Ask Ted: The Christian Question Revisited

Let us consider together. In all cases, emphasis added.

I’ve been asked some questions about Christianity (see below). So, let us consider together.

See the debate about Christianity here; my interest is focused on the following excerpts from comments from the pro-Christian side, which I consider typical of the aggressive nature of Christians in pro-White activism:

A Challenge to Non-believers

I would go farther and say that not only should Christianity not render a man suspect, Christians might even be justified in doubting the conviction of racialists who explicitly reject the faith. I know that among some non-believers there can be a tendency to mock those who believe, to think of us as somehow not intellectually complete. With all due respect, let me offer the view that perhaps no man of the West can be complete if he is not a Christian.

I do not here intend to issue a challenge to believe…Instead I appeal to tradition, history, and the beauty of what is uniquely European.

Our culture is so saturated with Christianity that the two simply cannot be separated…To strip Christianity from Western Civilization is to tear out its heart. Christianity is so characteristic of Western man that for centuries Europe was known as “Christendom.”

How can whites claim to be defenders of a people and of a race and yet scoff at the deepest convictions of their ancestors? How can they speak of “preservation” when they oppose the faith that has for so long defined and guided our race?...

And now comes the worst part, one of the most outrageous things I have ever read in all my time in pro-White activism:

To be sure, it is not given to all men — not even to all good men — to believe. To those men I would say: If you love your race and its heritage, do not mock the Church. Respect it, honor it, and even — yes —  join it. As a duty to your ancestors, in solidarity with the ancient traditions of your people, as an act of participation in the faith that suffuses our culture, stand with the believers even if, in your hearts, you do not believe…

…if you join the assault on Christianity you league yourself with those who hate Western man. It is precisely now, when the crisis is worst, that men of the West must march together and be guided by the same light.

Rather than turn their backs on the faith of their fathers, non-believers should ask themselves whether our people can be saved if our faith is not restored…Those who think of Christianity as an obstacle and a stumbling block should ask themselves whether it may be that Christianity must be cured of liberalism before the West can be cured.

Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe. Those who would be faithful to Europe but not to the faith will find that Europe cannot be Europe without the faith. Even if some biologically authentic remnant of the race succeeds in securing a material corner of the earth, it will have established a nation without an identity and a body without a soul.

Obviously, I disagree with all of that.  That aggressively offensive screed is so absolutely disgusting that my outrage knows no bounds. Note as well that that should be highly offensive to authentic devout Christians. Is that what they want? Churches full of people feigning belief?  Is that what their God would want? What their Jesus would want?  Do they really want to share their Sunday services with people who absolutely loathe Christianity and who are, in their hearts, sneering with contempt at the proceedings that they pretend to follow?  What kind of Christianity is that?  And why can’t Christianity attract sufficient numbers of genuinely devout believers who are pro-White?  Why must they supplement their numbers with non-believers “LARPING” as Christians?  Why can’t pro-White Christians fight and win the battle for the hearts and minds of other White Christians without the support of people who really dislike Christianity and who do not believe in it?  What kind of religious belief is this if it can be spoofed by non-believers? And what point will the membrane separating believers from the LARPERS break down so that no one really knows who really believes or not?  Given that, isn’t it be possible that eventually the LARPERS will outnumber the authentic Christians without the latter realizing it is happening?  Doesn’t that weaken Christianity?  Doesn’t it create the scenario of a hollow church that could collapse if a significant number of the LARPERS realize they are now the majority and decide that there is no point continuing the farce?  And what does it say about the intellectual and moral integrity of the LARPERS if they agree with this deception to begin with?  How is it different from people in the USSR and elsewhere in Eastern Europe pretending to be believers in Marxism, or today’s Whites paying homage to diversity, equity, and inclusion?  And how many Christians think the same way as the moral monster who wrote the screed reproduced above?

Some discussion between a Gab correspondent and I is of relevance here (the questions I mentioned above).

Gab correspondent:

Would you say that the Nordicist treatment of Southern/Eastern Europeans is similar to how many secular White Nationalists treat Christians? I mean, if we really do think that race-first Christians should be accepted into the movement, wouldn't it be best to tone down the hostile rhetoric so they feel more welcome? Unless it can be shown that Christianity is inherently incompatible with White Nationalism, I think I'm starting to come around to the Griffin position that the most viable way forward is to, at the very least, not alienate White Christians since they are 70% of the White population in America.

Ted Sallis:

I have no problem working with Christians, but I loathe the religion. But there is a difference between religious belief that can change and someone's genetic ancestry, which is an innate character. A Negro can be a Christian, but Europeans are Europeans. But, again, sure, we can work with Christians who put race first.

Gab correspondent:

Yes, but why would they want to when so many White Nationalists are hostile to Christianity? Calling them Christcucks, "Jew on a stick", questioning their loyalty, etc. Why would they want to take that kind of abuse when it's so easy for them to fall back into "Christian Nationalism"? And while it is technically true that religious belief can change, most Christians aren't ever going to give up Christianity. A lot of them have a deep psychological need for it. We are basically stuck with huge swathes of Whites that are Christian. If they are in, shouldn't we act like it? If they are out, then we need to target the ~24% of Whites in America that are non-religious, the majority of whom are Democrats. There is the theory that Hitler was secretly against Christianity and planned to do something about it after some time in power. But in order to get to that point in the first place they had to play ball.

Ted Sallis:

There needs to be compromise. Some Christians are beyond help. Those that insist that we all must be Christian believers - unacceptable. I can have a live and let live attitude. I won't attack Christians who put race first and who accept non-Christians. It is true that many WNs are hostile to Christianity. On the other hand, there are many Christians who are aggressors. If the Sallis Groupuscule can broker a "peace treaty" between the two camps - great. It would be helpful to identify reasonable Christian WNs to work out a deal with.

And here is something I wrote earlier in response to similar concerns from this same Gab correspondent:

I make no secret of being anti-Christianity, as my blog posts and Gabs make clear. However, while I would like to see Christianity eventually disappear, I can work with Christians and tolerate the existence of a muscular nationalist Christianity IF Christians would stop pushing religion and insisting that we all have to be Christian and that Christianity is central to the West. In my experience, the intolerance comes from the Christian side.

In my opinion, what are consistent with Whites, Europe, and the West, with respect to religion, are Christianity, Deism, paganism, atheism, and agnosticism. Religions associated with Afro-Asiatic peoples, or “New Age” nonsense, should be eschewed.

Among those White consistent religious entities there should be tolerance. Thus, Christians who are pro-White and who prioritize Whites should be accepted, but they need to stop pushing their religion on the rest of us and stop making it some sort of prerequisite for being pro-White.  And “stop pushing their religion” incudes not only in pro-White activism, but the idea of forcing Christian beliefs onto society-wide political and social questions (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, scientific questions, relations between groups with and between nations, etc.). And the screed commented on above is absolute anathema; I expect Christians who are sincerely pro-White and who agree with the idea of tolerance on this issue to denounce that “non-believers need to pretend to be Christian” trash as it deserves.  Further, Christians need to get their own house in order; if Christianity is compatible with pro-White activism and if problems in that regard can be solved, then it is up to pro-White Christians to do it.  The rest of us are under no obligation to assist. We should not impede their efforts of course, but it is their battle to fight.

So, in summary, this “peace treaty,” this agreement, within the ranks of pro-White activism is that non-Christians would stop attacking Christianity in general (but attacking anti-White liberal Christianity is absolutely necessary by both Christians and non-Christians alike) and accept that Christians can be good White nationalists; while the Christians need to prioritize race over religion, and stop pushing their religion on others and on society and general, and certainly stop equating Whites, Europe, and the West exclusively with Christianity (and whatever battles they need to fight over Christian beliefs and race is their battle alone). 

Are there are any reasonable pro-White Christians with whom such discussions can be had?