Sunday, October 30, 2016

Progressive Multiculturalism and the Tower of Babel

Few are more confident in their beliefs regarding Christianity than unbelievers, and that is especially true for those modern progressives who refer to themselves as "Christian" yet substitute their political ideology for actual theology. Such people are often referred to as "Churchians" because they attend church yet are most assuredly not Christians in any substantive way. They are often found espousing progressive policies such as abortion, gay marriage, female promiscuity, and the like while claiming all the while that their positions are biblical. Traditionalist Christians may be used to hearing atheists and pagans claim that Jesus was a Marxist hippy, but progressive Churchians gleefully make the same claim to subvert Christianity for their own ends.

A good example of Churchian theology can be found on the website of Dr. Camille Lewis, the former chair for the Department of Rhetoric and Public Address at Bob Jones University. Now, it may seem odd at first to think a department chair at a fundamentalist evangelical university would be classified as a liberal, but any doubts can be put to rest by the fact that she discusses how she is "triggered" by her time working at BJU (Source). Of particular interest, however, is her post discussing a 1960 sermon by Bob Jones, Sr., in which he argued that segregation of the races is necessary because God divided mankind and such divisions should remain (Source). The theology of this is sound as has been discussed here previously, albeit Jones relies entirely on Acts 17:26 when the point could have been expounded upon, but the sermon is prefaced with Dr. Lewis's own anti-racism as an attack more on her former employer than anything. This in and of itself speaks volumes as she makes no effort to refute either Acts 17:26 as written or as understood by Jones. She simply takes it for granted that he is incorrect because she believes that anything "racist" is inherently wrong.

Still, since Dr. Lewis makes no direct effort to counter the sermon, we must instead look to the comments under her post in which her similarly liberal followers discuss it further. One going by the name of "George" said, "At the Tower of Babel God confused the languages. So anyone who has mixed heritage such as the English and Scottish or Scot Irish contravenes the tenet laid out," and he followed with, "The problem is these white bigots have changed the Bible to suit their needs. At the Tower of Babel God confused the languages. Now, if you look at the formation of white America, they violated this tenet." He was not done either, and he further asserted that race "was never an issue" and that "white American settlers" had "violated God's law by inter-marrying," so "the existence of white America ... was a mistake." Another user going by "Jon" claimed that following the Bible "would mandate that Whites leave the American continent, that we cease usage of the internet (and other boundary jumpers), and stop world language studies (post-Tower of Babel condition)."

In essence, "George" and "Jon" are both using the same argument: namely, multiculturalism is fine and racism is silly because the existence of whites alone violates God's will regarding the Tower of Babel. They also make claims about the meaninglessness of race, but their argument inherently concedes that Jones may have had a point with his sermon yet dismiss it. If whites violate God's will by "mixing" despite having different ethnic languages, they assume then that all other divisions created by God are also null and void. This is actually a fairly common argument put forth by Churchians to justify their overlooking all of the verses in the Bible that make it clear that God divided mankind on purpose. If our ancestors broke God's law as set forth at the Tower of Babel, then all subsequent sins on the same topic are irrelevant because our very existence is a sin in and of itself, or so their convoluted thinking goes. As expected, this "liberal theology" is flawed at best.

First, let's consider what the story of the Tower of Babel actually says. Genesis 11:1-9 tells us that the whole of mankind possessed a single language, which allowed them to work together, and, in their hubris, they attempted to build a tower to Heaven. When God saw what they were attempting, He divided mankind into languages and spread them across the face of the Earth. Following the liberals' reasoning, Europe is home to different languages, and that must mean that God intended for Europeans to remain entirely divided. Of course, liberals do not actually believe that, but the attempt is rather to take the true theological argument and oversimplify it to the point of ridiculousness. If you deny their premise, they will simply declare that you have negated your own argument regarding other races. In truth, they are demonstrating their own ignorance at best, or their own dishonesty at worst, and this is made obvious by the field of linguistics.

These "theologians" apparently do not realize that modern languages are not representative of languages even a few centuries ago. For example, the vast majority of languages spoken by white people today are part of the Indo-European language family as they all share a common ancestor. European branches of this family include Albanian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Italic, and Slavic. Branches of the family outside of Europe include Armenian and Indo-Iranian. Let's look to the Germanic branch to understand what this means. Today, a person who speaks English may not understand a person who speaks German, but both languages are Germanic and can be traced back to Proto-Germanic. In the case of English, the modern language began to develop in the 17th century from Early Modern English, which itself had developed in the 15th century from Middle English, which developed in the 12th century from the Old English of the Anglo-Saxons. For its part, modern German can ultimately be traced back to Old High German.

Now, let's consider the Tower of Babel within this context. Obviously, white Americans are not "a mistake," and an Englishman with a Scotsman in his family tree is not somehow a walking embodiment of sin because both the English and Scots share common Indo-European ancestry. Similarly, the Niger-Congo language family covers virtually every language spoken by Negroids in Sub-Saharan Africa, so two black people would not violate the "Babel tenet" even if they are from different tribes, nations, or what have you. There are, however, some cases where a difference could be claimed despite the people otherwise being related. For example, the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are all related as East Asian Mongoloids, but they belong to Sino-Tibetan, Japonic, and Koreanic language families, respectively. Of course, that is not particularly relevant since the liberals' point hinges on the claim that whites violate God's will, which is patently false.

It is also important to highlight the fact that the reason that God confounded the language of mankind was because the men had decided they could reach Heaven on their own. In other words, they believed they were on par with God. A person learning another language, using the internet, or even traveling abroad is obviously not an example of trying to actively subvert God's will, which is what "Jon" had implied. Traditionalists are not the ones attempting to place themselves above God, but it is rather the progressive "Churchians" who believe their modern political ideology is more sound than the Lord's will. They clearly embrace sin while claiming that Jesus would never punish them because He loves them unconditionally, and the Lord would have never made them the way they are if they were supposed to be different. This just further demonstrates their fundamental misunderstanding of the faith, their willful dishonesty, or both.

Deuteronomy 32:8 tells us that the Lord "separated the sons of Adam, [and] he set the bounds of the people." Acts 17:26 tells us that God "made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," and it reiterates that He "determined ... the bounds of their habitation." Now, if God made the nations of men, set the bounds of their habitation, and confounded their languages, how can the Bible be read to justify the multiculturalism and multiracialism espoused by these liberal Churchians when their ultimate desire is a single, brown race speaking a single, muddled language while declaring that sins are righteous? In short, progressivism is wicked at its core, and they seek to subvert God's will and construct their own Tower.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

What's in a Name?: The Case for #FrankishTwitter

"O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet, Act II. Scene II.

What's in a name? What is the value in a label? Among the growing far-right in American politics, the most common term bandied about these days is "Alt-Right," but most people do not realize that the movement is actually comprised of multiple factions including some who may or may not believe themselves to truly be Alt-Right. For example, there are "1488ers" who espouse the 14 words—"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children"—as well as support for the views of Adolf Hitler. This group includes some who self-identify as Nazis, others who see "Nazi" as offensive and prefer NatSoc, and yet others who simply refer to themselves as fascists. Then there are reactionaries (Rx), neoreactionaries (NRx), and counter-revolutionaries (CRx); each largely believing they possess the true claim to all reactionary thinking. One can also find people self-identifying with orcs, frogs, Space Normans, and such. Some factions have strict policies regarding out-groups while others are at least somewhat inclusive of Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, and so on. For example, the "manosphere" is a loose assortment of anti-feminists who are largely associated with Daryush Valizadeh, an Iranian-American pickup artist and anti-feminist. In some cases, there can be overlap between some of these various labels, and that only serves to confuse what each faction believes.

Labels can be a convenient way of conveying a complex set of ideals in only a word or two as well as linking oneself to others who share those ideals. They can also be exceedingly frustrating when you do not fit neatly into one of the commonly understood boxes. This can leave you feeling isolated even as you intermingle with the various factions. For example, one could accept the premise of the "14 words" without believing that national socialism or fascism are the preferred methods for achieving that goal. Another example would be that certain factions are largely populated by pagans and atheists who are hostile to Christianity, which is less than appealing for a traditionalist Christian. As the Alt-Right develops and matures as a movement, each faction naturally pushes for what they see as the major issues confronting traditionalists, however that is defined, and those who do not identify with any particular group may feel that they have no voice. This may be especially true for traditionalist Christians as already mentioned, and, to that end, let it here be proposed the formation of #FrankishTwitter encompassing the ideals of unabashedly traditionalist Christians.

Why Frankish? The Franks were a group of Germanic tribes that came to be located in northern France, western Germany, and parts of the Low Countries, but far more important than their origins is the fact that they became a dominant force in Latin Christendom. Indeed, the Franks would help to define what it meant to be a Latin Christian, and they would come to be so intrinsically linked with the faith and its defense that those who took up the cross and went on crusade would bear the name "Franks" for centuries. There is no better representation of what a Latin Christian should be than the Franks of the Middle Ages.

Who is a Frank?

In the image of those milites Dei, modern Franks should militantly defend Christendom against paynims as Charles Martel did in 732 when he led the Franks in the Battle of Tours, which stopped the Islamic invasion of France. His son, Pepin the Short, would expel Muslims from their last stronghold in France in 759.

And modern Franks should defend the Church and embrace Christian kingship as Pepin's son, known to history as Charlemagne, did when he took in and protected Pope Leo III after he had been assaulted by armed men in Rome who had tried to remove his eyes and tongue. Charlemagne was rewarded when the Pope crowned him as Emperor of the Romans during Mass on Christmas Day 799 in Saint Peter's Basilica.

And modern Franks should be willing to carry the fight to the enemies of Christendom when they defile our peoples and lands as Charlemagne did in 772 when Saxon pagans burned a church at Deventer in the modern Netherlands. The Franks defeated the pagans and burned their sacred tree in return, and Charlemagne returned each time that the Saxons broke their oaths of loyalty. A decade after the initial invasion, loyal Saxons surrendered a few thousand who had been responsible for the continued violence, and Charlemagne had them executed as was the custom. In 1096 when Godfrey of Bouillon set out at the head of an army to take the fight to Islam as part of the First Crusade, Pope Urban II referred to the road to Jerusalem as "Charlemagne's road." Indeed, Franks were synonymous with the crusades with French being the common tongue of the Crusader States, and Muslims would come to fear the "Franks," as the crusaders were known.

And modern Franks should recognize that the State should draw strength from the Church rather than vice versa, and that includes the fundamental notion that the code of chivalry underpinning kingship and knighthood is religious in nature. As the Benedictio novi militis says, a Christian knight is called in the name of Christ to be a defender of the Church, widows, orphans, and servants of God against pagans and heretics. It was accepted fact that Catholic bishops could create knights, and it is right that they should do so. Milites Dei should defend the faith, justice, and those who cannot defend themselves while ensuring that they do not harm the innocent. Chivalry is Christian at its core, and the only righteous State is one which draws on the Church and the milites Dei for the authority it exercises rather than on the wants and desires of men.

And modern Franks should place the utmost value in the sacrament of marriage and raising a family so as to carry the faith to the next generation. As Mark 10:6-9 tells us, God made man and woman in the beginning, and they shall become one flesh through holy matrimony. Still, the woman shall not usurp authority over the man (1 Timothy 2:12) because the head of the woman is the man, as the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3), but a husband must also treat his wife with honor as they are both heirs of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). Men were given authority over women by God as the stronger vessel of the faith, but that is a responsibility to be shouldered with all seriousness and not to be abused.

A modern Frank is unabashedly a traditionalist Christian willing to defend his people and Christendom. He is not a milksop who curries favor with paynims, heretics, or the godless by acting as though his own faith is unworthy of defense, but he also is not a Hun seeking unnecessary violence with those who could be allies. He respects and defends women as the weaker vessel of the faith, but he will not entertain the many and varied delusions of feminism. These are the values of the modern Frank and #FrankishTwitter.

"Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight."
Psalm 144:1

Sunday, October 23, 2016

The Need for a Return to Virtuous Patriarchy

One of the great sociopolitical battlefields of the 20th century has involved the role of women in society and government, and that has especially been true since the rise of radical feminism in the 1960's. As the feminists put it, excluding women from anything demonstrates misogyny, or a literal hatred of women, and they extend this to the political, economic, and behavioral. This has resulted in fundamental changes to our society, which the feminists themselves see as beneficial, albeit they still believe there is much left to do. Rarely is an important question asked, however—have these changes been good for society or even women?

In terms of the political, women could not vote in federal elections until ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, but that was four years after Jeannette Rankin (R-MT) became the first woman to ever be elected to the US House of Representatives. It was also more than two decades after Martha Hughes Cannon (D) became the first female State Senator in Utah after she defeated her own husband, who had run as a Republican. Today, nearly 1 in 5 serving members of the US Congress is female, and progressives are attempting to elect Hillary Clinton almost entirely based on the fact that she is a woman. Feminists will not be content until they have a woman in the White House with at least half of the Congress also being female, but we can already see that they exert a disproportionate amount of control over policies.

For example, the educational system is largely dedicated to the promotion of females and feminine behavior despite men largely controlling the seats of federal power. Indeed, women are 11% more likely to graduate high school than men (Source), and 57% of students enrolled in college in 2013 were female (Source). Women also account for more than half of first-time enrollments in graduate programs, albeit women dominate certain fields such as public administration and health sciences while being a minority in more traditional fields (Source). Despite the overall picture, feminists still say that sexism is alive and well because women are not dominating fields such as engineering. What has all of this supposed progress translated into for society?

In 2015, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that women aged 25-44 had a median of 4.3 opposite-sex partners in their lifetime with 10.6% of women aged 15-44 having 15 or more sexual partners (Source). The average age for an American woman to lose her virginity is just 17.2 years. In 2012, women aged 15-24 had the highest observed rates of gonorrhea (Source). This promiscuity has resulted in the fact that 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in her lifetime, and women aged 15-24 account for nearly half of abortions each year (Source). Furthermore, 40.2% of babies are born out of wedlock (Source). Men have not fared better under this "enlightened" system with them reporting more sexual partners and losing their virginity earlier.

This has all been the byproduct of the feminization of society. Indeed, popular magazines published by women for women bombard them with messages such as no "person is ever normal" nor "needs to be" and that the number of sexual partners one has "should be based on your free will, luck, and desire—and nothing more" (Source). It should be noted that feminism does not merely promote hedonism amongst women, but the movement also encourages the normalization of homosexuality. In point of fact, the most extreme feminists have promoted "political lesbianism," or a complete rejection of men, since the 1970's (Source). Feminism has undermined society in other ways as well including the mass importation of the Third World into the West. For example, the National Organization for Women has declared that "immigration is a feminist issue" including embracing illegal aliens (Source). Swedish feminists, who support the importation of Muslims, have attacked white men for wanting to protect them from being raped by the migrants (Source).

The common theme in all of this is that personal feelings and desires are said to be what should guide one's behavior. This makes sense in terms of biology when we consider that studies have shown that "women are far more affected by emotional images" (Source), and they "tend to focus more on the feelings generated by [negative emotions]" while men "have a more analytical than emotional approach when dealing with [the same]" (Source). This explains why women tend to support things such as gay marriage, open borders, gun control, and so on more than men. In short, they are far more easily manipulated when bombarded with images and stories that stimulate negative emotions. Groups such as GLAAD have understood this, which is why they stress "representation" in media. Women have been bombarded with positive depictions of homosexuals, and that has ensured they identify with gays as "victims" when confronting issues such as gay marriage. We find the same thing with the United States being depicted as a "nation of immigrants" where "innocent Muslims" are being targeted by "evil racists," or when "gun control" is presented as an effort to "prevent toddlers from accidentally killing themselves." Whether engaging in degenerate behavior or tolerating such behavior in others, it is all guided by self-indulgence, making oneself feel good.

We can clearly see that the feminization of Western civilization has not been the universal good that feminists claim it to be, and the reason why should be obvious to traditionalist Christians. After all, we can see parallels between modern society and the story of Adam and Eve. It was the woman who was easily deceived by Satan, but she also led Adam astray in the process. This is not unlike modern women losing their way with men also suffering the consequences of hedonism. In Genesis 3:16, God says to Eve, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." God recognizes that Adam and Eve both sinned, but it was her weakness that provoked their sinful behavior. The natural counterbalance to that weakness was to place Adam as the head of the relationship. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us that "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God," and 1 Timothy 2:12 says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." The modern Eves have succumbed to Satan's seduction yet again, but men have failed to live up to what God called us to do.

It would be simple enough to blame feminists for subverting traditional values, but the truth is that it was men who voted to give women the right to vote. Indeed, every great victory of feminism was not due to the efforts of a minority of women themselves but were rather the result of men surrendering their natural authority. Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v. Wade are all seen as landmark cases for the female-dominated political left, but each of those cases was decided by a Supreme Court entirely occupied by men. It was men who desegregated schools, it was men who legalized race-mixing, and it was men who fabricated a "right to abortion" out of whole cloth. While women should certainly be held accountable for the sins they have committed, we must also accept that it was weak men who made it possible by surrendering the authority that God granted us. Feminists like to demonize patriarchy as oppressive and wicked, but God placed that heavy burden upon man's shoulders as a call to righteousness in and of itself. Men sinned by shirking their duties, and we have all suffered the consequences as God warned would happen.

And herein lies the problem for both men and women in today's degenerate society. It is all too easy for traditionally-minded men to see women as the enemy. After all, the Republican Party would never lose a national election if only men were allowed to vote, and many social ills could be easily solved if that were the case. This misses the point, however, as these problems only exist because men lost their way and gave the keys to the women despite ample reason to suspect what would happen. For their part, women must also be blamed for the fact that their own nature prevents most of them from even recognizing that their matriarchy of sorts has not produced anything worthy of being called civilization. Academia is in tatters, the Church has been subverted at every turn, grown men can now use women's facilities with little girls, homosexuals can prance around nude down Main Street in full view of small children, and on, and on, and on. This is all the byproduct of female tolerance, and that Pandora's Box of easily manipulated emotion was opened by men.

The answer to what plagues us is a return to a virtuous patriarchy in which men gladly shoulder the burden of maintaining society while women acknowledge and accept this natural order. As Jesus said in Mark 10:6-9, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The natural order for men and women is to form two halves of the same whole. This does not mean that men and women are equals in an egalitarian sense. The feminine nature helps to make families cohesive and loving, and the family unit is the basic building block of civilization. The male nature then must prevent the female from extending its umbrella of feelings in such a way that leads to moral rot and social decay by embracing every degenerate and infidel as though they were simply children in need of a hug. The woman makes the family possible, and the man makes society possible. They simultaneously complement and counteract each other.

To this end, we must all remember the words of 1 Peter 3:5-9: "For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing."

In short, men should be gentlemen, and women should be ladies. Neither should make demands of the other when they themselves are not worthy of honor or respect. A man who denigrates and abuses women is not worthy of a holy woman, and a woman who thinks she belongs on a pedestal while demanding she be sought after like a prize is not worthy of a holy man. Healthy relationships must be based on the two becoming one flesh—recognizing their roles and working to complement one another while also preventing each other from becoming unbalanced. Men and women who cannot do this are a product of this modern, hedonistic society, and they will be doomed to repeating the mistakes thereof even as they see themselves in a righteous light. Man or woman, strive to be something better than you are, name wickedness whenever you see it, defend innocence wherever it is found, and, above all, take heed of the natural order set forth by the Lord.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

What Does the Nature of God and Heaven Reveal About the Natural Order?

There is a cancer that has been eating away at Western civilization for some time, but it is only in the last few decades that the symptoms have become obvious. The fact that this disease has escaped the attention of most is not an accident, but it is rather all part of an insidious plan to subvert Christendom and destroy Western civilization as we know it. Indeed, people are constantly bombarded with messages of radical individualism along the lines of, "If it feels good, do it," or, "It's bad to be normal." Even people who otherwise see themselves as diametrically opposed along political lines nonetheless espouse the idea that freedom and liberty are synonymous with hedonism. While most of society has remained blind to these signs even as they become ever more blatant, many Christians have sensed that something wicked this way comes. They can feel it in their very souls that the current order is not right, that society is out of sorts. Christians are at war with modern society even if some do not realize it, and the only way to win this war is to restore the natural order.

Now, a hedonist might hear "natural order" and think of returning to animalistic behaviors, but we are instead talking about the natural order of existence that God intended for us. Today, traditionalist Christians may feel like they are alone in the wilderness surrounded by packs of slavering wolves, but it is possible to find our way through the dark forest in which we currently find ourselves. The key cannot be found in modernity, however, which is born entirely from the minds of men, and we must instead look to what has been revealed to us as God's plan for Creation and our role within it. Thankfully, we do not have to speculate as to the nature of God, the order of His kingdom, or our relationship with Him. After all, the Lord's Prayer tells us that God's kingdom come, His will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven (Matthew 6:10, Luke 11:2). What then is God's will regarding the order of His kingdom in the heavens above and the earth below?

First, we must understand that God does indeed reign over His kingdom, sitting upon His throne in Heaven (1 Kings 22:19). Jesus stands at the right hand of the Father as the Prince of Princes (Acts 7:55, Daniel 8:25). This title as applied to Jesus is important as there are other princes in Heaven with St. Michael the Archangel himself counted as one of the chief princes of the heavenly host (Daniel 10:13). This speaks to the hierarchy of the angels who serve God, which typically includes nine Choirs according to Christian tradition. Chief among these are the seraphim, fiery angels with six wings who attend to God upon His throne (Isaiah 6:2-3). The cherubim are below the seraphim around the foot of the throne (Isaiah 37:16). Other Choirs mentioned include Thrones, Dominions, Powers, and Principalities (Colossians 1:16) in addition to the Virtues as well as the more commonly known archangels and angels. It is important to note that the archangels fill a role in the service of God, but they may be from other Choirs as St. Michael is considered to be a prince of the seraphim. Thus, we can see that Heaven is truly a divine kingdom with God upon His throne, Jesus at his right hand, and the heavenly host arrayed before them in a hierarchy including attendants, messengers, and warriors.

Below God, Jesus, and the heavenly host, we find the saints—people who have entered Heaven—as well as those of us still on this earth. To find our place within this divine system, we need to look to the nature of God, or rather the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and what our relationship to the divine is meant to be. This is important because God is distant and greater than Creation yet also deeply personal and involved in our lives. Unlike pagan deities who are seen as individual beings who are only in one place at a time, God is both here and everywhere. To understand this, we have to see that God acts in different capacities simultaneously. For example, God the Father is the Creator that we generally think of as "God," and that aspect of the divine is truly beyond our comprehension. To help us find our way, the Son has existed from the beginning as the Word (John 1:1), and He was sent by the Father (John 12:44). God the Son is at once one with God the Father yet also separate and with a more personal relationship to humanity. Whereas God the Son was sent amongst us as flesh, God the Holy Spirit is sent amongst us in spirit as a Comforter who helps us know the right path (John 14:26, 15:26). In this sense, the Holy Spirit can be seen as "God in action." For example, the Holy Spirit came upon the virgin Mary so that she would give birth to God the Son who would be known as the Son of God (Luke 1:35), and the Holy Spirit would later descend upon Jesus's baptism in the form of a dove to declare him as the beloved Son (Luke 3:22). The Holy Spirit surrounds us, speaks to us, and can fill us, which makes Him the most personal aspect of the divine, but He can also seem distant as we may not always realize when the Holy Spirit is at work around us, in others, or even in ourselves.

What does this tell us about God's kingdom and our place within it? We can see the Father as the beloved King who reigns from His heavenly throne, and the Son stands at the right hand of the Father as the Prince of Princes. The Son paved the way for us to be saved both through His own sacrifice but also through bringing the Word to men, and we feel a deep connection to Him as the most visible aspect of the divine in our lives. The Holy Spirit shows us that we are simultaneously distant from the throne yet part and parcel of the kingdom as He surrounds and moves through us. By living our faith, we are part of something much greater than ourselves, but we are also shown that God loves us even if we cannot fully comprehend it.

Now, compare this heavenly kingdom to the modern world. Western societies have replaced Christian kings with secular democracy, lordships with egalitarianism, and traditional values with feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism, and the like. The Bible tells us that women should not usurp authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12), that homosexual acts are unnatural (Romans 1:26-27), and that dressing as the opposite sex is an abomination (Deuteronomy 22:5), but Christians are told that traditional values are outdated and backwards. The secularists assure us that homosexuality and transgenderism are not sins, but they are rather just as natural as anything else. God said that Adam shall rule over Eve (Genesis 3:16) and that "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3), but feminists scream to the heavens that they are the same as any man. And they are as degenerate as they imagine the wicked men to be so as to prove their "equality." The secularization of society is damning in and of itself, but the truly nefarious part is that many Christians have been fooled into aiding the enemy. Many denominations now openly embrace LGBT without preaching that their behavior is sinful, and many more allow women to be ordained despite the Bible expressly forbidding it. Supposed Christian leaders are even preaching that Christendom must open its doors to foreign foes despite the fact mankind was purposely spread over the Earth and divided into nations with set boundaries (Acts 17:26). A multiracial, transgender homosexual wallowing in sin would be more welcome in many "churches" today than a traditionalist.

There is no simple solution to this problem because most of Christendom has forgotten what being Christian meant to those who came before us. Crusaders have been replaced by morally relativistic pacifists, religious men and women living under Rules by anarchists, and righteous clerics by Zionist shysters peddling a myriad of false teachings as the one, true revelation. Christendom is in disarray because Christians have allowed our own faith and societies to be subverted and stolen by the enemy. The only way to recover is for us to look to the examples given us by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We must restore the natural order in our lives, in our relationships with others, and in our churches. We must take up the cross once again and fight.

Ephesians 6:10-17—Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

False Prophets and Political Manipulation

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" - Matthew 7:15-16

Traditionalist Christians are painfully aware of false prophets that have wormed their way throughout modern Christendom. After all, how many denominations today worship the modern Pharisees? How many preach that sins are not sins at all and should be embraced openly? Are you a homosexual living in sin with your "partner," engaging in random sex with others, exposing children to your degeneracy, and so on? You could walk into most churches today and be welcomed with open arms, and the "pastor" will go out of his (or her) way to never mention that the Bible says you are a sinner and must repent to be forgiven by the Lord. They will pretend that everything about your degenerate lifestyle is fine, likely even performing a "wedding" for you. If any other member of the congregation dares to speak up, they will likely be chased away for being a "bigot." The Bible is ignored because it is easier in a hedonistic society to embrace hedonism.

Those who recognize the wickedness must remain vigilant in these troubling times, and that is especially true because one of the greatest weapons Satan has today is subtle and deceptive: namely, social pressure. People are naturally social creatures, and that makes most of us susceptible to peer pressure, particularly from those we see as being close to us. A babbling atheist can exert pressure on Christians through society, but how much more effective is the same effort when it comes from other Christians instead? It is all too easy for people to be tricked by a wolf in sheep's clothing because they seem like they are one of us, and it may be too late by the time you realize that they have tricked you into following them into the shadows.

A good example of this is found in two recent editorials by Eric Sapp that appeared in the Christian Post. The first claims that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is offering a Faustian bargain to Christians (Source). In the article, Mr. Sapp tells us that Trump would violate everything that Christians stand for in exchange for promising to protect Christians from the American Left, which we are told is needless fearmongering. The second editorial tells us that Christians who oppose abortion should support Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton because abortions occur more often under Republican presidents than Democratic ones (Source). To some, it may seem odd that a Christian writing in the Christian Post would be advocating for Christians to embrace the cultural Marxist, secular humanist political Left, but traditionalist Christians can immediately pick up on the old game that is being played here. Christendom is being weaponized against true believers. We are being told that truly being a Christian is wrong because principled positions might harm those who disagree, and our faith is being manipulated by false prophets so that surrendering seems not only easier than fighting but truly righteous.

For example, Mr. Sapp tells us that Donald Trump daring to suggest that we go after the wives and children of Muslim terrorists violates Christian morality. This is interesting considering that Hosea 13:16 says, "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." Isaiah 13:15-16 says, "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Are Muslims not infidels? Are jihadists not the enemies of the Lord and the faithful? Donald Trump is correct that the families of our enemies often know what is taking place beforehand, and that means they too are our enemies. Only a fool would let them escape to continue their jihad.

Mr. Sapp then goes on a little rant about how Donald Trump has said or done things that are sinful, or just rude. Perhaps he has forgotten that "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not" and that if "we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (Ecclesiastes 7:20, 1 John 1:8)? Trump saying rude things or engaging in sinful behavior in his past are not indications in and of themselves that he is not a Christian. Mr. Sapp also points to Trump saying he does not recall a time asking the Lord for forgiveness, and he claims that Trump says he has no reason to do so. He conveniently ignores that Trump has also said that he recognizes mistakes and tries to be better and to make amends. While I would certainly encourage the Sacrament of Confession, Donald Trump is a Presbyterian. If he acknowledges he is flawed and he tries to do better, who is Mr. Sapp to say that is not good enough?

The winding path of this false prophet next takes us to the Supreme Court of the United States. Most obviously recognize the harm a secularist progressive court could do to the United States, but Mr. Sapp assures us that a conservative court is no different from a liberal one. After all, George Bush was in office with a Republican Congress and a friendly SCOTUS yet abortion was not banned. Never mind that it would have taken a case winding its way through the legal system for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, not just a President and Congress to be so inclined. Mr. Sapp also tells us that overturning the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which prevents churches from endorsing candidates while retaining their tax-exempt status, would somehow be bad for Christians. Apparently, Christians standing up as one and helping to fund politicians who will actually fight for Christendom is actually bad for Christians because politics are bad.

Finally, perhaps the most outlandish thing that Mr. Sapp claims is that steering into the storm of hedonism and degeneracy is the true path for Christians. We are told that voting for Trump and the Republicans will increase abortions because they will not increase welfare programs, give out free birth control, and teach young children how to have sex. Christians should just accept that some people are too ignorant and/or too hedonistic to refrain from disgusting behaviors, and we must vote for the politician promising to protect such people from the consequences of their own actions. We are not responsible for a homosexual who contracts AIDS from random sex. We are not responsible for a black teenager who gets pregnant after sleeping around at the age of 14. Christians should be concerned with the moral decay we are witnessing in society, not doubling down on it and subsidizing it to protect sinners from consequences. It apparently does not occur to Mr. Sapp that society has gotten worse, not better, because of progressive views on sexuality in the last few decades. Giving condoms to children in middle school certainly won't reverse that trend. Perhaps Mr. Sapp should reread the passages on Sodom and Gomorrah?

Now, you may be wondering how an avowed Christian like Mr. Sapp has gone so far astray. After all, his biography says that he has a Master of Divinity from Duke University, he has worked as a youth pastor, and he serves as the executive director of the American Values Network. How can he be so immersed in faith and theology yet be so blind? Well, the answer is really quite simple: namely, he is not actually a Christian. Yes, he certainly wears faith like a costume to add credibility to his attacks on Christendom, but there can be no doubt that he is but a wolf in sheep's clothing. After graduate school, Mr. Sapp worked first for Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and then Rep. David Price (D-NC). He then went to work helping craft messaging targeting Christians for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as well as a string of Democratic politicians and state parties. His career is not one of a man of faith but rather one of a secularist. He is not advocating against Mr. Trump and for Mrs. Clinton because of any faith he holds or claims to hold. Mr. Sapp is doing it because he is a lifelong progressive working to subvert traditional values.

False prophets are convincing because they spend their lives honing their skills, crafting their image, and perfecting their message. They may look the part, sound the part, and know all of the buttons to push and strings to pull, but their mission is our destruction, not salvation. Mr. Sapp certainly does the Devil proud. He goes so far as to paraphrase Matthew 7:15-16 in one of his articles even as he purposely leads Christians to their very doom. Some may mistakenly believe Mr. Sapp is smiling and welcoming them into the light, but we can be certain that he is rather bearing his teeth as he hungrily leads them into the shadows.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Apologia: The Case Against "Jesus was a commie!"

Any traditionalist Christian has likely encountered people saying something along the lines of "Jesus was a socialist," "Christianity is Marxist," or the like. This has primarily been the battle cry of "liberal Christians" trying to reconcile their religion with their politics, but it also became a tool of atheists trying to subvert conservative Christendom. These attacks are not limited to the political left anymore, however, and they have taken on a particularly nasty attitude among some atheists and pagans of the far-right, or Alt-Right.

The argument appears to be that Christianity is a "foreign (Jewish) religion" that amounts to some sort of proto-Marxism. All of the problems that plague the West today—multiculturalism, believing races are interchangeable, moral relativism—can apparently be traced back to Christianity. Implied in all of this, of course, is that what came before the "Judeo-Christian conspiracy" was a proper, native religion that would not abide multiculturalism, multiracialism, or moral relativism. This is typically assumed to be Germanic paganism with a specific focus on the Scandinavian interpretation, albeit Europe was home to many different ethno-religious systems. If whites would return to their pagan roots and embrace Odin, they would wake up to the fact that all of the cancers that have plagued the West were the fault of Jesus, a subversive Jew.

Traditionalist Christians would naturally dismiss these allegations and assumptions, but the negativity has nonetheless persisted despite Christians remaining a steadfast component of the far-right. We must then address not only the nature of traditional Christianity itself to refute the accusations against it, but we must also address the nature of paganism to show whether or not it holds some unique value.

I. Christianity is multicultural while paganism is not

This argument tends to follow the line of thought that Christianity allows for, or even encourages, multiculturalism because non-whites can be Christian whereas paganism is restricted to only those of the relevant blood and soil. Let's first stipulate that universalism—the universal applicability of something—is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Truth is universal even if we, as individuals, do not like or understand it. Is that not the attitude taken by the far-right whenever discussing IQ among racial groups, that there are only two genders, and so on? Truth is truth regardless of your feelings or personal understanding. In this context, however, the accusation is that Christianity is inherently subversive due to universalism.

Now, there is no denying the fact that Christianity is universalist in that anyone can be a Christian regardless of their ethnic background, but this does not mean that Christianity inherently promotes multiculturalism. For example, in Genesis 11:9, we are told that God "confound[ed] the language of all the earth" and "scatter[ed] [the people] abroad upon the face of all the earth." Deuteronomy 32:8 tells us that God purposely "divided to the nations their inheritance," "separated the sons of Adam," and "set the bounds of the people." Acts 17:26 reiterates that God made "all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." The Greek Ephesians and Celtic Galatians were both Christian, but they also remained Greek and Celtic, respectively. If God created and purposely divided Mankind, how can Christianity be said to inherently espouse multiculturalism, miscegenation, &c.?

We must separate intended outcomes of doctrine from possible outcomes. The fact that some modern Christians espouse multiculturalism, miscegenation, open borders, and the like does not mean that they do so because of Christianity. After all, the Church stood against Muslim invasions for centuries, and medieval Christians certainly did not worship the Pharisees. Some pagans like to claim that those Christians were just hypocrites, bad at their own religion, &c. As they like to argue, Christianity does indeed encourage multiculturalism and such, and the Europeans comprising the Church for those centuries just ignored their own religion. Again, however, how can a religion be said to promote cultural Marxism when its own religious text says the opposite was God's plan? If God intended for Man to be one, muddled race with one, muddled language, why is that not what was created? Why purposely create natural diversity if desiring the opposite?

One problem with this ongoing "debate" is that the process is largely always the same. Pagans (and atheists) toss out the same attacks, and traditionalist Christians end up charging up the same hills every battle. This is obviously pointless because it allows anti-Christians to define the terms, and they will never concede that Christianity is, or could be, valid. Why fight battles where the terms of victory are purposely set to be impossible? They will remain unconvinced, and the fact that they remain so is somehow evidence that Christianity and Christians are wrong. No rhetoric or dialectic will ever be good enough within that context.

To that end, let's rather address paganism on its own terms. Let's not charge up the prepared hills set before us. We can show that Christianity is not what some pagans try to paint it as, but that is of little consequence since they already hold that all things Christian are false. We must ask instead if paganism is inherently more "blood and soil." Does it live up to the standards to which the pagans try to hold traditionalist Christians? We can look at this issue on two fronts—the spiritual and the temporal. Is Norse paganism itself explicitly against what plagues us today? Did the historical pagans themselves live up to any such standard?

In terms of the spiritual, consider that the Norse pantheon actually consists of the Æsir, Vanir, and the jǫtnar, who occupy Ásgarðr, Vanaheimr, and Jǫtunheimr, respectively. Odin and his sons, Thor and Baldr, are the primary Æsir along with Odin's wife, Frigg. Njörðr and his children, Freyr and Freyja, are the primary Vanir. Loki is the son of a jǫtunn, or giant, named Fárbauti and is not a god proper. According to the Hymiskviða, the god Týr is also said to be the son of a jǫtunn, Hymir. It should also be noted that this pantheon does not merely include different factions from different realms but also includes mixing amongst their number as Thor is the father of Magni by the jǫtunn Járnsaxa. Interestingly, in the Gylfaginning, Thor is said to be the step-father of the god Ullr, who was born to Thor's wife, Sif, by an unknown father.

In terms of the temporal, consider the example of Rurik, a Varangian pagan (Norse), who came to rule the Kievan Rus' in the middle of the 9th century. Sources detailing treaties of the time between the Rus' and Byzantines show the leadership of the former overwhelmingly consisted of Germanic names, but those sources also show that those same men were already swearing oaths by Slavic gods during the reign of Oleg, a relative of Rurik and the second ruler of the dynasty. Rurik's grandson, Sviatoslav I, is considered to be the first Rurikid to carry a Slavic name. Sviatoslav's eldest son, Yaropolk, was said to have married a Greek Christian, while the younger son, Vladimir, married a Norse woman, who bore Yaroslav the Wise, who in turn married his daughters off to Christian royalty in Hungary, France, and possibly England. Thus, we can see that within just the first generation, these Northmen had already adopted Slavic gods, and, within five generations, they were intermingling with other Slavs, Celts, and Greeks including Christians.

Before some pagan dismisses the Rurikids as unique, let us recall the viking Rollo who came to power in Normandy before taking a Frankish Christian as his wife and ultimately agreeing to defend Francia against other vikings in exchange for a title, lands, and becoming a Christian himself. His heir, William Longsword, and descendants would help to shape Western Christendom, especially in France and England, as well as one day taking part in the Crusades. Similarly, the first Norse King of Dublin, Óláfr, was recorded as taking a Gaelic wife or two, and his brother's descendants, who would play a major role in Irish history, also mingled with the native Celts and ultimately adopted Christianity as their own. Compare this to Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost in Norway, Ásatrúarfélagið in Iceland, and Samfundet Forn Sed in Sweden, all of which today explicitly reject an ethnocentric interpretation of paganism. Folkish pagans would naturally interject here to say that "anti-racist paganism" is not true paganism, but did the Norse gods not themselves intermingle with those from other realms, even their own enemies? Did the Norse people historically not embrace other pagan pantheons and Christianity as they saw fit? How do modern pagans reconcile all of this?

Let's reiterate the point of this. Paganism is not being attacked, but the effort is rather to hold a mirror up for the pagans who hold Christians to a standard that they themselves cannot meet. Modern Odinism is held up as a folkish religion based on blood and soil, but adherents can be found in Eastern and Southern Europe, the Iberian Peninsula, and South America rather than just in nations that have Germanic majorities and cultures. Do any Odinist groups require prospective members to take DNA tests to prove they are mostly or entirely of Germanic blood? Do they at least require members to have been raised in a Germanic culture? If not, how many whites of other ethnic groups are worshiping Germanic gods as their own? How far can the standard of "blood and soil" be bent before it breaks? How is this not its own form of pseudo-universalism?

Folkish pagans absolutely can hold to the standard that their gods, religion, and culture are theirs alone, but here again is where we must separate the intended from the possible. Which source tells us that Odin expressly forbade multiculturalism and miscegenation? Where is the evidence that the Norse themselves believed peoples were purposely separated by the gods? If there is no evidence for or against a "blood and soil" interpretation, is it not arbitrarily decided based on the ideology of the modern practitioners? Perhaps the Norse had no problem with fluidity of paganism among whites yet drew a strict line between themselves and non-whites, or perhaps they didn't because it was never a major issue in their time? We cannot know for certain, and that means that we must at least entertain the notion that a strict interpretation may be possible yet may not have been intended. In contrast, we can be certain that the Bible expressly says God's plan was for Mankind to be divided with peoples given their inheritance within set boundaries. We can also be certain that the liberal interpretation of Christianity is at odds with God and the Bible, not the traditionalist's.

II. Christianity is entryism for Jews while paganism will destroy the Jew

Some far-right pagans (and atheists) are fond of saying that Christians, including traditionalists, are "basically Jews" who worship a "kike on a stick" with little to no redeeming value. Some go so far as to assert that Christians who helped the religion spread through Europe during the Early Middle Ages were possibly crypto-Jews (Source). In a fascinating twist, these same people, while attacking Jews, will bring up the fact that Jews have been expelled from more than 100 cities, nations, and empires, but they fail to mention that virtually all of those expulsions were carried out by Christians, predominantly in Western Europe before the Reformation (Source). It does seem odd that "basically Jews" would keep doing that over the centuries, no?

In truth, it is not surprising that Christians have continually questioned the need of having Jews in their nations when we consider what the Bible has to say on the subject. In John 8:42-47, Jesus told the Pharisees that they "are of [their] father the devil, and the lusts of [their] father [they] will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." In John 2:15, Jesus whipped those in the Temple, flipped over tables, and chased everyone away. Revelation 3:9 warns Christians of the "synagogue of Satan, which say they are [Judeans] (Ἰουδαίους), and are not, but do lie." In this context, is it surprising that Christians would expel the children of Satan?

One reason that many cannot understand the relationship between Christians and Jews is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a "Jew" is today versus historically. This misunderstanding is in terms of both the religion and the people themselves. For example, upwards of 80% of Jews in the world today are Ashkenazi, or "German Jews," who are all the descendants of a population of only 350 people who lived between AD 1200-1400 (Source). According to a new study, the Ashkenazi originate from Jews and Jewish converts coalescing in Turkey under the Turkic Khazars, who themselves largely converted to Judaism (Source). Additionally, genetic studies have shown that the average Askhenazi Jew today has approximately 3-4% West African ancestry with an estimated date of admixture of AD 100-850 (Source). Taken together, these studies show us that modern Jews are the product of race-mixing between Judeans, Turks, Persians, Europeans, and blacks over several centuries, and then a tiny segment of that population provided the basis for the Ashkenazi so that most Jews today are cousins at least on some level. Most importantly, these studies show all of this race-mixing and inbreeding occurred after the time of Jesus.

We find the same thing in terms of the modern Jewish religion. Practically all Jews alive today belong to one form or another of Rabbinic Judaism, which developed from the Pharisees after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. The Babylonian Talmud was not compiled until AD 500. The Masoretic Text—the definitive version of the Hebrew Bible—was compiled and copied between the 7th and 10th centuries, and it was later revealed through the Dead Sea Scrolls that the MT had some modifications from earlier texts. Finally, collections of other rabbinic texts continued to be written until the 12th century. This means that modern Judaism is separated from the Pharisees by a millennium of interpretations, reinterpretations, and even outright modifications of texts. Add to this fact that there were other Judean religious sects in the time of Jesus that did not survive, and it becomes quite clear that Jesus has nothing to do with Judaism.

How far removed does Jesus have to be from modern Jews before anti-Christians will stop trying to claim that Christians are "basically Jews"? The Bible tells us that Jesus attacked the Pharisees in both word and action. If Jesus was on Fox News today whipping Jews in Jerusalem and yelling that they are the children of Satan, the same people attacking Christianity would be praising him. But, again, let us not continue charging up the same, tired hills that pagans have set before us, and let us instead look at the historical record to measure pagans by their own standards. Surely, history must be rife with examples of European pagans attacking Jews wherever they could be found. After all, we are now told that only pagans and atheists can truly stand against Jews subverting the West. They must have an impressive record to back up such assertions.

In fact, the Romans are the only European pagans with a record against the Jews, and even theirs is rather spotty when Judea was not in open revolt. Indeed, when the Romans were not putting down Jewish rebels, they were allowing Jewish merchants to spread throughout the Empire. For example, there is evidence of Jews in Roman settlements in modern Bulgaria as early as the 2nd century BC (Source). Jews also became established in population centers in the West such as Halbturn, Austria, by the 3rd century AD (Source) and Cologne, Germany, some time before the 4th century AD (Source). Jews also benefited from opposing Rome as was the case in Transylvania where Jewish colonists were settled in exchange for serving the Dacian King Decebalus in his own efforts against Rome during the 1st century AD (Source).

Interestingly enough, the Roman Empire officially became Christian in the late 4th century AD, and Jews throughout the empire faced expulsion from cities, synagogues were burned, lands were taken, and so on. The difference between how pagans and Christians dealt with Jews should not really be surprising since paganism inherently assumes that other peoples have their own gods whereas Christianity and Judaism are inherently and irreconcilably exclusive of one another. Jesus said that the Pharisees were lying, murderous children of Satan, and the Jews that had spread throughout Europe were the descendants, albeit somewhat removed, of that same "synagogue of Satan." Pagans—including Germanic pagans—may not have seen Jewish settlers in population centers as much of a threat at the time, but why would they when they were used to other peoples having their own gods and customs? Why concern yourself with someone else's druid or rabbi?

Today, anti-Christian pagans and atheists say that Christians are "basically Jews" who worship "a kike on a stick," and they believe they are the only ones who can stand up for Western civilization. What they overlook, however, is that their entire concept of "the Jew" as a threat to the West does not originate from Adolf Hitler or any neo-pagan dancing in the forest. No, they are just repackaging what the Church warned against and combated for century after century until weakened by the Reformation and subversive nonsense that went hand-in-hand with Protestantism such as "Christian Zionism." The fact is that pagans and atheists combined only form a small minority in white nations, and the vast majority of whites in the world still consider themselves Catholic or Orthodox. What seems like the more likely path to waking up the masses to the evils of multiculturalism and cultural Marxism—reminding Christians of who they once were and could be again, or telling them to abandon their own faith to worship Odin or become an atheist?

III. Christianity encourages weakness while pagans encourage strength

This goes hand-in-hand with the previous point as it is said that any and all "good Christians" are weak and cowardly as required by Jesus. After all, Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and love their enemies, and that means the Latin Christians who battled Muslims for centuries were ignoring Jesus's words for personal reasons. In contrast, the pagans are ax-wielding vikings who stand ready to form a shield wall and march forward to push the enemies of the West into the sea so they can be consumed by the hafgufa. If we concede pagans have the capacity to be warriors, is it fair to say Christians are meant to be weak?

We must first highlight that the critique of Christianity here relies entirely upon the lack of nuanced language in vulgar translations of the New Testament as well as a lack of understanding of the context in which the relevant passages were written. For example, pagans like to say that Christians are required to be "meek" (Matthew 5:5), but Jesus was not commanding his followers to submit to the wicked. He was rather pointing back to Psalm 37, which dealt with submitting to the Lord and not being envious of evil people because they will be broken. Additionally, the word used in Matthew was "πραΰς" rather than "ταπεινός." The former speaks to being more mild-tempered whereas the latter would carry the negative connotations associated with the word "meek" in English. Similarly, in Matthew 5:44, when Jesus said to "love your enemies," the word used for "enemies" is "εχθρός" rather than "πολέμιος," the latter of which would denote an enemy of the state. Jesus is telling his followers to try to be good people in their personal lives. This is why Matthew 5:39 says to "turn the other cheek" when slapped, which was a common insult at the time. He did not say that Christians should expose their throats to rabid dogs, but Jesus was rather saying that we should try to be the bigger person in our personal interactions rather.

Now, consider that Jesus said the Pharisees were murderous satanists, and he whipped people at the Temple. Indeed, when the targets of Jesus's assault complained, he castigated them for having turned the House of the Lord into a "den of thieves" (Matthew 21:13). Does any of that sound "meek," or cowardly? It was once common for people to ask, "What would Jesus do?" The answer must always be, "Flipping over tables, whipping people, and calling them the children of Satan is within the realm of possibility." Add to this the fact that Jesus told the apostles to arm themselves (Luke 22:36) and that Peter was indeed armed in Jesus's presence (John 18:10), and one must truly question the notion that Christians are meant to be suicidally weak. Pagans can certainly claim that they are willing to fight to preserve the West today, but traditionalist Christians are following in a long and proud tradition of crusaders defending Europe, a tradition that no one else can match.

IV. Christianity encourages Marxist modernity while paganism encourages traditional values

This argument supposes that Christianity promotes "Jewish values" that naturally and inevitably lead to the sort of cultural Marxism that defines so much of modern society. After all, Christians are meant to worship the Pharisees, adopt black babies, never judge anyone, and embrace unrepentant sinners on their own terms, right? The problem here is that these notions stem not from Christendom itself but from modern "Christians" who distort the religion to support their true religion—progressivism. Pagans who make similar arguments are purposely holding up the worst they can find as being representative of the whole, past and present. If it is pointed out, however, that there are also Marxist pagans, they quickly claim that the difference is that Christianity promotes it all while paganism does not. Does that rather convenient argument hold water?

We have already discussed that the Bible repeatedly makes it clear that mankind was divided on purpose, which sets multiculturalism in opposition to God's will. Leviticus 18:22 tells us that a man lying with a man as he would a woman is an abomination. Romans 1:26-27 makes it clear that homosexual acts by men or women are unnatural, and 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemns both μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται—the homosexual who is penetrated and the one who penetrates, respectively. Deuteronomy 22:5 tells us that a man shall not dress as a woman or vice versa. 1 Timothy 2:12 tells us that women cannot be clergy within the Church as a woman shall not "usurp authority over the man." If Christians writ large were still abiding by these traditional values, society would still be patriarchal with the "LGBT community" condemned for what it actually represents—degeneracy—and Africans and Arabs would not be flooding into the West. Christianity does not encourage multiculturalism, multiracialism, homosexuality, and the like. In fact, the religion itself condemns all of it, but modern cowards distort the Bible to suit their hedonistic ways.

As before, the seriousness of the allegations and the boldness with which they are leveled by pagans against traditionalist Christians suggests that the historical record must prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that paganism is a better basis for the West. Also as before, however, that could not be any further from the truth.

First, despite having many famous kings and warlords, Germanic pagans had a rather democratic and egalitarian society. For example, all free men were entitled to attend local, regional, and national assemblies where they could speak on issues and vote. In Scandinavia, such an assembly was known as a þing whereas it was known as a folkmoot among the Anglo-Saxons. Among the Norse, the þing was under the guidance of the lǫgmaðr, or law-speaker. Unlike fictional depictions, Germanic kingship relied on the people's acceptance of a claim to rule at such assemblies, often rising to the level of an election (Source). While it is true that women were excluded from voting, one hardly thinks of a broad democracy as a traditionalist system. After all, is it not democracy that has slowly been abused to give us a modern society in opposition to our own survival?

Second, Norse paganism seemingly incorporated women into a variety of roles with seiðr, a form of shamanistic magic, being seen as feminine in nature. While it is not necessarily clear what role a gyðja, or priestess, traditionally played relative to the goði, or priest, even folkish pagans typically allow for priestesses to lead religious services, to teach the religion to others, and so on. There may be folkish female firebrands today that buck the trend, but any honest assessment of religious movements would have to acknowledge that female clergy inevitably lead to the feminization of the religion. This typically manifests itself as a focus on tolerance, inclusiveness, and even acceptance of those who otherwise would be excluded. Folkish pagans may wish to see themselves as entirely separate from the "inclusive pagans," but the truth is that the reemergence of Germanic paganism is largely a product of the 20th century. In that time, the feminizing influence of women has already produced "inclusive paganism" from the same racialist origins as folkish paganism. It is not a coincidence that the former attracts more women while the latter has remained predominantly male, but the allowance of priestesses does not bode well for traditionalists.

Third, unlike Christianity's firm condemnations of degenerate behavior, the mythos of Norse paganism can at least be interpreted as more open to the same. For example, as said above, seiðr was seen as feminine magic, but Odin was held to be the preeminent practitioner thereof, having learned it from the goddess Freya (Source). In the Poetic Edda, Loki accuses the goddess Gefjon of having slept with someone in exchange for a necklace (Source), and he also accused the goddess Freya of having been caught in her brother's bed by the other gods, upon which she farted (Source). For his part, in the Eddas, Loki is said to have taken the form of a mare and had relations with the stallion Svaðilfari, so that he was the mother of the eight-legged horse of Odin, Sleipnir (Source). In Þrymskviða, Thor and Loki had to dress as and act like women to trick the giants and recover Thor's hammer (Source). Some pagans attempt to dismiss these uncomfortable tales by saying they were written down by Christians after the death of historic paganism, which is true, but does that not raise questions generally about the validity of the basis for modern paganism? If questioning what Christian Scandinavians recorded, who is to say what was or was not authentic paganism?

Finally, let's consider medieval Christendom's feudal society, the divine right of kings, the patriarchal Church and society, chivalry and knighthood, crusading against Islam, condemnation of degeneracy, and so on compared to Norse paganism's suffrage, rule by the consent of the governed, female clergy, and the like. Which of those sounds like what we would consider traditionalist today? Modern pagans can obviously adopt any system they wish today, but history shows us that traditionalist Christians are at least living up to what their ancestors would have recognized as Christendom. If pagans offer something more akin to what we today would consider traditionalist, are they not simply repackaging medieval Christendom with a pagan veneer?

V. Christians are traitors who butchered fellow Europeans

Every modern pagan knows the story of the valiant Widukind and his archenemy, a crypto-Jew known to history as "Charlemagne," an early medieval Yiddish name meaning "Charles the Nose." Charles was a tyrant who had weaseled his way into controlling the Franks, a once-proud Germanic people, who he had tricked into embracing Judeo-Christianity. His Franco-Jewish armies had surged through much of Western Europe, forcing everyone to become Judeo-Christians, but there was one people who he could not bring to heel—the Saxons of Saxony under Widukind the Magnificent. The Jews tried time and again, but any territorial gains were temporary at best. That was until AD 782 when Charlemagne had thousands of innocent Saxons, mostly babies, arrested and killed. Charles famously remarked, "I do this for Jesus, King of the Jews."

At least, that is the sort of revisionist history one is likely to encounter in many pagan circles, but it should be fairly obvious that the truth is far different. First of all, Charlemagne—shortened from Old French Charles le Magne (Charles the Great)—was not a crypto-Jew. Both of his parents were from Frankish noble families, and he was the grandson of Charles Martel, the military leader who defeated the attempted Muslim invasion of France in AD 732. It is true that Charlemagne was Catholic and helped spread the faith while expanding the Frankish Empire, but it must be said that the situation was far more complex and fluid than some will admit. To truly understand that time in history, one has to tackle the religious and political realities of Western Europe spanning centuries rather than taking narrow events entirely out of context as is usually the case.

This journey must begin in England in the 5th century AD with the initial arrival of the people who would become known as the Anglo-Saxons, or English Saxons. These Saxons were pagans at the time just as their continental cousins were, but that began to change with the Gregorian mission, which began in AD 596. Within six decades, Sussex was the only major Anglo-Saxon kingdom that was not Christian for all intents and purposes, and all of the kingdoms were ostensibly Christian by the end of the 7th century. This is important because the Anglo-Saxon mission to the continent started at roughly the same time, first to the Frisians and then to the Franks with the first Anglo-Saxon monastery built in present-day Luxembourg by St. Willibrord, known as the "Apostle to the Frisians." It must be noted that the Christianization of the Franks had started as early as the 4th century AD hence Charles Martel already being a Catholic in the early 8th century, but it was the Anglo-Saxon mission that would complete the process throughout the Frankish Empire by AD 800.

This is important because it was St. Leofwine, an Anglo-Saxon monk from Yorkshire, England, who carried the mission to the River IJssel to preach to the Frisians, building a church there sometime before 770. He had some success with his efforts, which prompted the construction of a second, larger church on the river, but the Saxons were less receptive to an effort to proselytize in 772 with a raiding party attacking the converts and burning St. Leofwine's church in that same year (Source). It was this event that prompted Charlemagne to launch a punitive expedition that included the destruction of a sacred tree near Eresburg. Eventually, Saxon noblemen agreed to terms with the Frankish king so as to bring the campaign to an end, but some Saxons such as Widukind continued launching raids against the Franks over the next few years. These raids along with more general rebellions prompted Frankish campaigns from 775-780 with Saxon nobles continually making oaths and offering hostages to make peace while many Saxons converted to Christianity. During that time, Widukind fled to Denmark. In 782, the Saxon arch-rebel returned to begin hostilities yet again, and, while this rebellion was quickly put down, the rebels managed to kill more than 20 Frankish noblemen. Charlemagne returned to Saxony to restore order yet found that Widukind had again fled to Denmark while the majority of the Saxon noblemen submitted to Frankish authority, offering up 4,500 men who were said to have taken part in the latest rebellion (Source). Since the Saxons had previously sworn fealty to Charlemagne, they were executed as traitors, a common practice.

Widukind would again return from Denmark to encourage rebellion among the Saxons and Frisians, but the result would be the same with the Franks defeating the rebels in the winter of 784. Whether Widukind could not escape that time or did not see the point, he chose instead to negotiate his surrender on the condition that he would not be punished as his followers had been in 782. Charlemagne agreed to these terms, and the arch-rebel was baptized along with his remaining pagan allies. For neo-pagans in the 20th century, Widukind became a nationalist hero who fought valiantly to preserve the "old ways," and the "Massacre of Verden" of 782 was pulled out of context and recast as noble Germanic warriors being martyred by wicked Christians. None seemed to concern themselves with the fact that the Franks were also Germanic or that it was English Saxons who were attempting to bring Christianity to Saxony. Indeed, Anglo-Saxons have somehow avoided any neo-pagan backlash while Widukind's status as a pagan hero has not been diminished by his fleeing to Denmark as his allies were left to die or even his later conversion to Christianity. Charlemagne stands out as the villain, and Christianity is condemned as well.

If a person is not versed in the complex history of Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, they could be excused for thinking that European pagans were not unlike modern New Age types. That is exactly the image neo-pagans attempt to conjure up when they act as though the actions of Christians like Charlemagne were beyond the pale. The poor, innocent pagans would have continued frolicking naked through the forests if it was not for the violent, subversive Christians. We have seen that events were far from being that simplistic, but we must also go beyond the shallow caricature of pagans as peaceful naturists who could get along with their neighbors when left to their own devices. This should be obvious considering what people know of the Norse vikings, but the obvious dots never seem to be connected within the context of modern pagans pointing fingers at Christians, whether medieval or modern traditionalists.

Consider the fact that the pagan Saxons themselves had invaded England, building their kingdoms on lands taken from the native Britons. Even before that, Frisian and Saxon pagans alike were known for piracy in the North Sea to such an extent that Roman Britannia had an official tasked specifically with defending the coast against their attacks (Source). The pagan Saxons were also known for launching raids against their Frankish neighbors well before the burning of St. Leofwine's church in 772. Once the Saxons were subdued, it was their cousins from Scandinavia who would make a name for themselves while engaging in such behaviors. The Northmen descended on the British Isles and France alike, and they were famous for the brutality with which they ravaged their fellow Europeans. The Anglo-Saxons and Franks being of Germanic stock did not protect their kingdoms from being sacked, their men from being killed, or their women from being raped. The Norse pagans would meet the same eventual fate of Widukind, but, in their prime, Europe trembled at the thought of the pagans appearing from the mist. In all those centuries of Germanic pagans attacking their neighbors, are we truly supposed to believe that they never committed any act akin to the "Massacre of Verden"? In context, it seems quite silly to somehow classify pagan violence as being more noble, less violent, or less divisive than whatever Christians did.

VI. Conclusion

What is the point of this? Is it to attack paganism, to show that neo-pagans are inherently wicked people? No, the point is simply to show that the attacks that militant pagans within the political far-right constantly launch at traditionalist Christians are misguided at best and utter buffoonery at worst. The notion that Christians are "basically Jews" who worship "a kike on a stick" and have a long history of being "race traitors" is ahistorical on its face, but, worse than that, it seems to be purposely dishonest on at least some level. If a person is familiar with Widukind, surely they know at least some of the less flattering details of the story? If they are familiar with the Saxons and Norse, surely they also know that both were known for their raids and invasions of others? If not, one must wonder how committed they are to studying their own religion and history. If they do know the truth, however, and yet still level laughably biased attacks against traditionalist Christians, the only conclusion that can be reached is that they are dishonest. One can hardly claim nobility while lying to further personal goals.

If Western civilization and the European people are going to survive the next few decades, the political far-right—including Christians, pagans, and whoever else—must stand firm in opposition to those who would see our peoples, cultures, and, yes, religions destroyed and erased from history. Christians may dislike pagans and vice versa, but only a fool would risk losing Europe to Islam because of perceived wrongs from a millennium ago.