A Critical Evaluation of the New Right

The New Right has shown itself to be utterly incapable of organizing itself into any meaningful cultural force. A series of recent brouhahas (the RooshV-Krauser affair; the Aurini-Owen “breakup”, revelations that certain high-profile individuals were hiding their homosexual dispositions, etc.) proves that things are generally a train wreck. In the five years or so that the New Right has been active it has accomplished relatively nothing. I shall look at the individual components of the New Right and explain their fatal flaws and the solution to these options.

The New Right, broadly speaking, can be divided into four groups: (1) the Dark Enlightenment (DE)/Neo-Reaction, (2) the Manosphere, (3) the White Nationalists (WN), and (4) miscellaneous.

The Dark Enlightenment, an eclectic group of individuals ranging from race realists, to men’s rights advocates, to traditionalist, to transhumanists, to atheists, to nationalists, is concerned with primarily racial, sexual, and intellectual differences between people. The first problem we see with the movement is that it is all over the place. There are so many divergent interests and people that they cannot long cohere together. The perennial problem of ego wars hampers the movement, even though it is less severe than in the WN movement . Given the recent outing of undesirables it seems that the DE is composed of people of questionable character and calls into question the ability of the movement to operate for specific goals. The DE is better known for what it is against than what it is for. With the failure to engage in quality control and define itself in terms of what it is for, we should not expect much to come from the DE.

The Manosphere is largely inhabited by disgruntled males who feel that modern liberalism has shafted them. About all they stand for is getting laid and maybe building self-esteem. They are riven by personality feuds as was seen in the RooshV-Krauser debacle as well as pretentious peacocks bragging of their alleged sexual conquests. The most obvious problem with this movement is that wet pants do not a revolution make; this tendency is summarized in their slogan “Enjoy the decline”. The problem is amorous deviancy and elevating it to the summum bonum or your life is merely falling into the roles programmed for you by the Kinsean and Reich controllers. If that is you, then you are the problem.

The White Nationalists basically stand for a whites only society. They are also riven with ego wars, and are constitutionally incapable of anything more serious than sign waving protests and conferences. Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents seems to be one of the leading voices of this movement. Matt Heimbach at Tradyouth is another vocal exponent of said doctrines. The most glaring and obvious flaw in the movement is that despite all their harping about White Genocide and the need for more white babies, they are nearly all unattached, or if attached, are frequent users of family planning materials, as shown by their lack of children. So white people are dying and you don’t have any kids? That makes sense. This contradiction can be seen in Matt Parrott’s essay “Where The White Women At?”

We see that he basically makes the calculation that it is more expedient for white people to be politically active and remain single than to form families and have children; ostensibly because white women are so dysfunctional. While I agree with Mr. Parrott on his Christian defense of celibacy, I assumed such a calling was for a life of prayer, contemplation, and good works, not street activism. Maybe the WN’s should take a page out of the Christian Patriarchy movement and have large families IN ORDER TO WIN POLITICAL CONTROL. This persistent childlessness is the major reason why the WNs should not be taken seriously. If extinction is the problem, procreation is the answer, something most WNs don’t seem to get.

Miscellaneous refers to individuals who do not fit nicely in any one group. Jack Donovan is the premier representative of this group. Jack has affiliations with the DE, the Manosphere, and WNs. The real joke is that Jack is a spokesman for the New Right. Being an open homosexual, is it not ironic that people who bemoan the death of white people or the loss of traditional values turn to an agent of destruction such as Mr. Donovan? Really, sodomy is going to solve anything? Most of the miscellaneous share the same pathologies as the others. Instead of combining ideas to become a fasces, they have created a Frankenstein.

Clearly western civilization is dying. The next question is why is it dying? I will let Solzhenitsyn answer this one:

More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

Indeed, the godless French Revolution laid the foundations for this catastrophe. If we look at Europe in 1750 we saw a continent that (1) was racially homogenous, (2) had strong traditional values, and (3) was the intellectual cockpit of the world. It would seem all the elements of the New Right should be happy. Yet the traditional order of the Ancient Regime can be summarized in the Vichy French Motto: Travail, Famille, Patrie, or faith, family, fatherland. The traditionalist view of Faith and Family produced the flowering of European culture in the 1500 years of Christendom, only to die in the mud and blood of WW1. Any new political order must recognize the centrality of family and faith. Any collaboration with cultural Bolsheviks who advocate sodomy, fornication, drug use, and transhumanism should be shunned as unnatural and harmful. Men and women need to return to their savior, Jesus Christ, and beg His forgiveness in order to move forward. We need to move away from these sterile pretentious man-children and their incessant ego wars and return to a traditional view of life rooted in the Christian history of the West, while remembering that social activism is not a substitute for prayer, contemplation, and the performance of good works. Rather than embracing the sterile life of egoism, cheap sex, and intellectual posturing, a robust traditionalist movement needs selflessness, commitment, and integrity. We need men like Patrick and Benedict to restore the flagging fortunes of the West, as they did 1500 years ago. favicon

80 thoughts on “A Critical Evaluation of the New Right”

  1. Amen. I think Greg Johnson is anti-christian (fail). Also I agree sodomites ought to be shunned (didn’t you guys have Donovan on here?). I agree with a lot of this and I really like the urgency. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. The fear of God is sorely lacking, especially in many pulpits. Turning off the TV and dusting off the Bible would help a lot of people (not all of it is hard to understand).

    Online I see Christians who really fear God (such as homeschoolers and the street/campus preachers) but that’s just online. We all want to save our civilization but is there even a single traditionalist neighborhood/community? If people fear God but remain completely atomized, they save their own souls but it will just fizzle out. Also marriage is a big risk if there is no community. There are obviously economic issues, too. Repentance and faith are the highest priority. I just can’t imagine a spiritual revival will survive without tangible results like justice (the real kind, not social justice) and community (preferably involving hobbit houses).

  2. Catholics and Mormons, working together, so beautiful. You could say you built it, or one might think that without Rome and some fortuitous history Christianity would have remained a fringe Jewish heresy and neoplatonism might have found a more suitable popular form.


    Conservatism, has failed because the enlightenment fallacy of an aristocracy of everyone could never come into being. Darwin put an end to it. We tried to turn our ancient aristocratic ethics into social science, but the european civil war exterminated Germany, where all our conservative aristocratic thought originated. Then the left created a pseudoscience to replace religion (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Heidegger). And the neo-Puritains created pseudo-morality(victimism, feminism, progressivism, propaganda, relativism, and individualism).

    Since then, we have failed to convert our institutions, traditions, myths and rituals, into a rational and scientific set of arguments. Every single libertarian and conservative movement has failed. The only progress we have made is in producing our own propaganda systems (think tanks, radio-stations, network news, and web sites). And from these we still maintain power.

    I am working very hard to complete the neo-reactionary movement, and to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments.

    And I will tell you, with absolute certainty, that the reason for our western success – our rate of evolution compared to each competing civilization – is due to our discovery of testimonial truth, our near total requirement for truth telling, the jury, independent judiciary, common law, rule of law, and the heroic literature. And that the only value the church added, and still continues to add, is in breaking family and tribal bonds by prohibiting inbreeding (cousin marriage), and extending private property rights to women, and in threatening the aristocracy with revolution if they resist natural law (rule of law, property rights), and the invention of the university.

    And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.)

    The answer is not to restore myth and mysticism. They have conquered us with comforting lies to our less able. It is not up to us to learn to lie, or to restore lying by analogy as well. That is counter to the reason the west excelled compared to all other civilizations: truth telling.

    Our only chance for our western civilization to survive is to restore its original premise: heroism, truth telling, the jury, the common (organic) law, independent judiciary, universal standing, property rights, and to institute the physical, normative, and informational commons as property all are required to, and able to defend. Our origins are in Athens and Sparta, London and Koenigsberg, not Jerusalem and .

    One need not ‘believe’ in law. One need only let law and truth telling do its work. One need not lie using mysticism. Truth, property and law are enough. One does not need foreign myths. Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hayek, and the thousands of other heroes in the western cannon are enough.

    Because, Truth is enough.

    If we only will use violence to demand it.

    Aristocracy uses organized violence to prohibit tyranny, not deceit and consensus.

    There is no more truthful action than violence.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  4. Greg Johnson is not anti-christian, he simply doesn’t think Christianity can save European Civilization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMwrMl0tinQ . Alexander the Great was also a sodomite, who cares. Oscar Wilde was also homosexual but he had a Wife and three children. Being homosexual does not immediately make you into an enemy of tradition and Europe. Such narrow-minded thinking will only cause more problems for pan-European nationalist movements.

  5. It is plain to see that you need to get over the butt-hurt of being a part of a loosing movement that is going no where.

    “You could say you built it, or one might think that without Rome and some fortuitous history Christianity would have remained a fringe Jewish heresy and neoplatonism might have found a more suitable popular form.”

    So are you banking on good luck to not be a member of a loser movement?

  6. What a joke. More butt-hurt, get over it Western Man is christian man no matter how hard you deny it.

  7. “And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.)”

    You are not even coherent. If you are against universalism then you should reject Homer and Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius, since Hellenism was universal as well. As Greg Johnson said: “What makes Christianity essentially non-European are the doctrines it shares with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and not with the Jews, namely the idea that a universal truth is the foundation of a universal community; if Christianity is true for all men, then it is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion.”http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/04/christianity-and-european-identity/

    So yeah the ancient Greeks and Romans are our patrimony not yours. Hume, Jefferson and Hayek, what a joke what did they give us open immigration, single motherhood, egalitarianism, rampant consumerism etc. Yup sounds like a future to aspire to.

  8. If I wanted legions of DMs (read Harold Covington for more info) I would have posted on HuffPost or something so please your excrement in your bowels and don’t foul the water here. If you hope for further interaction write a post that shows you have more than a room temperature IQ. Lastly you sound just like the liberal leftard loosers and anarchist losers I met all over the internet do you have some sort of losers anonymous you all hangout at?

  9. A loser moron with butt-hurt being a loser moron how beautiful. Did that take all the 10 IQ points you have to say that?

  10. (Seek to understand. I am probably the most innovative philosopher of the right. The only analytic philosopher on the hard right. And I am unfortunately aware of how empty this philosophical region is. And, FWIW: if you want to have an IQ challenge you might want to choose someone else to belittle, because there is very little chance of finding someone marginally superior. )

    Back to the argument: If we had preserved common law, and a division of houses by class, we would never have had open immigration (which I am against). When the church failed, we did not replace it with a third ‘house’ below the house of commons (middle class).

    The era of science has displaced the era or rationalism (justification), just as rationalism displace the era of analogy (mythology). There is no going backward to mysticism and analogy. The only solution to current state of affairs is institutional, not ‘belief’.

    I agree that a universal THEORY is the foundation for a large community. It is not possible for a universal community since any such development would leave some civilization to the disadvantage of others. But that said, the universal THEORY is the one I articulated: truth telling. The problem with that universal THEORY is that it is extremely expensive to tell the truth, and to develop truth telling as a norm.

    Worse, religion, as justificationary myth (analogy), hampers the development of truth telling, by claiming untruths are ‘true’.

    Aristocratic Egalitarian (Western) society must evolve from rationalism (justification) into science (criticism). The common law is critical. It is not justificationary.

    Beliefs are what we need when we are ignorant.

    The truth can only be stated in operational terms.

    And that means that the language of truth, and of any god, is science.

  11. the traditional order of the Ancient Regime can be summarized in the Vichy French Motto: Travail, Famille, Patrie, or faith, family, fatherland.


    “Travail” means “work.”

    Wikipedia agrees that “travail, famille, patrie” was the motto, but translates it differently.

  12. It’s hard to keep track of the advice that people have for Christianity. First we need to be more tolerant. Then we need to realize we’re obsolete because we are too tolerant now. And now we need to be more tolerant again. I think I’m starting to get it.

  13. The Christianity that cannot save anyone is the Christianity that is optional. Christ is not a utilitarian myth. God is not a strategy. To even discuss Christianity that way is to misunderstand it. It puts the cart before the horse.

  14. I was raised Roman Catholic and I understand what you’re saying. I too wish that the Church be restored to her former glory. However as it currently impossible to do so, at present the Church is as Greg Johnson said, either neutral toward White survival or at worst (and usually this is the case) they are working for our extinction (whether they know it or not). The Church must not be abandoned, however it is not our priority. Our priority is White survival and prosperity, all other considerations are secondary. Christian moralizing is useless in our already small and fractured movement, we need all the help we can get no matter what personal perversions that person has. I do not think Christianity should be more tolerant, I just think Christian morality has very little to no place in a political movement like White Nationalism and will only divide us even more.

  15. You are probably not the most innovative philosopher to be found on the hard right. And it comes as a blow to your credibility that you feel the need to blow your own horn in every single post you make.

  16. Whether western man is the product of exposure to Christian ethos is different from whether those same mythos and rituals are tolerable to the current population

  17. A platitude spoken by you and no one else. Arrogance has nothing whatsoever to do with whether one is correct or not. It has to do with the way you present yourself. You present yourself with unwarranted self-importance, hence you are arrogant, and arrogance is no virtue.

    You do not get to call yourself the only serious thinker on the right and expect it to be taken seriously. Someone else can call you that. You can’t call yourself that. This is basic social etiquette.

    How qualified can you be to be the Right’s last hope if you can’t even talk to fellow right-wingers without making a very aggravating first impression?

  18. “I am working very hard to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments.”

    This is where it all goes wrong. Traditionalism does not need a Marx. Scientific government is a dead end. What you are seeing is someone attempting to take tradition and turn it into an Ideology, which is antithetical to tradition itself.

  19. Of course, I didn’t say that, right? So are you misrepresenting me on purpose? Is that not both dishonest, rhetorically fallacious, and as such a violation of etiquette?

    And how should one respond to the violation of basic social etiquette initiated by Todd Lewis? His ad hominem screed? And should a gentleman let such a screed go unanswered? Wouldn’t that be immoral? Yes. It would be.

    The central argument is whether or not christian religion can function as a means of restoring western civilization. And my argument (and that of many others) is that it cannot. And for the reasons I stated: (a) that just as justification(rationalism) replaced mysticism, science(criticism) has replaced justification (rationalism), and people will not tolerate a return to primitive monotheistic mysticism. And (b) the forces that led to western success in the ancient and enlightenment world, were independent of the christian mythos – and much older. and (c) we cannot impose religious institutions, yet we can impose academic and legal institutions. (d) given that the differentiating feature of western civilization is truth, truth telling, jury, independent judges, and the common organic law, it is possible to use nothing more than the law to restore traditional values, and education to explain them.

    We may need a new civic religion. But the few people who ponder that new religion all suggest that it will be much closer to stoicism, buddhism and nature worship than to christianity. And given that neo-puritanism is a christian heresy, and social democracy a christian heresy, it is certainly not a safe vehicle for the transmission of our civilization.

    The germans almost exited christianity at least twice now. Had they done it in the Romantic period we might have had a chance to keep the best of old and new.

    We need our churches. We need jesus as a philosopher of the poor. But Justinian imposed christianity by force and shutter the stoic schools (the western religion), so that they could use eastern despotic central rule in the failing empire. And Ceasar murdered all our Druids, to wipe out our culture, so they could impose roman imperialism. And the enlightenment was our first attempt to restoring our people to our original correspondence with nature, rather than with babylonian tyrants deified.


  20. You are quite frankly preaching to the wrong crowd. This is a site for a traditionalist movement that has its foundations in Christianity.

    You are some kind of post-reactionary primordialist and no one here is buying what you’re selling.

    I have no desire to adopt egotistical, Druidic crypto-Buddhist beliefs or to see such nonsense gaining traction in our society.

  21. We’re still waiting on Spengler’s Second Religiousness to make its appearance.

  22. I’ve observed over and over again that someone’s need to inform others of their intelligence is usually inversely proportional to their possession of said intelligence.

  23. And how many of the “New Right” are ready to kill and die for their beliefs?

  24. Should we partner with pedophiles and rapists? Or by “personal perversion” do you mean sodomy does not violate Libertarianism. We can glean ideas from those with whom we disagree. Kevin MacDonald is an evolutionist but I think his research can be reconciled with a Biblical perspective. That’s different than partnering with the abominable. Sodomizing a man makes you an enemy of reality. You have to live in the Twilight Zone to be able to pretend it is not an abomination. They threw Wilde in jail because they had a clue.

    The question you should ask is whether there is room for your political strategies in Christian morality. Enemies of God are not friends of their race. No race can make an appeal to heaven while holding hands with queers. Those who reject Christian morality (by treating it as optional) do not deserve a nationalist movement. If we want to thrive we have to prove our primary loyalty is to God. “Seek first the kingdom of God and all these things will be given to you.”

    The alternative: “[They] worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator …. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions …. men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Romans 1) The moral is don’t make an idol out of race or you’ll get it in the end.

  25. that last article by Judgy Bitch rubbed me the wrong way because I’m on the autism spectrum. (non-self diagnosed, diagnosis was 25 years ago)

  26. You know full well that I or anyone else in the WN movement would not want a rapist or pedophile in our ranks. Equating homosexuals to that is erroneous and you know it. Plato was also a sodomite, do we just throw everything these so called sinners did out of the window just because of that? You are inverting what I said, I said there is very little to no place for Christian moralizing in a political movement like White Nationalism, especially considering a major part of the community is pagan. I never said that the Church should change it’s moral doctrines based on politics or pragmatism or whatever other worldly currents. You merely created a straw-man of what I said and then destroyed it, might work on some people but not me.

  27. I have a long term commitment to never surrendering to ad hominems. It’s immoral to permit rhetorical fallacy. Because it pollutes the informational commons.

    Agreeing to disagree is an honest admission of one’s inability to construct an argument. Otherwise a moral man cannot morally permit an immoral argument.

    The central argument is whether it is possible to return to mysticism. It appears not. If not then what are our options as traditionalists?


  28. If you don’t even understand the actual definition of ad hominem, then why should we bother listening to the rest of your rhetoric?

  29. “The central argument is whether or not christian religion can function
    as a means of restoring western civilization. And my argument (and that
    of many others) is that it cannot.”

    I’m sorry, but you just went full retard.

    The West is a result of Christianity’s influence. It is Western Civilization’s foundation. So how can what made the West, the West, not be used to return it to itself?

    You just admitted to not knowing what you are talking about.

    You wouldn’t happen to be an atheist would you?

  30. What is there to take offense about? He uses his condition as an excuse to be rude and insulting to people, or so she says.

    Do you?

    If you don’t, what is there to be offended about?

    From the handful of people I’ve known with severe Asperger’s, the reason women tended not to like them was their inability to recognize the boundaries of appropriate behavior and their obliviousness to the norms of social interaction.

    I knew one who would approach whole groups of girls at a time and try asking them out one after another. I knew another who brought up that he roleplays online as a girl as part of an introductory conversation. Another who spent the better part of an hour rattling off a plot summary of the entire first season of Game of Thrones. Another who would stand six inches away from girls he was talking to and put his hands on their shoulders or their arms.

    This is not to accuse you of any such improprieties, but to caution you against making pronouncements on behalf of your whole group based on your own personal experiences.

    No, in a lot of cases, when women don’t like people with Asperger’s, it’s not because they’re so awesome and women are full of shit. It’s because a lot of people with Asperger’s have no idea how to behave around women.

  31. I think women just hate brutal honesty and intellectualism, two things women don’t possess in their personality. they tend to be attracted to minute, insignificant bullshit and usually don’t have the logical thinking skills to process criticism.

    speaking of which, whats the difference between 3 dicks and a joke?

    a: a woman can’t take a joke.

  32. So this is your, what, third attempt in a row to use rhetorical fallacy to circumvent the central argument is honest how? Or are you just unable to construct an honest and moral argument in response to the central question? Is it a traditional Christian value to rely upon dishonesty immorality and deceit? How can one bother to listen to your defense of traditional Christianity if you’re dishonest, immoral, and incapable? 😉

  33. The West, as we all know, was founded in ancient Greece and Rome. Those are our foundations.

  34. The DE and Manosphere are deeper than your broad brush dismissal would paint them. Your lip curling statement of the superiority of a imagined version of Christianity that would cure the evils of the world is superficial and, far worse, a distraction from the current religious reality. Last, the “New Right”, as you attempt to label, actually defies attempts to slot them into political pigeonholes. I would expect a blog that has 4th generation warfare as one of its most visible principles would decry any attempts to find some “leader” or “spokesman” that could then be used to conventionalize and minimize a broad movement of people across the spectrum.

    The loose groups you are sneering at are NOT some political movement (excepting the WN, perhaps), but natural reactions by groups of people who realize that participation in the current political structures is worse than useless, but simply perpetuates the status quo.

    If you want to see Christianity back in the picture, then it better be the Christianity of the Crusades. Otherwise it will be bound, mugged, and sodomized by the SJW’s, and made to apologize for its existence.

    Wait, that’s where we are at today…

    As a last word, since you rightly point out the WN movement’s lack of children, I ask: Are you a pastor? Do you have a Church Militant? Are you willing to go Westboro? Don’t just call for men of Patrick Henry’s caliber, go and be it.

  35. As the last Rabbi Kahane once said: “In a word, one does not bark back at barking dogs if one is a person and not a dog.” So here’s your flee color mutt, I think you lost it.

  36. I guess we have found out where the New Rights SJW’s hangout, its here trolling other people’s blogs. You would do Anti Sarkeesian proud! Spread the butt-heart.

  37. I’m simply pointing out that if you’re making an argument, yet failing in the central thesis of your argument, then there’s no reason we should listen to your argument. And you clearly don’t understand what an ad hominem argument actually is.

    Don’t feel bad – your mistake is roughly the third most common mistake made by people who “argue from logical fallacies.” The second most common is people who misapply the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, the most common is people who commit the “fallacy fallacy.”

    Anywise, I’ll leave you to your fun.


    This reinforces the observation that you are in favor of the existing political structure, in all its decrepit past glory, especially since you are attempting to force some political structure on axiomatically non-structured groups.

    Less SJW please, and more traditionalism. If rhetoric is all you have for argument, then you are certainly failing tradition.


    If you can’t consider that your treatment of DE and the Manosphere would fit in quite well on Slate or Gawker, then I must consider that you are not a traditional Christian, but instead a modernized Churchian that really does not fit well with the other posters on this blog.

    Your flight to rhetoric and SJW tactics to attempt to influence readers of the comments mask the weaknesses of your points in the OP here. You do not strengthen family or faith by mimicking the tactics of your enemy or playing the white knight and getting subsumed by the system.

  40. It’s Christianity 101 that we will be hated and labeled WBC, Breivik, etc. by the ungodly. (John 15:18-20) A servant is not greater than his Master.

  41. //Equating homosexuals to that is erroneous and you know it.//

    No, I’m pretty sure those are the droids I’m looking for.

    //a major part of the community is pagan//

    There you go. Oil and water. We need to fight multiculturalism with more multiculturalism? If Christianity is so incapable then why do you need us? The feeling is not mutual.

    //do we just throw everything these so called sinners did out of the window//

    Never said that. These are not completely black and white issues. It’s not a sin to learn something from a queer, but there is a line that needs to be drawn at some point. Everyone knows Christians have to stop always erring on the side of tolerance. Moses > Plato anyway.

  42. I sadly agree. Very few are even willing to challenge the feminized churches they attend, and they are often fought by male pastors and elders that consider them selves the only real christian man in the room. Mars Hill springs to mind here.

    This is why the DE and manosphere groups will have a better chance of success in returning Christianity to its rightful place. The philosophy of TRP is one of self improvement, discipline, and non-participation in the feminized worlds of marriage and religion.

    Restoration of Christianity can take place, including restoration of traditional marriage and family, when women cast off the slavery of feminism and embrace a return to a traditional woman’s role. That’s only going to happen when men remove all ability for women to accomplish their hypergamous goals, including provisioning by marriage and children, by withdrawing their ability and willingness to be shackled by the state through divorce and child support rape. Men respond to incentives, you see. There is no incentive to be married, raise a family, build a middle class life, or even go to church in the present reality. All of those things are points at which feminists have usurped the power of the state to enforce their power over men, and have to a large extent replaced their need for men as provisioners with the enforcement arm of the state.

    I don’t have time at the moment to do these concepts justice, but a truly critical look at the manosphere will provide a richer analysis than
    “About all they stand for is getting laid and maybe building self-esteem.”

  43. If you consider Christ an ideology, you don’t understand Christianity and there is no “we” in the sense of a holistic cultural movement.

  44. Plato and neo-platonists heavily influenced Christianity, probably more than Moses did. St. Augustine and many other church fathers were platonists. Also I never said Christians don’t have a place in White Nationalist circles, just the moralizing doesn’t have a place. Equating pedophiles with homosexuals is dishonest and false and you know it, is it sinful to be a homosexual? Of course it is, but it’s not the same as molesting a child. The difference is night and day, homosexual behaviour is a venial sin relative to child abuse/molestation.

  45. We’ve been talking past each other from the start because we have mutually exclusive primary allegiances. Non-Christians do not get to redefine allegiance to Christ as a strategy or as private morality that knows its place. I can dialogue with non-Christians who understand and accept this. Those who cannot accept it will have to be treated as cultural Marxists in reactionary robes.

  46. If you’re willing to reject all common ground with the other alt right groups because they don’t subscribe to your primary belief system, you weren’t an ally in the first place. You may as well be addressing the conflicts between communist groups.

  47. I didn’t reject all common ground. We’re talking culture and morality, not just race and politics. If you value cultural unity over Christianity then that is your religion, your “perfect strategy” to which you mean to convert us. If you want to work with Christianity then you have to tolerate the intolerance.

  48. “why can’t Red, Blue, Green, and Purple stop fighting each other? It’s so stupid. If only they embraced Pink, it would all be over. HEY GUYS! EMBRACE PINK NOW!” (jumps into dogpile while Yellow sneers menacingly in the distance)

  49. Yes, the government should protect marriage, but a celibacy revolution sounds more like checkmate. We need community and a firewall to keep out the anti-family propaganda. If you raise your daughter on public school, TV, internet and then send her off to college there’s a good chance you’ll create a fornicating feminist. The Amish know better. A lot of homeschoolers know better. They don’t have to renounce their women. We should confront the culture but not by dissolving into it.

  50. I like them a lot, but ultimately they are just an angry youth protest movement. It’s good in that it gets kids thinking like we do early, but it doesn’t do much beyond that.

  51. I’m considering my response. The problem is the scope is rather large, so I have to narrow it down. Thanks for offering the opportunity, Tnerb.

  52. Again we agree on end points. However, you bring a critical weakness in from the beginning, which is “government.” No change will occur, and culture will grow significantly worse, when government is involved.

    This is why the action of the individual is powerful. This is why the aim of TRP is successful, in that it does not rely on action, but instead inaction. Attempting to mandate marriage? You might as well light the fuse and sit on the case of dynamite.

  53. When Christianity is overrun with Churchians, you’ve lost the culture and morality high grounds, if they could be called such nowadays. Jesus broke bread with sinners and publicans, but he took the time to whip the moneylenders from the temple. Perhaps it would be better to concentrate to kick the SJW’s and feminazi’s out of our culture and churches than castigate your fellow sinners in the manosphere and DE?

  54. Anyone who reads the Bible knows that the tolerant/hippie version of Jesus is a farce. Projecting today’s culture war into Christ’s dealings with first century Israel is fallacious. This is the Preacher who coined the term “hell fire.” His dealings with sinners were for the purpose of convincing them to repent. Arguments like “Jesus broke bread with sinners and publicans” and “[don’t] castigate your fellow sinners” perfectly exemplify the lukewarm attitude that has infected the church. This is almost verbatim the opposition that real Christianity encounters daily from nominal Christians. “Jesus accepts you as you are. We all sin everyday. All sins are equal. Don’t judge. Judging is a sin!” This is the confused and universal creed of all lukewarm/nominal Christians.

    Again the problem (tolerance) is being peddled as the solution to the problem (tolerance).

    You should really get your story straight, first you challenge us to be Crusaders and Westboro, then you turn around and say we need to accept homosexuals and pagans. “I confess, I’m disappointed.” Here’s a good scripture for you:

    “To what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, and saying: ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we mourned to you, and you did not lament.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” (Matt 11:16-19)

  55. I see the issue here:

    “then you turn around and say we need to accept homosexuals and pagans”

    You are including the the groups I am discussing, i.e. the manosphere and the DE with the groups of homosexuals and pagans. The Venn diagram of the manosphere has very little of the first and an unknown quantity of the second, although it is possible to take any sect of Christianity and call them pagan as opposed to your own due to differences in their rituals.

    The error is the same as the OP made when broad brushing the manosphere as “About all they stand for is getting laid and maybe building self-esteem.” You include that which you should not in the groups of your enemies. The manosphere and the DE look at religion and its culture and see that the Venn diagram of SJW’s and Feminism includes the majority of religious people, i.e. Churchians.

    So, yes, my story is straight. There are people in the trenches next to you, fighting against the same thing you claim to fight for, but you’d rather shoot them first before shooting the enemy. I think you can find and reference the scripture for that yourself.

    I also wrote this:

    “Jesus broke bread with sinners and publicans, but he took the time to whip the moneylenders from the temple.”

    I agree that the pansy Jesus is a false idol, because the Jesus I see was a 4th generation warrior that did kick ass on those that needed it, but displayed forgiveness (in the face of Duteronomic Law!) to those who had sinned like the adultress brought by the Pharisees. Jesus knew she was guilty, and he wrote the law in the dust by which he should have cast the first stone. He was able to carry his message of forgiveness by showing that all are sinners.

    The old testament laws still apply, which includes prohibitions about homosexual sex and putting other gods before God, even though he forgave that adultress. People forget that God regularly Smote the enemies of his people, and that has not changed. What has changed is that each of us has a personal connection to God, though Jesus; speaking to God does not involve some building somewhere, some group of priests, or set of doctrines. Attempting to ram people into churches that have been corrupted is not wisdom.

    In the meantime, it’s ok to judge. Homosexuality is wrong, but I’m going to be polite and still consider them human beings even though they will have to answer to God. Churchianism is wrong, but again I will leave people to live their own lives rather than to try to thump them over their head to change how they think.

    TL;DR: Manosphere and DE people are not homosexuals and pagans. Individuals may be, but the groups are not. Don’t shoot the people in the trenches with you that are fighting the same enemy.

  56. I’m not against every last DE or manosphere individual. If you’re partnering with homosexuals and pagans to form a cultural movement then we are not fighting the same enemy.

  57. We agree. The manosphere and DE i’ve read, followed, and posted to are not partnering with or condoning homosexuality and paganism, as it’s contrary to their foundational ideas. Look at Dalrock for a christian perspective in the manosphere. TRP, for instance, is about men removing themselves from toxic feminism through self improvement and focus, and much of the rest of the manosphere focuses on male and female interactions and biological differences that underpin functional traditional gender roles and culture.

    And I’d also evaluate that the numbers of homosexuals and “pagans” (without a definition) in those groups probably number less than the percentage in the total population; around 1-2%.

    This is why I’m pushing back here. There are far more good men in these groups than the OP would lead you to believe, so you’ll need to do your own research to determine it for yourself.

  58. Westboro Church NRx? Beg Jesus’s [and no doubt yours] forgiveness?

    Then what?

    There are 9 groups up there, 1 of which is trad Christian. Did you look at the chart? You really have nothing to offer. I’m traditional myself. Don’t do drugs either. So what? Tradition failed. Trads are cowards hiding behind prayers instead of taking action. As far as having more children – whites, traditionalists and Christians already have far more numbers than the enemy even including his cross-border mercenaries. The churches are empty for a reason, and it’s not just a sellout by Christian prelates across the board. I’m guessing evangelical by the tone…well who’s your guy? Jimmy Carter was one, Bush II the other. What did that get us?

    Evangelicals work for the Jews, who own Ted Cruz outright. Along with the rest of the GOP, and every evangelical minister.

    However –So if we pray and receive the Lord’s forgiveness, then what?

    Prayer and War made Western Civilization, America and for that matter every civilization until the Jacobins – who have man as God, as do the Communists. Even they had leaders to worship, you have none.

    We need to fight, not beg your forgiveness. We need to fight without remorse or forgiveness all around.

    We don’t need criticism or forgiveness from you waving your Jesus badge around. We need to fight.

    People aren’t marrying and bringing white children into the world because they don’t see a future. Jesus’s forgiveness gains us nothing, nor do you.

    I’ll take the Nazi’s , at least they’ll fight. Maybe. We know you won’t. If we win I predict they’ll have children. No sane person brings children into the gulag, that’s a slaves hope. There’s no shortage of numbers. There’s a shortage of courage.

    You Christian Bible Thumpers have a movement, several. They all failed.

    We need an Urban II, not Westboro Church. We don’t need Solzhenitsyn either. He freed no one. America and the West freed him.

    Then Reagan, Thatcher and an actual Christian Leader named Karol Wotijya – John Paul II- freed the Warsaw pact and USSR.

    Russia of course had no lack of religion before the Revolution, nor did France.

    Go away blowhards. When you’re ready to fight then start fighting. At present the Baltimore Blacks are more men than you, as are their mothers.

  59. Not according to Greg Johnson:

    “What makes Christianity essentially non-European are the doctrines it shares with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and not with the Jews, namely the idea that a universal truth is the foundation of a universal community; if Christianity is true for all men, then it is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion.”


    Exactly how are you guys European at all? First Christianity then Hellenism you don’t leave yourself much do you?

  60. This so-called “in-fighting” is caused by the “Holy Crusade” of Andrew Anglin and his Daily Stormer. He has unleashed his troll army to give the impression the AltRight is not anti-semitic enough or not moving into his direction.
    He was dismissed last year as a clown and now he is doing it again this year, 2016. This time over Milo and Breitbart. This Lil Napoleon has some ego issues that I think has to do with his height.
    There is nothing he has to offer that is new. It is just him wanted to claim the title “AltRight” for his Daily Stormer to be the center of the AltRight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *