Counter-Currents
2,366 words
It is a commonplace among White Nationalists to disparage Christianity. This is understandable inasmuch as most of the Christian denominations today have abandoned almost all of the tenets of Christianity. The typical Christian minister or priest is no longer a saver of souls but is instead an anti-white social justice warrior (SJW). “Is the Pope Catholic?” is no longer a self-evident joke but is now a serious question that must be answered in the negative. Millions of Christians hold fast to a historical faith that is actively opposed by institutional Christianity. The mainline Protestant denominations have been in spiritual decline since the end of the Second World War, the Catholic Church has been lost since Vatican II, and even the low-church Protestant denominations such as the Southern Baptist and the various Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations have succumbed to the inanities of the SJWs and the nonsense of dispensationalism, the latter being the ludicrous idea that, somehow, the Jews are still the Chosen People and that a powerful state of Israel is a necessary condition for the Second Coming of Christ.
The response by many White Nationalists to the spiritual collapse of Christianity in the West has been to write off the religion as a useless relic of the past that has no place in the coming ethnostate. This approach, I believe, is very shortsighted for several reasons. First, White Nationalists are rightly concerned with the organic nature of the nation-state. An ethnostate is by definition organically organized. As such, it is important to remember that Christianity has been an organic component of Western civilization for the past two millennia. It is unreasonable to think that worship of Zeus, Odin, or any sort of artificially created New Age substitute for Christianity will be any more successful than Antoine-François Momoro and Joseph Fouché’s attempt during the French Revolution to replace Christianity with the Cult of Reason. It is also important to remember that those countries that have most resisted the tyranny of globalism (Hungary, Poland, etc.) have done so by consciously asserting Christianity as an essential and organic part of their national identity. And second, yes, institutional Christianity is corrupt, immoral, hostile to white interests, and intellectually and spiritually bankrupt. So are the universities, large corporations, the press, and almost all government entities. Yet there will be universities, corporations, a press, and a government in the coming ethnostate. Any institution that has been corrupted can be uncorrupted, Christianity included.
The Gramsciian long march through the institutions began with the Church. In fact, the long march through the Church actually predates Gramsci’s formulation of the concept. In 1907, Pope Pius X authored the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis (Feeding the Lord’s Flock) that denounced in the strongest terms the attempts by modernists within the Church to substitute Leftist ideology for Christian theology.[1] The Leftists eventually won in 1962, when Vatican II all but destroyed the historical faith. In Protestantism the rot set in much earlier, and one famous example can be seen in the work of the Transcendentalists, who, applying the tenets of literary criticism, replaced the theology of Calvin with the hippy-dippy feel-good theology of emotions that wrecked the Congregational Church and gave us the Unitarian-Universalists, a denomination that has no God and no theology, and exists mainly as a support group for overweight lesbians, transitioning beta males, and graybeard college humanities professors who think Woodstock Nation was akin to Periclean Athens.
With the corruption of the Church well underway, it was child’s play for the Left to attack the educational system. The GI Bill had horrible consequences for colleges and universities. After the conclusion of the Second World War, there were suddenly hundreds of thousands of unqualified veterans who were now able to afford college, thereby infusing billions of dollars into institutions that were in the process of being taken over by the Left. Academic standards began to fall in the late 1940s and have been in decline ever since. The Vietnam War also consolidated the Left’s grip on the universities because college students could claim exemption from the draft. And even when exemption policies changed, theology majors were always exempt from the draft. Thousands of radical Leftists with no religious vocation attended seminaries during the period of the Vietnam War to resist the draft, and ended up subverting the religious institutions in which they eventually became ordained.
Simply put, for the past fifty years, white persons of European descent have mostly been without religious and intellectual leadership — and yet man remains a religious creature. He yearns for intellectual and spiritual truth. An abiding idea that has permeated the Western conscience since the time of the ancient Greeks has been the search for the truth. Truth-seeking is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of the West. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” is not just one of Jesus’ utterances in John 2; it is the underlying basis of our legal system, the scientific method, and even the concept of free speech. The Christian belief in the unwavering nature of God was an extremely important factor in the development of modern science that is rooted in discovering those laws of nature which are universally applicable.
Now we come to that White Nationalist bugaboo: the U-word, universal, defined as including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively, without limit or exception, especially: (1) something available equitably to all members of a society, such as universal health coverage; (2a) present or occurring everywhere; (2b) existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions, as in universal cultural patterns; (3a) embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind), such as the idea of a universal state or universal practices; (3b) comprehensively broad and versatile, such as a universal genius; (4a) affirming or denying something in all members of a class, or of all values of a variable; (4b) denoting every member of a class using a universal term; and (5) something adaptable or adjustable to meet varied requirements (as of use, shape, or size), as in a universal gear cutter or a universal remote control.
Yes, Christianity is a religion that seeks to convert all humans. In this sense, it is universal. But there is absolutely nothing in Christian theology that commands, recommends, or even considers the notion of one-world government or open borders. In fact, Christianity is mostly unconcerned with temporal governments, since its emphasis is on the afterlife. “Render unto Caesar” — which can be understood simply as obey the law — is hardly the clarion call of an SJW calling on the Antifa to physically attack political opponents.
There is a great deal of confusion among non-Christians and Christians alike about the “universalism” of the Great Commission, that is, the commandment by Christ to spread Christianity throughout the world, to all nations. The word “nation” always appears in the plural. There is nothing in the Bible to support open borders, unlimited immigration, or to deny the right of a sovereign nation to control its borders. In fact, there is support for exactly the opposite. The Tower of Babel story, for example, strongly suggests that the division of humanity into distinct states based on linguistic, ethnic, and racial identities is divinely ordered.
It is also amusing that whenever Leftists try to use scriptural references to support their ideological positions, they use only half of the appropriate passage and/or quote things woefully out of context. Yes, it is true that the Holy Family fled Nazareth and hid out for a while in Egypt. The estimates of their stay in Egypt range on the low end from two weeks to the high end of several years. In a sense, they could be considered to be refugees. But the Holy Family went home. And while they were in Egypt, they behaved themselves. They did not insult or take advantage of the Egyptians, nor did they attempt to replace the indigenous population of Egypt with Nazarenes. Also, Leftists forget that during Christ’s lifetime, all of the Middle East was a part of the Roman Empire and was essentially one country, so the flight from Nazareth to Egypt was more akin to a hurricane victim from Florida staying in Virginia for a little while until the danger has subsided and he can go home. The Flight to Egypt, therefore, provides no support for open borders or unlimited acceptance of refugees.
Make no mistake about it: The restoration of sanity, and theological and intellectual rigor, to institutional Christianity will be a long and arduous task, not unlike those tasks we face with restoring every other Western institution that has been corrupted and weaponized against the white race. The benefits of a restored and white-friendly Christian Church will be enormous, however:
- Renewed emphasis on the family and traditional gender roles/identities: The family unit headed by two parents of the opposite sex (with strong fathers taking the lead) is the cornerstone of a white Christian society. This will strengthen white society in general and help reduce any number of social ills currently afflicting whites as a result of multiculturalism. Unlike Islam, Christianity is not misogynistic, but recognizes that men and women have different roles in life that are rooted in biology. Freed from feminism, Christian women are able to be feminine and thereby affirm their natalist desires. More Christianity, more white births.
- Traditional, masculine-dominated Christianity will tend to mitigate the proliferation of soyboys and metrosexuals. Gender confusion will be treated as the mental disorder that it actually is.
- The restoration of theological, liturgical, and catechetical standards will do much to increase intellectual rigor in all aspects of white society. We need to be reminded that universities began their existence as cathedral schools, and that some of the greatest works of the human (that is, white) mind were written by men such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. It may also come as a shock to many believing Christians today that in the past, great preachers were known for their intellectual prowess, and that sermons were actually published not only because of their theological and philosophical rigor, but also for the quality of their prose. And, of course, many of the greatest works of art, music, and architecture were those for use in the service of Christianity. The spiritual health of the entire white nation will be improved when white Christians abandon the sappy sounds of folk masses and worship bands celebrated in churches that look like Soviet-era brutalist apartment blocks, and instead perform Bach cantatas in churches that are both beautiful and sublime. White people who are exposed on a weekly basis to the greatest works of art and music will come to despise the negro-dominated pop culture that has done so much to destroy moral and aesthetic standards.
- The restoration of institutional Christianity will actively work against the subversion of white society by Jewish interests. When Christians are disabused of the inanity of dispensationalism and once again realize that Jews are responsible for the murder of Christ, and that God’s covenant with the Jews no longer obtains, this will do much to restore sanity to American foreign policy. It will also make it easier to employ legal measures (such as anti-trust laws) to contain and reverse the pernicious influence of Jews in media and entertainment, the legal system, the financial sector, Big Pharma, and pornography.
- The restoration of institutional Christianity will also bring about an overall return to rationality and a rejection of emotionalism. Ironically, a sense of the numinous is anything but emotional. There is a very big difference between mysticism and emotionalism. True religious experience is a rational realization that one does not have all of the answers and that one cannot go through life as an autonomous individual bereft of all community, be it the communion of the saints or as part of a human community. And in the long run, the “quest for community,” as Robert Nisbet so eloquently put it,[2] is at the heart of the White Nationalist struggle. A sense of mystery is not only part and parcel of the religious experience, it is also behind all intellectual discourse, even that of science. It seems to me, for example, that when I hear physicists discuss quantum mechanics or string theory, I hear discussions that are more related to metaphysics than physics. For the rational white man, there is a sense of wonder, a curiosity about the unknown, and a realization of the vastness and complexity of the universe that simultaneously urges him forward as it puts his individual experience of it into perspective. The Leftist-inspired dumbing-down of America has led to a situation in which ideas are not discussed rationally, and like two-year olds, most people experience the world in a solipsistic manner. People emote rather than think, and no problem was ever solved by emoting. The political arena, the churches, and institutions of learning are no longer centers in which ideas and solutions are discussed in order to seek out the truth; instead, they have become “safe spaces” where lies are deliberately told to save fragile adults who have the emotional maturity of two-year olds from unpleasant truths. For these emotionally-stunted “adults,” there is no community to be had. There is no possibility of experiencing the numinous. There is only the continuous demand for the satiation of desires, and violent responses when those demands are not immediately met.
In the end, I think that it will be harder to create a white homeland without Christianity than it will be with a restored institutional Church. White people need every institution that can bind us together. We need the community that a strong Church can support, and we need a shared vision of the world that a restored Church can inspire. Above all, we need institutions that are committed to the truth — all truths, theological, philosophical, political, and biological. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Now there’s a motto for White Nationalism.
Notes
[1] For more on this, see Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism Is a Sin (Charlotte: TAN Books, 1899 [reprint 1993]).
[2] Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order & Freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, [1953] 1969)
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
57 comments
If we look at the movement as a microverse of the future ethnostate in regard to faith, I believe it’s quite representative. Most WNs are atheist, a minority is Christian and another minority is heathen.
Those who are atheist are propably as unlikely to believe in Yoshua as in Wotan or Zeus. However the heathen stories are atleast made up from the beliefs of our ancestors. The old and the new testament is mainly jewish stories.
Names like Ishmael, Abraham, Moses etc are middle-eastern, we might as well claim that Karl Marx is a part of our heritage. Another difference is that most devout Christian WNs will always put their faith above the fight for their race, while most heathens or atheists would not.
Ofcourse we need to remember the good parts of our history as Christians, just as we should remember the things that were good in Soviet Russia or the liberal democracies we live in today.
The best option for the movement as a whole is to focus on the rational and moral arguments for the ethnostate. When that part is secure Christians, heathens or whatever can do their best to convince their countrymen to follow their respective faith.
It’s hard enough to convince most people of the validity of race that can be proven by science or just by observation. Trying to convince the masses of faith in God or gods that has no base in either science or observation is futile.
I love Counter Currents but I think they’re also guilty of spreading the ‘Semitic volcano demon’ meme, that Christianity is just a repurposed Middle-Eastern religion where we worship a Jew on a Stick.
I’ll admit that I don’t have much affinity for these Hebrew names and customs. But I don’t think it matters either. After the Tower of Babel episode, God dispersed and disinherited the nations. But, as Paul notes in the New Testament, he would eventually give us the opportunity to return to him. To do this, he just happened to pick Abraham and a Semitic group of people, which explains the Mesopotamian flavour of the creation story and various (later to become unessential) customs written into the Old Testament. They also happened to be a rather wretched people who failed constantly, but when they were following their God they would always triumph over their enemies. This was supposed to illustrate the superiority of the One True God to the gentiles, and bring us back to him and away from the pagan gods, who were either demons (as Paul and the Church fathers believed) or abstractions (as Plato argued).
So the West’s conversion to Christianity was not really about adopting a foreign Jewish god, but returning to the Creator who we had previously known. I would’ve perhaps preferred he picked an Indo-European group to perform this role, but God just happened to pick a Semitic group at the time to do his work. So we shouldn’t really get too hung up on the Semitic elements. Besides, Hellenic philosophy played an enormous role in the development of Christianity, so it’s not exactly a completely foreign transplant.
Religion matters because it goes to the issue of from where morality comes. As Peter Hitchens and many others have argued, morality has to sit outside human control, otherwise it’s just arbitrary. So, in my humble opinion, it will be hard to argue our case on moral principles if we don’t have any firm ground on which to base them. We don’t want to end up worshiping ‘whiteness’ or making some case on silly utilitarian grounds.
That we worry so much about not being able to ‘prove’ the existence of God is a kind of a sickness of our overly materialistic, nihilistic age. Many have considered these questions and come up with reasonable answers (St Augustine, Aquinas, Tolstoy to name a few). A simple argument is to ask, how does one recognise beauty in art or song? Of course there is always a leap of faith involved, but if you think hard enough about these matters you can find the leap quite manageable.
A well balanced article and one to which even Dr William Pierce despite his profound reservations regarding Christianity would likely give an approving nod. The future ‘religion’ or binding agent for people of our WN ethno states is a mystery the passage of time will solve, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves. However, of one thing we can be fairly certain, namely the Churches, all of them, will become more stridently anti-White and Leftist in both ‘theology’ and practice. This will cause schism within the various Churches prior to a general collapse in the institutions of Christianity. We are presently observing the first tremors of schism within the previously granite-like facade of Catholicism.
Amen! Thank you for this well-reasoned piece, Quintilian.
Where do I sign up? I’m sure I’m not the only one who hungers for old-fashioned, intellectually-based Christian institutions.
The biggest problem with the teachings of Christ is not the universalism but the valorization of victimhood: the idea that victimhood confers morally superiority on the victim. But apologists for Christianity never want to discuss the actual teachings of Christ. It’s telling that the glory days of Christianity were a period of time when nobody but a few monks actually read the Bible. Everything started going downhill when guys like Calvin started reading the thing and trying to make it make sense. What does it say about a religion that it achieves optimal results only when its holy book is ignored?
Yup. And unsurprisingly, Christian advocates around here conveniently ignore comments like yours.
The Church of England, the established church in England, headed by the monarch, exhibits this phenomenon in an advanced form.
This is a declining institution, no longer able to fill churches (which are sold off, often to be converted into mosques). Annual synods are dominated by moves to install gay clergy: one suspects the transgender agenda is not far behind. This is of course repellant to the remaining traditional Christians in the church, but no matter as the hierarchy has been hijacked by activists.
Sadly for the Catholic Church, it seems that Pope Francis is bent upon commencing the same ruinous path, in the name of justice and modernity. Yet while European Christendom destroys itself from within, Islam, which brooks no such accommodations, is gathering strength …
Cogent arguments, Quintilian.
Was anything more catastrophic for Western Civilization than the Reformation? Should we forget the Christian (usually Catholic) basis of the movements founded by Arcand, Degrelle, Szalasi, de Rivera, Coughlin, Tiso, Petain, Codreanu…?
In regard to the Catholic church being subverted, Look Magazine published a valuable article at the time of Vatican II : “How the Jews changed Catholic thinking,” which can be googled.
Can the Right (and does it even need to) do better than the Catholic social doctrine that motivated the acts of the Church prior to being subverted by liberals, and provided the ideological foundation for resistance to Marxism, liberalism and capitalism – based on the teachings of Christ (very much a Galilean, not a Judean)?
This article upholds the strong, Christian tradition of ignoring the fundamental criticism that has been aimed as Christianity as a worldview, and pretending that all problems have appeared only over the last few decades because of sinister outside forces. But the problem is not recent behaviour of the Christian churches; Christianity itself is the problem.
Nothing fundamentally changed with Vatican II in 1965 (and you can’t blame Protestantism). The Vatican attacked National Socialism already in 1937, because racism, because it wasn’t compatible with the Universalist, cosmopolitan worldview of Christianity.
The first Catholic president of the U.S., John F. Kennedy, started affirmative action in that country, and his family together with the Jewish lobby opened the borders to mass invasion in 1965 — the most disastrous betrayal in American history. The good men who fought for the restrictive 1924 immigration act, on the contrary, were WASPs.
The darling of current trad Catholics, E. Michael Jones, has repeatedly said that ethnicity is defined by language, not ancestry. True to the Faith, he claims that race is irrelevant. Can’t blame that on Vatican II. Your ingroup is not who you are, your ancestry, but what you believe, your loyalty to the rabbi Jesus. And Catholicism is majority non-white (and that will never change, nor do Catholics, trad or not, WANT it to change). You do the math.
As long as the Dindus who replace us do the Lain mass and don’t have abortions, all will be fine…
Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity for giving birth to the self-destructive worldview of liberalism and (Marxist) socialism, was written many decades before Vatican II, and is still valid today.
We are in the current mess because of our value system, and that value system is Christian. It is the origin of the “proposition nation” idea: the origin of civic (Faith) nationalism.
This dead horse has already been flogged in the comments here, but apparently needs more flogging. https://counter-currents.com/2017/12/the-christian-question-in-white-nationalism-2/
(I’ll not even comment on the preposterous assertion that Christian belief in God has been an “extremely important factor in the development of modern science”.)
Whenever you listed to Jones for a longer time, he inevitably starts to smack of certain intellectual background. I don’t know anything about his history, but he leaves an impression of someone who was, at one point, very much a doctrinaire Marxist and never completely grew out of it. Certainly, whatever he speaks about, he’ll eventually employ socialist categories.
And yet, there was Father Jozef Tiso, a Roman Catholic priest, who was President of the Nazi-created Slovak Republic from 1939-1945. Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal were both ardent Christians and ethno-nationalists and enjoyed enormous support from the Catholic Church. Let us not forget that the two countries that have done the most to assert ethno-nationalism—that is, Hungary and Poland—have boldly asserted Christianity as an essential part of their ethnic and racial identity. Intelligent people try to imitate successful people. Why is it that so many American white nationalists glorify Hitler—who, we have to admit, was very unsuccessful other than coming to power—while they disparage the successful examples of Falangist Spain and Portugal and the contemporary examples of Poland and Hungary? There is a strong connection between the Christian worldview of the unchanging character of God and the scientific search for universal natural laws. [Darn it, there’s that pesky U-word again. I guess that white nationalists will have to forego science due to the universal applicability of its laws.] If you view God as unchanging in nature, it is logical to seek out unchanging—or universal—laws explaining nature. It’s interesting that the explosion of scientific discovery began in the West in the late Middle Ages, you know, that period referred to as the “Age of Faith.” And, of course, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Nicholas Copernicus, Carolus Linneaus, Johannes Kepler, among many other trail-blazing scientists, viewed their scientific work as being rooted in their Christian faith. But you’ve got a point. I have to admit that those amazing scientific discoveries of the chthonically organized and organic pagan Vikings—oops, there weren’t any. It’s surprising that Odin, Thor, and Loki weren’t able to inspire any great science while somehow the yahoo Christians managed to create universities, create scientific revolutions, and dominate the world. Something that anti-Christian Odinists, worshippers of Baal, and Holy Howlers at the Moon need to develop is the subtlety to understand that a concept can be both simultaneously universal in the abstract and particular in its application. Take the biblical injunction to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Wishing well of others does not mean that one wishes to have any further connection with the aforementioned others. Personally, I would like to see people of African descent be happy and productive people—in Africa. The same goes for Mexicans in Mexico, Guatemalans in Guatemala, etc., etc. Remember, even Carl Schmitt—He of Blessed Memory—said that one doesn’t have to hate one’s enemies and that one could even have a friend who is a member from the enemy side. This from the person who famously viewed sovereignty as being rooted in the friend/enemy distinction. I guess Schmitt turns out to be a Christian cuck after all and the pagans in our movement will need to retroactively strip Schmitt of his Nazi Party membership.
I assume this ludicrous theory about science comes from E. M. Jones, since he can never stop yapping about the Logos. Only, the idea of Logos, the idea that the universe has an ordered structure accessible to human reason, has nothing at all to do with Christianity. It comes from Stoic philosophy, which predates Christianity by centuries — and Stoic philosophy happened to be trendy among the intellectuals of Rome when (and long before) Christians started arriving from Palestine. Those uncouth, European, pagan, barbarian ancestors of ours that you so like to disparage…
But the origin of the scientific mindset is even more appropriately credited to the empirical methods of Aristotle and other (again, pagan) ancient philosophers (i.e., conclusions based on systematic observations). Not exactly demonstrated by the Christians who desperately reject modern findings in biology and science that are not compatible with bronze age Hebrew scribblings.
Every Catholic I have ever discussed with has failed to grasp the difference between Christians (people who happen to live in a place and time under Christian hegemony) and Christianity (the worldview), which I pointed to in the very first sentence of my comment above. And so they try to vindicate Christianity by naming a Christian who has been good or creative… But no one has ever claimed that Europeans immediately lost their creative abilities when they converted to Christianity — that would be quite absurd. Again, of course there have been Christian persons who have also been nationalists and not bad poeple, but the Christian worldview is at its core hostile to nationalism, because the world we see today is the end result of the Christian value system.
It is amusing that Christians will always resort to ethnomasochism when attempting to defend the Faith: to deride their own ancestors in order to bolster the image of Christianity, thus proving my very point. And so, I am forced to repeat what I have made clear elsewhere:
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 after the death of Christianity. We reached all kinds of cultural heights without the aid of Christianity — we did just fine. In fact, Christianity needed Europeans in order to take part in any significant culture at all, not the other way around. Everything of value in Christian culture, it got from us, but we got ethnomasochism in return.
No, the theory about the Christian origins of the scientific method come from ethnomasochistic, small-brained yahoos like Sir Isaac Newton, who wrote approximately 1.3 million words on religious topics. Yes, Stoics did have many beliefs that mimcked Christianity and rednecked know-nothings like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas did value very much the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. You deliberately miss the point of my argument. I am not saying that there needs to be a state religion, nor am I saying that you cannot continue to worship Odin or Baal. It’s just that white nationalists are always going on about the need for an organic state and want to restore white society and white institutions, but fail to recognize the organic relationship between Christianity and European civilization. Are we to eliminate every institution because it has become cucked by the left? If so, there will be no universities, government, libraries, museums, opera houses, sporting activities, or boy scouts in the white ethnostate. Go ahead and howl at the moon and worship whatever spirit or demon you please. But if you want to win politically, you are going to have to offer white people, the vast majority of whom are still Christians, something other than Latter-Day Druidism or Nazi revivals of Ultima Thule festivities.
And so we reach peak Catholic sophistry, the second Catholic Characteristic (the first being the inability to distinguish between Christians and Christianity, as I mentioned in my previous comment). This is what I call “Catholic Talmudism”, the backwards causality of Catholicism: if a Catholic drinks water, then everyone who existed before him, and also drank water, was also a Catholic, and Catholicism can take credit for everything that person did.
In other words, like you said, the Stoics mimicked Christianity (not the other way around), although the Stoics were active centuries before Christianity ever existed (and by pure coincidence, the Stoics happened to live where the Christian enlightenment was to appear later on). And Aquinas can take credit for the scientific methods of the pagan Aristotle, who existed 1500 years earlier. Thus, everything that was useful, that came out of the ancient world, was “actually” Christian, retroactively; and so you can claim that science needs Christianity… This talmudry is why no intelligent person takes Catholicism seriously.
So riddle me this: If Christianity is the sine qua non of science, and Ethiopia has one of the oldest Christian communities in the world — why didn’t they retroactively give rise to an Aristotle or a Seneca? Why didn’t they fly to the moon?
Now it is you who are engaging in Talmudistry. Why then did the Swedes not put a man on the moon? They are a whiter and more pagan nation than America. Again, you deliberately and consistently miss the whole point of my article. Christianity is not a late addition to Western civilization. It is an organic part and, like all of the other institutions of our civilization, it functioned extremely well for two millennia. It can be reformed and restored like any other institution. It is also a vital community building and sustaining organization to which 100s of millions of white persons belong and have great affinity for. You aren’t a Christian and you don’t like the religion. I get it. But if you want to win the political struggle you will need the support of white persons who are Christians, so you are going to have to find a way to accommodate their beliefs or otherwise you are just engaging in the atheistic equivalent of purity spiraling. Remember, even your beloved Adolf Hitler had to accommodate Christianity, and I truly hope that this time we can do better than a 12-year thousand year Reich.
Most WN heathens recognize good deeds made by white christians in the past. But socalled WN christians always piss on their ancestors before christianity, this is another proof that socalled WN christiand always put their faith in the jewish carpenter above their race. So ancient Rome and sncirnt Greece didn’t contribute anything to our civilisation? If you believe that you are either ignorant or antiwhite either way you shouldnt call yourself a nationalist. The nordic peoples were conquering most of Europa with some of the greatest ships, navigation and weapons of their time, that you disrespect them to advance your jewish fairytales says alot about you.
Maybe it’s my WASP nature, but honestly the Protestant critique of Catholicism is essentially correct. I was just reading about the Puritans today. They were dead on with all sorts of attacks on Catholicism as having been soft on paganism and actually sublimating pagan practices and worldviews.
The fact is, Roman Catholicism was at it’s zenith when it was the furthest from actual textual basis in the bible itself. And now everyone can read the bible for themselves. The genie is out of the bottle.
Book recommendation: The Unintended Reformation by Brad S. Gregory. The “genie” that came out of the Protestant bottle was hyperpluralism, as Protestantism, having rejected the authority of the Church, inevitably splintered into myriad, competing shards each damning the other based on idiosyncratic interpretations of scripture or whether or not they were deemed inspired by the Holy Spirit.
In turn, given the hopeless religious deadlock of sola scriptura, the culture experimented with sola ratio . . . which splintered into myriad, competing philosophies each damning the other based on first principles or the purported proper application of pure reason.
In turn, given the hopeless philosophical deadlock of sola ratio, the culture turned to secular neoliberalism and cultural relativism . . . which splintered into the hyperdiversity of identities, beliefs, and practices inundating the West today.
Given the relatively deeper Medieval confessional, linguistic (Latin), philosophical, and racial homogeneity, one wonders what the world would look like today if the Protestant revolution had been squelched like any other anti-Catholic heresy.
Every single sensible (with regard to ethnic issues) white nationalist Christian I’ve ever talked to, has been a protestant. As I pointed out above, the 1924 immigration policy was championed by WASPs; the 1965 betrayal was championed by Catholics and Jews.
White nationalist protestants understand that the JQ is an ethnic issue; “white nationalist” Catholics believe it’s a theological issue. White nationalist protestants promote the interests of white people; “white nationalist” Catholics promote the interests of Catholicism. White nationalist protestants want an ethnostate; “white nationalist” Catholics want a Catholic state. As simple as that.
Duke is our guy; Jones is their goy.
There are some very sensible Catholic white nationalists among the sedavacantists, especially from the Society of Saint Pius V.
I find that unlikely. Would any of them prefer a white protestant America to a mixed-race Catholic America? Honestly?
Again, you are wrong. It is an almost exclusively white organization, much more so than the typical evangelical or fundamentalist group. Remember, ethnically and racially oriented Catholic and Orthodox congregations are much more prevalent than their Protestant counterparts.
And again you ignore the question…
Would any of those trad Catholics prefer a white Muslim America to a mixed-race Catholic America?
A white Muslim America is a contradiction in terms. The choice you are offering is between an impossibility ( white Muslim America) and an unsatisfactory one (multi-racial Christian nation). The choice therefore is false. We now occupy the worst of both worlds: a nation that is equally hostile to both whites and Christians and doubly so to white Christians. I want a white Christian nation and there can be black Christian nations in Africa. I think this would be agreeable to many Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. A white Muslim nation would be under the domination of Semites and the culture would become increasingly Semitic since Islam does not officially recognize translations of the Koran into other languages. Your choice is no choice at all.
You resorting to that talmudry instead of answering the question really is the answer in itself. It’s a very simple question with a yes or no answer, which all white nationalists can only answer one way. You just love proving my points…
Would those trad Catholics prefer a white non-Catholic America to a mixed-race Catholic America? Just answer the question.
When you ask a talmudic question expect a talmudic answer. You asked a what-if question, of which one of the choices was an impossibility. Neither of the answers is acceptable. White nationalists have to get out of the habit of always expecting a choice between two bad alternatives. Our movement in is desperate need of specific goals and devising specific means for their attainment, not larpy what-if scenarios.
re: Jones
If someone wants a good exampleof what Midjord wrote, go and watch an interview with him about his book Barren Metal on YT. At one point he goes into labour theory and why, in his view, Germany and Tanzania had such different histories. If I were to write what he said, people would think that I’m trying to make him look bad. Just watch it.
I’m writing this because he is invoked by commenters here often enough. Comrade Jones is no ally of ours, not even close.
It’s not wrong to say the liberal-Marxism destroying European ethnospheres has Christian features. But it also needs to be said that it rejects and distorts several aspects of Christianity. It is materialist for a start, and grounds its teleology/eschatology in the creation of a heaven on earth where all material needs will be satisfied and conflict brought to and end. It also treats human will as the essential element that can freely transform human beings into whatever utopian shape it pleases, as we are all tabulae rasae. It is actually closer to Islam (no wonder they get along). Like Islam, it exists almost entirely in the political sphere.
And are we really going to take Nietzsche’s moral philosophy without a pinch of irony? Nietzsche criticized Christianity because he saw it as emphasising the worst aspects of life-denying Platonism, which liberal Socialism also inherited. His rejection consists in adopting a moral outlook where there were no abstract bases for ethics that deny individualistic impulses (the “evil eye”) and instead one’s ethical behaviour should be grounded in the self. Do we really ant to live in an ethnostate of individualistic Übermenschen competing against each other in a pseudo-anarchy? As in ethnonationalism plus ANCAPS or social Darwinism?
Also worth noting Gibbon’s thesis that the decline of Rome was due in large part to the adoption of Christianity.
A counter-argument to this is that the overwhelmingly Christian Eastern Roman Empire outlived the more Pagan West by a thousand years.
The Western Empire became Christian at the same time as the East.
“In fact, the long march through the Church actually predates Gramsci’s formulation of the concept.”
You don’t say… Long, long before him, one of Marx’s intellectual idols, Saint-Simon, recognized that Christianity, far from being the enemy, is actually a perfect ally for the cause of global socialism.
And you had a number of big name Catholic thinkers who argued for an alliance with Marxism. Not to mention nutcases like de Chardin, endgoal of whose “Christogenesis” means global transhumanist hivemind, entire mankind becoming one mind.
“The response by many White Nationalists to the spiritual collapse of Christianity in the West has been to write off the religion as a useless relic of the past that has no place in the coming ethnostate.”
Although I am not a Christian, I tend to like them as people – especially Mormons. That said, a glaring example of white nationalism attempting to inject “Christianity” into the narrative was that of Matt Heimbach of the now defunct Traditionalist Workers Party. That experiment ended in a huge explosion of hypocrisy when Mr. Heimbach practiced his self-professed “Christian values” by banging his father-in-law’s wife while beating and choking his own. And there are many other examples. The moral of the story should be: practice Christianity if you want, but do so in private. In other words, do not use it as a public platform for our ideas. Because there are simply too many glaring hypocrites like Heimbach out there who will only make a lie of it.
White nationalism (at this stage) should only be about how, and by what means, to ensure the preservation of the white race on this planet. Leave out all religion, “Nazis”, ramblings about “Jews”, and all the other dead end pursuits that too many in the WN movement follow into intellectual oblivion.
Render unto Caesar is only the first step. We need to completely eviscerate all reference to the outside world. No political or ethical implications at all (Zionism included). If they agree to that, they can keep their vestments, crosses, scriptures etc., and we don’t have to bother reviving paganism. Everybody wins!
Neville Goddard:
“The Bible has no reference at all to any persons that ever existed, or to any events that ever occurred upon earth . . . It isn’t a secular history. It is divine history, the history of salvation. It is all psychological . . . Every man is destined to discover that scripture is his autobiography. It’s not written about individual beings like Jesus Christ, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and so on who lived unnumbered years ago, but about the individual you! . . . Everything in the Bible takes place in the mind of man: the tree, the city, the people, everything. There is not a statement made in the Bible that does not represent some attribute of the human mind. They are all personifications of the mind and not things within the world. Consciousness is the one and only reality.”
“The Tower of Babel story, for example, strongly suggests that the division of humanity into distinct states based on linguistic, ethnic, and racial identities is divinely ordered.”
I keep seeing this argument, but I don’t get that from the Babel story. It’s not a story of God saying, “hey, I’m a great and good God and I say people should be different, so it is so and it is good and divine.” That’s obviously not the point of the story at all.
In the story of the Tower of Babel, God punishes humans for their sin of arrogance and hubris by seperating them. The natural order of things before they sinned–by building a tower to reach heaven– was a unified humanity. In fact, God disunifies them so they are less powerful and this is obviously characterized as a punishment and a curse.
There is at least one very consistent theme in Torah; humans defy God and so he punishes them with some semi-permenant or permanent handicap. These punishments are not seen so much as “divinley ordained,” because that would imply they are good in themselves for some reason; rather they are seen as divine curses from a wrathful, jealous, and vengeful God.
So implying the “nations” are divinley ordained to be separate (and many add this means the separation goes on forever and ever, even in the afterlife) is very misleading. It was a divine punishment and a divine handicap on humanity– according to the Jews. And wouldn’t these curses be lifted if and when humanity redeems itself? The Jesus story could easily be read as a roadmap towards lifting these curses, either in heaven or on earth after some millenniarian event. And that’s not even an antimonian argument!
This is a very good argument. Perhaps you can expand it into a short article, since it deserves to stand on its own and circulate more.
There is at least one very consistent theme in Torah; humans defy God and so he punishes them with some semi-permenant or permanent handicap. These punishments are not seen so much as “divinley ordained,” because that would imply they are good in themselves for some reason; rather they are seen as divine curses from a wrathful, jealous, and vengeful God.
That’s the Jews for you. Christian traditions are rather different.
Except it was God’s plan from the beginning that people after Adam should spread around the entire Earth and (presumably) become diversified, as evidenced in the Adamic Covenant (Gen. 1:28) and reaffirmed to Noah (Gen. 9:1). Why would God promise a wide-spead humanity inhabiting different nations to two of His favourites if this were intended as a curse? In actual fact, these promises are made just after God blesses them!
The founders of Babel went directly against God’s commission by gathering in one specific location and trying to absorb humanity into one sphere of government. God is right to punish them as this clearly goes against His stated intentions. You are right to say God imposes a handicap on humanity after Babel, but the text explicitly describes a linguistic confusion as the punishment (one that was partially remedied at Pentecost in Acts 2). I challenge you to come up with one fragment of scripture that states ethnic or cultural diversity was part of the punishment for Babel. Of course, this cannot be done as it would contradict God’s commission to Adam.
Actualy the exact opposite is true. God repeatedly warns Israel and Judah after Solomon (i.e. in their decadent period) that they will be punished by being invaded by foreigners and be absorbed by the coming hordes. This is to say they will be destroyed as a people and lose their identity (i.e. “torn up root and branch”). God punishes no less than ten of the tribes of Jacob with this for turning to other Gods. On the other hand, strict customs of segregation were established by Moses before Israel’s decline. what do we have to stack-up against this to say God thinks it’s a good thing for nations to be absorbed into a homogeneous mass? Please let me know if you find anything, because I can’t find it in the Bible.
But we don’t even need Scripture, creation tesitfies this all on its own. If God really is the author of the world–and I’m sure He is–have you ever seen an artist who delights more in variation than Him? Just go and look at the natural landscapes, or the epic diversity of space brought to us by the Hubble telescope, and your own eyes will refute you! I just can’t look at nature or the variations of culture in the world and say these are accidents or curses. These are good things, and all good things come from God.
Correct. The tower of Babel story is not a biblical argument for ethnonationalism. A better appeal would be to Acts 17:26.
Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Note “bounds of their habitation”
Revelation 5:9, 7:9 clearly recognize unique nations, races, languages, etc.
Piece on Aquinas’ opposition to open borders: https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/31/saint-thomas-aquinas-opposed-open-borders
For more detailed argumentation from Aquinas see http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2105.htm#article3, particularly beginning under “I answer that,”
My reading of Aquinas is support for ethnonationalism based on scripture. The citizenship requirements cited in the Bible (using OT Israel as the basis) are stricter than what America has known as a country. People deemed eligible for citizenship were not admitted as citizens until the third generation. Beyond that, there were nations (peoples/races) who were never to be admitted to citizenship.
To my thinking, the biblical case is rooted in the central command of Christ, to love your neighbor as yourself. Its taken years of incessant (((propaganda))) to convince people that its somehow unChristian to entertain the notion that diversity/multiculturalism doesn’t work, that it has no history of success and that other arrangements would actually be for welfare of all involved (or a specific group).
If “love does no ill to his neighbor” then, by definition, it would be uncharitable to insist on perpetuating arrangements that have proven to be destructive.
This was a great read. Keep up the content
Christianity’s stance on White nationalism is undefined. Christianity deals with matters of the eternal soul; whereas White nationalism is a response to physical circumstance. Imagine a (physically possible) world where only White people exist: White nationalism is no longer relevant – yet, the soul remains, as does the question of eternity. Christianity and White nationalism shouldn’t be referenced in support of each other; they are unrelated, they are non-contradictory. One can be Christian, White nationalist, neither, or both. Personally, I am Christian, and I support the right of people-groups, however associated, to form nations, including on the basis of race, with personal preference towards a free, White, nation.
Rant: In software engineering, there is an anti-pattern called “coupling”, where an engineer would potentially program two unrelated tasks to execute together. For example, he might program “open curtains” alongside “look at sunset”, because, in one scenario, they are related, but, if one executes the task, “look at sunset”, while outdoors, then “open curtains” is not necessary, and may even be harmful. It is human tendency to couple unrelated ideas. Coupling is responsible for many thought errors. It is why the left thinks “Nazi” when they see a “MAGA” hat. It is why White nationalists think “plague” when they hear “Christianity”. It is why White nationalists think “essential” when they hear “Christianity”.
The decline of mainline Protestantism since WWII exactly coincides with the ordination of women.
Whenever I read the opinions of people who argue that Christianity is right wing, they seem to miss the forest for the trees.
Let’s do a thought experiment. In order to avoid the conversational malaise of trying to sort out what is “true” Christianity, let’s consider Christianization as if it’s the independent variable in an experiment. The dependent variable is the values and beliefs of societies after they are Christianized, and those societies are the test subjects. When we Christianize a society, does it become more identitarian? Does Christianization increase the martial spirit of a people? Does the belief in social hierarchy get strengthened through Christianization? Do people view their distant ancestors as sources of inspiration and wisdom, or backwardness and barbarity?
When we ask questions like this, it becomes clear that Christianization is fundamentally a left wing force. To me, the most compelling argument in favor of supporting Christianity is just that is such an established institution already, although I also recognize the cynicism of that argument.
“For the rational white man, there is a sense of wonder, a curiosity about the unknown, and a realization of the vastness and complexity of the universe that simultaneously urges him forward as it puts his individual experience of it into perspective.”
This is exactly why I don’t think that Christianity is a good fit for white people, regardless of its origins. The Old Testament starts off with a brief creation of the world myth before extensively chronicling the tribal conflicts and [supposed] history of the ancient Jews. The New Testament turns its creative energy overwhelmingly towards imagining the degrees and varieties of human depravity. None of this is satisfying to a creative person, which probably accounts for the taboo but nearly ubiquitous opinion among our people that church is a terribly boring experience. The myths of pre-Christian Europe, on the other hand, were rich and diverse, covering a much greater variety of subject matter (the natural world, ethics, tragedy, comedy, the origins of tribal customs, animals, plants, the seasons, the great unknown, heroic and inspiring stories, cautionary tales, …).
Let’s do a thought experiment. In order to avoid the conversational malaise of trying to sort out what is “true” Christianity, let’s consider Christianization as if it’s the independent variable in an experiment. The dependent variable is the values and beliefs of societies after they are Christianized, and those societies are the test subjects. When we Christianize a society, does it become more identitarian? Does Christianization increase the martial spirit of a people? Does the belief in social hierarchy get strengthened through Christianization? Do people view their distant ancestors as sources of inspiration and wisdom, or backwardness and barbarity?
All the issues white nationalists attribute to Christianity should rather be attributed to secular humanism/liberalism, a product of the neo-pagan enlightenment (ironically). Feudal Europe was deeply Christian and also defined by a clear tripartite class structure (those who pray, those who fight, those who work). Knights were very militaristic and in many ways a throwback to ancient Sparta. Pagan kingdoms converted when they lost in battle to Christian ones, such as when the Vikings were finally defeated by Alfred the Great. Given the constant fighting between kingdoms, I find it hard to accept that Christianity led to a loss of identity, although if anything it gave them a shared understanding and common cause in keeping the various Islamic empires out of Europe. Even now, the various Orthodox churches are still deeply nationalist and, perhaps not coincidentally, they are the ones who have stayed most in touch with the original message.
In fact, it seems that the greatest period of expansion of the European peoples occurred when they were most devoutly Christian. Our current malaise coincides with growing atheism, materialism and rationalism. It seems good men no longer bother studying (not just reading) the Bible, which makes it easier for an infiltrated and cucked church to preach a version of Christianity which is basically a suicide pact. All the New Testament stuff about ‘blessed are the meek’, ‘love thine enemies’ and ‘turn the other cheek’ is supposed to be about exercising restraint, putting aside your petty feuds with your kin and uniting to fight against a greater evil, not kissing Africans’ feet and singing ‘Imagine’ after the latest Islamic truck attack.
I struggled with the supposed ‘Jewishness’ of Christianity for a long time, although it’s really that God used the Israelites for a particular purpose in reuniting with the gentiles after Tower of Babel event. He’s not a ‘Semitic’ deity, and the Jews are really redundant by this point, since their Messiah has been and gone and they rejected him. There are lots of great sources which explain this, although you have to approach them with an open mind. For too long I just wanted to believe that Christianity was the cause of our weakness and never bothered searching for an answer which might prove me wrong.
I don’t see the whole Christian/pagan thing as necessarily either/or. You can still enjoy the classics and the sagas (which ironically survive in written form thanks to Christian scholars). I just don’t see paganism making a comeback as a religion (particularly since, as an Australian, festivals such as Yule and Ostara are utterly meaningless to me). Christianity is a perfectly good religion for the white race, although not the bourgeois version that Nietzsche despised and which really just acts as a moral cover for our sloth and cowardice.
Please excuse me if I seemed to commit the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy several times. But given the enormous effort undertaken to erase Christianity during the French Revolution, Soviet Union and Spanish Civil War, I’ve really come to believe there is something in the faith that prevents the ultimate triumph of evil, and we should be giving it a fair hearing rather than accepting the enemy’s definition.
Beautifully said, Justinian. I struggled with aspects of Christianity too, but one of the major things which brought me back to it was that the best people I’ve known in my life were sincere Christians. And as a lover of history, I couldn’t ignore how so many of the best westerners through the centuries were Christian.
The great British art historian Kenneth Clark showed the awesome contributions of Christian Europeans to civilization (or Civilisation as his brilliant TV program was called). The men who built the medieval cathedrals were no slouches, in multiple ways.
“All the issues white nationalists attribute to Christianity should rather be attributed to secular humanism/liberalism, a product of the neo-pagan enlightenment (ironically).”
A bit tangential, but using “neo-pagan” in this context is something that a lot of apologists do, and it paints a radically misleading picture of what “paganism” was actually like. The changes that are attributed to the Enlightenment—universalist thinking, antipathy towards violent conflict, an attitude towards the world that is mechanical, a linear view of history towards a brighter future—were all introduced in their original forms with the Christianization of Europe.
“Feudal Europe was deeply Christian and also defined by a clear tripartite class structure (those who pray, those who fight, those who work).”
In pre-Christian Europe, you wouldn’t have to point out particular social relationships that were seen as hierarchical, because ALL social relationships were seen as hierarchical.
“Given the constant fighting between kingdoms, I find it hard to accept that Christianity led to a loss of identity, although if anything it gave them a shared understanding and common cause in keeping the various Islamic empires out of Europe.”
When I read texts from premodern Christian Europe, I do not see any evidence that the authors were concerned with ethnic and racial identities. I do see identitarian and tribal thinking from pre-Christian Europe, and from modern Europe (which is to say, the return of identitarian thinking coincided with the decline of Christianity). If you can name any good counterexamples, I would be open to researching them. The idea that Christianity played a major role in combating the spread of Islam paints a misleading picture of history, for reasons that would take an entire article to list.
“Even now, the various Orthodox churches are still deeply nationalist”
A number of Orthodox preachers in Eastern Europe came out as pro-refugee. This puts them to the left of the general population in those countries.
“In fact, it seems that the greatest period of expansion of the European peoples occurred when they were most devoutly Christian.”
The greatest expansion of the empires of Europeans occurred during the colonial period of the modern age, after centuries of religious decline. I don’t think any serious theologian or historian would consider this the period in which Europeans were the most devoutly Christian.
I could go on. But I think this supports my belief that apologists see the trees but not the forest.
I agree with all your points GMT – My own study of early Christianity among Germanic Europe reveals no form of tribal or ethnic identity that was not inherited from pre-Christian Europe, exceot that of “christendom” a kind of universal and “civic” identity, or the new and absurd kinds of identity where the Nations began to identify as or with ancient Israelites.
Agree with all your points, Justinian. Nicely written. William Gayley Simpson, a Nietzschean who had rejected Christianity, nonetheless had a lot of interesting views on the Nietzschean qualities of Jesus, which he set out in Which Way Western Man?
Incompatibility with right-wing ideologies is implicit in any Christian teaching. And nowadays, with process theology and liberation theology, it is perfectly explicit.
It is only your low end antifa student who thinks that only way to deal with Christianity is exemplified in Notre-Dame Affair or Pussy Riot scandal, just like they cannot compute that Big Corporations are on their side. Left wing thinkers with half a brain realized the Church makes for great ally/tool.
Medieval Christianity was convenient because whites used it to justify repelling brown Muslims and to denounce the worldly temptations offered by Jews.
Modern social justice Christianity is an excuse to bring in brown people from countries they and their coracials have made miserable.
Fundamentalist Christianity is better because it creates an outgroup, which is the heathen or heretic. Heathens are disproportionately non-whites, and bad Christians are are disproportionately sexually promiscuous blacks who can’t manage to obey the commandment against adultery.
No one has mentioned the ‘confessing church’ protestant theologians who were against Hitler during the war. Many of them came to the United States and taught at prestigious theological seminaries. Such men as Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller. Their influence on liberal Christianity was immence. The noted liberal Chris Hedges is indebted to them. They were the ones who liked to instill guilt using abstract systematic theology. Everyone is a sinner. so we are all guilty.
“…the latter being the ludicrous idea that, somehow, the Jews are still the Chosen People and that a powerful state of Israel is a necessary condition for the Second Coming of Christ.”
“…and that God’s covenant with the Jews no longer obtains, this will do much to restore sanity to American foreign policy.”
This is the hardest pill to force down modern Protestants throats. Boomer generation apocalyptic evangelical rapture-sky-flying-mythos has so much of a hold on contemporary Christian culture that to stray anywhere outside of the platitude ‘Jerusalem is Israel’s capital’ grants one a seal of heresy.
The only way we can see western consciousness rise, root out and eliminate liberal modernity’s ills, and single out the enemy targeting White people and their society would be to purge all the false Christians – the Schofield/rapture/holocaustianity soft believers. The ones who quote “WWJD” without attributing a literal saying of Christ. This requires a deeper understanding of the biblical truths – in order to defend the truth from those who seek to use its sword against us, or who naively and incompetently proclaim to assert us with it. This, and unfortunate to say, until the boomer new-age born again types cross the Styx, I feel we won’t see a radical change in path for some time.
The desire to convert all humans is not the only universal element in Christianity. Even more important was the profound egalitarianism: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,’ and so on. This too finds antecedents in Stoicism, for what it’s worth–the Stoics were pantheists who thought that everyone had equal moral worth because they all contained a divine spark–but that scarcely matters now. What matters is that this Christian egalitarianism, although it took a long time to become dominant (via the Reformation, i.e. people actually reading the Bible for a change), is plausibly seen as the root of modern left-wing ideology; and it is profoundly alien to the interests of white nationalists.
I too am tempted by the prospect of a return to a conservative Christianity. I am impressed by the work of people like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zaqew7970" Julien Langella, who has attempted to show that New Testament doctrine does not contradict identitarianism. But I fear that the rot goes too deep and that any attempt to found a conservative white nationalist society on the basis of Christianity will founder on the rock of Christian doctrine. Given Christian egalitarianism, why should we exclude other races from our society? Even if Langella and other Christian identitarians are correct in their interpretation of the relevant verses, the fact that these verses have a profoundly egalitarian feel to them and have very often been interpreted in that way is dangerous enough.
Aristotle’s ethics is perhaps the only comprehensive ethical system formulated in the West before the Stoics introduced radical egalitarian notions into Western thought, thus clearing the ground for Christianity and modern leftism. If we are in search of way to view the world, I can only suggest that we go back to that, or indeed to Homer.
How do you propose to get around the insurmountable problem that Christianity is – in theory, in practice, and in name – the worship of a Jew?
I suppose I ought to have made it clear: I’m not asking a rhetorical question. I genuinely want to know how the concept of European man worshipping a Jew deity could be anything but preposterous.
i.e. –
“Daddy, someone told me that when we go to church every week, we’re worshipping a Jew. Is that true?”
“…..Well….it’s complicated.”
No it’s not.
Quintilian,
Thank you for this article. You stated elsewhere (forgive me for not remembering where) that the American Church (I’ll assume reformed protestant) is ripe for reformation / transformation.
I’m very interested in just that topic, as my search for deeper discussions on the topic come up short.
Note that my interest, as a Christian, was piqued by Dabney’s appeal to the Synod to not allow negros to be ordained.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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