The Colonial Origins of White Guilt

Lifeline Expedition

Lifeline ExpeditionMy people have a right to exist. My people have a right to celebrate our heritage and identity. My people have a right to ensure our future existence. For positively any other identity aside from those of White Americans, our colonial sister nations, and our cousins in Western Europe, this assertion would be uncontroversial. And yet, for our people, it’s intuitively scandalous. Some even contend that the assertion is so vile, so immoral, that it’s intolerable “hate speech” of questionable legality. Others even claim that it’s so wicked that it amounts to outright heresy, and condemns one to eternal damnation.

Mass hysteria is a human universal, though the object of that hysteria varies from one crowd to another. We White Americans in particular are especially known for our moral panics. Mere decades ago, marijuana was considered a dangerous and decadent gateway to criminality and mental illness and our law books have only recently began to soften from the hysterical position that possessing and consuming this mild hallucinogen warranted years, even decades, of hard time alongside racketeers, rapists, and murders.

Charles Mackay famously noted that “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” Slowly, and one by one, more and more of us are awakening from the anti-White madness which has gripped the West for well over a generation.

Nationalists like myself, men and women who are actually organizing in our collective interests and speaking publicly in defense of our heritage, are merely the spearhead of a much larger phenomenon. Wherever the institutional grip on controlled discourse is loosened, most pointedly on anonymous Internet comment threads and in private discussions both online and in real life, a rift is rapidly widening between what Serious People think and what people seriously think. For quite some time, even as we reach more and more people with our sensible and straightforward positions, we can expect barking and biting from the institutions and the men beholden to them.

But, why? On the face of it, it’s a transparent double-standard. Many identitarians who happen to be White, including myself in my earlier years of activism, presume that our task is as simple as raising awareness of that double-standard. It’s straightforward logic. It’s self-evident that Black, Asian, and Middle Eastern men and women ought to take pride in their identities and fight for their group interests, so it follows that White people have that same right. Right?

The proximate and obvious reason this argument tends to fall flat is that the majority of people are more status-oriented than fact-oriented. Most men are more concerned about whether their ideas are fashionable than whether their ideas are correct. The majority of objections to White Identity amount to some form of appeal to social status. From the drunk girl at the bar incredulously asking Scott Terry “What century are you from!?” to the pretentious claim that we’re “on the wrong side of history”, the implied premise is that ideas are like antiperspirants. If you’re repelling and offending the people around you, then it’s time to switch brands.

The belief that Whites are uniquely and categorically unworthy of organizing and acting in their own interests or even self-preservation is promoted by our society’s elites, the men who control our keystone institutions of government, academia, entertainment, and journalism. Prof. Kevin MacDonald asserts in his landmark essay, Culture of Critique, that the organized Jewish community, driven by deep-seated historical resentments of Christian Europe, are leveraging their access to and success within our keystone institutions to wage a broad campaign against Christianity and Europe alike.

I suspect they’re not only motivated by ressentiment, but by a defensive necessity to transfer blame for the excesses and abuses of global colonialism from themselves and their gentile corporate capitalist cohorts. Just as Southern Aristocrats rapidly shrugged off the guilt of supremacy and slavery onto the Southern White working class who collectively had little to do with the peculiar institution, the families and communities at the helm of the multinational corporations actually accountable for exploitation, domination, and oppression have successfully transferred that colonial guilt onto the entirety of “white people”.

In Understanding Power, Noam Chomsky notes,

“See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist — it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because its anti-human.”

This is precisely what we’ve seen, with the capitalists exploiting and inflaming racial supremacy when it was profitable to do so in the colonial era, and now staunchly opposing our racial (and religious) identities because they impede commerce in our neo-colonial era. While an atheist and anarchist, even Chomsky has acknowledged that our tribal identities and our religious affiliations are perhaps the last remaining obstacles to the absolute hegemony of the alienating and dehumanizing oligarchs.

We Radical Traditionalists share with Anarchists and Marxists the broad conclusion that the decline of the contemporary world is rooted in the usurpation of power by corrupt bourgeoisie elites. All three of our positions (anarchism, marxism, and traditionalism) remain outside the realm of mainstream discourse precisely because corporate (liberal) interests dictate the limits of popular discourse. While both anarchism and marxism address the problem in secular, material, and reactionary terms, we understand this battle in its full metaphysical and metapolitical context. We, and we alone, strike at the root of Modernity.

The final step in the decline of the colonial corporate world order which has prevailed since the Age of Discovery isn’t my identity group voluntarily extinguishing itself to atone for its alleged wickedness. The final anti-colonial step is for our Western identity groups to fully rebel against and overturn this Masonic cabal in our own homelands, root and branch. To go along with “White Privilege”, “White Guilt”, and all that other garbage is to fall for our elites’ effort to transfer blame for their historical crimes onto ourselves. We’re an “indigenous people” who’ve been colonized and oppressed, too, and we should join the Global South, Eurasia, and the Far East in asserting our identities and traditions in a united revolt against the modern world.



Matt, it is precisely articles like this that make you so valuable. I don’t even agree with every jot and tittle of it, but the concept of “blame transfer” is important. Good stuff, and very useful conceptually.

Glad you’re back.

Aaron Gross

Matt writes:

To go along with “White Privilege”, “White Guilt”, and all that other garbage is to fall for our elites’ effort to transfer blame for their historical crimes onto ourselves.

I disagree. An honest, mature white identity entails an acknowledgment and a coming to terms with historical “white guilt.” I mean what the Germans call “mastering” our history.

American slavery (to take one example) might have been driven by elite Southern planters and slave traders as you say, but the institution was justified on racial grounds and supported by whites, speaking and acting as whites. It was supported by lots of whites who didn’t own slaves, but who may have hoped that someday they’d be rich enough to own a slave or two. It wasn’t just created and perpetuated by a bunch of individuals who “happened to be” white.

Identity means, among other things, persistence over time. It means that white Americans today are the same entity as white Americans in 1861. You and I as persons have to avow the ways we’ve hurt other people in our lives, to tell the truth in the stories that we tell ourselves about ourselves. Whites as a self-conscious group – especially as the white nation that you’re trying to create – have to do the same.

The analogy between collectives and persons is useful. As persons, we have all kinds of self-serving excuses: “Yeah, well all the other kids do it too!”; “OK, but look at all the good things I’ve done in my life”; “I said I was sorry, why can’t you just get over it?”; “And I suppose you’ve never done anything bad in your life”; “Frankly, in the long run, what I did to you turned out to your benefit.” A person who talks like that is selfish and immature. And there’s no contradiction between truly avowing the harm one’s done to others, and having a healthy pride in one’s identity. I think the same is true for a collective entity.

Finally, while I think whites should “master” the bad things we’ve done because it’s the right thing to do, it would also help you in your current public relations difficulties. If you white nationalists were to talk seriously about the evils committed by whites, about the need for collective repentance, without any “yeah, but…” evasions, if that were right up there at the forefront of the message you present, without taking anything away from your message of white pride, then I think you might get a more sympathetic hearing from Christians.

Orthodox Mike

My ancestors never owned slaves in America, and were discriminated against by the same WASP oligarchic elites that did and sell out their own people to foreign interests. I guess I will share in the blame, however, for the barbarism of ancient Rome. Thank God that He worked that Empire towards his own good in His time.


Wait a second. “White Guilt” for slavery and NA genocide and the Holocaust has been the dominant theme of the “hegemonic discourse” in the Anglosphere since 1965. Maybe it’s time to strike some balance and discuss matters like indigenous African slavery, the long history of the Muslim slave trade in both blacks and white Christians and the heavy Jewish involvement in the Holodomor.

But I think we already know that people are often bad and do all kinds of bad things all the time.



I have gone on record as saying that both antebellum slavery and the genocide of the Amerindians were morally wrong and unfortunate. You have a point, in that consistency demands that pride for our collective accomplishments also entails guilt for our collective mistakes. While “my people” did invent airplanes, I don’t deserve any reward for that collective accomplishment. Likewise, I don’t deserve any punishment for slavery or colonialism.

If there is any meaningful (politically consequential) colonial guilt, it can and should rest on the specific institutions and primary stakeholders in those institutions who continue actively exploiting fresh victims.


fn: “Maybe it’s time to strike some balance and discuss matters like indigenous African slavery, the long history of the Muslim slave trade in both blacks and white Christians and the heavy Jewish involvement in the Holodomor.”

Absolutely correct, fn, and these constitute the mere tip of the iceberg when it comes to atrocities committed by non-whites, many of them against whites. But these historical events are glossed over or ignored entirely by the current system, while atrocities committed by whites are amplified a thousand times over.

This is no accident. It is done for a reason, and it is intentional.

Guys like Aaron suggest that we white nationalists be more genuine, and somehow we’ll get a fair hearing (though he offers no evidence of this, because there isn’t any).

Here’s the thing, Aaron. We are being genuine. Further, white nationalism is an updated form of nationalism, and it is meant to address and solve the historical problems associated with traditional nationalism, such as brutal and senseless wars amongst Europeans, the importation and exploitation of non-white workers, imperialism and colonialism. White nationalism addresses and solves all of these problems, and should be understood as such.

In any event, we are being genuine. The genuine truth is that history is being massively distorted in order to promote an anti-white agenda. The young are taught, in essence, that whites are uniquely evil. This is the opposite of the truth, as the unique thing about whites, as far as atrocities are concerned, is their work to limit and eradicate such things.

For example, all races practiced slavery (and some still do), but only whites worked to eradicate it, and pretty much succeeded. Yet in our bizarro anti-white world, where up is down and right is left, the truth is not merely distorted, but turned on its head: whites, the only race to ever eradicate slavery, end up being the only race blamed for slavery. Utterly insane.

As a general rule, it can be assumed that what an anti-white says is not merely somewhat wrong or inaccurate, but rather the polar opposite of the truth. I’m guessing nobody will ever go broke taking that bet.

And to reiterate, none of this is by accident. It is intentional, and needs to be understood for what it is: a racial attack upon whites, in a disgusting effort to justify their genocide. The problem is not our failure to be genuine, but rather a hostile anti-white system that has, for the time being, been successful in its lies and distortions. Our job is to change that by gaining our sovereignty and reclaiming our future as a people.

John Gruskos


You are an ethnic Jew, correct?

If so, please set a good example for ethnic Americans such as Matt Parrot and myself.

“Master” Jewish history, to show us how it is done. Acknowledge and come to terms with historical Jewish guilt.

If you do so, I will take your moral advice seriously. Otherwise, I will know that you are just trying to manipulate Matt during his time of spiritual trial.


Excellent post, John, and very deserving of an answer.

Fr. John+

Aaron Gross…. such a nice, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ name.

Why don’t you troll over at Jewish Daily Forward, where you belong?

“God hates the Jews.” – St. John Chrysostom

Aaron Gross

John, to answer your snotty accusation, I’ve said that kind of thing about Jews many times. So stop being such a stupid jerk and maybe you’ll learn something.

Here’s just one example of my opinion on collective responsibility of Jews:

As a Jew, I have responsibility to Arabs and other Palestinians because of the story of Zionism. That’s as a Jew, not as an Israeli; Jews have retrospectively adopted the Zionist project as their own. So I and all Jews reading this have a responsibility today because of political choices made collectively by the people Israel, the implicit choice to retrospectively adopt a political movement that was (past tense) unjust. I do remember that another of MacIntyre’s “story” examples in After Virtue was the personal responsibility of Germans born after 1945 to Jews, because of the Shoah.

These are (if I remember correctly) MacIntyre’s two examples of personal responsibility that he derives from stories. Unlike MacIntyre, I believe in collective, or corporate, responsibility as well. White Americans have a collective responsibility due to slavery, Jews have a collective responsibility due to the Zionist project, and Germans have a collective responsibility due to the Shoah.

Taking this a bit further, I also kind of think I maybe believe in something that almost all modern Western moral philosophers seem to reject, McIntyre included: collective, or corporate, guilt. White Americans are collectively guilty for slavery, Jews are collectively guilty for the early Zionist movement, and Germans are collectively guilty for the Shoah. Of course, no individual white, Jew, or German has one iota of personal guilt for anything that happened before he was born. Collective responsibility and collective guilt do not supervene on personal responsibility and personal guilt.

Aaron Gross

Fr. John, the minute the hosts ask me to leave, I’m out of here.

Aaron Gross

That self-quote was out of context, so in case anybody’s wondering why all the references to Alasdair MacIntyre, well, it was a reply to a post on stories by Rod Dreher, who’s always referring to MacIntyre himself, so I figured I would, too.

Also, when I was talking about responsibility, I meant having political responsibility going forward because of the past, not being “responsible” for the past in the sense of having caused any of it. That was Alasdair MacIntyre’s meaning, too.

John Gruskos


It was not my intention to come across as snide.

I was trying to have a genuine conversation about extremely serious subjects.

If collective guilt is real, diaspora Jews ought to examine the history of their interaction with host peoples such as the (old-stock White) Americans, then acknowledge and come to terms with their historical guilt.


There was no holocaust. Jews are responsible as a group not only for invading Europe and pilfering (and worse) from the european masses, but also for lying sociopathically about some apocryphal ‘shoah’ that was a product of jewish supremacist imagination.

Judaism is racist imperialism, plain and simple. Jews believe themselves chosen by their god to invade and enslave other ethnicities or races.

You must be willing to leave european homelands and stand on your own in ‘yours.’ Wherever you go is not european people’s problem, but making damn sure you’re out of ours is.

Get out of our space, our bodies, our countries. You have your nation of Judea, we have ours of Europa. Get the fuck out and stand on your own, genocidal parasite.


Aaron, the quote that you offer makes various noises about taking “responsibility,” but it doesn’t say much of anything about what that actually means in practice. Saying “I take responsibility” is meaningless without actually, well, taking responsibility.

In your opinion, as a Jew, do the historical crimes of Jews mean that Jewish identity should be suppressed? That any Jew who dares to promote the identity and continuity of his people be attacked, marginalized, and ruined? Maybe thrown in jail? Harassed? That Jews should celebrate and applaud their being reduced to a minority in Israel, and ultimately bred out of existence through racial mixing? That Jews should saturate their own community with propaganda encouraging their young people to engage in miscegenation, and vilifying those that advocate that Jews should mate with Jews? That Jews are morally obligated to follow policies that will likely result in their extinction as a people?

Is that what taking responsibility means?

Because these are exactly the sorts of things that are being done to whites, and only to whites. It is both insane and unjust to pluck out historical atrocities committed by a particular people, ignore similar or worse atrocities committed by other peoples, and conclude that one group (whites) must be reduced to minority status and mixed out of existence. That it must be stripped of its identity and denied its continuity. That any white who opposes this extreme injustice should be harassed, denigrated, attacked, jailed, perhaps killed – or at least reduced to living off of bread crumbs.

Doing that in the name of “responsibility” is a particularly Orwellian form of evil, and yet this is exactly what is happening. This is exactly what the anti-whites are doing.

It is wrong. In the face of such monstrous evil, pretending that the problem is that white nationalists aren’t “taking responsibility” is a particularly vile absurdity.

And for what little it’s worth, white nationalists already do take responsibility. White nationalism itself, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, is an updated form of nationalism designed to prevent the past mistakes of colonialism, imperialism, and slavery. Further, most white nationalists are more than willing to work, in good faith, with nationalists of other races.

None of this matters to the anti-whites, because they aren’t interested in fair play or justice. Instead, they want our people broken and ultimately gone. Anti-whites are acting in bad faith. They are demanding a grotesquely unfair and unjust punishment of whites for historical crimes that were in fact committed by all races.

Even if we take the anti-whites at their word, that they are interested in responsibility and justice, their advocacy of such a monstrous punishment shows that they have absolutely no sense of proportion. But again, they can’t be taken at their word. Anti-whites are acting in bad faith.


Trainspotter, don’t apologize to a YKW (‘what’ at the end there, not even who) for crimes they committed – as in, lying about Germany’s alleged ‘war crimes.’ Have you tried researching them? They didn’t happen, but a whole lotta lyin’ did by YKW, and the Allies, too, especially the US and USSR. Eisenhower was YKW, anyone interested might check now before the truth goes down the internet memory hole.

You just seem ignorant here. It’s dangerous for whites to continue to indulge jooish lies.


Niemca, you are completely misunderstanding my post. I clearly state that anti-whites are acting in bad faith. I describe what they advocate as immoral, monstrous and evil. Yet somehow you conclude that I’m apologizing and indulging? LOL! Come on.


Matt, you keep railing about these supposed “elites” as if you’re trying to out-populist the populists. Might I remind you that these “capitalist elites” did not sell their products to Mars. They became “capitalist elites” through appeasing the tastes of the mass-man, who reacts with a vicious hatred toward our civilization and culture because fundamentally he cannot understand either. What he longs for is primitivism; there is no reasoning with him. Capitalists get rich by providing him with what he wants, which is movies like Avatar which glorify the defeat of our civilization by primitive savages. Only his complete political disempowerment, i.e. the end of democracy, can save European civilization.


Elites of some kind always dominate/rule if you accept elite theory as explicated by such as Pareto, Mosca and James Burnham. But every regime ultimately rests on mass support, so the masses have to be appeased in some way. Many have said that the current money-oriented elites have to replaced by elites of a different,better kind. Any “populist” revolution-if one ever takes place-would put new elites in power.


Actually maybe I take back what I just said about Avatar. I should probably have instead mentioned Machete and Django as stereotypical profit-making white guilt movies that the capitalists use to appease the mass-man in order to get rich, as those are clear-cut cases with no gray area.

There’s a part of me that wants to see Avatar as a typical “white guilt” movie glorifying primitivism, but there’s another part of me that wants to see it as a movie about resistance against the greed of a mindless consumerist corporate society. Indeed, against the greed of the mass-man. I often waver between those two views of the movie.


Great post, Matt P. Only thing I’d change is that we have to somehow forge a new world for ourselves, which I guess is ‘modern’ or at least new.

Whites gotta stop looking back obsessively, and down into obscure places like DNA or into the abyss of gender differences.

Fr. John+

Remember the rock from whence you were hewn, gentlemen.

“”Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn…” Is. 51:1


Countries of Color that had White Rule did far better than those without it. Any Black person born in Africa would choose to be born in South Africa.

To the extend a country of color had White Rule, that was the extent to which it rose above it’s colored neighboring countries.

White Rule or White Supremacy is gone and is no longer an issue for the foreseeable future. But when it was in effect, it was far more beneficial than detrimental for the non-White populations that had it.


Fr. John,

Interesting point. It seems to be in fashion to condemn White Rule of Brown countries as the worst experience those Brown people ever had. But does that claim match the facts?

What was life like in South and Central America before White men showed up? 50,000 blood sacrifices of children every year in one city alone. I would much rather be born as an indigenous child in 1600 under Spanish rule than under the rule of my own people in 1472.

In the Middle East, White men “raped” the Brown people there by finding oil they could never have found, inventing uses for it, figuring out how to get it out of the ground, and then paying the Brown people trillions for it. Why won’t someone exploit me like that!

India may have a shot of escaping the mass misery that afflicted every child there century after century. Made possible only be the transition to the modern world under British Rule.

I recently had a Filipino say that life in the Philippines had been much better when the (White) Americans ran things and everyone knew it.

So, is a White Christian being good when he allows a continent full of Black Africans to rule themselves? Especially when we all know that only the worst elements of Black society end up running things. I don’t have the answer, but I don’t think it is as simple as Marxist Exploitation theories suggest.


Is that snark and if so, what’s the need or purpose of it?



We performed a “trust fall”, with the sincere hope and plan that the clergy would be willing to sift through the anti-white hysteria and afford us some sort of fair hearing. We were surprised, to say the least, by how instinctively and immediately they trampled Church Tradition in order to defend themselves from shrill charges of political incorrectness. And now, despite being entirely incapable of defending their position on any canonical grounds whatsoever, we’re told by the angry mob that we have no choice but to beg our infallible bishop forgiveness for being White Advocates.

It was the second greatest surprise and disappointment of this affair.

Greg Johnson

I think it is time for you to chuck this disgusting dance with organized spiritual faggotry and return to honest white advocacy.


To Greg Johnson:

Surely if the traditionalist American renaissance/revolution has room for “nationalist ponies,” it has room for white Christians!

Spengler says the Christianity of Western, Gothic, Faustian man, with his prime symbol of infinite space and prime expression in the dynamism of the will, is completely different from the Arabian, Magian Christianity that was adopted by the Roman Empire. European Christian history is rich mine still, but it has to be reclaimed.

Spengler also says that a people is a spiritual entity, not zoological, linguistic, or geographical. Really, who “our people” is (or will be) is up in the air. But we have to start somewhere, and a de-liberalized Western Christendom is a promising foundation. It doesn’t have to be contemptuous of the rationalism or neo-paganism of its allies, but in its tradition, those traditions are potentially harmful or misleading spiritually, psychologically, morally, and politically.

Greg Johnson

The DoorMatts left the big tent of White Nationalism to take a sabbatical when commanded by their priest. They have humbled and supplicated themselves and prayed and trembled about their salvation and other behaviors every bit as effeminate and drama queeny as anything on a Pride parade float. I want White Nationalism to be a serious movement, and a serious movement does not take public apostasy lightly, especially when accompanied by such disgusting behavior. Now Parrott is cheerfully blogging away, apparently in defiance of the authority of an “infallible” spiritual authority, squaring the circle by ignoring the issue. Are you a Protestant now, Matt?

In any case, a Christendom shorn of liberalism is just about the opposite of what I want, which is liberal modernity freed of any residual Christian values. Christians who accept a big tent approach are implicitly accepting religious pluralism and tolerance — i.e., liberalism — as a necessary feature of our movement today and of any society that we will establish in the future. Christians who dream of creating a theocracy someday and who plan to stab the rest of us in the back after we have fought for a white society — which has been explicitly admitted by Matt Heimbach and Scott Terry, in moments of indiscretion — are creeps who should be shunned by anyone who believes in a “big tent” approach.


I refuse to follow the bishop into heresy, and orthodoxy doesn’t demand that I do so. I went out of my way to avert this situation with the sabbatical, but the cosmopolitan hipster insists that my identity is unworthy of communion.

The grand irony here is that skeptics and folk religionists are always chiding us to take on the church rather than evangelizing the movement.

That’s exactly what we’re doing and a stab in the back is what we get for it.


Greg Johnson said: “…what I want, which is liberal modernity freed of any residual Christian values.”
That is not exactly what most’d deduce from C-C’s ‘mission statement’ in “About” section of the web…
Personal growth? Dissatisfaction with Traditionalism?

Greg Johnson

Ingoldo, I understand your perplexity, and I plan to write something on this in the near future. The short version is:

1. I agree with Nietzsche that Christian values are unhealthy.
2. As an anti-Semite, I see Christianity as one of the chief vectors for Jewish subversion of white societies.
3. I agree with the neo-pagans that Christianity is an alien religion and that paganism is more naturally white. (I am only a cultural pagan though, not a true believer.)
4. I agree with Jan Assmann that the Biblical religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are actually counter-religions, a religiously intolerant and politically totalitarian break with genuine religion.
5. I see Christianity as a dying faith that whites should not dally with out of misplaced conservatism lest it drag us down with it, like a drowning man.
6. I believe that Traditionalism, particularly in Guenon’s sense, is wrong to see any real continuities between Tradition and the totalitarian Biblical religions. They represent a severance with real religion and real Tradition, preserving only the must superficial elements of pre-Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions.
7. Guenon’s practice of conforming outwardly to Christianity and then to Islam would make sense in the Middle Ages, when these religions exercised totalitarian power and killed genuine spiritual seekers who looked to pre-Biblical religions and spiritual teachings such as Platonism.
8. Thanks to the Enlightenment, which has brought back some elements of pagan religious freedom, although in a different context, the totalitarian control of Christianity has ended, and for Traditionalists to play lip service to Christianity and Islam in the context of modern liberal societies grants these religions a power they no longer possess — and if these Traditionalists are sincere practitioners of these religions, then they are profoundly mistaken about their relationship with genuine religion and genuine tradition.
9. Liberal modernity seems awful when you read its critics, but it seems wonderful when you read about the horrors visited upon our race by Christians and Muslims wielding the power of the state.
10. I see liberal modernity as in some ways a revival of classical pagan values, and I think that liberal modernity would be perfected if it discarded its residual Christian elements — moral universalism, denial of the importance of race, eschatological hopes, magical notions of moral redemption, etc. — for a science-based race realism that is both modern and ancient/pagan in spirit.


Our pagan ancestors converted to Christianity because victory through self-sacrifice made sense to them. (I especially commend the conversion account in Njal’s Saga; also the Heliand poem.) There is no rootedness to the intellectual neo-paganism you sketch here. It’s just a costume, as it was during the Renaissance. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the German Revolution, all were rationalist, anti-religious, enlightenment, utilitarian revolutions, that burned out after not too many years. They don’t offer what people need, and they don’t offer what people know is there.

However, the case for breaking with religious institutions, which are uniformly liberal modernist, and functionally anti-white (i.e., pro-immigration, -integration, -affirmative action, -intermarriage, and -homosexual equality) is a strong one and many of us ask ourselves if we are not giving the enemy too much power by trafficking with the contemporary church at all.

Back to Spengler, the early Christian Church, Judaism of that era, Zoroastrianism, and Islam were Arabian, Magian religions, quite alien to Western, Faustian Christianity. Western man was born and flourished in Western, Faustian Christianity. Classical culture is dead and there is no bringing it back. Possibly Western culture is in the death-spiral of an advanced civilization; Spengler thought so. But if you have experienced the vitality of (often unchurched) anti-liberal white Christian Americans, you don’t believe the core is dying, only that the huge husk, Leviathan, is dying.

Greg Johnson

1. Victory through self-sacrifice is certainly not an exclusive possession of Christianity.
2. The Christian version of this meme is utterly savage: Jesus can only suffer in place of mankind on the assumption that God is more concerned with satiating his sadism than doing justice.
3. Our ancestors converted for a wide variety of reasons, force of terror being a leading one.
4. Christianity strikes me as a dying religion that is limping along because of inertia, philistinism, and cowardice.
5. The dominant religion of our time is liberal humanism, which unfortunately is infected with many residual Christian values and thought patterns.
6. Neo-paganism has deeper roots than you think. Many of the most vital and powerful ideas that are associated with Christianity, such as the immortality of the soul, are pagan, not Biblical. Real Christianity is quite alien to the real religious sensibilities of the most genuine believers.
7. A perfected Englightenment, i.e., a modern paganism, is a far more likely prospect than a revived Christianity.
8. I think that all racially aware believers should sever ties with anti-white churches. Go back to the catacombs, i.e., worship in your homes, without contact with the existing churches.
9. Racially aware whites who are not believers should stop pretending or pandering to Christians. It grants them more power than they really have or deserve.
10. The Christian problem ultimately has the same solution as the woman problem: Christians, like women, will follow those in power. So it is a waste of time trying to hack the churches. Just focus on honest white advocacy to gain power, and the churches, like the women, will fall into line.


Thank you for your reply. Preliminarily, I wonder if your information about our fellow citizens is skewed by a San Francisco location. I lived many years in Berkeley, and was really amazed when I moved to another part of the country where most people go to church and being churchgoers is part of people’s persona as citizens. That was never the case the whole time I spent near the Bay from the 70s to the 90s. If you have a Bay-skewed view of the country, you don’t know that Christianity is at least as vital as any other form of popular culture, and maybe more so as the formerly monopolized outlets of the culture industries fission indefinitely.

1. Not the sole possession of Christianity–that’s why it was easy to convert. Christianity combines the theism of mature paganism with a pragmatic relationship to devotion, death and power. Have you seen Valhalla Rising? Odin as Christ.

2. People are savage. History is a blood bath. Culture has to deal with it. People want a God that doesn’t just wag his finger.

3. The Saxons were converted by overwhelming force applied over a generation. Virtually all our other ancestors were converted by persuasion. Then maintaining conformity involved varying degrees of coercion in many times and places. If a society has the infrastructure for religious freedom, fine, that sounds nice to us. But that is really only possible where productive and social relations permit independence and diversity. That is a rare event in history.

4. How Christianity looks. Partly your SF view. Partly the fact that mainstream churches are so thoroughly imbued with liberal humanism that they seem like voluntary social welfare clubs. I know some very committed, very vital, active Christians both on the far-right and far-left extremes.

5. I have to agree that the dominant public religion is liberal humanism. It dominates the educational, political, and cultural establishments. It exercises a harsh tyranny over dissidents. That is precisely the religion this website exists to fight. It is the religion of the anti-whites. It is Voegelinian Gnosticism.

6. Deeper roots. I should have said that expressly pagan symbolism and ritual have no significant place in our culture and history (acknowledging the current fringe), but experiences and values that formerly were the subject of such symbolism and ritual undoubtedly contributed to the formation and original persuasiveness of Western Christian culture. Western Christians are the heirs of converted barbarians. Alfred the Great was a devout Christian, but nonetheless counted Woden as an ancestor. Most people are not priests, adepts, or philosophers and will not go for something as alien as neo-paganism.

7. A perfected Enlightenment. What you describe is suitable for a cultured minority but not relevant to large-scale politics. But given the sectarianism of Christianity, the generic fidelity of a Lincoln or a Reagan, judiciously applied, is more likely to attract people than anything denomination that threatens theological disagreements.

8. Your advice to Christians. Believers don’t have to take a non-believer’s advice very seriously, but the mainstream churches are so hostile to our people that we have to ask ourselves whether our Lord really wants us to worship with them.

9. Racially aware whites who are not believers should understand that they are temporarily separated from the family tree of converted barbarian Celts, Germans, and Slavs (and converted, cultured Greeks and Romans). Please find your way back to your family tree and join in!

10. Christians will follow power. You’re describing the people problem. People will follow those in power. The vast majority will take the path of least resistance. With respect to “hacking churches”– trying to take over hostile institutions may be worthwhile if there is a significant potentially dissident presence (e.g., the Republican party, certain Roman parishes or dioceses), but a waste of time if the hierarchy is hostile from top to bottom.

The idea of a white nationalism that is also liberal humanist and neopagan seems to be fringe to the fringe power. Traditionalists only ask people to pick up their inheritance — their people, their culture and religion, their territory — and defend it, not to assemble a new culture out of philosophical fragments.

Thanks again for your reply.


KO– a very impressive response, though I’m not sure why you take such a respectful tone towards Greg Johnson, a man who has taken to these boards over the last couple of weeks and described a “movement” that I, personally, want no part of. Saw where he said he only tolerates Christians who are willing to “burn in hell” for their people as well as all the nonsense above…

I’ve gathered over the last couple of weeks that Greg Johnson is some sort of blogger, or activist, or whatever. He’s clearly educated, no one’s disputing that. However, any white nationalist “movement” that is hostile towards Christianity has zero chance of success. If Greg Johnson truly cares about the future of this “movement” he’ll either keep his opinion on the matter to himself or publicly withdraw from the “movement”. The views Johnson has expressed on these boards, if widely circulated and promoted as a philosophy of the white nationalist movement, would do irreparable damage to said movement. America today, despite being a morally corrupt Israeli hand puppet, is still preferable to the neo-pagan liberal/modern nightmare that Johnson describes. I’m confident that the vast majority of my white countrymen would agree with me on this.

Furthermore, if Johnson despises Christians and Christianity, why is he such a virulent anti-Semite? Jealousy over the Jews having achieving so much worldly power despite being so small in numbers? It’s perfectly natural for Christians to mistrust Jews– after all, they denied Jesus and handed him over to be murdered, and they still deny Him and do not recognize the crimes of their ancestors, which is proof that the Jews of today would crucify Him all over again if they had the chance– but a man like Johnson? It seems like he would admire Jews for their insidious destruction of Christian society. Also… how would Mr Johnson explain the “success” of the Jews if he doesn’t recognize what they did to humanity 2,000 years ago? Pure luck? Cunning? Are Jews just superior beings?

Of course not. Believers know there’s a perfectly valid explanation for the current dominance of the Jewish people in world affairs–they are in league with Satan; they are his minions and they do his bidding. They have risen to prominence in all the most important areas of society– finance, medicine, education, Hollywood/media– and they promote a brand of secular humanism that is especially destructive. The old proverb rings true– the devil’s greatest trick is convincing you that he doesn’t exist. We live in Babylon, where godlessness is celebrated, and the Jews are our overlords.

Fortunately, the Book of Revelation teaches us that justice will come– after the Rapture the Jews who don’t convert to Christianity will be wiped from the face of the Earth. Repent and convert, Greg Johnson, or risk burning in hell with your Jewish friends for all of eternity!

Greg Johnson

My advice to White Nationalists is to ignore the churches and believers because (1) Churches are enemy-occupied territories, (2) to the extent that people take Christianity seriously, they are unreliable allies, (3) pandering to Christians is a degrading compromise of our intellectual integrity, and (4) it is not necessary, because Christianity simply does not matter as a political force, and has not for more than 300 years. Yes, Christianity gives people in power a handle to manipulate buhlievers. Yes, Christians can still serve as starch and filler, or cannon fodder. But the people who run this world have a different operating system than Christianity.

Thus it is ludicrous that “Marvin” suggests that White Nationalism has “zero chance of success” if it is “hostile to Christianity.” Liberalism is hostile to Christianity, yet it has has dominated the West for centuries. Communism is hostile to Christianity, yet that was the least of the Communists’ problems. Jews are hostile to Christians, yet Christians queue up to kiss their asses. What successful political movement panders to buhlievers? Republicans? I rest my case.

I note that both Marvin and KO’s last post basically amount to arguments that non-believers in our ranks should shut up and pretend that Christianity is a massive political force — which it is not. That is the standard line of Christians today: they don’t care if you believe anymore. They are content if you just pretend. They want you to fool them. But who is fooling whom? I submit that this is the last ditch position of a dying religion, which seeks to co-opt dissenters by tricking them into thinking it clever to pretend to believe as well for conservative reasons. What if nobody believes for any other reasons? How long must this farce go on?

Now I am going to begin following my advice to ignore Christianity.


Greg Johnson,
OK, forget Christianity for the moment. Take a look at Kaardal and Dahlberg’s Neopopulism as Counterculture. Based on philosophy of science, it identifies the whole rationalist paradigm, which licenses our government’s “expert” domination of every aspect of our lives, as completely disproven and merely one tradition among others. The “people” should take back government and run it themselves in accordance with their common sense (a tradition in which they are expert), ordinary language (ditto), and their religious and moral traditions.

The epistemological piece is Nietzschean and post-Nietzschean. The authors catch flak from traditional Catholics, for example, because they reject the rationalist paradigm in theology. Maybe some day you will be a Nietzschean Christian. Nietzsche potentially explodes the rationalist paradigm, but as Shestov and Spengler realized, he couldn’t stop himself from preaching new ones. Dahlberg calls Neitzsche a liberal, which seems incredible until you see the gap between rationalist thinking and pragmatic, postmodern neopopulism.

You have your non- and anti-Christian tradition you have chosen and/or are constructing. It is possible that at some time the small inauthenticities it commits you to will add up to a rejection and you will engage with a tradition that better lets you be who you really are. That is the neopopulist account of conversion in the above-mentioned book. People can switch from one tradition to another.

Marvin, thanks for your kind remarks. Mr. Johnson is a very active writer, translator and publisher. See Counter-Currents online journal. It is an opportunity to have a discussion with him here. In my opinion, Counter-Currents is far too Continental in orientation, and sprinkled with kooky Hitlerolatry and neopaganism, to give contemporary Americans what they need to repel and suppress our enemy establishment.

Anti-government feeling is becoming a very big tent, so hopefully Counter-Currents and TYN will both contribute to smaller and larger successes against the common enemy.

Greg Johnson

The issue is simple, Matt: If you are with us, then I am with you. If you are against us, then I am against you. If you let them pull you in their direction, then I’ll stab you in your front. If you are pulling them in our direction, then I applaud your efforts. But you are creating such a rhetorical smoke screen that it is hard to tell what is going on. I’ll look in occasionally to see how it is all playing out.


What is your vision of white liberation, for lack of a better word, and how are you endeavoring to achieve it?

Orthodox Mike

We don’t need lectures from intellectual, hateful sodomites.


This movement is mostly defined by intellectualism, most of the pro-white one that is.

Whites need more activism. Brilliant intellects only get us so far.

John King

Matt, glad to see you back. This may be your best piece yet. But hey, I keep saying that with every piece you write, lol. You have done a great job here at deducing the cause of our white collective masochistic mass mental disorder. I would ask you to look at the following piece. It appears that “white liberals” (the ones who say that it is demonic for us whites to organize for our fair mutual benefit) are actually using the psychological technique of “transference” wherein they project their own guilt for their unearned privilege (think: Ted Kennedy) onto the white masses. This article will blow your mind! “THE SECRET TO THE SUICIDAL LIBERAL MIND” >>>


I’m an old-stock American, my ancestors owned slaves (and if one thinks they can escape this legacy because they’re not of some charming cavalier lineage, think again!), and I’m not sorry for that or colonialism. The Anglo impulse to build, to fling common law, genes, etc to the farthest reaches of this world is something no self-respecting Anglo-American, Australian, Anglo-Canadian, New Zealander, or Anglo-African should ever apologize for. Even in the event that one feels remorse for our more belligerent antics, our achievements outshine our mistakes, and there’s not one good reason to self-immolate on the altars of multiculturalism or anti-Anglo nationalism.

Slavery, invasion, rape, pillaging, extermination, and exploitation in general are all human legacies that can’t be dumped on the modern doorstep alone no matter what the deranaged critical race theory aficionados spin.

Leave a Reply