Counter-Currents
Christianity is a Vast Reservoir of Potential White Allies
Joshua Lawrence
2,895 words
In his Counter Currents article from May 20, 2022, “What Christian Nationalism Looks Like in Current-Year America,” Robert Hampton casts a critical eye on Christian nationalism. His thesis:
[Identitarians] think [Christian nationalism is] an ideology that can easily be racialized and used to defend white people . . .
In reality, Christian nationalism is an evangelical, multiracial, philo-Semitic circus that repulses young middle-class people. Its core demographic is those over 40, and it’s not the future of American politics.
Mr. Hampton may only be discussing the specific phenomenon of Christian nationalism, but in truth, American Christians in general form a vast reservoir of potential white allies. What matters most is not specific vehicles such as White Nationalism or Christian nationalism. I have no objection to these vehicles if they can protect our people, but they are not the key issue. What matters most is that we white people are able to defend ourselves by repelling attacks and fighting for our interests as white people. Following Jared Taylor, I call this white advocacy, a term more precise and less freighted with negative connotations in the minds of normies than White Nationalism. The present work seeks to show that, counterfeits notwithstanding, genuine Christianity is compatible with white advocacy.
Genuine Christianity is an ally against all of wokeness and Leftism, not just white persecution, for two basic reasons. Because of its view that the Bible is an unchanging standard and an accurate and rationally understandable description of reality, genuine Christianity teaches a comprehensive worldview that enables the Christian to accept the truth about all subjects, race relations included. And whereas the driving force behind white Leftism is psychological and spiritual pain that drives its victims to seek redemption through woke activism, Christianity heals the soul through assurance of the forgiveness of sins and through teaching the Christian believer to understand and accept the world as it is. While many Christian entities — congregations, denominations, colleges, non-governmental organizations, etc. — are distracted by unhealthy doses of un- and anti-Christian doctrine, most of Christendom retains enough respect for genuine Christianity to form a huge reservoir of potential allies.
Yes, Christianity’s compatibility with white advocacy is not clear to the man in the street. American Protestantism is often circus-like, with pastors and teachers eagerly catering to popular prejudices rather than to the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3.) And Catholicism, despite self-serving claims of unity and possession of Apostolic authority, is no better. Many Christian leaders flirt with the currently fashionable phenomenon of white persecution rather than giving it the condemnation it deserves.
But their support for Jim Snow is a mile wide and an inch deep. The actual Christian religion is not compatible with modern-style “diversity.” Widely-cited and apparently woke verses such as “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28) refer to our acceptance by God based on faith in Jesus rather than our membership in secular human categories. These verses have nothing to do with diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE). Genuine Christianity opposes white persecution as the injustice that it is, and Christian wokeness results mostly from church leaders trying to be popular. It can be defeated either by accurate appeals to Scripture and to common decency, or by a change in the cultural winds.
A brief discussion of the types of Christianity is in order. In America Christianity basically means Protestantism, although Catholicism has grown greatly in recent decades. For the purposes of the current discussion, there are three predominant types of American Protestantism. Using their conventional descriptors, they are mainline denominational, mainstream Evangelical, and Bible-believing. There are overlaps, but the distinctions are important.
Mainline denominational Protestantism was once the majority report, but thanks to its almost complete embrace of secular liberalism and Leftism, it is now in terminal decline. Mainline denominational Protestantism openly changes biblical doctrine to fit the Left-wing fads of the day and is almost fully woke. But since its numbers are minimal and it does not follow the historic Christian religion, it can be ignored here. My goal is to show that Christianity properly understood is friendly to white advocacy, and these people are not proper Christians. (But there are a few genuinely Christian congregations within the mainline denominations.)
Mainstream Evangelical Protestantism is orthodox in theory, avoiding the openly-embraced heresies of the mainline denominations, and it often teaches against Leftism and wokeness. The term “evangelical” refers to its emphasis on the gospel message of forgiveness of sins through repentance and faith in Jesus, a traditional Christian message which the mainline denominations have openly rejected. But evangelicalism has an Achilles’ heel of wanting to appeal to the masses. It is willing to denounce atheism and abortion, but increasingly it seeks accommodation with CRT and LGBTQ+ — that is, anti-whiteness and sexual perversion. The Evangelical mainstream formally opposes sexual perversion because the Bible clearly identifies it as sin. But its overall attitude toward wokeness is more “Let’s make a deal!” than “Get thee behind me, Satan!”
Mainstream Evangelicalism is genuinely Christian on paper and includes many biblically-faithful congregations, but is often misled by its desire to be hip and trendy.
The difference between mainline and Evangelical is not one of denomination. There are Lutherans, for example, in each camp: the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is evangelical; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is mainline and liberal. (The confusing terminology results from “Evangelical Church” being Luther’s preferred name for the church he founded.)
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
The true difference between the mainline denominations and mainstream Evangelicalism is that when the Bible contradicts wokeness, the former says the Bible is wrong while the latter is prone to reinterpret Scripture. Mainstream Evangelicalism holds the Bible to be an inerrant standard, but sometimes creates new interpretations that are more in keeping with the spirit of the age.
The third main Protestant group calls itself Bible-believing. Like Evangelicalism, it holds the Bible to be inerrant and therefore an unwavering standard, but is aware of the danger of desiring to please the masses. The Bible-believing churches do better at holding the line against modernity.
A cynic might say that Protestantism contains so many denominations, and so many other divisions, that generalizations about Christianity such as the one discussed here are not valid. Christianity to the cynic seems a hodge-podge and a mélange, with no clear defining characteristics.
The cynic is wrong. All sectors of Evangelical and Bible-believing Christianity affirm a very large “common core” of historic Protestant beliefs, most of which are also shared with (non-liberal) Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox (EO). The differences tend to be more interesting and accordingly get center stage, but backstage the much larger set of common beliefs make Christianity (including based Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) compatible with white advocacy.
There is also an important rift concerning justification by faith alone which separates Protestants from Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, and there is another rift between the Roman and the EO churches. But these rifts do not touch white advocacy.
How, then, is Christianity compatible with white advocacy? Rather than presenting a comprehensive case, I will paint with broad strokes. Christianity does not affirm the modern mainstream view of race relations; it affirms that families, tribes, and nations should seek their own good as far as it is compatible with justice, and it calls on rulers to rule with (non-woke) justice.
The modern view of race relations is, of course, that whites have an unforgiveable “original sin” called whiteness which inexorably drives us to persecute non-whites, and therefore whites are to be brought low and non-whites are to be exalted. But this contradicts the genuine biblical appraisal of mankind that all have sinned and fall short of the gory of God (Romans 3:23), and that all mankind needs the remedy of forgiveness through the ministry of Jesus Christ. Those who are faithful to the genuine Christian religion cannot accept “another gospel” such as wokeness (Galatians 1:8).
Christianity also describes human society as it should be, with mankind divided into families, tribes, and nations according to the plan of God: “. . . [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, . . .” [Acts 17:26]. Christianity also charges families and nations with seeking the good of their own people: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” [I Timothy 5:8].
Christianity opposes wokeness by calling on rulers to rule with justice and not to favor either the great or the lowly:
You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired worker are not to remain with you all night until morning. You shall not curse a person who is deaf, nor put a stumbling block before a person who is blind, but you shall revere your God; I am the Lord. You shall not do injustice in judgment; you shall not show partiality to the poor nor give preference to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly. [emphasis added] You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people; and you are not to jeopardize the life of your neighbor. I am the Lord. You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may certainly rebuke your neighbor, but you are not to incur sin because of him. [Leviticus 19:13-17]
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a servant of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. [Romans 13:3,4. Expressing the ideal, if not always the practice, of the civil ruler.]
Christianity also opposes wokeness by undercutting its foundations. The woke understanding of the world holds reality to be indeterminate, with each person coming into existence through random processes and bearing no allegiance to his people or their ways. In this scenario the best for mankind is for each individual to actuate his desires in a way that maximizes harmony and minimizes friction, and the root of all evil is a few selfish persons (mostly whites and men) wickedly discriminating against their fellow man in the name of outdated ideologies. It is a self-contained and self-consistent package deal — a spell, if you will — that cannot be broken by arguing piecemeal against its parts. The spell can only be broken by a radical act of recognizing the foulness of the woke system and repenting of one’s participation therein. Christianity defies the woke person’s smug self-righteousness (“I am righteous because I am non-white / female / LGBTQ+ / an ally / you name it”) by declaring that God pronounces him a sinner, and it offers salvation based on believing in God and His biblical message.
This deep act of repentance is essentially the same act that Christianity calls on each person to perform: to transfer his loyalty from a popular but wicked world system to the divine System, and to its Master.
If its pastors and teachers do their job, Christianity teaches the neophyte the truth about the world and human society. The new Christian begins learning how to take his place in a serious order and play a role based on love of God, love of neighbor, and respect for the reality that God created. In the Christian way of life, there is no time for woke foolishness.
When the new Christian understands that his sins are real but forgiven in Christ and that God created the world as a very good realm (Genesis 1:31), he cannot but reject woke madness, including white persecution.
To be sure, many Christian leaders do not do their duty to God, and one result is a plague of wokeness in the churches. But non-woke Christianity is more prevalent than most non-Christians know. There are a lot more of us out there than is generally believed. (I am one of the Bible-believers.)
Some white advocates believe that the Christian understanding of evolution entails the notion that those who accept evolution are prone to embrace “white supremacy.” Therefore, rejecting evolution allegedly leads the Christian to embrace the modern notion of racial equality. For this reason, some white advocates hold that acceptance of the mainstream understanding of evolution is necessary for the race realism that is the antidote to the poisonous doctrine of white racism being the cause of non-white underachievement. But this is a red herring. Before the second half of the nineteenth century, only a few kooks and visionaries believed in human evolution, but everybody acknowledged natural human inequalities. One can reject fully atheistic evolution (as I do) and also embrace race realism: Whether they evolved that way or were made that way by God, the races have natural differences. Christianity enables one to think clearly about race relations.
Non-Christians sometimes fear that Christianity promotes an emotional and foolish way of life. But genuine Christianity teaches its followers to live in the real world and master it to the best of their abilities. There is, to be sure, a supernatural world that is ultimately the more important realm. But genuine Christianity encourages people to be practical and effective, studying the world as it is and operating within its parameters. They do not get very much publicity, because the powers-that-be prefer to publicize the bizarre in order to demean Christianity, but sober Christians exist in great abundance. These people are potentially natural allies of white advocacy.
Savvy Evangelical and Bible-believing Christians understand that the Ruling System hates them because they are Christians. They are hated because of who they are. Jesus taught his followers to expect it:
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in this same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:11,12)
It is only a small conceptual step from there (but a psychologically large step) for savvy white Christians to understand that the same Ruling System also hates them because they are white, and they then become sympathetic to white advocacy.
I conclude by commenting on some other points made by Mr. Hampton:
Besides Israelite LARPing and bad aesthetics, there’s also the lack of any racial awareness . . . They’re in a spiritual struggle to make America Christian again . . . This is not a euphemism for making America white again. The central identity they want for Americans is the Christian faith, not the racial identity of the men who built this country.
It is not the proper business of the Christian church to advocate for any specific political or social order, other than that it should be just and God-fearing. The church does not need to openly push for White Nationalism in order to do us good. But there is also no inherent conflict between Christianity and an order that is white nationalistic.
And about that LARPing: Much of Evangelicalism has an unhealthy fascination with Jews and the contemporary state of Israel. They believe, on biblical grounds, that God made an eternal and unconditional covenant with Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 12:1-3), and that in the future the Jews will come to faith in Christ (Romans 11:25-29). That makes the Jews — in the eyes of some Evangelicals — still people of God.
The Scriptures cited seem clear to me. But many Evangelicals fail to note how most Jews today are enemies of Christ and of Christians. And once again, the Bible supplies the remedy. Romans 11:28, speaking to Christians, says: “ . . . In relation to the gospel [the Jews] are enemies on your account . . .” In the Old Testament, those Jews who had true faith in the Lord were the people of God. In contemporary times some individual Jews believe in Jesus and are saved, but as a nation they have rejected the Messiah. The New Testament as a whole identifies all who reject Christ as enemies of God needing to be converted regardless of how meritorious their works may be. Genuine Christianity books no Israelite LARPing.
I’ve argued many times that it’s unwise for identitarians to become explicitly religious . . . Ours is a primarily secular struggle to preserve our people. A lot of what fundamentalist Christians believe doesn’t align with our struggle, as in for example their worship of the state of Israel and their strange fixation on adopting non-white kids.
Identitarianism is secular, independent of — but not necessarily in conflict with — any specific religion. It depends on the nature of the religion. Israel-worship and trans-racial adoption are passing fads. Genuine Christianity is supportive of white advocacy or nationalism. White identitarians can be Christians.
We’re not yet in the business of creating a mass movement, so there’s no need to pretend we’re clowns to win over evangelical boomers. It’s much better to try to win over smart, disaffected young people — and they’re not going to be won over by an Old Testament LARP in a strip mall.
Agreed. But genuine Christianity has a lot to offer smart, disaffected young people.
* * *
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!
42 comments
Thank You
Yes, of course. There’s a way to construe Christianity in such a way as not to be an impediment to racial nationalist organizing. But the same could be said of Black Nationalism. So the possibility of an ethno-nationalist Christianity (like some form of Orthodoxy sort of is) isn’t the issue. The issue is what is actually going on in Christianity in America today. And that’s almost 100% anti-ethno-nationalistic and there is no major movement within Christianity in the direction of pro-White ethno-nationalist Christian organizing. None.
The simple truth is that a lot of White Christians already live the White Nationalist lifestyle, in primarily White communities with very few non-Whites, especially Negros. Christians will become White Nationalists for the same reason that a lot of us have: Browns will invade their towns, rape their women and be celebrated for their ‘diversity’ and the last of the self-respecting Whites in that community – Christian or no – will have their bellies full and bend the Church to be a resource for pro-White activism.
American Christianity is not going find a way to be ethno-nationalist until it absolutely has to. And even then, it will be White people in churches spontaneously using these churches as a base of operations to organize against White dispossession. The result will not be ‘Christian White Nationalism’. It will just be White Nationalism and people who think of themselves as ‘Christian’ will just accept and live with whatever cognitive dissonance is required to protect their interests as White people.
There is no version of American Christianity that will be able to be bent toward ethno-nationalism by some kind of exegetical approach to scripture. Scripture contains both the pro- and anti- ethno-nationalist positions. The change will occur because of racial discomfort and the gradual awareness that Brown and Negro Christians are not like White Christians no matter how much the Whites grovel and fawn over them. In multi-racial churches, either the Whites start acting like the Browns and the Negros and adopt a Brown and Negro form of Christian worship or they leave the church. I’ve never heard of it going any other way.
Christians will never be white allies, they will always be loyal to their God in the next world and never to white people in this one. They will always be ready to kill other whites for their brown “brothers in Christ.” Why was this article even published?
Those who disagree with my thesis are defeatists. I have been closely involved with Christianity for more than thirty years and I know whereof I speak.
We do not require masses of people who are full-on white nationalist activists. We require masses of people who are friendly to our cause, and this is completely feasible. Christian leftists are importing their dogmas into Christianity rather than finding them in Scripture or Christian tradition.
If you insist in seeing the cup 100% empty instead of half full, that’s your right. But you’re wrong.
Your thesis is wishful thinking from start to finish. Christianity is, was and ever shall be a universalist religion. White Christians will always side black Christians, because it is religion – not race – that defines them. It is religion that matters to them. Race is nowhere in the equation.
Christianity, as an apocalyptic Abrahamic religion based around submission and humility, minimises the importance of preserving race, nation and pretty much everything else. If you want to know who Christians are, they’re the moral cowards who think they’ll get extra treats in heaven if they pray for the immigrants who rape and murder their daughters. They’re the cucks who cover their churches in posters saying “Jesus a brown Middle Eastern immigrant”.
My race is my religion. It should be yours too. But it isn’t.
This is so wrong on every level – theological, historical, even sociological. As I keep arguing … (sigh) … why do people like you take the biggest Christian douchebags as representative of the whole class of Christians? Do you take the biggest secular white douchebags and hold them up as representative of all whites? You will surely admit that nearly every institution across the West has been conquered by diversitists. Why do you therefore assume that all members of these entities are themselves diversitists? I work for a very douchey company. But their wokeness doesn’t represent me. The Churches have been conquered from within just like the universities, the Deep State, most corporations, etc. That doesn’t mean all the employees or members support their wokeness – or that wokeness therefore embodies the essence of Church doctrine.
Face it: you don’t like Christianity. That’s fine, but don’t confuse your emotions with objective depictions of reality. Christianity is only a “universalist” creed in the sense that the offer of salvation in Christ is not ethnically specific. Anyone can be a Christian. So what? How does that fact lead to embracing “diversity” invasions and the (Satanic) lies of wokeness? “Diversity” is NOT a Christian concept. The sooner prowhites (and misguided Christians) grasp this elementary point, the better.
@ Sherman McCoy: Proof of your assertions?
@ Joshua Lawrence: Proof that Christ rose from the dead?
Jim Goad said: “@ Joshua Lawrence: Proof that Christ rose from the dead?”
Let’s summarize. I asserted that Christianity (despite containing a lot of foolishness) also contains many potential allies of ours. I also gave REASONS to support my assertion. Since we are heavily outnumbered we need all the allies we can get, and so a reasonable white advocate would accept that particular good news unless he had good evidence that my assertion was mistaken.
Jim Goad refused to accept my good news, and, giving NO REASONS of his own, simply asserted that Christians are bad and worthless. All assertion, no evidence at all. He prefers to reject bad news without giving any reasons for his rejection.
When I pointed out his failure to give any evidence, he still refused to give any actual evidence that his viewpoint is correct. Instead, he changed the subject, and demanded that I prove that Jesus rose from the dead.
Jesus did rise from the dead, but that is not the point of the essay. It’s not my fault if some people hate Christianity so much that they refuse to accept any assistance from it, but the rest of us should avoid their mistake.
So I ask again, can Mr. Goad, or any of my other detractors, give actual evidence that my thesis is wrong? Until you do, I’m right.
And why do you insist on fighting good news?
Unless white Americans totally reject Christianity and all its pernicious, Jew based dogmas, I feel we are lost as a nation and a people. I was raised a Christian and was one for over 50 years. I attended a well known Bible college in Northern California so I feel I have some standing in my opinions. I can honestly say, in looking back on my life, that the Christian faith had done much damage to my life and many of my family members. I don’t know if the West can survive much more exposure to this anti-white, Jew based religion.
c
The more Christians have clout in WN, the more non-Christians will exit the movement or turn on it. No-one wants to be ruled by godbotherers.
It’s bankrupted nihilism like this that make me want nothing to do with this ‘movement.’ Without Christianity, certain European ethnicities, languages and nation-states never would have formed. Without Anabaptism, the Amish/Mennonites would have ceased to exist maintaining their German dialects and having some of the highest birthrates in the world, where in a century when they number tens of millions they could easily assimilate as a reservoir for whites. As awful as American evangelicalism is, without the Fourth Great Awakening whites would not have rehabilitated their sagging birthrates in the 1990s/2000s into a mini baby boom. White people clearly need spiritual guidance because the decline of church attendance happens to coincide with skyrocketing suicide, overdose and LGBT. I’m sure LARPing paganism is a good panacea for all of these afflictions right?
As I’ve asserted many times in comments, the Faith has been racially corrupted, but it contains within itself the capacity for its racial cleansing. I don’t mean that Christianity was meant only for whites. That would be theologically silly (and is certainly not any sort of mainstream interpretation). Rather, that the Diversity agenda that is enslaving and destroying our people, and leading them to extinction (and which is actually a rival religious faith), is in no way a mandate of the Faith. Can a Christian be a Nazi exterminationist? I don’t think so. Can a Christian be a white preservationist (ie, resistor of white genocide)? Absolutely.
You’re glossing over huge swathes of history. Who do you think was responsible for colonialism? Catholicism (Spanish/Portuguese/French empires), Orthodox (Russian Empire), Protestantism (British Empire), even Lutheranism (German, Danish/Norwegian colonialism). Manifest Destiny was American Protestantism. You get the idea. No foe of Europeans was ever more throughly conquered than against Christianity, which is (was) just superimposed ethnic paganism for each variant.
My praise of Christianity is mostly just defending its practical posterity because it is now a dead letter outside of West Africa, which is only expanding because of birthrates (Christianity’s original purpose: a fertility cult – ‘go forth and multiply’). And I don’t think there will be another Great Awakening because there just isn’t enough potential momentum anymore.
So I do think the seeds of its destruction were also sown during this imperial era because its savage converts ended up recovering and challenging their proselytizers and intermarrying with them at least in Latin America (which was more because a shortage of white women), but not before serious European gains were made for centuries starting with La Reconquista.
So attacking Christianity is like attacking parts of European history like nonwhites do reflexively. But yes, its offshoots now function as religious dialects slowly eroding with each generation. Even in the cradle of civilization, Christian insularity enabled various Levantine tribes to retain many white features (hair, eyes, skin, height, disposition) to this day in Maronites, Assyrians and even Alawites (mystical religion that celebrates Christian holidays), even outside of their homelands as minorities in Turkey, Iraq, Iran etc.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes. My point was simply that one can be a good Christian and a loyal white man.
Christianity is most certainly not a “dead letter” outside Africa. There are hundreds of millions of Christians across the West, and they, not the secular navel-gazers (amongst whom, sadly, I suppose I must include myself – though less from volition than bad luck and overly high standards), are the ones having the families. I expect a very strong Christian Great Awakening among our people in the future (and this even though I myself am agnostic, and thus unsure whether Christianity is true, or just mythology). The question will be whether that Awakening takes a prowhite preservationist orientation, or some other one harmful to our race.
I think you have more faith than you let on because this is untrue. I am an expert on demographic trends and I can assure you that Christianity is not growing outside of Sub-Saharan Africa because only Africa has exploding populations. It is contracting everywhere else because of natural decline and from rapid secularization, especially in Latin America. So there is no Great Awakening in the cards unless you dramatically change the definition.
Catholicism? Isn’t that the one where the guy in charge with the funny hat washes the feet of the invaders? I’ll pass, thanks.
No, clearly the true panacea is join a universalist Abrahamic religion based on the Jewish holy book.
I get it. You’re an anti-Christian, just like every Christ-killer, neoliberal, communist, Hindu, Taoist and Muslim.
You still haven’t refuted the Tower of Babel or his slavery was biblically justified.
NO, it is you who are wrong – though I’m also making a prediction. The “secularization thesis” is not being refuted solely due to African fecundity. First, ever more persons in the West are simply more comfortable admitting to having no religion. In the old days, someone like me would have just called himself a Protestant, while holding my same agnostic stance. Admitting to having no religion was less socially acceptable. Second, Christianity is exploding in many places beyond Africa, like China. It, especially Pentecostal varieties, is also growing in Latin America, along with some higher degree of secularization (the two trends can occur simultaneously); it’s formal Catholicism which is declining there (and given its long, state-established run was probably always destined to).
My prediction was that the West over time will become more Christian. First, we have pretty much reached what I call the “genetically determined limits of secularization.” That is, I assert that the overwhelming number of those whose basic mental wiring could lead them to reject faith have already done so. Second, the fertility of the faithful is much higher than among the seculars. In the white future a greater percentage of whites will be biologically predisposed to faith. Third, and far more speculatively and controversially, I think life in the West for whites is only going to worsen over time, and that as it does more whites will, I believe, turn to the consolations of religion and tradition, which for us is now Christianity (trying to resurrect old, intellectually indefensible paganisms is simply a nonstarter for more than a tiny minority). I foresee very new ideological formations in the white future – small groups of scattered and besieged white Christians for whom white, Western preservation has been theologically woven into the fabric of their faith and lives.
I realize pretty much no one sees or agrees with this latter possibility, but it’s what I believe will happen.
Ah, so you’re one of those types. The evangelicuck who thinks Catholicism isn’t Christianity. I guess Jesus who appointed the first pope was thinking the same thing.
You provided zero stats. Christianity is collapsing as I stated. A few Chinese converts in a perpetually declining population does not change that. A few Brazilians swapping Catholicism for lunatic Pentecostalism and tongues is even less than a lateral move.
I think you are less agnostic and more fundamentalist than you let on. So much so that you’re emotional about this rather than scientific. Declining population in Christian countries = less Christianity. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand unless you’re relying on some sort of ‘faith.’ Evangelicalism is basically just Trotskyite Christianity because it starts off as a ubiquitous explosion of permanent revolution, but then collapses into oblivion, especially because it has to inheritor. Nobody can be ‘born a Christian’ unlike in every other sect of Christianity, which is why the European tribes lasted so long. Protestantism, especially the americuck variety was never a good ideology for the West. Dunking people in lakes to somehow find God never really leads to good outcomes.
You didn’t address what I wrote, except in a very simplistic and irrelevant fashion. You didn’t even consider my third point.
I have never been a fundamentalist or evangelical. I was raised Anglican (conservative Episcopalian), in a very religious home (rare for our sect).
You presume that loyalty to Christ requires disloyalty to tribe. Why are you so sure of this alleged incompatibility? Perhaps you, too, are a child of the age, with your understanding of the Christian Faith and is ethical imperatives molded by our racial enemies.
Christianity is all we ever had apparently.
@Joshua Lawrence: Proof Christ rose from the dead?
Quit avoiding the question.
Suppose he can’t prove that Christ rose from the dead. How does that relieve Sherman of his burden of proving that White Christians will always side with Black Christians and that “race is nowhere in the equation”?
It almost sounds like you’re suggesting that anyone can say anything at all about Christians, and unless we can prove the Resurrection to your satisfaction, we have no right to object that it is unsupported by the evidence. I know for certain that you are smarter than that, so I presume that anti-Christian animus is clouding your discernment as to this issue.
Sherman’s thinking is antiempirical. Rather than asking what Christians actually think and do, he channels his inner medieval scholastic and asks what we should assume Christians think and do based on the spirit of our faith as he understands it.
Let’s look at the facts.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-the-alt-right
Having provided affirmative evidence that Sherman is wrong, am I entitled to demand proof of his claims concern White Christian racial disloyalty. Or do we have to debate the Resurrection first?
Mr. Lawrence is the one who aired a bunch of opinions, none of which could be objectively proved. So far, so good.
Then he asked Sherman, who also offered opinions, to provide PROOF for his opinions.
So I cut to the quick and demanded he prove the event upon which Christianity’s entire legitimacy is based.
He completely slalomed around the question and went on the attack with some baseless nonsense about me resisting some vague “good news” that he claims, in his endlessly humorless righteousness, to be bringing.
Then again, he asserted amidst all this that there was plenty of proof of Christ’s resurrection. Interestingly, he didn’t provide any.
“Christ rose from the dead” is not an opinion. It is stated as a fact. So it’s either provable, or it’s not.
So let’s see the evidence. Let’s see even one single fucking wisp of proof. If you can’t, then you’ll be forced to admit you’re peddling a 2,000-year-old myth that is, even in the comment section here, highly divisive.
First off, to act as if opinion polls are “empirical evidence” of anything shows a lack of understanding about how opinion polls work. They may suggest statistical trends, but they are highly flawed. They don’t empirically prove anything. They rely on the idea that the question was framed fairly, the pool of respondents was representative of the public at large, and that the respondents answered honestly.
Second, to act as if “Trump voters” equate to “white identitarians” sidesteps the fact that Trump never once addressed white people as a constituency. Not once. So your premise is deeply flawed.
Now that we’ve gotten all that out of the way, Herr Lawrence is the one who aired a bunch of opinions, none of which could be objectively proved. So far, so good. Everyone has an opinion.
Then he asked Sherman, who also offered opinions, to provide PROOF for his opinions.
So since he decided to suddenly switch from the subjective to the objective, I cut to the quick and demanded he prove the event upon which Christianity’s entire legitimacy is based.
He completely slalomed around the question and went on the attack with some baseless ad-hominem nonsense about me resisting some vague “good news” that he claims, in his endlessly humorless righteousness, to be bringing.
Then again, he asserted amidst all this that there was plenty of proof of Christ’s resurrection. Interestingly, he didn’t provide any.
“Christ rose from the dead” is not an opinion. It is stated as a fact. So it’s either provable, or it’s not.
So let’s see the evidence. Let’s see even one solitary wisp of proof. If you can’t, then you’ll be forced to admit you’re peddling a 2,000-year-old myth that is, even in the comment section here, highly divisive.
Despite the endless straining of people to somehow conflate Christianity with white identity, the FACT remains that most Christians worldwide are nonwhite. And at least according to opinion polls—which as I’ve already stated are not scientific but can suggest trends—the overwhelming majority of world Christians are also fully on the woke train.
Second, to act as if “Trump voters” equate to “white identitarians” sidesteps the fact that Trump never once addressed white people as a constituency. Not once. So your premise is deeply flawed.
You don’t think his promise to build a wall was an implicit appeal to White racial interests? Or was at least believed to be so by his voters?
He completely slalomed around the question and went on the attack with some baseless ad-hominem nonsense about me resisting some vague “good news” that he claims, in his endlessly humorless righteousness, to be bringing.
That was not ad hominem nonsense . He is quite correct that, if indeed White Christians are amenable to pro-White politics, that is obviously very good news. At least, it is good news if the objective is to convince more Whites to start acting in their own interests. Clearly, for Mr. Buttercup, it is bad news, because he has other priorities. How about you?
“Christ rose from the dead” is not an opinion. It is stated as a fact. So it’s either provable, or it’s not.
You’re confused, which is not surprising, since Christianity seems to trigger you and muddle your thinking. The Resurrection is indeed a factual proposition. It is either true or false, but that it is not provable (to your satisfaction) does not prove that it is false.
This is not the place to debate the historical veracity of the Resurrection. If you are sincerely interested, I would recommend the Case for Christ by Lee Stroebel. But even before that, consider exploring the new theistic apologetics. Arguments for the existence of God have, much to my surprise and delight, become far more sophisticated in recent decades. You may find yourself convinced, in which case, the idea that God might have demonstrated in real time that Death will not have the final word in His created order wouldn’t seem nearly so outlandish to you as it does now. Indeed, it may come to seem so intuitive to you, that you are inclined to give early Christian witnesses the benefit of the doubt.
If you can’t, then you’ll be forced to admit you’re peddling a 2,000-year-old myth that is, even in the comment section here, highly divisive.
I’m always puzzled when someone attacks other Whites, and when there is a defensive response, accuses said defenders of “divisiveness.” If you’re concerned about White cohesion, then why are you attacking White Christians?
Despite the endless straining of people to somehow conflate Christianity with white identity
Who is doing that?
the FACT remains that most Christians worldwide are nonwhite.
And yet, it is only the White ones who are constantly hectored about race. The non-White ones understand perfectly well that being Christian does not require their indifference to the survival and well-being of their people.
the overwhelming majority of world Christians are also fully on the woke train.
But that’s not really the question, is it? The overwhelming majority of all Whites are “fully on the woke train.” If you’re correct that Christianity is incompatible with racial loyalty, White Christians should be more woke than secular Whites. That does not seem to be the case.
Both sides are right. Christianity as a universal religion is inimical to any people who wish to survive. Yet it did serve us in the past. How? By not taking it literally. We bent it to our Will. Germanized it. There were people who took it seriously – they were the religious and monastics. Somehow or other, a balanced was reached.
Islam is also a universal and missionary faith. It has not wiped out the Arabs, has it? Though mixing with the conquered peoples may have changed them, especially Black slaves of course.
In remote times, we weren’t challenged in this way. We fought invading races because they were invaders. But what if they had been Christians seeking to live with us in peace? The Middle Ages and early Modern Era didn’t work that way. But the Old Roman Empire was like that as were the Greeks before them. Athens was innundated by foreign workers and slaves. In other words, their paganism wasn’t serving them either – just as our Christianity doesn’t serve us now.
Yet it did serve us in the past. How? By not taking it literally. We bent it to our Will.
I don’t understand these claims about Christian universalism being incompatible with racial nationalism. Any worldview that includes any notion at all of moral duty to outsiders is going to require some degree of balancing of the interests of self and other. Christians know perfectly well how to do this. Otherwise, they would all have long since taken Christ at his literal word and sold all of their possessions and donated the proceeds to the poor.
Are these people suggesting that Whites adopt a a totally amoral attitude towards outgroups? If so, I’m not sure how they think that is feasible. The ancient Greeks philosophers were already moving in a universal humanist direction before St. Paul’s address to the curious Athenians. Socrates was the original “citizen of the world.”
So you’re saying that people who choose not to take Christ at his literal word are literally Christians? Interesting take. I thought that they were literally hypocrites.
I thought that they were literally hypocrites.
That’s because you don’t understand the Gospel. If we could all save ourselves by giving away all of our stuff, we wouldn’t need a savior. Jesus is not a moral teacher but a redeemer.
You may not like my understanding of the Gospel, and you may call me a hypocrite, but that’s not really the issue here. The issue is whether Christians believe that Christianity requires Christians to give away the store. We don’t.
“The issue is whether Christians believe that Christianity requires Christians to give away the store.”
I thought the issue was whether Christianity was in favor of ethnic nationalism. That seems to be the premise of the article.
The Old Testament is hell-bent in favor of nationalism for the Chosen.
Kindly cite a single verse in the New Testament that could possibly be construed as promotion of racial and ethnic separatism. I mean, you’re the one who claims you understand the Gospel better than I do, right?
Mr. Lawrence attempted to reconcile Galatians 3:28 with ethnic nationalism. He wrote:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28) refer to our acceptance by God based on faith in Jesus rather than our membership in secular human categories.
On what authority does he say that? The verse in question makes no distinction between the metaphysical and temporal realms. It doesn’t say, “We’re all one in heaven, but on earth, yes, build the borders high.”
One would at least think that instead of trying to reconcile Galatians 3:28 with the Old Testament, the ChristNats would be spitting dozens of New Testament verses that endorse racial and ethnic separatism.
So let’s see one. Just one.
Christianity is a majority nonwhite religion that was founded in the Middle East by nonwhites.
It’s a completely separate topic from race, no matter how hard you all try to pretend otherwise. The two issues should not be conflated. Until only a few years ago, nearly everyone seemed to understand this.
I thought the issue was whether Christianity was in favor of ethnic nationalism. That seems to be the premise of the article.
I haven’t read the article, because I’m not behind the pay wall (SAHM), but I assumed the point of the article is not that Christianity is in favor of ethnic nationalism, but rather that many Christians are amenable to White identity politics. Those are two different claims.
Kindly cite a single verse in the New Testament that could possibly be construed as promotion of racial and ethnic separatism.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+5%3A8&version=ESV
There, I provided one. Is it “Christian” to import cheap labor to dislocate and immiserate the most vulnerable workers in our national family? I’m not at all sure that’s as clear as you think it is. One might say that refusing genuine refugees would violate Christian charity, but then, even there, one would assume that they could go home at some point. If your house burns down, I owe you something, but I don’t owe you my house. If I let you stay, it is your responsibility to rebuild before you wear out your welcome. I don’t understand what you find so incomprehensible about this.
Open borders agitation in the churches is very recent. If support for open borders is required of every good Christian, why are they just now telling us this? One would think that they would have let us know decades ago that we were failing an essential Christian duty.
Christianity is a majority nonwhite religion that was founded in the Middle East by nonwhites.
This isn’t even altogether true. What Christianity is now is not wholly dependent on ancient Levantine monotheism. The idea of the immortal soul, which I hope you’ll agree is central to Christianity, is Greek in origin.
It’s a completely separate topic from race, no matter how hard you all try to pretend otherwise. The two issues should not be conflated. Until only a few years ago, nearly everyone seemed to understand this.
Noone is trying to pretend otherwise. To the contrary, you seem to fail to grasp the implications of this fact. To recognize that many White Christians are amenable to White identity politics is not tantamount to “conflating” racial and religious identity, no matter how much you insist that it is. Has anyone made you feel unwelcome in pro-White circles on account of the fact that you’re not Christian. If so, rest assured that I do not condone that kind of narrow, exclusionary attitude, especially at this time of great peril for our people.
Lexi: I don’t say an individual can’t do it, but Whites as a group have shown that they have extreme difficulty doing this balancing act. We go where they are, we conquer them, we rule them, our men get seduced by their women, they get strengthened by our seed, and ultimately they either overthrow us or blend us out. It’s happened again and again throughout history.
Do you want us to live or not? If the former, we disengage from them. Leave them alone – which is impossible for Christians who have to spread the gospel. Well we’re the heathens now, do that help?
As I said originally, the Classical Greeks were in the process of being overwhelmed by foreign slaves and workers. They didn’t have the balance either.
You make reasonable points here, but I’m not as pessimistic as you are about this. When the conquistadors blended themselves out of existence in South America, they did so knowing that their racial heritage was secure on their peninsular homeland. That is no longer the case.
Of course, I don’t disagree with you that now is really not the time for aggressive evangelism. Indeed, I have been critical of the churches for focusing too much on foreign evangelism when families here are struggling. The laity would be much more critical of the Churches for this but for political correctness. Of course, people are voting with their feet and leaving churches that seem indifferent to their struggles.
It would be useful to gain at least the passive support of as many Christians as possible given that we cannot ignore our long Christian history. However I’ve noticed that even when we have a conciliatory attitude and try to tentatively advance the vital idea that religion should come second to racial survival, Christians tend to reject it and aggressively insist we need to focus on religion to a great extent. At the end of the day we’d better find out why we need other races to tell us what to believe in as if we were spiritually retarded since the beginning of time, and I don’t only mean the endless nauseating propaganda about how lucky we are to have the “other” to teach us about morality. To end this rant I’m of opinion that Christianity will serve as a kind of last fallback for pur enemies in case we start making serious inroads on our path, kind of, “please, don’t send us away, what will Christ say” which has the potential of igniting yet another nice Reformation. Amen.
I too think that the Churches will be the last refuge of our enemies as their powers to brainwash through the mainstream media decline.
The Churches, indeed. I just want to add that casual conversations first drove me towards this position, after several acquaintances lashed at me with the classic “but we are Christians”, when I timidly tried to introduce them to some of our ideas.
Both Christianity and Paganism(s) have serious structural deficiencies. They can’t challenge let alone overturn the totalitarian marketization of the society.
They do not have a comprehensive way of life. They are made to adjust themselves to the prevailing or developing value system.
The erroneous splitting of the social existence into “secular” and “godly” sectors leaves the latter part at the mercy of the former.
It happened to Pagan traditions when they came into contact with Christianity. The erstwhile pagan royalty and nobility switched towards the new system and overcame the pagan masses and their traditions by granting Christianity a privileged status in society.
This favored status persisted as long as the “secular” world was suffering from administrative weaknesses.
However, once the “secular” domain regained its strength, it outmuscled Christianity socially as well as ideologically.
Now, the “secular” bureaucratic state machinery negotiates from the position of strength. It behaves condescendingly.
Liberal ontology is abominable but formidable.
P.S.: Today, Hinduism too is suffering the same fate Christianity suffered in Europe. The “Hindu revival” (Hindutva) under the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the market regimentalization of the Hindu portion of the society, which is a corporate-driven effort to decimate the rural strongholds (a potential threat to the liberal urban value system) and force the rural man to migrate towards the big commercial centers in search of “jobs”. His ancestral land will be used to “industrialize” India.
The problem is that a lot of very different people call themselves Christians today so it can be almost impossible to settle what this kind of thing actually it. But historically it clearly has been rightwing and racially conscious. And many people who call themselves Christians today still are even though you might have to gain their trust before they are willing to be 100% honest with you.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3101.htm
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