Religious Conservatives & the White Right"/>
Print this post Print this post

No Separate Peace:
Religious Conservatives & the White Right

4,517 words

It’s staggering to realize how universally accepted racial realism once was and how many people are alive who remember these times. In some ways, it’s encouraging. Walking the earth today are Marines of the segregated Corps that fought a race war in the Pacific, Southerners who participated in “massive resistance” to desegregation, and Irish-Americans who fought in the streets of South Boston to preserve their school system. All of this is condemned by today’s court historians, but only the most fanatical progressive would unhesitatingly condemn their own grandparents as “Nazis” or soulless racists. For the younger generation, there exists a sense of amazement that there was once a time when people could openly discuss racial issues without looking over their shoulders in fear and trembling.

Of course, today’s Americans are living through a similar shift in public opinion regarding the issue of homosexuality. All but universally condemned a generation ago, today homosexuality is championed as a positive good by most media outlets and celebrity culture. Even someone’s choice of fast food is now a matter of the utmost seriousness, as eating a Chik-fil-A sandwich has become a political statement. It was only in 2003 when anti-sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court and it was President Bill Clinton, hardly a champion of “family values,” who signed the Defense of Marriage Act which pledged the federal government to defend matrimony as between one man and one woman.

In cultural terms, the shift is even more dramatic, as the media increasingly pushes images of same sex relationships and sexuality. Whereas religious right candidates of only a few years past would use shock images of two males kissing as an outrageous provocation to rally Christian voters, today the automatons running culture dispensers like the Huffington Post or Gawker enthusiastically show pictures of men kissing and tell Americans that it is sexy. Whereas a staple of comedy only a few years ago was the disgusted reaction of a male who mistakenly kissed another man (such as Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura), we can be sure that future generations will view such scenes with loathing and outrage in the same way that we are all supposed to be deeply upset about Bugs Bunny cartoons mocking the Japanese from World War II.

The specifics are not important. What’s important is that we are living through a dramatic shift in public attitudes equivalent to that which took place during the so-called Civil Rights Movement. In real time, we are witnessing how quickly, easily, and automatically media and financial pressure can utterly transform what were once the bedrock values of a society. We are witnessing the destruction of the idea that mass culture has anything to do with choice.

There are obvious potential conflicts between racial realism and social conservatism as regards traditional marriage. While most white advocates tend to be social conservatives that oppose homosexuality, others would consider the issue unimportant. Even conservative white nationalists would generally consider racial questions more crucial than private sexual behavior. White advocates influenced by the European New Right might even argue for moving beyond the “reactionary” sexual demands of conservative Christianity, including restraints on sexual behavior. While most of this focuses on the controversy over “game” or the imperative of alpha males to regain their masculinity in a feminist culture, others have explicitly argued that intolerance of homosexuality is itself a sign of hostile cultural distortion, and that transcending homophobia would be a victory.

For their part, conservative American Christians may be the only actual racial egalitarians that exist in the entire world. While the fetishization of fashionable minorities is a status symbol for most whites, conservative Christians have legitimately constructed a subculture where religion trumps race and ethnicity.

Hostility towards evolution and sociobiology have given many evangelical Christians a formidable ideological defense against any theory that would distinguish the races of mankind or explain their development.

Furthermore, as salvation is not a question of correct practice or heritage but of correct belief, all men are equal in the sight of God, with differences of birth held to be unimportant.

Going further, non-whites may actually be superior, because their difficult life makes them more receptive to walking through the open door of salvation, while rich whites sinfully ignore their opportunity.

It’s therefore not surprising to see the graduates of overwhelmingly white conservative Christian colleges or the pastors of white congregations remain indifferent to their own racial dispossession while enthusiastically proselytizing, contributing to, or even adopting Third World populations.

As regards homosexuality, this kind of Third World fetishism has been made explicit. “Pro-family” organizations and spokespeople in the United States have vocally supported anti-homosexual legislation in nations such as Uganda. Social conservatives have also attempted to use non-whites as a way to build an international coalition against the more permissive Western world. As Christian belief is more important than all other loyalties, it is entirely logical for conservative Episcopalians to rally to the authority of African archbishops rather than that of Canterbury, or for conservative Christians to accuse white liberals of “racism” for not recognizing the right of black Africans to execute homosexuals.

Nonetheless, despite it all, conservative Christians and white advocates (even the most anti-Christian and sexually permissive) share a common fate. In recent years, the Southern Poverty Law Center has taken to labeling formerly “mainstream” political pressure groups such as the Family Research Council as “hate groups.” The ever shifting goalposts of hate are not new, as anti-racist and politically well-connected groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) or ProEnglish have already been labeled hate groups. What is different is the breakaway from issues that can at least be tangentially connected to race and demographics into sexuality. Undoubtedly for financial reasons, the SPLC and other such groups have decided that even sexual violations of the egalitarian principle are to be punished with social destruction.

The parallel to the struggle against de-segregation is obvious. Initially, almost all of the legitimate institutions of the Southern states rose in “massive resistance” to idea of integration with blacks and public opinion was on the side of “racists.” Prince Edward County in Virginia even went so far as to abolish its public school system.

Openly racial groups flourished, as well as more moderate conservatives who created all sorts of silly rationalizations to avoid the real issue. This included the Jew Milton Friedman arguing in Capitalism and Freedom that Virginians had suddenly become libertarians when they privatized schools or, slightly more defensibly, William F. Buckley arguing in the pages of National Review that white Southerners, as the more “advanced” race, had the right to protect themselves.

However, the usual combination of left wing activism and capitalist hostility to white racial (and thus interclass) unity broke the segregationist coalition but left the “Right” dependent on almost entirely white base.

In the face of cultural disintegration, white conservative Christians transitioned from segregationists into colorblind activists of the Religious Right. In some cases, this was a clumsy and deliberate transition. Jerry Falwell, who once explicitly defended segregation as “God’s will,” smoothly reinterpreted the eternal teachings of the Almighty when it became untenable and drew new lines in the sand on abortion and homosexuality. Jesse Helms, who built his career as a commentator defending segregation and condemning the “irresponsibility of Negroes,” similarly reinvented himself as a conservative Christian. However, despite these and many other examples, the transition for many conservative Christians (especially white Southerners) was unconscious.

As James Kirkpatrick points out, drawing on the work of Sam Francis, conservative white Christians suffered from a “false consciousness,” substituting religious militancy to fill the vacuum of cultural breakdown. Sam Francis noted that the real motivation of the Religious Right was,

[T]he perception… that the culture their religion reflects and defends is withering and that that withering portends a disaster for themselves, their class, their country, and their civilization. Religion happens to be a convenient vehicle for their otherwise unarticulated and perfectly well founded fears.

Alas, ideas have consequences, and whatever the root cause of this political movement, the practical consequences were predictable. The Southern Baptists are now led by a black man and are changing their name to be avoid being called “racists,” Helms ended his career capering around The Dark Continent with Bono talking about the need for more AIDS funding, and religious conservatives can be found shilling for open borders on the grounds that virtuous mestizos will be a useful check to the evil secular whites enjoying craft beer in godless and wealthy cities.

An implicitly white but explicitly anti-white subculture was also a useful ally for conservative movement politicos who needed a way to keep working class whites voting Republican without having to confront the problems of multiculturalism or (even worse) look after their economic interests by supporting immigration restriction or protectionism. Thus, the Religious Right has deep roots within the official conservative movement, with the Beltway Right formally aligned with multimillion-dollar foundations and donors that cannot be easily dismissed. While conservatives were able to simply wish away their prior opposition to civil rights and even go so far as to claim they came up with the idea, it will be far more difficult to push away the Christians and their unfashionable opinions.

A homosexual activist threw this into stark relief by recently shooting a security guard at the Family Research Council. The President of the Council, the consummate politico Tony Perkins, explicitly blamed the Southern Poverty Law Center for creating the climate of intimidation that led to the shooting. Many stalwarts of the conservative movement also joined in with forthright criticism of the SPLC, calling it simply a progressive attack dog. This builds on the prior defense of the FRC by Republican politicians (including now Speaker of the House John Boehner) and staffers from conservative groups such as the Media Research Center, which rallied around the cry “Start Debating, Stop Hating.”

However, lest white advocates be encouraged, proponents of traditional values were not outraged at the institution of the SPLC itself. Instead, they were angry that they were lumped in with the icky defenders of their white constituency. The typical spin was that the Southern Poverty Law Center was noble, even heroic, when fighting the Ku Klux Klan and the dire threat of American Nazis. Now however, they had “gone too far.”

The most recent highlight is an indignant whine scribbled by perennial pubescent Rich Lowry, whose cherubic and innocent visage matches his political sophistication but conceals the reality that he’s a 44 year old man. William F. Buckley appointed Lowry editor of National Review in a characteristic fit of absence of mind, after the latter had already dismissed Joseph Sobran and demoted John O’Sullivan and Peter Brimelow.

Lowry has never written anything of lasting importance, and his prose has not graduated from the conservatism by the numbers style taught by Beltway Right institutions to socially maladjusted college students. By aping Republican talking points and taking care never to dwell into forbidden territory, they can guarantee at least some form of a living in the American Right’s own unique form of affirmative action.

Alas, occasionally an independent thinker sneaks past the defenses and writes something unauthorized. Thus it was that earlier this year that Rich Lowry terminated John Derbyshire for saying sensible things about avoiding black crime, thus returning National Review to more serious concerns like posting pictures of his dead cat. He also terminated Jewish writer Robert Weissberg for the dire crime of speaking to an American Renaissance convention, and actually took care to thank the left wing commissars who alerted him. Proudly, avowedly, unabashedly, Lowry knows the role of American conservatives – to be good losers so they can argue with lesbians like Rachel Maddow on Meet The Press about things that don’t matter. Lowry went on to write masterpieces of conservative prose like “Al Sharpton Is Right.”

Unfortunately, Lowry has to go through at least the pretense of defending traditional social beliefs once in a while. Therefore, he prissily moaned that the Left was being “intolerant” and “illiberal” to the Family Research Council, and was guilty of a “bullying attempt to short-circuit free debate.” This was bad, but not because shutting down free debate is wrong. In fact, Lowry takes care to note that when it comes to racism, “the SPLC brags about shutting down such groups, and rightly so.” Hilariously, he then acts the tough guy and notes, “You presumably don’t have an argument with the White Patriot Party militia, unless you bring along a lead pipe.”

Now, if someone actually attacked one of these groups with a lead pipe, the only real result is you would probably be charged with assaulting a federal employee. Moreover, the idea that Lowry could even lift a lead pipe, never mind wield it, is far fetched and the idea that “antifa” would regard him as anything other than an enemy is even more absurd. Of course, an actual fight between Rich Lowry and a typical “antifa” would be a slap fight only mildly less pathetic than a riot at a convention for My Little Pony.

That said, let’s give Lowry some credit. He proudly and overtly wants to maintain the double standard that opposition to gay marriage is worthy of public debate, and opposition to white genocide is not. Lest I be accused of exaggeration, Lowry gives an example of what he regards as hateful extremism by saying, “The home page of the Aryan Nation features an appeal to ‘white Americans’ to fight anti-white genocide in South Africa, along with a photo of Nelson Mandela standing next to ‘the Jew Joe Slovo.’”

Thanks to Lowry, we can all be relieved that apparently “white genocide” in South Africa isn’t happening, and observers such as Genocide Watch on the Left and conservative columnist (and Jewess) Ilana Mercer on the Right are just making things up. The scare quotes around “white Americans” is another nice touch by Lowry, who never seems quite as skeptical about terms such as “African-Americans.” Seeing as how recent polls suggest that Mitt Romney is quite literally receiving zero percent of the, ahem, “African-American” vote, the “Party of Civil Rights” has some work to do. It must just be that racist liberal media.

There is something more here though. While perhaps the phrasing the “Jew Joe Slovo” was a trifle indelicate, it is also a fact that Slovo was leader of the South African Communist Party and a key supporter of Mandela (as well as being, of course, a Jew). It’s also worth noting that most conservatives considered Mandela a terrorist, with a youth group of UK Conservative Party members even calling for Mandela’s execution. It’s also for that reason that American conservatives generally opposed sanctions on South Africa, most notably Ronald Reagan. Finally, the vast majority of American conservatives considered the African National Congress victory a disaster because it handed over strategic territory to the Soviet Union. One almost hesitates to add that it was not just the British who called Nelson Mandela a murderous terrorist who deserved jail time. It was also William F. Buckley – in the pages of National Review.

There is no doubt that despite Lowry’s stupidity and cowardice, he will be condemned by his spiritual descendents as the equivalent of a segregationist in whatever form National Review limps on in the future. As Lowry’s (and more broadly, the conservative movement’s) defense of the Family Research Council as “legitimate” is not based in principle but on momentary respectability, it is doomed to be abandoned as the egalitarian revolution rolls on. The only thing that can be said in American conservatism’s defense is that it is extremely good at neglecting it’s own past. We can be sure that whatever nonentity is administering National Review’s continuing losses of millions of dollars in 2050 will be claiming that conservatives actually invented the idea of gay marriage.

Where, however, does that leave Christian conservatives? While in the short term, persecution has strengthened their position, the long term trends are not good. The real balance of power within the conservative movement and the Republican Party lies with those who control the money, and Wall Street financiers and party insiders (some of whom are gay themselves, such as Ken Mehlman) have formed an alliance to push the party away from its socially conservative base. It should also be noted that Jewish money, like that of Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, is focused on guaranteeing unconditional American support for Israel, rather than any religious concerns for the goyim. It can be expected that the GOP will all but abandon traditional marriage as an issue within the decade, no doubt proclaiming it as a victory.

This essentially leaves the Christian conservative rump within the GOP with two choices. The first is to do what they did with race and simply change the eternal principles of the faith to go with the times. Gay marriage will thus be re-interpreted as a new form of Christian love just as miscegenation went from an abomination to an expression of divine favor. The pro-life cause, especially its fetishization of non-white births, will give whatever rump Religious Right is left enough rationale to keep fundraising, organizing, and employing itself. However, this would require frank surrender on issues of homosexuality and sexual conduct more broadly.

The second choice is that almost despite themselves, conservative Christians will be forced into the same camp as racial realists and white advocates. Once respectable or even unanimous views will be regarded as simply unfit for consideration by decent society. While many Christian denominations will simply go along with the Zeitgeist and so be suffered to exist in the same way as mainline Protestants or Unitarian Universalists, it can be expected that at least some conservative denominations will attempt to survive as something more than inner city charities. Unlike white nationalists (at least until now), a faith tradition actually has the ability to forge a self-sustaining community, and not all churches will be so quick to abandon the Great Commission to convert the world and live what they see as a Christian life.

When analyzing contemporary faith from an outsider’s perspective, it’s important to remember that the many millions of evangelical Christians in the United States really believe in their faith and that their loyalty to Christ is more important than anything else in their lives. While Christian teachings on sexuality, race, or politics can be warped or subverted, there will always be a substantial population of Christians that at least hold to the tenet that literal belief in the godhood of Christ is necessary for salvation.

In and of itself, this has no temporal importance. It may even encourage passivity, as Christians are tempted to believe that God will somehow save them from the worldly destruction of their faith, literally pulling a deus ex machina to prove to everyone else that the Christians had it right all along. For that reason, revolutionaries of both Left and Right have argued that Christianity is an ideal religion for the passive, a “slave morality” that encourages people to lead quiet lives and show compassion rather than righteously overthrowing their worldly oppressors. From this perspective, the destruction of the white West is simply Christianity taken to its logical conclusion of self-annihilation. One might even expect our rulers to tolerate or welcome Christianity as a harmless spiritual outlet for a broken people.

Of course, this expected reaction is the precise opposite of what is happening. Even as Christianity becomes ever weaker in public life, the shrieks of hatred and loathing from the secular Left grow in intensity and fervor. Egalitarianism is like a Borg, ruthlessly assimilating all that is in its path and transforming whatever cultural forms it encounters into itself. It’s all very well to write that “Christianity is the godfather of Marxism” or that egalitarianism derives from Christian morality, Protestant heresies, or the Jewish Culture of Critique. It may even be true. None of this changes the fact that a Christian truly believes that he possesses the path to real salvation, that his God really exists, and that He has certain expectations for moral behavior. This alone is reason enough for real Christianity to be suppressed under the Open Society.

Democracy” is a regime, far more insidious and totalitarian in its way than Stalinism. The worst the KGB could do is kill you, without breaking down what constituted your identity. One could die defiant, as an individual or as a community. Under “freedom,” the iron triangle of hostile media, financial power, and the occasional fist of state repression smash apart folk and religious communities into a collection of deracinated individuals. The man is emptied, and then refilled with the approved opinions of a created culture. Separated, powerless, alone, “free individuals” consume media products, work as tax slaves, engage in pointless sexual debauchery, die, and count themselves lucky for their liberty. Real religion with actual believers is a dire threat to this system because it demands a higher loyalty and constitutes a greater authority than anything the System can produce. Even for unbelievers or outright anti-Christians of the European New Right, traditional Christianity should be seen as a last bastion of resistance and the last subculture not fully under System control.

Certainly, the System views Christians in this way, especially in regards to racial matters. Whatever its tenets, the existence of a subculture based on faith and tradition necessarily falls into certain patterns that violate the egalitarian impulse. Almost only in American Christian communities are white women encouraged to stay home and have large families at an early age and men told to own their role as masculine protectors. Divorce is discouraged, and while there is plenty of hypocrisy, this is far preferable to the outright celebration of familial annhilation prized by feminists and many secularists. While white nationalists are debating game and battles between the sexes, white Christians have already received answers to these questions and have moved on to having children. Significantly, left wing critiques of Christianity (which mostly consist of obscenities or sneering curses) quickly veer into condemnations of white racism. This is, of course, partially true, as at least in a demographic sense, white Christians are doing the most to ensure the physical survival of the Aryan race.

More importantly, Christians possess the only real existing counter-culture that exists. Churches have an outlet for social life that is outside media and government control. Concerts and cinema of increasing quality allow Christians to get around the messages promoted by Hollywood. A rapidly expanding homeschooling network allows Christian parents to resist indoctrination. It’s not that conservative Christians are necessarily promoting positive values. It’s that conservative Christians are the one large group that even have the potential to promote these values.

Ideally, loyalty to God, family, folk, and nation should all be one and the same, and the thrilling victories of authentically Christian peoples such as the Afrikaners of the Day of the Vow or the Christian South of Jackson and Lee suggest that whatever the ideological tensions between the Christian faith and the racial folk, they have co-existed successfully in the past. Only with the merger of the divine, familial, ethnic, and political can a people survive in a hostile world.

It’s not surprising that in the past, groups like the Family Research Council aligned with groups like the Council of the Conservative Citizens in the same way that David Duke linked his political ambitions to Christianity. In less degenerate times, such an alliance seemed natural. Of course, today, this is held as further proof of evil. Rebecca Schoenkopf of Wonkette (and yes, I hate to offend Rich Lowry, but she too is some Communist Jew still bitter that her ancestors were chased out of the shtetls of Poland) sneered that such alliances make the FRC the same as the Klan. She’s right, though not in the way she meant.

Ultimately, if conservative Christians are to survive as a community, they will need to defend themselves as a conscious tribal grouping rather than as a collection of atomized individuals. The power of faith or an appeal to reason won’t do them any good, anymore than it saved the far more pious Orthodox who prayed fervently before the terrible conquest of Byzantium. American conservatism will eventually turn on believing Christians for the same reason it has turned on “racism.” The American Right and Left both share the quintessential American impulse towards equality and the furious hostility towards anything that gets in the way of an Open Society of profit seeking individuals. As the leftist Noam Chomsky wrote:

Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic — there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced — that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.

Religion, race, and culture are those things that make human beings truly human and that can forge deracinated people into a people. If Christianity is going to survive as a community, as opposed to a lifestyle choice akin to veganism or being a “Juggalo,” its survival is linked to the survival of other traditional loyalties. Tradition has to stand against money, blood against gold. No matter what its premises or where its internal logic leads, the survival of any kind of a traditional community, even the most barebones version of low church Protestant Christianity, is impossible in a soulless McWorld run on the principles of 365 Black.

It doesn’t matter that the first principles of white nationalists and committed Christians have nothing in common. It doesn’t matter that most conservative Christians are anti-white or at best indifferent to ethnicity, except for worshipping Jews. It doesn’t matter that Radical Traditionalists are opposed to almost everything most evangelical Christians stand for. It doesn’t even matter that it is the mission of the European (and North American) New Right to rip out egalitarianism from the root, even if that eventually means Christianity itself. The survival of the white race and the survival of the church on earth require the same kind of cultural and (eventually) political rebellion against the current System. Both of these forces have no choice but to unite for its overthrow.

The survival of any kind of authentic belief, tradition, or humanity requires Revolution. The other debates can come later. The White Republic and the Kingdom of God might just be one and the same.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

22 Comments

  1. Greg Johnson
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    This article makes an excellent case for regarding evangelical Christians as the most gullible people in America, since they actually believe and practice racial egalitarianism. Their leaders are also among the most cynical and corrupt people in America. Given that, though, they are the last people that the North American New Right should repose any hope in.

    We would have a greater chance of teaching cosmotheism to Trekkies and race realism to SWPLs. In fact, since liberals measure their status and enlightenment in terms of their distance from “those people” — the evangelicals chief among them — perhaps evangelical anti-racism, particularly if wedded to blubbering televangelical emotionalism, might be a useful tool to prod liberals in the direction of race realism, which after all is premised on the Darwinism that liberals reflexively defend against creationists anyway.

    • Kevin W. Cornell
      Posted August 24, 2012 at 9:11 am | Permalink

      Perhaps white Christians can be converted towards a less suicidal posture (or even a helpful one) if the words of earlier generations of white Christians are quoted to them. I imagine there has to be a wealth of sensible quotes made by venerated Christian leaders of times past that we can quote to the contemporary denominations who have gone in the opposite direction of their predecessors, as it’s my understanding that Christianity and basic common sense weren’t always so diametrically opposed. For example, to Protestant Zionists, we can quote Martin Luther. What else can we do? While I wouldn’t recommend hostility towards ordinary church-goers and Christianity per se, the current crop of arrogant Christian mega-leaders absolutely has to go.

      • Posted August 25, 2012 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

        For instance, St. Augustine’s City of God, Book XVI Chapter 2.

        Is it not also in the houses of Christ, that is, in the churches, that the enlargement of the nations dwells? For Japheth means enlargement. And Ham (i.e., hot), who was the middle son of Noah, and, as it were, separated himself from both, and remained between them, neither belonging to the first-fruits of Israel nor to the fullness of the Gentiles, what does he signify but the tribe of heretics, hot with the spirit, not of patience, but of impatience, with which the breasts of heretics are wont to blaze, and with which they disturb the peace of the saints?

        This should ably demonstrate to Christians and European New Rightists alike that racial knowledge did not begin with Darwin; it doesn’t even seem to clash with Creationism. Either a Doctor of the Church was a naziwhowantedtokill6millionjews, or modern believers have mistaken an ideology for dogma.

        Race is not central to Christianity–actually believing Christians see all passing worldly affairs as secondary–but as a Catholic I defend the Faith by saying that it does not need to be, either by way of affirmation or denial. While we believe that salvation in Jesus Christ is for all mankind, and early Christians indeed were united beyond the distinctions of Jew and Gentile, we do not find in them modern egalitarianism. While Nietzsche et al. teach that the implications of Christian belief were not fully realized, Augustine believed that the sons of Shem, Ham, and Japheth had different roles assigned by Providence in salvation history. This view receives decisive backing from Acts 16:6-10, when a vision leads St. Paul to evangelize in Macedonia rather than Asia. If one people rather than another are preferred for the sharing of the Good News, even for a time, it seems to show that God’s offer of salvation did not lead Him to embrace doctrinaire “colorblindness”.

        This is not to say a neat-and-snug ideology may be crafted to fuse pro-White thought and the Faith; I regard such attempts as silly and unnecessary. Like other moderns, Christians need merely embrace a greater degree of moderation and coolness toward Liberal ideology before they can work out the actual implications of biblical teachings regarding the nations of men.

  2. BlackSun
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Is there anything traditional about evangelical Christianity? I’m not Christian at all, but even I can understand and sympathize with the argument that Christianity in the form of traditional Catholicism, the various Orthodox churches, and the like drew heavily from pre-Christian European traditions and values. This form of Christianity at least had some real spiritual and intellectual content , even if it doesn’t speak to me. Evangelical Christianity is basically an American invention of the 19th century that strips out just about anything of value from traditional Christianity and leaves the original egalitarianism intact. It then embeds this in a culture of emotionalism. hucksterism, and hostility to any form of knowledge or intellect that doesn’t serve their ends. In short, it’s a pretty repellent brand of religion to anyone not brought up in such a culture.

    I’ve noticed that Europeans (even non-Christian ones) often find the hostility expressed towards Christianity by many American racialists a little over the top. That’s because they think of Christianity as being the traditional forms they are used to, not the evangelical form that is rare there. Here, it’s hard not to associate Christianity as a whole with evangelism because it’s the only form of Christianity with any vitality at all. Despite its implicit whiteness, evangelical Christianity is so doctrinally egalitarian that many of us find it near impossible to identify with in any way.

    Finally, I would question that evangelical Christianity is a bulwark against feminism. It has certainly been slow to adopt the worst feminist attitudes and there is still lots of family talk, but if you read any of the Manosphere blogs that have an explicitly Christian viewpoint (such as Dalrock) you’ll see that this is changing. Even in these circles, Christianity is losing men rapidly and catering to a soft feminist, female-centered clientele. Maybe there are some sects that are not yet doing this but when evangelical men claim that their churches are catering to a soft feminism and back it up with concrete evidence, I take notice.

    • JustaWhiteMom
      Posted August 24, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink

      The key to understanding evangelicalism is that its adherents are obsessed with avoiding any religious expression that appears to rely on “works” for salvation. This is indeed crucial for authentic Christianity and mirrors Christ’s reaction against formal and unspontaneous Pharisaic worship. However, evangelicals take this to extreme and reject all traditional forms of worship that bind communities and generations.

  3. JustaWhiteMom
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Conservative white Christians have no idea what liberalism is and what is in store for them. They are absolutely unprepared for the immanent attack on them. A movement for “children’s rights” will be the next leftist crusade and it will target Christian families for dissolution. Homeschooling will come under attack as “child abuse” for failing to prepare children for a “multicultural society”, religious schools will be infiltrated and subverted, and parental authority itself will be attacked.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the government set up some sort of “commission” to process grievances by children against their parents for violation of their “fundamental rights” to free expression, free association, “proportional’ discipline, privacy, and God knows what else. I shudder to think about it but I don’t think gay “marriage” is the final frontier.

    The liberal order cannot abide the traditional nuclear family. It will have to go. Parents cannot be allowed to thwart the NWO by teaching their children dissident ideas, especially since conservative Christians are fecund and therefore disproportionately influential on the next generation. This attack is coming. The only question is how Christians will react.

    I see no evidence, at least in conservative Christian circles, of a surrendur to radical feminism. Anti-feminist mothers are definitely a bulwark against liberal subversion. After all, who has more of an interest in a civilization than those who see its transmission as their life’s work?

  4. BasilX
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    I do not know much about Evangelical Christianity. I wonder is Jessie Jackson part or offshoot of Evangelical Christianity ?

    • JustaWhiteMom
      Posted August 24, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      “Evangelical Christianity” is not really monolithic. In the broad sense, it means any conservative Protestant. That is, any Protestant who actually still believes that one must believe the Gospel to be saved, though some make exception for Jews, who are said to have a continuing Covenant. Yours truly is theologically liberal, but I travel in conservative circles because liberal denominations are infested with Marxists, Feminists, etc.

      Among whites, evangelicals may be members of a traditional denomination like Baptist or Lutheran, or they may be congregants of newer, non-denominational “mega-churches.” Perhaps counterintuitively, the former denominations are intensely intellectual. They are known to passionately debate with each other and their pastors about whether a certain point of doctrine is a “salvation issue.” That is, because justification follows from faith alone, what are the essentials of the Gospel that must be believed to ensure salvation? The mega-churches tend to be more down-market. They are very expensive and they put on elaborate concerts to attract a huge congregation. They share the same basic worldview with the older denominations.

      So far as I know, the traditional black Protestant denominations have a worship style that is more like the mega-churches. It is ecstatic and voluntary rather than pious and intellectual. I would not be surprised if there was mixing between these circles, though I do not know. I would think that politics would be an obstacle. Though black Protestants and White evangelicals might substantially share most of their political views, the emphasis is different. Whites believe moral and cultural issues are paramount, while blacks emphasize “social justice” issues. Perhaps I will do some research to try to ascertain whether these churches are integrating. If so, that would be problematic indeed.

      • Dominion
        Posted August 24, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

        I’d say there’s exceptions on both sides. Traditional European Churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox communions certainly emphasize moral and cultural issues, but the Catholic, Anglican and (in Canada) United churches are among the most active in social justice and charitable causes. On the other side, black-dominated charismatic, evangelical and baptist churches definitely have a large focus on ‘spiritual’ issues, and there’s many a black preacher man who can rival Billy Sunday in their rhetoric against this or that sin and corruption. I’d say this is not even so much from “integrating” as much as it is simply the nature of the Christian religion, especially in North America.

      • Kullervo
        Posted August 25, 2012 at 5:49 am | Permalink

        Thanks for the fine summary, JWM. From what you describe, I can tell you must live in my neck of the woods. That would be a typical coffee stand conversation. I always thought it would be interesting (but a supreme waste of time) to make a zoological survey of all the splinter Protestant subgenera. New ones form as I write. The Reformation never ended!

        Seems to me that nonCatholic Christianity is like an ideological putty that can be molded to fit into any worldview. National Socialists were Lutheran, but in the US Lutherans are Chrisitan Zionists. This is consistent with the philosophical nature of Christianity: the emphasis is on winning souls for the next world, not on temporal matters in this world, inasmuch as they impact the latter, such as abortion and gay marriage. I think Greg Johnson originally made that observation.

  5. Jaego Scorzne
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    The Orthodox have some vitality – an American Church is slowly forming out of the many ethnic churches on these shores. These people don’t worship the Jews – and they remember the persecutions of Christians that have been written out of the books. One of the largest and most friendly to outsiders, is the Antiochian which is overtly Anti-Zionist. See the speeches of Metropolitan Phillip.

    Among American Denominations, the best are probably the Calvinist. They pointedly reject Darbysm and the idea that the Jews are still the chosen people. I believe that at least some of them divested from Israel a while back. The really conervative ones have some very good ideas about raising children into young adults and young adults into men and women. See the writings of Rushdoony. He is also strong on the tithe – like the Mormons. Ideas like these are what we need if we are going to get rid of big goverment. As Formoyle said, you can’t change one big thing without changing everything. Libertarians haven’t a clue and don’t want one.

    The Lutherans wont even carry their own Founder’s book, “The Jews and Their Lies”.

  6. phil white
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    As a part of the white evangelical demographic I think I understand the impetus for their anti-racist stance. They know they will be publicly whipped at any moment for their faith.
    They also know that if they display any hint of racial consciousness they will be publicly whipped for that.
    So having been whipped for their faith they cringe at the thought of being whipped again for racial consciousness. Therefore they abandon all racial consciousness. They cower like whipped dogs.
    Once the anti-liberal revolution begins, I wouldn’t be surprised to see evangelical mobs taking terrible un-Christian like revenge against their liberal former slave masters. It may be so terrible as to sicken even us.

  7. OSEverything
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    It is a waste of time to tailor Rightist thought to the “desires” of sheeple. Let’s be honest, that’s what Christians are. Grab the reins of power and they will easily be controlled and tamed; they will conform to whatever they are told “the good” is.

    BTW one CAN believe in his own personal god(s) and the afterlife and not be among their number; indeed, this may even be essential for fostering prosocial behavior.

  8. Andrew
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    This was a powerful article, insightful and thought-provoking, and a good read as well. I am especially pleased with the recognition that Christianity is a big plus for White survival, and “at least in a demographic sense, white Christians are doing the most to ensure the physical survival of the Aryan race.”

    Certain detractors of Christianity (you see this a lot in WN forums) have all kinds of negative things to say about the religion. And its true that some of that is going on, non-White adoptions, support of non-White immigration from certain quarters and so forth. But, the bigger picture is that the bulk of Christians are doing their duty, having White children and their belief system shields those children from much of popular culture. Churches are largely segregated, and Christians are overwhelmingly implicitly Whitecentric. Universal Christianity promotes de-racination in theory, but in practice, White Christians spend most of their lives around others of the same kind, and choose them as spouses. This is especially the case for those who are homeschooled and shielded from the multicult media. Show me a woman who chose a non-White husband (or baby daddy), and I will show you a girl raised without a strong White father in the picture. A male with a strong Christian faith is much more likely to be such a figure in his family life.

    The anti-Christians’ major sin is refusing to recognize that most humans have an instinctive, powerful need for spirituality. Their are brain centers dedicated to this activity, and for most people, this is a profound part of their lives. Maybe certain people don’t have this need, or have learned to live happily without spirituality, but they should recognize that asking others to give up their need for spirituality is like asking them to give up their need for love and companionship, also essential. And the suggestion of “well, then just trade your Christianity for my Paganism!” is silly. Paganism is not satisfying for most people, especially as spirituality is tied to tradition, and what you grew up with.

    I also believe that WN and Christianity will find themselves to be bedfellows in the fullness of time as the multicult grows like a cancer.

  9. MOB
    Posted August 25, 2012 at 3:49 am | Permalink

    I’d like to mention the 1952 film “My Son John,” which was directed by Leo McCarey and stars Helen Hayes, Van Heflin, Robert Walker, and Dean Jagger. Dismissed by some as part of the “red scare,” it is, in fact, a beautifully written, directed, and acted film, of relevance here because it places the absolute opposition between Communism and Christianity, despite ideological similarities, in such stark relief.

    I have always had difficulty trying to define “evangelical” – the Logia book review (link below) helps.

    Last year ELCA’s Fortress Press published Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod: A Conflict That Changed American Christianity by James Burkee, with a foreword by Martin Marty.

    Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod: A Conflict That Changed American Christianity
    by James C Burkee (Author); Martin E. Marty (Author of the Foreword)

    Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod follows the rise of two Lutheran clergymen­, Herman Otten and J. A. O. Preus, ­who led different wings of a conservative movement that seized control of a theologically conservative but socially and politically moderate church denomination (LCMS) and drove “moderates” from the church in the 1970s. The schism within what was then one of the largest Protestant denominations in the United States ultimately reshaped the landscape of American Lutheranism and fostered the polarization that characterizes today’s Lutheran churches.

    Burkee’s story, supported by personal interviews with key players and church archives sealed for over twenty years, is about more than Lutheranism. The remaking of this one Lutheran denomination reflects a broader movement toward theological and political conservatism in American churches­a movement that began in the 1970s and culminated in the formation of the “Religious Right.”

    There’s an interesting review of the book here.

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted August 26, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      The story of this huge schism within the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) is one of the most fascinating stories in mainstream modern Protestantism.

      I’ve seen old photographs of the nearly-empty seminary classrooms after the Leftists (including philo-Semitic neocon Richard John Neuhaus, who later converted to Roman Catholicism) walked out because their attempted coup d’état failed. It’s one of the few times, possibly the only time, when the Left lost a major battle of the culture wars.

      Crusading pastor Herman Otten’s self-published newspaper Lutheran News, later Christian News, played a major role in the victory of the traditionalists within the church. I subscribed to the newspaper for many years. So did Revilo Oliver, who alluded to it frequently in his Liberty Bell columns.

      As an offset against author James Burkee’s and Fortress Press’s Leftist slant, I suggest interested readers check out the review of the book by Rev. Rolf Preus on Christian News‘s blog. http://christiannewsmo.blogspot.com/2011/09/power-politics-and-missouri-synod.html It’s technical, but useful for anyone with an interest in the subject.

      This statement by Preus especially caught my eye:

      “Burkee’s theological gaffes are at times somewhat shocking, as when, in reference to the Missouri Synod, he speaks of ‘the church’s historic doctrinal emphasis on unconditional obedience to the government’ (page 26). The LCMS has never taught unconditional obedience to the government. Such a teaching is not only in direct conflict with the Holy Scriptures, it is contradicted by officially adopted catechisms of the Synod. It is difficult to imagine any LCMS pastor teaching such a thing. Nevertheless, Burkee regards it as an ‘historic doctrinal emphasis.’”

      By the way, I appreciated and enjoyed “No Separate Peace.”

      • Basileus
        Posted August 26, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

        Mr Hamilton what do you make of this article from the Jewish Daily Forward?

        http://forward.com/articles/159955/converts-who-changed-the-church/?p=all

        Even the Roman Catholic Church has been subverted.

      • Andrew Hamilton
        Posted August 27, 2012 at 9:51 am | Permalink

        The Jewish neutering of the Roman Catholic Church is not widely-known. In the nature of things, such facts are not broadly publicized.

        But the essentials can be ascertained with effort. Thus, they are known to Jews who are involved in the process, or who have taken the trouble to look; to dedicated philo-Semites like Connelly (the author of the article); and to the handful of people genuinely opposed to Jewish hatred and dominance.

        Christianity, in toto, is now badly compromised. There is no significant portion of it, Catholic or Prostestant, that has not been suborned.

        But the same is true of every area of Western life: government, the media, academia, culture.

        It is also true of conservatism and even “white nationalism.”

        No one comes off looking good. I can’t honestly say that Christians are much worse (or better) than most white nationalists in that regard.

        At the moment, everyone’s genuflecting to the powerful.

  10. JJ
    Posted August 25, 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    It may appear today that white evangelical Christians are the” last people that the North American New Right should repose any hope in” GJ. What about tomorrow? For most Americans, the US is not much different than it was in the 1950’s. But change, it will. And there, in that place, is it forgivable if Christian hostility ruins our only chance for a nation?

  11. Posted August 26, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    “No matter what its premises or where its internal logic leads, the survival of any kind of a traditional community, even the most barebones version of low church Protestant Christianity, is impossible in a soulless McWorld run on the principles of 365 Black.”

    I don’t think we should reflexively buy into the idea that contemporary America is “soulless” in the sense of being secular, gray-on-gray modernity. Clearly, spirituality is always at play in life; indeed, Low Church Protestantism has gained in power, political influence, and numbers in the last 30 “soulless” years. The fact that the author includes the “365 Black” catchphrase as accompanying “McWorld” highlights the way that identity and spirituality is wrapped up mass consumerism.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that the certain type of evangelical Christianity that arose over the past year is hardly at war with post-modern, multi-racial America–it’s a part of it. There is no reason to believe that evangelicals will make common cause with White Nationalists.

  12. Lew
    Posted August 26, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Having lived much of my life in the Deep South, I have seen the evangelicals up close. I think the possibility they will align with any form of racialism is zero. Even the smartest ones are so heavily invested in racial egalitarianism it’s mind boggling (to me). I understand anecdotes are not data, but I’ll share a couple.

    An acquaintance of mine works for a hedge fund (Wharton, MBA). He routinely spends his money by taking long visits to Africa to do charity work. He and his wife have six kids, two white biologic kids and four blacks adopted from Africa. That says it all.

    Also, one of my neighbors is also an evangelical pastor. He and his wife travel to Africa often too, though they don’t have adopted black kids. What’s especially disappointing him is that he is immensely intelligent and well-educated (expertise in Latin, Greek, history and oratory and pretty much the entire Bible and Christian tradition). So if he doesn’t “get it,” it doesn’t seem likely other, less knowledgeable Christians will either. He has influence over 2000-2500 mostly middle class white people in his congregation.

One Trackback

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance