Counter-Currents
The saviors of the white race?
1,427 words
It seems that every ten years a “New Right” emerges in America. The National Review was seen as the “New Right” in the 1950s. There was a “New Right” in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan’s ascent. There have been many New Rights in Europe as well. Over the past ten years, the term “New Right” was mostly the provenance of American identitarians; hence the North American New Right of which Counter-Currents is a part.
But there’s another New Right that’s arisen over the past few years — and the press loves to talk about it. This group likes to portray themselves as radicals and adversaries against conservative orthodoxy. They tout themselves as the future of the Right, and they promise to be the Left’s worst nightmare. That terrifying image must explain why liberal journalists can’t stop writing about how they’re so dang intriguing!
But this “radical” group of writers, activists, and podcasters fails to address the core issue — namely, race. All of the profiles of these latest New Right figures show a group defined more by what they oppose than what they’re for. Most of what they say is mere sloganeering rather than serious analysis, and moreover they deny the importance of race and refuse to stand up for the white man.
The latest puff piece on the New Right comes courtesy of Vanity Fair. The article’s author, James Pogue, mostly focuses on the neoreactionary Curtis Yarvin, aka Mencius Moldbug, and Senate candidates J. D. Vance and Blake Masters. In between we’re introduced to a variety of personalities that you probably have never heard of and would not count as “Dissident Right.” The author nevertheless does deploy the term Dissident Right, and even defines it:
The podcasters, bro-ish anonymous Twitter posters, online philosophers, artists, and amorphous scenesters in this world are variously known as “dissidents,” “neo-reactionaries,” “post-leftists,” or the “heterodox” fringe — though they’re all often grouped for convenience under the heading of America’s New Right. They have a wildly diverse set of political backgrounds, with influences ranging from 17th-century Jacobite royalists to Marxist cultural critics to so-called reactionary feminists to the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, whom they sometimes refer to with semi-ironic affection as Uncle Ted. Which is to say that this New Right is not a part of the conservative movement as most people in America would understand it. It’s better described as a tangled set of frameworks for critiquing the systems of power and propaganda that most people reading this probably think of as “the way the world is.” And one point shapes all of it: It is a project to overthrow the thrust of progress, at least such as liberals understand the word.
Most Counter-Currents readers would probably think that description accurately identifies the Dissident Right’s “big tent,” but race realism and identitarianism apparently aren’t part of it. Race is only discussed in the context of opposition to Critical Race Theory. Immigration is only mentioned once. Demographics is never mentioned at all. There are only two paragraphs that deal with race realism and identitarianism – in which it is claimed that the New Right eschews both concepts.
The first paragraph discusses how Yarvin no longer associates with these ideas:
As Moldbug, Yarvin wrote about race-based IQ differences, and in an early post, titled “Why I Am Not a White Nationalist,” he defended reading and linking to white nationalist writing. He told me he’d pursued those early writings in a spirit of “open inquiry,” though Yarvin also openly acknowledged in the post that some of his readers seemed to be white nationalists.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right here
The succeeding paragraph quotes Yarvin as saying he’s tempered himself in middle age.
The second paragraph follows Pogue discussing how he saw few blacks at a National Conservatism Conference, but that several South Asians and Middle Easterners were in attendance. It discusses the criticism lobbed at the New Right and how accusations of racism don’t seem to faze its adherents:
In March, the journalist Jeff Sharlet (a Vanity Fair contributing editor who covers the American right) tweeted that the “intellectual New Right is a white supremacist project designed to cultivate non-white support,” and he linked it to resurgent nationalist and authoritarian politics around the world: “It’s part of a global fascist movement not limited to the anti-blackness of the U.S. & Europe.” Yet many on the New Right seem increasingly unfazed by accusations that they’re white nationalists or racists. Masters in particular seems willing to goad commentators, believing that the ensuing arguments will redound to his political advantage: “Good luck [hitting] me with that,” Masters told the podcaster Alex Kaschuta recently, arguing that accusations of racism had become a political bludgeon used to keep conservative ideas outside the political mainstream. “Good luck criticizing me for saying critical race theory is anti-white.”
It’s a good sign that these figures shrug at suggestions they’re racist and that some of them are willing to call Critical Race Theory anti-white (particularly the ones running for office). But it appears the real issues don’t animate them. These folks simply don’t like the liberal elite, globalism, or free market orthodoxy. What they are for is not really explored, besides the political candidates saying they would like families to live off a single-earner income.
This lack of clarity leads to embarrassments. Pogue’s broad definition of the Dissident Right leads him to describe a certain podcast known as The Fedpost as part of the movement. The podcast is co-hosted by a half-black, half-Asian man who spends most of his time on social media railing against Right-wingers, “racists,” and white people. This person insists he only cares about class, not race. This hardly sounds like the Dissident Right.
Prominent Dissident Right figures are never mentioned in the article. Nick Fuentes, the Groypers, Jared Taylor, Bronze Age Pervert, and Peter Brimelow are completely ignored. You would think all the energy and ideas come from the National Conservatism conferences and Sohrab Ahmari. Donald Trump, the man who popularized these ideas and trends in 2016, is barely mentioned in the article. This movement seems to have just appeared out of nowhere, independent of both Trump and the Alt Right phenomenon.
The most glaring issue is not which figures or issues are discussed; it’s the ignorance of what made national populism a thing. Trump voters were not riled up by appeals to some nebulous conception of the “common good,” neoreactionary theory, family tax credits, abortion, minimum wage increases, or student loan debt forgiveness. They were outraged at their own dispossession and rallied behind Trump as the one candidate who shared their anxiety. It wasn’t a class revolt motivated by economic concerns; it was a white revolt motivated by racial tensions. Race and identity were the key principles.
Other profiles of the movement similarly ignore this fact and pretend the New Right is something far more respectable. The New Republic’s profile from last December described the factions of the New Right thusly:
Some are “national conservatives,” who, like “Reformicons” of the 2010s, support pro-family welfare policy and reject the GOP’s tax-cutting orthodoxy. (NatCons, as they’re known, also tend to be China and immigration hawks who want an “industrial policy” for the heartland.) Others are “postliberal” localists, in the vein of Patrick Deneen, who wrote Why Liberalism Failed, and Rod Dreher, the irascible Eastern Orthodox blogger and author of The Benedict Option, a spirited argument for Christian retreat from the turpitude of public life into virtuous communal separatism. And others are Roman Catholic integralists, aspiring to a theologically ordered politics; Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule and University of Dallas politics professor and American Affairs editor Gladden Pappin are their touchstones.
“Whichever denomination they prefer, New Rightists tend to agree that classical liberalism — of the sort embraced by previous generations of conservatives — has a big hole in the middle of it where a substantive concept of the Good should be,” the liberal magazine said of the New Right’s unifying principle.
That’s not at all what drives the Dissident Right, nor what animated Trumpism. It just motivates pundits who believe it will make them edgy — but not too edgy. They don’t want to jeopardize plaudits from the liberal media.
Race and identity are the core issues facing America today. Class warfare is an anachronism that makes no sense for the Right when much of our base is middle class. Integralism is the definition of LARP. National conservatism only makes sense if it stands up for a people, not an abstraction dreamt up by Yoram Hazony.
The only path forward is white identity politics. Everything else is a distraction.
* * *
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!
26 comments
Why would (((Rubin))), (((Hazony))), an Iranian and a homosexual not care about the future of the White race? Total mystery.
‘The only path forward is white identity politics.’
Yes.
‘Everything else is a distraction.’
No.
‘Everything else’ that can support the ambitions of White Identity Nationalism is not a distraction.
We need to set aside this either/or – dismissive – style of thinking. And we need to figure out why we so readily fall into it.
The Faux Dissident Right is an attempt to address problems that concern White people (as well as non-Whites) without actually addressing Whites as a people.
The issue here isn’t whether they’re right and and we’re wrong or vice-versa, is it? That’s never going to be settled between different political factions. The issue is what, then? That their policies will make Whites content with their dispossession and slow-roll genocide?
We need to start looking at our motives for picking the enemies that we pick and talking about them the way that we do in order to make sure that we don’t let our passions get in the way making a clear-headed analysis that can inform our responses.
Our enemies know who we are and we know who they are.
We also know our enemies have enormous resources that they can employ to create whatever illusion of popular support that they wish to create.
We are in a struggle with our enemy and we cannot expect them to not use every means necessary to defeat us.
This iteration of a ‘New Right’ that is not a Racial Right is an opportunity as much as an obstacle.
We experience our enemy as a black box emitting signals into the fog of war.
Instead of arguing with those signals, we should attempt to use them to extrapolate our enemy’s thinking and analyzing their maneuvering over time.
Also, it might do for our analysts to understand what ‘ablative armor’ is and how it’s used in modern warfare.
Our enemy will keep putting forward ablative armor in the form of controlled pseudo-oppositions as long as is necessary to demoralize us or provide a more comforting version of politics that keeps our enemy in the cat-bird seat and White Identity Nationalism on the fringes, outside the limelight.
However, the enemy has to go so far as to back people who are using the term ‘antiwhite’.
Everyone should see that for the maneuvering for position that it is.
As predicted, there will be more anti-antiwhite politics as a way to defuse genuinely pro-White politics.
Our analyses should take into account whether (a) this is good for White people and, if so, (b) over what horizon is it a good thing? Our analyses should also look at ways to use their intellectual and moral territorial concessions to our advantage, and not just focus in ‘the win’.
“The Latest “New Right” Avoids the Core Issue”, therefore, we ignore them – they’re controlled opposition. The tiptoeing surrounding our existence needs to end. The logic is simple – English for the most part, settled, created, built the institutions, built the country (for White persons…of good character) other Europeans joined in & although it wasn’t always easy it worked out & there was no anti-White & no tearing down our statues. The third world people cannot create what we Europeans create, hence, they move into our societies to our detriment; us running away to build our own societies (when we already had our own spaces) means we are giving away parts of our homeland that our ancestors worked, bled, & died for, and, the third world will continue to want to move where we are. We cannot give up one inch, we repatriate as per “The Slow Cleanse aka Restoring White Homelands” by Greg Johnson, &, we must deal with our traitors. The racial conflict continues, the assaults continue, the murders continue, every twelve months 20,000+ European Women are raped by non-Europeans, etc.
Yes, the logic is easy. Now, do we have the will?
“…they’re controlled opposition.”
Never thought of it this way… interesting perspective.
“The tiptoeing surrounding our existence needs to end.”
We literally need ONE normal mainstream politician/commentator to just come out and address the war on white people. Obviously, this person will be crucified and buried under the white house lawn, but a lot of people are ready/need to hear it.
This ‘New Right’, unlike its Francophone namesake, appears to be composed of persons whose views would have been accounted solidly Left-Liberal a couple of decades ago. The demographic destiny of Europe and the four surviving anglophone settler-nations is above all other considerations, and sniping at peripheral manifestations such as the ‘trans’ ideology and lockdowns will no longer suffice.
I’ve been saying for more than 40 years (not lying) that not only is immigration restriction the #1 issue by lightyears, but that anyone who does not support halting the Replacement (in the past I would have said “invasion) cannot be called “conservative”. What is the first principle of “conservatism” if not the defense of your people from internal subversion (which includes criminal mayhem) and foreign invasion?
There’s a lot of really smart/good people under this “new right” banner but yea, I’m assuming they’re just too aware of what’ll happen to them if they address the race issue. And if they, too, disbelieve what’s happening as far as race goes, then they’re just naïve.
Decades of social engineering has made this topic completely untouchable, its really amazing when you think about it.
I disagree. I think one can address racial differences to conservatives in a sober and responsible, but also enlightening, way (leftists are hysterics and mental patients, esp wrt race, so they are out of bounds for serious discussions). Moreover, one can totally get at these issues implicitly – via attacking CRT; advocating deporting all illegals (which I myself continue to do (if the topic is broached) in a woke-y company in a very blue state area), building the Wall, and an legal immigration moratorium; denouncing BLM (easier today than 2 years ago); acknowledging black crime rates; complaining about affirmative action (but without bringing in group differences in IQ), and so much more.
What cannot be done, except by true, self-supporting Dissidents, is to talk about white nationalism, white preservation (which is funny in its rank hypocrisy, if you think about it), the evil of miscegenation, how queers and trannies are weird and repellent, how women are psychologically unsuited for many professions, and how America was soooo much better when it was soooo much whiter (although I love to talk about how wonderful were “the good old days”; I think some of my douchebag colleagues get what I’m about, but they can’t prove anything to my detriment; anyway, everyone already knows I’m a Republican). The other thing that could literally get me fired would be for me to say that the 2020 election was flat-out stolen (libtards have ‘probed’ me on this, and I always say merely that “there were documented election irregularities, and they should have been formally investigated”).
I feel like the “new right” types discussed in this article also somewhat probe into the topics in your first paragraph but yea, the second paragraphs topics are all off limits, and I’ll also add the good ol’ JQ!
They are Jews. Enough said, never, ever, any good for us. Never. Not one single time, never will be, never has been. One needs to know no more, all other speculation is playing to their hands. No dialogue, no deals, nothing.
But what do you really think? (Just kidding, you’re right, of course)
I see these things as artificial limits the system, really Jews, create to stop people getting to where they need to go. As the left’s narrative obviously starts to unravel and lose credibility there’s a panic to run to the other end and plug the dam that’s about to break.
I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that Dave Rubin drifted away from some aspects of the left because of the left’s ‘antisemitism’ about Israel, certainly not to save white people or the West. We see that a lot with Jews. The left stops holding up the flattering mirror Jews feel entitled to on this topic and Jews leave and become neocons instead. But in every other way, Rubin is clearly at the polar opposite end of what even normie conservatives believe in, he’s a homosexual Jew with an adopted child.
The worst offender in this realm might be Jordan Peterson. He’s obviously very intelligent and so knows better, but he’s allowed himself to become incorrectly depicted as a symbol of radical dissent, when he’s anything but that. Sure he sees and articulates some of the immediate problems with the left but will always redirect away from the correct solution back to libtardism. He is the number one way of selling this fake right to white people.
Another person in this ‘intellectual dark web’ is this the Jew Bret Weinstein. He even calls his show ‘Dark Horse podcast’, so you really know you’re getting dangerous content. I saw a couple of these earlier in the year. He did have some reasonable points about covid and vaccines. He objects to having to accept men in women’s sports. He doesn’t like some of the extreme wokeism of the left. People like Weinstein obviously saw themselves as part of the left at some point and now feel excluded from much of its discourse. But that’s as far as it goes. Their interest is squarely in maintaining liberal, multicultural diverse societies not declaring them as failed states.
So you have these constructions, these fake limits, these gatekeepers on discourse steering you back to the center. They are either Jews or saying things that Jews want to hear, and they are given priority placement on youtube and elsewhere in the media to give the impression they are ‘breaking through’ the speech strictures the left have imposed and delivering refreshing truth. And for quite a number of people they probably are effective distractions, “Now we’re really giving it to those libs with Dave Rubin”. um…
Can these people be used as a gateway drug to us ? I don’t know, maybe. But they are there as a barrier. Perhaps some will get to us that way. Probably for every 1 that gets to our full truth, 100 might be content to stay with this bullshit. It says a part of what they want to hear and comes with far less of the risks.
But we must never allow ourselves to be satisfied with the left’s claim that Peterson or Rubin are ‘nazis’. We don’t even know how much of that is genuine deluded hysteria and how much of it is actually noise designed to wrongly bolster the positions of these people as ‘dangerous thinkers’ in the normy mind. Either way it has that effect.
I agree with everything said in this article and the commenters are right to point out that these people are not white, majority Jewish and dishonest, but I think the most devastating criticism that can be levied at them all is that they are boring.
“The only path forward is white identity politics”
More specifically, the only path forward (that has a proven record of success rather than continuous failure) is white identity politics built on the foundation of Jesus Christ, rediscovering our collective identity as the singular race made in the image of God.
Secular WN politics have not accomplished a single thing for the white race in over half a century, and the failures only become more decisive and spectacular as time goes on. As long as European people continue to turn away from God and allow the literal sons of Satan to not only define for them what a Christian is, but co-opt our very identity, this will not change.
Western civilization was built as it was because its architects understood their role as the true chosen people of God, the spiritual transcendence of our race, and were therefore operating under God’s grace and divine might.
Christian identity is the ONLY solution, with the ONLY real answers to the questions pertaining to the destruction of our people and civilization.
White man, YOU alone are the earthly representation of God Almighty, and until our race collectively embraces this formerly widely-understood truth, the downward spiral will continue unabated.
Christian Identity is the product of people desperately trying to reconcile the obvious contradictions between Christianity and White identity. Christianity is an individualist, globalist religion that was created and spread by the very same people who are most responsible for white decline. White identitarian Christians can’t accept this obvious fact so they twist themselves into logical pretzels as they struggle to serve two masters and claiming “we’re the real Jews after all” is the sad, delusional product.
There is no contradiction between Christianity and white identitarianism. You have fully bought into the enemy’s propaganda. Divorcing white survival from the historic Faith guarantees white extinction (and that is a sociological not theological assertion).
“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
I’m not sure how anyone can read that verse and interpret it as support for nationalism or any other kind of racial or ethnic preservation. Not only does it downplay the distinction between Jews and non-Jews, it asserts that they don’t truly exist at all. Christians were denying the existence of white people (or at least the Greek subset of white people) hundreds of years before progressives even existed. If any other Jewish man were promoting this message, nationalists would see it for what it is and dismiss it on the spot. Christians *can’t* dismiss it though, because the Jewish author of that verse was an apostle that their religion venerates.
The only national identitarianism in The Bible is in the Old Testament, and it has nothing to do with whites.
The New Testament is explicitly universalistic, which probably has something to do with the statistical fact that the global Christian population is majority nonwhite.
You are confused about a lot of theological things. I’m ill in an ongoing way, and not really up to an extended debate on this. Bottom line: the famous verse you cite refers to what Christians believe is the spiritual essence of man. It’s proper interpretation, which must be seen in light of the “thought-world” of that time, is that Christ was a universal redeemer, meaning that anyone can attain salvation through Him, and that there are no earthly distinctions between sentient moral beings in Christ’s kingdom except those pertaining to the moral virtues. IOWs, whether you are elite or plebeian, man/woman, one race or tribe or another in this world does not matter to God. What matters, as a famous nonwhite American put it, is “the content of character”.
This possibility of human brotherhood is a spiritual one. All persons regardless of specific historical condition are welcome to become brothers and sisters in Christ. This has nothing to do with pretending against evidence that we can all act as though we are literal (biological) siblings. Christ also famously said “my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). All souls live their embodied lives in this world (ie, not Christ’s). Politics (which Christ never denounced or held to be unnecessary) for a Christian is about governing imperfect (sinful) persons in this material world; ultimately, about so arranging society in its forms and processes as to minimize physical pain, immorality and injustice (which can never be wholly eliminated, due to what Christians hold is the ontological ineradicability of human sinfulness absent the final perfecting grace of Christ at the Second Coming).
A Christian politics is therefore resolutely non-utopian. It takes the world as it is, man as he is, and seeks such moral and functional improvements as are possible within multifold limits (biological, historical, economic, geographical, etc). Can a Christian be an aggressive nationalist? I don’t think so, for the same set of moral reasons that he cannot be an aggressive person (eg, if it’s evil for me to ‘raid’ your property or rape your woman when you’re a member of my tribe, there is no license to perpetrate these acts against others, simply for reasons of tribal difference). In this sense, perhaps, we can call Christianity a “liberalizing” creed.
But does this mean a Christian has to renounce his own people, to pretend he does not have a ‘people’? I don’t see how that follows from universalistic moral edicts and prohibitions (“Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc”). Am I ‘evil’ for feeding my family before yours? That is to be expected as a function of my biological nature. Man (in the Christian understanding) is both biological and spiritual; each aspect of his being has its claims and needs. Man’s moral obligations flow out from him in a series of widening but also weakening concentric circles. The first duty of care is to God. The second duty is to family. The next is to neighbor (which is to be understood, in this very different transient and mobile age, genetically/tribally). Then more distant neighbor, and so on. By the time we reach some random person, totally distinct from us (racially, ethnopsychologically, geographically, religiously), on the other side of the world, our only obligations are negative, as understood by libertarians – do no harm.
A Christian never has moral license to hurt another person except in legitimate self-defense, nor to be cruel. But such negative obligations are hardly moral imperatives for the kinds of racially suicidal acts of collective self-abnegation that (mostly non-Christian, but also some misguided Christian) liberals impose upon innocent whites. It is not “Christian” to force white nations to accept masses of racially alien (not to mention often statistically behaviorally repulsive) “migratory imperialists”, thereby destroying whites’ collective ‘family’ home(land)s. Nor is it “Christian” to lie, in this case, about the facts of racial differentiation and their societal consequences. Nor is it remotely “Christian” for a white liberal traitor to “bear false witness” merely because he is doing so against his own race. Nor does it follow theologically that white Christians must associate with nonwhites (as opposed again to merely not harming them), especially outside of church services (where a strong case against mandatorily segregated services can be made).
Despite the occasionally breathless rhetoric of some overheated, overly isolated theologians, “all on fire for Christ”, Christianity in fact is a reasonable Faith, at least wrt the material things of this world. You don’t have to be a saint to be saved. You just have to acknowledge Christ, and work at being a good person. And you are absolutely not being ‘saintly’ when you are a liberal indulging your own mental illness by advancing, often coercively, the illegitimate or at least morally unimperative material interests of aliens at the expense of the legitimate, or at least not-illegitimate, material interests of your own people.
Christianity is not “liberalism + God”. Liberalism is not “Christianity – God”.
White preservationists really have to come en masse to recognize this.
Quoting Lord Sheng — Man’s moral obligations flow out from him in a series of widening but also weakening concentric circles. The first duty of care is to God. The second duty is to family. The next is to neighbor (which is to be understood, in this very different transient and mobile age, genetically/tribally). Then more distant neighbor, and so on. By the time we reach some random person, totally distinct from us (racially, ethnopsychologically, geographically, religiously), on the other side of the world, our only obligations are negative, as understood by libertarians – do no harm.
Quoting Julian Langella — Patriotism stems from the Fourth Commandment: “Honor your father and your mother.” The Catechism teaches that this commandment “indicates the order of charity.” This order of propriety is the direct result of the limit given by God to human nature, which is not able to love everyone at the same time. “As you cannot be useful to everyone,” writes Saint Augustin, “you must especially care for those who, according to time and place or other opportunities, are more closely united to you by a certain fate.”
In 1939, in the encyclical Summi pontifactus, Pope Pius XII confirms and recalls this principle: “In exercising charity there exists an order established by God, according to which one must show a more intense love and do good in preference to those to whom one is united by special bonds.” Yes, even in love there is a hierarchy . . . .
This order of charity is not a recent intellectual construction. On the contrary, this principle is stated very clearly by Saint Paul in his first epistle to Timothy: “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8).
Saint Thomas Aquinas tell us also that respect for the fourth commandment is an act of piety: “Just as it is fitting to religion to render veneration to God, likewise on a second level it is fitting to piety to render veneration to parents and the homeland . . . . In the veneration of the homeland is included the veneration of fellow citizens and of all the homeland’s friends.”
Pope Leo XIII wrote that “natural law commands us to love with preference and devotion that country where we are born and where we have been raised to the point that the good citizen does not fear to face death for his homeland.” Love always has a hierarchy.
Saint Pius X, his successor, drives the nail home: “Yes, it is worthy not only of love, but of predilection, the homeland whose sacred name awakens the most cherished memories and makes the very fibers of your soul tremble, this common land where your cradle was rocked, attached by ties of blood and this other more noble community of affection and traditions.” Yes, you read that correctly: “ties of blood.”
As for Pius XI, in 1922, he celebrates “this love of his homeland and his race, a powerful source of many virtues and acts of heroism when it is ruled by Christian law.”
Therefore, the Church realizes the basic truth that patriotism is a virtue of preference. The popes and the Church’s greatest men of wisdom have always taught this. The history of France and of Europe is full of saints who placed their whole life under the sign of this virtue of love.
I share your concern for our racial survival and wellbeing, but your statements are not Christian. Christianity does not allege white superiority, nor mandate white perpetuity. Nor is it hostile to white preservation, either. One can be an orthodox Christian and a white preservationist. There is no moral contradiction or discrepancy between the two positions. There is therefore no need to futilely attempt to rewrite the Faith; rather, we must unearth and highlight the ethical non–mandatoriness of the policy of coercively diversifying white homelands.
My adherence to CI has zero to do with trying to reconcile a perceived, false contradiction between Christianity and white identity. A century+ of Jewish subversion and reconfiguration of the fundamental Christian doctrine has led not only evangelical Zionists into great confusion about the scripture and history of the faith, but white identitarian Christians have arrived at a place of similar confusion. The Christian WN does indeed face difficult propositions when it comes to squaring their faith and their politics, where elements of each compromise the other, leading to confusion and ambiguities that do not actually exist in scripture. I’ve seen it time and time again, and to wiggle out of this predicament they say “just don’t mix your faith and your politics.” A nonsensical notion if ever there was one. This dilemma of reconciling the two is not one related to scripture itself, but to the individual’s misunderstanding of it. These same WN Christians routinely fail to interpret the true meaning of vitally relevant words used over and over in scripture. Basic stuff.
In actuality, no, there is no need to reconcile white identity and Christianity, because as our ancestors understood, they are part of the same foundation and inseparably bound together.
Christian identity is not re-writing the faith — it’s discovering thousands of years of demographic migration and returning to the Christianity our ancestors understood to be true, all verified by scripture. God said His people would forget who they were and consequently experience all the misfortune and misery that has befallen us. Using the OT only to reinforce *certain* NT messages, while ignoring all others because they’re unpalatable, is not sound doctrine. You embrace it in totality or you’re working from an established position and using scripture to conform that said position. Similar to how leftists do politics in general.
CI is the *least* arrogant and prideful of all Christian faiths, because CI surrenders to the will of God with ZERO reservations, does not question the will of God or try to apply human “logic” onto Him. We read scripture exactly how it is written and with humility express infinite gratitude towards our Creator. Trying to “reconcile” anything in this context, or any, is to attempt to question why God does what he does, and to employ human emotion in discerning the will of God.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever sincerely researched the arguments for CI? If not I’d be happy to cite some resources where an abundance of this information can be found.
“Christian identity is not re-writing the faith — it’s discovering thousands of years of demographic migration and returning to the Christianity our ancestors understood to be true, all verified by scripture. God said His people would forget who they were and consequently experience all the misfortune and misery that has befallen us.”
Yes, it is. You’re appropriating someone’s else’s faith and claiming it as your own. White people are *not* descendants of the original Israelites but Jonathon Greenblatt is. I’ve seen zero evidence to support the CI claim that Europeans are descended from Israelites and I believe you’re forced to deny it because you (correctly) interpret the Bible as a Jewish supremacist text and you want to be on the winning team. The problem I’m trying to highlight is that you wouldn’t have been backed into this corner if not for Christianity. Christianity made you fall in love with someone else’s history and CI is tempting to you because it gives you an opportunity to delude yourself into thinking that Yahweh chose you when he clearly didn’t.
Even from the perspective of traditionalist theology (which I wouldn’t altogether accept even if I became a Christian believer again), there is nothing special about the Jews post-Resurrection. They are now just another ethnic group (Christian Zionism is nothing more than another weird Christianistic cult, like the Mormons). “The Church is Israel now.”
No, I confess I’ve not studied CI, and would be willing to read some of the better materials (if I live past this summer, which I probably will, but might not). I myself am a true philosophical agnostic (completely openminded, unable to decide if I believe in anything supernatural at all or not), but I grew up in a serious Christian home, albeit in what seems to be an expiring creed (“Old Anglicanism”), at least in the West (Third World, esp. African, Anglicans are very traditionalist and vigorous). I’m sympathetic to (and interested in) intellectual Catholicism. I’m not Pentecostal or evangelical in background at all.
I don’t mean to be antagonistic, but from everything I’ve heard or read, CI seems to me to be a racial cult – a manufactured way to try to have a Faith which is racially positive for whites, as opposed to the racially harmful, globalist garbage that is spewed in one form or another by nearly all the churches today. However, my stance is that it is precisely that globalist intellectual pollution that needs to be theologically defenestrated and then excised from Church teaching – and that this task can be done (that it hasn’t continues to surprise me, testifying yet again to the global intellectual homogenization that seems to be a dominant, if somewhat difficult to explain, feature of the contemporary world).
There have indeed been several new rights. The last one was in the 70s and early 80s and they helped elect Reagan, started the Heritage Foundation, the Christian Coalition and several other organizations that still exist in one form or another. While they had some allowance for racial activism (they supported anti-busing protests and were anti-affirmative action) they never grasped the reality of race or (more likely) were scared of race. Hence, they did absolutely nothing to stop the leftist onslaught. A lesson for those on the dissident right who want to ignore the reality of race.
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