Counter-Currents
2,728 words
Giles Corey; Preface by Kevin MacDonald
The Sword of Christ
Deus Vult, 2020; soon to be reprinted by Antelope Hill
Does Christianity help or hinder, in the words of Sam Francis, “the efforts of the Right to defend the European-American way of life”? According to Giles Corey, that is the Christian Question (p. 2), and The Sword of Christ is his attempt to defend Christianity as not merely compatible with, but essential to, white European civilization. In his statement of “Mission,” Corey makes clear that he is writing for two audiences:
It is my greatest desire that this work will equip real Christians with the tools that they need to understand that our Faith is in total alignment with White racial identity, and with the arguments that they need to refute those egalitarian “Christian” Leftists who wave the bloody shirt and pervert the Word of God to argue for ethnomasochism and racial suicide. For atheist or pagan Whites, I hope to at least take the sting out of their Christophobia by demonstrating that those who work for our dispossession under the ensign of the cross are not Christians. (“Mission,” unnumbered; emphases in original)
As suggested in this passage, a key part of Corey’s strategy is to distinguish between true and false Christianity, and to claim that only the latter is at odds with white interests. Whether or not he succeeds in proving his case, anyone concerned about the relationship between Christianity and the ethnonationalist Right will find much of interest in this book.
The Sword of Christ consists of 16 chapters divided into four sections. Chapters 1-3 introduce “The Christian Question,” chapters 4-10 (“The Heresy of Christian Zionism”) explore the relationship of Christianity to Judaism, chapters 11-13 explore several topics in the relationship of Christianity to non-whites under the heading “Toward a Doctrine of Christian Racialism,” and chapters 14-16, “Theories of Christian Violence,” critique pacifism. I will describe the contents of each section and end with my own appraisal of the book.
The Christian Question
The chapters in this first section, along with those in the third section on “Christian Racialism,” are the most central to Corey’s project. The first chapter, “Christianity Today,” is a damning and depressing precis of the betrayal of whites by institutional Christianity in its Catholic, mainline, and evangelical forms. Corey documents the role of Christian churches and leaders in promoting non-white immigration, smearing their white ancestors, and condemning modern expressions of white solidarity (e.g., Charlottesville). He also catalogs some examples of white families’ pathological forgiveness of non-white killers and rapists in the name of Christianity. Given his stated goal of defending Christianity as a white-friendly religion, Corey seems to be digging himself into a deep hole. But to his credit, he is demonstrating forthrightly why his opponents on the Right might see Christianity as a threat to white interests.
Chapter 2, “Christianity, Yesterday and Tomorrow,” is among the most suggestive in the book, and it is a shame that it is only five pages long. Here, Corey claims that for most of the sweep of known history, Europeans understood themselves first and foremost as Christians, that respect for our ancestors requires us to respect their faith, and that Christianity is a suitable spiritual anchor to give our people courage to face the future. Moreover, claims Corey, historic Christianity’s universalism concerns only the availability of salvation to all, and does not entail any sort of social equality. For most of its long history, Christianity has been understood as a hierarchical faith; Leftist egalitarian interpretations of it are recent innovations. Given the significance of these claims to Corey’s project, it is disappointing that he does not develop and defend them at greater length.
Chapter 3, “Christian Reformation,” summarizes James Russell’s work in The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity. According to Russell, early Christianity was an egalitarian movement that appealed mostly to social outcasts in need of community. Christian missionary efforts in pagan Europe were initially hindered by the world-affirming, hierarchical, militaristic culture of pre-Christian Germanic tribes. Missionaries eventually overcame this resistance by recasting Christianity “from a universal salvation religion to a Germanic, and eventually European, folk religion” (Russell, quoted on p. 35). It is this Germanized Christianity that is our spiritual patrimony, that the Left is corrupting, and that Corey seeks to retrieve. As we will see below, this understanding of the Christian faith creates problems that Corey does not seem to recognize.
The Heresy of Christian Zionism
In the second section of Corey’s book, which is longer than the other three sections combined, he argues that Zionism is a recent Christian heresy and that Judaism has a long and sordid history of victimizing Christians. Chapters 4 and 5, on the history and theology of Christian Zionism, respectively, summarize the work of Stephen Sizer to show that Zionism is a heresy that denies that Jews must repent of their sins and trust in the forgiveness secured by Jesus Christ to be saved. These chapters will be of interest primarily to readers who can follow the minutiae of competing theories of Christian eschatology (the study of the end times).
Chapter 6 argues against “The Myth of Judeo-Christianity,” claiming that this mongrelized civic religion was foisted upon Americans by Jewish and liberal Christian leaders in the wake of the Second World War. Chapter 7 presents lengthy quotations from St. John Chrysostom and Martin Luther to demonstrate that historically, Christianity viewed Jews as enemies.
The next three chapters examine Judaism more directly. Chapter 8, “Jewish Gentile Hatred,” argues that modern Judaism is not the religion of the ancient Israelites, but rather a post-Christian, and fervently anti-Christian, religion based on the oral tradition of the Talmud. On Corey’s reading, the Talmud is an almost infinitely malleable (and easily obscured) collection of texts that consistently justifies almost any mistreatment of non-Jews to advance the interests of Jews.
Chapter 9 documents the “Jewish Promotion of Sexual Degeneracy,” a topic well known to many readers of Counter-Currents, The Occidental Observer, and similar sites. Corey summarizes the role of Jews inside and outside the legal system in gutting obscenity laws and in producing and promoting pornography. He draws on the work of Kevin MacDonald (who wrote the book’s Preface) to argue that the Jewish promotion of non-generative forms of sex is, at least functionally, an attack on white fertility, which has plummeted since the Jewish-led sexual revolution.
Chapter 10, “Jewish Ritual Murder,” is perhaps the most disturbing in the book. Corey presents the findings of Ariel Toaff and others to show that the “blood libel” — namely, the claim that Jews murdered many Christians, especially children, as sacrifices for Purim and Passover rituals, is well-supported by the historical evidence.
Toward a Doctrine of Christian Racialism
In his book’s third section, Corey’s stated aim is to “demonstrat[e] Biblically that ethnonationalism is most certainly not ‘unChristian,’ that White pride is not ‘unBiblical’” (p. 206). Unfortunately, this important task is confined to a mere six pages in Chapter 11, “Christian Ethnonationalism.” Examining several passages from the Old and New Testaments, Corey argues that God ordained the separation of mankind into different nations when He confounded the raising of the Tower of Babel, and that the rest of the Bible takes for granted this division without condemning it. But Corey does not, as far as I can tell, offer any detailed defense of contemporary White Nationalism in biblical terms.
In Chapter 12, “Evangelism at What Cost?”, Corey takes on the claim that non-whites are the future of Christianity. He points to the syncretism of Hispanic and other third-world missionary churches, as well as to the emotionalism and endemic Leftism of black American churches, to conclude that “non-White ‘Christianity’ is not Christian, just as egalitarian ‘Christians’ are not Christian” (pp. 214-15). And in Chapter 13, “Proslavery Theology,” Corey summarizes the work of Gary Roper and Eugene Genovese to argue that there was nothing unbiblical in either the theory or practice of Negro slavery in the American South.
Theories of Christian Violence
Corey devotes the fourth and final section of The Sword of Christ to refuting the claim that Christianity is a religion of peace that commits its followers to pacifism. He takes up this task primarily in Chapter 13, “Against Absolute Pacifism.” He offers non-pacifist interpretations of a number of New Testament passages commonly cited as justifying pacifism. While I found many of his interpretations strained, Corey’s overarching points that violence is repeatedly sanctioned by God throughout the Bible and that Christ does not condemn it as such are surely sound.
Chapter 14, “The Theology of Christian Holy War,” is devoted to the relationship between Christianity and Islam. Corey borrows from Jonathan Riley-Smith and Thomas Madden to construct a defense of the Crusades as just wars to repulse Muslim expansion. He then summarizes contemporary Muslim aggression against whites in the form of the rape gangs that have colonized many European cities. Though not entirely clear, Corey’s point seems to be to contrast the muscular Christianity of our forebears with the flaccid acquiescence in our own destruction amongst contemporary post-Christian whites.
The final short chapter, “Violence Against Infanticide,” cites Eric Rudolph and others to construct a biblical justification for killing abortionists. While I personally am untroubled by the killing of abortionists, the biblical case that Corey constructs strikes me as somewhat flimsy. For example, Corey writes that “Infanticide [i.e., abortion] may be seen as a return to the pagan child sacrifice practiced by the Canaanites and Moabites, who ritually murdered their children in worshipping Moloch” (p. 285). I can see no reason to assimilate these practices. They are both evil insofar as they involve the intentional killing of young humans, but citing biblical injunctions against Moloch worship (as Corey does) does not have any direct bearing on the moral status of abortion (or abortionists, or those who might seek to kill them).
Appraisal
The Sword of Christ is clearly the fruit of much reading and reflection. I am in Corey’s debt for pointing me to a number of promising books and articles on the topics he covers. I am also sympathetic to Corey’s main conclusions as summarized in his introductory “Mission,” in the brief prefaces to each section, and in his Afterword, “Revival.” In fact, readers of the book might do well to begin by reading these short passages in sequence. Together they make up only 11 of the book’s 300 pages, yet they amount to nearly all of its dialectical framing. Reading the individual chapters, I often felt somewhat lost; it was unclear what exactly Corey’s treatments of various subjects (Protestant soteriology, Jewish murders of Christian children, the looniness of black churches, the evil of Muslim rape gangs) contributed to the promised project of showing that Christianity is an ally, not an adversary, of white racial interests.
Corey’s incorporation of many outside sources is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength insofar as it allows the reader to benefit not just from Corey’s own insights but from those of several eminent historians and thinkers of the Right. But Corey’s reliance on other authors is so heavy at times as to crowd out his own contribution. Most of the words in the book are direct quotations from other authors, and many pages contain few of Corey’s own words. Unfortunately, Corey does not follow the convention of indenting long quotations to set them off visually from the main text, and spotting the quotation marks that mark the beginning and end of the many very long quotations can be a challenge.
Moreover, Corey’s citation scheme is unclear and incomplete. Some chapters begin with a footnote stating that all the information contained therein is derived from one or a few specified sources. And sometimes (but not always), the first quotation from an author will have a footnote pointing to its source. But page numbers are never included, and many quotations do not include clear references to any particular source, or sometimes to any source (or author) at all. For The Sword of Christ to be maximally effective as a tool to persuade skeptics of Christianity’s compatibility with white interests, it must invite readers to verify its many controversial claims for themselves. Unfortunately, without a more complete system of source citations, it is impossible to check Corey’s interpretations of his sources against the originals, or to consult their evidence and sources. For that reason, I would be reluctant to recommend this book to a skeptical friend.
Beyond these editorial shortcomings, Corey’s book left me with an unanswered question: What is real, true Christianity? As noted above, Corey’s basic strategy in resolving the apparent incompatibility of white interests with certain modern strains of Christianity is to claim that those strains are not genuinely Christian at all. For example, he writes (his emphases):
[T]he pharisaical teachers of false doctrine whom we witness on parade today simply are not Christians, no matter what they may say. (“Mission,” unnumbered)
[T]hose who work for our dispossession under the ensign of the cross are not Christians. (“Mission,” unnumbered)
[W]hat cloaks itself in the garb of Christianity today is not Christian, nor even close to it; modern Christianity is a disgusting aberration from the Faith. The egalitarian “Christians” of the Left and of the cocktail “conservative” class are not Christians. (p. 3)
[T]he non-White “Christianity” of the Global South that the Church celebrates as successful world evangelism is not Christian, but rather a bastardized and amalgamated paganism masquerading as Christianity. (p. 206)
In short, non-White “Christianity” is not Christian, just as egalitarian Christians are not Christian. (pp. 214-15)
We must . . . show Christians that they have been blinded and deceived by agents of Satan masquerading as men of God, that their faith has been infiltrated, subverted, and transformed into something that does not resemble Biblical Christianity in any way, shape, or form. (“Revival,” unnumbered)
But what, then, is Christianity? On what basis can we say that all these alleged deviations from Christianity are not, in fact, merely developments or even purifications of Christianity? Who decides?
Corey does not propose a creedal definition of Christianity, but his identification of it with the world-affirming amalgamation of German folk religion and missionary Gospel (chapter 3) might seem to invite problems. If third-world missionary Christianity is inauthentic because it adulterates the biblical Gospel with existing pagan traditions (chapter 12), why isn’t European Christianity, adulterated as it is on Corey’s telling (following Russell) with pagan Germanic traditions, equally inauthentic? Why would some deviations from the early Church’s teachings count as real Christianity, whereas others count as intolerable frauds?
One possibility is that the identification of European Christianity with true Christianity is simply stipulative: The religion of the medieval Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation (but are these the same religion?) is what we mean when we say “Christianity,” and any set of beliefs that strays too far (but how far, and how do we measure that?) is therefore not truly Christian. At one point Corey writes, “The Christianity that built the West is necessarily the only true Christianity” (p. 222; his emphasis); this strong claim is at least compatible with the stipulative interpretation of his claims that deviations from historic Western European Christianity are not truly Christian. Why else would this historically conditioned and modified version of Christianity count as the only true Christianity, apart from the fact that it is simply what we mean to refer to when we use the term “Christianity”?
Understanding Christianity as historically-conditioned Western European Christianity by stipulation comes with a price. Christians accept the tenets of their religion because they believe them to be true, not merely because they believe them to be theirs. And most Protestant Christians (I’d wager) accept as their highest authorities Jesus Christ and the biblical texts that bear him witness. Learning from Corey and Russell that their received faith is an accommodation of early Christian doctrine to German paganism is likely to undermine their confidence in that faith, and to send them seeking after its unadulterated antecedents in the New Testament and early Church. On Corey’s reading, this, too, would be a kind of declension from true (i.e., Western European) Christianity, even though it would be closer to the earliest Christianity that he deprecates.
In the end, Corey makes a strong case that the religion of European Christendom was not egalitarian in any modern sense and supported a healthy resistance to Jewish and Islamic threats. Whether a historicized interpretation of that faith can sustain its self-understanding as true Christianity in the modern world and spiritually fortify its followers to resist white dispossession are unsettled questions.
* * *
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.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
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!
79 comments
Some of the weaknesses you identified with the book are addressed in the edited and reformatted second edition, to be released sometime this year by Antelope Hill.
Thank you for engaging with my book; it is certainly not the final word on the Christian Question, but I hope it can be the start of a robust and vital discussion that is all too often derided and dismissed by Dissident Right pundits.
Christianity has fallen, but it can still be reclaimed.
Hi Mr.Corey,
Thank you fir your brilliant book. I was lucky enough to get one on amazon before it got erased. The book itself was truly compelling,I, as an Anglican, am very grateful for your efforts.
I wonder do you have any social media, like gab, twitter, facebook, youtube or truth social that people here can follow? I’m certain loads of folks here are very interesting in following your social media too. Huge thanks.
Best,
This comment of mine from the other recent CQ thread is obviously relevant here, too:
As I keep reiterating, there are only two issues between Christianity and white preservationism (WP), each with sub-issues:
A) Is Christianity true?
If yes, then does correct worship of Christ 1) require bending a knee to Diversity; 2) allow Christians to genuflect or not before Diversity; or 3) require not bending a knee to Diversity?
B) If Christianity is metaphysically false, should WPs 1) seek to totally discredit the faith, either by a) aggressively promoting atheism, or b) trying to replace Christianity with another, more WP-favorable creed; or 2) seek to expose, defenestrate, and replace “Woke Christianity’s” theological falsehoods with theological interpretations (such as existed right up to WW2) more favorable to WP?
I don’t know whether Christianity’s claims are true. I’m an agnostic who leans toward atheist naturalism, but I’m very openminded on the topic. I admit, for example, the I’m probably not intelligent enough to be able to evaluate properly St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God; nor St. Thomas’s Five Proofs; nor the assertions of modern “analytical theism”, etc. Even if one of these “proofs of God” were true, IOWs, I don’t think I’d be able to recognize it as such.
I know enough, however, to recognize that being a faithful Christian certainly does not require bending a knee to Diversity. I’m less sure whether Christianity properly understood allows for knee-bending. What moral virtues or divine commandments does knee bending violate? I’m similarly unsure whether Christianity requires rejecting such knee-bending. I perceive at least one argument for this position (the cult of Diversity is based on a host of empirically demonstrable falsehoods, and, in the Christian tradition, lies about matters of moral importance are inherently Satanic).
As I’ve argued here at CC many times, I’m more comfortable asserting that, even if the Faith is metaphysically untrue, in America it makes far more sense to attack “Woke Christianity” as a Christian (ie, from within the Faith), seeking to delegitimate the idea that wokeness and Christianity are even compatible, let alone overlapping, than to assent to the proposition that Woke Christianity is legitimate and then seek to wean whites from wokeness by attacking the Faith itself. From a purely tactical standpoint, the latter approach is ludicrous, especially so given the theological weakness of wokeness.
As for promoting atheism, or some type of prowhite, non-Christian theism, to combat wokeness among white Christians, such strategies evince little understanding of the psychology of modal white Christians. For believers, the relationship to God/Christ is the most important aspect of their lives (or at least should be, theoretically – and often is so). If these people think a) racism is wrong (at its crudest: jeopardizes their chances of attaining salvation and Heaven), and b) resisting the lies and scams of wokeness is somehow “racist”, you aren’t going to win them over simply by telling them their religion is nonsense. Christians will always put religious command ahead of race. Who would not do so, if you prize the fate of your eternal soul?
The real task is getting white Christians to understand that there is no contradiction between accepting and [morally] following Jesus, OTOH, and being non-aggressively patriotic (in a racial as well as national sense) and race-realistic, OTOH. One can be a Christian and a WP; indeed, I would say one must be – though that is a far more expansive claim than I think needs to or should be made at this still very early stage in the race-awakening of the white Christian world. For now, we need only demonstrate the moral incompatibility between true historic Christianity, and the hostile [neo-pagan?] cult of Diversity.
People have a tendency to conflate “proof of God” with “proof of a very specific and EXTREMELY angry Hebrew God who in some weird twist of fate had a son who was nailed to a cross and rose from the dead, thus washing away the sins that this God arbitrarily declared deserved eternal punishment if he hadn’t sent his son in at the last minute to save us all.”
I can’t count how many times I’ve been misclassified as an atheist merely because I find the Christian narrative to be implausible.
I’ve been very consistent over the years in stating that I think humans are simply too dumb to figure out the universe’s origins and that they wind up looking like fools when they concoct narratives to explain what they can’t explain.
Who is this book even for? Non-Christians aren’t going to be persuaded about the veracity of the Christian faith based on some hair-splitting about whether Christians were the Real Nazis or not. More likely, this seems like a Christian for Christian book to pat them on the head and tell them it’s okay to go back to burning crosses on their lawn. Christians are by definition unable to make deals with what they consider to be the Devil so they are allies of convenience at best and intractable nuisances at worse. Just ask them whether they’d prefer white trannies or heterosexual blacks in their “white Christian ethnostate” and watch them melt down and start screaming.
Says the author of “my nationalist pony.”
I don’t see your book in the sidebar.
The only relevant “Christian Question” should be: “Is the Christian narrative true?”
The fact that the Bible contradicts the living hell out of itself should have laid this tiresome question to rest centuries ago.
Don’t even get me started on the 500 or so passages describing a “perfect” God getting angry again and again and again over a world he allegedly created and had absolute control over. If I threw a tantrum and thrashed my apartment because I didn’t like the way I’d decorated it, “perfect” is not the word I’d use to describe my behavior—especially if I was continually bloviating to my acolytes about how anger is a sin.
For fuck’s sake, white people, come up with some NEW MATERIAL. And this time, don’t make it a belief system that was hatched in the Middle East rather than in Europe. And don’t think you can find salvation through a belief system whose adherents worldwide are majority nonwhite.
“the religion of European Christendom was not egalitarian in any modern sense”
Oh, really?
“Do not mistreat foreigners who are living in your land. Treat them as you would an Israelite, and love them as you love yourselves.” —Leviticus 19:33
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” —Galatians 3:28
2,000 years worth of Patristic Bible commentaries address any and all seeming contradictions in the Bible and show why surface-level readings like yours are misinterpretations of a book that in fact never contradicts itself.
Righteous indignation is not sinful. Anger is womanly and unbecoming of any man in addition to being sinful.
This is funny, because I’ve had Christians throw Aquinas at me about the virtue of being angry over sin and what they consider injustice.
If the Christian faith comes down to a book that doesn’t mean what it says then its adherents aren’t open to reason, only clerical assertions.
“Many are called, few are chosen.” Obviously, if you aren’t one of the “chosen”, none of the Gospels will make sense to you. But don’t you think your ancestors understood that? Even the unbelievers showed up on Sunday morning, stood and kneeled as required because they understood that a religion that called for honesty, monogamy and moderation, was a good thing. And when 90% of European folk went to Church, the people were stronger, more united and able to conquer the world. Since we’ve become so much “smarter” than our ancestors we’ve gotten desegregation, high crime rates and falling living standards as well as becoming a tiny minority in the world.
To this point, the Catholic Church served as the channel by which the Jewish Question was brought into the minds of laymen (when they weren’t dealing with Jewish people directly). The Biblical, traditional Christian notion of Jews as the enemies of Christ, Christians and Christendom is more familiar, accessible and compelling than any other approach to the Question, be it economic, cultural or otherwise. Nor is that an historical anomaly; it lives on in traditional movements.
Jim, I hope you’ll read this. I’ll keep it short. The main part of what you wrote that I think needs a response is this: “…God getting angry again and again and again over a world he allegedly created and had absolute control over.”
Saying that God is omnipotent of course implies that God has a great deal of control – even absolute control – but what about control over beings whom God intended to have free will and freedom of choice?
I never knew anything about religion growing up, other than hearing in school that religious people are stupid (the only thing most of my teachers knew about science was that the Church persecuted Galileo, and we heard about that often). Once I started learning physics I was surprised to find out that the greatest scientist ever (Newton) was religious. This led me to read the C.S. Lewis book Mere Christianity, and that gave me a good understanding of and respect for Christianity.
So I’ll give a brief quote from C.S. Lewis from that book about this subject:
“But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, ‘I’m not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You’ve got to learn to keep it tidy on your own.’
Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar all lying in the grate. That is against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy. The same thing arises in any regiment, or trade union, or school. You make a thing voluntary and then half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible.”
And here’s a free PDF if you want to read the whole book: http://ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Mere%20Christianity%20-%20Lewis.pdf
Tribes need a tribal religion. If the ‘tribal religion’ of North American Whites is ‘Christianity’ then the binding factor of the faith is a noose, not the tie on a bundle of sticks. Christianity postures itself as a ‘universal’ religion because all humans have souls as introduced by Yahweh in the Garden of Eden. As long as what matters is souls and not tribes, Christian is just gaping hole in the culture of our race through which any unWhite persons, ideas or behaviors can enter ‘in the name of the Lord’. The Jews got it right the first time, I think, by maintaining a true tribal religion: Non-Jews do not have souls and, thus, unworthy of ethical treatment.
As for Christian militancy, it seem inordinately directed at White people and virtually no other race. That kind of ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’ I can do without.
The solution to the Christian Question is for Christians to be White Christians and not Christians in general and cleave to the members of their race and treat the White race as the beloved Bride of Christ whether any individual White adheres to any of the supernatural tenets of Christianity. Jesus bestowed his blessing on non-Christians long before he did so to any ‘Christians’ because Christians didn’t exist in his lifetime. Christians should come home to their people instead of stand aloof and in judgement upon them.
Aren’t those White Christians MORMONS? Although the Mormon church has bent with the times, they still are very much a white, American religion (with very handsome whites, by the way).
Mormons are a very small part of the Christian tapestry in America. Until very recently, most North American were White and, consequently, most Christians in North America were White. I don’t know of a single denomination of Christianity in North America that is anti-immigration. You cannot be pro-White and support mass immigration (or any immigration by non-Whites at all).
I don’t know of a single denomination of Christianity in North America that is anti-immigration.
Amishes?
Who knows? 🙂
@Kök Böri
On the basis of what I have been able to read about the Amish, I think they are more a commercially useful tourist attraction than an exemplary nationalist community with strong defensive capabilities.
Their well-being is dependent on outsiders taking keen interest in their peculiar lifestyles.
The objectification of their domiciles generates good revenue.
For political managers, the Amish are like children who are expected to deliver a performance in front of guests. They shouldn’t concern themselves with what happens in the rest of the country.
For any Christian who would care to answer, do you believe the following?
That the God of the Bible (YHWH) literally exists?
That he chose to take on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ?
That all of humanity is in need of salvation and that that salvation comes only through the finished work of Christ?
That Jesus Christ literally resurrected from the dead?
***
If not, is Christianity for you instead simply a mythos that you identify with and find compatible with your White Nationalist beliefs?
This is not a gotcha game, just genuine curiosity.
I was a Christian for many years myself, but after coming to disbelieve those creedal claims about God, Christ, salvation, etc., whether to continue embracing Christianity as my mythology became optional. After a while, I opted out, feeling that Christianity was simply too alien to the Indo-European heart.
That said, I do understand Christians’ reluctance to renounce their faith, but especially if they are “literalists” and believe that doing so is tantamount to the loss of their salvation, the damnation of their very soul.
Why would believing in the four tenets you list be difficult for a Christian to believe? Mathew 22:14, “Many are called, few are chosen.” Practical Christianity leads to people living honest, monogamous lives. How has all this atheism worked out for Whitey? Seems to me we were doing a lot better when even the unbelievers went through the motions.
I’m looking for answers to the questions I’ve asked, if anyone cares to answer them. You have only ignored my questions and asked some of your own.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Doesn’t apply to me, but, I’m sure many people could easily answer yes to that, too. If you don’t believe, how does it hurt to continue the traditions of your ancestors? Traditions that were present when your people conquered the world and advanced humanity beyond any other culture?
Thank you, Michael.
You asked:
If you don’t believe, how does it hurt to continue the traditions of your ancestors? Traditions that were present when your people conquered the world and advanced humanity beyond any other culture?
As I see it, it depends on which traditions we’re talking about. Here, you mean Christianity. Firstly, I believe there is a certain type of person who can be a Christian and a staunch, reliable white advocate. So I want to make that clear. But here’s my biggest problem with Christianity: I believe that the Bible’s message is glaringly universalist apropos of race. (Jim Goad quoted the “neither Jew nor Greek” passage already, above.) So there is always that snake in the grass lurking. And if you, as a white advocate, ever get convinced that “we’re all one in Christ” is the proper interpretation of God’s word, if you are a serious Christian that poses a considerable threat to your white nationalism, because God himself said it, not Greg, or Jared Taylor, or Kevin MacDonald, or any other mere mortal.
Also, the Jewish element. Honestly, I’m being asked to believe that God “chose” the Jews. Then, he chose to come down and incarnate as a Jew, then that Jew literally became God himself, and I’m supposed to now worship him. Here we come around to your question.
Continuing this tradition is, for me, problematic, for the reasons just noted. And it doesn’t matter whether that tradition inspired advancement or conquest or anything else (if you accept that it did; I for one think that the white man would have done those things regardless), nor that it was the banner under which those things were done for a long time.
***
Personally, I believe that we have been dealt what could be called a “tough shit” hand. I mean, our Indo-European traditions have been largely lost. The longest unbroken tradition we do have (that ended, as Greg has noted, several hundred years ago and was replaced with Liberal Universalism by the Peace of Westphalia) is Christianity, a Jewish spin-off religion of Judaism, an alien religion of a people who is not us. It is as if fate, Fate, or whatever you want to call it, said, “Start over, and pick your components wisely.”
And that is what I believe we must do.
As for those who want to continue espousing Christianity, I only pray that in the depths of their hearts they truly, honestly, ultimately do not believe it, rather bear it and participate in its rites as if they were at an opera or a children’s pageant, enjoying the performance, but under no delusions that a king, queen, lion, faery, living tree, whatever, is what’s before them holding everyone’s attention.
I don’t want to be the dullard who comes along and says, “Uh, none of that is real! You all are so stupid!” Because I don’t believe you or any other Christian is “stupid” for believing it. On the contrary: you are here. All I’m doing is saying how I see Christianity and what I myself have concluded about its veracity and whether it was, is, or will be ultimately a good fit for white people.
You seem upset with the universalist aspect of Christianity. “I believe that the Bible’s message is glaringly universalist apropos of race. (Jim Goad quoted the “neither Jew nor Greek” passage already, above.) So there is always that snake in the grass lurking.” The nearest to universalism in the bible is the first verse of James addressed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. The universalism came in with the Reformation?Renaissance. The mixed multitude appears to have been nothing but trouble since the beginning.
As a lapsed Christian you know that the bible interprets itself. Man and woman He made them so to say that their is neither Jew nor Greek nor man nor woman in the faith is not referring to the flesh. Besides, when Jesus was crucified the King of the Jews sign nailed to the cross was part of the package mocking Him. And where in the Bible does it say Abraham or any of the Fathers was Jewish. The Jewish Pharisees told Jesus that they were never in bondage so there is your first clue. Sure they can be “saved” but you know of any?
You would also be aware of who the woman is, who the dragon is and what a flood of water is. So you know where we are with the dragon spewing forth a flood to drown the woman. Well, no point preaching. Cheers (But if you are old enough cast your mind back to Miss American Pie.)
I’m unable to reply under your last comment so I’ll respond here. Nowhere in the universality of Christianity is integration mentioned. And it was as a Christian West that segregation was permitted and it some states a matter of law.
In the New Testament the jews are stripped of being ‘chosen’ and can only be saved by conversion. Churches play the ‘chosen’ game nowadays partially over guilt from the holocau$t and partly because of the vast power Jews have accumulated in the West. When Christianity was strong, Jews were restricted as to where they could live and what professions they could enter. When the West abandoned Christianity, Jews were given full citizenship. Intellectually, you might have an argument, in reality it didn’t work that way.
I remain unconvinced that Christianity was the causal bulwark against those things.
Continuing this tradition is, for me, problematic, for the reasons just noted.
They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick […] for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew {9:12-13})
To me it just looks like WN and Christianity are pointing to the same (((problem))). When you have trouble makers in your department, you go and confront the riot leaders, not the peaceful citizens.
“How well has atheism worked?” is whatabouttism.
Leon Degrelle, Charles Coughlin, Ferenc Szalasi, Adrian Arcand, Codreanu, Eoin O’Duffy, de Rivera, Tiso… Whatever did any of these judaized christlings ever contribute to the Right? Whenever did any of these cringing, turn-the-other-cheek pacifists ever fight for their beliefs?
On another note, any re-assessment of Christianity might consider Jesus’s relationship with pharisaism in relation to his being an Aramaic-speaking Galilean, the Galileans having been quite distinct in their religious beliefs from the Temple priesthood; hence Jesus’s deadly conflict with the Pharisees, which was inevitable.
But who did they fight and what did they fight for? ‘The Right’ is not co-extensive with ‘White interests’, or at least it doesn’t seem to be so to me. And isn’t the more pertinent question whether these folks’ Christian beliefs facilitated their right-wing views or merely co-existed with them. Christians have a habit of pretending ‘Christianity’ is the cause of everything a ‘Christian’ does whether that makes any sense or not.
I’ve also noticed that Christians want to take the credit for anything good that happened under their domination of White lands but avoid taking the blame for anything bad. Christianity was the dominant religion when all of the anti-White forces in North America were building up momentum and, from all that I can see, did nothing effective to stop the dispossession of White people in North America and, furthermore, have been actively involved in the process of White dispossession via support for mass immigration and demanding Whites not act in their racial interests.
Postwar Christianity has been a force for dysgenic and racial evil in the West. No doubt about it. I say this even though I hold that, in the balance of history, Christianity has been the world’s greatest force for the moral improvement of mankind. The question is, did Christianity have to travel this “coercive-diversitist” route (ie, to be true unto itself)? Or is this new mongrelism in fact a secular [liberal] heresy imported into the Faith (as I believe)? What is wrong with white nations remaining white? For a true Christian, the answer is, nothing, nothing at all. The real moral-theological conundra involve how to go about de-diversifying white lands that our own traitors allowed to be non-militarily colonized. Now that is a tough basket of ethical and casuistic issues (for a Christian)!
Only a quick clarification: the lastname of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera is “Primo de Rivera”, and his names are “Jose Antonio”. Primo de Rivera is a compound lastname, and those lastnames are usually found in spanish aristocracy.
Another example is Sixto Enrique de Borbon-Parma. The name is “Sixto Enrique”, and the compound lastname is “de Borbon y Parma”.
“Leon Degrelle, Charles Coughlin, Ferenc Szalasi, Adrian Arcand, Codreanu, Eoin O’Duffy, de Rivera, Tiso” – All national revolutionaries first and Christians second. I’d argue their Christianity was almost incidental, and more of a personal window dressing for their political beliefs, than the other way around. Which is why I say that White Nationalism and Christianity are entirely compatible: you can make what you want of it.
My early political road took me through socialism, the skeptic movement and the new Atheism of the early 2000’s, mostly in my European struggle against an encroaching Islam and a weak -pathetic even – Christianity. Some of these tenets are impossible to shake. I appreciate old European culture founded upon Christianity, but I believe Europe is founded on its race, not Christianity. Every time I get a feeling that European greatness and Christianity are intertwined, I go “well what about the fucking Greeks, what about the Romans?” European greatness is intertwined with the white race, simple as that, and whatever the majority of that race believes is secondary. One can certainly imagine a belief system that aids them far better in a racial sense than Christianity. In the end I just DO NOT care about Christianity at all, it is window dressing, not real in a literal sense, and politically pointless outside of shallow pandering to its followers. White Nationalism is compatible with Christianity, sure, because Christianity is essentially meaningless and you can make what you want of it.
When white nationalists argue about “who’s a cooler invisible sky wizard: Jesus or Odin?”, they sound like neck-beards arguing over whether the Marvel or DC universe is better.
Christians always make the “not real Christian” claim about each other; it’s so boring at this point.
The question which version of Christianity or which interpretation of the Old and the New Testament is “true” and how we get to know this, is indeed crucial, and Corey has no convincing answer for it. Does he really believe in the Holy Trinity and that Christ was actually resurrected from the dead? That would be the “minimum”, but there is much more to believe in, and not all Christians have accepted “everything” or every interpretation. I dare you reading the Old Testament especially and literally believing every story has actually happened as being told.
Corey is obviously way more interested in white nationalism and especially antisemitism/antijudaism than in serious theology and in his salvation in Christ. The “sword” is clearly not the message of the Gospels, and pacifist interpretations come along much easier than complicated explanatory readings that this is not the case.
Compare this book to the work of repentant sinner convert Roosh, which is focused on spiritual matters, even though he has maintained some hard right wing views. But his message is clearly “religion first”, not “politics first”.
In Corey’s book however religion is rather used to support politics than politics being derived from religion. Now that has been done quite often in history. The political order of Western medieval Christianity, with its Emperor-Pope polarity, is certainly not based on the Bible alone but on doctrines that arose much later and would eventually be attacked and questioned by Protestantism. Indeed it can be argued that much of medieval political theology does directly contradict or oppose the message of the gospels. Why should the Germanic medieval hierarchic version be “truer” than the much older Middle Eastern egalitarian version? The eternal question is whether you actually believe what you claim to believe or whether you just believe certain things to support your interests.
I found it a bit irritating and misleading that the cover shows an orthodox cross, but the book doesn’t build its argument on either traditional Western catholic or Eastern orthodox doctrine. That would maybe have made a more coherent argument, as EMJ does try to do. The result is a sort of White Nationalist neo-protestantism with a traditionalist cloak that does not have a real authority to call upon and therefore has troubles claiming to represent “real” Christianity. It merely advocates one possible way among many possible others.
The Trinity isn’t essential to Christianity. Faith in the risen Christ is. It’s right in the Book.
The trinity is essential, as Christ is not a mere man but Man and God at the same time, God incarnated as Man, The Word made Flesh. Otherwise you’ll have to go back to Arianism.
Except that nowhere in the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament is belief in the Trinity listed as a necesity. Faith in Christ’s resurrection is written. The Trinity is an interesting doctrine, and could be true, but isn’t required for salvation.
Chapter 14, “The Theology of Christian Holy War,” is devoted to the relationship between Christianity and Islam. Corey borrows from Jonathan Riley-Smith and Thomas Madden to construct a defense of the Crusades as just wars to repulse Muslim expansion. He then summarizes contemporary Muslim aggression against whites in the form of the rape gangs that have colonized many European cities.
Firstly, the Crusades were a racial/tribal affair. Both sides used religion for the purpose of mobilization.
The symbolism of Jerusalem embellished a lot of political careers [on both sides].
Secondly, it is intellectual dishonesty of epic proportions to portray immigrant preying of White girls as “Muslim aggression against Whites”. Islam has nothing to do with it. It was too a racial/ethnic issue. White girls were targeted because they lacked male protection. Moreover, degenerate lifestyles in the Occident also played their part in exposing the womenfolk to the networks of these hyenas.
They would still have committed those crimes had they [immigrants] belonged to any other religion.
The natives often demonstrate astonishing ignorance with regards to their own socio-political dynamics.
In this affair, it is a massive distraction to focus on religion instead of race. It may generate media frenzy and give birth to more Tommy Robinsons and Pat Condells but it will not solve anything.
Thirdly, with all due respect, the sources used in the section on Islam are laughable to say the least. Raymond Ibrahim?? Peter McLoughlin?? Douglas Murray?? Seriously??
Although the author dedicates a chapter to dismantle “Judeo-Christianity”, however, when it comes to Islam, the upholders of the Judeo-Christian enterprise become serious academic sources. Very strange.
Lastly, there are structural flaws in Christianity. It leaves a lot of room for subversive maneuvering. It doesn’t have an autonomous, water-tight, socially mobilizing doctrine capable of maintaining an equilibrium between the universal and the particular; which was the reason it became an instrument in the hands of monarchs and politico-bureaucratic forces once the latter gained strength.
Muhammad Aryan, are you a fellow Iranian?
The point about the ‘grooming gangs’ which tends to be missed is that their activities are state sanctioned. In one notorious case where a Rotherham girl did have male protection, the protector (her father) was arrested.
@Middle Class Twit
The point about the ‘grooming gangs’ which tends to be missed is that their activities were state sanctioned.
Indeed.
And to know how it gets sanctioned, one would have to study the deep political penetration of immigrant gangster cliques. They enjoy access to the very summit of bureaucratic power grid. This access makes sure there are no impediments in the trafficking of filth.
@Hairy Iranian guy
Salaam Aghae mohtaram,
I have distant Iranian ancestry. At present, I reside in Karachi, Pakistan.
برخی از اجداد من در نیشاپور دفن شده اند، جایی که در اواخر قرن 18 به شمال هند نقل مکان کردند. خوشحالم که شما را اینجا می بینم.
والسلام
یا علی
@ Muhammad Aryan
درود پهلوان!
Yes, I’ve enjoyed the comments you’ve made. I’ve made similar comments about the “Muslim” rape gangs, but to no avail. What’s risible is how everyone has become an Islamic scholar overnight. Feel free to privately email me at “[email protected]”.
زنده باد!
It is always amusing to watch the >3% of atheists who are White Nationalists wonder whether Christianity is holding back the American Right which is over 80% Christian.
Want to defeat the Left? Just impose a religious test. It would instantly disqualify and disenfranchise most White libtards from voting who have the worst politics in the country.
I take your point, but did you mean <3%? I doubt 1% of atheists are white nationalists, though I bet at least 50% of WNs are atheists. Many of the latter seem to fantasize that there is some huge pool of white atheists who can easily be brought over to WN. Perhaps that is true across the Atlantic, though if so, why hasn’t The Great Euro-Awakening already happened? How many more alien Afro-Islamic rapes, muggings and terrorist attacks are needed, like accumulating poker chips, to finally win the jackpot of a nativist reaction?
But, whatever the mentality and fate of our European cousins, it damn sure ain’t the case in this country that there is any large pool of racially persuadable whites – except among the white, Christian conservative base of the GOP. Scratch a diversitist, especially a hard, woke, antifa type, and you will usually get an atheist. Question an atheist, and you will usually get a leftist. I don’t know why this is socio-psychologically, but it has been very well established in empirical political science. Most atheists I have known in my increasingly longish life have been liberals. The idea that WN can more readily be made to appeal to them, as opposed to getting white Christian conservatives to recognize that they are under racial attack, and thus may (indeed, have a duty to) respond in an appropriately racio-collectivist manner, is ridiculous.
The people who were once followers of your namesake (George Wallace) were overwhelmingly Christian. They saw no contradiction between worshipping Jesus, and resisting negroization. Why do WNs think some LGBTQueer/BLM version of Christianity is more ‘authentic’ than the sturdier, harder and more bio-realistic Faith of their forefathers?
I’m starting to wonder if WN itself isn’t really some strange offshoot of that endlessly mutating enemy –> liberalism.
Soteriology is not the “study of the end times”, but rather of salvation.
*Eschatology* is the theology of the end times.
That error regarding very fundamental theological terms raises real doubt regarding the ability of the reviewer to properly critique Corey’s book.
Thanks for the correction.
The review’s arguments stand on their own, however.
But what, then, is Christianity?
It is a global political programme!!
Many are delusional and “incepted” the lie as their own (and are now totally assimilated into the globalist matrix) holding compatible sovereign nationalism and global monarchism have what Orwell describes as “Doublethink” …
Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
As an example, the claim by American ‘Christian Nationalists” to be against political centralization (aka for sovereign Republic’s (ethno-nations?) not for centralized monarchy of any form, … but hold at the same time they a “religon” are all in for a foreigner’s (to my personal ethnos) global (“second coming”!!) messianic monarchy!
So called “Christian Nationalists” cannot have it both ways!
Either your a nationalist (in the strict classical definition based on biology and genetics http://humanphenotypes.net/methods.html) or you support, aiding, and giving comfort to a globalist politico-economic agenda masquerading as “religion” with it’s insidious programming of suppression of racial identity, ethnos, and even sex identity (Galatians 3:28), and seeks to pasteurize all peoples into a race-less, ethnic-less, root-less, sex-less mass of homogenous humatons.
The Doublethink is Thrice Universalists!
The so called “religious arena”, aka the judeo-christian church’s, are really the hub’s of a global politico-economic centralization scheme masquerading as a religion ::
Thrice universalist in that, politically (global monarchy of by and for the foreigner oligarchy (of my racial ethno’s), economically (ie. communism, ie. you will own nothing and you will love it), and finally the imposition of their universalist messianic “man-god” emperor monotheism by the sword! (really it’s henotheism: https://www.thedivinecouncil.com/, https://archive.org/details/greatangelstudyo0000bark)
Judaeo-christianity has at it’s core global imperialism, in that it wants a global (“second coming at that !!”) global “messianic” Jewish monarchy from Jerusalem, and totalitarian at that!! As the judaeo- christian papacy of Francis claim’s, the christian’s are all “Jews” now (https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-francis-inside-every-christian-jew)!!
Indeed you are a jew inside if you hold the doublethink inception of a sovereign nation and culture destroying jewish-flavian-christian messianism!!
To wit the thrice universalism is communistic and slaving to the core:
The theocratic “messianic” “lord” (ie. “anointed” (aka “christos”) god-man monarch of the world) of Judeao-Christianity:
https://biblehub.com/greek/2962.htm 2962 kýrios – properly, a person exercising absolute ownership rights; lord (Lord)…
…and the theocratic lord’s “servants” https://biblehub.com/greek/1401.htm :: 1401 doúlos (a masculine noun of uncertain derivation) – properly, someone who belongs to another; a bond-slave, without any ownership rights of their own. Ironically, 1401 /doúlos (“bond-slave”) is used with the highest dignity in the NT – namely, of believers who willingly live under Christ’s authority as His devoted followers.
I don’t buy their henotheism masquerading as monotheism (aka the goal of a global man-god emperor), either! (https://www.thedivinecouncil.com/, https://archive.org/details/greatangelstudyo0000bark)
Not my god, nor lord, nor monarch, nor emperor!!!
Christianity originated as a heresy of Second Temple Judaism(*) founded and propagated to Gentiles in the eastern Roman Empire by a Hellenistic Jew, Paul of Tarsus. All Christians today worship a Jew, the Aramaic-speaking messianic claimant Jesus of Nazareth, whom they have deified, but who was — and who continues to be — repudiated by the majority of the Jewish people. While undoubtedly many excellent things have flowed from the Christianisation of Europe in the course of two millennia, one feels it would be more honest if the above fundamental facts were confronted. There is a certain absurdity in being an antisemitic Christian(**). Nor is there now any possibility of creating a Parsifal-style ‘Aryanised’ Christianity — the Nazis poisoned that well. If one truly seeks a world-religion of impeccable Indo-European character, well suited to modern times, then as Schopenhauer and Evola understood, one must turn to Theravadan Buddhism.
(*) Not indeed the later Rabbinical Judaism of the Talmud and its evolutions, wherein the Notzrim (Christians) are already anathema.
(**) As Phillip Roth wryly notes in Portnoy’s Complaint
“Nor is there now any possibility of creating a Parsifal-style ‘Aryanised’ Christianity — the Nazis poisoned that well.”
I think you’d almost have to as a white nationalist pur sang, without turning to kooky American 20th century creations like World Church of the Creator, or Mormonism (which itself has been hopelessly sanitized). Far be it from us to shy away from something because the Nazis already did it.
I think Corey is wrong to assert ‘[H]istoric Christianity’s universalism concerns only the availability of salvation to all, and does not entail any sort of social equality’. The earliest ‘sacrament’ in the early Jesus movement was the agape meal, where everyone – master and slave, craftsman and apprentice – shared a meal in common.
I don’t see how ‘salvation available for all’ does not eventually translate into some kind of universal egalitarianism. The ‘hierarchical’ Church was never a function of the beliefs of the Church, but a continuation of the old Roman system of bureaucracy.
Given the rapidity of the spread of Protestantism, it seems that Europeans had chafed under the yoke of the Church since its domination of Europe. It’s really not altogether clear Europeans are as ‘hierarchical’ as the Right likes to think they are. Whites achieved a lot with bureaucratic systems, including division of labor, but other than the ruling elite, who among Europeans really enjoyed that way of life? Our hearts are more in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Round Table, the thing, the jirga and the mannerbund than the corporate boardroom. Bureaucracy and hierarchy is a means to an end that the Right seems to mistake for a end in itself.
Exactly!!! https://counter-currents.com/2023/01/white-nationalism-vs-racially-conscious-white-ethnonationalisms-part-1/#comment-1796632
…the “hierarchical” bureaucratic maze of nonsense came from the “byzantine” east/middle east! It is not in our nature and is of and for those who do not produce anything of value or meaning!
I’m not sure Whites can do without bureaucracy and the division of labor. These are very practical hierarchies. But they should be treated as tools, with no more or less respect than due any other tool that you pick up for the job at hand and set down when no longer needed without the slightest feeling of remorse or loss. We need to find a balance between ‘efficiency’ and a good life for our people.
I don’t see how ‘salvation available for all’ does not eventually translate into some kind of universal egalitarianism. The ‘hierarchical’ Church was never a function of the beliefs of the Church, but a continuation of the old Roman system of bureaucracy.
You can translate ‘salvation available for all’ vs ‘universal egalitarianism’ in modern language as ‘equality of chances’ vs ‘equality of outcome’. The former becomes the latter only through corruption.
The universe is thoroughly hierarchical, and this is a core message of Christianity. Only the righteous ones make it to the next level, it is very difficult to meet the standards, and there are no exceptions to this rule. I cannot imagine anything more hierarchical than this.
Universal egalitarianism is a lie and a deception, and does not come from God. It is the hatred towards the hierarchical universe, the attempt of the wicked to get to the next level by force. It is the revolution as the avatar of the original sin, the revolt against hierarchy and God.
‘You can translate ‘salvation available for all’ vs ‘universal egalitarianism’ in modern language as ‘equality of chances’ vs ‘equality of outcome’. The former becomes the latter only through corruption.‘
What I’m saying is that the idea of ‘salvation for all’ inevitably devolves into ‘equal X for all’. Calling this inevitable working out of the inner logic of the ‘all’ concept ‘corruption’ doesn’t change this process, it just moralizes it only to imply there was a ‘moral’ alternative when, perhaps, there was not.
Also, ‘the universe’ (such as we understand it) isn’t ‘hierarchical’ it’s a network of dependencies. Command and control and value is distributed throughout the system, not hierarchically. Humans make hierarchies in order to accomplish things that cannot otherwise be accomplished. ‘Hierarchy’ is a tool, a means, not an ontological or metaphysical necessity.
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” —Matthew 10:34
“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.” —John 14:27
“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.” —Matthew 5:38–39
For Christ’s sake, make up your mind, dude.
Generally speaking, I have very little patience for people who claim that you’re “taking a passage out of context.” They almost always want to use some kind of crazy exegesis to argue that half of the passages actually mean the opposite of what they plainly say.
But in the case of Matthew 10:34, I think you’re actually conceding too much to the Christians who claim that their lord is a based man of war. Check out what Jesus says in Matthew 10:35-37 (KJV):
3 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
…right, which completely contradicts “Honor thy father and mother.” Christ basically came along and said, “Here are the parts of the Torah that were complete bullshit.”
That mess of a book has more contradictions than all of the 10,000 or so other books I’ve read combined.
Context dude.
The entire context… dude …
Really, their “god made flesh” is “SBF” … https://www.unz.com/article/israel-as-one-man/ https://www.unz.com/article/how-yahweh-conquered-rome/
I continue to be amazed at the endless arguments over the usefulness, practicality, and compatibility of Christianity with White ethnonationalism — along with the same ridiculous and tired rhetoric being employed by both sides — when the debate can be settled quickly and decisively. In doing so, you also answer the question of what *true* Christianity is, and reconcile the faith with White ethnonationalism beyond a shadow of a doubt. The answer to all these questions is Christian Identity, the one true Christian faith.
All these other arguments are repetitive and futile, like a dog chasing his tail.
Really, your “god made flesh” is SBF …
https://www.unz.com/article/israel-as-one-man/
https://www.unz.com/article/the-crucifixion-of-the-goddess/
https://www.unz.com/article/how-yahweh-conquered-rome/
Why always so many quarrels about christianity? Maybe Christ really was an aryan hero, as Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Alfred Rosenberg tell us, and then we – the aryan racialists – well, then we have no other choice but to bow down to him.
My takeaway from other commenters is that “White Nationalist Christians” seem to think that there shouldn’t be any White Nationalism that isn’t Christian. Which tidily excludes large numbers of white people over theocratic issues.
We need “positive christianity”, i.e.: we need a trojan horse inside of the church to make it pro-white, taking over church institutions from the hands of anti-white haters, telling white christians, that actually good white christian must fanatically fight for the survival, evolutionary progress and honor of his race. And pray for it as well.
YES YES YES!! Exactly my belief (whatever the ultimate metaphysical truth might be).
Well, sorry, fellow @Buttercup, I wanted to make different comment, only accidentally I have made an answer to your comment, but since I have done so, I’ll answer to you as well: so yes, of course I agree with you. Religion should be the matter of individual conscience, not politics. It shouldn’t divide us, especially now, when our survival is at stake.
Whether you’re a Christian, a pagan, an atheist, or an esoteric Vedantic Evolian Pan-Psychist, know this: all the Left cares about is that you’re White. Maybe we should let people practice whatever religion they want and focus on our common enemy.
This is not necessarily true and is a misrepresentation of the Left. The left is not a single-issue Negro rights organisation. One of the biggest failures of the Right with regards to race is to bring in old guard leftists who are concerned about workers rights and exploitation. After all the working class is the primary victim of immigration.
LMAO!!! What year do you think this is, 1935? 1955? 1880? 1980? The Left today is absolutely a 100% Diversity-worshipping movement. The old Left working class, the one that wanted a better deal for workers vis a vis management under corporate capitalism (but not the one that was actually communist: F*** that one!), and to the extent that it even still exists, has overwhelmingly either a) already migrated to the Right (see “Trump base”), or b) is basically ‘cool’ with the diversity invasion, and indeed, sees “organizing” the imported new Third World proletariat as its future project and electoral salvation. You obviously haven’t been paying attention lately to the politics of the actual, existing American labor movement (much of which, btw, revolves around the greedy interests of PUBLIC unions – which, apart from the first responders unions [police, fire], are hotbeds of wokeism).
F*** the Left in ALL its forms. They are the enemy, always have been, always will be. Far smarter to go after the white elements of the increasingly woke- + socialist-besieged corporate bourgeoisie, as well as the Christianists, also feeling increasingly morally and culturally besieged, and also comprising another huge portion of whatever Right still exists. Dragging the non-Left further to the True (race-aware) Right is the real political project of our age.
I am in favour of diversity, just a diversity of white peoples. QED I am heavily to the Left of nearly everyone I interact with here, who favours a monoculture of some kind of fantasy fascist aristocracy or “Christianist” moral qualms. What you describe as “the white elements of the increasingly woke- + socialist-besieged corporate bourgeoisie” are bona-fide, card-carrying Left-Liberals who would prefer a multicultural society at the cost of it being multiracial, to a monocultural one with the benefit of it being monoracial. White Liberals are constantly on the move to “cleaner suburbs with better schools”, yet the Right wants to scream and abuse these people over silly religious priors and declare them an eternal enemy.
Your grasp of both what I wrote above, and reality more broadly, is somewhat tenuous.
Here is what I meant by “the white elements of the increasingly woke- + socialist-besieged corporate bourgeoisie, as well as the Christianists”. There are plenty of good people working in Corporate America. I’m one of them (albeit I’m in a smaller firm, as opposed to the more well-known giant multinationals). We have mostly corporate clients. People like me are all but cowed into absolute silence by the left-liberal-Occupationist Regime zeitgeist. Only because I am , and am (I think) so “classified” (really, increasingly, dismissed) as, a “typical older, conservative, unhip, white male”, and because I have no dependents, except a very old mother in a nursing home, reliant upon me for physical (driving, some shopping, etc), but not financial, aid, and because I’m competent and have been there for a while, so people know me, know my thing, etc (my “thing” is my being a staunch Republican – they do not know my thing here), can I get away with being somewhat politically incorrect.
I know some younger quality white guys in the firm, at least one of whom is very solid on immigration, and for all I know might or could be a CC commenter, who almost comically make a point of never discussing politics or anything in the least “controversial” (according to our ruling woke masters). I also know some other whites who could be brought over to our position with the proper approach and effort, but who are basically overly economy-focused (from politics, they only really want to preserve capitalism and lower tax rates).
My point is that white nationalists would have an easier time convincing not-yet-white preservationist (WP) conservatives (ie, persons from other ideological wings of the non-Left) to embrace race-realism and eventually WP, than to try to convince leftists to do so. The Left has always been primarily defined by its egalitarianism, and today that egalitarianism has been extended to the entire planet. I see no likelihood of changing this core moral commitment.
Ultimately, of course, the white race is absolutely headed to inevitable extinction unless white nationalists become an electoral majority somewhere. I see that happening only via mass WN emigration and ingathering into a single, sovereign nation so as to electorally conquer it. And then we must so conquer it, and proceed to transform it into an overt (at first covert, later open) Racial State – a state formally dedicated to white preservation.
Jim Goad is right about the need for new material. Religious disputes have been the source of too many brother wars. Perhaps the best elements of our religious traditions can be synthesized as avatars within a new pantheon that unites and ennobles us and provides a more organic socio-political role for a new spirituality within white nationalism.
Well I guess that the closes we come to a precise definition of Christianity is the 10 commandments:
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Christians worship a Jew.
So-called “White Nationalist” Christians ignore this problem because it cannot be overcome, justified, or explained away.
One can truly believe in White Nationalism, or Christianity, but not both. The two are fully incompatible.
I wonder if this cognitive dissonance causes people like Mr. Giles – whose goodness and sincerity I do not doubt – psychological pain in the quiet hours when they realize this contradiction.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment