Christian Apologetics for the Alt Right

Over a year ago, at the genesis of this blog, I wrote a series of pieces where I attempted to define the Alt Right in the wake of Trump’s election, and to further provide a bridge between Alt Right instincts, many of them righteous, and orthodox Christianity, properly understood. The posts are presented here in their original order, with relevant follow-up posts:

What Is the Alt Right?

The Alt Right, Aesthetics & Practical Atheism

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part One: Foundations

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Two: Heuristics for the Plausibility of Theism

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Three: Evidence, Intuition & Faith

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Four: Critiques of Christianity

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Five: Practical Steps

Tom Wolfe’s The Kingdom of Speech, A Review

Christian Ethics & Dysgenics

Abortion & The Alt Right

Guilt, Paganism & Christianity

Reader Mailbag: Losing My Faith


Planting Churches to Save Our Civilization

Planting Churches to Save Our Civilization

It is with some trepidation that I release this post. I am not sure I agree with everything in it, for it perhaps presents too dark a picture of the evangelical church, and may be influenced by my reading too much into what people say. I have learned that for most humans, he who says A does not always say B, no matter how logically connected A and B are. However, the recent ouster of Paige Patterson at the SBC, a key historical ally of Adrian Rogers who orchestrated the liberal purge decades ago, and the public glee of the cucks in getting his scalp*, tends to support the stronger form of my argument. The conservative churches are on borrowed time, and change needs to come sooner rather than later.

*I take no position on the charges against Patterson, other than to say out of Christian charity I assume he’s innocent because many of the people piling on are known snakes enjoying the assistance of the Fake News Media. If true, one’s reaction ought to be a note of tragedy, not victory, that a great man fell.

The following resulted from a dream I had over the Thanksgiving break. My oldest child is 13 and we are beginning to think about college. The dream had me back at my alma mater, a major public university, but I was observing a meeting of a student ministry at a local church. In the room, I saw young couples, older couples, all fellowshipping with college students. Somehow in the room I got the feeling that this was not only a Christian space, but also a space where white guilt was refuted, where white students were not beaten over the head with a gospel-veneered version of Marxism. I felt a great sense of relief that such a ministry would exist for my child, that we wouldn’t have to choose between Christian orthodoxy and suicide as a people group.

Of course, after waking, I realized this feeling of relief was illusory, for no such church exists. The dream, however, awoken in me a vision that such a church should exist. The existing secular Alt Right is too atomized, too lacking in meaning to be a realistic spiritual home for anyone. It is a negative movement based on reaction and alienation, even though the reaction and alienation are based on good instincts. More specifically, none of the individuals in the secular Alt Right are good spousal material for my children. I fear the future, in that I fear I may be forced to choose between my child marrying a Christian and marrying someone who is not racially masochistic. Only a church can produce the kind of young people we need if we are to take back our birthright.

The Precipice

The European peoples and civilization they built stand on a precipice. Our civilizations are being invaded while our morality is being hollowed out from within. In a strange twist of history, our moral institutions, the churches, have for the most part silenced themselves. Even if they espouse traditional views on today’s hot topics like sexuality, they do it in overly apologetic tones, hoping to avoid the attention of the Eye of Soros. Every politically approved degeneracy must be handled with kid gloves, lest their ministries be destroyed by hostile media attention. They are fragile, weak, scared to death of being associated with any principled Christian, like Roy Moore, who dares to take the commands of Scripture seriously and apply them outside of the church walls.

There is one notable exception to this weakness of the churches. All churches in all ages have had blind spots, and even today’s blind spot in the area of sexuality is something that could ultimately be corrected. On the one issue that is truly determinative for the future of our people, the churches will condemn and harass any heretic like it’s the 16th century – that is, anyone accused of “racism,” of having the temerity to assert that the European peoples have a right to homelands and to preserve themselves and their cultures. Functionally, most churches today are Satanic. They are useless and timid on issues where the culture has already overruled them, but attack dogs against the only people standing up to preserve a future for those very churches and the peoples that overwhelmingly populate them. The churches, then, are exhibiting the fundamental feature of liberalism – the deathwish. Having found the demands of modernity too hard, and having surrendered the fight against it long ago, churches today seek release from the burden of continued existence in the destruction of their own host civilizations. They openly hope for sweet release and death for the “white church,” looking to conservatives in the Third World, free of the original sin of whiteness, to eventually vigorously reassert traditional morality, for they are too cowardly to do it themselves.

It’s Only Getting Worse

We know from the history of science that the progress of empirical knowledge is not based on some ideal where old hypotheses die when they fail in experiment. Only a few fields progress like this, because only a few fields, like mathematics, chemistry, or physics, are sufficiently objective that experimental results can only have one interpretation. What tends to happen is that a younger generation of researchers, seeking to make a name for themselves, challenge the old theories with carefully designed experiments that begin to show weaknesses in the old paradigm. Nevertheless, the old guard, who made their name on the old hypotheses, continues to find creative ways to incorporate the new data into their increasingly discredited theory. Only when the old guard literally begins to die off, with the loss of their prestigious positions of influence, does the younger generation begin to show dominance. In a rather short period of time, long after the discrediting experiments have been done, the old paradigm is suddenly washed away and the new paradigm reigns. Even in fields of science with the highest aspirations for objectivity, personnel all too often determines policy.

The church is at a larger disadvantage in its captivity to its leaders. Because theology lacks any regime of falsification (we cannot do experiments, for example, to determine which precise doctrine is correct), the church is pretty much helpless to reform itself from within. Personnel is policy. What can we expect in the future in the evangelical church?

We should remember the origins of the politically engaged, relatively conservative evangelical church we see today. While having distant ties to the Fundamentalist movement, which kept the torch of the Apostle’s Creed alive within rapidly liberalizing early 20th century Protestantism, the birth of the movement – and they are super embarrassed to admit this – lies in protests against integration. All of the major figures of the movement, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers, etc, were initially opposed to racial integration. While Billy Graham insisted on integrated gatherings for his crusades, he nevertheless was red-pilled on the Jewish question, as revealed by White House tapes in which he and Richard Nixon discussed the problems of Jewish disloyalty, and in particular their involvement in pornography.

Whatever we may want to say about these men, they were real men, not the doughy cucks ascendant in the church today. This older guard of manly, distinctly conservative and usually southern evangelical leadership has been dying off. Adrian Rogers, while reconciling himself to the reality of integration, refused until his death to perform interracial marriages. His successor, Boomer cuck Steve Gaines, desperately promotes race hustler black pastors to leadership positions in the SBC. One exception is Franklin Graham, a masculine pastor and a strong Trump supporter who publicly advocates for a nationalist immigration policy. He is an older Boomer (1952) and obviously strongly influenced by his father.

We should not underestimate the residual influence of this passing pre-Boomer generation. The backbone of any local community institution, whether a symphony or the church, often consists of the very elderly. They are very often the ones who write the big checks. Big, successful ministries do not happen spontaneously, but rather require a hustler’s focus on raising money and making things happen. Do not let the “aw shucks” act of any of these prominent pastors fool you into thinking that any of their ministries just happened because they are faithful shepherds whom God just chose to be prominent for some unknown reason*.  It is more than likely that as bad as Tim Keller, Russell Moore, and John Piper are now, they really would like to be a lot worse, but can’t, yet, because of elderly donors, elders and other limiters in their circles of influence.

*Note, I am not dismissing hustling as a strategy. Hustling for the right causes is the obligation of every Christian, according to their ability and gifts. One of the major errors of today’s evangelicalism is a sort of fatalistic apathetic passivism – we are “broken” and can’t do anything for ourselves, so we wait for God to do it for us.

In reality, these Boomer cucks secretly hate the older generation. They were good church kids, but they really hated being embarrassed when the church said unpopular stuff the culture didn’t like. Like most Boomers, they are addicted to mainstream entertainment and so have thoroughly imbibed the Hollywood propaganda that pathologized any expression of Southern or Christian manhood. They want to be cool and hip, drinking artisan coffee, wearing designer jeans, and conforming to the androgynous culture in a maximalist way while minimizing any distinction of the Christian community.

We are already at the point where they are telling us what they really believe, especially when a public race cucking opportunity provides them cover. In this article, for example, they call the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention “heretics” and in a demonstration of the lengths to which they will abuse an argument, try to make the case that the Sexual Revolution was somehow a philosophical descendant of southern planters’ supposed embrace of Greek philosophy. Russell Moore rails against the Christian culture of the South, calling its historical faith “fake Christianity” pursued only for social respectability. It sounds cynical, but the most prominent church leaders today seem to be following the same recipe: whatever’s wrong, blame it on white people. The predictive power of that shorthand is astounding.

The danger for red-pilled white Christians is that we may find ourselves marooned in our own churches. And if we wait too long, we will be like the elderly faithful of the mainline denominations, forced to listen to social justice Marxism preached by a lesbian from the pulpit of the churches that, as children, nurtured them in a true faith. Yet, due to age and infirmity, and the natural desire to be around one’s friends in their twilight years, they lack the drive and energy to fight what would now surely be a losing battle to restore their churches. The time they should have fought was 30-50 years ago, when their churches were just beginning to be invaded by Marxists. They found it inconvenient, even embarrassing, to fight, and the changes were just gradual enough that each new insult was tolerable. Because they were unwilling to fight and “make a scene” in their prime middle-age years, they are now captives in their dying denominations.

We deceive ourselves if we think the cucks will do anything but double down on their rhetoric. They have captured the leadership of our denominations and will be much more ruthless in rooting out their remaining enemies than those they displaced ever were in dealing with them.

The treatment of Roy Moore is a case in point. As this is written, in December 2017, we have no idea whether the allegations against him are true. They could ultimately prove to be true but that will not affect what a good Christian’s reaction should be now: loyalty to our friends, and suspicion of our enemies, until proven otherwise, especially when the events happened 40 years ago and just happen to be revealed weeks before an election between Moore and a known anti-Christ, abortion-supporting Democrat. What we do know is that there is not sufficient proof to believe the accusations and that proving a negative is nearly impossible, especially when female false accusers are protected by a culture of feminism. The cucks have piled onto Roy Moore while remaining largely silent about other Republican figures with similar pasts. This is because Moore is a throwback to the older generation of evangelicals. Less intellectual, less sophisticated, but thoroughly orthodox, and most cringe-worthy to the cucks, a Christian who actually put his faith into practice in his role as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Moore showed what Christians in office should actually do, received actual persecution for it, and the cucks find such intolerable, for it shows how shallow all of their intellectual Calvinist bloviating actually is in the real world.

This time, the liberals in the church have gotten smarter. Having lost a few battles in the old mainline denominations as more conservative churches split and formed new associations, and being totally routed by the efforts of Adrian Rogers in the Southern Baptist Convention, those with liberal leanings now know that they must at least feign orthodoxy if they wish to secure their influence long enough to purge out the remaining conservatives. So in a brilliant maneuver, they use orthodoxy itself to promote Cultural Marxism, and in fact argue that the old orthodoxy, that was anti-Marxist in nature, was itself unorthodox, the barnacles of centuries of heretical white supremacy and colonialism. The real gospel, the real orthodoxy, was actually Marxist all along. This is the essence of the New Calvinism and all other pseudo-intellectual conservative justifications for the tenets of Cultural Marxism, perhaps time shifted 10-20 years behind the secular cultural consensus.

Contrast this Marxist convergence of the nominally “orthodox, conservative” church with parallel developments in the political culture. We are seeing an ascendance, especially among young conservative activists, of “red pill” awareness on race, Jews, sexuality and other cultural issues. At the same time, the ascendant thought leaders of both the orthodox and liberal churches are making their peace with Cultural Marxism, finding ways to more-or-less accommodate everything from homosexual marriage to open borders. Practically, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Russell Moore, Pope Francis, or the local lesbian pastorette at the Episcopal church. Your choices, goy, are either Cultural Marxism or faux-orthodoxy reinterpreted to support Cultural Marxism.

It is important to realize what the cucks want. They want a future in which Muslim men rape white women with impunity; a future where white cops cannot confront black crime; a future where the wealth and comfort of a civilization built by our ancestors is stripped away from our children. They will mock you for isolating yourself from the degenerate culture*, for making sure your daughters are not catechized by Jewish television producers into the tenets of whoredom. As these outcomes become increasingly obvious, there is and will be a growing portion of the white West that will resist. As the cucks double down on their rhetoric, they will turn the churches into a laughingstock, a hollow institution abandoned by anyone who actually loves their children and civilization.

*I have young Millennial, New Calvinist type Christians in my social circles who are always excited by whatever degenerate series Netflix is serving up next, and boy do they have some tortured ways to see “the gospel” in some of this stuff. My wife and I will sometimes start a series after hearing these glowing reviews and then quit in disgust because of the incessant nihilism and explicit nudity/sexuality.

We are at a point where agnostic or atheist Alt-Right reactionaries have a more visceral reaction to disgusting displays of public homosexuality, for example, than mainstream orthodox Christians. Russell Moore famously advised Christians to attend the wedding receptions of their gay friends, while the secular Alt Right calls out degeneracy and mocks a “Clown World” that believes it can escape the designs of nature. Similarly, as the blogger Dalrock has documented, Christian leaders uniformly refuse to confront the evils of feminism, twisting Scripture to undermine patriarchal authority in the home*, while the Alt-Right calls for a return to traditional family structures. What kind of bizarro world are we living in, when the putative intellectual descendants of Nietzsche and Darwin are the ones calling out sin while so-called Christians do their best to paper over any kind of Biblical judgment or standard?

*The evasive reinterpretation of Scripture by the “complementarian” movement is a microcosm of the Church’s larger problem of liberalism mutating its malignant DNA into seeming orthodoxy. They will say things like, yes, women should submit, but any husband who corrects his wife for not submitting is an abuser, with such “emotional abuse” being a legitimate justification for divorce.

To be sure, there will always be a remnant of faithful churches, but unless God, through means perhaps illuminated in this post, brings about some other scenario, these are likely to be small, fundamentalist churches and home churches with little to no cultural influence. They can keep the pilot light going, but they will be waiting for the existing system to catastrophically fail, like during the last days of Rome, rather than exerting a reforming influence that may help avoid total catastrophe. Most tragically, those individuals motivated by the noblest impulses, the Alt Right which seeks, despite its internal contradictions, to save our civilization, will have no spiritual home. Without a spiritual component, their efforts might very well end in failure anyway, or any victories achieved be ephemeral as they save the substance but not the essence of Western peoples. Not all of them may acknowledge this, but the beautiful civilization they seek to save, which commands their great sacrifices and loyalty, consists of two necessary components that are only sufficient when existing together: European peoples and the Christian faith*.

*This is not to say that Christian faith is exclusively European. Christianity is an enhancer of all civilizations. To use a crude analogy, Christianity creates the decent, “Disneyfied” version of a culture, retaining, even glorifying, important distinctions but polishing away the weaknesses of each people it encounters. This is a multi-century process, and only European civilizations have had the benefit of nearly 2,000 years of this collective sanctification – though of course this cultural capital is today rapidly diminishing. An African Christendom would be much different than European Christendom, but both would be improved from their native state on a relative basis. It is unlikely, for example, that Africans would produce such cultural artifacts as our somewhat depressing, but nevertheless comforting to the European soul, Christmas carols with sad melodies in a minor key.

The Opportunity

Ecumenicalism is a dirty word for many conservative, orthodox Christians. Whether Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or Catholic, if we are serious about our faith that word tends to make us nervous. Historically, its practice has been to rope conservative churchgoers into supporting large organizations controlled by the most liberal groups in each denomination to pursue Marxist goals. Ecumenicalism in the early 20th century was less about “mere Christianity,” unity around essentials, and more about creating an elite twice distilled from their host congregations who then spend other people’s money on social justice projects.

Over the past 50 years, however, we have seen a huge growth in what I will call “Legitimate Christian Unity,” or LCU. LCU has developed over the past 50 years as sincere, conservative Christians have found they have more in common with each other, and common cause in the culture, than they do with liberals within their own denomination. In other words, conservatism across denominations is a more meaningful distinction than the denominations themselves. This is the real “mere Christianity” – when liberals, regardless of denomination, are attacking the foundations of the faith, unity in essentials is more urgent than hashing out secondary issues like baptism or the exact nature of salvation by grace alone. Some conservatives will bristle instinctively as I discuss this, as if I’m about to pull something out of my hat, but stick with me.

How many Protestants would be willing to specifically condemn the great culture warrior Phyllis Schlafly to hell because she was a faithful Catholic? How many serious, conservative Catholics would be willing to say the same about their Protestant allies in the fight against homosexual marriage? We of course will affirm the official positions of our church, because we are conservatives and loyalty to authority is important to us, but few of us would be so bold as to apply these official positions in such a personal way to sincere, earnest allies who happen to have a different denominational allegiance. Let’s be frank, it’s hard to be judgmental of those who at least confess the Apostle’s Creed. Unlike our forebears, we have the Internet, and we can read opposing views on secondary issues, and see that earnest, good Christians can disagree sincerely on issues like baptism. No serious Christian of any denomination supports the highly destructive religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, or the persecution of fellow Christians who have different doctrinal standards.

I argue that, just as orthodoxy vs. non-orthodoxy on the basic doctrines of Christianity was the most important division within churches 50 years ago, today the most significant division within the church is Marxist vs. non-Marxist. It makes little difference whether one gets to an open-borders, pro-Islamic immigration policy via Russell Moore’s twisted serpentine orthodoxy or the simple Marxist heresies of the Unitarian-Universalists. The end result is the same: death and destruction for our people and civilization, and the marginalization of the Christian faith. In fact, this difference extends beyond the church walls. The primary division among all European people today, religious or nonreligious, is their orientation towards survival: who wills to live, who wills to die?

Orthodox Doctrinal Minimalism

We have the opportunity, at this juncture, to gather into a new kind of church all orthodox believers who also understand the existential threat to our people and determine to resist against it. We can adopt a minimalist doctrine of the Apostle’s Creed, combined with specific positions on Cultural Marxist issues.

For example, take the doctrine on salvation by grace through faith alone. Even in Reformed circles, we can’t really define that without playing word games, and this is supposedly the central doctrine of anyone calling themselves Reformed! The John MacArthur camp teaches Lordship salvation, which more or less causes you to doubt your salvation unless every area of your life is surrendered to Christ and free from all but inadvertent, non-premeditated sin. At the other extreme, some 4-point Calvinist Bible Church types preach “Free Grace,” basing their model of salvation on the gospel of John and separating salvation from sanctification entirely, not even requiring “repentance” because John never mentions it! Neither group is, in practice, as extreme as their stated positions. MacArthur is not a Pelagian and what he’s really trying to do is wake up Christians in serious, habitual sin that they need to repent lest their salvation be proven counterfeit. Similarly, the Free Grace guys strongly encourage sanctification, prayer, repentance and discipleship in their flocks, and preach against sin, never coming near the antinomian extreme their position is often parodied to entail. In practice, they agree with each other more than they disagree, and their differences, I argue, mostly come down to word games. So when we say “salvation by grace through faith alone” we ought to be honest enough to admit that there are at least 30 different ideas about what that really means, with people hallucinating it can mean only one thing, which happens to be the word game arrangement they prefer.

If we’re honest, even unity on a central Protestant doctrine like salvation by grace through faith alone is impossible to pin down with any precision such that no good, sincere orthodox Christians would disagree. What we can agree on, across all denominations, are the broad confessions of the Apostle’s Creed, and then the practical implications of Scripture, such as the sinfulness of abortion or homosexuality. The mechanics of salvation and faith are the hardest to define with agreement. The game the cucks play is to take overconfident positions on mechanical issues (such as Calvinism), to portray themselves as great idea men and give them a schtick to promote their middlebrow theology popularizations to laymen in the church. Then, established as a “conservative” on some mechanical issue, they proceed to comment on practical issues, using their egghead orthodoxy to cuck out on some issue like homosexuality, e.g. Russell Moore and the gay wedding reception. Taking overconfident positions on mechanical issues also involves no risk while seeming brave, which is catnip for cucks. The “Eye of Soros” at the New York Times doesn’t give a flip about Christians arguing with each other over limited atonement or the authority of the papacy. They will try to ruin your ministry if you take a nationalist position on immigration.

Now, any new church or network of churches will be necessarily Protestant, but I’m saying we can avoid a lot of the problems of arguing over mechanics by adopting a minimalist doctrinal position combined with maximalist traditionalism on practical issues. Our position on homosexuality, or the husband’s authority in the home, or the right of Christians to hold nationalist political views, would be much more confidently expressed than mechanical topics concerning the nature of salvation*.

*I’ll add here that God could have, if He wanted to, provided a complete systematic theology, like the Westminster Confession, as a supplement to the Bible. That He did not, and good Christians disagree on important secondary doctrines, indicates that doctrine is not all that important to God. The Church is an organic organization on a mission, like an army, and soldiers do not need to know all of the physics behind their weapon, just how to operate it. To clarify, this is not to say that all theological opinions are valid; there is only one true theology, but God has not chosen to make it obvious. Every part of the Bible has one and exactly one valid interpretation, but it is impossible for us to know with certainty what the proper interpretation is on issues where orthodox Christians have historically disagreed. Certainly the Old Testament had certain non-obvious interpretations which were only revealed later.

Take Up Physical Space

Some have proposed something like a “virtual” church for pro-white Christians, given that there are a good many of us but we are spread out geographically. I think this is an interesting idea, but only as a temporary stopgap.

The reality is that people will only deeply commit to a local ministry and community. An average medium size church in a large suburb has a budget exceeding the entire Alt Right movement, secular or non-secular. I have seen missionaries of no particular fundraising talent fill entire rooms to raise $200,000 in one night in a mid-size city, flexing the network of local churches. In short, there is something mighty and powerful about the local church, its ability to raise money and influence those around it.

The budgetary needs of the local church are also, of course, driven by real expenses: rent, or debt service on expensive buildings, and salaries and benefits for staff. Every pastor starts every year in the red, as a church naturally produces no income, but rather is dependent on voluntary giving which must be repeated each and every year to continue its mission. However, churches usually raise this money easily. Why? Well, as any fundraising professional will tell you, the first donation is the hardest. Churches have millennia of ingrained behavior patterns among congregants – giving to the local church is just something you do. People also are much more willing to give to things they can touch and feel and experience, and benefit them personally in terms of the community itself.

Earlier, I must admit, I overstated my case in describing the dire circumstances in the church for pro-white Christians. While what I describe is true, I believe much of it is built on sand and vulnerable to disruption. What we see in the church is the undue influence of a few “thought leaders” like Piper or Keller, which then trickles down to less cutting edge pastors and congregations. It’s sort of a voluntary franchise model, and most pastors are not truly ideologically committed to anything they teach (except perhaps the very basic stuff, like the Apostle’s Creed). They simply follow trends, and if somebody writes a good book, what’s proposed doesn’t seem too risky, and seems to be have great results building a real-world church in an influential place like New York City, your average pastor just wants to follow that trend, for no other base reason than it’s demonstrably (or seems to be) successful.

Now, they will think their commitment to a certain set of ideas are based on principles, but their behavior, in chasing trends, shows otherwise. Their principles just happen to line up with whatever is trendy. This is not to be overly judgmental of them. Most people are not original thinkers and lack the ability to think originally in a meaningful way. If you know you are not that smart, that’s actually the beginning of wisdom, and following trends is one way to avoid making a huge mistake. It’s a good strategy except when the institutional church has been captured by its enemies!

It is said that revolutions become inevitable when about 10% of the population believes in it. I believe this is true because people are not majority followers but rather trend followers, and more specifically, people follow the trend of a trend. When a position experiences exponential growth from say 1% of the population to 10% of the population, to the remaining 90% this looks like an incredible development, and since they are emotionally driven they see the emergence of this trend as inevitable and thus if they want to remain popular and relevant they have to get in early. For better or worse, American evangelicalism is a brutally competitive marketplace, and is only becoming more brutal as the target market shrinks. Insufficient numbers of Millennials are replacing elderly congregants, and Boomers are typically much more niggardly and selfish in their giving than the generation that came before them. Yet, churches have huge legacy overhead in salaries, benefits, buildings, and programs. Because of this, very, very few people adopt positions out of principle, and so the struggle is among the ideological partisans, who make up a very small percentage of the population.

Have you ever wondered why Russell Moore is such a drama queen who throws a hissy fit every time Christians do something of which he disapproves, like making a homosexual feel unloved, or opposing a mosque being built, or voting for Roy Moore? Russell Moore knows on some level his position is weak. He knows his cuck-Christianity must drag people against their will into doing things they do not want to do, and at the first opportunity, if given a plausible exit, many of the parishioners he seeks to delude would abandon all of the positions he has so painstakingly pushed onto the Southern Baptist Convention. From Russell Moore’s perspective, he would say this is because the American church in particular is Satanic – because it was used as part of a racial and sexual power structure, it is fundamentally corrupt and mostly full of fake Christians preaching a fake gospel, its veneer a mile wide and an inch deep. We would say, of course, that Christianity does not require ethnic masochism and the Satanic elements are those polluting the purity of the church to enlist it in seeking to achieve Marxist political ends. Nevertheless, Moore knows he’s weak, and we ought to know it too.

As I mentioned before, your average pastor and congregation is always on the lookout for new trends, and if we can show results, we can win. It ultimately will be results and results only, produced by a relatively small group of people, that will set the domino sequence in motion that will eventually awake the Western church out of its ethnomasochist slumber.

To show results, we must launch a real church in a specific location. The pastor and leaders of that church must be exceptional individuals who can attract others to their message. They must launch highly successful churches that pull from a broad community, believing and hopefully non-believing, and show the real-world results (thousands of parishioners, multimillion dollar budgets, a network of growing associated churches) so critical to showing others that our message will benefit their churches as well.

The pastors must be thought leaders who can publish books and articles providing ideological cover for those that wish to be part of the ethno-normalism church trend, and must publicly combat, in appropriate non-direct Christianese language, the errors of Mohler, Moore, Keller and company. If these leaders are really good at their job, they will show how the development of a pro-white-tolerating church is the next logical progression in church trends, that Mohler, Keller, and Moore, while well-meaning individuals, are simply stuck in the past and lack the vision to be relevant to today’s culture. This approach is postmodern realpolitik, and we will do to them what they did to others. I will not share more specific talking points here, but I believe such a case can be made. I do believe this move must be made quickly, as we are at a unique window, a sort of Indian Summer for American whites, inaugurated by the election of Donald Trump. For the first time in a long time, we are the hot new trend, and that will not last forever.

I have asked this question for years now: who will be the Christian Trump to clean out our stale leaders, our Bushes and Clintons, and bring about a new paradigm?


In the Protestant church today, we have four general aesthetics. The most traditional, that of high church liturgy, vestments, etc, is most associated with the very liberal, social justice oriented theology of the mainline churches. The second aesthetic is that of the televangelist, or the backwoods Bible thumping preacher wearing a suit. The third aesthetic is that of the Boomer cuck, like Rick Warren, Tim Keller, or John Piper, wearing cubicle drone “business casual” clothing, demasculinized, non-threatening, and often ill-fitting and lacking style. The fourth aesthetic is that of the hipster, which while a bit more stylish than the Boomer, still tends towards the androgynous, men wearing skinny jeans and thick-framed glasses to look like effete Jewish intellectuals.

Any new church hoping to provide the Alt Right a spiritual home should most definitely avoid both the aesthetics of the Southern televangelist and the Boomer cuck. Southerners, unfortunately, have been mocked for decades by Hollywood as loathsome dullards, and too many people in the South have been willing to put on a minstrel show, embracing these negative “redneck” stereotypes as a sort of identity. The televangelist in particular caters to the lowest common denominator in the low church culture of the rural South, and in the process I fear has ruined the idea of a preacher wearing a suit. This is too bad, as real southern gentlemen from the upper caste of our region do have a quite elegant, easygoing style. My gut is that the target aesthetic will be “tough guy hipster,” something similar to the style of Mark Driscoll before his fall (more on him later), a style that is both unapologetically masculine- no Woody Allen glasses or turtlenecks- yet also shows an awareness of fashion trends.

Inevitably, the specific aesthetics of this new church will be determined by experiment and experience. I suggest something a bit more formal be tried, to give people what they desire from the traditional liturgy of the Episcopalians and Catholics, but without the legalism (or social liberalism) attached to it. At the most basic level, the aesthetics would be a Christianity that takes itself seriously, the very opposite of the Boomer goofball in a Hawaiian shirt, pathetically attempting to be “cool” and somewhat transgressive in a church culture where there is nothing left to mock or rebel against. We might not be entering the literal presence of Christ’s body, but maybe we ought to have the good sense to act like it, to respect ourselves and our religious practice as something that’s not a stale joke. This is very speculative, however. I think it more than likely that the specific aesthetics, since this will be a Second Reformation when it happens, are impossible to predict. It will be something totally new, not unlike the revolution of Luther. We must remain flexible on this point to optimize for our target demographic. I am very much a traditionalist in worship, but it’s important to recognize the cultural decline in aesthetics affecting all of our people. We may simply not be able to restore a fully reverent, appropriate worship experience in one generation. Also, the entire possibility space for the essence of traditional worship – God-centered instead of man-centered – has not been explored. It’s entirely possible for “traditional” worship to be something completely new if it achieves that objective.

We must also focus on the aesthetics of the congregation. Perhaps it will be the only church where gluttony is addressed from the pulpit! Imagine – a pastor making people uncomfortable talking about self-evident sins of the congregation instead of made-up fake sins like “white privilege.” We must also, among other things, make physical fitness a requirement for being an elder or leader. Obesity, as the manifestation of a lack of self-control, puts an elder outside of the realm of “above reproach.”

The author of this work has had the personal experience of witnessing to secular Alt Right figures. In discussing my faith with such individuals, I get the distinct impression that their rejection of the church has more to do with aesthetics than reason. If people as intellectual as this group rejects the church simply because it is, largely, goofy, ugly, and soft as an institution, over aesthetics, then I think we may be surprised how many secular Alt-Rightists will drop their hostility to Christianity when shown an attractive and viable alternative. I believe they partially reject the church because in their hearts, they hold the church to a higher standard because it represents itself as possessing absolute truth. If the fruit is rotten, in its hostility to whites and Western Civilization, why would anyone not raised as a Christian be attracted to the modern church?


These are are speculative ideas, as the best members to attract to any new church are those who will join and give. The organizational imperative to simply survive, short of unorthodoxy, trumps everything else in most church plants. However, if we want to truly be thought leaders as a congregation, we must appeal to urban professionals. There is simply not an example of a thought leading church or pastor outside of major cities and with congregations consisting of anything other than mostly upper middle class professionals. Our most natural constituency, the secular Alt Right, already checks these boxes. Whether such individuals would be willing to associate, confess faith, and join a pro-white church is yet to be determined. Nevertheless, I think it’s hard to argue that such a church plant should happen outside of a growing, urban area like Austin, Washington, DC or Denver. Such urban and suburban churches naturally attract followers from minor cities and smaller churches.

One thing such a plant will have to contend with is the presence of “crazies” in the real world pro-white movement. This is a movement that attracts two extremes of people, and some who are a mix themselves of the extremes. On the one hand, we attract the most noble individuals, who risk everything personally and professionally because they believe Western civilization and peoples must be preserved, for the good of humanity at large. On the other hand, we tend to attract generally disagreeable or transgressive personalities who are attracted to us primarily because we are hated by the mainstream. Church leadership will need to be prepared to push the crazies out early and often, because they will be a factor and such individuals will do nothing but repel the healthy families we want to attract.

Deliverables: Feminism Mitigation

Beyond leaders who are attractional and aspirational themselves, the church must deliver something of immediate value to its congregants, something sticky and unique in the church “marketplace.” I believe the most attractive deliverable we can offer is the “red pill” understanding of marriage and sex relations. Imagine an uncucked pastor, physically fit, attractive, married to an attractive woman with whom he has beautiful children. Such a family would be inspirational AND aspirational to the young men and women they lead.

For years, Christians wanting teaching on traditional marriage have had poor choices. On the one hand, those claiming to represent traditionalism were in many ways weirdo legalists, like Bill Gothard or Doug Phillips. The cornpone aesthetics of families like the Duggars, and their incessant legalism, seemed joined at the hip with traditional gender relations. Their teachings were often over-spiritualized, like so much of postmodern fundamentalism, relying more on a sort of guilt-driven Biblicist pietism rather than the undeniable biological differences between men and women.

If neo-Little-House “prairie muffin” LARPing wasn’t your thing, your next alternative was the gender relations teaching of mainstream evangelicalism. Dalrock has documented this extensively on his blog, but those teachings have been systematically weakened and compromised over time in response to a shifting culture, and a desire to avoid the Eye of Soros when it comes to combating the “feminist imperative.” The “complementarian” position has been watered down to the point as to become meaningless, assenting to Marxist gender equality theories while somehow managing, for now, to carve out a mysterious exclusion of women from the position of senior pastor and sometimes elder.

Neither group is of practical use in creating a healthy marriage along God’s revealed biological design. Gothard, Phillips, and their crowd were essentially high priests of their own legalist cults – in such marriages, the dictates of the guru replaced the husband’s authority, with the husband, usually a naturally weak Christian cuck sort, role playing a “leader” role usually initiated by his wife’s growing attachment to her particular legalistic guru, the only “real man in the room” to use Dalrock’s parlance. That these “patriarchs” would allow their 16 year old daughters, for decades, to go “intern” with the ministry of a 50-something single man like Bill Gothard speaks to their credulousness. The complementarians more directly undermined husbands, flipping Scripture on its head to where the wife’s emotions became a man’s barometer of his spiritual health.

It is fair to say, from a red pill understanding, that both men and women are deeply unhappy with the existing arrangement. Any church that offered the immediate benefit of improved domestic relations between husband and wife would have an inestimable advantage and could possibly be built to a sustainable size before the Eye of Soros is likely to notice and launch its first attack.

As an example of this deliverable, in a relatively mild but still potent form, consider the “Love & Respect” ministry of Dr. Emerson Eggerichs. While at first glance Eggerichs seems to be cut from the same cloth as other inoffensive Midwestern Boomer pastor gurus (Dobson, Piper, Hybels), he delivers his message with more of a masculine edge, and the content of his message is much more subversive. Google “Emerson Eggerichs abuse” for the shrieking of the blue-haired Christian set over this man who dares to teach a more robust complementarian view*. He is a man with all of the right enemies.

*He is accused of being an apologist for the patriarchy, of being a “body shamer,” among other things.

This new Reformation, while formed to reaffirm the Biblical theology of the nation-state, may find most of its notoriety in running marriage conferences and personal discipleship mentoring where men are taught to lead, and women to follow, by attractive and non-legalistic role models who are fully informed by both Biblical truth and biological reality. The 2014-5 Form 990’s for Eggerichs’ “Love & Respect” ministry shows total revenues of $1.5MM across the two years, with only $160,000 of that being donations, the rest being net income derived from books and conferences. The ministry itself has $3.0MM in assets and pays Eggerichs and his wife over $200,000 a year in salaries. Clearly, there is demand for traditional teaching on marriage.

After all, what is a nation but an extended family? We cannot hope to rebuild a strong nation if the constituents of that nation, individual families, are weakened by the corrosion of feminism. So I believe this task, of teaching men and women what true Biblical/traditional marriage looks like in the modern world, in an attractive way, without resorting to legalism or general fundamentalist goofiness, is the first and most obvious opportunity to take market share from the incumbent churches.

Furthermore, giving men and women the tools to liberate their families from feminism addresses a fundamental problem of the church: its lack of appeal to men. If we can attract men to something, and create a male space within the church, we know from fundamental Red Pill theory that this is inherently attractive to women, even more attractive than a church that specifically caters to them. Women want to join what exciting, non-cucked men are doing more than anything else. Given the extreme gender disparities in the church today, and the pathetic, soft cucks that attractive Christian girls are settling for, a church that can attract men who are both righteous and masculine should attract women from the broader evangelical church as well.

Deliverables: Real Community

Our atomized society is afflicted with a pathological degree of loneliness and alienation. Some of this was inevitable as the automobile and social mobility eroded traditional, local communities. As a result, for many people church is their primary social community, a place where people with similar values can support and love one another. The problem is the church as it currently exists has pathological leadership that assists in the suicide of our civilization while persecuting internal dissenters who have a healthy drive to preserve their nation and people. Further, the secular Alt Right, as it grows, consists of a lot of alienated individuals who may have never experienced true community in a church environment, and who are floundering, post-red-pill, to find a place where they can truly belong and be accepted for their new-found convictions.

Contra Starbucks, a church is the true “third place” for community outside of home and work. Already, we have ad-hoc networks of Alt Right individuals sprouting in local communities, but none of them have reached any kind of institutional status. There is a huge difference between a voluntary, informal network and an institution, which I define as a group with a piece of real estate (a fixed location) and at least one full-time staffer. An institution takes up space in the real world and has at least one person dedicated to its growth and improvement as his primary vocation. It gives a sense of legitimacy and inevitability, and removes a decent amount of the inherent “shame” of being a marginalized group. If we have a real-world institution, however small, we have crossed an objective barrier of legitimacy in the minds of many “normies.”

Defining the Boundaries of the Church Community

I believe it is important to be something bigger and more inclusive than simply an “Alt Right” church for white people only. Segregated churches are, arguably, a side effect of proper national organization rather than a goal to be directly pursued. The church’s message is universal, and if it loses this it ceases to be an institution that speaks to people’s deepest questions – the nature of morality, what happens after death, etc. As such, pro-Western church plants should be open to people of all backgrounds who otherwise can fit in to the community (notably, including being tolerant of those with pro-white beliefs).

However, I think such a church can take on a spirited defense of Western Civilization as such, as an application of universalist ethnonationalist principles. In other words, if Christian ethnonationalism is the only realistic universalistic moral system for man as he is actually created (with definite ties to tribe and family, not a generic universal man simply differing in melanin levels), then the assault on the ethnic integrity of the West, which is the home of Christianity, is the primary application of such principles in the world today. It is made all the more urgent because Christianity is based largely in the West, and has not sufficiently percolated into other parts of the world. As such it would be a reasonable assumption that the continued integrity of the West is part of the God-ordained means for the gospel to continue reaching new people groups, and sanctifying old ones only recently exposed to Christian theology.

For the church (and the Alt Right broadly) to defend the West in a universalist, internally consistent way, we must not argue for ethnic purity as such but rather for “ethnic sustainability.” Perhaps there is a better phrasing for this, but what I’m going for is the idea that there is both a natural right to occupy a geography based on historical tenancy, and that there is a statute of limitations of sorts on changes in tenancy. For example, Native Americans, having been defeated for 150 years, cannot assert a moral right to have all their land back, as too much time has passed. This is also why it is urgent to assert such rights, as after a generation or two they become moot. Many peoples have disappeared from history.

This would mean, for example, acknowledging the fact that African-Americans, having been in our country for 400 years, now represent a distinct people group from their West African contemporaries. As such, they have natural rights to occupy space in America. Politically, it is probably sustainable if America could achieve its historic mix of 85/15 or 90/10 white/black ratio, with a smattering of Native Americans* and historic Mexican-Americans (mostly concentrated in south Texas and New Mexico; we have too many Mexicans to achieve historical ethnic sustainability and so recent immigrants will need to go back, or else be granted some sort of self-sovereignty, maybe a Puerto Rico like dependency occupying parts of the southwest). In summary, we need to have not only a universalist argument for ethnonationalism based on universal morality, but also clarify how that universal morality might govern the actual restoration of the historic American nation. Our position must be something more than “might makes right.”

*I’ve never heard any Alt Righter complain about Native Americans’ presence in the US. Their numbers are marginal, but their natural rights to be here are not.

Nevertheless, while the church will need to have a very defined, nuanced, and universalist position on such issues, both to separate from the genocidal LARPing crazies and define the ethical boundaries of the Alt Right consistent with Christian morality, I would not expect such issues to be front-and-center with every sermon. In many ways, such a church would be very normal, with its distinguishing characteristic being its lack of persecution towards those who publicly doubt Marxist presuppositions. It is especially important to keep out the crazies, though, who will endanger our ability to reach the broader neoreaction / traditionalist / Alt-Lite type movements. While some of these individuals are true believer classical liberals who simply enjoy flirting with edgy ideas, many secretly agree with us. They hesitate, however, to be associated with Alt Right types who lack discernment in how they present their ideas publicly. Many, many people agree with us, but a real world community must avoid purity spirals, and create space for people to have some sense of plausible deniability in their normal lives. This means the church cannot be simply “the racist church.” It has to be about something broader, a total revolt against Clown World of which racial issues are but part of the picture.

Race would not be the primary consideration of our congregations, but we disciple and most importantly, publicly stand with accused racists and others alienated by Clown World. We are a safe refuge for their families from a hostile world.

Crazy Like a Fox

While everything described so far is how the church should ultimately teach and function, how it gets there will take a lot of wisdom. What positions to express publicly, and when, will take a very special kind of leader.

Some will take exception to what I’m about to say, but please know I am not in any way completely endorsing this individual. However, the history and success of Pastor Mark Driscoll might demonstrate a template for how this all might work. His downfall also provides illustrative caution as we think about government and structure of such a church.  Allow me to draw a few parallels with Driscoll, especially because I followed his ministry, and found some but not all of his teaching to be useful, engaging, and entertaining. I seem to suffer from acute ADHD during sermons, so am very picky about pastors and preaching styles. Driscoll kept my attention.

While Driscoll was uncontroversial on racial issues, it was never a focus of his ministry, and at times he would mock the ideas of tolerance, discrimination, and hate, painting conservative Christians like himself as the victims of such from the mainstream Marxist culture. While Driscoll could be vulgar at times, he has a unique style of being both culturally relevant and “with it,” the advantage of the hipster pastor, but also coming across as a working class guy who lifted weights and would be willing to get in a fight or kill someone to protect his family. As Dalrock has documented, he did at times preach in the cartoonish chivalry vernacular, comparing single mothers to widows and encouraging his men to (using Dalrock’s terminology) “man up and marry those sluts.” Nevertheless, he did preach a doctrine of female submission in marriage and never allowed female deacons or elders in his church, out of conviction. His preaching style and church/worship aesthetics were unapologetically masculine, and amazingly he succeeded, on purpose, in the least churched major city in the country, Seattle, attracting a male-heavy church with his direct, sometimes blunt, preaching style. Driscoll’s success is worthy of study.

Driscoll fell because, in my analysis, he was probably hypomanic. Individuals with his high level of charisma and energy are rare, and such individuals need to be in charge of their own organizations. Out of conviction, he organized his church to be elder-led, which eventually led to his downfall. I will discuss more on the disadvantages, in my view, of elder-led churches, especially when the public leader is controversial, in the following section. Driscoll is one of the few very famous preachers to not be taken down by a sex scandal, but rather by his own elders who could not handle public pressure about his behavior, and Driscoll’s behavior could be odd at times. It is to Driscoll’s credit, even if it was a mistake, to create a church government, in a church he started, capable of removing him from office, based on his conviction for elder-led government. That known cucks like John Piper and Paul Tripp publicly abandoned him, after embracing him, in his moment of need, further makes me doubt the narrative about his departure, and wonder if there is more to the story.

While Driscoll could come across as crazy, for many years he was crazy like a fox and had remarkable success in a tough church market. He has a large family, five natural born children, and now pastors a church in Scottsdale, Arizona. He has calmed down a lot, and I believe it is probably now his desire to not be as prominent and simply serve as a pastor for the rest of his career, or maybe he’s taking a breather while his children make their way through adolescence, when having a famous, controversial father would be tough. I believe Driscoll knew a lot more than he let on, as I said, crazy like a fox. A pseudonymous post he made on one of his early church discussion forums, later revealed to be Driscoll himself, shows as much:

Screen Shot 2018-06-19 at 10.34.13 AM.png

My evaluation of Driscoll is that he was a tick or two past the useful point on the “crazy like a fox” scale, and he really did engage at times in strange behavior and strange preaching. He is a fascinating figure, however, and his success and fame, before his fall, reveal a latent hunger in the church for unapologetic, masculine teaching and aesthetics.

I believe any new pro-Western church needs a leader more like Driscoll than unlike him, a person who is smart enough to tune his message to be differentiating enough to peel market share from the mainstream church, and attract converts, but not so deviant that his message can be dismissed as crankish. We need leaders smart enough to not reveal their entire poker hand at once, but content to maximize their leverage on the Overton window, neither cucking to win plaudits from the mainstream nor needlessly alienating normies in the process of an awakening.

In other words, we need a new Martin Luther, a smart, bold, and fearless leader for a new Reformation.

Church Advantages, Form & Government

There are numerous legal benefits to a church, most notable of which is the right to apply once for a tax exemption and never make filings again. While ministries, non-profits, Christian schools, etc, must file an annual public return of their finances, churches are exempt from such requirements. The protections of churches are so strong that no church can be examined or audited by the IRS except by instruction of the highest level, presidentially-appointed bureaucrats. Whether we are talking about widely hated groups, like Westboro Baptist Church (perhaps the only group more hated than the Alt Right), or morally bankrupt scams like many of the Charismatic ministries where their “church” is a family business owning homes, jets, and jewelry, churches have shown themselves to be the most privileged legal structures. The case law is very solid on this, and as long as a church has basic things like including members from more than one family*, a set of defined beliefs, and meets regularly for religious services or instruction of some kind, they are almost untouchable without major revisions to established precedent. Pastors also receive tax benefits in being able to take much of their income tax-free as a housing allowance, and can also opt out of social security.

*Members, not governors. Churches can be controlled by one family or even a single person, but must include members from more than one.

Another major legal benefit of a church accrues to its members. Whereas political beliefs are not usually protected in the law, religion very clearly is, including religious beliefs very much at odds with liberal public policy (fundamentalist Islam, for example). Members of this proposed church would have religious protections against discrimination in employment, if the church properly incorporates non-suicidal beliefs of self-determination into its founding documents. Such a benefit would at least put doxxed employees in a much stronger negotiating position to extract settlements from their former employers. In addition, those not hired due to their public beliefs, if religious in nature, can sue for discrimination, throwing sand into the gears of the Leftist HR, affirmative action machine. An entire legal ecosystem could sprout around such a church, carving out public space for our advocates to fairly compete in the marketplace of ideas without fear of losing one’s income.

As somewhat touched on earlier, churches have a huge advantage in fundraising over other organizations: the tithing tradition. How many pro-Western Christians out there are holding back tithes to their local church because of the Marxist nonsense promoted in the pulpit? What if this church plant leveraged the distributed size of the pro-Western Christian community and asked them to “half tithe,” or give 5% of income, to a church that might actually lead to a change in their local churches through long-term influence? If only 20-30 families signed on, depending on income, there would be more than sufficient budget to pay a pastor and rent a space.

Finally, how should our church plant be structured? I admit that I do not have strong convictions on church government form, largely due to cynicism with churches across the spectrum of church government structures who have bowed the knee to Marx. It looks like to me that none of the structures are foolproof, nor does one seem better than the other. Our church needs to anticipate a period of persecution where it stops flying under the radar, attracts the attention of the Eye of Soros, and must go through a winnowing, a purifying period of controversy to either die or break through to the mainstream. As such, I think an independent, episcopal structure may be best. Episcopal, with a small e, simply means a church where elders are established by fiat at some point in the past, and self-select their replacements going forward. In other words, like many nonprofits, such a church would simply have a self-perpetuating “board” type of government, where board members appoint their replacements, without elections, upon death or resignation. Critically, I think this church will come under so much pressure that it must be controlled by the pastor himself. No one else will have “skin in the game” like the pastor, who is likely to attract a lot of attention, even national media attention. There would be too much temptation for independent elders to cuck and fold in such a scenario, unjustly removing the pastor from office. The check on the pastor will be people ceasing to donate or attend, but it is a mistake to introduce others with authority over the pastor, but without the pastor’s labor, life’s work, and sweat equity to bind them to the mission even when under intense public pressure. In today’s compressed news cycle, by the time someone cucks, the news has moved on to a new subject. The Eye of Soros is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, and if resisted, eventually moves on to softer targets. A single leader, already famous and with nothing to lose, is more likely to endure such a trial than a committee with normal jobs and obligations that can be leveraged against them.

If a pastor with the talent, brains, and drive I am describing makes himself known, he must be compensated fairly for his efforts. One primary reason we are seeing such weak cucks in the pastorate is that, as a society, we have socially downgraded the pastor to the level of the middle class, if not lower. In times past, pastors were seen as the social superiors of both doctors and lawyers, who were merely high-dollar tradesmen after all, whereas pastors were a type of gentleman, often provided with upper middle class housing and servants by their parishes. As such, if the church is able to afford it from local donations, a salary of $200k-300k a year, if not higher, would not be unreasonable for the sacrifices and status rightly associated with the job. High quality people are not cheap, and such a salary merely assures the pastor that his hopefully large family’s education and health can be provided for, vacations can be taken, and child care and housekeeping assistance can be provided for the wife, who will necessarily bear a heavy burden herself in terms of entertaining and hospitality. This is another reason for the church to be controlled by the pastor, and these financial details to be obscured: church members are notoriously cheap and envious these days about paying pastor salaries, even when funds are available, and they get what they pay for. Better for people to experience the church as a package and make a go or no-go decision. There is greater liberty in allowing competing institutions to be what they should be, to naturally fulfill the vision of their leadership, with the only voting being done by members’ feet rather than by the petty divisiveness of internal politics.


My idea would be to plant such a church, after securing adequate funds, in a growing and socially conspicuous area that already has a decent population of Alt Right sympathetic individuals. Northern Virginia, near DC, is the most obvious place because of the Alt Right’s appeal among younger conservatives, and DC is where people go if they care a lot about politics. Other areas that could be considered include Austin or Dallas-Fort Worth.

One challenge not to be dismissed is that young Alt Righters who do not abandon their faith tend to be attracted to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions*, and repelled by the Protestant, which strikes them as either liberal cucks (Episcopalians) or “conservative” cucks (Piper). One advantage of those traditions is that church itself is more of a transactional experience, more about the direct receipt of grace in Mass, than religious instruction or study. A priest can offer Mass because of the authority vested in him, but the priest can be safely ignored as the hired help if he says something liberal in a sermon. Strangely, the authority of the Church reduces the perceived authority of its minister, whereas the opposite seems to be the case in Protestant churches. A key test of this idea is whether there is sufficient demand from Protestants and non-believers (who would presumably be as open to a Protestant church as they would to any other type) to support such a church, and also whether Alt Right friendly Catholics and Orthodox would be willing to abandon the authority of their traditions for a friendlier church environment and community.

*And sadly, if we think about it, those two churches are probably the least likely to actually excommunicate someone for having such beliefs, even publicly, as their test for membership is more akin to loyalty and identity than a particular set of ideas. One can’t even imagine reporters demanding to talk to the local priest about some Catholic’s politically incorrect comments, whereas the pastor of a Protestant church would be hounded mercilessly.


For such a church, securing rental real estate might be a huge problem. Not at first, because the pastor will be smart and wise as a serpent, but eventually, as described, a trial will come once the Eye of Soros turns its attention. This trial will come at a key turning point, likely when the church will be experiencing a great deal of success, and perhaps attracting the curious to its services. At such a time, any disruption of the venue by a landlord would be disastrous. While legal remedies might be available, the odds that a court system would side with such a church and require specific performance of the landlord is unlikely, as most commercial leases have plenty of weasel phrases that allow landlords to shut down leases for a variety of reasons. Most tenants are in some technical violation of some part of a lease much of the time, so all it would take is one claimed breach and a hostile judge would support the landlord.

As such, it may make more sense for the church to own a piece of real estate, if not at first, but once it begins to get traction but before it achieves major notoriety.


The Limits of Trolling

Some commentators have acidly criticized the Alt Right this past year for problems at public events. The Alt Right was vastly successful with online activism, beginning in 2015 and leading up to the election of Donald Trump. What shocked me and many others who incline towards civil discourse is that the shock tactics of trolling seemed effective. As long as not done too earnestly, and with a sense of irony, mocking the holiest Leftist narratives in a maximally offensive way was effective.

This same approach does not work offline, as Heilgate, Charlottesville, and University of Florida have shown. What accounts for the difference?

Trolling works best anonymously. My GPA in college was lower than it should have been because of lost hours spent playing Panzer General and Panzer General II. The game was a strategic masterpiece, challenging the player to win with the largely outgunned and undersupplied WWII German military. From it, I learned some basics of military strategy, particularly the elements of blitzkrieg. For the entire war, the German military was inferior in numbers and, much of the time, equipment quality, to their opponents. In such a scenario, the player could not try to win battles by attrition and the art of blitzkrieg consisted of largely avoiding attacking entrenched enemies, moving as quickly as possible behind them, forcing them to abandon their defenses, then destroying them from the rear with very concentrated attacks against softened targets. Online trolling is very much like an artillery barrage, useful as a prelude to a conventional attack. Artillery are very soft targets if attacked, which is why their location must remain hidden or defended from the enemy.

The anonymity of trolling is like an artillery piece – however well entrenched the enemy may be, the shots fired do make an impact, and they have to sit there and take it. In such an asymmetrical environment, a sort of Darwinian rhetorical meme war can take place, with different people trying different approaches, most of them ineffective and many of them overly offensive. Both of the latter categories tend to get buried from visibility by the social media engagement algorithms. However, occasionally, out of hundreds of thousands of memes, something hits home, like the “cuckservative” meme. The enemy overreacted, generating publicity and sympathy for nationalists.

Real life brings real vulnerabilities. We all have fragile bodies, and lives we want to live with people we care about. We are not yet at the point where people are willing to die for this cause, and hopefully our situation never becomes so desperate. As a father, I cannot with good conscience risk my life unless it is in direct defense of my children. With Antifa allowed to terrorize as they wish, showing up in person is seen as very risky.

Real life allows the media to distort. The fat guys with bad beards, some of them feds, who like to LARP as Nazis, or barely disguised Nazis, are too dumb generally to have much influence in the Darwinian world of online activism. I think they are frustrated by this. It used to be that you could be a loser, setup a Nazi website, and get lots of media attention. Now, the Jerry Springer tabloid TV world is behind us, and quality, true quality activists, are being rewarded with influence in the meritocratic and competitive social media landscape. Because it is so hard to get quality people with something to lose to show up in real life, organizers of these events end up casting a big tent, so as to make the movement appear as large as possible. The result is that a disproportionate number of attendees, or a sufficient number, are aesthetically revolting to normal people. While the media would look ridiculous quoting some Neo-Nazi Twitter account with few followers to smear the serious Alt-Right, in real life they can get all the photographs they want of the troubled people who are attracted to this movement. They can also bait these less intelligent folks into violence more easily, as they have less to lose, and perhaps notoriety to gain, by being arrested. Some guy with 30% body fat who thinks he’s SS material can’t meme very well, because he’s dumb, but he can get arrested and patted on the back for his ideological purity. Normies are very convinced by visuals and real life events with idiots involved gives the media all they need.

The transition to real life will require starting small and purging liabilities. It feels wrong to “punch right,” after so many Alt Righters have felt unfairly attacked by movement conservatives who ought to know better. That said, you cannot have an effective public movement with lunatics involved. This may explain why Jared Taylor has had so much staying power. Agree or not, his reputation as a Jewish-friendly race realist helps filter the nutjobs from associating with him. And, honestly, many of the anti-Semites are nutjobs, taking a tendency among Jews to be an absolute. One could make an argument that Taylor’s neutral stance is a feature, not a bug, in that whatever concessions he makes to the truth on the JQ is more than compensated tactically by repelling crazy people from his orbit. I have an intuition that some, but not all, in the “Alt Lite” take a similarly practical position. The crazies are so destructive in their LARPing and virtue signaling that you may be a more effective activist by keeping your actual position somewhat hidden, allowing you and your audience to have plausible deniability as you work on stretching the edges of the Overton window rather than pointlessly banging your head into the brick wall to its right. Better to be labeled a “cuck” than have to constantly deal with dumb people who don’t get the practical necessity of honing messages for maximum impact.

Again, it feels bad to punch right. Many of these people are white brothers who have the right instincts, but just aren’t smart enough, or come from a lower social class, and can’t understand the problem with their approach. We should be as graceful as possible, but we must separate ourselves from liabilities if we are serious about winning.

Real life requires defenses in depth to repel an attack. If online trolling is artillery, real life activism is the infantry. Only dumb infantry officers charge into entrenched enemies on unfavorable ground. Much smarter is to take and hold some favorable terrain and make the enemy come to you. To convince normies in the great public debates, we must find the minimal public position that the Left will not tolerate, and then defend that position, counting on the Left’s hubris and overreaction to cause them to counterattack. The “It’s Okay to Be White” meme was a brilliant example of this. Make them attack on unfavorable ground, choose battles we can win, and disappear into the forest to fight another day. For this tactic to work, we cannot have attention-seeking crazies sieg-heiling and undermining our entrenchments.

The flash displays of banners with reasonable rhetoric in public places by Identity Europa and others is a great step in this direction. Our public activism must be “above reproach.” Perhaps white advocates have a lot to learn from Martin Luther King, Jr. While a degenerate and radical in private, in public he picked defensible, sympathetic positions, maintained a pristine public image as a pastor and family man, and goaded his enemies into overreacting. We can begin, like MLKJ did, with small demonstrations of carefully vetted, normal, attractive individuals. The right people will join us once we appear normal and sane. This is how we convince the broader white population that we are serious, and that we can win.

My social group is mostly normal middle class people, and I observe them as an outsider since I’m a working class kid who caught some breaks. I cannot tell you how important this is. Something has to appear socially acceptable before they can even begin to evaluate its truth.

Reader Mailbag: The Jewish Question

Reader Mailbag: The Jewish Question

Another reader writes this week with a question about the “anti-Semitism” of the Alt Right. The reader seems to equate orthodox Christian belief with friendliness and good will towards the Jewish people. Presumably the reader is sympathetic with Alt Right positions on immigration and race but is having qualms with the common anti-Jewish sentiment.

First, I would encourage the reader to study the history of dispensationalism, which is the theological position that the Jews remain God’s chosen people. Like many in today’s evangelical church, I am guessing the reader believes that dispensationalism is equivalent to the Christian faith. There are many online critiques of dispensationalism (Google “problems with dispensationalism” and the like) so I will not detour into a theological refutation. I am personally not a dispensationalist, and I came to this conviction after realizing that it is a relatively recent theological innovation, not even 200 years old. Most Christians for most of church history have adhered to a view that the Church represents the ultimate fulfillment of Old Testament Israel. I am satisfied with that interpretation.

Nevertheless, just because a doctrine is new does not mean it is necessarily wrong, so I will delve into the Scriptures just a bit. The primary tension between dispensationalism and older views are certain passages in Romans that seem to imply a Judeo-centric “plot” to the Gospel. Romans 11 is probably the strongest passage implying the dispensationalist position. I would argue that the entire debate over dispensationalism is essentially whether one uses Romans 11 as a base text to interpret the entire book of Galatians, or if one uses the entire book of Galatians to interpret Romans 11. That requires a judgment call, as the fundamental rule of proper Bible interpretation is that clear passages must be used to interpret unclear passages. Galatians, in my view, makes it very clear that the Church is the true Israel:

21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman [r]was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 [s]This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children [t]who are to be slaves; [u]she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; [v]she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For more numerous are the children of the desolate
Than of the one who has a husband.”


28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say?

Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, [w]but of the free woman.

In this passage, Paul compares the Jews according to the flesh in Jerusalem to Hagar and Ishmael, who are to be cast out in favor of the children of the spirit, the Church.

Others, however, might believe that Romans 11 is the clearer passage. My personal interpretation here is not that the Jews retain any special status, but rather a specific prophecy that God will, at some point in the future, convert a significant number of Jews to the Gospel. This does not imply all of the other strange doctrines of dispensationalism, such as the reinstitution of temple sacrifices and the Mosaic law for a set period before a global World War against a reconstituted nation of Israel.

I have a good friend who is Alt-Right, JQ aware, and a dispensationalist. How does he reconcile the two views? He hangs his hat on Romans 11:28:

“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs”

My friend argues that the fundamental error in dispensationalism, practically speaking, is not their particular eschatological beliefs but rather their deliberate ignoring of this instruction by Paul that the Jews remain “enemies.” Dispensationalists are constantly “jumping the gun” so to speak, hoping to accelerate Christ’s return through this or that political maneuver involving the Jews. However, if dispensationalists followed what the Bible actually says, there is no actual conflict in seeing Jews in their particular way and simultaneously treating Jews as enemies of the gospel for the time being.

Americans, it seems, have a particular attraction for apocalyptic cults, perhaps because of our overly optimistic tendencies. Instead of facing the fear and reality of death, many of us have been tempted into thinking the end of the world was nigh, and the idea of being raptured sounds better than old age. The dispensationalist eschatology was also formed in reaction to liberal theology, as a desperate attempt to take the Bible as “literally” as possible as a bulwark against progressivism. Later, it morphed into an escapist mechanism for Christians afflicted with despair about the state of the modern world.

Hardcore dispensationalism today is in decline, as newer scholars in the tradition eschew the date setting and Middle East politics of the older generation. “Progressive dispensationalism” is the order of the day, as a face-saving bridge between the cringe-worthy embarrassments of the past without the need to repudiate the doctrine wholesale.

To return to my reader’s inquiry, if you remain convinced of dispensationalism, this does not necessarily preclude an Alt-Right awareness of the Jewish Question. That Jews might support destructive, even Satanic, policies is fully compatible with dispensationalism.  Romans 11 speaks of a hardening and darkening of the hearts of the Jews, until some point in the distant future. Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 further elucidates what this hardening entails, that the Jews are “hostile to all men” and that God’s wrath has coming upon them “to the utmost.”  There is no theoretical or ethical problem with simultaneously not persecuting Jews while at the same time preventing Jews from enacting destructive, Satanic policies. A family with a child suffering from a severe mental illness might love that child, want the best for that child, yet still seek to restrain and prevent that same child from hurting himself or others due to his condition.

There are many variants on the Alt Right regarding this question and in its most basic and broad form it asserts that Jews have a paranoid tendency to seek to undermine Western societies. These patterns are strong and objectively verifiable for anyone who seeks the truth. Jews are simply overrepresented in every area of destructive liberal ideology.

I am personally not a Semitic determinist, in that I think individual Jews can deviate from and break this pattern. Stephen Miller is great example of this. Steve Sailer has posited a hope that Jews can see their own self-interest here, as an America that has always tolerated and rewarded them is a much better risk than the multi-racial, largely anti-Semitic world their destructive immigration and cultural policies are bringing about.

The Alt-Right’s supposed anti-Semitism is largely explained by the hypocrisy of American Jews who advocated nationalist policies for Israel, including a border wall, while undermining the American nation at home. The Alt Right is also annoyed at the virtual deification of the Jewish people and the intolerance visited upon anyone who notices patterns about Jewish involvement in liberal causes. What may most bother my reader is the over-the-top semi-ironic anti-Semitic memes. These are best understood as transgressive humor designed to mock and tear down the idols of our society, which includes the worship of and inability to criticize Jews, and especially the elevation of the Holocaust as the central event of history and the sole source of moral authority in an otherwise amoral world. They have more to do with troll culture than actual serious policy positions (see my first post on describing the Alt Right).

There is some hopeful evidence, in my view, of a divergence in the Jewish community. The smarter, conservative Israeli Jews may be beginning to realize that their Western brethren are fully invested in the death cult of Western liberalism. Netanyahu, a realist Sephardic Jew, is forming alliances with the far right parties of Eastern Europe. Is it possible Israel, in fulfillment of the Zionist dream, is becoming a “normal country” populated by Jews, capable of rational alliances with other states?

These things are still undetermined, but I see no necessary contradiction between the Alt Right understanding of the JQ and philosemitic dispensationalist theology. If anything, we are working to save Jews from their own worst tendencies, and from destroying the society in which they have most thrived historically.

Reader Mailbag: Losing My Faith

Reader Mailbag: Losing My Faith

A reader writes in reporting a crisis of faith arising from attendance at a cucked church, and anger at God for allowing such a state of affairs to exist. The reader asks if there are any books he can read, or Bible studies from a non-cucked perspective.

I’ll answer that last question first. First, there are hundreds of theological books published before the modern era, from Augustine to Aquinas to Luther to Warfield, depending on your denominational preferences.  These books will of course focus on the particular theological era from which they came, and rarely address the problems we face today, as the Christendom of the time was more besot by internal disputes than existential doubts in their right to exist. Many of us on the Alt Right have been encouraged by the works of Robert Lewis Dabney, a southern Presbyterian theologian who was almost prophetic in his ability to see the consequences of the embryonic human equality poz of his day.  In the contemporary Alt Right, there was a recent Bible study book published by Adam Grey (of Good Morning White America) and others.  Though I have reservations about some of his theological convictions and interpretations of history, RJ Rushdoony’s The Politics of Guilt and Pity is another excellent, relatively recent exposition relevant to our problems today.

As far as the inquiry about what to do about the cucked nature of today’s church, it is hard for me to give advice without knowing more about the reader’s situation. Nearly all churches are cucked to some degree, but the question is whether the church is passively cucked by good pastors accepting conventional wisdom or whether it is actively cucked by an ambitious SJW-like pastor looking to make a name for himself.  If the latter, I would encourage the reader to find the most conservative church he can otherwise compatible with his theological convictions. You can sometimes, depending on the area, find a church narrowly focused on the business of preaching the essential gospel and enabling people to fight their sinful natures.  These churches are often led by good pastors who incidentally and occasionally insert cucked content due to the influence of “thought leaders” who publish the books and bible studies.

It is helpful to understand the high degree of deception these cucked thought leaders employ to gain their influence. To use Russell Moore as an example, people forget that Moore, along with his friend Al Mohler, made their reputations as ruthless conservatives who purged the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of its progressive and liberal faculty, a long overdue move that was delayed due to the genteel mores of the older generation. After this victory, Moore and Mohler then pivot to a theologically orthodox synthesis of SJW ideology. Moore and Mohler are smart guys, and we do not know if their cuckery was always part of the plan or simply a result of their desire for respectability. It is very, very hard for a person who achieves notoriety as a conservative firebrand to not crack eventually under media pressure. With the average Southern Baptist pastor having an IQ of perhaps 105, can we really blame them for being a bit confused? Their conservative intellectual heroes, who purged their intellectual liberal enemies from the church’s institutions, are now advocating for the same liberalism, but this time baptized in theological orthodoxy. It is probably no accident that the leading Baptist critics from the political right are associated with the Louisiana Baptist Convention. Thanks to the influence of the anti-Calvinist New Orleans Theological Seminary, which was never infected with significant liberalism, the Louisiana Baptists were always suspicious of Moore and Mohler’s intellectual Calvinism, even if theologically conservative. In other words, because they disliked Moore and Mohler from the outset, they are better able to oppose them today, and are using Moore’s hostility towards Trump as a cudgel to reduce his influence in the SBC.  It is very, very hard for normal people of normal intelligence to change allegiances, which is what makes the cucks so dangerous when they pivot.

Part of sanity for any Alt Right adherent is to accept that people are largely irrational, and to love them anyway despite their limitations. Given how many of us have moved from libertarian to ethnonationalist convictions, accepting the fundamental irrationality of man may be the last libertarian delusion we must shed to make peace with the world as it is. I still catch myself sometimes fantasizing about reasoning with people about my positions. I recommend cultivating a sense of empathy and compassion for other people’s blindness – and by this I mean everyday normies, not spiteful SJW true believers. Normies, to the best of their ability, are still well-meaning human beings, and the basic values we have with them are shared. They are deceived, unwitting pawns of the enemy, and by God’s grace we have been allowed to grasp the truth through His provision of a strong and independent mind. As Alt Righters who understand that many mental traits are hereditary, we of all people should most appreciate that our abilities to see the truth are based on the genetic lottery, or common grace, not uncommon virtue. We represent an emergent elite opposed to the elite in power. This struggle among elites will determine the future – the normies will follow after we achieve victory.

If you cannot find a truly conservative church, at least avoid the churches with actively hostile SJW ideologues. A great litmus test is to assess the pastor’s opinion about Donald Trump – if generally supportive, you are dealing with someone who will at least follow along with the nationalist arc of today’s Western politics instead of seeking to undermine our people’s liberation from their politically correct mind prisons. Any pastor who remains anti-Trump after Gorsuch is a hostile ideological cuck and his church should be avoided.

Finally, I would encourage you to hold steadfast to your faith. After becoming red-pilled about 20 years ago, I faced a crisis with my own faith, and basic apologetic works were very helpful: I recommend Mere Christianity, The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and Cold Case Christianity for relatively easily digestible summaries of today’s best apologetics for the faith. Once we realize the betrayal the institutional church has effected against its own people, it is easy for irrational doubts about the faith itself to creep in. When I say irrational, I am saying they are emotionally driven based on the sense of betrayal. Logically, the happenstance that we live in a period where the church is in serious error (which has happened before in Christian history) is completely independent of the basic truth claims of the faith. If we reaffirm the basics of our faith, we can go from a position of wanting to abandon it to a position of valuing and advocating for it within the flawed and cucked structures of the church. We can be agents of change from within instead of alienated from without.

The Spencerian Gambit & Southern Slavery


In recent speeches, Richard Spencer has advanced a powerful gambit that the Alt Right, including southern Christians, should consider. He admits that our people have “sinned” against other races, and that he “owns” that. Of course, Spencer doesn’t really believe in a concept of sin, in the sense of a cosmic infraction against an Almighty God, but it’s an interesting and useful tactic nevertheless. By embracing the central charge of the multiculturalists, that whites in the past have abused their power, he disarms the thrust of their main argument. Instead of taking the bait, cuckservative-style, of defending America and the West as the vehicle for the Whig version of history, he forces the Left to make their next point. The next part of their argument is the one they dare not make – because white people in the past have done bad things, therefore whites today must suffer and die out as a people. The Left knows this is a losing argument with most whites, and so by choosing to not defend their attacks on historical whites as a group, Spencer exposes the ugliness of their contemporary anti-white stance. By saying essentially, “yes, our people have sinned, we own it, now what?” he forces the Left to answer the question in a way that will be detrimental to their propaganda. Spencer then turns on their timidity, for the smart Leftists do not want to be seen as anti-white, and demands the same rights for whites that are claimed for all other people groups.

Southerners under constant cultural attack can be tempted to defend all aspects of our history without reservation. We forget, however, that the best Southerners, from Lee to Dabney to Jefferson, all considered slavery to be at best a necessary evil, a “least worst” solution to a serious problem, which was the occupation of the same territory by both Africans and Europeans, two groups with incompatible notions of the good life, and both of which would be frustrated in any attempt to compromise their way of life with the other. In debating other Christians in the past about how slavery was Biblical, an objection I often received was that Southern slavery was different from Biblical slavery in that is was “race-based slavery.” I now agree with this argument, for perhaps different reasons, and with definitively different conclusions.

While I am sympathetic to George Fitzhugh‘s arguments about the benefits of a slave-based society over a free society – Fitzhugh was a brilliant, highly readable writer whose arguments convince me of the necessity of some base level of socialism in society, slavery being a form of private socialism – I do believe Southern slavery, being race-based, was qualitatively problematic relative to the Biblical concept.  Slavery, to be practiced in a way that is just, must have some degree of social mobility.  Masters in the ancient, Roman world, for example, would often free virtuous, intelligent slaves as an act of kindness – they understood that slavery based on lineage would tend towards injustice if exceptional men were not freed from their accident of birth. A freed slave in the Roman world could, within a generation or less, completely blend in with his fellow freedmen, including marrying into Roman families.  The racial differences between most Romans and their slaves were minor – Slavs or Germans are descended from the same Indo-Europeans that gave birth to the Romans themselves.  The slaves in Roman society were assimilable.  The ability to assimilate into a particular flavor of Indo-European society was available to any Indo-European.  However, as genetic distance increases to the maximal differences between whites and blacks in the Old South, the idea of assimilation was horrific.

In the Roman world, if a free Roman married a former slave from Ireland, no one fretted about the descendants’ possibly inheriting Irish blood. In the South, however, the genetic differences were so profound that mixing with blacks was unthinkable. The resulting progeny were pitiable, and could fit in with neither group, so vast were the genetic differences and proclivities.

The need to protect this color line, and the reactionary defense of slavery from abolitionists, led to the late antebellum trend of seeing slavery not as a necessary evil but rather as a positive good.  By 1861, Texas is citing the “blessings of Negro slavery” in their Articles of Secession.  This is followed by Alexander Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech,” where he makes the claim that all blacks are only fit for slavery under the white man.

The problem with the racial superiority, absolute slavery position is that it’s false. There are blacks that are intelligent enough such that they are fit for more than slavery, yet due to the need to maintain the color line, these blacks were not freed. Such slavery was especially unjust to the mulattos, and even more so to those blacks with a majority of white blood.

Human justice is organized under the principle that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be punished.  Similarly, a system of slavery that forever seeks to keep the intelligent part of the population in chains will be seen as unjust. Since some blacks are clearly very talented, any absolutist position that makes claims like Stephens did will be seen as morally hollow. Clearly the most talented blacks would be better off leading their own societies than as slaves in a white man’s society.

The position consistent with justice is in my view the older Southern view of Lee, Dabney and Jefferson: African slavery was forced upon the South by the English crown and the institution was thought to be a necessary evil that enlightened Southerners hoped would one day be abolished, followed by repatriation of the African population.  We should “own” the sins of our ancestors to take away the power of the charge – their sin was to allow King Cotton to make permanent an institution that could have been eliminated, and its victims repatriated, during the period following the Revolutionary War. Both Dabney and Thornwell privately expressed doubts about the southern system of slavery, its inconsistencies with Biblical practice and feared these injustices, despite the hypocrisy and legalism of the North, might bring God’s judgment.

One problem with race-based slavery is that it works too well, for a while. Had the fire-eating pro-slavery faction prevailed, they would have established a great slave empire in the South and Caribbean. It would no doubt have been prosperous, but its long-term fate would have been that of South Africa. If not isolated by international do-gooders, eventually law and order itself would break down.  People forget that part of the reason for the fall of apartheid was the difficulty of maintaining order in a situation where whites are a single digit percentage of the population – the raw numbers of the subjugated group, enabled by the very prosperity of the race-based system, eventually collapse the golden circle.

The Spencerian gambit is powerful. We obviously are not personally responsible for the injustices of the past, but by acknowledging them, even to some vague degree, we force the Left to reveal its ugliness: their seeking to take out blood guilt on whites today for the acts of whites of the past.  When we propose the reasonable alternative – if whites are so bad/racist/imperialist/hateful, then why don’t we all just agree to be good neighbors in our own countries – we will have the moral high ground.

Guilt, Paganism & Christianity

Guilt, Paganism & Christianity

How Kevin MacDonald’s new article relates to Russell Moore’s cuckery:

Alt-Right folks who dislike Christianity often cite Christian theology’s legitimization of guilt as crippling to whites worldwide.

In this view, the modern cult of “white guilt” is simply the secular form of Christian guilt, with gibs for minorities as a collective act of penance. While not literally believing in pagan gods, anti-Christian Alt Righters harken back to the days of paganism as a time of spiritual freedom.  Pagans, it is said, ruthlessly pursued their self-interest without reference to superstitious notions of sin and guilt.

A Christian counter-argument: the corruption of the church in the West shares a common cause with all of our other corrupt institutions, so why single the church out as a cause rather simply a symptom of our decline?  Wouldn’t it be simpler to say something terrible happened to Western man, and it infected all of our institutions, religious and non-religious? This argument might be right, but it misses the point.

The pagan Alt-Right is correct to single out the church, and surprisingly, such strong disapproval of cucked church institutions is consistent with Christian theology.  Christ said that false teachers would be better served by having a millstone cast around their neck and cast into the sea compared to the wrath of God stirred up by their deceptions. Paul said that false teachers of religion will be subject to a higher standard of judgment, since they not only deceive themselves, but also others. Christians can agree with the pagan, secular Alt-Right that the Christian teachers who push a cucked version of the faith deserve more condemnation than secular anti-West voices. In other words, Russell Moore is worse than Michael Moore.

The secular Alt-Right and non-cucked Christians can agree that deception under cover of religion is worse than other forms of deception, because the essence of religious abuse is to hijack the rational thinking processes and utilize the fear of God’s wrath as a means of coercing someone into a particular belief. When Russell Moore implies Christians who vote for Trump might be hell-bound, his words are much more coercive than Michael Moore ranting about white privilege. Besides the religious coercion involved, Moore appears to be one of us, a conservative Christian from Mississippi, and as such the masses of Christians are less likely to think critically about his message, whereas Michael Moore is a known enemy whose words are automatically discounted. Russell Moore and his ilk are not only religious deceivers, but also an enemy within, traitors to their own people, a threat much more serious and deserving of moral condemnation than the obvious enemy without.

If Alt Right Christians and Alt Right pagans can agree that religious deceivers represent a particularly loathsome Trojan Horse within the West, what can we say about the pagans’ idea that Christianity is the source of guilt within Western societies? Pagan Alt-Righters say that our people were an ancient race of Nietzschean supermen bolding conquering and pursuing their self-interest; that a little inconsequential tribal god named Yahweh was invented by the Israelites as a projection of their own obsession with sex, uncleanness, and sin; that Christianity was a Hellenized version of this same Jewish cult that carried the virus of sin and guilt into the Western mind. Until recently, I don’t know that I had a good answer to this argument, other than to straightforwardly disagree and say that sin and guilt are real, and there is a God with universal standards, whom we are to obey. In other words, I could only make a faith-based argument, as this subject bled into the territory where Christianity becomes more of an intuition, further than reason can take us.

That is, until yesterday. Perusing my latest copy of The Occidental Quarterly, I was reading Kevin MacDonald’s article on the origins of the Indo-Europeans, and I was struck by a passing reference. MacDonald reports the phenomenon of pre-Christian, pagan European chieftains who had their priests kill them as a human sacrifice to the gods, to appease their wrath in times of military defeat, bad harvests, or other situations where the gods seemed mightily displeased. What kind of Nietzschean does that? This triggered a cascade of thoughts about the pagan world, where human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, sexual asceticism (e.g. Roman vestal virgins) and other practices were thought to appease the gods for man’s sinful acts. The urge and drive to sacrifice to appease for sin was a universal human instinct before Abraham and Yahweh enter history as a specific faith for a specific people.

The secular Alt-Right is absolutely correct when they point to the idea of sin and guilt as a huge problem. It is not, however, a result of Christianity but something inherent in man. You can still be secular and believe this – you would just need to admit that sin and guilt are universal human afflictions, some artifact of our evolution, not simply a cultural artifact of Christianity. Clearly, sin and guilt need some legitimate outlet, like other human drives. Uncontrolled, it will strike out randomly in destructive ways, like the cult of white guilt which serves as a quasi-religion to spiritually empty, affluent Westerners. In fact, if Christianity didn’t exist, we would almost have to invent something like it.

Think about what Christianity does functionally: it replaces archaic systems, some, simply messy, like animal sacrifice, and others truly horrific like the infant sacrifice practiced by Near Eastern pagans. Christianity says God came to Earth and made one sacrifice that suffices for all sin and guilt, forever. This sacrifice is memorialized in the eminently civil ritual of the bread and the cup, and remission of sins is ritualized through the simple use of ordinary water in baptism. If you wanted to take man’s sin and guilt instincts and channel them into a benevolent form, you would have to invent something like Christianity. Christianity, however, still preserves all of the upside of the sin instinct. Basic morality like not stealing, not murdering, not lying in court, not committing adultery, not being envious, etc. are necessary practices to build the sort of high-trust, highly advanced, specialized societies Europeans desire. You have to admit that an earnest Christian is less likely to put melamine in the baby formula than a Chinese pagan. Sociopathic behavior by high-time-preference people is efficiently behaviorally balanced with some sort of belief in eternal torment and punishment for heinous acts. It’s ugly and inelegant, in a way, but any religious system has to account for the full range of human depravity.

One more observation: by relieving people of the burden of sin and guilt, and the uncertainty associated with the mercurial pagan gods, Christianity allowed its adherents more freedom to pursue their destiny as a people. The most highly refined form of Christianity, that of free grace salvation, emerged in Northern Europe after the Reformation. Fully freed from any residual guilt, the mightiest empires emerge from these Northern European countries who conquer the world, in their view with God’s approval. The most powerful empire of all time, the British, was an amalgamation of the high ritual of Catholicism, but the free grace of the Reformation, all under the umbrella of a King as head of government and church. This Empire saw itself as explicitly doing God’s work in bringing other peoples into subjection, and represents possibly the most purely “Nietzschean” society, the race of supermen upon whose lands the sun never set.

I’m not here to make a utilitarian argument for Christianity, though I think one can obviously be made. I simply point out a number of interesting and unlikely coincidences:

  • The universal sin and guilt drive of man, not indigenous to Judea, which results from man’s moral instinct but can express itself in very destructive ways, from human sacrifice to white guilt.
  • Christianity’s elegant repackaging of this instinct into a one-time sacrifice and a ritualized, civilized system of memorializing the sacrifice, while also creating an imperative for the moral behavior necessary to a high trust, advanced society.
  • The strange coincidence of Christianity’s central truth claim: God came to Earth and the Jews murdered Him.
  • This little vignette prophetically foreshadows the rise of Christian Europe as the most powerful civilization of all time, along with its perennial enemy.
  • The juxtaposition of Christian Europe both being the most powerful civilization of all time, but also the most humane and just. Power, justice, and mercy happened to combine in history, a paradox mirrored, and mocked by pagans, in the Christian faith itself.

These could all be coincidences, or they could be the fingerprints of something else. What you can’t say, based on history, is that Christianity created the problem of guilt and sin. Arguably, it solved it.

David Green’s Christian Legacy


David Green is the Forbes 400 billionaire whose family owns Hobby Lobby.  Along with the Cathy family of Chick-Fil-A fame, Green is one of the few prominent evangelical Christian billionaires.  The Green family recently deposited their entire business inside a trust where it will be used exclusively to fund Christian ministries.

As I think about my own family’s significant wealth and succession planning, I think there are some lessons, positive and negative, to glean from the Green family’s decision.  I recently read his latest book about the experience, called Giving It All Away.  Green thinks seriously about his wealth and about the Kingdom, but unfortunately his theology leaves him ill-prepared for the burden of wealth.

In the book, we see a glimpse into Green’s psychology, as his parents were dirt poor Pentecostals, his father a preacher and his mother a preacher’s wife.  Pentecostalism is perhaps the purest expression of the low church Protestant impulse towards evangelism at all costs.  Green’s mother in particular drove this into him and his siblings, such that David was the “black sheep” of the family while all of his brothers became ministers.  As Hobby Lobby expanded and Green’s success developed, his mother withheld approval of her son, constantly asking, “Yes, but what have you done for the Lord lately?”  His mother believed that all unnecessary activities outside of evangelism were wasteful.

This pietist impulse is in my view one of the most insidious forms of legalism in the church, and as a Christian with a legacy to give to my children, it is so dangerous that I have been working for several years on a book to counter the propaganda.  For there is an entire Christian and non-Christian philanthropy industrial complex that seeks to separate the wealthy from their money.  It says something about our age that even the secular wealthy cannot handle the burden, with prominent billionaires pledging to give it all away.

While Green calls himself a steward, in essence the plot of the book is his wanting to move away from the shoulder of responsibility and pass that on to a self-perpetuating board, initially consisting of his family members, that will give away the profits of Hobby Lobby in perpetuity to Christian ministries.  I see several problems with this approach:

First, children have a right to an inheritance, a legal claim on the family fortune if they remain loyal and faithful to the family and faith.  This is a Biblical concept.  In my view, no family steward has the right to squander the family fortune, whether through profligate spending or profligate charity.  One redeeming facet of Green’s action is that he got the permission of all his children and grandchildren to place their inheritance in the trust.

Second, there is no escaping the need for leadership and possession.  We cannot “give” anything to God, for God has appointed us as His agents.  Thus, the eventual result of Green’s actions will be the capture of his fortune by political players on his trust board, who have no skin in the game.  There is a whole industry of Christian deceivers out there, like Randy Alcorn, who convince wealthy Christians to part with their fortunes “for the Kingdom.”  If you read Alcorn’s books about the necessity of living like a pauper to maximize evangelism, and become convinced of his case, he conveniently already has a 501(c)(3) setup in which you can deposit your guilt-inducing cash.  Of course, if it were theoretically possible to give one’s fortune to Christ directly, we would.  But God delegates this task to us, the control and use of wealth.  Green’s actions are simply him passing stewardship from one fallible human (himself), who at least has business sense and skin in the game, to other fallible humans purporting to represent Christ more directly due to their involvement in massive Christian charity bureaucracies.  The Green family trust can do nothing with its money other than donate to these bureaucracies, and eventually these bureaucrats will control the trust as well.

Third, I believe Green’s plan will fail.  Eventually, someone outside of the Green family will come onto the board of the trust, and through political influence will dilute the mission of the organization.  This has happened numerous times – see the Ford Foundation, etc.  Whenever there is a huge pile of money controlled by a board of people with no skin in the game, political players emerge to seek control for other ends. Liberals in particular are very skilled in using deception to worm their way into positions of influence.  Green’s trust, by being explicitly Christian, is particularly vulnerable to judicial interference.  If and when, for example, opposition to the homosexual agenda becomes “against public policy,” federal judges can and will dissolve the Green family trust or appoint alternative trustees to subvert the mission of the organization.  Green’s trust documents are arguably already in violation of official public policy since he requires all trustees to have a “credible written testimony” of faith in Christ.  By giving up possession of the Hobby Lobby fortune to an entity that is not the Green family, eventually it will be captured by the political process.

Wealthy people around the world cannot handle their wealth, and the desire to escape it, to annihilate it with philanthropy, is part, in my view, of the general death wish of modern civilization.  No one has any true hope or vision for the future, whether the secular pessimism of a materialist like Bill Gates, or the premillenial, “waiting for the Rapture” variety held by many evangelicals like the Greens.  The Gates Foundation is founded on the premise of humanism, that the highest use of a great fortune is to relieve human suffering before we all die a meaningless death.  The Green family’s premise seems to be that of the fireman, who sees a building burning down and his sole mission is to rescue those inside. Neither can conceive of an optimistic future, of the necessity of building capital for the long haul for a glorious future in partnership with God.

My prescription for wealthy Christians?  Grow your fortune as large as you lawfully can, retain control of it, discipline your children in its proper use.  Give away 15% or so of the income as a long-term average, but never let a John Piper, Randy Alcorn or any other pietist who never created a job in his life anywhere near the principal.  Don’t feel guilty for living well, for the tithe and a bit more is all God requires of you.  The management of wealth is a multi-generational skill and God requires specialists – stewardship means bearing the burden required, not shrugging it off to be squandered by ministers, missionaries, “fundraising professionals” and other bureaucrats ill-equipped in its growth and management.


The Trump / Alt Right Agenda

The Trump / Alt Right Agenda

First, there is nothing like winning – victory is sweet indeed.  Part of the problem of cucked Christianity is it deprives men of their natural drive to fight, and of the indescribable thrill of “battle joy” when we win over our enemies.  It almost brings me to tears of joy to think of the great men who have kept the “pilot light” of nationalism alive in the last two decades – Sam Francis, Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Richard Spencer, Louis Andrews, and many others.  They held the line when it was not popular to do so, and they are now vindicated.

Below I propose four major policy actions that should be taken immediately by a Trump administration.

Use the Printing Press & the Imperial Presidency to Consolidate Gains – This is no time to cuck out and go back to being the Washington Generals.  There is no next time for a Republican administration, and it is time to clean house, using the full power of the Presidency to crush our enemies and reward our friends.  If people associated with the SPLC and Clinton Foundation are not in prison within 18 months, we’ve blown the opportunity.  We know the crimes are there.  It’s time to find them.  Alt Right / Trump-Friendly businesses ought to be first in line for federal contracts.  Make the revolution permanent.  If we decimate the Establishment power structure, fully exposing the extent of their crimes to the American people, and we provide a funding and institutional base for our own replacement for the Establishment, we can probably buy 2-3% of the vote, postponing the demographic rot another cycle.

National Voter Security – The Trump coalition is very fragile.  Despite what the Electoral College shows, we won this thing by the skin of our teeth.  It appears Hillary will win the popular vote.  We can thank the Founding Fathers for the Electoral College, an anti-democratic system that gives disproportionate influence to rural whites in less populous states, and firewalls the rot in places like California.  Nevertheless, we will lose if current demographic trends continue, and so our first action must be to take 3-4% of the vote off the table for the Democrats by implementing robust voter security procedures.  In short, President Trump must appoint a commission to study vote security, with an outcome of recommendations for national standards for secure, verified voting.  These standards should be passed by Congress and tied to federal funds and other sticks and carrots (maybe states that elect to not adopt the standards should lose sovereign immunity).  States either adopt or go bankrupt, no choice.  Trump might consider nationalizing the administration of elections as well (perhaps with an “E-Verify” type system), if he has the political capital – this is riskier if a Democratic administration gets power, but it’s already obvious that if another Democrat gets elected, Republicans are completely screwed anyway.  They will simply amnesty enough people by fiat to make sure Republicans never win again.

Immigration Reform – Beyond the obvious step of implementing the Trump agenda as stated in the campaign, Trump must also work to increase immigration from Republican friendly groups.  While the Overton window is not quite ready for a race-based immigration policy, I believe Trump’s idea of an ideological-driven immigration test may be more powerful.  Because honestly, if we import a bunch of liberals who vote Democratic, even if they’re white they’ll do more long-term damage.  The Trump administration can use the “vetting” process to select for and prefer white immigrants likely to support the Republican coalition.  Afrikaners, for example, should immediately be given refugee status and settled in rural areas, where they will assimilate to local values.  Eastern Europeans should be given priority as well – they are conservative and we know Donald likes them already.  Crazy fantasy idea: Long-term, Russia and the US merge into a superstate, “one country, two systems” like China and Hong Kong, with Russians given electoral votes.

National Immigration Commission – As good as victory feels, the Alt Right knows that we can’t win permanently by simply running out the clock.  It will be necessary to strip some people of citizenship, or else severely restrict voting, to save the country.  To broaden the Overton window, a national commission, staffed appropriately, must study and document the massive fraud undertaken by Democrats over the last 40 years to illegally qualify people for citizenship.  Then we must reverse the fraud, in some way we can sell to the public.  It’s hard to know what our coalition will allow, how social mood will continue to develop.  My best idea here would be to form some sort of modified quasi-citizenship for these people, and restrict their votes to certain semi-independent city states.  Perhaps Miami and Los Angeles become semi-sovereign commonwealths like Puerto Rico.  This is the hard part, and the Alt Right ought to be thinking hard about this.

This is the big question: how do we undo the mess?  What specific policy proposals can we sell to the public to actually reverse our demographic decline?

Trump buys us time, but the situation remains dire under what appear to be the current constraints of policy.  We must not rest, but diligently continue to push the Overton window to the right, and not let Trump get distracted from delivering what he promised and a whole lot more.

Abortion & The Alt Right

Christians believe that man is made in the image of God, which is to say that man is more valuable than animals.  The vast differences between the lowest men and highest animals – our brains are three times the size of the great apes – is biological fact.  Because man can plan for the future, communicate in abstractions via language, and has a sense of the infinite, the utilitarian ethics of dealing with animals, in the Christian view, are not appropriate for man.  A cattle rancher is perfectly within his rights and decency to raise cattle for slaughter and cull the defective from the herd.  Our understanding of genetics comes in no small part due to our experience with animal husbandry, and our responsibility towards animals, at least the higher ones, is to not cause undue suffering in their deaths, for they can apprehend immediate danger and terror.

Some in the Alt Right seek to apply the ethics of animal breeding to humans.  They like abortion because it reduces the population numbers of non-whites.  They support selective abortion of special needs children with genetic defects.  They in some cases support euthanasia for the weak and sick.  Even by the Alt Right’s own standards, these ethics will not accomplish the goals they seek.  A corollary of Christian morality is that God never requires us to act against our true, long-term self-interest.  Support of abortion and other utilitarian approaches to human life are morally wrong, and also against our self-interest as a people.

First, to the numbers argument.  If race is but an extended family, then this argument is akin to saying, “I love my children more than the children of my neighbor.  Therefore, if I can kill four of my neighbor’s children and one of mine, I’ve increased the love I have for my remaining children, and my position relative to my neighbor’s.”  This is ludicrous reasoning, because good is not maximized on a relative basis, but an absolute basis.  We are not responsible for governing the behavior of other peoples – if African countries have abortion, for example, we would not be justified to fight a war to make them end it.  We are only responsible for our own government and behavior, and our own societies.  Killing even one of our own makes us morally responsible for that death, regardless of what other groups choose in relation to their own children.  The numbers argument doesn’t even make political sense, as the demographic “fix” for America is in.  The problem is not with the pro-life position, but with our immigration, welfare and democratic policies of our polyglot empire.  Regardless of how abortion affects relative numbers of blacks and whites, ultimately we can only restore white hegemony through non-democratic means, if democratic means one human one vote.  Our problem is not a numbers game, but rather an act of will that must take place among our people such that we are determined to survive.  Once that act of will takes place, that change of heart, the non-democratic means will be available to us.

The question then is what sort of position on abortion engenders a survival mentality among our people.  At minimum, this requires a pro-child, pro-natal change of values.  As I’ve mentioned before, having children, particularly white children that require high investment, is an act of putting oneself in voluntary slavery for two decades in the prime of one’s life.  Thanks to easy contraception, childbearing in an intact nuclear family now requires an almost irrational, dare I say pre-rational, preference.  In the wild, we only observe it in whites at above replacement levels among the deeply religious.  And contra to some of the Alt Right, who believe that a declining population is manageable, even if we achieve our pan-European dream, we still must defend it against other civilizations, most notably the Chinese and insurgent Islam.  This requires children, and a birthrate that cannot replace itself places our people in long-term danger.

Parents, then, are pre-rationally caring towards their children.  No psychologically healthy parent can look at a child with genetic defects, or special needs caused by circumstances – such as the family I know whose perfectly healthy child is now paralyzed due to a freak infection that inflamed the spinal cord – and see that child as a cost center to be eliminated.  Those in the Alt Right who push this, whether through autistic tendencies or misguided reaction to liberal dysgenic policies, alienate from their cause those sectors of the white population that are reproducing.  When certain elements of the Alt Right push a moral code that normal white Christian people find appalling, they prevent the emergence of what could be a powerful alliance between the post-religious-right and secular ethnic nationalists.  Such posturing, of showing one’s sophistication relative to the jeezus-loving rubes of the heartland, is a form of status signaling that is destructive to the very ends the Alt Right seeks to realize.  The mass of Christian whites (as opposed to their self-appointed leaders) are natural allies of the Alt Right, consistently supporting Alt Right immigration policies in opinion polls, and forsaking this alliance could have catastrophic consequences for our people.

Any white society has more than ample resources to provide for our sick and infirm, and an Alt Right government would seek to reassure, not castigate, parents that resources will be available to take care of special needs children.  No parent particularly wants such a burden, but with each conception parents are acutely aware of the risk, but it is a risk we take because we love our children.  If we want to have pro-natal policies and compensate parents for the costs they endure to the benefit of everyone else, an Alt Right regime would seek to provide social insurance to parents that their children will be cared for, even if something goes wrong in the process.

Furthermore, the availability of abortion is a signal to young women that they can easily escape the consequences of shirking their historical duty to restrict their sexual activity to marriage.  Such a policy encourages hedonism and will systematically produce young women unfit to be mothers due to moral degradation in youth.  Feminists, of course, love abortion, because feminists loathe both men and mothers, and abortion is a policy that says that fathers have no rights to their children, even in matters of life and death.

What about rape?  First, pregnancy from rape is rare, as the nonconsensual nature of the act is not conducive to the survival of sperm to fertilize an egg.  Personally, I believe the availability of “morning after” emergency contraception is sufficient to cover true cases of rape, as opposed to those merely claiming it in retrospect.  Since the woman has no specific knowledge of an embryo, and 40% of fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant in the uterus, to take a medicine to intentionally eliminate the conditions for implantation is not, in my view, morally problematic.  We can have a reasonable pro-life position without giving away the whole store with actual surgical abortion of a fetus.  The classic moral question of whether one would save a 2-year-old or a beaker of 20 fertilized eggs (if you could only save one from a fire) is compatible with this position – I would save the 2-year-old, not the fertilized eggs.  But if the same choice were between a woman in her first trimester of pregnancy, or the two-year old, a valid choice could arguably be the woman.  Hence life begins, in my view, at the moment the mother and child become one flesh at the time of implantation – the mother being the medium and the child being the message, a set of information ready to develop into a human.  This may be a minority view among virulent pro-lifers, but I bring it up to demonstrate that a reasonable anti-abortion position is possible that still accounts for outlier cases of rape.  Such a position does not even have to be official public policy, as the drugs necessary for emergency contraception are the same as those used for conventional contraception.  No one would have sufficient evidence to prosecute even in a 100% pro-life official policy.

I implore the secular Alt-Right to reconsider any support for abortion.  What are the odds the feminists are right on this one issue?  The alienation of potential allies, if nothing else, would advise the wise against it.  We want to win, not show our status relative to the very people – the non-pozzed, heartland Christian whites –  we wish to preserve.