Wokeism’s Loyal Evangelical SubjectsRobert Hampton
The last week of the National Football League (NFL) season witnessed an outpouring of Christian faith. Players have never been shy about expressing their faith. They usually pray before games on the sidelines, triumphant quarterbacks will thank God in the sky after a touchdown, and victorious footballers love to credit God for why they won the game. But Week 18 saw an even more obvious display of faith. Prompted by the on-field cardiac arrest of Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin, opposing players formed prayer circles to wish for their fellow athlete’s recovery. Fans of rival teams joined hands to pray for Hamlin outside of the hospital where he recovered.
The media noticed this outpouring of religious expression. In an illustrative example, the New York Times highlighted the strong bond between faith and football in a weekend feature:
The invocations on behalf of the 24-year-old have gone beyond the pro forma “thoughts and prayers” often offered by public figures after a tragedy. The outpouring reveals the way that Christian faith has long been intertwined with American football culture, tied to the sport through its popularity in the Bible Belt. Strengthening the bond is the closeness of players whose risk of physical danger in the high-impact sport has attracted more publicity in recent years.
The paper of record insisted that while the faith of footballers is mostly evangelical, it’s not quite conservative. Without spelling it out, the Times says the difference between conservative evangelicals and NFL evangelicals is the color of their skin:
“It’s an example of seeing in public a Christian subculture that’s been embedded in the N.F.L. for four decades,” said Paul Putz, assistant director of the Faith & Sports Institute at Baylor University. “Since the 1970s, it’s had almost like its own church.”
Most Christian ministries that operate within the N.F.L. are tied to the evangelical tradition, but the league’s religious culture isn’t straightforwardly conservative.
In part because of the N.F.L.’s racial diversity, the evangelicalism within is “less concerned with culture-war politics and more about applying the Bible, understood through an evangelical lens, to practical needs of players — athletic performance, marriage and family, and dealing with injuries and setbacks,” Mr. Putz said.
The Times’ article treated the players’ faith with utmost respect. There was no inquiry into the problematic views of their evangelicalism, no discomfort with their prayer circles, and certainly no hope for more secular players to take a stand against religious conformity. It’s instead treated as a harmless part of multicultural America. The author, Ruth Graham, does take a bit of an anthropologist’s view of it, but it’s sympathetic.
Many conservatives believe that Christianity is set to be persecuted in America. With declining numbers of believers and an increasingly secular elite, these conservatives think it’s inevitable that the old faith will eventually suffer under the regime. There’s some basis to this fear. Christian groups and institutions do have to worry about lawsuits and losing public funding if they don’t fully conform to the LGBTQ agenda. Some decide to drop the adherence to biblical tradition rather than risk discomfort from the state
Even if the fears of coming anti-Christian persecution are overblown, it’s undeniable America is less Christian than ever before. The anxiety of Christian conservatives is understandable.
But the NFL’s public devotion shows how Christianity can continue to thrive in the New America. It just has to uphold the tenets of multiracial America and draw in skeptical conservatives to be at peace with the new order. The NFL’s evangelicalism provides that model.
Conservatives were thrilled with the prayer displays, with a few going so far to predict it could be the beginning of a new Great Awakening. There were many posts about how this is the kneeling players should do: in prayer rather than in protest against the flag. The NFL’s faith already demonstrated it can win back conservatives. Ever since the anthem protests of 2016, some conservatives have insisted they will never watch the NFL again. The League’s endorsement of Black Lives Matter — complete with endzone stencils, helmet decals celebrating black criminals, and donations to Left-wing organizations — solidified these boycott threats. But they’ve dissipated since then. Even though “End Racism” is still stenciled in endzones, conservatives seem to have forgotten their boycott. The prayer circles give conservatives a justification to watch the games again. They can claim that professional football stands athwart secular humanism and promotes Christianity to the masses. It’s no longer a woke sport in their eyes; it’s a Christ-centered one.
But the faith of NFL’s players is complementary to wokeness. No player dared criticize Black Lives Matter or the League for announcing that “football is gay.” The case of now-retired quarterback Drew Brees shows that a conservative evangelicalism isn’t welcome in the League. In 2019, he was forced to disavow a Christian charity he worked with because it was opposed to gay marriage. Then, in 2020 he apologized for having criticized players who knelt for the anthem. That same year, he embraced BLM and put Jacob Blake’s name on his jersey. Blake was the black felon who had been shot by Kenosha police after reaching for a knife while resisting arrest. Brees didn’t abandon his evangelical faith; he just adjusted it to meet the League’s demands.
Faith informs players’ commitment to “racial justice.” Star quarterback Trevor Lawrence said his faith informed his decision to publicly support Black Lives Matter back in 2020. Former linebacker and current sports analyst Emmanuel Acho relied on scripture to lead the sports world into discussions about how America needs to do more for blacks.
This isn’t a new model. Back in the 1990s, the Promise Keepers pledged to heal America’s racial divide through prayer. The religious group was started by then-University of Colorado football coach Bill McCartney and held prayer events at packed stadiums throughout the country. It tried to reach men — specifically, men who loved football — and draw them back to the pews through sermons delivered by masculine pastors and sports stars. A core feature of the group was “racial reconciliation.” McCartney said that his events had to feature racial diversity to demonstrate God’s favor. Black pastors would thus exhort white attendees to hug a minority at these events. Speakers insisted that attendees could not be good Christians if they had prejudice in their hearts. This message was popular for a time, but the organization dissipated in the late 1990s.
A similar revival could easily take place now — one that doesn’t urge participants to hug minorities, perhaps, but it would convey the same message: All colors and peoples must come together to defeat the evil of racism with Jesus.
Whether this is genuine Christianity or not doesn’t matter. It resonates with a large number of American Christians and is supported by their institutions. It’s doubtful that calling Drew Brees a heretic will reverse this trend.
So long as the praying players affirm their commitment to Black Lives Matter and say nothing about LGBTQ causes, their faith will be tolerated and even celebrated. The same goes for those Christians who don’t play professional football. You will only be persecuted if you disagree with racial egalitarianism and raise a fuss about LGBTQ matters. If you follow the regime’s dictates, you can practice your religion in peace.
Maybe it’s a bit like the late Roman Empire: Devout Christians are once again competing for the amusement of the masses in our coliseums, but they don’t lose their lives for their faith. And unlike the early Christians, their religion acknowledges the idols of the present. The early Christians never accepted the Roman Emperor as a divine being, but many modern Christians accept George Floyd and Martin Luther King as such.
As long as Christians accept the fundamental precepts of the Globalist American Empire, there’s no need to throw them to the lions. The flocks will remain loyal to the regime of their own accord.
* * *
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.
The evangelism on the field had nothing to do with any particular crest of religious sentiment, however contrived it might be; it probably had to do with the fact that the players had just watched one of their own collapse from SAVS, or Sudden Adult Vaccine Syndrome, which is often fatal. Given that almost all of them are vaxed like the guy who went down, they were probably not just finding a long-lost connection with Jesus but also finding shit on their underpants after the game.
Given that there is almost zero connection between getting vaccinated and suffering an adverse reaction to the vaccine (it is literally like one in a million; read the highly intelligent and very sober-minded Ron Unz on this at Unz.com), and that it is virtually 100% not the case that that black guy suffered from any post-vaccine event (but likely from a rare condition ignited by extreme physical impacts), the spontaneous prayers were almost certainly caused by the peculiar if probably not very well theorized religious views prevalent in the subculture of the NFL.
There has been a huge spike in excess deaths, especially among young people, since 2021. Ed Dowd documents this in his new book, “Cause Unknown”. Here’s a link to an interview:
The initial figure you cited is bogus because the medical industry is doing its best to misattribute these deaths to anything but the vaccine (“ Commotio Cordis”— (“‘The ole’ “CC,’that’s gotta be what hit poor Damar”according to breathless TV pundits (paraphrase mine) ). Obesity is definitely NOT the reason this time (in fact people are probably eating less and less because of food shortages and inflation).
If you are still getting boosted, you should stop. Covid is not serious enough to merit any vaccine, much less an experimental and especially deadly one like the mRNA shots. In terms of vaccines—just look at VAERS which has seen more illness, death and injuries from the Covid shots than all other vaccines in the history of vaccines combined! This according to RFK Jr. in an interview with Tucker Carlson early last year: https://palbulletin.com/2022/03/20/tucker-carlson-full-interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-video/
Look at a graph you idiot. The more countries inject, the more cases and deaths. People are dropping like flies and you have the stupidity to say that. I hope you’ve had your boosters.
I assure you, you know nothing about real medicine (nor obviously about the medical establishment). I have two elite educated friends who are doctors (we all went to real schools, in spite of all the antiwhite discrimination that’s been going on since the early 70s). They could debunk your crap in the space of a few minutes. Read the sober and intelligent Ron Unz on this (I suspect you have not).
Two aspects of the Covid crisis deeply sadden me. First, that so many med schools and doctors have gone woke that they’re starting to make the non-woke distrustful of medicine, and even the scientific method. Injecting politics into science – formerly the province of the race-unrealistic Left – is deeply harmful to one of the foundations of the modern world.
Second, that so many nonwoke are embarrassing themselves and discrediting our movement by self-aligning with Luddite know-nothings. For a movement deeply rooted in and entwined with sociobiological reality, this is not a good look for us – and it will return in the future to haunt us when trying to make our pitch to the more intelligent members of society (which is part of what CC’s purpose is).
(And yes I’ve certainly had all my 5 rec’d shots, and will henceforth get my anti-Covid vaccine annually, as I do my flu shot.)
“Wokeism’s Loyal Evangelical Subjects” is even more apt a title than the article reveals. Colorado Coach & Promise Keepers Founder Bill McCartney was known for not only inviting non-white players to live with his family in their home. He also celebrated his daughter, Kristi, getting impregnated & giving birth to non-white children by two of them, one Samoan, one black. I don’t recall for sure, but I believe the covenant of marriage was not involved in either case.
I had no idea that he was such a clown.
You can see the origins of the last and the next Civil War in that little tidbit. Whites are a hugely evolutionarily defective race, as well as a divided one between those who are “tribally normal” (by global standards; this would be us here), and those true evolutionary outliers who embrace diversity as some weird religious precept (one, incidentally, which has NOTHING to do with actual Christianity). “Woke Christianity” is CINO – Christian in Name Only. It’s real god is Diversity, whose father is utopian egalitarianism.
Interesting. Will they pay reparations and force their great-great-great grandchildren to keep paying them if the NFL sanctions their prayer? You have to wonder what they are praying for, if that turns out to be the case.
Since their great-great-great-grandchildren will be mixed race, the answer is no.
“So long as the praying players affirm their commitment to Black Lives Matter and say nothing about LGBTQ causes, their faith will be tolerated and even celebrated. The same goes for those Christians who don’t play professional football. You will only be persecuted if you disagree with racial egalitarianism and raise a fuss about LGBTQ matters. If you follow the regime’s dictates, you can practice your religion in peace.”
What if you don’t wish to follow the regime’s dictates? You will be persecuted and smeared if you don’t conform. It appears that every institution in America has been infiltrated by the Racial Integrationist/Egalitarian Negro-Worshipping Anti-White PSYOP Establishment. The Promise Keepers and NFL Christians are gutless, pathetic lamebrains. White men in the Promise Keepers back in the 1990s would wash the feet of black men. Just pathetic.
If they were the last Christians on earth, I would pray and worship alone.
Some white peoples commitment to sports never ceases to amaze me, even when that particular sports league is obviously anti white. If it isn’t the woke NFL, it’s woke college football. Major league baseball players were required to display the gay pride symbol. Those athletes who didn’t caught hell. Who can forget the female soccer players who took a knee? How about the English players who took a knee, when the crowd booed, only to be replaced by artificial cheering by the English network? This phenomenon is not some pesky mosquito that will eventually go away.
We have got to begin developing an alternative ideological framework to Christianity. Christian morals are always the framework in which we are compelled to accept abuses of all kinds and deny ourselves self determination.
This doesn’t mean we have to be *anti* christians and go the Nietzsche route. We are social animals and possess empathy and consciousness of our own consciousness which presents us with a moral quandary the other animals don’t find themselves in. But we’ve gotta move past Christianity, it’s offered some benefits but rejecting Christian theology doesn’t necessitate throwing away the positive elements of it.
In fact this is one of the great gas lighting accomplishments of the early Christians. They took the logically derived humanism of Platonism and gave the credit for it to their own mystical messiah.
The existence and popularity of Platonic philosophy in the ancient Hellenic and Roman world demonstrates no mystic messiah and faith complex is necessary to carry forward with sensible humanism.
The Prince of Peace and King of Kings were in fact titles of the Caesars. The adoption of these terms by the early Christians (who were all Jews, many of them Hellenized Jews (Jews lived in coastal cities all throughout the Mediterranean in classical times and were exposed to Platonic philosophy)) was a deliberate effort to try and usurp while simultaneously mock an Indo-European power complex that they were ferociously envious of.
This is secularist, atheist twaddle.
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 naturalistic atheism, 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 5 Proofs; nor the assertions of modern “analytical theism”, etc. Even if one of these “proofs for 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 anything false is inherently Satanic).
As I’ve argued here at CC many times, I’m more comfortable asserting that, even if the Faith is 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 and is so, theoretically). 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 by telling them their religion is nonsense. Christians will always put religion ahead of race. How could you not, if you believe the fate of your eternal soul requires this? The real task is getting white Christians to understand that there is no contradiction between accepting Jesus and being pious and ethical, OTOH, and being patriotic (in a racial as well as national sense) and race-realistic, OTOH.
I appreciate your tactical approach to Christianity as a matter of political strategy. I’m more inclined to take the gloves off on a site like counter currents but in the real world yes it’s not a good idea to deliberately antagonize Christians. In my mind at least, here in the comments I’m sort of speaking to an ideological core group.
I was interested in polytheism though prior to my immersion in the nationalist scene.
And I think the points you raised should be explored.
I essentially believe in a Platonic conception of God/Creator. Or The One. But I believe the one can subdivide itself into all manner of beings that are connected like a web or a series of threads and that the greatest amongst these which sort of pulsate with a particular essence or array of thematic essences are the great deities. Cue the Thunor/Perun/Heracles/Perseus/Indra deific complex as one such example.
I don’t believe in ethnic gods in the sense that the Germanic deific complex of Wotan/Othin/Woden is some being that exists only in relation to Germanic peoples. Rather I believe the Wotan deific complex is the Germanic interpretation of the Great Father, ie the Indo-European Dyeus and furthermore that the Indo-European Dyeus is the Indo-European interpretation of the highest deity which is universal.
So this very much lines me up with Platonism. I believe that IE (or other) deific complexes are mutually compatible with these notions of Platonism.
There really is a level of what we would call humanism in Plato but when I say it’s logically derived well Socrates and Plato and their students essentially posit the use of logos as a means by which we might glean some insight into the nature of the One. (Which also ties into the mathematics of the Pythagoreans who were very theological in nature). So I don’t see this sort of humanism as being secular or atheistic. The teachings of Plato spread like wildfire throughout the Greek and Mediterranean world. This isn’t something I’m making up, there were tons and tons of Jewish diaspora groups living in the Mediterranean in the classical era. It’s simply a matter of record. IIRC they made up as much as 1/4 of the population of Alexandria. The famous Paul/Saul was from Tarsus in Anatolia/modern day Turkey.
There was tremendous factional/cultural tension between the Orthodox Jews and the Hellenized Jews.
Theres more to it than just that, there was always a strain of messianic prophesy in Judaism and there was a strain of “Apocalyptic” (meant something different from how we use the term) prophesy present amongst more fringe groups. But my personal theory is that a large part of the rationale behind the development of Christianity were Hellenized Jews taking a sincere liking to the philosophy of Plato (which was a theological system, beyond just being a philosophy) but they didn’t want to abandon their ancestral Judaism. There was already this undercurrent within the fringes of the Levant of various messianic claimants and apocalyptic preachers. I believe all of these elements somehow combined to create what we call Christianity. (It was known to its original adherents as “the way”).
Im also not making anything up about the appropriation of Caesar’s titles such as King of Kings and Prince of Peace. That’s simply a matter of historical record. At the time virtually all of the Christians were still Jews. And their ethnic contempt for the Romans and their empire naturally worked its way into the religion which they created. I think they were theologically sincere but this was nonetheless paired up with their political/ethnic interest in taking down Rome. (They thought themselves the chosen people of the one true god yet found themselves a humiliated vassal state of Rome). From their theological perspective Rome undermined and corrupted Israel (in the older sense of Israel being the people bound to Yahweh via covenant rather than a landmass). Israel, being in covenant with god, was the center of the world, Rome in its assertion that it was the center of the world, committed the greatest of heresies, the greatest of affronts against Yahweh. Not only did Yeshua of Nazareth and “the way” provide reconciliation for traditional Judaism with the Platonism of the Hellenized Jews, the ramblings of the apocalyptics, and the great messianic question, it provided a means by which Rome, (the beast), the greatest enemy of Israel and Yahweh, would crumble.
Thank you for your extended reply to me, though I found much of it difficult to follow.
Do I understand you to be a non-Christian theist? Indeed, is Platonism theistic, atheistic, or compatible with either?
Do you think Christian spiritual universalism necessarily leads (either as a matter of moral logic, or psychological influence) to racial corporeal “panmixia” (the genetic intermingling and thus destruction of pure races)?
And, per my questions above, to win the war for white preservation, wrt the Christian Question, is it better to critique the alleged truth of Christianity, presumably as a way to undermine moral universalism as part of the journey of reorienting whites towards a Race-First ethics, or is it wiser to attempt to demonstrate the compatibility between white preservation and Christian moral theology? I’m still unclear where you stand.
I am a non Christian theist, correct. I think the good components found within Christianity do not rely on this bedrock of Judaic scripture or a messianic faith complex through Yeshua. I believe in God but I do not think that Yeshua was his son or that his death was necessary for the salvation of mankind, I think that’s absurd. Nor do I think that at any point in time were the Hebrews his “chosen people.” I do not believe that he has a chosen people. I think peoples all throughout the Earth have had experience of God. He can be called by many names and be described in many ways. I think god is not bound to one particular form or essence as he is basically all encompassing and so monotheism vs polytheism is a false dichotomy in my mind. The children of Zeus, for example, are components of him. Zeus, Jupiter, Woden, Shiva. These are effectively different names for God in my mind. And each distinct people has developed different rituals and myths surrounding him. This was largely understood in more ancient times. When Roman writers arrived in foreign lands they didn’t perceive the people there as worshipping gods unique to themselves rather they perceived them as worshipping the same gods but by different names. Because the gods were the very fabric of our universe.
From what I have researched it appears to me that the origins of Judaic monotheism lay in the expulsion of the Hyksos (Heka Khasut, “foreign rulers”) from lower Egypt. The Hyksos were a Semitic people from the Levant who gradually seized control of the rich port cities of lower Egypt through non military means. Thus Egypt became divided into two kingdoms and the Hyksos pharaohs of lower Egypt were Levantine Semites. They were eventually expulsed from Lower Egypt through military force on the part of the native dynasty in Upper Egypt. Not too long after that time period the Israelites come into being. I believe that the story of Exodus is actually a re-working of this tale. And that Moses is a conglomeration character who represents the men who were in reality these Semitic Levantine Pharaohs who ruled over lower Egypt for a time before being expelled militarily by the native dynasty in upper Egypt.
These former pharaohs and their courtiers would have been reduced to almost nothing and forced to reacquire less desirable lands back in lower Canaan. I think that Judaic monotheism emerged out of this existential crisis.
Platonism was part of an older tradition that could be found in the Orphic mysteries and later the Eleusinian mysteries. It is theistic but atheists can derive plenty of meaning from Platonism like they could with Buddhism or various other philosophical systems. Platonism is not evangelistic or faith based and it can exist in conjunction with polytheism as it basically asserts that all things are tied back into the One. One is in this context God. But this God is more like the god of the 18th century deists like Benjamin Franklin and not like the god of the Bible.
Does Christian spiritual universalism lead to racial dissolution? It’s hard for me to say. Contrary to what some may believe now, there already was a sort of spiritual universalism present amongst us long before the adoption of Christianity. It can be found in the Platonic conception of the One. And while our polytheistic ancestors placed much greater importance on ancestry and kinship than the Christians did they didn’t view themselves as having some monopoly on divinity.
But these ancient Platonists and polytheists didn’t have this weird guilt complex about immigrants and race. The corpus of Christianity between the old and New Testament is so vast it’s hard to cherry pick it and say “this is what Christianity is about”.
I do think that for whatever reason Christianity is ultimately self destructive on a racial level. I infer this mostly from historical observation. People make all sorts of claims one way or the other with regards to the scripture. So I place more emphasis on Christianity’s observed effects regardless of what the scripture says. I contend that medieval christianity wasn’t real christianity. Which was the basic contention of the Protestants and Martin Luther. In the medieval era a powerful clergy were the only people who read the Bible in a mostly illiterate society. With increased literacy and improved printing technology people were able to actually read the New Testament and they came to the conclusion that medieval Catholicism wasn’t really Christianity. So in my view we need to be judging Christianity from the period of Protestantism onward. “Based” medieval Christians were not really Christians. Once Protestantism arrives on the scene things really begin to change. Republics such as America formed partly out of inspiration from the governmental systems of the Greeks and Romans but also partly from the idea of spiritual *equality* found in the Bible. And that is I think the crux of the issue. The ancients believed that we were all tied into something larger (a form of universalism) but they didn’t think that made us all equal. To them, kings and silversmiths were not cut from the same spiritual cloth. Christianity insisted that they were. “All men are created equal.” It’s right there at the top of our foundational document. That sentiment is not a classical legacy. Though the Romans arrived at a Republican political system they didn’t believe that all men were of equal spiritual measure. Up to the very end of that republic the Pontifex Maximus, the highest priest in Rome, had to be a man of the patrician stock.
I guess in a roundabout sort of way my answer to your question is yes I do think that Christianity leads to racial dissolution but it’s not because of spiritual universalism, which precedes it, it’s because of spiritual equality. Spiritual equality is very unique to Christianity from what I can tell. And it’s this emphasis on spiritual equality that I think leads to a rejection of caste, then of race then of genetics altogether. And eventually even gender. I think the left wing atheist crowd has their own sort of secularized version of this radical spiritual equality that extends into the physical realm and results in the rejection of genetics and biology. They’re just too stupid to realize where their values derive from.
If we could somehow take the massive population of Christian’s with normal right wing instincts and give them a Christianity that is immune from these deleterious effects that would be a great political strategy. Since I sincerely do not believe in Christian metaphysics or it’s origin stories it would be unethical for me to engage in such a strategy but I can understand why people would take this approach and I can see the benefits of it. Although I’m skeptical about its actual chances of success. It’s ultimately Judaic in origin and these people are our chief oppressors, that presents an enormous quandary in itself and I think it’s much to do with why they can finagle us they way we can. We have mass Stockholm syndrome. Our own chief men are named after Hebrew prophets. And the spiritual equality component of it is always lurking in the distance.
I personally think that we need to start over completely. I’m just one man grasping in the darkness and its a complex topic but that is my current view on the matter.
I’m more comfortable asserting that, even if the Faith is 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…. The real task is getting white Christians to understand that there is no contradiction between accepting Jesus and being pious and ethical, OTOH, and being patriotic (in a racial as well as national sense) and race-realistic, OTOH.
From the time of Constantine, Christianity was a religion of empire. ‘Woke’ is the current religion of empire and, as fate would have it, it’s a variation of Christianity, with its own saints (MLK) and sacraments (‘listening and learning’) and holy spirits (George Floyd). The vast majority of White Christians are not prepared to sacrifice anything to resist empire because they don’t know how to function with imperial sanction.
I agree with your more tactical approach, I just don’t even entirely agree with the approach itself. My suggestion is one of the frame of reference for engaging ‘Christians’. Instead of starting with the idea that ‘Christianity’ is important to Christians, we start with the premise that Christians are uniquely suited to hypocrisy when it suits their interests. That they are not inclined to sacrifice anything of value to themselves for their faith and work out from there. WNs need only propose and/or support policies that are not overtly anti-Christian or even anti-White but which tend to ‘open up space’ (to use po-mo phraseology) for the further evolution of WN.
For example, one thing I support is all projects by White people that lead to more state and local independence from Jews and Jewish institutions. Most of these projects come under the banner of ‘nullification’ or, in some cases, devolution. For example, several states are setting up previous metal depositories for use by their citizens and the state. Is this something WN’s should support? I think it is. Ending the authority of the Federal Reserve could diminish Jewish power. And ‘ending the Fed’ has been at the top of many ‘conservative’ and ‘right-wing’ wish-lists for a long, long time. From a White leftist perspective, there’s nothing to dislike or oppose. The more devolution to local authorities the better as it means better ‘representation’ of local interests.
I am, in general, a critic of ‘hard money’ schemes but, I support, devolving the monetary system by any means available, even if that means devolving to a ‘hard’ currency.
In my view, any amount of devolution is likely to lead to White Autonomy anywhere Whites outnumber non-Whites.
Supporting nullification projects and policies isn’t directly pro-White, but, in the same way that meta-politics is pre-political, nullification is proto-separatism and White nationalism is a separatist movement. We can get Christians to support policies that help us if they it helps them as well.
WNs do not need to attack the positions of your enemies head on.
We can undermine them in many, many ways and they will fall of their own accord.
BTW, let me just say Welcome Back to Mr. Hampton. I found it highly coincidental that Hampton, who had been a very active writer here, suddenly stopped appearing right after the tragic death of Martin Rojas / Hubert Collins / Chris Roberts (etc). Given some similarity of subject matter with “Collins” and “Roberts”, I assumed that “Robert Hampton” had been yet another nom de guerre of Rojas’s. As this article is on one of Hampton’s most regular topics, however, and does sound like him (in both perspective and style), I must assume I was wrong in my hunch. Glad you’re alive and still kicking, sir, though I hope you can choose some additional targets. Far too many white American Christians are racially befuddled, but awakening a substantial portion of them remains our only hope for national, and, given the racial worthlessness of white majorities seemingly everywhere else (at least outside Eastern Europe), perhaps even racial survival.
The road to white America’s preservation runs right through heartland Christian America, which is also the base of the GOP and American conservatism. There is no other large pool of “awakenable” white Americans.
I guess you have to go along with your rulers as long as you don’t have the power to remove them from power? Isn’t it silly to rebel, if you just lose everything? Wouldn’t it be better to grow strong first before you rebel?
So you’re okay with going along with washing the feet of black men and admitting to being guilty of ‘white privilege’ and letting minority athletes stay in your home and impregnate your daughter? Isn’t it silly to submit, if you lose everything including your honor and dignity? Wouldn’t it be better to show self-respect by rebelling?
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.
Edit your comment