The Occidental Observer (TOO) has been publishing several articles on white pathology this week (this one on Sweden, only the latest). I feel that neither the editor of TOO nor the commenters have a grasp of what Secular Christianity is. For example, in the linked article Kevin MacDonald wrote:
It is vitally important that we come to grips with this suicidal phenomenon which is more common in Northern Europeans. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Sweden is the most secular country in the world, and its elites are hostile to Christianity and more than happy to donate Christian churches to the non-Christian newcomers, or destroying them to make housing for them.
Jack Frost commented:
“It has nothing to do with Christianity.”
I couldn’t disagree more. The striving after moral perfection you’re talking about is nothing if not Christian, as are the underlying ideals of charity and universal brotherhood. It’s inconceivable that any Jewish propaganda in that direction would have any appeal in the West if it hadn’t been so deeply Christian for so long. Christianity is where the West’s morality comes from, not propaganda. The sort of madness described above was unknown in whites of pre-Christian times.
As an evolutionist, that is difficult to accept. You have to think that people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics. Why keep that one and not, say, the doctrine of original sin or the idea of Hell? Why don’t we see Middle Eastern Christian groups with aggressively universalist ethics? Why has Christianity been compatible with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. in some times and places and with elite oppression during so much of Western history?
Besides my Tuesday entry where I quoted him I do not know well Frost’s point of view. Is he blaming Christianity for all our problems? I would disagree with such reductionism. In one of the recent TOO threads I quoted the formula that appears in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour: individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) plus egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) plus the empowerment of Jewry since the times of Napoleon has created a lethal brew for the white peoples. In other words: I don’t believe in a single cause of western decline, but in several etiological ingredients.
MacDonald does not believe that Christianity is a root cause of the problem. The questions he raises above can be explained if we introduce the notion of what in The Fair Race we call “Secular Christianity.”
Why keep that one and not, say, the doctrine of original sin or the idea of Hell?
Secular Christians—western atheists, agnostics or nihilists who subscribe liberalism—have not abandoned the idea of sin, only sublimated it. Post-Christian whites are supposed to be the “bad guys” of world history.
Regarding the idea of hell, this has been the most psychotic idea of all Western history. In my opinion, the doctrine of eternal damnation proves that whites were psychotic throughout Christendom. I have written extensively about this extremely disturbing doctrine in Spanish and only a little in English.
Suffice it to say that it was to be expected that when whites abandoned the idea of eternal torture that they allegedly deserved according to the monstrous god they used to worship, something would happen. The extreme self-harming violence of such idea had to find an outlet, an ogre of the superego so to speak: exactly what we may well be witnessing with these pious efforts to deliver the European soil to the downtrodden à la The Camp of the Saints.
Why don’t we see Middle Eastern Christian groups with aggressively universalist ethics?
Good question professor MacDonald. Here we can see that my “brew” metaphor is better than any of the monocausal explanations. Among whites universalism is hard wired since prehistory, which explains why sand niggers who have embraced Christianity are immune to it.
Why has Christianity been compatible with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. in some times and places and with elite oppression during so much of Western history?
And here we have the other major factor, capitalism, in action. The use of slaves was obviously motivated by economic interests. In the past greed trumped the compassionate message of the gospel. Let me put it in this way: in Yang times capitalism trumps Christian axiology, whereas in yin times like ours altruistic axiology trumps economic interests.
In one of the recent TOO threads I quoted the Swede from whom I learnt the term “Secular Christianity.” I tried to explain the TOO commentariat that Christianity is not only dogmatics, but axiology (moral grammar, ultimate ethics) as well. From this viewpoint modern liberals, however rabid anti-Christian may seem, have not really broken away from their grandparents’ religion.
The Swedes who have been the subject of a couple of recent articles at TOO are a good example. What’s the most classic Swedish film that comes to mind? Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, which depicts a quixotic knight (played by Max von Sydow, pic below) and his pragmatic squire who return to Sweden after fighting in the Crusades. Saving the Holy Land from the infidels (a Yang goal) may no longer be fashionable, but fulfilling the promises of the Sermon of the Mount (a yin goal), which contains the central tenets of Christian discipleship, has become mandatory, especially the Beatitudes. As a TOO commenter put it, “The idea that deluded, race denying, libtard Swedes think that they are creating a humanitarian superpower by genetically obliterating themselves, is one of the most perverse forms of masochistic megalomania that I have ever heard of.” But this is only the modern equivalent of the quixotic, and therefore disastrous, Children’s Crusade of 1212 (which recent scholarship has revealed was conducted not exactly by children but by quixotic commoners).
Presently whites are as religious Don Quixotes as they have always been, especially the pure Nordid atheists and secular humanists who claim to hate Christianity. But with honorable exceptions, like Alex Linder and company, MacDonald and most white nationalists ignore it.
I like to think of Christianity / Secular Christianity as a circle. Once you dismiss half of it, the dogma, the remaining axiological half metastasizes and tries to grow in the form of a circle again; this time without any need of gospel fictions. With due time dogmatics is thoroughly dismissed and the area of Secular Christianity becomes a full circle again. Every neo-Christian wants to be a quixotic knight in one way or another. The Swede wrote:
Our progressivist paradigm is based on Christian ethics. The Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West.” The current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization.
It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes. So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, [presently] it causes the population explosion in the world.
Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet.
But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only to us but also to them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.
This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity. The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form.
And not only the population explosion thanks to Western aid. Secular Christianity is behind the acceptance of those masses of non-white immigrants into our soils. Frost is right above that it is inconceivable that any Jewish propaganda in that direction would have any appeal in the West if it hadn’t been so deeply Christian for so long (my emphasis). Furthermore, the Swede claims, in my opinion accurately, that since in neo-Christianity there is no sacrificial Christ, we ourselves, the still guilty post-Christians, must do the sacrifice—what is happening in Sweden!
In the article about “Schweitzer’s niglets” which expands the above quote you will also surmise a possible reply to one of MacDonald’s critical statements of Frost’s views:
You have to think that people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics.
Well, quixotic Albert Schweitzer exemplifies why once you lose the credibility in the gospels, Christian axiology is not only maintained but reinforced.
Apparently the concept of a witches’ brew containing several ingredients is too strong food for thought to be digested even by the best minds in white nationalism. I gave up trying to convey my complex ideas to the commenters of those TOO threads, and even the site admin removed a couple of my posts.
However, since MacDonald is still taking issue with Frost in today’s comments section, I’d love if someone posts a link to this article in that thread.
23 replies on “On secular Christianity”
My guess is that since the professor works closely with conservative Americans he will repress the possibility that Christian axiology may be a larger factor than the Jewish problem.
I have listened the recent Majority Rights conversation of MacDonald, Guessedworker and Daniel S. Approximately after 1:00 hour of talking MacDonald said that the Third Reich represented an “aggressive nationalism” which now is “completely obsolete”; that Tom Sunic has criticized it in his conferences and that “it has to go completely today.” He added that he liked the idea of the European Union to protect the European culture though not in its present, leftist form.
Well, well. As regular visitors can see, recently I merged the subtitle of this blog, Gens alba conservanda est, with the article about a specific racial classification that I believe is the most accurate, now linked at the sidebar’s top. What MacDonald and Sunic are missing is that there’s a substantial off-white population in Europe, especially close the Mediterranean.
On this one I believe that Sebastian Ronin is right and white nationalists wrong. White nationalism does not exist. All nationalism is ethno-nationalism: a nationalist Swede cannot be moved by, say, the Greek flag or vice versa. An European Union that swung to the far right would still end in the annihilation of the white race if Scandinavians were allowed to marry, say, the Sicilians.
Here you will understand why I am linking the racial classification article at the top of this site: many white nationalists, so immersed in egalitarianism among “whites,” do not even know what’s white or Aryan (see the abstract of that long article that I recently added thanks to the comments of Theoderich).
Curiously, in the same talk between Guessedworker and MacDonald (Daniel’s input in these conversations is always superfluous), Guessedworker said that those individualist WNsts who use Nazi symbols online are mere poseurs that would not last five minutes in the Nuremberg meeting celebrated by real Nazis. So true.
Finally, Manu Rodríguez, the Spanish author who unlike most white nationalists is aware of the Jewish problem and the Christian problem, has replied to MacDonald here.
“Christianity shaped the West, and Christians spent two centuries rooting out injustices that lingered. There is, in fact, no tradition that has such a rich and beautiful history of defending the poor and the afflicted as the Christian tradition.”
It was the Christians who several times called me “liar” at MacDonald’s forum.
Read the links. It is Christians explaining that their religion shaped the do-gooder morality of the Left. Christians who want to convert Leftists constantly stress that without Christianity, everything they hold dear about human rights, women’s rights, anti-racism, care for the poor and protection of the weak, is completely irrational from a materialist point of view, and can only be understood from a Judeo-Christian foundation. After all, according to the Leftist, we are just monkeys and machines. Why should these have inalienable rights?
In 2013 a commenter of this blog said something about another Bergman film. He wrote:
Consider the 1960 film The Virgin Spring directed by Ingmar Bergman. Set during the middle ages, it depicts the tragedy of a Christian family (although the daughter’s maidservant secretly worships Odin). During the course of her Christian duties the father’s daughter is raped and murdered by evil men. However, by accident the father discovers those responsible, and extracts brutal revenge.
There, the film should have ended. But then, overcome with Christian guilt over his justified revenge killing, the father vows to build a church upon the ground where his daughter was raped and killed–a martyr for Christ in her own way. Would that he had built a shrine to Odin, instead.
Today we know the film’s punchline. Sweden, like the entire West, suffers the consequences of Christian guilt, whereas Odin left town at the Ragnarök or, as we know it more familiarly, Götterdämmerung.
There are many, many reasons why the white peoples of the world today are in demographic and cultural decline. It has little to do with christianity. The strongest supporters of multiculturalism, tolerance and political correctness at American colleges are … white atheist or secular liberals. They reject even the existence of god and claim to reject christianity. They have no religion, but they adhere to a liberal humanism. Churches were forced “to move with the spirit of the times” and conform to a consensus society ruled by secular or atheist politicians.
Did you even read the above article? Did you even read the long section on “The Christian problem” I mentioned to you in the other thread? Have you read Revilo Oliver, William Pierce or Tom Sunic? Have you read the “Red Giant” article in this blog or any of the other articles linked here?
In this blog I usually start getting impatient with those Christians who comment here and never digest what has been told in any of those writings.
It is just important to point out, that secular or atheist liberals of postmodern times would never admit to being christian. I did read your article, thank you.
But this article is only the tip of the iceberg of what we have said in this blog, condensed in The Fair Race. Have you at least read “The Red Giant” by Conservative Swede? The ruling idea behind the present article can only be grasped in that light. Oliver also wrote about it decades before the Swede, and in far more formal books. But here I must explain it for WNsts.
The author of this website often incorrectly attributes race mixing with christianity. In fact, race mixing is an inevitable consequence of colonialism. In Alexander the Great’s Empire, race mixing or ethnic mixing was very common. And his empire was pagan. Christianity did not exist back then. Usually when you send young men to work or to be soldiers in a colony, and dont send the women with them, the young men would almost inevitably intermarry or have children from local women. Simply out of boredom, loneliness and biological need for companionship and family. And back in XIX centuruy or XVIII century race mixing was a tool of assimilation and integration of the respective colony of the particupar european white country. Colonies were necessary back then for prestige, power, trade, resources, political and economic power of a nation. Also since race mixing took place only in colonies, it had no effect on home contries. In white homelands there was plenty of demographic growth to offeset any demographic and social losses of race mixing in colonial environments.
You are still ignorant of this site. What you said of Alexander has been said here many many times. I really would recommend your reading of Pierce’s Who We Are, excerpted in The Fair Race, before trying to figure out without any substantial reading of this site what’s exactly our POV.
And the same could be said of what happened in the colonies: tons of articles here, especially by Kemp, have approached the subject.
Mr. Tort :
I find myself in agreement with you about quite a few points you make about Christianity. I wonder though, I wonder why you never include the influence of Existentialism, of Nietzsche’s “god is dead” and Existentialism in general…
I removed the rest of your comment because you have iterated it in the past so many times. What I told Oogenhand I tell to you: I am fed up that Christians are the only ones who are commenting here. This is not a site for them. Oogenhand even had the audacity of rationalising the doctrine of eternal torture and I just removed his post. He does not even seem to have the least consideration of what I have shared in this site about that Christian doctrine (the subject, by the way, of the last book of my Hojas Susurrantes). If you are a Christian, please consider quitting to comment here (as I quit commenting at The Occidental Observer once I saw it’s biased towards Christianity).
Christian? You are confusing Theism with Christianity. Jupiter sends his enemies to Tarterus, Odin sends his enemies to Niflheim.
Yesterday, I visited a gated community showing them a board with an inverted pentagram and threats of hell and damnation, implying that it is the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims that are going to burn and burn and burn. Ever heard of Bernstein’s Wager, that is, attacking the “faith monsters” on their own turf?
You cannot save the world with grotesque doctrines, especially in these grotesque times.
I always thought that the white race was comprised of a select group of unique and deep thinkers and that in the darkest moment of their collective existence, these thinkers would come out of their anonymity and easily conquer the white masses with greater intelligence and perceptive ability.
The reality. These unique and deep thinkers, I am one, are not pure white, are not only very few (so it seems) but are not being heard by the alleged mass of white intellectuals.
Back to Christianity will only keep the circle. I thought to define the European exceptionalism was his creativity and empathy. But what I see is that, at least the not-so-average-joe do not seem very inclined to understand and adhere to the very thing that supposedly defines him in relation to other populations, superior creativity.
The conservative narrative, long time, is retrograde while the white-nationalist narrative is practically unrealistic (by practical and empathetic perspectives) and disastrous. I see no cognitive component of the legendary European creativity, especially among conservatives.
Muslims are like that for a long time. There is no chance of progress, real evolution.
Including these terms work perfectly to continue playing the Jewish game, divide and conquer. Jews take ownership of the internal differences and use them to divide the population. The population on their own, will continue the work.
The idiocy of fetishism in relation to IQ, works perfectly to keep us in ignorance regarding intelligence, as it is distributed in all aspects, as it interacts with other elements such as empathy, in short, understand what really is the intelligence.
The self knowledge would be the first step to actually being on par with those who know themselves very well, Jews. Their astuteness, is precisely a result of this capacity.
Perhaps it is more realistic to use Christianity as part of meeting part of the white population, but certainly many of his best not return to the flock. The analytical, investigative ability of many intelligent white, which is also one of their exceptionalities, did them correctly to reject Christianity.
As I recently spoke at McDonald blog. The new white man’s religion should be your race and not absurd beliefs in the Middle East fables:
The rejection of Christianity is the rejection of the Jewish hypocrisy inculcated. Again, what differ “the white man” to others.
They help people who are not racially related, they help nonhuman animals, they use their thinking skills in improving the societies, they think (more) empathically to others. Most of these people are genuine leftists, spiritual, secular, religious conservatives who practice kindness that is handled in the Bible or freethinkers. This actions are bad.
The white sake it does not seem to be a defensible cause because when someone talks about equality, the white nationalists and other conservatives, defend inequality. The problem is not to defend inequality, it is to defend the unjust inequality and many white nationalists do.
A large, enormous comment again, forgive me. But the way it is, white sake can only evolve in all aspects, start thinking in fact, something that is not doing. And not just activism, but also the literal action.
Thanks for posting a link of this article at TOO.
The common theme of both Christianity and post-Christian Western thought is that “Humanity” is a class of cosmic significance. It’s the only thing “made in God’s image”, or the only thing with “the power of reason”, or the only thing with “equal rights”, and all Humans are equally Human and so deserve the benefits of Humanity.
Darwinism was entertaining when it was explaining birds and fish, but when modern Humans fell under its scrutiny it was quickly jettisoned. Human Reason means reason that’s subordinate to Humanity, racism necessitated the end of Western rationalism. Likewise, true “universalism” would mean homeless shelters for raccoons; what we have is Humanism, meant to be universal within the class and absent outside of it.
Contra Nietzsche, I don’t think The Sermon on the Mount or the crucifixion was the main problem with Christianity. From a racial point of view I think it was whole metaphysical framework of Human Souls, Human Sin, and Human Salvation. It took the weaker humanism of Greek philosophy and wrung it through Levantine narcissism until God’s Chosen Species had become so self-absorbed it decided it didn’t even need God to begin with.
This is Himmler:
Today we are in the middle of another revolutionary epoch. Revolutionary scientific understandings of genetics and race have found political expression in the National Socialist world view. Once again a world of appearances collapsed, which had concealed from our eyes the true nature of humanity and the connections between body, soul, and spirit.
The foundation of the Christian worldview is the doctrine of the separation of body and soul; the soul and spirit belong to a world independent of the physical, free of natural laws, and they are even to a certain degree able to free the human body from its natural setting.
It is a major shift when racial theory recognizes the unity of body, soul and spirit and sees them as a whole that follows the eternal laws of nature.
A new epoch is coming, one perhaps even more revolutionary than that resulting from Copernicus’s work. Ideas about humanity and peoples that have endured for millennia are collapsing. The Nordic spirit is struggling to free itself from the chains that the Church and the Jews have imposed on Germandom. And it is not only a spiritual battle, for it finds expression in National Socialism’s struggle for power, as well as in today’s battlefields to the east and west. The coming victory will bring a fundamental change in our view of the world, and opens the way for Nordic mankind to a new and greater future.
Himmler was much closer to the truth than Nietzsche. His quote is included in an article of The Fair Race, and gives you an idea why white nationalists are myopic when acknowledging the Jewish problem but not the Christian problem.
On secular Christianity, the “witches brew,” and most of the other points in the article, Bravo! I know that at least one commenter has tried to say some of these things and was censored. Some of these arguments get stopped by the moderator at TOO. Even those that get through are just not understood. The editors and commenters jump to conclusions frequently and do not “listen,” so to speak.
Everyone has his own pet theory and, as mentioned, is determined that only one issue is of consequence. I am not commenting much on the article because I agreed with practically all of it.
Welcome to this forum Bonny Alba.
Posdata: Bien hecho!