I believe you are badly mistaken in blaming Christianity for today's problems. Many of the big, mainline denominations are completely apostate and have long since traded Scriptural Christianity for left-wing causes.
Much more damaging has been the theory of Darwinism, the belief shared by the vast majority of purveyors of modern Weirdism. The belief that we are essentially nothing but animals; that life has no higher purpose; that there is no God, and the universe came about by accident, with no inherent moral principles; that people are free to invent their own values - these have helped greatly to destroy the elementary respect for self and for human life that is necessary to resist the false ideas of modern secularism.
In the past, when Christianity was inarguably much more influential than it is now, we did not have these problems. It is not Christianity but the rejection of Christianity that has destroyed the sanity and the moral fiber of the West.
To say that it is self-loathing Christian guilt that has destroyed our society since 1945 is completely false. Is that why the hippies were dropping out and smoking dope, because of Christianity? is that why dozens of millions of babies have been killed, because of Christianity? Did Hugh Hefner help to destroy proper concepts of women because of Christianity? Are criminals allowed to steal and commit violent crimes with no repercussions because of Christianity? Is it Christianity that has filled people's minds from childhood on with retarded and degrading TV, movie and pop music trash?
So I think you’ve touched on an interesting discussion between two different types of social conservatism, and different aspects of cultural leftism.
When it comes to issues where the cultural left’s position is an increase of individualism and personal autonomy, the religious right has indeed opposed this, and the left’s position is in-fact a break from Christian morality.
For instance, a large section of Christians post-war, outside the openly heretical ones of mainline Protestantism, have indeed been:
- Anti-abortion.
- Anti-drugs.
- Anti-euthanasia.
- Anti-sex work.
- Anti the ACT of homosexuality.
- Anti obscenity in culture.
However, this is only one side of the cultural left’s agenda. Eric Kaufmann made an interesting distinction between ‘religious right issues’, like those listed above, and anti-Woke issues.
Anti-Woke issues oppose the parts of cultural leftism that promote egalitarianism between (non-economic) social groups, at the expense of straight White men. Examples would be:
- Opposition to de-segregation and forced busing.
- Opposition to Civil Rights Law.
- Opposition to affirmative action, disparate impact, and race/gender quotas.
- Opposition to the EQUAL STATUS of homosexuality (to be fair, Conservative Christians were at the forefront of opposing this, but they have now completely abandoned it in favour of the previous list of stances.
- Anti-immigration and demographic change.
And on these latter issues, I think you can call the Woke left’s positions rooted in the egalitarian values of Christianity.
A good example of this distinction is Pope Francis, who represents more of the ‘non-online Christian Right’ than one might think. He remains anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, conservative on sexual matters… but yet he is staunchly pro-immigration, anti-racist, and makes an effort to affirm the ‘equal dignity of LGBTs’ (his recent private comments not withstanding). And these positions are both fully compatible with, and actually are rooted in, the teachings of Jesus.
I’m not saying Pope Francis isn’t heretical on other matters, but these are mostly theological. The whole Vatican II paradigm and it’s promotion of interfaith dialogue, stopping it’s previous claim that Christianity is the one true faith and ‘Error Has No Rights’, which is more compatible with the Bible, even if it limited salvation to Catholics whereas the Bible would probably save all Christians.
But the egalitarian-promoting parts of the cultural left, which is the core of what Wokeism is, whilst there is a difference on LGBT, on issues around race and demographics, it is very compatible with Christianity, that all are equal in the eyes of God, ‘you are neither Jew nor Greek…’. Adrian Vermule represents the biblical position when he wants his Integralist regime to favour Catholic non-Whites over secular Whites.
In fact the reason why many Christians capitulated to LGBT was because it was phrased in the language of ‘equality before God’, which leaves many Christians conflicted because the theological specifics do seem to contradict the overall message running through the New Testament.
The cultural left causes that are of a non-Christian ethos, like being pro-abortion, are issues that I’m not concerned about as issues in and of themselves (though the court had no right to impose it), mostly because I support eugenics.
I might do a separate article on this because it’s an interesting topic.
Thanks for your comments and sorry about the delay. These are not easy questions and there is disagreement even among people who share the same views.
There are different types of social conservatism, maybe three: apathetic and unthinking preference for past customs with no real commitment, and active commitment on (a) a religious basis and (b) a secular basis.
I don’t think Christian morality is opposed to individualism and personal autonomy per se. For example, I think sexual activity outside of marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) is morally wrong, but I don’t think that can be regulated by the state. To a real extent, what people do privately is not my business – but they will be held accountable in the next life. Trying to indoctrinate children, or force one’s homosexual views on others and silencing the opposition should be and could be forbidden by law.
It is individualism and personal autonomy in defiance of God’s moral laws that is condemned, but then Christians do not expect paradise on earth and the Bible teaches sin will not be eradicated by political means.
Conservative Christians – or let’s say “Bible believing Christians” have been opposed to abortion/drugs/euthanasia/ sex work/ immoral sexual acts (homo or hetero)and obscenity as you say. They have been most vocal about abortion because human lives are at stake. But there has been no real concerted campaign against the others (apart from some private groups here and there). This is because Christians understand human nature is sinful, and can often do nothing more than express our views. We are not aiming for a Puritan paradise before the return of Christ (some small groups may differ but they are on the fringe). But we believe certain things are morally wrong and we have the right to say so, in the appropriate time and place. And I think there is no difference among Christians that those activities you mentioned are all morally wrong and sins against God (although the claim that homosexuality is not sinful is slowly gaining ground).
Questions of egalitarianism at the expense of straight white men are a different ball of wax entirely. Nowhere are there clear statements in the Bible for or against forced busing and desegregation, Civil Rights laws, affirmative action and race/gender quotas.
There is opposition to those efforts to force equality, but opposition on the basis of them being not necessary, or ineffective, or detrimental in some secondary ways. But there is no strong biblical mandate against them. And there is moreover a great deal of apathy and passivity in the nominally Bible believing churches. A lot of things are wrong with our society but what can we do? Evangelical political activism of the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson varieties has proven to be a complete failure. The secularists are in the driver’s seat and committed Christians are now a minority – and not a protected minority either. We have no weight and no clout.
About opposition to homosexuality, I heard a preacher this Sunday preach a very strong sermon. The local gay rights parade came up – not his main point – and he spent a few minutes condemning it as immoral and contrary to the laws of God in an uncompromising way. But now many Christians who do not accept homosexuality as normal are afraid of coming across as “haters.” And even in some churches and Christian colleges there is more acceptance than there used to be.
Anti-immigration is not a uniquely Christian view. Nowhere is it condemned in the Bible. People object to it on practical, not religious views – more crime, higher rents, huge outlay of public funds, and so on. Many people who are not Christians have these pragmatic reasons.
As to demographic change, this also is not a Christian issue, there is nothing in the Bible about it. But people question Biden’s motives. Why is he doing this? (1) To create a permanent Democratic majority and reduce the USA to being a one party-state? (2) To facilitate a social breakdown so the government can come to the rescue with vastly increased powers? (3) Hostility to whiteness? (4) A belief that a borderless world is good? (5) A feeling that these poor people have a right to stolen wealth?
About the “the Woke left’s positions rooted in the egalitarian values of Christianity,” I couldn’t disagree more.
About Pope Francis, I share the traditional Protestant view that the papacy is a fiction. It has zero biblical basis and the Pope has nothing whatever to do with Peter. Some of the Renaissance popes represented nothing but naked sin and evil.
I do not deny that Roman Catholicism is a form of Christianity, and share some basic views with the RCC, but feel the church is burdened with huge amounts of useless medieval baggage that has nothing whatever to do with Christ.
And, the current pope is a disappointment to many Catholics as well. “Pope Francis Names 3 Pro-Gay Prelates to Vatican Doctrinal Office . . . Pope Francis appointed three prelates, known for their support for homosexuality, to the Vatican’s doctrinal office Saturday, just as LGBT groups were kicking off gay pride month.” <https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2024/06/02/pope-francis-names-3-pro-gay-prelates-vatican-doctrinal-office/>
I have no respect for him or any other pope as a spiritual authority and feel he is surrendering to the false values of the world on a very deep level. And, his views on immigration, racism and the equal dignity of the LGBTs have nothing at all to do with the teachings of Christ.
For example, about immigration. As a follower of Christ, I feel an obligation to treat illegal immigrants as human beings. However, the duty of government is something else again. According to Romans 13 the government has been given a certain enforcement power by God to guard the peace and well-being of people under their care. It is not the duty of the US government to save the world, eliminate poverty, or bring about a borderless world, or seek to gain a permanent majority and dictatorial power. It is to maintain the well-being of its citizens by enforcing decent laws. This means controlling access to the country, as was done in the past when the Christian religion had a much stronger influence.
Back in those days no one was saying “It is our Christian duty to open the borders to an uncontrolled flood of immigrants.” There were immigration laws and they were expected to be enforced.
About racism, the bible unequivocally condemns it. We are all descended from one blood and are all of equal value – however, that is not what “racism” means today. “Racism” today is often only a political tactic to browbeat and bully people into silence in the name of an entirely different agenda that has nothing to do with real racial justice. It is a weapon to destabilize the system with a deeper agenda in mind. This is a standard progressive / leftist / socialist / Communist tactic, to inflame real problems so as to create strife and division that work to their advantage.
About the equal dignity of LGBT people, (1) their actions are morally wrong and a sin, and it is not a duty or responsibility of government to try and cram this sin down people’s throats. (2) If I steal some money or tell a hateful lie against an LGBTxyz person I am just as guilty of sin as I would be if I did the same thing against a straight person. There is an equality of personality – but what they are now seeking is not equality, it is dominance, and silencing of contrary views. There is no biblical basis for that and I am justified in seeking to preserve my own liberties in this area.
2/2 You mentioned Vatican II. To me the whole Vatican II paradigm is irrelevant. I believe the Roman Church is in many ways a false church, though individual Catholics may have salvation in spite of their medieval baggage, not because of it.
About Adam Vermule, you know that the New Testament was written in the period of the Roman Empire. This covered a vast territory and included Northern Europeans, North Africans, Mediterranean Europeans, Middle Eastern people, and there was no mention whatever of one race being favored. The duty of the American government today is to secure the peace and the rights of its citizens, and favoring Catholic non-whites has exactly zero biblical basis, especially when you consider that the Catholic church itself is so full of corruption and falsehood. They can’t even manage their own church – not that the Protestants are much better.
About all being equal in the eyes of God, that passage is widely misunderstood. Galatians 3:26-28 says: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
First of all, this does not apply to the whole world. It applies to people who have faith in Christ Jesus, and who have been baptized into Christ Jesus.
To have the faith in Christ that Paul speaks of is to have faith in the Christ of Scripture: God come to earth in human form (“for in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”), born of a virgin, living s sinless life and giving us true teachings on God and what He expects of us; working miracles that really happened, dying on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; rising from the dead; returning openly as God; and finally destroying the powers of evil and giving judgment on all men.
This excludes many people – and a formal, ceremonial baptism without faith is of no meaning or value. It does not apply to everyone. It is also necessary to receive something of the Spirit and of the mind of Christ – “For if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.” This Spirit does not bring infallibility, but it does include a sincere desire to live for Christ, to walk with God’s help in the straight and narrow way that leads to eternal life. Moreover, thieves, liars, murderers, sexually immoral and unclean people have no part in the kingdom of God.”
Actually, many Christians have not capitulated to LGBTwxyz in the sense that they know it is abnormal, unnatural and wrong – but what are they supposed to do about it? Apart from sharing the biblical reality of a day of judgment followed by heaven and hell, and the opportunity to be changed and healed and made a normal person by Christ, we have few options.
And, the Christians as well as many non-religious conservatives have been passive in many areas all across the board for nearly a century, not just with the LQXGT-ites. They have not presented the educational systems from grade school through university from being captured by the left. They have not saved the entertainment industry from going straight down the toilet, neither have they stopped the massive waste and corruption in government, the burdensome and unnecessary regulations, the weakening of the family, abortion, the explosion of sexual immorality, the softness on crime – a host of evils have taken root and gotten established with no opposition.
Why is this? Why the strange passivity that has allowed all that was best about America to be systematically dismantled. It is not because of Christianity. I argue it is because of the loss of Christianity, and the ascent of philosophical meaninglessness and materialism. AS to the loss of Christianity, there are many reasons for it.
About Christians being conflicted, biblical statements on sexual immorality are clear.
This is from I Corinthians 6:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And Revelation 21:
He that overcometh (overcomes) shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth (burns) with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
You mention “the overall message running through the New Testament.” That overall message is not tolerance and acceptance of everyone and his uncle, as some people are arguing now. The overall message is God’s love and forgiveness for those who will repent, believe and be saved through faith and the Spirit of Christ, with a resurrection of the dead and a day of judgment followed by heaven or hell.
You say you are not opposed to abortion because of eugenics – but what if many of the women who do not want to have children at all, or have their children disposed of because they get in the way – what if many of them are the best and brightest? What if many of the babies that are lost were among the best, eugenically speaking? This abortion is not being carried out according to a planned campaign to kill only the worst – and there are many hidden evils, not to mention the wrath of God that is being brought upon this nation. And I believe the floods of illegal aliens are the direct result of God’s judgment.
We do not want our own children and toss them in the garbage, so this is what we get instead. People don’t want Christianity? They get the Wokies (pronounced “woke-ees), and the LGBT-ites, and the save-the-planeters, and the Muslims and allsorts of other people instead.
If you do a separate article on this, I will read it with interest.
Yous split up being "Anti the ACT of homosexuality" and "Opposition to the EQUAL STATUS of homosexuality" as if the two have nothing to do with each other.
If someone believes homosexuality to be inherently wrong, and morally bad, as the Bible says it is, because it is against the natural order (the natural order being based on God's will), they will automatically oppose the equal status as well. However, if someone sees homosexuality as not inherently wrong but merely distasteful, wrong according to personal taste, they will find it much harder to oppose equal status.
So, as Eugine pointed out, opposition to the act and opposition to equal status are closely related.
So why hasn't the church opposed this more rigorously? Why isn't it opposing it more rigorously now, and why didn't they oppose it earlier before it (gay rights) became so deeply entrenched?
This is because of a deep weakness in the nominally Bible-believing churches all across the board. They have gone from defeat to defeat, from being culturally influential to being largely irrelevant in the last 70 years. There are specific reasons for this, one of the big one being capitulation to feminism, which has greatly weakened the limp wristed church. Another has been altering the gospel, which used to include the entire teaching of the New Testament, but now consists primarily of believing in Jesus and going to heaven without the cross, without sacrifice, without the straight and narrow way, without commitment and self-denial. A third is New Testament textual criticism which insults God and grieves the Holy Spirit by removing verses and passages from God's word on the basis of false worldly wisdom. A fourth is materialism, the love of comfort and of an easy life. A fifth is superficial repentance (He who is forgiven much, loves much, and he who has been forgiven little, loves little). I could think of some other things.
St. Augustine of Hippo (one of the most important philosophers in history, Christian or otherwise) did a commentary on the famous "there is neither jew nor Greek" passage where he states that this is a heavenly reality rather than an earthly one, and therefore Christians very much can treat race and gender as real categories, as they are, but that we are still united in a unique relationship not experienced by those outside the faith. Also there is specific social teachings from Pope Pius XI and John Paul II (actual teachings, not Pope Francis' personal opinions) about how politics and nationality work in theological framework that is friendly to ethnonationalist points of view.
I would counter this by saying that "there is neither Jew nor Greek" is an exhortation to proselytise not abandon ethnic character. If mass-migration leads to violence and strife then understanding that 'good fences make good neighbours' and therefore allows for peace, is more Christian than the Woke attempt to convert everyone and everything to a homogenised mass
Frankly, woke is God's punishment on our intellectuals and technocrats for their pride in thinking they don't need Him.
For their pride in their intellect, God arranged to punish them by forcing them to accept people of manifestly inferior intellect into their ranks and perform humiliation rituals to them. If this fails to teach them humility, the punishment is likely to be increased.
We read in Isaiah 66:4 that God says " I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not."
For wicked people who reject God, he has the power to choose what forms their delusions will take. These evil ideas are the direct result of God's anger as you said. "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:12).
All of these crazy and evil ideas we now experience are the direct result of the anger of God.
I agree that there are more progressive zoomers. But the conservative zoomers are *really* conservative, and proud of it. They also appear to be becoming more conservative over time, as a generation. I'm intrigued by what will become of them - I have a lot more hope for them that I do my own millennial generation.
I am extremely resentful how the anti-SJW movement didn't lead to young people being the 'turning point' generation, and how the big tech censorship worked.
The success of the big tech censorship in brainwashing Zoomers made me have authoritarian beliefs.
True dat…. and it didn’t happen overnight. It was an incremental decline over decades.
It started with the Boomers who happily abdicated responsibility with the invention of the pill then doubled down with the declaration of Roe v Wade.
Then the extra income from women in the workplace was just too much temptation and Boomers and Gen X happily padded their retirement funds with the extra income while the nurturing of their children got ignored.
Now those neglected children are coming home to haunt us because they had no role models for success beyond making money and the Boomers and soon Gen X are held hostage by their 401Ks desperately praying that it doesn’t all disappear if they say the wrong thing.
Everyone was hoping they could acquire F U money but found out, sadly, that there is no such thing.
I think that a lot of the drive to get women into the workforce was led by industry and the government acting in their interests. If you can double the workforce you can, of course, suppress wages. Edward Bernays spoke of redefining cigarettes as 'torches of freedom' so drudgery for strangers in a factory or office was redefined as 'empowering'
Excellent observations. I'll need another read to digest. And your observations about what has happened to Christianity in the West are spot-on. The Protestants have no Tradition in the way the Orthodox do; there is no sense of the communion between the living and the dead, no sense of belonging to something that exists both in time and above time. Protestants have completely lost the sense of what the Church is and what it should do, and thus it allows itself to be completely corrupted by the world. The Southern Baptists apologize for the Confederacy, while churches fly the Israeli flag. They're become prey to the most wicked heresy ever -- the Christian Zionists one. They are not Christian and are vectors of Satan. I mean all of that literally.
And I just became a full subscriber. I'll enjoy catching up.
Well I’m not an expert on the various Christian denominations, but here is what I’ve observed:
- The Orthodox tradition places more emphasis on practice, tradition, and respect for one’s ancestors than either person belief in God or moral/sexual purity.
- They are more relaxed on matters of sex and divorce; conservative but not repressive and puritan like Catholics are.
- They don’t believe in hell as eternal damnation for all non-Christians like Catholics and conservative Protestants do.
- They have closer connections to worldly authorities, and don’t have the egalitarian emphasis of the Western denominations.
- They don’t hold themselves to as high standards of moral purity. You can still sense a ‘warrior ethos’ in Orthodox Christianity.
>An ‘anti’ ideology, whilst it can be uniting, can never substitute a ‘positive vision’.<
Woke is an anti- ideology though. It is simply anti-tradition. Anti-white, anti-Western, anti-Christian, etc. Basically whatever the previous moral norms were, woke just inverts them. This is why it can easily unite Palestinians and LGBTs under a single banner. I don't see any reason why anti-leftism can't eventually build up the same kind of solidarity. To a large extent it exists already--I would guess that at least half the people who vote for Donald Trump, if not more, are simply voting against the left just as much or more than they are voting for Donald Trump. I know this is the case for me and many people I speak to.
Nothing unites people more vigorously than a common enemy.
The Walsh situation is a positive development in my opinion. While Walsh himself may have cucked out, everyone who was watching got to see with clear eyes exactly how leftism is playing out in practice. I can't imagine many whites are liking what they see. Incidents like these will on balance sway people away from anti-white attitudes I think.
I disagree with your rhetoric downplaying Christianity for a couple of reasons. First of all, because Christianity is inherently tied to nation and race. Yes, Christianity is the White Man's Religion. If you reject it, you are rejecting the single most fundamental building block upon which white culture and society has been built up over thousands of years. The idea that it is impossible to be Christian and not woke is simply not true. You don't have to pick between these, either. You can say that you are pro-white, pro-nation, and pro-Christianity. All of them, since all three clearly intertwined to create the people that you are trying to defend and preserve.
The second reason is that, in the United States at least, the demographic shift is too far gone. This may not be true in Europe where I believe many nations remain 80% white or higher. But in the US, whites are already a minority among the youth. At a minimum, the American right must be willing to make friends with Hispanics, and Christianity provides one of the most obvious connecting lines between these ethnicities. Emphasizing race over religion in the US is a bad idea unless you're going to be able to incorporate Hispanics as "honorary whites" or something like that. Even then I'm not sure if it's a good idea--you might as well make friends with the few blacks that you can, you don't need to peel many off in order to swing elections.
If its main goal is to demean and hurt a specific group of people, that is, again, an anti- ideology. It is anti-straight White men, in this example. Straight white men are the common enemy uniting groups which otherwise have disparate interests. Although I would say that is clearly one big theme, it is broader than just that. For example it is also broadly anti-Christian, anti-family, etc.
Hispanics are no different from immigrant groups like the Italians. They’re not ‘becoming White’ because of the racial classification system post-Civil Rights.
I think you missed out that I'm more nuanced than you make out. I explicitly talk about how Whiteness should be an inclusive and interest-based identity.
This is too close to the Woke understanding of 'whiteness'. It's more total than yours as you include e.g. Arabs but the Woke like to pretend 'whiteness' is a set of ideas not racial abuse. This would also discount the idea that some characteristics ARE racial in which case the Woke would be more correct than the mainstream.
Because it is primarily geared towards advocating for the interests of Whites, but that 'Whiteness' is an aspirational ideal and relatively inclusive. Basically, if you aren't African, South Indian, Asian, or any kind of non-White indigenous group, you are White, which would go as far as Arab Christians.
Charle Dickens have a character named “Mrs. Jellyby” in novel Bleak House. She cared more about a remote mission in an African country than for her own family or neighbors.
Great article, and I agree with much of it, but I don't agree with the idea of a "one drop rule"; in Brazil during the late 19th century they implemented a policy of racial whitening, but this did more to destroy the European stock in Brazil than to uplift the darker races into becoming honorary whites or part whites, or whatever terminology you use to describe their ambiguous position. Some say this was caused by darker genes being more dominant in the gene pool- personally I'm not certain about this but I will say even a 4th generation mixed race "white passing" person retains noticeable non-white characteristics.
Secondly, and I can say this from experience through knowing a mixed race person (a hapa to be exact) that having two seperate heritages causes friction between each parent as well as stress on the child to "choose" which side to lean more toward. You see this with light skin blacks sometimes, choosing either to bleach or blacken their bloodline afterwards- and some even trying to pull a third position and create a Caramac hybrid racial identity.
Regardless, I think these efforts are not just futile but dangerous, and to introduce new genetics into the white gene pool may end one of two ways:
1. A creation of a white-aligned subrace, which tries to fit in but often finds itself lashing out against the mainline whites for excluding them. Tim Pool is what I'd imagine this would look like but I can easily see for Americans that more latino-white partnerships could cause this subrace to be a sort of "Hispanoamerican". In time we could see an informal caste system to develop alike that which existed in colonial Mexico, or even a "cargo cult whiteness" where non-whites try to emulate white culture in an attempt to become white.
You see this a little bit with skin bleaching but I'd argue it's existed for a while- maybe all the way back into ancient India where they began worshipping the cattle which the Indo-Europeans brought with them, dubbing even the urine and faeces of the cow "holy" as to become higher caste (white) by consuming it- being a cargo cult by not understanding initially how dairy consumption worked or being lactose intolerant, and it becoming in time the Hindu religion. (Very interesting topic though, I may write about it.)
2. Continued fracturing of the concept of white identity. Already we see Iranians and even "high caste" Indians claiming to be white. As always with a definition, the wider its meaning the weaker its meaning- to be exclusive with white identity may lead to a degree of isolation but the alternative may be to compromise itself out of existence.
Leftists will harp on about Italians and Irish not being considered white at one point, but they miss the point- America, in the case of the above, has widened the definition of itself so wide that now it only means to be a "paper American" ie. one with citizenship. And increasingly that doesn't even matter. So from first compromising to allow Italians and Irish to become part of the American canon, it thus leads the way for further redefinition. In my opinion, the "founding stock" Anglo-Scottish Americans should always be considered the true Americans- small groups like German, Dutch and colonial-era Irish were so small in comparison that they were completely subsumed by the majority population, which unfortunately was unable to be replicated by later waves of immigration.
tl;dr. expanding the definition of white to bolster our coalition is a risky gambit, and should only be done when the situation won't backfire. (when they can be properly subsumed)
A fantastic article. While I can't say I entirely agree with your critique in saying that Christianity is part of the problem (it's the corruption of the Faith, especially amongst Protestants I would argue, which you did sort of mention WASPs, that is the issue), you made many more solid and insightful points.
A couple of directionless quibbles. Your main thrust is broadly correct - traitors are ever more dangerous than enemies.
>a result of the Puritan Protestant guilt-morality and introspection that was deeply rooted in American culture
While Puritan guilt-morality is certainly deeply rooted in American culture, especially the Puritan-Quaker complex that came to dominate the nation, introspection is not. Americans, particularly the WASP stock, are quite famously not a very introspective people. This cultural tradition of guilt without introspection is almost certainly a root cause of the men who cuck out to the revolution.
>It’s clear that it was ‘true belief’ in the Christian ethos that made so many White men believe in the doctrine of Civil Rights Liberalism, and do everything they could do further it
I would counter that you seem to only be looking at churches and institutions already parasitised by Liberalism (which has been true of mainline denominations in the US and the Dissenters in England for a very long time, perhaps from the beginning). The long history of reactionary church politics - indeed, the
arch-reactionary stance of the Church in Rome until recently (and even occasionally today) - is ignored.
>The Springtime of Nations in the 19th century created an explosion in nationalistic sentiment
The issue being, it's not the long 19th century anymore. Nationalism itself, at least the liberal bourgeois vision of it that animated so much of history a hundred years ago, is a dying force. The instinctual love for homeland and people remain, but the sort of nation-as-god ideology that fueled many of the events of the 19th century is dying, consumed by the revolution that birthed it.
This white man will give his life and his sacred honor to defend his country from bad ideas. Perhaps we do deserve this, collectively, but courage is always an individual act, as is every true expression of virtue
This is pure populist delusion. The average man on the street has no power or influence, blaming him for not stopping a top-down driven ideology is complete nonsense.
If you want to stop the woke, you need to develop your own elites to take power
This is exactly what I said, and was imploring people to do.
I must say, every comment you’ve made on my articles has just been black-pilled doomerism and purity spirals, no doubt influenced by the worst of Academic Agent.
This doomerism provides nothing of value and is quite frankly, absolutely fucking toxic. You say things are powerless, and rob both populations and political actors of agency.
Go back to your miserable Elite Theory/JQ armchair complaining with AA and his Tr00n friend. Please don’t post here again.
Being a realist isn't being a "doomer" as you call it. It's looking at the situation as it stands and not as you wish it was.
You can call it purity spiralling if you wish, I call it gatekeeping. You claim to be of the DR but from what I've read of your stuff, you only dislike LGBT+. If that wasn't part of our current paradigm then I can imagine you'd be A-okay with everything as it stands.
The west is going to hell in a hand basket because of mass migration, atomisation, cost of living, soaring crime and crumbling infrastructure and your here cheering on the Tories for recognising the clear reality that men can't be women.
I'd say you're naive. We have the power to generate the ideas that can influence the rival elites. That is far more useful than canvassing for some milquetoast Tory MP.
I believe you are badly mistaken in blaming Christianity for today's problems. Many of the big, mainline denominations are completely apostate and have long since traded Scriptural Christianity for left-wing causes.
Much more damaging has been the theory of Darwinism, the belief shared by the vast majority of purveyors of modern Weirdism. The belief that we are essentially nothing but animals; that life has no higher purpose; that there is no God, and the universe came about by accident, with no inherent moral principles; that people are free to invent their own values - these have helped greatly to destroy the elementary respect for self and for human life that is necessary to resist the false ideas of modern secularism.
In the past, when Christianity was inarguably much more influential than it is now, we did not have these problems. It is not Christianity but the rejection of Christianity that has destroyed the sanity and the moral fiber of the West.
To say that it is self-loathing Christian guilt that has destroyed our society since 1945 is completely false. Is that why the hippies were dropping out and smoking dope, because of Christianity? is that why dozens of millions of babies have been killed, because of Christianity? Did Hugh Hefner help to destroy proper concepts of women because of Christianity? Are criminals allowed to steal and commit violent crimes with no repercussions because of Christianity? Is it Christianity that has filled people's minds from childhood on with retarded and degrading TV, movie and pop music trash?
Do you even know what Christianity is?
So I think you’ve touched on an interesting discussion between two different types of social conservatism, and different aspects of cultural leftism.
When it comes to issues where the cultural left’s position is an increase of individualism and personal autonomy, the religious right has indeed opposed this, and the left’s position is in-fact a break from Christian morality.
For instance, a large section of Christians post-war, outside the openly heretical ones of mainline Protestantism, have indeed been:
- Anti-abortion.
- Anti-drugs.
- Anti-euthanasia.
- Anti-sex work.
- Anti the ACT of homosexuality.
- Anti obscenity in culture.
However, this is only one side of the cultural left’s agenda. Eric Kaufmann made an interesting distinction between ‘religious right issues’, like those listed above, and anti-Woke issues.
Anti-Woke issues oppose the parts of cultural leftism that promote egalitarianism between (non-economic) social groups, at the expense of straight White men. Examples would be:
- Opposition to de-segregation and forced busing.
- Opposition to Civil Rights Law.
- Opposition to affirmative action, disparate impact, and race/gender quotas.
- Opposition to the EQUAL STATUS of homosexuality (to be fair, Conservative Christians were at the forefront of opposing this, but they have now completely abandoned it in favour of the previous list of stances.
- Anti-immigration and demographic change.
And on these latter issues, I think you can call the Woke left’s positions rooted in the egalitarian values of Christianity.
A good example of this distinction is Pope Francis, who represents more of the ‘non-online Christian Right’ than one might think. He remains anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, conservative on sexual matters… but yet he is staunchly pro-immigration, anti-racist, and makes an effort to affirm the ‘equal dignity of LGBTs’ (his recent private comments not withstanding). And these positions are both fully compatible with, and actually are rooted in, the teachings of Jesus.
I’m not saying Pope Francis isn’t heretical on other matters, but these are mostly theological. The whole Vatican II paradigm and it’s promotion of interfaith dialogue, stopping it’s previous claim that Christianity is the one true faith and ‘Error Has No Rights’, which is more compatible with the Bible, even if it limited salvation to Catholics whereas the Bible would probably save all Christians.
But the egalitarian-promoting parts of the cultural left, which is the core of what Wokeism is, whilst there is a difference on LGBT, on issues around race and demographics, it is very compatible with Christianity, that all are equal in the eyes of God, ‘you are neither Jew nor Greek…’. Adrian Vermule represents the biblical position when he wants his Integralist regime to favour Catholic non-Whites over secular Whites.
In fact the reason why many Christians capitulated to LGBT was because it was phrased in the language of ‘equality before God’, which leaves many Christians conflicted because the theological specifics do seem to contradict the overall message running through the New Testament.
The cultural left causes that are of a non-Christian ethos, like being pro-abortion, are issues that I’m not concerned about as issues in and of themselves (though the court had no right to impose it), mostly because I support eugenics.
I might do a separate article on this because it’s an interesting topic.
1/2 My reply:
Thanks for your comments and sorry about the delay. These are not easy questions and there is disagreement even among people who share the same views.
There are different types of social conservatism, maybe three: apathetic and unthinking preference for past customs with no real commitment, and active commitment on (a) a religious basis and (b) a secular basis.
I don’t think Christian morality is opposed to individualism and personal autonomy per se. For example, I think sexual activity outside of marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) is morally wrong, but I don’t think that can be regulated by the state. To a real extent, what people do privately is not my business – but they will be held accountable in the next life. Trying to indoctrinate children, or force one’s homosexual views on others and silencing the opposition should be and could be forbidden by law.
It is individualism and personal autonomy in defiance of God’s moral laws that is condemned, but then Christians do not expect paradise on earth and the Bible teaches sin will not be eradicated by political means.
Conservative Christians – or let’s say “Bible believing Christians” have been opposed to abortion/drugs/euthanasia/ sex work/ immoral sexual acts (homo or hetero)and obscenity as you say. They have been most vocal about abortion because human lives are at stake. But there has been no real concerted campaign against the others (apart from some private groups here and there). This is because Christians understand human nature is sinful, and can often do nothing more than express our views. We are not aiming for a Puritan paradise before the return of Christ (some small groups may differ but they are on the fringe). But we believe certain things are morally wrong and we have the right to say so, in the appropriate time and place. And I think there is no difference among Christians that those activities you mentioned are all morally wrong and sins against God (although the claim that homosexuality is not sinful is slowly gaining ground).
Questions of egalitarianism at the expense of straight white men are a different ball of wax entirely. Nowhere are there clear statements in the Bible for or against forced busing and desegregation, Civil Rights laws, affirmative action and race/gender quotas.
There is opposition to those efforts to force equality, but opposition on the basis of them being not necessary, or ineffective, or detrimental in some secondary ways. But there is no strong biblical mandate against them. And there is moreover a great deal of apathy and passivity in the nominally Bible believing churches. A lot of things are wrong with our society but what can we do? Evangelical political activism of the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson varieties has proven to be a complete failure. The secularists are in the driver’s seat and committed Christians are now a minority – and not a protected minority either. We have no weight and no clout.
About opposition to homosexuality, I heard a preacher this Sunday preach a very strong sermon. The local gay rights parade came up – not his main point – and he spent a few minutes condemning it as immoral and contrary to the laws of God in an uncompromising way. But now many Christians who do not accept homosexuality as normal are afraid of coming across as “haters.” And even in some churches and Christian colleges there is more acceptance than there used to be.
Anti-immigration is not a uniquely Christian view. Nowhere is it condemned in the Bible. People object to it on practical, not religious views – more crime, higher rents, huge outlay of public funds, and so on. Many people who are not Christians have these pragmatic reasons.
As to demographic change, this also is not a Christian issue, there is nothing in the Bible about it. But people question Biden’s motives. Why is he doing this? (1) To create a permanent Democratic majority and reduce the USA to being a one party-state? (2) To facilitate a social breakdown so the government can come to the rescue with vastly increased powers? (3) Hostility to whiteness? (4) A belief that a borderless world is good? (5) A feeling that these poor people have a right to stolen wealth?
About the “the Woke left’s positions rooted in the egalitarian values of Christianity,” I couldn’t disagree more.
About Pope Francis, I share the traditional Protestant view that the papacy is a fiction. It has zero biblical basis and the Pope has nothing whatever to do with Peter. Some of the Renaissance popes represented nothing but naked sin and evil.
I do not deny that Roman Catholicism is a form of Christianity, and share some basic views with the RCC, but feel the church is burdened with huge amounts of useless medieval baggage that has nothing whatever to do with Christ.
And, the current pope is a disappointment to many Catholics as well. “Pope Francis Names 3 Pro-Gay Prelates to Vatican Doctrinal Office . . . Pope Francis appointed three prelates, known for their support for homosexuality, to the Vatican’s doctrinal office Saturday, just as LGBT groups were kicking off gay pride month.” <https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2024/06/02/pope-francis-names-3-pro-gay-prelates-vatican-doctrinal-office/>
I have no respect for him or any other pope as a spiritual authority and feel he is surrendering to the false values of the world on a very deep level. And, his views on immigration, racism and the equal dignity of the LGBTs have nothing at all to do with the teachings of Christ.
For example, about immigration. As a follower of Christ, I feel an obligation to treat illegal immigrants as human beings. However, the duty of government is something else again. According to Romans 13 the government has been given a certain enforcement power by God to guard the peace and well-being of people under their care. It is not the duty of the US government to save the world, eliminate poverty, or bring about a borderless world, or seek to gain a permanent majority and dictatorial power. It is to maintain the well-being of its citizens by enforcing decent laws. This means controlling access to the country, as was done in the past when the Christian religion had a much stronger influence.
Back in those days no one was saying “It is our Christian duty to open the borders to an uncontrolled flood of immigrants.” There were immigration laws and they were expected to be enforced.
About racism, the bible unequivocally condemns it. We are all descended from one blood and are all of equal value – however, that is not what “racism” means today. “Racism” today is often only a political tactic to browbeat and bully people into silence in the name of an entirely different agenda that has nothing to do with real racial justice. It is a weapon to destabilize the system with a deeper agenda in mind. This is a standard progressive / leftist / socialist / Communist tactic, to inflame real problems so as to create strife and division that work to their advantage.
About the equal dignity of LGBT people, (1) their actions are morally wrong and a sin, and it is not a duty or responsibility of government to try and cram this sin down people’s throats. (2) If I steal some money or tell a hateful lie against an LGBTxyz person I am just as guilty of sin as I would be if I did the same thing against a straight person. There is an equality of personality – but what they are now seeking is not equality, it is dominance, and silencing of contrary views. There is no biblical basis for that and I am justified in seeking to preserve my own liberties in this area.
2/2 You mentioned Vatican II. To me the whole Vatican II paradigm is irrelevant. I believe the Roman Church is in many ways a false church, though individual Catholics may have salvation in spite of their medieval baggage, not because of it.
About Adam Vermule, you know that the New Testament was written in the period of the Roman Empire. This covered a vast territory and included Northern Europeans, North Africans, Mediterranean Europeans, Middle Eastern people, and there was no mention whatever of one race being favored. The duty of the American government today is to secure the peace and the rights of its citizens, and favoring Catholic non-whites has exactly zero biblical basis, especially when you consider that the Catholic church itself is so full of corruption and falsehood. They can’t even manage their own church – not that the Protestants are much better.
About all being equal in the eyes of God, that passage is widely misunderstood. Galatians 3:26-28 says: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
First of all, this does not apply to the whole world. It applies to people who have faith in Christ Jesus, and who have been baptized into Christ Jesus.
To have the faith in Christ that Paul speaks of is to have faith in the Christ of Scripture: God come to earth in human form (“for in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”), born of a virgin, living s sinless life and giving us true teachings on God and what He expects of us; working miracles that really happened, dying on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; rising from the dead; returning openly as God; and finally destroying the powers of evil and giving judgment on all men.
This excludes many people – and a formal, ceremonial baptism without faith is of no meaning or value. It does not apply to everyone. It is also necessary to receive something of the Spirit and of the mind of Christ – “For if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.” This Spirit does not bring infallibility, but it does include a sincere desire to live for Christ, to walk with God’s help in the straight and narrow way that leads to eternal life. Moreover, thieves, liars, murderers, sexually immoral and unclean people have no part in the kingdom of God.”
Actually, many Christians have not capitulated to LGBTwxyz in the sense that they know it is abnormal, unnatural and wrong – but what are they supposed to do about it? Apart from sharing the biblical reality of a day of judgment followed by heaven and hell, and the opportunity to be changed and healed and made a normal person by Christ, we have few options.
And, the Christians as well as many non-religious conservatives have been passive in many areas all across the board for nearly a century, not just with the LQXGT-ites. They have not presented the educational systems from grade school through university from being captured by the left. They have not saved the entertainment industry from going straight down the toilet, neither have they stopped the massive waste and corruption in government, the burdensome and unnecessary regulations, the weakening of the family, abortion, the explosion of sexual immorality, the softness on crime – a host of evils have taken root and gotten established with no opposition.
Why is this? Why the strange passivity that has allowed all that was best about America to be systematically dismantled. It is not because of Christianity. I argue it is because of the loss of Christianity, and the ascent of philosophical meaninglessness and materialism. AS to the loss of Christianity, there are many reasons for it.
About Christians being conflicted, biblical statements on sexual immorality are clear.
This is from I Corinthians 6:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And Revelation 21:
He that overcometh (overcomes) shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth (burns) with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
You mention “the overall message running through the New Testament.” That overall message is not tolerance and acceptance of everyone and his uncle, as some people are arguing now. The overall message is God’s love and forgiveness for those who will repent, believe and be saved through faith and the Spirit of Christ, with a resurrection of the dead and a day of judgment followed by heaven or hell.
You say you are not opposed to abortion because of eugenics – but what if many of the women who do not want to have children at all, or have their children disposed of because they get in the way – what if many of them are the best and brightest? What if many of the babies that are lost were among the best, eugenically speaking? This abortion is not being carried out according to a planned campaign to kill only the worst – and there are many hidden evils, not to mention the wrath of God that is being brought upon this nation. And I believe the floods of illegal aliens are the direct result of God’s judgment.
We do not want our own children and toss them in the garbage, so this is what we get instead. People don’t want Christianity? They get the Wokies (pronounced “woke-ees), and the LGBT-ites, and the save-the-planeters, and the Muslims and allsorts of other people instead.
If you do a separate article on this, I will read it with interest.
Yous split up being "Anti the ACT of homosexuality" and "Opposition to the EQUAL STATUS of homosexuality" as if the two have nothing to do with each other.
Because they are separate.
I don’t think it’s Woke to believe that, in and of itself, homosexuality should not be a criminal offence.
If someone believes homosexuality to be inherently wrong, and morally bad, as the Bible says it is, because it is against the natural order (the natural order being based on God's will), they will automatically oppose the equal status as well. However, if someone sees homosexuality as not inherently wrong but merely distasteful, wrong according to personal taste, they will find it much harder to oppose equal status.
So, as Eugine pointed out, opposition to the act and opposition to equal status are closely related.
So why hasn't the church opposed this more rigorously? Why isn't it opposing it more rigorously now, and why didn't they oppose it earlier before it (gay rights) became so deeply entrenched?
This is because of a deep weakness in the nominally Bible-believing churches all across the board. They have gone from defeat to defeat, from being culturally influential to being largely irrelevant in the last 70 years. There are specific reasons for this, one of the big one being capitulation to feminism, which has greatly weakened the limp wristed church. Another has been altering the gospel, which used to include the entire teaching of the New Testament, but now consists primarily of believing in Jesus and going to heaven without the cross, without sacrifice, without the straight and narrow way, without commitment and self-denial. A third is New Testament textual criticism which insults God and grieves the Holy Spirit by removing verses and passages from God's word on the basis of false worldly wisdom. A fourth is materialism, the love of comfort and of an easy life. A fifth is superficial repentance (He who is forgiven much, loves much, and he who has been forgiven little, loves little). I could think of some other things.
Homosexuality is sinful, whether it's worth using the power of the state to target it depends on circumstances.
To me, you might as well be talking about fairies at the bottom of your garden when you talk about ‘sinfulness’.
And that is the attitude that has caused White men to deserve wokeness.
St. Augustine of Hippo (one of the most important philosophers in history, Christian or otherwise) did a commentary on the famous "there is neither jew nor Greek" passage where he states that this is a heavenly reality rather than an earthly one, and therefore Christians very much can treat race and gender as real categories, as they are, but that we are still united in a unique relationship not experienced by those outside the faith. Also there is specific social teachings from Pope Pius XI and John Paul II (actual teachings, not Pope Francis' personal opinions) about how politics and nationality work in theological framework that is friendly to ethnonationalist points of view.
I would counter this by saying that "there is neither Jew nor Greek" is an exhortation to proselytise not abandon ethnic character. If mass-migration leads to violence and strife then understanding that 'good fences make good neighbours' and therefore allows for peace, is more Christian than the Woke attempt to convert everyone and everything to a homogenised mass
Frankly, woke is God's punishment on our intellectuals and technocrats for their pride in thinking they don't need Him.
For their pride in their intellect, God arranged to punish them by forcing them to accept people of manifestly inferior intellect into their ranks and perform humiliation rituals to them. If this fails to teach them humility, the punishment is likely to be increased.
We read in Isaiah 66:4 that God says " I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not."
For wicked people who reject God, he has the power to choose what forms their delusions will take. These evil ideas are the direct result of God's anger as you said. "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:12).
All of these crazy and evil ideas we now experience are the direct result of the anger of God.
I agree that there are more progressive zoomers. But the conservative zoomers are *really* conservative, and proud of it. They also appear to be becoming more conservative over time, as a generation. I'm intrigued by what will become of them - I have a lot more hope for them that I do my own millennial generation.
I'm a Zoomer.
I am extremely resentful how the anti-SJW movement didn't lead to young people being the 'turning point' generation, and how the big tech censorship worked.
The success of the big tech censorship in brainwashing Zoomers made me have authoritarian beliefs.
True dat…. and it didn’t happen overnight. It was an incremental decline over decades.
It started with the Boomers who happily abdicated responsibility with the invention of the pill then doubled down with the declaration of Roe v Wade.
Then the extra income from women in the workplace was just too much temptation and Boomers and Gen X happily padded their retirement funds with the extra income while the nurturing of their children got ignored.
Now those neglected children are coming home to haunt us because they had no role models for success beyond making money and the Boomers and soon Gen X are held hostage by their 401Ks desperately praying that it doesn’t all disappear if they say the wrong thing.
Everyone was hoping they could acquire F U money but found out, sadly, that there is no such thing.
I think that a lot of the drive to get women into the workforce was led by industry and the government acting in their interests. If you can double the workforce you can, of course, suppress wages. Edward Bernays spoke of redefining cigarettes as 'torches of freedom' so drudgery for strangers in a factory or office was redefined as 'empowering'
Excellent observations. I'll need another read to digest. And your observations about what has happened to Christianity in the West are spot-on. The Protestants have no Tradition in the way the Orthodox do; there is no sense of the communion between the living and the dead, no sense of belonging to something that exists both in time and above time. Protestants have completely lost the sense of what the Church is and what it should do, and thus it allows itself to be completely corrupted by the world. The Southern Baptists apologize for the Confederacy, while churches fly the Israeli flag. They're become prey to the most wicked heresy ever -- the Christian Zionists one. They are not Christian and are vectors of Satan. I mean all of that literally.
And I just became a full subscriber. I'll enjoy catching up.
Orthodoxy is my favourite branch of Christianity precisely because it ironically is the most ‘Pagan’.
I look forward to your elaboration, seriously. I may not agree but I like the way your mind works.
Well I’m not an expert on the various Christian denominations, but here is what I’ve observed:
- The Orthodox tradition places more emphasis on practice, tradition, and respect for one’s ancestors than either person belief in God or moral/sexual purity.
- They are more relaxed on matters of sex and divorce; conservative but not repressive and puritan like Catholics are.
- They don’t believe in hell as eternal damnation for all non-Christians like Catholics and conservative Protestants do.
- They have closer connections to worldly authorities, and don’t have the egalitarian emphasis of the Western denominations.
- They don’t hold themselves to as high standards of moral purity. You can still sense a ‘warrior ethos’ in Orthodox Christianity.
- They have the most beautiful cathedrals.
>An ‘anti’ ideology, whilst it can be uniting, can never substitute a ‘positive vision’.<
Woke is an anti- ideology though. It is simply anti-tradition. Anti-white, anti-Western, anti-Christian, etc. Basically whatever the previous moral norms were, woke just inverts them. This is why it can easily unite Palestinians and LGBTs under a single banner. I don't see any reason why anti-leftism can't eventually build up the same kind of solidarity. To a large extent it exists already--I would guess that at least half the people who vote for Donald Trump, if not more, are simply voting against the left just as much or more than they are voting for Donald Trump. I know this is the case for me and many people I speak to.
Nothing unites people more vigorously than a common enemy.
The Walsh situation is a positive development in my opinion. While Walsh himself may have cucked out, everyone who was watching got to see with clear eyes exactly how leftism is playing out in practice. I can't imagine many whites are liking what they see. Incidents like these will on balance sway people away from anti-white attitudes I think.
I disagree with your rhetoric downplaying Christianity for a couple of reasons. First of all, because Christianity is inherently tied to nation and race. Yes, Christianity is the White Man's Religion. If you reject it, you are rejecting the single most fundamental building block upon which white culture and society has been built up over thousands of years. The idea that it is impossible to be Christian and not woke is simply not true. You don't have to pick between these, either. You can say that you are pro-white, pro-nation, and pro-Christianity. All of them, since all three clearly intertwined to create the people that you are trying to defend and preserve.
The second reason is that, in the United States at least, the demographic shift is too far gone. This may not be true in Europe where I believe many nations remain 80% white or higher. But in the US, whites are already a minority among the youth. At a minimum, the American right must be willing to make friends with Hispanics, and Christianity provides one of the most obvious connecting lines between these ethnicities. Emphasizing race over religion in the US is a bad idea unless you're going to be able to incorporate Hispanics as "honorary whites" or something like that. Even then I'm not sure if it's a good idea--you might as well make friends with the few blacks that you can, you don't need to peel many off in order to swing elections.
'Woke is an anti- ideology though. It is simply anti-tradition. Anti-white, anti-Western, anti-Christian, etc.'
I'd say it has a positive vision in that it wants to see a system where straight White men are reduced in status and influence.
The right doesn't have the same common enemy.
If its main goal is to demean and hurt a specific group of people, that is, again, an anti- ideology. It is anti-straight White men, in this example. Straight white men are the common enemy uniting groups which otherwise have disparate interests. Although I would say that is clearly one big theme, it is broader than just that. For example it is also broadly anti-Christian, anti-family, etc.
Hispanics are no different from immigrant groups like the Italians. They’re not ‘becoming White’ because of the racial classification system post-Civil Rights.
All the more reason not to engage in racial polarization then.
I think you missed out that I'm more nuanced than you make out. I explicitly talk about how Whiteness should be an inclusive and interest-based identity.
This is too close to the Woke understanding of 'whiteness'. It's more total than yours as you include e.g. Arabs but the Woke like to pretend 'whiteness' is a set of ideas not racial abuse. This would also discount the idea that some characteristics ARE racial in which case the Woke would be more correct than the mainstream.
In the end what wokes mean by "whiteness" is "the ability to maintain a civilization".
If it's racially inclusive and based on interests other than ethnicity, why call it Whiteness with a capital W? Seems weird and unnecessary.
Because it is primarily geared towards advocating for the interests of Whites, but that 'Whiteness' is an aspirational ideal and relatively inclusive. Basically, if you aren't African, South Indian, Asian, or any kind of non-White indigenous group, you are White, which would go as far as Arab Christians.
You’re being far too generous to the Kardashians
Charle Dickens have a character named “Mrs. Jellyby” in novel Bleak House. She cared more about a remote mission in an African country than for her own family or neighbors.
No Puritan Bashing Allowed!
You're still cool though,we'll just have 'Atheist" embroidered on all your clothing.
Great article, and I agree with much of it, but I don't agree with the idea of a "one drop rule"; in Brazil during the late 19th century they implemented a policy of racial whitening, but this did more to destroy the European stock in Brazil than to uplift the darker races into becoming honorary whites or part whites, or whatever terminology you use to describe their ambiguous position. Some say this was caused by darker genes being more dominant in the gene pool- personally I'm not certain about this but I will say even a 4th generation mixed race "white passing" person retains noticeable non-white characteristics.
Secondly, and I can say this from experience through knowing a mixed race person (a hapa to be exact) that having two seperate heritages causes friction between each parent as well as stress on the child to "choose" which side to lean more toward. You see this with light skin blacks sometimes, choosing either to bleach or blacken their bloodline afterwards- and some even trying to pull a third position and create a Caramac hybrid racial identity.
Regardless, I think these efforts are not just futile but dangerous, and to introduce new genetics into the white gene pool may end one of two ways:
1. A creation of a white-aligned subrace, which tries to fit in but often finds itself lashing out against the mainline whites for excluding them. Tim Pool is what I'd imagine this would look like but I can easily see for Americans that more latino-white partnerships could cause this subrace to be a sort of "Hispanoamerican". In time we could see an informal caste system to develop alike that which existed in colonial Mexico, or even a "cargo cult whiteness" where non-whites try to emulate white culture in an attempt to become white.
You see this a little bit with skin bleaching but I'd argue it's existed for a while- maybe all the way back into ancient India where they began worshipping the cattle which the Indo-Europeans brought with them, dubbing even the urine and faeces of the cow "holy" as to become higher caste (white) by consuming it- being a cargo cult by not understanding initially how dairy consumption worked or being lactose intolerant, and it becoming in time the Hindu religion. (Very interesting topic though, I may write about it.)
2. Continued fracturing of the concept of white identity. Already we see Iranians and even "high caste" Indians claiming to be white. As always with a definition, the wider its meaning the weaker its meaning- to be exclusive with white identity may lead to a degree of isolation but the alternative may be to compromise itself out of existence.
Leftists will harp on about Italians and Irish not being considered white at one point, but they miss the point- America, in the case of the above, has widened the definition of itself so wide that now it only means to be a "paper American" ie. one with citizenship. And increasingly that doesn't even matter. So from first compromising to allow Italians and Irish to become part of the American canon, it thus leads the way for further redefinition. In my opinion, the "founding stock" Anglo-Scottish Americans should always be considered the true Americans- small groups like German, Dutch and colonial-era Irish were so small in comparison that they were completely subsumed by the majority population, which unfortunately was unable to be replicated by later waves of immigration.
tl;dr. expanding the definition of white to bolster our coalition is a risky gambit, and should only be done when the situation won't backfire. (when they can be properly subsumed)
A fantastic article. While I can't say I entirely agree with your critique in saying that Christianity is part of the problem (it's the corruption of the Faith, especially amongst Protestants I would argue, which you did sort of mention WASPs, that is the issue), you made many more solid and insightful points.
A couple of directionless quibbles. Your main thrust is broadly correct - traitors are ever more dangerous than enemies.
>a result of the Puritan Protestant guilt-morality and introspection that was deeply rooted in American culture
While Puritan guilt-morality is certainly deeply rooted in American culture, especially the Puritan-Quaker complex that came to dominate the nation, introspection is not. Americans, particularly the WASP stock, are quite famously not a very introspective people. This cultural tradition of guilt without introspection is almost certainly a root cause of the men who cuck out to the revolution.
>It’s clear that it was ‘true belief’ in the Christian ethos that made so many White men believe in the doctrine of Civil Rights Liberalism, and do everything they could do further it
I would counter that you seem to only be looking at churches and institutions already parasitised by Liberalism (which has been true of mainline denominations in the US and the Dissenters in England for a very long time, perhaps from the beginning). The long history of reactionary church politics - indeed, the
arch-reactionary stance of the Church in Rome until recently (and even occasionally today) - is ignored.
>The Springtime of Nations in the 19th century created an explosion in nationalistic sentiment
The issue being, it's not the long 19th century anymore. Nationalism itself, at least the liberal bourgeois vision of it that animated so much of history a hundred years ago, is a dying force. The instinctual love for homeland and people remain, but the sort of nation-as-god ideology that fueled many of the events of the 19th century is dying, consumed by the revolution that birthed it.
You lost me when you used a photo of Justin Trudeau to represent straight white men. We need to have a talk.
This white man will give his life and his sacred honor to defend his country from bad ideas. Perhaps we do deserve this, collectively, but courage is always an individual act, as is every true expression of virtue
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/cowardice-is-far-worse-than-stupidity?r=1neg52
This is pure populist delusion. The average man on the street has no power or influence, blaming him for not stopping a top-down driven ideology is complete nonsense.
If you want to stop the woke, you need to develop your own elites to take power
This is exactly what I said, and was imploring people to do.
I must say, every comment you’ve made on my articles has just been black-pilled doomerism and purity spirals, no doubt influenced by the worst of Academic Agent.
This doomerism provides nothing of value and is quite frankly, absolutely fucking toxic. You say things are powerless, and rob both populations and political actors of agency.
Go back to your miserable Elite Theory/JQ armchair complaining with AA and his Tr00n friend. Please don’t post here again.
Being a realist isn't being a "doomer" as you call it. It's looking at the situation as it stands and not as you wish it was.
You can call it purity spiralling if you wish, I call it gatekeeping. You claim to be of the DR but from what I've read of your stuff, you only dislike LGBT+. If that wasn't part of our current paradigm then I can imagine you'd be A-okay with everything as it stands.
The west is going to hell in a hand basket because of mass migration, atomisation, cost of living, soaring crime and crumbling infrastructure and your here cheering on the Tories for recognising the clear reality that men can't be women.
I'd say you're naive. We have the power to generate the ideas that can influence the rival elites. That is far more useful than canvassing for some milquetoast Tory MP.
Great article. It's also the White women in HR departments who deny jobs to White men.
It's spelled Turkey.
It autocorrects on Substack.
And officially it has been changed, even though 'Turkey' is still more common.
Türkiye is definitely the progressive form.
Just going to leave this here: https://shorturl.at/5euc9