Nov 24, 2015

Todd Lewis on Hyphenated Christianity

via TradYouth

The latest subscriber to our affiliate marketing program where we link to bloggers with less traffic than ourselves when they make wild and personal accusations against our project is Todd Lewis. His winning entry, “Contra Traditionalist Youth Network: Christianity Cannot Be Hyphenated,” goes for a straightforward Category C smear of our project.

Category A: Matthew Heimbach is Fat
Category B: TradYouth is too Christian
Category C: TradYouth isn’t Christian

We contend that Heimbach’s not fat, but merely hefty and big-boned. We’ll be sure to replace him as soon as our talent search for a male model who’s as productive as him pans out. Regarding religious affiliation, we’re a political organization and not a religious order. While we take the lead in defending traditional Christianity, we’re not an exclusively Christian order, our religious litmus test is limited to precluding folks of the Jewish and Satanic persuasions, and every denomination (or lack thereof) is welcome and encouraged to join us as equal partners in our broad struggle for identity and tradition.
I’ve been following the Traditional Youth Network (TYN) for some time after my run-in with Matt Parrott on Attack the System. For those who do not know Mr. Parrott, recall that he is Matthew Heimbach’s father in-law, and that I had a run-in with Mr. Parrott over his comments on the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate.
After that run-in, one would think he would know better than to charge at me with a bunch of half-baked assumptions.

While his attack is directed at me, his purpose is to drive a wedge between identity and tradition.
I think this question is important; as what common ground, if any, does the traditionalist Christian movement have with the New Right, White Nationalists, etc? The answer I think is pretty obvious: nothing. I will explain why shortly.
He’s a typical anti-White fundamentalist type who carelessly and cluelessly conflates fundamentalism and traditionalism. While his antiquarian fundamentalism and orbiting affiliation with the New Right makes it non-obvious, his arguments and positions are fundamentally indistinguishable from your generic anti-White troll.
The main problem with modern Christian movements is that they try to be something else first; they try to analyze Scripture through a lens crafted by the ideologies of men, and then tack on cherry-picked Christian themes and motifs as though somehow Christianity could neither be relevant nor survive without these man-made “interpretive tools.” For example: anarchist-Christians, socialist-Christians, liberal-Christians, libertarian-Christians, and racialist-Christians. As you can see, the ideology is in front of the hyphen and “Christian” is placed after. No! You are either Christian or you are not.
I’m a Christian first, and we’re quite clear that our mission is “Faith, Family, and Folk,” in that order. Whatever your faith or denomination is, we ask and expect you to put that first. Metaphysics precede metapolitics, and a solid spiritual grounding is a prerequisite for effective metapolitical and subsequent political work. It presumes that Christianity is limited to one political position and belongs to one singular identity, both of which are supposedly clearly delineated in the Bible.

How dare you be a euchre-enthusiast Christian? You’re either playing the card game or you’re worshiping Christ, heretic scum. Make up your damn mind! smdh 2015
He’s self-aware enough to catch himself in the middle of his fundamentalist tirade, narrowing the scope of his “No true Scotsman!” charade to identitarians.
Christians can have different views on how social issues need to be resolved, but at the end of the day we need to identify first and foremost as Christians, and if we have an African or Syrian brother, then that must trump our ethnic loyalties; if not, then you really are only secondarily a Christian, which is to say your ideology comes first and your faith second.
I’m not a sola scriptura Protestant, so I’ve got a couple millennia of applied Christian tribalism and nationalism to lean on, but I’ll be a good sport here and play by his Anabaptist house rules. 1 Tim 5:8 insists that “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” The Bible quite clearly establishes an intuitive and natural concentric circle of concerns for Christians. Note how the verse even anticipates and deflects Todd’s wish to frame that in exclusively familial terms. Saint Paul in Romans 9:3 declares that he wishes he could damn his eternal soul on behalf of his “kinsmen according to the flesh.”

Different Christians of different denominations square up their relationship between their faith and their identities in different ways, but one thing is sure. Christianity is perfectly compatible with identitarianism and the vast majority of prophets, saints, clergymen, and parishioners throughout Christian history (and even today, outside the West) held positions on identity and tribe which Todd Lewis considers so heretical as to fundamentally contradict the Christian faith entirely.

Modern Christianity has discovered, after nearly two millennia of the contrary position that identity is heretical, but only when it’s White people being identitarian? And they just happened to do it when global capitalists and the Jewish oligarchs declared that anti-White anti-racism is a central plank of their secular humanist globalist pseudo-religion?

How convenient.
The problem here is that Paul clearly warns against being unequally yoked in 2nd Corinthians 6:14-16. Neither Mr. Parrot nor Mr. Terry were able to give satisfying answers when pressed on the issue by Clement and the Swiss Kinist.
Both Mr. Pulaski and Swiss Kinist are heretics for believing that White people have a right to exist, by your own estimation, so I don’t know why you would lean on their critiques and concerns. If I were you, Todd, I would think twice about unequally yoking myself with those nationalist Christians. Any stick will do to beat a dog, right?

Both of them and others have expressed concerns about how to engage the rest of the identitarian world, just as many of our Orthodox brethren have expressed concern about our engagement with other Christians. Then you also have the secular and folkish identitarians who arrive with their own ideas about how we should all work together. I consider that a friendly brotherly dialogue which we should all continue to respectfully have between ourselves. As an anti-White, you’re not really a welcome part of that discourse.
National Socialism is completely antithetical to anything Christian or Traditional. To pretend that there is some common ground between them and Christian Traditionalism is a laughable folly, as I hope to show.
Before you attacked my position on Nationalsocialism, you should’ve taken a few minutes to figure out what my position actually is. The first thing to understand is that I make a concentric and gradated distinction between allies and comrades, rather than the limited and problematic Dubya-style “with us or against us” approach.

For example, in my essay, Never Leave a Fallen Comrade, I distance myself from the 20th Century political party while confirming my fellowship with them in the identitarian struggle.
I’m no Nazi. I have no German heritage. I don’t have much use for their pagan revivalist undertones or their dehumanizing “cattle-breeding” perspective on heritage and genetics. I think their relentless persecution of Jewish rag merchants while allowing the Jewish oligarchs to slip off and regroup is the very model of how not to handle the Jewish Question. I can’t justify or defend everything they did because I don’t agree with everything they did. That being said, Mein Kampf is certainly closer to my heart than anything to be found on a mainstream conservative’s bookshelf.
I explain the distinction in more depth in my essay, Andrew Anglin Isn’t Radical Enough.
For all the exaggerations, distortions, and lies about the NS regime, it was a 20th century political answer to 20th century political problems. The Nazis were a political party with no coherent religious or metaphysical vision. A lot of the early leadership were folk religionist, the rank-and-file were almost entirely Christian, and Hitler himself was about as close to being an atheist as a politician is allowed to be. They were a proportionate reaction to the threat of Bolshevism on the horizon, offering both Christian workers and their employers a robust alternative to the threat of Jewish Bolshevism.
My personal loyalties are closer to Romania’s Iron Guard than to Germany’s more secular project…
Corneliu Codreanu’s Romanian Iron Guard was superficially similar to and allied with Germany’s National Socialist regime. Both carry the largely meaningless and derogatory epithet “fascism”. Yet the former was distinct from the latter in critical ways which make it a firmly superior model to emulate. Most importantly, Codreanu understood Christianity’s roots-deep challenge to the Pharisees (contemporary Jews) in a way that the Germans never did. To the limited extent that the Germans of the time grappled with Christianity, it was with the mistaken premise that Christianity was an integrally Jewish religion to be contorted and adapted toward their political goals, rather than the metaphysical answer to and final negation of the Jewish Project.
Of course, Corneliu Codreanu was ultimately undone by degenerate clergy and nobility. That’s why it’s vital for Radical Traditionalists to be on guard against antiquarian and fundamentalist conservative sentimentality contra authentic Tradition. Todd Lewis’s conservatism is a shadow of Modernity, and he’ll follow it right into perdition. He’ll cling fast to the superficialities, clutching his bible, baking his own bread, and lovingly grooming his lumbersexual beard, all while gradually inculcating the globalist, capitalist, and Jewish fashions and taboos of the age.

After the fall of the Third Reich, ideological hacks were second only to vengeful Russian and Black American infantrymen in their eagerness to dive into the ruins and exploit the situation. Entire bookshelves can be filled with tacky attempts to frame the Nazis as anti-Christians, as radical Christians, as closeted homosexuals, as tools of the bankers, as space lizards, or whatever. Alfred Rosenberg’s anti-Christian ax-grinding was never the dominant position in the party, and his Positive Christianity scheme was a flop. Savitri Devi’s fusion of NS with Hindu and Perennialist themes firmly belongs to the post-war neo-Nazi tradition, and certainly can’t be mistaken for mainline NS ideology by serious historians.
Reputable scholars such as Bullock[6] and Shirer[7] show that Hitler’s long-term goal was the destruction of Christianity.
Having studied Hitler’s life and writings in some depth, I’m quite convinced that Hitler simply didn’t care all that much about religion. All of the attempts, across the board, to stuff him into their religious framing are ideologically motivated and lacking in compelling original sources. He was a largely secular historical figure. I don’t give a damn how awkward it makes it for cucked adherents of Holocaustianity that we refuse to dishonor or denigrate a courageous man who gave everything in life, including his life, in the service of my extended family. We’re not throwing Hitler under the bus.

Regarding the Syrians, Todd Lewis has been convinced by the mainstream media that “helping” Syrian refugees, a mere fraction of whom are Christian, is a simple matter of inviting them into our communities and guest bedrooms, then inviting them to marry our daughters. I pointedly disagree with that framing. TradYouth has, more than any other political organization in America, been vocally advocating for and supporting Christian Syrians and the allies and protectors of Christian Syrians since the beginning of the conflict.

We’ve been raising money for them and even donating money to local charity efforts from the beginning, because Christian fellowship transcends race and tribe, and our Christian brothers in the Middle East are in a desperate genocidal situation. When “charity” extends to genocidally displacing my own kith and kin from our own homeland, then that’s more charity than my own understanding of Christianity allows for. If I don’t first account for my household and extended family, then I’m worse than an infidel, after all.
The problem with kinism is not its segregationist views, per se, but what it shares in common with theonomy: its Judiazing. I also would say I am a theonomist in that I seek to teach and obey God’s law, but Moses’ Law, while righteous, is done away with for the perfection of Christ; the theonomist denies this and is thus a Judaizer.
Just cut the theological crap and admit you’re anti-White. If you’re opposed to theonomy, then oppose the theonomists on whole, not the subset of them who happen to be pro-White. The pattern of attack is clear, so just come out in the open and explain why the White race has no right to exist, and perhaps also explain why God went through the trouble of creating it, only to make it imperative that it be abolished by integration and open borders. And if you’re not merely anti-White, then quit wasting your time with us numerically and politically insignificant White identitarians and start battling with the billions of non-White Christians around the globe who are proud of their racial and tribal heritage.

If, as you insist, that loving your race is an outright anti-Christian position, then your Christian duty is perhaps to become a missionary in Africa, going from village to village demanding that they abandon their racial and tribal loyalties. We both know you won’t do that, because your prerogative is enforcing the Modern anti-White taboo, and a disingenuous reliance on theological arguments is the way to go about that when attacking your fellow Christians. You’re not a traditionalist. The issue here isn’t segregating identitarians from traditionalists. It’s segregating fundamentalist conservative Moderns like yourself from authentic traditionalists (inb4: not all of whom are necessarily White or pro-White).
The message I leave traditionalist Christians with is best summed up by Mr. Terry himself in the comment section of said article: “The “alternative right” and all the white nationalists are a bunch of modernist atheists and pagans and I no longer care one bit for their “movement” or anything they’re doing. To Hell with them.”
All throughout Christian history, Christians have allied and worked with folks of different denominations and even faiths of varying degrees when it’s been the moral and right thing to do. It’s only an unequal yoking when there’s a loss of perspective and priority. We’re working with secular identitarians toward a secular goal, not marrying them. Whether secular and Christian identitarians can continue working together in common defense of our identity remains to be seen. There are certainly somewhat organized anti-Christian elements who share your interest in guaranteeing that a broad alliance in defense of our faiths, families, and folks never emerges. I think they’ll lose, and I think with time the silent majority of skeptics and folk religionists who aren’t hostile to Christianity will defeat the vocal minority of anti-Christians.
You can begin your fight against hyphenated Christianity by ceasing to be an Anti-White Christian.

No comments:

Post a Comment