Counter-Currents
1,567 words
A discussion on a recent episode of The Daily Shoah brought up a topic on which everyone has an opinion but that rarely ends well: Christianity and the Alt Right. The discussion unearthed what I suspect many in this metapolitical struggle think about religion. Perhaps the most notable moment is when Mike Enoch says:
. . . really, what you need is a source of motivation and inspiration, and anybody that’s involved in these politics has that in spades already . . . if you’ve done the work to reconcile your faith and your politics, then I’m not going to go and drive wedges there.
For many of us, the attention that would otherwise have gone into deep questions about life and death, or toward actual religious practices has been funneled into politics with the Trump campaign and the rise of the Alt Right. I certainly was putting more time into reading books and absorbing other educational material before 2016.
The kind of mentality that brought someone like me to this movement was a combination of deep questioning, anger, and a sense that things could be put right through knowledge and will. I listened to those old William Pierce recordings and then sought to understand the Jewish Question. I read Codreanu’s For My Legionaries, wrote down several of his observations, and posted them on my wall. This was not so much to remind myself that those words existed as to inscribe them into my memory and being through repetition. The act of writing something tangible on paper rather than just producing transitory combinations of digital script is a worthwhile exercise. I wrote various symbols on my skin to later be washed away, just as a small ritual to reinforce to myself why I am here and what I am on the Earth to accomplish.
One of the realizations I have made in debating leftists is the way they project their vision of a utopia onto White Nationalists. They believe we are seeking a beautiful, white world with white families, driven by nostalgia for the past wrapped up in a fascist aesthetic. I suspect this is the case for many people. But while the leftist seeks a ‘better’ future with less suffering, less cruelty, more hedonism, and unlimited charity, they continually postpone their fantasy into the future while finding oppressions to condemn. If we on the right merely wanted our own version of utopia, would we be much better?
What makes us wiser is our capacity to base our worldview on nature; not just to try and weave reality into our dreams, but to make our dream the perpetual overcoming of resistance—the wings of a butterfly inside his cocoon demanding the life that awaits on the outside. This should be the first red pill; that an austere evolutionary cauldron always removes the unfit and ugly just as assuredly as water poured from a rooftop will land on the ground below.
“War, having become a nuisance, now thrives in the shadows” as Mishima put it. If evolution is true, as mainline atheists love to remind their imaginary creationist antagonists, then competition is a permanent feature of human life. This is just as much the case for middle school children as it is for Jihadists and nuclear-armed nation states. If the Earth’s territory is limited, then many peoples’ DNA will be eliminated as human history continues.
At the Catholic Church I used to attend every Sunday as a kid, I remember one of the older priests ending a sermon by giving a simple warning: whether your destiny is in Heaven or Hell, where you end up is eternal. I maintain an image he gave us another time; that the amount of time spent in this life here on Earth will feel like the blinking of an eye when with the angels in Heaven. This leaves a child in the pews with an unambiguous message on how to live his life. The old man lost the use of his voice a few years later.
But then what happens in school? The elementary school I went to was largely white—but not entirely. It was predominantly Christian, and from what I remember there was a plurality of Catholics. But there were obviously kids of different backgrounds who did not go to a Catholic Church. Worse yet, there were kids whose parents might have brought them to Church on occasion, and yet did not take their teaching seriously! Is a child supposed to believe that most of his peers are going to Hell—a real place where one’s soul experiences eternal suffering? Seeing the Stations of the Cross where images portray the blood of a man whose hands and feet have been nailed through was possibly the only adult-sanctioned depiction of violence I saw from a young age. The afterlife as conceived of by Christians was real to me, and the possibility that anyone would question that was something I could not grasp.
It isn’t until adolescence that people start to inform you that there are things about the secular world that do not mesh with your religion. Sex is going to tempt you, is basically what we were uncomfortably told by adults whom we suspected of probably being hypocrites anyway. When I was fifteen, we were shown an awful video depicting a boy disobeying his father. The boy takes a boat out onto a lake while his father is setting up a tent, only to be attacked by an alligator. The father is shown being hoisted onto a stretcher as the boy begs him not to die.
“Son, if you love me . . .” the father manages, “do what I tell you to do.” This is an awkward way to instruct teenagers, to put it mildly. To inspire young people to be committed to their faith, would it not have been much wiser to show them how depraved the secular world was? We were all supposed to be patriotic and religious at the same time. But what do you do when the two conflict?
For most people, the two simply merge subconsciously together into a kind of universalist, identity-negating, inoffensive, secular Christianity that possesses absolutely no power to guide one’s life. This effete kind of religious training is absorbed into all the corporate platitudes about diversity. The teachers tell you one thing, parents another, the priests yet another, and they all end up merging into a singular plain slave morality. It is rule number one of the kindergarten classroom: Be Nice.
History is not nice. Sexual selection is not nice. War is not nice. Mutations and disabilities are not nice. The collection of resources is not nice. The expansion of national territory is not nice. Being born in the first place is pretty much absolutely transgressive behavior. If you want to create you have to destroy, all the way down to the level of the microscopic.
I know a Buddhist who will not kill anything (even ants) in order to keep his heart from hardening. But he still eats the flesh of slaughtered beasts when it satisfies his hunger. He still thrives on the rearrangement of energy found in other organisms. Others refrain from eating meat at all to keep from contributing to the deaths of animals. But then aren’t the lives of many of these animals owed to their eventual consumption by hungry humans in the end? Responsible animal-rights activists will warn people to neuter their animals to prevent the births of miserable, hungry, ill-cared for offspring. But if one has to nullify the biological imperative of a creature in order to end suffering, what is the point of ending suffering?
We will not end suffering or death, which is to say; we will not end competition. I think this is the first and last red pill: that we are cursed with an imperative to grow. When imbued with religious teaching and then contemplating the possibility that there is nothing there after you close your eyes for the last time, you have to find a way to make the years in front of you last forever. Something must take its place.
Last year while debating a leftist friend of mine, I considered what it would take to make me walk away from our cause for the rest of my life. I figured that it would have to be some kind of experience that was so powerful that I stopped caring about anything physical. It would have to be a religious experience so strong that I no longer cared about anything in the world—my identity, human history, my friends and family, my hobbies, or the various places I have called home. But what would this even be? We already strive for the greatest beauty we know, and the most complex thing we know to exist: our race, and what our race will become in the future.
That Church I attended also had a younger priest. He was a well-liked middle-aged guy who had a talent for delivering thoughtful sermons, and then talking amicably and informally with parishioners when the mass was over. I was sitting in the back, looking towards the altar where he stood speaking calmly to a mostly older audience. He said that all fear is ultimately the fear of death. I am not that child sitting in the pews anymore, and I no longer believe what I was taught in Church. But he is still right.
20 comments
What I have found is that in order to find a place for Christianity within this particular movement, one will have to define quite clearly what one means by the term ‘Christianity’ and what one refers to by ‘this movement’. The better the definitions, the more complete the definitions, the better one will be able to organize one’s understanding.
The term ‘Christianity’, in my own case, cannot mean anything else, or begins from the starting point, of defining a wide-scope relationship to a specific metaphysics. I have come to see the necessity of chosing ‘the Johannine option’. The Gospel of John situates itself within a cosmological metaphysic. In my way of seeing things, if one refers to such a large and cosmological metaphysics, what one refers to must be ideas about reality (this cosmic manifestation) that function in this and all possible worlds. One advantage in this is that the metaphysical ideas are allowed to operate (because they are understood as being true) but that the form in which they have come to us (the story, the narrative, the myth, the color, and in a sense the specific temporality) are not the essential parts. The most essential part is the *inner aspect*, the metaphysical truths. Perhaps it is just the way my mind works, but when I locate and articulate these essential aspects, I am better able to navigate the myth-content.
But this still does not speak to nor answer the question: What is Christianity? What does the relationship to a divine avatar entail? What is its purpose? I have gotten the best answers to this question from Christopher Dawson, a Catholic historian and apologist. The notion should be filled out of course but this is not really the place. But the essence can be said to be the purpose of the Christian revelation is to define a relationship to metaphysical truths that are eternal (metaphysical) to the contingent and mutable world (nature), and to provide a *pattern* as it were, and a link-point, for a contingent entity, that is to say for a living person. If the next question is: For what? To what purpose? I think the answer must be: To become even more fully human, or perhaps to become perfected in humanness. It has been said that Shakespeare ‘invented the human’. To understand what that means requires following the idea forward. Yet there is definite truth in the statement especially the more one becomes familiar with Shakespeare’s works.
In this sense the ‘create the human’ or to ‘discover the human’ is an opus that occurs within the human imagination, within man’s ‘imagined world’. I think this idea is quite profound really and one can turn back toward Thomist metaphysics and psychology to better understand the concepts of the structure of the soul within the physical structure. The relationship of the soul to nature on one hand, and the soul’s relationship to higher metaphysics on the other. In any of this, in fact in all of it, there is required a man who can conceive within his *imagined world* of such things, or such possibilities, of such transformative ideas.
There is a great deal more that can be said and indeed should be said about all of this. But it must suffice to say that now we must turn our attention, our view and our gaze, to ourselves as members of the Occidental World. Because for 1500 years, and certainly for a solid 1000 years, it is Greco-Christian metaphysics (I use this word as a catch-all) which has provided a structure for occidental imagination: the possibility of conceiving the self and, really, the vast content of selves. I know that there is, or there appears to be, a battle between atheists and theists, and obviously this extends out of the 16th and 17th centuries, and that this idea-battle is part-and-parcel of our present reality and many conflicts are located here, but in my own view it is imperative to find the ways and means to conceptually bridge these differences. And I myself am inclined to see Occidental Survival as a sufficinet rallying point in order to find the will to create the bridge.
To understand our very self, or selves, requires a great deal of historical back-tracking. But is this not what we have lost? Or better put that we are in the process of losing? What is the acid that eats away at Identity? Our identity? What is required to sharpen, to strengthen, to hone, to recover, the identity and self-consciousness to recover what we are losing? But I think it must be said, it must be understood, that we are dealing — principally — with inner issues. That is, our imaginations have become infected with *foreign intrusions*. All manner of different *entities* have tentacles, as it were, that enter deep inside of us (advertising narratives, historical narratives, emotional intrusions, propaganda narratives and a great deal else). There are many metaphors that can be used here.
I always tend to think in terms of ‘acids’ and what eats away at strong ideas and guiding concepts. It becomes a question of dharma and duty to *recover self*. In fact this is — or so it seems — a supreme battle. If you wanted to get a little romanitic you could say it is our ‘Kurukshetra’. And what that means, of course, is this very plane of existence, and our very selves within the structure of this creation, battling against nescience.
There is an aspect of Catholic theology, or definitions that are propounded within scholasticism, which teach that we do not gain ‘heaven’ (an enduring relationship to higher metaphysics and higher levels of meaning and knowledge) through anything put sheer intellect (intellectus is a laden Latin word which must be understood). We gain all of it, and most everything that really has value, through sharp and clear definitions. In this sense, were I to speak of Christ, I would speak of sheer and absolute articulations of high-level metaphysical ideas. What else could really be demanded of man? Not the mushy sentimentalism of which we are all too familiar, but the realization and the articulation of clear, powerful ideas.
Why is ‘Christianity’ seen as an obstancle to our identity? Or to put it another way, why do many Christians oppose the sort of definitions that we feel are crucial and necessary in order to secure a situation for ourselves and our progeny? That is a question that requires a great deal of analysis. But (and to begin to end this too-long piece) I do think it is possible to define a strong Christian religious and political posture, and a relationship to self and cultivation of self, that must necessarily include ‘white identity’, European preservation, and Occidental Renewal as core predicates. I think even ‘race realism’, because in fact it is ethical and moral, can find the better arguments and can articulate them. The actual problem, again as I see it, is the perversion of Christian metaphysics and ontology through sentimental perversions.
I do not believe that within our movement we should ‘break ranks’ with one another. There is a great deal of bitterness on the part of atheists (and Pagans I suppose) toward Catholcism and the Church and Christianity generally. There are rather *idiotic Christians* who hole-up in their emotional and sentimental edifices and do not, themselves, grasp what is confronting us in the world and in the self. We must resist turning against each other and must take the time to understand each other’s perspectives.
“Be Nice” and fighting out a hierarchy isn´t necessarily a contradiction. You´re just nice to those below, and above, you in the hierarchy (and the hierarchy fight also doesn´t have to be all violent). I´ve come to the conclusion that “Christianity” is just the expression of the aryan character: warmth, light, love, trust, truthfulness, constructiveness; all that historical stuff around it is irrelevant, it´s just our being and that´s it. And re the race question, IMO it´s so simple, just apply self-determination and the law of attraction: people self-segregate, case closed! Therefore, there is no contradiction between Christianity and racialism (i.e. does a Christian accept a negro as a being of God, yes, but does a Christian therefore wish to be around negroes, no, as little as anybody else).
This attitude feels rather forced to me. I want to be clear: I don’t want to give anyone the impression that I think sincere Christans are a negative force in our movement, at all. What I have noticed is that racialist Christians have accepted the ‘Paganistic’ presupposition that particular peoples require particular spiritualities, and that in the end, the expansion of one group requires the shrinking of another. In a world of limited resources, you must attack in order to survive. One exists at the expense of other potential organisms. Thus, this idea that we can just keep permanently static homogeneous tolerant humanistic white nations is doesn’t make sense.
@Garrett Deasy
“The expansion of one group requires the shrinking of another.”
Expansion of one group mostly happened into a sparsely inhabited territory of another, i.e. the expansion of agricultural- cattle breeding people into the sparsely inhabited territory of hunter-gatherer peoples. This rarely entailed genocide, mostly only the concentration of primitive peoples into smaller areas where they still were able to survive. I don’t know about any case in history where a densely inhabited territory was invaded by big group of people that genocided the whole local population in order to settle there.
“In a world of limited resources, you must attack in order to survive.”
In a world of limited resources, you provide for yourself using your own resources as far as you can. Next you produce something more and then exchange that with products of another people. This is called “trade” and survival by honest production and trade is entirely possible, no robbery is necessary. Resources may be limited, but needs are limited too (except of course for people with unlimited greed).
“One exists at the expense of other potential organisms.”
This is only true of organisms of different species. Lions don’t exist by eating other lions, wolves don’t exist by hunting other wolves, and humans don’t exist by eating other humans either. Humans exploit plants and animals for food but don’t need to do the same with fellow-humans. Humans can exploit other humans economically (slavery, underpaying labor), but that is not necessary for human survival at all. Modern Western societies are prosperous without slavery and without underpaying labor.
“Thus, this idea that we can just keep permanently static homogeneous tolerant humanistic white nations doesn’t make sense.”
On a multiracial, majority non-white planet exactly that makes sense.
Earth has limited resources. Groups grow or shrink at the expense of others, in the same way that men compete with other men for the highest quality women, and vice versa. This means that much of human DNA will be wiped out peacefully. Nations exist to safeguard the genetic interests of the ethnic group, and enable their expansion.
Our evolutionary history is a cauldron of violent change, and there is a kind of ‘violence’ hidden in day-to-day trade and sexual selection. I wish to grow, and to do so I must inevitably take energy from those who would take it for themselves. The fact that this often occurs without warfare doesn’t detract from its significance.
A nation like Japan can last in principle for ever without the “need” to expand at the cost of others. They learned that lesson after WW II and so did Germany. They are now more prosperous than they were when they were “expanding”. Eternal war may be the reality among animals in the jungle, it is not necessary at all among humans. You fail to see a moral difference between humans and animals.
I am not sure I follow you here. That the truthfulness of the Aryan man may coincide with christianity do raise som fundamental questions.
– The very name of the religion states it has its out-spring from the Christ figure. Then why include old jewish myths in more than half of the book upon which it is based?
– The same book is a result of a decision. Why did they compose it as they did? My christian friends say something divine happened at Nicea in 325. I do not buy that. As an Aryan I want the truth.
– Even if christianity was heavily altered on its way though Europe, the source still stands: It is as Middle eastern as the Tora and the Quran. Why do we base our religion on the Middle eastern psyche?
And more.
The story of Jesus’ life is fascinating, and he seems to have been a person far too straight to have been a jew. But the fact that most schoolchildren today know more about the old history of this obscure people in the Middle East than they know about their own people is downright destructive. And very counterproductive if we are to unite as a race.
Note my qualifier “all that historical stuff around it is irrelevant”. Here´s what I mean to say: take a White Christian (call it a “cultural” Christian). Let´s assume that he doesn´t care about the bible, so what does he know about Christianity? That what I listed: warmth, charity, empathy. That´s what is considered, that´s what is perceived as christian: and all that is White as it gets. In that sense, we Whites are christian, right as everybody around the world associates “christian” with “White”: “christian” is the cultural expression of the White aryan soul. And again, all that historical stuff is irrelevant; we can declare it void if you want. I dont´care, and nobody should (very sacrilegious in the eye of a Christian and I certainly don´t care a bit because I´m aryan, that is, free, free-thinking, and truthful, and the above is the truth, about what we feel, not about doubtful historical records).
Certainly, most people regard Christianity that way, and warmth/charity/empathy are undoubtedly good things.
Secular humanist liberals always respond to terror attacks with platitudes like “we need more love in the world.” But this is the opposite of the correct response. A world with more warmth, charity and empathy will be one in which strong men overcome their fears and their impulses and protect the border. Courage, not empathy, is the root of moral behavior.
We have too much ‘yin’ and require more ‘yang’ as a society.
There is no conflict between the alt-right per se, and Christianity, just as there is no conflict with White identity, nationlism, White ethnic nationalism in any form, and White racial interests.
Race is not evil, and neither is racial interests pursued, valued and expressed.
Its that basic. I am a Christian, and that’s how I’ve always seen it.
“Religion consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.”
Because a race of people define themselves, and over time, even reshape themselves genetically, through their interactions with the world, the question of how they view the world and their place in it is not merely of academic or philosophical interest, but is vital. A worldview is not a mere passive view, an act of looking at something, which might be suggested from the word, but actually a game plan for shaping it. Christianity is the religion of whites and Christianity promotes an anti-racist worldview, which means that, with rare exceptions that were vigorously suppressed, the historical game plan of whites has been to deny the importance of biological race. As their technological culture has now expanded to include all the races of the world, it’s quite obvious that the result has been and will continue to be to increase race mixing, and accelerate their own destruction as a race. It was easy to see this coming; but the problem was, with such a worldview, very few cared. The Christian’s focus is on the state of his “soul”, whatever that’s supposed to be, and what he hopes will be his eternal life, not his brief stay on earth; and still less is he concerned to preserve his race, a subject about which the Bible has only hazy, folkloric ideas. Also, whites value their technological culture (i.e., Western civilization) more than their race, and because of this worldview, can’t see that the two are interconnected. This Faustian hubris is one of their defining characteristics and could well lead to their undoing. It’s possible that technological civilization may be able survive the demise of its founding race, but it seems at least equally likely that a permanent collapse may result. It’s the gamble of the ages!
The Christian interest in nature comes across as taking joy in God’s creation. That’s it! None are interested in evolution. Very few are interested in physics or astronomy. Those who are interested interpret the Big Bang as confirmation of Creation and will not discuss other theories of space and time. They seem to fear death more than I do. They act as if their souls are not quite prepared for heaven. Lucky for them they didn’t die as children.
Indeed, the Christian’s soul is paramount. Some are interested in the collection of other souls, but only if intellectually effortless. Not even these will lower themselves to share bread with an atheist. Most are virtue signalers, especially among other believers. Many are adept at displaying a beatific smile on cue. A beautiful place for burial is a high priority in their lives. When angry they pout and take their toys elsewhere.
Christians of racialist bent are a tiny minority, found only online. I hardly believe they are real. I don’t know how this tiny group reconciles their beliefs with racialism. The old apologetics regarding “equality and separate restrooms for the sexes” doesn’t work when applied to race in the real world. Christians I know say racialist Christers are “ bad Christians.” Speaking for myself, discussing religion and race with Christians in the real world is pointless.
As I see it Christianity is almost a non-issue when talking about racialist ones, as its a dead religion, at least for the European, the Pagan/European vitality that inhabited Christianity ran out of juice being attached to an alien faith and naturally the religion began its decline following the Enlightenment and rightly was declared dead in the 19th century, European man just didn’t heed the call, and those that attempted were too late and/or too “modern”.
Most of the thought leaders of White Nationalism are at best sympathetic to Christian racialists rather than to Christianity itself, so I see little future for the religion among Europeans, its just gonna take longer for the masses to completely throw off that once Europeanized Asiatic faith, and at best a small sect will exist outside of mainstream White European culture/society.
I believe a new religion of the blood will come and is already being built with the revival of the Pagan gods (not that I wholly support this, or at least as I see it widely practiced, I believe new gods should come about, even if they have the same names as the old ones), which is just a step to reconnecting to our ancestors and blood.
Why racialist Christians would heavily oppose this I don’t really know, but then again I can’t understand their mentality, to continue to embrace Christianity, pozzed or otherwise (some would say it always was pozzed). For whatever reason the (overt) Pagan gods were “replaced” by the Christian one/s, which have had good run and new gods are coming, nothing is gonna stop this occurring.
“Almost two thousand years — and not a single new god!” – Nietzsche.
The closest thing to a religion, or spiritual statement, consonant with the cause of White Nationalism is contained in Collin Cleary’s essay The Stones Cry Out. Every person committed to the cause of White Nationalism needs to read that groundbreaking essay.
Those essays had a big impact on me, absolutely brilliant.
Agree. Cleary’s writing – especially in The Stones – is well worth a read, regardless of your current religious affiliation.
What a nicely written piece. I enjoyed reading the self reflection tied into the larger philosophical issues.
Is the meaning of your piece that leftists are weak and thus closer to death (genetic annihilation) and thus seek to prevent death?
I think everyone seeks to prevent death, which I think is the major subconscious motivation behind all animal activity, more than people realize.
Even for those in our movement who are Christian, recognizing our goals requires a fundamental break from Christian ideas.
That element of Christianity that White Nationalists must reject forms the basis of leftism.
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.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment