Counter-Currents
959 words
Atheism and agnosticism are associated with Leftist, anti-white politics, but there is no reason why this must be so. As discussed in my previous Counter-Currents article, “Christian Nationalism Has Made Me Agnostic,” much of the white Western world, including countries such as France, the Czech Republic, and Australia, is becoming irreligious. Christianity should not supersede the ethnos, as the most extreme wing of Christian Nationalist zealots would have it. We should instead be reaching out to our brothers and sisters who are influenced by reason and science over superstition.
First, race realism as discussed within White Nationalist circles is the most significant of the persecuted scientifically-based positions of the modern woke era, comparable to the persecution of Galileo by the Catholic Church when he observed that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of vice versa. There should be no doubt that human beings are a diverse species, the subdivisions of which have psychologies that are every bit as varied as our physical attributes. We have short, dark-skinned races of pygmies and tall, white-skinned races of Nords; we have races of relatively high and low intellect, high and low aggression, agreeableness, and so forth.
Taking the pseudo-scientific position that all human beings are biologically and mentally “equal” is quite obviously a quasi-religious “moral” belief rather than a fact demonstrable in observable, empirical reality. True skeptics should be race realists, and thus logically adopt the central tenets of the pro-white political posture. To not do so would be to replace the superstition of gods and devils with a New Age quack religion of “scientism”: using the academic language of the scientific disciplines to promote pseudo-scientific belief systems. The doctrine of “all men are created equal under God” is a product of the universalist Christian worldview and not one coming out of the natural world, in which species, subspecies, and tribes — which have wildly different biological characteristics — are grouped together by ancestral lineage for collective survival and the proliferation of their progeny.
You can buy Jonathan Bowden’s collection The Cultured Thug here.
Second, since time immemorial people have grouped themselves along the lines of what the ancient Greeks called the ethnos: those who share a common culture, bloodline, history, language, and identity. This is therefore the natural order of the human species independent of whatever religion a particular group is following at any given time. The Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Slavs, and other Aryan peoples worshipped many gods throughout their histories, but the one constant was their identification with one another as a people. Their gods were of their race and protected them, excluding the rival foreign barbarians.
It was not until the ancient Jews began converting Roman emperors and then European kings to Christianity that the vehicle for establishing a pan-racial, borderless international society began to spread across the globe and irrevocably transform human society. Christian identity superseded the ethnos, and animated Christian missionaries to engage in an unprecedented mission to unite the world in a borderless faith community. To embrace this legacy is to embrace the haunt of superstition through the back door. It is the erosion of human cultural and ethnic diversity, which is as valuable in our species as it is in any other.
Lastly, religious skeptics should not abandon the traditional values of having big families, taking responsibility, following ethics, working hard, and building communities to the teachings of Muslims, Jews, and Christians. They should reject the tendency to find fulfillment merely in vacuous hedonism and the attempts of shallow, materialistic pop culture to fill in the abyss of meaning within our lives. The tenets of major religions which support these positive values named above are rooted in concrete evolutionary values of survival and reproduction. These are the means by which we ensure the survival of our specific genetic inheritance, as evolution and the natural world “intend.” Bridging this gap is the means by which we can reunite white Christians, pagans, and religious skeptics in the traditional bonds of the ethnos. We all have a shared interest in the survival of our race and cultures, after all.
When the Old Testament advised the ancient Israelites not to eat shellfish, this was not superstition but a religious commandment not to partake of foods that were rife with parasites and bacteria, and which were causing gastrointestinal illnesses such as vibrio. Similarly, when the Book of Genesis advised the ancient Jews — and later, white Christians — to “be fruitful and multiply,” this was a way of teaching believers that their people needed to procreate if they are to survive. This meant not just a little procreation, but much more than their rival ethnicities, whose numerical superiority could overwhelm them in future battles if they didn’t. Alternatively, in imperialistic multicultural societies such as those of ancient Greece[1] and today’s United States, the failure of a dominant ethnicity to sufficiently outbreed the foreign tribes within their domains had the potential to lead to the subversion of their power through miscegenation — and ultimately, bloody societal collapse.
White Nationalists and white advocates should not give up on those parts of the white Western world which have embraced education and reason. They are our brothers and sisters, too. It is only through science and reason that the European diaspora can reach towards the heavens via interplanetary travel and colonization, not with prayers and wishful thinking. The alternative is expending all our efforts on giving charity to the inner city, the Third World, and the fruitless, pseudo-scientific pursuit of false equality: the god that failed.
Note
[1] Specifically, the Seleucid Empire, which stretched from the Mediterranean region, including Greece, and far eastward, into Persia. The Greek multicultural society of this period was in fact central to the Hanukkah story. The conservative Jewish Maccabees refused to assimilate to their Greek overlords, and ended up killing them.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else 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. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- 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, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
30 comments
Geh heim Sam Harris
I hate when Sam Harris endorses white racial solidarity.
Race realists have the truth. And seeking and accepting the truth often means not having to engage in exhausting apologetics. One often gains more self-respect and feels more peace when they know they can no longer be pressured to pretend to believe things they know aren’t true. In the LDS Church, for example, one reason that many talented people are leaving is that they no longer believe the truth claims of the church. Are all of these people who became ”inactive” church members lost to leftism? Definitely not. While it’s true that many who leave the church do so for political reasons and might be more likely to go along with anti-white “wokeism” than those who remain in the church, for many others it’s just a matter of truth and not wanting to feel the guilt that comes with indoctrinating their children into something they know is made up, even if they think the church is wonderful in many other ways. Having the truth can never be undervalued.
And I don’t like seeing non-religious nationalists being bullied by others in the scene into declaring that Christ is King or something similar. I have no problem with other pro-white people believing in whatever faith they choose, but there absolutely has to be acceptance both ways when it comes to believing or not. Being pro-white should trump everything else IMO.
“Being pro-white should trump everything else IMO.”
Yes.
I totally agree. My race is my religion. My skin color is my uniform. Nothing else matters to me.
I am live and let live with White Christians who respect these ideas. I don’t gratuitously attack Christians. Most are fine people, if only misguided.
Your last sentence should read, “Being pro-white should trump everything else for the white preservationist (WP) movement“. My response to that would be, “Naturally”. For religious people, no ideology will ever trump their religion. This will always be especially so for Christians. The prowhite movement should NEVER (utterly needlessly) force a Christian to choose between loyalty to Christ and loyalty to race, for who would choose the latter over the eternal fate of one’s soul?
The real issue at the intersection of WP and Christianity is whether they are theoretically and/or pragmatically incompatible. If so, then you can bid the Christians (and WP) adieu. There are far more white Christians than WPs, and most white non-Christians seem to me to be leftists, especially on race. I argue that a non-exploitative and non-exterminationist WP is perfectly compatible with historic Christianity. Telling the truth about race differences and their hereditarian origins, or about the current system’s abuse and exploitation of whites; opposing nonwhite colonization of white homelands, miscegenation, and ‘affirmative’ [antiwhite] racism; encouraging whites to marry each other and reproduce abundantly; exposing the lies and tyranny of the Diversity Industry; creating prowhite lobbying and self-defense organizations to protect increasingly vulnerable whites from financial or legal dispossession and physical assault – how do any of these stances or activities conflict with Christian theology or morality?
Yet again, I point out that anti-Christian WPs adopt the same view of the Faith as the progressive leftists with whom WPs otherwise comprehensively disagree.
Nice try, but both organised Christianity and disorganised Christianity is explicitly anti-racialist. The first sentence of this article would have been a better route to pursue than than yet more appeals to Christians, as if the racialist Right hasn’t already been trying woo the church ladies for decades.
The Racial Right has barely ever “wooed” Christians. Quite the opposite. Men like Revilo Oliver, W.G. Simpson, and William Pierce (and even Wilmot Robertson, to some extent), not to mention Hitler and crew, were deeply hostile to Christianity, as of course was Nietzsche (and perhaps de Gobineau, though I’m unsure as to whether Gobineau himself understood his racial determinism to be in necessary opposition to Christianity broadly understood, as opposed to merely its particular egalitarian versions). Even the focused and ecumenical Jared Taylor, who avoids giving offense to either Christians or Jews, never really reaches out specifically to Christians in order to argue that they should be pro-white, or even that they may be so without falling into theological error.
Lord Shang: January 18, 2024 The Racial Right has barely ever “wooed” Christians. Quite the opposite. Men like Revilo Oliver, W.G. Simpson, and William Pierce (and even Wilmot Robertson, to some extent), not to mention Hitler and crew, were deeply hostile to Christianity… Even the focused and ecumenical Jared Taylor, who avoids giving offense to either Christians or Jews, never really reaches out specifically to Christians in order to argue that they should be pro-white…
—
Good for him, but his ecumenical avoidance of the JQ and the Jewish basis of Christianity so as not to offend Jews and Christians is unmanly, if not moral cowardice when he must know the correctness of those racial giants you mention earlier in the same paragraph, including truth-seekers like Metzger, Klassen, Strom and hundreds of other racial dissidents who are/were neither ecumenical nor part of any right-wing,
BTW, doesn’t ecumenical mean “promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation”?
‘Ecumenical’ means the same as ‘universal’. It was co-opted by Christians, but it doesn’t belong to them. It’s possible to speak of an ‘ecumenical Whiteness’ as referring to all European people’s that exhibit White European attitudes if not all having the exact same features (Nordics vs Mediterraneans, for instance).
Edit:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/ecumenical
Hamburger Today: January 19, 2024 ‘Ecumenical’ means the same as ‘universal’. It was co-opted by Christians, but it doesn’t belong to them…
—
Those thieving Christians! The definition I provided was taken from Merriam-Webster’s first definition; yours is more like the second.
—
1
a: of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
b: promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation
2
: worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application
I use Merriam-Webster online, despite its being owned by a Jew. See Andrew Hamilton’s essay, Wikipedia (and Britannica) | National Vanguard, where he informs us:
I SUSPECT THAT EVEN most National Vanguard readers are unaware that the venerable Chicago-based Encyclopædia Britannica has been owned by Jewish billionaire Jacob E. “Jacqui” Safra, a member of the wealthy Safra banking family, since 1996.
Its longtime CEO was an Israeli, Ilan Yeshua, replaced upon his departure in May 2021 by a Mexican of unknown ethnicity.
Safra, who also owns Merriam-Webster, Inc…
Wimpy’s* edit: https://www.etymonline.com/word/ecumenical
Thanks for clearing that up:
ecumenical (adj.) – late 16c., “representing the entire (Christian) world,” formed in English as an ecclesiastical word…
*J. Wellington Wimpy – Wikipedia
These rather shallow points are handily refuted by Giles Corey in “The Sword of Christ.” Perhaps read that book and then report back with a review. At a minimum, it will show that you have a lot to learn about these topics and that hackneyed generalizations are unhelpful for everyone.
And the LORD saith unto them, “Thou shalt be a passive-aggressive and bitchy scold, and verily I say unto you, it shall win their hearts.”
At a minimum, you should have written a sentence or two summarizing these purportedly handy refutations, or was that too much heavy lifting?
Sword of Christ, you say? I remember the Gospel passage about not bringing peace, but a sword. I also remember the passage about turning the other cheek. Gosh, it almost seems as if there are so many inconsistencies, you can make the Bible mean whatever you need it to mean.
75% of black Americans identify as Christian, whereas 70% of white Americans do. But Christianity is the way out of this mess. I’m suprised no one thought of it earlier.
Jim Goad: 70% of white Americans identify as Christian…
—
If accurate, that leaves possibly 30% who are realists, who don’t believe in Jewish spooks up in the sky. That’s a good start.
—
Mr. Kessler says: [R]religious skeptics should not abandon the traditional values of having big families, taking responsibility, following ethics, working hard, and building communities to the teachings of Muslims, Jews, and Christians…
—
The highlighted portion of your statement is certainly desirable, but why are teachings of those Abrahamic creeds necessary to fulfill Aryan traditions?
—
k says:
Clearly you are befuddled by it all, k.
You’re correct that a people need a belief system and that Jew-spawned Christianity is an unsuitable belief system for Aryan nationalists. Atheists simply don’t believe in the other fellows’ spooks, That’s no belief system.
“We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress.”
-Dr. William Pierce, Founder of Cosmotheism for his long-suffering White kinsmen
“but why are teachings of those Abrahamic creeds necessary to fulfill Aryan traditions?”
We should differentiate between modern religious skeptics and pre-Christian Europeans who were pagan. Most pagan religions would have also supported having abundant children (fertility goddesses anyone?).
On the other hand, atheists and agnostics tend to have less children than their Abrahamic religious counterparts. This may be a value that is not sufficiently esteemed in that cohort.
Jason Kessler: January 19, 2024
“but why are teachings of those Abrahamic creeds necessary to fulfill Aryan traditions?”
Jason, not to nitpick but you quoted just the second half of my sentence without making use of an ellipsis (…). A grammarian would say that is misleading. The rule:
If an ellipsis is placed at the beginning or in the middle of a sentence, it means something has been removed…
—
To put my question back in context:
Mr. Kessler says: [R]religious skeptics should not abandon the traditional values of having big families, taking responsibility, following ethics, working hard, and building communities to the teachings of Muslims, Jews, and Christians…
—
To which I responded:
The highlighted portion of your statement is certainly desirable, but why are teachings of those Abrahamic creeds necessary to fulfill Aryan traditions?
You continue, by explaining why Aryan traditions should look to the Semitic or Abrahamic creeds (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all that worship the Jew’s imaginary tribal deity, BTW), basically by changing the subject to atheist and agnostic fecundity, compared to those who worship Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah.
Maybe spook worshippers are more fecund. The globalist World Health Organization (WHO) tells us “…[A] family size range of five to seven or eight children in Africa.” Maybe that’s because Black Africans worship Yahweh? Doubtful. They’ve been known to eat Christian missionaries.
Just above what you misquoted by me I provided the classic quote by Dr. Pierce, who was not pagan, agnostic nor atheist; his pro-White, eugenic world view, ideology, philosophy — or religion, if you prefer — encouraged the best of our race to have plenty of children. It’s safe to say Pierce, who founded Cosmotheism, was a “skeptic” of Abrahamic creeds.
Just a couple of months ago the theme of our weekly radio show, American Dissident Voices, was “Commit a revolutionary act. Have a White child”: Becoming Revolutionary | National Vanguard
You continued:
—
We should differentiate between modern religious skeptics and pre-Christian Europeans who were pagan. Most pagan religions would have also supported having abundant children (fertility goddesses anyone?).
On the other hand, atheists and agnostics tend to have less children than their Abrahamic religious counterparts. This may be a value that is not sufficiently esteemed in that cohort.
For some centuries after the West was beguiled by Christianity it continued to vigorously defend itself. This was not The Sword of Christ, but rather the last stand of classical civilization. Gradually the actual teaching of the Nazarene (“love your enemies as yourself”) and the writings of Paul (“you are all one in Christ”) overwhelmed Western ethno-nationalism.
Both cause and effect are explained in Joseph Henrich’s book, The WEIRDest People in the World (WEIRD being Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic). The Catholic church engaged a deliberate program to detribalize the West by forbidding cousin marriage out to six degrees of consanguinity, including not only blood cousins but relations through in-laws and godparents as well. The long-term psycho-social impact has been a culture that is individualistic rather than clannish, accepting rather than skeptical toward strangers and The Other.
“For some centuries”. Some?! The West was still expanding past the turn of the 20th century. When was the closing of the American frontier again? The Russo-Siberian?
White individualism goes back a lot longer than the last millennium, whatever the negative sociobiological effects of Catholicism (which were far more pronounced in the area of dysgenics than individualism). The ancient pagan Germans were, per Tacitus, noted for both their individualism and their high regard for their womenfolk. And that wonderful document setting us down the road to modern liberty – the Magna Carta – is nearly equidistant between the conversion of Constantine and today.
To say that the (medieval) Catholic Church sought to (note active tense) “detribalize the West” is ridiculous. The Church simply did not think in such terms until very recently.
Finally, the teachings of the Nazarene do not lead to race-cuckery, a distinctly liberal phenomenon characteristic of the increasingly post-Christian West. Trying to blame, say, the Council of Nicaea or the 95 Theses for DEI ideology (lol), instead of secular left-liberal schools and postwar Jewish media dominance, is an exhibition of anti-Christian hostility and general intellectual bad faith.
The church most certainly did think in those terms, for instance by barring consanguinous marriages.
Good article. I think it’s broadly correct. I did think a few things while reading this.
The problem for ‘atheism’ (I’m using a broad definition here) is that it became incredibly “cringe” as the 2000s passed into the 2010s. The killer blow was the post on the r/atheism subreddit (you think churches are bad try going down that cesspit) by a guy known as Aalewis. “In this moment, I am euphoric…” I think it was in early 2013, maybe. This, combined with the fat/neckbeard/fedora ‘quirky’, ‘steam punk’ look gave the whole non-believer side a really bad name. What this did was bolster the alternative. It’ll take probably another decade/generation for this stain of cringe to wash out.
We need to state how important the idea of “cringe” is to [young] people now. Because Internet, basically, every thing people do and think is broadcast. Therefore your life experiences aren’t personal any more. Previously you’d go through life and if you, say, had a break up, that’d be your own journey. But now, all the tried and tested break up routines are all over the Internet. You’re not going down your own path now, you’re trodding a well worn path, a meme someone else made that thousands of others have shared will sum your situation up. The ‘Friendzone’ for example. Before the Internet and the coining of the friend zone term, we all knew what that was roughly, and we’d all seen it in action, but it’s now a sort of Thing and it’s become depersonalized. Effectively, if you were a guy who got Friend Zoned in the 90s, then that sucks but hey ho, yknow? Wheres now it’s like : ok. You got friend zoned. She did that to me, too! And this other dude! And there’s a whole culture surrounding this, breaking it down, discussing it!
What this does is it makes the act of being friend zoned more and more shameful. Social Stigma is huge nowadays – not just for young people but particularly for them.
So the whole concept of “cringe” is ultra important to zoomers. Zoomers are also incredibly cynical and jaded – so being cringe is not going to engage them.
Atheism did become cringe, and at a time when cringe became the last thing you want to be. It was like : we had Christianity, then atheism came along like “hey kids! I’m atheism, the new cool dude, believe in me, not that stuffy old Christianity dork!” This also was seen as a liberal thing – liberals tended to be atheist and saw Christianity as anti gay, anti feminism, small R racist (or more accurately small N nationalist).
But atheism breezed in and after a few years the kids started to notice that atheism , actually , was also kinda cringe, low key, fr fr no cap.
In the 2000s, atheism became big on the back of 9/11 (“religious nutjobs” was the popular line). Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher. These guys dined out on the 9/11 thing for a while. But they were frauds: firstly they were all liberal leftists, who are phony posers to begin with. Then, really, they started to attack Christianity, when Islam was the one on trial. It was shameful and cowardly.
They couldn’t attack Islam because Muslims aren’t white therefore racism, and also, if you do criticise Muslims there’s a fair chance they’ll kill you (a pretty good rule of thumb is not to antagonise people who might genuinely kill you).
So that disingenuous foundation , plus the utter cringe atheism became associated with, by the time the Nick Fuentes age-group of Zoomers came of age their new landscape was : atheism is cringe and they’re cowards who attack the low hanging fruit of Christianity.
Oh and also our culture is depraved.
I’m not saying I take this view personally; I’m painting the picture of why this resurgent Christianity is gathering steam.
The next issue is that , I believe, a people needs a belief system. Materialism and the marxist/capitalist punch and Judy show is terrible for a people. Whether it’s a group of gods or one god or whatever I am not bothered but I think people need some kind of religion. Or at least a kind of spiritual belief about themselves and the world (don’t the Chinese believe they’re the Middle Kingdom between a sort of angelic heaven and a beastly hell, and only Han Chinese are real humans, and everyone else is a beast?). The Chinese example might be a bit weird but I think something like that is necessary. I think that the idea that the universe exploded into existence out of literally nothing, for no reason at all, just ” because, science! ” and we’re just ‘monkeys flying on a rock through the void of space’ is an extremely toxic belief system for a people – it says there’s no higher meaning, life is transient, be selfish, enjoy material pleasures, don’t reproduce. This is all very damaging. Some kind of spiritual code is needed.
However I do agree that a bicker about religion trumping nationalism is pointless and the universalist Christian idea is q00% stupid and unworkable. The problems of Christianity are many. A certain Austrian corporal referred to “flabby” Christianity and talked favorably about “muscular” Islam. I think there’s some merit to that idea.
To sum up:
– the Christian stuff will remain big until atheism can get over the cringe label
-Christianity is not going to be good for asserting our nationhood
– but a people need a belief system
– we’ve got widespread atheism now and we aren’t exactly in a good position currently
– I don’t know what to take from all this.
I don’t personally think very much about fedora memes or whatever. Anytime there is a stereotype I try to defy it and rise above it.
I’m not really in a competition to win over shallow young kids that listen to rap and decide the existential questions of the universe based on what is trendy.
The truth matters to me and has value independent of whatever stupid memes are floating around on the internet. Fads come and go but the truth is immortal.
Thank you for your insightful comment.
‘Cringe’ is cringe.
In past centuries, continuing to the present day, the missionary zeal of Christianity has brought non-Whites into our midst as certainly as has more recent Jewish activism, and has been key in setting up the paradigm that we owe non-Whites special care and consideration. This alone is reason to organize our solidarity around race instead of religion.
I have always admired and respected Jason Kessler’s activism. I found the above article an impressive new level of journalistic talent on his part; beautifully written, and quite inspiring. Much appreciation to Kessler for his depth of insight and clarity on this contentious subject. White Nationalists have far too many things dividing us, separating us into smaller and smaller groups, and effectively disempowering us. We must not let religion divide us.
I love how these calls for solidarity always seem to go one way and are never reciprocated. Christians in the movement are expected to put up with constant bashing and outright hostility in some cases.
If people in the movement are not Christian, or even disagree with Christianty, that’s okay. There are other fish to fry. But I don’t see why any White Christian would want to be a part of a movement that overtly despises them for very misguided reasons.
This is almost pure projection.
Not based on the tenor of either the post or the comments.
I agree with those who say religion should be kept out of the white preservationist (WP) movement (though as a philosopher like you must surely recognize above others, whether doing so is truly intellectually, as opposed to merely tactically, possible is debatable). Being prowhite should be about being prowhite – not whether one is theistic or atheistic; Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox (or Mormon or pagan); capitalist or socialist; male/female; masculinist/feminist; gay/straight; white/blue collar; or any other secondary matter not directly related to the cause of WP. At least for now, anyway, and wrt expanding the prowhite movement.
At some point – when WPs either have become a serious (but not yet dominant) political force, such that declaiming and legislating on sub-racial ideological and political matters cannot be avoided in the course of normal political coalition-building, or once we’ve won our Ethnostate – prowhites will have to decide where we as a movement stand on issues beyond strictly racial ones. But that time is still far off, and, in the meantime, internecine disputes over profound but politically secondary matters should be avoided.
‘Religion’ is built upon the Latin concept-particle ‘-lig-‘ meaning ‘to bind’. What’s being struggled over between Whites of good will is whether ‘being White’ should be one’s first binding commitment or whether something else should be one’s first loyalty. The problem with all Abrahamic-derived faiths is their claim to exclusive loyalty based upon exclusive access to ‘the truth’. Other faiths – Eastern faiths such as Taoism and Buddhism – do not exhibit this same intensity of exclusiveness.
The fundamental issue with partisans of Abrahamic faiths is where do their loyalties lie.
I can see how a pro-White Christian could prefer a non-White Christian to a White pagan as a neighbor. The same could just as easily be said of a White pagan preferring a non-White pagan to a Christian as a neighbor.
And that’s the problem with sub-racial loyalties being first.
Our immediate goal has to be the conceptualization, articulation and promulgation of a unifying vision of ‘pro-White’ and ‘White Nationalism’. My offering is ‘Whites unconditionally caring about Whites because they are White’. Any other formulation leaves room for doubt as to whether some White will be accepted or not because they’re too ‘Nordic’ or too ‘Mediterranean’ or too ‘homosexual’ or too ‘Midwestern’ or too ‘West Coast’ or any other sub-racial characteristic.
Sub-racial issues are matters of community values and ‘community rules’. They are best resolved by the same methods we wish to apply in racial matters – separation – but applied to sub-racial communal concerns.
There’s no reason a 100% pro-White community could not be a ‘liberal’ community on matters of worship when it comes conventional supernaturalist religions. One can even imagine a ‘tolerance regime’ where ‘pro-White’ is the official religion and all other religions are tolerates so long as they don’t advocate for anti-White values.
The only ‘one size fits all’ idea that all Whites can fit into is being White. Everything else is just everything else.
All ideas, even religious ones, must be debated and evaluated on their own merits.
I understand that criticism of beliefs you hold dear can feel like a personal attack, even when it is not intended.
These are merely my honest reflections on the topic of religion and race.
I’m an agnostic Christian, there is nothing controversial about this. Agnosticism and atheism shouldn’t always be associated, if you believe that gods existence cannot be proven then you are agnostic and if you believe in god you are a theist, I think this just reflects the belief of most people.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment