Christianity

Lost Sheep American Christian Nationalism as a Problem in Geopolitical Theology

/2 Comments/in , /by

From: brittanica.com

My latest book was written from an Anglo-Identitarian perspective.  I try to demonstrate that a pan-British race patriotism can be rekindled by a reformed, neo-Angelcynn (Old English for “kin of the Angles”) church.  Such a reformation would provide a desperately needed theopolitical alternative to the hegemonic, universalist model of creedal Christianity. Nowadays, as we have just seen, even American Christian nationalism routinely invokes the deracinated, disembodied Lordship of global Jesus as its heavenly warrant.

Lost Sheep: American Christian Nationalism as a Problem in Geopolitical Theology[1]

Introduction

Christian nationalism has become a hot, and divisive, topic among evangelical Protestants in the USA.  Problems arise for American Christian nationalists and their enemies alike, because the movement subordinates all “nations” (typically defined in civic, as opposed to racial or ethnic, terms) to a divinely ordained mission to procure for themselves both earthly and heavenly goods “in Christ.”  “National” identity is, therefore, not a good in and of itself, grounded in blood and belonging.  Only through the grace bestowed upon it by God, as revealed in Scripture, can a nation be perfected.

The manifest destiny of all nations, in other words, will be realized in history as they embrace the universal truths of the Christian religion.   This doctrine was invoked recently in an article which appeared on two Christian websites, Iron Ink  and Tribal Theocrat.   The immediate point of the piece was to defend the “dissident Christian right” against the charge that Christian nationalism is little more than a “woke right” heresy. The case for the defence, as set out by the pseudonymous author (“jetbrane” or “Enos Powell,” take your pick), rests upon a description of the ontology, epistemology, anthropology, teleology, and axiology of the “dissident Christian right.”  This brief but wide-ranging survey leads the author (whose real name is Bret McAtee, pastor of a small church in Michigan) to the conclusion that every facet of the Christian nationalist “worldview,” is set in radical and permanent opposition to the “hard woke worldview.” The latter position, McAtee declares, “is always about the glory of man as determined by some Christless God hating elite.”

In sharp contrast, for Pastor McAtee, it is axiomatic that the Weltanschauung of the dissident Christian right “advocates the Crown Rights of the Rightful Rule” of the Lord Jesus Christ “over every area of life.”  He contends that the accusation that Christian nationalism is just another manifestation of the woke right fails “because the dissident right’s worldview includes an extra-mundane personal and authoritative God who “created all things in six days and all are very good.”  According to the pastor, the dissident Christian right necessarily bows “to God’s determination of reality.”  Its “ultimate value … is the glory of God and His Christ.”  Biblical Christianity, the pastor assures us, is anchored providentially in a universal “history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth” in fulfillment of God’s plan “to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.”

Attending a Christian Nationalist Conference

Now, whatever one makes of McAtee’s defence of the dissident Christian right, there is no denying that he reflects the dominant mindset among Anglo-American Christian nationalists.  I came face-to-face with that reality when I decided to attend the recent Right Response Ministries conference in Texas (devoted to “Defeating Trash World”).  I felt as if I had entered a theological bubble, hermetically sealed within the historical creeds and a biblical hermeneutic impervious to scholarly criticism.

In fact, in the months leading up to the conference, I found it impossible to receive permission (or even acknowledgement of my request) from Joel Webbon—the pastor organizing the event—to set up a table displaying my new book. I even had Amazon.com send him a copy of the book, entitled Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism. Admittedly, such a title suggests strong dissent from the outworn axioms of creedal Christianity.   I had hoped, however, that a display table would spark some interest and provide an opportunity to defend the book in conversation with speakers and attendees at the conference.  When I finally arrived at the conference with a box of books (obtained at half price from Arktos), I asked the pastor’s administrative assistant, if I might be able to set up a small table to display them. After an hour or so, not having received a response, I asked her again whether permission might be forthcoming. She told me flatly that it would not be possible since that facility was available only for conference sponsors. This explanation later seemed a bit misleading since I noticed that at least two tables already laden with books and related material were occupied by podcasters who were unlikely to be “conference sponsors.”

Samizdat Stall. Right Response conference

Making the best of it, I decided to use the ticket my wife had purchased for the conference (which due to health concerns she didn’t use) to claim a chair for my own use as a sort of surreptitious Samizdat Stall to display my own books.  Serendipitously, one person who did notice the stall, with copies of my Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus book in plain view thereupon, was Pastor Joel’s wife.  As we were talking, she pointed to my book, remarking that her husband had received a copy of it at his church a few weeks earlier.  Shortly afterwards, the Pastor himself happened by (rather conspicuously ignoring my samizdat book display) and asked my name. I introduced myself before (much to my satisfaction) his wife drew her husband’s attention to the book, reminding him that he had already received a copy of his own.  Pastor Webbon, however, made no use of the opportunity to acknowledge receipt of said book, much less discuss it, and hastily made his departure.

This rather abrupt brush-off came as no real surprise to me since (even during the period not so long ago when I was studying for a degree in theology) I have always found that orthodox Christian believers seem remarkably reluctant to engage in a dialogue with anyone they perceive as an unbeliever or heretic.  Such intellectual insularity is doubly unfortunate among self-declared “Christian nationalists” who aim to gain political power to re-establish Christianity in the public square.  Not a great strategy, in other words, for a movement that will need to make friends and influence people to achieve its political objectives.

In my own case, as I tried to make clear in my book, I look upon the position taken by Christian nationalists in the culture wars with a great deal of sympathy. Indeed, as a cultural Christian, I want to see all Anglo-Protestants throughout the length and breadth of the Anglosphere unite in a broad church to wage that struggle.  I strongly suspect that Pastor Webbon may have glanced through his copy of my book, only to dismiss it summarily as damnable heresy.  Judging by another Iron Ink article, Pastor McAtee, too, doubts that I am “a Christian in any traditional, orthodox, or historical sense.”  Pointedly, he adds that it “stands to reason” that Pastor Webbon “wouldn’t give him a book table to hawk his books. I wouldn’t either. Christians don’t promote non-Christianity at their conferences.”[2]

Christian Identities

Perhaps, if Christian identity turns solely upon fidelity to the creeds, I should be denied entry into the fold.  On the other hand, as the author of a book entitled Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to Christian Theology, am I not entitled to a presumptive claim to be a member of the dissident Christian right?  In any case, Ehud Would, of Faith & Heritage fame, appears to have recognized me as such in his thoughtful and generally favourable review of Dissident Dispatches back in 2017.  Surely, doctrinally rigid, creedal Christians are no more authentically Christian than cultural Christians who dissent from received orthodoxy.

Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there has always been more than one way to conceive and constitute a Christian nation.  The nation that was created by the Loyalists who fled to Canada was no less “Christian” than the revolutionary republic created by the American rebels who forcibly drove those loyal to the British Crown from their own homes and native land.

I was born a British subject before the creation of Australian or Canadian citizenship, at a time when Anglo-Saxons still counted as one of Canada’s two “founding races.”  As a consequence, my intellectual development has been greatly influenced by the strange demise of both British Canada and British Australia.

Accordingly, my latest book was written from an Anglo-Identitarian perspective.  I try to demonstrate that a pan-British race patriotism can be rekindled by a reformed, neo-Angelcynn (Old English for “kin of the Angles”) church.  Such a reformation would provide a desperately needed theopolitical alternative to the hegemonic, universalist model of creedal Christianity. Nowadays, as we have just seen, even American Christian nationalism routinely invokes the deracinated, disembodied Lordship of global Jesus as its heavenly warrant.

Following the crushing defeat of German ethnonationalism in 1945, the global Jesus of contemporary Anglo-Protestant theology achieved virtually uncontested hegemony.  Today, almost all mainstream Anglo-Protestants reject even the mildest manifestations of ethnic particularism as tantamount to racism.  Indeed, the advocacy of “Christian nationalism” is denounced regularly from the pulpits of mainline Anglo-Protestant churches in the United States.

Clearly, avowed Christian nationalists in the USA are now held hostage by global Jesus.  Christian nationalism piously declares itself bound to affirm that the telos of human history will be realized only when the primary allegiance of all nations is to King Jesus.  It remains to be seen, however, whether a distinctively white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethnoreligious identity can be squared with the ahistorical, universalist reign of Lord Jesus.  Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity.  He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

Christianity as Ethnoreligion?

By contrast, my thesis is that an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reduces the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).  The rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism requires a solid ethnoreligious foundation, as did the first-century Jesus movement.  The refusal of hidebound American evangelicals to recognize the unique ethnonational identity of the historical Jesus is the outdated legacy of historically Romanised ecclesiastical establishments, Protestant and Catholic alike. My argument, therefore, is that Anglo-Saxon Christianity should be re-Germanized by re-imagining the Angelcynn church of Alfred the Great to fit the needs of our own age.

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus presents persuasive evidence that the Hebrew Bible (most likely created between the fifth and second centuries BC) produced a poignant and powerful national narrative.  Conceived by Judean scribes as a pedagogic tool, that biblical narrative inspired the “project of peoplehood” presupposed by the Jesus movement of the first century AD.

Anglo-Protestants desperately need to recover earlier folkish variants of the Christian tradition.  I suggest that the focus of Anglo-Protestantism needs to be shifted away from its long-standing preoccupation with personal salvation in the world to come.  Anglos need a sense of rootedness in networks of ethnoreligious communities in which shared ancestry matters as much if not more than doctrinal purity.  Ethno-religious ties provide the institutional precondition and moral foundation for socially cohesive communities, be they local (the Amish, for example) or global (such as the Jews).  Anglo-Protestant churches, too, could become the ethnoreligious heart of breakaway parallel societies.  Such communities will be devoted not just to producing healthy, happy, and morally upright families; they will also generate British-descended counter-elites set in opposition to the irresponsible corporate plutocracy now misgoverning the Anglosphere.

It may be that Anglo-Protestants will someday receive as King a Christ of their own.  But, as preterist scholar Don K. Preston often remarks, he is unlikely to return as a 5’5” Jewish man whose name is Jesus.  That fact need not preclude the miraculous appearance of our own Patriot King, were he to become incarnate in Australia and the other British dominions.

Conclusion

In short, there is a pressing need for a sympathetic but penetrating critique of the hitherto unchallenged hegemony of global Jesus within the theopolitical imagination of the emergent Christian nationalist movement.  American Christian nationalism is a predominantly Anglo-Protestant movement. Like the first-century Jesus movement, it can and should embrace, explicitly, its distinctive ethnoreligious character outside and apart from both the state and creedal Christianity.

Neither Jesus nor Paul aimed to create a new religion.  They sought instead to save the “lost sheep of Israel.” Like everyone else in Greco-Roman antiquity, they took it for granted that ethnicity and religion were synonymous categories.  Paul, for example, became the “apostle to the pagans” because he believed that the descendants of the ten lost tribes who had been absorbed into the pagan world could have their “spiritual DNA” as Israelites reactivated “in Christ.”  Contemporary biblical scholarship often describes Jesus and Paul as historical figures working “within Judaism” or “within Israeliteism.” In other words, their efforts to spark “the resurrection of Israel” were part and parcel of the “project of peoplehood” pioneered by the Hebrew Bible.

Today’s Christian nationalists should recognize WASPs throughout the Anglo-Protestant diaspora as an “invisible race” much like the “lost sheep of Israel.”  Anglo-Americans (along with Anglo-Canadians, Anglo-Australians, and Anglo-Kiwis) are, in effect, the “lost sheep of Greater Britain.”  American Christian nationalists should seek salvation, together with their co-ethnics in the former British dominions, in a post-modern “project of peoplehood” seeking to bring the idea of their Patriot King down to earth.

Acting together, faithful Anglo-Protestants could spark the spiritual reformation of the entire Anglosphere. Such a religious movement could provide the solution to an existential problem in geopolitical theology.  Anglo-Protestants everywhere need to understand themselves as a tribal network facing extinction if the corporate state apparatus of the global American empire is left unchecked.  Anglo-American Christian nationalists, especially, should grasp the opportunity to embrace an ancestral British race patriotism, in solidarity with co-ethnics in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand still owing allegiance to the Crown.

A neo-Angelcynn movement grounded in orthopraxis rather than strait-laced orthodoxy will be able to attract nominally secular, cultural Christians alienated from contemporary churches.  While resistant to unconditional belief in the established Christian creeds and confessions, WASPs are typically more likely to be receptive to a “modernized” folk religion in which the church serves, first and foremost, as a teacher of morality.  Deracinated Anglo-Protestants have long been accustomed to treating moral behaviour merely as a stepping stone towards individual salvation.  A folkish practical theology would instead gather WASPs together in moral communities, resurrecting an ancestral project of peoplehood with its shared history and destiny.  In so doing, neo-Angelcynn churches could bring to fruition the objectives of men such as Sir John Robert Seeley who pioneered the Broad-Church movement  in the nineteenth century Church of England.

In our own time, the need for such a movement has never been more urgent. Young Anglo-Protestants, along with their agnostic contemporaries, are having their future stolen from them by a plutocratic corporatist regime destroying every institution that could provide access to stable, prosperous, middle-class family lives of purpose and meaning. In the medium- to long-term, their rising discontent could find a significant institutional outlet in an Anglo-Identitarian Christian movement.  Explicitly Anglo-Protestant churches, schools, colleges, even hospitals, could cultivate the British-descended elites necessary to challenge, not just “Big Eva,” the power centre of American evangelical Protestantism, but also—and more importantly—the unapologetically ethnocentric, “market-dominant minorities” now entrenched within every once-proudly Anglo-Saxon country. The revival of such a Greater British, Broad-Church movement will expose the weaknesses of a parochial, American-style Christian nationalism setting the mythology of global Jesus over loyalty to co-ethnics, both at home and throughout the Anglosphere.

[1] This is a revised and expanded version of an earlier essay which appeared at: https://counter-currents.com/2025/05/the-problem-with-christian-nationalism-american-style/

[2] https://ironink.org/2025/05/the-difference-between-andrew-frasers-ethnoreligious-vision-mcatees-ethno-christian-vision/

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism

/5 Comments/in , /by


Arktos Media, 2025

 

Preface

This book sheds much-needed light on contemporary controversies surrounding the seemingly oxymoronic phenomenon of “Christian nationalism,” past, present, and future, as problem and as solution.

Part One explores the ostensibly biblical foundations of Christian nationalism, the first-century Jesus movement, and the early Christian church in Greco-Roman antiquity.  Part Two examines the extent to which the rise and fall of early medieval Anglo-Saxon Christendom was influenced by the “project of peoplehood” reflected in the Hebrew Bible. In Part Three, the focus shifts to a modern history culminating in the post-Christian collapse of British race patriotism.

Does the contemporary crisis of Anglo-Protestant political theology stem from a failure to recognize in the historical Jesus the mythic model for the miraculous appearance of a Patriot King?  The religious, political, and civil institutions of the Anglosphere now oversee the deliberate degeneration of historic Anglo cultures into mere economic zones, populated by rootless, shifting masses of morally debased monads.

Faithful Anglo-Protestants could spark the reformation of the entire Anglosphere by labouring to bring the sweet dream of a Patriot King down to earth. Anglo-American evangelical Protestants are, therefore, a primary target for this book’s message. The spiritual reformation of the Anglosphere is a matter of geopolitical theology.  Anglo-American Protestants need to understand themselves as a people standing outside and apart from the state apparatus of the global American empire. In other words, they must mentally nullify the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, embracing instead an ancestral British race patriotism, in solidarity with their co-ethnics in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand still owing allegiance to the Crown.

I was born a British subject before the creation of Australian or Canadian citizenship, at a time when Anglo-Saxons still counted as one of Canada’s two “founding races.”  My intellectual development has been much influenced by what historian C.P. Champion describes as The Strange Demise of British Canada.  This theme figured largely in my earlier work.

Accordingly, this book was written from an Anglo-Identitarian perspective.  My hope is that a pan-British race patriotism can be rekindled by a reformed, neo-Angelcynn (Old English for “kin of the Angles”) church.  Such a reformation would provide a desperately needed theopolitical alternative to the hegemonic, universalist model of creedal Christianity. Nowadays, even American Christian nationalism routinely invokes the deracinated, disembodied Lordship of global Jesus as its heavenly warrant.

 

For centuries, Anglo-Protestant churches have been famous for sterile struggles between doctrinal orthodoxy and damnable heresy.  Nowadays, however, mainline Anglo-Protestantism has become indistinguishable from the revolutionary humanism driving the globalist regimes misgoverning the Anglosphere.

From its origins in Greco-Roman antiquity, Christianity was beset by a persistent tension between universalism and particularism.  This was manifested first in an opposition between the neo-platonic image of a cosmic Christ who died on the Cross to atone for the sins of all mankind and the Jewish origins story of a national Messiah come to save “the lost sheep of Israel.”

The deeply rooted pull of particularistic ethnic identities was not easy to escape.  Even the early Christian churches of the ancient Mediterranean world found it difficult to resist the impulse to identify themselves as a particular “third race,” neither Greek nor Jew.

Even so, the orthodox Augustinian worldview eventually achieved doctrinal hegemony.  This dualistic vision posited the existence of an eternal City of God, above and beyond the temporal world inhabited by the mortal City of Man.  That other-worldly cosmology met serious resistance once Christian missionaries encountered the stubborn ethnic particularism of the Germanic tribes in northwestern Europe.

There, the world-rejecting orthodoxy of creedal Christianity was often replaced by orthopraxy (i.e., the adoption of Christian rituals and practices by pagan converts).  Roman Catholic theology’s other-worldly doctrines were a tough sell among Germans and Anglo-Saxons.  By and large, they accepted their world as it was, valuing the warrior virtues of heroism far above Christian humility.

Fast forward to our own postwar world.  Following the crushing defeat of German ethnonationalism in 1945, the global Jesus of Anglo-Protestant theology achieved virtually uncontested hegemony.  Today, almost all mainstream Anglo-Protestants reject even the mildest manifestations of ethnic particularism as tantamount to racism.  Indeed, even the advocacy of “Christian nationalism” is denounced regularly from the pulpits of mainline Anglo-Protestant churches in the United States.

 

One might imagine that the established Church of England would accept Christian nationalism as a matter of course.  But the non-negotiable commitment of the English church to global Anglicanism makes that impossible.  As for the Anglican leadership in the former British dominions such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, they, too, want nothing more than to escape from their traditional but deplorable “Anglo-Saxon captivity.”

 

Avowed Christian nationalists in the USA are themselves held hostage by global Jesus.  Christian nationalism is bound to affirm that the telos of human history will be realized only when the primary allegiance of all nations is to King Jesus.

Still, it remains to be seen how a distinctively white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethnoreligious identity can be squared with the ahistorical, universalist reign of Lord Jesus.  Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity.  He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

By contrast, my thesis is that an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reduces the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).  The rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation.

The theological refusal to reflect on the ethnonational identity of the historical Jesus must be recognized as the outdated product of historically Romanised ecclesiastical establishments, Protestant and Catholic alike. My argument, therefore, is that Anglo-Saxon Christianity should be re-Germanized by re-imagining the Angelcynn church of Alfred the Great to fit the needs of our own age.

The primary constituency for such a re-Germanized Christian nationalism is to be found among Anglo-Protestants.  Unfortunately, the realized biblical eschatology of the historical Jesus sent to save the “lost sheep” of biblical Israel has been suppressed in most Anglo-Protestant churches. The still-future Second Coming of global Jesus remains the bedrock presupposition of Anglo-Protestant theology, however well-grounded a “full preterist” interpretation of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70  may be in biblical exegesis or historical reality.

This book provides persuasive evidence that the Hebrew Bible (most likely created between the fifth and second centuries BC) produced a poignant and powerful national narrative.  Conceived by Judean scribes as a pedagogic tool, that biblical narrative inspired the “project of peoplehood” presupposed by the Jesus movement of the first century AD.

 

Jesus was received by many of his co-ethnics as the Jewish Messiah.  He also became the Hellenic Christ.  Jesus Christ was the King of Israel for Jews such as Paul and later of the “third race” of early Christians.

That was then; this is now.

Anglo-Protestants desperately need to recover earlier folkish variants of the Christian tradition.  I suggest that the focus of Anglo-Protestantism needs to be shifted away from its historic preoccupation with personal salvation in the world to come.  Anglos need a sense of rootedness in networks of ethnoreligious communities in which shared ancestry matters as much if not more than doctrinal purity.

Colonial and antebellum New England provided many useful examples of churches as godly little republics as well as clear warnings pointing to the dangers of doctrinaire religion.  Jewish synagogues and Islamic mosques offer countless other non-Christian examples of ethnoreligious communities far more productive of in-group solidarity (aka social capital).

An Anglo ethno-religion is both the institutional precondition and moral foundation for the creation of socially cohesive communities.  Anglo-Protestant churches must become the ethnoreligious heart of breakaway parallel societies devoted to producing healthy, happy, and morally upright families together with British-descended counter-elites set in opposition to the irresponsible corporate plutocracy now misgoverning the Anglosphere.

It may be that Anglo-Protestants will someday receive as King a Christ of their own.  But he is unlikely to return as a 5’5” Jewish man whose name is Jesus.  That fact need not preclude the miraculous appearance of our own Patriot King, were he to become incarnate in Australia and the other British dominions.

In short, my book offers a sympathetic but penetrating critique of the hitherto unchallenged hegemony of global Jesus within the Anglo-Protestant epicentre of the emergent Christian nationalist movement.  My hope is to persuade Christian nationalists that their predominantly Anglo-Protestant movement, like the first-century Jesus movement, can and should embrace, explicitly, its historic, ethnoreligious character outside and apart from the state.

At the same time, a Christian nationalism grounded in orthopraxis rather than strait-laced orthodoxy may attract secular, culturally Christian traditionalists.  While maintaining their resistance to unconditional belief in the established Christian creeds and confessions, such people are more likely to be receptive to a “modernized” folk religion in which the church serves, first and foremost, as a teacher of morality.

In effect, therefore, the book advocates a return to the nineteenth century Broad Church movement in the Church of England pioneered by men such as Sir John Robert Seeley.  Younger Anglo-Protestants in particular, along with their agnostic contemporaries, are having their future stolen from them by a corporatist regime destroying every institution that could provide access to stable, prosperous, middle-class family lives of purpose and meaning.

Their rising discontent could find its first significant outlet in an Anglo-Identitarian Christian movement challenging those who currently manage and control evangelical Protestantism in the USA: the power centre that Christian nationalists call “Big Eva”. This book aims to provide such an oppositional movement with intellectual ammunition as well as insight into the weaknesses of a Christian nationalism that places the mythology of global Jesus over loyalty to co-ethnics. 

Annotated Table of Contents

Introduction

Our Own Worst Enemy? Anglo-Protestant Theology, British Race Patriotism, and the European Civil War

In the nineteenth century British/Anglo-Saxon race patriotism was a commonplace feature of Anglo-Protestant culture.  We begin by examining why and how the twentieth century “European civil war” led contemporary Anglo-Protestant churches to dismiss the English ancestry and white British ethnicity of most of their communicants as a merely implicit and contingent (if not downright unmentionable) circumstance of no theological significance.

 Part One

Creedal Christianity: Theological Origins of the Present Crisis

  1. Sweet Dreams of Christian Nationalism (But What About the Protestant Deformation, Globalist Churches, and Jewish Political Theology?)

This review essay discusses The Case for Christian Nationalism (Canon Press,    2022) by Stephen Wolfe.  The author identifies real problems with post-Christian societies.  One wonders, however, why Wolfe takes such pains to deny that he is a “kinist,” much less a “racist.”  Indeed, he seems to find it extraordinarily difficult to distinguish between “Christian nations” and “Christian states.”

  1. Religion, Race, and Ethnicity in Greco-Roman Antiquity: New Perspectives on the Lordship of Jesus, Judaism, and the “Truthiness” of Christianity

We take a deeper, historical dive into the fundamental presuppositions of Wolfe’s Christian nationalism.  He asserts that “Jesus is Lord” and “Christianity is the true religion.”  In what sense, are those statements “true”?  Were Jesus and Paul really the founders of a new religion?  Was the “resurrection” of Jesus Christ a unique historical event or a mimetic manifestation of a common Greco-Roman literary     trope?

  1. Metanarrative Collapse: Has the Christian Cosmology Crafted by Augustine of Hippo Stood the Test of Time?

Augustine of Hippo rewrote a biblical narrative originally conceived as a Hebrew ethnonational epic.  This chapter examines how Augustine’s Hellenistic hermeneutic laid the cosmological foundation for Western Christendom. We also    consider the efforts of contemporary, neo-Augustinian Radical Orthodoxy to restore that crumbling edifice.

  1. Global Jesus versus National Jesus: The Political Hermeneutics of Resurrection

The ongoing quest for the “true” meaning of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection cannot be separated from the central political conflict of our time: globalism versus nationalism.  Were Jesus and Paul wrong in their expectation that the “resurrection        of the body” would occur in the lifetime of their followers, at the “end of the age”?  How did they conceive the nature of that resurrected “body”?  Was it to appear as the holy spirit breathing life into the dry bones of Old Testament Israel, as lamented in Ezekiel 37:4-7?  Or did they envisage individual, physical (“glorified”?) bodies emerging from their graves in the far distant future everywhere in the world? 

Part Two

Did Anglo-Saxon Christendom Replicate the “Project of Peoplehood” Posited by the Hebrew Bible?

  1. Adam and Eve in Torah: The Lost World of Covenantal Ethnotheology

Despite their differences modern biblical literalists and scholarly literary critics alike abstract Adam and Eve from their place in the particularistic ethnotheology of national Israel according to the flesh.  Both camps view Adam and Eve, whether biologically or mythically, literally or figuratively, as ancestors or representatives of Everyman and Everywoman.  A better interpretation of Genesis 1-3 conceives the pair as characters in the foundation myth of Old Covenant Israel

  1. Exodus 34: Covenantal Ethnotheology and the (Re)Birth of the First Holy Nation

In Exodus 34 God enters into the everyday life of Israel according to the flesh via the channel of grace embodied in Mosaic authority.  Having received the Mosaic law, national Israel is thereby empowered to serve as the spiritual womb of the living God, the one to come in an as-yet far-distant future.  The modern functionalist interpretation of Exodus 34 holds that covenantal ethnotheology merely reflects the primitive, particularistic, and narrowly ethnocentric character of ancient Israelite religion.  This approach downplays the problem in practical theology posed by the story: the national religion lacked a secure cultic foundation.  This has been no less a problem for early medieval Angelcynns and contemporary Anglo-Protestants.  How can we preserve a Christian nation if the Presence of the Lord is no longer with us?

 

  1. Making Angelcynns: How Alfred the Great Responded to the Viking Invasion

This essay highlights the theopolitical significance of the Anglo-Saxon king, Alfred the Great.  His reign (871-899) brought to fruition the project to establish an Anglo-Saxon Christendom begun by the Venerable Bede in the eighth century. The British-descended peoples of the modern Anglosphere would do well to reclaim Alfred’s legacy.

  1. Sanctifying the Norman Yoke: William the Conqueror, the Angelcynn Church, and the Papal Revolution

The Norman Conquest brought Anglo-Saxon Christendom to an end.  William the Conqueror was a fellow traveller of the Papal Revolution of the late eleventh         century. Earth-hugging Saxon churches gave way to the spires of Gothic cathedrals pointing to an empty sky. The “Romanization” of Alfred’s Angelcynn church signalled an Age of Disincarnation, thus splitting the secular from the spiritual realm. 

  1. A Choice Not an Echo: Biblical Israel as Mythic Model for Anglo-Saxon Christendom

It seems that the Old English church of the Anglo-Saxon era reflected what scholars describe as “the Germanization of early medieval Christianity.”  It has also been said that the Hebrew Bible was the product of a “project of peoplehood.”  This chapter considers whether the Hebrew Bible served as a model for the creation of the Anglo-Saxon Christendom. 

Part Three

Beyond Creedal Christianity: Neo-Angelcynn Political Theology versus Globalist Churches and the Transnational Corporate State

  1. Who are We Now? Restoring the Ethnoreligious Dimensions of WASP Identity throughout the Anglosphere

The world-rejecting cosmology of the church in the Mediterranean world of the late Roman Empire stood in opposition to the world-accepting character of Germanic Christianity.  Nevertheless, both traditions presupposed the universal reign of Lord Jesus.  Christian nationalism therefore remains, for us, something of an oxymoron.  Accordingly, in the Anglosphere at least, the postmodern restoration of Christian nationhood should be inspired by a neo-Angelcynn theopolitics best organized around four “orienting concepts”: process theism, preterism, kinism, and royalism. 

  1. Was Early New South Wales (1788-1850) a “Christian Community”?

Anglo-Protestant churches in England (both the established Church of England and its dissenting offshoots) aimed to perpetuate themselves by reinforcing cultural ties between the mother country and the British settler colonies in Australia and elsewhere.  Unfortunately, those cultural ties were not always conducive to the creation of a Christian community, either “at home” or in early New South Wales.

 

  1. The White Australia Policy in Retrospect: Racism or Realism?

The White Australia Policy was inaugurated in 1901 at the high-water mark of    British race patriotism. This review essay discusses two books, one on the adoption of the WAP, the other on its repeal.  Both works view the policy from the    perspective of a racial egalitarianism that flies in the face of the intractable reality of racial differences presupposed by the founding fathers of Federation in Australia.

  1. Puritans in Babylon: The Impact of Global Christianity on Sydney Anglicans

In the brave new world of “global Christianity,” the largest Christian communities are now to be found in the overwhelmingly non-white realm of the so-called “global south.”  This chapter deals with the response of the evangelical, low-church Anglican diocese of Sydney to the movements that demand conformity to the manifold manifestations of the progressive Cult of the Other.

  1. Anglo-Republicanism and the Rebirth of British History: Why Virtuous WASPs Must Challenge the Corrupt Globalist Plutocracy Misgoverning the Anglosphere

The rise of a globalist system, presided over by the managerial elites of                 transnational corporate capitalism, has transformed the British-descended citizenry        of once-proudly “Anglo-Saxon countries” into random collections of stateless people.  This chapter explores the relevance of the Anglo-American republican tradition to a neo-Angelcynn reformation of civil society, outside and apart from     the state, throughout the Anglosphere

  1. Monarchs and Miracles: Australia’s Need for a Patriot King

The eighteenth-century Country Party politician, Viscount Bolingbroke, maintained that only the influence of a Patriot King (“the most uncommon of all phenomena in the physical or moral world”) could draw despotic governments and   their corrupted peoples back to the original principles of liberty that had their origins in the ancient British constitution.  The issue here is whether (and how) Bolingbroke’s idea of a Patriot King can be transposed into our own age of woke capital and mass migration to rescue stateless Anglos, now stranded in the (residually) British dominions of the Crown throughout the Anglosphere.

Covenant Theology and God’s Chosen

/4 Comments/in , /by

Introduction

Within the alt-right community there is a continual call to advocate traditional, Northern European paganism. Inherent in both the published and online literature is the view that the fall of Europe can be traced to the abandonment of its roots in the Norse religion and that Christianity looted paganism of its intellectual treasures.[1] Though alt-right Christians like me can be found, there seems to be a rising consensus in the alt-right that is critical of Christianity. This is understandable since the New Testament is the prophetic fulfillment of Judaism, which has a history of plundering nations and, especially since the medieval era, has become a morally debased religion practiced by a generally evil people. In this brief article, I hope to reinvigorate interest in the Christian story among the alt-right by providing a theological consideration for why God chose the evillest race in history to be his people in the Old Testament. I’ll begin by proffering covenant theology as the historic alternative to dispensationalism (and its Zionism), as the interpretive lens through which we should understand the biblical meta-narrative. I’ll conclude by examining how the incarnation of Christ and God’s pattern of salvific election can better help us understand the character of God and his choice of the Jewish people in the Old Testament.

Abrahamic Blessing and Covenant Theology

The Jews have wreaked havoc on Western civilization. This is one of the first realizations one has when she starts to dive into alt-right literature. Their mode of operation has sometimes been described as parasitic, as they attach themselves to a host nation and destroy that nation from the inside. Yet, many Christians in America believe that the Jews are God’s special and chosen people. Guided by a theology called dispensationalism, they eagerly defend the Jewish people in all internal and foreign affairs: they defend their presence in any nation, they defend the state of Israel and their cause in any conflict, they defend U.S. foreign aid (both financial and military) to Israel, and they support any political policy that lifts up the Jewish people, even to the detriment of another people. Writes one Christian Zionist, “With the world rightly united against the use of nuclear weapons, let us empower Israel—and stand ready ourselves—so that Iran’s regime grasps a simple truth: We will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our allies. True peace hinges on strength, and we must exhibit both in earnest, today and always. And just as strength is not a precursor to war, neither does bombing Iran start a never-ending conflict; in fact, it stops the war that started the day the Islamic Republic was born.”[2]

What could drive a Christian to speak so casually about bombing another nation? It all starts with the covenant promise that God made to Israel. In Genesis 12, God says to Israel’s patriarch, Abraham, “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (2–3). Evangelicals receive this verse as a mandate to support God’s Abrahamic people in the form of modern Israel to whatever violent end and at whatever financial or human cost. However, if the reader of Scripture progresses, he’ll find that the nature of this covenant is framed in conditional terms. Leviticus 26:3-4 uses the if/then grammatical structure of a subjunctive conditional: “If you walk in my statutes and keep my commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.”

But Israel did not keep their end of the covenant, and God, in his loving patience, decided to give them chance after chance, renewing their covenant at various points in Scripture. In the book of Joshua, He reaffirms His covenant with Israel and reiterates His warning against disobedience. Joshua says on behalf of Yahweh, “If you abandon the Lord and worship foreign gods, He will turn against you, harm you, and completely destroy you, after He has been good to you” (24:20).

Within the Abrahamic covenant then, there is a two-fold promise: The unconditional promise that through Abraham all nations will be blessed. This is an allusion to the coming of the Messiah whose line will persist through the Jewish people no matter what. Yet there is the conditional promise of general blessings; the material blessings of rain for the harvest, protection from enemies, and God’s provision of Holy Spirit-led guidance and sense of fatherhood over the nation of Israel as his children.[3] In other words, God promised to keep his Messianic promise of blessing to the Jews and that promise was kept through Christ. When Christ the Messiah did finally come, he came through the Jewish people. The gospels of Matthew and Luke even provide a genealogy of Jesus with Matthew going back to Abraham and Luke going all the way back to Adam.

But the Jews have rejected the Messiah. Acts 4:11 says, “Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’” So, God sent his gospel to the Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and engrafted them into the salvific tree of Israel. The promises that were meant for Israel have now been transferred to the Church. Whoever trusts in Christ for salvation becomes a citizen in God’s chosen spiritual nation — the Church. Circumcision, which in the OT was the sign and seal of the covenant that God made with his people to make them his own has been replaced by baptism. It serves the same purpose as circumcision as it is understood as setting someone apart from the world and bringing them into the covenant family of God’s people which is now the Church, not Israel.

Theologians have long called this observation supersessionism, which is directly informed by covenant theology. Covenant theology is a helpful interpretive guide to the meta narrative of the Bible. The Bible’s story unfolds in “chapters” of covenants. God made a covenant with Noah not to destroy the natural world even though he knew sin would continue to spread among it. He gave Noah the sign of the covenant in the form of a rainbow. He made a covenant with Abraham to bless his offspring materially and spiritually if his people would not follow other gods. The sign and seal of this Abrahamic covenant is circumcision, which is seen as a ceremonial act of cleansing and purification; a way to set the Israelites apart from her neighboring nations. He made a covenant with David that his kingship would be eternal. The sign and seal of this covenant was the throne, on which Christ now sits at the right hand of God the Father. In the New Testament, God made a covenant to anyone through Jesus Christ to be their God, if they abandon their false gods and idols and trust in Him through Christ alone.

The sign and seal of this new covenant is baptism. This is why Christians baptize their babies — It replaces circumcision as the ceremonial rite of induction into God’s covenant community. In this way, covenant theology makes a common-sense observation of the chronology of biblical salvific history. Zionist disagree with this way of viewing the whole Bible, and instead insist the Bible’s narrative unfolds in ages called dispensations. They believe that there are several ages in the salvific story and that we are currently in the “church age.” According to dispensationalists, there is a final coming age of Zion, where Christ will rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years. This theology gives Israel a sort of sacred status as the future center of God’s kingdom. Zionists angrily denounce covenant theology and its subsequent supersessionsim as “replacement theology”[4], because it replaces the idea of the chosenness of Israel with the chosenness of the Church.

It is confusing that Christian Zionists, while believing along with covenant minded Christians that salvation is found only in Christ, could simultaneously believe that the people who have whole heartedly rejected Christ are his chosen people. If they believe on the one hand that people who reject Christ, including Jews, spend eternity in hell, how could they on the other hand believe that an entire race of people who have rejected the only means of salvific blessings could be God’s chosen? If anything, the very opposite is true. St Paul likens Israel to Pharaoh whose heart was hardened by God before the Exodus from Egypt. It’s quite possible that Israel is under a special spiritual curse, as they continue to reject their Messiah who came through their own faith.

A more comprehensive explication of covenant theology than provided here is needed to fully understand its interpretive implication. However, it should suffice to say for now that dispensationalism is rather new in the history of biblical interpretation. The historic tradition of the church is also an important epistemological factor in discerning the Word of God in Sacred Scripture. The doctrine of the Church is passed on from one generation to the next, preserving the sacra doctrina of the apostles. This is what the Church means in the Apostles Creed when we say, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” As St Vincent of Lerins said, “All possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has always been believed, everywhere, always, by all.”[5] Dispensationalism is as new as the nineteenth century. It does not mean that we don’t see doctrinal developments based on already-evolving truths come in more recent times. But it does mean that the church cannot accept an entire paradigm shift in interpretation. Covenant theology is the historic (traditionally) and commonsense (biblically and logically) method for understanding the whole of God’s Word. So, who are God’s people? The Church. Those who commits themselves to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, belong to God and are a part of his chosen covenant family called the church. There is no room in the biblical meta-narrative for viewing the modern state of Israel or any ethnic group of people for that matter as God’s chosen people. God made a new covenant in Christ. The old covenant has been fulfilled in him and comes with new terms and conditions. Simply being Jewish does not suffice. As St. Paul writes in Romans 9:8, “In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” That promise is fulfilled in Christ.

Why the Jews?

However, this still does not answer why God chose Israel from the many peoples of the world to covenant with in the Old Testament. Here is the answer: God’s loving character and desire to save all people, from the worst of all nations and peoples to the best. Would God be God if He only chose the best of humanity? If He chose for Himself a people whom He, in his divine foreknowledge, knew would be the most obedient of all peoples, what kind of hope would that give to the imprisoned, the poor, and all of us who have sinned egregiously against the Lord (and that’s everyone)? What hope would lesser races have, that they too may be forgiven and saved? God chose the Jews, the very worst of humanity, and became one of them through Jesus Christ, that all of humanity, from the worst of us to the best of us might be saved. By taking on Jewish flesh in the incarnation of Christ, he made possible the redemption of those races and peoples even in the very pits of humanity, reconciling anyone who trusts in him to the Father. Referring to the Jews, God tells Moses in Exodus 32:9, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.” But in Christ, God became the lowest form of human, a Jew, so that any one of us may attain salvation in Him and through Him alone. God has made a habit of choosing the worst of us. It is why he chose Paul, a persecutor of Christians to carry the gospel to the gentiles. It is why God chose Peter who denied Christ when asked if he knew him. It is why God chose James though he doubted Christ even while seeing him arisen. God would not be God if only the best had a chance at salvation. He loves the worst of us. But he requires that we repent of our sins and trust in Christ alone.

Conclusion

            Covenant theology is, therefore, the appropriate hermeneutic with which we should approach the biblical narrative. Its merits are easily observed in Scripture. It is believed and practiced in Roman Catholicism, Classical Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been the prevailing method of biblical interpretation for the history of the church. The American public peers into Christianity and observes the rather loud dispensational voices commenting on current events and therefore believes that the church catholic (the whole church) thinks this way. Christianity, therefore, to the alt-right might seem off putting, given its claims concerning Israel. But it’s important to know that most of the church affirms a more reasonable interpretive method, one that severs the destiny of Israel from the church. It is my hope that if the alt-right understands that dispensationalism/Zionism is actually a minority view in the grand scheme of church history, and isn’t a view taken seriously by most theologians, perhaps they’ll give Christianity another look.

Nick Craig has a B.Sc. Religion, Liberty University and an M.A. Theological Studies, Houston Christian University

Bibliography

Elwell, Walter A, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.

Hedrick, Gary. “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors .” Shema, October 5, 2012. https://shema.com/replacement-theology-its-origins-147/.

Parker, Sandra Hagee. “Peace Through Strength When It Comes To Supporting Israel and Confronting Iran.” Jewish News Syndicate, February 5, 2025. https://www.jns.org/peace-through-strength-when-it-comes-to-supporting-israel-and-confronting-iran/.

Rea, Robert F. Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Live and Learn From the Past. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

Svarte, Askr. Polemos: The Dawn of Pagan Traditionalism. Moscow, Russian Federation: Prav, 2020.

[1] Askr Svarte, Polemos: The Dawn of Pagan Traditionalism (Moscow, Russian Federation: Prav, 2020), Kindle location 221.

[2] Sandra Hagee Parker, “Peace Through Strength When It Comes To Supporting Israel and Confronting Iran,” Jewish News Syndicate, February 5, 2025, https://www.jns.org/peace-through-strength-when-it-comes-to-supporting-israel-and-confronting-iran/.

[3] Walter A Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 277.

[4] Gary Hedrick, “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors ,” Shema, October 5, 2012, https://shema.com/replacement-theology-its-origins-147/.

[5] Robert F Rea, Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Live and Learn From the Past (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 36.

Strength in numbers, power or truth?

/15 Comments/in , , /by

In his Christmas speech, recorded in the secular space of the former chapel of the Middlesex Hospital, King Charles lauded the ‘great religions’. Although he quoted Gospel, the monarch is not the ‘defender of the faith’ as claimed in the past, but ‘defender of faith’.

Charles III is a leading proponent of a one-world religion, although he is careful not to use such terminology. More work must be done in schools to prepare upcoming generations for such incongruence. And of course the status of the ‘chosen people’ will not be undermined.

The abominations following the alleged Hamas terrorist act of 7th October 2023, with the massacre of civilians in Gaza by Israeli forces, supported by the UK, USA and other Western governments, have stirred another awakening. Writers like me, previously immersed in the Left versus Right paradigm, had seen through the establishment defiance of the Brexit vote, the climate scam, and the contrived pandemic, to realise that all politicians (whatever their colours)  are following the same agenda. But whose agenda?

In my book Moralitis: a Cultural Virus (with Robert Oulds, 2020) I described how the psychosocial affliction known as Woke’ spreads like a contagious disease. I traced this back to the subversive ideology of the Frankfurt School. For using the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ the book was vilified by online news media such as Vice for peddling anti-Semitic tropes.

Of course I was aware that the Marxist professors were Jewish – that’s why they fled Germany in the 1930s. But I regarded this as coincidental; I was naïve to the International Jews’ role in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and to the targeting of Germany by an element that obsessed Adolf Hitler. Until a few years ago, I would not have doubted official history of the Second World War.

I have no animosity to individual people who are Jewish, any more than to people who are Muslim. But as a Christian I have found the last fifteen months revelatory about the relations between the Abrahamic religions. First, it became undeniable to me that Zionists are bent on destroying Christianity.

The 35% Christian population of Gaza has been ignored by Western media.  It is abhorrent for any nation or community to be subjected to genocide, but would you not expect the likes of the Daily Telegraph or the Church of England to be more concerned with the blitzing of Christians and their places of worship? An uninformed Westerner could be forgiven for thinking that Palestine is a ghetto of extreme Islamists. Israeli government ministers have overtly described the people of Gaza as subhuman and exhorted their annihilation.

It is objectively true that Jews run the world. They control the banking system, academe, the media and Hollywood. They have incredible power over US politics. The UK is no different: both major political parties have close links to Israel, and soon a Holocaust museum and memorial will be built next to the Houses of Parliament. Schoolchildren are taught that the Second World War was all about saving Jews from the Nazis (when I was at school, the Holocaust was hardly mentioned; I heard that one-and-a-half million Jews perished; this was later increased to four million, and now six million).

If Jews are so powerful, what is their goal? Is it just greed? Most Jewish citizens are not unfathomably rich. But undeniably the upper rungs of institutions and corporations are disproportionately occupied by members of a religion that comprises merely 0.2% of the global populace. Or is it a strategy of world domination? Ordinary Jews have no designs on a New World Order with them as masters and all gentiles as servants. But an emerging technocracy, as propounded by the World Economic Forum, will surely be led by people who are already rich and powerful — many of whom are nominally Jewish.

More sinister is the perceived onslaught on Christianity. Again, I doubt whether ordinary Jews harbour murderous hostility to their Christian neighbours.  But powerful Jewish interests are behind the various means of the fall of Western civilisation: mass immigration using Muslims as storm-troopers, imposition of transgender ideology, the audacious Black Lives Matter campaign and ‘decolonisation’ agenda, the contrived climate crisis and Net Zero puritanism, and exploitation of health and safety fears to build a surveillance society.

My understanding, until recently, was that the Jews are distinct from Zionists and the nasty government of Israel. And for most people who actually practise Jewish relgion, that certainly holds. But the Jewish faith, with its identity as God’s special people, has been manipulated by malign agents into something more akin to the Synagogue of Satan.

Last year I came across a highly controversial speculation on Islam. The Koran is known for its many verses hostile to the Jews. Yet globalist NGOs and oligarchs such as George Soros keenly promote migration of Muslims to the West, and seem as concerned by Islamophobia as anti-Semitism.  The state of Israel draws widespread support from right-wing Christians, because it is apparently surrounded by nations of Islamic hotheads who would like to wipe it off the map. Shouldn’t Jews be less supportive of sworn enemies?

The aforementioned conjecture is this: Islam was a Jewish invention. That would understandably be deeply offensive to Muslims, and it would also be too far-fetched to be taken seriously by any mainstream commentator (or indeed most of the independent media). I shall leave readers to look into this more (don’t rely on Google), with the historical indicators. However, while I cannot say that I believe it, it makes some sense to me. In my journey from having no interest in the Jews, to viewing this group as architects of multiculturalism, I can see that Christians are foolish to think of Israel or Zionists as their friends.

Having crucified Jesus Christ, Jewish leaders were troubled by the propagation of Christianity in the following centuries. In the seventh century the Arabian merchant Mohammed was divine conduit for a new religion that would be spread by the sword. Its blatant hostility to Judaism is perhaps a cover for the real source and purpose of Islam.

The three Abrahamic faiths co-exist, mostly in mundane harmony, but sometimes in conflict. While Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet, to the Jews he was nothing but a criminal and impostor.  Christians, who are taught tolerance to the nonsensical extent that they are not allowed to fight for their survival, are the butt of Talmudic disgust. Is it too much to believe that the Jews would create a massive army of outsiders to destroy the faith that they thought was extinguished on Calvary?

No religion is more dangerous than Christianity for its followers. That has always been the plight, but in the secularised world of today, the defences are so weakened  that the Jews may finally claim victory. But while the Jewish religion has the privilege of power, and Islam strength in number and zeal, Christianity has the trump card of truth.

The Reason for the Season: Following the Followers But Failing the Faith

/19 Comments/in , /by

Secretary to an anti-Pope. I’m not among the very few people on earth who can claim to be one. But I am among the few who can claim to have corresponded with one. It was by email around the turn of the century, after I came across the website for a tiny schismatic Catholic sect in Montana. As I’ve said before at the Occidental Observer, I’m fascinated by islands, both real ones and metaphorical ones. An anti-Pope, or rival to the generally accepted Pope, is like an island of self-assertion in a sea of hostility, ridicule and indifference.

Core to Christianity

The anti-Pope for the sect in question was Lucian Pulvermacher (1918–2009), who was elected as Pope Pius XIII by the True Catholic Church in 1998. I can’t remember the name of his secretary, but I can remember that I was impressed by that secretary. He genuinely seemed to possess something that is supposedly central to Christianity but seems rarely practised by Christians. What is it? Humility. Christ urged it on His followers, but my experience is that they often turn a deaf ear to that and much else urged upon them by their Lord. The anti-Pope’s humble secretary gave me a good example of Christians ignoring Christ when he told me that he used to get mocking emails from staff at the Vatican. They found him and his master supremely ridiculous. After all, they were working for a continent-spanning colossus at Rome, where all roads lead, and he was working for a tiny schismatic sect in Kalispell, Mt. And yet he had the spirit of the Christ-child and they didn’t.

The Virgin of the Lilies (1899) by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (image from Wikipedia)

The Christ-child is, of course, the reason for the season of Christmas. He was born of a virgin after a miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost. According to true Christians, that is, but I’m not one of them. Like Hell, the Resurrection and Transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth of Christ is one of the scandals that prevent me from becoming a Christian. Skandalon, σκάνδαλον, is a New Testament word and literally means “stumbling-block.” I stumble and fall when I try to believe that Christ was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. And yet I once believed in something far more supernaturally extravagant than those two doctrines in Christianity. That is, I once believed in the Psychic Unity of Mankind, namely, that all races, from Swedes to Somalis, from Tibetans to Tongans, have the same fundamental psychology and cognitive potential. According to leftists, it’s nurture, not nature, that explains why, for centuries, tiny numbers of Jews have effortlessly outperformed vast numbers of Blacks in cognitively demanding fields like science, mathematics and chess.

A risible superstition

The same leftists will usually reject the Virgin Birth of Christ with scorn. And yet accepting the Virgin Birth of Christ demands belief only in the miraculous conception of a single child in Palestine two thousand years ago. Accepting the Psychic Unity of Mankind demands belief in the miraculous conception of billions of children for thousands of years in places as wildly different in climate and geography as the icy, oxygen-starved plateau of Tibet and the sea-clasped, sun-kissed island of Tonga. In other words, those who believe that all races are cognitively equal must believe that the human brain was miraculously exempt from the evolutionary forces that have shaped all other aspects of human physiology, from skin-color to blood-chemistry to lung-function to bone-structure.

The brain isn’t exempt from evolution, of course, and the Psychic Unity of Mankind is a risible superstition. But my brain was once one of the millions that housed that risible superstition, while rejecting the Virgin Birth of Christ and being thoroughly hostile to Christianity. Fortunately, my brain was also capable in time of recognizing the contradictions and absurdities of leftism. And of becoming much less hostile to true Christianity. I sometimes feel as though my small feet are treading in the giant prints of C.S. Lewis, who wrote this in his spiritual autobiography Surprised by Joy (1955):

Then I read Chesterton’s Everlasting Man and for the first time saw the whole Christian outline of history set out in a form that seemed to me to make sense. Somehow I contrived not to be too badly shaken. You will remember that I already thought Chesterton the most sensible man alive “apart from his Christianity”. Now, I veritably believe, I thought — I didn’t of course say; words would have revealed the nonsense — that Christianity itself was very sensible “apart from its Christianity”. (Surprised by Joy, chapter XIV)

I feel about Lewis what Lewis felt about Chesterton: that he is a very wise and insightful writer “apart from his Christianity.” But what if his wisdom and insight had brought him to Christianity and been nourished and strengthened by his Christianity? I ask the same question about the more forbidding figure of Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953), the great Catholic writer who published these powerful words in 1938:

[T]here is (as the greatest of the ancient Greeks discovered) a certain indissoluble Trinity of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. You cannot deny or attack one of these three without at the same time denying or attacking both the others. Therefore with the advance of this new and terrible enemy against the Faith and all that civilization which the Faith produces, there is coming not only a contempt for beauty but a hatred of it; and immediately upon the heels of this there appears a contempt and hatred for virtue. (The Great Heresies, chapter 6, “The Modern Phase”)

Belloc was right. Christianity in the true sense welcomes, nurtures and creates Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Leftism — and Christianity when corrupted by leftism — hates all of those things. Among the beauties nurtured by Christianity is the poetry of John Betjeman (1906–84). He didn’t create anything to rival the music of Bach or the architecture of the Gothic masters, but he did — and does — move the heart with verses like these:

And is it true? And is it true,
This most tremendous tale of all,
Seen in a stained-glass window’s hue,
A Baby in an ox’s stall?
The Maker of the stars and sea
Become a Child on earth for me?
And is it true? For if it is,
No loving fingers tying strings
Around those tissued fripperies,
The sweet and silly Christmas things,
Bath salts and inexpensive scent
And hideous tie so kindly meant,
No love that in a family dwells,
No carolling in frosty air,
Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
Can with this single Truth compare —
That God was man in Palestine
And lives today in Bread and Wine. (“Christmas,” 1954)

Betjeman believed but had doubts. I have doubts and can’t believe. The doctrines are too much for me. I can’t believe in the Virgin Birth and I can’t believe that the flesh and blood of Christ are literally, but undetectably, the bread and wine taken by Christians at Eucharist. But again I can see that the Christian belief in transubstantiation is much less irrational and superstitious than the leftist belief in transgenderism. Christians believe that Christ becomes bread and wine because God so wills it. Leftists believe that men become women because the men in question so will it. The men might have beards and balls and ten-inch todgers, but they’re fully female all the same. Only heretical haters deny this great and glorious truth.

“A slender elf-woman”

Okay, leftists don’t call the deniers “heretics” or “witches” or “blasphemers.” But it’s clear that religious psychology is at work in leftism, which is an ugly parody of Christianity rather as transgenderism is an ugly parody of transubstantiation. Tolkien put it like this: “The Shadow … can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own.” Tolkien is another great Christian writer whom I revere but can’t follow into Christianity. The Virgin Mary appears in Tolkien’s masterpiece, The Lord of the Rings (1954–5), but under another name: Galadriel. She’s the awe-inspiring Elven lady who nevertheless has the humility to resist the golden temptation of supreme power:

She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.

“I pass the test,” she said. “I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel.” (The Fellowship of the Ring, 1954, Book II, chapter 7)

That is Tolkien’s portrayal of the Virgin Mary, who bore God but did not aspire to godhead herself. The Star of Bethlehem appears in Lord of the Rings too. I think so anyway. I think it’s the hope-lifter and heart-raiser seen by the humble hobbit Sam from the ash-choked death-land of the Dark Lord Sauron:

Far above the Ephel Dúath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach. (The Return of the King, 1955, Book VI, chapter 3)

But where is the Christ-child in Tolkien’s masterpiece? Nowhere and everywhere, I would say. Tolkien could not have created the Truth, Beauty and Goodness of his trilogy without believing in the Christ-child and the Virgin Birth. But beliefs can do good, can inspire great art and literature, without being true. And I think one thing is more certain about Christianity than the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. In its highest, best, and most inspiring forms, Christianity is a White religion, indissolubly bound to the pale-skinned folk of Europe and her diaspora. Whites created Christianity and Christianity created Whites by influencing their evolution. Belloc put it like this, perhaps with deeper meaning than he intended: “Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe.” That’s why the enemies of Whites, like Jews and leftists, are also the enemies of Christ. And why there’s a war on Christmas. In this war, we should side with Belloc, Tolkien, Lewis and Betjeman. And they all followed the Christ-child, Maker of the stars and sea.

True Christianity is beautifully White: Madonna of the Magnificat (c. 1483) by Sandro Botticelli (image from Wikipedia)

In response to: “The Way Forward: A New Christianity, Partition, and a General Operational Plan”

/22 Comments/in , /by

Amalric de Droevig’s “The Way Forward: A New Christianity, Partition, and a General Operational Plan” is not the first time that advocates of white interests launch attacks on Christianity. The writers for The Counter Currents and The National Vanguard — to name just two of them — are doing the same. Detractors of Christianity among the ranks of white activists seem not to notice that they are playing into the hands of those — yes, Marxist, leftist, and liberal circles — which hold Christianity in low regard and would like to see it gone or transformed into something Christian in all but name.

When Christianity was at its best and its strongest in Europe, it kept the Jews down, the Muslims out, and the Whites in, to paraphrase the familiar phrase about NATO. It is only when Christianity became weaker and weaker that it stopped performing its role. Until that time Christians — Christian knights and monarchs along with Christian priests and theologians — were never squeamish about waging wars and forcefully converting others or driving other faiths out. They did all those things with their motives rooted in the Scripture! Think of Charlemagne (mentioned in Amalric de Droevig’s text), think of the Crusaders, think of the Teutonic Knights, think of Jeanne d’Arc, think of the Gott mit uns legend on the belt buckles of the German soldiers during the two world wars, think of… — you name it.

Jeanne d’Arc incited the French Christians to fight the English Christians; the (German) Teutonic Knights waged wars against the Christian Polish state, and while the former resorted for spiritual help to Jesus Christ, the latter did the same invoking the Mother of God; the Czech Hussites reciprocated cruelty upon cruelty in their fight against the German Catholics; German Protestant Christians of the 16th and 17th century relished in butchering German Catholic Christians and vice versa; the list is long, and I am only recalling these facts to show that in none of the historical events did it ever occur to Christians to turn the other cheek and to show meekness. Rather, they readily burnt opponents at the stake or dispatched them in thousands with little or no remorse.

This turn-the-other-cheek attitude has been cleverly induced into the minds of theologically and psychologically feeble Christians by the Saul-Alinsky type of Christianity’s opponents. Remember one of his precepts from The Rules for Radicals? If an organization that is opposed to us states that it will answer each and every letter, heap it with thousands of letters! They will neither be capable of processing them, nor — if they try to do so — will they be able to continue their activity. The same has been done with Christianity, and theologically and psychologically feeble Christians. Christians constantly heard this, “Turn the other cheek! Turn the other cheek! Turn the other cheek!,” and you know what? Christians have swallowed it lock, stock, and barrel! The Saul-Alinsky type of opponent of Christianity acted just like the devil tempting Christ, and quoting Scripture. But wait! What did the Saviour do? He paid the devil back in the same coin: quotation against quotation. So easy, and yet … so hard for present-day Christians.

In a thousand-or-so-pages-thick Scripture you can find quotes for anything you please. The Teutonic Knights, mentioned above, would reference all their military actions to the Bible, justifying conquests and the use of specific kinds of weaponry. Try reading Peter von Dusburg’s Chronicon Terrae Prussiae: page after page after page there are long passages justifying war and the use of swords, spears, shields, bows etc., all rooted meticulously in the Bible. Again, did Jeanne d’Arc talk about turning the other cheek? By no means. Instead, she insisted she had been commanded by God — the Christian God! — to militarily drive out the English from France. Somehow — as far as I know — even though she was later tried, no one advanced the argument that she had violated the precepts of Christianity while advocating war, and — mind you! — there were theologians and priests among her accusers. Why didn’t even they roll out such a crushing argument? It somehow did not occur to them.

So once again, alluding to the paraphrase of the strong Christian creed keeping the Jews down, the Muslims out, and the Whites in: why did Muslims not relocate to Europe at the time when Christianity was Christian apart from the military invasion of Spain? Well, they would not have been accepted and certainly they would not have been able to mingle in Christian societies. They would not have been allowed to build mosques, and so on. Were marriages between Christians and Muslims thinkable at that time? God forbid! Not merely because they were formally forbidden, but because it would not have occurred to a deeply believing Christian to commit such a sacrilege. It gets even more interesting at this point. Christians who cared about their faith at that time could hardly imagine marriages across Christian sects. The readers will be familiar with the strongly anti-Catholic sentiment in the United Kingdom; they may not know, though, that Russian tsars and grand dukes of the 18th and 19th century very frequently married German princesses. The point is that none of these princesses was Catholic — though Germany and its the ruling houses were split in this respect among Catholics and Protestants — and before those women became imperial or ducal spouses, they needed to convert to Orthodoxy. Catholics, you see, would have refused to convert (which by the way exposes what a debilitating effect Protestantism had on the White man’s world). One of the Polish kings would have been accepted as the Russian tsar (at the beginning of the 17th century) if only he had converted to Orthodox Christianity. He didn’t. Zero tolerance. Zero understanding or acceptance of the other, even the other Christian. Creed can be a strong vaccine against aliens, a strong immunological system. A non-Christian Rishi Sunak as a head of a Christian state was unthinkable at that time!

Speaking of Russia, the readers will have known about the Pale of Settlement for Jews; perhaps they do not know that there were certain military decorations that could not be granted to Russian Muslim subjects of Russia’s central Asian provinces. Why am I mentioning all this? To show that the problem lies not in the Christian faith, but in the feebleness of the mind and general effeminacy on the part of Christians, and also in the clever doings of its enemies who exploit selected biblical passages and foist their interpretation on the churches that are foolish enough to accommodate them.

Turn the other cheek… Why not, Crescite et multiplicamini (Be fruitful and multiply)? Why not, “I have not brought peace but war?” Why not go and convert all the peoples? Why not, “Who has not believed is already condemned?” Why not the Old Testament’s (the part of Scripture that Protestants are so enamored of), “Stone him to death! Stone him to death!” for almost everything?

I hope you see the point. Feeble-minded, effeminate Christians have been presented with an anti-Christian interpretation of their own belief by anti-Christians and you know what? Christians swallowed it whole with gratitude!

Amalric de Droevig points to ancient Romans and Greeks having prosperous and flourishing societies that operated without Christianity, but they have disappeared. Where’s the advantage? They grew weak without Christianity (though some put the blame on Christians, which is by no means convincing). Why? Because they stopped believing in what they had believed earlier. Take another example: communism. It crashed in the USSR, but has not in China. Yes, I know, China is sort of capitalist, but still the communist party holds the reigns of power and Marxism-cum-Maosim is the national “creed.” The Soviets gradually stopped believing — BELIEVING — in their “religion,” so they ended up enslaved by their enemies who had been programming the Russian minds for decades that McDonald’s and blue jeans — to put it symbolically — are worth giving up Yuri Gagarin or the Motherland Calls (Родина-мать зовёт).

Consider that also the Soviet Union tried hard to eradicate Christianity in the hope of creating a powerful society and it all came to nothing. Rather, Christian revival is being promoted nowadays in Russia, with President Vladimir Putin calling on Russians to crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram (Russicam) or, to quote the original: “Large families must become the norm, a way of life for all Russia’s peoples,” and “Yes, the Church is separate from the state [but] I would like to note in this context that the Church cannot be separated from society or from people.”

Indeed, it cannot. The West is dying because it has given up on its faith. In an effort to do away with Christianity, which is allegedly guilty of the West’s decline, some try to replace it with Christianity under a new guise. I’m thinking for instance of the National Vanguard and its symbol, which is one of the runes that is just a warped Christian cross. I wonder why of all the runes they selected this one. Their website too is full of anti-Christian sentiment, as if Christianity were to blame for the collapse of the Western world. What they level their guns at are Christians in name only, readers of the Bible and followers of Christian gurus. To a cradle Catholic like myself, such Christianity is weird, to say the least. True, today the Roman Catholic Church increasingly resembles Protestant denominations, but that’s precisely what I am trying to draw the reader’s attention to: the Church has been infiltrated and taken over. The latest papal encyclicals are about ecology and immigration rather than morality and salvation. Is it still Christianity?

In Poland, generally thought of as a Catholic country (along with Italy, Spain, Austria and Ireland, maybe less so France) young people — also among intellectuals — have begun to follow the example of their Western counterparts to ceremoniously make an act of apostasy, and to brag about it on social media. Do you think these are the people who would like to preserve the White race? They had parted with Christianity long before they made the act of apostasy and they are all progressivist, leftist, and globalist. They want us to abandon our faith.

My diagnosis of the problem? It is not the religion of the White man that is to be blame, but the religion’s perception and re-interpretation that have been foisted on Christians incapable of true theological reflection. The churches (and all other White institutions, such as universities) have been taken over and turned into their opposites by clever mindsuckers. Rather than going along the wishes of the mindsuckers, i.e., destroying the remnants of what we, as Whites, still possess, we would do better to reclaim those institutions, and become (again) proud and defiant, and stand our ground. It is easy to roll out counterarguments. Turn the other cheek? Look, Christ did not turn the other cheek when he was slapped in the face during the trial. All people are good and deserving blessing? Quite the contrary is true: there are sons of perdition, individuals for whom it would be better not to have been born because — genetically? — they are incapable of doing good, and so on. You get the point. Do not let the Rules for Radicals operate against you.

Christianity has not become one hundred percent Christ and zero percent Charlemagne; rather, Charlemagne was one hundred percent Christian (“I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”), while the White Man’s World is on its last legs because it is becoming zero percent Christian. That’s what the historical record says, does it not?

Jacek Szela
/yah-tsek shel-lah/

Religion, Race, and Ethnicity in Greco-Roman Antiquity New Perspectives on The Lordship of Jesus, Judaism, and the “Truthiness” of Christianity, Part 4

/2 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2
Go to Part 3

Conclusion: Relevance to Anglos

What lessons should crypto-Anglo White or Christian nationalists take away from the first-century Jesus movement?  First, notice that this movement emerged among a people in which the diaspora population outnumbered their co-ethnics in Judea.  In addition, both at home and in the dispersion, Jews were experiencing a spiritual identity crisis.  Perhaps Paul’s mission to resurrect the lost sheep of Israel has unexpected relevance to those of us who long for the restoration of the lost tribes of Greater Britain.[i]

Paul’s push for the resurrection of Israel presupposed a deep-seated, ancestral inseparability of ethnicity and religion.  That is to say that the family, the tribe, the nation can, jointly and severally, serve as the syngeneic medium through which the divine, God or the gods, expresses itself in the collective life of a people.  For his followers, the messianic myth of Jesus Christ incarnated the perfected telos of national Israel.  Today, it is impossible to imagine the renaissance of British race patriotism apart from the reunion of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity with an ancestral religion.  Such an ethnoreligious revival must develop both within the Anglo-Saxon diaspora and its ancestral homeland (where the native English and Celtic peoples are undergoing demographic replacement at the hands of a hostile plutocratic elite).

The sacred mythology of Jesus the Christ inspired Paul’s ethnoreligious movement.  The resurrection of British race patriotism, too, must draw on ancestral traditions of sacral kingship rooted in both history and Arthurian legend.  A counter-cultural ethnoreligious movement across the Anglosphere could summon into being our own long-awaited messiah, the Patriot King prophesied by Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke during the Financial Revolution of the eighteenth century.[ii]

British race patriotism could find legitimate expression once again, not in the godless transnational corporate welfare states now mismanaging the Anglosphere, but through a patriot prince devoted to the spiritual welfare of the British peoples.  The modern counterpart of the first-century Jesus movement could emerge in the form of an Angelcynn Network of ekklesia.  Its members would work to secure the independence of the British monarchy in its constitutional role as defender of the faith.  The chief aim of the Angelcynn movement would be to re-consecrate the Crown as head of reformed Anglican churches throughout the Anglosphere, including the USA.  Clearly, King Charles III is unlikely to seek or accept such a role.  The goal must therefore be to shame some honourable man among his heirs and successors into defending the ethnoreligious identity and biocultural interests of the Anglo-Saxon peoples outside and apart from the governments of the historic White Commonwealth.

Such a movement would revise and reform, not reject, the Christian heritage of the Anglican church.  Rather, Jesus and Paul would recover their rightful place in the Angelcynn tradition.  As historical figures, Jesus and Paul would be honoured as Israelite ethnoreligious patriots.  They must also continue to be exalted for their divine agency in consummating the covenantal history of Israel.  Drawing inspiration from both, Anglo-Saxons world-wide could begin the process of exalting gods of our own.  It is long past time, for example, to “translate” Alfred the Great, recognizing him, at long last, as an English David, a Son of God in his own right, who modelled his English kingdom on Old Covenant Israel.

As a practical matter, such an ethnoreligious strategy means that “nationalists” such as Joel Davis and Stephen Wolfe (to name but two) must come out of the WASP closet.  In Australia, Joel Davis would no longer conceal his Anglo-Saxon identity under a White skin suit worn within a supposedly secular political space.  One might also hope that he would cease to profess a universalist Catholic faith altogether detached from his ethnic identity.  Stephen Wolfe, on the other hand, foreswears his ancestral WASP identity in favour of a civic-minded Americanism.  His inner faith, however, exalts the supernatural truths of a worn-out Augustinian metanarrative; his Lord Jesus is a cosmic Christ, sitting at the right hand of the Father in the heavenly City of God.  Like other members of the invisible race, Wolfe eschews both Whiteness and Anglo-Saxondom.  Here in the City of Man, he retains “Anglo-Protestantism” only because it is the “true religion” of creedal Christianity.  Every other earthly source of ethnoreligious identity is adiaphorous, a matter of indifference in the eyes of God.

As a spiritual diet, this is thin gruel indeed.  Looking instead to the original Jesus movement for inspiration, WASPs can and must rise from the dead.  We desperately need a messianic new covenant Angelcynnism.  Come, Patriot King.  Come!

[i] The idea of Greater Britain dates from the mid- to late nineteenth century at the peak of British imperialism.  Historians now look back upon the Greater Britain project as a failed utopian vision.  Could a Greater Britain really rise from the dead, like the first-century idea of Israel, within an Anglo-Saxon diaspora under the thumb of the transnational corporate welfare state?  As one might expect, recent scholarship provides ample grounds for pessimism.  See, Sir John Robert Seeley, The Expansion of England: Two Courses of Lectures (New York: Cosimo Classics, 2005) [Original Edition, 1891]; John Wolffe, God and Greater Britain: Religion and National Life in Britain and Ireland, 1843-1945 (London: Routledge, 1994); and two books by Duncan Bell, The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future of World Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007); and idem., Dreamworlds of Race: Empire and the Utopian Destiny of Anglo-America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020).

[ii] See, “The Idea of a Patriot King,” in David Armitage, (ed.) Bolingbroke: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 217-294.