A Response to New-Heathens
Preamble: Histogram of the Saints
What is Christianity? When someone makes a claim about the “teachings of Christianity” or a claim about “what a true Christian would do” how do we know how to answer? We could look to the Church Fathers, we could try to read the Bible and to understand this man-God, Christ. Though these are daunting tasks if we have any humility, and take years of focused study and prayer. I’m not able to defend Christianity in this way, at least not yet. I go to church and do the rest, I’m a layman and a recovering former atheist.
Yet I, an apparent member of the internet far right (which is to say someone who is not liberal in the political science sense of the term), seek to defend Christianity against attacks and slander. I reckon I know Christ’s church better than those who would attack her, even if I do not know her as well as some. In particular, in this post, I seek to defend her against the attacks of “neo pagans”, particularly of the “Nordacist” bent. This task reminds me of the old saying: “[…never wrestle with a pig]. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it”; yet mud washes off and I likely deserve no better, so into the sty I go.
I’m not going to defend Christianity by quoting Saints John Chrysostom or Basil the Great, that’s not in my wheelhouse and is not all that useful in this case. Serious Christians have successfully defended the faith in the eyes of other serious Christians (“Bible nerds” and I say this with affection) but have visibly failed to persuade large blocks of the public, given the situation in this 2018 AD. People are different and you need different tools for different propaganda jobs (I don’t consider propaganda to be a pejorative, but merely a reality).
Instead, I will take an empirical path in my defence of the faith, this has the advantage of being potentially compelling to those non-Christians with a materialistic world view; a standpoint I understand well. For those who say this is a dishonest approach to defending a proposition that is not primarily materialistic, I say: if we can get these people to go to church for a year, they will believe and they will stay for life; but first, we work on their terms. This was how I evangelized myself, and this is how the great missionaries worked. Always on local terms.
We have in history many societies which earnestly practiced Nicene Christianity for over one thousand years. Despite the great differences between say, Russia under Ivan Grozny and Florence under the Medicis, traditional Christian societies tended to look more like each other than they did, say, Islamic or Hindu societies. This is obvious. There was a common Christian essence, a “first factor” with a high loading to use the language of statistics.
In the 1500s, Italians and Russians both went to confession, both were expected to pray a few times a day, take communion at some regular interval [Russia is a bit of a complicated story here] and observe the fasts. Even though the Saints they prioritized where different, educated people from both societies would have been able to communicate using common Christian references. Both societies had monks and nuns and both attempted to heeded the call to Christian Charity and to hate evil. This is not to wash over the differences between East and West, though traditionally, before the modern age begins to set in somewhere around 1700 or 1800, the gulf between them was narrower. We could replace Italy and Russia with any country in Europe, and even more exotic locals like Egypt and Abyssinia; though similarities do begin to break down when you leave the Nicene realm, and become even more marked after the Reformation and the first Vatican council.
Medician Italy and Rurikid Russia were, in their religious life, not so different from sixth century Byzantium. The Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire, is in my mind, the urheimat of fleshed out, institutionally stable Christianity. If we have questions on what, in practice, a Christian society might look like, we should start by looking to these Eastern Romans of late antiquity through the middle ages. Byzantium preserves the initial conditions Saint Constantine allowed to be set up, and at various points in its history controls most of the territory the Apostles operated in, even if they lose Christ’s Palestine by the 630s. The society was also completely and totally religious in nature, as much as any later western country. This is not to say the people were perfect, but the practice of Christian rituals and faith was so widespread and so deeply woven into daily life, that it is fair to say the empire was as much a vessel for the Orthodox Catholic Church as the Church was a “social institution” for the empire. Byzantium is the Well of Christianity, and we can “draw” from this well, subject the water to analysis, and learn what this thing called Christianity is really about.
The Church teaches Christians to attempt to imitate Christ and to use the lives of the Saints as a model. This is a daunting task because Christ is such an enigmatic and flawless figure, sometimes healing the impossibly sick, sometimes overturning tables in a bout of righteous rage. Sometimes Christ talks about swords or investment strategies (don’t bury your master’s seed capital, invest wisely), though more often he talks directly about the nature of our reality and the path to salvation. It can be hard to know what he is saying often, given the distance of time and translation, as well as the nature of the material itself. This is why both Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics have traditionally expressed skepticism toward laymen reading the Bible on their own. Today, with low-cost Bibles and the Internet, it’s easier for the layman to read the Bible in a traditional way, though it is perhaps still done to the confusion and temporary misdirection of many faithful, as was certainly the case in Luther’s day. Be careful reading the Bible, and remember that it was written in Greek and doesn’t always translate well, especially into English. Be particularly weary of Bibles using the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament (more common in English), rather than the Greek Septuagint that Christ references in the New Testament.
The Bible may be a risky thing to read, but traditionally, this was not a problem for the faithful. Priests read passages to the public, and explained to the audience how it would affect them in their lives. The congregations in those days also had the advantage of better-grasping the agricultural analogies which permeate the Bible, something we ever-more autistic, grocery-store-shopping moderns sometimes overlook.
The lives of the Saints were a major source of wisdom. Christ may have been enigmatic and seemingly impossible for us to mimic, but the Saints and their deeds give more snapshots of righteous behavior to follow, reinforcing the Christian’s path. You don’t have to be a master of arcane religious philosophy (reading Church fathers). You can simply observe how a large number of saints acted, from Kings and Emperors, to high churchmen, to hermits and nuns to common folk and even reformed whores, who did remarkable and holy things. I call this the Histogram of the Saints, again borrowing from statistics. The space of Christian behavior is given by the common actions of the saints. This isn’t to say that all their actions were good but if you read their lives in good faith and with some subtlety you can be on your way to learning what it is to be a Christian.
The point is, look at actual historical Christians if you want to see what Christianity is about. Look at what they held up as ideal, analyze in good faith. This is more honest than cherry picking lines from the Bible out of context or looking to the modern, rotted out liberal churches.
Before we go on I will say one more thing: Christianity doesn’t have much a position on nationalism, on ethnic nepotism or on race. It’s about worshiping Christ, not one’s race. If worshiping one’s race is one’s goal, then one is missing the point. However, if there is a people who want to have a particular arrangement for their country, say making Hungary a place principally for Hungarians, Greece for Greeks, or Appalachia for the Scots-Irish, then the Christian church will still want them to be part of the body of Christ under those terms. This is how it always worked in the past, there was no requirement to import outsiders, contrary to the lies some spread. I would argue that having geographical units organized in someway by a coherent ethnic group is just logical, historically grounded and makes life easier, but it’s not Christian per se, it’s just sensible policy. This is a matter for another time, but suffice to say that the world of the Bible and of the Church Fathers assumed ethnic nepotism and tribalism.
A Digression: Men who Hate their Fathers
The contemporary Catholic writer and social critic, E. Michael Jones, a font of wisdom for us post-modern people, makes the point that the 2,000 year-going insurgency, and lately full-blown war on Christian faith, is at its root a rebellion against Logos. This pagan Hellenic idea of Logos, baptized, expanded and refocused on Christ as the living Logos by the Apostles, is essential to Christian philosophy, though it is sadly brushed over and mistranslated as “word” in most Bibles and modern churches.
Even as I type it now, I feel myself under the sway of a strong positive emotion, with the vestigial hairs on my back and neck standing up. The emotion I feel while thinking about Logos betokens the first time I heard the concept explained by Victor Davis Hanson in a recorded lecture nearly a decade ago. Hanson said the word, and my attention was jolted. I thought “ok, what? what is this thing he is talking about? This isn’t like your typical platitude-fest evangelical word salad” We will shortly return to advancing the thesis, but let’s just say that explicitly evangelizing Logos may well be the way we corral the lost sheep of modernity back into the church, particularly the atheistic personality types.
Jones says the rebellion against Logos, the rejection of the inherit and obvious logic of the world God has generously made for us, takes many forms. Jones says that they are often rooted in a rejection of one’s own father and other patriarchal authority figures, and the abiding anger that results. We should bear this in mind when examining ourselves, and when remotely evaluating the motivations of those who attack the church. Are they right with paternal authority as such? Are they living in an illogical and unhealthy way? Keep this in mind for the next section, where the post really starts.
Kristian Vikernes and Fantovs stavyrkan
I will now tell you about a particular individual who I thought would be a useful foil: Kristian Vikernes.
Kristian Vikernes is a Norwegian convicted murderer, arsonist, and musician. He is better known by his self-picked name “Varg” which for those unfamiliar with Scandinavian languages, means “wolf”, and sounds absurd in his native tongue (I know Scandinavian). Calling oneself “varg” is like going by “Spike” or “Diesel” in American English, it’s moronically juvenile and try-hard. Interestingly, the word “Varg” pronounced “Vaaree” with a soft “a” and a long “ee” at the end, is not the original word for wolf, which is instead something like “ulf” (thinking Beowulf) and is a fairly common way to name a man historically.
The Germanic variations of the name Wolf focus on the positive aspects of the beast. Wolves are beautiful, smart, powerful apex predators and the root-species of our beloved dogs. The Scandinavian “varg” in contrast, comes from the Old Norse vargr and in turn from the Proto-Germanic wargaz meaning “to turn, twist, press, constrict, strangle; enemy, captive”. Scandinavian farmers hated wolves so much that the pejorative for them displaced the original word. Basically it has the connotation of an evil wretch who lives in the woods and steals your livestock. A fitting name indeed, as I will show.
Kristian Vikernes rose to a sort of fame in Norway’s Black Metal scene in the early 1990s, though he would become more infamous for his misdeeds than for his music, which I will admit isn’t without it’s own merit. In 1993 he murdered an insane weirdo in the Black Metal scene. This, however, is hardly his worst crime. In 1992 an historic church in Norway, the “Fantof Stav Church” was burned down, Vikernes is almost certainly the one who did it, though he was not convicted for this particular burning. The church was among the oldest wooden structures in Europe, built in 1150. Ornately decorated in various carved wooden details, and likely built by workers who were themselves half-heathen, the church had a…viking feel to it.
This sacrifice of labor and skill by the medieval Norwegians who built it, somehow survived the ages into the modern period. Vikernes own ancestors thought this church was worth building and maintaining, yet he knew better and took it from his countrymen forever. There are still a few of the old Stav-style churches in Norway and Sweden, though none are as beautiful as the Fantov church. In addition to the Fantov church, Vikernes burned down the Åsane Church (built 1795), and a series of less historic structures built in 1887, 1903, and 1930. I maintain that these craven acts are not manly crimes (wolf) but crimes of a craven a firebug in full revolt against Logos (varg). Destruction of other people’s treasured places for no reason but to sow misery is a sin so great almost anyone can name it as such. Look at the pictures below and really think about what sort of mind and soul it would take to burn this holy Norwegian building.
In a typical case of Scandinavian injustice, Kristian did a paltry 14 years in a cushy Norwegian prison for his crimes. In an earlier age there would have been no question about burning him at the stake, or carving the blood eagle upon him. He now lives in exile in France under a pseudonym. Like a medieval outlaw, a “wolfshead”, Vikernes must live in exile as he is hated in his own country, even within the satanic/neopagan Black Metal scene whence he sprang. Yes, even anti-Christian black metal musicians have enough sense of national pride and basic decency to reject this wretch of a man. Today he seems to get his support from those who don’t understand the nature of his crimes.
As bad as his arguments are, Kristian is influential on the internet far right, with 162 thousand subscribers on YouTube. I reckon most of his fans are broken crazies, but enough of them aren’t to make it worth dealing with his case. This post is written for those “Varg” fans who are not insane. Perhaps I can shake off a few fans and even get them to hate him as I hate him (and yes, Christians are allowed to hate). I was filled with a strong sense of sympathetic embarrassment when watching his videos to prepare for this post. I can imagine that the modal Vikernes fan is a slob with bad skin, a neckbeard and a Thor’s hammer pendant, but smart people do take him seriously, so I too am forced into this unfortunate position.
I will also say for background that I am far more friendly to the IndoEuropean ancestral religions than some would like. I read the Iliad and Beowulf (not so Pagan, really) regularly, have depictions of Donnar and Wotan on my walls as well as Hellenic gods, and am a Wagnerian. So it’s not as though I don’t know what Indo-European/Germanic ancestral religions were about, I simply, like Wagner and Tolkien, choose to be a Christian. There was a time when these religions stood in the way of the Logos, but those days have long since passed, and the Byzantines, after all, are the one’s who saved the Iliad for us (along with everything else). Maybe there’s some lesson in there for us.
The old Indo-European gods aren’t necessarily fully antithetical to Christianity anyway (unlike Egyptian or some near-eastern gods), they are simply forerunners, best efforts. Dyeus Pitar (Zeus/Jupiter) is clearly a low-resolution God the Father, Donnar is a sort of cartoonish but highly compelling Archangel Michael, Hestia is partly the Theotokos (Virgin Mary) and Pandora is so obviously Eve no one can deny it. You don’t want to take these comparisons too far, but there’s something to it. Christianity has the true elements of paganism, the archetypes the Logos wants us to understand and meditate on, only they are clarified, amplified, and put into a coherent and far deeper framework. Paganism was like a bag of pieces from long mixed-up board games in a child’s closet. You could almost use these pieces to play a game, but there was a missing piece: Iesus Christos, the Logos of God.
Christian Emperors, Saints, and the people they killed
The crux of the new-heathen position is that Christianity is a “door mat religion”. Turn the other cheek, meek shall inherit the earth, love your enemies and other lines they quote without the necessary context and interpretation. The late-stage liberal tyranny we live under has wrought a pacifistic hippy Christ who wants you to hand your country over to Muslims and random foreigners, who is fine with foul homosexual acts and just wants you to be nice. Forgetting the beating of money lenders by Christ, sword-bearing angels and the admonishment not to cast pearls before swine or give the children’s bread to the dogs. Needless to say, the “Christianity” we’ve all grown up with is a far cry from the real Byzantine deal.
I will treat the following video by Vikernes as representative of his case against Christianity. He may well have more points to make, so bear that in mind. For the sake of keeping this post from turning into a book, I will answer the points he makes in this video only. The video is fairly long, at 17 minutes, and isn’t particularly coherent, being a mishmash of non sequiturs. Vikernes quotes the Old Testament without context, using an example from Judges, of men behaving in a sexually criminal way, to somehow attack Christianity, even though this example is about the social chaos that results from lacking a king. I won’t focus on weak points like this, but will instead rebut what I consider to be his better points, even though none of them are particularly hard to stamp out, and I wrote the core of my replies from memory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yqrBO2YYxc
Vikernes uses the following map to make the case that Christianity is a religion of weakness. Like most of the new-heathen critiques, this is a strawman, dishonest, deliberately weak representation of the truth.
The map works within the context of liberalism (being nice is the highest good) to make the case that the Crusades pale in comparison to Muslim wars of expansion. The Muslims are mean and the Christians are nice because the Christians hardly attacked the Muslims. It is true that “the Crusades” is a smaller set than “all Muslim victories”, but that’s not the right comparison. The Crusades were only one of many campaigns Christian Kings and Athlings waged against Islam, and the Crusades focused only on coastal Syria and Palestine, with a few diversions into Egypt and Holy Byzantium (the tragic 4th crusade). Not shown on the map are wars of Reconquesta in Hispania, the hundreds of years of successful Byzantine wars, the Holy League wars (Lepanto) or the many campaigns by the Russian Empire and the Hapsburgs against the Ottomans and other Muslims. Also not shown is the fact that the majority of the world’s Muslims lived under a tepid Christian domination for much of the 19th and 20th centuries (French, British, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese empires).
The people who lived and breathed Christianity, in the late Classical period up through perhaps 1700, had no shortage of successful wars and dispensed violence when they needed to. The Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius was funded by the church in his desperate mission to recover the True Cross from Persia and win the capstone war of antiquity. Emperor Justinian the Great who is a Saint in both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches and famous for overseeing massive reconquests in the west, had perhaps 20,000 rebels put to the sword through trickery that would have done Odysseus proud.
My favorite example of Christian-sanctioned violence however comes from Emperor Basil II the Bulgar Slayer. Basil II was not a saint, though he is held in high regard by the church[I am currently unable to find or recall the details on how he is honored by the Church, if you know please comment]. Emperor Basil was a famously pious and grizzled veteran of countless wars. He slept on the floor, wore rough clothes and armor daily and prayed constantly. Basil had a remarkable capacity for work: when he wasn’t praying or managing the state, he was planning or leading wars against the empires foes, personally killing countless men. He wrung exorbitant sums out of the vanquished and left the treasury of the Byzantine Roman Empire overflowing with gold. The church, the people who knew more about Christ than most of us could hope to, did not stop him, but blessed him. They blessed him because this was 1000 AD and this was what had to be done.
The great Emperor expanded the empire’s reach north, south, east and west, curtailed the oligarchy to the benefit of the people and funded great building programs. His other accomplishments are too many to name, it is enough to say he was a world-historical figure and perhaps the third most accomplished ruler of the Middle Ages, after Chingis Khan and Carl the Great, though he may even rank second.
Emperor Basil earned his nickname from a particular campaign he waged against the pagan Bulgars, the Turkic barbarian invaders that give the modern, Slavic (though this depends who you ask), Bulgarian people their ethnonym. Basil used a number of methods to deal with the Bulgar problem and recover the territory they had taken. The wars and plots went back and forth, for decades, with the Byzantine Romans gradually closing the vice on the Bulgarian commander Samuel. At last, in October of 1014 AD, following a crushing battle, the Byzantines had finally appeared to win. To seal the conquest of Bulgaria, which had been one of his primary tasks for years, the Emperor had 15,000 captured Bulgars blinded. “tsssssss” “tssssss” 30,000 times eyes were put out with hot irons. Well, not quite, he left one of every hundred men with one eye, so that he could lead his fellows back by rope to King Samuel. This astonishing act of strategic cruelty was shocking even to medieval Byzantium, where punitive blinding was common. Upon seeing his armies reduced to charity cases, king Samuel seems to have suffered a heart attack and died two days later. The Bulgar problem was resolved.
I could go on and on, naming Saints who killed people to advance the mission of the church or to protect the state which protected the church. The response from new-heathens will be some variation of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I expect responses akin to:
because modern Christians are weaklings, and because I know a few lines from the Bible about being meek and turning the other cheek, Christianity is inherently weak and pacifistic. The ancient examples you cite are simply people who didn’t follow the tenets of Christianity seriously. The true Christian response to the Bulgar invasion would have been to throw open the gates of Constantinople, love your enemies and embrace martyrdom. Hail Odin!
I’ve heard this before, and in a way it’s not falsifiable, if we, for a moment, put on our materialist hats and simply look at Christianity as a cultural technology. If Christians ever act outside the bounds of the strawman the new-heathen has set up, well that’s not Christianity. “Real Christianity is best represented by post-1960 variants.” Presumably these people have studied for years to learn this wisdom. My counter is: Who would know more about brass-tacks Christianity than the Byzantines? The Byzantine upper classes read the Bible in it’s original Koine Greek (much like modern Greeks). Byzantine scholars essentially wrote the cannons (Byzantine and Italian-Roman Catholic were roughly the same thing until the 700s AD) and founded the Nicean Christian church that when on to fragment into the Protestant bits we have inherited today.
No, sometimes a Scotsman is a Scotsman. Byzantium is the model for a Christian society, perhaps with our modern technology and wealth we can afford to be less cruel than the Byzantines, but if anyone is Christian, it was the original holy Roman empire at Constantinople.
Other Christians were warriors too. Roman Catholics reconquered Spain, civilized the Danes, helped Holy Russia push back the Ottomans and freed the Mexican people from their particularly barbarous ways (Hernan Cortes did nothing wrong). The Portuguese even made contact with the Ethiopians in an effort to attack Islam from the south. Even protestants should get some credit for the conquest of North America, which was often portrayed as a crusade against the heathen Red Indians. But Byzantium is the model, they lived and breathed Christianity in a way few, if any, societies have since, and they lasted over 1,000 years, there must be something to the Byzantine Way.
Christianity is a massive religion, there are so many teachings and traditions, it’s perhaps impossible to summarize with words, and must instead be experienced through the rituals and disciplines of the church. We can however say what the church is not: the church is not a suicide pact for pacifists. In the Malthusian dark ages, when barbarians threatened and life was cheap, the church sanctioned an appropriate degree of cruelty, as witnessed by the near-total militarization of Byzantium in the 700s AD. The church never worships cruelty or violence as such, unlike the forerunning Indo-European religions, but monks were happy to copy down heroic poetry of a pagan origin, to celebrate knights (in the west) and Varagians (in the east) and the church was careful to cultivate pious soldiers (and often, not so pious, but still useful), blessing their arms and armor before battle.
So we’ve dealt with the first of Christian Vikernes’ strawmen, which will deal with most of his points in the rest of the video. Let’s mop up the rest. Vikernes says that Christian nationalists embrace their faith “because it is a wall against Islam”. Maybe some people get to the church because the long history of fighting Islam is attractive, this would be fine as long as they work toward integrating the full faith into their lives. But I don’t think this is the most common reason. There are many paths to the church, but one doesn’t stay a Christian because he is a fan of the middle ages or the Holy League, or because the Church stands up for natural law. One stays and becomes a Christian because one literally believes it. Through regular churchgoing, prayer and fasting, one will become invested and come to see that Iesus Christos was God (the supreme, unconstrained being), and that he died, was resurrected, and that this so impressed the Apostles, that they and their heirs managed to convert the Roman Empire to Christianity within about 300 years, despite often fierce persecution and a popular, established system of religions. The ultimate up-hill fight.
Vikernes then goes on to “step on the dick of his own argument with hobnail boots”(Greg Cochran quote!). He complains about various crusades in northern Europe as the big bad Christians killing the poor, defenseless pagans. I’d add to this King Alfred (who some say is a saint) and the other English heroes who stemmed the destruction of the Vikings, as well as kind Harald of Denmark. Vikernes doesn’t see the contradiction here because 1. he is trapped within the guardrails of liberalism, instead of hating the white race, he has inverted liberalism and worships it; he thinks being nice is the greatest virtue, only he thinks one should only be nice to white people and 2. he is actually criminally insane, a mad dog, and like a former amphetamine user, is unable to think clearly, drawing inappropriate connections or missing the obvious connections between ideas.
Vikernes’ problem with Christianity seems to be that, historically, Christians haven’t been perfect. One wonders if perhaps Kristian doesn’t harbor some deep Petersonian beef with creation itself.
Things get personal about half way in when Vikernes attacks Byzantium and her failure to hold on to the empire of Justinian. This is a strange hill to try and defend, given that Byzantium is typically considered a sort of Gondor, a shining, noble kingdom that held off for ages against impossible odds, with few allies. Kristian says that Byzantium lost to “a few Arab tribes”. This is not quite how it went down. The Byzantines fought the last great war of antiquity against the mighty Persian Sasanian Empire, a superpower for its day. The war raged for 26 years, between 602 and 628 AD. This is one of the great wars in history, with forgotten heroism on both sides, however, 26 years is a long time to fight and both empires, the old Greeks and Persians, were bled white by the end, to a mutual, tragic doom the world has not yet recovered from (“those who keep swords sheathed will inherit the earth”).
When the Arabs, rising in the south, overran Palestine following the war, the great Emperor Heraclius, now aged, had developed a number of phobias, possibly due to the severe psychological trauma he endured personally fighting in a war for 26 years. This limited his response. On top of the weak leadership, the ethnic pride of the Greek-speaking Byzantine core population, had long since alienated the non-Greek peoples of Syria and Egypt, who were locked out of the highest levels of government and clergy. These groups used the heresy of Monophysitism as a rallying point to express their own ethnic solidarity against the heavy-handed Greeks, weakening the empire when the heirs of Mohamed attacked. It is not exactly clear if Mohamed thought of himself as a prophet, or if Islam was invented after, but suffice to say that nothing lasts forever and the Byzantines were punished for their hubris, losing Egypt, Palestine and most of Syria forever.
The Byzantium that emerged from the first period of Muslim expansion was hardly something to scoff at. When the aforementioned Basil II was assassinated in 1025, the empire stretched from Lebanon to Georgia, to Croatia, down to southern Italy. Its navy dominated the eastern Mediterranean, launching raids into Egypt. It was also more internally coherent and defensible, with Greek-speakers making up a larger fraction than when far-off Egypt was held, and appropriately decentralized. Again, nothing last forever, but Byzantium sure did last a long time. Just as soon as God took Byzantium from us, in 1453, Russia was on the ascent as a Third Rome, and the western Roman Catholics were busy spreading their version of the faith in the New World and in Asia.
The entire West vs Islam debate which Kristian Vikernes assumes is a Red Herring. Non-Takfiri Muslims are our brothers, albeit brothers we should communicate with over the internet or through short-term visits, rather than across a garden fence. Kristian Vikernes may be right in that if Europe hadn’t been Christian, we can imagine it would have still resisted Islam, just as the Hindus and Buddhists did (though not so successfully). We don’t get to run Monte Carlo simulations with history, so it’s not a particularly productive area to explore, Europe was Christian and it fought Islam. But Islam is not the root problem today, if ever it was. Today, Islam needn’t be a threat, and indeed Muslim nations could be useful allies against the Anglo-Zionists. They have numbers and they have people willing to die, but European logistical, organization and technological advantages are as great as they’ve ever been over Muslims. The problem is liberalism. Christians of the past, who were vastly more serious about their faith than moderns, had no problem doing what we, today, need to do: repatriate the great mass of Muslims and other recent immigrants from Europe and establish some sane system in North America and Australia. The problem is that we are prevented from doing this almost trivial task by the mind-virus which has progressively infected us since the enlightenment.
At this current stage, the western mind is controlled by a shortsighted and in cases, downright evil oligarchy and the Zionist lobby. The population is socially engineered to have values that are useful for these blocs, plain and simple. The deal is that Zionists get the money and influence of a still dominant west, and the oligarchy gets to fleece the public without any sense of noblesse oblige that once characterized elites. This system is illogical and cannot last, our task is to SMASH this system, to shore up the Katehon through some new system that allows natural nations to exist under a new illiberal order, and we will do this under Christ the Logos. It’s a tall order but we have no choice.