Counter-Currents
Thoughts On the Right’s Eternal Debate Over Christianity
Robert Hampton
1,270 words
Asking “Is America a More ‘Christian Nation’ than Ever Before?” generated a lot of responses on Counter-Currents. My article looked into the argument that a post-Christian America continues to display strongly Christian characteristics, as even some evangelicals now claim. Our society is still suffused with moralistic fury and commandments descended from Christians’ popular conceptions; today, people merely don’t believe in the supernatural part. There are of course critical elements of traditional Christianity missing in liberal secular Christianity, but one can see where its roots lie.
This is not an argument for waging war on Christianity or reviving paganism. It’s simply an observation. As is the case whenever the Right delves into these topics, the article inspired passionate responses from nationalists who insist that real Christianity is completely different from the regime’s ideology. In the comments, Lord Shang argued that “Christianity and wokeness are antithetical, and that Christianity both allows for the measures necessary to ensure white preservation and even mandates them as a matter of true justice.” He also accused your humble writer of pursuing an insidious agenda to separate nationalists from Christians and persuade nationalists to ignore Christians, or “even aggressively oppose [Christianity].”
Fellow CC writer William de Vere wrote a thorough article on the inherent opposition between humanism and Christianity, partially in response to my own work. De Vere makes many solid points about “Gothic” Christianity’s compatibility with our views and its incompatibility with secular liberalism.
These responses motivated me to clarify some things about what I am arguing in regards to Christianity and the Right. The Dissident Right has debated about faith for many, many years. Some say we need to recover the true Christianity of our forefathers. Others say Christianity is irredeemably corrupt and that we need to become pagans. And so the fight goes on, forever and always.
The point here is not to join in the battle but to observe some facts about the present state of Christianity and its relationship with nationalism.
You can buy Greg Hood’s Waking Up From the American Dream here.
The most important thing to remember is that, even if we wanted to, we are never going to make white people give up Christianity. It’s the religion of the majority of our people, especially those most open to our views. The average white person still thinks being a Christian is a sign you’re a normal white person. Deviation from that strikes them as abnormal. Self-declared atheists and agnostics represent some of the most strongly Leftist demographics in our country. We ostracize ourselves by insisting that our movement is anti-Christian.
The proper Right-wing answer to the religion question is to leave it to the individual to decide. The majority of people we’ll attract will be Christians, and we have to respect that. We’re going to have people with all kinds of religious beliefs, but Christians will always be the majority. Some of them are devout Christians, others only attend church on Christmas.
This shouldn’t prevent us from having level-headed discussions regarding Christianity and other religions. But as a movement we can’t declare ourselves hostile to the faith of the majority of our people.
We should also resist the temptation to present ourselves as a fundamentalist Christian movement. There are good reasons for this. For one, in order to be an explicitly Christian movement we would need at least some support from existing Christian institutions. The Moral Majority was a major force because it was supported by evangelicals all over America, and the pro-life movement would be nothing without the support of the Catholic Church and evangelicals.
The problem is that every Christian institution is hostile towards us. Most on our side understand this. De Vere and other commenters acknowledge that the Pope and other Christian leaders today cheer on such things as mass immigration and Black Lives Matter, but they will then insist that these leaders are fake Christians and that true Christianity exists somewhere else and will one day sweep them away. It may be true that these Christians are heretics, but we cannot deny that this is what organized Christianity is right now. There are some exceptions, like the Russian Orthodox Church and the Society of Saint Pius X. However, these institutions are tiny in the West and neither of them is explicitly identitarian.
Even many conservative Christians are just as anti-identitarian as Pope Francis. The Southern Baptist Convention, despite some notable dissenters, supports Black Lives Matter, white racial guilt, and mass immigration. The pro-life movement, which is deeply entwined with the separate cultures of evangelicals and devout Catholics, primarily argues against abortion on the grounds that it’s racist eugenics. David French is not an outlier among evangelicals, even though the ordinary evangelical would be disgusted by his turn to wokeness. Just look at bestselling Christian author Beth Moore, who demands that whites do more to atone for racism, or the most popular acts in Christian Contemporary Music, who are noted for their very public support of BLM.
There are countless other examples. Who can point to a major Christian leader who voices identitarian views? The African Cardinal Robert Sarah? That may be all.
This doesn’t mean that one should abandon Christianity if your minister or priest isn’t talking about the Great Replacement. Religious choice is determined by family background and/or because a practitioner feels the faith answers life’s fundamental questions. People don’t usually demand that their faith completely align with their politics, and that’s fine.
People just need to be realistic about what Christianity is today. We can make the most compelling argument for Gothic Christianity, but that won’t bring it into existence in the real world of today. We will still be vastly outnumbered by the Dan Cathys getting on their knees and shining black people’s shoes. Declaring ourselves a Christian fundamentalist movement would further create the problem of being denounced by every Christian institution. It also distracts us from our central struggle.
The other thing to keep in mind is that whites are no longer the majority of Christians, nor are we the future of Christianity. The majority of devout Christians today live in Latin America and Africa. In the future, they will also live in Asia. Our own people remain nominally Christian, but their devotion is wavering. The Catholic Church, in large part, supports mass immigration to replace the whites who are leaving the pews. If Christianity is seen as a central part of our identity, do we see the devout African as more our comrade than the secular European? Most nationalists would say no, but nearly all conservative Christians would say yes.
Besides potentially diverting us away from the central struggle, portraying ourselves as fundamentalist Christians can alienate many of the people we are trying to win over. We are not looking to win over atheists in Dr. Fauci t-shirts. We are trying to win over smart, young white people, and the majority of them are turned off by Moral Majority rhetoric and they aren’t that religious. To win them over, we need an approachable message that inspires them and offers answers to the issues they face in their own lives. Giving them esoteric Biblical interpretations about why white people should exist is not the way to go. Those devout people who hold views similar to ours are primarily older. 22-year-olds aren’t demanding Biblical arguments for identitarianism.
Nationalists pride themselves on offering the cold, honest truth — no matter how offensive it is. We should accept what organized Christianity is and realize that it will not be an ally in our fight. It will only come to terms with us when we win. Until then, it’s best to be more secular in our approach to politics.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
48 comments
We need a wall, a big beautiful wall of separation between Church and Ethnostate.
Dear Miss Rizzo,
You were very generous to CC last year. Thanks so much. If you would like a paywall subscription, please email us at [email protected].
“Christianity” is nothing other than a global politcal program with gaslighting gloss toward a global totalitarian and communistic (ie. no individual nor national right to property, ie. a nations commons) monarchism, … PERIOD
If we assume a return to the monarchy in the 21st century, even a scoundrel could be infinitely better than any current mass democratic mob (bought and paid for rule on the backs of the producers) government contra true Platonic republicanism. Without checks and balances but under the motto L’État c’est moi, a single king could expel the millions of non-whites from his lands, BUT NEVER UNDER A GLOBAL MONARCHY AS IT’S GOAL IS PURE DESPOTIC TOTALITARIAN POWER CONTRA ANYTHING THAT IS ETHON-NATIONAL. Under democracy, no current president could do something similar, even if he wanted.
globalist monarchist “second coming” imperial Christianity and nationalism are anathema to each other … https://counter-currents.com/2022/01/christianity-contra-humanism/#comment-1758808
see Jefferson on monarchism here: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/poison-under-the-wings/
I always believed that Christianity should serve the ethnostate and never vice versa. I think back to Patrick Pearse and how he wrote about the Irish as being a holy people, divinely ordained to be independent. This is a Christianity that stands in the service of politics and that’s the way it should be. A religion that bestows pride, destiny and dignity upon a volk, not shame and penitence. Give me a Christinity that calls us whites a holy race and I won’t think twice about supporting it.
That won’t happen because it’s incompatible with every aspect of the Christian message. How about something simpler (and genuinely theologically correct): that white nations (along with all other nations) have a moral right to exist in accordance with the way in which they evolved, the way that is most natural to humans properly understood as social/tribal creatures, and that artificially shoving diversity down our throats is thus an unnatural and hostile (and therefore immoral) act?
The Latin and especially the Protestant Churches are no longer capable of performing that function. The condition of the Church of England, formerly described as ‘the Tory Party at prayer’, but nowadays quasi-agnostic and politically left of Labour is a case in point. The article itself suggests a way forward: to explore the Orthodox Christianity that served Holy Russia so well, enduring and outlasting even the Bolsheviks.
Really? Indefatigable backwardness was one of the chief causes of the poor performance of the Russian Steamroller in the First World War, which the Bolsheviks at least had the good sense to get out of. It seems that much has been accomplished in the past hundred years precisely without the mind grip long exercised by the Old Believers, which even modernizer Peter the Great had trouble with. Sorry if I am skeptical.
🙂
“Give me a Christinity that calls us whites a holy race and I won’t think twice about supporting it”
Sure. It’s called Christian Identity, which our ancestors would have referred to as simply “Christianity.” The biblical Israelites were what are today the Northern Europeans. Germanic, Nordic, Celtic, etc. The “Jews” are not Israel, they are a mongrel race descending from Cain and Esau. Our people have forgotten who they are, just as our God said in the scriptures we would.
Should you feel compelled to engage in an honest investigation of this subject, I recommend starting at christogenea.org
Thank you for your contributions Mr. Hampton, I’ve enjoyed many of your past essays too. You make many excellent points in this one. The greatest point being that this movement cannot become a fundamentalist Christian movement at this time.
Besides the problems you mention with mainstream Christians. The infighting amongst ourselves in America would be tremendous. For starters what denomination of Christianity would we be? Would there even be a movement left after trying to resolve that first question?
To reinforce a small point you said though. White Christians are the archetypal standard for our people in everyone’s mind, this isn’t going away anytime soon. This isn’t bad either, a White Christian is often a much more stable, normal and healthy person than an atheist or agnostic. Increasingly they have much more thumos too, to remain a Christian in a society that degrades that choice. These people whatever denomination they are would be critical to the future of our movement.
While not being a Christian movement, the gate should be held firmly open for our Christian brethren, with strong apologetics for Nationalist Christianity.
Good apologetics is how I became open to these ideas as a twenty something while in college. Still being a twenty something I’d be interested in the numbers that you mention about Christians in the movement being the older crowd. It seems to me Christians are still the majority of people coming in and taking the “redpill”.
Paddy Tarleton said it best: “infighting won’t win the day for us. Come pagan, Christian, or without faith – brother, you’re still one of us – …”
I’ve used the rhetorical strategy with Christians and anarchocapitalists:
“If you could live in Somalia and 90% of the population were believers or ancaps, but everything else were the same, or in Sweden circa 1950 where 90% of the population is White but most are socialists or atheists, which would you choose?”
Most people who are open to our message react badly to the question, being one they haven’t thought about. People who are not don’t care or immediately assert Somalia would actually be the greatest place in the world if only they were solidly Christian or ancap.
I think this is the very crux of the eternal debate on the Right. Whether or not it is metapolitically desirable to state it or to remain silent, I leave to wiser organizers. This coming from a person who’s writing a work on the compatibility of Thomism and ethnonationalism and a practicing trad Catholic, though it make of me an idolater:
He who puts his ideology, whether it be leftism, libertarianism, or his universalist interpretation of Christianity above the preservation of the White race is going to be a problem in the long run. Even if he’s supportive of the idea of White nationalism in theory and sees no conflict between them, when the axioms of his mental world come into conflict – a conflict the system forces and will force – he will choose his ideology or the next world over the preservation of the White race. Even in the ethnostate, such a man will repeat the history that brought us here.
We don’t need a religion which is explicitly racialist like Asatru or Identity or that new age movement Klassen invented. We do need a religion that isn’t anti-White. We do need to create an environment in which the dictates of White preservation and religion do not conflict at the axiomatic level.
Until that day, the vanguard will be those who make White preservation the foundational axiom of their mental world so that if any other doctrine, assumption, axiom, or ideology conflicts with it, it is the other doctrine that is forced to bend to the arc of White preservation, not vice versa.
I don’t know about the demographics here or on the Right statistically. Anecdotally, I’m among the oldest cohort of based people I’ve met in real life, many in the SSPX. I’ve met a few based Xers but almost all of the Xers and Boomers who are Right are attracted to at best paleoconservatism or some form of the non-racial Right.
The reason seems to be the same as whatever unknown is driving the radicalization of the West in general. Millennials and Zoomers have more racial Rightists in their ranks and also have more tankies, Democratic Socialists of America, and intersectional faux-Marxists. There was a book called “National Populism” by two Brits which analyzed some of the drivers of this and came away with four factors of losing trust in politics and institutions, disaffection, disengagement, and so on.
In the younger generations the center has not held but has lost at both ends to the alt-right and alt-left. The older generations, more likely to be religious, have held the dream of a center as well. As is said, the radicals of the 60s are the politicians and executives of the 90s. Likewise will the radicals of today be in the future which will have no center. Thus the increasingly mainstream talk about secession and national divorce.
Longitudinal research tends to conclude that each cohort becomes more religious as it ages, holding true for each cohort to the beginning of their polls.
I’m an older millennial BTW.
I agree completely with the general argument, but there are a few points that I think are not true.
We might never make white people give up Christianity, but it seems like that is happening on its own. The nonreligious are an outright majority of people under thirty in Western Europe, and if only Europeans, and not migrants, were counted their share of the population would certainly be even higher.
Though irreligion in America is closely associated with leftism, it is not always that clear-cut. The least religious region on the entire planet is probably Eastern Germany, and that is the heartland of the AfD and the most rightwing and nationalistic portion of the country. But in Western Germany, the more irreligious states tend to be more leftist. Czechia is more irreligious than Western Europe and Poland is far more religious, but both are more nationalistic and anti-migrant.
While we don’t want to push away Christians, forthright religiosity is likely to push away the nonreligious whites that are already an equal or larger demographic in many white nations and will be the majority in most of Europe within a few decades.
The least religious region on the entire planet is probably Eastern Germany
The Poles are much more religious and nationalistic than Eastern Germans.
And the Czechs are far less religious than the Poles and more nationalistic.
The Czechs do not like non-European immigrants, that´s correct, but the Poles do not like them too. But I would not call the Czechs strongly nationalistic, because they have sold their economy, property and virtually themselves to Germans and Russians. The Poles have not.
We might never make white people give up Christianity, but it seems like that is happening on its own. The nonreligious are an outright majority of people under thirty in Western Europe, and if only Europeans, and not migrants, were counted their share of the population would certainly be even higher.
As I said in my comment on Hampton’s original article, the idea that Christianity is going away is overblown. There is nothing new or unusual about the majority of under-thirties being non-religious. ‘Twas ever thus. But as they say, there’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole. Many of these very same young people will find their way to Bible study, often a geriatric affair, when time is short and they start thinking about the big questions.
Christians do have an unhealthy tendency to prioritize evangelism over retention, and that is very unfortunate for young families who could really use the support of a community that is interested in providing that rather than just talking about family values. The churches have ignored the obesity crisis and complained about organized sports interfering with Sunday attendance and general involvement, as if Christian children don’t need exercise, too. So long as this and similar problems remain, it should come as no surprise that young people are disengaged.
All that said, I certainly agree with you that there is no need at all to pander to Christians beyond just showing basic courtesy and respect that would be shown to anyone’s religious sensibilities.
A pro-White movement is about making pro-White Whites happy. If trying to make pro-White Christians happy makes pro-White non-Christians unhappy, then maybe the movement breaks into two pro-White movements. Two. Pro-White. Movements. See how that works?
I think that pro-White Christians in the movement need to figure out how to encourage their religious cohorts to be pro-White. It’s not the job of the movement as a whole. Christians talking to Christians (or pagans talking to pagans) to help them become pro-White is what should occur.
When discussing actual pro-White politics with someone who interjects something about ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ or ‘Odin’ or ‘Loki’ or anything like that, my response is something along the lines of ‘I don’t mix politics with the supernatural. Doing so tends to obscure the former and sully the latter.’
I don’t have a problem having their supernatural beliefs. Everyone believes something that for someone, somewhere, there is a skeptic. What’s important to a pro-White movement is that you be pro-White, that in politics and economics, you put the well-being of White people first.
I don’t have any specific grief against Christians, and treat their attempts to proselytize as a bit of a compliment (they think my soul is worth saving).
We don’t need another 30 Years War, even rhetorically.
Pro-Whites must relate to the Christian clergy in the same way Leonidas related to the Spartan priests in the movie 300. The priests were legitimate under the laws and ancient customs of Sparta, so Leonidas never rebelled against them at all. That did not mean his activity aimed at supporting their agenda, which is the same as the agenda of our priests. (That is, take the Persian / Jewish / anti-White money, and betray the people into defeat, slavery, and destruction.)
As a twenty-something who only recently walked away from organized Christianity (still “Gothic” for sure), I can say that my experience has been freeing–the anti-nationalist perspective I grew up with was very oppressive and the lip-service paid to MLK and others really started to put me off when I pulled back the veil and took the redpill.
Keep doing what you guys are doing! We Gothic Christians are more amenable to the tenants laid out by WIN, religion and the world are two separate things that don’t belong together.
Thanks for the article!
I actually first found out about Mr. Hampton’s writings when I was still reading “The West’s Darkest Hour” by the ultra WigNat crank Cesar Tort. This was sometime in 2018 or 2019. I was in the midst of my own anti-Christian phase, as I was raised in an Evangelical Conservative household – basically the same type of household as David French. Hampton was writing for Amren at the time, and it was refreshing to see a voice in the Pro-White Movement who saw the same things in organized Christianity that I saw.
At a theological level, the source of anti-white Christianity can directly be traced to Sola Scriptura and its corrupting, lawyering, pharisee-ing impact. Sola Scriptura reduces all of Christianity to “this is what the wording of the Bible says; follow it or face damnation!” If we take the wording of the Bible seriously and literally, then Jesus’s teachings have anti-white implications, Paul’s letters have anti-white implications – basically the whole New Testament is an anti-white psyop. Again though, that’s only if we play by the rules of Sola Scriptura.
By contrast, I find the Old Testament refreshing. Atheists and even some Pro-White pagans love to signal against the Old Testament and its “Jewish Supremacism,” but really, the Old Testament is where all the Fascist and Imperialist Red Meat is at. Not to mention, all the great stories. Sure, the Old Testament can be read as “For Jewish Eyes Only,” but this is where the logic of Protestant Christianity can be turned on its head: If the Bible is for everyone, then its not just for the Jews. And if the Old Testament is part of the Bible, then the Old Testament is for everyone, not just the Jews. What God commanded the Jews to do can just as easily be interpreted as a command for Goys to do. Boom, there’s Lord Sheng’s theological justification for the Pro-White philosophy. The Old Testament is highly ethnocentric. Its the New Testament that gets in the way of Pro-White politics and must be ignored or otherwise downplayed.
Now then, a point about the sociological level: In the abstract, I’m in favor of recruiting “smart, young Whites,” but only under the condition that they aren’t too smart for their own good. To be perfectly honest, I think the most likely recruits to White Nationalism are Midwits: 105-115 IQ Whites who are smart enough to think for themselves and figure out the right thing to do without someone else bossing them around (which is the curse of the sub-100 IQ Whites), but not so smart that they question everything, deconstruct everything out of existence, and effectively talk themselves into becoming post-modernists. The Democrats are the party of High Whites and Low Whites for a damn good reason. High Whites are “too smart” and “too sophisticated” for “Racism,” while Low Whites are too stupid and incompetent to do anything useful without Lord Fauci and Klaus Shwab ordering them around (I’m specifically thinking of the 5 percenters here, but its not just them. Its any white person who votes Democrat because they literally cant survive without the gibs).
Midwit Whites are overwhelmingly conservative, Republican types, and that’s the natural base of White Nationalism and Pro-White politics. I don’t think religious arguments necessarily turn them off, except insofar as those arguments cross over into the kind of Moral Majority arguments that have indeed fallen out of favor among basically all types of White Americans, smart or otherwise. Luckily, the Moral Majority was the product of a particular time (1980s and 1990s), place (End of History America), and people (White Boomers). We are in the 2020s. The culture and character of this decade will truly start taking shape this year. As time moves on, the Moral Majority fades into a distant memory.
tl;dr There’s got to be a way to synthesize Christianity and White Identity that isn’t blatantly twisted together like a pretzel and has appeal to the kind of Middle Whites who are our natural base.
Even when I was still a Christian I recognized the OT for the mythology it obviously is. NT Gospels are far more credible as the later set down recollections of Christ’s ministry that they purport to be (and as many books have argued, the Gospels have the ring of historical authenticity). The bottom line is that most people are in thrall to some moral theologian or philosopher, whether they are aware of it or not (and they usually aren’t). White Preservationism can stand on its own moral merits as a doctrine perfectly compatible with the message of Christ (as Nazism cannot, nor can a really oppressive and exploitative white supremacism). WP can and should be defended to the Christians from within their own moral theology.
The Old Testament is highly ethnocentric. Its the New Testament that gets in the way of Pro-White politics and must be ignored or otherwise downplayed.
What you want is Judaism for Europeans, not Christianity. Yet Judaism is clearly the tribal religion of another people. The stories are all about them, not us. It’s not good for White self esteem.
My point wasn’t that we need Judaism for White People. Mark Brahmin is trying to pull that off with his ridiculous Appolonian project, and I’m against it.
My point was that, under Evangelical Protestant doctrine, the Old Testament is just as applicable and just as Christian as the New Testament. If White Christians are “obligated” to follow the teachings and implications of the New Testament, and they are obligated to follow the teachings and implications of the Old Testament as well.
Suffice to say, doing so flips a bunch of anti-white narratives on their heads.
When asked by a Christian if Christians are welcome I ask them if they are loyal to the white race – unalterably, no compromising, loyal to their folk.
If they say they are I ask them if they are aware that essentially all “Christian” institutions are anti-white and many of the followers of these institutions espouse anti-white propaganda and openly support the genocidal endeavors of our enemies.
If they agree then they usually say that these institutions are corrupt and not truly Christian, and that those followers are bad Christians or misled.
Then I ask them if they truly love Jesus and believe in their faith then what are they doing to take back Christianity from the anti-whites?
And finally do they think they should first fight for the 14 words inside their faith, or outside, or both?
These questions and the discussion around them, done in a brotherly way, never fail to clarify things. (and saves us both time if we cannot walk this walk together — at this time)
Sometimes they go away, sometimes they go away mad — either way they go knowing darn well that we care about them because they are white even if they think their religion means they are not allowed to care for us.
But most remain interested you can tell (maybe for some only because their own church and sect is doing nothing for them while us “ebil not-sees” are actually doing something for them), but others, actually do come back to help.
So we don’t cater to them, and frankly these questions indicate that we don’t trust them just because they are Christian, but the Christians I know are decent folk, and not childish, so they can take a frank discussion if done courteously and with respect for them.
So that’s our experience, YMMV.
WN’s overarching aversion to Christianity is its Jewish origins.
Just as they don’t let things like lefty New-Age or Wicca sully “true” paganism, WNs would likely view Christianity’s modern globohomoism expression as aberrant while also accepting the Middle-Ages “based” model as a valid white-man’s option.
But … Jewish origins.
Simply a deal-breaker. Simply an impasse.
I’m an atheist-leaning agnostic myself but this “Jews made Christianity” argument is one I don’t buy as it’s not true and is mostly constructed by Jews in recent decades. Only Zionist neocons would really believe it. The rest can see the history of blatant Christian/Judaic interfaith conflict throughout the ages and realize that these faiths might have a fundamental overlap in theory but have little in common in praxis.
Perfect response. So good I wonder at your atheist leanings. You have a gift for apologetics.
My buttons are back! Thanks, Greg!
You’re right: they didn’t “make” Christianity (“make” was not suggested by “origins”). And the Jewish-Christian conflicts are a matter of record. But Christianity’s Jewish foundation, its context, say) is also a fact.
I’m personally not among those who can’t see it working under any circumstances among white race realists–on the contrary. Just pointing out that because of the Jewish origins, it will not, by a certain type of white nationalist, ever be given a chance, because of that fact alone.
Then you are stuck forever with a very very very small movement to “save the white race”. There are vastly more white Christians than secular + pagan WNs. White Christians can actually preserve the white race without any help from non-Christian WNs, but WNs cannot do it on their own.
Actually I have to disagree with you Lord Shang.
White Christians CANNOT save the white race. Their performance so far proves that conclusively.
BUT, if they adopt White Nationalism then perhaps they could!
In America there are more white Christians than secular whites, but in Western Europe the majority of people under thirty are nonreligious, and the trend across the entire white world is away from Christianity and it shows no sign of abating. White Christians cannot even preserve their own religion.
I have no illwill towards white Christians, and I care that their religious freedom is under assault as a matter of principle. But I am not a Christian, and I don’t mind that Christianity is in decline among whites. White identity is a rising force. If believing Christians want to combine their religion with their identitarianism, that is fine with me, but I see no reason while the rest of us should play along when someone like Nick Fuentes or Andrew Anglin tries to tie white nationalism to something that we don’t believe in and is rapidly losing its following among our people.
There is no superficial need to tie white identitarianism to Christianity. Christianity properly deals primarily with matters of the spirit; politics, with the organization of bodies so as to minimize conflicts and coordinate collective responses to public disasters (like, please note, pandemics). But there may be a deeper need. Religion may be metaphysically true, but, even if false, vast numbers of people, including among whites, are genetically oriented to it. It would be very, very good to have Christianity, our race’s majority ancestral faith (and worldview), on our side, or, failing that, to at least neutralize it theologically as a source of antiwhite ethical proscriptions and propaganda. White preservationists must come to grips with the Faith; you cannot get away from it by merely assuming it will fade into irrelevance.
You don’t have to convince me, dude; it’s the Vargtards et al we’re talking about here.
Although I have a very concrete conviction in the existence of only one truth as inscribed in the Apostles Creed, I have absolutely no ill will towards those who choose to embark themselves on a religious path different from mine, nor do I blame them for everything that goes wrong in our world. Questions pertaining to which religion is the right one to serve as the basis for the white ethnostate deal with what constitutes as this truth. No religious view, whether pagan or Christian, can be justified on the grounds of whether it serves a practical benefit (regardless of whether it actually does or not), but whether it discloses a fundamental truth about the nature and purpose of being. Otherwise it’s not serious. You have to sincerely believe in what you stand for, and not just because “this makes me feel good” or “this is a viable strategy for gaining power”.
However as somebody in the comment section pointed out quite astutely, the existential problem we are facing right now does have a concrete pragmatic and real-life component, which the metaphysical question cannot address, at least not directly. Ceaselessly bickering over which version of the truth is the correct one for the white ethnostate to the exclusion of all others is therefore highly counterproductive to the specific needs of the moment that require urgent attention.
Fortunately, this is a practical problem, which requires practical solutions. That is to say, it can be addressed on a personal level without necessarily us coming to an ultimate agreement towards the nature of the cosmos. We can leave that to a later date, so to speak.
I’ve noted a frequent sentiment in these comment sections, that whatever happens to be their vision of a sane and spiritually healthy society, it has diminished from the condition it held in the past, sometimes to even before any extant literary or oral tradition could preserve its essence to the present day. But to any believer in any religion other than egotistic materialism, this state of mind is absurd. The truth exists irrespective of how many people accept it and neither is it diminished by the quantity of adherents nor by the availability of religious books. A healthy body is an existential given one has the wherewithal to strive towards even if one finds himself in the midst of one massive leper colony.
As disappointing as it may sound, I must leave the question of specific practical solutions to another time. However I will offer a few words on what does not constitute such solutions. One of these is the reduction of everything to the political manifolds of the day, i.e. policy platforms invoked in response to the current of events. To echo Antonio Gramsci, politics is nothing but a practical expression of the cultural environment surrounding a specific time frame. Simply put, the predominating culture forms the basis for the decision making of institutions and political organs. Our enemies understand this fundamental truth, but for some reason many of us do not, and furthermore in a characteristically pragmatic minded American fashion, aggressively refuse to even seriously consider it, still holding that the solution lies in agitating the masses into some sort of radical political awakening.
This is why places such as counter-currents are so vitally important in shaping the cultural mentality of their readers, to elevate their level of literacy, to direct their thought into higher and more culturally refined forms, to guide their motives and to enable them to see clearer and further than their peers. That is to say, the change in culture, be it in a minority of people, forms part and parcel of the nascent action and will that shall be invariably reflected in the kind of politics that we would want to see. Putting it more bluntly, so as to avoid any mystification, that without this, no political action is conceivable.
We must also understand the harm and counter-productivity brought by the inevitable divisions that form on the basis of people’s deepest held convictions with regards to the truth. For culture is a unifying aspect of societies, whereas religion is inherently divisive (towards any out-group at least). There were countless examples of societies united by a generally a single culture, yet bitterly opposed to one another on religious grounds. Ironically such divisions are characteristic of European peoples, forming the greater part of their multitudinous ethnic and national identities. Culture engenders higher forms of thought and standards or modes of behavior within a broad space that encompasses many peoples, polities and biomes. That is to say culture is quite practical – it emerges from the necessity for a person to lead a rational and meaningful daily existence. In other words it is absolutely possible to insist upon a specific cultural unity that binds all white European peoples, along with all of its associated thought forms, moral norms and patterns of behavior, even if the same can’t be said about religion. It is this common understanding that will serve as the basis for any future political expression of the interests of the white ethnostate, not the question of whichever religious belief we must either re-adhere or entirely discard.
The other extreme to be rejected of course, is the notion that all of our current political problems proceed from the predominant concern about what constitutes as the “truth” with which the mind of Western civilization has grasped throughout its entire history. Going beyond Christianity, as a recent scholar cited on CC noted, this supposed issue lies in the acknowledgement of metaphysics itself as a valid subject of thought, even in a negative sense as is the case in modern analytic philosophy. But such an understanding, not going into the details of a specific religious paradigm, forms the basis of what differentiates the Aryan from the other peoples on this earth, who tend to think monistically, rejecting any type of systematic thought or categorizing distinctions in favor of an “informal”, non-separating approach to existence. The Eastern religions are not religions the way we conceive it – they are local and particular philosophies, superstitions, animisms, polytheisms and monotheisms merged into a single non-distinct whole bound within the context of a specific culture. To a Western mind, the very minute nature of the manner in which God manifests in the world forms the basis of absolute divisions in religious identity, an Easterner on the other hand, would have trouble understanding Jesus apart from his local ancestral daemon, both of whom are considered to be united and emerging from the same non-descript substance of being. To reject historical Western notions of duality with regards to the truth, is to reject European-ness in itself. It is to reject the commandment “honor your father and your mother” as if it were a foreign, superfluous imposition. This is why I believe that such existential, insurmountable divisions with regards to religious beliefs are likely to remain in European society in so far as it can call itself European, until the day that the Creator himself comes down from heaven and burns this wicked world in fire.
According to Pew Research in 2016, evangelicals swing Republican. Catholics and Mainline Protestants lean slightly left but are more split even than anything else. Jews, atheists, blacks, and Hindus lean strongly toward the Democrat. Chances are better with Republican-leaning people, but like anything else, there’s a bell curve distribution.
Christianity should revive virtues that have been waning since the early 19th century according to Google Ngram’s assessment of their frequency in books. These include practicing fidelity, fortitude, prudence, having a clear conscience, keeping promises & oaths, being honest, faithful, brave, courageous, wise, self-sacrificing, dutiful, devout, obedient, sober, gracious, merciful, generous, magnanimous, impartial, and seeking truth and justice. Christianity prizing these virtues would be more conducive to white nationalism than current forms.
I fail to see how anyone with a good conscience could promote whites being genetically absorbed by typically less moral non-whites. Our Jewish leftist enemies are dishonest and promote anti-majoritarianism above impartiality so they can deflect attention from their relatively privileged positions in white society. Apathetic whites are drunk on porn, booze, and drugs. White traitors are manipulating people in academia, business, finance, and law to satisfy their personal greed. The few good whites (myself included) are cowering here on the Internet for fear of the calloused, Jew-controlled majority making them economically vanquished. Yes, I think we should bring back the old virtues.
Christianity should revive virtues that have been waning since the early 19th century according to Google Ngram’s assessment of their frequency in books. These include practicing fidelity, fortitude, prudence, having a clear conscience, keeping promises & oaths, being honest, faithful, brave, courageous, wise, self-sacrificing, dutiful, devout, obedient, sober, gracious, merciful, generous, magnanimous, impartial, and seeking truth and justice. Christianity prizing these virtues would be more conducive to white nationalism than current forms.
My goodness! That’s quite a laundry list of virtues there. If you think the purpose of religion is controlling people, inside or out, I can’t imagine you have much use for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You’re in good company, of course. Pope Francis isn’t wrong about modern-day pharisaism within and without the church; it’s just ironic that he fails to recognize his own moral hectoring as another instance of such.
Please do a better job of living out the virtues I mentioned in the comments section.
Don’t get me wrong, I think we all need to live up to these virtues–myself included. When people don’t have a good conscience, and when people distort things, set up strawmen, and engage in Machiavellian assassination, people stop taking them seriously, and they might as well be talking to themselves, so it’s best to uphold these virtues and keep people’s respect so you can get them to seriously consider your position.
Sorry, that should read “Machiavellian character assassination.”
These threads illustrate the divisiveness of this issue, which was, I think, the point of the article.
I marched in Pikesville with Christians wearing polos that read, “Victory or Valhalla.” I did not resent their the use of the symbology and they did not try to convert me; rather, we made common cause against our common enemies.
Most people give very little thought to their religion, a phenomenon that continually surprises me. Those same people have an innate respect for their ancestors, though, and those grandparents and great-grandparents were able to square their Christianity with a racial awareness that would certainly be considered white supremacy today.
We can reflect that heritage positively by focusing on the task at hand. I for one will never give offense to an ally for following in his grandfather’s footsteps, and ask only the same respect in return. The purity spiral on either side of this debate is potentially ruinous, and helps only to accelerate our destruction.
Are you serious?
“It’s the religion of the majority of our people, especially those most open to our views. The average white person still thinks being a Christian is a sign you’re a normal white person. Deviation from that strikes them as abnormal.”
Christians are a dwindling minority. The average white person sees people who are serious Christians as being basically wacky and into a nerdy fandom they can’t fathom understand. Christians are the least open to racialist views precisely because they are Christian.
I don’t have a Bible to hand so can’t give chapter and verse, but St Paul repeatedly makes clear that Christians are brothers in Christ and that this trumps all other loyalties. I see no way of reconciling this with white nationalism.
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
—Galatians 3:28
Christian brotherhood is a spiritual concept, not a biological one. Christians should indeed “do unto others …” without regard to non-spiritual characteristics, such as ethnicity or race. That in no way implies embracing “diversity”, or forcing racially alien peoples to have to live with each other and share governing structures. Please let’s everyone stop confusing Christianity with liberalism. They are wholly historically and philosophically distinct.
Not really. The pre-christian schools sought out-of-body whereas Christ’s fulfillment was on Earth. Its about ego development and being fully conscious. “Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. 1 Thessalonians 5:6” . Rather than the ethno-state I think more in terms of the folk-soul and its Archetype.
History reminds us that the fall of a civilization doesn’t have to be a death sentence to its people.
To pivot Christianity onto the political plane is problematic. One of its greatest themes is Hermetic; “As Above So Below” ,”On Earth as it is in Heaven”. From what Archetypal force are our discussions based [ What Angelic being ?]. Have the Mystics, Magicians and esotericists something to say? The Templar’s or warrior monks?
“The Fenris Wolf will still remain…..there is a deep, deep truth concealed in this account of the Fenris Wolf remaining behind in conflict with Odin.”Rudolf Steiner
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment