Anti-Racism Comes for the Church:
The Case of Thomas Achord
F. Roger Devlin
1,918 words
A year or two ago, I received a large, unsolicited, and apparently self-published book in the mail: Who Is My Neighbor? An Anthology in Natural Relations, edited by Thomas Achord and Darrell Dow. Neither name was familiar to me. Since my available reading time is somewhat constrained, I did no more than leaf through it at first. But I kept it on my shelf because the idea of “an anthology in natural relations” sounded worthwhile. The editors clearly felt that relations in contemporary America had become unnatural (in some sense), and in response they had assembled hundreds of short, simple texts on proper human relations from antiquity to the present day. Their anthology emphasized the Classical and Christian traditions, but included some material from Egypt, China, India, the Jewish tradition, and more. There were chapters on God (or the gods), marriage, family and household (including slavery), local and political community, economics, education, literature, and other matters — much of the very stuff of human life.
I was sympathetic to the project. Contemporary man has no idea how unusual his moral notions appear within a broad historical context. This characteristically modern form of ignorance has been called the “provincialism of time,” and one of the purposes of education is overcoming it to some degree. Browsing such an anthology might even have therapeutic value for some of our contemporaries.
But I had mostly forgotten about this book when, browsing a dissident website a couple of weeks ago, I came across an appeal to help the family of a man who had lost his livelihood due to thoughtcrime. I made a small donation and searched the Internet for further information on the case. This quickly led me to a number of posts about a certain Thomas Achord, an alleged “white supremacist” who had also been dismissed from his employment in November 2022. That name rang a bell, and a quick check of my bookshelf confirmed that this second cancelee was indeed the co-editor of Who Is My Neighbor?
Until November of last year, Mr. Achord served as the headmaster of a small private school in Louisiana that is part of the Classical Christian Education (CCE) movement. This is a traditionalist movement which stresses exposing the young to the Bible and other classic texts, in part through the study of Latin (and sometimes Greek). It provides pupils with an understanding that the world did not begin the day they were born, and that their own generation is merely one link in a chain spanning centuries. This helps transmit to them a sense of identity and roots, as well as protecting them from faddish thinking. I have been sympathetic to the movement since it first came to my attention in the 1990s.
Late last year, an Englishman and Christian theologian named Alastair Roberts discovered that Achord had maintained a pseudonymous blog between January 2020 and August 2021. As is the way with pseudonymous writings, much of this material was more forthright in language than what Achord had published under his own name, although not inconsistent with it. Roberts criticized some of the pseudonymous posts, but his language was measured and he explicitly disavowed any desire to threaten Achord’s employment.
Roberts’ post was soon spotted by columnist Rod Dreher, however, whose children had attended Achord’s school. In addition to the material uncovered by Roberts, Dreher took exception to a chapter of Who Is My Neighbor? containing texts in support of the common-sense ideas that diversity promotes conflict and erodes social capital, while good fences make good neighbors. Dreher quickly decided such ideas made Achord a “vile racist” (as well as an anti-Semite and misogynist) and “doxxed” him to the school, which panicked and promptly fired the father of four. Dreher acknowledges that Achord is quiet, modest, friendly, and talented; his ideas are Dreher’s only justification for getting the man dismissed.
Some circumstances may make this dispute appear surprising. Dreher is perhaps best known as the author of The Benedict Option (2017), a book advocating the formation by like-minded Christians of small, face-to-face communities capable of withstanding the onslaught of mass culture and cultivating the virtues among the rising generation. This is similar to the goals pursued by the Classical Christian Education movement, so it is not surprising Dreher enrolled his own children in such a school.
But it also seems to overlap rather largely with the aims of Achord and Dow in editing their Anthology in Natural Relations. In the Introduction they write:
The subversion of natural and organic connections (family, nation, etc.) has spiritual implications. The goal is the subversion of Christian nations and the culture produced by Christendom. The way forward means recognizing that the world into which we are born includes families, institutions and nations that are structured hierarchically. Likewise our duties within those structures (i.e., justice) are hierarchical in nature. To live with piety is to accept our place in that structure of reality, favoring the near over the far.
Achord’s “racism” is presumably related to his advocacy of “favoring the near over the far.”
Achord and Dow drop a broad hint as to where the contemporary “subversion of natural and organic connections” such as nation and family is coming from by printing three quotes from the founders of Communism on the back of their book:
Even the usual differences within species, like racial differences . . . can and must be done away with historically. — Karl Marx
The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves. — Friedrich Engels
The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them. — V. I. Lenin
Marx speaks of races, Engels and Lenin of nations and nationalities, but the basic idea is the same: Communism represents a form of universalism, a type of thinking which elevates the universal over the particular, extending even to outright hostility toward more particular forms of human association.
Speaking generally, each of us forms the center of a concentric series of spheres of attachment beginning with our immediate family and running through our extended family to our community (if we are still fortunate enough to live in one), and thence to nation, race, and the human species as a whole. Like Communism, Christianity has a universal aspect, as illustrated by Christ’s Great Commission to “go and make disciples of all nations.” The parable of the Good Samaritan also makes clear that our rightful sphere of moral concern may include even perfect strangers. But unlike Communism, neither Christ or the Church ever expressed hostility to particular attachments as such, nor advocated abolishing the institutions on which they rest. It is compatible with Christianity to love your own wife more than your neighbor’s wife. The same principal applies to one’s children, and even extended family, for extended family was an important social fact in the ancient Near East where the Bible originated.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1890f/1890f8117476eb6d14cf1c71d9e095221c45035d" alt=""
You Can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
But what about race? This, of course, is the locus of disagreement between Dreher and Achord. So we must ask: Do the Bible or Christianity view it as illegitimate to feel a greater attachment to one’s own race than to the other races of mankind?
In fact, the Bible does not have a great deal to say about race in the sense commonly intended today, viz., the three-to-seven major continental races of mankind, a sphere of belonging intermediate between the nation and the human species. There is not even any word for “race” in this sense in Biblical Hebrew or Greek. That is not surprising. The known world of Biblical times did not cover the entire terrestrial globe, so appreciation of the racial differentiation of mankind was limited.
What the Bible does refer to — in countless passages — is “nations.” And no Biblical author ever condemns patriotism or devotion to nation: “make disciples of all nations” obviously does not mean “abolish nations.” The same goes, historically, for the Christian Church. Within living memory, Bishop Fulton Sheen, for example, used to remind his vast American television audience that one could not be a good Christian without also being a patriot. This was viewed almost as a truism at the time.
Any Christian serious about developing a Biblical view of race or race relations must proceed by careful study of what the Bible says about nations, adjusting it (if and where appropriate) to the broader category of race. What would be the likely result of such a study? Well, if we accept Steve Sailer’s definition of a race as “a very extended family that is inbred to some extent,” it is hard to see how anyone could simultaneously affirm family attachments as natural and good while condemning all racial attachment. Such is the view of “Kinism,” a nationalist- and racialist-compatible tendency within the contemporary Church which seems to me consistent with scripture, Church tradition, and common sense.
Until recently, of course, there was no need of a special word like “Kinist” to refer to those Christians who believe in the legitimacy of particular attachments, because such belief was universal. But “anti-racism” has long since invaded the Church in force. Christians, like everyone else, grow up surrounded by shrill and sanctimonious denunciations of “racism.” This term, which is never defined, only dates back to the 1930s. It is variously ascribed either to Lenin’s sidekick Leon Trotsky or to Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jewish sexologist and early promoter of transsexualism who was also a strong Communist sympathizer. The very least we can say about such men is that their thinking was not inspired by Christianity. Yet, millions of white Christians such as Rod Dreher assume that the Communist-inspired notion of anti-racism is not merely compatible with, but an actual requirement of, their faith! In effect, they believe an essential doctrine of Christianity, the “sinfulness of racism,” went unmentioned in the Bible or by any church leader for 1,900 years before being revealed to Christendom by some Jewish radical less than a hundred years ago.
Such extreme historical illiteracy is the perfect example of that “provincialism of time” and faddish thinking which, as I noted above, a proper education should help protect us against. And the Achord case seems to indicate that it has now gained a controlling interest in the CCE movement. Thomas Achord realizes better than anyone what a tragedy this represents for both the church and our people. On his pseudonymous blog, he lamented that those involved in Classical Christian Education
are scared, they’re aware that things are against them as Christians, as Westerners, perhaps they sense that things are against them as whites, but they don’t admit it. My concerns are that . . . they’ll be hoodwinked and guilted into tolerating Diversity, nonwhites [and] Marxism. I want to provide formal help, tools, resources for white-advocates to take back the West for white peoples by recovering a classical education.
But this is already disallowed in today’s Church. If you feel any secret loyalty to race or nation, white man, Christian morality demands you be sniffed out, hunted down, professionally destroyed, and see the bread stolen from your children’s mouths.
After all, Christ commanded us to love one another.
You can assist Thomas Achord’s family here. But hurry: “anti-fascist” Christians are already pressuring the site to disallow donations to a “white supremacist.”
This essay was reprinted from The Occidental Observer by permission of the author.
* * *
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 editor@counter-currents.com. (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.
Anti-Racism%20Comes%20for%20the%20Church%3A%0AThe%20Case%20of%20Thomas%20Achord%0A
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Related
-
The Key to All Mythologies
-
Barack Obama, the Dark Side of Black History
-
Decadence, the Corruption of Status Hierarchies, and Female Hypergamy: A Response to Rob Henderson’s Article “All the Single Ladies” pt 2
-
Decadence, the Corruption of Status Hierarchies, and Female Hypergamy: A Response to Rob Henderson’s Article “All the Single Ladies”
-
The Moral Vocabulary of Progressives
-
Men Only Want One Thing And It’s Disgusting
-
Not Hooking Up
-
Hooking Up
38 comments
What a vile hypocrite this Rod Dreher is. He moved to Hungary, where he enjoys the hospitality of the Hungarian Government, lives in luxurious circumstances (an apartment overlooking the Danube), apparently financed by a Hungarian grant. What is his problem with the writings of (or anthology by) Achord? Dreher is spineless, apparently some donor made him complain about issues/views he himself apparently embraced before. I hope he will fall out of favor with Orban.
What a stark contrast in characters between these two men: Achord and Dreher. They’re like Mufasa and Scar. If the story is really as told and Dreher had had his children at Achord’s school and effectively doxed him, nothing less than thrice daily mortification of the flesh for life should keep the pearly gates open for such a slime-ball.
Is there any way to obtain the book? Amazon lists it as unavailable.
I was thinking the same thing – how would Jesus feel about people who pressure employers to deprive others of their livelihoods over saying something politically incorrect? This kind of nuttiness didn’t exist 2000 years ago, though JC did have lots of things to say about Pharisees puffed up with phony righteousness. That character might have an interesting afterlife awaiting him!
It seems the usual used book places, eBay, ABE, etc. don’t have it. However, Apple Books, if you are so inclined, have a digital version (115.6 MB) available for $9.99.
Thanks. E-books seem to disappear for no apparent reason from my iPhone, particularly those with a dissident flavour.
You need to download and save those onto your hard drive(s). I download dissident materials wherever possible, and store them on my main computer. I also keep e-books on external hard drives, as well as purchase hard copies (ie, “books”) where possible. I now have at least some rightist books no longer available, or only at horrendous prices (and the free e-copies / PDFs that one can sometimes obtain of these works are often nine-tenths illegible – obviously just poorly scanned copies, as opposed to professionally produced e-books such as most university presses now routinely offer for most of their new publications). I feel we all have a personal racial responsibility to preserve the classics of our movement in as many different editions and forms as possible. In the name of “embracing diversity”, the West is discarding its liberty (or, one could say it is via both Diversity and diversity that the West is sliding into totalitarianism).
It seems to me that the societies that White Nationalists and Traditional Christians want to create are very similar.
I don’t think you’re correct. ‘Christians’ emphasize sub-racial matters like religion and sexual orientation and prayer in school and baptism and public testimony and confession or just about anything else before protecting the race.
For the Christian, the White non-Christian is to be suppressed while the Christian Negro is to held up as a model for all.
Christian universalism is opposed to White Nationalist parochialism.
White Christians can exist within White Nationalist enclaves because they are White, but Christian enclaves will always emphasize sub-racial issues and reject non-Christian Whites.
Dreher is the typical Christian in this story, not Achord.
I will say this every time this issue comes up: You cannot save the White race and Western ideas about ‘universal’ anything at the same time.
You paint with too broad a brush. There are many Christians in this movement and you are primarily talking about ‘normal’ Christians – who are no worse off in this manner than ‘normal’ White non-Christians, agnostics, atheists. etc.
‘You paint with too broad a brush.’
Not really. 99.9999% of all Christians are ‘anti-racist’ which, in practice, means the worship Negros and Jews and hate White Nationalists because they are ‘racist’.
‘There are many Christians in this movement…’
Why does that matter if they carry a religion that is more of a hindrance than an asset to racialism into the movement? I don’t like bashing on you guys like this, but I feel like pro-White Christians over-estimate their value within the movement because of the (vain) hope that ‘normal Christians’ (as you put it) will eventually come around and cannot be expected to give up or seriously-amend their religious beliefs in order to be ‘pro-White’ first and ‘Christian’ second.
‘[Y]ou are primarily talking about ‘normal’ Christians….’ Yes, I’m talking about the 99.9999% of people who attend any kind of Christian service, even so-called ‘holiday Christians’. Just about the entirety of ‘Christendom’ as it exists today is ‘anti-racist’ because they believe that discrimination on the basis of race is a moral evil. It’s okay to hate ‘Muslims’ or ‘Pagans’ or ‘Taoists’, though, even if their White. That’s ‘prioritizing sub-racial issues’ in my view when the whole point of racial nationalism is to make race the foundation of politics.
‘[W]ho are no worse off in this manner than ‘normal’ White non-Christians, agnostics, atheists. etc.’
Are they? What intellectual or conceptual leverage does Christianity provide that, say, atheism lacks? The presence of Christians in White Nationalist circles means we end up debating ‘Christian conservative’ issues (like abortion or prayer in school or the merits of theocracy and/or patriarchy) that are all distractions from the main tasks of convincing Whites to take their own side under the banner of ‘White Nationalism’.
We’ll get more traction advocating ‘socialism’ of some kind than ‘Christianity’ of virtually any kind.
‘Christian White Nationalism’ has been tried a number of times by a number of people and none of these projects went very far. Some ended quite disastrously. American White Nationalists thought they’d be clever and seek to promulgate WIN ideas under the cover of the ‘religious’ protections under the American First Amendment. It didn’t work.
Our task should be to figure out the rhetoric and policy positions that will encourage Whites who are ‘concerned’ about how Whites are represented in culture – and how their concerns are not represented in politics – to feel comfortable with the ideas of ‘White Identity’ and ‘White Nationalism’ as foundational to their politics.
Our message cannot be about ‘going back’ to some ‘good old days’ when ‘the old time religion’ and ‘patriarchy’ were (supposedly) in the driver’s seat. Our message must be one of White inclusiveness under the political umbrella of ‘freedom of association’ and ‘community rule’.
In a very real sense, the success of White Nationalism depends on completely re-writing the political ‘source code’ of the last 300+ years away from ‘universal liberal’ and toward ‘particularist liberalism’.
You’re talking about a potentially distant future in which we’ve already won. There is no successful WN movement without Christians, like it or not.
Ethnonationalism is a ‘universal’ ideology, or it can be. It is sort of what I was reaching for or working towards for decades. When I used to be accused of being a “hater”, or a “white supremacist”, I would always take at least a bit of umbrage, as I thought those characterizations were unfair (not that the levelers of such accusations are very often moral men; I was never naive wrt the modal differences in basic virtue between white preservationists and “antiracists” {ie, antiwhites}).
I always eschewed any sort of racial imperialism, though I did hold that in white-built New World nations like America, ones which (unlike the ancestral European fatherlands) nevertheless did have ‘indigenous’ nonwhite populations, either as a function of nonwhite aboriginal settlement (Amerindians), or imported slaves (blacks), whites had a moral right to rule, especially wrt to forbidding nonwhite immigration so as to maintain our demographic majority, as long as we did not violate the true human rights of nonwhites (I was delighted, but completely unsurprised, when I later discovered that this was exactly the position of Sam Francis). Such “true human rights” pertain to life, work, and property, not necessarily to such “civil rights” as the “right” to vote or serve on juries. Nor do persons possess an automatic “natural right” to live in whatever nation they prefer (ie, wrt our concerns, to share the same territory and polity with members of another race).
But I have never advocated the conquest, mistreatment, enslavement, or extermination of nonwhites, and I believe that the road to minimizing human conflicts, at least wrt its racial component, is to let people live in the kind of nations they want, rather than forcing everyone to live in deracinated and de-ethnicized “flat nations” with lowest common-denominator cultures arising from proletarianized masses of workers/consumers. Some people (of all races) will want to live in ‘diverse’ societies; others, will want to live exclusively with their own kind. What’s wrong with that type of “universal” global arrangement from a Christian moral perspective? Nothing, at least from what I learned in my Christian upbringing.
Ethnonationalism can be a “universal” ideology and political goal.
One of the problems of philosophy is that the closer you get to fundamental issues, the more likely you are to encounter. Thus, the particularism of ethnonationalism is cast as ‘universal’ even though particularism is the exact opposite of ‘universal’.
As a matter of rhetoric, we should support ‘viable states for all peoples capable of supporting themselves’, but, in the end, it’s actually a position that is negotiates away White continental sovereignty while getting very little (or perhaps even nothing) nothing in return. It’s a compromise with an opponent who hasn’t offered to compromise on any asset in their possession.
It’s fine as a ‘starting point’ to get liberals to hear something on race, but’s not a viable long-term position.
Right now, I’d say the proper position for White Nationalists is to say that our goal is to find ways to make Whites happy in ways that preserves White racial sovereignty…and we don’t we don’t care what other races think of that project.
The White Right seems stuck in a paradigm where ‘the past’ can somehow be recovered. That is – essentially – what ‘ethnonationalism’ stands for: A return to the past when different races and ethnicities were isolated from one another. The difference is that, instead of that separation being a product of nature, we’ll be consciously isolating from one another as a matter of politics. Only Whites could think of a politics that treats other racial groups as if they, too, were responsible people trying – but, sadly, failing – to have a rational conversation.
Rationality is not the human race’s strong suit. It’s a very thin reed on which to lay the fate of the White race.
What a fine Christian conservative, that Dreher.
“Dreher quickly decided such ideas made Achord a “vile racist” (as well as an anti-Semite and misogynist) and “doxxed” him to the school, which panicked and promptly fired the father of four. Dreher acknowledges that Achord is quiet, modest, friendly, and talented; his ideas are Dreher’s only justification for getting the man dismissed.”
He is. Achord is the deviant who seems ignorant of the long history of the Church’s changing views on all kinds of temporal matters and it’s vigorous suppression of ‘heresy’ as the Church defines it at any given time.
Achord’s problem stems from thinking that it’s possible to defend the White race using the values of ‘the Church’ or ‘the West’ when such cannot be done.
If you allow the nose of the ‘universalist’ camel into the tent, the ‘diversity, inclusion and equity’ body will not be far behind.
All of those issues with the early church may be true but until 1950 in lands of Germanic/Nordic stock it did not in any way encourage race-mixing ( it wouldn’t dare, or probably even think to ) and these populations were healthily xenophobic and very homogenous. There can be a church and racial idenititarianism, it’s just that that you’ll need to train a whole new cadre of padres.
The sanction of race-mixing for Whites cannot be found in the Bible because the Bible isn’t about White people, it’s about jews. If you need to explain why the plain text of the Bible does not say what it says about destruction of normal relations then why bother with it at all…unless your priority is saving a religion and not a race.
The argument for the utility of ‘Christendom’ on White Europe would be the same if the Roman Legions had entirely subjugated Europe in the first place and forged the various tribes into some kind of unity. It’s historical accident that, essentially, Rome arrived in the form of a religion, not armies.
It’s no accident that rulers impose a religion on their subjects. We have been getting the anti-White egalitarian holocaustian religion good and hard for decades and whether you believe or not you have, to some extent, to comply.
I am not arguing that religion should be a higher good than racial preservation and improvement but that a revised Christianity, not based on the literal words of the Bible, which inspired our greatest architecture, music and art, could be a major organising principle for such preservation and improvement. In any case getting angry at Christianity is counterproductive.
Jesus of Nazareth is reported as warning his disciples to stay away from Gentiles and Samaritans (Matthew 10 5-6) and there is also his characterisation of non-Jews in the dialogue with the Syrophoenician (Grecian) woman (Mark 7 24-30). It is the resurrected Jesus who issues the ‘Great Commission’ (Matthew 28 16-20) to preach the gospel unto all nations.
Phillip Roth noted the irony of antisemites worshipping a jew as their god, but perhaps there is a simpler explanation: that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a failed or rejected messianic candidate, with the ‘Great Commission’ being a creation of Paul of Tarsus and his followers?
Or perhaps you’ve completely misread the New Testament? Mark 7 24-30 very obviously shows that the chauvinistic view of the Jews no longer applies. Who are the “lost sheep of Israel” in Mathew 10 5-6? It’s been theorized the lost tribes are actually the European peoples. Judea wasn’t lost, just mislead. Perhaps you should read Mathew 22:14 and realize you just aren’t one of the “chosen”.
I once had a class with an Israeli who argued passionately that Jesus was not a Jew. It was not a topic I was terribly interested in at the time so I missed most of the argumentation to daydreaming. She was adamant that Christ was not Jewish, but a Greek – both as a person and in his ideology, theology and philosophy.
This is getting very off-topic, but I hope I shall be allowed to add that I am not Jewish but an indigenous European Gentile. The position that Jesus of Nazareth never existed or was not a Jew, which one often hears from persons hostile to the Christian religion, seems to me just as unfounded as elevating him to messianic or divine status. What we do have, from the Gospels, are his reported words in Aramaic (including the famous, and troubling to Christians, Last Words). Now Aramaic, not Hebrew, would have been the mother tongue of non-elite Judeans contemporary with Jesus. Educated persons would also know Greek, and since Jesus is apparently able to converse with the Greek-speaking Syrophoenician woman, we may assume he knew Greek somewhat. If Jesus received some Pharisaic training, he would also have known some (classical) Hebrew, that being retained by the Jewish people, as it is to right up our own times, for liturgical, jurisprudential and exegetical purposes. Finally, the suggestion that the so-called ‘Lost Tribes’ are white Indo-Europeans, or British Israelitism as this is also known, is as wholly risible and unscholarly as the Afrocentrism so regularly, and rightly, pilloried here.
In jew-language, ‘Jesus’ is the same as ‘Joshua’ or ‘Yeshua’
‘Yeshua isn’t a name, either. It’s more like a title, one related to the jews’ god (as evidenced by the presence and position of the ‘Y’ and ‘H’ and the ‘A’ terminator (YAWAH is also a viable candidate for the name of the jews’ volcano god).
There’s no evidence for ‘Jesus’ outside the obviously-tampered-with documentation.
Some historians believe that the people of Galilee were of the Gallic nation and had converted to Judaism. It’s supposedly one of the reasons why the Judean leadership was so hostile to Jesus.
Italian Professor Roberto deMatttei wrote, The Second Vatican Council in which he details how being racist, i.e. resisting the occupation, became and actual sin. I would supply the page numbers but sadly in this world of shrinking living space, my notes are buried in my locker. But if anyone needs assurance that our captured church still rules, his book is available on Amazon.
The Catholic Cardinal Robert Sarah (a black African) spoke out about the mass migration to Europe. But he has been sidelined by other cardinals. The mainstream Catholic Church is one hundred percent compromised by the spiritual virus of Anti-Whiteism. As is the mainstream Protestant. While our movement must accommodate Christians it cannot be, itself, primarily CHRISTIAN…
Wow! My takeaway from Dreher’s writings was always that he was a panicked little girl – a coward who has surrendered. Then I read this and I find that impression did not go far enough. It is amazing that he, the great advocate of The Benedict Option, doxes and attempts to ruin a man who is actually implementing The Benedict Option. He then heaps ten more layers of scum baggery on it by having his kids in Achord’s educational monastery.
Wow. I hope Achord can recover and then his trek north helps him find a place where he can be of service. The lesson is that it is very foolish to say things online or in company that some spiteful person will use to ruin you.
In one of Dreher’s articles he talks about how he lives near Baton Rouge and what a hopeless hellscape the black part of that city is. Perhaps proximity and karma will play into Dreher’s fate. I’m sure he doesn’t disagree with a word Achord says. He is probably such a paranoid little girl that he torpedo’d Achord’s own Benedict Option because he was associated with it. Dreher the cancel culture supporting church informant. What scum. There is going to be more of that.
Dreher is a griftsevative. He’ll say whatever (a) hurts the Right, (b) hurts Whites and (c) otherwise comports with the interests of his paymasters.
Griftservaism Inc will only ever conceive a racial fact that is causing White ‘conservatives’ to wander off the ‘Christian’ and GOP plantations.
Some people responding to Devlin’s piece seem to forget how the Christian Church actually operated. As soon as Constantine gave official power to the Church, it began persecuting ‘heretics’. Eventually, it got around to persecuting White indigenous religious culture as a whole. And never stopped for over a thousand years.
‘But unlike Communism, neither Christ or the Church ever expressed hostility to particular attachments as such, nor advocated abolishing the institutions on which they rest.’
Communist leveling is not imaginable without Christian universalism.
As for ‘hostility’ toward particular attachments, I wonder what’s to be made of Matthew 10. It seems to me that this verse is particular egregious in advocating a total rupture with existing institutions. That this zeal for tumult is supposed to be directed toward the jews is lost on 99.999% of all Christians.
It is quintessential to see all of the prominent figures representing different sects of the center-right falling. Ron Dreher popularized the Benedict Option, which was basically a post-Civil Rights non-binding covenant for likeminded white Christians to flee to. That is basically a collective white-flight, which can work individually, but not collectively or as an end in itself. All it could possibly represent is to ‘live another day’ with no guarantees after that. The same with marriage. ‘Just do it anyway despite all of the risks for a man,’ he says. His marriage collapsed just like most others do. Normies are beginning to see that all of these concepts are meaningless at best without a patriarchal undergirding. You can still be a moderate do-gooder (wandering grifter) like Rob Dreher and your personal and professional life still falls apart nonetheless.
The solution isn’t ‘patriarchy’. The solution is White Identity Nationalism. ‘Patriarchy’ vs ‘Matriarchy’ is a sub-racial issue that needs to be decided by local White communities, not White Nationalist ideology or policy.
Uh absolutely not. Your egalitarianism got us where we are today. I will fight against your matriarchy.
The idea that ‘egalitarianism’ is the problem rather than anti-White social, political and cultural policies is ridiculous. As for fighting against ‘matriarchy’, that’s exactly the same attitude that the Left takes against ‘patriarchy’. The only difference is the Left wins and the Right hasn’t had a single durable cultural or political success in over 100 years.
The pro-White movement needs to be about what makes White people happy, not what makes right-wing malcontents happy.
Egalitarianism and matriarchal are weapons against whites in the ongoing struggle. Your idea of white communities liberally deciding to be “matriarchal” or “egalitarian” is pure fantasy. To be pro-white is to be patriarchal and anti-egalitarian.
The Bible may not have much to say about ‘race’, but they wrote a lot about nearby tribes, to which they were closely related, and which they labeled as ‘enemies’. Whites from Northern Europe didn’t make it down to biblical lands until much later. But biblical Jews and later, Moslems, listed foreign tribes as “Goyim” and “Infidels”, and that is as clear to anyone that this is racism of sorts. And — bless their hearts — it still exists today.
What to think of new article by Dr. Thomas Dalton, “Jesus the Jew” ( June 2023)…? Jesus Christ was basically a fictional character (ala Mickey Mouse), invented by Paul/ Saul of Tarsus, to pacify and destroy the Roman Empire…!…?
Is there any way at all to obtain a copy of this book? I passionately love the idea of it!
I have donated to Achord and will continue to do so.
Unless Dreher seriously repents of what he has done, he will burn in Hell.
Glad to see a takedown of Rod Dreher. However:
But “anti-racism” has long since invaded the Church in force. Christians, like everyone else, grow up surrounded by shrill and sanctimonious denunciations of “racism.”
I’m sorry, where is this? I was never exposed to it, in any religion or theology classes. Only in recent years have I seen promotion or at least acceptance of miscegenation in an ecclesiastical context.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.