The Question of Unity

white_unity1-600x402A question has been taking shape inside of my mind lately and that question has everything to do with the future of western civilization. We have at this point in time a great division among those who would call themselves Nationalist or Identitarians.  The division is on the topic of religion and more importantly what religion should serve our folk as we face a future that with every passing day grows ever more hostile to our continued existence this question cannot be ignored. I personally believe that this is the most pressing question. That from it all other questions arise.

The values and virtues we should hold high, how we conduct our actions, even the things that we should call wrong and intolerable are all to my mind religious questions. A Large section of the Nationalist community then has come to call it self “Christian”. Some of these people see Christianity as a matter of western European civilization and for others not only is it a matter of civilization but also of deeply held faith. Another section of our community has come to identify with the pre-Christian religious tradition native to Europe that finds its expression mostly commonly in the modern religious movement called Asatru. Both lay claim to Europe and the sons and daughters of Europe. Who is right then?

Surely it is true that before Christianity came to Europe we had our own folk ways, stories, religious rites and culture. At the same time it cannot be denied, historically speaking, that Europe was the heart of global Christianity. So then as people concerned with the future of our folk which should we be? Pagan or Christian? I would like to propose an answer that I have not seen talked about anywhere almost as if the idea is not possible, but i believe in to be the historical reality.

Europe and her sons and daughters are both Christian and Pagan. Our pagan past gave birth to such concepts as common law and trial by jury. Our christian past gave us the armies that defended our homeland against the advance of Islam in the middle ages which if successful would have ended European civilization as we know it. Just to name one such example of dual contribution that both of these religions have had on our people. We are in a crisis. In times of crisis what is needed is unity. Not a false unity based on compromise but a unity of Brotherhood and Honor.

104 Comments

Shotgun

Here’s a novel idea… why don’t we hold to whichever is actually true?

When someone starts opining about which religion we ought to arbitrarily choose, usually based on its perceived pragmatic benefits, I always feel he couldn’t care less about what’s true and has already made his ultimate metaphysical commitments.

Unfortunately, most people in the English Speaking world (and the Western world more broadly) are completely ignorant of their own philosophical assumptions and glibly skip through metaphysical tulips as if choosing religious Faith were like choosing which tie to go with which suit…

john king

The religious rift cannot be healed, It can only be dealt with, either rudely or civily. Christians are not going to be persuaded to take up Asatru and vice versa. As we are facing extinction as a people please let us be white first and everything else (including religion) second. Let us have this discussion when we live in the comfort of our own white ethnostate. United we will rise. Divided we will fall. I have no interest in pushing my religious views on other pro-whites. I’m only interested in a future for my children and all like them. And I don’t give a damn whether they turn out to be Christians or Asatruars. You have to decide what is more important: pushing your religious views on other pro-whites or saving our collective behinds.

Shotgun

Did a god tell you we ought to focus on a white ethno-state?

Swiss Kinist

The scriptures are totally clear on this subject:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

Joining with unbelievers in affinity of “the cause” is equivalent to denying Christ. What this article makes clear is what I have been saying all along: The god of this movement is not the Lord Jesus, but “whiteness”. And as long as you worship at the altar of this idol, there will be NO BLESSING at all from the Lord Jesus upon this type of movement/issue. You are fighting in human strength, without the grace and power of God. It is utterly futile.

“Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” — Proverbs 14:34

Matt Parrott

I strive to abide Holy Scripture’s prohibition on unequal yoking with those who aren’t Christian. Though, being Orthodox, I’m obliged to perceive Christianity as a specific institution rather than as some sort of abstract movement. For me, the framing of Christianity as a social phenomenon rather than as a physical Church is a necessary Modern contrivance. As such, I can’t help but feel that this prohibition is also applicable–perhaps to a lesser degree–with Christians who aren’t Orthodox, as well.

My end goal is not only a return to a “Christian” nation, but a specifically Orthodox one at that. I agree with Shotgun and Swiss Kinist that Faith comes first, and I believe that the coming devolution of power from cosmopolitan states to smaller tribal loci of authority in the future will empower all of us to achieve that goal.

Problem is, I believe that to get to that future, we must necessarily arrive at an acceptable way to work with a broad array of folks of just about every confession, identity, and race who are opposed to the prevailing Atlanticist power structure. If my ox were in a ditch, would it be an unholy “yoking” to pay a passing pagan, Presbyterian, or Peruvian to assist me in removing it?

I think not.

That’s what TradYouth is, essentially, is a thin framework within which all of the tribes and traditions can come together with the end goal of coming apart. There’s an assortment of actions and ideals, identitarian and traditionalist actions and ideals, which bring us all closer to separating.

Therein lies the paradox at the heart of our work here; achieving a world where we’re not all forced together into one big sticky multi-racial and multi-religious decadent consumerist conglomeration requires us to pool resources and work together. As long as we’re all doing it out of necessity and with the goal of separation, I believe our work here is consonant with and complementary to Holy Scripture.

Achieving a pluriversal future where biblical separation is allowed necessitates working together to achieve that future.

Pagans, skeptics, Muslims, and others who share our identitarian and traditionalist goals will continue to be welcomed as stakeholders in the project. As explained in our Mission Statement, the only confessions we exclude are those which are categorically anti-identitarian and anti-traditional, such as Unitarianism, Judaism, Satanism, and Judaism.

And just so I’m not misquoted or taken out of context, I wish to repeat, with bold formatting tags for easy reference by those who wish to refer back to it in their attacks on our project: “My faith is more important to me than my folk and my family…combined.”

Swiss Kinist

I understand your position, Mr. Parrott, but strongly disagree, as do the scriptures. To me, TradYouth’s position is that Christianity is just a means to an end. Glorifying Christ is not the end-goal, just a byproduct. Christ is just “the main god” in your system, instead of being the only God. This is why, in all my heart, I want to support TradYouth (because you do a lot of good), but cannot bring myself to. It is one thing to worked together with other groups (as your good illustration well shows), but another to join together with them in yoking, which in my opinion, TradYouth does.

All in all, I appreciate much of what you do. Unfortunately the errors of the “Orthodox Church” seep into other areas and corrupt your way of thinking. Clement Pulaski did a nice podcast on Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, on his site True Sons of Abraham.

Matt Parrott

Swiss Kinist,

To me, TradYouth’s position is that Christianity is just a means to an end.

This is a perfect inversion of my position. TradYouth is a means to a Christian end (a future where Christian kingdoms are possible).

Christ is just “the main god” in your system, instead of being the only God.

The only manner in which my Presuppositional metaphysics differ from yours and Shotgun’s is that it’s inclusive of His church, in addition to Him and His Word. I don’t even cotton to the very common scholastic habit of trying to square God up with formal logic or reason.

Anybody who puts anything before God is categorically not a Christian, in my system.

“If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth.” – F. Dostoyevsky

TradYouth is not a philosophical system. It is a secular political project which I believe is necessary to get us from where we’re at to where we need to be, a future where a single blade of grass can grow on soil which belongs to a kingdom devoted to God and His apostolic Church.

You have a different church in mind, which would necessarily entail different blades of grass on different soil…down the road.

Unfortunately the errors of the “Orthodox Church” seep into other areas and corrupt your way of thinking.

It never ceases to amaze me how every meaningful disagreement, no matter how seemingly remote from religious considerations, ends up boiling down to theological differences upon closer inspection.

Swiss Kinist

Thank you for your response. I am hopeful that I am simply misunderstanding some of what you believe. But from what I see, you think that the church is just “an institution” rather than being “The Ecclesia”.. the called out ones. Jesus Christ is Lord of all, not just some irrelevant institution where you say your mechanical prayers and liturgy.

Please also explain to me this from Clement’s article last year:

“Heimbach identifies as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but he and his comrades at the Traditional Youth Network promote the ideas of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola. In the power point presentation accompanying his speech, Heimbach displays a large image of Evola. Evola’s book “The Metaphysics of War”, which praises the Islamic warrior tradition, is recommended reading for prospective “Avalonians”. Guenon and Evola were outspoken enemies of the Church, and it is strange that self-professed Christians would draw inspiration from their works.”

http://truesonsofabraham.com/long-live-america.htm

Does this, Mr. Parrot, sound to you, like it is Christ-honoring, Christ-exalting, etc?

Swiss Kinist

The more I re-read your comments, the more I am baffled that you can call yourself a Christian. You seem to hold to Sunday Christianity:

“I don’t even cotton to the very common scholastic habit of trying to square God up with formal logic or reason.”

In other words, Jesus Christ, and the Bible are irrelevant in matters of real life, and real importance? If Christ is not Lord of everything, then he is not Lord at all. Every area of life belongs to him, not just the Church. What a sad, sad commentary. Your true God is who controls the very details of your life, thought, habits, affections, etc. Obviously, Christ is not so for Trad Youth and its members.

Matt Parrott

Evola and Guenon’s Radical Traditionalist writings serve as a necessary bridge from Modernity to an appropriately anti-materialist, anti-egalitarian, anti-Enlightenment perspective on the world.

I think of it as detox, though I agree that it’s unfortunate that both men were skeptical of Christianity. Though, to the extent that Western Christendom has become scholasticist and mercantile, subjugating itself to a variety of abstractions and ideals before God, I find Guenon’s retreat into Sufi Islam understandable…while incorrect.

My Orthodox Christianity is in many pivotal ways more similar to Islam than it is to Protestant Christianity. I’m guilty as charged. While Evola’s Metaphysics of War relies on the Greater Jihad to describe the relationship between spiritual and material warfare, we Orthodox can readily rely upon the Philokalia, Unseen Warfare, and Codreanu’s life and writings to arrive at the same concepts within an originally and integrally Christian context.

I regret that there’s not currently a popular and accessible source, aside from perhaps Fr. Matt Johnson’s podcasts, for introducing folks to how the nationalism rests on a foundation of radical traditionalism which rests upon a foundation of the Church which rests upon God. Until that arrives, I’m stuck with relying to some degree on Evola and Guenon.

Pulaski expends a tremendous amount of words to argue around what’s self-evident, that the Satanic roots of the American experiment are evident in its Satanic fruits. Just take a stroll around the orchard.

I’ve been meaning to get around to giving that essay of his a proper treatment. It certainly deserves one; in both the positive sense as a thorough challenge to our position, and in the negative sense that it’s erroneous.

Matt Parrott

Swiss Kinist,

The more I re-read your comments, the more I am baffled that you can call yourself a Christian. You seem to hold to Sunday Christianity:

“I don’t even cotton to the very common scholastic habit of trying to square God up with formal logic or reason.”

In other words, Jesus Christ, and the Bible are irrelevant in matters of real life, and real importance?

Not in those words at all. I’m saying that God is not subject to the “natural” laws of logic, that he transcends all. Please take a few minutes to google scholasticism before you make foolish accusations.

If Christ is not Lord of everything, then he is not Lord at all. Every area of life belongs to him, not just the Church.

I neither stated nor implied anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming I stated.

What a sad, sad commentary. Your true God is who controls the very details of your life, thought, habits, affections, etc. Obviously, Christ is not so for Trad Youth and its members.

I don’t know how much more direct I can be than to insist that God is greater than all the laws of the universe. If you can twist that all the way around to imply that I don’t worship God, then we’re done here.

Swiss Kinist

2Kings 17:33-40 is fitting:

“They feared the LORD, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence.

Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the LORD, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel;

With whom the LORD had made a covenant, and charged them, saying, Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them:

But the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice.

And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods.

And the covenant that I have made with you ye shall not forget; neither shall ye fear other gods.

But the LORD your God ye shall fear; and he shall deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies.

Howbeit they did not hearken, but they did after their former manner.

So these nations feared the LORD, and served their graven images, both their children, and their children’s children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this day.”

Matt Parrott

Swiss Kinist,

2Kings 17:33-40 is fitting:

No. It is not fitting at all. You’re accusing me of idolatry for remaining faithful to His apostolic Church. Surely, you already knew before today that Orthodox are apostolic and reject your sola scriptura theology.

It’s evident that you categorically reject a central tenet of the project, which is that of the various Christian denominations setting aside their theological differences to the extent necessary to retrieve our metaphorical ox from its geopolitical ditch.

Swiss Kinist

“It’s evident that you categorically reject a central tenet of the project, which is that of the various Christian denominations setting aside their theological differences to the extent necessary to retrieve our metaphorical ox from its geopolitical ditch.”

This is not the full truth, Mr. Parrott. Your version is “various religions, including Christ-haters, setting aside the truth of God’s word for the sake of “the cause”. I am all for the end goal, but not at the cost of disregarding the word of God. Your idolatry is not due to “remaining faithful to the church” but rather for joining with Christ-haters in unity, and denying Christ his lordship of your organization (and way of thought).

Matt Parrott

Swiss Kinist,

Your idolatry is not due to “remaining faithful to the church” but rather for joining with Christ-haters in unity

I’m no more guilty of this error than a bicycle repairman is guilty of idolatry for transacting with customers who fail to properly worship Christ.

and denying Christ his lordship of your organization (and way of thought).

There are plenty of ways that my thinking and behavior is insufficiently Christian, and I strive to grow in my faith and works every single day. The fact that my secular political project transacts with schismatics, heretics, and aliens to the extent necessary to achieve a sovereign separation from schismatics, heretics, and aliens is not one of them.

Shotgun

What frustrates me about white-advocates and the religion question is their ignorance, combined with their condescension.

John King’s statement and the author of this post’s statement, are typical examples.

I’ve been doing Christian apologetics for over 18 years. Not only am I open to reasoning about the issues involved, I really want to. I really really want some Pagan white nationalist to try and wrestle with me philosophically – to try and prove his position is true. I want some atheist white nationalist to try the same.

But they don’t. Instead, they always take a presumed moral high ground: “Sigh… dear, stupid Christians… please put your zealotry aside while us calmer, government-school educated, epistemologically ignorant heathen instruct in you in the ways of social diligence.”

No. I’m sorry. If a non-Christian thinks he’s hot shit, then let him step into the intellectual arena and prove it. Until then, he needs to shut up and do what he’s told.

Clement Pulaski

I think it might be useful to search the Scriptures (as well as the Church fathers, if that is more satisfying to the Eastern Orthodox), and find any of the words that are commonly translated as “pagan” in English. Then, see if there is any context in which the Scriptures or the fathers approvingly speak of something being “pagan and Christian”. I doubt that you will find anything. We (individually and collectively) are Christian to the extent that we have been regenerated by faith in Christ. We are pagan to the extent that we resist this gift. If the author of this post is saying that Christians should appreciate the good things that existed in pre-Christian times thanks to common grace, then this is nothing new. The Church has always done this, but never by elevating paganism to equality with the Christian faith.
Even if there is a way to unite Christian and pagan nationalists, saying that we can somehow be both at the same time is certainly an unacceptable and anti-Christian position.

As for the philosophy of Evola and Guenon, I’d say it’s more of a toxin than a detox. It is partly true on many points, making it the most dangerous and deceptive kind of untruth. I think it’s also much too generous to say that Evola and Guenon were merely skeptical of Christianity. They had a sophisticated, well thought out anti-Christian philosophy. Nor is there any era in Church history in which Evola and Guenon would agree with Christian dogma, which undermines the excuse given that they lived in a corrupt time. Evola (as far as I have seen) never had anything good to say about the Gospel. Guenon had respect for some Gospel passages, but only to the extent that he could connect them with his “primordial tradition”. We must always be mindful of making our weaker brothers stumble. Promoting the works of Evola and Guenon is a sure way of doing this. Why not stick exclusively to Christian critiques of modernity? Why bother with Evola and Guenon, when you can point people to Rushdoony or Seraphim Rose?

As for the broader question of how Christian and neo-pagan nationalists can work together, this discussion can only proceed by discussing the first principles of the respective sides, as Shotgun points out. This is made difficult by the fact that most neo-pagans can’t even describe what their first principles are, or how they relate to their political position.

Leaving aside the neo-pagan/Christian divide, perhaps Christian nationalists can at least make some progress towards a consensus amongst ourselves on how we should view collaboration with neo-pagans or atheists. Here one might think that there will be a denominational divide between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, although I don’t think this should really be the case. Parrott has suggested that his disagreement with people like me and SwissKinist is due to his Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but that does not seem to be correct. I think the real divide is between Christians who follow the Christian tradition, and Christians who follow Perennialism. I think one of the inconsistencies with TradYouth is that they will publish one article saying “The Orthodox Church says that we should do X”, and then publish an article saying “Perennialism tells us we should do Y”, even if there is no Orthodox saint whose testimony can support Y. It confuses the question of first principles. I’m still waiting to see an Orthodox saint who viewed Islam as being anything less than Satanic. Also, if someone at TradYouth can show from Eastern Orthodox sources that their pan-traditionalist viewpoint is supported, that would be impressive. Use the Bible, the canons, use the writings of anyone recognized as a saint in your tradition. I don’t think you’d be able to justify the perennialist messages that appear on this site. I’m hopeful that political cooperation between Eastern Orthodox and Reformed Christians can be achieved, but only when the Eastern Orthodox stick to their own tradition. A specific example of this could be the example of homosexuality (an area of disagreement between Parrott and myself). From what I’ve seen of Orthodox theology and culture, the Eastern Orthodox have always viewed homosexuals as vile criminals who have no legitimate place in the political community and who should be harshly punished. Am I wrong in this assessment? If I am right, should’t Orthodox nationalists hold this view towards homosexuals and their relation to society?

Incidentally, appeals to expediency have no place in this discussion. That is the whole point of the Gospel; it does not seem practical or expedient in the eyes of the world. That following a Christian precept might have negative worldly consequences is no argument against it.

Matt Parrott

Clement,

There’s a great deal of diversity in Orthodox Christian tradition in how non-Orthodox and non-Christian neighbors related to one another. One can find numerous examples of the Church Fathers living peacefully alongside schismatics, heretics, infidels, and pagans. It was quite pragmatic for the Orthodox to do so while under the Ottomans, for example.

I think it’s also much too generous to say that Evola and Guenon were merely skeptical of Christianity. They had a sophisticated, well thought out anti-Christian philosophy.

Evola’s position was mixed, as was Guenon’s.

We must always be mindful of making our weaker brothers stumble. Promoting the works of Evola and Guenon is a sure way of doing this. Why not stick exclusively to Christian critiques of modernity? Why bother with Evola and Guenon, when you can point people to Rushdoony or Seraphim Rose?

It’s precisely because I’m avoiding the heresy of Perennialism and the treatment of Radical Traditionalism as a philosophy that I do not stick exclusively with Christian authors. Personally, I was first attracted to Radical Traditionalism and only after viewing the faith traditions through that prism was I able to recognize Orthodox Christianity as the one true Tradition.

The confusion lies in there being essentially two different conceptions of Radical Traditionalism. The first, Hard Traditionalism, is a metaphysical, philosophical, and religious framework which is indeed incompatible with the Christian faith. Arguably, Guenon never actually converted to Islam, and merely lived out his Perennialist religion through that exoteric framework.

Soft Traditionalism, what I seek to promote, is a critique of Modernity and collection of abstract themes and principles. A Sufi Muslim, a Catholic, a thoughtful neo-pagan, and I can all agree on the basic framework of Soft Traditionalism; transcending self, eschewing materialism, honor, virtue, hierarchy, etc…

And we do promote Fr. Seraphim Rose and other Christian Traditionalists rather heavily. Our emphasis has been largely on specifically Christian Traditionalism rather than on Evola and Guenon, though I still know of too many examples of their work bringing people toward Traditional Christianity to flatly discourage people from analyzing their work.

From what I’ve seen of Orthodox theology and culture, the Eastern Orthodox have always viewed homosexuals as vile criminals who have no legitimate place in the political community and who should be harshly punished. Am I wrong in this assessment?

What political community?

This disagreement boils back down to our differing perspectives on our situation. You believe that “American” is a valid national identity which can be restored, while I categorically reject the American identity and consider myself a stranger in a foreign land. These are not my brothers and I’m not their keeper, and pretending otherwise would be both tactically futile and it wouldn’t be justified by scripture.

After all, did the soldiers set about flogging Rahab? Why not?

I’m working, however remotely and improbably, toward the inception some sort of Christian kingdom in North America, one which would be an ethnogenetic rather than restorative project. There would be no place for homosexuals in that kingdom and homosexuality would be punished in keeping with Orthodox tradition in that kingdom.

Pretending that we currently live in a Christian kingdom which is merely wayward would entail impotently striving to punish degenerate strangers. I have no political jurisdiction within which to punish homosexuals, and choosing to work out an arrangement where we don’t end up in the same political jurisdiction in the future is tactically superior to shaking my fist at them.

Perhaps at some point in the future, we can achieve a global Crusade, imposing our Christian morality on all the nations. But you’re getting a century or so ahead of yourself, Clement.

Incidentally, appeals to expediency have no place in this discussion. That is the whole point of the Gospel; it does not seem practical or expedient in the eyes of the world. That following a Christian precept might have negative worldly consequences is no argument against it.

One’s political strategy should certainly be inspired and informed by one’s Christian faith, but Christ’s Gospel isn’t a Ouiji Scripture political strategy guide and we’ve been called to use our talents to their fullest to serve Him, striving to defend our Faith, Family, and Folk with every last bit of knowledge, wit, and wisdom at our disposal.

You’re essentially conceding that your strategy is self-evidently futile, while insisting that Scripture demands we go with your bad strategy and hope for a miracle. Speaking of Islamic influences, “Trust in Allah, …but tie your camels.”

Shotgun

Pulaski,

I don’t get your hate towards TradYouth; in my attempts to get to the meat of your criticisms, I find inconsistency and inaccurate suggestions.

For example, you suggest (in this thread) that we’d do well to examine Scripture’s equivalent of the word “pagan” and look for Biblically-endorsed examples of syncretism to model. But one of the first rules we learn in hermeneutics is that we can’t build our ethics from narrative accounts. (The usual example is Moses’ killing of an Egyptian or David’s slaying of Goliath. We’re not to kill random Egyptians or slaughter giant Philistines; further exegesis is needed before deriving moral norms from these passages). And if we look, we might find morally-normative passages like the one in Hebrews 12: “…do your best to live at peace with all men.” Passages such as this could easily be seen as warranting our working with non-Christian white advocates.

You overplay Scripture passages similarly in your article against Heimbach’s speech where you suggest there is no support for monarchy in the 1 Samuel passage…as if us poor monarchists need find our case there or not at all.

Additionally, you scour Heimbach for appealing to Guenon and Evola…those dirty pagans, we ought not have anything to do with them! But then you admit (in the same article) that American Republicanism drew inspiration from pagan tribes. (Greeks, Romans, Germanic barbarians, et. al.) Should we similarly reject American Republicanism? You can’t have it both ways. Far better to simply glean the good from wherever it might be found, eh?

I like where you’re coming from and have many of the same concerns (I’m a southerner and don’t want to be an “Avalonian”, for example)…but I think you’re needlessly overplaying your criticisms of Trad Youth.

Clement Pulaski

I was merely trying to highlight what the word pagan means, and bring out the absurdity of something being both Christian and pagan, when scripturally they are set up as complete opposites. I’m not sure what your comment about the historical books of the Bible is supposed to mean, surely the terms translated as pagan and heathen occurr in other books of the Bible? I think that the meaning of the word “pagan” is at the crux of Monaghan’s article, and he didn’t really explore what the term means. Is there any venerable theologian in the Christian tradition who would agree with Monaghan’s general understanding of the relationship between paganism and Christianity? There are none that I can think of. That’s what I was trying to get at.

“And if we look, we might find morally-normative passages like the one in Hebrews 12: “…do your best to live at peace with all men.” Passages such as this could easily be seen as warranting our working with non-Christian white advocates.”
I’m very glad you bring this up. Yes, such passages might have that meaning, but we shouldn’t be convinced until there has been a thorough weighing of all of the relevant passages.
What I would love to see is a systematic, Biblical examination of exactly whom Christians should and should not work with, and in what contexts. Has such a task been undertaken by any kinist or theonomic writers? If so, I would love to read it. So far, however, I have only seen ad hoc decisions. Shouldn’t we have a more definite answer to this pressing question?
Basically, I’m asking, as Christians, by what standard do we judge a group or a philosopher to be acceptable as allies?

As for the difference between Classical Greco-Roman authors and modern perennialists, I think it is clear. The Greeks and Romans whose writings have been long admired in the West either lived before Christ or shortly after when their societies were still largely pagan. There is good reason to believe that the better aspects of these cultures were providentially arranged to point towards the coming of Christ (a view shared by not a few early Christians). The Church has respected and learned from pre-Christian, pagan cultures. What the Church has never tolerated, however, is the deliberate attempt by religious innovaters living in Christian nations to spread anti-Christian doctrines. The latter certainly describes the work of Evola and Guenon. Also, the founding fathers respected Roman republicanism because it worked well for centuries. I have no problem with learning practical wisdom from successful political leaders who weren’t Christian. But with Evola and Guenon, there is no practical success for us to learn from. Their work deals almost exclusively with metaphysics and spiritual experience, that is, with the very areas of human life in which Christians should not be learning from the world. I should maybe mention, that I once considered myself to be a perennialist, and have read several books by both Evola and Guenon. It is clear from their writings that they were working for the restoration of the “primordial tradition” which would entail the destruction of Christianity in all of its traditional forms. It’s also worth pointing out that perennialists advocate the practice of pretending to join an established religion (Parrott mentioned Guenon’s fake conversion to Islam) while secretly working for their own “higher” philosophy. Surely this is more dangerous than looking to Cicero or Aristotle on how to govern a state?

Swiss Kinist

Unfortunately, your definition/conclusion renders the passage about unequal yoking absolutely meaningless. Christians certainly were linked into Roman society at one point, but when a Christian had a business, an organization, etc, he certainly would not make a non-Christian linked with him in unity toward a common goal (since the goal of all things ought to be to glorify Christ).

So please, if you would, tell us what WOULD be a violation of 2Cor 6:14-18?

Todd Lewis

“Saying “Shotgun hasn’t responded well to some posters”, isn’t even mildly interesting. If that’s all you’ve got to offer, then I pass on further exchanges.”

Dido for your non-objections to Clement and the Swiss Kinist. I guess I am only dealing with confused Ahaz who seeks an alliance with the proverbial Assyrians.

Shotgun

So it’s ok to glean from the pagans you deem worthy (for whatever reasons), but others…not so much.

For someone demanding strict exegetical proofs for every ethical choice, this seems a bit arbitrary doesn’t it? I’m glad Shane (the gunslinger) didn’t hold this view. He’d have been shot by the bad guys before concluding his Bible study.

Why not give Heimbach the same leniency you afford the early respecters of Rome? They can’t have been more zeal for the Faith than he does.

…in the mean time, I’ll trust to my intuitions, forged by immersion in a Christian culture, when it comes to ethical decisions. The law is, after all, written on our heart.

Clement Pulaski

I claim that studying the Greco-Roman classics is acceptable, but that promoting the work of anti-Christian occultists is dangerous, and I also claim that this view is in line with Patristic and traditional Protestant thinking on the subject.
Am I incorrect in saying this?

Regarding what I wrote above “What I would love to see is a systematic, Biblical examination of exactly whom Christians should and should not work with, and in what contexts.” Are you saying that such a project is somehow undesirable or unnecessary? I don’t see how the present situation can be satisfactory.

As for leniency for Heimbach, I felt that in my critique of his position I was as lenient towards monarchists as he was towards republicans and constitutionalists.

Matt Parrott

I claim that studying the Greco-Roman classics is acceptable, but that promoting the work of anti-Christian occultists is dangerous, and I also claim that this view is in line with Patristic and traditional Protestant thinking on the subject.

There’s certainly some danger in directing folks to Evola and Guenon, but I believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. The Church Fathers never had to deal with a society which was so drastically removed from the basic rudiments of a traditional worldview, so I would hope they would be understanding if I (partially) rely on some non-Christian sources who’ve proven effective in helping folks overcome Modern ways of thinking.

You exaggerate our emphasis on Evola, Guenon, and other problematic Traditionalists, and repeatedly imply that Heimbach and I are guilty of Perennialism when we are emphatically not.

Shotgun

You’re correct in re-stating your position – it’s just that your position is inconsistent. Some pagans are ok, others aren’t, and the line is drawn arbitrarily.

As for exegetical ethical studies, practical examples are best: I’d love to see your notes from the study you did that convinced you it’s morally acceptable to polemicize in online comment threads.

But seriously – while Bible study and clarification of a Christian ethic are always desirable, on my view, God has given us a set o laws and, beyond those, we’re free to live as our consciences dictate. The puritanical drive to rationalize every human action with a proof text is unhealthy and paralyzing.

To clarify my comment about leniency: if you’re willing to trust a handful of Christians in the ancient world when they’re able to glean the good from some pagans, why not trust a handful of Christians today who try to glean the good from other pagans?

Swiss Kinist

Aside from the argument of “gleaning from pagans”, which I think Clement is being misunderstood on (but I will let him explain if he wishes), the main problem is not so much the gleaning of, but the joining in fellowship with pagans and those who hate Christ. I wouldn’t join in organization with anyone who isn’t wholly devoted to Christ and his word, both in word and action. I think it is bad enough I am stuck in a corporation that does not seek to glorify God. God forbid I would start my own organization and hand it over for enemies of the gospel to influence.

And there is a huge difference between “having transactions” with pagans and being yoked together with them; a difference that Parrott cannot understand. There is a difference between, for example, being a business owner and transacting with pagans. It’s quite another thing to invite them into your business to be a manager or co-worker.

Shotgun

It’s easy to misunderstand people who speak out of both sides of their mouths, I suppose.

If you guys were of a mind to be generous, you might easily grant that, in our modern world, we’re all “yoked” with unbelievers – we need only strive not to be unequally yoked. (Here we see the absurdity of favoring Biblical metaphor over systematic application of the principles being taught – a failing among hyper literalists who are trying to be faithful but accidentally give up common sense in the process). Another rule of hermeneutics is that we ought not extend a metaphor further than the meaning the metaphor communicates. For example: When Scripture says God is light, it doesn’t literally mean He is composed of light particles. In our case: we’re commanded not to be unequally “yoked”, but that doesn’t literally mean that we cannot plow a field while tethered to a pagan, nor does it mean we must avoid all organized contact with them (if you did take the passage that way, then I’m sure you’d both be in sin for using the internet – a technology that requires input from various non-Christians).

In light of that, I’m not sure how TradYouth’s official position violates any sort of Biblical command about unequal yoking.

Puritans, even the overly zealous ones, will have to make concessions and pacts with the surrounding pagans. It’s politically unavoidable.

Todd Lewis

Shotgun as a kinist I thought you would reject collaborating with pagans for a common political goal. Whether or not you agree with Clement or the Swiss Kinist nothing they have said is arbitrary. One can accept the positive intellectual contribution of pagans without seeking to collaborate with them on a common goal. There positions still might be false, but I doubt they are incoherent. Your concern seems to be that collaboration of this nature is not violating the unequally yoked comment of St. Paul. I think that Calvinist history would bear out Clement’s concerns. I seriously doubt that the Scottish Covenanters and English Puritains would collaborate with pagan’s given the fact that they would not even collaborate with Catholics or the as they saw it deviant Protestant faiths. For example in 2 Chronicles 28:16-21 God judges Judah for king Ahaz’s alliance with Assyria. I think a kinist could make a strong case that collaborating with pagans would violate God’s law.

Shotgun

I’m a Calvinist and a racial realist, but I’m not an ideological heir of the puritans.

…and let’s hear that strong case, Todd.

…and while you’re at it, to be consistent, you need to also present us a case for why you ought to be presenting such cases in the first place.

Todd Lewis

As I remember you saying in an a debate with a certain leftist “put the fangs away.” That was good advice, so no need to get riled up and put the fangs away. Lets see more of that easy going nature I heard on that debate, in which you did quite well in refuting secular epistemology.

“…and let’s hear that strong case, Todd.”

Strong case for what accepting pagan ideas, or rejecting collaboration with pagans or both? Not precises enough.

“…and while you’re at it, to be consistent, you need to also present us a case for why you ought to be presenting such cases in the first place.”

In order to be consistent you need to provide a coherent alternative to Clement and the Swiss Kinist, which you have not. Furthermore as a Kinist why do you think such an alliance is lawful? Last I checked anytime Israel or Judah allied with Egypt or Assyria for self-preservation God judged them.

You have heard of devil’s advocate haven’t you? I just felt Clement and the Swiss Kinist had not been adequately answered and was hoping to get a fuller explanation from you.

Shotgun

Todd,

If you’re not going to level any charges against me or TradYouth, then what are we talking about? If you *are*, then you need to present your case.

I’m sick of the “frozen chosen” …quick to criticize, but very very (extremely) slow to do anything. Let Pulaski or Swiss Kinist start an activist organization and become shining beacons of Christian propriety…give TradYouth something to imitate.

Get to it. And if not, then shut up and let us do the best we can.

Todd Lewis

“If you’re not going to level any charges against me or TradYouth, then what are we talking about? If you *are*, then you need to present your case.”

I already told you, I don’t think you adequately answered Clement or the Swiss Kinist. I don’t have to have an argument supporting their position or attacking yours, to say you did an insufficient job in refuting them. Did you even read what I said? Parenthetically I already provided an alternative case i.e. every time Israel or Judah sought pagan assistance God judged them.

“I’m sick of the “frozen chosen” …quick to criticize, but very very (extremely) slow to do anything. Let Pulaski or Swiss Kinist start an activist organization and become shining beacons of Christian propriety…give TradYouth something to imitate.”

Thank you for explaining you animus against the aforementioned two.

That’s not really a good argument though. Ahaz could have said just the same thing. I don’t want to those prophets to tell me how to defend my kingdom Assyria is the best bet.

Again put the fangs away, are you trying to ignore your own advice?

Shotgun

Todd, I’m not interested in your pseudo-psychoanalysis of my emotional states, what I’m interested in is some criticism that you have of Tradyouth. Saying “Shotgun hasn’t responded well to some posters”, isn’t even mildly interesting. If that’s all you’ve got to offer, then I pass on further exchanges.

If, on the other hand, you’d like to make the case that certain narrative accounts in Scripture are applicable to TradYouth, then let’s hear it.

Todd Lewis

“Todd, I’m not interested in your pseudo-psychoanalysis of my emotional states, what I’m interested in is some criticism that you have of Tradyouth. ”

Dido to your interpretation of Clement’s emotion or mental states. Which have nothing to do with Clement or the Swiss Kinists point of view.

I guess your unwillingness to answers the objection of scripture is your own inability to do it.

I have to say your are the Alex Botten of this conversation. Stop obfuscating and refute the Biblical rule of being unequally yoked? So again but your fangs away? Is drawing the fangs Christian at all?

BTW if you can psycho-analyze Botten I can equally psycho-analyze you. The golden rule and all that.

What I’m waiting for is a kinist or any christian definition of how collaborating with the unsaved is allowed? You believe in the right of enslaving pagans as your defense of the south shows, so why collaborate with people you believe worthy of servitude?

Really I hoped for better from a self proclaimed southern gentleman. As such a man lets both be gentle in our discourse with each other and others.

“If, on the other hand, you’d like to make the case that certain narrative accounts in Scripture are applicable to TradYouth, then let’s hear it.”

I gave you an objection that you continually avoid. Israel and Judah were judged by God for colaborating with Egypt and Assyria and were prohibited form doing so with the Cannanites. Why do you claim that I have not given you an objection I have in at least three cases, are your blind or are you deaf? The only problem is your inability to give defeaters to said objection. The ball is in your court.

Clement Pulaski

It’s not just that you and Heimbach approvingly cite Evola and Guenon. You two have built up a successful platform, and you allow this platform to promote perennialist and syncretist ideas, like the article we’re currently commenting on, or the article written by the muslim author that was published in the wake of Charlie Hebdo.

And arguing that we face a worse ideological situation than the Church fathers betrays a perennialist influence, I think. The Church fathers lived alongside religious traditions that worshipped demons and animals, exposed new born children, and persecuted the saints in a horrific fashion. One of the main flaws of perennialism is the idea that Egyptian or Babylonian paganism are so much better than Protestantism, not to mention atheism or deism.
Seeking out political alliances with other groups who are also opposed to the Jewish NWO is one thing, but this should be based on purely practical considerations, not the perennialist idea that all traditionalists possess some spiritual kinship.

Matt Parrott

you allow this platform to promote perennialist and syncretist ideas

Just about everybody involved wants to shrink the tent just enough that he still fits in it. A Catholic I spoke with insisted that we should only allow apostolic Christians. A Muslim (not that one) insisted that only monotheists should be allowed aboard. You probably draw that line at Trinitarians, and wouldn’t want us to allow any Mormons to participate. Plenty would like to see Protestants opposed instead of welcomed and supported.

Perennialists are welcome to participate in the project, too. Our job is to create a big fuzzy safe space where identitarian and traditionalist ideals can be discussed, encouraged, and promoted. It’s certainly not the whole solution, and we never claimed it was.

I, Matt Parrott, do solemnly swear that I am not a perennialist.

And arguing that we face a worse ideological situation than the Church fathers betrays a perennialist influence, I think.

How did I not see that accusation that I’m a perennialist coming?

Just on the sheer annual number of abortions annually, I think there’s a non-perennialist case to be made that our situation is perhaps in some ways unchartered territory. Though, that’s beside the point, as scripture and history present a broad array of acceptable angles.

One of the main flaws of perennialism is the idea that Egyptian or Babylonian paganism are so much better than Protestantism

Still not a perennialist, and certainly not more favorable to Near Eastern paganism than to my Protestant brothers in Christ.

Seeking out political alliances with other groups who are also opposed to the Jewish NWO is one thing

Just as long as I’m not a perennialist?

not the perennialist idea that all traditionalists possess some spiritual kinship.

Yup…

Clement Pulaski

Well the tent does need to have limits, doesn’t it? That’s what the whole discussion is about. Saying that different people want different size tents isn’t an argument for not having any boundaries at all.

I’m just asking for a discussion in which we can set those boundaries, using Scripture and Church tradition as our guide. Are you saying that such a discussion is undesirable?

Eric

Clement : What about respecting one another’s spiritual beliefs (or non-beliefs) and co-existing. Keep your church (Catholicism? That goes double) out of politics.

Hair splitting is not something nationalists can afford to do. That goes for inquisitors like you, as well as the neo-pagans who put animosity towards Christianity before important stuff.

The Catholic Church is one of the big forces supporting the Jew NWO’s mass immigration to Europe. Something to ponder. The world today isn’t split between Catholics vs the world, it’s between people who love something other than money and the materialistic Jew.

There are plenty of dogmatic trad Catholic groups out there for you to join. The Kosher conservatives at Tradition, Family, and Property could be a place for a fanatic like you to start.

Shotgun

Eric,

You’re like the guy who believes the following moral proposition:

“We ought not force our moral beliefs on others.”

…and then tries to force *that* proposition on others, thereby contradicting his own standard.

Clement Pulaski

Just for the record, I’m not Catholic. I was baptized into the Catholic Church at birth, but my family stopped attending by the time I was one. I came to faith in Christ as an adult

Clement Pulaski

The puritanical drive to rationalize every human action with a proof text is unhealthy and paralyzing.

It’s not as if I’m talking about managing every tiny aspect of our lives. I’m addressing a very large question: Can we join in political alliances with neo-pagans whose stated position is that Christianity is a plague and must be destroyed?
Asking that question can hardly be construed as puritanical micromanaging.

Puritans, even the overly zealous ones, will have to make concessions and pacts with the surrounding pagans. It’s politically unavoidable.

Even if we grant this, wouldn’t it be important to systematically examine exactly of what nature these pacts should be, and exactly what concessions are permissible? It seems like you aren’t even willing to have a discussion on what the limits should be.

Shotgun

Not to speak for Parrot, Pulaski, but such a discussion, however desirable it may be, may not be applicable to our situation here.

If we step back and examine the “meta-political” situation, we’re able to make categorical statements. For example: “All men ought to associate tribally”. This statement includes all men, as, from a Reformed perspective, all men are obligated to obey the creation ordinances and arrange themselves accordingly. All men ought not murder, is another categorical statement we could make.

I’m more than happy to work with the pagan police force in apprehending murderers (or deterring murderers). And I’m more than happy to work with them in promoting ethnic nationalism.

Clement Pulaski

Even if such “meta-political” cooperation is as unproblematic as you say, white nationalist projects very seldom remain on this level. Bob Whitaker and his followers are the only ones I can think of whose work would fall in this category (TradYouth would not). But if you get into any analysis of our current problem that goes deeper than “white genocide is wrong”, the tensions are instantly revealed. Just to provide one example, secularists will argue that if we only had a more Darwinian worldview, our race would be flourishing. Christian nationalists will say that if we obeyed God’s law, our race would be flourishing.

It’s not as if I have a strong personal aversion to working with non-Christian nationalists. I’ve worked with non-Christian nationalists in the past, and it was, I think, very fruitful in many ways. I’d actually like to be convinced that some sort of appropriate collaboration can be achieved, as in the past I’ve had to break off collaborative relationships, and turn down opportunities for others, because of the awkward position I was frequently put in. There were situations, for example, where you’re doing a podcast with someone who makes a statement completely at odds with Biblical orthodoxy, and you have the choice to either defend the faith and contradict the other guy (thereby precipitating a huge argument), or to be silent and say nothing, giving a tacit endorsement to what has been said. You also find yourself in situations where a media outlet that you’ve spent months working on suddenly publishes material explicitly promoting a doctrine that must be viewed as “another Gospel”. Once again, the choices are either silently going along with it, or vocally defending the faith, bringing about another (apparently fruitless) comment thread battle. I have found that such collaboration often resulted in me not preaching the Gospel out of fear of offending the people I was collaborating with. If others have had the same experience, surely this is a sign that such collaboration is problematic? If you have found a way of collaborating with non-Christians such that you have never had to hold back a defense of the faith when it was appropriate, I’d be eager to learn from you.

Shotgun

Pulaski,

Oh, I never implied the situation is unproblematic.

Like it or not, we’re in the world with other people and if we want to be leaders, we’re going to have to pull out every ounce of tact, every ounce of political savvy, every ounce of grace we can muster, and not to mention a heaping of patience.

My point was more to note that you wouldn’t stop a pagan tribe in Africa from congregating ethnically (at least, I hope you agree with us about tribalism being a normative human arrangement). You wouldn’t stop them and you might even be able to join with them in saying that their social arrangement is ideal.

Making that sort of meta-statement is not fraternizing with the enemy or being unequally yoked in some way – at least, not that I can see. If many people begin saying it, then our voices might be loud enough to reverberate throughout modernity.

If you’re convinced, like I am, that Reformed Christianity provides the *only* worldview able to make this message coherent, not to mention its being the only worldview that’s true, then there’s no reason not to add ours to the chorus of voices with full confidence it’ll be the loudest and most beautiful among them all.

Clement Pulaski

So since you also think that the situation is problematic, would you at least agree that we should analyze more thoroughly how and to what degree we should interact with pagans, using Scripture and Church tradition as our guide?
I don’t see how such a project could be undesirable.

Maybe it would be helpful to look at Kuyper’s writings? I’ve only read bits of his theological material, but didn’t he write on politics as well? Being a theologian and statesman in the multi-denominational Netherlands, he might have some helpful insight.

I think that an important question for Christian nationalists is the following: is your top priority awakening your white brothers and sisters to the physical dangers of multiculturalism and Jewish control, or awakening your Christian brothers and sisters to the physical and spiritual dangers of multiculturalism and Jewish control?
I’m not saying that you can’t do both, but if you emphasize collaboration with neo-pagans, that gives our fellow Christians an excuse to dismiss our message as being insincere.

And once again, if you can show me a convincing Christian case in favor of appropriate Christian affiliation with non-Christian nationalists, I’d be much obliged.

As for the question of African pagans, I agree that it’s best for them to organize tribally. However, I wouldn’t conribute my time or money to a journal published by African pagans that promoted both nationalism and voodoo.

Also, maybe I should clarify that I’m not a Calvinist, since it seems you’re assuming that I am one (not that it really matters in this context, I don’t think. I also do have a deep respect for many reformed thinkers).

john king

This whole thread is nothing but mutual intellectual masturbation. This is the reason we are getting our butts handed to us on a daily basis. Let me put it this way, children. I’m an ex-Christian. I’m not coming back. Get over it. No degree of your insulting me will bring me back to the flock. The one thing that matters is that I am 100% RABIDLY PRO WHITE. I would give my life to defend your white children (assuming Rosy Palmer isn’t your bride, lol) from a pack of feral N-words. I don’t have a problem working with WHITE Christians but let’s keep in mind that whites are now a minority in Christendom. To put it more clearly: the majority of Christians are now non-White. Maybe the next pope will be an African with the title of Leroy Errectus I. Don’t take my word. Do your own research! When I look at video of Mutha’ ‘Manual AME church in Charleston and those vile anti-White spewing ‘pastors’ (really subhuman savages in purple robes) I am highly offended. Christianity has been the vehicle that N-words have used for centuries to push their supremacy agenda over Whites. Taking down that flag = Black Supremacy. They may be your “brother in the faith” but they didn’t pop out of MY mother! Although I am not quite to the point of worshipping the gods of our ancestors (those of Asatru) I want to state that there is no line of thinking in our civilization that is MORE traditional with the longest history among our people than “the way of our people”. Europe existed for 40 centuries before the arrival of Christianity and it practiced such TRADITIONAL beliefs. So any attempt by anyone here to say that such beliefs are not traditional among us Europids is patently false. Christianity is the “new guy on the block” historically speaking. I’m not knocking or seeking to offend any pro-White Christian here. Believe what you want. I will still see you as a brother in the struggle for White racial survival, that is until you come into the chat with your anonymous nazi name and crap on my chest.

Shotgun

But Mr. King… your position is intellectually laughable and, while passionate, effectively removes you from the discussion. Who are you to tell us what we ought and ought not do, after all? Are you a god whose word we ought to take seriously?

If you don’t like sophisticated belief systems and discussions, you’re part of the wrong race.

Let the desire to debate these issues be one more reason to meet up with each other at real life picketing events. We’ll confront modernity then have lively and interesting debates in the pub afterwards.

Malcolm Shiel

Mr. King:

You might consider the religion for Whites created — or, perhaps it would be more proper to say, discovered — by William Pierce: Cosmotheism.

Shotgun

Swiss Kinist,

Re: my position making nonsense of “unequal yoking”…

Throughout the history of Christian discourse about ethics, there’s been a give and take between totalitarians and libertines: one group wants to legislate every aspect of life with a proof text, the other wants to abuse God’s grace with capricious living.

I’m a theonomist and while this same dichotomy plagues theonomic circles (mostly because the level of scholarship among theonomists is abysmal post-Bahnsen), there is, at least, a program for avoiding it. On my view, which admittedly necessitates Christian tribal relationsihps, everyone obeys God’s law as their consciences allow and disputes are resolved by the tribal elder/s.

Take a practical example (that’s analogous to our current discussion): swimsuits for girls. Barring an exegetical study of the laws involved here, we know that girls are to dress modestly. But what does modest mean, exactly? How modest? Here, Pulaski would call for an international tribunal to determine the exact line.

What’d I’d say, instead, is that it’s the individual Christian tribe’s prerogative as to how they’ll obey the laws concerning modesty. There need not be some iron-clad standard that applies equally to all people in all situations.

The same is true concerning TradYouth. From my perspective, TradYouth occasionally interacts with pagans and pagan materials. You don’t agree with some of things we’ve done as an organization, but that’s just to say that you think our daughter isn’t appropriately modest at the beach… we disagree.

Swiss Kinist

Shotgun,

You are I are close enough, and you know me well enough to know, that I don’t believe “activism” is the solution. I think it has a small place, but the only real solution is repentance of the white race, toward God (2Chron 7:14). You’ve seen my articles and head the podcast I have done on Tribal Theocrat. I know you do not agree with me, but at least at one point you did to an extent. I will refrain from further details and we can talk that out privately. I love you dearly and my family prays for you much.

As you know, my “activism” is raising a godly family. We have 8 white children and likely more to come, God willing. Most of what I see in white advocacy is a bunch of single or divorced men, you did NOT and are NOT building godly families and raising up the next generation. The family is the solution. The breakdown of the family is essential to Jews in destroying us. I am not knocking single men all in all, but I do see a huge problem that there are barely any godly families in this movement.

As for the illustration of swimsuits, if what you are saying is true, then every man does what is right in his own eyes. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and this nation, when it was a nation, and when it was Christian, had lines drawn, and there were laws against certain immodest forms of dress. I am fully in favor of that. Even you yourself would draw a line somewhere. I doubt you would deem it okay for a woman to walk down the street naked. I just draw the line in a different place.

And if you have read my writings, you know I am not afraid to “impose” my standards on others. Neither were genuine Christians of the past. The “do not judge” mindset is steeped way too deep in this land, and even affects good thinking people like you and I.

And again, the issue is not “having transactions” or “learning from” pagans. The issue is yoking with them. If TradYouth allows people to exist as leaders in their organizational chapters, those who hate Christ, that is a huge problem.

Hope to chat with you on the phone soon, my brother, God bless. We love you.

Hans

Shotgun

You believe in raising families *and* posting in comment threads it seems; participating in conversations with pagans and non-Christians to boot! Careful S.K. or you’ll be joining Trad Youth next!

As for my position on ethics, you missed an important part of it, and that is that I’m a Theonomist. So, everyone obeys God’s law and apart from that, then, yes, everything else is whatever is right in our own eyes.

But how about the complexities of obeying God’s law? How modest ought our daughters be on the beach? How submissive ought our wives be? How exactly ought our worship services go on Sunday? How long should our prayers be? etc. etc. ?

On my view, which is the result of years of wrestling with Christian ethical philosophy, these things are set by the specific tribal conscience of each unique Christian tribe or affinity group, with the elders (in accordance with the law) having the final say.

You do the same thing, you either just don’t realize it or you do realize it and think your preferences ought to be enforced universally. In either case, you should know better.
————————-

As for TradYouth, we are a pro-family organization and believe everyone, pagan and Christian alike, will be better off for having big families.

Do you disagree?

Swiss Kinist

I should clarify. I believe in raising godly families and through that, godly communities. Just for the record.

No, the scripture would prevent me from “joining TradYouth”, in that, the organization yokes itself with haters of Christ in unity. Have discussion with pagans is a daily occurrence for everyone; joining with them arm-in-arm toward a common cause is not. That is why I never participate in “good causes” with people I work with. But I gladly join in causes that are specifically Christian that help others in need.

“As for TradYouth, we are a pro-family organization and believe everyone, pagan and Christian alike, will be better off for having big families.

Do you disagree?”

I disagree. I prefer that non-Christians do not have large families. I am not pro-family, I am pro-Christ.. I am pro-Christ’s dominion on the whole earth.

john king

Tick. tick. tick. The clock is running out on our race. All this philosophical back and forth has done nothing to save the life of a single white life. As we chase our tails our opponents are taking action. Our opponents don’t give a damn what God or Gods or lack thereof their comrades bow to. They don’t infight. No, they fight their enemy (us). I’m to the point where I wouldn’t give a damn if an Aryan Satanist were in the foxhole with me — assuming war will be needed to procure the future of our race — an it probably will as freedom is not free. This religious stuff and all your quoting of Bible verses just bores me. Believe what you want about existence after death. I have my opinions and theories too. But I have no compulsion to come forward and say what I believe. One reason is that we are living on Planet Earth. When the time come when we proceed to Heaven or Valhalla all our questions will be answered. I’m worried about this world, where I’m on the endangered species list. Let tomorrow worry about tomorrow. Even Jesus said that. I’m sure you can find the verse! Some of you guys have similar behavior to queers. Queers have this compulsion to wear their gayness on their cuff and tell everyone how they’re proud to be gay (how someone could be proud of having a compulsion to bugger other men is beyond my understanding). Some of you guys have the compulsion to fluff your feathers about your religious affiliation. Notice, that I do NOT. And you don’t get any points from me when you do. Rather you will alienate me and that’s a sad thing considering my history of public pro white activism and my work on “The White Voice”. I’m a one trick pony and my eyes are affixed to a future White ethnostate.

Clement Pulaski

Yet another article calling for an end to religious infighting has the opposite result. Perhaps a sign that the problem is without a solution?

Swiss Kinist

John King,

If Christ is not Lord and the Bible is not true, why should I care if the white race continues to exist? Why would I not just “do what feels good” and live it up in pleasure, like the rest of the anti-white, whites are doing?

Matt Parrott

I’m quite confident that each and every folk religionist who’s genuinely hostile to Christianity steers clear of TradYouth, save for the occasional drive-by.

Even though we explicitly operate as a secular pan-Traditionalist project, our crusaders deus vult so hard that it tends to alienate other religious persuasions. We’re fine with that as long as they’re the ones choosing to leave. We’re not going to ask any of our factions to tone it down for the sake of unity, as our goal is a world where the crusaders deus vult harder, pagans berserker harder, muslims jihad harder, and all that vulting, berserking, and jihading is directed toward the common threat to all traditions.

After Modernity and Multiculturalism have been vanquished, we can all get back to doing what we Europeans do best; slaughtering one another over parochial and petty differences.

Clement Pulaski

our goal is a world where…muslims jihad harder
Wow. The problem with pan-traditionalism in a nutshell.
I think the muslims are jihading plenty hard already, especially for our Christian brothers in the Middle East.

Eric

What are “the muslims”? The Muslims are persecuting Christians, the Muslims (Iran, Hezbollah) and Arab secularists are also the only ones defending Christians. Don’t see too many American Christians volunteering to protect believers in Syria, they’re too busy felching for Israel whose supports the groups persecuting Christians.

john king

Well said, Mr. Parrot. I desire only to smash the globalist kikokratic NWO system which seeks to end all human differences. I would hope that once this kosher beast is slain that we Europids don’t return to slaughtering ourselves over differences in religion, language, nationality, etc. I think “The Great Fratricidal War” (I’m not using the NWO term ‘WWII’) may have been necessary (even David Duke has said this) to show to our people the utter evil of killing themselves. I may have been born 22 years after the end of that sordid conflict but I get the lesson. Never again. Orthodox Christianity was looking favorable to me until Heimbach was excommunicated. But in the long run it’s better for me to just say that I’m not a believer. I admire Orthodoxy even if I can’t get my faith up. Not being a believer does not make me an adversary. You either believe the Bible or you don’t. I see Jesus as a literary character who was a prototype anti-semitic revolutionary before being an anti-semite was hip. How many of you guys have ever gone to a sin-o-gog and told the “Jews” that they are ‘children of the devil’ (John 8:44)?

Shotgun

But John, don’t you see a place for intellectual system building? What would happen if everyone shut off their brains, closed their books, put down their pens, and went full berserker mode? What would happen is, they’d go full berserker on the weekends but during the week, when they’re inundated with their government school indoctrination and their television shows, they’d slowly change their emotions.

It takes intellect to deconstruct Boazian anthropology and universalist theological eschatologies. And our people have always been prone to thinking high thoughts. Our philosophers are, after all, one of the things that separates Western Civilization from Africa.

I think if someone wants to lead, they need to offer more than brash, narrow-scope passion. They have to have a vision and a rigorous worldview.

…that’s what Christianity offers, among many other wonderful things.

Swiss Kinist

I wish I could say I get a good laugh out of this, but I don’t. The sad fact is, most of what is argued among WN circles, even the “Christians”, basically are arguing if Christ should/shouldn’t be the “means” to an end. Please, don’t become a “Christian”, John, because all you are looking for is a vehicle in which to prop up your god, which is, your race.

Christ will only receive us if we forsake all. HE is the end, not the means to a different end.

Eric

Well Shotgun, if you think I’m “forcing” my morals on you by suggesting a multi-confessional white ethno-state where mutual respect and unity is encoded is not just desirable, but the only way to do things, what do you suggest? A baptist theocracy? Whatever sect of Christianity Clement belongs to dictating matters over not just agnostics and atheists and non-christians, but also the other Christian offshoots?

Good luck with that. All you’ll do is import Iraqi style sectarianism to the West. Personally, I think it’s a good thing that 8 million Germans aren’t dying in Thirty Year’s Wars anymore.

You as a christian I assume agree with Paul’s premise of natural morality. The majority of white people are either secular or Christians who don’t practice. And they’re still more moral than the most fervent worshipper in the Lord’s Resistance Army down in Central Africa.

Eric

Clement has enough things in common with Tradyouth to compromise and contribute to the movement–do something constructive in other words. But no. His ego is so big, that he wants to be the leader, but nobody wants to follow him on his crusade against Mormons and Muslims (including those Muslims in the Shia bloc, who ironically, are fighting and dying to protect Christians while he sits on his ass railing against them on the internet), so he goes on these hair-splitting missions to denounce “Perennialism” before an empty auditorium.

Constructive criticism is good. We’re serious people doing serious things, and such people enjoy criticism so they can do something better. But your criticism isn’t constructive, it’s Spartacus League Trotskyism. You’ll be lucky if Christianity in any form survives this century the way things are going, I would wake up and smell the coffee before it’s too late.

Eric

Swiss Kinist: If you don’t want to join Trad Youth, then so be it. Start your own group and do a better job. Maybe if you pray hard enough Jews will stop murdering whites. It says on your website that you’re an Anabaptist AKA a Judaizer. You shouldn’t be doing the right thing (protecting and preserving Western race and civilization) because you’re looking for a treat in the end, you should be doing it because it truly comes from your heart and expect nothing (not even from God) in return.

Jesus isn’t someone you go to a networking lunch with and impress so he’ll get you a job in heaven. Christianity is a perpetual cross you have to bare, your cross is to do something to save your race other than making excuses for not getting involved in the coming war of the worlds.

Eric

What proof do SK and Clement have that God wants you to do nothing instead of fighting to actually keep Christianity in existence via trad youth? Because it’s something convenient for you to think?

The “neo-pagans”, agnostics, Muslims, whatever who contribute to tradyouth’s pro-Aryan and pro-Western mission are doing more to protect Christians than you are. They’re struggling for the West against queers, Jewish globalists, and cultural Marxism. Jews are going to kick down the doors of your churches and force you to marry fags, marry men to animals, marry adults to babies, and you’re going to be at home praying to not answer. God smiles upon those who are willing to take up the sword and defend themselves, including those who aren’t Christians.

Swiss Kinist

Eric,

I am plenty busy training up warriors of the next generation. Just because I don’t go on protest picket marches, yelling at people, ripping down flags, and trying to act like some kind of tough bad ass (which are all pretty much contrary to the spirit of Christ), doesn’t mean I am not doing something productive. And by the way, I would find preaching the gospel on the streets of far more value than what you all do. The gospel of Christ is the only thing with the power to change this people. And us whites have a lot of repentance to do ourselves before we are ready to point the finger at the Jews and Blacks, etc. Once you have done that and wholly devoted yourself to Christ, THEN do his work.

As for your “Judaizer accusation, it is obvious you haven’t written a thing I’ve wrote, if you come to that conclusion. I make it pretty clear on my blog why I use the term “Anabaptist”. And your accusations of Clement are ridiculous; “his ego is so big”… seriously?.. Clement is one of the meekest guys you can talk to. You are just upset that he won’t join your cause, because it is rooted apart from Christ and his word.

Eric

no, I’m glad wimps like you and Clement don’t join the cause. I am mad that you come here to waste our time with divisive crap, because you have nothing better to do.

Jesus isn’t a wimp in all sects of Christianity. Orthodox Jesus is masculine and is a tough bad ass. We need more badasses, not more prayers. You pray, the men will do the work, let’s see who gets more results.

Matt Parrott

I am plenty busy training up warriors of the next generation.

Yawn. False dichotomy. You can raise up children and be a political fighter. I have done both. Besides, even if they were mutually exclusive tasks, it would make sense for you to refrain from hissing and spitting on those who set about being warriors instead of fathers.

Just because I don’t go on protest picket marches, yelling at people, ripping down flags, and trying to act like some kind of tough bad ass (which are all pretty much contrary to the spirit of Christ), doesn’t mean I am not doing something productive.

When you frame Christ as being integrally feminine and incompatible with political agitation or masculine aggression, you’re stepping outside the Gospels, in which Christ engaged in direct physical aggression, Church Tradition, in which being a warrior is a very Christian activity, and promoting a castrated and pacifist take on Christianity which will not prove worthy of His righteous judgment.

Both sides are acting as if prayer and political struggle are mutually exclusive matters. I, for one, believe that passionate prayer and bold action should go hand-in-hand. Burying your talents and merely praying for a miracle while eschewing action is not what Scripture calls us to do.

Shotgun

To all my detractors:

Clement:

You’re not a Calvinist, that means you can’t accept Calvinist covenant theology, which means you can’t accept my Christian theory of ethics, which is “Theonomy”, as I’ve tried to lay out. In light of that, I have no idea what your moral philosophy is (other than loosely Christian). I believe my theory of ethics is superior to any offered in any other quarter of Christendom. And as a polemicist for theonomy, I’m used to being asked about the moral legitimacy of “x, y, or z” (fill in the variables with whatever you’d like). I’ve found that instead of addressing each individual ethical question, it’s better to examine competing moral theories and point out the failings in my critics. In your case – you’ve still not provided the data from the Christian councils and studies you’ve done that legislate the morality of posting in web discussion threads. Until you do, I’m not sure why I ought to take your criticisms seriously, especially since it seems you don’t take them seriously yourself. Prove me wrong.

Tom,

I’ve already laid out a loose program of my theonomic ethics. You’ve not interacted with that nor presented something of your own to discuss. Additionally, in my first post addressed to Polanski, I discussed why appealing to narrative accounts in Scripture as a way to derive universal moral norms, is a hermeneutical error. You’ve not interacted with that either.

My conclusion is you’re either intellectually unable to do so, or you’re unwilling. In either case, I’m afraid we’ve reached the end of our discussion.

Eric,

My problem with you is that you’ve presented two mutually exclusive propositions:

1. It’s ok for Eric to assert his views over others.
and
2. It’s wrong for anyone to assert their views over others.

Make up your mind. You’ve got a good heart, but I wish you’d be more systematic with your zeal.

To Swiss Kinist,

You have to either accept that there are other Christian traditions besides your own, (ones which encourage the martial spirit and Knightly virtues of its adherents), or carry on with the belief that you, and you alone, have some quasi-oracle status in Christendom. And I second Matt’s statements…you may not like what we’re doing, but since you’re not a member of TradYouth nor are you (apparently) willing to study our position in depth to learn more about it before criticizing it, then none of us are going to be eager to drop what we’re doing and give you an ear.

I apologize to anyone I’ve missed.

Clement Pulaski

Shotgun I’ll ask you again:

Is it appropriate for Christians to support an organization that includes as one of its goals that “muslims jihad harder”?

Are you really going to hide behind the excuse “you need to justify why it’s appropriate to comment on anything” before giving a simple yes or no to this question?

Matt Parrott

Is it appropriate for Christians to support an organization that includes as one of its goals that “muslims jihad harder”?

You honestly don’t understand the nature and scope of the universal threat which global capitalism and organized Jewry pose to every faith. Christians absolutely should ally in a common struggle with other folks and faiths which pose a common threat.

Let’s say that there was a meteor preparing to strike Earth within the next month, and it required working side-by-side with atheist China, Islamist Saudi Arabia, and even Jewish Israel in a secular engineering project to build a rocket capable of destroying the meteor.

Are you seriously telling me that the Christian thing to do is refuse to collaborate on this shared secular project to save humanity?

I circle back to my original illustration of the ox in the ditch, and the implication that you’re being pharisaical and even perhaps gnostic in your detachment while your faith and folk are in grave existential danger.

“But I’m doing my part! I’m both praying about it AND having relations with my wife!”

Clement Pulaski

Interesting analogy about the meteor. If the earth were threatened in this way, a multicultural coalition wouldn’t save the planet. White men would. More specifically, white American men. As I’ve argued before, our fate really does lie white Americans, specifically our military ability. If a prowhite government arises in Europe, we will destroy it, just like we did in the 40s, unless white Christian Americans are freed from Jewish control. The Jews understand that controlling white Christian Americans is the key to dominating the globe. Therefore our efforts should focus on converting that one group, and we should avoid anything that would alienate them. By the way, Muslim jihadis are going to fight against Israel just as hard no matter what white nationalists in America say. Hatred of Islam is one of the only tribal sentiments left amongst Americans, and you’re busy spreading the message that jihadis are part of the solution, while white Christians wanting to live under a republican form of government are part of the problem.

Matt Parrott

If the earth were threatened in this way, a multicultural coalition wouldn’t save the planet. White men would. More specifically, white American men.

Well…ummm…would you be willing to help build the rocket with schismatics, heretics, and unbelievers who are White?

As an aside, East Asians and Jews have definitely proven themselves worthy of the hypothetical multicult rocketry project.

As I’ve argued before, our fate really does lie white Americans, specifically our military ability.

American military power is a nullity, a military-industrial spending boondoggle predicted on anachronistic strategic thinking. Our military’s most recent conflicts involved illiterate nomads triumphing over trillions of dollars worth of fancy White technology.

If a prowhite government arises in Europe, we will destroy it, just like we did in the 40s, unless white Christian Americans are freed from Jewish control.

You’re stuck in 20th Century thinking. The rapid rise of Russia, China, the Islamic World, and the Global South are radically shifting that balance. If Europe were pro-White while also intelligently gearing their ideology, trade relations, and financial networks toward allying with the right non-White and non-Christian nations, it would have the military and financial resources to check Anglo-Israeli (Atlanticist) aggression.

The Jews understand that controlling white Christian Americans is the key to dominating the globe. Therefore our efforts should focus on converting that one group, and we should avoid anything that would alienate them.

That’s no longer the case. You’re essentially stuck in an anachronistic and parochial perspective on geopolitics which is on borrowed time, if not already obsolete. The future’s multipolar.

I’m very pumped about being White. Heck, I’m Matt Parrott. But if you think we White Americans are so impressive that we can continue being the only nation that geopolitically matters despite our acute demographic decline, our spiraling decadence, and the rapid rise of very capable (White and non-White) nations around the world, then you’re mistaken.

By the way, Muslim jihadis are going to fight against Israel just as hard no matter what white nationalists in America say.

So you admit we have a secular political common cause with hadjis?

Hatred of Islam is one of the only tribal sentiments left amongst Americans, and you’re busy spreading the message that jihadis are part of the solution, while white Christians wanting to live under a republican form of government are part of the problem.

I’m not focused on winning over Holocaust-haunted MLK-worshipping Baby Boomers who spook easily about Sharia Law. TradYouth is focused on reaching youth. We’re planning for future decades and future generations, and I can promise you that your angle absolutely, positively, fails with the teens and young adults who are willing and able to escape the anti-White programming.

You speak as if you’re a big expert on what’s going to play and what’s not going to play, when it’s abundantly clear that you’re just going on your instincts instead of actively and methodically test marketing and analyzing different approaches with different audiences.

I have done that work, and I can tell you that pluriversalist identitarianism and Radical Traditionalism sell with the target audience of intelligent youths who matter and your parochial Americana does not.

If you don’t believe me, I beg you to take your messaging to absolutely any general political platform where the average age is below thirty and present your angle.

Clement Pulaski

American military power is a nullity, a military-industrial spending boondoggle predicted on anachronistic strategic thinking. Our military’s most recent conflicts involved illiterate nomads triumphing over trillions of dollars worth of fancy White technology.
If the Jews were able to get us fired up the way they did during WW2 (and they would definitely try) then we would fight a real war of destrcution, like we did against the Germans and the Japanese. We’ve lost our recent wars against primitive peoples because we were half fighting to win, half trying to make them our friends. In a Jewish war against “racism”, there is no friend making.

I’m not focused on winning over Holocaust-haunted MLK-worshipping Baby Boomers who spook easily about Sharia Law.
White, red-state males in their 20s (including a lot of ex-military) don’t seem to be big fans of Muslims either. Have you seen some of the pics of the recent protests at mosques?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/30/armed-american-protestors-surround-islamic-community-center-of-phoenix/
Just a bunch of old farts we don’t need on our side, huh?
I’ve noticed some under 30 nationalists in Europe aren’t too fond of Islam either.

That’s no longer the case. You’re essentially stuck in an anachronistic and parochial perspective on geopolitics which is on borrowed time, if not already obsolete. The future’s multipolar.
I guess the Jews haven’t figured that out yet. They’re still pretty concentrated in America. Maybe it’s because, despite the fact that we are in decline, we still possess the most powerful military and the most powerful media in the entire world? I’d say we still have the most powerful financial institutions and economy as well, as fragile as they are, especially in a war time situation in which environmental concerns would take a back seat and natural resource development would go into high gear.

Eric

That’s all you got Clement? Jew run Breitbart pushing the neo-con agenda? Daily Stormer has thousands of working class red state male readers and supporters and it attacks the Jew front and center.

Anyone who in AMERICA makes Muslims (1% of the population with little to no power) their #1 target is an idiot. Why continue feeding them lies Clement, because you are a coward and opportunist?

Jew-organized whites like the ones Pamela Gellar gets are not what you want. Why is it you get so uppity about having some Shia Muslim (the only group/religion physically defending Middle East Christians in the entire WORLD) occasionally writing, or some white pagans working together with white christians, but no issue working together with Jews (which is, without exception, the fate of every single group on the crusade against “Islamo fascism”) or people that are big fans of Jews.

“If the Jews were able to get us fired up the way they did during WW2 (and they would definitely try) then we would fight a real war of destrcution, like we did against the Germans and the Japanese. We’ve lost our recent wars against primitive peoples because we were half fighting to win, half trying to make them our friends. In a Jewish war against “racism”, there is no friend making.”

I wouldn’t call killing MILLIONS (with an M) of Iraqis and Afghans, overwhelmingly civilians, in conflicts to be “half fighting”. You’re full of cuckservative canards.

Todd Lewis

“I’ve already laid out a loose program of my theonomic ethics. You’ve not interacted with that nor presented something of your own to discuss.”

I’ve seen precious little on your end vis-a-vis Clement or the Swiss Kinist. So stop projecting your own inadequacies on me. That is disturbingly Freudian.

“My conclusion is you’re either intellectually unable to do so, or you’re unwilling. In either case, I’m afraid we’ve reached the end of our discussion.”

Dido.

Problem is God judging Israel for collaborating is not a narrative account like David at all. It is a Theonomy account like don’t get drunk or don’t murder. I guess since Cain and Able is a narrative account it cannot be used in a larger polemic against murder.

Also if anyone is tight lipped its you just rebut my “narrative” account Ahaz and Assyria, Joshua and Gibeon etc.

Clement Pulaski

So using breitbart to show images of an event that happened makes me a neocon? I could have used any number of sites that reported on that rally, breitbart was just the first to pop up. If I link to a story about black on white crime from a local NBC affiliate, does that make me a supporter of their political agenda?
This is almost as silly as when I was acussed of using YouTube as a source for linking to a news report that was uploaded there.

I doubt anyone has pushed the idea of blaming the Jew more than I have. Check out the article I cowrote with anglin called “convicting the Jew”. I’ve never said Islam is the no one enemy. I’m just saying it’s silly to undermine the one tribal instinct amongst whites that still exists.

And if it’s just a neocon lie that we could have totally flattened the Iraqis or Vietnamese if we really tried, then our race is pretty pathetic.

Matt Parrott

Clement,

Would you be willing to help build the rocket with schismatics, heretics, and unbelievers who are White?

Clement Pulaski

On the hypothetical question of us needing non-whites to help us achieve a technological feat that would be impossible by ourselves (something that would never happen) I would say we could collaborate in that way.

As I said above, purely practical alliances, without arguing for some sort of spiritual kinship are a different matter.

Which leads to another point: why promote pan Traditionalism when you could promote pan nationalism? If you ran a nationalist youth organization, arguing as shotgun did above that a tribal political structure is simply the best for everyone, I don’t think I’d have a problem. I don’t think there’s anything wrong from a Christian perspective with saying that every ethnos has a legitimate right to survival and self determination. However, there is a huge problem with saying that every faith tradition should fight for survival. Non Christian faith traditions are tools of the devil that ought to be destroyed everywhere. I challenge you to find a church father who says otherwise. Clearly pan nationalism is superior to pan Traditionalism in that the former does not conflict with the Christian faith. (Once again, if you want to prove me wrong, show me an orthodox authority who wants Muslims to strengthen their jihad efforts) As for your multipolar strategy, what advantage does pan traditionalism hold over pan nationalism? If we want a Muslim country to be our ally, they aren’t going to care whether or not we express respect for Sufi mysticism. Christians in the west, however, certainly would be put out by it, especially when the burden is on us to show the multiculti Christians that we represent true Christian teaching.

Matt Parrott

As I said above, purely practical alliances, without arguing for some sort of spiritual kinship are a different matter.

We’re not arguing for any sort of spiritual kinship. We are not perennialists. Our advocacy for Radical Traditionalism as a unifying ideology is exclusively metapolitical, not metaphysical.

The Christian God is the one true God, and all others are false gods. If I didn’t believe that were the case, I would not be a Christian.

why promote pan Traditionalism when you could promote pan nationalism?

We’re attempting to align ourselves with an incipient Traditionalist geopolitical bloc comprised of the Eurasianists, Shia Islamic states, Christian Africa, and hopefully Catholic Latin America and Hindu India, as well.

We don’t know exactly how that alignment against the liberal Modern Atlanticist bloc will shape up, but there are many promising signs that it’s indeed shaping up in that general manner. My essay, The Next Cold War further explicates why a nationalist would be wise to couple nationalism and traditionalism.

They go together like peaches and cream anyway!

Besides, I firmly believe that the two struggles are one, anyway, with identitarianism being a subset and dimension of the traditional worldview. Youngsters who aren’t outside the liberal Modern matrix are generally not very receptive to identity. Besides, it’s been my experience that nationalists who retain the secular modern worldview tend to be degenerate, inactive, and generally less reliable.

However, there is a huge problem with saying that every faith tradition should fight for survival. Non Christian faith traditions are tools of the devil that ought to be destroyed everywhere.

Once again, arguing for global Christian dominion is premature and destructive. Essentially, every sincerely held faith is necessarily viral and universal, with an end goal of triumphing over all the other faiths.

If you believe that there’s something more important than your religion, then you don’t understand what a religion is. Many White Nationalists have an actual religion of biological reductionist materialism and wear their “religion” like a bit of flair on an Applebee’s uniform.

It can be a fun hobby to challenge their paper-thin metaphysical foundations, one which Shotgun is especially talented at. Speaking in strategical terms, though, I personally believe the best way to win skeptical White Nationalists over to the faith is to demonstrate leadership in pursuing our shared objectives and proving ourselves reliable, courageous, and selfless allies in the common struggle to preserve our extended family.

As stated previously, I believe that effective identitarian advocacy is the most effective evangelism we can do. I’ve certainly won more converts to my own faith (and to Christianity in general) as a product of my activist work than I have in my daily apolitical evangelization efforts. Your mileage may vary.

Clearly pan nationalism is superior to pan Traditionalism in that the former does not conflict with the Christian faith.

As long as one is careful to avoid the Perennialist Heresy, pan-Traditionalism is more aligned with the Christian faith than the secular liberal pan-nationalism you’re suggesting. It empowers us to pursue not only our identitarian objectives, but also fight capitalist greed, abortion, sexual degeneracy, and such.

(Once again, if you want to prove me wrong, show me an orthodox authority who wants Muslims to strengthen their jihad efforts)

I would open the can of historical Orthodox friendliness to our Muslim neighbors, but there may be TradCats lurking about who are rather familiar with that can and inclined to throw it at us. 🙂

As for your multipolar strategy, what advantage does pan traditionalism hold over pan nationalism?

Honor? Virility? Self-sacrifice? Geopolitical coherence?

If we want a Muslim country to be our ally, they aren’t going to care whether or not we express respect for Sufi mysticism. Christians in the west, however, certainly would be put out by it, especially when the burden is on us to show the multiculti Christians that we represent true Christian teaching.

Now we’re both speculating about our strategic prospects. You do your approach without interfering with ours, and we’ll carry on with our identitarian and traditionalist approach. Ghostbuster Policy.

Clement Pulaski

I would open the can of historical Orthodox friendliness to our Muslim neighbors, but there may be TradCats lurking about who are rather familiar with that can and inclined to throw it at us.

I’m not sure what you mean by friendliness. If you mean being willing to live in peace with Muslim neighbors/overlords, that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing your claim that one of your goals is for pagan and muslim religiosity to become more intense and fanatic. That is the position that I challenge you to find any support for from the Eastern Orthodox traiditon.

Once again, arguing for global Christian dominion is premature and destructive.

I don’t know why I’m perceived to be arguing in favor of a global crusade or an inernational tribunal. After all, I’m a credobaptist and I have no interest in compelling anyone to become a Christian. I just want Christians to have a discussion on what alliances and relationships are appropriate for us, and to use Scripture and Church tradition as our guide, not political expediency. I find your position so troubling because it amounts to saying that we’ll preach the Gospel later, but if we preach it too loudly now, it will hurt our political chances. What saint can you point to who says that we’ll work towards dominion later (however dominion is understood), but doing it now is destructive? Once again, if you have a case based on Scripture or tradition, I’m glad to hear it, and open to being convinced. What is frustrating is the refusal to acknowledge that such a case even needs to be made.

And to Eric, I’m not looking to be a leader. I’m looking to find a community of Christian nationalists where I can ask questions like “Should we really be working at a website like Counter Currents where the editor claims that pederasty is part of the Aryan sexual tradition, but Biblical opposition to homosexuality is not?”, or “Should we really be linking to radio shows from a network like Renegade where the hosts say ‘hail satan'”? or “Should we really be promoting the work of someone like Roosh, a non-white serial defiler of white women, whose website ofers tips on how to commit adultery?”, to ask such questions and not be shouted down as a crazy puritan fanatic for even having such concerns.

Matt Parrott

Clement,

We’re discussing your claim that one of your goals is for pagan and muslim religiosity to become more intense and fanatic.

I want religious people to become more religious, especially Christians. Ideally, I would wish for Muslims to convert to Christianity, but their becoming more confirmed in their faith is superior to their becoming secularized and Modern.

I don’t see what needs to be defended by reference to Orthodox tradition, there. There’s no real historical precedent for global secular liberalism to reference. I’m not sure what the gotcha is.

I just want Christians to have a discussion on what alliances and relationships are appropriate for us, and to use Scripture and Church tradition as our guide, not political expediency.

This is incoherent, given that our work has been so confidently and overtly Christian that the fact our organization is actually a secular coalition of traditionalist radicals is an insider secret one must read the Mission Statement and poke around to even figure out.

Are you honestly going to accuse Heimbach of keeping his Christianity tucked in his back pocket? What about Shotgun?

I find your position so troubling because it amounts to saying that we’ll preach the Gospel later, but if we preach it too loudly now, it will hurt our political chances.

Well, you can breath easily, as nobody has even come close to claiming or implying that we can preach the Gospel later or that we ought to preach it more quietly.

What saint can you point to who says that we’ll work towards dominion later (however dominion is understood), but doing it now is destructive?

It’s all part of working towards dominion. This is all one big project to try to develop the metapolitical and geopolitical prerequisites necessary for the establishment of a sovereign Christian political entity of some kind for my future generations.

Leeroy Jenkins is not a saint in my tradition. There are steps, and none of these steps involve putting evangelism on the back-burner. I do believe that my evangelism through demonstrating a masculine and pro-Western Christianity is superior to slipping Chick Tracts onto truck stop urinals or whatever it is you think is a more authentic form of spreading the Gospel.

Once again, if you have a case based on Scripture or tradition, I’m glad to hear it, and open to being convinced. What is frustrating is the refusal to acknowledge that such a case even needs to be made.

I know of at least a dozen people who’ve been baptized directly owing to being inspired by our political work. Hopefully dozens more have been nudged toward Christ by my work that I’ll never know about. That’s really all I need. Neither Scripture nor Tradition could or should account for every single tactical angle necessary in every single social or political context.

And to Eric, I’m not looking to be a leader. I’m looking to find a community of Christian nationalists where I can ask questions like “Should we really be working at a website like Counter Currents where the editor claims that pederasty is part of the Aryan sexual tradition, but Biblical opposition to homosexuality is not?”, or “Should we really be linking to radio shows from a network like Renegade where the hosts say ‘hail satan’”? or “Should we really be promoting the work of someone like Roosh, a non-white serial defiler of white women, whose website ofers tips on how to commit adultery?”, to ask such questions and not be shouted down as a crazy puritan fanatic for even having such concerns.

You’re receiving a respectful hearing and pages upon pages of thoughtful dialogue and responses relating to your concerns, many of which are valid. Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents has been a phenomenal identitarian advocate for our race. Jack Donovan is a powerful voice in defense of manly and martial virtues. Roosh’s endorsement of Tradition and honesty about the Jews is praiseworthy.

They all have their own private lives and separate projects, and none of them would be at home in the TradYouth project. There’s an important distinction between comrades and allies, one of them being that allies can have a whole host of other beliefs or practices which preclude being comrades. There are concentric circles with these things.

I’m not shouting you down. I’m trying to convince you that our nuanced and gradated approach to political relationships is not somehow contrary to Christian tradition.

Clement Pulaski

I don’t see what needs to be defended by reference to Orthodox tradition, there. There’s no real historical precedent for global secular liberalism to reference. I’m not sure what the gotcha is.

My point is that you claim Eastern Orthodoxy as the foundation of your world view, but then you state a goal (making pagans more fervently pagan and muslims more fervently muslim) that no orthodox authority (at least to my knowledge) would endorse, even those who lived in the late 20th century. You think that when Seraphim Rose wrote “Nihilism”, he wasn’t aware of the threat of global secular liberalism? Is there anything from his writings that would support your goal? How about Elder Paisios? Would he endorse the goal that muslims become more fervent in their jihad? I doubt it.

I know of at least a dozen people who’ve been baptized directly owing to being inspired by our political work. Hopefully dozens more have been nudged toward Christ by my work that I’ll never know about. That’s really all I need. Neither Scripture nor Tradition could or should account for every single tactical angle necessary in every single social or political context.

So if what you’re doing is winning converts, then therefore you aren’t violating canons or Scripture? I don’t see how that follows. From what I’ve read from and about the canons of the orthodox church, there’s a lot of specific detail on how the faithful are supposed to conduct themselves in the world. I’d be impressed if your approach towards nationalism were built from what you claim as your spiritual authority.

I’m trying to convince you that our nuanced and gradated approach to political relationships is not somehow contrary to Christian tradition.

You’re doing so without providing any specific examples from Christian tradition, just saying that tradition isn’t really relevant, because the world is so different. This is just avoiding the question.

I’m also curious, is there any moral transgression that would preclude someone from being an ally? Pederasts and adulturers apparently aren’t beyond the pale, so who would be?

Shotgun

It’s difficult to critique the heart of Trad Youth’s position by deconstructing a quick sound-byte in a hostile media interview on an international news channel. That’s not really giving anyone a fair swing.

Other than disingenuous claims about blatant hypocrisy, how might Heimbach’s willingness to protest Islamic mosques square up with his statements on Al Jazeera? Sound-bytes, by their nature, are designed to promote one aspect of a message to a specific group – they’re not good vehicles for transmitting the depth and complexity of a political strategy.

It’s the strategy that ought to be critiqued, not the sound bytes used to promote it. And if the only criticism we have is that we ought to produce some in-depth ethical study … well, that’s not much of a critique. “I know you’re wrong… we just have to do the study to find why!”…even though it seems minds are made up already, without the study.

Besides, as I’ve already pointed out – Christians are notoriously confused when it comes to ethics. And I maintain that this whole discussion is akin to an argument about how modest a girl’s bathing suit ought to be at the beach. There are no commands about it in God’s law. For our discussion: Leviticus only gives us hints about international relations (…and Christ provides further clues – love thy neighbor, live at peace with all men, etc. etc.).

On my view, whatever God doesn’t legislate with His law, is left to the Christian conscience.

Matt Parrott

Clement,

My point is that you claim Eastern Orthodoxy as the foundation of your world view, but then you state a goal (making pagans more fervently pagan and muslims more fervently muslim) that no orthodox authority (at least to my knowledge) would endorse

You’re taking my point about jihadis jihading wildly out of context. It was clearly a call for more religious rebellion against secularism across the board, not some sort of active endorsement of Islam in particular.

So if what you’re doing is winning converts, then therefore you aren’t violating canons or Scripture?

Once again, you’re steering wildly out of context to go for cheap shots. You point blank attempted to construct a false dichotomy between political crusading and spreading the gospel. That’s the context in which it does indeed matter that I’m winning converts, as it deconstructs your false dichotomy.

I never claimed that we should endorse false doctrine if it achieves some more dunkings.

I’d be impressed if your approach towards nationalism were built from what you claim as your spiritual authority.

My nationalism is Orthodox Nationalism. My cardinal influences are Codreanu (who worked with plenty of non-Orthodox and engaged intelligently with unbelievers), Dugin’s Eurasianism, and the pluriversal principle of the ethnos which is pretty much indistinguishable from kinism.

You’re doing so without providing any specific examples from Christian tradition, just saying that tradition isn’t really relevant, because the world is so different. This is just avoiding the question.

It’s your job to prove that my actions are not Christian, though the current Patriarch Kirill is intelligently engaging the Islamic world right now, asserting that ISIS is an assault on Islam by Western regimes[1].

I’m also curious, is there any moral transgression that would preclude someone from being an ally? Pederasts and adulturers apparently aren’t beyond the pale, so who would be?

If God and his armies are willing to work with outright whores in a pinch, I don’t see why we can’t also collaborate on our metapolitical rocketry project with just about anybody who’s not actively standing in the way of our goal of a more identitarian and traditionalist future.

They’re foreigners to me, and I care as much about policing their strange customs as Marco Polo passing through a Chinese village.

Clement Pulaski

It was clearly a call for more religious rebellion against secularism across the board, not some sort of active endorsement of Islam in particular.

You included in your quote the desire for paganism and islam to become more fervent. I don’t doubt that you also want Hindus to be more fervently Hindu and African voodoo practioners to be more fervent in their voodoo. But this doesn’t make your position any more acceptable to any traditional Christian position that I am aware of.

My nationalism is Orthodox Nationalism. My cardinal influences are Codreanu (who worked with plenty of non-Orthodox and engaged intelligently with unbelievers), Dugin’s Eurasianism, and the pluriversal principle of the ethnos which is pretty much indistinguishable from kinism.

I don’t doubt that your nationalism is built on Orthodoxy. I am questioning whether your pan-traditionalism can be built on the same foundation. Once again, I’m not necessarily knocking practical alliances or cooperation. I’m asking why you think it is appropriate to use your website to promote articles like this one, arguing that you can be both pagan and Christian, which is a clear assault on all forms of traditional Christianity.

It’s your job to prove that my actions are not Christian, though the current Patriarch Kirill is intelligently engaging the Islamic world right now, asserting that ISIS is an assault on Islam by Western regimes

I read the linked article to Patriarch Kirill’s statements. I don’t see how this supports your position. It seems to be hinting that zionist and globalists groups (like those run by Soros) are fomenting jihadis in order to destablize the middle east (particularly countries like Syria and Libya, whose semi-secular and semi-fascist dictators were able to be a thorn in the side of the NWO). If he’s saying this, then I agree with him.

I happen to think that the burden of proof lies with you, but I’m still willing to accept your challenge to prove that your position is contrary to Christian tradition. However, you have already made the claim that the current situation is so different, that tradition and scripture can’t be a guide to whether or not pan-traditionalism is valid (although the world is not so different, apparently, that scripture and tradition can’t be invoked by you to argue for your form of nationalism). So I’m curious, what would you accept as evidence that pan-traditionalism as you articulate it is against the Christian tradition? Would quotes from Church fathers, saints, or byzantine bishops struggling against muslims or pagans be acceptable for evidence? Or would you just say that the situation is so different, that their statements are irrelevant? I also don’t understand the suggestion made by you and Shotgun that somehow I’m harping on a minor aspect of life that should be left to Christian liberty, and not doctrinal scrutiny. Because if your claims about the importance of a multi-polar pan-traditionalist world are correct, then properly navigating pan-traditional alliances isn’t a minor point. Rather you seem to think that it is the most important point in determining the future of the Church! How could such a profound and important decision not be guided by Scripture and tradition?

It’s interesting that you bring up Rahab. Let’s look more closely at the narrative from Joshua, examining both Rahab and Achan. Take Greg Johnson for example. Is Johnson like Rahab, a morally unclean foreigner who aids the saints out of fear that the power of the Lord would destroy her and her family, or is he more like Achan, a member of our own tribe whose selfishness and immmorality threatens to destroy us? I obviously think he is more like the latter. If the Old Testament teaches one lesson, it is that the apostasy of our kinsmen will result in punishment for the entire nation. When the apostasy of the ancient Israelites brought about collective punishment, the prophets preached repentence as the only strategy for regaining God’s blessings. This is what we need to do now. I don’t see how anyone with a Christian view of history can deny that the current stituation in the West is punishment for our collective apostasy. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to say that pagan whites can help us solve our problems by being more fervent in their paganism. Their paganism and unbelief are the very root cause of our problems! Our people will flourish iff we have God’s favor (and I mean that second f).

I also really don’t understand your political/meta-political distinction. Am I correct in saying that you think that in politics, it is wrong for Christians to promote anti-Christian platforms and movements, but in meta-politics it is not? I don’t see the basis for this distinction. I’ll harp on Greg Johnson some more here. Johnson hates Jesus. He blames Old Testament theology for our current problems. He wants to convince as many white people as possible to hate Jesus like he does. This is a message he spreads with his website. (I thank God that I lack the “nuance” to understand how collaborating with such a project is acceptable.) But Johnson isn’t a foreigner. He belongs to the same ethnos that we do. How is collaborating with him “meta-political”? How is he as foreign to you as the Chinese were to Marco Polo?

Matt Parrott

Clement,

But this doesn’t make your position any more acceptable to any traditional Christian position that I am aware of.

Can you direct me to where scripture and/or forefathers reference this particular subject?

I’m asking why you think it is appropriate to use your website to promote articles like this one, arguing that you can be both pagan and Christian, which is a clear assault on all forms of traditional Christianity.

The website attempts to provide a platform for a broad range of traditionalists and their ideas, many of which I personally disagree with. The author is quite friendly toward Christianity, and is attempting to be a cooperative stakeholder in the pan-traditionalist project.

Our comment form is an excellent platform for you to correct any positions posted on the site which you believe to be incorrect.

I happen to think that the burden of proof lies with you, but I’m still willing to accept your challenge to prove that your position is contrary to Christian tradition. However, you have already made the claim that the current situation is so different, that tradition and scripture can’t be a guide to whether or not pan-traditionalism is valid (although the world is not so different, apparently, that scripture and tradition can’t be invoked by you to argue for your form of nationalism).

Even if I’m beyond reaching, the debates are reading by others who perhaps can be reached. I don’t believe you’ll be able to make a convincing case that Christian scripture and tradition are integrally incompatible with pan-traditionalist political projects.

Rather you seem to think that it is the most important point in determining the future of the Church! How could such a profound and important decision not be guided by Scripture and tradition?

I believe I am being guided by Scripture and tradition. I just believe that since historically the challenge has been from competing traditions that there’s not a whole lot of stare decisis to work with regarding a unified threat to all the traditions.

Take Greg Johnson for example. Is Johnson like Rahab, a morally unclean foreigner who aids the saints out of fear that the power of the Lord would destroy her and her family, or is he more like Achan, a member of our own tribe whose selfishness and immmorality threatens to destroy us?

At the very beginning of this debate, before it even appeared to matter all that much, I insisted that a cornerstone of my disagreement with you was my conviction that there is no coherent or valid “American” identity. Death of America, and death to the notion that I share a common identity and future with people just because I share the same ancestry, language, and Seinfeld pop culture references with them.

We’re not talking about a handful of selfish and immoral people. We’re talking about a couple hundred million selfish and immoral people, the vast majority of whom cannot and will not be saved.

If you keep looking back at America, you’re liable to become a pillar of salt.

I don’t see how anyone with a Christian view of history can deny that the current stituation in the West is punishment for our collective apostasy.

There’s a Christian precedent for simply fleeing from especially corrupt nations.

That’s why it doesn’t make sense to say that pagan whites can help us solve our problems by being more fervent in their paganism. Their paganism and unbelief are the very root cause of our problems! Our people will flourish iff we have God’s favor (and I mean that second f).

That’s the pagans’ problem, not mine. They’re not my people. Their being more traditional and less secular helps all traditions (including our correct one).

I also really don’t understand your political/meta-political distinction. Am I correct in saying that you think that in politics, it is wrong for Christians to promote anti-Christian platforms and movements, but in meta-politics it is not?

There’s an important distinction between that which is simply non-Christian and that which is genuinely anti-Christian. The author of this piece, though he may not be Christian, is certainly not politically hostile to Christianity.

I’ll harp on Greg Johnson some more here. Johnson hates Jesus. He blames Old Testament theology for our current problems. He wants to convince as many white people as possible to hate Jesus like he does.

The only weapon Greg Johnson actually has in his arsenal that actually manages to turn people away from Christ is his credible claim that Christianity converts virile and politically mobilized men into feminized and pacifist ascetics.

If people like you didn’t exist, people who DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY claim (see above) that fighting the Leftists is un-Christ-like, Greg would have nothing to go on but some murky and unpersuasive Nietzschean theory.

How is he as foreign to you as the Chinese were to Marco Polo?

Greg Johnson promotes a restorative secular republic where pan-nationalism takes precedence over pan-traditionalism. Since you agree that you two share a same nation and you both believe in democratic republican rule, I propose that you and him have a vote on whether pederasty should be condoned and that you stand by your democratic principles and embrace the outcome of the vote.

Eric

Don’t get me wrong, I do want to assert my views on others. My view is that all whites need to co-exist and work together, practice their religions however they see fit (without hindering other whites’ right to do the same), and do something other than pray, because God didn’t save the Dodo and there’s no natural reason for why he will save the Aryan. Praying helps some, but it’s not even half the work.

People that want to pray instead of fight might as well be doing nothing.

Matt Parrott

The Christians who insist that we ought to be evangelizing rather than struggling infuriate me in two ways.

First, it’s another example of the maddening manner that inactivists rely on false dichotomies to justify their inaction. You can both evangelize AND struggle.

Second, as this thread clearly demonstrates, tons of folks have been driven away from Christianity by the impression that Christianity is integrally pacifist, cowardly, and impotent. Were I not already confirmed in my faith, I would certainly have second thoughts about a faith which supposedly requires one to sit on his hands while his family and folk are existentially threatened.

A massive evangelization opportunity actually lies in struggling, which proves to the thousands watching that Christianity absolutely is compatible with vigorously defending our family and folk.

Eric

Funny that you mention Jews agitating against Japan and Germany in WW2, Clement. It fits with your “anti-muslim as strategy” bullshit. You know whose agitating whites against “Islamo-fascism”? Nothing but Jews, go look them up, even the ones who aren’t Jewish like Spencer are bankrolled by Jew neo-cons that want Americans to go bankrupt and die in a war with Iran.

There’s a sucker born every minute, so yes ,there is a portion of whites who fall for it, but the average white with an IQ in the high 90’s will laugh at you. It’s one thing to oppose non-white immigration (including muslims), it’s another to be going after Islam because it has sane views on gender roles, Jews, and homosexuality.

Light Division

I’ve enjoyed the thread more than the article, though there’s too much division and hostility between people who are mostly on the same side! No need to get cross with friends, right?

Mr. Pulaski does seem to be a bit rigid when it comes to working/associating with non-believers, especially if those non-believers aren’t attacking/undermining Christianity, and that certainly doesn’t appear to be the case at TradYouth.

I do think he makes a valid point, though, with the whole “anti-Islam as the last shred of tribal thinking” concept… it does seem that Mr. Parrott contradicts his “don’t cross streams” motto with his pro-Islam/anti-‘white Americana’ position.

my 2 cents anyway

Shotgun

The “last of the tribal thought” is an interesting theme.

I know this is anecdotal, but it doesn’t seem true from what I’ve experienced, especially given the mass immigration policies in the UK (as a typical example). Additionally, the man-on-the-street Londoner (whom I occasionally talk to via the net) seems to support the Muslims over the Israelis on the international scene. That’s certainly BBC’s go-to stance.

But perhaps it’s meant that the anti-Islam mystique is the last shred of tribal thinking among Americans? But that doesn’t seem to hold either, nor ought we be so bleak in looking for points of tribal solidarity. Seems to me there are tons of tropes, memes, and archetypes of thought still holding between even the “left” and “right” (the desire to be good plantation workers, for example, or the firm rule of law).

In fact, there’s one common thread running through every Westerner as evidenced by the popularity of the Harry Potter mythos (and all the spin-offs based on a Joseph Campbell-esque journey from alienation-into-acceptance) and that is the desire to belong to a tribe.

…and, well, Trad Youth has that one in the bag…

Eric

Anti-Muslim politics and groups are allowed because they embody a Liberal anti-thesis to one of the last traditions roughly in tact on earth. Islam is vigorous, virile, and appealing to many deracinated people sick of the nihilism of the modern world.

If you really want to stop Islam, you don’t fight it by teaming up with faggots, Jews and liberals to pester them (what all the anti-Muslim “tribalist” groups do in West). You can fight them by developing an ideology that is as or more appealing and fulfilling than Islam, while respecting it in its own context.

The fact that most of you understand that Muslims are not really a threat but choose to go after them out of opportunism is why nobody respects you. White people aren’t dumb, they see a bunch of cowards, hucksters looking to make a career for themselves, or Jew-collaborators.

Light Division

Who is the “you” here, Eric. “Most of you”?? So I guess “they” (we?) are the problem?

Seems like you’re engaging in that most tiresome practice of internet WN types: self hatred. That is, hatred/contempt for people who are explicitly on your side, i.e. most of the people who comment on this side. Usually the contempt comes out in accusations of “cowardice” for not wanting to stand on some street corner with a sign, but what you’re saying is that “they” (we?) aren’t worthy of respect because they look unfavorably on Islam, a religion that is Satanic according to traditional Christian teaching. I see.

Let me state this clearly: I fully recognize that Jews and global Zionism are a much bigger threat to white Christian civilization than Muslims. That being said, as a white man it would be much, much, safer for you to vacation in Tel Aviv than Amman. Just because Muslims aren’t our greatest enemy doesn’t make them our friends.

Lemme ask you a question: do you think most middle eastern Muslims like white people?

Eric

“Let me state this clearly: I fully recognize that Jews and global Zionism are a much bigger threat to white Christian civilization than Muslims. That being said, as a white man it would be much, much, safer for you to vacation in Tel Aviv than Amman. Just because Muslims aren’t our greatest enemy doesn’t make them our friends.”

Really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_2BZCE80lQ

Meanwhile here’s David Duke in Syria, getting an ovation he would never get in any of the Jew run white countries: https://youtu.be/21wyi5eGpxA

Traditionalist Christians who actually visit Iran for themselves without exception come back with very high opinions of the Iranians and their system (the sole Islamic republic in the world). Here’s E Michael Jones, Catholic traditionalist, who received a heroes welcome and the utmost respect in Iran , he had freedom would never have in America ( he was sacked from Notre Dame…for opposing abortion). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpK7ViC_l7I

Mark Dankof is the same.

Eric

Read E. michael Jones’ “Cultural Jihad”, about his trip in Iran. Truly fascinating.

The idea that traditionalists of any stripes are in a “war against Islam” as a whole is the anti-thesis of reality. Furthermore, the Iranians themselves are not hostile to Christians, in fact Iran is the sole nation on earth that defends them in the Middle East (Israel murders Palestinian Christians and Lebanese Christians as much as they do Muslim ones).

Lynda

Eric, you are setting up a false dialectic.

The Church and its Christendoms have historically opposed both the synagoge and the caliphate. The teaching of both Judaism and Islam is intrinsically hostile to Christianity.

This does not mean that people as people can not get along in common humanity – but it does mean that the Church is not free under the rule of either the synagogue or the caliphate.

The US is ruled de facto by the synagogue. How is this going for the Church?

Hammerheart

This is a great thread. William Monaghan, you really hit a nerve. Unfortunately the thread discussions have tended to veer away from the points you fairly succinctly & eloquently made. However, I’m puzzled by your saying you’ve never seen this question discussed anywhere. It was discussed, at length for several years, by a long list of writers of whom I am last & least, but it’s there. We were saying that–we whites are both Xpn & Pagan–years ago. Have you ever heard of the TYR volumes? Metagenetics by Stephen McNallen? Works of Dr Stephen Flowers/Edred Thorsson? Michael Moynihan? Valgard Murray & VOR TRU? William B Fox aka Thor Sanhet? That message was out 20 years ago. I think Christians weren’t listening.

In The Pacific Northwest Novels by Harold Covington he addresses the religious split between Christians, Pagans, Atheists, & comes to ironic conclusion that National Socialists might become moderating influences. At the moment the White Ethnostate is about to be created, a fight erupts between fundamentalist Xpns & Asatru/Pagans. Decades later (Hill of the Ravens) a skeleton in the closet from this earlier era is threatening to come out & destabilise the Republic. The accepted version of events for 70 years turns out to be wrong, & some disquieting truths are about to come out about 2 of the Republic’s greatest heroes & martyrs: a couple that was killed in battle turn out to be an interfaith couple: she, a CI Christian, & he, an Odinist.

The alternative is that we destroy ourselves in religious in-fighting before we ever get within sight of a white ethnostate. I think Harold Covington makes a 100% valid point there, & I understood that to be Monaghan’s point, too.
This is a great thread, & unfortunately it is also a great illustration of this overwhelming tendency to devolve into religious infighting. Some of the comments here may be legitimately described as hairsplitting, when we are not remotely in sight of even beginning to secure the existence of whites & a future for white children.
Anti-white Xpny does have much to answer for, & I understood TradYouthNet to acknowledge it’s a fair question/problem, & is attempting to take the bull by the horns & begin tackling the problem. This thread is not bad for early days. I’m just concerned we don’t have a millennia for working through all this before we hit crunchtime.

Matt Parrott

I was forced at gunpoint by the commenting community to “upgrade” to Disqus. I held out for years, but they eventually prevailed against my better judgment and made me do it.

All the pre-Disqus comments no longer appear.

Leave a Reply