Today’s Radio Renaissance podcast touches subjects reviewed here, like the criticism of Christianity. I don’t want to add anything to it except quoting Jack Frost again, who was not invited to the program: “The culture-wide triumph of Christianity has made it immoral to support one’s own race exclusively, or even to value it above others.”
Since Christianity is premised upon the belief that a certain Jew is God, why should it be at all surprising that America, with its deeply Christian heritage, adores the Jews?
by Jack Frost
In our culture, shaped as it has been by Christianity, the premier innocent victim is and always has been Jesus.
He laid the groundwork; established the archetype.
It’s inconceivable that the Holocaust racket would have been as successful as it has been in a non-Christian culture.
by Jack Frost
In prior posts I’ve covered how even non-believers and anti-religious people see things with Christian eyes. They accept without questioning that universal brotherhood is good, the triviality of race, that who they really are has nothing to do with their bodies (i.e., Christian dualism), free will, etc.
All of this is pre-scientific thinking that has to go if we are ever to make any headway.
It’s helpful to go back to the contrast between Jesus and Socrates.
The life of Socrates represents the search for truth, and search implies freedom. It isn’t an unlimited freedom, for Socrates eventually transgresses the limit when he threatens the social order by spreading atheism and a spirit of inquiry generally.
But Jesus, by contrast, brings a strain of intolerance to the West that didn’t exist before the advent of Christianity. Jesus doesn’t engage in a search for the truth at all; he doesn’t argue, present facts, and seek to persuade us of anything. No, a search is not needed, for the truth has already been found. He proclaims himself as the truth, and what is more, the only truth. It’s his way or the highway, no argument allowed. This is the truth of the God of Moses and the Oriental despot, outside of the narrow confines of science. This spirit of intolerance is what now dominates the West.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6)
That’s pretty damned intolerant if you ask me. My point was that this kind of moral zealotry, a forerunner of political correctness, comes from the Jews, and didn’t exist among whites before the contaminant of Christianity entered white civilization.
Whether Jesus engaged in a personal search for truth is also beside the point. Jesus is saying that further search isn’t necessary, since, as he proclaims, with typically Jewish ego, he is the truth…
Freedom of speech is an alien concept to Jewry, including rabbi Jesus, and isn’t found in the Bible at all.
– a comment by Jack Frost on The Occidental Observer –
I’m just saying that the source of the moral justification for the West’s immigration problem is to be found in its Christian past; that the entire worldview of life as some kind of moral contest is a Middle Eastern import that didn’t exist in whites before the coming of Christianity. Saying, as you did, that it has “nothing to do with Christianity” because the elites in Sweden are secular and have turned against the churches just makes me think you don’t see how two thousand years of Christianity have seeped into every atom of the white man’s bones. I’ll be convinced that the Swedish elites have turned against Christianity when you can show me they’ve turned their backs on the Christian ideals of universal brotherhood, peace, love, and charity.
I find it extremely odd, to say the least, that I should be the one to have to point out to someone who is frequently considered to be one of the world’s foremost anti-Semites, that maybe, just maybe, trusting a moral system developed by Jews, and built around the idea that one Jewish rabbi in particular is God, is not the best of strategies for white people concerned about limiting Jewish influence.
Nevertheless, that’s the situation I find myself in. KMD [Kevin MacDonald] and many of his acolytes, who unabashedly here tout Christianity as good for whites, must also then be of the opinion that, in at least this one instance, whites benefited from their association with Jews; that the relationship was symbiotic, not parasitic in kind. How this relates to the central thesis of this site, which as I understand it is that the Jewish race is locked in a struggle with the white race and is attempting to dominate it, is unclear.
KMD appears to think this struggle only commenced in the twentieth century; that there’s no possibility that Christianity itself was developed as a weapon of interracial warfare to subvert whites. I don’t think that reconciles very well with sociobiological theory. If the races are at odds, then haven’t they always been at odds? Aren’t they, according to the principles of Darwin, necessarily at odds, since in a world of finite resources a win for one is a loss for the other? Why should that have only begun in the twentieth century? It would be interesting to see how he deals with that thesis, which is something that Nietzsche appeared to believe, and also Revilo Oliver. If KMD has set this out somewhere, I haven’t seen it.
Then we have these two rather threadbare arguments presented above, which I’ve seen many times before, and I’m sure others are equally familiar with. In the main, they are:
This is supposed to be the strongest argument.
The first doesn’t deal with the argument which compares Christianity to a cancer. Cancer, too, doesn’t necessarily kill immediately. You can have cancer for years until it suddenly metastasizes and kills you. You can have it and be apparently strong and have many accomplishments; but nevertheless, you have it, and it will eventually kill you. So this argument in favor of Christianity doesn’t actually come to grips with the charge against it. It’s not a strong argument at all.
The second argument is a confused muddle. “Traditional” Christianity is supposed to be good for whites, yet in the next breath, KMD says that throughout history, Christianity has been on both sides of every issue. So which side is “traditional”? In the American Civil War, was it the South or the North? Were the Puritans traditional, “real” Christians, or not? Since the term is never defined and no examples are ever given, it’s hard to avoid the impression that “traditional” Christianity is whatever the author approves of, and subverted Christianity is whatever the author disapproves of.
Of course, the implication is that “traditional” Christianity is not corrosive to white racial solidarity; that Christianity hasn’t always been universalistic and has at times been racial. But then, in the next breath, he refers to the early Church Fathers, who were anti-Semitic because the Jews weren’t good race mixers like they thought Christians were supposed to be. So it would appear that the early Church Fathers weren’t “traditional” either; and also that the race mixing proclivities of Christianity are of very ancient vintage.
How then can it be argued that there’s nothing inherent in Christianity that subverts race? Is KMD saying that the Christianity of the early Church Fathers had already been subverted? By whom? When? Some details would be nice.
In an article published this month at The Occidental Observer, Tom Sunic wrote: “Those desert Levantine deities and their secular modern offshoots (Marx, Friedman, Dershowitz, Spielberg, Sontag, et al.) were soon to become the new guiding ‘heroes’ of the West.” Christianity critic Jack Frost commented:
The crucified rabbi, of course, is the only hero that has any influence anymore. With him sucking all the oxygen out of the room, all the white folk heroes of bygone times have gradually disappeared from public consciousness. In their place, a proliferation of “innocent” victim-heroes now revolve around the crucifix like minor planets circling a sun.
The Jews you mention are only their publicists. Andy Warhol said that in the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes, but perhaps he should have said everyone will get to be Jesus for fifteen minutes.
Faggots, dykes, trannies, liberated and unliberated women, abused children, negroes, Holocausted Jews, injuns—all conceive themselves and are presented to us as victims, innocent and heroic in equal measure, brutally crucified by the innately evil white man.
On April 16, 2015 a commenter asked:
Jack Frost, on beliefs of the Church: Can you explain to me why the Bible includes the Old Testament at all?
Frost responded:
The Old Testament is included to provide context. Remember, according to the usual interpretation Jesus is supposed to be the Messiah foretold by the Jewish prophets.
Also, his message of love and universal brotherhood (i.e., anti-racism) is revolutionary precisely because it is a New Covenant that replaces the old one described at length in the Old Testament. To accept the New Covenant message is to deny the importance of race, and even family. All are one in Jesus (see Galatians 3:28).
At The Occidental Observer a commenter asked: It [our parents’ religion] doesn’t say that White people, from now on, must accept to be race-replaced by third-world immigrants?
Jack Frost responded last month:
It’s hard for me to see how anyone can interpret Christianity’s doctrine of universal brotherhood and its minimization of the importance of blood ties in any other way.
The commenter had argued:
It makes me think of those who over-interpret the US constitution.
Frost added:
While it’s always possible to argue over interpretations, the one thing that seems utterly inarguable in the case of both Christianity and the Constitution is their absolute failure to protect the white race. When you understand the importance of Christianity in shaping the culture of the West, and the horrific implications of its anti-racist outlook, the reason for this failure should be obvious.
It may well be that there is no straightforward way to solve the problem politically. Thinking that there is one leads to a lot of perverse decisions. Even Hitler had to pretend to be a Christian in order to come to power…
Christianity has so shaped white culture that nothing was able to stand outside of it. Its project has been nothing less than to change the nature of mankind: to impose an insane, anti-Natural vision of reality; to build a world where race and gender truly don’t matter.
Its stress on non-violence, universal brotherhood, love, and a reverence for life makes it a very good way to domesticate a people, and also a very good creed for spreading itself all over the globe. The bitter irony is that these same virtues (if they actually are virtues) become very grave defects once the task shifts to preserving the race that gave it such prominence. Apologists for Christianity try to phrase this positively but there is no way to ignore what a death cult for whites it has become.
____________
Note of the Editor: I chose the drawing of Doré only because today is Pentecost.