I don’t claim to have studied carefully Matt Parrott’s, “The Causes of Causes, a Subterranean Perspective,” published yesterday at Youth Network. But after posting this reply here at WDH, which only deals with a few paragraphs where Matt mentions me, I’ll do it. Parrott said:
I believe that Chechar’s mistaken in identifying Christianity as the root cause, and I believe the examples from Byzantium and Medieval Europe, examples where the church’s true interests and influences could actually be observed, confirm that Nietzschean models of suicidal ressentiment and exegeses of multicultural humanist globalism are fundamentally flawed.
Two different places: Constantinople and Europe.
Byzantium cannot be fairly compared to Medieval Europe insofar as, by the time it fell in the 15th century, the city had already suffered a great deal of mongrelization—a mongrelization that undoubtedly contributed to its decline and eventual fall. (That Parrott puts the two together corroborates my view that white nationalists should read the two histories, by William Pierce and Arthur Kemp, that have been written about the white race.)
Medieval Europe is a more complex subject because, unlike Constantinople, it was not a mongrel empire. But even here Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents shows that the broadly positive role that the Church played by elaborating a collectivist defense mechanism to counter Jewish influence was not exactly the best way to do it. In that book MacDonald also says that National Socialism (a movement which left Christianity behind) was the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence. In other words, from the point of view of ethno-preservation the German movement was an improvement over the defense mechanism elaborated by the Roman Catholic Church against Jewry. (See my review of MacDonald’s book here.)
I mention MacDonald’s second book of his trilogy because, even though I agree with him that Christendom more or less protected Europe from alien influence, the protection was not enough, not nearly enough, as shown in the fate of post-Christendom Europe and precisely because of the universalist ideals proclaimed by the Church.
Chechar’s also unconvinced by the Jews as Primary Cause model. Being a White Mexican, he perceives the problem from the vantage point of a White civilization which choked and died on introgression and decadence, largely devoid of Jewish influence. He’s settled on a Christianity as Primary Cause model, answering the question of suicide affirmatively.
I don’t say “Christianity as Primary Cause,” and my analysis goes beyond Mexico. Let’s talk about Europe and remind my readers that, during my previous debates with Pat Hannagan, he conceded that while the Iberian whites committed suicidal mestization in the Americas they remained genetically pure in the Iberian Peninsula itself. But my friend Pat was misinformed. The peninsular Portuguese violated the “One-drop Rule” to the point that contemporary genetic studies reveal a Negro gene in their blood absent in other Europeans (see e.g., the first comment after this post). In other words, even leaving Mexico and Latin America aside, many Iberian whites committed racial suicide within their homelands, and both Christianity and the “One Ring” (see below) are the culprits.
The Catholic Church that Chechar envisions destroying Latin America and the Protestant Yankees Hunter Wallace envisions destroying Dixie are merely the zombie carcasses of Christianity, spearheads of the capitalist impulse to expand into their respective societies and steamroll over all the institutional and ideological obstacles to the profit which feeds the power structure.
I agree with Parrot that the “economics over race policies” are a gigantic factor of white decline, perhaps as big as the axiological meme that’s killing both Mediterraneans and Nordics. Therefore, I am not an anti-Christian reductionist so to speak. Yes: I blame the egalitarian software that we may call the Christian / Secular Christian problem (liberalism run amok after the French Revolution) and, as I just said, the One Ring of greed and power (economics over race—again, see both Pierce’s and Kemp’s magnificent histories of the white race for an explanation of the “Ring”). These factors constitute part of the ingredients of the formula that’s killing us—plus the Jewish ingredient.
From this point of view the Jewish problem would be a very strong catalyst that has accelerated the process in the last centuries since the emancipation of Jewry, but certainly not the “active ingredient” of the brew (what monocausalists believe).
So you can see that my position goes far beyond both Christian reductionism and Jewish reductionism. I believe that individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) + egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) + the Jewish culture of critique in the 20th century = a truly lethal brew for the White peoples.
By the way, Hunter Wallace has also responded to Parrott’s article, but he naturally focuses on other issues.
7 replies on “Parrott’s article: a clarification”
Chechar, you pretty much summarized the “White Question” (so to say) in this single paragraph.
I have the utmost respect for Parrot — the guy is brilliant, and he is a real fighter for the White cause.
However, what he and other White nationalists regrettably fail to see is that a “Racialist Christianity” is an oxymoron.
Here’s Saint Paul to give the final word on the question (Galatians 3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In passages like this (not to mention many others throughout the New Testament, specially the several ones where Jesus violently attacks the rich in a way that would have made Karl Marx sound like an elitist), in passages like this you have the real seeds of the French revolution, Communism and modern Liberalism. For God’s sake, this is avant-garde Egalitarianism written large!
I wonder what part our “Christian race realist” friends don’t understand in the sentence “There is neither Jew nor Gentile … for you are all one in Christ Jesus” — after all, if we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, how can someone in his own mind argue against racial intermixing, for example?
Matt seems to claim that Medieval Christianity was not afflicted by the modern mainstream Christian attitude towards the racial question. That’s true, but the point is: was it so DUE TO Christianity or IN SPITE OF IT?
The fact of the matter is that the Christian ethos is so out of touch with reality, so fundamentally impractical that a number of compromises had to be made by the European peoples on which it was imposed over time so it could be rendered minimally functional.
Any society that wished to take suicidal teachings like “Turn the other cheek” or “Resist not Evil” seriously would be enslaved overnight; a society that wished to take at face value teachings preaching that the rich will almost certainly be sentenced to Hell and that one should not worry about tomorrow but rather one should give everything away to the poor — a society that had gone insane enough to implement such ideas would implode almost immediately.
Therefore, it is obvious that a number of Christian tenets had to be simply ignored or rationalized into oblivion so that it could become a mainstream doctrine. Being the Europeans who they were and being surrounded by an ocean of hostile populations on all sides as it was the case, it is also obvious that Christianity also had to be sort of “aryanized” — in other words, the notion of all humankind being one big family in Christ did not translate into Arabs, Blacks and Central Asians being invited to move en masse to Europe and being offered White maidens as brides.
The problem is that time passes and over time and with the help of improving life conditions, all of the radically liberal/egalitarian tenets of Christianity that could not be immediately put into practice by its adherents in the past eventually blossomed into reality. As I have pointed out in another thread, a number of philosophers and thinkers (e.g. Eric Voegelin) have established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the deep historical and ideological roots of the Left are to be found in certain Catholic heresies of the High Middle Ages. And it should come as no surprise if one seriously thinks about it for a minute. The leftist egalitarianism that has plagued the West ever since the French Revolution and that has gone into overdrive since the WWII neither appeared nor has taken root anywhere outside of the realm of the Christian World. To their credit, it wasn’t the Muslim, the Chinese nor the Indian civilizations that invented this crap and in spite of the nominally Communist regime they have in China today, those folks couldn’t care less about any so called “universal human rights” that have been the epicenter of all forms of Leftism since Rousseau.
Let’s face the fact, my race realist Christian friends: the pseudo-historical figure Jesus was a typical liberal Jew. The egalitarian cancer that is at the base of the destruction of the White race is just the natural development of a number of elements that are part and parcel of the Christian ideology.
Please tell me how can you guys tell a Black man that although he is your brother in Christ you don’t want to him to live in the same society as you? Or rather, how can you say that with a straight face? And don’t get me wrong, I’m all for racial separation, but mind you, I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I don’t buy for a second the childish notion that we all belong to a big human family in Christ.
Like I have pointed out before on this blog, I puzzles me to see intelligent, well-informed White Nationalists, the overwhelming majority of whom are quite aware of the Jewish question… worshiping an avant la lettre revolutionary Jew who owes nothing in terms of radicalism to a liberal Jew like the abominable talk show host Alan Colmes!
Christian race realists should ponder on Tom Sunic’s brilliant articles on the paradox of a so-called “Christian White Nationalism” that are available both at The Occidental Observer and at The West Darkest Hour. This passage summarizes his view on the subject quite well:
[Source: here]
A Christian White Nationalism is a self-defeating ideology. You can’t fight the Jewish mental and material onslaught against the White race while you borrow their mythology at the same time. In fact, the situation is even worse than that: Judaism proper is a sadistic cult, whereas Christianity (the fake doctrine the kikes heaped upon you) is a masochistic one. Put gasoline and matches together and you have the picture of our current situation.
Your comment is so good that tomorrow I’ll add it as a separate entry.
🙂
Generally I pick entry titles but this time I must ask you: chose a title (with subtitle if you like; for me it’s the same)…
Well…
How about “The Self-Defeating Notion of a ‘Christian’ White Nationalism”? It’s a self-explaining title.
I am new to WDH, but I have been lurking and enjoying this blog a great deal. I will post my comment on the separate entry.
Thank you Chechar and John Martinez.
After a couple of years, Orthodox Christian pundits are finally taking Parrott to task, e.g., here; in another site, here and still in another site, here (Parrott’s reply). See also the commentariat about Parrott’s views on Heimbach’s excommunication, here.
Matt: You simply can’t serve two masters: for either you’ll hate the one, and love the other; or else you will hold to the one, and despise the other.
“The problem with Christianity (and the reason why the Jews are able to use Christians to their advantage to further their agenda of promoting the extinction of the White race) is that Christianity is founded upon the principle of altruism.” —Steven L. Akins