Apologetics

Editor’s Note: The following is Lucius Vanini’s response to the latest Christian apologetic article appearing in Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer (TOO):
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The article makes much of an absence of race-related doctrine in Christianity, and the author seems to think that such absence leaves Christians free to be White Nationalists if they choose. Well, they are thus free to choose–to be at odds with moral doctrines that are stated and explicit. If Christian morality enjoined taking rather than giving, pride rather than humility, fierce retaliation instead of non-resistance and even the invitation of further aggression, and bias toward the strong and highly-placed instead of for the lowly and poor (like blacks usually are), then becoming White Nationalists would be consonant with Christianity.

But Christian morality does not so enjoin. No, it says the opposite. Hence, while it doesn’t explicitly tell us to be racially self-abnegating, its all-embracing altruism, its enmity toward ‘selfishness’, are very consonant with racial self-abnegation–if indeed they don’t imply the rectitude thereof. So, again, when Merkel said that her migrant-friendly politics are alone consistent with Christian teachings, she was spot on. In contrast, Whites who combine self-identification as Christians with Viking in-group preference, together with a readiness to strike back against threats to their group, are hypocrites–they behave against the grain of the creed they profess to honour. Europeans did this for ages and thus (with the help of the Pagan revolt known as the Renaissance) were able to revive European greatness after a long nadir. But there were drawbacks: (1) they were monsters of falsity; (2) their lip service to Christianity preserved the religion for such Europeans as were able to practice its morality of un-selfing.

That Christianity doesn’t talk much about race is, at the very least, no positive help to the development of White in-group preference. So why must we even consider it, since there are creeds which do explicitly deal with race and explicitly enjoin White Racialism? There’s the Cosmotheism of William Luther Pierce and the Creativity of Ben Klassen. These Racialist creeds not only call for doing whatever will enable Whites to preserve themselves, to prevail and prosper, but enable Whites to be self-consistent, whole, honest, without hypocrisy.

The article seems to place importance on the Bible’s recognition that there are different kinds of humans. Why? Has that any more importance than remarking that a pine is different from an oak tree? Such a prosaic observation doesn’t say that different kinds can’t be integrated or even amalgamated. And as long as nothing is said about preferring the kind which one belongs to, it’s of no help to us; and again there still are the other parts which contravene self-preference, pride, resistance–things all of a piece with racial White self-assertion.

That Christians today don’t ask blacks or non-White Hispanics to ‘jettison’ their racial identity, while Whites are urged to jettison theirs, is a wholly natural outcome of Christian ‘otherself-interest’ and condemnation of egoism and pride. These Christians–and the bigger group, the post-Christians who’ve inherited Christian altruism while having dispensed with the metaphysics–think they are being righteous or moral because they are selfless–since they, being White, are willing to let those who are not White get a leg up on them. Pure decadence, of course.

The failure of Saul of Tarsus (whom the articles refer to as Paul) to condemn boundaries between peoples begs another consideration to accompany it–assuming that he did believe in a Second Coming which would sweep away the world order and replace it with something quite different. His not decrying something as a problem could very well have betokened an unconcern about it–a contempt for something whose days are numbered.

So as not to write an article here in the comments section, I’ll limit myself to the above. Yet I must say I’m struck by the author’s partiality to Jews. Funny, in his posts in TOO’s comments section, which I’ve read and controverted, I saw sweeping statements about the incurable wickedness of Jews. His disapprobation thereof is such that I recall him asking, during a discussion of Jews’ racial nature, why we should even want Jews to be White–as if our desire could determine their ethnic/genetic character; and that sounded to me like pretty deep hatred. Well, such hatred would be understandable enough–if it weren’t for the fact that he also derives his beloved creed, his pantheon of soothsayers, and his very God from that same ethnic group! Saul, and every one of the twelve disciples and the apostles was an ethnic Jew, as was the carpenter of Nazareth, born the son of the God of Israel and a scion of the House of King David of Israel. Hmm. Do the bad guys include the very best guys?

And I’d be very curious to know whether the author contends, like some Christians do, that Christianity and Judaism are wholly separate phenomena. He seems to think that passages of the Old Testament, the pre-Christian Judaic scriptures, are one with his creed. Well, if so, isn’t the messianic religion adapted for the goyim in some degree an extension of the original messianism just for Jews, such that tenets of the latter also apply to adherents of the former?

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Lucius Vanini added the next day:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

I can’t resist asking the article’s author the following questions:

1) Does he recommend White Nationalism to the congregation of his church? I notice that, among non-Christian White Nationalists, Christians constantly stump for Jesus and Saul; but I don’t get a sense that they try to favorably dispose non-WN Christian congregations toward White ‘racialism’ (or, the term I prefer, ‘racism’–because that’s what discrimination based on race is, notwithstanding that it may consist merely in preferring Whites to all others).

If the author isn’t trying to publish a White-Advocacy article on an ecclesiastical website, or making comments sympathizing with WN perspectives under Christian articles, it’ll confirm my belief that he thinks Christians have a better idea of what’s important than White Advocates do. Equally it underscores another reason why Christians who say they’re WNs are a problem for the Cause–namely that their creed is more important to them than are peculiarly White interests.

2) How can he assure his co-religionists–or even himself–that rejecting intimate association with sincere black Christians is righteous? Are not such blacks his brothers in Christ? How can he prefer infidel Whites to his brothers in Christ? Since race is what most counts with me, White Christians like him are allowed into the Ethnostate I dream of, whereas blacks who share my religious views are excluded. Can he share my biases and thus be a thoroughgoing White Partisan?

Remember, his creed doesn’t say that preferring Whites is important, but places supreme importance on accepting Christ as Redeemer. If Whites don’t accept Jesus as their savior–and perhaps a majority of WN Whites never will–how can a true Christian prefer them to blacks who do?

3) Talking of a coming holy kingdom wherein where all conflicts have been ended, is he aware that the Christian expectation thereof is a reason why Whites don’t espouse White Advocacy? I get around, not only in cyberspace but geographically; and wherever I go, I talk to Conservative Whites about White partisanship; and time after time I hear them say, ‘All these troubles are signs of the last days, and it’s good they’re happening, because it means Jesus is coming soon and only he can make things right’. Though RockaBoatus [the author of the TOO piece] might differ with them about the timetable, a whole lot of them think that if anything the Second Coming is past due; and I don’t see how he knows better than they. Christians have believed that the end of ‘this world’ is nigh ever since they heard ‘There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming into his Kingdom’ (so says the literary character Jesus in the books of Matthew, Luke and Mark)–and that’s going on two millennia ago…

Of course, the whole narrative is aware of snake-oil salesmen, mere mythology. But the upshot in any case is that when people think troubles herald an end to all trouble, they’ll accept them; and when they expect a supernatural personage to make everything right, they’ll rest content with ‘having faith’.

4) If because of exploding population Africa suffers famines, will he support White efforts to relieve those famines? With the highest birth-rates in the world, black-African numbers burgeon and often lead to food shortages; but they also overflow toward and into Europe. Would RockaBoatus be for letting black children starve to death instead of enabling them to live and help continue the proliferation? I know exactly where I’d stand. As a racist, to whom nothing is more valuable than White well-being, I’d let all sub-Sahara starve if that could benefit Europe. But as a Christian, can RockaBoatus reject the option of ‘charity’? Can he be for letting children starve?

5) Will he favour the abolition of abortion, which in the USA has kept black numbers down because blacks use it as birth control, aborting five times as often as Whites do? At 40+ million, American blacks commit hundreds of thousands of violent crimes against Whites per year–at least 1480 per day–and an alleged 86% of them vote Leftist, helping elect Marxists and black mayors who ruin cities and DAs who abet crime. And for abortion the black pop could easily be 80+ million.

So will our Christian writer favour devoting so much time, money and work to doubling this trouble by reversing Roe v. Wade, when the cheapest and least risky option possible–doing nothing–will enable Whites’ natural enemies to continue culling their own numbers?