Counter-Currents
Kevin MacDonald’s Preface to Giles Corey’s The Sword of Christ
Kevin MacDonald
Giovanni Gasparro, The Martyrdom of St. Simon of Trento, 2020.
4,151 words
Note: Giles Corey’s new book, The Sword of Christ, may be purchased here. Get it before it’s banned!
Giles Corey has written a book that should be read by all Christians as well as white advocates of all theoretical perspectives, including especially those who are seeking a spiritual foundation that is deeply embedded in the history and culture of Europeans. This is excellent scholarship combined with a very fluid writing style. He has thought deeply about all the issues confronting the peoples and cultures of the West.
Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted. Mainline Protestant and Catholic churches have become little more than appendages for the various social justice movements of the Left, avidly promoting the colonization of the West by other races and cultures, even as religious fervor and attendance dwindle and Christianity itself becomes ever more irrelevant to the national dialogue. On the other hand, Evangelicals, a group that remains vigorously Christian, have been massively duped by the theology of Christian Zionism, their main focus being to promote Israel.
Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well. One need only think of the long history of Christians battling to prevent Muslims from establishing a caliphate throughout the West — Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Reconquista, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.
Much of my scholarly interest has been to attempt to understand the people and culture of the West, resulting in my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future. As I argue there, individualism lends itself to moral and ethical universalism which led to the religiously based eradication of slavery long before the rise of an elite hostile to Christianity itself. And white intellectuals in the nineteenth century attempting to understand their own moral universalism often attributed it to their racial origins.
Such individualism was not disastrously self-destructive. As Corey notes, “Christian universalism historically posed little to no danger to white survival because it was preached by whites living in a world ruled by whites; it was only in the multicultural Egalitarian Regime inseminated in the mid-twentieth century that Christian sacrifice was transformed into a call for racial suicide.” The individualist, Christian West was thus highly adaptive — until the rise of a hostile, Jewish-dominated elite bent on corrupting adaptive forms of Christian individualism in favor of a completely deracinated individualism, now accompanied by powerful religious, media, and academic voices preaching white guilt, often from a Christian perspective.
Instead, Corey advocates a revitalization of Medieval Germanic Christianity based on, in the words of Samuel Francis, “social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice.” This medieval Christianity preserved the aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture of the Germanic tribes. This was an adaptive Christianity, a Christianity that was compatible with Western expansion, to the point that by the end of the nineteenth century, the West dominated the planet. Christianity per se is certainly not the problem.
The decline of adaptive Christianity coincides with the post-Enlightenment rise of the Jews throughout the West as an anti-Christian elite, and Corey has a great deal of very interesting material on traditional Christian views of Judaism. Traditional Christian theology viewed the Church as having superseded the Old Testament and that, by rejecting the Church, the Jews had not only rejected God, they were responsible for murdering Christ. My view, developed in Chapter 3 of Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism is that traditional Christian theology was fundamentally anti-Jewish and was developed as a weapon which was used to lessen Jewish economic and political power in the Roman Empire. Here Corey describes the writings of the fourth-century figure, St. John Chrysostom, who has a chapel dedicated to him inside St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome as well as a statue outside the building. His writings on Jews are nothing less than scathing and reflect long-term tensions between Jews and Greeks in Antioch. And Chrysostom was far from alone in his hatred. For example, St. Gregory of Nyssa, also writing in the fourth century: “ [Jews are] murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels against God, God haters, . . . advocates of the devil, race of vipers, slanderers, calumniators, dark-minded people, leaven of the Pharisees, sanhedrin of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners, and haters of righteousness.” The traditional Church was certainly far from friendly toward Jews.
And although Protestantism was generally far more amenable to Jewish interests even before its current malaise, there certainly are exceptions. Here Corey emphasizes Martin Luther’s writings on Jews. Luther emphasizes Jewish hatred toward Christianity and their sense of superiority vis-à-vis Christians, seeing the latter as “not human; in fact, we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by them.” But he is also concerned about Jewish economic exploitation and domination of Germans via usury — certainly the biggest complaint about Jews in traditional Europe. And he is repulsed by Talmudic ethics which promote very different moral codes for Jews and non-Jews.
However, much has changed since the origins of Christianity. In the contemporary United States, Christian Zionism has had a very large influence on Evangelical Protestantism whose theology departs radically from traditional Christianity, particularly with respect to the Jews. Corey has an excellent section on how Jews helped shape this new theology; it should be required reading for Christian Zionists because it would open their eyes to the sordid history of the movement. The result of such thinking is that Zionism has often become a vehicle of moral idealism in the minds of a great many gentiles, from Lloyd George to the present, who believe that the restoration of Israel is far more important than the fate of their own people.
Jews have not stood by idly on this but have actively supported the Christian Zionism movement. I noted in a 2010 article on the delusional Pastor John Hagee:
Beginning in 1978, the Likud Party in Israel has taken the lead in organizing this force for Israel, and they have been joined by the neocons. For example, in 2002 the Israeli embassy organized a prayer breakfast with the major Christian Zionists. The main organizations are the Unity Coalition for Israel which is run by Esther Levens and Christians United for Israel, run by David Brog. The Unity Coalition for Israel consists of ~200 Christian and Jewish organizations and has strong connections to neocon think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy, headed by Frank Gaffney, pro-Israel activist organizations the Zionist Organization of America, the Likud Party and the Israeli government. This organization claims to provide material for 1,700 religious radio stations, 245 Christian TV stations, and 120 Christian newspapers. [1]
Corey notes that Hagee’s organization, A Night to Honor Israel, has donated over $100 million to Right-wing causes in Israel over the years. He has been well rewarded financially for his efforts and is the recipient of numerous awards from Zionist organizations.
Christian Zionism is a fitting reminder of how humans, unlike animals, can be motivated by ideas, including ideas that are completely unrelated to believers’ real interests. These ideas may be disseminated by people who are only doing so for selfish reasons, such as the dishonorable Cyrus Scofield, whose annotated Bible has become central to Christian Zionism. Maladaptive ideas may also be disseminated by people who are utterly opposed to the legitimate interests of believers or even hate Christianity and the West in general. Here Corey discusses the role of Felix Untermeyer, a wealthy Jew, in promoting Scofield and his Bible. It was a religious ideology “with a new worship icon — the modern state of Israel,” and Corey does an excellent job showing how Christian Zionism is a radical departure from traditional Christian theology. I found the following passage quite stunning:
The heresy of Christian Zionism, using an arbitrary and self-contradictory literalist and futurist hermeneutic, contends that the Jews remain God’s chosen people, separate from and superior to the Church; indeed, they believe that earthly Jewish Israel will replace the Church, and that as such, “Christians, and indeed whole nations, will be blessed through their association with, and support of, Israel.”
Although Christian Zionism is far less influential than the Israel Lobby in furthering Jewish interests in the United States, it has certainly had some influence and creates a ready-made cheering section for wars in the Middle East on behalf of Israel. After all, other attitudes typical of Christian Zionists, such as opposition to abortion or pornography, have had much less traction with the current Left-oriented establishment despite their powerful commitment to the state of Israel.
Religious thinking is by its nature unbounded — it is infinitely malleable. It is a dangerous sword that can be used to further legitimate interests of believers, or it can become a lethal weapon whereby believers adopt attitudes that are obviously maladaptive. One need only think of religiously based suicide cults, such as People’s Temple (Jonestown), Solar Temple, and Heaven’s Gate. Mainstream Christianity from traditional Catholicism to mainstream Protestantism was fundamentally adaptive in terms of creating a healthy family life. It was compatible with a culture characterized by extraordinary scientific and technological creativity and standards of living that have been much envied by the rest of the world.
Corey has great material on Jewish perceptions of Christianity in the Talmud and on negative Jewish influences on culture in the present West, including pornography and the sexual revolution generally. As is so often the case with Jewish activism, the pornography movement has been motivated not solely by money but by hatred toward Christian morality and Christian family functioning. The results have been devastating: huge increases since the 1960s — the breakthrough decade of Jewish power — in all the markers of family dysfunction and poor child outcomes: lower marriage rates, higher births out of wedlock, higher rates of teenage pregnancy, precocious sexuality, high divorce rates, and unstable pair bonds. In other words, the Western family pattern of monogamous nuclear families based on strong husband-wife pair bonds has been under attack from Jewish dominated movements, the most noteworthy of which was psychoanalysis promising an idyllic future if only people would jettison traditional Christian constraints on sexuality. These negative trends in family functioning have been most pronounced among the lower social classes and thus have much less effect on high-IQ middle- and upper-income groups, including Jews as a relatively high-IQ group. The disaster in family patterns has fallen far more severely on the white working class.
Corey has an extended treatment of the corrosive effects of pornography, now extended to child pornography and legalized pedophilia as the “final frontier” in the sexual revolution. As in other areas, this starts out by advocating language that makes the activity more or less acceptable depending on the interests of advocates. In the case of pedophilia, the first step is to label them “minor-attracted persons,” whereas in the area of free speech, we find labels like “hate speech” — even for speech that is reasonable and fact-based. If issues related to free speech are any guide, there will soon be articles in law journals arguing that pedophilia is normal and should not be punished, and eventually, courts will begin to adopt this logic in particular cases. Already Supreme Court justices like Elena Kagan have signaled a willingness to curtail speech on diversity issues, [2] and this would be joined by the other liberals, which would mean that curtailing free speech on race is at most one Supreme Court appointment away. And when that happens, it won’t be long before it is embraced by conservatives. As Corey notes in the case of pedophilia, “We are presumably one Supreme Court ruling away from the National Review cocktail ‘conservative’ crowd celebrating pederasty as the next great achievement of individual liberty.”
Given the exhaustive summary of the negative effects of pornography — including neurological impairments related to impulsivity and lessened interest in familial relationships of love and nurturance — it is horrifying indeed that “sixty percent of boys and thirty percent of girls were exposed to pornography in early adolescence, including ‘bondage, rape, and child pornography’, and another which concludes that children under ten years old now account for over twenty percent of online pornographic consumption.” This definitely was not happening when I was growing up in the 1950s, prior to the deluge. I agree with Corey’s conclusion, “We have conclusively established that Jewish leadership and participation was instrumental in and a necessary condition of the pornographic war that has struck at the most sacred foundation of the West, the family.” As Freud famously said, “we are bringing them the plague.”
Corey has an excellent and exhaustive section on Jewish ritual murder — an absolutely convincing presentation on a topic that, like so much of Jewish history, is a minefield for serious scholars. As he notes, “There are . . . hundreds of accusations and cases of Jewish ritual murder, each just as sadistically depraved as the last, involving barrels of nails, crucifixion, decapitation, spit-roasting, stoning, and a litany of other barbaric evils; we could fill entire volumes with the accounts of each of these innocent lives so cruelly taken from this world.”
This is a topic that I have never written about, although I was somewhat familiar with Blood Passover, Ariel Toaff’s book on the topic. As to be expected, Toaff’s book was condemned by the activist Jewish community and he was pressured into publishing an apology, promising to prevent distribution of his book, etc. However, we should not be surprised to find that such practices occurred. Ritual murder is an extreme manifestation of normative Jewish hostility toward the surrounding society which is an important facet of the entire subject. The eighteenth-century English historian Edward Gibbon was struck by the fanatical hatred of Jews in the ancient world:
From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind. [3]
The nineteenth-century Spanish historian José Amador de los Rios wrote of the Spanish Jews who assisted the Muslim conquest of Spain that “without any love for the soil where they lived, without any of those affections that ennoble a people, and finally without sentiments of generosity, they aspired only to feed their avarice and to accomplish the ruin of the Goths; taking the opportunity to manifest their rancor, and boasting of the hatreds that they had hoarded up so many centuries.” [4]
As I noted in an article titled “Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the Soviet Union,” “Hatred toward the peoples and cultures of non-Jews and the image of enslaved ancestors as victims of anti-Semitism have been the Jewish norm throughout history — much commented on, from Tacitus (“they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies”) [5] to the present.” [6] Toaff brings out the revenge motive: “In their collective mentality, the Passover Seder had long since transformed itself into a celebration in which the wish for the forthcoming redemption of the people of Israel moved from aspiration to revenge, and then to cursing their Christian persecutors, the current heirs to the wicked Pharaoh of Egypt.”
Hatred and revenge were clearly on display in the early decades of the Soviet Union, a period in which around 20 million people were murdered. From “Stalin’s Willing Executioners,” a review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century:
There can be little doubt that Lenin’s contempt for “the thick-skulled, boorish, inert, and bearishly savage Russian or Ukrainian peasant” was shared by the vast majority of shtetl Jews prior to the Revolution and after it. Those Jews who defiled the holy places of traditional Russian culture and published anti-Christian periodicals doubtless reveled in their tasks for entirely Jewish reasons, and, as Gorky worried, their activities not unreasonably stoked the anti-Semitism of the period. Given the anti-Christian attitudes of traditional shtetl Jews, it is very difficult to believe that the Jews engaged in campaigns against Christianity did not have a sense of revenge against the old culture that they held in such contempt. . . .
Slezkine seems comfortable with revenge as a Jewish motive, but he does not consider traditional Jewish culture itself to be a contributor to Jewish attitudes toward traditional Russia, even though he notes that a very traditional part of Jewish culture was to despise the Russians and their culture. (Even the Jewish literati despised all of traditional Russian culture, apart from Pushkin and a few literary icons.) Indeed, one wonders what would motivate the Jewish commissars to revenge apart from motives related to their Jewish identity. . . .
Slezkine’s argument that Jews were critically involved in destroying traditional Russian institutions, liquidating Russian nationalists, murdering the tsar and his family, dispossessing and murdering the kulaks, and destroying the Orthodox Church has been made by many other writers over the years. . . .
The situation prompts reflection on what might have happened in the United States had American Communists and their sympathizers assumed power. The “red diaper babies” came from Jewish families which “around the breakfast table, day after day, in Scarsdale, Newton, Great Neck, and Beverly Hills have discussed what an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society the United States is.” [7] . . . It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union — the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” And as Elliott Abrams notes, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”
As the quote from neocon Elliott Abrams — and much else — indicate, this fear and loathing continues into the present. Consistent with what we know of the psychology of ethnocentrism, a fundamental motivation of Jewish intellectuals and activists involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of the non-Jewish power structure perceived as anti-Jewish and deeply immoral — Susan Sontag’s “the white race is the cancer of human history,” which was published in Partisan Review, a prominent literary journal associated with the New York Intellectuals (a Jewish intellectual movement), is emblematic.
As I write this in the summer of 2020, we are experiencing what feels like the end game in the Jewish conquest of white America. Because Jews have become a hostile elite with a powerful position in the media and educational system, Jewish attitudes in the 1950s that the U.S. is an “awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society” are now entirely mainstream and the cancel culture that we see now is indeed directed most of all toward white red-state voters, particularly in the South. Cancel culture started with toppling Confederate monuments, but of course it didn’t stop there, so now statues of the Founding Fathers are being destroyed and there are demands that statues dedicated to Christian religious figures be removed. Jews in particular have demanded the removal of a statue of King Louis IX of France because of his attempt to curb Jewish moneylending in the interests of his people.
This hatred won’t end if and when whites become a minority. Jews were responsible for the 1965 immigration law that opened up the United States to immigration from all over the world, and they have energetically worked to make alliances with these immigrant groups who are encouraged to hate white America and often adopt anti-white rhetoric almost as soon as they arrive because they can see the political advantages of doing so.
This won’t end well. As I concluded in my recent gook, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:
I agree with Enoch Powell: “as I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’” [8] All the utopias dreamed up by the Left inevitably lead to bloodshed — because they conflict with human nature. The classical Marxist Utopian vision of a classless society in the USSR self-destructed, but only after murdering millions of its own people. Now the multicultural utopian version that has become dominant throughout the West is showing signs of producing intense opposition and irreconcilable polarization.
Given the very large Jewish involvement in these projects consequent to the Jewish rise to elite status throughout the West, the big picture is that the thrust of Jewish power has been to create societies envisioned as being good for Jews, inevitably advertised in idealistic, morally uplifting, humanitarian terms [to appeal to the evolutionary psychology of individualism where social ties are based on belong to moral communities rather than communities based on kinship ties]. Historically, such projects have typically not ended well and have resulted in massive social upheavals. It would thus not be surprising if current social divisions result in a movement characterized by anti-Jewish overtones. . . .
All of the measures of white representation in the forces of social control will continue to decline in the coming years given the continued deterioration of the demographic situation. At this point, even stopping immigration completely and deporting illegals would not be enough to preserve a white America long term.
The Left and its big business allies have created a monster. Whites have to realize that if they do nothing, they will be increasingly victimized and vilified in the coming decades as the monster continues to gain power. Better that any blood be shed sooner rather than later.
What happened in the early decades of the Soviet Union is a chilling reminder of what can happen when an alien hostile elite seizes control of a country.
I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity — the aspects that produced Western expansion, innovation, discovery, individual freedom, economic prosperity, and strong family bonds. A Christianity that is adaptive in the evolutionary sense of survival and reproduction and fundamentally cognizant of the mistakes of the past.
We must not tolerate subversion. Liberalism must go; we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the Enlightenment. We cannot afford to countenance any further anti-American, anti-family, anti-white speech, and this should be reflected in a new Constitution. Just as conservatism was not enough, the United States Constitution was not enough, with gaps that left it gaping wide for judicial “interpretation.” For another thing, we must circle the wagons and inculcate the Männerbund, restraining our individualism at least for the time being. For another, we must return to our Lord and Savior. A nation without faith can have no guiding light, no purpose, no drive, no Mission. Izaak Walton, writing of his friend John Donne’s last days, described the body “which was once a temple of the Holy Ghost and is now become a small quantity of Christian dust.” His last line: “But I shall see it reanimated.”
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Notes
[1] Kevin MacDonald, “Christian Zionism,” The Occidental Observer (March 12, 2010).
[2] Kevin MacDonald, “Elena Kagan: Jewish Ethnic Networking Eases the Path of a Liberal/Leftist to the Supreme Court, The Occidental Observer (May 20, 2009).
[3] Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol.1, ed. J. B. Bury (London: Methuen, 1909), 78.
[4] Quoted in W. T. Walsh, Isabella of Spain: The Last Crusader (New York: Robert M. McBride, 1930), 196.
[5] Tacitus, The History 5, 4, 659.
[6] Kevin MacDonald, “Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR.” Review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. The Occidental Quarterly, 5 (3), 65–100, 93–94.
[7] This quote comes from Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, Chapter 3.
[8] “Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ Speech,” The Telegraph (November 6, 2007).
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
56 comments
I’ve often thought that this wonderfully inspiring video from South Africa was the perfect response to those who claim that Christianity has no role in helping us move forward.
It is called the Battle of Blood River and a warning to anyone who watches it – if you have tears in your heart be prepared to shed them now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYYMzrHMXi4
Thank you for this. This is the first time I have seen Afrikaner culture.
If you had to recommend one book on SA for a White Nationalist who knows very title about it, what would it be?
> “In return for God’s help in obtaining victory, they promised to build a church and forever honour this day as a holy day of God. They vowed that they and their descendants would keep the day as a holy Sabbath. During the battle a group of about 470 Voortrekkers defeated a force of about 20,000 Zulu.”
A fascinating story from 1838, thanks! Still, all I see here is the abject failure of the Christians.
1. The Germanics of South Africa failed to exterminate the entire native non-White population in South Africa and Rhodesia, while having an ample chance to do so over the decades.
2. The Germanics of South Africa failed to wage war on the USA, Israel and the USSR in the 1990s, while having 6 nuclear bombs at the ready – they could have reached both Rome and Jerusalem, as I calculated on my blog.
https://aduunaai.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/anno-hitleri-100-the-final-maddening-relapse-of-christianity-in-south-africa/
The words of that prayer mentioning a foreign god and Sabbath only invoke confusion in me.
This song from the DPR of Korea, however, truly exemplifies the kshatriya ideals the Aryan race once possessed.
If the aggressors pounce on us – We’ll annihilate them bravely – With the Marshall’s orders in our hearts – We’ll take up arms to smash the enemy – However precious peace is – We’ll never beg for it – Peace is on our Bayonet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_GSQZRw0iA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v6HeiEaMGc
The Medieval Germanic Christianity worked because the laity couldn’t read Latin and thus never got the poison pills actually contained in the Bible preaching peace, idealization of the victim, universality, etc. As well argued in book The Germanicization of Early Medieval Christianity by James Russell, this religion worked because it was so poorly catechized due to the collapse of the church’s institutional reach after converting the Germanic tribes and many of the mores and ideals of the pre-christian Germanic religion remained with a Christian veneer.
Unless you plan on inventing a method to erase the translations of the Bible into vulgar tongues from the world and human memory, that gong cannot be unrung.
The Medieval Germanic Christianity worked because the laity couldn’t read Latin and thus never got the poison pills actually contained in the Bible preaching peace, idealization of the victim, universality, etc.
Peace is preferable to war; genuine victims are morally superior to their abusers; and goodwill towards the whole world is an worthy ideal.
I suspect Medieval Germans were perfectly capable of understanding Christian morality, yet sensible enough not to take it to comical extremes. Politically correct modern Christians are as well. They act as they do not because they sincerely believe their religion demands self-abasement (they know perfectly well it doesn’t), but because they want status in a society that rewards it (for Whites only).
Halfvard,
According to Nietzsche, the preoccupation with the victim begun with Judaism and thereby passed into Christianity. And this logic–this concern for the marginalized, the powerless, etc.–is still being worked out today, e.g., concerns over transphobia, homophobia, etc. More generally, democracy, communism, feminism, intersectionalism–in a word, value systems predicated on ressentiment–are all implicit in Christianity; it just took two millennia for the logic to reach its end. Even the Protestant Reformation was a democratizing force: inter alia, it put the Holy Writ in the hands of the laity, as you said.
Russell’s book sounds interesting. I’ll have to give it a read.
Nonsense. There is nothing in Christianity that leads to the conclusions you claim for it, at least if deploying proper theological interpretive methods. The Bible is a big book. You can find pretty much whatever you want in it, if you are vulgar.
Lord Shang,
Certainly, the Bible is a library of books and therefore has many, oftentimes contradictory, messages, but a concern for the victim is a predominate theme spanning from the Mosaic law to the Sermon on the Mount. As for the proper interpretive framework, you’ll have to remind me which denomination has established it?
And the notion that Marxism, feminism, etc. trace their genealogy through Christianity isn’t a position unique to Nietzsche; Tom Holland comes to the same conclusion in his Dominion: How Christianity Remade the World. It takes some exegetical gymnastics to show why Christianity isn’t a firm theological foundation for, say, The New Colossus.
That isn’t true, either. The primary (worldly) Christian concern is with aiding the unfortunate (the true primary concern is with saving souls by bringing the Gospel to heathens). This has nothing to do with bizarre modern “victim” categories (regardless of what Nietzsche said – about this or anything else; he’s not some divine oracular authority I need accept).
“And this logic–this concern for the marginalized, the powerless, etc.–is still being worked out today, e.g., concerns over transphobia, homophobia, etc. More generally, democracy, communism, feminism, intersectionalism–in a word, value systems predicated on ressentiment–are all implicit in Christianity; it just took two millennia for the logic to reach its end.”
I don’t know what “ressentiment” means (“resentment of one’s betters?”). But this sentence is complete rubbish. Christ’s concern for the poor widow or the crippled man or the crime victim has NOTHING to do with legitimating ‘transsexuals’, exculpating Negro criminality, “empowering” women so they can evade their natural duties, or pushing socialism – the ideology of the mortal sin of envy. Democracy, intersectionalism, etc, are not remotely “implicit” in classical Christianity, your understanding of which is like that of New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens (smart men, but theologically very shallow).
Many churches have been very strong theologically, esp the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics (I know little about the Eastern Orthodox). The hardcore Presbyterians, too. You will find nothing in Aquinas, Luther, Cornelius van Til, that corresponds to [lol!] “intersectionality”. The entirety of the Left is predicated in fact on violations of Christian doctrine and morality. If Tom Holland (I don’t take my guidance from him, either, but just to play along …) avers that Christianity is the taproot of all these leftist ideologies, then he’s a moron (or liberal propagandist). I suspect, however, that what he either said or must have meant was that these modern left/liberal ideologies usually arise from various Christian HERESIES. That I can well accept.
Also, let’s be clear: real victims and liberal “victims” are entirely separate categories. Liberal “victims” are usually those at war with some aspect of Christian doctrine.
Christianity is NOT “liberalism plus God”. And liberalism is NOT “Christianity minus God” (even if liberalism probably could not have arisen except our of a prior series of heretical revolts against orthodox Christian doctrine).
A fine, forthright comment. Very sound indeed.
A question for you: Is it possible to care about justice without having a “preoccupation with the victim”? Does the very concept of justice not imply the existence of victims who have suffered wrongs that should be made right? If so, does the Mad Syphilitic’s critique of Christianity not amount to a dismissal of the very concept of justice? On what basis, then, do Whites object to the injustice of dispossession?
As KMac has said, a sense of collective grievance mobilizes people. Indeed, the Austrian Ubermensch himself appealed to it. One might argue that his appeal was to kinship and honor rather than grievance as such, but then what are we really arguing about if it all comes to the same thing?
Our numbers are few enough as it is. White nationalism is a microcosm of the White race as a whole: constantly at each other’s throats over this or that, unable to unify even in a time of grave existential peril.
Lexi,
Those are good questions. I don’t know the answer to them. I suppose the Syphilitic would observe that to pose such as question–how, then, do we defend the victim?–is a question being asked from within the Christian (read: slave) paradigm of morality. Not that I would say that, but he might. But really, I just enjoy his polemical prose; I haven’t decided what I think of his Geneology of Morals yet, other than the fact that it’s well written. I suspect that his thesis is one too radical for people to accept, which seems to be your point.
I suspect that his thesis is one too radical for people to accept, which seems to be your point.
I dislike radicalism in general. It rests on a form of fallacious thinking IMO. It is a kind of retrospective slippery slope. Last century, we faced a real threat of nuclear annihilation as a result of modern science and technology. Should throw the baby out with the bath water?
I cherish the tales of our ancestors’ gods and heroes as much as anyone else. I believe they have much to teach us even today, but were they really conducive to racial consciousness? Didn’t the Vikings rape, extort, terrorize, and enslave their fellow Whites who spoke different languages? And these are theoretical questions that don’t even begin to address the practical problems of alienating millions of Whites we need to hear our message about their peril.
As Lord Shang pointed out above, the Bible is a big book. Consider the following:
https://biblehub.com/matthew/18-16.htm
The Bible itself recognizes the possibility of conflict, and provides guidance for proper self-assertion. This passage is not well-known outside of Christian circles, but it is very important inside it. It is often used verbatim as a guide to proper dispute resolution within Christian organizations. We are not literally expected to always turn the other cheek, though in some circumstances that might be exactly what is called for.
One might object that this passage deals only with interpersonal and not intergroup, conflict but then if groups have no standing in Christianity, why all the collective guilt and apologizing?
The Bible has a great deal to say about anger, vengeance, and grudge-holding. Where are the pastors on all the rioting, looting, and violence taking place? Of course, we know the answer. They remain silent because the Zeitgeist dictates ahead of time what parts of the Bible may be used for what purposes and in what circumstances. Who? Whom?
Christianity is a faith of justice and compassion, not pacifism. “Turn the other cheek” is a moral ideal that is meant to be an individual aspiration – not an excuse for evading or nullifying one’s duties. If a man wrongs you, you should try to persuade him of what is the right path, rather than simply lashing out in vengeance. But if a murderer is trying to kill you, should you turn the other cheek? What about if the murderer is trying to harm someone else?
This is vulgar anti-Christianity. I find it tiresome. The legitimate “Christian Question” for white preservationists has three parts:
1) Is Christianity true?
2) If Christianity is true, does it mandate race liberalism (or put another way, does it condemn [non-genocidal] white nationalism)?
3) If Christianity is false, does it still have instrumental value for white preservation; ie, should we infiltrate and attempt to subvert and refashion it towards our way of thinking, or should we seek to rid our people of it completely?
As an agnostic, I have no idea whether Christian metaphysics is true. As someone raised with a strong Christian background, I can tell you without hesitation that Christianity not only does not mandate race liberalism except in the most harmless way (“Do unto others…”), but it actually for the most part condemns it, given the tremendous Christian emphasis on truthfulness, and the fact that race liberalism is nothing but a farrago of lies.
I think the third question is intellectually the most interesting. A long article at least could be written in answer to it. My gut reaction is to say that Christianity is worth fighting for, even if it finally proves to be an inaccurate depiction of cosmic reality. The Faith is deeply woven into the fabric of our nations, and our very psyches. I think in its correct form, it helped make the West a lovelier and better civilization. It can provide meaning in peoples lives, meaning that is often communal in regard and which therefore disciplines excessive individuality and self-centeredness. We need less white individualism, and more ethnocommunitarianism. For that to happen, I think we will need some kind of recrudescence of traditional faith. What faith should that be but a “wised” up Christianity (ie, a Christianity shorn of its modern feckless liberal accretions)? That is the traditional faith of our people. It has immense history and structure, intellectual and institutional, behind it. To give all that up the the enemy, while trying to forge some new “racial faith”, strikes me as silly and futile.
> “On what basis, then, do Whites object to the injustice of dispossession?”
Isn’t it obvious? “Might makes right”. Survival is the only possible objective morality. Defending your right to exist by words is such an insane concept to me, I can barely imagine this level of cuckoldry.
> “I dislike radicalism in general.”
Radicalism is a path of science, of mathematics. Does a human die when he is killed? “I don’t know”, answers a Christian/idealist. “Yes”, answers the atheist. Savitri Devi was a mathematician.
> “Didn’t the Vikings rape, extort, terrorize, and enslave their fellow Whites who spoke different languages?”
Why is that bad? I could maybe see an argument in C. Julius Caesar’s extermination of 2 mil. Gauls – because Rome was turning into an anti-White melting pot. But Vikings? Killing Christian Anglos? I fail to see the evil. Even then, eternal war of all against all is the law of the land (Dawkins calculates how even the genes of the babies have a mathematical interest that differs a bit from their parents’ genes – although they are also programmed to stop struggling and die if they are too wretched – all of this has nothing to do with Matthew 10:35).
It is fascinating how the first Anglo Christians compared the Anglo-Saxon Invasion of the West to the Exodus of the Jews. So touching. A video by Survive the Jive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIbjGYY0cc
On the topic of Bible quotes – check out Galatians 3:28 (transvestitism) and Matthew 19:12 (castration).
Is there in fact any substantive evidence to support the lurid ‘blood libel’ accusations containing any historical basis of truth whatsoever?
I can accept that there may have existed from time to time what we would now term serial killers of Jewish ethnicity. All races contain a certain tiny percentage of such predators. But how could a practice of child sacrifice, handed down over thousands of years and directly repugnant to all conceptions of Jewish and Gentile morality and received religion possibly have gone unremarked?
To take for example the sacrificial cult of Baal Hamon and Tanith in Carthage and the Near East. It is railed against by the Jewish scriptures and we have archeological evidence of its existence in the great Tophet at Carthage itself.
But the where is this evidence supporting the ‘blood libel’ accusations? Where are the bodies, the ritual texts and how does such a cult fit into a religion that abominated human sacrifice and the consumption even of animal blood with the force of divine injunction?
There never seems to be any answer to these questions, and until such are convincingly supplied I shall continue to regard the ‘blood libel’ as just that: a false accusation made against Jews and Judaism.
In Richard Burton’s “The Jew, the Gipsy and el Islam” the Victorian explorer maintained that Jewish human sacrifices were still taking place !
The offending passages have been excised from the published work but the manuscript of the book includes the full text. I believe it is still owned by The Board of Deputies of British Jews who were going to auction it off 20 years ago. The estimated sale price of the manuscript was $210,000 to $280,000, but the top bid was $196,000, less than the prearranged minimum.
Many Jews protested the proposed sale (and the publicity it gave to Burton’s claims), including Lord Janner, a former president of The Board, who said it was “immoral to propagate pornography — and this is worse than pornography.” This very Lord Janner was later accused of the sexual abuse of children !
It must have some explosive content if it has to remain locked away.
The Talmud is their main scripture not the Torah. Not that the latter is unimportant, but the Talmud is the lens thru which they focus and interpret it. And the Talmud teaches that non-Jews are not human. Only Jews are human and of value. That is your answer. All the endless inter-faith conferences and courses on comparative religion are meaningless when it comes to Judaism until this is admitted and the Talmud admitted as evidence. To say they oppose this is an understatement since they at one stroke will be revealed as moral pariahs.
How could they sacrifice Christian children? Because they are animals. Why Christians? Because they have a special hatred for them I suppose, but I assume there are more detailed reasons.
The Catholic prosecutors never had the liturgy to the ritual, but Dr Toaf found it. As a Jew and a leading scholar of Medieval Judaism, he had access to private libraries that others would not have.
Christosum writes: “ [Jews are] murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels against God, calumniators, dark-minded people, leaven of the Pharisees, sanhedrin of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners, and haters of righteousness.”
Now you can see how easily this can be debunked. He calls Jews stoners, but this was written in the fourth century before cannabis was even introduced into Europe! Even today jews are not disproportionately counted among the ranks of potheads.
I have never seen in any of these websites a review of Marlow’s Jew of Malta. This is an exceptionally anti Semitic play—I think the apologists are fooling themselves—but also very entertaining. Marlow was the Quentin Tarantino of the Elizabethans. An analysis of this together with Merchant of Venice would be interesting, as taken in their cultural context. According to Jones’s book, there was a population of conversos in England who allegedly retained their loyalty to Judaism. I think this is what is symbolized when barabas’s daughter becomes a nun to rescue his gems from his house which was converted to a nunnery. It could be analyzed in the wider context of Elizabethan anti Semitism. I understand that Nash’s Traveler’s Journal has some anti Semitic content, although I have not read it yet.
{Now you can see how easily this can be debunked. He calls Jews stoners, but this was written in the fourth century before cannabis was even introduced into Europe! Even today jews are not disproportionately counted among the ranks of potheads.}
You’re being sarcastic, right? I can’t tell.
By coincidence, the Leftfield Mint Press News, who have done much good work on Epstein and the infiltration of Israeli tech firms into USA life, have published something on this subject, though with the usual fall-back nonsense about race, still, some of them could be encouraged to focus on the Evil Cabal further ; https://www.mintpressnews.com/christian-nationalists-christian-zionists-secure-another-four-years-for-trump/270259/
I’m no “Christian” Zionist. But that’s a very leftwing site. Why would anyone here be interested in it?
Traditional Christian theology viewed the Church as having superseded the Old Testament and that, by rejecting the Church, the Jews had not only rejected God, they were responsible for murdering Christ.
What a terrible and dreadful mistake this was on their part!!!! That was the beginning of the rift between us and the Jews right there and only intensified as the centuries wore on. As usual Christians and Jews accept all of the good things that exist in the scriptures while ignoring and even rejecting the hard and difficult things it has to say.
The early church made the dreadful mistake of first and foremost condemning the doctrine of Chiliasm. This they should never have done period! But unfortunately not having the access to the scriptures as we do today with our magnificent technology how could they have ever studied the scriptures as we do today to make some important connections.
Next, the Israel of God is futuristic but who exactly is the Israel of God? The Jews? The Church? Or a mixture of both? Scripture tells us it is a mixture of both based ultimately in faith in Jesus Christ.
That’s where it begins and that is what it comes down to period!
As for corruption well no kidding and one name stands out above all the rest when it comes to the incredible amount of errors of interpretation and that name is WILLIAM E. BLACKSTONE.
Time nor space permits an essay on the topic here but for those who wish to learn I highly recommend these links:
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/53/53-4/JETS_53-4_787-800_Moorhead.pdf
https://mark1marti2.wordpress.com/2020/01/21/historical-critique-of-dispensationalism-zionism-and-daniels-prophecy-of-70-weeks/
As for Chiliasm one will not find a more thorough exegesis on the topic than the book Lies, all Lies by Gerry Fox. After reading it one will get a new and correct view of the teaching of which the Church Fathers should never ever have condemned at their councils!!!!!!!
DEICIDE or TREASON?
WHICH DO YOU THINK IS ON THE MIND OF GOD MORE?
IF YOU THINK IT IS DEICIDE PLEASE VISIT AGAIN THE SCRIPUTRES AND DO SOME FURTHER RESEARCH AND MORE INDEPHT READING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deicide is Treason against our Supernatural King. Anyone who would do that, would also betray their Earthly sovereign.
Christ said, Soon they will drive you out of the Synagogues and consider killing you a good deed. He knew He was creating a new religion. And the Jews did exactly that, becoming the Christian Hunters of the Romans for the next few centuries. Don’t blame the Church Fathers, blame Christ for knowing it, or the Jews for doing it.
@ Jaego
Yeah, I have always wondered what the outcome would have been if Christ wasn’t killed. What always remains is without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins? Yes or no?
My argument is one of having a helmet of salvation and why is it that whenever there is talk of deicide what never gets mentioned is that it was impossible for anyone to actually kill Christ. Jesus himself made this totally and completely clear.
Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? Matthhew 26:53
If Jesus so desired He could have in an instant ended the entire Roman Empire with a single sentence.
Remember the story of Elisha and the servant…
17 And Elisha prayed, “Open his eyes, Lord, so that he may see.”. Then the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. 2 Kings 6:17
If we in the Church started to emphasize this more and stopped beating people over the head about killing Christ and proved the truth of this maybe we would have a different history with these people?
Deicide was once and for all period whereas Treason continues and by all appearances what Christ warned about the Abomination of Desolation is about to rear its head.
As for the Church Fathers again they got Chiliasm wrong, dead wrong and because of it we have missed an important significant matter of the Old Testament about Jerusalem being the center of a millennial kingdom. The Book of Revelation along with the Old Testament reinforces this perfectly in unison.
Gog and Magog has got nothing whatsoever to do with Russia or Germany or even Israel for that matter! Nothing!!! Any and all such teaching must end period!!!!!
Well, I’m certainly glad that there’s a wise American out there who knows much more about real Christianity than the Holy Fathers of the Seven Echumenical Councils and who can correct them about Church doctrine!
This is what I love about radical Protestantism: its freedom. Any earnest fellow can pick up the Bible and discern the TRUE meaning of Scripture. Who needs the help of Platonicising old bearded geezers from Anatolia?
Personally, based on my free engagement with Scripture, I’m still undecided between Christian Zionism and dual-seedline Christian Identity theology… but I also think it’s quite likely that Haile Selassie is Christ… any good TV
preacher you could recommend to clear my confusion?
@ Martin Venator
Why if the word of God says, Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
We all have our heros lol. Maybe we should start being hero’s ourselves so that on the day of judgment we will hear the words well done!!!!
And hey in regard to the Trinity maybe the Church Fathers should have just quoted the scriptures like for example
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
no they wanted instead the power of their own reputations and tongues and the power that comes from having people follow them?
Was there really a need for a council on the Trinity when we have it already written the explanation of the Trinity for us period!!!!! But O we’ll look back to the Council for the truth instead?
O Chrysostom the greatest expositor hero of the biblical scriptures that has ever lived period!!!
I can well imagine his abject disbelief at the Christian Church today and its entire clergy with the technological advances of computer tech and all its glory and we in the church stilll can’t get anything right? Can you imagine the Doctrine of Trinity still hasn’t been settled once and for all lol and when it was given to us by Christ Himself!!! Chrysostom would be speechless and in disbelief?
And look to our embarrassment and to the embarrassment of God to surely we are all a deeply divided people! Nice eh? We have even killed our own brothers and sisters and for what? St. Paul and St. Peter would be horrified to look at the church today.
Lets hope and pray Ephesians will come to fruition yes?
I roll my eyes at religion. These fantasies just have got to end sometime.
Christianity adapted to Germanic warrior culture and/or the Germans adapted Christianity to their culture. This was the marriage of natural and supernatural that gave Europe its vitality. Once monarchy began to weaken and mercantialism began to strengthen, Christianity took advantage of this moral vacuum to push its supernaturalism. If Black Christians were around at that point, and wanted to come in, would the Church have said no? Maybe the early nation states would have, but the Church per se? No. As natural morality continue to curdle under industrialism, Christianity became ever more feminine and supernatural. It has nothing for us now I’m afraid. Its universalism is at one with both UN dictates and the desires of Corporate Capitalism.
Thank you Prof. MacDonald for such a thorough and clear review of Giles Corey’s book. I’m afraid, however, that (if I understood your introduction correctly) I will not be buying it. This is because I don’t think I can agree with the thesis of this book.
First, your review starts by stating that ‘Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well’ ‘I can’t offer reference to pages because I read the web version of your article, sorry). How can we assert this, when Christianity imposed itself among our Pagan Ancestors through a horrendous genocide worst than the ‘holocaust’? I now quote from ‘March of the Titans –The Complete History of the White Race’, Arthur Kemp: ‘in 768 AD, Charlemagne started a thirty-two year long campaign of what can only be described as genocidal evangelism against Saxons under his control in Western Germany. The campaign started with the cutting down of the Saxon’s most sacred tree Yffdrasil. … in 782 … Charlemagne quickly turned to violence … he ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons … twelve years later, in 794, introduced a law under which every third Saxon living in any pagan area was kidnapped and forced to resettle and be raised among Christian Franks’ (p. 129). ‘The only significant group of Whites left in Europe who were not, nominally at least, Christians by the year 1000 AD, were found in Eastern Europe and along the Baltic sea coast.. to destroy this last bastion of paganism, the Church employed the services of some of the most fanatic Christians of all –The Teutonic Knights … The Teutonic Knights responded to the call, and through the use of violent tactics similar to those employed by Charlemagne, became the Christianisers of the people of that region’ (p. 131). Are these the ‘Medieval Germanic Christians’ –murderers of our Ancestors– that you want us ‘revitalised’ by?
Now, if I follow the logic of this book, after claiming that the spiritual foundation of the West is Christianity, the book (or your review) goes on to describe what the Jews have done to destroy the West, and I won’t argue with this. Therefore you propose, and state: ‘I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity — the aspects that produced Western expansion, innovation, discovery, individual freedom, economic prosperity, and strong family bonds’. And then you add: ‘Corey advocates a revitalization of Medieval Germanic Christianity based on, in the words of Samuel Francis, “social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice.” This medieval Christianity preserved the aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture of the Germanic tribes’. But this European aristocratic culture was not originally Christian (you acknowledge this yourself): it was Pagan.
In my opinion, it is Paganism, not Christianity, that constitutes the spiritual roots of Indo-Europeans. Christianity, like Islam, claims to be a Universal religion: Jesus died for all of mankind. This is why Christianity is an ideology more suited to Globalism ( as in Pope Francis) than to White Nationalism.
Ásatrú, on the other hand is an ethnic religion (like Judaism is): we (I consider myself a Pagan) pray to the same Gods that our Ancestors prayed to more than two thousand years ago –and it resonates in our blood. These Gods came down to us like Jungian archetypes, if you will, or through epigenetics. Ásatrú does not claim to be a religion for all Humanity. Ásatrú believes that it is wonderful that the Yoruba people pray to Obatalá and Changó, while we Europeans could also freely pray to our own Ancestors and to OUR Gods: Odin and Thor. Hopefully, we will soon be honouring them in our own Homeland. (see chapter “many Gods, many peoples” in ‘Asatru, A Native European Spirituality’. Stephen McNallen).
To conclude, I agree that we need a spiritual foundation for White Nationalism. However, I believe that this foundation is the religion and spirituality of our Ancestors, not Christianity.
Well said. Anent Paganism, “There are things that never were but always are”, Celsus I believe.
Unless we could BE the Chosen People as Christian Identity believes. Some of the Puritans seemed to take this attitude.
Or some of the Founders, like Jefferson and Adams, identified with the Romans, talking about the “Gaulish threat” to the north. Could this be a compromise? Instead of going back to Germanic Paganism, perhaps the high paganism, complete with philosophy, of Greece/Rome could serve us better.
Thanks for liking my comment. If we accept that there are no Universal religions, and that our White Ancestors had their own religion, then we don’t need to worry about being the “chosen people”: our Gods have already chosen us because we (Gods and us) are one family.
As to Greco-Roman paganism, it is rooted in Indo-European paganism (I prefer this term to Germanic, as it is more inclusive). Check a breat monograph: “Apollo the Wolf-god” by Daniel Gershenson. Jounal of Indo-European Studied, #8.
Cheers!
it should be emphasized that Evangelicals are rock hard supporters of Trump. Why? Because they know he is good for Israel. As long as he does for Israel, he doesn’t have to do much else – certainly not for white people as white evangelicals will vote for him anyway. That is why the one promise that Trump has lived up to is the support of zionism(not that he doesn’t believe in it anyway).
I know a couple of evangelicals like family . They like to make critical noises about globalism and borders but they are really indifferent to national issues and are betting their spiritual wad on the coming of Christ in the ME which, according to their theology, will never happen unless the Israeli’s are in position to precipitate or at least make possible by their presence an apocalypse. What this means is that Evangelicals are in effect fifth columnists. They like to make critical noises about globalism, open borders and whiteism but they will not question the fomenters of these issues -The Jews – either here or in Israel. Actually they won’t even acknowledge the existence of Jews here as a corporate entity. I wonder if Evangelicals are not as dangerous to our white future as the white woke. They are about 20% of Protestants, well organized, fanatical and they always vote. The Republican Party can always count on them providing Zionism can count on the Republican Party.
Is anyone else having any trouble accessing The Occidental Observer? I’m worried it’s been disabled somehow.
Why would anyone with an understanding of the Jewish Question adhere to a religion so irrevocably tied to Judaism? Why!? Give me Apolloism, Cosmotheism, or Asatru. Anything but the Jewish slave religion known as Christianity.
Where the Jews triumph, Christianity triumphs first. The church fathers were 100% Jewish and their Semitic tribalism was still intact. The Jews treated the other peoples of the earth like cattle, and at the same time Jesus asked those peoples to be like lambs, that is, cattle. The elites of the Christian peoples were always Jews, they were always there, pulling the strings of the Christian empires. This relationship of master and slave is very natural, some assume themselves as masters (Judaism, tribalism, ethnocentrism, supremacism, Old Testament) and others as slaves (universalism, egalitarianism, cult of the weak, Christianity). If we were to apply Kevin Macdonald’s perspective on the culture of critique to modern ideologies, Christianity would be very easily understood. Christianity is an ideology created by Jews to benefit the Jewish people, to break the feeling of tribal union of the peoples who are rivals to Jewish hegemony and at the same time to give them a free pass to the Gentile city, where they would quickly, upon being perceived as a divine race, gain power without problems. The whites must break with this Semitic Trojan horse, who, let’s not forget, comes to fulfill the supreme prophecies of the Old Testament, where the Messiah would give the Jewish people world hegemony, and seen what is seen, Jesus has fulfilled his role very very well.
Well the Jews don’t see it that way, hating Christianity with a passion. And the Christians did seem to have the upper hand over the Jews for a long time – something the Roman Empire often struggled with. Byzantium most of all, banning the Jews from having anything to do with money or teaching.
I don’t like the lamb thing so much either, but it’s supposed to be in relation to God or the supreme Shepherd, not to other men, which is of course, ruinous. When shorn of its Supernatural basis, Christianity does become a scourge. And of course, the supernatural must allow for the natural as well or else a single morality is enforced, leading to hypocrisy and guilt.
Without using so many words, the Church did see itself as the new “chosen people”. It didn’t use those words because it is universal, but it clearly saw itself as supplanting the Jews and the Old Covenant. This is the hated “Replacement Theology” that Christian Zionism raves against.
A point fro Corey/Kmac. But again, the Universal aspect is problematic. The Doctrine of the One Sun won out: the Church as the Sun and the State as the moon. The older Doctrine, often only implicit, was that of the Two Suns: the Church and the King, with the Emperor (if any) being a Super-Sun. The Pope was elected by a council of Cardinals, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. And the King was ideally elected by God putting the right soul into the body of the one born to the existing King – thus ennobling the natural order and natural law. If went in this direction, we must be Ghibbelines and not Guelphs; in favor of the Doctrine of the Two Suns, not the mere One.
The only good Christianity is dead Christianity. The Trojan horse must burn. Already its old churches are burning, since Christ has moved, now lives in the universities, in gender theory, feminism, open borders or queer children. Wherever there are weaklings, there Jesus will come to rescue them, to bring about the reversal of values. It is an endless cycle, a hydra of infinite heads that will always be provoking revolutions, and of course, the shepherds (Jews) will always be there to herd the sheep, and the white fools will still be trapped in the Christian labyrinth, waiting for the egalitarian paradise that their crucified god promised them.
@Jaego
“Well the Jews don’t see it that way, hating Christianity with a passion.”
Mostly a jewish make-believe. They are exceptional at that, as none of their moral antennas have any contact with a center for truthful behaviour. Both these faculties are negligible in size among them anyways.
There may be som passion there, but the true jewish passion was shown 1939-45. They managed to get the Christians (and their secular versions – capitalism and marxismen – who quite naturally cooperated) to destroy the only true reawakening of a white spiritual worldview that has emerged these last centuries. You do not get Christian sheep to participate in a mass destruction like that unless they also saw this awakening as a threat to their own globalist theology.
The passion shown there by this despicable tribe just shows their profound insight into the danger of a true Aryan spiritual reawakening (which is impossible within the framework of a semitic religion like Christianity). 60 million killed, 90% white, and the Christian western countries only allows business and attention towards an alleged 10% of the casualties, which were not Christian, not white, but Yahweh’s chosen people. How very Christian.
Why this emphasis on WW2? Because Christian man speaks a lot more through his actions than his words.
The Talmud shows unrelenting hatred for Christ and Christians. Yet you make a good case too. What can one say? They have enough hatred to cover us as either Christians or Pagans. They hated the Romans and Greeks and they continued to hate them after they converted to Christianity. They hate the Poles the most now – perhaps not because of their Christianity per se, but because they have stood against their Globalism.
Thank you for this Dr Macdonald. I have ordered the book.
Amren is advertising a book called “Catholic and Identitarian”, by a French author.
It’s a testimony to how good of a place Counter-Currents is for intellectual exploration that they published this piece given that many here are anti-Christianity.
The “Christian Question” is the one that haunts me out of all the questions that currently plague our people. I look forward to reading this book to get some more insights on it.
I have no doubt that when the progressive (or neo-Christian to be exact) theories about ape humanity triumph, there will be white Christians there baptizing chimpanzees and inciting their Aryan parishioners to procreate with them in order to further extend the universal domains of Christ. It sounds ridiculous, but in the middle of the Christian era, the Pope did it with the pre-Columbian natives; today the descendants of such an aberration populate most of Latin America and soon they will be the new majority of Nort America. But undoubtedly the virus of Christian rabies in progressive whites is the worst of the symptoms, this is not new either, we can already glimpse the same actions in the fall of Rome and the destruction of Indo-European paganism, in the Protestant revolutions, in the liberal revolution, the Bolshevik and undoubtedly the American one. Some racist Christians (something extremely heretical from a Christian point of view) try to find a balance between their will to survive and their faith in the God of madness and death whom they worship. I have no hope for them, you can’t want to live and take poison at the same time. In the end Cthulhu will triumph.
This book looks very interesting. Looking forward to getting it and reading.
Real Christianity is literally everything the Jews hate and rejected. They have hated it for 2000 plus years now, and ceaseless want to subvert it. What does THAT tell you?
A few years back another book on Jewish hostility towards the West was mentioned.
It was called “The Sixty Million: How Leading Jewish Communists, Zionists, and Neocons Brought on a Dozen Holocausts” by Dara Halley-James.
Is this book in print yet?? Is it going to be published? IT is of interest too.
Thanks.
The USSR was the last White ethnostate. Denying this is ridiculous. Yes, the economic materialism of Communism/Marxism in theory is as Nature-hating as the individualist pursuit of happiness among the equally-created “souls” of Christianity/liberalism, but in practice, Soviet Russia turned into an admirable fortress that survived the vicious assault of another Darwinian tribe of Europeans – Hitlerian Germans.
People, people… When I look at the USSR, I am horrified not by the Holodomor, but by the terrible suicide in 1989. Weakness and self-contempt, these hallmarks of the idealist Christian moral axiology, are the main culprits in the current suicide of the Aryan race world-wide.
It’s a funny thing that I as a Christian don’t identify with any of these fools you people seem to refer to. Are you sure you’re not talking about Pseudo Christianity of the nonspiritual type. You know the kind that was established by the Roman emperor to advance the Empire.
‘Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted’.
Really? No one in the racialist forums, including KMD’s webzine, has replied to what I have been saying for years about miscegenating Christianity in Jew-wise New Spain:
https://chechar.wordpress.com/2020/08/13/kmds-apologetics-2/
Will someone answer here? It is very relevant to this essay-review of Corey’s book.
What do you think of religion? If in favor, do you think one can be created as Cosmotheism has? In other words, natural, and not supernatural in any sense? In other words, for other people, the believers not the creators.
Of course some change the meaning of the word religion, in this case, to something that has great meaning for the person. Thus some say, the White Race is their religion. In that case, the problem is mitigated since no revelation is needed per se. Thus stated, one can create a religion and a Holy Book, as Pierce and William Gayley Simpson desired. Perhaps your Compendium would qualify as such.
As to your question, this is what a Spaniard says in The Fair Race (pages 148-150):
We do not need a new religion, only to be aware of our pre-Christian cultures. We must recover such cultures to educate our children according to the varied heritage that these cultures represent. I think of the Edda, of the Mabinogion; of Homer and Virgil—not to mention our tragedians, our poets, our philosophers… We must extract that immensely rich heritage and moral maxims.
We also need temples, enclosures for re-connection as I call them. An ever-living fire in these areas will suffice. We need places where we can gather and remember our stories: the readings of texts, commentaries, discussion panels and more. Something collective and social—religious and cultural centers where our people may have psychological or spiritual support, or get truthful information about our ancestors, or the incidents of our history. We need dividing the year with special celebrations related to happy or tragic milestones of our past: the Christianization and the Islamization of our peoples, for example; with our own calendars of saints’ days (our heroes and those most representative). We need to retrieve the Greek, Roman, Celt, German and other first names…
It is obvious that such bonding and religious centers will only be for the Aryans. The rest of the peoples or races are excluded. This won’t be a universal ideology, but an ethnic one.
The following comment was submitted under KMac’s article at TOO as soon as it was published there, but four days later it still hasn’t appeared. TOO site is having some serious issues and has been down since 8/11. I was glad to find KMac’s article at C-C so will submit my thoughts here, thanks.
—
Mr. Corey’s _Sword of Christ_ is surely a very informative book about how Christianity has been corrupted by the Jew. Dr. MacDonald, your preface to his book, backed up by scholarly footnotes, is also most informative and educational, as expected.
Will Christianity be revived to renew the White race at this point in history? That is beyond doubtful. Christianity is not based in reality and it is time for Whites to get real.
First the Jew creates the Christian faith for the non-Jew, the goyim, as explained in Dr. Thomas Dalton’s latest article, “Christianity, The Great Jewish Hoax,” here: https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/08/christianity-the-great-jewish-hoax/. Then the Jew corrupts this creed for the goyim, as explained so well by Giles Corey.
Why revive a hoax? Why pick through a barrel of rotten apples to find one that’s edible when Nature provides orchards of fresh, delicious bounty to harvest? And speaking of Nature and Nature’s laws, we already have a much superior god in Mother Nature than in Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah.
The White race needs a new consciousness, a non-Abrahamic belief system that does not worship the Jew’s tribal god. For those who have no interest whatsoever in reviving Christianity to suit the White man in the 21st Century and beyond, they should investigate the ideology/philosophy — the religion, if you will — founded by Dr. William Pierce. Some of us more uncompromising, unreconstructed race-thinkers will never again accept a Semitic hoax as our religion or the religion for our people for that matter. There is an alternative that makes sense for us: Cosmotheism, explained here by founder Pierce: https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/09/honoring-william-pierce-cosmotheisms-hard-way/
The main problem with Catholicism is the priests can’t marry. This is the social class who preserves ethnic memory. Modern Whites don’t have ethnic memory.
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