Print this post Print this post

Why We Should Save Christianity

1,192 words

Gregory Hood is partially correct; Christianity alone can’t save us. “Christianity” is far too abstract, vague, and ill-defined to achieve much of anything, good or ill. A cursory review of the world’s popular denominations and their failure to coherently and consistently define their deity, define their doctrine, and define their prescribed behavior confirms that “Christianity” in the broad and abstract is not even wrong. There’s no there there. It only exists in the ether of superficial political bullshit.

Paganism is arguably even less coherent. Is it a Jungian mythic and organic pantheistic worldview? Is it a demonic inversion of and threat to Christianity? Is it the Will Of The Aryan Nation? Abstractions don’t meaningfully exist out of context.

What is “Marxism,” after all? Stalin’s industrial despotism, Mao’s inner party, Castro’s agrarian regime, North Korea’s dynastic cult of personality, and hipster college students all claim the “Marxist” label.

Mr. Hood repeats Russell Kirk’s claim that “culture arises from the cult,” but he fails to distinguish between the cult itself and its sacred texts, leaving us to presume that “Christianity” in the broad and abstract has an obvious and consistent political theme. It doesn’t. It’s imperial; it’s nationalist. It’s fascist; it’s anarchist. It’s hierarchical; it’s egalitarian. It’s identitarian; it’s borderless. While the sacred text itself may be of some limited utility if thoughtfully perused by an individual, anybody who purports that the Bible in and of itself has some specific political agenda is being willfully ignorant about the wildly different lessons individuals and civilizations have extracted from it.

In my opinion, both Christians and anti-Christians alike who attempt to point to the Bible as proof of its political utility or futility are mistaken. Among Christians, this is only really a problem for sola scriptura Protestants, as traditional Christian churches integrate the Bible into an overarching ecclesiastical tradition which one can confidently make specific claims for and against. Is the Bible literally apostolic? It depends on who you ask. But there’s only one correct answer for Catholics and a different one for Baptists.

Within Mr. Hood’s own article, he tries to have it both ways. Since there is no monolithic “Christian church,” there’s no proverbial door upon which to stick these charges. After congratulating Orthodox Christians abroad who are boldly pushing back against Modernity, he chuckles that “eventually they are going to start reading their Bibles.” Shortly thereafter, he informs us that “Westboro Baptists hold to a more authentic (and in some ways honorable) form of Christianity by truly believing what their Holy Book tells them, even in defiance of all the world.”

Is biblical literalism ridiculously hardcore, or a trojan horse carrying the liberal egalitarian universalist plague?

Is Christianity doomed because it’s integrally bad, or is Christianity doomed because it’s powerless against Modernity? Mr. Hood has established a rigged lose/lose framing in which everything Christianity has done right is vestigial paganism, everything it’s done wrong is integral to its nature, and everything that’s been done to it is its own fault.

Many of my fellow Christians are expecting me to write an article which defends Christianity’s ability to save the West. I agree with Mr. Hood that Christianity can’t save the West. Neither can paganism, though. Tradition doesn’t work that way. Institutions which have been around as long as Judaism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Confucianism don’t survive from one millennium to the next by boldly defying the order. Like a pregnant woman hiding in the cellar during a siege, the Church’s duty is to preserve and protect Holy Tradition at all costs. The Russian Orthodox Church which has been modeling the most impressive 21st Century resistance to Modernity could only do so because its priests and patriarchs did an impressive job of accommodating themselves to the most virulently anti-Christian regime of the 20th Century.

We must rally behind a Tradition worth killing and dying for. I believe Western Rite Orthodoxy is the simple and obvious Tradition to resurrect and stand for, and I believe it should be inseparably married to the uniquely Western spirit and culture which preceded Christianity. Mr. Hood grudgingly admits that “Germanic Christianity” could be that vehicle, but dismisses it as an “unnatural conglomeration.” I don’t see it that way, and I see pre-Christian European traditions as foreshadowing and leading up to Christianity. I see the Arthurian Cycle and other Christian syntheses of indigenous folk tradition as perfectly natural.

For millennia, the fusion of the West’s unique spirit and Christ’s message were accepted as natural. For me, what’s unnatural is the bizarre effort by some fundamentalist types to frame this organic adoption of Christianity by our heathen forefathers as heretical. What’s unnatural is to strip us of our Solstice festival, its cherished Germanic symbols, and our integral martial spirit in favor of some simulacrum of Classical Middle Eastern desert culture and spirit.

Christ’s message was indeed universal, and it was for all the nations of the world. Up until recently, it was intuitively obvious that his message would and should be embraced within the cultural contexts of those nations. The notion that Christianity is really all about imposing a Semitic global empire with a Semitic spirit and culture is only taken seriously now that the Pharisees–Christ’s foremost opponents during his ministry–stand at the brink of achieving precisely that.

Christianity can’t save the West, but I believe the West can and should save Christianity. It can’t happen from within the Church, though. It must happen in parallel with and at arm’s length from the Church. Those looking to the Church for aid and comfort will continue to be disappointed. Only after a martial vanguard clears the way for it will an authentically traditionalist and nationalist Christianity be able to climb out of the cellar. This is how it’s working with the Golden Dawn in Greece. This is how it worked with the KGB Deep State and it’s relationship with the Church in Eastern Europe. This is how it worked long ago with Emperor Constantine.

And why should we save Christianity? Because it’s the one true faith, that’s why! Setting eternal salvation aside for a moment, the Church has done more to preserve our pagan and Classical inheritance than any other institution. I propose that a Germanic (I prefer “Arthurian” . . . ) Christianity is more capable of upholding European folk tradition than the European folk traditionalists themselves. I believe it’s also more confluent with our geopolitical predicament, plugging us into an emergent nationalist Christian superpower alliance which could compete with the emerging East Asian and Islamic superpower alliances.

The path from where White Americans currently are to a restored Christianity worthy of restoring seems shorter and more direct to me than the line to a pagan revival. That being said, skeptics, folk religionists, and those belonging to the panoply of Christian denominations absolutely must strike a delicate balance where we’re actively debating and discussing these different models without sabotaging one another. Personally, I think it’s more constructive (if admittedly more challenging) to make a convincing case for why our own answers are the best answer. I hope Gregory Hood will consider writing a follow-up article, “Why Heathenry Can Save Us.”

 

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.

44 Comments

  1. Posted August 5, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    Well, for tactical reasons alone, defending Christianity is already enough reason. Here in Europe, what muslims attack are christian monuments/churches, culture, etc. Generation Identitaire has set up many campaigns (Do not touch my church, etc), which serve as a means to let people see what is going on with islamic imperialism. If we were to just forget about the christian heritage as part of our european heritatge, we are making it easier for Islam to further penetrate our defensive line. Maybe we should focus more on practical things, and we can let the debate (paganism/christianity) mature as we start to halt and ultimately win over these scumbags.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted August 6, 2013 at 1:37 am | Permalink

      The trouble with your view is that the Churches are among the leading enablers of the Islamic invasion. How do you fight that invasion without fighting the idiots who enable it?

  2. Lew
    Posted August 3, 2013 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    Silver,

    Lew, don’t be such a simpleton.

    I’m not a “new atheist.” I have no respect for Dawkins or Dennett’s perspective on religion. My overall approach to the issues comes mainly from Hume, Aquinas, Anselm and others from much older strands of philosophy.

    When Hume examined the notion of miracles for example, he noticed that the miracles are invariably witnessed among ignorant, backwards peoples. What is that about Hume’s point that isn’t convincing? The miracles never happen in the science lab, or, going back to ancient times, never happened in plain view of the Roman Senate where the educated elite of Rome were gathered to conduct business. Dawkins/Dennett’s virulence is not needed to get to the conclusion there is little real evidence for miracles.

    Technically, I suppose, I’m not an non-new atheist either, because, again, I have no idea what it is that I’m not supposed to believe in. What am I not supposed to believe in? You tell me.

    Your “theological inflation” is basically an ostentatious description of a lie that a group of people made up for a specific purpose: to make their God and therefore their values and their way of looking at the world more attractive than the alternatives. In other words, the purpose of the theological inflation is to win recruits for particular worldview by peddling lies that make it easier for people to get through the day. Once people accept it, the consequence is always to elevate the power of the priest class over society (or the imam, rabbi or whatever). Very convenient.

  3. Maple Leaf
    Posted August 3, 2013 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    Yikes, Ok well how about….Astronomy, Philosophy, Science, the Classics, the Family, Warcraft,
    Play, Sex, Thinking,………………….etc!
    I think we can evolve without the JuJu!

  4. chris
    Posted August 3, 2013 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    What is anyone’s opinion on Creativity?

  5. Thorsten
    Posted August 2, 2013 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

    The problem with intentionally doing away with religion is that irrespective of whether “God” is real or not, religion (and an exoteric one at that) is indispensable for the maintenance of order within a society. Many of the folks who are free-thinking enough to challenge the involutional forces of modernity may well have the self-mastery to live upright lives without the direction of any creed. But the truth is that the vast majority of people are without self-control in the absence of the rites and customs that are historically enforced through religion. The evidence for this is all around us. Anomy and nihilism threats as deadly as race-replacement.

    The project of the willed fetishization (in a purely descriptive non-pejorative sense) of “the race” in the literalist sense of an agregate of more or less closely related breeding populations (even if imbued with the grandiose promise of genetic improvement through eugenics and genetic engineering) could serve as the foundation for a new religion or ethical system is bound to fail. It is simply too narrow. There is an almost autistic quality to the whole notion of latching onto something so specific (and really if one is honest with oneself, materialistic) and referring every aspect of life back to it with tedious obsessiveness.

    It lacks the element of the transcendent and it lacks absoluteness. It also has the effect of encouraging not only those virtues with which ones race is naturally gifted but also nursing those weaknesses to which it naturally tends. One is reminded of a certain “race” who has a pronounced tendency to reinterpret its hereditary character flaws in such a way.

    Now whether the transcendent and the absolute do indeed exist is another question. But race-worship as a surrogate for religion amounts to a collective “apotheosis of the ego” which is inadequate both in terms of the pragmatic business of maintaining adherence to cultural norms, and leading people toward the possibility of a potential reference point for valuation and action beyond the material self, whether that be one’s own body (as is the general tendency of contemporary culture) or the collective body of the “race”.

    I believe we can do better.

  6. Maple Leaf
    Posted August 2, 2013 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Heinrich,

    A good example of the stupidness of all this would be “Jews for Jesus”!
    Which I believe was started by Saul, alias Paul and later St Paul, soon to be a Hollywood
    blockbuster!
    The New Testament is attached to the Old Testament for a reason, Adam&Eve…Big Sin,
    angry god, curse, need death of Messiah god, must believe or go to hell…etc! Old Testiment has the prophecys that the christians claim predict Jesus, the Jews say he was an Idolator, and that their still waiting for the Messiah…etc….ALL JEWISH STUFF!
    ( But hey, if you worship a Jewish guy it’s hard to be down on his folks!)

    Or, Indo (European?) etc, Kalyi Yuga, Karma, enlightenment, blah blah blah…etc.
    ( I notice that Arktos books has included books by the Hari Krshnas in their inventory, now
    that should give you pause!)

    Jesus said, that “until you become like little children, you can’t enter into the (his) Kingdom!”
    And little children always ask WHY, as we should! Why do we need this Religion in our life?
    Flush it All out of your system, it has nothing to do with us other than as an example of what Eastern beliefs do to poison our Race!

  7. Peter Quint
    Posted August 2, 2013 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    We must base our movement on race alone; I care not what a man’s meta-physical consolation may be as long as they place the survival of the white race above personal consequences, good or ill.

  8. Richard Beaudette
    Posted August 2, 2013 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    The White Race in this modern world is being threatened with eventual extinction, even despite the best efforts of various White Nationalist groups, and if the White Race is extinguished, so also will the Aryan Race disappear from the Earth forever. It is obvious that the White Race can never be saved unless its Aryans embrace and proclaim a religion that will inspire, encourage and strengthen them. The Aryan Race needs a religion that will make Aryans fight against their enemies instead of tolerating or even accepting them. The Aryan Race needs a religion that will compel Aryans to save the White Race and thus to preserve the Aryan Race.

    The Aryan Race needs its True Aryan Religion in order to save itself from the increasing decadence and dissolution of this modern liberal democratic era.

    The Aryan Race needs a religion of war, not a religion of peace.
    The Aryan Race needs a religion of hate, not a religion of love.
    The Aryan Race needs a religion of boldness, not a religion of meekness.
    The Aryan Race needs a religion of anger, not a religion of sorrow.
    The Aryan Race needs a religion of severity, not a religion of mercy.

    • Jaego
      Posted August 2, 2013 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      In other words, we need Christianity as practiced by the Franks under Charlemagne and later as practiced by the Normans. They were bolder, meaner, and severer than the Old Pagans ever were. After all, they crushed them. The teachings of Zoroaster were also very good – the most masculine religion ever perhaps. He taught not only to fight evil when it arises, but to actually search for it in order to crush it.

      The real problem with Christianity has been its cruelty. Now it is unspeakably cruel to the Race that once championed it – us.

      • White Republican
        Posted August 3, 2013 at 12:24 am | Permalink

        I remember watching a documentary series on the Normans in which the narrator remarked: “They were bad Christians, and good churchmen.”

  9. Posted August 2, 2013 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    Jewish Supremacy will not be overcome/defeated until the West realizes it has spiritually surrendered to the same folks via Christianity. The two models today found within the “faith” are racial egalitarianism/out-group altruism/liberal-cultural marxism which is very bad – the results of which can be seen in South Africa – the other model is pure worship of Jewry in the form of Christian Zionism. The Eastern Orthodox faith of Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Armenia/Assyria, etc. is the only form that is still viable, and they are still worshipping a Jewish god. That quote by Ravage says it all.

  10. Greg P.
    Posted August 2, 2013 at 3:52 am | Permalink

    It is a rare occasion when I read one of Matt Parrott’s pieces and don’t agree with more than 90% of it. He seems to be one of the more clear-headed and goal oriented anong us, like Greg Johnson. Greg and Matt are two of a very few that I would feel comfortable speaking on my behalf as far as what I believe on the range of topics discussed on Counter-Currents.

    So it was a bit surprising to read this, for I don’t agree with a lot of it personally though Matt and I do share agree on much of it. Despite some aspects of Christianity being attractive, I cannot see myself ever believing in it nor do I have any desire to. My general opinion of it is quite negative. That said, I am grateful for people like Matt, and for this piece. These are the kinds of differing opinions and approaches that the NANR needs. I believe in the pro-white pluralism approach Greg Johnson wrote about previously. That we need pro-whites of every variety so every decent white person can potentially find a place of belonging in our movement.

    Christianity, regardless of my opinion of it or that of anyone else here is not leaving our people anytime soon. So it’s better to have as many pro-white forms of Christianity as is useful to helping stop white genocide and establishing homelands for our people. Likewise, it would also be beneficial to have pagan belief systems and communities, traditionalists, atheists, so on and so forth.

    I don’t think trying to reconcile these differing worldviews is as important as developing them in a way that adherents feel comfortable working with those of different beliefs towards a future for white children. Stopping white genocide must come first. If that meant converting to Christianity, I would do it. If that meant jumping off a bridge, dishonoring my family, accepting false charges against my person, or even being recorded as a traitor to my race in the histories books, I would do it. Survival of our race, or people, is the prerequisite to everything that we love and value, therefore, it must come first, no matter what.

  11. Umm No
    Posted August 2, 2013 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    “[T]he Church has done more to preserve our pagan and Classical inheritance than any other institution.”
    You can’t possibly be serious. Christians destroyed an incalculable amount of knowledge from and about the Classical Greeks and Romans, and European pagans. Christianity set Western civilization back about a thousand years.

  12. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted August 2, 2013 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    The simplest argument in favor of Christianity is this: it is the one religion that is hated by the Jews, to the point that they will neutralize it and destroy it by any means necessary. Our Enemies know more about the power of True Christianity than we do, and we can thank our controlled Institutions for that.

    Again, I have stated my belief that the Christian Bible should consist of the first ten chapters of Genesis – the Universal Fall of Man – the Gospels, and the Book of Revelation. That’s it. For those who wish for a truly solid alternative perspective, I refer you to the Anointed Standard Version by the fine people at christianseparatist.org.

    Matt wants us to “save Christianity.” The best way is not to save what is, but to save the best, placing it is the proper context, not a process of reform, but a New Reformation.

    I have mentioned here about the importance of Pagan Masculinism in saving Christianity from becoming Judeo-Feminine Christianity.We can acknowledge this by being the Men who will not tolerate anything less than Christianity at its best. That will means new Churches, new schools, new social systems, and a new economy, very new bottles for a very new wine.

    Strip it to it’s Living Essentials, and go from there.

    After all, that’s what Christ did with the Egypto-Chaldean foundations of the Israelite faith, building on the Zoroastrian foundations that were precursors of Christianity.

  13. Posted August 1, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    We can either save Christianity OR we can save our Race. We cannot save both. When our Aryan ancestors were forcibly “converted” to that Jewish slave religion, we were exposed to a belief system that was at war with our natural racial instincts. We must totally throw off the Jewish yoke and develop a new religion/philosophy that is in harmony with our Race Soul.

  14. Maple Leaf
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    Jack London: “I’m a White man first — then an atheist!”

    This has to be where we stand, any compromise with christianity or any other form of
    make believe will only come back to bite us!
    Storing this crazyness in the hold of our ship as we sail home ( like Dracula ), will only
    infect the next generation we fight for! How do you explain to them that you dragged this
    madness yet again into another century in the name of Culture?
    People in the past thought they could dump this nonsense into stained glass and organ music, but this thing seeks blood the younger the better….. ie. the Vatican.
    Growing up in the 60’s, we were all influenced by the bells and smells of strange and mostly Eastern religions and cults, what I consider my culture today exists in revolt and opposition to All of the infulences of these foreign belief sysyems!
    Let’s pack light, it’s easier to fight!

  15. ultramontaigne
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Is it possible that Belloc’s Catholicism was a Maurras-like device, a kind of doublespeak for supporting the truths that seemed inexorably wrapped in Christianity, especially at the time in which he wrote?

  16. NBG
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    I personally do not understand the attraction to religion (that is, supernatural belief in gods and other fairy tales). I’m sympathetic to the author’s points, but I’m also unable to stomach these absurd myths – from Odin to Yaweh to Jesus to that Muslim fellow. The religion that makes any sense is Ben Klasson’s Creativity. The religion of race – no gods allowed.

  17. Excalibur
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Did not Christ said “My kingdom is not of this world”,(I am para-phrasing).
    Is it possible to have foundation of a social , political order on the basis of Christianity. May be yes, if you have your-own interpretation of the Bible.

  18. J. Laurence
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Each time I start looking at Christianity in a WN context, the more I want to pound it into everyones head that it simply does not matter, and proclamations about it can only be divisive.

    We know what we have to do because we know what the enemies of the “Goyim” have done to hoist themselves into their current position of power, attacking the concept of the Nation, which is what Goyim actually means… as i’m sure everybody reading the comments here already knows.

    They didn’t do it by figuring out which tract of judaism to learn by rote and then blindly copy, I mean, Sumner Redstone or Alan Greenspan aren’t Rabbis constrained by religion, they’re part of an Ethnic Group of which the orthodoxy of their chosen religion is arguably a very small part; the Ethnic Group -the Nation- is what matters to them, and what mattered to our ancestors. Religion is only useful to us so much as it can be used to extenuate common strengths and beyond that point, when it begins to divide and becomes the source of bickering, it becomes of little value.

    I, having to admit that neither Jesus nor Abraham even existed, recognize that Christianity is a large part of European history, and thus it becomes part of our Nation, which warrants respect. But it only warrants that respect because it’s part of shared heritage; heritage being infinitely more important than whether the bible is “the word of god”.

    Mr. Hood grudgingly admits that “Germanic Christianity” could be that vehicle, but dismisses it as an “unnatural conglomeration.” I don’t see it that way, and I see pre-Christian European traditions as foreshadowing and leading up to Christianity. I see the Arthurian Cycle and other Christian syntheses of indigenous folk tradition as perfectly natural.

    Are both writers suggesting that ‘we need to find a cult /special brand of Christianity’ to save our people? How would that help us accomplish any of the work that’s required to save anything?

    If you’re looking for that ‘special brand’, I think you’ll find Pastor Robert Miles and Dualism fits the bill, but as I’m insisting here, any further phalanx charge into the already battered household of an average Christian is only going to be divisive and our people are better helped by putting Christianity on the back burner and, instead, providing education about our heritage with more focus on ancestors and achievements which gives them that natural and organic sense of Nation, which is just the illumination that that, perhaps all of us, need to see the world for what it’s become. Now that’s practical.

  19. Jaego
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Europe may have been the Faith (at that point), but the Faith was never Europe. That was a huge mistake by Belloc and Co. Christianity is Universal and unless the rights of peoples and nations (especially ours), are emphasized, we will be swamped by aliens. That saying by Belloc was a mantra of destruction.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted August 1, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      It was never even at that point. Christianity existed in the Middle East, Africa, India, and even the Far East from relatively early on. The first Christian kingdom was Armenia.

  20. Posted August 1, 2013 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    “And why should we save Christianity? Because it’s the one true faith, that’s why!”

    This is an assertion that nobody can prove or disprove. I’d suspect that most of us arrived here via a powerful skepticism of the current System and it’s ideology. How can you expect a merry band of apostates to blithely accept a belief system of dubious cultural, ethnic, and political origin?

    “Setting eternal salvation aside for a moment, the Church has done more to preserve our pagan and Classical inheritance than any other institution.”

    So the new faith’s greatest institutional triumph is preserving “pagan” and Classical literature? The Church extirpated living Old Believers only to better preserve their traditions? This is akin to the old “We must burn the village to save it!” line.

    “The path from where White Americans currently are to a restored Christianity worthy of restoring seems shorter and more direct to me than the line to a pagan revival.”

    Why restore either one? Why not birth a new way of seeing and being? Or at least lay the foundation for one?

    At the present time I believe our best course of action is to remain secular. We don’t have the time or power to wage religious wars. Leave churches alone that aren’t anti-White. Leave “pagans” alone that aren’t anti-White. If anything I’ve noticed that Christians make better activists and philosophical “pagans” make better intellectuals. Let’s focus on creating the Golden Mean between the two: the Cultured Thug.

    • Posted August 1, 2013 at 11:29 am | Permalink

      Snake,

      “And why should we save Christianity? Because it’s the one true faith, that’s why!”

      This is an assertion that nobody can prove or disprove.

      That’s why I didn’t expand upon that. The first reason is necessarily an initiatic leap of faith. Every belief system, including a skeptic’s worldview, requires some sort of unfalsifiable proposition. After all, how could a nihilist materialist be so sure that his senses are reliably gathering information about the one true and complete objective reality? And how could he be so sure that his thought processes relating to those sensations are reliable?

      • Posted August 2, 2013 at 9:55 am | Permalink

        Point taken. Yet, some leaps of faith span greater distances than others.

    • Lew
      Posted August 2, 2013 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

      This is an assertion that nobody can prove or disprove.

      Comparing the reliability of sense experience to a leap of faith that the God of the Bible exists is blatant false equivalence. The burden of proof is always on the believer.

      When people ask me if I believe in God, I give them Noam Chomsky’s answer: define what it is that I am supposed to believe in. With the Christian God, it is usually alleged that God is an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent being who thunk the universe into existence using supernatural powers.

      The notion that any such entity exists can be disproven. The argument from evil and especially the amount of suffering in the world conclusively disprove the existence of a God defined in those terms.

      • Verlis
        Posted August 2, 2013 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

        Lew, don’t be such a simpleton.

        Christians (or any other theists) describing “God” as being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent are merely engaging in “inflationary theology.” If you describe your god as less than all-powerful then someone else can come along and one-up you by presenting a god that is all-powerful, and who thus seems more attractive. If your god knows a lot, but doesn’t know everything, I can present a god that does know everything, and again you lose. And indeed, it does seem that this is one reason why monotheism eventually triumphed over polytheism, because it seemed both theologically more reasonable and more attractive. If you’re a goofy “new atheist” who takes what people say at face value then you naturally miss these subtler aspects of theological reasoning.

        As for requiring a definition of “God,” look, ultimately people believe in the existence of “God” or some kind of “higher power” because of the way it enables them to experience the world, a way they cannot access without their faith. This doesn’t prove God exists; it just means a definition of God isn’t required in order to believe in him. The experience of it comes first, the details are filled in later. If believing in God didn’t make any difference to the way people experienced the world they would be much more open to atheistic viewpoints.

  21. Thorsten
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Matt,

    Firstly I admire and respect your ongoing effort to solve the problem of spiritual/religious unity of the West, and Orthodoxy does seem in many ways to be the closest thing to a solution for reasons that have been already discussed. But again do you and fellow traditionalist Christians not see that Christianity is “Aryan”/”Indo-European” (whatever term you like) only to the extent that it forsakes, well, Christ himself? None can deny his righteous excoriation of the Pharisees, and we can respect him for that, but isn’t it a mite ironic for Europeans to have to rely on a Jewish mystic from the farthest reaches of the Roman Empire to define the religion of their entire civilization. (To name just one glaring aspect among many of the extrinsic character of this religion.)

    If large amounts of Europeans and European Americans were to consciously return to an older more pagan-infused form of Christianity in which such things as chivalry and the grail cycle, sacral kingship and Platonic metaphysics etc. were to once again figure prominently in the cultural fabric then can the “oratores” at least admit amongst themselves that the calling it “Christ-ianity” is primarily a matter of pragmatism?

    It may make sense to keep calling it “Christianity”, “Christendom”, “the true faith”, “Orthodoxy”, for the sake of cultural continuity but it should strike us who bother to think critically about these things as a bit odd that the more Traditional a form of Christianity one chooses to pursue the less it has to do with Christ and the more it has to do with aspects of “Christendom” that predate Christ himself, and are in fact quintessentially pagan and Indo-European.

    I would really appreciate it if a Christian Traditionalist answered these questions as well as those raised by others, such as Christianity’s “success” owing so much to coercion rather than voluntary acceptance. If Christianity were the divinely ordained true faith of Europe wouldn’t the Son of God and the Prince of Peace (!) have incarnated as a Roman Emperor or Greek philosopher, or a Saxon warlord or something that would reflect his having being appointed as as God’s emissary to the Europeans or “Romans” (as at it might have been styled) in a more direct and harmonious manner in accordance with the principle of “as above so below”?

    • Posted August 2, 2013 at 5:26 am | Permalink

      Platonic metaphysics? The same that were in clear opposition towards the pagan system of Hellas? Platonic metaphysics is the very definition – and historical manifestation – of the words “..a light of Revelation to the gentiles”(Luke 2:31). If anything the system of Plato is monotheistic.

      • J. Laurence
        Posted August 2, 2013 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

        The same that were in clear opposition towards the pagan system of Hellas? Platonic metaphysics is the very definition – and historical manifestation – of the words “..a light of Revelation to the gentiles”(Luke 2:31). If anything the system of Plato is monotheistic.

        That sounds very scholarly but your contention falls apart when you compare the childishly stupid stories that the Christians were preaching to anything that Plato had taught, and even more so by comparing the Hellenic stories and oral histories to the Jewish and Christian ones which are absurd.

        …the system of Plato is monotheistic

        The concept of any philosophic or social system predicated upon any literal ‘God’ is childishly naive, and the notion that a literal god or gods have to in some way be central to the real world is merely the result of childishly naive stories being taught as fact. Even the Romans, allegedly when they were at the height of their system of polytheism, never took any of it literally.

        All of what we call religion, prior to Christianity, is better viewed as folk tales; an expression of ethnic identity… lessons or accounts of heroes and so on. Plato, then, was an expression of Hellenic culture, Luke is a fictional character who was made up by somebody in an office in Later Imperial Rome, and similarities in theme where present would have been intentional on the part of the anonymous author/s.

  22. Celine's Idea
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Can someone please tell the author of this article that Christianity is anthropologically based on preceding pagan cults? The author has claimed elsewhere to be a Traditionalist, yet he doesn’t know that?

    It’s embarrassing that we still have conversations about Christianity, as if it is nothing more than stolen myth and esotericism form a variety of sources, namely, a mixture Messianic Judaism with Aryan gnosticism (see Gospel of John).

    Paganism is not as nebulous as this author makes it sound … all forms of Indo-European spirituality were once part of esoteric metaphysical systems; which, in the case of Odinism, Druidism, and Celtic lore cannot be reconstructed simply because the Christians destroyed all of the people and texts which structured the indigenous mythology.

    Actually, Rene Geunon would tell you, if alive today, to study the esotericism of the Bible, rather than join Asatru, if you want to know about the initiatory rites of you ancestors and the elaborate spiritual teachings that once existed in the West, because the Bible, or at least its esoteric elements and myth (can you imagine a man named ‘John’ walking around in the Middle East?), are mostly plagiarized from pre-existing Aryan spiritual colleges.

  23. Petronius
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    PS. I am not however convinced of the “one true faith” thing and remain agnostic on this point.

    Another thing: the concept of Christianity as a sort of “alien” infection etc. tends towards a Rousseau-ish “original sin” or “fall from paradise” mythology, and thus to the idea that “we” just need to shake off Christianity in order to become fit and fine and “ourselves” again, just as one gets rid from a virus or a cold. I can see that some find this tempting, but I think that it is a false and totally misleading picture. It is tempting because it seems so easy. But it is just a variation of the “noble savage” or “happy barbarian” or “healthy animal” myth, a restoration story.

    It must also be taken into account how man’s life has fundamentally changed since pagan antiquity: it is ruled by technics and its logic and dynamics (Heidegger thought of this as the foremost problem of modernity), the attitude towards nature (the alienation from nature’s cycles), the nature of warfare, the extension of scientific knowledge, the rise of scepticism and rationalism etc… after all a “pagan” was a “paganus”, a man from the “countryside”.

    Against any sort of Rousseau-ism it has to be maintained man is a far more problematic, difficult and dangerous animal than that. Metaphysical concepts and religions are attempts to answer to that. Even the harshest one are no worse than what life and existence itself imposes on human beings. Probably no answer has been entirely successful yet. I think one must not forget how Nietzsche saw the Greek as an essentially pessimistic and tragic people. There is this story he tells in “Birth of Tragedy” about the “wisdom of Silenus” to man: “Oh, wretched ephemeral race … why do you compel me to tell you what it would be most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is utterly beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best for you is—to die soon.” That big “No” is the basis of his big “Yes”, the “Dionysian” world-affirmation, almost a paradox and a heroic overcoming of the self… it is not something that just happens by itself just because you have the right “instincts”.

  24. Percipient
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 4:57 am | Permalink

    Too many holes in this article, I remain unconvinced by the author’s propositions.

  25. Petronius
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 4:36 am | Permalink

    Good answer, I am totally siding with Mr. Parrott here. I do not think it is possible to dissolve the typically European amalgamation of Paganism and Christianity; and indeed neither of those can “save us”, as if one could pick a “saving programme”. Religion works in a different way, after all it requires you to really believe in objective transcendental powers. If anything, the next step would have to be a new synthesis. People have been breaking their heads about this for more than 200 years now…

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted August 2, 2013 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

      Petronius: “Religion works in a different way, after all it requires you to really believe in objective transcendental powers.”

      This is very true, and an important point which many people fail to grasp. The Sacred signifies something transcendent, metaphysical, and beyond the material universe. How one conceives of the Sacred and what transcendental force or forces one believes in depends on one’s particular religious beliefs. However, any “religion” which is devoid of belief in a trascendental Sacred, which uses an ideological or secular surrogate, is lacking an essential characteristic which makes up a true religion. Some people here really need to read more religious philosophy – particularly that of historians of religion like Mircea Eliade and related thinkers – to finally understand what the function and nature of religion really is.

  26. Posted August 1, 2013 at 4:01 am | Permalink

    Bart Ehrman notes there are an estimated 34,000 Christian denominations and sects.

  27. White Republican
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 3:15 am | Permalink

    Perhaps we should address these antitheses in the spirit of Moeller van den Bruck, who wrote in Germany’s Third Empire:

    “The antitheses which have marked our history are still perceptible. The oldest of all which we had thought dead, are coming again to life. It is significant, even politically significant, that there are Germans today who consciously turn back to the earliest stage which was the basis of our First Empire: that there are Germans who revert to the idea of mediaeval guilds and mysticism, or even to the still earlier primitive myths as offering a new starting-point: that there are Germans who prefer the cult of the Middle Ages and of prehistoric times to the westernizations, the civilization and the progress of which they have had a taste; that there are worshippers of Thor amongst us here and Primitive Christians there, and nothing awakens greater enthusiasm than the memories of our romantic and barbaric days.

    “The antitheses of later days are disappearing. Once in our history at the zenith of our First Empire we overcame a mighty feud which had long rent the nation in twain. The time is past when the twin cries ‘Hie Welf!’ ‘Hie Waibling!’ sufficed to kindle fratricidal war, and we have long paid equal homage to the graves of Palermo and the Lion of Brunswick. We must similarly obliterate all the antitheses of our past which are still with us, not by burying them but by lifting them to a higher plane. Immediately after the collapse of our Second Empire, the Prussian-German feud, which still lived on in rancorous feeling, fell into the background before the popular wave of national German consciousness. The races feel more strongly conscious of their racial individuality than ever before, but stronger still they feel themselves the Germans that they are. All Germans today feel themselves ‘Greater Germans’ regardless of frontiers and customs boundaries.

    “Yet a third antithesis is dying out today: that of religious differences.

    “Everywhere there are Germans today who do not feel their creed as a confession which severs, but as a religion which unites. Roman Catholics and Protestants are drawing together regardless of their differences. The Protestants are allured by the thought of ONE catholic Church, and Roman Catholics are learning to look on Luther not as the founder of enlightenment, rationalism and liberalism but as the last great German mystic. We must have the strength, not to deny and reject, but to recognize and to reconcile all the antitheses which are historically alive amongst us.

    “We must have the strength to be ‘Welfs’ again full of a consciousness of race, and at the same time ‘Waiblings’ inspired by imperial thought. We must have the strength to be at once Barbarian and Christian, Catholic and Protestant, South and North German, East and West German. We must have the strength to be Prussians, Austrians, Bavarians, Swabians, Franks, Hessians, Saxons or Frisians: everything — for ourselves and for each other — as GERMANS.”

    What is essential is that we “have the strength, not to deny and reject, but to recognize and to reconcile all the antitheses which are historically alive amongst us” and that we “obliterate all the antitheses of our past which are still with us, not by burying them but by lifting them to a higher plane.” The concept of Aufheben comes to mind here. Whether we’re atheists, pagans, Christians, or whatever, we’re all going to be around for some time, in which case it would seem best to focus on our particular areas of work, to avoid sterile conflicts, and to work together to the extent that we can. Is this too much to ask for?

    Speaking for myself, I’d sum up my attitude to religion by paraphrasing Jack London: “I’m a White man first — then an atheist!”

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted August 1, 2013 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

      I am in agreement with this argument. The Right today is composed of multiple religious positions and will probably continue to include both Christians and Pagans of different types for a long time, if not forever. They will need to reconcile themselves, to recognize that the other is another way of understanding the Sacred (Eliade), and even that they have many similarities. History shows that Christianity is not completely incompatible with older European and Pagan attitudes, values, and practices, and many Christians in the past, even very devoted ones, have been able to respect Paganism. I believe that Pagans must recognize that there are some Christians which are good and more agreeable to them, and that a Christianity with Pagan (or, if one prefers, simply folkish European) values is possible and perhaps even desirable. Of course, on the other hand, Christians need to be more open and respectful of other religions; Christians need to recognize that it is not only Christian heritage from Europe that is valuable, but also the Pagan heritage (the negative notion that certain Christians have that the Pagans were “irrelevant barbarians” is truly idiotic and ignorant). That being said, Pagans and Christians will naturally continue to advocate their own religions, but this activity should be played out using passive persuasion and in the presence of mutual respect rather than endless negative discourse and mutual insults.

  28. Kerry Bolton
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 2:33 am | Permalink

    Excellent article. Revilo Oliver wrote something similar in Christianity and the Survival of the West, prior to his seeing something worthwhile in Creativity. Hilaire Belloc’s Europe and the Faith, a nice new edition recently having been published by Black House Publishing, is also of interest.

    • Ulf Larsen
      Posted August 1, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      “prior to his seeing something worthwhile in Creativity”

      What do you mean by this comment, Mr. Bolton? What worthwhile did Oliver see in Creativity, and where can I read about it?

  29. Johann
    Posted August 1, 2013 at 12:42 am | Permalink

    Brilliant article.

    Never forget that the very borders of Europe are defined purely by the borders of Christendom.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted August 1, 2013 at 12:47 am | Permalink

      Rubbish. The church is a global institution, and most Christians today are non-white and non-European.

      • Arindam
        Posted August 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        The relationship of Christianity to Whites nationalism is analogous to the relationship of Islam to Arab nationalism: in both cases, the faith can no longer serve as a national creed because too many of its adherents are foreigners, (most Muslims are not Arabs, and as Mr. Johnson has argued, most Christians are not White). Of course, the parallel is not exact: at least Islam was founded by an Arab in Arabia and its core texts are written in Arabic, whereas the same cannot be said for Christianity in relation to Whites – but this simply reinforces the point.

        Paganism has the advantage of being a predominantly (indeed, overwhelmingly) ‘White’ religion – it’s rather rare to find an African follower of Odin. Were it to spread, it could perhaps play the same unifying role for Europeans as Shintoism plays for the Japanese, Confucianism for the Chinese, Hinduism for the Indians… or indeed, Judaism for the Hebrews.

        [Curiously, Islam has played the role of an unifying religion in one country: Iran. This is because the plurality (perhaps even the majority) of Shias are Iranians and because Iran is the only large Shia-majority country in the world – the other two being Azerbaijan and Bahrain. It’s somewhat akin to how the Orthodox Church has been a unifying factor in Russia.]

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    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

    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

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    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

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above