Now in Audio Version
C. B. Robertson
Identity & the Problem with Christianity
2,843 words / 19:06
To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.” To subscribe to the CC podcast RSS feed, click here.
Race is a large component of identity that has been neglected in recent decades, so naturally, identitarians ought to care about race. Identity is valuable because it gives coherence to our relationships with our ancestors and descendants, it builds social trust and solidarity in our communities, and it helps establish who we are as individuals. Without such an understanding or awareness of who we are, any greater purpose or justification for life can be difficult to ascertain.
Whenever we accept certain axioms as true, we bar ourselves from accepting certain conclusions which contradict the axioms. For example, if we accept the axioms that identity matters, and that race is a component of identity, then one cannot claim that race does not matter.
But race is not the only component of identity. Indeed, in many circumstances and situations, it may not even be the most critical component of identity. Religion often competes with race for predominance, and the axioms of identity and the barring of certain conclusions apply to religion in the same manner that they apply to race.
What I am about to say may seem divisive in an already weak movement, and as such, inappropriate as a subject. But there is an old tale about the importance of building one’s house upon solid rock, rather than on sand, because no matter how well-built the house may be, a weak foundation will bring it all crashing down when the winds begin to blow. Religion being a critical component to the foundations of identity, it should be taken seriously because smaller differences than religion have fractured nations when allowed to fester.
First let me give a little bit of relevant personal background. I have spent the last two and a half years attempting, to the best of my ability, to be a Christian. I grew up Christian and was reasonably well-read. Like many teenagers, I was heavily influenced by the New Atheists, particularly Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, and left the faith in my sophomore year of High School, gradually maturing into the most insufferable variety of atheist.
After discovering Joseph Campbell several years later, my tune began to change. Maybe I had been thinking about religion all wrong this whole time?
My first inclination, incidentally, was not Christianity but paganism. I had been learning and adapting myself more and more to pagan beliefs, until it occurred to me that within both Christian and Pagan worldviews, social relationships are not merely important, but are in many ways the heart of spirituality. My family was Christian; my wife was Christian; my in-laws were culturally Christian; my extended family were all Christian or culturally Christian. Wouldn’t it be a selfish abandonment of my family to become pagan? Wouldn’t it be arrogant of me to assume that I knew something they did not, and to separate myself religiously from them?
And so I adopted Christianity: for my family, informed by mythological parable, and grounded in faith. This to me seemed like an adequate justification to choose Christianity, or to seriously choose any other religion for that matter.
As it turns out, this line of reasoning is compatible with paganism, but is incompatible with Christianity:
Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
In the Old Testament, and the New:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Holding to Christianity because it is the religion of your fathers is, according to scripture, the incorrect reason.
Needless to say, I had a hard time with the literal truth of the doctrine, but what of the metaphorical value? What if Adam was an archetypal representation of the evil in man that we all recognized, and Christ’s redemption of man was, in his humanity, an act so good—and through it, proof that man was capable of such an act—that by itself, his death on the cross gave us reason to hope in others, here on this earth? And isn’t the Kingdom of God within us?
As with the religion of the father, this logic actually does apply to paganism, but fails with Christianity, no matter what Campbell or his modern avatar, Jordan Peterson, might say. Even Bishop Robert Barron, who presents a great defense of the classical conception of God more sophisticated than what the New Atheists generally attack, has a critical word to say about their gnostisizing tendency, to “bracket historicity, to uncover a sort of secret or hidden wisdom in these texts.” The danger, according to Barron, is missing the immense importance of whether or not certain things happened. Ultimately, Christianity does not, and cannot, boil down to psycho-narrative interpretations of world forces. It hinges upon Jesus, the person, actually dying on an actual cross, and actually, literally, rising from the dead three days later. If this did not happen, or if we are not given the chance of immortality as a result of its happening, then according to the Church fathers themselves, Christianity is wrong.
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
—1 Corinthians 15:14
What about faith?
Faith is the last, and the strongest justification. Casually dismissed as “wishful thinking” by Hitchens, it is the great Kierkegaardian leap that allows us to act even in the face of uncertainty. But what should we have faith in? The case for Christian faith lies, to a great degree, in the attractiveness of its story and its metaphysical conception of the universe. The reason to have faith in Christianity—as opposed to faith in another religion—is because the story is comforting, encouraging, and life-giving. All “informed by reason” too, of course.
Here is where the conflict between Christianity and identitarianism comes becomes important.
First of all, I don’t mean identitarianism in the petty, political sense. Politics is always a means to an end, and if politics were conflicting with spiritual matters, it is obvious we ought to choose the latter. But identity itself is a spiritual matter, and the conflict cuts to the heart of what it means to be an individual in the modern world.
First, Christians accept that all people are “image-bearers” of God, and are intrinsically worthy of respect as not only creations of God, but in many ways as proxies for God himself:
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Christianity in this way holds us to be our brother’s keeper. But our brother is not merely our biological brother; in Christ, all believers are family, are one:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
This famous Galatians verse does not, incidentally, deny basic national and biological differences between people, but rather establishes an ethical obligation between the body of believers that is familial. This familial bond is often even extended to unbelievers by particularly zealous Christians, who trust the welfare of their families, their nations, and themselves to foreigners and strangers who do not share their faith. This is not theologically sound, so far as I can tell, but it is illustrative in its visible instincts of how Christians are expected to treat other Christians. Those who have faith in Christ are brothers in Christ.
This creates a number of problems relating to identity.
First, our identities as individuals are not revealed by removing or blurring connections with others but are forged through connection with others. These other people cannot be just anybody, as the first set of connections is one that we are born into: namely, the genetic connection with our parents and our ancestors. Biological brothers and sisters fall within this familial category as well. They are our real family. Christianity, by first requiring us to leave our family in order to follow Christ, and second by expanding our “family” to extraordinary, inhuman proportions, diminishes our ability to establish a coherent self that is reliable to others, because it denies the inherent validity and importance of the core relationships that ground us and shape us into beings that can connect with our parents. The only route of authentic re-connection for the parent to the Christian child is through Christianity; the fact that these parents created you and raised you from infancy is not sufficient, because we are told that our parents did not really create you. God did that.
It should be said that there is a real intimacy in Christian relationships, which I do not mean to dismiss. But it is a distinct and separate kind of relationship, one which is shoulder-to-shoulder, rather than face-to-face. Both parties face together towards God, and learn about each other by learning about God, to the degree that each continues in their faith and emulation of Jesus.
But God is not merely the object of attention. He is also the eternal observer and the final adjudicator. We are never completely alone with someone else, nor, in the final analysis, does God permit the resolution of disputes between individuals to be handled by these individuals. While Matthew 18:15-17 pays lip-service to the procedure of resolving disputes amongst individuals, it is only lip-service because within the Christian framework, it is not other people whom we wrong, but God. The fact is that other people are, as people, only proxies for God, deserving of respect precisely—and solely—because they are image-bearers of God (God being the only proper object of worship). When we wrong other people, the victim is not the actual person wronged, but God. Even if the Christian acknowledges that there is something intrinsically wrong with harming another person regardless of God (many of their moral arguments hinge upon this point being false), the wrong against the individual is so petty, in scope, in injustice, and in consequences, compared to the wrong done to God that it is relatively meaningless.
Human relationships aren’t fundamentally built upon getting along with each other. That’s a necessary condition, most of the time, but if you simply agree with someone on absolutely everything, you will not develop the deepest kinds of human bonds. Those are acquired through having and resolving conflicts. By relocating the conflict from between two individuals and making it between the individual and God, we deny ourselves the opportunity to develop deep relationships with others and are redirected instead to deepening our relationship with God.
This redirection threatens intimacy—at least the face-to-face variety—but it also threatens the classical notion of honor, which requires us to stick up for ourselves and to care about our reputation. Within the Christian worldview, vengeance belongs to the Lord. It is God’s task—not yours—to take care of yourself and your reputation.
All of this culminates in a kind of spirituality that is rightly credited as the antecedent to modern conceptions of individualism, wherein human identity is truly discovered by removing ourselves from all ties to the earth, rather than identifying what those ties are and refining them.
The modern world presents us with a serious problem. The unholy scale of human migration we are experiencing has not been seen ever before in human history. Historically, genocides, the collapses of empires, the forging of new peoples and the destruction of old nations usually followed such movements, and survival in such turbulent seas requires a heavy anchor and a strong rope. It requires a clear sense of identity, so that when that identity comes under attack, the attack can be identified and defended against.
What does Christianity have to say about this? It requires one to be at worst, ambivalent. Life on this earth is ultimately of no importance, after all. On the other hand, many view the movement and migration as a good thing. Why? Not merely from fear and trepidation around open-borders progressives. Just last week, I was at an evangelism conference, and the speaker was saying how wonderful it was that all of these refugees were coming in because we could all proselytize to unbelievers without having to cross an ocean. They were coming to us! How wonderful!
Even caring about the demographic dangers, let alone bringing them up, violated Galatians 3:28. Don’t you know that these immigrants are your brothers too? And don’t you know that you are your brother’s keeper?
Within Christianity, there is neither mother nor father, daughter nor son, stranger nor friend; for all are one in Christ. There is no cohesive identity in Christianity, no identifiable self or lineage to get upset about should it be put in danger of annihilation. The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. The indifference to life, to family, and to nation (relative to God) that Christianity requires makes it a path of death in the modern age.
I understand that the historically-minded Christians may point back to a history of great civilization under Christendom and ask how these conclusions could possibly be justified in the face of the facts. Indeed, the West has achieved great things under the Christian flag, but the attribution of this success to Christianity is not merely questionable, but theologically unsound, placing value on worldly accomplishments rather than upon godliness of the spirit. This was a point which Augustine makes in City of God, when confronting Pagans who blamed the rise of Christianity for the collapse and sacking of Rome:
If those who lost their earthly riches in that disaster had possessed them in the spirit thus described to them by one who was outwardly poor but inwardly rich; that is, if they had ‘used the world as though not using it,’ then they would have been able to say, with that man who was so sorely tried and yet was never overcome: ‘I issued from my mother’s womb in nakedness, and in nakedness I shall return to the Earth. The Lord has given, the Lord has taken away. It has happened as God decided. May the Lord’s name be blessed.’ Thus a good servant would regard the will of God as his great resource, and he would be enriched in his mind by close attendance on God’s will; nor would he grieve if deprived in life of those possessions which he would soon have to leave behind at his death.
—Augustine of Hippo, City of God
Even if most believers don’t understand or accept the true ferocity of this dedication, their allegiance to the faith will eventually leave them morally powerless to oppose those who do sincerely adopt the principles of Christian identity unadorned with un-Christian idols, like “survival.” I think we are reaching this point of conflict, which does not require us to run like cowards from our spiritual loyalties, but rather reveals that the Christian God is not in fact the God of the living, but the God of the dead and soon-to-be dead.
The astute Christian reader will recognize that this whole argument has no power whatsoever if the religion is, in fact, true. But for those who are uncertain or uninterested in the truth, but are coming to the realization that spirituality matters, and consider Christianity to be a viable candidate for their own mytho-poetic spiritual exploration, you should understand that Christianity is incompatible with any form of identity other than that of being a Christian. The Christian God is a jealous God, and there is no room for serving multiple masters. There is but one God, and nothing—nothing—else matters.
June Is the Gayest Month
June Is the Gayest Month
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 535 Ask Me Anything
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
The Honorable Cause: A Review
Euthanizing the Homeless? It’s a Start
Euthanizing the Homeless? It’s a Start
Clash of the Billionaire Comic-Book Supervillains
Any religion or philosophy taken too far becomes ridiculous. We are all God’s children but we have a right to defend ourselves. Singing the national anthem at an international football match is fine but bombing cities crowded with civilians is not. Fair play should be our watchword.
I felt quite an affinity with this article as my history was incredibly similar, almost identical up to and including the Joseph Cambell influence, (i read everything he wrote). My history then differed in that i spent a decade flirting with Buddhism & New Age Spirituality. However after a “road to Damascus” type epiphany, i found my way back to Christianity despite that i had been so poisoned against it from multiple sources including atheist siblings, acadaemia, the New Age & pop culture.
I also found my way to the alt right and have no difficulty reconciling my Chiristianity with the identitarian aspects, either scripturally or personally. I am a race realist but i don’t hate anyone of any race or “nation”. I wish everyone well. The problem is with meddling social engineers who have taken it upon themselves to mix the nations/races in a contrived and disengenuous manner, causing upheaval and discontent among people.
Another critical thing is that i found myself a church with a Pastor who refuses to cuck to SSM, refugee crises and all the leftist PC. Our church lost probably 50 of 300 people by refusing to cuck to SSM last year (Australia). But i see that we are like a tree that needed to be pruned. Next season we will be stronger and bear more fruit.
One more point:
The historicity of Christ is only one aspect of Christianity
A more important aspect is one’s daily relationship with God
This is not a factual matter, not a intellectual point to debate
This is a spiritual matter
If you have not experienced God’s grace (many Christians never do) and are not sure if you can bring yourself to believe in the super-natural, ask yourself whether in your gut you feel there is a war between good and evil going on now on the earth
If you think yes, pick a side
If you say no, just remember that the Satanists believe whole-heartedly in the war
The ‘Christianity’ described above is Babelist heresy, which you correctly note treats white advocacy as a sin. Biblical Christianity couldn’t be more different.
In Deuteronomy God creates the nations and in Revelations He receives them at His side. It is therefore the Will of God for the nations to reach the End Times intact. The Babelist heresy seeks to amalgamate the nations to keep them from reaching the End Times intact in order to sabotage God’s Plan and to defy God’s Will. The Babelist heretics are therefore Enemies of God.
The Christian is commanded to love his personal enemies and to exercise perfect hatred against the Enemies of God. Under this duty of perfect hatred there can be no mercy or clemency for Babelist heretics. Ever.
This argument is wrong in so many ways that I need to write an article explaining it, and I will, but in the meantime you need to look at Catholic Doctrine and Thomas Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvoix, and Hilaire Belloc, to name a few.
Your reasoning makes sense for a heretic, I mean, protestant. But historically and traditionally Catholicism offers a more nuanced and deep understanding of the man God family relationship.
Anyway I’m asserting not proving. I have to go write.
Agreed. Virtually all alt-right critiques of Christianity are in fact critiques of Protestantism.
Western rebellion against Christianity is, generally, a rebellion against the Protestant conception of God, against the God of Ockham and Luther.
“… you need to look at Catholic Doctrine and Thomas Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvoix, and Hilaire Belloc … ”
So Christianity didn’t exist during the first 1000 years after Jesus — it actually came into being during the middle ages when the church stumbled upon pagan philosophy? I love this Catholic, sophist (but I repeat myself) bullshit…
I’m sure that Belloc knew the teachings of Jesus better than did the persons who actually interacted with him (or at least claimed to do so). Make-belief 1900 years later is so much better than actual first-hand knowledge — it makes it easier to cherry pick and invent freely.
An excellent essay.
As for your second alternative, the Christians, so-called, are welcome to their Zombie Jesus. (BTW, whatever happened to the “hundreds” who also rose from the dead along with Jesus, according to Matt. 27:52-3)
But the whole thing is just a word-game. “Christianity” is whatever Christians believe; like Pilate, I have no interest in deciding what Christianity “really” is. (Cf. Obama’s “ISIS isn’t real Islam”). Christianity is no more essentially “historicist” than it is Papist or Calvinist or Unitarian Universalist. What unites them is that they base themselves on the same myths, which some childishly claim to be “really true”.
Speaking of word-games, the good Bishop’s “gnosticizing tendency” is another one; it serves to insinuate that so-called “orthodox” Christianity was original, the gnostic versions being later “deviations” or “heresies.”
“This morning I read Buckley’s column. I enjoy his use of words and I find him quite an interesting fellow. Today he wrote about the Bishop of Canterbury, saying: “I don’t believe the good Bishop would recognize a Christian if he met one, or scripture if he read it.” I don’t always agree with Buckley, but this time I agreed, after reading what he quoted the Bishop as having said. Now, this is not only true of the present bishop but of all the bishops I have met, whether they call themselves cardinals or popes, for their rituals, beliefs, and teachings are so far removed from the true story of Jesus.” Neville Goddard, “A Movement Within God,” Oct 16, 1967.
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
1 Timothy 5:8
I understand what you are trying to say here, C.B.
However, I think that you might be confusing today’s milquetoast, spineless, ball-less, cucked religion of Churchianity with their savior Judeo Christ with the classic, tough love of the Old Church Christianity.
Take the verse up above; it exhorts us to mind our own family first, to provide for them first. Now, there is room for the “Brothers in Christ” argument you make, but that is easily refuted by common sense. If my brother barges into my house, beats my children, abuses my wife, and shoots my dog and I do nothing to stop or correct him, then I am failing my family and am cursed before God.
If my brother comes to my house and, though he doesn’t misbehave, outstays his welcome, and yet I still do nothing, then I am, again, cursed before the Almighty.
This must also be applied to the larger picture of a country and its administration.
As for Churchians not respecting borders, besides the fact that they are, again, violating the 1 Timothy verse, they are also breaking another of God’s edicts concerning the separation of the peoples of the Earth in Acts 17:26:
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place…
The Bible makes it clear that just and good laws are not merely just and good to us, but to God Himself; breaking a just and good law is not only disrespecting man’s authority but actively flouting God’s own rules.
The Churchians can gussy it up and try to justify it all they like, but saving a soul or two isn’t going to make it all better with God.
They are breaking the law, laws in keeping with His will, which is a slap in his Face.
And in the words of a video game character…
“It is one thing to forgive a slap across my cheek, but an insult to the Lord requires… no, it demands correction.”
– Joshua Graham, The Burned Man, Fallout: New Vegas
“You should understand that Christianity is incompatible with any form of identity other than that of being a Christian. The Christian God is a jealous God, and there is no room for serving multiple masters. There is but one God, and nothing—nothing—else matters” – With all due respect, I don’t think so. Paul didn’t think that that his Jewishness, its history, and certain cultural customs were unimportant. Even when he became a Christian, he continued to maintain certain elements of them, and continued to identify with his people. His new found faith, in other words, didn’t teach him to abandon all other commitments and traditions so long as they didn’t violate core Gospel truths in the form of idolatry and heretical theology.
Although Paul remained single and celibate for the remainder of his life for the purpose of his God-given mission, he did not require the same from his disciples. He assumed that Christians would go on with their lives as usual, would get married and raise a family, and that such commitments to family and one’s extended family (nation) would remain. This explains why so much within the New Testament epistles deals with the practical, everyday lives of Christians because so much of it revolves around our commitment to family, our employment, our ethnic culture(s) and our countries.
To say that in Christianity “nothing else matters” except devotion or commitment to God is wrongheaded. Authentic Christianity sees all that we do in our commitment and obligations to family, employment and even nation as spiritual in nature and, therefore, necessary. The New Testament assumes that there is an entire sphere of responsibilities that we as Christians must shoulder. Sitting around and praying only or contemplating one’s navel is not what the apostles envisioned for those professing to be believers.
Granted, there are occasions when our commitment to God and His truth must take priority, but these almost always occur when we are faced with a decision between fidelity to the Gospel message and compromise of it.
Opposing the Left’s multiculturalism and racial ‘diversity’ propaganda, then, does not in the least violate the Gospel message. Protecting one’s nation and people from invading and non-assimilating third-worlders also does not violate the message of Jesus because this is a part of caring for our immediate family as well as our extended family (nation). If war and personal self-defense is not condemned in the Bible, then neither is defending one’s people and nation from a scourge of hostile ‘refugees’ bent on racially and culturally displacing them.
I know of no occasion where the apostles encouraged believers to abandon their cultural heritage or customs or even their own ethnic people as if this was somehow normative of Christianity. When Jesus spoke of hating one’s own parents, etc., He was employing hyperbole (exaggeration for the sake of emphasizing a spiritual point). He was talking about personal conflict within one’s family over His message and claims, and not about abandoning one’s entire race and culture on behalf of foreign invaders or immigrants and the like.
Galatians 3:28, similarly, has been misused as if it just completely negates one’s race, ethnicity, historic traditions and cultures. This too is a gross misreading of Paul’s purpose within the context of the epistle. I don’t have time to get into it now, but check out some of the better exegetical commentaries that deal with these texts.
Christians who encourage and embrace third-world ‘migrants’ into their White countries have been just as duped as non-believing Whites by today’s ‘diversity’ message. They too are victim’s of the Left’s non-stop propaganda. They also wrongly assume, like many race-realist pagans and race-realist atheists, that Christianity somehow encourages each and every nation to open its borders for all, and that one’s culture or race is comparably unimportant or irrelevant. Such notions cannot be maintained from the page of Scripture itself unless, of course, we first impose such ideas into the text.
The New Testament may present a strict world-denying doctrine, but it also contains the injunction: “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.” I would say that questions of national and political struggle fall into the ‘Caesar’ category, and I do not see why the urgency of these things in the present moment should require us to elevate them into the position occupied by God. The sheer otherworldliness of Christianity makes it, as Schuon argued, a spiritual centre of gravity in society instead of an all-encompassing set of rules like Judaism or Islam, so it’s not as if it cannot practically coexist with things that appear to be negated by its doctrine.
Seedline Christian Identity? http://www.kingidentity.com/seedline.htm
Great essay. I would point out that points 2 and 3 are connected. If you understand the Bible as psychological, not historical, then the “we are all one,” “hate your parents” etc. language ceases to have any obvious external force.
That’s why people who “lose their faith” but continue to look to the Bible for answers wind up with the Social Gospel (i.e., progressive busy-bodyism). And notice how even the “demytholgizers” usually wind up with “all we know for sure is that this Jesus was some kind of wandering Jewish rabbi preaching socialism.”
“To see Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, or any of the characters of scripture as men of flesh and blood and external to yourself in the pages of history, is to see truth tempered to the weakness of your soul, because until the revelation takes place, you are unable to stand the force of the light of revelation. There is nothing more difficult than to give up a fixed idea, especially concerning religion or politics. Born into a certain religious group, your mother taught you what she was taught by her mother. The school and church you attend confirms your mother’s words and you believe that the characters of scripture lived in time and space and left behind a record of their physical existence – when it isn’t so at all. These are all revelations of an eternal drama which is in you, for your true being is your own wonderful human imagination.” Neville Goddard, “A Parabolic Revelation.”
I’ve heard a lot of alt-right types go into the whole “hate your parents” thing as to why Christianity is not inherently pro-family in ideology.
However, it rings a little hollow when you stop to consider the time and circumstances involving that quote. Jesus was speaking to the Jews who would not adopt his views on Judaism and saying they needed to follow him and his teachings rather than the teachings of his parents.
Like, a major trend amongst American alt-right Millennials and GenZers is a hatred of their Baby Boomer parents… but these same people will say that Jesus’s saying essentially saying the same thing is subversive while their saying the same isn’t.
I myself am not a Christian. But that particular line of logic doesn’t seem to hold water given the nature of our movement and the inter-generational friction we’re seeing in the West today.
An interesting uptake on your version of John Bunyan’s A Pilgrims Progress.
Sorry to read that you are struggling with your faith and that it could lead to issues with your family. However, this being a forum for those interested on racial survival (ours!) I’ll highlight The unholy scale of human migration we are experiencing has not been seen ever before in human history. You certainly got that right but you didn’t follow up with how it was prophesied that the dragon would spew forth a flood to drown the woman.
As you are familiar with Christian Identity I won’t have to explain that to you and for the others it would – to be fair – require an article of its own. Perhaps I’ll follow up with one unless you want to work on it yourself as you are a good writer and it would be fun to read updates on your pilgrimage.
I was raised by secular parents in a secular area of the country.
Around 2012, when I started getting into what would be later termed “the alt-right” (the term existed, but had not been popularized at that time), Eastern Orthodoxy (and “Trad Catholicism) was a huge meme amongst TRS and similar Facebook groups I was debating in then. Lots of young White men who, like me, were raised more or less secular were taking an interest in this form of Christianity and melding it with our nationalist and ethnic-centric world views.
I began attending the local EO church, researched as much about it as possible, and fiercely debated Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Muslims, etc in various alt-right groups, learning s lot in the process. Books are great, but the real learning happens in fast paced online debates wherein bad ideas can be quickly weeded out and good ideas weeded in. Otherwise you’re stuck reading some 300 page tome wherein a wrong idea on page 30 can have far reaching cause-and-effect distortions on the final philosophy as expounded on page 300 due to inability to call out the author on his BS.
However, unlike those who were raised in the faith and whom one might expect to just go along with it due to forces of inertia, I actually delved a good deal into it— much more so than the typical Russian or Greek normie who “is Orthodox”, but de-facto just goes to church services because “I’m a Greek/Russian and it’s the Greek/Russian thing to do…”.
I slowly became aware that the views of red blooded American conservatives had, in fact, very little to do with the actual teachings of Jesus and that, more over, “Christianity” could be more aptly termed “Paulanity”, as St Paul/Saul made quite a few “innovations” on the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef, whose actual mission was to “come for the lost sheep of Israel” first and foremost.
What a Jewish reformer establishing his own school of Judaism in 33AD Palestine has to do with a 20-something White male in America in 2018 is beyond me.
In “The Orthodox Church” by Timothy Ware, which I was given by my local EO priest to read, it actually flat out told a story of two Russian brothers who allowed themselves to be murdered by their power hungry tyrant cousin who wanted their heir to the monarchic royal family positions… and both Ware’s book and the EO Church claim this as a good thing! I literally can’t even.
It was shortly after that that is realized I was having to engage in increasingly more and more mental gymnastics to justify my pro-Christian views and abandoned the whole thing.
Shortly there after, within 6mo, every single one of my TRS debate group buds had abondined their various sects of Christianity as well, having researched and came to the same conclusions I did.
I would later come to read “Liber AL Vel Legis”, join Aleister Crowley’s OTO, adopted the very individualistic religion of Thelema, and going to the OTO’s “Gnostic Catholic Church” (nothing to do with Roman Catholicism except in the style of the liturgy) for services, which I’m, so far, very satisfied with.
Some may claim my adoption of Thelema makes me “special snowflake” and that I ought to “suck it up and believe what my ancestors believed”. However, a quick look at how “Alt-Right Christinity’s“ views are VERY at odds with the views as espoused by literally every single major church will illustrate just who are the real snowflakes are— at least my religion and occult practices are inherently individualistic and open go interpretation by different practitioners. The same can not be said of their religious views.
Now, if you’re ingrained in a given church tradition, or you conveered for your spouse, or it’s a good social atmosphere, or whatever, than by all means keep going to church if it benefits you. However, for those living in the very secular North, such as myself, wherein we were not baptized or confirmed or taken to any Christian services growing up, and wherein the Christian Church is not a big thing amongst our peers, than there’s really no point in trying to force yourself to believe in things you fundamentally can’t believe, or are ar odds with your deeply held political views.
There is no grace.
There is no guilt.
This is the law: DO WHAT THOU WILT!
If you read the Gospel, let’s say the Gospel of John, you come away with a distinctive understanding of Jews.
The wider story about stoning the adulterous woman for example. The author is simply calling the Jews pieces of sh*t. “He who is without sin” and the lines before and after, it is an attack on the virtue of the Jews. The adulteress is bought before the Character of Jesus as a trap by the Sanhedrin. After Jesus draws in the ground and utters the famous statement the Jews just skulk away. It’s the character Jesus trolling the Kikes.
After that Jesus says he’s god in the treasury of a local temple and the Priestscome and stone him for it and chase him away. Typically Jewish behavior today really. The relevance is strong the story vivid.
“The indifference to life, to family, and to nation (relative to God) that Christianity requires makes it a path of death in the modern age.”
not really. Catholics in Latin America are pro-family, and advocate for large families.
Latinos in Latin America are having large families due to their sex drives. Not because of any interest/understanding of Catholicism/Christianity. Non-Whites always seem to have rampant sex drives, compared to Whites.
I would characterize this whole issue of Christianity as being a big problem for nationalism today as ridiculously overblown. Religion as we have known it is not coming back. We will still always be inspired by it but it will be seen, at least by educated people as being more a matter of psychology and aesthetics(perhaps also metaphysics if one is a traditionalist). There is no reason that one cannot be flexible; pagan one day ,christian the next, an atheist while studying astronomy etc…
Also, these critiques of Christianity are always superficial and ahistorical. For some reason they always hand our Christian tradition over to the liberals on a silver platter. Never before today’s liberal christianity did anyone think that being pious meant liquidating ones nationality and identity. Consider the possibility that men like Corniliu Codreanu and Francisco Franco may have had a truer interpretation of that religion.
What, other than wishful thinking, makes you think that Codreanu or Franco had a more correct understanding of Christianity than, say, the authors of the New Testament or Dante, who condemned our pagan forefathers (the people who gave birth to our race) to hell?
What, other than wishful thinking, makes you think that Codreanu or Franco had a more correct understanding of Christianity than, say, the authors of the New Testament or Dante, who condemned our pagan forefathers (the people who gave birth to our race) to hell?
What difference does it make whose understanding was “correct”? If Christianity can be defensibly understood in a way that is supportive of national identity, why is that not good enough?
Well, the bible has many contradictions. I guess we can justify virtually anything with this book. But regardless of all contradictions or incompatibilities that christianity has with my own beliefs, I still believe it is a force for good in society. Churches are a great place for meeting traditional women and without those institutions the white birth rate would probably go down to zero.
The Christians welcoming the refuges are complicit in the prophetic arising of the new Babylon. They need to,have it pointed out that they are participating in the attempt to create a utopia on earth that can achieve peace without God. I have brought this to the attention Voxday more than a year ago. He uses this term now when appropriate. I point this out to all my Christian friends and family. Christ’s Church is described as a body. How can a body function if we are all a head or all an arm. We have distinct capabilities and purposes. We can’t fulfill our purpose if we are led to believe we are all,the same.
Dear C. B. Robertson
Thank you for a great and honest essay. You brought me quite a joyful load of synchronicity; this incompatibility between Christianity and identity (or maybe just reality) is exactly, what I’ve been pondering on for some time now – before I a few weeks ago made my final decision to get the hell out of Christianity and back home to northern paganism.
Also, I would not put too much “faith” in this idea of Christianity being essentially historical, as opposed to symbol-friendly paganism. It’s a favorite trope of the orthodox apologists, and for that reason should be suspect.
Just because a bunch of literalists hijacked the Church, killed all their opponents and burned their books, doesn’t mean we have to see Christianity their way and as the only way.
Literalists exist in all traditions; in the ancient world you could visit Zeus’ tomb in Crete, from the time he was killed by a boar and resurrected.
Zeus was never killed by a boar. I think you’re thinking of Adonis. Nothing can stand against the Thunderer, not even all the other gods together.
The problem is that as Nietzsche put it, we live in “the age of masses who prostrate themselves before everything built on a massive scale”.
Fundamental democratization of everything necessitates that more nuanced outlooks such as yours be not only shunned, but also trampled down vigorously in a collective ritual sacrificing of the scapegoat.
Traditionalist Christians, for all their naivete, also belong to this more nuanced outlook, however much they defend the prerogatives of the mob. When mob comes forward, in its cunning existentialism it will erect above its own head a halo of “sanctity” (the clever self-protecting reflex), and so once more being against the mob and attempting to regulate mob, such as by even mentioning such things as eugenic measures, or demolishing the bureaucratic nanny state will be forbidden.
As for having a positive Christianity, ultimately it is possible, even desirable, but with finally having in the manner of the Eastern Orthodoxy, the Church, who is the woman, subject to the state, which is the man.
I’m not even orthodox and I know that’s wrong. Christ is the bridegroom of the Church, and the Emperor, if we are speaking of the Byzantine formulation, is Christs representative on Earth.
Yes, I already know that every idea is wrong from somebody else’s point of view. What I meant to say, is that a conception of subordinated Church is better than the conception of a Church free to ordain any doctrine out of her interpretation of the Bible, where possibilities are infinite, and all according to the whims of necessity, whatever the priestly class might deem it to be. It is much like “constitutional courts” today, who can “interpret” any law to mean its opposite therefore practically obliterating its definite character.
Naturally, I’m not speaking with the democratic paradigm in mind.
This might be a bit unrelated, but I’ve started reading about process theology, a kind of “open” theism fairly recently and have been thinking a lot more on the problems of creatio ex nihilo.
If Christianity were more corporeal or finite with its conception of God, unlike classical theism which is an a priori metaphysical monster that no one can relate to or comprehend; matter is “eternal” like Plato’s demiurge and you’re left with something more materialistic and life affirming like Pelagius being much more concerned with virtue and the will.
Of course, a more finite God compared to classical theism is more consistent with that of the Bible as others have proposed. One that is living and persuasive (allowance of moral agency) and not coercive which I think covenants become much more important.
The writer continually refers to Bible books, as interpreted by modern divines. I ask whether this stuff has any relevance at all. Surely there have been countless theologians, Christian writers, prelates, saints, what-have-you—not just Western Catholic ones but those of other Christian denominations—in the past nineteen hundred years.
So wherefore the Bible obsession? Yes, I know it makes a useful if tendentious backstory for those with certain agenda. But really—why should one need to refer to it at all, since it is so overused and subverted? Why not bypass it entirely and go to some source more recent and relevant? If you don’t do so, you’re giving us a strawman argument.
The bible is a straw-man of Christianity?
The Bible’s authority as “divine revelation” rests entirely upon pronouncements by Church councils and popes. It is not something self-evident. Take away adherence to the Church that declared those pronouncements and dogmas—this book is canonical, that one is deuterocanonical or apocryphal—and there is no reason to regard the Bible as other than interesting literature.
Now if one is Catholic or Orthodox or High Anglican, one is bound to accept that dogma. But there is no reason at all for other “Christian” sects to do so, since they mainly reject the authority of the Church in the first place. They need to base their claims on other theology, other literature.
“This familial bond is often even extended to unbelievers by particularly zealous Christians”
False. Just like the rest of this essay.
“What I am about to say may seem divisive…”
No, it IS divisive. Just write/say it and like Dr. Johnsons says, maybe a [religious] divorce from the movement is good for both parties.
White/Aryan people begat western civilization. And western civilization is about accomplishment and advancement in math/science and the five humanities. These were first espoused by the ancient Greeks and continued by the Romans.
We Whites never needed any Christianity (a definite jew creation) for our civilization. Our western civilization predates Christianity. For example, medieval Gothic architecture wasn’t driven by Christianity. If it were, one would have to explain the ancient Greek Parthenon, among others. The Roman Forum, Colosseum et alia. Whites created magnificent architecture before Christianity.
Our whole approach to education being the seven areas of learning, as said before, was started by the ancient Greeks. Our method of history and historical research was began by Hesiod. Our idea of medical practice originated with Hippocrates and later Galen. Geometry and Trigonometry came, as far as we know, from ancient Greece; and are still massively used to this day. Ancient Greek and even more so Latin was about preciseness in words and forms to convey meaning more accurately.
Our ideas of gov’t, specifically dividing the practice of law into three as separate as possible bodies (exec. legislative, judicial), is traced to Rome. The idea of allowing the common people having a say in what was/wasn’t law didn’t start in the European Renaissance. The ancient Greeks conceived demos and the Romans plebians/populares; although sometimes not due to idealism but expediency.
Our idea of military practice/method was in effect in ancient Rome. The Romans used recruiting officers to search the width/breadth of Roman territory for soldiers; like modern armies they also were leery of using urban youths but instead favored hard working farm (outdoor) people.
Our modern idea of rows/columns when standing still in parade and on the march originated in Roman legions. Marching in exact rows and columns allowed leaders to spot immediately if someone desserted because it would stick out like a sore thumb whereas a mob moving up/down roads wouldn’t show it much. So, this was done not for aesthetics but good military reasons.
Romans started the idea of state owned arms factories and of standardizing military equipment sizes to prevent each soldier having to get custom made equipment. They noticed that their legionaires came in only certain sizes/shapes and put much thought into making the same equipment parts/pieces rapidly and on mass scale so that they would be cheaper.
Romans believed in a state made road system to get legions across the known Roman world as fast as they could walk and in peacetime use the roads to effect civilian trade; shades of Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System.
Roman politicians advocated giving financial aid to others to avoid them falling into camp with those hostile to Rome; Rome understood how dysgenic wars were. Again, shades of 20th century Cold War politics.
Romans believed in engineering an opponent thoroughly before fighting to make up for having fewer numbers than their opponent but also to preserve their soldiers and peace time farmers and other valuable civilians-turned-legionaires. These days we do it with “high tech” while Romans did it with civil engineering. Both have/had their “gadgets”.
A modern bullet is in reality a javelin spearhead hurtling at a much greater velocity and can be launched/fired from behind cover. A grenade/mortar bomb is in reality a squad of legionaires slashing with swords; again delivered from a distance. A modern tank, at least as used in WW1 was a new form of the Testudo i.e. the tortoise shell formation for getting up close on an enemy without catastrophic casualties.
But anyway, we Whites never needed Christianity. We were doing alright and were headed in the right direction before jew created Christianity. It seems as if Christianity more likely crippled us for a long time rather than helped us. What held White people together was racial kinship, not some semitic superstition.
Christianity was like a narcotic; it made one feel good at first, even energized. But later it rotted away the body and now the soul. It is making western man mix with others we have no business interacting with. Our societies and cultures are constantly being whittled down and away by non-Whites who incessantly demand that western civilization change to suit them. And worst of all, western man is in danger of mixing genetically and not breeding pure Whites at all, leading us to extinction.
Oh yes. The Septuagint in Koine Greek. According to what I’ve read.
EDIT: Third paragraph. I meant Herodotus, rather than Hesiod, concerning history.
Christianity is inherently a globalist religion. It praises the mythology of foreigners and glorifies their ancestors over our own. There is no getting around it. It is a foreign religion, and in order to free ourselves from Jewish influence we must free ourselves from their god.
The guy writing his weekly blog at cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com explains why adherence and faith in Christ, as practiced by “antique Europeans”, is essential to White survival. Many of us will not agree with his outlook but it is worth reading.
Anyway, the so-called problem modern Christianity presents to racially aware White people is being solved unintentionally by the Churches as their bishops and pastors abandon Europeans and move consciously into the globalist camp. The big news in traditional Catholic circles is the attendance of a high ranking Vatican cleric, Cardinal Parolin, at the latest Bilderberg conference. Doesn’t Scripture say something about the danger of serving two masters!
The article states:
The European people live in Satan’s unweeded garden because they no longer see beauty and truth in the cross of Christ.
Sorry, but it lost me there. The whole shebang is based on a book about jews and written by jews, except the part by Luke. It is all about an irrational jewish mindset used later by people like Marx and Freud to create new obsessions for deranged whites.
We need our own universe, emerged from our own common psyche.
I salute CC for speaking out in this matter, too many right wing venues are careful about not offending their christian readers. Christianity is, indeed, incompatible with white kulture. Good thing is that we have a whole new generation of right wing thinkers such as Jorjani and de Benoist, who are dedicated to speaking out against Christianity and pointing our its inherent opposition to the right. Days when right wing politics had to court the Church are long gone.
That would be a fantastic way of alienating one of the biggest supporters of your way of thinking. The traditional Catholics and Orthodox are all about hierarchy family and order, but only if God is the Supreme King. The reason the left is unattrarove is because its godless and satanic. You really want to make the right Godless and Satanic?
Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe.
Another Christian threatening to take his toys and go home.
No, Europe is not the faith, and the faith is not Europe, and the people who think this are not actually allies of European identity.
“Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe.”
In other words, Europe is not Europe; South America is Europe. Denmark is not Europe; East Timor is Europe. Finland is not Europe; Colombia is Europe…
Catholicism is schizophrenia in the form of a religion.
Heh. People whose sympathies like with the Promethean/Atlantean Right would likely take that as a compliment, that is the “Satanic” bit.
Don’t get this wrong (I suspect that we are roughly on the same “side”), but I am sometimes really surprised at just how little some of the regular readers understand where is it that so many of this blog’s contributors come from.
Not everyone on the Right cares about populism, or is actually open towards it. So, what the “masses” think is not relevant.
“But for those who are uncertain or uninterested in the truth, but are coming to the realization that spirituality matters, and consider Christianity to be a viable candidate for their own mytho-poetic spiritual exploration, you should understand that Christianity is incompatible with any form of identity other than that of being a Christian.”
That is not seeking conversion, that is shopping for a cool gadget. If your motive for approaching any religion is “mytho-poetic spiritual exploration”, you won’t be satisfied by anything remotely serious. Which I suppose explains the prevalence of both roleplaying pagans and funny “orthodox christians” in the west. It’s all about shopping for the coolest thing to show around and get hot chicks.
Personally, I’ve never really taken to Christianity. I can remember as a child being left cold by the bible stories we were taught (particularly from the old testament, which seemed utterly perverse). On the other hand, I loved reading about the gods and heroes of the European pre-Christian religions. To me, that hints there is something deep within the European ‘soul’ that longs for something greater and more fitting than the Christian god.
However, (and I don’t really feel like I have much to add, given that many people here have already covered the most important points), there is no inherent contradiction between Christianity and white nationalism. I have several friends who are both white nationalist/traditionalist friends and devout Christians, who believe that modern Christianity is a Babelist heresy. As Greg Johnson has noted before, it is liberalism rather than Christianity which is the real problem. It seems odd to blame Christianity for our woes at a time when atheism is so prevalent and when Christianity’s influence is ever so weak; rather than a source of identity, Christianity seems to be more like some ‘overlay’ or fashion accessory.
They note that one has a greater duty to one’s family and one’s kin vis-a-vis strangers in far off lands. I’ve even known some (for example, Anthony Jacob, ‘White Man Think Again’) use Christianity to promote an explicitly white supremacist position – that we can best serve God and humanity by ruling over non-whites.
As for converting non-whites, George Bernard Shaw famously said that “the conversion of a savage to Christianity is the conversion of Christianity to savagery”. Some may have a compulsion to proselytise, but it’s by no means universal.
While I think the criticism of Christianity as a Jewish import has some merit, do we seriously still think of Christianity as a Middle-Eastern religion? We all know that it has incorporated so much European paganism, and despite the huge numbers of non-white Christians around nowadays, I would hazard a guess and say people generally still think of Christianity as the White Man’s religion, in much the same way as they associate Islam with Middle-Easterners. I’ve heard people say that Christianity was a religion in search of a people when it came to Europe, and that it was through the White Man that humanity had its first conversation with God.
And if not Christianity, what then? As fascinating as paganism is, a lot of it is meaningless to those living outside of Europe. As an antipodean, Christmas to me is a midsummer festival, and Easter is an Autumn holiday. To a Christian they make some sense, but the pagan meanings are completely lost on an Australian (who have their own unique flora and fauna).
I look forward to a time when we do have something better, something that is distinctly ‘ours’ and celebrates and preserves the greatness of the European soul. But what will that be? I think eventually we will get something more suitable for us, that recognises we now inhabit both the North and the South – but I don’t think we can devise a new religion. We must let it evolve, and Christianity may yet serve as a springboard or stepping stone to something greater.
Justin: I too found the Old Testament particularly slimy and upsetting to my race soul. Even as a pre-teen I could see the nonsense in the claim that “God” made human nature the way it is, that this nature makes it guaranteed that a human will commit at least one sin in their life, that humans are doomed to do so, yet this “God” will hold that human responsible unless said human performs certain tasks. If “God” made us this way, the “He” is responsible for that sin humans commit.
Plus, the mass killing of other peoples to get their land should raise huge warning flags about the people who invented these fairy tales. A late 18th century Frenchman, I think it was Voltaire but cannot prove it just now, wondered why the jews needed so many regulations about perverted sex acts like bestiality if they (way back in ancient world) were not already do these things.
I also shake my head at people who lambaste and lampoon Christians (really, it is White Aryans they are lampooning) for the Old Testament stories of talking snake, (talking) burning bush, flood that covers the earth but no explanation of where all that water disappeared to among many others, but no mention of the jews who invented them.
Most of the Torah, first five books of the Old Testament, are nothing but carpentry instructions for the Temple and Ark, plus other culinary instructions. What kind of religious beliefs are those things? Those have nothing to do with spirituality, the soul and other such matters.
I fear what most of us know about Christianity are from the institutions taken over by Marxist academia. Looking back at historic Protestantism, there doesn’t appear to be the problems Robertson described. There is a balance between categories much like the Trinity itself– unity in diversity or three in one– and I don’t think an Identitarian would have a problem with reconciling the universal to the particular. That said, both the New and Old Testament are concerned about Idolatry, so little room is left for opinions outside special revelation or even natural law (which is expected to agree with the former). Indeed, the Greatest commandment is to “Love God with all our heart, mind, body, and soul”. But, isn’t this what happens when we deal with metaphysics– an encounter with an absolute or fundamental which finally grounds our morality? Sadly, solid morality is what we lack in our movement, and the consequence are organizations which rise and plummet. I’m not convinced that reformed-Hinduism or reconstructed Paganism offers better– especially if true to forefathers of any substantial historical record, or by what institutions they built, in North America. The second greatest commandment is like the one before, “Love thy neighbor as yourself’. Indeed, our neighbor is all mankind, but this does not dissolve our natural relations or responsibilities. In fact, we would be quite cruel if we did dissolve our immediate and natural relations. While acknowledging charity to all men, historic Protestantism was quick to order the relations within families and among nations (the latter following a providential logic of Deut 23 and Gen. 12, ‘those who bless you shall be blessed, those who curse you shall be cursed’). Recall, the reformation itself was based upon a restoration of the national church rather than denominations (sects) or Papal supremacy. Indeed, the reformation in England was strongly on the side of the secular or lay power. So, the ordering of our neighbor was pretty common sense whereas academic marxism purposely turns the traditionalist worldview(e.g., historic Protestant) upside down. Again, Protestant Christianity was far from such. How our ancestors and pioneer forebearers understood their relation to the stranger can be read here, say, conventional 18th century: https://anglicanrose.wordpress.com/2018/03/13/degrees-of-benevolence/
I would recommend H. J. Massingham’s The Tree of Life for a beautiful description of Historic Christianity and how it has blended with the ethnos and culture of Europe so well. Massingham does a wonderful work of describing the monks and monasteries atop the cliffs on the islands of Ireland. They had their own unique Catholicism there, that was remote and natural and dare I say Celtic, the monasteries built over the old Druidic sites and the old stones made centerpieces of the edifice. While the empire of Rome disappears for a variety of reasons, mostly because it had grown old and worn out like any social organism, the new religion of Christianity gives birth to resurgence and a new era that would culminate in the eventual nations of Europe at their heighths in the 18th century. Would Europe have developed the nations with their respective national ethnos without the economic teachings of Christianity and the Church? What about without the social order of Christianity (originally an aristocratic social order based on the The Great Chain of Being)?
I think it is very unnecessary for a right wing movement to alienate vast amounts of would-be-participants. Even Mussolini made it explicitly clear that he and fascism were friendly to the Church. So why is the alt-right or new right going out of their way to declare Christianity an enemy? I do not read as many FaithandHeritage articles as I do Countercurrents, but I seldom have seen the reverse, that is Christian altrite writers defaming paganism. One of the greatest Christian men of the 20th century, G.K. Chesterton, was very fond and respectful of paganism. Of course C.S. Lewis created a beautiful picture of the West in his Narnia books that was Christian metaphysically but full of pagan characters and symbols.
“By relocating the conflict from between two individuals and making it between the individual and God, we deny ourselves the opportunity to develop deep relationships with others and are redirected instead to deepening our relationship with God.”
There’s a problem now where people aren’t singing in churches anymore because it’s becoming more of a performance act of the musicians and singers. I think it’s some since the people are not only alienated from each other but from God too.
“Just last week, I was at an evangelism conference, and the speaker was saying how wonderful it was that all of these refugees were coming in because we could all proselytize to unbelievers without having to cross an ocean. They were coming to us! How wonderful!”
Send the son of a b**** megachurch preachers to hellishly humid jungles packed with fever causing mosquitoes or to death valleys where the wind blows around sand containing sand fleas, and take away their heavenly air-conditioned sanctuaries.
Significant portion of evangelicals seemingly consists of (at best) cuckservatives and (at worst) shitlibs. Hell, with your typical, cliche cuckservatives, in most cases you can make a pretty safe guess about them being evangelicals of some sort.
I’m just finding that kinda funny, given how they continue to be one of Left’s standard boogeymen.
Many that I know recently mourned Billy Graham’s passing. I reminded them that he was at the forefront of desegregation (and that was done without authority from the very US Constitution they claim to cherish) and that this was the prime source of what ails America and White people White people and real/genuine America being one and the same).
Also, that he had done to continue receiving Television contracts to preach publicly; this being a subservience to the jews who dominate Television.
Further, near the latter part of his life he openly declared that to solve the American “race problem”, Whites should mass, wide scale race mix aka miscegenate with negroes.
I tell those I know personally these things about Graham and they stand there slack jawed, not being able to say a word. He was a terrible race traitor.
So, “the historically-minded Christians may point back to a history of great civilization under Christendom and ask how these conclusions could possibly be justified in the face of the facts.”. Well, exactly.
Pope Francis to visit Lesbos in show of support for refugees
I can not forget the first time I watched this british girl who looks so helpless and confused about what is happening to her country. She says “it breaks her heart !”
Here are the latest news from the frontlines.
Hungarian PM: ‘Population Replacement Underway in Europe, Speculators Like Soros Hope to Profit from Its Ruination’
Wake up, everybody !
On a related note, I suspect that Catherine Nixey’s “The Darkening Age” would be of some interest to CC crowd. It offers a potent and convincing counter to the BS “Christianity built the Western culture” narrative.
Yes, I am reading that book right now.
Fascinating topic about the history of Christianity.
Let me give an example of Christianity’s role in Dark Ages, in Europe and elsewhere.
Archaeological finds date back to the Neolithic period, and documents first mention the city in the early 2nd millennium BC.
Palmyra changed hands on a number of occasions between different empires before becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the 1st century AD.
The Greco-Roman culture influenced the culture of Palmyra, which produced distinctive art and architecture that combined eastern and western traditions.
Palmyreans worshiped local Semitic deities, Mesopotamian and Arab gods until
the 3rd century.
Palmyreans converted to Christianity during the 4th century.
The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World
Palmyra, circa AD 385
“There is no crime for those who have Christ” St Shenoute
The destroyers came from out of the desert. (…)
Their targets were the temples (…)
In this atmosphere, Palmyra’s temple of Athena was an obvious target. (…)
The “triumph” of Christianity had begun.
Palmyreans converted to Islam after the 7th century.
During the Syrian Civil War in 2015, Palmyra came under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and subsequently changed hands several times between the militant group and the Syrian Army who retook the city on 2 March 2017.
ISIL sabotaged many artifacts and destroyed a number of buildings, considerably damaging the ancient site.
So, can you see similarities between Christians of 4th century and Islamists of 21st century ?
They are both Abrahamic religins, right ?
“An Abrahamic religion is a religion whose followers believe in prophet Abraham and his descendants to hold an important role in human spiritual development. The best known Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”
Not everything in relation to Abrahamic traditions is negative from the Aryan POV. Sufism has much of worth to offer us and, of course, there is the matter of Qabbalah whether or not you accept that it has Jewish basis.
I think that out of Abrahamic traditions it is Christianity alone that has no redeeming qualities. it can be argued that Judaism and Islam becoming what they are now, in comparison to say enlightened Islam in its golden age, can be blamed on their interplay with Christianity…
I agree with most of what others have said here: I do not believe that Christianity is inherently against white identity. Modern Liberalism grew out of the minds of people who were sympathetic to Blacks because…well, they are sympathetic! We have to come to terms with our nature if we are serious about racial preservation. The fact that there were mad raving, white abolitionists shows that white people need to be conditioned more to fight for themselves: we have a deep sense of justice and we want to help others. If not honed correctly, you get people like John Brown. We need racial separation because we start sympathizing with other races because we want to good. I don’t believe that is the fault of Christianity because the Old and New Testament don’t really openly promote or condemn mass immigration, nor does the Bible promote the idea that we need to liberate slaves or create multiracial Christian garbage piles. So at worst, you have an issue where the actual text is silent.
On a random note:
I also find it hard to conceptualize why some prominent voices are hating on Protestantism in America. The truth of the matter is that American Protestant Civilization was far more racially aware than most the other groups that settled in the Americas. Consider the Massachusetts Bay Colony after 1700: they were among the first to outlaw marriages between white people and blacks. And when mixed relationships happened they were not accepted into the wider white community. While the law was silent on the issue on intermarriage between the Indians, the vast majority of priests refused to wed Indians and White people. But my point is that Christianity isn’t responsible for the type of things that we are witnessing today.
Progress or Return? We can’t go back and we can’t go on…
Sir you’ve scored a palpable hit: When i was having my first identity crisis at the age of 7 or 8 my own father informed me that God was far more important than himself or my mother –that everlasting life or everlasting torment was the choice dwarfing all temporal considerations. This actually traumatized me, making me more insecure. Years later encountering in Alan Watts his discussion of the linear history of Christianity vs. the classical world’s cycles of history made me almost instantly a classicist-ist.
(((Christianity))) was never meant to ground a people within a secure horizon but to explode all horizons in the face of the eschatos. Look at all the other J messiahs, Marx excepted, that have been long forgotten. Now I merely suspect this catastrophic universalism produced by the Jews internecine agon is but a symptom of diaspora Judiasm.
And how important is the fact that Jews regard themselves first and foremost as a people. God is secondary. Their little Jewsus meme has worked its magic in converting host peoples into linear believers demolishing blood & soil. But the particular is the sole path to the universal. We are all Jews now. Except we are not.
Nietzsche is the thinker who made explicit the modern problem of the horizon and taught us that all universalisms are forms of decadence. Joseph Campbell is no slouch and many of his instincts and personal opinions place him squarely on the political right but he really believed in the horizon of ‘no more horizons’ and in this sense was sadly Christian but I don’t think Campbell was interested in reviving Christianity in his encouraging a metaphorical reading of its myths. He wanted to open it up. Still he seemed to be content with a kind of Western chauvinism interested in meeting the world halfway. But a halfway house is purgatory. Life is now and our present situation is intolerable. A People we must be first.
I originally wanted to reply to an Anglican commentor who was making ludicrous claims.
Justin Welby, current archbishop of Canterbury is d fool.
He loves the vestments as much as the lesbian ‘clergy’, and their Lutheran counterparts in Sweden and in some episcopalian (Anglican) churcies and others in the USA.
Everybody knows that ‘prosperity gospel’ preachers are greedy pigs.
Pope Francis is very harmful.
Still, it ir very difficult to resurrect a European paganism, it is past.
The best attempt was by the cultural research arm of the SS in the case of NSEAP Germany, and all of their findings ase treated as secret since.
Penple who speak of Crowley, and Thelema (noosenical term), miss that he was espousing a mix of ideas from certain parts of Gnostism,and Satanism.
The latter, in its current form, largely invented by (((LeVey
Although a christian, I understand the problems, reading history, I have more sympathy with the emperorl Julian than with his almort certainly christian assassin,
However, rejecting identy-conscious Christians is a terrible error.
Julian was quite chummy with the Jews, by the way. And, Jews tend to think highly of him.
As long as Catholicism (as represented by this imbecile “Pope Francis” and his coterie of toadies in the hierarchy) continues to turn into just another sideshow of standard, left-liberal multicultural bullshit, it will cease to be of interest to anyone interested in preserving white civilization. So-called “traditionalist” Roman Catholics are in a totally hopeless, helpless, and hapless state–their church is metamorphing into something malignant, and they are in a state of denial about it.
It’s painful to watch it happen. But it’s happening. “Traditionalist” Roman Catholics are living in a dream world.
According to revisionist historian Michael Hoffman and his latest book, ‘The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome’, the rot within the RCC began centuries ago. Still, the rate at which the RCC is embracing the NWO agenda is breathtaking.
I think there is a confusion of public and private morality here. Christianity concerns itself purely with the private, as Robert Kraynak put it in “The Illusion of Christian Democracy”:
“Christian faith does not have a direct political teaching and its conception of divine law (the revealed law of God in the Bible) does not contain a civil or legal code, as does the divine law of Judaism which prescribes a legal code (halakah) for the Chosen People or the divine law of Islam which prescribes a civil code (sharia) for a theocratic Islamic state. As the Gospels and Epistles indicate, Jesus perfects the divine law by reducing it to the two great commands of love – loving God with all one’s heart, mind, and soul and loving one’s neighbor as one’s self – which do not automatically translate into specific commands to set up a monarchy or a democracy or any particular economic system (such as capitalism or socialism) or even to require a new arrangement of classes based on social equality. Jesus did not say, for example, that God’s command of universal love, especially for the poor and humble over the rich and powerful, required the common people to rule politically in place of Caesar, nor did Jesus say that the duties of charity to the poor implied setting up a social welfare state. Even Jesus’ preaching about the coming kingdom of God did not call for the end of the Roman system of slavery and patriarchy. Instead, Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, and He asserted that his kingdom is not of this world.”
As for the verse that supposedly says you must hate your mother, this verse obviously does not mean that one should literally hate one’s parents, you can also find verses that teach the exact opposite:
Matthew 15:4 For God said: ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’
Kudos to the author of this piece. It was one of the best essay’s that I have come across on this site.
I agree with the closing paragraph but I think that you are ignoring the last 2000 years of Christians trying to apply the faith to worldly existence. It is true that in Christianity the Christian God is the only thing that really matters, but also in Christianity the Christian God the reason why anything at all matters.
The reason why things matter is because people attribute value to them. Not because of the existence of any particular religion’s deity. A pagan’s children are as important to him as a Christian’s children are to them. The Christian god has nothing to do with it.
There is no morality without genetic morality. Genetic morality means treating the future as would have the past treat you. It is applying the Golden Rule across time. Would you prefer to be smart or dumb? Would you prefer to be beautiful or ugly? Would you rather have self-control or not? Would you rather have a crippling genetic disease or not? Would you want to live in a world without white people, where everyone is brown and starving like 1700 India? Answer those questions, and you know how you should treat future generations.
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