Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian?

Regarding the recent discussions about the Dark Enlightenment, the positioning of traditional Christianity has come up, in particular, how unrelated it apparently seems to the rest of the nodes.  Does it fit in?

Of course, it can.  For instance, as I note in the comments here, the findings of HBD / evolutionary psychology often support and justify a traditionalist worldview.

Many Christian commenters, however, incorrectly state that the Dark Enlightenment is inherently leftist while  Christianity is not.  Many historians would disagree with the latter claim.  As argued by Nietzsche, Spengler and de Benoist, there is a strong case to be made that Christianity is the fons et origo of all egalitarian / leftist thought.  De Benoist has argued that it is the Christian concept of the “universal brotherhood of man” that perhaps is the origin of all egalitarian thought and political correctness.  Right-wing skeptics of Christianity have argued that the step from Christian “universal brotherhood” to The Cathedral and Cultural Marxism isn’t very far, if the circumstances are right.  (Of course, traditionalist Christians, like Thomas Fleming in the Morality of Everyday Life, make a strong case that this is not so. And James C. Russell has argued that Medieval Christianity was more manly and closer to Germanic paganism than the current more universalist Christianity in the West.)

I often wonder whether it is the pretense of this egalitarian “universal brotherhood of man” that makes it so hard for many Christians to accept HBD.  (Of course, the more clear-thinking ones who aren’t afraid of inegalitarian truths, like the Generation5, Bruce Charlton, Orthosphere, Chronicles, Faith and Heritage, Thinking Housewife, or Pro-Western Christianity crowds, are the exceptions to the norm.)

Regardless, Christianity today is not only inherently egalitarianian but even maladaptive, at least as it’s practiced by Westerners.  Look around.  The vast majority of conservative Christian leaders support the mass Third World invasion of Western countries.  You have major Christian leaders, like Russell Moore and Sam Brownback, telling whites to forgo their own inclusive fitness and, instead of having that extra white child, adopt orphan Haitians or Africans.  People like John Piper have declared war on the biological family.  (So much for ethnic genetic interests.) You even have Trotskyite conservatives who have invented a pseudo-science called “Intelligent Design” because they feel evolution is “too racist.

This is the sad state we’re in, folks.  Let’s just hope that Dark Enlightenment ideas catch on among influential Christian leaders.  They need us more than we need them.

Of course, some Christians will attack me for delivering this message, instead of, say, attacking Christian leaders for supporting the mass dispossession of Westerns through Third World immigration.  Imagine that?

I am not anti-Christian.  In fact, although I’m not particularly religious myself, I think that the vast majority of people cannot live without religion and that religion is necessary for the proper ordering of society.  I just wish we had an adaptive, pro-Western manly religion instead of our current sissy, sell-out form of Christianity, which, by the way, is quickly becoming a non-Western Third World religion (a cause of celebration for all our pathological altruist Christian leaders).

Here is a modified version of a previous poll.

What is the best way forward for Westerners?

Atheism / Agnosticism, Explicitly Pro-Western Christianity, Neo-Paganism, or our Current Politically Correct Christianity?


Here’s a little nugget of HBD truth: ethno-religion is probably the strongest group identity that one can have.  It’s done wonders for Ashkenazis.

Blowhard Mark Shea is not a fan of this post; Shea is an allegedly conservative Christian whose greatest worry is that the demise of Christianity will lead to the demise of egalitarianism.  Notice how he criticizes this post and the commenters here instead of addressing the actual problem; for instance, criticizing all the Christian leaders that support the Third World invasion of Western countries.

Nick Land discusses the Trichotomy.

Foseti links to randoms from the Dark Enlightenment.

The blog Traditional Christianity references this post.

Mark Shea dislikes a comment that a Catholic left on this thread.  By the way, Mark, race is real.

Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?”

Primer on Immigration and Human BioDiversity


119 thoughts on “Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian?

  1. I voted for neopaganism if only because I think Christianity in the west has become too feminized to be beyond recovery.

  2. I should write more about this and I will at some point. Briefly put leftism is not Jewish, is not atheist, is not pagan but comes fairly directly from Protestant Christianity. This comes in two threads, quite separate in origin but having the same result. Luther said the leadership in Rome had no inherent right to interpret the Bible and demand obedience, but pretty much anybody who could read could come up with his own interpretation and as long as he was a sincere believer, it would be correct. Cromwell said the hereditary military aristocracy had no right to rule in the name of God but true believers, who proved their fitness by their moral behavior, did.

    Lutheranism became a state religion in Germany side by side with Catholicism, and that stopped the process. In England this started a process of continual undermining of the established order, where people continually came up with new moral ideas and claimed they were the real, true ones. Puritans, Quakers, Methodists, Unitarians, Transcendentalists, and eventually secular humanism which claims to be non-religious but is based on all these things.

    What is commonly now called Christianity is based on selective quoting and interpretation of scripture and has little or nothing to do with what’s there. The Mosaic law of the OT describes an ethnic nationalist society- honest dealing, decent treatment of the poor, decent treatment of foreigners passing through or temporary refugees, separation from outside corrupt influences.

    • “Leftism is not Jewish, but comes directly from Protestant christianity”
      You have already written that at your blog. You wrote that it isn’t Jews running leftism, it is Calvinists, or Quakers. You have been saying the same thing for over 5 years. That seems to be your main goal. Direct attention away from the dominant Jewish role in Western Leftism for the past 100 years.

  3. It is a secondary concern, and should be handled like the Third Reich handled it, relatively quietly, and respectfully. The dysgenic leaders need some “education.” It will be a tremendous burden, but not nearly as much as adapting a whole new religion – the New Testament has been as much a founding document of this country as any other – my family still has a 200 y.o. Bible with the family tree of marriages and children in it. It is only in the second half of the 20th century that organized Christianity became a real malignancy. Eliminate the nontaxable rules for Churches and you’ll see who are the true believers in Christ and His People.

    I say this as a devout Christian (a Kinist).

    • The Third Reich was anti-Christian and, by the late 1930s, was frequently not respectful towards the religion at all, contrary to what you may have heard.

      I suggest reading through Confronting the Nazi War on Christianity. The Kulturkampf Newsletters, 1936-1939.

    • Christianity wasn’t a problem back in the day. Christianity works fine if you have an all White population and culture. Christianity works fine if Whites are ministering to other Whites. The problem comes from ethnic minorities who move into predominately White Christian countries, taking advantage and living leech-like on the good will of the White Christians. Of course, the “do-good” missionaries that go to a third world hellhole, and try and convert unwilling natives into their culture and religion, deserve everything that happens to them. I wish these same “do-good” missionary Christians would stop importing third world savages into the USA.

      Christianity has been too corrupted to last much longer. Accepting homosexuality was a big mistake, and goes against the teachings of what the church’s main function was for–ministering to families. Now, the churches are just one big political and financial clusterfuck. Good riddance to their demise. We need to go back to fundamentalist Christianity, without all of the show business, money grubbing, and politics.

  4. “The vast majority of conservative Christian leaders support the mass Third World invasion of Western countries.”

    Not only that – they’ve been flooding other countries with their missionary agenda for almost 2,000 years now.

    Christianity is all about one world religion, one world culture, one world order. They want all peoples, all countries and all cultures to merge into one homegenous mass of what they call “Christendom”.

    • “Christianity is all about one world religion, one world culture, one world order. They want all peoples, all countries and all cultures to merge into one homogenous mass of what they call ‘Christendom´.

      I have virtually no religious background, but even I can see that the Eastern Orthodox Church is strongly opposed to what is described above.

  5. “Universal brotherhood of man” is not a Christian concept; it originates in Freemasonry. Traditional Christianity teaches that human brotherhood is something that may be potentially realized, but only after accepting the truth of Christianity and living according to its principles. So traditional Christians have not, contrary to myth, been at the forefront of revolutionary political movements, abolitionism and so forth, precisely because we believe that we must “work out our salvation” within the social order in which we live. I can’t imagine anything more anti-leftist and anti-egalitarian.

    The kinds of Christians who have involved themselves in revolution and political activism have not been traditionalists and so aren’t genuinely representative of Christianity (in the traditionalist view). So it isn’t correct to claim Christianity is inherently leftist, when your examples are all drawn from the leftist segment of Christianity!

    • Yes, Fleming in the Morality of Everyday Life argues that traditional Christianity isn’t universalist.

      Update: If I remember correctly, Fleming explicitly argues against the “universal brotherhood of man,” arguing it’s a Enlightenment concept and not a traditional Christian concept.

      • Well, let’s be careful about what we mean by “universalist”. My impression is that you take it to mean there are no universal values; there are only the values of one’s particular nation or ethnicity (please correct me if I’m mistaken!). This is not how traditionalist Christians see the world. I think what Fleming is arguing for is the rejection of the kind of abstract moralizing that is typical of left-liberals, in favor of focusing on one’s own thoughts and actions.

    • The kinds of Christians who have involved themselves in revolution and political activism have not been traditionalists and so aren’t genuinely representative of Christianity (in the traditionalist view). So it isn’t correct to claim Christianity is inherently leftist, when your examples are all drawn from the leftist segment of Christianity!

      Yes, but, post-Reformation, there is NO possibility of a Christianity that would NOT contain a leftist segment.

      You even see leftward movement in individual pastors. Rob Bell started out as your average hippie-dippie, non-denom youth leader, the epitome of Christianity as it exists outside the South. And now he’s all but advocated getting fucked in the ass by dildos:

      • That’s strange. I was raised in a mainline Protestant church in the North. Everyone in my family voted Republican. They aspired to chastity, self-reliance, humility, etc. I think you and others not exposed to Christianity will never understand it. Its not a self-help group. Rather, exposure to Christianity at a young age teaches you how to feel. Its like learning a language. You can learn when you’re older, of course, but its best to do it when young so that it becomes an instinct.

      • I might add that Christianity in Europe is a culture that was welded to ancient Greek culture. When you go to church you partake of rituals designed to emotionally and intellectually connect you to the founding events and ideas of Christianity. This is why Christian art would emphasize the crucifixion (among other motifs). Early Christian art also incorporated Greek pagan gods as allegorical, but not divine, figures. Euhemerus, a 3rd cent. Roman, raised the idea that the pagan gods were originally mortals. Euhemerism became a propaganda tool for the early church.

      • To continue my train of thought. Liberalism has no founding event. Golden calf worship? Anyway, there are no rituals to connect people to any specific mode of thought and more importantly feeling. The general feeling is one of alienation from tradition. This term was first used by J-J Rousseau, apparently, mid-18th cent. Other than that liberalism has no founding document or event, to my knowledge, that can be recreated. In that regard, the choice of the word Cathedral to describe the liberal establishment is awkward and misleading.

  6. Christians, in the main, will never embrace the ideas expressed on this site.

    Catholicism was anti-racist well before Vatican II. Their religion forbids them to rank races according to any strict hierarchy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply ignorant of Church doctrine:

    Keep in mind that the vast majority of third-world immigrants currently entering the US and Europe are economic migrants. Prior to the nineteenth century, there was very little social mobility in Europe, and life for the average person was still quite harsh. There would’ve been no incentive for the influx of immigrants you see today, and this has nothing to do with Christianity, which has always been universal in its mission. The Church’s insane policy on immigration over the last 50 years doesn’t necessarily bespeak any change in the Church itself, because immigration on this scale would not have even been under consideration in previous centuries, just as no one contemplated nuclear war before the 1940s either. Correlation does not imply causation, which is something that many Christian traditionalists have trouble understanding.

    Christianity is incompatible with eugenics because it holds as a central tenet that each and every person is of infinite worth by virtue of possessing an immortal soul. You can’t depart from this without becoming heretical, which is why Christian slaveholders and conquerors in the past often had to deny that blacks, indians, etc. possessed souls in order to justify their treatment of them. This is obviously not a tenable position anymore.

    Also, I suggest reading Georges Vacher de Lapouge:

    “He had been taught anthropology by the freethinking anthropologists in Paris in the years between 1883 and 1886, and at some point he became enraged that they embraced anthropology and atheism and yet remained egalitarian republicans. Lapouge believed that these and other atheists had stopped just short of the awful truth: no God meant no meaning and no morality. For Lapouge, this translated into a complete indictment of the existing society, culture, and government, based as they were on principles derived from deistic morality. “Here is why I have been speaking to you of the abyss and of a cataclysm,” wrote Lapouge:

    “It is obvious, to my eyes anyway, that if one eliminates the supernatural element from the universe, it is necessary to eliminate, at the same time, a number of fundamental notions–all of which were, in the past, deduced from supernatural tenets. All of morality and all of the ideas that serve as a base for law and for the political sciences, in their present-day conceptions, constitute a series of deductions of which the first term assumes the existence of a personal divinity…Remove all validity from this source, and there is nothing left.”

    He was not happy about this meaninglessness, except insofar as it allowed him to eradicate moralist barriers to a “selectionist state.” He did, however, relish the amorality of his imagined future and its brutal rule of science.

    Lapouge noted the freethinkers’ attempt to replace religion with science and mocked them for it, insisting that humanity would never again know religious comfort. Yet his own religious behaviors and intonations show how much he wished to re-create religious experience and how far he was willing to go in trying. Lapouge occupied an odd conceptual space: his rhetoric was as adamant in its atheism as that of the freethinkers, and as suggestive of a cultic science, and yet it was racist and antirepublican, thus beginning the collusion of science and conservatism that is the hallmark of the new right. Further, Lapouge created an employable science: there was governmental use of Lapouge in Germany and the United States both during his life and after; in France, such use was made just after he died in 1936.

    In his lectures and written texts, Lapouge assumed his audience to be secular republicans who believed in Darwinism and in the inequality of human beings but were not brave enough to take these notions to their logical conclusion. “I take a malicious but vivid pleasure,” he wrote, “in catching the myriad errors in a number of recent articles that have appeared in the socialist, anarchist, or so-called democratic journals. In Darwinism, or in more general terms, in scientific doctrines on the origin of the species of the world, they have seen, above all, an argument with which to oppose religion and, here in France, an argument with which to oppose the church, which is creationist and dedicated to the text of Genesis.” This was certainly true of Clemence Royer and the other anthropologists of Paris and could also be applied to the younger Brunetiere, among many others. According to Lapouge, they were all using science to disprove religion, but when science suggested a course of action that contradicted their own moral and/or eschatological universe, they refused to acknowledge it. “They have not understood,” he wrote, “that Darwinism applied to human beings in their social existence excludes for the future all elements of nonscientific social explanations, which is to say, it removes all supernatural causes from the general causality of the universe. When I say ‘they’ I mean the freethinkers, or those who qualify as such, because from the very beginning the churches have seen the consequences of these theories and have taken steps to denigrate them.” Lapouge used the word “supernatural” to imply anything spiritual or philosophical: anything that could not be proven by his science. Consider, for example, his discussion of human equality: “Some people, believing in the mystical principle of human equality, cannot bear it when one speaks to them of superior races. I am not even going to take the trouble to contradict them. It is perfectly useless to reason with minds that are thus turned toward the supernatural; only fictions have value in their eyes. I address myself only to those for whom facts have meaning, as do numbers, which are also facts, grouped and counted.”

    The freethinkers were so devoted to materialism that they wrote books on the biology of aesthetics, pronounced philosophy dead, and dissected each other’s brains, yet Lapouge accused them of mysticism because they were egalitarians, and he believed that the idea of equality had originated in Christianity (rather than, say, the other way around). Themselves troubled by the idea of unscientific ideals, the Paris freethinkers had created an inherently progressive evolutionary model as a secular basis for their political values, but Lapouge did not accept it. He thought they were just too frightened to admit the truth. As he saw it, the republican postulates of fraternity and equality were based on the Christian idea that all God’s children are brothers; liberty and individualism were based on the idea that each human being has a distinct and significant soul, and charity and morality were God’s commandments. Many devoted republicans had similar misgivings: the republic did seem to have been based on Judeo-Christian ideals and philosophical tenets, from religious morality to the idea of individual free will. Like the freethinking anthropologists, other republican social theorists found new ways of justifying these notions, either scientifically or philosophically. Lapouge, however, was as angry at democracy as he was at Christianity, so he tried to salvage neither one nor the other from their damning mutual association.

    Operating without a heavenly censor and burdened with scientific proof of racial superiors and inferiors, human beings were about to face some extraordinary questions. Among his many warnings of crises and revolutions to come, Lapouge wrote that “our epoch of apparent indifference is the beginning of the greatest crisis of religion and morality that has struck humanity since it has begun to think.”

    “They only had a choice between a return, pure and simple, to the theological doctrines from which they had come or the acceptance, pure and simple, of the scientific explanation of social phenomena and the abandonment of all philosophical principles on which their political doctrine had rested. It is not toward science that they went. Their psychology is that of men who in times gone by would prostrate themselves in churches and light heretics on fire, and we are not the least surprised, as they are their descendants. Already liberals, socialists, and anarchists treat Darwinians as barbarians. So be it! The barbarians are coming, the besiegers have come to be besieged, and their last hope of resistance is to lock themselves up in the citadel they were attacking. The near future will show our sons a curious spectacle: the theoreticians of the false modern democracy constrained to shut themselves back up in the citadel of clericalism.”

    Clearly, Lapouge heard hypocrisy in this about-face and in the willingness to jettison materialist science in favor of peace and comfort. Brunetiere wrote that if we allow Darwinism to dictate morality, the lessons it gives us will be “abominable.” Lapouge championed the abomination. Yet it was not the barbarism of the Darwinian vision that turned Lapouge away from morality, just as it was not really the barbarism of Darwinian evolution that had frightened Brunetiere. Like Brunetiere, Lapouge did not invoke the brutality of the natural world when arguing about morality; he explicitly referenced the loss of God rather than the law of the jungle: “If one no longer want the supernatural, it is necessary to be logical and to say: there is no good or bad, in and of themselves; nothing is just, or unjust. All our ideas of morality and law are due to circumstances of ancestral evolution and the social conventions that are the most severely sanctioned by opinion and by law have, in themselves, the exact same value as the rules to a game of cards.” As such, morality was not to be reestablished or propped up; rather, it was to be bravely rejected along with religion.

    Lapouge supported his amoral selectionist vision by arguing that humanity was not at all distinct from other animals. He came at this in several different ways, negating both free will and human rights. “Man,” wrote Lapouge, “is not a being ‘set apart’; his actions are controlled by the determinism of the universe.” But if humanity shared in the materialist determinism of the universe, we also share in the violent self-interest of the animal world. “Man, in losing his privilege as a being ‘set apart’ and created in the image of God, has no more rights than all the other mammals. Even the idea of right is a fiction…All men are brothers, all animals are brothers, to one another and to man, and fraternity extends to all beings, but that they are brothers does not get in the way of their eating one another. Fraternity, so be it, but too bad for the victims! Life is only maintained by death.”

    Freethinkers tried to ground republican principles in biology in order to wrest them from Christianity and thus preserve them. “The rescue of those so-called political principles,” wrote Lapouge, “is, on the contrary, not possible, not by these means or by any other. But though the current doctrines find no more mercy before science than do religious beliefs, biology does, at least, have the means to replace them.” There would be no replacement comfort, but there would be replacement principles: selectionist racism, anti-Semitism, and the state-controlled breeding of a superior, Aryan race.

    It is at this point that morality really began to get in the way. If the most crucial role of every human being is reproduction and if failure to reproduce wipes out the reproductive effort and the very essence of all one’s ancestors, then there can be no true morality that prevents the individual from reproducing. “Selectionist morality,” wrote Lapouge, “places responsibility-to-the-race in the supreme place — there where the morality of Christianity put responsibility-to-God.” Individuals were temporally finite and thus meaningless. Properly understood, they did not even exist: “The individual is crushed by his race and becomes nothing. The race and the nation are everything.” Here was a glorification of the state and defense of social hierarchies that did not rely on religious dogma or tradition for its authority. The rites of fecundity would take on powerful new meanings in the twentieth century.”

    • “Catholicism was anti-racist well before Vatican II”

      Then that, if true, is a pretty strong case that Catholicism was the harbinger of Cultural Marxism.

      But, on the bright side, you do find many cases of pre-Vatican II Catholics opposing “anti-racism” / Cultural Marxism. After all, a strong dose of ethnocentrism is healthy. You want a religion that promotes ethnocentrism.

  7. Not only is Christianity NOT egalitarian, it is positively Supremacist, i.e., staking claim to Absolute Truth.

    A belief in Christianity is a belief in Jesus Christ as historical fact. But a belief in Jesus Christ as historical fact is really a belief in Perfect Man as historical fact. And of course, a belief that a Perfect Man walked this earth is self-evidently a fundamental rejection of “all men being equal.”

    OTOH, the leftist project has been to socially engineer “perfect man.” But first, one must start with “equal” substance to “modify.” An assumption of a fundamentally mechanistic nature is then promulgated as “fact of life.”

    And the manipulation commences.

  8. It seems to me that you are looking for a kind of “Judaism for Whites” — an ethnic-centered theism. That isn’t Christianity. Christianity is about the salvation of all who come to Christ, not just whites — and the central figure of Jesus Christ was himself not a European white, nor were any of the apostles upon whom the Church was founded — they were Palestinian Jews, quite distinct ethnically even at that time to both themselves and the Romans.

    So, I wouldn’t say that Christianity is inherently leftist and egalitarian. Although all are equal in Christ, spiritually, this does not imply equality in physical or temporal terms — i.e., “the poor you will always have with you” — no economic egalitarian utopia there, and “women submit to your husbands”, and so on. However, Christianity has never been, and never will be, an ethno-centric religion. The Gospels themselves have Christ committing the apostles to go forth and baptize all nations — not just the European ones. And, of course, the early church underwent an ethno-centric controversy of its own with respect to how “Jewish” (or ethnocentric) the Church was to be — and Paul, and the non-ethno-centric party won, embracing the Gospel’s universalist commission.

    So, no, not inherently leftist and egalitarian, but certainly universalist, as Christ is the savior of *all* — not only whites. Of course this is in spiritual terms, but that’s what the Church is. Trying to get it to play its “role” in some kind of ethnocentric European Whitopia is not going to work, because its mission isn’t to prop up one culture or ethny, but to save the world — all ethnies.

    Now, that doesn’t mean all ethnies should be subsumed into one. Nor does it mean an ethny needs to consent to its own destruction. Far from it. The concept of “nations” distinct from each other is embedded in the very universalist commission of evangelization contained in the Gospels. But the apostles are called to baptize all nations. This means that the nations retain their distinctiveness — both from each other and from Judaism — but that all are one in Christ. Christianity is the unifier in spiritual terms, but not the destroyer of ethnies in the name of God — rather the glory of God is displayed in the discipleship of the ethnies to Christ –> but not just one ethny.

    • “Although all are equal in Christ, spiritually, this does not imply equality in physical or temporal terms”

      I see this defense a lot from traditionalists, so I’ll address it again. People like Saint Patrick and early Church Fathers like John Chrysostom and St. Gregory of Nyssa clearly thought that the Christian “equality of all souls before God” had radical implications for the temporal and physical world, such as the inherent evil of slavery, in the 4th century! Here is an exact quote from Gregory of Nyssa:

      “I have owned slaves, both men and women.”
      Tell me, what price did you pay to acquire them? What is the equivalent in goods for the cost of human nature? How much, in terms of money, is the value of intelligence? What price did you pay, in obols, for the image of God? For how many staters did you buy a human nature made by God? . . . . For One who has known human nature said that not even the whole world is a sufficient price for a just payment for the soul of a man. . . .

      Is there any difference in any respect between slave and master?. . . . Do they not both preserve their nature by eating the same food? Is there not the same structure of internal organs? Do not both become the same dust after death? Do they not have the same judgment? Do they not go to the same heaven or the same hell? You who are equal in all respects, why should you be superior such that while you are only a man you think you can be the owner of a man?”

      The chief target here is slavery, but it’s not hard to imagine how this premise could easily be developed to support even more radical forms of egalitarianism.

      While there was by no means consensus on this at the time,, the fact that some prominent saints and theologians *could* come to such conclusions at such as early date makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the seeds of egalitarianism were there from the start, simply waiting for the right people to notice them and take the proper action.

      Remember that Luke 1:46-55, the Magnificat (which has become anthem for Liberation Theologians in Latin America) also says: “He has toppled the mighty from their thrones, and exalted the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent away the rich empty.”

      Not to mention Luke 4:18: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.”

      There are so many examples of the radical implications of Christianity for the physical and temporal world that the traditionalists who try to deny that “spiritual equality” contains these seeds have a very very weak case, and the historical record is against them.

      • If you want to talk about “seeds” and “implications”, just about any ideology can be argued to “imply” some completely different position, given enough ideological steps. Stick to arguing against what traditional Christianity actually teaches, and stop trying to lay the blame for radical misinterpretations of Christianity on the traditionalists.

        As a traditionalist Eastern Orthodox Christian, my understanding of what constitutes traditional Christianity is in fact well-defined. I accept your citation of St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, while I exclude that of John Milton. Citations of Scripture may be relevant, but I only accept interpretations compatible with the Church Fathers, not with something cooked up by a 19th century evangelical.

        So let’s move to discussing the Fathers’ position on human equality. What precisely in St Gregory’s words that you quote do you disagree with? I suppose he does say “equal in all respects”, and we know that this can’t be true in just any sense. All we need is some common sense to see that people are quite different from each other in several respects, and I seriously doubt St Gregory would expect his readers to be blind to that. The point, obviously, is that in the respects that matter, people are equal.

        How does this differ from leftist PC egalitarianism, you may well ask? The difference is that the PC left has a different idea of what constitutes essential differences. The left basically excludes any differences that hinder their program of perfecting mankind through social engineering.

        However, the existence of differences does not entail the non-existence of commonalities. If you really believe you have nothing more in common with a Negro than with an orangutan, then I don’t consider you to have much more sense in your skull than the most doctrinaire PC liberal. Reality doesn’t agree either with left-wing egalitarianism or with pseudo-reactionary racism.

      • While there was by no means consensus on this at the time,, the fact that some prominent saints and theologians *could* come to such conclusions at such as early date makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the seeds of egalitarianism were there from the start, simply waiting for the right people to notice them and take the proper action.

        You shall know them by their fruits..

        Those that did come to those conclusions, and acted on them, were sinners. That the seeds of sin exist in Christianity is not news.

        John Brown was among, other things, a cold blooded murderer, and the rest of that company not noticeably better.

      • If you really believe you have nothing more in common with a Negro than with an orangutan, then I don’t consider you to have much more sense in your skull than the most doctrinaire PC liberal.

        In terms of genetic difference, a chimp is about three or four times further from the civilized races of man than a negro, an orangutan about ten times further.

        Darwinism revealed a continuum.

  9. Restoration Anglicanism was unambiguously and straightforwardly hierarchical and anti egalitarian. If you attended church regularly, you once a year got wife whipping endorsed, the divine right of Kings, etc, and fairly regularly you sang that inequality between rich and poor was divinely ordained.

    Any Church that does not socially enforce the subordination of women in its church services is deviating seriously from the New Testament. Of course no church socially enforces the subordination of women to the extent and in the manner prescribed in the New Testament, because if it did it would get Wacoed.

  10. Igress at 8:45 has it

    egalitarianism (egalitee) derives from the enlightenment, codified by the french revolution — whose central rallying figure was the goddess “libertas”

    american demonocracy is cut from the same cloth, thats why the constant blabber about the importance of “liberty” — which all assume means freedom, but which in fact references a demonic entity, the “great goddess”

    little wonder a couple centuries later, amerika (and the west) are utterly ruled by women, and there aint much “liberty” to be found . . . for males, that is

    both the french and amerikan revolutions were organized, funded, and run by masoinic organizations, who according to the tenets of masonry (albert pike, “morals and dogma”) worship lucifer — that’d be the OPPOSITE of Christ for you non-religious types

    western churches, now largely embracing egalitee, libertee, “civil rights” etc follow not after Jeshua, but after lucifer, tho theyre not to keen on being told that lol

    “christianity” and “following christ” are not even vaguely equivalent, as most of what modern churches support and teach is anti-christic

    real christianity is NOT inclusive, there is NO universal brotherhood, except in the sense that all persons can choose to follow Jeshua, in the sense that his disciples were a “band of brothers” and in the sense that his followers strive to show love to all creatures, even enemies (i dont quite have that part down yet)

    real christianity is elitist, as Christ emphasized over and over (many called, few chosen, etc) and certainly isnt egalitarian, despite the ignorance and cowardice of modern “pastors” who seek to please their (largely female) parishioners, rather than pleasing God

    • It’s amazing how dull-witted most of the defenders of Christianity in this thread are, and how bad their understanding of intellectual history, and history in general, is. I guess this is what Christian dysgenics breeds.

      Where do you think those “Enlightenment” figures got their ideas? In a vacuum? Do you think even among the *Early Church Fathers*, theologians such as St. Gregory of Nyssa argued that institutions such as slavery were unjust because men in their state of nature were free? Ever hear of medieval Christian egalitarians such as Fra Dolcino? Are you aware that Christian theologians and philosophers such as Bartolomé de las Casas and John Maier and the Salamanca School developed a coherent doctrine of “natural rights” well before the Enlightenment? Do you know that Christians such as the Monachomaques and George Buchanan developed social contract theory and for natural liberty? Ever learn that Christians during the English Civil War such as John Lilburne and John Milton wrote treatises supporting republicanism, natural rights, and radical ideas such as the legitimacy of divorce? Are you aware that the scholarship shows that key Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke were indeed devout Christians and not deists? Are you aware that even those who tended towards deism like Voltaire and Montesquieu remained heavily influenced by Christian ethics, and that this is reflected in their writing? For example, when Montesquieu argued against slavery, as I alluded to above, he pointed out that the Christian slaveholders,needed to deny that blacks had souls, for if they did have souls, those slaveholders would be bad Christians. Even as late as the nineteenth century, Marx and Engels could still draw inspiration from Christian communists like Etienne Cabet. You’d know this if you bothered to do any research rather than regurgitate platitudes about “the Enlightenment” and “Masonry.”

      And that’s without even tackling the nuances and differences among the Enlightenment thinkers themselves! You just can’t hold a serious conversation with most Christards because there is so much they don’t know about their own history.

      • For example, when Montesquieu argued against slavery, as I alluded to above, he pointed out that the Christian slaveholders,needed to deny that blacks had souls, for if they did have souls, those slaveholders would be bad Christians.

        Paul mildly encourages Christians to free their Christian slaves, but it is clearly not a requirement for being a good Christian. On the contrary, for a slave to obey his master and not run away is a requirement for being a good Christian. Christians may not free other people’s slaves, only their own. And freeing their own, as Paul makes abundantly clear, is optional.

        So if Montesquieu argued such stuff, he was not a Christian.

        Indeed, the personal conduct of the anti slavery movement in the US leading up to the civil war makes it obvious that none of them were Christians. John Brown was more into stealing horses and rustling cattle than he was into freeing slaves.

      • Another thing I’ve noticed about reactionary Christians: they try to define Christianity in such a way so that only people who more or less agree with their political views are “real” Christians. No True Scotman, in other words.

        Case in point: John Brown. The scholarship indicates that he was a Calvinist who admired Jonathan Edwards, but the moron above isn’t sympathetic to him, so he tries to deny that he’s a “real” Christian. You can’t reason with such people. Something about the Abrahamic religions cripples the mind in this way.

        I’ve already said that Montesquieu tended towards deism, but check above and you’ll see that some early Church theologians, not heretics in the slightest, clearly thought that the Christian belief in an immortal soul that was equal before God implied the complete rejection of slavery, no matter what Paul said. You are now left arguing that men venerated by the Church as saints are not “real” Christians because you dislike some of their radical social and political opinions. It just won’t work. Not to anyone who can think and evaluate the evidence impartially.

      • Case in point: John Brown. The scholarship indicates that he was a Calvinist who admired Jonathan Edwards, but the moron above isn’t sympathetic to him, so he tries to deny that he’s a “real” Christian.

        John Brown is not a real Christian because he was a horse thief, a cattle rustler, and cold blooded murder.

      • you’ll see that some early Church theologians, not heretics in the slightest, clearly thought that the Christian belief in an immortal soul that was equal before God implied the complete rejection of slavery, no matter what Paul said.

        If someone believes in X “no matter what Paul said”, he is a heretic. And, in the nineteenth century, other correlates of heresy, such as robbery and mass murder, became apparent.

      • It’s amazing how dull-witted most of the defenders of Christianity in this thread are, and how bad their understanding of intellectual history, and history in general, is. I guess this is what Christian dysgenics breeds.

        Pure projection. The fact that one of the 10,000 or so saints said something which could be interpreted as vaguely reminiscent of progressivism proves absolutely nothing. The fact that Pius XI almost-but-not-quite-in-some-neocon’s-opinion taught something vaguely reminiscent of progressivism proves absolutely nothing. St John Chrysostom, paragon of tolerance! Snort. Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Churches teach or taught race denialism. They neither teach nor taught that our duty to our distant relatives outweighs our duty to our near relatives, just the opposite, in fact. Undeniably, a large portion of the modern hierarchy is a disaster, but that is a recent phenomenon having to do with the fact that the good guys lost.

        Where do you think those “Enlightenment” figures got their ideas?

        From a line of thinking descending from Scotus, though Occam, and then through the Protestant reformers. A line of thinking which diverged, first, from the Scholastic synthesis and later from orthodox Christianity entirely, spawning along the way Freemasonry, a movement which orthodox Christians have always and everywhere opposed. The Enlightenment is the loss of orthodox Christianity.

        It’s worth noting that nobody was ever converted to Enlightenment “ideas” by the power of those ideas. It was bribery and violence all the way down. Locke was just a whore for William and Mary, and his ideas were known widely by his contemporaries for the thin tissue of rubbish they are.

        Oooooh! But Scotus and Occam were Christians! So fucking what? Everybody in Christendom, excepting the Jews, were Christian. The Church permitted and permits a very broad range of intellectual exploration by theologians and philosophers. The fact that some guy somewhere said something is not evidence that the something is intrinsic to Christianity.

        From Constantine the Great through to Luther, Christianity was hierarchical, patriarchal, and opposed to vulgar bourgeois liberty. That was not just the mainstream but was almost everything. Neoreactionary arguments that this 1000+ years of history is somehow irrelevant or illusory are essentially identical to Protestant arguments that the 1500 years which elapsed between the Resurrection and the emergence of Protestantism are somehow irrelevant or illusory.

        Blaming the Masons, the Enlightenment, and the Jews is, in a way, platitudinous. But, when you are surrounded by nitwits who deny the blueness of the sky, you have to go around saying “the sky is blue” a lot.

        Catholicism was anti-racist well before Vatican II.

        Ludicrous. The Freemasons and the Jews spent the better part of the twentieth century in the US violently attacking all those nasty urban Catholic racists. The attack was carried out specifically and self-consciously because of the threat the rapidly growing Catholic minority posed to the Enlightenment forces running Masonland. The Catholic racists lost and have now retreated behind Vatican II’s veil of impenetrable double-talk. Perhaps the Masons have lost as well, to their former servants, the Jews. Hard to know for sure.

  11. Uncommitted white man has three options;

    1. Join the zeitgeist, radically liberate, and use “unprincipled exceptions” to avoid total self-annihilation.

    2. Orient towards God, but practice “nondiscrimination and tolerance” as penance due Liberalism.

    3. Seek genuine white Supremacy so as to reject total self-annihilation and separate from liberated “Christians.”

  12. “What is the best way forward for Westerners?

    Atheism / Agnosticism, Explicitly Pro-Western Christianity, Neo-Paganism, or our Current Politically Correct Christianity?”

    My problem with neo-paganism is that the traditions have been largely been lost and so what we have now is a lot of picking and choosing from whatever bits and pieces remain from various cultures. In this way it is very new age.

    Westerners would do better to align themselves with traditions that are in tact over millenia, which we find in South Asia. These are also experiential based traditions so they are actually practices and philosophies rather than blind faith in unfalsifiables, as the Monotheistic Abrahamic religions amount to.

    In these schools of thought there is a wide variety of options that run the gamut from theism to atheism and grey areas in between, but there are underlying, uniting themes in all of them.

    Another great thing is that if you wish to preserve your ethno-culture by marrying endogomously it is understood, even supported. On the other hand if you want to marry out, you can.

    Look into Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.

    The Westerners I know practicing any of the above are doing quite well for themselves.

    • “Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.”

      Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism might be fine for Indians and Buddhism for Indians or Asians, but these are not Western religions. Paganism, by its traditional definition, should be ancestral. Why worship another’s ancestral religion?

      • “Why worship another’s ancestral religion?”

        Because the Northern and Western European native religions are lost to us. We could adopt Native American religions, which some whites do. They are more intact since some First Nations peoples have held onto many of the traditions.

        I guess we could also completely make up new religions from scratch. I’d be all for that too.

        However personally I practice a specific Hindu tradition.

      • ” True paganism is ancestral, not creedal.”

        My parents, grandparents, great grandparents (I’ve got one still living), all my aunts, uncles and cousins, have not passed any ancestral European religion or traditions onto me, and this is the case for the vast majority of Euro-Americans.

        In Europe itself, where are the unbroken Pagan family lines and traditions?

        Thought so.

        European Pagan traditions are dead and gone. Christianity made sure of that a long time ago.

      • European tribal religions are alive and growing now.

        Hebrew used to be a dead language. The Israelis brought it back. Now it’s alive and well. Just because a tradition is abandoned by most for awhile, doesn’t mean it can’t come back.

      • “European tribal religions are alive and growing now.”

        A bunch of fluffy new agers and old hippies are recreating what they THINK were European tribal religions based on disjointed bits, pieces and scraps that are cherry picked according to their own tastes and what “feels good, man”.

        “Hebrew used to be a dead language. The Israelis brought it back. Now it’s alive and well. Just because a tradition is abandoned by most for awhile, doesn’t mean it can’t come back.”

        The Jews have continuous unbroken traditions and cultures.

      • Hebrew used to be a dead language. The Israelis brought it back.

        Yes and no. Since Hebrew (A Semitic language, related to Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopian, and Akkadian) had ceased to be a spoken, living language, what is spoken now is not a direct descendant of that earlier spoken tradition. It is instead based on written Hebrew, with significant influence from Yiddish, which is a dialect of German.

        Traditions that die off can be revived, but what is brought back is not a direct continuation of what was practiced before. Certain parts of the tradition are liable to be irrecoverably lost.

      • Hinduism and Sikhism are a little different from Buddhism and Jainism. The pacifist and universalist tendencies of Christianity are also found in Buddhism and Jainism. On the other hand, Hinduism is very close to European paganism, perhaps because the founders of both religions were Indo-European “Aryans”.
        Brahminical Hinduism is the polar opposite of Christianity when it comes to morality and ethnocentrism.
        SIkhism has value because of its emphasis on martial ethics and valor, although it does negate the importance of bloodline.

  13. How much of the change in religion and quasi-religion in the past several centuries has to do with church polity? If a Catholic and a Unitarian church start out with identical beliefs, and majorities in both churches want to worship a golden calf so that they can belong to the “right” country club, what happens? The Catholic clergy can say, “No dice. My way or the highway.” It’s a package deal. The laity can vote with their feet, but that’s all the choice they have. The Unitarian congregation can vote to call a new minister if he refuses to bring in a golden calf, and send delegates to the General Assembly to vote for a UUA Presedent who is flexible about adding a new Source of moral wisdom to the current list.

    Sure, the Cardinals have their own conflicts of interest, but they are different conflicts than the rationalization hamster-driven Unitarian laity. The congregationalist approach seems like a recipe for a moral “race to the bottom”.

    How did the original Calvinists do it? What about Cromwell?

  14. St. Michael Archangel says: “The Christianity-as-proto Marxism meme is played out. Nietzsche is dead. Radical egalitarianism is theft, theft is a sin and sinners go to hell. Good Christians know this, bitter ex-emo Catholic High School kids do not. Varg Vikernes be damned. Literally.”

  15. By that, you are making these religions creedal. True paganism is ancestral, not creedal.

    Ancestral religions require an anciently patriarchal society. If we fixed our fatherlessness problem, our religion problem would solve itself.

    With no fathers, the religion that everyone tends to is Zoism, New Age, exemplified by Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton.

    • “Ancestral religions require an anciently patriarchal society. If we fixed our fatherlessness problem, our religion problem would solve itself.”

      How would it fix itself when our ancestral European religions and traditions have been wiped out by Christianity? Suddenly with fathers we’d have some cellular memory of our original cultures?

      The only choice left for Euro descended peoples today is to either create brand new religions from scratch or to convert to ancient non-monotheistic religions that are still intact thanks to lineages that have preserved them.

      I chose to convert. But who knows, maybe in the future I’ll start a new one.

      • Who wants a religion that makes claim to being a creation of many fathers? Clearly, no empirical evidence exists to give credence to such notion.

        Paganism is a ruthless female “spirit” born of a belief in creation by many fathers.

        The implication being a dominant matriarch behind the scene.

      • “Paganism is a ruthless female “spirit” born of a belief in creation by many fathers.”

        We don’t even know what Paganism was because our native European traditions and practices are lost to antiquity because of Christianity. If you scroll up and read my other comments above this is my whole point about why I am not a Pagan. Paganism is nothing but a catchall phrase used by Middle Eastern Abrahamicists to insult native European traditions and its a shame that today’s “neo-pagans” have adopted a negative term to describe themselves.

        Ancient native Europeans called themselves by various names and there was no monoculture or pan-Europeanism. But alas, Christianity destroyed all that so now “new-pagans” are nothing more than a bunch of fluffy new agers and old hippies who are piecing together bits, pieces and scraps of lost traditions and amalgamating them into a mass of confusion.

        This is why I am NOT a “pagan”. I have converted to an intact Asian tradition that has kept its culture, customs, traditions and practices alive though several centuries though the lineage process of passing down knowledge from guru to disciple.

      • John, I clicked on your link and read;
        “But Jung was not satisfied to make this connection. He went on to say that because of this biological factor there were differences in the collective unconscious of the races of mankind. Boldly he asserted that
        Thus it is a quite unpardonable mistake to accept the conclusions of a Jewish psychology as generally valid. (This statement must be taken in context. It is not some irrelevant anti-Jewish remark, but instead stems from the growing rift between Jung and his Jewish teacher, Freud.) Nobody would dream of taking Chinese or Indian psychology as binding upon ourselves. ”

        Indian psychology in the sense of the science of mind that the Sankhya, Vedanta and Yogic schools of Indian philosophy define and expand upon are indeed universally applicable because they are transcultural.

        Of course there are specific behaviors in humans that are culturally conditioned as well but the underlying science of mind which you find in classical Indian philosophies is dealing with the universal workings and leanings of the minds.

      • Anti-NWO,

        We know what “paganism” means to the typical alt-righter.

        It means one who worships many fathers (little gods) AND rejects creation by a single dominant father (a Creator God).

        But even deeper, it means one who desires a dominant matriarch. For whom could be the creation of many fathers but he who was birthed by a mother of insatiable sexual appetite?

      • Thordaddy, I haven’t looked deeply into what you call “paganism”. I have always veered South and East Asian in my philosophical and spiritual orientations and what little bits and pieces of pre-Christian European cultures can still be gleaned does not particularly inspire me, but I support the freedom of thought, association, religion and choice of those whom it does inspire.

        So much is lost because of the onslaught of the Christian cultural jihad that we don’t know if the ancient European peoples had a well developed ontology and metaphysics like the Asians had and still have to this day.

        Thankfully the Asian traditions did not give way to Abrahamism and have kept their philosophies, traditions and spiritual practices intact so that persons such as myself can avail myself of their wisdom.

      • “We know what “paganism” means to the typical alt-righter.

        It means one who worships many fathers (little gods) AND rejects creation by a single dominant father (a Creator God).

        But even deeper, it means one who desires a dominant matriarch. For whom could be the creation of many fathers but he who was birthed by a mother of insatiable sexual appetite?”

        And this low IQ, anti-intellectual gibberish was one of the first things to turn me off from Christianity when I was a mere child. Due to a total lack of philosophical depth, Biblical mythology is taken literally and you people even try to historicalize it.

        Ultimate reality is genderless but it expresses itself in gendered forms, both metaphorically and sensorily.

        Reality and its expressions are not all male.

        Where there is male there must be female.
        Where there is father there must be mother.
        Where there is the Divine Masculine Principle, there must be the Divine Feminine Principle.

      • Anti-nwo,

        I will be more impressed when an actual alt-right pagan comes through and disputes my analysis of the alt-right pagan belief system.

        Alt-right pagans love “god and power,” but hate God and His power. Alt-right pagans pay lip service to “blood and soil,” but are not about to be genuine white Supremacists.

        Your conversion to whatever you have converted to was simple self-interest justified by relative truth. But even deeper was a rejection of a lost identity and the acceptance of an alien one.

  16. If people have patriarchy, they remember their ancestors. If they remember their ancestors, they gradually accrete ancient traditions connecting them to blood and soil. It takes time.

    There is, however, a short term effect. Abrahamic religions are patriarchal. In a fatherless society, they become feminized, hence the rise of the egalitarian heresy. Thus, for example, the defense of Queen Caroline occurred at roughly the same time by roughly the same people as the anti slavery movement.

  17. Pingback: What Post-Christian Right Wingery Will Look Like

  18. Christianity is a Supremacist doctrine.

    The “egalitarian” is an anti-Supremacist.

    There should be no doubt that a Supremacist doctrine could create such a massively bitter notion of personal failure in the individual that one must then euphemize himself as “egalitarian” in order to carry on in his daily life.

    It is not easy to lay claim to striving towards “equality.” This is not a normal mode of thinking. It is radical in its total self-debasement.

  19. Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Reaction Points (#5)

  20. The Church has at different times and places endorsed both egalitarianism and most kinds of PC and leftist thoughts; often unwittingly. But if you look at the Bible NT and OT the question sort of falls apart because while some elements of leftiet/egalitarian are present, Christianity must be pulled so far out of its cultural, historical, economic and political context that it relationship to modern PC/leftism is almost irrelivent.
    The belief that God created man in the way that Judeo-Christianity sees it is a hugely powerful idea but a very open ended one, allowing for varied opposing end results. So it could be reasonably argued that elements of Christianity do evetually become present in many political and intellectual streams. But no, at its origins it is neither egalitarian or leftist.

  21. Mark Shea is a Cultural Marxist!

    There’s no contradiction between racial pride and Christianity!

    gens alba conservanda est!

  22. Bill wrote:

    Neoreactionary arguments that this 1000+ years of history is somehow irrelevant or illusory are essentially identical to Protestant arguments that the 1500 years which elapsed between the Resurrection and the emergence of Protestantism are somehow irrelevant or illusory.

    Unfair to the neoreaction, the reaction, and the Dark Enlightenment.

    We don’t blame fifteen hundred years of Christianity, just certain particular Pharisaical protestant sects – Browneism, Puritanism, Quakers, and their descendents. Leftism is inherent in the Phariseeism of those sects.

  23. Pingback: Randoms | Foseti

  24. Does God care about white people as a people? Or does he only care about us as individuals?

    Does God care if white people are peacefully replaced by Black and Mestizo Christians?

    We’re all made in the image of God.

    • It is mighty healthy for the Jews to have a God that cares about Jews as a people.

      Even though Islam is, like Christianity, a universalist religion, and sincere Muslims, such as Al Quaeda, do not discriminate against white converts, Allah particularly cares about the sons of Ishmael (Arabs and closely related people, as a people.)

      Whites, it seems, are the only major group to have a God that does not care about them as a people.

      • We turned our backs (or had our backs turned forcefully) on our old Gods, who did care about us as a people.

      • “We turned our backs (or had our backs turned forcefully) on our old Gods, who did care about us as a people.”

        Bingo! Christianity carried out a ruthless, merciless, well planned out and executed cultural and genocidal jihad against Europeans and their Gods who cared about them.

        Christianity deserves whatever its got coming.

  25. Anti-NWO,

    Any deracinated white man who throws away his own traditions to go worship some foreign Asian gods really is only one step up from a wigger.

    • A foreign semitic God is really no different from a foreign Asian God. At least the Asian ones are closer to the original Greco-Roman-Germanic-Norse religious traditions in their outlook.

  26. Christianity fits into the Dark Enlightenment as follows: Part of the Dark Enlightenment is a recognition of the fact that the traditions that we casually discarded actually contained a significant amount of accumulated wisdom. That includes Christian traditions. We can all think of a number of ways in which Christian traditions had adaptive value, relative to current liberal institutions. We were too careless about what we discarded.

    However, that discarding happened and modern, mainstream Christianity is not traditional anymore. It has been subverted and co-opted into the Cathedral’s death cult. In the United States it is a maladaptive belief system that supports egalitarianism, matriarchy and race replacement. (It may still be beneficial in Russia, I can’t say for sure.)

    So should we try to fix Christianity or should we finish it off and move on without it?

    I’m afraid that we should probably finish it off. At its core, Christianity doesn’t care about white people as a people. It only cares about them as individuals. The reality and importance of our tribal identities is one of the most central teachings of the dark enlightenment.

    Furthermore, Christianity contains certain radical universalist concepts that cannot be put back into the box, once they are unleashed. Ethnocentric Christianity worked for a while, but the cat is out of the bag. People can read the bible for themselves.It really makes more sense as a unversalist document. Mestizo Hispanics are humans, they have souls, they’re made in the image of God and they’re Christian. There is no biblical basis for denying them the right to marry your daughter, is there? After all, God doesn’t care whether or not the occupants of the United States are white or mestizo; all believing Christians are his chosen people.

    The Cathedral is actually doing us a favor here; the youth are increasingly unlikely to believe in Christianity. This makes them vulnerable to progressive indoctrination, but since progressive dogma is obviously and demonstrably wrong, it also makes them vulnerable indoctrination into the Dark Enlightenment, once they become sufficiently disillusioned with progressivism.

    Societies need myths, but we are not a society, we are just a bunch of social critics. It’s best for us to discard all myths and push forward with a commitment to absolute scientific truth. Perhaps a new mythology will arise once we’ve destroyed the Cathedral or accomplished something else that is worthy of being immortalized in legend.

    • Actually, trad-christians are ethno-centric. You’re supposed to honor your father and mother and by extension your family and ancestors.

  27. I’m not sure — as a non-believer — that Christianity is “inherently” anything with regards to left-wing thinking. But I am fairly sure that it is possible to set up anti-leftist sorts of Christianity, sorts which believe that God has instituted national boundaries as part of his plan (Acts 17:26), that mankind contains large numbers of fools who have no business being involved in government (most of Proverbs), that ethnic identity is important (the entire Old Testament), that the preservation of cultural mores is absolutely necessary (Deuteronomy 6), and that lazy bums who want eat should be deprived of everything including food until they reform (2 Thessalonians 3:10). There are groups that practice strong communal cohesion and enforce high standards, like the Amish, but then again even they have an egalitarian streak, and you should see the children and grand-children of the Amish who defect to the broader Mennonite world. It’s a breathtakingly fast trip from relaxing the standards of the Amish to reaching full-blown insane leftism. Similarly the last hundred years have shown that just about every Christian group follows the exact same path, and all the major groupings within Christianity are deteriorating. Perhaps Christianity has already been tried and failed.

  28. The reason that Paganism can be more ethnic is because people actually carry the lineage of their God. The distinction that is made is typically how much of a God one possesses within them (the Greek distinction between the forth root race demigods and the fifth root race mortals for example). The High God produces the first men by animating a part of the earth with his soul (in germanic tradition man is the descendant of the trees (hint hint christians 😉 ) while in other traditions it is often the clay of the earth). The other gods then mingle into this lineage to produce different sorts of men. In ancient sumerian tradition for example there is one female Goddess and at least four male gods involved in just the initial creation with others breeding in after that creation. In ancient traditions the men descended from the second breeding (male Gods – female humans) are superior to the first men and are always rulers and civilizers who sometimes live thousands of years.

    The contrast to universalism is that universalism demands that everyone have the same soul and be descended from one man without any sort of divine intervention to make them separate. At best, the proponent of universalism can argue for natural speciation which leaves men with different bodies but still the same souls. There are so many NWO guys who argue that globalism is justified because we all have the same origin and the same end. The Catholic Catechism can therefore logically make the argument that we are the same:

    “Catholic Catechism
    Part III, Section I, Chapter II
    II. Equality and Differences Among Men
    1934 Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.
    1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:
    Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.”

    The point has been made many times by the new world order guys that you only really have a choice between these two doctrines. They say that we are all descended from one man and one woman from africa or they go spread the creationist nonsense and say that everyone is descended from adam and eve (or whatever the heck you call them in islamic tradition). The reason that you don’t interbreed is because you are here to represent what your forefather God wanted you to be period. But then we are the natural children of our father the devil in the yahwehist traditions who need to apostatize from the natural religion to join our adoptive father right? The treacherous implications of this should be naturally seen. These clowns have never ever talked with anything near the All, so how can they know what the supreme being thinks about racial matters? If anything, his philosophy is naturally orientated towards perpetuation and so he would appreciate the racial emphasis upon perpetuation.

  29. Pingback: Pro-humanity Christianity | Traditional Christianity

  30. White nationalists are missing the point. As CS Lewis wrote, “Aim at Heaven, and you get the Earth thrown in — aim at the Earth and you get neither”.

    In other words., if you really want to save the white race, evangelize both whites and nonwhites, as much as you can.

    Evangelizing whites will, as an earthly side effect, save the white race by significantly raising their fertility. Tthe only whites who have above-replacement fertility, are the religious ones. Stormfronters wax eloquent in their praises of the Duggars but I haven’t yet seen a rush on their part, to adopt the Duggar’s beliefs. They miss the point.

    Evangelizing nonwhites will, as an earthly side effect, help save the white race by significantly reducing the chances of racial warfare. Whites would probably win such a war but we’d lose a lot of our own people and possibly territory too. Better to skip it, if we still can.

    So… white nationalists… forget about “saving the white race”, save SOULS irrespective of color. And the earthly thing you want, will come as a side effect.

    That said….with no territory to call your own, you’re doomed no matter what. So vote against mass immigration too…

  31. But we don’t really need to have high population growth in every country on earth, forever. We don’t need a breeding competition with the third world peoples. Do we really need to grow the population until we reach the Malthusian limits again?

    There is nothing wrong with a Japan-style demographic contraction or stagnation. It will make the country more liveable and save resources / preserve the environment for the future.

    Low fertility only becomes a serious problem when you allow yourself to be invaded and replaced by other peoples.

    And your plan doesn’t have anything whatsoever to say about miscegenation, which is dysgenic for IQ in the United States and which is the true cause of the hypothetical white genocide. Christianity simply has nothing to say about the survival of white people as a distinct people.

    Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red, brown, yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.

    And that’s why he doesn’t care if believing white Christians grow up and marry believing black and brown Christians, even if it does result in lower IQs, the decline of the United States into a (Christian) third world country and a species that never travels to the stars.

  32. I agree with those who find the Christianity=leftism meme too pat. It’s not hard to pounce on certain elements of a teaching, tear them bleeding from the organic whole and hold them aloft as evidence of that teaching’s affinity with leftism or liberalism. It’s a game anyone can play:

    – The ancient pagan Roman imperium held a universalist conception of ius gentium. Therefore ancient pagan Rome was the true precursor of the Cathedral.
    – Modern neopagans detest universalism and exalt the integrity of particular indigenous cultures. Clearly neopaganism is spiritually akin to the Cathedral’s doctrines of diversity and anti-Western Third World fetishism.
    – Neopagans are often indulgent towards sodomy and sometimes even glorify it. The foul stench of Cathedralism assails my nostrils.

    All rubbish of course. At its best latter-day paganism inhabits a different world to the ‘Cathedral’ and so does Christianity.

    No-one denies modern Christianity has a very bad case of leftism infection. (A particularly sorry spectacle is presented by “conservative” Roman Catholics like Mark Shea, who do more to retard the restoration of Tradition than any number of liberal dissenters.) But is modern paganism any different in this regard? For every fire-breathing pagan right-winger on the internet there must be thousands of feminised New Agey liberal Wiccans snivelling about Christian “intolerance”, “misogyny”, “imperialism”, “racism” &c. We’re all suffering from the leftist virus, even the descendants of the Vikings:

    Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost, The asatru fellowship Bifrost, is a religious organization for modern asatru in Norway. Our religion is based on the religious tradition in Scandinavia and Iceland before the Christian era. The organization was approved by Norwegian authorities in 1996 and connects blotslag (local or regional groups of practitioners) and individual members. The blotslag are largely self-governed and have different points of focus within the faith. Members may be connected to a blotslag or directly to Bifrost.

    No kind of discrimination based on origin, sexual orientation or other personal trait is acceptable within Bifrost –or anywhere else, if you ask us. Unfortunately and sadly, Norse symbols have been heavily abused in the past and even today by far right-wingers and outright nazis. One of our missions is reclaiming the expressions of the old customs so that they shall no longer be associated with hateful ideologies. Though different, all human beings possess indispensable intrinsic value, as do all living things.

  33. Pingback: Another Traditionalist Eager to Prove that the Greatest Enemies of Traditionalism

  34. Pingback: Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men? | Occam's Razor

  35. Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    Interesting discussion. If Christianity is inherently Left-Wing, and is the main source of Left-Wing ideology, Left-Wing people have the ethical duty to turn the other cheek. Egalitarian ideology, however, can be used to raise the status of embryos to that of regular people. In that case, abortion would be worse than the Holocaust. Each outcome would be troublesome for Left-Wing people to say the least. Euthanasia of course, is the axe at any Egalitarian tree.

  36. “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.”
    —Ephesians 6:5-6.

    Egalitarian my testicles. The idea of radical egalitarianism stretches back before Christ was a twinkle in Mary’s eye, if you’ll forgive my casual blasphemy. Diogenes told Alexander to fuck off without fear or respect to station and Epicurus was held in horror for teaching women and slaves. And then bravely defending his thinking on the matter.

    And if one ever reads a history of the “polis” in Greek life, it was essentially a nauseatingly egalitarian political forum (an early Internet) until the debts of the Peloponnesian Wars made it wise state policy–necessary state policy, in fact–to kiss rich ass.

    If I read one more calumniation of Christianity this week, I’m going to fucking vomit.

    • P.S. I’m not talking about Mr. Roger’ style liberal Protestantism, by the way. That’s all crap and a thoroughly modern phenomenon. It’s 1960s liberation theology, which is just Communism wearing a cross.So I’ll grant that that’s all apostate garbage believed by patchouli-stinking deadsouls.

      But as for TRADITIONALChristian thought, there is no egalitarianism in it, at least in the world this side of death. Think for a split second. It’s no accident nor any conundrum that the CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF ROME upheld and benefitted from the feudal system and seigneurialism in Europe for upwards of 900 years

      • Trouble is, since 1960 or so, it is pretty much all liberation theology. Christianity, which was profoundly reactionary and anti egalitarian, is dead except a few remnant churches the side of a mustard seed.

      • And another problem. What has been read, cannot be unread, like the Sermon on the Mount. What has been heard, cannot be unheard. So the Liberalization of Christianity seems very hard to reverse. Only demographics can save Conservative Christianity.

    • As well as Timothy 5:1.

      A fortiori, this was said to Christian slaves who had to obey Pagan masters. Likely including sexual favors. And polygyny isn’t against Natural Law.

  37. Christianity is not inherently “any” wing. Jesus is, however, often used to further any number of causes that do not align with his life, witness, and teaching (HBD would be just one of them).

    If there is an egalitarianism in Christianity, it is not about political ideology but spiritual reality. All of us, according to Christian teaching, are both radically broken and radically beloved by God in Christ. Regardless of our IQ, or whatever other genetic markers are taken to be preferable, all of us stand under judgement for sins (of commission or omission) – like hubris, for instance.

    And yes, the same Paul who told slaves to obey their masters also argued that a Christian named Philemon should free a runaway slave named Onesimus, and argued that “in Christ” (most scholars think this is baptismal language) there is no Jew or Gentile (or Greek), slave or free, male or female (see Galatians 3:28). Sounds pretty egalitarian to me.

    A better case is probably made by Pentecost, in which the Spirit is poured out onto the early church and the barriers of language – and thus ethnic/national identities also – are torn down with tongues of fire. It is not accidental that Christian traditions that emphasize the work of the Spirit – Pentecostals, Quakers, Methodists – were some of the first Christians to argue against slavery and for the equality of women.

    • The ancient Greeks, by about 450 BC, had mastered perspective, weight shift (or contra-postua), and various painting techniques still used today. No other group in world history did this. These techniques later helped define the glory and grandeur of Christianity.

      It seems to me that Christianity, and the West, started its decline by abandoning its traditions and losing hierarchy and sense of grandeur.

    • While Christians should free their own Christian slaves, it is not required. Further, Christians definitely should not free other people’s slaves. When the predecessors of today’s leftists, the successors of Cromwell’s puritans, started their anti slavery crusade, they ceased to be Christians, and, after adopting a non Christian position on slavery, in fairly rapid succession they proceeded to adopt non Christian positions on everything else. If you support freeing other people’s slaves, gay Bishops follow.

      • James, where your logic is flawed is in thinking that the gospel is a call for personal morality alone. As Christians we are called to fight sin in its personal as well as social and communical manifestations. I don’t see the leap you make between freeing slaves and having “gay Bishops” (which is not common anywhere except certain parts of the Anglican Communion). It was, in fact, the most radical Christians – evangelicals like William Wilberforce and John Wesley – who led the charge against slavery. Nothing about them was unorthodox. A strong social witness is not some progressive boogeyman, it is implicit in the call of the gospel to heal, make whole, and do justice. What that looks like will have to be hashed out and should be differentiated from worldly causes, but there are some things (modern day slavery, child abuse, hunger, etc.) that all Christians should be about to agree on and work in common mission against.

      • >As Christians we are called to fight sin in its personal as well as social and communical manifestations

        Sin being defined as failure to be up with whatever level of leftness is politically correct today. Yesterday, opposition to female divorcees remarrying was sin. Today, opposition to gays marrying is sin.

        The New Testament position on slavery is perfectly clear. Christians are encouraged to free their own slaves, but forbidden to free other people’s slaves

  38. Since at least the split with the East around 1000, there is no monolithic “Christianity” to speak of. Some parts of Christianity are very much hierarchical, others less so. Some parts are left wing and some are right and some (thanks be to God) are none, some have retained all tradition and others have reveled in excising as much as possible.

    I don’t think anyone has ever thought that the “glory and grandeur” of Christianity (read: Christendom) was in its buildings. They were a side-effect, a window dressing on the true good of Christianity which was the love of God revealed in Christ.

    “For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, 23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”
    -1 Cor. 1:22-23

    • Cultural artifacts are visible tradition that speak more than mere words.

      Words are used by modernist magicians and gnostics to create spells that bedevil, as with the father of lies.

      Traditional Christians believe that to gain wisdom is to understand the meaning of God, through careful study of nature. The great cathedrals were visual manifestations of divine order. Beauty leads men to God. Evil is chaos and ignorance.

      • IA, depends on what you mean by “Traditional Christians.” There is a strong natural law and natural revelation in Christianity, but it is far from the whole story. At best, observing nature can only (possibly) get us to the God of Deism: a God who creates marvelous works, but is not necessarily a personal, involved, or loving God. Observing nature can certainly not get us to the Triune God confessed in the creeds of “Traditional Christians,” the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who are distinct but not different, who act in a unity of wills but in three persons.

        You are right that the Triune God is the True, Good, and Beautiful. And cathedrals are marvelous statements of faith. Your distinction between words and buildings is odd. The great cathedrals had massive stained glass windows so that the illiterate, everyday person could learn the Biblical stories. Words are not simply used to deceive, they are also how God has revealed himself through inspiring Scripture – and the prophets, kings, judges, and poets (and of course, Jesus) who fill its pages. To use a medieval distinction, sacraments are visible words, and words (in preaching, prayer, and liturgy) are audible sacraments. God uses many means to reach us, which includes edifices but is certainly not limited to them.

      • Pastormack, you are a person of faith. You want to save souls. I’m more interested in saving culture. Culture is what’s left over after you forgot what you tried to learn. It is instinct, but educated instinct. It is looking through a glass, darkly, as it were. The modern world lacks a humane sense of grandeur, don’t you think?

    • Some parts of Christianity are very much hierarchical, others less so. Some parts are left wing and some are right and some (thanks be to God) are none

      What you are calling none, I would call commie atheists, and what you are calling left, I would call raving commie atheists. Modern Christianity preaches Jesus the community organizer, a sort of John the Baptist pointing the way to Obama, not Christ the redeemer.

      • James, you need to get out more. What you describe sounds more like an excuse to stay away from the church rather than an accurate description of where churches are at.

        In my part of the country (the Southeast, aka the Bible Belt) we usually get either the right-wing Jerry Falwell Jesus whose sole purpose is to keep us out of hell and away from dancing and beer (a very truncated view of the gospel, indeed) or the Tony Robbins-esque Jesus as motivational speaker who wants us to feel better ourselves (think about Joel Osteen).

        You are correct that the church in many places (but not all) has been taken over by political ideology, but it reflects both sides of the wider cultural divide. See, for instance, Adam Hamilton’s Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White or Mike Slaughter’s Hijacked: Responding to the Partisan Church Divide.

        If nothing else, check out my church, where Jesus is preached as Jesus was revealed: as Alpha and Omega, as Lord and Savior, as the Way, Truth, and Life, in whom God was reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19).

        Peace to you and good luck in your search.

  39. >we usually get either the right-wing Jerry Falwell Jesus whose sole purpose is to keep us out of hell and away from dancing and beer

    Jerry Falwell not only supports beer and dancing, both of them endorsed in the new testament, but also supports serial monogamy, which is definitely prohibited by the new testament.

    In 1960, every single congregation everywhere would have been, or at least pretended to be, shocked by a man marrying a divorcee. (But not, however, the converse, indicating awareness that Jesus prohibited divorced women, but not men, from remarrying) Today, almost all churches in the west encourage frivolous divorce as part of their support for women’s liberation.

    Jerry Falwell included.

  40. Pingback: Religion 2.0: Identitarian Religion | Occam's Razor

  41. James, you do realize that the Catholic church is still the largest church – in the West or anywhere? They are certainly not “encouraging” divorce on any scale. Methinks you have constructed a straw man that that is useful to your worldview but not grounded in reality.

    • >They are certainly not “encouraging” divorce on any scale.

      When people live together in one household, someone has to be in charge, so the contract whereby they form one household has to say who is charge.

      If you want to get married in a Roman Catholic Church, they will put you on a waiting list, so if you are pregnant, better get a civil marriage or an abortion. And if you finally get to the head of the queue, the vows, if taken in English, are not going to designate one party as head of household, which sets things up for divorce. Roman Catholic Marriage is hard, Roman Catholic divorce is easy.

  42. Pingback: Conservative Evangelical Nutjobs Pray for Amnesty | Occam's Razor

  43. Pingback: Christianity turns brown, loud and obnoxious | Occam's Razor

  44. Pingback: Catholic Church declares war on West | Occam's Razor

  45. Pingback: Is Contemporary Christianity Suicidal for the West? | Occam's Razor

  46. Pingback: As Christianity becomes a ghetto religion…. | Occam's Razor

  47. Pingback: The Evangelical Adoption Scam | Occam's Razor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s