I’m just saying that the source of the moral justification for the West’s immigration problem is to be found in its Christian past; that the entire worldview of life as some kind of moral contest is a Middle Eastern import that didn’t exist in whites before the coming of Christianity. Saying, as you did, that it has “nothing to do with Christianity” because the elites in Sweden are secular and have turned against the churches just makes me think you don’t see how two thousand years of Christianity have seeped into every atom of the white man’s bones. I’ll be convinced that the Swedish elites have turned against Christianity when you can show me they’ve turned their backs on the Christian ideals of universal brotherhood, peace, love, and charity.
I find it extremely odd, to say the least, that I should be the one to have to point out to someone who is frequently considered to be one of the world’s foremost anti-Semites, that maybe, just maybe, trusting a moral system developed by Jews, and built around the idea that one Jewish rabbi in particular is God, is not the best of strategies for white people concerned about limiting Jewish influence.
Nevertheless, that’s the situation I find myself in. KMD [Kevin MacDonald] and many of his acolytes, who unabashedly here tout Christianity as good for whites, must also then be of the opinion that, in at least this one instance, whites benefited from their association with Jews; that the relationship was symbiotic, not parasitic in kind. How this relates to the central thesis of this site, which as I understand it is that the Jewish race is locked in a struggle with the white race and is attempting to dominate it, is unclear.
KMD appears to think this struggle only commenced in the twentieth century; that there’s no possibility that Christianity itself was developed as a weapon of interracial warfare to subvert whites. I don’t think that reconciles very well with sociobiological theory. If the races are at odds, then haven’t they always been at odds? Aren’t they, according to the principles of Darwin, necessarily at odds, since in a world of finite resources a win for one is a loss for the other? Why should that have only begun in the twentieth century? It would be interesting to see how he deals with that thesis, which is something that Nietzsche appeared to believe, and also Revilo Oliver. If KMD has set this out somewhere, I haven’t seen it.
Then we have these two rather threadbare arguments presented above, which I’ve seen many times before, and I’m sure others are equally familiar with. In the main, they are:
- Christianity was the religion of the West during the period of its expansion, therefore it can’t be something inherently wrong with Christianity that’s the source of the modern problem with whites.
This is supposed to be the strongest argument.
- There’s “real” Christianity (which is smuggled in here as “traditional” Christianity), and subverted Christianity. The former is A-okay for whites, the latter is poison.
The first doesn’t deal with the argument which compares Christianity to a cancer. Cancer, too, doesn’t necessarily kill immediately. You can have cancer for years until it suddenly metastasizes and kills you. You can have it and be apparently strong and have many accomplishments; but nevertheless, you have it, and it will eventually kill you. So this argument in favor of Christianity doesn’t actually come to grips with the charge against it. It’s not a strong argument at all.
The second argument is a confused muddle. “Traditional” Christianity is supposed to be good for whites, yet in the next breath, KMD says that throughout history, Christianity has been on both sides of every issue. So which side is “traditional”? In the American Civil War, was it the South or the North? Were the Puritans traditional, “real” Christians, or not? Since the term is never defined and no examples are ever given, it’s hard to avoid the impression that “traditional” Christianity is whatever the author approves of, and subverted Christianity is whatever the author disapproves of.
Of course, the implication is that “traditional” Christianity is not corrosive to white racial solidarity; that Christianity hasn’t always been universalistic and has at times been racial. But then, in the next breath, he refers to the early Church Fathers, who were anti-Semitic because the Jews weren’t good race mixers like they thought Christians were supposed to be. So it would appear that the early Church Fathers weren’t “traditional” either; and also that the race mixing proclivities of Christianity are of very ancient vintage.
How then can it be argued that there’s nothing inherent in Christianity that subverts race? Is KMD saying that the Christianity of the early Church Fathers had already been subverted? By whom? When? Some details would be nice.
24 replies on “Frost responds to MacDonald”
This is so important that I won’t add new entries the rest of the month—hope the message will sink in the regular visitors…
Update of 4:49 PM:
This is not common “infighting”. It’s more like what happened to me before, when I was involved in counter-jihad. I broke away from their sites when I realized the Jewish problem was taboo among them. Similarly, I abandoned WN when realizing that the Christian problem is taboo for many WNsts.
See the articles of my friend Manu Rodríguez, translated for this site, to figure out what do we mean.
These are very stupid arguments. Do you actually think that the enemies of the white race will be impressed and say “whoa Nelly we better be careful! Those awful racists are Spartans and atheists now”. I’m sure the Jews, liberals, browns, and blacks are just trembling with fear. But, I’ll tell you what would scare the hell out of them. It would be an awakened, angry, and morally enraged population segment of Christianity.
You really are not saying how Frost’s diagnosis is “stupid”. If Christian axiology is a more primary etiological factor of white decline than Jewish subversion, that must be stated as such. And being conscious of the Christian problem doesn’t mean that we are atheists.
Christianity is dying. It won’t be around by the next century. I’m positive. That’s why studying energy devolution, as Sebastian Ronin’s party does, is paramount.
You claimed in the other thread that you have read most of the linked articles of “The Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem”. If so you might have hit the phrase in one of those articles that the population bubble is gonna pop later in this century. When the first billion start to die, white survivors will pay due attention to post-Christians like us and see that, with foresight, we blamed the culprit: Christianity. After all, it was the Christian sense of brotherhood and helping the third world what caused the population explosion in the first place. (You can imagine Spartans, Republican Romans, Goths or Nazis had they been allowed their empire, helping the third world with modern medicine and all sorts of aids!)
The Daily Stormer is fake. White nationalism is fake. Southern nationalism is fake. Kevin MacDonald and other scholars are myopic: they ignore that the megalodon of Christianity is a much larger factor of western decline than the shark of Judaism. Only people like Hitler, Himmler, Pierce and a few others—who were not “atheists” in the sense that you’re implying—saw what was happening.
The image I put in this post says it all.
So help along the process of its death, by giving Caesar’s Messiah a serious reading – the book, and not just the somewhat cursory video. Saying that you “don’t buy” something implies (dis)belief rather than intellectually rigorous examination.
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, I said; and I have studied the New Testament intensively from the secular viewpoint. Have you read the literature in this site by Randel Helms and Joseph Hoffmann I called your attention to? We don’t need conspiracy theories to understand the NT.
No such thing can exist: Scripture condemns anger, forbids resistance to evil, and commands Christians rather to love their enemies. Christians cannot awaken as Christians. That is the problem.
Christians are otherworldly. What Christian would not willingly negate his life in this world that he might be with Jesus in the next?
what church group do you hang with?
All universialism is horrible and frankly fatal to people whom in any way believe in the fourteen words. Christianity, as an asset of businessmen and self-help gurus needs to die and hopefully will. But, if vital and fundamental Christianity is so bad for us, then why are the promoters of left-wing degeneracy in universities, government, and entertainment working so hard to vilify it and rub it out? They spend a lot of energy and money doing it too.
Christianity is the foundation upon which Communism is premised. Communism—or Leftism—is just a modernized and Jesus-less version of Christianity.
Communists attack Christianity for the same reason that Catholics and Protestants fought the Thirty Years War and Catholics and Muslims fought in the Crusades. They’re competing religions.
Jews are not as smart as they think. Consider the bond bubble that the Fed (Bernanke and Yellen are Jews) has inflated. You don’t need ISIS terrorists acquiring the atomic bomb when the damage that the Fed is doing to the inflated economy will pop this decade or so.
It’s a huge mistake to overestimate the enemy. Ultimately white leftists are sitting on a barrel of wildfire too: negroes, spics, yellows in the Democratic Party. After the crash these ethnic groups will fight with each other on the streets. Peak liberalism will pop too.
This mass die-off of the world’s population predicted to occur later this century better be coming, otherwise our race will be in even more dire circumstances. Arthur Kemp said the White race would be 3% of the world’s population by 2100, while the United Nations said Africans would be 40% of the world’s population by 2100. Neither of them took into account a popping of the population bubble during the 21st century.
Absolutely! Protestanism, RCC, Commies, KosherCons, and Liberals are all competing worldviews. Another way to put it is that they are competing metaphysical worldviews. Why metaphysical? Whether you believe in nothing or something, theoretically it still effects your life and understanding. That’s just the nature of how human life works.
I think you placed this comment here instead of its right place: a response to Brandon, above.
These last posts on Christianity have been so shattering and awesome for me.
I totally despise Christianity, and this Jack Frost guy animates this hatred in such a lively and vigorous way. Comparing it to a metastasizing cancer is just brilliant!
I too wish we would totally ditch the Christ-insanity and all related moral phenomena this ugly kiken-nonsense has spawned.
I think if we utterly purge it from the Aryan spirit then we will have come a long way in dealing with the Jew. Only then will we be able to exterminate our enemies without the least bit of remorse. This Jewish future will demand a certain cold-bloodedness that most Whites have been much too cowardly to come to terms with.
Welcome Brothermattiex to this blog. Alas, apparently not every racist thinks the same. This for example is what I’ve just posted in my Facebook page:
I would agree with some people that nationalism can be a word that implies some monolithic border. So, I would be against the white nationalist protect our borders crowd. The borders are really in our minds and what territories we are willing to occupy. White people need living space period, no matter where that space is on the planet. When it comes to a world collapse we shouldn’t bring a knife to a gun fight. White people need to be more than “I’m white, I’ve read more books by Pierce and Nietzsche than you so stay out of my refrigerator and stop raping my wife.”
It is equally important to purge the Gutmensch as it is to purge the Untermensch. The origin of the Gutmensch is without a doubt the Christian faith, and it has achieved an evermore disgusting form in the secular, patricidal “children” and “grandchildren” (eg. liberalism, communism) of Christianity. Each new generation considers the previous to be “wicked” and “oppressive”, and therefore tries to destroy it in the name of the inherited core values of equality, fraternity and liberty.
Just for the record, Gutmensch (derogatory, ironic) = do-gooder, a person over the top concerned with political correctness. We have millions of white Gutmenschen today.
I might add to the abovementioned that as Jewry is the “parent” of Christianity, Christian antisemitism is congruent with leftist anti-Christianity. Nietzsche discovered that this Christian antisemitism is an expression of the “slave”-mentality/ morality of the Christian goodness-junkie. This is the reason for his commonly perceived philosemitism. Antisemitism must have a basis in “master” values. The disgusting features of the Jews are thus not their “wickedness”, oppression and exploitation; but their incessant falsifications, lies about themselves, and their creation of utopias where completely bovine forms of existence are promised.
I have a completely honest question. If nature exists to produce families and generations, then how do you get past the constant upheaval? The child always rebels against the parent.
As each generation I have described succeeds in bringing the core values closer to their logical fulfillment (extreme), what must happen is that the core values must be replaced with values that benefit racial survival, refinement and expansion. If these new values gain a dominant position in the popular subconsciousness and are taught to future generations, perhaps the children of the future will rebell with the intention to bring the new values to their fulfillment?
If you ask me how to achieve this, I don’t have an answer.
Indeed, the gutmensch are the main reason that the third-world population is exploding: all the Aryan medical care that has reduced infant mortality.
I tried to point out exactly the above to Dr MacDonald in years past, & I was banned from Occidental Observer, or anyway for 3 years I was no longer able to comment. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing, Hammerheart. I’m just curious: did you save a copy of your comments there? The professor has never replied to this question by Jack Frost posted at his webzine: “What is the evidence that, even in pre-Christian times, Europeans were prone to moral panics and excessive guilt and/or altruism? I’ve never seen any and find it hard to believe there is any.”
MacDonald’s working hypothesis, the JP + genetic individualism among whites, suffers from the same myopia that common WNsts suffer: they don’t want to see that Christian axiology enabled the JP. No WNst in the whole blogosphere has remotely said anything substantial about my observation that, even sans Jews, the Iberians ruined their bloodline in the Americas (and the Portuguese even in the peninsula itself).
American-style WN must be rejected and NS embraced instead.