Counter-Currents
1,847 words
One thing which has been repeated throughout the Dissident Right to the point of becoming a truism is that in order for the West to be restored, we need to rediscover our religiosity. Religion is beneficial for many reasons, chiefly its skill at moderating the excesses of human behavior, providing structure and support to the various members of the community, lending God’s strength to the average man so he can face the daily challenges of life (especially exercising control over women), and act as an organizational entity. If we want to get shit done, getting the local padre to instruct the congregation in the utility and goodness of getting the excrement in question done is second to none, especially if you’re trying to organize white people who are traditionally hostile to outright coercion.
While there is zero doubt in my mind – and hopefully in yours – that we need a religion, perusing those which are on offer leaves us sorely dissatisfied. Let’s begin with the big one: the Catholic Church. It’s a shambles. Not only is the Curia under sodomite occupation and the churches themselves are sanctuaries for pedophiles, but the guy in Rome who ought wear the big hat (but wears a tiny Jew hat instead of his big hat) is a commie who licks the feet of negroes and sand people. Worse, he preaches Leftism and ruination while condemning healthy construction of walls.
Moving on, we’re presented with the legions of Protestant sects. The state of mainline Protestant Christianity is somewhere between catastrophic and cataclysmic – whether it’s whaman bishops, negro and immigrant worship, pro-sodomy fundraisers, or general proliferation of church hen values (gossiping, nagging, moralizing, shaming, and other womanries), these entities wearing the skins of old churches are decisively enemies of civilization and the white race.
Then we have fundamentalist Protestant Christianity which is at least vigorous and sincere, generally free of sodomites, generally not obsessed with non-whites and their importation into white lands, generally proscriptive of the most extreme forms of womanry (but not entirely resistant to the phenomenon in general), and not eager to please the ruling hegemony – in fact there’s something rebellious about being a fundamentalist Protestant in that you are the declared, identified, and hated enemy of Globohomo. Letting Jesus into your heart and loving your neighbor without stretching the definition of neighbor to include all brown people the world over marks you as a bad white in America. Unfortunately, fundamentalist Christianity in America is often marred with Jew-worship and lacking a friend-enemy distinction with regard to Globohomo. The fundamentalist is patriotic and is convinced that God loves America, even though the US government is the prime enforcer of Globohomo, that unholy alliance of Jews and inadequates that wants him dead, his sons castrated and wearing dresses, and his daughters as whores and playthings of the brown invaders. God bless his heart, he’ll faithfully enlist to be a golem for Globohomo, and will enforce Globohomo’s will with all the resolve of a righteous soldier of Christ. In this category, more or less, we find most Mormons, but without the martial spirit or vibrant culture of heartland America. And let’s not forget that Mormons are ethnically predominantly Yankee, and it shows in their anti-aesthetic disposition, even though those odious long skirts and practiced, used-faith salesman smiles cannot fully conceal the beauty conferred on a woman by Anglo genetics.
Which leaves our careful shopper with Orthodox Christianity as a faith which would revitalize the West.
Now, I won’t get into the nitty-gritty of Orthodox theology, mostly because I don’t fully understand the doctrinal differences between Orthodox and Western Christians. If you want insights into that, you should probably listen to Jay Dyer. That being said, I don’t really put much stock into convoluted explanations of why God said x, and why x actually means y. As far as I’m concerned, being Orthodox is about partaking in Christmas, Easter, and other high holidays with your family and community in a general sense. But in the particular for myself, it means honoring St. Nicholas the Miracle Worker, Bishop of Myra – for whom I was named – as well as St. Demetrios of Salonika, Martyr of Christ, who is the patron saint of my family. It means gathering with your neighbors on Christmas Eve, and feasting on roast lamb come Easter. It means coming out on the day of Epiphany – the baptism of Christ – to see the young men of the town leap into a body of water to hunt for the cross thrown there by the local priest, or by the bishop or patriarch in the great cities. Orthodoxy means having icons of your venerated saints and the holy mother of God in your house, in your place of business, and in your car. It means lighting a candle in a heavily frescoed church for the living and the dead. It means having the priest sprinkling your AK-47 with holy water if need be (see above). It means standing in awe beneath painted ceilings and massive chandeliers. It means spending time in a monastery to rest from the noise of the secular world. It means walking through the great boulevards of cities when they’re cleared of vehicles on Good Saturday, on the eve of Easter, to greet the resurrection of Christ as a community. In short, Orthodoxy is very physical, and not at all cerebral, the way I know it. I first came to know it at the age of 1, in a baptistery. I don’t think about being a Christian, and I don’t even go to church outside of Easter – but it’s a very real thing.
More importantly, though, Orthodoxy and religion in general is a phenomenal way to practice politics in the Schmittean sense – to distinguish between friend and enemy. The Balkans in particular are problematic, since we’re a bunch of more or less white people hating on each other, unlike in the US, where your race is your uniform. Whether one is friend or foe is pretty much easy to deduce by looking at his car. If he’s got a cross or holy water suspended from the central rearview mirror, he’s Orthodox, and therefore a friend. If he’s got prayer beads, he’s probably Muslim, and therefore an enemy, or in one of a million case,s Catholic (which is to say, worse than a Muslim, hawk ptooey). The shape of our beards and other items of religious belonging are also useful in these distinctions. However, for the time being, it’s sufficient to signal belonging to the Church, and additional holiness doesn’t get you perks, unless you’re a bona-fide priest. This is probably because Schmittean friend-enemy distinctions are Boolean – you’re either friend or enemy. Churches and monasteries (and mosques) also serve as orientation tools. If I see a church in a village I don’t know, it’s friendly. If I see a mosque, it’s not. They’re also rallying points as cultural symbols, and a good means of measuring if equilibriums are stable or are moving towards destabilization – Balkan blood boils hot under the best of circumstances, but messing with our holy places gets you on the “genocide imminent” list.
All in all, sounds pretty good, right? So, whatcha waiting for, men of the West? As the bear said, Begome Ordodogs :DDDDDDD.
Well, I wouldn’t take the literal plunge into the baptistery just yet.
While I have quit a few orthobro friends who will maintain quite strongly that we are stronk, and the West decadent and weak, precisely because we’re Orthodox and the West is not, I can’t help but think that they have things backwards. What if the Catholic Church and Protestant churches are full of sodomites, sodomite-enablers, queef-sniffers, and queefers, because Western men have become a bunch of degenerate cucks, rather than the other way around? What if eating leavened communion bread is only incidental to ethnocentrism, and what if married and bearded priests aren’t the key to national confidence? I believe this because I see the seeds of Western-style cuckery in the Orthodox churches. Some priests have even taken to the Internet to loudly signal their allegiance to Globohomo, and thus curry favor with the progressive hegemony in Washington, or its stooges in Brussels, under the banner of Christian charity.
I guess this was to be expected. The various Orthodox churches have been the playthings of secular rulers ever since the Fall of Constantinople severed them from the temporal power of the Byzantine Emperors. In the Balkans, these people kept the Ottoman Sultan’s peace for five centuries, functioning as temporal rulers of the Ottoman millets. They were also servants of the Communist governments of Eastern Europe, and were thoroughly infiltrated by the commie secret services – the remnants of which still hold significant sway among the priesthood, as do they in other areas of life in Eastern Europe. And this is due to the fundamental problem of priesthood – the kind of man who becomes a priest, who chooses to become a priest, is in all probability a skinny-armed, feminine type, and if he isn’t, he isn’t happy in his priestly career. Most of a priest’s time will be spent in the company of old women, who are the most religious of demographic groups. Therefore, the kind of person who makes a good priest is the kind of person who can stomach, or – God forbid – enjoy the company of old women. Definitely not the kind of man with gravel in his guts and steel in his spine. Orthodox churches are therefore servile to secular governments, whatever that secular government is, and rarely condemn the leftward and westward drift of Eastern European countries – outside of Russia, where the government is, for the time being, pro-Russian.
It’s not all bad, though. This servility will ensure that once nationalists take power, they can use the Church towards nationalist ends without much fanfare. Unlike Protestants, who are prone to sectarianism and purity spirals, the Orthodox churches have national limits and frown on splitting off from the official church. Unlike Catholics, there is no uncontrollable, turbulent priest in Rome to vex upstanding kings, and one needn’t anoint a second nonce in a big hat to preside over Christendom from the holy city of . . . heh, Avignon. No, the national limit of the Orthodox Church makes sure that the Synod is always within your grasp and sovereign will can be readily imposed upon them – dry-shaving in public optional (but strongly encouraged).
Ultimately, our future is in our hands, and the doctrines of the Church have precious little to do with it. It may be that Orthodoxy is indeed based and red-pilled, but without strong men to enforce these tenets of basedness and redpillianity, it is a hollow creed. The Church has its functions; I’ve enumerated some of them in this article, but reclaiming the West’s grandeur is a job for the Army of Christ. Yes, a blessing from the priest will give us 10+ Holy dmg and strengthen our resolve, but first we must take up the sword of truth and stand athwart the forces of evil, clothing our bodies in old-fashioned and folkish Christian courage.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
47 comments
Christianity in whatever manifestation is the reason why we are in this situation. You cannot fight globalism with the most universalist religion that ever existed. Everything globalists believe in is based on Christian dogma. They are indistinguishable in what really matters. If you want to fight globalism abandon globohomo’s mother, the Christian Church.
Your critique of the different churches is absurd because they’re not being incoherent by acting the way they do. You are.
Globohomo is a metastasis of Calvinist protestant Christianity and its ideas of communal salvation, mixed with the Quaker doctrine of the inner light. These are both heavily Judaized versions of Christianity, rejecting traditional pagan elements and borrowings which made Christianity a religion of white people.
Traditional Christianity has always been “love thy neighbor”, not “love the guy squatting on his haunches in yonder shithole”.
Christianity has been the predominant faith in the West for centuries, nay for millennia… and never during that period of time was any form of “globalism,” as is today understood, ever taught, believed, or practiced. Rather, the Church buttressed national identity, and vice versa.
This oft-heard critique of the Christian faith as inherently destructive to ethnic solidarity or national cohesiveness has absolutely no basis in reality.
“This oft-heard critique of the Christian faith as inherently destructive to ethnic solidarity or national cohesiveness has absolutely no basis in reality” – Well said. The popular notion among racially-conscious Whites that Christianity leads to open borders, multiculturalism, and nullifies racial and ethnic solidarity simply cannot be found in the New Testament.
The apostle Paul never once asked Jews to stop being Jewish. In fact, both Peter and Paul were quite proud of their ethnic heritage and history. They also did not require the Gentiles to become Jews, and they loudly condemned any Jew who would force Jewish customs on Gentiles.
While the apostles condemned religious practices that ran counter to the revelation of Jesus Christ and His Gospel, they did not ask nor demand that all nations open their borders to all peoples. They did not require non-Jews to cease celebrating all ethnic and cultural traditions unique to them as a people. They rightly presumed that every racial and ethnic group would continue those customs and particulars that were culturally distinct to them.
As Christians, we can be proud of our racial, ethnic and cultural identities, and we are not made less ready for heaven simply because we rejoice in these. We are citizens of BOTH realms – the heavenly as well as the earthly, and we have responsibilities to both as well.
Any form of Christianity that promotes contemporary multiculturalism and ‘diversity’ is FALSE! You simply won’t find it in the pages of the New Testament, and if you do it’s because you have misunderstood and distorted its meaning.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Christianity played no role in changing white countries from white to racially mixed. Racially mixed societies are now here. How does Christianity aid the goal of securing white existence, which effectively requires unmixing at least some part of these societies?
Which sounds more Christian to you: endorsing the attempt to unmix a racially mixed society, or condemning such an attempt? It’s pretty telling that imagining the former requires some effort while the latter is an absolute cinch to imagine.
You’ve raised some good questions. The answers are not always easy. However, I don’t think it’s as difficult for Christians to change in their thinking about racial matters as you seem to imagine.
First of all, many of these same White Christians are just as alarmed as other Whites to see their countries overrun with third-world migrants. A good many are not too happy about it either.
Secondly, Christians generally tend to have a strong law-abiding consensus. Thus, when they witness their nation’s laws and immigration policies nullified by lawless migrants, they don’t take to it kindly. When this happens, their sense of nationalism and, yes, even their racial pride, begins to stir. They might be Christians, but they’re still human with their implicit Whiteness still in tact. They known intuitively deep down inside of them that they want to preserve their racial identity and cultural uniqueness.
Thirdly, the Christians who tend to be more pro-racial ‘diversity’ come mostly from the liberal, ‘social-gospel’ camp. The more Bible-centered, evangelical and Reformed congregations are not usually as zealous in these matters as liberal churches. This is because they still have a strong view of the rule of law, obeying the laws of the land, and respecting civil rulers (Romans 13). Thus, they tend to view the lawlessness of illegal immigration as an attack upon the very foundation of law and the imperative of obeying rulers which the New Testament is explicit about.
In fairness, I admit that far too many White evangelicals support multiculturalism. But this is only because they are like everyone else who has been brainwashed by the ‘diversity’ dogma. They need to be educated and enlightened on these matters just as any other White person. The good news is that a growing number of White Christians are trying to inform their brethren on these very matters.
Fourthly, there is always going to be a large segment of our people who are Christians. Christian belief has a long history among our people, and we should try different avenues to reach them with the truth about race-realism, the importance of preserving our European identity and cultures, and related subjects. Bashing Christians and Christianity is NOT a good strategy in the long run.
Finally, many of these same White Christians will eventually awaken from their multicultural slumber once they realize that their Christianity will not spare them from physical attacks from Blacks and Browns. They will likely come to their senses and recognize that their skin color is their uniform, and that they are hated not so much because they are Christians, but simply because they are White.
“Christianity in whatever manifestation is the reason why we are in this situation. You cannot fight globalism with the most universalist religion that ever existed. Everything globalists believe in is based on Christian dogma.”
This is a ridiculous meme in dissident right circles that refuses to die. Christianity is universalist only in the sense that you don’t have to be a particular ethnicity to belong to the religion, but it was always expected that nations would remain distinct. People who rail against Christian ‘universalism’ never seem to observe that another particular universalist religion (Islam) seems to not have the same issue. For that matter, the pagan religions didn’t exactly save India, Egypt, Persia or even Greece from miscegenation. Germany and Scandinavia were more likely to have been saved by their abysmal climate than their worship of Odin and Thor.
Globalists frequently talk about Galatians 3:28 (“there is neither Jew nor Greek) as abolishing racial differences, but Augustine of Hippo, one of the most celebrated Church Fathers, explained thusly:
“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains embedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule. ”
Book 19 of his ‘City of God’ is essentially a refutation of multiculturalism and the problems faced by the multi-ethnic Roman empire. He propagated what was the norm in Christian societies up until recently, that our duty to love should be conceived as a series of concentric circles, expanding outward from the family (to whom we owe our primary duty) to the community, to the nation and ever broader to encompass the world.
The vast majority of the Church Fathers if they were around today would be constantly harassed by the ADL and probably imprisoned in Europe for the things they said about the Jews. The Church, for centuries up until recent times, went to great lengths against great resistance to prevent Jewish infiltration (see Pinay, ‘The Plot against the Church’).
Yes, the modern church is cucked, but that hardly means that Christianity is somehow ‘wrong’. In fact, it is the only religion that has valid truth claims, which to my mind is why so much effort has gone into trying to stamp it out.
The vast majority of church fathers were resented Jews who wanted to subvert the Roman Empire and would absolutely LOVE and embrace ADL and similar institutions. There’s a perfect lineage from them to the shrieking sjw.
WNs come in two main varieties (with many subgroups, as with other ideological tendencies):
White Preservationists/Patriots and White Powerists/Supremacists
Enemies of the White race try to deny the existence of the first group so as to taint anyone not a race-denialist or self-hating White with the moral failings of the second group. This is ridiculous on its face (if not tactically), though less so than calling moderate neoliberals like Reagan and Thatcher and Trump “Nazis”. But this mendacious overuse of the “Nazi” label does not mean that a) there aren’t real Nazis, or b) that real Nazism is not morally objectionable.
Those WNs who are hostile to Christianity are, imo, mostly genuinely morally problematic persons who want Whites to exploit, enslave or exterminate other races, and are resentful at how pathetically weak-willed their fellow Whites are. [Imagine a tough Roman legionary commander having a bunch of SJWs as his troops.] They blame this loss of conquering tribal spirit on the alleged universalism (really, moral strictures) of Christianity, and given their philosophical atheism, they obviously wish to paint Christianity in as bad a racial light as possible, even at the expense of doctrinal and historical accuracy.
Of course what these fools don’t understand, apart from any veracity to Christian cosmology, is that history has utterly passed them by. Very few Whites can be rallied to racial survivalism by means of “powerist” arguments. If our race is to be saved it will be by the first group of WNs – the ethical or “responsible” ones – who only wish for Whites what is our moral right: to preserve our race and collective civilization in the only way it can be saved, via the restoration of all-White territorial states and polities. Whites today are the VICTIMS of traitor-abetted alien demographic aggression. The sooner a majority of us comes to understand our victimhood, the likelier our racial chances of survival. Nazi/KKK LARPing only undermines and stalls this necessary awakening process.
That’s all good and well, really, quite reasonable, fair criticism, but even as a first-group WN, by your own model, the “history has passed you by fool, and you’re too dumb to even know it” argument can almost just as fairly, at least by superficial appearances, and, let’s face it, those will always be pretty important appearances, be rendered against you and your group. Whites still seem very apprehensive about approaching it too. When does that truly, obviously, undeniably, begin changing? I’m only curious. I wouldn’t quite call Trump it, and neither are you.
I’m no “Nostradamus”, but as many others before me and since have said, objective life conditions probably have to get a lot worse before any mass Awakening. I didn’t used to believe this, but was disabused by, of all things, the LACK of influence of the internet. Pre-internet, I thought that Jewish media control prevented ‘responsible’ pro-Whites (as opposed to almost self-parodic KKKers and Nazis) from gaining the public access needed to get our POV across to wide audiences. I assumed that if enough Whites could just hear the rational, reasonable, profoundly moderate WN message, there would be a tectonic ideological shift among Whites, at least on race. Thus, I was initially very excited by the advent of the commercial internet (starting around 1995, as I recall), and assumed big changes on nationalist issues would soon be in the offing.
I was very wrong. I didn’t yet grasp that Whites ourselves were not basically racially-healthy-but- brainwashed, but that White race-liberalism was a phenotypal expression of an underlying genetic predisposition to anti-tribalism (or, put another way, an orientation towards universalism) on the part of a large number of Whites. What started to disabuse me was the failure to gain political traction of the generally excellent Pat Buchanan candidacies in the 90s. I had a good friend who worked formally for Pat, and I myself did some very minor volunteer work. Probably about half of Buchanan’s support came from fervent pro-lifers, some of whom were good on immigration, others totally indifferent to it (let alone other racialist issues). But I saw no upsurge of White r at least America First awareness, despite a major candidate public broaching immigration and civic nationalism generally. This was my first clue to just how degenerate Whites really are.
What cemented my view of modal White racial defectiveness, however, was the failure of European nationalists to garner mass public support for stopping Third World immigration. How could anyone not obviously understand that Europe is not “diverse”, but White? Or, after decades of increasing immigrant savagery, that mass immigration was ruining every European nation just in quality of life terms (not to mention conservative/nationalist preservationist ones)? And yet, with each nationalist electoral breakthrough in the 90s-00s, each time electorates actually could choose a national patriot, they flinched and chose the social democrat.
There are only two paths, which are complimentary and indeed maybe even mutually inclusive. One is WN territorial ingathering and eventual ethnostatist secession. This should be the great goal anyway. It’s not enough to form an all-White apartheid state. It must be majority White Nationalist. So basically pro-White Whites need to do what queers started doing en masse following WW2: choose a few viable areas, and then relocate to them in the hundreds of thousands or millions, in the hopes of eventually having the critical mass to secede from the controlling nation-state and form a new sovereign country. I happen to believe that this is the last and only hope to prevent White extinction (I hope I’m wrong, but nothing in the past 20 years or more has caused me to change my mind).
The other is to just keep plugging away at metapolitical and especially ethical analyses, as well as slow-growing political activism, in the hopes of one day persuading enough of our race (and in time) that we have a moral right to do what is necessary to ensure our own racial/collective survival. I think people’s opinions can be changed over time. The racial rot, however, is just a lot deeper than I ever imagined in my younger days.
The reason for the two important divisions of Western Christianity, Catholic and Protestant, both abandoning ‘serious religion’ and devoting themselves to senseless social fads is because most people of the Western World no longer take the stated revealed religion of Christianity seriously, and haven’t for a very long time. The sea-change started in the mid 17th century and has continued despite the religiosity generated by the Reformation.
According to the Russian emigre philosopher Pitirm Sorokin the present Sensate Age (his term) in which we are living is now coming to an end and the crisis we see within our civilization is just a reflection of turmoil generated by doubt and uncertainty. But help is at hand…by Russia and Slav peoples leading the way to a more harmonious civilization. Well, the author can be forgiven for his partisanship.
His theories along with helpful critiques of Spengler et. al. are developed in his book “Modern Historical and Social Philosophies”, 1963. Although long out of print it is amply rewarding to track down and read a copy.
A very interesting article I must say. I did take a foray into Orthodoxy for a number of years and my most honest answer is that I was not spiritually ready to embrace it. I still have a strong attraction to the position of Orthodoxy. If one is running away from the modern craziness of either Roman Catholicism or one of the Protestant sects that seem to be so afflicted, don’t expect a Utopia on entering the Orthodox church. Yes, there is much beauty, tradition, solid theology etc. etc. (yes, I do follow Jay Dyer) in Orthodoxy, but many parishes are nothing more than ethnic clubs. I see a number of people on the Dissident Right have gravitated to the Orthodox Church, and that in itself I find fascinating. I really wonder how well these people were received by fellow believers once their political beliefs were made known? Just because one is an Orthodox Christian does not mean one will be naturally amenable to the philosophy of the Dissident Right. Orthodox Christianity does not mean an easy fit in regards to one wider world view. In Russia, I think something very different is going on. You have a government that is very supportive of the beliefs, mores and culture of both the Russian ethnos and the Orthodox faith. In the West you have a society that is largely either diametrically opposed to these beliefs or largely apathetic to them. A person on the Dissident Right is still largely going it alone whether or not he/she (for badness can I throw a few other assorted pronouns in there?) is in the fold of Orthodox Christianity or not. What I am trying to say is that the faith journey to Orthodox Christianity and the political/philosophical journey to the Dissident Right are separate journeys. May those on the Dissident Right who have embraced Orthodox Christianity find happiness and peace in their choice.
I avoid commenting when the issue of religion comes up. Instant mosh pit. But I’ll hazard this note.
The point of view that considers Christianity to be the mother of all our egalitarian troubles exhibits a failure of historical consciousness. It fails to differentiate between the behavior of Christian societies before the Enlightenment and their eventual behavior after it. To me, the difference is stRiki-Eiking.
I maintain that our own home-grown, wholly European and Classic-inspired movement to erase the Church, with its dogmas-and-superstitions, etc. and replace it with “universal” principles of reason decisively altered not only the secular but the religious landscape of the West.
Enlightenment and Church battled for 250+ years. The Church lost. And only continued to exist in greatly reconfigured terms by incorporating Enlightenment attitudes as if they were her own.
(Reminds me of the irony in the USA, that the group of men most likely to join the American armed forces are the descendants of the Confederates who set out to defeat them.)
So the undeniably execrable state of contemporary Christianity may derive far less from some supposed inborn egalitarianism (which it was apparently unconscious for 1000 years) than from its exhausting battle with the sons of Voltaire and their obsession with the “universal rights of man.”
Much of what we suffer did not come from the one-god foreign desert religion and its kike on a stick, but from the science-and-reason loving men of France, Germany and England who told us that “all men are created equal.”
The appearance of egalitarian societies is a direct consequence of the Protestant reformation and counter reformation. People stopped believing in god in the 18th century. By the 19th century most people did not. This is what Nietzsche calls the death of god. Today not even believes in god anymore. Not a single Christian priest of whatever sect believes in god. All that remains is His rotten corpse, egalitarianism
Of the Christian sects, orthodoxy is probably the least degenerate and/or lame – this much is true. And Eastern European people are stronk, but I don’t think it has anything to do with their brand of Christianity.
Maybe more about being isolated from the liberal, judeo-capitalist onslaught of American TV and cultural propaganda for 70 years or so. Given another 20 years of this, Eastern Europeans will start to look, talk and act like New Yorkers.
.
So…what you’re saying is that religion is the opiate of the masses, but that’s OK as long as it’s masses of /ourguys in orthodox mass?
Maybe it’s OK for the dissident right to have an open mind toward some degree of religious freedom, provided that the religion itself is not inimical to the aims of the ethnostate(s). This is one of the reasons that I am happy that God saw fit to let me be born in Dixie. That way I don’t have to worry about the future state religion – it will be the same as we already have it, just hopefully without all the philosemitism after the boomers have exited, stage Left.
The point isn’t that the whole white word become Orthodox because being Orthodox is redpilled and based, but rather that whatever course is chosen the people of the future ethnostates will respect each other’s decisons as wypepo, and if they’really going to be Christian (I am for this) then the aim should be to think in more communal terms at home and in deal in cooperation, love and above all mutual respect with other communal expressions of the faith elsewhere.
We don’t need religion. We need honesty, clarity, logic, and integrity. All religion does is disconnect people from reality.
“We don’t need religion” – The problem with this line of reasoning is that humans are inherently religious. We have been designed to look to something higher than ourselves. Man, in fact, can’t help but to worship someone or something beyond themselves. We are drawn naturally to this sort of thing. Even most professed atheists pursue causes (social, political or otherwise) because they are drawn to a bigger and grander purpose greater than themselves.
“All religion does is disconnect people from reality” – Some religions, perhaps, do. But this argument is as persuasive as positing that since politics seems to always divide people, it ought to be jettisoned by those who are more honest and thoughtful. Or, as ridiculous as arguing that since discussions of race almost always generate in heat and division among people, it too ought to be abandoned by those who are more well-meaning.
Sure humans need religion but that’s not a reason to be Christians. Just because we need liquids is not a reason to make people drink horse piss.
“Sure humans need religion but that’s not a reason to be Christians” – I wasn’t arguing for Christianity per se, but refuting the notion that man doesn’t need religion or isn’t religious in nature (however perceived). Comparing Christianity to horse piss is patently unfair and untrue.
Probably the worst article on Counter-Currents I’ve ever read. Yes, we need to make the friend / enemy distinction based on the church attendance of a ridiculous costume religion (and an imported faith at that, from an imperial and debateably asiatic russia), and not based on youknow, race. I don’t know what audience you think you are playing too but your ‘army of christ’ idea has already been trashed by everyone from Savitri Devi to Chuck Paluhniak. It was hard to find the article under all the played out memes, and when I did it was incoherent, first repudiating the church and then deciding it ain’t so bad after all, tying things off with a little ribbon about a fantasy group of orthobro warriors who are ready to storm the barricades – and trust me, I would be on the other side of those barricades, taking careful aim at any uppity jewgod-believers who want to force europeans back under the yoke of a (your?) filthy foreign faith. I can’t believe this nonsense was published given how properly comprehending even a single book from counter-currents would give you a severe case of writers regret and have you desperately emailing for it to be redacted in full. You seem to have gotten lost on your journey to some backwater christblogging site and found yourself up to yourself elbows in religious confusion. Here, buy a copy of My Nationalist Pony – it floats and might save you from drowning in the monotheistic murk yet. If you don’t, well, it’s not like there’s a shortage of memesters with USI who shill to the christian demographic to try and quickly make hay as a writer. Of all the topics you could write about, you chose this one, and did it badly. 0/10 for originality, 2/10 for borrowing a bit about carl schmidtt, 0/10 for misapplying and not properly contextualising it, and ending up shilling for a dead faith.
I know I have but a brief time to live, do I want to live my life being a respecter of lies? No. That would disrespect the miracle of life.
By the way, Christianity was a Flavian hoax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenice_(daughter_of_Herod_Agrippa)
This Jewish Princess is the spouse-in-all-but-name of the Roman Emperor who destroyed the Temple. They created Christianity to pacify a very rebellious province, and it got out of hand.
I agree with you! I have read Joseph Atwell’s books too, but it did not get out of hand, it just changed ownership when Jewish elites replaced Aryan elites. As Joseph Atwell points out in some of his discussions on “Youtube,” “Christianity is long term psychological warfare against the masses.” The Aryan elites cared as little about the Aryan masses as the Jewish elites–the proof being, that they have never supplied us with any racial leadership.
The argument made in this article is frequently made and ultimately useless for changing anything.
Nobody joins a religion to save civilization. A person either converts to a faith or remains in the faith of their birth for personal incentives. Those personal reasons are to gain a favorable position in the afterlife, to find personal comfort in a uncaring world, or for more mundane social considerations.
It may be that the true purpose of religion is to order society, and the spiritual incentives are the pretty lies that were built up over eons to get people to behave properly.
The problem for the author and others on the right is that the science and reason genie is out of the bottle. People do not believe the supernatural claims religion makes, and religion has been unable to hold its ground without the public’s faith in the supernatural.
No claims about “saving civilization” are going to convince individuals to make the massive personal sacrifices that a true Christian faith requires.
The right had better figure out a way to order society without religion, because its not coming back.
But this is actually true in very few places. The majority even of Western peoples do in fact believe in God and some kind of personal immortality, even if they are growing less “churched”. And for sociological reasons, those numbers may rise as the changes brought about by very non/un-Christian liberalism continue to decivilize societies. I think it’s very important for White preservationists to develop Christian pro-White theology – to challenge the racially debased churches from within.
Religion will always appeal to a certain percentage of the population (perhaps more in some countries than in others, depending on historical trajectories and perhaps even interethnic as well as interracial differences in genetic propensity to religiosity). If a majority of those faithists among Whites have been convinced that racial preservation (precisely: the policies necessary to assure White preservation) is evil, that will only retard our cause. Don’t force people to choose between individual and racial salvation; most will choose the former.
“People … always use immigration restrictionist “Christian” countries like Hungary and Poland to illustrate how religion is useful in the context of keeping out migrant hordes and other unwelcome outsiders. However, they conveniently leave out the fact that the Czech Republic (a country which also is notably hostile to third world immigration) is one of the least religious countries in the world. In fact, Prague is one of the most “degenerate” cities in Europe (by prudish, American traditionalist standards anyway.) Young people in Hungary are not very religious at all, so the notion that their religious faith is the magic ingredient for opting to control their borders is pure fantasy. It’s worth also mentioning that China and Japan (unless you count Shinto) have a high percentage of “convinced atheists,” yet seem perfectly able to act in their own national interests.
“So the common denominator here isn’t really religion but rather, an interest in preserving a particular kind of society or way of life. This can mean pretty much any kind of society where the natives believe that the unimpeded admission of openly hostile outsiders would be detrimental to the quality of life of those already living there. A cohesive set of beliefs (mythological, spiritual, material or otherwise) harbored by the majority of people in a particular nation offers little to no intrinsic protective value in and of itself. It matters ultimately what those beliefs actually are and whether they explicitly include a collective belief in the preservation of the preferred form of a particular society’s existence.”
https://altleft.com/2018/04/04/belief-in-protecting-a-particular-society-can-protect-a-particular-society/
Excellent. Also, enjoying your ‘Eldritch Evola’.
Interesting article, but I wouldn’t be too quick to write off the Catholic Church, even though it’s in an absolutely terrible state at the moment (obviously). There’s still a strong “remnant” of true Catholicism to be found in traditionalist groups such as FSSP, SSPX and ICKSP. Plus there’s a thriving Catholic alternative media, e.g. E Michael Jones and Culture Wars magazine, ChurchMilitant.com, Lifesite news, and many other good, non-pozzed Catholic commentators (often to be found on YouTube). So real Catholicism isn’t dead just yet…
Also – I know very little about Orthodoxy but it seems to me that members of the Orthodox Church are very much tied to their specific “national” Church – which is fine if you’re Russian, Greek or Serbian etc, but is it realistic to expect an Anglo, Germanic or Nordic person to join the Orthodox Church? Would they even be welcome? This seems a bit like larping – the Latin (i.e. Catholic) Church is a much better and more natural fit for Western and Northern Europeans (notwithstanding a few unusual cases like Jay Dyer, Matt Heimbach and Matt Parrott – I’m not even sure if the latter two are still Orthodox).
As for the absolute state of the mainline protestants and the zio-evangelicals, they’re absolutely beyond redemption, we can all agree on that. Although the Amish (and maybe the Mennonites as well?) seem to have some redeeming features.
Would they even be welcome?
Yes, they would be welcome. Nobody expects you to convert however, whatever flavor of Christianity you happen to have you’ll be just fine. We have plenty of Orthodox/Catholic/Reformed churches standing right next to each other, and I do not recall any historical animosity about it.
For example, Romania now has a Catholic ethnic German president, and everyone is fine with that. Even Hungarians are very welcome, although they are still pissed off that they lost land to their neighbours after WWI. I’m sure they’ll soften-up after a few beers, and we have plenty of it for everyone.
The resilience of the Orthodox Church should not be ignored, as it is a very important pillar of resistance. It withstood the Ottoman aggression for centuries, and later the blood-thirsty bolsheviks. Forensic analysis on skeletons showed that the priests and monks were still alive when their skull was being sawed in half because they did not yield. This tells me two things: that things can and will eventually get much worse than doxxing; and that when the shit really gets serious I would welcome having some people with that resilience on my side rather than just scared and traitors.
So-called real Catholicism is as racially useless to pro-whites as allegedly “fake” Catholicism. Traditional Christianity may have once been of limited use in preventing a racially unmixed society from becoming mixed. But all forms of Christianity, be they traditional, modern, or post-modern, are utterly useless when it comes to unmixing a mixed society – which is actually the task that lies before us. Whatever reasons there may be for restoring traditional Christianity, aiding white racial interests is not one of them.
The Orthodox Church, like the Roman Catholic Church, is a gross distortion of apostolic, New Testament Christianity. I don’t have the time to develop it now, but the apostles were humble and lowly men, not pontiffs in grand and elaborate robes ruling over their fiefdom. They didn’t get rich off the very people they were supposed to be serving. They were common folks in large measure.
The early church leaders well unto the fourth century were mature (usually elderly men and not young novices with little life-experience), married men who worked for a living and did not live off the charity of their congregations. While missionaries traveling into foreign lands had the right to monetary support, Paul taught local church elders to work with their own hands and to be in a position of giving unto others instead of being on the receiving end. How many pastors or ‘priests’ do you know who actually work for a living, and are quite content doing so?
Pastor, elder, overseer are interchangeably in the New Testament. They were not seen as titles, but as descriptions of how church leaders functioned. Thus, this artificial division between pastor, elder and overseer is nowhere in the apostolic teachings. Moreover, the early church leaders, including the apostles, did not take upon themselves honorific titles (e.g., ‘Reverend,’ ‘His Holiness,’ ‘Pope,’ ‘Doctor-Reverend,’ ‘Priest,’ etc.). They used lowly and unofficial terms to describe themselves (‘brother,’ ‘fellow-laborer,’ ‘fellow-servant,’ etc.).
The apostles made no artificial distinction between ‘clergy’ and ‘laity’ as if there was a separate class of Christians who led and those who followed. Both terms in the Greek are used to denote ALL the people of God. While there are different functions among Christians in the assembly, there is no ‘clergy-laity’ distinction as commonly understood.
Church leadership among the early Christians was PLURAL and not singular. Everywhere Paul and Timothy planted churches, they appointed a plurality of gifted and tested men (not women!). There was no ‘Senior Pastor’ or ‘The Pastor.’ The local church was not dependent on one man alone, but was led, guided, and taught by a plurality men (‘elders’).
Church meetings in the New Testament are NOT spectators events in which an ‘ordained’ pastor or priest conducts ministry on your behalf, but rather the entire meeting is a participating event in which each member is allowed to contribute their gifts and talents for the common good so long as all things are done decently and in order.
The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament was NOT a wafer and a thimble of juice, but a full, entire meal in which everyone contributed. It was a meal that prefigured the future ‘Marriage Supper of the Lamb’ and not necessarily a religious ceremony wrapped up in a cracker and tiny juice cup. The apostle Paul rebuked the Corinthian Christians because they were acting gluttonous and getting drunk which means they were consuming a full-on meal.
I could go on, but it’s amazing how false religious traditions have crept in among almost all Christian denominations. Even among the ‘Reformed’ which have a much better grasp of New Testament soteriology (doctrine of salvation) than the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, there is still a gross misunderstanding of ecclesiology (doctrine and practice of the church). The apostles would be appalled at what masquerades as Christianity these days.
The problem, as I see it, is that most ‘ministers’ and the people who follow them never bother to question or challenge their basic assumptions about how the church is to function. They wrongly assume that their notions of ecclesiology are the apostolic patterns found in the New Testament, and they’re simply not. Most Christians and so-called ‘clergymen’ are ignorant of the many plain verses that contradict their practice. The gloss right over them because in large measure they too are blinded by false traditions that have plagued us since the great Constantinian shift that occurred in the fourth century.
A protestant obviously, and exhibiting the worst of their creed as though it were noble.
While this is too big a subject for me to enter now the Christian faith took all its majestic elements from other faiths and philosophies. Sol Invictus, Orphism, Neo-Platonism, Mithras and so forth. Everything that was great about this religion was brought in from from the Roman and Germanic religions.
The original faith you talk of was the stunted religion of a hateful desert god scheming in Catacombs to overthrow the world. Forgive me if I don’t get on my knees before the petty religious chauvinism of slaves and renegades.
The priest (or hierophant if you will) is a noble function, and should be joined with the more active functions of society if possible.
What it is not is some democratic function that can be dispersed to every Tom, Dick and Harry because they feel an itch they think is God. Should the retard with a good nature be allowed at your gatherings to make an equal statement on metaphysics, theology and divine grace. What would he know of it? What would all the other clods know and be able to contribute to a discussion of such things? He feels something? Can he tell the difference between an itch and God. To talk knowledgeably about God is to be practically coequal with him and the uninitiated of the mass has no business in that.
It is common thought in modern society that hierarchical religions are some con to claim a special privilege over the mass. No. Very few people have the divine connection, and it is through the compassion of these few that the exoteric faiths exist at all: to allow those who could never touch this higher world to partake in it in some way. It is for their benefit. And in doing so the mass is given the necessary rites – they do not decide them.
Your response is a disjointed and convoluted mess. You didn’t refute anything I wrote. Yes, you pontificated in a wordy manner, but you didn’t refute one point I espoused.
Also, the notion that Christianity was dependent upon older religious sources (mostly of pagan or Hellenistic origin) has been refuted many decades. The scholarly works are out there if you’re willing to read a little wider. The so-called ‘similarities’ and claims of ‘dependency’ are discredited once one bothers to examine the subject with greater scrutiny. Like a lot of things in life, they sound good at first until someone who is more assiduous looks into the matter.
I’m also NOT a Protestant. While I agree with the Reformers in some areas, I would oppose them in many other areas (e.g., infant baptism, the wedding of Church and State, etc.). You want to place me in your box, but I and many others don’t quite fit inside of it.
All the special-pleading in the world won’t ever justify the claims of the Greek Orthodox Church nor the Roman Catholic Church. Their leaderships are a sham, and this has repeatedly been demonstrated throughout history. Granted, a good many evangelical and protestant churches are no better, but my point was not to defend them but to show the vast contrast between clear apostolic ministry patterns and the buffoonery that has passed for clerical leadership since the fourth century.
Church councils, synods and popes should be bound to what the Scriptures actually say. They are NOT infallible, and they’re opinion means nothing when they contradict the plain teaching and patterns of the New Testament.
When you write that the ‘democratic function should not be given to every Tom, Dick and Harry,’ it’s obvious that you have grossly misunderstood my words. The entire concept is foreign to you, mostly because you fail to understand the nature of Christianity, the Church, and how it’s to function. This is very common, and it doesn’t surprise me. It’s really the crux of your problem.
Good comments. It’s almost as if these people have never heard of the tower of Babel. Salvation is universal, our fallen nature is universal, but we are distinct people with distinct groups who cannot avoid human conflict when we live together. As Christians we are fully aware of such problems because we live as and among the fallen. Order and Peace cannot be achieved as a huddled mass of foreign people EVEN when they agree that Christ is Lord.
On a similar note, I never felt comfortable in an Orthodox Church because I was surrounded by foreign people. I live in a small forest village, and even here we cannot avoid Balkan workers and Afghan refugees. While the Anglican and Catholic Church in my nation may be a mess, at least I can be among English people and feel comfortable in a tribal familial way. So, while I respect the Orthodox faith and Church, as an Englishman I find it incredibly difficult to take part in their Churches from an identitarian standpoint.
When the army of the Undead is marching in, the coalition of Babel does not seem to be such a bad idea anymore.
Recently there was an obscure, dry and out of nowhere news that the Romanian ambassador in Pakistan is negotiating an agreement to bring over up to half a million Pakistani workers. Out of concern for the companies that have a hard time finding workforce of course, and although the government spends a fortune of debt on assistance for the unemployed. The current socialist government is considered too traditionalist and anti-EU, and most likely the next government will be a coalition of the progressive parties instead, fully aligned with Macron et co.
I was really hoping that something will have to give before the heavy shit reached here, but things are moving really fast and I do not know what to think anymore.
But it’s precisely the good aspects of Christianity that are most objectionable. It is an inversion of true religion that only appeals to the morally inferior through bribery. A Christian cannot be good. A Christian does good because he expects eternal reward or fears eternal damnation. Only the ignoble soul can possible aspire to the Christian heaven. Christianity has been a universalist version of Judaism proselytizing and promoting race mixing since the get go. It is true however that it has always permitted Jews to keep their own cultural identity. In fact it has protected it. Without Christianity Jews would have been long gone and forgotten like phonecians, carthaginians and other uppity middle eastern foes. The first step to becoming a better European is to abandon Christianity as a healthy man gets rid of something putrefact and harmful. Become truly noble.
Is this article some kind of elaborate troll or what?
My gut instinct is to say “yes”, but after spending roughly 7yrs in this scene, its really impossible to tell a well versed troll from a sincere crazy person at this point.
If it is a troll, its very indicative of the types of “based Christians” you find in the alt-right, and Greg Johnson likely green-lighted it for post for that reason. And if its not, I could see Mr. Johnson green-lighting it anyway because it’d achieve much the same affect as in the former instance regardless.
I guess this shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise, it is, after all, the Current Year.
Thank you for the early reference to Jay Dyer as a go-to background resource on Orthodox Christianity. You saved me the trouble of reading a long and unnecessary article.
The current Christian shift to the left proves that religion is both vitally important and utterly useless. Regilion follows politics, never the other way around. It unites, but who it unites and for what reason depends on the time and place. The historical facts are thus: the religious insitutions will always bend to political will, and whatever power a church has is always political in nature. Hence there is nothing godly about the works of these mortal men who are each more fallible than the next, and easily swayed by politics. Political change will not, and has never, come from any church, but always from outside of it.
WNs have as little to gain from convincing the church as it has from convincing women: both will only support us once we have already won.
The Investiture Crisis?
It’s actually very simple. If all the restaurants in your area only serve tofu go to the meat market and chose your own steaks. Or learn to love tofu.
Whenever I read comments from dissident rightists on religion, it disappoints me how terribly totalitarian many of their mentalities seem. While it is obviously the case that churches should be discouraged from teaching values that undermine society, it seems like many of the commentors here would be more than happy to resurrect the pseudo “racial religions” of the Nazis. There is a certain type of autism prevalent in radicals and reactionaries alike that gives them the desire to make all aspects of human life subservient to politics or to view all aspects of human life as arising from the political.
Orthodox Christianity in America is very left-wing. I don’t think anyone should join “just because” the Protestant and Catholic churches are a mess. They all are.
The Orthodox excommunicated Matt Parrot for his pro-white beliefs and proudly point to the photo of Archbishop Iakobos and MLK Jr glaring down at the stupid, hateful whites. Meanwhile, Frankie Schaeffer writes books glorifying statutory rape, tells everyone he is an atheist who doesn’t believe in Jesus and wants to take the Bible away from the protestants, and Bishop Kallistos Ware tells everyone fag marriage is OK. Scores of Orthodox are pro-baby murd- I mean, abortion. The Orthodox church does nothing in these cases. Violate the very tradition you claim to uphold? No problem! Want for Whites the same thing blacks, jews, etc have for themselves? Get out phyletist!
In my search for “real” Christianity I think the most disappointing thing has been finding out that the Church is led by the culture, rather than the other way around, or standing apart from it. The Orthodox Church, led as it always has been by whatever the state wants, is an excellent picture of this. When countries are monoethnic and there is no controversy, the church is fine with it. When society crumbles under multi-kult nuttery and ruins any Whites who speak out, hey, the church is fine with that too.
If we want to change Christianity, and we should, we have to change the culture first.
“Madden” at points below poses fair objections, but not insoluble ones (though they do point to what I have long believed are THE fundamental intellectual – as opposed to physical/military – issues wrt White survival).
From an ethical standpoint, the question is, what forms of communal resistance are morally allowable (for present purposes, within the Christian {Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant} tradition of moral theology) to an historically discrete and long-established people who have been invaded and colonized by aliens INVITED by witting (or unwitting, confused) ethnotraitors in past leadership positions? IOWS, how can mixed societies be unmixed – and is such unmixture ethically supportable by Christians consumed with “the hope of heaven”?
I think the answer is, “it depends”. WRT Europe, I think the answer is “absolutely”! The nations of Europe, understood ethnically and culturally, not necessarily politically or juridically, are ancient entities, the communal property of others’. The alien invaders should have known that they were imposing themselves onto alien cultures where they did not belong, where their very presence is an existential act of aggression against the host people. Given that the immigrants did not invade militarily, no Christian has the moral license simply to kill them (like the NZ mosque shooter last month). But they can be asked to “vacate the premises”, to “go back to their homeland”. Why not? If I’m invited into someone’s home, that person always retains the moral right to ask me to leave. If he does, I have a duty to vacate (perhaps not that instant, but in a timely manner). If I do agree to leave, the host has no right to harm me (by, eg, physically throwing me out of a second floor window). But if I refuse to leave, then force may justly be used to remove me.
At best, immigrants have a right to be treated as temporary “sojourners”, as persons living in another people’s territory at the latter’s sufferance, and on the permanent understanding that eventually they will be expected to leave. If they are asked to return to their homelands; are allowed to do so unmolested; and proceed violently to resist their expatriation, THEN any good Christian can countenance their violent suppression and forced removal. But I believe they must be first given a chance to leave peacefully (which is also the wisest course all around). [I don’t actually think the alien colonizers ever will leave peacefully; but they must first be given that option before indigenous Christian Europatriots can ethically “open fire”.]
The issue wrt America/Canada and Australia/NZ (and in fairness, South Africa) is much more complicated ethically. These territories all had earlier nonwhite inhabitants, yet it was Whites alone who founded, as well as 99%+ built, these modern nations. My belief has always been that Whites were morally allowed to legislate pro-White immigration/naturalization policies – and that of course we should have done so permanently. But we did not. Can it be said that Whites have permanent moral ownership of America in the way they do of England, Spain or Sweden? Here’s where my inner Christian/liberal might still lurk. I don’t think so. We can round up and expel the illegal aliens (and that would rid us of around 30 MILLION nonwhite colonizers). But can we demand that post-1965 immigrant colonizers leave or be expelled? I just don’t see how (from a Christian standpoint).
What we do have moral license to do, however, is to demand the nation’s reasonable racial partition. White Americans (and Canadians, etc) have a right to an ethnostate. One issue that has long plagued me is: what about the rights of all those Americans who did NOT want “diversity”? Why is it that just because part of the White population wanted tens of millions of immigrant colonizers, who have utterly transformed our ancestral homeland (that MY ancestors, not Mexicans or Asians or Muslims, sacrificed to build) beyond racial recognition, allowed into the country, all those millions of us whose ancestors did NOT want these nonwhite immigrants, and who today retroactively did not want our ancestors’ generations to have allowed this, must simply tolerate this new, “diverse” America forever and forever? “Oh well, our ancestors were either jerks or outvoted by jerks, therefore we must, to be good Christians, allow the unique White ethnonation of “America” to be erased from the world.” Really? Why? How is that ethically mandated?
How exactly the ethnostate can be instantiated is complex, even morally. But I think civilized people of goodwill can work out separatist mechanisms to minimize pain and dislocation. Of course, there will be some hardship. Right now, ALL the hardship is borne by those of us who did NOT want the demographic status quo ex ante artificially changed via mass immigration. Thus, it is not unreasonable for even Christians to demand that others now bear some of the hardship caused by this evil past (but still ongoing …) policy.
Of course, the REAL issue is one of intergenerational ethics: does one generation have a moral right to irrevocably change/destroy what was grown or built up over long past periods? I don’t think so. But because America was a frontier society until much more recently than any European nation, and because there have always been nonwhites occupying the North American landmass, I think our moral position in responding to this immigration invasion is much weaker than that of our European cousins. Racial cleansing for them, racial partition for us. Does that not seem fair to any Christian?
My relationship with the divine has absolutely no bearing on my political stance. Had I been Muslim, Pagan or even Evangelical Protestant, and it would not alter my political/worldly beliefs whatsoever. I’m a strong believer in evolution and biological science (and as a consequence, race) because none of the subjects they deal with contradict to claims about the supernatural that I hold to be true. The idea that you necessarily must tie your worldly identity or opinions with your spiritual life is thoroughly misguided in my opinion. Study of history led me to notice that the doubts and criticisms leveled at Christianity don’t automatically except Greco-Roman or Celto-Germanic traditional religions from equal or even greater problems. If anything the strict Christian dogma proved to be more overall resistant to the pressure of history than the various pagan doctrines whose belief tenets tended to ebb and flow depending on the fickle fortunes of whatever ethnic group tended to predominate at the time. Pagan religions existed in an environment of tribalism, but they neither were its causal source nor its fountain of nourishment.
This is because the spirit and the body are fundamentally distinct in nature. The body is the constituent of material cells and atoms, subject to the laws of evolution and historical development – humanity seems to have forgotten this interminable fact, at least in the social sphere. But the spirit deals with the inner state of mind, the quality of personhood, the compass of morals and so on. No amount of biological or genetic argument can provide a hard cause to how an individual lives his life or the moral choices he makes. In Ancient India it was believed that a Brahman was no better than a Shudra until he underwent a rigorous phase of intellectual and spiritual study that culminated with initiation into the caste – a spiritual rather than genetic transformation. We might reject this today as absurd and impossible, but we can’t deny that THIS is the distinction that people held in the past, especially more strongly so in the pre-Christian world.
This is why religion, upon reaching a degree of commonality among a cultural sphere, has to essentially take on an encompassing character – in other words it can’t help but be universal by nature. Qualities are after all unique and common, whereas causes and many and varied. There are many types of apples, but the quality that renders them tasteful is one. In principle the only difference between Paganism and Christianity to me quite simply lies in size. Whereas Paganism loosely tied together what was essentially a disparate set of tribal and sometimes even FAMILIAL beliefs, typically by means of a distinctly shared heritage and language origin of whose is lost in the annals of time, Christianity on the other hand was a clearly defined set of universal doctrines that were in essence identical regardless of what nation or race professed them. The more universal and stronger held these commonalities became, the more certain elements of it came to predominate – which is evidenced in the shift from the physicality of being toward metaphysics. My response to people who say that “Christianity is totally against racism” or “Christianity endorses ethnic nationalism”, is essentially the same – whichever of these is professed to be true by a particular group, doesn’t change the content of the doctrine of the faith in the slightest, any more so that professing this faith would change the material composition of its subject.
This is why I believe in a deterministic origin of Christian belief from previous faiths as representing an unbroken continual causal chain that previous traditions led to rather than some sort of aberration imposed from the outside. Religions aren’t just things invented in human heads for convenience, nor are they simply political ideologies elevated into the supernatural plane by whoever tends to hold power. If we believe this truly to be the case, then the question of the future religion of Europe should not bother us – this would simply grant cause for the deification of the future political authority. For all their iconoclasm we can’t fault godless Leftists for worshiping either their leaders or their moral depravity with a far greater fanaticism than they mocked traditional believers for ever having.
Nor could the political or ethnographic failure of a religion to produce desirable worldly results denigrate the value of its faith system. Even the best man can do nothing wrong and yet still be defeated, whereas a worthless moron and a scoundrel can advance far enough so as to leave a “great” historical legacy behind. If we truly believed that truth belongs to whoever succeeds in seizing power, we might just as well throw our lot in with the current year mentality and all its associated brackets. Again, this is something a lot of people fail to understand. The Roman and Greek religions were also degraded and decadent beyond all recognition by the time the first Christians set foot in Rome and yet we (and yes, this honestly includes myself) never stop upholding at least some of their aspects as exemplary. The Nordic religions on the other hand were apparently given form and distinct character by wandering skalds and bards, who shaped disparate animistic traditions and ancient apocryphal tales into a system of beliefs and values about the world in a way uniquely formative to the character of the Germanic peoples even in a subtle way up to the present time. The fact that this was later cast off and supplanted by Christianity with seeming ease doesn’t answer us who dogmatically speaking, upheld the truer faith, either from a Christian nor Pagan perspective. Even Christ himself noted that a pagan Centurion had shown greater fidelity than he observed from the sons of Israel.
To add to my previous message in case certain misunderstandings may arise from my stated position – I don’t need, and never will see a need to adopt a specifically RACIAL religion. The fact that somebody upholds a universalizing belief and ethics, doesn’t preclude him for earnestly desiring to participate in the nationhood strongly grounded in ethnic identity. The fact that for example, Christianity at its core upholds the universal dignity of each human being, regardless of caste, color or class, doesn’t present the least obstacle to recognizing the incontrovertible differences that arise in each group and corresponding demands for action on behalf of socially formative policy. Matthew Raphael Johnston made the case for this very clearly in terms of a Orthodox Christian doctrinal standpoint, which certainly pours cold water on all those claims that they promote race mixing and the like. That you are perfectly justified in denying entry to an unwanted “guest” desiring to eat your food and live in your home unbidden and indefinite, applies to societies no less than to individual households.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment