interview – 1
“For me, the overall result is the visible and systematic poisoning of the youth of our people through Christian education…” —Himmler to Bormann (see the bibliographic source for this letter in my article from yesterday).
Yesterday, the first hour of a ten-hour series of Nick Fuentes’ interview with Christian nationalist Joel Webbon was uploaded on YouTube.
At the beginning of the interview, we see that Nick is infinitely closer to Christian nationalism than to white nationalism (recall that in his interview with Tucker, Nick said he was a white nationalist but not at the level of William Pierce’s WN, his words). Obviously, neither Fuentes nor Webbon are National Socialists.
Shortly after, Nick says that the US should have a Christian government. Compare this to what Richard Weikart says about Hitler’s esoteric anti-Christianity, in contrast to the Führer’s exoteric image (prolefeed for the German proles).
Soon after, both say things that go against the US Constitution, such as that the government should not pass laws regarding the establishment of a religion. Then Nick mildly approves of the interviewer’s crazy idea of implementing blasphemy laws in the US: something that would overturn the First Amendment. Interestingly, as a gospel follower, Nick doesn’t want the death penalty for most murderers, but he does want it for those who desecrate the consecrated host or wine.
Only at this point does Nick speak about secular racialism, and they even briefly touch on the topic of our worldview, which we might call anti-Christian racism. Nick confesses that his Groyper movement was precisely a reaction against that secularized racialism: a step back towards American traditionalism.
The interview ends with Nick expressing his desire for an alliance between his America First ideology and his interviewer’s Christian nationalism. Their movement represents, in my humble opinion, the last-ditch effort of American Christianity.
2 replies on “Webbon’s”
It seems ironic that they would push for blasphemy laws for the offense to them of ‘worshipping sand demons’ and yet not feel it blasphemous to their very being (as Aryans) to remain, at least to some degree, in the presence of soulless, disgusting non-whites, as if making steps to impede their primitive religious worship – where it is even present – were one thing, but that their collective vulgar bodies themselves remained sacred and off-limits to the law’s retribution under inconsistent Christian teaching.
In an ideal fledgling ethnostate, non-white characteristics would first be rendered illegal, on pain of death, as blasphemy against Nature; an unusual policy to get one’s head around, acting as a cold metaphor for reality (surely they’d consider it ‘unfair’, considering themselves ‘human’ also by default), but one that might strongly encourage them to consider leaving that ethnostate as a group altogether. Of course, this would just be the legal precedent that preceded and legitimised the real campaign, that of rounding them up, interning them, and, eventually, executing the lot (if only it were that simple – in reality, an ethnostate could not be formed with such a level of power until at least some revolutionary killing had begun). I think a written or unwritten ‘death penalty’ should apply though in either case, in terms of blasphemy, but one directed at Christians themselves, for the ideas in my first paragraph, the lot of them acting as traitorous defenders of non-white interests despite their soft response ‘solutions’.
I think I made a grave mistake last year in giving Nick the benefit of the doubt.
Last year, after his interview with Piers Morgan, I wrote enthusiastically that I didn’t care about his Christianity, but rather the power of his oratory.
Now I see that precisely because of the depression I mentioned yesterday due to the lack of like-minded people, I blinded myself to the fact that Nick’s Judeo-Christianity necessarily made him a traitor to our cause.
What I did is reminiscent, in a different context, of the incel who has spent years in celibacy and suddenly falls in love with a woman he shouldn’t have (it wasn’t the incel’s fault, but rather the fault of the new anti-male laws and a culture that puts us in extreme situations).
But I’m glad that on X, the neonazis didn’t fall for Nick’s fame and that they put him in his place. They use brief insults. I prefer to blog to present our case with greater restraint and serenity.
But you’re right: the death penalty shouldn’t be applied to blasphemers of Judeo-Christianity, but to Christians of the type the Third Reich imprisoned in Dachau because they were a danger to the regime.
The big question is: how long will it take Americans to “shake the monkey of Christianity off their backs” to use William Pierce’s words? Because if they don’t shake it off, the Aryan DNA north of the Rio Grande will disappear.
When I saw the interview yesterday, I told myself that now I understood why liberalism (i.e., neochristianity) reached the extremes of Wokism in the US. It’s a crazy way (liberalism) of rebelling against crazy people (conservatism).
South of the Rio Grande, Iberian whites committed ethno-suicide from the 16th century onward because Catholicism didn’t see it as sinful to marry Indigenous women (“good & cheap flesh, only that of the Indian female”). It’s like the frog that didn’t notice the temperature rising from that century until it burned.
North of the Rio Grande, on the other hand, large-scale miscegenation is a recent phenomenon because unfettered liberalism suddenly raised the temperature. But precisely because of this sudden rise in temperature, some white people have awakened.
What is worse: the sudden Wokism that starts to awaken some folk north of the river, or the centuries-long Christian traditionalism that didn’t awaken anyone south of the river?