Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
That white identitarianism as a worldview and as a cultural-political framework – formerly so generally understood and accepted as not to require argument and articulation – has during the past century been so ghettoized and so vilified as to be perceived and abhorred as a sin in the civic religion of the West, is of course common knowledge. Where consensus is lacking among white nationalists is in the matter of how, precisely, this disarray came about, and what might be done to unite the race.
For Francis Parker Yockey, a racially, geographically, and culturally exclusive Christianity was the key to a European unification. “The first political expression of Europe,” he writes, “was in the Crusades, in which Europe was a power-unit, acting against the outer world in unitary self-assertion of its new-born soul.”1 Yockey further delineates what was called Christendom:
From its very birth-cry in the Crusades, the Western Culture had one State, with the Emperor at its head, one Church and religion, Gothic Christianity, with an authoritarian Pope, one race, one nation, and one people, which felt itself, and was recognized by all outer forces, to be distinct and unitary. There was a universal style, Gothic, which inspired and informed all art from the crafts to the cathedrals. There was one ethical code for the Culture-bearing stratum, Western chivalry, founded on a purely Western feeling of honor. There was a universal language, Latin, and a universal law, Roman law. Even in the very adoption of older, non-Western things, the West was unitary. It made such things into an expression of its proper soul, and it universalized them.2
Yockey contends, furthermore, that even as this European oneness was mitigated somewhat by the development of the different European national identities and the establishment of separate kingdoms, a sense of shared heritage, culture, and commonality of interest kept the peoples consciously unified at the highest level.
Accompanying the break-down of [Catholic] religious unity, which transformed itself into a political struggle, was the rise of the dynastic State, and the beginning of large-scale intra-Cultural wars among Western States. Again, the disunifying process within the Culture was limited. The intra-European wars which took place were conditioned entirely by the great Pact, felt and understood by all, that the European States belonged to the same Cultural world. Thus these wars never proceeded to the political annihilation of the opponent. They were prosecuted only to the point where the limited issue which had occasioned the war could become the object of negotiations which could satisfy both contestants.3
“But during the centuries of dynastic politics,” Yockey elaborates, “with its limited wars, and its consequent preservation of Cultural unity, the other type of politics, with its other form of war, went on between Western political units and outer forces: absolute politics. These wars,” he claims, “were unconditioned by the fact of mutual membership in a High Culture, and the presence of a common code of honour, for the barbarian and the heathen did not share the feeling of Western chivalrous obligations.”4
Of these distinctively European traits of “sportsmanship, noblesse oblige, respect for foes in war, and respect for women,” Samuel Francis argues that these “derive from Aryan ideas about the Cosmic Order and from the warlike and heroic character of the early Aryans.” Francis, in his reconstruction of these European virtues, gives more credit to the pagan forebears of Yockey’s idealized Christendom:
All these traits reflect the nature of early Aryan warcraft – the single combat of individual champions, the unwritten and commonly understood rules of conflict, and acceptance of the terms of defeat have deep roots in the ways Aryans waged war. The comparative absence of needless brutality in Western warfare, until the advent of 20th-century democracy, may be thought to derive from Christian ethics, but long before Christianity pagan conquerors such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar showed far less brutality in their warfare than such paladins of non-Aryan combat as Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, the Assyrians, the Huns, or even the ancient Hebrews, for whom genocide was a regular practice.5
Pagan traditionalist Varg Vikernes, writing at Thulean Perspective, takes issue with the notion that Christian cultural unity fostered amicable intra-European relations and mutual aid and protection against the outer forces of non-European aggressors.
Some seem to think Christianity is and has always been a wall against Islam, but let me remind you of a few historical facts:
The Teutonic Knights did not attack Islam. Instead they attacked true Europeans (i.e. Pagan Europeans), in Prussia, Lithuania, Livonia and Estonia. They also attacked other Christians, both Catholic Poles and Russian Orthodox Slavs. Not only that; they attacked the Christian Slavic tribes at a time when they were already under attack from the Mongols in the East. Other parts of Europe too were under attack, from Muslims, and received no help from the Teutonic Knights, who gave priority to slaughtering Europeans. [. . .]
Then we have the crusades, when Christians instead of fighting against the Muslims decided to e.g. sack the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire – leaving her vulnerable to the Turkish hordes advancing from the East. They even raped the nuns in the monasteries. The Muslims didn’t advance further than they did into Europe because of the efforts of the Christians, but mainly because of the Mongol Horde – who attacked them from the East. [. . .]
Some times Christianized Europeans were butchered only because they did not have the ‘right’ type of Christianity, like the Cathars, who were completely annihilated by Catholic crusaders. The Bogomils too fell victim to the hatred and aggression of crusaders. [. . .]
This in-fighting culminated, I think we can say, with the ‘Reformation’, resulting in a a series of wars, the worst one being the ‘Thirty Years War’, that killed as much as between 25 and 40% of the entire population of Germany alone (and many other Europeans too), and left the entire Christian Balkans to the mercy of the Muslim Ottomans for hundreds of years.
Now think about that for a while: between 25 and 40% of the entire German population killed in 30 years… because of Christianity!
“The Pagans of Europe united whenever they faced a common threat,” says Vikernes, “and we should do that today as well, and in the future.”6
Responding to The WASP Question author Andrew Fraser’s suggestion that a resuscitated and racially conscious Anglican Church ought to be the focus of ethnonationalistic organization, Professor Kevin MacDonald counters by pointing out that “the WASP ethnic defense of the 1920s, resulting in the Immigration Restriction Law of 1924, was energized partly by an intellectual understanding of Darwinism and race, not by a religious sensibility. The strong emphasis on rationality,” he goes on, “meant that public discourse on immigration policy in the 1920s necessarily took place in an atmosphere where scientific ideas and rational discourse had pride of place.”7
“As Fraser is all too well aware,” MacDonald concludes, “the story of religious feeling in the modern age has been to either sink into irrelevance for secular Whites (who are likely to be more educated) or be diverted into causes that are suicidal for religious Whites” – namely, intra-European campaigns of annihilation, Israel-licking “Judeo-Christianity” or “Holocaustianity”, as Michael A. Hoffman II dubs it, and perpetual Zionist military interventions abroad. “This is an incredibly important object lesson for contemporary attempts to defend White interests,” MacDonald writes. “We must be able to seize the rational, scientific high ground because that is essential to public debate in Western societies and ultimately to the emotional commitment of Whites [. . .] to their very survival.”8 This is not to say that Christianity, or even Neopaganism for that matter, will necessarily have no place in the European order that is to come – but it is clear that religion is not enough.