Silly Christian apologetics

on The Occidental Observer

by Jack Frost

 
ChristianAJ
 
I’d suggest re-titling this piece [“Is Universalism So Bad for Whites?” by Enza Ferreri—a woman!]: “Is Worshiping a Jew So Bad for Whites?” or in the alternative “Is Anti-Darwinism So Bad for Whites?” Maybe then the well-worn silliness of these arguments in favor of Christianity would stand out a bit better.

As I’ve written before, Christianity’s worldview opposes on virtually every point the scientific view presented by evolutionary theory. Nothing could be clearer than that the racist case will never succeed among people still hypnotized by the pre-scientific belief systems of Christianity, so we should welcome its demise, and do what we can to accelerate it…

Any theoretical arguments pro and con may be beside the point. Owing to its universalism, it’s simply a fact that today Christianity is very close to the tipping point of being a majority non-white religion worldwide, if it hasn’t already passed it. Come to think of it, a third alternative for a better title might be “Is Racial Suicide So Bad for Whites?”

After all, that is what all the Christian churches are promoting with their evangelism and their enthusiastic support of immigration. Of course, one would not expect to encounter such a straightforward question coming from a disciple of the crucified rabbi. But the honesty would be refreshing, and it would be equally good to at last see a Christian admit that, according to all the precepts of his religion, the answer must be “No”.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://chechar.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/silly-christian-apologetics/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

14 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. In the latest TOO comment James Reinfeld also nailed it when responding to this woman, Enza:

    But we mustn’t forget that this is the post-Vatican-II Church, which is completely on board with the Third Worldization of the West and, not coincidentally, apologised to the Jews and totally changed its views on them.

    That doesn’t do us any good.

    We can imagine the Catholic Church was the kind of institution that would not be open to radical change in an anti-white direction. But in reality it was open to that change, and that potential became reality.

    It doesn’t do us any good to imagine that the Church could have stayed forever universal in theory but forever tolerant of whites’ interest in collective survival in practice. That’s not what happened. What we have to live with is a world in which the potential for a devastating betrayal became the actuality of our race being written off, and there is no turning back the clock.

    You can theoretically imagine that Marxism-Leninism might have been a wonderful thing. But in reality it wasn’t. You can theoretically imagine that the Catholic Church might never have become pro-Jewish and anti-white. But it did. And in both cases you can say, “if that’s how things had gone down, this universalism would have been good for whites.”

    But that’s not how it is.

    In my book, by the way, no “intellectual” woman should be allowed to lecture Aryan males in a (supposedly) pro-Aryan forum.

    • Have you and Anglin married yet?

      • I mean, have you married an actual woman, and established families yet? Performed the essential act of an actual Patriarch.

      • High_SparrowThe Sparrow
        doesn’t get married. He’s a priest of the 14 words: “That the beauty of the white Aryan women
        shall not perish from the earth.”

    • A particular animating force, the Jewish-Christian spirit, has been travelling and ever moulding the outlook, the discourse, and values that today inform Western consciousness. The defining character of this spirit is egalitarianism. It has expressed an egalitarian will, an egalitarian mentality—instinctive at the beginning, but increasingly conscious of itself until, in our own times, it has become fully aware of its aspirations and final goals.
      Western civilisation is condemned because the egalitarian utopia that has inspired it for the last two thousand years is in contradiction with the demands of modern society. Enthralled by this utopia, European man can no longer assume control of the world’s destiny, or be the creator of a new future.
      Ashamed of a past which over time has given it undisputed superiority, the egalitarian West now wants the ‘end of history.’ It desires a return to the static stage of mammalian happiness: to an Edenic pre-human past.
      Egalitarianism has passed through different phases: mythical, ideological, and synthetic. It entered history (Phase One) in the garments of the Christian myth—‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3:28)—and, as with any other myth, without explaining itself in either its discourse or in its actions, sensing its internal dialectics still as unity and harmony. Then (Phase Two) the ‘contradictions’ began to be felt and rationalised: first on a religious level, when the theologies of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation became ‘ideologies’ and the dialectical contraries took social and political shape—becoming ‘parties.’ In this second phase, egalitarian consciousness becomes deeper, re-conceiving the idea of ‘equality of souls before God’ as ‘equality of men as citizens before their institutions.’ This has come to be called ‘the revolutionary era,’ since its manifestations were sometimes, though not always, violent. Liberalism—in its Anglo-Saxon and French modalities—started here.
      Goethe was wont to say that ideas, taken to their ultimate consequences, become absurd. Egalitarianism was indeed pursued to its ultimate consequences: the aspiration and will of attaining ‘equality of men before Nature itself.’ This Third Phase may be characterised as ‘theoretical,’ since it claimed to merge—‘rationally’ and ‘ecumenically’ in a superior synthesis—the ideologies that derived from the myth. It started in an embryonic manner with Hegelianism; then came a first political-philosophical manifestation: Marxism.
      In the synthetic phase in which we currently find ourselves, the dialectics of egalitarianism are felt as an obstacle to achieving a global ecumene. Hence the constant presence of terms like ‘internationalism,’ ‘cosmopolitism,’ and ‘multiculturalism’—and the establishment of ‘political correctness’ as the only legitimate discourse.
      With hindsight, Marxism-Leninism may be considered a ‘deviation’ from the main current of the egalitarian tendency, since it tried to ‘force’ or ‘anticipate’ the natural evolution of egalitarianism towards a final synthesis. It was not until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the peaceful ending of the Cold War—when Communism became reabsorbed into the common egalitarian matrix (partly because the objectives pursued by Marxism in the Eastern bloc had already been attained in the West)—that the final and true ‘recovered unity’ of the egalitarian tendency took shape.
      Its consecration may be observed today in the unanimous acceptance of the doctrine of human rights and its expansion through liberal-capitalistic or socialist-Third Worldist globalisation—a project of planetary homogenisation which seeks to progress till the conclusive exit of humankind from history.

      • Glad to hear from you again. I’ve just added your comment as a single entry: here.

  2. What universal morality did do is make social projects infinitely scalable in the White west. In Arabia where a man can only trust his finite number of cousins there’s a built in limit to the size of institutions. In Germany one can determine trustworthiness based upon esteem and ideological soundness. Until we’re “universal” with our brothers and “particular” with our foes, the vicious cycle of Aryan creation and internal underman subversion will continue.

    Darwinian morality is fine and good, but it needs a macro-perspective in order to benefit our race. Most men will fight for their family above anything else. So, when a defective child is born, his first instinct may be to hide it from the eugenic authorities of the New Racial State. This is where authentic (not neo-) National Socialism is required. Man must again learn to think racially (ie, selflessly in the micro, selfishly in the macro).

    • And here TV does not help. In the Vikings series for example Ragnar Lodbrok, who performed the horrific blood eagle on a former foe (something unlikely in the real Germanic world as the foe received sacred hospitality at Ragnar’s home and was betrayed), he saves, nonetheless, his defective baby from euthanasia.

      But what strikes me at TOO is that Kevin definitively sides conservatives (and to boot a woman author!), which is a non-starter according to Mussolini, Hitler, G.L. Rockwell and more recently Golden Dawn.

      In Vikings the producers also show Ragnar’s 1st wife as a powerful warrior capable of defeating male warriors in Paris and Scandinavia.

      Pathetic.

    • The Germans tried to absorb Jews, as “long as they converted”, and “behaved like Good Germans” centuries ago. The French Revolution” – the slaughter of the French aristocracy, and thus the take-over of France, began IMMEDIATELY after the emancipation of the Jews. Good King Edward I expelled the Christ Killers, and England did very well for centuries. until the monster Traitor Oliver Cromwell brought them back in. The English adore their Jews, and the Jew Tyrants of the UK can’t kill off the actual English fast enough .

      It’s not really the doctrine of Christianity. Our real problem is our proclivity to refuse to recognize Race.

    • It’s common to lament the White tendency to put ideology ahead of race, but – ironically – it’s the only way we can be held to such a high level of purity.

      A purely visceral racism would be slowly worn down by miscegenation and “articulate” outliers, once demographics are breached. Long term racial preservation can then only come from a principled, ideological point of reference. Most Whites will have to behave with greater intolerance then they unconsciously feel.

      In other words, a “moral community” based on White racism, rather than an instinctively “racial community” in the sense of Blacks and Jews – who by our standards are actually quite mongrelized. I believe Kevin MacDonald is in error when he conflates moral idealism with humanism; “Man” is only one possible ideal.

      • The possibility of finding a truly advanced response to the challenges of globalisation in the direction of higher consciousness and higher forms of life, such passes through the survival of European bio-culture (race) as a collective agent of progress, the safeguarding of its unique characteristics, and its enhancement.
        However, if new generations do not renew their bond with the identitarian myth—if they do not know how to actualise and bring forward a sense of a project that is recalling the past—Europe will not arise from its present narcosis. Ahistorical peoples are destined to perish.

  3. “The Church has for a long time been pressured by Jewish activists and infiltrated by crypto-Jews and Jewish converts. We can’t understand the contemporary Church without appreciating the impact of Jewish influence since Vatican II.”

    It always makes me laugh when Christians complain about the supposed Jewish subversion of the Church. Christianity wanted the Hebrews to join the club from its very beginning! What kind of a supposed pro-European religion allows non-Europeans to join?

    Also, let’s not forget what we can read in The Fair Race:

    Since all men were created in God’s image, all needed to be won for the Church. The goal is a unified humanity united in an all Church led by the priests. The clearest expression of this comes in Pope Pius IX’s statement on 29 July 1938: “One forgets today that the human race is a single, large and catholic race.”

    Today, this concept of one “human race” is of course the mainstream narrative (link).

    • Most WNsts subscribe the silly notion that the Jews somehow infiltrated their parents’ religion, instead of the commonsensical explanation that the religion itself is a non-starter.

  4. Yeah what a silly article that was.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: