The Churchian’s Contextomy Against The Alt-Right

Perhaps nowhere else in the West exists a Christian tradition as deeply rooted as that of Dixie (or the Southern people). Dominated by Protestantism in rural areas and peppered with Catholicism in urban areas like New Orleans, we still find community bonds and moral guidance through the cultural legacies of our religious heritage. I truly value this sense of brotherhood that Christianity provides Southern people.

Despite the still-strong vestiges of that common spiritual bond, the Globalist American Empire has corrupted our religious institutions, trivialized the importance of spirituality, and used our own sense of faith against us as a weapon in their white genocide arsenal.

It is time for us to face a modern reality that can’t be denied. We no longer really live in a Christian Dixie. For most Southerners, Christianity is just window dressing, a garment to be worn for Sunday School that can be removed just in time for your Sunday NFL games. This article is not meant to suggest that we should walk away from the Church or abandon our beliefs. I would suggest the opposite. Now is the time for the deeply spiritual to reaffirm that faith. However, we must accept that we live in a post-Christian civilization that, at this moment in history, is hostile to real Christian values. We must learn from this hard truth and accept the dire need for secular argumentation in our Southern Nationalist and (broader) Alt-Right rhetoric. We simply will not win this culture war if we rely solely on tired theological arguments.

Tuesday night, I watched the spectacle of Richard Spencer addressing students, sympathizers and hecklers at Auburn University – on the case for White Nationalism. There were plenty of memorable moments in the speech and the subsequent Q&A session that could easily warrant separate articles. I’d like to also add that Mike Enoch of The Daily Shoah did an excellent job destroying the special snowflake who asked Spencer if she was “white enough.”

Instead of trying to analyze the entire speech, let us examine the cucky challenge that came from a young Christian man during the Q&A session, when he quoted Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians – specifically, the routinely cited 3:28. This is the verse he referenced:

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Allow me to point out at this time that I am not a theologian, and struggle with my own personal Christian faith. Much of my internal conflict is rooted in “The Decline” that I’m witnessing. As I referenced earlier, (((Modernity))) has learned to weaponize Christianity for its own sinister purposes (think open borders, pro-gay marriage, submission to Islam, etc.) and instead of the spiritual purpose for which it was intended. If we are to save Western Civilization, we must learn the same tactic and beat secularists and globalists at their own game. We must challenge them with rationality, logic and the type of gusto and aggressiveness that makes the Alt-Right feared.

Image result for Epistle to the Galatians

This bible verse that was quoted here by our “Christcuck” (also known as a “Churchian“) was taken out of context. I analyzed the entire chapter of Galatians from which it was pulled, and consulted well-versed and studied colleagues, and the consensus is that this statement from Paul is meant to galvanize the various young churches in the early days of Christianity, a time when there was some splintering and dissent among its leaders. Paul was instructing them, and us, that in the spiritual realm we share a bond through the Word of Christ, and as such, our physical, biological and social manifestations should not encumber the spiritual brotherhood of Christianity. Clearly this does not conflict in any way with nationalism, tribalism, or identitarianism.

For example, Paul suggests that through Christ’s salvation we are neither man nor woman. I contend that this means our “spiritual walk with Christ” is not relevant to our gender – of course, we all must answer to the same moral standards despite our physical differences.

Would anyone suggest that Paul was instructing men and women to ignore their biological imperative to reproduce and raise children? This, 2000 years ago? That would be in defiance of hundreds of scriptural instructions to sow our seed and populate the Earth (and clearly genocidal). Absurd!

The implication that was made in this religious challenge boils down to this – “The Alt-Right is behaving immorally because they recognize the fundamental and God-ordained nature of our physiology. Galatians 3:28 says everyone is the same.” This is what happens when religious doctrines are used to justify secular conclusions, particularly those dealing with modernity and social (justice) obligations. More importantly, blindly citing Scripture (without context or thought) creates logical fallacies that can’t be rectified in rational discourse.

Image result for Christians pro-trans
Typical Churchian Response to Trannies Using the Bathroom Next to Your Daughter

Further, the passage, regarding our ethnicities and class, must be deconstructed the same way. All men of all races and all classes can and should embrace Christianity, according to Paul. By doing so, men of differing national and social interests can meet on spiritual terms and respect one another through our shared bond of faith. This does NOT disassociate us from the natural, social, and genetic realities of our physical existence and in NO WAY does traditional Christian theology as interpreted, sans modern biases, compel us to trivialize those realities.

Now, I point out to you that as a man who was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, I generally sympathize with anyone who professes to be a Christian. In fact, I would say with confidence that I sympathize with our Christian student who questioned Spencer on these matters more than 99% of the Marxists, atheists, SJWs, feminists and gender bender freaks in the audience. Yet, when he quoted this scripture out of context he was met with applause. Do you see the problem here?

White Evangelical Christians are perhaps the most altruistic and well-meaning people on Earth. But they become so consumed in their spiritual certitude that they lose sight of the evil that their religion was meant to fight. They can get caught up in casting pearls before swine and having their own words twisted to serve a nefarious purpose.

If this young man had been of a different ilk and had quoted Levitical Law on the sins of homosexuality, do you suppose the hostile audience would have so energetically applauded? Doubtful to say the least.

This is the fool’s errand of attempting to use religious dogma as justification for our nationalist beliefs. If one is deeply spiritual, it is perfectly reasonable to consult your own religious ethos and square it with white nationalism. In the same vein, we must understand that our enemies will do the same to justify their globalist and degenerate ideologies. It is human nature to be dogmatic. We must accept that a stalemate is inevitable.

But there is one clear path to victory – the objective, the scientific and the factual. This is the realm that Christians have not fared well to tread in the past. We must recognize and embrace that we have biology and evolutionary theory on our side, and mastering our scientific (and meme) rhetoric to appeal to the rational, is the ultimate weapon in our struggle. I still cringe when I see someone use religious rhetoric to defend a non-egalitarian position. It doesn’t work, it will never work, and it will invariably be used against you in the Current Year.

We can, and must RETAKE EVERYTHING, including our religious institutions, but we must win the Culture War through both Alt-Right rhetorical and dialectic means before Christianity ever has a chance at a rebirth.

Image may contain: one or more people and indoor
Churchian Decline – Retake It


  1. I’ve developed just such a secular, biologically-based argument to defend natural marriage. It’s been field-tested on Facebook, and is guaranteed to give “progressives” a real challenge. (At the same time, it can be read as an extended gloss on our Lord’s words in Mark 10:6-8). Anyone who can make use of it is welcome to do so. Here it is:

    I’m amazed that so many people argue as though they believed that some government or synod had sat down one day and said “Let’s create a new institution and call it Marriage.” These are the people who insist that marriage is “nothing more than a legal construct.” Surely it ought to be obvious, from the fact that marriage is found in all cultures and all periods of recorded history, that its origins lie far earlier than any form of organised government or religion. It must have been around before there was any possibility of a “legal construct.” Its universal distribution precludes an origin any later than the migration of the first modern humans out of Africa.
    So where does marriage come from?
    Our species has an unusually long gestation period, the later stages of which are significantly difficult for the mother. This is followed by a prolonged and helpless infancy. The mother during pregnancy, and both mother and child afterwards, therefore benefit significantly from the provision of more support than the mother is capable of on her own. Providing this support is to the reproductive advantage of the father, as it increases the chances of his offspring surviving until reproductive age themselves, and thus of his own genes being transmitted to posterity (which is what it’s all about from an evolutionary-biological perspective, after all.) Consequently, part of our species’ evolved reproductive strategy has been the formation of long-term bonds between male and female for the purpose of having and raising children. This pair-bond, which evolution has (as it were) “hard-wired” into our species’ nature, is what we call “marriage.”
    Now, someone may object that single women can have children – of course they can, but this is a sub-optimal situation, and natural selection has consequently led to the male-female bond which we call “marriage” being the norm. Someone might even be thinking “homosexuals can have children too” (I have actually seen someone claim this!) – no, not with each other, they can’t; and natural selection naturally selects against couplings which produce no offspring.
    The biology of marriage, as described above, naturally and inevitably yields certain criteria which a pairing must meet in order to be a marriage. These criteria are all accepted across cultures, albeit with some differences of emphasis. You can marry someone
    1. of the opposite sex – because two sexes are necessary for procreation, everywhere. This is so universal that, until the confusions of recent times, it was taken absolutely for granted, it not even occurring to anyone that legislation on the point might be necessary;
    2. of full age – because someone who is too young to bear children safely or care for them effectively is obviously too young for marriage. Different cultures have set the limit at different ages, but all agree that there is an age limit (and the nine-year-old limit of Islamic law is, historically, an aberration due to Mohammed’s paedophilic inclinations; such purported “marriages” are not recognised under non-Muslim law, nor should they be, any more than same-sex “marriages” should be, and for the same reason, that they do not meet the biological criteria for marriage);
    3. who’s not a close blood relation – because of the dangers of close inbreeding. Again, different cultures draw the line in different places, but all agree that there is such a thing as incest, and that it precludes eligibility for marriage;
    4. and not already married to someone else – because it’s to no-one’s reproductive advantage to support someone else’s children rather than your own. This is probably the most flexible, because, as we know, some cultures do permit polygamy (where a woman may marry someone else’s husband), but the reverse (where a man may marry someone else’s wife) is practically unheard of, for the simple reason that there may be doubts about a child’s paternity but a woman can always be certain that the child she bore is hers;
    5. who’s mentally competent to give their consent, and 6. if they’ll have you – because a pairing that depends upon coercion will collapse once the coercion is removed, with deleterious effects on the offspring.
    So: marriage, which is a male-female bond oriented towards having and raising children, is a fundamental characteristic of Homo sapiens, common to our species across all cultures. It is a matter, not merely of law, but of biological reality. “Same-sex marriage” is the very negation of this fundamental characteristic. It is literally impossible – as impossible as a four-sided triangle, something which does not, and by nature cannot, exist in reality.

  2. ‘We no longer really live in a Christian Dixie.’

    This hit me like a ton of bricks, as, being a rural Tarheel, our life is dominated by our Christian life.

    In my state there are 100 counties – of which about 10 being urbane and belonging to the Yankee Empire – the other 90 belonging to us.

    Certainly in these counties we have a large minority of folks who would not go to church if the morning Drudge Report announced that The Rapture had begun. That said, the majority of us set our weeks by Wednesday Bibles class, Sunday school and service, and other events – such as revivals, picnicks, missions, and charity events.

    If you do not know my state well, let me give you some cheer – though we struggle with some confusion and adversity – we, Bible-Thumping Southerners, rule this state – both the terrain and legislature, and, if there is ever a big problem, we are the ones who raise the food and are armed to the teeth.

    Our Christian faith sets most of the legal and philosophical tone of our state and our churches are far from empty. In fact, driving 20 miles down the road is an exercise in church counting.

    But, yes, we have lost the self-righteous edge, hatred of evil, and intolerance of my childhood. That is why, wherever I go I remind folks that to preserve our way of life, we must embrace once again, hellfire- damnation, and The Confederate flag – for divided they fall, and untied they will stand.

    What can you do?

    If you are not already, please attend, regularly, two or three separate local churches and say what you said in this article. Some will laugh, others will roll their eyes, but, some will awaken to the message.

    Have faith that you will sow some seeds and that those seeds you sow will get us through.

  3. ‘It’s already illegal to go into a bathroom to hurt or harass someone’

    If this is ‘churchian’, then, it ain’t Tarheel Christian, because we, as are our advocacy groups, are front and center in pressing forward the very antithesis to this point of view.

  4. ‘Galatians 3:28 says everyone is the same’

    As I have many times said to those of my christian Brethren, in my area, who confusedly quote these things : ‘Paul is not the Holy Trinity, and where his intrinsick one-world order Jewish genes contradict or countermand Chryst or God The Father, I will ignore him.’