SS: Of all the articles at Counter Currents, this article by Quintilan defending Christianity from a white nationalist perspective generated the largest number of responses both for and against.

Justinian:

Let’s do a thought experiment. In order to avoid the conversational malaise of trying to sort out what is “true” Christianity, let’s consider Christianization as if it’s the independent variable in an experiment. The dependent variable is the values and beliefs of societies after they are Christianized, and those societies are the test subjects. When we Christianize a society, does it become more identitarian? Does Christianization increase the martial spirit of a people? Does the belief in social hierarchy get strengthened through Christianization? Do people view their distant ancestors as sources of inspiration and wisdom, or backwardness and barbarity?

All the issues white nationalists attribute to Christianity should rather be attributed to secular humanism/liberalism, a product of the neo-pagan enlightenment (ironically). Feudal Europe was deeply Christian and also defined by a clear tripartite class structure (those who pray, those who fight, those who work). Knights were very militaristic and in many ways a throwback to ancient Sparta. Pagan kingdoms converted when they lost in battle to Christian ones, such as when the Vikings were finally defeated by Alfred the Great.

Given the constant fighting between kingdoms, I find it hard to accept that Christianity led to a loss of identity, although if anything it gave them a shared understanding and common cause in keeping the various Islamic empires out of Europe. Even now, the various Orthodox churches are still deeply nationalist and, perhaps not coincidentally, they are the ones who have stayed most in touch with the original message.

In fact, it seems that the greatest period of expansion of the European peoples occurred when they were most devoutly Christian. Our current malaise coincides with growing atheism, materialism and rationalism. It seems good men no longer bother studying (not just reading) the Bible, which makes it easier for an infiltrated and cucked church to preach a version of Christianity which is basically a suicide pact. All the New Testament stuff about ‘blessed are the meek’, ‘love thine enemies’ and ‘turn the other cheek’ is supposed to be about exercising restraint, putting aside your petty feuds with your kin and uniting to fight against a greater evil, not kissing Africans’ feet and singing ‘Imagine’ after the latest Islamic truck attack.

I struggled with the supposed ‘Jewishness’ of Christianity for a long time, although it’s really that God used the Israelites for a particular purpose in reuniting with the gentiles after Tower of Babel event. He’s not a ‘Semitic’ deity, and the Jews are really redundant by this point, since their Messiah has been and gone and they rejected him. There are lots of great sources which explain this, although you have to approach them with an open mind. For too long I just wanted to believe that Christianity was the cause of our weakness and never bothered searching for an answer which might prove me wrong.

I don’t see the whole Christian/pagan thing as necessarily either/or. You can still enjoy the classics and the sagas (which ironically survive in written form thanks to Christian scholars). I just don’t see paganism making a comeback as a religion (particularly since, as an Australian, festivals such as Yule and Ostara are utterly meaningless to me). Christianity is a perfectly good religion for the white race, although not the bourgeois version that Nietzsche despised and which really just acts as a moral cover for our sloth and cowardice.

Please excuse me if I seemed to commit the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy several times. But given the enormous effort undertaken to erase Christianity during the French Revolution, Soviet Union and Spanish Civil War, I’ve really come to believe there is something in the faith that prevents the ultimate triumph of evil, and we should be giving it a fair hearing rather than accepting the enemy’s definition.