Counter-Currents
Charles Maurras
1,412 words
The arguments over identitarians should embrace or abandon Christianity is a question that still remains unresolved within the broader movement.
Last week, Quintilian entered the fray and offered a reasoned argument for why white nationalists should embrace Christianity. The writer believes that white nationalists have fallen prey to the corrupted image of modern Christianity and fail to see the glory of the traditional faith.
According to Quintilian, Christianity is essential to the creation of an ethnostate and nationalists must strive to restore it to its traditional state. But identitarians should be wary of the possibility that a restored and conservative Christianity would be amenable to our cause.
In fact, this resurgent Christianity may be more inclined to fight against our movement, regardless of however much we profess our devotion to the faith. Quintilian deplores Vatican II as the event that destroyed the historical religion, but the Church was hostile to our beliefs many long before the bishops met in Rome in 1962. Take for instance the tragic tale of the Action Française.[1]
Charles Maurras’s reactionary nationalist movement wanted to restore the monarchy, end the separation of church and state, and uphold France’s traditional Catholic identity. It was firmly opposed to liberalism and many of its economic and political beliefs were firmly in line with Catholic social teaching. Maurras himself was an agnostic, but he argued for the necessity of the Catholic faith and was extremely careful in allaying clerical fears about his irreligion. This should have been a movement the Church fully supported, and in its early years, many clerics did. The movement provided most of the militant activists in Catholic battles against the forces of secularism and liberalism in the first decades of the 20th century.
Yet, many Church intellectuals began to suspect the Action Française of being too militant, too political, too nationalist, and too, hilariously enough, pagan. Clerics began to suspect the nationalists were drawing young Catholics to an ideology not controlled by the Church. Church leaders preferred a safer political outlet that directed the youth to follow the instructions of priests, not pro-Catholic agnostics.
In 1926, the Vatican issued a formal condemnation against the Action Française, put their publications on the index liborum prohibitorum, denied communion to anyone associated with the movement, and purged sympathizers from the clergy.
This was the pre-Vatican II church led by a conservative pope. Unlike any Right-wing movement today, Action Française had plenty of bishops who were willing to vouch for the proper Christianity of Maurras’s newspaper and politics. Right before the condemnation, the movement’s leaders pleaded with Catholic authorities that they were true to the faith. All of this was for naught as the Church happily kneecapped an allied movement that it could not control.
This condemnation was not enacted by liberal modernists who wanted the Church to be more tolerant and heterodox. Maurras was attacked for failing to adhere to traditional dogma and his lack of genuine piety. His movement was seen as dangerous because it made the youth too nationalist and too enamored with classical ideals. Catholic leaders did not oppose the movement because of its anti-liberalism–it was simply because Action wasn’t directly controlled by the Church and its unorthodox ideas were more popular than Church-sanctioned ones.
The Church was also hostile to the Falange for the same reasons it condemned the Action Française, along with the accusation José Antonio Primo de Rivera was a “Bolshevik” for wanting sensible social reforms. Even though the Falange was firmly opposed to liberalism, defended the Church from Left-wing attacks, and emphasized Spain’s traditional Catholic identity, Church authorities did not like the movement because of its ultra-nationalism, alleged crypto-paganism, and masculine values.[2]
This hostility was par for the course for the conservative Pope Pius XI, who served as the vicar of Christ for much of this time period. Pius XI is considered a man who upheld traditional church teachings against the modernists Pope Pius X despised and is altogether a representative of the era Quintilian wishes the West to return to. However, Pius XI’s Christianity was strongly opposed to racialism and nationalism. He spoke out several times against racial thinking, emphasizing that “catholic meant universal” and to divide the world by nationality and race is “contrary to the faith of Christ.” He ordered the drafting of an encyclical that would aggressively condemn racialism and anti-Semitism shortly before he died in 1939. The encyclical was never published, but many of its ideas found their way in the first encyclical of Pius XI’s successor, Pius XII. That work, Summi Pontifactus, claimed there were no real racial differences as we are all part of one human race.
Quintilian blames modernism for the ultimate corruption of the Church, and this may be true when it comes to the god-awful liturgy of modern masses. But modernism is not what made the Church racially egalitarian and hostile toward nationalist movements. It is a feature that has been found in Christianity since the beginning and has only been tempered by the needs of secular society.
We can see this secular temperance in Poland and Hungary, the two exemplars of the Christian nationalism Quintilian envisions. The relationship between the Church and Eastern European nationalists isn’t as harmonious as one would imagine, but the Church restrains itself on their disagreements due to the demands of secular society. Poland’s leading Catholic bishops have long urged the country to take in non-white migrants and to cease its efforts to purge communists from the judiciary. Some Catholic leaders in the country have gone as far as to deride the immigration policies of the ruling government as “un-Christian.”
The Church hierarchy in Hungary is slightly better as they have argued with Pope Francis over the pontiff’s aggressively pro-migrant stance. But even there, prominent Church leaders still urge for more liberal immigration policies, albeit in more mild tones than that of their western colleagues.
The reason the Church is more muted in its criticism of nationalism in Poland and Hungary has less to do with them finding identitarian arguments in Thomas Aquinas than in their fear of alienating the flock. The vast majority of Poles and Hungarians want to keep their countries white, regardless of whether that desire comports to church teaching. Throughout the centuries, the Church has adapted its teachings and tone to reach the widest audience. Secular liberalism’s domination of Western Europe and America makes the Church try to sound nicer on LGBT issues and pitch God as your personal therapist.
In a society where nationalists control the discourse, the Church would similarly adapt to those circumstances, as Greg Johnson has pointed out. But you first must gain power and dramatically change the culture to see this effect. A white nationalist-driven “restoration” of Christianity outside of a seizure of power is not going to happen. Institutional Christianity will continue to oppose us until that day comes, regardless of how Christian we appear today. Just ask Italy’s Lega, which seeks to put crucifixes back in classrooms and claims the Gospel as its foundation. The nationalist party receives only hostility from the Church.
The resurgence of a more traditionalist Christianity wouldn’t necessarily help our cause. It would see us as an enemy and likely be as hostile to us as the corrupt institutions we face right now. As seen in the example of the Action Française, when you define yourself as a Christian movement, you become beholden to the opinions of priests and pastors. The clergy would want strict adherence to Christian dogma and would not broker “innovative” racialist readings of scripture and tradition. It would prefer we focus on side issues like banning contraceptives rather than protecting our people from demographic replacement. It would tells us African and Latin American Christians are our brothers and that there is no good reason to bar them from our countries.
To oppose these measures would risk condemnation and the deflation of our movement.
Identitarians must appeal to Christians in order to gain victory, but we mustn’t let ourselves be defined by Christianity. Our best arguments are secular and should appeal to Europeans regardless of whether they are Christian, pagan, or atheist. There is only so much energy and political capital we have and we must choose our battles wisely. To waste our limited energy on restoring Christianity to its pre-20th century state would be a serious error with no real rewards.
Notes
[1] Eugen Weber, Action Francaise: Royalism and Reaction in Twentieth Century France.
[2] Stanley G. Payne, Fascism in Spain: 1923-1977.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
66 comments
It is about power. Make no mistake about it !
Don Carlo – Il grande inquisitore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPx03rPoSKY
As a Christian, I have to agree with a lot of this. It’s sad and embarrassing to see the Church behave the way it has over migration. The point that Christianity has to be brought in line with identitarian thought from without is well considered. However, I would make a few points:
1. The article does not consider Protestantism, which is not beholden to an infallible priestly structure, and not all church hierarchies are as lost as the author suggests anyway. The Danish Church deserves some respect on this head.
2. This reads more like a criticism of Catholic dogmatism or at least a call for its reform (something I agree with) rather than the claim that there is something essential in Christianity that leads to unhealthy xenophilia and ethnomasochism.
3. The claim there are literally no benefits to restoring Christianity in our homelands seems abrupt and undefended. This is essentially to say there are NO points of alignment between Christianity and identitarianism (i.e. a “no benefits” logic). In fact, stronger families, self-control, kindness, and higher birth-rates are all aspects that come naturally with a traditional Christianity. No other belief-system has the track record Christianity does in producing these effects in the West.
4. I resent the fact I’m always being told on identitarian pages that my faith and by extension my very psychology has a necessary connection with mass demographic suicide and postmodern (and unscientific) views on race. As if I really ought to be some sort of degenerate but I’m lying to myself. What can this message do but alienate? The following verse and others like it should appear more often:
“But if the watchman sees the enemy coming and doesn’t sound the alarm to warn the people, he is responsible for their captivity. They will die in their sins, but I will hold the watchman responsible for their deaths” (Ezekiel 33:6)
I think the “no benefits” argument needs to be understood this way. White Nationalists should spend absolutely NONE of our capital on shoring up the church or otherwise using the church as a vehicle for our cause. The church is not a vehicle for our cause. Its kingdom is not of this world. At best, it can run in parallel lanes to our movement. But the church will only stay in its lane, only square itself with our agenda if WE have power. And we do not gain power by giving power to the churches. We gain power by actually gaining cultural and political hegemony. We need to become Ceasar, so the church will render us our due, which will be to demand that it respect rather than subvert racial nationalism.
“We need to become Ceasar, so the church will render us our due, which will be to demand that it respect rather than subvert racial nationalism” – Racially aware Christians have no problem with this when one understands that there are distinct roles for both the State and the Church, and that we ought not to confuse the two.
Well-balanced Christians recognize that our commitment to Christ and His Word does not nullify our commitment to those of our family, our extended family or community, nor to our nation. There is no reason why we can’t be good citizens, promote what is best for the good of our people and nation, and still remain faithful to the Gospel message. Simply because a Christian loves his race, his ancestral heritage, his history and culture does not mean that he seeks to destroy all other races and cultures.
Ambrose Kane:
Well said. So many people, even the churches who should know better, disingenuously interpret the Bible in the context of modern day liberalism. The Bible doesn’t seem to say much about race or identity politics because so much of it went without saying in the ancient Near East. Christ didn’t say ‘love thy neighbour’ in the context of mass Islamic and Sub-Saharan migration, or imply that it constitutes a divine commandment to abolish ourselves via demographic replacement. Up until a few decades ago, no right-thinking Christian would’ve even entertained such an absurd notion. Christianity is not a suicide pact, regardless of what our corrupt and subverted churches are saying.
I’d be prepared to concede that Christianity is implicitly against the sort of crude, purely biological racism found in some quarters. But even then, I personally see stuff like IQ levels, bone structure and crime statistics as superfluous when it comes to justifying our existence as distinct peoples.
The Bible does, of course, refer a lot to the various ‘nations’ (‘ethnoi’ in the Greek), without any implication that it is somehow wrong for people of different tribes to dwell separately (the Babel story suggests that the opposite is true). And God’s punishment in many cases for those nations that turn away from him is invasion and subjugation by foreign peoples. To me, when I look around at what is happening to my country, this is all the proof I need that we need to turn back to God.
As Solzhenitsyn said regarding communism “[I]f I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”
I’ve known many Christians throughout the country. I’ve never met one who didn’t follow The Platinum Rule when dealing with authority figures and non-whites. White conchristians obsequiously “render unto Caesar” and POCs more than their due. White libs of faith do the same, except when Caesar is conservative and is, therefore, a “bad Christian.” The former are consistently servile, the latter are not. But of course I’ve never met a white nationalist/identitarian, either.
Edgar wrote:
“I resent the fact I’m always being told on identitarian pages that my faith and by extension my very psychology has a necessary connection with mass demographic suicide and postmodern (and unscientific) views on race. As if I really ought to be some sort of degenerate but I’m lying to myself. What can this message do but alienate?”
Edgar may resent the connection, but he’s a small minority among Christians. Identitarians are obliged to question the psychology of the Christian majority, where the word ‘snowflake’ describes the ethos.
Behind the psychology serious philosophical issues are involved. One of them is The Platinum Rule, which tells us to “treat Others as they want to be treated” – not as ‘you’ would be treated under The Golden Rule, but as ‘they’ would be treated (and better than yourself/group if that is what ‘they’ want).
For Christians these Others are the authorities and POCs, and it would be unChristian to expect reciprocity beyond an unstated “please go easy on me.” Moral standing among Christians is achieved by anticipating and socially recognizing these wants. Ever see a white pastor welcoming mixed race couples to church on Sunday? I have. Obseqiousness doesn’t begin to describe the lavish servility and verbal brown-nosing involved.
For Christians The Platinum Rule is easy to follow where it matters: no knowledge of science, evolutionary theories, race/IQ/historical facts, Jewish perfidy, or crime stats are required. Virtue is easily signaled and self-righteously defended. Empathy and service to Others is maximized, minimized for self/kind, and reciprocity is out the door. For a Christian to expect genuine reciprocity would say more about him (in a negative sense) than the Other.
Edgar surely realizes that in today’s church he is considered a bad Christian. That’s unfortunate for us all, but the answer is not meek acceptance of suicidal Christian premises and pathologies. There simply is no winning this thing on Christian terms. Let us find solutions unconstrained by Christian sensitivities.
To attain power we will have to keep institutional Christianity at arms length, however we can and should appeal to what some call racial hearth Christianity of the family. If the various Churches are on a mission to commit suicide, let them, but make sure we don’t go along for the ride.
One can find many examples of Christians (Catholics included) acting contrary to secular white interests. But, that needs to be separated from actual doctrine. The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, is clear that a nation can exclude foreigners. E.g. ST I-II, Q. 105, A. 3. Moreover, the examples given by St. Thomas re: foreigners are clearly racial. Which, of course leads us to the next point: the Catholic Church was unequivocally the number one enemy of communism–which, in its many iterations is what is destroying us now–prior to the period of Vatican II. I would encourage readers to peruse AA-1025 and Plot Against the Church, where the effects of that Council are anticipated in advance and those behind it are named. See also E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. (Arguing, inter alia, that the Church’s position first laid out by St. Augustine in the fourth century and later codified in Sicut Judais Non correctly identified the problem and protected western civilization for milenia) What a coincidence that the compromising of the longest standing institution in the world so coincides with the fall of western man, right?
While it is true that both Roman and Greece substantially contributed to western civilization an objective view of history establishes that the Catholic Church played the single biggest role. See Tom Woods, How The Catholic Church Rebuilt Western Civilization. Our side claims they want traditional values. Well, the Church has been the greatest defender of those values. It takes real hubris to abandon the wall that has successfully defended us for dozens of generations. That claim holds even for those who do not theologically believe because narrative matters.
On that note, it is not clear to me that anyone preaching paganism or any other 1-in-a-1000 sort of perspective actually believes those things. In any event, those things unequivocably do not have a history of defending our people. Yet, such perspectives fill a massively disproportionate niche on our side. Why? Christianity has unequivocably been the biggest defender and contributer to our western civilization for well over a milenium. Yes, it is cucked to all hell now. But, I have seen nothing to suggest that it’s not the thing to rally behind and take back. It was good enough for milenium and under it’s patronage western civilization grew into what it is today. It needs to be taken back and all of you disenfranchised young men need to learn the rich history and culture that was taken from you.
“The Pope was so sensibly affected that he resolved to put an end to the insolence and insatiable rapacity of the Mahometans. He summoned the Christian princes and knights to a Council at Clermonth in Auvernge (A.D. 1095), called upon them to engage in a military expedition agaisnt the Infidels, and excited their enthusiasm to such a pitch that the hole assembly spontaneously exclaimed, “God wills it! God wills it!” The cry reechoed through thre whole West.” Joseph Deharbe, S.J., A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion, 38.
True. The average Hungarian “Christian” was baptized as a baby, took catechism lessons as a child (but forgot what he learned instantly), marries in a church, and is buried by the church. Other than that, he goes to church once a year: Midnight Mass or Easter. He declares himself a Christian in the census mainly to honor his family heritage and to annoy (((the liberals))). Christianity is a cultural tradition, and even as such it is becoming less and less important each year.
When the liberals say the average Hungarian isn’t Christian at all, he’s just anti-semitic, racist, and xenophobic, they are telling the truth.
Besides, I don’t understand this debate. Even if someone managed to convince me that adopting Catholicism was a good strategic move, I would reject it simply because I don’t believe in the tenets of Catholicism.* Serious people don’t choose their religion based on political utility. Doing so is just dishonest and cynical. Normally our religion is the result of a genuine conversion, or it is inherited from our parents and grandparents – but the current generations who inherited practically nothing are free to choose what they really believe in.
* Actually, it’s not entirely true. I think that our ancestors were intelligent and serious people, and what they wrote in the ancient books is an honest description of what they experienced. And the picture is pretty consistent and coherent across all ages and cultures: there used to be a powerful race on Earth called “the gods”, who lived side by side with humans, interbred with humans, and acted as protectors and tormentors of humans. Jesus was the son of a god, and probably everything in the New Testament actually did happen as it’s written. So technically speaking I’m more of a believer than most people who sit in the front pew, or even Church clergy. But I don’t fool around pretending I’m a Christian. As for the ultimate questions about existence and God, I believe that Hinduism, Buddhism, or the speculative/introspective Western philosophical traditions provide better, or at least more focused and less contaminated answers than the revealed religions.
Writing from Romania (Est-Europe) where the main church, the Romanian Orthodox Church (Biserica Ortodoxa Romana, henceforth “BOR”), has just finished and inaugurated the largest church/cathedral in Romania – the Cathedral of the Salvation of the Nation ( Catedrala Mantuirii Neamului).
“Neam-ului” is not really “nation”, it is not quite translatable in English. For the concept of “nation” there is the Romanian language the same word “nation”, but “neam” in Romanian means something like the German -Volk , so in context it means in “ethnic Romanian”.
Romania is a multi-ethnic country, it has a 6% ethnic Hungarian minority (who are Catholic or Protestant) and 9% Gypsies/”Roma” minority (who are not really of any religion but just mimic whatever is the dominant faith where they live). The 85% ethnic-Romanian are practically all Christian-Orthdox. They are the “neam”, Volk of BOR.
The liberal elites here in Romania (Romania is part of EU and the political and cultural elites are a sort of EU-liberals who preach “euro-patriotism” and anti-nationalism) have fumed for years because of this cathedral and have resurrected the charge of ‘legionarism’ (Iron Guard, legionary, inter-war Romanian nationalist/fascist movement) and ‘filetism’, the “heresy” condemned in 1872 by the Constantinople/Istanbul Council/Synod. “Filetism” is the would be heresy of putting your nation (ethnic group/ “neam”) “above humanity as a whole and above the laws of God”.
Yet BOR has rejected the accusations of ‘nationalism’ and ‘filetism’ and insists that the ‘neam’, the ethnic-group, while of course part of humanity has its own identity (thus identity is part of the sacred order of things) and when Jesus will return each of us will be resurrected and will stand along with his kind (his nation/neam) before the throne for the Judgement. Nobody will be saved alone but as a part (individual-part) of a ethno-religious community.
Basically in Romania the Orthdox Church openly and explicitly, on theological grounds, defends the Romanian ethnic-nation against the euro-phile/globalist elites who rule the country. They went on with this name for the cathedral and even put at the foundation of the altar of the cathedral a document with the names of the Romanians who died in the wars for the defense of the country (1877, 1913, ww1 and ww2).
I feel we do not have “liberal” elites here in Romania. We don’t have elites at all. Our ruling political class is a made of spineless post-communist hagglers, “securisti” , and ass-kissers (not unlike Russia before Putin) . Our “elites” will preach whatever lines their pockets and gets the votes. Bread and circus. They take weakly liberal colors now just as they took communist colors back then. But the ruling class is not ideologically liberal . Ideology is too big of a word for them . It’s for suckers and poor people.
The opposition to the cathedral was always from the fringes. From people who don’t have ‘votes’ as their bottom line, who’s income comes from external, not national sources.
But the cathedral itself is not a victory of Orthodoxy against liberalism. It’s the unholy child of the love between the securist patriarch (he had freedom to study in Germany and France and return to the country, after which he rose rapidly in rank. Try doing that in communist times without connections) and the political class. It lines both their pockets.
While the name of the Cathedral is commendable, little else is. It’s architecture is communist, megalomaniacal . Compared to the cathedrals of our neighbors, it puts us to shame. Compared to our own historical churches, it feels foreign. It alienates. Compared to the communist concrete blocks which surround it, it feels like an outgrowth of them. It lacks the soul of Romanian Orthodoxy.
We can judge an elite by the beauty and soul of the things it produces. Look at the cathedral. I can say for certain that both the political class, and the Romanian Orthodox Church, are no longer ruled by their elite. We have inertia to thank for what defense they still offer against liberalism. But without true leaders, this cannot last forever.
“I feel we do not have “liberal” elites here in Romania.”
We do have liberal elites. They’re just a little less powerful than those in the West and they still have to conceal the true extent of their liberalism because they don’t yet have enough popular support. The USR, the entire “rezist” movement, most NGOs, many corporate employees from Bucuresti and other “modern” cities like Cluj, mainstream media, etc – these are our liberal elites.
Concerning Christianity: In Romania in particular I think that we would be able to work with the Orthodox Church to a certain extent in support of nationalist causes. At least, the church doesn’t seem especially interested in anti-racism or anti-nationalist activities and its own TV channel has aired some very non-PC discussions. Even the church’s official spokesman has been investigated by the anti-discrimination monitoring agency.
Whats standing in the way of those liberal “elites” are, ironically, the less ideologically driven (post communist) social-democrats. Compared to those, liberal power is still minor. Not that they’re any better.
My point was Ovidiu was framing the cathedral as a great victory of nationalists against liberal elites. I’m skeptical . I’m more inclined to see the current church leadership and the social-democrats as two heads of the same hydra.
https://recorder.ro/catedrala-mantuirii-neamului-oglinda-de-fier-beton-tranzitiei/
To me the most important argument and yet the one I don’t see often mentioned is that religious teachings, Christianity included, have been scientifically discredited and only some sort of spiritual, abstract belief remains.
On the other hand, WN has cold biological facts of blood and soil on its side. It is intoxicating to me to think about the fact that we are part of larger organism, a European tribe and the we live both for our ancestors and our progeny. And I am much more willing to sacrifice for them rather than for imaginary man in the sky for who I am pretty sure is not real.
One should be cautious in condemning Christianity as inherently anti-Nationalism based on the lunacy of contemporary Christianity. The vast majority of ‘evangelical’ and ‘charismatic’ Christians don’t have the foggiest notion about historic Christianity and its doctrines. They know next to nothing about systematic theology, Reformed theology, hermeneutics, nor the history of the Christian Church throughout the ages.
Many of them may be fine and decent people, but they know little of the essence of the Faith they profess. And like many of us, they bring with them into their new-found faith all the Leftist dogmas they’ve learned in government schools – namely, multiculturalism and racial ‘equality’ nonsense.
None of that comports with apostolic doctrine. It just isn’t in the biblical text, and every attempt to somehow make it fit is doomed to failure. It’s the typical mistake of importing modern cultural trends and ideologies into the ancient text of Scripture.
Authentic Christianity seeks to bring the Gospel to all men (regardless of nationality, race, tribe or ethnicity), but it does NOT seek to eradicate the natural order in terms of genetics, biology, legitimate racial differences, nor the beauty of different cultures and racial identities.
The Bible doesn’t deal extensively with the question of race because its writers never felt the need to challenge the reality of racial and cultural differences. It was obvious and as plain as day. There was likely never any doubt in their minds that some racial and ethnic groups varied in terms of intelligence, societal advancement, sophistication, temperament and the like.
Thus, the apostles of Christ wanted individuals changed by the power of the Gospel who, in turn, would transform their own societies from within. The changes they had in mind would be the very kinds of things that destroy our societies today, such as debauchery, pornography, gross hedonism, excessive consumerism, drunkenness, drug usage, etc. But mark this: Their efforts were never directed at destroying or radically altering established cultural traditions in terms of custom, dress and uniqueness, racial and ethnic identities, nor a blending of various racial groups into some ‘melting pot’ under the guise of ‘We’re all of the human race.’ There was no ‘race is just a social construct’ in their thinking.
So, while Christians were indeed in conflict with the gross religious paganism that surrounded them, they were NOT out to abolish the enduring and benign racial and cultural customs of others. The apostles urged the pagans to abandon their pagan religious beliefs, but they did not plead with them to stop being Greeks, or Jewish, or whatever. They did not demand the end of all ethnic, familial, and cultural festivals and traditions. They did not require them to jettison their identity as a people, nor to have no involvement in the affairs of their nation, nor to hate their own people, to despise their ancestry, nor to squash the nationalistic spirit of their fellow kinsmen.
I hope this helps in some way for others to understand that Christianity is NOT incompatible at its core with Nationalism. Christianity is NOT the enemy, and Christians throughout the centuries (albeit imperfect and flawed) have found no conflict between their faith in Christ and their commitment to their own people and national identity.
Um, the author of this article does us a service by not focusing on contemporary Left-wing churches. Instead, he goes back before Vatican II and finds the Church attacking two pro-Catholic nationalist movements, movements that spent a great deal of capital courting the church. Obviously, those efforts were wasted. And Maurras, the atheist who thought it clever to align with the Church and give it authority in his movement, found that the authority HE GAVE the church was being used to destroy his movement.
I wonder if something similar happened with the Parrott/Heimbach experiment of aligning with the Orthodox Church. Did some of the nationalists — assuming there actually were some — that Parrott and Heimbach steered toward Orthodoxy abandon White Nationalism when the church explained to them that racism was the sin of “phyletism”?
Most of us sensibly do not want to make enemies of the churches. Most of us sensibly do not want to make enemies of the Jews either. But we don’t live in a world where we can control who our enemies are. Sometimes, our enemies chose use. Like the organized Jewish community, the Churches chose to be our enemies. And just as it is transparent folly to pretend that the Jews are not our enemies, we should not pretend that the churches are not our enemies either, just because we wish it were not so.
I appreciated your comments, Greg. I also agree with you that, unfortunately, the greater number of churches today by far stand against White nationalism. The Roman Catholic Church (which I am no friend of) has in the past at times, as well as today, opposed nationalism. As you know, their support of illegal immigration from the Third-World primarily stems primarily from their greed for money since Whites worldwide are not reproducing and have abandoned Christianity. They need someone to fill the pews and their coffers, so they support the Black and Brown invasion of White countries.
However, in my previous comments I was referring to those churches primarily within my tradition, that of Protestant Reformed, Baptist and the like that are not as much hierarchical or liturgical and more biblically-centered. Perhaps I should have clarified this in my comments. I was not referring to liberal churches that have completely abandoned the Faith in terms of fidelity to Scripture and apostolic teaching.
While it’s true the author of the article reaches back prior to Vatican II to demonstrate how the Roman Catholic Church opposed Nationalism, I think these were aberrations in large measure. It’s one sliver in the long history of the RCC which, for the most part, did not interfere with Nationalistic movements. The RCC, until of relatively recent date, did not pressure its White members to abandon their racial, cultural or National identity because Church and State were pretty much wed together. One could, for instance, have a strong racial and National identity as Irish, and still remain fiercely loyal to the RCC and no one would bat an eye.
Also, I recognize that today’s churches have made themselves enemies of White Nationalism, but this is merely a reflection of current cultural trends. This will NOT always be. There are a good many Christians like myself who recognize the reality of racial differences and the importance of preserving our White identity.
Moreover, White Christians, just like White atheists and White liberals, are going to be forced to racially wake up and see the threat of White genocide. They too will experience a paradigm shift in their thinking and align with our cause. The churches will naturally follow, especially when they realize that Christianity and preserving one’s racial, cultural and National identity are not incompatible.
Whether you agree with my comments or not, I appreciate Greg all that you do for our people, and the clarity and force that you provide us in your writings and lectures.
Forgive me, but last I checked all the mainline Protestant churches in the US were firmly behind white genocide.
Yes, the operative word is “mainline churches.” These same churches, however, in most cases have very low attendance and are viewed as “dead” churches. Their memberships are almost always extremely small and are comprised of elderly White boomers who are ‘nominal’ Christians at best. They believe a ‘social Gospel’ with no root in historic doctrine and theology. They are usually very socially liberal and are clueless about racial matters.
The more independent, fundamental, and ‘Bible-believing’ churches tend to have greater attendance numbers, and the people tend to be more serious and informed about the Faith. Granted, there is still a lot of racial cuckery among them, and the more ‘Dispensational’ oriented churches are almost obsessed with Israel. However, they are also more politically astute and they are almost exclusively conservative in their political outlook. They are also generally suspicious of globalism. These are all things that work in our favor.
A growing number of these same Christians are starting to wake up racially, and they’re already essentially anti-Islamic which is a good start since it often leads to deeper questions related to race and culture. Because of this, they will be more inclined to side with our cause as persecution of Whites increases, and as more anti-White hatred by ‘people of color’ boils over that becomes completely undeniable.
By the way, Christians who are enamored with everything Jewish and Israel are dwindling. Reformed/Covenantal Christian scholars have written devastating critiques of Dispensationalism and ‘Rapturism’ which has helped to turn the tide. Any notion that obsession with all things Israel is indicative of most Christians is plain naive. Many Christian scholars just shake their heads at the nonsense that passes for Christianity today. We are not all duped by the ‘Tribe.’
So, while it’s true that the churches today support implicitly (some even explicitly!) White genocide, the tide will eventually turn. No matter how religious or ‘Christian’ one may be, no one truly and genuinely wants to be a despised minority in their own land.
“The churches will naturally follow, especially when they realize that Christianity and preserving one’s racial, cultural and National identity are not incompatible. ”
Not all churches will follow. Most of them will just adapt to the new population. The Catholic church, for instance, will gradually become a non-White institution, as the vast majority of its members will be non-European. Most protestant churches will do the same, especially pentecostals or baptists, which are very present in the third world.
Christianity and preserving racial and national idenity may not be incompatible, but Christianity does not promote racial preservation. It promotes keeping religious faith. From a Christian point of view, a black Christian is always preferable to a White atheist.
“Not all churches will follow” – True, but the vast majority of White congregations will be forced to become racially conscience when they are overtly and brutally persecuted. Even the most devout Christian will eventually fight for what is rightfully theirs, and many of us are far from being pacifistic. History has proven time and again that ordinary Christians can and will fight when necessary.
Even if every church is taken over by non-Whites, White Christians will continue to exist and they will still gather to worship, perhaps in a different context or setting? The influence of Christians and Christianity will always remain among our people in some form, and the current anti-Nationalism among the churches will not always be.
While I grant that the New Testament says nothing about preserving one’s racial and cultural heritage, neither does it condemn it. The Bible’s purpose is not to PROMOTE racial preservation per se because such qualities are inherent and part of the natural order. There was no need within its pages to address such a cancerous ideology as multiculturalism because no other society in history has engaged in the sort of National suicide and racial self-hatred that we see today. In fact, there are plethora of social ills and political issues that the Bible never explicitly addresses.
As for Black and White Christians, while it’s true there may be a deeper religious connection between them because of their shared faith, the racially aware White Christian should always recognize that our two peoples and communities can never live together in any homogeneous way because of deep and abiding racial and cultural differences. In the future eternal state or when Christ returns, it will be different. But for now, Christ has not instituted the sort of multicultural order that Leftists wish to force upon us.
After years away from church attendance, I have been visiting churches of various denominations in hopes of finding a home congregation for my family. I have been amazed at the decay of liberalism, race mixing, and the promotion of aid to the third world that has been predominate everywhere I have visited. It is my hope, that just as the mainline denominations split over the issue of slavery, a portion of white Christians will come to the conclusion that their eternal salvation will not be jeopardized by wishing to preserve their people and culture in the land won through the blood and sweat of our ancestors.
>Did some of the nationalists … abandon White Nationalism when the church explained to them that racism was the sin of “phyletism”?
I would suggest that you listen to this lecture as response to your question.
https://www.radioaryan.com/2018/03/the-orthodox-nationalist-statement.html
The author above writes: “That work, Summi Pontifactus, claimed there were no real racial differences as we are all part of one human race.”
I was curious as I’ve not read the document. So, I took a look. I would invite readers to do the same. It is unfortunate that the Pope used the term ‘race’ both to refer to humanity (“the human race”) as well as to differentiate between different races of humans. That’s a sloppiness of language that is regretable; though, it should be obvious to a reader which use is meant within each context. Even if not, there is no justification for a commentator to point out the former use of the term while neglecting to mention the latter as it misrepresents the piece. That would be true even if specific passages are cited as opposed to the full document.
“Nor is there any fear lest the consciousness of universal brotherhood aroused by the teaching of Christianity, and the spirit which it inspires, be in contrast with love of traditions or the glories of one’s fatherland, or impede the progress of prosperity or legitimate interests. For that same Christianity teaches that in the exercise of charity we must follow a God-given order, yielding the place of honor in our affections and good works to those who are bound to us by special ties. Nay, the Divine Master Himself gave an example of this preference for His Own country and fatherland, as He wept over the coming destruction of the Holy City. But legitimate and well-ordered love of our native country should not make us close our eyes to the all-embracing nature of Christian Charity, which calls for consideration of others and of their interests in the pacifying light of love.” I see no issue. We can have concern for others and live side by side. Why wouldn’t we? That seems in line with secular commentators, e.g., Oswald Mosley. Obviously, that concern does not necessite putting their interests above our own. Another example: “We have chosen the forthcoming Feast of Christ the King to raise to the Episcopal dignity at the Tomb of the Apostles twelve representatives of widely different peoples and races.
There is much to be admired in Christianity, and more practically, much momentum that has to be fought in opposing it. But ultimately, I think Christianity and identitarianism are incompatible. Aligning with Christianity may look expedient, but it dooms the nation in the long-run… in part because theologically, Christianity does not care about the nation, but about the immortal souls of individuals.
It sucks, and from a strategic perspective, going against Christianity AND progressive globalism seems suicidal, but if identitarian success is to mean anything in the long run, it’s better to be ambitious and maybe win than to not be ambitious enough and lose no matter what.
In terms of the strategic situation, we did not choose the make the churches our enemies. They chose to make us their enemies.
PEW study – 2016 -nationalism and religiosity go hand in hand, fuel eachother, in Est-Europe.
Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe. National and religious identities converge in a region once dominated by atheist regimes
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/05/10/religious-belief-and-national-belonging-in-central-and-eastern-europe/
Portugal, Spain, Italy, Romania, South America… everywhere Fascistic and reactionary forces sought to align with christianity they came to be subverted from within, and then ultimately opposed from without by the very Church they supported. How morally crippling it would have been to have the very forces you sought to base your own movement on turn on you.
This is not a pattern making demanding notice; it’s practically slapping your face.
Christianity is said to the grandmother of Bolshevism, but I think it’s more a close mother-child relationship, and that kinship will always reveal itself. This mother’s resistance is just a natural fear of being displaced rather than a fundamental disagreement.
There are christians involved in this movement and they may have good intentions. However, it is inevitable they will turn on because it will not bow down to their narrow, moralising expectations.
Both the secular and spiritual influence of the established mainline Churches is declining within the nations that formerly supported them. Fearing irrelevancy the Churches have thrown their weight behind the globalist project in the flawed and naive expectation the elites will thank and grant them special privileges, perhaps even a seat on the board of “World Gov”. This sort of delusional thinking was exemplified when a Vatican apparatchik, Cardinal Parolin, recently addressed a Bilderberger conference! When the elites are done with the likes of Parolin, he will be thrown under the bus.
The necessity and morality of WN is becoming obvious to more people. The leadership of the Churches have a decision of millennial significance to make, stand aside from the coming battle or face complete rejection as institutional forms.
The essential point comes down to this: Do white nationalists want to win? If the answer is no, just continue being overtly hostile to Christians, members of the baby boom generation, and the majority of white Americans. If the answer is yes, then we need to think seriously about how to bring people to our side. It is not enough to say the Left is bringing people to our side and that we can just sit back and wait for the collapse of civilization. If we want to win, we need to bring white people to our side, even those who may not completely believe in every single one of our talking points. Even in its attenuated form, Christianity is still adhered to by the vast majority of white Americans, and it needs to be repeated again and again that the only successful white ethnostates are those that are overtly Christian (Hungary, Poland). In other words, we have contemporary examples of white nationalism and Christianity being mutually supportive and we certainly have many examples of secular states that are bastions of mongrelization, so we shouldn’t kid ourselves into believing that a secular state will automatically bring about the white nationalist utopia. In fact, secularization has exacerbated our problems. We are not going to win over to our side anything close to the number of people we need to succeed if white nationalists continue their overt hostility to the faith. We have to start thinking in terms of what is going to win and we have to take into consideration the political situation as it exists. If white nationalists want to win–that is, succeed as a political movement and gain political power–they need the support of white Christians and white baby boomers who collectively constitute the vast majority of white Americans. This is where the complete lack of political leadership in the white nationalist movement is most evident. Metapolitics is great, but we need political leaders who can think strategically and pragmatically and who can devise and enact a long-term plan to win over the majority of white people to our cause. The choice is between winning and purity spiraling. It’s that simple. The time for practical politics is now.
Speaking for myself, I censor any shilling for Christian Identity because it is utterly moronic and an embarrassment to us all. I imagine other platforms feel the same way.
Amen.
Someone could survey the history, acknowedge that by and large western civilization is synonymous with Christendom, and then argue that it’s not longer worth fighting for it. (It wouldn’t be a good argument, but, it would at least be logically coherent.) But, those that dismiss it out of hand are ignorant of history–their history–and their rightful inheritance. In short, they have been conned into giving up the largest contributor to our Western civilization.
Narrative matters. Was it not but for a Catholic king that the Sons of Muhammed would have claimed all of Europe 1300 years ago at Tours? And, 300 years after was it not under the good St. Louis IX, Crusader King, that the Talmudic subversives were first uncovered and their books burned? There is no shortage of gender real, race real, jew real commentary from the Church Fathers. And that’s by and large how the Church acted right up until modern times.
This fight has been happening for far longer than it seems most here realize. Denouncing Christianity is like denouncing government, media, and education, as each have been similarly subverted and now works against our interests.
These talking points have been refuted a thousand times.
1. European civilization existed before Christianity and continues to exist where Christianity has all but disappeared. Christendom, moreover, has always incorporated non-Europeans. The majority of Christians will be nonwhite in the near future if not already today. I am waiting for the first black pope to put the final nail in the coffin of the airy assertion that The Faith = Europe.
2. Why does the church get credit for the victory at Tours but not blame for all the defeats that rolled back Christendom from the Near East and North Africa? In truth, it was warriors who fought the Muslims, not priests.
Fighting to ensure the genetic continuity of the white race is not the same thing as fighting for Christendom. Because time is short, our enemies are many, and our resources are few, we have to be crystal clear about this. There’s no need to go our of our way to antagonize Christians who want to help. But we absolutely cannot afford to repeat follies like Action Francaise handing the Church the weapon to destroy them.
Christians should work to preserve their churches. But to get racial nationalists to invest their capital on such a project, based on the false assumption that Christianity is somehow the same as the white race, so saving the first is the same as saving the second, is a kind of cuckoldry. We need to tend to the eggs of future white people, not future Christians, because whites are not necessarily Christians, and Christians are not necessarily whites.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting fighting for the churches. Most ethno-nationalist practicing Christians I know are utterly dismayed at the state of the various churches. In most cases they have been fully bought and paid for by GloboHomo Inc. and are now spewing all sorts of poisonous anti-white propaganda each Sunday morning. And you’re correct in that they will not help us, and will most probably fight us. This is no different to our media, corporations, schools, universities and governments.
I have to travel fairly far to attend an Anglican church (which was once explicitly nationalist) which still has a tacitly anglophile bishop, a majority white congregation, no female priests and a more traditional and non-political service. The churches are run by human beings with all their flaws and weakness in the face of evil, and they have failed us. And you’re correct, this is definitely not the first time and, assuming they survive, it won’t be the last.
But we still need a higher power, a higher purpose and an objective moral code that exists outside human control. We can’t just worship ‘whiteness’ as an end in itself. I can’t quite put this as clearly as I’d like to, but we can still use the ‘spiritual infrastructure’ of Christianity. Or put another way, white nationalists should be Christians, although that doesn’t necessarily entail supporting the Church.
On the other hand, we could keep making arguments like ‘well, whiteness is kinda groovy, and there’s all this research about IQ levels and crime statistics, and by the way, look at all these cool gadgets we’ve built!’. But at its base, this just seems kind of nihilistic, or tacitly buying into the same old utilitarian arguments that GloboHomo Inc advances. To me, it seems much more powerful to simply say that we literally have a God-given right to exist as nations in our own territories, to protect our heritage and enable our kin to live safe and healthy lives (and there is a firm scriptural basis for such an argument).
European paganism is interesting, but are we seriously going to go back to worshiping Zeus, Thor or tree nymphs? For most of us, Christianity is firmly embedded in our collective consciousness, whether we like it or not. Most of us find the sound of church bells more appealing than the hideous Islamic call to prayer. And as an antipodean, festivals such as Yule or Ostara mean nothing to me. It’s an absolute non-starter when it comes to solving our spiritual malaise. And nobody is attacking paganism. All of GloboHomo’s efforts are going into attacking Christianity, ridiculing it, undermining it and watering it down. That’s a pretty good sign that perhaps there’s something there worth defending.
You’ve said it before with respect to politics, that once the population is white nationalist, the politicians will be white nationalist. The same could probably be said for the Church: once the congregation is nationalist, the Church will be nationalist. Whether or not the current clergy want to come along for the ride is quite frankly irrelevant to me.
In truth, it was [Christian]warriors who fought the Muslims, not priests.
Agreed. We are allies Dr. Johnson. And, I appreciate what you do. In truth, it was more you than other that woke up the r/theDonald libertarian that I was a few years ago. For that I sincerely give thanks. That said, much like those who might say, “they look white to me,” what is fighting “for us” one day might be a step in the wrong direction the next.
No one is saying Christianity = white. It is easier to awaken a white Christian of true Christian doctrine than it is to convince him to give up Christianity. Suppose you disagree with me on Christian doctrine. Well, then answer as though my assertion of what it is is at least a reasonable position. If you don’t think it’s reasonable then you have simply not read enough. I would be happy to provide a decisive statement on the matter.
Your strategy entails that it is easier to convince a white Christian to give up Christianity than it is to change his Christian believe because the current subversion in the Church is INCOMPATIBLE with ethnonationalism. In contrast, actual Christian doctrine entails ethnonationalism. Even the supposedly cucked encyclical that the author above linked supports that contention. See my comment below. My guess is the author only read the EWTN commentary on that encyclical. EWTN is a cucked institution and bent over backwards looking to defend the Church of terrible charges of “racism.”
When normie Christians learn this truth, they start to ask who subverted the Church. Your positioning of ethnonationalism has a much harder time of explaining that central issue to normies. Moreover, you posit to replace Christianity with…what? A belief in “whiteness”? At the very least, it’s not time tested. People have by and large always looked to the spiritual to define their place in the cosmos.
To the end, I don’t know what you mean by “European Civilization.” If you mean whites you should just say as much. My guess is you simply wanted to avoid referring to white societies as they exist today as western civilization because you know that is indeed Christendom. I mean, you certainly weren’t looking to exclude America, Canada, South Africa, and other nations of whites not part of Europe, were you?
Again, why does the Christianity of warriors get a mention when talking about Tours but not in the countless battles they lost as Islam conquered the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, etc.?
You are misrepresenting my views on this matter. I don’t think it is easier to convince a Christian to become a White Nationalist by first getting him to abandon Christianity — as opposed to trying to graft it on his existing belief system. Honestly, I think non-Christians are easier to convince on this matter, and grafting ethnonationalism on the trunk of Christianity is not a natural fit given the tenets of the religion. But no, I don’t think our work would become easier if we were to invest our scarce resources in battling against Christianity as opposed to battling against people who are promoting white genocide. In fact, that would be a criminal misuse of our resources.
What the movement must guard against is various schemes of cuckoldry, in which our scare resources are misdirected into promoting other causes on the pretense that these other causes are necessary preconditions of White Nationalism. Some forms of ideological cuckoldry include claiming that the following are necessary conditions of White Nationalism, such that we have to promote them before we can win on the political front.
1. Christianity
2. atheism
3. paganism
4. Holocaust revisionism
5. WWII/Third Reich revisionism
Now, to be clear, I don’t have any objection to DISCUSSING these matters, as we are doing here. After all, all of these topics impinge upon or overlap with our primary political focus. But I do object to the claim that we must first promote any one of these to ensure our victory.
White Nationalism is all about promoting the ethnic self-determination of all white peoples, both in Europe and the European diaspora. It is bigger than Christendom, since it contains non-Christians. It is bigger than Western civilization because it also includes Eastern Europe.
I don’t think this article is an example of hostility towards Christianity. It’s more of a sober warning based in history and fact. You can agree with the conclusions or not.
That said I don’t think “we” should be hostile towards Christians- there really is no point in it, but this doesn’t mean we should ignore these practical and philosophical questions. Those of us who engage in the intellectual side of things, or are in leadership or decision making positions really do need to grapple with these sensitive issues.
The average white, Christian American (whom we could bring over to our side)probably isn’t going to be reading CC or engaging in much of the theoritcal and intellectual discourse of WN. So I wouldn’t bring this discussion down to their level; I wouldn’t make 5-12 minute, Red Elephant-tire videos for the masses on the nuances of the relationship between Christianity and WN.
Hungary isn’t remarkably Christian or religious by European standards, at least no more Christian than Portugal, Ireland, Spain or Italy (all which are much further in the globalization project, though Italy ofc might be turning around). Estonia is de jure ethnostate with virtually 99,99 % white population, which happens to be one of the least religious countries in Europe. Something similar can be said about Czech Republic (despite minuscule Vietnamese enclave there). Christianity itself doesn’t seem to be terribly related to our current struggle in either way, it’s neither cause of our problems nor salvation to them. If an opening or any progress is ever made by synthesizing Christianity with WN, I am not probably only one who is ready to jump onto bandwagon immediately, regardless of my own personal beliefs.
So far overall effects are pretty neutral. Contemporary Church organizations and doctrine are pure poison, no attempt in infiltrating or persuading them has been successful. Individual Christians can be reached of course, but not any larger sect of Christianity. The positives are that the faith does increase White birthrates plus its connection to traditional lifestyle(s), thus I’d simply ignore it and concentrate efforts and resources elsewhere. I don’t see any point in changing this stance, unless even single major denomination takes at least a mild position against the White genocide. This is hardly unreasonable expectation for our support or détente
(even Dalai Lama has done this, for God’s sake!)
As you mentioned reaching the baby boomers and pragmatism, do you have any concrete suggestions on convincing them specifically? I try to talk to normies in my life about these issues, whenever opportunity arises (in most careful and delicate manner possible). I’ve been fairly successful in general, but not with the baby boomers – I have to add, that I have not shamed them or shown my resentment towards them in any manner, but it has never gone anywhere at all with them. I’ve been able to make some progress with all other generations with fairly similar arguments without any need to alter or tailor the common message according the generation (general temperament, erudition and intelligence have always been sufficient variables while adjusting the message). I have my own theories about why this is so, but since you mentioned convincing them particularly.
I have had great success red-pilling boomers. It is very easy. When the topic comes up about political correctness or diversity, just casually say, “you know, diversity is just a euphemism for anti-whiteness.” You can also play to the innate fairness of whites, that diversity is unfair to whites. Sure, it’s white nationalism lite, but it gets people thinking in our direction. And it works every time for me. Remember, the goal Is to win people over to our side. It doesn’t happen all at once, nor is every one who will ultimately support us going to be full bore 1488. I am also amazed that white nationalists are doing nothing about deplatforming other than to complain that Trump isn’t doing anything about it. We should be learning from the NRA, Numbers USA, and even leftist advocacy groups about organizing email, letter-writing and telephone campaigns to put pressure on politicians to change this situation. Practical politics is not glamorous, but it is essential if we want to move beyond the present situation. There is more to politics than putting forth candidates and street fighting, but I fear that white nationalism will simply remain a debating society that will stay on an asymptotic trajectory towards zero political influence. Again, the question remains: Do you want to win? If you answer no, then happy larping and we can call it a day. If you answer yes, then we have to get smart and start doing things to attract people to our movement.
Very well stated. Are you on Twitter or elsewhere online by chance, Quintilian?
Thank you for your remarks. No, I do not use social media of any sort, and I consider it to be toxic, the bane of Western Civilization.
“Wherever the clergy is a corporate body, it is master and legislator in its own country…
Of all ‘Christian’ writers, the philosopher Hobbes alone has seen the evil and how to remedy it, and has dared to propose the reunion of the two heads of the eagle, and the restoration throughout of political unity…
But he should have seen that the masterful spirit of Christianity is incompatible with his system, and that the priestly interest would always be stronger than that of the State.”
Also sprach Rousseau
I don’t understand why WN are so greatly bothered by christianity?? Christianity is gradually dying, it has less and less of a real social influence. It exists mostly because of the wealth of the churches. In practice it exists only on a linguistic and symbolical level in the form of saying “God bless you” by even the worst pornographer, and using it as a form of political mobilization.
Since political mobilization is less and less needed in calm, wealthy societies, then people will gradually become even more indifferent to christianity, it will exist only as a sentimental toy from childhood
So christianity in the future can be simply ignored, you don’t have to even take a decisive stand against it
I’m inclined to agree, but these topics are still relevant even if Christianity is in terminal decline- at least among whites; Christianity is exploding among Orientals and African’s and so it is here to stay.
I don’t like infighting, but Christian’s often make the religious question a major issue– they almost always fire the first shot and are uncompromising– a feature integral to Christianity, to be honest.
Both sides have to learn how to handle criticism and get along. Quintillian made some good arguments, but he made others which Hampton has criticized here.
For instance, I was totally unaware of the Vatican stabbing AF in the back, and it’s good that we understand this because it’s a part of the history of our movement and we need to be aware of it.
Do we have any data on the Eastern Orthodox Christian churches and their attitudes towards identitarianism and nationalism?
I posted bellow a link to a major PEW study….In general in the East religion and nationalism go hand in hand, they are correlated and seem to enforce eachother. It is not surprsing (for me- I see that most people posting here see Christianity as a problem) but religion and nationalism share similar psycho-sociological structures : both stress service and sacrifice for a higher (than the individual and longer than the individual life) and greater good, as opposed to liberalism and materialism which stresses selfish profit and hedonistic here&now gain for the individual.
What I have learned from various Eastern Orthodox blogs is that their burning issue is ecumenism. They are being pressured from without – the Catholic Church– and from within — various priest who like the idea. Some are saying it is as bad as the schism of year 1054. As for nationalism, my impression is that officially they would be against it, but covertly would support say someone like Codreanu and his Legionaires with plausible deniability of course. ( They are faithful sons of the church, but…)
Muslim tribes are pretty good at keeping foreigners out of their lands, yemen and somalia are good examples, Islam could replace the Church in the west and then whites could stone the muds everytime one raped a white girl, of course the defiled girl might have to get stoned too, an islamic scholar would decide.
It’s interesting you bring up Islam. Despite being another supposedly ‘universalist’ religion, racism is still incredibly prevalent; you only have to go to the Gulf states to witness the disdain with which the ‘lesser’ subcontinental Muslims are regarded. And not much needs to be said about the Arab disdain for blacks. I guess you could say Islam is a de facto non-white religion, but in a sense this proves to me that the issue with Christianity is not its purported ‘universalism’.
All those comments and no mention of Zionism. Douglas Reed will be rolling over in his grave.
I believe that the premise does not concern so much the Church itself and her doctrines, which can always be legitimate if applied in an appropriate measure on an appropriate plane. The problem seems to be that it is high time that people displeased with the general course of things stop looking for the way to manifest themselves *beneath themselves*. And frankly, although this goes in a way against core beliefs of most of WNs, this also includes Nationalism 1.0 (or ethno-nationalism), which is an inadequate and deprived vehicle for building things that are truly worth having. To expect that man of today, who is facing a total and concentrated effort to negate his whole being and everything inherent and understood as normal to it, to run into the arms of an institution operated by a clergy composed of weak-willed, groveling, spineless, shallow, basic, vulgar and altogether undisciplined and unsophisticated beings, is equally absurd as to expect that the idea of statelets governed by instincts of the tribe will give birth to a new Renaissance.
I believe specific historical remarks in this way the author did is quiet unfair. Pius XI was politically a bad pope, he asked the Cristeros in the Cristero War to lay down their arms because it was a controversial political affair.
Just as the author said, many catholic priests and Jesuits supported Action Francaise and Pius XII removed the excommunication.
My personal belief is that the catholic church has suffered political cowardice since the french revolution because of fear for suppression. This is because of the fall of man, like the Denial of Peter (The first pope denied knowing Jesus). The catholic church has its doctrine and dogmas on the faith, its priority is to save people from hell. The political sphere is not as clear as the religious, therefor its easier to do mistakes in the political.
But if the author thinks specific historical examples are relevant, then here I come with some counter-quotes:
Pius X
“Yes, your country is worthy not only of love but of predilection, whose sacred name awakens in your minds the dearest memories and thrills all the fibers of your soul, this common land which has been your cradle and to which the bonds of blood and that other more noble community of affections and traditions attach you.
But this love of the native soil, these bonds of patriotic brotherhood, which are common to all countries, are stronger when the terrestrial country remains indissolubly united to that other country, the Catholic Church, which knows neither differences of language nor the barriers of mountains and seas, which embraces both the visible world and that beyond the grave.”
Pius XI
“Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds. ”
“No one would think of preventing young Germans establishing a true ethnical community in a noble love of freedom and loyalty to their country. What We object to is the voluntary and systematic antagonism raised between national education and religious duty.”
Cardinal Faulhaber
From the Church’s point of view there is no
objection whatever to racial research and race
culture. Nor is there any objection to the
endeavour to keep the national characteristics
of a people as far as possible pure and unadul-
terated, and to foster their national spirit by
emphasis upon the common ties of blood, which
unite them. From the Church’s point of view
we must make only three conditions : First,
love of one’s own race must not lead to the
hatred of other nations. Secondly, the indivi-
dual must never consider himself freed from
the obligation of nourishing his own soul by
the persevering use of the means of grace
which the Church provides. The young man
who is always hearing about the blessedness of
his own race is apt too easily to conceive that he
is no longer bound by duties to God and His
Church, duties of humility and chastity.
Thirdly, race culture must not assume an atti-
tude of hostility to Christianity.
Bishop Williamson
“Any inequality today is a horror. For the Catholic Church, it’s not at
all a horror. God has designed everything unequal, practically
everything: the flowers, the animals, the plants, the mountains, the
nations, the peoples, the races, the sexes, the individuals, everything
in God’s creation is unequal. What God plans is a great variety, and an
order in the variety, with some things higher and some things lower. And
St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans, ‘Don’t start questioning
God on why he put this lower and put that higher.’ It’s like a building,
that stone is lower than that stone and that stone is higher….
Compare blacks with whites, broadly speaking, blacks will be superior in
some things and whites will be superior in others. But generally
speaking, the blacks are lower down on the wall and the whites are meant
to be higher up on the wall. That’s just the way it is. That’s the
reality. When the whites stopped doing what they should be doing, which
is leading the blacks, then….”
A very insightful, coherent and persuasive article which resonates deeply with me. In my humble opinion, the church’s historical opposition to and blame on modernism is sound in itself, but only partially so, and reflects as increasingly inadequate, distracting or even irrelevant in today’s context of our ultimate battle against the ongoing White racial displacement in the West. Christianity as a religious ideology has always remained a universalist and racially egalitarian one to the core and from the beginning, which makes it fundamentally less compatible and less conducive to the cause of White survival. It is a mixed bag with marginal use at best, and more often proves itself a force of drag instead of thrust to the White nationalism.
W.R.T. the idea that Christianity is somehow necessary for WN, I think it is critical for people to understand that the two most potent weapons currently being used against us come directly from Christianity: the doctrines of original sin and universal equality. These are so fundamental to Christianity that removing either one of them collapses the entire Christian worldview. Christianity therefore is and will always be a poisonous snake coiled, waiting for just the right subversive outsider whispering to convince it to strike.
>the doctrines of original sin
According to the NT, original sin was atoned for and taken away by Christ’s sacrifice. You don’t like Christianity, fine, but don’t put up such a transparent strawman.
I wonder what a Calvinist would say to that?
Well, Jehan (((Cauvin))) was a jew, so consequently Calvinism is a thin, Pseudo-Christian veneer over what is essentially Mammonism. But I think I know what you’re getting at: don’t all those sectarian squabbles and seemingly interminable theological disputes tempt one to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Thinking that would mean falling into relativism and ultimately self-defeating nihilism, though, as racialism itself depends on a series of ultimately metaphysical presuppositions.
What do you think “white privilege” is? The entirety of the antiwhite left is warmed-over, witch-burning Christian Puritanism that has now turned its sights on white Europeans. Look a little deeper. Christianity is not our friend.
It should be noted that the Vatican condemnation of Charles Maurras and L’Action Francaise came in 1926, but in fact had been long in the works and planned for the years immediately prior to World War I. The coming of the war put the entire project on the back burner.
The motivating force behind the condemnation was a coterie of French bishops and Cardinals who persistently badgered the Vatican to take the step. Some of them were enlightenment types, influenced by certain French Catholic liberals of the nineteenth century; and some were upset over the fact that L’Action Francaise was growing rapidly, and might lead to the disaffection of the already anti-clerical French proletariat classes, which were tending to vote left.
In short, the Church didn’t give a damn about nationalism, or the restoration of a rightist state. All it cared about was filling the pews.
And so the most promising Christian rightist movement in Europe in the 1920s (with influence way beyond the borders of France) was destroyed.
As you said, the priests who wanted to ban Action Francaise where Kantian inspired priests (they were close to Protestantism). These priests where later the influencers in Vatican II.
No catholic has ever claimed that everything was perfect before Vatican II. Everybody should realise that this was a gradual change in the church, with more and more Freemasons infiltrating physically and spiritually.
Nothing of this proves that the catholic church is anti-nationalist. The church cares of your eternal salvation, the politics is secondary. With strong faith and spirituality, it will come good material fruits like Imperium Europa.
I am sorry but European Civilisation without Christianity is basically degenerate Game of Thrones.
Von Rosen, I disagree. L’Action Francaise wasn’t the only rightist movement sabotaged by the Catholic Church. What about its opposition to Leon Degrelle’s Rexist movement in Belgium? Or its unwillingness to support the devoutly Catholic Cristeros in Mexico? Or its stubborn recalcitrance towards Francisco Franco and the Spanish Falange, even after Franco and the Falange saved the Church’s bacon in the Spanish Civil War?
The strain of Kantian liberalism that you complain of existed in the Church a very long time before the twentieth century. It has blossomed into full-blown anti-Western and anti-white vehemence under this Argentine buffoon Bergoglio. There’s no longer any sense in trying to deny the obvious.
I think you are misunderstanding my point.
I agree with all of your examples, especially Pius XI and Pius XII did bad decisions in politics. But the author of the article seems to believe that bad political moves proves that the catholic church is anti-nationalist.
My point is that bad political anti-nationalist moves by the Catholic Church does not prove it’s anti-nationalist. It just proves that we have had bad popes and priests. If you go down a bit in the comment section you will see my first comment were I have lots pro-nationalist quotes from the church.
This is the same mistake that “Catholic” Sedevacantists make (they don’t believe we have had a valid pope in 60 years). They focus too much on human being actions and then draw a conclusion on the whole Church.
If you want to refute nationalist Catholicism you have to prove why Catholicism in and of itself is anti-nationalist. Not priests or popes.
Okay, let’s just leave the Catholic Church out of this and make sure that nationalist movements just never repose any trust in popes and priests.
“you have to prove why Catholicism in and of itself is anti-nationalist.”
We can start from the fact that Christianity is a universal religion and the Catholic Church is a universal institution. Neither is bound to a certain nation, a certain race or a certain territory. They’re both fluid, interested in maximum expansion in every possible direction.
The Catholic church is, ultimately, interested in preserving Christian religion, Christian beliefs and in having a large number of practicing Christians and a society organized around Christian principles. It doesn’t care if a certain nation or race survives, it cares whether Christianity survives. Therefore, from a Christian perspective, Black Christians are preferable to White Atheists. It is preferable to replace a White non-believing population with non-White Christians.
Another consideration, independent of arguments over merit or historical relevance, is that the christian faith may just be spent in Europeans. The old faiths of the Classical world were hollowed out shells by the time they were overthrown, and perhaps christianity is now finally having its own turn.
Jung wrote that the deep reservoir of archetypal symbols in an active religion would one day be exhausted, and those symbols would lose their meaning and energy. This would be more than just a case of the faithful lapsing between spiritual revivals – it’s a loss of any sense of comprehension of what those symbols ever meant, and that’s a break in communion that can’t be recovered by just reading some old theology texts.
A symptom he noted at this stage is people would desperately try to flog their old symbols back into life, or even try to import exotic new idols from other cultures. Now contemporary European religion may not be quite a dead horse yet, but its looking pretty sick. It may be the time for those of spiritual inclination to serious consider new paths for faith.
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