In 2012 on The Occidental Observer Franklin Ryckaert answered this question: “Why can’t we have a Christianity that is compatible with some form of race realism?”:
That would indeed be desirable, especially for Christian America. Unfortunately Christianity has exactly the opposite qualities a “race realist” ideology would require. And what are those?
1) Taking the material world as real.
2) Thinking in terms of biological groups (“races”).
3) Seeing the human races as different and unequal.
4) Seeing the world as a battle field of competing biological groups.
5) Thinking in terms of the survival and flourishing of the own biological group.
6) Thinking in long terms (centuries, millennia).
Christianity has quite the opposite qualities. To wit:
1) Unlike the Indian religions Christianity doesn’t consider the material world as an illusion (“maya”) from which one has to be liberated, it sees the world as created by God but corrupted by man. Still it is wrong to strife for worldly advancement in this “fallen world” as long as it has not been redeemed by the “resurrection”, for which one has to wait.
2) Christianity doesn’t think in terms of groups, let alone biological groups; it thinks in terms of individuals whose souls have to be saved.
3) Human races may be outwardly different, but inwardly they have the same souls equally capable of salvation.
4) The world may seem to be a battlefield, but the task of man is not to win the battle on that battlefield but to bring “peace on earth”.
5) Moral is not what is good for the own group. It is exactly the opposite: what is good for the other. Christianity is therefore the most “other directed” ideology in the world.
As you see it would require an impossible juggling trick to change Christianity into a group evolutionary strategy for the white man, but that is what Judaism actually is for the Jews, as professor MacDonald has demonstrated so well.
5 replies on “Unredeemable religion”
This is an excellent and articulate argument for those uncertain on how to attack Christianity, especially a Christian who considers himself a white nationalist.
Reblogged this on Kent's space.
On the contrary, given that false Christianity has no history at its source — no actual root in the Christ it speaks of — I think it an exceptionally easy task to define an impeccable Christian religion we could adopt without playing “tricks.”
Judaism would be very helpful in this project, since it demonizes Jesus in the Talmud as the bastard son of a Gentile and as the ultimate anti-Jew. Why not take the Jews at their word? Jesus called forth a people to critique the Jews, to displace and replace them as God’s Chosen people. That is why the Talmud keeps him perpetually boiling in excrement.
Since we want a true religion, we take as an axiom that Jesus resolutely stood against error. So we accept no teaching as “Christian” if it is contrary to fact and sound reason. That is our Rock.
Now our faith comprehends reality and supports the pursuit of racial excellence. Practical religion. True Christianity.
I dont see the significance of number “1)” How does seeing the world as illusion help nationalism? If anything dose not seeing the world as unimportant create complacency. In that way I see Christianity as too much like Buddhism in teaching people to detach themselves from the world and become celibate meek monks. I am happy and content with samsara and desire my people to inherit the Earth through strength. We should fight for our tribe as that is where our future reincarnations will be and there is no better thing that can be imagined than that.
Do you believe in the unhealthy theory of reincarnation?