By Greg Johnson
There is a strong anti-Christian tendency in contemporary White Nationalism.
The argument goes something like this: Christianity is one of the primary causes of the decline of the white race for two reasons. First, it gives the Jews a privileged place in the sacred history of mankind, a role that they have used to gain their enormous power over us today. Second, Christian moral teachings—inborn collective guilt, magical redemption, universalism, altruism, humility, meekness, turning the other cheek, etc.—are the primary cause of the white race’s ongoing suicide and the main impediment to turning the tide. These values are no less Christian in origin just because secular liberals and socialists discard their supernatural trappings. The usual conclusion is that the white race will not be able to save itself unless it rejects Christianity.
I think that this argument is half-right. I do believe that Christianity is one of the main causes of white decline, for the reasons given above. But I do not believe that discarding Christianity is a necessary condition of white revival. I am not a Christian. But the fact that I am not a Christian might lend credibility to my argument that the White Nationalist movement need not and indeed should not be anti-Christian.
First, although intellectual debate is definitely part of White Nationalism (perhaps too large a part), we must never lose sight of the fact that White Nationalism is a political movement, not a purely intellectual one. Intellectual movements require agreement on first principles as well as ultimate goals. Political movements require agreement only on practical goals.
Our goal is a white homeland in North America. This political goal is, as a matter of fact, shared by Christians and non-Christians alike. To achieve a white homeland, we have to work with our allies, not against them. We might wish that they agree with us on other matters besides the goal of a white homeland. But this is not necessary, and emphasizing differences of opinion is not productive. When one is on the barricades, one does not turn to one’s comrades and start finding fault.
Not emphasizing differences of opinion is not the same thing as hiding them, however. A mature and healthy White Nationalist movement should cultivate a culture of openness and frankness. We need to be as willing to express our differences in a civil manner as we are to put them aside to work for the common good.
Second, Christianity may be a necessary condition of white racial suicide, but it is not really the driving force. Christianity has long ceased to be the ruling power in Western societies or individual Christian lives. Instead, the churches preach white suicide and Christian Zionism because they wish to suck up to the real intellectual and political power structure, and today that power structure is overwhelmingly dominated and defined by Jews and Jewish interests.
This is not a new phenomenon, either. The church has long trimmed its sails to the winds of expediency. When there were absolute monarchs, the church preached the divine right of kings. When there was slavery, it bade slaves to obey their masters. When there was patriarchy, it taught wives to obey their husbands.
It is tempting to condemn this tendency as mere political opportunism, but that would be a mistake. The church has always been supple at bending to the reigning political and intellectual orthodoxies because, ultimately, its kingdom is not of this world. In spite of aberrations like the Social Gospel movement, the church has always been more concerned with saving individual souls than with social justice. Thus churchmen regard sucking up to the secular powers as a small price to pay to stay in the soul-saving business.
What this implies for White Nationalism is that the church will resist us less fervently than those whose aims are primarily secular, such as Jewish organizations, non-white ethnic organizations, and the secular Left. And when we gain power, ministers will begin hunting for Bible verses to justify the new regime. There is no reason why a White Nationalist regime cannot become a new Caesar, to whom Christians render their secular loyalty while reserving their religious loyalty for God.
Third, it is a basic principle of political struggle that one should always work to preserve the unity of one’s ranks while sowing division among the enemy. Christian resistance to White Nationalism will be weaker if the churches are divided, and they can be divided if there are Christians in our ranks, especially Christians with personal ties to church leaders. Resistance will be stronger, however, if White Nationalism ceases being a merely political movement and takes on the aspect of an anti-Christian crusade.
Once a White Nationalist regime emerges, White Nationalist Christians can use their ties with the churches to better bring them into compliance with the new order.
Although the presence of Christians in the White Nationalist movement will help split the churches and weaken their resistance, their presence will not split or weaken White Nationalism as long as it remains a purely political movement unified solely by the pursuit of a white homeland.
Today White Nationalism is a movement of the political Right. Someday, however, it may become the common sense of white people up and down the political spectrum. To my mind, this would be a positive development, because when it comes to religion and politics, I am very much a liberal: I believe in the separation of religion and politics and in basing political decisions on secular reason.
To me, it seems fortunate that the separation of church and state in the white homeland may well be necessitated by political reality. The White Nationalist movement must unite whites of widely different religious convictions in the struggle for a homeland. That means we must build religious pluralism and tolerance into our movement today, which means they will be built into our homeland tomorrow.
The Occidental Observer, May 14, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment