by Jack Frost
[Christianity] hasn’t vanished, and that’s the hell of it. In two thousand years, its doctrines have sunk in to form the core of the worldview of Western man. Christian universalism and egalitarianism are stronger than ever, only now people desperately try to justify them scientifically.
by Jack Frost
Given the general Christian insistence on regarding all souls as “equal in the eyes of God,” cognitive dissonance without doubt has had a lot to do with the evolution of anti-racism throughout what used to be called Christendom.
For example, the discomfort (i.e., cognitive dissonance) of the Founding Fathers with regard to race-based slavery conflicting with their worldview is palpable when you read their writings. Some, like the deeply religious Benjamin Franklin, became abolitionists, and freed their own slaves (n.b., but only after using them for most of their lives). The descendants of those same slaves no doubt are still preying on whites even today. How many murders, rapes, and robberies of white people have been the result of Franklin’s act of Christian generosity? How many shattered, ruined lives?
We’ll never know. Given the prevailing worldview, the question is uninteresting, just as the ongoing genocide of whites in South Africa is uninteresting. Eventually, of course, other abolitionists even fomented America’s Civil War over the issue, and their descendants, such as the founders of the NAACP, worked sedulously to make the negro the white man’s equal in law. Nearly all of these abolitionists were Christian fanatics who framed their objections to slavery in moral terms. Confronting such people with evidence they are wrong will usually only increase their fanaticism.
This being the case, could it be that efforts at “education” are not only fruitless, but counter-productive? This would explain much about the racial right’s long history of failure.
by Jack Frost
As we’ve seen, there is great resistance from certain quarters even on the racial right to the very idea that the Christian worldview is in any way responsible for the current political situation, even when it’s easy to show that the core doctrines of political correctness are quite consistent with Christian teachings, and even when there are so many on the left who are churchmen.
This is no doubt a great help to the system, and more proof, if any is needed, that worldviews don’t change easily. Change is difficult because people become emotionally invested in something that touches them so deeply, and also because a worldview is, in some ways, beyond the reach of reason.
When Christianity took over white civilization so long ago, it didn’t triumph by its skill at argument, or appeals to evidence or logic, but largely by the sword, just as it proclaimed it would. You don’t reason people out of a worldview. You don’t “educate” them out of it.
The lesson of the Christian takeover is that a new worldview may arrive, but if it follows precedent, its arrival will be unheralded, unplanned, and accompanied by great bloodshed.
Politics can change, certainly. But I would maintain that the Christian worldview, with the characteristics I listed below (a belief in universal brotherhood, free will, equality of sexes and races, life as fundamentally a moral contest between Good and Evil, and all the rest, such as the supposed value of repentance and forgiveness mentioned by Alain DeBenoist), hasn’t changed. You can find all of these ideas in the gospels, and they didn’t exist before Christianity.
Their implementation in politics is subject to change, but these changes will in most cases be only superficial. The implementation can in fact be quite different (for example, monarchy vs. democracy) without changing underlying beliefs. Even Hitler, who actually was a proponent of a radically different worldview, had to pretend to be a Christian. You might want to think about that and why it was necessary. If worldviews could change so easily, such subterfuge wouldn’t have been needed.
If the Third Reich had been victorious in WWII, it would have gone a long way towards fostering the rejection of Christianity and its associated worldview, and introducing a different one with quite different politics:
• It seems safe to say we would definitely have gotten rid of the extreme philo-semitism that is part of Christianity.
• A belief in free will would probably also have been a casualty (Darwinism is deterministic), and the Christian faith in universal brotherhood would have been completely abandoned.
• The Nazi belief in eugenics would have taken them in quite different directions.
That this Nazi worldview was rejected by the rest of the white race meant that the political trajectory would remain unchanged.
“The alien-minded minority in control of the cinema, the radio, and the newspaper and magazine press has poured out a constant stream of propaganda with the intent of gaining complete spiritual power over the minds of young Americans.” (1939)
“The monstrosity called America can intervene in Europe, can frustrate it, can perhaps destroy it.” (ca. early 1950s)
“The Jewish-American entity is Jewish as respects its head, American as respects its body… [It] will not surrender, since the very existence of Jewry is at stake, and the whole United States and its population is there to secure the existence of Jewry.” (1960)
Francis Parker Yockey (1917-1960)
– probably killed at prison –
Update:
American Renaissance is completely clueless that Murka was the product of bad history (see AmRen’s entry: here)!
Murka’s triple helix—Christianity, capitalism and Enlightenment dogmas (“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”)—are larger factors of white decline than the Jewish problem, even when considered in isolation, as demonstrated in this site and elsewhere.
“But a larger reason is probably the fact that most current white nationalists are, as I’ve alluded to earlier, thinkers and not doers…”
It would be more accurate to say they are losers, not winners. They are immature fools who expect a race war to be fought—by white people anyway—by Marquess of Queensberry rules.
Also hysterical: their claim that on the one hand, Jews control the media, and on the other that their own actions have something to do with the way they are portrayed in that media. They will tell you they understand, but it obviously still hasn’t penetrated their skulls that they are going to be demonized no matter what they do.
That’s how we get these loons who claim to be white advocates, who are more upset about the loss of 9 negroes than they are about poor Mr. Roof, who, taking his manifesto at face value, has sacrificed his own life for his race.
In truth, and by every principle of Darwinism, the white race would be infinitely better off without any negroes at all. So long as this kind of non-thinking prevails, the status quo will continue, and whites will continue to be victims. After a while, you begin to suspect that that’s what these pretenders want. They like being victims because they think it gives them a superior moral position, and it also frees them from the painful and dangerous responsibility of taking action.
The whole thing is really quite nauseating.
5th July 1942, evening
Falsification of war communiqués—Switzerland believes the Jewish lies—Britain in the hands of the Jews—Conservation of our racial integrity—Farcical success of Saint Paul.
Commenting on a completely false Soviet war communiqué which had been published in the Swedish and Swiss Press as well as in that of Britain and America, the Fuehrer said: These communiqués are typical Jewish fabrications. Although they do not even give names of places, they are nevertheless published by news agencies all the world over; and the explanation is, of course, that these agencies themselves are for the most part in the hands of Jews.
Unfortunately, this Jewish twaddle is being accepted without question not only in Britain and America, but also in Sweden and Switzerland.
Thanks to the development of National Socialist Germany, I firmly believe, if only on purely biological grounds, we shall succeed in surpassing the British to such an extent that, with one hundred and fifty to two hundred million Germans, we shall become the undisputed masters of the whole of Europe.
A recrudescence of the problem Rome or Carthage in the new guise of Germany or Great Britain is not, in my opinion, possible. For the result of this war will be that, whereas in Britain each additional million of population will be an additional burden on the island itself, the increasing growth of our own races will have open to them horizons of political and ethnological expansion which are limitless.
Further, any alleviation of the overcrowding of towns by a movement back to the land is not possible in Britain, for this would necessitate an immediate revolution of the whole social system of the Kingdom, which, in its turn, would lead to the disintegration of the rest of the Empire.
These very important facts have been largely overlooked in Britain because the country is ruled not by men of intelligence but by Jews, as one must realise when one sees how the intrigues of the Jews in Palestine are accepted in Britain without comment or demur.
One odour most important tasks will be to save future generations from a similar political fate and to maintain for ever watchful in them a knowledge of the menace of Jewry. For this reason alone it is vital that the Passion Play be continued at Oberammergau; for never has the menace of Jewry been so convincingly portrayed as in this presentation of what happened in the times of the Romans. There one sees in Pontius Pilate a Roman racially and intellectually so superior, that he stands out like a firm, clean rock in the middle of the whole muck and mire of Jewry.
The preservation of our racial purity can be assured only by an awareness of the racial issues involved; our laws, therefore, must be framed with the sole object of’ protecting our people not only against Jewish, but also against any and every racial infection.
We must do all we can to foster this racial awareness until it attains the same standard as obtained in Rome in the days of her glory. In those days the Roman protected himself subconsciously against any racial adulteration. The same thing occurred in Greece at the height of her power; according to reports handed down to us, the very market place itself in Athens shook with laughter when St. Paul spoke there in favour of the Jews. If nowadays we do not find the same splendid pride of race which distinguished the Grecian and Roman eras, it is because in the fourth century these Jewish-Christians systematically destroyed all the monuments of these ancient civilisations. It was they, too, who destroyed the library at Alexandria.
by Amasius
Christianity has no racial component. That wasn’t a problem a century ago, but it is now with our globalized multicultural world. With Christianity taking account only of faith and ignoring blood, it cannot help us in the situation we face. Those who profess Christianity and also have racial awareness possess the latter in spite of the former, not because of it. Christianity certainly isn’t helping now.
We need to start with the foundation that race is everything: everything else grows out of it. We need a new religion that is tailored to this reality. It’s what William Luther Pierce and Alfred Rosenberg wrote about and they certainly weren’t Jews. It’s what I believe and neither am I.
by Jack Frost
Noel Ignatiev actually does make an effort to be consistent. He states, for example, that the Jewish race also does not exist, and favors its abolition, along with the abolition of the Jewish state of Israel. See, for example, here.
Ignatiev can be a challenge to deal with because, like most sophists, once you accept his premises, his conclusions actually do follow. Those premises are the scientific canard—backed up now by what is considered mainstream science—that race in humans doesn’t exist, along with the usual litany of de-Christed Christian hogswallop, which has sunk so deeply into their culture that most whites will accept it without thinking. To wit:
1. Universal brotherhood, both as a “scientific” fact and as something desirable to bring about.
2. Life viewed fundamentally as a moral struggle, wherein Good does battle with Evil, and it’s incumbent upon human beings to join with the Good to help defeat Evil.
3. That Love is better than Hate, Peace better than War.
4. That Justice requires treating everyone equally.
5. That the moral vision expressed by all of the above is more important than life itself; that even race suicide is not too much to demand in order to bring it about.
Once you reject his premises, Ignatiev’s argument falls apart. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that rejecting these premises in a culture shaped by Christianity is a rhetorical non-starter. This is why it’s imperative that the Christian worldview be defeated.
Kurwenal who had not commented in this blog for a while, has just posted three insightful comments diagnosing Western malaise. This one deserves promotion to article entry:
A particular animating force, the Jewish-Christian spirit, has been travelling and ever moulding the outlook, the discourse, and values that today inform Western consciousness. The defining character of this spirit is egalitarianism. It has expressed an egalitarian will, an egalitarian mentality—instinctive at the beginning, but increasingly conscious of itself until, in our own times, it has become fully aware of its aspirations and final goals.
Western civilisation is condemned because the egalitarian utopia that has inspired it for the last two thousand years is in contradiction with the demands of modern society. Enthralled by this utopia, European man can no longer assume control of the world’s destiny, or be the creator of a new future.
Ashamed of a past which over time has given it undisputed superiority, the egalitarian West now wants the “end of history.” It desires a return to the static stage of mammalian happiness: to an Edenic pre-human past.
Egalitarianism has passed through different phases: mythical, ideological, and synthetic. It entered history (Phase One) in the garments of the Christian myth—“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)—and, as with any other myth, without explaining itself in either its discourse or in its actions, sensing its internal dialectics still as unity and harmony. Then (Phase Two) the “contradictions” began to be felt and rationalised: first on a religious level, when the theologies of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation became “ideologies” and the dialectical contraries took social and political shape—becoming “parties.” In this second phase, egalitarian consciousness becomes deeper, re-conceiving the idea of “equality of souls before God” as “equality of men as citizens before their institutions.” This has come to be called “the revolutionary era,” since its manifestations were sometimes, though not always, violent. Liberalism—in its Anglo-Saxon and French modalities—started here.
Goethe was wont to say that ideas, taken to their ultimate consequences, become absurd. Egalitarianism was indeed pursued to its ultimate consequences: the aspiration and will of attaining “equality of men before Nature itself.” This Third Phase may be characterised as “theoretical,” since it claimed to merge—”rationally” and “ecumenically” in a superior synthesis—the ideologies that derived from the myth. It started in an embryonic manner with Hegelianism; then came a first political-philosophical manifestation: Marxism.
In the synthetic phase in which we currently find ourselves, the dialectics of egalitarianism are felt as an obstacle to achieving a global ecumene. Hence the constant presence of terms like “internationalism,” “cosmopolitism,” and “multiculturalism”—and the establishment of “political correctness” as the only legitimate discourse.
With hindsight, Marxism-Leninism may be considered a “deviation” from the main current of the egalitarian tendency, since it tried to “force” or “anticipate” the natural evolution of egalitarianism towards a final synthesis. It was not until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the peaceful ending of the Cold War—when Communism became reabsorbed into the common egalitarian matrix (partly because the objectives pursued by Marxism in the Eastern bloc had already been attained in the West)—that the final and true “recovered unity” of the egalitarian tendency took shape.
Its consecration may be observed today in the unanimous acceptance of the doctrine of human rights and its expansion through liberal-capitalistic or socialist-Third Worldist globalisation—a project of planetary homogenisation which seeks to progress till the conclusive exit of humankind from history.