Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?

The purpose of this blog wasn’t primarily intended to discuss religion but since two of the most popular posts at Occam’s Razor (“Why the Religious Should Reject Intelligent Design” and “Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing?”) are about religion, I thought I’d put up another.

In the “Song of Roland,” a heroic French poem about the  Battle of Roncesvalles in 778 during the reign of Charlemagne, one cannot help but be impressed by Archbishop Turpin.  A Moorish invasion of Charlemagne’s kingdom is taking place and his retainers do not hesitate to take up arms. Archbishop Turpin, although a man of the cloth, arms himself, splitting a head or two of the invaders.

That was then.

Today we have a similar invasion taking place.  The Third World  is pouring into Europe (Africans, Middle Easterners, Indians) and into the United States (mestizo hordes from Mexico and Central America) but the religious leaders today have taken nearly an opposite position.  Instead of opposing the invaders, Christian leaders whine about mistreatment of the invaders and have actually sided with them.

This treason ranges from Pope Benedict siding with African invaders against Europeans to Cardinal Timothy Dolan supporting open borders to Protestant leaders like Richard Land and Russell Moore supporting the Third World invasion of the United States.

Clearly, as others have noted, these men suffer from both both ethnomasochism and pathological altruism.  Channelling Roissy, one cannot help from noticing that these men are often pathetic beta males.

Christian leaders today are effeminate, as is seen in the emotional tactics used by people like John Piper in cajoling white people into adopting non-white babies.  In discussing the recent Christian fetish of transracial adoption, Christian HBD blogger Generation5 notes that this impulse in part derives from a complete feminization of Christianity.

This feminization is probably nowhere more apparent than in male leaders of the pro-life movement, where it is not uncommon to see grown white men crying like little girls in public because some black person unknown and unrelated to them somewhere is getting an abortion.  (Contrast this to alpha male Michael Corleone whose anger at his wife is not because of some abstract concern about abortion but because she reduced his inclusive fitness.)

Here is some telling visual evidence.

Maudlin evangelical leaders praying for poor immigrants:

Evangelicals Whining over immigration

Or beta male Matthew Soerens, US Church Training Specialist for World Relief, whose panties are in a knot over whether some black child is unadopted or some illegal immigrant is mistreated:

You decide:

Cucked Pope Francis.jpg


Russell Moore and Matthew Soerens are calling us at Occam’s Razor “white supremacist Darwinists.” (Actually, guys, HBD shows that North Asians and Ashkenazis have above average IQs too!) Such a sniveling display of political correctness only substantiates this post.

Ann Coulter seems to agree about these girly men; apparently she has a bigger pair than they do.

Primer on Immigration and Human BioDiversity

Religion 2.0:  Identitarian Religion

66 thoughts on “Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?

  1. Pingback: Will Catholic Church become an African wasteland? | Occam's Razor

  2. Christians might be pussies, but Godfather fans are obviosly not, after having read those YT comments left by Godfather (and mafia) fans.

    Brilliant comment:
    ‘The needed and deserved that slap. Killing a kid, mocking the Sicilians and Italians, and ruining the family business ’

    Also great insight on how women rationalise plainly selfish & malicious intent:
    ‘Her reasoning was irrational…. she basically said that any children from him had no right to live even though they could have chosen a better path than he did.’

    • Actually a note on mafia, yakuza etc; the ideal values of properly organised crime (maybe best summarised by old East End gang values of Tradition, Reputation and Respect) were truly normal for most of civilisation’s history. Our widely felt attraction to gangs is not purely rooted in the media’s demonisation or glamorisation, but in a desire to return to the hierarchical and normal. Any corruption of gang values is due to the corruption brought by money, leading to a decline of manly values. Our young men need more serious gangs, we need a gang culture.

  3. I wonder if the de-militarization of Western Civilization led to some degree of fundamental harm.

    Look at the state of Christianity today. It is total crap, even sucking up to ‘gay agenda’. Christianity, with its guilt complex and all that stuff about sin and atonement, is inherently a destabilizing creed.

    So, how did Christianity serve Western Civilization so well for so long? Because Europe wasn’t ruled by the clergy, the Church, or sappy Christians. It was ruled by the military class of noblemen. They respected the Church and all that, but they were fighting men. With the military class at the center of European civilization, the “oh, we are so guilty and must atone for our sins”‘ aspect of Christianity was held in check. It was about ‘check your guilt’ than ‘check your privilege/power’. Also, the power of merchants(for whom profits are everything), often that of Jews, was also held in check.
    Christianity without the spine of militarism grows weak and sappy. Look at the fall of the Church in Spain after the fading of Franco. Look at the fading of the Church in Ireland with the fading of Irish nationalism(that was highly militarist).

    Throughout European history, Christianity and Militarism had a symbiotic relationship. Like feudal Japan, most of European history was militarist as the rulers were kings and aristocrats who ruled as a warrior caste. Christianity needed the noblemen caste because it was, by nature, a passive and pacifist creed. You can’t create or maintain an order with the message of ‘love thy enemy’ and ‘turn the other cheek’. After all, how did it turn out for Jesus? You can’t spread your religion far and wide with the message of love alone. Christianity spread through warfare. Its power grew by going AGAINST the teachings of Christ.

    Christianity got protection and expansion by making a pact with the military caste. What did the military caste get in return? It got moral sanctimony, God on its side, and control over the masses. Without spiritual blessing, the warrior class are a bunch of thugs who rule by might. But in alliance with the clergy, the military class gains the blessing of God or some kind of holiness.
    Similar kind of symbiotic relation existed between the Japanese samurai and Buddhism. Buddhism is pacifistic and passive like Christianity. It cannot survive on its own. It needed the protection of the military. So, Buddhists blessed the samurai class, and the samurai class gave support/protection to the Buddhist order.
    There was a give-and-take between the Christian clergy and the military class in European history. Of course, it was hypocritical as hell. Jesus told His followers to give up all their wealth, love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, and go live among the poor and wretched. But when Christians did that, they didn’t go anywhere in terms of power. They could gain protection and power only in association with the military rulers of Rome and then later post-Rome Europe. So, Christians betrayed their creed to gain power. The military class were hypocritical too. They lived by the sword but adopted a religion that called for peace. But then, all of civilization is hypocritical to some extent.
    Anyway, as long as this symbiotic hypocrisy held between Christians and the Warrior caste, Europe was safe. But once the relationship weakened and then went defunct, both sides were doomed. Without the protection of the dominant military class, Christians had to answer for their long history of hypocrisy: their profession of peace and love in lofty creed but their support of violence and warfare in actual deed. And without the connection to the Church, the military class no longer has holy protection for its violence and aggression. It could no longer justify its violence and war-making in the name of God since it no longer had the clergy behind its back.
    Church grew weaker under moral scrutiny, and the military came under the power of civilian political power dominated by the merchant class and managerial class.
    Christianity was especially vulnerable to the breakup of the symbiosis of church and military since it is a religion of peace/love.
    All its hypocrisies could be exposed. In contrast, Islam suffers less from this since it is a religion of warfare and violence. When Christians look back on their bloody history, all the blood they spilled goes against the teaching of Jesus and Disciples. But Muslims need not feel that way about their own history of bloodshed since Muhammad told his followers to fight and kill the Infidel. Jews need not feel sorry either since God, Moses, King David, and etc were all about fighting and warring. In contrast, Jesus, His Disciples, and St. Paul were all ‘race traitors’. They were born Jewish but turned against Jewishness. St. Paul especially tried to preach the Gospel to all men, all women, all races, all peoples, and etc. He was even willing to vilify and subvert the Jewish community for his devotion to universalism. So, in a way, today’s ‘girly men’ Christians are closer to the true letter of Christianity. They are about love, peace, atonement, apologetics, and love for all mankind and etc. But true Christianity is dangerous because it is so defenseless. It’s like the Luis Bunuel film NAZARIN where a man who tries to be a truly good Christian is beaten up and abused all over. It’s like the Jean-Paul Sartre play THE DEVIL AND THE GOOD LORD where a man who tries to be totally good ends up being abused and battered… and finally comes around to pragmatism of violence.

    By the way, paradoxically, precisely because the US military is non-political, it is MOST political. Because it must take orders from the civilian government dominated by politicians bought and sold by globalist oligarchs, the US military is essentially a political instrument of people like Victoria Nuland and Paul Wolfowitz.

    If the US government says US must go to war with a nation because it doesn’t have ‘gay marriage’, US military will do just that without question.

    So-called non-political institutions are essentially the political instruments of those who wield political power.

    Come to think of it, both the military in Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were non-political. If Hitler told the German military that the Soviets were allies, the German military went along. If Hitler said USSR has to be invaded, the German military went along again. Whatever civilian leader Hitler said was the official truth and agenda for the German military. Same with the military in the USSR. Having no political independence of its own, its political agenda and purpose were always at the whim and mercy of whomever had the power. If Stalin said this, the Soviet military went along. If Stalin said that, the military did as ordered again.

  4. Pingback: Russell Moore and the ERLC Exposed – Occam's Razor

  5. Pingback: Is Contemporary Christianity a Suicide Cult? – Occam's Razor

  6. Pingback: Is Contemporary Christianity a Suicide Cult? –

  7. If Christians actually did what Jesus did, I don’t think anyone would be calling them pussies. How awesome would it be if Christians busted into the FED with bull whips and whipped the shit out of everybody there? How awesome would it be if Christians called the Jews “Sons of Satan” on national television? One could argue that nonviolence is a part of Christianity (I’m not entirely convinced), but it is impossible to argue that it is a genuine part of the Christian religion to passively accept evil.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s