“Yes, I understand that you’re an anti-Semite who worships a Jew.”
White nationalist Christians—in a nutshell
“Yes, I understand that you’re an anti-Semite who worships a Jew.”
“Yes, I understand that you’re an anti-Semite who worships a Jew.”
28 replies on “White nationalist Christians—in a nutshell”
Also quoted in the thread: “Paleontologists have researched what humans looked like two thousand years ago in the Middle East, during Biblical times. Based upon many aspects, they have determined what Jesus Christ would have looked like [pic above] – and baby be sure as hell wasn’t a white man!”
A Christian will simply deny the results of this study; they already deny a lot of scientific things, and that’s when they care about science. Some don’t, at all.
Personally, I don’t care if some simple-minded people — the average Stormfront Southerner, for example — still worship the King of the Jews (IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM). Hitler banned all sort of religious discussion during his meetings with the proletariat because both logical and emotional arguments in religious matters cannot be understood by this class; it amounts to talking to a wall.
What is more problematic is that, among people of a higher intellect, among the “Priest Class” (those who influence the others), there are still Christian elements. They are rare, assuredly, and rarer as you climb up the echelons of cerebral volume, but they exist.
Some of them can be convinced by sharp logical arguments and information (I’ve seen it with my own eyes), but the rest will never abandon their faith. They are the ones who may cause great damage in a White racialist government if they are not incapacitated.
All High Command and Abwehr members who betrayed Hitler or refused to follow orders during WWII were devout Christians, which is an intriguing statistical anomaly. Among them, the infamous Wilhelm Canaris. So, the question that we may ask ourselves is, “what offended them so much in the hitlerian State?”. And soon, we arrive to irreconcilable philosophies, one founded on science, praising moderate eugenic policies and race-based discrimination, the other founded on the principles of Saul of Tarsus, refusing all of that and preferring religion-based discrimination.
I admire the WN Christians working on a “positive Christianity” that explicitly forbids race mixing, but it just feels awkward, and will probably stay a small sect for this reason. The whole edifice of Christianity rests on the belief that faith rules over nature.
I am feeling increasingly alone in the movement.
Here in Mexico two Spanish-speaking white nationalists, one of Franco-Spanish origin the other from Irish origin, have contacted me. But after our first meeting they have not made an effort for a next meeting. And today I learnt that Greg Johnson is planning to publish books by James O’Meara, who I don’t believe is a good example for the young, and Greg’s own stuff praising traitorous Hollywood films.
On the other hand we have the average Stormfront Southerner as you say. These guys would not accept a transvestite fan like James O’Meara, and the most conservative of them would probably share my repulsion of films like Pulp Fiction that Greg loves. But at the same time the American Christians are stuck in a paradigm that has been killing us since the 4th century “AD”.
It is so sad… Where are the WNs who share my secularism and—at the same time—my conservatism in music, movies and sexual mores?
Hitler would have rejected both: those two books that Greg Johnson plans to publish and the primitive, anachronic-for-our-mind worldview of the Christian WNsts. Why the hell should I have been born in the wrong universe, not in the universe where Hitler won the war?
To boot, this feeling of mine cannot be conveyed to other nationalists. Very few, if any, would understand the abomination that, like the Führer, I feel for degenerate music and at the same time for an anachronic religion. Just compare the Stormfronters with Hitler’s lucidity when talking about Julian during his table talks…
I can understand what you’re experiencing.
Even before I became a Christian I knew that homosexuality is wrong and that the homosexual agenda is mostly empty nonsense.
I think there is a lot of peer pressure among non-religious people to accept certain values — such as “tolerance” (unquestioned acceptance) and “open-mindedness” etc.
I agree that a person does not need to be religious in order to see the logic behind conservative values.
I consider myself a Christian, but I’m not sure what to believe.
Regarding music: I know there is a study (maybe more than one) that measures the effects of rock music on plants. Supposedly rock music harms the growth of plants.
I thought I’d share my thoughts. No need to respond. You can if you want to, though. I mention “no need to respond” because I don’t want others to feel like I’m expecting or even wanting a response.
Have a good day.
Chechar, I would suggest you stop seeking perfection, and accept the limitations of your fellows who are actually on your side: White people who want a future for their children.
The pagan, anti-Christian, whatever it is attacks on the Fraser thread resembles a madhouse. Whatever your and Johnson’s beef with “universalist” Christianity is, you should have noticed that the Christians in that thread, like myself, don’t share your understanding of Christianity. Apparently we are to accept your and Johnson’s adjudication of what Christianity is, rather than that which we were brought up. That’s an unresolvable problem for us, particularly troubling that you two are leaders in the WN movement.
I’m genuinely stunned at the level of hostility you and Johnson exhibit to your would be allies. No answer for it. Why Fraser couldn’t be allowed to write a pro-White article from a Christian perspective to a WN Christian audience without you and co coming in like marauding banshees defies my understanding.
I’ve got nothing else to say on the subject other than my complete bemusement at this development.
Re the topic “I understand that you’re an anti-Semite who worships a Jew.” I’ll repeat myself for the ten bazillionth time, and try to keep it simple: to be a Jew is a religious, cultural and racial classification.
Racially, Jesus was a Jew. He came to the Jews. And was rejected by them, thus He rejected them. That is the orthodox Christian position on the subject.
To say that Jesus was a Jew is simplistic and can be deceiving. He was of the Torah, not of the Talmud. Today’s Jews, in fact the Jews post Christ, are of the Talmud. So, Jesus was not a Jew in that sense.
Jews today are also considered Jews if they are culturally and racially Jews, yet atheists. So, again, Jesus was not a Jew in that sense. There is the racial component but more critically the religious component of course.
But, I suppose this is of no consequence to the likes of you and Johnson. There’s some bee in your bonnets now about Christians of any stripe, from rabid American Zionist types right down to your orthodox Hutton Gibson types. To you, they all worship Jews, even though history, and the Jews own endless complaints, attest to hundreds of years of Christian so called persecution of the Jews.
It really is as Pierre de Craon describes it, like the end scene in Animal Farm, in this case where the “anti-Semites” finally take on the very form of the Jews they supposedly despise.
Anyway, you’re a good bloke, so all the best in any case to you and your cause.
I am not a “leader” in the WN movement, just a humble hobbit, Pat.
And my level of hostility has to do with the fact that I was tortured by Christianity itself. Have you read the entry “Christmas eve” linked in the previous post where I speak of “struggling against my parental, religious demons”?
I only quoted Fender in this little post. But you will be surprised that my views on the historical Jesus are not that negative. Really surprised. What bothers me is Christianity (and now secular Christianity), not the historical Jesus.
Christian values, such as “Thou shall not kill your enemy but pray for his conversion”, or “Thou shall not carpet bomb Great Britain into orbit but rather spare the lives of Churchill’s troops at Dunkirk”, or “Thou shall let banks and finance in the hands of Jews because usury is unholy”, caused a big part of the mess we’re in.
How have honesty, humbleness, asceticism, pacifism and compassion served us so far?
We are the fools that play poker by the rules; Jews are the ones who have aces up their sleeves, kill you with their revolver to take your money if you somehow manage to win, and have the sheriff on their payroll to avoid prosecution.
Panina, those Christian concepts are perverted in today’s various Christian sects. These concepts never disabled Christians of past times from protecting their people and lands with physical force, or invading other nations.
Fraser, who is a High Church Anglican btw, is attempting to wrest his faith back to his people, the Anglo-Saxons. Other Christians, like myself, in my case Catholic, seek to do the same. We have tradition on our side, yet it has become apparent that the WN movement will not tolerate any form of Christianity in its ranks.
No matter should Catholics or Anglicans return to their ancient faith that served their “flock”, that is their family, you and others despise them out of your own feelings of hate towards a strawman Christianity.
I say strawman advisedly, since pretty much every WN type Christian acknowledges the blasphemy of Zionist Christianity, and any form of Christianity that does not serve their people.
If you think a pagan WNism is the best and write a post for it, you wouldn’t find me or most Christians going batshit insane in the thread attempting to dismantle it, abusing the poster and commenters etc etc. My position, like all other WNs is that our primary goal is our people – if pagan thinking and systems serve it then well and good, the same for Christian churches.
What that Fraser thread confirmed for me is the hopelessness of the American situation for Whites. They would rather fight amongst themselves for some pure vision of a White society, rather than deal with the immediate requirement of forming as many alliances as possible to further our one goal: our preservation.
I will let Panina answer to what you say Pat but this—:
—is unwarranted. Criticizing Christianity does not mean that I repudiate you or Matt Parrott. You simply cannot jump to that conclusion: that if a secular nationalist is critical of Christianity, “therefore he will not tolerate me”.
Have you read Covington’s The Hill of the Ravens? It’s a novel where the ethno-state has already been founded in NorthAm and the factions of “pagans” and Christians start fighting each other. Covington’s novel is not too bad insofar as the government struggles to make the two factions get along in the New Republic.
You will be surprised: but it bothers me more the fact that secular nationalists love heavy metal or promote “gay” authors and Hollywood films than what bona fide (albeit naïve) commenters like Chad are now saying at TOO. Far more…
It’s your choice of forum to air your collective grievances that I rebuke. Fraser was not addressing pagan WNists, not chastising, not rebuking them. Fraser was addressing a specific audience, one that has a lot in common with yourself and Johnson, in that we all seek to assert our race again.
But in you all came to bag out Christianity. Why doesn’t Johnson do a post or article on his grievances with Christian Universalism if he’s got such a hatred of it? That would address the problem.
As it is, you and others came on with a rather spiteful and malicious intent it seems to drive out Christians of any stripe from White Nationalism.
But I am not a pagan. Most of my life I’ve been a Christian or someone deeply influenced by Christianity. As you probably know, I am a fan of Hitler’s Table Talk: private talks where he was not only more critical of Christianity than Judaism, but he also said:
By the way, as my first contribution to the Fraser’s second thread shows, my intention was to enter the discussion with a more benign tone than the rude tone of the “pagan” commenters. Search for my first comment in that thread and you will see that my tone was not disrespectful.
It’s this fact that drives the Christians madder than a hatter. Tortuous theological constructs, amateur linguistics, intentionally awful misreadings of the OT and NT–a failed attempt at retreating from reality. When politely informed of this profound truth everything devolves into hysterical antics.
To paraphrase James Mason: “No alien dogma will cramp our revolutionary style.”
I believe I know why my father, who is 87, sticks to Christian dogma. And once you decipher a deranged mind you might have the key to decipher other deranged minds. Unfortunately, to analyze my father’s mind—and mine as well since I used to be a Christian—would involve hundreds of pages that no one would probably read in my lifetime. Suffice it to say the key to open the door and decode the mystery, why people are trapped in the snares of faith, is probably the preliminary findings of Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause.
I was a Christian at one point as well. Even without being abused horribly, it was still a damaging faith to participate in. Something to struggle against on a daily basis.
Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause have been moved to the top of my reading list. Thank you for the direction.
Just be extra careful with Miller and deMause, especially with deMause. He is an ultraliberal whom I have criticized very harshly.
I would recommend starting with my “translation” of deMause’s ultraliberal Psychohistory to my far more racially conservative approach to it (I am talking about my book). Although the late Miller was far more conservative than deMause, she was still a Jewess who as a young girl suffered under the Nazi occupation of Poland. Her opinions about Hitler were, naturally, extremely biased.
Again, if you are going to read Miller start with the critique I made of her in my other blog.
You are off target Cobra. Neither the Catholic Church nor mainstream Protestant faiths such as Anglicans had any difficulties understanding their religion, and none of them were prone to opening their nations to others not of their kind.
It was with the final defeat of the White West in WWII that came the capitulation of traditional Christianity.
“Tortuous theological constructs, amateur linguistics, intentionally awful misreadings of the OT and NT” are all features of *American* Zionist style Christianity. I would argue that this comes with the inherent Jewification of America, stemming from your Puritan forefathers.
This madness did not exist in the rest of the West prior to the U.S.A.’s hegemony.
As I said before, you Americans should look to your own systems of thought, your own culture first before projecting American insanity on to the rest of us.
As for Chechar’s take, your difficulties with your parents do not make true your formulations of Catholicism. Your insight into Spanish Catholic approaches to Indians in Mexico doesn’t explain the Reconquista. Nor does it explain the vital role of Catholicism in the Irish retaking their land from the English. Nor numerous other examples.
Yes, “universalist” Christianity is problematic, but not so overwhelming that it cannot undergo another reconquista.
I suggest you let the WN Christians talk to White Christians, just as we would let you talk to opera goers, musical puritans, and lovers of English women. I won’t stand between you and them, nor run you out of the club based on my illusions of a perfect paradise of WNism formed in my purest dreams.
But if you and others want to keep on kicking the legs out of any attempt to gather the maximum amount of Whites, or reclaim our historic institutions for our people, then you will end up with a pure, and lonely, movement.
Perhaps you will find interesting that Octavio Paz, one of the leading intellectuals of Mexico of the last century, said that the Spanish mindset of “the Conquest was a continuation of the Reconquista”.
I think he was basically right. King Felipe II’s dream was to conquer the whole world for Catholicism. The Spaniards did practice mongrelization with the Arab conversos that stayed in Spain. But not in the astronomic level they did with the indigenous people of the Americas for the simple reason that there were millions of white women in Europe, including the Iberian peninsula, and almost none in the Americas (unlike the English who moved with their whole families to America the male Spaniards arrived bachelors to the newly discovered continent).
My point is that it was intrinsic in Christianity’s universalism—the diametrically opposite to Judaism—that ethnicity would be secondary to universalism for the 16th century Iberian dream of conquering the world for the Pope.
It is obvious, at least to me, that Greg Johnson was exactly right while discussing this subject with Chad at the TOO thread (specifically, here).
As was pointed out by many in that thread, and mjyself in the past directly to Johnson, Christian universalism in its original format was a positive for the White peoples of Europe. It united them against a common enemy, and drove out Muslims – non-White Muslims – from Europe.
Without that Christian universalism there would have been no White Spain to conquer Mexico in the first place. Europe would be middle eastern.
Yes, today Christian universalism has gone mad and invites racial others into our nations. That Christian universalism doesn’t even demand that the “other” be Christian! Think about that!
The problems with Christianity today are much greater than “universalism”. When the head of the Anglican Church in England, or Pope JPII proclaim all other faiths equal, just as valid, and further, even urge their ways amongst our the people of their own Christian faith you can see that the problem doesn’t from Christianity BUT a complete inversion of Christianity.
Why has this come about? Why has 2,000 years of Church dogma been inverted since the second world war? I can point to the answer but all you see is Christian universalism.
Actually I’m quite critical of the Kwa’ (America as you call it). So there’s no need to analyze the flawed facets of the American ideology as I’ve already done so. Fender’s quote (as did mine) applied to WN Christians and CI types, not the broad Catholic-Anglican spectrum. They have their own unique neuroses.
Christianity IS Jewification. Christianity originated with a Jewish cult and was promulgated by Jews. Christianity is the Culture of Critique par excellence. Anything good in the Church stemmed from the sincere (if misplaced) efforts of Europeans.
You have my pity if you need permission from a crucified Jewish man to take your own side in a fight.
But what caused Islam? How did Islam’s spectacular conquests became possible in the first place?
Precisely because of the triumph of Christianity against the Classical World, the latter was overrun by the Muslim conquests since the 7th century.
You still have to confront the truly astronomical catastrophe that meant that a Galilean cult took over the Roman Empire in the 4th century. As I told you before, take a look at posts #7 to #13 of my collection of articles critical of my former religion. And if you read that collection along with my excerpts of the series Civilisation (e.g., how so-called “saints” destroyed entire libraries of Greco-Roman knowledge) you will see how the triumph of Christianity in the empire dragged the West right into the dark ages…
There’s no way to avoid this conclusion for the honest reader of history.
Christianity, ie Roman Catholicism didn;t break the Roman Empire, it held what remained of it together you idiot.
The Roman Republic, from the time of the Etruscans through Scipio Africanus against Rome’s greatest threat, was broken at the time of the Gracchi.
First came Sulla, then Julius Caesar, till finally the Republic was gone and reformulated with the Divine Augustus into a succession of Roman Emperors.
The economic collapse, race mixing, moral degeneracy were nothing at all to do with Christianity. Quite the contrary, it was the Christians who held what little remained of Rome in the West together, and throughout the Dark Ages.
In the East it was the other Christians who held Rome together for another thousand years.
You morons who blame Christianity for the collapse of Rome know nothing at all about what it was to be Roman.
Now you fuck about with your pathetic American nation, blaming your own fool Zionist Christians for your own stupidity. And here we are at a Mexican’s blog, who worships a full on sodomite, whose only real beef with Christianity is that it won;t let him have his filthy way with the boys of our White people.
You people are fucking idiots who don’t deserve to be saved. Yet, we do need to save you. Out of Christian brotherhood, and universalism.
Pat, I can take a lot of heat. No problem. But you cannot deny that it took Gibbon several volumes to blame the new Roman religion for Rome’s ills. Insulting us, including Gibbon, won’t make the trick. It’s just like Fjordman’s insulting us at Gates of Vienna when we dared to say that Jewish influence was a contributing factor in Western decline. He got so furious that he didn’t reply any of our arguments. Remember? He just insulted Tanstaafl and lied about me.
Nope. The Eastern Empire was the mongrelized empire that represents the decadence of the Old Rome precisely because of its universalism. The condition to be a citizen of Constantinople was to be a Christian; race didn’t matter (exactly the same thing happened in New Spain: only Catholics could become permanent residents here).
Who’s that sodomite I am supposed to worship? I am at a completely loss here… Do you refer to my article on Gitone? Oh boy: I have never had a boyfriend in my life, not even when I myself was a kind of ephebe. That article was a Platonic response to Greg’s article on homosexuality. Or perhaps you have another person in mind? I am intrigued. Again, who’s that sodomite you say I “worship”?
Christian Identity is right about one thing: The relatedness of Germanics and Jews/Arabs. Germanics have Y-haplotype I, Jews/Arabs have Y-haplotype J. In Nostratic by Bomhard and Kerns, you’ll find that, within Nostratic, Semitic and Germanic share a lot of cognates.
This neatly explains why Protestant countries systematically stabbed Catholic and Orthodox countries in the back in the wars against Jews and Muslims.
What’s lacking from our lives under Jewish rule is a sense of transcendence, the sense that there is something more to our lives than material satisfaction. At least, Christianity can provide that. Even if Christianity doesn’t always make sense, those who go through the motions of going to mass are saying that they want to believe there is some meaning to our lives.
I’ve seen internet nationalists debating about the need to invent a new mythology to save the White world from the current crisis. I think they should stop their war on the Christian mythology until they have found another one that works better. Otherwise, they are only being nihilistic. They complain that Christianity promotes race mixing but I suspect their real objection against Christianity is that it is only a superstition. At least, I think the Christian vision has a poetic quality. I like that, and I disagree that Christianity can only be an obstacle to racial separation.
Presently I am reading Gombrich’s classical Story of Art, and am really enamored of the Christian cathedrals and many of the paintings done under Christendom.
But although the New Spaniards went to mass every other day, that was apparently not enough to see that by miscegenating themselves so thoroughly they were ruining their white genetic pool.
Good idea. What about Hitlerism? Could it be a coincidence that inside and outside Germany (the Anglo-Saxon world) the Christians opposed Hitler precisely because it represented the emergence of a totally new paradigm?
In my case, what moves me is the belief that it’s very right to blame the shark, but never spare the megalodon.
Was going to post this on the OO thread Chechar but thought again:
I think the reason why Greg Johnson got so het up about so called Christian Universalism, was not simply because GJ has problems with, what he calls, Old Testament morality, and its judgement of sodomites but, more that Fraser called GJ out in the first post for being a traitor to Anglo-Saxons.
The other proponent of the two pronged attack here, Chechar, has deep seated psychological problems with his parents, both Catholics, and because of such, projects that disturbance on to the thread.
What to make of Z.O.G. and co,
Save you the pain and embarrassment though I shall. But you know it is true. GJ has a set against any OT Christianity because they judge his proclivities. You have a set against Catholicism because you have deep seated emotional issues with your Catholic parents.
The sooner both of you simply admit these issues, and get over them, the better off we all will be. Agree?
I cannot speak for Johnson’s motives, but can speak for my motives.
You cannot dismiss my take on Christianity because of what happened in my family during my late teens. The doctrine of hell, often taught at home, was an extremely toxic factor for the mental health of millions of Christians throughout Christendom throughout the centuries: a contributing factor in the debilitation of White self-esteem and White self-image when compared to the robust psyche of the Greeks and the Romans, who didn’t believe in eternal damnation.
I said to Armor above that I was studying a book on Christian art: an art that I love. Gruenwald’s paintings in my recent post on Erasmus convey exactly what I am trying to say. Long before I was born there were issues in Christianity that have to be addressed if we are to have a complete picture of what is happening to us.
Monocausalists simply ignore these issues.
“In the East it was the other Christians who held Rome together for another thousand years.”
I just want to make two comments about this. First is that Gibbon at least makes it pretty clear that Christians in the East were often more interested in fighting each other than the infidel, and more willing to submit to infidel rule than that of heretics. That’s how the Turks finally got across the Hellespont, and why the Copts are in the situation they’re in now. The general pattern was: 300 years of losing ground to the Arabs, 300 years of regaining *some* of that ground (coinciding with the Crusades, and complete disunity on the Muslim side), 300 years of losing ground to the Turks. Second is that at the final siege of Constantinople, somewhere around 1% of the adult population actually took up arms and fought. The rest mostly prayed for deliverance.
I am willing to stipulate that Christianity had a major influence on, and should get most of the credit for, historical developments and final results in the East.
More generally, the historical Jesus is nearly irrelevant to me. I find the arguments indicating that there was no such actual individual quite interesting and entirely possible to be true, but it’s not important, because so many people act on the belief that he did exist, and on their understanding of what that means. Those actions are a far more pressing reality.
Hitler may undergo a similar metamorphosis, as people come to view him as the figure they need, in spite of unflattering evidence to the contrary. Compare the positions of pro-Hitler WN today with the very early Church; the persecutions are not dissimilar. And who makes a better mythical hero-king: the guy who cursed a fig tree, or the man who led a monumental war of defensive pre-emption and survival against the Bolshevik evil?
It’s really weird for me to come around to this conclusion, but my sense of history is that conditions are right for it. Especially if (as seems increasingly possible) the entire West is approaching an economic and demographic collapse that will leave little but rubble behind.