Sermon On The Net

This being Good Friday, I thought a show about Christianity and the dissident right would be a good topic. I was torn on how I wanted to do it, so it did not come out as well as I hoped. I had a few ideas on how to approach the subject, but I could not settle on one, so I ended up coming at it from a few different angles. In retrospect, I should have mulled it over a bit longer to get my thoughts in order. On the other hand, it means I can revisit the topic at some point in the future.

One of the odd things about dissident politics is that our side of the great divide has different tribes that probably would not find common cause if not for having been driven off the public stage. Thirty years ago, the “secular right” was not all that fond of the religious right. They even setup a site for themselves as a refuge from those Bible-wielding conservatives. It looks like they ran out of steam a couple of years ago, which is fitting given the circumstances of the moment.

It seems like there is an opportunity for the two main wings of the dissident right to find common cause again. If you look at the main players in the new free speech movement, for example, they tend to be men of faith. The American First crowd is very proudly Christian, even though they do not get into the details of what that means. On the other hand, the authority of the secular wing is rooted in biological reality. The quantifiable differences in people are the starting point for many dissidents.

In the before times, the secular wing always chaffed at the rhetoric of Christian conservatives, mostly out of ignorance. People drawn to secular politics tend not to be comfortable with the topics in religion. Today, Christians tend to be uncomfortable with the langue of most dissidents. Talk of evolution is alienating to them, because they have been conditioned to view it as an enemy of their faith. Our side of the great divide is an uneasy alliance of people who do not entirely trust one another.

That is the main point of the show this week. Secular people need to get more comfortable talking about religion, but dissident Christians need to reexamine their hostility to certain dissident topics. The fact is a large majority of white people consider themselves Christians. On the other hand, a large majority of dissidents long for a return to tradition. There is no reason why religion should not be an integral part of dissident politics, even if many dissidents are not religious.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. I am now on Deezer, for our European haters and Stitcher for the weirdos. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is like a tea, but it has a milder flavor. It’s hot here in Lagos, so I’ve been drinking it cold. It is a great summer beverage.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link.   If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at

This Week’s Show


  • 00:00: Opening
  • 02:00: Evolution
  • 22:00: Camp Counselor Z
  • 42:00: Meaning & Purpose

Direct DownloadThe iTunesGoogle PlayiHeart Radio, RSS Feed, Amazon

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

259 thoughts on “Sermon On The Net

  1. Z-man — loved this podcast and appreciate your understanding of the Bible. We camp on the same side of the “great divide.” My goal is to reach the Church — I hammer at it regularly and it has resulted (of course) in a bit of trouble for me as I dare to write of Judaism unfavorably. Other Christians ( comes to mind and are also working this issue. Europeans used to be proud and Christian. Now they are ashamed (most of them) and secular. The Church has become Judaized — they have adopted “precepts and traditions” from the New Pharisees that are not Biblically justified. Quick example: The children of Canaan were cursed by God’s prophet (Noah) to be slaves to the sons of Shem and Japeth (father of the Europeans). This should not be a problem to the Christian. Anyway, I enjoy your shows.

  2. I don’t know about the bible, but there’s definitely a higher being who created the universe. The probability of everything coming about by accident with no force behind it, I just find quite ridiculous and improbable.

  3. I think wokeism is about denial. Z’s references to responsibility are on target. Z didn’t say it but was buzzing around like a moth: Meaning is only available to the responsible.

    An irresponsible person has a meaningless life. This is key; Leftism is about irresponsibility. That’s the only feature. All of the shrieking and yelling is about denying that they are useless. Their lives are meaningless.

    This is such an Achilles’ Heel for them. I think most people have things they are not proud of and are slow to point out the low character of others.

    This is where we go wrong, and why we lose decade after decade. A generally responsible person will screw up every week on some level, and try to get better a little at a time, over time.

    A leftist has abdicated. They are dead inside. There is no redemption. And the rationalistic nature of their psychology makes invisible any and all avenues of escape. I hope that last line provokes some inquiry. It’s hard to grasp, took me months. See Steven Hicks book Explaining Postmodernism.

    Z talked about not being able to reason with enemy. This is why.

    The only thing they want is revenge. All of their policies work perfectly. They ruin everything they touch.

    Every interaction with a lefty should include a poke at their shame. Some reference to their irresponsibility. You may have to be careful if they are violent. I suggest instead of picking fights directly, that we advertise that the only reason to be a lefty is because you are lazy. It’s the nub of the whole damned thing.

    And they already know it.

  4. I don’t claim to be an expert on US churches, but my experience has been that Christian people on the whole are more inclined to be ‘woke’ on the subject of race, than to be race-realists. I’m sure there are churches which openly affirm race-realism, but I’ve never encountered one.

    Certainly the mainstream denominations are more and more embracing radical egalitarian race-denialism. Along with the Southern Baptists and Episcopalians, we can add Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists, to the list of churches embracing ‘woke’ progressive egalitarianism.

    IIRC, in the days preceding and following the War of Northern Aggression, many Christian denominations split on the question of race. Not just regarding the narrow issue of slavery, but on the broader question of what is the right way of understanding and relating to Africans in America. And it seems that today, often both branches of these denominations have come to embrace a woke view of race that denies the reality of inherent racial differences.

    It certainly seems to be the case today, as Z-man pointed out, that many Christian denominations make the fatal error of moving from ‘equal in the eyes of God’, to ‘equal in all ways’. Of interpreting the command to ‘love your neighbor’ as precluding the possibility of noticing the very real differences between you and him; and between the various human groups. ‘Loving your neighbor’ becomes ‘Pretending your neighbor is just like you’. And if you resist that pretense, then you’re condemned as a “racist”, lacking in Christian love.

    I’m more and more seeing how dangerous ‘ideals’ are. Our beliefs should arise from experience, not from an ideology we’ve inherited because everyone we know believes it, or because it sounds good, or makes us feel good to believe it.

    Holding to an ideal conception of the world— one which you haven’t gained from experience, but have inherited as part of a belief system— is a recipe for believing foolish things.

    My goal is to believe only what’s true, and to be able to explain why I believe what I believe; to provide the evidence which led me to hold those beliefs, as opposed to others.

    And to hold my beliefs lightly enough, that were I presented with compelling evidence that they’re wrong, I could amend them accordingly, without feeling myself diminished in the process. To not make the mistake of identifying so strongly with my beliefs, that my mind is no longer open to other possibilities.

    That seems to be one thing which separates religious beliefs from other types of belief: most religious believers seem to have made a huge emotional investment in what they believe being true; such that when you question their beliefs, they feel it as an attack on themselves.

    And don’t the woke progressive egalitarians react to a questioning of their beliefs in the same way: by becoming emotional, and condemning the skeptic as a bad person?

    Wokeness is a religion; not that different in many ways from other religions. The flaws and weaknesses which characterize one, characterize them all: they all believe what they believe— not because it’s demonstrably true— but for other reasons. They’ve chosen to believe what they believe not because of the facts, but despite them.

    So in that sense, religious believers are in the same camp as progressives; they appear to be on our side, but for reasons that we ultimately must disavow.

    • Duttons research suggests the opposite. Religious people are more ethnocentric, and most churches naturally self segregate. Atheists are more likely to be woke socialists worshipping the god of political correctness.

      • I’m not familiar with Dutton’s research. I’m happy if that’s the case. My personal experience has been that the churches I’ve been familiar with have been woke.

        But it’s definitely true that churches self-segregate: even those churches which purport to be ‘inclusive’.

        Which we race-realists recognize as evidence that despite what beliefs might fill their heads, we humans have evolved to be ethno-centric: to prefer the company of those like us.

        And that it’s possible to ‘believe in’ one thing, while actually preferring something else; while not being aware of the discrepancy.

        Housing has shown the same pattern: years after segregated housing was outlawed— lo and behold!— it turns out that people are voluntarily self-segregating: choosing to live among their own.

        • Even Nick Fuentes of the America First movement admits that churches are full of liberals but still, Christianity is the only way to save America! Whatever..

          With the left, their politics come before anything-else. With the right, it seems like every imaginable bullshit wedge issue comes first..

    • “…they appear to be on our side, but for reasons that we ultimately must disavow.”

      Aside from your anti-Christian screed, on this point you are correct. You and yours have little in common with we Christians, and should hold to contempt any effort to try and bridge any gaps with the race realists. The enlightened ultimately moved on from their new atheism phase to the race realism phase, but the loathsome attitudes are the same.

      For us Christians of the Dissident Right, we must take into account the 29th Maxim of the 70 Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries: “The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.” Doubt not ere the horde of the woke is defeated that they will drive knives into our backs in a effort to purge the world of religion.

      These people are not our friends.

      • No contempt on my end: sorry if you read it that way.

        Like I said, some of the finest people I know are believing Christians.

        I just haven’t found the claims of Christianity to be true. The world as it’s portrayed in the Bible isn’t the world I see in front of me. That’s all I was saying.

        Obviously, your experience is different.

        I hope I can say that, without being misunderstood as hating or despising Christians, or wanting to rid the world of religion; because that’s not the case. You’re the one bringing the hostility to the conversation; not me.

        I’m only talking about what I find to be true, and why; and the standards I use to distinguish truth from supposition. And observing that from where I stand, Christians are making extraordinary claims, without providing sufficient evidence to back them up.

        • The only thing you and yours possess that is greater than your talent for trolling is your talent for sophistry. I have never met anybody who gets so high off their own supply like you and yours.

          Well, except for the woke. You have that in common with them.

          • So tell me: what in my post can be accurately described as sophistry?

            You accuse me of trolling; but you’re the one calling names and hurling insults— without ever responding to the content of what I’m saying.

          • Bill, I suggest you develop a thick skin if you want to hang in this blog community. More than a few of the commenters here prefer to hurl snark and invective at people with whom they disagree rather than offer up genuine criticism and then defend it. Sad, but that’s just the reality of it.

          • For those who post in bad faith, snark and invective are that are necessary. Argumentation is lost upon them.

    • This I know: We are not on the same side. A world of Bills would be a hellscape for me. So much self-congratulation, so little insight. Give me a tribe of Kenyan Christians to live with, rather than this unending torrent of narrow-minded bullshit.

      Christianity doesn’t measure up to the rigors of Bill’s finely-honed ear for truth. Yet it will stagger on, somehow, without him.

      • It’s not a matter of my “finely-honed ear for truth”. I’m talking about the standards laid out in the Bible; not any standards of truth that I’m bringing to it.

        It’s that in my experience, the world described in the Bible is not the world I see in front of me.

        It’s that in my experience, the claims made in the Bible regarding Christians— that they’ll be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and
        “lead into all truth”; that their behavior will be characterized by “the fruit of the Spirit”: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control”— simply isn’t true.

        It’s true of some Christians— just as it’s true of some Buddhists, and some atheists.

        And it was my experience— not only in my personal life, but in the lives of my fellow Christians— that, contrary to what the Bible claims, prayers are not answered.

        I was part of a faith community for many years, that believed in the power of prayer: where every church service ended with folks voicing prayer requests and praying for each other. So I heard a lot of prayer requests over the years.

        And it was my experience that the vast majority of those prayers weren’t answered.

        The people praying that they’d get that job they wanted: yeah, that sometimes happened. And when it did, it was always attributed to “an answered prayer”.

        But the really hard ones— the ones that could only happen through divine intervention: the 11-year-old with the brain tumor, the faithful lifelong believer dying of cancer, and counting on God to heal her— instances where there were hundreds of believing Christians praying in unison— NONE of those were answered.

        The ONLY ones that were “answered”, were the ones that might have happened anyway.

        Hey, YMMV.

        I’m just describing what I’ve seen, and why I’m no longer a believer.

    • I scrolled down through the responses, and as I half expected, none of them asked you the relevant questions about belief: Do you apply that standard to your wife and children?

      It is the same reason Mr. Z. Man’s prognosis about the Great Divide amongst those stubbornly refusing to consent to the wossname (globohomo? Wokerati? pedo-satanists? That thing) is faulty.

      Say a teenager was wont to scream at his Father that she hates Him, and He is ruining her life, and “It’s not FAIR Daddy” while, in the next breadth she demands He drive her to the mall. It’s not an improvement to come to a grudging appreciation that He owns the car and is paying for the gas, and she’ll limit herself to spiteful asides to her friends.

      The ordinary gifts to the whole world, God-botherers and God-haters alike are yours from its Creator. The benefits of a loving relationship you only get… From having a loving relationship.

      Obviously, if the truth claims of the myriad witnesses to a man who was put to death, and came back to life, who claimed to be God and all the rest are false, then Christianity is just another tribal identity to be used to gain the benefits of same. Investigating how that works out is an exercise for the student (An old dodge: I’d be interested in your report if you choose to do so)

  5. The LDS (mormon) church has always been attractive to me. They develop a very strong sense of group identity and build community within the community at large. They tick all the right boxes as far as outcomes (protestant work ethic, traditional values, large families, non support of sexual deviancy, prepper self sufficient mentality). My kids always had a few of them as friends and they were the nicest kids I know, from the nicest families at school. If you have LDS as neighbors its a good thing. If anything they are a the best American grown version of protestant Christianity. But the cosmology is so weird, I just can’t do it.

    • Yeah: my sister and her husband both converted to the Mormon faith as teenagers. I spent quite a bit of time visiting them when they lived in Provo Utah— 90% Mormon— and I share your positive view of the Mormon people. (Along with your inability to accept their wacky theology).

      My theory is that Mormonism is popular because it meets needs for community which modern life doesn’t satisfy: to be surrounded by a community of like-minded folks, who you know will take care of you. The great strength of the Mormon way of doing things is that they DO take care of their own; to an extent that few other faith-groups do.

      A hundred years ago and prior to that, most Americans lived in small towns, surrounded by like-minded people. Going back even farther, we humans evolved for hundreds of thousands of years in small hunter-gatherer groups made up of our extended families. So we’ve evolved with an innate need and desire for community.

      But atomized modern life has lost all that: we typically live in nuclear families in ‘communities’ which aren’t really communities in the traditional sense: which lack the commonality and sense of sameness and togetherness that traditional communities provided.

      Part of the genius of the Mormon faith is that they provide that sense of community,
      to anyone who’s able to drink the kool-aid.

      And, as you point out, that the personal qualities they encourage— of sobriety, loyalty, integrity— are inherently attractive; and increasingly rare in today’s world.

      • Mormons have a strong sense of community because of the persecutions they suffered in the not-distant past. All Christians used to have that. Maybe the present tribulations will reawaken it.

        • Right: and it’s my understanding that Christianity today is growing fastest in places like China, where persecution is the strongest.

  6. Christianity exists because it works. It’s good for the people that adopt its precepts and actively practice its traditions, prescriptions, and proscriptions. It helps its people to survive and thrive in the part of the world in which they live. That is why Christianity has persisted for over two millennia now in Western civilization. And that is a good thing.

    Now open your eyes to the rest of the planet. Islam works in the environment of the Middle East. Buddhism has persisted in South Asia for more than 2,500 years. Ditto for other peoples in other places. When viewed at the practice of ancient wisdom hard-earned in a given locale, the various religions make sense. And this is why it’s stupid to force Religion A on People B.

    • Right: clearly, religious belief must provide genuine benefits to those who hold them; otherwise they wouldn’t continue to exist.

      Any belief system which encourages you to love your fellow man and treat them fairly— whether it be Christianity, or Buddhism, or Confucianism, or any one of the many religions out there— will make your life better, to the extent that you’ve able to do it: people will like you, and enjoy having you around. You’ll do well.

      And most believers then make the mistake of seeing that as a confirmation of the truth of their particular belief system; rather than realizing that ANY religion which encourages loving behavior would have that same effect.

      That’s what keeps the various religions going: when practiced faithfully, they’re ALL ‘self-confirmatory’ in that way.

      The problem being, of course, that the beliefs they espouse are not simply different, but contradictory, mutually-exclusive: Christians believe in a personal God, while Hindus insist that no such God exists. The Muslim conception of God contradicts the Hindu conception of God, and the Christian conception of God, and so on down the line. If one of them is right, then all the rest have to be wrong.

      And once it becomes clear that only one of them can be correct; it’s a small step to the possibility that none of them are.

      • or that there are in fact different gods who begat different subsets of people and the gods are at war, effectively, using us as their armies.

        Makes sense to me

  7. Wherever you fall on the religious/not-religious spectrum, one thing is true: fighting over religion and demanding adherence to your viewpoint is counter-productive to the greater cause. I am not a Christian any longer but even when I was, I would rather have lived in a country full of White pagans than in a nation of Christian mestizos and Africans.

  8. Z claims that Christianity requires an orderly universe.

    The whole basis of the divinity of Jesus Christ is His miracles, which are by definition, violations of the order of the universe. Take away Jesus’ miracles and he’s just one of many subversive j3ws.

    I support Z in his role as camp counselor, but his assumption is obviously wrong.

    The entire foundation of Christianity is the violation of the orderly universe.

    • Christian Tradition taught an orderly universe for a thousand years and more before the reformation showed up. Miracles aren’t magic. Sure, there are some Protestant sects that are all in on ooga booga but the bulk of Christianity is free will within a world that runs on a sey of rules laid down by God.

    • Seems to be that a Miracle is much like the exception that proves the rule

      And those rules are a predictable and orderly cosmos

  9. Great podcast this week. While I don’t agree with some of you analysis, I appreciate how it was done in a respectful manner. I do agree that we need to work together against a common foe. As well, we can find enough understanding to coexist. The problem though is highlighted by a few commenters here who can’t seem to do more than trash Christianity.

    • Definition of “Work together against a common foe”.

      Mean. I think we need to digest that 60 years of reasoning was a giant waste of time. They want to kill us.

      Take every thing they say. Make it as evil as possible. You will be correct.

      When they line up to riot, we gun them down.

      When they pass laws to rape us, we kill their children.

    • The only trash I’ve seen has come from true believers-as usual. And then they project-as usual.

      Like a broken record..

    • Evolution is the dream of pedaphiles, faggots and jerk offs. I don’t want a bossy God, or my conscience, telling me what to do, so I’ll come up with excuses. Luther came up with one of the most destructive, sin boldly, and Darwin doubled down with a clown theory of how all life is a oozing blob where everything sort of changes but sort of doesn’t and morality is a survival tool.

      Zman s insistence on the dumbest theory ever to kick around the grounds of the academy is always regrettable.

      • “I don’t want a bossy God, or my conscience, telling me what to do, so I’ll come up with excuses.”

        If you’re being objective then what you want is irrelevant to the truth.

        Maybe God is bossy. The world doesn’t conform to your feelings. Who are you to dictate?

      • “Evolution is the dream of pedophiles, faggots and jerk-offs.”

        I must respectfully disagree with the fine gentleman’s comment. Was funny though. Some of the crazy rage-heads here are a kick. I’d like to party one night with Hi-Ya!, Dennis Roe and Whisky. Just one night though. Then never see them again. LOL

    • From Unz article via Bill: “Nevertheless, humans practice eugenics on other humans every day all over the planet, and it is highly likely that the reader himself has done so. Every time a person selects or rejects a person for a sexual relationship, he or she is practicing eugenics…Even a prostitute is reluctant to have sex with a person she considers repulsive.” Good stuff. Never looked at it that way.

      • Though of course, I don’t kill the girl I find unattractive, I just won’t call her for a 2nd date. Not exactly eugenics.

  10. And evolution provides a cogent and sufficient explanation for the human biodiversity we observe: when the various human groups spread around the Earth, inhabiting various differing environments, geographically and genetically isolated from other groups, they adapted to them in different ways.

    The challenge of adapting to new environments was what drove improvements in human capability and intelligence. The two ice ages that covered Northern Europe with glaciers, and drove the people living there to the south, amplified the challenges: only the capable survived.

    While those remaining in Africa— where the ice ages had little effect, and the environment was largely unchanging— faced no such challenges. And thus never evolved to the extent that other human groups did; a result which is clearly obvious today in the difference between sub-Saharan Africans and the rest of the world.

    Given the widely-varying conditions under which the various human groups evolved, it would be astonishing if they weren’t different.

    And there’s no reason to imagine that the dramatic ‘outer’ differences in appearance, which distinguish a Swede from a Somali, are not accompanied by equally-dramatic ‘inner’ differences, of intelligence and temperament. Clearly they are.

    But the idealistic woke egalitarianism prevalent today forbids anyone— scientist or citizen— from noticing or pointing out these things. And creates an ongoing pressure between what the findings of science are every day demonstrating to be true— about the genetic foundation of all human traits, and the variability of their distribution— and what we’re ‘supposed’ to believe about everybody being equally gifted.

    • I always say the only real privilege is evolving in warm climates for 200,000 years where playing games and having sex was the successful survival strategy. Whites and northeast asians are just now reaping the benefits of the horrible living conditions of their ancestors freezing to death in the snow.

    • You really believe that a Norwegian person with blonde hair and blue eyes and sharp nose was once a total negro?

      I mean do you personally believe it? Not that could it have happened but that it did happen and anyone who denies it is a fool or ignorant.

      Put another way, had you never been exposed to the ideas of evolution would such a concept have ever entered your head? Even when blitzed on whiskey?

      But the good news! The African migrants in Norway will become full Norwegians in 10,000 years. Why? Because evolution. A lot like climate science 😜

      • Africans in Norway could only “evolve” into Whites if central heating went bye-bye. But even then they don’t have the skills or physiology to last 10 months let alone 10,000 years in a northern environment without the accoutrements of modern life.

      • Do you believe that a golden retriever was once a grey Wolf?

        Or did god create golden retrievers sui generis in the 19th century?

  11. It seems to me that the proper question to ask about Christianity is: ’Is it true? What’s the evidence that it’s true?’

    I spent over a decade studying the Bible and trying to be a Christian. And I eventually came to the conclusion that Christianity simply isn’t true: that the world as I know it, is not the world described in the Bible. 

    I’m not denying the existence of a Higher Power; just testifying that my experience has been that ‘the God of the Bible’ doesn’t exist.

    Starting with the stories in the Old Testament: which present themselves in the text as accurate historical accounts— the Hebrews spending 400 years as slaves in Egypt; Joseph rising to second-in-command, just under Pharaoh, and saving the entire country from famine; millions of Hebrews (600,000 men, plus women and children, according to the Bible) escaping, pursued by the Pharaoh and his entire army; the Red Sea parting for the Hebrews, then crashing down to drown the Egyptians; the Hebrews wandering around a relatively-small area of desert for 40 years; then crossing the Jordan and conquering the ‘promised land’, burning several cities in the process— what’s the probability that these things could have happened, yet left no trace on the archaeological and historical record? 

    Because that’s the truth of it…. 

    The first generation of mideast archaeologists were called ‘Biblical archaeologists’, because they were acting on the expectation that these OT stories were true; they arrived in the ‘holy land’ with Bibles in hand, expecting great finds. An entire army, with armor and swords, chariots with iron-bound wheels, drowned in the Red Sea… surely some trace would remain! Likewise all those burned cities: that doesn’t happen without leaving evidence.

    But no: there’s no record of Joseph ruling in Egypt and saving the country from famine, at a time when such things were memorialized by monuments and enscriptions in stone; and none of the contemporary historians writing at the time thought to make mention of it… 

    No trace of that drowned Egyptian army….

    No trace of those millions of Hebrews wandering for 40 years in the desert…

    No trace of those cities they supposedly conquered and burned….

    Likewise concerning Solomon, according to the Bible the wisest man in the ancient world, word of whose wisdom spread far and wide, even attracting the Queen of Sheba to pay him a visit… not a word about him in the historical record. How could that be?

    What are the chances that these things would have happened, yet none of them left a trace?

    The only possible answer, for any honest person, is that they didn’t happen. The OT stories were made up; and the claims within the text itself that they actually happened are fabulous.

    Not to mention the story of the Sun standing still in the sky, for hours; which we know today could only be accomplished by the Earth ceasing to rotate. Really?

    And similar questions can be asked about the events depicted in the New Testament: where’s the evidence that Jesus performed miracles, walked on the water, and rose from the dead? Things which no one has seen before or since.

    As Carl Sagan pointed out, the more unlikely the claim, the stronger the corroborating evidence needs to be in order to validate it. 

    Where is the corroborating evidence for the NT stories? Short answer: there isn’t any. 

    There isn’t any mention of Christianity in the historical record until around 120 AD. Scholars agree that the quote by Josephus is a later addition by Christian apologists, and not something Josephus wrote.

    How could that be, if the NT accounts are accurate? How could the 40 contemporary historians writing at the time miss all that hubbub?

    The most plausible answer is, that— like with the stories in the OT— they didn’t actually happen. They were made up later. And like the OT stories, believers took them as fact.

    Why then does Christianity continue to spread? Why do people continue to believe? Because on the level of behavior, Christianity contains a lot of practical truth: if you go around trying to love your fellow humans, and act charitably towards them, your life will go well. Which will seem to be validating the narrative behind your beliefs.

    And it feels good to be a believer, it’s emotionally satisfying. To imagine that the Universe is ruled by a loving Father God who knows you intimately, loves you, and looks out for you— that feels good.

    Clearly, our brains evolved to seek and discover patterns in the world around us: the caveman who realized that the sabre-tooth tiger comes to the stream at a certain time each day, would survive to reproduce more than his fellows who failed to notice that pattern. So our brains evolved to look for patterns in the world around us.

    And back before there was any actual data about the world, our pattern-seeking human brains constructed narratives out of the blue to explain things: religions. Christianity might be a more sophisticated superstition than the African animist worshipping the python; but aside from that, they’re no different. They both believe in stories which are not in fact true. 

    But we no longer need Iron-age myths to explain who we are, where we came from, and how we got here. We now have the demonstrable findings of evolutionary science to tell us that. 

    Evolution is a fact: the ‘bone trail’— from Australopithecus, the last upright ape, to Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Homo sapiens (archaic man), and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man)— is there to be seen. And genetics provides further corroboration of the chronology of changes in our ancestors, leading to us.

    How evolution happened— what propelled the process— is another matter. Why, of all the animal species, were we humans the only ones to evolve to the point where they developed self-consciousness and culture? What was it that caused our brains to undergo periodic growth spurts? That’s where there’s room for a Higher Power, if that’s where your intuition and experience lead you.

    But only a person ignorant of the facts— and emotionally wedded to a particular belief system— could deny the reality of human evolution. Or choose to accept “on faith” beliefs for which there’s insufficient corroborating evidence.

      • A “rationalist”….. as opposed to what? An irrationalist?

        I’m missing the distinction you seem to be making….

        Do you know of other tools than reason to figure out what’s real and true?

        Are you suggesting an irrational approach to life?

        • If I may chime in, there is enough in life and even nature that is not perfectly rational but it exists anyway. Our lives alone are somewhat irrational in that we strive even though there is real no purpose to it since we die anyway. Our will to live, as it were, is not perfectly rational with death always lingering nearby like a black man on the street corner.

          Reason is a tool and has its place like any set of tools. It can also be a crutch for certain people to avoid messy and unanswerable questions.

          I noticed that evolution is also something of a tool and its strongest proponents remind me increasingly of the followers of Freud who tried to shoehorn everything into his way of thinking. With evolutionists it’s that everything must have an evolutionary purpose or reason or basis. Steve Sailer is the epitome.

          I guess the reason the wind feels good blowing against my ears is because of some evolutionary purpose? Dogs feel it too. Cats. Raccoons. Mice.

          But I will say this, insofar as reproduction is the most obvious mandate Nature weighs upon us, that when having sex for the lone purpose of reproduction the man will experience his best orgasm. Probably an evolutionary purpose in play. Hint hint to all you younger guys looking for a reason to make babies !!!

    • Bill, your long diatribe completely misses the point: Z-man’s podcast was about uniting against a common enemy, not about a theology being true or false.

      I hope you reach the point in life where you understand that.

      • exfarmkid,

        I get what you’re saying. I’m sorry my words came across as a diatribe.

        I’d respond by saying that in the end, it’s all about what’s true.
        *Z-man’s ideas resonate and hit home because they’re true: they’re congruent with reality*

        Race-realism, and the acknowledgement of the reality of human biodiversity, are desirable because they’re true.

        Looked at that way, our “common enemy” is untruths of any sort; whether they’re based on religious, ideological, or factual misconceptions. Believing something that’s not true is always going to be harmful; to the individual, and to a society.

        I’ve always questioned the notion that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’: I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. It may be true in the short term that it’s advantageous to ally yourself with he enemy of your enemy; but after the fracas is over, you may find that *he’s your new enemy*: that he holds beliefs that you can’t agree with, and find to be ultimately harmful.

        Please don’t get me wrong: some of the finest people I’ve known in my life are believing Christians. And I’m not in the habit of going around trying to argue people out of their faith.

        But— seeing as the topic involved religion— I thought I’d throw in my two-cents worth.

        While it seems clear that certain misconceptions are less harmful than others— and I’d place Christianity in the ‘less harmful’ category, compared to say, Islam, or progressive egalitarianism— I’d still argue that *it’s best of all to hold beliefs which are true*: which accord with reality.

        It’s the findings of science which demonstrate the reality of human biodiversity, and of a race-realistic viewnof human groups. And science is ultimately incompatible with religion.

        Science may speculate about possibilities; but it’s rigorous in insisting that it’s truth-claims never go beyond what’s demonstrable: ‘Here’s the evidence for what I’m asserting. Here’s why I believe it to be true.’

        Whereas religious “faith”, by definition, is going beyond the evidence, and believing in spite of the lack of evidence. Ultimately religion and science are ‘enemies’: they ‘interrogate’ reality from two diametrically-opposed perspectives.

        Religious people may be standing in common cause with us against progressive idiocy; but ultimately, they too are espousing beliefs that reason and fact can’t support.

        Or so I see it….

    • Plenty of biblical events are corroborated by outside sources

      Tacitus has a pretty solid mention of christ’s crucifixion by pontius pilate and the torture of christians by nero in ad 64, while writing in ad 116 AD.

      Ethiopian writings in the Kebra Nagast also mentions solomon and sheba having a history.

    • Christianity spread, see, ’cause messages like, “love your enemy,” and, “love [an imaginary being] more than your own family,” and, “be willing to suffer excruciating pain and death rather than admit it’s all fake,” are obviously traits that confer great reproductive advantages on those who hold them. Much greater advantages than the many competing pagan theologies of strength, which failed to help the Romans, for example, do anything at all.

      Just logics, see?

  12. I haven’t been a believer since I was 21. I now front agnostic. I want to walk into God’s office and ask him that question heard in factories and offices throughout the world. “So Jesus, what exactly do you DO all day?” In the office I worked at down South, the head structural engineer was an old black guy. He was barely competent but spoke with a know-it-all haughtiness. If you walked past his glass office at the right angle you could see him playing solitaire on his computer most of the time. He and his office smelled like gin. All while the factory nextdoor that he was supposed to help maintain was falling apart. Anyway, whenever I think of God I think of that old boozy black man.

    • The edge is definitely calling tonight. I can feel the paper cuts from all that edge. That mic drop answered all of life’s problems.

      I bow to your superior intellect.

    • Imagine being the kind of guy who says that, when face to face with the one whose very nature is to be, he’d be some sort of fucking wiseass.

  13. The secular dissedents can learn from church structure. Leftist have a well established highly effective playbook. This playbook has subverted nations with ease. Christianity offers the only alternative. Charity, Christian education colleges etc. . Opportunities to draw normal people into the movement will continue to increase as things fall apart. But these structures have to be built.

    Christianity offers a code of conduct. The Christian code of conduct works for building civilizations. Lastly, Christianity appeals to women more then race stuff does. It encourages them to have children and take care of their community. I have seen the term “Christian nationalism” pop up in MSM. This is a precursor of what is to come and also an indicator of what the enemy fears.

      • It is culture, not race. The neo-lysenkoism being hawked by the race realists went away with the fall of the Soviet Union.

      • I fully acknowledge racial differences. I live in South Africa. But just being white doesn’t guarantee a successful civilization. Some of the whitest countries persue their own destruction with great enthusiasm. The success of a nation is directly linked to its morals, especially regarding sexuality. Christianity offers that solution.

    • “Christianity offers the only alternative.” I’m not sure about the ‘only’ alternative. But it probably needs to be in the mix. I’d be willing to fake-believe if it helped our team get back in the game. Just as long as you Christians don’t start getting all up in our faces. Christianity can be the attractive magnet. Our anchor. Ancient codes. I grew up on that. Good stuff. But behind the scenes don’t think you’re gonna be calling the shots. “The meek” this. The “downtrodden” that. “Don’t stick your dick there. Only here.” Verily I say unto you—y’all are dangerous and annoying.

      • I fully understand that the church in its current configuration doesn’t thrill you. For the most part Christian leaders are clueless about the enemies that face us. But the church is still a moral authority for millions of people. It offers community and objective morality. This is why Putin built thousands of churches. Regarding your comment on sexual conduct. This has to be regulated if you want a healthy society. Not legally but through social means.

        • I’m down with Christianity if it helps the white cause. But tread easy. You’re asking men to accept magic. Chick superstition. Real men don’t abide!

          • There are several superstitions that you already believe. Love is one example.

            People invent superstitions to give life meaning. Without it, theyll just fall for some woke progressivist ideology and vote to import millions of apes. Women are especially susceptible.

          • David, when God says he will answer prayers, that’s kind of a big deal. Not some quaint superstition. I’m not hanging with a guy who talks big but can’t deliver.

      • They will absolutely get in your face-it’s what they do. And then they will project that behavior onto you..

    • Christianity was shoved up the ass of your ancestors, the other option was death. Go back to the Celtic, Nordic or Germanic beliefs and traditions, they’ll resonate with you, it’s in your blood.

      • Maybe the DR is too stupid to survive. If you have the ability to drop $6.99 on a Penguin book, try reading St. Bebe’s history of how the English adopted Christianity or, for that matter, St. Gregory of Tours’ history of the Franks for a similar narrative.

        Clovis, for example, was not the sort of guy who just did what he was told.

      • It’s no mystery to me that the white guys with a messianic complex are among the worst people I have ever known. And why the Church was right to condemn these people as heretics; that type of self-policing was integral to the vitality of Christianity in the West. Last thing we needed was a blueprint for morons to think they’re special and the next Jesus. And we can see a little of the same in how novel like 1984 has given the liberals their blueprint. We need an authority to crush them as well. Hence, the requirement the Church be a rival institution in our human affairs. Hence the truth of Christ. Or at least the necessity — or we die. In summary, the church can attack a despotic government from an angle it’s ill equipped to defend, sucks the moral authority from it and exposes it as nothing more than a machine of death and destruction with lunatics, say Hirono, at the helm.

        Moral of the story; we need to choose a side. Our side will have to be Christian in spirit and in form. Resolutely so. And when we start racking up the wins, we will see how many agnostics start seeing the light and become devout. The agnostics want to see the truth of Christ? Want the Church to have relevance in our modern world? Well, you will get it then when it’s obvious that only when man was in the spirit of Christ was he able to defeat the evil among us.

  14. Christianity has to evolve past being the handbook for codependency to be relevant to emerging generations. Real Christianity resonates with empowerment, the holy spirit a tangible reality in all life forms.

      • The church took a wrong turn and wound up on the Quest for Approval twilight zone highway, currently known as Woke Boogie Boulevard.

  15. “THERE has never been and never can be or will be a general Christian religion professed by men who all accept some central important doctrines, while agreeing to differ about others. There has always been, from the beginning, and always will be, the Church, and sundry heresies either doomed to decay, or like Mohammedism, to grow into a separate religion. Of a common Christianity there has never been and never can be a definition, for it has never existed.”
    — Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies

  16. Chauvin is fucked with that Jury.
    4 Black males, 1 white guy, bunch of white wahmen and a nurse.

    OTOH the case is extremely weak.

    But Chauvin is probably fucked.

    • Demographic age. Not ideological age.

      He couldn’t breavve yo. Whitney killed him. Guilty af.

    • Of course. As we have discussed many times, this is now a lawless society. The verdict for Chauvin will not be based on a set of objective criteria, as codified into written law. But rather based upon a subjective criteria—that being what is considered best to appease the rabble and produce the least blowback from the mob. The rest is all “window dressing” as they say—designed to convince those asleep that they still have the rule of law to protect them.

      It would have been a more “honest” process if the mob had simpl “stormed the jail” no lynched Chauvin months ago.

    • I’ve been on two jury’s-on one of the two I was jury forman. I’ve tried to imagine myself on this jury and the way I see it I would have one of two options-either be honest and vote not guilty no matter what and have the state-endorced terrorists come after me or say hell with it and save my own ass. If I did vote guilty to save my ass, I absolutely feel it would be justified because the state IS terrorizing the jurers and that is on the state-you can only ask so much of people..

      So I’m not sure what choice I would make but the the thought of going with the truth-which is my nature, while simultaneously telling the whole evil establishment to go fuck themselves-which is also my nature, would be quite tempting..

  17. Also one area I disagree with Christians about is abortion. I have never seen the problem with an early trimester abortion. It’s a small 3cm blob.

    Of course the cultural attitudes around abortion are grotesque. It’s obviously not empowering, nor should it be normalized. In a sane more conservative society it might be comparably rare. Sometimes it is the better option for a couple though.

    There is also the demographic reality of abortion that I’m sure I don’t need to mention any further. It really is eugenics. Christians have wasted so much time arguing about abortion when porn, homosexuality, promiscuity, trannies, etc. are all much more harmful to society. Imagine if the anti abortion zealotry was channeled into anti porn.

    I always suspected that Christians were “allowed” by tptb to fight abortion because even if they end up winning, it just means more Bodies of Colour (aka ruling class lackeys) and destruction of white communities.

    • The anti-abortion stuff was allowed in the same way the left was happy to have Richard Spencer goosestepping through Charlottesville. The strong pro-life Christians were making their own propaganda against themselves because their position was easily reframed into enslaving as a brood sow some poor teenage girl that went too far with Billy behind the bleachers. Same with the euthanasia stuff, having the Catholics in favor keeping Terri Schiavo alive via unnatural means as a non-sentient pile of meat made them appear as the cruel ones.

    • The early, or simply 1st trimester, was a sop created by the Supremes to draw a mythical line between personhood and non-personhood of the fetus. It was never supported by science and religion, hence was inevitably doomed to failure—with both “sides” chipping away at it over the last 50 years. People like Singer at Princeton now proposing we go “Roman” and kill babies after they are born and the Catholics still opposing (officially anyway) artificial birth control.

      It pleased no one, except the clever lawyers we put on the bench.

    • Allow me to offer a compromise position.

      Outlaw abortion for whites.

      Make it mandatory for non-whites.

      Can’t we all get a long?

    • Abortion gave women one more reason to be promiscuous and one more knife to drive in the back of their boyfriends. It made motherhood less miraculous and warmed women up to the idea of subjective morality.

    • I think a lot of the anti-abortion outrage is fake. Notice how no one ever places the blame on the sole perpetrator of it-the mother.

      If you really wanted to stop something, why would you ignore cause of it?

  18. I have to disagree that the left turned on Christianity for being an alternative source of authority that conflicted with their ideas. The old progressives were rabid Puritans precisely because of the ability of Protestantism to interpret the bible into saying whatever it is you want it to say. That’s how you have Republicans now who think the highest expression of their religious piety is to buy an African orphan to keep as a pet.

    The Frankfurt school tiny hats coming over here in the 30s was the big factor in the left changing. They pushed the Christianity out of leftism because they hated Christians more than anything else, along with sidelining the working class roots of socialism and making it the province of nebbish academics.

    • I disagree.

      The left didn’t turn on Christianity at all.

      What happened is that they lost faith in God and Jesus as real entities. But otherwise held onto their communitarian version of Christianity. With among other elements a belief in proselytizing, punishing unbelievers, the inherent “goodness” of all people, the fetishization of poverty and loathing of “a love of money”, and a belief that history was moving towards utopia. Later on they grafted some elements of Marxism too.

      A lot of their moral beliefs drifted away from Christianity without the anchor of a belief in God, but all of the above and more remained and continue.

      So their war with Christianity was an interfaith fight between “orthodoxy” and heresy – which have happened all through the history of Christianity. Later on cultural Jews joined the fight and extended it. But progressivism was a quasi-religion decades before that happened. As Z alludes to, but didn’t explicitly state, modern fundamentalism was initiated at the turn of the twentieth century (around 1905) explicitly to counter the already powerful godless Christianity of progressivism. Their progressives peak of power was the 19teens when they captured a number of state legislatures and enacted multiple constitutional amendments in short order.

  19. I would follow up on the observation that the old gods are coming back, likely as a function of the obvious failure of Modernity and in particular, Marxism.

    Santa Muerte, which is basically just the Aztec god Huitzilopochtli, is openly worshipped by Cartel folks and others. True story, the statue of Coatlicue was unearthed in Mexico City around 1790 or so, and immediately recognized and worshipped (it is particularly ugly and satanic I must say). It is now in a museum. Coatlicue and Huitxlipochtli are now worshipped as part of the curriculum in California by school kids.

    Mestizos can claim these gods as justifications for what they want to do anyway, though there is considerable tension between them and those of “old Christian” both Catholics and Revivalist Pentecostalists who are of the old school Christian religion. Anyone traveling around much of Los Angeles County particularly the Metrolink train will be struck by the volume and vociferousness of Christian graffitti by believers who find an alternative to gangs and empty Liberal materialism of SWPL and failed Marxism and the ugly sadism of the Aztec gods.

    But underneath all the Christianity lurks a paganism in Whites as well. This is something that Lefties used to intuit but now do not, that Marxism was the replacement God for both God 2.0 (Christianity) and Gods 1.0 (Zeus, Odin, various local deities surviving as Saints etc) that per the movie “Wicker Man” were always lurking around and that Lenin/Stalin unlike Edward Woodward would crush them with a mighty red hammer and sickle. The metal guys play off that, with Nordic God imagery all the time. Atheism as a “religion” for young or even not so young White guys is not going to happen.

    If the old gods are coming back, why not the old Pagan gods in somewhat updated form? For young White men called the embodiment of evil, racially guilty and unable to do anything to wash away their sin let alone be accepted as a valued member of society, what else literally is there? Odin would be happy to have them as warriors, or perhaps an updated version with R. Lee Ermey, John Wayne, Davey Crockett, Jim Bowie, Pappy Boyington, Alvin York, and George Washington as the American pantheon of gods to worship and ask for guidance and protection?

    Who looks cooler and generates respect: Robert Conrad playing Pappy Boyington or David French cucking?

    [Yes I know John Wayne fought the Japanese exclusively on studio backlots, and Ermey was just an actor. But they looked cool and often that’s enough.]

    • “If the old gods are coming back, why not the old Pagan gods in somewhat updated form?”

      If you read something of Norse mythology — see, for example, “The Prose Edda” — you can learn interesting myths about the origin and expected end of the world, an ethos of stoicism and fatalism, and some practical advice for the individual (“don’t start fights at night when you are drunk, start them early in the morning when you are sober” etc). Its super fun and entertaining, has advices for individuals living in honor based culture, but not a tool to rebuild society IMO.

      Interesting to consider the perspectives of the Nordics themselves following conversion. While the conversions were often compelled by force (if a community doesn’t convert, will be visited by the king with “steel and fire”), communities did not appear to regret the conversion. Christianity was a substantial societal advance over what was a harsh honor/revenge oriented culture.

      While initial nordic expansion out of Scandinavia was done during pre-Christian era, the more famous conquests/expansions occurred after conversion (i.e., Rurikid expansion out of Duchy of Moscow, Norman expansion in France, into England, into Sicily, into Holy Lands, etc). Christian religion is compatible with aggressive cultural and military expansion. Need to recapture this energy somehow, IMO.

    • Here is my by now more or less obligatory commentary partly inspired by Nietzsche. He notes, likely echoing an earlier historian, that the Reformation took place in that part of Europe (Germany and points north) precisely where Christianity had come centuries later relative to Southern Europe. This is equivalent to saying that Paganism lasted almost a millennium later in the North than in the South. As a result, Pagan traditions remained fresher in the North’s cultural memory.

      Pagan tradition is more likely to produce the hero type that Nietzsche seeks. Among other traits, this is the man who boldly seeks out new ideas, imposing his own values onto the world, not content to be a sheep in the greater society. Sounds a bit like a barbarian, doesn’t it?

      Even after becoming nominal Christians, the Vikings, Huns, Teutons and assorted barbarians still retained the old attributes of their cultures. This isn’t to say they still worshipped Thor and Odin in secret or went on seaborne raids against hapless monasteries any more, but it does mean that culture lingered long enough to remain influential by the time Martin Luther came calling.

      Of course it’s not a clear division, but to me, the feudal tradition clearly “belongs” to Roman Catholicism. Huge estates and plantations are a heritage from ancient Rome, predating the Church. This lasted centuries, indeed exists to the present day, primarily in the New World most heavily settled by Catholics — Latin America. In contrast, it was primarily Northern Europe that was the stronghold of Protestantism. The tradition in the North was for smaller farms and cities, more “freedom” if you like. This too was the tradition in England, our own country’s parent. While my detailed knowledge of European history is spotty, I’ll even go so far as to say that the small, freeholder farm was (and to this day, still is) all but unknown in those countries that do not speak a Romance language.

      Our early Puritan tradition as well as the prevailing economic and political systems is rooted almost wholly in Protestantism. To this day, the Catholic-settled parts of the world have a legal tradition closer to Roman law, while the “English speaking” countries have some of that, but with English Common Law in addition. It may not be coincidence that those countries that rose highest in the Enlightenment and, arguably, from whence came most later technical, social and other innovation to date, were those that had rich traditions of both Catholicism and Protestantism: Germany, Netherlands, England and to a lesser extent, France.

      However, beyond any doubt, his favorite ancient men are some of the Greek thinkers (well, excluding Plato I suppose! 😀 ) and his deities, the Olympic gods.

      • The English Channel and the Baltic were both places were feudalism was weak. Arguably, the low countries never embraced feudalism. The Hanseatic League was the equivalent on the Southern Baltic coast. This the region where capitalism grew. The literally didn’t live as other Europeans did.

        There is a reason the South, with its own plantations, is the more conservative pole of America.

      • The feudal tradition “belongs” to Catholicism, but some of Catholics would say that the planation-serfdom model was a deviation from Catholic values and a holdover from paganism (Belloc explicitly makes this argument in the “Servile State”). The Catholic Social Teaching that developed in the 19th century and was reflected in a lot of 20th century political movements (like Distrubutism, Fr. Caughlin’s “social justice”, the Franco and Salazar regimes, Christian Democracy, etc.) generally supports wide ranging property ownership–as many people as possible are supposed to be either property owning, self-employed “petit bourgeious” or workers with an ownership stake in the business they work for (like the Mondragon Corporation in Spain). In that way its actually closer to the Northern European protestant tradition you describe.

    • And yet hardcore pagans like the Saxons were convinced they should abandon their gods and follow the One God. Earlier, Julian the Apostate tried to bring the old gods back, but it didn’t stick.

  20. A New Tomorrow (cont)
    The bolt from the blue.

    Elite Inc. is playing for keeps, so you must fight fire with fire. The storm clouds have moved in and we sit at that eerily calm stage before the arrival of the thunderous & cleansing rains. And the Elitests are perched on their high thrones peering down on the Untermenschen with a combination of pity & disdain. The surrounding walls are high and the mercenaries are well-armed & standing guard. What could possibly go wrong? Good question.

  21. Great podcast Z, however I will take (though as Christian) the counter-argument.
    1. The majority of Christians are non-White, thus all Christian leaders will take their side.
    2. Christianity pretty much requires White people to die on the cross so to speak for non-Whites.
    3. Christianity in its leadership and most of its members are so cucked that it offers nothing for White men and is in fact repulsive.
    4. Christianity is a slave religion per Nietsche and is surrender not fighting in the struggle ahead.
    5. White men are bashed continually if they cuck or not, so might as well be offensive to keep up “Fighting Spirit”

    While I do not believe the boxcars are starting up for White people or even just White men tomorrow, or the next day, they will come. The casual vituperation and hate of White men in particular is astonishing and constant. We don’t have a man of enormous will to create utopia by killing millions at the helm now. No Mustache man, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Not even an Abimael Guzman or Jim Jones. But eventually one will come. And Christianity being innately pacifist and inclined to surrender is not compatible with fighting for survival. Bob Marley’s “Buffalo Soldiers” is more likely to applicable to Whites in the near term.

    I think there will be a religion, arising organically among White men, one based on ancestor hero-worship, one designed to be as offensive as possible in all senses of the world, and one designed to keep up fighting spirits of warriors beset by enemies on all sides. Certainly the images of Christian White men kneeling and washing the feet of non-Whites has nothing to offer the young(ish) White man of today. White men today have nothing on offer from anyone, not the Woke, not Christianity, to create meaning and pride in their lives. I don’t think that vacuum will last long.

    • Your observations are entertaining.

      Don’t know what will happen in the future. But in the past Christianity has shown itself to be adaptable to circumstances. Adaptability allowed for some based decision making that, while questionable from a modern Christian perspective, didn’t run afoul of doctrine.

      See for example, pre-emptive massacre of Aztecs nobles by Pedro de Alvarado in Tenochtitlan. Or Richard the Lionheart’s massacre of Muslim prisoners following siege of Acre. There is nothing inherent to Christianity that prevents actions (even extreme actions) when it comes to matters of defending believers of the faith.

      • That was called the Church Militant, once upon a time.
        We need more steel in our spines and less syrup. Let me add a tome to those 5 primers Z suggested, to wit Henry Adams’ Mont Ste Michel and Chartres

        • Yeah where in the heck did the knight templars go? The warrior monks? Personally I’m hoping for a more muscular Christianity to emerge.

          • Layabout’s E-Z history. Why is Friday the 13th considered bad luck? Because that’s the day the Church chose to exterminate an upstart competitor, the Templars. Most of them were, indeed, killed. One theory, at least the kind that makes it into History Channel “documentaries” 🙂 is that survivors fled to what became Switzerland. Swtizerland was (and still is) a very unique country: virtually no resources, yet has always had traditions of banking, commerce (the Tempars were literally a business), wealth, civilization, education, etc.

            “The Third Man” Harry Lime’s famous quip notwithstanding.

    • No one ever asks, “is Christianity, ie Catholicism, true?” They say its not good, or is good. But if its true, then it doesn’t matter

    • Vignette from Cinema. This is my description of a scene from the movie “The Thirteenth Warrior ” (Do a review Z!) and, I presume, the Michael Crichton book like title. Of course, I can’t give the whole plot, but I’ll try and keep it relevant.

      Viking warriors need a foreign soldier (13th, lucky in this case) to help battle a great evil. They travel to the Near East and recruit a Muslim. He gradually learns their language, etc. One night the Vikings are doing the drunken fest thing. The imported warrior is offered some mead*.
      “I am forbidden to drink the fermentation of fruit or grain,” he demurs.
      “it’s made from honey!” Says his host.
      The next scene shows him joined in the debauchery 😀

      *During my home brewing period (early 30s) I made one batch. Brew with champagne yeast ( = very high alcohol content before they die.) Man, that stuff will put you on your ass. 🙂

      • Crichton wrote his book to make the point that the Beowulf story is still just as good as ever. His idea that you find Christian themes in Beowulf because it was a Muslim writer, recruited from a border trading post on the Black Sea, was sort of clever.

    • BS. Christians stopped the Muslims for a millennia. It was only when the intellectual and merchant classes in the 18th and 19th centuries proceed to reduce God to a nullity that things started going South . Until that time it produced our greatest works of art, architecture and warriors. Something you cannot say about the secularists who can only point to Piss Christ and Annie Sprinkle as forms of art. Or the soul sucking Brutalist architecture that even offend homeless people.

      As for Nietsche, he was a hot house kraut flower who lacked the balls to be man. No sane man would take advice from a wimp who had penis envy for tough guys.

      That said, Christianity has been under constant attack from the Left, homosexuals, feminists, Jews and Secular whites since the end of WWII. The Christianity was excised from the public by the courts and then infiltrated by homos, women and Marxists who slowly destroyed organized Christianity in the West.

      What is left is often a shadow of it once was. We see that in the roll over and die idiocy of Torba on Gab or those pagans who follow the prosperity gospel. Yes they are pagans.

      • I offer my unreserved admiration and gratitude to the manly, deadly Christian warriors of the past. No one was more bad ass. No one!

        Damn, I miss those guys.

      • Liberals are claiming christians colonized the world and were all white supremacists. Right wing atheists are saying christianity is weak and submissive. Which is it?

    • “2. Christianity pretty much requires White people to die on the cross so to speak for non-Whites.”

      Reynald de Châtillon was not available for comment.

  22. For the other Christians here, Happy Easter! And, anticipating tomorrow, He Is Risen!

    • And to you as well, Sister.

      To Zman, I’ve awaited your dive into this subject. Contrary to your disclaimer of handling this clumsily… I found your approach quite deft and compassionate. Dissidence vs. Christianity is a tough nut for some and I think you did well for your first foray.

      For me it is simple. God made the tribes. We have our individual places under the sun. Christians from the other tribes may require assistance in their lands, and the Lord demands I help them. Again, in THEIR LANDS. They are spiritual brothers.

      European descendants are my actual Brothers and Sisters. They are my tribe. Whether Christian, pagans or agnostics, my lot lies with them, so long as they don’t betray Our People.

      Perhaps too simplistic, but this is the framework that buoys me up personally.

      • Well said. I never understood why we MUST HAVE evolution, the dumbest theory ever to come out of the dining halls of the academy.

        Catholic tradition even explains the races. Whites are Noe’s favorite son, blacks are the curse son who either raped Noe or his wife, and Yellows, the middle child no one cares about.

        But Z is an apostate. lLove the guy, but he is deranged. No one, without the Catholic Faith, can think clearly.

        • We must have evolution because humans bred different breeds of dogs. It’s true, it’s real. Why is this so difficult?

          In the same way that dogs were bred by humans, different human groups were bred by their environments. How can this be controversial?

          If you ask me to choose between the reality of dog breeding and some ancient texts, I’ll go with reality.

  23. I was raised in a fundamentalist church. My grandad and uncles were openly hostile to Methodists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, Mormons… everyone… and especially Catholics. They were the kinds of guys who would invite Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses who knocked on the door into the house and then they would proceed to do a 5 hour Bible study with them to tell them exactly why they were going to burn in hell for all eternity. I respected that as a kid. No playing around with being inclusive or nice about Christianity at all. You are doomed and it is only by the grace of god that you will be saved. The end.

    But now that I am older, I don’t believe a word of it. It ended up seeming to me like we were all being manipulated by Pro-Israeli propaganda aimed at getting us to support wars in the Middle East as if we had some real stake in the matter. And as I have gotten older I haven’t seen even one issue important to the Christian “Right” that has been decided in their favor: gay marriage, prayer in school, Christmas. Nothing. Whoever the leaders of the Christian world are, they are doing an awful job of advocating for their followers. Aside from just being guilt-tripped and asked for money, you get absolutely nothing for being a Christian here that you can’t get from making friends and being nice anyway. Plus, there is a ton of negative baggage around being a Christian. People find it repulsive really. No I do not believe in eternal life or heaven and I do not believe that Jesus really rose from the dead as an actual physical fact. I feel sorry for people who are big into going to church. Seems like they always have some weird quirk to them. My most religious uncle is also a gun nut and rants about the Trilateral commission and the gold standard and race literally non-stop. Sort of undermines his preachy-ness about the Bible but he can’t see that.

    I enjoyed the show this week though. Kinda old-timey.

    • I see your point about people with quirks going to church. But you realize that being on the dissident right is kind of a major “quirk”?

      Yes sometimes strange people go go church, some are more normal people. Regardless, it’s not church people driving the suicide / opioid epidemic and deaths of despair. It’s not church people putting their boys on drugs and anti depressants. It’s not church people demanding a tyrannical lockdown. In fact they’re resisting. It’s not church people who are the strewn out junkies and hobos destroying San Francisco. (White) church people aren’t burning down Minneapolis, destroying statues, or trying to destroy the USA

      I personally see many benefits to the secular world. But now I see the consequences of it. And the more ‘”boring”‘ life of the church is far far better than what the modern secular life is offering especially as it becomes more degenerate and anti white. I elaborate on more benefits below, as well

      • I am dissident right adjacent/sympathetic more than anything. It’s not like there is a club you can join where you are “in” the dissident right. Just blog posts and a few videos here and there. I have never met anyone in real life who knows what this blog is or who has watched any of the videos I have watched about race realism. I guess I see the race realism stuff as being mostly true and I like reading articles on unz and here but I can’t say there is any reality to the dissident right as actual people doing anything. So, yeah… it’s a quirk for me I guess. I could just stop reading this stuff and nothing else about my life would change since I live in one of the most diversely enriched places on earth and that’s never going to change. Maybe I could just go full “wigger” and move on and stop being so quirky. LOL.

        If I told the people I worked with that I voted for Trump they would lose their minds. I would probably get fired on the spot. I have never met another person in real life who admits to having voted for Trump even. It’s all just online for me.

        • American Citizen 2.0, if we ever meet, I’ll entertain you with stories of dates of mine that ended when I said, “I voted for Trump. Reluctantly the second time, but I did.”

      • “Sometimes strange people go go church”

        Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Matthew 9:12

    • The wonky gun nut uncle might be crazy, might be a racist. But he’s not suicidal, he’s not broke, he’s not a heroin junkie. He doesn’t hate his race or spit on his ancestors or founding fathers.

      We have almost come full circle where the “crazies” are more “normal” than the normies. People say I’m crazy. And yet, the same “energy” that makes me “crazy” also gives me the will to live through insanity, diversity, and stay off drugs which ravage every white community in the west.

      • And I admit he is probably right about a lot of things. Our civilization just kicked guys like him in the cajones big time.

    • “No I do not believe in eternal life or heaven and I do not believe that Jesus really rose from the dead as an actual physical fact.”

      Afterlife is a given, if life came from nothing then life will emerge from nothing once more if that is what happens when we die. It’s pure logic.

      If you mean to say you will lose your sense of self when you die and never get it back then sure, that’s possible, but seeing how most “men” nowadays pander to a system which treats them worse than dogs i’d say that’s a good thing.

      Imagine being a whore all your life who has to be reminded for all eternity of all the disgusting men who had their way with you. Good riddance is what I’d say!

    • Whiskey, yeah, your upbringing sounds a lot like mine, wouldn’t be surprised if we grew up in the same kinda church.

    • Fortunately I didn’t grow up in such a family, but I’ve had enough contacts with people you describe to partially explain why my rear bumper bears the sticker: “God protect me from your followers.”

      Your comments about many Christians being in the thrall of Israel is spot-on. Guys, if you’re donating to your “church” above the local parish level, you might as well cut out the middlemen and send a check straight to the ADL or the charity of their choice 😀

    • Christian Zionism has brought Christians the same thing Conservitive Inc has brought conservatives.
      Empty promises.
      Christianity can still be useful
      So can Conservatism
      When not manipulated and controlled by that hostile tribe

      • The point is that deification of Man rather than atheism, is the problem. Now having said that, it is necessarily atheists who tend to deify Man.

        • Au contraire my theist friend. Just precisely, pray tell, do you call the Christian religion making a man (Jesus) its centerpiece? (No need to lecture me; I was raised in a faith, even if I didn’t keep it. Yes, I know: he is God’s son, God’s equal.) Without Jesus the man, you don’t have Christianity. To an outsider, it looks pretty much like turning a man into a god. Just sayin’.

          Athiests deify man? Sure, sometimes. But not me. Here’s my argument: If I assert no God exists, how could I possibly claim to be one? No, what we are is a tribe of very clever apes, at times playing at gods.

        • I think a lot of the anti-abortion outrage is fake. Notice how no one ever places the blame on the sole perpetrator of it-the mother.

          If you really wanted to stop something, why would you ignore cause of it?

  24. I call myself a Christian – and that was a spectacular show, Z. The wife and I discussed it at length sfterward. A couple points of order, if I may:

    The bible does not tell people not to judge. I have to wonder if the people that say that have even read the bible. The bible specifically tells us to USE JUDGEMENT.

    The bible doesn’t tell people to accept everyone as equals. It specifically named groups and individuals that were to be excluded and shunned. They will pollute your beliefs and values and cause nothing but problems for you if you invite them in. This is why the left is at odds with us and with God.

    The purpose of the bible is not to explain the origins and intent of platypuses, wiener dogs or libertarians. And, point of order – the bible has not been selectively edited with meanings and passages lost over the span of time. We know this from the discovery of The Dead Sea Scrolls.

    The Bible is about being a better person. This is something we should all strive for, because that is what gives you purpose and meaning. Doing so leads to God himself if it’s done right.

    Finally: I notice your comments on how liberalism has poisoned those around you. It might be an interesting exercise for you to think: how has the pozz affected you? I ask this because for me, I don’t talk to my Maker. I cannot speak for Him, I cannot divine His intentions… but I can feel his presence and sometimes even see it. Why did it take so long for me to see? And why does it elude you? Could it be you have been conditioned not to see?

    What was your journey to this side of The Great Divide, Z?

    God bless you and the other Dissidents, and have a great weekend.

    • Corporate America has done it’s best over 70 years to make us worshipers of consumerism. To do that, they had to get rid of religion to a large extent.

      Our side always asks why is there no resistance to TPTB and the corporatocracy? Because they turned men into selfish pigs who have social sanction to indulge in every vice there is. Circe has nothing on Madison Avenue and Burston Marstellar.

      Writer Lewis Mumford wrote to the effect that the modern economy turned the Seven Deadly sins into the Seven Virtues. And worse cuts him from a sense of community.

      The historian Carroll Quigley back in the 70’s could see the atomization of Western man in full bloom and the host of pathologies in induced in them.

      The church in it’s traditional form, besides being a place of worship, serves as a community of like minded people as well. It gave people a sense they were not alone. And it worked well. The Lodge system worked as community gathering points as well.

      Humans need this aspect if we want to remain psychologically and spiritually healthy.

  25. As an early randian I was once a fierce critic of christianity. Not so much now partly because I see christians as allies. These days I’m into zen which I see as totally compatible with race realism. I accept everyone for who they are.

    • I’m pretty much with you on that. I think the Eastern Philosophies are far more compatible with our worldview.

  26. Fantastic podcast today Z. Will save this one for future reference.

    Think racially, act locally. Exactly. Last few minutes were a very good plan.

  27. One thing to note is that for we Christians on the Dissident Right, we look on the Dissident Secularists with suspicion because in an earlier era these secularists allied themselves with the Left to make war on Christians. I am talking about the rise of new Atheism and the purported Four Horseman of that movement. For nigh on a decade we had to endure the biting scorn of smart set who couldn’t understand why people followed a “sky daddy” with a “zombie son”, and who were really just knuckle-dragging peasants who couldn’t get with the modern times. Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, were not just wrong, these beliefs were evil, and the cause of holding humanity back from the glorious scientific future.

    As with all things, when the New Atheists served their purpose to the left, they were kicked out of and barred from society like we Christians they scorned not long ago. We Christians remember what the have not done, and have not forgiven them. Hence our suspicion at having to work with so loathsome an enemy simply because they were kicked out of modern society like us. Many of these New Atheists would then move on to other subjects such as race realism and White Nationalism, yet keep to the same loathsome personalities they had when they were scorning Us so.

    So, forgive us if we are not exactly welcoming our new outcasts with open arms.

    • The “Brights” were certainly a nasty lot. Peter Hitchens some years back finally saw through their facade and noticed they really hated Christianity in particular.

      Should the DR trust them? Not really,. after they sided with the Left to attack Christianity. It’s been my experience that groups who side with the Left to attack Christianity have a ulterior motive. Especially considering that conservative Christianity has been losing the culture influence war for the last 40 years,

    • I totally get where you’re coming from, and you’re definitely not wrong, but the wackos online make the disagreements seem worse than they really are. I’ve found the Christian dissidents online to be very coarse, vulgar and arrogant, but I don’t think those are particularly Christian traits, it’s just people ion line who are drunks and probably don’t even go to church, it’s just their gripe and persona. Same thing with the atheist crowd, they grew up in wacky religious atmospheres and they need to find a better way for themselves to look at the world and there is a lot of lashing out that goes a long with that.
      It isn’t everyone’s experience of course, but remember that most kids in evangelical type house holds are being exposed to some horrible stuff and the adults around them are of no help. There are good Christians, but a whole lot of them are waaaay more f-ed up than the general population, and that’s all some people have ever known.

      • Dave;
        If this is not anti-Christian rhetoric based on anecdote, I don’t know what is. If we need an alliance, and I think we do, be a better ally yourself.

      • There are a number of libertarian atheists online who pretend to believe so they can give Christians advice on how to practice our religion. One of them even confessed after berating us on how to be more tolerant to immigrants. Someone asked: are you even a believer. Uhm no but I used to believe.

    • Another perfect example of Christian hostility and the subsequent projecting there-of..

  28. Speaking of “mainstream churches finking on white people”, the United Methodist Church has begun to include anti-white racism in its evangelism. Methodists hate whites.

    Quakers and Unitarians hate whites. (And by the way, Unitarians believe in at most one God. That’s my Unitarian joke.)

    Anglicans hate everybody including themselves.

    I have links for all these assertions, but your auto-moderation interpreted them as spam.

    For what it’s worth, I’m a religious dissident. America will not survive without a religious revival. My expectation is that we won’t have one (or it won’t be big enough to save the country).

    • The US is in desperate need of a counter-reformation against Wokism/Covidism/Floydism, and SWPL values in general.

      • I think we will see that. It will be, pace Z-Man, offensive by organic design, oriented towards keeping up pride, spirits, and fighting spirits of White men who have nothing now. It will likely include worship in one form or another of various White men who fought non-Whites, and be specifically “rebel” and “dangerous” (which is catnip for young women). It won’t be Christian, that ship sailed with those pics of Christian men getting yoked by blacks or kneeling.
        The biggest mistake our enemies made was not creating space and pride for young White men. What young White man wants to say “let me kneel before black Zod and hand over all the hot women of my race to him”. Indeed kneel before Zod is very instructive in many ways. Funny how that movie made years ago with a throwaway line resonates.

        • Young white men just act like wiggers these days. Rap music obsession, Ebonics, ugly clothes. That’s their “outlet”. I find it disgusting. And I conduct myself as “white” as possible to try and be an example for lost young white men.

          Ironically the ones having the financial and romantic success are the few who are not wiggers .

          • Some of that stems from your vantage point of living in a massive, white-minority city. The wigger phenomenon isn’t as pervasive in small town North America.

    • The Methodists are a particularly interesting case. The traditionalists, who are not anti-White, also refused to accept homosexual marriage and prevailed.

      The Left being the Left has demanded a schism and to retain the name “United Methodist Church ”

      Is there any doubt that even without the brand the traditionalists will survive and the others die off? This is a great example of how the Left seeks to destroy what it cannot control.

      • Just so.

        And as a general rule, Leftists are not true Christians at all. Rather, they hijack Christianity and use it as a vehicle for their noisome ideology. In doing so, they have demolished most mainstream denominations.

    • Steve in Greensboro – religious dissident and/or religious refugee? I miss the days when every Sunday meant church and an often uplifting sermon that made me think. But our church gradually went off the rails (stayed biblical on the pederast issue, but started heavily pushing racial egalitarianism because the Africans don’t officially endorse pederasty) and when it decided women ‘priestesses’ were okay we said farewell. We tried a number of other churches but just didn’t find one that was doctrinally, politically, and socially comfortable.

      While personal faith has not faltered, I do miss corporate worship. And now that most churches are woke or Judeo-Christian pozzed, we simply abstain. So we are religious refugees.

      • 3g;
        One positive result of Covidistan is that committed Christian churches have had to up their online game to accommodate the vulnerable and now do pretty well at it for the benefit of all.

        I can almost guarantee that services on the CDT 0930 livestream there on Easter Sunday will be *glorious* (faith, truth and beauty – and The Music too):

        And this is far from the only similar resource just now available.

  29. Threat Signal. The Killing Tree. Cruel Hand. Dimension Zero. Chokehold. Mortician. Katatonia. Morbid Angel. And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead.

  30. Zman, I found your emphasis on Christianity and the orderly world very striking (and very well supported by my go-to book regarding religious and philosophical history, “The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization” by Arthur Herman). As a Christian who believes in both natural order and free will, I agree that the latter makes no sense in a world of chaos. From what I’ve read (and I am no expert and willing to be corrected if need be by those better informed) that sense of inevitability is not merely not Christian, but is rather an integral part of Islam. The idea that whatever happens was preordained, and thus human effort to shape human events are both futile and presumptuous. Of course, it is easy to find hypocritical examples of adherents of Islam (and Christians who believe in predestination) taking great earthly pains to shape human events, but it seems in their host societies and everyday life, everything is dismissed as “Inshallah” – i.e. it will happen, or not, as God will it. The train will come on time or not, you will have your meeting or not, you will live or die because God directs the minutiae of life.

    Prior to becoming a Christian that sense of heavenly inevitability was what I found the most offputting by evangelical Christians I knew. Many good and pious people, but the constant emphasis on praying for heavenly guidance on even the most mundane of decisions seemed (and still seems) to me an abjuration of personal responsibility. And, again, that can be extrapolated to the larger world. God created life and the process of procreation, but He does not (note I did not say He is unable) appear to personally intervene in every instance of genetic reproduction. Errors in the process occur, genetic mutations happen over time, and handicapped children are not generally God’s will or ‘blessing.’ The Bible primarily documents Christ blessing people and healing them, not afflicting them.

    Either way, I wholly support the belief that Western Civilization is inextricably intertwined with Christianity, and I believe thoughtful people of faith or those questioning faith or those looking for some other explanation to this earthly condition can discuss their differences within the context of White nationalism. I may not be a follower of Asatru, but those who are are not my enemy if they share my values and hopes for the future of the White race. Aggressive atheists tend to be less respectful of either. If I could be redeemed by God’s grace, however, anyone can, and thus hope springs eternal.

  31. “It seems like there is an opportunity for the two main wings of the dissident right to find common cause again.”

    Common cause, yes, but no lasting alliance is possible. Either there is a God or there isn’t, and the implications are severe.

    Furthermore, most of the atheist hostility towards Christianity is a personal hostility not a reasoned one. I daresay that more atheists have been made by priests raping children than by debating the merits of creation versus evolution.

    • Gunner,

      Priest pedophilia is on par with the other religious sects and statistically below the levels among public school teachers. Consider that for a moment. Not to say it shouldn’t be stamped out root and branch.

      As to atheists, I must say I find them repellent. I usually find, upon investigating, that the person is more aptly an agnostic than a true atheist. Agnosticism (or “the lost” as i think of them) or pagans to me are no less allies than white identitarian Christians. Sometimes more so depending on the church.

      Despite Stephan Molyneux’s tortured discourses on the moral compasses of atheists… I simply cannot shrug off the firm belief that their nihilism leaves them open to dispair and failure when faced with what seems to he insurmountable opposition. I simply cannot trust them.

      And personally, I find some of their more vehement missionaries as annoying as the worst Bible-beater.

    • I respectfully agree, but from the other side. I hope that after we secure our white homelands, then Christians can have their own states to rule as they please.

      As long you guys resist the impulse to import the non-whites whom you deem devout, we’ll be fine.

      I agree that aggressive atheists are intolerable.

        • I love you guys. Look, the world is complex. Maybe you’re right, maybe I’m right. Honest men of good faith may not agree on some fundamentals. I still love you guys. Let’s make it work.

          You be you, baby. I’m privileged to observe your effort. Maybe you’ll persuade me. Maybe not.

  32. The acronym GNON was invented as a bridge believers and non-believers. GNON is “the God of Nature Or Nature.”

    I forgot who exactly came up with it. If anybody remembers, please say it.

  33. White I disagree with him on several things, notably the possibility of political ethnostates in the current era (which, admittedly, could change due to events), but Greg Johnson has made the best argument yet in this area. The case for White nationalism/identity is a MORAL one. This is how to bridge the gap between Christians and secularists, I think, and is happening to some degree.

    White people are actively hated now. This runs counter to how both race realists and/or Christians believe and think. The moral case against this hatred is the obvious bridge between the groups. As you once wrote, Z, most of us do not hate anyone solely due to their race. The collective actions of certain groups, primarily blacks and their Jewish manipulators, engender much justified hatred but this is not directed at the individual by default. Granted, it is in some cases, particularly when a White has been a victim of black crime, Jewish oppression, and so forth, and that is understandable. But for the most part hatred of individuals does not animate race realists.

    Whites are hated now as both individuals and as groups. The universalism of Catholicism and most Protestant sects sometimes veers into a mentality that leads to hatred of Whites. Congregants may not voice their unease but it is there.

    We should also extend olive branches toward conservative Republicans and even White Democrats who do not hate their race. These people along with Christians are reachable, and this is where the tide will be turned. As you wrote, nothing is inevitable but this seems quite probable.

    • “While I disagree with him on several things, notably the possibility of political ethnostates in the current era (which, admittedly, could change due to events), but Greg Johnson has made the best argument yet in this area. The case for White nationalism/identity is a MORAL one. This is how to bridge the gap between Christians and secularists, I think, and is happening to some degree.“

      Greg the Sodomite makes the case for morality – great, just great. Surely there must be non-degenerate writers and intellectuals making the moral case for Whites, if in fact we need a moral case to exist and have preferences. If it’s difficult enough to form an alliance with race-conscious Christians as it is, how much harder will it be when we’re offering a buggerer as our moral guide.

      • I do not have a clue as to whether Johnson is homosexual or not. Regardless, the morality of White identity/nationalism is an excellent and persuasive argument to reach people. No, we do not need a moral argument to exist but it is certainly there and a way to span the gap.

        • These clowns will never get past their pure hatred and bigotry for gays. And that is exactly what it is but they are too cowardly to admit it.

          No I don’t care about that personally-ler them hate I don’t care. But as a matter of strategy, it’s is totally stupid and counter-productive.

          They are so obssed with it though that they will watch their and their childrens whole civilization go down the toilet rather than just STFU about-at least temporarily..

    • Impossible to live a moral life and meanwhile let all the ghetto violence and murder and mayhem go unchecked and without condemnation.

      Either that stuff is immoral, if not evil, or it isn’t. But if you think it is and want to lead a good and moral life, there is no choice but separation.

      On the flip side, as long as we are forced to live among blacks and forced to tolerate if not tacitly condone that stuff then the moral life is impossible. They make it so. They preclude us from being our best. In turn, they force us to live a life we deep down feel is wrong if not evil, and that eats away at one’s soul. No way it couldn’t. Are blacks worth it?

    • Isn’t it interesting that anti-anti-white racism is considered racism? In theory, we are not even allowed to defend ourselves on moral or intellectual grounds.

      • No, racism is racism. The concept that there is no possible anti-white racism because “power” is just mental gymnastics created by the minorities to sooth guilt (if any) and justify their actions taken against Whites. And I’m sure there are no shortage of brain-dead Whites who believe this crap also.

      • Not just in theory but in practice. These people hate us and want us destroyed-and they are not joking..

    • The problem with Johnson’s white nationalism is that “Whites” do not exist as a meaningful category in American society. The dynamic of “Whites” who are “privileged” surrounded by various “non-Whites” who are “protected classes” exists in civil rights legislation and the cultural norms that arise from civil rights legislation, but it is not a social reality. Johnson buys into this false conceit.

      There are very high rates of intermarriage between European-Americans (i.e. founding stock Americans and Ellis Islander “white ethnics”) and many “non-white” post-1965 immigrant groups (East Asians and mestizos, mainly). The exceptions to this mixing are the Blacks and certain recent immigrant groups that are seen are more foreign or underclass (i.e. 4 foot 5 inch tall Indios and religious Muslims). There are very low rates of intermarriage and de facto segregation between Blacks and other groups, but the groups that avoid Blacks tend to merge over time. By the third generation, mestizos, East Asians, South Asians, and non-religious Jews marry into White Protestant/Catholic families and become “White Plus”. White Protestants and Catholics who do not literally breed with these groups will nevertheless associate socially with them as the old cultural barriers break down (just as a German-Italian Catholic won’t see a Polish-Irish Catholic in his KoC chapter as a member of a different ethno-religious group).

      So there really is (1) a “White Plus” category, (2) a Black category, (3) a recent-immigrants-that-won’t merge-into-White-Plus category, and (4) a recent immigrants that will become White Plus by the third generation category. Not only does Johnson deny the “White Plus” dynamic, he claims that Jews are “non-White,” which is ridiculous in light of the extremely high intermarriage rates of secular and reform Jews (though perhaps justified regarding Orthodox Jews, who have a very distinct identity and won’t marry outside the group, and Israelis, who live in a Jewish ethno-state and speak Hebrew). If light-skinned Europeans/Meds who marry other whites at a rate of 70% are not “white”, then I wonder what Johnson would make of Greeks, Lebanese, Mexicans who marry Texan anglos, the hapas and their Asian mothers, the 56% white mestizo natsocs, etc.

      “White Plus” is of course not much of a positive identity, which is why I think those in that category will either remain very individualistic in their thinking or subdivide into religious subcultures, with the religion providing the glue to tie the group together. “White Plus Catholics” (or Mormons or Evangelicals or Orthodox Christians or Orthodox Jews or Blacks) who dissuade their kids from marrying non-Catholics and politically organize to advance the tribal interests of Catholics could be a reality in America in a way that Johnson style white nationalism cannot.

  34. “Inshallah” is the Arabic word you were looking for. It means “if God wills it”. Some Muslims (and Christians) use it as a prayer then get to work. Many use it as an excuse not to work, change the oil in the truck, or aim a rifle. If God wills it, the truck will run and the bullet will go where it is supposed to, so why bother?

  35. “Secularism” is absolute cancer. Secular is just another way of saying atheist which is just another way of saying anti-Christian (in the Western context) and pro certain forms of Satanism. I say this as someone who is more on the not-religious side. I suspect this is why the “secular right” website collapsed. Anything with secular in the title is signalling a hostility to “religion” and by religion, I mean Christianity within the Western context.

    • Ah yes, the old “Whoever isn’t with us is against us” point of view. In other words, our viewpoint is true, and all else is false. This is the mark of dogmatism pure and simple, upon which religion and other msyticism has near-total claim. Every Idealist who ever lived hates Science, because it demands you prove your assertions or equivalently, it can and often does disprove yours. As such, it is poisionous to dogma and must be suppressed.

      • No. Just if you take the identity of “atheist”
        People who say atheism is non-belief are every bit as dishonest as those feminists who say feminism is merely equality or the belief that “women are human beings”

        ” This is the mark of dogmatism pure and simple, upon which religion and other msyticism has near-total claim. Every Idealist who ever lived hates Science, because it demands you prove your assertions or equivalently, it can and often does disprove yours. As such, it is poisionous to dogma and must be suppressed.”

        You appear to be doing that here. You have slipped from non-belief into anti-christianism, because “SCIENCE!”

        • The proper term for an atheist who is not certain wrt to “God” is agnostic. An atheist denies God and demands proof of such a being. Many well known “scientists” have no problem with the concept of God and fall under the heading of agnostic.

          And then of course, there are (as I put it) the “anti-theists”. Violent atheists who never miss a chance to rail against believers. They are easy to spot, because they never let mention of a Devine Being pass without an argument against such—usually ad hominem.

          We have a couple of such who post in this group.

    • “.Secular is just another way of saying atheist which is just another way of saying anti-Christian (in the Western context) and pro certain forms of Satanism.”

      Disagree. While there are many atheists who fit this description, those of us from the secular, race realist Right consider White Christians our brothers and sisters. This is not an either/or proposition at all, and bridging that gap via the anti-White hatred should be a goal.

      • I make a distinction between the “non-believer” and the atheist. While admittedly, this may appear to be a trick of rhetoric, I think it is valid.
        People who salt their language with “secular” and atheist are mostly not just non-believers. They are anti-Christian. Everything they do is specifically anti-Christian.
        I myself come out of the non-believer ranks. However, I have no desire to cleanse the public square of the tradition and culture of my people. I most certainly do not degrade them, call them stupid, make them the butt of jokes, etc. Atheists do this. So many atheists do it, that you have to let go of the term. That I know of, there is not a single atheist organization that is not virulently anti-Christian and anti-white. In fact, to be anti-Christian in the Western context is to be anti-white.

        When you say “many atheists,” what it really means is virtually all. By atheist, I do not mean the very slippery concept that anyone who does not believe is an atheist. I am talking about people who positively self identify as an atheist. The people who do this deliberately conflate these things to make their ranks seem bigger than they are or when they are trying to make themselves into a victim of Christian “bigotry”

        • I largely agree with this as fleshed out. Yes, there is a great deal of overlap among those who claim to be atheist and the anti-Christian, anti-White impulse.

          I think of “secular” and “non-believer interchangeable but you make a good case this is more than a semantic distinction. Thanks for expanding your thoughts.

    • This is exactly why the great men who founded the former American nation wrote the 1st Amendment.

      They last thing they wanted was religious fanatics using the state to projectile vomit their gibberish on everyone-else..

  36. Good podcast
    I believe that Christians can make peace with the evolution issue. I have, biological evolution just made sense to me more and more as I observed the world and it no longer bothers me to fit it into my faith.
    Secondly, the progressive infiltration of Christianity is a weakness of Christianity, the idea of universalism within Christianity that destroys any heirarchy.
    But it does not have to be this way.
    We can have Christianity without rainbow flags and open borders and men in sundresses.
    Finally, The idea of Inevitability that we throw around both inside Christianity and inside secular progressivism may have its roots in Calvinism.
    Puritanism was rife with Calvinism.
    The idea of predestination is deeply rooted in our religious history in the west which perhaps expresses itself as talking about God and his inevitable will for us.
    Free will for man I think moves the needle over to a more correct view fir both Christianity and our world at large.
    Man must choose to build something both within himself and outside himself. And none of that process is inevitable including our inner will.
    I think of G Gordon Liddy.
    Whether Liddy was a Christian or not does not matter
    Liddy chose and determined to have peace within himself about himself and to live a worthy life no matter what was done to him.
    However it was not inevitable that he would be paroled by Jimmy Carter nor even live to get out of prison.
    The only thing Liddy could control is his own actions and mind.
    The inner part of man can be controlled by the man himself
    The outer part of what happens in the world around us cannot.
    That internal and external to ourselves part is not inevitable. We must choose.
    The inner part of ourself is fully controllable by ourselves.
    The outer world around us is not.
    Nothing that happens or will happen in our external world is inevitable on this earth.
    We truly may go on like this in societal deterioration and our nation could get worse and descend into a horrible totalitarian state for centuries.
    But maybe not?
    Christianity can help provide that inner meaning of life for us as individuals.
    But that inner meaning of life can also be provided by our own will and our own self determination.
    That is how I kinda look at it.

    • Mr. Liddy,

      Read Seneca’s “On the Good Life”. If you did not do so intentionally, your post hit most of his main points of Stoicism.

    • So you want me to start out believing the first three chapters of the Bible are bunk in need of some good ol fashioned prog updating, but then fight like a lion resisting religion-updating progressivism elsewhere?

      Once Christians ditch actually believing the Bible, they’re cucked. How many 7 day creationists do you reckon voted for Biden?

  37. One of the hardest things to impress upon people is that we have to actively disassociate from blacks and that such actions are good and just. That to detach ourselves from blacks is being on the side of the angels.

    Rather in today’s world, that is seen as evil or bad. But this is false.

    Flipping that around and discrediting that false belief is pretty much our mission. Not saying it’s going to be easy. But either way, it’s that or we die or wither away. My read of the world today is that we are both a form of degenerative poison to the other, blacks and whites. They cause us to rot as organisms, putting it plainly. I always see blacks as that alkaline crud you see oozing out of old batteries, just eating away at it slowly. If we don’t separate we die, and it’s that simple, assuming enjoyment in life and your vitality and vigor and being at full strength are important to you. I

  38. I separate evolution into two types. Small “e” evolution is a proven fact. Take some domesticated wolves/dogs and breed only the very fastest for many generations and you end up with Greyhounds. They can still breed with other dogs and wolves, but they have unique characteristics. Same thing happened in human history. Z hits on it – we were all built for a specific place.

    Big “E” evolution where the greyhounds eventually become a different species with a different number of chromosomes and can’t breed with dogs – that theory has huge holes in it. It gets taught as fact despite the glaring holes.

    • Drake: Same. As a Christian I accept microevolution and the changes individual species demonstrate over time due to environment and/or breeding. I reject macroevolution or the emergence of the natural order out of nothing because Big Bang or meteor, and the emergence of human higher order thinking and the human soul from the primates.

      The genetic similarity seen in nature is the result of the same building blocks, but used in vastly different numbers and I combinations. I consider those building blocks to be from God, and that is what I interpret as Intelligent Design. Humanity is not an accident, just as racial diversity is not mere evolutionary happenstance. No, God didn’t observe His creation and decide to play around with the biology of the platypus, but He did create all the different forms of life. That connection may be ancient or tenuous, but it exists because God is the root of all things.

  39. Apologies if you mentioned this in the show (haven’t had time to listen yet), but one good way to get the two sides talking would be to point out the immense effort the Left has put into establishing the equation “smart person” = “fucking loves Science” = “atheism.” That whole “Hitler’s Pope” thing, for instance, was largely invented by the KGB (with an assist from the Romanian Securitate, whose CO wrote a book about it). For most of the USSR’s existence, if you scratched a “Liberal” theologian, you’d find a Marxist, often directly on the KGB’s payroll — the World Council of Churches was a KGB front, “Liberation Theology” was cooked up in Moscow, etc.

    The point is, whether or not there actually IS a Magic Sky Fairy, of whatever flavor, and whatever He may or may not command, religion is a pillar of civilization (the Commies did the same thing in Asia — the CCP is as anti-Buddhist as they are anti-Christian, the Naxalites in India are furiously anti-Hindu, etc.). The fact that the Left is against it means that we should be for it, at least in the abstract — sincere belief would be best, but I’d take a church full of hypocrites over an online discussion board full of Leftists any day.

    • Here’s an important point: The real world (the universe, physical world, etc.) operates by its own immutable laws. It doesn’t give a damn what you or anyone thinks or wishes were true. It is totally unimpressed by your most fervent beliefs, prayers or demands. The laws of Nature will not be swayed one iota, it matters not how many virgins are thrown into the volcano, nor how many times the penitent flails himself, nor how much you donated to your church or how many Rosaries you prayed. This is in remarkable contrast with the imaginary world, constrained by few, if any rules, where people are free to make up any kind of silly shit they like, and they all too often do.

      I’m firmly in the secular camp. While the religious often come in for criticism, ridicule or other abuse (and they typically richly deserve it), let me throw the Theist a rare bone: Sometimes the rank athiests are equally guilty. I’m sure many examples can be found, but my “go-to” example is the Soviet Union’s Lysenko case. Here was a supposedly atheist, scientific government, claiming to be the vanguard of creating a new man and a new civilization, but when presented with science that didn’t fit the desired official ideology, they made various “personnel changes.” They set back Soviet genetics by decades. You can find many other examples: denial of race differences, etc. I don’t know who it was who said “The only lesson we learn from history is that we fail to learn from history,” but he was very correct 🙁

      • That’s exactly the attitude I’m trying to argue against, though. Atheists — you know, the smart people — have this caricature of religious believers, that we’re all sitting in a church somewhere, fervently praying that the Sky Fairy repeal the Law of Gravity or something. Which is a) not true, but far more importantly b) a ridiculously counterproductive attitude to hold.

        I’ll try to put this as baldly as I can: It does not matter one whit if the physical claims of any particular religion are true. They could all be false. But religion sanctions the moral order which alone makes civilization possible. (Find a civilization that didn’t rise in tandem with very serious religious belief. Go ahead; I’ll wait). Perhaps God (however defined) is just a projection of our own nature, but that projection IS morality, and public morality IS civilization.

        (All of that stuff isn’t original to me, of course. It’s Feuerbach, who was a major influence on…wait for it… Karl Marx, who wrote a whole series of “Theses on Feuerbach.” Let me quote wiki: “:Marx argued that understanding the origins of religious belief were not enough in moving towards its elimination; instead declaring that it was the underlying social and economic structure which gave rise to religious belief and that it was a transformation of this which was a necessary precondition to the elimination of religion.”)

        • We’re sitting on this tiny rock in the middle of a supposedly infinite universe. And atheists are arrogant enough to think that man made “science” is the be all end all.

          God put us on this strange earth and we do our best to make sense of it, explore it, and quantify it in ways that make sense to our mind. Science is a tool (and an important one) but not a chance humans are even capable of understanding the universe at all. It is limited to the constraints of the human mind, since it is, after all, a human creation.

          • I don’t really care what atheists believe or don’t. The social utility of religion is so obvious it shouldn’t require arguments, but I don’t care about private belief (or unbelief). That said, the general lack of historical knowledge among atheists (and this is NOT an attack on Ben; I don’t know what he knows or doesn’t) gets tiresome. Look, gang, Julian the Apostate knocked out most of those “haha, Christianity is self contradictory nonsense” arguments 1700 years ago. David Strauss handled the “Jesus is just a fictional character” stuff 200 years ago. There’s nothing new under the sun, as some atheist no doubt said.

          • You are arrogant enough to believe your fairy-tales can explain everything.

            No one can-including the invisible man.

        • Concede the point. I tend to overemphasize religion’s failings re claims in the material world, and they are legion. I’m among the first to agree that morals should be part of the church. Not because they were supernaturally ordained, although that is always part of the narrative and the faithful will so ascribe their origin.

          Stripped of the miracles, many, perhaps most religions are simply a a set of rules for living, a morality in other words. There is a pragmantic value: Both Christianity and Buddhism, for example, exhort believers to not steal, to not murder, to avoid sexual immorality, and so on.

          In Christianity case, the deterrent is eternity in the hot place. In Buddhism you collect negative Karma which will negatively affect your present or future lives in any of several awful-to-excellent worlds. As a strict secularist, at a minimum I agree that my actions can “ripen and bear fruit”, results seen or unseen, in this life.

          Even Nietzsche, who is usually picking religion or its close cousin morality, to pieces until only bones remain, which themselves are swallowed by Nihilism 🙂 , occasionally has something positive to say. I can’t find the exact quote (probably in “Dawn of a New Day”) but something to this effect:

          He concedes that that “morality” defines actions that are generally beneficial to oneself and others, while conversely “immorality” denotes actions that are generally harmful to oneself and others. So yea verily, if I have done Herr Fredrich rightly, here’s one of the most anti-religious thinkers at least tacitly agreeing that morality has a place.

          • Morality isn’t just a “set of rules,” though. The “miracles” — the divine sanction behind the rules — are what make morality. Nietzsche was responding to a long intellectual tradition – Feuerbach, David Strauss, and so on, who hashed out the “social value of religion” in detail (“it’s good to have a set of universal rules.”)

            Nietzsche constantly stressed that his was a higher morality, a self generated morality (not “a set of socially useful rules”). There’s a reason he put this stuff in the mouth of ” Zarathustra, ” the founder of an ancient (much older than Christianity) *dualistic* religion.

            Nietzsche is one of those philosophers who can be interpreted in a lot of different ways with equal consistency (which is one hell of a trick). Think about his description of the ubermensch, and see if it applies to Paul… or even Jesus, the historical one that David Strauss described.

            (I dunno, I’m just spitballing, I’m not a philosopher, and I never plowed through all three volumes of “The Life of Jesus” (and haven’t done Nietzsche for quite some time). But there’s a real distinction in Nietzsche — that he just assumes you follow, though his not always clear — between the founder of the creed, the creed itself, and the historical uses to which the creed has been put).

        • There’s a huge difference between atheists and anti-theists.

          Public “atheists” are really anti- theists – openly at war with god a religion. While true “atheists” are just people lacking a personal belief in God who nonetheless may (and often do) see the value of organized religion and even theistic faith itself.

      • “let me throw the Theist a rare bone: Sometimes the rank athiests are equally guilty.”

        Show me an atheist who is not. Atheism (as opposed to non-belief) is a movement and it is specifically an anti-Christian movement and it is a leftist movement. Some of the atheists’ biggest criticism about Christians is their rejection of things like open homosexuality. the sexual revolution and of course, the wamman.

        Atheism is also a really shitty attempt to replace the identity of Christian with some sort secular replacement. Atheism as an identity is about as valid as white supremacy as an identity. Both of these are negative identities.

        What the atheists say they wanted, is not what atheism brought. It did not bring about Lennon’s “Imagine,” it brought about Mao’s cultural revolution, globohomo, Jazz Jennings, abortion on demand, collapsing birth rates, collapsing marriage, androgyny, nihilism, anti-natalism, anti-racism, environmentalism, globalism/anti-nationalism, widespread drug use and hopelessness and many other ills of the modern world.

        To be fair, a lot of these ills have bled into the churches. But I also believe this says more about how atheistic the churches have become and not a criticism of Christianity.

        • You lay a lot of failings at the fault of atheism; unfairly, in my opinion. I’d class all the issues you raises as issues of morality and ethics. These of course can have a basis in a religion. Above I just used a comparison of some of the “Thou shalt nots” comparing Judeo-Christian and Buddhist ethics. You couldn’t ask for two more dissimilar faiths, yet there are remarkable similarities:

          Don’t steal.
          Don’t kill (murder).
          Avoid sexual immorality.
          Don’t lie.
          Support your parents, wife and children.

          Of course there are many differences. My point was, of course, that there are many overlaps in moral values.

          Perhaps the deterioration of values you blame on Atheism is more accurately described as the destruction of any values at all? In Neitzsche’s thought that I’m studying currently: He says in so many words (many, many words!) that when religion breaks down, what remains is the previous religion’s moral system; next, when this breaks down, you get “decadence” and eventually nihilism, the rejection of all values, even the perverted ones, I guess.

          • There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian. It is as sensible as Islamo-Christian or Judeo-Satanism. This is a self-serving attempt of our small hatted friends to write themselves into our history and culture in an attempt to fit in. This concept is largely a mid 20th century invention. While the phrase itself existed before that, it meant a religious Christian who was an ethnic Jew.

            From what I can tell, morality fell as Christianity waned. All of these bad things rose as Christianity fell in the West. Admittedly, it could be that as these things rose, it naturally pushed people away from Christianity and that Christianity therefore is just another victim of the rise of immorality (an effect, not a cause).
            Christianity is WAY more than the 10 Commandments.
            Either way, we see the worst of these things in atheists. There is no denying just how (specifically) anti-Christian organized atheism is. They have done everything in their power to remove Christianity from our institutions and culture.

      • Who has the most hostile comments in threads like this believers or non-believers?

        And it’s not close..

  40. The pompous Harvard ass (but I repeat myself) Stephen Jay Gould used to refer to “non-overlapping magisteria.” Anyway one of the things I always liked about Catholicism was that it was accepting of evolution, having perhaps learned its lesson with Galileo.

    • I was introduced to Gould’s assertion with the caveat: this does not (or should not) excuse religion (or other Idealist) thought or claims from scrutiny or criticism. Yes, some claims (like existence of a Heaven or Hell) are by their nature not amenable to inquiry, because they make no claims about the real world. But plenty of other religious claims, e.g. miracles as Dawkins and others have noted, are at last in principle subject to study, although most of them would seem to require access to a time machine. Lacking that, I hold with Hume’s rule that we accept the most probable explanation, which in the case of miracles, is that the witness was deceived or is deceiving, rather than the existing laws of the Universe were suspended.

      It’s true they don’t overlap in the sense that the Ideal (mental) world has no rules and the Real (physical) world does have laws. However, as I pompously argue elsewhere today 😀 These two do in fact overlap in everyday life. It’s not all or nothing, it is a blend of the two “worlds.” They need not be mutually exclusive.

      As long as we live, we’ll have our interior world (“mental”) and we interact with the outside (“real”) world via our senses. Or to use another example: a person may have sincere fundamental Christian beliefs, yet this would not prohibit him from being (say) a successful businessman, scientist, etc.

    • This is a short read but worth it, IMO. Catholic Position on Evolution:

      Cosmological evolution: Universe was created from nothing.
      Biological evolution: Evolution if it occurs does so with impetus of God.
      Human evolution: Possible that man developed from previous biological forms. Soul, however, is a unique to individual and a creation of God.

    • According to Tom Woods, I guy who I mostly trust and who came out of the paleo movement (who, unfortunately has become a libertarian), the Galileo story is BADLY misrepresented by academics and the culture in general. What they always leave out is Galileo was working on the Pope’s dime and wrote an anti-Catholic screed and made very many personal attacks on the Pope who was paying his bills. From what Woods says, the big sticking point was not the heliocentric model, but the attacks on the Church itself.

      ALWAYS remember when a leftist is telling you a self-serving narrative (dumb Christians stubbornly refusing to believe SCIENCE!), always assume they are lying or at least assume you are getting a slanted telling. Tom might very well be doing the same thing, but if he is, he probably sees it as necessary push-back. This is what happens when everyone is an “advocate,” and everything is seen as an opportunity for propaganda.

    • Technically any Catholic is free to be a Young Earth Creationists or an Earth Creationist if they so choose. There is a Polish Dominican who teaches at a small Catholic college in California who accepts an “Old Earth” but maintains that Darwinism is incompatible with Thomist metaphysics.

      Another group of Dominican Thomists accept evolution.

      Interestingly, the problem with evolution for these Catholics isn’t scripture so much as metaphysics.

  41. For me, the big issue between Christian conservatives (though some Christians on the DR might disagree with them) and the secular DR is the former’s universalism. “We’re all God’s children” doesn’t exactly fit with ethno-nationalism.

    You see it on Gab all the time. But as long as Christianity can be squared with ethno-nationalism, I don’t see why Christian and secular DR couldn’t live together just fine. Both want a respect for tradition, hierarchy, with one side viewing that these grow out of a love for God and the other that they grow out of a love of their people. For the Christians, God created that people so the secularists – whether they know it or not – are still honoring God.

    What’s more, as Lineman has pointed out and I highly suspect that he’s right, the DR needs Christianity to win. We’re facing the equivalent of religious zealots. It’s going to be tough to defeat them without an equal level of commitment and that is hard to muster without religion. People are going to lose jobs, friends, family, maybe even go to jail. Will secular members of the DR be willing to do that? I don’t know.

    • Paul said “we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ,” but that’s the thing — in Christ. He Himself said quite a few things about how hard it was to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; it’s a pretty exclusive club (I myself am amazed I don’t get zapped by lightning every time I set foot in a church… not that I can set foot in a church these days, all my local priests being busy cowering under their desks in fear of the Dread Coof, but that’s a rant for another day). Point is, the 19th century Britons (and Americans) who set off to evangelize the fuzzy wuzzy would’ve laughed themselves into a hernia at the notion that “brothers and sisters in Christ” entails “political citizenship in the Empire.” Indeed, the missionaries were often accused — even by their fellow Englishmen — of being the handmaidens of imperialism (“the Bible and the Flag,” as the saying went).

      • Yes, obviously, Christians in the past were perfectly comfortable with ethno-nationalism, but that’s certainly changed. My concern is that it seems very easy for Christians to slip into universalism, i.e. it’s a constant threat that we’d have to watch out for generation after generation.

        Christian universalism is a bit like Jews. It’s always waiting for a chance to pull us away from our people.

        • “My concern is that it seems very easy for Christians to slip into universalism”

          well said, it ain’t that hard to uncover questionable ideas embedded in the new testament.
          The biblical quote below can be easily used to turn a white christian against his own people for the sake of a religious ideology.

          “25 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.”

    • I am a fairly active evangelical Christian as well as a race realist. I’ll state two things right off the bat: 1) I would be run out of town if I openly stated my views in church 2) there are more guys who are quietly on our side than you would expect – or they’re at least a little woke.

      A big problem is that they do believe that we’re all God’s children. And they love attracting new immigrants to church (the more the merrier). And yet even in diverse churches the rate of race mixing is pretty low. They don’t really hate non whites but, being a more sane people, they don’t rush to race mix either. You see the goodwhite tendency in the church women too. Luckily for now the men are keeping it under control.

      I am of the opinion that until the white population improves it’s values, it cannot be saved. Part of the positive identity. Churches are the only place white people hear messages like “procreation is good”. “Fornication is bad”. “Don’t do drugs”. They are somewhat aware of selected demographic threats (ie. Muslims). Communities are cultivated. If you need a job a brother will hook you up. And frankly they have an energy to live. Atheist normie whites are so depressed and nihilistic which shows up in suicide and drug stats. They value western civilization and aesthetics.

      Only issue is the supposed Israel worship. I’ve never been to an American church but I can honestly say I’ve never heard the modern zionist state of Israel mentioned once during a sermon here in Canada. So it’s never been an issue for me.

      Yeah nobody is going around saying muh Prayz Hortler 1479. But if you can find me a better realistic alternative for white folks right now, let me know. At least they’re trying to preserve something, and procreating.

      • The Tower of Babel story in Genesis is a clear rebuke of globalism, but most Christians seem to dismiss it as that today. I don’t think I have heard anyone mention it in church since I was a kid. The social pressure to conform to secular culture is very strong in evangelical churches, which is why so many have developed an entertainment based worship service. Your point about developing community is very strong and as Z mentioned, Christianity is an inseparable part of Western Civilization.

        It would be helpful for more evangelical churches to cultivate relationships with Christian churches in Lebanon, Israel, etc. I heard a pastor from one speak who in a diplomatic way said, “you can love Israel all you want, but they are never going to reciprocate.” If Christians heard this from fellow believers more often it would have a greater impact.

      • Christian Zionism is a problem in the United States within some protestantism. My visit to a small protestant church recently did give me some encouragement in that I heard nothing about Israel being he chosen from the pulpit and I talked to a lot of people in the congregation homeschooling their children.
        The downside is universalism
        As a dissident I cannot accept that.
        But overall a decent church can provide some protection for us.
        Hopefully in time as we perhaps see society deteriorate along racial lines that Christian universalism will weaken.

      • Reply to B125: “I am a fairly active evangelical Christian as well as a race realist. I’ll state two things right off the bat: 1) I would be run out of town if I openly stated my views in church 2) there are more guys who are quietly on our side than you would expect – or they’re at least a little woke.”

        I’m Catholic and my experience in my parish is similar to yours. A few thoughts:

        There is tremendous variation in politics between Catholic parishes. I attend a conservative parish, but others in my area are more liberal. From what I see, the parish priest seeks to serve the parish community (politics reflect the attending parish community). So my church with its mostly older white parishioners trends conservative. Another parish I attended in my community has a large immigrant population and tends to be more liberal (sections of mass in foreign languages, prayer intentions for illegals etc). You can always tell the political leanings of a parish from the prayer intentions. Overall, Catholic churches are my area are much more conservative than the local mainline Protestant churches which, with their lesbian ministers and SJW crusades have gone insane. Would be curious to hear an explanation, if anyone has one.

        My experience with priests is that older generation trends more liberal while younger generation trends conservative. My theory is that older generation of priests were significantly homosexual and prone to grooming/abusing boys and novices. Something like 90% of Catholic sex abuse issues relate to homosexual predation by priests. Why this was so prevalent, I don’t know. Could be that homosexual priests were confessors to other homosexual priests (i.e., confessing sins of abuse to other sinners) who were too accepting of this sin. Without a strong corrective, this problem flourished. Naturally, these priests trend liberal. Younger generation of priests is more heterosexual and adept in responding to problems of today’s families (caused be liberalism), thus trending conservative. And immigrant priests trend conservative too. But that is another subject.

        Its also interesting to look at the role of gender at church. Men are generally based and politically conservative. Women tend to have a more universalist and spiritual new testament perspective. Probably relates to inherent gender difference somehow. Sometimes I wonder if Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was developed to defang liberal slant of new testament (i.e., did his political views influence his interpretation of scripture — “sinners predestined to go to hell, so be it.”)

        Mixed gender and race prayer groups have the effect of making discussion of political topics guarded. Having said that, its super helpful to spend time with people that share a conservative perspective on our world and think hard about ethical issues. IMO, for DR friends who feel isolated, I would recommend attending church if only for this reason.

        Overall, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of the Catholic church. Its a smaller church now that alot of the liberals have left. But the parishioners that continue to attend mass are largely conservative. And the younger priests are conservative. I think we’ll be okay in the long run.

        To B125, I have never heard reference to Israel in any Catholic mass.

        Also, in my experience, Catholics are family friendly and have stronger familial relations than my friends that are agnostic and have families. If you care about good family relations, I think being a practicing Catholic helps.

        • Yup don’t disagree with you on any points.

          I’m happy being an evangelical but am not against any other kind of Christianity… If it works it works. Went to a Catholic Mass once but the priest was a fat pedo (at the minimum he had very bad physiognomy) and it was full of third worlders; Indians Filipinos blacks.

          I’d be open to converting to say Catholicism if I felt it had superior benefits for myself and our people but right now I feel they are about equal all things considered… Not perfect or even explicitly pro white but better than nothing, with many benefits. And even discussing homosexuals with a conservative non white (race/immigration off limits) is better than a normal day when homosexuals AND Race/immigration are off limits.

          Perhaps it will change in the future.

        • B125. You used the words “tends” or “trends” nine times in your comment. Those terms make a man sound tender. And a black girl sound smart. They usually aren’t even needed, since the generalization is already assumed.

    • “People are going to lose jobs, friends, family, maybe even go to jail.”

      Look at who’s spearheading resistance to the tyrannical lockdowns in Canada. It’s evangelical churches. Pastor James Coates in Alberta (wife was on Tucker Carlson recently) was in jail for over a month because he was holding normal church services every Sunday. Just didn’t give a fuck, normal unmasked full capacity. While Pastor Coates went to jail, the services continues while he was locked up. And guess what Globohomo has backed off for now. Nobody is stopping them from having services.

      The Church of God in Aylmer Ontario is another one defying lockdowns. Trinity Bible Chapel in Waterloo, Ontario. Churches in BC were staying open. These are just the ones stupid enough to make it public. My church has been meeting every Sunday under the radar. Unmasked. This is in a shitlib area. So far, no issues.

      Lose your job? No problem, another guy at church can hire you at his business. Even if it’s a shitty job you’re not gonna starve.

      • Agree. The only people that I see openly fighting against globohomo and protecting each other are Christians.

    • I’d like to have a guest post from Lineman on building a resilient community, which it seems he has, or is part of.

    • “‘We’re all God’s children’ doesn’t exactly fit with ethno-nationalism.”

      Why would you say this? As a Christian, I have a duty to care about and even to love the filthy bum on the corner, but that hardly implies I must let him stay in my guest room. That many Christians oppose ethnographic-nationalism is simply due to their suffering from the same disease as the rest of the world.

  42. There are a couple of irreconcilable differences between the religious creationists and secular evolutionists. First, evolutionists tend to radically overreach in their explanations for human behavior, generally by assuming the conclusion or commiting post hoc errors.

    Second, and more importantly, evolution in particular, and science in general simply cannot provide moral guidance or direction. For example, even though it is generally accepted as true by some that Africans evolved differently than Asians, it simply cannot provide any moral guidance on what to do about it. How to deal with this fact is fundamentally a moral question and must be answered within a moral framework.

    • But this is an error in logic. This is called Hume’s Law or the is-ought problem. You cannot make claims about what ought to be based on what is. Science and faith are not irreconcilable. Many Christians have been conditioned to think this is true, but it is false, which is covered in the show.

      • So far correct. I’d like to weigh in with some more stuff. Like many of us, I tend to argue extremes. In this case, it is the eternal ideal vs. real, or in this case, “ought” vs. “is” of Hume. It is correct, says much philosophy (and I agree) that no morality can be inferred from Nature. In other words, good/bad, righteous/evil are purely human judgments and in no way can they be derived from a study of natural phenomena, nor can they be imputed to non-human behavior. Let’s not even get into the debate of God or other teleology: what I’ve said above requires no Creator. It only requires one to admit there is a physical world, that is governed by its own laws and not subject to a human veto; there is also the mental world (I call it the Ideal) which also has its uses. Without it, we’d have no mind, no consciousness, no science, but also no fantasy, no ideals, no stories, narratives, religions and so on. It is this second “world” that is the source of so many issues. For example, successful mental structures, such as mathematics, can mirror and predict the physical universe to an amazing degree. Scholarly papers have been written about it. The hard sciences aren’t far behind. But, at risk of belaboring what should be obvious, these sciences succeed because the human mind discovered rules that mimic the natural world.
        Now, in marked contrast, is the Ideal. It’s equally possible for a human mind to create “castles in the air,” imaginary formations that need obey no laws of the universe, indeed, nor even any laws of the imaginary world! This is fine as long as there’s a firewall between imagination and reality. But in practice, there isn’t such protection.

        What is relatively new to me, and as far as I know, I’ve never argued: There is a need for both worlds! The universe existed before Man ever appeared; it runs itself just fine without our meddling. In fact, we are an expression of that world, whether by a Creator or a cosmic accident, take your choice. But it’s our “ideal” world, our minds, that makes us human. Rather than an either/or choice, in practice we have, and should seek the optimal blend, of the ideal and the real.

        Addenda: Here’s a piece of Leftist idiocy of the day:

        How can this NOT be a case of blatant violation of anti-discrimination law? If I were an otherwise qualified White, I would hire an attorney the minute this new program went into practice. It’ll be interesting to see what, if any, fallout arises from such folly.

        • OK, read the news item. Perhaps Oakland can skirt the law if all the funding is from private sources. As Mark Twain might have said: I oppose the government wasting money on the poor. It’s much more efficient for private individuals to squander the money without the State stepping in.

          I still bet a case can be made if government employees are involved at any level. As usual, I wish the Liberals success in their rosy predictions. To me they sound remarkably like the claims that admitting an academically unqualified Black into a rigourous university program will result in his success because he’ll “work harder.” One can only admire Progressive idealism, but in my cited case, dropout rates tend to put the lie to it…

          Are there any white trash readers in the Bay area who’ll take up my challenge? 😀

          • Ben, best way to consider the Bay Area is through “do what thou wilt” morality. Google search the phrase if you want to learn more. Mayor and city council got private funds to push this boundary and they won’t be held to account by their voters, so they decided to move forward. Simple as.

        • Re: UBI for blacks, etc. only. Welfare needed a fancier name. If these people get even more dependent and slothful it’s not a bad thing for us in the long run (as we, by necessity, become more resourceful and community oriented). Just don’t be anywhere in the vicinity when the rug is inevitably pulled out from under them.

      • Sure, but most people act on the basis of moral proscription, not biological fact. The observation that black people are observed to be more violent than white people simply begs the question of what should be done about it, and the biological origin of the differences is irrelevant (in the sense that biology is immutable, and therefore is not the domain for altering behavior). This being the case, it simply leaves the question of why bother even referencing evolution when explaining differences between races, sexes, or species since the why has little, if any, to do with the what. As best I can tell, the reason why many evolution apologists cling to evolution is to render Christianity irrelevant as a moral authority. That difference, then, is irreconcilable.

    • Good Christian couples who can’t have children or are relatively wealthy will adopt children from a $#@!hole country. They are good people, frankly better than most people who read this blog (sorry). Heck, even that French guy from NR (shudder).

      The short term consequences of this action are benign. Two of my youngest sons buddies are SE Asian and Haitian. He (like his dad growing up) doesn’t see race or color. They are just his friends.

      The long term consequences? Let me tell you the story of another young boy. Barry Soretoro (peace be upon him) was raised by his nice, white Christian grandparents in multi-racial Hawaii.

      How has that been working out?

      • Mixed race kids are almost always a disaster. They have no identity. In a sane world a mixed race kid with a white dad would just be considered white passing and eventually mix with whites again but we don’t live in a sane time lol.

        Doesn’t matter if they’re Christian or atheist. They are ultra conformist to the Globohomo order as it’s the only identity they can hold onto (being white is forbidden).

        I know a white guy who married a Filipina woman. They only had one kid (why do all mixed race couples have so few kids?). The kid married a Filipina. The grandkid looks Filipino and the white genes have been effectively eradicated. Nice work boomer. Lol.

      • Moe: I strongly take issue with you declaring White Christians who adopt the offspring of other races ‘better’ people – particularly that loathsome virtue-signaler David French. God instructs us to care for our own first, and adopting the world’s strays is antithetical to that. These adoptions are not done because there are no White children in need, but rather because the adopting families want a child of a specific age or sex, and usually because they want to demonstrate their racial bona fides, which they confuse with their Christian belief, to the world. The two are not the same.

        The short-term consequences may be, in your terms, benign. But there is substantial countervailing evidence. Just as families with a severely physically or mentally handicapped child often lavish all their emotional and physical care on their afflicted offspring, depriving their other children of normal life and inculcating a sense of resentment and guilt of that resentment in the healthy children, so do those families who interracially adopt. Many examples exist of White siblings physically bullied and sexually abused by their interracial ‘siblings.’ There are numerous documented cases of these interracial adoptees attacking and murdering their virtue-signaling parents. Thousands of international adoptees have abjured their American ‘parents’ and all the material comforts and care they’ve been provided with to declare themselves loyal to their biological people – while those same people reject the adoptees as neither one nor the other, or reject the interracial as genetic freaks.

        Even White racial adoption has demonstrated strong stress points, because so much of personality and behavior is the result of genetic predispositions. Look to those documented cases of infant mixups at hospitals that have been uncovered by DNA websites. Religious and ethnic mixes, even within closely related races, end up causing family strife.

        Preferring one’s own is natural and normal. Deliberately choosing to add racial and cultural strife into what should be intimate family life is abnormal and unnatural and morally wrong.

        • Well put. Interracial adoption is the equivalent of showing off a child as “transgendered.” It is virtue signaling and breathtakingly selfish, and while the adoption opens one to homicide and sexual abuse, “transgendered” children may deliver a fully justified murder to the parents who abused them in years ahead.

          I am not religious although raised Christian, which as a whole was a good experience, but do recall prohibitions against excessive and ultimately false professions of faith. Interracial adoption fits this description, and in many cases (I think this is true of French) indicates mental illness as well.

        • 3g4me,

          I do not disagree with you (“better” may not have been the appropriate word).

          “Pathological altruism” is a very real thing. What would the world look like if little Barry’s grandparents didn’t raise him?

          But altruism, directed toward your people (however defined), is the bedrock of any community.

        • Interracial adoption and especially transnational interracial adoption is absolutely evil to its core. They are stepping over similar (to them) children in their own backyard to bring in foreign genes into their community and spend their resources on these foreign genes.
          It is certainly not Christian. These are people trying to turn progressivism into Christianity.

      • I think the dynamic with French and Justice Barret is that Evangelicals and conservative Catholics are not accepted in elite circles (academia, BigLaw, I-Banking, etc.), so they adopt third world kids to buy goodwill from their co-workers and bosses. A evangelical with 8 white kids would be considered a bigot and won’t get the promotion; evangelical with 5 white kids and 3 adopted Ethiopians might have a shot.

        Its a scummy business considering that the African kids are being used like fashion accessories and often have living parents back in the old country, and it creates a very weird and alienating family dynamic for the biological kids.

    • From:

      “As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.”

      • Indeed, the CC funds or is involved in many scientific/knowledge endeavors, especially observatories and universities.

Comments are closed.