Counter-Currents
1,129 words
It seems the Christian versus Pagan debate has sprung up again in our circles and has kicked the hornets’ nest as to the direction that the Dissident Right must go in. While I believe that we must all be respectful to one another as we are on the same team, there is clearly a deep-seated animosity held by many Pagans and Nietzscheans against Christians. This dirty laundry must be aired and the bad blood of the Pagans taken to task.
Many of the Pagan critiques are fair, often coming from a Traditionalist or Nietzschean origin. They call Christianity a slave morality or a degenerated from of religious practice. Maybe this is true, maybe not. It is important to note that while Friedrich Nietzsche and Julius Evola are important thinkers who should be studied, their writings shouldn’t necessarily be taken as gospel. However, the argument can surely be made that, even if these claims were true, would it not make perfect sense from the Kali Yuga standpoint that if humanity has degenerated, God would send down a physical person to lead fallen humanity back to righteousness as best as he can manage in the Iron Age?
When describing Christianity, Pagans will talk about the fallen nature of many, if not most, churches in the modern Western world. This is likely from experience. Indeed, in my stint as a reactionary activist, I too have found that many supposed Christians are quick to side with the enemy and to be “principled” and “reasonable” with those whom one of my own parish-goers would rightly claim to be demonically influenced. The Pagans are not alone in having a bad taste left in their mouths by these interactions. The term “Christ cuck” certainly did not come from nowhere.
The Pagan goes further, however, and claims that these problems are inherent in Christianity, being a universalist religion. They often make the hypothetical argument that a white Christian would choose a non-white Christian over a white non-Christian. For the sake of argument, the answer to this is that it depends. If the choice is between a West African Christian and a white American who happens to be an agnostic or something of the sort, then of course I would pick the white American. I have much more in common with him. If it was between a Dutch libtard spinster and Clarence Thomas, however, I would obviously choose Clarence Thomas. Any reasonable nationalist should agree on this. The hypothetical argument is hardly as potent as Pagans believe. Furthermore, the hypothetical shouldn’t even apply, as every Western white person should be Christian, as has been the case up until very recently.
The idea that Christianity, being a universalist religion, is incompatible with nationalism and ethnic awareness is perhaps the most ridiculous argument from the Pagans. Apparently Hernan Cortez and Jefferson Davis didn’t get the memo. The current state of Christianity is not a result of Christianity itself, but rather comes from the deconstructionism of The Adversary’s forces in the form of modern and postmodern philosophy, which have animated society’s ugly elements. Ironically, this is little different from the very phenomenon which the Pagans themselves participate in when they launch attacks against the bedrock of Western society.
You can buy North American New Right vol. 2 here
Pagans retort that the modern illness stems from Christianity. This may have some truth to it. Our degeneration certainly has a Christian bent. However, this is the case in all dying societies. The idea that degeneration is purely a Christian phenomenon is ridiculous. All things can theoretically be deconstructed. It is what is implied in Milton’s Paradise Lost when Lucifer convinces many of the angels to rebel against God. Just because this demonic ideology can be used to destroy doesn’t mean that the beautiful things it does destroy have always been rubble. This would be no different from saying that because white society is degenerate it has therefore always been unredeemable and must therefore be destroyed. The solution is not to attack our own religion when it is down, but to unite against what is destroying it.
Many say that there must be a synthesis of Christianity and pre-Christian European culture, forgetting the fact that up until recently this was simply the status quo. Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy comprise much of European society’s earlier folklore, while we can thank monks for the development of European philosophy and the preservation, both literally and within the intellectual tradition, of the classical Greek writers. We would also have scant knowledge of the ancient Romans without Italian Catholics preserving it.
This essay is not an attack on Pagans but rather a defense of Christianity, the religion of our civilization. This being said, the Dissident Right must eventually coalesce around one unifying vision if it seeks to win the hearts and minds of the people, and especially the elites, metapolitically. I am sorry to say this, my Pagan friends, but Paganism simply is not that vision. It is unpopular and distinctly alien to the vast majority of white people. Religion is perhaps the second-greatest aspect of ethnicity and culture, behind only biology. Biology cannot accomplish this task alone, however. Religion is necessary to mold a people. It is the glue that binds a nation. The West began to degenerate long before the introduction of masses of foreigners. It was in the 1960s, at least in the Anglosphere, that we began to really lose our religion.
If we do need religion, then we must ask which religion passes the test for being a useful religion for Western people. Paganism rarely inspires pro-natalism or true community, its young adherents tend to be liberal, the majority of its adherents don’t truly believe in their Gods, and the religion is unpopular and alien to their target demographic. By contrast, Christianity does inspire pro-natalism, it essentially always has the opportunity to create community, its young adherents tend to be highly conservative, its adherents do believe in their God, and the religion is the one that white people will reflexively return to when they are in a foxhole.
While I don’t condone the furtherance of infighting or making fun of our allies’ religions, this must go both ways. Pagans must become comfortable with being a minority voice within the greater Right. There is nothing wrong with that. If they continue to lash out at actual Christian dissidents over the inanities of limp-wristed Christian moral cowards, however, they will continue this cycle of fedora-tipping infighting. All bad-faith attacks against the Church are wholly counterproductive. Speaking from experience, at least within the Catholic Church, the Church has vast resources, fraternal organizations, swaths of right-thinking eugenic men, networking opportunities, political activism, and offers the ability to actually form a large, stable family. Attacking Christianity is an unwise decision and will not bode well on the debate stage.
* * *
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!
20 comments
This entire article is based around an idea that Truth is downstream from politics and that we should base our Truth statements on what is politically convenient.
From a theological standpoint, The choice is one between a naturalist religion, that would be “paganism”, or one based upon revelation. The former requires nothing but reason, the latter beggars belief.
From this theological grounding, the politics become clearer. The author of this article state that Christianity is more popular than paganism, and that paganism is a fringe religion only believed by a very small ministry. Now, if by pagan we only mean the larpers and reconstructionists this has some merit to it, but if we include everyone who follows a theology of nature and rejects revelation, then paganism is the largest and fastest growing faith in the west, and pagan practices such as yoga, buddhist meditation and neoplatonist theories of physics (ie, new age), then paganism is mainstream, while Christianity is fringe.
Questions for Christians interested in White nationalism.
1.) Would you support the State using force against non-White Christians or Jews that refused to be deported?
2.) Are you willing to be subservient to a secular State and not seek to impede scientific, technological, or eugenic progress? Or are there going to be religious-based agitations similar to the pro-life movement at every turn? The same question applies to measures taken in order to safeguard the public health like widespread vaccination.
3.) More fundamentally, are you willing to put the interests of non-Christian Whites above those of non-White Christians? If an Asian Christian and a White atheist were both drowning and you only had time to save one, which would you choose?
I’m a white preservationist agnostic who was raised Christian, and would be Christian again were I to be intellectually convinced of Christianity’s truth status. I will respond as if I had been “born again”.
Yes.
That depends. If I were a fully believing Christian, then of course God takes precedence over race. This need not entail support for anything racially destructive. A Christian would not, however, support the extermination or brutalization of the innocent (including those of other races). Basically, Christians (in my theological understanding) cannot mistreat others simply because they are members of differing tribes. This does not mean they must allow alien others to mistreat us. Invading someone else’s homeland is a form of mistreatment. I believe genetically dissimilar immigration is immoral from a Christian perspective. At a moral minimum, disallowing it is ethically allowable.
Again, that depends. As a general rule and speaking as a Christian, I would still favor my own people over others. But wrt the life preserver, I would save an upright black over an evil white. But if I didn’t have such special knowledge of their respective characters, and simply saw a white and a black simultaneously drowning, of course I would rescue my fellow white first.
Christianity is not liberalism + God. Liberalism is not Christianity – God. They are two very distinct creeds. Too few today seem to grasp this.
Invading someone else’s homeland is a form of mistreatment.
What if they were welcomed here by previous anti-White governments and now do not want to leave? Would you support their forced displacement even if some of them were Christians or Jews?
I believe genetically dissimilar immigration is immoral from a Christian perspective. At a moral minimum, disallowing it is ethically allowable.
Do you know of any scripture from the New Testament to reinforce that belief? The most you could say is that restricting all immigration is allowable. But to support the rejection of non-White Christians while at the same time welcoming Whites Christians into the country, I don’t see how a Christian could justify it since there is at least one passage in the New Testament that says race/ethnicity does not matter once a person is Christian.
This is unrelated to what we’re talking about, but I want to address the idea that, generally speaking, White Christians seem to be more pro-White than irreligious Whites. The Christian church is the ultimate institutional authority for White Christians (in theory) while the State is for irreligious Whites. This means irreligious Whites tend to buy into the System’s propaganda more.
The thing is though, it’s all relative. Just because many White Christians are not anti-White in the same way that some White atheists are, that doesn’t mean they support White nationalism. Race neutrality or even a moderate pro-White feeling are perfectly compatible with civic nationalism. And White Christians are often just as hostile to White nationalism as irreligious Whites. But I would argue that irreligious Whites tend to be the strongest supporters of White nationalism once they have been freed from the System’s dogma because they have no religious priorities that might come into conflict with pursuing what is best for the Race.
My problem with paganism is that it isn’t genuine. It isn’t even LARPing because none of them even believe in ‘the gods’ or actually have religion. I just see it as another anti-Christian front, which is already overcrowded with Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, atheists, feminists, neoliberals and communists. Church is extremely boring, corrupt and hypocritical, yet it has held Europe/whites together longer than any other religion, and we can all see what is happening to our birthrates as Christianity has expired. Overall, the aesthetics of the original European religions are superior, but they were all incorporated into various sects of Christianity in different regions of Europe and superimposed upon other nations also specific to their pre-Christian religions.
But Christianity isn’t true and that’s the end of it.
But that’s precisely what’s at issue. First, is Christianity true? If yes, does it mandate ‘diversitism’? Second, if it is untrue, can it still be used for the good of the white race?
I don’t know if Christianity is true (I doubt any other existing religion is). If it is true, however, I’m highly certain it does not mandate ‘diversitism’. The latter is liberal, not Christian.
Even if Christianity is false, I think a case could be made (I’ve sketched in in other comments over the years here at CC) that a resurrected deprogrammed Christianity (which I believe is intellectually possible) could be very helpful to white preservation. IOWs, I think even WN atheists should think more deeply about the positive role that Christianity once played in the West, and how to recover that. I believe there will always be more “faithists” than atheists, so this issue won’t go away.
Your take on this reminds me of Richard Spencer’s take on the EU: he can imagine an EU that is pro-European, so he was scornful of Brexit and other anti-EU movements. In the real world, the EU is in the hands of our enemies and is being used to destroy Europe. Therefore, we should cheer on everything that harms it. Once the current EU is destroyed and Europe is saved, we can start talking about replacing it with something pro-European. But not before.
I likened Spencer to an officer whose men were being destroyed by enemy artillery but refuses to attack the gun that is destroying them because he imagines what he would do with it. He’s a dangerous fantasist, and it is good that he has now discredited himself and disavowed white identity politics.
By the same token, the churches are in the hands of our enemies. They are tools of war against us. Thus we should cheer on all trends that frustrate them. Once the churches are no longer in the hands of our enemies, we can talk about reconstructing them to favor white interests. Until then, we should be at war with them, just as they are at war with us. But I don’t have the time or the taste to fight the churches. It is Christian believers who should be leading that war. They should be putting all their energy into fighting against anti-whites in the Christian camp, not fighting against anti-Christians in the white camp.
To the extent that Christians in our scene spend their time on polemics within our movement, rather than combating anti-whites in their churches, they will always be seen as primarily focused on proselytizing and subverting white identity politics. If Christians want to prove that they are acting in good faith, they need to be focusing 100% of their efforts on battling anti-white hate in their churches, not on tone-policing, hen-pecking, and feather-bedding efforts in our movement.
Do you advocate for the dissolution of the U.S. federal government like you do of the E.U.?
They aren’t strictly analogous. But the Federal government here is also evil.
Why do you take these charlatans at their word? Every single one of these guys who have ‘left white nationalism’ all keep tabs on it because it’s the Hotel California: You can check out, but you can never leave. You don’t stop believing in it even if you intermarry because so many with Asian waifus already have this cognitive dissonance.
Besides, there is evidence that all of them have maintained their activity (Heimbach, Schoep, Bristow etc). Spencer is no different. I just watched his latest podcast and he is still parroting the same ‘Apollonian Nietzsche’ whatever, implying Macron is the next Hitler, while explaining away that Bumble article. He literally can’t be anything else, but some feminine esotericist speaking in abstractions. He doesn’t have the talent, sobriety or access to do anything else.
Evan McClaren is the most blatant example. ‘Hey guys, I’m sorry about all that. Please don’t harass me in my new Nordic homeland with my Aryan princess. You were right about Republicans being racist. I listen to Sam Seder now!’
Johnny Lee Clary is another one. ‘Yes, I’m gonna join a black church, but not as a total gaslight.’ Mel Gibson has done it multiple times now. Nobody ever changes their stripes. It is purely opportunism or self-preservation.
It’s one thing to grow tired of negativity involving racial differences and its disparate impact on society, but it doesn’t mean you stop believing in racial differences. Revealed preference demonstrates this.
This is why anonymity is so essential. It not only protects the privacy of the individual, but also protects the movement from vanity.
I am a Christian and the author of the recent Counter Currents article “Christianity is a Vast Reservoir of Potential White Allies.” The most important thing for non-Christian white advocates / nationalists to know is contained in the title of my work.
American Christendom is like America itself: the upper leadership is mostly woke, middle management mostly goes along with wokeness because it’s popular (and dangerous to oppose), and under the radar there are millions of rank-and-file Christians who are either on our side or inches away from consciously siding with us. In my article I gave some of the reasons why this is so. I have been a Christian for more than thirty years and I know what’s going on within my tribe.
“On our side” does not necessarily mean demanding a white ethnostate. It means recognizing that whites are under attack and wanting whites to defend themselves more. That’s the sine qua non of white advocacy, because mass recognition by whites that they need to defend themselves can only lead to good things.
Therefore the last thing serious white advocates should do is badmouth Christianity. If you find the idea of reaching out directly to white Christians distasteful, at least have the good sense to recognize and accept the good will of the millions of white Christians who sympathize with or even support white nationalism.
@Horticulturalist
Why do I take charlatans like Spencer at their word about their disavowals of white identity politics? I guess that is a fair question.
There are actual apologists for Spencer and other such turncoats who tell us: “You can trust Richard, because he’s just lying to reporters.” In short, they assume that whenever Spencer says something they like, he’s being honest. I think that is delusional.
I think all of these “charlatans” are fundamentally dishonest, in the sense that they are more interested in the opinions of others than objective truth. Even when they say things that you like. They are not saying it because they think it is true. They are saying it because they know you will like it. Because they are trying to manipulate you.
So the proper answer is: I don’t take their statements at face value. People like this are not to be taken seriously at all. Their statements are to be diagnosed, not analyzed for truth value.
Dorfman,
I’m rather puzzled by your attitude. Like the Boogie Man said in NBC:
You’re not
Understandin’
The position
That you’re in.
You are totally powerless and demonized, yet you believe you have the luxury of playing the Grand Inquisitor and rejecting Whites whom you find wanting.
Let’s cut to the chase. Is any White person who believes that there are any moral limits at all on what Whites may do to advance our ethnic self-interest of suspect loyalty on that account? Your suspicion of Christians seems to arise from our belief that there are moral absolutes. Do you believe that non-Christians have no moral absolutes, no lines they wouldn’t cross? I don’t know why you would believe that. Thoughtful agnostics, such as, say, Millennial Woes, are very empathic. Though he is not a Christian, do you mistrust him on account of his basic human decency? (Because that is what Christian agape is about – Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men, etc. It is not, as you seem to believe, some sort of worldly mutual aid society where we scratch each other’s backs.) Is there no room in the movement for anyone who is not absolutely ruthless? If so, few will make the cut.
All that said, I don’t find your hypothetical about non-Whites invited in by an anti-White government particularly difficult. Governments cannot give away what is not theirs. And others are not entitled to benefit from conduct that they know or should have known was treacherous, illegitimate, and a breach of public trust. I don’t intend to make a habit of responding to these types of inquiries, though, because I don’t think it will satisfy you in any event.
Is there a reliable measure on widespread infighting within the Dissident Right anywhere? Or is there just a few bad-faith actors who happen to excel at making noise? I’ve observed some friction online between Christians and non-Christians. I’m still trying to enter some real world networks of the Dissident Right. Is this a significant impediment in the fight for European survival?
America First and Christian Right losing ground consistently- there, deconstructed ”your” religion in one sentence.
The Indo-European peoples trace back to at least 10,000 BCE, and we developed our distinctive blue eyes around 6,000 BCE, so we were pagan a lot longer than we have been Christian. One may then consider the last 1000 years as a distraction rather than an inevitability.
How many times does the author beg the question? “God would send a human to earth to redeem it…” simply assumes the Christian narration to be true as an argument in its favor. “All white people should be Christian” is similarly a conclusion, not an argument.
True, Western Civilization (pardon the redundancy) has survived the Christian onslaught for 1500 years but is much the worse for wear. Science developed despite the church’s effort to suppress it, and the only reason that the Catholics get credit for preserving ancient texts is that they went to such great lengths to ensure that they were all but eradicated in the first place.
Do Christians believe in the Bible? I would argue that few do, but to the extent that they do, they are commanded to treat all Christians as equals and thereby to prefer foreign Christians over their pagan blood kin. See, e.g., Colossians 3:11; Romans 2:9-11; Revelation 5:9-10; Acts 17:26; Galatians 3:28 (‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free’). Radical egalitarianism thus has its origin in Christian teaching, and, as one writer pointed out, Communism is simply Christianity for atheists.
Hernan Cortez, Jefferson Davis, and many others resisted this conclusion; this was the remnant of earlier, classical beliefs about racial and tribal distinctions holding out over biblical instruction. If that be not so, point out the citation that condones retaining racial distinctions among Christians. Not in practice, which again I argue to be a holdover of classical culture, but of Christian jot, tittle, and verse.
Should we love our enemies? Pray for those who persecute us? So commands the Nazarene. This cognitive dissonance would hold no water in the classical era. Such irrationality wedges sharp minds away from this dogma.
The deconstructionism of our adversary’s forces is woven into the very fabric of Christian belief. Whence cometh Christianity? Does it spring from Indo- European roots, or is it grafted onto our stock by the blood of our murdered ancestors?
All that being said, I will stand by my TradCath kinsmen and throw the Wiccans out with the bathwater. We should- indeed, we MUST- de-emphasize our doctrinal differences and promote unity of purpose and common cause if we are to come out of the melee intact.
Yes, norseman, there are plenty of us who still believe in and venerate the Old Gods. Perhaps one day we can discuss that over a horn of mead.
Hold Fast.
Joshua Lawrence:
“If you find the idea of reaching out directly to white Christians distasteful, at least have the good sense to recognize and accept the good will of the millions of white Christians who sympathize with or even support white nationalism.”
But that support comes with their demands for moral purity and expulsion or obedience of non-Christians. So their “good will” is anything but.
The main reason I am suspicious of Christianity in this context is that it has been the main carrier in the West of the virus of egalitarianism. (We are all created in the image of God; there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, and so on.) And egalitarianism has been one of the main motivations (or excuses) for building the kind of multiracial societies that we see around us now, which are detrimental to white interests. (On what basis can you refuse entry to the immigrant who is a child of God like you? Contrast the ancient Greeks, who viewed non-Greeks as ‘barbarians’. Contrast the ancient Hindus, among whom the caste system, preventing racial mixing, was instituted by Krishna himself, according to the Bhagavad Gita.) This is all perfectly consistent with the existence of non-egalitarian, exclusive Christian societies in the past, since for a long time pagan and Christian sensibilities were battling it out in the European soul. It took a while (1000 years or more, depending on the area) but eventually European Christians lived up to their creed.
Looks like “our own religion”—the one invented outside of Europe—is against nationalism and for open borders:
The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself,for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. —Leviticus 19:34
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