‘Since I am not a believer…’
This is surely a strange admission for MacDonald to make, since in the preface to Giles Corey’s book, he endorsed Christianity as the way forward for whites, writing ‘I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centred around the adaptive aspects of Christianity…’
Is he dissembling here in an attempt to preserve the illusion of his scholarly objectivity, or does he really mean being a believing Christian is only for other whites, of lower IQ perhaps, a case of do as I say, not as I do?
Also, he doesn’t appear to have thought very carefully about the conclusion of that sentence in the preface I just quoted, which continues ‘the aspects that produced Western expansion, innovation, discovery, individual freedom, economic prosperity, and strong family bonds’.
The West was Christian, yes. But how did Christianity make any contribution at all to expansion, innovation, and discovery? Where does Jesus recommend his followers go conquer the world? Where does it say in the Bible that Christianity has anything to do with innovation or discovery? Nowhere, as far as I know.
Further, Christianity’s track record with such endeavours isn’t very good, to put it mildly. It destroyed all the beginnings of science in the ancient world, and those texts that survived only survived by accident, having been proscribed after the Christian takeover of the Roman Empire. Christianity has typically opposed scientific innovation, from Bruno and Galileo right up to Darwin, whose theory of evolution, ironically enough for an evolutionist such as MacDonald, it continues to oppose.
And it can scarcely be doubted that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have been completely corrupted and actively subverted so that millions of White Americans have been swept up by the multiculturalism and replacement-level immigration as moral imperatives. Jewish activism has certainly been part of this, but traditional Christian universalism and moral egalitarianism are also part of the equation. One might say that Christianity, despite periods when it was highly adaptive, carried the seeds of its own destruction—a chink in its armour that made it relatively easy to subvert once the culture of the West had been subverted by our new hostile elite.
But what can he mean when he both affirms that traditional Christianity’s universalism and egalitarianism were ‘seeds of its own destruction’, and that it was at the same time ‘subverted’? One online dictionary defines the word subvert thusly: ‘To overthrow (something established or existing); to cause the downfall, ruin, or destruction of; to undermine the principles of; corrupt’.
Christianity’s principles of universalism and egalitarianism in this case are being implemented, not overthrown. Far from being ‘subverted’, that Christianity has been faithful to its principles is precisely what he’s complaining about! Insofar as I can make any sense at all of what he’s saying, it seems he advocates a revival of the old corrupt Christianity that, not always successfully, tried to ignore these principles.
Seems like a losing proposition all around.