It’s staggering to realize how universally accepted racial realism once was and how many people are alive who remember those 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 US 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. 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 who 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 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 desegregation is obvious. Initially, almost all of the legitimate institutions of the Southern states rose in “massive resistance” to the 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 an almost entirely white base.
In the face of cultural disintegration, white conservative Christians transitioned from segregationists into color-blind 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 on 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 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 middle-aged 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 delve 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 while 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 Jewish conservative columnist 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 a 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 against 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 descendants 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 its 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 reinterpreted 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 overthrow 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 the 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 grandfather 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 was 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 manufactured 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. In American Christian communities white women are encouraged to stay home and have large families at an early age, and men are 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 annihilation 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 white race.
More importantly, Christians possess the only existing counterculture. Churches are a framework for social life that is outside media and government control. Concerts and films 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 coexisted 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 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, any more 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, interchangeable 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 the 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 White Nationalists 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 tear out egalitarianism by the roots, 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.