Renewing Christendom

F. Roger Devlin

Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to Christian Theology
Andrew Fraser
London: Arktos, 2017

Andrew Fraser was for most of his career a professor of law at Macquarie University in Sydney. He was catapulted to prominence in July, 2005, by a letter to a local newspaper warning against the importation of Sudanese refugees into Australia: “Experience everywhere in the world shows us that an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and other social problems.” The controversy surrounding the letter resulted in his departure from Macquarie.

In 2011, he published The WASP Question, a book which examines the failure of Anglo-Saxons around the world—the “invisible race”—to maintain a conscious ethnic identity and defend their collective interests:

The defining characteristic of WASPs [he wrote] is that they are much less ethnocentric than other peoples; indeed, for all practical purposes Anglo-Saxon Protestants appear to be all but completely bereft of in-group solidarity. They are therefore open to exploitation by free-riders from other, more ethnocentric, groups.

In the course of studying Anglo-Saxon origins, he came to appreciate the role played by the Christian Church in transforming a bunch of squabbling Germanic tribes into the English nation. It would be impossible to guess from looking at contemporary Christianity that the church could ever have served such a function. The privatization of worship since the Enlightenment has been so successful a revolution that many Christians are unaware of it, imagining it simply the nature of their faith to be a private affair.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Medieval Christianity “was a way of life, a communion, and a faith practiced in public and private by all manner of men and women,” as Fraser points out. The Bible did not merely “serve individual believers as witness to the word and work of God,” but also “provided the sacred charter” of the church. But if the Christian Church presided over the formation of the English nation, might the retreat of Christianity into the private realm have contributed to the downfall of proud Anglo-Saxon nationhood within the last several decades?

With such questions in mind, Fraser, already of an age to retire, made the unusual decision to enroll as an undergraduate at a nearby divinity school. The school turned out to be a “hotbed of multiculturalist ideology,” and at one point he was suspended for an entire year due to complaints of his “intolerance” from students and faculty members. But he persisted, and in 2015 was awarded a Bachelor of Theology degree.

Dissident Dispatches is the record of his experiences as a student. The book includes papers written for course credit (with his lecturer’s comments), accounts of his skirmishes with the politically correct, and subsequent personal reflections on both. It is arranged chronologically rather than thematically, giving it the feel of a miscellany, but a consistent theological and political perspective underlies the whole. Weighing in at over 500 pages, the volume is best digested in short installments. What follows is merely a summary of a few of the main themes.

The Attack on Christian Nationhood

Contemporary Christians like to locate the heart of the Bible’s message in Saint Paul’s declaration to the Galatians (3:28) that “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Why would God have sent His Son into the world if not to save us all from racism?

But as Fraser points out, “The Bible provides ample warrant to designate nations and peoples as essential building blocks in the constitution of the holy, catholic, and apostolic church of Christ.” From the Lord’s “fixing the boundaries of the peoples” in Deuteronomy 32:8 to Christ’s Great Commission to “go make disciples of all nations,” in Matthew 28:19, nowhere do the scriptures treat the existence of distinct nations as opposed to God’s will. The entire Old Testament, after all, was addressed to a particular nation.

Analogously, the restoration of Christendom for which Fraser hopes “cannot be limited to the quest for mere personal salvation or a quick religious fix for depressed and downtrodden individuals. It offers healing to the nations.”

In Galatians, Paul was reminding his readers that God is no respecter of nationality in the matter of salvation. This provides no more warrant for an anti-national politics than Christ’s saying “in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage” warrants adultery.

Yet contemporary Christianity treats nationalism as a social pathology, and introductory theological texts warn students away from such traditional slogans as “God and Fatherland” or “God, family and country.” As Fraser notes, “Even Anglicans reject the idea that the Church of England was and should be again the Church for England and the English people.”

Some of today’s anti-national tendencies can be attributed to the continuing influence of Karl Barth, the Swiss pastor famous for his opposition to the Deutsche Christen movement which attempted to reconcile Christianity with German National Socialism. Fraser characterizes Barth as “an intellectual leftist … predisposed to philo-bolshevism,” and there is plenty of evidence to justify such a description. Early in his career, he was nicknamed “the red pastor of Safenwil.” In 1948, on a visit to Hungary, he urged local Christians to seek a “compromise” with the Communist dictatorship, and he remained steadfastly silent during the subsequent Soviet invasion of 1956. Four years later, he wrote: “I regard anticommunism as a matter of principle an evil even greater than communism itself.”

Yet Barth adopted a vituperative tone with the Deutsche Christen, describing their teaching as “blatantly nonsensical” and “irresponsible pseudotheology.” His opposition could not have been based on the group’s complicity in any Nazi war crimes, for he drafted the Barmen declaration against them as early as the Spring of 1934. Rather, in Fraser’s words, Barth was

determined to show that theology must be stripped of all cultural particularity if we are to grasp the meaning of the Word and the covenant it proclaims between God and all men. [He] casually dissolves all primordial biocultural distinctions between strangers and neighbors, out-groups and in-groups, into the lowest common denominator of “humanity.” He then declares grandly that an allegedly divine commandment of xenophilia is mandatory for all Christians.

Barth viewed nationality as neither immanent in human nature nor part of the divine order of the universe. In the words of one sympathetic commentator, Barth considered nationalism “a disease, a sickness, a basic deformation of the human creature.”

As Fraser points out, this is a serious misrepresentation of the relationship between Christian communities of faith and the blood bonds of national identity. Yet his struggle to overturn the Christian doctrine of nations continues to be hallowed in the eyes of innumerable Christians by his opposition to National Socialism. Fraser remarks:

His universalistic theology may have been relevant to the liberal and communist crusade against an aroused and militant German nationalism; it has since become part of the problem rather than the solution to the demographic crisis facing every Western ethno-nation. [His teaching] has provided mainstream and evangelical Protestant churches with a convenient theological rationale to justify their complicity with the corporate, political, media, and academic elites now parroting the nation-destroying ideology of multiculturalism.

Eschatology, Preterism, and the End of the Old Covenant

The key to understanding Barth’s “deformation of Christian nationhood,” in Fraser’s view, lies in his eschatology: a communist-utopian vision in which “all the earthly divisions of race, class, and gender, between Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free, will be overcome in the apocalyptic appearance of a new heaven and a new earth.” This “neo-communist theology now peddled by Protestant divinity schools,” Fraser remarks, “draws its emotional force from the as yet unrealized promise of Christ’s Second Coming.” Yet there exists “a Bible studies movement… emerging outside the theological seminaries and divinity schools” which would pull the rug out from under such utopian hopes: preterism.

Christ’s statement that “some of those who are standing here shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt 16:28; Luke 9:27) has long been an embarrassment to Christian apologists. But preterists (from the Latin word praeter, meaning “past”) hold that this prediction was literally fulfilled; they identify Christ’s Second Coming with the destruction of the Second Temple by Titus’s legions some forty years after the crucifixion.

Preterist pastors teach that Old Covenant Israel was destroyed, once and for all, with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70. A New Covenant came into force in which the church became the New Israel. This teaching marks a return to Christian orthodoxy in which neither individual Jews nor the modern state of Israel are to be set upon a pedestal as avatars of ancient Israel.

This event was a truly apocalyptic disaster for the Jews of the time, for their religion centered upon the ceremonial sacrifices which could only be performed at that particular location. Moreover, the destruction of the temple was accompanied by the sack of Jerusalem and the death of over one million Jews. Survivors were scattered across the Empire, and their survival as a nation was very much in doubt.

Many early Christian writers—including Augustine, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian and the Jewish-born Bishop Melito of Sardis—interpreted these events as God’s judgment upon the Jews for the death of Christ. Fraser is unwilling to reject such a view out of hand: “For far too long now, Anglo-Saxon Protestants have dismissed the teachings of the patristic writers on the Jewish question as an expression of unthinking prejudice.”

Later on, Christians came to view the events of 70 AD “as a prelude to the even more final and crushing judgment of God executed in 135 AD against the revolutionaries who waged a Second Jewish War against Rome.” Surviving Ioudaioi were seen “not as members of the living culture of Judaea,” in the words of Canadian scholar Steve Mason, “but as a homeless and humiliated people in a perpetual state of aporia who could cling to a few strange seeming practices.” Fraser:

Those who refused to accept the New Covenant were compelled to re-invent Judaism as a highly particularistic ethno-religion younger than and set in opposition to Christianity. Accordingly, the Talmud became the defining document of those who insisted that the advent of Christ had changed nothing and that the Old Covenant was still valid.

But the Jerusalem Talmud was not completed before the Fifth century, and the more influential Babylonian Talmud followed only in the Seventh century.

The New Race of Christians: Athanasius

Meanwhile, the Christian church was presiding over an ethnogenesis which Fraser describes as “a case study in theological anthropology”:

The early church was the corporate seedbed of a new race. Within little more than a century, Christians from every corner of the known world were reborn. Of necessity, the first members of the new race of Christians were compelled to break with the ancestral religious practices at the heart of their pre-existing ethnic identities. [But] by appropriating the story of Israel from Genesis to Revelation, the church endowed the faithful with a collective identity… a history stretching back millennia, and a destiny grounded in the Great Commission delivered by Christ to his apostles.

St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (d. 373), is best remembered as an opponent of the Arian heresy, but he also had a great deal to say about the social significance of Christianity, and his views on the subject form a useful contrast with those of Karl Barth. In the words of scholar Peter J. Leinart, Athanasius recognized “that the end point of the incarnation and redemption accomplished by Christ is the formation of a community.” Athanasius taught that Christianity entailed the recreation of mankind at large in an ongoing public process of deification, or theopoēsis. As Fraser writes, “the reality described by Athanasius as deification was visibly reshaping the cultural life of countless communities throughout the known inhabited world of his own day.”

Few theologians seem interested in [deification] as a really-existing historical process affecting the development of Christian communities. Things were quite otherwise in the patristic era. Athanasius was not speaking metaphorically when he wrote that Jesus Christ “was incarnate that we might be made God.” He wrote as a leading ecclesiastical authority in an established Christian politeia [and a witness to] the visible manifestations of Christ’s power to persuade “the entire inhabited world to worship one and the same Lord, and through him God, his Father.” In less than three centuries, the mythic power of the Word had divinized a corrupt, decadent, and dying pagan civilization.

As Fraser notes, the term “mythic” in this context is not simply equivalent to “fictitious.” The function of myth is to impart “a sense of collective self” to any human community, and the early church was no exception:

Christians constructed a myth of descent from Abraham. In their adoptive spiritual kingdom, Gentiles became descendants of the righteous patriarchs and prophets of Old Covenant Israel. In effect, the biblical narrative of Israel served as the mythomoteur (constitutive myth) powering the ethno-genesis of a Christian people… drawn from the many races and ethnicities in the world of late antiquity.

Early church fathers used myths and symbols to construct an account of Jesus Christ that had the power to move people. Over the millennium to come, the church was able to use the New Testament to construct mythic accounts of Jesus Christ sufficiently coherent to divinize the historical nations of Europe.

The Evangelical Mind-Set and the Cult of the Other

The downfall of Christian nationhood in the modern English-speaking world owes much to the evangelical movement which began in the eighteenth century. Fraser describes it as “a moralistic middle-class response to the commercial and industrial revolutions in Great Britain.” Evangelical hostility to Realpolitik has been an influential feature of WASP culture ever since.

In public as in private life, evangelical Christians regarded morality “as an intensely personal question, to be answered according to strict doctrinaire principle.” Evangelicals possess a “pew-hard certainty” that they can distil “human existence in all its rich complexity” into “simple terms of right and wrong.” Confidence in their own moral rectitude leads them to view “religion as a rule-book to govern every aspect of personal, social and international life.”

Fraser’s understanding of the evangelical movement is heavily informed by the discussion in Correlli Barnett’s study The Collapse of British Power (1972), from which the quoted words in the above passage are taken. Indeed, Barnett assigns a large share of responsibility for that collapse to the evangelical tradition.

Nowadays evangelicals project their heavenly vision of the multi-ethnic body of Christ as the template for the earthly creation of a multi-cultural state and multi-racial society. From the bottom of their sentimental hearts, evangelical humanists welcome the Other as the incarnate image of God. [Some of them] explicitly assert that Christians must choose between loyalty to the extended families of tribe, nation and race and loyalty to God.

In short, evangelicals provide the secular theocracy of the transnational corporate welfare state with an ideological veneer of Christian humanism. [Their] unshakable faith in the spiritual power of sentimental moralizing is perhaps the greatest single home-grown obstacle to the emergence of an Anglo-Saxon Christian ethno-theology.

(For an interesting case study in Evangelical moralizing and its harmful political consequences, cf. “The 1865 Morant Bay Rebellion” by Andrew Joyce, TOQ 13:2, Summer 2013.)

In today’s Australia, the spiritual heirs of the evangelical movement pay special attention to the Aborigines. With an average IQ of 62, the original inhabitants of Australia are among the most primitive people known to anthropology. In a multi-author volume assigned as part of Fraser’s coursework, one white contributor exhorts his readers that it is not enough for “British/ European Australians… to be charitable and generous to Aborigines” or to “feel obligated to give aid” to them; white Australians must also recognize the Aborigines’ “hermeneutical privilege for understanding reality” and “be prepared to look at life through their eyes.”

To judge from Aboriginal pastor Ray Minniecon’s contribution to the same volume, part of the Aborigines’ privileged understanding of reality appears to be exemption from the principle of non-contradiction. “Accountability for wrongdoing is a fundamental principle of reconciliation,” writes Minniecon in the context of alleged White crimes towards his people; yet he also calls for “a decrease in the number of our people in jail, because the number of our people in jail is criminal in itself.”

This is not an isolated instance. Anthropologists have noted “that there is more tolerance in Aboriginal interactions of what white Australians regard as inconsistencies or contradictory statements.” Fraser remarks:

Among primitive peoples organized in kinship networks of families, clans, and tribes, the value of social solidarity far outweighs the importance of truth. In such a world, knowledge does not mean what philosophers describe as rationally justified true belief. Rather, [as anthropologist Randall] Sanders points out, “in the definition of knowledge used by anthropologists rational justification is irrelevant. What is called tribal knowledge usually reflects the needs of group solidarity more than anything else: as such it often represents culturally justified false belief.”

Such are the people to whose “hermeneutical privilege for understanding reality” white Australians are now being asked to defer.

The Good Samaritan

A high point of Fraser’s book for me was his discussion of the parable of the Good Samaritan, a favorite text of Christian xenophiles, who see in the man lying by the roadside a prototype of all the colorful foreigners upon whom they seek to lavish what they take to be Christian love. But properly understood, the parable provides no warrant for “cat lady” morality:

The Samaritan and the innkeeper generate a stock of social capital that could be beneficial to future travelers along the Jerusalem to Jericho road. The man lying by the roadside was not just an archetypal exemplar of the Other; he belonged to the latent community of interest constituted by all the travelers along that dangerous route. The Samaritan and the innkeeper were building up a fund of mutual trust and cooperation.

The contemporary white xenophile, Christian or otherwise, is doing the opposite:

squandering irreplaceable stocks of inherited social capital, undermining what remains of the traditions of family, faith, and folk uniquely associated with high-trust European-descended societies such as England. It is not safe simply to assume that European Christians are bound, in all circumstances, to shower unrequited, self-giving love upon racial and religious Others at home and abroad.

Fraser also differentiates the Samaritan’s motives from the sentimental morality of “love” preached by the heirs of the evangelical movement:

The Samaritan was not moved by transient feelings or shallow emotions but by inbuilt, enduring character traits, by a masculine sense of civic virtue. In other words, he was a trustworthy, responsible, and honorable man predisposed to act in ways that serve the common good—even at considerable personal cost.

This point is obscured by modern bible translations which employ “love” to represent the active virtue represented by the Greek agapē. As Fraser notes, when this word “was translated into early modern English as ‘charity,’ the word signified not an inner emotional state but rather a social, political, or civic virtue essential to organized community life.”

I shall close with one final quote that encapsulates the central message of Dissident Dispatches to contemporary Christendom:

It is not a sin when white Christians notice differences between themselves and other racial groups or when they distinguish between neighbors and sojourners, strangers and aliens, friends and enemies. It is a sin, however, to elevate love of strangers and aliens above the divinely ordained, fraternal love for neighbors.

If the contemporary church can digest this message, it may prove possible to renew Christendom after all.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

65 Comments to "Renewing Christendom"

  1. Finn's Gravatar Finn
    September 7, 2017 - 8:10 am | Permalink

    Resurrection of Christendom? You lost me there. I will not participate in unifying our people under that dark, dank umbrella. No thanks.

    • F. Roger Devlin's Gravatar F. Roger Devlin
      September 7, 2017 - 9:05 am | Permalink

      I think even non-believers can learn valuable things from studying Andrew Fraser’s Christian perspective, but one must try to keep an open mind.

      • PaleoAtlantid's Gravatar PaleoAtlantid
        September 7, 2017 - 5:38 pm | Permalink

        Name one bishop, pastor or reverend who has spoken out against the continuing onslaught against White people and nations. There aren’t any. Those occupying leadership positions within the Churches are fond of telling the pew-sitters they must show charity to those who would destroy them, but those same reverends have no charity for us.

        • Karl Nemmersdorf's Gravatar Karl Nemmersdorf
          September 7, 2017 - 7:39 pm | Permalink

          You are describing today’s brand of Christianity, a hollow shell of the old, a shell entirely taken over by the enemy and used for his own purposes. Fraser and Devlin are taking about renewing the OLD Christendom, the one that upheld political authority and the integrity of Christian societies and nations, that marshalled international military coalitions to fight the Muslims, and that severely hemmed in the power of the Jews over Christian society. The Jews were never able to take over a society in the West until the Catholic Church had been overthrown, first by the Protestant sects and then by the Enlightenment mindset. To bring up hoary legends like the Inquisition and Galileo can never touch the great accomplishments of the Catholic Church which laid the foundations of the West.

          • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
            September 8, 2017 - 12:29 pm | Permalink

            @Karl N. If the Old Christianity returns, it will have to be under a different name. The past 50 years have given all Christianity a bad name.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            September 9, 2017 - 4:58 pm | Permalink

            Dear Barkingmad,

            I think you may be overestimating the resistance of at least Americans to drinking new wine from old bottles. Think of the example given by dear Hillary, the designated Witchfinder General for Bimbo Eruptions of the first (and so far last) Clinton administration.

            After becoming infamous as the blackener of the reputations of respectable women who had been raped or otherwise assaulted by the Womanizer in Chief, Hillary rebranded herself in 2008 as the candidate who had throughout her public life fought tirelessly for women’s dignity, advancement, and human and civil rights—which every woman, I take it, thinks is a category that includes the right to decide who gets to see her en deshabille and who doesn’t. Shouldn’t we conclude, then, that the tens of millions of women who voted for Hillary in 2016 as the heroic champion of women have very short memories?

            So if the phenomenon of Hillary as Woman’s Best Friend is something to extrapolate from, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to imagine that the brand name “Christianity” might end up having retro appeal should people who resemble adherents of yesterday’s Christianity turn up again in numbers. Besides, the cause is aided immeasurably by the ever louder howls of “debunkers,” here and elsewhere, whose “analyses” seem to grow longer in inverse proportion to any documentable basis for what they have to say.

        • September 16, 2017 - 1:22 am | Permalink

          PaleoAtlantid, your remark is depressingly true. The crunch is in the context of ‘[t]hose occupying leadership positions within the Churches’. They are in great numbers (I seriously think in the majority) members of sexual minorities who derive their justification from ‘liberal’ attitudes. So it is the liberal (globalist) agenda they espouse and relentlessly push. They have in fact ceased to be practitioners of Christian morality. And they do not give a jot about the health of the Christian state.
          Indeed, former archbishop Rowan Williams is on record with the pronouncement that ‘we live in a post-Christian society’. He shoehorned his friend Jeffery John into the deanship at St Albans Cathedral after his efforts to get John ordained a bishop failed. Jeffery John is now married to a man and continuing to occupy his deanship. Rowan Williams’s other good friend is openly living in a major deanery with a boyfriend, and unlike Jeffrey John, not even pretending that the relationship is ‘chaste’. And yes: the C of E leadership pushes us, in the name of Christianity, to lavish our charity on our Third World invaders. (The Catholic Church does likewise.) Yet there is hope at parish level:
          Revd Peter Sanlon, for instance, has a plan in place to declare an alternative Synod (governing body of the C of E), for he thinks the present one a sellout of Christianity. And well he may: I know three Synod members personally, and I know them to be intellectual and moral zeros who are fully engaged in building their own sinecures. So I am personally convinced that we have nothing to hope for from the church leadership. But we can and should support parish priests like Revd Sanlon; we should support them militantly: fill their pews, and broadcast their reputations. Forget the leadership. Or better still, never miss an opportunity to deride it. In short, let us make war to re-establish Christian values in Christian churches. Those values are also nationalist values, for nationalists’ chief concern is the survival of the nation. Let us suss out the nationalist parish priests, and reward their nationalist sermons with attendance in big numbers in their churches. This we can do. And it is worth doing.

      • Zaida's Gravatar Zaida
        September 8, 2017 - 11:34 am | Permalink

        Non-believers? Anyone who supports universalist, race-mixing Christianity is a non-believer. Nationalists are the only true believers.

    • Faul McCartney's Gravatar Faul McCartney
      September 15, 2017 - 5:46 pm | Permalink

      The West is Christendom and Christendom is the West.

  2. Eric Lectic's Gravatar Eric Lectic
    September 7, 2017 - 9:26 am | Permalink

    Very encouraging article, and book. It addresses our core dilemma today, as I see it (and this site’s raison d’etre, it would seem) — the previous commenter’s take here is inexplicable to me, given the context.

    • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
      September 8, 2017 - 6:44 am | Permalink

      Eric Lectic,

      You’re making harder than it is, Christian leaders will have learn – you are either a “hammer or a nail” in this world.

  3. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 7, 2017 - 9:53 am | Permalink

    (Mod. Note: Pierre, “Higher Powers” are processing your request.)

  4. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 7, 2017 - 10:57 am | Permalink

    Mr. Devlin’s review essay is superb; indeed the phrase that comes to mind is “of TOQ quality.”

    The nearly lost theological concept Devlin and Andrew Fraser refer to and praise used to be widely known to Roman Catholics and to many Protestants as the Social Reign (or Kingship) of Christ. Those Christians who still speak of and espouse the concept are sneered at as “integrists” by well-bred Sell-out Christians. Of course, the less well bred sort simply call them Nazis, racists, and other equally well-intended and affectionate terms.

    The passage in chapter 10 of Luke’s Gospel containing the Good Samaritan parable is part of the mass for the Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost, which fell this year on August 27, some eleven days ago. This being the case, the article’s focus on the parable is especially apt. The interpretation Fraser and Devlin provide is both completely orthodox and was, till the day before yesterday, the only one universally regarded as doctrinally sound.

    The one telling detail the article leaves unmentioned is the precise wording Jesus used—and one may safely assume, I think, that He is to be taken at His word! After stating the parable (= a tale whose purpose is to convey a moral truth or imperative) of a man who fell among thieves, He asks the lawyer who the victim’s neighbor was, not who loved him the most or anything similarly la-di-da. Put otherwise, Christ was, primarily, indicating that in certain ways a man’s obligations to his fellow man are borderless and, secondarily, implicitly rebuking those who had the most pressing responsibility to come to his aid and failed to do so—i.e., his kin and countrymen—by contrasting their callous behavior with the “inbuilt, enduring character traits” exhibited by the despised Samaritan foreigner.

    In this regard, recall especially that Luke makes plain that Jesus’s audience on this occasion consisted largely of Pharisees, Sadducees, and doctors of law; that is, the very groups He spent much of His earthly ministry calling out for godlessness, hypocrisy, and deceit.

    For Traditional Catholics, the content of Vatican II, the subversive mind-set that lay the groundwork for that council, and the half century of destruction in its wake together constitute a betrayal of the Faith, not a “renewal” of it. Part of the evidence in support of this view is, as Devlin and Fraser indicate, that the teachings of the first Christian millennium’s great Doctors of the Church—among whose small number Augustine and Athanasius share the highest place only with Ambrose and Gregory the Great—no longer carry any weight to speak of, let alone being held in regard so high as to be effectively determinative of the orthodoxy or otherwise of a given theological position. For these Doctors and for all who have been in their religious debt, nothing in Revelation militated against the establishment or existence of a wide range of human polities and, later, nation-states—rather the contrary, in fact. And as Fraser has come to understand and has joined in repeating, in matters touching upon Christian dogma, what was true formerly is of necessity true now. Those who would have people believe otherwise are enemies of truth.

  5. Rickie's Gravatar Rickie
    September 7, 2017 - 12:35 pm | Permalink

    I never understood why White Nationalists are in love with a Jewish cult from Jerusalem. I understand that Christianity unified Europe, but I cannot fathom why a white man get on his knees and pray to a Jew like Jesus. I was raised Catholic, but it always seemed like a cuckold religion, with all that business of praying for your enemies and turning the other cheek.

    • Michael's Gravatar Michael
      September 7, 2017 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

      You should listen to “Israel Moments”, by Pastor Steven L. Anderson.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      September 7, 2017 - 7:09 pm | Permalink

      The alternative, several millennia of accumulated and unmitigated grudges.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        September 7, 2017 - 7:15 pm | Permalink

        Never forget Amalek!

    • September 14, 2017 - 11:32 am | Permalink

      Come on, Rickie! How can Jesus be a Jew? He is the son of God. That is the central tenet of Christianity. And God is not a Jew.

    • Faul McCartney's Gravatar Faul McCartney
      September 15, 2017 - 5:53 pm | Permalink

      Rickie, Christianity did much more than merely unify Europe. It gave it purpose and direction for millennia. No Church, no Europe, only pagan warlords beating on each other for whatever spoils remain from yearly Muslim invasions coming from Spain and the Balkans. Not a pretty picture.

  6. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    September 7, 2017 - 2:07 pm | Permalink

    Today’s Jew direct race and nation policy in Western nations through controlled political parties and media. Insofar as ancient and medieval and philosophers are introduced into the game their ideas are simply tools to be used. Blair and Bush, Obama and Cameron, Trump and May and their like, are not even conversant with these philosophical debates much less directed ideologically by them or by religion. And neither are we.

    Fraser has a problem seeing the obvious. He isn’t even what the Jews of NY 30ya called a WASP after all, but goes to bat for them (who don’t even exist!) rather than his own people. He is nationalistically long-sighted – and here that isn’t a good thing.

    If our major websites worked at getting the basics race and nation truths corrected for the public record and focused on that goal alone, we’d soon be flying to the moon.

    The confusion you guys introduce need not be introduced.

  7. September 7, 2017 - 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Two weeks ago, I completed reading Michael Hoffman’s latest masterwork — my assessment, my opinion — “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”. I have let the experience seep into me, absorption of Mind, I suppose. Now, this posting about “Renewing Christendom” comes to my attention, without a single mention of Mr. Hoffman’s insights into what I shall term the DISFIGURATION of a once apostolic, universal church of Jesus Christ — by whatever appellations one might apply, labeling that bottle with new wine for imbibing.

    I am not scholar of biblical, religious, or other, related disciplines, thus wholly unqualified to comment from that standpoint. Raised “Roman Catholic” — an altar boy for years until I grew so tall the parish priest opted for shorter, younger boys to serve Mass — I became a “roamin’ Catholic” by age 18 and, but for a few times, never entered a Catholic Church again, and then only as a tourist in Europe.

    When I left the “Church” at 18, I had lost all sense of mystery, upliftment, holiness, and spiritual safety I had experienced as a child. When I departed — I still recall the day and time and circumstances — I created a void within, and become a “seeker”. Long story short here, until I read Mr. Hoffman’s book, I could not have told you why all this happened to me.

    I later discovered and experienced that which uplifted, revealed “secrets”, told about the “how to” of enlightenment and beyond! Or at least I convinced myself I had. What I learned reading Mr. Hoffman’s book was that the “church” into which I got baptized was hijacked and lost centuries before “Vatican II”, which served more as a coming out party for the victors.

    Is there a viable, integral “Christendom” today? I say no. No renewal, no resuscitation. Those who seek Christ, that of GOD in each of us humans, the kingdom of GOD within, must once again follow the bread crumbs of guidance left to us in the “New Testament” (written and/or translated and/or interpreted, as always, by the victors), some of which have withstood theft and fraud for 2,000 years.

  8. Yeoman Archer's Gravatar Yeoman Archer
    September 7, 2017 - 10:56 pm | Permalink

    Very timely subject.
    Yesterday’s SacBee had this below article:
    The enemies of White family structure can barely conceal their glee!
    All segments of California government are firmly in the claws of the Mestizos.
    Picture is from riot of one week ago in San Fag.

    White Christians no longer majority in United States, especially California
    By Anita Chabria [email protected] and Steve Magagnini

    September 06, 2017 12:56 PM
    White Christians, once the dominant religious and ethnic combination in the United States, now make up less than 50 percent of Americans as young people turn away from traditional congregations and ethnic diversity increases in society and houses of worship.
    The trend is particularly pronounced in California.
    A study by the Washington-based Public Religion Research Institute found that 43 percent of Americans identify as both white and Christian, and only 30 percent as both white and Protestant. Less than 50 years ago, more than 80 percent of Americans considered themselves both white and Christian, and 55 percent identified as Protestant. Overall, about 70 percent of Americans identify as Christians.
    In California, only 24 percent of state residents surveyed identified themselves as both white and Christian.

  9. Lynda's Gravatar Lynda
    September 7, 2017 - 11:16 pm | Permalink

    The commission recorded in the Bible and the charter of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church founded in Jerusalem (33 A.D.) is – “Go ye therefore and teach all nations (pan ethne) baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”. Matt 28:19

    With the exception of the nation of the Prusai, all European nations received the Evangel and were baptised as populations following their kings and nobility (after the pattern of the household of Cornelius Acts 10). This occurred during ‘Dark Ages’ – as designated by the Jew study curriculum for goys.

    In Europe, the memorials of the baptism of the nation and its foundation upon Christ Law (the faith and morals of the Church) are commemorated upon the great cathedrals.

    For example, at Rheims is recorded and commemorated the baptism of King Clovis (496 A.D.) by St Remigius. Clovis was the first king to unite all the Frankish tribes and they followed him into baptism.

    Anyone who has travelled in Europe has seen the art and sculpture commemorating the baptism of the royal family or the king and the nation in every cathedral. The libraries contain the archival material documenting the re-founding of the state on the basis of Christ Law. Nowhere has this been so evidently seen than in the foundation of the Bretton Parliament (which independence guaranteed by the King of France) arguably the oldest and most democratic institution in the world which sat right up until it was destroyed by the Sons of Liberty during their Jew/Masonic Revolution 1779. And they also outlawed the Bretton language up until the 1970s.

    Here is the baptism of Prince Sviatoslavich and his people, the Kievan Rus (scroll down to the bottom)

    • Mari's Gravatar Mari
      September 9, 2017 - 8:44 am | Permalink

      (Mod. Note: “Mari”, this mod doesn’t allow religious wars to start in the TOO comments. Many “fire starters” have slipped by in the past, but currently that stuff isn’t going to get aired here. It’s not part of what TOO is about.)

  10. xan's Gravatar xan
    September 8, 2017 - 1:38 am | Permalink

    I think that the Good Samaritan parable is slightly misunderstood, for it is not about doing everything for any stranger that happen to be in need; it is about defining who is the neighbour that one should love.

    The neighbour is not defined by spatial proximity only. The priest and the lawyer pass right by and do not care about one’s plight, so they do not qualify. The neighbour that deserves one’s love is “he that shewed mercy on him.”

    We should love and care about those who care about us.

    This message is clear from the text of the parable, and I really don’t know how the misunderstanding of the meaning came about.

  11. Poupon Marx's Gravatar Poupon Marx
    September 8, 2017 - 3:18 am | Permalink

    It is too late for retro-solutions and concepts that were effable and results-producing in the past, which simply do not work, are stillborn, or fail miserably. Nostalgia is a disease of the hapless, foundering and floundering and flailing minions desperate to escape a contemporary crushing Reality.

    That Reality is that it is too late for corrective and valiant life saving actions within the current nation-state status of the Western World. I give more hope to the White Caucasian populations of major South American countries than those of the “advanced” Northern Hemisphere cowed and silenced cucks.

    As a metaphor and parallel what the (((Chew))) has done and is doing, look to the description of the T. Gondi Parasite on its effect to the human mammal: “The parasite’s survival is dependent on a balance between host survival and parasite proliferation.[30] T. gondii achieves this balance by manipulating the host’s immune response, reducing the host’s immune response and enhancing the parasite’s reproductive advantage.[30] Once it infects a normal host cell, it resists damage caused by the host’s immune system, and changes the host’s immune processes.

    As it forces its way into the host cell, the parasite forms a parasitophorous vacuole (PV) membrane from the membrane of the host cell.[2][31] The PV encapsulates the parasite, and is both resistant to the activity of the endolysosomal system, and can take control of the host’s mitochondria and endoplasmic reticulum.[2][31]”

    “T. gondii also has the ability to initiate autophagy of the host’s cells.[34] This leads to a decrease in healthy, uninfected cells, and consequently fewer host cells to attack the infected cells. Research by Wang et al finds that infected cells lead to higher levels of autophagosomes in normal and infected cells.[34] Their research reveals that T. gondii causes host cell autophagy using a calcium-dependent pathway.[34] Another study suggests that the parasite can directly affect calcium being released from calcium stores, which are important for the signalling processes of cells.[33]”

    “Some parasites and parasitoids cause changes in the behavior of their hosts by directly affecting the hosts’ decision-making and behavior control mechanisms. The acquired or modified behaviors assist in parasite transmission, and often result in the host’s demise.”-

    That is why any revision, “return to those Golden Days of yesteryear, the Lone Ranger rides again” are less than useless. Christianity is the open wound in which the parasites enter the Western Corpus Delectable Host. It has always been and cannot be recycled from its plastic state to a crystalline and immutable structure. But Buddhism can.

    SEPARATE OR DIE, WHITEY. It will take generations to expunge all the foreign matter that has interstitially ensconced itself into Western Man. And to cull the herd in order to produce genetic and congenital quality people, of which large stocks of individuals where killed and exterminated by artificial wars and genocides-single sourced.

    • Karl Nemmersdorf's Gravatar Karl Nemmersdorf
      September 8, 2017 - 9:33 am | Permalink

      The reality is “that it is too late for corrective and valiant life saving actions within the current nation-state status of the Western World.”

      Very unhappily, I agree with you. The rot has gone too far and the enemy is too strong. We whites are well on the path of being dehumanized by the enemy, and that has often been the prelude to camps and liquidations. Considerable numbers of whites will begin to fight only when their survival is at stake, and then I envision only pockets of resistance. Even then, what will prevent the states from exterminating these pockets? Only the attitude of the armed forces or security forces; if they too rebel, then I can see partial success and smaller white states being set up. At present, however, the entire earth rising up to strike down the white man. Apocalypse.

      • Don's Gravatar Don
        September 9, 2017 - 11:08 am | Permalink

        A great analysis with which I thoroughly agree.

        The actions of the military will be enormously important.

        On the optimistic side, however, the huge MUD infested cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and others will become increasingly less habitable. In the 1992 Rodney King Riots, in which cops surrendered much of LA to the sovereignty of black/brown mobs, those areas gradually became untenable because trucks would not long travel into those areas and gas stations and grocery stores were not re-provisioned. Large Cities are very fragile. Taking out one free way interchange can disrupt entire metropolitan areas.

        If “pockets” of whites achieve food and energy autonomy they may be viable when big cities are not. The puzzle of WHITE survival is more complicated than is generally assumed. It’s not a simple as demographic data. Smaller numbers of whites can survive and flourish even as crushing numbers of MUDS can be wiped out when large cities become uninhabitable.

        • Karl Nemmersdorf's Gravatar Karl Nemmersdorf
          September 9, 2017 - 10:02 pm | Permalink

          I agree with most of your post. Yet, what does it matter what the great cities do? We would need to secure some agriculture and a refinery, besides military capability. We would need economic viability, and a path to alliances with other like-minded entities. If the world-wide situation disintegrated, then it would be a matter of mere survival. God help us then. This would only be possible if the states disintegrated. We really have no hope until they do, I sincerely believe.

          • Leon Haller's Gravatar Leon Haller
            September 16, 2017 - 6:08 am | Permalink

            Nonsense! I tend to think the White race is doomed to extinction, but this is due to a lack of awakening in time to stop the alien colonization while it can still be done democratically, combined with the natural desire of people for easy lives, even if they are condemning future generations to horrible lives themselves.

            But the doom of the Whites could easily be held off if there were the will to do so. We ate still some decades away form the time when only military solutions will be available (and they might not be by then, depending upon how nonwhite our Western militaries have gotten). The problem, which I have been observing now for over 30 years, is that the pro-White movement (myself included) is still filled with thinkers and talkers rather than activists. Whites in America still have barely begun systematic political activism along the lines of blacks, pro-lifers, feminists, gays, Jews, progressives, etc.

      • September 14, 2017 - 12:06 pm | Permalink

        I do understand your pessimism, Karl Nemmersdorf. I have felt like you did when you wrote this piece. But now I seek out individuals and groups (the groups are very important) whose mindset is like mine. I find that we fall upon one another with gratitude, and soon work up a hilarity that walks all over the political correctnesses of our time. Nowadays, I make not the least effort to relate as friend to people whose values are unlike mine. They are not my neighbours whom Christ commands me to love just because they happen to have come to live in my street. I hang together with my kind of people knowingly. I think we know ourselves under threat, and we are gathering our resources to defend ourselves. May I suggest that you read Rudyard Kipling’s spot-on observation in his poem, The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon? For the point under discussion, I think all White people are Saxons now. And, of course, we have Andrew Fraser and this conversation. So things are looking up. God Bless.

  12. September 8, 2017 - 6:11 am | Permalink

    I appreciated reading this exposition of Christian thought on this website. I think that the nationalist movement needs to take serious heed of Christianity, and that for cultural renewal Christianity is a more reliable index than race. I urge the skeptics and anti-Christians to re-read Douglas Reed’s book, The Controversy of Zion, particularly where he says that when Western nations have followed the Christian lead, they have progressed– and where they have become subservient to the Judaic impulse, they have declined.
    What better example than our own nation!

    • September 14, 2017 - 12:09 pm | Permalink

      Caryl Johnston, thanks a million for the Reed reference. I shall order it pronto.

      • Kurt's Gravatar Kurt
        September 15, 2017 - 8:55 am | Permalink

        Sophie, it’s available online as pdf.

        • September 15, 2017 - 9:59 am | Permalink

          Thank you, Kurt. In fact, I’m reading the pdf now. It’s delicious reading. But I’ve also ordered the hard copy. :)

  13. September 8, 2017 - 9:25 am | Permalink

    Contemporary Christians like to locate the heart of the Bible’s message in Saint Paul’s declaration to the Galatians (3:28) that “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Why would God have sent His Son into the world if not to save us all from racism?

    Of course I feel compelled to weigh in on this subject.

    Short answer: He didn’t.

    Paul was a lying opportunist, but then he was a (((Jew.))) Saul had been working as muscle for the Temple elite. However the Temple was fading fast as Jesus had called into question much of its avaricious, money-grubbing, sacrificial doctrine – think first century central bank, a religious version of the Federal Reserve.

    The sacrificial system was fast crumbling, taking its elite priesthood with it. Due to internecine squabbling among the kohanim and the Pharisees, the monolithic temple system established by the Maccabee’s Hasmonean dynasty had begun to dissolve. The wedge Jesus drove into Temple law creating this division in turn created a power vacuum.

    Saul recognized this state of affairs as an opportunity to seize the religion’s immense power for himself. Thus Christianity began on the way to Damascus, with a handful of legal writes to persecute heretical Christians. It was there Saul had a revelation that changed his name to Paul.

    “The Temple system is coming apart at the seams. What if I, Saul of Tarsus, turned this Jesus character into Judaism’s new God? What if I made this Jesus into the long awaited messiah promising to deliver Jews, not from the Romans, but from Temple oppression?

    “What if I became his voice, like the Temple priests represent the voice of YHVH? What if I had a vision where I spoke directly to this new God and he told me to renounce the evil ways of the Temple and to follow his teachings? Then I will become the new high priest, the new kohein gadol!”

    And so Christianity was born out of Temple Judaism’s demise. The physical destruction of the Temple in 70 AD rolled the final stone in front of Judaism’s yawning, physical sepulcher, allowing Christianity to flourish among the Jews. However, there were other Jewish sects that arose among Temple followers fractionalizing the demoralized Jews into competing factions.

    Jews alone were not sufficient to provide the necessary base for Paul’s religious rise to power, therefore he had to look elsewhere for support.
    This is why he appealed to the gentiles.

    Judaism is strictly an ingroup religion. As an enlightened Essene teacher, Jesus brought his message of truth to the Jews. But there are two forms of truth, one is the truth of the condition that changes with time and the other is universal truth that never changes. Jesus brought both truths to the Jews with an emphasis on the truth of the Temple’s oppressive condition.

    However, Jesus’ universal truths played well to the masses, as did Buddha’s universal message five hundred years earlier. Paul used Jesus’ universal truths to appeal to gentiles. However, according to the gospels, this was in direct opposition to the command Jesus gave his disciples.

    (Addressing his disciples) Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. – Matthew 10.

    And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. – Matthew 15.

    Jesus clearly commands his disciples to focus on the Jew’s problems to the exclusion of all gentiles. Why? Because gentiles did not suffer the burdens imposed by the Temple priests and their corrupt sacrificial system. The story of Jesus is all about the Temple. Yet Paul refuted Jesus command and preached to the gentiles.

    Like other self-proclaimed messiahs of that era, Paul was simply another opportunistic, Jewish imposter trying to grab as much power as possible by bringing hope to both Jews and gentiles. The only difference is that he did not claim the title for himself, but claimed he was merely the messenger bringing his god’s message of messianic hope.

    It did not take long for a few among the goyim masses to recognize the immense power and wealth the Temple once wielded through auspices of its wrathful, vengeful god YHVH. It was merely a matter of time before these clever gentiles began remolding the Old Testament’s sacrificial system into the Catholic church, replacing the Temple’s YHVH with Jesus as the church’s new God. Same ostentatious Temple, same avaricious priesthood, now under new management. The very system Jesus sought to destroy had been resurrected in his name.

    And to think gullible Christians believe yet another Jewish lie that Jesus is going to return to deliver them up to heaven. How stupid can the goyim be?

    • September 17, 2017 - 7:39 am | Permalink

      Arch Stanton, you do make out a very persusive case. But I want to pit mine against it anyway. It is undeniable that from the time of the Church Fathers (Iraneaus, Augustine of Lippo, Tertullian and Origen), i.e., as early as the 3rd century, the Christian Church leadership in Western Europe was increasingly, and very rapidly, turning downright rotten. But the Christian faithful of Rome, who chose to be mauled to death by lions rather than forsake Christ, had come before them. That is to say, a Christian faith was vibrant among the people while it was still unpoluted by the venal Church leaders. In the 10th century, the Great Chism happened: the clean Eastern Church woud have no truck with the fiflthy Western Church leadership. It become the Eastern Orthodox Church collectively, and Greek Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox severally.

      Very curiously, we see before our eyes right now the exact situation I briefly outlined above. That is, there are decent, moral Eastern Orthodox Churches that guard their faithful in the context of the nation-state. And there is a decent, moral Western people who remain faithful Christians despite their very venal Church leaders and traitor political leadership.

      Well, Paul of Tarsus the Pharisee and Roman citizen was not allowed into the Eastern Church. We have no record even of his having tried. Clearly enough, he knew that his fertile ground was cosmopolitan Rome, not the nation-based Eastern Church. (NB: To this day, we hear ‘To be Greek is to be Orthodox’. The Slavic states have simialar dicta.)

      Well, what happened to the Church of England? It could have remained a national Christian Church. After all, the state did reject the venal, ugly Roman Church, inter alia for its venality.

      I propose that what happened in the C of E, certainly blatantly by the 19th century, is that sexual deviancy had become as rife among the the C of E clergy as it had long, or always, been among the Roman Church clergy. But by then, the state was fully occupied by the money power, and not in the least concerned to mind the health of the Church.

      To my mind, the situation I describe above contains the role for nationalism. That role is to call out the lurid, putrid Church leadership, and to shame the fifth-columnist leaders of the nation who are selling us out to the globalism-desiring money power. We can do this by rallying in our local parish churches. We must at least try, for lack of a better rallying point.

      (Like other people, I heartily agree with Karl Nemmersdorf that our safety and power as white nationalists depend heavily on the composition of the armed forces. But there is a glimmer of hope here, even if our armed forces are peopled at the top by the globalist money power: We saw in the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 that when the ZOG-money power attacks the people, the army takes the side of the people, cocking a snook at its ZOG-imposed leaders. And I think we can be confident that the boot-on-the-ground of our armed forces are more numerous than is their leadership, and they will defend their kin. Or so I hope and pray.)

  14. Jesse's Gravatar Jesse
    September 8, 2017 - 11:38 am | Permalink

    It is not a sin when white Christians notice differences between themselves and other racial groups or when they distinguish between neighbors and sojourners, strangers and aliens, friends and enemies. It is a sin, however, to elevate love of strangers and aliens above the divinely ordained, fraternal love for neighbors
    I agree with the above.
    Timothy 5:8King James Version (KJV)
    8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
    In-group solidarity is what makes a Government and a people strong. God must have supported in-group solidarity, when God supported his in-grope by kicking out Satan and his in-group from heaven. By doing so God did provide for his own house.
    When white folks support in-group solidarity, we are supporting our own house.
    If God is God then he must have noticed more then us on the differences of racial groups.
    Therefor as one who believes in God,I must agree with the below. Quote
    ‘It is not a sin when white Christians notice differences between themselves and other racial groups”

  15. Karl Nemmersdorf's Gravatar Karl Nemmersdorf
    September 8, 2017 - 12:05 pm | Permalink

    St. Thomas Aquinas, the great Doctor of the Church, wrote, “Likeness … is a cause of love, and two white men are one thing in whiteness. Hence the affections of one tend to the other, as being one with him; and he wishes good to him as to himself” (Second Part, q. 27, a. 3) Pat Buchanan’s comment: “Aquinas … is saying that the affinity of peoples of a race for each other is natural and normal.” In Suicide of a Superpower, p. 135-36

    • m's Gravatar m
      September 8, 2017 - 6:40 pm | Permalink

      @ Karl N: I would not abstract a concrete racial conception from this particular argument of Aquinas–at least as it relates to modern conceptions of race. I think that would be something of an anachronism.

      Commenting on Aristotle, Aquinas makes both an ethical and metaphysical point, saying that like things (in his example, white things) possess an intrinsic affinity due to their whiteness. But, he also remarks about the affinity of men within a greater, “species of humanity.” It is unclear to me whether, for the Doctor, the prior “affinity” is greater than the latter. One would think not, given his hylomorphism: that is, within the “human composite substance,” the soul is the formal (universal human) aspect, whereas the body and its secondary attributes comprise a lower material aspect. But I am open to a better understanding of his point.

      That said, Aquinas was certainly not an “open borders” Catholic, and would not understand the present Church or its pope. Instead, Aquinas, being more liberal than Plato (Laws, XI), suggested (compare, Aristotle Pol iii, I, II) that for foreigners, three generations before naturalization was not unreasonable. Plato didn’t like them at all, and suggested they be expelled after twenty years.

      • Karl Nemmersdorf's Gravatar Karl Nemmersdorf
        September 9, 2017 - 10:11 pm | Permalink

        I don’t take a concrete racial conception from this. I know it doesn’t correspond exactly to modern conceptions of “race.” However, it certainly does show an awareness of different groups of humans, which is, in practice, the idea we have brought into the modern world, and much refined (and which is the whole point). Thank you for your further exposition of the ideas of Aquinas.

  16. m's Gravatar m
    September 8, 2017 - 1:20 pm | Permalink

    The idea of “white people” as a collective genus was never part of dogma within the Christian church, thus it has no good way to handle the concept. It is, indeed, a new idea. Hitherto, ethnicity and nationalities existed, and they sufficed to identify and support the individual. The “universal component” to the various European nationalities was the Church, which, for its part, allowed separate groups to exist separately, yet at the same time allowing each a participation in collective spiritual communion.

    Interestingly, throughout its history, the church kept the Jewish influence at bay, all the while more or less “protecting” Jews from Christian reaction to Jewish offenses. The ban on usury, and Bulls such as Sicut Judaeis (demanding that Christians not harm Jews, as long as Jews did not attempt to subvert Christians—this second part of the doctrine is now forgotten), can be cited.

    As late as the 1920s, there was no significant “white” racial consciousness within European national feeling. An example of this is found in Corneliu Zelea Codreanu’s writings, which are quite relevant to happenings within the Alt Right, today. Codreanu was not a “white nationalist,” but instead argued for an indigenous Romanian national identity, apart from other European nationalities. Spiritually, the Orthodox church supported this sort of nationalism.

    It is only now, a time when ethnic identities and even nationalities are challenged, that a generally deracinated people look for a commonality to bind them to each other. Race is the most obvious. Yet the Catholic church, much less the almost “Jewish in thinking” Protestant sects, cannot understand this natural reaction to white folk’s dispossession. Unless organized Christianity makes a marked change in its thinking, which is doubtful, it will become increasingly irrelevant to whites looking to claim their identity.

    • September 8, 2017 - 4:09 pm | Permalink

      Interestingly, throughout its history, the church kept the Jewish influence at bay, all the while more or less “protecting” Jews from Christian reaction to Jewish offenses. The ban on usury, and Bulls such as Sicut Judaeis (demanding that Christians not harm Jews, as long as Jews did not attempt to subvert Christians—this second part of the doctrine is now forgotten), can be cited.

      I think you might change your mind upon reading “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”, a definitive work of revisionist history by Michael Hoffman. A shorter read, Hoffman’s “Usury in Christendom”, also puts the lie to such simplistic statements.

      • m's Gravatar m
        September 8, 2017 - 6:53 pm | Permalink

        A shorter read, Hoffman’s “Usury in Christendom”, also puts the lie to such simplistic statements.

        Well, Alan, I am always open to changing my mind if facts direct a change. But I have no idea what you are talking about, so if you’d like to offer a coherent argument to my “simplistic statements,” and do it in a combo box in a couple of paragraphs, I’m all for that.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          September 10, 2017 - 2:36 pm | Permalink

          @m: Your request is very sound. That said, I stand in near awe of Michael Hoffman’s intellect and scholarly industriousness. His decades-long study of Hebrew has made possible an exposé edition of the Talmud, whose pornographic blasphemies would otherwise be impossible to gain access to, thanks to the money that the (((Holy People))) spread around liberally to keep their vile secrets secret.

          Yet it must be said that Hoffman has two idées fixes that seem hermetically protected from the assaults of fact and argumentation. One is his insistence that today’s Jews are actually of Khazarian descent and largely to entirely unrelated to the Jews of antiquity. He has held to this view through the thick and thin of genetic studies—studies that many, including Professor MacDonald, deem legitimate—that plainly demonstrate that the facts point elsewhere.

          The second is his conviction that virtually all lending at interest must be considered mortally sinful usury, the consequence being that he must thereby necessarily describe Aquinas and several dozen otherwise orthodox popes and an even larger number of Catholic saints and scholars as heretics or apostates and their arguments and reasoning as dissimulation, equivocation, or sophistry.

          I know from Catholic acquaintances and contacts that Hoffmann is a regular participant at the masses offered in the Post Falls, Idaho, chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X, a Traditionalist priestly fraternity founded forty years ago by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I have been told by others similarly situated that though he keeps largely to himself, he has been respectfully asked to discuss or explain what an intelligent and informed Catholic man might reasonably consider a schismatic opinion on a matter that is anything but simple and upon which people quite as smart as Hoffman is have expended a great deal of thought and ink.

          Unless one is prepared to assert, with little or no genuinely conclusive evidence, that six centuries’ worth of prelates and theologians have, to a man, simply been bought off by Jewish money, Hoffman’s usury studies need to be subjected to a truly expert critique before any of his moral and theological conclusions are accorded weight.

          • September 10, 2017 - 9:33 pm | Permalink

            I think only Michael Hoffman himself could address the questions you and “M” raise. A student of revisionist history still — I recall my studenthood in Chemistry, then Pharmacology, then earning a living in a real-life job applying principles of chemistry, pharmacology toxicology, and, later, statistics — I shall not undertake a defense of works that stand such open-minded scrutiny as you might give, for example, to Mr. Hoffman’s thesis on usury.

            I shall say this, though, based on my research and current understanding of more recent history: Usury, the creation of “money” from nothing and charging ANY PERCENTAGE OF INTEREST (by whatever appellation), is anti-human and a weapon used effectively for more centuries than one can imagine. The phrase “Babylonian Money Magick”, as spelled, seems very appropriate.

            The final and predestined demise of “America”, despite all efforts by those who knew, dates from 1913 — and you know who!

          • Karl Nemmersdorf's Gravatar Karl Nemmersdorf
            September 11, 2017 - 4:37 pm | Permalink

            I completely agree with you on Hoffman. “Idee fixe” is a good way to put it.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            September 11, 2017 - 11:20 pm | Permalink

            Thanks for your comments, Alan.

            Everything about usury, especially settling what precisely constitutes usury, amounts to a group of vexed questions. Nor are those who contend that the cry of usury is no more than a sour grapes response from those who resent paying for the use of someone else’s money as they would pay for someone else’s property or time to be summarily dismissed either. What is often said of pornography may be true of usury, too: that it’s easier to recognize than to define. All I can say for myself is that I simply don’t feel qualified to address the matter in ipse dixit mode.

            Thanks. Cheers!

          • m's Gravatar m
            September 12, 2017 - 6:14 am | Permalink

            Once a culture gets past the barter or fair trade stage of their economy, substituting an abstract placeholder for actual labor and immediate goods (i.e. money and/or credit), economic calculation begins to become more difficult. The question of usury seems to me to be one of “fair use.” On the individual level, what the usurer does is to often exploit the borrower’s greed. On the level of the state, credit (today, via central bank money creation) allows all sorts of horrible actions, such as wars, which could never be fought if they had to be actually paid for with immediate tax receipts. However it is, usury has pretty much always had a bad name. Even in non-Western cultures, such as China.

          • m's Gravatar m
            September 12, 2017 - 6:17 am | Permalink

            Appreciate the Hoffman synopsis, PdC. I’d heard of him, but never read his matieral.

    • Leon Haller's Gravatar Leon Haller
      September 16, 2017 - 6:15 am | Permalink

      There was very real “White” consciousness among Europeans OUTSIDE Europe proper. As soon as Euro explorers and imperialists began to “contact” nonwhites, they became conscious of their racial similarities – and their common differences with nonwhites. Sometimes this was ascribed to Christianity (“Christian” often used as a synonym of “White”), but not always.

  17. Jason's Gravatar Jason
    September 8, 2017 - 5:32 pm | Permalink


    And now there is another website called mosesneverexisted on zohosites in the com domain.

    With over 100 scholarly books claiming that Jesus never existed, I think Christianity is nearing its end.

    Whites must learn to unite based on race, instead of using a Middle Eastern religion to help them do so.

    • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
      September 9, 2017 - 4:43 am | Permalink

      When you look at the number of people of the Christian confession, it goes into the many millions.

      I have mentioned it in the past, what I would like to know, as a moral compass, what will replace Christianity, should it be switched off overnight? What will the soldier murmur in his last dying breath? Odin take me up in thy arms? Won’t work, even less than Christianity. The old religions have passed their sell-by date, overtaken by science (but science still cannot answer all the questions asked by the religions).

      Take white South Africa as a case study. Christian Nationalism was one of the glues that held this society together. In comes OGOD, a secular “Christianity” which wants to remove the Christian basis of the Boer/Afrikaaner schools with a more “open” view.

      By removing the Christian Calvinist view from the Afrikaans schools, you remove one of the last barriers standing between the total africanization of the last white schools.

      The same has happened in Europe and the USA. Remove the cross, and replace it with what? The humanistic world view? Then you exaclty play into the hands of the enemy.

      Sometimes it is better to keep a possivle new dicovered truth in an inner circle, until the time is ripe to apply it to the whole of mankind.

      • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
        September 9, 2017 - 9:17 am | Permalink

        @ex South African. You asked what will replace Christianity. No one knows. Whatever arises after the global implosion will be truly harmonious and integrated. We can’t plan for it, we don’t know its boundaries or any of its features. In catechism, lo, these 45+ years ago, us kiddies learned that God knows all, sees all and runs the whole damn show. And whether anyone believe in him or not, it’s irrelevant. As the evangelicals say, “That’s all right; he believes in you.” FWIW. Christianity has gone bad because it has run its course, resulting in its present ghastly form.

      • September 9, 2017 - 12:56 pm | Permalink

        There is something that can be done.

        (1) Validate and exemplify the existence of Jesus and his mission. He was not God, but an enlightened Essene priest opposed to the Jew’s corrupt second Temple’s sacrificial system. This is why he had nothing to do with the “Gentiles.” For Jesus it was no Temple, no problem.

        (2) Remove all religious affiliation to Jewish based or “Abrahamic” religions by exposing ancient Judaism for what it actually was, and still remains – a codified legal system designed by men to serve and enrich an elite priesthood.

        (3) Establish a non-religious paradigm for intelligent design. Not a centralized religion with its hierarchy of priest and laity, but a decentralized, conceptual understanding of the forces behind the design and creation of the universe. A personalized concept of the natural laws governing existence. What can be achieved is an internal understanding of the effect this force has upon our organism and the manner in which it can be refined to human advantage, i.e “enlightenment.”

        (4) Discover the esoteric teachers maintaining this knowledge and promote their teachings among the masses. All great teachers of this nature tailor their teaching methods to the time, place and people being addressed. Thus it is to no advantage to pursue ancient teachers like Buddha or Jesus, as their teaching methods were tailored specifically for the people among whom they lived.

        While the universal truths they taught are still valid, the manner in which they delivered them is no longer applicable for teaching people of today. This is why religion became dogmatically hidebound, they kept applying outdated traditions and customs designed for different times and places.

        Such teachers do exist, but remain hidden due to persecution by established religion. Their teachings are antithetical and therefore destructive to centralized religion.

        One must begin this process with the realization there is no external, anthropomorphic, parental “God” that guides our existence. Instead, all life is imbued with an incomprehensible essence or force that cannot be understood, defined or quantified by the human mind.

        Once this is understood, one progresses to an understanding of one’s own nature, or as the esoteric teachers said “Know Thyself,” for without this knowledge of self, one is incapable of understanding one’s own motivations or the purpose behind their existence. Lacking that understanding, one can never understand the motivations driving others. The lack of this understanding is what brought forth the very chaos we live under today.

      • September 10, 2017 - 6:21 am | Permalink

        Read Isaiah 43:3 and that scripture Gen 5:1 is only for the race/family that can blush. Then ask yourself the same question.


      • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
        September 11, 2017 - 7:08 am | Permalink

        I have an interesting piece on religion, too long to publish as a readers comment, which might show the way forward for a new religion. It is not on the web. I knew the person who wrote this piece (a highly qualified scientist and industrialist, he has passed away). Here is the prolog (own translation from German):

        The European people have gathered many insights over the past thousand years. Their religions, however, did not anticipate the events of this millennium, nor have their traditions and liturgies kept pace with the development. A whole series of Western-religious points of faith nowadays is in conflict with our knowledge. Many of the faithful, therefore, declared religion to be simply overtaken and turned away from it.

        But even today there is still a need for the values and the spiritual hold that a religion can convey. Science is not a substitute for religiosity. Already the question: “Was the world created or emerged by coincidence?” cannot be answered by science. But the world and its laws which can be grasped by us, does exist. The most important religious activity is the development of our ethics. Again, the ethical values to which European Man is subordinated cannot always be explained by modern development theories.

        A religious Weltanschauung, unlike a purely scientific-mechanistic, is still necessary today for the thinking, researching mind. But this religion must then be compatible both with the present and the secular knowledge to be expected in the foreseeable future, and with the nature of its believers.

        Above all, religion must convey a value that is not achievable through scientific-mechanistic knowledge alone. Also, this religion must offer the possibility of combining a grown community (a people for example) without relying on exclusive, sole salvatory claims, and it must also give its believers, even under extreme circumstances such as disease, war, chaos and economic plight (shaking of the self-preservation drive), support and hope.

      • Leon Haller's Gravatar Leon Haller
        September 16, 2017 - 6:24 am | Permalink

        Of course, you are merely assuming Christianity is ontologically untrue. If atheism is correct, then all is lost, not just for individuals, but for the White race, too. Saving the race will require heroic sacrifices, and not just from a few. Who will make those, and why? Perhaps the occasional Anders Breivik (I don’t support what he did, but am using him as an example of someone neurologically wired in a certain way impelling him to radical sacrifice, as he saw it), but such are few and far between.

        And there will be no new religions, at least not that can appeal to rational men of the West (Diversity corresponds to a new cult, but it is for weak minds only). The choice for White men (I would argue for all men, but that’s just my perspective) is Christ or the void. And only belief in a racially reformed Christianity will save us.

  18. Al Ross's Gravatar Al Ross
    September 9, 2017 - 1:43 am | Permalink

    As we might have expected Prof. Revilo Oliver had a word to say on Christianity :

  19. September 10, 2017 - 3:47 pm | Permalink

    There may be scope for taking over Freemason ‘Lodges’ and Synagogues and Friends Meeting Houses. The things that people like about Christianity, such as fellowship, careers, reading and study, traditional celebrations of seasons, holidays/holy days, births/ marriages/ deaths, some arts, some mystical sentimentality, might be woven together excluding Jew rubbish. In fact, the original Christians may have had useful ideas – if anyone knows what they believed and wanted.
    There what I think is an important point re hiatuses. Consider Poland: after about century of Jew ‘Communist’ influence, and after the USSR ‘surprisingly’ was looted by Jews and fell, Catholics thought they could revive their Christianity. The problem is that obvious nonsense is less likely to survive a long interval of suppression. Imagine a genuine Polish Christian, not a Jew puppet – if there were any – trying to explain that a man who never lived who was tortured appallingly (but in fact far less than many people in WW2) that he could forgive sins 2000 years later, and that heaven is somewhere up in the sky. No intelligent person could accept it.

    • September 16, 2017 - 10:01 am | Permalink

      ‘that a man who never lived who was tortured appallingly (but in fact far less than many people in WW2) that he could forgive sins 2000 years later, and that heaven is somewhere up in the sky. No intelligent person could accept it.’

      Really, Leon Haller! You cannot propose your very primitive misunderstanding of Christian theology as anything but that. You certainly are ‘no intelligent person’.

      • September 16, 2017 - 8:36 pm | Permalink

        I apologise very humbly, Leon Haller. I meant to address my remark above to Rerevisionist. I attributed my quotation of him to you quite wrongly. Please excuse me.

  20. September 12, 2017 - 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Excellent goods from you, man. I’ve have in mind your stuff prior to
    and you’re just extremely excellent. I really like what you have
    received right here, really like what you’re stating and the way in which through
    which you assert it. You’re making it entertaining and you still take care of to
    keep it smart. I cant wait to learn far more from you.
    This is really a wonderful web site.

    • September 16, 2017 - 12:55 pm | Permalink

      My deep apologies, Leon Haller. I should have addressed my previous remark (10.01 am) to Rerevisionist.

Comments are closed.