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.
Remembering Martin Heidegger: September 26, 1889–May 26, 1976
Bad to the Spone: Charles Krafft’s An Artist of the Right
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 552 Millennial Woes on Corporations, the Left, & Other Matters
Remembering Charles Krafft: September 19, 1947–June 12, 2020
Remembering Francis Parker Yockey: September 18, 1917–June 16, 1960
Rich Snobs vs. Poor Slobs: The Schism Between “Racist” Whites
Diversity: Our Greatest Strength?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 551: Ask Me Anything with Matt Parrott