Watch it: here.
Categories
Tag: Christian problem (CP)
Categories
Pseudo-apostates
The interview between Derek, whom I have already mentioned this month, and biblical scholar Dr Robert Cargill is interesting. In the beginning, Cargill claimed that his life in a fanatically Christian family and town had been idyllic, without any trauma. But after some time, it became clear that Cargill was simply repressing his traumatic past. He told a horrifying anecdote when he was just a child about his endless fears of the doctrine of damnation (I can well understand this as it was exactly what was done to me too as a teen).
Both interviewer and interviewee are people who think they are apostates but who, in reality, are clinical cases of what we have been saying: that the apostasy of Christianity leads to an axiological neo-Christianity. For example, I interrupted the interview after the hour because I was extremely annoyed that Derek, as neo-Christian as Cargill though unbeknownst to him, commented that poor LGBT people commit suicide because of social ostracism. Cargill had said that, although he is one hundred per cent straight, he helped homos overcome their moralistic traumas, and even supported the misnamed gay marriage.
Watching the interview for at least more than the hour I saw gives a sense of how the (pseudo) apostasy from Christianity is transfigured into neo-Christianity.
Categories
Waking up…
A couple of days ago The Occidental Observer (TOO) published an article that contains this sentence:
After the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD, Paul’s psyop was taken to the next level by other Jewish gospel writers… In the year 326, the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, and that was the end of the Roman body politic but the beginning of the assault on the Great White Race.
As I have said before, TOO edited by Kevin MacDonald is already waking up to the Christian Question! I just left a comment with a link to our new PDF, Neo-Christianity.
Categories
Neo-Christianity (pdf)
The book can now be read/printed here. The content is so important that I will modify the featured post.
Categories
The whole interview
Kevin MacDonald published an article by Tom Sunic the day before yesterday which contains this paragraph:
But even authors complaining about legal duplicity regarding the narrative of Jewish victimhood are seldom consistent. Many of them believe in good faith in the immaculate conception of Virgin Mary and various surreal miracles performed by Jesus and his early Jewish disciples. They would never consider their faith in Jesus a myth, let alone, a hoax, a fraud, or a conspiracy theory. They reject the claims by anti-Christian authors “that Jesus was a deliberately constructed myth, by a specific group of people with a specific end in mind,” as David Skrbina wrote recently.
I’m glad that at least one of the leading white nationalist forums is passing the microphone to someone who says things similar to what we say here.
My previous post contains a link to the confession when an honest student of the New Testament, Richard Miller, saw the light. I would now like to suggest that honest Christians watch the whole interview.
Of course, it is only an invitation to begin to cross the psychological Rubicon, but a baby step in the right direction is satisfying for the moment (the big jump, from 5 to 6, as we saw in ‘The Mauritian steps’ is to leave Christian morality behind).
For Christians, long before breaking with Christian morality one has to break with Christian dogma, and the honest New Testament studies that have been published recently (Richard Miller’s book is just the latest) give me some hope.
Categories
The Appian way
Christian morality is the seedbed that makes today’s secular West what it is, and for contemporary American racialists the hardest pill to swallow is that their movement has failed because of Christianity. And it will continue to fail unless they become true apostates, not only apostates from Christian dogma but also of the axiological side of Christianity: the so-called secular side. After all, ‘secular’ is just the tricky term St Augustine chose for his theological system, used even in our modern world, when in fact the ‘secular’ and the ‘religious’ have always been two sides of the same cultural coin.
Any racialist movement was doomed from the start, is doomed and will be doomed to failure unless it is understood that Christianity, or more specifically Christian morality, has always been the Devil for the white man. This includes the morality of today’s atheists whose worldview we here call Neo-Christian.
Only by telling us the story of the white race as it really happened in the Greco-Roman world (and here we can think of some essays from The Fair Race), together with elementary historical facts such as the non-existence of Jesus that Richard Carrier talks about, and how the New Testament was authored by Jews as David Skrbina believes, will it be possible to modify the collective unconscious of the white man—especially if we add to that a few pages from Karlheinz Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity and the history of the Holocaust committed by the Allies, so well described in Tom Goodrich’s Hellstorm. The psychohistorical work of Tom Holland, who has lost faith in traditional Christianity is also pivotal even if, as a typical British liberal, he is our ideological enemy. But let’s use him as a useful idiot!
Holland hit the nail on the head when he said that National Socialism has been the most radical movement since Constantine, especially because it rebels against St Paul’s idea that there is no difference between Jews and Greeks (transformed today in the religious belief that there is no difference between blacks and whites): the original mental virus that caused the inversion of values. Holland also points out that the National Socialists repudiated the very essence of the emblem of the Cross: that a crucified victim is more morally worthy than the crucifying Romans. This idea persists in our times during mass hysteria phenomena such as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots of 2020 surrounding the death of George Floyd when countless whites, even outside the US, bent the knee before primitive negroes in the most humiliating way!
Holland has said in several interviews that the central emblem of Western civilisation, Christ on the Cross (now downtrodden negroes on ‘crosses’) provides a moral framework for understanding the Woke phenomenon. Before reading Dominion, in ‘On empowering carcass-eating birds’ in my book Daybreak I had already said that empowering transgender people was a kind of neo-Franciscanism, in reference to St Francis of Assisi (‘let’s love and kiss the new leper’), and quoted the biblical passage that the last shall be first and the first last. Analogously, speaking about whites bending the knee after the BLM riots, Holland has said that this grotesque self-debasement ultimately goes back to the Gospel narrative of the Passion, ‘to that very, very primal image of a man tortured to death by an oppressive state apparatus: Jesus on the cross.’ Not only at the end of Dominion but in his lectures this London historian has also said that a thoroughgoing rejection of Christianity would allow us to return to the ways of the blond beast. (As axiological enemies of Holland, we would add that the first thing this beast would do will be to drive the millions non-whites out of their lands and punish the recalcitrant as the Romans did in the Appian Way.) In a home interview with a conservative Australian, Holland added:
The modern who has more profoundly and unsettlingly understood just how radical that idea is—how radical the idea that the Cross, of all things, should become the emblem of the new civilisation—, was a man who was not just an atheist but a radical hostile, anti-Christian atheist: Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche said: this is a repellent thing. Nietzsche identified with the power and the glory and the beauty of classical civilisation; and he thought that Christianity, notoriously, was a religion for slaves. And he saw in the emblem of Christ nailed to the Cross a kind of disgusting subversion of the ideals of the classical world: a privileging of those who properly should be ground beneath the heels of the mighty. And he saw it as a kind of sickness that then, it kind of infected the blond beast as he called it: that the primordial figure of the warrior gets corrupted and turned into a monk, a monkish figure who is sick with poverty and sympathy for the poor and the oppressed…
Fascism, I think, was the most radical revolutionary movement that Europe has seen since the age of Constantine because unlike the French Revolution, unlike and the Russian Revolution, it doesn’t even target institutional Christianity: it targets the moral-ethical fundamentals of Christianity. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution are still preaching that idea that the victim should be raised up from the dust and that the oppressor should be humbled into the dust; it’s still preaching the idea that the first should be last and the last should be first just as Christ has done.
The Nazis do not buy into that.
In the post-WWII world westerners culminated the inversion of healthy values that started with Constantine. They enshrined the privileges of the unprivileged and the universality of all human beings—orc immigrants included—because they now live in the shadow of what enshrined the opposite: Hitlerism; and, given their Christian programming, that scares them. As Holland said at the end of another interview, ‘to cling to the idea that, say, racism is the ultimate sin is still for deeply Christian reasons. It’s possible to imagine a different world in which the strong are powerful and in which the world is divided into the civilised and the barbarians because that’s what the Ancient World was like, and that’s what the Nazis enshrined. It’s perfectly possible. The fact that we regard them as abhorrent I think is testimony of how Christian we remain.’
What Angela Merkel did, opening the doors to two million refugees in anti-Nazi Germany, is ultimately an extreme form of following the parable of the Good Samaritan. Always keep in mind that Jesus didn’t exist but that some Jewish rabbis, the mythmakers, wrote the New Testament. No racialist movement that fails to see this can succeed because despite their rabid anti-Semitism racialists continue to, ultimately, obey the Jews who wrote the NT. They are jew-obeyers. They all live, atheists included, under the moral sky bequeathed to us by the mighty archetype of ‘God on the Cross.’ And outside racist forums, the attempt to make not only the dispossessed blacks but poor transexual people the first, and the healthy white man the last, is but the final metastasis of an inversion that began to take root in our collective unconscious as early as the 4th century of the Common Era.
For decades, in my soliloquies I have often said to myself: ‘A fish cannot criticise water.’ We live in a matrix. Without knowing it or recognising it, secular humanists have been swimming in Christian waters since what misleadingly they call the Age of Enlightenment (actually a ‘Dark Enlightenment,’ as some right-wing intellectuals have pointed out). Ultimately this whole issue of ‘human rights’ is nothing more than a transposition to the legal plane of the Pauline ideas that there is no difference between Jew and Greek, woman and man. In the Athenian democracy only the native males of Attica had the right to vote. Neither slaves nor women nor mudblood foreigners could do so. The assumption that we owe modern democracy to the Greeks is false: we owe it to Christian mandates. Furthermore, modern westerners commit what I call, again in my soliloquies, the psychological fallacy of ontological extension. They believe that all cultures share their humanitarian values when not even the ancient Greeks, the Romans or Norsemen did; let alone billions of contemporary Muslims, Chinese or Hindus. In Holland’s words, ‘the conceit of the West is that it has transcended Christianity to become purely universal; purely global, and therefore it can market itself in those terms. But its values, its assumptions, its ethics remain palpably bred of the marrow of Christianity.’
The term catholic derives from the Greek, katholikos. If we translate ‘universal human rights’ into the Greek of the first centuries of our era, we would be talking about ‘catholic human rights’ insofar as catholic means precisely universal in the sense of no longer making distinctions between Jew and Greek, woman and man, slave and free man: all are now equal in the eyes of a Semitic god. Human rights are catholic in this universal sense. Hitler targeted the idea there exists such a thing as universal human dignity, as well as the idea that the first should be last. From his viewpoint, our viewpoint, and I am talking to those who will read Savitri Devi’s Memories and Reflections of an Aryan Woman, or our books Day of Wrath and On Exterminationism, there is no such a thing as rights. Only the moral duty to dispose of the obsolete versions of Homo sapiens. This is the ultimate repudiation of the Christian heritage. And the horror that most westerners feel at the figures of Hitler and Himmler is nothing other than their continued enslavement to the archetype of the Jew on the Cross which they are still unable to exorcize from their psyches, even if this symbolic ‘Jew’ now takes other forms.
If we see Christianity and the French Revolution’s human rights as two sides of the same axiological coin, let us venture to say that the perfect symbol of our counter-revolution would be for thousands of blonde beasts starting to wear T-shirts emblazoned with Himmler’s face while burning churches, crucifying those who tried to destroy their race and wiping their asses with the remains of the pages of the now destroyed Bibles all over the West, but especially in the US. And the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which symbolises the historic inauguration of Neo-Christianity, must be razed to the ground as well.
As Nietzsche would say, Umwertung aller Werte!
Categories
Watch Holland!
It doesn’t matter that Tom Holland is a normie, a liberal like everyone else and even anti-Nazi: he is spot on in this interview!
The Nazis do not buy into that. The Nazis buy into the Nietzschean idea that the weak are weak and should be treated as weak, as contemptable, as something to be crushed.
Atheists of today [like Richard Dawkins et al]… they are basically Christians. Nietzsche saw humanists, communists, liberals—people who may define themselves against Christianity—as being absolutely in the fundamentals Christian, and I think he is right about that because I think that in a sense atheism doesn’t repudiate the kind of ethics and the morals and the values of Christianity.
Just transvalue Holland’s neo-Christian axiology and we arrive at the POV of this site!
Update of June 7
In the full interview, after the half-hour mark, Holland touches on a topic he didn’t get to touch on in Dominion because this book was published the year before the BLM 2020 riots. Holland says that in America blacks have been last and whites first.
‘Why is that inherently wrong?’ Holland asks his interlocutor with emphasis. He elaborates for a few minutes on George Floyd and says that this collective hysteria that whites suffered had its origins in the great inversion of values that was initiated by the figure of a helpless victim on the Cross.
From the 38th minute, the anti-Nazi Holland returns to Nazism and then discusses the genesis of the ultimately religious idea of ‘human rights’ after the French Revolution. Holland says that believing in such rights is as theological as believing that Jesus rose from the dead.
Near the 42nd minute, Holland says that Hitler saw in St Paul the Jew whose ideas destroyed Greece and Rome.
After minute 53 Holland says something very interesting. Christian ethics (which is the same as the neo-Christian ethics of atheists) constantly destroys its structures and reinvents itself. This is clear from the Middle Ages to the present day: all those funny anecdotes Holland tells in his book that I didn’t quote on this site because it would have meant quoting his whole book.
In the final minutes Holland hits the nail of all nails: just what we said recently about Richard Spencer’s ‘doughnut’ metaphor (the black hole of anti-Hitlerism) and the ‘Foundation Myth’ article, quoted in red at the top of this site. Holland said that Westerners today ask what Hitler did and they are doing exactly the opposite of that!
‘And by doing the opposite they are doing it for Christian reasons’.
Bingo (see also this moment from a Holland lecture in Romania).
Postscript of 8 June:
And in this lecture from his town, half a year ago, Holland even talks about how ridding ourselves of Christian morality permits us to become exterminationists, and even quotes Himmler (a step which, incidentally, Holland dares not take!).
Categories
Jesus the Jew?
I am glad that, at last, the Christian Question (CQ) is beginning to be discussed in earnest in the forums of the racial right. On Monday, for example, The Occidental Observer (TOO) published Thomas Dalton’s article ‘Jesus the Jew’ (screenshot: here), and on the same day it was reposted on The Unz Review.
At the time of writing, the latter webzine has 444 comments on the article and TOO only nine. I confess that I’d rather have a few commenters airing their views (as in The West’s Darkest Hour) than the long threads of sites like Ron Unz’s webzine or Stormfront. It is easier to discuss these issues with relatively few commenters than in a tower of Babel. However, regarding Dalton’s article, a commenter on The Unz Review hit the nail on the head by mentioning a work we’ve been promoting on this site. The commenter said:
I’m glad that you mentioned Dr. Carrier’s work. The longer, more scholarly, peer-reviewed book is On the Historicity of Jesus, a more popular book is Jesus from Outer Space, essentially a condensed version of the earlier, longer work. Dr. Carrier’s estimate of one chance in three that a historical Jesus existed was made by taking all favorable probabilities of the evidence for existence. If one goes the other way and takes all unfavorable probabilities of the evidence of existence, the odds are about 12,000 to one. The (probably forever undiscoverable) truth is somewhere in between. Dr. Carrier now says that he no longer pays much attention to Christian apologists, since faith-based belief is essentially unrefutable…
And Paul and the earliest Christians didn’t have to be liars. They may have sincerely believed in a celestial Jesus, whose death and resurrection occurred in heaven. The gospels may have been literary parables, intended to instruct the ordinary believers until they could be initiated into the oral traditions. Check the fourth chapter of Mark, which may be giving the game away.
What Carrier says about Christian apologists is important, and we can apply it to those on the racial right who are still Christians. They are not so much interested in historical truth as in how to combine their faith with racial preservation. If they were interested in historical truth they would start following the white rabbit, the links I posted yesterday in the comments thread of the TOO article.
But back to Dalton’s article. What I believe, and we have said it on several occasions, is far more sinister than a historical, Jewish Jesus. If we start from Carrier’s work (Dalton doesn’t mention it in his piece), it is clear that the evangelist Mark took up the distant, heavenly Jesus devised by Paul to, through his literary art, throw at us the apocryphal story of a worldly Jesus in Galilee: a story in which the evangelist inverted the values of the god of the Romans to the interests of Jewry.
This is fundamental to understanding not only the true origins of Christianity (Nietzsche was the first to intuit these realities in the 1880s), but the subsequent inversion of values, so well told by Tom Holland in his book Dominion.
In short, it is not that Jesus the Jew said things subversive to the Romans. He simply didn’t exist (Dalton, just for the sake of argument, assumes well into his article that Jesus did exist). This literary character, actually his whole figure, is an invention of Paul and Mark (the latter concocted his literary fiction right after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by Titus because he was pissed off at the Romans). And as learned people who have read the literary criticism of the New Testament since the 19th century know, Matthew, Luke and John only added verses of their own authorship to Mark’s original text.
I would remind the visitor of what we have said here about a book that, for incomprehensible reasons, became very popular on the racial right: Joseph Atwill’s Caesar’s Messiah, which deals with an alleged Roman conspiracy to invent Jesus. For those who cannot distinguish between solid scholarship and crank scholarship, I recommend Richard Carrier’s ‘Atwill’s Cranked-up Jesus’.
Simply put, the Romans didn’t invent Jesus. It was the Jews.
David Skrbina, mentioned in the TOO discussion thread, says in his book that all the authors of the New Testament were Jews. I recently mentioned another thread in which several Christians recently commented on Counter-Currents. I left out that one of these Christians claimed that Luke was Greek. This is what Skrbina says on one of the pages at the end of his book:
“It’s not clear that all the Gospel authors, apart from Matthew, were Jews. John certainly was not.”
As I’ve replied earlier, the Gospel of Mark was written for a Gentile audience and thus takes on the superficial appearance of a Gentile work. There is a strong consensus that Mark himself was Jewish. The extensive OT references in all four Gospels argue strongly for Jewish authorship. There is no real evidence that Luke was a Gentile save his name, but as we know from Paul, it was not unheard of for Jews to change to Gentile names. The scattered anti-Jewish statements in all the Gospels—especially John—more reflect an internal Jewish battle over ideology than an external, Gentile attack. Paul is clearly and obviously Jewish.
And come to think of it, maybe it’s not so incomprehensible that the American racial right is a fan of Atwill’s discredited book. They see Jews everywhere but where they are: right under their noses, in the origins of their Christian religion! Thank goodness these issues are starting to be discussed a bit more in TOO (previously only Tom Sunic had tried to discuss them in that webzine).
Let’s be clear: if The West’s Darkest Hour focuses on CQ, it’s only because I want to save the Nordic race from extinction. And I find it impossible to do so unless the diagnosis of white decline is accurate. I am not doing this to unnecessarily provoke American racialists. Once they have an accurate diagnosis, they will begin to revolt against the reversal of Roman values that the Jew Mark initiated.
The rest follows from there.
Categories
Pierce on Christianity
Editor’s note: Ten years ago, I quoted a few paragraphs from William Pierce’s article ‘Christianity’. Today I reread it in its entirety in a National Alliance article. Although I am more radical than Pierce when it comes to the religion of our parents, I reproduce it below because it stands in stark contrast to the secular sympathisers of Christianity on today’s racialist forums.
Pierce wrote:
THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE IS not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups—Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al.—deal with temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.
Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice, or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes in our work.
The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweeping across the land. Most Christian authorities collaborate openly with the Jews, despite the contempt and abuse they receive in return, and the rest at least follow Jewish policies on the all-important matter of race. The occasional anomaly—a Catholic bishop in Poland speaking out angrily against Jewish arrogance, a few Protestant groups in the United States expressing sympathy for oppressed Palestinians—does not invalidate the rule.
We are obliged, therefore, to oppose the Christian churches and to speak out against their doctrines. But we do not, as some groups have done, accuse the Christian leaders of being false Christians. We do not say, “We are the real Christians, because we stand for the values which the mainstream churches stood for a century ago, before they were subverted.” We do not reach for our Bibles and point to verses which seem to be in accord with the policies of the National Alliance and contrary to the present policies of the Christian churches. A diligent Bible scholar can find in the Judeo-Christian scriptures support for—or ammunition against—virtually any policy whatsoever.
Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters, there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes to the north.
Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the “Christ-killing” Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set, no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its otherworldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offend the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.
Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its “miracles”—raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch—are the crassest superstition.
We may have fond memories of the time before the Second World War when pretty, little girls in white dresses attended all-White Sunday schools, and Christianity seemed a bulwark of family values and a foe to degeneracy and indiscipline. We may cherish the tales of medieval valor, when Christian knights fought for god and king—if we can overlook the Christian church’s bloodthirsty intolerance, which stifled science and philosophy for centuries and sent tens of thousands of Europeans to the stake for heresy or witchcraft.
We may even find Christian ethics congenial, if we follow the standard Christian practice of interpreting many of its precepts—such as the one about turning the other cheek—in such a way that they do not interfere with our task. But we should remember that nothing essential in Christian ethics is specifically Christian. Any successful society must have rules of social conduct. Lying and stealing were shunned in every Aryan society long before Christianity appeared. Our pagan ancestors did not need Christian missionaries to tell them how to behave or to explain honor and decency to them—quite to the contrary!
Historians may argue the pros and cons of Christianity’s role in our race’s past: whether or not the unity it provided during a period of European consolidation outweighed the loss of good genes it caused in the Crusades and the bloody religious wars of the Middle Ages (and through the Church’s policy of priestly celibacy); whether the splendid Gothic cathedrals which rose in Europe during four centuries and the magnificent religious music of the 18th century were essentially Christian or essentially Aryan in inspiration; whether Christianity’s stand against the evils of self-indulgence—against gluttony and drunkenness and greed—was worth its shackling of the human mind in superstition or not. One thing already is clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.
We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria.
The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man’s responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.
Although some Christians do believe Christian doctrine wholeheartedly, however, most do not. Most instinctively feel what we explicitly believe, even if they have repressed those feelings in an effort to be “good” Christians. Because of this many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians—especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches—have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized.
For these reasons we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can. We don’t want to give unnecessary offense, even when we speak out against the doctrines of their churches. We don’t want to ridicule their beliefs, which in some cases are sincerely held. Some of these people later will reject Christianity’s racial doctrines. Some will reject Christianity altogether. We want to help them in their quest for truth when we can, and we want to keep the door open to them.
Members who want to study the subject of Christianity and its relationship to our task in depth should read Which Way Western Man?, by our late member William Simpson. The book’s initial chapters describe the spiritual odyssey of a man of exceptional spiritual sensitivity, who was far more intensely a Christian than nearly any Christian living today and who eventually understood the racially destructive nature of Christianity and rejected it.
______ 卐 ______
[Kevin Alfred Strom comments:] One of the most important statements William Pierce made on the subject was 1982’s “On Christianity,” published in the National Alliance BULLETIN and now available on nationalvanguard.org, in which he says
______ 卐 ______
No honest, conscientious Alliance member can maintain his membership in the Alliance and also in an organization which is fundamentally opposed to the goals and principles of the Alliance. [A] former member who belongs to the Moral Majority acted correctly in resigning from the Alliance, and the same applies to others: Any Alliance member who is also a member of a church or other Christian organization which supports racial mixing or Zionism should decide now where he stands, and he should then resign either from his church or from the Alliance.
In fact, the great majority of Alliance members who originally had some Christian church affiliation have already made their decisions and left the churches….
If, despite everything above, there are Alliance members or prospective Alliance members who still consider themselves Christians, then it must be in the sense that they value the specifically White elements of Christianity which have been added since its origins—the great art, the great music, and the great architecture produced by White men during the centuries in which the Christian churches ruled Europe—and that they also share the White spiritual feelings which have been eloquently expressed by many men and women who were Christians and who applied the adjective “Christian” to feelings which, in fact, came from deep within the White race-soul and existed long before the advent of the Christian church. Such Christians we can call our comrades and be proud to have in our ranks.
Categories
On Neo-normies
‘A WN platform which is anti-Christian is dead before it begins.’ —A Counter-Currents commenter.
I already had half a year of not stopping by Counter-Currents. Now that I visited one of its discussion threads, it confirms my hypothesis that The West’s Darkest Hour (WDH) receives very few visits and comments, compared to the other racialist forums, because almost all of them are either Christians or sympathetic to Christianity whereas I believe that Christian ethics is the main cause of our misfortune.
A few years ago, at least some very young visitors of WDH trolled those sites sympathetic to Christianity but now no one, that I know of, links us to them. It seems to me that these people—Christians and secular sympathisers—completely ignore our arguments, recently expounded in our commentary to Dominion.
I would think that Europeans, far removed from the religion of our parents, would be more interested in WDH than Americans, but they aren’t. Not many of them are fans of this site.
At any event, I will continue doing my job even though the flow of traffic is carried away by those guys that I call ‘semi-normies.’
8:13 a.m. update:
Before falling asleep I had titled the post ‘On semi-normies’ but I woke up thinking it was better titled ‘On Neo-normies’ because, as time goes by, the racial right seems to me more and more normie compared to our POV. Anyway, not long ago Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent defined himself as a ‘neo-normie’: a perfect expression!
