Counter-Currents
988 words
Translations: French, Polish, Slovak, Spanish
There is a strong anti-Christian tendency in contemporary White Nationalism.
The argument goes something like this: Christianity is one of the primary causes of the decline of the white race for two reasons. First, it gives the Jews a privileged place in the sacred history of mankind, a role that they have used to gain their enormous power over us today. Second, Christian moral teachings—inborn collective guilt, magical redemption, universalism, altruism, humility, meekness, turning the other cheek, etc.—are the primary cause of the white race’s ongoing suicide and the main impediment to turning the tide. These values are no less Christian in origin just because secular liberals and socialists discard their supernatural trappings. The usual conclusion is that the white race will not be able to save itself unless it rejects Christianity.
I think that this argument is half-right. I do believe that Christianity is one of the main causes of white decline, for the reasons given above. But I do not believe that discarding Christianity is a necessary condition of white revival. I am not a Christian. But the fact that I am not a Christian might lend credibility to my argument that the White Nationalist movement need not and indeed should not be anti-Christian.
First, although intellectual debate is definitely part of White Nationalism (perhaps too large a part), we must never lose sight of the fact that White Nationalism is a political movement, not a purely intellectual one. Intellectual movements require agreement on first principles as well as ultimate goals. Political movements require agreement only on practical goals.
Our goal is a white homeland in North America. This political goal is, as a matter of fact, shared by Christians and non-Christians alike. To achieve a white homeland, we have to work with our allies, not against them. We might wish that they agree with us on other matters besides the goal of a white homeland. But this is not necessary, and emphasizing differences of opinion is not productive. When one is on the barricades, one does not turn to one’s comrades and start finding fault.
Not emphasizing differences of opinion is not the same thing as hiding them, however. A mature and healthy White Nationalist movement should cultivate a culture of openness and frankness. We need to be as willing to express our differences in a civil manner as we are to put them aside to work for the common good.
Second, Christianity may be a necessary condition of white racial suicide, but it is not really the driving force. Christianity has long ceased to be the ruling power in Western societies or individual Christian lives. Instead, the churches preach white suicide and Christian Zionism because they wish to suck up to the real intellectual and political power structure, and today that power structure is overwhelmingly dominated and defined by Jews and Jewish interests.
This is not a new phenomenon, either. The church has long trimmed its sails to the winds of expediency. When there were absolute monarchs, the church preached the divine right of kings. When there was slavery, it bade slaves to obey their masters. When there was patriarchy, it taught wives to obey their husbands.
It is tempting to condemn this tendency as mere political opportunism, but that would be a mistake. The church has always been supple at bending to the reigning political and intellectual orthodoxies because, ultimately, its kingdom is not of this world. In spite of aberrations like the Social Gospel movement, the church has always been more concerned with saving individual souls than with social justice. Thus churchmen regard sucking up to the secular powers as a small price to pay to stay in the soul-saving business.
What this implies for White Nationalism is that the church will resist us less fervently than those whose aims are primarily secular, such as Jewish organizations, non-white ethnic organizations, and the secular Left. And when we gain power, ministers will begin hunting for Bible verses to justify the new regime. There is no reason why a White Nationalist regime cannot become a new Caesar, to whom Christians render their secular loyalty while reserving their religious loyalty for God.
Third, it is a basic principle of political struggle that one should always work to preserve the unity of one’s ranks while sowing division among the enemy. Christian resistance to White Nationalism will be weaker if the churches are divided, and they can be divided if there are Christians in our ranks, especially Christians with personal ties to church leaders. Resistance will be stronger, however, if White Nationalism ceases being a merely political movement and takes on the aspect of an anti-Christian crusade.
Once a White Nationalist regime emerges, White Nationalist Christians can use their ties with the churches to better bring them into compliance with the new order.
Although the presence of Christians in the White Nationalist movement will help split the churches and weaken their resistance, their presence will not split or weaken White Nationalism as long as it remains a purely political movement unified solely by the pursuit of a white homeland.
Today White Nationalism is a movement of the political Right. Someday, however, it may become the common sense of white people up and down the political spectrum. To my mind, this would be a positive development, because when it comes to religion and politics, I am very much a liberal: I believe in the separation of religion and politics and in basing political decisions on secular reason.
To me, it seems fortunate that the separation of church and state in the white homeland may well be necessitated by political reality. The White Nationalist movement must unite whites of widely different religious convictions in the struggle for a homeland. That means we must build religious pluralism and tolerance into our movement today, which means they will be built into our homeland tomorrow.
The Occidental Observer, May 14, 2010
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
52 comments
I urge our readers to get acquainted with the current intelectual discussion taking place in Europe:
A Europe We Can Believe In
https://thetrueeurope.eu/a-europe-we-can-believe-in/
While I think that the title of The Paris Statement is unfortunate, I hope that it is going to be more fruitful for Europe than the “Change We Can Believe In” that outlined Barack Obama’s vision for America and its standing in the world.
Anna Yakovleva has written an article worth reading about this item. “European Renewal? Analysis of the Paris Statement by European Intellectuals” posted at
http://www.orthochristian.com/109379.html
If there were any lost Civilization, existing before 4004 B.C., all the Abraham Religions would endeavor to cover it up. For, that is precisely when Bishop Usher claimed that the world itself was created. Personally, I think history is cyclical, with the rise and fall of many, many civilizations. History, even Ancient History, deals only with those we know about.
The Earth, despite what the Bible says, is around 4.5 Billion Years old. Modern Man, in his present form, is around 900,000 years old. How does one logically rule out the possibility that Civilization itself is that old? I wonder! Perhaps, the greatest blow to Creationism shall be the discovery of a previously not known about Prehistoric Civilization. Perhaps, just perhaps, a Global Empire, that was destroyed by the Ice Age.
I’ll have to read Bishop Usher as i always thought he meant that Adam and Eve were created 4,000BC and not the earth itself. From the Forgotten Books (or Lost Books?)of the Bible they were told not to associate with the people they would meet after they were expelled from the Garden so the earth would be older. One claim that it is not is http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/amazing-evidence-for-god/?utm_source=AEFG-SB&utm_medium=SB-img&utm_campaign=SB#.Wkl2WHlrzIU starting at 1:40. If any genuine scientist out there could cast some light on the claim about the supernovas I’d be most appreciative.
Otherwise an excellent article from Greg and one that was well thought out.
You mean Hyperborea
Good article! I for one am pretty much in 100% agreement with you, Mr. Johnson.
We need to always keep in mind that religious belief, in this case Christianity, has been ingrained within the collective psyche of our folk for a very, very long time… and isn’t to be trifled with when it comes to most of them. Outright condemning Christianity can be a deal-breaker when it comes to effective red-pilling. It has taken a long time for the religion to be watered-down and subverted into the lifeless corpse it is right now; it’ll take a while also to fix. But if we come off as straight out “anti-Christian” with our people, it can only work against what we are trying to accomplish. Instead, we, when religion comes into the conversation, ought to use scripture to make our case. Like I did in a comment on an ‘Alt Right with Tara McCarthy’ YT video in which Faith Goldy used the old “Love thy neighbor as thyself” quote in a particular way. I’ll re-post it here:
“Faith Goldy, look up that word “neighbor” that you used, the one from Christian scripture. Look it up in an original James Strong Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. The word wasn’t intended to actually mean neighbor… but racial brethren. It means to love your family (and, by extension, extended family, race) as thoroughly as you love your own self. Not a foreigner. We are to be kind and charitable to foreigners, of course, but we are not to do this at the expense of our own folk.
πλησίον = near of kin, fellow member of one’s nation (and of course ‘nation’, in the original meaning of the word, means an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages).
That “love thy neighbor as thyself” saying of Jesus is one of the most misunderstood and misquoted of all in the Bible!”
Anyway, engaging Christians on a religio-philosophical level isn’t for most of us, I understand that. I myself only do it rarely. Most times I simply try to avoid “going there”. But one thing I always try to do is to NEVER ATTACK them or their faith; I know it’s extremely counter-productive.
Kindly Jim, this is a classical Jewish attitude you present to us. Jesus seems to counter this with the good Samaritan parable when answering a man who sought to justify himself by asking: who is my neighbour? The story is to long but well known Luke 10:29ff. Jesus reply’s Luke 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? A Samaritan that was not qualified by Jewish exclusiveness wins the contest, obviously. It seems to be the very opposite of the classical Judaical reasoning’s and more universal than the word studies capabilities reflect. The one was inward looking and exclusive the other is outward and an inclusive. Nations and races and humanity are summarized by a go ye unto all nations.. Commission and the Acts 10: God is no respecter of man in particular but any one who receives Him is worthy of being called a fellow citizen and brother. Perhaps I must still consider something else!
Life is full of contradictions and conundrums. I was talking to my wife couple of days ago about some of these contained within Christianity. I said something like, “You know all these militant charismatic Christians condemn the Catholics fetishizing the Pope and then these same people engage in the cult of personality by mindlessly following the next super preacher know matter what he says.” We can stand upon our intellectual ivory towers and point these things out, but deep down we should face the truth that people need leaders. We believe we have the intellectual high ground. However, I think it’s necessary to have the moral high ground as well. Leaders in the white nationalist movement should have both traits. In the future white homelands there will be room for Christians who see saving the white race as a moral imperative. Perhaps, we can find some kind of balance even if it means Christians are regulated to a sort of nagging older brother status in our future societies.
Most of what can be said to the whole WN cause has already been said… a problem for webzines. I found that I´m – irrationally – particularly unwilling to read anything republished, something that was published in the past. The only way I read it is if I´m not aware that it´s an “old” article… then I enjoy it as a “new” article. So it´s well-thought of Greg to post such articles as new ones
(besides, the article contains of-course the usual big load of excellent thoughts, insights and truths).
I support what is said, but I like to add, that todays Churches have not much to do with Christianity. Here in Germany the big churches are an essential part of the “refugee” industry, and they obey to the Mohammedans on a daily basis. A real Christian, would not “hold the other cheek” as you say, but he would be the first in row to fight back the invasion of Mohammedans, and that with his Bible in his hands, because its the sword of God.
In my oppinion, what is the essential cause of our situation, is what has come out of the Womans Liberation Movement and all the “Liberation Movements” that followed, including Genderism. These Movements have made us so weak, that the Mohammedans have it very easy to fill the vacuum.
It seems relatively unknown that Jesus was not a Jew. He was a Judean, one of the 12 Hebrew tribes that went extinct at the hands of the Romans in the first century AD (as punishment for killing their savior, a recurring theme throughout history). “Jews” as they’re known today are the Khazars that co-opted Talmud as their religion sometime in the seventh century AD. This is the religion of the Pharisees, the money lenders, that wanted Jesus killed. “Jews” saw this as an opportunity to control both God and money, the two things men worship. There is plenty of information on this subject if you do the research. So no, Christianity is not a Jewish scheme to kill off white people.
I attend Latin Mass every Sunday, it is almost exclusively white people that go (in a not-so-white neighborhood). For any spiritual people you cannot place being “white” over their relationship with God. Codreanu got it right.
Jesus was a Jew, and the argument that you offer at best proves that he was merely not a Jew in the present day sense. But even that is false, for the Khazar hypothesis has been completely debunked by genetic studies.
These were blood group analyses; so later ‘dna’ studies have completely eliminated the Khazar component? Is there a source for that to hand (not Duke’s article)?
MOURANT, The Genetics of the Jews (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1978)
Chapter 10
“The general conclusion to be drawn from the blood-group
data is that the Ashkenazim are essentially a single population,
largely, if not mainly, of Palestinian Jewish descent.
The strongest evidence is their systematic resemblance to the
Sephardim, whose Palestinian ancestry is more firmly
established by historical records. As already stated, these
two major groups of Jews differ distinctly with respect to
each main blood-group system, but the difference for any
one system is never very great. This is what one would expect
for two populations of common origin but separated for not
much more than a thousand years. The incorporation of a
Khazar component in the Ashkenazim cannot, however, be <—
ruled out completely." <—
The descendancy of the Jews should always be viewed from an Ezra/Niamiah paradigm. 70 years of the Babylonian captivity and they could hardly find a priest who was not intermarried with a non Jewish wife. The prophets were distressed. If that was 70yrs even corrupting the priest class how is it they would survive a full 2000 yrs as a pure dna fresh collective in a diaspora. Their are Chinees Jews and Indian and Ethiopian Jews and even selected Scholars talk of black Jews of the Lemba tribe. Dark skinned Sepphardics rejected and despised their East European Jews when they were forced together. If balanced on probabilities we would conclude that the diversity is reflected in their countenances. The Encylcopedia Judaica suggest Jews have large noses because of a Hittite infusion.
Personally I think a theological case could be made that Jesus was Everyman. There is also the additional Christian beleif that he was the Son of God, which does add another dimension to who He actually was. He came to the Jews thru the Jews because they alone possessed two elements of the truth, monotheism and the commandments which the later were not of the Jewish heritage at the time but were handed to Moses via God. With those two elements they were the furthest along toward the true understanding. He came to them to bring them to completion and thus have them bring the message to the world. They failed and now they are nothing but trouble. They were allowed a choice, they made the wrong one and now they wander the world disliked by all causing havoc wherever they show themselves.
I don’t know what genetic studies you’re referring to but these ones suggest otherwise, even if the Khazar theory is untrue Jews descend largely from European populations.
https://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html
The Khazars were a Turkic people. Ashkenazi Jews do not descend from Turks. Any genetic study reveals that. They descend from Jews from the Middle East who mixed with Europeans during the diaspora. I am sorry, but the people you hate and the people you worship are the same.
For me, whatever it’s worth, Jesus is the ultimate anti-materialist, and rebel against Pharisaism/Judaism. Without Christianity, no Western High Culture. From what I gather the Khazar theory has been debunked by genetics, but is a convenient theory that lingers; however Jesus had nothing of the “Jew” about him, as thinkers such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain commented on.
Dear Mr. Bolton, I admire your work and I have found many of your books very impressive. That is why I am puzzled and worried by the fact that you make such patently false claims — you are, after all, a man of erudition and I do believe you know better.
“Without Christianity, no Western High Culture.”
This is of course ludicrous.
Homer, Hesiod, Sappho, Herodotus, Thucydides, Euripides, Sophocles, Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Cicero, Catullus, Sallust, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Tacitus, Plutarch, and many, many others produced some of the very peaks of European culture long before there was any Christianity…
Europeans produced brilliant spirituality, art, philosophy, literature, and science for many centuries before Christianity came to Europe, we continued doing so under Christian hegemony, and we have also continued doing so after the death of Christianity… And that is because the European race — not Levantine mysticism — is the wellspring of European culture.
“Jesus had nothing of the ‘Jew’ about him”, you write.
Writes Bart Ehrman, professor of religious studies and leading authority on the Bible and the life of Jesus:
“[T]here was nothing in Jesus’ message or his mission that stood outside Judaism. He was a Jew, born to Jewish parents, rasied in a Jewish culture; he became a teacher of the Jewish law, gathered around himself a group of Jewish followers, and instructed them in the essence of what he saw to be the true worship of the Jewish god.”
Thanks for calling me a liar. I guess that will save you buying any more of my books. I referred to Western High Culture. You refer to something nebulous called “European culture” and cite only Classical sources.
Mr. Bolton,
I’m also a big admirer of your works and essays. However, it seems to me that you reacted a bit innappropriately to Frodi above. He made a very reasonable contention to your assertion that there was “nothing of the ‘Jew’ about” Jesus. Jesus may have been against the Jewish establishment, but there’s Jews who do that all the time. Chomsky, Finkelstein, even Soros to a degree. This does not make them less Jewey, or even “good Jews.” It just makes them an alternative opinion within Jewish thought. As for the remark about Western High Culture, I think Frodi may have misunderstood what you meant by that. In his defense, though, One could consider Greek and Roman civilization to represent a type of European high culture (Spengler certainly did) and they did not require Christianity to develop. Perhaps the cult of Mithras could have been the glue that held Europe together after Rome fell, and it would’ve been without Semitic taint. Might’ve even made Europe better, who knows?
Anyway, nobody is calling you a liar. I hope I may still read your essays.
Allow me to help you, if you find the concept of European culture too nebulous: European culture is the culture created by the European peoples. We reached all kinds of impressive cultural hights without the aid of Christianity — we did just fine. In fact, Christianity needed Europeans in order to participate in any significant culture, not the other way around.
In reference to your comment that Jesus was nothing but jewish in everything he taught I would like to suggest otherwise. The jews of the Old Testament were a nasty, vicious, self interested body of nomadic people. Everywhere they went they found themselves under attack and enslaved due to their sense of superiority and their subversions. However they possessed two truths; first they recognized that their was only one God, second, they were given the ten commandments. Jesus came to them to break them of their racial attitudes exhibited in their hatred of the other. He threatened them at the core of their cohesiveness. If he had succeeded there would be no Jewish problem as the world faces today. They killed Him to save themselves. Their self interested collectivism would have been shattered had they not rebelled against Him. Undoubtedly you all know the Talumd refers to Christ as a son of a whore. They say many other nasty things about him and his mother which I need not repeat, since you get the point I am sure. The Jews hate Christ and Christians which is why it is the west that the Jews have targeted for destruction because the west is Christian.
Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are largely reviled by their own people because they speak out against the self-interested collective. They are both still kikes and both leftists. There can never be a jew who is an “honorary” White person.
Jesus was a Jew, born in a Jewish family, preaching Judaism to Jews. He was a dissident Jew, a teacher of reform Judaism; some Jews rejected him and some Jews followed him (later to be known as “Christians”). Yes, the Jews who rejected him wrote nasty things about him, just as Protestants and Catholics have killed each other during several centuries over different interpretations of Jesus’s teachings. Nasty business.
You are very correct in pointing out that Christianity is fundamentally anti-racist, just as the Marxism that is derived from it. Both Christianity and modern Leftism (well, currently also the mainstream “Right”) reject evolutionary biology with regard to humans — both believe in un-explained magical creation of humans and reject the significance of race. (In Leftism, creationism is restricted to humans, while in Christianity it includes the entire animal kingdom.)
“The Jews hate Christ and Christians which is why it is the west that the Jews have targeted for destruction because the west is Christian,” you write.
This is beautiful news. Since this is all about theological disputes, as you say, and not ethnic interests, and since Christianity is dead and disappearing in the West, that means they will leave us alone from now on. Instead, they will bother South Americans, Africans, and Asians, who make up the vast majority of Catholics.
They will not leave us alone until we are dirt poor and our military is depleted. As long as there is money to be extracted amd resources to be utilized the Jews will hound us. This is a multi level issue, it is religious because the two religions are distinguished by race and it is as I say also about power and material gain. The Jews think of us as slaves to be exploited.
Yes, this is an ethnic conflict. Atheist Jews are just as hostile to our interests as are religious Jews, and they make no exceptions for non-religious, White Europeans. This started before Christianity, and it has not ended now that Christianity is gone.
“Instead, the churches preach white suicide and Christian Zionism because they wish to suck up to the real intellectual and political power structure…”
Amen brother.
That’s also why Mainline churches are Fanatics for BLM.
I think China is the best case study to figure out whether Christianity matters for racial politics. China is predicted to become the biggest Christian nation on earth. This will not just gave social but also racial consequences. Just as Marxism lends a privileged position to Jews, Christianity does this. Moreover, there are no absolutely isolationist Christian nations. Confucian nations tend to isolate themselves more along racial lines, but Christian nations tend to be more receptive to foreigners and race-mixing. I believe Chinese Christians are much less ethnocentric than their forebears, and if this indicates any trend, then China will open up more to the world as it becomes more and more Christian. How Christianity affects East Asia, and China in particular (while most East Asians live in China), is relevant for the question whether it is a racially harmful ideology. Is it good or bad for the race?
I agree with the main proposition of this article, which is whites need to unite around the idea of preserving white homelands. However, this article also clearly demonstrates why many professing Christian whites do struggle and will struggle with embracing the movement. An example of this is the assumption Christianity is to blame for the current white problem. Without flushing this out fully it is easy to make the case Christianity was responsible for the stabilization within European society that allowed Europeans to become globally dominant in the first place. Secondly, it is also obvious the predominant forces behind political correctness used to attack whites today are on their face anti-biblical!
Many times the overall tone coming from those representing the WN movement is condescending towards Christians. This isn’t an expedient way to gain allies for the cause. Ultimately in America there are many more citizens functioning from a biblical worldview able to be mobilized if approached in good faith. Whereas, those with atheistic or pagan world views are more likely to be hardened and solidly aligned against the WN cause here.
In the end, I think you make several valid points here Mr. Johnson, yet until the tone and in some cases the assumptions underlying them are addressed their communication will be hindered from wider acceptance among those needed for the cause to succeed.
Something along the lines of a purification of the current church is needed. Then it needs to be restructured into something like Medieval Catholicism meets space marine death squads. Then we unleash a Butlerian Jihad. Weev recently made a video arguing something along those lines.
Half-jokes aside, Christianity is really the only religious tradition that the overwhelming majority of whites have any connection to, and as such it is what we need to work with. I truly feel that our ancestral pagan religions are truer to our collective soul as a race, as these are what sprung from us naturally and were not brought to us by Semites. However—and it pains me to say this–it would probably take some kind of massive cataclysm wherein much of civilization was obliterated for people to return to something resembling the old religion in large numbers. Maybe in the future though, after the current churches have been purged of degenerates and aristocratic principles have been restored, there could be a massive religious revival where paganism finds a way to re-emerge out of renewed fervor and exploration.
This Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe indicates that Christianity is a dead or dying religion in much of Europe. Thus I think it is foolish for White Nationalists identify the ethnic, genetic, and cultural interests of the white race with the preservation of Christianity. Let the church save the church, if it can. Besides, Greek myths are still part of European culture, yet practically nobody thinks they are actually true. The same will be the case with Christianity someday. The key thing for WNs is to make sure that there are still white people on this planet in 200 years. They can decide what religion, if any, they will follow. But that sort of thing will emerge organically. It is nothing we can predict or control, so we need not concern ourselves with it.
I don’t think Christians want White Nationalists to save the church. I think from my own point of view I’d simply appreciate atheist/pagan White Nationalist not to consistently scapegoat Christianity for white decline. There seems to be an obvious correlation between the degree whites have embraced Christianity and the degree of power whites have held in the modern era. It simply seems nonsensical to push a narrative that blames Christianity for the problems of whites as whites have abandoned Christianity. If everyone is to cooperate this tendency is not helpful.
A some point we will have to ask in the church is Christian Zionism biblical and are they even Christians. This religious political election swinger is why people are fed up with so called Christianity.
Romans 9-11
The Jews that rejected Christ were cut off and we were grafted on as it says not all Israel is of Israel. If the church is Israel these Christian Zionist do not know what they worship and follow the Jewish Zionist agenda. My sympathies to all Pagan Atheist modern America is in the dole drums. We must keep in mind more effort of the reformers brought about this once Liberated nation than from the Old State Churches. Christian Zionism is beginning to take a hammering for its corrosive and political influences. It takes time for the Truth to put on its slippers and the falseness has already gone around the whole world. Christianity is fighting back with truth and every title offer to ancient Israel is give to the gentile church. 1 Peter 2:
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Christian Zionism is voting for the wrong people and are suspect in reverence to God.
A few things to point out from my perspective. Objecting to Christianity is playing directly into the hands of the Jewish subverters. Zionists hate Christianity and when you join in its destruction you aid their strategy. Second, from a Trad Catholic perspective the Jew is outside looking in ever since he rejected Christ. In doing so he became a revolutionary and an agent of evil because he chooses revolution over truth. The act of the jew then always become one of subversion. Third if evolutionary psychology has any credence it appears that it would be argued that Christianity reflects rather precisely the soul of the White Race. It is in its universalism, its individualism, its moral structure and its antipathy to sin that is an outgrowth of the evolution of the white race in its long trek theu history. The problem of the Christian, which is the problem of white people is that their core orientations can so easily be turned against them. The drive for purity, their moral drive, their beleif in truth sets them up for an attack by a collectivist group like the Jews who turn all that against them in their racial survival strategy. Christianity works well for white people in a white environment because it conforms to the inate desires of white people but when exposed to a vicious and malicious out group it fails to arm its people against the sinister moves of the opponent. That being said however it is quite evident that while the church had power the Jew was managed. It has only been since the Church was a Zionist target that the Jews rose in power and control. The weakening of the Christian Church coincides with the successes of the Jew against the west. Caution is thus advised on how one proceeds and all sides need to come to terms with this statement, Christianity at its core is white and moving away from it is rejecting the white world. The Church needs to again know this as do all tjose who wosh to maintain what has been good in our worldview.
Well said. It was Europeans who adopted and shaped Christianity, and Christianity shaped them; a synthesis that produced Western Culture. Even Dr Oliver in his “Christianity and the Survival of the West” held the view that Christianity was the European’s religion . William Gayley Simpson in “Which Way Western Man?” has some fascinating insights on the character of Jesus in relation to Nietzschean philosophy. The Church was subverted and destroyed with Vatican II; the assault was led by Jules Isaac. As referred to in a post for Dr Salemi’s article, this was exposed by LOOK magazine at the time, and the article, “How the Jews changed Catholic thinking” can be read online.
If liberalism and socialism are a kind of progeny of Christianity, why is National Socialism never named as such too? The anti-Christian narrative is simply too inconsistent to be taken seriously. If Christianty is named as culprit in the decline of the white race through egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, etc., it should also be reckoned as a (potential) source of revival on account of its influence on National Socialism. Those who cannot admit this are clearly too factional to care for fairness and truth.
What is Christian about National Socialism?
What’s Mormon about bicycles?
That was my next question.
Your mother just made that up, the bicycles didn’t belong to Mormons.
Christianity has been hostile toward liberalism and socialism until Vatican II. The Catholic church has been adamantly opposed to both. Read Leo XIII encyclicals warning even about America. He caused great consternation in the USA for the Catholics living here. They feared there would be a backlash against them. Thus did the American Church begin to try desperately to theologically reconcile Americanism with Catholicism. This effort continues today and has been part of the corruption within. Pius X skewered Modernism and required all priests to take an oath against it.
I recently came across an article at Breitbart (below) since reading this post and it is about how the country/community suffers when church attendance declines. The most stRiki-Eiking observation was the decline in white males with no college education. As a Christian and a member of the Alt/New Right the question regarding the impact and influence of Christianity has plagued me. Particularly bothersome is the debate that Christianity being unique to those of us of European decent and it’s long term influence for good or ill on the mental and spiritual health and wellness of Europeans. I will read more of Putnum’s research, but as for now I have to come down on the side of Christianity. Christianity gives and gave Europeans something greater than themselves to ascribe to and spoke to our inner desire to continually reach for more than the here and now.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/03/report-declining-church-attendance-is-problem-for-everybody-not-just-believers/
That “something greater” today being “Refugees welcome” and adopting African babies.
I must disagree with all the comments on this article; I point out the excellent research done by Joseph Atwill, and his two books. Roman emperor Vespasian was god, his son emperor Titus was Jesus, his other son Domitian was the holy spirit/ghost. Read Joseph Atwill’s excellent books, and go to his website postflaviana.org for some great articles. Christianity was, and is a long-term psychological operation against the masses. Oh, one last thing, before the temple was destroyed by the Romans, the jews were very militent, and aggressive, so their bad behavior is not a new thing. What happened after the temple was destroyed was that the jews became intellectual subversives–much, much worse, as you can see in the world around you. Amazon review follows:
“Joseph Atwill began his religious studies as a youth in Japan at the only English-speaking school in the country, the Jesuit-run St. Mary’s Military Academy. The majority of each of his school days was spent studying Greek, Latin, and the Bible, which he found fascinating, although he eventually drifted away from the faith. Having studied computer science in college, Atwill formed a series of successful companies with one of the most renowned programmers in the world, David Ferguson. Many years later, the sale of his interests in these companies allowed him to return to his earlier interest – the origins of Christianity. He spent over a decade studying hundreds of books, among them, the works of Robert Eisenman and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Together with Eisenman, Atwill wrote a paper on the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While studying the two most prominent works of the 1st century – Josephus’ “Wars of the Jews” and the Gospels – Atwill noticed a series of parallels occurring in sequence between the military campaign of the Roman Caesar Titus Flavius and the ministry of Jesus. His findings led him to a startling new conclusion about the origins of Christianity – that a Roman imperial family, the Flavians, had created Christianity to pacify the Jews’ rebellion against Rome, and even more incredibly, they had placed a literary satire within the Gospels and “Wars of the Jews” to inform posterity of this fact. The results of Atwill’s research are set out in his book “Caesar’s Messiah”. The second edition of “Caesar’s Messiah”, Ulysses Press 2006, became the best selling work of religious history in the US in 2007, and its German translation “Das Messias Ratsel”, Ulstein 2008, achieved #1 Best Seller status. The Flavian Signature edition of “Caesar’s Messiah”, CreateSpace 2011, adds the most detailed presentation of the parallels Atwill discovered between the works of Josephus and the Book of Luke.”
One last observation, Christianity was spread through the use of the sword, and the flame– love did not enter into it. It took the the Christian leadership many centuries of murder, torture, and treachery before the masses finally accepted Christianity as the dominant religion.
Not true if it was a Sword it is the sword of the spirit the word of God proclaiming liberty and blessings. The primitive Christian church was evangelistic and hounded by the empire as well as the Jews. This is well attested to historically and so no not in its inception. However the advance of Christendom distinct from pure N.T. governorship saw some horrific acts of violence. Christianity at source is not an earthly empire or secular force. In fact it is the exact opposite. Paganisim Judaisim Islam however invoke violence right in the texts themselves.
What is Christian about National Socialism?
Here are some examples of how National Socialism was influenced by Christianity.
1. Point 24 of the NSDAP program: “The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination.” Then there was the Reich Church and the Deutsche Christen movement.
2. An obvious influence on the rise of National Socialism is the Christian motif of apocalyptic messianism, the expectation of a divine savior who restores the nation and its honor. A thousand year reich from Revelation 20.
3. Christian salvation history, the sense of a past glory or blessed state, followed by a fall, and then a restoration to greatness.
4. Official symbols of the state. During the Weimar years the German armed forces swore an oath to the constitution: “Ich schwöre Treue der Reichsverfassung…” In 1933 this was changed and soldiers then swore a holy oath by God of obedience to the Führer: Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichswehreid
A recording of the Wehrmacht oath (probably from Valkyrie) and the SS oath: https://youtu.be/dKem1_VYUEs
The German Empire, from 1888-1918, required an oath of soldiers that began with the words: “Ich schwöre zu Gott dem allwissenden und Allmächtigen einen leiblichen Eid…” And ended with: “So wahr mir Gott helfe durch Jesum Christum und sein heiliges Evangelium.”
Now, why was the reference to God reintroduced into the oath after it had been removed by the Weimar government?
The question of the heathen oath of the Schützstaffel is even more interesting. It ends with the following questions and answers:
„Also glaubst Du an einen Gott ?“
„Ja, ich glaube an einen Herrgott.“
„Was hältst Du von einem Menschen, der an keinen Gott glaubt?“
„Ich halte ihn für überheblich, größenwahnsinnig und dumm; er ist nicht für uns geeignet.“
To this, Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler adds: “Be sure, we would not be able to be this sworn-together corps, if we had not the conviction and the belief in a Lord God, who stands over us, who has created us and our Fatherland, our Volk and this soil, and sent us our Führer.”
(Seien Sie überzeugt, wir wären nicht fähig dieses zusammengeschworene Korps zu sein, wenn wir nicht die Überzeugung und den Glauben an einen Herrgott hätten, der über uns steht, der uns und unser Vaterland, unser Volk und diese Erde geschaffen und uns unseren Führer geschickt hat.)
https://ia802701.us.archive.org/1/items/DieSchutzstaffelAlsAntibolschewistischeKampforganisation/HimmlerHeinrich-DieSchutzstaffelAlsAntibolschewistischeKampforganisation193717S..pdf
5. Recordings of Hitler spekaing about God and Christianity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2fpgu8cr3M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCwG13K7TAo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFoXKLCpq2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWknXBNI-0Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO29cm0Hwos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H18tpvsFhYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StaPF5qqFDk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlA-qx_enQU
6. Rudolf Heß on God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFsWzEOgTrk (2:09)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG9-Dhps4YI
I’m not saying that National Socialism was a Christian movement. But the influence is undeniable. If ideologies like socialism and liberalism are to be counted as progeny of Christianity, despite only coming to the fore with the decline of Christianity, if generic ideas and dispositions are claimed to be of Christian origin, despite being older than Christianity, must not an influence on National Socialism be admitted also, for the sake of fairness?
That is a very shallow understanding of National Socialism. Liberalism/socialism grew with the decline of Christian hegemony, just as Protestantism coincided with Catholic decline, but they all operated within the same fundamental value framework, the same paradigm (which Nietzsche has described in detail). National Socialism was a divergence from all this on the fundamental, world view level. The NS world view originated from the understanding of conflicting evolutionary interests between races, and the very rejection of Christian universalism.
It must be added that this universalism is the central and most important principle in Christianity — the reason why Christianity was created in the first place (as a departure from traditional Judaism). Jesus was an agitator for universalism, ordering the traditional Jews to abandon ethnocentrism, tribalism, racial integrity, and open up their culture to all other races (in other words, a sort of Jewish race traitor). Of course the sensible Jews had him killed — that is exactly the kind of person we wouldn’t want in our midst, either.
Hitler made abundantly clear in Mein Kampf that he rejected “Christian nationalism” or “Christian anti-Semitism” (for lack of better words) which saw problems with Jews and other races as theological in nature (cf. E. Michael Jones & co.), and he rejected it harshly – because he realized that this is in essence about race and ethnic conflict. He also made abundantly clear that National Socialism was an all-embracing world view, meant to replace the old one — a paradigm shift.
The Catholic church saw this, and already in 1937 the Vatican viciously attacked National Socialism, because the church cannot accept competing world views. This showed once and for all that Christianity and National Socialism are fundamentally incompatible world views, and that it definitely can’t be blamed on “Vatican II”. And even now, nationalists are thrown out of their churches because Christianity can’t tolerate nationalism – including the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Matthew Heimbach obviously thought he had found the most hardcore version of Christianity (the Orthodox Church, no “Vatican II” to point the finger at), but they apparently excommunicated him for “racism”…
Yes, of course the National Socialist state welcomed Christians as members and citizens, and they kept symbols and traditions were associated with Christianity (although the central symbols of the state were non-Christian). They were pragmatic politicians and they had respect for traditions (something that Christians and Socialists do not have, of course), and there was no reason to interfere with traditions that had become German over time (cf. “double conversion”). However, the very presence of “Positive Christianity” and “Deutsche Christen” in parts of NS society is proof that they had to CHANGE the fundamental teachings of Christianity (while keeping some of the outer aesthetics) for it to be compatible with National Socialism. This would of course be seen deeply heretical by genuine Christians…
In other words, while liberalism/socialism superficially rejects Christianity, it is built within the very same paradigm and is a continuation of the same values. On the other hand, National Socialist Germany respected traditions and kept some of the outer trappings of Christianity, while on the world view level, the two are fundamentally incompatible.
First: “It must be added that this universalism is the central and most important principle in Christianity — the reason why Christianity was created in the first place (as a departure from traditional Judaism).”
What do you base that on Fróði?
I mean, there are some Gospel passages that can be construed as universal, and some of them might be construed differently. But if that was the central and most important principle of Christianity it would have died out in the beginning. Both, because it would have had little appeal (there were other and more universal moral philosophies circulating at that time in the Roman Empire that died out as active schools) and because the Christian societies would just not have functioned if they took universalism seriously. But they have survived for centuries.
Secondly: “Jesus was an agitator for universalism…”
We just don’t know very much about Jesus except for the fact that he existed. His teachings were written down decades later and are not reliable sources for his own beliefs. The Gospels must be seen as reflections of the beliefs and interests of the communities in which they were written. What author said that anyway?
Thirdly: “In 1937 the Vatican viciously attacked National Socialism, because the church cannot accept competing world views. This showed once and for all that Christianity and National Socialism are fundamentally incompatible world views, and that it definitely can’t be blamed on “Vatican II”.”
I do not disagree that the Catholic Church cannot accept competing world wiews, but not all Christians are Catholics and even not all Catholics agree with their Church on all matters. So, I cannot see how a proclamation by the Vadican shows anything, once and for all, about the nature of Christianity. In Germany, the NSDAP did much better in Protestant districts than Catholic ones. Maybe we should look into that. Have a look at this short clip about one of Germany’s most influential theologian in the 1930’s and see if you still find Christianity and National Socialism incompatible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQaC_Hxr5Lg
Look. I have pointed out that Hitler (thus, National Socialism) rejected the Christian understanding of nationalism and the Jewish Question (and so, he rejected pre-Vatican II style Catholic “anti-Semitism”, which would include the E. Michael Jones point of view), because he embraced the Darwinian understanding of struggle between races (which was and is anathema to Christianity) – and this is the foundation of National Socialism. There is no disputing that he did in many cases retain the outer trappings of cultural Christianity, of course. I also pointed out that the Vatican harshly and explicitly rejected National Socialism, which should really make it case closed… at least as far as Catholicism goes.
Lest you accuse me of strawmanning by just referring to the most SJW forms of modern Christianity, here is the clearest summary I could find of the view taken by E. Michael Jones, who is revered as a guru among modern Christian anti-Semites.
(Quoted from his Facebook wall: https://www.facebook.com/e.jones.752/posts/1256134384498710)
Needless to say, this shows the chasm between the view taken by National Socialism and the view taken by Catholics. Here also the universalism comes into play.
I did focus on Catholicism, because it is the branch of Christianity most plausibly connected to National Socialism (although it really isn’t), and I wanted to be fair. Protestantism is even more philo-Semitic and so seemed redundant. There is a whole industry of Protestant writers oyveying that Darwin led to Hitler, etc. (which is kinda true)… In fact, if there is any category of people MORE “anti-Nazi” than Jews, it would be Protestants…
You are quite right in pointing out that we know nothing at all about Jesus as a historical figure. In fact, there isn’t consensus among academic researchers that Jesus even did exist. (Does this really support the Christian case?) Again, I tried to be generous by giving Christians the benefit of the doubt…
This of course means that: 1. Christianity isn’t relevantly connected to or restricted by any real Jesus (if such a figure even existed) or any real definition at all, meaning that 2. Christianity is just what Christians imagine and want it to be, which in turn means that 3. Christians can imagine a version of their religion that is compatible with whatever is expedient at the moment, including National Socialism, and you can even make it disagree with the First Council of Nicaea if you like… But then the question would be in what relevant sense we still were talking about Christianity.
A case in point is the very “Positive Christianity” that was pushed by non-Christians like Alfred Rosenberg, because it could be used as a political stepping stone, and not because it in any way represented authentic Christianity. That such heresies were even accepted really proves that Christianity took a backseat in the Third Reich.
“To accord with Nazi antisemitism, Positive Christianity advocates also sought to deny the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible. In such elements Positive Christianity separated itself from Nicene Christianity and is considered apostate by all of the historical Trinitarian Christian churches, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
But again, could we imagine a David Duke or George Lincoln Rockwell style, cultural ornament type of Christianity that is compatible with National Socialism? Certainly.
Many of you are making this too complicated. If you go so far as waking up to the elephant (jew) in the room, you must have a desire for truth , and damn the torpedoes.
Christianity is a story, a fake history of a violent jealous demiurge named jehovah – a tribal god of the jews, which borrowed from many previous legends and myths.
No “story” will give you the truth.
The truth is unchangable, unconcerned, beginningless and endless. The truth is your real self. The powerful and magical pre-vedic civilization knew this, LOng before sumerians started making beer.
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
Lost your password?Edit your comment