Looking at Christianity Objectively

Andrew Anglin
Total Fascism
April 10, 2013

The whining about Christianity that goes on in the Antisemitic/Nationalist movement is mainly based on emotion. Though obviously everyone hates this science fiction business about prophecy and raptures, and the Jew-worship that is attached to it, even the Christians who hold these beliefs have an otherwise agreeable value system, as a rule.

Whatever else goes on with Christianity, they are basically always against the liberalism of the Jew. They are anti-homosexual, anti-immigration, anti-sex culture, anti-abortion, anti-drugs, and many of them are now becoming anti-Black and decidedly pro-White. They are pro-gun, pro-family. Given this, the only real difference I have with these people is the superficial doctrines which have been injected by the Jew over the last century to weaken the core of the faith (this is obviously a simplification – there are other, older and more esoteric aspects which were a part of various incarnations of Christianity which I take issue with, such as the promotion of passivity or egalitarianism, but these were not traditionally a part of American Christianity, which was historically confrontational and racist, much more often than not).

The emotional rhetoric of these Christ-bashers clearly represents a failure of objectivity, due presumably to these people having had some personal problem with Christianity that has made them bitter and weak, incapable of looking at this issue in a detached manner. When one hears Charles Giuliani, for example, going on his rabbinical tirades, calling Jesus “a dead kike on a stick,” the pathetic and womanish emotional weakness is palpable. Even if you believed this, what could possibly be the purpose of pushing it?

Note that Giuliani has admitted that until he was in his 40s, he believed in the talking donkeys and snakes and all the rest of the magical business in the Bible, apparently in a literal way, which clearly demonstrates that he is totally incapable of critical thought. In this way, it makes sense that he went from being a promoter of a childish interpretation of the Christian faith to a childish detractor of the Christian faith.

The other day, while flipping through AM radio channels in my car, I heard the following:

In 1919 William Butler Yeats penned a poem called “The Second Coming.” It captured the angst infecting Europe after the First World War. Please indulge me while I read a few lines:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

It could easily refer to our day as well, don’t you think? And at the end of the poem, Yeats asks the haunting question, “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

A few years ago, Robert Bork, referencing Yeats, wrote a disturbing book about cultural decline entitled Slouching Towards Gomorrah. And if our commercials are any indicator, perhaps we’re no longer slouching towards cultural ruin, but sprinting for it. Yes, that’s a pun! The ad I’m talking about is called “Unlimited,” and is a sophisticated attempt by Sprint to entice us to sign up for its latest big-deal data plan. But what’s really amazing is the “passionate intensity” in which it communicates a worldview.

The commercial opens with the line, “The miraculous is everywhere. In our homes. In our minds.” Without the technological backdrop, the Christian might agree. The world is infused with the miraculous presence of God. But as Mark Mitchell over at FrontPorchRepublic.com notes, the message from Sprint is that miracles are now “the … magical work of technicians who deliver devices and applications … No longer is the term ‘miraculous’ reserved for God and His works. The miracles all around us—even in our homes and our heads—are the product of human ingenuity.”

The ad flashes the word “Unlimited” while the announcer says, “We can share every second in data dressed in pixels.” Really? As Mitchell points out, “In other words, we can reduce the complexity of a human life to digitized bits.” Jacques Ellul, in his seminal work The Technological Society, warned that technology isn’t just a servant that can improve life, but a force that can take over and determine our lives. It fosters what can be called the “technological illusion”—that all problems we face are failures of technique and that the right technology will bring about our salvation.

The commercial continues, “I need to upload all of me.” As Sherry Turkle described in her book Alone Together, this is nothing more than a cry of desperation from a culture of people isolated and alone, who would “rather text than talk.” For too many, being noticed replaces being loved.

Then the announcer states baldly, “I have a need, no, I have the right to be unlimited.” As Mitchell says, it’s as if “the idea of limits of any kind is an offense.”

The spirit of the age reflected in this commercial reminds us of the Serpent’s ancient lie in the Garden, that we can be “as gods,” without limits. And friends, this lie is everywhere—from the academy, in our politics, and on our TVs. But the worldview messages fired at us today rarely use words and target our thoughts. Now they use images and target our imaginations.

As Dr. Jamie Smith—my guest this weekend on BreakPoint This Week—argues, the battle for our imaginations requires proper habits of worship as well as intellectual clarity. We must learn to think well, and we must learn to order our loves, as Augustine said. Jamie talks about this in his book Desiring the Kingdom, and in our interview. Listen at BreakPoint.org or on local radio.

The great Flannery O’Connor once wrote, “Push back against the age as hard as it pushes against you.” Every day on BreakPoint, Eric Metaxas and I will do our best, with God’s help and with great guests like Dr. Smith, to help you push back.

I found the transcript of this commercial here.

Surely, there is nothing there that is disagreeable. These people are as concerned about the soullessness of modern society, and the consumerist paradigm, as I am. I am sure that if you perused their website, you would find endorsement of Zionism and other things that we are against, but I would argue that they are exponentially closer to us in worldview and ideology than the atheist wing of modern society, which marches lock-step with literally every single aspect of the Jew agenda.

An Objective Treatment of the Situation

Clearly, if Christianity holds no appeal to a person, I would not expect them to endorse or accept it. Religious views are an entirely personal matter. Kyle Hunt, of Renegade Broadcasting, for instance, does not endorse Christianity, and draws inspiration from the older faith of our people. This is something which I have no problem with, and to my knowledge, Kyle deals with Christianity in a fair and respectful manner.

Kyle has noted that videos such as Zeitgeist, which attack Christianity on the grounds of its having been derived from ancient paganism, are coming at it from a very bad angle. In my thinking, the fact that Christianity is derived, in large part, from our older religions is a positive thing, something which should be embraced. The NSDAP had the goal of creating a synthesis between the old faith and the new, and we are seeing the Golden Dawn take the same approach.

I would assert that we need to take an objective and practical approach when dealing with the issue of religion in our society. In my perception, these ideas coming from various White Nationalists about how we need to create some sort of new religion are rather ridiculous and impractical, and ultimately pointless. When we look at historical Christianity, there is very little to disagree with. Christianity played a central role in the formation of the culture we are trying to defend and resurrect. We can even see, in places such as the radio program I quoted above, that the modern incarnation of Christianity has agreeable aspects.

The attacks on Christianity are also, in my perception, sickeningly elitist. There is nothing else but for our movement, in these foundational days, to be largely intellectual, being made up of mainly middle class individuals, who can sit around and discuss religion in somewhat complicated terms. However, the working class people, who our entire movement must needs focus on, and who do not have the capacity, as a rule, to discuss things in complicated terms, still have an emotional connection to Christianity. If we fail to recognize this, we never be able to connect with the masses.

Finally I would note that attacking Christianity is simply bad propaganda. The enemy is the Jew, and when we say “we hate the Jews, but we do agree with them that we need to destroy the ancestral religion of our people” we create confusion. It obfuscates the fight, making it unclear who exactly the enemy is, when we decide we have a need to list off various enemies. Even if we view Christianity as an enemy, there is no way we can expect to fight it at the same time as we are fighting the Jewish behemoth, with all of its tentacles.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:

In any age of history, the qualities of a truly great and popular leader consisted of focusing on a single adversary and not distracting the people’s attention. The more unified the people’s will to fight a single object, the greater the magnetic attraction a political movement will have and the more tremendous its impact. It is part of the genius of a great leader to make even widely separated adversaries appear as if they belonged to just one category. Weak characters who have difficulty making decisions will begin to doubt whether their own side is right when they see a variety of enemies.

When the wavering masses see themselves fighting against too many enemies, objectivity immediately appears with the question of whether all the others are really wrong and one side is right. That is the first sign of one’s own strength weakening. Therefore, a number of opponents must always be lumped together so that in the eyes of one’s followers, the battle is fought against one single enemy.

Christianity, being so vehemently opposed by the Jew, cannot be lumped together with the Jew. Clearly, trying to fight the historical religious faith of our people will simply cause confusion, and weaken our front against the real enemy, who is the Jew.

Christianity is not necessarily positive or negative. It is extremely versatile, as can be seen in history, where it has taken a multitude of different forms. I believe that the best way to deal with this is not by attacking Christianity directly, but by drawing out the positive aspects of it, and using them to our advantage.