Yesterday I wrote,
Some dumb atheists say, “How can you pro-White Christian European nationalists be anti-semitic when your Jesus was a Jew? Clearly Christianity is Jewish and not European.” I’m a huge Goadhead/Goadiot (really hoping those terms catch on), but even he made that retard ass argument. Ultimately it’s an argument against Christianity, not against European identitarianism.
I had written out a long response to the argument of how a pro-White Christian can be anti-Jewish, but I decided it veered too off topic from this article. And therefore I will post that portion in a post tomorrow.
And so here I will respond to Jim Goad’s article, which I’m sure he’ll never see. Again, I love Jim Goad, warts and all. Unlike certain people on the internet whom I won’t name, I’m not going to pitch a fit just because he occasionally writes things I disagree with. I’ve emailed with him a little bit, and yes he is a total asshole on the internet and sometimes epitomizes the atheist stereotype, but there’s so much redeeming value in his work. My copy of Shit Magnet is so underlined that it’s lost all resale value.
Jim Goad is technically an agnostic, but the philosophical differences between the various types of Western secularists who believe in a materialist philosophy are not relevant here. So I’m referring to him as an atheist out of habit, even though it technically isn’t accurate.
If the Gospels are to be trusted, Jesus seemed to have spent much of his adult life actively opposing the Roman Empire, which was perhaps the grandest civilization the West has ever produced.
Actually no. Jesus was politically inactive. He specifically said he has not come as a political leader. Typical atheist strawman. They read the Bible superficially merely to find reasons to disprove it so that they don’t have to live up to the standard of morality the Bible teaches. They aren’t interested in the actual meaning of the Bible. “Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear.” Don’t take them seriously.
Was the Roman Empire the grandest civilization the West has ever produced? It depends on your metric. Personally I would give that prize to the United Kingdom at its height.
From the fall of Rome until the Renaissance, there was a dark, almost thousand-year stretch during which Christianity reigned supreme in a Europe that wallowed in disease and backwardness compared to non-Christian civilizations in the Middle East, Asia, and Northern Africa.
Fake news. The Dark Ages (generally held to be from roughly AD 500 to 1000) is a misnomer. Technically the term refers to the lack of written documents that have survived, not the lack of knowledge. There was political instability, and some of Roman technology was lost, but they were not superstitious heathens without literature or science. The troubles of the Dark Ages were from a politically fractured Europe where small states struggled to defend themselves, and if anything, it is Christianity that held Europe together from total civilizational collapse. Once Rome was gone, Christianity is what gave Europeans their common identity, and it is then that you first begin to see a notion of Europeans sharing a common society that transcends political boundaries.
And even if the Dark Ages were backwards and barbarian (which I’m not conceding), the Eastern Roman Empire still flourished, even producing crude mechanics. Constantinople was the largest city in the world and a major center of trade.
Notice also that Goad stretched the Dark Ages beyond the actual Dark Ages, applying it to all of the Middle Ages. I guess in fairness he doesn’t use the term “Dark Ages”, but he uses “dark” as an adjective, so it causes the reader to conflate the two. The later Middle Ages is the civilization of Chaucer, Petrarch, Thomas Aquinas, the Crusades, the invention of Western music notation, and glorious gothic cathedrals. Yes, dark indeed.
Wallowing in disease? Which civilization didn’t wallow in disease before the invention of modern, Western medicine.
Backwardness? Can we define our terms? No, Goad has no interest in doing that.
People talk a lot about how Medieval Islam was full of science and philosophy, but they never cite very much. I’m call shenanigans on this claim. I strongly suspect Islamic societies have always been backwards and barbaric. Islam does not inspire its adherent to discover and ask questions. It is a political ideology of mindless submission.
In the real world—the one unclouded by the fog of superstition—the West only began dominating the rest of the world when it started focusing on technology and trade to the detriment of blind mysticism and blind faith.
See, that’s not even true. Show me any evidence that Western Europe in the early Middle Ages was at all opposed to technology and trade. If anything, they developed new weapons and new defense systems. Medieval Europe developed new forms of ballistics like catapults, crossbows, and early cannons. They engineered various forms of castles and battle armor.
And what is this blind mysticism and blind faith? The implication is Christianity, but what about it is blind? Does Goad imply that there can be a faith and mysticism that isn’t blind?
He’s just using words to anger you. He’s not insincere, but he’s still trolling. Don’t take it seriously. He’s always been a prankster, and he’s trying to piss off his own readers. That’s not to say that he doesn’t mean the words he’s writing.
Look, I do the same thing. I say things like, “I hate fat people and actively discriminate against them.” That’s not actually quite true, as I’m as polite to fat people as I am to any stranger. The same is true with gays, single mothers, and divorced people. The point I’m really saying is that I’m tired of couching criticism from a right-wing position in “not all do this” and “love the sinner” and “show people human dignity” language. It puts you on the defense and plays on the left’s field.
You can both troll and be serious. Really, I think most trolling is more of what used to be known as satire.
One could likewise argue that the Islamic world—which had a leg up on Europe throughout much of the Middle Ages—ultimately languished behind Christendom due to its dogged embrace of blind faith over scientific curiosity.
Again, can you cite the claim that Islam was more scientifically advanced and scientifically curious than Europe in the Middle Ages? No, you cannot. No examples are given. No Muslim scientists are named. Goad is repeating dumb leftist tropes that aren’t based in history.
And if the “West” is declining—which I think it is, for reasons that have far more to do with birth rates than any vague notions of “godlessness”
The two are related. Atheists don’t reproduce in sustainable numbers. No secular society has ever maintained a birth rate.
Across the entire modern Christian spectrum, you’d be hard-pressed to find any sect that doesn’t openly parrot a distinctly Cultural Marxist set of ethics. All of the old sins have been replaced with new ones: In just about any church these days, you’ll hear far more about “racism” and “sexism” and “homophobia” than you will about adultery and sodomy and abortion.
So here Goad is conflating the instigation with the reaction. The “trad Christian right” that he is criticizing is reacting against the cultural Marxism that has infected Christianity. I wouldn’t describe myself as a “trad Christian,” but I guess my views are close to them. They criticize society as much as they criticize their own churches.
In other words, they believe Christians should engage in self-reflection. Not a lot of that in our society.
Anyone who believes that Christianity is synonymous with European identity has to wrestle with the painfully unpleasant fact that the global Christian population is now majority nonwhite.
Actually, no we don’t. Christianity is integral to European identity. The European paganism is long gone, and it was terrible anyway. Just because Christianity is broader than Europe doesn’t mean that Christianity is exclusive to people of European descent.
Literally no one finds this painful or unpleasant that. It’s another dumb atheist straw man. They create a ridiculous thing no one could possibly believe and then say, “Who could possibly believe this?” Gavin McInnes had a really good video on this, though it was more about social and political issues.
Anyway, Goad’s article:
[T]he undeniable truth is that Christianity has always been a Semitic religion rather than a European one. Yes, it was coopted by Europeans and sculpted into a belief system that for a long time was openly anti-Jewish—every word of Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies” drips with Jew-hatin’ venom—but the sad, inescapable irony is that Luther worshiped a Jewish man as a deity and followed a religion whose chief initial propagandist—Saul of Tarsus—was a practicing Jew.
Again, not something anyone is surprised about. Christians have conventionally been anti-semitic because the Jews rejected the covenant. Christians are not opposed to Jews as an ethnicity, and all the various inquisitions and persecutions allowed any Jew to take an out by converting to Christianity. What Christians have been opposed to is Judaism the ideology and culture, because it is corrosive to society.
Any honest historian will tell you that Judaism has changed radically from the time of Jesus to the present day (and even by Jesus’s time it was significantly different than the religion of Moses and David). Ancient Judaism was built around the temple cult and existed in a specific location with a system of family lineage. The Mosaic law is geographical.
After the temple was destroyed in AD 70, the Jews were scattered, and their theology became reactionary to Christianity. No longer did you have lineages of priests. There were no tribes. The emphasis came to be on teaching in the synagogue and keeping the traditions of the Talmud. All forms of modern Judaism are based on the Pharisaical sect Judaism, which Jesus was actively criticizing (though he was somewhat a part of that tradition). Not all Jews of Jesus’s time believed in the Talmud; today it’s inseparable from Orthodox Judaism.
It’s not sad or ironic that Luther worshiped a Jewish man as a deity. That’s a core concept of the Bible.
[I]f your goal is to save Europe, a majority-nonwhite religion that did not originate on European soil, a religion that in almost all of its modern iterations is resolutely globalist and anti-European in its outreach and appeal, might not be your best bet.
Yeah, Christianity is about more than race. It’s a values set that has made Western Civilization the greatest civilization ever. We think other races should have this same values set so that they can also have great civilizations. We also think that Christianity should return to its conventional beliefs and quit trying to be popular with the secular left.
Is anyone surprised by that? Show of hands. Who here finds either the last Goad quote or my paragraph below it to be something new they had never thought about? This is Christianity 101.
Lately Goad has been on a warpath against people who assume they can read others’ motivations. Then he writes blatantly hypocritical paragraphs like these:
None of this should be a problem unless you’re a Christian who dislikes Jews, because your entire belief system was bequeathed to you by Jews, which winds up making you look more than a wee bit silly.
To avoid being walking contradictions, modern white Christians who are concerned about Europe’s demographic decline should either accept that the religion they practice claims to be the fulfillment of Old Testament Judaism—at which point they should lay off the Jews, seeing as they’re the apple of God’s eye and all—or maybe they should search for a belief system that actually originated from European minds on European soil.
Or maybe the belief in European survival is the only belief system Europeans actually need in order to survive.
Assumptive much? The whole article is assuming that anti-semitic Christians are unaware that Jesus was Jewish.
The main reason I’m not a White nationalist is this essay by Jack Donovan. His basic argument is that White people have killed each other for centuries over ideology, and now people think that once we have a White ethnostate we won’t resume those wars.
Goad doesn’t understand that, because atheists have very simplistic arguments that don’t understand nuance or culture. They pride themselves on being “above it all” while really being in the midst of it all. They don’t argue with integrity. They don’t argue objectively. Goad is the most polite, rational person ever until you get to the topic of religion, and then he turns hysterical. Despite his claims of having left Christianity, he is still deeply invested in it emotionally.
This seems to be the case for most atheists who grew up Catholic. If you grow up Catholic, you never truly leave it. Former Catholic atheists will say, “Yeah I grew up Catholic, so I know how dumb Christianity is,” and then the protestant says, “Catholicism isn’t Christianity.” And what does the former Catholic but now liberal atheist say? The same thing devout Catholics say to protestants who delegitimize their church: “The Catholic Church was the first Church,” as though that’s some argument-ending bombshell no one had ever considered.
Anyway, the point isn’t merely to become a White majority country. As I’ve written before, the White race is worthless without Christ. Whether or not Christianity has its origin in the Mideast is irrelevant, because Christianity transcends culture. My response to Jim Goad’s article is simply its title: So what if Jesus was Jewish?
Meanwhile, readers are encouraged to find me an atheist who actually understands the Christianity he is arguing against. Post the link on that other blog post for reader suggestions. I doubt you’ll find any examples though.