Category: Christendom

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?

In the mornings, after a good few hours of resting the brain, the mind is in a pristine state; and if we skip breakfast for coffee, our best thoughts come to us philosophers with extraordinary lucidity. On my morning walk to warm up this winter, one of those thoughts came to me again, albeit in a more focused way.

We have been saying on this site that the moralistic framework that whites inherited from Christianity is the cause of their decline. The idea that again came to me this morning is that we could compare that framework to an operating system that, at its core, is malware that inverted our values (recall what we have been saying about the Gospel of Mark from which the other three Gospels and even the so-called Acts of the Apostles were derived).

Left, book by Pope. Note how the old painting depicts Mark the Evangelist as a non-white.

If that operating system or Christian Question (CQ) is the basis of all evil, it is very easy to understand the Jewish Question (JQ). Once the operating system installed in the minds of whites is malware, all subversive programs loaded onto that operating system fall on a bed of roses. In other words, everything that Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique complains about flourishes in the most fertile soil imaginable if the soil is fertilised with Christian ethics.

That’s why we say that the JQ is a secondary issue, and that the primary issue is that damned malware installed on us by Semitic religionists and white traitors since Constantine, though only now has the malware of the mind reached its lethal metastasis.

Medicine is the transvaluation of Judaized values to National Socialist values. Attacking Jewry without attacking Christianity results in the ethnosuicide of E. Michael Jones, who doesn’t give a damn if Europeans become mulattoes as long as they are Catholic. Christian ethics induces even anti-Christian racialists to ethnosuicide! Recall #9 of this year’s first post: ‘No mercy and showing respect to the “right to a living space for all peoples”, as Varg Vikernes does’ (compare his stance with the opening essay of my Day of Wrath, recently censored by the printer Lulu).

In other words, it’s impossible to solve the JQ without first addressing the CQ. What the racial right does in North America and Europe (I am reminded of a conversation I had in London with the traditional Catholic Jez Turner, head person of the now-defunct London Forum) is to put the cart before the horse. It is hilarious that even anti-Christians who have commented here, such as Claudius, believe that it is I who put the cart before the horse when it is they who do it.

I have used mixed metaphors in this post, but it seems to me that the one about the operating system that is sunshine and flowers for subversive programs gives the idea of what we are talking about in The West’s Darkest Hour.

In a nutshell, no CQ no JQ.

Of course, the fear of eternal damnation was another introjection (or ‘malware installed’) by the parents: something that only those Christians who were brought up in a very traditional, old time Christianity could understand. To new generations of Christians, including racialist Christians, what I said yesterday could seem unheard of and even bizarre. (In book #5 of my eleven books I explain how such introject originated in my young mind.)

See, for example, what I said about Erasmus in 2012. The old theology took hell for granted, and young children were taught this maddening doctrine. When I lived in Spain they told me that some of the older people still suffered from this fear.

Sometimes I wonder if some white nationalists who get their stuff published in mainstream nationalist webzines read this site but never admit they do (like those who never admit watching porn once in a while). This month for example, Jef Costello, a regular essayist of Counter Currents, said this in the comments section:

It doesn’t matter to me what most Americans think about Christianity. We have to wake up to the fact that that religion is the source of all the Leftist poison.

Emphasis added. In the very article itself, Costello had written:

It is really this that I was referring to when I said earlier that we are witnessing the climax of historical processes that have been spiraling downward for more than a thousand years.

This sounds exactly like the thesis of ‘The Red Giant’, a text originally written ten years ago.

It began with the importation into the West of the Jewish bacillus of Christianity. The Reformation began the process of denuding that religion of the supernatural and moving it toward a pure and simple moral fanaticism set against life and human nature. Leftism is just Protestant Christianity secularized and radicalized, made truer to its poisonous essence.

And this sounds like the essay by Ferdinand Bardamu, an original for this site, that has been included in the current edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.

And in the twisted, soy-fueled faces of today’s Leftists, the horror of the whole thing is finally unmasked: the great, yawning maw of the volcanic demon Yahweh, whose foul spirit devours healthy men and nations from the inside out. This is the horror’s final stage. This is the significance of the time we are living in.

Even if Costello has not visited this site, what he says above is identical to what we have been saying here.