de facto religion in White Nationalist circles to the extent that White Nationalists of all religious persuasions are willing to set aside their beliefs to work for something that they evidently regard as holier, namely the salvation and survival of our race.

      So Gregory Hood is right: Christianity will not save us. But Odinism or other forms of neo-paganism will not save us either. Only White Nationalism will.

      I disagree with Matt Parrott, though, that White Nationalists should be concerned to save Christianity as a living faith. We don’t have the power to save anything right now, and even if we did, using it to promote a Christian revival is of dubious value. I am, of course, interested in saving the art and architecture and literature of European Christians, because they are Europeans not because they are Christians.

      I do, however, think that Christianity and Odinism and other European or Europeanized religions should be tolerated. Which means, basically, no change in their present status under liberal democracy.

      But I believe in toleration not because it is the liberal holy of holies. I believe in tolerating only unimportant, unthreatening religions that present no challenge to the civil religion of White Nationalism. Islam and Judaism, on the other hand, should not in any way be tolerated because they are totalitarian civil religions that war against any state they do not control and any religion other than themselves.

      I think that the increased obviousness of Jewish ethnocentrism and unscupulousness and hypocrisy in their appeals to Liberal Universalism can actually help White Nationalism’s metapolitical project, because just as Jews regard their race as sacred, so too do White Nationalists. We want our people to be as ethnocentric as Jews, and to regard the survival and flourishing of our race as more important than anything that divides us — whether religion or politics or ethnicity or petty nationalism.

      This is why I think David Duke and others who harp on Jewish supremacism from a Liberal Universalist point of view, whether genuine or feigned, are not doing our cause any good. They are so eager to beat the Jews with any club that they reinforce the moral hegemony of Liberal Universalism and its moral condemnation of particularism and ethnocentrism: the very moral principles that are used against White Nationalism.

  3. Donar van Holland
    Posted August 2, 2013 at 3:52 am | Permalink

    Thank you for your extensive and thoughtful reaction, that is quite an honour to me!

    I think that in the coming dispensation the status of Odinism should be rather different than that of Christianity, though. In my view, Germanic religion being a folk religion means that in this faith the folk (our ancestors and we ourselves) is deified. In other words, it is already in itself White Nationalism. Therefore, it would be the ideal state religion for a white ethnostate. Like with Anglicanism under Charles II, membership should not be compulsory for the population in general, only for those with access to the corridors of power.

    To expound my view a little bit, I would like to quote an earlier post of mine:

    “In Germanic religion, the gods are not so much deified natural forces, as deified human beings. There is a close connection with the cult of the ancestors. The gods are a kind of mythified “super-ancestors”. You might also say that they stand for the mass of our ancestors of whom we do not have any personal knowledge.

    This is why the gods can die, this is why they display so many human character traits (and flaws!). This is also why they are experienced as immanent. And very important: this is why they are bound to our folk: they really are family!

    The story of Heracles is the story of all the gods: they have been deified because of their great deeds. And their spouses were deified along with them. The heroes who are allowed to join Wotan in Valhalla after fighting valiantly are an example of the same concept. They are deified and share the same habitat with the gods. Like the Olympus.

    Even Jesus was seen as a deified hero when our forefathers took on the Christian faith, because they accepted it in the form of the heresy of Arianism. The Christian saints also exemplify this idea.

    Our Germanic forefathers did have a truly transcendent concept of the divine too, however. Behind all the stories of gods/heroes stands FATE. Fate is like an unpersonal “Will of God”. Fate is immutable, you can not pray to fate, you can only try to understand what it means for you, and then chose your path in life. The gods are also subject to fate. We might draw a parallel with the Chinese Tao or the Indian Brahman.

    As a religious practice, we can try and question Fate, through the Runes for example. For help, counsel, strength and inspiration we can call upon the spirits of our folk. This can mean ritually calling on the gods and/or our historical ancestors. But also studying their histories, admiring and trying to connect to their deeds, their culture, their preferences, their music. In short: immersion in our divine folk.”

  4. Sandy
    Posted August 2, 2013 at 3:55 am | Permalink

    Up here in Canada an American refugee, Elizabeth May, who is now leader of the Green Party said, “In the US, if you are not an-out-of-the-closet practicing Christian, you almost have no chance of being elected” but “it’s the opposite in Canada. I get flack for being a Christian.”

    So Gregory Hood is right: Christianity will not save us. But Odinism or other forms of neo-paganism will not save us either. Only White Nationalism will.
    I disagree with Matt Parrott, though, that White Nationalists should be concerned to save Christianity as a living faith.

    Gregory Hood is quite correct in that the answer for us is White Nationalism for as Wilmot Robertson said if Christianity really is the White Man’s religion then it will reassert itself on its own but to do so it requires the survival of the White Race. Besides, we are not a church and saving Christianity is the Church’s job, not ours. My concern is getting a handle on Christianity and reconciling it to White Nationalism. What is left of it is a bit of a mess but we can learn from it’s history. Others are working on reconciling the non-Christians to White Nationalism and together we can make a difference. But as Quigley more or less said, with or without the Christians this crisis of ours will be resolved. Or as Doris Day once sang, “The future is not ours to see.”

Post a Comment

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.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace