To the Alt Right (and Everyone Else): Jesus Christ is a Strong God, and You Need Him

As a rightist, you know we live in Clown World. In religious terms, a foretaste of Hell. But Hell is real and you’re in danger of going there permanently. The only escape is via Christianity. Read on:

Non- and anti-Christian rightists have, I think, two basic grudges against Christianity. One, the Christian institutions have mostly been converged, with a motley crew of liberal pseudo-Christians, “Christcucks,” “Gay Christians,” and so on turning most of Christendom into just another enabler of multiculturalism, LGBTQ, leftism, and on and on. If Christianity looks just like the rest of the nation, in thrall to the left, why respect Christianity?

But the more important objection is that real Christians appear weak and powerless. It makes their God look weak and powerless.

But according to the Bible (the real definer of Christianity), the real God is a mighty Being who in eternity past chose and predestined a group of people yet to be born to be saved and sanctified, and to live forever in resurrected bodies in paradise. And yet the mark of your being predestined is that you freely choose to repent and believe. God is powerful enough to predestinate and to give you free choice. God is not a weakling who sits around hoping that somebody would choose to join his team; according to Scripture God acts to save His people and to keep them saved. And if right now God’s people are having their behinds kicked big time, that’s because it’s part of his plan. God has good reasons for everything that happens; we just don’t know what they are. And at the end of the world, when God brings the current world order to an end and judges mankind, God’s team is the winning team.

[For God predestining, see Ephesians chapter 1. For God acting to save his chosen ones, see the Gospel of John, chapter 6.  For the last judgment, see Revelation chapter 20. For the happiness of of the saved and the anguish of the damned, see Revelation chapter 21. For the criteria by which God saves you, see Romans chapter 3 and Galatians chapter 2. If you don’t have a Bible, go to biblegateway.org. You can choose among many translations; I recommend the English Standard Version for general use.]

There are other benefits to being a Christian. Forgiveness of your debt of sin to God. The only system of thought that gives a fully satisfactory explanation of how the world works. Real human fellowship as it was intended by the Designer and Manufacturer of the human being. Rejection of the phony-baloney modern world of manipulation, gaucherie and deceit. Knowing and worshipping the infinite and personal creator and sustainer of all that is. One could go on and on.

Point is, you cannot get this stuff anywhere else than from Christ. Be an effective dissident and come to faith in Jesus Christ. You do this by acknowledging that the Biblical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is not a clever myth, but accurate reporting by eyewitnesses. Jesus really did fulfill prophecy, do miracles, claim to be the Messiah, get himself crucified to take away the sins of the world, and rise from the dead.

And you do it by acknowledging that the rest of the New Testament describes accurately the works and teachings of the Apostles trained by Christ. They have the authority to provide the additional details about what Christianity is.

And you also come to faith in Christ by acknowledging that the Old Testament is an accurate account of the creation of the world and of God calling a people to be His own, from which the Messiah and Savior of the world would later arise.

But what about the pathetic state of institutional Christianity? Deplorable as it is, it’s ultimately irrelevant. Yes, we’d be better off if our pastors and priests were not mostly minions of the Cathedral. And yes, we should oppose woke pseudo-Christianity whenever we can. But according to the Master Script, they lose in the end. So don’t lose your cool.

*

For an example of real, take-no-prisoners Christianity, check out the late Greg Bahnsen. Following his mentor Cornelius Van Til, Bahnsen argues that the God of the Bible has to exist because without this specific God it’s impossible for mankind to know anything. Laws of logic obviously exist, for example, but without the God of the Bible, they cannot exist. (Many non-western religions confirm this when they teach that reality is contradictory.) Christianity is true because the contrary is impossible. Is that enough confidence for you? This is the Christianity that made the West great.

Do an internet video search for “Greg Bahnsen” or “presuppositional apologetics.” A good quick introduction (15 minutes) is “This Is How You Do Apologetics.” [“Apologetics” means giving reason to believe.] If the link is broken, just search the title.

If you don’t like Bahnsen, find one of the thousands of other Christian thinkers who collectively show that every objection to Christianity can be overwhelmed by a great mass of evidence. The truth is out there; find it, seize it, and hold fast. Your soul is at stake.

55 thoughts on “To the Alt Right (and Everyone Else): Jesus Christ is a Strong God, and You Need Him

  1. The Pete Buttigieg phenomenon is bewildering to me, in the category of “Gay Christians”. His “God made me this way” is a powerful argument for which the lukewarm christian right has no answer. Knowing our faith is fundamental to everything; living our faith is fundamental to apologetics. We have to be able to say, with all love and charity, but also firmness and resolve, “You are wrong and here is why”. Probably more charitably expressed as “I would like to help you see my point of view”.

    When we are to undertake anything for the service of God, after invoking His holy light, and discovering His will, though we should employ the human means which we consider necessary and suitable in carrying out the orders of Divine Providence, yet we should not depend on them, but on the Divine assistance alone, and from it expect success, with the firm persuasion that whatever happens will be best for us, whether it appears good or bad, according to our individual judgment. -St. Vincent de Paul

    (source)

    • There is no formal difference between a preference and a dispreference. Thus the gay-ontological argument (God made me this way) is fully amenable to reversal. If “preferences” were ontological, then the revulsion that heterosexuals feel in response to homosexual practices would be just as ontological as the other guy’s “attraction” — and would deserve equal respect and (as it is nowadays) veneration. God made me this way, the accused “haters” might well say. In respect of “preference,” however, I prefer judgment. Once again — God made me that way.

      The Buddha-Judge is a lunatic.

      I read Counter Currents regularly, but always with reservation. The Alt-Right attitude to Christianity is basically the same as the leftwing attitude to Christianity. It stems from Voltaire and Nietzsche, but vulgarizes and de-nuances Nietzsche, who was a complicated (and sometimes inconsistent) thinker. (Voltaire, for his part, was completely consistent.) I wish no more to live in a Counter Currents world than I wish to live in a “Squad” world. They are the same.

      • Professor, I disagree. Both the “Squad” and the Reich Reloaded would make dystopian societies if they had the power to do so, but I don’t think the creatures such regimes would form would repulse you equally. I’m not familiar with Counter Currents, but I’ll check it out.

      • I agree re: Mr. B, but his rhetorical power is jarring to me. His response to Pence, “Your quarrel is with my creator” has force, and lukewarm christians on either side will be stymied in trying to explain fully why they either think he is right or think he is wrong. WM Brigg’s “Homosexuals don’t exist” was an eye opening article for me. How do establishment evangelical republicans answer that claim? On what grounds would they oppose homosexuality of that variety?

        When the battle becomes about two different and mutually exclusive ontologies, one must inform oneself about ones belief, and defend it vigorously, as I think Alan Roebuck is suggesting in the OP.

      • I also check in on Counter Currents semi-regularly: it is the most serious alt-right site out there (as best I can judge), and to Greg Johnson’s credit, he values truth for its own sake, and he engages with serious philosophical thinkers.

        Your evaluation of its attitude toward Christianity is exactly right: at best, it is unsympathetic, and usually downright hostile.

    • I have a friend who converted from Methodism to Orthodoxy in the 1990s. His father was a faithful and wise pastor in that group (requiescat in pace). Occasionally, my friend reconnects with the Methodist networks of his youth, and he is almost always alarmed at what has come of the UMC. People who he thought were devout, biblically-based folks are now on board with the crazy train. After speaking with them and pondering their arguments, he has come to the conclusion that mainstream Protestantism has ceased to believe in the fall. It is easy to understand “Buttigiegism” once you throw out the fall: man’s soul is not disordered; rather, we have inherited unjust social systems that can and should be reformed for human beings to blossom into the beautiful creatures God made them to be. Pretty much the entire “social justice” project follows. Sin is has become external — political, and the Gospel has become a platform for public policy . . . based on a profound misunderstanding of man.

      • Is it uncharitable to call protestantism heresy? I converted to Roman Catholicism fairly recently, but as a gift for the occasion my sponsor gave me a 1916 Baltimore Prayer Manual. The form for the reception of converts includes a groveling renunciation of heresy–this is an unqualified renunciation for all non-roman-catholics. The undoing of protestantism was seeded in it’s inception: If you can throw away this dogma, then there’s no dogma that is safe and eventually the whole thing gets thrown out. Look at Methodists earlier this year, voting on whether or not Homosexuality is a sin. They miss the point, entirely.

        The undoing of Catholicism, which formed the West until Martin Luther, is rooted in the indifference towards those who would oppose it. Again, as I think Alan Roebuck is advocating in the OP, we must arm ourselves in confidence in Christ, inform ourselves in Faith as we would sharpen our arms, and oppose Heresy where we find it.

        Who are the vigorous defenders of our faith anymore? I wish I could count myself among them. They are few and far between. Fulton Sheen used to win Emmy’s for his television program which vigorously defended faith. Gone are the days!

    • Homosexuality is self-annihilating whether inborn or chosen. Christ does not teach self-annihilation. And sane individuals don’t follow self-annihilators. Ergo, sane individuals can follow Christ.

  2. ” Christianity is true because the contrary is impossible. Is that enough confidence for you? This is the Christianity that made the West great.”

    The Christianity that made the West great believed that the True Faith needed a Christendom, without which Christianity is just arid doctrine. But modern Christianity, unique among the world’s major religions, preaches only endless cession to its enemies. That’s an odd way for the Truth to behave.

    • “Modern Christianity, unique among the world’s major religions, preaches only endless cession to its enemies.”

      Yer missin’ the point. Real Christianity is God predestinating the saved and shepherding His people in the midst of their enemies, both within the institutional church and outside it. Real Christianity knows its enemies and equips its people to resist them in their personal lives.The cucks are not real Christianity.

      And Christians like Bahnsen are not “ceding.” They are resisting.

      If you’re looking for a highly visibly successful Christianity, you ain’t gonna find it. Even though the winning team is mostly getting their butts kicked right now, they’re the ultimate winning team. Read the Book.

      • You still refuse to get the point.

        Hell is real, and you need to avoid it. The God of the Bible is real, and you need to acknowledge it. There is no magic formula for fighting Clown World, but you have to begin by acknowledging reality.

        Nothing I said means that Christians “have no stake in the world.” Some may act that way, but it’s not Christianity.

        Look at it this way. You as an individual have no chance of preventing Clown World. You’re just one person. All you as an individual can do is repent and believe in Jesus Christ. Once you have the proper orientation toward basic reality, then you can start to fight properly. As many Christians do.

        But before that, you’re on the wrong team.

      • I really want god to purge the church of the faggy culture that effeminates the men and masculinizes the women.

        I want to see the end of bridal mysticism and Jesus is my boyfriend nonsense.

    • The Christianity that made the West great believed that the True Faith needed a Christendom, without which Christianity is just arid doctrine.

      If Peter, Paul and the other Apostles waited for “a Christendom” to appear before they went about their work we wouldn’t have “a Christendom.” These men all suffered and died nearly three centuries before Christendom became a thing.

      • We are no longer in the Age of the Apostles and modern Christians aren’t St. Paul speaking truth to Herod Agrippa. Christendom has been the organic state of Christianity until at least the Enlightenment.

      • My point still stands. You unilaterally declaring that ages are over doesn’t change it, but it does highlight your effeminacy.

      • My point still stands. You unilaterally declaring that ages are over doesn’t change it, but it does highlight your effeminacy.

        Do you think Christians should fight for a Christendom?

  3. Pingback: To the Alt Right (and Everyone Else): Jesus Christ is a Strong God, and You Need Him | Reaction Times

  4. One, the Christian institutions have mostly been converged, with a motley crew of liberal pseudo-Christians, “Christcucks,” “Gay Christians,” and so on turning most of Christendom into just another enabler of multiculturalism, LGBTQ, leftism, and on and on. If Christianity looks just like the rest of the nation, in thrall to the left, why respect Christianity?

    This indeed is one of the reasons secular rightists often give for despising Christianity.

    However, this is just a rationalization, at least in part: there is obviously more going on than a simple rejection of Christianity on the sole basis that it has been compromised by liberalism. Consistency would demand that they apply the same reasoning to the white race (if we are talking about the alt right, for example): there has been a much stronger correlation between the white race and liberalism than there has ever been between Christianity and liberalism. But rather than write off the white race for its collusion with liberalism as they do with Christianity, they seek to save the white race. So there’s something more fundamental going on.

    Other considerations too support the idea that their stated reasons for rejecting Christianity are rationalizations. But in the interest of brevity, I will leave those alone for now.

  5. The main question here is whether the Alt-Right and Christianity (Alan’s version) are truly compatible. The Alt-Right in its essence is the acknowledgement of two things: race realism and the Jewish question. So, can you be a White Nationalist and anti-Semite and also be a Christian? Another point that many Alt-Right people make against Christianity is that it is actually bad to love one’s enemies; they hate their enemies and wish bad on them.

    • If “white nationalist” means a white person who has self-respect and supports his people against those who hate them just for being white but who otherwise has no beef with nonwhites, then yes. If “anti-semite” means a Christian who acknowledges that Judaism has changed since Old Testament days and that most contemporary Jews oppose Christianity, yes.

      Otherwise, “white nationalist” and “anti-semite” are heavily loaded phrases, and one cannot give them blanket assent.

      As for “love your enemies,” Jesus did say that. But He did not mean to allow them to take over your country, for example. Although Christendom has always contained pacifists, Christianity properly understood has always allowed Christians to defend themselves, especially against gross physical or political oppression.

      Christianity is vast. Any kook can find isolated verses or traditions that seem to support his kookrey. Therefore we must study Christianity with diligence so we won’t get fooled. The greater a thing, the worse is its perversion.

      • White nationalism is based on the belief that there are imminent, existential threats to the European people(s). Whether or not they are correct in this assessment, that is, indisputably, what motivates them. I think they would say that “self-respect and supports his people against those who hate them just for being white” isn’t enough. I think they would say that the willingness to do what it takes to secure the future of European people(s) is what is needed. So do we tell them that doing what it takes is incompatible with Christianity?

      • Good reply.

        Yes, Christianity is vast, which is why I don’t play the “no true Scotsman” game with it until my interlocutor and I are in broad agreement about it.

        But concerning the Alt-Right, I forget that not everyone frequents dissident right circles as much as I do, so sorry if I wasn’t more specific. I’ll try to clarify. Instead of writing a very long post, I’ll merely give some example problems here that’ll come up and wait for your response to them.

        To the Alt-Right, Jews aren’t a theological problem but a race of people, a race of people that shares the largest part of the blame for modern degeneracy in all its forms. A Jew can never stop being a Jew, even if, and this is the important part, he converts. If there is anyone in the Alt-Right who thinks it matters if a Jew becomes a Christian, I haven’t met one.

        The second example is the one I see the most often when I or others defend Christianity. It’s along the lines of “would you let your daughter marry” type questions. Basically, Alt-Righters will argue that kinship trumps religion. So they may ask a Catholic if he is for more Mexican immigration because Mexicans are his co-religionists or a Baptist would rather befriend a black Christian or a white atheist. A favorite quote of neo-pagan Alt-Righters is what (allegedly) the pagan king Wolfram said when a missionary told him his ancestors were in Hell: “Then I would rather live there with my honorable ancestors than go to heaven with a parcel of beggars.” I myself find it difficult not to sympathize. I’d sooner marry a white atheist than a black Christian. I’m also against missionary efforts in the third world , or any aid at all, since charity only increases their numbers. If this sounds an awful lot like letting people die, then that is because it is. Would cutting off food aid to Africa be compatible with Christianity?

        So, most see Christianity, not in its current form, but at its very core, incompatible with their ethos. Its virtues are vices in the Alt-Right’s eyes.

      • The Alt-Rightist has to decide what’s most important.

        Christianity says what’s most important is for the individual to be “on God’s team,” that is, to be justified in His sight by repentance and faith in Jesus. In most times and places, this does not require the Christian to reject the ways of his people. Occasionally it does.

        In a time of widespread ethnic and racial conflict, the Christian is told to take care of his people. The New Testament does not speak directly to conflicts such as we see in the modern world, where the authorities tell whites to betray their ancestors, but it does tell (fathers, especially) to support their families. E.g., 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” Supporting your family can include fighting cultural and ethnic aggression.

        “Would cutting off food aid to Africa be compatible with Christianity?” If the goal is to starve people, no. If the goal is get your house in order and to prevent foreigners from becoming moochers, probably.

        But this world is not the only one. Christians are commanded to love and serve their neighbor, and this can include fighting mass immigration and the legitimization of sexual perversion, for example. Most of the actual agenda of the Alt-Right can be compatible with Christianity, but it depends on exactly how it is carried out. And the real need of mankind is proper fellowship with God, which is only had through Christianity.

        When you become a Christian your priorities change. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. But Christians are allowed to be warriors.

      • Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?

        There are 800 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is artificially boosted by food aid from the first world. They cannot feed themselves and are invading the north. Yes the result would be they would starve, not “get their house in order”. Before Europeans colonized Africa there were only a few million people living there. Again, if there is an Alt-Righter who doesn’t think the deliberate starvation of millions of Africans would be a good thing, I haven’t met him. They are coming north. The choices are: let them, stop the invaders and a growing population forever, or stop and them and let most of them die.

        So, I’ll put it the way everyone puts it to me: would you let your daughter marry a genuine black Christian before a white atheist (or pick your least favorite religion)?

        And what about the JQ? Are Jews still Jews, and therefore part of a collective responsible for much degeneracy, after conversion?

        The question is more fundamental than “can I be a warrior?”. It is “can I hate my enemies?”.

      • I wonder if I’m being trolled…

        No, a Christian is not allowed to enjoy the sight of mass starvation, for example.

        Regardless of any other agenda of yours, becoming a Christian starts with you realizing that you have sinned against God and are therefore under His condemnation, and therefore you need a Savior who will save you on His terms, not yours.

        It’s not a matter of anybody judging your beliefs in order to check if you are a proper fit for Christendom. Prior to salvation, everyone is contemptible in the sight of God, each for his own reasons.

        You just gotta ask, Which is more important, being saved from the wrath of God, or keeping with your current program?

        “can I hate my enemies?” You enter the kingdom of God just as your are. Then God works on you. Some hate is justified and some is sinful. I don’t have a blanket answer to which is which.

      • I’ll charitably interpret that as “don’t know”. Remember you are the one who is arguing that people can convert to Alan’s version of Christianity and remain Alt-Right. It would help you if you actually understood what the Alt-Right believes.

        And the Alt-Right’s feeling about the Jews?

      • This is not a matter of you deciding whether you agree with my group’s entrance requirements, and, if you find them agreeable, joining.

        For one, Christians have widely-varying beliefs about topics such as race, HBD, or the influence of the Jews. There are no set “official Christian” positions on these topics and therefore my own personal beliefs about these topics are irrelevant.

        All I can legitimately say is that the Christian is allowed to defend his family and his people, but not in any way he wants. Hate (real hate, that is, not the progressive buzzword “hate”) is a potentially destructive vice which must be kept under control.

        But more importantly, you have to engage with the theology. The reason why any person ought to become a Christian is not because Christianity is a good social or political match for him. It’s because the Bible (which all three major Christian traditions identify as God speaking to us) reveals that every human being except Jesus of Nazareth is under a spiritual death sentence on account of their sins, and the only pardon comes through their repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. I just thought I’d let you know, so you can decide what to do.

        Until you respond to this last point, you’re failing to engage me.

      • And you are 100% confident that “your group” is genuine Christianity? Because your writing seems an awful lot like a fanatical call to inaction.

    • The Alt-Right in its essence is the acknowledgement of two things: race realism and the Jewish question.

      I would say the essence of the alt right is not mere race realism, but something stronger: the idea that race is the fundamental basis of society and its ultimate standard.

      The Jewish stuff follows from that: Jews are Other, so if the white race is the unifying principle of western civilization, then Jews cannot be white.

      If race is not fundamental, Jews can be both white and Other.

    • “Basically, Alt-Righters will argue that kinship trumps religion.”

      My novice response to this is that religion is a form of kinship, arguably the highest, although mystical in nature, and it does not mean that other, lower forms of kinship become valueless.

      I think this is a big fear for the secular right, one I can sympathize with too, that if they convert and become Christians the loyalties they held dear become completely overshadowed by “Christian kinship” and what soon proceeds from this is just another push for a utopian society on earth where, in this particular instance, our common bond is exclusively Christ our Lord and learning to let go of the identities that made us what we were before Christ.

      Until Christians can find a way to harmonize and respect the many human differences (piggy backing on a response of Kristor’s on another post) along side of “Christian kinship” I don’t think the Alt-right is willing to listen.

      I, too, struggle to understand how the Church can reconcile both since it is becoming more and more clear to me that it’s teaching “reductionist modes of thought” (again, Kristor)

      I’m a Orthosphere rookie so forgive me if I’m not making much sense.

      • You’re making a lot of sense, Nick. Many people fear having to give up what they care about most if they become Christians. I know the feeling.

        I’ve tried to reassure Jim here that coming to Christ does not mean renouncing what he cares about, but only refining it and expressing it in less sinful ways.

        And I say “sinful” not because I’m picking on the Alt Right, but because all of us are sinful, both before and after we come to Christ.

      • Ecclesia is downstream from culture which is downstream from ancestry. This is true for Egyptian Copts, Ethiopian Tewahedo, Romanian Orthodox, Polish Catholics, German Anabaptists, Anglicans, American Scots-Irish, and everybody else. It is a phenomenon in Christianity as permanent as the Creed.

      • Sure. So we can all just be lone Protestants with our King James Bibles, an iteration of Christianity that is itself a product of a particular ethnicity and culture.

        Your view of the Faith and of humans is deracinated and hence nihilistic.

    • The point is that you are trying to sell something you don’t even understand to people you don’t know. And make no mistake: “selling” is what you are rather vulgarly trying to do here.

  6. I would say, viewing it from a utilitarian, perspective, they often have a love/hate relationship with Christianity. Hence, quasi or cultural Christians like Jim Donald.

    On one hand, it helps to form and maintain strong families (and thus, our civilization) through its emphasis on sexual morality, responsibility, etc. At the same time, they see it as handicapping in a world filled with ethnic or racial enemies (or potential enemies) where you sometimes have to be hard hearted. They want to be able to say, unapologetically, “hell no” to 50,000 Bahamian hurricane refugees the same way the Japanese would do and they figure Christianity doesn’t allow them to do this.

  7. If judging one’s own side by the idealized version of itself is a fault, then we’re all guilty of it, the Alt Right as well as everyone else. “Lord, to whom should we go?” Where is the refuge from Clown World by whose comparison the Church is found wanting? Neopagans and atheists are certainly more hostile on average to whites, Western civilization, and masculinity than are Christians. The average scientist probably believes more provably false Leftist nonsense than the average Christian, and even if he doesn’t believe it, he’s certainly not willing to challenge it. Apparently, a STEM education is no inoculation, because companies filled with software engineers are the absolutely most fanatical. A dissident from feminism and homosexualism would be better off in a liberal Christian church than in the military.

  8. Remember you are the one who is arguing that people can convert to Alan’s version of Christianity and remain Alt-Right.

    Can someone who becomes Christian remain alt-right? Sure, but only in the same sense that someone can become Christian and remain liberal. Most Christians in the modern West are liberal, after all.

    Fundamentally though, the alt-right is incompatible with Christianity.

      • The “salesman” is God, speaking through the words of the Bible. And you have totally ignored (at least in this thread) what God has said.

        You seem to be assuming atheism, for there can be no other excuse for ignoring what God has said.

      • There are various issues on which the alt-right does not have sharply defined positions, but its central animating principle is well-defined at this point: that race is the foundation of the nation and that all other political principles must be subordinated to the good of the race. The major leaders in the alt-right are all unified on this point. This is not compatible with Christianity.

      • Ian:

        but its central animating principle is well-defined at this point: that race is the foundation of the nation and that all other political principles must be subordinated to the good of the race. The major leaders in the alt-right are all unified on this point. This is not compatible with Christianity.

        Okay, let’s explore this a bit.

        If the Armenians decide to draw a line around themselves to keep out the Turks for the good of the Armenian people, is that compatible with Christianity?

        If the French decide to keep out Africans because they’re incompatible net tax consumers who will strain the public fisc and social fabric of the French nation, is that compatible with Christianity?

        Because if they’re not, then you’re just underscoring why modern Christianity has nothing to offer anyone but elderly people waiting to die. It’s just pathological altruism, with the highest and best duty of its adherents to be slaughtered by their enemies. Bonus points for having your children killed in front of you.

        If you’re a young person with a family or who hopes to have a family, why would you buy in to that?

      • theantignostic, allow me to take a stab at rebutting your comment:

        Political sovereignty and theological concepts are not analogically compatible in this case. The Good News doesn’t care about race: Christ died for everyone’s sins. Christ doesn’t care what race you are, as long as you accept the Truth of Christ.

        A second and subordinate point, is that we owe some duty of obedience to our national leaders, and some duty of respect to other national leaders. Please note that I do not highlight the full extent of either duty, just that some duty is owed.

        Ethnonationalism was the basis of the first nations. In America, there is no ethnonationalist identity, and attempts to create one are ill conceived; even worse is trying to do so under the guise of Christianity. Armenia and France and the USA can preserve their territorial integrity, they can decide what immigration standards to set, they can defend themselves from invasion. These are valid political metrics.

        I believe Ian’s point is that the Alt-Right is unified that there is no other consideration of sovereignty THAN race. If Every human is subdivided by ethnonationalist unit, than the contiguous border around ethnically homogenous groups of people is a nation. This is not a Christian principle, for many reasons but in part because it does not allow for Samaritans to come to the aid of Hebrews, as in Luke Chapter 10.

        When you say…

        Because if they’re not, then you’re just underscoring why modern Christianity has nothing to offer anyone but elderly people waiting to die. It’s just pathological altruism, with the highest and best duty of its adherents to be slaughtered by their enemies. Bonus points for having your children killed in front of you.

        …you make the following errors:
        1) Thinking Christianity has nothing to offer if not ethnic homogeneity. Spend more time reading the Gospels, spend time with the Word of Christ. There is so much more to offer than that.

        2) Suggesting that the “altruism” of christianity is pathological to the point of death. When Christ says “Pick up your cross and follow me”, he is not speaking metaphorically. Following Christ is hard, and Bishop’s wear a red mantle just because they are prepared to be martyrs for their faith. Christ does not say it is inherently virtuous to die at the hands of national enemies. Christ doesn’t care about nationalism.

        3) You confuse following Christ, a universal duty of All human beings with national policy. This misunderstanding is what makes you concerned about having a young family. But that last sentence of yours is really a non-sequitur. Let me try to rephrase to illustrate: “If you’re a young person with a family, why would you follow Christ if you can’t use him to attack your enemies?” It just doesn’t make sense.

  9. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 10/06/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

  10. It is always reasonable for the Christian to ask, “Is X compatible with Christianity?” But sometimes from a tactical standpoint that is not the best manner of critiquing “X.” In my own humble opinion, the alt-right as a political viewpoint needs a stake through its heart. While definitions of alt-right are a bit floating and admittedly I’m drawing from my own experiences, the alt-right is fundamentally liberalism. Sure, as a liberal denomination, it does come off as a bit pesky for today’s liberal overlords. That is the ever the temptation for uppity jesters. Nonetheless despite having its own particulars that I and other Christians may at times find amusing or even agreeing with on certain points, the idea that by ridding ourselves of all these Jews and darkies running around we whites can finally have the good kind of political liberty is backdoor liberalism of the Thunderdome sort.

    • Good comment. It is not clear to me whether or not the alt-right is a species of liberalism. Is the alt-right committed to liberal principles like liberty? Some alt-right figures, like Johnson, do speak of freedom and equality as political goods. But I don’t know that this is true generally (Spencer has criticized the concept of free speech, I believe).

      But if the alt-right does live under the umbrella of liberalism, then all the more reason to regard it as fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

Comment

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.