Debate on ChristianityJonas De Geer and Greg Johnson
This is the complete text of the debate on Christianity between Jonas De Geer and Greg Johnson in Stockholm on April 18, 2015. De Geer’s opening statement is reprinted from here. Johnson’s is reprinted from here. The rest of the text is a transcript by V.S. from the YouTube audio of the debate here.
Opening Statement by Jonas De Geer
“Is a strong Christian identity a necessary condition for the future cultural and political life of the European peoples?”
I shall for the purpose of this discussion focus on the sociological benefits of Christianity to our societies in general and the nationalist resistance in particular. This is not be understood as though I have a functionalist approach to the Faith or would reduce it to some sort of psycho-political tool.
Also — when I refer to ”European” or ”Europeans” I include the European descended in America, Australia, South Africa, etc.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the Churches of today, at least in the western world, with no significant exception, are in a most pitiful state. They have become intellectually and spiritually deformed beyond recognition by that mental virus we call political correctness; by their imbecile, pathological urge to find a place within a modern paradigm inherently and fundamentally hostile to Christianity.
Not least the modern Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has — theological and ecclesiological issues aside — without comparison been the main cultural, intellectual and political force in Christianity (by the way, not long ago, in civilized times, “Christianity” was synonymous with “the Western World” or “the White World”).
In the words of T. S. Eliot, who was not a Catholic:
When we consider the Western World, we must recognize that the main cultural tradition has been that corresponding to the Church of Rome. Only within the last four hundred years has any other manifested itself; and anyone with a sense of centre and periphery must admit that the western tradition has been Latin, and Latin means Rome.
It is an indisputable, but in nationalist circles often little understood, fact of history that the implosion of the Catholic Church is simultaneous with, or indeed just precedes the moral, social and ethnic self-destruction of the European World. This is no coincidence.
The Catholic Church was in many ways destroyed in the early 1960s, with the Second Vatican Council, a church-meeting under the Pope’s auspices, attended by all the bishops of the World, held in the Vatican 1962–1965. This did not come as a complete surprise to knowledgeable Catholics. In fact the history of the Church during the 1800s and early 1900s was very much about fighting of attempts at infiltration of the Church Hierarchy by Jewish and Masonic forces, and the ideologies they promoted: “modernism” and “liberalism.”
There is a vast literature from the 19th century, mainly in French, but also in English, about this conspiracy against the Church, and it is well documented stuff, not fanciful speculation.
Nevertheless the Conspiracy eventually triumphed in the early 1960s, which, given the influence of the Catholic Church, had disastrous cultural and social consequences for all of Western Civilisation, indirectly also for those parts that were predominantly Protestant.
It is immediately after the Second Vatican Council that the cultural revolution, the so-called sexual revolution, divorce on a large scale, institutionalized abortion, mass-immigration, proclamations of “multicultural societies,” etc., etc., are introduced, with full force, since the last bulwark of European integrity — the Church — had just been eliminated by the powers that be. Now the floodgates were opened wide and the European population could be reduced to a mass of degenerate, brain-dead consumers.
It all happened so amazingly fast. No ten years in the history of our civilization have seen such drastic social and moral change as those between 1965 and ’75.
One very telling example of what has happened since the reshaping/destruction of the Church is how Hollywood could abandon the MPPC (Motion Picture Production Code) or Hays code. After having been threatened by boycott from American Catholics, the major film studios had grudgingly adopted a moral code for film production in the early 1930s, which stated that there was to be no ridiculing of the clergy, no foul language or nudity, but also no miscegenation on the screen. This system was in use until 1968 when it was deemed obsolete. Of course it was then needed more than ever, and ever since the Jewish film studios have had a green light to bombard generations of hapless westerners with all sorts of propaganda and all kinds of filth. Perversely enough, generations of westerners have enjoyed this psychological warfare against them as entertainment, the effects of which can hardly be overestimated.
It is true that the Church as institution, as it has been known for centuries, well over a millennium, has been hijacked by its enemies, but it is not dead, it can not die, its tradition, the deposit of Faith are intact, the apostolic succession unbroken.
It is also true that the European World as a whole is becoming more and more secularized. Sure, but that is part of our programmed self-destruction.
In the long run, no people can survive without religion, and a viable religion can never be constructed. It can be man-made, of course, but never contrived in order to suit a political agenda.
The attempts that have been made at creating new religions or recreate old ones in certain nationalist circles have been hopelessly futile, to put it mildly.
Another important thing here is that we today find ourselves in a situation where Europe insanely has imported tens of millions of Muslims, who in most cases take their religion quite seriously. Regardless of what one thinks about the 9-11 and Charlie Hebdo episodes, and although it is true that the architects of multiculturalism have been mainly Jews, hardly any Muslims, the Muslim colonization is none the less a ticking bomb. What most secularized westerners do not understand is that both Muslims and Jews still regard us as Christians, albeit decadent Christians that have lost their Faith and through that their morale. They don`t think for a moment that Christianity made us weak, in fact they know it is quite the opposite, that we are pathetically weak without Faith, without traditional morals and values. This is one of the reasons organized Jewry has done its utmost to undermine the Church for centuries. That, and of course a very old, very deep running hatred of Christ and His Church. People will not fight and die for some notion of having a precious DNA, or some nationalist interpretation of sociobiology. You can only resist those fueled by religious fervor with religious fervor, with Faith; this is as true today as it was at Poitiers, Malta or Lepanto.
So it makes very much sense to tap in to the religious Tradition of the West, a Tradition that, in spite of what has happened to the established churches during the past fifty years, is still unbroken and alive.
Also for those who do not have a personal belief in God, it would certainly be wise and wholesome to, if not embrace the Faith, at least acknowledge the fundamental, vital role that Christianity has played in our history, in molding our mentality and our values throughout the centuries, to rediscover that Traditional, Christian European culture from which, by now, several generations have been alienated.
Europe is the Faith, the Faith is Europe, as Belloc famously put it. This is truer than ever. The implosion of the Catholic Church and its indirect effects on all of western culture in the early/mid-sixties left the European world defenseless, and since then it has been rapidly dissolving — morally, intellectually, socially and ethnically.
There are, of course, other factors behind this universal tragedy, but this is the most important one.
If we are to rebuild our civilization in one form or another we need to reconnect with its roots.
If the future will not be based in western Tradition, to which Christianity is essential, there probably will be no future for western man.
Opening Statement by Greg Johnson
What is the relationship of Christianity and European identity? I do not say “Western Civilization,” because I wish to speak of the whole of Europe, East and West, and the whole of European history and prehistory, not just the civilized bits.
There are two perspectives we can take on this question. One looks back at history. The other looks forward to the future.
Looking back at history, we see that Christianity played an important role in Europe for more than 1700 years. It might have been otherwise. Many wish it were otherwise. It might be different in the future. But even if there comes a day in which Europe is no longer Christian, there will never come a day when Europe has never been Christian. In that sense, Christianity will always be part of European identity. Just as pre-Christian religions and cultures stretching all the way back to the last Ice Age will also always be part of European identity.
But although there was a time when Europe was Christian, Christianity was never European. I am not referring to the Jewish origins of Christianity, although that should never be forgotten. From the start, though, Christianity was as Hellenic as it was Jewish. Moreover, it defined itself in contradistinction to Judaism, just as Judaism has defined itself in opposition to Christianity.
What makes Christianity essentially non-European are the doctrines it shares with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and not with the Jews, namely the idea that a universal truth is the foundation of a universal community; if Christianity is true for all men, then it is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion. Because of its nature as a universal religion, Christianity is not tied to any particular race or people. Christendom is not and never has been co-extensive with Europe. European folk believed in Christianity, but Christianity was never a European folk religion. Many Europeans believe in the cause of Christianity, but Christianity has never believed in the cause of Europe. For the Christian cause is the salvation of all mankind.
Defenders of both Europe and Christianity point to the fact that, in the past, the Church supported the defense of Europe from Islam. But the Church was defending Europe only incidentally. What she was really defending was Christendom, which at the time was centered in Europe, but even then extended into Ethiopia, the Middle East, and as far away as China. And the Church has always been willing to shed European blood to defend and extend Christendom, from the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land on to centuries of global missionary work that continues to this day. Far from being an example of the harmony of Christianity and the ethnic-genetic interests of Europeans, the Crusades are an example of how the Church led Europeans to shed their blood to recoup lost Christian territories in the Middle East.
Let us now look to the future. If present trends are not reversed, European man will cease to exist. I do not fear for the artifacts of European civilization, since Bach and Rembrandt would continue to be prized by Jews and Orientals. I fear for the race that created these glories, and can create new glories. Our race is facing simple biological extinction due to below-replacement fertility, miscegenation, and the loss of our homelands to non-white invaders. If European man is to survive, we must exclude all non-whites from our homelands and adopt policies that cause our birthrates to rise, particularly the birthrates of the genetically best-endowed. In short, we need White Nationalism with pro-natal policies, preferably eugenic ones.
Is Christianity likely to help or to hinder White Nationalists in preventing the biological extinction of our race? To answer this question, we must first look at the actual behavior of the existing churches. All of the mainstream Christian denominations are opposed to White Nationalist policies. Instead, they provide intellectual and institutional support for ongoing white dispossession that is at least on a par with the support of the organized Jewish community, their senior partner in crime. Regardless of the views we may hold about “true” Christian teaching, if the white race is to be saved, we will have to fight the existing churches every step of the way.
Naturally, this battle will be aided if we have sympathizers inside the churches. All too often, White Nationalists who are also Christians spend their time battling against non-Christians in our ranks rather than against anti-whites in their churches. To prove that their White Nationalism is in good faith, they must instead take the battle to the churches. I wish them the best, but I also caution them. Political entryism within the churches will be no easy matter, since the churches were long ago subverted in just this manner, and the existing clergy are Old Masters in that particular black art. They will see you coming.
The battle within the churches will be aided if White Nationalists can find resources from the Bible and the traditions of the Church that support rather than oppose ethnonationalist politics. I have no doubt that such resources exist. Mobilizing them is an important metapolitical project, and it will be credible only if carried out by believers.
However, the battle within the Church is not likely to be successful unless our movement makes progress in the larger social realm, for the simple reason that the Church follows secular opinion rather than leads it. The church has a long history of supple accommodation to secular power, simply because its kingdom is not of this world. Its ultimate goal is the salvation of the soul. Thus, if White Nationalism achieves political power, the churches will hunt for Biblical precedents for our policies and reinterpret, downplay, or ignore contrary tendencies. The Church knows how to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Our job is to become Caesar.
Many defenders of Christianity argue that societies and individuals need religion, and they recommend Christianity simply because of its illustrious past and the fact that it is still here. Of course, this argument is somewhat premature, because the white race first has to survive before we can worry about how we might best organize a future white society.
Furthermore, in the last century, Christianity has been dramatically declining in Europe. Indeed, I have argued in New Right vs. Old Right (here and here) that for three centuries now, liberalism, not Christianity, has been the de facto civil religion of Europe. I see no reason to believe that Christianity will be more significant in the future than it is at present. It may revive; it may continue to decline; it may persist in diminished form; or it may cease to exist altogether.
Thus the mere fact that Christianity is here does not recommend it, if we are choosing a religion based merely on social utility. Indeed, if that is our primary concern, I have argued that we would be better served by trying to reform liberalism in a race-realist, non-individualist direction, since liberalism dominates everything today, even Christianity itself.
European Christianity will have a future only if European man has a future. But the Church is at best indifferent to white survival, and today it is actively working against it. Thus my recommendation to White Nationalists, Christian and non-Christian, is to focus primarily on white survival, which requires that we be more concerned with battling the churches than preserving them. The Christians among us must be White Nationalists among them. They must be our fifth column, doing whatever is possible to weaken the Church’s opposition to us. They need not fear for the Church, which will survive even if whites do not. God will take care of His Church, but whites must take care of ourselves.
Reply by Jonas De Geer
First off, I re-emphasize that there’s no doubt that we have to fight the existing churches just in the same way we have to fight our own present governments. That is the situation. But the questions remains: to what point can we do without religion? And it is a fact, and a very compelling fact, that secularization has made us weak, has made us defenseless. Not the other way around as some nationalists have claimed in the past.
I would not say that the Crusades in any way were a mission of the Church as such. In fact, it led the European people to unite in a sense. That has never happened before or since. Now, this is something that we really should celebrate and try to emulate.
Christianity has historically defined us as nations. We are now in a country that still has a Christian cross for its flag. Some people in this country question that. They would rather have that done away with. Christianity is an object of both resentment and hate of the same people that are destroying us. This should tell us something. And it’s the same thing all over Europe. The cross is a symbol for towns, municipalities, etc. Now, what does this tell us? You say we can either look to the future or look to the past, but I think we need to look to the past or connect to the past in order to have a future at all. That’s the point.
So, I say it again, the enemies of Europe, the same people that try to completely destroy us racially, destroy our societies, have a profound hatred of Christianity. This is just a fact. They do their utmost to ban nativity scenes, to ban crucifixes from public places, etc. This is a part of the war against us.
I also stress again that I am not talking about people developing a personal faith, because such things can be very difficult. You can be a good, moral person without being a devout Christian or a believing Christian even. It’s not about that. It’s obvious though that the moral capital that generations of Christians have created is something that has benefited our societies. The word here is integrity. A people that has no basic concept of moral integrity will certainly have no integrity ethnically either. That’s kind of the point I’m trying to make.
I also want to thank you, Greg, for having such a polite tone in this debate. I’ve tried to do the same.
So, will ethnic integrity survive without religion? I don’t know. I find it unlikely and I definitely think that the historical evidence that we have speaks against it. This is something we have to consider very closely, because it’s a very serious question.
Reply by Greg Johnson
In replying to Jonas, I want to begin with several brief points, and then I want to develop something in more detail.
First, although Eliot is of course correct that the distinction between East and West was based on the Orthodox versus Catholic divide, East and West were both Europe and both Christian. So, Europe is bigger than the West.
Second, contra Belloc, Europe is not the faith and the faith is not Europe because European man and civilization are older than Christianity, and Christianity has always extended beyond Europe, and the aim of the Church has always been a universal church, the salvation of all mankind.
Third, it strikes me that the Second Vatican Council, which ended in 1965, is both too late in time and too parochial in scope to explain our predicament. The forces of decay are far older, and their field of action is far wider. I think that Vatican II is best seen as the Church’s capitulation to the regnant forces of liberalism rather than as a cause of their triumph.
Fourth, it is one thing to argue that religion is needed for society to function. I would argue that religion is needed for society to function. And it’s quite another thing to argue that this or that particular religion fits the bill. Christians that argue the second point on the grounds that Christianity has a long past and is still around, I think, are making a very weak argument, because Christianity today is at a very low ebb, especially in Europe. Every argument for religion based on social utility can be used to make a far stronger case for Islam than for Christianity, because Islam today is a growing, war-like, patriarchal and fecund religion, which is why certain European ultra-reactionaries and Traditionalists have actually become converts to Islam.
Now, my last point will require a little more development, but I’ve got plenty of time, so bear with me.
In my book New Right vs. Old Right, I have a couple of chapters, one is called “That Old Time Liberalism,” and the other is called “Racial Civil Religion,” and the main ideas that I want to state here are found in those two chapters, particularly the latter one, “Racial Civil Religion.” I do think that every society needs religion, and I understand religion as a way of concretely expressing and honoring and propagating that society’s idea of the highest good. That is a definition of religion that encompasses both secular and civic religions. There are civic religions, including religions that are non-theistic such as Buddhism or Confucianism, and also supernatural religions like Christianity.
Now, why do we need religion? What do all of these religions have in common? They have in common narratives — stories, myths — which can appeal to anyone. Arguments are very hard to teach. I used to teach logic. It was very difficult to teach logic, especially in the United States. But any fool can understand a story. We start out with nursery stories. We understand stories even when we are very young. Religions have rituals, which are concrete actions that make real and palpable some ideal, just like narratives do, and religions also have authority. They command belief. They don’t just persuade or cajole.
Why do we need that in a society? We need it primarily for moral education and formation. I taught Kant. I taught the categorical imperative. And let me tell you, if society depended upon people reaching college age and then understanding Kant in order for there to be morality, we would be back in the jungle in no time. We need moral education starting very, very young, and rationality, arguments cannot provide it, but religious education and formation do just that. So, there is a very strong case, I think, for the necessity of some kind of religion.
So, what kind of religion? The kind of religion I think we need to aim at is a racial civil religion, the topic of my essay. I think that the conflict between Christians, pagans, and agnostics and atheists within the White Nationalist movement needs to be reframed in a larger context, because I think that the true dominant religion of our time is not Christianity. It hasn’t been dominant since the 17th century. Christianity bows to liberalism. Liberalism is the reigning religion. It is hegemonic. I think that if we are going to fight the reigning religion of our time, an anti-Christian crusade is not the way to do it. We need to strike at the real dominant power, a power that even the Jewish community pays lip-service to in order to enjoy the power that they have. It’s their handle on us. If they just appealed to naked Jewish self-interest we wouldn’t be anywhere near as amenable to their aims.
So, what do we need to do? I think that honestly there’s nothing wrong with liberal modernity — I’m putting this provocatively: There’s nothing wrong with liberal modernity that couldn’t be fixed with biological realism about the differences between the races and the sexes, and an ethos that’s somewhat more collectivist, meaning that the individualism that we all hold so dear should not be the highest value, and that when individualism conflicts with the health of the body politic we need to be willing to sacrifice individualism.
What would the results be if, through our efforts, those sorts of ideas became hegemonic, if racial awareness, racial pride, the values of racial preservation and flourishing became the hegemonic ideas? What would happen to the other religions?
What would happen, for instance, to Islam? Well, Islam would be banished to the Ummah. It would be gone from Europe.
What would happen to Christianity? Well, Christianity would have to contend with the new Caesar in town, but they’ve been very good at that. We’ve seen a long history of that. I would predict that Marcion, Origen, Swedenborg, William Blake, and Simone Weil would become the topics of theological discussion, because it would be imperative for the Church to try to erect the cordon sanitaire around its Jewish roots, and those particular thinkers have been very useful for that in the past.
What would happen to paganism, Nordic and Hellenic, under a racial civil religion? I think it would continue to grow and revive.
And what would happen to liberalism, our dominant religion? Well, I think liberals would basically be able to accommodate themselves to it quite well. The texture of daily life, their little micro-breweries and coffee houses and the like, would continue to function. There would still be foreign films to watch. They would still be able to fawn over dogs and cats. They just wouldn’t be able to import little Black children for the same purposes. In short, what they would lose would be more than compensated for, I think, by the glorious feeling that Whites as a race once more have a future.
So, that’s the vision that I have. I think that we need a racial civil religion that prizes racial survival and flourishing above all other things. And, like every religion, like every dominant discourse, it is intolerant of the opposing views. We will take the degradation and destruction of our race off the menu. It will no longer be a topic of polite conversation. It will no longer be welcome in polite society. But, like every other system, we will be tolerant and pluralistic on all matters that are unimportant. And I think that religion is fundamentally unimportant compared to racial survival.
So, that’s my vision, I would say, of an alternative to a revival of Christianity, which I think is a quite old religion. I think that instead of working to revive or reform Christianity, we would have better luck focusing our energy on battling and overturning or reforming the really dominant religion, which is the religion of liberalism.
Concluding Remarks by Jonas De Geer
Well, I can just reiterate: liberalism has killed us. With all due respect, Dr. Johnson, but your vision is entirely speculative. I try to be realistic, and we have seen how Christianity has been necessary, how it has indeed saved Europe in the past.
Yeah, things are looking pretty bleak right now. I admit that. I’m not optimistic in any way. But you cannot create religions, and that is my main point.
And when you say that the Second Vatican Council is a bit too late . . . Yeah, it’s true that society started changing, but you cannot compare 1960 to 1970. It’s such a drastic change and it completely coincides with this change in the Church which actually sort of gave Catholics a green light to completely ignore or skip religion. So, I think definitely, absolutely there’s no coincidence there.
We need morality. We need to get our defenses together, and people are never going to be willing to fight or die for some notion of having superior DNA. It’s not going to happen. You need a religion and we need to tap into the faith of our fathers, because I can see no alternative, and I think history shows us that.
Concluding Remarks by Greg Johnson
Whenever a people faces a crisis, they have to reevaluate their priorities. They have to look at what they’re doing wrong. They have to try to get a sense of who they are. They have to go deeper. When superficial institutions and identities and solutions no longer work, we have to look deeper.
I think that in this crisis we do have to look to our past. We also have to look into our nature. I think that we will not come out the other side of this crisis by connecting to the Sermon on the Mount and its values. I think we will get out of this crisis by connecting with the pagan ethic that the Sermon on the Mount is basically designed to overthrow. I don’t think that it’s time to turn the other cheek. I think it’s time to get mad and shove back rather than just be shoved off the stage of history. So, I do think we need to reconnect with our past, with our deeper roots, our biological roots, if you will. I think we need to get in touch with the middle part of the soul that resides in the chest, the thumos, which is stigmatized in some ways by Christianity as the sin of pride. We need to get angry again. We need to start taking our own side. We need to start loving our own and realizing that there is nothing at all wrong with doing that, but that it’s natural, normal, and right for people to have a preference for their kin over strangers, for their nation over its neighbors, for their race over other races. I think that’s what we need to get in touch with.
I really have to question again the relevance of the Second Vatican Council. How important was Catholicism in Sweden in 1965? Or in Norway or in Finland or in Denmark? I think that it was practically non-existent, and therefore transformations in the bowels of the Vatican I just don’t think can really explain the trajectory of decline that we have found throughout the Protestant north in particular. So, I remain skeptical on that.
I do wish to reiterate, however, that there will never be a time in the future when Europe never had been Christian. It’s part of our past. It will always be part of our past. It cannot be undone. I think that the cross on flags and things like that may someday be about as relevant to our religious beliefs as the Norse gods in the days of the week. Namely, it will be there; it’s part of our history. I am a great lover of Greek mythology and Nordic mythology, but I don’t literally believe its truth, and I think there are many things in the Bible — especially the New Testament, let me make that perfectly clear — there are many things in the story of Jesus that are moving to me. There are many elements of Christian art throughout the centuries that are of permanent aesthetic appeal, and I do think, like Guillaume Faye who is not a Christian either, I would be there to fight against the bishops who want to hand over the keys to Notre Dame so it can be turned into a mosque someday. I’d shed some blood to stop that. So, I think we need to recognize that this is part of our past. But we’re not going to save it by reconnecting with the ethics of Christianity. We’re going to save it by reconnecting with our pagan roots and beyond that with our biological roots, our sense of destiny, our sense of identity, and also our capacity to get really, really fighting mad.
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 535 Ask Me Anything
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
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)
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 1: Política y Metapolítica
Pretty impressive. Together you cover the basic issues and push back the veil of ignorance (and expand the field of debate) to a vast degree.
Thank you so much
I agree with Greg in this debate. In particular, I support this:
“All too often, White Nationalists who are also Christians spend their time battling against non-Christians in our ranks rather than against anti-whites in their churches. To prove that their White Nationalism is in good faith, they must instead take the battle to the churches.”
Indeed. If Christianity can be saved, and used to promote pro-White politics, then it is up to Christian believers to do the work and show us the way. We can hardly expect atheists, paganists, or anti-Christian Nietzscheans to work to save Christianity. It is up to those making the assertion (a pro-White modern Christianity is possible) to prove it. They know the churches, they know the doctrines, they know the people, they know the challenges. Get to it. If you succeed, fine, then we have another weapon on our side. If you fail (as I expect) then the time and energy you waste are your own, and others will have been making progress in other directions.
Thanks, very well-put.
Christianity helped forge Western Civilization. It modernized it in a way.
By the way if you look at 18th century writings they indicate that the White race is the Adamic race. This is true as Caucasians are descended from the bloodline of Adam. I wont get into too much detail here as I have been reading many of these writings which have in the last 50 years been removed from public libraries and from book stores [too ‘racist’-yet have of the writings were created by very left wing thinkers of the 1700s and 1800s].
This is one book for example ”The Negro A beast or in the Image of God” by Charles Carroll. These writings are hard to come by and the copy rights have not been bought by anyone. Even other racialist materials written in the 1800s/1900s are hardly mentioned these days.
Lately I have been collecting them. There are places that will reprint the original books. But I am shocked the modern right takes little interest in any of it. The Book I mentioned can be read for free off of google too. I notice many of the books and essays in the 1800s on race have been removed from the mainstream. This is sad.
As for Christianity being useless. I disagree. Sure you have some people promoting Asatru or Christianity. I would say that Christianity is separate of White Nationalism or should remain so. Religion should be apart of White Nationalism or as I like to call it Preservationism [as oppose to Nationalism].
An article that was publisehd in Look magazine, How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking. http://www.fisheaters.com/jewsvaticanii.html
Also Belloc’s book Europe and the Faith
When I used to scan Stormfront I came across a post in which the author claimed to read “The Lord Of The Rings” every year. It is a great book, but I cannot read it every year. Recently at a local Barnes And Noble I saw a display devoted to Tolkein. The most significant thing I noticed is “The Lord Of The Rings” and “The Hobbit” presented in moleskin editions. The paper was of a high quality like you would see in a bible or a new testament. There is something going on with “The Lord Of The Rings” and I hope it is the establishment of a new religion. The allegorical allusions certainly reflect our times.
De Geer’s thesis is not very convincing to me as a non-Christian. To begin with, one of the key tenets of his speech is that cultural degeneration only happened after Second Vatican Council, which was in 1962. As if to say that Europe was morally and culturally healthy before then. How then does De Geer explain prior upheavals, the Bolshevik Revolution, similar unsuccessful revolutions in Europe, the anti-clerical, anti-religious revolution-from-above in France, of which we are all still feeling the effects? What of the cultural degeneracy that the fascists and nationalists of the 20th Century rose up to oppose? Was it simply imagined? Already we see De Geer’s thesis unravelling, limited as it is by its Latinocentrism. De Geer produces a quote by T.S. Eliot to ‘prove’ that Catholicism is the most important tradition in Western Christianity, but this seems to ignore the fact the most pivotal revolution in Western history, the Enlightenment, occurred after the Protestant Reformation, and was to a large degree a phenomenon of Protestant nations. Any casual glance at the evolution of Western thought over the past four centuries will show that Protestant and post-Protestant ethics have had a much greater influence on the Catholic world than the reverse.
As for the importance of faith to survival, De Geer once again simply states his claim, without attempting to prove it. As a pagan, I tend to agree that spirituality is important to us both as peoples and as individuals. However I’m more sceptical of the importance of a national church, or some equivalent thereof, partly from witnessing how vulnerable Catholic nations became to infection once the church caved into political correctness, an ideology quite Protestant in origin. In fact, contra what De Geer says, the church remained quite strong and traditionalist long after the cultural rot of materialism and equalitarianism set in, but could offer nothing effective to oppose it. The Ancient Greeks for their part, allowed for religious diversity in ethnically homogenous communities, realizing that a state-endorsed philosophy would quickly lead to ideological stagnation. Far better to have many churches and one people, as this would mean an identity not confined to an ever increasingly narrow, outdated, and manipulable set of religious dogmas.
The fact that Jews actively seek out to subvert the church means nothing. Jews and like-minded gentiles will seek to subvert anything that is part of White society, period. Even if that ends up backfiring in the long term. Witness the present-day oscillation between race-blind civic nationalism and multiculturalism. Parties like the FN are only allowed to exist (compare the banning of the Vlaams Blok in the 1980s) because the (Jewish) elite have come to the realization that mass immigration of illiberal Muslims may actually be a threat to their own system of cultural and social power. Also, celebrating the Crusades an accomplishment of European unity gravely overlooks the large amount of blood and resources spent killing our own kind in the Crusades of the North. Clearly, as Christians demonstrated in the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, when forced to choose between the cross, and European blood, the church has no more a dual-loyalty than American Jews have about Israel. Neither needs to think twice before throwing our kind into the fire.
I agree. Thanks for a thoughtful and well-stated comment.
It is too bad you did not have a more worthy opponent Dr. Johnson. A nominal Christianity that Jonas De Geer is advocating is not supported by a passion that say the Legionnaires had. Yet their passion had little reason. People are looking for knowledge now a days not just blind faith. It has to make sense. I still cannot give up on the Greeks, even though Germanic Paganism is really attractive. He was right on one point. People have to have something to believe in. Truth, Beauty, Goodness and Justice cannot just be thrown away. I was surprised that he did not go there, as idealism is a great motivator.
The problem with paganism is that it doesn’t have any metaphysical meaning to it. Its like worshipping material. I worship a rock in the woods carved out that looks like some ancient Greek god or Germanic warrior. It seemed foolish to me when I got into it. Christianity to me is far more inspiring.
Not to mention with Paganism you need human sacrifices and animal sacrifices which I am not into. Otherwise without the theatrics I don’t see how Paganism will ever be real.
I also like Christian values as I view them as important for a society to operate. Pagan values are what we have now, homosexuality, prostitution, drugs, and the life free and do what you want society.
By not even attempting to first gain an objective notion of what paganism is (or was), you do your cause little credit. Comments like these (plus spending half my life with Pentecostals) make me inclined to believe the stereotype of Christians as narrow-minded. But then I remember Belloc.
Well John, it depends upon whom you read. Try Alain de Benoist, Collin Cleary, Edred Thorsson, Tyr Journal, Odroerir The Journal of Contemporary Heathen Thought and others I cannot think of right now. I do not think they are into human and/or animal sacrifices. Unless of course you consider war human sacrifice and eating meat, animal sacrifice.
I used to think so too. But then I asked myself to be specific: just what is that I find so much more inspiring about Christianity? My answers underwhelmed me. Almost nothing that I truly valued about Christianity was directly or essentially related to Christianity itself – the art, the architecture, the pomp, the history. If the people who created those had had different religious beliefs there’s little reason to think the quality of their output would have been any less.
About the only feature of Christianity per se that I find any value in is its promise of redemption and salvation, and the manner in which it offers them (faith in the resurrection of Christ). These are powerful human themes and I’m convinced it’s this aspect that struggling Christians cling to after they’ve abandoned strict dogmatism or church authority. This is why I still like to attend church every now and then, especially around Easter and Christmas.
Paganism as it exists today may leave a lot to be desired, but paganism will be what people with pagan beliefs and values make of it. The field is wide open here. Pagans seem to me aware that they’re still finding their feet, learning how best to capture and ritualize the pagan sense of life, not minding overly much if others reject or even sneer at a certain practice they’ve adopted. If two hundred years from now paganism is flourishing, with temples, rituals, customs, art and literature the equal of anything found in today’s Christian world, the struggles and relative ‘religious poverty’ of the founding generations will not matter.
The ancient world had its Vatican too: the Serapaeum of Alexandria, which was demolished by Christian mobs at the end of the 4th century.
The ancient world had its Vatican too: the Serapaeum of Alexandria, which was demolished by Christian mobs at the end of the 4th century.
Christians must have been a savage bunch back then. The Balkans Christians who freed themselves from Ottoman rule had at least as much reason to feel enraged, but they left the enemy’s mosques largely untouched. Even the Muslim record compares favorably to early Christianity. I suspect this had more to do with religious injunctions than with heartfelt clemency, but at least they had such injunctions.
I also appreciate the tone and intellectual quality of the debate. I also think Mr. De Geer was a little overpowered by Mr. Johnson, because he wasn’t able to articulate how important his religion is to him and in the history of his people. This is because religion is so deeply tied to emotion and the subconscious, a part of us that we don’t fully understand, but do realize is incredibly important.
Apparently, the WN intelligentsia for the most part is aspiritual, and not feeling this need in themselves (or filling it in other ways) are convinced that it is superfluous. Religious activities are seen as an annoying and silly behavior pattern mostly engaged in by the weak-minded.
The debate touched on the idea that religion has an important function as a form of social utility, and I agree with Mr. De Geer that religion is needed for a society and people to survive long-term. For one thing, religion is a structure for morality, which is essential for a people’s existence (establishing family bonds and societal stability, ensuring fertility, responsible child-rearing, avoiding vices, etc.) Morality is only truly persuasive when it is sanctioned by a higher power and supernatural authority. Religious teachings, stories and folk beliefs are also useful for handing down elder knowledge and folkways through the generations.
More importantly though, I believe that spirituality is a fundamental and crucial human need. We know that spirituality has existed throughout human existence, even for Neanderthals. There is very strong evidence that humans have a “God” part of the brain, that lights up during spiritual experiences. Why do the atheistic decendants of highly spiritual people such as the Puritans embrace liberalism with such passion and fervor? Because although religion was taken away from them, the brain matter reserved for that activity remains, and so does that crucial human need. Those people are struggling to fill that need in an alternate way. Mr. De Geer is correct that the decline of authentic, sincere Christianity directly correlates with the rise of the religion of liberalism (so we could say that Mr. Johnson is fighting against Christianity’s twisted sister).
As an analogy, carnal union is a crucial human need. If I were to describe it as “it feels good and makes me feel closer to my spouse”, I hardly touch on the incredibly deep and profound nature of this activity, as most people who have experienced that physical, emotional (and spiritual for most) connection could attest. However, to someone who never matured to fertility, such as perhaps a Eunuch who was deballed as a child, the profundity of the carnal union is incomprehensible. Likewise, people who have never had a real spiritual experience just cannot understand how profound and important this is (and so yes, it would seem that most of the WN intelligentsia could be described as spiritual eunuchs).
Religion, in its highest form, meets those deep human spiritual needs, just like the most scientifically balanced meal meets human nutritional needs. Christianity won out over its many forms of competition through the ages because it meets those human needs best for Europeans. While Christianity is imperfect, and must be restored, reinvigorated and cleansed, I completely agree that:
“You need a religion and we need to tap into the faith of our fathers, because I can see no alternative, and I think history shows us that.”
How do you know WN’s or Pagans have not had a ‘real spiritual experience’? Spirituality is not the exclusive property of Christianity which must conform to the Pope’s degrees. The ineffable is hard to describe in any religion. Words only point the way.
Asatru is a state religion now in Iceland.
Besides that religious awe is generally regarded as insane in our modern world, so just who is insane enough to talk about it. Not me.
The idea that Christianity triumphed in some sort of free market of spiritual ideas is pretty far from the Taliban- and ISIS-style historical truth.
If the sordid history behind its eventual triumph were more widely known I think it would motivate a considerable number of more thoughtful Christians to seek out religious alternatives. Still, it’s a mistake to assume that Christianity won out solely because of the sword. And besides, teetering Christians will be more easily won over if they feel at least some of their most essential and cherished religious values are understood, respected and appreciated; smashing their idols into dust – as satisfying as that can be – makes more enemies than its worth.
>People will not fight and die for some notion of having a precious DNA, or some nationalist interpretation of sociobiology.
I remember Hitler commenting in his “Table Talks” that the Red Army managed to fight and die quite well without any priests in their ranks.
>But you cannot create religions, and that is my main point.
An absolutely astonishing statement. Wherever do they come from then? Did men in the past just stumble upon them?
Those who believe that one true religion was revealed by God have to be committed to the corollary belief that all the other religions were made up by men.
There is an important distinction to be made here. Yes, religions can be man-made, in the same way all societies are man made: they are the aggregate result of many different human actions, and there is nothing supernatiural about them – but still they have grown organically. It is a different thing to say that religions can be man-made, in the sense that a person has actually invented the religion in an armchair philosophy type of way and then spread it through conscious effort, in the way communism was created (as apart from all normal, organic societies). I think Jonas is talking about religions being man-made in this second sense. He is of course mistaken about this, since there are a few counter-examples – Scientology was clearly man-made in the crudest sense (however, I am sure Jonas would not acknowledge it as a religion). Although most big world religions were created in the former, more organic way.
Mormonism is a pretty impressive example of a religion invented out of whole cloth by a confidence trickster.
And a very inspiring religion (religious practice) at that! I am sorry to learn that it has stopped being white – I once had great hopes for Mormonism being a vehicle for white society in this age of destruction.
“People will not fight and die for some notion of having a precious DNA, or some nationalist interpretation of sociobiology”
Aye, people won’t die for sociobiology. But people have died and will die for identity, and for blood. Before class warfare, before religious wars, there were tribal wars.
People die for their families and homelands all the time. That is dying for “DNA,” although people traditionally called it blood. The nationalist interpretation of sociobiology is just a scientific theory, a theory that would have no value were it not for the fact that it explains what human beings actually do.
This was a very good read. “White Nationalists who are also Christians spend their time battling against non-Christians in our ranks rather than against anti-whites in their churches.” I have much experience in trying to stop these sorts of debates online in the past. It seems it usually comes from overzealous Catholics high on Moldbug ready to lash out at anyone, believer or not, who comes from a Protestant background. Though in my experiences in my local area, the American south, I have met many fire and brimstone “ultra-protestants” (think Southern Baptists and the like) who have nothing but hate for Catholics, etc. An old friend of mine has actually told me that the Islamification of France, Italy, etc does not bother him because they are “catholic apostates.” Quite simply, I do not think anything which promotes this sort of infighting is conductive to any sort of progress out of Europeans’ current collective situation. Furthermore, if Christianity can be fitted to our purposes, and is the correct way forward, than go out and make it happen. If a massive Christian attack on modernity and multiculturalism began, no doubt, white nationalists, both pagan and atheist, would set aside theological differences with our Christian comrades and fight for their cause. As you said Dr. Johnson, if the Bishops of Notre Dame were going to hand over the keys to an Imam, the pagans of France would stand side by side with the traditionalist Catholics in opposition. It is realpolitik.
About De Geer’s insistence that organized Jewry is opposition to the Church and Christianity is proof that it is a fitting religion for Europeans; there is no greater tool of Jewish domination throughout the American south (arguably the most racially conscious Americans) than Christianity. Southern Baptism is quickly becoming a black majority denomination simply because white Southern Christians are joining “nondenominational” (read Zionist) evangelical mega-churches. The preachers in these churches make regular pilgrimages Israel and the Wailing Wall, teach that State of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and that it is all Christian’s duty to support Israel and God’s chosen people. They will teach things like, “God blesses the friends of Israel, and curses her enemies.” Yes, these preachers openly warn against the dangers of Islamization, but only to incite support for more wars in the Middle East amongst their congregations. They are careful to say, “I don’t hate Muslims. Individual Muslims can be just as unobservant as most Christians.” You will never hear a single one of them mention the word immigration, or that the only way to prevent our eventual Islamification is by halting immigration immediately. Not too long ago I attended a meeting a local mega-church on the dangers of ISIS. In short the speaker’s position was: ISIS is a threat to Israel’s security, and it is all Christians’ duty to prevent the Muslims from taking back Jerusalem. While there I noticed they had a bookstore, and it had more books on subjects like Israel and biblical prophecy, the Six Day War, etc than commentaries on the New Testament.
Also, another quick observation is that white Christians in the South have no trouble using racial slurs to describe the looters in places like Ferguson and Baltimore, but put the same man in a dress suit and a pew bench on a Sunday morning and he is transformed into a respectable “black man.”
For what it is worth I can’t help but think that the issue is neither Christianity nor Paganism but money. For example, the experience of white identity pagans in the world of Paganism, re, https://counter-currents.com/2015/04/anti-racism-vs-neo-paganism/#more-54668 is similar to that of white identity Christians in the world of Christianity.
The world we live in is neither Pagan nor Christian. Only money counts and only those that really love it will prosper or be listened to by the masses. Christians have to turn the other cheek to the Pagans and the Pagans must return the favor. And in the meantime both have to send a couple of bucks to the summer fund raiser – unless,of course, they love money more than the race. All else is just idle chatter.
Why blend religion with the fight for european survival??
One is broadly a question of spirituality the other a common political-social struggle against losing our homelands and going extinct!
Im a protestant christian, so I dislike roman catholicism and paganism both. Yet, I would like to live in a free modern democratic european society not overrun by violent hateful third worlders and with wide religious liberalism. That is no christians burning pagans or heretics and no pagan persecution of christian churches and no human sacrifice. Just live and let live on the religious front. Is it not what we already do, with rather great succes??
Christianity, paganism and atheism in various forms are all part of european history and heritage at some level, why should fighters for european survival choose one or the other in order to stick together and achieve a common political-social goal??
I get that people want others to believe what they believe, but this just falls within the area of freedom of speech, democratic government and normal ongoing societal debate. As a protestant, I of course want other people to be protestants too, but it is entirely up to them to decide what to believe in or not. Im really not the boss of that.
So I would never join a political party or movement and then demand that everybody in it should adopt my spiritual world view. It would be very childish to do so!
And I will gladly join european pagans, catholics, atheists and others in the fight for our common survival.
I think there is something to the idea that Christianity is a kind of time-bomb that was destined to destroy the West once the other circumstances fell into place. It’s easy to list the Bible passages that strongly imply universalism, and then there’s the Nietszchean diagnosis which as I see it is irrefutable, historical data on Christian patriots and warriors notwithstanding.
But moreover, what I cannot understand is how a Jew-wise white nationalist can be a Christian. I really don’t get it. You are worshipping an offshoot of Judaism (however anti-Jewish it may be), which has supplanted your own ancestral gods and literally condemns your own ancestors to hell. This is a fatal contradiction, however you want to spin it.
However long we’ve been on this trajectory, it’s not too late to get off it. Especially now that “sticking with what we’ve got” is hardly an argument, in a post-Christian society. I mean, read Dante. He has the Prophets and Patriarchs in heaven and his own Pagan, Latin ancestors spending eternity in a dark hell-hole because they lacked the opportunity to convert. It’s just utterly sick, I’m sorry.
I have chosen Christianity,now for many years. And the older I get the more powerless I find Christianity to be. The greater the emphasis on miracles, healing, and spiritual magic the weaker it has become as a force to build civilizations.
I’m into building a civilization. I earned a PhD in History. And the more Christianity tries to satisfy the “inner person” the more it fails at building a civilization that would provide identity and meaning and strength to individuals. People need a tribe. Christianity is less a tribe than mob unable to build anything — it’s a pitiful group coping session.
Christianity as we know it is dead. For fellow Christians out there I’ll put it this way, “if the salt no longer has flavor it’s good for nothing but being thrown out and trampled under the foot of man.”
So that’s what’s happened.
I am re-understanding Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I am returning to a violent, racial past, very tribal. I reject the notion that the Greek Scriptures replaced the Hebrew scriptures, which Christians seem to think. Hold to that notion if you will — I can argue later why that is wrong.
God is partial, vindictive, personal, and violent. When mankind rebelled, the Creator committed what some consider as genocide or worse — he wiped out millions, perhaps billions, to have but eight.
As those eight bred and grew in numbers, they rebelled again by refusing to spread out across the face of the earth. They said “let us be one” with one set of values, one government, and one language. God hates that.
At the Tower of Babel he divided their languages and forced them to separate. God is a separatist. He hates human unity — he created the nations when rebellious man tried to make us all “one.” E Pluribus Unum is is old and wicked as the tower of Babel; the Almighty forced the nations into genetic diversity and geographic dispersion. This contemporary lie of diversity is nothing but a return to Babel where all differences will cease, one government will rule, tyranny will crush the spirit and vitality of man. They would have us become a pathetic, flavorless, torpid paste. Ugly sameness forever.
All Father chose a man, Abraham. From his loins came nations. From Jacob came twelve tribes, tribes that were jealous of their own identify although able to band together for war to fight for the nation (of Israel).
These tribes invaded someone else’s land and slaughtered them. The kept the lands, raped the women, and killed everyone. When they didn’t, God was not pleased. They conquered. They believed unto death. They were fecund warriors driven by the uniqueness of their God and the hallowed nature of their people.
As thus, they are the example for all the nations of the world. Not to be them, but to become what God created them to be — different, not same. Separate, not mixed.
Give me not your pathetic dying man on a cross — give me a Lion to order me into battle, that Son of David — a bloody lusty warrior king. He is worthy for me to follow. With this we shall a civilization build.
The biggest argument against Christianity is that the Roman Church can never dismantle its whole apparatus of theological-moral reflection that actively encourages dysgenics. Her teachings on sexuality are such that in order to rescind previous decrees, the Church would have to remove significant chunks from Her magisterium (think Humanae Vitae and all encyclicals before and after; the Church has doubled down on H.V. numerous times).
I say this as a lapsed Catholic who still pines for a good Latin Mass every now and then. Mentally, it is very jarring to be in a church whose practical moral doctrine, if followed, would result (and has resulted) over time in the complete destruction of the best under the rubric of charity. The downward pull of the Church’s dysgenic policy would still be felt even if there were no immigration into traditional white homelands. I’m no humanitarian, but even I wince at the damage that is being done in Africa and other parts of the globe by the practical application of Christian charity. It breeds endless numbers of people who will starve, suffer and never have anything like a real life.
I don’t follow the line of revivalist thinking because we know too much about the need for population control and good breeding practices to ever return to some naïve moral theology. The Church has, through repeated intrusions into moral doctrine, painted herself into a corner with bulls, decrees, encyclicals, etc. that make it impossible for her to change course without subverting the faith of the few remaining Catholics. This is now becoming an issue in the showdown between the Pope and the progressive bishops and the conservative faction defending the teaching against divorce and remarriage. The progressives I think sense that Christianity will be dead soon if some accommodation is not made for the divorced and remarried since this makes up a huge percentage of the Catholic population in Western countries. African bishops on the other hand do not see the need to change the teaching since, in their eyes, it’s a purely Western problem.
Not a thing wrong with just defining oneself as a “Cultural Christian”. Covers both/all bases. Should satisfy everyone, except maybe those who are so brittle that even if others have all the “correct” WN views, they go into a froth over someone who even slightly, verbally acknowledges 1,000 years of their ancestors’ history.
I would define a cultural Christian as an individual who is doctrinally and relationally disconnected from the Christ of the Christian faith, yet “still significantly identifies with Christian culture due to family background, personal experiences, or the social and cultural environment in which they grew up” (Wikipedia)
Thesis + Antithesis := Synthesis. I think this is where the white man is headed, if we are headed anywhere at all. Perhaps ink would be better spilled on an Orange Catholic Bible, or moving toward the synthesis, rather than rehashing the earlier debates about the virtues of paganism vs Christianity that have characterized 21st C White Nationalism. Based on my reading of this debate, it seems that Greg has already moved generously in this direction, so to characterize this particular discussion as an antagonism between a thesis and antithesis isn’t accurate.
What White Nationalism needs is more visionaries and psychonauts, poets, and prophets. Until we get there, we will continue to hobble on as an intellectual curiosity. To incite passion in others, we have to manifest it in ourselves – only mythmaking can accomplish this. I wish there were space for spiritual ruminations of a decidedly syncretic (and non-reconstructionist) character within the published space of WN.
1) The last bastion of illiberal thought is- Whether church hierarchies approve or not- Christianity. Particularly in the United States and Eastern Europe. Instead of engineering a new route to anti-liberalism, which would alienate most who are already (albeit vaguely ) illiberal. To speculate a bit, I suspect coastals like Mr. Johnson underestimate the latent il liberalism of rural, White America.I live in the North Woods of a very Northern state, yet my nearest neighbor (a descendent of German farmers) flies a Confederate flag in his yard. So again, the most open to anti-liberalism would be the most alienated by a tacitly anti-Christian route to anti-liberalism. Why not work with what we have.
2) This is very speculative, but I wonder if one reason why SWPLs (the other white meat ) seem to intuitively revile Christianity has much less to do with what we think they’ve been taught & much more to do with an innate revulsion to the mealy-mouthed weakness Church hierarchies present.This class of whites, being more intelligent than my rural neighbor, wouldn’t be comfortable presenting as a member of a Church while harboring beliefs/attitudes that contrast with doctrine too much. If we observe the lives of SWPLs, we can see how they’ve molded Progressivism to suit them; Look at Portland, for example.It’s a kind of Whitopia in practice, but in theory, to those who live there, it is essentially the opposite. Why/how can they justify this? 1) Progressivism is ascendant; it is social/political power right now, so there is a 2) motive and opportunity to treat liberalism in general as “Open to interpretation”, something Christianity can’t quite offer. So to reach these people, we need an illiberalism that is perceived as ascendant & powerful, but with room to breathe, as it were.
How do we become ascendant? “The right side of history” is used so openly and often by Progs & they seem unaware of how much it gives away regarding their true motives. Multiculturalism & liberalism must come to be seen as practically untenable first, then morally untenable second.You need both, so former Progs can claim they’re opposed to it for moral reasons and also, by the way, it’s never going to work anyway.
I simply disagree that Christianity is anti-liberal.
I doubt that liberals dislike Christianity because they think it is too mealey-mouthed. Indeed, I think that the Churches are mealey-mouthed to appeal to liberalism.
In my formulation of the New Right project I stress that the racialist hegemony we seek to create will contain quite a bit of pluralism on all other issues. I want a society in which white people are arguing about all the things we argue about now, but the future of our race will be secure, and white extinction will no longer be an option.
Christianity certainly is not illiberal today, I agree, but I think you’ll concede that of the illiberalism present in popular discourse, most of it emanates from those who identify as Christians. They do so contra the theology they claim to adhere to.
Meanwhile, the SWPLs who loathe the “Christian Right” have probably encountered Christianity directly in Post VaticanII Catholic Churches, Upper-middle class ( & thereby Lefty) Protestant Churches.This is true in Western & Northern Europe as well as North America, I’d say. If there’s one image that you’d use to satirize this church experience, you could do worse than to use that of the beardy, vaguely effeminate youth pastor, strumming on an acoustic guitar, singing songs of “tolerance”. It’s this kind of weakness that I theorize even SWPLs have an instinctive revulsion towards. It seems strange to imagine they’re concerned with “realism”, or “toughness”, but in my experience, many former upper-crust Protestants do view a kind of atheistic leftism as “tough”, or “real”. They would never admit to a power as motivation, but it’s quite clear that left-signaling does in fact fill them with a sense of righteous power. Leftism, in the public-conscience, is ascendant, it is the only way to claim social/public power. It’s this amazing trick it pulls — & I need to work this out— that it allows for such blatant power-seeking to be done under the guise of “fighting for the little man”; the exact opposite of the real motivation.
Philosophy, psychology and science ought to be the religion of Western man.
We don’t need absurd legends scaring us into submitting to weird stories from the Jews in the Middle East.
Please see William Gayley Simpson’s interpretation of one of Europe’s Bronze-Age religions:
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