1,131 words
Translations: French, Polish, Slovak, Spanish
When White Nationalists point out the undeniable fact that throughout the white world, the Christian churches are actively aiding white race-replacement through non-white immigration and colonization — or, at best, not opposing it — the standard response of Christian apologists is that we should not criticize the churches today because, centuries ago, the church fought against the Muslim invasion of Europe and launched the Crusades to take back the Holy Land.
I call it the “Old Time Religion” argument, and it strikes me as lame for a number of reasons.
1. That was then; this is now.
2. Warriors defended Europe, not priests. It was swords, axes, and maces wielded by brawny men that hewed down the invaders, not the crosses, incense, and spells of pedophiles in skirts. Islam attacked many different peoples with many different religions. But regardless of whether their priests were Hindu or Zoroastrian or Christian, it was warriors who fought to defend their homelands. Pre-Christian European warriors fought to defend their homelands at Thermopylae and Salamis, and post-Christian Europeans can do so as well.
3. If Christians want to own the Battle of Tours, do they also want to own everything that came before that, namely the loss of Christian North Africa and Spain to Islam?
4. If Christians want to own the Crusades, do they also want to own the initial loss of the Holy Land by the Byzantines? Do they want to own the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople? Do they want to own the Children’s Crusade? Do they want to own the ultimate loss of the Holy Land to the Muslims? Because — remember — the Crusades were a giant failure in the end.
5. If Christians want to own the Battle of Lepanto, do they also wish to own the fall of Constantinople and every other defeat leading up to and following from it? Do they want to own the bargains and alliances struck with the Turks by Christian princes angling to gain advantages over one another?
The best way to appreciate the folly of putting our hopes in a revival of a fighting form of Christianity — a religion that was displaced from hegemony in white lands in the 17th century and has been withering ever since — is to compare Christianity to a much more vital religion, the religion that displaced it, the dominant religion of the West: Liberalism.
Like Christianity, Liberalism is a universal creed. Just as all men can be brothers in Christ, all men can be citizens of a Liberal society. But that did not stop liberals less than 100 years ago from being race realists and from taking their own side in ethnic conflicts. Liberals and progressives were also advocates of immigration restrictionism and eugenics. One of the ongoing projects of Counter-Currents is to document the existence of a racially-conscious Left, which has included such figures as Jack London and Denis Kearney in California and Rex Fairburn in New Zealand. It strikes me as far more reasonable for White Nationalists to hope for a revival of a race-conscious and militant form of our living, dominant religion than of a Medieval form of a displaced and dying faith.
Not only is that Old Time Liberalism of relatively recent date, it is possible to reform liberalism in ways not open to Christianity and other revealed religions of the book. There is no “bible” of liberalism — except vestigial traces of the Bible itself, which is the source of many of its problems. Thus liberalism is relatively more open to interpretation and change. A Christianity stripped of egalitarianism, universalism, and escatological hope for the future is unthinkable. But a liberalism stripped of these vestiges of Christianity is entirely conceivable. It is possible to believe that liberalism is the best form of society, but only for white people, because the races are not equal, and there is no hope of them ever becoming that way in some future utopia.
1. White liberals are actually deeply racist. Every single white liberal I know believes that blacks and mestizos are, on average, mentally inferior to and less attractive than whites. They also believe that Asians are mentally equal to whites but less attractive and interesting to be around. You can infer this from their behavior, but many will actually say it as well, if they feel safe to do so.
But white liberals will not openly state or act on such beliefs for the same reasons that most White Nationalists won’t: guilt because of the internalization of false values and the desire to preserve money and status in a system that rewards conformity and punishes dissent. They fear that they are all alone in their beliefs. Or they fear that even if they are not alone, nobody would come to their defense while others would seek advantage from their disgrace. When those mechanisms of control break down, many new things will be possible.
2. White liberals are actually “white supremacists,” indeed, to such a degree that I find it frankly embarrassing and offensive. Liberals believe that whites are the only agents in history. This view gives rise to two related thought patterns: white grandiosity and white guilt. White grandiosity is the view that whites are responsible for all good things. White liberals believe that they set the standards of civilized life to which all other peoples aspire, or should aspire, if they knew what’s good for them. The flip side of white grandiosity is white guilt, the belief that whites are actually responsible for all the bad things in the world. If white liberals could be weaned away from this unrealistic sense of omnipotence, if they could accept that other races are agents, for good or ill, but retain a more chastened sense of white pride and white guilt, that would open a whole new world of possibilities.
3. White liberals and progressives generally embrace Darwinism over creationism, except when it comes to the human brain. Egalitarianism is just liberal creationism. The idea that race is a social construct is just a metaphysical postulate of egalitarian social uplift schemes. When it comes to science, white liberals are 99% of the way to White Nationalism. Christian creationists, however, are 0% of the way. Thus they are capable of embracing racial egalitarianism without reservation. Indeed, eventually they will be the only people in our society who actually believe in it.
4. A distinct advantage of reviving a racially-realistic and militant form of liberalism is that, unlike conservatives, Liberals are winners: they understand power. They know how to gain it and how to keep it. White Nationalists have much to learn from them.
Ultimately, of course, if Liberalism were to undergo a racial reformation, that would mark its loss of intellectual hegemony to White Nationalism, which would then replace it as the civil religion of the West.
28 comments
The solution to liberalism: classical liberalism.
Greg, there’s been a current of religious confrontation in the WN internet sphere, but I’ve found you to be the most reasonable voice in the whole affair.
I’m spiritually very apathetic, but I feel that if I lived in the White enthnostate I’d try to find like-minded individuals within Asatru societies.
What I find fascinating about the Christians-WN is that they often reference the vitality of their religion over the span of many centuries, the crusades and such, and not within the last one or two.
It may be a healthy nostalgia, born from a healthy traditionalism, but it does cause them to ignore the lessons of the past century, namely the success of secular ideologies which truly have driven the last hundred years. (national socialism, communism, liberalism, etc).
I hope we can beyond all of this and become a movement that works, and succeeds, in modernity. Something that can thrive in an age that could never bury the discoveries of Darwin or ignore the critiques of Nietzsche.
Not a futile and shabby copy of National Socialism, bland racial conservatism, or dated and unappealing religious traditionalism.
Well reasoned, although the pedophiles in skirts dig was gratuitous and out of character for you IMO. There are many decent Christians in the rank-and-file and even a handful on our side. I have always felt that your West Coast WNsm concept has a lot of potential. If you can find a way to integrate it with sensible economic leftism, I think it would have even more.
Stopped reading at pedophiles in skirts.
That kind of hen-pecking doesn’t work here.
I also wouldn’t have used that line. I am not a Christian, but I don’t like atheist crusaders either. Pedophilia is unfortunately present whenever an adult is given supervision over a child, and any organization where it happens tends to suppress such news. For example the Hungarian Swimming Federation is just under investigation for covering up abuse of children by a masseur. Similar abuse has happened with coaches in many sports, scout leaders, etc. etc. Oh, and Protestant pastors (or, for that matter, Jewish rabbis) are apparently not any less likely to be, uhm, involved with these things. And Catholic priests were at the time not even required to be celibate. (Many of them continued to marry well into the High Middle Ages.)
So calling Catholic priests “pedophiles in skirts” is essentially joining in with the Judaic anti-Christian crusade. Even if we dislike Christians I think we can at least spare the worse words for our true enemies, and we can attack the already slowly decaying corpse of Christianity in a much more decent manner. At least that’s how I see it.
Other than that, it was a great article, as is usual.
Well, I for my part have never heard that argument, that churches today are not to be criticized because old time churches kicked major ass. That would be absurd for sure. It’s rather a response to the “Christianity is to blame” meme. “Owning” the defeats: of course, why not? Defeats just happen in history. Bad luck. One can hardly say that Christianity is to blame. As for the victories – this is just to show that their belief didn’t stop people from fighting, still it rather gave them a strong motivation to do so, as they believed God and truth was on their side (see Song of Roland, for example). And crusades were a bad idea anyway. I don’t care they started them, but also don’t care they failed.
That being said, I agree that there is hardly any chance the faith can be resurrected in an Old School sort of way. If there is a future, it would indeed rather be a WN orientated liberalism. But I also see it as impossible that race can be made the object of an actual religion. Even if so, it could hardly be kept from becoming supremacist again – religion always requires a certain intensity, the very opposite of liberalism in the end. If there is a choice, I’d rather have pride than guilt, but in a non-stupid, non-chauvinist way.
“But I also see it as impossible that race can be made the object of an actual religion.”
Really? Look at Judaism. Their race is their religion. There is no god (in the Christian sense) in the picture at all, and they are winning this fight. It seems to work quite well for them.
Greg is correct in saying that race should be our religion, and other religions should be accepted as long as they don’t undermine our racial interests. But Christians would never accept that. Instead, they can only accept our ethnic interests as long as they don’t undermine Christianity. If there is a conflict of interests between Christianity and white nationalism (which doesn’t seem too far-fetched, given the recent discussions), the Christians will prefer that Christianity prospers at the expense of nationalism.
If all the immigrants in Europe and America were converted to Christianity (which, after all, is the Christian goal) today, would the Christians really want to throw them out? Why?
Imitation of the Jews again? That has been an obsession of the European peoples for 2000 years, and it hasn’t really worked out so far. There are many misunderstandings here.
Judaism never deified race as such or as an end within itself. The Old Testament religious Law of Moses has nothing whatsoever to do with race. The object of Jewish religion is after all the One True Transcendent God, and not their race, which is important only in relation to the One True God, who relentlessly punishes and exalts his chosen people, according to the faith they have shown in him or not. So to speak, their race has only a value insofar as it carries a religious mission and a messianic message to the world, maintains a special relationship to God.
Secular Judaism is certainly based on this, but it is more like the ethnonationalism of the 19th century, when religious intensity shifted to the secular notion of the Nation (which, unlike race, is a metaphysical concept as well). Zionism is a variation of that. What remained is the idea, that Jews have a special role to play in the course of history (today Jews are proud to be the heralds of liberalism and socialism). Meanwhile, Jehova turned into the God of the Holocaust, sucking up all nations while exalting his own. Judaism today is essentially Holocaustianity, and its God is very jealous of other Gods as well.
You just cannot imitate this at random, if you have merely a race and nothing above to give its existence a meaning. The “above” is what matters, if one speaks about actual “religion”. Race is just biology, it is not an idea. The very point of religion is to give a meaning surpassing biology. To make race a God and an end within itself, to make the snake bite its own tail is pointless, even if you blow it up with Ubermensch ideas based on biology. Race for the sake of race will move nothing and nobody. It would be boring, plain and simple. Especially the White, “Faustian” races are metaphysical in their very essence. Man is not biology, he cannot deify biology, that would be a “contradictio in adjecto”. The need for a meta-physics is absolutely crucial.
Who said anything about “imitation of the Jews”? You said:
“But I also see it as impossible that race can be made the object of an actual religion.”
I simply pointed out that such a religion does in fact exist, and, furthermore, that it is quite successful. Jews don’t believe in a God in any way similar to the way Christians do. The Jews see God more or less as a symbolic patriarch who leads the Jewish race to success in the world. They don’t see the Old Testament law as very holy either, since they spare no effort to get around it when they can. Jews often try to “fool” God through sophistry, in ways that Christians never would. Just look at what they do “cheat the sabbath”. (I grant that this is written with a dose of humor, but it still illustrates how they actually view God and religion.)
http://www.vice.com/read/a-gentiles-guide-to-cheating-the-shabbat
Why on Earth could race not be an Idea (I assume you refer to the Platonic meaning of the word)? Of course it can – and is! The pure and perfect race is something that doesn’t exist in the material world, but only in the realm of Ideas. That is why we can always strive towards it, but never really reach it. Just like the Übermensch.
“Race for the sake of race will move nothing and nobody.”
Wrong. Hitler created a rather strong political movement based on race as its first principle. Would you deny that it did move people on an emotional level?
What is really holy to Jews is their tribe. Their religion is just one of the ideologies invented by them to promote the cohesion and persistence of their tribe. Marxism, Psychoanalysis, and Zionism are some others. But what remains constant is tribal loyalty. Even for Jewish atheists, their people is their highest good, the holy, the subject of their civil religion.
Interesting post, with weighty notions if you ask me.
I find it rather odd that people are offended by the phrase ‘pedophiles in skirts’, given the rather recent history of many priests and pastors violating the bodies and souls of little children. The fact that most of them were protected by the church and sent to other places, instead of being immediately defrocked and shamed speaks volumes about the church. Instead of remorse and atonement, people are given sermons about the forgiveness of sins. To quote a famous poet;
‘after this knowledge, what forgiveness’?
I am on the pro-Christian side. I would suggest that some important points to consider regarding this subject are:
1) None of the universal religions are dying, not Islam, nor Judaism nor Christianity. The fundamentalists of each religion are not going anywhere, are having large families and are creating true believers. The case of Judaism is particularly stRiki-Eiking, as the atheist population is rapidly shrinking while the devout population is booming, and swiftly becoming the majority.
2) Christianity has its problems, to be sure. The fact is though that the great part of the healthy North American European population is Christian, and is going to remain that way for generations to come. To me, the following is not a message that is likely to be successful in attracting those predominantly Christian Whites: “we despise and enjoy denigrating your religion, which is very important to you; would you like to join us?”
3) Facts about Christianity of the past are useful and relevant because they suggest what Christianity could again become.
4) Creationism and Darwinism are not necessary for WN. Europeans were doing much better prior to the adoption of Evolution in just about every measure of societal and racial health.
5) A universalist religion (preferably one that is racialist) is a source of great strength for a civilization. It is very difficult to envision the fractured polytheistic pagan tribes withstanding the onslaught of a united Islam in the past. For that matter, its difficult to envision the childless atheists of Europe opposing Islam today. If the arabs, turks and other Middle Easterners were to lose their religion, they would be far weaker and pose much less of a threat to Europe. Much of their strength comes from their fanatism and zealotry, giving them the drive to work to overturn decadent Western nations and establish Islam. This is much more adaptive behavior than that of liberal Whites, busily investing their time and resources in carousing, drinking and being merry, which are characteristic of the godless. To oppose a powerful universalist religious force you need a counterweight universalist religious force that unites and gives purpose to a people. Godless liberalism does not provide this, as we see in Britain, the blue states and elsewhere.
“we despise and enjoy denigrating your religion, which is very important to you; would you like to join us?”
It is not so much that “we despise and denigrate” my religion but that Christians have to recognise that “Houston, we have a problem.” For example: http://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/anglican-church-of-canada/anglicans-in-the-toronto-pride-march-2013/ And regardless of whether one thinks that gays are Christian or not they look ridiculous.
Greg is quite right to articulate what most people -inside and outside the church – think of Christianity today. Otherwise, how can we respond?
What you see is what you get and Christianity today is hell bent on merging the White race into a global gene pool – a resurrected Babel. The paucity if priests and ministers contributing to Counter-Currents rather proves that they have no interest in preserving God’s biodiversity. The NANR is not a church so it is up to individual Christians out there to provide material on today’s concerns suitable for Christians.
No point shooting the messenger.
Yes indeed Sandy. I used to belong to The United Church of Canada. ( not that I had a choice)
They are worse now than the Anglicans with their women ministers playing guitars and kum by ya in the church. It is all about LOVE LOVE LOVE, yet if you question anything, you are a Nazi.
How dare you doubt us? How dare you. They LOVE the Palestinians and can’t understand why the Jews don’t. Love, Love, Love. But their hate is quite palpable, if you dare question them.
Excellent food for thought. I’ve taken the liberty of reblogging it and riffing on it a bit here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/08/liberalism-aint-what-it-used-to-be.html
It’s all right to criticize Christian churches for their support for immigration. It is possible to do that without launching a crusade against Christianity itself. There is value in Christianity even for people who do not believe in the Jesus story. At least, people who maintain the Christian religion are trying to defend the idea of transcendence. Personally, I think it is painful to go to the funeral of an atheist who said he didn’t want any religious ceremony. If so, why would there be a ceremony at all? I don’t see how insisting that life has no meaning at all is going to help the White cause. Anyway, White Nationalists do not have the power to destroy Christianity. And they have other priorities.
“Like Christianity, Liberalism is a universal creed.”
Liberalism is linked to a particular temperament. It isn’t really a creed. It isn’t even clear what set of political positions is left-wing or right-wing.
Greg, your description of white liberals as racists begs a question: Why are so many ‘racist’ white liberals allowing a massive non-white immigration into white countries instead of opposing it?
It is complicated. One motive is that they believe permitting immigration is the right thing to do and feel guilty for their racial sentiments and racist acts. Others are far more interested in gaining advantages for themselves than in maintaining any form of solidarity with other whites: they are pursuing status, money, and political advantage over their white rivals by allying themselves with non-whites. Liberals do it because they want non-white voters to side with them against conservatives and “rednecks,” whereas Republicans do it because they want non-white labor to lower the wages and bust the unions of uppity white peasants. Others are more afraid of the negative consequences of being identified as racial heretics: loss of social status, money, etc. To differing degrees, all three motives probably play roles in the attitudes and actions of individual liberals.
Yes, but the “racist” part of their motivation is that they assume that non-Whites are actually inferior to Whites and incapable of creating a civilization equal to that of Whites. Therefore they want to do them a favor by allowing them to immigrate into a white country. If they really believed that non-Whites are equal to Whites, letting them stay in their own countries or even sending them back would be no problem. But even to suggest that would be called “racist” by them. As you see everybody is actually “racist”, even the most rabid “anti-racist”. That is because human reality itself is “racist”, and nobody can deny reality without running into contradictions all the time.
The campaign of defamation and the anti-white narrative are undoubtedly part of a campaign to lower the status of the diverse white Americans to that of serf, taxpayer, and soldier.
We have lots of practice at that status. Centuries under the rule of Arabs in Southern Europe, centuries under the rule of Turks in South Central Europe, and centuries under the rule of Mongols & successor khanates in Eastern Europe.
Not the mention the kings, dictators, generals, and jumped-up emperors in hock to usurious financiers. Unfortunately, the diverse white Americans so far seem impervious to the trend lines under Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, and Obama I.
In the field of the anti-white narrative, we implement a program of personalized attackback (not racial attackback) every day, and have made changes in the jovial use of one-word labels by print media around the nation. We say one-word labels because these have the propensity to verbally strip us of our diversity and nationality, the starting point for an attackback.
Bo Sears writes:
In the field of the anti-white narrative, we implement a program of personalized attackback (not racial attackback) every day, and have made changes in the jovial use of one-word labels by print media around the nation. We say one-word labels because these have the propensity to verbally strip us of our diversity and nationality, the starting point for an attackback.
My question – what are examples of “personalized attackback”?
And so the battle continues on… No wonder the Christians had to “drive the snakes out of Ireland”. It’s the only way to get any peace!
In my formative years I was forced to attend a local southern baptist church; I never caught the disease. I think some of us are naturally immune to such nonsense. Even before I developed the intellectual and philosophical sophistication I enjoy now I knew that christianity was the problem and not the cure. Ignore over 2,000 years of cowardice, betrayal, apathy and error at your own peril.
I don’t think that liberalism, as an overarching ideology, is compatible with White racialism. But I think it’s possible and desirable to retain the sound elements of liberalism — and other ideologies — in the spirit of Leszek Kolakowski’s essay, “How to Be a Conservative-Liberal-Socialist”:
http://www.mrbauld.com/conlibsoc.html
Of course, the interests of the race must be made paramount in such a synthesis.
Want Christians in your “VOTE YOUR RACE” flock, TALK OF BABYLON.
In Babylon, it was a wealthy great & huge city where all were welcome. All races, all languages, all religions,
All were welcome to work & prosper to have their babies grow up healthy & strong.
However, this did not last, as all good things do not survive unless the people actively work to protect them. So the people of Babylon, many in differing hues, differing religions, differing motivations, began to express their genetic drives for dominance against all others.
Enemies from unified kingdoms of only one unified race & one unified religion, empowered by the unity of race & unity of purpose, seized the city of Babylon for periods of time after the deaths of the ruler and could not hold it. Not because they lacked the will or the manpower, but because the genes behind their intellect were too feeble to master FARMING SKILLS. The invaders were too stupid to dig wells and too lazy to water the fields. Oh, they sought a great prize by thinking that they could STEAL IT by force rather than create their own copies of equal worth. You see, Babylon was a great empire created by the simple act of FARMING. They supplied nutritious food and that was the base of their wealth. All of the lesser races, of course, invaded the city by their own means and parasited off the kindness of the rulers of Babylon. The lesser races, when they grew in vast numbers began to consume more & more of the city’s wealth & food until the city was no longer prosperous.
The Jews sneaked into religious leadership roles as well as money-lending roles and soon thereafter, were doing what Jews always do. While loud drums beat, the Jews would throw the screaming live babies of the non-Jews into flaming stone boxes, called TOPHETS which is a rather specific name for a single purpose device, to be burned alive. They went by the title of Cannaites back then, Cahn or Cohen being a Jewish Priest. Ba’al being the Jewish word for Master or Enslaver. Both words reveal a gruesome secret of the Jews, they were CANNIBALS, devouring the flesh of the non-Jews. They’d burn older non-Jewish children in red-hot brass bulls or sacrifice them in a giant metal statue they called Molech, much as the Jews did when they called themselves DRUIDS in England burned non-Jews alive in giant wicker men. Because a Jew cannot tolerate any non-Jew remain alive in accordance to their guiding gospel called the Jewish Babylonian Talmud. The Jew wants the world solely for themselves, with no other religions & no other races and will tolerate no opposition to this goal.
This is mentioned in the Bible.
“And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart. Therefore behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “when it will no more be called Tophet, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Tophet until there is no room.”
You see, in the great city of Babylon, each race & each religion were literal blood enemies of each other and they ALWAYS WILL BE no matter what they claim in public to be “socially acceptable”. Each race & religion sought absolute dominance even if they, like the invaders they spawned from, WERE TOO STUPID TO FARM.
Now look at your nation. What is wrong with it that was not wrong 100 years ago?
BABYLON. We have accepted BLOOD ENEMIES within our gates. People of differing languages, differing religions, differing races. Like Babylon, we are constantly being backstabbed for our kindness & generosity. We are on the verge of having Cannibal Jews throwing our live screaming babies into TOPHET fire pits, much as they already do in the abortion bloodhouses. And what is the common trait amongst these invaders? They are all TOO STUPID TO FARM. They have not our White genes so they lack the intellect & creativity to continue our civilization even if they slaughter us all. Can you see the Mexican nations creating microchips or computers since they never have in the past? Can you see the Jews surviving without billions of American dollars given to them every year?
Face it, they survive only because we are intelligent and productive. They are mad little parasites who despise their hosts and want us all dead after they enslave us. This will never change. So, like Babylon, we must forcibly eliminate and remove these invaders with as little mercy as they’d show us, which is NONE AT ALL. We must not hesitate when we hear their weeping children as that is a weakness that they are exploiting to our extinction. We must care only about OUR CRYING CHILDREN, not the wails of the children of the merciless invaders.
God will strike us down if we fail in honoring our survival in this task.
God created us to be strong and wise. The leaders of the world, the invaders were only created to test us, to see if we’d foolishly nurture an alien parasite to our flesh or wisely stomp its head and cleanse ourselves of their alien bitter narcoleptic toxins. We have been living in a foolish deadly slumber far too long. We must wake up and protect our race with every means at our disposal. Every dead enemy now is a dead enemy we do not have to fight in the future.
“… One of the ongoing projects of Counter-Currents is to document the existence of a racially-conscious Left, which has included such figures as Jack London and Denis Kearney in California and Rex Fairburn in New Zealand….” I respectfully request that another ongoing project of Counter Currents, be the documentation of Socialist class-prejudice against, and contempt for, the working class.
If you have a Subscriber 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.