Christianity - A Modest Defense
I can recall so clearly those Sundays in my youth growing up in Cincinnati, Ohio in the 1950s. I attended a large Presbyterian church. I was one of the few who asked questions in Sunday School. And most of my questions were about the book of Matthew.
I remember one Sunday school teacher in particular. He was a lawyer, and a professor at the University of Cincinnati Law school. At the tender age of 12 I had just read Matthew 23, the famous condemnation by Christ of Scribes and Pharisees. So I asked this teacher, "what is a Pharisee?"
He did not even care enough to look it up and give me an answer in the following week! Ironic - after all, they were (among other things too numerous to mention here) the first lawyers! The same happened with other Sunday school teachers - I can recall reading Mark Ch. 7, the exchange in which the Pharisees catch Christ's followers eating bread with unwashed hands contrary to the mosaic law of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy:
"7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.' 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' * * *
7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."
Indeed, in these passages Christ clearly repudiates parts of the old testament - at a minimum, the dietary laws - and perhaps much else. He quotes Isaiah for the purpose of identifying much of this Mosaic law as "the commandments of men."
So I asked the Sunday school teacher what else in the Old testament might Christ have repudiated. How about God's supposed injunctions to genocide in Deuteronomy Ch. 7 ? How about the ugly genocidal passages in Numbers Ch. 31? Did God really command Moses and his people to do these things, or were these passages in Numbers, like the dietary laws of Leviticus 11, merely the commandments of men, and not of God?
Gee I dunno, ask the pastor!
It was clear to me that the pastor would flee from the prospect of having to explain Christ's repudiation of parts of the Old Testament. Pastors do not like complexity. It stirs doubts in parishioners minds. Rather, the pastor had this ugly tendency to quote short passages out of context to support some simple moral point when the whole seemed to me a much more complex tapestry.
Indeed I recall one Sunday in which our confirmation class was asked to go to the main sanctuary where a famous Dean of a Presbyterian theological seminary would be delivering the sermon. He talked about the passage that has always troubled Christians. In the moment of death on the cross, Christ says, "God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Well, it turns out that the Aramaic word that Christ used does not necessarily translate to "God the Father" but rather "Father of Israel" or more colloquially "Nation of Israel."
But it was obvious to this 12 year old that if Christ said "Nation of Israel, why hast thou forsaken me?" not only did the passage suddenly make sense from the perspective of the events immediately preceding the crucifixion (the preferred construction), but it had explosive theological implications as well. Christ appears to be un-choosing the Jews in the theological sense - altering God's covenant with Moses, and, perhaps, demolishing those disturbing anti-gentile passages in Exodus about slavery for gentiles, and the requirement to charge them interest on loans.
I was stunned. This man had removed many of my doubts and stubborn reservations. After all, I was not about to believe a faith the left me a second-class citizen, much less one that exposed me to divinely ordained genocidal attacks!
But outside the church doors after the sermon, it became clear that the Dean's message was utterly lost on the rest of the congregation. They did not understand or like it. Too complicated.
It was apparent to this 12 year-old, back in the 1950s, that Christianity was in trouble. None of the elders in my Presbyterian church cared enough to understand what Christ was really talking about. The pastor preferred the easy task of training sheep, and was perfectly content to forfeit the souls of the intellectually stronger wolves.
As fate would have it, our confirmation class used to sit in a circle, and knowing in advance that there would be dull spots, I strategically placed myself opposite little Suzy, so when the energy slipped out of the session I could ponder the beauty of her legs, and of life in general. The time was well spent!
Indeed, from the perspective of a White-nationalist, the question is: - to what degree might Christianity slow down the re-emergence of race consciousness of the White middle-class? The answer has two components. The first is a function of the numbers. According to the statistical department of National Review Magazine (Mar. 10, 1997 p 62),
"- Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians lose nearly half their young people for good.... 48 per cent of Presbyterian youth drop out of churchgoing altogether. In 1985 a third of the nation's Methodist churches had performed no baptisms."
"- The net figures: 30 per cent of Americans are totally secular in outlook, 29 per cent are barely or nominally religious, 22 per cent are modestly religious, 19 per cent (about 36 million people) regularly practice their religion."
Ralph Reed, the Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, published a seminal apologia in the Wall Street Journal on March 16, 1993 page A22 with the following statistics.
"According to a survey by Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter, 86% of U.S. media leaders attend church infrequently or not at all. By contrast a survey conducted last month by the Marketing Research Institute found that 48% of Americans attend church twice or more a month. More than 100 million Americans attend church every month and approximately 30 million attend church four times a month or more. Yet few of our nation's journalists, professors and intellectuals can be found in the pews on any given Sunday."
While Reed's statistics sound a bit better on first reading, a closer examination reveals that the two sets of numbers are broadly consistent (except of course the 48% figure which would yield more Americans [125 million] attending twice or more per month, than the 100 million who attend only every month). For purposes of this discussion, I assume that church attendance patterns are similar among Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. Thus, Both sources place approximately 80% of our White population in the secular, nominally religious, or modestly religious category. It is only among the devout 20% that we might expect religiously articulated moral codes to override perceptions of political self-interest.
These numbers confirm what we already should know from political outcomes we witness in the real world. If 60% of Americans were deeply religious, we would not have abortion on demand, condom distribution in the schools, and birth control without parental consent. It seems clear to me that the balance of power is held by the 60% that is completely secular or nominally religious. They will respond to perceptions of self-interest, as will most of the 22 percent share that is "modestly" religious. Based on the numbers, it is hard to argue that Christianity will significantly delay acceptance of the White racial consciousness.
The second component of the answer to the question whether Christianity will slow down the re-emergence of White racial awareness is the nature of the threat and White perceptions of it. White nationalists have a simple message for their fellow Whites:
Can trusting other races to treat us fairly as we slip into minority status be a smart strategy for individual Whites?
The typical White professional believes that it is only the bottom 20% of Whites who are hurt by "diversity" efforts, affirmative action and quotas. They think that they and their children will never be impacted. They fail to grasp that diversity is about power and control. Power does not flow from entry level jobs. The racial extortion coalition that firmly controls our media and national government is quite comfortable with the idea of Whites serving as infantry riflemen, police, trash haulers, security guards, prostitutes and fashion models. It is the sight of White males in top positions in the Fortune 500 which enrages them. A quick reading of Ellis Cose's "The Rage of a Privileged Class" will confirm it.
We have models of our future in towns and counties along the Texas border in which Whites comprise 30 to 40% of the population but hold none of the government jobs. None! The same is true of the State of Hawaii (33% White), and the District of Columbia (29% White). Both have only token numbers of Whites in their government bureaucracies. Our upper-middle class needs to understand that no matter which race is dominant, Mexicans along the Texas border, Blacks in the District, and Asians in Hawaii (Hawaii is only 2% Black and 7% Hispanic) the result is the same. Exclusion of Whites from jobs and positions of power.
At Harvard, 82% of the student body consists of racial minorities plus one White ethnic group (2% of our population) that consistently votes 80% Democratic and staffs the organizations of the other groups in the racial extortion lobby. 72% of the U.S. population gets only 18% of the seats. White gentiles are under-represented at Harvard by a factor of four times relative to their share of the population. In contrast, Blacks, who comprise 12% of the population, have 8% of the seats. We are under represented 2.66 times more severely than blacks.
Whatever Harvard's vision of "diversity" might be, it surely is not a vision that attempts representation in proportion to population. There is a clear loser here, and it is us. Based on the distribution of IQs and test scores among these competing populations, we would predict that our 72% of the population would be entitled to 55% to 60% of the places at Harvard, not 18%. Indeed, the picture improves only slightly when we add together the top 15 National Universities as ranked by U.S. News. Our 72% group gets only 38% of the seats. We are represented at only half our share of the population.
The middle class fails to grasp the essence of the problem. All the admissions departments need do to ensure the under- representation of White gentiles at the top of our educational hierarchy is to emphasize grades over test scores. Test scores are a much better predictor of success in later life, but grades vary in meaning from school to school, and are a wondrously "flexible" tool in the hands of social engineers. Admissions officers can play all sorts of games with grades while purporting to be race-neutral.
The precise game they are playing shows clearly in the numbers.
Preferences for blacks and hispanics are a mere sidebar to the main story, needed only for keeping peace among the partners in the racial extortion coalition. And those racial preferences would not be needed at all but for the fact that our ghetto schools have been integrated with 20% to 30% White students who cluster at the top of their classes. Re-segregate, and the need for preferences based on race will go away.
Old myths die hard. The top three ethnic/racial groups in America in income and education are Jews, Japanese and Chinese, in that order. With the next census, Indians and Pakistanis will be added. The facts of displacement at the top of the education and income spectrum are crystal clear. The problem is that the typical middle-class White sees none of this. And the White elites are especially unaware that they are the principal target. But I do not believe this failure of vision is the fault of Christianity.
Rather, Europe has been so overwhelmingly powerful and prosperous, relative to the rest of the World, for so many years that displacement is unthinkable to most Whites. They simply cannot imagine it. They will absorb the message only slowly, as actual experience contradicts the propaganda that surrounds them.
In truth, the regime of force and fraud that we live under is, over the long term, wildly unstable.
But I suspect that the real reason why the "Christian question" is so disturbing to White nationalists is that most of us feel badly about the Churches' efforts to compound the threat to our earthly interests. We are angered by our feelings of ambivalence toward a religion that has stood at our roots and nourished our culture for 1700 years.
We feel like Charles Martel, (the Eighth Century King of the Franks famed for expulsion of the Africans from Southern France) who upon hearing the crucifixion story shouted "If only I had been there with my sword!"
Amen, brother Charles!
It is hard to accept that the Church of Charles Martel, and his legendary followers, Roland and, a century later, El Cid Campeador, has been reduced to a caricature fit only for inclusion in Conan O'Brien's late night "wussy wagon," or worse - the rituals of mass suicide acted out upon Christianity's fringes.
Reforming institutional Christianity seems like one more burden thrust on the small and beleaguered band that sees the danger clearly. But the flip side to that coin is opportunity. A single medium size church with 600 families will have an annual budget of from $400,000 to $600,000 per year. That is more than any White racialist or White nationalist organization anywhere now raises. Truth, a little bit of courage, and a little bit of just one of those budgets could go a long way. I am convinced that the words of Christ are no barrier. The bible verse most frequently cited as arguing for integration and amalgamation is the parable of the good Samaritan. Now the typical Christian minister or priest will tell you that the parable of the good Samaritan begins with Luke 10:29. But of course, you cannot understand the story unless you recognize its beginnings in Luke 10:25.
"10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
The interrogator is trying to trick Christ into saying something that will justify killing him. That is a characteristic of much of Christ's life. Approximately half of his teachings are responses to questions posed by his enemies who want an excuse to kill him. The parable continues:
"10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?"
10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."
Now the word "neighbour" is critically important. It is used throughout the Old Testament to draw that all-important line between the code of amity applying to one's own tribe or race, and the code of enmity that applies to "strangers" or "sojourners" (King James) or "aliens" in the newer versions. In the old testament "neighbour" is used dozens of times and it almost always means "fellow Jew." Indeed, Christ uses a narrower term "brother" in his elaboration upon the commandment "thou shalt not kill" in his famous "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5:22) restricting its moral reach in a manner consistent with the dual code that was so well understood at the time, and which was part of the law of Moses.
Christ continues the parable of the good Samaritan:
"10:28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?"
Thus, the precise question posed to Jesus by the lawyer is, "How do you define the group which I should love as myself? In other words, who are your tribesmen or "who is a Jew"? It is an anthropological question. Jesus responds with an anthropological answer:
"10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 10:32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."
To understand Christ's anthropological answer, you have to understand who the players are. The priest who ignored the injured man was a Jew and comes from the occupational class that wishes to kill Jesus to preserve its power. The Levite is from one of the 12 tribes of Israel that happens to be a tribal enemy of Christ and his followers. Of the three, the Samaritan is the only gentile, and is the only one who has compassion on the injured man. Indeed, the passage makes no sense unless you understand the racial and tribal differences.
Jesus is saying that race is a matter of psychology. If a "stranger" or "sojourner" displays the code of amity toward you, then repay him in kind. Indeed, Christ's command to the lawyer "go, and do thou likewise" is a command to show mercy to the lawyer's fellow Jews, Christ and his followers, and to stop trying to kill them. On its most basic literal level, Christ is pleading for a restoration of racial solidarity.
It is the same viewpoint expressed in Jean Raspail's famous novel "Camp of the Saints." One of the final seven defenders of Western Civilization on that hilltop in France had a black skin, and hailed from India, but was in every psychological sense a Westerner. In a word, he is "White." The final defenders of the West accept him as one of their own.
Christ's answer in "the parable of the good Samaritan" is the same. It is a broadly "nationalist" answer. It is also indistinguishable from the answer I gave in Yggdrasil's Lesson 6 and the "What is White Nationalism?" FAQ (both available at http://www.ddc.net/ygg/) to the question "what is a race?" and "who is White?" I prefer the functional definition based on the tendency of groups to band together and compete against one another. Membership depends on psychology, and the combatants know perfectly well which side they are on. While physical features will predict 99% of the cases, ultimately it is the desire to band together and to defend the group's interests that determines membership.
But more important, the functional definition allows us to identify our enemies more accurately by allowing us to recognize what Sir Arthur Keith (the British anthropologist) called "race forming behaviors," - that is, divisive sub-groupings within a biological race that set themselves apart and form new groups based upon (among other things) displays of moral superiority and higher class status that take the form of sacrificing, opposing or betraying the interests of their larger racial or national grouping. The Levites did exactly this in defining Christ and his followers as a tribal enemy. Modern liberals do the same.
Note what Christ does not say. He does not say that race and tribe do not matter. Nor does he say "race does not exist." He does not say all men the world over are "neighbors" without distinction. He does not say that you must turn the other cheek even if aliens are invading and intend to displace or kill you. The good Samaritan story does not support any of the modern secular moral nostrums that command integration, amalgamation, mass surrender or any other disappearance of race, nation or tribe. The modern interpretations of these ancient words are clearly "laws written by men".
It is clear to me that the Christian churches can be reformed. There is no reason why parishioners must tolerate clergymen who actively limit the range of our concerns to "saving souls" for the nether world when we are under attack in this world. They can help us repel that attack at the same time. Most readers of this newsgroup understand that the institution of slavery may be an abomination. But we now have our Bibles on CD Rom. We can find every reference to "slave" in that Bible in 20 minutes. Modern technology will keep the Church honest. Whatever else may be true of slavery, it is not possible to argue sensibly that slavery is condemned by the Bible. It isn't.
Similarly, it is now impossible to conceal from the typical parishioner the aggressive attitudes of Christ towards his tormentors, and the obvious dual code he carried with him and repeatedly displayed in his unvarying and pre-judged reactions toward pharisees and Levites. It is impossible to keep parishioners from assembling Oxford English Dictionary style analyses of every use of the term "neighbour" or "brother." It is impossible to keep the curious young 12 year-old in confirmation class from focusing on the incredible cynicism with which Christ himself regarded the clergymen (scribes, pharisees, hypocrites, vipers) of his own time. In short, modern technology makes it much tougher for clergymen to lie about what the Bible means and get away with it.
If we may return to Ralph Reed's apologia, he makes the point that:
"Part of the answer lies in the church's abdication of its responsibility to the broader culture. After the Scopes trial of 1925, people of faith withdrew to their churches, creating a cultural ghetto of their own making. Their recent re-entry into civic life after decades of neglect has been greeted with fear."
The modern Christian church craves social respectability above all else. It will bend with the winds, as is has for the past two centuries. The church is a follower, the least dangerous estate.
The major problem confronting the movement favoring White racial awareness is the White triumphalist message that many racially conscious Whites seem to prefer. By "White triumphalism", I mean messages about how wonderful our culture is, how powerful it is, and the marvels of our science and technology. The problems are two-fold:
First, White triumphalism is the public image that allows liberals to caricature White racial awareness as mean-spirited and selfish. After all, if White civilization is so powerful and successful, how can you justify restricting third world access to it? Opposing affirmative action and immigration looks like denying entry level jobs to poor people who just want a chance to contribute and succeed. White triumphalism yields the moral high-ground.
Second, if White culture and civilization is indeed so wonderful and powerful, then why not fight among ourselves over who should control it? After all, there is plenty of wealth and power to go around, and weakening Western culture and dissipating a little of that power is nowhere near as important as the question of which classes of Whites shall control it! Indeed, White triumphalism is the "sine qua non" of liberalism - the image that makes White elites comfortable about their race-forming behaviors - those intense efforts to set themselves apart from and above their fellow Whites.
In truth, Western culture today means McDonalds and Coke, not Bach or Beethoven!
The White culture we export is straight from the sewers of Hollywood. We are not wealthy. Since the 1980's the ratio of total debt to GDP has risen from about 1.4 times to 2.6 times. We are a society that consumes more than we produce. Each year an additional 3% of our GDP is borrowed. The U.S. may have a potent military, but it marches strictly to the tune of alien foreign powers. Israel first, and a couple of newcomers. Japan holds over a trillion dollars of federal debt. They pay tens of millions of dollars each year to consultants and lobbyists in Washington to make sure that their trade surpluses with us are allowed to continue and that they can continue to buy those bonds. If we do anything to displease them, they will sell those bonds, drive interest rates up 400 basis points, and produce a nasty recession. Private institutions in the U.S. that have real levers of power are acquisition targets of Japan. Sony has already bought Columbia Pictures. More acquisitions will follow, as they learn the business.
Liberal democracy has left us open to foreign domination. Buying our politicians is much cheaper and much safer than starting a war to attain similar objectives. Recently, China has been playing the same game, generating huge trade surpluses, buying treasury bonds, and buying our White House in the last election. They have discovered how easy it is to get power over us. The typical White baby boomer loves the cheap foreign goods that generate these trade surpluses.
The sad truth is that Whites in the United States and Europe have nothing to wax triumphal about. Our civilization is a debt- addicted cesspool in which Whites are irresistably drawn to modern- day glass beads - BMWs and Guess Jeans - the bright shiny objects that trap the primitive mind! Overpriced baubles have us completely in thrall. We have handed our future over to our creditors. It is the kind of behavior you would expect from primitive slaves.
The economic philosopy of modern Whites is neither capitalism nor free enterprise, but rather ponzi schemes, multi-level marketing, "Dare to be Great," and "something for nothing". It is only when the White elites begin to perceive this pattern as a threat to their own and their children's interests that racial consciousness will re-emerge. The Christian church will remain a passive observer from the sidelines, for the truth is that Christianity is in full retreat along with the White race. Absent reform, it will wait until the dust settles and then slip comfortably into its modern role of providing moral justification for the victor.
Back to Main Page
(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.