1,700 words
It is the season of giving, and in that spirit I would like to give a Christmas present to the Christians within our ranks as a gesture of good will. Due to the Brandon economy, I do not have any partridges or pear trees, but I do have two arguments that can be used in defense of our politics by Christian Nationalists: Descartes’ cogito ergo sum and the differentiation between the private and public spheres. And what’s more, they are arguments that can operate entirely within the Christian worldview.
Even though I am not Christian, I do not see Christian Nationalism disappearing anytime soon, especially given recent developments with Ye. Also, many of the people who we are trying to reach are Christian. Thus, we need to find a way for Christianity to coexist with dissident politics.
My advice is inspired in part by the Nick Fuentes versus Alex Jones debate. At the end of the debate, at around 1:16:30, one of the callers asks Fuentes why he doesn’t start “living in Christ,” “become like the Amish,” and do his own thing instead of “throwing bombs.” Fuentes responded well, and I will give him credit where it is due despite having criticized him in the past. But the caller’s question, while asked in good faith, is indicative of a mindset that is so widespread and pernicious that it must be decisively refuted.
There is an effeminate, ahistorical version of Christianity which seems to have emerged in the 1800s and then became even more widespread in the 1900s which mostly boils down to passively praying as history passes by, being overly sugary sweet no matter what, withdrawing from the world, and indulging liberal subversion such as by forgiving the murderer of one’s child at the hands of feral immigrants. It is the fellaheen mindset which Oswald Spengler described as appearing when a culture becomes old and tired.
While this specific caller and many others advance these attitudes in good faith, there is also a contingent of people who use the all-too-familiar tactic of demanding that Christians abide by a cherry-picked version of their rules and values while they themselves have none. Thus have some of the most well-intentioned people been taken advantage of by the worst of the worst for decades.
I have found that I must temper my natural impulse to dive straight into matters of blood and iron, or to point in exasperation at how white Christians in Waco and Randy Weaver’s wife were murdered by the feds simply for wanting to peacefully live by themselves, and consider the matter to be decisively concluded. I confess that I, too, often end up talking past people instead of addressing their viewpoints. I hope to arm Christian Nationalists with some arguments that are tailored to their worldview, and which will therefore be more effective when they debate other Christians who are adjacent to our politics.
Let us examine Descartes’ cogito ergo sum — “I think therefore I am” — first. Well, duh. But this point is actually an important first step. If we are thinking, we must exist. But what if we are deluded? What if we are in an insane asylum, in a dream, trapped in The Matrix, or most importantly for this argument, deceived by a demon? We know that we exist in some form or another, but can we be sure about the exterior world? If the exterior world is a delusion, studying it would be pointless and perhaps even gravely misleading.
But there is hope. We have within us the idea of perfection — even though we have never once seen anything perfect in the exterior world. Descartes argues that it logically follows that a perfect being must therefore exist. Descartes takes this as proof of the theistic God: an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful being.
God, due to His theistic nature, would not delude us, or suffer us to be deluded. Of course, some may point to drugs, the insane, and dreams to counter this. There is also the story of the Binding of Isaac in which God instructs Abraham to sacrifice his son, which would seem to have been a deception, since God did not really intend Abraham to follow through with the killing. These exceptions all prove the rule because they are all temporary, however.
You can buy H. L. Mencken’s The Passing of a Profit and Other Forgotten Stories here.
God would therefore not prevent a demon, or anything, to permanently delude us. Thus, the exterior world is real and true.
This may seem again like another “duh” moment, but it is in fact quite critical. Descartes created the cogito proof because he wasn’t just interested in theology and philosophy, but also the sciences, and he wanted to have a Christian justification for the pursuit of science. Thanks to Descartes, we can dispense with such televangelist nonsense like the idea that God created dinosaur bones and put them in the ground to test the faithful, or that we should be focused exclusively on spiritual matters to the exclusion of other things, such as the natural sciences.
This means we can take the objective, exterior, empirical world precisely as we find it. We do not have to second-guess it.
What this means for Christian Nationalists is that they can apply the cogito proof to the social sciences just as Descartes applied it to the natural sciences. They can study race realism, high politics, and history without being heretical. Race and IQ can be studied as they are empirically found, just like dinosaur bones. Some of these things may have to be reconciled with Scripture, such as race realism with Imago Dei, which is the doctrine that Man is made in the image of God. I will leave the details of that to the Christians. But they can be reconciled — or at the very least, both can be true. We do not have to recoil from the hard facts of black criminality and Jewish subversion as heresies.
The second argument is that there is a stark differentiation between the public and private spheres.
Christ’s commandment of “love your enemy” is probably the most manipulated passage in the entire Bible. The Bible was written in Koine Greek, which, like all languages, reflects the culture of its speakers. Koine Greek reflects how the ancient Greeks saw a stark divide between private (meaning personal) affairs and public affairs, such as the state’s.
As noted by Carl Schmitt in The Concept of the Political, the word for “enemy” used in “love your enemy” is inimicos and not hostes. Inimicos is a private, or personal, enemy such as the neighbor who doesn’t pick up after his dog, while hostes is a public enemy, such as an enemy’s army.
This distinction is vital. What this means is that in our personal lives we should be loving and forgiving, but not necessarily towards our nation’s enemies. Christ and those who recorded His words must have known that there were two very distinct words for a public enemy and a private enemy which don’t sound anything alike. If we were supposed to love our public enemies, Christ would have clarified that.
Furthermore, the distinction between private and public pervades the entire Bible. Christ never led an army or governed a state, and his life was focused almost entirely on the personal, or private. His teachings and leadership by example reflect this. Christ was a loving lamb of God.
(There is another, hidden meaning to “love your enemy” which is explained by Julius Evola as creating a line of sympathy to discharge negative energy upon an enemy, but this is outside the scope of this article.)
Contrast this with the Old Testament, which is filled with war and politics, and which are distinctly public. Moses exemplifies the public nature of the Old Testament more than any other person, and he acted with iron ruthlessness. His plagues upon Egypt, his harsh discipline of the Israelites in the desert, and his setting in motion of the brutal (but probably well-deserved) conquest of Canaan by Joshua are examples of how those in positions of public responsibility must be willing to break more than a few eggs to make an omelet. Machiavelli praised Moses for both founding a new religion as well as a new state for good reason, even though he attributed Moses’ success more to divine will than virtu, or excellence.
Too many Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) act like Christ in matters of state because they either have good faith, but ultimately a poor understanding of the Bible; or because they are manipulating their Christian constituents in bad faith.
Regardless, a Christian Nationalist should act as ruthlessly as Moses in the political arena, and save his Christian charity for making peace with annoying neighbors.
Let us apply this to the scenarios in which white youths are murdered by immigrants or blacks, and their idiot parents then ask for clemency for the killer. Is this a private or a public matter? In some ways, it is private, as it involves a wrong which is intensely personal. But it is ultimately more public than private. Murder is a matter of public concern, because if murderers are not dealt with harshly, they will likely murder other innocents. Additionally, the racial component makes it a public matter because it fits into a broader racial struggle between the white nations and their non-white adversaries. A Christian Nationalist might “forgive” a killer on a spiritual level and pray for the salvation of his soul like Christ, but he would also urge a swift execution by the state and stricter immigration policies — in the spirit of Moses.
Whether you should act more like Christ or Moses depends on if the situation is private or public.
In summary, the lukewarm mindset which has held Christians back from realizing their full potential as a political force can be countered by, first, understanding that it is all right to deal with reality as we find it, because a theistic God would not deceive us; and second, differentiating between the public and the private, and therefore understanding that there is a time and place to be sweet and a time and place to be harsh.
May you have a Huwhite Christmas and some successful debates over hot chocolate.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
26 comments
I do not see Christian Nationalism disappearing anytime soon, especially given recent developments with Ye.
Let us know when “recent developments with Ye” translate into anything resemblng electoral success rather than a PR disaster. If anything, what’s been happening with him should underline what I’ve been saying about Christian Nationalism all along—it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with being white.
There is an effeminate, ahistorical version of Christianity which seems to have emerged in the 1800s and then became even more widespread in the 1900s which mostly boils down to passively praying as history passes by, being overly sugary sweet no matter what, withdrawing from the world, and indulging liberal subversion such as by forgiving the murderer of one’s child at the hands of feral immigrants.
None of that is ahistorical. In fact, it’s all biblical.
“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
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.”
—Matthew 5:38-40
“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”
—1 John 2:15
“a theistic God would not deceive us”
In that passage from Matthew, Christ basically says, “Ignore what God told you in the Old Testament.” So was God wrong in the Old Testament or the New Testament? Or did he change his mind in the interim after finding out he was wrong? And if he was wrong, how is he perfect?
Not being a Christian, I see the Bible in a slightly different way. I don’t think it’s the unerring word of God, so therefore it doesn’t surprise me that one can find passages that contradict one another. Padraig Martin asserts the resources are there for Christians to defend their race. Rather than undermine those efforts (and those of Thomas Steuben), I’m starting to think we should support and applaud them and not discourage any interpretation of the Bible favorable to White solidarity.
PS: I’ve made this mistake myself any number of times.
To be fair, the quote of Leviticus 19:34 that you used comes from the New International Version of the bible. That version omits one important word, “sojourn”, that is present in that passage in both the King James Bible and the English Standard Bible.
“And if a stranger SOJOURN with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”
– King James Bible
You shall treat the stranger who SOJOURNS with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
– English Standard Version
If you simply look up the definition of “sojourn”, the version of the passage that you used has a totally different meaning and connotation than the one used in other more credible versions.
Mr Goad is entirely correct. The problem is that however cynically these (often jewish) opponents of our politics are appealing to Christianity, they have far more of a Christian-theological leg to stand on than the people you’re trying to rhetorically arm here. This post reads like a series of copes as to why the things Jesus demands of his followers don’t really apply. Not only is this extremely questionable on a theological level, it’s also extremely questionable on a political level. It’s not exactly motivating for people who agree, nor convincing for those who don’t. And if by some miracle this kind of rhetoric can tape a coalition together at the seams, how long will this last? It seems to me that we’d be building our movement on a foundation of sand, subject to all of the same cognitive dissonance from within and cynical appeals from without.
A quote about conservatism comes to mind here and I think all of it applies and that evidently nationalists are failing to learn from the failures of conservatives:
“If one is really interested in countering the juggernaut of leftist thought, one must go outside the Enlightenment (replace Enlightenment with Christian) tradition, because leftist thought is simply the purer, faster, less compromising manifestation of that tradition. It isn’t the left, or the democrats or labour that is wrong — it’s the underlying philosophy, and it’s a philosophy that the republicans and the tories share almost completely.”
I think Padraig Martin would disgree with you. He has stated his intention of addressing Thomas’ article on his podcast, ‘Dixie On The Rocks’ (https://sites.libsyn.com/429303).
https://gab.com/PadraigMartin/posts/109552309225162088
I’m sure he would disagree with me. But I’m not really sure why I should care. I haven’t appealed to his authority or seen him make a compelling argument against any position I’ve just articulated. All I see is more cope and more appeals to his own and, frankly, extremely fringe interpretation of Christianity as the only True Christianity. I don’t need to rehash the arguments here but there are plenty of serious intellectual authorities in various disciplines who agree with me, and who differ on their appraisals of Christianity in light of their shared understanding of it.
And given that I’m neither Christian, nor Irish, nor Southern, I don’t even consider myself part of his political movement or intellectual milieu. As I said, I regard Christian (and Southern) Nationalism as a total dead end on both a religious and a political level.
When is this nonsense going to end? Torba’s Christian Nationalism book explicitly states that his movement and him are hostile to any forms of racial animus. These people want nothing to do with ethnic nationalism. Their favourite thing to do is to LARP as white nationalists and use “white” and “Christian” interchangeably and pretend that the latter is indispensable to the former. Christian Nationalists are a minority of a minority and will not compromise whatever kooky principles they have chosen that weekend because they are, by nature, hostile to earthly concerns and fixated on heavenly brownie-points. The more the white right leans Christian-conservative, the more it alienates the majority of whites who are either non-christian, or lukewarm private Christians who are publicly liberals.
Padraig Martin – author of A Walk In The Park: A Charlottesville Story – has stated his intention of responding to this essay on his podcast ‘Dixie On The Rocks’ (https://sites.libsyn.com/429303) . He agrees with Thomas Steuben but feels the approach should be amended to address the specific needs of Christians who need ‘scripture’ to support their views.
https://gab.com/PadraigMartin/posts/109552309225162088
Ask him to reconcile Galatians 3:28 with any ideological form of ethnic nationalism:
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Why can’t us non-Christians advise them to do the same thing they do with every other issue: Ignore the parts they want to ignore and pay attention to the parts they want to pay attention to?
I don’t need Cuckians to join the movement, but if there’s a way for ‘concerned’ White Christians to do so – via the same kind of (often self-serving) reasoning that Christians have always used – I see no reason to dissuade them.
Aw, Jesus (no pun intended)! How many times have I responded to this idiocy (from liberals, from Christians, from white nationalists, from cuckservatives, from …) in comments, esp here and at TOO (and elsewhere, like The American Conservative, First Things, Chronicles, AR, and more I can’t even recall anymore)? I need to gather all my past comments, and condense them into a standard response. I just don’t have the energy anymore.
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Is this meant to be understood literally (physically), or spiritually? Is the speaker a lunatic? Obviously there are Christians, Jews, slaves, etc – and especially men and women. So what is he really saying? He is saying that, in light of the Two Cities (of God and man), and what can reasonably be derived from Christ’s recorded parables, Christ’s offer of salvation is not exclusive – not based on earthly criteria of status or power or ethnic chosenness. Salvation is based on individual moral character and action. IOWs, in His kingdom (which “is not of this world”), markers of ‘identity’ associated with this world are dissolved.
But … we are not living in His kingdom. We inhabit the city of man, of physicality and history. In that city, human differences are real, and rooted indissolubly in permanent aspects of this world. Saying that “you are all one in Jesus” is not the same as saying “you are all one”, and then using such (unchristian) world-denialism as a justification for coercively seeking to erase those worldly differences. True Christianity is very materially realistic. It never denies this world, but merely posits that this visible world is not all there is. Nor does it condemn its fundamental features, one of which is racial differentiation.
My first thought is that the Christians in the pews pre-1801 were not the ones deciding to fight wars and discover the world. It was the elites. Supposedly they were Christian. The church was right alongside the secular explorers.
Is theology able to explain this? It hasn’t changed. The disposition of the elites has. In those days, an elite had a home base in a territory, and their wealth was founded on the land. They were still bound to the land and thus to the people who needed to cultivate it to create wealth that would fund the discovery and settlement across the seven seas.
Now, the ruling regime is living in a post-industrial fiat based debt finance system, where intellectual property generates wealth. They are not bound to the land or the people. The people in the pews have been abandoned and no theology is going to change that.
The question is simple, do you want to survive? Do you want your children to succeed you and for time immemorial be a part of what you envision as a people and its nation(s)? The problem with The Great Replacement is that it is not an armed horde storming the walls. It is a slow quiet invasion. The loudest part is the anti-white psychological warfare that has radically ramped up. How do you rally a Christian or an atheist to fight an enemy that isn’t attacking you with an army?
The nature of this war and of the enemy is unprecedented in human history. Perhaps the most accurate allegory is the Trojan Horse. How do you get them to see the horse, and pre-emptively set it and the bureaucratic Helens on fire? It is more like a Trojan Rabbit Couple. Slowly, quietly the rabbits multiply.
I think a leaflet for every church in the country that has on one side Israel’s ethno state policies, demographics and future triumphalism, and on the other the heritage American’s anti-white policies, demographics and future fatalism and then a question. If Israel can have it, why can’t we?
The only God that can save us now is what nature and nature’s God gifted us – the survival instinct.
The evangelicals have two huge advantages. One, they actually have enough children. And their children are more likely to have enough children. Two, they didn’t inject their families with the mRNA therapy and mask for years on end, or at least not as much as the irreligious at did. Meaning they aren’t gibbering terrified wrecks mentally, physically, and spiritually. So I’m actually relatively sanguine about the future. The religious right will inherit the earth. And the open secret is that Jesus Christ remains the greatest weapon of white western civilization.
hidden meaning to “love your enemy” which is explained by Julius Evola
Not come across Evola’s argument, but a related take might be that Richard I had to earn his epithet “the Lionheart” by crossing swords with the formidable Saladin. Only an enemy seen as worthy of respect made his title meaningful, so Dick had reason to be grateful to (“love”) his erstwhile foe.
God created dinosaur bones and put them in the ground to test the faithful
That idea tickled the fancy of Bertrand Russell, who made the sceptical argument: “There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that ‘remembered’ a wholly unreal past.”
You could take such reasoning to the limit point. Indeed, there probably are some quantum physicists who suggest the universe is annihilated and re-created every single moment.
I want to explain to Mr. Goad and others of his mindset why real Christianity is completely compatible with a people defending themselves.
Leviticus 19:34 presupposes that the foreigners residing among you will be few and respectful of the host nation. That hostile foreigners were not to be tolerated was so obvious as to not need to be written down.
Matthew 5:38—40 obviously refers to the private sphere, not the public. Never before the modern West have any Christian authorities taken these verses as a command to passively accept public aggression aimed at harming an entire people.
In 1 John 2:15, the “world” means the anti-Christian systems. Hating the world does not mean despising one’s nation. Elsewhere, the Bible says the one who will not provide for his own people is worse than an unbeliever. [1 Timothy 5:8]
Regarding Mr. Goad’s assertion that Jesus told us to ignore the Old Testament: In Matthew 5:17, 18, Jesus says “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
Galatians 3:28 [“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.”] was never interpreted as abolishing or ignoring nation or sexes. It was always, until recent decades, understood to mean that Christians have spiritual unity despite obvious and important differences of sex, age, race, ethnicity, etc.
Nothing in the Bible tells Christians to be postmodern cucks. Those who allow themselves to be misled will never be our allies; those who reject the postmodern propaganda can be our allies.
There is no such thing as “real Christianity.” There are just different versions of Christianity.
Christianity is based on checking the boxes to qualify for heaven, whereas White Nationalism is based on immediate existential concerns. Only one of these concerns exists outside of the imagination.
I’ll stop considering Christians a problem when they stop collectively funnelling millions in aid to Africa and Israel.
Adrien Arcand would probably be for pro-White reparations at gunpoint from afrika and israel if he were alive today, but does the ‘brand’ of christianity really matter as much as the personality of the believer? I don’t quite know what the difference is between them but in my experience I never minded the catholics (less pushy, friendlier, and more cognizant of real concerns) but I never liked the priggish bloviations of the christians.
Regarding Mr. Goad’s assertion that Jesus told us to ignore the Old Testament: In Matthew 5:17, 18, Jesus says “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
Right, and in the same exact chapter, he says, “Don’t do what the Old Testament says—an eye for an eye is no longer valid. Now I want you to turn the other cheek.”
In other words, the Bible contradicts itself constantly. It’s why I’m no longer a believer. I read too much of the Bible.
Just like Luke 14:26 directly contradicts the 5th Commandment:
26 “If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”
You can’t “hate” and “honor” your father and mother simultaneously.
People who strain to make the Bible logically consistent remind me of leftists trying to make equality between the race credible despite the overwhelming evidence against it.
Regarding Mr. Goad’s assertion that Jesus told us to ignore the Old Testament: In Matthew 5:17, 18, Jesus says “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
Right, and in the same exact chapter, he says, “Don’t do what the Old Testament says—an eye for an eye is no longer valid. Now I want you to turn the other cheek.”
In other words, the Bible contradicts itself constantly. It’s why I’m no longer a believer. I read too much of the Bible.
Just like Luke 14:26 directly contradicts the 5th Commandment:
26 “If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”
You can’t “hate” and “honor” your father and mother simultaneously.
People who strain to make the Bible logically consistent remind me of leftists trying to make equality between the race credible despite the overwhelming evidence against it.
Mr. Goad:
Which is more important to you: Disrespecting Christianity, or acknowledging (or even occasionally encouraging) allies who also happen to be Christians?
Neither is important to me. Truth is the only thing that’s important to me. And both racial equality and the Christian narrative are demonstrably untrue.
It’s so exasperating that you have to resort to a hair splitting interpretation of your text to justify defending yourself. What if you are later convinced that your interpretation is incorrect?
I have known Christians who were Republicans, Democrats, and libertarians. I knew one guy who was both a young earth creationist and a Marxist. Christians have told me that only Christians go to heaven, that monotheists go to heaven, and that eventually all souls go to heaven. I’ve known Christian homophobes and I’ve known a gay Episcopalian priest. And they’ve all assured me that they were practicing the ‘true’ Christianity!
Christianity has objectively failed to secure the existence of the white race and a future for its children.
Christianity has demonstrably betrayed white folk in every way from its early days to this very moment.
That is where a pro-white Christian must begin.
Where must he end?
Perhaps by enforcing, through worldly means of course, a thoroughly and irreversibly pro-white interpretation of Christianity — it would take endless sometimes brutal effort to make it remain so.
That would of course be a “religion of men”, not of gods or natural laws, but that is as Christianity always has been.
I know how to re-interpret Xtianity in conformance to reality and natural law — but the white-traitors and white haters in Christianity would never accept that, and the flock would do as their told of course — but can it come to a good end, and is it really worth the effort?
Maybe to a loyal white Christian it would be.
But you have to start with, and completely remove, those pesky two problems.
There are so many variants that call themselves Christians that it is impossible to ‘accept’ “Christianity” within White Nationalism en masse. Mormons (are they really Christians?) now have Black bishops, and Liberation Theologians are the very basis of Leftist ‘Diversity, Equality and Inclusion’ — our moral enemy of the hour.
There are supposedly two billion Christians on earth, and only less than one billion Whites, so how big an influence are they, unless they were all White. There are two billion Moslems (but who’s counting), about one billion card-carrying atheist communists in China, and a total mess of so-called Christians and tribal chieftains in Africa, which squabble constantly, but who send bishops to England, America and scattered ‘woke’ communities in Europe. So, what, where and why is Christianity? Whites are White — our skin tells us so — but how can we be united as White Christians?
I left that miasma — stage left — years ago, but I surely follow at least 5 of the 10 Commandments: Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not run around with thy neighbor’s wife, etc.– and here it all is again, entangled with White Nationalism.
Whether we like it or not, white Christians are the largest reservoir for white nationalists to draw upon in the United States. And they are the only category of whites that reproduce above replacement. If the goal is to promote the posterity of ethnic Europeans, whites of all creeds will have to set aside theological qualms and unit against their common enemies. We’re less Christian today than we’ve ever been since it became the dominate religion of Europe. Christianity is not the reason western civilization is in a free fall. Every prominent western institution has been subverted (yes including many churches). Even if you believe Christian theology is rubbish, it promotes strong family values and reproduction. And without those core values, there is no future for the white race.
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.