Christian Nationalism and it's weakness

[Circle of Willis]

Honestly, from what I could guess, the only possible weakness about Christian Nationalism in general is that expressing a kind of nationalism can be considered a form of pride, which in itself, according to Christian doctrine, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. In addition, Christian Nationalism does not have a kind of ethnic component in it, which could be potentially challenging when it comes to the branch of Western Christianity. In Western Christianity, it's practically a kind of spiritual form of internationalism, meaning that anyone can become either Catholic or Protestant. In Eastern Christianity, it's a kind of spiritual analogue to Socialism in One Country, or rather, a Nationalized form of Christianity that corresponds to the country in which Orthodox Christian Churches are established.

To cite an example, let's use the one from E. Michael Jones's kind of Christian 'nationalism': imagine an African migrant moving to a Catholic country like say, Hungary. (Jones actually used Poland as an example). That migrant learned the Hungarian language, adopted Hungarian customs, and became Catholic, and in the end, he becomes a Hungarian. However, the main problem with this is that when one thinks of an ethnic Hungarian, they assume that the Hungarian is white, and not African. The African migrant to Hungary could become a Hungarian citizen, or gain Hungarian nationality, but he could never become an ethnic Hungarian.

So let's say, in the case of the US, Christian Nationalism can be confusing, as we don't know if it's a Protestant brand or a Catholic brand. Unlike Europe, with America, any migrant could immigrate to the US, learn the English language, and become American. But depending on which religion the migrant belongs to prior to immigrating to the US, they'd keep it.

As far as I can tell, the sort of terminally online leftist most likely to take charges of 'Christian nationalism' seriously define it in a strictly American sense, when it isn't just intended as a deliberately amorphous slur meaning 'rightist bad'. That is, they consider it to = their strawman of an American traditionalist who 'wants to go back to the Founding Fathers' true vision' as they define it:

1) A Christian supremacist, and by Christian they mean strictly Protestant. After all, historically Catholicism was viewed with suspicion by many American nationalists, and that's when it wasn't considered outright non-Christian (rather 'Papism', Pope-worship) and a subversive anti-American threat; the same goes for Eastern Orthodoxy and in general any sect that isn't viewed as a 'native' American rite. (Dunno how widespread this definition is across East & Southeast Asia, but in Indonesia at least where it's mandatory to list your religion on your ID card, 'Kristen' - Christian - and Catholic are two separate categories; the Christian Nationalist strawman believes this too, and with much more fervor than the Indonesian government.) What kind of Protestant, though? Even the OG Americans couldn't decide and neither can the people who set up this strawman, not that it matters overmuch because it's all the same to the latter (under an umbrella of 'Evangelical man bad') anyway.

2) A racist, specifically a WASP - White Anglo-Saxon Protestant - supremacist tied up in antiquated American ideas of how race works. The sort of racist whose definition of 'white' strictly means 'Anglo-Nordic', believes zealously in the one-drop rule (if you have even a single black, Native American or otherwise non-white ancestor in your family tree your blood's impure, end of story) and considers the Irish, Italians, Hispanics (even say, Mexican criollos who are of 99%+ European Spanish extraction), etc. to be contemptible subhumans. And if that's what they think about other European peoples, you can bet your ass that they will have nothing kind to say about blacks, Jews, Indians (dot and feather both), Asians or anyone else outside of their very narrowly defined category of 'white'.

3) An extreme nativist & xenophobe, in keeping with #2 up there. Believes the country should go back to the Naturalization Act of 1790, ie. it's right & just to limit American citizenship to only 'free white persons of good character' and immigration of non-whites in general should be massively restricted (to domestic servants who can never hope to become citizens, basically) or banned entirely. The sort of nationalist who, when he hears the words 'Native American', thinks of the Know Nothing definition thereof rather than actual indigenous peoples.

In short, a strawman which bears no resemblance to reality, more inspired by Huey Long's buddy Gerald L. K. Smith and his 'Christian Nationalist Crusade' rather than the RL Founding Fathers or what American conservatives actually believe. I know of literally no modern American conservative who believes these things, hell, not even American wignats like Nick Fuentes (who is certainly no WASP) adhere to this definition. But to the leftist mob, 'Christian nationalist' does not actually just mean 'Christian who's also an American nationalist', at least not for anyone who claims to have put more than two seconds of thought toward defining the term. Although they hate that too, and in more than a few cases believe that #2 and #3 are fundamental components of 'American nationalism'. (I know of at least one active Discord server with hundreds of members run by these deranged ancom types where 'expressing or supporting American nationalism' is literally an instaban offense.)

Personally though, I'm of the opinion that the American right should proudly own this label instead of letting themselves be boxed in further by leftist word games. They won't relent regardless and will gladly concoct a new label meaning 'evil fascist' if this ground is conceded to them, as said above, they're already trying to redefine American nationalism as fundamentally racist, xenophobic and thus evil anyway. At this point when I hear 'Christian nationalist', I think (besides that the person unironically accusing others of fitting that label is a braindead leftard) 'enemy of the godless globalist', and that's a good thing.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

As far as I can tell, the sort of terminally online leftist most likely to take charges of 'Christian nationalism' seriously define it in a strictly American sense, when it isn't just intended as a deliberately amorphous slur meaning 'rightist bad'. That is, they consider it to = their strawman of an American traditionalist who 'wants to go back to the Founding Fathers' true vision' as they define it:

1) A Christian supremacist, and by Christian they mean strictly Protestant. After all, historically Catholicism was viewed with suspicion by many American nationalists, and that's when it wasn't considered outright non-Christian (rather 'Papism', Pope-worship) and a subversive anti-American threat; the same goes for Eastern Orthodoxy and in general any sect that isn't viewed as a 'native' American rite. (Dunno how widespread this definition is across East & Southeast Asia, but in Indonesia at least where it's mandatory to list your religion on your ID card, 'Kristen' - Christian - and Catholic are two separate categories; the Christian Nationalist strawman believes this too, and with much more fervor than the Indonesian government.) What kind of Protestant, though? Even the OG Americans couldn't decide and neither can the people who set up this strawman, not that it matters overmuch because it's all the same to the latter (under an umbrella of 'Evangelical man bad') anyway.

2) A racist, specifically a WASP - White Anglo-Saxon Protestant - supremacist tied up in antiquated American ideas of how race works. The sort of racist whose definition of 'white' strictly means 'Anglo-Nordic', believes zealously in the one-drop rule (if you have even a single black, Native American or otherwise non-white ancestor in your family tree your blood's impure, end of story) and considers the Irish, Italians, Hispanics (even say, Mexican criollos who are of 99%+ European Spanish extraction), etc. to be contemptible subhumans. And if that's what they think about other European peoples, you can bet your ass that they will have nothing kind to say about blacks, Jews, Indians (dot and feather both), Asians or anyone else outside of their very narrowly defined category of 'white'.

3) An extreme nativist & xenophobe, in keeping with #2 up there. Believes the country should go back to the Naturalization Act of 1790, ie. it's right & just to limit American citizenship to only 'free white persons of good character' and immigration of non-whites in general should be massively restricted (to domestic servants who can never hope to become citizens, basically) or banned entirely. The sort of nationalist who, when he hears the words 'Native American', thinks of the Know Nothing definition thereof rather than actual indigenous peoples.

In short, a strawman which bears no resemblance to reality, more inspired by Huey Long's buddy Gerald L. K. Smith and his 'Christian Nationalist Crusade' rather than the RL Founding Fathers or what American conservatives actually believe. I know of literally no modern American conservative who believes these things, hell, not even American wignats like Nick Fuentes (who is certainly no WASP) adhere to this definition. But to the leftist mob, 'Christian nationalist' does not actually just mean 'Christian who's also an American nationalist', at least not for anyone who claims to have put more than two seconds of thought toward defining the term. Although they hate that too, and in more than a few cases believe that #2 and #3 are fundamental components of 'American nationalism'. (I know of at least one active Discord server with hundreds of members run by these deranged ancom types where 'expressing or supporting American nationalism' is literally an instaban offense.)

Personally though, I'm of the opinion that the American right should proudly own this label instead of letting themselves be boxed in further by leftist word games. They won't relent regardless and will gladly concoct a new label meaning 'evil fascist' if this ground is conceded to them, as said above, they're already trying to redefine American nationalism as fundamentally racist, xenophobic and thus evil anyway. At this point when I hear 'Christian nationalist', I think (besides that the person unironically accusing others of fitting that label is a braindead leftard) 'enemy of the godless globalist', and that's a good thing.

Christian nationalism means whatever they need it to mean.

The point is

1) to divide Christians and prevent them from forming a united front
2) to stigmatise orthodox and dogmatic Christianity in order to reduce its influence on politics
3) to set up an officially approved and highly heretical quasi-state christianity that is down with communism, abortion and sodomy

They will then use this this approved form of as a hammer against the conservative (ie real) church, esp when it comes to issues of religious freedom. They can use thier sock puppet church to make claims that christianity doesnt require you to be against butt sex and furries and then claim that your objections against sodomy arent based on religion but personal prejudice and are thus not entitled to religious protections.

There will be two forms of the christianity..the fake church which will be gay, feminised, iconoclastic, subordinated to the interests of the managerial class. They will worship a black jesus with an ADL approved bible. Then there will be the real church, the underground deplorable church which is orthodox and dogmatic. The real church will be resilient and organic. the suckpuppet church will survive only because of institutional support.

The suckpuppet church will be the worst persecutors or the real church, right up to the point the fake church falls apart.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Christian nationalism means whatever they need it to mean.

The point is

1) to divide Christians and prevent them from forming a united front
2) to stigmatise orthodox and dogmatic Christianity in order to reduce its influence on politics
3) to set up an officially approved and highly heretical quasi-state christianity that is down with communism, abortion and sodomy

They will then use this this approved form of as a hammer against the conservative (ie real) church, esp when it comes to issues of religious freedom. They can use thier sock puppet church to make claims that christianity doesnt require you to be against butt sex and furries and then claim that your objections against sodomy arent based on religion but personal prejudice and are thus not entitled to religious protections.

There will be two forms of the christianity..the fake church which will be gay, feminised, iconoclastic, subordinated to the interests of the managerial class. They will worship a black jesus with an ADL approved bible. Then there will be the real church, the underground deplorable church which is orthodox and dogmatic. The real church will be resilient and organic. the suckpuppet church will survive only because of institutional support.

The suckpuppet church will be the worst persecutors or the real church, right up to the point the fake church falls apart.

Seems an unwise investment on the part of globohomo. The fake church pushing globohomo talking points you describe is already here and already falling apart - mainstream Protestant denominations (the ones that are already openly paganistic like Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc.) are rapidly shedding followers and have been for years. That's also true outside of the US: here in Canada our biggest mainstream denom, the UCC, has dropped from two million adherents to some 300,000 (of whom only ~120,000 still bother to attend their pozzed services) in about a decade, and the Anglican Church is a joke (even bigger than it ever has been historically, given its roots) in the UK as well.

It's only the more conservative and non-mainline Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc. who are still seeing any growth & respectable numbers among Protestants, in and out of America (Pentecostals are apparently booming in Latin America). Among the Catholics the growth of churches offering the old Tridentine (Traditional Latin) Mass has been alarming enough that Pope Francis had to start trying to squeeze it, and he's increasingly facing rebellion from the African & American bishops over things like his permitting the blessing of gay unions and removing conservative bishops while telling the remainder not to worry so much about things like the sanctity of unborn lives - I expect to see another Western Schism within my lifetime. The Orthodox are gaining popularity & converts precisely because they're thought of as being more resistant to modernistic changes than other churches in the West. And so on, so forth.

The mainline, pro-globohomo churches are already exceedingly flimsy materials, far too flimsy and unconvincing to try to build Mystery Babylon with. No amount of institutional support is able to save them (after all, the UK and Scandinavian countries still have established churches, and that isn't remotely helping those churches' attendance rates) when nobody wants to buy what they're selling. Tarring their more conservative rivals isn't working either, 'Christian Nationalist' is frankly a benign term compared to other insults that have been lobbed at them in the past (the fact that people can argue there are positive connotations to the term so soon after it was introduced to the popular lexicon is very bad news for the people who thought it up in the first place).

And even from a purely utilitarian view of churches/religions as a mere means of controlling the populace (as expressed by guys like Charles Maurras, a 20th-century French agnostic who favored state Catholicism as a tool of social control), a church that cannot persuade the masses and has no followers is one whose existence is totally pointless. If globohomo desires a proper religious arm so badly, it literally would do better with mandating straight-up nihilistic and hedonistic worship of the state where the ultimate command is 'do what thou wilt, so long as it is within the State's law' than trying to sell the six-striped rainbow with a cross spraypainted on it.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Seems an unwise investment on the part of globohomo. The fake church pushing globohomo talking points you describe is already here and already falling apart - mainstream Protestant denominations (the ones that are already openly paganistic like Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc.) are rapidly shedding followers and have been for years. That's also true outside of the US: here in Canada our biggest mainstream denom, the UCC, has dropped from two million adherents to some 300,000 (of whom only ~120,000 still bother to attend their pozzed services) in about a decade, and the Anglican Church is a joke (even bigger than it ever has been historically, given its roots) in the UK as well.

It's only the more conservative and non-mainline Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc. who are still seeing any growth & respectable numbers among Protestants, in and out of America (Pentecostals are apparently booming in Latin America). Among the Catholics the growth of churches offering the old Tridentine (Traditional Latin) Mass has been alarming enough that Pope Francis had to start trying to squeeze it, and he's increasingly facing rebellion from the African & American bishops over things like his permitting the blessing of gay unions and removing conservative bishops while telling the remainder not to worry so much about things like the sanctity of unborn lives - I expect to see another Western Schism within my lifetime. The Orthodox are gaining popularity & converts precisely because they're thought of as being more resistant to modernistic changes than other churches in the West. And so on, so forth.

The mainline, pro-globohomo churches are already exceedingly flimsy materials, far too flimsy and unconvincing to try to build Mystery Babylon with. No amount of institutional support is able to save them (after all, the UK and Scandinavian countries still have established churches, and that isn't remotely helping those churches' attendance rates) when nobody wants to buy what they're selling. Tarring their more conservative rivals isn't working either, 'Christian Nationalist' is frankly a benign term compared to other insults that have been lobbed at them in the past (the fact that people can argue there are positive connotations to the term so soon after it was introduced to the popular lexicon is very bad news for the people who thought it up in the first place).

And even from a purely utilitarian view of churches/religions as a mere means of controlling the populace (as expressed by guys like Charles Maurras, a 20th-century French agnostic who favored state Catholicism as a tool of social control), a church that cannot persuade the masses and has no followers is one whose existence is totally pointless. If globohomo desires a proper religious arm so badly, it literally would do better with mandating straight-up nihilistic and hedonistic worship of the state where the ultimate command is 'do what thou wilt, so long as it is within the State's law' than trying to sell the six-striped rainbow with a cross spraypainted on it.

Wrecking the churches and diminishing Christianity is part of the plan

 

[S'task]

Seems an unwise investment on the part of globohomo. The fake church pushing globohomo talking points you describe is already here and already falling apart - mainstream Protestant denominations (the ones that are already openly paganistic like Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc.) are rapidly shedding followers and have been for years. That's also true outside of the US: here in Canada our biggest mainstream denom, the UCC, has dropped from two million adherents to some 300,000 (of whom only ~120,000 still bother to attend their pozzed services) in about a decade, and the Anglican Church is a joke (even bigger than it ever has been historically, given its roots) in the UK as well.

It's only the more conservative and non-mainline Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc. who are still seeing any growth & respectable numbers among Protestants, in and out of America (Pentecostals are apparently booming in Latin America). Among the Catholics the growth of churches offering the old Tridentine (Traditional Latin) Mass has been alarming enough that Pope Francis had to start trying to squeeze it, and he's increasingly facing rebellion from the African & American bishops over things like his permitting the blessing of gay unions and removing conservative bishops while telling the remainder not to worry so much about things like the sanctity of unborn lives - I expect to see another Western Schism within my lifetime. The Orthodox are gaining popularity & converts precisely because they're thought of as being more resistant to modernistic changes than other churches in the West. And so on, so forth.

The mainline, pro-globohomo churches are already exceedingly flimsy materials, far too flimsy and unconvincing to try to build Mystery Babylon with. No amount of institutional support is able to save them (after all, the UK and Scandinavian countries still have established churches, and that isn't remotely helping those churches' attendance rates) when nobody wants to buy what they're selling. Tarring their more conservative rivals isn't working either, 'Christian Nationalist' is frankly a benign term compared to other insults that have been lobbed at them in the past (the fact that people can argue there are positive connotations to the term so soon after it was introduced to the popular lexicon is very bad news for the people who thought it up in the first place).

And even from a purely utilitarian view of churches/religions as a mere means of controlling the populace (as expressed by guys like Charles Maurras, a 20th-century French agnostic who favored state Catholicism as a tool of social control), a church that cannot persuade the masses and has no followers is one whose existence is totally pointless. If globohomo desires a proper religious arm so badly, it literally would do better with mandating straight-up nihilistic and hedonistic worship of the state where the ultimate command is 'do what thou wilt, so long as it is within the State's law' than trying to sell the six-striped rainbow with a cross spraypainted on it.

You're looking at this through a purely religious orientation lens.

This isn't about that, this is about three things: US Constitutional Law, the Leftist Ideal of Submission of Church to State (which they CALL Separation of Church and State in order to confuse the matter), and preventing moderate and politically unaware Christians from waking up to how bad things are.

The first part was touched on, the last bastion that prevents the Left from outright criminalizing traditional moral opinions in the US is the First Amendment. In Canada and Europe they have been waging a fairly successful war against traditional moral opinions via Hate Speech Laws. This effort was also attempted in the US (and actually originated here I think) and was originally part of the US Civil Right movement, meant to criminalize speech by organizations like the KKK. However, these laws were to broadly written and in the 90s "Hate Speech" as a legal concept was pretty decisively killed by the US Supreme Court under the 1st Amendment's Free Speech clause*. This has been a bugbear even as the 90s also saw one of the most damaging events to Freedom of Religion in the US that set the groundwork for their next wave of attacks.

Being unable to outright ban speech, the left instead turned to a more subversive method: attempting to control speech via Civil Rights Laws. They have attempted to make it so that speaking against their favored groups (be it racial or sexual) creates a "hostile environment" that violates their civil rights (this is also why you saw the creation of the idea of "microaggressions"). The problem is that US Civil Rights laws have long held carveouts for Religious beliefs. IE, a Catholic School could of course discriminate by not hiring non-Catholics, Churches of course could say anything they wanted based on their scripture, etc. Further, because their most recent weapon de jur against civilization has been sexual deviants, which most religions have explicit teachings condemning, even private companies compelled under Civil Rights law would have trouble enforcing their Speech Codes because, well, a Christian who says "Same sex sexual activity is a sin and I don't think people should do it" is expressing an truly held religious belief and thus a company that fired them for saying that could actually held liable for discrimination based on religious belief...

This has led to the massive push for Progressive Christianity and its artificial amplification in media and in elite discourse specifically to discredit traditional Christianity and it's morality, it's to discredit the idea that such speech is religious in nature and thus remove it's protection under Civil Rights laws, and instead make it purely into speech that is "harmful" to a protected minority group... and thus able to be punished under those same Civil Rights laws.

The second aspect of this is the Leftist's inherently misrepresentation of the idea of Separation of Church and State, in which morals and ideals that come from religion are inherently considered suspect and illegitimate to base laws off of. Under the Leftist's construction Religion is meant to be entirely private and only apply to a person's personal spirituality, it should not effect their day to day activities (this is why they perniciously express the religious protections in the US First Amendment as "Separation of Church and State" and "Freedom of Worship", rather than the more accurate "Anti-State Religious Establishment" and "Religious Free Exercise", as "Religious Free Exercise" makes it clear that the Right in question is much more broad than just worship). Again, by having a kept religion that calls itself the same as original but teaches completely opposite things they can then claim that the original's teachings are not coming from the religion (and thus are protected) but from something else that's not protected.

And finally, it's meant specifically to keep the people in the middle asleep and from associating with the "bad" side. I see this frequently among those who don't actually understand what's going on... people reposting claims that those who support XYZ politically right positions are "not real Christians" or that "real Christians" support ABC Left wing positions. This is meant to message to those who identify as "Christian" but who are not politically and religious astute that being a good Christian is in line with what Progressives want, and that people who don't aren't "real" Christians.

----
* I REALLY NEED people to recognize this. So many Millennials mistakenly believe that many left wing organizations were all for free speech until recently, but no, they NEVER have been, they've ALWAYS been pushing legal speech bans they openly talked about and made laws about this as far back as the 1970s and it was only as a side effect of the Republican Long March through the Supreme Court that we secured Free Speech from being eroded by Hate Speech back in the 1990s and 00s.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Wrecking the churches and diminishing Christianity is part of the plan

You're looking at this through a purely religious orientation lens.

This isn't about that, this is about three things: US Constitutional Law, the Leftist Ideal of Submission of Church to State (which they CALL Separation of Church and State in order to confuse the matter), and preventing moderate and politically unaware Christians from waking up to how bad things are.

The first part was touched on, the last bastion that prevents the Left from outright criminalizing traditional moral opinions in the US is the First Amendment. In Canada and Europe they have been waging a fairly successful war against traditional moral opinions via Hate Speech Laws. This effort was also attempted in the US (and actually originated here I think) and was originally part of the US Civil Right movement, meant to criminalize speech by organizations like the KKK. However, these laws were to broadly written and in the 90s "Hate Speech" as a legal concept was pretty decisively killed by the US Supreme Court under the 1st Amendment's Free Speech clause*. This has been a bugbear even as the 90s also saw one of the most damaging events to Freedom of Religion in the US that set the groundwork for their next wave of attacks.

Being unable to outright ban speech, the left instead turned to a more subversive method: attempting to control speech via Civil Rights Laws. They have attempted to make it so that speaking against their favored groups (be it racial or sexual) creates a "hostile environment" that violates their civil rights (this is also why you saw the creation of the idea of "microaggressions"). The problem is that US Civil Rights laws have long held carveouts for Religious beliefs. IE, a Catholic School could of course discriminate by not hiring non-Catholics, Churches of course could say anything they wanted based on their scripture, etc. Further, because their most recent weapon de jur against civilization has been sexual deviants, which most religions have explicit teachings condemning, even private companies compelled under Civil Rights law would have trouble enforcing their Speech Codes because, well, a Christian who says "Same sex sexual activity is a sin and I don't think people should do it" is expressing an truly held religious belief and thus a company that fired them for saying that could actually held liable for discrimination based on religious belief...

This has led to the massive push for Progressive Christianity and its artificial amplification in media and in elite discourse specifically to discredit traditional Christianity and it's morality, it's to discredit the idea that such speech is religious in nature and thus remove it's protection under Civil Rights laws, and instead make it purely into speech that is "harmful" to a protected minority group... and thus able to be punished under those same Civil Rights laws.

The second aspect of this is the Leftist's inherently misrepresentation of the idea of Separation of Church and State, in which morals and ideals that come from religion are inherently considered suspect and illegitimate to base laws off of. Under the Leftist's construction Religion is meant to be entirely private and only apply to a person's personal spirituality, it should not effect their day to day activities (this is why they perniciously express the religious protections in the US First Amendment as "Separation of Church and State" and "Freedom of Worship", rather than the more accurate "Anti-State Religious Establishment" and "Religious Free Exercise", as "Religious Free Exercise" makes it clear that the Right in question is much more broad than just worship). Again, by having a kept religion that calls itself the same as original but teaches completely opposite things they can then claim that the original's teachings are not coming from the religion (and thus are protected) but from something else that's not protected.

And finally, it's meant specifically to keep the people in the middle asleep and from associating with the "bad" side. I see this frequently among those who don't actually understand what's going on... people reposting claims that those who support XYZ politically right positions are "not real Christians" or that "real Christians" support ABC Left wing positions. This is meant to message to those who identify as "Christian" but who are not politically and religious astute that being a good Christian is in line with what Progressives want, and that people who don't aren't "real" Christians.

----
* I REALLY NEED people to recognize this. So many Millennials mistakenly believe that many left wing organizations were all for free speech until recently, but no, they NEVER have been, they've ALWAYS been pushing legal speech bans they openly talked about and made laws about this as far back as the 1970s and it was only as a side effect of the Republican Long March through the Supreme Court that we secured Free Speech from being eroded by Hate Speech back in the 1990s and 00s.

Oh I'm well aware of that. My broader point was that these efforts aren't working. The Left(-Hand-Path) has historically been great at deconstructing and destroying, but not at creating effective and popular replacements for that which they've torn down, and this creative sterility most certainly extends into the religious sphere. In fact, I daresay that their efforts to create a subservient church or churches to function as their religious arm and decisively spiritually neuter Christian opposition has been by far the culture war front where they've had the least success. Every church that has bowed to the modern managerial state and the culture it's manufactured is well in the process of withering to nothing. The only churches having success at retaining & growing their membership are those who firmly set themselves apart from the Left's corrupting tendrils or, increasingly, even in active opposition to them.

I was reminded earlier that Rob Reiner most recently produced a 'documentary' called God & Country specifically attacking the Christian nationalist strawman and trying to tie American religious conservatism into this newly-defined boogeyman. They got all sorts of purported 'good Christians' in there to pontificate against the mean, obscurantist, reactionary dreaded Christian nationalists and saying the latter are the ones perverting God's church, that in fact doing the Left's bidding and marching in lockstep with the prog agenda is the most Christian thing Christians can do; IOW exactly as you say, that the latter are 'not real Christians', basically.

Well this documentary was released two weeks ago, and...it was a total dud. $38k opening weekend, not much better in the days since despite a hard marketing push and rave reviews (92% on RT) from the ever-trustworthy professional critics, and I'd bet $15 that the vast majority if not the entirety of the audience who paid tickets to see this thing were all already diehard liberals who agree with everything Reiner & his handpicked puppets have to say, and who probably aren't even Christians just like Reiner himself (or if they are, they belong to the same progressive churches that he drew his talking heads from); meaning it's a complete waste of time & money that isn't persuading anyone in the center (much less converting 'the enemy') of either how much of a threat Christian nationalism is or how Christian conservatives somehow aren't 'true Christians', as opposed to the supremely enlightened and compassionate types Meathead here brought on board. It's practically the Bros of anti-Christian documentaries. The masses simply aren't buying what they're selling.

As I'm sure you know, the modernist churches have been crumbling while the fundamentalists, traditionalists, whatever you want to call the ones aligned with the Right by default (since the Left is axiomatically hostile to any attempt at being a genuine Christian and has been since its inception in the French Revolution) have been growing, for a good while now. I remember jokes being cracked both online and IRL about the proto-woke direction the UCC was going in up here and the likes of the Episcopalians doing the same in the States, how they'd think nothing of draping the Pride flag over the cross and having drag queens read the Bible to kids...in like, 2010. Now even as they praise the Great Queer One from their altars, their pews are emptier still than back then (they were already quite empty before) and their names are worse than mud, attracting not merely mockery but downright contempt from every practicing Christian I know regardless of denomination. And this trend shows no sign of reversing in favor of the Left & those hollow churches that have agreed to become its pets.

(Attempts by the Left to construct its own subservient church directly rather than subvert the mainliners have pretty much all failed, as well, going back to the French Cult of Reason/Supreme Being. Jim Jones tried to create commie-Christianity, got his hooks in deep with the Californian Democratic establishment including figures as high as Dianne Feinstein & Harvey Milk, then inevitably spiraled as sociopathic cult leaders tend to until he went full Jonestown and suddenly Feinstein et al. were busily pretending they never knew him. Inasmuch as modern intersectional leftism can be called a cult, it's failed to produce sympathetic martyrs or truly inspirational figures - only nihilistic murderers like Audrey Hale who they then have to bury and claim no affiliation with because of how horrible they'd look to even the most spaced-out normie, failures like Aaron Bushnell whose attempted self-sacrifice didn't further their purported cause and got them shat on by their own 'allies' anyway for belonging to Black Categories, or are exposed as not martyrs at all too quickly to stick in this Information Age like Dagny Benedict. Past, more successful martyrs like Matthew Shepard & Marsha P. Johnson are having their myths demonstrate a lack of lasting resilience as even left-wing outlets like The Guardian have had to admit their story have holes big enough to drive a 747 through & intersectional fights to claim their memory are breaking out more recently, respectively. And that's all just in America - abroad, even the cult of Lenin/Stalin couldn't carry the Soviet Union for a full century.)

One of the more interesting socio-political aspects to American Christianity I've found is the cycle of Great Awakenings. There's always this massive wave of Christian revival across the country after periods of spiritual drought & decay, most recently from the '80s to the Bush Jr. years in response to the rising secularism, hedonism and bloody turmoil of the '60s & '70s. The infamous Evangelicals who drove that awakening didn't actually have the influence they were painted as having by a media hellbent on making them out as these giga-cringe backward barbarians (I daresay the likes of Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman did far more to not only bash but to actually try to ban or otherwise suppress violent videogames and 'controversial' music). And in hindsight, they really were not all that militant for a religious movement, not even compared to previous Great Awakenings (like the one which drove abolitionism in antebellum America, spawned John Brown and contributed a bunch of famous/notorious Union officers during the ACW). But perhaps they didn't have to be, since the modern American Left's assault on Christianity wasn't yet in full swing then either - sure SCOTUS had banned school prayer and handed down Roe v. Wade, but you didn't have pregnancy centers being firebombed on the regular and pro-life activists getting arrested by SWAT/FBI teams in front of their family back then AFAIK.

The Left has to date consistently failed to build up a subservient church or churches that's at all popular and is any good at helping them suppress authentic Christian voices of resistance from within the tent, they can at most damage & diminish any church dumb enough to get in bed with them. They are failing still today, their latest power-play (this one aimed at the Methodists) creating a schism and leaving them with a rump UMC doomed to wither and die like the Episcopalians or Lutherans rather than getting them the whole thing like they hoped, and by all indications will continue to fail in the future. If anything even the mildest and most culture-war-averse of normie Christians are starting to get sick and tired of Leftism's tendrils snaking in everywhere - a popular (certainly vastly more popular than Reiner's poor excuse of a documentary) Christian TV series called The Chosen came under enough fire from its own audience for having rainbow flags on set for last year's Pride Month that the creator, Dallas Jenkins (himself the son of a prominent Evangelical writer, one of the co-authors of the infamous Left Behind books no less!) had to make a video to assuage their concerns afterward. I guess we'll find out this June whether that lesson stuck.

And I must say, I am really hoping I live long enough to witness the next Great Awakening, as much out of curiosity as out of faith. (Yes, I'm also aware that the Left will try to redirect any such organic wave of energy for its own purposes, towards its pet churches and/or intersectional deconstructionist ideology. But as I just spent 2k words rambling about, I doubt they'll be very successful. The cause and its martyrs have lost and are continuing to lose a lot of luster.) If it's politically aligned with whatever succeeds Trumpism (ala the Moral Majority with Reagan, but ideally more successful of course), as I suspect it will have to be for the sake of simple survival against a militant and fully mask-off Left...perhaps the leftists of today are more right to fear 'Christian nationalism' than they know, even if the ideology that ends up actually mobilizing under that name (if it so chooses) bears little resemblance to their strawman.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Lefties, as due to their Jacobin heritage, are chronic atheists and hyper materialists. Whilst their ideology can at times fulfil more mundane needs and desires for liberty (that soon spiral out of any and all control), they cannot provide any real spiritual nourishment. Man is not a rational animal and has irrational needs as much as rational needs; religion is just one of the rich foods to sate that hunger (alongside family and fatherland) and it has been very successful.

There is a spiritual itch in the human race and it has to be scratched. I remember some chaps on a podcast talking about it and they sombrely noted how in its efforts to set mankind free by destroying religion, the left only tore a big hole in man’s heart and made him immeasurably poorer in some ways.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Lefties, as due to their Jacobin heritage, are chronic atheists and hyper materialists. Whilst their ideology can at times fulfil more mundane needs and desires for liberty (that soon spiral out of any and all control), they cannot provide any real spiritual nourishment. Man is not a rational animal and has irrational needs as much as rational needs; religion is just one of the rich foods to sate that hunger (alongside family and fatherland) and it has been very successful.

There is a spiritual itch in the human race and it has to be scratched. I remember some chaps on a podcast talking about it and they sombrely noted how in its efforts to set mankind free by destroying religion, the left only tore a big hole in man’s heart and made him immeasurably poorer in some ways.

The problem is that there are three kinds of men in this world. There are the common house dogs whom desire a master to tell them what to do (and think) where to go and whom to bite. There are the masters whom control the dogs and make said dogs an extension of their own will, i'd say that these two types make up 95-98% of the human species, but then there is this third class whom neither can so easily be trained and controlled, nor do they have the will or desire to do the thinking of the dog for it (because much like how it is literally some just don't have the patience to train a dog and take care of it)

No the third class are wolves whom keep to themselves and only trust themselves and their personal pack. Once your in that pack they'll be ss loyal to you as any trained dog (moreso in some cases) but the tools that work on dogs will not work on the wolves.


So what do you do about them? The answer has seemed to be to demonize and exterminate them. Notice after every major political conflict the first to get persecuted are always your farmers and your tradesmen. Your yeomen and nomad types

America used to be a country of primarily wolves but overtime (really started after the civil war) we've become a nation of common house dogs.

 

[ATP]

Lefties, as due to their Jacobin heritage, are chronic atheists and hyper materialists. Whilst their ideology can at times fulfil more mundane needs and desires for liberty (that soon spiral out of any and all control), they cannot provide any real spiritual nourishment. Man is not a rational animal and has irrational needs as much as rational needs; religion is just one of the rich foods to sate that hunger (alongside family and fatherland) and it has been very successful.

There is a spiritual itch in the human race and it has to be scratched. I remember some chaps on a podcast talking about it and they sombrely noted how in its efforts to set mankind free by destroying religion, the left only tore a big hole in man’s heart and made him immeasurably poorer in some ways.

Indeed.Budda and Marx tried to create philosophy.Now,what remain are another religions.And it would always work that way,becouse normal people need religion.You could not destroy it,only change.
Only psychos and narcissus do not heed religion.

That is why i laugh at WH40 - Emprah was super duper smart,and decided to create atheist society after so many falls.
Which mean,that he was only very intelligient idiot.Or psychopathic narcissus.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

And I must say, I am really hoping I live long enough to witness the next Great Awakening, as much out of curiosity as out of faith. (Yes, I'm also aware that the Left will try to redirect any such organic wave of energy for its own purposes, towards its pet churches and/or intersectional deconstructionist ideology. But as I just spent 2k words rambling about, I doubt they'll be very successful. The cause and its martyrs have lost and are continuing to lose a lot of luster.) If it's politically aligned with whatever succeeds Trumpism (ala the Moral Majority with Reagan, but ideally more successful of course), as I suspect it will have to be for the sake of simple survival against a militant and fully mask-off Left...perhaps the leftists of today are more right to fear 'Christian nationalism' than they know, even if the ideology that ends up actually mobilizing under that name (if it so chooses) bears little resemblance to their strawman.

Its already underway. But that energy has been mutated away from Christianity into the new religion cultural marxism.

A true Christian revival wont happen soon (but it will come!) It will only come when the current system has grown weak and lazy and the sock-puppet churches have collapsed.

 

[LordDemiurge]

Lefties, as due to their Jacobin heritage, are chronic atheists and hyper materialists.

This was Leftism back in the day.

Modern leftists however are blown Idealists who treat reality as being constructed from language and consensus.

Like serious, just look at Trans-theology or the extent to which Rawls Veil of Ignorance has been literalized. The existence of a soul not contigent on material conditions and biology is a hidden cornerstone of progressivism.

The scene in 1984 where O'Brien ridicules Winston for believing in an objective reality was an accurate prediction.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

It's sad that there isn't a kind of religious revival for the other faiths of a non-Abrahamic nature, because of how difficult it can be to adopt either Buddhism, Hinduism, or other mysterious religions. Even the so-called pagan revival is basically just larping.

Most likely, religious revival isn't enough.

 

[DarthOne]

It's sad that there isn't a kind of religious revival for the other faiths of a non-Abrahamic nature, because of how difficult it can be to adopt either Buddhism, Hinduism, or other mysterious religions. Even the so-called pagan revival is basically just larping.

Most likely, religious revival isn't enough.

Hardly. Those are false faiths. Why would we want someone to go down a path that leads to eternal damnation?

 

[King Arts]

It's sad that there isn't a kind of religious revival for the other faiths of a non-Abrahamic nature, because of how difficult it can be to adopt either Buddhism, Hinduism, or other mysterious religions. Even the so-called pagan revival is basically just larping.

Most likely, religious revival isn't enough.

Buddhism is not a hard faith to adopt though? It’s open, Hinduism yes it’s pretty much only for Indians. But Buddhism is universal it’s not tied to any land.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Hardly. Those are false faiths. Why would we want someone to go down a path that leads to eternal damnation?

Because sometimes eternal damnation is a necessary price to pay for worldly power. We are in a global arena where we often have to sacrifice our own morals to survive.

Buddhism is not a hard faith to adopt though? It’s open, Hinduism yes it’s pretty much only for Indians. But Buddhism is universal it’s not tied to any land.

Hinduism, yes. Sikhism on the other hand, it's more of a mixed bag, but there are plenty of rules, rituals, and other kinds of traditions. The only thing is, it's also tied to just one region (Punjab) but it claims to be another universal faith.

Buddhism though, there are also strict rules that are also associated with it. And if someone is a diehard lover of meat, then it could be a possible challenge.

If you really want to see a kind of stronger Christian nationalism, then perhaps a kind of synarchy between church and state on the old Byzantine model might be our best bet. Unfortunately, that would mean going back to the days of either the Holy Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire.

 

[King Arts]

Because sometimes eternal damnation is a necessary price to pay for worldly power. We are in a global arena where we often have to sacrifice our own morals to survive.

What? No you don't? That would be the worst outcome. This world is temporary all things shall pass. After this world it's eternal.

Hinduism, yes. Sikhism on the other hand, it's more of a mixed bag, but there are plenty of rules, rituals, and other kinds of traditions. The only thing is, it's also tied to just one region (Punjab) but it claims to be another universal faith.

Buddhism though, there are also strict rules that are also associated with it. And if someone is a diehard lover of meat, then it could be a possible challenge.

If you really want to see a kind of stronger Christian nationalism, then perhaps a kind of synarchy between church and state on the old Byzantine model might be our best bet. Unfortunately, that would mean going back to the days of either the Holy Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire.

Only buddhist monks need to be vegetarian. Many Asian nations have many people who eat meat. The Buddhist layman does not strive for nirvana, they strive for a better life, or being reborn in heaven. The only ones who try to escape the cycle of rebirth and death are the Buddhist Monks and Nuns.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Only buddhist monks need to be vegetarian. Many Asian nations have many people who eat meat. The Buddhist layman does not strive for nirvana, they strive for a better life, or being reborn in heaven. The only ones who try to escape the cycle of rebirth and death are the Buddhist Monks and Nuns.

I see now. I've worked with a lot of Sikh coworkers and they are mostly vegetarian, so I'm guessing dietary laws are much stricter among Sikhs than Hindus.

 

[King Arts]

I see now. I've worked with a lot of Sikh coworkers and they are mostly vegetarian, so I'm guessing dietary laws are much stricter among Sikhs than Hindus.

Probably since Hinduism isn't really one religion it's a collection of various folk things. It's basically old school paganism.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Even the so-called pagan revival is basically just larping.

Not entirely true.

So called “Heathenry” is quite genuine and is enjoying a steady revival. In a world of reckless progress that insists on twisting everything to its purpose, ancient Gods with their deep roots start to look all the more appealing.

Even better when said Gods prize honour, martial prowess, and loyalty to one’s kin above all in an age where mainstream Christianity has become a bleeding heart to its own detriment.

Why would we want someone to go down a path that leads to eternal damnation?

There are those who knew Jesus without ever so much as hearing his name. I refuse to believe all the countless millions who lived before his birth were damned for something they had no control over. Do you really think the Buddha went to Hell?

 

[King Arts]

There are those who knew Jesus without ever so much as hearing his name. I refuse to believe all the countless millions who lived before his birth were damned for something they had no control over. Do you really think the Buddha went to Hell?

We know Jesus went to hell after he was crucified but before his resurrection 3 days later. He conquered hell humiliated the devil and ministered to those there and many were later take. To heaven.

As for in the modern day you are asking about good people who haven’t heard about Christ. The answer is we don’t know, we know god is good and just and merciful. We also know that the only guaranteed way to heaven is through Christianity and the church. Other than that we leave it into gods hands.

Not entirely true.

So called “Heathenry” is quite genuine and is enjoying a steady revival. In a world of reckless progress that insists on twisting everything to its purpose, ancient Gods with their deep roots start to look all the more appealing.

Even better when said Gods prize honour, martial prowess, and loyalty to one’s kin above all in an age where mainstream Christianity has become a bleeding heart to its own detriment.

No im sorry but those who try to revive long dead pantheons like the Egyptians Greeks or Norse are either papers scammers or mentally ill.

They don't believe that there are supernatural entities that are the gods that are persons and interact with the world.