Some Sectors of the Post-Christian Thing That Used to be Conservatism…

Some Sectors of the Post-Christian Thing That Used to be Conservatism… October 30, 2013

plump for frank and open white supremacist filth.  A reader send along the latest appeals being made by these nutjobs to College Republicans:

To: College Republicans List

John Derbyshire has up a recent article: “White Flight from Christianity?”

Which reminds me of many conservative college kids I know who have left Christianity to return to their ancestral religions, such as Asatru

Still, all Christianity might not become a complete ghetto religion. We could see small surviving pockets of Pro-Western Christianity

Identitarian religion is on the rise

It will be interesting to see how much of the epically discernment-free conservative community is stone blind to the racist white supremacy garbage these people are peddling as it has managed to be stone blind to so many other obvious red flags. Will a large percentage of the people who confuse “apostolic tradition” with Eurocentric culture actually fall for the “We’re just trying to preserve ‘western Christianity’ from alien cultural influences” line of BS or will they see this racist poison for what it is and call it out? Time will tell. I wonder what the College Republicans who get spammed with this bullshit make of it?

"(I personally think that it would be best if all charity were accomplished personally and ..."

The Real Death Panel Party
"additional:Turns out the rape joke is a lie.https://www.catholicleague....You sir lie like your master who was ..."

Covington, MAGA, the Simpsons, and the ..."
"You mean while the Black Israelites are shouting at them that Priests are rapping them?So ..."

Covington, MAGA, the Simpsons, and the ..."
"Were they talking about Jacob Walter when the kid said that? I mean, what were ..."

Covington, MAGA, the Simpsons, and the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Steve

    I remember when Mr. Derbyshire was kicked out of the National Review for writing an article of that sort which went far beyond the pale.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Yup. Go home, Derbyshire. You are drunk.

      • However (and I say this very advisedly and wish my comment to be read in light of my reply to Dan C above), in vino veritas.

        • ivan_the_mad

          Concerning Derbyshire the best I can respond is de gustibus. I was a fan, but no longer. I’ve developed something of a feeling of disgust for Derbyshire, the Chronicles crowd, et al.

          I think I shall let R. Kirk further inform your thoughtful comment from above to Dan C: “For prejudice is not bigotry or superstition, although prejudice sometimes may degenerate into these. Prejudice is prejudgment, the answer with which intuition and ancestral consensus of opinion supply a man when he lacks either time or knowledge to arrive at a decision predicated upon pure reason.” — The Conservative Mind

          Certainly, change must be approached with prudence and caution, and I think we are in agreement that an imprudent defensive reaction can (and often will) produce a vicious disease of the heart.

          • Ha! Interesting. I had the exact same experience of Derbyshire. I once was, but am no longer, a fan. I do kind of feel bad for him, though: for his lack of faith and the ugliness of his sorrow over Western Civ.

            And you cite Kirk, too. Nice. I feel like when I’ve figured out how to make MacIntyre and Kirk friends in my head, I’ll have figured out the world.

            • ivan_the_mad

              Fair enough regarding Derbyshire.

              Ha! Sadly, familiarity with MacIntyre’s thought is a long-standing deficiency of mine (aside from a scattering of articles and excerpts). I do one day hope to read After Virtue; if you’ve a recommendation aside from that for something of his I ought to read first, I’ll gladly take it.

      • Stu

        You remind me of some of the best graffiti that I saw from the hands of an RAF pilot at the O Club. Sadly, I can’t share it in this venue but it made me laugh uncontrollably.

  • Martha O’Keeffe

    Asatru is not *my* ancestral religion (and ironically, the one Asatruist – if that’s the correct form – that I am acquainted with online is mixed-race African/Spanish/other, who got into it through his love of Scandanavian metal bands).

    My pagan ancestors became Christian pretty fast and were then historically involved in fights with the ancestral Asatru-worship communities, so unless this is a call for me to grab a sword and smite the nearest Viking, I fail to see the reasoning here – some kids are getting into alternative religions? Oh, there’s a surprise! White middleclass kids think their grandparents’ Christianity is old-fashioned and boring? Again, is anyone over the age of twelve shocked to hear this?

    Pro-Western Christianity? Idiocy! The only way this works is to water down Christianity to “doing good” and more importantly, I would guess, for this philosophy, “encouraging the lower orders to behave themselves”, link the progress of the West to being Christian, and in some kind of sleight of hand call for white Westerners to ‘reclaim’ Christianity from non-white and/or non-Western people – and presumably launch a holy war against Islam while they’re at it.

    What happens to all the Asian, African, Latin American, Near, Middle and Far Eastern Christians (going back to the Apostles, who didn’t come from either England or the U.S.A.), I have no idea – the next persons to be purged once ‘Pro-Western Christianity’ has wiped out the Muslims?

    • MarylandBill

      Just a minor point (being that I also claim Ireland as my ancestral homeland), what is the true ancestral religion? While our blood might be primarily Celtic, it almost certainly includes a significant percentage of Norse blood (heck Dublin and some other cities in Ireland got started by Vikings), as well as some blood from the pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland.

      My point here is that rarely is ancestral lineage clear cut. This has always been true. In America it is even more so since ethnic groups (including those from ethnic groups that would be considered other races) have been mixing almost from the beginning. Ultimately, the only Ancestral God I will choose to worship is the one of my oldest ancestors — Adam and Eve.

  • orual’s kindred

    I am not Western. And I readily admit that, for me, it sometimes feels like the people I would usually be grouped with are a bit of an afterthought in Salvation History. The Big Things all seem focused in and on the West, among Western people, while the rest of the world gets a passing mention at best.

    However, when I turn to Our Lord, I am always called to be His child, among His other children, some of who are the Saints. Now I am familiar with the complaint that the Saints are strange, distant, unrelatable, almost un/inhuman. And while I am also quite aware of how different they are from me, I am both inspired and comforted that such people, most of whom lived in a time and place unlike my own, are my brothers and sisters in Christ–who, on Earth, also lived in a time and place unlike my own. It would be far less laughable to consider myself somehow similar to the stars in the cosmos than even remotely like St. Thérèse. And yet the Church teaches me that I may freely address her with love and confidence, because the bonds we share are shared in Christ, Our Savior. I am moved to tears by writing this.

    Please forgive my ramblings. They are an attempt to illustrate that I can imagine how difficult it must be, remembering the fact that Our Lord and His Church are neither the products nor the property of Western civilization. I’m afraid I’ve not thanked Him enough either; so, thanks and praise be unto Him!

  • Dave G.

    Conservatives have always been linked to racism. Since I’ve been paying attention to things (c. 1980), the Right and the Racist have gone together like peas and carrots. So this isn’t anything surprising.

    • KyPerson

      Oh please. It was the democrats who founded the KKK and who were the most opposed to the Civil Rights Act. This conservative is not racist. It’s unChristian to be so.

      • Dave G.

        KyPerson, I didn’t say Conservatives were. I said that’s the narrative. Just like it’s the narrative that Conservatives are idiots. That, too, has been the story I’ve heard since I began paying attention. Doesn’t mean it’s true, it means we’re more likely to believe it, or focus on it, or accept the possibility. I didn’t mean it isn’t surprising that conservatives would go with racist groups. I meant it’s not surprising that we would so easily accept that they could.

      • HornOrSilk

        I always love the, “but the Democrats started it.” First, there were Republican and Democrat racists, and there continue to be such. The Democrats at one time had more who embraced it, this is true, however, do you account for no such thing as change? “You started it” is fine if the other side didn’t continue it while the first stopped it. But when one side continues, the “you started it” to those who no longer are doing it is just indication of polemical rhetoric and deflections.

        Just think about how many people could point to Nixon and do, “You started it” with eugenic programs including forced abortion in Africa. Should we all point to the Republicans and tell them, “You started it” when dealing with abortion all the time, hinting at they are the real promoters of it now because of this?

        Seriously, deal with the world as it is today, and the parties as they exist today.

        • kirthigdon

          Actually the involvement of Republicans in eugenics and abortion needs to be pointed out because so many pro-life people look to the Republicans for salvation on these issues. In addition to Nixon and Kissinger, note the roles of Rockefeller and …….Ronald Reagan! The great pro-life hero signed into law the liberalized abortion law of California which turned that state into a mecca of abortion tourism years before Roe v. Wade. He also appointed two pro-aborts to the Supremes as against one more or less pro-life justice. Five of the seven justices who voted for Roe v. Wade were Republican appointees as were five of the six who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in the Casey decision. Only one justice belonged to both groups. This sort of belies the oft-repeated advice to vote for Republican presidential candidates because they will make good appointments to the Supremes. And let me admit my own share in all this. I never supported Nixon or Rockefeller, but I was a Reaganista who should have known better – mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
          Kirt Higdon

      • Booooooring!

      • chezami

        You are right that it is unChristian. However, *post-Christian* conservatism (of which Derbyshire and Asatru bullshit are champions) are racist–and are attracting some followers. Which is my point.

      • Sage Basil

        This kind of dishonesty is the reason so few young people are interested in either conservatism or Christianity.

        They only come back after figuring out the truth *in spite of* these absurdities that confuse precisely no one.

    • Conservatives do have a tendency to racism. And liberals have a tendency to irresponsibility. Own it and fix it. Don’t hand wave it away.

      • Dave G.

        Thanks for demonstrating.

        • I demonstrated my point above in my response to Dan C. Seriously, I say all this as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. I’ve not a liberal bone in my body.

          • Dave G.

            But it’s more complex than the popular narrative. That’s my point.

            • I totally agree. The popular narrative is obnoxiously simplistic, usually because it goes:

              (1) Racists are evil.
              (2) Conservatives are racists.
              (3) ∴ Conservatives are evil.

              Doesn’t mean it isn’t on to something, though.

      • Conservatives have a tendency to racism. Liberals have a tendency to racism. White people have a tendency to racism. Black people have a tendency to racism.

        People denouncing racism have a tendency to self-righteousness and viciousness.

        All of the above statements are true.

        • Yeah, but conservatives’ tendency to racism is more pervasive and instrinsic than the liberals’ tendency because of the stand conservatives take against change. Liberals tend to be stupidly optimistic about just about any change, so they’re far less bothered by differences.

          The worst thing about the racism-denouncers’ self-righteousness is that in the absence of any attempt to understand the very real, very rational causes of racism, it comes off as a kind of mystical holiness, the favor of the Most High: “I thank God that I am not as other men, who judge people mysteriously and irrationally by the melanin in their skin or the fold of their eyelids….”

          • The tendency is also pervasive and intrinsic on the left; it just has different sources and expressions (e.g. racialist voting patterns, ideological denigration of Dead White European Males, the imperative to exalt every culture but one’s own).

          • Dan C

            How about the role of who conservatives actually work with? Do conservatives work or live with many folks of color? Has the Asian migration affected them? Large geographic swaths of conservativism are in largely white areas. Here is where diversity may have a positive impact, despite the opposition such a word usually evokes.

            At the same time, these areas have been desperate for medical and technical support for decades and have relied on foreign medical grads, etc. Many foreign medical grads love the communities into which they immerse, some have less positive experiences.

            Given a choice,though, I know that many foreign medical grads contemplating the move into a rural white community as very very daunting.

            “Red State” demographics and politics is really “Red County” politics and the dynamics are quite complex.

            • Plenty of people live in bubbles, in red counties and blue counties, in cities and in rural areas.

              One aspect of this problem that’s typical of the left rather than the right is that they can be surrounded by people who all think exactly the same way they do, but still congratulate themselves over their “diversity”, so long as there’s a decent range of ethnicities present.

          • Stu

            Liberal racism is much more insidious because it is hidden and manifests itself in condescending attitudes that minorities simply can’t meet the same levels of achievement as white people.

            • Isn’t it usually more like: minorities can’t meet the same levels of achievement as white people given the disadvantages under which they currently labor? That’s a little different. It places the blame with society, not with the race.

              • Stu

                Same thing. Why can’t minorities overcome obstacles that everyone has? Are they unable? Do they have to have help from the government?

                • I’m not so sure minorities do have the same obstacles that I had. I grew up poor, watching TV on a 13″ black and white with coat hangers for an antenna, but we were watching PBS. I know how to interact with the powerful people in this society in such a way that we all feel (reasonably) comfortable. My speech patterns are not at all off-putting to bankers and insurance agents. It was normal for me to go to a mainstream college, not weird or unexpected. It’s a powerful thing to be normal.

                  • Stu

                    You are but one person. Poverty can be found in Appalachia just as much as it can in the inner cities. Yet people overcome it. For instance, there is something really condescending when a liberal claims it’s just too hard for a minority to obtain a picture ID in order to prove their identity for voting.

                    And the funny thing is, we were actually at one point on the right track. Here is a great quote from Colin Powell (you can actually hear him saying it).

                    “What the Army essentially said to me when I entered was: “Look, Powell, we don’t care about your color. We don’t care about the fact that you are a poor kid from the tenement section of New York. Don’t give us any hard-luck stories. We don’t care about your immigrant background. The only thing we care about is performance. If you perform, then you will move up. If you don’t perform, you won’t. Performance is all that counts.””

                    That sort of level playing field appeals to people and produces greatness. What George W. Bush called the “soft bigotry of poor expectations” is what is really crippling and that is what you get from the liberals all while they claim to be helping. It’s insidious.

                    • peggy

                      Yep. White rural poverty is significant, and such often “dysfunctional” whites are held in contempt by elites, especially liberals. Whites are supposed to be able to climb out of poverty on their own apparently. Others apparently need different standards. No urban symphony or museum brings the arts to poor rural white kids. They are not considered for “diversity” admissions at uni’s b/c of their skin color. Not all whites are “privileged.” The social problems among races are largely based on cultural and economic differences. I’d be as wary of a rough white or Asian kid as a rough black kid.

                    • But poverty is not the only obstacle people face. Racism does exist, and it can make it more difficult for people to succeed. Heck, I had a very privileged upbringing, did very well in school, made it to a fancy-pants college, and had some people tell me that I only got in because of my ethnicity. Moreover, in law school I was given advice, in absolute seriousness, that in job interviews I needed to make myself as white as possible and downplay my ethnicity if I wanted to get big firm jobs.

                      Finally, the racism isn’t always obvious, and there are people who are well-meaning and truly believe they are not racist, but nonetheless have subconscious prejudices that affect their actions.

                      There are a ton of obstacles out there for people; some have nothing to do with race, and some have everything to do with it.

                    • Stu

                      But at the end of the day there are “tons of obstacles” for everyone. In the military we used to say, “we all have shaggy-dog stories.” Those who excel simply overcome them. I see no reason why minorities cannot overcome their challenges just like everyone else.

                    • But:

                      1) Some obstacles are harder to overcome than others.

                      2) Different people will find some obstacles harder to overcome than others.

                      3) Some people will face more obstacles than others.

                      4) There is an element of luck, too, as there generally is in life.

                      For these reasons, I’ve often found the idea that “Well I overcame obstacles and got success, what’s your excuse?” to be misguided at best and mean-spirited at worst. Just because obstacles can be overcome doesn’t mean we should not try to mitigate or remove those obstacles. Particularly the obstacles that are flat-out evil, like racism.

                    • Stu

                      So minorities can’t overcome their obstacles?

                    • Yes. That’s exactly what I meant by “Just because obstacles can be overcome doesn’t mean we should not try to mitigate or remove those obstacles.” [/eyeroll]

                      Is your argument seriously “Some minorities can overcome racism, so there’s no need to fight racism?”

                    • Stu

                      Did I ever say that? [/bigger eye roll]

                      People will meet the standard you set for them. Set it low and they will meet it. Set it high and they will meet it. They don’t need your help as much as your ego thinks they do.

                    • It’s not ego, it’s compassion, and the acknowledgement that I’ve had it easier than a lot of other people. It’s witnessing the genuine suffering caused by racism, and seeing people try their hardest and fail due to other people’s evil. It’s about fighting evil.

                    • Stu

                      There is a fine line between showing compassion and wanting to be the savior of all. However, most racialist initiatives have long ago crossed that line and are now condescending in their approach. There is genuine suffering everywhere because of injustice. But to rank one person’s injustice as more worthy of concern to another (especially based upon the amount of melanin in their skin) hasn’t worked and won’t work. You don’t promote equality by treating people unequally.

                      We all have our shaggy dog stories. The good among us simply overcome and achieve.

                    • orual’s kindred

                      I’m afraid I really don’t see where anyone is saying ‘one person’s injustice as more worthy of concern to another (especially based upon the amount of melanin in their skin).’ And are you really saying that those who don’t ‘simply overcome and achieve’ are not good?

                    • Stu


                      I’m talking about policies and programs that are absolutely set up to benefit a person because of the amount of melanin in their skin. The existence of such are undeniable.

                      As to “good”…I mean performance-wise. The good among us overcome and achieve. The poor performers make excuses. Is this an absolute? Of course not. But in general it is true.

                    • And we have other policies and programs that are set up to address other obstacles. You may disagree with the necessity or effectiveness of a particular program, but to say that we should not have any programs at all that address skin-color-based discrimination means choosing to treat that obstacle differently than others.

                    • Stu

                      What I have said is that many of these programs geared towards the amount of melanin in in one’s skin are both condescending and ultimately counterproductive. Further, they exist while programs to address those who are similarly disadvantage, but don’t have certain racialist qualities, are absent.

                      I say we promote a system based on merit and treating everyone based upon performance. Indeed, a highly controversial position to have in promoting equality.

                    • Ah, but sometimes that doesn’t work, or it gets abused. Take the gifted program in the NYC public schools, which was designed to remedy the fact that some kids who have the misfortune of living in poor neighborhoods with crappy schools don’t get the education they are capable of. Every few grades children (regardless of race, ethnicity, income, or location) have the chance to test into the gifted program, allowing them to go to a much better school in another part of the city. Unfortunately, many very wealthy and privileged parents (who, in NYC, are disproportionately white), are now spending thousands, if not tens of thousands, on tutors, coaches, etc. who teach their children how to game the test. As a result, the gifted programs are not nearly as diverse as they were meant to be, and children in the wrong neighborhoods still lose out.

                      My point being, many programs are flawed, and your approach won’t *necessarily* be any more fair or successful than programs that address racism and classism (and a host of other isms) more directly.

                    • Stu

                      “the gifted programs are not nearly as diverse as they were meant to be,”

                      So is diversity the end? Is that the goal? Or is that poor and disadvantaged get the opportunity to learn? If the goal is the former, then that is racialist. If the goal is to root out corruption in the program selection process so that everyone gets a fair shot at it or that those in need of income assistance have access then that is a different story and has nothing to do with the amount of melanin in one’s skin.

                      Diversity for diversity sake is a self-licking iced cream cone.

                    • orual’s kindred

                      Given that corruption which involves ‘the amount of melanin in one’s skin’ isn’t unheard-of, it has, in certain cases, (again, not all!) something to do with race.

                      Also, I hope neither Beadgirl nor I (nor anybody on this thread, for that matter), has suggested going for diversity for diversity’s sake. That would be a kind of idolatry, yes? 🙂

                    • Stu

                      But it’s been the natural outcome of programs aimed to help minorities which includes the use of quotas and tokenism and it has actually harmed the cause for equality.

                    • orual’s kindred

                      I suppose they’re as natural as other abuses in other programs 🙂

                    • orual’s kindred

                      As a certified poor performer, I hope I can safely say that indeed, it’s not an absolute 🙂 I don’t expect easy way out, dole-outs, bailouts, or any other outs of that sort, either. I just hope that people facing the specific challenges that they have to face, get a little more help aside from ‘The good among us overcome and achieve. The poor performers make excuses. ‘

                    • orual’s kindred

                      First, I may be just seeing things, but I notice how in Jon W’s comment you said his experience is that but of only one person. However, when it comes to surmounting difficulties, you talk of it as if it’s some single homogeneous thing for everyone in all times and places.

                      Second, is anybody (other than you perhaps) even discussing about high or low standards? Of course there are, as you say, ‘shaggy dog stories.’ And perhaps there are cases where fishes have climbed trees out of some dire necessity. But does this mean that it is always right that fish just have climb trees whenever something forces them to? If not, does it have to mean that nothing can nor should be done about it–ever, at all?

                    • orual’s kindred

                      *have to


                    • Stu

                      You are seeing things…a bit off.
                      We don’t base things solely on our experience. But we can based things on some generalities and in general people will meet challenges an overcome them. Now I personally believe this is true for everyone regardless of the amount of melanin in their skin. You may disagree. So from my viewpoint, policies that condescend to treat minorities as if they are incapable of achieve are the ultimate in racism.

                      If we are going do “do something” then it simply should be aimed at making the standards open and the selection process fair, not attempting to relieve every single injustice that one might have experienced in their lives or that of their forefathers. That latter is just folly and hasn’t worked.

                    • orual’s kindred

                      How much off? 🙂 After all, ‘policies that condescend to treat minorities as if they are incapable of achieve are the ultimate in racism’ are something rather different from recognizing that there certain difficulties that certain people have (race being but one example) and trying to help resolve those difficulties. A lot of the proposals don’t actually help, while others make things worse. But does that mean no effort should be done at all?

                    • Stu

                      Certainly. If you find an example of unfair discrimination then it should be addressed. We have gone beyond that when we intentionally lower standards for minorities because of past injustices. That is just as damaging for all involved.

                      Real world example. When I was going through flight school, the standard was that if you “downed” (failed) three flights you were attrited. Well, that was the standard if you were a white mail. If you were a minority or woman then that rule didn’t. If you were a “twofer” (that is both a minority and a female) then it was almost impossible for you to wash out. In fact, I saw one such “twofer” (BTW, that what the term the diversity zealots use, not me) fail eight flights. Only after she attempted an engine start with the instructor still conducting a walk around of the aircraft (next to the prop) was she booted because she almost killed him.

                      Now unfortunately, that policy put a lot of people into the Fleet who were not qualified to be there. In some instances, it got people killed. In others, they were eventually weeded out. Some left the Navy and I know of at least one who is an airline pilot now. Perhaps he will fly you around one day. (He was a terrible pilot and if I knew he was going to be at the controls of the plane I was schedule to be on, I would get another flight). So in an attempt to “help”, did that actually help anyone? Did it help the people who have died because of it? Did it help the taxpayer? Did it actually help other minorities who got through the program on their own merit but are tainted with the belief that they too are simply their in the name of diversity?

                      So I have no problem addressing specific problems where they are identified. But we are well beyond that an in the realm of doing more harm with our racialist outlook on everything.

                • orual’s kindred

                  By your own language, it would seem that minorities aren’t everyone. As such, they would have obstacles that everyone hasn’t had to overcome. And are we to understand that everyone has overcome their obstacles without help from the government? None whatsoever?

                  • Stu

                    minorities are part of everyone.

                    And I am confident they can overcome obstacles just like everyone else. Or do you think they need special help from you?

                    • orual’s kindred

                      And so everyone has the same obstacles, and none may have specific problems that would require specific solutions? Not even veterans, who I think are part of everyone?

                      And I think minorities have my prayers, as do you. I also hope that I, who am but one person, will find the courage and grace to help in what way I can, though perhaps for some people those ways are negligible. After all, it seems I’m not the government. As I said below, I’m not even Western.

                    • Stu

                      No, they don’t have the same obstacles. But we don’t need to get into ranking those obstacles and providing aid to some and nothing to others. What we do is provide an equal playing field and let people excel. They will.

                    • I don’t think anyone is arguing that we should only address the obstacle of racism, and not poverty, abuse, poor education, other forms of prejudice, etc. It’s not a zero sum game.

                    • Stu

                      We are beyond addressing racism in this country to the point that we have embraced racialism. Though because it is now the “compassionate left” that wants differing standards for people, it’s seen as good thing. Same side of a flip coin.

                      So indeed, let’s be concerned about all of those injustices but let’s not rank them in importance. We all have challenges in our lives. All of us.

                    • Again, who on this thread was “ranking” them?

                    • Stu

                      I’m speaking of society. And to deny that it happens is just plain naive.

                    • orual’s kindred

                      Of course racialism is currently enjoying popularity, as are many other evils. No one on this thread is denying it exists, minimizing it, or ranking it.

                    • Stu

                      When the government or any other institution decides to help on disadvantaged group over another disadvantaged group that is “ranking”.

                    • orual’s kindred

                      Well, that may be. I never realized that the government was participating in this thread, though 🙂

                    • orual’s kindred

                      Aid to some and none to others? Why should this be so?

                    • Stu

                      Good question. Why do we set up programs and policies that allow for aid to one individual but not the other based solely on the amount of melanin in their skin?

                    • Why do we have programs and policies that benefit people with x income, but not x+1? Or those that help people in this location but not that? Or those that help people who suffer from this problem but not that one? Or those that help people of this age but not that?

                    • Stu

                      Great question. We help people based on actual hardships that affect us all, not because they have a certain skin tone. In other words, there are just reasons to discriminate and unjust reasons. Skin tone is an unjust reason to discriminate, wouldn’t you agree?

                    • There is a difference between discrimination based on skin tone, and remedying past discrimination based on skin tone. Ideally the “racialist” policies you hate so much do the latter, not the former. The effects of past racism — Jim Crow laws, discriminatory practices, entrenched bias on personal and institutional bases — are still being felt today, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

                    • Stu

                      I never could understand using racism to cure past racism. The problem with this approach is that it never ends and actually perpetuates the very notions that is it meant to counter. That is, that minorities are actually inferior and not as capable as whites. It’s condescending and just plain bizarre.

  • Elizabeth

    I love the story of an Episcopalian bishop who met with some Palestinian Christians. “How long have Palestinians been Christians?” he asked. “Oh, since Pentecost,” came the reply. Christianity is not, never has been, never can be a wholly western preserve. Its universality is its joy and treasure.

    • MarylandBill

      Yep 2 billion Christians in the world and somehow it is suppose to be primarily European?

  • Dan C

    There remains within all of conservativism racial concerns (not racist) that are profoundly alien to me. We see this in the recent Carville focus group.

    This I worry is a constantly provoked thread of fear that may lead people easily down these paths.

    Yes, Catholicism specifically does not allow for white supremacy, in a world that is not mainly white and needs to be all brought to Christ. White supramists noting that Christianity leaves them vulnerable to a loss of “white” influence in the Church may be correct.

    • Whatever. The “racism” we’re all talking about is a totally explicable accident (in the Thomistic sense) of conservatism. When you’re defending a great civilization that has provided for human flourishing and fostered some of the greatest human excellence within a context of true but imperfect justice, you are naturally going to react against forces that threaten the shared ways of life and common understandings that undergird that civilization. And unless those forces are reducible to a virulent plague and an active volcano, they’re going to necessarily include people who are different from you.

      People who come in contact with you, who do not share your understandings and ways of life, threaten you because they make it difficult or impossible to achieve justice using the practical means your civilization has established.

      Linda in Brave New World threatened the Savages’ way of life because her presence eroded one of the pillars of their relationships of justice. Different way of life + different attitude towards sex + outsider status = easy sexual outlet for lazy men. Hence, sex in that community was no longer a support to the consistent relationships that are the context within which women have most authority, and this made the women more vulnerable and their men less responsible. No wonder they hated Linda. And it had almost nothing to do with her race. It had to do with the fact that her morals didn’t fit with and so didn’t bolster the relationships of justice that undergirded their community. You don’t even have to think her morals were wrong to see how she nevertheless threatened the Savages.

      Furthermore, it is an accident of history that most people who have different ways of life, ways of life that are sufficiently different so as to threaten your own, happen also to look different, and hence race becomes an easy way to identify those who thus threaten you. So, really, we need to stop acting as though the “phenomenon of conservative racism” was some sort of mystery from the darkness of the heart of man, and start recognizing it for what it really is: it’s a cultural reaction to a very real threat.

      (And I’m not arguing that all conservative reactions to that threat have been in any way Christian or even merely naturally just. People who are threatened do ugly, ugly things. But we have to stop treating “racism” as a fundamental category of evil. There’s something far more pervasive and understandable going on, and we’re not going to be able to get very far in fixing it if we think we can’t understand it.)

      • Dan C

        I think you can brand it as large “preservation of civilization” war however, I think that the lack of diversity in conservative regions of our country and the social history of many of these areas has some impact personally. I do not think the routine listener to Rush Limbaugh would have the same haute culture concerns of someone with an affected dialect a la John Neuhaus. I think the reasons for racial concerns (and here I am careful distinguishing between “racial” and “racist” concerns) is more sociologic than ideologic.

      • thrasymachus02

        And of course all this applies to people you disagree with and don’t like, but not to you.

    • Stu

      “Carville focus group”

      No agenda there.

      • Dan C

        Sure. The agenda is “intelligence” in the information gathering sense. If one does not really know one’s opponent, the possibilities of success in a conflict decrease. The analyses are interesting, but one can review the focus group data above. It is an “information-rich” statistics-poor methodology. As such, it lacks in some substance.

        • Stu

          And the conclusion is “known” before the data is taken.

          • Dan C

            And do you know the conclusion?

            • Stu

              Carville did. It all fits the Democrat narrative of the GOP being racists. It’s an effective smear.

              I trust anything from the Carville Focus Group as much as I would anything from the Rove Focus Group.

          • Dan C

            Did you read the report?

            • Stu


  • CJ

    This reminds me of Screwtape’s line about how God will not be used as a means to some other end. These racists are belatedly realizing that Christianity will not serve the ends of their blood and soil nationalism. So rather than jettison blood and soil, they toss out Christ.

    • This. The only thing I would add, however, is a tinge of compassion for guys like Derbyshire who see a great and good thing being destroyed and, because of their lack of faith, have no hope in the Resurrection.

  • Think about it this way:

    The decadence of the Inward Path religions, which includes
    Christianity, that is, their asceticism in seeking the God Within by
    blocking life and the real material world, can be
    transformed, not by throwing away the Inward Path but by including
    the Outward Path of evolution to real Godhood. The ecstatic
    love-experience of the Father Within now needs to be seen as a
    symbolic-experience of the real Godhood reached through material and
    supermaterial evolution.

    The Inward Path is the theme, the Outward Path is the music. But
    great art alone can’t save us from our decadence, as Nietzsche tended
    to believe, but religion transformed can, religion revitalized,
    brought into the real world with Godhood at the
    zenith of evolution in the world.

    Why save religion? Aside from the importance
    of the conservative view of human nature, ask sociobiology, it tells
    us of the bonding of religion, the group-orientation of religion, the
    catharsis and passion of religion, and the human survival importance
    of these things. People need to know where they are going and need
    cooperation in getting there, over the long term, which is made
    sacred in religion, and our evolution to Godhood is a very long term
    goal requiring Ordered Evolution. Science alone can’t do this, it
    needs the discordant concord of religion, the cooperative competition of the Twofold Path.

    • Dan C

      Woah. I have to say this needs outright rejection. Such “evolutionary” claims are concerning.

      This demostrates a true error of any understanding of Christianity and how we relate to God.

    • chezami

      “Christianity, that is, their asceticism in seeking the God Within by
      blocking life and the real material world…” Blah blah blah.

      You don’t really seem to have internalized the meaning of the words, “The Word became Flesh” or “This is my body”, do you? Stop making excuses for this racist crap.

    • Sage Basil

      I should point out, since this appears to be a meeting of communities, that inasmuch as this makes any sense at all, it is not a mainstream view in the neoreactionary intellectual movement

      I think both sides
      would benefit from discussion with more sympathetic viewpoints, e.g.
      Bryce LaLiberte ( ) or ( ).

      Of course, if we’re just looking for racist White supremacist garbage to get our sanctimony on (sanctimony and scrupulosity are sinful, not to mention uncomfortable and unfulfilling), one could do little better than the inimitable Mencius Moldbug’s article Why I Am Not a White Nationalist ( ).

      • chezami

        I quite agree that it is not mainstream–at present. But as American conservatism de-Christifies it’s anybody’s guess where it winds up. And as we have seen, radical reactionary movements allowed with racial obsessions can get *very* toxic indeed.

  • kenofken

    If epically discernment-free conservatives drift into racialist Asatru, it won’t be because they “missed red flags.” It will be because they have already internalized those values. White supremacy in conservatism is nothing new. It has always found a comfortable home and theological and political justification within the movement, sometimes openly, sometimes coded in talk of “traditional values”, “law and order” or extreme anti-immigration sentiments.

    What has changed is that most of the rest of the country is moving past these things, and they’re feeling a bit abandoned and isolated. The Republicans who can actually count and who want to see the inside of the White House again someday are realizing that alienating Hispanics (or even Muslims) isn’t going to work anymore. They’ve always been galled by the Catholic Church’s sympathy for immigrants, but the new pope has made that more explicit and also worked to disentangle his religion from partisan politics.

    Even evangelicals are casting their nets in Latin America, China and Africa. Outside of the usual splinter demographic of angry losers, the generation that includes College Republicans carry no torch for racism. They also have less interest in organized religion than any prior generation, and even those who remain in traditional forms of Christianity have no interest in fighting the culture wars through their faith.

    It’s not surprising that some of the angry remnants would look at alternative religions or movements. They were never in Christianity for “apostolic tradition.” They were (and are) in it for the worship of power and tribal identity.

    • Even evangelicals are casting their nets in Latin America, China and Africa.

      As a former evangelical with broad and extensive experience in the Evangelical world – with both the older and the newer generations – as a graduate of Wheaton, as a Pharisee of Pharisees, I just need to point out that the word “even” has absolutely no place in this sentence.

  • Nick B. Steves

    I would like to give a serious response to this profoundly unserious attack (effectively reductio ad hitlerum).

    I too bristle at the phrase “Pro-Western Christianity”, but “Anti-Western Christianity” is a massive destabilizing force in the West as well as that part of the world over which the West has hegemony (which is to say most of it). Certainly, the Christian Faith is per se indifferent to longitude, but it is not indifferent to social order. Or at least it should not be. However, since the Reformation at least, certain Christian sects have fomented revolutionary political and social changes. Many others have given them aid and comfort.

    I have argued that the Catholic Church stood for centuries as the most Reactionary (anti-revolutionary, ergo stabilizing) force the world had ever known. Sadly, over the last century, even the Catholic Church, or at least most of her bishops, have largely succumbed to the Whig Zeitgeist as well. This makes the average Church, the average priest, and the average Bishop a net contributor to the forces of cultural, political, and social entropy.

    It is therefore easy to understand why those who believe what their lying eyes tell them—about race and sex diversity; the failures of centralized bureaucratic planning, and wealth redistribution; irrationality on immigration; crime, crumbling social trust, cratering and dysgenic fertility; suspicion to outright attacks on local particularities, customs, mores, and folkways;—would get fed up with the local manifestations of Christianity with which they are familiar.

    The only thing that surprises me is that any such organization as “College Republicans” has ever heard of the phenomenon. John Derbyshire is not, I think, a Republican. But he certainly not the cartoon eevul “white nationalist” “racist” you paint him to be. I know, Mark, that you have a blog “so that no thought of yours, however stupid, will ever go unpublished again,” but this sort of not even wrong hyperventilation is, I think, singularly unhelpful.

    It is ironic in the extreme that some of the most articulate and capable defenders of Christendom, the shared Western culture and belief system that has so blessed the entire world, just happen to be, like Derbyshire, atheists.

    • CJ

      To paraphrase Chesterton, conservative pagan wannabes may have a good idea of what’s wrong, but are completely clueless as to what is right. The Catholic tradition has answers to each of the problems you enumerated, but instead they boil it down to “too many of the wrong people” and put their “faith” in a religion that by its terms excludes the “wrong people.” I put faith in scare quotes because I wonder how many of these people believe that Thor or Baldur actually exist, and how many are playing dress up to add some supernatural gravitas to their political beliefs. That they are worshipping figments of their imagination (at best) or demons (at worst) in the service of their goals in this world. Jesus already told us that’s a bad bargain.

      • Nick B. Steves

        The entire point is that pagan societies (e.g., Japan, Singapore, China today, and virtually anything from pre-modern anywhere) were better ordered moral speaking than modern “Christian” ones. And everyone, if the Apostle can be trusted, knows what is right morally speaking, once they take their blinders off, and cleared their minds of cant. Too much of modern Christianity, sadly even Catholic Christianity, is moral smoke & mirrors (witness Shea’s sputtering apoplexy over eeeeevul “racists”) than a bright shining light to modern society.

        When we’re not actively giving aid and comfort to the Whig Enemy, we’re pulling out our torches to find crimethinkerers hiding being every tree and under every bed.

        • CJ

          You picked an odd group of societies to tout pagan moral superiority. Japan’s birthrate is at a near death-spiral level, China’s one child policy is evil with forced abortions and sterilizations. It’s also created a shortage of women (due to the preference for sons) which has led to things like runaway brides scamming guys out of dowries. Singapore’s cool, I guess.
          So maybe I should ask in what way do you see that these countries are better ordered morally speaking?

        • chezami

          Thanks for confirming that post-Christians “conservatism” is infatuated with race hatred and white supremacy. You’re gone, by the way.

          • DiverCity

            The irony!

  • JonSc

    It’s should be noted that it is just these attitudes that got Derbyshire fired by National Review, the “flagship” conservative journal. So it is not liked this isn’t policed.

  • Dave G.

    I’ve thought about this post most of the day. More than I should have really. Just what was the purpose? I mean, the point. What was it trying to accomplish? Conservatives are racists? So is the New Testament. That’s a well known fact in some circles. Anti-Semitic and racist (sexist and homophobic) document. In fact, the definitions of racism and racist are legion, for they are many. From having white skin, to being proud of America’s past, to holding any regard for historical Catholicism, why the list of what constitutes racism is endless. So why this? Everyone knows that, in some circles, to be conservative is to be racist. What was this trying to prove? That all these definitions are valid? Or just some. And if only some, then why those and not others? I still haven’t come up with a satisfactory answer.

    • What it should do is remind us conservatives that defending a real good – i.e. a particular culture and civilization – can very easily lead to ugly habits of thinking that could result in ugly anti-Christian behavior. This is “our” culture (in the sense that we’re native to it in a way that people of other races/cultures are often not) and therefore it’s our responsibility to bend over backwards to make sure we do not deprive the widow, the orphan, and the sojourner his rights. That’s wicked complicated in this fallen world, and it’s much easier just to assert our standards and blame people for not getting on board, so that’s what many of us do.

      • Dave G.

        It’s true for anything. I object to the notion that conservatives are more inclined to be racists. Really. I know some can. But racism is a word overused and exploited. Of course anyone should strive for the best and eliminate the worst in the culture they’ve inherited. But the whole ‘conservatives are more inclined to be racists’ just isn’t true. They may be more inclined to miss recognizing it, or hold onto something that fosters it, or even embrace it because it’s part of the heritage as they see it. But they aren’t alone. I could be wrong, but I think that Stu below, when speaking of liberals who are racist, might be getting to the point about how many today exploit racism to ramrod agendas. Which IMHO is worse than just being a racist. After all, it wasn’t conservatives who used thinly veiled racist terms and attitudes against Clarence Thomas, or Herman Cain. Not all criticisms were racist, but some were, and it wasn’t conservatives doing it. Same with Condoleezza Rice. Or sexism or anti-Semitism. Sarah Palin and Joe Lieberman didn’t get hit with old bigotry by those rascals on the Right. That would be those considered liberal. That’s the point. Playing off the whole ‘when conservatives get bored, they get racist’ is simply accepting a false and misleading narrative. Conservatives are no more likely, or less, to be bad than anyone. It ignores a large swath of the problems, and of course denies other forms that racism and various bigotries can take.

  • Do we hear governments, the mass media, and academia calling for Japan
    to bring in millions of non-Japanese people and assimilate with them
    because they’re “not diverse enough”?

    Exactly — we ONLY hear this about White countries. You anti-Whites are calling for the genocide of my people, White people.

    Diversity is a codeword for anti-White.

    • chezami

      Oh look, another White Purity nutjob! I’ll let a few of these comments stand for the sake of the dunces who are writing me to say that nothing in the stuff I linked is courting white supremacist nutjobs.

      • Glaivester

        I’m not certain Antivitt Folkmord’s comment is white supremacist. He is not saying that whites are better; he is standing for what he sees as white interests because he sees whites as his people, not because they are better than anyone else.

    • orual’s kindred

      Thankfully, it’s not! 🙂 And I’m not even sure that there aren’t talks about Japan being, as you say, ‘not diverse enough.’ But then I probably just got that idea from some anime 😀

    • kenofken

      Japan has come under considerable criticism for its xenophobic/racism issues, including by the UN Commission on Human Rights. We don’t hear a lot about that in Western media, but then we don’t hear or read much of anything about Japan apart from major disasters. American media dedicates virtually no resources to covering the day to day realities of most countries, unless we are at war with them or they are up and coming competitors like China and India. We also don’t dedicate a lot of time to civil rights in Japan because it’s not OUR issue. Most of those affected by Japan’s racism, and those with the most to say about it, are Chinese, Korean etc.

      And one White guy to another….you guys are not our champions and we need your “help” like we need an aortic aneurism. Nothing has done more to damage and discredit white folks as a whole than those who have appointed themselves guardians of the “race”. They have defined our collective legacy to the rest of the world as one of genocide, slavery and colonialism.

  • Mark Power

    Anti-white violence is rising, yet no one calls it racism.

    • kenofken

      Violent crime in the US is actually near historic lows, despite the sensational mass shootings we hear of these days. Blacks are nearly half of all murder victims, compared to their roughly 13% presence in the population. Racism is seldom a factor in violent crime. Most murder victims are killed by someone of their own race.

      • Mark Power

        You lie. Over half of all white murders are committed by non-whites. Over 35,000 white females are sexually assaulted by blacks in the US every year. The US will become a giant Yugoslavia when the EBT cards run out.

        • kenofken

          Yes, but almost all of the murders committed by non-whites were also against non-whites, so it doesn’t support your idea of rising anti-white violence. Yugoslavia is also not a great example, because white Serbs were by FAR the most prolific ethnic cleansers of the lot.

      • Festivite

        If violent crime is so low, please explain this:

        “The estimated number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay, rather than treatment and release, rose 47% to 30,759 in 2011 from 20,844 in 2001, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program.”

        “[T]he Department of Justice’s statistics show that violent crimes against White non-Hispanics increased 18 percent from 2010 to 2011. This increased cannot be put down to an across the board increase in violent crimes, because during that same period, violent crimes against blacks only increased by 2 percent.”

  • Dave G.

    I think the problem with racism is it means many things to many people. A fellow on a comments thread on Huffpost some years ago made it clear: to not be liberal (conservative) was to be a racist. Mel Gibson found out that for some, to believe in the traditional, orthodox Christian faith is to be racist. Some Christians have gone ahead and declared the NT a default racist/anti-Semitic document. Others say that if you don’t agree with certain solutions about resolving racial injustices, you’re a racist. Traditional Christian? Racist. Any pride in the history of the US (a nation, as I’m often told, founded only on racism and imperialism), is racist (duh, if you have pride in an evil racist nation, obviously a racist – we won’t even discuss pride in any part of the historic South). Of course we see some pretty stupid things in the name of racism. A woman who had a dummy hanging from a tree as part of a Halloween display has been called on to take it down, since hanging is a symbol of racism (in which those unhappy souls who were hanged for other reasons not sporting the right skin color become irrelevant to our collective memories). And of course we have those who gleefully exploit racism to ramrod agendas, as all young white college boys found out during the Duke Lacrosse scandal. And in recent years, we have a growing number of “liberals” willing to use, or tolerate, flagrant racist digs and insults and attitudes as long as it’s at the right type of blacks (Clarence Thomas, etc.). Same with sexism and Antisemitism.

    So it is simply no longer accurate to say ‘Conservatives are inclined to racism’ as some obvious truth. If it ever was. It is a term grossly overused, exploited, and that’s a shame, because it’s also real. There are those conservatives who are racist. Racism is still a problem. But it’s a problem across the board, and those pointing to the anti-White racism are correct. If a person is killed because he or she is white, an intelligent person would say that’s racism and that’s bad. And they wouldn’t lean on past sins to validate present ones, no matter how tempting it is to do so. Today, however, when such things happen that’s when the excuses come in. And that’s when a thinking person has to ask ‘just how many people are against racism, and how many are only against racism insofar as it helps advance agendas.’ Fair question.

    A few years ago, during the Tiger Woods fallout, my boy asked an interesting question. As Woods was crashing, some wondered if he could stage a comeback (though most knew he could, the sports world being rather indifferent about such things). But several discussions took place about the need for more blacks in golf. My boy then asked why everyone says we need more blacks in golf, but nobody says we need more whites in basketball or football. A fair question. And if a person thinks it’s anything other than a fair question, see my above points.

  • Clarissa

    Genophilia = Love of one’s own race. Only Cultural Marxists want to deny this natural instinct.

    • Stu

      You know, there is no real “race” difference between humans. There is only one human race.

      • Clarissa

        I take it you haven’t read any population genetics?

        Oh, foolish man, race is very real:

        Racial denial = Cultural Marxism.

        • Stu

          We are all part of the same species/sub-species classification. The notion of “race” among humans is just simplistic nonsense. Indeed, there are genetic differences between groups of people but we are all part of the human race.

          You are the flip side of the coin to the racialists.

          • Clarissa

            Race denial is symptomatic of Cultural Marxism. Anyone with an IQ above room temp should know race is real.


            Last post. I usually don’t even address people like you. Colour me elitist. A waste of my time to argue with flat-earthers.

            • chezami

              Any other racist kooks want to weigh in? Some of my readers were saying you don’t exist, so I’m letting you blather on a bit before banning you forever.

              • Frankie Weisse

                You say you are anti-racist, but what you are is anti-White.

                Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-White.

                • chezami

                  Excellent. Maybe just one or two of your racist nutjob friends more, just to demonstrate to my readers who were denying you guys exist and then I’ll start block you since you are, you know, heretics and purveyors of evil.

                • orual’s kindred

                  No, it’s not! Thankfully! 🙂

            • Stu

              You are walking denial of reason. And now everyone can see it. Colouring you an elitist would imply that you were…elite. So no worries there.


          • Glaivester

            There are different sub-populations of humans who share common ancestry unique to their sub-population and who mostly breed within their own sub-population. Whether you want to call it “race” “nation” or “tribe,” it is a biological reality.

            Are you denying that there are distinct populations with different clusters of genes, or do you just not like using the term “race” to refer to them?

            • Stu

              My previous comment answered your question.

    • orual’s kindred

      Well, it also (if not actually) translates to ‘love of one’s one kind’. After all genus refers to a specific kind, or sort. It would seem more accurate to apply it to ‘love of humanity’, yes? 🙂

      And I got quite the opposite impression of Cultural Marxism in class! I’m quite glad to have done with that, btw 😀

      • orual’s kindred

        Gaaah! Formatting! So sorry >.<

  • Frankie Weisse

    “Diversity” is just a code word for White Genocide.

  • Glaivester

    I sort of believe in a pro-western Christianity to the extent that the West has been shaped largely by Christianity and so a large part of Western culture is Christian.

    I don’t believe in a “pro-white” Christianity per se, but I believe in a “pro-nationalist” Christianity, which sees the value in maintaining the existence of different nations and peoples rather than simply merging us together in Babel.

    Not that we do not all come together in Christ, and not that some level of intermarriage is not okay, but I strongly object to the idea that we should all mix into one homogenous Babelish mass. I believe in a Christianity that is okay with the existence of distinct nations, all under Christ.

  • lol u mad bro. sorry that most normal Whites don’t want to live amongst mudskins and their dysfunction. when mainline Christianity necessitates that, we will leave.

  • William_JD

    Also, it is a heresy to suggest that Whites must sacrifice their existence on this earth as a condition to their own or humanity’s salvation. Someone else has already taken care of that. John 3:16-18.

    LOL. The proprietor of this blog bans posters whose arguments he can’t refute.

    What a coward!

    And he actually deletes comments that quote the doctrine of his own Church. His religion must be something other than Christianity.