Amalric de Droevig’s “The Way Forward: A New Christianity, Partition, and a General Operational Plan” is not the first time that advocates of white interests launch attacks on Christianity. The writers for The Counter Currents and The National Vanguard — to name just two of them — are doing the same. Detractors of Christianity among the ranks of white activists seem not to notice that they are playing into the hands of those — yes, Marxist, leftist, and liberal circles — which hold Christianity in low regard and would like to see it gone or transformed into something Christian in all but name.
When Christianity was at its best and its strongest in Europe, it kept the Jews down, the Muslims out, and the Whites in, to paraphrase the familiar phrase about NATO. It is only when Christianity became weaker and weaker that it stopped performing its role. Until that time Christians — Christian knights and monarchs along with Christian priests and theologians — were never squeamish about waging wars and forcefully converting others or driving other faiths out. They did all those things with their motives rooted in the Scripture! Think of Charlemagne (mentioned in Amalric de Droevig’s text), think of the Crusaders, think of the Teutonic Knights, think of Jeanne d’Arc, think of the Gott mit uns legend on the belt buckles of the German soldiers during the two world wars, think of… — you name it.
Jeanne d’Arc incited the French Christians to fight the English Christians; the (German) Teutonic Knights waged wars against the Christian Polish state, and while the former resorted for spiritual help to Jesus Christ, the latter did the same invoking the Mother of God; the Czech Hussites reciprocated cruelty upon cruelty in their fight against the German Catholics; German Protestant Christians of the 16th and 17th century relished in butchering German Catholic Christians and vice versa; the list is long, and I am only recalling these facts to show that in none of the historical events did it ever occur to Christians to turn the other cheek and to show meekness. Rather, they readily burnt opponents at the stake or dispatched them in thousands with little or no remorse.
This turn-the-other-cheek attitude has been cleverly induced into the minds of theologically and psychologically feeble Christians by the Saul-Alinsky type of Christianity’s opponents. Remember one of his precepts from The Rules for Radicals? If an organization that is opposed to us states that it will answer each and every letter, heap it with thousands of letters! They will neither be capable of processing them, nor — if they try to do so — will they be able to continue their activity. The same has been done with Christianity, and theologically and psychologically feeble Christians. Christians constantly heard this, “Turn the other cheek! Turn the other cheek! Turn the other cheek!,” and you know what? Christians have swallowed it lock, stock, and barrel! The Saul-Alinsky type of opponent of Christianity acted just like the devil tempting Christ, and quoting Scripture. But wait! What did the Saviour do? He paid the devil back in the same coin: quotation against quotation. So easy, and yet … so hard for present-day Christians.
In a thousand-or-so-pages-thick Scripture you can find quotes for anything you please. The Teutonic Knights, mentioned above, would reference all their military actions to the Bible, justifying conquests and the use of specific kinds of weaponry. Try reading Peter von Dusburg’s Chronicon Terrae Prussiae: page after page after page there are long passages justifying war and the use of swords, spears, shields, bows etc., all rooted meticulously in the Bible. Again, did Jeanne d’Arc talk about turning the other cheek? By no means. Instead, she insisted she had been commanded by God — the Christian God! — to militarily drive out the English from France. Somehow — as far as I know — even though she was later tried, no one advanced the argument that she had violated the precepts of Christianity while advocating war, and — mind you! — there were theologians and priests among her accusers. Why didn’t even they roll out such a crushing argument? It somehow did not occur to them.
So once again, alluding to the paraphrase of the strong Christian creed keeping the Jews down, the Muslims out, and the Whites in: why did Muslims not relocate to Europe at the time when Christianity was Christian apart from the military invasion of Spain? Well, they would not have been accepted and certainly they would not have been able to mingle in Christian societies. They would not have been allowed to build mosques, and so on. Were marriages between Christians and Muslims thinkable at that time? God forbid! Not merely because they were formally forbidden, but because it would not have occurred to a deeply believing Christian to commit such a sacrilege. It gets even more interesting at this point. Christians who cared about their faith at that time could hardly imagine marriages across Christian sects. The readers will be familiar with the strongly anti-Catholic sentiment in the United Kingdom; they may not know, though, that Russian tsars and grand dukes of the 18th and 19th century very frequently married German princesses. The point is that none of these princesses was Catholic — though Germany and its the ruling houses were split in this respect among Catholics and Protestants — and before those women became imperial or ducal spouses, they needed to convert to Orthodoxy. Catholics, you see, would have refused to convert (which by the way exposes what a debilitating effect Protestantism had on the White man’s world). One of the Polish kings would have been accepted as the Russian tsar (at the beginning of the 17th century) if only he had converted to Orthodox Christianity. He didn’t. Zero tolerance. Zero understanding or acceptance of the other, even the other Christian. Creed can be a strong vaccine against aliens, a strong immunological system. A non-Christian Rishi Sunak as a head of a Christian state was unthinkable at that time!
Speaking of Russia, the readers will have known about the Pale of Settlement for Jews; perhaps they do not know that there were certain military decorations that could not be granted to Russian Muslim subjects of Russia’s central Asian provinces. Why am I mentioning all this? To show that the problem lies not in the Christian faith, but in the feebleness of the mind and general effeminacy on the part of Christians, and also in the clever doings of its enemies who exploit selected biblical passages and foist their interpretation on the churches that are foolish enough to accommodate them.
Turn the other cheek… Why not, Crescite et multiplicamini (Be fruitful and multiply)? Why not, “I have not brought peace but war?” Why not go and convert all the peoples? Why not, “Who has not believed is already condemned?” Why not the Old Testament’s (the part of Scripture that Protestants are so enamored of), “Stone him to death! Stone him to death!” for almost everything?
I hope you see the point. Feeble-minded, effeminate Christians have been presented with an anti-Christian interpretation of their own belief by anti-Christians and you know what? Christians swallowed it whole with gratitude!
Amalric de Droevig points to ancient Romans and Greeks having prosperous and flourishing societies that operated without Christianity, but they have disappeared. Where’s the advantage? They grew weak without Christianity (though some put the blame on Christians, which is by no means convincing). Why? Because they stopped believing in what they had believed earlier. Take another example: communism. It crashed in the USSR, but has not in China. Yes, I know, China is sort of capitalist, but still the communist party holds the reigns of power and Marxism-cum-Maosim is the national “creed.” The Soviets gradually stopped believing — BELIEVING — in their “religion,” so they ended up enslaved by their enemies who had been programming the Russian minds for decades that McDonald’s and blue jeans — to put it symbolically — are worth giving up Yuri Gagarin or the Motherland Calls (Родина-мать зовёт).
#/media/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82!.JPG){kind=link}
Consider that also the Soviet Union tried hard to eradicate Christianity in the hope of creating a powerful society and it all came to nothing. Rather, Christian revival is being promoted nowadays in Russia, with President Vladimir Putin calling on Russians to crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram (Russicam) or, to quote the original: “Large families must become the norm, a way of life for all Russia’s peoples,” and “Yes, the Church is separate from the state [but] I would like to note in this context that the Church cannot be separated from society or from people.”
Indeed, it cannot. The West is dying because it has given up on its faith. In an effort to do away with Christianity, which is allegedly guilty of the West’s decline, some try to replace it with Christianity under a new guise. I’m thinking for instance of the National Vanguard and its symbol, which is one of the runes that is just a warped Christian cross. I wonder why of all the runes they selected this one. Their website too is full of anti-Christian sentiment, as if Christianity were to blame for the collapse of the Western world. What they level their guns at are Christians in name only, readers of the Bible and followers of Christian gurus. To a cradle Catholic like myself, such Christianity is weird, to say the least. True, today the Roman Catholic Church increasingly resembles Protestant denominations, but that’s precisely what I am trying to draw the reader’s attention to: the Church has been infiltrated and taken over. The latest papal encyclicals are about ecology and immigration rather than morality and salvation. Is it still Christianity?
In Poland, generally thought of as a Catholic country (along with Italy, Spain, Austria and Ireland, maybe less so France) young people — also among intellectuals — have begun to follow the example of their Western counterparts to ceremoniously make an act of apostasy, and to brag about it on social media. Do you think these are the people who would like to preserve the White race? They had parted with Christianity long before they made the act of apostasy and they are all progressivist, leftist, and globalist. They want us to abandon our faith.
My diagnosis of the problem? It is not the religion of the White man that is to be blame, but the religion’s perception and re-interpretation that have been foisted on Christians incapable of true theological reflection. The churches (and all other White institutions, such as universities) have been taken over and turned into their opposites by clever mindsuckers. Rather than going along the wishes of the mindsuckers, i.e., destroying the remnants of what we, as Whites, still possess, we would do better to reclaim those institutions, and become (again) proud and defiant, and stand our ground. It is easy to roll out counterarguments. Turn the other cheek? Look, Christ did not turn the other cheek when he was slapped in the face during the trial. All people are good and deserving blessing? Quite the contrary is true: there are sons of perdition, individuals for whom it would be better not to have been born because — genetically? — they are incapable of doing good, and so on. You get the point. Do not let the Rules for Radicals operate against you.
Christianity has not become one hundred percent Christ and zero percent Charlemagne; rather, Charlemagne was one hundred percent Christian (“I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”), while the White Man’s World is on its last legs because it is becoming zero percent Christian. That’s what the historical record says, does it not?